Pursuant to the due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting was duly held at the Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, on the 14th day of July 2010.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor William Hargis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
Audience, staff, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
ROLL CALL
Upon roll call the following were present: Mayor William Hargis, Council Members: Mary Stephens, Paul Rebholz, Julie Ohs, and Amy Scoggins.
Absent: None
Others Present: Clinton Gridley, City Administrator; Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk; Dwight Picha, Community Development Director; David Jessup, Engineering and Public Works Director; Mark Vierling, City Attorney; Melissa Douglas, Senior Planner; Lee Vague, Public Safety Director; Bob Klatt, Park and Recreation Director; and Steve Kernik, Environmental Planner.
Mayor Hargis welcomed those watching at home to join the Council meetings and call City Hall if they need information. He also referred to the manila brochures located on the chairs entitled "Welcome to the Woodbury City Council Meeting" and noted there are Public Input Sign-Up Sheets, and invited audience members to sign them and give them to a staff member if they wished to comment during the meeting.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
No items scheduled
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting where a maximum of three persons will be allowed to address the Council on subjects that are not a part of the meeting agenda. Speakers are asked to limit their remarks to two minutes each. Persons wishing to speak must complete a sign-up sheet prior to the start of the meeting. Give the sign-up sheet to any staff person. The Council may take action or reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff at the end of the meeting regarding investigation of the concerns expressed.
There were no Open Forum comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and an affirmative vote by roll call of a majority of the members present. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered a separate subject of discussion by the Council.
Item A Approval of Council Minutes – June 23, 2010
Item B Approval of the License Agreement, with conditions as detailed in he License Agreement, for Landscaping/Lawn Maintenance on City Property with Bailey’s Arbor Master Association
Item C To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-80
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota for support of MN GreenCorps Program Application
Item D To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-81
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Woodbury, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes; and authorization of staff to make non-substantive changes for clarity or to correct typographical errors as the final document is prepared for printing
Item E 1. To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-82
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota for authorization of a consultant contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Century Avenue / Valley Creek Road Landscaping Project
2. To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-83
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota approving an Interagency Agreement with Washington County for cost participation in the Century Avenue / Valley Creek Road Landscaping Project
Item F To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-84
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Commissioner for Transportation to perform an engineering and traffic investigation to determine the reasonable and safe speed limit on Lake Road from Century Avenue (CSAH 25) to Manning Avenue (TH 95)
Item G To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-85
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota selecting WSB and Associates, Inc. as the consultant for the Wilmes Lake Ravine Restoration Project
Item H To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-86
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota for assessment of Plan B Roadway Improvement Charges for Commerce Hill
Item I To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-87
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota authorizing the Woodbury Public Safety Department to accept training reimbursement funds from the Minnesota Board of Firefighter Training and Education
Item J Adoption of a motion to approve the Agreement between the City of Woodbury and the Sand Creek Group, authorizing the Sand Creek Group to provide employee assistance services for the City of Woodbury and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the appropriate documents as attached to Council Letter No. 10-163.
Item K To approve the Abstract of Bills for June 24, 2010 in the amount of $658,725.85, for July 1, 2010 in the amount of $281,900.16 and for July 9, 2010 in the amount of $568,166.52. Any purchase contracts requiring the signature of the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby approved.
Mayor Hargis moved, seconded by Member Rebholz, to approve the Consent Agenda items.
Voting via voice:
Mary Stephens - aye
Paul Rebholz - aye
Julie Ohs - aye
Amy Scoggins - aye
William Hargis - aye
A. On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday Sales, Bruce Kinseth, Receiver, Country Inn and Suites/Green Mill Restaurant, 6025 Hudson Road, Woodbury, MN
Mayor Hargis declared the public hearing open and recognized Ms. Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk to give background.
Ms. Blaeser explained that in May of 2010 staff was informed by Attorney Howard Roston, of Malkerson Gunn Martin, that his client, CWCapital Asset Management (CWCAM), would be commencing a foreclosure action and seeking the appointment of a receiver for the property located at 6025 Hudson Road (County Inn Suites). The Green Mill Restaurant, located within Country Inn and Suites, holds a current On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday Sales. Within an agreement between the parties as part of the foreclosure, CWCAM requested that the Court appoint Bruce Kinseth as the receiver of the property. The Court approved this request on June 21, 2010 and as a result, CWCAM has asked that the liquor license be issued to Bruce Kinseth.
Bruce Kinseth, Kinseth Hotel Corporation, has submitted an application for an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday Sales for the Green Mill Restaurant located at 6025 Hudson Road.
A background as it pertains to liquor licensing was performed on Bruce Kinseth and was found to be in order.
Staff will provide the applicant with a copy of the city ordinance and alcohol violation policy. We will also discuss our server training and our alcohol compliance check program with him. All of this information is covered in our Protect Your Business manual.
The applicant has submitted all necessary fees. The city attorney has reviewed the application and has found it to be in order.
Staff recommends the Council approve issuing an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday Sales to Bruce Kinseth, Receiver, Country Inn and Suites/Green Mill Restaurant for the location at 6025 Hudson Road, Woodbury, Minnesota.
Member Ohs moved, seconded by Member Rebholz, to close the public hearing.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Mayor Hargis opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council.
Member Scoggins moved, seconded by Member Rebholz, to approved an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License including Sunday Sales to Bruce Kinseth, Receiver, Country Inn and Suites/Green Mill Restaurant, for the location at 6025 Hudson Road, Woodbury, MN.
Member Rebholz asked if there is a separate ownership or one common ownership between the hotel and the restaurant. Attorney Howard Roston, of Malkerson Gunn Martin, replied that the current ownership of the property and of the Green Mill Restaurant are separate legal entities, but they are related legal entities. He was not able to provide the exact details but Max’s Pizza and CSM, which are the owners of the hotel, are related entities operating with permission to use the name of the Green Mill Restaurant family.
Mayor Hargis asked if Mr. Kinseth is the receiver for the operator of the hotel and of the restaurant. Attorney Roston indicated that Mr. Kinseth has been appointed by the court, a copy of said court order has been provided to the City and the City Attorney, and Mr. Kinseth and his staff will be operating the hotel and the restaurant until such time as one of two things happen. Either the foreclosure process commences and is completed or the borrower basically cures the default. He is assuming, at this point, that the foreclosure process is the most likely scenario.
Member Rebholz then asked Mark Vierling, City Attorney relative to the transfer of the license, is there anything that we owe to the Green Mill. Attorney Vierling stated that the ownership interest was represented in that stipulated order so they are familiar with the process and are familiar with what they agreed to. The receiver is on premises, the owner is aware of that, either by way of the stipulation or the court notice that went out.
Mayor Hargis asked if the franchise was pulled from Green Mill. Attorney Roston indicated that he was not sure if it was a franchise, a license, or just an agreement for a name use. The Green Mill Company itself is not the licensee of this, its Max’s Pizza, which is related to CSM, the owner.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
B. New Life Church Youth Ministry Center, Amended Conditional Use Permit, Final Site and Building Plan Approval, Case Nos. 10-27, 10-28
Mayor Hargis declared the public hearing open and recognized Mr. Dwight Picha, Community Development Director to give background.
Mr. Picha revealed that New Life Church has submitted an application for an Amended Conditional Use Permit and Final Site and Building Plan approval for a new 14,757 square foot, two-level Family Ministry Center addition at the northwest corner of the existing church facility. This property is located on the north side of Bailey Road, ˝ mile west of Woodlane Drive. The original church was built in 1977 and they have constructed major additions to the property in 1984, 1996, and 2002. Mr. Picha showed an aerial photo of the site which revealed that the church is located in the far northeast corner, its access is off of Lydia Lane, which is directly to the east, there is a large wetland in the center of the site, and a parking lot of approximately 325 spaces for the church on the south and southwest sides of the property.
The proposal tonight is to add an addition to the northwest corner of the building, two stories, and 14,757 square feet. It would be a family ministry center, which would be comprised of a multi-purpose room capable of seating up to 150 people that can be converted into a small gymnasium/basketball court. The addition would also include flexible workspaces and coffee/social areas. New Life Church currently uses the former single-family home located on their property as their Youth Ministry Center. The existing home will be converted back to residential use. The property is zoned R-4, Urban Residential, and is guided as Public/Semi-Public on the Land Use Plan.
