HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-2013 Council AgendaAGENDA
LITTLE CANADA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013
CALL TO ORDER — Workshop Meeting — City Council — 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call
1. Information Update
Adjourn
CALL TO ORDER — Regular Meeting — City Council — 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Mayor Mr. Bill Blesener
Council Member Mr. Rick Montour
Council Member Mr. John Keis
Council Member Mr. Michael McGraw
Council Member Ms. Shelly Boss
City Administrator Mr. Joel Hanson
City Attorney Mr. Pat Kelly
City Planner Mr. Steve Grittman
Cable TV Producer Mr. Kevin I- lelander
City Clerk Ms. Kathy Glanzer
APPROVAL OF TILE MINUTES
June 12, 2013 Workshop Council Meeting
June 12, 2013 Regular Council Meeting
June 12, 2013 Closed Council Meeting
June 20, 2013 Special Council Meeting
ANNOUNCEMENTS
**This agenda is subject to change by additions and deletions.**
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 26, 2013
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Amendment of Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage (Accessory Use), Interim
Use Permit for Off -Site Outdoor Storage, Conditional Use Permit for Auto - Repair
Major, Renewal of lapsed Conditional Use Permit for storage containers, and
Conditional Use Permit for Proof of Parking — 200 -208 Ryan Drive -- Russ Fischer
3. Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans
4. Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to Cul -De -Sac Length
5. Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to Single- Family Accessory Uses and the
Definition of Family
PRESENTATIONS
6. Architectural Plans for Warming House Project — RVK Architects
CONSENT AGENDA
7. Approval of the Vouchers
8. Amend Fee Schedule relative to Electrical Permit Fees
9. Award Bid for 2013 Sealcoating Work
10. Approval of Application to Conduct Off -Site Gambling- Canadian Days Celebration
STAFF & CONSULTANT REPORTS
City Attorney
City Planner
City Administrator
11. Little Canada Road Improvement
Award Bid
Ratify No Parking Resolution
2
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 26, 2013
DEPARTMENT REPORT
Economic Development /City Council
Public Safety /Gaming
Public Works
12. Adoption of Water Ordinance Revision and Amend Fee Schedule relative to Water
Surcharge
Building/Zoning /Code Enforcement
Parks & Recreation
Adjourn
3
trt6tle
uanada
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.maus Joel R. Hanson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Blesener & Members of the City Council
FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator
DATE: June 21, 2013
RE: Info Update Workshop
For the Info Update workshop, here is some background concerning the issues staff would like to
discuss with you:
Public Works Garage
With our pending purchase of the Brings Property, we should discuss the next steps in moving
the project forward. There are three key areas we should focus on. The first is long -term
financing. My recommendation would be to finance the cost (exact amount yet undetermined)
over 20 or so years. While we have funds on hand that could handle the bulk of this project, my
assumption is interest rates will rise over the next number of years. By locking in low rates now,
we keep cash available for other purposes and will likely be able to invest those dollars at rates
higher than we are paying on the debt (this may take a few years but seems very likely over 20
years). To avoid levy impact, we would pledge the depreciation dollars that come from the water
and sewer funds to make debt service payments. If you think this is a good idea, I will begin
exploring the concept with our financial advisors.
The other issue is getting started on design services. Based on our experience with the Fire
Station and City Hall projects in the early 90's, I would recommend we utilize the construction
management project delivery system. With this process, we effectively serve as the general
contractor by having an owner's representative work on our behalf to review plan documents,
conduct value engineering, let multiple prime contracts, and oversee construction in conjunction
with the architect. Another big advantage that is once again in play is sales tax savings on
materials purchases we make directly. (I have attached some summary info on the construction
management process to aid in your consideration of this option.)
I would recommend we conduct and Request for Proposals process for Construction
Management Services. Once we hire a firm for that component, we would then work with the
Construction Manager to hire an architect for the project.
1
The last area relates to coordination with other projects. Given we have discussed upgrades to
City Hall, we may want to tie some or parts of that project together with the Public Works
building to take advantage of economies of scale. We may also want to consider upgrades to
other building at the same time, especially in the area of energy efficiency. Your comments on
that possibility are needed.
Financial Planning "What Ifs"
Now that we know what our Local Government Aid will be for 2014 ($344,818 or an increase of
$148,975) and we know that we have levy limits in place for 2014, we have generated some
planning scenarios for your consideration (copies attached). You will note that we projected all
expenses at a 3% increase except police and fire is projected at 4% increases. Revenues are held
constant except for LGA and property taxes. Here is a quick summary of the options generated:
• The first scenario has no levy increase in 2014 or 2015 while removing LGA from the
general fund. This shows we have large deficits to make up in both years.
• The next option has a 0% levy increase in 2014, a 3% levy in 2015 and maintains LGA in
the General Fund at 2013 levels. We still have large deficits to address in this option.
However, you should keep in mind the increase in LGA will be going to a capital
improvement fund of your choosing as new money.
• With the third option, we levy back for debt in the amount of $24,068 in 2014 and reduce
LGA by that amount in2014. In 2015, we eliminate LGA from the General Fund and
increase the GF tax levy by 3% while also making up for that amount plus the 2014 debt
levy used to help in the reduction of GF LGA. We are still dealing with large deficits.
• In the fourth option, we use LGA in the general fund to balance the budgets in 2014 and
2015, while also using levy limits plus the debt levy in 2014 and sticking to a 3%
increase in 2015. As you will note, we are now using $193,078 of LGA in the GF in
2015!
• In option five, we use the debt levy and LGA to balance 2014 and the eliminate LGA in
2015 by using a tax levy of 10.24 %.
• In option six, we stick to levy limits in 2014 (no debt levy) and then eliminate LGA in
2015 with an 11.2% levy in 2015.
Staff is not recommending any of these options at this time, but we wanted to show you the
range needed to address past goals. We will be able to modify sheets at the workshop if you
would like to look at other scenarios. Perhaps the key issue to be decided is what levy increase
are you comfortable with. Then we can discuss the use of LGA, the use of the debt levy in 2014
(we aren't clear on our ability to do this, but we believe it is possible), and possible expense
reductions.
Website Enhancements
As you know, we had authorized $2,000 to enhance the City's website through GovOffice. After
further evaluation, staff isn't sure that expenditure makes sense. GovOffice also has a premium
package for $4,000. We are not sure that will accomplish our objectives either.
One of the primary concerns is the photos in the banners. We learned that one the photos are
selected, they are locked in unless we pay an additional charge to change them. We also looked
at some other websites and liked the feature where photos are larger and are presented in
2
slideshow fashion. GovOffice said they can accommodate that feature, but we have not been
able to pin them down on the specifics as of yet. Staff also looked at other website providers.
We learned that their cost is much more than GovOffice, but they may also have features that
could prove desirable.
Staff will have one more meeting prior to Wednesday's workshop to try to pin down more details
on this project. We will then update you at Wednesday's meeting. In the meantime, we have
attached a listing of some key features we are considering that are above a copy of our current
home page. We have also attached some of the other options we looked at with approximate
pricing noted at the bottom to give you an idea of some of the differences.
Northeast Redevelopment
I did talk with Pat Johnson about his interest in selling the back portion of his property to
combine with 3046 LaBore Road. This is a last ditch effort before we put that property in the
market. Mr. Johnson informed me he has been working with Gordie Howe and was comfortable
continuing along that path. He also indicated he may want to make a proposal to us that would
allow him to reinitiate his development project, but I have not received anything to date. It
should be noted that it appears his original development layout will no longer works given the
sale of the Rodney Buck property this past winter.
I also talked with Gordie Howe about his conversations with Mr. Johnson He said he will talk
to him again in Monday and let me know where things stand from his standpoint prior to
Wednesday' s meeting.
LaBore Road Traffic Control
As you will recall, we have had many requests for a four way stop sign at LaBore and Arcade
due to speed concerns along LaBore Road. When the Pinetree Pond project was being
considered, we also heard about safety concern on the curve where Cherry Hill Lane and now
Pinetree Court will now intersect with LaBore. A couple of weeks ago, there was another
accident in this area where a person had to be extricated from his vehicle.
Staff asked the Sheriffs Department for their comments regarding a four -way stop at this new
intersection. Their initial recommendation was against the idea. However, we asked them to
review accident data before finalizing their opinion. We haven't received the updated
information yet. It may be a good idea to have a speed study done here as well to see if speeding
is really a problem.
Staff is looking for your comments on traffic safety in this area.
2013 Deer Control
Metro Bowhunters Resource Base is asking if we plan on pursing deer control hunts again this
year. I've attached the 2013 aerial survey information. You will note there are 14 deer shown in
the St. John's Cemetery area and 36 in the northeast area (LaBore /Arcade /Maplewood). I'm also
attaching the spreadsheet of deer taken in 2012 for your review.
3
Staff believes we need to continue the control efforts to stop the population from ramping up
again. Furthermore, it can easily be argued that we are still overpopulated given the area we
have to support deer would indicate that more than 20 is too many.
Your direction on the continuation of this program is needed.
4
56
Pros and Cons of the CM Process
To this point, we have discussed the problems in tradi-
tional project delivery, looked at the various alternatives
for project delivery, reviewed the history of construction
management, and listed the CM function. We will now provide
a specific listing of the advantages and disadvantages one
should consider when evaluating the potential for applica-
tion of the CM project delivery system.
Advantages
In reviewing pertinent literature, numerous advantages
relating to the use of construction management have been
discovered. I prefer to separate them into three distinct
categories. They are:
1. Improved owner awareness and project control.
2. Enhanced constructability.
3. Cost saving potential.
It is within this framework we will discuss the benefits
of construction management.
Improved Owner Awareness and Project Control
1. A construction manager is hired based on abilities
and not low bid. As previously stated, a general contractor
is selected based on being the lowest responsible bidder.
This does not always guarantee that the best firm is select-
ed for the job. Under the CM approach, the services pro-
5
57
curred are considered "professional" in nature and therefore
exempted from statutory bidding requirements. This allows
the owner to establish qualifications and standards which it
deems important in making a selection decision instead of
relying exclusively on the "low bid ". Typically, the selec-
tion is facilitated utilizing some type of "request for
proposal" format.92
2. The owner achieves heightened project awareness. By
having a CM involved in the project from its inception, more
alternatives and information are available for the owner.
Also, the CM's on -site coordinator will help resolve prob-
lems that develop at the job site. 93
3. The use of local contractors is enhanced. Depending
on the capabilities of trades located in the project's area,
public entities may feel compelled to offer the opportunity
for local contractors to be involved in the project. This
has obvious economic and political benefits to the
jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is a belief that a local
contractor working in his own community will provide a high-
er level of performance due to pride.94
4. Bonding of multiple prime contractors minimizes the
92 Weinert, "A Study of the Agency Construction
Management." op. cit., 36 -37.
93 Ibid., 37.
94 Foxhall, op. cit., 11.
6
58
exposure to any one surety by spreading the risk among more
carriers. Should a problem result under this format, you
are only at odds with the bonding company for one prime
contract which represents only a portion of the total
project. Should the GC have problems under the traditional
method, the bonding company's exposure is for the entire
project. A side benefit is the division of bonding into
more moderate packages. This idea seems to be gaining favor
among bond carriers which may lead to lower bonding
costs.95
Constructability
1. The CM process advocates a single firm being in-
volved throughout design, construction, and implementation.
In the system approach to management, an optimal solution to
any problem can be achieved only if all of the relevant
factors and components of the problem are related and
analyzed. Therefore, the CM is placed in a position to
interrelate all relevant variables, and to make the deci-
sions that minimize the project's time and cost while maxi-
mizing the quality.96
2. The CM brings construction "know -how" to the project
95
96
Ibid., 26.
Adrian, op. cit., 26.
7
59
at its inception rather than at the point of construction.
Adrian states "a project design cannot be optimal unless it
includes input regarding the costs and availability of
labor, materials, subcontractors, and the feasibility and
economics of the proposed construction methods. Knowledge
of these parameters is obtained from construction
experience. Because the CM firm is expected to possess such
experience and because the CM firm should be engaged to work
with the project's architect /engineer during the design
phase, the CM process merges the skills of the
architect /engineer design firm with the construction knowl-
edge of the CM firm. This merging of skills and knowledge
enables optimal design for the project regarding time,
costs, and quality." 97 The benefits of this merger as
compared to a GC project are illustrated in Table I.
97
Ibid., 26.
8
60
TABLE I
Construction Management
Comparison of Tasks
Construction General
Manager Contractor
Predesign Phase:
Assist in Developing Funding x
Conduct Feasibility Studies x
Prepare Preliminary Budget x
Environmental Impact Studies x
Site Selection Studies x
Prepare Zoning Requests x
Advise on Design Team Selection x
Design Phase:
Advise on Scope Definition x
Begin Value Engineering x
Prepare Milestone Schedule x
Propose Alternate Methodologies x
Identify Long -Lead Materials x
Devise Multi- Contract Strategy x
Prepare Bid Packages x
Manage Technical Consultants x
Review Specification Criteria x
Prepare General Conditions x
9
61
Construction General
Manager Contractor
Identify Design Interferences x
Bid Phase:
Prequalification of Bidders x
Cash Flow Projections x x
Survey Labor Market x x
Propose Value Engineering Opt. x x
Analyze Bids x x(so)
Recommend Contract Awards x
Construction Phase:
Conduct Preconstruction Meetings x x
Obtain Permits x x
Administer Contracts x x(so)
Control Cost and Schedule x x(so)
Manager Owner Furnished Items x
Administer Submittals x x
Negotiate Change Orders x x
Coordinate & Inspect Work x x(so)
Arrange for Inspection & Test x x(so)
10
62
Construction General
Manager Contractor
Construction with Own Forces x
Close -out Contracts
SO = Subs only
Sources: Article written by Leland S. Riggs with infor-
mation from this table compiled from Haltenhoff, Kavanaugh,
Paulsen, and Stukhart.98
98 Leland S. Riggs, "Education Programs in
Construction Management," in Construction Management: A
State -of -the Art Update, (New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1986), 678.
11
63
3. The CM process provides a "check and balance" on the
architect /engineer during design. This eliminates duplica-
tion of work in job specifications during bidding. It also
can serve to prevent over - design of the project. Lastly, it
minimizes the potential for oversight occurring in design
which results in some portion of the project not being prop-
erly addressed in the plans and specifications.99
4. CM promotes management continuity. The CM's addi-
tion of management skills early in the project compliments
the designer's skills. There is no gap or shifting of man-
agement responsibilities in this process between design and
construction. Without management input, both design and
construction may be performed suboptimally.100
5. Full -time, on -site supervision is present represent-
ing the owner's interest during construction
activities.101 Ponge states that the quality of the
project is apt to be better under a system where the
contractor is not tempted to "cut corners" or cheapen the
work in ways that may remain undetected for the first few
years of a project's life. The quality of a product cannot
always be determined from a cursory inspection by the
99 Hanna, op. cit., 60.
100 Adrian, op. cit., 27.
101 Hanna, op. cit., 60.
12
64
architect or engineer.102
6. Construction management promotes the harmonious use
of union and nonunion contractors on the same job. Because
the owner, unlike a general contractor, does not have con-
tracts with the building trades, it is possible to have two
gates on the project. (A gate is considered the point of
access for the respective trade contractors to the job
site. Establishment of a separate gate for union contrac-
tors is done because labor agreements allow union members to
picket a project only at the point of entry to the project
site.) One gate would be for union contractors while the
other for nonunion.103 It is even possible that only one
gate may be necessary if good management skills are availed
upon the trades and their cooperation is received.104
7. CM promotes good communication. The construction
manager establishes communication channels for the entire
project, often acting as facilitator in meetings and helping
each specialist to understand the perspective of others. It
is the communication process with the owner, designer, and
trade contractors all being included in the loop, that will
102 ponge, op. cit., 23 + 55.
103 Weinert, "A Study of Agency Construction
Management," op. cit., 38.
104 James D. Beckwith to Joel Hanson, Interview,
April 2, 1992.
13
65
have a positive impact on the project's constructability.105
Cost Savings
1. Potential for reduction of architect /engineer design
fees due to less involvement in project estimating and
administration.106 This potential is not always realized
in actual practice. Many architect /engineer firms continue
to charge the owner the fee applicable in the traditional
process when performing in a CM project. This is partly the
result of not being able to identify the design firm's fee
for specific services such as project inspection.107 I
would also suggest that some architectural firms unfamiliar
with the CM process may be reluctant to reduce their fees in
order to protect themselves from unknowns.
