Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-03-12 CCMP
City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo. MN 55042 City Council Meeting April 3,2012 7:00 p.m. A CALL TO ORDER: B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C. ATTENDANCE: Johnston Emmons Park Pearson Smith D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (The approved agenda is the order in which the City Council will do its business.) E. ORDER OF BUSINESS: (This is the way that the City Council runs its meetings so everyone attending the meeting or watching the meeting understands how the City Council conducts its public business.) GROUND RULES: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council adopted for doing its public business.) ACCEPT MINUTES: 1. Accept March 20,2012. City Council minutes H. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: In order to be sure that anyone wishing to speak to the City Council is treated the same way, meeting attendees wishing to address the City Council on any items NOT on the regular agenda may speak for up to three minutes.) REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: (These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the aenda.) • Mavor and Council Administrator City Attorney • City Engineer • Planning Director CONSENT AGENDA: (Items placed on the Consent Agenda by City Staff and the Mayor because they are not anticipated to generate discussion. Items may be removed at City Council's request.) 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll 3. 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements -Compensating Change Order (CCO) No. 1 and Pay Request (PR) No. 4 (Final) 4. 2012 Street and Water Quality Improvements (Demontreville—H ds Area) — Award Engineering Services Contract 5. Municipal State Aid System Revision — Resolution Establishing and Designating Demontreville Trail as a Municipal State Aid Street REGULAR AGENDA: 6. Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Extension — Joint Sewer Project with the City of Oakdale 7. Lot Area (Size) and Width Variance — 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue North 8. Lake Elmo Park Reserve West Side Access Plan 9. 2012 City of Lake Elmo Program of Work Calendar Adjourn Lake clmo City Council Minutes Draft City of Lake Elmo City Council Minutes March 20, 2012 Acting Mayor Emmons called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Acting Mayor Emmons, Council Members Smith, Park & Pearson Also Present: City Administrator Zuleger, Attorney Snyder, City Engineer Griffin, Planning Director Klatt, Finance Director Bendel, and Director of Public Works Bouthilet, REMEMBRANCE OF ROBERT VAN ZANDT / CHAIR, PLANNING COMMISSION: Acting Mayor Emmons called for a moment of silence in remembrance of Bob Van Zandt, Chairman of the City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission. Following the moment of silence Council Members & Staff reflected on Mr. Van Zandt's impact on the community, Council Member Pearson noted that Mr. Van Zandt was truly a pillar of the community. Council Member Smith described Mr. Van Zandt as always being involved for the betterment of the community. Council Member Park expressed her appreciation for Mr. Van Zandt's ability to find common ground. Administrator Zuleger stated that in his short tenure with Lake Elmo Mr. Van Zandt had taken him under his wing. Planning Director Klatt reflected on his fondness for Mr. Van Zandt and appreciation for his leadership style as a Planning Commission Chairman. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: City Administrator Zuleger requested that one item be added to the Consent Agenda #7 — Affirmation of the liring of a City Clerk, that one item on the Regular Agenda #11 — Lot Area (Size) and Width Variance — 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue N. be continued on the April 3, 2012 City Council Agenda at the request of the applicant, and an item be added to the Regular Agenda #11 - Council Discussion of Metropolitan Council Wastewater Inefficiency Fee Memo dated March 5, 2012. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve the March 20, 2012 City Council Agenda as amended. Council Member Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. ACCEPTED MINUTES: Council Member Pearson asked that the minutes under the Regular Agenda Item — MnDNR Watercraft Inspection Grant be amended to read: Paragraph 2; Council Member Pearson commented that non -lake shore owners take "the onus off of the MnDNR". Pearson also asked that the Motion be amended to read "Council Member Pearson voting against — lakeshore owner's responsibility as residents "already pay for lake concerns through taxes and other related fees". The March 6, 2012 City Council Minutes were accepted as amended by consensus of the City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS / INQUIRIES: There was no public comment presented. REPORTS: .;ouncil Member Pearson reported that he attended the March 15th Homeowners Association Meeting with the CityAdministrator. In addition, he attended meetings concerning the MetropolitanTransit Park and Ride Plans, Lake Elmo City Council Minutes Draft and a briefing from the Minnesota Department of Health on the status of PFC groundwater contamination ir Lake Elmo, Council Member Emmons noted that he also had attended the same meetings in re: Metropolitan Transit Park & Ride and Minnesota Department of Health on groundwater contamination. Council Member Smith inquired to the status of the Old Village landowners meeting that occurred during spring break and asked for a report from the Planning Director, City Administrator Zuleger updated the City Council that (8) Homeowners Association Representatives attended the open forum on March 15th. He noted he appreciated the thorough briefing by the Minnesota Department of Health on the PFC groundwater contamination issue. Zuleger alerted the Council that he would be meeting with Washington County Sheriffs Department Sgt. Halverson on traffic enforcement and other issues on Wednesday March 21, 2012. Zuleger provided a brief issue update on the library building purchase, storm water fee appeals, and the development of financial pro forms for the water, sewer, and surface water funds. City Attorney Snyder noted that he was working with the City Engineer on the real estate transaction needed to acquire land for Municipal Well #4. In addition, he reported that he had received statistical data from the Washington County Sheriffs Department on Lake Elmo and that he thought it would be beneficial for the Council to hear a presentation on the same data. Snyder provided the Council with an update on the land detachment appeal process. Council Member Emmons asked for an update on the 3M litigation and Snyder noted that he would be happy to offer a report in Executive Session, City Engineer Griffin reported that he was working with the Valley Branch Watershed District on acquiring additional reimbursement funds for the installation of rain gardens for the 2012 street improvement projects. He also asked the Council to refer to his written report for a summary of his activities since the last Council meeting. Planning Director Klatt gave an update on both the 1-94 and Old Village Work Groups. He noted that the 1-94 group is continuing to work on buffering plans and easement in preparation for a Comp Plan amendment and zoning plan. The Old Village Work Group had a major landowners meeting during the week of March 13th and there was some discussion on Transfer Development Rights. Klatt also noted that a member of the Old Village Work Group was working on illustrative concept to provide some texture to the land use plan. Klatt informed the Council of the MnDOT Highway 5 Landscaping Grant planting event on June 2, 2012; Council Members are encouraged to attend. Klatt also noted that staff had met with Washington County on establishing trail access and parking areas for bike / ped access into western parts of the Lake Elmo Park Reserve, He will present County recommendations to the Planning Commission next week. Director of Public Works Bouthilet noted that he was gearing up for spring by changing out the hockey boards for tennis nets, preparing the parks and completing some early road patching. He has not yet put away the winter maintenance equipment. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Park moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Council Member Smith seconded the motion, The motion passed 4-0. • Approved disbursements and payroll in the amount of $95,705.35 • 2012 Seal Coat Project —Agreement for Joint Services with West Lakeland Township • 2012 Seal Coat Project — Preparations of Plans and Specifications • Professional Engineering Support Services — Adopt Consultant Pool Lake Elmo City Council Minutes Draft • Approval and Reading of Arbor Day Proclamation • Affirm the Hiring of the City Clerk — Sandie Thone Council Member Smith commended the City Engineer for his work in assembling an effective consultant pool and was glad to see a local consultant on the list. City Administrator Zuleger provided a brief summary of the qualifications of the new City Clerk, Sandie Thone. He noted her seven years as the Clerk of Mendota Heights, MN, Prior to that, she had a career in quality management and process improvement. He noted she will be an excellent addition to the management team and will focus on taxpayer service and organizational improvement. REGULAR AGENDA: DPW MULTI -USE 2012 PICK-UP PURCHASE (PER MAC) — DPW Director Mike Bouthilet presented the findings and recommendation about the purchase of a heavy duty pick-up. Bouthilet explained that the Ford 250 was chosen via the state contract because of its pulling capability and price. Bouthilet noted that by adding the $600 spring package the F-250 actually becomes an F-350 for about $10,000 less in price. Smith / Pearson noted a price disparity in the MAC minutes from the base price of the truck and the total price with the plow package and lighting system. The MAC minutes will be corrected to reflect the total price of $33,735 which included additional safety lights recommended by the MAC members by phone poll. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve the purchase of the 2012 F-250 off the MN State Contract with MAC proposed accessories, including the additional warning lights, for $33, 735.30 and to put the 1985 Dodge up for auction. Council Member Pearson ,seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. OLSON LAKE TRAIL SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION — JOINT SEWER PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF OAKDALE — City Engineer Griffin introduced the City of Oakdale Olson Lake Trail sewer extension project. At .ne last Washington County Transportation meeting the Director of Public Works for Oakdale inquired as to Lake Elmo's interest to extend sewer service to at least (2) properties that would be in proximity to the Oakdale project. Griffin explained the Oakdale project in detail and noted the (15) Lake Elmo properties that could benefit from a sewer extension service. Griffin provided a historical perspective on a petition spearheaded by Lake Elmo resident Roger Johnson that would have requested hook-up to the Oakdale sewer system on the DeMontreville peninsula. While Griffin noted that he and his staff had not had time to examine the private system efficacy of those affected, he did note that they were able to contact 9 out of the 15 properties along the extension route and 6 expressed interest in the service and 3 were not interested. Efforts are being made to contact the remaining six property owners. A dialogue occurred between Council Members and the City Engineer on next steps or expressed interest to have Oakdale extend the project to Lake Elmo residents. City Engineer Griffin noted that the next step would be a feasibility study at an approximate cost of $15,000 that would be shared between Oakdale and Lake Elmo. Griffin also stated that Oakdale and Lake Elmo were waiting to hear from Washington County on what their plans might be for maintenance on County Highway 13. Council Member Smith said she saw a benefit in pursuing the project but needed more information on the County's commitment to work on CTH 13 and a more complete response from affected residents. Griffin responded that if the County does not do the CTH work that Oakdale believes there is enough room to place the pipe in the ditch. Council Member Pearson asked how quick Oakdale needed an answer. Griffin responded that Oakdale would like the project to commence in 2013. The Council also explored the idea of extending the pipe beyond the initial 15 properties affected. Council Member Smith re -iterated the need for more information from Washington County and the residents. Council Member Park said she would like to see an extension to the two-year hook-up for residents who just made an investment in new septic systems. Attorney Snyder cited several different deferment agreements that could be used to accomplish the extension. Council Member Pearson concluded that the project has ,ractical merit, but would like to see more support from the residents involved. Griffin will continue to acquire information. Lake Elmo City Council Minutes Draft COUNCIL — STAFF GOAL SETTING RETREAT - Administrator Zuleger outlined the upcoming Council - Staff Planning Retreat to be held on April 20-21, 2012 at the Wildwood Lodge in Lake Elmo. The retreat hour:. will be from 5:30 PM — 9:30 PM Friday evening and from 8:30 AM to Noon on Saturday. Don Salverda & Associates will conduct the retreat and provide an after action plan. Staff Members required to attend are: City Administrator, City Clerk, Finance Director, City Planning Director, DPW, City Engineer (s), Fire Chief and the City Attorney if he is so inclined. The Wildwood Lodge has arranged for a special rate for those wishing to spend the evening. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to affirm the Lake Elmo Council -Staff Retreat be held on April 20-21, 2012 at the Wildwood Lodge in Lake Elmo at an expense not to exceed $3200. Council Member Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. SURFACE WATER UTILITY FEE APPEAL / CREDIT POLICY — Administrator Zuleger brought the Council up-to-date on surface water appeals reconciliation process. He has come to an agreement with 7 out of the first 10 appellants — some of the appeals were four years old. However, the process has been difficult because the Surface Water Ordinance has no defined appeal process or credit standards to use for reconciliation. Zuleger handed out the current Lake Elmo Surface Water Ordinance for review. Zuleger outlined a five criteria appeal / credit policy that focused on a residents "intentional" effort to retain surface water. The policy focused on defining "intentional retention", rain barrels, rain gardens, engineered surface water retention ponds, swales, and other facilities, and an economic hardship policy. Zuleger noted that he may have to add an additional policy point that took into account "intentional plantings of riparian buffers to prevent suspended solids from reaching surface waters. Acting Mayor Emmons noted that he liked the use of the word "intentional" as a means of establishing a policy, but was interested in whether adopting a more technical formula that evaluated impervious surfaces as a method of assessing the fee. City Engineer Griffin said that this calculation was a possibility and perhaps that the City could use the County's resources to look at it, but the process might be cost prohibitive. Zuleger noted that the current fee structure is based on the ability to cash flow the operational activity of the City's surface water utility. Emmons would like staff to look into the impervious surface calculation process. Zuleger reported that it was the staff's desire to have a revision to Chapter 53 of the Municipal Code by June 15` to allow ample time before next year's fee assessment process. Zuleger also noted that the upcoming newsletter will have a four -page insert explaining the purpose of the utility and ways that residents can help in the process. Council Member Smith said that resident's concerns may be calmed if we could split the payment up into quarters similar to the water bill. City Engineer Griffin gave a brief explanation of the federal, state and water shed district mandates that have to be complied with as part of the surface water utility obligations. Finance Director Bendel predicted that after the appeal reconciliation process was complete she could foresee only 2 — 3 appeals per year with minimal fiscal impact. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to have staff develop a surface water appeal process / credit policy to be added to Chapter 53 of the Municipal Code by June 1, 2012. Further, staff is directed to use their best judgment in negotiating and collecting past due receivables using the five point policy structure outline in the March 20, 2012 Council Summary. Council Member Park seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER INEFFICIENCY FEE — At the request of Acting Mayor Emmons, the Council reviewed a March 5, 2012 memo from the Metropolitan Council to Lake Elmo Administrator Zuleger detailing the City's obligation to meet a Residential Equivalent Connection (REC) level of 515 by December 31, 2015. Emmons felt that it may be appropriate for the Council to respond to the memo to clarify the understanding between both parties and to express the Council's thoughts on the calculation of the ten- year rolling average. Council Member Smith stated that she felt that the 515 REC unit obligation was not unreasonable if Lake Elmo was serious about growth plans. Attorney Snyder noted that the Metropolitan Council and Lake Elmo have made great strides and in -roads in understanding and that the Metropolitan Council would probably welcome an interaction. Zuleger noted that he and Planning Director Klatt would be meeting with Metropolitan Council staff on Monday, March 26th to discuss the current MOU and that he would directly supply that information to the City Council. Council Member Pearson asked about the possibility of expanding properties that may be Lake Elmo City Council Minutes Draft included for REC unit credit. Council Member Smith explained the current MOU REC unit expectation of 6600, which had been negotiated down from 8300. The differential of 1700 REC units were to be used by the City of Lake Elmo for remediation purposes. It was agreed that after the meeting between the two staffs, that Acting Mayor Emmons, Council Member Smith and staff will craft a response to the March 5, 2012 communique with review by Attorney Snyder. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 PM Submitted by Dean A. Zuieger, City Administrator Professional Engineering Support Services Consulting Pool Arbor Day Proclamation crrY OF LAKE ELMC • • • / ' \/ , AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: DATE: 4/3/2012 CONSENT ITEM #: MOTION as part of Consent Agenda Approve Disbursements in the Amount of $59,708.24 Cathy Bendel, Finance Director Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Joan Ziertman, Finance Consultant SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:, As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $59,708.24. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda. BACKGROUND INFO " ATION: The City of Lake Elmo has fiduciary authority and responsibility to conduct normal business operation. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Claim # ACH AC1-I ACH DD3873 — DD3885 38225-38226 38227-38258 1374-1393 Amount $ 5,576.94 $ 1,087.32 $ 3,774.45 $ 17,711.26 $ 659.66 $ 29.698.61 $ 1,200.00 TOTAL $ 59,708.24 Description Payroll Taxes to IRS 3/22/2012 Payroll Taxes to MN Dept. of Revenue 3/22/2(112 Payroll Retirement to PERA 3/22/2012 Payroll Dated 3/22/2012 (Direct Deposit) Payroll Dated 3/22/2012 (Payroll Paper Checks) Accounts Payable Dated 4/3/2012 Accounts Payable Dated 4/3/2012 (Library Checks) City Council Meeting Approval of Disbursements April 3, 2012 Consent Agenda Item t-I2 STAFF REPORT: City staff has complied and reviewed the attached set of claims. All appears to be in order and consistent with City budgetary and fiscal policies and Council direction RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda proposed disbursements in the amount of S59,708.24. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda or a particular claim from this item and further discuss and deliberate prior to taking action. If done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to approve the April 3, 2012, Disbursements as Presented /and modified] herein." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable Dated 4/3/2012 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Ajienda): - Questions from Council to Staff ,,,,,, ..... ....... ..... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ........ ..... ............... ............ ........ ...... . ...... Mayor & City Council Discussion ...... ................. ...... .............. ........ ......... . ...... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion ..... ......................... ......... .................. Mayor Facilitates -- page 2 -- Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: 1 oari z Printed: 03/29/2012 - 12:15 PM Batch: 008-03-21)12 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine ACEHARD Ace I 1 ardware Inc 1 I 9625 03/12/20 12 9.54 0,00 04703/2012 Hardware V Box Repair No 0000 101-430-3125-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 119625 Total: 9.54 ACEHARD Total: 9.54 ALEXAIR Alex Air Apparatus, Inc 21498 03/21/2012 467.33 0.00 04/03/2012 Replacement of SCB A Lenses & No 0000 ID! -420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt Frames 21498 'fotal: 467.33 ALEXAIR Total: 467.33 AM FLAG American Flagpole & Flag Corp 99008 (13/13/2012 133.98 0,00 04/03/2012 Replace Flags No 0000 I (11-410-1320-44300 Miscellaneous 99008 Total: 133.98 AMFLAG Total: 133.98 ARAM Aramark, Inc. 629-7454189 03;15/2012 101-430-3100-44 I 70 Uniforms 629-7454189 Total: 629-7456003 03/29/2012 101-4211-2220-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 629-7456003 Total: 629-7456004 03/29/2012 1(11-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 629-7456004 Total: 629-7456005 03/29/2012 I 01-420-2220-44010 RepairsiMaint 13Idg 629-7456005 Total: 19,19 0,00 04/03/20 12 Uniforms No 0000 19. I 9 1 I 3.87 0.00 04/03/2012 Monthly Rug Service Station #2 No 0000 113.87 171.14 0.00 04/03/2012 Linen City Hall No 0000 171,14 112.59 0.00 04/03/2012 Monthly Rug Service Station 1/1 No 0000 112.59 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (03/29/12 - 12:(5 PM) Page 1 hivoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task TYPE' PO # Close POLine # 629-745909U (13/22/2(112 22.91 0.00 04/03/2012 Uniforms No 0000 1(11-43(1-3100-44170 UniForms 629-7459090 Total: 22,91 629-7460954 03/29/2012 23.09 0.00 04/03/2012 Linen Annex No 0000 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs!Maint Contractual Bldg 629-7460954 Total: 23.09 ARAM Total: 462.79 CTYOAK DA City of Oakdale 201203223140 (13/22/2012 82.97 0.00 04/03/2012 U2-Brakelights Repaired No (100t, I (11-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 201203223140 Total: 82.97 CTYOAKDA Total: 82.97 CUMMINGS Cummings Mary Jo 03/28/2012 03/28/2012 1.777.50 0,00 04/03/2012 Consulting hours No 0000 2()6-450-5300-43150 Contract Services 03128/2012 Total: 1,777.50 cum MINGS Total: 1,777.50 DF-ITA Delta Dental Of Minnesota 1814111 03/15/2012 874.50 0.00 04/03/2012 April 2012 Dental Coverage No 0000 101-000-0000-21706 Medical Insurance 4814111 Total: 874.50 DELTA Total: 874,50 DPCINDUS DI'C Industries, Inc. 82700290-12 03/21/2012 194.55 0.00 (14/(13/2(112 Well II Chlorine No 0000 601-494-9400-42160 Chemicals 82700290-12 Total: 194,55 DPCINDUS Total: 194,55 FIORILLO Fiorillo Megan 03/26/2012 03/26/2012 41,25 ((.00 04/03/2012 PX Mec6iig 3/26/12 No 0000 101-410-1450-43620 Cable Operations 03/26/2012 Total: 41.25 FIORILLO Total: 41,25 AP - To Be Pat,' Proof List (03/29/12 - 12:15 PM) Page 2 Invoice ft Inv Date Amount Quantity Putt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine EXL, FXL, Inc, March 2(112 03/31/2012 2,000.01) 0.00 04/03/2012 Assessing Services - March 2012 No 0000 101-410-1320-43100 Assessing Services March 2012 Total: 2.000.00 FXL Total: 2,000.00 CiRAINGER Grainger 97811)40614 03/16/2012 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/M aint Eqpt 9781040614 Total: GRAINGER Total: HAUSER Brian Hauser 03/19/2012 03/19/2012 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 03/19/2012 Total; HAUSER Total: 19.24 0.00 04/03/2012 Replacement Bulbs for Floodlights No 0000 19.24 19.24 29.36 0.00 (14/03/2(112 Brian Hausscr - Reimbursement for No 00(10 meals 29.36 29,36 KLATT Klatt Kyle 03/15/2012 03/15/2012 185,00 0.00 04/03/2012 Health Savings Reimbursement No 0000 I 01-000-0000-2 I 710 Health RSA 03/15/2012 Total: 185.00 KLATT Total: 185.00 M EN ARDSO Menards - Oakdale 74737 03/21/2012 I 3.98 0.00 04/03/2012 Electrical Connectors No 0000 I 01-430-3100-42150 Shop Materials 74737 (13/21/2(112 58.65 0.00 04/03/2012 Trailer Safety Chain - No 0000 101-430-3100-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 74737 -rotal: 72.63 M EN ARDSO Total: 72.63 MENARDST Menards - Stillwater 60404 03/16/2012 3.48 0.00 04/03/2012 Flor-Dri Container No 0000 I 0 I -420-2220-42400 Small Tools & Equipment 60404 03/16/2012 3,29 0.00 04/03/2012 Unif'onu Storage No 0000 101-420-2220-44 I 70 Uniforms 6(1404 03/16/20 I 2 18,07 0.00 04/03/2012 Water Softner Salt No 0000 101-420-2220-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 60404 Total: 24.84 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (03/29/12 - 12:15 PM 1 Page 3 Invoice # liav Date 61597 03/22/2012 60 I -494-940(1-44300 M iscellaneous 61597 Total: MENARDST Total: ETROFIR Metro Fire 43673 (13/15/2012 I 01-420-2220-42400 Small Tools & Equipment 43673 Total: METROFIR Total: Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 4,54 0.00 04/03/2012 Well II Chlorine Room Shelf No (1000 4,54 29.38 780.00 0.00 04/03/2012 Foam 780.00 780.00 No (1000 NEXTEL Nextel Communications 761950227-108 03/18/2012 85.08 0.00 04/03/21)12 Cell Phone Service - Administration No 0000 101-410-1940-43210 Telephone 761950227-108 03/18/2012 79.71 0.00 04/03/2012 Cell Phone Service - Fire Dept No 0000 101-420-2220-43210 'Telephone 76195(1227-1(18 03/18/2012 17.78 0,00 04/03/2012 Cell Phone Service - Building Dept No 0000 101-420-2400-43210 Telephone 761950227-108 03/18/2012 35,40 0.00 04/03/2012 Cell Phone Service - Public Works No 0000 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone Dept 761950227-108 03/18/2012 88.69 0.00 04/03/2012 Cell Phone Service - Parks Dept No 0000 101-450-5200-43210 Telephone 761950227-108 Total: 306.66 NEXTEL Total: 306.66 POM PS Pomp's 'Fire Service, Inc. 203900 03/21/2(112 220.50 0,00 (14/03/2012 (2ea) Patching Trailer Tires 02-2 No 0001, 101-430-31 20-422I 0 Equipment Parts 203900 03/21/2012 80.35 0.00 04/03/2012 ( 1 cal Cushman Tires (/3-2 No 0000 I 01-450-5200-42210 Equipment Parts 203900 Total: 300.85 POM PS Total: 300.85 PRESSA Anastasia Press 0306/2012 03/26/2012 55.00 0,00 04/03/2012 03/20/12 CC Meeting No 0000 101-410-1450-4362(1 Cahlc Operations 03/26/20 I 2 03/26/2012 41.25 0,00 04/03/2012 03/26/12 PZ Meeting No 0000 101-41(1-1450-4362(1 Cahle Operations 03/26/2012 Total: 96.25 PRESSA Total: 96.25 AP - To Be Paid proof List (03/29/12 - 12:15 PM) Page 4 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # PROSTAFF PROSTAFF 102-851118 03/25/2012 101-410-1320-41010 Full-time Salaries 102-851 118 Total: 102-851603 04;01/2012 101-410-1320-41010 Full-time Salaries 102-851603 Total: PROSTAFF Total; 496.00 0.00 04/03/20 12 Temp Staff WE 3/8/12 496,00 620.00 620.00 I , I I 6.00 0.00 04/03/2012 Temp Stating WE 3/18/12 REAI)YWAT Ready Watt Electric 96307 03/22/20 12 5,193.90 0,00 04/03/201 2 Narrowband 6 newer sirens 703-420-2220-45800 Other Equipment 96307 Total: 5,193.90 96309 03/22/2012 2,624.68 0.00 04/03/2012 Narrowband/upgrade Cimarron Siren 703-420-2220-45800 Other Equipment 96309 Total: 2,624.68 RF.ADYWAT Total: 7,818.58 RICHTM AN Richtman Karen 03/12/2012 03/12/2012 101-430-3200-44300 Miscellaneous 03/12/2012 Total: RICHTNIAN 'Total; S&T S&T Office Products, Inc. 01P B9832 03/13/2012 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01 PB9832 Total: 01 PC0043 03/29/2(112 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01PC0043 Total: 01 PC2068 03/29/2012 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01PC2068 Total: 111PC3440 03/21/2012 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 01PC3440 Total: S&T Total: No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 2,500.00 0.00 04/03/2012 2nd Half of Recycling contract No MOO 2,500,00 2,500.00 17,14 0.00 04/03/2012 Office Supplies 17.14 37.48 0.00 04/03/2012 Office Supplies for CC & PZ Meetings 37.48 91.00 0.00 04/03/2012 Office Supplies 91.00 66.00 0,00 04/03/2012 Office Supplies 66.00 211.62 SEH Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc 254588 03/12/2012 1,410,60 0.00 04/03/2012 Design Services for Test Well /4 60 I -494-9400-43030 Engineering Services No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 000(1 AP - To Be Paid Proof List 013/29/12 - 12:(5 PM) Page 5 Invoice # Inv Date AMOILIIII Quantity Pin( Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 254588 Total: 1,410.60 SEH Total: 1,41(1.60 SPRING SPRINGSTED, INC. 139.103 03/20/2012 7,250.00 0.00 04/03/2012 Finance Dept Analysis No 0000 101-410-1520-43150 Contract Services 139,103 Total: 7,250.00 SPRING Total: 7,250.00 STILLMED Stillwater Medical Group 2324 03/11/2012 563.70 0,00 04/03/2012 Physicals and Vaccinations No 0000 101-420-2220-43050 Physicals 2324 Total: 563.70 STILLMED Total: 563,70 TASCH T.A. Schirsky & Sons Inc .52788 03119/2012 288.83 0.00 04/03/2012 Asphalt 101-430-3120-42240 Street Maintenance Materials 52788 Total: 288.83 TASCH Total: 288.83 TELEMETR Telemetry & Process Controls 61 84924 03116/2012 101-420-2220-42400 Small Tools & Equipment 6184924 Total: G-Sale 03/16/2012 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies G-Sale 03/16/2012 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies G-Sale Total: `VELEM FIR Total: 58.46 0.00 04/03/2012 Plug Ends for Truck cords 58.46 50.00 0,00 04/03/2012 Fire Proof Cabinet- City Hall 20.00 0.00 04/03/2012 2 Coffeemakers - City Hall 70.00 128.46 No 0000 No 0000 No No 0000 WTITER Witter Nicholas (13119/2(112 03/19/2012 28.64 0.00 04/03/2012 Nick Witter - Reimb tbr Meals 0000 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 03/19/2012 Total: 28.64 WITTER Total: 28.64 Al' - To Lie Pa; ' "roof Lisi 013/29112 - 12:15 PM Page 6 Invoice # Env Date Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # YOCUM Yocum Oil Company, Inc. 502870 031200012 101-430-3100-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 502870 Total: V(„)CUM Total: 160,69 0.00 04/03/2012 Bulk Oil Tanks No 0000 160.69 160.69 ZACK Zack's, Inc. 27563 03/22/2012 134.72 0.00 04/03/2012 Flat towels, Toilet paper (City Hall) 101-430-3100-42150 Shop Materials 27563 03/22/2012 65.10 0.00 04/03/2012 Brooms, rake, Penetrating Oil 101-430-3100-42400 Small Tools & Minor Equipment 27563 03/22/2012 43.98 0.00 04/03/2012 Ratchet Straps 1111-450-5200-42400 Small Tools & Minor Equipment 27563 'fatal: 243.8(1 27575 03/22/20 12 71.06 0.00 04/03/2012 Toilet Paper -City Hall 101-410-1k/40-42110 Cleaning Supplies 27575 Total: 71.06 ZACK Total: 314.86 ZU LEGER Zoleger Dean 03/04/201 2 03/04/2012 101-410-1320-43310 Mileage 03/04/2012 Total: ZU LEGER Total: 42.85 0.00 04/03/2012 Mileage & Parking 42.85 42.85 Report Total: 29,698.61 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (03129112 - 12:15 PM) Page 7 ' CIP: LITLE A C C C. T DATE: 4/3/2012 CONSENT ITEM #: 3 MOTION as part of Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements — Compensating Change Order (CCO) No. 1 and Pay Request (PR) No. 4 (Final) SUBMITTED BY: Rvan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger. City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin. City Engineer Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider accepting the work as recommended by the Project Engineer for the 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements. To complete the final paperwork, the City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Compensating Change Order No. 1, thereby reducing the total contract amount by $6,679.35, and approving final payment to Hardrives, Inc., the Contractor for the project, in the amount of $42,210.53. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consery .:4genda. STAFF REPORT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements have been fully completed and the project Certificate of Completion has been prepared by the Project Engineer, The warranty period began at substantial completion on November 15, 2011, and will extend to November 15, 2012. Final Payment in the amount of $42,210.53 has been requested by the Contractor, Hardrives, Inc., based upon the work completed. The final quantities have been reviewed and approved by City Staff The City share of the project costs is funded from the 2011 Street Improvement Bond Fund, The final assessment hearing will be held in September/October 2012 and the warranty review will be completed in October 2012. The construction contract with Hardrives, Inc, was executed in the amount of $469,524.99 using estimated quantities. The final construction cost for the project was $462.845.64. Compensating Change Order No. 1 has been processed. in the deduct amount of $6,679.35, to reconcile the contract with the actual quantities installed for the project. The total job -to -date engineering services are $19,900 under budget. It is estimated that an additional $2,500 will be expended for the warranty inspection. final assessment calculations and conductine, the Assessment Hearing. -- page 1 -- City Council Me nit 2011 Street & Water Quality Im, ements — CCO No, ] & PR No. 4 (Final) April 3, 2012 Consent Agenda Item # 3 The total projects cost for construction and engineering is therefore projected to be finalized at S543,303,96. Management of the contract documents and efficiencies in the design and construction services allowed the project to come in under budget. The shorter time to complete the project significantly reduced the cost of construction services. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above staff report and background information, it is recommended that the City Council, as part of tonight's Consent Agenda, accept the work for the 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements as recommended by the Project Engineer, approve Compensating Change Order No. 1 in the deduct amount of $6,679.35, and approve Final Payment to Hardrives. Inc, in the amount of $42,210.53. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the C017Se171 Agenda, table this item for future consideration, or further discuss, deliberate and/or, if appropriate, amend the recommended motion prior to taking action. If the latter is done so, the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to accept the work for the 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements as recommended by the Project Engineer, approve Compensating Change Order No. 1 in the deduct amount of $6,679.35, and approve Final Payment to Hardrives, Inc. in the amount of $42,210.53; to be paid from the 2011 Street Improvement Fund fand as amended and/or modified at tonight's meetingf" ATTACHMENTS: 1. Certificate of Completion 2. Compensating Change Order No. 1 3. Pay Request No. 4 (Final) SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agrenda): - Questions from Council to Staff ......... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ...... ...... ..... ...„..... ...... ...... Mayor & City Council Discussion.. ....... ..... _ .... ..... Mayor & City Council Action on Motion. .......... ............... •..._ ....... Mayor Facilitates Page CITY OF LAKE ELMO. MN 2011 STREET & WATER .<0,1ECT NO. 2011,123 QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION DATE OF ISSUANCE: April 3. 2012 OWNER: CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MN CONTRACTOR: FLARDR1VES, PROJECT NAME: 2011 STREET & WATER QUALJTY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.: 2011.123 11111111 II ll'IIIII 1 ' I II 'W111'4111 111111114111 1h11111{0.0 This Certification of Completion applies to all work under the Contract Documents This Certification of Completion applies to the following specified parts of the Contract Documents 1 do hereby certify that the work to which this Certificate applies has been constructed in accordance with the Contract dated April 19. 2011, and related Contract Documents as prepared by TKDA dated March 15. 2011. The above -mentioned improvement is hereby declared to be complete and acceptance of this work is recommended. DATE OF COMPLETION: April 3, 2012 Rvan W. Stempski Reg. No. 45395 FOCUS Engineering. inc. TFIL WARRANTY PERIOD BECiINS November 15, 2011 AND ENDS 'November 15, 2012 Saint Paul. MN No \ ember 8 CHANGE ORDER TKDA EnLincers-Architects-Planners 20 II Proj. No, 14732.001 To Hardrives. inc. for 2011 Street and Water Quality Improvements for City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Componsatinu Chanoo Order No. You are hereby directed ro Make The following change ro your contract dated April 19 . 20 I I . The chance and the work affected thereby is subject to all contract stipulations and covenants. This Chane Order \'I ' - '- :>-`) (decrease) (5Z: EIT(ify..) the contract sum by Six Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Nine Dollars and 35100 iS 6.67935 1). COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER This change order shorts the actual quantities installed at the unit price bid amounts tste attached itemization): NE T CHANG F1= (6,679.35) Amount of Orrii nal Comrect S 469.524.99 AdditiollS ap pi -Lived to date (Nos. ) 5 Ek., duct i ons a ppm \ od to date (Nos. 1 5 - Conn -act airxmini to dare S 469.524.99 Amount of this Clyan.p Order I Add ) (DQduct1 's: an,) S (6.679.35) Revised Contract Anvtint S 462,845,64 Approved TKDA Cit. of Lake Elmo, Nlinnesota Approved By' Hardriv_ea,Inc. By White - Owner Pink - Contractor Blue - TKDA • COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 D2:744 NcNembe: '247 I" 222' STREET .6.6/8, 5VATE42-1 717/5.44-4172. 14PROVEMENTS LAKE ELMO 4.8444E3OTA TKDA PROJECT 3, 14722 331 17E51 40 B,E2,4c,41F16.41/ TARTAN MEADOWS NEIGHBORHOOD L^:01311L5A1tpnJ L5 ...: aa•‘: 25 5 -7 6822$ 5. .4.0432 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 14:58 2323 § 3 S11T F...r:c.E LF 2 69 2$5 3 76665 3 4 ',M. T ET PROTECC4N I-=-4'. FE 62 7.4 74 1.35545 6 1.35548 2 .: '''''''''7.6'5' SA14,CLIT PAVEMENT ,'ALI„. 1'YP/E§4 21 2 1.5 1/012 677 3 06175.60 3 1.442.55/ 3 .733 76; , 6 Pt./LOVE 3.5495POSE d';- EXIST 62iTy.,11N01.5 3.48214111/47 -.CP21,4EV8A.Y2 S'Y 4 ar, 1,5 2 5 3 66550 _ 5 1 242 70 5 576.20 P.E.MOVE 0' D/SPOSE OF EXIST GIT21.1-N0U 8 PAVEMENT ,T LUME E.44 E"// 2 161 PS 5 161 38 3. 5' RE12C8E I DISPOSE OF EXIST CONOPETE P4vEMEN7 ,..8RiVEVI4YSI SY 5 p) _543 500.§2.1 .. $ r_ 82_ 5 ./521.854 6 SUEORA.CE CORRECTION SY 753 i 2. ittic . 351 .1.2t.5.52 D 8 3. 1,632 O 12 RECLAF1EX 9AND BASEMR673 718H E6EST ses i)iit 126154360 $ 1543520 . 15 - 1 HAUL OUT EXCESS 1'ILL/F.7;S. ,LVI 8/.61 6 pc Istitst, stSie- s 6.504 C48: 5 5,666E8 $ :5)35. pit.; ,..ia 5 t.),..ppACER5EPARATION p= RECLAIMED 583-340E RS 224.1 CZ 4,3 29 3 10761 45 10 ai 47 -3, '3," TYPE LV3 EITUI4INCILIS t:p.v.yvF.AR[Nc COGRSE Tri 4' 5' 1 7,7- 18.P.7 S 5,7 962 15 $ 92 711 30 5 4 748.15 7 i '1 2362 TYPE Ly4 BITUMINOUS NEARING C01,117:36 TN 5' 86 1537 , 7633 5 7.6.472 22 8 at5 sect 88 3 4.387 76 15 EITUM,N,OUS MATERIAL FOR. TACK OCAT GAL 2'" 553 7..75 1 64`L' 4,5 5 1.658 50 3 761 90; ... 16 2S7-722 71F, ,V.2. 5IT OMINOUS '.YEAR C.CIURSE LIP.I.,ES SY 3.41972 ,$ 5 51$ 224 5. i -se 55., 17 SA4,4 5 SEAL STREET f4C:' JNI...,P, \r‘nL.S' LF 2.1'.. ...9 r.:,3 ;24 ,..„1,240 42176 7.273 20 5 F- 2°74- 65 s 43'4P5 15 ADJUST CATCH BASIN 5 INSTALL 103:16ETE 14.I303 EA. 511 27 _ 43 _ 1.4 . .61.52610.51 44 44 S 7 15775 5 511 27 12 REPAIR CAST11,G AND AS.PJST CATCH eAs',N ,.:', INSTALL DONCRETE VON/3S 0 5 6/39 031 5 ,, "..,D.JUST t.L..Ni-ipLa...., ,•:-., 455 24 5 45524 § 455..24 : E''...;';'361 :1) --. 21 EICONCRETE DRIVE. 31' tte 2.8 214 2 5 5 i 55 stti s . _. 5 ts 798 5641 22 C6-NCRL5452- EL/RE:ICU-IPOR RAIN GARDEN =7A .5))5: 5:5 Isi tic ...t C85 0 RIP RAE, I.6402/ECTEX.T.LE FA6P/C4 C'T '371 81 4 0 5 3 162 96 2 2.57,35:,58 5; 0,, 85.44],s37 -4, 403 84 3 § 24 DITCH 04P6DINB LF 2 37 222 '90 . . .. 5 4.377D .8 45230 3 / 47 40., 25 P14.'PF(..T,A1'4,2 P.LAG..--, TOPSOIL CY • 4 52 431 397 $ 5.394 12 ...8 64:64644 .r.,5 1 219 ,36/7 21 SEED0413. FERTILIZER. A34D 41100D FIFER EL:144NET SY 2 15 145 5.81 5 311775_ 5 1.722 j;.5 3 ' 410.40 27 SOD00NG SY 7' 7C 4 354 2465 .5 1 1 755 acc .. 6 7,59 5,5 3 '5C46 30: SUBTOTAL TARTAN MEADOINSNEIGHBORHOOD $ 262,132.40 5 257,943.64 $ (4,1876- : ,I.I DAVID r.IELSON ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD ''07 7ATIO3 33 1 E.32,.4,5, 339§9 5, 1 i.,._ .839.85 2 TRAFT-/C CONTROL 1,-.2. 7.63,§5_ .. 7 , , ' 3 2619.95 3 423/ 525 2. SILT FENCE LF 2 27 122. 2. S 259.00 3 . 4 _ INLET PROTECT.ON EA193.665 26 85 2 2 l, - 083,663 5 5 .5,A77.'847C PAN-2.112NT !ALL TYPES; . . . LF 2- 156. 163 95' 350 45 8 191 35 3 75518. 6 REly1OVE 5 08,FT275.3.2 OF 83157 6 ITUM.NCUS P.66152,644,1" ,DR13E,666Y5 S'Y 5 '..i0 . 25 5 7.21 78 4.4 120 46 5 45 ',",,C , FEL1-2.1VE 6 DiSPOSE. CB 6.XiST 91111.11/1/N1US PAVEMENT -.FLUME 4 ai:,. EC 910 , , ' S 59-59 2 5 9 SUSGRADE CORRECTION SY .a SO 12AS S2 2 '.72 ,,: a REMOvE 3D1SPOSE OF EXIST CONCRETE FAVEMEPIT :5:RIVEIA'AYS, 'F. .5 34 213 2 5 69,42. 3. 03 RECLAIM EX.BIT 4.!/.1p pAs 7, miTER AL5 5.--/.72:' DEPTH SY 0 03 2.7658 2715 :;'"' 74 22306 873 : 2 '222,CC 2: 11 HAUL .61,T E.YOESS MILLINGS :LV2 ... ... 01' 1.20 78,1 CI. 5 1 37 88 5 5 12.7' 22 3.11EGRAE PP.EPAPATION OF REBLAIMEO SURFACE _ R.'S 378 11 131 6 5 239 63 5 2 46,.. 26 1? 2360 TYRE 1.+F2 BITUMINOUS/ r40r,LLVE4ir2CC,Li-GE TN 50 76 24'6' 277. 2 5 12,486.96 3 13816 67 3 14 .2660, TYPE 10i4 62.22MINCU3 4VEARIN,2 COORSS TN... ....., 53 669_ 3.07 24§ 31 1/ 173.53 5 13 15 EITLVIINOuS LIATER.I.4,_F!TR TACK .:GAT .... GAL 2 14 115 75 $' 24324 5 154, 50 G. 15 236,2 TYPE LV4 EITO/641.OUS I.MEAR COURSE 5441,5S SY 15 25 32 2" $ 513 56 :5 17 3621) 25 SEA., STREET 340' INTERVAL5, LP 6 8,31 368 723 5 .752440 5 ' a .,.,D JI., S7 ,....A7 OH asAsLIN & INSTALL CONCRETE:18.1,GS t.A. J.'2.7.--- - ---; 5 EEC- 45 3 16 FEPAIP DASD/NB ANU 444UST c.-,ATchi BASIN L. :/85, l'ALI. CONCRETE D4INGE EA 54' 59 . 7 82 6' CONCRETE. 4,4F-VE , S y .53 76 22 0 5 541 89 5.. C. 3 1 153.35- 70 CONCRETE C!iRE cuT FOR RAir: rLG,F.GEti ... .. EA' 2315 56 2 2 2 5 6. CITDEI GRACI.N8./ LE 73 761 16 5 573,1878c62, : 2.3 33 '/.103FiT AND FLACE TC-P5OiL CY 355:)t3 67.2- 20 3 150is s 24 SEEM/ ‘821, .FERTILIZER 2210 MI333E156:44 CLA,NKE Tr _ _ SY ' 5' 75, 25 52 3 269 OD 3 25 SODDING S5' 2 78 531 255 S 1.433,7D 3 SUBTOTAL DAVID NELSON ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD 39.99.92 50TH STREET AND kIMBRO AVENUE MOBILIZATION LS 3. 375 56 , S 5.875 56 5 3 075.58 3 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 15 656 33, 1 1 5. 6.99.30 3 3 .3"LT FENCE LB 0.6P. . '2. 4 0 4 4 $ 4 269DO , 3 - 3 42E2 32.8 .- ;',LAF,,v,4p 0-538 TREE , . .. EA.. .'.617 SD 20., _ . 53 _§.... 473353 5_ 4.73.2.§44 3 5 SA.M.,C UT r5A,,,,c-:r*Lai'0-..,444.4. TYPES LF -14 03 7.60 155 3 6 REmpva 5oisr>o§S C;,..F 5)41ST ELT', 14/6.8.,...1.§ pA,:cr:.L.-,NT ... . .. . Gia. pc) 5 3.33,25 5 116,25 53- 1219 1,267 5051 S 1 5-5 -43 r S 1 375 43_5. REMOVE & DISPOSE pr, txtsLITL,:%:IJI;+DL,IS R421E1E_I1I..147EDVE613AYS; SY 4 34 E" 33 $ 34.40 4 6 ..30.64/.4C.N EXCAVAT,ON 4 6,1;/, , 6' CY 7 4: .689 26.24 . . 5 141 Fp 3 '4" 5, " 3 2 144 "56 5 .2 144 36 _ 8 8 SUBGRAIDE .CORRECTION SY 5 63 10521 ". 55,5 3 4,551 56 tt s- -t 5.,, 50 $ 10 SUBGRADE PREPARATION OF GRAVEL S URFADE RS 160.02 35 23 23 6.540.96 5 t5.54!354 5 1' PLACE 5. COD/9114C? RECLAIM MATERIAL ,FROM OTHER SITES. 11., `5--s.,:- ' 00. 15.3, 978 5 1.839 0C1 3 975 Gs 5 ;26 ,. OD; 12 336,0 'TYPE LV1±. BPI LIMINOUS NO3.3IEAR.N73 COURSE TN 45 45.5 1 20' 1 27.46 3 59.905,5e 5 60.304.62 $" 399 04 '5 23E8 TI(PE 4/4 BITUMINOUS WEAR.NC COURSE TN . 514 74. 1 428,1 1200 3 60::::38 74 3 6--344.55 _. S. 4.:5 9.2 • 4iTu..1^,;(:).u3MATERIAL FOR TACK 52C3A7 '32.4.4, 2 16. 584 .75.1 2. 1.22356 545003 543 5,403 5 2300 TYPE 4124 EITLIM NOUS ‘2.52.463 CO-UPSE CRIMES Ey' _ , 45633, 356 138 4 55.555.55. 5 71321 ist 55 655 25/ GUARDRAIL /.14030T 77,.:6-: S307 OR el-,,,,:i '.35 5/5 270 21: 5 7.455.00 , ..5 71 08 ' 7 CLASS .5 AGGREGATE SI-IOULCER9§G . 13062 1,4353 117.-1E STONE _TN . /7 43 .274 224 3 3.565.72 S. 7E2 CDTCH !I/RACING IF ' 0 76'... 22 22 s 215.22 Z- . 1.9 .EEEpiriS. FERTILIZER, AND D8COD ELSER ELA^15:5.7 SY 427 764 3 503.810 5 DIP_ 7T-1---'. 22 s1RYPING - 4" YELL01.74 STRIPINC2 LF 04 077 42-72/130 . . ... 2376 519.46/ $ ;72:..sS0 $ ", s irtS 21 'STRIPING' - .8 WHITE STP/PING LB 322 7 440 .... 5 1.5:36.50 $ 1.622.2.5 _ 2 04.52, 22 INSTALL SCC.1.71 FA§IEL SP 32 2.6 6 161 48 5 166 40 3 SUEFFOTAL 50TH STREET At-40 KIMBRO AVENUE .... 