The building elevations would be primarily brick, glass, and stucco. It is 58% of the building area, which does not meet our ordinance of 65%; however, the north side, we’ve agreed that they would not have to put all of the finish materials on because that is the area where they would add their next addition. Our policy has been that if there are future additions going in areas that really are not very conspicuous from the streets or other areas that we have allowed those areas to be Class II or Class III materials until those additions are completed.
The staff and developer held two neighborhood meetings regarding this proposal. There were very few comments. The Planning Commission also reviewed this application and Commissioner Rusty Nereng presented the findings from that meeting.
Commissioner Nereng stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this request for an Amended Conditional Use Permit and Final Site and Building Plan at their June 7, 2010 meeting. There were two people present to talk about the project and their concerns were the construction timing and traffic issues. They also wondered if the church should add a second access to Bailey Road. Staff felt that since this project was not increasing traffic to the site, that a second access would not be required at this time. But they did indicate that the build-out plans do show a second access to Bailey Road along the west property line. Staff also indicated that Washington County is studying Bailey Road as part of their capital improvements study since Bailey Road is a county road. The commission had several clarifying questions that were answered by the staff, but the commission felt additional restrictions were needed for the width of the driveway for the residential house to ensure that it appeared and functioned as a single-family dwelling. The Planning Commission passed a motion by a 6-0 vote to recommend approval by the City Council for the amended Conditional Use Permit and Final Site and Building Plans for New Life Church subject to their conditions.
Member Rebholz moved, seconded by Member Stephens, to close the public hearing.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Mayor Hargis opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council.
Mayor Hargis asked if a traffic study would be completed when the church comes back in for a major expansion project. Mr. Picha indicated that this is correct and this is listed as condition 14 under planning conditions in the resolution that indicates that if they are going to do a major expansion in the future, that a traffic study would be required. One of the outcomes of that may be either signalizing of Lydia Lane or potentially adding another access, which would be at their western property line. Bailey Road is a county road, a minor arterial, and Ľ mile spacing is required. So that is the only other opportunity for access onto Bailey Road.
Member Scoggins asked, in regards to the possible future improvements to Bailey Road, when would those improvements take place. Mr. David Jessup, Engineering and Public Works Director indicated that he does not believe that the county has anything in their 5-year capital program at this time.
Mayor Hargis asked if the county has applied for federal money that this road would qualify for. Mr. Jessup stated that, to his knowledge, this is not a segment of road that they have applied for federal aid.
Member Scoggins asked what the use plans are for the home on the property, which is currently the Youth Ministry building. Mr. Picha answered that it is going to be some type of church use, for people to stay there who are missionaries or other type of programs.
Mr. Dave Seehusen, Executive Pastor of New Life Church indicated that their goal is to make the building a missionary house.
Member Scoggins asked for clarification that the new addition would not be generating any new traffic; it was just going to be moving the existing programs from the Youth Ministry Center into the new addition. Pastor Seehusen indicated that this is correct.
Member Stephens moved, seconded by Member Rebholz, to adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-88
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings for fact for an Amended Conditional Use Permit for New Life Church
Voting via voice:
Mary Stephens - aye
Paul Rebholz - aye
Julie Ohs - aye
Amy Scoggins - aye
William Hargis - aye
Member Stephens moved, seconded by Member Scoggins, to approve the Amended Conditional Use Permit and Final Site and Building Plan for New Life Church, Case Nos. 10-27, 10-28, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be seeded or sodded and thereafter maintained. A revised landscaping plan showing additional plantings in the area of the existing Youth Ministry Center shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. A landscape security shall be submitted equal to 150 percent of the cost of the proposed landscaping as required by the City Code.
2. Future uses for the single-family home currently used as the Youth Ministry Center shall be limited to permitted uses in the R-4, Urban Residential, zoning district. These uses are limited to single-family residence, licensed residential facility serving 6 or fewer people or licensed daycare serving 12 or fewer children. No more than four unrelated persons shall live at the single-family home at one time in accordance with City Code. Any other reuse shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council.
3. All HVAC and other roof- or ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with materials that match materials and color used on the building. Appropriate screening will be reviewed and approved with the building permit.
4. No exterior storage is allowed on the site excluding bus storage approved through a separate permitting process.
5. All light poles shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height (from ground elevation) and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps and flush lens. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lens. In addition, any entry lighting under canopies shall be recessed and use a flush lens.
6. The final building elevations shall be reviewed and approved by planning staff in writing prior to issuance of a building permit. The north elevation shall be revised to introduce brick elements to break-up the EIFS material.
7. The applicant shall submit a materials board for review and approval by planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. Prior to the application of building materials, the applicant shall construct sample material mock-ups on site. The mock-ups shall be approved by Planning Staff.
9. All future building additions shall be constructed of similar colors, materials and design.
10. All future expansions shall meet or exceed the architectural ordinance in effect at the time of application.
11. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all impervious surface indicated for removal shall be removed and replaced with new soil and sod as indicated on the submitted landscaping plans.
12. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the signage, dumpster enclosure and soda machine located outside the current Youth Ministry Center must be removed. The width of the driveway located at the existing Youth Ministry Center shall be reduced to a maximum of 25 feet.
13. No signage is approved with this application. Any proposed signage requires a sign permit and shall comply with the Sign Ordinance.
14. The City of Woodbury will require a traffic impact study with any future zoning application that includes expanding the square-footage of New Life Church or New Life Academy or that includes the construction of entirely new facilities. On-site and off-site improvements may be required subject to the findings of the traffic study, including a second access onto Bailey Road.
Engineering Conditions:
1. The Developer will be responsible for compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and must obtain a land disturbance permit along with any necessary right-of-way permits from the City’s Engineering Division prior to the commencement of any site activities or site disturbance. The Developer will also be responsible for obtaining any other permits necessary from other applicable agencies such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Permit for Construction Activities and a Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District grading permit prior to commencing any site activities.
2. Grading, drainage and erosion control phasing plans must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit. All site activities shall adhere to the City’s Land Disturbance and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, other City ordinances, NPDES permit requirements and Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District requirements.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
C. Slag Stock-piling and Processing/Expanded Sand Mining and Processing, Interim Conditional Use Permit, Case No.10-39
Mayor Hargis declared the public hearing open and recognized Ms. Melissa Douglas, Senior Planner to give background.
Ms. Douglas stated that Black Diamond Granules, Inc. (Black Diamond) and Preferred Sands of Minnesota (Preferred Sands) are requesting an Interim Conditional Use Permit (ICUP) to expand the existing sand mining operation on three parcels located south of Hudson Road and east of Settlers Ridge Parkway. As part of this application, previous permits issued related to mining, stockpiling and equipment installation would be consolidated into one new ICUP. The properties are zoned BC, Business Campus, and designated as Places to Work in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Douglas shared a location map that showed the current location of the Black Diamond operation and the mining expansion area.
The original mining permit was issued to Twin Cities Silica Corporation in 1972 and has been annually renewed. In the early 1980s, Black Diamond began operation at the site in conjunction with sand mining. Black Diamond utilizes coal slag from Xcel’s Allen S. King power generating plant on the Saint Croix River to create products used for blasting, roofing or seal coating. In 1986, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permitted the use of slag as a reclamation material for past sand mining activities. Over the years, a number of special use permits and interim conditional use permits have been issued for equipment and stockpiling on the site.
Preferred Sands provide the oil and natural gas industry with high quality silica sand used in hydraulic fracturing drilling. The sand available at the subject property, derived from Saint Peter sandstone, is uniquely suited for energy extraction because its size, shape and composition. It can also be used in other industrial and material applications. Preferred Sands also proposes to process the sand including sorting, washing, screening, drying and loading the sand for transport off site, which will require additional equipment on site and a temporary office trailer for their staff.
Earlier this year, the City Council approved a zoning ordinance amendment allowing the expansion of existing mining operations as an interim use in the Business Campus district. The Council determined that although mining would not be compatible with the purpose and intent of the business campus uses in the long-term, it could be appropriate on an interim basis.
Existing operations at the site include Black Diamond’s office, storage facilities, processing equipment, and stockpiling of slag material and the existing sand mining and sand processing equipment. These activities, permitted under previous zoning approvals, will be consolidated into this new ICUP to more accurately reflect the range of activities on site and facilitate administration, enforcement and management of financial securities. The intent of the new ICUP will be to establish a timeline to phase out slag stockpiling and processing on the property. This transition will facilitate the City’s goals as identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and recognizes that the character of the area is changing as residential development progresses to the east.
