The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-21-14 CCMPTHE. (:1T IAK FLMO Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner While Preserving the City Open Space Character NOTICE OF MEETING City Council Meeting Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:00 P.M. City of Lake Elmo I 3800 Laverne Avenue North AGENDA A. Call to Order 7:00 B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call D. Order of Business E. Approval of Agenda F. Accept Minutes 1. Accept January 06, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes G. Council Reports • Mayor o Appointment of Cullen Case to Public Safety Committee • Council 7:10 H. Public Comments/Inquiries I. Board of Adjustment Hearing 2. Case 2014-01 Richie and Beth Springborn vs. City of Lake Elmo; Resolution 2014-06 7:30 1. Consent Agenda 3. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll 4. Accept Financial Report dated December 31, 2013 5. Accept 2013 Year -End Building Report dated December 31, 2013 6. Section 34 Water and Sewer Utility Extension Improvements - Pay Request No. 3 7. Lake Elmo Sewer Infrastructure Improvements: 1-94 to 30th St. - Pay Request No. 4 8. Approve Predictive Index Hiring Tool 7:35 K. Regular Agenda 9. Council Meeting Date Change 10, Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Watermain Improvements - Public Hearing; Authorize Plans and Specifications; Award Engineering Contract; Resolution 2014-07 7:55 11. Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements - Approve Plans and Specifications; Resolution 2014-08 12. Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements - Approve Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract 8:30 13. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - RAD-Alt to RAD - 9434 Stillwater Blvd.; Resolution 2014-09 14. Community Development Department 2014 Plan of Work L. Staff Reports and Announcements • City Administrator • City Attorney • Planning Director • City Engineer • Finance Director • City Clerk 9:20 M. Adjourn ****Item times are estimates and subject to change*** LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2014 CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2014 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pin. PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson, Council Members Wally Nelson, Justin Bloyer, and Mike Reeves. ABSENT: Council Member Anne Smith Also Present: City Administrator Zuleger, City Engineer Griffin, Finance Director Bendel, and City Clerk Bell. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council Member Nelson requested that ITEM 12 be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion and placed at the beginning of Regular Agenda. City Engineer Griffin noted that ITEM 16's title was corrected. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 06, 2014 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. ITEM I: ACCEPT MINUTES THE DECEMBER 17, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCIL REPORTS: Mayor Pearson: Appointed Terry Forrest to Finance Committee; attended Library Board meeting; attended full staff meeting. Council Member Reeves: attended Lake Elmo Regional Trail Committee meeting where they discussed regional trail concept plan: Washington County is very excited to work with the City. Commended Planner Nick Johnson for his work done on the trail plans. Council Member Bloyer: no report. Council Member Nelson: no report. PUBLIC INOUIRY/COMMENTS: Beth & Richie Springborn — Driveway Ordinance Beth Springborn 8970 55`b St. spoke about her driveway permit. Building Official Rick Chase informed her that their driveway needed to be paved at the end. Explained her understanding of the definition of "bitumen." They used crushed Hwy 36 millings. Over 6 inches thick on entire driveway. Mr. Chase said it needed to be hot mix asphalt. City Administrator Zuleger explained the rationale for requiring the hot mix. Ile showed the examples of each type of material to Council. The city ordinance does not specifically further define the term "bitumen" with enough specificity, The City has returned $4000 of $5000 escrow. Mr. Zuleger explained the options for the council. It was stated that the Ordinance would be brought back with a technical amendment. City Engineer Griffin explained the technical details of how the apron is required and desired to be a hard surface: 1) hold edge of road together. 2) prevent tracking of mud on road; and 3) loose gravel needs to be cleaned out of ditches and culverts, so increased maintenance would be required. The specific driveway dimensions and requirements were discussed. It was determined that Page 1 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2014 the apron must cover the Right of Way. Council Member Nelson asked if instead of using a variable term like ROW, use a specific distance, Ms. Springborn stated her position is that they have already met the code requirements. Staffs preference is to proceed through the appeal process if the Springborns choose, Mr. Bloyer asked if the appeal process costs money. Mr. Zuleger stated that it does, but the City could waive it. The definition of "bitumen" was discussed. Mr. Griffin stated his professional opinion was pretty clear that is included the binder aspect and not simply loose millings. Mayor Pearson stated his preference that Council and staff study the issue before taking action. He also explained that the code language would not make any sense if interpreted as allowing loose material. The consensus of the Council is that the text may be vague and should be examined. The Council was supportive of staff s recommendation of abiding to the formal appeal process. It was noted that the City has given the Springborns a one-year extension on the completion deadline. No formal action taken. SPEAK YOUR PEACE: REEVES Reeves spoke on the Speak Your Peace tenet of repair damaged relationships. Eveiyone has been in situation of saying or doing the wrong thing. In a perfect world that wouldn't happen, but it does. To make it right one must apologize. Admit your mistake, move on. is the apology sincere? Does it keep occurring? There must be a commitment to change behavior. Actions speak louder than words. Where you develop trust, it is easier to accept apology. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll in the amount of $269,770.91 3. Designate Official Publication Newspaper of Record 4. Designate Official Depositories of Funds; Res. No. 2014-01 5. Resolution Designating Data Practice Officials and Approving City's Data Practices Policy; Res. No. 2014-02 6. Appoint City Engineer and City Attorney 7. Approve 2014 Plan of Work 8. Storm water abatement; Res. No. 2014-03 9. Production Well No. 4 — Pay Request No. 5 10. Lake Elmo Avenue Sewer Improvements — Change Order No. 3 11. Section 34 Utility Extension Improvements — Change Order No. 2 12. 2012 Rain Gas:dent, Pay Request No, 2 (Final) MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. ITEM 12: 2012 RAIN GARDENS — PAY REQUEST NO. 2 (FINAL) City Engineer Griffin explained the item. Contractor is requesting payment in full. Staff does not agree with full payment due to several issues, so is recommending a prorated payment. Contractor did not perform completely and there have been several garden failures. Six of the 17 rain gardens were not functioning for the year. Council Member Bloyer asked if this was same contractor that built the garden at end of Jane Road. It is not known at this time. Griffin explained how at times the City is required to install rain gardens, but currently has discontinued the voluntary installation for the time being. Rain gardens do work when installed correctly and maintained properly. Page 2 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2014 MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE PAY REQUEST NO. 2 (FINAL) TO ST. CROIX VALLEY LANDSCAPING IN THE AMOUNT OF S3,560 FOR THE ONE YEAR MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THE 2012 RAIN GARDEN PROJECT, UPON CONTRACTOR'S RECOGNITION THAT THIS IS PAYMENT IN FULL. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. Council Member Nelson wants city to look at the rain gardens on larger scale. He has heard nothing but problems from residents. He applauded Mr. Griffin for getting away from the voluntary ones. It was noted by Mr. Griffin that the first year is critical in maintaining. Professional maintenance is recommended for the first year. After that the residents can do it themselves much more easily. Council consensus is that further policy discussion is warranted. MOTION PASSED 4-0. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 13: APPOINT 2014 ACTING MAYOR City Clerk Bell explained the statutory requirement to appoint an Acting Mayor. He noted that in 2013, Councilman Bloyer was appointed. Mayor Pearson nominated Councilman Bloyer to serve as Acting Mayor for 2014. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER JUSTIN BLOYER AS ACTING MAYOR FOR 2014, TO COMPLY WITH AND FULFILL ALL DUTIES ENUMERATED IN MINN STATUTE § 412.121 RELATING TO SELECTION OF AN ACTING MAYOR. Council Member Nelson seconded the motion. Council Member Reeves asked if Councilman Bloyer accepts the nomination. Mr. Bloyer stated he does. MOTION PASSED 4-0. ITEM 14: APPOINT REQUIRED OFFICIALS TO FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES City Clerk Bell explained the statutory requirement to appoint officials to the Fire Relief Association Board of Trustees. He noted that in 2013, Fire Chief Greg Malmquist, Councilman Wally Nelson and Finance Director Cathy Bendel were appointed. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPOINT FIRE CHIEF MALMQUIST, FINANCE DIRECTOR BENDEL, AND COUNCIL MEMBER WALLY NELSON TO THE FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR 2014. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 4-0. ITEM 15: WATER SURFACE USE ORDINANCE REVIEW City Administrator Zuleger explained the reason for the review. The ordinance was not effective until 9/25/13. Mr. Zuleger explained the limitations of the study data. One limitation was due to the high water on 7/4/13. There were very few incidents. Lake is mostly used by bass fishermen. Staff spent 150-180 hours examining lakes. Mayor Pearson explained that. the council said they would review the findings and so that is what they are doing tonight. Council Member Bloyer recounted his experience. Council Member Nelson recounted his as well. Both officials saw no issues and very little use in general. Mr. Zuleger affirmed their findings. Mayor Pearson recounted his findings in line with the rest. Council nembers video recorded much of their findings. Some video evidence was played. Mayor Pearson was glad that not much of an issue had materialized. He noted that the past DNR grant request was denied due to low use. Mr. Bloyer noted that 40% of 2013 park survey responses supported an increased time; 28% were in favor of no change; more than 30% didn't care. ITEM 16: 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS — RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT: CALLING FOR HEARING: RES. NO. 2014-04 Page 3 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2014 City Engineer Griffin explained the 2014 improvement projects. Two main locations and three main types of improvements. Packard Park neighborhood/20th St/Manning Trail. Packard Park neighborhood will consist of street reclaim, 20th Street consists of micro-surfaeing. Manning trail., Deer Pond Trail and Court consist of reconstruction. The differences between road types and how each project area would be done were explained. 40-50 year roads are being constructed. Higher cost up front, but much longer lasting and saves costs later. Mr. Griffin went through each project and explained the proposed assessments as well. Manning Trail is a collector road, so there is a lower assessment. Tartan Park is 100% because it is non-residential. Assessment is based on front footage. There is a strategy with West Lakeland Township to extend the unimproved 370 ft on Manning Trail located in their town and have them fully reimburse and also pay for properties accessing Manning Trail situated in West Lakeland Township. Total cost is about $1.8 million. The summary of the assessments for the various projects was further explained. Mr. Griffin gave overview of the project schedule. Council Member Reeves asked about the front footage rationale. He asked about Tartan Park and if they have access. Mr. Griffin explained that non-residential includes all abutting roads, They do not have access. Council Member Bloyer asked about cost if city forwent concrete curb and gutter. The figure is not known offhand. Lower cost in maintenance. Concerned about residents being able to afford it. Council Meinber Nelson asked about 70-30 assessment ratio, Mr. Griffin explained that many cities started out at 20:80%. As legal challenges have increased, the percentage had been reduced. It was noted that bonding requires that assessment cannot go below 20%. Mr, Nelson questioned the benefit of the concrete gutter. Grading is much more difficult to perfect without concrete. Mr. Reeves suggests taking a longer view of the benefits. Noted all council members are sensitive to costs. Mayor Pearson asked Mr. Griffin to make a guess on the cost difference. Mr, Griffin estimated it may be 10-20 percent. Mr. Nelson asked why 10 years assessments. City Administrator Zuleger stated that 10 year term to retire debt is standard. Longer roads may allow for longer terms, but it is unknown at this time. Modifying policy for 50 year roads was discussed. Mr. Bloyer asked about Deer Pond's initial construction. The specific date is unknown, Mr. Nelson noted that residents may have different expectation now than 10-20 years ago. He wants City to reexamine assessinent term policy. The financing options were discussed, Mayor Pearson wants the three non-resident properties on Manning Trail to be assessed. He directed staff to pursue assessing them regardless of what West Lakeland Township does in regards to the unimproved 370 foot portion. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-04, RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING A HEARING FOR THE 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENTS, Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSES 4-0. ITEM 17: PUMPHOUSE NO, 4 IMPROVEMENTS — APPROVE PLANS AND. SPECIFICATIONS; RES. NO. 2014-05 City Engineer Griffin explained the project. Part of the 2013-14 Water System C1P. Consists of a municipal building, housing the city well and related chemical feed equipment. Mr. Griffin explained the specific details of the inwrovements. Paid through a combination of MN -DEED grant funds and water enterprise funds. Total cost is $885,000. The construction schedule was explained. Page 4 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 06, 2014 MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-05, APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE PUMPHOUSE NO. 4 IMPROVEMENTS. Mayor Pearson seconded the It101/017, MOTION PASSES 4-0. SUMMARY REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, City Administrator Zuleger: explained the workshop schedule. There will be a few joint workshops with the commissions; performance based budgeting; commended Alyssa MacLeod for her work on the newsletter; east metro groundwater meeting; attended the Met Council meeting on MOU; working on securing water security agreements; expecting Lennar final plat end of month. Preliminary: plat from Amaris and Ryland is expected in February; noted the Gonyea water and sewer changes. New proposal starting in the north should help the City with cost of sewer lines; gave summary of the departmental progress. He commended the departments that were the highest developing in 2013. Council Member Reeves noted the positive comments received on the accountability portion of the newsletter. Mayor Pearson asked about Lake Elmo Days and a private entity taking it over. Mr. Zuleger said that the Jaycees may be the entity, but it is unknown at this time. City Engineer Griffin: No report. Finance Director Bendel: final levy certification sent to county; 3,200 storm water bills were sent out. City Clerk Bell: reported livestock ordinance is expected to be heard at the Planning Commission meeting on 1 /27/14. Mayor Pearson adjourned the meeting at 8:48pm. ATTEST: Adam R. Bell, City Clerk LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL Mike Pearson, Mayor Page 5 of 5 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: January 21, 2014 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING ITEM #2 Case 2014-01 Richie and Beth Springborn vs. City of Lake Elrno Nick M. Johnson, City Planner Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Rick Chase, Building Official Jack Griffin, City Engineer SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item .................................. .............„...„.. . Report/Presentation Questions from Council to Staff Open the Public. Hearing Close the Public Hearing Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates ..... City Administrator Community Dev elopment Director Mayor Facilitates Mayor Facilitates •Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The City's current and former driveway ordinance require that the portion of a driveway located within the public right-of-way of an improved street be constructed of bituminous or concrete material. This policy is established to protect City streets and storm water infrastructure. It is recommended that the City Council uphold this policy in order to maintain City infrastructure and ensure the maximum life of the assets. FISCAL IMPACT; The $150.00 appeal fee was waived at the last City Council meeting on 1 /06/201 4. SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The Board of Appeals is respectfully requested to determine whether staff is correctly interpreting the City Code in order to determine if a -- page City Council Meeting [Board in -Adjustment Hearing - Item 2 January 21, 2014 driveway constructed at 8970 55th Street North is in conformance with the City Driveway Ordinance. The property owners, Richie and Beth Springbom, have built a compacted reclaimed asphalt or millings driveway all the way to the City street (55th Street), whereas the City's ordinance requires that the portion of the driveway located in the City's right-of-way be constructed of bitumen or concrete. The applicants ask that the Board of Appeals consider Staff s interpretation of §93.26 Driveway Standards. More specifically, the applicants are challenging staff s interpretation of the definition of "bitumen". Staff is recommending that the City Council co thef011owing ;nation: e of "Move to adopt Resolution 2014-06, con,flrrning and upholding staffs interpretation of the Driveway Ordinance, therehy denying the appeal." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: On September 3, 2013, the City of Lake Elmo issued a building permit for a new single family - home at 8970 55'1' Street North to Richie and Beth Springborn, On November 21, 2013, the City's Building Official conducted a final escrow inspection for the project, which is the last step before issuing the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). During the inspection. the City Building Official, Rick Chase, required a correction to make the portion of the residential driveway in the public right-of-way bituminous or concrete. As opposed to using bituminous or concrete in the right-of-way, the applicants constructed the entire driveway up to the improved street with reclaimed millings or asphalt from the TH-36 project. The applicants are appealing the staffs interpretation of the City's Driveway Ordinance based on the argument that the reclaimed asphalt meets the definition of "bitumen". City staff does not agree with this argument, and recommends that the Council confirm staff's interpretation of the City Code. Prior to December of 2013, when the City adopted new driveway provisions, the City's previous Driveway Ordinance (Attachment #3) included the following language regarding required surface materials: "§93.25 General Requirements Driveway swiace, Whenever a driveway is constructed, all that portion of the boulevard designated as driveway shall be surfaced with a plant -mixed machine laid bituminous material conforming, to standards approved by the City Engineer and in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer." It should he noted that this ordinance was in effect at the time the building permit for the single family home at 8970 55th Street N. was issued. When the permit was issued, the ordinance called for "plant -mixed machine laid bituminous material" in the portion of the boulevard (public right- of-way). Given this language, there is no way to confuse reclaimed or crushed asphalt with plant -mixed bituminous material. The main point is that under the previous driveway provisions. — page 2 -- City Council Meeting [Board qf Aqiustnient Hearing - Item 2_1 January 21, 2014 which were active when the building permit was issued. the applicants would not have been able to use reclaimed asphalt or millings as the approved driveway material in the public right-of-way or boulevard. In December of 2013, the City adopted a new Driveway Ordinance (Ordinance 08-096 — Attachment #4) to prepare the community for additional residential development, particularly in urban districts. As part of the new Driveway Ordinance, the following language was included in relation to acceptable surface materials: "§93.26 Driveway Standards a Driveway Alatcrials. I. Urban Districts. All driveways shall be constructed of bitumen, concrete or a durable material approved by the City Engineer. 2. Rural Districts. Driveways may be constructed of crushed rock or equivalent crushed material provided that the portion of the driveway within the road right-of-way shall be constructed of bitumen or concrete when accessing an improved street. - As part of the new ordinance. the required or acceptable driveway material within the road right- of-way in rural zoning districts is bitumen or concrete. In seeking to appeal the City staffs interpretation of the ordinance, the applicants are challenging the definition of bitumen, stating that reclaimed asphalt or millings meets the definition of bitumen. However, staff disagrees with this argument. When examining the context of the driveway materials portion of the ordinance, it is clear that in the rural district, there is a clear delineation between what materials can be used on the private lot and what materials must be used in the public right-of-way, The ordinance states that "crushed rock or equivalent crushed material.' that can be used on the private lot, whereas the right-of-way must he bitumen or concrete. In staffs professional judgment, recycled or reclaimed asphalt or millings is an equivalent crushed material, not bitumen. On the other hand, bituminous or bitumen is a petroleum based product that is bound and laid at high temperatures. Crushed or recycled asphalt does not include the petroleum based hinder. Regarding the expertise level of City staff. the City's Building Official, Rick Chase, has both Bituminous I and Bituminous II MnDOT Certifications. In addition, the City Engineer, Jack Griffin, is extremely experienced and knowledgeable about bituminous products. In the expertise of both the Building Official and City Engineer. reclaimed asphalt does not qualify as bitumen. Finally. with regards to the definition of bitumen not being clear enough in the City Code, it should he noted that City staff drafted the current Driveway Ordinance based upon researching several other local communities. Staff researched the driveway provisions of eight communities (Woodbury, Apple Valley, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Shoreview, Eden Prairie. Minnetonka and Cottage Grove). Of the communities that specified bituminous or bitumen as an acceptable or required driveway material (3 cities — Inver Grove Heights, Apple Valley and Eden Prairie) not one of them specifically defined what constitutes bituminous in their codes. Staff believes that the reason for this is that what constitutes bitumen or bituminous is a well-known and established standard. In other words, if the definition of bituminous was less clear cut, other cities would define the term to establish what method and material is acceptable. page 3 -- City Council Meeting [Board of Adjustment Hearing- Item January 21, 2014 Finally. it should be noted that the City has established an engineering design standard for residential driveways, The standard was adopted by the City Council along with the Engineering Design Standards Manual on February 19, 2013 (Resolution 2013-09). The established driveway standard calls for bituminous material at a specification consistent with MnDOT 2360. In other words, contrary to the position that the City has not defined what constitutes bitumen, from staff' s perspective. the City has defined what is acceptable by adopting this standard. It should also be noted that reclaimed asphalt that is simply compacted does not meet this standard. The City's driveway standard from the Engineering Design Standards Manual is found in attachment #5. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths: Confirming the staffs interpretation of the Driveway Ordinance demonstrates a commitment to the protection and maintenance of City streets and other infrastructure. In cases of installing new or improved residential driveways, requiring the public right- of-way to be constructed of bitumen or concrete helps reduce cracking and degradation of the City streets. In addition, it also helps reduce the trailing or tracking of loose rock or other material or debris onto City Streets. Minimizing this debris helps .maximize safety and protect storm sewer and other City infrastructure. Weaknesses: N/A Opportunities: N/A Threats: If the appeal is granted. the action sets a negative precedent to allow crushed rock or an equivalent crushed material as an acceptable material in the public right-of- way for new residential driveways in rural zoning districts. This scenario presents a threat to the ongoing maintenance and protection of City streets. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the rementioned Staff is recommending that the Ciiy Council cot inietpreiation §93.26 Driveway Standards through the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution 2014-06, conf e statts 'ng and upholding .s'tuff's interpretation of the Driveway Ordinance, thereby denying the appeal." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2014-06 Zoning Appeal Application — Richie and Beth Springbom 3. City's Previous Driveway Ordinance 4. City's Current Driveway Ordinance 5. City's Residential Driveway Engineering Design Standard -- page 4 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS RESOLUTION NO. 2014-06 RESOLUTION ST:4TING FINDINGS OF F.4CT REALTED TO AN APPEAL OF THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE CITY DRIVEWA Y ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DRIVERAY AT 8970 55771 STREET NORTH WHEREAS, the property owners at 8970 55th Street North, Richie and Beth Springborn, have constructed a new residential driveway as part of a building permit for a single family home; and WHEREAS, the City staff determined that the constructed driveway was not compliant with Section 93.26 of the City Code for the following reasons: 1) The Driveway Ordinance requires that any portion of a driveway in the public right- of-way accessing an improved street must be constructed of bitumen or concrete. 55th Street is an improved street, requiring that any new or improved driveway accessing the street be constructed of bitlimen or concrete in the area of the public right-of-way. The portion of the applicants' driveway in the public right-of-way is constructed of reclaimed asphalt or millings, which does not meet the City's standard for bitumen or concrete. WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals regarding the staff s interpretation of the Driveway Ordinance and the definition of bitumen, and request that the Board find that the requirement to install bound bitumen or concrete in the public right-of-way he waived; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2014, the Board heard the applicants and the City's staff and counsel and considered the facts of this case; and NOW. THEREFORE, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Lake Elmo makes the following 'findings related to the appeal by Richie and Beth Springborn of City staffs interpretation of the Driveway Ordinance in connection to the construction of a new residential driveway at 8970 55th Street North: Resolution 2014-06 FINDINGS 1) That the City requires the portion of the right-of-way for all residential driveways accessing improved streets to be constructed of bitumen or concrete for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the street and ensuring the maximum life of the asset. ) That the City strives to reduce the occurrence of trailing rock or other loose material onto improved City streets for the purpose of keeping the street clear of debris to maximize safety and minimize potential damage to storm sewer and other City infrastructure. 3) That the City Council has adopted and established an engineering design standard for residential driveways that calls for a bituminous specification of MnDOT 2360 TYPE SP, a hot, plant -mixed, machine laid and bounded bituminous product. 4) That the material used by the applicants to construct the portion of the residential driveway in the public right-of-way, reclaimed compacted asphalt or millings, is not consistent with the City's engineering standard or definition of bitumen. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the City Council confirms and upholds City staff's interpretation of the City Code, and thereby denies the application of appeal. Passed and duly adopted this 21' day ofJanuary, 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk Resolution 2014-06 Mike Pearson, Mayor _Date -Received. Received 0y: Perinit SAKE ELMO A 651-747-3900 338913,Weine Avenue North lake -Elmo, 4{55042 LAND USE A PPLICA TION D Cemprehensive.Plaii'D Zoning District Amend: 0 Zoning Text Amend 0 Variande(see-beloW) 0 Zoning Appeal 0 Conditional Use PerMit (C,U,P,) D Flood Plain CUP. D interirn Use Permit (LOP.) 0 ExcavatinglGrading 0 Lot Line AdjUstment- 0 Minor'Subdivision Applicant' Richie and .Beth Fzr i Address: 8970 55th St. N. Lake Elmo. MN 55(14? phonol_ R. 651334-8428 / B-.651-592-9944 Email Address: r • S pr bcir nGims n com Fee Owner: SC .00 - Fee s are waived Der Dean 710 p2,pr ilnd City Colmcil Address: Phone # Ernail Address: Property Location (Address and Complete (long) Legal Description.: 8970 55th St. N. Lake Elmr.), 4N 55042 Detailed ReasonforReguesti We are r eti no we be waived from havina to nut "Hot Mix or concrete', a:tidentified by city- st::..vrf, at Lhw end of our driveway (richt-of-way) We believe duc to the vagueness of the current City Code, and thc Code during our final inspection on 11/21/15, we have complied with the code by using compacted asphalt millings, from Highway 36, and the competed asphalt millings are 8-12"thick Tiirougnoc.it our entire drivew4. The material we used falls under the City Colle word 'Bitumen_ S-ae attchments for u a-PPortiu clOcvMeR14tion. °VarianceRequeSts: As outlined in Section .301„060:L, Of the Lake Brno MunicipaL;ode, tne applicant must demonstrate' practical,difficUltiestefora a variance can be granted. The practical Mot-ill-les related to this application are as follows: in signing this application; i hereby,acknowledge that (have read and fully understand the -applicable provisions,of The Zoning ordinance and current administrative' procedures, I further -acknowledge the -tee explanation as outlined:in the application, procedures and here,by agree to pay aLstatements reclived, from the r City pertaining to additional application -expense, Signature of applicant- .-,J.vp-u\aicy% DateLi 5 .14- City-Use.Only Planning:Zoning District' Reviewed by: Date: Subject to the following conditions: Engineering: Reviewed by: Subject tothe following conditions; are appealing the City Cocie, Section :)3.26, H, which rees as follows: Driaveway Materials Rural Oistricts, Driveways ray be constructad of crushed rock or equivalent crushed material 'pvided that the_,_por-Oon of the d7i'veway within the road ri(7ht-of-wav :ihL11 hp nr t,h,n - Beth & Rich Springborn 8970 55th St, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-592-9944 January 6, 2014 Mayor and City Council Members: We have finished building our home on 9.58 acres and during the final inspection on 11/21/2013, completed by Rick Chase to obtain our occupancy permit, Rick noted that the end of our driveway needed to be asphalted. We were confused by Rick's statement as the end of our driveway is asphalted. We looked up the City Code which reads "(Rural Districts) Driveways may be constructed of crushed rock or equivalent crushed material provided that the portion of the driveway within the road right-of-way shall be constructed of bitumen or Concrete when accessing an improved street." Attached is a copy of the City Code that was given to us by Rick Chase. We are questioning why we are required to have the end of our driveway asphalted since that is not what is stated in the City code. To better understand the terminology in the city code we did some additional research: So what does the word bitumen mean? The definition in the dictionary states: ("bitumen"- any of various natural substances, as asphalt, maitha„ or gilsonite, consisting mainly of hydrocarbons. (See attached) We then received a letter from Joan Ziertman, dated 12/23/2013, (see attached) stating that we are to have an asphalt access for the driveway. To better understand the word "asphalt" we looked up the definition and it states: "Asphalt" - Any of various dark -colored, solid, bituminous substances, native in various areas of the earth and composed mainly of hydrocarbon mixtures. 1, A similar substance that is the by-product or petroleum -cracking operations. 2. A mixture of such substances with gravel, crushed rock, or the like, used for paving, in regards to these definitions we feel that we comply with the City Code as we have crushed asphalt on our full driveway, including the portion of the driveway within the road right-of-way. We have had multiple conversations with staff related to this and during one conversation Rick stated that we are required by City Code to have Hot mix asphalt 3" thick at the end of our driveway and based on his email he state that we were not in compliance with the City ordinance. We disagree as that is not what is stated in the City Code. We do not understand why we are being asked to do one thing and the City Code states another. We are requesting the councirs clarification related to the materials needed for the end of driveways in 'rural districts' and for the release of the remaining escrow funds. We believe we have met the requirements of the City Code and especially as it relates to rural districts. Thank you for your time arid we greatly appreciate an expedient response in order to complete this process, Sincerely, Beth Springborn Rich Spr4horn - S89"14'48"W 418.42' -\ -., 'VIONUMENTED-4•IORTH1I:7-NC,- (..;E- 2, 1-1-IE S-5 1DF THEIV;-tN3,-(7 SEC „ , 4---- ...-- ,---- - N. .... - .._, --.. 41 \ ''c -„, '---- .,$, , ''' $$,$), $ ) .