2. CM provides accurate cost estimating. Adrian states
that:
"introduction of the CM firm into the design process
results in more accurate preconstruction estimates.
The supplementing of the designer's skills with the
construction cost information knowledge of the CM
firm should enable estimates to be presented that
improve the project design and also prevent time
delays resulting from luplicate design or project
letting iterations. .100
105
106
107
108
McNulty, op. cit., 13.
Adrian, op. cit., 24.
Ibid., 27.
Ibid., 27.
14
66
Furthermore, by having this information available before
bidding, the owner is better able to make informed decisions
which should result in the project being more in line with
budgeted estimates. This prevents the owner from going back
to a contractor after bidding and asking for potential cost
reductions where the credit for the reduction will not equal
the true cost savings accruing to the GC.
3. CM utilizes value engineering. As previously
discussed, value engineering is an economic look at design
elements from the viewpoint of other than that of the
architect. It interjects fiscal control on behalf of the
owner with regard to the design of the project. By evaluat-
ing various design possibilities and looking at all the cost
implications of those alternatives, an owner is best able to
obtain the most value for the money. This process will also
help to eliminate overdesign and /or underdesign of project
components.109
4. Elimination of GC overhead and subcontractor
markup. With elimination of the general contractor, so goes
the overhead and the markup associated with that firm's
coordination of subcontractors.110
109 Weinert, "A Study of the Agency Construction
Management," op. cit., 47.
110 Weinert, "Construction Management: A Sensible
Alternative When Building New Schools," citing "Agency
Construction Management Advantages," News, May 1985.
15
67
TABLE II
Mark -up Savings
Based on 85% of the work being subcontracted out by
a general, a $2 million job would look as follows:
Construction Costs $2,000,000.00
Subcontractor's Costs $1,700,000.00
5% GC Markup Savings $80,952.38.111
As one can see, this can be a great opportunity for cost
savings.
5. Multiple bidding of the project allows the receipt
of the lowest responsible bidder in all project components.
Under a typical GC project, a general will have a number of
subs providing bids. Research has indicated that subs do
not necessarily submit the same bid to all contractors.
Furthermore, not all contractors may have the same subs
giving them prices. Therefore, the chances are poor that
the GC who would have the lowest responsible bid would also
have all the lowest sub bids. While this is again hard to
document, Table III provides an illustration of this
condition.112
111
Adrian, op. cit., 24.
112 Ron A. Morton, Public Construction Planning
and Management: The Method for Success. (Professional
Development Program, Leagues of Minnesota Cities, St.
Paul, Minnesota, February 20 -21, 1992), VII, 2B.
16
TABLE III
Sample Subcontractor Prices to Competing GCs
Work Division
GC "A" GC "B" GC "C" GC "D"
General Cond. $35,000 $36,500 *$34,800 $35,100
Sitework 10,000 10,500 *9,800 10,200
Asphalt 15,000 *14,200 15,100 14,800
Landscaping *5,000 6,000 5,500 5,300
Cast in Place 25,000 *24,500 25,200 24,700
Masonry *45,000 45,700 45,500 44,900
Misc. Metals 1,500 *1,200 1,300 1,500
Structural Steel 25,000 25,500 *24,900 25,300
Struc.Steel -Erec. 15,000 *14,500 14,800 15,100
Carpentry 3,500 *3,000 3,200 3,600
Archit. Woodwork *4,500 5,000 4,800 4,700
Roofing *10,000 10,200 10,500 10,300
Caulks & Sealants 2,500 2,800 *2,400 2,600
Insulation *4,500 5,000 4,700 5,100
Plumbing 15,000 15,400 15,500 *14,900
Outside Utilities 6,500 6,100 6,600 *5,900
Gas Piping 4,500 *4,000 4,300 4,100
HVAC 35,000 *34,900 35,100 35,500
Electrical 30,000 30,100 30,400 *29,900
$456,950 $466,750 $502,600 $445,200
No general contractor has all the low bids!
This tabulation does not include all work divisions.
*Denotes low bid.
17
68
69
6. Subcontractor comfort level will increase as com-
pared to a traditional GC project, and the owner benefits by
lower prices. Bid shopping has been eliminated because of
direct bidding to the owner. This allows a subcontractor to
feel comfortable in maintaining an adequate margin for
profitability. The result should be a contractor giving his
best bid to the owner. Also, the CM process promotes timely
progress payments to trade contractors (primes) thereby
minimizing their perceived risk.113
7. Direct purchase of materials due to multiple bidding
creates the ability to avoid sales tax on materials
purchased. Ponge states that most cost estimators now know
to expect that the cost of a building will be broken down
45% for materials and 55% for labor.114 The following
table can show the impact of sales tax savings using that
percentage breakdown.
TABLE IV
Sales Tax Savings
Construction Cost $2,000,000.00
Materials Portion(45 %) $ 900,000.00
Sales Tax Savings at 6.5% $ 58,500.00
113 Adrian, op. cit., 33.
114 Ponge, op. cit., 24.
18
70
Appendix III provides a summary of Minnesota proce-
dures to claim this exemption.
One caveat is the potential change in state law allowing
exempt status for these types of purchases. In Minnesota,
the state legislature has enacted a sales tax on purchases
by cities, counties, and townships. This would negate the
potential for this benefit if it becomes law.115 Another
consideration is the potential risk associated with separat-
ing materials and installation from one contract. Profes-
sional advice should be obtained before proceeding.
8. Evaluation of bids occurs which ensures accuracy and
conformance with the project budget on a section by section
basis. Should a bid appear dramatically low, the opportunity
to have the contractor withdraw that bid is available, thus
preventing someone from being on a job who has lost money
before work has even started. Furthermore, should a bid
appear out of line with the expected budget, the opportunity
exists to go back and further evaluate that section. It is
very probable that bids for this section could be rejected
and that component rebid after making some modifications to
design documents.116
115
Increases:
Face Sales
1 -A.
116
Bill Salisbury, "Lawmakers Reject Some Tax
Gas, Auto Repair Levies Fail; Cities, Counties
Tax," St. Paul Pioneer Press, 14 April 1992,
C. Edwin Haltenhoff, "Multiple Bidding and
19
71
9. CM provides improved negotiation of change orders.
The CM receives and evaluates change orders for their appro-
priateness to the project. The CM also negotiates time and
cost factors for change orders on the owner's behalf.117
It must be understood that contractors consider change or-
ders a prime source of profit for their operations.
Therefore, it is in the owner's best interest to manage this
as effectively as possible to control costs.118
10. Fast tracking is a possibility with this system.
During times of high inflation, fast tracking may be an
appropriate manner by which to condense the project comple-
tion schedule. In this situation, the project is designed
and constructed in phases occurring simultaneously. For
example, the project excavation, substructure, and structur-
al frame may start or be completed while the finishes and
specialties systems are being designed. A traditional GC
project is too linear to allow this phased construction
process.119
Contracting," in Successful Construction Management
Techniques and Procedures, (Professional Development
Program, University of Wisconsin - Madison, February 10 -14,
1992), 7/13.
117
Cushman et al., op. cit., 48 -49.
118 Robert C. Teets, Profitable Management for the
Subcontractor, (New York: McGraw -Hill Book Company,
1976), 147.
119 Adrian, op. cit., 28 -29.
20
72
Disadvantages:
Sapers states "the rush to new ways of doing things is a
weakness in us all." His concern is that we not rush out
and change project delivery system formats without an under-
standing of virtues and perils related to that system.120
He obviously raises an important point. Construction man-
agement is not a panacea! After reviewing the advantages,
we must now consider the potential disadvantages the use of
this system poses.
1. Public entities are generally unfamiliar with the
construction management process. This uncertainty creates
numerous questions regarding the process. A construction
management firm is many times forced into a situation where
it must first sell the concept before it can sell the servic-
es it provides.
Another related issue is that participants in the pro-
cess do not have a clear understanding of their own roles.
Zeloznicki states that the City of Glendale, Arizona ran
into some problems with construction management because city
staff had not clearly defined the roles of the
participants. She went on to state that once the city under-
stood its own expectations, the construction manager was
120
Sapers, op. cit., 44.
21
73
able to turn the project around and bring it in well under
budget.121
Thomas states that a CM is a surrogate owner. He points
out that it is not an easy job when you are acting on behalf
of someone else's interests. It becomes even more difficult
when those interests are unclear.122 Therefore, it is
critical that we, as owners, understand our own needs and
expectations before engaging the services of a construction
manager. It is also imperative that the relationship be-
tween parties is clearly understood in order that people may
function at maximum capacity.
2. Geographic limitations may make the use of construc-
tion management impractical. In some areas of the country,
qualified construction managers may not be readily
available. While firms can obviously be imported to assist
with a project, an appropriate dollar volume will be neces-
sary in order to make this venture worthwhile.
Another concern in this regard is that a construction
manager who is not familiar with a geographic area will not
possess the necessary knowledge to make proper decisions
regarding bid packaging. This is due to a lack of under-
121 Susan J. Zeloznicki, "Construction Management
Works for Municipal Projects," Public Works, October
1986, 58 -59.
122 Thomsen, "Construction Management: What's
Happened To It ?" op. cit., 41.
22
74
standing of the local labor market.
3. The hiring of a construction manager requires the
payment of an additional fee. This perceived disadvantage
has generated significant discussion when a public body is
considering the use of construction management for the first
time. Weinert states emphatically that CM is not an added
cost. A construction manager has replaced the general con-
tractor and therefore the CM fees have replaced the GC fees
which were buried in its lump sum bid. He goes on to state
that it has been shown on public projects that the multiple
bid approach of construction management reduces overall
costs significantly so that the total of the low bids award-
ed plus the CM fee is less than the cost of the same project
bid under the GC format.123 In Appendix IV, a model
cost comparison between construction management and general
contracting prepared by C. Edwin Haltenhoff is included.
This model supports Mr. Weinert's position.
4. There is a lack of standards regarding the qualifica-
tions upon which hiring decisions for CM's are based and
also regarding an appropriate range of fees.124 Construc-
tion management does not require a license as do architects
and engineers, nor does it require successful business orga-
123 Weinert, "Construction Management:
Alternative," op. cit., 18.
124 Foxhall, op. cit., 20.
23
A Sensible
75
nization with a strong financial statement that a general
contractor would typically have. The opportunity exists for
too many "lightweights" to enter the business.125
Thorough screening can help alleviate this problem.
5. Parties involved in the process do not always have a
clear understanding of their contractual relationships. CM
contract forms are produced by the AIA, AGC, and the CMAA.
Each contract outlines different duties and responsibilities
for the parties involved. It is important that people read,
clarify, and understand the relationship established by
these documents.126
6. CM's may not be experienced in dealing with public
sector entities. During our review of the history of con-
struction management, we learned that GSA had problems with
construction managers who were not experienced in dealing
with federal rules and regulations. The same can hold true
at the local government level. While CM's may have experi-
ence in dealing with private sector entities; familiarity
with bidding requirements, sales tax exemption, payment
processing, and liability issues that face a public sector
organization pose nuances that can result in problems if not
125 Thomsen, "Construction Management: What's
Happened To It ?" op. cit., 39.
126
Thomas Sweeney to Joel Hanson, Interview,
March 23, 1992.
24
76
properly managed.
7. Liability issues can be raised if the construction
manager takes a leadership role in making recommendations on
materials or methods for design. This is especially true if
the decision to adopt a design was based on the owner's
reliance on the knowledge and experience of the construction
manager.127 To minimize this exposure, contract documents
should clarify that the architect /engineer should be respon-
sible for design including the changes that come during
value engineering and other document reviews.
8. Multiple bidding can result in certain work items
falling between bid packages. In the conventional system,
there is a general contractor who must perform the work
regardless of the disputes of the subs. When there is no
general contractor, that responsibility becomes the owner's
for failing to bundle the work with the appropriate subcon-
tractor's responsibilities.128 A thorough review of bid
documents by the CM can minimize this exposure.
9. Conflict of interest can exist for a CM who also
serves as a GC on other jobs. There is an inherent conflict
of interest whenever a CM who serves as a GC in other situa-
127 George Stukhart, "Construction Management
Responsibilities During Design," Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, March 1987, 93.
128 Sapers, op. cit., 44.
25
77
tions must deal with primes who he may be working with on
other projects. Obviously, the CM needs to foster good
relationships with the primes for the project at hand, but
this same firm must also consider relationships that may
occur in future projects. While a CM must always be
reasonable, compromising situations could exist where inter-
ests other than the owner's come into play.129
10. CM can increase the cost of bonding for a project
because multiplicity of small bonds for a prime contractor
is a greater expense than one large bond for a general
contractor.130 Others dispute this fact by stating the
difference in total bonding costs may be less because con-
tractors with small contracts may avoid the costs of bonding
by using other acceptable security. Another counterpoint to
this argument is the exposure issue that was discussed inthe
advantages section.131
11. Bonding of prime contractors may limit the number
of subcontractors (primes) that are able to compete for the
work. When a general contractor provides a bond for the
entire project, he may carry certain subs that are not able
to bond on their own. The general contractor providing the
129
Foxhall, op. cit., 15.
130 Weinert, "A Study of Agency Construction
Management," op. cit., 39.
131 Beckwith, op. cit., (Interview).
26
78
bond enables the nonbondable specialty contractors to per-
form work at competitive prices who could be excluded under
the CM process. Utilizing a general contractor, the owner
receives protection against subcontractor failure through
the GC's bond and also obtains the benefit of specialty
contractor competition which leads to lower specialty con-
tractor bids.132
12. The multiple contracting technique employed by
construction management can increase the paperwork require-
ments on staff of participating public entities. It can
also be argued that more time commitment is necessary on the
part of the public agency involved.133 However, as we
discussed in the advantages section, heightened owner aware-
ness is an advantage of this process. It should be expected
that this benefit will have an offsetting cost. Perhaps
some of this increase in time required is necessary no mat-
ter what system is utilized if we want successful projects.
13. J.B. Bonny states "construction is above all a
people profession. "134 Given the fact CM involves a high
degree of interaction among the participants and emphasizes
132
Adrian, op. cit., 36 -37.
133 Weinert, "A Study of Agency Construction
Management," op. cit., 39.
134 J.B. Bonny and Joseph P. Frein, Handbook of
Construction Management and Organization (New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1973), xi.
27
79
a great deal of project control from the owner's standpoint,
it is critical that good personnel be involved to ensure its
success. As Thompson states, if that control is not
exercised, the results are worse not better than general
contracting. Good construction management is great; bad
construction management is awful.135
135 Thomsen, CM: Developing, Marketing, and
Delivering Construction Management Services (New York:
McGraw -Hill Book Company, 1982), 78.
28
80
Implementation of the Construction Management Process
The key factor in having a successful CM project is the
hiring of a qualified firm to provide construction manage-
ment services. Weinert states:
"there are virtually no documented, identifiable
criticisms of construction management. Specula-
tions and supposition include thoughts on the quali-
ty of the CM and the corresponding services provid-
ed and the ability of the CM to meet the needs of
the owner through effective management of the
project. These fears can be erased, however,
through appropriate planning on the part of the
owner. The CM, like the A /E, is a professional
and, therefore, should be selected accordingly.
The construction manager, however, must be brought
in at the earliest stage of the project to optimize
cost, time and quality ��gm inception to occupancy
and post construction."
Selection Process
Without the availability of uniform standards and licens-
ing governing all of construction management, one must be
careful in the selection of this firm. As discussed
earlier, the Federal government discovered that it was a
field easily entered by firms claiming to be CM's who were
not truly qualified to provide these services. The key to
avoiding "fly -by- night" firms is a thorough selection pro-
cess whereby a company's services, abilities, and experience
are evaluated.
The process I would recommend in selecting a CM is as
136 Weinert, "Construction Managements A Sensible
Alternative," op. cit., 19.
29
81
follows:
1. Determine needs of the project and your organization
as this will serve as the basis for the selection
process.137
2. Develop a listing of possible CM firms. This can be
done by talking with other organizations who have utilized
CM. State associations representing your jurisdiction can
also assist with this process.
3. Prepare a "request for proposals" which explains the
nature of the project and develops a format for responses
from interested firms that allows you to evaluate their
personnel, capabilities, experience, and fees.
4. Rate the proposals based on the firms which best
match your agency's needs.
5. Choose the top three for interviews with the selec-
tion committee. Interviews should be structured so as to
treat each firm fairly and consistently. The interview
should be expected to last approximately one hour per firm.
