HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-05-17 PC PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. April 19, 2011
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 p.m. or Late,r: Conditional Use Permit for Auto Sales by Fleet Associates, Inc., 2495
Maplewood Drive
b. 7:00 p.m. or Later: Seventh Street East and Ferndale Street Right -of -Way Vacations
c. 7:00 p.m. or Later: Capital Improvement Plan for 2012 to 2016
6. New Business
7. Unfinished Business
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
a. Commissioner report at the city council meeting of April 25, 2011. Commissioner Trippler
attended (filled in for Commissioner Boeser). The item discussed was the TIF proposal for the
Maplewood Mall area for sidewalk improvements.
b. Commissioner report at the city council meeting of May 9, 2011. Commissioner Pearson was
scheduled to attend. There were no planning commission items reviewed.
c. Commissioner report at the city council meeting of May 23, 2011. Commissioner Boeser is
scheduled to attend to fill in for Commissioner Trippler. There are no scheduled items at this
time.
10. Staff Presentations
Living Streets Task Force volunteer requested
11. Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process.
The review of an item usually takes the following form:
The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and
ask for the staff report on the subject.
2. Staff presents their report on the matter.
3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal.
4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to
comment on the proposal.
5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal.
Please step up to A podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and
then your comments.
6. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the
chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are
allowed.
8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision.
9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council makes the final decision.
jw /pc \pcagd
Revised: 01/95
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, APRIL 19,2011
i
1. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Fischer.
2. ROLL CALL
Al Bierbaum, Commissioner Present
Joseph Boeser; Commissioner Present
Tushar Desai, Commissioner Present
Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Present
Robert Martin, Commissioner Present
Tanya Nuss, Commissioner Present
Gary Pearson, Commissioner Present
Dale Trippler, Commissioner Present
Jeremy Yarwood, Commissioner /'Present,
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner '
Shann Finwail, Environmental Planner
3. APPROVAL OFAGENDA
- "'
Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand requested tabling the public hearing 5.a. Conditional Use Permit
for South Metro Human Services "I II Viking Drive. The applicant requested tabling the hearing'
in order to do additional work on the proposal and stated they had gone door to door to alert the
neighbors that the publib,oearing wouWbe postponed to a later date.
Staff would also recomme d?r� 7.a. Renewable Energy Ordinance to 6.b. and move the
current 6.b. Zoning Map and comprehensive Plan Map changes to 6.c.
Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Desai. Ayes -All
The motion passed.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the March 15 2011 minutes as submitted. ,
Seconded by Commissioner Boeser. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer,
Commissioner's Bierbaum,
Boeser, Desai, Nuss,
Pearson, Trippler & Yarwood €
Abstention — Commissioner Martin
The motion passed:
April 19 2011 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
'
5. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:00 p.m. or Later: Conditional Use Permit for South Metro Human Services, 1111
Viking Drive ,
r-
This item has been tabled per staff at the request of the applicant.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Tax Increment financing Request for Maplewood Mall Area Improvements
i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand introduced the item.
ii. Analyst, Springsted, Inc.; St. Paul, Tom Denaway addressed and answered
questions of the commission.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution approving conformity between the
proposed proiect and the city's comprehensive plan.
RESOLUTION 11-5-566
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO
THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT'DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TXkINICREMENT FINANCING (ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT NO. 1 -11 CONFORM TO THE CITY PLANS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT "& THE CITY AS A WHOLE
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the, 'City "), has prepared a modification to the
Development Program for Development Distri6t!No. 1,(the "Development Program Modification ") and a
Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan")`for Tax Increment Financing (Economic Development)
District No. 1 -11 therein and has,eubmitted`the.Development Program Modification and the TIF Plan to
the City Planning Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.126 and Section 469.175,
Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said Development Program Modification and TIF
Plan to determine their conformity to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City
as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is in agreement with the Development Program Modification
and TIF Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that the proposed Development
Program Modification and TIF Plan conform to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of
the City as a whole and the Planning Commission recommends the Development Program Modification
and TIF Plan to the City Council of the City of Maplewood for its approval.
Approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Maplewood, this 19` day of April, 2011.
Chair
Planning Commission of the City of Maplewood
Seconded by Commissioner Trippler Ayes - All
The motion passed.
April 19, 2011 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b. Renewable Energy Ordinance
i. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report on Renewable Energy
Ordinance and answered questions of the commission.
r
Commissioners recommended various changes or clarifications for staff to make to the
renewable energy ordinance. Here were some of the commissioner's comments:
r
1 The city should allow wind turbines on residential lots of 5 acres or more. But it would
be better if the city just prohibited them altogether.
2. Where should the city measure the setback, from the blade or the pole?
3. The city should prohibit wind turbines in residential zoning districts.
4. The city should prohibit wind turbines in PUD and multi- family zoning districts.
5. The city should ensure there is fencing around the base of large wind turbines.
6. Why would the city require a wind turbine be 750 feet from a building? Change that to
1.1 times the height:
7. How will the city enforce abandonment of wind turbines?
Commissioner Martin moved to prohibit wind turbines- 4n zoned areas of the city.
Seconded by Commissioner Nuss.
After further discussion amongst the commission ;Commissioner Nuss removed her second to
the motion.
The motion failed for lack of a second : -.
Commissioner Boeser moved to, all wind energy turbines in the City of Maplewood . Any
existing wind energy turbines- thafare currently erected shall be grandfathered in. And he
Seconded by Commissioner Yarwood: Ayes — Commissioner's Bierbaum,
Boeser, Martin,
& Yarwood
Nav - Chairperson Fischer,
Commissioner's Desai,
Nuss, Pearson `
& Trippler
The motion failed.
Commissioner Boeser moved to approve the renewable energy ordinance with the noted
changes as it relates to the wind energy turbine section of the ordinance. The motion is to
allow wind eneroy turbines in properties zoned commercial or industrial only subject to
CUP approval.
Seconded by Commissioner Yarwood. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer,
Commissioner's Bierbaum,
Boeser, Desai, Martin, Nuss,
April 19, 2011 3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Pearson, Yarwood,
Nay - Commissioner Trippler
The motion passed.
I '
The Renewable Energy Ordinance will go back to the ENR Commission for final review
and then onto the city council later this summer.
i s
c. Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Map Changes - Review and Discussion
1. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the
commission.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS'
None.
8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
fF ,
None.
9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Commissioner Report at the city of March 28, 2011. 1.