-.- -"„ .• 7, , $ - .e, ' CONSTRUCTED HOUSE ' ' LOCATIQN 1 , k IMPERVIOUS AREA I 144c0 SQ. FT. AS BUILT SPOT ELEVATION. TYPICA , \ 9.58 ACRES' TOTAL ', (417,410 SQ, FT„) 9.05 EX. RIGHT OF WAY • ..„ (394,218 SQ. FT.) -, . \ ‘ \ , . . . . \ , \ ..„ 'N ‘..• "--• . \ • .•-.... -;-. n . N. .. ,...... , , ...... ,..., .--.. ..'-. g ‘..„ ',.. . '..„ ',.. \ N1$7 $`' ,...)„, , —.). , $-- - 71— "... ' ,N$ ' 7 \ , 7. .. `'. •„, •, ". $,.. WEIL,A1'10i'SWAtell'l ....-4.) ) -,., ..,<,)"--- „..... - I( : "'? •.; ' , < t ....,;,, •Zfr .1" ', ; ' .-, ,,' , l t' .•... \•,..*.' \ I . , t; l ''' f -• . \--,, , •'..' -..-. i• .-.."-- 1I : ..r ". ,. ''''',. ''''' . • i i ........ "-- — \ \ , \ / \ N, ' ,.... , i / 4 / 16,5' HUFFER— 615.4 , / "' \ r , VVE I LAN DISWAMP \ : ----,,,,, .0,„ •,,,..1 i ..--z---. --... \ . ,,. /, i r,e ..., ---.., ,..... , -. ,-'' I - Y' 1 'Id .,' ,,, • -. \,.. ,INV(SEV "T.4C.5 .2 :\ ,,,,,,) ,, / ...-- \ -...., , .INV iNW ).C.77 4 .i:Y ''',,/ ../ 1, ' ..." i ,........ , ., ... , — ,,.. •••••."4. 5, - 7 NST -RUCT ED LOCATION ! r-- i f -, ;POUND IRON R. N55S12"E 0.8 4' t 3TNPIP0 2ASTIP,ON F-IARR[SON COUNT{ -4 CORNER MONUMENT STONE MONUMENT 314° C UTSIDE DIAMETER E-CAP NUMBER AS NOTED IUTSIDE DIAMETER BY 18" LONG IRON El GHING 1.13 LES. PER LINEAR FOOT CAP DODGE RLS 45351 NAIL SLY RE -:CORDED )N IN DOC. '4 476217 " THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR. REPORT WAS OR UNDER MI DIRE-C.7 SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A ../FiVEYOR UNDER THE LAV,/6 OF T/F STATP ci)0 .•• f WETLAN D/SWAMP • • E. Distance from /ntersecUon. Nodriveway orcurb cut dlaUbeLess than ZOfeet from any right-of-way line ofany street inter3ocdon, except that in high density readenha(, commercial, and nlixed'uueZoning districts, the minimum distance shalt be 50haet. F. DrivevvGyAng/e. ALL driveways shalt connect to the public street at 90 degree aDgies' nrmust be approved bythe City Engineer. Exceptions must demonstrate aoinability tOmeet the 9Odegree angle due toeatenuat|ngcircumstances. G. D/ivewoyGrode. Driveways exceeding a grade of1O%must beapprovedhythe City Engineer. Exceptions must demonstrate an inability to meet the 1O151"') rnaxirnurn grade due toextenuating circumstances. H� Driveway /Noter/o/s. 1. Urban Districts. ALL driveways shall be constructed nfbitunnen' concrete or 8 durable mate��dB d by the CityEngineer. ^ ^ _- 2. Rural Districts. Driveways may beconstructed Vfcrushed rock orcquivate t crushed materia[provided that the portion ofthe driveway within the road right- of-way shall be constructed of bitumen urconcrete when accessing animproved i Curb Box, R�� tio/Districts.Curb boxes located within driveway shalt be protected with an Al Ford Lid or approved equaL J. Control nfTraffic. 1. Where other alternatives exist, commercial sites nhouid not be accessed from local residential streets, 2. Traffic shall, be controlled to ensure that the location of driveways shalt not constitute hazard nor beinjuriousto adjacent residential uses. K. Access toMajor Streets(7hon7ughfares). On properties having-frontageon both thoroughfares and minor roads, access sha\ibe providedvia the minor road unless otherwise approved bythe City Engineer. Access may be restricted on any non- residential local road. The number and typeS of access drives onto major streets may be controlled and Umited in the interests of public safety and efficient traffic flow. L It��ond[nunty}f/�hwmy��uk'ernen��. Drivevv�ys��nstructedtoaccess any street deviRnated as a state n|- county highway shall meet all additional specifications of the appropriate jurisdiction, Access d/ive5onto state and county roads shall require o vv reviebythe road authority and the City Engineer, The state, county and 'City Engineer ShaUdeterrnine the upprnpriate iQCWjon, size and design Of such access drives and may Limit the nunnberofaccessdrives in the interest nfpubUc safe�/ and efficient traffic flow, /$. Distance from Driveways to Side Lot _'Line, 4 driveway nnustbe at least 5 feet, from 3ny side Lot line, N, Emergency Vehicle Access, Driveways to phncipoL structupaS tha"travers;e woodec. Steerpor openfie",d areas shall be construc-Led and maintained tnawidth and base mate/ia(depth suff, cient tnsuppor1 access ' erneroencyvehicIles, 3 THE, CITY OF LAKE ELM() December 23, 2013 Hartman Homes 744 Ryan Drive, Suite 102 Hudson, WI 54016 Attn: Jeff Mears Re: 8970 55th Street N Dear Mr, Mears: Lake Elmo City Hall 651-747-3900 3800 Laverne Avenue Node Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Attached please find the rejection comments for the as -built survey that was submitted. in addition, ptease not that per City Code, an asphalt access is required for the driveway. A copy of the City Code is provided. Please make the corrections and resubmit the as -built. Please have the corrections to the driveway access completed by June 1, 2014. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact myself or Rick Chase, the Building Official at 651-747-3910. Thank you. Sincerely, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant 651-747-3918 Cc: Beth & Richie Springborn TFILF CITY OF Rich and Beth Springbom O97OS5mStreet North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Mr. and Mrs, SpAngbom: |amwriting inresponse to your December 31,2O13letter inwhich you state your concern that the Lake Elmo City Code concerning driveways isnot being properly applied tnyour recent building permit for a new home atBg70 55wStreet North, The specific provisions that have been questioned are found in Section g3.I6.H'which reads aofollows: H. Drhvewoy80oteriab. I. Urban Districts. All driveways shall be constructed of bitumen, concrete or a durable material approved bythe City Engineer. 2. Rurm/Districts. Driveways may be constructed ofcrulshnd rock oi'equivalent crushed material provided that the portion of the driveway within the road right-of-way shall be constructed ofbitumen nrconcrete when accessing animproved street. After reviewing this matter with our Staff -,/have found that the Code bbeing interpreted properly, and specifically, that the millings you have used for your driveway donot meet the [ity'srequirements for an allowed driveway material within a boulevard adjacent to an improved street. Please note that for all utherportionxofthedrivewmynutzideofthcpubUcbou|evanduoea(vxithin1Sfeetfromtheedgeofthe pavement) the millings are deemed acceptable as a crushed rock or equivalent material. If you do not agree with this interpretation of the Code, you may file an appeal of the decision with the Board of Adjustment consistent with the appeal procedures outlined in Section 154,108 (attached). Th\s does require a formal request to the City Council as specified in. the ordinance. if you decide not to file a formal appeal, you will need to modify that portion of the driveway th@t is located within the public boulevard area (from the edge ofthe existing pavement toadepth ofatleast 15 back from the edg,-) consistent with the City's review comments concerning your as -built survey. I understand that you have had recent conversations with the City Administrator regarding the escrow deposkaubmhtedbyMartnanHonnesforthisbuUdingpenmitandatthispoint,theChyismiUiu8to consider a partial release of the escrow payment based on substantial completion of Vour building permit. I have also reviewed the three outstanding items for escrow release as indicated by the Building Official in an email toyou dated December31, 3013 and we have agreed tmeliminate, all but 3800I-a,czne krcnue North ^I�kc-Riiiip~M6niacoo,z65042 requirement number 3 (pertaining to the driveway surface within the City boulevard). Furthermore, the City bwilling to grant you additional time to install the driveway, and will extend the deadline for compliance with the boulevard surfacing requirement out huJune 1,ZUIS. The City will therefore adjust the escrow to cover only the estimated value of the outstanding driveway improvements and will consider all other matters resolved. NaaoecontactmeifyouhaveanyqueotimnsabouttheChy'sappea/submk-ta/andreviewPrncess or if you would like to further discuss the City's driveway requirements. Kyle Matt Community Development Director cc: Dean Zu|eger,City Administrator Nick Johnson, City Planner Rick Chase, Building Official Mike Hartman, Hartman Homes 9800LmvcrfzoAvciao:I\Iordz°IakcI�Iroo~M.iu-icxot 55042 §154.1W8 Appeals and the Board of Adjustment The Board of Adjustment is hereby estabhshed pursuant to this chapter and Minnesota law. The Board of Adjustment (which isthe City Council inaccordance with §]1.i0ofthe City Code ) shall have those powers and authority asprovided byMinnesota law and as hereinafter provided for. The Board of Adjustment shall beformed and operate inconformance *AthChapter 31 ufthis Code and specifically with S31,1`0. A. Powers mfthe Board o/Adjustment, 1. Review ofAdministrative Decisions, The Board ofAdjustment shalt act upon all. questions as they may arise inthe administration of this chapter, including the interpretation of zoning maps, and itshall hear and deddeappea\s from and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by such an administrative official charg ed with enforcing this chapter. Such appeal may bemade by any person, firm orcorporation aggrieved by an officer, department, board -or bureau ufthe city. I. Vbr/onoms' The Board nfAdjustment shaiialso have the power togrant variances tmthe provisions ofthis chapter under certain conditions. The conditions for the issuance nfa variance are as indicated in§154.10A o[this Article. No use variances (uses different than those allowed inthe district) shalt be issued by the Board of Adjustment. B. Procedures for Appeals. Filing of Appeals, AU appeals tothe Board ofAdjustment shalt bein writing and filed with the office of the Citv Clerk within 14 calendar days of the date of mailing of the noice of the order, requirement, decision or determinat rori f6Fn vWich the appeal is made. I Hearings, The Board ofAdjustment shall conduct aIneahng regarding aKappeals in accordance with 5154.10Z.[.2of this Article. ]. Notice. Written notice nf the hearing shalt heprovided tothe parties tothe hearing and mailed not less than i4days prior tothe hearing. 4. D/de/s, The Board shalt, within a reasonable time, make its order deciding the matter and shall serve $ copy nfsuch order upon the app8kant0Fpetitioner bymail. The Board of Adjustment may reverse oraffirm, whn8y or partly, nrmay modify the order, equirement, decision or determination as in its opinion ought to be made. The reasons for the decision of the Board of Adjustment shall be stated in the order. A majority vote of the Board of Adjustment shall be necessary to reverse any decisions of an administrative office ofthe city wrtudecide infavor cfthe apphcan|. 3800 'Lxvwu 'Avoime 11Jort6°L,le Ft6vto`kl�i^crot�l55W2 DEPA. TNTINTOF INSPECTIgn CITY OF LAKE ELM61 - (651) 747-3910 INSPECTION FOR ? / DATE ADDRESS CONTRACTOR 't; PRONE NUMIER PASSI FLL MAKE CORRECTIONS & CONTINUE fl TIME I have this day made the inspection called for at the address listed above. You will Make corrections as listed below before proceeding with any rvork that would cover up or effect the listed correction. You will call for another inspection before corrections have been covered up. If no violations of the ordinance are listed above,, approval is hereby given to proceed witb the work completed as of the time and date listed below, 'Von will be in vioiation of the ordinance if you dab not coil for the proper inspection and malteidorrection as called for. Date s!' 'rime Inspector • CHAPTER 93: STREETS AND SIDEWALKS Page 1 of 3 Print Lake Elmo, MN Code of Ordinances DRIVEWAYS § 93.20 PURPOSE. The purpose of §§ 93,20 et seq. is to control the location of driveways and curb cuts in order that traffic hazards be reduced, adequate street drainage be maintained, and that ingress and egress from properties shall not constitute a hazard or impair the health, safety, or general welfare of the residents of the city. (1997 Code, § 1405,01) § 93.21 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. No driveway shall be constructed in any location where motor vehicles will be provided with access to any public right-of-way without first obtaining a permit for the construction from the properly designated city employee, who shall require a grade to establish the driveway. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the provisions of §§ 93,20 et seq. shall be complied with. (1997 Code, § 1405.02) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 93.22 APPLICATION. Any person desiring the permit shall present written application to the city describing the project along with a site plan that indicates that the requirements of §§ 93.20 et seT is met. For new residential developments, these site plans shall be reviewed by the City Building Inspector. In commercial districts, driveways shall be reviewed as part of the site plan review by the City Planner (1997 Code, § 1405.03) § 93.23 PERMIT FEES. The permit fees shall be set, from time to time, by ordinance by the Council. (1997 Code, § 1405.04) § 93.24 PERMIT REVOCATION. http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 11/6/2013 CHAPTER 93: STREETS AND SIDEWALKS Page 2 of 3 The permit issued may be revoked by the city at any time after its issuance for failure to comply with the conditions of the permit or the directions of the city relative to the work covered by the permit. (1997 Code, § 1405.05) § 93.25 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. (A) Licensed contractor. All work done within the right-of-way of the street shall be done by a regularly licensed contractor under the supervision of the proper city employee, who will see that all regulations are rigidly followed. (B) Driveway surface. Whenever a driveway is constructed., all that portion of the boulevard designated as driveway shall be surfaced with a -plant -mixed machine laid bituminous material -,conforming to -standards approved by the City Engineer and in-_aceordance with plans approved -by the City .Engineer. Concrete specifications approved by the City Engineer may also be used for driveway surfacing at the property owner's own risk.-: Should it subsequently become necessary to repair or replace the concrete surfacing in whole or in part, the owner, or owners, of property serviced by the concrete driveways shall pay all costs of the repairs or replacements. (C) Scope. The requirements of §§ 93.20 et seq, apply to all new construction and to repairs and changes to old driveways which do not conform to present requirements. (D) Notification of construction, The city is to be notified at least 24 hours in advance of the date the construction will start. (E) Plot plan. Prior to the construction ef a driveway, a plan must be submitted which indicates the location and specifications for driveways and curb cuts in accordance with §§ 93.20 et seq. The plat plan submitted shall be approved prior to the issuance of a permit for a driveway. (1997 Code, § 1405.06) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 93.26 STANDARDS. The following regulations shall apply to all driveways, curb cuts and aisles, (A) Width. The width of driveways in any zoning district shall provide adequate egress and ingress to the site for the safety of residents, and provide access for emergency vehicles. The maximum width of driveways in residential districts is 22 feet, except that in the Residential Estates (RE) Zoning District, the maximum width at a lot line shall be 12 feet and the maximum width at the public street shall be 18 feet. The maximum width of driveways in commercial districts is 34 feet. Driveways shall be included on all site plans for new residential permits for review by the Building Official. In commercial districts, driveways shall be reviewed as part of the site plan review by the City Planner. (Am. Ord. 97-18, passed 9-16-1997) http://www.arnlegal.com/alpscripts/get-eontent.aspx 11/6/2013 CHAPTER 93: STREETS AND SIDEWALKS Page 3 of 3 (B) Distance between driveways. The minimum distance between curbs of driveways at right-of-way line shall be 10 feet in any residential district. In all other districts, the minimum distance shall be 20 feet. (C) Width of aisles. Any aisle in any parking lot in a zoning district other than a residential district shall be a minimum of 24 feet. Any aisle in a parking lot in any residential district serving a building containing 3 or more dwelling units shall also be a minimum of 24 feet. (D) Distance fi'0171 inter.section. No driveway or curb cut shall be less than 20 feet from any right-of-way line of any street intersection, except that in retail, business, and industrial zoning districts, the minimum distance shall be 50 feet. (E) Driveway angle. The minimum driveway ang]e from a 2-way access street shall be 90 degrees. The minimum driveway angle from a 1-way street shall be 30 degrees. (F) Control of traffic. (I) Where commercial land uses are adjacent to residential districts, ingress and egress from the commercial uses on streets leading to or through the residential districts shall not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that adequate access to public right-of-way is thereby denied. (2) In this manner, traffic shall be controlled to ensure that the location of driveways shall not constitute a hazard nor be injurious to adjacent residential uses. (G) Access to thoroughfares. On properties having frontage on both thoroughfares and minor roads, access shall be provided via the minor road wherever feasible in order to reduce the number of curb cuts on thoroughfares. (H) State and county highway requirements. The proposed driveway is to be constructed so that if it opens into any street designated as a state or county highway, all additional specifications of the appropriate highway departments will apply. (I) Distance from driveways to side lot line. A driveway must be at least 5 feet from any side lot line, except that in the Residential Estates (RE) Zoning District, a driveway must be at least 10 feet from any side lot line. (1997 Code, § 1405.07) Penalty, see § 10.99 § 93,27 PARKING AREAS, The parking restrictions applicable to driveways are stated in the zoning code and §§ 150.001 et seq. (1997 Code, § 1405.08) httplAvww.amlegal.coin/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 11/6/2013 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO, 08-096 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING THE CITY'S DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title IX: General Regulations; Chapter 93: Streets and Sidewalks; Sections 20 through 27 to read the following: DRIVEWAYS 5 93.20 Purpose The purpose of § 93.20 et seq. is to control the location of driveways and curb cuts in order that traffic hazards be reduced, adequate street drainage be maintained, and that ingress and egress from properties shalt not constitute a hazard or impair the health, safety, or general welfare of the residents of the city. $ 93.21 Permit Requirements No driveway shall be constructed in any Location where motor vehicles will be provided with access to any public right-of-way without first obtaining a permit for construction. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be complied with. 5 93.22 Application Applications for permits shall be made in writing upon printed forms furnished by the City. Each application for a permit shall have thereon the correct legal description of the property and a drawing of the land showing the location of the proposed driveway with respect to the boundary lines of the property. The written application shalt describe the project along with a site plan that indicates that the requirements of this Ordinance are met. § 93.23 Permit Fees The permit fees shall be set in the City's Fee Schedule by ordinance by the City Council. 9 93.24 Permit Revocation The permit issued may be revoked by the City at any time after its issuance for failure to comply with the conditions of the permit or the directions of the City relative to the work covered by the permit. S 93.25 General Requirements A. Licensed Contractor. All work done within the Mght'of'vvoyVfthe street shalt bedone by a City licensed contractor as specified in Chapter 115 of the City Code. B. Site Plan. Prior tothe construction of driveway, a Sca\ed plan must be submitted which indicates the Location and specifications for driveways and curb cuts, the widths and dimensions at the street' property line and building structure, the slope of the driveway, and the location o/the curb box anapplicable in accordance with 5593.2U eCseq. The Site plan submitted shalt be approved prior tothe issuance ofapermit for adriveway. 593.26 Driveway Standards The following regulations shalt apply toall driveways and curb cuts. All driveway work shall be constructed inaccordance with the approved site plan. Nudeviations orchanges shalt be made inthe field without first obtaining permission from the City. A. Driveway Width. All driveways shalt conform to the following requirements: 1. Residential Districts n. /Mhn//nun7 Width, At( driveways shalt have arninimurnvvidth often (10)feet. b. Maximum Width. All driveways shall have o nnax\nnunn width of twenty-two (22) feet at the point it intersects the right-of-way line. In the absence of platted right-of-way, the setback utwhich point the driveway width is measured »haK be established by the prescriptive easement as determined by the City Engineer. c. [uch Cut A curb cut must not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line bymore than ten (10) feet, Z. Commercial and Mixed -Use Districts a. /Nin/nnunn Width, All driveways shalt have a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. b. /Nox/rDun7 NNoth. All driveways shalt have a nnaXin1unl width of thirty-four (34) feet at the point it intersects the right-of-way line. c. Curb Cut, 4curb cut must not exceed the width ofthe driveway approach at the property Uneby more than ten (10) feet. B. KerC/co/[/eoronce. There must be fourteen (14) feet ofvertical clearance above all driveways' C. Number ofCurb Cuts. |nResidential Districts, each property shall belimited toone curb cut per dwelling unit. Exceptions may be atinvved when neither access is onto a major street, and when the tot exceeds one hundred and fifty (150) feet in width or is acorner tot. A(i requests for a second curb cut shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. D. Distance between Driveways. The minimum distance between curbs of driveways at right-of-way tine shalt be 10 feet in any residential district. Lots that have been developed with zero tot line setbacks may bcexempt from this provision. {nat[ Other districts' the minimum distance shalt be IOfceL. 2 E. Distance from Intersection, No driveway or curb cut shalt be less than 20feet from any right'of-vvoyline ofany street intersection, except that in high density residential, [Onnmerciu( and nnimed'usezoning districts, the minimum distanceshai\ be 50feet' F. Driveway Angle. All driveways xha[iconnect tothe public street at9Odegree angles, or must be approved by the City Engineer. Exceptions must demonstrate an inabiiity tomeet the 90degree angle due tnextenuating circumstances. G. Driveway Grade, Driveways exceeding agrade Vf10%must beapproved bythe City Engineer. Exceptions must demonstrate oninability tV meet the 10% muXinnu[n8raUe due toextenuating circumstances, H. DrivewayDriyeway /MateTh7/3. 1. Urban Districts, All driveways shalt beconstructed ofbitumen, concrete ora durable material approved bythe City Engineer, Z. Ruro/D/str/cts. Driveways may he constructed ofcrushed rock orequivalent crushed maLeriat provided that the portion ofthe driveway within the road right- of-way shalt be constructed of bitumen or concrete when accessing an improved street. |. Curb Box, Residential Districts. Curb boxes located within driveway shalt be protected with onA1 Ford Lid orapproved equa(. J. Control nfTraffic. 1. Where other att9rnatiY8s exist, commercial sites should not boaccessed from local residential streets, 2. Traffic shalt be controlled toensure that the location of driveways shalt not cVnstitutca hazard nor be iniurinu� to adjacent res��Mh�( uses. K. Access toMajor Stree[s /7hOD7ughhrred. On properties having frontage on both thoroughfares and minor roads, access shalt b9provided via the minor road unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Access may be restricted an any non- residential iocairoad. The number and types 0faccess drives onto major streets may be controlled and limited in the interests of public safety and efficient traffic flow, L. State and County Highway Requirements. Driveways constructed to access any street designated as a state or county highway sha(l meet all additional specifications of the appropriate 'urisdictinn. Access drives onto state and county r0adushnii require a review bythe road authority and the City Engineer, The state, county and City Engineer ShaKdetermine the appropriate location, size and design of such access drives and may limit the number ofaccess drives in the interest of public safety and efficient traffic flow, M. Distance from Driveways to Side Lot Line. Adrivaway must be at least 5 feet from any side iotline. N. Emergency Vehicle Access. Driveways toprincipal structures that traverse wooded, steep oropen field areas shalt be constructed and maintained to a width and base material depth sufficient [nsupport access by emergency vehicles, 993.27 Parking Areas The parking restrictions applicable to driveways are stated in the zoning code and SS 150.001 et seq. SECTION 2, Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption arid publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo, SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-096 was adopted on this third day of December 2013, by a vote of 4,. Ayes and 0 Nays. LAKE ELMO CtTV COUNCIL Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City C erk This Ordinance 08-096 was published on the day of , 2013. 4 1 /2" EXP. JOINT IF CONCRETE TRANSITION-j CURB FLOW LINE % MIN.) WIDTH (MAX. VARIES) A MATCH TO EXISTING SAW CUT EDGE (1 /2" EXP. JOINT IF CONCRETE) E3ITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE (PAVEMENT TYPE TO REPLACE EXISTING) 1/2" EXP. JOINT (TYP.) PLAN VARIABLE --1/2" EXP. / JOINT APRON GRADE (2 CONTRACTION JOINT IF CONCRETE (PANEL WIDTH NOT TO EXCEED 10') CONC. CURB & GUTTER VARIABLE DRIVEWAY GRADE MATCH EXISTING (12% MAX.) L.-- PAVEMENT MATERIAL ASE MATERIAL SECTION A -A ERIVEWt..Y TYPE SURFACE TH:SKNESS BASE -THICKNESS- 5ITUMINOUS 3 NCHES 6 INCHES CONCRETE 6 INCHES 4 INCHES NOTES I BITUMINOUS SHALL BE MnDOT 2360 TYPE SP, GRADATION MIXTURE NO. A WEARING COURSE, 2. AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE MnDOT 3136 CL. 5, 100% CRUSHED STONE. RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY FEBRUARY 20 ELMO CITY OF LAKE EL 0 STANDARD DRAWING NO, 504 LAKE ELMO THE11 6", L AVIU AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: , • 6 b• DATE: CONSENT ITEM MOTION January 2 #3 Approve Disbursements in the amount of $1,282,261.76 Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Dean Zuleger, City Administrator 014 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item City Administrator Report/Presentation City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff._ ....... ...... .......... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion .......... ........ ............... ............ ......... ....... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: S1,282,261.76 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council „.. is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $l ,282,261.76. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended to be part of the Consent Agencla. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NA -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 37 January 2], 2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT,: The City of Lake Elmo has the fiduciary responsibility to conduct normal business operations. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Claim # Amount Description ACH 14,275,20 PayrollTaxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 1/9/14 ACH $ 6,359.56 Payroll Retirement to PERA 1/9/14 DD5225-DD5274 $ 41,848.34 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 1/9/14 40826 - 40827 $ 8,768.50 Accounts Payable Manual 1/3/14 & 1/10/14 40828 - 40900 $ 1,206,150.16 Accounts Payable 1/21/14 2146-2226 $ 4,860.00 Library Card Reimbursement 1/21/14 TOTAL $ 1,282,261.76 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda the aforementioned disbursements in the amount of $1,282,261.76 ATTACHMENTS: Accounts Payable — check registers -- page 2 -- Accounts Payable To Be_Paid Proof List User; devise Printed: 01/03/2014 - 10:29 AM Batch: 011-12-2013 invoice tt Div Date SPRINGI3R Spring,born R telt ie and Belli 1/3/2014 01/03/1014 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable I/3/2014 Total: SPRINGBR 'Iota]: Report Total: Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO 0 (lose POLine fi AP - To 13e Paid Proof List (01/03/14 - 10:29 A.N.1 4,000.00 0.00 01/03/1014 Partial Escrow Refund 8970 55tli St NI 4.000.00 4,000.00 4.000.00 No 0000 Page 1 Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: devise Printed: 01/10/2014 - 12:39 PM Batch: 002-01,-2014 Invoke # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type 1'0 # Close POLine fi WERNERAU Werner Auction Group 1/10/2014 01/10/2014 4,768.50 0.0(1 01/10/2014 5200 HD Thermal linage Camera & No 0000 101-420-2220-42400 Small Tools & Equipment Charger 1/10./2014 Total: 4,768.50 WERNERAU Total: 4,708.50 Report Total: 4,768.50 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (01/10/14 - 12:39 PM) Page 1 Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: denise Printed: 01;16/2014 - 2:17 PM Batch: 003411-2014 Invoice t Inv 1)al.e Amount Quantity Put Date Description Reference Task AMERICAN American Eng and Testing, Inc. 60817 12/23/2013 4.595,95 601.-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 60817 Total: 4,595.95 60863 01/15/2014 1.855.00 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services 60863 Total: 1,855.00 AMERICAN Total: 6,450,95 AKERP AT [3aker Patricia INVOICE 2013-12 1)1/08/2014 550.00 101-410-1520-43150 Contract Services INVOICE 2013-12 Total: 550.00 B AKER PAT Total: 550,00 BOETONME Bolton & Mcnk, Inc 0162699 12//0/2013 315.00 601-494-940(1-43030 Engineering Services (1162699 Total: 315.00 0162-700 12;2012013 6,687.00 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services (116270(1 I )P0/20)3 10,030.50 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services 0 162700 Total: 16,717.50 BOLTONME Total: 17,032,51) C A C Companion Animal Control, EEC 12 12411/2013 500.00 I 01-420-2700-43 150 Contract Services 12 'rota': 500.0)) AP - To Be Paid Proof List (01/16/14 - 2:17 PM) 0,00 01/21/2014 Well No 4 Connecting Watermain 0.00 01/21/2014 Sewer Infrastructure Improv 194-30th 0.00 01/21/2014 Contract Services - Hours 22 2013-12 "1-ype P0 # Close POLine # No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 (1.00 (11/2 112014 Well No 4 Connecting Watermain No 0000 WaterFund 0.00 01/21/2014 Section 34 Water & Sewer Utility Ext No 0000 Imp 0.00 01/21/2014 Section 34 Water & Sewer Utility Ext No 0000 lmp 0.00 01/21/2014 Animal Control Services - December 2013 No 0000 Page I blV9ice Inv 0;3 te AMOtlia Quantity Pnit Pate Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine C A C 5(10.00 CA RQUEST Car Quest Auto Parts 2055-308065 12/31/201.3 50.65 0.00 01/21/2014 Lights- No 0000 101-430-3125-44040 Repairs/Main( Eqpt 2055-30005 Total: 5(1,65 CARQUEST Total: 50.65 CONICAST C'oineast 1207/2013 12/27/2013 7.92 0.00 (11/21/2014 Monthly Service - December 2013 No 0000 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 12127/2013 Total: 7.92 COMCAST Total: 7,92 CIVB LOOM City of -Bloomington December 2013 12/3112013 601 -494-9400-42270 Utility System Maintenance December 2013 Total CTYF3LOOM Total: 31.50 0.00 I/2 1 720 141 Lab Bacteria Test No 0000 3 1 .50 3 1 .5(1 CTYNIAPLE City of Maplewood 007130 12/31/2013 5(1.32 (1.00 01/21/2014 Keats MSA Street 409-430-8000-43030 Engineering Services 007130 12/31/2013 37.96 0,00 01/21/2014 Keats Trunk Waterman) 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services 007130 Total: 88.28 CTY MAP LE Total: 88.28 CTY0A1(DA City of Oakdale 1000460-0 I I ,/3112013 601-494-9400-43820 Water Utility 1000460-01 Total: O1Y0M(DA Total: 2.805.61 0.00 01/21/2014 Water Service 1-94 December 2013 2.805.61 2,805.61 ENI FROAUT Emergency Automotive Tech, Inc AWI21713-4 I2/I7/20I3 353.38 0.00 01/21/2014 Light Bar -04-1 101-430-3125-44040 RepairsAlaint Eqpt AW121713-4 Total: 353.38 Al' - To lie Paid Proof List (0 I /16/14 - 2:17 PM) No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No (1000 Page 2 R./vfliCe Inv Date Arnonnt Qnantity Putt Date Description Reference Task Type PO ti Close roLiiie # EMERGAUT Total: [AI MONS&O Emmons & Olivier Resources Inc 0156562 1)/1812013 "803-000-0000-12900 Deposits Payable (1156562 Total: EMMONS&O Total: FXL FXL, Inc. December 2013 17/21/2013 10 I -4 1 0-1320-43100 Assessing Services December 2013 Total: FXL Total: GREATANIE Great American Marine Inc 36449 12/31/2013 I 01-470-22?0-42400 Small Tools & Equipment 36449 Total: GR LATAME Total: HACH 11A(.711 Company 860848 )' 12111/2013 601-494-9400-42160 Chemicals 8(1(18482 Total: HACH Total: IIOLIDAYC Holiday Credit Office 12715/2013 11/15/2013 101-420-2220-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 12/15/2013 Total: HOLIDAYC Total: JOHNSON& Johnson & Turner Attorneys 31940 0 110S 2014 101-420-2 I 50-43045 Attorney Criminal 31940 Total: 31944 01/08/2014 601-494-9400-43040 Legal Services 31944 Total: AP - To 13e Paid Proof' List 101/16/14 - 2:17 P1.11 353,38 76.00 0.00 01/21/2014 2012.130 Savona Lennar Dev SW Grading 76.00 76.00 16.908,20 0.00 01/21/2014 Assessment Services - Final 2013 16,908,20 t 6,908,20 895,00 0.00 01 121/2014 Lightbar for Boat 895.00 895.00 544.89 0.00 01/21/2014 Lab Test Supplies 544.89 544.89 178.87 0.00 01/21/2014 Fuel - Fire Department 178.87 178.87 4,549.47 0.00 01/21/2014 Legal Services - Prosecution #31940 4,549.47 30.0(1 0,00 01/21/2014 Legal Services - 3M 431944 30.00 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 3 itry °ice 14 Inv Date Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close ['Mine # 31945 01/08/2014 206-450-5300-43040 Legal Services 31945 Total: 31957 01/08/2014 I 01-410-1320-43040 Legal Services 31952 Total: 31954 4)08/2014 409-480-8000-43040 Legal Services 31954 Total: 32359 01/08/2014 409-480-8000-43040 Legal Services 32359 Total: JOHNSON& Total: 356,00 0.00 01/21/2014 Legal Services - Library #31 945 No 0(100 356,00 1,82 I .00 0.00 01/21/2014 Legal Services - Civil lnv #31952 No 0000 1,821.00 97.50 0,00 01/21/2014 Legal Services - Lennar Project Status No 0000 97.50 145.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Legal Services - Sewer Line Waivers No 0000 145.00 6,998.97 JOSTENS Jostens LEFD13 09/20/2013 869,39 0,00 01/21/2014 20 Year Service Ring 0000 101-420-2220-44300 Miseellaneous LEFD13 Total: 869.39 JOSTENS Total: 869.39 K AM CO Kameo, Corp 3962 12/28/2013 800.