It should include time for a brief presentation by the firm,
structured interview questions, and a wrap -up question and
answer period. Be sure to interview the team which will be
working for your organization. At a minimum, this should
include a principal of the firm, the project manager, and
137 Ibid., 17.
30
82
the on -site superintendent.
6. Evaluate results of the interview and proposal
materials; ranking firms in order of preference.
7. At a minimum, do a thorough background check of the
preferred firm and the people assigned to your project.
Based on the results of this investigation, determine if
other firms should be evaluated or if a selection can be
made.
8. Based on results of proposals, interviews, and
references, recommend the top firm to the governing body.
9. Finalize contract arrangements with the selected
firm.
10. After selection of a CM by the governing body,
notify all firms participating in the RFP process of your
decision in a timely manner.
What factors should be considered when evaluating
firms? Barrie identifies the basic qualifications a CM
should possess. They are:
Overall experience
Professional construction management
Project planning and control
Inspection (if desired)
Value engineering
Scheduling methods
Estimating methods
Design knowledge
31
83
Other applicable experience
Depth of organization
Present work load
Available personnel
Key personnel
Recruiting requirements
Financial strength
Specialized experience
Area familiarity
Special knowledge
Industry experience
References
Current clients
Prior clients
Understanding project requirements
Anticipation of problems
Understanding of special features
Understanding of owner objectives
Understanding of project features
Understanding area practices
Understanding site conditions
Preliminary plans for implementation
Overall approach
Preliminary schedules
Preliminary costs
Proposed organization
32
84
Services to be provided
Services not to be provided
Price and compensation
Reimbursable costs
Nonreimbursable costs
Fee basis
Other basis138
Haltenhoff states that as a member of the project team,
the extent and quality of services is dependent upon the
CM's ability to address the following:
1. Thorough understanding of the CM's exact role in the
project delivery process.
2. Technical knowledge of each function which is to be
managed.
3. Proficiency as a manager.
4. Professionalism in carrying out responsibilities.139
Barrie and Paulson state the single most important fac-
tor in choosing a firm is that they should be thoroughly
138 Barrie and Paulson, op. cit., 159 -160.
139 C. Edwin Haltenhoff, "Construction Management
Performance Under Dual Service Agreements," in Successful
Construction Management Techniques and Procedures,
(Professional Development Program, University of
Wisconsin - Madison, February 10 -14, 1992), 4/6.
33
85
qualified and possess unquestionable integrity.140
Who makes a better construction manager is another issue
to be considered in evaluating firms. The choice is between
those who possess field experience versus those who possess
technical /administrative know -how. Field experience is
usually possessed by people or firms who have served in the
capacity of general contractors.
Foxhall identifies two cautions when considering GC's as
CM's. The first is that many GC's do not have cost exper-
tise due to their heavy reliance on subcontractors for
pricing. The second concern is that the array of services
implicit in construction management and a professional orien-
tation of those services to the client are simply not a part
of the general contractor's inherent resources.141
Thomsen states that GC's are typically best during
construction, but they can be weak during the design phase
of a CM project. Design professionals were good during
design due to their conceptual estimating and other comput-
er -based management systems, but can be short on field
experience.142 To resolve this issue, track records of
the firms under consideration will be the best gauge of
140
141
142
Happened
Barrie and Paulson, op. cit., 49.
Foxhall, op. cit., 26.
Thomsen, "Construction Management: What's
To It ?" op. cit., 39.
34
86
their abilities to perform.
Another point to consider in the hiring of a construc-
tion manager is when should this person be brought on board:
before the architect or after the architect? We have al-
ready discussed that a CM should join the team as soon as
possible to maximize benefits of the process. Therefore,
who should be hired first?
There are two key factors to consider in this regard.
The first is how well the project's needs are defined by the
owner. The second is the ability to develop a team that is
comfortable with each other's respective roles (CM and A /E).
With the first factor, it would be extremely difficult
to ask for proposals on a project if needs are not clearly
defined. This may necessitate the involvement of some pro-
fessional help on the front -end to assist in the definition
process. These services could be retained on a limited
arrangement basis with no commitment for future project
involvement. They would most likely be provided by an
architect /engineer.
The second factor would relate to an architect's famil-
iarity with the construction management process. It has
been my experience that many architects will be reluctant to
consider the use of CM given their unfamiliarity with it and
the lack of adequate track records on the part of CM firms.
If the decision is made to utilize construction management,
then one would be wise to verify that the architect /engineer
35
87
to be selected is comfortable with this process. In this
case, it may be preferable to hire the CM first.
The last issue to consider in the selection of a con-
struction management firm is the contract form which will be
used to define the relationship between the owner and the
CM. The American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Associa-
tion of General Contractors (AGC), and the Construction
Management Association of America (CMAA) all have construc-
tion management contract documents available for
utilization. While each contract sets forth the arrange-
ments for construction management services, they vary signif-
icantly in the responsibilities incurred by the parties to
this process. The chart in Appendix V sets out a compari-
son of assigned responsibilities for project components
under each contract form. It is imperative that an owner
thoroughly evaluates the contract document to make sure
needs are best being meet and liabilities are
minimized.143
143 Thomas F. Nelson and Patricia O'Leary Kiscoan,
"Construction Management: The Legal Background (With
Focus on Risk Allocation)," in Public Construction,
Professional Development Program, Minnesota Institute of
Legal Education, February 26, 1992, 30 -31.
36
(A3M3IJI330) /SS3DX3
Olt
N
J
0▪ 0
J
P
M
ITS
b
rn
J
Sff`ZU s (6SYY£Z)
7
0
0
9
9
(sasp)/savwS ny10IzIoL
00
O
0
1
a
8
O
O
G
O
N
O
00
N
GC
'AJ
N
b
037
N
W
O
147
W
J
14
ON
a
to
O
ON
W
oo
00
W
1:`-A 4
�0TT2,2' nm
; °.00�R
0
5. i o 0 2
N
3
N
J
V
0
W
to
00
b
N o
8 0
• 0
N
-4
0
8
N
O
0 0
N
W
LA J 0 `n
0O w
9 9' 8
0 0 0 m
0 0 0
n o t 0
P
N NO
J J
0 O' 00
O 00' OO
O 00 O
O O O OO
O 0 o e o
V)
A W - - N la I-A
00 A vw 0 w O
O Ltt O J N
O P t.t. A -
bet
A W N N la VI
CO Ai
LA 14 0 O O0 Vi
VI T O 00 O Co
W W-4 0 J A J
49
A W N - N W `m
O, 0 co b N `D A
0 A- `a W 00 N
W O
e .-
A W
0 J
O
N
N 0 0
0 0
00 N
14 0
0
b O
J
vi
0 0
M
W W
A
0 N
W
J
e
0 W
00 b
0-)
A O `Nn W A W
0 o 'p 0
b 90 A W
W w .
v0i 0 0 N N
r
0O `0n W A _ -
00 00 0 0 0
a
N
00
0
F
'' 0
a
K
A % 0
0 -
a
o r. 1
abn
O 0 p,
A A c
0 .
N
� a
N
n
0
00
R
N
00
0
M
CA
N
• A
P
00
CA
N
O
0 0
(004) SIN3W3A0Nd1 ll- ivLIdvj
Water Pollution Prevention
0
B
F
(AJN31DI33Q)ISS33X3
M
8
00
N
N
FA
O
W
V3
OVL'SEI $ VSlb£Z
9)
U
h
A
O
O
P
O
W
CO
0
FA
A
O
0
N
N
N
b
0
A
O
O
A
O
N
CO
P
N
b
N
d
8
Total Expenditures $ 3,060,318
oo
k
r
U"
N O.
0 ON
A N
00
4,
N
J P
W P
N N
w
bs
W
0 Q
N U
N
u
4'
NA
w
0w
N 0
3 g
• e
N
0
N
b
A
06
e,
pN
N
H
X
tot
N
d
0a. o b
00 00 o w
0 0 o e
NJ
J N 0
14 "NJ
J tO
O Ob. N
W OO. O W
00000
O OO OA
0 0 0 0 0
O
w
0
N
A
O
S • ° " 0.o of m i55. v r,�: ro 0 9 A
08���, 5aq D°9.^ &=
N
o 0 2 B =.no fm `� g.n Hn
y e� x -? "3 r F,
3 9 z
E N 5
'o g
ry
Vi
W
co
4
W
J
co
toe
W
F
W
J
6)
0
-4
V
69
to
to
V
A W 00 N W y
W
U W a W to A A o O co O b 00 O W O N U ... J W -P N
A N P W N - w 00 N
to J 0 O O. O U
to 0 • 0 J A a W
W W J 0 J A J
09
A W N - N W tp
— 4' oo J N b A
co O w b W
IJ t0 O. W A A
0 A W to N
W
A P
O 'NJ
O J
r A
O O
N
N 0
to J
00
W J
W W
.W
0 A
W N w
O 0 co .O
069`LSO'£ S
W
06
ON
N
M
LL6'6££ S 6£Z'80£
rn
W
00 p SO
0 VI 0 O v, N
O 0 0 In
CO
C
o ▪ W
mo
0
NOC
L O
'0 V, W A W P O P �, U
w ,_ .
t to 0 0 0 N L 0 `D
A
O
A
u
9)
'O O
N O
W
O
SO W
W N
d _o
R
0
z
r
r
O
n
a
r
r_
3
0
0
y�y
tol
O
O
k4?
N
0
9
a
(AJN3IDI33U) /SS3DX3
N
N
808`691 S
N
w
(6,6-0/6,610s "P016
FA
i
00
A
8
N
00
W
CO
A
to
O
U
N
A
N
O
LA
O • g n T o c cro n
d� aa,
g v O d c
M O n
H 8 & g<
00
0
A
to
N
3
O
Total Expenditures $ 3,060,318
N
W
00
u
N
J
P
tot
00
1n
J
N
0
r
to
CO
Vt
00
A W 0 N W
64 0 CT 0
• to A 00 0 CO 0
O W 0 J 0 J Y
O O. A r t
A W N N W
Lo J .60 0 co O 00
to O. 0 Vi to O w
co W W J 0 J A J
0 J N 'D S
0- 0W0waa
O A P 00 w to
W O
A .3
O W
O J
NO O o
04
o 0
co
00
00
00
a
w
0 N
0 10
J 00
J
W
N
J
N
J
N
N
8 0
e o
W
N
co Or
00 00
0 w
N
N N
w
JO A
N 0 O to
0b 00 J
0 0 00 w
P O
o0. o- 0
b 0 0 0 0No
0 00 0 0
N
00
A
W 00. O P
O 00 O O
0 0 0 C , - 4
0 0 o a
W
1M NW w n m o
61 ➢
.07 VI 0 0 0D 00 0o N
069'LSOT S
H
W
CO
O
00
l.J 10
la O
0 0 N
so N
0 w
w
N
N N O
O - J
w to
W 00 VD
O
LA
O N N
00 A W N Vi 0
W A u O
U S 0 0 60 14 'D 0 J N
S 0 A
wV
▪ o
N 0 0 0
.Y
0
S
$ A
•
� m
a
N
n.
r
O
• i! Q
aw
❑ e r
r y
6,
0
a
• £ z
Tat
a
• =
O y
to
sa
a.
p
c c
a
m r„
(101) UN(13 1V113N39
n
r
r
0
Q
m
H
A
0
N M b° 0 e
O n O N •j A a
W N
a a ar °
04 S
M M N
n
a
a
(A3N301334) /SS3DX3
LP
0
saJnnpuadx3 [cloy
O
t
co
00
W
N
W
N
W
J
P
W
o n ^! 9 A v o cn
3 0 Qa
a2 �.a
5. 9 d y o n
o
3
fA
,..
00
oe
0.24 W 0--' P N
N to A to O 90 O
O ON b W N b lA
O O J N_
P A co
Ni
0,3 00
0 40
ss
LP
J 0. W W N op
L `D 0 N 000
(40 W '0 J— A W
W J 0 J A J
M
A W j N W
— A W N .D 'A
O. O W O W _'
O to ON J 0 A.0'
-.
0 A W W 00 N
�A
04) 0' M N
A A a O
O W to 0
0 J 00
«A
A W W
0 0 0
N
J lA
0 O
N
W ▪ 'O
W
0`O
Ny
W
CAW
fA
• P
N VO
00 L• LA
00
0 A
J A
0 00
PS
CO PJ
W
A OJ
b 00
N
� CO
q
JW
—
N
0 J
0w
N O
8 $
Ny
N
0 O.
O 0
o a
G
J O A W LP
0a W J
O W
O
P O T O O
• O O O N
`0 o O W
• e e o e
N
00
N
U
• J
OP 00
W OP O
O 00 O 0
0 0 0 0 )
o e OR OR OR
0
N
Q
W
y
W
Po
N
re
P
0
m u W
Le, 0 0 to u
Y
0
.D ,mu W A 9 pA. O
0)0 0- W W A qP 0
O .O 'N N
0
▪ W
b H W
W Po o co.
LP 0 0 a H W ON
0
P
'p O L..
w o 0
w
O 0
O
M 0
0 O
A
p 0
Ott
N
co
M
a
W
6 "
RA
(100 UN!1.11V113 M39
n
b
-3
r
3
0
!'1
(I3
y
O
O
0
0
G
O
a ,C.? �
a
r^ ° o
E t
o a
r
Ot
4
N fn
N 00 0
W N 0
P A 0
w 00 VI
to
'00
W
["0.a-J
O 0.0
0
o 00
V
U
NO
J
N
J
cn
t9
9
S.
N
b cn
t. g t.,
o
00n
.j
c K o
a t
4.`4 O O O. o d <
g 0 O O n, r i
n =3r
B. K1
N N f,?a
0 J Co A twi, O •~j 0 7.
lo p a
N 0-• w 0
0 i! O d
ry
n 4 x
0
0 n
R
0 w co
W 0 0
O YN W N
...'1 J .0 N
r
0 Nk 0 A
0 w N
000 -4
ow,
P o rn oo b
00 O O O
b O0000
e o 0 0 0
O 006 O N
N 0 O N °
A 00 O 0 ro-
6
e e e o 0
m c H H O o A n, v O m 5 1 n r r g 'v to b `^
o y OS .. ;3 n 8 F 2 a $5 m to, i c'4
c m o a 2
K R 2 o
a
v n n n to
O o V, .A w N N °� W 0 w
0 t tia > O 00 A O % .0.- co la
8
0 CO O 0' 0 A 44 v M it' N O O b N/, U N
TA
8
N
N
J
CO
4n
73r-
8
Up
O
M
N
00
M
Ut
N
4n
b
O
A
O
A
O
N
00
H
'0
N
W
0■
tN
N
W
J
(.2
N
0
P
Co
N
0
J
u
44
W
tIl
V
A w N N tN to
, J 0 0 0 0 0
P _
O ^ 00p00
W W 0 O J A J
W
A W J N 0 A
0 O w '0 w
ON N o b- A q
O A. w w V N
> °-
, P N
O J
f9
00
p° o
W O
0 0
M
w
oo
89L'OSZ'£ S
N
u
to 0
0 ■, le
0.