Commissioner Fischer was scheduled to,aitend, but there were no planning
commission items for reviews
b. Commissioner report at the pity co ncil meeting of April 11, 2011. Commissioner
Martin was schedul ` hot attend. The item scheduled for review by the
planning commission at this rneefing was the Hazelwood Street right -of -way vacation
of excess right -of -way
c. Commissioner report t the city council meeting of April 25, 2011. Commissioner
Boeser was scheduled to attend but he will trade with Commissioner Trippler for May
23, 2011 since Commissioner Boeser will be traveling. The anticipated item for review
is the Western Hills Area Street improvements — Wetland Buffer Waiver and the TIF
financing request for Maplewood Mall Area Improvements (reviewed on March 15,
2011):
d. Commissioner report at the city council meeting of May 9, 2011. Commissioner
Pearson is scheduled to attend. There are no items yet scheduled for review at this
meeting.
10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
April 19, 2011 4
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager F
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Auto Sales by Fleet Associates, Inc.
LOCATION: 2495 Maplewood Drive
DATE: May 6, 2011 ,
INTRODUCTION
Chris and Diane Johnson, of Fleet Associates, Inc, are requesting a conditional use permit
(CUP) to sell automobiles from a business condo located at the Maple Leaf Ridge Business
Center, 2495 Maplewood Drive. Refer to the attached narrative and maps.
Project Description
The proposed use would be operated as follows:
• This business would involve the acquisition and disposition of vehicles.
• The vehicles may be late model lease or rental returns.
• The applicants meet their clients in the client's office, seldom using their own location.
• The majority of the applicants' fleet is stored in an offsite ramp not in Maplewood.
• Vehicle reconditioning will be done offsite, not at this proposed location.
• The use of the proposed property will be primarily an office use.
• There would not be any attention - getting flags, banners, eta
BACKGROUND
November 28, 2005: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the Maple Leaf
Ridge Business Center. The CUP allowed a reduced setback from the residential lot property
line to the west. The code requires that buildings in M1 (light manufacturing) districts be 350'
feet or more from abutting residential property, unless a CUP is granted. The westerly building
is 250 feet from the abutting residential lot line.
DISCUSSION
Department Comments
Building Department
Assistant building official, Nick Carver, commented that the applicant must meet with the building l
department to review plans for any interior remodeling or construction:
Engineering Report
Staff engineer, Jon Jarosch; stated that, "it appears that there will be no exterior changes to the
property and that traffic generated by the business is not in excess of what would be anticipated
for this property. Therefore, the engineering department has no specific requirements at this
time. if site changes are proposed in the future, they will be subject to review by the city."
Police
Lieutenant Richard Doblar provided the following comments (Lieutenant Doblar's full report is
attached):
• This site is not designed as a used car lot, therefore, security for parked vehicles is not good.
• Vandalism is a potential for parked cars.
• Site lighting should be improved if cars are parked outside, however, this could be a
nuisance for the residential neighbors to the west.
In conclusion, Lieutenant Doblar states, "since Northland Associates' business model is not to
open a typical used car lot, I would limit their scope of allowable vehicle parked there to no more
than five vehicles at a time."
Neighbor's Comments
Staff surveyed the 38 property owners within 500 feet of the site including the business condo
owners at the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center to get their input regarding this proposal. Staff
received eight replies. Four were supportive, two were concerned about the parking of cars on '
the property, one questioned if this approval could be converted to another "used car sales'
business and one was opposed.
Parking Concerns
• The number of cars that may be parked along the west (back) side of the property could be
an issue.
• Parking is already "maxed out" on the site. Additional cars parked outside may conflict with
other tenant and customer parking needs.
Carry Over to another Used Car Sales Business
• Can this property, once licensed to sell used cars, be sold at some point to a "true" used car
dealer who would then carry on -site inventory? I propose you limit "car inventory" to no more
than five cars on site.
2
Opposed
• The person in opposition to this proposal felt that there were already too many car- sales lots
in the area. Maplewood should be encouraging businesses offering newjobs and those that
would not hasten the decline of the city.
Staff's Comments
There are parking spaces available on site. The parking is getting tight between the buildings,'
but there are available spaces in the rear of the site that are not used. The applicant's response
to this is that they will park up to five cars within the building, They do not plan on parking cars
outside in the parking lot, but do not deny that it could happen. Mr. Johnson, said that if they are
limited to a maximum of five cars parked outside, that would not be a problem.
The zoning, ordinance allows the opportunity of a CUP for used car sales, but also states that
this activity may not be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. Being that the applicant
must meet this 350 foot parking separation from the west lot line, they may not park cars for sale
any closer than the front of their building. This will also eliminate the neighbor's concern about
the potential of cars parked along the rear of the property. (It should be understood, however,
that these spaces are provided to park cars for this development. These spaces may be unused
currently, but, they are available for other tenant and customer use.)
This CUP, if approved, will limit the operation to the terms set by the city council. Another
operator cannot expand on this permit unless they would get approval to do so by the council.
Therefore, if another car sales business took over this business, they could not expand the
amount of outdoor car inventory parked on the site.
CUP Findings for Approval
The zoning ordinance requires that the city council find that all nine "standards" for CUP
approval be met to allow a CUP. In short, these state that the use would (refer to the resolution
for the complete wording):
• Comply with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning code.
• Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood.
• Not depreciate property values.
• Not cause any disturbance or nuisance.
• Not cause excessive traffic.
• Be served by adequate public facilities and police /fire protection.
• Not create excessive additional costs for public services.,
• Maximize and preserve the site's natural and scenic features.
• Not cause adverse environmental effects.
The proposed car sales business meets these nine criteria.
3
Conclusion
i
Staff does not foresee any problem with this request. As proposed, it would be essentially an
office use. The zoning ordinance prohibits the activity of car sales and car storage within 350
feet of a residential property line, so that activity cannot occur behind the building. As we
typically do for small used car sales businesses, staff recommends a condition that would
prohibit the use of the typical attention - getting used car displays such assigns, flags, banners
and the like.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to operate a used car sales business
from 2495 Maplewood Drive at the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center. Approval is based on
the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
2. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
3. The applicant shall not park any vehicles in their for -sale inventory any closer than 350 feet
to the westerly property line as required by ordinance.
4. The applicant shall not park more than five vehicles outside on the site:
5. The applicant shall not use any attention-getting displays on vehicles that are parked outside
such as flags, banners, signs (painted or otherwise), eta
6. The applicants shall apply for a building permit for any proposed construction of building
remodeling:
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 38 property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, including the business
condo owners at the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center, to get their input regarding this
proposal. Staff received the following eight replies: j
• I am assuming the office would be on the east side of the building since the back side has
dock doors. I would be concerned about the number of cars kept on the site and were they
would be parked. (no name or address given)
It's good to have more business in our area. (no name or address given)
1 have no objections. (David Bjorkquist, 2473 Adele Street).
l don't have any concerns with this proposal Good luck to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. (Jeff Dick,
2505 Adele Street N)
Sounds like a plan. (Don Huot, Huey's Saloon, 2425 Highway 61)
Can this property, once licensed to sell used cars, be sold at some point to a "true" used car
dealer who would then carry on -site inventory? 1 propose you limit "car inventory" to no more
than five cars on site. (no name or address given)
• Refer to the attached letter from Robert Long of Gladstone's Window & Door Store. Mr.