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Cut Down Storm Damaged No 0000 101-430-3120-43150 Contract Services Cottonwoods 3962 Total: 800.00 K AM CO Total: 800.00 KREMER Kreuter Services, ITC 29057 17/30/7013 418.02 0,00 01/21/2014 Spring Replace on 86- I Dump Truck No 0000 101-430-3125-42210 Equipment Parts 29057 Total: 418.02 KREMER Total: 418.02 LEOIL Lake Elmo Oil, Inc. 12/3112013 11/31.0013 101-420-2220-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 12/31/2013 Total: 5076330 12/2612013 101-430-3120-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 5076330 Total: 5676 CI8 12/19/2013 1.01-430-3120-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 5676123 Total: AP - To Ile Paid Proof List (0)( 4 - 2:17 PIvl 328.26 0.00 01/21/2014 Fuel - 323.16 4 I .83 41.83 30.00 30,00 0,00 01/21/2014 Fuel 0,00 01/21/2014 Fuel - No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 4 Invoke # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine 5676139 I -I/ I S/2013 101-430-312(1-4212(1 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 5676139 otal: LEOIL 37.00 0.00 01/21/20 4 Fuel - 37.00 437.09 No 0000 Lillie Newspapers Inc. Lillie Suburban Aect No 007148 12/31/2013 55.90 0.00 01/21/2014 12/8 Notice - Inwood Booster Station No 0000 101-410-132043510 Legal Publishing Acct No 007148 12j31/2013 13.20 0.00 01/21/2014 12/25 Ordinance #08-097 No 0000 101-410-1320-43510 Legal Publishing Acct No 007148 12/31/2013 19.80 0.00 01;21/2014 1/1 Notice - Planning Commission No 0000 10 I-410-1320-43510 Legal Publishing Aect No 007148 'rota!: 88.90 Lillie Total: 88.90 LOFT Loftler Companies, Inc. 1678116 0E02/2014 471.96 0.00 01/21/20i 4 Copy Machines Contract&Over 12/10- No 0000 101-410-1940-44040 Repairs/Main( Contractual Eqpt 1/9 1678216 Total: 471.96 LOFT Total: 471.96 LTLFALLS Little Falls Machine. Inc .554 12:27/2013 101-430-3125-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 52554 Total: LILEALTS Total: 241.94 0.00 01/21/2014 Scraper Hangers & Hardware No 0000 241.94 241.94 NIARONEYS klaroney's Sanitation,. Inc 505823 01/02/2014 108.32 0.00 01/21/2014 Waste Removal - City Hall No 0000 101-41(1-1940-43840 Refuse .505823 011.12/2014 47,68 0.00 (11/21/2014 Waste Removal - Fire No 0000 1(1E420-2210-43840 Refuse 505,823 01/0212014 207.S2 0.00 01/21/2014 Waste. Removal - Public Works No 0000 101-430-3100-413840 Refuse 505823 01412/2014 207.82 0.00 01/21/2014 Waste Removal - Parks No 0000 101-45(1-5200-43840 Refuse 505823 01/02/2014 48.12 0.00 01'2E2014 Waste Removal - Library No 0000 206-450-5300-43840 Refuse 505823 Total: 619.76 MARON EV S Total: 619.76 To Be pnid proof List (tt 116114 - 2:17 PN1) Page 5 invoice 71 Inv Date Amount Quantity hut Date Description Reference 'rash Type l'O # Close POLitte MI LIFIZE.X Miller Excavating, Inc. 17844 17/31/2013 001-494-9400-44030 Repairs\ M aim( Imp Not B Idgs 17844 Total: NIILLERE-IN Total: MINGERCO Miner Construction Inc Pay Request No4 12/01/2013 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services Pay: Request No4 Total: MINGERCO Total: NASALTCO North American Salt Company 71083125 12r/5/2013 101-430-3125-42290 Sand/Salt 71083125 Total: 71088371 1)/310013 101-430-3125-42200 Sand/Salt 71088371 Total:. NASA LTC° Total: NELSONMA Nelson Marine 2)61) 12/2612013 10 I-4)0-2210-42400 Small "Fools& Equipinent 22612 Total: NELSONMA Total: ONECALL Gopher State One Call 86.765 2/31/2013 101-430-3100-43150 Contract Services 86265 Total: ONECALL Total: OURTEAM A Our Team Advantage Inc. 438 12/25/2(113 101-430-3125-43150 Contract Services 438 Total: OURTEAMA Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List 101/16/14 - 2:17 PM) 2,190.55 0.00 0121/2014 Water Main Excavation & Materials Layton 2,190.55 2,1.90.55 486,505.26 0.00 01/21/2014 Lake Elmo Ave Sewer Infras Imp 4th Pay 486,505.26 486,505.26 No 0000 No 0000 3,696.63 0.00 01/21/2014 Road Salt No 0000 3,696.63 1,834.99 0.00 01121/2014 Road Salt No 0000 1,834.99 5.531.62 580.01 0.00 01/21/2014 Battery, Battery Box & Recharge kit boat 580.01 580.01 39.25 0.00 01/2112014 FTP Tickets - December 2013 39.2s 39.25 805.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Contract Snow Plowing 8(15.00 805.00 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 6 1 vo ice if Inv Date Amount Quantity Putt Dale Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine fi REDSTONE Redstone Construction Co. Inc Pay request No3 01/01/2014 601-494-9400-43030 Engineering Services Pay request No3 01/01/2014 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering Services Pay request No3 Total: REDSTONE Total: RENLUNDT Renlund Ten-y 14 01/02/2014 101 -420-24(10-43150 Inspector Contract Services 14 01/02/2014 101-420-2400-43310 Mileage 14 Total: RENLUNDT Total: RI VRCOOP River County Cooperative 12,',31/2013 12/31/2013 101-420-2220-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 1213 U2(113 Total.: Rf V RCOOP Total: SAUTE:AST Safe -Fast, Inc, INV 134330 12/26/2(113 101-450-5200-42150 Shop Materials INV 134330 Total: SAFEFAST Total: SAMSCLUF3 Sums Club 12/17/2013 01/07/2014 101-420-2220-42400 Small Tools & Equipment 12/17/2013 Total: 11./30/2013 01/07/2014 101-420-2220-44300 Miscellaneous 12/30/2013 01/07/2014 ( /1-420-2220-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 2/30/2013 01/07/2014 101-420-2220-42400 Small Tools & Equipment 12/30/2013 (11/(17/21114 101-43(1-3100-42000 Office Supplies 12/30/2013 Total: I 26.211.40 189,317,09 315,528.49 315,528,49 364..50 116.96 481.46 481.46 295.79 295.79 295.79 161.61 161.6) 161.61 21.30 21.30 10,98 78.22 25.65 7.48 122.33 AP - To I3e Paid Proof- List {01/16/14 - 2:17 1k1) 0.00 01/21/2014 0.00 01121 /2014 0 MO 0.00 Section 34 Water & Sewer Utility Ext Imp Section 34 Water & Sewer Utility Ext Lnip 01/21./2014 Building Inspector Services Dec 26;27;3(1 01/21/2014 Building Inspector Mileage Dee 26;2730 0.00 01/21/2014 Fuel - OM 01/21/2014 lce Grippers & Safety Glasses OW 01/21/2014 Phone Charger 0.00 U.00 0.00 01/21/2014 01/21/2014 01/21/2014 Restock Rehab Supplies RestockStation Supplies lce Melt air Trucks 0.00 01/21/2014 Supplies No No No No No No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 000(.1 0000 00(10 Page 7 Invoice 4 Ins Pate Amount Quantity Pint Pale DeSeription Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # SAMSCLUB Total: 143.63 S111 S111 International Corp 1301592525 12/19/2013 101-410-1320-43190 Software Programs B015915 )5 Total: SI-11 Total: 1EILANDN1 TE1 LaiRlinark Audio 1179731 12/70/2013 206-450-5300-42500 Library Collection Maintenance (179731 Total: -1EILANDNI TKDA TK DA, Inc. 092013004149 10/09/2013 101-410-1930-43030 Engineering Services 002013004149 Total: 007013004150 10/02/2013 602-495-9450-43030 Engineering. Services 002013004 450 Total: TKDA Total: 183.54 0.00 01/21/2014 1 - Acrobat XI Std software - Admin No 0000 188,54 188.54 164.02 0.00 01/21/2014 Audio Books (15) 164.02 164.02 130.93 0,00 01/21/2014 General Engineering Serv-Records Data 130.93 3,580,92 0.00 01/21/2014 2013.123 Lake Elmo Ave Sewer Infra Ilup 3,580.9) 3,711,85 -FRI- f' Tri State Pump & Control Inc. 34822 01/02/2014 8,564,50 0.00 01/21/2014 94 1411 Station Pump Repair 602-495-9450-441130 Repairs'Alaint Imp Not B1dgs 34822 Total: 8,564.50 TRI-P Total; 8,564.50 TwiNGAR Twin City Garage Door Corp. 106838 12123/2013 379.24 0.00 01/21/2014 Repair Garage Door Station #1 101-420-2270-44010 Repairs/Mann Bldg 406838 Total: 379.24 TwiNGAR Total: 379.24 VALLEYTR Valley Trophy Inc. 44919 12/05/2013 573.60 0.00 01/21/2014 Employee Recognition Awards - 2013 101-410-1320-44380 StarlDevelopment 44919 Total: 573.60 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (01/16/14 - 2:17 PM) No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 8 to -voice t`, Inv Date Antonin Quantity Pun Date Description Reference Task "Fype V() # Close POLitte # '1,7ALLEYTR Total: 573.60 VOSSDAN-Voss Dan 855860 01/01/2014 400.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Snow Removal Dec 2013 No 0000 206-450-5300-43150 Contract Services 855860 Total: 400,00 VOSSDAN Total: 400,00 WAS-SHER Washington County 77742 12/30/2013 10.75 0,00 01/21/2014 Code Red - Notification- Training Bum No 0000 10 I -420-2220443 70 Conrcrences & Training, 77742 Total: 10.75 WAS-SHER Total: 1(1.75 WASH-REC Washington County: )1245080 12/06/2013 101-410-1910-42030 Printed Forms P245080 Total: 1'245874 12116/2013 1 tI1-410-1910-42030 Printed Forms P245874 Total: P240796 12/30/201 3 101-410-1910-42030 Printed Forms P246790 Total: P246995 12/31/2013 1111-410-1910-42030 Printed Forms P246995 Total: WASH-REC Total: WASHCONS Washington Conservation Dist. 2813 12/31/2013 603496-9500-44370 Conferences (c.:. Training 2813 Total: WASHCONS Total: WATERCON Water Conservation Svs Inc. '1541 01/05/2014 601-494-9400-44300 Miscellaneous 4541 Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (0 I I (/14 - 2:17 PM) 40.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Easement on Lot 6 -Si Croix Sanctuary No 0000 46,00 46.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Easement - No 0000 46.00 52.65 0.00 01/21/2014 QCD 0000 52.65 52,65 0.00 01/21/2014 QCD - No 0000 52.65 197.30 556.25 0.00 01/21/201 4 4th of Four a er Billings Shared No 0000 Educ 556.75 556.25 272.40 0.00 01/21/2014 Leak Detection Service - VVIA1 Break Layton 272.40 No 0000 Page 9 lovnice in 1.i;11.e. Amount Quantity Putt Date Description Reference Task Type PO Close L'OLine # WATERTON Total: WE L.KSEND Weeks -End Signs & Graphics 1878 11/13/2013 601-494-9400-45200 Building and Structures 1878 Total'. WEEKSEND Total: NCEL Xcel Energy 17/2717013 12/27/2013 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 12/.27/20(3 607-495-9450-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 12./27/2013 17/27/2013 101-430-3160-4381(1 Street Lighting 12/27/2(.113 12/27/2013 101-420-2220-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 101-410-1940-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 101-410-1940-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 17/77/2013 12/27/2013 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 1127/2013 I 2/27/20 13 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 12/27/2013 601-494-9400-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 17/7717013 101-420-2220-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 17/77/1013 111-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 12/27/2013 17;27/2013 101-450-5200-43810 Eteetric Utility 17/77/2013 170717013 002-195-9450-4.3810 Electric 12/27/2013 12./27/2013 6W-495-9450-43810 Electric Utility 272.40 154.96. 0.00 154.96 154.96 0 U21/2014 City Logo Graphics 68.19 0.00 01/21/2014 Xcel -Lights at Legion Park-3509 Laverne 17.32 (1.00 01121/2014 Xcel -Lift Station - 8860 Hudson 56.73 0.00 01721/20 I 4 Xcel -Traffic Lights - 100 Inwood 10,66 0,00 01/21/2014 Xcel -Street Lights - 3014 JainIcy 1,162.45 0.00 01/21/2014 Xcel - Fire Station 2 4259 Jainaca 296.33 0.00 01/21/2014 18.90 0.00 01/21/2014 695.24 0.00 01/21/2014 1.33 (1.00 01/21/2014 66.82 0.00 ()1/21/2014 -6.64 0.00 01/21/2014 Xcel - City Hall 3800 Laverne Xccl - Traffic Lights 100 Keats Xcel - City Hall 3800 Laverne Xcel - Tennis Courts 3510 Laverne Xcel - Parks Bldg - 11194 Upper 33rd Xcel - Pebble Park - 8170 Lake Jane Tr 325.43 0.00 01/21/2014 Xccl - Wells 1&2 3303 Langly & 1197.5 55 31(1.78 0,00 01/21/2014 Xcel - Fire Station 1 3510 Laverne 28.55 0,00 01/21/2014 157.24 0.00 01/21/2014 9,76 (1.00 01/21/2(114 -9.88 0.00 01/21/2014 Xcel Lift Station - 2759 Legion Ave AP - To Be Paid Proof List 101/16/14 - PN.1) Xcel - Traffic Lights 998 Inwood Xccl - Arts Center - 3585 Laverne Xcel Lill Station - 11062 34th St No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 10 invoice NI' Dale ,,3u1011611: Quantity Pm( Date Description Reference Task Type PO it Close POLine 12'77/3013 1727/21113 1(11 -470-2220-43810 Electric 1E270(113 170712013 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 17,27/2013 12/27/2013 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 12/2772013 12/270013 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 17/27/2013 12i:27/7013 I 01-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 13/27/7013 101-450-5200-43810 Electric Utility 17/27/2013 12137/2013 101-430-3100-43810 Electric Utility 17/27/2013 12/77/2013 601494-Q400-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 12/77,2013 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 17/27/7013 12/27/2013 101-430-3160-43810 Street Lighting 17/77/2013 17/37/2013 206-450-5300-43810 Electric Utility 12/27/2013 Total: XCEL Total: Report foal: - To Be Paid Proof List (01/16/1-1 - 2:17 PM) 655,91 296,96 580.95 13.34 4,99 -64,10 1,593.69 118.94 3.72 19.58 615.2:6 7,048.45 7,048.45 891,904.31 0,00 01/21/2014 Xcel Lift Station - 3510 Laverne 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 01/21/2(114 01/21/2014 01/21/2014 (11/21/2(114 01/21/2014 01/21/2014 Xcel Legion Park - 3511 Laverne Xcel Street Lights - Xcel Traffic - Manning & Stillwater Blv Xcel Traffic -VFW Hal Meld-3675 Layton Xcel Traffic -VFW Balltield-3675 Layton Xcel Traffic -Public Wks 3400 Ideal 0.00 01/21/2014 Xcel Water Tower 2 3445 Ideal Ave 0.00 01/21/2(114 Xcel Speed Sign Hwy 5 10901 Stillwater 0.00 01/21/2.014 Xcel Welcome Sign - 425 Keats 0.00 01/21/2014 Xecl Library - 3537 Lake Elmo Ave No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page I I Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List (Jser: denise Printed: 01/16/2014 - 2:39 P11,1 Batch: 004-01-/0 14 take # inv Datc WAS-SHER Washingion County 77946 01/14/2014 101-420-2100-43150 Law Enforcement Contract 77946 Total: WAS-SHER Total: Report Total: AP - To Be Paid ProofList (01116/14 - 2:39 PM) Anton la Quail tity Pint te Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 2.51,242.31 251,242.32 251,242.32 251.242.3) 0.00 01121/2014 July - December 2013 Police Services No 0000 Page 1 Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: denise Printed: 01/16/2014 2:51 PM Batch: 005-01-2014 Invoice tt Inv Date CARQUEST Car Quest Auto Parts 2(155-31,8499 01/(17/2(114 101-450-5200-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 2055-308499 Total: 2055-308550 01/07/2014 101-450-5200-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 2055-308550 Total: 2055-308554 01/07/2014 101-450-5200-42120 Fuel, Oil and Fluids 2055-308554 Total: CARQUEST 'Iota]: CONLEYM 0 Conley Morgan Cable Op 1/6/14 01/06/2014 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations Cahle Op 1/6/14 Total: Cable Op1/1 3/14 01/13/2014 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations Cable Op1/13/14 Total: CONLEYMO Total: CTYROSEV City of Roseville 0218204 01/06/2014 101-410-1450-43 180 Information Technology/Web 0218204 Total: (1218244 0 E/06/2014 101-410-1450-43180 Information Technology/Web 0218244 Total: 0218282 01/08/2014 101-410-1320-43210 Telephone 0218782 0i/08/2014 101-420-2400-43210 Telephone AP - `Fo Be Paid Proof List (01/16/14 - 2:5) PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference 324.59 0.00 01/21/2014 Radiator & Cat converter repairs - 00-2 324.59 90,03 0.00 01.'21/2014 Battery 90.03 5.59 0.00 (11/21/2014 Fxhaut Gasket 00-2 5.59 420.21 55.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Cable Operations- 1/6/14 CC Meeting (4hr) 55.00 55.00 55.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 (11/21/2014 Cable Operations-1/13/14 Plan Comm (4hr) 113.97 0.00 01/21/2014 Domain Name Renewal 3 yrs 113.97 2,635.58 0.00 01/21/2014 Monthly IT Services - Jan 2014 2,635.58 87.10 0.00 01/21/2014 Monthly Tclephonc-Admin - Jan 2014 13.75 0.00 01/21/2014 Monthly Telephone -Building Insp Jan 2014 Task 'I ype PO # (lose. POI,ine # No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 00(10 No 0000 No 0000 No No 0000 No 0000 Page l Invoke # nv Date 0218282 01/08/2014 101-410-1450-43210 Telephone 0218282 01/08/2014 101-410-1930-43210 Telephone 0218282 01/08/2014 101-410-1520-43210 Telephone (1218282 01/08/2014 101-410-1910-43210 Telephone (r)18282 01/08/2014 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone 0218282 Total: CTYROS EV Total: DERRICK Derrick Custom Homes 01;02/2014 01/02/2014 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable 01102120 14 Total: DERRICK Total; DONA LUSA Donald Salverda & Associates Jan 6 2014 01/06/2014 101-410-1320-44370 Conferences & Training Jan 6 2014 Total: DONALDSA ENV ENT'S Envemis Acct 738507 01/01/2(114 101-410-1940-43210 Telephone Acct 738507 Total: ENVENTIS Total: EQUINOX Equinox Software 3416 01/13/2014 206-450-5300-43180 Information Technology 3416 Total: EQUINOX Total: FIORILLO Fiorillo Megan Cable Op 1 /14/14 01/14/2014 1(11-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations Cable 0111/14/14 Total: Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference AP - To Be Paid Proof List (01/16/14 - 2:51 pm) 13.75 0.00 13.75 0.00 97.50 0.0)) 38.15 0.00 181.75 0.00 375,75 3,125.30 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 01/21/2014 Monthly Telephone -Communication Jan 14 (11/21/2()14 Monthly Telephone -Engineering Jan 2014 01/21/2014 Monthly Telephone -Finance Jan 2014 01/21/2014 Monthly Telephone -Planning Jan 2014 01/21/2014 Monthly Telephone -Public Wks Jan 2014 0.00 01/21/2014 Refund Escrow#7829 8311 2Ist Street 600,00 0.00 01/21/2014 Ent:01111mM D Zuleger East Metro Mgr 600.00 600.00 53.46 0.00 01/21/2014 Telephone/Data Service -City Hall -Jan 53.46 53.46 3,100.00 0.00 01121/2(114 ILS Platform Support -I Yr Renewal- Lihrar 3.100.00 3,100.00 34.38 0.00 01/21/2014 Cable Operations-1/14/14 CC Workshop2.5 34.38 Task Type PO # Close POI,ine # No No No No No No No No No No 0010 (7000 0000 0000 000(1 0000 0000 01100 0000 ONO Page 2 Invoice # Inv Date Amounl Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task FIORILLO Total: 34.38 FRANCOTY Francotyp-Postalia, Inc R1101811981 01/05/2014 247.30 0.00 01/21/2014 Postbase Inkjet Cartridge 101-410-1320-43220 Postage R1101811981 Total: 247.30 FRANCOTY Total: 247.30 iTRROOFI .ITR Roofing Inc 01012014 01/01/2014 4,272.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Roof Repair & Gutter Replace 206-450-5300-42185 Software Dol,vopyint 01012014 Total: 4,272.00 ,ITRROOF1 Total: 4,272.00 LMC IT League of MN Cities Ins. Trust 200012333 01/1612014 34,341.00 0.00 01/2172014 Worker's Compensation - 2014 101-000-0000-20600 Contracts Payable 200012333 'rota]: 34,341,00 V1_00012305 01716/2014 214.67 0.00 01/21/2014 Accident Plan for Volunteers 101-410-1320-43610 Insurance VL00012305 01/1672014 214.67 0.00 01/21/2014 Accident Plan for Volunteers 204-450-5200-43610 Insurance VL00012305 01/16/2014 214.66 0.00 01/2172014 Accident Plan for Volunteers 206-450-5300-43630 Insurance VE00012305 Total: 644.00 LMC IT Total: 34,985,00 MARVS Marc's Professsional Tools 266477 1111472013 9.00 0,00 01/21/2014 Tools 101-430-3100-42400 Small Tools & klinor Equipment 266477 Total: 9,00 267922 01/07/2014 68.55 0.00 01/21/2014 Tools I 01-430-3100-42400 Small Tools & Minor Equipment 267922 Total: 68.55 MARVS Total: 77.55 MBFTE IMBFTE 01/14/14 01714/2014 75.00 0.00 01/21/2014 License. Rencwal,Chief Malmquist 101-420-2220-44330 Dues & Subscriptions 0 I /14/14 Total: 75.00 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (01/16/14 - 2:51 PM) Type PO ft' Close POLipe , • • No 0000 No 0000 No WOO No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 3 Invoice # lnv Date Amount ()flaunty hut Date Description Reference MB FTE Total: 75.00 FNARDSO Menards - Oakdale 35360 0141272014 27.64 0.00 01721/2014 Shop Supplies 101-4511-5200-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 35360 Total: 27,64 35679 01/07/2014 59.94 0.00 0I/21/2014 Lights Council Chambers 101-410-194042230 Building Repair Supplies 35679 Total: 59.94 35696 01417/2014 1(14.03 0.00 01/2172014 Ballast Council Chambers 101-410-1940-42230 Building Repair Supplies 35696 Total: 104,03 MENARDSO Total: 191.61 METCOU Metropolitan Council 1029326 01/03/2014 602-495-9450-43820 Sewer Utility - Met Council 1029326 Total: IM ETCOU Total: Task ipe PO tl Close POLine # 1,550.84 0.00 01/2172014 Monthly Wastewater Service -Feb 2014 - 1,550.84 1,550.84 No (1000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 METRO MU Metro Cities 36 01/08/2014 3,397.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Mbrship Dues - Jan 2014- Dec 2014 No 0000 101-410-111(1-4,1330 Ducs & Subscriptions 36 Tota): 3,397.00 METRO MU Total: 3,397.00 MILLEREX Miller ENcavating, Inc. 17881 01/0972014 601-494-9400-44030 Repairs\ Maint Imp Not 131clgs 17881 Total'. MILLEREX Total: 3,025.88 0.00 01/21/2014 Water Main ENcav&Materials 33rd- Kraft Ci 3,025.88 3,025.88 ON ECALL Gopher State One Call 91440 01/1572014 100.00 0.00 01721/2014 Annual Fee - 2014 101-430-3100-44330 Dues & Subscriptions 91440 Total: 100.00 ON ECALL Total: 100,00 AP - To 13c.- Paid 0roo1 L.ist WI/16714 - 2:51 PM No (1000 No 0000 Page 4 iniroiee 4 nv [)ate Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO 4 Close POLiou pe- -------- OURTFAMA Our Team Advantage Inc. 545 01/08/2014 805.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Contract Snow Plowing - 1/3/14 No MOO 101-430-3125-43150 Contract Services 545 Total: 805.00 OURTEAMA Total: 805.00 S&T S&T Office Products. Inc. 01 QD8855-8854 01/0712014 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01QD8855-8854 Total: S&T Total: 173.70 0.00 01/21/2014 Office Supplies - Administration 173.70 173.70 No 00110 TDS Tips Metrocom - LLC : 1 651-779-S882 01113./2014 147A1 0.00 01/21/2014 Analog Lines - Fire No 11n 101-420-2220-43210 Telephone 239.20 651-779-8882 01/13/20140.00 01/21/2014 Analog Lines - Public Works No :( 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone 651-719-8882 01/13/2014 135.96 0.00 01/21/2014 Analog Lines - Lift Station Alarms No 0000 602-495-9450-43210 -Telephone 651-779-8882 01/13/2014 47.51 0.00 01/21/2014 Alarm -Well House #2 No 0000 601-494-9400-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 Total: 570.08 570.08 TDS Total: TOWNCTRY Town & Country Cleaning Co 114 466 01/01/2014 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 114 466 Total: 114 5(19 01/01/2014 206-450-5.300-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 114 509 Total: TOWNCTRY Total: WAS-SHER Washington County 77841 01101/2014 101-420-2100-43150 Law Enforcement Contract 77841 Total: WAS-SHER Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List ((11116/14 - 2:51 PM) 230.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Janitorial Service - City Hall .lart 2014 No 001,10 230,00 175.00 0.00 01/21/2014 Janitorial Service - Library Jan 2014 No 0010 175.00 405.00 634.72 0.00 01/2 I /2014 2014 Code Red Fee No 0000 634.22 634.22 Page 5 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO Close MUIR. /4 WASHFIRE Fire Chiefs Association Washington 01092014 01/09/20 14 101-420-2220-44330 Dues & Subscriptions 01092014 Total: WASHFIRE Total: Report Iota l: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (01/10/14 - 2:51 PM) 50.00 0.00 01/21/2011 Annual Ducs Wash Cty Fire Chief Assn 50.00 50.00 03,003.53 No 0000 Page 6 "THE ;IT AGENDA ITEM: December 2013 Financial Reporting SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator DATE: January 21, 2014 CONSENT ITEM #4 MOTION SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ..................... .......... . ......... ...... ........ City Administrator City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion.... ........ ....... ..... ................. ....... ............. ...... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates Report/Presentation POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: NA SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED,: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the December 2013 Financial Reporting Packet. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo has fiduciary authority and responsibility to conduct non-nal business operations and report the financial (unaudited) statement to the City Council. City guidelines suggest the Council be updated on a regular basis. STAFF REPORT: Attached please find a summary of what is currently projected to be the 2013 year end surplus. In addition is the comparative report for December reflecting the monthly and year to date detail, comparing the actual results to the 2013 Budget. Please note that some minor adjustments will be necessary as part of the normal year end close process but the numbers should be substantially complete. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda .Item 3] January 21, 2014 The most significant variances are highlighted below: Revenues: • Building Permit revenue for the month was 4% above budget. On a year to date basis actual activity continues to be above plan by 12%. Utility Permit revenue for the month and year to date continues to be well above budget due to the extensive development work along Hudson Boulevard and the need to relocate numerous utilities. These amounts represent the ROW permit fees. • As a reminder, although the state fire aid revenue is above budget, the net impact to the General Fund is zero due 100% of those funds being forwarded on to the Fire Relief Fund. Plan review fees for the month were 50% above budget bringing the year to date revenue to 40% above budget. • Fines for the month were 46% above budget due to accruing the January funds received for December fines into the year-end number. On a year to date basis the fine revenue was under budget due to the decrease in number of fines issued which is a good trend. • Interest earnings have not been calculated as all of the year end investment statements have yet to be received. Expenses: Most departments continue to be below budget for the month and on a year to date basis as all Departments continue to be very cost conscious. A few key items to note: The membership with the Greater MSP was recently renewed for 2013 and is included in the Mayor and Council department expenses. This expense was not included in the 2013 budget. Assessor costs under the Administration department for the month were above plan as the budget did not include the final true up for the year in it projections. Currently the assessor is paid a flat $2k per month with the balance due in December based on the parcels in the City. Legal Publishing costs for the Administration department are higher than budget for the month and on a year to date basis due to the increased codification activity related to the initiative to update the City Code. On a year to date basis the elections expenses are below plan due to the decision to not add the new precincts which were budgeted for. It is anticipated that these precincts will be added in the 2015-2016 election season. -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 3] January 2], 2014 On a year to date basis, the newsletter expenses in the Communication department are $7.5k below plan due to strategic issuance of the newsletter and some significant cost savings with the vendor. The Planning Department has incurred expenses above the amounts budgeted for many expense items due to the City expansion initiative. The majority of the expenses were related to additional staffing needs, external Engineering support and Contractor expenses, For the 2013 budget all of the telephone expense was budgeted under the City Hall department. In 2013 it was decided to track actual expenses within each department. As a result, the telephone expenses reported under City Hall look under budget while the other departments look over budget. Overall, the total expense was very close to budget. The law enforcement contracted costs were budget at $560k for the year for support from Washington County. The actual costs incurred were $497k resulting in a savings of $63k. Conferences and training for the Fire Department for the year appear to be under budget by $9.1k but this is a result of hooking the receipt of county reimbursements back to the departmental expense rather than reporting it as income. Engineering costs are above budget in the Building Inspection department on a year to date basis by $8.1k due to all the additional work necessary due to the growth initiative. Inspector contract services were not budgeted in 2013 resulting in a variance to budget of $7.1k. These costs are to ensure there is no interruption of service when the City Inspector is out of the office as well as to assist when volumes necessitate more help. The Cost for the Permit Works software and licenses of $16.3k is reflected in the year to date Info technology costs for the Building Inspection department, This expense was not budgeted. Personnel costs in the Public Works department were above budget for the year due to a large number of unforeseen weather events. On a year to date basis the street maintenance material costs were $11.8k above budget due to the street repair initiative in 2013. Sand and salt for the month came in over budget by $34.4k due to the constant snow and ice in December. Also impacted were the fuel costs and the repairs and maintenance on the equipment. page City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 3J January 21, 2014 Under repairs and maintenance under the Parks and Recreation department there is a $ lk credit for the insurance funds received toward the repairs made related to the storm damage last summer. The $200k loan repayment is reflected under other financing for the month of December, This represents the second of three installments toward paying back the internal loan. Please note that the salary and benefit expenses are based on more accurate departmental allocations than we had in August 2012 when the 2013 budget was initially compiled. As a result, some departments are above budget, while others are under but overall, personnel expenses are below budget. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council accept the attached December Financial Report. ATTACHMENT: 1, December Financial Reports -- page 4 -- City of Lake Ebno 2013 Preliminary Results Projected Year End Surplus As ofJanuary 21, 2014 Revenue Levy/Property Tax State Fire Aid General Revenue Total excess over budget Expenses General Government Public Safety Public Works Parks & Rec Contingency Internal Loan Report Total excess over budget Net 2013 Surplus 370,870.04 16,778.39 69,795.01 457,443.44 (129,347.07) 35,748.10 (95,311.75) 21,149.82 120,679.41 (200,000.00) (247,081.49) 210,361.95 $176.5 Fiscal Disparities not previously budgeted One time state additional allocation in 2013 Primarily Building permits and Plan review fees Primarily (Inc to expansion in Planning & Development Due to savings of the Law Enforcement Contract A result of multiple labor intensive weather events Due to staffing changeover coverage by summer help No contingency needs in 2013 Not budgeted in 2013; installment 2 of 3 City of Lake Elmo 2013 BY Month Budget to Actual Comparative As of December 31. 2013 _101-General Fund Detail By Department DEPT 410 - GEN'L GOV'T 1/21/2014 MONTH YTD BUDGET ACTUAL Variance ($) Variance (%) BUDGET ACTUAL Variance ($) Variance (%) Month Month Month Month YTD YTD YTD YTD REVENUE Current Ad Valorem Taxes 1,206,794.08 1,427,722.89 220,928.81 0.004•; 2,413,588.16 2,598,644.89 185,0.56.73 7.67% Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxes 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.00% 0.00 0.01) 0.00 0.00% Mobile Horne Tax 4,000.00 12,255.22 8,255.22 0,00% 8,000.00 17,314.34 9,314.34 1 16.43% Fiscal Disparities 0.00 61,889.01 61,889.01 0.00% 0.00 176,498.97 176,498.97 0.00% Penalty & Interest on Taxes 0.00 1,330.31 1,330.31 0.00% 0.00 2,520.85 2,520.85 0.00% Liquor License 0,00 1,700.0(1 1,700.00 0.00% 1,25,00 8,850,00 8,725,00 6980.00% Wasteliauler License 0.00 600.00 600,00 0.00% 200.00 600.00 400.00 200.00% General Contractor License 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00'1i, 0.00 265.00 265.00 0.00% Heating Contractor License 300.00 400.00 100.00 33.33% 4,475.00 5,250,00 775.00 17.37% Blacktopping Contractor License 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00% Building Permits 17.500,00 18.215.30 715.30 4.09% 172,000,00 192,543.54 20,543.54 11.94% Heating Permits 1,000.00 3.120.00 2,1.20.00 212.00% 13,200.00 18,410.00 5,210,00 39,47% Plumbing Permits 500.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 200.00% 7,500.00 14,245.00 6,745.00 89.934%0 Sewer Permits 0.00 0.11(1 0.00 0.00% 0,00 485.00 485.00 0.00`),.