M
00 10
lo
0 0 14 to
k0 0.4
0 O O W A Y 0
0 O 0W 0 vN
km. w
w tD O
Dko W 2,
0 0 U 0) 4° 0
to O O 00 t
W
00
P
40
61
LS£`499'Z $ b89.21.£'Z
M
CO
2 o
0 0 O .w.. 0 W
CO 10 '0 tip
O 0
N
M
y
0 0 14
N O o L
O O O
U
M
0
0
b4
0-
uo
3
0
for Storm Water Pollution Prevention
(ooN3tDt33Q) /SS3DX3
ur 00
A
o d °
0
00
4.0 IA VP
N A A
`N.. 0 0
v O O
Vi N
A A
0
00
orCstt s (-ft£Z)
N
42
`£ S
00
w
CO
N
W
J
0000
W
N
0
J
co
N
W
V
N
1;00
E° m °. c o m w
Bog -=.5;
q Z M '0 <2
00
0 V, A V, O w O
o o N N
O O >
44
A W N N, W V,
N O. 00 N
to J NO 0 0 o
0
Int W '0 J V A W
W J 0 J A
A
A 00 J N NO A
O. 0 W '0
IJ N U W — A
0 A W V, N.J.
CA
W 00 A .00
A N J
O J la in 0
00
49
co W
A W W
N N to in
NJ 0
0 0 0 N
AA
00 N W 0
N 0 O W
0 0 O
1LQ
00
00
a N00
EA
N
W P
W t0A
00A
t1
so
0
O o o O O
8 00 O W
O a a e
y 49
W _N
0 .» J
J y JJ N
N 0 0P a
00. O N
N OO O N
N 00 0 0
0 0 0 1'
K. 5 5' T
"iiq
o
v
3
A
0 00 00 w o 0
e u u oo A w
'°00�V
w
N
0'
00
V
N
00
V
b 0
P N w a oo
w
N 0 0 0 0
P O
L.-, A w
w w U 0 o O
b u
■0
r
0
ON
u
0
N
H •
LA
N
R 9O
0'
LS£'499 Z S
40
N
M
N
0 a
CO
O
00
N
O
m
O
m a
n
z
r
C
z
0
0
Key Features:
Rotating Images
Multiple Banners
Screen Adjusting — Full Width of Page
Horizontal Menu
Quick Links Buttons
Background Image
"� . 'a P Ut<
v71, Vq�
NSm� i,lfmlpmi 2Gw�.W w�
Welcome to Little Canada's We
Pr am by ✓n women dmn Pew t *.con Lira
�rgnomontow[wv t Con moosoain
• 0feietrnnM:an- 04"4x0044(0 nav
mWwu 444(0(un
(4x4(401 Ka CSiv(401/7 tuwwls,rnad4404
14µm 40nn �nuaWroMW. 0.+ 00.40 .4 uaww
mown., veto ay rote, t saw.. wlpna von
nen, om�. Ua vwe"'nr4oszvwi
wu
• _ •nw Lrvxmww,u vue4Uenm
We I, p W«VNKK+n na.xrma o«w4m
env '�I WtreiµumW M*µvew4'eYVw'•iw
Ammuncementa
f U),"att 404(4 W rrY 4 1!- W44•4WA4M
u.
a1o%EVSnam4xco ,111
IWIVJ`1rn 40Sint*04e1LWu
.T'.SG1N.4YY'1ttLLlUh14 :3(lY').1
(L6YIfY�WN11itext i azif _ottit
I'm et £t i/€ni AS
43
Example of GovOffice
41fAtt, 4vn2
e: SSUMM6w�rry
a:]g�d0llltb` `$
sidugdf0{
•:g�Clq(ylykM
quwe the
9U. /.rm„
w.mme to the OfIMJal viensee of the village e om
LOUled n n enema,. m taSmuSP0ary and n 1946, 40 seo sfastest 'romng
ov u nett' aaram, arms. ea mmmurlho 9000
mm rero is la to Mng
eo0nty e( eedy 0000 ta0,?
o the annex Kgm(git sotL 1 and situated at the ...tam loot Mto Crone County a beautiful Mee, the v. ma.
bwi oog Mae nm septo na aMa aerie: of parks, a omleel
our e ve ya ^pecaai deep o of co dt^yp anvoM r r
eswansaM o.. who envlslon 1M Ilagoi 00 remand, Peas 1^91!401 easteenan0 oultrandlnq
v▪ asty of 4000.
Ew emla Pom rases 000 vi1laee em n on'SOl
fde a,0030, mamma amens to Into tat 40.aeea,hopcAnq. major employment centers my OoMOreglonal monues
51 Village W I/aro.mmlitea to an means not p^omlgevraknoeln0M doOw,y of^malth., sevk00,041lo
• ni 4006000 010O 000 image a the ^0049. ou94000004,40i,. emhn. 00caam00waM 00rn19
ses Oren leademry and team a n.eatnn.
Meaner you omilde0 xe,men your nom, or it you arenas[ ,i10O me are confident you Mil mere bat V1W1oI. pkase
en 0 4 0019 0 09460 4 000 0 0 0010. s' m o eople 00 MMbMa, an toeamm ea
feel lrro to contact Oar rmtess.wv,x,a110nypm.l y
(90 eceet ?
ern. xw
e an. X3
w 09,
{0(0000) 4004307
Ciwrmand9
(,7 one
20
i a, do
44
Examples of GovOffice
•
r..,.FO.. r. IM=22SUI
Latakeva
me aly <Fae„ mL km,eo<,<a<:,: <..,m,:Po.d:ust,
tic u6'M
A9enda""d Vikes
MIMMtmen11MMUry �.y
voymem :®wnuy
romm
holoL.a«y
ti:+c0 t,.m11
cf coo DP�i s.Jf
777
�0��i%�✓s 42'e'geT . . •
Government_
nMUt 11s
P00414 ily Mk.J:_.'
..:Vilna
r poly rnlonMr
11«
IleIploI 00
rA xiL
a0,il0 map
moll ltc
1 01y:100 c.
04u01 000:.00
Oda to eh( Or %c/ lOadn,w9trnt O,Keiles/
xalted 40o4 Wing we now Wea
site to communmala wm.n 0,000 our
e niten), 40,000 w; ant0lattm.
In
the City of Washington we aMaya
skive 10 p 0m len sne
00 �tn Information
Ile.
your guaply01
Il you 110 Mere 100 Information mining
from our Ilia or II amain lnfamutIon Is
O HO...n.10 1104, None send an email to
our
City Stott pg.Xmenl-
YourmmmenN arc mponant to the
onllmyE [evekpnlen[M IM web all,
acetrawdrn
000000 Ab MANTII0,N(2,:`4N 1'11006
J`) 2133
Government •
Mine 2013
II. 1
Pit®
e tttr. NI.Y..
111100 je 4l�2fodeo..At
Twin alelameo neaps around 0mb010409
Ilse • on Ne eastern sae al Penske Won& w«
Carolina's 0010.0anks. Ranee top nut
St gore▪ �nmant lee Om County n t010. INa
w atethant 10006410y days, every store IoMng me d
those 0 A Other thosecomng ham lop
couithouso orlik 00*00 Inn. on ate Snae •
Today. county town. as well as bmaness Q mopeoP to
a Island's 0
4Htory. mnucy me np naema00, late tamun
ship at aoanoOamH M les0u41 Park, or the
aoego Watningten Craal Eaamooeo 00,4
Roinoke Iwo a nuhIMn*,apnnt 00 meuwtn stsnmar, the
Carans town al�om169ngsn.4dined., andleronbaek
SO 0 they p,rlorm the
ma▪ t,14afloat Thoth, outdooravmPnnat drama, ma
Weatnee is a.nays a tape an an lalm& inns
10 dco7 aram0Ids
tl93122£DEPIID.IISJl*h41LL49L R&MeL*4
Ay£UOtl0NL.Qllttnenl£VJe0cll
£S1t441LVH41A1011G1.LL50SE1ttl11
I'Um It hereby given 01)t on W0dn0W2Y. 0241
201) at at
.In top nanly Item m
IM onnxal. l0 p m40) 4Udle004 Street. Ott 040100
Otani of CO3MY M p0:e to add the
UO,0,0 0onPry a Plan. same MN4n9oi
As result e0 Madetmihearing :osal as advertised to
a.omcttwna. debate and meta.ce
.aim more lnlmmabon you may comas
SWAN' Eno Burka 8222411 - 203].4 copy of
the 00ro00 0110. WL0eInspunond during
f
€1 6,00 O ®fe'd"
46
Examples of CivicPlus
C+.1P C, La :M ICES
t •t0Y t
LPN
%API.E W OODNE W S
. f,
IR1tIDOtfl
01101
MAPI.I W'OODCALENDAR
M.e se non n tote.. o.Y e. .:+.v. t«.
Y+tM>nv VroYyw 1'v WP�Dna. tfO!SO
T Pe4OO,Camn9:l slral
too
Itto CeMYYLw -:IY 1.:p 14•4nvd • no,
IVY.. Nn wayse Yell (ervt Ne. 4/ �M✓
k&» llr /e.. :I .:.:.! ..__
Nt... rnWV t,..ttnt sox .pe:.e. &9 CMCNt
b cabin win,. W.f..tl I.wwa000n9 '
The
'Oil tww..otoa°�.a.nt::,rwm. «..euw
wxwa, (.111.0.01....1,1“1,11`1,0',. wtw
(Stab ...w D .t m:ner•.aen t..
.wa.+ooaees,a
.JYMENT
*OW WO3
MO too.... who
•
*ore CODE
ocionoco.onOOoro
MOYIXiwrcV
a'E%noto•O VIOIADON
o
:
T
1
:K*;fl �.
VOIC@Ijt.SE LABS • CSR L.CEYSES.?
52. 517205
'S. tiCEN :E !1EHEN' :l
0111diesson Listens Email Upalr1 E Contact Us
Com000lo too.
mt. oppothpaltle,
dame Sinks.
Chanhassen Evetti' : 7YU
June 2013
In the -News •
phi 1 "n wro `O°, w aumm..6:O* e+ r...w.t. tarots
aens ne. :a •>Y Im rwoe..3Gabal tt
Y r e sack .naowa :D. ..l :waon.nwolraamo-..
47
• .tl.ICI!ve.gei,,,
/N 1 FRNATIONAL
MINNISOI
r'
F
IULN S II( IM1!a. ��1^
1! FALF!!YC!tY d O!
gJ %U / /�FP / /A�O //O(�O! /J
MITb..AMfI,sQgaltOtonS &Si Nn,O„rAnvok,
FM. 41,,ItIlf x.0i0/1P3141k, p/Sn Xfga�
Nee iM'} g/
CUNp•1.1 in[(
St 1 nwaumuiYtNl l SW?
Ph WM 253904 i F[1218)20.1 III°
am-
St Cloud, Minnesota
„• W.m
n_, (4)' ltd.
,au • x. ,
•i NO. BAa M1Am!
!D WdMN't
• 4r.T!w VT
In!
14 II 41 It Hi II U ,
3-1'^,t,j- e. srle.G~
48
Examples of Weblinx
;1 HANOVER
ier TOWNSHIP'
Come to ei r sae!
Where Great Service Happens!
; ReemtNews,.
i s *21.13 MILER Rit50Vn
- ""afPotCEVEHC(0
,r.,laa.atp00e ¢ mwtl
oe
3O_ on w:a1;
Contact the Township
Upcoming Events
Mil.11 &XCA 1EIMIx[
tests
WIf>1
104.05 PRdRAu
Pot. 60111
Byron
Forest PresetI'e
72tE(/Y 1,4.1i.nt
1CLEtLR{W N,
Ilmu A5O( b..'Y RM./6 C.o:OOj fv''S ?:
New S: I mpmcod Sommer Div('
Adventure Club - Sign up today!
n¢5 slw..x / .xtV
SOIlle ring Especially For Von
wl.mn=.�H..:+.o.m ImSwi
a,.n+mkS Io,xa we bn.
belear. w.« H...Mawmwlotrw at. w Im.Mwmxlnr..w
0 DonloahLc Pom
.enan tam. m nw.ro.nre,.. .wnU
.11,0 tin
• ,.. ,.. :ssnmaMmo...c osI, nlo'x mxs tMOtYI :w.. ion
1
/Y, )Yo
49
tor
s.n- - �Inr.xww 0u.w.u[
Search our Sas
kaxl pnrgrtuFlt
ryy rµvY,mq.0 tmx
cfwt„gaxan....v _.
Imn DUr[Tall Int
t "(PO'
�,[nn» pInlnnl,oh 1 cw
NOmwood•lIonmesrc'
Pork :District
COMING SOON!
417MI3rfi[E! S20)rtt Gn:il Oar*"
arD e m p..c It_.wa[irr -,m
714/12135,-," Fin iv ircerrn
rts
i NEC Cmm.M P.Mw.ee.l
',aka 0 MmPM[E VYnx.m Conran,/
EFI Cure," PCafcnFal
GD.pMrLWv Wn CmrwW
SUMMER TI ME = FUN TIME
REGISTRATION ,
fvNV[emmtr MS • Varian" w nMre lO WO [Mk"
S R'Cr ina• program bulb" Is now avYlau Wirt.
M'Nlevtr your pew Mleryfls. rve *sla pmgramof
spW SI Y/Ml fa YOU. "OWWM1& musk all Summv lip.
se Out Starty Nigbu [Arcot" 4 Hulk in the park
eNip4 YOgM1, play 6 make nmr Mends al en" M our
yovlb pmmw camp. Ne Ne raw naun*N ark kup
CMISt tlOnl Club POO" nNbnY INpmbeMe Day wIIF
[Milt &fMn »n Family Fun tting•vauraxae
rni 2'/p
50
CLICK HERE
for FORMS
RESOURCES
Examples of Municipal Web Services
dommtatj "7" s.
It City ttenkes
• e "N.
•
Novi today
�. r%aRaNL;, PIfl Tool/Sun
Lime. teM.. nog eau
t Vtra
s: Jan tOM Mara.
Arne 21 at
ee4�
YT ias
E.Nevlleua5 ONenwml. Oo Paa,ksOPectM Requell
elopmm e.lty
Calendar Spotl ght On
3/1(103 1Ita9191umer Mt
i.x.t r.wy r.mly
rum'. Out at Nlt Wald
3)3913 Ca. Ma 3o(.ty Chocks
-x,
241
Urra
gtz
green `M::aaa,.e.
6/3911 Mewl Th1Great �wttmi Nao%arc CV, tumpeerca
redder. Ildbv.Inmunitti
Jn ` Ilea M164t NgTT. tm w`xwnwmnutm.t.
6 /13 /13
I(eeping You Posted
o, itfety SOLO m1Pa.Nan, Satutdar.6123 Imm.(p81
Sand tin 'tilt ooGr the cwt a We'M'o Palt •
Saw9oy.nd311tt a.Ipfl. 3t a. l'1m.a. male e.0
Annual Had Taman rvdat.m apn iunmp vampmat
908woff summer W.d.m 4(99,499999! C3) ofIhl Pegs.
Oe reation.citlCNlw.I SMCet M.vt rmt e(Iarnta3IV
Vr9try%h.: dInapknnoI.onitdtLw..ml 1AndM aM
an3 M aeal labb b Not. .xtomnhmya Ot nn nh9 euh
(aristo Ne.oN St6nye
Informetvnti P...tln( (a. all Orlm.aMln PadAKall Fro
sit et •-••
IC, 00
i
gtai
One Village. One Future
()HIV 1V
m a[no of
;ur c IJc. VTa•u Io proAde rtRn d ((
1 JAT ua
n e �a of mrvm n 4fiY Lunar
re , ��aabrAintAwithin mrommun brume AAA
A
; n
VW
aiertGe V ilv8euiaun. GtiLp V:UAL&
AMIA .101.:: a
11'd,A,Am..:
y:
�Illalttel llaemret %.uiil,"!; Wsu,,,.IYewir 13lba16oW. to %na.WO4a]]
A uvl .••••;5o29,AS se.,- dinuit,.
00
M,)1 caftan,
P1 'Historic 40nlnrfvont Community
IWo, And nnnwncem + nts
.20/;57
PERVOBMANCE 1 DASHBOARD;:
FIRSICALL
,%re ?rrnn+
tigAo-aa
52
... cut 000
Ramsey County Aerial Deer Survey
7-0 1, 1 t7e e „ S1, ,- e7 CI l 2 3% ,
53
d h A V A O' V 'I' 011 A 00 03 0 01 01
N 0 < A
Oa ILi
N C
N w II i 9 N # (0 O h (O N 0 0 O h N
d CO CO O r CO 0 h N r Y O CO
O
9
N 4O
it
N N N O CO N N M W'0 O V N
y (O O CO M 0 h 0 N rIN N
O y V .0
0'0
N C
#
CO
d to co N 0 h O V N 10 0
CO d
00'0
N G
#
M W W V N to 40
CO N
0 9 1
N
gt
d N r N OO O N d' (0 N A
A y
o
N G
M (0 Or N OD N W h (0 V 0
O d
a
N 5
N 15
4t
Y
I. O h (0 M M^ O V V Nth r
a o
CO N
a
0 N O
a #
p 0 to 01 0
4 co h h co M M co M A
O
o 09
q O
2 #
4
. N y
, 00 '0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.0 N o
43 it
N M CO 01 CO 0 I0 (0 O 0) N N A ( 0
4) 0 N CO
CC
o a to
i
; N Q
#
3 O co r co h C) co co
rn 0 ru)aN va o
y gm
a-
oa
N
0
4 ... V N (0 M t r N CO rd
0 m
c m a
E 0
t #
n
a
0
0
c
0
q
m
`0
C m m
0 0
a it o
0
co m O N (0
0. C O
O oo ;C O
a `C£ 0 en C
0 Q Z a to P O
O a N Q .0 a) m 'pa H
= L mN N
0 . TO al
m m > 0 0 C m • ' QQ — c o. - c0 a 10
O .i) ->
54
CO r 0 0
d d
N
d
9
N
iR
,ON V
N N
r
N
N ^ ID
N O
M N
LO 0 e- MMN N 0IN
N
0000 m O,0
M M
0)
N V CO M 0 m OJ 47 r 0)
00 N 0) OOP CO
0 M r 0 N N N V N CO CO
MOON O- CO N ('1 Nr O V N WIN LO Cr-
O r
O
N
V W M m r
d m V> V N O W
N M N C M r m M CO
r C N
CI d
CD
N
u
W
0V 1 i 1
N C
W LC) IV r
CO CO M d r N N CO CO M 'N
O d
O V
N C
M N N CO O O r� CO N N M m 1- MW1'
0 d r
Oy
0
N C
u
CO N N N
CO M 0.