Long states that the parking on the site is already getting "maxed out." He is concerned that
if additional cars are parked outside, there won't be adequate parking for day -to -day retail
customers.
Refer to the attached email reply from Piotr Nowak of 1033 Demont Street opposed to this
proposal.
_5
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION'
Site size: 4.6 acres
Existing land use: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Hmong American Alliance Church
South: Acorn Mini Storage
East: Maplewood Drive
West: Single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: C (commercial)
Zoning: M1 (light manufacturing)
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44- 637(a)(1) of the M1 ordinance applies the requirements of the BC (business
commercial) district. Section 44- 512(5) of the BC district requires a CUP to store, lease or sell
motor vehicles. Also, this storage, leasing or sales of motor vehicles must be no closer than 350
feet toa residential district.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 44- 1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to
the findings for approval in the resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
The application for this request was complete on April 20, 2011. State law requires that the city
decide on land use applications within 60 days. The deadline for council action, therefore, is
now June 19, 2011
6 ,
p:sec9 \Northland Associates CUP for Auto Sales PC Report 5 11 to
Attachments:
1. Zoning Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Applicant's Written Narrative
4. Memo from Lieutenant Doblar dated April 27, 2011
5. Letter from the Gladstone Window and Door Store dated April 28, 2011
6. Email response from Piotr Nowak dated April 27, 2011
7. Resolution
i
I f
7
Copyright
MaplewoodBaseMap.
Chad Bergo
Parcels: This data set is available to everyone. Fees and policy are published in the Ramsey County Fee Schedule. Charges are
variable and are subject to change. Seethe Ramsey County Fee Schedule for specific information on fees and policy.
ZONING MAP
http:// maps.ei.maplewood.mn.uslaspnet_ client/ ESRUWebADF IPrintTaskLayoutTemplates /... 5/6/2011
3 a
�O w
o
m
rc
U
O
O
W
o z
w
LL C)
LU
Q
J �
W UJ
co
J Z
Q �
m
Z
_ Q) < L) -
a d m Q zffs
Q a
CL
CL
N. O AMNd a3773.
IC OIIHOHV `
r w
r
(O
Lo
O O
N
Q
M'
O
"
N
J�d.
N
C
O..
�
O
J
_
w
,y N
c
N
CD
'
as
3
a
c
w
°) c
J�
�
N
N
.R C O C7
m
O
�
a�
o
v o w m a�
4 .0
o
2'J2
_rn
=mC)
s(D =ao
� o
O
LL
DD
1
IDI
IDDz
ZQ
chment 3
i
!1
E
i d
%
2495
Proposed Fleet Associates
Location
- sd
MAPLE LEAF RIDGE i
BUSINESS CENTER
slaw
i -
t
1
a Q n
R'1.
o m S t
rn
PR0.£Ci � � t BfxCS'. LCIIICP � ttM 0 )/t010!
I1Rf MR 1x4 �,i� � v
n� 5Tl PnJYAIr p yryfp rN' aq p K 4 ix LANQSCPPE ANC 0 $�G� y_)
+v n[ xO+mlav n �nr 2p
SITE PLAN 3
1.0
Attachment 4
April 18, 2011
Fleet Asso
incorporated
City of Maplewood
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
Community Design Review Board
City Council
Fleet Associates Inc. has been in business for 27 plus years. Prior to starting this
business, our backgrounds were in banking. I am a graduate of the University of
Minnesota with a degree in mathematics. Formally I was a commercial lending officer at
Commercial State Bank and my partner (wife) was a manager in operations at U.S. Bank.
Early on, we made a decision to create a client based firm which is the "heart and soul"
of our business and what we refer to as Transportation Planning. Our client based
business is primarily repeat and referral individuals, non -profit agencies and companies
with fleets of less than 50 vehicles. Although we were located in Spring Lake Park, our
database of clients are metro and nationwide. We are what is referred to as a National
Fleet on the new car side of our business. These transactions are delivered through and at
the various fleet departments at local franchised new Minnesota dealer locations.
We also serve our client's transportation planning needs through the acquisition and
disposition of vehicles. It may be in our client's best interest to buy late model lease or
rental returns which I locate around the country based on current market pricing. For their
convenience, we may meet our clients in their office, seldom using ours.
Although our business model is not a typical application of a "Used Car Lot" we are
still required to have that licensing designation to conduct business. We purchased a low
visibility professional looking warehouse condo rather than renting a suite of offices like
we have done for the past five years. The majority of our fleet vehicles are stored for
safety in an offsite ramp. We have a network of offsite vendors that do all of the various
vehicle reconditioning needs. The way we conduct our business will not have a negative
impact to our adjoining business owners and the neighbors to our west. It is my opinion
that they will not even know what type of business is located inside our building.
Our new office location is just a few minutes away from where we have lived in
Maplewood for the last 25 years.
If you have any questions, please call me at 612 -747 -8956.
Chris A.
Fleet As
W,
4 -19 -2011
City of Maplewood
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
Community Design Review Board
City Council
As per your request, the following is our response to the criteria for approval for an
conditional use permit as found on page 4 questions 1 -9 of the City ofMaplewood's
attached document.
1. Our business, Fleet Associates Inc., would be located in the Maple Leaf Ridge
Business Center, Unit 315, which is zoned commercial. The exterior and grounds are
currently maintained by the condo association and will continue as such. The
development and buildings were constructed in 2006 under the City's comprehensive
plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. Our business, Fleet Associates Inc., would in no way change the existing or planned
character of the surrounding area. Currently, there is a wide range of businesses within
the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center that range from medical clinics to construction
companies.
3. Our business would not depreciate the property value as our business model is not a
typical "used car lot" as mentioned in our letter dated April 18 2011 which gave an
overview of the nature of our business and the low profile that we prefer.
4 .For five years our business operated out of a suite of professional offices. All of the
necessary reconditioning of our vehicles are completed offsite at independent vendor
locations. We will continue to operate in the same manner. Our business activity would
therefore, not involve anything that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental,
disturbing or cause any nuisance to any person because of noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor,
fumes, electrical interference or any other nuisances.
5. As we meet most of our clients for appointments outside of our office location, only
minimal vehicular traffic would be involved. Most likely the traffic that we generate
would be far lass than many of the current condo businesses currently on site.
6. -8. As the Maplewood Leaf Ridge Business Center was developed in 2006, our
business would not alter or adversely effect the existing complex in any way concerning
the public facilities ,drainage structures, water & sewer system ,schools, parks, the site's
natural and scenic features.
9. Fleet Associates Inc. would cause minimal adverse environmental effects on the
property.