Preferred Sands is requesting to expand sand mining activities east and south of the current approved mining area. The expansion area is approximately 35 acres. Two mining options are shown on the attached plans. Option 1 removes only the coarser sands while Option 2 removes more material including some of the finer grain sands. Ultimately, which option is pursued will depend on market conditions. Mining activities will be monitored through regular inspections, reporting requirements, and the annual ICUP renewal process.
Highly variable existing topography makes the site unsuitable for development in its current condition. Substantial grading and removal of material are necessary to facilitate the eventual redevelopment of the property for business park use as identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Mining provides an economically efficient means to remove the necessary material. The alternative would be to have the material hauled off site during grading through the development of the property, representing a substantial cost and impacting the development potential of the property.
The City Code allows an ICUP for the interim use of property if:
1) The use conforms to the zoning regulations;
2) The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;
3) Permit of the use will not impose additional costs on the city if it is necessary for the city to take the property in the future; and
4) The permittee agrees in writing to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permission of the use.
The application meets these requirements. The City Code also requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council on the termination provisions of the ICUP. The Planning Commission and staff recommend a two year termination for the importing of slag materials to the site, and then a 3-year termination for Black Diamond’s slag stockpiling and processing operations before they would relocate their activities off-site. The termination for the sand mining would be tied to the volume of material removed up to two million cubic yards or seven years, whichever comes first.
The City Code then requires the same findings for an Interim Conditional Use Permit as for a regular Conditional Use Permit, and those findings and conditions are included in the resolution.
Ms. Douglas also noted that the infrastructure finding two issues of significance with this application. One is that the wet processing of the sand requires a significant volume of water. The water can be provided to the site either through the existing well, a new well, or city water. The applicants are still working through that process with the DNR, but municipal water is available as a back up if they are unable to obtain the water allocation from the DNR for the well.
The second question is traffic. At least for the interim period where both operations are active on site, there will be an increase in truck traffic to and from the site of approximately 2 – 3 additional trucks per hour, based upon anticipated hauling rates.
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 30, 2010. Two property owners attended. One adjacent property owner, owner of the St. Paul RV Park, had met earlier with the applicant and they had no objections to the application. The adjacent property owner to the north, Dale Properties, spoke in favor of the application and felt it would enhance the future development potential of the property. There were a number of questions as to material use, employees, job creation, tree impacts, timing of the project, noise, dust, and other discussion items.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request for an Interim Conditional Use Permit at their July 7, 2010 meeting. Commissioner Rusty Nereng revealed that when the Planning Commission review this case on July 7 there were no adjacent property owners of the City of Woodbury present to speak either for or against the project; but there was a right-of-way officer from Northern Natural Gas Company present who requested that any development be consistent with their pipeline easement along the east property line. Staff had indicated that the new plans were consistent with that easement. The Planning Commission had several questions about on-site processes, potential traffic issues, impact of this development to the roadway grades for the proposed Eastview Road along the south side of the south property line and all of the questions were addressed by the staff. The Planning Commission passed the motion by a 6-0 vote to recommend approval by the City Council for the Interim Conditional Use Permit for Black Diamond Granules and Preferred Sands of Minnesota, Case No. 10-39, subject to conditions.
Member Ohs moved, seconded by Member Scoggins, to close the public hearing.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Mayor Hargis opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council.
Mayor Hargis asked for clarification, the three dates mentioned earlier, of when this operation would be done. Ms. Douglas stated that if the City Council approves the permit request, the current operator of Black Diamond will have two additional years for import of slag materials (until July 31, 2012). Because they need some time after they import to get through the stockpile, they have an additional year to operate on the site (until July 31, 2013). At that time, they would relocate their activities off-site and restore their area in accordance with their restoration plan. The sand mining activities are going to be market driven as to their timing. In a very good market, they could remove the material in as quickly as four years. But they asked for up to seven years (2017). There will be an annual renewal of this permit, at which point the city can verify the volumes removed and the progress remaining on the permit.
Member Rebholz requested that Ms. Douglas comment on the amount of material that is being stated (1,665,000 cubic yards; and 2 million cubic yards or 7 years), what is the background on how these numbers are being generated. Ms. Douglas stated that the two numbers shown in the mining plan assumes for their market they are looking for a certain grain size in material. So they will mine, and then sort, and put back the sand that does not meet their market requirements. So the first mining option shows overall about the removal of 1.0 million cubic yards, which is mostly the courser material. Then the second one estimates about 1.6 million cubic yards. They are believed to be fair estimates because they have done some borings and testing. However, this is a good reason for the annual renewal – to see what is actually occurring on the site and to update the mining plans as appropriate.
A separate analysis was done by staff prior to this mining application, and they were anticipating the need to remove between 1.5 million and 2.5 million cubic yards to prepare the site for development. The mining requests actually created an unusual alignment of goals.
Member Stephens asked if the water issue is going to be resolved before this moves forward. Ms. Douglas answered that the issue as it relates to their water allocation are the impacts on Valley Creek and also concerns about any impact to the 3M contamination to the north in Lake Elmo. They are working with the DNR to put in an appropriate range of testing and monitoring conditions to evaluate those concerns. However, there is an existing well on site with an existing allocation that they can use to initiate their operations. As a condition of approval, before the City we executes the permit, they have to provide a water supply plan to staff for review and approval so they can limit their operations they have available. Municipal water is also located almost directly across Settlers Ridge Parkway and they have the opportunity, if the well allocation is not granted, to get a municipal supply.
Member Scoggins asked if this would affect the city water supply; for example, in a typical summer when instances of coming close to maximum capacity occur. Ms. Douglas stated that this issue was discussed with the applicant. In the summer months, if they were running at full capacity, the City may have that capacity available. The applicants said they had worked with similar situations at their other operating plants; they have river water rights where they need to adjust their operations based on the available water. In an ideal situation for them, they will get the allocation from the DNR.
Member Scoggins asked if their process contaminate the water. Ms. Douglas answered that it is just water washing the sand that is out there. There is no residue. It is essentially mimicking the natural conditions that are out there. They use the water to wash the sand and to sort it by particle size. They reuse the water. They have on their plans some holding ponds for recycling the water to the extent that they can. Their water loss is primarily through evaporation or infiltration into the ground. There is no contamination or concern that has been raised by the PCA or the DNR as to the activities on site. It’s the mere act of what the effect will be from the volume of pumping to the existing ground water issues.
Mayor Hargis wanted to know about stormwater – would they be able to contain it all on their site. Ms. Douglas indicated that there is a condition in the permit that they provide a stormwater management plan based on meeting with the watershed and have submitted a draft of that plan to city staff for review. There were some minor comments on it but essentially the goal is to maintain all of the drainage on site. There is not any additional impervious surface being added with this application except for minor areas for equipment. So really it’s a matter of maintaining the drainage appropriately as they mine.
Mayor Hargis requested to be reminded of what the long-term use of this land is guided for in the Comprehensive Plan. The answer was Places to Work designation in the Comprehensive Plan, and a Business Campus District zoning which allows for a mix of office, office showroom, office warehouse, and industrial uses.
Member Rebholz moved, seconded by Member Stephens, to approve the Slag Stock-piling and Processing/Expanded Sand Mining and Processing Interim Conditional Use Permit, Case No. 10-39.
To adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-89
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings for fact for an Interim Conditional Use Permit for Black Diamond Granules, Inc. and Preferred Sands of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions:
1. This interim Conditional Use Permit allows the following uses on an interim basis in accordance with the conditions outlined in this permit:
a. Black Diamond’s existing slag stockpiling and processing operations may be allowed to continue but shall not be expanded.
b. Preferred Sands may expand sand mining to the south and east of the existing mining area to include an approximately 35 acres. The approved Mining Plans (Option #1 or Option #2) were prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. and dated June 4, 2010. A revised mining plan must be submitted and approved by the City before removal of any material in excess of the 1,665,000 cubic yards as shown on the Mining Plan Option #2 prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. dated June 4, 2010. Mining activities shall be staged to minimize impacts on adjacent developed properties.
c. Preferred Sands may install additional processing equipment, source water reservoir and recycling water settling pond and a temporary office trailer as shown on the approved Mining Plans.
2. No expansion of the mining area or permitting or installation of wet processing equipment shall be permitted until the ICUP is executed.
3. All previous mining, special use permits and interim conditional use permits issued to the applicant, business operator and/or property owner shall terminate as of the date of execution of this ICUP.
