HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 12-08 City Council PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M., Monday, December 8, 1986
Municipal Administration Building
Meeting 86 -33
1. Accounts Payable
2. Final Plat Barclay Addition
3 Final Plat Highwood Addition
4. Final Plat Tilsen's Maplewood Heights #14
5. Utility Acceptance Project 85 -15
6. Licenses, C.N.W. Railroad Project 86 -03B
E -A) ST. PAUL EAST METRO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
F) PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 7:00 P.M., Preliminary Plat Woodlyn Heights Townhomes #2
2. 7:10 P.M., Variances & Plan Review 1918 Beam Avenue (Pier I Imports)
G) AWARD OF BIDS
H) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Conditional Use Permit Revision 831 No. Century (Deese)
I) NEW BUSINESS
1. Conditional Use Permit Renewal Co. Rd. C (N.W. Bell)
2. Time Extension Beaver Creek Anartrments
3. Bud Kolby 2nd Addition Petition Project 86 -33
4. P.U.D.--Reapplication Larpenteur & McKnight
5. Budget Transfer Signs
6. Contract Negotiations Computer System
7. Ordinance to Increase Sewer Rates (1st Reading)
8. Budget Transfer - Emergency Services
9. Pipeline Safety Resolution
10. Early Retirement Health Insurance
11. Authorization to Fill Police Departrient Vacancies
12. Authorization to Redistrict Precinct Boundaries
i
l (J)VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
x
K)COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
dJJi
yia3
dk,•
r af`
8
f 9
10.
L)ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
M) ADJOURNMENT
i
13
i
r 4q DIVISION 2 1
t
H tf
FINANCE ADMINISTRATION
DATE 11 f 2 ;/88
i'S
17
07, 29 22 --0814
C I T Y
F
J 1128, 88
O F M 'A P L. E W 0
w• s
PROGRAM P R 10
MATHEYE ALANA
PAYROLL CHECK REGISTER RE PC
07532 22- -7550 V I GNAL O DEL ORESRES A 818 m 85
2
53
54 DIVISION 22 ACCOUNTING 3676,26
CHECK.
NUM EMPLOYEE NUMBER NAME PAY
i
07 18 01--0103 OREA Y U JOHNJ C 400.00
07517 01-0480 WAS I LU K CHARLOTTE P 325800
01 518 01 6d vi ka
0751 01-7538 JUw E R FRANCES L 325.00
07520 01-8088 ANDERSON NORMAN 0 325m 00
Wil
SN D I V I O I ON 01 LEGISLATIVE 1700,00
3,
t
0752 02--3671 BEHM LO I O H 81 65
1
1 9 2
1
DIVISION 02 CITY MANAGER 3057, 85
Z21
1 07523 10--4474 JAH #DAVID J 66-47
s 746s , 4133
g^
f7
31
i 07525 1 0124 DOHERTY KATHLEEN M 717805
3
i c
07526 1 2- -0188 CODE LARRY J 242840
e 5
3 j
i
1
M
S. 5
y
tt
i 7
i 97 t
oil
3
07528 21 --1078 FAUST DANIEL.F 1784. 88
3
i
13
i
r 4q DIVISION 2 1
t
H tf
FINANCE ADMINISTRATION 1784 s 88
i'S
17
07, 29 22 --0814 HAOEN A RL I HE
F
J 1128, 88
Zj30 a iE w
185 7w.w• s
07531 22- -4448 MATHEYE ALANA K 846w19
07532 22- -7550 V I GNAL O DEL ORESRES A 818 m 85
2
53
54 DIVISION 22 ACCOUNTING 3676,26
DATE 11/25/86
PROGRAM PR10
C I• T Y 0 F M A P L E W 0
PAYROLL CHECK REGISTER REPO
CHECK GROSS
NUM EMPLOYEE NUMBER NAME PAY
4
07533.31-2198 AURELIUS LUCILLE E 1649u48
07534 31-9815 SCHADT JEANNE L 736,83
7
ti40
DIVISION 31 CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATION2388,31'
1 z
75,:b 33-0547 KELSE7 1 6, 36-
07536 33-4435 VIETOR LORRAINE S 6931 OS
07537 33-4994 HENSLEY PATRICIA A 6 521% 91
j CHREE JEANE"l- i E 7 _1
07539 33-8389 GREEN PHYLLIS
E
C
4'a
959,85
Sg
DIVISION 33 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 3167n92
f
122
24 07540 41-1717 COLLINS-KENNETH V 1853u48
W I ZI141 1-2,35 RICHIE CHROLE 1480
07542 41-2934 SVENDSEN JOANNE M 942n38
7i 41-3183 NELSON ROBERT D 1619,88
r
128,
0 29
I
ti..f
07545
1-7636
41-9263
UITIH 1 11
MART INSON
Juy
CAROL F 622o25
t 340
31
32 DIVISION 41 PUBLIC SAFETY ADMIN.8471.4
33
4,0
3 ,
07546 42-0130 ZAPPA JOSEPH A 17922
erctf V RN 1\11 T 1 it: b 4,
07548 42-0457 SKALMAN DONALD W 1287u88
i' -3 07.549 42-0990 MORELLI RAYMOND J 1287,89
it 1
1 07551
l4r= •— I c V-1 1%
42-1364
ST FEN
ARNOLD DAVID L
12— n 9 9!5
1455,26
07552 42-1577 BANICK JOHN J 1351m09
43 42— 1 SSW ON juHP4
14 07554 42-1930 CLAUSON DALE K 1311m88
t 07555 42 —2063 MOESCHTER RICHARD M 1398w55.
H I Urllsolv-UNINI Pi t t 0 a
r 47 07557 42-2884 PELTIER WILLIAM F 1455N26
07558 42-2899 SZCZEPANSKI THOMAS J 1070056
4 in.Htiu v i0ibe bW
150 07560 42-3591 LANG RICHARD J 1382w 09
53
54'
5 5
40 56
7
PROGRAM PR10
C%TY 'OF MAPLE[WC]
PAYROLL CHECK REGISTER REPOF
DIVISION 45 FIRE PREVENTION 2640.56
is
1
CFIECK
NUM EMPLOYEE NUMBER NAME
JANET L
PAY
7 07585 46-0389 BOYER SCOTT K 701m 13
3
07561 42 —4801 RYAN-MICHAEL P 1528w 39
6 07562 42-4916 HERBERT MICHAEL J 1327. 08
o 07588 46-7030 MARTIN SHAWN M:959.49
07564 42-7686 MEEHAN, JR JAMES E 1373. 32
07565 42-7887 GREEN NORMAN L 1455.26
07567 42-8516 HALWEG KEVIN R 1509a 14
07568 42—STOCKTON
43-0009 KARIS FLINT D 1311u99
07571 43-0466 HEINZ STEPHEN 128
07573 43-1789 GRAF DAVID M 1336.68
07574 43-2052 THOMALLA DAVID J 1501u38
07576 3-4316
YOU .,~..-.,
RAZSKAZOFF DALE E 1351.08 `
07577 43-6071 VORWERK ROBERT E 1498,62
07579 43-7791
iq
MELANDER JON,A 1660,98
07580 43-8434 BECKER RONALD D 1336u68
DIVISION 43 PARAMEDIC SERVICES
07582 45-3333
EMBER-[SON
WILLIAMS
JAMES
DUANE
M
J
1, 868aa--
1256u68
DIVISION 45 FIRE PREVENTION 2640.56
is
1 07583 46-0183 RABINE JANET L 959.49
7 07585 46-0389 BOYER SCOTT K 701m 13
3 07586 46-1899 CAHANES ANTHONY G 1455, 26
o 07588 46-7030 MARTIN SHAWN M:959.49
DATE 11/25/86 C I T Y 0 E M A P L E W Q
PROGRAM P R i O PAYROLL CHECK: REGISTER REPC
0
0 7600 52
CHECK
T
io
07601 52- -8755
GROSS
JOSEPH
NU
f
EMPLOYEE NUMBER HAKE
CASS WILLIAid
PAY
a
S
758 4 --72 6 FL.AUGHER JAYME L 957.77
J DIVISION 48 DISPATCHINGI RV
w 5
07804 53-1688
88,4 w 8O
1
L.1189, 85
07605 53---2522 PR I EBE WILLIAM
17 07 51 --0267 BARTA MARIE L.664w O9
i 3 0! 5 1 51-3 4 WE J R 3
i
t ;
fi
75 51-- -8872 HA I DE R KENNETH G c17 08
54 --.611 i L L«. w
DIVISION '-'
7
a
DIVISION 51 PUBLIC WORKS ADM I N 2794,84
0759,E 52 --0547 MEYER GERALD W 1205.81inR
07595 52-1431 L.UT Z DAB I D P
s
1 044! 52
7'8
lZr
1484 RE I HERT EDWARD A 1147.33
75i82-47 HEL•EY RO#AL.I?J 1125,5
j:
07599 52-6224 TEVL. I t JR HARRY J 1207, 8
0
0 7600 52 io
07601 52- -8755 PRETTNE R JOSEPH B
i w
1580,62
07602 52 --8314 CASS WILLIAid C 1421 w 88
DIVISION 52 STREET MAINTENANCE Mi 121 L... 2 ! 0 7
EIZ 1 AS JAMES w 5
07804 53-1688 PECK DENNIS L.1189, 85
07605 53---2522 PR I EBE WILLIAM 1 141 w 85
53-3770 w
07607 53 - 4671 CEEEEL.E JAMES T 1 125n 85
07808 53- -•8109 GE I SL.ER WALTER M 1 147w 45
DIVISION 53 ENGINEERING 7194w 91
54 --.611 i L L«. w
DIVISION '-'
w
DATE 11/25/86
4] PROGRAM PR10
C I- T Y 0 M A P L E W 0 1
PAYROLL CHECK REGISTER REPO
t
37
C.
CHECK
07621 62-0,341 1 = i Ams C 0 R T'i b jr 356 1 4
NUM EMPLOYEE NUMBER NAME
MELVIN J
PAY
076":3 62-3790 ANDERSON ROBERT S 884w 25
LINDORFF DENN fpj 981 a on
il 07625 62-4121 HELEY ROL A ND B
3
07626
07610 58-1014
MARK
NADEAU EDWARD A 1231,95
6
I'll T L-ES
07611 58-1590
07628
MULWEE GEORGE W 1123w35
1049u05
7
62-9784
07612 58-1720 NUTESON LRVERNE s 1 3.18
7860u3.7
07613 58-2563 BREHEI.M ROGER W 1180m41
STRRI S LRURR
07614 58-2582
07631
EDSON DAVID B 1218 w 45'
20m001
07632 63-2887 HOLLAND ANDREA M 45,001
12 j DIVISION 58 SAN SEWER OPERATION 6385u72
DENNIS M 11130
i ; o,
07616 59-9760 MACDONALD JOHN E 662n85
DIVISION 59 VEH & EQUIP MAINT 1776, 7O
231
07617 61-0389 ODEGARD ROBERT D 1665, 48:
17 18 B R E INIP
I
N rx tin i 9 3 9 7 3
3 t _3
61-1993 F%RUMMEL BARBARA A 342.52:
27 07620 61-2618 STAPLES PAUL INE 1322m 46
DIVISION 61 COMM SERVICES ADM IN 4203. 59
31
t
37
C.
07621 62-0,341 1 = i Ams C 0 R T'i b jr 356 1 4
07622 62-3411 GUS INDA MELVIN J 1327a26
076":3 62-3790 ANDERSON ROBERT S 884w 25
LINDORFF DENN fpj 981 a on
il 07625 62-4121 HELEY ROL A ND B 1029.85
07626 62-5506 MARUSKA MARK A 1066a26
825076272:BURKE—'I'll T L-ES 10 7 4.
07628 62-8182 GERMAIN DAVID A 1049u05
07629 62-9784 HUNTER TONY 92,00
DIVISION 62.PARK MAINTENA NCE 7860u3.7
07-630 63-0170 STRRI S LRURR 8L a tila.
07631 63-1518 SHELDON LEO B 20m001
07632 63-2887 HOLLAND ANDREA M 45,001
11
DATE 11/25/86
PROGRAM PR10
C I T Y 0 F M A P L E W 0
PAYROLL CHECK REGISTER REP(
1
log Z9
i
31
3z
33
34
36
37
19
42
4 3
1.16
17
48
49
51
53
54
56
076 -055 1
07645, 71-8754
07646 71-8993
ul:suiq
LIVINGSTON
CHLEBECK
GEOFFREY
JOYCE
JUDY
L-- ri r- L.- r1%
DIVISION 71 COMM DEVELOPMENT ADMIN 28142 73
uHubb
biz i NUM EMPLOYEE NUMBER* NAME
0 1094w48
L 10', .8,
DIVISION 72
PAY
2123,38
07649 73-0677 OSTROM MARJORIE 1353,05
DIVISION 73 BUILDING INSPECTIONS
4
3
74-0-7-76
07633 63-34,95 JOHANEK TODD
1-. N Li I.- KR
55. 0o
it u
07634 63-4246 WARD ROY G 3 9 L*-*-" a 00
7 07635 63-5480 PODPESHAR KIMBERLY J 200 00
07636 63-5547 ORTH KIMBERLY A 82m50
07637 63-6422 TAUBMAN DOUGLAS i 1020w86
101 07638 63-7042 WARD KERI L 60 00
oIt 07639 63-9428 RAHN CARY A 60:00
07640 63-9694 ADAMS N I KK I 30w00
13'
DIVISION 63 RECREATION PROGRAMS 1867.86
117
I sa
a 1 +07641 64-obos UHEW UAME I M19:;
201 07642 64-0989 FLICK BARBARA L
5 9 5
280800
21 07643 64-4624 HORSNELL JUDITH A 417.32
23
125
DIVISION 64 NATURE CENTER 1556,77
1
log Z9
i
31
3z
33
34
36
37
19
42
4 3
1.16
17
48
49
51
53
54
56
076 -055 1
07645, 71-8754
07646 71-8993
ul:suiq
LIVINGSTON
CHLEBECK
GEOFFREY
JOYCE
JUDY
W 1b44, bd
L 320v20
M 849,85
DIVISION 71 COMM DEVELOPMENT ADMIN 28142 73
0'7647- 2 '..'
07648 72-8505 JOHNSON
THOMAS
RANDALL
0 1094w48
L 10', .8,
DIVISION 72 PLANNING 2123,38
07649 73-0677 OSTROM MARJORIE 1353,05
DIVISION 73 BUILDING INSPECTIONS 13 53.
74-0-7-7607650 1-. N Li I.- KR ROSERT it u
0
5 .076 51 74 --9223 G I RAM} LAWRENCE M 190w00
I I I Qh# 4 HEALTH INSPECTIONS 13 1 5. 8'5
i
o
1 FUND NOT ON FILE 135653n93
1
J
sf3
S
GRAN? TOTALS 1,..,5R,
J.1
1 '
1
1
22
i
i
28 j
k
i
1
i
i
Aoti by Couno:_l,
MEMORANDUM
o di
T4: Cit Manager Rejected...—,
FROM[: Associate Planner Johnson Date
SUBJECT: Final Plat
LOCATION: Hazelwood Street and Gervais Avenue
APPLICANT /OWNER: Ed Cave and Sons, Inc.
PROJECT: Cave's Barclay Addi
DATE: December 2, 19$6
Req
Final plat approval for 29 single- dwellin g lots.
Comme
Each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval -Y p pp 1 has been satisfiedoriscoveredbythedeveloper's agreement.
Recommendation
Approve Cave's Barclay Addition final P lat,
BACKGROUND
Past Actions
8 -11 -86
Council approved a land use plan amendment from RL to RM; a planned -
unit development for 60 -fo.ot wide, 7, 50,0 square --foot lots and a
street vacation for the proposed ` plat. Preliminary approval of Cave's
Barclay Addition was also granted subject to:
1. Submission of a developer's agreement, with re uired surety, forqY
all on -site public improvements.
2. City engineer approval of .final gradiri drainage _a ut:i.l. i.t yplans.
3 All lots in Block Two shall have at least q7,500 square feet above
the designed 100 -year pond elevation.
City council decision
mb
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat
3: Final Plat (8 1/2 x 11)
4. Final Plat (separate enclosure)
i
1
R 1
r-
I
a L.BC U t0
F " Ml B IC • -,11 11 . • 9 F
8fA _
8C li
r....IF
F
R 3
PUO R2 R2FoFe R _3CFv
4K R PU0 '
En 7 F•
rNrr R R __.. R
C P U 0
R R 'n
If ..
R R F R
C I Vn)
F MI` 2 Q o - F - R
L
R F w 4- FUGEHiL Rz E Mcnr _
Ml
4 R A tAC J
o R ®C ; F I
irBIC
Ml [ SE.AN AVE .6
R W R Lac F
i MI •--z _ x
vM
I
a ,..._... . , .,. ,
GRMIOVI W AV • 1"
R R M i ,. R
TRUNK
rwarMI
MI • A MI , Ml
L. RK ' 2RLBC) R.
couNrY ® PtIOR2 R z R-3C
R
IELANO c? — R
R2) q ®sT A C a R O
I AVE C
Cr
T
F 6URKE R 3 AVRL_ - _ E M I) (R
R - 2 X27 BC R,.
atE ~' avE ._, MI Soo -•' FFMA. a '^ ?
r.N
RYAN + ~ ON
Ar • •
x ,
R2) ROSEWOOD
r F3 (R 2
F _ C! r ... RiF -- a
H . FR $ QFENNLBC9CCOi( 1 ( w AV rr
L.. .
t
a w R R,
F RL1
o R F or ° a?: R (P
w R R / F F
Q
cr RIPLEYoRr AVE
z R w
son A avE ° Q W `' W R
d Y AV ER
IR
I
W ,
F _• R2) - £ o : F I x RIC R AV R 3
R
r ( 8 C
i H1 z
lip R R
I ell
NC .>`
LOCATION MAP `•
Attachment 1
i
qb ,
J W 1
1
IX
1 I i
r 1'
Ui
X Ix 0000p
ra
177 ;.'.;.;.•
O1 fi'6
2 C Z 1
1
X .: . .....
0.•.......X.:
X. : .
xdid. x
AVE
rs
W
4
do
iop
X. • '•:•••:•:••••:••::•:'' I SE'XT,4tY1
un
WE P"
O
1
r 1
o
1p
o •:•:.:•:• • fA ''1
GERVAIS • rte ,
AVENUE
Small —Lot Sin
r•
1g e — Dwel Parcels
CAVES BARCLAY ADDITION
PRELIMNARY PLAT
29 lots
Attachment 3
i
i
t
r
r
1
t1
r
Proposed Final Plat _
Lj
Attachment 3
1
w
r
l_J1.: 11
N.. rw •.•• •r S,•li. of '[VI ( t 1.. Ilit
v Illt 111VtJ. 1 J I
N., 1 • .. . , , n I
r `-•
Itr
NHQ •52 +j W a (Ne. rn 1-..• •1Na• V2 el SL .I I
II(r O S(('d 01 NNr /•
I I
3 Lu
CC
0O CaiZ
Z.
4 \J • T r.5 loco' 1000 _ 90 Ou FU Oti 73 00 6.0n0 L St'0
i Q N II
7500 TSCU• _' __
10 I: _ .0 _y
t1, 1 SEXTANT
r.AVENUE Irvti•ti 1 o
v % h0% , to r S IIO nC
AI \te?¢ a000 X000' r I + 9
t/I ' I II•2
fra
to
I 126 OT ' 'Ito
0 Nn. 111 r.., -1 Muv 0.%# ••.
I N11000
cn "e9•st.s [ 9I 8n' N e9•s7' +s °c I L T 6 5 I r
3 IF0%0 [ I : -- W —z
C, 1L O 10 Cl A
r. $ •" [t
MI
t - - -
tl n TS 00 91 Y.7S0OL. --.. -..
IIC 1•I• 1+ rl ! r11 TS t,A
r. ,.r U
r ,^It N r.ry
199 98
h jE N89" f4 03
n M r,J 1 .; ir1
N 10 •'1l 7 [ I w •^T ... `' .. ._ 1.. M .0 -47 4% L
Ar 11 rl ..rr.
n
n
I 1 • 7r• I
110 00 I 1011! /
Z .ni I
00 !1
N e9• S7 1!' a rOI " /9.OI !9 w
n w t
rfl 11 fI..oil
i
r1 Ttl I
I ^ o 4so a
9I 54'03" W -I
I
IZ
7 i .. r.... •1 .,,r r• rIJ IrrrI I 110 00 I 10170 (
I N M••ST •{ C J 1
N •9• SS •Si
I.,
1 1 4 •1 M8114
T IVIN
n n 3 y
1 ) cn I
IT - o I •.I z t s
1000 to0o I Irl
GERMS AVENUE -L_ _ _
27132
S N 89 "Wi
11. 11.11 r•r O.r /• I.n, If Nw-14 nl Srt 10. T .9.A 72 r 1:1.•r (.
I
II Ivt )51 r I I -,I r ( i ;I I '
I
1
t1
r
Proposed Final Plat _
Lj
Attachment 3
TO:
FROM
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/OWNER:
PROJECT:
DATE*
Re
Final plat approval,
MEMORANDUM
Cit Mana
Associate.Planner--Johnson
Final Plat
Sterlin Street and fli Aveni3e
Good Value Homes, Inc.
Action bHi CoUnCj
December 2, 1986
Endorsed-, ---------
Modif 10
R e 0 e c t e
Date
Three of the conditions of preliminar approval (three, seven and
ei 2 remain to be satisfied. Verbal a have been
reached but the preparation of the necessar deeds is takin lon
than anticipated. These deeds should be available the week of.
December 8.