One of the main reasons that we chose this location, in addition to being close to our
residence in Maplewood, was the Maplewood Leaf Ridge's professional look and the
existing business condo's association owner regulations. In every thing we do, whether it
involves our personal or business, we hold to a strict code of ethics that have served us
well through the years. Our personal residence in Maplewood, and our prior business
locations have been highlighted in design magazines and won city awards for landscaping
and the general appearance of our properties. I know that our business will be well
received in the Maplewood community just as it has been in our past locations. We
started processing our current dealership paperwork through Kris Weaver, Deputy
Register department, and received many compliments as to the completeness and quality
of the work submitted. We welcome any additional questions that you may have of us
and our business Fleet Associates Inc.
Sincerely,
wners
Chris . Jo son
Diane M. ohnson
M,
Maplewood Police Department
Memo
To: Tom Ekstrand
From: Lieutenant Richard Doblar 01)
Date: April 27, 2011
Re: PROJECT REVIEW— Northland Associates
After reviewing the attached proposal for Northland Associates to change their CUP
to sell used vehicles at their location, I have the following recommendations or
concerns with this request.
The Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center is not designed as a vehicle sales lot so
security for vehicles is not readily visible from the street. The proposed location for
this request is to the back of the business center which presents itself as a viable
target for vehicle vandalism. The area lighting is not good and since it is adjacent to
residential properties it might not be improvable without impinging on lighting up the
backyards of the adjacent residential properties.
Since Northland Associates business model is to not open a typical "used car lot ", I
would limit their scope of allowable vehicles parked there to no more than 5 vehicles
at a time.
If there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions,
please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. I can be reached at
(651) 249 -2604 or via e-mail at richard doblar(a.ci.maplewood.mn.us .
,M.
Gladstone s Attachment 6
Wind ®w & Dmmr St®re
2475 Maplewood Drive (Hwy 61), Suite 110, Maplewood, MN 55109
Phone (651) 774 -8455 • Fax (866) 929 -9576 www.gladstoneswindow.com .
F
April 28, 2011
Tom Ekstrand
Office of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
Our existing parking space is going to be maxed out now that Retina Center is adding a
second floor in units 213 & 214. The west side of building 2495 has "dock doors" for semi
trailers to maneuver and back up to.
When we did our build out in units 110 & 111 we were told that we could not increase the size
of our second floor because there were not enough parking spaces.
I am concerned that if additional cars are parked outside we won't have adequate parking for
day -to -day retail customers.
Sincerely Yours,
Robert G. Long
President
Gladstone's Window and Door Store
Attachment 7
Tom Ekstrand
From:
piotrnw @aol.com
Sent:
Wednesday, April 27, 20112:07 PM
To:
Tom Ekstrand
Subject:
Maple Leaf Ridge Used Car Lot
Categories: Red Category
Dear Senior Planner Tom Ekstrand,
Please decline any permit consideration for Fleet Associates wishing to sell used automobiles at the Maple Leaf Ridge
Business Center. As I noticed in recent years, the number of new car dealership along the Highway 61 has steadily
declined. There is an economic and cultural reason for such decline. Based on market conditions simply there is no need
for a massive fleet of available cars waiting for a customer. Interesting, on the place of for example; Kline Oldsmobile
dealership there is already a "Used car Lot" and another one further down south. Please make your decision based on a
long term vision and a long term prosperity of the City of Maplewood and do not convert Maplewood into the junk yard of
the metro. Taking another look on the used car lot located next to the Caribou Coffee bordering with the mall; deflated
tires, rust and junk is not the future of the Maplewood that I would like to see. Big words such as: "non- profit',
"mathematician", "graduate" etc. are just a lure of a declining auto industry and gimmicks of dealerships cleaning their
areas and from which Maplewood would make hardly any profit. I would have only one recommendation; bring new
business to the Maplewood that have future and prospect of anew jobs; send used car lots away from the city as it is a
sign of the declining city.
Piotr Nowak.
1033 Demont
Maplewood MN
Attachment 8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Chris and Diane Johnson, of Fleet Associates, Inc. applied for a conditional use
permit to operate a used car sales business.
WHEREAS, Section 44- 512(5) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit to store,
lease or sell used motor vehicles. Further, code requires that these activities not occur closer than
350 feet to residential property:
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2495 Maplewood Drive. The legal
description is:
W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61 -1 N 85 FT OF LOT 3.
W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61 -1 AND EX N 85 FT LOT 3.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On May 17, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of
citystaff. The planning commission recommended that the city council this
permit.
2. On the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council the above- described
conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any
person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air
pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or
other nuisances.
5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. f
i
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor
changes.
2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year:
4. The applicant shall not park any vehicles in their for -sale inventory any closer than 350 feet
to the westerly property line as required by ordinance.
5. The applicant shall not park more than five vehicles outside on the site.
6. The applicant shall not use any attention - getting displays on vehicles that are parked
outside such as flags, banners, signs (painted or otherwise), etc:
The Maplewood City Council this resolution on
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Seventh Street East and Ferndale Street Right -of -Ways Vacation
LOCATION: 2505 Minnehaha Avenue East — Union Cemetery Property
DATE: May 10, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The City of Maplewood's Public Works Department is requesting the city vacate excess Seventh
Street East and Ferndale Street right -of -ways. The right -of -ways are not needed and unused and
would be attached to a portion of property the city is buying from Union Cemetery. A small
portion of the proposed vacated right -of -way falls outside of the area the city is purchasing and
would be dedicated back to the Union Cemetery property. Maps displaying the vacated areas
and the area the city will be purchasing are attached to this report.
DISCUSSION
On December 13, 2010, the city council approved the purchase of approximately two acres from
Union Cemetery. The city had previously been leasing this area which contains a trail segment
for the city's Nature Center. The purpose of this request is to provide both the city and Union
Cemetery parcels that are free of unused right -of -ways. To the south of this proposal, Ferndale
Street has already been vacated within the Union Cemetery parcel. Union Cemetery plans to
build a cremation garden and it was the desire of both parties to vacate the unused portions of
the right -of -ways during the purchase process.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution attached to this report. This resolution is for the vacation of the Seventh
Street East and Ferndale Street right -of -ways. The reasons for the vacation are as follows:
It is in the public interest since;
1. The city is not using the right -of -way for a public street.
2. The right -of -way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent
properties have street access at other points.
This approval is subject to:
1. Comply with the requirements contained within Assistant City Engineer Steve Love's
report dated April 7, 2011.