4. This ICUP shall be reviewed and renewed annually by the City no later than July 31st of each year until terminated. This interim conditional use permit may be reviewed at any time if the council is of the opinion that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for termination has been met. Mining, storm water management, erosion control and restoration plans shall be updated annually as required by the City. This ICUP may be terminated by the City at any time for violations of the conditions of this permit in accordance with the City Code.
5. Prior to execution of the ICUP, the permittees must provide a water supply plan for review and approval by the City of Woodbury. Water needs may be met by the existing on-site private well, a new on-site well, by connection to the municipal water supply or a combination thereof.
6. No importing of slag material shall be permitted after July 31, 2012.
7. Black Diamond shall terminate operations no later than July 31, 2013. All stockpiles, storage silos and exterior equipment solely related to the Black Diamond operation shall be removed no later than October 31, 2013. Equipment and facilities to be used by Preferred Sands may remain until termination of sand mining activities.
8. Preferred Sands shall terminate all mining and processing operations at the subject properties once 2,000,000 cubic yards of material has been removed or by July 31, 2017, whichever occurs first. All stockpiles, storage silos and exterior equipment related to the Preferred Sands operation shall be removed no later than 90 days after termination.
9. The proposed mining plan shows slopes and erosion control measures encroaching onto adjacent pipeline property and easements. Written approval is required from the property owners and easements before the City will execute the ICUP. Alternatively, plans may be revised to eliminate said encroachments. Access must be maintained in accordance with the terms of the easement.
10. All topsoil shall be stockpiled on site for use in site restoration. No topsoil shall be exported off site. Areas proposed for stockpiling of topsoil shall be at least 20 feet from property lines. Erosion control fencing shall be installed at the property line. Stockpiles shall be seeded for stabilization in accordance with the City’s Land Disturbance Ordinance. Prior to executing the ICUP, the City shall review and approve an interim storm water management and revised erosion control plan.
11. Permittees are responsible for obtaining any and all other necessary approvals from any other agencies or jurisdictions.
12. Reclamation plans submitted with the application are not adequate. The property owners shall submit a final restoration plan for City review and approval no later than 90 days after execution of the ICUP. The restoration plan shall address the following:
a. The restoration plan shall include the entire property encompassing the new proposed mining area, areas of landfilled slag material and existing stockpiles and facilities for Black Diamond.
b. Geotechnical evaluation of landfilled slag material for future construction suitability shall be submitted.
c. Grades at property lines shall facilitate future construction of a relocated Hudson Road and extended Eastview Road.
d. To the extent practical, restoration shall be phased as mining is completed.
e. The restoration plan shall demonstrate that the mining activities will not affect the long-term development potential of the property or surrounding land in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the City Code.
13. Property owners shall provide a performance and restoration security in the form of a cash escrow in the amount of $500,000 to ensure performance of the conditions of the ICUP and site restoration at the termination of this ICUP in accordance with Section 18-21 of the City Code. At least $150,000 shall be deposited prior to execution of the ICUP with the remaining balance paid in equal installments over four years prior to annual renewal. The cash escrow shall be administered in accordance with an executed Escrow Agreement.
14. The full restoration of the site in accordance with the approved restoration plan, including removal of all stockpiles, reservoirs, settling ponds, silos, trailers and exterior equipment shall be completed within 180 days of permit termination. If restoration is not completed in accordance with the approved plan and/or within the specified time period, the City may draw upon the cash escrow to complete said restoration including any associated legal, administrative, engineering and related costs which may be incurred by the City.
15. Permittees shall each provide a planning cash escrow in the amount of $10,000 in accordance with Section 18-21 and maintain adequate escrow funds to cover City expenses for permit and plan review, approval, inspection and monitoring.
16. Permittees shall each maintain insurance as required by Section 18-20 of the City Code.
17. Any violations or default occurring under the terms of the ICUP will authorize the City to draw upon the provided performance and restoration security and will also accelerate all other performances due under the ICUP.
18. Prior to ICUP execution, permittees shall contribute $150,000 toward the rehabilitation of Settlers Ridge Parkway to mitigate impacts from increased truck traffic on this roadway. This rehabilitation will be completed by the City at the time they are deemed necessary in the City’s sole discretion according to the ordinances, policies, plans and specifications existing and to be developed by the City.
19. The property owner has requested special assessment financing for the roadway rehabilitation contribution as provided herein and both hereby waive all rights they have by virtue of Minnesota State Statutes 429.061 and 429.081 to otherwise challenge the validity of the assessments in form or substance as specified in this agreement or the procedures used by the City in levying the assessments and hereby release the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of levying of the assessments. The roadway rehabilitation contribution may be paid by the property owner to the City as special assessments levied against the benefited land area. The special assessments may be paid in installments spread over four (4) years. Interest on unpaid installments shall be 2% over the City’s bonding rate. Reference herein to special assessments shall be deemed to include and shall include all interest and/or penalty due thereon.
20. If expansion of Settlers Ridge Parkway or installation of Eastview Road occurs during the life of this ICUP, permittees and property owners agree to dedicate to the City any necessary roadway and/or temporary construction easements at no cost, free of any liabilities or encumbrances.
21. If the Minnesota Department of Health or any other agency with jurisdiction determines that groundwater pumping for the subject site has affected any private well or otherwise negatively impacted groundwater or surface water resources, impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with state statutory requirements.
22. Any new lighting shall be reviewed by the City for conformance to City Code requirements and approved in writing prior to installation.
23. Processing operations are not limited to mining operating hours. Mining and trucking operations shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
24. Noise from mining, processing, loading or trucking operations shall not exceed the standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Persistent, verified noise violations constitute grounds for termination of the ICUP.
25. Trees and other vegetation along the north and west property lines shall not be removed during the life of this permit to provide screening from adjacent properties. Tree replacement for trees removed in conjunction with the mining expansion shall be required at the time the property is developed in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Environmental Management Ordinance. Details of proposed disposal for tree removal shall be provided prior to ICUP execution.
26. The existing home and related accessory buildings in the mining expansion area shall be removed before beginning mining in the area and the south driveway access eliminated. The existing well and septic system a shall be properly removed and/or abandoned in accordance with Washington County and Minnesota Department of Health requirements.
27. Any pit must be properly fenced so that the pit or any standing waters therein shall not be a hazard to children.
28. Slopes and pits shall be kept in such condition so as not to be dangerous to persons or property. Maximum slopes shall not exceed 1:1 in the mining area and 4:1 next to adjacent properties.
29. No water runoff damage, erosion or deposit of materials shall be allowed to occur on adjacent properties.
30. All reasonable means shall be employed to minimize dust, noise and nuisances.
31. Permittees shall promptly remove any material from public roads used for hauling if requested by the City.
32. Permittees shall maintain all equipment and implement dust control measures in such a manner as to minimize air pollution. Any emission which can damage health, cause excessive soiling or emissions exceeding state standards shall be prohibited.
33. Preferred Sands and Black Diamond shall submit annually written reports on the activities regulated by this ICUP no later than May 31st of each year.
34. Upon the occurrence of the date or of the criteria for termination, the City shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim conditional use permit shall terminate not later than 30 days after the date of such notice.
35. In issuing this approval, the City of Woodbury assumes no responsibility for any damages to person, property or the environment caused by the activities of the permittees in the conduct of their actions, including those activities authorized, directed or undertaken pursuant to this approval.
Voting via voice:
Mary Stephens - aye
Paul Rebholz - aye
Julie Ohs - aye
Amy Scoggins - aye
William Hargis - aye
1. Public Hearing: Amended Conditional Use Permit, Final Site and Building Plan Approval, Case Nos. 10-16, 10-38
Mayor Hargis declared the public hearing open and recognized Mr. Lee Vague, Public Safety Director to give background.
Mr. Vague began by giving a brief history and the operational needs of the Woodbury Public Safety Building renovation and addition. The building is located at 2100 Radio Drive and is comprised of two major sections. The first section was built in 1975 and served as the original City Hall. When the current City Hall was constructed in 1989, the original building was remodeled to house public safety functions. The second section is the 26,000 square foot, two-story addition added to the south end of the building in 2001. The need for this addition arose from the reorganization of police, fire and emergency medical services (EMS) as one Public Safety Department in 1996. This organizational model required additional office space so that all divisions could be housed together. The design of the 2001 addition allows for future construction of a partial third story if needed.