O d
O D
N 46
O OM W W N
O d
N n
O
Yk
N y
O
NO
d
m 0
m
m 9
`w o
x u
0
0
0
3
co
0 o00
o
E
t a
m 0
Z.
0
N d
CZ
a--
• O r m
00 ,O
• r O 0
S
CO
N CO 0
0 CO
V 0 0
0
0 0 0 N CO 10 O r 1- co MI M O to V N
V' 1-- N 00 V' O V' CO N V N ,O Col
r O co M cog), co V VIN V m O
'V CO O� CO `M
M' CO W 1- V M V CO W W 0 V CO CO V0
M 01 ,0 W ' N COI N 0
V' m 010 ON CO CO r `m CO 4.0 CO
CO m CO 1` ,O CO O N M M' NV
m (0 0 N
v to
O r CD -
V' V 0 N 1- 01 03
Q N N M M' M
10 M CO N
M
CO 11-- 00
N N
N t-- M
N
0
d
O 0
,0 « d d
c 3 a�i Q m o m • o W 's O m
a m TO m
0 0 o ff m
-o • o E
E yt a
O 41 0 d ri
.o E ` m
0'0 d N 0
'2 Y N d Y 0
co, O 6' C -1 J U J @ CO
O
0 O N 2 2 N O
rn CO m O co d 6
O
c
Y(0O Z CD
2012 Weekly Deer Control Report
M 'r N
CO
0 0 O
0 0 O
0 0 O
1 1 1 1 3 O 00
O 0 O
0
0 0
Q
r O 0 O O O O O
O O O '''' 0 O O O O
0
r O I 0 O 0 0 0 0
0 O O r O r r O M r N 0 O O
r0 r r O • 0 O O O O O
0 O O • r • 0 O O O O O
M
C0 O O r O r O O N r r 0 O O
1.0
0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O
O O O N r O r N 'O M r 0 0 0
T
N r O r O O N 0 O 10 V r Z 0 0
m
0 0 0 '' 0 O 0 Z 0
` O N N 2 0 2 J = 2
y 0 0 g3 N !A N N
3 °m¢£d3
'_ .
zeN °c
N
0) r
m
m m
O te
m
0 2
MBRB Total
N
Frattaione Site
0 Y
o
0 3
m
56
0 CC
0 0 0 CO
r r r 0 (.0
M
O
N
N (0
r
0
0r
n
0 0 0' 0 'n r • 0 10
0 0 0 0 o o■ Q Q 0 0
Z Z
W Y N N
O O u o 0
°1- f-
m
Y Y N ON N>
W` N 0
3' 3 3 t g
v 5
ON 2 as E
Y N
0 ' a c 0
m ` O 0
U O
a
U y
Male
uanada
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
CITY OF LITTLE CANADA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND INTERIM USE PERMIT
PROPOSAL:
A request for approval of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage (Accessory Use),
Interim Use Permit for Off -Site Outdoor Storage, Conditional Use Permit for Auto- Repair Major, Renewal
of lapsed Conditional Use Permit for Storage Containers, and Conditional Use Permit for Proof Of Parking.
The property in question is zoned Light- Industrial (1 -1) District.
APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER:
Russ Fischer
6363 Jamaca Avenue N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
PROPERTY LOCATION:
200 -208 Ryan Drive
Little Canada, MN 55117
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at its regular meeting scheduled for
Thursday, June 13, 2013. 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, June 26, 2013 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 platter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday,
June 13, 2013 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, June 26, 2013.
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
1
3 -13
From: Russell Fischer
208 Ryan Drive
Little Canada, MN. 55117
To; The City of Little Canada
1) In regards to my conditional use permit for storage containers at 208 Ryan Drive, 1 am looking
for an extension for the permit which was purchased on March 29`", 2012. At this time, my
tenants don't need the containers, but I need the option to put the storage containers In as
needed for the tenants to rent for future use.
2) I am requesting that my auto mechanic and other tenant contractors have the option to park
vehicles overnight with current tabs along the back fenced area and back of building where
there is already parking spaces.
3) The East end of my building located on Ryan Drive is currently used for storage. Some of my
tenants and other Little Canada companies currently rent these spaces. 1 am looking for the
option to rent these spaces out to companies based In Little Canada and companies based
outside of Little Canada in order to make sure these spaces are rented to help cover the cost of
property taxes.
Sincerely,
Russell 1. Fischer
2
3
fa #SRN)
fAN:in\
Cee?ttle
uanada
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: May 15, 2013
RE: 200 -208 Ryan Drive — CUP Amendments, Interim Use Permit, and
CUP for Proof of Parking
Russ Fisher has requested consideration of several planning actions which include
Amendment of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Outdoor Storage (Accessory Use),
Issuance of Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Off -Site Outdoor Storage, CUP for Auto - Repair
Major, Renewal of lapsed CUP for Storage Containers, and a CUP for Proof of Parking at
200 -208 Ryan Drive. These planning items are a result of the current uses and needs that
the tenants and property owner have at the site.
I have outlined the code requirements for each of the zoning items requested and inserted
staff comments in italics.
• Amendment of CUP for Outdoor Storage (Accessory Use).
The property owner is requesting an amendment to the current CUP for outdoor
storage to expand the storage area. The current CUP allows for storage along
the east side of the property. The amendment would be to allow two additional
storage areas behind the building. Below are the code requirements for outdoor
storage.
1. The activity of outdoor storage shall require a separate business license
issued by the City of Little Canada.
The property owner has an outdoor storage license and will be required to
continue to obtain upon approval.
2. The storage area in question occupies an area no greater than sixty (60)
percent of the gross square footage of the subject parcel.
4
The proposed amendment factoring all three outdoor storage areas would
account less than 25% of the subject parcel.
3. The storage area shall not occupy any portion of the yard between the
front building line and the adjoining public street, or the side building line
and public street on a corner lot.
The current and proposed outdoor storage areas meet this code
requirement.
4. The storage is utilized solely by those tenants of the principal building in
an amount proportionate to each tenant's occupancy of said principal
building.
The property owner has requested consideration to continue to allow
"rental" outdoor storage to non - tenants of the building and non - Little
Canada businesses for the east storage area as currently allowed in his
CUP issued in 1999. This provision will be discussed in greater detail
later in the report.
5. The outdoor storage of equipment or materials, as defined by this
Ordinance, must be capable of moving under its own power, stored on a
trailer, stored within weather -proof containers, or other storage
arrangements as approved by the City Council. Storage of any material
directly on the ground when the dimensions of such item are less than
three (3) feet in width, length, and height, shall be prohibited wherever the
City Council determines that reasonable alternatives exist consistent with
this section.
The properly owner has indicated that the storage area directly behind the
building will be utilized for licensed and operable trailers and /or vehicles.
The storage area on the east side of the building could consist of
inoperable and /or unlicensed vehicles, as well as, other materials (salvage
repair license, see below). Additionally, the storage on the east side of the
building is where the placement of the weather-proof containers will exist
if and when the need arises.
Given one of the current tenants of the building has a salvage repair
license with the City, it is reasonable to assume that some of the
repairables will be inoperable. As such, staff recommends that the
placement of the inoperable and /or unlicensed vehicles only be allowed on
the east side of the building in the designated storage area. This location
is the least visible and is fully screened. In addition, given the .square
footage of this storage area, the number of vehicles that will he inoperable
and/or unlicensed will be limited by space ensuring junk/debris does not
become a code enforcement issue. Therefore, .staff considers the intent of
this code provision to be met.
5
6. When storage or shipping containers are utilized, the following regulations
shall apply:
a. Containers shall be those manufactured expressly for the purpose
of storing and /or shipping materials.
b. No container, for the purpose of this ordinance, shall be greater
than forty (40) feet in length, eight (8) feet in width, or eight and
one half (8.5) feet in height.
c. No more than one (1) such container may be allowed for each
seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of lot area.
d. Containers shall not be stacked or arranged to exceed the eight and
one -half (8.5) foot height.
e. Containers shall be painted to match or be complementary in color
to the principal building, and shall be maintained to avoid rusting
or other visible deterioration of the container.
f. There shall be no storage of hazardous materials, as defined by the
zoning ordinance Section 902 of this Ordinance, within any such
container.
This is one of the planning actions requested by the properly owner,*
consideration. Staff will review this in further detail later in the report.
7. Outdoor storage areas must be kept in an orderly condition, permitting
vehicular access to all materials or equipment. Lanes at least twenty (20)
feet in width shall be required to meet this standard. No portion of the
outdoor storage shall be more than fifty (50) feet from any access lane or
other drive aisle, nor shall it block access to hydrants, fire sprinklers, or
other fire - fighting equipment. Except for construction equipment which is
stored or parked in its most compact condition, outdoor storage may not
exceed eight (8) feet in height as measured from the ground on which it is
located.
Access needs to be clear and maintained. The outdoor storage areas
proposed appear to meet this code requirement.
8. The storage area shall be fenced and fully screened from adjoining non-
industrial property, park and trail areas, and public right of way. Where
properly fenced and screened, outdoor storage may encroach into the
required side or rear yard setback area. Gates may be excluded from this
screening requirement as provided for in Section 903.020.0.6.
The storage area to the east side of the building is fully screened (see staff
comments below in #9 with regards to additional screening). The outdoor
storage areas being added in the rear yard behind the building are visible
from Ryan Lane. The property owner will need to add screening for these
.storage areas that meets the current code requirements.
6
9. Screening shall consist of masonry walls or fencing constructed of wood
or vinyl, as well as landscaping. Metal fencing may be used where
landscaping provides a complete year -round screen and is irrigated to
ensure survivability in compliance with Section 903.020.F (Fences) of this
Ordinance.
Screening exists of chain -link with slats for the outdoor storage area
visible from Ryan Drive. This was an acceptable, form of screening for the
CUP issued in 1999. The chain -link with slats is in good condition and is
being maintained by the property owner. However, our current code
allows for metal fencing where landscaping provides a complete year -
round screening. The property owner will be required to install
landscaping along the Ryan Drive storage area if the metal fencing
remains.
In addition, the property owner will be required to add screening to the
storage areas visible from Ryan Lane. The screening used for this area
must comply with the current code requirements which would not allow
for chain -link with slats.
10. Waste or recyclable material shall be contained in a refuse container. All
such containers shall be stored within a screened enclosure within the rear
yard of the property.
The waste containers abut the building and are stored directly behind in
one of the proposed storage areas. Screening is provided by the building.
Staff would recommend that the containers either be stored towards the
center or eastern edge of the storage area behind the building. By doing
so, it reduces their visibility/from Ryan Lane.
11. The storage area shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or other material
approved by the City Council.
The three storage areas approved are all paved with asphalt.
12. The storage area shall not occupy any space required for conformity to the
parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property owner is requesting approval of Proof of Parking and this
will be reviewed later in the report.
13. The property, including buildings and exterior site areas, shall comply
with all applicable fire codes.
Approval would be subject to the above condition.
14. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not
be visible from the public right -of -way or from neighboring residential
uses, and shall be in compliance with Section 903.020.I of the Zoning
Ordinance.
No changes are proposed to this requirement.
7
15. All other provisions and requirements as deemed necessary by the City
Council.
16. The applicant complies with the provisions of Section 921 of' the Zoning
Ordinance.
• Issuance of IUP for Off -Site Outdoor Storage.
In 1999 when this property owner was issued a CUP for outdoor storage, the city
code allowed the principal use of open and outdoor storage for "renters" that did
not occupy space within the building. That use was removed from the code
entirely and the currently the 1 -1 zoning district allows a modified version by
Interim Use Permit.
Currently the "rental" outdoor storage on the property is being used by a renter
of another property in Ryan Industrial Park. Therefore, it would comply with the
current code for an Interim Use .Permit (IUP) to be granted.
So you are aware, staff has told the property that his "rental" outdoor storage
meets the code requirements for an IUP and that his outdoor storage as a
principal use will be discontinued with this permit. However, the property owner
will probably request your consideration to allow him to continue having
"rental" outdoor storage to those that do not occupy space within the building
and to any "renter" even those not located within the City as his current CUP
allows.
If off -site storage is going to be permitted by an IUP, 1 have outlined below the
code requirements.
914.045. INTERIM USES (Requires an interim use permit based upon
procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 921 of this Ordinance.)
A. Off Site Outdoor Storage, provided that:
1. Off -site outdoor storage shall require a license in addition to any other
business or outdoor storage license required by the City.
The property owner will be required to obtain this separate license.
2. This interim use permit may not be utilized for the off -site storage of
motor vehicles or parts of motor vehicles.
The "rental" storage is currently being used by an asphalt paving
company, plus some of that business owner's personal storage items.
There are two party buses and there has been one or two of hi.s passenger
automobiles. This site already has two or three auto - related businesses
8
located within the building. It would be staff's opinion that given the
number of vehicles already parked and stored on the site that the "rental"
storage complies with this provision. Additionally, because the IUP's
intent is to allow a property owner in the I -1 zoning district the ability to
rent storage to another business in the same district, it would then not be
for storage of personal items. Staff would require removal of the party
buses and personal automobiles as they are not associated with the
asphalt business. The off-site storage would be tied to the business
storage items.
3. The owner of the storage material owns and operates a business (the
"operator ") in Little Canada zoned 1 -1.
The current "rental" storage .situation complies with this provision and it
would be staff's recommendation that any future "rental" storage comply.
4. The location of the off -site storage is zoned I -1 (the "off -site location ").
The current "rental" storage situation complies with this provision and it
would be staff's recommendation that any future "rental" storage comply.
5. The storage area meets all of the conditions for outdoor storage listed in
Section 914.040.0 as if it were accessory to the principal use on the
subject parcel, with the exception of 914.040.0.4 of this Ordinance.
The current "rental" storage situation complies with this provision and it
would be staff's recommendation that any future "rental" storage comply.
6. Both the operator's parcel and the off -site location are found to be in full
compliance with all applicable zoning regulations at the time of
application, and have had no history of zoning violations in the previous
twelve (12) months.
Staff is not aware of any past or current violations with either parcel.
7. The owner of the property and the owner of the storage material execute a
development agreement with the City specifying any additional conditions
for use and operation of the storage area, including a termination date for
the interim use permit not more than five (5) years from the date of
approval.
With the above changes being made to the permit, it would be staff's
recommendation that the Development Agreement be between the City and
the owner of the property. This allows the properly owner the ability to
change "renters" within the five year period without having to apply for a
new permit. Additionally, it gives some flexibility within the IUP for
whom the renter of storage would be, but the above condition that the
storage may not be utilized for storage of motor vehicles or parts of motor
vehicles would be included as a condition.
• CUP for Auto - Repair— Major
9
This property has a history of auto - related uses occurring on the site. In 2012,
the property owner was issued a CUP for two Indoor Vehicle Motor Sales
businesses at this location. At that time, city staff did not indicate that one of the
new businesses also conducted auto - repair major because this was a use that
already existed with another auto - repair business in the building. However, in
reviewing the code, auto - repair major is allowed by CUP. As such, stiff should
have included that as part of the approval. Therefore, staff is recommending this
be included as part of these amendments to further confirm all the uses on the
site.
• Renewal of lapsed CUP for Storage Containers.
A CUP was issued in March 2012 for up to three storage containers in the
outdoor storage area on the east side of the building to be utilized for tenants of
the building. CUP 's must be exercised within twelve months from the date of the
approval, or the approval will lapse. To this point the property owner has not
needed these containers and as such has not established said use on the property.
The applicant is requesting this approval be reestablished with the same
conditions as before which stated the shipping containers must be maintained in
accordance with the above provisions of the ordinance and subject to approval by
the Fire Marshal of the location and layout within the storage area.