2. All legal descriptions must be approved by staff.
P: \ SEC25\ \UnionCemeteryVacation_PC_051711
Attachments:
1. Assistant City Engineer Steve Love's comments, dated February 24, 2011
2. Area Map
3. Proposed Legal Description for the Vacations
4. Purchase Area Map
5. Vacation Resolution
Attachment 1
TO: Michael Martin, Planner
FROM: Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: East Seventh Street & Ferndale Street Right -of -Way Vacation Request
DATE: 4 -07 -11
PRPOSED STREET VACATION
In 1977 the majority of East Seventh Street and Ferndale Street right -of -way, which was dedicated as
part of The Union Cemetery plat, was vacated by City Council action. The remaining portions of East
Seventh Street and Ferndale Street right -of -way are proposed to be vacated prior to the recording of
documentation necessary for the transfer of land between The Union Cemetery and the City of
Maplewood. Currently there are no public utilities or existing street infrastructure located within the
proposed right -of -way to be vacated. As part of the vacation process, if there are any privately owned
utilities within the proposed right -of -way then new easements will need to be established for these
existing facilities. It is recommended that this be a condition for approval of vacation.
=t,u�:
A Proposed Legal Description For the Vacation of F
East Seventh Street and Ferndale Street
(July 29, 2010)
Those parts of East Seventh Street and Ferndale Street, originally dedicated as Seventh St. and Union Ave., respectively,
in THE UNION CEMETERY, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota (said THE UNION
CEMETERY being the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 29 North, Range 22 West),
being within the following described property:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence southerly, along on
the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 133.00; thence westerly, on a line parallel with the
north line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 325.00 feet; thence northwesterly, to a point on the
north line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 450.00 feet west of said northeast corner; thence
easterly, on said north line, 450.00 feet to the point of beginning
1
33 I 33
�I
- -Street Vacation Area
North line of the SW I/4 of the
SE I/4 Sec 25, T29, R22
I -
o
N
✓ ym
W ~ N
N
i c2
u
>rna
T
NORTH
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
The Northeast Corner SE of
c the SW I/ SE 4 of the I
�'• ___ ' 'r � I/4 Sec 25, T29, R22 -t
walking trail
net wall
\ + x
enc��2'00 "W 325.00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws
of the State of Minn sot�
26724 Richard L. Licht 7/?_g to
License No. Date
ASSOCIATES
planning • Ciyil Engineering • Lend Surveying
Landscape Architecture • Emiroumental
7200 Hemlock lane, Suite 380
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55389 -5592 mm
lblephona (763)424 -5505 Fax: (7831424 -5
I'
I
I
I
rNorlh line of Lot I,
'
.If.
1 block e An n
\Cemetery Annex
Ti
tl l
M
i _I;.•
IV F
.•...
` Bridge
CD
v Y
i /,
A N
se
Br -- y(x
N
S3•a
4
/ o
�
X fence
X X
DRAWN BY: RLS PROJECT NUMBER: 07157
SUBMITTALS
7 -30-10 DRAWING ISSUED
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
I
I
I
Ti
I I
O W oY
O
v Y
A N
se
4
fill `
'I•
o.
The West Line of Lot I Black I
Union Cemetery Annex; Also the
East Line of the SW 1/4 of the
SE 1/4 Sec 25, T29, R22
DRAWN BY: RLS PROJECT NUMBER: 07157
SUBMITTALS
7 -30-10 DRAWING ISSUED
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
ment 4
33 I 33
I l North line of Lot I,
�y! I Black Union —
\ \ Cemete ry Annex
North line of the SW 1/4 of the
SE 1/4 Sec 25. T29, R22 - - 1
509 ° 52'00 "W 543.21 — — — — -I- — — —
_ o Bridge_ n
"W 193.89
n / 3m
3I v
Lt 1. Block Comer ock 1, union
n
0
' V � The Northeast Corner of / �� \� /� o
Lot 1, Bllo °
the SW 1/4 of the SE // Cemetery Annax Bridge--
1/4 Sec 25, T29, R22 - ` h H
�.
___ troll /, Nlai x. ec�'�ry�sB °- _ •jO n
�� o m e ° o oApo9M ?�.____ / -
p`a_r 'ret we 330 2- -fence �S N09 52'00 "E %o
6 76.61 =
x <. K x / L =4737
i �'7ence —' 4=
` -� NB °52'00" 2 553 / I R =j2
Ch =S78.
V °660\1 }5 �,� 1 C =46.5326 X23 "E
� -ax s5 Wpb 50 i I
Gb °6 p6 i I Ot .
14 W
co
'aN �.I I ♦/ �� /
The West Line of Lot 181ook I `
I Union Cemetery Annex; Also the
East Line of the SW I/4 of the
SE 1/4 Sec 25, T29, R22
T
NORTH
p 100
SCALE DRAWN BY: RLS PROJECT NUMBER: 07157
SUBMITTALS
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 7 -30-10 DRAWING ISSUED
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyorunderthe laws ASSOCIATES
of the State of Minnesota.
�� PI • Civil Hn6t e unit Surveying
Imdscape Architecture Le
re Enviroummtel
Richard L. Licht 7260 0emleck La.% suite 906
2672426724 7 Z e 4 D0 Ytmeapoli+, I in mots 55969 -5592 aiw
Licenu No. 0 to Telephone: (76902"505 eer. (763b24-5022 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
Attachment 5
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood, applied for the vacation of the following:
Block 16, vacated East Seventh Street and vacated Ferndale Street, originally dedicated as
Seventh St. and Union Ave., respectively, all in THE UNION CEMETERY, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (Said THE UNION CEMETERY being
the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 29 North, Range
22 West).
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:
On May 17, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review. The planning commission gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
2. On , 2011, the city council considered reports and recommendations from
the city staff and planning commission.
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the
following property:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter; thence westerly, along the northerly line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter, on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 52 minutes 00
Seconds West a distance of 543.21 feet; thence South 55 degrees 08 minutes 00 seconds
East a distance of 278.95 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds East a
distance of 265.53 feet; thence northeasterly a distance of 66.31 feet along a non -
tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 55.70 feet, a central angle of
68 degrees 12 minutes 35 seconds and a chord that bears North 49 degrees 56 minutes 58
seconds East; thence southeasterly a distance of 47.37 feet along a non - tangential curve,
concave to the southwest, having a radius of 72.50 feet, a central angle of 37 degrees 26
minutes 05 seconds and a chord that bears South 78 degrees 26 minutes 23 seconds East;
thence North 40 degrees 36 minutes 25 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance
of 27.83 feet; thence South 49 degrees 23 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 40.06
feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 76.61 feet; thence
North 13 degrees 14 minutes 59 seconds East to the north line of said Lot 1; thence
westerly, along the north line of said Lot 1, to the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter; thence northerly to the point of beginning and there terminating.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council the above - described
vacation for the following reasons:
It is in the public interest since;
1. The city is not using the right -of -way for a public street.
2. The right -of -way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent
properties have street access at other points. .
This approval is subject to:
1. Comply with the requirements contained within Assistant City Engineer Steve Love's
report dated April 7, 2011.