The older portions of the building were not improved in the 2000 project, and a second phase of improvements was envisioned in the 2003 – 2009 capital improvement plans. Originally planned for 2005, the Phase II rehabilitation and expansion project was delayed several times before becoming a part of the City’s 2010/2011 Capital Improvement Plan.
In 2010 there were changes in the design and needs, primarily due to changes in the business model and public safety department. Starting in the mid-1990s they were cross training police officers as paramedics, but recently they have started cross training police officers as fire fighters and fully integrating the public service model. This has driven a lot of the changes not only inter-department, but also many of the needs being sought as they request approval for the next phase of the building expansion. The work that is being done is designed to meet current and foreseeable needs for 20 years, which is when the city is projected to reach full maturity. The design is particularly useful in that is does allow for some continued growth within the department. So before any additions or additional space, there are a lot of flexible workspaces within the plan.
The proposal includes the demolition of a portion of the building that was constructed in 1975 and the construction of additions totaling 37,543 square feet. Mr. Vague continued by listing the main needs in public safety:
1. Vehicle Parking – currently there is indoor parking for public works vehicles, ambulances, and fire vehicles – but not for police vehicles. The police vehicles are typically the first response vehicles to almost every emergency call within the city because of the dual roles that the police officers have. The primary focus of this is for the marked police vehicles and the paramedic vehicles because they need to be ready to go at a moments notice. They are also the vehicles that have the most electronic equipment and medical equipment, all of which are temperature sensitive. Currently, squad cars are idling to keep all of this equipment at a temperature where they are in peak working order. This is tough on the cars, wastes fuel, and is not an efficient way of doing business. Right now the life cycle of a police vehicle is 3 years. It is anticipated that this life cycle can be extended.
2. Training Room – with an integrated service model the police officers, fire fighters, and medics all training together. This is being done on a weekly basis and sometimes is very specialized, not just sitting in a classroom. To do their jobs well, all of these people need to be training together. The current training room only houses 25 people, the proposed training room will house 100 people.
3. Windows, Roof, Carpeting – mainly in the 1975 section of the building. These have all gone past their useful life cycles and are in need of replacement. This was originally targeted in the Phase II part of the project five years ago.
4. Expanded Office / Work Space – as the departments have grown space became limited. So some departments were split and housed in different areas, making for an inefficient working dynamic. The new workspace would better align the work groups together to work more efficiently, and making sure there is enough space in the future as public safety grows along with the city.
5. Fitness Room – currently there is fitness equipment but it is housed in a spare garage, which is very small and will not work for the future. Fitness is not a perk for police officers or fire fighters. It is absolutely a job necessity.
6. Alternates
a. Storage Space – primarily related to the fire portion of the building occupying the 1975 portion of the building. Currently, various supplies are scattered about the city in different fire halls. Many are stored on mezzanines that are not designed to be storage areas and are difficult to access. The renovation will solve many of the problems but it will also take away some of the existing storage.
b. Clay Tile Roof – as mentioned above the 1975 section of the building is in need of a new roof. Although not required as a structural necessity it would unify the architecture of the building.
c. North Parking Lot – is in need of replacement (fire end of the building). Again this is the oldest, original workspace of the building.
Mr. Clinton Gridley, City Administrator continued the presentation by turning the attention to financing. The financing plan is a work-in-progress and the different options will be discussed at the next City Council Workshop Meeting (July 21, 2010). If this is approved tonight for a bid award, on August 25, 2010 Council will be asked to make a final decision regarding financing. The funding of this project was made a part of the community survey in 2009 and 67% of the citizens either gave support or strong support for this $8 million project with a tax impact of $24 / year on the average value home of $300,000. It is hoped to avoid a property tax levy impact for 2011, to defer that to 2012, trying to be sensitive to the taxpayers that are struggling in this difficult environment.
The 2010 Capital Improvement Fund budget allocates $8 million for this project with financing from General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds. In addition, $50,000 from the 2009 Capital Improvement Fund Budget was carried forward to 2010 to finance the schematic design phase of the project. The overall project estimate through schematic designs is $8,178,981, including $588,001 in design and construction contingencies.
In terms of some of the financing options, one of the things available right now is the “Build America Bonds” (BAB). That does allow public financing and lower interest costs. One issue is that it does expire at the end of this year unless Congress extends it. That is one of the reasons Council is being strongly advised to move forward. This is a very good interest environment to begin with and there is still the availability of BOB, which could take low interest rates and make them even lower. Second, there is an excellent biding environment. There have been many reports of very positive bids that have had reasonable costs relative to the work being done.
Interest rates are historically low but they are trying to work on the timing of the debt issuance and trying to look at different ways to reduce the amount of interest payments, perhaps even use of reserves, if appropriate.
Mr. Gridley introduced Mr. Mike Clark from KKE Architects who presented the plans, site plans, and some of the exterior building development. He went through images of the current site and the proposed site plan with explanations of decisions and changes to the plan, including the alternates.
The State of Minnesota created sustainable building guidelines, known as the B3-State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3-MSBG), that have been used for all new state buildings starting in 2004. In July 2009, at the recommendation of the Sustainability Committee, the City Council committed to utilizing the B3-MSBG in the planning, design, construction and commission of new buildings and major renovations greater than 5,000 square feet.
The B3 Sustainable Building Guidelines followed include the following:
· Increase density, maintain open space
· Geothermal heating/cooling addition
· Green roof alternate
· Efficient electrical and plumbing systems
· Day lighting to all occupied spaces
The presentation continued with Ms. Melissa Douglas, Senior Planner speaking to the zoning requirements and guidance. The property is zoned CC, City Center, and is guided as Public/Semi-Public on the Land Use Plan. Government buildings are conditional uses in the City Center Zoning District. Expansions of existing government buildings in this district require an Amended Conditional Use Permit. City Code Section 24-43 – General Criteria for Granting outlines the findings necessary for all approvals of a Conditional Use Permit. This section says, in part, that in granting a conditional use permit the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the city staff and other applicable advisory commissions or other governmental agencies, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. In addition, City Code Section 24-144 – CC, City Center District establishes the findings that must be made prior to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the City Center District. These findings were included in the resolution attached to the Council letter as well as related conditions to ensure those findings are met as the construction process proceeds.
The proposed building meets and exceeds the architectural requirements. It is at 90% Class I materials for the overall building, which exceeds the requirement of 65%. From the planning staff’s perspective, the City is leading the way with the quality of the architecture and materials used. This makes it much easier to enforce that requirement on the private sector. The Planning Commission also recommended the clay tile roof replacement; adding the metal to the remaining parts of the building, although not required as a structural necessity at this time, really unifies the architecture of the building and also would meet the City Center requirements which limit the allowable roofing materials to asphalt shingles and standing seam metal roof.
The parking does meet the city ordinance for office space and the training facility will generally be used for staff already at the facility, but in the event that they have a special event given the campus nature of this area, there are opportunities for overflow parking at City Hall. Otherwise the proposal does meet all zoning requirements for setbacks, green space, landscaping, stormwater, and lighting.
A neighborhood meeting was held in the form of an open house at the Public Safety Building, which was advertised in the newsletter but also the 500 feet notice area was specifically notified via mail notice. There were two residents in attendance that had general questions about the design and use of the addition. Ms. Douglas introduced Commissioner Rusty Nereng to give the findings of the Planning Commission
Commissioner Rusty Nereng stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the request for an Amended Conditional Use Permit and Final Site and Building Plan at their July 7, 2010 meeting. There were no members of the public present to speak either for or against the petition. The commission had several questions about the need for expansion, the expected use of the additional space, tree standards, and storm water treatment specifically about the proposed design of the infiltration basin. There were also questions about the Planning Commission’s role in approving the alternatives as requested by the staff. Staff answered all of the questions and the Planning Commission passed a motion by 6-0 vote to recommend approval by the City Council for the Amended Conditional Use Permit and Final Site and Building Plan for the Woodbury Public Safety Building, Case Nos. 10-16/10-38 subject to conditions.
Mr. Robert Klatt, Parks and Recreation Director then spoke about the schedule and final action that needs to be taken should approval be received for the CUP and the Final Site and Building Plans. Staff is looking at doing this project as a construction manager project. There is an agreement before the Council to authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Kraus-Anderson Construction Company to handle the construction management services. This project would be done similar to the City Hall project. In fact, the same team has been assembled in terms of project manager, superintendent, most of the architectural team, so it should be a very streamlined process as a result of working with Kraus-Anderson.