• Animal License 100.00 160.00 60.00 60.00% 2,060.00 2,141.01) 81.00 3.93% Utility Permits 600.00 785.00 185,00 31).83% 7,2011.00 21,500.00 14,300.00 198.61% Burning Permit 50.00 420.00 370.00 740.00% 1,150.00 2,940.33 1,790.33 155.68% Massage Therapy Permits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 858.00 858.00 0.00% Homestead Credit Aid 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00% MSA-Maintenanee 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00% 98,022.00 98,022.00 0.00 0.00% State Fire Aid 0.00 0.00 (1.00 0.00% 40,000.00 56,778.39 16,778.39 41.95% PERA Aid 1,374.5(1 1,374.50 0.00 0.0094 2,749.00 2,749.00 0.00 0.00% Gravel Tax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00% 688.63 (1.00 (688.63) -100.00% Recycling Grant 0.00 0.00 (1.00 0.0094 15,500.00 15,588.00 88.00 0.57% Misc State Grant/Surcharge Rev 0.00 1,537.34 1,537.34 0.00% 0.00 4,068.54 4,068.54 0.0094 Cable Franchise Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0096 43,00(1.00 39,851.98 (3.148,02) -7.32% Zoning & Subdivision Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,0096 1,000.00 1,750.00 750.00 75.00% Plan Check Fees 7,000.00 10,484,21 3,484,21 49.77% 71,01)0.00 100,057.42 29,057,42 40.93% Sale of Copies, Books, Maps 10.00 2.00 (8.00) -80,00% 149.10 335.60 186.50 125.08% Assessment Searches 50.00 90.00 40.00 80.0094 700.00 1,380.00 680.00 97.1494 Clean Up Days 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00% 4,000.00 2,647,00 (1,353,00) -33.83% Cable Operation Reimbursement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00% 1,485,00 0.00 (1,485.00) -100.00% Fines 5,000.00 7,292.77 2,292.77 45.8694 60,000,00 47,887.56 (12,112,44) -20.1994 Miscellaneous Revenue 2,000.00 3,617.17 1,61'7,17 80.8694 19,000.00 23,134.92 4,134.92 21.76% Internal Charges 50.00 26.00 (24.00) -48.0094 600.00 1,018.00 418.00 69.67% Interest Earnings 20,000.00 0,00 (20,000.00) 0.0(1% 20,000,00 0.00 (20,000.00) 0.00% Donations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 7,500.00 14,00(1.00 6,500.00 86.6794 Total Revenue 1,266,328.58 1,554,521.72 288,193.14 22.76% 3,014,891.89 3,472,335.33 457,443.44 I 5.17%, EXPENSE 1110 - Mayor & Council PT Salaries 12,845,00 I 2,845.00 0.00 0.00% 25,690.00 25,690.00 0.00 0.00% FICA Contributions 796.39 796.39 0.00 0.00% 1,592.78 1,592.78 0.00 0.00% Medicare Contributions 186.25 186.27 (0.02) 0.00% 372.51 372.54 (0.04) -0.01% Workers Compensation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 36,00 215.81) (179.80) -499A4% Mileage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 1,000.00 53.11 946.89 94.69% M iscellaneous 0,00 85.59 (85.59) 0.00'.''O 565.27 6,661.41 (6,096.14) -1078.45% Dues & Subscriptions 0.00 5,000.00 (5,000.00) 0.00% 8,391.00 17,711.32 (9,320.32) -1 1 1.08% Conferences & Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 2,155.00 1,586.00 569.00 26.40% Total Mayor & Council 13,827.64 18,913.25 (5,085.61) -36.78% 39,802.56 53,882.96 (14,080.41) -35.38/0 1320 - Administration FT Salaries 13,000.00 12,638.53 361.47 2.78% 180,444.93 163,565.87 16,879,06 9.35% PERA Contributions 942,50 916.28 26.22 2.78% 12,756.57 11,751.83 1,004.74 7.88% 1CMA Contributions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% FICA Contributions 806.00 740.37 65.63 8.14% 10,992.13 9,584,50 1,407.63 12.8 Pin Medicare Contributions 188.50 173.13 15.37 8.15% 2,570.80 2,241.56 329.24 12.81 HealthiDental Insurance 3,127.60 2,611.00 516.60 16.52% 37,531.20 31,332.00 6,1 99.20 16.52% Unemployment Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 3,082.47 (3,082.47) ((.00% Workers Compensation 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00% 1,396.00 728.39 667.61 47.82% Office Supplies 300.00 652.71 (352,71) - I 17.57°,1, 5,238.61 6,368.12 (1,129.51) -21.56% Printed Forms (1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00N, 363,91 0.00 363.91 100.00% Legal Services 4,000.00 5,641.61 (1,641.61) -41.04% 48,000,00 59,096.95 (11,096.95) -23.12% NewsletteriWebsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 355.66 (355.66) 0.00°/0 Assessing Services 2,000,00 18.908.20 (16,908.20) -845.41 % 25,500.00 49,142.34 (.23,642.34) -92.72% Contract Services 0.00 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 0.00% 0.00 5,000.00 (5,000.00) 0.00% Information Technology 0.00 I 88,54 (188.54) 0,00"/O 0.00 1,051.21 (1,051.21) 0.00% Telephone 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 2,696.52 (2,696.52) 0.00% Postage 300.00 337.07 (37.07) -24.71% 3,600.00 3,560.46 39.54 I .10% Mileage I 50.00 506.96 (356.96) 0.00% 1,800,00 1,050.55 749.45 41.64% Legal Publishing 0.00 3,544.75 (3.544.75) 0.00% 157.74 6,20 1.53 (6,043.79 ) -3831A9?,O Insurance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 38,8(1(1.00 35,339.30 3,460.70 Cahle Operation Expense 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00'1,1, Miscellaneous 100.00 159.45 (59,45) -59.45% 1,200,00 2,782.94 (1,582.94) -131.91% Dues & Subscriptions 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00% 1,200.00 1,265.96 (65.96) -5.50°./o Books 0.00 168.21 (168.21) 0.00% 0.00 632.51 (632.52) 0.00% Conferences & Training 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00°4) .), I 75.93 3,283.39 (1,107.46) -50.90°,.'n Statf Development 0.00 573.66 (573.66) 0.00°.70 870.00 573.66 296.34 34.06% Total Administration 25,214.60 48,760.47 (23,545.87) -93.38°/0 374,597.82 400,687.73 (26,089.91) -6.96"/0 1410 - Elections PT Salaries 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00% 0.00 100.00 (100.00) 0.00% Office Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 150,00 0.00 150.00 100.00% Legal Publications/Notification 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00% 2,150.00 0.00 2,150.00 100.00% Election Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 7,460.00 0.00 7,460.00 1.00.00% Equipment Repair 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 450.00 0.00 450.00 100.00% County Election Fecs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00% 940.00 940.00 0.00 0,0(M Printed Forms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 450.00 0.00 450.00 100.00% Miscellaneous 0.00 339.39 (339.39) 0.00% 350.00 339.39 10.61 3.03% Total Elections 0.00 339.39 (339.39) 0.00% 11,950.00 1,379-39 10,570,61 88.46% 1450 - Connunnications FT Salaries 2,916.67 1,45/.92 1,463.75 50.19°•; 35,000.00 18,419.51 16,58(1,49 47.37% PERA Contributions 211.46 105,35 106.11 50.I8% 2,537.50 1,335.46 1,202.04 47.37% FICA Contributions 180.83 87.25 93.58 51.75% 2,170.00 1,106.07 1,063.93 49.03% Medicare Contributions 42.29 20.41 21.88 51.74% 507,50 258.64 248.86 49.04% Health/Dental Insurance 0,00 272.00 (272.00) 0.00°. (1.00 3,264.00 (3,264.00) 0.00% Workers Compensation 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00% 56.00 85.23 (29.23) -52.20% !Newsletter 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00% 12.061.00 7,785.63 4,275.37 35.45% Office Supplies 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00% 200.00 976.09 (776.09) 0.00% En fo Technology/Web 2,000.00 2,714.17 (714.17) -35.71% 24,000.00 31,537.80 (7,537.80) -31.41% Telephone 250.00 108.81 141.19 56.48% 3,000.00 1,138.64 1,861.36 62.05% Public Notices 200.00 1,446.42 (1,246.42) -623.2]% 2,400.00 7,310,04 (4,910.04) -204.59% Cable Operations 275.00 (1,200,63) 1.475.63 536.59u 3,300.00 554.2] 2,745.79 83.21% Conferences 0.00 75.00 (75.00) 0.00% 0.00 573.00 (573.00) 0.00% Repair/Maint Equipment 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 155.50 (155.50) 0.00% Total Communications 9,126.25 5,081.70 4,044.55 44.32% 85,232.00 74,499.82 10,732.18 12.59% 1520 - Finance FT Salaries 4,576.40 6,905.98 (2,329.58) -50.90% 54,916.80 87,850.80 (32,934.00) -59.97% PERA Contributions 331.79 500.67 (168.88) -50.90% 3,981.47 6,369.16 (2,387.69) -59.97% FICA Contributions 283.74 402,57 (118.83) -41.88% 3,404.84 5,156.95 (1,752.11) -51.46% Medicare Contributions 66.36 94.14 (27.78) -41.8716 796.29 1,205.93 (409.64) -51.445/0 Health/Dental Insurance 718,02 1,088.00 (369.98) -51,53% 8,616.23 13,056.(10 (4,439.77) -51.53% Unemployment Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.00(1/ Workers Compensation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 405.18 (405.18) 0.00% Office Supplies 100.00 150.85 (50.85) 0.00°41 400,00 582.91 (182.91) -45.73% Printed Forms 0.00 0,00 (1.00 0.00% 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00% Audit Services 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 0.00% 20,500.00 20,500.00 0.00 0.00% Contract Services 0,00 (3,835.97) 3,835.97 0.00°10 10,000.00 1(1,483.06 (483.06) -4.83% Software Programs 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00% 0.00 128.54 (128.54) 0.0096 Telephone 0.00 90.12 (9)1,12) 0.00% 0.00 720.96 (720.96) 0.00% Mileage 0.00 (1.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 44.40 (44.40) 0.00% Miscellaneous 0,00 99,83 (99.83) 0.00% 1,500,00 1,481.76 18.24 1,22% Dues & Subscriptions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00% 100.00 185.0(1 (85.00) 0.00% Conferences & Training 0.00 200.00 (200.00) 0.00% 1,100.00 425.00 675.00 61.36% Total Finance 18,076.30 5,696.19 12,380,11 68.49% 105,815.63 148,595.65 (42,780.02) -40.43"/0 1910 - Planning & Zoning FT Salaries 8,278.95 12,675,90 (4,396.95) -53.1 l% 103,486.88 153,377.84 (49,890,97) -48.21% PERA Contributions 600.22 919.01 (3(8.79) -53.11 % 7,502.80 11,298.24 (3,795.44) -50.59"/n FICA Contributions 513,29 741.44 (228.15) -44,45% 6,416.19 9,155.08 (2,738.89) -42.69% Medicare Contributions 81.83 173.40 (91.57) -111,90% 1,424.13 2,141.34 (717.21) -50.36% Health/Dental insurance 886.48 1,656.00 (769,52) -86.81% 1,0,637,82 19,872.00 (9,234.18) -86.81% Workers Compensation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 500,00 751.34 (251.34) -50.27% Office Supplies 50.1)(1 52.96 (2.96) -5.92% 600.00 2.562.67 (1,962.67) -327,1 I % Printed Forms 0.00 289.30 (289,30) 0.00"/O 0.00 2,577.15 (2,577.151 0.00% Engineering Services 1,500,00 5,722.10 (4,222,10) -281,47% 18,000.00 25,514.94 (7,514.94) -41.75% Contract Services 0.(I0 0.00 0.00 0.00% (1.00 14.869.24 (14,86),24) 0.00% Information Technology 0,00 (1.00 0.00 0.00% 0,00 2,952.01 (2,952.01) 0.00% Telephone (1.00 147.74 (147.74) 0.00% 0,00 1,182.56 (1,182.56) 0.00% Postage 0.00 41.88 (41.88) 0.00% 0,00 95.50 (95.50) 0.00% Mileage 30,00 0.00 30.00 150.00% 360.00 0.00 360,00 100.00?..; Miscellaneous 20.00 0.00 20,00 I 0.00% 240.00 971,56 (731.56) -304.82'.!.; Dues & Subscriptions 200.00 0.00 200.00 #DIV/0! 600.00 270.00 330,00 0.00% Books 0.00 0.00 (1.00 0.00"6 200.00 211.37 (11.37) 0.00"41 Conferences & Training 0.00 0.00 C.00 0.00% 2,100.00 1,439.24 660.76 31.46% Total Planning & Zoning 12,160.78 22,419.73 (10,258.95) -84.36% 152,067.81 249,242.08 (97,174.27) -63.90% 1930 - Engineering Services Engineering Services Total Engineering Services 5.000.00 7,695,94 (2,695.94) -53.92% 60,000.00 37,241.71 22,758.29 37.93"'n 5,000.00 7,695.94 (2,695.94) -53.92% 60,000.00 37,241.71 22,758.29 37.93"/n 1940 - City hall Cleaning Supplies 50.00 0.00 50,00 100.00"/o 600.0U 7.48 592.52 98.75% Building Repair Supplies 75.00 0.00 75.00 100.00% 900.00 36.53 863.47 95.94% Telephone 700.00 127.34 572,66 81.81% 8,600.00 1,947.54 6,652.46 77.35% Utilities 900.00 2,009.94 (1,109,94) -123.33% 10,800.00 11,028.98 (228.98) -2.12% Refuse 108.32 216,64 (108.32) -100.0(ffn 1,299.84 1,408.16 (108.32) -8.33% Rcpairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 700,00 245,81 454.19 64.88% 8,400.00 8,979.51 (579.51) -6.90% Repairs/Maint Contractual Equip 400.00 1.131.14 (731.14) -182.79`Yo 4,800.00 6,134.71 (1,334.71) -27.81% Miscellaneous 100.00 0.00 100.00 1011.009.1) 1,00(1.00 140.46 859.54 85.95"/0 Total City Hall 3,033.32 3,730.87 (697.55) -23.00% 36,399.84 29,683.37 6,716.47 I8.45% Total General Government 86,438.90 112,637.54 (26,198.64) -30.31% 865,865.65 995,212.71 (129,347.06) -14.94"/0 DEPT 420 PUBLIC SAFETY 2100 - Police Law Enforcement Contract 280,00(1.00 251,242.32 28,757.6S 0.00% 560,000,00 497,001.08 62,998,92 I 1,25% Total Police 280,000.00 251,242.32 28,757.68 0.00% 560,000.00 497,001.08 62,998.92 11.25% 2150 - Prosecution Attorney Criminal Total Prosecution 4,250.00 8,848.67 (4,598.67) -1 08.20% 51,000.00 51,952.67 (952.67) 4,250.00 8,848.67 (4,598.67) -108.2041/0 51,000.00 51,952.67 (952.67) -1.87% 2220 - Fire FT Salaries 6,000.00 5,701.48 298.52 4.98% 78,100.80 73,590.60 4.510.20 5.77% PT Salaries 11,000.00 10,313.88 686.12 6.24% 131,000.0(1 113,995.5(1 17,004.50 12.98°.'i, P ERA Contributions 1,232.50 965.86 266.64 21.63% 15,159,81 12,296.69 2,863.12 18.89% FICA Contributions 1,054.00 585.41 468.59 44.46% 12,964.25 6,428.98 6,535.27 50,41°4. Medicare Contributions 246.50 215.52 20.98 8.51% 3,031.96 2,638.50 393.46 12.98% Health/Dental Insurance 1,276.70 1.686.00 (409.30) -32.06% 15,320.37 14,792.00 528.37 3.45% Unemployment Benefits 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00°'n 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Workers Compensation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 10,130.00 8,042.06 2,087.94 20.61% Office Supplies 125.0(1 0.00 125.00 0.00% 5(10.00 3,038.10 (2,538.10) -507.62% EMS Supplies 150.00 0.00 15(1.00 0.00% 2,358.00 905.41 1,452.59 61.60M Fire Prevention 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00°A, 3,000.00 3,242.62 (242.62) -8.09°.ii, Fuel, Oil & Fluids 1,150.00 941.92 208.08 18.09°A, 13,632.00 12,978.66 653.34 4.79°.; Small Tools & Equip I 00.00 2,444.76 (2,344.76) 0.00°4, 31,000,00 21,351.02 9,648.98 31.13% Physicals 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00% 7,416.60 2,061.95 5,354.65 72.20% Information Technology 0.0(1 0,00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 656.61 (656.61) 0.00% Telephone 250.00 369.71 (1(9.71) -3.11% 3,000.00 4,124.31 (1,124,31) -37.48% Radio 3,846.08 3,800.76 45.32 ti-D1V/01 15,784.32 16,155.59 (371.27) -2.35% Mileage 0.00 0.0(1 0.00 #DIV.101 200.00 99.44 100.56 50.28% Vehicle Insurance 0.00 0.00 (1.00 0.00°,.. 12,000.00 5,237.00 6,763.00 56.36% Electric Utility 1,000.00 3,185.86 (2,185.86) -4584.44% 11,500.00 13,549.72 (2,049.72) -17.82% Refuse 47.68 95.36 (47.68) -12.67% 572,16 827.66 (255,50) -44.66% Repair/Maint Bldg 376,30 4,402.09 (4,025.79) -223.66% 21,015.60 17,738.92 3,276.68 I5.59% Repair/M ai nt Equip 1,800.00 14,632.51 (12,832,51) -381.81% 21,137.00 36.794.30 (15,657.30) -74.08% Uniforms 3,361.00 0.00 3,361.00 4481.33% 9,902.50 3,727.12 6,175.38 62.36°A, Miscellaneous 75.00 988.01 (913.01) 0,00% 900.00 2.089.52 (1,189.52) -132.17°!0 Dues & Subscriptions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 2,000.00 3,247.00 (1,247.00) -62.35°./0 Books 300.00 0,00 300.00 42.86% 600.00 480.94 119.06 19.84% Conferences & Training 700.00 926.15 (226.15). -0.66% 22,550.00 13,481.26 9,068.74 40.22% Total Fire 34,290.76 51,265.28 (16,974.52) -49.50% 444,775.37 393,571.48 51,203.89 11.51% 2250 - Fire Relief Fire State Aid Total Fire Relief 0.00 0.0(1 0.00 0.00°,•;-, 40,000.00 53,778.39 (13,778.39) -34.45% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00"/0 40,000.00 53,778.39 (13,778.39) -34.45% 2400 - Building Inspection FT Salaries 5,747.36 6,689.08 (941,72) -16.39% 74,715.68 86,459.04 (11,743.36) -15.72% PERA Contributions 416,68 484.97 (65.29.) -16.39% 4,859,60 6,268.40 (1,408.80) -28.99% FICA Contributions 356.34 389,42 (33.08) -9.28% 4,112.23 5,033.86 (921.63) -22.41°4, Medicare Contributions 83.34 91.06 (7.72) -9.27% 961.75 1,177.19 (215.44) -.27.40% Health/Dental Insurance 767.49 1,414.00 (646,51) -84.24% 9,209,89 16,968.00 (7,758.1)) -84.24% Unemployment Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Workers Compensation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0014 2,000.00 397.88 1.602.12 80.1114 Office Supplies 0.00 200.2,8 (200.28) 0.0016 0.00 1,080.30 (1,080.30) 0.00% Printed Forms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 146.61 (146.61) 0.00°A Fuel, Oil & Fluids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% (1.00 267,67 (267.67) 0.00°4, Engineering 500.00 2,420.00 (1,920.00) -384.00(I'0 6,000.00 14,064.73 (8,064,73) -134.41% Surcharge Pints 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,0016 0.00 (1.00 0.00 0.00% Inspector Contract Services 0.00 1,500.00 (1,500.00) 0.0014 0.00 7,069.50 (7,069.50) 0.00% Info Technology (Permit Works) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 17,146.69 (17,146,69) (1.0016 Software Programs 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.0014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00°/1, Telephone 18.00 89.71 (71.71) -398,3914 216.00 922.05 (706.05) -326.88% Mileage 0.00 370.65 (370.65) 0.0(1% 100.00 1.425.74 (1,325.74) 0.00% Insurance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0014 255.00 340.00 (85.00) 0.00% Repairs/Maint Equip 0.00 36.40 (36.40) 0.0014 500.00 499.68 0.32 0.0614 Uniforms 0.00 134.97 (134.97.) 0.0014 0.00 2.21.35 (221.35) 0.00% Miscellaneous 0.00 6.95 (6.95) 0.00% 500.00 1,504.44 (1,004.44) -200.8916 Dues & Subscriptions 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00% 190.00 90.00 100.00 52.63% Books 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0014 100.00 120.64 (20,64) -20.6414 Conferences & Training 250.00 857.00 (6(17.00) -242.80% 500.00 1,682.00 (1,182.00) -236A014 Total Building Inspections 8,139.21 14,684.49 (6,545.28) -80.4214 104,220.14 162,885.77 (58,665.63) -56.29% 2500 - Emergency Communications Contract Services Total Emergency Communications 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00% 6,000.00 3,799.50 2,200,50 36.68% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 6,000.00 3,799.50 2,200.50 36.68% 2700 - Animal Control Printed Forms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00% Contract Services 550.00 1,000.00 (450.00) -81.82% 7,000.00 11,609.93 (4,609.93) -65.86% Miscellaneous 0.00 180.00 (180.00) 0.00% 0.00 2,648.59 (2,648.59) Total Animal Control 550.00 1,180.00 (630.00) -114.55% 7,000.00 14,258.52 (7,258.52) -103.69% Total Public Safety 327,229.96 327,220.76 9.20 0.00% 1,212,995.51 1,177,247.41 35,748.10 2.95"/0 DEPT 430 - PUBLIC WORKS 3100 - Public Works FT Salaries 10.7(10.00 12,983.76 (2,283.76) -21.34% 128,7(10.00 156,071.65 (27,371.65) -21.27% PT Salaries 0.00 1.056.70 (1,056.70) 0,00% 0.00 13,123.03 (13,123.03) 0.00% PERA Contributions 775.75 1,011.51 (235.76) -30.39°4 9,330,75 12,227.47 (2.896.72) -31.04% FICA Contributions 663.40 826.86 (163.46) -24.64% 7,979.40 9,883.94 (1,904.54) -23.87% :Medicare Contributions 155.15 193.36 (38.21) -24.63% 1,866.15 2,311.60 (445.45) -23.87% Health/Dental Insurance 2,893.14 2,899.00 (5.86) -0.20% 34,717.70 34,788.00 (70.3(1) -0.20% Unemployment Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00°4, 4,000.00 0.00 4,000.00 100.00% Workers Compensation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 12,000.00 7,399.76 4,600.24 38.34% Office Supplies 25.00 7.48 17.52 70.08% 500.00 1,055.11 (555.11) -111.02% Shop Materials 150,00 47.05 102.95 68.63% 1,800.00 826.55 973.45 54.08% Building Repair Supplies 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 229,25 (229.25) 0.00% Small Tools and Minor Equip 250.00 0.00 250.00 100.00% 3,000.00 1,768.66 1,231.34 41.04% Engineering Services 150.00 1,568.25 (1,418.25) -945.50% 1,800.00 7,957.00 ((1,157.00) -342.06% Contract Services 400.00 185.70 214.30 53.58% 4,800.00 5,181.10 (381.10) -7.940.4 Information Technology 0.00 0.00 0.00 gDIV/01 0.00 1,051.33 (1,051.33) 0.00°4 Telephone 650.00 822.50 (172.50) -26.54°4) 8,000.00 7,157,04 842.96 10.54°4 Radio 3011.00 300.06 (0.06) -0,02% 3,600.00 1,209.24 2,390.76 66.41°4, Mileage 0.00 0.00 (1.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Insurance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 22,000 .00 19,772.00 2,228.00 0.00°4 Electric Utility 2,000.00 2.441.75 (441.75) -72.0953 24,000.00 18,017.36 5,982.64 24.93% Refuse 207.82 415.64 (207.82) -100.00% 2,493.84 2,493.84 0.00 0.00% Fuel, Oil, Fluids (ALL depts) 3,000.00 1,875.22 1,124,78 37,49% 36,000.00 39,719.58 (3,71(.58) -10.33% Repair/Maint Bldg 250.00 393.35 (143.35) -57.34% 3,000.00 6,330.93 (3,330.93) -111.03°4 Repair/Maint NOT Bldg 40.00 0.00 40.00 100.00% 500.00 153,38 346.62 69.32% Repair/MainEquip (out) 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00% 6,000.00 140.73 5,859.27 97.65% Equipment Parts 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00% 6,000.00 0.00 6,000.00 100.00% Uniforms 175.00 2.00 173.00 98.86% 2,100.00 900,66 1,199.34 57.11°.... NI iscelloneous 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00% 1,000.00 1,071.02 (71.02) -7.10% Landscaping Material 80.00 0.00 80.00 100.00% 1,000.00 64.13 935.87 93,59°4 Dues & Subscriptions 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 60.00 56.00 4.00 6.67% Conferenek.'s & Training 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00% 1,619.60 260.00 1,359.60 83.95% Clean up Days 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 6,000.00 4,481.33 1,518,67 75.3153 `fotal Public Works 23,965.26 27,030.19 (3,064.93) -12.79% 333,867.44 355,701.69 (21,834.25) -6.54% 3120 - Streets Equipment Parts Street Maintenance Materials Sign Repair Materials Contract Services Repairs/Maim Equipment Total Streets 0,00 494.00 (494.00) 0.00% 0.00 4,702.93 (4,702.93) 0.00% 1,000.00 1,574.75 (574.75) -57.4853 12,000.00 23,787.16 (11,787.16) -98.7353 250.0(1 0.00 250.00 100.00°4 3,000.00 1,479.16 1,520.84 50.6904 850.00 1,150.00 (300.00) -35.29% 10,200.00 1 I ,728.05 (1,528.05) -14.98% 0.00 1,309.65 (1,309.65) 0.00% 0.00 3,295.86 (3,295.86) 0.00% 2,100.00 4,528.40 (2,428.40) -115.64"/0 25,200.00 44,993.16 (19,793.16) -78.54% 3125 - Ice & Snow Removal Landscaping Material 0.00 0.00 0.0(1 0.00% 0.00 103.38 (103.38) 0.00% Sand/Salt 0.00 34,395.95 (34,395.95 ) 0.00% 69,500.00 105,48430 (35,984.30) -51.78% Contract Services 1.250.00 5,692.50 (4,442.50) 0.00% 7,500.00 10,000.25 (2,500.25) -33.34% Repairs/Maint Equipment 250.00 12,613.42 (.12,363.42) -4945.37% 3,000.00 17,966.35 (14,966.35) -498,88% Total lee & Snow Removal 1,500.00 52,701.87 (51,201.87) -3413.46"/0 80,000.00 133,554.28 (53,554.28) -66.94% 3160 - Street Lighting Street Lighting "I'otal Street Lighting 2,100.00 3,525,62 (1,425.62) 2,100.00 3,525.62 (1,425.62) -67.89% 3200 - Recycling Recycling Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Newsletter 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00% Miscellaneous 400.00 0.00 400.00 100.00% Total Recycling 1,400.00 0.00 1,400.00 100.00°A, 3250 - Tree Program Control Services Total Tree Program Total Public Works 400.00 0.00 400.011 100.00% 400.00 0.00 400.00 100.00"/o 31,465.26 87,786.08 (56,320.82) -178.99"/0 25,200.00 26,72(1.81 (1,520.81) 25,200.00 26,720.81 (1,520.81) -6.03% 3,500.00 3,584.25 (84.25) -2.41'!'O 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 100.00% 4,800.00 0.00 4,800.00 100,00% 11,300.00 3,584.25 7,715.75 68.28% 5,000.00 11,325_00 (6,325.00) -126.50% 5,000.00 11,325.00 (6,325.00) -126.50% 480,567.44 575,879.19 (95,311.75) -19.83% DEPT 45(1- CULTURE, RECREATION 5200 - Parks & Recreation FT Salaries 8,583.96 8,830.99 (247.03) -2,88% 111,591.08 91,491,40 2(1,099.68 18.01°..b PT Salaries 700.00 502.93 197.07 28.159) 14,150.00 18.476.82 (4,326.82) -30.58% PERA Contributions 622.34 640.24 (17,90) -2.88% 8,090.35 7,201.13 889.22 10.99°/t, FICA Contributions 575.61 556.97 18.64 3.24% 7,795.95 6,573.91 1,222.04 I 5.68°,', Medicare Contributions 134.62 (30,33 4,29 3.18% 1,823.25 1,537.46 285.79 15.67% Health/Dental Insurance 1.084.57 290.16 794.41 73.25°, 13,014.88 4,727.12 8,287.76 63,68% Unemployment Benefits 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00% \Yorkers Compensation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 3,000.00 4,105.81 (1,105.81) -36.86% Shop Materials 0.00 161.61 (161..61) 0,00°,4) 0.00 835,41 (835.41) 0.00% Chemicals 50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00% 600.00 740.98 (140.98) -23.50% Equipment Parts 150.00 0.00 15C,00 100.00% 1,800.00 2,223.42 (423.42) -23.52% Building Repair Supplies OM° 0.00 0.00 0.00% (1.00 10.63 ((0.63) 0.00% Landscaping Materials 2110.00 0,00 200.00 100.00% 2,400.00 2,780,50 (38(1.50) -15.85% Small Tools and Minor Equip 75.00 0.00 75.00 100.00% 900.00 2.276.93 (1,376.93) -152.99% Telephone 100.00 91.01 8.99 8,99% 1,200.01) 1,061.47 138.53 I I .54°,i) Mileage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% insurance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 5,000.00 3,683.00 1,317.00 26.34% Electric Utility 750.00 1,067.80 (317,80) -42.37% 9,000.00 8,356.46 643.54 7.15% Refuse 207.82 415.64 (207,82) - I 00.00% 2,493.84 2,701.66 (207.82) -8.33% Repair/Maim Bldg 75.00 12.66 12.34 49.36% 300.00 395.86 (95.86) -3!.95% RcpairiMaint NOT Bldg 50.00 (1,035.91) 1.085.91 21 71.82%') 600.00 2,943.79 (2,343.79) -390.63% Repair/Maint Equip 100.00 0,00 100.00 100,00% 1,20(1.00 0.00 1,200.00 100.00°1) Rental Buildings 400.00 0.00 400.00 100.00% 4,800.00 5,292.62 (492.62) -I0.26°A) Miscellaneous 0.00 196.21 (196.21) 0,00% (1.00 1,193.15 (1,193.15) 0.00% Total Parks & Recreation 13,808.91 11,860.64 1,948.27 14.11% 189,759,35 168,609.53 21,149.82 11.15% DEPT 460 - COMP ADJ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00 (1.00 0.00°,/n DEFT 490 - CONTINGENCY FUND 60,339.70 0.00 60,339.70 0,00"/o 120,679.41 0.00 120.679A1 100.00% DEPT 493 - OTI1 FINANCING 0.00 200,000.00 (200,000.00) 0.00% 0.00 200,000.00 (200,000.00) 0.00% GRAND TOTAL ALL DEPTS 458,943.04 739,505.02 (28(1,56(.98) -61.13"/o 2,869,867.36 3,116,948.84 (247,981.48) -8.61% Net Income over Expenses 807,385.54 815,016,70 7,631.16 0.95% 145,024.54 355,386.49 210,361.95 145.95% THE •; Tr.,' OF I Its, AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: January 21, 2014 CONSENT ITEM #: 5 New Single Family Horne Permit Report Rick Chase, Building Official Rick Chase, Building Official Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item City Administrator Report/Presentation City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff ........ ............... ...... ........ Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion ....... ...... . ......... „... ........ ..............„... ......... __Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to accept the monthly new single family home permit report through December of 2013. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended as part of the C0115C111 Agenda. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Included in the monthly report is an annual summary for new homes as well as the total valuation for all construction activity in 2013. The figures below compare the current year activity to the two previous year's activity. New homes Total valuation Average home value Total Valuation (New homes included) 2013 36 $16,966,169 $471,282 $20,944,966 2012 34 $15,156,112 $445,768 $22,671,178 2011 23 $10,214,000 $439,752 $18,723,663 -- page City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 5] January 21, 2014 Please note that in 2013, the roof and siding permits were converted to a flat rate fee structure and as such are no longer included in the valuation numbers. Also note that these numbers represent the incremental valuation which will increase the Cities Taxable property tax base beginning with the 2015 tax roll. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council accept the monthly new single family home permit report. "T'1-117. GI TY OE KE FLMC 1.4„ 41-44. 444 ," .. 4-4 • , .'4 DATE: January 21, 2014 CONSENT ITEM #: 6 AGENDA ITEM: Section 34 Water and Sewer Utility Extension improvements — Pay Request No. 3 SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Project Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Mike Bouthilet, Public Works SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (iftentoved from the Consent A genda): Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if Appropriate Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion - Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering FISCAI,. IMPACT: None. Partial payment is proposed in accordance with the Contract for the project. Payment remains within the authorized scope and budget. SUMMARY 40ND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Pay Request No. 3 for the Section 34 Water and Sewer Utility Extension Improvements. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Pay Request No. 3 to Redstone Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $315,528.49, for the Section 34 Water and Sewer Utility Extension Improvements;" -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent' Agenda Item 6] January 21. 2014 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Redstone Construction Company, Inc. (the Contractor for the project) has submitted Partial Pay Estimate No. 3 in the amount of $315,528.49. The request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. In accordance with the contract documents, the City has retained 5% of the total work completed. The amount retained is $71,443.89. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recomtnending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Pay Request No. 3 for the Section 34 Water and Sewer Utility Extension Improvements. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Pay Request No. 3 to Redstone Construction Contpany, Inc. in the amount of $315,528.49, for the Section 34 Water and Sewer Utility Extension Improvements." ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Partial Pay Estimate No. 3 page 2 PROJECT PAY FORM PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 3 SECTION 34 WATER & SEWER UTILITY EXTENSION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO, 2013.126 PROJECT OWNER; CITY OF LAKE ELMO 3800 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 ATTN: JACK GRIFFIN, CITY ENGINEER N o. Approval Amount Date 1 11/6/2013 2 1/6/2014 Additions $11,162.82 $0.00 TOTALS $11,162.82 NET CHANGE $11,162.82 START DATE: SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION: FINAL COMPLETION: FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. PERIOD OF ESTIMATE FROM 12/2/2013 TO 1/1/2014 CONTRACTOR: REDSTONE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. PO BOX 218 MORA, MN 55051 ATTN: DALE MANS, PROJECT MANAGER PASE.STIMATI-tLIMMAR* 1. Original Contract Amount Deductions .2. Net Change Order Sum $0.00 3, Revised Contract (1+2) $0.00 4, '''Work Completed 5. *.Stored Materials 6. Subtotal (4+5) 7. Retainage* 5.0% .8. Previous Payments 9..Amount Due (6-7-Z) *Detailed Breakdown Attached 10/7/2013 5/19/2014 5/30/2014 $0,00 CGNTR I ORIGINALDAYS -235 --REVISED.DAYS REMAINING 149 ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION: The undersigned certifies that the work has been reviewed and to the best of their knowledgeand belief, the quantities shown in this estimate are correct and the work has been performed in accordance ENGINEER with the contract documents. DATE CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION: The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of their knowledge, information and belief the work covered by this payment estimate has been completed in accordance with the contract BY documents, that all amounts have been paid by the contractor for work for which previous payment estimates was issued and payments DATE received from the owner., and that current payment shown herein is now due. APPROVED BY OWNER: CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA BY BY DATE DATE FOCUS Engineering, inc. $1,701,88430 $11,162.82 $1,713,047,32 $1,428,877.81 S0.00 $1,428,877.81 $71,443.89 $1,041,905.43 S31E,528.49 ON SCHEDULE YES NO PROJECT PAYMENT FORM PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 3 SECTION 34 WATER & SEWER UTILITY EXTENSION IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 2013.126 If EM DESCRIPTION OF PAY ITEM 90115930911- GENERAL 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 IX) $48,000.00 648,000.00 0.00 $0.90 0.90 $43,200.09 2 TRAFFIC CONTROI 15 1 $0,300.90 $6,300.00 1.44 $6.300.00 L. $6,100.00 3 CLEAR AND GRUB 'TREES LS 1 .$19,000.00 910,000.00 0.00 SO EID 1 513,090.00 4 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRIOCTION ENTRANCE EA 2 44,10020 5.4. 200.00 CLEO $0,09 0 $0.09 5 STREET SWEEPING LiR 40 3175.00 67.000.00 0.00 $0.00 0 4000 SUBTOTAL- DIVISION I 338,500200 $0,300.00 362..380.00 FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. CONTRACT THEE PERIOD TOTAL TO DATE UNIT QUANTITY UNIT EMU AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT OILASION 2 - SANITARY SEWER (GRAVITY SEWER - HUDSON BLV(1.) 6 CON CRE;' 6 JERSEY BARRIERS LT 900 0.00 000 $91.09 318,900.00 7 REMOVE AND DISPOSL OP EXISTING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 90 590 0.00 0 $18,90009 $0,00 $1,1LX3.00 6 REMOVE P;PE CULVERT LP 245 73430 54 3S.°Qt.Z°5°Opr) 79 $434.50 52,347.5.0 5 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER PIPE LE 13 $2.20 43.04 13 S5.50 $85.15 10 SAWANL AND REINSTALL 12" PCP, INCL APRONS LP E0 $8.55 S0.00 51,518055'.0195 5.N $85.15 II PATCH BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY SY S00 $22.10 $1.105.00 0.00 $0.00 0 S37500.00 12 PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TN 105 SISAX) 0.00 40.00 309 01.10509 51.500.00 15 IN" X 42" ARCH CRAP CULVERT LE 69 65115:009,, 04,00 64 50.00 $53,':3251.:0° $3.581.10 14 30" CMP CULVERT LF 71 15.00 $3.321,60 15 1S 36" 014 P cu,vEki La 35$3,139.20 0.00 S69$03:00. 0 S6s063.: 050905'2°$1,810.50 13 42" CM P CULVERT LE 64 0.00 0 $0.00 S76.29 $4,676.80 17 23" X 42' ARCH CM99144VEVE FA 2 2...94) $09so$0'',0:0° 2 10 30' CLIP APRON EA a Lon 1 $396.90 :4389:0000 SI!1g967'700 19 36" CM P APRON EA 7 0,L/9 5 38g.D0 0 6389.00 91.14600 20 424 CLAP APRON EA 2 $57?...00 $1,110.00 oak 0 32;92290;0000 21 CONNECT TO EXi STING SANFEAR4 SEWER MH EA 1 0.330 1 7.2 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, S00 55, 0' . 194 DEEP LE 25 S933.00 0.00 28, ;59o:u: 5 :81 4:3 06: I.' 3 3:9: $972.59 $,;1..0,00, 23 10" PVC SANITARY SEWER. SDR 26, 25' - 30' DEEP- LE 20 0.00 :40 $3,080.00 $931798083.:07) 24 12$ PVC SANITARY SEWER, SDR 35. C' • 10' DEEP I F 885 0.00 400 075 $32,037.00 sS:.A.400 $31,132.00 $ 5 12" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SOP 35, 10' -15' DEEP LF 527,009.00 0.00 $0.00 700 $6,640.20 26 12' PVC:SANITARY SEWER, SDA 35, 15' . 2V DEEP LE 230 93.00 287 $28,000.00 929 406 00 S.4')O,'EtaL°, 57. 0,431,80 27 12$ PVC SANITARY SEWER. SDR 15, 15' - 29' DEEP LE 65 0.00 43 95,434.00 28 /2" PVC SANFLAPV SEWER.. SDR 25. 20' . 2.9' DEEP IS 109 571.40 0.90 LOB 9%2E9.89 $83 5() 9 S1 09 3I' I : 29 12" PVC sAMTARY SEWER, SDP 26, 25' - 30' DEEP LE 560 918.240.00 0.00 515 STS,240.09 SS7,6130.00 30 JACK 12" EVE SANITARY SEWER LE 49 S46,400.99 0.00 8S°.70 445 $53,148.00 :..,500.0000 $164400.09 31 ROCK FOUNDATION BORROW LF 1.30s4 $410.0, 0 32 !NSW ATION, 2" THICK SY ISO 33 PLACE FILL OV5R SANITARY SEWER PIPE IL19 CY ISO 50.01 $ 519;9705 013.00 $9.985.00 100 .00 S0.00 188.3 100 9 3 77 4:45 :1 7: $1.162.50 34 CROSS NIGH PRESSUP.E GA5 PIPE LINE 4.5 1 69,760.00 1.00 1 s$ 23 s,. 677 E 09, : :, c40$ 004 35 SANITARY SEWER MN, 4' 0944,49I ER LA 8 92.760.00 0.09 E S2,790.00 $20,740.LX1 S20,240.00 36 ExcESS MANHOLE. DEPTH, 4' DIAMETER IF 56 $2,530.00 2.09 .95.443.20 5205375 54.469.20 37 7ELE045E SANITARY SE4YER LE $37.20 000 45.08 0 2,I471. 94.675,00 38 OFF ROAD 5TRUCTURF MAPLE R EA 7 S. SS . Si . . 27 05 6366,40 7.09 60409 7 53:(6740° 4.9 SEED MIX 250 & BLANKET sY 5.000 0.00 0 $0 3x3 $.333$013.0040 S5,500.00 $7,14%D.'0°0° 40 SEED MIX 210 & SE ANKET SY 54:10) $1.10 51.14 SS.9.98.00 0,09 0 41 5EED MIN 250 & HY DROMULCH SY 5,000 $2,100.00 17,0mA, 17 CILX) $0.00 42 SEED MN 270 & ILYDPONILNCH SY 5,200 0.00 0 $7,3 40.0D $6:.4426 43 EROSION STAINLIZAT30Li mAT SY 150 $9.90 2.,392.00 0.00 5'.1.0°10u0° 0 44 TEMPORARY SEED MIX 100 AND MULCii AC '0 $686.00 $1,485.00 0,00 00.00 0 090.0000 0000 45 DITCH CHECK Eh II 92.744.00 S769.00 0,00 $0,00 0 30.00 45 CIAVERT INLET PROTECTION EA a $87.50 $200.00 0.00 5000 0 42 SILT FENCE IF TRW 930::',7::::1°52FL° 679.00 7,352 SUBTOTAL. DIViSION 2 ST:3:GL: 91:21 $1.255.5E 527752.43 9248,999.SO ITEM DESCRIPTION OF PAr ITEM UNIT CONTRACT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (HIS PERIOD aoANTrty AMOUNT TOTALTO DATE QUANTNY AMOUNT DIVISION a , SANiTARY SEWER (LIFT STATIONISYSTEM) 48 ROADVE AND 0,593551371I 3.13151ING BITUNIINDUS DRIVEWAY 55 520 $2.75 51,567.50 0 3X+ 50.033 345 9948.75 49 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXIST1Nu cONOIETE DRIVEWAY SY 40 58.75 $350130 0.00 50.00 0 50.310 50 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF ao 94.35 110000 30.00 $110.93 30 5130.50 51 ROLIDVE PIPE «JIVER' LF le% $5.50 5907.511 178 (X" 5979,00 175 $979.00 52 SALVAGE AND REiNsTALL 18" PCP. [NC/ APRONS LF 60 $24.30 91,458.00 24.00 5583.20 24 0003.20 53 PATCP 01111341NO3.15 DR IVEWAy SY 200 935.00 27,000.00 0.00 50.00 A 52100 54 PATCH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TN 2E9 815110 63.750120 000 50.00 94 31.41000 55 8618 CONCRETE CURS AND GUTTER IF 30 53000 $900.00 0.00 50.00 0 $0.00 56 12" CPO CULVERT LF 30 320.50 8615.00 40.639 282.0.00 40 8E2000 57 18" C149 CULVERT LF 52 528.80 01,393.60 9200.52,465.60 92 92,465.60 5.5 21" GAP ttiLVERT IF 40 131.93 $1.240.00 41.00 $1,271,00 41 $1,271031 59 12" CAW APRON EA 1 3131.00 5131.00 1.00 51 31.00 3 1131.00 ED le CNTP APRON EA 2 $157.00 1314.00 3 DO $471.00 3 8471.00 61 217 CRIP APRON EA 2 $187.00 5374.00 2.00 $174.50 2 5174 (30 62 8" DIP sANITARY SEWER, CLASS 52. 10' • /5' DEEP LF 40 $44.30 51.772.00 0.00 5006 40 $1,772.00 63 III PVC SANITARY SEWER, 5.011 35. 9' - 10' DEEP LE 700 525,70 3317.990.00 640,00 516,448.00 639 S17,93:4.30 64 8" Pvc 5ANITARY 0EWE0, 5011 35,10' y 15' DEEP IF 1,275 92600 355.700.00 357 00 S9,996.00 957 520.79600 65 8" PVC $4341FA0y SEWER, 51)R 35.15' '24' DEEP IF 425 $59.00 $25,075.00 000 50.00 744 $43,65600 66 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER. SDP 3e, 30 - 25' DEEP IF 10 674.30 5743.00 0,00 50,00 0 4C.00 67 8" PVC bANITARySEWER. SDR 26, 0' - 10' DEER LF $0 $23.10 SI 405.00 0.00 $37.031 0 30.00 68 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER SDR 26,10' - 15' DEEP LF 806 534.50 $27,807.00 0.00 50.00 747 $25.771.50 0 E. 37316 54104413Y SEINER. SDR 26.15' - 20' DEFF IR 435 569.90 530,406.50 0.00 5000 381 526 611.90 70 a" PVC SAND AR? sr.wER.5911 26, 20 - 25' DEEP IF 115 002,90 553,271.86 0.3X? Soo° 896 874,278,40 71 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, 3013 26, 25' - 30 DEEP LF 35 594,20 $3.007.00 0.370 50,00 70 36,594,00 72 10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SOR 26, 15' - 20' DEEP LF /0 100,I0 55,607.09 0.00 30.00 0 50,00 73 10" PVC SANITARY SEWER, SRC 2E, 20' - 25' DEEP IF 32 $51.50 01,648.00 0.00 90.00 102 95.2.53.00 74 10" PVC sANITARY SEWER. SDR 26, 25' - 30' DEPP IF 0 $109.00 3000 0.00 $000 0 $33.00 75 ICY PVC sANITARY Stwoo. SDR 26. 