1E7,402.67 $ 164,314,80 5 13.057.67/ TOTAL COMPENSATING CHANGE ORDER NO 1 5 459.524.95 5 4.62,845.94- -$-(9,515.154 UNIT CONTRACT QUANTITY CONTRACT AMC LINT NET 121111 PP ICE OLLANTITY TO DATE wourn TO DAra (4,1ANGE 'ES 42; .276 OCT 433 36 .80 25/ 1.511.07 3 758.67 12.3.6553, 4'8 S 183 38I 591 -7-- 04,7 ED 3 53 SO _7 648.40 311 70.6 55.6252 5 282 57 966.60 ,467.101, 40,587229 597228 Fag§ 0 oor',1-4/ The right ighia. The right papple, The right highpihi,iii 444 Cedar Street, Se15CCi Saint Fad. MN 551C1 1651)29244E1 (651 ,,29,2-opaa Fax Proj, No, 14732,001 Cert. Nu, 40 St, Paul, MN, November S 2011 To City of Lake Elmo. Minnesota This CertifiesHardrives. For 2011Street and \Voter Oualit\ Imnrovements Is entitled to Fort' o Thousand Two Hundred Ten Dollars and 53/100 ---------------------- being 4t0 estimate for partial payment on contract with yOU dated 19 Reeei \ecl payment in full ()Cabo \ Certitiettte. Hardrives, Inc. 2011 TKDA Larry D. Baser, P.E. RECAPITULATION OF ACCOUNT Owner Contractor (S42.210,53) CONTRACT PLUS EXTRAS PAYMENTS CREDITS Contract price pius eua S 469.524,99 All previous payments All previous credits Compensating, Citanite Order (6.679.35) Credit No. 33 33 AMOUN CERTIFICATE Totals Credit Balaiwzi Tocre alter payment cftiiii; i CP:111:: 462.345.64 S 420.635.11 4)210.53 462_845.64 S 462,345..64 S 46-).345.6-1 I S 4n Employee Ov.oeo Cornp.,yy Promcling Arfinv,-26ve Actiri ai'd Equal Opporfunry 2011 IK. Etwiners-Arciiitects-Planners Saint Paul. -N1irtnesoIa 55101 PERIODICAL ESTIMATE FOR PARTIAL PAYMENTS Estimate No, 4F Period Ending November 8 20 11 Pane 1 of 1 Proj. No, 14732.001 Contractor Hardrives, Inc. Original Contract Amount S469,524.99 Project 2011 Street and Water Quality Imorovements Location Ciry of Lake Elmo. Minnesota oralContract Work Completed S 462.845.64 Total Approved Credit,; S 0.00 T owl Appro vett Extra Work C ompletc:d 0,00 Approved Extra Orders Amount Completed 5 0,00 Total Amount Earned This Estimate Le::,,; Approved Credi S 0.00 Les.. 0 '-o Retainc1 S 0.00 Less Previous Payments S 420,635.11 Total Deduction.: S Amoum Dth±Th E. Contractor • Hardrives, Larry Dolwer. P.E. Date Dart //it ,/,// 462.845.64 420,635.11 42,210.53 ESTIMATE NO 46 1025-44. 103.06,-13.42r E, :3,11 2'01 STRE351 ,54-,13 ',PATER DUALITY 332-3301.552,1ENTE LARTE 31 MC 7,1,3237,ESOTA TKOE, PROTECT ND 14"32.0 uNiT UNIT CONTRACT QUANTITY CONTRACT 17E14 ;-.r.liccu,,,,::2z. : s jA"OMCcuATtszai NO DESCRIFTICIS PRICE QUANTITY TO DATE TARTAN MEADOWS NEIGHBORHOOD 1 I,1.0.51LLfATIN 'LS 4 532 . 335 1 1 3 31 52 331 25 S ei 62 32 25 2 ?RAFE IC CONTSCL LS 1 RES SS S 7-2-25.23 22 2 SiLT FENCE i.F ces 221- 2.126 36:12 3 $ . 4 INILEIPR,DiECTION EA __ EC 62 14 4 2 1.352 46 S 1.353 46, 5 G11231.31OUT PAVEMENT ALL T7ES LF 2 12 ' 312 67. 2 c 175133 E 1 442 SE E 447,1211.426 .23 D123.115'S 01,F E X-s' 97su4i4N0ic,5 P11JEMENT 'ORSJES.IAYS 65 c ..ccs _ '39 2 56 50. ii- 1,243 ca , E3 REMOVE-5. DISPOSE CF s xs‘7 i Bisur,v Ntc,'',= o,s .4.\,,ErvIENT .FLDMEt SOeg 2 11,33 13,1 3.§ .._. 542 53 3 P)'3 5 REFL I7DVE DISPOSE OF EXIST CON'S:PETS PAYEMENT .8.1RIVW EAYS" SY S SUSGR-C A.DE ORRECT:ON SY 6 38 '33" 2 2212. 2e5 . s i 1 932 00 $ 73 '2RECLE-31,1 ER EIL AND EASE I2A72RIAL:5 3-41•25SY DEP11-1 3 272 19 2344 13294 S 15 425 23 _ 3 161 435 2. II HAUL OUT 'AC ESS MILLINGS L'W CY s... cp . ca4 S'ce _s c 504 03 16: 12 SU3GFE.A2.13. PREPARAT:DN 2F 9 F-CLAL1E.0 SUFESSOE _ „ RS 40 44 r." 3 10 "51 47 5 10.781.47 . 13 '23.50 TYPE LVS SITIJMINONS NON-WIN EARG CO! TN RSE 220 313 _ 4695 " 7297 , , 12.256 1 a7,..s:63.1s... s 971:141.37, 14 2'4153 TYPE L.V4 BIT1031IN0I.15 WEARING COURSE T..!1.1 2 51 312 1 531" 511 ess ..-,..,s,_..: cS-.:47674:7 3 53 360-35 15 aiTur1,-;"...)LIS MRTPrmAL FoR TACK C2 14 50 775 3 1.340 E10 5 1 65a 50 OAT GRL. IT: SISS.Q TY, PP. LY,P1 BITUMINOUS 21ER CGLIRSE 574I552 _ SY 15 PS214 3253 5 3419 51 $ 4 313 22. 17 , SAW S SEAL STREET 'I37 INTERVALS; LF 2 OS 34E3 433 3 7.273.20 S 5:737 55 5 ADJUST CRTEN EWEN 81 ,NSTALL GONCRETE WII.GS 51" 27 "2 5 3 7.45. 57 51 3 7 :'5 EA , D,S 13 REPAIP, CATING AND ADJUST CATC18 BASIN12, INSTALL CONCRETE 'I'iNGS EA 8022 31 0 3 6061 212 ADJUST ISIS'Ip-IGLE 2585E3 . , " 5 425.24 S 1231363.3131 . $ 458 2-'SI B"CONCRETE DRIVE EA 45E523 SY 7- 45 :11 134 0 ,‘'..779: :2* 22 CONCRETE CURE OJT PPR RAIN GL,RON; EEA 03 212433 3 RI; RA; 1.`,ITE IGEOY,TP..E PAER1C cy - 6212 2-1 S 24 DITCH GRADINC 4 . 5,- 233 53 2, 13 " a-17 '.322 233' 230 1323 4450 30 cc ileli72R,T .424P PLA5ET01-1-3C42 DY 1.6 6.2 5-.. 3117 5 8821 12 S 63764 'i2' ISE sscscif.G. EIRTILiZER AND VIGGO FREER EILANKET SY SED$ 1.722 5.S$ y S.11 SE .15 27 761iN72: S'Y 145 2 73 4 354 2466 S 1 i .735 EC 3 6.70; 53 SUBTOTAL TAR'i AN MEADOWS NEIGHBORHOOD $ 262.132.40 5 257,943.61 DAVID NELSON ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD 1,095425,7 LS 1 '539 36 1 3 1 3:02E3 S '1 624.85 2 TRAFEIC COSTS'._ LS 7576 21,12 1 3 I ces sc, 5 . 2129 a ST RENGE LP 2 " 263 4 NLETPRCTECTON 02FS5 2 2 5 ' 28. 4936473 Ss i7-4 6 SAVES iCU" PAVELIENT ,ALL TYP, LF 2 15 1-33 ES 6 350 45 5 1E2.523 6 RE.11,1131,E 3 DID -POSE OP. EIRST SI'M U8-1CUS PAVEMENT :D "1:PL IEAY S.. S1`(: A sy: -7 12 REM2.Oya DISRDSE DIP EyJST SITLIM1NOUS. PAVEMME ENT "FLUEA $ ..... .. .. 1221 65 E:2275 2 P.0 13131.761E 5. 0IE;CS.EOF EXIST °DISCRETE PAVEMENT "DIV,v-z$,,,,,",,,,s; SY ET EP 2'9 ES 2 13 1: 27 ; .SUBGRADE CORRECTION SY 2 5r3 ;.›27660 2 , ..,9: ... cc s ,c .ci_c,.,-7,1 EX EIT AI.,D BASE MATERIALS Es"NCH ISE4-1H -s' S RC 2 , 750 53. 61 2.2620 TO S 22,122 C3 1-1 HAUL OUT EXCESS 12112.1iNGS L'i 01 P.18 101 11 S 121 20 5 . 12 SUBGRACE PREPARATION C' PE C LAW122 SDREACE RS _ 2616 12 6 5 5 --3-373215 .-351-..5152 27212 622 12 2.303 TYPE LA/3 EITUMINDUS 54ON-154EARING 3303S5 TN _:".7,?. , eti 24e 272 c s Is..4a”,e s 1,2 S16 27 '4 2333 T`3FE 1.114 51T6231116-2:US 03E.4311222 i:::ouP, s.a ccccs e9 sc:7 4 2:4 $ 11 113.'3 ''' 12 715.12 12 6 4 75 ,2624 _ 73 15 SITULT;NOMAT US ERIAL PQR TACK COAT GAST _ 3 121 , 160 232 439.35 27 3 - siisC s cc cc sc TYPE LV4 EITL3.14i0LIS 1,1iPAR (8 01_"F.SE DR VES SY la35 2? .... ,17 S,I.1.1s 8.. BEAL STREET i-481 INTSRVALS, Li' 7 39. 250 722 3_ 752 .1.0 3 1 511. 07 to 4c1.155c CATCH D,a.it4 .E; INSTALL CONCRETE V1iNGS 43E43 ,'' L _ S , 5E352' _ 5 1.120 8S,, 1118 REP4 I ',CAST 1 NG AND ADJUST CATCH E1P,S"'I S INST6L1812O1,C.RETS WINGS ET", 0 r ' :}.5 841.69 S , 2° 5""CDISCRET171 psivs s.i s4t.es- _ 53 711 23 0 3 1 153 35 5..... ...2 ...... 2" (3dNCP,; 3E 7.0243 CUT FOR R;IN GAR c zr.; EA 2 235 22 2 2 51 39.1 72 3 22 595332 22 CIITCR c-RACING LP 31°' 61 : L.57 13, 3 53.90 21 .1D72:0 CS IN -PORT AND P1,1.1818: TORSOS. CS 4 56 5 221 60 16 3 06I E254222 452 26 24 SEE3FE ANG RT:LiDER,61,11 00,0 PET LEER Pi_11NKSY 1 „18._ 7.$r2y8,- z,23B, P2 '5' 9 CO 5 25 SODEANG Si` . .... .. 328 5 1 433 70 6 '3673 63' SUBTOTAL oc-ilp NELSON ESTATES Nic[ccrisor:H000 s 39.98P 92 $ 40,267.20 513TH STREET' AND 6,1k1p12Q33.VEN3E . .... 1 mpect 12.9912014 IS _ 3 77T.i.3 1 3 crs ...:cs 5 3 7275 33 .. .. 2 TRAP' cr 06tT66c, LS 2303 50 1 3 6197236 5 9262. 792 3 SILT FENCE- 75 cc .,, . coo c c 269 31-21 3 CI FAR ANO, 16636223 TREE .632 5 22732 52.2 S 4 7123 83 5 S1-2M3L72 13A236.61EN2714:, TYF,E LF 2.1.5 lcc - IE.': --2, ,-,03.00 zi 233 '25 2 REMOVE. 37. 2.122106-6 OF 2221S73 817121,1654-U$ 56121217207 SY , 29 1 037 105" 3 1.37543 5 1 376 46 7, 0E1.I0VE 2. DiSPOSE OF 3,7IST B17121.1111111LiS PAVEMENT iDFIVELVAIS S0 4 33: 8 25 33 21912 5 1211222 S COMMON EXCAVATION :CV' :P.. 06 . _71; 284' 2E04 6 2 144 '61•S 3 72,144,35 0 SUFGRADE 304,R36.710-31N SO -3-0*E .. T',9§...;) . icec, 5 4.8.',31 63 Si 4E51 50 u.... ,.. 12: SUBGRADE PREPARATION OP GRAVEL 'SURFACE RS " ED 03 366 _ , 38 36,51310 00 2 - 62840,93. , 11_ ,PLACis 21 6,22:,,,,TicT P,-E.-DLAIro MATERIAL 2133022 01235263 SIPES , ,,LE: CAE 1 00 1 ,2763. 1- ' 2.113.00 S ,4T6 ? 1c ,.34.:C T rPE 2.1,22 BIT14.2211.0J162 NON-3,22222221N3 COL2R2-.21 rt.. ......:3_91.4 ' 23, $ 29 9.25 25 $ 20 ac.... CEcr :13 2562 TYPE 12232 6120121722,25 1.232629.5-1N2.2201.1112,2E T12 „ 62 74 522i 1 203 Si 30 48874 3 61,344 ER • A B371,12,1i771052 MATERiAL FOR TA' 0 COAT GAL 2 ' 4 5.54 5555 5 1.075 52 72 _ _ „ 535 632 :222 TYPE L1.23 alTO12112,29,25 1,232,62.12 couRFF, tcp.y......srr . . S'e :5 ec ;cc 039 5 5 553 523 S 1 7'60 43 • 5 GUARDRAIL 1619002 TYP,6 6227 pR., 6362 L' 3,. ': C 212 121 7 2.25 32$ .,5 , , 7 5252 CO s CLASS 5 .15?c,:,754p.:5656TESHDULDER)N3 : 22229 CRUSHES:1 21MESTONE TN 17 32 2231 2124 5 3, 2'56.22 _6 3.555 72 b. D4T21373251-DING 4 F3 10. 72 ,23 22 3 _216_222_ 3 225 29 22 S252,Oi752. FERTILIGERAND '031320D FIEER 2-0,:ENKET SL _ __ _ 2 16 222 724 5 5555.051 75 1.642 50 23 STR143333 - 4" YELL:2,101 GTR1PING LE * -6 3: 7 a,r.. :275 S 510 3.12 3 .532.33.50 21 SORIP11:21,73 : 33 1.76-41TE 27f61F16.2.3 56 72 22 7 447: 77234 2 1 536 -,-;,) a 1 532 26 :2 NETAL:2 SIGN PANEL 3,527 r 2E .5 32 161.42 2 151 4. SUBTOTAL 60131 STREET AND isi1i16R0 AVENUE 5 167,402.67 $ 164,314,80 TOTAL, ESTIMATE NO. 17 3 466,524,59 $ 452.845.64 Pape t ELMO' AY OR , c NCR_ C T V DATE: CONSENT ITEM #: 4 MOTION as part of consen 04/03/2012 AGENDA ITEM: 2012 Street and Water Quality Improvements (DeMontrevil Ee-Highlands Area) — Award Engineering Services Contract SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested, as part of its consent agenda, to consider awarding the Professional Engineering Support Services Contract for the 2012 Street and Water Quality Improvements (DeMontreville-Highlands Area) to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. in the estimated not to exceed amount of $33,375. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent AgenckL STAFF REPORT AND .BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On March 6. 2012, following a public improvement hearing, the City Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2012.Street and Water Quality Improvements to improve the streets in the DeMontreville Highlands Area. The City Engineer prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Engineering Support Services that includes the preparation of the plans and specifications; plan printing, distribution and bidding services; limited construction administration support to the City Engineer; and construction staking, FOCUS Engineering will provide all resident and council communication. conduct all public meetings. coordinate the work associated with the rain garden program, and will lead the construction administration and construction observation for the project. FOCUS will also oversee the project design and quality control review, prepare the Contract Documents, master specifications and complete field storm sewer inspections to identify work to be incorporated with the project plans. The RFP was sent to the five firms in the City's recently formed General Municipal Engineering Consultant Pool, including Bolton & Menk, FOTI-I Infrastructure, Stantec, Stevens, and TKDA. The proposals were received and ranked on the basis of: • Project Team Qualifications, page 1 -- City Council Meeting April 3, 2012 2012 Street and Water Quality Imp L ..ments (DeMontreville-Highlands Area) — Award Engineering Services Contract Consent Agenda Item 4 Understanding and experience with similar projects. Understanding the scope of work and the roles and responsibilities of the Consultant. Collaboration skills and responsiveness demonstrated during the RFP Submittal process, Engineering Fees. The attached Table 1 summarizes the fees proposed by each consultant, ranging from $25,875 (211 hours of work effort) to $56,948 (530 hours of work effort). Each proposal includes a detailed breakdown of the hours and tasks by personnel assigned to the project; together with the hourly billing rates. expenses and total fees. Engineering Fees are subtotaled for each project phase including Plans and Specifications, Bidding, and Construction Support Services (including construction staking). The City Engineer is recommending a contract be awarded to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Stantec has assigned a highly qualified team appropriate for the level of work required for this project, they were engaged and responsive throughout the proposal preparation process, they have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the work to be performed by them, and they were the lowest cost. Staff was concerned about the low number of construction staking hours in the Stantec proposal, however after normalizing the staking hours they remained the lowest cost proposal. The City Engineer is recommending that the contract include the additional construction staking hours requested by staff to retain the level of service requested by the City Engineer. This increases the Stantec Fee Estimate to $33.375. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above staff report and background information, the City Council is respectfully requested to consider awarding, as part of the Consent Agenda, the Professional Engineering Support Services Contract for the 2012 Street and Water Quality Improvements (DeMontreville-Highlands Area) to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. in the estimated not to exceed amount of $33,375. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda to further discuss, deliberate and/or. if appropriate, amend the recommended motion prior to taking action. If done so. the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to Approve the Professional Engineering Support Services Contract for the 2012 Street and Water Quality improvements (DeMontreville-Highlands Area) to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. in the estimated not to exceed amount of S33,375." fas amended and/or modified at tonight's meetine" ATTACHMENTS: . Table 1: Proposal Cost Summary -- page -- City Council Meeting April 3, 2012 Street and Water Quality Improvements (Det, Areville-Highlands Area) — Award Engineering Services Contract Consent Agenda Item 4 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if renzoved from the Consent Agenda); - Questions from Council to staff...... ...... .......,.. ...... ........... - Call for Motion. if appropriate ......... ........ .............. - Discussion ( if needed). ...... ....... ..... ....... - Action on Motion (if needed) . ...... Mayor Facilitates Mayor & City Council ....... Mayor Facilitates ....... Mayor Facilitates CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA DeMontreville-Highlands Area - 2012 Street & Water Qaulity Improvements Project No. 2012.123 DATE: March 29, 2012 TABLE NO, 1 PROPOSAL COST SUMMARY Consulting Firm Total Engineering P&S Bidding Construction STANTEC Consulting Services, Inc. $25,875 $15,260 $2,195 $8,420 TKDA, Inc. $39,800 $24,700 $1,500 $13,600 Bolton & Menk, Inc. $46,946 $23,830 $3,080 $20,036 FOTH Infrastructure $53,400 $30,900 $3,600 $18,900 Stevens Engineers $56,948 $38,174 $2,788 $15,986 iAYR COU CIL Ct N C T DATE: 04/03/2012 CONSENT ITEM #: 5 RESOLUTION as part of Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM: Municipal State Aid System Revision — Resolution Establishing and Designating DeMontreville Trail as a Municipal State Aid Street SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer Kyle Klatt, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Resolution No. 2012-XXX, Establishing, Locating and Designating., DeMontreville Trail, from CSAH 35 to Trunk Highway 36, as a Municipal State Aid Street. No specific motion is needed, as this is recommended to be part of the overall approval of the Consent Agenda, STAFF REPORT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Washington County and the City of Lake Elmo entered into an .Agreement on April 19, 2011, for the jurisdictional Transfer of County Road 13B/DeMontreville Trail North. The transfer, from the County to the City, was finalized on December 31, 2011, upon the County fulfilling the terms of the agreement. Pursuant to State Aid Rules. a County Road Turnback may be added to the City's Municipal State Aid System and is not counted toward the City's 20% statutory mileage limitation. Therefore, the City may request the Turnback to be added to their MSA System to generate additional funding needs over and above the allowable mileage allocation. DeMontreville Trail serves as a major collector road in the City's Transportation network; therefore, Staff is recommending adding the 2.15 Miles of DeMontreville Trail North. from CSAH 35 to Trunk Highway 36 to the municipal state aid system. A location map is attached for your referenced. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above staff report, the City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part of tonight's Consent Agenda, Resolution No, 2012- XXX, Establishing, Locating and Designatink, DeMontreville Trail, from CSAH 35 to Trunk Highway 36, as a Municipal State Aid Street. City Council MeetinL,, April 3. 2012 Municipal State Aid System Revision — Resolution Establishing DeMontreville Trail as a Municipal State Aid Street Consent Agenda Item 74 5 Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to remove this item from the Consent Agenda, table this item for future consideration, or further discuss, deliberate and/or, if appropriate, amend the recommended motion prior to taking action, If the latter is done so. the appropriate action of the Council following such discussion would be: "Move to approve Resolution 2012-XXX, Establishing, Locating and Designating DeMontreville Trail, from CSAH 35 to Trunk Highway 36, as a Municipal State Aid Street land as amended and/or modified at tonight's meeting]." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2012-XXX 2. Location Map — DeMontreville Trail. from CSAH 35 to Trunk Highway 36 3. State Aid Office Approval Letter, dated March 12, 2012 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS Of renzoved from the Consent Ap.enda): Questions from Council to Staff ......... ...... ............... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion, if Appropriate..„...... ...... ........ .......... Mayor & City Council Discussion/Comments. ........ ......,.......„ .... ........ .................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate ..... ........ Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion........... ........ . ..... ....... ....„ .............. Mayor Facilitates CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS WHEREAS, pursuant to MN Statute 163.11, Washington County has transferred all that par! of County Road 13B,DeMontreville Trail between CSAH 35 and Trunk Highway 36 to the City of Luke Elmo: and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo agrees to the jurisdictional trans ,r of County Road 13B/DeAlontreville Trail pursuant to the Agreement lb,- the Transfe. of C.'ountv Road 13B/DeMontreville Trail, dated April 19, 2011: and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo agrees that all conditions of the Transfer Agreement have been met by Washington County: and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is requesting that all that part of DeMontreville Trail, between CSAH 35 and Trunk Highway 36. be designated a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 17' RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the DeMontreville Trail, between CSAH 35 Lind Trunk Highway 36, be and hereby is, established, located, and designated a Municipal State .4id Street subject to the approval of the C0171111iSSiOner ofTransportation of the State of Minnesota, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City, Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to Ibrward two certified copies of this resolution t© the C0171171iSSiOner of Transportation fOr consideration, and upon approval of the designation of said roads or portion thereof that same be constructed, improved and 177ainlailled as Cl Municipal State Aid Street of the City of Lake E11770, to he numbered and known as (to he provided bv the Office of State Aid). Resolution No. .201 Adopted by the Council this 31-u1 cluy of April, 2012, Date: ATTEST: Dean A. Zuleg,er City Administrator 2012 CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: Dean A. Johnston Mayor Resolution No. 2011-XXX Boat launch 40th St N Z a) 34th St N dN Project Location Demontreville Trail North - County Road 13B Proposed Reconstruction Project NES0, MilInCS.Vta Dei,:fartrinerif of Transportation Mkt, M E 0 State /Siff for Laical Tranapartation Triffision Sara ffCe, rftf, Hass 395 fano }fr.:Irani Ififarfarrani Si Pau ff in fn.:: I ff ff 'fr March 12, 2012 TO: Mr. Jack Griffin Lake Elmo City Engineer 3973 Northview Terrace Eagan, MN 55123 Jack.g-riffin@)focusengineeringinc.com ,,Pffass .; (frf aefff arinff Fsfr S'ffroi arfranfrOfif FROM: Marshall Johnston (651) 366-3815 Municipal State Aid Needs Manager SUBJECT: Municipal State Aid Designations and Revocations The following Municipal State Aid Street designations will be approved when the City Council resolution is received: MSAS 249 DeMontreville Trail North- CSAH 35 to TH 36 (2.15 miles of County Road 13B turnback to the city) The following Municipal State Aid Street revocations will be approved when the City Council resolution is received: None Requested The following documents must be submitted before further processing can occur: A Commissioner's Order Nsi I I follow after the City Council resolution is received and approved by the Commissioner. Comments: If the City Council resolution is received by the DSAE before May 1, 2012, routes designated can receive needs in 2012. Include the road data with the normal computer needs update. Also include the revisions on the Certification of Mileage due in January 2013. If you have any questions, contact your DSAE or Marshall Johnston at (651) 366-3815 for instructions. An Available Mileage 0.17 + Revoked Mileage 0.00 Designated Mileage 0.00 Remaining Available Mileage 0.17 2.15 2011 Certified Mileage County Road Turnback equal opportunity employer C: Users \ FOCUSJ WG Docu inents'Shared'CLI ENTS \r,La e Elmo \ 3-Streets & M SA Municipal State Aid System \ System Rcvisions 20 I 2 System Revisions',Lake Elmo l 201 2.docx This jurisdictional transfer of former CR 13B to the city is not included within the city's 20% statutory mileage Ihnitation. An cc. District State Aid Engineer File equal opportunity employer C:11.1sers FOCUSJWG Docu ments Shared CLIENTS Lak e Elmo13-Streels MSA\Municipal State Aid System \System Revisions120 12 System Revisions Lake Elmo I 201 2docx CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012-xx A RESOLUTION RELATED TO 2012 ASSESSMENTS TO WASHINGTON COUNTY BE 1T RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo. Minnesota, the attached list of 3 parcels may be removed from the 2012 assessment roll due per the attached Washington County abatement forms. APPROVED by the Lake Elmo City Council on this 3'd day of April, 2012. By: ATTEST: Dean Zuleger City Administrator Dean A. Johnston Mayor City of Lake Elmo Parcels to be removed from 2012 Assessment File Updates as of 4.2.2012 Year Address PID Type Amount Assessed OACE Acres 2nd Addn Lot 14 09.029.21.13.0009 Utility 438.22 2011 3572 Kelvin Court 14.029.21.23.0006 Utility 190.00 2011 2377 Legion Ln N 24.029.21.42.0004 Street 1,750.00 2010 2,378.22 ] Worksheet #: Owner's Name Corporation 14 Owner's Name Owner Namc (piCaseP Owner's Mailing Address 8374 Windbreak Trail Ciry Lake Elmo n WASHINGTON COUNTY ASSESSMENT DIVISION APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT - GENERAL FORM CLASSIFICATION / DISASTER CREDIT / SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS State MN IM S.)375.192 Assessment Year: 2011 Payable Year: 2012 APPLICANT Soc, Sec, ID Phone Cell Soc. Sec. /Fed ID Phcme CeII Soc. Sec. /Fed ID Phone CeII Property Address (if different from mailing address) OACE Acres 2nd Addition Lot 14 Zip City State 55042 Lake Elmo MN DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1 Property ID Number MP Number 09.029.21 13.0009 Legal Description of Property City or Township OACE ACRES 2nd ADD Lot 14 Subdivision Cd 37546 Lake Elmo ASSESSOR'S ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE Original: Land EMV Improvement EMV Land EMV Improvement EMV Applicant's Statement of Facts: Revised: Total Total Zip 55042 School District # TAG 622 Classification Classification Applicant's Request: Please abate the special assessment for the delinquent utilites. A change in property classification resulted in an erroneous billing, The amount to be abated is $438.22 I Applicant's Signature: rf!