An additional request of the property owner is to allow more than one year to
establish the storage containers. The reason for this request is that he does not
want the containers to become permanent fixtures on his property, but rather only
on the site based on the current needs of his tenants. To date, his tenants have not
needed the containers. Staff considers this a reasonable request and appreciates
the consideration of the property owner to keep the site neat and orderly. As such,
staff recommends the property owner be allowed up to three years to establish the
storage container use before the permit would lapse. At which time, if the
containers have not been established prior to the lapse in the permit consideration
could be given to extend before that deadline. This allows staff an opportunity to
review the current storage needs and compliance on the site without given
indefinite approval
Below are the CUP code requirements for storage containers (same as the
existing permit) —
When storage or shipping containers are utilized, the following regulations
shall apply:
a. Containers shall be those manufactured expressly for the purpose
of storing and /or shipping materials.
10
b. No container, for the purpose of this ordinance, shall be greater
than forty (40) feet in length, eight (8) feet in width, or eight and
one half (8.5) feet in height.
c. No more than one (1) such container may be allowed for each
seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of lot area,
d. Containers shall not be stacked or arranged to exceed the eight and
one -half (8.5) foot height.
e. Containers shall be painted to match or be complementary in color
to the principal building, and shall be maintained to avoid rusting
or other visible deterioration of the container.
f. There shall be no storage of hazardous materials, as defined by the
zoning ordinance Section 902 of this Ordinance, within any such
container.
• CUP for Proof of Parking
This property currently consists of Metro Cleaning (business owned by the
property owner), two auto - related businesses, and one open space. Russ Fisher
has himself and two additional employees in the office while the two auto - related
businesses have the business owner and maybe one employee each. The auto -
related businesses tend to have more arranged appointment and therefore do not
create a high parking demand at one time. As a result, the property owner is
requesting a Proof of Parking CUP.
The CUP issued in 1999 required the site to have 46 parking spaces, all of which
were established on the site. Based on the current uses, city staff calculates that
the site would be required to have 42 parking spaces. The parking spaces that
were established behind the building are what the property owner is requesting be
changed to an outdoor storage area. By converting the parking to storage that
still leaves 21 off-street parking spaces on the site. Staff believes this is adequate
given the limited number of employees that each of the current businesses have.
Staff recommends approval of the Proof of Parking CUP based on the finding that
in the future should additional parking be needed at any time then one of the
outdoor storage areas behind the building could be converted back to required
off - street parking to comply. I have copied below the code requirements firr your
review.
Proof of Parking. The City Council may approve a reduction in the actual
number of spaces to be constructed accessory to any use by the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit, per the requirements of Section 921.030 of
this Ordinance. A Conditional Use Permit for such a reduction shall be
allowed only where an applicant can demonstrate the following:
a. The demand for parking actually needed by the proposed use will
be less than ninety (90) percent of the requirement which applies
under this Ordinance;
11
b. Based upon an appropriately designed site plan the required
number of spaces may be constructed at some future date on the
subject site in full conformance with all other requirements of the
City's Zoning Ordinance and Building Code;
c. The applicant and City enter into a development agreement, to be
recorded against the subject property, which includes a clause
requiring the owner to install the additional parking stalls, upon a
finding by the Planning Commission that such additional parking
stalls are necessary to accommodate the use;
d. A change of use will necessitate either a new application for a
"Proof of Parking" Conditional Use Permit, or compliance with the
applicable Zoning Ordinance standard for parking.
CC: Russ Fisher, Property Owner
12
a?ttle
uanada
MAYOR
Bill lllesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 5 5117 -1 60 0
(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Blesener & Members of the City Council
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: June 21, 2013
RE: Russ Fischer Zoning Application
City staff has verified that the busses stored on his property are owned by Joe Reif. Mr.
Relf is currently a renter within Don Valento's building at 3176 Spruce Street — Ryan
Industrial Park, These busses are associated with a business and are not personal
recreational items or motor vehicles. Therefore, it would be city staff's
recommendation that the busses be allowed as part of the Interim Use Permit issued
to Russ Fischer for outdoor storage for non - tenants of the building. Staff is still
recommending that all automobiles that are not for business use be removed from
the property and not be included as part of the IUP approval.
13
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION
LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA
JUNE 13, 2013
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 13th day of
June, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515
Little Canada Road in said City.
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. Dan Knudsen
Mr. Tom Duray
Mr. Scott Barraclough
Mr. Tom Fischer
Ms. Jennifer Maleitzke
Ms. Heidi Murphy
Mr. Nick Schwalbach
ALSO PRESENT:
Mr. Steve Grittman, City Planner
Ms. Vanessa VanAlstine, Cable TV
Ms. Kathy Glanzer, City Clerk
MINUTES The April 11, 2013 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved
as submitted.
CUP'S, Russ Fischer, 200 -208 Ryan Drive, appeared before the Commission
IUP requesting approval of the following:
200 -208 *Amendment of Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage
RYAN (accessory use);
DRIVE - *Interim Use Permit for Off -Site Outdoor Storage;
RUSS *Conditional Use Permit for Auto - Repair Major;
FISCHER *Renewal of lapsed Conditional Use Permit for storage containers;
*Conditional Use Permit for proof of parking.
Fischer reported that he has only been able to lease his property at 200-
208 Ryan Drive to auto mechanics. The mechanics have the need to park
vehicles outdoors overnight that are scheduled to be repaired the next day.
Fischer described the outdoor storage areas on the site plan as well as the
recommendations as contained in the Code Enforcement Officer's report
relative to the screening of these storage areas. Knudsen pointed out that
using slats in a chain -line fence is no longer an acceptable screening
method. Fischer indicated that he would be utilizing both landscaping as
well as a wooden fence for screening.
14
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2013
Knudsen asked if Fischer has reviewed the Code Enforcement Officer's
report and asked if he had any questions or issues of concern. Fischer
stated that the issue he has is with his ability to rent outdoor storage to
businesses located outside of Little Canada. Fischer reported that he
currently he rents outdoor storage space to a blacktop company that is
located in Ryan Industrial Park. However, he would like to be able to rent
outdoor storage to non -Little Canada business as he was allowed under his
current CUP.
Knudsen reported that the City changed the Code a number of years ago
eliminating the ability to rent outdoor storage to non - Little Canada
businesses. Knudsen reported that when first considering amendments
which would tighten outdoor storage allowances, the intention was to limit
outdoor storage to businesses that occupy buildings on the premises. The
City then ran into situations where neighboring property owners were
working together and some businesses were renting outdoor storage space
from adjacent properties. Knudsen noted that while the City was not
interested in having outdoor storage as a primary use on a property, it did
want to provide some flexibility so that Little Canada businesses could
work together.
Fischer noted that he needed the revenue from the leasing of outdoor
storage space. Knudsen stated that he would not recommend changing the
Code to allow the leasing of outdoor storage space to non - Little Canada
businesses. He pointed out that the City has worked hard in addressing the
issue of outdoor storage.
Fischer asked if he made no changes on his property if he would have the
ability to rent outdoor storage to non - Little Canada businesses as provided
for in a current Conditional Use Permit. The City Planner reported that
Ryan Industrial Park property owners had been given the choice to retain
existing Conditional Use Permits with the conditions that were in effect at
the time the CUP was issued. However, if changes were requested, these
property owners were informed that they had to comply with current
standards. Under the new standards an Interim Use Permit is required for
off -site outdoor storage, and that storage can only be for Little Canada
businesses. The Planner also noted the revised screening standards.
Knudsen pointed out that these new standards allow some flexibility for
leasing outdoor storage space to Little Canada businesses. Knudsen stated
that he understands Fischer's position, but again indicated that this is the
compromise that the City arrived at.
Duray asked about Fischer's ability to rent outdoor storage space to a
Little Canada business. The City Planner pointed out that this is the
Interim Use Permit that is before the Commission this evening. Duray
- 2 -
15
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2013
asked if the outdoor storage limitation to Little Canada businesses would
work for Fischer. Fischer asked if the outdoor storage could be
residential. The City Planner replied that it would be limited to business
storage. Duray asked Fischer if a continued outdoor storage lease with the
asphalt company would be sufficient. Fischer pointed out that when he
has leased outdoor storage space, there have been times when the business
would then also lease building space as it became available. Fischer stated
restricting him to leasing outdoor storage space to only Little Canada
businesses was very limiting.
Knudsen stated that he did not believe the City would be inclined to open
outdoor storage up again pointing out the work that City has done on this
issue. Knudsen asked if Fischer had any other concerns with staff's
recommendations.
Schwalbach asked what made the City change its stance on outdoor
storage. Knudsen explained that outdoor storage has been an enforcement
problem, and the City looked at limiting outdoor storage so that it could
not be a principal use of a property. In studying the issue and noting that
there were Little Canada businesses that needed additional outdoor storage
space over what was available at their current location, the City
compromised allowing off -site outdoor storage for Little Canada
businesses. The City Planner also answered the question from an
economic development standpoint noting that outdoor storage is a
utilization of property without any improvements. He pointed out the
aesthetic issues of outdoor storage, that outdoor storage does not generate
employment, and does not improve the tax base.
Duray asked about the reference in staff's report relative to the need for a
development agreement. The City Planner noted that it is not uncommon
to require a development agreement in conjunction with an interim use
permit so that there is no confusion on the part of the applicant as to when
the interim use permit expires. The Planner noted that unlike a
Conditional Use Permit, an Interim Use Permit does not run with the land.
The Planner also indicated that a 5 -year term for an Interim Use Permit is
not unreasonable and also pointed out that outdoor storage requires a
license.
Duray asked about the processing of changes at staff level. The Planner
noted that this was one of the changes in updating outdoor storage
regulations in that minor changes could be processed at the staff level.
Duray asked if there was adequate parking availability on the site. The
Planner replied that there was.
- 3 -
16
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2013
Duray asked if Fischer understood that if approved as recommended by
City staff, he would not be allowed to lease outdoor storage space to non-
Little Canada businesses. Fischer stated that he understood.
Duray recommended approval of the following for 200 -208 Ryan Drive,
Mr. Russ Fischer, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the
Code Enforcement Officer as outlined in her May 15, 2013 report:
• Amendment of Conditional Use permit for outdoor Storage
(Accessory Use);
• Interim Use Permit for Off -Site Outdoor Storage;
• Conditional use Permit for Auto - Repair Major;
• Renewal of lapsed Conditional Use Permit for storage containers;
• Conditional Use Permit for proof -of- parking.
Motion seconded by Knudsen.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
COMPRE- The City Planner reviewed his report dated June 7, 2013 proposing an
HENSIVE Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans.
SIGN PLANS The Planner reported that a Conditional Use Permit is currently required
for Comprehensive Sign Plans for multi - tenant buildings. He noted that
these plans are required to meet the requirements of the Sign Code as well
as the City's Architectural Guidelines. Therefore, in order to streamline
the process, staff is proposing that applications for Comprehensive Sign
Plans that meet all Code requirements and Architectural Guidelines
require only administrative staff review. Knudsen asked if applications
that are outside these standards would come before the Commission and
Council. The Planner replied that that is correct. Applications that do not
meet standards would require a Variance action or some other planning
action that would require Commission and Council review.
Fischer pointed out that in some past applications there was concern
expressed by neighboring property owners that proposed pylon signage
obscured their signage. He noted that without the hearing process,
neighbors would not get heard. The City Planner indicated that from
staff's perspective if an application met all Code requirements, the City is
bound to approve regardless of a neighbor's objection.
Duray asked about cost. It was pointed out that a CUP application of this
nature requires a $750 deposit. Regardless of whether a CUP is required
or not, a Sign Permit would also be required. Therefore, eliminating the
CUP process substantially reduces the cost to the applicant.
- 4 -
17
��t6tle
uanada
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 7664029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
CITY OF LITTLE CANADA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSAL:
The City of Little Canada is proposing the following:
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans;
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to cul -de -sac length;
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to single - family accessory uses and the definition of
family;
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at its regular meeting scheduled for
Thursday, June 13, 2013. 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, June 26, 2013 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,
June 13, 2013 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, June 26, 2013.
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
1
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231 .2556 Facsimile: 763.231.2581 plannersOnacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Little Canada Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: June 7, 2013
RE: Little Canada — Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Comprehensive
Sign Plans
FILE NO: 758.10 — 13.02
Background and Analysis
The Planning Commission has discussed certain amendments to the zoning ordinance,
one of which is a change to the processing of Comprehensive Sign Plan requests for
multi- tenant commercial property. Under the current regulations, a Comprehensive
Sign Plan is required for any multi- tenant building, with the required process being a
Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed change would retain the Comprehensive Sign Plan requirement, but
revise the process to an administrative review. The standard for administrative review
would be compliance with the general sign ordinance requirements. Any changes
beyond the allowances of the code would then only be possible within the context of a
project approved by PUD, or if the City would consider a variance — obviously only very
unique conditions would provide these options.
The current language reads as follows:
b. Conditional Uses. In the case of a shopping center or where there are two (2) or
more business uses located within one structure or on one property, the approval
of a conditional use permit shall be required for the entire complex in accordance
with an overall site plan indicating the size, location and height of all signs. A
maximum of fifteen (15) percent of the building silhouette shall apply to the
principal building where the aggregate allowable sign area is distributed among
the several businesses. In the case of applying this conditional use permit to a
complex, the complex may have two (2) freestanding signs identifying the
complex in accordance with the following:
2
(1) Only one (1) sign per street frontage. Lot shall have at least five hundred (500)
feet of total street frontage to be allowed two (2) signs.
(2) Identification signs may be located no closer than five (5) feet to any street
right -of -way.
(3) Where more than one shopping center identification sign is to be located on
such property, no such sign shall be located less than forty (40) feet from point of
intersection of property lines. For purposes of determining the gross area of the
silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that area
within an outline drawing of the principal building as viewed from the front lot
line or from the related public street(s).
The change would occur in the initial paragraph, as follows:
b. Conditional -Uses Comprehensive Sign Plan. In the case of a shopping center or
where there are two (2) or more business uses located within one structure or on
one property, the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
shall be required for the entire complex in accordance with an overall site plan
indicating the size, location and height of all signs. The Comprehensive Sign Plan
shall be an administrative permit, provided the plan meets all size, location, and
other standards of this Section and any applicable Architectural Guidelines
applicable to the district in which the sign would be located. A maximum of
fifteen (15) percent of the building silhouette shall apply to the principal building
where the aggregate allowable sign area is distributed among the several
businesses. In the case of applying this Comprehensive
Sign Plan to a complex of more than one building, the complex may have two (2)
freestanding signs identifying the complex in accordance with the following:
Summary and Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance The vast majority (if not all) of the
previously approved Comprehensive Sign Plans have been approved provided they
meet the requirements of the City's zoning and architectural guidelines. This will
provide a simpler process for property owners and code enforcement staff as well.
pc: Kathy Glanzer
Steve Westerhaus
Lee Elfering
3
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2013
COMPRE-
HENSIVE
SIGN PLANS
Duray asked if Fischer understood that if approved as recommended by
City staff, he would not be allowed to lease outdoor storage space to non-
Little Canada businesses. Fischer stated that he understood.
Duray recommended approval of the following for 200 -208 Ryan Drive,
Mr. Russ Fischer, subject to compliance with the recommendations of the
Code Enforcement Officer as outlined in her May 15, 2013 report:
• Amendment of Conditional Use permit for outdoor Storage
(Accessory Use);
• Interim Use Permit for Off-Site Outdoor Storage;
• Conditional use Permit for Auto - Repair Major;
• Renewal of lapsed Conditional Use Permit for storage containers;
• Conditional Use Permit for proof -of- parking.
Motion seconded by Knudsen.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
The City Planner reviewed his report dated June 7, 2013 proposing an
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans.
The Planner reported that a Conditional Use Permit is currently required
for Comprehensive Sign Plans for multi -tenant buildings. He noted that
these plans are required to meet the requirements of the Sign Code as well
as the City's Architectural Guidelines. Therefore, in order to streamline
the process, staff is proposing that applications for Comprehensive Sign
Plans that meet all Code requirements and Architectural Guidelines
require only administrative staff review. Knudsen asked if applications
that are outside these standards would come before the Commission and
Council. The Planner replied that that is correct. Applications that do not
meet standards would require a Variance action or some other planning
action that would require Commission and Council review.
Fischer pointed out that in some past applications there was concern
expressed by neighboring property owners that proposed pylon signage
obscured their signage. He noted that without the hearing process,
neighbors would not get heard. The City Planner indicated that from
staff's perspective if an application met all Code requirements, the City is
bound to approve regardless of a neighbor's objection.
Duray asked about cost. It was pointed out that a CUP application of this
nature requires a $750 deposit. Regardless of whether a CUP is required
or not, a Sign Permit would also be required. Therefore, eliminating the
CUP process substantially reduces the cost to the applicant.