Recommendation
Approve the Hi final plat if the unfinished conditions have been
completed,
BACKGROUND
Past Action
7- 14 -86:
Council approved the Hi preliminar plat, subj to:
a, Submittal of a developer's a with re suret
to the cit en for the.proposed public improvements,
b. Submittal of a recordable quit-claim deed to the cit
en to conve a public ri easement to the cit for
the west thirt feet of proposed Sterlin Street from Hi
Avenue to the north line of Phase One,
c. Desi the southerl 33- x 207-foot portion of Lot One,
Block Two as an outlot. This propert will be combined with the
propert adjacent to the west.,
d Show a twent wide sanitar sewer easement centered on
an alon the north line of Lot Fourteen, Block Three. Sanitar
sewer shall be constructed to the west line of 2585 Hi
Avenue,
e Submission to the cit en of an easement ( s ) for public
sto water pondin areas over portions of proposed Lots Three
throu Ei Block Three and Lots Three throu Seven, and Nine
throu Fourteen, Block Two, all in Phase Two, The le
descriptions for these easement areas shall be approved b the
cit en The applicant ma submit a recordable quit-claim
deeds or plat Phase Two as an outlot and show the easements on
the plat,
f. Approval of the final grading , utilit and draina plans btheciten
g . Evidence shall be submitted showin tha't Williams Brothers'
Pipeline has approved the width of the proposed pipeline
containment easement and that the proposed crossin of the
pipeline at Valle View Avenue has been approved,
h. Evidence shall be submitted to the director of communitdevelopmentthattheprivatenorth/south access easement over the
easterl part of the plat has been eliminated,
2, Council also rezoned this site from F, farm residence to R-1,
sin dwellin
mb
Attachments:
10 Location Map
20 Preliminar Plat
3, Final Plat ' 1/2 x 11
4* Final Plat (separate enclosure)
1/
LOCA MAP
3 Attachment 1
w
rnajo r collector •,
cu i -nwood Ave,
LM
cc c
Ca
1
0
a[ , W
wu 'Will
cc
Ae /
Phase Two
J
p, Ph se 0ne S C
major collec ri ;u r
f 1 a toile oriu tv H ghwood Ave.
r
own -• : w i e 4
Cc
C /\
OL
s
OSr7 _-+
only,( %
7
r
milli I '" 1 '•'
tollectorlION r
w
w
i
Jtf
i
1
Preliminary Plat
Approved 7- 14 -86)
4 Attachment 2
as r "it. •wn. a 02.)4
s
i
wra'as'fE
HIGHWOOD
Final Plat Proposed
5
Attachment 3
i
I
JIDO0 tt1 /. /? AAS9 ,n
L 3
Z, .,W 4WAW : Z 33 ii d tt 77 II $
b aaK , SS saw
l.!!tI :it •
MM.00 AIs9'SrM'f MM5.01 AM99'J9 56'E
s VVALLEYV /£ ,VEAW ff
If p aa
7D 10 .TT.. 661i .
jj WWj r' c vv ,KK3.a1
2
k.bt
ll X 11 ' /
o m
OAa10 LJl1 V
m w u
lI3Ol W
u
l
W
Ner1!'1i E A
11.4 Sr, V. r
A6164 aCOlO yy /-0 11DiJ !a!'w'I!"Ul MMOO/ ii }m ?
7
Ov
7
3 'M EEXCEPr1av aa_
O
IwsI"AXPrxW QQ
yak
D ,i0 .3w ar/Yr d N* - %V //7 A/E 114. S-C. ti .
n . a., «l //I.I GGl.e+.s.l 3.. i 111r+rlr wN G1 , Ih I r+weoJ '
0 .
ON „
moo 300u -
N 'aN6/11pQD AAVE +nn N/15D1N101G1D AVE 88 - •, $
AlYCHWO
NI!'3737"11 NSr193i'E ,'; ZZza" NI9 PPtf7p 56 MMOO—
i
S(U cd xr d f1>r f V feet d t1Je £ l.2 31 - IA- n,:tl //4 5er: /3 JJ. line of Me 3W /AA, A/E 114, -
NN8905-9,56T
S
RRe/»sy e+uoty cost n
HIGHWOOD
Final Plat Proposed
5
Attachment 3
i
I
A
i
MEMORAND
T0: City Man aer
FRO
g
M: Associate Planner -- Johnson
SUBJECT: Final-Plat
LOCATION: Lydi Avenue, East of Standrid g e Place
APPLICANT /OWNER: Tilsen Homes, Inc
PROJECT: Robert Tilsen Maplewood Heights No. 14
DATE: December 1, 1986
Acti 'y Coune
Requ
En.dors ed.--, .,...,_,:..
Final plat approval. ed..d
0
Comments Rejeeted....,
Date
Each of the conditions of preliminary approval has been compliedomplled withascoveredbythedeveloper's agreement.
Recommendation
Approve Robert Tilsen's Maplewood Heights No. 14 final 1p at.
LOCATION MAC
3 Attachment
w
1 t
5 1 117r
ls(i j
N
r--
2
cn
X
fig. --- .-
t ,W
X
0
O °
Na
W
J:
CL
cn
w
F=-
a
w
0
a
PRELIMINARY PLAT
4
Attachment 2
t
i
1 •
s City property
10
12 4 .
Pond
X
2369 B Curve
I I
0
b o Z
i
LYDIA AVENUE
1
i
1
e t w. , • • .w lR I
Alec ~~~
Is
HE(GHTS '
NO. 9
v
Robert Tilsen's
Maplewood Hei- No. 14
P roposed Final Plat)
Li
MEMORANDUM
TO: C Manager
FROM: Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Maplewood Hills Quads
City Project 85 -15
Acceptance of Developer Project
DATE December 1, 1986
Action by Council
Endorse
Mod if fief
Rejected..
Date
The developer, Good Value Homes, Inc., has completed all requirements
of the Maplewood Hills Quads project, located at Mailand and Dorland
Roads, and has requested that the city accept the project for ownership
and maintenance responsibilities,
It is recommended that the council accept the utilities dedicated
for public use on this project by passing the attached.resolution.
jw
Attachment
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING UTILITIES FROM DEVELOPER
WHEREAS, the .City Council of.Maplewood, Minnesota has hereto—
fore entered into a Contract for Public Improvements for City Project
No. 85 -15, described as Mapl ewoo - d Hill s Quads with the developer,
Good Value Homes, Inc., and,
WHEREAS, said project has been certified as completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that project is - completed and the utilities are hereby
accepted as a part .of the distribution systems.
Action by Co cil.a
Endorsed
MEMORANDUM Modif il ed ,
ej ected..
TO: Cit Ma Date
erY9
FROM: Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Water Service District No. 6 Improvements- -Trunk Mains
Ci Project. 86-03B
Construction Licenses with CNW Railroad
DATE: December 1, 1986
The construction of the trunk:water main along the Sterling Street
extended alignment requires construction in the Chicago and Northwestern
Railroad right —of —way. Approval of this construction is' contingent
upon the city and railroad entering into an agreement, a 'copy of which.
is attached. The agreement stipulates certain insurance requirements,
which have been arranged with the contractor, and also requires the
payment of an annual fee. of $180.00. It is proposed that all future
payments of this annual fee be made from the hydrant fund.
It is recommended that the council approve this agreement and authorize
its execution by the mayor and city clerk by passing the attached
resolution,
Jw
Attachment
RESOLUTION -- APPROVING CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the council has ordered made City Project 86 -03, Water
Service District No. 6 Improvements, Trunk Water Mains portion, . and
WHEREAS, the approved project plans call for construction of
water main and ,a storm sewer culvert within the Chicago and North-
western Transportation Company right -of -way, and
WHEREAS, said company requires a. construction agreement with
all . right -of -way users,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
That the construction agreement with the Chicago and Northwestern
Transportation Company is hereby approved for execution by the mayor
and c i t y clerk,
Oorm 2036 - Page 1
Revised 1981
CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (hereinafter called "Company) her lenpy} y c ses
the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, (hereinafter called "Licensee" •to construct,. maintain and
use a 16 inch water main and a 15 inch culvert hereinafter called "facili upon the pro _
perty and under the tracks of the Company at East St.Paul, Minnesota, in the l oca.tion and
position,and in accordance with the specificationsficationsP shown on mapsp dated October 21, 1986, . here-
to attached marked Exhibi "A". "6" and "C and, by this reference, made a part hereof,
The foregoing license i s given upon such express terms andPp conditions as are insertedbelow, ow, as well as those contained upon the subsequent printed and should the Licenseepages, see atanytimeviolateany ' of said terms or c o n d i t i o n s , or use or attempt to use said f a c i l i t y for
any other or different purpose than that above specified, then the Company ma at its option,immediately revoke this license,
p y y
The foregoing license i s subject to the following conditions:
For the p r i v i l e g e s herein permitted the Licensee shal 1 ay to the Company i np advance, achargeofOneHundredEightyDollars ($180.00) per annum, or fraction thereof, beginningDecember1, 1986, subject to revision at any anniversary billing date.
The Licensee shall require its contractor to furnish the Company cerpya ficate ofinsurance, with the Company named as additional insured, showing amoun and t '9 types of .insurancecarriedbythecontractorwhichshallprovidepublic1iabi1ityinsuranceforbodilyinjuryyand
ipropertydamageonbehalfoftheCompany n an amount of not less than $1 combinedsinglelimitsperoccurrence. The certificate shall contain a commitment by the insurancecompanythatitwillgivethe _Company thirty days advance notice of an cancellationation fyo orchangeintheinsurancecoverageshownonsuchcertificate. Such insurance i s to be approvedbytheCompanybeforetheLicenseepermitsthecontractortoproceedwiththesaidfacility , P construction of
FIRST. . The work of construction and maintenance shall be done and 'comp 1 et ed i n goodandworkmanlikemanneratthesoleexpenseofthesaidLicensee. •ee. Say d work shall be done i nsuchmannerasinnowaytointerferewithorendangertheuseofthepropertyan
g p perty or tracks of theCompanyy, or the operation thereon of any engines, cars or trains. The Chief Engineerneer ofg theCompanyshallhavetherighttoinspectsuchworkfromtimetotimeandt 'o require such changestobemadeaswillinhisopiniondecreasethehazardsincidenttosaidf -but any suchac 1 i ty,inspection or requi red changes or any fa i 1 u re to so inspect, or t 'P o require changes to be made,shal 1 not effect any of the obligations assumed by the said Licensee hereunder.SECOND. The said Licensee shall bear the cost of all rotecti on whichrequireforitstracksor
p w ch the company maypropertyduringconstructionandmaintenanceherebyauthorizedandofallrepairs, changes, additions or betterments to said Company's track or property madenecessaryonaccountofsame. If in the judgement of the Company it shall be necessaryprovidesupporty tppportforitstracksduringtheworkofconstructionormaintenancetheCompanyw'P y 11providesuchsupport, and the entire cost thereof will be paid by the said Licensee promptlyupon .receipt of b i l l therefor.
r
Form 2036 — Page 2
Revised 1981 .
THIRD. The Licensee shal pay all taxes, general and s eci al licensebecomedue P cense fees or - otherchargeswhichmayorwhichmaybeassessedagainstthepremisesoftheCompanybecauseoftheconstruction, existence, operation or use of said fa
mP ny
facility, the Licensee, or thebussnessconductedinconnectionwithsaidface1ity, and shall reimbureimburse the Company for anysuchtaxes, - 1 i cense fees or other charge which may be aid b the CpresentationbtheCPYCompany promptly upon theYmpyofbillstherefor.
FOURTH. The sai Licensee will give to the Chief-Engineersda ' noti i n
of the Company at least tenywritingbeforeenteringupontherightofwayoftheCompanyforconstructionorforthe mP Y
Company reserves the right
purposes, purpose of making necessary repairs, The ' gh t t oijudgeofthenecessityofrepairstosaidfacility., and to requirere th '
repairs upon ten days' n ,q a Licensee to make suchPynoticeinwriting. In such case, said Licensee may enter u on 'right of way without the ten days' notice above
y P said
Y ove referred to, and shall proceed forthwith tomakesuchrepairs, and upon failure to do so within ten days, the Company •to repairs and
Y mP ny shall have the rightmakesaidcollecttheentirecostthereoffromtheLicensee. - The Creservestheright, in case in its opinion the safety f its Company
y tracks or property demands it, tomakeemergencyrepairswithoutnoticetotheLicenseeandtocollectthecostthereoffromLicenseeashereinprovided.
FIFTH. Licensee agrees that i n the constructs facilion, maintenance, and use of the face 1 qitwillcomplywithallapplicablelaws,, including, but not limited t o, any laws, standards,ons, or permit requiregulations, relating to environmental of lut i o
and indemnify
p nor contamination or tooccupationalhealthandsafety; Licensee agrees to and hold harmless the Co anfromanyandallcldemands, lawsuit, or liability for 1
y
death and all ex
loss fines, damage, s n ju ry, andexpensesandcosts, including attorneys fees, resulting from or arisingthe. constructi maintenance or use of
out of
the facility, including any discharge or emissiontherefromorfortheviolationofanylaw, standard regulation, ontoenvienvironmentalpollutionon
re g or permit requirement relatiporcontamination, on,
ty is subject to and
or to occupational health and safety,iSIXTH. It s understood by the Licensee that said facilit
y
q mayincreasethedangersandhazardsoftheoperation -i p of the railroadroad of the Company, and that this1censeissubjecttoa1risksthereof. Therefore and. as a ma •material consideration to theCompanyforenteringintothislicenseandwithoutwhichtheCompanywillnotentersame,.Licensee agrees to assume and pay for all loss or damage to proper
e
g P P ty whatsoever,
ses i nci dentthereto, however arising from
and injury toordeathofanyperson, or persons whomsoever, including all costs and ex penmorinconnectionwithexistence, c 'onstruction, maintenance,repai r, renewal, reconstruction, operation use or rem •+oval of said facility, or any defectthereinorfailurethereof, or the failure of the Licensee or members offsemployeesoftheLicenseeto .abide b cers, agents or
y or complyly with any of the terms or conditions of t h i slicense; and the Licensee forever indemnifies the Com againstns •harmless from an and
mP Y 9 t and agrees to save i tr
u ry and death, costs and ex
y all claims, demands, lawsuits or liability for an such loss damage,injuryj expense, even though
y ge 'P ough the operation of the Company's railroad mayhavecausedorcontributedthereto. Notice to or knowledge bionbthey the. Company of any act oromiyLicenseewhichisormightbeabreachbytheLicenseeofanofhrconditionsonsofthisAbAgreementtoythetermsn
9 • e performed by the Licensee, and the acqui escense by theComp.a.ny in or to such act or omission, shall neither be considered to relieve the Licensee ofanyobligationassumedbyitunderthisparagraphnorbeconsideredto '
an of an r
be a waiver or releasebytheCompanyYYgsgrantedtoitunderthisparagraph.SEVENTH. The Company reserves the right to use occupy nd e 'and right of way, such purpose,
pY enjoy its tracks, propertyyppe, i n such manner, and at such time as it shall desire thesameasifthisinstrumenthadnotbeenexecutedbyit. If an such 'change, repair, renewal removal
use shall necessitate anyalorrelocationonofsaidoranartthereofhLicenseeshallperformsuchworkatsuchtimeastheCompanymayapprove
y P t e
and if the LicenseefailstodososuchworkmaybeperformedYPdbytheCompanyattheexpenseoftheLicenseeandthesaidCompanysha.l 1 not be liable to the Licensee on account of •
an m
any damage growing out of anyrusewhichtheCompanyyaymake, of its tracks, property and right of way ,yIncaseanyofthetermsorprovisionsofthislicensehavebeenperformedorcarriedoutpriortotheactualdateofexecutionhereof, it is understood and agreed 'shall nevertheless be of the same
that this license
e force and effect as though same had been executed b thepartiespriortosuchperformance, y
Form 2036 Page 3A
Revised 1981
EIGHTH. The Company shall have the right at any time to revoke this license by giving
thirty days notice in writing to the Licensee and at the expiration of the time limited by
said .notice, or upon any other revocation of this license, the Licensee shall promptly, and in
the. manner directed by said Chief Engineer, remove all construction hereby authori zed from
the premises of the Company and leave said premises in the same condition in which they were
before the instal 1 at on of the same. Upon defaul t of the Li censee so to do, the Company may
remove the same and restore its premises, and the Licensee will promptly pay to the Company the
cost . of so doing.
NINTH. The waiver of a breach of any of the terms or conditions hereof shall be
1 imited to the act or acts constituting such breach, and shall never be construed as being
a
I
continuing or permanent waiver of any such terms or conditions, al.l of which shall be and
remain in full force and effect as to future acts or happenings, notwithstanding any such
waiver.
TENTH. This license is personal to said Licensee and is not assignable or
transferable, without the written consent of the Company being first obtained.
ELEVENTH. In further consideration of the Company's giving to the Licensee the rights and
privileges above specified, the Licensee, by the acceptance of this license, hereby agrees that
it will not levy or assess any special tax or special assessment against Company or against or
upon Comp properties for the construction or use of the improvement of which said facility
is a part; and, the Licensee hereby forever indemnifies Company against and agrees to save
Company harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits or l i a b i l i t y whatsoever for any
such. special tax or special assessment. If notwithstanding the foregoing provisions any such
special tax or special assessment shall be levied or assessed upon or against said Company's
properties, the Company shat 1 have the following elections to wit;
a) Company may make such payments as may be necessary to satisfy and discharge any liens
for such special tax or special assessment and in case of such payment the Licensee
agrees to make repayment on demand with interest at the rate of five per cent (5 %)
per annum from the date of such payment so made by Company.
b) Company may file this license agreement for recording in the office of the Recorder
of Deeds of the county in which said properties are located and such filing shall
constitute a complete discharge and release of any lien against said Company's
properties for such special tax or special assessment.
c) Company may terminate this license by filing notice of termination with such Recorder
of Deeds for recording and forwarding a copy thereof through certified or registered
mail, postage prepaid to Licensee whereupon all rights, privileges and interests
herein granted to Licensee shall immediately cease and determine with the right of
Company to make immediate re -entry and without any further obligations or any
l i a b i l i t y on the part of Company in respect to any payments, setoffs, counterclaims,
recoupment, crossbills or cross demands.
All rights, remedies and elections of Company shall be cumulative.
TWELFTH. Licensee further agrees that there is no benefit to the Company's properties,
either for railroad use or for any possible use in the future from the construction of the
facility or project of which said facility is a part.
Form 2036 - Page 4A
Revised 1981
In Witness Whereof this instrument is executed this day of 19
ATTEST: CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
By
Assistant Secretary Vice President - Engineering
Pursuant to authority granted by resolution of the
of the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, adopted
The undersigned, the" Licensee mentioned in the foregoing license, hereby accepts the same
subject to the terms and conditions therein stated.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
ATTEST: By: (Seal
Mayor
City Clerk
lop
15' RCP SEE EXHIBlrT B FOR DETAILS
TO ST.PAUL TO LAKE ELMO
3P,5
47.5
STA 263+90 WATER LINE. SEE EXHIBIT"S. -§,,A,N.D C FOR DETAILS
I A
PROVID
R11IDGE ENCUM.F."
G R
ir
YV
APP
10-2
o4 •.
r r '
G'aMAA uw/Cg r /OA/ AAAO /0 e 5 IWVA L
ARAV L A/E L iNE S
M
SIDE TRK. SIDE TRY,.
MPu PJ TRY,
JINCsLE GF n Z
C/Q,O .S S 1JV G t1
W
q w
o j„ 4
r yYf AVIV MATE' /AL
SceiED CAB
lK 4
I 4t k o
aQ.
Qom.
444 h1MENS 1DA( ",6M MAW n h
rAmAl r 4RE ra AC A g1w4r A Es 4 a W
r,d 7 AfAlAl TRAGIC.
C lIRAT" EL y Z1, %t! ALL LDC •
yR PZZ45 TAL IS RZAC E D.
PLANJ VIEW - •A/0T T?' SC.0.LE•LO[.khIG.
1
v.,
1
AFIW L /Mg- MArA/ T.PX . Raw Z AMC-
71 84.5E OF RAIL
Z .y
t aL 9 ,3
S/ ZE L A14TN O .o /PEE' UrP S /ZE
L1F AUG yOG E
pleo"IcIl.so VA!5 - AIOT" D .56ALE-LOOK.lN6___N
T Yp /LAL DRAU/IAlG EV9169 A 24 T Y7 7 A rN I A 4 A EXHIBITOn= aig
10--21 -86
1AN5RE APPLICASLe ,SUPPLY ALL DIME N5iolvs MIDICATED•
L -13
APPL1•CATIOtl To THE CHICAGO AND NORTH WFSTE.WI TRANSPORTATION W%fPANY FOR PERMISSION
TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A PIPE Z,INE ACROSS THE RXGHT of WAY OF FrAID TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY.
Fu.11 .legal nam. c o a Ii can t CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
rr_•g rrrirr •.r
Jlaili address • EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD NIN 55109y
State whether .indi vidual , corporation or partnership. If partnership, list name of
each partner. If a corporation show State in which incorporated
N.A.
Loca of proposed pipe 1 ine . (Show di s t:n ce from nearest City or Town plus
Secti on, Township and Range .) WITHIN CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
SEC. 24; T. 29; R. 22
Date of approval desi red p
ATTACH LOCATION PLAN SHOP71NG TIE TO FIXED OBJECT ALONG RAILWAY.* I.E. CENTER LINT
BRIDGE, CENTER LINE GRADE CROSSING, AND A CROSS SECTION ALONG P.IPV LINF, , FROM FIELD
SURVEY, SHOWING PIPES IN RELATION TO ACTUAL PROFILE OF GROUND AND TRACKS. ALSO IN -.
CWDE ANGLE OF. CROSSING I17 RELATION TO TRACK.
Furnish following construction details:
Ca. rri er Pipe
rr _ ..•r•.r rrrnr_.
C -L nc Pine 8p.E LONr
Contents to be handled ............... . . . .:WATER:MAIN
Inside di arr t er ....................... :.16"30"
Material and tyre of pipe..:.............DUCTILE IRON STEEL
Specifi and grade of pipe.......CLASS 52 SC H 30
W'a,I1 thickness ..........................
0.37 „
actual working pressure................ :.8 0 PSI 0 PSI
Typ of joint ............................
SL I,P JOINT WELDED
Coat n
Method of BIT.BIT,BIT.