30' - 35' DEEP LF 0 5637 DO 50.00 0.00 $0.00 0 $0.00 76 ROCK FOU 0 DATION 1309P.OW LT 5,003 50.01 $50.00 000 53100 0 $0.00 77 a" DIP SANITARY sEwER OUTSIDE DROP IF 27 S162.00 54,374 00 0.10 $16.20 12.3. $1,960.26 78 V' DM SANITARY SEWER bLIND DUTSJDE DROP LE 29 3315 LW 94,379.00 0.00 SOO" 79.3 $4,424,30 79 SANITARY SEWER WI 4' MAMETER EA 27 52,46000 566,420.00 7,00 517.220.00 27 566,420.0a 80 EXCESS MANHOLE DE970, 4' DIAMETER IS 168 597.29 $16.358.48 42.30 $4,131.00 347.52 5.1.8.220.94 81 TELEVISE SANITARY SEWER IF 4,733 31 'LS $8.282.75 0,49 50.00 0 10.00 82 OFF ROAD STRUCTURE MARKER EA 29 5E5.20 51,60060 27.00 $1,490.40 27 $1 490.40 83 8" PVC POKE (344113 LF S 960 524.90 8148.404.00 0.00 50.00 6,940 $147,90E1.00 84 MR REGFASF M1.414 EA 49,410.00 $20,820.00 0.07 50.00 2 510,820.072, 55 DER FM INC'S III 100 $3.95 (1 106.70 186,00 $1,10e.70 186 51.103,70 86 3,90STAT3ON TS 1 (220,00000 62.530,000,011 0.17 .537,400.00 0.57 5125,400.00 E.7 BEM 61(NODS DP WEVIAY (LIFT STA71014) SY 337 $33.00 930,461.00 0.333 $0.3F0 0 $0.00 SS SEED MIX 250 8, BLANKET SY 24,600 S1.10 927,060.3)u 42.,300,00 82.7$0.3143 2500 .92,750.00 89 SEED ATIX 250S, 90091994ULC8 SY 24,000 00 4:3 5890I040-00 23,794.00 39,993-43 23,764 $9.993.48 90 roosioN STABILIZATION MAT SY 50 39.90 $495.00 OFF) 30.00 0 50.00 91 SEED mic 250. MULCH, Ey DISC ANCHOR AC 5 5929.40 $4,645.00 4,50 $4.180.50 4.5 $4,180.50 92 TEMPORAR, SEEE.IMIX 100 AND MOLD< AC 15 5686.00 $10,290.00 0,00 630.00 0 80.c0 93 WETLAND RESTORATION WITS OWSR 6113 143181 Sy 80 99.91 $792.80 ODD $0.00 0 90.00 94 DiTai CHECK 14 17 $97.50 $1,657.50 0.321.1 $0.00 0 $0,00 95 ,,,I.A.VRT INLET PROTECTEON EA 9 3294.40 $.5.800.00 4.00 5800.00 4 $800.00 96 SILT TENC IF 5.110 $1.71 99.080 10 1,316.00 $2,248,55 2,630 54,(197.31) SUBTOTAL - DIVISION 3 S793,732,23 $115,000.23 $63651007 DIVISION 4 - SANITARY SEWER (SERVICE TO CNI PROPERTIES) 97 8' PvCSAN/TARy SEWER. SLYR 3.3, 0' - 10' 06 FP Li 45 933.20 87,494.00 45011 e1.494.00 45 73,494,00 98 I ACK 87 PyC SANITARY sEWER LF 60 340900 $24,10000 60.(4) $24.300.00 60 524,10900 99 SPED NM 250 5: 6143331357 SY 100 5110 5330 00 0.00 $0,00 0 5050 100 SILT FENCE LF 50 91.71 585.E0 25.00 $42 75 50 985.50 SUBTOTAL - DIVISION 4 276209.50 S25,836.75 57.5..179.50 DIVISION 5 - SANITARY SEWER (LENNAR AREA SERVICES) 101 8' X 4" PVC ',WE, SEM 2.6 EA 11 $127.0,3 51.397.00 0.00 S. CLOD 11 102 .4" PVC SAN1TARy SEWER SERViCE RGER LF 110 3725 91007.99 OM 50.06 143 SUBTOTAL - DIVISION 5 92,404.50 $0.00 61,391,00 81.337.00 52,544.00 DWISION 6- WATERMAiN 103 CONNECT TO EXISTiNG 12" WATER MAIN EA 1 6404.00 5404,00 1.00 9404.00 1 $4314.00 104 VI DIP, a.. 52 WATER 3,14IN LF 215 928.50 5.6.127.50 g3,(y) F,.2,650.50 155 54,417.00 105 8. DtP, G. 52 WATER MAIN LE 40 535.90 91,4 36.00 1.5.00 $538.50 44 91,579,60 106 12" 031'. (0.52 WATFR MAIN t F ,,305 546.90 .1357,214.50 1,64 5,00 895,120.50 6,541 1119,354,90 107 633055 HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPE UNE J5 5 Saano S112.00 1.109 Saaloo 1 $882.00 108 6" GATE vALVE AND ilos EA 14 91,220.00 $17,080.00 3.00 531160.00 10 51.2,700.00 109 V GATE, VALVE AND ROX EA 4 51,830.380 97,370,00 1,00 01,830.00 4 57,320.031 110 12" GATT VALVE AND OD% 'LT.A. 12 $3,3370.00 536,840.90 0.00 $18,420.00 12 536,84000 111 vAlvE 13(7X EXTENSION IF 15 355.40 5531,00 2.00 Silos° 2 $110.80 112 vALVE NUT 837E0510N 10 15 437.70 0565.00 0.00 50.943 0 9100 003 HYDRANT EA 11 54.09000 5471.990 00 2.01 912,27000 10 540,900.00 CONTRACT NIS PERIOD TOTAL 70 ETAT 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION or PAY ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT Y RIC E AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT 114 1701.198551 ETTENSION IT 6 $666.00 13,99600 2,00 01,337,00 $1,332, 00 115 OFF ROAD STRUCTURF MARKER CA 37 155.2.0 WRAC/ 22.00 1602.40 12 1662.40 116 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 1,0130 34.95 314,850.00 2336,06 $11,565.7.0 2,500 $12,375.00 SUBTOTAL- DIVISION 6 3491.474.90 12 49A31.9-0 1 1438,87827C T TOTALS - BASE CONTRACT $1,704,102.98 $324,329.31 91,423,018.47 CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 501.5 CI.FAR & GROB TREfR ii,iFT STATION SITE ON 007 PROPERTY) 23 1.0 33,300.00 11,50070 0.00 10.00 0 71 52,435.60 C01-2 DETRA 11- OF DEPTH 47 VALVE MIL TS 1.0 11.63794 $1.631.94 LOG 31.631.94 3.0 51,63794 C01-3 MBA DEPTH OF TORITMON IT 3060 570.53 56,174.30 30E1.00 116,274.00 300.0 56,174.06 C01-4 LIFT STATION GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EN 138.0 sis.m 47070.00 ow soon 0,0 30.09 5305-5 DEDUCT FOR GRAVCY $ANTTARY SEWER 'TRACER WIRE LI 7136.0 -30.60 -13,43160 27.00 93.00 7.336.0 -34.41730 TOTALS - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $8,944.34 $7,809,94 $5,859.34 TOTALS - REVISED CONTRACT S1.713,04732 9332,135.25 $1,428,877.81 THE. (In' OF AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: January 21, 2014 CONSENT ITEM # 7 Lake Elmo Avenue Sewer lnfrastructure Improvements: 1-94 to 301h Street — Pay Request No. 4 Ryan Stempski, Project Engineer Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator Jack Griffin, City Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Mike Bouthilet, Public Works SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Av,enda): Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if Appropriate Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council - Discussion.. ................ .„ ....... ............... ..... ......... ......... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering FISCAL IMPACT: None. Partial payment is proposed in accordance with the Contract for the project. Payment remains within the authorized scope and budget. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Pay Request No. 4 for the Lake Elmo Avenue Sewer Infrastructure Improvements: I-94 to 30'h Street. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Pay Request No. 4 to Minger Construction, Inc. in the amount of $486,505.26 for the Lake Elmo Avenue Sewer Infrastructure Improvements; 1-94 to 30th Street." City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 71 January 21, 2014 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Minger Construction Inc., the Contractor for the project, has submitted Partial Pay Estimate No. 4 in the amount of $486,505.26. The request has been reviewed and payment is recommended in the amount requested. In accordance with the contract docuinents, the City has retained 5% of the total work completed. The amount retained is S113,843.23. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Pay Request No. 4 for the Lake Elmo Avenue Sewer Infrastructure Improvements: I-94 to 30th Street. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Pay Request No. 4 to Minger Construction, Inc. in the amount of S486,505.2601. the Lake Elmo Avenue Sorer Infrastructure Improvements: 1-94 to 30m Street." ATTACHMENT(S1: . Partial Pay Estimate No. 4 -- page 2 -- PROJECT PAY FORM PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO, LAKE ELMO AVENUE SEWER INFRASTRVCiT3JFIE iMPROVEMaNTS PROIECT NO, 201.3...; PROJEC.7 OWNER:, Cr( OF LAKE ELMO 1180D LAVERNE AVENUE N RT LAKE ELMO, MN 17:::(iti1 ATTN: JACK GR°PrtN CITY 7:NGINE'ER CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER SUMARY No. Approval j .Arnount Date 1 Additions I Dadui...tions 1 1/5/2OI3 $0.00 2 11/6/2313 59,07C.00 I 3 1/6/2014 $0.00 TOTALS NET CHANGE START DATE: .59,07Ci.OD (S10,533,70 S/9/201..3 UTANTIAL 2/!:.V201.4 FINAL COMPLETN: F 1 C 5 ENGINEER113, inc. PERIOD OF ESTIMATE FROM 12/ VI/n1.4 CONTRACTOR: MINIZER CON!;;TilLICTION, Jfl GALPiN COURT, SUITE 110, PC Es0X. ',/135 CI-IANHASSEr-11, M 55317-023.6 ArtN.: AARorit EF3, PROZCT MANACBP PAY ESTIMATE S MM 1. Orinai Contrai.t: Amount 2. Nat Change irJrdsir Sum 3. Revised Contrt (1+2) 4. *Work Completed S. "'Stored M.azeriais Subtot Vi+5) 7. Retainage* Previoul: -Payments, 9, Amount Di.1°?, (6-7-8) 'Detailed&realseio Ain A tt:7.ched ACT fiME ORi INA L DAYS PJ:ft.'ISED DAYS REivNfNG ENUNEERS CERTIFICATION: The undersigned tiertifies that the work nas beer reviewed and iu the tt of their knov.,feegis b214!f, the quantties shown in this esi:irriate are rEct and the work has been performed, in accoriinri=a 'ENGEigER with the contracA documents. CONITRA(.77S)RiS CE- ISATION: The uncier:.;iFncd Coritracgor certifies that to to host of their know/edgeinorrr,tiori Frid elief the covered by this paymeht tirrwze has been corn,:iieted in accaruor,ce with ti cdritract do cumem:s, that aI ar-;cunis have been by the e-cintractor whi I: for vvh orr.,Nious isaytdent estimatc-s was issued -and t...rav;-iiient, received frz.-,rn the r,,vrier, arid ttiat curte.ri: par -tent st,own herein reOW 641E, AFI'ROVED BY VER. r,.TY OF LAKE ELmc, VNEEOTL BY LIATE rocus Emprcering, inc. 265 0 15,1 FOCUS Engineering, inc.. DATE_ CONTRACTOR DATE BY DATE $63,201.60 $3,452,567.90 $2,2,76,864S2 $0.00 52,276,FE45'6 $1.13,843.23 S1,676,S16.04: ON SCHEDULE YES PRCJI:CT PAYMENri FOR A PAMAL PAY Er, 8 .-. ":2 88'. ;88.' •,-.4 •-• '8' 2 :"; 8 8 8. '8" -.'? :8 8 ,8 ":: 2 8 ...'..a. '8 5. =8 8.' .8' 2 8, a ,-- ..8 ,,--. ..- ." -:, ., , ...; ; -..., .`.-;. -.; '' " - - '-:-• . ;.-- l-7" '"":' • 8 -- 8. 3." 8 8 8 1 -2 3, .8 8 ,... 3, 1.1. 3,- 8 .8 3, .8. '',..---3, 8-. ".8. i.'-!• 38,-3 Ti. ';',-..1 ;,.=, "33.3 8 -8 ... 43 ,8 'r-' 00 8. 3 1 1-1;;;;.., 1.55155111115111555, 5,5 5,5 11155,5 DIVISION 14 wiS'ITERMAIN 5.551" 5,555/11.1 155 ; n. 51555575 5.4.511.1 E RE!, 4 55; 411411 14 ?1(.0, 40084555;5' 5, • [5;;;551 155 SNDTOTAL DIVISION 1- 510114ET4 AND FLESIOPATION 41,14111 ..1.1.55;;;;;-15,51.; 1,155 1 5,4551 55 4-/ 1440;15.1.51. 1o; ; ;'4-5170 155;15541 ry1 4;1 551'11555 511,1 5 55155 4-45/115/55155„ I, 1 5. ;t5 .55,555 15 ;11515355: 5;5. 1.11157 ..5.1..1:15„ 555; 11.545,5141 1.1'555 r. 55; 5155,51.5., 11 5;15!!: 5, 1'5551. (55;515;1E ;15111; 4.15.1"515 111 5 1.155 5151515555 5,15 c...1.55;;+1.4,51 L: k -515 .55.554515,51-5 5; 555.55; ;551;11;155;EA;14t 55 5 5115. 1,555.1-155.5.5. 5'55, :(5i5Y, 5515.5 5.,51; 51555 C; 15;55 L LI 24 51.5 55,141555,5755 111/55r. 1115555;: 153-1i 11.; ...55 5 51; ;;5.;; 551./ -; 55551, . 555 C.15; 1155,511 5151' f 5.554-;555. 55 SODTOTAI.... DIVISION ..I 1 51;11 ,.;:plfarry 511;41551551-; 5.51.555.15151115 .555/C5t 11515 1.15 55 111.5 )55.i555 55E5 5 r;:;0 5115;5 55..1;5 1 15.5.: .51111 555, 5,5,551 51 -55 5 +X; 1 55 55.5.1,011; C. 05 6_66 •.;:'61'-..,''''',.'. ,1:66.6. ........„....... ..., - ___ ___ . ... • _..... . -6._ .. ''.:.'.-2 , .., 66 1 .1:' ,'?.,,-. si.....'.., 7.:'____..._ ...... . _ 6 '1'6 ';.1511 ,...,..., : 1 1-,E0 ,5 .L 1 , , ,:,.;,: . 55 :511 1 C.1 -5511 15: 5 Ft :15, 51:2111;r.5. ;! 6 v0 5'1'15, °l';;G-:1.'';'11 555;5. 551.115-1 5. 1505. t 1. 5 31 551!;5(115;7.:1 1- 5.0.1 51.555L; 15155565.54* TOTALS - EASE CONTRACT $2,41T000.4.0 2547,344,90 CHANGE ORE NO. 3 , 575.111-t, 11 55.5„5.5555,1151, 11;;51.1-+ no, TOTALS - cHANGI: ORDER No, CHANGE CRDER NO. 2 L. LN5-5;,NN.HN.,fr.c,t'LL TOTALS - CHANGE ORDER HO, 2 517:15551 .51 1.5,15555535 -".•,,,,v-3.,..6, .6'.,,sqr,..6.,:. TOTALS - R141S5D CONIKA.C.T S2,432.607.90 I>1,47.50 155' 551 5515;5 50.01) 1 55 $9,487.50 ,$4.004.00 55,200.00 S21,225.00 222;22S.00 SLII.I7E.D64.53 HE ill TY OF AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: ";. P DATE: January 21, 2014 CONSENT S$ ITEM #: 8 Approve Predictive Index Hiring Tool Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Mayor Mike Pearson Adam Bell, Asst. Administrator / HR, Cathy Bendel, Finance Director, Mike Reeves, HR Committee SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item Report/Presentation City Administrator City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff Facilitates Public Input; if Appropriate ,,,,,,,, ........... Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ,.... .. ..... ..... MayOr & City CoLiliCil ..... .. - - - Mayor & City Council Action on ....... „.. Mayor -Facilitates - POLICY RECCOMENDER: City Administrator FISCAL IMPACT: $3100 (Small Organization Discount) SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: Use the Predictive Index Diagnostic Tool to place current employees in the most productive working environments, improve HR management efficiency, and improve hiring by evaluating compatibility in the screening process. As part of its consent agenda, no specific motion is required. Should Council remove this item from Consent, the recommended motion would be as fbllows: "Move to approve the expenditure of $3100 for the subscription to the Predictive Employee Evaluation Program with the .fluids coming from the 2014 Contingency Fund. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: None — the City has used traditional hiring practices in the past. -- page City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Dein 8] January 21, 2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION,: With growth imminent, it is important for the City to employ the best hiring practices to ensure that the right employees are brought into the organization. In addition, recent staff interviews have revealed that as many as 25% of our employees are not in a "good fit" for their own edification and organizational efficiency. Predictive Index is an EEOC approved tool that measures employment characteristics that: I. Tells the organization how an individual likes to work; 2. Evaluates how the individual feels the organization wants them to work: 3. Measures how the individual synthesizes the two points above to create a work style. The attached nriaterial provided goes into greater detail on methodology and applicability. BACKGROUND iNfolVATIQN(SWQT): Strengths: Provides objective, empirical methodology for the selection and assignment of City employees. Methodology sanctioned by the EEOC. City Administrator is certified in the system. Weakness: Removes "intangibles" and nuance of personality in the selection process. Opportunities: Allows City to increase workplace productivity and efficiency by placing employees in roles that maximize their effectiveness. Threats: rvIay cause organizational disruption with the replacement, release or reassignment of tasks with the current employee pool. RECOMMENDATION: To stabilize the hiring and assignment process in the staffing of the City of Lake Elmo, the City Administrator recommends the following: "Move to approve the expenditure of S3100 for the subscription to the Predictive Employee Evaluation Program with the funds coming from the 2014 Contingency Fund." ATTAckpiENT,s: 1. What is the Predictive Index? -- page 2 -- What is The Predictive Index® (PI®)? Predictive Index(R) (PI®) is a scientifically validated assessment that accurately predicts workplace behaviors and tendencies. Who is PI Worldwide? www.PIWorldwide.com PI Worldwide and its global consulting network combine the power of predictive data with business expertise to help organizations worldwide achieve a competitive advantage. Trusted advisors since 1955, we help organizations align their people with their strategy,' to create long-term sustainable results. Our Methodology Data Driven Science -based assessments are the foundation of our methodology everything starts with the data. Our assessments it -leas -me critical dimensions ofbehaviors and skills in the workplace. The Predictive lndcN assessment, developed in 1955, was among the first to quantify the importance of behavioral drives and needs in the workplace. Since then, we've added additional assessments that continue the tradition of providing you with unprecedented insight into your leaders, employees. and candidates. Knowledge Transfer Education and knowledge transfer are essential elements of our partnering strategy with our clients. For more than 50 years. we have helped our clients develop subject matter experts to interpret and apply their own data within the context of their own organizations. Our powerful programs, combined with ongoing complimentary support. ensure competence is developed inside your organization. Our clients cite our education programs as transformational in their ability to manage and lead others and to better understand themselves. Technology Jo today's fast -paced organizations. our clients require on -demand access to our tools and data. To support this need, we offer a variety of web -based solutions that allow you to collect, analyze, and apply assessment data to your most critical business challenges. We also offer robust integrations to industry -leading HRIS and ATS platforms to automate the process of applying workforce analytics more easily. Expertise Our global consulting network consists of 45 rinilc representing 400 professional consultants. These experts provide the highest levels of applied experience. industry knowledge, and service. As part of the PI Worldwide community, each consultant brings a unique combination of global experience and local presence. They serve as trusted business advisors and have earned a client retention rate of more than 90%. Our consultants can engage with your organization for strategy planning sessions, group analytics work, teatn optimization, leadership development. succession planning, and strategic workforce planning. DATE: January 21, 2014 REGULAR ITEM # 9 No SWOT Analysis AGENDA ITEM: Council Meeting Date Change SUBMITTED BY: Beckie Gumatz, Deputy Clerk THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Adam Bell, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item .................... ....... . ..... .......... ..... ........ City Administrator Report/Presentation ......... ........ ...... , ....... ..........City Administrator Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ........... ...... ........... ....... . ........ .. Mayor & City Council Discussion......... .....„............ ................... ,........... ...... ..... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: State Law FISCAL IMPACT: NA SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: City Council is respectfully requested to move the City Council meeting from Tuesday, February 4, 2014 to Wednesday, February 5, 2014 due to Precinct Caucuses. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve moving the Tuesday, February 4, 2014 Council Meeting to Wednesday, February 5, 2014, due to Precinct caucuses," LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: When the 2014 Meeting calendar was presented and approved at the December 17, 2013 meeting, the date of Precinct Caucuses was overlooked. State law prohibits cities from holding meetings after 6:00pm on the date of Precinct Caucuses. By moving the meeting to Wednesday, the City will be better able to conduct its business. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting January 21, 2014 [Regular Agenda lion 921 RECOMVIENDATION: City Council is respectfully requested to move the City Council meeting from Tuesday, February 4, 2014 to Wednesday, February 5, 2014 due to Precinct Caucuses. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve moving the Tuesday, Februarl, 4, 2014 Council Meeting to Wednesday, February 5, 2014, due to Precinct Caucuses." — page 2 -- 1 1' 11 IF:CJF K E ELM( AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: r' DATE: January 21, 2014 REGULAR ITEM 10 Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Waten-nain Improvements — Public Improvement Hearing; Resolution Ordering the Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications; Motion to Approve Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract Jack Griffin, City Engineer Dean A. Zuleger, City Adtninistrator Adam Bell, City Clerk Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Chad Isakson, Project Engineer 9.119.11 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item City Engineer Report/Presentation City Engineer Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Open Public Improvement Hearing; Public Input Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering FISCAL IMPACT: S166,000 for preparation of plans and specifications which includes geotechnical investigations for design. The Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Waten-nain improvement project is a $3.84 million water system infrastructure project that is programmed for construction in the 2014 Capital Improvement Plan, The Capital Improvement Plan is funded as detailed in the city financial pro forma previously presented and accepted by the city council. More specifically this project will be funded through the water enterprise fund and special assessments as identified in the feasibility report. -- page City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 10] January 21, 2014 Approving the Plans and Specifications and entering into a professional services contract commits the city to incur the engineering and geotechnical costs necessary to complete detailed design and receive contractor bids to ready the project for construction in April 2014. The council will be asked to award a contract for watermain construction in May 2014 and the booster station construction in June 2014, at which time the city would commit to the remaining project costs, SUMMARY AND ACT1ON REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to open the Public Improvement Hearing for the Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Watermain hnprovements; and following the Hearing, consider adopting Resolution No. 2014-06 Ordering the Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications; and awarding a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract. The recommended motions for these actions are as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-07 Ordering the Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Watermain Improvements and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications." and "Move to approve the updated Professional Engineering Support Services Consulting Pool, thereby adding MSA Professional Services, Inc. in the area of General Municipal Services." and "Move to approve a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract to MSA Professional Services, Inc. in the not to exceed amount of $200,772." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION,: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.011 to 429.111, a Public Improvement Hearing was noticed for January 21, 2014, to consider making the following improvements: Extension of trunk watennain facilities along Inwood Avenue from 26th Street North to Eagle Point Boulevard, passing through the Parkview Estates neighborhood. • Construction of a water booster station to increase water pressures in the southern part of the city. The attached notice was published in the official newspaper and individual notifications were sent to each address that potentially will be assessed a portion of the project costs. In addition a resident meeting was held on January 15, 2014 to present the information to the benefitting property owners identified in the report. This project is programmed_ for construction in the 2014 Capital Improvement Plan. The feasibility report was authorized by the city council on August 6, 2013 in order to ready this project for 2014 construction. The report identified the necessary improvements, estimated project costs, assessment methodology and preliminary assessment amounts to be levied against properties adjacent to and benefiting from the improvements. page 2 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 10J January 21, 2014 The proposed improvements include the extension of trunk watermain facilities along Inwood Avenue from 26th Street North to Eagle Point Boulevard, connecting to the existing water system in the Eagle Point Business Park. The feasibility report recommended that water service he extended into the Parkview Estates neighborhood to provide a more efficient water distribution network that includes additional properties along the selected route. A water booster station has been identified as part of this improvement to increase water pressures in the southern part of the city due to higher topography. These improvements are consistent with the 2030 Water System Comprehensive Plan which identifies the southwestern part of the city as the high water pressure zone. Property acquisition is necessary in the vicinity of 26th Street North and Inwood Avenue to accommodate the water booster station facility. Individual home service stubs and fire hydrants will be installed as waten-nain is extended past existing residential properties. There are properties adjacent to this improvement project that will gain direct access to connect to the water system, without being assessed for a lateral watermain in the future. Two properties have been identified along Inwood Avenue to he assessed a $5,800 lateral benefit assessment since the trunk watermain will be placed adjacent to their residence. In addition, there are twenty-five (25) properties located in the Parkview Estates neighborhood that will be served by the project. The city has the option to install the trunk watennain on Inwood Avenue and bypass this neighborhood altogether. Therefore, the added costs to include the Parkview Estates neighborhood were determined. Applying the Special Assessment Policy, 100% of the added costs should be assessed to the 25 properties, resulting in a preliminary unit assessment amount of $16,500. To complete the engineering design, the city engineer prepared and sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Engineering Support Services that includes a full topographic survey, the preparation of plans and specifications; plan printing, distribution and bidding services; construction administration support to the city engineer, and construction staking. FOCUS Engineering will provide resident and council communication, conduct public meetings, project management, coordinate the project permitting, and will provide construction administration services for the project. FOCUS will also oversee the project design and quality control review, lead site acquisition for the booster station, and provide city design standards and documents to be incorporated with the project plans. Construction observation services will be retained at a later date once the project has been bid and awarded for construction. The RFP was sent to five fines from the city' s Engineering Consultant Pool, including AE2S, Bolton and Menk, TKDA, MSA and SEH. The proposals were received on January 10, 2014 and were reviewed and ranked on the following basis: Project Team Qualifications with a focus on a Project Manager capable of leading and delivering a utility extension project using directional drilling installation techniques; Demonstrated understanding and experience with the project and understanding of the critical success factors; Understanding the scope of work and roles and responsibilities of the Consultant; -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 10] January 21, 2014 Collaboration skills and responsiveness demonstrated during the RFP submittal process: and Engineering Fees, indicating a detailed breakdown that is consistent with the Consultant's written proposal. The attached exhibit provides the Proposal Fee Summary as received by the responding consultants, together with staff adjustments needed to reconcile the requested work scope for the project. The Proposal Fees ranged from $128,935 to $353,030, Engineering Fees are subtotaled for each project phase including project management, plans and specifications, bidding, and construction support services including construction staking. Full construction phase services including construction observation is included in the consultant's fee for the booster station. The city engineer is recommending a contract be awarded to MSA Professional Services, Inc. MSA has assigned a qualified project manager and a highly qualified team to handle both the watermain utility work and the complex design work needed for the booster station. While the MSA fee is higher than several other proposals, we believe that they have submitted the best work plan that proposes the appropriate level of hours necessary by the various level of technical expertise to successfully implement this improvement project. Their proposal identifies a thorough understanding of the work to be performed and they are aware of key issues related to the corridor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2014-06 Ordering the Improvements and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Watermain Improvements. Ordering a 429 Public Improvement nroiect without a, resident netition reauires a suner maioritv 4/5 vote. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 20l4-07 Ordering the Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Watermain Improvements and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications." Staff is also recommending that the City Council consider approving the updated Professional Engineering Support Services Consulting Pool, thereby adding MSA Professional Services, Inc, (MSA) in the area of General Municipal Services. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve the updated Professional Engineering Support Services Consulting Pool, thereby adding MSA Professional Services, Inc. in the area of General Municipal Services" Staff is also recommending that the City Council award a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract for the Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Watermain Improvements. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: -- page 4 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 10J January 21. 2014 "Move to approve a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract to MSA Professional Services, Inc. in the not to exceed amount of $200,772." ATTACHMENT(S): 1, Resolution 2014-07 Ordering the Improvements and Preparation of Plans and Specifications. 2. Notice of Hearing on Improvement. 3. Preliminary Assessment Roll. 4. Project Schedule. 5. Location Map. 6. Professional Engineering Support Services Consulting Pool; updated January 21, 2014. 7. Proposal Fee Summary Worksheet. 8. Feasibility Report (available for review at City Hall) -- page 5 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE INWOOD BOOSTER STATION AND TRUNK WATER1VIAIN IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant a resolution of the city council adopted the 3rd day of December, 2013. the council ordered a hearing on Improvement for the Inwood Booster Station and Trunk Watei main Improvements; and WHEREAS, ten daysmailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 21st day of January, 2014, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the feasibility report prepared by FOCUS Engineering, Inc.. and dated November 2013 states that the project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; and WHEREAS, in order to provide municipal water to developing properties located south of 10'1' Street N the city needs to design and construct a booster station and a trunk watermain along Inwood Avenue North from 26th Street North to Eagle Point Boulevard, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. Such improvement is deemed necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the Feasibility Report dated November 2013. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted this 21st day of January, 2014. 3. The city council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the improvement from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds. 4. The city engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for making this improvement. The engineer, and his consultants, shall oversee the preparation of the Plans and Specifications for the making of such improvement, 5. The city engineer shall retain the services of a consulting engineering firm to assist, where needed, to prepare Plans and Specifications for the making of such improvement and to assist the city engineer during the construction phase of the improvement as requested. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No. 2014-07 CITY OF LAKE ELMO NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT INWOOD BOOSTER STATION AND TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Lake Elmo will meet in the council chambers of the city hall at or approximately after 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday. January 21, 2014, to consider the making of the following improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.11 I: The improvement will consist of extending the water system approximately 2.8 miles south along Inwood Avenue beginning at 26th Street North, deviating into Parkview Estates along Ivory Avenue North, and back along Inwood Avenue south to and along future Sth Street. to provide municipal water service to developing properties in the southwest part of the City. Individual service stubs will be installed to properties with existing homes that are. located adjacent to the watermain improvements. Fire hydrants will be installed along the corridor, providing increased fire suppression capabilities in the extended service area. The area proposed to he assessed for these improvements include the properties with existing residences and located along Inwood Avenue and Ivory Avenue North. directly abutting the location of the proposed watermain improvements. The estimated total cost of the improvements is $3,840,000. A reasonable estimate of the impact of the assessment will be available at the hearing. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will he heard at this meeting. DATED: December 3, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL Mike Pearson, Mayor (Published in the Oakdale-Lalw Dino Review an December 11, 2013 and December 18, 2013) CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN. NOVEMBER 2013 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL INWOOD BOOSTER STATION AND TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS PAGE 1 of 1 NO. NAME ADDRESS RID UNITS - -7.