- 4 -
4
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2013
Knudsen recommended approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Code
relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans as proposed by the City Planner in
his report dated June 7, 2013.
Motion seconded by Maleitzke.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
CUL -DE -SAC The City Planner reported that the City has had some discussion relative
LENGTH to maximum length of cul -de -sacs over the last several years. Initially
there was a 500 foot limitation on the length of a cul -de -sac. In
considering the remaining land left to develop in the City, the Council had
enacted a provision that allowed the Council to approve a longer cul -de-
sac length, without need for a variance, where additional natural resources
would be preserved without negatively impacting public safety. The
Planner reported that the concern is that this language is overly limiting.
Therefore, City staff is proposing an amendment which states "The City
reserves the right to require, without the need for a variance, longer cul-
de -sac length where additional natural resources, public utilities, or other
objectives of the City's Comnrehensive Plan and land use objectives, as
determined by the City Council, will be preserved or accomplished
without negatively impacting public safety. The Planner pointed out that
it is at the Planning Commission's and Council's discretion whether or not
a longer cul-de -sac is approved.
Knudsen noted that this language retains the 500 foot maximum cul -de -sac
length as the City's standard. The Planner replied that that is correct, but
the new language expands the City's discretionary authority and allows
the City to approve a longer cul -de -sac where it believes warranted. The
Planner noted that a longer cul -de -sac length cannot be requested by a
developer solely to increase lot count.
Murphy recommended approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Code
relative to cul -de -sac length as recommended by the City Planner in his
June 7, 2013 report.
Motion seconded by Sehwalbaeh.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
DEFINITION The City Planner requested that the Commission table action on the
OF FAMILY proposed Amendment to the definition of family at this time. He indicated
that he needs to discuss this amendment with the City Attorney prior to
presentation to the Commission.
- 5 -
5
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 7664029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
CITY OF LITTLE CANADA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSAL:
The City of Little Canada is proposing the following:
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans;
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to cul -de -sac length;
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to single- family accessory uses and the definition of
family;
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at its regular meeting scheduled for
Thursday, June 13, 2013. 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, June 26, 2013 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,
June 13, 2013 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, June 26, 2013.
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.
1
Joel R. Hanson
City Administrator
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 783.231 .2501 plannera(idnacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Little Canada Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: June 7, 2013
RE: Little Canada — Cul- de-sac Length
FILE NO: 758.10 —13.02
Backaround and Analysis
Staff has discussed the application of the City's regulations relating to cul-de -sac length,
and the restrictions that apply to flexibility in those regulations. The current language
reads as follows:
B. Local Streets and Dead -End Streets. Local streets should be planned so as to
discourage their use by non -local traffic. Dead -end streets are prohibited, but cul-
de -sacs shall be permitted where topography or other physical conditions justify
their use. Except for "Temporary cul -de -sacs as described in Section
1006.030.(d), cul -de -sacs shall not be longer than five hundred (500) feet in
length, including a terminal turn- around which shall be provided at the closed
end, with a right -of -way radius of not less than fifty (50) feet. Such length shall be
measured from the centerline intersection with the nearest street to the end of the
cul-de -sac. The City reserves the right to require, without the need for a variance,
longer cul -de -sac length where additional natural resources will be preserved
without negatively impacting public safety. The requirement for a longer cul -de-
sac shall not be applied solely because a subdivider wishes to increase lot count in
a subdivision.
The concern is that the language allowing the City to approve longer cul -de -sac streets
is overly limiting. The proposed language follows:
... The City reserves the right to require, without the need for a variance, longer
cul -de -sac length where additional natural resources public utilities, or other
objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and land use obiectives, as
determined by the City Council, will be preserved or accomplished without
2
negatively impacting public safety. The requirement for a longer cul -de -sac shall
not be applied solely because a subdivider wishes to increase lot count in a
subdivision.
This change is intended to facilitate subdivision design that accounts for long -term
development and land use objectives that may not meet the strict application of a
variance analysis, but nonetheless make sense for the specific situation in question.
Apart from findings as mentioned in the text, the standard cul -de -sac length would
remain at 500 feet.
Summary and Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the amendment as presented. The existing language
focuses only on natural resource preservation, but there may be other circumstances
that would support longer cul -de -sac length in appropriate locations.
pc: Kathy Glanzer
Steve Westerhaus
Lee Elfering
3
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2013
Knudsen recommended approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Code
relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans as proposed by the City Planner in
his report dated June 7, 2013.
Motion seconded by Maleitzke.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
CUL -DE -SAC The City Planner reported that the City has had some discussion relative
LENGTH to maximum length of cul -de -sacs over the last several years. Initially
there was a 500 foot limitation on the length of a cul -de -sac. In
considering the remaining land left to develop in the City, the Council had
enacted a provision that allowed the Council to approve a longer cul -de-
sac length, without need for a variance, where additional natural resources
would be preserved without negatively impacting public safety. The
Planner reported that the concern is that this language is overly limiting.
Therefore, City staff is proposing an amendment which states "The City
reserves the right to require, without the need for a variance, longer cul-
de -sac length where additional natural resources. public utilities, or other
objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and land use objectives, as
determined by the City Council, will be preserved or accomplished
without negatively impacting public safety. The Planner pointed out that
it is at the Planning Commission's and Council's discretion whether or not
a longer cul -de -sac is approved.
Knudsen noted that this language retains the 500 foot maximum cul -de -sac
length as the City's standard. The Planner replied that that is correct, but
the new language expands the City's discretionary authority and allows
the City to approve a longer cut-de -sac where it believes warranted. The
Planner noted that a longer cul -de -sac length cannot be requested by a
developer solely to increase lot count.
Murphy recommended approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Code
relative to cul -de -sac length as recommended by the City Planner in his
June 7, 2013 report.
Motion seconded by Schwalbach.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
DEFINITION The City Planner requested that the Commission table action on the
OF FAMILY proposed Amendment to the definition of family at this time. He indicated
that he needs to discuss this amendment with the City Attorney prior to
presentation to the Commission.
- 5 -
4
G�t�le
uanada
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 766-4029 / FAX: (651) 766-4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
CITY OF LITTLE CANADA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSAL:
The City of Little Canada is proposing the following:
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans;
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to cul- de-sac length;
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to single - family accessory uses and the definition of
family;'
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at its regular meeting scheduled for
Thursday, June 13, 2013. 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, June 26, 2013 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,
June 13, 2013 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, June 26, 2013.
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.
1
Joel R. Hanson
City Administrator
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2013
Knudsen recommended approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Code
relative to Comprehensive Sign Plans as proposed by the City Planner in
his report dated June 7, 2013.
Motion seconded by Maleitzke.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
CUL- DE-SAC The City Planner reported that the City has had some discussion relative
LENGTH to maximum length of cul-de -sacs over the last several years. Initially
there was a 500 foot limitation on the length of a cul-de-sac. In
considering the remaining land Left to develop in the City, the Council had
enacted a provision that allowed the Council to approve a longer cul -de-
sac length, without need for a variance, where additional natural resources
would be preserved without negatively impacting public safety. The
Planner reported that the concern is that this language is overly limiting.
Therefore, City staff is proposing an amendment which states "The City
reserves the right to require, without the need for a variance, longer cul-
de-sac length where additional natural resources, pltblic utilities or oLr
objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and land use objectives. as
determined by the City Council, will be preserved or accomplished
without negatively impacting public safety. The Planner pointed out that
it is at the Planning Commission's and Council's discretion whether or not
a longer cul-de-sac is approved.
Knudsen noted that this language retains the 500 foot maximum cul-de-sac
length as the City's standard. The Planner replied that that is correct, but
the new language expands the City's discretionary authority and allows
the City to approve a longer cul-de -sac where it believes warranted. The
Planner noted that a longer cul-de -sac length cannot be requested by a
developer solely to increase lot count.
Murphy recommended approval of the Amendment to the Zoning Code
relative to cul-de -sac length as recommended by the City Planner in his
June 7,2013 report.
Motion seconded by Schwalbach.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
DEFINITION The City Planner requested that the Commission table action on the
OF FAMILY proposed Amendment to the definition of family at this time. He indicated
that he needs to discuss this amendment with the City Attorney prior to
1011010••••••■•WIlammUNIIIIIII presentation to the Commission.
- 5 -
2
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2013
Knudsen recommended tabling the proposed Amendment to the Zoning
Code relative to Single - Family Accessory Uses and the Definition of
Family pending a report from the City Planner.
Motion seconded by Fischer.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
SALE OF The City Planner reported that the City had purchased the property at
3046 3046 Lal3ore Road for the purpose of redevelopment as well as the
LABORE City's need to obtain a trail easement over the back portion of this
ROAD property. The City has been unsuccessful in assembling adjacent parcels
for a redevelopment project, and would like to sell this parcel after it takes
the necessary trail easement. The sale would occur through a sealed bid
process with a minimum price established.
Knudsen asked if the City has a process where it reviews its land holdings
and evaluates whether or not these holdings are still vital to its purposes.
The City Planner suggested that this type of review may occur as part of
the City's goal setting as well as on a more informal basis.
Knudsen recommended approval of the City's sale of 3046 Labore Road
as proposed.
ADJOURN
Motion seconded by Murphy.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
Duray recommended that the meeting be adjourned.
Motion seconded by Baraclough.
Motion carried 7 — 0.
e
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Glanzer
City Clerk
- 6 -
3
LITTLE CANADA
PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
Telephone: (651) 766 -4029 / Fax: (651) 766 -4048
www.ci.little-canada.mn.us
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
JIM MORELAN, Director
(651) 766 -4045
DON BOWMAN, Recreation Supervisor
(651) 766-4041
KATIE McGINNITY, Recreation Supervisor
(651) 766 -4042
DEREK ANDERSON, Park Maintenance Supervisor
(651) 766 -4056
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Blesener and Members of the City Council
Jim Morelan, Parks & Recreation Director
June 19, 2013
Warming House Project
Attached are building plans for the new warming house at the Fire Barns /Skate Park. The new
building will be approximately 300 square feet larger than the existing building to accommodate
the addition of restroom facilities. Building placement will be in the same general location as the
existing structure, except the new building is 12 feet longer extending that distance to the south.
General construction will be concrete block walls and metal roofing, similar to the existing
building.
Staff is requesting that the Council authorize advertisement for bids for this project. The
building architect and I will be present at Wednesday's meeting to answer any questions.
1
FIRE BARNS WARMING HOUSE
LITTLE CANADA , MINNESOTA
ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RVK ARCHITECTS
JUNE 20, 2013
General Conditions $ 3,200.00
Excavations & Derno 10.600.00
Site Restorations 0.00
Irrigation 0.00
Landscaping 0.00
Concrete 8,800.00
Masonry 38,200.00
Building Materials 9,200.00
Carpentry Labor 5,600.00
Metal Roofing, Soffit and Fascia 16,100.00
Siding
3,000.00
Insulation 2,550.00
Caulking 1,000.00
Hollow Metal Doors 9,600 00
Remote Locking 7,200.00
Garage door 1,700.00
Aluminum Windows 3,850.00
Metal Mesh 1,050.00
Rubber Flooring 6,600.00
Painting 2,200.00
Toilet Accessories 500.00
Furnishings 2,700.00
Plumbing 18,000.00
Heating 7,000.00
Electrical 5,500.00
TOTAL ABOVE $ 166,150.00
Contingency (4 %) 6,600.00
PROJECT TOTAL S 172,750.00
woo'slooINwewu wwm)P
tZ00-9Ci 11S9)
CZOVS NISNOOSIM'S1tl3908
3A1 lIO NOOY9 mow. 91.9
0
NW 'VNVNVO 31SSI1
3S11OH ONIW?IVM - VOVNYO nun
'NOW LAW
AO WINO
Et-PG-S0
oNIH30N321 9tl21f11331IH021V 03SOdOHd
0
U
w
3
w
J
3
~D�
—_/ _��n��p«
�NOmw�ms���e
,
_
�.___�,__.
.
§
( !
\/j §i
:11.
\§)J>dj
\\ § §;\
0
|
53
\>
/
/D
®
-
(I
®
°9!
o
Z2
,
\,,a!;!!#eA
% !
Ajli \\
ƒa.,n�§
4
1nw3 uv .2969CL6s49
CO Z+S NISNOOSIM'SAU9IOU
9/080 )100U0 MOM 9LS
SSO3SIHJFJV
NW'VOVNVO ]1. I1
vavNVO 31.1111
3Sf1OH ONIW21VM SNHVB MIA
O1Y (OQ'N 1VN
A8 1,AV C
CYOL -00
Elf
AVM
133HS
NV-Id 210014
3
N
•
m
al:�m4
sN
46®
I
14
k
J__��'
ish
i
ili
V
L
LL� 1
SS
tit
I;
a .
u3
'
am
#m
,I
0
r_�
p
4m
I ,m -.r
e 3 r.
CD
lh
in
q:i
y
o
49
1
r
m
8
1
e
/ Im0
/
L
5
0103 0011,1aWSWW02V,ZOlf lt991
CZO/S NISNOOSIM'Slt3390i1
3A80 X00118 1A09L 919
SJ-03.1.1H3litf
NIM 'vottuva nun
VOVNVO 311111
3SIION ONIINHVM SNHVEI 32114
onywaa.vi Iwo
AO WAVE
EPOL-90
try
31VC
133HS
NVld 1VNOISN3INIO MOONIM /134411 i0011
/--
0
`15W-147,7:1-17tssa.:7-FETAs7s7
2
E
‘Gt>“ eS)
ji
O .frt
StsICX COO1I CD<C
0111 V911,90 1,1110,.%
1 i Prairagig
m
.1.7171.'‘"RSIritit
7
CI
7
3
3
09
6
I gum a
>psv kyaawm.¢9yst[ItSa)
t U0 9 NISNOOSIM'S1tl390N
?Am:O)100N91WB19t5
91f311HDaV
NN tVOVNVO 311111
VGVNVO 311111
3snoH 9NIINHVM sNana 32113
alvnoa,w ;WO
AB NNV110
0.ot.00
S -Y
31V(,
133NS
SNOIIVA313 1101U31X3
E
rt 1
/
II
II
II
II
II
0
0
F-
W
7
G�t� le
uanada
MAYOR
13111 B1esener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Blesener and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kathy Glanzer, City Clerk
DATE: June 20, 2013
RE: Increase in Certain Electrical Permit Fees
The City's Electrical Inspector has requested that certain electrical permit fees be increased in
accordance with the State Electrical fees. The City has historically followed the State Fee
Schedule. These increases are as follows:
Current Proposed
0 — 30 amp Circuits and Feeders $7 $8
Minimum Fee — one inspection $27 $35
Minimum Fee — rough -in inspection $54 $70
Apartment Buildings — Max. per unit $60 $70
Swimming Pools $27 $35 per inspection
Traffic Signals $4 $7 per standard
Street Lighting $3 $4 per standard
Retro Fit Lighting $.40 $.65 per fixture
Sign Transformer $7 $8 first 500 VA
Remote Control /Signal Circuits $10 /10 openings $.75 per device
Reinspection $27 $35
State Surcharge $.50 $5
Staff recommends amendment of the City's Fee Schedule as requested by the Electrical
Inspector.
CITY OF LITTLE CANADA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FEE /RATE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OD LITTLE
CANADA RELATIVE TO ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
The City Council of the City of Little Canada hereby ordains:
Section 1.
The City of Little Canada Municipal Code is hereby amended to update the City's Fee Schedule
increasing certain Electrical Permit Fees as attached hereto in Exhibit A.
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and
publication.
William Blesener, Mayor
ATTEST:
Joel R. Hanson, City Administrator
AYES:
NAYS:
Adopted this 26" day of June, 2013.
EXHIBIT A
FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
0 — 30 AMP Circuits and Feeders $8
Minimum Fee:
Apartment Buildings:
Minimum permit fee is $35 plus $5.00 State
Surcharge. This is for one inspection only.
Minimum fee for rough -in inspection and
final is $70 plus $5.00 State Surcharge.
Maximum fee per unit of an apartment or
condominium complex is $70. $S.00 State
Surcharge.