JACKED OR AUGERED
Protection at ends of casing:
Both Ends RRTC'_K k MO RTARC end Type
Bury: Base of rail to top of casing 8 ft. 9 in.
Bury: (Not benea tracks ........... 9 f t . - in.
Bury: (Roadway ditches) 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .... _ft. _ in.
Cathodic protection NON
RE1LARKS :
If application is granted, the undersigned agrees to cxecute Transportation Comp -
any's standard form of license when submitted,and to observe all the terms and con-
ditions thereof .
DATE Ozmpj
NOTE: There will be a minimum for the preparation of the license sub-
ject to change upon any unusual developments. This charge is not to be con -
fused with any annual or one -time ren charges.
EXHWIT C
14 -21 -86
r
A
SAINT PAUL AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
600 NORTH CENTRAL TOWER, 445 MINNESOTA STREET
SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 612/422 -5561
Act 1Qn by Council, at
Mod 1fl Ed.,- -.-,,
Rejected
Date__
November 18, 1986
Hon. John Greavu, Mayor
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mayor Greavu:
This Is a formal request for the City of Maplewood to become a
partner in the Saint Paul East Metro Economic Development (SEED)
Council, a joint venture of the Chambers of Commerce and
municipalities in the eastern half of the Twin Cities
metropolitan area for enonomic develoment promotion.
The plan for this Council Is described In the attached "Joint
Venture Proposal." Your community's contribution to this joint
venture would , be:
1. To provide economic development information about the
community, such as demographics, current developments,
development sites available, and other Information relevant
to handling development prospects.
2. To provide information about the process of economic
development In your community, such as the typd of
development that your community encourages, the types of
assistance that the municipality provides to development
prospects, and the steps a prospect must go through to get a
development approved.
3. To provide financial support to the joint venture at a
suggested rate of $2,500 (minimum) to $5,000 per year,
budgeted for at least three (3) years. First year funds
should be remitted to the "Saint Paul East Metro Marketing
Fund ", in care of the Saint Area Chamber of Commerce,
at the above address.
If you have any questions, or if there will be a City Councll
hearing to consider this request at which you would like a
representative present, please advise Ken Klxmoeller or Eileen
Mix at 223 -5004, or your local Chamber.
Thank you for your consideration of this request, I look forward
to the City of Mapiewood's participation In this landmark joint
venture.
Sincerely,
r
James A. St Ipestad'
Vice Chairman Economic Developmen and
Convener, Saint Paul East Metro
Economic Development Council
enclosure: Saint Paul East Metro Economic Development Council
Joint Venture Proposal
cc: City Manager /Administrator
t
SAINT PAUL
EAST METROPOLITAN
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT Council
A JOINT VENTURE PROPOSAL
Between the East Metropolitan
Chambers of Commerce and Municipalities
for Economic Development Promotion
CONTENTS:
1. Purpose for a Joint Venture 2
2. Organization Structure. 3
Affiliation 3
Management Structure 3
Staffing 4
4. Goals and Strategies 5
3. Proposed Budget and Funding. 7
4. Action required to move forward. 9
Revision 7, 11/17/86, Page 1
East Metropolitan Joint Venture Proposal - --
1. PURPOSE: An East Metro Economic Development Joint Venture.
The purpose of the proposed coalition is to have an
organization that can act In the joint economic development
Interests of the East Metro communities. These communitles are
defined as those In Ramsey, Washington and Dakota Counties
which consider themselves to be Saint Paul suburbs, plus Saint
Paul itself. The general purpose of the Council will be to
perform business development marketing for the greater East
Metro community. This includes market planning, promotion
efforts, and prospect handiing.
A promotion fund will be set up in Joint venture between the
chambers of commerce and municipal governments in the East
Metro area. This fund would be used:
First, to implement an Immediate program of marketing the
entire East Metro region to Commercial and Industrial real
estate brokers and developers, companies In the Metro area
that are contemplating immediate expansion or relocation,
and residential real estate brokers and builders.
Second, to establish and implement a long -range program of
business retention and attraction, to ensure continuing
growth.
R e v i s i o n 7. 11/17/86, Page 2
fast Metropolitan Joint Venture Proposal - --
2. organiz the Joint Venture.
Affiliation
The SEED Council would be affiliated with the various chambers
Of commerce In the East Metro area, conjunction with the
communities themselves It would.be organized as a "public-
private partnership" reporting'In function to the boards of
directors of the area chambers of commerce. This structure
would have the following advantages:
The chambers bring the voluntary efforts of top area
executives, industrial development leads from several
sources, an in -place long -range development planning
structure, and existing organizations which cross municipal
borders.
Independent status would allow for fund raising
possibilities beyond existing chamber members, and a
greater degree of management flexibility than would
otherwise be possible.
Accounting support for the Council would also be provided by the
Saint Paul Area Chamber,
Management Structure
A Management Committee would oversee the organization. it w111
consist of 15 to 18 key leaders from the chambers and the
communities (elected officials, city managers, economic
development commission chairs, etc) that would be agreeable to
all of the partners. The assumption is that It would be broadly
geographically representational. This Committee would to
the various chambers' boards.
Revision 7, 11/17/86, Page 3
East Metropolitan Joint Venture Proposal
Staff
Initial staffing would be provided.by the Saint Paul Area
Chamber of Commerce, including its manager of economic
development, who would serve as the primary staff person
coordinating the market planning and execution. In addition,
the current economic development secretary /Information
specialist would support these activities.
The informal East Metro planners group has offered to provide
some.technical and Information support to this effort. In
addition, the staffs of the other partner chambers would supply
as much assistance as possible.
Anticipating the Increase in workload that this activity would
create, It will likely be necessary to increase staff, either by
a loaned executive, or by hiring through the promotion fund.
The positions that need to be filled, in order of Importance
are:
Economic Development Assistant — supplements and supports
the activities of the existing manager. Primarily
responsible for handling prospects in all stages of the
selling cycle.
w
Secretary — for all of the above individuals. (which would
free the secretary /information specialist from above to
give proper attention to maintenance of the economic
Information dataabase) .
Revision 7, 11/17/86, Page 4
East Metropolitan Joint Venture Proposal ----
3. Goads & Strategies
Initial goals for the coalition would be to:
1. Establish an Identlty for the region. Portray the
g region as the greatest area of significant opportunity
In the Twin Cities Metropolitan area today.
2. Demonstrate our commitment to accomplish significant
change In Twin Cities development.
3. Selle the many attractive amenities In the community,
such as housing In the rYgea ea,
F attractive land for more development, better traffic
conditions, and much more.
4. Demonstrate current demand for commercial and Industrial
development In the area.
ix
II'
This would be accomplished by:
Creating professional marketing materials for the East
Metro area such as brochures, u es, advertisements, and video
r productions.
rx
organizing selling tours to educate for real estate
developers /brokers and residential home builders /brokers.
Developing and presenting the long -range marketing plan for
t commercial and Industrial development to significant
developers to accelerate real estate development plans.
z
Organizing "one -on -one" selling to specific, targeted
developers, companies, or both, which potentially have a
substanclal, positive Impact on the economic development of
the area.
Revision 7, 11/11 Page 5
r •
East Metropolitan Joint Venture Proposal - --
Long -Term Growth .
In order to ensure that the East Metro.area continues to grow at
a healthy rate, a long -term strategy for development must be
developed and Implemented. The goals of such a program would be:
To establish an ongoing program of assisting and retaining
the businesses that are already hers for It is from them
that long --term growth in Jobs will come.
To identify industries that provide fob growth
opportunities and develop a program to market the East
Metro area to them.
To provide a strong venture capitol community for new
company growth.
4
To target specific areas of opportunity, such as the
attraction of foreign capital to the area.
Other economic development initiatives, as they are
Identified.
t
Revision 7, 11/17/86, Page 6
i
East Metropolitan Joint Venture Proposal
4. Proposed Budget and Funding
Activities
Video production development and distribution.
f
Initial cost estimate $50,000.
Update Cost. estimate $10,000.
Bus tours for real estate developers /brokers.
Aproximate cost $1000 /tour.
Advertising in key Twin Cities business and real estate
Journals. One ad in each of four (4) journals. Aproximate
cost $3,500.
Brochure and direct mail promotion development and execution.
Target audience 1000.X $6 /piece, total $6,000.
Misc. sales budget for selected direct sellin opportunities,
assistant, and related expenses, total $40,000 /yr.
Budget
Item #/1987 #/1988 #/1989
Video P roduc t .l on* 1/50 0/0
Bus Tours 6/ 6 6/ 6 6/ 6
Advertising Impressions 8/28 6/21 6/21
Direct Mall Impressions* 4/24 4/24,000 4/24,000
Misc. Budget 301 ,000 321 ,000 34
TOTALS 132 83 95
Potentially donated or partially donated.
e
Revision 7, 11/17/86 Page 7
i
N
I
I
East Metropolitan Joint Venture Proposal ---
With the exception of the Assistant position, the Saint Paul
Area Chamber of Commerce will provide staff salaries and
overhead for the forseeab le future.
Revision 7, 11/17/86, Page 8
Funding
The following are th sources to fund the above effort:
r Communities:Minimum contributi $2
I x
Average cont $3
Major
Corporations.Minimum Contribution in 5,000
Average Contribution 6
Utilities
Newspaper
Major corporations
Real estate development firms
Commercial real estate firms
Financial Institutions
Small Corporations/
Land Owners:Minimum Contribution 500
or $10 /acre.
Yearly Funding
Group 0 $ 1987 1988 1989
MINIMUMS
Communities 16 0 2 40,000 40 40
Major Corps.6 0 5 30 30 30
Small Corps.20 @ 500 10 10 10
TOTAL 42 80 80,000 80
AVERAGE
Communities 18 0 3 54 54 549000
Major Corps,1.0 0 5 55 55 55,000
Small Corps..25 0 500 12 , 500 12 12
TOTAL 53 121 121 121
HIGH
Communities 20 0 3,500 70 70,000 70,000
Major Corps.15 0 6 90 90 90
Small Corps.40 0 500 20,000 20 20,000
TOTAL 75 180 180 180
With the exception of the Assistant position, the Saint Paul
Area Chamber of Commerce will provide staff salaries and
overhead for the forseeab le future.
Revision 7, 11/17/86, Page 8
r
East Metropolitan Joint Venture Proposal -- --
5. Actions Required to Move Forward.
Month Activity
r'
I Design /Print Brochure for Councll.
Request funding from various communities..
Assemble the management committee.
Solicit funds from land owners, brokers, etc. by mail.
2. Begin process of selecting advertising agency.
Gain commitment for the project from communities.
Solicit Corporate commitment and contributions.
Secure Interim funding.
3. Choose advertising agency.
Begin marketing material production (Video /Print).
Testify, or otherwise obtain community commitments.
Refine /gain agreement on Initial marketing plan
Collect small and large corporate funding commitments.
4. Continue production of marketing materials.
Finalize marketing plan.
50 Complete marketing materials.
Implement marketing plan:
Promotion blitz.
First media advertisements.
First direct mail ads.
6. Second media advertisments.
Prospect handling.
Bus tour preparation.
7. First bus tour.
More promotional activities.
Revision 7, 11/17/86, Page 9
N*r
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROJECT:
DATE:
Cit Mana
Associate Planner--Johnson
Preliminar Plat
Woodl Avenue.and McKni Road
Mack Nettleton
Woodl Hei Townhomes No 2
November 13, 1986
Action b Council ej
Endo rs e
Modif
ReJ
Date
Re
Preliminar plat approval for four town house lots, an outlot for the
common drivewa and three lar remnant parcels for future
development.
Proposal
10 Refer to pa 7 for the confi of the lots,
2 Lots Two and Three would be developed with two more four-unit
town house structures. Each lot would be replatted into four lots and
an outlot.
30 No plans have been made for Lot One yet,
40 Outlot A would be owned in-common b the owners of the town house
units, and be maintained b the homeowner's association. The
drivewa and uttlities to each unit are located in this area,
Recommendation
Approve the Woodl Hei Townhomes No. 2 preliminar plat, subject
to compliance with the followin conditions before application for
final plat approval:
le Cit en approval of a grading and draina plan for the
entire propert The plan shall also provide dikin as needed alonthenorthpropertlinetopreventover-land flowa from a break in
the pipeline,
2. All of Lots 2 - 7 and as much of Lot 1 as is necessar for
effective draina of Lots 2 - 7 shall be graded accordin to the
approved grading plan or a developer's a shall be entered into
with the re suret to guarantee completion of this grading ,
30 A developer's agreement shall be entered into, with the re
suret that includes, but is not limited tor restoration of WoodlAvenuefollowinconnectiontopublicutilities.
49 A 20-foot wide draina easement shall be centered on the common
lot line for Lots One and Two,
f
50 The city shall approve the homeowner's association bylaws and
rules. to assure that there will be one responsible party for the
maintenance of the on -site private utilities and driveways.
6. A written statement shall be submitted to the city from NSP and
Amoco authorizing the grading proposed in the approved grading plan.
2
BACKGROUND
Site Description
Size: 6.69 acres with 1,121 feet of fronta on Woodl Avenue.
Existin land use: undeveloped,
Ea.se. NSP power line and Amoco pipeline easements cover the
north 150 feet of the propert (See the map on pa 7 The
pipeline would be 170 feet north of the proposed dwellin units.
Surroundin Land Uses
North: NSP power line and Amoco pipeline easements. The propert is
planned for RM, residential medium densit uses.
East. a four-unit town house structure,
South Woodl Avenue, Across the Street are sin dwellin
West: undeveloped land plann for RM, residential medium densit
use,
Past Action
4- 22 -85:
Council approved',the Woodl Hei Townhomes preliminar y and final
plats for the four-unit town house propert abuttin to the east (see
pa 6 subject to:
1. Pa of the back taxes and delin assessments a the
entire propert If these costs are not paid prior to the re for
final plat approval, an agreement acceptable to the cit attorneshallbeenteredintotoarranforand/or secure pa of these
items at closin
2. Cit approval of the homeowner's association b and rules, to
assure that there will be one responsible part for the maintenance of
the on-site utilities and drivewa
30 Plat the remnant parcel west of the four-unit town house as an
outlot4a
4 Dedication of ten feet alon the east boundar of the site to
2 .increase the west hAlf of McKni Road's ri to 43 feet,
5. On the final plat, the si trian must be shown that is of
record at the interesection of Woodl Avenue and McKni Road,
8- 26 -86:
The community design review board approved the site and building plans
for the proposed four -unit town house structure.
Planning
10 Land use lan designation: M 'P g R , residential medium density.
20 Zoning: R--3, multiple dwelling.
30 Permitted density: 22 people /net acre.
4. Proposed density: 15.1 people /net acre.
50 The proposal meets or exceeds all lot dimension requirements.
Public Works
Storm sewer, water main and sanitary sewer are available to the site.
Procedure
1. Planning commission recommendation.
2. City council decision following a . ublic hearing,g
jc
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3 Preliminary plat (8 1/2 x 11)
4. preliminary Plat (Separate enclosure)
r1
AY..1A..f.u...:i •.. .;.li•..tfi'...nt..r...v ..... ....... . .. . i .. i.. .. .. ... .. ... ... •.tr: . +.;,.. .: . i. . na-. q.. wMtlwnr+RCMIt.l1MlYlIwwYN.MMC!
Q
WHITE BEAR LAKE
f8
70
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilljl
GA
m W
ac .
a E OR NER MW
woo
W
o FUR SS = CD
O Y p1A CTS N U U x
A 9N9vr3 '` LAKE
RIDGE ' .. • ;
STAND-
Ix
Lam
Y AP
cn a
3 9 x MAPLE VIEW ,v SILVER
Rlk16kT"'-
0
MA LL
POND .
CJ 1 a (21 PR/ VATS STREET
Y KOHL MAN AV (WSSAB/ AV)
NORTH SA PAUL
co > 0 2 > . : :1 li y
N z T29N,R22W
W •.,324. _ X
E EHILL RD '01
OEMONT AV ~AM N
dEM/p ,
Co AV
XTAN T AV
a G LR AIS GE I ERVAIS AV
VIEW AV W CT rQ
Y v,
NG DR TIE
36
Knuckle Head Lake
COPE 5'' ` v
m Co : a
r
LOCATION MAP
Attachment 1
5
4
N
1
263 63' IG3 f.3' , 8517? f loo IZo' zo 17a eo roc •. 3 3
34 ac 4t &C .41ac .2fac. j Nac-
M Q Qn Ff% Q
13.30 ac. 1Z, - ss., -
IO 7so
1
340 0301 +
O 7 3I o poi ro + b
31.0 'a) o .y
so
o
a
30; W4 T 140/
in
lw
I'. ' : t
t:O Y N
a::N N
r
I S
w —
H E Srr • ::
I.
X .
S a 4
L A
s...- s- st -s_- ti fe1t it fat "i•i"' '.r
1,0) \\
r
OJT SOT A j
4 11 1 i
40
A J ) b
C3 in
o - 3i a l o - 112) 1 00MrZ9' (3 ° ' 11 4 134. ° u
awe
ftl o ;33 o t
o .
SAar
R 4 28 '' (z) 16 17 14 / c 21 22 0
O
In 4*0
v (3) ''~ ' 10 %ay ` -
0 - 0 - ) CO 44o ) j ?1) N Zj) .n » a31111x : i' Ln _ L dr
1 -
14 11 , 0 1 20
n
2Ga (i3 2 (03 V.3 0.
0 ro.
lZZ' 0 M M 84 c h +I 'A
1 2 i/ _7 12 13 _ 19 a '. 3 ° (l °
Tad N FOR wrVIN in cso ll<<+ i1 !
a `
11
5oc 7 iW - -- - - - - -- p.arol11Z Jao1Ip D TOL471 U -06 N
L s. _ _ __ _ _
l O O.e 7 2 r A r aocYfoDiC 4••'1."0 -
014
r 40 135 )S , a 103 w _ Ior . 1040 s .00 104 S' 0 30 105 e•+ ion 30 30 - inr - -.- - - co - 3 .
o o. 1
J
30 I o M 1 2 3 2 r 1
j
1 +) t 2 p" 3
3 4 10 1 I A I w ., ' r
151 v. { '-" _ ( 601 3,X0.11 100 104.
1. O
103.17f 94a i11 rr!•+ I a 0 lo• O
as
0 9 d 2 2
6 h 3 /.'S' • • - 14 h •4s., - 3 2 h- _ 23
of C t "Tt - --- s . , L
r 3
w
PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP
6 Attachment 2
4
N
r
T
So
0
1
OC C rC.,A `!3 [t MVA TIOw Op TO• GI •Ywr[D •r[ ACCOMOr11O TO AMOCO IOCAIpA - -
J - '•• _ `• t ` _ \ - —.i T McCO: YTul3t.a - I•Tl:p(
O ...yam —.. ^1y —_— _' _ — y ) .° "
N'
94
A• ,y / \ / i , 1 i - - /. T.Q! Z4.0 /.0 5767 '
ir
t? , `` \' ~ 1 , • / —_ J
f , (/I Ow{'Ar% i!/ . '—' .•' Qe \,`
7 3e
r /
I to
tt-
978 .13 )
r / - - - -- __ T — b \ ` F _ __. \ •;a _ - -- _fib ( Rq ^Ep Lt
v. •.a ••,. r ••a al• - or Ir- ; .. ,'" __ _'. — --- -_ —_/ - - - - -- i , OUTLOi'3.3 •. , moo; _ _ _ .— — —.itcTwrc
Jf' :(06 _ ![ v/3Tr. •1r.t T .., 3!7 IT. OI !TCL • lG. _ _ - -- - _% ,.r . -_ - .. ._
3sirT. Oi .•• Cl. I, riC; =• iron.._.. y - sswr _. - ...._ ...._ - "c_' - - 3 - '__4_R.L•.. : .no.. INV
3• IT o C4. rr i - _
r •w-- ._. •
1 \
M. •w•r wry •u ra '
r .. c. -- :•Toe'i'..'__ __a.e+..... ••
v ....._ .._
3•. e• L._,.'o,r « Ir_...... !!....oi-
fit'IT.• WA/w_ %
I - - ..—.' :'' ---•> - --- -CLll_ L_l - iC l_L]1. _.•Av
It
NINIRNIIIA
PRELIMINARY .PLAT
7 Attachment 3
I
t
Lj
i[ : + . .. .. .. _ .. r ., .+, ...,... ...... „.. . .. .. ..+.
r..M+riw...rrrrrWMil.rllu... .. . .i . . .. .. .. ........ .. ... .
As 'Preliminary Plat - Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. 2
Secretary Olson said the proposal is a preliminary p l a t for four town house
lots, an outlot for the common driveways and three large remnant parcels for
future development. Staff is recommending approval as outlined in t h e i r
report.
Mr. Nettleton was present and questioned the requirement - to obLa i n written
statements from NSP and Amoco authorizing the gradi on their e aseren is .
He did not have this problem when he constructed on the lot nex door.
Commissioner Barrett moved this item be tabled until the deve I.o er and citPycanreachanagreementontheneedforapprovaltograde. on the easements,
Motion died for lack of second
Commissioner Whitcomb moved the planning commission recommend the city councyl
approve the Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. 2 preliminary plat, subject to
compliance with the following conditions before application for final plat
approval:
1 . City engineer approva of a gradingn and drainagenae 1 an for he 'i g g g p t entire
property. The plan shall also provide diking as needed along the north
property line to prevent over --land flowag from 'g o n a break n the pipeline.ne.
2. All of Lots 2 — 7 and as much of Lot 1 as is necessary or effectiveyefect ve
drainage of Lots 2 — 7 shall be graded according to the approved gradingPPgngplanoradeveloper's agreement shall be entered into with the requiredsurvtoguaranteecompletionofthisgrading.
34 A developer' & agreement shall be entered into with the r surety,that includes, but is not limited to, restoration of Woodl nn Avenue 'y enue followingconnectiontopublicutilities.