- Date: 3 /z 7.1( z_ Note: Minnesota Statute's 1988, Section 609.41, "Whoever, in making any statement, oral or written, which is required or authorized by law to be made as a basis of imposing, reducing, or abating any tax or assessment, intentionally makes any statement as to any material rnatter which the maker of the statement knows is false may be sentenced, unless otherwise provided by law, to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than S3.000.00 or both. Note: Must include City/Township Resolution for reductions on assessments Note: Must include Fire report for Local Option Disaster Credit Rev 5/10 WASHINGTON COUNTY ASSESSMENT DIVISION APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT - GENERAL FORM CLASSIFICATION / DISASTER CREDIT / SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Worksheet #: Owner's Name (please not or type) Melissa & Ryan Pfannenstein Owner's Name Owner's Name Owner's Mailing Address PO Box 25066 City Woodbury Property ID Number 14.029.21.23.0006 Legal Description of Property I Park Meadows Lot 3 Block 1 Subd Cd 02225 Original: Land EMV Revised: Land EMV Applicant's Statement of Facts: APPLICANT Soc. Sec. d ID Soc Sec. /Fed ID Soc. Sec /Fed ID (m.s.) 375.192 Assessment Year: 2011 Phone Phone Phone Payable Year: 2012 Property Address (if different from mailingaddress) 3572 Kelvin Court State Zip City MN 55125 Lake Elmo DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY MP Number State MN City or Township School District # Lake Elmo 834 ASSESSOR'S ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE Improvement EMV Improvement EMV Cell Cell Cell Total CI , ifieation' Total Classification Applicant's Request: Please abate the special assessment for delinquent utilitise in the amount of $190.00. This amount was assessed in error. Zip 55042 TAG Applicant's Signature: Date: Note: Minnesota Statute's 1988, Section 609.41, "Whoever, in making any statement, oral or written, which is required or authorized by law to be made as a basis of imposing, reducing, or abating any tax or assessment, intentionally makes any statement as to any material matter which the maker of the statement knows is false may be sentenced, unless otherwise provided by law, to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000J00 or both, Note: Must include City/Township Resolution for reductions on assessments Note: Must include Fire report for Local Option Disaster Credit 1 1 Rev 5/1C irksheet Owner's Name (p!ease prin Garold & Mary Felland Owner's Name Owner's Name Owner's Mailing Address 2377 Legion Ln N City Lake Elmo VV`ASI4IN- ,'ON COUNTY ASSESSMENT DIVISION APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT - GENERAL FORM CLASSIFICATION / DISASTER CREDIT / SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ype) Property ID Number 24.029.21.42.0004 Legal Description of Property EDEN PARK Lot 4 Block 1 Subdivision Cd 37180 Original: _and EMV 1 Revised: Applicant's Statement of Facts: APPLICANT Soc /Fed ID Soc. Sec. /Fed ID Soc. Sec, /Fed ID (M.S.) 375.192 Assessment Year: 2010 Payable Year: 2011 Phone Cell Phone Ccl I Phone Cell Property Address (if different from mailing address State Zip City MN j 55042 Lake Elmo DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY MP Number City or Township Lake Elmo ASSESSOR'S ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE improvement EMV improvement E Total State MN School District 4' 622 Classification Zip 55042 TAG Applicant's Request: Please abate the $1,750 street assessment that was assessed in 2010 to begin payment in 2011 as it was assessed in error. Their payment was received 9/2110 and they should have been removed from the list but were not. The City of Lake Elmo refunded the Fellands for the amount withheld in error in 2011 ($283.00) and the County needs to remove this from their tax roll as soon as possible. Applicant's Signature: /1 Date: Z.- Note: Minnesota Statute's 1988, Section 609.41, "Whoever. in making any statement, oral or written, which is required or authorized by to he made as a basis of imposing, reducina, or abatina any tax or assessment, intentionally makes any statement as to any material ...atter which the maker of the statement knows is false may be sentenced, unless otherwise provided by law, to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000.00 or both. Note: Must include City/Township Resolution for reductions on assessments Note: Must include Fire report for Local Option Disaster Credit Rev 3/1C, AY AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: c U C C CTI DATE: REGULAR ITEM #: 6 DISCUSSION/MOTION 4/03/2012 Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Extension — Joint Sewer Project with the City of Oakdale Jack Griffin, City Engineer Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer Kyle Klatt. City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting Council direction in regards to an invitation from the City of Oakdale to participate in a ,joint sanitary sewer extension project along the shared City border of Olson Lake Trail. The City Engineer will present a brief overview of the Oakdale project and the request being made, together with an update on the additional information obtained at the Council's direction. This agenda item is intended for Council discussion and direction to staff for this initiative. STAFF REPORT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION.: The City of Oakdale is proceeding with a sanitary sewer extension project along Olson Lake Trail to provide municipal sewer service to Oakdale properties residing along the west side of the road. The Oakdale project will initially be constructed for a length of 550 feet to serve the two properties located at 4656 and 4678 Olson Lake Trail. The sewer main will be placed so that it can be extended further north at some future date to provide municipal sewer service to an additional 9 properties. See attached Project Map. There are 15 existing residential homes located in Lake Elmo along the easterly side of Olson Lake Trail that will be immediately adjacent to this sewer line once it is constructed. The City of Oakdale has approached Lake Elmo staff to inquire if the City of Lake Elmo has any interest in pursuing this as a joint project by adding the Lake Elmo properties to municipal sewer service. Staff has briefly reviewed the City files regarding individual sewage treatment systems for the subject properties and has also contacted the residents to determine the level of potential interest in having municipal sewer service. This information is summarized in the attachments to this agenda report and will be further summarized at the meeting. City Council Meenng .son Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Extension April 3. 2012 Joint Sewer Project with the Ciry of Oakdale Consent Agenda Item 4 6 Should the Council wish to pursue a joint feasibility study to further investigate the issues and costs for a joint sewer project is it estimated that a feasibility report can be completed for about $8,000. This amount would be shared equally between the City of Oakdale and the City of Lake Elmo. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above staff report, the City Council is respectfully requested to consider the request for a joint sanitary sewer extension project with the City of Oakdale along Olson Lake Trail, and provide direction to staff for responding to the City of Oakdale. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Project Map 2. Lake Elmo Property Map 3. Property Owner Information and Comments (UPDATED) 4. Property Septic System Information on File at City Hall SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ...... ....... ....... City Administrator - Report/Presentation of Item ........... ......... ..... City Engineer Questions from Council to Staff ..... .............. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion, if Appropriate__ ....... Mayor & City Council ............ Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate....................................................Mayor Facilitates Action on Motion______________ ...... ........ ..... Mayor Facilitates Olson Lake Trail Petition for Sanitary Sewer to Serve 4656 & 4678 744 5156 1655187 4997497 1956 �1. 4177466 077490 750 ;130 749 r3627445 7481 at;(} CP `:?.3() G 5231 5200 y 5201 5171 !'4tYU 0 5151 1s�1 5131 511 0 5111 5000 5091 529" - 1 507 f) 01 4998 4824 4806 4788 4772 4974 4954 4853 4860 4842 4771 4731 4715 '47004 61 3 4677 4697 4608 4669 0 4644 4623 7555 7545 7525 7535 4550 4538 O V 4526 `,, 7497 74854312 4334 7624 O 0 0 0 "7664 78fita Th48 7640 7632 i fs2al 6051 7816 7808 7818 0 0 0 0 7978 • P 0 0 O c co 7972 8034 0 0 8032 7945 '0 0 8015 © 08038 7934 0 v ,n `n 0 00 000 8048 8056 8066 7 gi T 8051 827 0 N ") - © © 8061 • 0 `t) 8076 8084 0, 8098 0 0 8098 7805 0 0 0 0 8027 - 496 ;, �s�„,,�,� 7831 80170 0 0 4816 04774 7709 0 4599 45604548 4435 4535 7814 7833 n 4430 co � o 0 4460 3 r 0 7721 o&5 8186 8190 0 8290 8270 oo 4460 8264 8258 0 0 8 0 8123 0 80148032 4334, cao 80808110 0 `sa 0 8108 0 g12© 0 8130 0 8164 8181 0 8195 8199 8200 co 4404 4388 oo 4465 4385 0 0 0 8402 8475 8409 8405 6552 854 City of Lake Elmo, Minneosta Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Project - Joint Sewer Project with Oakdale Project No. 2012.107 PROPERTIES TO BE POTENTIALLY SERVED - EACH PROPERTY WAS CONTACTED TO INQUIRE INTEREST IN REGARDS TO MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE PROPERTY OWNER NAME(5) ADDRESS PHONE NO, CONTACT DATE COMMENTS Tony & Diane Haider 4575 Olson Lake Trail 500-9232 3/23/2012 Y Septic System is noncompliant, needs to be replaced, very interested in sewer connection 200of frontage, happy w/ septic system, not interested in sewer connection - concerned w/ upfront Richard Graham 4635 Olson Lake Trail 777-0893 3/12/2012 N costs and quarterly billing Joyce Kvaase 4655 Olson Lake Trail 777-3586 3/12/2012 N 150' of drainfield, 1 person living in home, old system but is working well, not interested at this time Rebecca Taylor 4671 Olson Lake Trail 777-2514 3/13/2012 Y Interested, mound system w/ 2 tanks, would like to not worry about septic, would improve lake Moved in during 2001, not original system, grinder pump would be necessary, interested in sanitary Charles Shultz & Marsha Anderson 4709 Olson Lake Trail 748-9299 3/13/2012 Y sewer connection Daughter (Mary Florence Brink) to Rebuild in 2 yrs and is interested in sewer connection, does not know Catherine Coles 4719 Olson Lake Trail 777-4129 3/13/2012 Y condition of septic system Fred & Carol Sclimiesing 4751 Olson Lake Trail 770-1065 3/13/2012 U Phone 8 not in service, Letter sent out on 3/22/2012 Roy & lune Brogren 4769 Olson Lake Trail 777-3564 3/13/2012 Y Getting house ready for sale, interest in project depends on 5$ cost 1 person living in home, septic system working fine, set back far from the lake, large backyard for Elizabeth Gergen 4823 Olson Lake Trail 777-5547 3/13/2012 N secondary system Thomas & Judith Koppy 4849 Olson Lake Trail 773-2148 3/13/2012 N Not interested, new home butt in 2000, they have area for a back-up system Bruce & Beth Ketzner 4863 01son Lake Trail 426-6308 3/12/2012 Y Put in new tanks last year, interested in sewer connection Dennis & Susan Hawkinson 4891 Olson Lake Trail 770-0220 3/12/2012 Y Aging Septic System, would be interested in sewer connection Richard & Wendy Gimpel 4911 Olson Lake Trail 330-8623 3/12/2012 Y Very excited and interested in a sewer connection Resident installed a new septic system 2 years ago ($20,000 investment), not interested in sanitary John 5effl 4941 Olson Lake Trail 777-5661 3/12/2012 N sewer connection Concerned about the Lake contamination related to septic systems, interested in sanitary sewer Harold & Jane Revoir 7803 50th Street 777-6468 3/12/2012 Y connection Y YES 9 60% N NO 5 33% U CONTACT UNSUCCESSFUL 1 711 15 PRINT DATE: 3/29/2012 City of Lake Elmo, Minneosta Olson Lake Trail Sanitary Sewer Project - Joint Sewer Project with Oakdale Project No. 2012.107 INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEM INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER NAME(5) Nicholas & Joan Winkel Richard Graham Joyce Kvaase Rebecca Taylor Charles Shultz & Marsha Anderson Catherine Coles Fred & Carol Schmiesing Roy & June Brogren James & Elizabeth Gergen Thomas & Judith Koppy Bruce & Beth Ketzner Dennis & Susan Hawkinson Richard & Wendy Gimpel John Seffl Harold & Jane Revoir ADDRESS 4575 Olson Lake Trail 4635 Olson Lake Trail 4655 Olson Lake Trail 4671 Olson Lake Trail 4709 Olson Lake Trail 4719 Olson Lake Trail 4751 Olson Lake Trail 4769 Olson Lake Trail 4823 Olson Lake Trail 4849 Olson Lake Trail 4863 Olson Lake Trail 4891 Olson Lake Trail 4911 Olson Lake Trail 4941 Olson Lake Trail 7803 50th Street PHONE NO. INFO ON FILE YEAR BUILT SYSTEM AGE COMMENTS 779-6389 777-0893 NO 1976 36 777-3586 YES 1979 33 777-2514 YE5 1998 14 Mound System w/ 2 tanks 748-9299 YES 1985 27 Inspected in 2001 at point of sale 777-4129 NO 1974 38 770-1065 YES 1984 28 777-3564 NO 777-5547 YES 1988 24 773-2148 YES 1999 13 426-6308 YES 770-0220 YES 1985 27 330-8623 YES 1995 17 Inspected in 2009 at point of sale 777-5661 YES 2008 4 New system installed in 2008 ($20,000 investment) 777-6468 NO 1973 39 PRINT DATE: 3/14/2012 cfn. OF LAM 1 r-ILtigrn", AY AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: R CO VCIL C CT DATE: 4/3/12 REGULAR ITEM 7 MOTION RESOLUTION 2012-Kk Lot Area (Size) and Width Variances — 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue Kvle Klatt, Planning Director Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator Planning Commission Nick Johnson, Interim City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Steven Weber, 12729 22nd Street North, West Lakeland, MN to allow the subdivision of a 5.11-acre lot al 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. One of the newly created lots would contain an existing home, while a new buildable lot would be created on the northerly portion of the site. A variance has been requested from the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres in a RR — Rural Residential zoning district and the minimum width requirement of 300 feet for lots in this district (the proposed lot widths would be 195 and 95 feet respectfully). The applicant has previouslyrequested a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment on the same property. but has withdrawn that request in favor of the current variance application, The public hearing on the variance application was opened at the February 13, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. and was continued until February 27, 2012 because the applicant was not- able to attend on the prior meeting date. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request based on the draft findings prepared by Staff. The recommended motion to act - on this on this request is as follows: "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2012-AMY denying a request by Steven Weber for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11-acre lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size" BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 'File attached Planning Commission report includes a detailed review of the application along with the original Staff recommendation to the Commission. Should the Council support the Planning Commission recommendation, the attached resolution reflects the findings that were adopted by the Commission. If the Council decides to approve the variance, it vill need to work with staff to develop findings of fact that City Council Meeting Lut Si=e ant, dth Variances — 5577 Lake E11710 Avenue 4 3.'12 Regular Agenda Item t' 7 are supportive of this decision. Staff has suggested how such findings could be constructed under the alternate actions presented below. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT : The Planning Commission reviewed the variance requests at its February 13th and 27111 meetings, and conducted a public hearing on this matter over the course of these two meetings. At the prior hearing, the Commission received public testimony from one neighboring property owner against the granting of the variance and noted receipt of a letter from another adjoining property owner opposed to the variance requests. At the latter meeting. the Commission heard testimony as follows: Eileen Bergman (5500 Lake Elmo Avenue) reviewed the history of the surrounding land, and restated her opposition to the proposed variances and lot split. She expressed concern over setting precedent for other rural property owners to subdivide their land. James DeLaplain. Attorney at Law, representing the applicant, indicted that all of the surroundim., lots are consistent with the lots that would be created through the variance. He disagreed with the draft findings prepared by Staff, and expressed concern that the standards in the code had not properly been applied in this situation, noting: o That the shape of the lot is much more important to determine unique circumstances than lot size. o That the proposed lots would not be any different than surrounding parcels, many of which are 'actually smaller. o That the "adjacent properties and traffic- finding in the staff report does not address the issue of congestion, which is the term referenced in City Code. Steven Weber discussed the history of his family's ownership of the parcel, and noted that the character of the surrounding land is not rural. He discussed future plans for a frontage road in the area. and explained that he would look at other options for the driveway access if needed. The Commission generally discussed the proposed variances. and offered the following comments in support of the staff recommendation: Not being, able to subdivide a lot further than allowed under the zoning regulations does not represent a practical difficulty. It was noted that the lot was created under a 5-acre minimum standard. and could have been subdivided into two 2.5-acre lots if that had been the requirement at the time. The lot was created by the landowner, and therefore any proposed hardship due to the shape of the lot would have been created by the property owner. The proposed variances would take an existing non -conforming lot and create two non- conforming lots, neither of which would come close to otherwise being considered a buildable lot under the Zoning Ordinance. -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting Lot Si=e and Width Fariance.s- ...)57,7 Lake Elmo Avenue 4312 Regular Agenda Item 4 7 The Commission recommended denial of the variance requests, and suggested that Staff revise the first finding to better reflect that the Planning Commission does not consider the creation of a new 2.5-acre parcel within a 10-acre zoning district to be a reasonable use of the property. It was noted that the configuration of the lot does not have any relationship to this first finding because the split of any 5-acre lot in the Rural Residential District would be considered unreasonable. The Planning Commission vote on the recommendation was unanimous, with one abstention. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information, staff report and Planning Commission recommendation, it is recommended that the City Council deny the request from Steven Weber, 12729 22nd Street North, West Lakeland, MN to allow the subdivision of a 5.1I-acre lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size by undertaking the following action "Move to adopt Resolution No. 2012-XYX denying a request by Steven Weber for variances to allow the subdivision ofa 5.11-acre lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two newlots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size" Alternatively. the City Council may consider the other actions that were suggested as part of the Planning Commission report, which includes the following: A. Recommend approval of the variance request, and developing appropriate findings of fact to support this action. These findings would need to address the following: 1 That the inability to subdivide the property will cause practical difficulties for the property owner. and that the proposed subdivision is a reasonable use of the property'. 2. That the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and specifically that the odd shape of the lot and the disconnected area of the parcel make it difficult to use. 3. That the variance will not alter the essentially character of the locality, and that the surrounding properties are similar in size, shape, density, and usage. Furthermore, the sun-oundinP, land is comprised of smaller residential lots and commercial activity and is not rural in character, 4. That the proposed variance will not negatively impact the adjacent properties and traffic in the area. B. Table taking action on the variance in order to request additional information from either staff or the applicants. C. Direct Staff to consider the request as part of a broader Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map amendment that would look at a change to the entire area, and in particular, the other non -conforming lots that were created in this area before the City' s1979 -- page 3 -- City Council Meettni Lot Size (ma dth l'arianc-es 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue 43/12 Regular Agenda Item 7 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This action does not appear to be supported by the City Council based on its discussions concerning the applicant's previous request. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No, 2012-XXX 2. Planning Commission Staff Report (2/27/12 Meeting) 3. Application Form 4. Legal Description 5. Application Narrative 6. Proposed Lot Split Drawing 7. Location Map 8. Septic Site Evaluation Report 9. Washington County Comments 10, Aerial Photograph 11, Lake Elrno Access Analysis Map 12. Letter from Mike and Mary Jo Neuman 13. City Engineer Review Letter 14. League of MN Cities Variance FAQ Sheet SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: introduction of Item . ....... ..... ....... ....... City Administrator - Report/Presentation.......... ..... ...... Director 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 ......... Mayor Facilitates page 4 -- To: From: Meeting Date: Applicant: Owi?er: Location: Zoning: City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Review Planning Commission Kyle K]att, Planning Director 2/27/12 Steven Weber Steven Weber 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue RR — Rural Residential Introductory Information Application The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Steven Weber. Summag: 12729 22nd Street North, West Lakeland, for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11 acres lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. The applicant is seeking to create a new buildable lot while retaining the existing single family residence located at this address. The specific variances that have been requested are as follows: • A variance from the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres in a RR — Rural Residential zoning district. The proposed lots would be 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. • A variance from the minimum width requirement of 300 feet for lots in this district. The proposed lots would be 195 feet and 95 feet in width, which are 105 and 205 feet narrower than allowed in an RR zoning, district. The applicant has previously requested a Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would have allowed the proposed lot split without variances, but decided to withdraw this application after the Planning Commission had completed its review and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council. The review requirements for consideration of a variance are different than those for zoning amendments, and the Planning Commission should keep this in mind while considering the present application. Staff has included the relevant background information from the Commission's previous review in this report, but updated the analysis section to reflect the specific aspects of the variance request and subsequent findings that must be considered. Should the requested variances be approved for the subject property, the applicant would then be able to apply for a Minor Subdivision to officially split the property into two parcels. Property The applicant's property is located along Lake Elmo Avenue approximately one-third Information of a mile south of Highway 36. The property was split from an adjoining parcel to the and Site west owned by the Bergmann family in 1978, and at the time the City Zoning Background: regulations allowed for a minimum lot size of 5 acres. In looking. back through the City records for this parcel, it appears that the request was intended to allow the subdivision of the portion of the property that was not suitable for agricultural purposes to be split off from a larger faun site to create a new residential lot. The current boundaries of the applicant's parcel were therefore the result of the original owner's intent to keep any tillable acreage as part of the larger farm operation, as well as to meet the minimum lot area requirement of 5 acres. The result was the "U" or "C" shaped parcel that is presently owned by Mr. Weber, who inherited the property from his father (who originally purchased the land when it was subdivided). As part of the City's approval of the subdivision, the Bergmann's were required to grant easements to the City over a 60-foot wide segment that is located immediately to the south of the applicant's property. and to further allow the newly subdivided parcel to use this strip of land as its access to Lake Elmo Avenue. The easement agreement that is of record in the City files provides for an emergency vehicle access, installation and maintenance of public utilities, and the provision of public service, but does not otherwise appear to grant any rights of the public to use the property for access purposes. The agreement does provide for an option by the City to acquire this land if it is needed for a public street in the future, but otherwise only describes the potential for a private roadway to be built on this strip of land (not a public road). Shortly after the subdivision was approved, the applicant's father applied for a building permit and constructed the house that is on the site today. This house is located on the southern leg of the "C" shape, about 45 feet back from the Lake Elmo Avenue right-of-way, and centered in the middle of the 96-foot wide semnent. The driveway providing access to the house does cross into the 60-foot wide segment still owned by the Bergmann's. Staff is not aware of any private easements that exist for such access, and would consider this a private matter between the two affected property owners. There are three other single family homes in close proximity to the applicant's property. and all of these are very close to one acre in size. In addition to the residential lots. there are two other parcels of one acre in size that do not have any buildings on them, one of which is owned by the neighboring property owner and the other of which was retained by the Bergmann family. All of these lots were split at a time then the City's (or township) zoning regulations allowed for the creation of these smaller lots. in 1977. the City of Lake Elmo adopted a zoning ordinance that closely followed the township zoning requirements, allowing for 5-acre lots in rural areas. but revised this code in 1979 in conjunction with the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan that changed the standards for rural development areas. The code after 1979 required a minimum lot size of 10 acres in rural areas, which is the standard that is still in place today. Applicable Section 150.017 Variances. Codes: (A -I) Variances. Identifies procedures and requirements for the processing and review of a variance application. Please note that this section was recently updated by the City to comply with revisions to Minnesota State Statutes. Section 154.036 RR — Rural Residential Outlines the general requirements for the RR Rural Residential Zoning District in Lake Elmo, and includes the following minimum requirements: Lot Size: Nominal 10 acres. A 10-acre parcel not reduced by more than 10% and/or a 10-acre parcel located on a corner or abutting a street on 2 sides not reduced by more than 15% due to road right-of-way and survey variations Lot Width: 300 feet Septic Drainfield Regulations: All lots must have at least 1 acre of land suitable for septic drainfields and area sufficient for 2 separate and distinct drainfield sites. Placement of the second required drainfield between the trenches of the first drainfield is prohibited. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Size: 5.11 Acres Existing Uses: Single Family Residence Existing Zoning: RR — Rural Residential Future Land Use: RAD — Rural Agricultural Density Property Identification Number (PID): 01-029-21-23-0001 V'ariance Review: Variance As part of the report concerning a previous zoning request on the applicant's property, Analysis: Staff provided the Planning Commission with information concerning the future land use designation of this site. It was noted that this site is located in a portion of the City that is guided for RAD — Rural Agricultural Density, which represents the bulk of the rural development areas within the City. With the current application. Mr. Weber is not requesting any changes to either the future land use or the zoning classification for the property, and has instead requested a variance from the current zoning requirements for a RR — Rural Residential Zoning District. The RR — Rural Residential Zoning district specifies a minimum lot size of 10 acres and a minimum lot width of 300 feet, and the proposed variance would allow two lots to be created that fall well under both of these requirements. The existing lot is considered a legal non -conforming lot since it was created prior to the adoption of the current standards, and splitting it into two separate parcels would not be allowed without a variance. In this case, the resulting lots would be 7.73 and 7.16 acres smaller than required in the RR zoning district. Moreover, the resulting lot widths would also fall 105 and 205 feet shorter than required. Stqff Review Comments The criteria for consideration of a variance is found in the Zoning Ordinance, which includes the following provision: • A request for a variance from the literal provisions of this chapter may be granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. All requests for variances shall he reviewed in accordance with the required findings listed [below]. A more detailed analysis of the variance findings form Staffis included a little later in this report, The applicant has provided a narrative (attached) describing their request. which includes the following general comments: • The proposed usage if the variance were panted would be consistent with the surrounding lot sizes, shapes, density, and usage. • The existing parcel is very odd in its shape. • The existing configuration of the parcel is inconsistent with the surrounding lot sizes, shapes. density. and usage. • The proposed densities would be consistent with the surrounding land use and would not alter the character of the locality. • The proposed land use and zoning would be in substantial conformity with the policies goals, and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. • The soil has been perk tested and the size of the proposed parcels and soil type allow for a suitable septic system. • The proposed variance would have no impact on an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. • The proposed use under a variance would ot substantially increase the congestion of public streets. • The proposed use under the variance would do nothing to diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood All of the other information that has been submitted is either the same or substantially similar to the materials submitted as part of the previous request. In reviewing the present request for a variance. Staff would like to note that most of the general comments that were provided during the Commission's previous review are relevant as well. In particular Staff is concerned that the proposed variance would allow and aumnent a pattern of development that is contrary to the purpose and intent of the City's Rural Residential zoning requirements. In addition, the creation of smaller lots within rural areas presents numerous planning issues related to traffic. safety, provision of future services. and maintaining the character or rural areas. Staff has also found that the proposed request also does not meet the four criteria that must be met in order for the City to grant a variance. In particular, the applicant's lot was created to meet the minimum district requirements at the time. and the inability to further subdivide the lot does not constitute "practical difficulties". It is not reasonable to allow a subdivision that would otherwise not be permitted on a piece of property that already is five acres smaller than allowed in the underlying zoning district. Staff also does not support the argument that the property is unusable and therefore the City must allow the property to he split. A person's definition of usability can vary substantially from one individual to another, and there are many properties in the City's rural development areas that are larger parcels with large areas that have limited use options (which can be seen as an intentional restriction to help preserve rural areas). The shape of the property clearly is unusual for Lake Elmo, but was created and eventually purchased in this configuration with the clear understanding that only one house could be built on the property. The City Engineer has submitted review comments for consideration by the Planning Commission. and has augmented his previous review by noting additional concerns regarding the location of the driveway and the current and future traffic levels along Lake Elmo Avenue. Lake Elmo Avenue is classified as a Minor Aerial (A) roadway in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and this designation is defined as follows: "Minor arterials also emphasize mobility over property access arid connect cities with adjacent communities and the metropolitan highway system. "A" minor arterials are roadways that are of regional importance because they relieve, expand, or complement the principal arterial system.'' This designation specifically notes that mobility be given emphasis over access along these streets, and in this case, the creation of an additional driveway access to Lake Elmo Avenue would not be consistent with the roadway classification. Please also note the existing and future traffic counts that are included in the Engineer's report. Traffic levels along Lake Elmo Avenue are forecast to increase nearly four times beyond the current amount. and the continued operation of individual driveway accesses along this road segment will present serious safety concerns in the future. Although the County has stated that it will issue a permit for the new driveway, if requested, the County does rely in local jurisdictions to regulate access in accordance with their respective plans since it does not have land use authority over a city like Lake Elmo. Other comments from Staff pertaining to the variance request. some of which were also applicable to the previous request, are as follows: The subdivision of lots less than 10 acres in size that are not otherwise part of an OP development is not consistent with the City's goal of preserving, it rural character. The 10-acre minimum lot size in rural areas has been in place for over 30 years. with the RED zoning representing the only development allowed before the Open Space zoning regulations were adopted by the City in the mid 1990's. Lots less than five acres in size are not as efficient to serve with public services as lots that are planned and developed as part of a broader subdivision. Some of the surrounding properties have been developed as an OP subdivision_ which included plans for providing water and sanitary sewer services. roads, and other utilities. Adding another access to Lake Elmo Avenue is not recommended by the City Engineer, and could present problems for managing traffic in the future. Although the County would issue a new driveway permit for a lot along Lake Elmo Avenue, it is up to the City to plan for its future access needs and to ensure that the overall transportation network is planned in an efficient and safe manner. Considering current traffic levels, and with the increases projected in the Comprehensive Plan for Lake Elmo Avenue, individual driveways will not be a safe option for new homes. The applicant is not losing any rights to use his property in the way it was initially approved by the City, and the lot is already much smaller than would be allowed for a single family home on a separate parcel in this portion of the City (except for OP development lots). There have been no changes to the City since the applicant's lot was originally subdivided that would warrant a consideration of a request to further subdivide this lot. For example, the City has not implemented any transportation improvements near the applicant's property that would provide for more efficient and safe access to this portion of the City. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Commission with a recommendation to deny the applicant's request along with information to support this recommendation. The proposed driveway to serve the new lot would be located along an incline along Lake Elmo Avenue. which would reduce the visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the site and for vehicles that would be stopped and waiting for turn into the property. The City's access spacing standard for the distance between local streets on a Minor Arterial road is !4; mile, and as traffic increases on Lake Elmo Avenue in the future (once the counts exceed 7,500 average daily trips), no direct access for residential driveways is recommended. The attached access analysis map depicts all ofthe present driveway and road connections to Lake Elmo Avenue, which shows 12 existing (and the one proposed) road/driveway accesses over a distance that would support one such connection point under the City's guidelines. • Staff does not support the creation of any new access points along Lake Elmo Avenue unless some of the existing driveways could be consolidated into one new public roadway. For the reasons noted above. Staff is recommending that the Planning Corrunission recommend denial of the variance request. and is proposing findings to support this action in the section that follows. Variance Criteria: An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below. along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicants' request. Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this_ chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the oii'ner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual properly tinder consideration and then Only 14,11C17 it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spit -it and intent of this chapter. Definition of pracrical difficultics - "Practical difficulties- as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the properly in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The language concerning "practical difficulties" is the first standard that must be met in order for the City to consider granting a variance. Under this standard. the Planning Commission would need to find that the subdivision of an existing_ non- conformin2 lot is a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permitted under the zoning ordinance. The appropriate findings for this standard would therefore need to note the subdivision is a reasonable request within a Rural Residential zoning district. Using this standard as a basis. Staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission consider the following: FINDINGS: That the proposed subdivision is not reasonable because the property as it exists can be used for a single family residential home. Reasonable use of the property already exists, and the variance is not needed in order to make use of the parcel under the Rural Residential zoning district requirements. The current confiffuration of the lot is not relevant to the establishment of reasonable use because the lot would not have been usable for a single family home without this additional area. 2. Unique Circunzstance.s The piight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. In order to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the Planning. Commission would need to note those aspects of the applicant's property that would not pertain to other properties within the same zoning classification. In this case. all Rural Residential property is subject to the same area and width requirements, and the current lot presently does not meet these standards. Again, Staff is suggesting some findings that could be considered by the Planning Commission as follows: FINDINGS: That the applicant's property is unique because, the property is able to support a single family home, and the vast majority' of parcels in the Rural Residential zoning district are required to have a larger area than that owned by the applicant. The ability to find a suitable use for the areas outside of the immediate building location is not something that is unique to the applicant's site since the intent of the Rural Residential district is to promote the preservation of open space and rural character. and therefore, the uses and densities allowed in the district are intentionally limited. 3. Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the localityin which the property in question is located. The subdivision of rural residential lots, by definition, changes the character of the City's rural areas by introducing higher densities into areas that have not been planned for more intensive uses. A more formal set of findings related to this standard is suggested as follows: FINDINGS: That the proposed variance ffi alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. The applicant's property is located in a portion of the City that is guided for Rural Agricultural Density (RAD) development. which corresponds to the City's Rural Residential Zoning District. This district requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres. and the applicant's request to create two lots of under 2.5 acres in size represents a substantial departure from the district requirements. Although there are existing non- confonning lots in the vicinity of the applicant's property, the continued subdivision of lots less than 10 acres will continue to alter the character of the area and create a denser, more urban environment in an area that is not intended to be served by municipal water, sewer services. 4. Adjacent properties and traffic. Thc proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of thc public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. A large part of the Staff report above is devoted to transportation and access issues, and based partially on comments from the City Engineer. Staff is suggesting the following findings pertaining to this criterion: FINDINGS: The proposed variance will have a negative effect on adjacent properties and traffic because the proposed driveway to serve the new home would not comply with the City's access management policies and guidelines. in particular, new driveway accesses are discouraged along streets classified as Minor Arterials (such as Lake Elmo Avenue) at the traffic levels that are forecast for this road. The proposed driveway would also fail to comply with the City's use of best management practices for spacing guidelines. which include: minimizing new access locations and reducingleonsolidating existing access points, protecting and improving intersection functional and sight distance areas, and proper design of driveways and intersections. The creation of a new driveway/lot will create a safety concern by adding an access point to Lake Elmo Avenue in a location that has reduced visibility dues to an incline in the roadway. Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request based on the findings noted in items 1- 4 above. Conclusion: Based on the report and analysis provided above, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request by Steven Weber for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11 acres lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. Additional Valley Branch Watershed District did not submit any comments specific to the Information: applicant's variance request, but did note that a Minor Subdivision would require a permit from the watershed district. The City Engineer's comments are included as part of the attached memorandum. Recomm endation: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request by Steven Weber for variances to allow the subdivision of a 5.11 acres lot at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. Commission The Planning Commission should consider the following options with this request: Options: A) Recommend approval of the variance request, and developing appropriate findings of fact to support this action. B) Table taking action on the variance in order to request additional information from either staff or the applicants. C) Direct Staff to consider the request as part of a broader Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Map amendment that would look at a change to the entire area, and in particular, the other non -conforming lots that were created in this area before the City' s1979 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This action does not appear to be supported by the City Council based on its discussions concerning the applicant's previous request. cc: Steven Weber, 12729 22nd Street North. West Lakeland, MN City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM 7 Comprehensive Plan Amendment I Zoning District Amendment 7 Text Amendment LIJ Flood Plain CUP, Conditional Use Permit E Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P,) APPLICANT: STet4ark, (Name) TELEPHONES: (671) 33 (Home) Sa owe ta..) (Name) (Mailing (Mailing Address) Sct ovi.e ad) (1-1,06/..e. FEE OWNER: TELEPHONES: Variance (See below) E Minor Subdivision 0 Lot Line Adjustment ni Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan El Site & Building Plan Review (Home) W-402-r, 01729 a-14 5 r N. ,(.0475+ 01,c AIN SS-05- 054/ (?$-Z)n-1-5(6a (6(1)619-6 5--?S` Fee S E Residential Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat O 01 - 10 Lots O 11 - 20 Lots O 21 Lots or More 0 Excavating & Grading, Permit 0 Appeal LJ PUD (Mailing Address) (Work) (Work) (ZIP) (.) 767— 5Z 7i (Mobile) (Fax) (Mobile) (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description): 55-77 k-e_ Et r/kr A v•e_ Lot, /MO AW.13-23 ;I 2- 14- °I 2.1 . 2.3 0 cro al ok-c-5G rip ticnt‘ q cLrAl DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: .5e-e Sc-LLeM-€._ (Zip) *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301,060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code. the Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: In SI2111112 this application, 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures, 1 further acknowledae the fee explanation as outlined in the annlicationibrocedures and herebv aaree topa\i all statements received from the City pertaininc.i 10 additional annlicatilivroense.`i ,• / /1 7 Sionature of Applicant 'r• Date Signature of Applicant Date 1'22 21)04 Ciry cifLake Ellyn, • 35i11.1 Lavcrnt ANTI-Mt:North • Lake Elmo • 55(I4 • (151-777-5510 • r1.•; 651 -777-9015 Schedule ' Legal Description All that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, Township 29 North Rande 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence North 01 degrees 31 minutes 43 seconds West (recorded as N 00 degrees 00' 46" W) along the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 334.70 feet to the North line of the South 334.70 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, and the point of beginning of this description; thence continuing North 01 degrees 31 minutes 43 seconds recorded as N 00 degrees 00' 46" W),, a distance of 494.71 feet; thence North 87 degrees 32 minutes 27 seconds East (recorded as N 89 degrees 03' 24" E) a distance of feet to the West line of th Eet,695_2.2 feet off:5aid Southwest 1/4 of the North- wst 1/4; thence South 01 degrees 19 rii'nutes 29 seconds :East, along said West line of the East 695.22 feet, a distance of 502.85 feet to the North line of the South 334.70 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence South 88 degrees 17 minutes 37 seconds West, along said North line of the South 334.70 feet, a distance of 615.33 feet to the point of beginning, together with an easement for roadway purposes over and across the North 60.00 feet of the South 334.70 feet which lies West of the East 695.22 feEt of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, excepting therefrom the North 209.00 feet of tne South e39.40 feet of the West 417.42 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 SCHEDULE B Variance Request Application 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue PIN 01.029.21.23.0001 Owner: Steven Weber Detailed Reason for Request: Summary of Request. Applicant property owner requests a partition of the existing 5.11 acre parcel into two new parcels, 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size, with one single family residential unit allowed on each parcel, All existing and intended future use would conform to the zoning requirements of R-1. Practical Difficulties. The applicants submits that the strict enforcement of the city code zooming restrictions in regard to the affected property would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The requested use would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Namely. the applicant wished to use the property in a way not inconsistent with the dwelling unit density allowed under the comprehensive plan. and with dwelling density in conformity with the majority of the surrounding parcels. In short. the proposed usage if the variance were granted would be consistent with the surrounding lot sizes, shapes, density, and usage. Unique Circumstances. The existing parcel is very odd in its shape. It is unknown to applicant why the parcel was configured as it is. One of the members of the family of the original seller of the property around 1Q78 reports that it was shaped as it is to comply with a then existing 5 acre code requirement. At any rate. the parcel as it exists is a little over 5 acres and. if a map is oriented to the North, is in the shape of a backwards C or a horseshoe. The two ends of the horseshoe front onto Lake Elmo Avenue. On the South prong of the horseshoe there is an existing single family home, with a driveway crossing over a City easement allowing access to Lake Elmo Avenue. There is no other access. The north prong of the horseshoe is not developed. In the interior of the horseshoe shape there are two 1 acre parcels owned by a single property owner (one home on two one acre parcels owned by the occupant of the home). lf one were traveling north on Lake Elmo Avenue_ one would see the north portion of the parcel at issue, with a driveway and a single family home. then a neighbors parcel. with a driveway accessing two parcels, then the south portion of applicants parcel. without a driveway or access. The existing configuration of the parcel is inconsistent with the surrounding lot sizes, shapes. density. and usage. The majority of surrounding lots are 1 to 2 acres in size, each with one single family home. Applicant proposes a new boundary line between the north and south portions of the existing parcel. allowing the north parcel to he developed with a single family residential unit. rendering both the existing and new parcel consistent with the surrounding parcels and use. Character of the locality: The proposed densities of the site would be consistent with surrounding land use and would not alter the character of the locality. The existing density of the parcels surrounding applicants parcel is in the ran2e of 1 residential unit per one or two acres. Additionally. directly on the other side of Lake Elmo Avenue. in Discover Crossint!„ the residential lot sizes appear to be .75 acres. The proposed partition would result in two new parcels, approximately 2.27 and 2.84 acres each. with each anticipated to contain one residential dwelling unit. The existing parcel makes contact with 8 other parcels (ignorintz, the City Easement to the South). 7 of these 8 parcels are smaller than the two new proposed parcels. The two parcels surrounded on three sides by applicant's lot, the ones on the interior of the "horseshoe,- are each one acre in size. (lots 01-029-21-23-0006 and 0007). The two parcels to immediate north are 2 acres (01-029-21-23-0011) and 1 acre (01- 029-21-23-0002). The three parcels to the south are 1 acre (01-029-21-23-0010), 1 acre (01-029- 21-23-0009) and 1.2 acres (01-029-21-23-0005) . The proposed land use and zoning would be in substantial conformity with the policies goals and standards of the Comprehensive Plan Future land use map for the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive, Plan. 2005-2030, shows the area designated as RAD - 0.45 DU/Acre. Petitioner understands this to mean a maximum dwelling unit density, of .45 per acre. The proposed use and development is consistent as the new south parcel would contain one residence on 2.27 acres (0.44) and the north parcel would contain one residence on 2.84 acres (0.35). The soil has been perk tested and the size of the proposed parcels and soil type allow for a suitable septic system. The proposed variance would have no impact on an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The proposed use under a variance would not substantially increase the congestion of public streets. The County will issue a permit for a new driveway for the proposed new north lot to access Lake Elmo Avenue. The County has not indicated any danger or hazard created by the new drive. The County suggested that if feasible a driveway across the City Easement currently running on the south side of the south parcel would be preferable. The logistics of this appear difficult, but applicant is open to that suggestion if the City requires. The proposed use under the variance would do nothing to diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 02 -029-21-12-0002 (0003) tingtL oun FURLIC t4040S MPARTAIENT Pun VEY AND NO WitP4(tIAIFAIT D414.1011 ,eNeel,e *tel. e..0 ea, :€3,J tyl (-575 $0, LEGEND - 1:t4t Flt01£41111,VMERS FriOn.CIED WEILAID - - - ?Avn,CPA, 001,J,0105x F-N,V{+Mix (0009) -„ 0653) DUMP\ odiaV 4 -t - WV 7 -(001§)--- 00/ (061 (002 3 '2 No*/ /- too' (065) (oohs) (0009) SCOUR CROSSING (0002) NORTH SNLE r 000 115M2::1,1,12` -21 -22 .•0001 (0004) 1 01-029-21-32-0005 (0(106) (0007) — - I - , * .tr40.01,, 1P1V73 1r 1 (0007) Z=IT .-4"44 4541 Tt-i7 k 99 (000) 01-029-21-33'. 017 3007 pqs 0,40,,FG 0 TPLE nattr a A CCWILVKW AND PEr,'COOMMe or (01101001:00050010550500ef 103wearee IVAStaiita7 =pm terPeee memeareel CAVY Me -466,01,,PMS F(Pi ANY 0'E0,V170;015 gtee-, tWeS,11I045S110050IIOI010.I, 90010110101 0e01E500Ar.,11.41 ro1fl0 nottNASTErtIAM, (don01 70E1 qrfneeet. reoee,'eetelle KEN 0411:0510000 610E COWCV, AP,.,"10 Vett ete efelfeeeldeie ne,r, (2,9 Undivided Parcel is 01 01_92 12 ), Proposed ne. Thundary line ). A normirnau„e o ic\\ North Parcel I 23j)63 sq. ft (2.84 acres) I • : • 4."." ttAft I -3, • •-••Xi ?"‘"4.'"' - .r...w••••14.11Vr•••• 0.•#' 0,1115,96Tt Fr tro ,cre L 41., ' ',I; kilr Vtil i-t:V% It ' ' -111''' lit45 .:0-kw4-irir..;4?-irz: .14**4':;;41"MitrAtAt&S'.'1-11Z4*"—iit'fr.:::' ' t t, , kti i, 7, • 47Lt.tt•L L . Zb,,,tft,11,1ft.44, !LiltA441,14,r,:a,t';,„ItOt. - ry FAMENT PER DOC 384574 61ti.12:7 — t„ 20870 • (11 -01.-11:1 2 1 1't (004) „.1 [\,101:1T 1)). Tosed new Llriveway entering onto Lake 1 Avenue Nn ,,PPrk1-)Nimale location existiok! wilrance onto 1la: Iditio A UuiUL IN(Irtli Ed Ekiin Septic System Design & inspection LLC 2303 County Road F East White Bear Lake, MN 55110 651.485.2300 November 7, 2011 Steven Weber 2626 E. 82R, St, Suite 105 Bloomington, MN 55425 Dear Steven: At your request, a site evaluation was performed at the property located at 5577 Lake Elmo Ave, N., Lake Elmo, MN, Since you propose to divide the iot into two parceis, I have established a sewage treatment area of at least 10,000 square feet on the north east part of the property. It appears that a trench drainfield could be installed in the area and there is plenty of area for a possible house site. This is a preliminary evaluation of the lot, a sewage treatment design and specific house plans will be needed before a building permit can be issued. The proposed septic area must not be excavated, compacted or filled and must remain as it is. This site evaluation must be reviewed and approved by Washington County Public Health. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me. I would be glad to help. Sincerely. Ed Eklin MPCA Licenr,4,, 3221 /CerlificaLion #C:1, 268 Sc:rT1E SYSTEM 17E151CAS PER(EEEEA-J101".1 TEST.< B'iGDvsN P_A4\11-01,7( •51 t •, 1`. '...)-t-),;^•.`"••-1),',t • ) \)c.s..A (_Q,( ;7)f -- („)kci - — - ()COI Oe:ve,t.,--tckot I .4t4„ ITN FA f ;. i!!?,,,t;„1,4„;„,,,-.,,,,;,,,i_N"--- ,;`;'-'-i-i -tt'ti..I4':- t'tt•-,. "; 4:, '::•3i-t"--tttl'te,5:.,,tt'-'',3i.1-1.4;.-t,- .-,... :s..*. ,i• i-c we 17 c ;.• ELS 7 7 t.,o<.<, t-s 1<e. e t/ft • 0 0 ve. rItrySe k 11'5, 9 • r4 c I Zcx„:3.77 — • • 14'1' “ t ''"- ENrPEDQCW4574 , t V, I A Vv,- fft-4, ) Cr- rs,,,( ,r-L , C.1'4, ,,‘ 7, .crto, il-,(c-e.•1 (?),, T'T ".".'A , E-(,-; „Jo, r (is -{ go,• Cl trr,, (_, ) A t- Public Works Department Donald J, Theisen, P,E. Director Wayne H. Sandberg, P.E. Deputy Director/County Engineer )0ATA November 1O.2011 James W.Qeap|eon TheLowry-RoaeBui|ding 2124Dupont Avenue South Minneapolis, k8N554U5 STEVENWEBER RESIDENTIAL ACCESS REQUEST T0COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY Y7(LAKE EL&08AVENUE) CITY OFLAKE ELMOMINOR SUBDIVISION CONCEPT Dear Mr. Delaplain: Washington County has reviewed the residential driveway location along Lake Elmo Avenue for a proposed new parcel ofrecord based oneconcept plan for aminor subdivision cfe5acre parcel of property owned by Mr. Steven Weber, in the City of Lake Elmo. Typically, the county process incities within Washington County ishorespond Uzformal applications submitted to the local government since we do not have land use- authority. Also, when a subdivision is proposed, it is common practice to seek alternative access locations to local streets within omunicipality. If those alternatives are not feasible, access to a county highway would be permitted. Alternatives in this case would be to consider a shared driveway and the feasibility of access to the 60 Ft wide City Utility Easement shown unthe plan that could beimproved toprovide local aconaa. FinoUy, as you are aware, Washington County requires driveway permits for access to a county road. In this case, once the property owner has gone through the appropriate review and approval process at the local leve|, the minor subdivision has been recorded and a ponnk application is filed with our office, an access permit can beissued. Please feel free togive moacall any questions et651-43O-4313nremail meat Sin);�ereiy' Carol Hanson Office Specialist c: Joe Gustafson, Washington County Transportation Engineer Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County Senior Planner Kyle Klatt - City of Lake Elmo Community Development Director 11660 MyonmRoad North, Stillwater, Minvonota55D82-95r3 Phone� 851-43O-4300 ^ Fax 651430-4550 ^ TTY 651430-6246 w,vv.commsmng^on.mn.ms Location Map - 5577 Lake Elmo Ave • As, • 4,40- • $14 • • m N' *gr. 5577 Lke Elmo Ave N A‘, ‘ess Analysis Ti1 crrY LL\KFELM() 0 1200' Legend Existing Access Point Proposed Access Point Parcel Boundary Distance Between Access Points ". • 0 150 300 i 600F t City of Lake Elmo 2/23/2012 Data Source: Washington County, MN February 12, 2012 To: City of Lake Elmo Subject: Variance for 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue FEB 1 3 2012 To whom it may concern: We are opposing the division/variance of the property at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue North. Sincerely, A/12/Iz- Mike and Mary Jo Neuman 5685 Lake Elmo Avenue Lake Elmo, MN 55042 ENGINEERING, inc. ����������J��U�� .p/^-.r/��/xr�"w����.°/ Cara Geheren,P.[ Jack Griffin, P.E. Ryan Stempski, P.E. Date: February 22, 2012 651.300.4261 651.300.4264 651.300.4267 To: kyle0att, Lake Elmo Planning Director Re: City of Lake Elmo 5577Lake Elmo Avenue [c: Ryan Sternpski,P.E. Lot Split Variance From. Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer We have received the Variance Request Development Application for 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue North; P|NOI.O29.ZI.23.0OQI. The following items were received: • Application with Schedule A[Legal Description] and Schedule 0 [Request Narrative]. • Plat Drawing; NT3, PIN 0I.029.2I.I3.000I. • Sketch drawing showing proposed Lot Split. • Septic System pre|irn|narys)te review letter by Ed Elkin Septic System Design, dated I1-07-202I. • Washington County Review Letter dated 1I-lO-2OIl. The engineering department continues tofind that this Lot Split proposal and Variance Application remains inconsistent with the C]t/s Comprehensive Plan, including the Transportation Plan, and therefore is recommending denial mfthis request. Coordinated, Efficient Infrastructure: The Comprehensive Plan has guided the zoning in this area to allow development at 1 unit per lO acres unless completed as part of cluster type development with supporting infrastructure. When development is allowed to occur at higher densities, it is important to require the development to occur through a coordinated approach to a||oxv for adequate and efficient supporting infrastructure. Adequate and efficient infrastructure will not occur }fparcels are allowed lot splits, completed on an independent basis. For this application, the proposed infrastructure is not consistent with the requested higher density development (I unit per 2.5 acres). Surrounding development that a||oma higher density (i.e. Discover Crossing) was required to plan infrastructure differently toserve individual properties, The Transportation Situation; The Transportation issue relates to Access Management, Access management is the balance between corridor mobility and property access. Increased access results in a decrease in mobility and a decrease in safety. The City is responsible for creating and implementing Access Management policies as part ofits Transportation Plan. While both the State and County pxvn and operate roadways within the City they cannot deny access to local properties. They rely on the City or local authority to manage the proper access spacing along State and County roadways through its land use controls. in the vicinity ofthe proposed private driveway, there are currently lOexisting private driveways and two intersecting local roads. In accordance with the City Transportation Plan, private driveway access to Lake Elmo Avenue (A Minor Arterial Road) is to be prohibited. Lake Elmo Avenue is a County owned roadway that supports the []ty'stranspo/tat\an needs including rnnb\\\ty, safety, efficiency, and the local economy. This roadway is classified as an "A Minor Arter\a|" in the Cit/s Transportation Plan. Minor Arterial roads are one step higher than collector roads in the Transportation hierarchy. They are intended to prioritize mobility, efficiency and safety over property access. Collector roads supplement the arterial roadway system by providing access between neighborhoods and to the arterial system. Local Streets have the primary purpose to provide direct access to local properties within neighborhoods. Therefore future development along this corridor needs to require a collector or local roadway to he constructed from Lake Brno Avenue into the developed property. The local property access may then extend tothis new road. Astraffic increases along this corridor and other access points are needed, future corrective improvements may be required to actually remove the number ofprivate driveways inthis area. Access Spacing Guidelines from Transportation Plan: w Principal Arterials: No direct access to local properties. Access from Minor Arterials only. ° Minor Arterials, (i.e. Lake Elmo Avenue): No direct access to local properties. Y4 Mile spacing between Collector Roadways. 1/8 Mile spacing between residential street intersections. • Collector Roadways No direct access to local properties. Yq Mile spacing between Collector Roadways. 1/8 Mile spacing between residential street intersections. Water and Sewer Treatment Systems: In a similar manner, the extension of rnun|dpo| water service needs to be planned in an efficient and cost effective way. Tvpica||yxvatern1ain is expanded along public roadway corridors tu avoid easement acquisition costs. When higher density development is allowed without a planned supporting road network, the future expansion of other city services to the area results insignificantly elevated costs, Future water system hookups become more costly and prohibitive for property owners due to easement acquisition costs and/or longer water services. Higher density development places greater pressure on the private infrastructure in a rural area, such as private vve\\s and septic systems. With greater densities, the probability of failure for private vve\|s and/or septicsystenns is increased. When septic systems fail, the available land needed for replacement LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 V IANCES Frequently Asked Questions (Reflects 2011 law change) What is a variance? A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. it is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. Who grants a variance? Minnesota law provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communities. the planning commission or even the city council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally 'appealable to the city council. For more information. see Minn. Stat. When can a variance be granted? A variance may be granted if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision as applied to a particular piece of property would cause the landowner "practical difficulties." For the variance to be granted. the applicant must satisfy the statutory three -factor test for practical difficulties. If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Also, variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. For more information, see Minn. Star, What kind of authority is the city exercising? A city exercises so-called "quasi-judicial" authority when considering a variance application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the application. The city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. If the applicant meets the standard, then the variance may be granted. in contrast. when the city writes the rules in zoning ordinance. the city is exercising " egislative" authority and has much broader discretion. What is practical difficulties? Practical difficulties is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply the when considering applications for variances. It is a three -factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. For more information. see 'c's1;31.1 This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST 145 UNIVERSITY AVE_ WEST PI-LOINE:- (651') 281-1200 FAY; (651)281-129E ST. PAUL. MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREL-• (800) 925-1122 WEb• WWWLMC,ORCI What are the practical difficulties factors? The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable marmer. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. it does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too dose to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land, and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback. the focus is how the particular building: will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. Are there are other factors a city should consider? Yes. State statute provides variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, in addition to the threc-factor practical difficulties test. a city evaluating a variance application should make findings as to (1) whether or not the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, and (2) whether or not the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. What about economic considerations? Sometimes landowners insist that they deserve a variance because they have alreadv incurred substantial costs or argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. Rather, practical difficulties exists only when the three statutory factors are met. What about undue hardship? "Undue hardship" was the name of the three -factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. Effective May 6, 2011 Minnesota Laws. Chapter 19. amended )-,111-Tn. restore municipal variance authority in response to Krummenacher v. Orr of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010). In Krummenacher, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted the statutory definition of "undue hardship" and held that the "reasonable use" prong of the "undue hardship" test was not whether the proposed use is reasonable, but rather whether there is a reasonable use in the absence of the variance. What did the 2011 law change? The 2011 law changed the first factor back to the "reasonable manner" understanding that had been used by some lower courts prior to the Krummenacher ruling. The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from "undue hardship" to "practical difficulties," but otherwise retained the familiar three -factor test of (I) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. The 2011 law also provides that: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Can a city grant a use variance? Sometimes a landowner will seek a variance to allow a particular use of their property that would otherwise not be permissible. under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are often termed "use variances" as opposed to "area variances" from dimensional standards. Use variances are not generally allowed in Minnesota —state law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where thc property is located. For more information, see n 4o2 5 . Is a public hearing required? Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, but many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. What is the role of neighborhood opinion? Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help the city in addressing these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. lf neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for the variance decision, the decision could be overturned by a court. What is the role of past practice? While past practice may he instructive. it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three o the practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities are not generally hound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds that it is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider the possibility of amending the ordinance to change the standard. When should a variance decision be made? .A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesota's 60-day rule and must be approved or denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60-day period. Under the 60-day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is deemed an approval. For more information, see How should a city document a variance decision? Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it, In the case of a variance denial, the 60-day rule requires that the reasons for the denial be put in writing. Eller] when the variance is approved, the city should consider a written statement explaining the decision. The written statement should explain the variance decision, address each of the three practical difficulties factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions as to each factor. Can meeting minutes adequately document a variance decision? If a variance is denied, the 60-day rule requires a written statement of the reasons for denial be provided to the applicant within the statutory time period. While meeting minutes may document the reasons for denial, usually a separate written statement will need to be provided to the applicant in order to meet the statutory deadline. A separate written statement is advisable even for a variance approval, although meeting minutes could serve as adequate documentation. provided they include detail about the decision factors and not just a record indicating an approval motion passed. Can a city attach conditions to a variance? By law, a city may impose a condition when it grants a variance so long as the condition is directly related and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the affect of excess height. For more infomiation, see What happens to the variance once granted? A variance once issued is a property right that "runs with the land" so it attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies. Jed Burkett 201 1/06 4 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION DEMING LOT AREA AND WIDTH 1, A RIANCES TO .4 LLOW A MINOR SUBDI1SION A 7' 5577 LAKE ELMO AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existi under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Steven Weber. 12729 22" Street North, West Lakeland, MN (the -Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for variances to the minimum lot size and lot width requirements for a Rural Residential Zoning District to allow the subdivision of a 5.11-acre parcel at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017: and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on February 13, 2012 and continued this hearing until its February 27, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated March 6, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its March 6, 2012 meeting, and tabled discussion on said matter until its April 3, 2012 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elrno Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017. 2) That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed variances are to allow the subdivision of property at 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue into two separate lots that do not meet the minimum requirements of the RR — Rural Residential zoning district, and include the following components: Variances from the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres in a RR — Rural Residential zoning district in order to create two new lots of 2.27 and 2.84 acres in size. b) Variances from the minimum lot width requirement of 300 feet in a RR — Rural Residential zoning district in order to create two new lots that are 195 and 95 feet in width, 4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: All that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence North 01 degrees 31 minutes 43 seeonds West (recorded as N 00 degrees 0046" W) along the West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 334.70 feet to the North line of the South 334.70 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, and the point of beginning of this description; thence continuing North 01 degrees 31 minutes 43 seconds West (recorded as N 00 degrees 00' 46" W) a distance of 494.71 feet: thence North 87 degrees 32 minutes 27 seconds East (recorded as N 89 degrees 03' 24" E) distance of 618.20 feet to the West line of the East 695.22 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence South 01 degrees 19 minutes 29 second East. along said West line of the East 695.22 feet, a distance of 502.85 feet to the North line of the South 334,70 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence South 88 degrees 17 minutes 37 seconds West. along said North line of the South 334.70 feet, a distance of 616.33 feet to the point of beginning, together with an easement for roadway purposes over and across the North 60.00 feet of the South 334.70 feet which lies West of the East 695.22 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, excepting therefrom the North 209.00 feet oldie South 639.40 feet of the West 417.42 feet of said Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 'A. More commonly known as 5577 Lake Elmo Avenue. 5i That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would no cause practical difficulties and that the property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Specific mdings: a) That the subdivision of an existing 5-acre parcel into two snzaller parcels in a zoning district that requires a inininzum lot size of 10 acres is not a reasonable use of the property. b) That the proposed subdivision is not reasonable because the property as it exists can be used for a single family residential home. Reasonable use of the property already exists, and the variance is not needed in order to make use of the parcel under the Riiral Residential zoning district requirements. The current configuration of the lot is not relevant to the establishment of reasonable use because the lot would not have been usable for a sing ami home without this additional area. 6) That the plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property and was created by the landowner. Specific dings: a) That the applicant's property is not unique because the property is able to support a single family home, and because a large majority of parcels outside of Open Space Preservation developments in the Rural Residential zoning district are larger than the lot owned by the applicant. The ability to find a suitable use for the areas outside of the immediate building location is not something that is unique to the applicant's site since the intent of the Rural Residential district is to promote the preservation of open space and rural character, and therefore, the uses and densities allowed in the district are intentionally limited. b) That the proposed lot was created by the land owner and met the minimum lot size requirements vhen it was subdivided. The land owner was able to build on the lot and has been able to use the property as a single family residential lot for over 30 ,ears. That the proposed variance will alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Specific "dings: a) That the applicant's' property is located in a portion of the City that is guided for Rural Agricultural. Density (RAD) development, which corresponds to the City's RR - Rural Residential Zoning District. This district requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres, and the applicant's request to create two lots of under 2.5 acres in size represents a substantial departure from the district requirements. Although there are existing non -conforming lots in the vicinity of the (ipplicant's property, the continued subdivision of lots less than 10 acres will continue to alter the character of the area and create a denser, more urban environment in an area that is not intended to be served by municipal water or sewer services. 8) That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question but will substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Specific findings: a) That the proposed variance will have a negative effect on adjacent properties and traffic because the proposed driveway to serve the new home would not comply with the City's access management policies and guidelines. In particular, new driveway accesses are discouraged along streets classified as Minor .4rterials (such as Lake Elino Avenue) at the traffic levels that are forecast for this road. The proposed driveway would also fail to conzply with the City's use of best management practices `or spacing guidelines, which include: minimizing new access locations and reducing/consolidating existing access points, protecting and improving intersection functional and sight distance areas, and proper design of driveways and intersections. The creation o e driveway/lot will create a safety concern and add to congestion on Lake Elmo Avenue by adding an access point to Lake Elmo Avenue in a location that has reduced visibility dues to an incline in the roadway. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foreiwim,i, the Applica s' application for a -Variance is denied. Passed and duly adopted this 3rd day of April 2012 by the City Council ofthe City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Dean A. ZuleQer, City Administrator ; ;.• 117 ; DATE: 4/3/1 REGULAR ITEM #: 8 INFORMATIONAL AGENDA ITEM: Lake Elmo Park Reserve West Side Access Plan (Prepared by Washington County) SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director THROUGH: Dean Zuleger. City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson. Interim City Planner Park Commission Planning Commission SUMMARY AND ACTiON REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to review and provide comments on a plan that has been prepared by Washington County to identify potential options for improving access to the Lake Elmo Park Reserve from the west side of park property. The Lake Elmo Park Commission has reviewed the plan and adopted a motion in support of the plan as presented. The Planning Commission also reviewed the plan and provided the feedback as noted below. Staff has participated in a stakeholder group that has been reviewing the plan over the past year or so, and there have also been two public open houses to solicit public feedback on the plan as well. There is no specific motion that is being recommended by Staff related to this agenda item. Since the plan is being prepared by the County (and it is not a City document), the Council is instead being asked to provide any comments regarding the plan that can then be forwarded to the County for its consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this point in time. The plan identifies potential trail alignments that mirror the City's trail plans. Future trail construction would need to be budgeted through the City's capital improvement plans. BACKGROUND INFO'!•' :',,1ATION: As noted in the attached plan: "This trail planning study is being undertaken as a collaborative effort with Washington County and the cities of Lake Elmo and Oakdale for establishing off road trail connections to the west boundary of Lake Elmo Park Reserve. Funding, secured for this study through the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) sets forth initiatives for establishing interconnected trail systems which City Council Meeting Lake _Limo Park Reserve West Side Access Plan April 3. 2012 Regular Agenda Item encourage residents to lead more active and healthy lives by participating in recreational trail use and activities." The proposed plan does incorporate several of the recommendations from Lake Elmo's trail plan, including a proposed trail along 15th Street between the park and Inwood Avenue. Staff will review a few other highlights from rd meeting. the Plan with the City Council at its April 3 COMMISSION REPORT: The Lake Elmo Park Commission reviewed the West Side Access Plan at its March 19. 2012 meeting and recommended that the plan he approved as drafted. The Planning Commission reviewed the plan at its March 26, 2012 meeting. Instead of making a specific recommendation. the Commission offered several pros and cons that it suggested be communicated to the County, which included the following: Pros: The proposed tunnel under Inwood Avenue south of Torre Pines would he a good thing and improve safety along the corridor. Increasing access to the regional park. Cons: • Total cost of project. Concern about being financially irresponsible. • The expense of the tunnel under Inwood Avenue. • Providing access to 15th Street from the park. • The plan does not suitably demonstrate the need for the proposed improvements. • The practicability of improving access and the resulting parking and traffic issues. • Trails on both sides of Inwood Avenue would be redundant and wasteful. • Would like to see consideration given to improving access in the northeast quarter of the site, and in general, access that provides better access for more Lake Elmo residents. • Parking areas off of road would be better than on -street parking • The City needs to have conversations with the County regarding parking along Inwood Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above background information and staff report, it is recommended that the City Council review the recommendation made by the Park Commission and comments from the Planning Commission and to provide any additional comments regarding the plan that can then be forwarded to the County for its consideration. ATTACHMENTS: Lake Elmo Park Reserve West Side Access Plan City Council Meeting Lake Elmo Park Reserve West Side Access Plan April 3, 2012 Regular Agenda Item 0 8 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction of Item ..... . ....... ........... . ..... ...... ..... City Administrator Report/Presentation.......... ................. ...... ....... Planning, Director 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 I\ 1, V xSdeAc \ A V t Pla , , t TABLE OF CONTENTS .Aczknowledgernents Introduction rind Protect C1oais 3 Active and ?Healthy Living Initiatives 3 Trail 4. Regi( )1u-11 :1'oltte-sst 5 ExitSite (1.11unditions Irail Conn in Cot- -1(.)rs 8 County M-ail I nitiativc4 Ciry Trail Initiatives 13 Trail Section Details and Study Findin:-;;.inci FIimiriv21L1I1 lcripiementation Hon 14 PiViitninat-yJoL EMinicite — rut -die t15,mment 1_4-14`5. F-L4.115;4...kEo- 114„5-141E4.4.4.44 14,1,_-.7454-14)1,17p5 .AON\t\iLEDGEMENTS ANC PUBLIC OUTREACH jl\ l\ 'L ti. 1iitkifl wiiiite variiiiit‘i fur trail connectit/F6 l_ake Elul( A toi:Imicai Ciourit\. City tit' Laliiie hlm ai (ii'ity iyiet i lay i1711-1 and 2011 hi provide nmeni rind ticeduacti: during 11 nLiniiin yen houseni also1 iela ti Ju n tI and 27tH, 21r1 I at 1 ak Eirno City au, tii anci linc r1n i i I1i. plan- (4 Sets ti IiI ii (:T011.:1"ed CI Minlen t 1:::1C11 Cd,t11 nu it)111)WinS Stair rincrnhers colla b i a tie(' t provicie input for- t(instudvi 1ohr EIhoni, ail Direr wr, Peter lOoti, lAiasliingtori County jean Strcetar J ULIK 1 lcalth and Ifinvitimment SI-IIF' \Atasiii- ingtori .Kenneth Heuer, \ \ahingt 1 ui it 1 ari and ()per, Space Cum 11iss Ann Pung-ierwed©. Stmior VVrashingtori County Bruce liViesseit it of Lake Eln-u) Matzek, Planner, City Lake le KlatL. Planning 1)ii.ect-o,1-' il 1 ala Elrno Bob Streetay, Devciopment Divedok L'itv VitfitnevRidio 12innLf..'ity 5„ii'll,c1,-11(. jen riassebroe1., Smarr CoamitinitA [ ' UnIpIi ii 5pLfcvdhst, 'Zity of 0,-Cr;ciale 0 TAk7TEA SR F CONSULTING GROUP Grieshaben ASLA, Nichoic Srilepp,,i,,SLA RESE-T--)rE. VES:7 INTRODUO ION hi traiJmmIni ludy is being uncicirtal,en as a collaborative etiort vith VVIshingten Cuntv isincl the cities of LaktElmo ancl 1.,_);.:11,;Llak, for esw-i- lishin,, off load trail connecti, ins to the west 1,-,ounclary of Lat,a„' Ehrio Parl: Reserve. Funding seculvd tOr this, studY through the Statewide Health Impriivement Program ISH In) sets forth initiatives forethIi1iiiig inter- connected tr;,111 SVStC111;-, encoura,i4e resiclenL; to lead more active and healthy bv participating in recreational trail use and activities, PROJECT GOALS F;atied m the c n text identified for this rlarming study, tile 11] win gi are. being pursued l'or establishing, local trail coimections to Lake Elmo Park Reserve: -Jafe anti convenient off road trailaccess to the park reserv(' rr,m) existing surinding neigliborhi.lod trail systems • Lit-Hize ry,,ishns roaii iinli1or-wa), or trail en ment ,Irt,o, to locatt, trail corri(lors )Pon ik octivir living and ntness bv expandin)ppc)ri linitiOS for Ili ,r)- itorizeci transportation • Provide at cennections to nearby neighhorhood schools • Establish safe trail road \ vav crossings Expand trail system connect kvith other re,,-; Lirk destinations and trail systems PROMOTING ACTIVE AND HEALTHY JVENG INITIATIVES t.'ine of the priniary iftiie0iive4 of developing this trail plan is to help promote active living initiatives as a WaV Of life that intd,i,-9,-ates aciivit-v in to daily living routines, Conmitmitre,; carl 1 pi) incti pnimoling active lifestyles la\- providing sole., efficient, and accessible pedestrian and bicycle transportatii-in syslems:Fhis includes e.stablisning side\ \-alks, trail!s and sat,:: crossings; of laigl-nYay.5, 3110 viThie trail netvvuil iuc n2sickI1ts (1.-Tortunitv r3I-J;s, schook, iihrorit_‘s. work. ,A1-,,cen, stores. and otl-ier destin timr, arnenifies that itht-T\vise \youli.:1 hL acet'ssed rnt,-orized hiwe rs /I 1 I-717 Li. :IV I R.....t 4 i\t„,:qmpolit;:ir, Parks and -trail Stirvey cornpleted in \vall'im--; arid, bikirip, tl 'Err' thy 101. iet'D)pc,liar 21l5ti Rt'gidrial to f:ecivation _Plan IS(11)RPI,iiiI 1,.:ner,,,‘aul ni 3 hiiiP-....::";i irnp:irtani Id i.: 6.11' VI ion: t,:dt L,1 31! This increaseisl interest in 11 la,-; 1`, 1.0[ )))11 )1).:)1) )r)uifahle for all gr, pup), of pilv)--)icat c))n),:litioning. and cat) ctirnet) ot.)) hvliltiqps. ,i) oiten avtlitaltde t.)lose it) liuii lar 5)))'), ))1 visitor), t13 rional parlt„), arlci trail facilities \vitl I:2,1T( (.( all1E \ are frotr) the ,-;urrounciintt. cornn-tunirv, incli- ctitint_t 11:ed t', )1 '-'Stc.It1i-1111,;2. 111, 'iv intewonnectecl frail svterik),, to 1.11):).--;): LlItl'thront.,,h) int the Cotinty. R2ONAL CONTEYT AND STUDY AREA 1:; Undertakin P,a e aSS S 1-11C [ plLi]ming ineol trail -connec- tion t, 3 Elmo R111: E:'),IStiflp, arid pl:OrCrtit'Ll trail SVSiVITI! Within V11,1Shil 1,0)!1 C1111111V ..111C1 the r ihC 1 Loke hIiii anti L.)akclale were Existing Trail along 15t17 St, in Oakdalg ft,vic to iii-OL-ft-qam-,-lifig of tll nt):4io11al conk:- t (It the, trail 4ticiv arca. (Sec Figure A) Prin-tory east west- trclii corriclor), 1cJdn1 t Lakt'. LIIIR) Hark Reserve (von) the are currentiv located aton): Stillwater Ho -nit -card north ot. the 1-orit, and alon)..) -15th St TeCi 311d AFi () S( )11th It the nai1..1l ot these troll corri61)--; ttirer the opportunitv to connect to tile part; reserce. .A)-)alt ).)( the 20)))-) triter 1'Ial cornplereci 1),1 1 aL lm) park frail ,.)onnecti)»),)-) are iciontineci h.) 1. irracic at It iwood 011 'ItH\\Lt tIlil 111 i; arid at the east- en(l. , )1 -15th, Street on thc- Houthwesi corner of the )-)ark..These trail c(..)nnectiom will cone h.) ).-) future paveei trail s\'ITI 1111 11 IJ II", t Lake. The)-)).) stuck. area 1--)3rorneter,) provide ;3116 icientifving the 3)-st (...)pnortunitie), ror t).))),L))_-)It)_)laing trail Lonnectit qv)), tt) and trom thff pad,. r)p,),..t). Inwood Ave, and 15th St„ West Side, Looking North ; L TRAL 17 r West Side Access Study Area LnL Grsocw,sTirao kIrp - To Siwre! To Wisconsin SITE CONDITIUIS C41;)ditniji,`, tilt` pc1;-,C itiSt(t2;-,111 Ch,fl- It211t",IoiC.SLabbAilinri C011neCti(111!"