The schedule is as follows:
|
July 14, 2010 |
Council meeting with public hearing to consider approving project, and authorizing bid solicitation |
|
July 21, 2010 |
Council Workshop to discuss project financing, look a publications related to the bond sales |
|
July 28, 2010 |
Publish bond sale public hearing notice |
|
August 11, 2010 |
Public Hearing giving preliminary approval for issuance of bonds |
|
August 12, 2010 |
Proposed bid date for the project |
|
August 25, 2010 |
Proposed contract award, project financing determination |
|
September 8, 2010 |
Set sale date of bond issuance |
|
October 27, 2010 |
Award sale of bonds |
The construction is anticipated to start sometime in mid-September 2010 and be wrapped up by Mid-August 2011.
Member Scoggins moved, seconded by Member Rebholz, to close the public hearing.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Mayor Hargis opened opportunity for discussion and questions from the Council.
Mayor Hargis asked Mr. Vague to reveal the number of police officers per capita is and to speak more about the police/paramedic and the police/fire models.
Mr. Vague stated that there are currently 65 police officers that they are authorized for. One of the things looked at in past is the one police officer per 1,000 residents, but it does not work well when looking at the city’s business model because the police officers do more than officers in a lot of other cities. The police officers here are either police officer/paramedic or police officer/firefighter. Because of this, the city has to have minimum scheduling requirements for the police officer/paramedic coverage. They are not at a point yet where they can do that for the police office/firefighters; however, this is part of the long-term plan. It is believed that the staffing levels are pretty consistent with what a lot of other suburbs our size, which is about 1.1 per 1,000. The city actually gets a lot more for the police officer hours than a lot of places do that is what is unique about the city’s model.
Mayor Hargis asked what are the response times on the paramedic side, the fire side, and what are some standards or goals. Mr. Vague answered that the standards are very high. Typically, the scene of an emergency medical call is reached in less than four minutes. This is because the police officers are out and close to the calls. On the fire side, the task force put together standards for initial response. There has to be five firefighters at a scene of a fire and the goal is to arrive within nine minutes 90% of the time, and then there is a second wave (for large fires) that will come in the form of our paid on-call full-time.
This is still a work in progress. They have not been able to fully staff the police officer/firefighter program, but they continue to work towards those goals. The people who have really stepped up to help are the paid on-call firefighters in the EMS response and the fire response. They are working now on a squad system, so there are certain specific nights that they own and they know they need to be our primary response, and they have done a great job getting us close to our goals. There is still work to be done there.
Mayor Hargis asked how long the police/paramedic model has been in place. The police/paramedic model goes back to 1995 and it is the success of that model that has allowed the formation of the police/firefighter model. The police/firefighter model plan has been in affect for a little over five years. Currently, there is not enough police/firefighter staff to work 24 hours a day, but when they are working it is working very well. They meet up with the firefighters on the scene, change into their gear right from their squad, and provide that extra level of help and service right away. There are also full-time firefighters that work during the day (5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and they cover the majority of the fire and EMS calls.
Mayor Hargis asked what the cardiac save rate is and how it compares to the national model. Mr. Vague answered that historically; the city is well above the national average. The national average is maybe below 5% while the city’s average has been as high as over 50%. Thankfully, we do not have a lot of cardiac arrest calls so those numbers do fluctuate.
Mayor Hargis related a scenario of leaving his car idling and entering a store, what would the police do. The police do not like to see a car idling because when the owner comes back, a lot of the time the car is no longer there. The police would probably want to speak to the owner about leaving the car idling.
Mr. Vague has received phone calls from citizens wanting to know why the squad cars are idling. Generally people understand when it is explained about what is in the vehicles and why they are idling; however, there is a lot of that idling that should be turned off.
In regards to the clay tile roof, Mayor Hargis asked if someone in the private sector had a tile roof would the city require them to change it. Ms. Douglas replied that the City Center Zoning District requires conformance with the standards if greater than 50% of an existing building would be remodeled. If the Public Safety building was a private building instead of a public building, and 60% of it was to be torn down, then the ordinance would require the roof to be replaced as part of the remodel. In this case, the architect calculated that the Public Safety building does fall below that 50% threshold and so it is not a zoning requirement to replace the roof. It would be more of a matter of unifying the overall design of the building, and also taking this opportunity to come into conformance with the standard.
Member Ohs asked if the 48% remodel includes the option on the north end fire portion of the building. Ms. Douglas replied that this would be considered an addition, so it would not be included in the calculations. It’s only the remodeling of an existing footprint that is calculated.
Member Scoggins asked how much life is left in the current clay tile roof. Mr. Clark replied that typically a clay tile roof is a very robust type of roof. The expected life of that clay tile roof would be substantial, another 10-20 years.
Mayor Hargis asked would it would take to get a schematic of what leaving the clay tile roof as is would look like versus what it would look like based on the proposal. Mr. Clark indicated that this could be provided easily. Mayor Hargis requested that this be added to the presentation to the Council at the August 25, 2010 meeting.
Mr. Klatt added that they are also looking at the ability of recycling the tile roof. They have already had contact with companies that would be interested in taking off the material and salvaging it at no cost. This will be worked into the bid process.
Member Scoggins had a question about the indoor parking – is it typical in Minnesota and in more northern climates for police cars to be parked indoors. Mr. Vague stated that an analysis was completed on other metro cities that are similar in size as where Woodbury would be when mature. The City of Bloomington has 60 stalls with 114 officers. They are able to park all of their vehicles inside with the exception of two SWAT vehicles, a command vehicle, and a bomb squad vehicle. Plymouth has 45 enclosed parking stalls and they have used all of their available parking within 10 years of completing their expansion. Lakeville has 56 stalls and is the most recently completed public safety building that was looked at. They feel that this parking should meet their future needs. Maple Grove has 42 stalls and has maxed out their parking spaces. They indicated that they wished they had planned ahead and built a bigger parking structure. Edina has 19 stalls of enclosed parking. Their employees actually park on the street. Eagan has no enclosed parking.
Member Scoggins asked what the police/paramedics do right now with medications, etc. Are they brought in at the end of a shift and then brought back out, what is the procedure. Mr. Vague indicated that this is correct. At the end of a shift, if the squad car were not going to be used on the next shift, the officer would bring the medications inside. Sometimes the squad car is being handed off to the next shift, in which case the medications would stay in the car. The primary problem is during a shift when it is cold, if the officer has to come back to the office to process paperwork and it is known that this is going to take quite a bit of time, the medical supplies still need to be available at room temperature and that is why the squad car sits outside and idles.
Also, in the winter during large snow events, approximately 30 – 35 vehicles need to be started, brushed off, moved to one side of the lot and wait for the plow to come through, and then started, brushed off, and moved to the other side of the lot for the plow. This is not the best use of the police officers in the middle of the night.
Mr. Rebholz asked how many of the communities that have indoor garages operate out of a central command, like the current and proposed building. Mr. Vague indicated that all of the suburban communities spoken of work out of a central location. The exception is Bloomington, who has a sub-station at the Mall of America. It is typical of suburbs the size of, and larger than, Woodbury to have a one police department and for that to function well. Woodbury split the difference by using the fire halls as sub-stations, not precincts. They give the police officers an opportunity to get to a phone, get to a computer to do report writing, but stay in their zones.
Member Rebholz stated that a lot of time has been spent talking about the constraints on this site, but it is felt that the growth in the community and investment in that site will serve the community for 20 years and more.
Member Rebholz asked if the garages are seen as an item that most communities will move towards. Mr. Vague answered that new buildings and future plans that they have seen have all included garages. The cities that thought ahead and included enough stalls for the future of their cities are very pleased. And those that did not plan far enough ahead wished they did.
Mayor Hargis desired to know what is invested in one of the vehicles once it is all equipped. Mr. Vague indicated that the investment is approximately $50,000 for a fully equipped sedan squad car.
The indoor parking is basically just to keep things from freezing. It will not be air conditioned in the summer nor heated to room temperature in the winter. It just needs to hold the crucial 50-degree point.
Member Stephens requested someone comment on why alternates are being included, what purpose they play, and what benefits do they provide. Mr. Vague indicated that they started with a project that was originally slated to be a 2005 project and as the business has changed, so did the project. Outside of the scope of what was known could be done in this project, and outside of the scope of what was looked at in that $8 million question that was asked of the citizens, there are some operational needs particularly on the firefighters side that will not be met within the scope of the project. The hope is that the bids come in favorable and some of those alternates can be looked at within the scope of the project.