4. A 20 — foot wide drainage easement shall be centere on the CUlrllilOn lot l i n e .for Lots One and Two.
5. The city shall approve the homeowner's a s s o c i a t i o n b l a r Iryw - lI malestoassurethattherewillbeoneresponsiblepartyforthemaintenanceoftheon —site private utilities and driveways.
6. A written statement shall be submitted to the city 't y i ronr f 1{ ( rrd llrrroc,oauthorizingthegradingproposedintheapprovedgradingplan,
Commissioner Cardinal seconded Ayes--Commissioners Cardinal,F i of a Fischer,
son Sigmundi k, Whitcomb
Nays -- Commissioner Barrett
y .
f _
t
t MEMORANDUM
Action by Council:
TO: City Manager
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand -- Associate Planner Endorse
SUBJECT: Variances and Building Design Review Modified
LOCATION: 1918 Beam Avenue Rejected.
The Shopping Center GroupAPPLICANT: g p DateOWNER: Richard Schulze
PROJECT: Addition for Pier I Imports (formerly Occupied by the
Best Buy Company)
DATE: November 14, 1986
Request
19 Approval of two parking space variances and a parking lot setback
variance.
2* Approval of design plans for an a d d i t i o n On the rear of the
building and remodeling of the front,
Summary of the Facts
Proposal:
1. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,392-square foot addition
to the existing 6,056- square foot building to be used as additional
stockroom space. The additional space will be added to the south side
rear) of the building. To accommodate the expansion, the existing
six -foot high cedar -board fence will be moved 15 feet south and P laced
on a 2 1/2 -foot high concrete retaining wall. The wall will be
designed to insure that run -off from the parkin lot . does not flow
south to the
g
neighbor's yard. The additional 15 feet of land will be
paved with blacktop. Plantings moved as a result of the expansion
will be replanted south of the new fence line to soften the effect of
the fence, The addition will be constructed Of the same type of
masonry units as used on the existing building. Renovation will
include removal of part of the masonry units on the north side front
of the building and replacement with glass display windows. In
addition, a new fabric canopy will be installed across the front of
the building.
2. Refer to the attached plans and narrative for further information
on the proposal.
Variances (three variances are required):
le Only two of the 34 parking spaces would be ten feet or more in
width. Section 36 -22 (b) requires that at least half or 17 spaces be
ten feet or more in width. A variance, therefore, is required for 15
spaces.
20 Thirty -four spaces are proposed, only 32 spaces would be
provided if half the spaces must be ten feet in width. Section 36 -22
a) (6) , requlr,es 38 spaces. A variance, therefore, of four or six
spaces is required,
3. The parking lot would be extended to within five feet of the rear
lot line.' Section 36 -27 (a) (1) requires a 20 -foot setback. A
variance, therefore, of 15 feet is required.
These variances should be denied because the state required findings
page 4) for approving a variance are not met and there has been
traffic and parking congestion around this site in the past.
Also, if the variance to allow the nine -foot wide stalls is denied
parking would be reduced from the current 34 spaces to 32 spaces,
while the building would increase by 1,392 square feet. It is true
that the addition is for storage, but all businesses have storage,g
This is included in the formula for calculating parking spaces (one
space for each square feet of floor area)
If the variances are denied, the applicant will have to purchase
ad'd i t i onal land to the south or find a tenant that does not require a
building addition.
Recommendation
10' Denial of the two parking space variances and'a arkin lotPg
setback variance on the basis that:
a. Strict enforcement would not cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the property under consideration.
1) The property has and can continue to be p ut to a
reasonable use.
2) If additional land cannot be purchased to the south a
tenant that does not require an addition could be found,
3) A precedent may be set that would affect future cases
b. The variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the ordinance. While Pier I Imports may be able to
make a case for less parking, the city cannot control use of the
space by future tenants.
2. Approval of plans to remodel the front of the building,
3. Denial of plans for the addition, on the basis that arkin would
not meet code requirements.
P g
2
Site Description
BACKGROUND
10 Site size: 28,420 s feet,
2* Existin land use:, the former Best Bu Compan buildin
Surroundin Land Uses
Northerl Beam Avenue and the Maplewood Mall,
Southerl sin dwelliing ,
Easterl Kentuck Fried Chicken,
Westerl Sherwin Williams and the Paper Warehouse
Past Action
8-23-83:
The desi review board conditionall approved the site plan,
9-27-83:
The board approved the landscape plan,
6 -8 -84:
The cit approved a l o t s plit to create this site,
2-11-8,5:
Council amended the trash dumpumpster screenin or as the resultofarebtheBestBuCompanforavariancetouseawoodenenclosure, rather than masonr as wasas previousl re
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
10 Zonin BC (M), business commercial (modified
02* Ordinance requirements,
a. Section 36-22 (b) --Fift percent of 90 de parkin spacesshallbeatleastten-feet wide and 20-feet lon and fiftpercentshallbeatleastnine-feet wide and twent lonexceptforowner-occupied multiple dwellin
b* Section 36-22 ( a ) (6)--Commercial uses shall have one
parkin space for each 200-s feet, or portion thereof, offloorarea.-
c 0 Section 36-27 (a) --A landscaped area of not less than twentfeetinwidthshallbeprovidedwhereanonresidentialusewouldbewithin200feetofresidentiallzonedpropert
3. Section 367.10 Subdivision 6 (2 of state law re that -the
followin find'in be made before a variance can be granted:
a. Strict enforcement would cause •undue hardship because ofcircumstancesuniquetothepropertyunderconsideration,
b. The variance would be in keeping •p ng with the spirit and intentoftheordinance..
Undue hardship" as used in connection with the .granting of a variancemeans -the property in question cannot be ut 'to reasonable 'P nable use i f usedunderconditionsallowedbytheofficialcontrols. 'The plight of thelandownerisduetocircumstancesuniquetohisproperty,by the landowner, and q not createdthevariance, if granted, will not alter theessentialcharacterofthelocality. Economic considerationsshallnotconstituteanunduehard
alone
ship if reasonable use for thepropertyexistsunderthetermsoftheordinance,
citizen Comments
Staff notified abutting wners about 'g ut th 1 s proposal and requested theircomment. We received three replies. Two commercialmerclal properties wereinfavor. The resident behind was opposed, PP (See attached letter,)
jc
Attachments
1 Location Map
20. Property Line/Zoning MapP3. Site Plan (reduction)
40 Current Site Plan
50 Fence and retaining all designgn60Adjacentneighbor's response70Applicant's - .letter of justification8. Site plan and building elevationsons (separate document)
4
C'3 C
F F BC B
I 'F M)
8C
rr ll
F
A
Q F F .,I t 3C
Ly
r • ,
I
R '
R
30 1. J .? J R
a•
I L FR CF R
R .
F
I
F
R
LBCt ,
L n iL I
M
n•
RI
WAY __......._.
Ml
AVL
9 ,R
t C._...
R 3 C
uwTr L R C J R
L _ L r l r
R t
Rt • " N D __ :. _ ' ^ T _a 1. J l '
C ' r
f p
LlN; T Li'N AvE RRR- - -,!, _._. - -
R3 ' A1C
c l ELkI,X,EJ 6 C ( ,3 — - --] -tRI - F
F + . `r K M A F r = r
I
1
F
R -
n
n
O
LOCATION MAP
5 Attachment One
4
N
1 0 60') ' W
N 05 0o
of
Cu F/L £ No. 3 79 / 6 O '4 %}' Z so .
P.1 26 + 50
E '`3075140 W _ `°
100 , ZO Burger2 - ..._ r Ki ng
Rn. Proposed Pier Z ',t• t
84 ac. a
Z A7,r' h5005o
Hi rshf i elds Kentucky Fried C
jot U a C-.
Uso N nn 0IBC {, .'., +' 1
i
I !T PE.-RA r ofmil"k-m"
0
v
r
C- 625. z•)
0
CoC9058
4 Sac.
5.4 ac.0
AI 0 ro 04 6
58
o2.5
PUM MOENmin -.
8
y
ON O
12- S -19807G, 54 Cv C -14z. Zo) -- '' + 36v
9.4 cu OAT J - - _54.tn) eu. - -- --
05O o _
PUD
sm
O - Awlmw LA
i2t2 S
CJ
M, OU T
ta is s.. •i+ •:y. ,' . a - - ... Y.;!u ... • ,..i. /
PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP
6 Attachment Two
1 1
lu
v
be
kO
r
N
o
for
E
V
a
K
0
q
2s. I v
lug N
O \
rl
IL
Io
tjN ra111n0_ IP141IS1Y3 M
a
7 Attachment Three
I
rpt
I
Q 1- N
O
s
J
Q all
ur
e at
was
ON .
Iso
0
q
2s. I v
lug N
O \
rl
IL
Io
tjN ra111n0_ IP141IS1Y3 M
a
7 Attachment Three
rpt
Q 1- N
Ci s
0
q
2s. I v
lug N
O \
rl
IL
Io
tjN ra111n0_ IP141IS1Y3 M
a
7 Attachment Three
e O raw f e '
r
i
L'
lI1
b'
NGLoSIk
LL
O
O
h
N
3
u.NG.
1 • -
GONG'
MAT o EiuyT. EL . T.L.
30 FT. ACCESS
3
CUR
SITE P LAN
8 Attachment Four
GUaR CAP
13.I
SU
i .0 p A R
BOAR C)
FEN
51-A 6 6w
50A RD 5
dfH s I DE s
OF. J = E Q CEO
4411 SPAcEE
4 4 G E p 4
8EA
4
11
DAR
POSTS
POURED C Af
RETANitiG
WAIL
o CEl7pR 6pARD '
SECTION - f:ARTIAL ELF.'VATIOQ
Fe C.
c>
vN E D A RcHiTEGT'
12-
BesT BuY co
Iq 18 BEAN( ASE
MAPLEWOOD
Attachment Five
October 31, 1986
Oral K. Jordan
1905 Rad'atz
Maplewood, MN 55109
BUILDING AUDI I lull — VI tK I iilirvRTS
This survey is to get your opinion on an applicationdeve.o r
the city has recei toppropertyinyourneighborhood. The applicationis for a variance toallowPierIImportstoexpandthereararkinlottothP9elotlineat1918BeamAvenue (the former Best Buy building). See the enclosed map. The applicantproposestobuildascreeningfencetoconcealtheparkinlot.9
Your opinion is needed to assist the city staff and planning commission inpreparingarecommendationtothecitycouncil. Once this survey is completeYouwilbenotifiedofanypublicliu
y p d '
c hears ngs. .
Please indicate your opinion and comments belowo and return this entire lettertomeintheenclosedpostage —paid envelope b November 10Py 1986. If you wouldlikefurtherinformation, please call me at 770 -4560 between 8 a.•m, and 5 p.m.Thank you for your comments. They will be given careful consideration
v l• . c..l_Le
THOMAS EKSTRAND — ASSOCIATE PLANNER
Enclosures
am in favor of this ro osa l because:P p
I have no comment
I object to this proposal because:
If you object, descri e below or draw on the enclosed mawouldmakethisprojectaccePtable .
P any changes that
X-4/4 4 <
7
1 C
q 1? Attachment' S i
CITY OrA
ODM.ZL.k. P 1=4 E W. 0
1830 L'AS'1' C0.12UAll 13 1[Al'L1;VUl)ll, hliNN1;S(YI'A 551(.)9
OFFICE Oh COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMEN'r 612 7 0 500
I
tS. f 4 W.. . iR?Itli: !fMIiAsjFKs ' !ia 7ta¢
ze"
j
Awlool
Gf2r -L L,
1
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF
FORMER BEST BUY CO, STORE, 1918 REAM AVENUE
The applicant, Brody Associates, Inc., on behalf of RichardM. Schulze, President of Best Buy Co. and owner of the subjectt.premises, propos P
es to construct add it ions 1 storage space toaccomodataPier - 1 Imports which desires to occupy he buildinggandoperatetheirtypicalretailstoreontheremisesafterBestBuyCo. moves to its new fac
P
North of Maplewood MallintheTownCenterprojec, t Pier 1 Imports intends to occupthepremisesunderaten (10) year Lease with two (5 yearroptions . A copy of their Letter of Intent is attached
As you are aware, Best Buy's use of the buildinguilding has beenintensesincethestoreopened. This has necessitated ht e
construct ion of the new fac-ility, Pier 1 Imports is a retailerofimportedcasualfurniturefurnishings •i gs and clothing. TheUrbanLandInstituteParkingRequirementStudhasdeterminedStudymedthatparkingrequirementsforstoressuchasP'ier 1 areone -third that of a store such as Best Buy Co. It is because ofthatdifferencethatapplicantbelievesh •t at the parkingsituationforthesubjectpremiseswillbegreatlyimprovedwithYpaththePier1occupancyofthebuildinnotwithst 'g, andconstructionofadditionalstoragespace*
Bas ica l ly, applicant proposes to constructtruct a 1, 392 squarefootadditiontotheexisting6,056 square foot buildingq1i.ng t o beusedasadditionalstockroomspace. The additional space willbeaddedtotheSoutsid
P 1 1
e (rear) of the building. Toaccomodatetheexpansion, the fence will be moved 15 feet Southandplacedonaretainingwalldesignedtoinsurethatrun—of ffromtheparkinglotdoesnotflowSouthtotheneihbor's arTheadditional15feetof
g. Y d
land will b e paved with blacktop,Plantings moved as a result of the expansion w i l l be replantedSouthofthenewfencelinetosoftentheeffectofthefence.
The building
unit s as used on
removal of part
of the building
addition, a new
of the building.
will be constructed of the same type of masonrtheexistbuildineggRenovationwillinclude
of the masonry units on the North side (front)and replacement with glass display windows . In
fabric canopy will be installed across the front
A variance for parking is required as the code rovides
spaces and the site tan accom da spaces,
P
P o to s only 34 Pier 1Importsbelievesthatthisisadequatefo
anticipated q r t1e usage
Narrate Disk #15
12 Attachment Seven
r
f
MEMORANDUM
Action by Council *I
Endorsed
T0: - Mod1'fied .City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development e doted owl
y p DateSUBJECT: Dege Garden Center
DATE: December 2, 1986
The city council, on November 24, gave rel i mi n rpreliminaryy approval to a revisedconditionalusepermitforthisproperty. Mr. Dege' s request to include a
garage was not approved. Council requested a draft of the revisedwordingbeforeafinalvote.
In addition to approvi ng a f i nal resolution council should establish adatebywhichthegarageistoberemoved.
J
Attachments
1. Resolution
2.. Staff report (11-13-86)
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a re ular meetin of theggcitycounciloftheCityofMaplewood, Minnesota was dP • my called and
held in the council chambers in said city on the 24th day of Novembe r,1986 at 7 p.m.
The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
WHEREAS, George Dege initiated a conditional use permit revisionforaparkinglot, outdoor sales area and residential ara eg_ g in an R-1
zone at the following-described .property:
Lots 31 and 32, Block 1, Cahanes Acres
This property is also known as 831 North Centur y Avenue,,Maplewood;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of - this conditional use ermit isasfollows:p
1. This conditional use permit revision was initiated by GeorgeDege, pursuant to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances,
2. This conditional use permit revision was reviewed b theMaplewoodPlanningCommissiononNovember1
Y
7, 1986. The planningcommissionrecommendedtothecityouncilthatYsaidpermitbe
approved.
30 The Maplewood City Council held a public hearingg on November24, 1986. Notice thereof was published and ma i led P ursuant to lawAllpersonspresentatsaidhearingweregivenanopportunitytobePPyheardandpresentwrittenstatements. The council also consideredreportsandrecommendationsofthecitystaffandPlanningcommission.
4. The city council gave reliminar approvalPy to theconditionalusepermi.t, except for the residential24andtabledfinalactionuntil
garage on November
December 8 , 19 8 6 to have theresolutlonrevised.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL thatthe1971conditionalusepermitforanoff -- street arkin lot isPgrenewedandrevisedto. allow an expansion of the parking lot from 28to3.3 spaces and an outdoor sales area, the residential garage is
denied, on the basis that a garage is "Parking" I
g •g g not parking as envisioned n
the original conditional use permit and is, therefore, beyond the
scope of a nonconforming use, Approval of the permit is based on the
following findings:
2
1 4 The use is in conformance with the city's comprehensiveivep planandwiththepurposeandstandardsofthezoningcode. The parkinglotandoutdoorsalesarenonconforminguses. The parking lot is
needed to comply with city parking requirements .
2 . The establishment or maintenance of the use would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
3. The use would be located, designed, maintained and operated
to be compatible with the character of that .zoning district . .
4. The use would not depreciate property values.
5. The use would not be hazardous, detrimental or disturbin g to
present and potential surrounding land uses, due to the noises, glare,smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, water run -off, vibration
general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
6. The use would generate only minimal vehicular trafficfis on
local streets and shall not create traffic congestion, unsafe access
or parking needs that will cause undue burden to the area 'properties.
70 The use would be serviced by essential ublic services, ces, such
as streets, police, fire protection, utilities., schools and parks.
8. The use would not excessive additional requirementsatpubliccostforpublicfacilitiesandservices; and would not bedetrimentaltothewelfareofthecity,
9 . The use .would preserve and incorporate the site's naturalturalandscenicfeature's into the development design,
10 The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
10 The site plan submitted by Mr. Dege on October 27, 1986
except for the garage, shall be considered as part of this ermit. An
e must be a
p Ychartgapprovedbythecommunitydesignreviewboard.
20 The parking lot may only e used for parkingcenterbuilding.
Y p rka.ng for the garden
3. No commercial use for sale, storage, display 'g , p ay or advertisingsignsofgardenmaterials, plants, or an other kindsds of_ goods shallbeallowedanywhereonthelegallydescribedroerttowhichppyhthisconditionalusepermitisissued, except under the approved canopy,py.The canopy shall not be enclosed. Sales shall be limited to nurser
r i l through S
YplantsandcoveringstrawfromApgSeptember. No other typeofsalesorstorageshallbeallowed,
4. No portion 'of this site shall be used for truck or trailerstorage.
Q
15 Review, renewal or revocation of this permit shall be in
accordance with city code.
6. Any trees on the site. that die must be replaced,
70 No exterior lighting or speakers shall b e - a l l o w e d ,
Adopted this 8th day of December, 19860
Seconded by Ayes--
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) SS .
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD )
I , the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed clerkk
of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have
carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the City of Maplewood, held on the 8th day of
December, 1986, with the original on file in my Office, and the sameisafull, true and complete transcript therefromm insofar as the samerelatestoaconditionalusepermit.
Witness my hand as such clerk and the corporate's 'seal o f the citythisdayof , 1986.
City Clerk
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community DevelopmentYpSUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Revision or Revocation
LOCATION: 831 N. Century Avenue
PROJECT: Dege Garden Center
DATE: November 13, 1986
SUMMARY
Request
Revision or revocation of a conditional use er 'p mit.
Summary of th Facts
10 Mr. Dege would like to finish construction of a 58 by 13.5 foot783squarefoot) garage. The garage would be used to store his RVtrailerandatrucktohaulthetrailer. R 'trailer* ( Refer to Mr. . Dege 's letter
on.page 13.)
2. The city issued a building permit for the 'g P garage In error. Whentheerrorwasdiscovered, a stop -work order was issued. The stop -workorderwastemporarilyliftedtoallowcompletionoftheroofto
prevent damage to the building.
3. Several neighbors have etitio for r •P revocation1On of the permit,t.Refer to petition on page 15.)
4. The city issued a Conditional use ermit with 'p th 11 conditionst1ons onJune3, 1971, to allow construction of a parking lot on Lots 31 and32, Block 1, Cahanes Acres. (See page 10.) Conditions l 2 anwouldhavetoberevisedtoallowthegarage '
6
a. Condition One states that "the submitted arkinp g planarchitecturalsiteplanpreparedbyBather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld
Inc., dated May 3, 1971 shall be the approved and govern P lanlayoutandcontrolonallsiteplanning, development, and land
use."
In addition to the garage, the parking lot has been expanded from
28 to 33 spaces, including a drive for the garage.
b. Condition Two states that "the special use 'p permit for 28
off- street parking spaces shall be restricted for parking use
only relating the existing business establishment known as 'DegegGardenCenter' as it is presently constituted in terms of total
retail floor space and retail ground areas."
The garage would be used for personal, rather than business use.
59 There are also problems with several other conditions:
a Condition Five states that "no commercial use for sale,
storage, display or advertising signs of garden materials, plants
or any other kinds of goods shall be allowed anywhere on the
legally described property to which this special use permit
issued."
Plants are sold under an outdoor canopy for several months. Mr.
Dege has been doing this for many years. The only city approval
was a permit issued on March 23, 1981 for a temporary structure
with a plastic roof that was removed on July 31, 1981. Since
then, Mr. Dege has reconstructed this addition with a year -round
plexiglass canopy.
b. Condition Six states that "no portion of the approved
parking lot area shall be used for truck or trailer storage."
The parking lot would be used for the RV trailer and truck.
c Condition Nine states that "the special use permit to use
the site for off - street parking shall be assigned to the Degeg
Garden Center. Any change in the occupancy or use of the current
Dege Garden Center shall not give future occupants any rights to
the use of the parking allowed in this permit. Further, should
the Dege Garden Center vacate its business premises, o out of
business o
g
r abandon its current site, then the special use permitforoff - street parking for Lots 31 and 32, Block 1, Cahanes
Acres, shall become immediately null and void and such parkinglanduserightsinthispermitshallnotbetransferableor
negotiable by the permittee (Mr. Albert Dege) to any future
occupants or.. purchasers of Dege Garden Center property located at
831 Century Avenue North."
This condition is not enforceable. The courts have ruled that a
conditional use permit must run with the land, not the owner,
d. Condition Eleven states that "the permittee (Mr. Albert
Dege) shall sign a waiver agreement with the village which
specifies that he, as the permit holder, waives any legal claims
for damages or business loss against the village should the
village withdraw the special use permit. Also, the agreement
shall provide that Mr. Albert Dege shall not be able to use the
special use permit parking area as an item of claim against an
ov
g Yotherlevelofgovernmentwhichshouldacttophysicallyimprove
and /or widen Century Avenue where a condemnation of land might be
necessary for additional widening."