Swimming Pools: $35. Per inspection + circuits
Traffic Signals: $7 per each standard
Street Lighting: $4 per each standard
Retro Fit Lighting: $.65 per fixture
Sign Transformer: $8 first 500
Remote Control /Signal Circuits: $.75 per device
Re- Inspection Fee: $35
G�t�tle
uanada
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Blesener & Members of City Council
FROM: Bill Dircks, Public. Works Superintendent
DATE: June 20, 2013
RE: 2013 Seal Coating
Quotes for the 2013 seal coating project are due on Wednesday, June 26. Staff expects to
get two quotes, one from Allied Blacktop and one from Pearson Brothers. Staff will have
a recommendation for award at the meeting on Wednesday.
The list of streets programmed for this year are included with this memo. There are
37,000 square yards scheduled to be completed.
Last year we awarded the contract to Allied Blacktop at $1.27 per square yard. Staff
expects a similar price this year.
2013 Seal Coating Program
Street
From - To
Square
Yards
Proposed
Date to Seal
Coat
Year
Originally
Paved
Year Seal
Coated
Last
Pioneer Park West Lot
Off of Centerville
5777
2013
2020
1994
City Hall Lot
2111
2013
2007
County Road B2
Edgerton to Arcade
6800
2013
2019
2006
McMenemy Road
Little Canada Rd to Vking Drive
10888
2013
2019
2006
Minnesota Avenue
Rice Street East to end
3334
2013
2019
2006
Viking Drive East
McMenemy Road to Edgerton
8742
2013
2019
2006
Total Square Yardage: 37,652
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 ADMINISTRATOR
www.ci.little- canada.mn.us Joel R. Hanson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Biesener and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kathy Glanzer, City Clerk
DATE: June 21, 2013
RE: Application to Conduct Off -Site Gambling — Canadian Days
The Canadian Days Committee has submitted an Application to Conduct Off -Site
Gambling at Spooner Park as part of the 2013 Canadian Days Celebration to be held
August 2 -4, 2013. The Committee will be selling pull -tabs and conducting bingo as part
of this event.
Application materials are in order, and City staff recommends approval as requested.
M.INNI SO'PA (.,AWFUL GAVII3LING
LG230 Application to Conduct Off-site Gambling
12./1.2 Page 1 of 2
No Fee
Organization
Organization
Address
county
Gambling
Information
name Little Canada Canadian Days, Inc. License number 04219
515 Little Canada Road Oty Little Canada r�N zip code 55117
_
Ramsey
manager name Dotty Norgard Daytime phone (651) 587 -6864
Gambling Activity
1.
2.
Four off -site events are allowed each calendar year. Dates for each event, not to exceed 3 days.
IMF-_. ii:, i,uI: =)
Check the gambling activity that will be conducted.
X -tabs X bingo
__,raffle _pull ___tipboards __._paddlewheel
Gambling Premises
3.
4.
S.
6.
..._.._.
Name of location where gambling activity will he conducted Spooner Park, er Road, urrle Canada
County [where gambling activity will be conducted Ramsey
Eli R ittle Coach
Street address and city [or township) Spooner Park, Eli Road, Little Canada p 55117
Zi code
- -----, .. __. ...._ _.... _..__. .
Do not use a post office box.
e If no street address, write in road designations. Example: 3 miles east of Hwy 63 on County Road 42.
cars your organization own the gambling premises?
✓�._ Yes If yes, a lease is not required.
No U no, the lease agreement below must be completed, and signed by the lessor.
Lease Agreement for Off -site Activity A lease agreement is not required for raffles.
7.
S.
9.
Rent to be paid for the leased area $0.00 If none, write "0."
All obligations and agreements between the organization and the lessor are listed below or attached,
Any attachments must be dated and signed by both the lessor and lessee,
• This lease and any attachments is the total and only agreement between the lessor and the organization
conducting lawful gambling activities.
c Other terms, if any
. essor's signature Date
,
Print: lessor's name
CONTINUE TO PAGE 2
LG230 Application to Conduct Off -site Gambling
Local Unit of Government Resolution of Approval
12/12 Page 2 of 2
CITY APPROVAL for a gambling premises COUNTY APPROVAL for a gambling premises
located within city limits. located in a township
City name
Date approved by city council
Resolution number
Signature of city personnel
Title
County name
Date approved by county hoard
Resolution number
Signature of city personnel
Date Signed Title
Date Signed _.....
Chief Executive Officer [CEO] Acknowledgment
10. The person signing this application must be your organization's CEO and have their name on file with the
Gambling Control Board. If the CEO has changed and the current CEO has not filed a I_G200B Organization
Officers Affidavit with the Gambling Control Board, he or she must do so at this time.
11. I have read this application, and all information is true, accurate, and complete, and if applicable, agree to the
lease terms as state this app ication.
CEO signature
12. Print CEO name Randi Hemquist
Date
Daytime phone
Mail or fax to: No attachments required.
Gambling Control Board
1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South
Roseville, MN 55113
FAX: 651- 639 -4032
This publication will he made available in alternative format (t.e. large print, Braille) upon request.
Data privacy notice: The information requested on this form
(and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control
Board (Board) to determine your organization's qualifications
to he involved in lawful gambling activities In Minnesota. Your
organization has the right to refuse to supply the information;
however, if your organization refuses to supply this information,
the Board may not be able to determine your organization's
qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue a
permit. If your organization supplies the information requested,
the Board will be able to process your organization's application.
Your organization's name and address will he public information
when received by the Board, All other information provided will
be private data about your organization until the Board issues
the permit, When the Board issues the permit, all information
provided will become public. if the Board does not issue a
permit, all information provided remains private, with the
exception or your organlzation's name and address which will
remain public,
Private data about your organization are available to;
Board members, Board staff whose work requires access to the
information; Minnesota's Department of Public Safety; Attorney
General; Commissioners of Administration, Minnesota Manage-
ment & Budget, and Revenue; Legislative Auditor, national and
international gambling regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant
to court order; other individuals and agencies specifically
authorized by state or federal law to have access to the
information; individuals and agencies for which law or legal
order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this
notice was given; and anyone with your written consent.
-1L.fINC ASSOCIATES
Memo
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Lee Elfering, City Engineer
DATE: June 21, 2013
RE: Little Canada Road Improvement Project
WHAM
As directed by the City Council at their April 24th meeting, we are currently obtaining bids
for the above referenced project. The Improvement Project consists of:
• Improvement of the pedestrian ramps at the Interstate 35E on and off ramps to
meet ADA standards.
• Mill and Overlay of the curbed section of Little Canada Road from the Interstate
Bridge to approximately the east end of the existing concrete curb and gutter.
• Full depth reclamation of the remainder of the street to Edgerton Street. In this
section concrete curb and gutter will be added and the main traffic lanes will be
moved to the north to provide room for the construction of a concrete sidewalk
on the south side of the street. Storm sewer improvements will be added to
serve the new curb and gutter section.
• Right turn lanes will be added on Little Canada Road at McMenemy Street and
Edgerton Street, Right turn lanes will also be added on Edgerton Street.
• A parking lane will be constructed on the north side of Little Canada Road from
approximately the Union building entrance to the west entrance of the parking lot
adjacent to Global Volunteers.
Bids are to be received by 10:00 a.m., June 261h, 2013 and we will provide an update to
the council agenda packet for that nights meeting. The addition to the agenda will
provide a summary of the bids received and general thoughts as to the competitiveness
of the bids. If the bids are within the expected range we will likely have a
recommendation for award which would be contingent on approval of the award by
Ramsey County and approval of a final cost sharing agreement between the City and
County. If you have any questions please call me at (763) 780 -0450 extension 3.
10062 Flanders Court NE — Blaine, MN 55449 — Ph: (763) 780 -0450 Fax (763) 780 -0452
Meino - 062113 -CC (Pre - award)
ZLfl411c s .assoa -arcs
Memo
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
FROM: Lee Elfering, City Engineer
DATE: June 21, 2013
RE: No Parking Resolution - Little Canada Road
As explained in our original memo to the City Council the "No Parking" resolution for
Little Canada Road is required by Mn /DOT State Aid to receive state aid funding
approval. In the resolution we outlined two areas by project street stationing where
parking would be allowed. As some or most of you may not be aware of the location of
these areas based on stationing a further explanation of the locations is as follows. The
largest area of parking will be the north side of the roadway from Station 310 +20 to
315 +75. This area begins just west of the union building driveway located across the
street from the skate park and goes to approximately 40 feet west of the westerly most
driveway of the parking lot next to the Global Volunteers building. The second area is on
the south side of the roadway from 309 +70 to 310+0. This location is the current bump
out in front of the church offices and parking will approximately match the existing area.
The largest impact of the no parking resolution will be the street parking available for
Church services and functions. City staff has met with representatives from St. Johns
Church several times throughout the design process to keep them apprised of the
proposed design and to gather their input on the improvements relative to the on street
parking, the intersection of McMenemy Street and Little Canada Road, the area in front
of the cemetery, and the sidewalk. While the street parking area will be more limited
than the shoulder areas that are currently utilized, the Church agrees that the other
benefits of the project outweigh the decrease in street parking.
If you have any questions concerning this information, please call me at (763) 780 -0450.
10062 Flanders Court NE - Blaine, MN 55449 - Ph: (763) 780 -0450 Fax (763) 780 -0452
Memo - 062113 -CC (No Parking Resolution)
L��RING Th O(IflT.0
M t HMI
Memo
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
FROM: Lee Elfering, City Engineer
DATE: June 19, 2013
RE: No Parking Resolution — Little Canada Road
As the Council is aware the City is working jointly with Ramsey County on the
improvement of Little Canada Road from Interstate I -35E to Edgerton Street. While the
street is not on the City's Municipal State Aid system it is a County Road and therefore
several of the City costs are eligible for Municipal State Aid reimbursement if state aid
design standards are met. One such standard is to have a "No Parking" resolution
passed outlining where parking is permitted and where parking will not be allowed. The
attached resolution establishes that no parking will be allowed on Little Canada Road
from the Interstate to Edgerton Street except on the north side of the roadway from
Station 310 +20 to 315 +75 and on the south side of the roadway from 309 +70 to 310 +40
where parking lanes meeting state aid standards are provided.
We would ask that the City Council pass the attached "No Parking" resolution for Little
Canada Road, thereby allowing reimbursement of eligible City state aid costs on the
project through the City's state aid fund. If you have any questions concerning this
information, please call me at (763) 780 -0450.
10062 Randers Court NE - Blaine, MN 55449 - Ph: (763) 780 -0450 Fax (763) 780 -0452
Mcmo- 081930 -CC (No Parking Resolution)
RESOLUTION 2013- 6 - 107
A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING NO PARKING ON LITTLE CANADA ROAD
WHEREAS the City and Ramsey County have jointly planned the improvement of Little
Canada Road, County State Aid Route Number 621, from Interstate I -35E to
Edgerton Street in the City of Little Canada, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS the City will be expending Municipal Street Aid Funds on the improvements of
this Street; and
WHEREAS this improvement only provides for a parking lane on the north side of the
roadway from Station 310 +20 to 315 +75 and on the south side of the roadway
from 309 +70 to 310 +40. The remainder of the improvement does not provide
adequate width for parking on both sides of the street; and approval of the
proposed construction as a State Aid Street project must therefore be
conditioned upon certain parking restrictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Little Canada,
Minnesota, that the City shall ban parking of motor vehicles on County Road B2
from Rice Street to Viking Drive at all times with the exception of the north
parking lane of the roadway from Station 310 +20 to 315 +75 and the south
parking lane from 309 +70 to 315 +75.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of June 2013.
WilliarY Bleserer, Mayor
ATTEST:
nson, City Administrator
Res - 062013 -No parking LC Road
515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600
(651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048
w ww.ci.1 ittle- canada.inn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Blesener & Members of City Council
FROM: Bill Dircks, Public Works Superintendent
DATE: June 17, 2013
RE: Water Ordinance Revision
MAYOR
Bill Blesener
COUNCIL
Rick Montour
John Keis
Michael McGraw
Shelly Boss
ADMINISTRATOR
Joel R. Hanson
There are twelve properties in Little Canada that have not responded to numerous
attempts to replace or upgrade their water meters to the new fixed - network technology.
Staff has considered obtaining administrative warrants in order to perform the work, but
the City Attorney has offered another potential solution. The City of Shoreview's water
ordinance includes a provision for property owners who deny access to authorized City
employees. They can have a licensed plumber perform the work at the property owner's
expense. The plumber must submit documentation to the City proving that the work has
been completed to the City's standards.
The additional option of a plumber performing the work allows the City to add a
quarterly surcharge to accounts that do not make the necessary meter upgrades. Staff is
recommending that the surcharge equal the reading fee we charge residents who opted
out of the fixed - network program, which is currently $12 per quarter. The revised
ordinance is attached.
Staff will send one final letter to the twelve remaining residents explaining the ordinance
and their options. Those meters that have not been upgraded by the end of the third
quarter will start receiving a $12 surcharge on their quarterly utility bills.
Staff recommends approving the water ordinance revisions and the $12 quarterly
surcharge.
1
account shall send a written request to the City. Upon receiving the written request, the
City, at their sole discretion, may terminate the water service following the same procedures as
above.
WATER METERS AND HYDRANTS
1601.400. WATER METERS. Except for extinguishment of fires, no person, except
authorized City employees, shall use water from the water system or permit water to be drawn
therefrom, unless the same be metered by passing through a meter supplied or approved by the
City. No person not authorized by the Public Works Director shall connect, disconnect, take
apart, or in any manner change, or cause to be changed, or interfere with any such meter or the
action thereof.
(1) A service charge for installation in an amount established by City Council
resolution to be made by customers for water meters and payment for the same shall be made in
advance of installations.
(2) Where a customer has need for a larger line in addition to his domestic
line, as in the case of a commercial consumer who needs a one -inch line for normal use and a
six or eight inch line for fire sprinkler system, he will be permitted to run one line into the
property and Y off into two lines prior to entering the building. The small or domestic line will
have a curb stop and box shortly after the Y with easy access by City Personnel. When this is
done, a meter will be attached to the small or domestic line and a check valve as well as a 5/8-
inch detection meter shall be put on the large line.
(3) The City shall maintain and repair all meters when rendered unserviceable
through ordinary wear and tear and shall replace them, if necessary. However, where
replacement, repair or adjustment of any meter is rendered necessary by the act, neglect,
including damage from hot water backup, or carelessness of the owner or occupant of the
premises, any expense caused the City thereby shall be charged against and collected from the
water consumer.
(4) A consumer may, by written request, have his meter tested, by depositing the
amount established by City Council resolution with the Administrator. In case a test should
show an error of over five (5 %) percent of the water consumed, the deposit will be refunded to
the consumer, a correctly registering meter will be installed, and the bill will he adjusted
accordingly if the meter erred in favor of the City. Such adjustment shall not extend back more
than one (I) billing period from the date of the written request.
(5)
All water meters shall be and remain the property of the City.
(6) Authorized City employees shall have free access at reasonable hours of the day
to all parts of every building and premises connected with the water system for reading,
inspection, repair, or replacement of meters. In the event the water consumer denies authorized
1601 -1
2
City employees access, the water consumer will, at their own cost, provide for meter
replacement or maintenance by a licensed plumber, and said licensed plumber shall be required
to provide documentation to the City as to validity of work performed.
(7) All 'A" and 1" water meters shall be installed by the City. 5/8" tire detection
meter installation shall be the responsibility of the property owner or contractor.
(8) All meters must be located so as to afford accessibility to the Public Works
Department to perform tasks as identified in 1601.400.6.
(9) Water meters must be installed on all holding tank systems.
1601.405. NON - COMLIANCE SURCHARGE. A quarterly surcharge, as determined
by Ordinance, shall be added to the utility billing statement for a property where:
(1) An inspection has not been allowed or certification provided within 30 days after
notice by the City.
(2) The necessary installations, inspections, and /or repairs have not been made within
the time specified.
A surcharge will be added for every quarter during which the property is not in
compliance, whether the non - compliance has been for the entire quarter or a portion
thereof.
1601.410. WATER METER SETTING. All water meters hereafter installed shall be in
accordance with the following rules:
(1) The service pipe from the water main to the meter, when the same enters the
building, shall be brought through the floor or bottom course of concrete block of foundation.
(2) The meter shall be located so that the bottom is from 12 inches to 24 inches
above the finished floor line. Any deviation from the above installation heights shall be
approved in advance by the Public Works Department.
(3) All meter installations shall have a stop and waste ball valve on the street side of
the meter. In no case shall there be more than 12 inches of pipe exposed between the point of
entrance through the basement floor and the stop and waste valve. A stop and waste ball valve
shall also be installed on the house side of the meter. All fittings and pipe to be red brass, or
bronze. Ball valves shall be brass 125 pounds standard.
1601 -2
3