2. All legal descriptions must be approved by staff.
The Maplewood City Council this resolution on 2011.
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Commissions
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Plan for 2012 — 2016
DATE: April 21, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Capital Improvement Plan is an annually prepared document that begins the process for
preparation of the 2012 Budget. The Capital Improvement Plan is being released for review by the
various Commissions and a Public Hearing on the CIP will be held at the Planning Commission on May
17, 2011. Following the receipt of recommendations from all the Commissions, the City Council will be
asked to adopt the CIP. Adopting the CIP does not commit the Council to the proposed projects, nor
implement the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for the 2012
Budget as we proceed to begin preparing for the 2012 Budget document.
Each Commission shall review and comment on the impact of the assumptions and recommended
projects within the Capital Improvement plan. A recommendation of approval, approval with
conditions, or denial should be made and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration at
their Public Hearing on May 17 The Commission should appoint a member to attend the Public
Hearing at the Planning Commission on May 17 as well as to the City Council meeting on May 23`
when final adoption of the CIP will be considered.
Backaround Information
During the April 11 Work Session the City Council discussed a referendum for various facilities along
with the status of the 2010 final revenue and expenditure summary. The scope of the budget process
starts with the assumptions of funding that might be available from 2010 [such as extra funds from
2010 being used for the MCC Pool and the Phone System] as well as a discussion of the major capital
projects. The Council indicated that a referendum may be of interest, but nothing major is ready to be
considered. The CIP was prepared assuming no referendum at this time. That can be changed as the
process is evaluated, but the staff assumption is to attempt to implement goals without the benefit of a
referendum discussion. Similarly, the staff has assumed that the Council endorses the uses of 2010
funds being carried forward for improvements to the Pool at MCC and replacement of the phone
system. Those projects are not included in the 2012 — 2016 CIP.
Attached to this report is a Draft of the 2012 — 2016 Capital Improvement Plan for review. The
Transmittal Letter highlights the major projects and revisions within the Plan for consideration. The
biggest revision is the inclusion of the new Fire Stations and expansion of the Police Department,
which adds nearly $7.0 million in improvements to the plan over last year's proposal. The document
explains each of the proposed projects, as well, analyzes the impacts on the budget for the various
funds, along with the tax impact necessary to implement these projects as proposed.
Capital Improvement Plan Process
The process for the Capital Improvement Plan [CIP] begins in February of each year. The Council
provided guidance by adopting goals for the coming years. A clear goal of the Council was financial
sustainability combined with a focus on funding for City facilities. The key issue involved the
Maplewood Community Center funding as well as a long -term vision for public safety facilities. The
staff submits projects based upon those goals, and the finance staff analyzes the funds available for
capital projects along with the impacts of the staff proposals. A number of revisions are made in the
project submittals based upon the analysis of finance, as well as management priorities to achieve the
attached CIP plan. This document reflects the final accumulation of that process.
2012 — 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE TWO
Summary of CIP
The 2010 — 2014 CIP was approved at a $77.76 Million level; while last year's 2011 — 2015 CIP was
approved at a reduced $65.74 Million level. The staff, again based upon the Council input on priorities
for investment in the MCC and public safety facilities, has slightly decreased the proposed 2012 —
2106 CIP to $65.32 Million. It should be noted that the original staff submittals to management totaled
$102.79 Million in needed requests. Each project was analyzed, and management determined that
nearly $38 Million in proposed projects should be removed from the next 5 years of consideration. A
majority of those projects are listed in the Declined Category; it is noted that some projects were
revised to lower estimates and, while proceeding, are proceeding at lower levels; thus the Declined
projects total only $28.9 Million.
The proposed 2012 — 2016 CIP can be divided into three sections based upon the need for new
revenues as follows:
1. New annual revenue for Public Safety Facilities: $620,000
a. What does this investment provide?
i. New Fire Stations:
1. A new station within the South Leg of Maplewood on or near the 3M
Campus to be built in 2012 — 2013 without the need for a referendum.
We have assumed that we could implement an assessment to a partner
and then sell bonds for both the assessment as well as the Fire Station
expense to provide for the $4.0 million expense. Significant bond work
and discussion with partners are necessary to make this a reality.
2. Refurbishment/replacement of Fire Station #7 at Hazelwood and County
Road C in 2014 — 2015. This assumes that the Century Avenue, Londin
Lane and McMenemy Street stations are abandoned; the property sold
at a value of $2.0 million by 2013. This funding would then be used for
the construction of new Fire Station #7 at the same location.
ii. New money to the Fire Truck Replacement Fund
1. Prior to the recession, the City was providing an annual levy to be placed
in a fund for the replacement of fire trucks on a rotating basis. The last
levy dollars that were placed in the fund was a $45,000 transfer of
General Fund dollars in 2009. This proposal provides a plan for an
annual levy of $100,000 so that funds are available to replace a fire truck
in 2014 and again in 2016.
iii. Police Department Expansion beginning in 2011 - 2012
1. A space needs study is just beginning; however, this plan provides for
expansion at City Hall. An allocation of $825,000 is estimated to be
spent for unspecified facilities but would include finishing vacant space
at Public Works for relocation of a department from City Hall to make
space for expanding the Police Department. No referendum is
necessary to make this work.
iv. Begin to reduce the Deficit in the Ambulance Fund
1. While this is not a capital expenditure issue, the continued shortfall in
planning for the Ambulance Fund is addressed with this approach. An
assumption by previous finance staff on revenues was discovered that
creates some revenue revisions in 2011 and 2012. These policy
decisions, combined with the continual shortfall in coverage by Medicare
for up to 60% of the calls, created a cash shortfall in this fund.
2012 — 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE THREE
2. The Ambulance Fund cash issue revolves around the write -off of millions
of revenue dollars due to reimbursement expenses from Medicare. The
lack of a write -off in 2009, created an assumption of extra funds, which
need to be addressed. Without going into significant financial allocation
funding techniques, this change creates a shortfall in the General Fund.
3. The proposal calls for a levy, possibly under the Public Safety /
Emergency Services levy authority, that would be outside levy limits. A
levy, of up to 2.0 %, was considered as an assumption as part of this
plan. This item will be reviewed in detail in June — July 2011 as part of
the overall discussion of the 2012 Budget, but is an assumption of this
plan as presented. The staff recognizes that the Ambulance Fund will
begin a very slow revision to a positive cash flow and will begin a
process to reduce the negative cash balance.