There is no record of such a waiver. No widening of Century
Avenue is expected that would affect the parking lot.
0nmmor4 --c•
The main objectives of the city in this case should be to provide the
minimum amount of code required parking in the least objectionable wa
neighbors. '
YpossibletotheneigTheparkinglotexpansionprovidesneeded
parking. If the building is sold for another use, the parking lot
will be needed. The trees provide effective screenin g for the
neighbors.
The outdoor sales are seasonable, have been going on for years and
have not been a problem.
The garage under construction is smaller tha allowed b code for a
residential garage and is screened from view b the trees,
Recommendation
Approve the followin revisions to the conditional use permit, that .
will allow the garage, outdoor sales and exp parkin lot for one
year (additions underlined and'dele'tions crossed out
1,, 44
3 U Lj ", 1_1 g ---- a -t-ec t u r- a..:...__s t e .... p.l a n-.. - p r e --'X ILA qz;: 6- %_4 j " J.
se C= 3 A YWIW -A- &-:P L.a.pp,re.v e
a-nd---govern-i-n and - control on all site plannin
development, and land use
The site plan submitted Mr. De on October 27, .1986 shall be
considered as part of this permit, And chan must be approved b the
communit desi review board*
g- --- --- r n- e --- e - i- s t .-n - ----- hu--s-f"-s--s
of I reta iIt.;; NA e rms f I d
a
20 The parkin lot ma onl be used for parkinq for the garden
center buildin
su-i-faee
jz
f -street
rte --A. A la-n-d-&cj-ap4-n-g--t-r-e-a-t-menLt----a_S___Spec i-f -i ed...on the plan shall- --be
tc ) allowanee :E e r use Lor
3, No commercial use for sale, stora displa or advertisin siofgardenmaterials, plants or an other kinds of goods shall be
allowed an on the le described propert to which this
i -a--1 conditional use permit is issued, except under the approved
canop The canop shall not be ' enclosed, Sales shall be limited to
nurser plants and coverin straw from April throu September. No
other t of sales or stora shall be allowed,
4 portion of tho _axapr__QuQa this site shall be
used for commercial truck or trailer stora
parki area s1va-14-A&.L. JLJL
A %_ 3: nee r a-n.d—SLlia-l.-I--be--re-s-al--ved--.-and49-e- ed p r -i o-r-- e
aeupane A.-
b3+43 %.A
i-.s - -e.p ; -, „ r .-- e - - t---- .h- a-- - -- b.... j . ._.t a..._.. e .._l. e ,.___ -a - -t -- _......t h e-
d i scre.t. -i on - - -.o f_...._.the - - -v i..1'1 age ....counc- i-1--at -. -anyt ime - the counc,i 1. has re , as- a .r.__t --
r-evIew ---- . t . he -.. ... perm. i- t.._.. d. ue..-.. to.-.... neg... l... i ..g.en.c.e.- ...:of.... rice. ;..- ..chan .. -i planning
or- -_; development._.. co.nd- -- t-- i- ons _- _- 3n----- t- h- e--- a- r.a.
eo.nd..:.tion.s..- of......the perm t j _..or.. '.jus.t.l f --ied and proven - citizen complaints .r_+- + e -A. _ - 4 n --- .- d - ns r a- h. -l-e-
amt -e-v % I'r -% s u e - ---pe- 3- .: .__T ow , E) % .; y --
e r m :i. r- -xxa e- - e= : -s -i-e aka- -r a n= e m e n t __' o f .. a h e . a n :: s h a l l ... _ r ep p g P`.. quire -a
peg-=- ea.g..p€edr- pefed.n Yt} i e. pa.l.._ ion i ng code,
5. Review, renewal or revocation of this perm shall be in
accordance with city coded
parkin g
shall he_-_-aSSiUnQd_J:a-- - -.D.e g.e -.--G a-r.d. - t e r ......._...Any - changes in the
ate -yam r-- .-thy- s --Q -- t e-- .-e - r- .. n . D e ... ax e n _.center s h a l l not give
f .u-tu -r -e---o -e -,u. p a n- t- s --.e-n y -.,_ - r .,_ }. g h t s- ,._..t.o--- _t.h.e. -.. u- s e- of the ._ ...par k i .n g a 1- l -owed _. - n t h s_
mia-- .'urther , should _.tie__.Bege....arden center -vacate its business
ndan._ ..... .e ._.cur rent .. bus i ness . s i to ,
t -e -- tie -- aec -iaW -.use .Mpermit for...._o .f-street parking for Lots 31 and 32
B ere -~- 4-- I-- -c.a.ha nes -_"A-c - -__s h a.3...i:- ---be -core _..immediate 1 y null and vo -i d -and
e ights.n._.ths permlt shat ]. not be transferable
o r _. n eg e-, e Wit- tee
a A.
rc-- ..en.tru -ry-- - ue _..Na-r= th
n p e .- -use e r -m -t-- -m s -t- } e e x e r c i -s e d_:_ by o b t a i n i ng a drivewa
eons e t -peT-Fn- d a te- _.. -o.f ..._ f i n a 1--- _..v. -i 1 -1 ag e
c o u n- ---,ap eraa-1-- -t pee - m
6: - The
gpermttee (Mr. Albert Dege) shall sign a waiver agreementwiththe , city which specifies that he, as the permit holder,waives any legal claims for damages or business loss against the
V ' ~ city should the - -1- .p city withdraw the s-- conditionalpeusepermit . e -ire --h
raerbe--- .o--- u -s.e -- --w - s
a 3:
z - h-e. a a . r k,i -p p g .. ax e a---a
y ,. - t- h- - - - e -,-e~
A rn r
I— .w-i-d EN,,_ ii i-ng .
7. Any trees on t site that die must be replaced.
8. No exterior lighting or speakers shall be allowed.
4
BACKGROUND
43,293 square feet
Surrounding Land Uses
Single dwellings to the north south and west of the parking lot,
Dege Garden Center fronts on Century Avenue alon g with other
commercial businesses.
Past Actions
6- 3--71: Council approved the conditional use ermip t for Dege GardenCenter's parking lot based on the conditions established on May 271971. YSeePage10• )
12- -4 -71:
Council conditionally approved a 50 b 80 foot addition
building.
Y to the
1 -6 -72:
Council approved the previous design of the •g south and east sides ofthebuilding ( the former town -- scape facade),
6- 22 -72:
Council reviewed the applicant's conditional use ermip t for
compliance. No acti was taken.
8 -1 -74:
Council approved plans for the applicant to 'pP build a 16 by 72 footgreenhouseonthenorthsideofhisbuilding, subject to:
1. Approval of the buildingin plan in no way - •g P y wl _L _ affect or diminishianywaytheconditionspreviouslyattachedbthecitycouncilYyunciltotheapprovalofthespecialusepermitforthearkin _lotpg on Lots 31and32, Block 1, Cahanes Acres.
20 The applicant and owner shall agree •writing.g to the above conditions in
7- 10 -75:
j Council, upon review of a request b neighbors to haveYg the applicant'sconditionalusepermitrevoked, due to noncompliance, p ce, moved to inform
Mr. Dege that he must adhere to the May 27, 1971 conditions
10- 15 -86:
The applicant obtained a building permit forgP a 12 by 58 foot storagegarageadjacenttotheparkinglottostorehistruckandRV.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Land upe plan.designation: RL, low density residential (the
parking lot site as well as the garden center site).
20 Zoning: R -1, single dwelling residential (parking lot site ) BC
business commercial (garden center site).
3. Applicable ordinance requirements:
a. Section 36 -17 (e) (2) states that no existing building or
premises devoted to a use not permitted in the district in which
such building or premises is located shall be enlarged,
reconstructed or structurally altered, unless there would not be
a significant affect, as determined by the city pathroughspecialg
use permit, on. the development of the parcel as zoned,
b. Section 36 -442 (b) provides that approval of a conditional
use permit shall be based upon Conditions One through Ten as
listed in the resolution (page 17) .
C* Section 36 -442 describes the procedures for review or
revocation of a conditional use permit. (Refer to page 14.)
d. Section 36 -6 allows residential garages u to 1 000 squareuare qfeetinarea. Garages may not exceed one story in height. The
proposed garage is 783 square feet and one story in height.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Since .construction began, staff has received complaints 'p lnts from three
neighboring residential households. The objections voiced were•
1. The new garage is in violation of the conditional 'use permit,which was issued only to permit 28 off - street parking stalls.
2. The new garage will inevitably e used as an extensionon of the
garden center for business purposes, such as storing supplies.
30 The garage detracts from whatever remaining residential1 characterthelotstillposseses, and is an encroachment of the commercial land
usage towards the residential homes.
3c
Attachments
l • Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Existing Site Plan
4. Conditional Use Permit Requirements
50 Approved Parking Plan
6. Applicant's Letter
70 Section 36 -442 (e - g)
80 Neighbors' Petition
941 Resolution
no
r i Q
R a R R
MARyi AKA, 4_D
Al
I
R3
J
MANTI AND . R
MAQNf - 1-iA AvE
E3
IAJ
1 fr
R 4 R
4 AVE HARWVLTFR AVE
4 ' /r
TILI.vrAl 9 tiq av R - -_ Av
W
R
F a z
6.1•wI• Y.4Q31 .
t
R r•
NINNE 1A_ Av '
ec t
W R
a' MAIL AW._.. Ail,
R R
R R
R
M1 -VAr ^/E
QC
M 2 M2
MATCH LINE
LOCATION MAP
Attachment 1
4
N
J h N
01 LO
12 1
1.
r
so Ssf Ica •'
r ,
77. _ 29 7 Proposed Garage ' `+
A
8 3 9'
835
r pop ti 11 aq825 :.: o
p 8 d - 814.- '91-9 >
811 804
5 805
2 798 1 7 -
ror
7
N
i r 24
30)
160-7
c•a) t N 13 "
al
s) (,,y
i t 6 15 17 I 16 ' • ,•,
ax= .
I
92 i0 ' : 495
Joe
1
PROPERTY LINE' ZONING MAP
8 Attachment 2
Fo
N
T
7TH :. .STREET
h
L . ftE 1 Ca{T Z5 - 3c'.
ME
I
A •R a .Q • E . . E
Lo
IV-
13
z M-41
XISt+G..;,rt:,_
PP
NJ
Exito G, i7Lr'1 o .s s u c.Fpr r
Pmt I - • (' .
T fr_ a '
H-
E TF-e= -
T. 11ZESZyR
OCT 27 W
Zoning boundary between
P 4 oRTH __. R -1 (west side) and BC
P • .! 'v . 2 s7pv.s - - . ..:
P 4CCO 7a.{s (east side)
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
i
Attachment 3
9
L
0
0
A
4
kv
t
Seconded by Councilman Greavu.
G%7
Ayes - all.
b. off - Street Parking Lot - Dege Garden Center (8:10 P.M.)
1. Mayor Axdahl convened the meeting for a public hearing on the
request of the Dege Garden Center for a Special Use Permit to allow
construction of an off - street parking lot on property described as
Lots 31 and 32, Block 1, Cahanes Acres. The Clerk read the notice
of hearing along with the publication dates.
2. Manager Miller presented the staff report.
3. Administrator Seida read the Planning Commission reports statingthattheSpecialUsePermitbeapprovedsubjecttothefollowingconditions:
1) The submitted parking plan architectural site plan re ared bP YBatherRingroseWolsfeld, Inc. , dated May 3, 1971 stall be the approvedandgoverningplanlayoutandcontrolonallsiteplanning, development . ,and land use,
2) The Special Use Permit for 28 off-street parking spaces shall be
restricted for parking use only relating the existing; business establi sli-
ment known as the "Dege Garden Center" as it is presently constituted
in terms of total retail floor space and retail • round area*
3) The entire parking surface area and drive's within the area co n c t- in
to the streets -shall be hardsurf aced wi t.li bitu111ir.ioti,, asplia.ltic mi:ti and
appropriately marked prior to use for off- street parking purposes;
The landscaping treatment' as specified on the plan shall be -in
stalled prior to allowance for use for off - street parking.
S) No commercial use for sale, storage, display or advertisin si g riSofgardenmaterials, plants, or any other kinds or goods sha be a.11oc
anywhere on the legally described property to which this Special UseP ,Permit is issued. {
6) No portion of the approved parking lot a 1.P P g area shall be used for true. ,
or trailer storage.
A .
7) The drainage of the parking area shall be sub • ect to approval bPP1 y ,the Village Engineer and shall be resolved and rectified prior to oc-
cup ancy to the Parkin Permit area b
p
Parking r a eing granted by the Village BuildingOfficial, i
I
8) This Special Use Permit shall be subject to review at the discretionoftheVillageCouncilatanytimetheCouncilhasreasontoreviewthePermitduetonegligenceofmaintenance, change in planning or -develo '
ment conditions in the area, non-compliance to imposed
P
P conditions of the
Permit, or justified and proven citizen complaints. Further, the Council .
upon demonstrable findings, may by majority vote act to revoke such
permit. To modify any of the conditions of this Pcniiit or change. the
ph- Isical arrangement of the Plan shall require a public heari:rir; and co;ii-
pliance to all procedures of the Special Use Permit hearin g procedure.
specified in the Municipal Zonin ; Code.
10 Attachment 4
5/27
L ,
c
9) The Special Use Permit to use the site for off - street arkinshallbeassignedtotheDegeGardeP g
cupancy or use of the
Center,. Any change in the oc-e current Dege Garden Center shall not 'occupants any rights to the use, of the gVe .future
Further, Dege Garden CshouldtheD Parking allowed in this permit.Center vacate its business rem"out of business, or abandon its current ises, go
Special
ent business site, then the S iUsePermitforoff- street parking for p
Acres, shall become ..p g r Lots 31 and 32, Blk. 1, Cahameimmediatelynullandvoidandsucharki
nes
p ng land userightsinthisPermitshallnotbetransferableornegotiablebythepermittee (Mr. Albert Dege) to an future occupants or purchasers ofDegeGardenCenterPropertylocatedat831CenturyAvenueNorth
10) This Special Use Permitrmit must be exercised by obtaining a DrivewaConstructionPermitwithin15daysfrom. YyrmthedateoffinalVillageCouncapprovalontheSpecialUsePermitbecomesvoid.
C11) The Permittee (Mr; .Albert Dege) shall sign a waiver agreement g nt withtheVillagewhichspecifiesthathelegalclaimsfordamages ,
as the Permit holder- waives any
the Villa
or business loss against the Villag sVillagewithdrawtheSpecialUsePermit
g should
Also, the agreement shallprovidethatMr .Albert Dege shall not be able to usPermit . parking area as an item of
e the Special Useclaimagainstanyotherlevelofmeetwhichshouldacttophysica1.1 i gover-Y mProve and /or widetX Gentu7 *y AvenuewhereacondemnationboflandmightenecessaryforadditionaltionalYwidening.
4. Proponents - None at this time.
5. aOpponents - Steve Wing, Landfall Vnorthofthisro
illage , recently purchased propppropertyandwished
questiotohaveseveralqons answered,
6• Mayor Axdahl called for formal objections* The objectors wereere heard :
Anthony Cahanes, 2703 E. Seventh SGunnarCronk2685EasSeventhStreet in favor of the Proposedinglot . park -
Diane Glaske, $04 Ma hilly. Road, opposed to parking on Seventh Snotagainstparkinglotbutdoesnotwan rees;nt entrance on Seventh Street.
7• Mayor Axdahl closed the ub •p tic hearing.
8. Following further discussio
cision until Ju
n, Councilman Greavu moved to dela de-ne 3 1971 and to allow for written •filed for a one week period.
b ectlons to be
Seconded by Councilman 1Iau ang Ayes - all.
c. Planned Unit Development - Maplpewood Homes (8:30 P
1 • Mayor Axd ah 1 convened •the meeting for a public hearin onquestofMaplewoodHomesforaPlannedUnit
the re-
idwellingunitscomposedofsixty
t Development (300 condominium4 - bedroom dwelling units and fort Y 3bedroomdwellingunits) on
Lots 1 tiru 3 B
property described as Lots 1 thru 4, Block 1andLlock2, Beaver ,Lake Addition, Thenoticeofhearingalongwiththepublication
Clerk read the
P cation dates.
2• Manager Miller presented the staff report and read the followingrecommendation:g
11
5/27
w
rte to f" - ' ' • . w .._~. '' , b j ' ,dL
Xi I -I
Zu
Pill
ter"" ""
4
OO '
t ... -
Iy .
p 'f .16'r • ' ,
ry J 11k") 111p.. SRIa'ai.• a. ' t
1 i/
on
IN X .\
C16 \ \
air - , .- .
t..:
1 t I
NO,/ 1 I t t
tr
a + cJ
t
M • l , - i
ru
Ai
h iy b0 / r a h / r
cli
Ile OL
CL
to
7 /' `•
W
r
f 2 OLi V' j to .' „/ W y O
kA
cl
l
Ep
r tY W ,
i u1
r
lw INk
0 ° W
t
Y .
e •,y6
12
Attachment 5
C;CI111ITa FKUIyI 00ER ON IN'I'EN.11E.0 , -' i' t_ r ,U, C 7RUG I UR1 CN LOT 32
L, George .Uege, co -owner of said pro ert built „building for the sale Purpose
P y ' i1t a ' ' x r
X 131611 tallpposeof .storing .safely my new C'' 5th 6Jhee1 R, v. trailerandmedum- sized GMC 7000 Truck which pulls iler
This building, . P fit'
g, without electricity, will only be used to store my personalvehicleswhichhavenothingtodowith
self, t Dege Garden Ctr. Inc. I am paying for thisstructuremY , he insurance for said building, and vehiclesThis . building will not be used for an Ga stored within.
inventory. Y Arden Ctr. activities or storage of
The purpose of the near flat roofof was to Impact the surrounding nei hbarhoodaslittleaspossible. The green color g
was used to blend in with the landscaping.The in and out movement of this R, V. is estimated at less than - ten times a earWinstalled , to our Jest end, commercia Y '
lot to the shrubbery w
l blacktop from our existing parkinyhichisnow1o' to 13' tall, We felt that this
g
addition to the parking lot would hel
s 2, 000
This
P anyaddition
overflow of our .customers, which usuallyhappensonlyinAprilandFlay. Phis add Y
W felt that this would
dded four more parking stalls,ld be well- received by our neighbors . The a •to the North side of our existing dditlon of blacktopLarkinglotwastoconformwithbuildingcodeofsaidstructureNooriginalretmusthavefloorn
from the original lot plan,parking stalls have been eliminatedP
Z feel that this structure is in kee in •90% hidden from view on t th StsipgWith the residenta.al lot and by beingheMayhilland7d.es hlthereshould beffect - to the community, e no adverse
S suggested shrubbery be l.anted :lot tom sa
P by me on the South e.nc West end of the syuthernneighbor. He stated. that I couldn't "placate parking
an that he just wanted th
t p.l•e,c,te .m with shrubbery''e building taken down,This building was proposed and werlapsstaffattheMalewood
P .e submitted for review by the appro riatePhall. A representative visited the site o
P
building and additional f the proposedparkingspots. The plans were accepted.Lampert Lumber Co drew the spec s and thbuildinginspectorpreuests
ey Were made to conform with the9. My contractor, Ken Lindquist, took out the Bailpaidthus" appropriate fees . and started construction. dingPermitand
completed when Three quartersoftheworkwascomPena "Stop Work" was put on this project.The roof is completed except for the final door, and twelve sheets of roofing material, the entrancesiding. I sincerely hope that the "Stop ork"P orderdoesnotadverselyaffectthisstructurewithoutthefinalroofingmaterialsbeingapplied,
I have lived up to my end of the •e Build.ng i -ermlt and I would hope thatMaplewoodwilldothesame. We have had afor1 good relationship with Maplewood '7 years and I would to continue that. Thintheneatestcondition
is building will always be keptonbyme.
Thank You,
d6so e eg e
OCT 2 7 1986
13
Attachment 6
e) All conditional use 'permits shall be reviewed by thecouncilwithinoneyearofthedateofinitial . teal approval, .unlesssuchreviewiswaivedbycouncildecisionorordinance. Atoneyearreview, the council may specify
the
specific term not t '
Y sp fy an indefinite term or
impose
o exceed five (5) years, for subsequent reviews.The council may m •p new or additional conditions upon thepermitatthetimeoftheinitialorsubseqpermitqntreviews. A condi-tional use p shall remain in effect as long as the con ' 'ditiagreedupon . are observed, but nothin
ns
ng in this section shall pre-vent the city from enacting r amendingding ofllcial controls to changethestatusofconditionaluses. An conditionalYtional use that meets theagreeduponconditionsandislaterdisallowedbecauseofthecityenactingoramendingofficialcontrolsshallbeconsideredanonconforminguse. legal
f1 The council may u onp review terminate the permit if theapprovedconditionsmayhavebeenviolalongerineffect. where t ted or the use is noheconstructionofaspecialbuildinstructure- val g orofamonetarye n excess of twenty-five thousand25,000.00) has been permitted t •he council shall provide for aperiodofamortizationofnotlessthanfive (5) years. Wherepublichealth,: safety and welfare concerns are threatened thefive -year amortization period is ndeterminetheamort'
of required and the council mayizationperiod, if any, to be allowed.
g) In the event the council in its 'consider imposing additional con ditionreview process decides to
s or termination of a con-ditional use permit, the cit councihearingonthat
Y 1 shall hold at least one publicpermitafteranoticeofthehearingaspublishedintheofficialnewspapa
g been
t least ten (10) days beforesaidhearing. The council shall also cause a notice to be maileachoftheownersofpropertywith ed to
feet of the boundary lin
Y n three hundred fifty (350)Y nes of the property; upon which such ushasbeenestablished, which note enoticaretobemailedtothelastknownaddressofsuchownersadateofthehearintleastten (10) days before theg.