„ —"EEERi-lAkbeAROI_INi MiRS &A-T.i,i At Ei4Ekb- - . '23 " 'Iii. ' AVE N. .1:A6E' ELMO ' 55042 2102921310001 $ 5,800 2 MEEHAN FAMILY LLC 2038 INWOOD AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2102921340013 $ 5,800 1 HANSON KENNETH L & ANN I E M C 1873 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120023 $ 16,500 2 SAULSBURY KIM B & THERESA D 1849 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120022 $ 16,500 3 KLOSNER MARKS & BARBARA F 1827 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120021 $ 16,500 4 WILLIAMS JAMES M & SUSAN T 1805 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120020 $ 16,500 5 HANGGE JOSEPH P & MICHELE L 1779 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120019 5 16,500 6 NELSC)N DAVID F & LESLIE R 1757 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELM() 55042 2802921120018 $ 16,500 7 FORLITI EDWARD 1 & CYNTHIA ] 1743 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120017 $ 16,500 8 KNUTSON BRANDON 1 & JODI F FISH 1727 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120016 $ 16,500 9 AKBERG GARY T & JEANETTE 1709 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120015 $ 16,500 10 BARTCSH PETER T & SANDRA K 1697 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120014 $ 16,500 11 YOCUM TIMOTHY C & SHANNON C 5 1694 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120009 $ 16,500 12 BEARTH GREGORY A & MELISSA A 1681 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120013 $ 16,500 1.3 DEEBTIFFNI & DANIEL L 1680 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120008 $ 16,500 14 WORTMAN STEPHEN D & CHERYL L 1668 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120007 $ 16,500 15 IVERSON JEFFREY 5 & JULI A 1663 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120012 $ 16,500 16 BATTAH ABDALLA M & DEBRA I 1654 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120006 $ 16,500 17 ANDERSON DAVID M & MARIA V 1645 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120011 $ 16,500 18 SNIDER BERT W & TERRI L 1636 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120005 $ 16,500 19 ANDERSON DAMES L & KARIN L 1627 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921120010 $ 16,500 20 HAUGE ROBERT IR & LAIS MONICA 1615 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921130018 5 16,50,0 21 JACOBS PHILLIP 1584 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921130017 $ 16,500 22 ROLANDO RICHARD 1 & JEAN M 1583 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921130014 $ 16,500 23 HENEHAN THOMAS A & MARY L 1570 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921130016 $ 16,500 24 RICKERT BRENDA 1567 IVORY AVE N LAKE ELMO 55042 2802921130015 $ 16,500 25 KUMP SUZANNE &JOHN 1539 IVORY CT N LAKE ELMO .55042 2802921130008 $ 16,500 TOTAL $ 424,100 PROJECT SCHEDULE CITY [lFLAKE AMF) |NVVOODBOOSTER STATION AND TRUNK VVATERMAINIMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO, 2O1Z.1ZG TRUNK WATERMAIN PROJECT SCHEDULE ENGINEERING, inc. Cara 6eheen,F.E. Jack Griffin, P.E. nyanStempoki' P.E. Chad iekson,p.E. January 21, 2014 Public Improvement Hearing. Council Orders Improvement and Preparation of plans and specifications, April 15,2014 Council approves Plans and Specifications; Orders Advertisement for Bids, May 23,ZO14 Receive Contractor Bids. May 20,2O14 Council accepts bids and awards Contract. June 9'2OI4 Conduct Pre -construction Meeting and Issue Notice tVProceed. Septennber,2014 Substantial completion. October,ZD14 Final completion. BOOSTER STATION PROJECT SCHEDULE January31, 2014 Public Improvement Hearing. Council Orders Improvement and Preparation of plans and specifications, May ZO,2Ul4 Council approves Plans and Specifications; Orders Advertisement for Bids, June l2,ZO14 Receive Contractor Bids. June 17,2O14 Council accepts bids and awards Contract. ]une3O, 2014 Conduct Pre -construction Meeting and Issue Notice to Proceed. Engineer Recommendation ' Substantial and Final completion. ENG NEER NG PROJ. NO. 2012.126 LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER, 2013 2000 LTRE NO. LOCATION MAP INWOOD BOOSTER STATION AND TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS 4000 Feet TABLE 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO - PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES CONSULTING POOL Traffic Engineering & General Municipal Services Transportation Planning Water System Bolton & Menk Inc. SRF Consulting Barr Engineering Inc FOTH Infrastructure Spack Consulting, Inc. SEH MSA Professional Services AE2S STANTEC KLM Engineering Inc. Stevens TKDA General Services - Specialties Surveying / Easements Cornerstone Land Survey E,G.Rud and Sons, Inc. Folz, Freeman and Erickson Wastewater Surface Water Barr Engineering Inc AE2S Water Tower Maintenance / Antermas KLM Engineering Inc. Emmons ()Wier Resources Hydromethods Solution Blue Barr Engineering Inc GIS / Mapping Flat Rock Geographics Municipal Buildings & Parks, Landscaping, Urban Facilities Design No Award No Award Consulting Firm Total Engineering CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA INWOOD BOOSTER STATION AND TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 2012.126 DATE RECEIVED: JANUARY 10, 2014 PROPOSAL FEE SUMMARY - AS RECEIVED Project Management P&S Bidding Construction AE2S $353,030 $15,991 $236,539 $17,456 $83,044 Bolton & Menk, Inc. $155,851 $9,360 $98,312 $2,958 $45,222 MSA Professional Services, Inc. $200,772 $4,090 $113,180 $3,379 $80,123 SEH, Inc. $125,695 $6,048 $75,537 $3,162 $40,948 TKDA, Inc. $178,540 $111,330 $7,130 $60,080 Consulting Firm PROPOSAL FEE SUMMARY - STAFF ADJUSTED Project Total Engineering P&5 Bidding Construction Topo Survey Management AE2S $353,030 $15,991 $236,539 $17,456 $83,044 ?? Bolton & Menk, Inc. $155,851 $9,360 $88,781 $2,958 $45,222 $9,531 MSA Professional Services, Inc. $200,772 $4,090 $95,560 $3,379 $80,123 $17,620 SEH, Inc. $128,935 56,048 $63,357 $3,162 $44,188 $12,180 TKDA, Inc. $181,500 $5,052 $95,221 $7,130 $63,040 $11,057 TI (Try or FLi 1( AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: January 21, 2014 REGULAR ITEM # 11 Well No, 4 Connecting, Watermain Improvements — Approve Plans and Specifications and Order Advertisement for Bids Jack Griffin, City Engineer Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator Chad Isakson, Project Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Mike Bouthilet, Public Works SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item Report/Presentation Questions from Council to Staff City Engineer City Engineer Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if Appropriate ....... , .................... .................,.Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ................ ...................... ........... ...............Mayor & City Council Discussion__ ........ ............ ........... .......... ........... . ....... . ..... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion. ........... . ...... ........ . ..... ........................., ..... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering. FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated project cost for Well No, 4 Connecting Watermain improvements is S617,000. The project is scheduled to be paid through a combination of DEED grant money ($260,000) and water enterprise funds ($357,000). 'The city cost share, or water enterprise funds, will be financed through the issuance of bonds with the bond payments paid with the collection of water availability and water connection charges. Approval of this resolution does not commit the council to the project costs. Once contractor bids are received, the actual construction costs will be known and the council will be asked to consider entering into a contact to complete the work. City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item I I] January 21, 2014 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The city council is respectfully requested to consider approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain improvements. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-08, approving le plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: In accordance with the 2013-2014 Capital Improvement Plan, the city is pursuing the addition of a new water supply well, Well No, 4, to support the current and future growth and development water supply needs for the city. The project is being completed under three separate contracts to align with the various required contractor specialties including a weli driller; a building contractor with electrical, controls, and HVAC specialties; and a directional drilling utility contractor. All three contracts, along with the Keats Trunk Watennain Improvements, are part of the city's water system DEED grant, whereby the city must expend $1.0 million in local matching funds to receive the $1.0 million state bond grant. Per the Grant Agreement, all grant funds must be fully expended by December 31, 2014. The well drilling for Well No. 4 is near completion. On August 6, 2013, the council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watennain Improvements. In accordance with the project schedule, the plans and specifications for the Pumphouse have been completed and are ready to be advertised for contractor bids. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Plans and Specifications have been completed for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements. The Engineer's opinion of probable construction cost is $447,860. The improvements include: Construction of a approximately 4,400 LF of 12-inch wateimain to connect Well No. 4 to the existing distribution system. Installation of 10 service stubs to existing properties to provide property owners the opportunity to hook up to municipal water. • Erosion control, cleanup and site restoration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the plans and specifications and order the advertisement for bids for the Well No, 4 Connecting Waterman' Improvements. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-08, approving t se plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Well No. 4 Connecting Waterman; improvements." ATTACHMENT: I. Resolution 2014-08 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids. 2. Location Map. 3. Project Schedule. 4. Well No. 4 Connecting Waterman" Plans and Specifications (available,* review at Ci page 1 -1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-08 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE WELL NO, 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the city council on the 6th day of August, 2013, the city engineer, together with Bolton and Menk, Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the Well No. 4 Connecting Watermain Improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at Lake Elmo City Hall and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and posted online with Quest Construction Data Network (QuestCDN.com) an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for at least 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that sealed bids provided to the City Clerk prior to the specified bid date and time and accompanied by a bid bond or cashier's check made payable to the City of Lake Elmo in an amount not less than 5% of the amount of such hid will be considered. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 2014. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No. 2014-08 LEGEND PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED WATERMAIN SERVICE STUB "83 PROPOSED HYDRANT XXXX ASSESSABLE PROPERTY FOC ENGINEER NG PROJ. NO. 2013.131 LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER, 2013 9 I I 590 1000 Feet FIGURE NO, 2 PROPOSED WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS WELL NO. 4 CONNECTING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SCHEDULE CITY OF LAKE AMO WELL NO. 4CONNECTING VVATERK0A\NIMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 2O13.13l ENGINEERING) inc. Cara Gehe��P.E. Jack Griffin, P.E. Ryan Stem pxki,P.E. Chad |sakson,P.[. 651-300.4261 651.300.4264 651.300.4267 651.300.4283 14N44Ry2D24 August 6,2Ol3 Presenttion of Preliminary Study Findings, Council authorizes Feasibility Report, September 3,IO1] Presentation of Feasibility Report. Council accepts Report and Calls Hearing, September l9,2O13 Property owner meeting, Presentation of Report findings and recommendations, October l, 2013 Public Improvement Hearing. Council orders Preparation ofplans and specifications. January 21,2Ol4 Council approves Plans and Specifications; Orders Advertisement for Bids. February Z[\I0l4 Receive Contractor Bids, March 4,lO14 April l,1014 June Z0,ZOI4 ]u|y 18, 2014 Council accepts bids and awards Contract. Conduct Pre -construction Meeting and Issue Notice to Proceed. Substantial completion (estimated 12weeks). Final Completion, 1E,CITY OF [AKED , '.;;;44.2• AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: r ' •,z DATE: January 21, 2014 REGULAR ITEM # 12 Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements Approve Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract Jack Griffin, City Engineer Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator Chad Isakson, Project Engineer SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS if removed from the Consent Auenda1: - Introduction of Item City Engineer Report/Presentation ...... City Engineer Questions from Council to Staff ............ ................ ..........Mayor Facilitates Public Input, if Appropriate Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering. FISCAL IMPACT: $80,000 for preparation of plans and specifications which includes geotechnical investigations for design. The Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvement project is a S3.0 million water system infrastructure project that is programmed for construction in the 2014 Capital Improvement Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan is funded as detailed in the city financial pro forma previously presented and accepted by the city council. More specifically this project will be funded through the water enterprise fund and special assessments as identified in the feasibility report. Entering o a professional services contract commits the city to incur the engineering and geotechnical costs necessary to complete detailed design and receive contractor bids to ready the project for construction in 2014. The council will be asked to award a contract for construction in April 2014, at which time the city would commit to the remaining project costs. SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider awarding a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements to -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting !Regular Agenda hem I 2] January 21, 2014 TKDA, Inc. in the estimated not to exceed amount of 566,500. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements to TKDA, Inc. in the estimated not to exceed amount of S66,500." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On December 3, 2013, following a public improvement hearing, the City Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watermain Improvements. The proposed improvements include the extension of trunk waterrnain along Lake Elmo Avenue, from the existing Village water system, south approximately 2.5 miles to the future intersection location of Lake Elmo Avenue and 511' Street. The improvements are identified for construction in 2014 and are consistent with the capital improvement plan. To complete the engineering design, the city engineer prepared and sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Engineering Support Services that includes a design survey, the preparation of plans and specifications; plan printing, distribution and bidding services; construction administration support to the city engineer, and construction staking. FOCUS Engineering will provide resident and council communication, conduct public meetings, project management, coordinate the project permitting, and will provide construction administration services for the project. FOCUS will also oversee the project design and quality control review, and provide city design standards and documents to be incorporated with the project plans. Construction observation services will be retained at a later date once the project has been bid and awarded for construction. The RFP was sent to four firms from the city's Engineering Consultant Pool, including AE2S, Bolton & Menk, TKDA, and SEH. Three proposals were received on December 6, 2013 and were reviewed and ranked on the following basis: • Project Team Qualifications with a focus on a Project Manager capable of leading and delivering a utility extension project using directional drilling installation techniques; • Demonstrated understanding and experience with the project and understanding of the critical success factors; 6 Understanding the scope of work and roles and responsibilities of the Consultant: 6 Collaboration skills and responsiveness demonstrated during the RFP submittal process; and o Engineering Fees, indicating a detailed breakdown that is consistent with the Consultant's written proposal. The attached exhibit provides the Proposal Fee Summary as received by the responding consultants, together with staff adjustments needed to reconcile the requested work scope for the project. The Proposal Fees ranged from $66,500 to 571,560. Engineering Fees are subtotaled for each project phase including project management, plans and specifications, topographic survey, bidding, and construction support services including construction staking. The city engineer is recommending a contract- be awarded to TKDA, Inc. TKDA has assigned a qualified team appropriate for the level of work required for this project. In particular, TKDA has dedicated significantly more hours to the project for a senior level engineer experienced in directional drilling technology. TKDA also identified a thorough understanding of the work to be performed and they are aware of key issues related to the corridor. The engineering fees from all firms were relatively close and all proposed fees are below the project budget. Staff is recommending TKDA's team for their senior level project experience with directional drilling combined with their existing knowledge of the corridor. page 2 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 12] January 2 , 2014 RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council award a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract for the Lake Elmo Avenue Trunk Watennain Improvements to TKDA. Inc. in the estimated not to exceed amount of $66,500. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: "Move to approve a Professional Engineering Design and Construction Support Services Contract for the Lake Elmo A venue Trunk Waterman? Improvements to TKDA, Inc. in the estimated not to exceed amount of S66,500." ATTAcHMENT(51: 1. Proposal Fee Summary Worksheet -- page 3 -- Consulting Firm Total Engineering Consulting Firm Total Engineering Bolton & Menk, Inc. $71,560 SEH, Inc. $78,469 TKDA $65,000 CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA LAKE ELMO AVE TRUNK WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO, 2013.133 DATE: DECEMBER 27, 2013 PROPOSAL FEE SUMMARY - AS RECEIVED Project Management P&S Bidding Construction $5,400 $50,090 $1,050 $15,020 $7,400 $45,833 $3,043 $22,193 $40,500 $3,200 $21,300 PROPOSAL FEE SUMMARY - STAFF ADJUSTED Project Management P&S Bidding Construction Topo Survey Bolton & Menk, Inc. $71,560 $5,400 $33,890 $1,050 $15,020 $16,200 SEH, Inc. $82,519 57,400 $31,440 $3,043 $26,243 $14,393 TKDA $66,500 $2,724 $35,612 $3,200 $22,780 $2,164 Ti 1E CITY KE ELMO t‘, AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: t , 4 r •'• • 4 ) 2 4 4 J p DATE: January 21, 2014 REGULAR ITEM # 13 Friedrich Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment (RAD-ALT to RAD) Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Planning Commission Nick Johnson, City Planner SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item Community Development Director Report/Presentation .Community Development Director Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates 0111 for Motion . . .... .. . „ ....... ..... Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The City Council has previously asked the Planning Commission for its recommendation concerning an amendment to the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan that would change the future land use designation of property located at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North (the "Friedrich Property") from RAD-ALT to RAD. In accordance with City Code and State Law, the City Council may only amend the Comprehensive Plan only after the Planning Commission has conducted a review of the proposed changes and after the Commission's has conducted a public hearing concerning the amendment. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at its January 13, 2014 meeting and a summary of the Commission's report and recommendation are included below. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no direct fiscal impacts to the City associated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff has spent time preparing for the meeting and following proper hearing notification procedures. As a Council -initiated agenda item, the City will not receive any application fees to offset the hearing publication and mailing costs. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 13J January 21, 2014 SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: At its December 3, 2013 meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would revise the future land use map for property at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North. Specifically the Council asked that the Planning Commission consider changing the future land use designation of this property from RAD-ALT (Rural Area Development Alternate Density) to RAD (Rural Area Development). The difference between these land use categories is that the RAD-ALT designation would allow residential densities on the site up to 2 units per acre while the RAD designation would limit this number to 0.45 units per acre. The Planning Commission considered this matter at its January 13, 2014 meeting and recommended approval of the amendment to change the future land use designation for the subject property from RAD-ALT to RAD. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-09 amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North .from RAD-ALT to RAD." LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The attached Staff report to the Planning Commission includes general information regarding the subject property in addition to a summary of the planning and zoning issues pertaining to the site. Also attached for consideration by the Council is the Staff report concerning a request to change the future land use designation of this site that was prepared in early 2010. These two documents provide good synopsis of recent action taken by the City for this property, with relevant dates noted as follows: Date Action 3/22/] 0 Application for Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Text Amendment and PUD/OP Concept Plan accepted as complete by the City 6/1/10 City Council approval of Comprehensive Plan amendment for subject property (RAD to RAD-2) 7/20/10 City Council approval of OP/PUD Concept Plan for senior living/farm- based preschool development 7/19/11 Granting of one-year extension for preliminary plan submission 8/21/12 Granting of additional one-year extension for preliminary plan submission 3/14/13 Expiration of OP/PUD Concept Plan 1/21/14 City Council consideration of Comprehensive Plan amendment (RAD- ALT to RAD) The Planning Commission considered the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment at its January 13, 2014 meeting and conducted a public hearing concerning the amendment at this time. The following individuals addressed the Commission during the course of the public hearing: -- page 2 — City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 13] January 21, 2014 Janice Green spoke to the Commission as the owner of the property. She explained that her father was strongly supportive of the farm school concept and that this project was intended to help preserve the agricultural buildings and activity on the site. She stated that the land owners are requesting that the land use designation remain RAD-ALT. Larry Weiss, 9302 Stillwater Boulevard North, explained that he was originally in support of the proposed development on this site, but that he changed his mind when the density increased. He asked that that land use designation be changed back to RAD. Ed Nielson, 9498 Stillwater Boulevard North, expressed concern over the information that was presented about the senior living and faun school project when it was initially proposed. He explained that senior living projects are typically located along larger roads. He commented that 98% of the surrounding neighbors are opposed to the previous development proposal. Stewart Helgeson, 11150 121h Street North, stated that it would not make sense to change the land use plan back to RAD because the City may need to make yet another change if an acceptable project were to come forward. The Planning Commission generally discussed the City's long range plans for rural areas and the OP zoning regulations that would apply to this site. Commissioners supported the findings for approval of the amendment as drafted by Staff, and recommended five additional findings to support its recommendation to the City Council. The Commission further noted that the City is still operating under older population and household foreeast numbers that -will be valid until the updated regional forecast is finalized by the Met Council. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD-ALT to RAD consistent with the findings as noted in the attached Resolution No. 2014- 109. The vote on the motion unanimous at 7-0. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOTII Strengths Weaknesses The proposed amendment provides clarity for the City and neighbors regarding the maximum amount of development for the site. The Commission noted that the amendment would alleviate a potential "spot zoning" situation in this area. An amendment would prohibit a unique development from moving forward that would combine senior living, a preschool, and agricultural activities on the site. Any new application for multi -family living and/or a farm -based preschool on the site could only move forward with another Comprehensive Plan amendment. -- page City Council Meeting [Regzdar Agenda Item 131 January 21, 2014 Opportunities Future development proposals could be approved by the City that are consistent with the OP zoning regulations. • The property owner/developer may still pursue a Comprehensive Plan amendment as part of a future development proposal. The City will be able to further evaluate the used and densities allowed in rural development areas once the regional forecast has been finalized, Threats The City is still operating under the forecasts approved under the MOU and 2013 Land Use Plan (additional density in rural development would be needed to reach these forecast numbers). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to change the future land use designation for the subject property from RAD-ALT to RAD. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-09 amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD-ALT to RAD." Please note that this action requires a 4/5ths majority vote of the City Council. If there are fewer than four votes to approve the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan, the future land use designation for the subject will not be changed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-09 2. Planning Commission Staff Report 1/13/14 3. Location Map 4. Proposed Map Amendment 5. Staff Report to City Council Dated 5/4/10 6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 1/13/14 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO, 2014-09 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo has established a Comprehensive Plan that provides a compilation of background data, policy statements, standards, and maps, which help to guide the future physical, social, and economic development of the City; and WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo ("City") has directed the Lake Elmo Planning Commission to consider an amendment the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan that would change the future land use designation of property located at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD-ALT to RAD, a description of which is on file in the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the City previously amended the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property on June 1, 2010 to allow for an increase in density on the site in conjunction with a proposed development that is no longer valid; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 13, 2014 to consider said Comprehensive Plan amendment; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2014 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council, approve said Comprehensive Plan amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at a meeting on January 21, 2014; and. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the Planning Commission has reviewed said Comprehensive Plan Amendment in accordance with the procedures as established by the Lake Elmo Planning Department and Lake Elmo Planning COMMiSSiOn. Resolution No. 2014-09 2) That the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 13, 2014 consistent with these procedures. 3) That the proposed amendment is to is to revise the Future Land Use Map (Map 3-3 in Chapter III — Land Use Plan) in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan, and to specifically change the future land use designation a parcel of land commonly known as 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North (PID 15.029.21.31.0001) from RAD-ALT Rural Area Development Alternate Density to RAD Rural Area Development. 4) That the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will apply to property leally described in the attached Exhibit "A". 5) That there have been no changes in circumstances since the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2006 that warrant revisions to increase or transfer density to the subject site. 6) That higher density residential development is encouraged in areas that will be served by public sanitary sewer where the provision of these services is more cost-effective and where the City will receive credit towards the REC unit counts mandated under its Memorandum of Understanding with the Metropolitan Council. 7) That the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that any future senior -specific housing in Lake Elmo will be best accommodated within the Old Village Area due to proximity to goods, services, and public facilities. 8) That the subject site does not demonstrate any characteristics that are substantially different from other areas guided for RAD development in the City of Lake Elmo or that would indicate that higher density development is more appropriate in this area than any other site within the City. 9) That the City is has recently adopted major Comprehensive Plan amendment related to development in the Old Village Area and the 1-94 corridor. Given the current market conditions, the City encourages higher density development in areas that would help off -set the significant infrastructure costs required to serve these areas. 10) That higher density housing is not consistent with the City's stated goals to preserve and enhance its rural character, especially when planned in areas that are guided for Rural Agricultural Density. 11) That build -out of existing empty lots in platted and developed OP developments is encouraged over the creation of new development and service areas in the community 12) That new access that would be needed to support development on the subject site does not conform to the City's Transportation Plan that encourages limited access to major collector roads and is inconsistent with the City's access spacing guidelines. Resolution No. 2014-09 13) That the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment was designed to accommodate a specific development proposal which no longer exists. 14) That recent Met Council projections of population and household growth indicate less overall population growth than was expected in 2010. 15) That the support of local neighbors for the 2010 development proposal was based on a misunderstanding of the details of the proposal. The 2010 Planning Commission recommendation was significantly driven by the support of neighbors, which support no longer exists. 16) That the Planning Commission and City Council have become more educated and experienced in considering higher density development. Such development should not be considered for land not guided for sewer before 2030. 17) That the 2010 action could be considered spot zoning based on later information and training received by the Planning Coinmission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the foregoing, the Lake Elmo City Council hereby approves the Comprehensive Plan amendment, subject to and contingent upon the following: 1) Submission of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council and the receipt of formal notification from the Metropolitan Council that its review has been completed and approved. Passed and duly adopted this 215t day of January 2104 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: Adam Bell, City Clerk Resolution No, 2014-09 Exhibit "A" PT OF SW1/4 OF SD SEC 15 LYING NLY OF NLY R/W OF RR DESC AS FOLL: COM AT NELY COR SD SW1/4 THN SOODEG51'44"E BRG ORIENTED TO WACO SYS ALG ELY LN SD SW1/4 DIST 1067.20FT THN S89DEG13'16"W DIST 289.50FT THN S48DEG14'16"W ALG A LN HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LN "A" DIST 36.58FT TO PT HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS PT "C" THN SO5DEG16'16"W ALG A LN HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LN "B" DIST 194.90FT M/L TO PT OF INTER WITH NLY R/W LN OF HWY 5 AKA STILLWATER BLVD N SD PT OF INTER BEING THE POB THN NO5DEG16`16"E ALG SD LN "B" DIST 194.90FT M/L TO BEFORE DESC PT "C" THN N48DEG14'16"E ALG SD LN "A" DIST 35.69FT M/L TO INTER WITH SLY LN OF N 1067.20FT OF SD SWI/4 THN S89DEGO6'21"W ALG SD SLY LN DIST 24.33FT M/L TO WLY LN OF E 314.50FT OF SD SW1/4 THN NOODEG51'44"W ALG SD WLY LN DIST 1067.20FT M/L TO NLY LN OF SD SW1/4 THN S89DEGO6'21"W ALG SD NLY LN DIST 995.27FT M/L TO ELY LN OF W 1312.FT OF SD SW1/4 THN SOODEG41'24"E ALG SD ELY LN DIST 460.FT M/L TO SLY LN OF N 460.FT OF SD SW1/4 THN S89DEGO6'21"W ALG SD SLY LN DIST 404.OIFT M/L TO DESC ELY LN OF FRIEDRICH HGTS PLAT THN SOODEG41'24"E ALG SD ELY LN DIST 141.48FT THN S8ODEG54'36"W ALG SLY LN SD PLAT DIST 59.61FT THN SOODEG41'24"E ALG SD ELY LN SD PLAT DIST 66.FT THN N8ODEG54"36"E ALG SD NLY LN SD PLAT DIST 164.77FT THN SOODEG41'24"E ALG SD ELY LN SD PLAT DIST 5.O7FT M/L TO INTER WITH LN DRAWN PARL WITH SD NLY LN OF SW1/4 & EXT WLY FROM IPM ON WLY LN OF E1/2 SD SW1/4 SD WLY LN HAVING BRG OF SOODEG46'34"E SD IPM DIST 657.56FT SLY FROM NWLY COR OF SD E1/2-SW1/4 THN N89DEGO6'21"E ALG SD PARL LN DIST 299.85FT M/L TO SD IPM THN N89DEG24'43"E ALG NLY LN TRACT DESC IN DOC #714370 & ALG NLY LN OF PARCEL DESC IN DOC #3408380 DIST 309.19FT M/L TO IPM AT THE NELY COR THEREOF THN SOIDEGO0'08"E ALG ELY LN SD PARCEL DESC IN DOC #3408380 DIST 386.67FT M/L TO INTER WITH A LN HERINAFTER REFERRED AS LN "C" DRAWN AT RT ANG & ELY FROM A PT IN SD WLY LN OF E1/2-SW1/4 SD PT BEING HERINAFTER REFERRED AS PT "A" SD PT ALSO DIST 118.20FT NLY AS MEAS ALG SD WLY LN OF El 4 Resolution No. 2014-09 I AKF 1\40 --• PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 1/13/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5A — PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-01 ITEM: Friedrich Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission has been directed by the City Council to conduct a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would revise the future land use map for property at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North. The Council has specifically asked that the Planning Commission consider changing the future land use designation of this property from RAD-ALT (Rural Area Development Alternate Density) to RAD (Rural Area Development). The primary difference between these two land use categories is that the RAD-ALT designation would allow residential densities on the site of up to 2.0 units per acre while the RAD designation would limit this number to 0.45 units per acre. Because the Planning Commission has spent a significant amount of time over the last two months reviewing and discussing the City's rural development areas in a fair amount of dm,A1, Staff will be providing a more basic summary of the City's past action on this property within the present report and will ask that the Commission refer to the previous meeting packets for additional information concerning the history and current issues associated with the rural development areas in the community. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City Council initiated action Property Owners: Irvin Friedrich, 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North Location: 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North (part of Section 15 Township 029 Range 021). PID Number 15.029.21.31.0001 Request: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of the subject property from RAD-ALT to RAD Existing Land Use: Single Family Residential/Agricultural/Agricultural Outbuildings Existing Zoning: RR — Rural Residential Surrounding Land Use: Single Family Residential, Agricultural, Park Surrounding Zoning; RS — Rural Single Family; RR — Rural Residential; A — Agriculture Comprehensive Plan: RAD-ALT (Rural Agricultural Density Alternate Density); 2.0 units per acre PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — PUBLIC HEARING 2 Proposed Comp Plan: RAD (Rural Agricultural Density); 0.45 units per acre Histoly: The subject property has been used as an agricultural farmstead for decades. The future land use designation for the property was changed in 2010 in response to a request for a senior living/farm school development proposal that has since been rendered void due to the passing of City submittal deadlines for further review. There are no active development proposals pending on the property. Upon receipt of a Planning Commission recommendation to establish a moratorium on all RAD-ALT properties, the City Council did not adopt such a moratorium and instead directed the Commission to consider a land use change to the subject property. Deadline fOr Action: None Applicable Regulations: Comprehensive Plan — Chapter III: Land Use Plan Zoning Ordinance — Article 9: Rural District Standards Section 154.067 — OP2 Zoning Regulations REQUEST DETAILS The Planning Commission has devoted time at two of its recent meetings to discuss the City's rural development areas, and has asked that these conversations continue as part of the Commission's work plan for 2014. The Commission will specifically be looking at potential changes to the Comprehensive Plan that will study the following issues: Potential population and household forecast reductions associated with the Met Council's revised 2040 regional forecasts. 6 Elimination of the RAD-ALT future land use category. Amendments to the rural development areas that will allow for additional development opportunities on parcels less than 40 acres in size. Consideration of the benefits and drawbacks of allowing additional development in rural areas in terms of public service costs, impacts on rural character, and other factors. In anticipation of potential changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan related to the above discussions, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a rnoratoriurn on all RAD-ALT development for a period of nine months. This time period was chosen to allow time for the 2040 Regional Forecast (and related projections for cities within the metro area) to be finalized before the City made any long-term decisions concerning the population and household numbers used in the land use plan. The City Council ultimately did not support the recommended moratorium concerning RAD-ALT development, but did ask the Planning Commission to consider a more immediate change on one of the City's properties that is guided in this manner. The specific request from the City Council was that the Commission consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of the property at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD-ALT to RAD. The Council's rationale for choosing only this parcel for a change includes the following: The City created the RAD-ALT (which was initially called RAD-2) land use category as part of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment after an extensive study and review of the City's obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Met Council, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — PUBLIC HEARING Based on an analysis of these obligations, it was decided that the City would need to increase densities in the rural development areas in order to achieve the household and population requirements by 2030. The sites chosen for the increased density (RAD-2 land use classification) were selected for specific reasons, including proximately to sewered development, isolation from other rural parcels, and locations along municipal boundaries or adjacent sewered communities. • The land use designation for the subject parcel at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard was changed based on a specific development proposal that has not materialized and is no longer valid. Under state statutes, the City Council cannot take action to amend the Comprehensive Plan without a recommendation from the Planning Commission and until after a public hearing has been conducted as part of the Commission's review. The Commission is therefore being asked to conduct this public hearing at its next meeting to gather additional feedback on this matter and to make a formal recommendation to the City Council concerning the appropriate land use designation for the subject property. BACKGROUND/PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES The City received a land use application from Tammy Malmquist, 8549 Ironwood Trail in the spring of 2010 to change the future land use designation of the Friedrich property at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD to RAD-2 (which is the same as the current RAD-ALT land use category). This application was made in order to allow a concurrent request for a senior living, townhouse, and farm -based preschool Planned Unit Development project to move forward. The applicant further requested an amendment to the City's zoning regulation in order to create new OP-2 Open Space Preservation Zoning regulations that was also drafted in order support the proposed development. In the period of time since the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the subject property was approved, the project applicant has not submitted a preliminary development plan and the timeframe for submitting such a plan has expired. There is therefore no pending application moving forward on this property, and any previous or new request for development would need to go back through a concept plan review (with a new application, hearing, etc.). In order to aid the Planning Commission's deliberation on the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment under review, Staff has attached the previous Staff Report that was prepared for the City Council when the 2010 request was initially reviewed by the City. Although over three years has passed since this review was conducted by the City, the information specific to the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant's site is still relevant and should be useful for the Planning Commission to consider with the present request. Please note the following important points from this report: • The City split up its review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and project development (PUD) applications and dealt with these matters at separate meetings. • Planning Staffrecommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for reasons that are spelled out in greater detail in the report. • The Planning Commission unanimously (all nine members at the time) recommended approval of the request to the City Council. o The City Council, after several meetings and a workshop session, voted 4-1 to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — PUBLIC HEARING 4 Since 2010, the City has adopted two major amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and adopted a new future land use map for the entire community. There were no changes made, however, to any of the land uses outside of the Village Planning Area and 1-94 Corridor Planning Area with the exception of minor corrections and adjustments to fir the new map. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Because this matter is being directed to the Planning Commission from the City Council, Staff will not be presenting a formal recommendation to the Commission other than to review the findings that have been previously proposed or adopted. The Commission should consider its recent discussions concerning rural area development as part of its review, and Staff would be happy to make any of these past reports available to individual Commissioners (these reports are also available on the City's website), Staff would like to suggest the following parameters as the Commission deliberates on the present request; 1, The Planning Commission has been asked to consider a specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a specific property in the community. A public hearing notice has been mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the subject parcel and this hearing has been scheduled for January 13, 2014. 3 Comments and discussion concerning a specific development are not appropriate and are irrelevant to the Council's specific request, 4. Discussion and comments concerning general land uses are appropriate, especially those that relate to uses and densities allowed under the RAD-ALT land use designation. 5. The zoning that eon -elates to the RAD-ALT category (OP-2 zoning regulations) allows senior living multi -family buildings, townhouses, and single family residential structures at a density of up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The RAD category and corresponding OP zoning allow single family homes and a very limited number of townhouses at a density of 0.45 units per acre (18 houses per 40 acres). 6. The Council is seeking public feedback on the proposed change and will be considering this feedback along with the Planning Commission's recommendation prior to taking action on the proposed amendment. Using the previous staff recommendation and City Council action as a guide, the Planning Commission should consider the following potential findings as the basis for a recommendation to the City Council. All of these findings are based on the information that was presented or drafted during the 2010 City reviews: Findings that Support No Change to the Comprehensive Plan (Leave Subject Property as RAD): 1) The current use of this site as a working farm is unique compared to other properties designated for RAD development in the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The proposed amendment will help provide opportunities for senior housing within the community. 3) Recent subdivisions in areas guided for RAD development have been approved at a density below the unit levels anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density increase will be offset by reductions that have previously been approved or acknowledged by the City. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a PUBLIC HEARING 5 4) The subject site is located in close proximity to public transportation along State Highway 5, and specifically, a bus route that could provide alternate transportation options for a residential development. 5) The applicant's site is located immediately adjacent to existing R-1 Single Family Residential zoning districts along its southern, eastern, and western boundaries. Other areas guided for RAD development are primarily surrounded by rural residential, agricultural, or public open space uses. Findings that Support a Comprehensive Plcm Amendment (Change Subject Property.from RAD-ALT to RAD): 1) There have been no changes in circumstances since the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2006 that warrant revisions to increase or transfer density to the subject site. 2) Higher density residential development is encouraged in areas that will be served by public sanitary sewer where the provision of these services is more cost-effective and where the City will receive credit towards the REC unit counts mandated under its Memorandum of Understanding with the Metropolitan Council. 3) The Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that any future senior - specific housing in Lake Elmo will be best accommodated within the Old Village Area due to proximity to goods, services, and public facilities. 4) The subject site does not demonstrate any characteristics that are substantially different from other areas guided for RAD development in the City of Lake Elmo or that would indicate that higher density development is more appropriate in this area than any other site within the City. 5) The City is has recently adopted major Comprehensive Plan amendment related to development in the Old Village Area and the 1-94 corridor. Given the current market conditions, the City encourages higher density development in areas that would help off -set the significant infrastructure costs required to serve these areas. 6) Higher density housing is not consistent with the City's stated goals to preserve and enhance its rural character, especially when planned in areas that are guided for Rural Agricultural Density. 7) Build -out of existing empty lots in platted and developed OP developments is encouraged over the creation of new development and service areas in the community 8) New access that would be needed to support development on the subject site does not conform to the City's Transportation Plan that encourages limited access to major collector roads and is inconsistent with the City's access spacing guidelines. DRAFT FINDINGS Please refer to the comments in the previous section. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — PUBLIC HEARING 6 RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the materials present above, attached to this report, and previously considered by the Commission during its deliberations regarding the City's rural development areas and make a recommendation to the City Council to either: a) approve an amendment to the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of property at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD-ALT to RAD based on the "Findings that Support a Comprehensive Plan Amendment" as presented above or as otherwise modified by the Planning Commission; or b) make no changes to the Lake. Elmo Comprehensive Plan based on the "Findings that Support No Change to the Comprehensive Plan" as presented above or as otherwise modified by the Planning Commission, ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report — 5/4/10 City Council Meeting 2. Location Map 3. Proposed Map Amendment ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction Community Development Director Report by Staff ....... Community Development Director - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members - Public Hearing Corrunents Chair - Discussion by the Commission Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a — PUBLIC HEARING Location Map: 9434 Stillwater B 'I'I lE CITY OF SAKE ELMO 9434 Stillwater Blvd. N. Data Scource: Washington County, MN 1-10-2014 Map 3-3 •\ itt) T) 1 Tablyn Park' _ 1 1_ Planned Land Uses Business Park Commercial LJ Limited Business F70 Village Mixed Use kYi Village Urban Low Density 72 Village Urban Medium Density El Urban Low Density r 1U11111111111111 9434 Btillwater :1" Blvd • w w-s 1- . . t. • TakeElino-'" Regional, Park Reserve Proposed Amendment: RAD-Alt to RAD Urban Medium Density Urban High Density 1 Rural Single Family Li Residential Estate Rural Area Development uJ Rural Area Development Alt Public/Park Planned Land Use Proposed CPA: 9434 Stillwater Blvd. N. Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2030 Sources: Washington County & Metro GIS 1-10-2014 TI iE CITY OF AKE ELMO iszorsaaaVB City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendment To: City Council FrOM Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Meeting Date: 5/4/10 Applicant: Tammy Malmquist Owner: Tammy Malmquist; Marlene Friedrich Location: 9434 Stillwater Blvd N Zoning: RR — Rural Residential Introductory Information Application The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from Tammy Malmquist, 8549 Summary: Ironwood Trail North, for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, Open Space Preservation (OP) Development Concept Plan, and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan. The individual elements of this request have been made to allow the establishment of a 40-unit senior living multi -family building, 10 townhouse units, and a farm-themed preschool on a 30.9 acres parcel at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North. The request would incorporate the existing family care facility that is located adjacent to this property at 9442 Stillwater Boulevard North. As the current owner of the 30.9-acre parcel, Marlene Friedrich has signed as a co - applicant to this request. Given the complex nature of this application, Staff has recommended that the City review focus first on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments before proceeding with a discussion of the OP Development and PUD Concept Plans. To facilitate this two -tiered review, separate public hearings and agenda items have been scheduled at different times with the Planning Commission as follows: April 26: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendments May 10: OP Development and PUD Concept Plans The primary reason for the staged review is to take the bigger picture items first, and then advance with the detailed plan reviews if warranted. This process will save time and effort if there is no support by the City Council to move forward with the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning. If these elements of the application are approved, it would allow the required Met Council review to proceed while the City is considering the development Concept Plans. Ce,,,,;•q>rci5cii.virc• Phi n . 1 Sciden- arta 1:012?; inci7 poii 1 The Planning Commission reviewed and conducted a public hearing on both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendments, and made a recommendation to the City Council on the first issue at its meeting on April 2611), The Commission tabled its discussion on the latter issue and directed staff to prepare an alternate ordinance to consider in addition to the amendments requested by the applicant. The ordinance will he brought back before the Planning Commission at its next meeting, prior to discussion on the OP Development and PUD Concept Plans, Application As noted above, there are four distinct components of the applicants request, which Details: include the following: Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed amendment would change the future land use designation of the parcel located at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD (Rural Agricultural Density — 0.45 dwelling units per acre) to RAD2 (Rural Agricultural Density — 2 dwelling units per acre). This change is necessary to move forward with the proposed development because the current designation as RAD would limit the overall number of units on the site to 14 units and the project that has been requested is for 51 units (1.7 units per acre), in addition to the existing single family residential site and proposed farm school. The applicant has proposed shifting density from an area guided for RAD2 west of the applicant's property to this site in order to avoid any impacts to the overall population projections in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Text Amendments. The applicant has requested an amendment to the OP Open Space Preservation Ordinance to add requirements for development in areas that are guided RAD2, and more specifically, to amend the OP District to allow for the proposed multi -family senior living facility and farrn-based preschool. The current OP Ordinance does not contain any provisions that would allow residential development to exceed a density of 0.45 units per acre (or 18 units per 40 acres), and although one section ties the maximum allowed density to the Comprehensive Plan, another section very specifically limits densities in OP developments to 18 units per 40 gross acres of buildable land. The other proposed amendments to this section include the following: Adding Multi -Family Senior Housing buildings (only in areas guided for RAD2) and Farm Schools for preschool and school -aged children to the list of allowable uses in an OP development. Reducing the minimum land area for an OP development from 40 to 20 acres in areas guided RAD2. Reducing the amount of contiguous land required in open areas from 10 to 5 acres for land guided RAD2. Reducing the required buffer setback in areas guided RAD2 to 50 feet from 200 feet, Adding standards for Senior Housing Buildings in the OP minimum district (-01 'iprch,-77, 'hit; Si'71;0!thi( t 1t11.9i 0.•if7tril /1,10 requirements table. OP — Open Space Preservation (OP) Development Concept Plan. The ultimate objective of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Amendments described above is to allow the development of a 40-unit senior housing building, 10-unit townhouse development, and farm -based preschool on a 30.9-acre property located at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North. Should the City adopt the requested OP District changes, the applicant would be able to submit a request for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements for new OP Open Space Preservation projects. The first step in this process is the submission of a concept plan for review, and all plans and information required as part of this submission have been included as part of the overall application. A few of the details of this proposal include the following: The Wunder Years day care would remain in its current location, and would be updated along with the existing house at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North to match the proposed townhouses. • A community septic system is planned to serve the development. One access is planned off Stillwater Boulevard to serve the project area in the general location now used for access to the existing home and daycare. 50% of the project site area would be set aside as permanent open space in accordance with the OP district requirements. An open green area is planned within the center of the development area and a common architectural theme is planned throughout the development area consistent with the past agricultural use of the property. A more detailed description and complete staff review of the proposed OP Development Concept Plan will be provided at the next Planning Commission meeting when this aspect of the request is considered. This request may only proceed if the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments are approved by the City Council. Planned Unit Development (PUD) — Concept Plan, In addition to the OP Development concept plan submission, the application also includes a request for a Planned Unit Development concept plan. A PUD is necessary to move forward with the applicant's request since the project includes a mix of uses and activities that would otherwise not be possible under current zoning regulations. The PUD portion of the request will be considered by the City in conjunction with the review schedule for the OP Development concept plan. The pending staff review will group the concept plans together for the purpose of providing an analysis of the request in a future report. Property The applicant's property is located near the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and Information: Stillwater Boulevard North (Highway 5). The current uses consist of the original Friederich family farmstead and related outbuildings and the Wunder Years day care / Ttit)/' ;;'111,;z: Wit/ 7/70 facility. Other than the agricultural fields, each of these uses would be considered a permitted residential and/or agricultural use of the property. The 30.9 acre farmstead is zoned RR — Rural Residential while the day care site is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is 29,670 square feet (0.68 acres) in size. Each property currently has its own access to Stillwater Boulevard via two driveways that are approximately 25 feet apart. Other notable features of the farm property include a larger wooded area in the northeast portion of the site (referred to as the "Oak Savanna" on the concept plans) and gently rolling topography throughout the proposed project area. The 30.9-acre parcel extends westward to Jamaca Court North, and connects to this street via a narrow connection point between two existing homes. The surrounding property uses include single family homes zoned R-1 to the south and east along Stillwater Boulevard, and agricultural uses located to the north and east that are zoned A — Agriculture and RR — Rural Residential. The Washington County Landfill and Sunfish Lake Park is located further to the north and northwest for the latter. Applicable Section 150.175 through 150.189 OP Open Space Preservation Codes: Describes the process and requirements associated with an OP Open Space Preservation development. The applicant has requested an amendment to this section of the City Code in order to allow a multi -family senior living building and farm -based preschool as part of an OP development. Section 154.020 Amendments Outlines the process and requirements for requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Of particular interest, please note Subsection (J) which reads: "Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. In granting or recommending any rezoning or other permit provided for in this chapter, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, or Council shall find that the proposed development conforms substantially to the policies, goals, and standards of the Comprehensive Plan." Section 154.036 RR — Rural Residential Outlines the general requirements for the RR Rural Residential Zoning District in Lake Elmo. Section 154.070 through 154.075. Planned Unit Development Describes the process and requirements for submitting an application for a Planned Unit Development. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Sizes: 30.9 acres and 0.68 acres Existing Uses: Single Family Residences/Agricultural/Agricultural Outbuildings h;');.v.iVu um/ Fy CoisHc;I t; Existing Zoning: RR — Rural Residential and R-1 Single Family Residential Future Land Use: RAD — Rural Agricultural Density and Neighborhood Conservation Property Iden/iflcation Numbers (PID): 15-029-21-31-0001 and 15-029-21-31-0003 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Text Antendment Review: Comp Plan Analysis Staff Comments: Of all the land use requests that are considered by a Planning Commission, a City has the most discretion to approve or deny proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan. For communities within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, this discretion is limited somewhat by the Metropolitan Council, which requires cities to update their plans every ten years and has the authority to review all requests to amend an approved Comprehensive Plan. In this case, if the City decides to move forward with the proposed amendment, the proposed change will need to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council before it can be officially adopted by the City. The update must also be submitted to adjacent communities for review and comment before the Met Council will take action on the proposal, and once accepted, there is a 60 day review period that can be extended an additional 60 days if needed. In general, Cities may consider an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan for several reasons. Below are some specific examples as listed in the Met Council's Local Planning Handbook: • Changes resulting from interim planning activities such as master plans, redevelopment plans or annexation A need to change a land use designation to allow a proposed development. • Routine update of a public facilities element, such as a parks plan • A text amendment to revise a land use category, policy or other description • A routine update to incorporate new information such as census figures The applicant's request clearly falls under the category of a land use designation change to allow a proposed development; however, there is much more to the Comprehensive Plan than just the simple designation of future land uses on a map. In Lake Elmo's situation, the City's Comprehensive Plan includes many other sections devoted to housing, provision of water service, transportation, and other elements that form a unified set of goals and objectives for the City. Any proposed land use changes should remain consistent with the other policies within the Comprehensive Plan or may otherwise need to be considered in the context of a larger update to the plan. In order to support an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan, planners will typically try to identify circumstances that may have changed since the plan was last updated to support a change in the future land use designation or other components of a plan. For instance, market conditions may have led to assumptions concerning the rate of growth that are incorrect or a transportation improvement may have opened up new areas for development that were otherwise inaccessible. In Lake Elmo's case, certain sections of the plan will be updated this year, while the land use section was last rani/ COHOCII pf,i7; .t'.1/10 updated in 2006. It is staffs opinion that, if anything, conditions have changed during this period of time in a manner that is not conducive to the request being considered by the Planning Commission. Specifically: The economic downturn has led to a very slow rate of build out in the more recent OP developments. It is in the best interest of the City and each affected neighborhood to encourage new building to take place on lots that are currently vacant and served with water, roads, sewer, and other services and not in new areas with no or limited existing services. • The City is lagging well behind the development phasing planned for urban service areas (with no growth in these areas to date) while OP development have only in the past few years begun experiencing the severe downtown in building activity. A multi -family project is more typical of the type of development planned for the urban service areas. • The City's Comprehensive Plan and the Memorandum of Understanding between Lake Elmo and the Met Council includes provisions that will allow the Council to assess penalties against the City for failure to reach target population figures in sewered residential areas. Given the potential for penalties associated with a slow rate of build -out, larger projects should be directed to the urban service areas where they would help meet the development milestones in the Plan. • Although it appears that the overall pattern of development in areas guided for RAD density in the Comprehensive Plan will result in a lower overall population living in these areas than previously estimated, the overall impacts to the City's infrastructure and planning policies will be much lower if the current trend is followed than by increasing the allowed densities by over four times the amounts projected in some of these areas. On the applicant's site, the current zoning would permit a density of three dwelling units (or up to 14 units if combined with adjacent parcels) verses the 51 units that have been requested. • The re -allocation of densities throughout areas guided for RAD and RAD2 should be considered within the larger context of where these densities may best be integrated with surrounding land uses and where they can best be provided with public services (even if these services are somewhat limited in OP developments). There has been no substantial change since the land use plan was updated to indicate why the applicant's site would be better -suited for additional density verses the areas currently guided RAD2. Other general comments from Staff: • The applicant has proposed to re -allocate densities from an existing RAD2 property in order to permit the proposed 50-unit project without increasing the overall population projections for the City. In order to keep the overall population projections level for the City, this would reduce the density of an existing RAD2 areas to accommodate this change. There are currently around if 1 .7/10 Zoning Amendment Staff Analysis: 140 total acres guided RAD2 which could theoretically accommodate up to 280 new housing units. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, a net transfer of 37 units in excess of the current OP standards would be required (14 allow at .45 units per acre compared to 51 requested units). This transfer would reduce the overall density on the 140 acre sites to approximately 1.75 units per acre (or less if borrowed from just one property). There has been no discussions with the current property owner of the 103 acre parcels that are guided RAD2 to the west of the applicant's site that the overall density on this site may change (or any of the RAD2 guided property owners). Although the land use description for RAD2 notes that "limited life cycle housing" would be appropriate in these areas, there are no other references to such housing in RAD or RAD2 guided land. In fact, the housing section of the current plan states very specifically that "Any future senior -specific housing in Lake Elmo will be best accommodated within the Old Village Area due to proximity to goods, services, and public facilities. The combination of senior housing needs and village scale housing density may result in attached housing of some description". • The Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to make some fairly substantial investments in public sanitary sewer services, and Staff recommends that any developments that exceed the base densities allowed in rural areas be directed to the urban service areas where such developments can help support the provision of these services. • The applicant's plan would place additional traffic directly on to Stillwater Boulevard at a new intersection that is not consistent with the recently - prepared Transportation Plan. The Plan specifically encourages the use of collector streets and limiting access to major roads The proposed project also does not comply with MnDOT's or the City's access spacing guidelines. Based on the reasons provided above, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of the applicant's site from RAD to RAD2. Draft findings were also presented to the Planning Commission consistent with the review comments noted above. The Commission ultimately did not support the position taken by Staff and developed a revised list of findings that are included in the Planning Commission report that follows. The second part of the request that was considered by the Planning Commission concerns the proposed amendments to the OP Open Space Preservation District as detailed in the applicant's submission materials and summarized by Staff in this report. Many of the changes proposed would apply on to areas designated as RAD2, and in particular, senior -living dwellings would not be peiiuitted outside of land so designated. If approved, the proposed changes would apply to all portions of the City guided for RAD2 development, which includes 103 acres at the western edge of the City along Stillwater Boulevard and a smaller 36-acre area immediately north of 10th Street at its intersection with Manning Avenue. This would open up these parcels for a similar senior -living or school project. Looking at the proposed zoning amendments in a general sense, Staff offered the following comments for consideration by the Planning Commission: • The current OP Ordinance does not contain provisions that would allow densities to exceed the 0.45 units per acre maximum in the code even in areas guided RAD2. At some point, this discrepancy should be addressed so that the densities allowed in the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • If approved, the proposed amendments would not alter the maximum permitted density in areas guided RAD2, and would primarily amend the types of uses that would be permitted in such areas. • Rather than amending the current OP Ordinance provisions, Staff would recommend that an overlay zoning district be created for RAD2 that would require compliance with all OP development standards with specific exceptions that would allow higher densities in RAD areas. This approach would leave the current OP Ordinance as -is while focusing a new overlay district only in specific areas to accommodate higher densities. • The proposed language in 150.180 (B, 2, g) should read "per gross acres of buildable land" to he consistent with the current OP requirements. Given the allowance for larger buildings up to three stories in height, Staff recommends that the buffer setbacks (Section 150.180 11, 2, d) be left as currently written since a larger buffer should be provided in cases where there is greater potential fbr dissimilar uses to be located next to each other. The Planning Commission may want to consider whether or not Farm Schools should be permitted in all OP developments as the proposed draft would allow. • The Zoning Ordinance only permits buildings over 35 feet in the BP Business Park and PF Public Facility zoning districts. The maximum height for Senior Housing Buildings as proposed would be 48 feet. • The OP district standards table should include setbacks from side and rear property lines for Senior Housing Buildings. The Planning Commission chose to table taking action on the Zoning Amendment, and requested that Staff prepare an alternate to the applicant's proposal that would create an overlay zoning district instead of amending the existing OP Ordinance. The Commission requested that the same standards proposed by the applicant be used to draft overlay regulations. With the separation of the concept plan review from the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments, Staff will not be providing a detailed analysis of the submitted concept plans at this time. These plans were been provided, however, as part of the Commission's review materials since the application was submitted at one time. The project narratives and required submissions are also intertwined and are being prc.c /.; SCii7(//' 1 Co,rni.i! 16. 