Member Stephens noted that not all of the alternates are aesthetic nice-to-haves but are necessities. She also requested that Mr. Vague comment on the entrance and departure of the fire vehicles. Mr. Vague commented that presently the building has a forward facing garage, which is what is seen from Radio Drive, and behind the building is the turn around, which is not an ideal situation. What they are hoping to do with the alternate is to reorient the fire trucks so they are facing out on Radio Drive. Behind them, on the west side would be the storage.
Member Rebholz asked a question on condition #3 regarding the light poles. Do they plan to use the new LED lights – there was a problem with one of the newer improvements on one of the gas stations in town. The answer was that they are not proposing to use the new LED lights, as there are a number of light standards already on site, some of which are being relocated and reused. They are proposing to add a couple of new standards that will match the existing ones.
Member Rebholz also asked a question on condition #7, no parking is allowed within 20 feet of the parking garage entrance. The reply was that this is primarily so the garage doors are not blocked where vehicles are coming out of the garage. So there will not be any striping for parking in those locations, but there will be parking striping in the back.
Mayor Hargis asked for verification that employees will be parking outside and that the garage will be for emergency vehicles only. This was confirmed.
Mayor Hargis asked where the emergency operation center would be. The emergency operation center will remain where it is now, what once was the old dispatch area.
Mayor Hargis expressed his opinion that this is a need for the community. Most of the bids coming in for public projects are coming in at 10% - 20% below the architect estimates. There are some things they still need to study as far as the financing package is concerned. Ms. Douglas and the Planning Commission have shown that this project does meet the ordinances and now it is up to the Council to make the business decision. Public safety is a fundamental core government service and they have made the case, Mayor Hargis believes, that this proposal supports that. The financing is being worked on. The goal in the financing is to have a stable or a level principal payment so there are not any spikes. They are also looking at how to finance the interest payments.
Member Rebholz wanted to know if the decision on the roof needed to be made tonight. It is not in the plan as presented and not in the Final Site and Building Plan approval that the Council is being asked to take this evening. Mr. Gridley commented that the Council is being asked tonight in regards to the roof is to authorize the bid and then the prices will come. Then on August 25 the Council will be asked to make a decision about award of the bid. The roof is an alternate – it is separated so it can be chosen to be done or not done. There is no cost associated with going forward this evening and the Council can make a business decision next month to add it or not. Council always has at its disposal the opportunity to delete it in its entirety. Staff would encourage the Council to leave it in since the architectural work and the bid document work has already been completed.
Council decided to leave the roof alternate in the proposal and will review the bids, numbers, etc. at the August meeting and make the decision at that time.
Member Scoggins moved, seconded by Member Stephens to adopt the following resolution RESOL NO. 10-90
Resolution of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota adopting findings for fact for an Amended Conditional Use Permit for the City of Woodbury – Public Safety Building
Voting via voice:
Mary Stephens - aye
Paul Rebholz - aye
Julie Ohs - aye
Amy Scoggins - aye
William Hargis - aye
Member Scoggins moved, seconded by Member Stephens to Approve the Amended Conditional Use Permit, and Final Site and Building Plans for the Woodbury Public Safety Building Case Nos. 10-16, 10-38, subject to the following conditions and authorize Kraus-Anderson Construction Company to solicit bids for the project
1. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be seeded or sodded and thereafter maintained.
2. All HVAC and other roof- or ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with materials that match materials and color used on the building. The project architect shall receive written approval from Planning staff identifying all screening requirements have been met prior to the issuance of bid documents.
3. All light poles shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height (from ground elevation) and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps and flush lens. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lens. In addition, any entry lighting under canopies shall be recessed and use a flush lens.
4. The project architect shall provide material samples of all final proposed building materials prior to bid. All proposed glass on the west elevation shall match the existing glass. All proposed metal panels shall match the existing panels on the building. The Planning Division must approve all materials in writing prior to the issuance of bid documents.
5. All future building additions shall be constructed of similar colors, materials and design.
6. All future expansions shall meet or exceed the architectural ordinance in effect at the time of application.
7. No parking shall is allowed within twenty (20) feet of the parking garage entrance. The project architect shall submit a final site plan meeting this requirement prior to the issuance of bid documents.
8. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize wooden gates and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved in writing by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of bid documents.
9. The project architect shall provide bid plans that incorporate all changes made to the project for approval by the Planning Division.
10. No exterior storage shall be permitted on the site.
Engineering Conditions:
1. Access to the site during construction activities shall be from Radio Drive.
2. A “Snow Removal Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval. Placement of any snow removed from the project shall not be allowed in adjacent wetlands, storm water features or public rights-of-way.
3. Sump manholes shall be constructed in the last accessible storm sewer structures within paved areas that discharge directly into or that are immediately adjacent to storm water ponds, infiltration basins or wetlands. Sump structures shall be designed in accordance with the City’s standard details.
4. The plans shall include all applicable City infrastructure standard detail plates. All site activities shall adhere to the City’s Land Disturbance Ordinance and NPDES permit requirements.
5. All necessary reviews, approvals and permits from other governmental agencies, shall be received prior to commencing of any site activities. Changes to the plans, as a result of reviews, recommendations or approvals from other agencies, shall be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to implementing any changes. Copies of agency submittals shall be provided to the City as well as copies of all approvals or permits.
6. Protection of the proposed on-site storm sewer infiltration basins and storm water components shall be required during all construction activities. Temporary storm water facilities shall be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing storm water facilities prior to and during all construction activities to limit storm water runoff, sediment and debris.
7. All landscaping features shall be located outside of the road right-of-way and landscaping adjacent to public utilities shall meet the City’s minimum design standards.
Mayor Hargis clarified that this approval does not commit the city to do the roof but that it is added as a bid alternate.
Member Rebholz mentioned that it would commit any other applicant because the Final Site and Building Plan is being approved as presented. Maybe the resolution should be approved along with the Final Site and Building Plans at the next meeting. The city is the applicant here, approving the applicant.
Ms. Douglas replied that from the technical zoning perspectives, when the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended the plans and as they were submitted for application, they clearly identified what the alternates were. Just as your Site and Building Plan shows an apparatus bay, what the Planning Commission recommended and what the Council would have approved through the zoning authority is that addition as an alternate. In other words, if that addition in that way came to pass, that it would meet the city standards. All of the alternates have been reviewed, but there is no requirement to install all of the alternates.
Mayor Hargis asked if this were a private developer, would the Planning Commission have let them keep the roof that is there or would they have been required to replace it. Ms. Douglas indicated that if this were a private developer and they were proposing this type of addition where they were taking out the center of an existing building and proposing another addition on the end introducing two new roofing elements, they would be strongly encouraged to re-do that roof as a unifying architectural element.
Member Rebholz stated that this would be worked out before it was submitted for Final Site and Building Plan approval. But what the Council is reviewing and approving are the Final Site and Building Plan. Mr. Gridley stated that it is perfectly clear that this is not a mandatory part of the project. This is not even the tail-on-the-dog; it does not even get that far. It is an item that would be positive from an architectural standpoint but the Council has the all of the authority to reject or accept this. The action before the Council tonight is not taking that choice away.
Member Ohs asked if it was published anywhere that there would not be a decision made tonight on the roof. Mr. Gridley answered that the Council is not making a decision on whether to do the roof, simply to seek bids on the roof. Member Ohs again asked if this had been published somewhere or did she imagine it. As the Mayor stated earlier, this is a lightening rod issue so if this has been published that the Council is not deciding tonight, then they would not want to decide tonight. Mr. Gridley stated that the Council is not deciding tonight.
Member Rebholz stated that he just wanted the process to be clear. The Council can always fix something, if necessary, at the next meeting. That they are clear on what is being done and that it is OK with what they intend to do, at least from what is known tonight.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
2. Action Item: Construction Management Contract for the Public Safety Expansion and Remodeling Project
Mayor Hargis asked if there would be a cost between now and the August 25, 2010 meeting. Mr. Klatt stated that there would be a cost. If they take the bids and decide to reject, the costs are limited by that agreement up to that point. But most of the costs related to this have to do with if the City defaults. Kraus-Anderson has been working with the City on this project on a letter agreement. This decision just formalizes the agreement through the construction process.
Member Ohs moved, seconded by Member Scoggins to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to enter into a contract with Kraus-Anderson Construction Company for construction management services in anticipation of a fall construction commencement and authorize Kraus-Anderson to seek bids for the Public Safety Expansion and Remodeling Project.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Mayor Hargis introduced Mr. Steve Kernik, Environmental Planner to review the proposed updates to the Environmental Management Ordinance, Divisions 1 and 3.