14
Attachment 7
October 23, 1986
y
To: Maplewood City Council, C/o Jeff Olson, 1.830 E County Rd "B "Maplewood MN 55109
Re: Special Use Permit permit revio
Lots 31 E
p uslY granted to Deae Seed Co for32, Cahanes acres
Dear Mr. Olson:
We, the undersigned residents J ents located within 300 feet of the abovmentionedproperty, hereby re uest a
e
q pu hea ri nq to .con si.derrevocationoftheabovementionedspecialuseermitgrantedpermitteeMay17, 1971,. due to non-
p rated to the
compliance of the imposedconditions., as outlined at the time •the special use permit was granted.
The .specific non item •s are outlined below which are. not inaccordwiththeoriginalconditionsestablishedbythecitycouncil:
1) It is a specific conditio .n of the special use permit the lots zonedresidentialshallberestrictedforar 'p king use only relating to theexistingbusinessestablishmentknownasthe 'Dege Garden Center'
2) No commercial use for sale, storage, display or advertisinn sipardonmaterials, plants or other kind
of
anywhere on the
ds or goods shall be .allowedelegallydescribedpropertytowhicht 'use permit is issued. he special
3) No .portion of the a •approved parking lot area shall be used fortruckoftrailerstorage.
4) 7•o modify an of 'the •Y conditions of the Permit shell re wire aa
prop
Public hearing and compliance to all
q
use permit hearin r
Cedures of the specialgpoceduresoftheMunicipalZoninqCode,
We hereby request the afore mentionedd public hearing
Yours truly,
cam,.
rte'
N
r
1 f 15 Attachment 8
4!c.a " .l!l1T" egJS E 7 JT
C%
lot.
16
MEMORANDUM z on* I
City ManaThomasEkst
N:
rand - _Associate PlannerANT: '
Conditional
Count USe Permit RenewalYRoad
R: Nor C, East of Kellerest $ell parkwaOJECTRudolfo y
GonzalesSATE; - - -- -- - - -- T -e1ep Ehone qui me
c j.on by co. •a
DeCember l
p nt Building 1.
1986 g
Re SUMMARYo.i
Roj oct
Rene o f
building conditional Usee p to construct a telProposal Ph °ne equi mp ent
1. The buibrickagable
ild will bwith e 16 by 1 fee •roof,, t in s1Ze• Thehe exterior •2. Th . Will bThesubjectSisa
e
dwelling, portio n of a lot plat
3. ted for a sinnRefetothegle
applicants letter ocomms
n page 8
The proposed buildiSafety, convenie would not be
one_car enCe or Welfa
a hindra tgarage, and bein
re. It would b
o publ healthgbrickesmallerthanTheownero ,
would have an a a typicalfthettractiexteriotocreatethis •property. has obtained19g, S sl te , and c
twined approvalStaffSeeSnoonstructionoal to split threastode
f the buildld i n
e PropertydenythigisschedleY
Recommendation request, u d for
Rene of
Bell i the conditionstelephonee
al u permi t far onquipmentbuild' e. eildingonCounty
yea r for NorthwestPastActionmyRoadCS
10- 22 -85:
The desig ,
build reV1ew boarddes'
Y approved the sitete plan and
The •city counsubjectto ; granted a conditionalV use permit to the appl i ca1. Adherence nt,
than e
to th sitegisapprovedb ' the e
plan dated S
city's ptember 3 . 198 5communitydeSi ., unless agnreV1ewboard.
20 The applicant, or the rop perty owner, shall apply for and obtainapprovalofthesplittingandrecombinationsoftheiotaintheGonzalesAdditiontocreatethissite..
5 -5 -86
The city administratively approved t •Pp he lot division to create thissiteandrecombinethelotsofthe •Gonzales Addition.
8-- 12 -86
The design review board a •
Instead of
approved a minor i s on to the site tan.the site being perfectly rectangular
p
was revised as shown on page
g (4 by l feet) itpg6.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1• Ordinance Requirementsqnts
Section 36 -437 (2) Conditional use permits may be issued by thecitycouncilinanyzoningdistrictserviceorubl '
g lct for publ .c uti l lty, publicpublicbuildingusesinanydistrictwhennecessaryforthepublichealthfoundto be
safety, convenience or welfare
Section 36 -442 (e) . All conditional use permits shall bereviewedbythecouncwithinoneyearofthedateofinitialapproval, unless such review is waived by council decision orOrdinance, At the one-year reviewindefiniteterm
Y ew the counc i 1 may spec i f anorspecificterm, not to exceed f'
y
subsequent reviews. The council
five Years, for
cond i tons upon th may impose new or additionalpeperatthetimeoftheinitialsubsequentreviewsAconditional
or
onal use permit shall remain ineffectaslongastheconditionsagreeduponareobserved, butnothinginthissectionshallre •P Vent the c from enacting oramendingOfficalcontrolstochangethestatusofconditionaluses. Any conditional use that meandis1a --e--r d-isal. o
e t s the -_ a g r d- p -o -n- c -orid i -o -n s - -- - - - --o because of the city enact i n o •offical controls, shall be con
g o r amendingsidreredalegalnonconforminguse
mb
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Mapp3. Lot Split Proposal
4 Site Plan
5. Photograph of the ro osed
lican
P p structure6. A pp is letter dated 10 -23 -86
2
l
rI F F
C
MI
L '
4
y F MI
CITY of
rig ., . 4 , ....
1
I _. ..._ —.._ ,
R F r--
4 , R ` P tJ 0
Fi •- F MI'
F ,R •
LL
R .F,3c
MI
M I MI MI r
F i
tm • rml
R , J
R E ,, r :.N ti'N. _ AVE Rj - - - -- -- - F _ . - - --
F:w E, avF —
HiJ1K
A 3 1 I
gE r
R -AYE
F F; : i l L!'!a. F..t
F
J R2
F us
r ' `.. f JI 14 1 A'
V.
AV E I `" L B 1 .
13 c - -NJ
F „ L. f t(F F 8 C
rr . • s r cr R
uj
R i
F R ; , _. _ — - . _ I
1.1 A A li . F? I , 47
LOCATION MAP
3
Attachment one N
k.Jf
263 1 c 843
V 10
Oq - ' b a.T
V N `
ti , 2 6 2 6 cJ +
84 mt,
211,14.
2 616 lio 3 s
NW Bell would .4OO t 341 purr Jiase
1 5 ac this site,
2600 Old Bever Brothers
Nursery Site
to 53
f%O' A
m
l G -
2 3
o VO 5 , 5
04-15
o UR -J o S . 5 .
9 90 . F
0 4
AG E o is,c•I N
h \ 7
T
ac
14 `13
1 14 y I o a 12
t ce 15
16 'V1
17 " 18 ti ` , 2 1
6 19
C1 T O DL. '
i. 3
2. Rol
13 20 17 V
7 Q r_
9 ARAI RN
nl T ti
its
w
PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP
4
AlLaclinieii i,
i4
N
tom R ( iCu N :'` ,5352 ROAD r,
W couNTir aOUTl.iOT A- R R OA d C ,
c r T9 i
I ... ...,.. ,. - ^ 3
N EXISTING LOT
4 5 CONFIGURATIONS
Ii YN
w 10,
20 20 33
300 fpil00_..... `tORAWACA
xxI
400 taw
f
l.t +ir t, T 2!1( 2?yl ' _ I i ' r - mm IMF al kW
41 9
COUNOUTLAT C
IN
ACM , 20 ( 3
won
5
It 1 ks nJgy
W ! ` f
i
MOMIj
goo
i -. \ \\
ASEW
1 I
1 400 1 I/
PROPOSED LOT
CONFIGURATIONS
1
LOT SPLIT PROPOSAL
Proposed NW Bell Site
5
Attachment Three
Call
is
ct
MIA
6 Attachment - I --
P-1-f-M-7111TIT W PITMP W,M F ,
0
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
7 Attachment Five
Northwestern . Bell
70 West Fourth Street
Room 1 -C
St. Paul, MN 55102
Oc to* be r 23 0. 1986
Mayor and City Council
City of Maplewood
Maplewood, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
At the December 9,..1985 Cit
Telephone Ca Y Council meeting, Northwestern BellpCompanywasgrantedaConditionalUsePertoconstructasmallequipmentbuildingportionofLot4, Blockock 1 GonzalezAddition,
Bell's plans now call for buildingding construction in 1987, so theConditionallUsePermitwillexpireriortoTherefore, I r
p construction start.request that the permit be extended for an add i t i ona 1 year .
Sincerely,
Alma Fitzloff
Assistant Manager --Real Estate
8 Attachment Six
Action, by Co ok .1
MEMORANDUM ndorsec .
Mo d. f d
ejected..,,
T0: Actin CityF
Dat
ROM: g y Manager
Director of Community DevelopmenSUBJECT: Time Extensioon (Tax - EPROJEQT; xemp Mortgage Revenue Fin 'Beaver , Creek Apartments anc a ngDATE: December 2 1986
Request
Beaver. Creek Apartments Limited Partnership is requesting a -.extension of the disburseme nt date of U time
construction funds f1 . 1986 to June 1 1 from Dece987. tuber
Background
1• The city ssue 'Y d bonds for this projectect on DeJ cember 27, 1985.
210 The loan agreement requiresquires that the disburconstructio sement date onfunds - must be on o f .
not occurred.
r before December 1, 1985.The applicant s reasons f
This hasareonpage8 . or not meeting the deadline
3 • This project will meet the criteria the city adoexemptmortgagerevenuenoteY pied for tax-financing,
Recommendation
Approval of the resosoluution on page 4 a 'June 1, 1987, grantinging time extension until
ic
Attachments
19 Cover letter- -Mary Ippel20Resolution
3 • Request
4 . Attorney's opinion5. Applicant's
p
pplicant s letter
IV
MATTHEW J. LEVITT
COLE OEHLER
ROBERT M . BOWEN
FRANK HAmMOND
LEONARD J. KEYES
ROBERT G. SHARE
BURT E. SwANsoN
M. J . CALVIN, JR.
DAVID C. FORSBERG
JOHN J. MCNEELY
MCNEIL V. SEYMOUR, JR
JERRY F. ROTMAN
THRENcE N. DOYLE
RICHARD H. KYLE
JoIIN L . DEVNEY
RONALD L. SORENSON
PETER H. SEED
SAMUEL L. HANSON
RONALD E. ORCHARD
JOHN TROYER
STEPHEN WINNICH
AvRoN L. GORDON
JOHN R. KENEFICH
THOMAS A. LARSON
DAVID J. SPENCER
DANIEL J. COLE, JR.
DOUGLAS L. SHOR
MICHAEL H. JERONIMUS
R. SCOTT DAvIEs
J. PATRICK MCDAvITT
JOHN B. VAN DE NORTH, JR
RICHARD G. MARK
ANDREW C. SELDEN
ANDREW C. BECH ER
JEFFREY J. KEYES
JAMES E . NELSON
JEROME A. GEIS
STEVF. A. BRAND
JOEL II. GOTTESMAN
ALAN Ii. MACLIN
JEFFREY F. SIIAW
MATTHEW L. LEVITT
DAVID G. GREENING
DAVID B . SAND
DANIEL M.COUGHLAN
JOSEPH P. NaACK
CHARLES R. HAYNOR
ANDREA: M. BOND
TIMOTHY P. FLAHERTY
MARTIN H. FISH
ROBERT J . PRATTE
JOHN BULTENA
LAW OFFICES
1B R I (ry
Y AND ll _
V U A N
JAMES G. RAY
RICHARD H. MARTIN
TnrJDI' J. IIALLA
TERRY L. SLYE
PAUL. M. GALES
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
MARY L. IPYEL
JAMES A.Vos
MARY M . DYRSFTII
CHERYL A. THOMAS
ROBYN L. IIANSEN
KEVIN A. BERG
MARK SCHROEDER
ROBERT E. WOODS M. BRIGID MCDONOUGH
2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING}
WILLIAM J. JOANIS
MARGARET K SAVAGE MARIAN M..D ;KIN
NANCY D . ARNISON
BRIAN G. BELISLE MICIIAEL J. MCELI.ISTREM
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 5510,TONY STPmn nGER PAUL S. JACOBSEN
MARY E . SCHAFFNER NEAL BUETHE
M.ICTiAISL II. STREATP:R TIMOTHY J. KEENANJOIrNII. LlNUS'rnom
RIC11AI CAulos R. C; ARRASQUII.Lo
TELEPHONE (0312) 291 -1213 I). ANDJ,RSON
SALLY A. SCOUGIN
TEL' ECOPIEN ( 012).222-407-t
DAVID C. MCDONALD
BRucE W. MooTy
ERIC NILSSON
OF COUNSEL
J. NEIL MORTON
ZAPMAIL (0312) 228 -9563 ANDREW R. KINTZMGER RICHARD E. KYLEFREDERICKP. ANGST JOHN M . PALMER
INCLUDING THE FOI3ME]R FI$M
ROBERT L. LEE
ANN IIUN'rRODS SAMUEL H. MORO"
FRANK N. GRAHAMOFELIZABETHJ. ANDREWS A . LAURENCE DAVISLEVITY, PAI.MEg, BOWEN, & SHARE CLARIROTMANCHARLESB. RoGE$sE JOI1N SULLIVArtEJOHNM. LIVAx
December 1, 1986
Mr, Geoff Olson
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
RE: $8,500,000 City of Maplewood Variable
Rate Demand Purchase MultifamilHousingRevenueBoBonds, Series 1985BeaverCreekApartmentsLimited
Partnership Project)
Dear Geoff
Enclosed in connection with the above-referencedmatterisacopyofaResolut 'ion to be acted upon by the CityCouncilat.its meeting on December 8 19860
The Resolution authorizes the extensiDisbursementDatefromDec
of the
December 1, 1986 to June 1, 19$7,The Disbursement Date is the datee on which disbursements maybemadefromtheConstructionFundinaccordancewiththeprovisionofSection3.05(4) of the Loan Agreement enteredintoin .connection with the ab Bonds. AttachedtotheResolutionisarequestforextensiontensionbyBeaverCreekApartmentsLimitedPartnershipndan 'p opinion of Briggs andMorganthattheextensiontoJune1, 1987 will not impactonthetaxexemptstatusoftheBonds,
Also enclosed is a certificate of Beaver CreekApartmentsLimitedPartnershippsettingforththefactsandcircumstancesnecessitatingtheirrequestforanextension.
2 Attachment 1
A
BRIGGS Arras MO.R.GA.N
Mr. Geoff
December 1, 1986
Page Two
In the event that the City 'does not approveppe theextensionfromDecember1, 1986 to Jun 1 1987 the TrusteeisrequiredtoredeemtheBondsandtherefore, the ro ectifundertakenbyBeaverCreekApartmentsLimited - P
7
p ents Limited Partnershipwillbefrom . a source other than tax exempt financing-,g.
If you have any questions lease do n 'to contact me,
p of hesitate
Very truly yours,
Mar L I e l Y pP
MLI : jl /19
Enclosures
3
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION
REGARDING THE DISBURSEMENT DATE
IN CONNECTION WITH
A MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS,
a) The Cit of Maplewood., Minnesota (the "City") issued
its Variable Rate Demand Purchase Multifamil Housin Revenue
Bonds, Series 1985 (Beaver Creek Apartments Limited PartnershipProject) in the principal amount of
1 $
8,500,000 on December 27,1985 (the "Bonds"), in connection with which the Cit entered
into an Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture") dated as of December
l 1985, b and between the Cit and First Trust Compan Inc.
I
r
as Trustee,, and a Loan A (the "Loan Agreement") dated
as of December 1, 1985, between the Cit and Beaver Creek
Apart Limited Partnership (the "Borrower")
b) The proceeds of the Bonds were loaned to the Borrower
for the ac construction and e of a multifamilhousindevelopment (the "Project") approved b the Cit all
as further described in the Indenture and the Loan Agreement ;
c) Section 3-1(8) of the Indenture re that the
Disbursement Date must occur on or prior to December 1, 1986,unless the Cit at the re of the Borrower, extends such.date at the re of the Borrower and upon receipt b theA
Cit and the T . rustee of an opinion of Bond Counsel to the ef f ectthat, such extension will not adversel affect the tax exemptstatusoftheBonds;
d) The Borrower has re pursuant to a ReforExtensionattachedasExhibitAhereto, that Disbursement
Date be extended b the Cit as Issuer of the Bonds, from
December 1, 1986, to June 1, 1987; and
e) Bri and Mor Professional Association, Bond
Counsel, has advised the Cit and rendered an opinion, attached
as Exhibit B hereto, that granting such extension for the
extension of the Disbursement Date will not, b itself, adverselaffectthetaxexemptstatusoftheBonds,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the Cit Council of the
Cit of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to Section 3-1(8) of the Indenture, the CitherebapprovestheReforExtensionandextendstheDisbursementDatefromDecember1, 1986, to no later than June
ly 1987
Adopted b the City Council of the Cit of Maplewood,Minnesota this 8th da of December, 19860
4 Attachment 2
EXHIBIT A
8,500m City of Maplewood Variable Rate
Demand Purchase Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds,
Series 1985 (Beaver., Creek Apartments Limited Partnership roject)P J
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION
Beaver Creek Apartments Limited Partnership (the "Borrower"),
hereby requests, pursuant to Section 3 -1(8) of that certain
Indenture of Trust dated as of December 1, 1985, by and between
First Trust Company Inc. and the City of Maplewood and Section
3.01(1) of that certain Loan Agreement dated as of December
1, 1985, between the City and the Borrower, that the Disbursement
Date (as defined in the Indenture) be extended from December
10 1986 to June.-1, 1987. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an
opinion of Bond Counsel dated June 30, 1986 statin g that such
exte pnsionwillnotadverselyaffectthetax-exempt status of.
the Bonds.
Beaver Creek Apartments Limited
Partnership
5 Attachment 3
EXHIBIT .B
MATraEw J. LSviTr DovoLAs L. SEOR
COLS OESLER MICHAAL H. JERONIMUS
RosssT M. Boasx R. Scow DAvIRS
FRANC HAMMOND J. PAruct WDAvin
LEONARD J. KETES JOHN a VAN DE NORTH.JR.
RoisaRT G. SHARE RICHARD G. MARK
BURT E. Sw"sox ANDREW C. tiELDEN
M. J. GALVIN. JR.ANDREA C. BFCHZR
DAVID C. FoRSBRRO JEFFREY J. KF.Tits
JOHN J. McNtaLi JAMES E. NELsoN
MCNEIL V. SETMOUS. J11.JERoMa A. Gus
JERRY F. ROTM"STEvE A. BRAND
TasaxcE N. DOYLE JOEL H. G01MMSN KN
RICHARD H. KYLE ALAN H. MACLIN
JOHN L. DzVNET JEFFREY F. SHAM
RONALD L. SORENSON MATTRaw L. Limn
PRTZR H. SEED DAVID G. GBEENINo
SAMUEL L. HAxSON DAVID a. SAND
RONALD E: ORcsARD DAmw M. CoUORLAN
JOHN TROYER JosEPS P. NoAcz
Srapsax WINNICK CHARLES R. HAYNOR
AveoN L. GORDON ANDREA M. BOND
JOHN R. FzxnFica TlxoTny P. FI.AIIERTY
THomA.s A. LARsON MARTIR H. FISK
DAVID J. SAENCER ROBERT J. PRAWN
DANIEL J. COLE, JR.JOHN BULTENA
W OFFICES
BRIGGS AND N10RGAN
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
2:200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1515101
TELEPHONE (012) 201 -12115
TELECOPI ER (012) 222
ZAPMAIL (012) 228
INCLUDING} THE FORMER FIRM OF
LEVITT, PALMER, BOWEN.. ROTMAN & SI3ARE
JAMES Co. RAT
RICHARD H. M.ssrix
TRUDY J. HAI.I.A
MARY L.IPPEL
JAMITS A. VOSE
RODYN L.IIANSEN
IIr murr L. W(x)D.R
WILLIAM J. JOANIS
MAROARF.T K. SAVAGE
BRIAN 6. DELISI.E
TONY STF.MI9EROER
MARY E. ScttArrNER
MICHAEL 11. STREATER
JOHN H. LINDSTROM
RICHARD D. ANDERSON
SALLY A. SCOVVIN
DAVID C. MCDONALD
DRUCE W. MOOTY
ERIC NILSSON
ANDREW R. KINTZINOER
FREDERICK P. ANGST
RoBjrRT L. LEE
ANN IIUNTRODS
ELIZABETH .J. ANDREMIs
GREGORY J. STENMOE
CHARLES D. Roolsas
TERRY L. Sj
PAUL M. GALES
MARY M. DTasaTH
CHERYL A. TaomAs
KEVIN A. BERG
MARK `iCHROrDRIt
M. BRIOID MCDONOUOtI
MARLAN M. Dt1Rnin
NANCY D. ARNIsON
MICHAEL J. LIMcLLmmm
PAUL S. JACOBS EN
NEAL BUZTHa
Timart3Y J. KEExAN
CARLOS R. CARR.ASQUILLO
December 1, 1986
City of Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
First Trust Company, Inc.
First National Bank Building
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Re: $8,500,000 City of Maplewood Variable
Rate Demand Purchase Multifamily Housing
Revenue Bonds, Series 1985 (Beaver Creek
Apartments Limited Partnership Project)
Gentlemen:
OF COUNSEL
J NEIL MORTON
RICHARD E. K"
JOAN M. PALMER
SAMUEL H. MORGAN
FRANK N. GRAHAM
A. LAURENCE DAVIS
CLARENCit G. FRAME
JOHN M. SULLIVAN
We acted as Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance
by the City of Maplewood (the "City ") of its $8,500,000 Variable
Rate Demand Purchase Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series
1985 (Beaver Creek Apartments Limited Partnership Project) (the
Bonds ") on December 27, 1985. The proceeds of the Bonds were
loaned to Beaver Creek Apartments Limited Partnershi p (the
Company ") to acquire, construct and equip a multifamily housing
development located within the corporate limits of the Citythe "Project ") pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of December
1., 1985 (the "Loan Agreement "). The Project will be owned,
operated and maintained pursuant to the provisions of a RegulatoryAgreement (the "Regulatory Agreement "), dated 'as of December
1, 1985 by and between the City, the Company and the Trustee
as defined below). The Bonds are secured by an Indenture of
Trust (the "Indenture ") between the City and First Trust Company,Inc . , in St. Paul, Minnesota ( the "Trustee ") dated as of December
1, 1985.