11; Concept Plan Issues: presented in one package of infon-nation rather than splitting up certain pieces of information between the two scheduled meeting and hearing dates. Also, the Planning Department has asked for all comments from other agencies and internal staff on the entire application, and all comments that have been submitted to date are included as part of the Council meeting material. In order to give the City Council, and the applicant, a quick overview of the major issues associated with the concept plans that have been identified to date, please consider the following: The Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated that it will require certain improvements to Highway 5 if access is provided as shown on the concept plan. Specifically, a right turn lane and escape lane for eastbound traffic will be required at the new entrance road. • The City Engineer has recommended that the concept plan be revised to provide road connectivity to the east and north with the development proposal. • The water plan does not appear to meet fire flow requirements for the proposed improvements since the new eight -inch pipe as shown on the utility plan connects to an existing four -inch water pipe at the edges of the development. • The stonn water management and drainage and erosion control plan will need to address the City's recently adopted storm water quantity and quality standards. A small portion of the site is located within a shoreland district and will need to comply with any applicable shoreland ordinance requirements. The City of Oakdale's Fire Chief has been asked to review the plans from a public safety perspective since the applicant is married to Lake Elmo's Fire Chief. • The proposed landscape plan does not accommodate the minimum number of trees required under the OP Ordinance. • The community septic system and a portion of the trail system are shown within and power line easement. The City should receive an acknowledgement and consent from the easement holder in order to perrnit these encroachments. • Staff would suggest a greater amount of spacing between the proposed tree preservation area and the buildings and roads on the site. The City should evaluate whether or not it is appropriate to use the required open space areas for storm water retention ponds. A more thorough review and analysis of the proposed concept plans will be forthcoming from Staff should the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments be approved by the City Council. Should approvals be granted, the City will need to discuss the review schedule with the applicant since no action may be finalized with regards to the Comprehensive Plan until the Met Council has completed its review. l'1717H 1();mcit Staff Based on the report and analysis provided above, Staff recommended that the Planning Recommoulation: Commission recommend denial of the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation of 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD to RAD2. Consistent with this recommendation, Staff further recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed text amendments to the OP Open Space Preservation Ordinance, Pending Council action on these items, a separate recommendation from Staff concerning the OP Development and PUD concept plans will presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. Additional Comments have been received for all four aspects of the applicant's request from Information: MnDOT, Valley Branch Watershed District, the City of Oakdale Fire Department, and the City Engineer are attached for consideration by the City Council. In addition to the applicant's submission materials, staff has also attached an aerial image of the site and Future Land Use Map from the Comprehensive Plan identifying the applicant's site and the two areas currently guided as RAD2. Planning Commission Report: Planning The Planning Commission reviewed the request for a Comprehensive Plan C0111MiSSiOn Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment and conducted a public hearing on each of Review and these items at its April 26, 2010 meeting. At the meeting, the following feedback was Public provided to the Commission: Hearing: Tammy Malmquist explained her overall goals and objectives behind the proposed senior living and farm school project. She also introduced Jan Friedrich, who talked about her father's discussions with Mrs. Malmquist concerning the future of this property. Tim Freeman with Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc. suggested alternative findings in support of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Seven people spoke in favor of the amendments needed to support the project. Council -member Ann Smith addressed the Commission and reviewed some of the history behind the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the creation of a separate RAD2 land use designation. Eight letters of support were submitted and distributed at the meeting. These letters are included as part of the Council agenda packet. One additional letter of support was submitted by a resident who also spoke during the public hearing. Staff noted that Ed Nielsen, 9498 Stillwater Boulevard North, had contacted the City via telephone earlier in the week to express his support for the project. Planning Commission Reconuna • The project consultant submitted a list of neighbors that had attended a March 31, 2010 meeting conducted by the applicant to discuss the project (seven neighbors were in attendance of this meeting). The Commission reviewed the Staff recommendation and considered the comments submitted in writing and verbally at the meeting. The Planning Commission developed findings of fact to support the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and by a unanimous vote of 9-0, recommended that the City Council approve the request to change the future land use designation of the applicant's property from RAD to RAD2. The 'Planning Commission tabled taking any action regarding the proposed amendments to the OP Open Space Preservation Ordinance; however, and instead directed Staff to prepare an alternate to the applicant's request that would create a separate overlay district with the same standards. The overlay district to be considered by the Planning Commission would include the following as specific exceptions to the existing OP Ordinance: • Allowing a density of 2 units per acre. • Adding Multi -Family Senior Housing buildings and Farm Schools for preschool and school -aged children as allowable uses. Reducing the minimum land area required from 40 to 20 acres. • Reducing the amount of contiguous land required in open areas from 10 to 5 acres. • Reducing the required buffer setback to 50 feet. Adding standards for Senior Housing Buildings. In developing its findings of fact, the Planning Commission was concerned about setting precedent with the approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Commission's findings describe some aspects of this site that that the Commission has indicated set it apart from other properties that are guided for RAD development. A complete record of the Planning Coinmission's findings is listed as part of the formal recommendation below. The Planning Commission Recommends that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the future land use designation of the parcel located at 9434 Stillwater Boulevard North from RAD (Rural Agricultural Density — 0.45 dwelling units per acre) to R.AD2 (Rural Agricultural Density — 2 dwelling units per acre). The Planning Commission further offers the following findings to support this recommendation: 1) The current use of this site as a working farm is unique compared to other properties designated for RAD development in the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The proposed request will help fulfill a need for senior housing within the comm unity. '(21M 3) Recent subdivisions in areas guided for RAD development have been approved at a density below the unit levels anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density increase will be offset by reductions that have previously been approved or acknowledged by the City. 4) The applicant's site is located in close proximity to public transportation along State Highway 5, and specifically, a bus route that could provide alternate transportation options for seniors. 5) The applicant's site is located immediately adjacent to existing R-1 Single Family Residential zoning districts along its southern, eastern, and western boundaries. Other areas guided for RAD development are primarily surrounded by rural residential, agricultural, or public open space uses. 6) There has been broad public support for the proposed project and no objections from neighboring property owners have been filed with the City. cc: Tammy Malmquist, 8549 Ironwood Trail Folz, Freeman, Erickson, Inc.: 12445 55'1' Street N nx-/nrop TI,i��l�U�LM[\ City wYLake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ofJanuary 13,2014 Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Lundgren, Dodson, Haggard, Dorschner, Kreimer and Larson; COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Yocum and K4nrreale;and STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director K|attand City Planner Johnson. Elections: M/S/P:Dodson/Lundgren:move to nominate Williams Chairperson, vote 7:O K4/S/P: Oorschne//Haggard: move to nominate Dodson as Vice Chairperson, vote: 7-0. K4/S/P: Haggard/Dodson, move to nominate DVrSchn8r as Secretary, vote 7-0. Approve Agenda: Agenda accepted aspublished, Approve Minutes: December 9, 2013 M/S/P:Dodoon/Kreirner,move to accept the minutes a5presented, vote: 7{Lwith Haggard and Dorschnernot voting. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment —9434Stillwater Blvd, Klatt began his presentation by explaining important terminology in the Comprehensive Plan related to rural areas. More specifically, he explained the significance of Rural Area Development (RAD), Rural Area Development —Alternate Density (RAD'Alt), Open Space Preservation District (OP) and (}pen Space Preservation Overlay District /OP-2\. RAO-Alt a|1Ovvs for open space project with an increased density than what is 3l|Ovxed in the rural areas under the standard OPOrdinance. Providing purpose of tonight's hearing, Klatt noted that the City Council has directed the Planning Commission tnhold apublic hearing tUreconsider the appropriate future land Lake Eli -no Planning Commission Minutes; 1-13-14 2 use designation for the property at 9434 Stillwater Blvd. (TlH-5). He noted that the City Council asked the Planning Commission to consider the specific property at 9434 Stillwater Blvd. because the subject property was not included in the Cit«'5o[igina| comprehensive planning process. While other properties were designated with the RAD'A|t classification to meet the Cit«'s required growth forecasts, the subject property was changed from RADtoRAD-A|tthrough a separate comprehensive plan amendment related too senior|iving/farnn school development. To put it simply, the Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on what is the best future land use category for the subject property. K|att moved On to explain further history about the site, including the various iterations of proposed development on the site, Currently, there is no active development application that isvalid for the site, Nattalso provided 8description ofgeneral site characteristics. The site is immediately north VfTH'5. The site isbounded byactive farms to the north, with Sunfish Lake Park tnthe northeast, Tothe west, the site |s adjacent tomultiple single family lots that are guided rural single family. In addition to showing an aerial map, K/att presented the future land use map ofthe Comprehensive Plan, specifically zooming |nonthe area surrounding 9434Stillwater Blvd. N. To aid the discussion, Klatt added that the Planning Commission has reviewed the rural development areas ofthe City atprevious meetings. More specifically, the Planning Commission has discussed l) a desire to look atdevelopment options for smaller rural parcels. 3>the growth forecast will likely be lowered and less growth is anticipated in these rural development areas. 3)the RAID o|tcategory could be eliminated as it was initially created toaccommodate the Cities ZO3Oforecast numbers. 4)part Ofthe Planning Commission Z014work plan istVlook atrural development areas onoCity wide basis. Klatt retraced the history of the original comprehensive plan amendment action. The staff recommended denial nfthe comp plan amendment and provided findings related to denial. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the comp plan amendment for approval. The City Council affirmed the Planning Commission's recommendation with a4'1vote. K|atthighlighted the role nfthe planning commission in holding public hearing on land use items. |naddition, Klattprovided 8list ofwhat isappropriate for the public hearing before the Planning Commission. For example, the action before the Planning Commission is focused on the appropriate land use Category (RAD or RAD-A|t) for the subject property, and not focused on specific development proposals. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-13-14 Finally, K|att presented two sets of draft findings for consideration by the Planning Commission, K/ott presented the draft findings from the original staff report that recommended denial, Healso presented the draft findings that the City Council made when approving the comp plan amendment |n2Ol0. Henoted that staff isnot making a specific recommendation atthis time. Hepresented the Planning Commission with two options. 1) Amend the Comprehensive plan to change the subject property from RAD- a|tto RAID 2) Make no change tothe Comprehensive Plan and leave the subject property as RAD'a|t. Dorschnerasked ifthe site isplanned for future sewer service. Nattnoted that the site is not currently guided for sewer per the comprehensive plan but there is City water, Haggard asked about the land uses that are allowed inRAD. K1attnoted that )t/s primarily single family homes, with a small allowance for townhomes, Williams invited the landowner to speak. Janice Green provided background regarding the history ofthe site. She noted that the original landowner was presented with the idea ofmaking the original farm into 8farm school. The idea ofofarm was strongly supported bythe land owners and their father. She wanted itnnthe record that the landowners are requesting the land use guidance rennainRAO'Alt. Public Hearing opened at7/47pnn. Larry Weiss, 9]02Stillwater Blvd. N,stated that hemoved toLake Elmo to enjoy open space and rural lifestyle. He noted that he originally supported the farm school, but soon changed his mind when the density of the senior living component increased. He also noted that the original development proposal has fallen through, Due to this status, the land use guidance should be changed back toRAID, Hestated that heiswilling to work with the property owner onother development projects, bV1Dothigherd2nshx. Healso highlighted some polls orsurveys that indicated that the surrounding neighbors were strongly opposed tnRAD'A|tand the senior living component. EdNielson, 9498Stillwater Blvd. N,stated that hemoved to aproperty adjacent tothe Friedrich farm in 1997. Nielson provided background information ofhow the farm school and senior living proposal developed. Healso presented a comparison chart of some analysis he completed ofsurrounding senior living developments, He commented that 98Y6Ofthe surrounding neighbors are against the previous development proposal. Stewart He|Qeson, 11150 12 1h Street N, stated he has lived in Lake Elmo for 15 years. He commented that it makes no sense to change the land use guidance back to RAID until a project is on the table. If development proposal comes forward, then the comp plan would have to b2amended once again. Procedurally, this does not make alot ofsense. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-13-14 4 Public hearing closed at7:50pno. Haggard stated that it was previously explained that the RAD-Alt designation was necessary onthis site due tothe numbers for the Met Council. The projectionshave decreased sothere isnoneed for the RAD-A|tdesignation onthis property. Williams stated he supports the motion but would like tVadd the following findings of fact. 1\the 20I0Connp Plan amendment was in part based on a specific development that no longer exists 2\the action in 20I0 is very similar to a spot zoning, 3)the RAD-Alt designation is no longer needed to meet the Met Council projections 4\ the neighbors supported the change at the time based on a misunderstanding of the information and their support no longer exists 5) higher density development should be provided with public utilities, M/S/P: Haggard/Dorschner, move to recommend an amendment to the Comp Plan to change the land use designation from RAD'A|tto RAD at9434Stillwater Blvd. N. based Vnthe findings inthe Staff Report, Vote: 7-O, motion carries unanimously. Larson asked if farm school can be an allowed use 'in RAID. Klatt stated that there would have tobeanamendment tOthe zoning code tospecifically make itanallowed use. Haggard asked if the farm school could bedone byCUP, K1attstated that |twould need tobgspecified auaconditionally allowed use. Lundgren asked ifthere was currently afarm school inLake Elmo, K1@ttstated that there isone inWest Lakeland, K4/5/P�VVU|iarno/DomChner,move to amend the motion toinclude Sadditional findings offact as provided by Chairman Williams to staff, Vote: 7-0, motion carries unoninnoua|y, Kreimer noted that he supports both motions, but wanted to add that the City still has to meet certain amount of development as guided by the MOU. D0dg)O stated that having a similar plan locate here does not make sense so it is important tOchange itback. DDr5hcnerstated that without changing thezonjngbackthe[itv/s basically saying that the higher density |s appropriate here. Business Item: 2014 Planning Commission Work Plan Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-13-14 Klatt talked about the work plan and stated that they come up with an aggressive plan and then prioritize the items on the plan with the knowledge that not everything will probably get done. Business Item: 2013 and 2014 Work Plan Klatt presented the 2014 Work Plan and stated that there a number of large scale items, Those include general comprehensive Plan initiatives, reducing oreliminating the K4OU, updating the Village AUARwhich isdue every 5years, updating the airport zone, becoming more active with the Parks Commission and it will be a busy year for platting and development reviews. Haggard asked if the Planning Commission could be provided with the City Council Work Plan tobetter understand the big picture. He stated Larson noted that he is the liaison with the Parks Commission. He is available as a resource, and iswilling to help with the communication between the Commissions. The Planning commission reviewed the Work Plan Williams asked that specific development ordinances and general performance standards should be a higher priority. Do[lChner noted that outdoor wood burning furnaces can present real prVb|grn if unaddressed hythe Chv'sordinances. He suggested raising the priority. Dodson asked about the permit works planning softvva[e. He asked if there is a public cVnnponent. K|at1noted that the City atthis time is only using the Building Permit Module, However, there may beopportunities inthe future toallow for more external user interaction with the vvebJiteand software, Dodson asked what kind nfimpact the volume of development applications that are Vn the horizon can have onthe staff. Klgttstated that itishard toprioritize because there are time constraints, nnapplications. The staff has put policies inplace so the applications are processed more timely. Dodson asked about 8 market study for downtown. Klatt explained that the market study will be used to determine what types of uses and businesses we want to see in downtown. Dodson vvnV/d like to see this sooner than later and would like the priority tobeaI. Williams asked about the Lake Elmo Ave Village surface waterstudy with Washington County. Johnson stated that this has started smshould belisted 8siDprocess, The crux Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-13-14 b of this is a drainage study and to plan for the reconstruction of the road from 301h to TH5and includes some therninge(ennents. Dodson asked about the newspaper article indicating that the trend istomove back to the City. Could some ofthat data help with getting rid of the K4OU? Klatt stated that it could and that is probably why the forecast numbers went down. Williams wants tosee the village parkway ofthe railroad crossing solved. K|atthas been working with the Engineers on this issue. The next step will be the application to create anew opening and have public meetings. Dodson would like tosee the review ofpublic community septic systems policy bea higher priority. He would suggest a ZorI %|attstated that this refers tothe 2D1 systems which we haven't put good policies in place for. Dodson would like bJadd an item for private community septic systems tothe list. K|attstated that part ofthe oversight has turned the compliance ofthese systems over tothe County. Dodson asked about the disasterp|an. Johnson stated that iti3something the Planning Staff is working on in conjunction with the Building Official. Business Item: Zoning District Cleanup Amendment Iohnson talked about the cleanup to remove all outdated and unnecessary zoning districts. This cleanup will improve the organization ofthe document. The cleanup will remove ZO zoning districts, 19 of which are holding districts. ]ohD3VD went through which ones are being removed and which ones are being kept and why. Updates and Concerns Council Updates 1. The City Council confirmed the findings for the District 916 CUP at the December l7,ZOI]meeting. 2. The City Council adopted the Village Land Use Plan atthe December l7,2Ol3 3. The City Council approved the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan at the December l7,ZO13meeting. Staff Updates 1. Planning Commissioner Terms 2. Planning Commissioner Journal Articles 3. Upcoming Meetings Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1'13-14 7 a. January 27,2Ol4—Ipublic hearings and one sketch plan b. February 1[i2Ol4 o. February 24,ZO14 Commission Concerns -None Meeting adjourned at9:4Oprn Respectfully submitted, Nick Johnson City Planner Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-13-14. 'F1 IF CITY iL\1,/,',EFLMO AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: 4. ay' - • v.', T.', , • t .^• DATE: January 21, 2014 REGULAR ITEM # 14 Community Development Department 2014 Work Plan Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Dean Zuleger, City Administrator Planning Commission Nick Johnson, City Planner SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item Community Development Director Report/Presentation Community Development Director Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: Staff and Planning Commission FISCAL IMPACT: Not yet specified. Certain items on the work plan may require outside assistance. Staff will seek Council direction as appropriate prior to utilizing such assistance. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to review and accept the Community Development Department's annual work plan for 2014 that has been prepared with input from the Planning Commission. Th.e Council is asked to review the plan and comment on it so that the Planning Commission and Council are communicating about priorities at the start of the year. The primary intent of the work plan is to help prioritize the projects the Planning Commission will be reviewing over the course of 2014, and to also help keep the Commission informed about the internal planning related activities and projects that will he undertaken by the Staff over the coming year. This is a working document that provides guidance to the Commission and Council yet has the flexibility to respond to priorities as they emerge. It will also help the Commission gauge its progress at achieving some of its goals for the year. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 147 January 21. 2014 The plan has been drafted in a format similar to the one used for previous years, using the format and codes that were include in last year's work plan. Please note that this document is intended to augment the City-wide work plan recently adopted by the Council, and all land use items on the Council's work plan have been assigned a high -priority designation in the attached document. The recommended motion to act on this is as follows: "Move to accept the 2014 Community Development Department Work Plan" LEGISLATIVE, HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The work plan as recommended by the Planning Commission was prepared using the previous year's plan as a template and tracking any changes (deletions and additions) that were used to create the new document. The version that is attached for consideration by the Council has had all revisions made in order to present a final, clean document for review. The Planning Commission reviewed the work plan at its January 13, 2014 meeting and recommended approval with a minor modifications that have since been made to the document. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Adoption of a work plan helps provide for an increased level of accountability within the department and also helps to ensure that the Planning Commission and City Council are in agreement concerning the overall priorities for the Community Development Department for the year. The one drawback to the plan that has been recommended is that it is fairly extensive, and not all items are likely to be completed by the end of the year. In addition, there is potential for the Planning Commission to receive a much higher number of land use applications this year than has been submitted in previous years, which would make achieving some of the broader goals somewhat difficult. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information, Staff report, and Planning Commission recommendation, it is recommended that the City Council accept the 2014 Community Development Department Work Plan by undertaking the following action "Move to accept the 2014 Planning Commission Work Plan" Alternatively, the City Council may make modifications to the Plan as it deems necessary and adopt the work plan with modifications. ATTACHMENTS:. 1. 2014 Community Development Departrnent WorkDepartment Plan — page 2 — 2014 Community Development Work Plan Prepared by the Lake Elmo Planning Commission: 1/13/14 Accepted by the City Council: 1/21/14 T1 IF, (:FFY ( LAKE -71_,M0 Key: Status: C — Complete IP — In Progress Date: A — 0 to 3 months (Completion B — 3 to 6 months Goal) C — 6 to 9 months D — 9 to 12 months Admin: Staff Projects/Initiatives PL: Priority Level (1-5 with 1 being the highest priority) Project and Description ZONING INITIATIVES Zoning Map Updates • Adopt map changes necessary to implement Comprehensive Plan amendments for Village General map updates and corrections Implement zoning map changes for specific developments in the Village and 1-94 Corridor. Zoning Permit Tracking • Develop system for tracking of planning and zoning permits, including Conditional Use Permits, Interim Use Permits, Variances, Planned Developments, and other applications Date PL Status (Months) A 1 IP Zoning Text Amendments (Zoning Code Update) • Accessory buildings A 1 IP Exterior storage B 2 General performance standards C 1 Specific development standards C 1 O Open Space Ordinance update (OP and OP-2) D 3 O Public Facilities ordinance amendments D 4 Zoning Text Amendments (General) * Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Revisions A 1 • Animal ordinance A 1 IP Outdoor Wood Burning Furnaces D 5 Form -based Code • Prepare a scope of work to be accomplished including the A need for outside assistance Draft a form -based code to supplement the Village Mixed -Use C 2 zoning district based on the scope of work Incorporate design standards from the Design Standards C 2 Manual as part of a form -based code Airport Zoning • Resolve zoning conflicts with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Met Council, MnDOT, and Washington County Implement City airport zoning regulations for the airport safety D 2 zones within the Village Planning Area Permit Software Implementation Complete PermitWorks database for City parcels 6 4 Add Planning Module from PermitWorks to track planning and B 1 zoning applications Sign Code Update • Review sign code for consistency with new zoning districts and economic development goals and objectives Subdivision Ordinance • Review ordinance for consistency with ongoing zoning amendments D Development Reviews • Savona Final Plat and Developer's Agreement A 2 IP Boulder Ponds Preliminary and Final Development plans B 2 IP Landucci Goetschel Property development B 2 IP Ryland/Pratt Homes Landucci Property development B 2 IP Hammes Property development C 2 Chase Easton Village (Village) sketch plan review C 2 IP Engstrom Village development C 2 • Gonyea Homes Village development C 2 1-94 Commercial development C 2 PLANNING...w,TIATlygs Village Area Planning • Prepare Village Area AUAR five-year update A 1 Participate in Lake Elmo Avenue/Village Storm Water study 0 2 IP with Washington County 2 Conduct Village Area market area study through U of MN 6 2 Extension Service • Submit application for new Village Parkway railroad crossing D 1 IP • Develop street design and cross section for Village Parkway A 1 IP I-94/10th Street Corridor Planning • Develop street design and cross section for 51h Street minor A 1 IP collector road General Comprehensive Planning Reduce the population expectations to 18,000 by 2040 A 1 IP Eliminate the Memorandum of Understanding with the Met 6 1 IP Council • Review Comp Plan for consistency with 1-94 Corridor and D 4 Village land use plan amendments • Prepare rural development area study to consider future 0 2 development options for rural areas • Review Waste Water chapter of Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with rural areas review Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment for "Friedrich A 1IP Property" on Stillwater Boulevard • Consider Comprehensive Plan amendments to eliminate 0 2 remaining RAD-ALT land use parcels • Review individual projects for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Park Planning • Create a master plan for selected City parks, provide assistance to Parks Commission as needed Review park plans for individual developments with the Park 0 2 IP Commission Conduct comprehensive mapping of existing private and D 4 public trail systems (using GPS where appropriate) • Work with the Trail Sub -Committee to identify alignments and C 2 IP funding for future priority trail segments, including the Lake Elmo Regional Trail o Update Park Plan in City's Comprehensive Plan D 2 • Update Trail Plan in City's Comprehensive Plan D 2 Capital Improvement Plan • Planning Commission review of 2014-2018 Capital D 2 Improvement Plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan General Planning Studies • Conduct review of 201 (community) septic system policies and management practices. Develop system for proper oversight, billing, and maintenance of community systems. • Develop list of contacts and resources for private community septic systems Economic Development Support • Provide support and assistance to City Administrator and Economic Development Authority (EDA) as needed for economic development activities Maintain list of business in Lake Elmo on City web site D 5 ADMINISTRATIVE INITIATIVES Developer's Agreements and Escrows • Fully implement developer's agreement and escrow process A Building Division • Monitor status of staffing within building inspection department; consider staffing needs in 2014 and beyond Develop disaster preparedness manual for Lake Elmo Gateway Corridor Commission • Act as City representative for Technical Advisory Commission A • Provide support for environmental study and alternatives analysis review for Lake Elmo/Woodbury alignment Permit Tracking Software • Complete move of planning file system to PermitWorks software Code Enforcement * Follow updated code enforcement program with the Building Inspector as the City's code enforcement officer File Archiving and Management * Scan Planning and Building Department files into the City laserfische system A D IP IP Engineering Projects • Provide planning assistance as needed for regional trunk A 2 IP sewer project 4 Policy and Procedures Review Streamline and improve policies and procedures for the C 1IP handling of routine matters (variances, site plan review, setbacks, etc...) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROJECTS Participate in Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) study with 0 2 IP Washington County. Participate in Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) study with B 2 IP Washington County. Study Village/TH-5 pedestrian facilities and connections, including potential Stillwater High School trail 5