Staff is currently working on amendments to the Environmental Management Ordinance, Chapter 27 of City Code. Some of the updates are necessary to reflect changes as a result of adoption of the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) in 2009; other updates are clarification of issues in the existing ordinance. This is the first major revision to the chapter since 2005. The amendments include changes to existing divisions of the chapter, as well as to two new divisions.
Due to the size of the existing chapter and the number of proposed changes, the proposed amendments will be brought before City Council for review and adoption over the next several months. Currently, staff is focusing on the two priority divisions for update, Division 1 Shoreland Overlay Zone and Division 3 Stormwater Management.
This item is on the agenda for discussion purposes only. City Council will be requested to take action on the proposed ordinance amendments at the August 11, 2010 Council meeting.
Division 1 Shoreland Overlay Zone
All changes to Division 1 Shoreland Overlay Zone require approval of the DNR. The DNR currently has a draft set of state rules that will replace the existing state rules that govern the city’s shoreland ordinance and will substantially alter shoreland zoning requirements. Staff considered proposing many changes to this division but because of the impending state rule changes, it will likely be necessary to rewrite the division within the next two years. Staff has chosen to keep changes to the minimum necessary for that reason. Mr. Kernik presented a table showing the three changes staff is currently proposing that will affect development applications that are anticipated to be received in the near future and need to be addressed as soon as possible.
1. Due to an oversight, the previous ordinance did not allow residential development next to lakes, which is not true. The change is that residential developments next to lakes are allowed.
2. Prohibition on structures any higher than 35 feet is being taken out. In the DNR model ordinance, that was put in to cover rural areas as an aesthetic aspect. They plan to update that in the future and staff wants to make that change now because of some projects that are coming in of a commercial nature. The city is trying to reduce impervious surface and one of the ways of doing that is building up instead of out.
3. Staff realized that the ordinance is missing a category for Ria Lake, down in the southwest portion of the city, so they are adding minimum lot sizes for that area.
Division 3 Stormwater Management
Division 3 Stormwater Management is being updated because of the approval of the Surface Water Management Plan last year. According to state statute, the city must amend all ordinances and policies proposed in the SWMP within 180 days of the last watershed district approval of the SWMP. Therefore changes should have been made to the Stormwater Management Ordinance before July 21, 2009. Staff wanted to complete the updates to all of Chapter 27 at the same time and have been working with an extended timeline to the state statute with regard to the changes proposed in the SWMP.
Mr. Kernik presented a table of the proposed changes to Division 3 but only highlighted two significant changes that were proposed in the City’s Nondegradation Report and the Surface Water Management Plan:
1. Volume Management. The Surface Water Management Plan included some stormwater modeling. One of the requirements that need to be met is that all future development cannot degrade water quality from current levels. The current infiltration ordinance is adequate for residential areas but not for commercial areas because commercial areas have more impervious surface and gets more water run-off. One of the watershed districts has a standard that says you have to infiltrate one inch off all impervious surfaces, which would be a stricter standard for commercial areas. The proposed change is to say that the standard is ˝ inch off of the entire site or 1 inch off of impervious, whichever is greater. The modeling indicated that this would keep the city at current levels for the rest of the city’s development.
2. Redevelopment Projects. PCA passed a law that says the city has to try to bring the water quality back to 1988 levels. For a city like Woodbury that has had a lot of development since 1988, this is a big deal. One of the ways being proposed to address this is when redevelopment happens, that is when improvements would be required in the water quality treatment. The way it is set up in this proposed ordinance is that when a minor change is being made (i.e., paving a parking lot, putting on a new roof, or putting on siding) that would not require any kind of stormwater management. However, if a major change were being made (i.e., taking it down to native soil) then the area that would be exposed to native soil would have to meet current water quality standards.
The remaining items listed in the table are policies and procedures that have already been put in practice, just getting them in the ordinance so everything is clear.
The third item that Mr. Kernik brought to the attention of the Council was the Private Stormwater Facilities. Staff has been getting a lot of different kind of systems with these infiltration requirements so there will be management plans on file with the city to ensure they are being maintained and functioning the way they are supposed to.
The last item mentioned was the Standards for Valley Creek Subwatershed. When this was brought before the Planning Commission they discussed that the standards that were listed are really the standards of the Valley Creek Watershed District. The Planning Commission suggested that the standards just be referenced and not be listed because if there were a change, then the city would have to change their ordinance.
Mayor Hargis requested Mr. Kernik to repeat the volume management change, for clarification.
Mayor Hargis asked what the process has been for this. Mr. Kernik listed the processes as follows:
|
February 15, 2007 |
Surface Water Management Advisory Group review of proposed infiltration requirements and redevelopment standards included in Nondegradation Report |
|
May 9, 2007 |
Economic Development Commission review of proposed infiltration requirements and redevelopment standards included in Nondegradation Report |
|
May 16, 2007 |
Council workshop on Nondegradation Report |
|
May 23 - June 22, 2007 |
Public comment period for Nondegradation Report |
|
August 22, 2007 |
Nondegradation Report approved by City Council and submitted to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency |
|
July 21 - September 29, 2008 |
Public comment period for SWMP (each of the three watershed districts reviewed the SWMP during this period and approved the plan by January 2009) |
|
March 11, 2009 |
SWMP approved by City Council |
|
May 2009 |
Review and comment by staff on amendments to Divisions 1 and 3 |
|
June 28, 2010 |
EAC reviewed and commented on amendments to Divisions 1 and 3 |
|
July 7, 2010 |
Planning Commission reviewed and commented on amendments to Divisions 1 and 3 |
Mr. Kernik also mentioned that the commission will be coming back with other sections throughout the year, but wanted to get these two in because of the critical timelines.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
City Administrator Clinton Gridley mentioned the recent recognition of the City of Woodbury by Money magazine as “one of the best places to live”. Out of the top 100, Woodbury was number 13. Of the top 20 cities listed, five were in the metro area with Eden Prairie being listed as number 1. Mr. Gridley compared some of the indices between Eden Prairie and Woodbury:
· Medium home prices in Eden Prairie are approximately 7% higher than Woodbury. However, Woodbury’s property taxes are approximately 35% lower
· Property crime instances are 28 per 1000 in Woodbury versus 36 per 1000 in Eden Prairie
· Woodbury’s quality index is rated as good 95% of the day, 80% in Eden Prairie
· Jobs in the community is where Woodbury drops off substantially. However, job growth percentage in Woodbury is almost 20% and Eden Prairie is 13%.
Mr. Gridley listed some of the upcoming meetings.
None planned at this time
1. McDonald’s Amended Planned Unit Development and Amended Site and Building Plan
2. CSM Marketplace Car Wash
1. 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Parameters
2. Annual Performance Measurement Report
3. Public Safety Building Financing
4. Nomination Process for Watershed District City Representative
Council Meeting, July 28, 2010
1. On Sale Wine and Beer License to DeLeo Brothers Pizza for their restaurant located at 803 Bielenberg Drive
Other Meetings
1. Audit Investment Commission Meeting, July 16, 2010, 7:30 a.m., Poplar Conference Room
2. Joint meeting of the Economic Development Authority and the Economic Development Commission, continuance of the strategic planning process, July 22, 2010, 7:30 a.m., Birch Conference Room
3. Environmental Advisory Commission Meeting, July 26, 2010, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
Mayor Hargis requested that Mr. Gridley provide a list of the comparisons mentioned to the Council and also to mention it to the EDC.
ADJOURNMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 13.d.05, subdivision 3, and based upon the advice of the City Attorney, Mayor Hargis recommended that the City Council recess to a closed meeting to conduct the annual performance review of the City Administrator. The City Administrator has consented to the closed meeting for his review as required by statute. At the next city council meeting, for the benefit of the public, the city council will summarize the discussion and conclusion of the council and/or action that took place at the closed session.
Member Rebholz moved, seconded by Member Ohs, to adjourn to a closed meeting to discuss the City Administrator Performance Review.
Voting in Favor: Stephens, Rebholz, Ohs, Scoggins, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Mayor Hargis said the Performance Review for the City Administrator is standard practice for this time of the year.
Mayor Hargis recessed the city council meeting to a closed session at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________________
Kimberlee K. Blaeser, City Clerk
Approved by the Woodbury City Council on July 28, 2010.