We have been requested by the Company to deliver our
opinion to the City and the Trustee that the extension of the
Disbursement 'Date (as defined in the Indenture). from December
1, 1986 to June 1, 1987 will not adversely affect the tax - exempt
2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 2400 IDS CENTER
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1515101 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 1 )2 Attachment 4912) 291 -1215 6 (012) i3:I9-0001
BRIGGS MORGAN
December 1, 1986
Page Two
status of the Bonds. In this regard, we have examined various
documents that were considered necessary a the basis for this
opinion, -including, a Certif icate of Company of even date herewith
On the basis of the foregoing, it is our opinion that
according to present laws regulations, rulings and judicial
decisions, the extension of the Disbursement Date from December
1 19.86 to June 1, 1987 will not impair the tax- : exempt status
Of the Bonds.
In rendering this opinion we have not independently
verified or conducted any independent investigation of factual
matters,, but we have relied upon the information and facts
reflected in the documents which we have examined
BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A
By
Brian G. Belisle
BGB /bl
7
8,500,000
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
VARIABLE RATE DEMAND PURCHASE MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 1985
BEAVER CREEK APARTMENTS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT
I, Gregory C. Triplett do hereby certify and declare
that I am the Vice President /Treasurer of Washington Service
Corporation, the general. partner of Beaver Creek
Limited Partnership
Apartments
a
p
p, Minnesota limited partnership (the
Company"), and that
1. This Certificate relates to the $8,500,000 Variable
Rate Demand Purchase Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series
1985 (Beaver Creek Apartments Limited Partnership Project) (the
Bonds "), issued by the City of Maplewood (the "City") on December
27 1985. The proceeds of the Bonds were loaned b the CityytotheCompanytoacquire, construct and equip a multifamilyhousingdevelopmentlocatedwithinthecorporatelimitsofthe
City (the "Project ") pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of
December 1, 1985 (the "Loan Agreement "). The Project will be
owned, operated and maintained pursuant to the provisions of
a Regulatory Agreement (the "Regulatory Agreement "), dated as
of December 1, 1985 by and between the City, the Company and
the Trustee (as defined below). The Bonds are secured b y an
Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture ") between the City and` First
Trust Company, Inc., in St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee ")
dated as of December 1, 1985.
2. In accordance with Section 3 -1(8)
the Company has requested that Briggs and Mor(
Counsel, deliver an opinion to the City and
that extension of the Disbursement Date from
to June 1, 1987 will not adversely affect the
of the Bonds.
of the Indenture,
jan, P.A., as Bond
the Trustee that
December 1, 1986
tax - exempt status
3. The development of the Project and its construction
have been proceeding with due diligence from the date the Bonds
were issued, however, due to circumstances that we did not
reasonably anticipate, construction of the Project has been
delayed substantially and, consequently, it is necessary to
extend to June 1, 1987 the Disbursement Date and its pre-concomi-
tant conditions. The following circumstances have caused
construction of the Project to be delayed:
8 Attachment 5
a. Access to the Project site is provided
by a 1000 foot street that was constructed
by the Company. Access to the Project site
is limited to travel on this road and con-
struction of the. Project buildings could not
Proceed until its completion. The road was
completed in late October, 1986. Construction
of the road was delayed because: (i) subsurface
preparation could only be done during winter
because of water problems and substantial
delays occurred as a result of severe weather
conditions; (ii) more peat removal and sand
fill was required than originally planned;
iii) the Company decided after the Bonds
were issued that it would dedicate the road
to the City rather than maintain it as a private
road which caused delays as a result of the
City's involvement in design specification
and public hearings.
b. After the Bonds were issued the City
activated a storm water and sewer ro ' ect
which
J
ch involved the Project site. The Company
was actively involved in negotiating its
involvement in that project, including the
granting of easements and attendance at public
hearings. The City's storm water project
precipitated by the Company's development
of the Project and which is part of the
Project's development, involved the construction
of storm water retention ponds on the Project
site at an expenditure by the City of in excess
of $300,000.
c. In addition to devoting substantial
time and effort to the foregoing, the general
partner of the Company responsible for the
active development of the Project has encoun-
tered additional management problems competing
with the development of the Project. The
Company is attempting to mitigate this problem
by seeking the assistance of another developer.
d. Because of the sensitivity surrounding
the payment of "prevailing wages" by nonunion
contractors on projects such as the Project
financed by tax- exempt obligations of the
City of Maplewood, the Contractor selected
by the Company withdrew in ,June of 1986 and
a new contract was renegotiated with another
9
contractor, Kraus. Andersen, the original
second -low bidder. Kraus Andersen was required,
in turn, to relet many of its subcontracts.'
e. Additional soil testing and ,a study
was required because of soil settling problems
on land adjacent to Building B. The study,which was recently completed, determined that
this land should be.presettled by surcharging
the soil while constructing Buildings A and
C.
5. The Company has, since the bonds were issued, paidorincurred.from its own funds in excess of $400,000 in developingevelopingtheroadtotheProjectbuildingsiteandinbringingaterandsewerlinestothatsite.
g •
The Company's investment in the
Project to date is in excess of $890,000. The Project is partpt
of a planned unit development which limits construction of the
Project site to the Project as designed at the date of closing.g o ing.Failure to proceed with the Project as planned will cause the
Company to incur a substantial economic loss that is not setoffbyarbitrageearnings,
6. Construction of the Project will resume within
60 days hereof and will take approximately one ear to fullyYycomplete. Occupancy of portions of the Project might occur
earlier.
7. Potential permissible arbitrage p rofit has not
been a consideration in the timing of the development and con -
struction of the Project. The arbitrage profit earned togp date
of approximately $51,000 will not offset the $890,000 of costsincurredbytheCompany,
8. It is reasonably expected that the'Company willobtainbeforeJune1, 1987 the credit support necessary to permitpYpuseoftheproceedsoftheBondsforconstructionoftheProject.Further, it ' anticipated that because of the demand for rentalunitswithintheCity, occupancy of the Project will occur much
faster than the 2 years assumed in the Project's feasibilitystudies,
9. This Certificate is made to induce the issuance
by Briggs and Morgan,,* P.A. of its special tax opinion of evenppen
date herewith and the statements herein are representationsoftheCompanyastothefactsrecitedtherein,
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
1st day of December, 1986.
BEAVER CREEK APARTMENTS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
A Minnesota.Limited
Partnership
By The Washington Service
Corporation,
Its general partner
B
Gre&8r Triplett, Vic
President /Treasurer
11
ct .o b .oixinc
MEMORANDUM
n s
o dif . e
Rejected
TO: ?fate
City ManagerFROM: Assistant City EngineerY9erSUBJECT:Budd Kolby Second Addition--City Project —Y J t 86 33PublicImprovementPetitionDATE: December 1, 1986
The developer of the Budd Kolb Second A 'ddit7on, Castle Design and DevelopmenCo., Inc., , has submitted a public improvement Petit
p t
1 P Lion for. the internal streetsandutilitiesontheirpThepetitionrequeststhecityinstaythestreetsandutil7tiesatcityexpenseandthenassessthecostsbacktothepropert
wo Yoverafive — year peri The developth would post a letter of crediguaranteeingefirstyearsassessmentpaymentandalso .o agree that each lot'sassessmentwouldbepaidinfullpriortothelotbeingtrasferred.
It is recommended that the council1 set a special meeting to discuss the 'and precedent that this t itemsypeofproceduredictate. Items that shouldaddressedincludethecity's bonded indebtedness,
be
1 atti n conditions btedness, engineering respons i bi l i ti epgonditionsandprocedures, develo er agreement
s,
Janua
p 9 ement format and sureties tothecity. An early y meeting would allow staff time to re are re 'and impact statements. P p view
mb
November 18 1986.
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Rd, B
Maplewood, Mn. 55109
Attention: Honorable Mayor Greavu and the Honorable •Maplewood City Council Members
Dear Sirs and Madams:
Castle Design & Development Co., Inc. 2419 N, St, hereby request. the City
Council of the City of Maplewood to order togetherog with the plat of BUDD KOLBY 2ND
ADDITION the sewer /water /streets together with cur •b for the streets known as Linwood
Court and the continuation of Dahl Road.
We request the City of Maplewood to install said streets 'at their expense and assess
back the cost over five years with Castle Design &Development Co,, Inc, posting a
letter of credit guaranteeing the first ears asses •y assessment payment. It is also agreed
no lots will be transferred without assessments beingg paid in full,
cerely,
Ke rvais
Vice President
KDG : grs
Q
R"A Read" •dcs
JEW
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community DevelopSUBJECT: pPlannedUnitDevelopmentReapplicationLOCATION: Larpenteur and'McKnight (Northeast Corner)DATE October 31, 1986
The attached letter requests approval .q pp oval to reapply for a planned unit idevelopment (PUD) that would include motor fuel sales at the northeastcornerofLarpenteurAvenueandMcKnightRoad. Sectionthecitycodestatesthat: "
36 -442. (h) of
Whenever an application for a conditionalusepermithasbeenconsideredanddenieddbythecitycouncil, asimilarapplicationaffectingsubstantiallythe .same property shallnotbeconsideredagainbythecityforatleastonedateofitsdenial, unless the
year from the
s
council directs such reconsideration beastfour (4) vote Yat1
On June 9. 1986, the city council1Y approved a planned unit developmentforoffice, commercial and service uses •at this location but denied arequestformotorfuelsalesonthebasisthatmotorfuel .sales would:
1. Not be compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
2. Depreciate property values.
3. Be hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to present and potentialsurroundingland ,uses, due to noises odor fumes, or other nuisances.
4. Generate traffic on local streets and create traffic congestionand. unsafe access that would cause undue burl •en to area properties.
Council also changed the land use designation from SC, servicecommercialtoLSC, limited service commercial. T •The LSC designationdoesnotincludemotorfuelsales. The applicant would, thereforehavetoapplyforaplanamendmentaswelldevelopmentamendment,
as a planned unit
Comments
The purpose of this ordinance i s to avoid time and upsettingwastingtineighborsbyrehearingsimilarapplicationsppnsforthesameproperty.Unless council finds a significant change since June in theneighborhoodorintheproposedmotorfuelstation, a reapplicationshouldnotbeallowed.
Recommendation
Deny the request for reapplication of a lann unitped development thatincludesmotorfuelsalesonthebasisthat:
i
l . There have been no significant changes in the neighborhood,g
2. The proposed motor fuel station is similar in use to what was
denied in June.
3. The land use designation for this site was changed from SCg to LSC
at the last hearing. A motor fuel station is not compatible with the
LSC designation.
J
Attachments
1. Property Line /Zoning Map
2 Previous Site Plan
3 Letter
4. Proposed Site Plan (separate attachment)
2
AQ LLJ
ow c••) 12 s ty ' e i (+)
4J ( a 13 (s) _J
A+! cc E.... 9006 o LJ
Itsi 8 111 ••, _: ' v
I (44) ° ` IID s o ' 14 H+ Iii 1I. r 10 11 Cs 2) 7 8 - -
ZOO. 0 LQ0.Q 4•c! Gc 13S
R 3313'
a., - 1
s: RJRy -c- -- o..•
Ilk 16 f
12 a
o
Ci )''"" 1.113.E . ,a 1
A -41
1 1
1s f)r 1
1fj
1
01)1n n r! p
t (OL , t c i .* Y+T t11 MlN t! \N (t.e ce P• t 1
1 (N•.••v •• ru•tt.Ka.r (s9 y
d 1
Vc '
i 0 G•)
g (
SI
t.
S . `O .t , ` ( w N / I p
309 T T.rc 111 4 42) I (SS • .' ` ` i `
41) + to J, sa \54 N i
v
r
1 (1 1• t
1 ,!1 t.t in
T....r 0 L
t y
pet, 11709 ,.• S z,.
WT. a I . 01PAD I f 'nInW10.
Z35 ZZ IIZu°l0
7il..
31 at. CIcS r 11695
90toJ MAPLEWOOD
0 - - APARTMENTS
Val 22251:1GC , ' 235.2 L9
ST. PAUL
HILLCREST
GOLF COURSE
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP IF ]
3 Attachment 1
IMIP • 7w
1 PENT B - - #a
00 99.Te'I 9978 474
6
23 00
WETLAND 0^
I
o
N
f =s
Q
32334
0
299.45'
o r
V !999-46'b 51 r o a
r 4 k3I
w•
o UI
r
299 4A•
fn
op R)
m .
in . (z))fie`
iy 1.9oo,c
m
o °
r o C.'J j 10)L r
O'QI r N lr J133.34
T 1 90cu•
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP IF ]
3 Attachment 1
1
tiff
z
I
I
04. dug* #5s
Opr
Previous Site Plan
6/9/86 '
Motor Fuel Sales Denied) 4 Attachment 2
r
GALE R. MELLUM
REID CARRON
JOHN H. HINDERAKER
HENRY F. FRISCH
JAMES A. 0 NEAL
BRUCE M. ENGLER
WALTER A.'PICKHARDT
AMY B. BROMBERG
DOUGLAS P. LONG
FAEGRE 8 BENSON
SUITE 1150, 8400 TOWER 2300 MULTIFOODS TOWER
8400 .NORMANDALE LAKE BOULEVARD 33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55-402
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437 - 1076.6 12 /371
612/921 -2200 2500 REPUBLIC PLAZA
TELEX 425131 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202 -4004
303 / 592 -5690
10 DE WALDEN COURT
85 NEW CAVENDISH STREET
LONDON WiM 7RA, ENGLAND
01 / 580 -3542
TELEX 8811084
I .
October 14, 1986
1
F:
May City Manager,, an OffiyygdOfce
of Community Development,
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road BiM
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
RE Maplewood P.U.D., Northeast
Corner of McKnight and Larpenteur
Dear Sir or Madam:
On June 9 1986, the Maplewood City Council denied the
request of our client, George N. Nelson, Jr., to include motor
fuel sales in planned unit development to be located at the
Northeast corner of McKnight Road and Larpenteur Avenue.
Pursuant to Section 36 -442, sbd.(h), we are requesting that the
City Council direct reconsideration of the inclusion of motor
fuel sales in the planned unit development to be located at the
Northeast corner of McKnight Road and Larpenteur Avenue.
Very truly ours, -
AT
f 7
G ry ,L . Gandrud
Ej GLG:kah
j 0247n
4
5
Attachment 3
Endor e
TO Acting City Manager Mod.1f1ed.
FROM: Director of Community DevelopmentSUBJECT: g Transfer--Si . p eeoe ..
udget Date
4 DATE: December 1, 1986 D
Re q uest
Approve a budget transfer of $3,100 for signs for 'g city hall.
Explanation
1. The is no mon left in the fund to ap for signs.
2. The following signs are needed:
a. Office door
b. Lobby directory
C. Counter identification signs
d. Parki space signs for the front row of parkin
e. An exterior "Police After Hours" directional sif. An "Hours" sign on the front glass
g. A dot between "City Hall" and "Police" over the front door
Recommendation
A
Approve a budget transfer of $3,100 from the nu appropriated general fundbalancetoaccount01- 4730 -10 (building fund) for city all siy nsfg
m
A
CARROLL, F NCK & ASSOCIATE. TRAININ
533 I:AWE ,TUL, M 5,5N q02
TO: Maplewood City Council Endorsed
FROM: Department Heads, staff, and Anne Carroll' MOd ifiecRE: 1) Vendor and System
and
RejeCte --2) Request to enter into contract n D toDATE: 1 Decemher 1986 tiations with vem choice
The following material first sum 'mari zes and then details the process that staffevaluatethecomputersystemproposals
and
the consultant followed to
response to the Bid Specifications /Re p p s received informalrecommendationfor
uest for Proposals. I t concludes withrvendoroffirstchoiceanda
hour
negotiations quest for Council approvanswiththatvendor..
to enter into contract
COUNCIL SUMMARY: VENDOR SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
Review Process
1. The Ci received Seven proposals from2. They were first for completeness
from vendors throu hout thereviewed • g country.eliminating three vendors.3. The proposed software and hardware of the remainin' fouranalyzedindetail , and re freferences g vendors waseswerechecked. One vendor was eliminated.demonstrated their products for
ed.
4. The remaining three vendors
Department, which eliminate r the FinanceS. The rerainin done vendor from further consideration.g two vendors demonstrated their ideration.
departments. err products for all other
6. Staff, .department heads anddepartmenthe
the consultant first met as a gradsmetseparatelytoselectthtc
then
e vendor of first choice.
Vendor of First Choice
Staff, department heads, andvendor
e
firs
the consultant selected NCR Etchoice. n Systems as the
Request to Enter into Contra •Contract Negotiations
We are therefore re nest inNCI /Eden S
q g approval to enter into contrystemsatthistime, act negotiations with
This involves final identificationtion o f hardware, software, and costsaproposedvendorcontractandfinancing , and will result 'cing proposal to be submitted f review in late January or February 1987, or Council
Vendor and System Recommendations26November1986
Page 1
DETAIL: VENDOR AND SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPOSALS RECEIVED
On Monday, 27 October 1986, the City received proposals from the followingvendors:
Mentor Systems /IBM, Minneapolis
Cogeb ec, Inc., Chicago, IL
NCR /Eden Systems, Minneapolis /Seattle, WA
Computoservice, Inc., Mankato, MN
Data Management Design /Wang; Reston, VA /MinneapolisMTIOfficeProducts, Minneapolis
HP /MMLC (Logis), Minneapolis
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Bid Specifications stated that proposals would be evaluated based on but notlimitedto, the criteria listed below. It was further stated that these are not listedinorderofpriority, but that all were important and would be considered in
reviewing the proposals received.
Quality and sophistication of overall system
Quality of training
Level of integration of the proposed software
Ability of the vendor to perform the required data conversions
Ability of the vendor to deliver the hardware and software on schedule
Abi I i ty to and ease of upgrading software and hardware to meet the City'slong -term needs
The total costs of the system
Availability and cost of system maintenance, service, and eneral levelge of
technical assistance
The vendor's sensitivity to and experience with the unique requirements of
municipalities
Attention of the vendor to the variety of software required b the Ciy
Finally, it was stated that the contract may be awarded to the lowest ual if iedbidderorinthebestinterestsoftheCit
q
Vendor and System Recommendations
26 November 1986
Page 2
EVALUATION RESULTS
Review One
This review was essentially for completeness. The goal was to narrow the seven
proposals to those which addressed most or all of the needs stated in the Bid
Specifications. This resulted in the elimination of the followin g vendors for the
reasons stated:
1. Mentor /IBM: This bid was missing some of the critical generic and specialized
sof tware components.
2. Cogebec: This bid was missing some of the critical generic and specialized
sof tw are components.
2. MTI Office Systems: They, too, were missing some critical capabilities, and
while they offered to develop them, this would be all custom work and would
add some unknown cost.
The following vendors remained:
Data Management Design /Wang
Hewlett- Packard /MMLC (Logis)
Eden Systems /NCR
Computoservice
Review Two
The second review involved a detailed analysis of the remaining proposals. It
included the following:
A quantitative ranking of each proposal's response to the requests itemized in
the Bid Specifications
Identification of costs for each item proposed, organized according to
software and hardware needs listed in the Bid Specifications
After this review, Computoservice was eliminated from further consideration. This
was because a large proportion of the software they proposed to meet the City's
needs is not scheduled for completion until late 1987 or early 1988, making their
bid not as attractive as those from vendors with software either finished or
scheduled for completion much earlier.
References: The remaining vendors, Data Management Design /Wang, HP /MMLC
Logis), and NCR /Eden Systems provided complete user lists as references. For each
system, several users similar to Maplewood were contacted, and each reported a
high degree of satisfaction with the systems provided. (Note, however, that
Maplewood is the first totally free - standing installation proposed by HP /MMLC
Logis); all other users retain some kind of connection with the Logis consortium.)
Vendor and System Recommendations
26 November 1986 - Page 3
Below is a summary analysis of the software proposed b the remaining threeYgvendors. Software specifications were grouped by function in the Bid Specifications,
as shown. For each group, we detailed from one to 81 software specifications. The
vendors were scored on each item, and these scores were converted to the
percentages listed.
The IIwtd o and unwtd %II notations refer to weighted percentage score" and
unweighted percentage score ".. The weighted percentage allows those departmentswithmoreitemslistedto. carry more weight in the total score. The unwei g hted
percentage evens the scores so that each department carries equal weight.Therefore, while weighted percentages may be useful to compare specific
departments between vendors, the unweighted percentage (unwtd %) is more
valuable for decision - making.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
SUNIARY: TOP THREE SYSTEM VENDORS (Review TM)
NCR / Eden Systems
Wtd% Unwtd%
Corms Devel /Pub Wks
Finance /City Clerk
Arkninistration
Parks and Recreation
91.08 86.06
97.53 90.00
100.00 100000
90091 90991
TOTAL, SOFTWARE 94.31 9134
Data Mgnt /Wang
Wtd% Unwtd%
84.51 81.95
92.18 94.93
100.00 100000
81.82 81982
88921 89967
Wtd% Unwtd% Wtd% Unwtd%
HP /NMLC (Logis)
Wtd% Unwtd%
83910 79983
85.60 74.79
66.67 66967
63.64 63964
82993 71923
Wtd% Unwtd%
Vendor and System Recommendations
26 November 1986 Page 4
Demonstrations for Finance Department
On November 7th and 10th, the three remaining vendors were asked to demonstrate
their Financial and City Clerk. software to the appropriate staff members. This
groom was given special consideration because Finance and the City Clerk are
already computerized in many areas, and therefore in a position to evaluate the
proposed software at a much more specific level of detail. They were given the
option to reduce the number of vendors to no fewer than two.
Staff prepared for these demonstrations by reviewing both the Bid Specifications
and the vendor's responses, and creating ' a detailed checklist for the financial and
payroll software products.