- to the parl. Pastern:a.Th1 1v)Iloycing it,sueit have itt.ctut icientilied it. tat. evaluated for deitartnining, prelinlinara trail alignments and crimatactions lit tilt, pzirla, (see FigureLii TRAIL CROSSINGS AT INWOOD AVENUE The posted hit_th speeds Emci limited sigthl lines aktreg this roadway cttrititlor ttnlv ror safe at grade trail crossings tr, made at four \va) controlled intersectione, Roth Stillwater Eloulevard and CSAH '10 provide this tippttrtunity \ V hilt- 15th Slave( does not offer a sato crossing tilternatiye because t tiiirnited sight lines and only a two 1.l'av et)n battik:id intersecti( in at this locution. PARK BOUNDARY BARRIERS Lief, of the aren tilting the west boundary of the parlt contains steep slopes whicli pose some challenges tr establishing accessible La -ail routes into tile park. Residential properties bordering the south side of the park irtounciary also limit trail ;latest. opporitmities the site. DRtVATE PROPERTY OWNER 111/PACTS Itlesicitantial ph Tel ties abut man \- of tIK touckyay currietiors f„..tkin:.4 stud ,t,ct for iliac -an -lent of trail corridors within right-ittwav or e0tielllel1i areas. planning efforts should rnillinlize impacts on tiditicent private land and provide tidetquate buffers and staparati( in fnintt I esitiential 1:1-(Tel-hes. ELStabiishing Haft, 01 issings at drivewaY crossinge tshould also be integrated with trail constructior efioftt, RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRAINTS The presence (ar oyerheact Ut1JltR In tile west sick: of ,Lkyellue lltli OrkilTe Lant 11110(-,11 1hettst ,side of Inwood nortli. (..tf 2th Street places some limitations tin determining a trial alignment M these ioca h no ntiticlification ti the drainage s-vYttict, al n inwot Aytilaue ma\ also be net -es -a -aft: to accnnarmidate trail corridor a iignn-ients. Invent Ka tiOnSitiOil!, to an urban rtattcl section north (if the parlt itetunitioty 10±will provide -a minim -ail oi reduced setiaocit for the trail ,litara this streick, roadwaat COMPATIBli 1TY WITH LP,IKE ELIVFj, PAM', kilASTE.R PLAI11 i11ern011I 1 01u0I[1,1lLa1,etTa. 011 1110 raastigi. plan tor Lake Firm t Part itestataat shttult.:1 corresttOnd N, t:11111 ,1? being inade 1 mtl along tile perimeter ttil the park, ratisairfti H trIcii.i.iials, wail -art lite stud\ area tttere ill,;ta documented ti itatitt a better tincierstancling ttr tate trail alittrinielat il i he ',.1,-.11,11eed 1 111 1 15th St. Near Park Boundary Looking West Inwood Ave. Near 15th St.. Looking North tE JPttRie ){TING II , 477 111 RE B 1,1 ,/fiilt)t '11 ' P' t''Loperw: 1 r, •I. - RE,SER\lE" 1,.1/E,7"7 SIDE RALCONNECMON ..;1)R,P,ADORS, OPPORTiMTIPS revlenviiig th(:, pcitentiol 10,1 esOblIshiwcz ConneCt Ons to th IULof Lakin Park Wert.studied to he integrate ith new trail sicstern including creating, on sitneet ofotistree1 trailheaci parking areai-i near trail entranci,ii.-ii to the park..,-`ifter additional IeViek", and con -In -lent residents, it \vas determined addiiii,4 nev\i parking tlicilities, wias not desired Lite 1 alcon-imunity and stmuld noi h. pursued a:, part 11 tt the overall plan. eral trail Corridors10010 evaluatyd for establishily trail connections to the F iiReserve from e.,\isting local city trails and new proposed countv trails along Inwood Avenue. The following issucis and opportunities are identified toi iniiplementing each county and city hail corridor segment. COUNTY TRAIL CORRIDOR PLANNING INITIATIVES C(R.11.11-V trail Ckwrici(irs noulevare, and im.voiid /\\ientie flirt:her C.111WIT10.2 thc: Cl.)1111eCtiVitV Of the local trail siiiisteiri \via) iither part, dtistination antenitics and comniitmities in close prin.-in-lily to Lake FIm tail Reserve. The roliowing county trail segments havtit-ineri evaluated to increase the connoctivity 0 trail systenls fron.i 1(1ca! tc, the pzirl:. rescryt:. Trail Segment water Boulevard - I'S:Purdy Segment between ideal .x.kverute and Invvf 1, id 001 - Thk Levlini r trail estaifilisties AVell1Pf tr()111 htll aki FtlJtlit":ard n iich provides ihore direct aci,inss tit the park for residerw-,,Ttic proposod trail connection e\tendi, along the south sitio or Stillwater Fiotikiyarci to a controlled intersection criis.sing 11 mA/cod Avenue. Trail Seg,rrien'l 2- Vves Sidle Inwood io..,enue (County rulevard ;Ind CSAI-1 (See .1-irre THose,,,,,,r)erll Hi; 10111.11.(,)ViCHS HVing Wit'CtIV I'VeSt 11 I0lVC1(lu ,AVi21111t t(i 110 V(' (11)0011.11 1 05 1 traii systems 0101.1, StretTit, -and it.ThnpI0000l aiso iniegrit titTLIViitt'L:t frir direcl thi[ort 11 -itryet I 1 1)1t1 111 n Inwood Ave. near Stillwater Blvd,. Looking South 26th Si. and Inwood Ave. West Side. Looking North nTENT A_ GUR "." "". RVT "RVE: 31:DE TRAIL Segment Stiliwaier boulevard to 26th Street tscc, Figure Lti i"."1 i rt:C1 kvitil in the al,' )11,,,;1 co, d propt,rtT trim--; which arc iiko bufferet1 \vith iarhiscaping 111V0 mLI 1Vt:!ntltt. SetrEnient 26t1-, Street to 15tit Stre_e!. Figure 1) This rural sectli )11 Imviioti venue ren-tains ntostly unclifveloped [ht.' e\ception ottH Torre Pine:, cleN,.elopmtnti. and 4.! (ow ren-rairlini ('arn-isteack-, expanilod mirth of 15th Street alloyy for ittilitiet, to kit: avoick.c1 in thr, ;Arco. Segment 2C- 15th Street to CSAI-I 10 (see Figure Fa st'climn ;itiii provide-; a connection to a controlled intersection cr;;ssivr,2, it ti i-vhich will allow trail tisei:; crost-; Inwood AVentp.., cdid e,ain ;:iccess to tht, pail alon14 15th Stret'L. Ti-ail Section 3- :.,:ast Side of Inwood Avenue - Countv Set het=y0.2eri Stillwater 11( qrlevarct and CSAI-1 10 (See Figure 11) & establi.sruyient ofthi trail on Hit, eList bert,,,cer, Stillwater Rilevard diidt.:"SAHIttpf0VICIP.,--rl best opportirnity mrprovo trait ticce.!-ci to the .r..-111 5,.v;;Lcm=, ClIfiel Illy 12-2ing ptirstied tht (7i-flinty ir; part of 1 [ in ppliccition, Segineni 3A- Stillwater l3onievarci to 27ii--; Stree ga -e This swgn)erit ol trail ruses challenges tor inteffating a trail align - wen', htmeci on tilt linit CI avziilohl" VflR oricntation o; residential pimperiie;-;, riveriatNad utihtic 11 id drive \eav!-; which irlka-sect oath Ho: troll corridor.. Thr..; 1-,eimit-,.nt of halt 11havi- 1 bcimplernorttecl hP minima! it-n fAbit CrOn-' th1 udt u',111LI utiIi:L(' tht'tin ;Awl) plovitlo ,,,cndra Segrrienl 3b- 27th Streel to sotililwesi Fiyure ID) morion:-; lo; limv‘•Pise;.inoonl tidHtuljLlt alie-noci atom:, thT, oclgy tho pad-. on ir,orty. tho of sribiofr;10., n,;t:-ings aim [i2 inv\Lood ahil ,ocitirr Di -it -lee or L.-divert crossinu. iroei- thyftI \vil; yletormino how trcii; si_'i4rne1i1iiiigned within the internal pc!,r1- 3C- inie7--nal l2a7;;;.: Trail; Circtiiation pu , p Ct)1-1117'C't t( H-EC PHC:1i Li I a I rf1 1114I111 1_,:11‘.'72.lilitut 14111iiF 111 1')'" 117 h I I cu iiituti i li 1Ind tht'It ; gni k; t7.`ii Ltin !'";:,"St•Cri "%1"ahig1!:,:htHel \ i int tttlii. Existing trail along 10th St, Looking West SSUES AD OPPOR-UNI IFS POTENTIAL TRAI_ SEGMENTS - FIG 'R .:rov4tna) t• a ti. • .. ... , . , ....., . , .. .,. anaae4 A ' 4 ' ... 4 ' SA A . e A ' . lt PatSa.italf" Pf"-Uca{-1;g, ME}, totAmete 4441 • • • traaaa Dia-tact 1011.WL(0..5; " keraai,:d aYsa":1 • Does Not Require an At-gradc Trail Crossing or Inwood Avenue Stillwater Boulevard Intersection • On Opposite Side of the Park • Crossing to Park Requires Grade Separated Pedestrian Tunnel: Significant Construction Costs • Potential Property Impacts - _ I t-Tti T ecie. • On Opposite Side of the Park • Crossing to Park Requires Grade Separated Pedestrian Tunnel: Significant Construction Costs • Potential Impacts to Development SI gnage • Drainage Ditch • Utility Line Begins at Farm North of Torre Lane • Direct Connection to the Park - Partially Utilizes Park Land and Conservation Easements • Property Impact "tee right -or -way and multiple driveway crossings • Conflicts with Utility Line • Requires Trail Crossing al the i"et., section of Stillwater Avenue. and Inwood ;Avenue Potential Safety Conflicts with Trail Crossing and, Riahl-hand Ttirri Lane at Stillwater Avenue and Inwood Avenue Intersection ' Steep Grade Along Roadway and Impacts to Etristino Buffer • Pedestrian Bridge bleeder Jve ,rai • Maintain Landscape. Buffet t-tieiivvecii ktesideniial are — t• ES D OPPORTUI TIAL TRA1_ SEGIA: IN; 41.1 ed,F1,;IV ES 14 - Fi G E „.- • Avoids Crossing of Inwood Avenueil5th Connection to Existing City Trail on 10th • On Opposite Side ol the Park • Crossing to Park Requires Grade Separated Pedestrian Tunnel; Significant Construction Costs • Drainage Ditch • Utility Line from Farm North of Torre Lane to 15th • On Opposite Side of tne Pad, Would impact Existing Vegetated Buffer • Potential Conflicts with Utility Line Direct Connection to the Parlr • Partially Utilizes Park Land and Conservation Easements • Potential Connections to Existing Cihr lraid • Potential impacts of Development Signage • Safe Pedestrian Crossing Needed at 15th • Impacts lc Vegetative Buffer at 15th and Inwood • Provide/Maintain Landscape Buffer between Traii and Development • Utility Line from 1.5th io 10tri • Provide Pedestrian Countdown Timers at inv!onri an '10th fcc Safi Perie.striart Cirossinci E4periertse •ELdC 7,-rdd• ,`,11.:!DE Segment 31)- Souhwe orner of paa. to 15t11, Street (see Fi,,Li-ure Elk inajoritv of this trail .kitigment is located gkiitl-kin a com.kcirvatiork easement area i.inirt offer the opportunitv tk, connect tk, eiUsting local trails east kkl Segment 23th Street to CSAH 10 ( see Figure E) 111-hi s segment of trail also pTh \lLLC u I.e\- linli for cLnhlkhii isake kssing1 Inwood \\cn t the CSAf-I 1 1 inLei tioi Aligmment of this tilck krriistor segment shouldH Hand with am,current development prop( k.tia1s being pLILillted J trig this stretch /kill inwouil between 15th Stft.ct .11-1L1 CITY TRAIL CORRIDOR PLANNING INITIATIVES In an effort to ck iordinate 'focal tiLill planning (efforts \vitri new propkid aunty trail corniections along Still \va rev Boulevard and inw(koci Avenue, the 6)1'1mA:it-kg 1,4:al trail segments along "I5th Street have been evaluated to complete the cormectivitv of trail systems from local peighborhoids to the part: rei;erve. Segment City of Oakdale city limits to inwoocl Avenue isee Fig -tire r) This segment of trail provides zi iiiev connection hull the city iii (Jai:dole to Irmood ,Avenue which transitikm to estatilisliting trail connections L Lc Llin Park, Neservkii.This mai! segrnent k provides connections to Eagle Pki,int ElementoiTk. and Sli<vvie\v ivticklie Schools hi,is a desired outcome of silt", trail planning initio tives_ Se.-,-,ment 40- North Side of 1511-1 between InAvoocl venue and Pari,:. Figure 1:) effort to discourage on ;it grade trail crossing at lii3th Strticiii and 15til Street will he clinecteci south Ilii2 the Sid!! 1111V0(1C1 tilt! C011trHICCI illtCISection at CSAVI 10. lf o trail is established on the We51 L 11 invvoucl nn of 15th, thiti ITIJN" pruvich2 the cooporiamitie to direct trail tiserit to eithei dt-0,10,-;l11t10,2 Cl )II1 rorL. or to the iiifillwatel 1-kouievorkil trail conneetii crossing, Sot; % SidiSci r 5i behiveen Inwood ,Axeriu,_.. Figure F., Liktatikiiiinin,4 thoil corridor a iong, this stretch oi155 'sktreei provkleii i ti to the port: and trail aiienthent ii f,osticil (in frv. east 5)P fl ile, locatetlL frail ok, PAI'l H,1`,11:1-1 Sidt: ();LI Li L 2k11 trail easeineniiii ,;!:-". (rye pottnrial t,,,,,;1,-,11-‘11H, cc Invit,t,70,)il, tL 1lhL al) iht: I k +11' 1741-4 Sueet. Estate ilsigne 0 trail Lige-mini:1-g orit nilr j l 1Stkekiii intact:: fewer isf,A,L; AN[) OPI-)( F1- 1-1,ivr.frnim FGURE: 1.2 T,22 .2 Oe 2,1,1 •-e 111, IR' t-- i2 2i•••• • Direct Connection in he Park • Partially Utilizes Conservation and "fail Easements Connections to Existing City Trails • klinimal lJtility flonflicls Along North Side -2 2 • Discourage, Crossing at 15111 and Inwood • 55 MPH one Consider Reducing Speed Limit • Consider Changing lo Urhan Road Section to Align with Existing Oakdale 'Trail • -",' ••• • Provide Landscape Buffer Between Trail and Residential Development • Minimal Utility Conflicts Provide Landscape Buffer Between Trail and Residential!' Development irdinimal Utility Conflicts • Potential Conflicts with Commercial Operations and As..sociated Trurd• Traffic iand owricrs but creates pi iiential ciinflicts bcitwiccri trail ISC'nnd ;flLtii rai the driveway crib -al -ice to the nurseryLiIit during periodic of the vicar, TYP GAL : RA SECTONS Several. types of trail sections proposed implemented as part crli tins plan. isee Figure :7.i) A majority of the trail system proposed along Inwoi Avenue would be imiplemented \\*hill a rural roackvav section and require etbacti fromi the rilaci\vay to meet federal design standards. A small segment of trail north of 27th Street iNotilcl be constructed within an ul-ban niadwaiv sec -di in \vith separation defined by a raised curb. Local trails aii:ing I .5th Street \vould have i reduced setback of approxi- mately 17 fit t11(: 1"0,11L-I\vav or aligned to match with existing setbact:s already in place dInl1 the existing trail corridor. Trail connections established within I iale Elmo f'ari: leer e will be singlo paved trails maintainhg 3'clear ii,'ones while maintaining adequate seiv- ration and buffers with e\isting equestrian turf trails within the park . TYPICAL T SCT1ONS - FIGURE G i Urbon Road c Paved "pail BoOf Cu uroi ''octd e,f1 rVf, RESERVE: WEST ii-T;IDs ATSEESETE' • sEi PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS OPTIONS ALONG IN\AfOOD AVENUE hc="ck AuciikAl I1 i»Iiiii Jgradk:, separok!ci • inh, the i-park frorn Inwl)ocl L 11U 1 pr mici,.. m(Ire divect and • tt'LILL' [ht.' pad, (11T II1I LII et iit H Aftt'r e\ iN L1IIiIg, ti pr.)k igraphy thzInwdod corricior.limloft qviinl locations c,,uicl 1-2,2 considered foi- ,,iiHsurfact, cn.n-,sing into Option 1- Eberhard .!'roperty natural on E:),)th Silks ot the rdadway \N-ruch will minimize graciin cth rL nt.‘eci tc, install a Culvert cros,,ing in this are.:1_ Near possible underpass location Looking Southwest vight..of Avav \,vouid roost likely need to be acquired 0, cievel,11:, safe trail alnlent approaches to thc, cros.:;ing. Option 2- Darney Cree);-. Crossing This location is also situated Llt iiTi1A' point along. the nialdwav w )ene ilL • eNiends into thv 1)It, e ,stensive retailiil 1,kruil; \\0llioi TINLlift`d [C, deVeicip 1.111i1 Lipprot'ldw:, to this crossirpt.; IL liich could he Curthci corrinlicatecl hv the 1.)reserict, of a 1iigt) wiiter tabit in tilt! are-d, cn.,ssingH ai 1,0t11 th.?51-'1 'cation:4 ()Inv by cost pbibitivt• based on 11 liiltLC amount of uHei iuJobrojYcl'ed initialiv io this trail corridcw. Hi)kvevor, with popillatin", increL:lses LIR] • JL01IJIO1L i could L-)c rnacic iui LO in 1ninitin in th,,-2 tut-riry. TYPICAL SEPAr--iATED GRADE CROSS-: - l+rf • v; , BuL c ,.47:1,;ERP.1 • 1,0 1 NOTES e 2' 0,1E FUN TRAIL 6 CITUMINOV., V.PAFACE ey. TYPICAL 1.€.3111.10414AL $LUPt. LE ....."1.14-.1APJ tslk, COosa SLOPE Separated Grade Crossing Precedt-::nt lNAvzata Vi&v:ati,112 1:f AT3RADE TRAIL CROSSINGS grode ioi1 identified zilong1V43AVC1"11.1L' 31 Stilkvatcl Viouievard zind CSAH If)sh uki li designed to frietif ,ill ivinEkir bikewavtiiIit dinst-andarcls. (So,' Fii.;tirt., 1 Ifir 3 tvpic.;11h ailroadwav crossing) '''VD CAL AT -GRADE CROSSING F VVtdth Valiez 8„.14pOLT, Trail Iderailicalion Truncamci Domes Pavement Message — 100 Type Special (E.Pon' yoigari 300' GURE Proposed 13 Trail APP _...1 litincateci Dorna; lrail Icentification Sign 'A' ! 300 Pavemient NiessagE:' Type Special (Epo)1y) (Typical .21 STJ NL COND US!ONS Tine tritimurtitie.s surrounclitig Latit L1I1R Park Reserve are generallv supporrivc- clesi,,tnateci, siife anci nviiinieni. acct.'s!, points 1 the park.. litricleviticTed, poorly definedicc points areIL ught tit cate nuisances. safety cm-wen-isijid invite umivanteel impacts 411'ld 0)11flikiS 1\ rith iaLijacent private nitare,iirtat owners. FIThiniugh polperlia placed trail connections arict hu1i' 7r hese inflicts can av, itional site arnenitius associated with trailkeeads, such as parlting lots anci area nt desired tnost residents living adjacent ti iintiar ttic2rn bound:Ir, Trail tkieitsis drits the p'arit: l'escive slaould hL V0211-d,2fit-H2c1 and easily alCCSSINC;FLJ ViStral iMpaCi!, bC nhrnii1uLeJ kvitli vegetative buffering and (.7.'ireft.i1 trail placeinent. alignments that tal:e advantage ol eitisting right -of -wav t';ection 3, along the east -side of inwoucl .."-\\trinuei and avoid attgracle road crossings sirtould take precedence for new trill' citivelopineiat, This plan reopgnizes the investrnents local govern incin ts have tilreadv mode in developing trails and iuiring trail ei:isentients for esrablislaing new trail conmections.This itdan huilds upon the eNistirvit pLILII infrili-itiiticturn in [-dace to rrial1)ese kev trail connections to tile parlt reserve, TRAP, DOLL TAT ON PLAN 11':'in coordinate Coi_mtic zinc! (i.:ity trail plaiming efforts a pritilin ary trail plaii ikas been clei, el( iped to guide its impleni,:intation over tirne. (See Figure dlowing piviinlinan: construe In phases have been itientilieLl to be inapienlentcd over time 1-v Vashingion (i)Llflt iiid the oCtiatte Elmoti impruve [tie etinnectivitv 1,1 the trail .-;)e1-1-1 to Lake [Aril(' Park titeserVei Phase A (kVashingion Cotmtv) instruct trail cm east side of ,wentie roin Stillkvater Pioulevard ti CSAH Listablish internal park trail circulation around the north sidc 1 LipI ofFint 1IA7asiiiingiori.ouiir trail on si„,tith side titater kiulevarel from („)altda le citv Iiniit ie in \vtod enu C1Alashingi:ori -County', trail SiCir of Sti1.11INT E,f rri_Tettntist'; construei peciei;trian crte, iujh irres Pine development. int-kJ iict milts:tem. 15kil :2ity rk,111'. oanitei e in th'2 tortli s1 ic0, trail along 1 iti,th Stree', kie Alt PR'L .I• 44; h WO, Y TRI'L PLAN - 1,tavidt 'eta n. „., ,thh Ihh hht- Or inm,u1Rwr,1„,. VA.A outl AVOW, Vallt • ft. Sgdt VC' PRP ARY ESTIIViATE UNIT LEGENDS: d 'titti net:deli (1 irnpl'.2•111',.111 j(in 2011 di )119iTtlLitli driSttl.»t1 ttiridtioll Cacti -NI 1)1 1iHUIJ fttiittLii2C1 lid; tAltiiihtl tit-htt1 Ci LS=Lumn Sum, SFeSquarc Feet, S'd-iSauarie Yards, Ei,--Eacti. LF4Lineal Foot CY=Cubic Yards. TABLE 1- Lake Elmo West Side Access Piart - Preliminary Cost Estimate Estimated Unit Cost Notes Phase A Qtv. Unit lin Dollars) Provide mobilization and all necessary g construction surveyin ii LS $60,000.00 and staking and erosion control Clearing and Grubbing 4 AC $4,500 00 2 10Bituminous Trail includes base 10,750 LF $65.00 2 10' Bituminous Trail - Park Connection 5200.LF $65 00 3 Pedestrian Bridge over Creek 525 SF 9125.00 Native Seeding and Restoration 4 AC $6 000 00 Trail SLgnage/VVaytinding along Trail Corridor 1 LS I 91,500.00 Phase A Total: Estimated Notes Phase E Qtv. 1 Provide mobilization anC all necessary construction surveying and staking and erosion control Clearing and Grubbing 2 10' Bituminous Trail Native Seeding and Restoration 'Trail Signatie Phase B- Total: Notes Phase C Provide mobilization and all necessary construction 1 and staking and erosion control urveying Construct Pedestrian Underpass- includes trail connections. clearing and grubbingseeding and restoration Phase 0 Total: No. Phase D if Provide mobilization and all necessary construction surveying and staking and erosion control Clearinc and Grubbing 10' Bituminous Trail Native 6eeding and Restoration Trail Sionage Phase D Total: ;Subtotal: i:5'd- Contingency Unit Unit Cost (In Dollars) LS 960,000 00 Total Cost (Iri Dollars) ; $60,000.00 $17.100.00 $696,750.00 $403,000.00; $65.625.00 $22,800.00 $1,500.00 $1,26C,775,00 ITotal Cost (In Dollars) $80 000 00 3; AC $4.500.00 313,500.00 12,800 Lr 565.00 6332,000.00 2 AC $6,000.00 918.000.00 1 LS $1.500.00 $1,500.00 $945,000.00 ..._ Estimated Unit Cost Qhf. Unit I lin Dollars) 1 LS 035,000.00 LS 9750.000 OCi Estimated Bid Qty.. Unit 1 LS AC 676E, LF AC LS Unit Bib tin Dollars) $40.000.00 94.500.00 $65 00 56 000.00 950CLOCi Total Cost (In Dollars) za5,000 oo 575o,000 co $785,000.00_'. Total Bid (In Dollars) $40,000.0n $4.365.00 $-139,920;00 S6.00Ci,00 $500.00 $490.785.08 23A85.560.,00 S523.434.00 Total Estimated with 15°A 'Contingency: Desigiii and Aoniinsthatior FeeL Cleo! p sical desigr construction adm0r,.. arid related ei iginnetsomi gf total contingencyi bitu'ronou',"- aric' ,A,1,71*.h Stril,:tUrnd !to, 1"1,nlalcIE. adintional r acchi,;of 11 $4,018,994.00 $502.59EL60 131DL-7- P E D X coimmEN•rl, vaS:1:11:10 tTLfPir.sc rL COMMENTS- /is"at,741T11<z,VLY::-1 rtc )11 L.(r..1nty NAME' (Pieta.gr. Por,°0 COMMENT:. COLII rAGIE Prtnt, )PFS C.CpiENTS ' aslyingten)n Conr 1,n+11:, VklasCuGnt hingto:1 NAME, ‘Pi; GDRE S CUMNIE NT '..,..,Vashrngtcyny NAPki Prwt; A,DDRE.S:: IT COMNIE411-!.., c: ' ELI , : 7771',41; C.:(/11141E447S •Na shinul onCOUfltV 0,11.St:1111.(11:02:1 Inf7;„ tr. Y5 L.-,otrity NAME INAmm /M/41, NAME fNimmt, 7moc. AM,1)11471SC7, 41.11./DREE'S 71-7C C77.7 17(../4144,3747.1 7.47,7 1.1.1711, AMA- 5,1E11E711M .11::. T. 2,1 , 7411' 7:1.74117, P „ILN 7; 777c,' - .:317)C 7N4L 7A7i1S'!1_,i31-Igt():71 OtlIlt)7 t.3A,1IE PrInti , CITY cornmENT;, , • LAKE ELMO PARK RESERVE -. JULY 2,2, 21,11 s1-177-", 77, v,..-011. Lry 14AMF iPiePpw Pnrq. ADE-MESE CW.74'1E442.2 fasa nutcy:, iinty NAME {Picx.",c.'rfflI C.11 COMMEW5 LAKE El MO PARK RESERVE - JULY 27, 201 '•77:=-7'L_„(X.Arit's' NAM: Print. ' A DDRES2, ,717‘, - L ARE-atm° PARK RESERVE JUL' 2012 City of Lake :no 2nd Quarter Program of Wo Schedule Program Basics Council Draft inutes - Tuesday Council Packet Submissions - Thursday Financial Statements, Building Permit Update PIA; tIPCi! WO its f top (orsty 11)c vel op Library Bldg. Re -Appraisal New City Clerk Begins Staff -Council Retreat Park Maintenance / Mowing Schedule Water, Sewer, & Storm Sewer Pro Formas Office Efficiency Analysis Complete Audit Fieldwork Asst. Clerk/Finance Asst. Position Description Environmental Commission Re -Activated Storm Water Appeals Completed Publish 2013 Budget Calendar Water Fund RE -Financing Code Enforcement Process & Penalty Schedule Taxpayer Service Training (Clerk) Council Works -hop / Utilities & Growth Department Head Lean Workshop — Success Loops / Old Village Work Groups Workshop Begin 2013 Budget: Process wit h, Dept h ads if Storm Water Appeal and Credit Policy Completed First 10 Success Loops Completed 2013 Budget / CIP Dept Head Yz Day Retreat t 0) r Worirs hop Office Move Insurance Renewal Analysis Employee Handbook Completed CIP Equipment Priority — Draft to Administrator 1-94 Corridor Land Use & Base Zoning Complete Fall Festival Planning Begins P Before Council tg 5 P Before Council tg 2" Council eeting Packet April Wk of Apr 10th April 16th April April 15th April 17th April 17th April 23rd MaY4th April 23rd April 25th April 30th April 30th May 1st May 1st May 2nd may 8th May 16th May 29th May 31st June 1st June rt June 7th PArrte 12° June 14th-15th June 15th June 19th June 22nd June 29th June 30th