4. This allows for the replacement within this plan of an Ambulance in 2013
and a second ambulance in 2016.
b. What is not in this plan?
i. Fire Training Facility / Marshlands Proposal
1. Due to the unknown funding status at the state, we have placed this
proposal on hold. The sequence of the project requires that the MnDOT
property be conveyed to Maplewood jurisdiction. This conveyance is
necessary as a match for state bonding, but cannot occur until state
bonding is received. Because the property is currently right of way, there
is no property description number which means that comprehensive
planning cannot occur. Without that planning and jurisdiction of the
parcel, we cannot access the County grant funds for clean -up; and we
do not want to accept the jurisdiction of the property because MnDOT
wants us to create wetland credits in exchange for the parcel, of which
funding is tied partially to the state grant funds.
ii. Rehabilitation of Fire Station #2
1. As part of Chief Lukin's proposal for the fire department, he identified
needs for improvements at the three main fire stations. We have
identified a funding approach for two of the three stations, but this third
project will need to be delayed to post 2016. An alternative would be to
raise the levy an additional 1 %u above the recommended 2% to generate
an estimated $175,000 per year for this need.
iii. New Police Facility
1. This program expands the Police Department at City Hall in the amount
of $825,000 to address immediate needs. A proposal for a newly
expanded Police Department at an undisclosed location was proposed
in the amount of +$10 million, but has been put on -hold; and will likely
require a referendum question. The proposed improvements within this
plan will be implemented to provide for immediate needs and could be
used if a future referendum is passed and expansion is approved at the
existing City Hall.
2012 — 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGEFOUR
Public Safety Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June — July]
1. Police: we have estimated that a reduction of $150,000 will be made
from the current allocation to the Police Department; likely from the over-
time allocation, as well as personnel expenses moving forward.
2. Fire: we have estimated that a reduction of $110,000 will be made from
the current allocation to the Fire Department in the Ambulance Fund,
likely from expenses and personnel cost savings; in addition a reduction
of up to $100,000 will be needed from the General Fund portion of the
Fire Department to reduce the growth in the program. These reductions
will need additional evaluation within the next 2 — 3 months to determine
the extent of reductions and level of service to be provided.
2. Additional Funds to cover Debt Service
a. What does this investment provide?
$250,000
i. Support for the Debt Service Fund on Previous Projects
1. The Debt Service Fund will peak in 2014 and begin decreasing in needs
in 2015. With the revisions in state aid funding, the allocation for debt
has been reduced and needs to be supplemented, in addition, the City
debt incurred in 2007 — 2010 for the advanced street improvement
program is coming due and this increase is necessary to maintain our
top bond rating.
ii. Continued investment in the Streets Program
1. The streets program is significantly reduced by this proposed CIP, but
continues to invest and returns to recommended levels in 2015 — 2016.
In the interim, projects such as TH 36 — English; the Gladstone project
and overlay of MSAS streets are implemented that do not require
significant impacts to debt service.
b. What does this not provide?
i. Public Works Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June— July]
1. Public Works: we have estimated that a reduction of $150,000 will be
made from the current allocation to the Public Works Department; likely
from expenses and personnel expenses. This reduction will make the
2012 Streets program net neutral to the 2012 budget, as that program is
estimated to add $140,000 in extra levy expense.
3. Additional Funds for Operating and Facility Expenses $460,000
What does this investment provide?
i. Support for new Operating Expenses in 2012
1. Three major expenses are anticipated in 2012 that will have an impact
on the amount of funds available for capital expenses next year.
Approved employment contracts and employee step increases will add
approximately $125,000 to 2012's budget; while we are assuming $4 per
gallon fuel, which will add $75,000 in expenses; while the IT Fund has
been used for advancing expenses and increased costs to return to
sustainability [this is not an expansion of IT services] of $40,000 is
required to remain net neutral to overall needs.
2012 — 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE FIVE
New Capital for Improvements at MCC
1. The five -year MCC Sustainability Plan proposed by staff and reviewed
with the Council on April 11 is partially implemented with this plan. An
allocation of $150,000 has already been proposed in 2011 and an
additional $100,000 will be allocated in 2012 to meet the requested
$250,000 annual needs.
2. This plan will move significant additional funds into Parks and
Recreation as follows:
a. Levy for 2011:
i. MCC Fund Levy - $340,000
ii. MCC Capital Levy - $ 0
iii. Rec Program Fund Levy - $225,000
iv. General Fund Transfers - 7$ 0.000*
v. Total - $635,000
vi. ' - Note this does not include the $150,000 for the Pool.
b. Levy for 2012
i. MCC Fund Levy - $340,000
ii. MCC Capital Levy- $100,000
iii. Rec Program Fund Levy- $200,000
iv. General Fund Transfers - 7$ 0,000
v. Total - $710,000
ii. New Funds for CIP Fund for Facilities
1. In previous years, a levy was implemented for Capital expenses. It is
proposed to re- instate that levy in the amount of $95,000 per year.
These funds are used for improvements of existing Park equipment and
Community Fields along with improvements to City Hall and
departmental equipment. The 2012 proposed improvements include
$100,000 to existing park facilities.
2. Future plans include replacement of Election Equipment, improvements
at the Nature Center and carpet replacement at Public Works.
b. What does this investment not provide?
i. Additional identified needs at Maplewood Community Center
1. The requested improvements at MCC are significant. While a proposed
allocation in 2011 of $150,000 for the pool is likely, the MCC staff has
estimated a need of $250,000 annually beginning in 2012. Only
$100,000 of funds has been proposed at this time. The staff recognizes
that the MCC Fund still shows a negative balance, but additional steps
will be taken and it is anticipated that eventually the fund will begin to
show a positive cash flow in future years.
ii. Additional Funds for Park Development
1. The number of projects proposed for improvement within Maplewood
Parks will far exceed the funds projected to be available from PAC
Funds. An annual levy of $140,000 would be necessary to meet these
needs. This has not been proposed. Projects at Goodrich Park, Joy
Park and Legacy Park have been delayed or reduced due to the lack of
funding.
2012 — 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PAGE SIX
General Fund Program Cuts [to be reviewed in June — July]
1. Citizen Services - we have estimated that a reduction of $42,000 will be
made from the current allocation to the Citizen Services Department;
likely from expenses and personnel expenses.
2. Community Development: - we have estimated that a reduction of
$60,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Community
Development Department; likely from personnel expenses shifts and
possibly an increase in permit revenue.
3. Executive /Legal /Finance - we have estimated that a reduction of
$40,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Executive / Legal
/ Finance programs; likely from expenses and personnel expenses.
4. Park and Recreation Programs - we have estimated that a reduction of
$50,000 will be made from the current allocation to the Park and
Recreation Department; likely from expenses and personnel expenses.
Budoetary Consideration
As noted within the CIP Document and this memorandum, the proposed approach can be
implemented with a 3 — 5 % projected levy increase. The final amount will depend upon the level of
reserves that the Council wishes to have going into 2012, along with the estimate of revenues for
2012. We have assumed that 2011 revenues, other than the noted tax levy increase, will be equal to
2012 revenues; with no major increases or decreases. The Finance Manager has some concerns
with a couple of revenue assumptions and is monitoring the situation. Those items will be reviewed
along with the impacts of cuts within the various departments and programs during the budget
meetings in July 2011 as the Council moves forward with budget determinations and directions.
One final consideration is the current legislation on a state level that may impact City operations as
well as the tax levy. Current proposals that have been approved by the State House and Senate are
now in conference committee before being presented to the Governor. This legislation, if adopted, will
have a potentially positive impact on City operations, by reducing retirement compensation required by
the City; as well, the legislation calls for elimination of Market Value Homestead Credit [MVHC] in
2012. As Maplewood loses significant funds to MVHC, the elimination of the MVHC program would
amount to an estimated effective 3.0% levy reduction to residential property owners, and thus a 3 — 5
% levy increase would likely appear as a decrease or minimal increase to most residential property
owners. Non MVHC property would see a greater increase. The final decision on tax policy is weeks
[or more] away, but may have an impact on the Council's final decision on any levy increase.
As noted, these are the assumptions that the CIP was based upon for presentation to the
Commissions and City Council. The assumptions will be reviewed in detail as the process proceeds
over the next months.
Recommended Action
The Commission should review the proposed projects within the 2012 — 2016 Capital Improvement
Plan. A recommendation of approval; approval with revisions or conditions; or denial should be made
prior to the May 17 Public Hearing at the Planning Commission. Said recommendation from the
Commission will be presented to the Council on May 23r
Attachments:
1. Draft 2012 — 2016 Capital Improvement Plan
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Living Streets Task Force
DATE: May 11, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Michael Thompson, Maplewood City Engineer, is working toward establishing a Living
Streets Task Force to provide the city council with input in establishing a Living Streets
Policy to guide future street development. Please refer to Michael's attached report and
documentation.
Michael's desire is that one member of the planning commission would volunteer to
serve on this committee for approximately a five month period. Michael will be
requesting that the council authorize the establishment of this task force later this month.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that an interested member of the planning commission volunteer to serve
as a member of the Living Streets Task Force.
p:planning commission \Living Streets Task Force Memo 5 11 to
Attachments:
1. Memo from Michael Thompson on the Potential Living Streets Task Force
2. Planning Commission Comments Regarding Living Streets from 315 11
Potential Living Streets Taskforce
Staff has presented Living Streets concepts to the Planning Commission, Environmental and
Natural Resources Commission, and Community Design Review Board (summary of meetings
attached). The discussion has focused on a few key areas:
1) Improve storm water quality through expansion of the rain garden program, reducing
the impervious footprint of streets, and meeting or exceeding the 1" infiltration
standard.
2) Implement traffic calming measures through the use of techniques best suited for site
conditions.
3) Improve biking and walking conditions along natural connector routes and collector
streets through designation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or multi - purpose trails.
4) Create boulevard tree standards that provide environmental benefits (storm water
management, shade to reduce heating and cooling costs, filtering air pollutants,
reduce urban heat island effect), enhance quality of life, and are practical and
affordable.
5) Be cognizant of construction, replacement, and future maintenance costs
The feedback thus far has been positive in moving forward with the creation of a Living Streets
policy. To help refine the focus and generate buy -in a task force is proposed. It is the intent of
the staff to propose a formation of Living Streets Task to the city council in May or June 2011. It
is anticipated that the membership could be formed to include:
➢ 1 member of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
➢ 1 member of the Community Design Review Board
➢ 1 member of the Planning Commission
➢ 1 member of the City Council
➢ 1 member of the business community (Business & Economic Development Commission ?)
➢ 1 staff person from Public Safety (Police or Fire)
➢ 2 staff persons from Public Works (1 engineering and 1 maintenance)
➢ 1 person from Community Development
➢ 2 at large resident volunteers / appointees ??
Again, at this time this is only proposed, however if the council does want to proceed with a task
force staff would like to be prepared to move forward with selected volunteers from boards and
commissions.
It is anticipated the time commitment would be no more than 3 -4 meetings over the next 5 month
period.
Thanks!
- - -- Michael Thompson, P.E.
City Engineer / Dep. Director of Public Works
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
LIVING STREETS DISCUSSION
MARCH 15, 2011
The following is a recap of discussion items:
1. City Engineer Michael Thompson gave an introduction of Living Streets. He then introduced the
guest speaker. ,
2. Cliff Aichinger, Administrator for the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District, guest speaker,
gave a presentation on Living Streets and the recent process undertaken in North Saint Paul. The
PowerPoint presentation discussed goals and benefits of Living Streets and practical examples.
3: Questions of the Commission then commenced:
a. Concerns with 22' -wide street and how snowplows can navigate the streets:
b. Talk of bump -outs and how plows would need to maneuver to correctly plow the streets
c. Another concern with 22' wide street. Michael Thompson reminded the Commission that we
were not proposing a standard but rather fostering discussion and the feedback on concerns
is very helpful in guiding future discussion and policy language. Policies are flexible and
could allow for context sensitive solutions.
d. A member brought up a concern about emergency vehicles. Cliff responded saying that all
fire personnel in N. St. Paul was part of the plan writing and reviewed the standards and
said they would make it work. Cliff showed slides of vehicles successfully maneuvering
narrow streets of 22'. Also the Commissioner asked if Maplewood had any 22' wide streets.
Michael Thompson responded yes, that Skillman Ave in the'Kenwood neighborhood was 22'
with no restricted parking. There have been no complaints from residents or emergency
crews over the past 4 years since its installation.
e. There was a concern about trees being planted in the boulevard and that they should not be
too thick because this could hinder visibility for drivers and pedestrians:
f. Discussion on winter maintenance and parking restrictions.
g. Discussion about becoming greener with building practices such as utilizing pavers.
h. Recognition by a that narrower streets in fact do slow traffic. Further stated that
most residents complain about traffic speeds, yet many do not want to narrow streets and
install sidewalks to improve safety. ,A mind set change must occur.
i. Concern that sidewalks would add to resident plowing duties. Responded that benefits
greatly outweigh .... N. St. Paul has a "help your neighbor" program. This further fosters
community interaction, etc.
j. Make sure costs are at or less than that to reinstall a full width street. Cliff discussed that
when you reduce a road from 32'to 22' there is a significant cost savings that allows
investments into rain gardens, trees, bump -outs, etc.... in conformance with Living Streets
concepts.
k. Mention that we really need to have a long range plan for sidewalk and trail connections and
this would be a good policy to start its implementation. This would help with promoting
active living.
4. Michael thanked the Commissioners for the feedback and that .these items would be presented to
the other Boards and Commissions to give an idea of the conversation. The plan is to return again
to the PC for further discussion after going to the ENRC (April) and CDRB (March).
Th ;� ic .,.,h, mil racn►►artinn and ie not to be referred to as detailed fact. Please watch the