Results: Finance and City Clerk staff found HP /MMLC and NCR /Eden Systems
software to satisfy the majority of their needs. They chose, however, to eliminate
Data Management Design /Wang from further consideration for the following reason:
While the software presented satisfied the majority of the written specifications, all
staff found the line-item (vs. screen) orientation of the data entry to be too time-
consuming. This was specifically cited as problematic in relation to receipts -
processing, journal entries, and in coding of payables to different accounts.
Demonstrations for All Other Departments
Demonstrations from the remaining two vendors, HP /MMLC (Logis) and NCR /Eden
Systems, were done on the November 20th and 21st. Both vendors were asked to
demonstrate the software proposed for community development, public
works /engineering, and parks and recreation, and staff from all departments
participated in the 4 -6 hour demonstrations.
Results: Both vendors demonstrated significant capabilities in all areas. Staff
identified specific problems as follows:
HP /MMLC (Logis) software was found to be generally less integrated and
flexible than was desired. While some of these problems could be rectified
through contract software modification, 1) the vendor did not appear to be
fully prepared to make all of these modifications, and 2) some of the
problems were inherent to the design of the software and therefore not
solvable via modification. For the software still under development, staff
understood that they would be allowed some input into the nature of the
final product.
NCR /Eden Systems software was found to be almost totally integrated, and
very flexible. For software both fully developed and under development, staff
felt confident that 1) the vendor was fully prepared to and experienced in
making the required contact modifications, and 2) they would have significant
input into the nature of the final product because, in effect, the vendor's
standard approach was to customize software to meet the needs of each new
user.
Vendor and System Recommendations
26 November 1986 Page 5
Following the final demonstration; staff met with the consultant to compare the two
vendors and reach some preliminary conclusions. Department heads later met
separately to discuss the staff and consultant's analyses, and reach final
c one I us i ons.
SELECTION OF VENDOR OF FIRST-,CHOICE
While the software offered by both vendors would require some modifications and
enhancements to perfectly match Maplewood's requirements, staff, department heads,
and the consultant agreed that the software and hardware proposed by NCR /Eden
Systems would best meet the City's short and long term needs.
Generally, this was based on the greater integration and flexibility of the Eden
Systems software, and the extensive experience of the vendor in modifying the
software as necessary to meet the needs of users.
REQUEST TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
We are therefore requesting Council authorization to enter into contract
negotiations with NCR /Eden Systems. This step w i I I . take 4 -8 weeks, and involves
the following:
H ardw are
Identification of final configuration and costs
Determination of what hardware will be placed where in the new city offices
terminals, microcomputers, printers, etc.)
Determination of implementation schedule, linked to staff requirements and
software
Software
Identification of final generic and applications software, and costs
Specification of critical modifications and costs
Determination of implementation schedule, linked to staff requirements and
hardware
Costs: Costs for the NCR /Eden Systems proposal are expected to fall within the
150- 250,000 range previously discussed. These are not detailed in this report
because actual costs will depend on final hardw are and software configurations,
required software modifications, and system staging.
Financing: Concurrent with this vendor negotiation process, the consultant will work
with Finance to identify the most appropriate financing method(s) and negotiate
agreements. The proposed vendor and financing contracts w i l l be reviewed by the
City attorney, modified as necessary, and submitted to the Council for review in
Fate January or February. Following approval by the Council, the phase one software
and_ hardware will be Ordered. Anticipated implementation of this first phase is
April-May 1987.
Vendor and System Recommendations
26 November 1986 'age 6
MEMORANDUM
Action by Council&l
EndorseTO: Acting City Manager a
FROM: Finance Di rector Modified
RE: Ordinance to Increase Sewer Rates 1st Reading) Rejec9)DATE: December 2, 1986 P- t
PROPOSAL
It is proposed that sewer billing rates be revised effective Janua 1, 1987
in order to (1) provide the revenues anticipated in the 1987 Budget and
2) to equalize rates so that all customers pay the . same rate gallon.erP
BACKGRn[IND
The last sewer rate increase was effective January 1, 1983. At that time,the Council completed the phase out of the senior citizen discounted rate and
began the .phase out of the discounted rate for Class A non- residential rates.
Currently, the 3M Company. is the only eligible customer for the Class A rate.
The reason for the phase out of the discounted rates has been to make our
billing rates more equitable. Class A customers have been billed a discounted
rate because of their nearness to sewer interceptor mains. However, no other
customers receive a discounted rate based upon their nearness to sewer inter-
ceptor mains.
In 1983, the Council also increased the sewer rate for apartments and mobile
homes by $3.00 per quarter more than recommended by City staff. This change
was made so that apartments and mobile homes would pay a rate closer to that
of single- family homes. However, the effect of this was to make apartmentsp
and mobile homes pay a higher rate per gallon than other classes of customers.
RATE MAKING LAWS
Chapter 473.519 of state law requires that local governments have sewer rates
which allocate sewage treatment costs proportionate to usage pursuant to the
Federal Water Pol l.uti on Control Act Amendments of 1972. These federal regul a-
ti ons have been imposed because the M . W . C . C . receives federal aid for improvementsp
and expansion of the Metropolitan Disposal System. The State law in effect
requires the City Council to set sewer rates based upon reasonable estimates
of sewage flow by type of dwelling. Thus apartments, for example, must be
billed a sewer rate that i less than the rate for single-fami dwel 1 i ngs .
PROPOSED RATE INCREASES
In order to generate the needed $2,198,610 in sewer billing revenues, the
following rate changes are needed:
Residential (rate per quarter):
Single Family and Townhouse
Duplex
Apartment (incl. Condominium)
Mobile Home
Non - Residential (rate per 1,000
Class A
Class B
Minimum Charge (per Quarter)
gals.)
rVcZcii6 rruNubCu
27.b0 28.00
55.20 56.00
25.10 22.40
25.10 22.40
1.20 1.40
1.38 1.40
5.80 5.90
2-
Supporting calculations for the above rates are in the attached Exhibit B.
This exhibit shows that the total revenue needed was divided by the billable
flow to calculate a rate of $1.37 per 1,000 gallons.. Added to this was .$.03
as a contingency for changes in billable flow to arrive at the proposed 1987
sewer billing rate of $1.40 per 1,000 gallons. This rate was multiplied
times the estimated annual sewage flow for each class of customer.
The result was the annual charge and this was divided by 4 to calculate the
quarterly charge.
The proposed decrease in the rate for apartments and mobile homes occurs
because the rate for these types of customers was arbitrarily increased by
the Council by $3.00 per quarter above the staff recommended rate. Thus,
these types of customers have been payi ng a hi gher rate per gal 1 on than most
other types of customers for the past three years.
During budget meetings with the Council, it was indicated that sewer billing
revenues needed to increase by 5/ effective January 1, 1987. This recommendation
was based upon a financial projection covering the years 1986 -1990 which
indicated that Sewer Fund net losses would rise to $285,000 in 1987 without a
rate increase. If the M.W.C.C. eliminates the lake overflow charges as planned
in 1988, the proposed new sewer rates should provide sufficient revenues
through the end of 1990.
RECOMMENDATION.
It is recommended that the ordinance attached (Exhibit C) which provides for
a revision in sewer rates be approved for first reading.
CC: City Clerk
ESTIMATED CURRENT SEWAGE FLOW DATA
Residential
Single family houses
Townhouses
Duplexes
Apts. & Condominiums
Mobile Homes
Total
Non - Residential
Class A
Class B
Total
Grand Total
Est. Flow No. of
Per Unit Units
80 6
80,000 451
160 78
64 2
64,000 675
9,833
Flow Percentage of
MGY Total Fl ow
515.1
36.1
12.5
140.2
43.2
747.1 46.7/
612.9 38.3/
240.6 15.0/
853.5
1,600.6*
Total f 1 ow equal s 94% of the flow billed by M. W . C . C . for 1987. The
remaining 6/ is assumed to be unmetered flow caused by infiltration
of ground water.
I- nIIIUI 1 D
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS FOR PROPOSED SEWER RATES
2 Revenue needed from sewer billings per the 1987 BudgetgP9
1 Annual Billable sewage flow per Exhibit A
1.37 Rate per 1,000 gallons ($2,198,,610/1,600,600 x 1,000)
03 Contingency for changes in billable flow
1.40 Proposed sewer rate per 1,000 gallons
Residential quarterly charges:
Single Family and Townhouses 80 $112.00 $28.00
Duplexes 160 224.00 56.00
Apt., Condominiums and
Mobile Homes 64 89060 22.40
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD CODE
RELATING TO
SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 28 is hereby amended to read as follows:
The following rates and charges are hereby establ- i shed for all
sanitary sewer services furnished by and in the City:
1) The quarterly
Single- Family
Townhouse
Duplex
Apartment (In
Mobile Home
residential rates shall be:
Dwelling $28.00
28.00
56.00
cluding Condominium) 22.40
22.40
2) Non - residential rates shall be $1.40 per 1,000 gallons.
Non - residential sewer service charges shall be a minimum
of $5.90 quarterly per sewer service connection.
3) The rate for properties used jointly for residential and
commercial purposes that are not metered separately shall
be billed at non - residential rates.
4) In respect to property which shall be connected with the
City sewer system for the discharge and disposal of other
residential, commercial or industrial sewage waste, or any
waste unusual in either character or amount, then in addition
to all applicable charges hereunder, the City Council
reserves the right to impose such supplemental sewage rate
charges as said City Council shall determine as reasonable
and warranted on the basis of all relevant factors.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force beginning
January 1, 1987.
1W
Asti off. by Counoj 2 Y,
MEMORANDUM Modify ed
Rejected,„
Date
TO: Dan Faust, Director of 'FinanceFROM: La Cude, Director of Emer encDATE: November 24 8619
g y Ser
On or about August 28, 19.86 •the ex end t the Maplewoodewood C ty Counc a rpureoffundstoremodelthesace
pp. oved
which were to be occu ied b Services,
p s at 1902 £. County Road BpyEmergency
Based on that action Emer encrequesten y Services contacted two contractogqnot
g
es (enclosed) for the work to be done.
rs
Renstrom Construction •1810 N. Sterling Street, Maplewood,tractor selected with a rice of $39828 p od, wasthecon
p
The work has been comple •-pleted and the final statement frombeenreceivedfortheamountof $4,052..50,
om Renstromhasbe .
n
Th:e added 224.5 'justified based on i - ro e ss moth f ca $
0 i spgrtionsrequestedb m department.y y
I request that thi bill •be pay d from the Unaa ro ri aFundBalance. I f the entire am , p p ted Generalountcannot. be taken from this accounpleasepay: the $3,828 and the tbalancewil1betransferredfroEmergencyServicesbudet,. m theg
Thank you
LJC kd
enc.
III HkUUI3IT[U
I OF MA PEY'Y00 IYINNESOTA Names of Bidders
Renstrom Wanless ConstructionThisisNOTPurchaseOrder)
Construction Co.Company
Quantity Description Unit
Price Amount Unit
Price Amount
Reconstruction of Emergency Services
area in Public Works Bldg,3 3 43 ,090 * 41090
Wanless Construction did not i
adding an additional sprinkler head
Also did not include electrical wor
When I contacted him via phone, he
gave me the quote of $150 for sprin ler
work and $450 for electrical work..
His original quote was $3,49 Wit
the additional work,it brought his
total to $4,090. The difference between
the two bids is X262. Recommendati n
is that Renstrom Construction Co. b
awarded the bid.
NV t h: (Fi side must contain full explanation of reasons for (1) recom
mending other than low bidder or (2) single bi.d, if such is the case)
Deliver to Name and address of recommended bidder
Renstrom Construction Co.
1810 N. Sterling St.
St. Paul, MN 55109
Budget Code No. 01- 7 J --12
Purchase Order Needed:
Yes No (X
Purchase Order No.
Assigned by Finance Dept.)
Reques e by:
Signed Date 9Z18/8'
City Ma Approval (C pi 1 O lay Only):
i l
Signed Datex /
Finance Department Approval:
Signed Date
Page No. of Pages
RENSTROM CONSTRUCTION '
1810 N. Sterling St.
ST. PAUL, MN 55109
Phone 777 -7
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE
of cwood
STREET JOB NAME
E Co
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION
3021 L.r 1ARCHITECTDATEOFPLANS JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
1 IL
i.Ct.C: '.C;. yt..t'iTl ..... ,,....y t : ... YJ ,n . ................
Move 1 L''JC,... 1 oor - v TT),c r)I ltiliO ClVj.)i . VJ 74J. .L11 1.i`V4 >'." r '
rV .J.. f { o t cT r '( rr .
1. O J.y. F1 ..d. r y
r -. n..... { t ,. ] . .. 'rft` l , V Q 4J.L ., dl r'J(: f ' r ' t l x ' 11 CC.1» .Li I o st... 51
t :,: y....E,, „,. ,...a. .. rta3 :: s ... to.. .. .. :1•:y]r`' ,. ;'. :...'GC; : '.r, .. CO 0- .. . r. 1 .....S r i'i'i%
rY ' t / ” rt . „ . • ` ,opening . 1 , , ,. oz ; cc . 1t-, bc111. wood janib ' `Lr:in {` h ng - w .w., -y ...................
C a 0 V .._ .. d Ci o.J..
C Ct 's a ..1 c1.0 "i:r' .'' 'c; ).J3:' •Ue 11 .V"£ ' a '' . "r t; -I_ J ' 05 . *g "' . ".... ...............
r .... j .. Y .................. ............................ ....... .+:..,..
s . Lag! .. . oor . i:t.l«"..y . '•V'.'C•'r`.! o.. . -'}}yy/- (. : r S .t r if,• ;, 'J . .` a; `` ' "7 .T t-r r 7 .h '1 C ? • „ tfG1E :t'Jr'V .. 4 '..C'i ti,'Y' :i;t_t.}y '!:J (:1Cs !. f.. .,J'. J ;. ?......., 'r
rtbC. ve o i o `;1. }'1,"?' su 'ipendeC cC:; I i n Q 1rtt r ' l c' tile.
Electric; InstCtll five r ecept cle o ii].aero re . :
This ..... '`U pCJsi ::.:.... i .... :'' ., .' ;..... .....t'j:'.....! * 00 .` t; q.... mC?v e....or....a.- ?d.....on- e....r p r-i- 1I,:I'er ................hec d ,
Or froVOU hereby to furnish material and labor'— com lep to In accordance with above specifications, for thee sum of.
Three 't s" J l? i 1( G ? 11`0 11,7.1,C.: orl .: £ i t t. ,r,R 1 .•......,.».., o. b.........., ...,...,..............«...... ndollars ($ -1 ) .Payment to be made as follows:
FLi Ll XI't7 110.11 V on C:O' ±':li T.'L:LQI.
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifics Authorized rAtionsinvolvingextracostswillbeexecutedonlyuponwrittenordersandwillSignaturePItbecomeg 1an
extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents..
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Note This proposal may be
Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance withdrawn by us if not accepted within __ Antic
AraptUttirr Of fr1l; 1111141 The above rices s ecific ipFatlons
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted: You are authorized Signature
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance:Signature
FORM 118 -3 COPYRIGHT 1960 - Available from ees Inc., Groton, Mass. 01450
Page No. of Pages
ANL:E
CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY
1169 RICE STREET St. Paul, Minnesota 55117
A.ttn: Mar re
building inspector 48.8 - 7218
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE
0 1 ty o. Ma ,p 1ewood 9/15/86
JOB NAMESTREET
1902 E. County Road B
CITY, STATE AND
Ii
ZIP
M
CODE
55109
JOB LOCATION
sameMaplewood ,,
ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
1. Remove Partition walls as s11 on plans
2, Add walls, as shown orl plan with. -m studs and 5/8" sheetrock,
3, All new walls will 'be taped three costs and . pai.nyted to match existing
walls.
4. Remove metal do i'rorn hallway story room a.nd fill door area..
5 111 -i.nk tall door from, story. e Zoom in hallway, Insta.l.l new lock.
1
6 * ::EbNfend partition walls r ;h cc;il.in to rood. Metal studs and 5/811
she etr o ck,
70 Install double 3' x 6 18" solid core oak..door and jamb.
8. Dove sprinkler head in hallway,
9, Move drop -in ceilin light future.
10 leave ceil] ng air corndit defuwers,
11 Patch in 12" the floor where partitions were removed. Floor - tile cann
be matched.
12. Stain new oak door,
13, Clean up and. cartage of debris
Total amount of estimate $3,490000
You the buyer, may cancel this purchase at any time prior to midnight
of the third business day after the date of this purchase.
Ve 11rapast hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications for the sum of:
dollars ($ ) .Payment to be made as follows:
All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner 'according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica-
tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders. and will become an
extra charge. over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance.
Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance.
Authorized
Signature' -' _1xe -
Note: is proposal maybe
withdrawn by us , not accepted within , days.
Arcroattirr jot ant — The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Signature _
Date of Acceptance: Signature
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ma & Ci CouncilFROM,: Attin City Mana rSUBJECT: Pipeline Safet ResolutionDATE: December 3, 1986
Aotj by council0
End o-r e
Re E) C
D at
The attached sample • resolIt on from LMC.i pisbasic--1y.a resolution en resented for Your consilobbfamendmen deration, .ts to the Pipel
in the National, League Of Cities tDurenberand - I-ento bills s
ne Safet Acts Of 1968 and 1979, The
j
available at this time,
eem to be the most reco legislatio
Adopti Of the.iattached resolution is re commendedf
KGH: I nb
RESOLUTION
STATE AND LOCAL PIPELINE SAFETY CONTROL
WHEREAS, the recent rupture and explosion of a asol i ne pipelineinegpp inMoundsview, Minnesota, has demonstrated the potentially azardous 'y conditions.t, ons.of underground pipeline transportation of volatile petroleum productstheresidential., c
p p throughcommercialandindustrialalareasofthenation's cities; and
WHEREAS, there are millions of
gas pipelines throug -hout the nation
mon.i Lori n.g or inspection; and
miles of liquid petroleum and natural..
which receive inadequate federal
WHEREAS, current federal law. appears to pre. empt state and local authorityytoregulatetheoperation, monitoring, transport, and safety of such interstatepipelines; and
WHEREAS, federal legislation has been introduced to establish a communityyright -to -know pol i -cy with respect to substances transported through such
pi pel i nes and require the use of monitoring and valve techniques for both new
and old pipelines to detect leakage and assure automati c shutdown in the case
of such incidents; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the: Maplewood, Minnesota City Council,that the National League of Cities should strongly support federal legislationtoamendtheLiquidP' •q i pel.i ne Safety Act of 1979 and the Natural Gas Pi pel i ne
Safety Act of 1968 to require more stringent testing procedures ; increased
community notification; installation of automatic shut -off valves on all
pipelines; and strengthening construction and standards of new i elines
proximate to resi denti al , hospital nursing home, school or correctional
faci'l i ti es or other permanently inhabited facility, including minimum distance
requirements.
IN MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Finance Director
RE: Insurance for Earl Retirees
D
y
ATE. November 13, 1986
Action by Council el
Endorsed
eeoted
Dat
I have been advised that the Council requested informationq oninsuranceforearlyretireesatitsNovember10th
r
meeting.Attached is a report I prepared g •p p p . ed for the City Manager earlierthisyearonCitypolicyoptionsregardinginsurancefor
early retirees. I.called Don Lais today to find out why ehadnotputthisitemona
y
Council meeting agenda. He
indicated that he was in favor of my recommendation but
thought that it should be reviewed by the City Attorney.Also, Don wanted to del
y
ay action on this subject because
union groups are planning on requesting the State Le i agg ture
to change the laws regarding insurance for early retirees.
DFF:inb
MEMORANDUM
I=
T0: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
RE: Insurance for Early Retirees
DATE; February 18, 1986
I have been advised by Group Health, Inc. that they will increase our P remium
rates immediately by 0.5% if we allow retired employees to remain in our rou9 P
plan. Coordinated Health Care and Blue Cross /Blue Shield have stated that
they will not increase rates. However, Blue Cross /Blue Shield rates are based
on experience, so eventually rates could increase if the claims experience is
not satisfactory.
DFF:1 nb
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
RE Policy on Insurance for Retired Employees
DATE: February 7, 1986
PROPOSAL
It is proposed that City policy be revised to allow employees that retire on or
after March 1, 1986 to continue their group health care coverage (including
dependent coverage) at their expense until the retired employee is eligible for
Medicare coverage.
BACKGROUND
During the past several years, there have been requests from various employees
nearing their retirement that the City allow them to continue their group health
care coverage. Generally the reasons for this are that the majority of this
expense has been paid for by the City prior to retirement and the cost of non -
group coverage after retirement is higher than group coverage. Recently the
Council received a request from the Sergeants bargaining unit that the City
provide insurance for retired employees (Exhibit A),
in 1979, the Employee Insurance Committee studied the issue of health insurance
for earl retirees, The results of this study indicated that allowing earl
retirees to continue their group health coverage would increase the premium.
City employees were surveyed regarding this matter and many of them objected to
paying a higher premium so that early retirees could continue their insurance
coverage, However, 75% of the employees covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
were in favor of adding the option for early retirees to continue their coverage.
The 1979 study also investigated whether the City would be required to self- insure
if coverage for early retirees was added and then, at a later date, was unable to
get a company to bid on coverage for early retirees. The City Attorney indicated.
that legally the City would be forced into a self - insurance program. A consultant
indicated that it would not be financially feasible for a city of our size to
self
As a result, the Employee Insurance Committee recommended that:
1. The proposed amendment to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
policy for early retiree insurance no longer be considered
as it is not financially feasible.
2. Employees anticipating retirement that are covered by Blue
Cross and B1ue.Shield should consider converting to Group
Health plan as upon retirement they can convert to a non -group
plan which provides excellent coverage at a low cost.
A complete copy of the 1979 study is as Exhibit B. One misconception
employees have of converting to non -group coverage under Group Health Plan is
that the coverage can not be continued if the retired employee permanently moves
out of an area served by Group Health Plan. This is not true because, in this
situation, the individual is allowed to convert to a traditional health insurance
policy with Mid- America Insurance Company and they have three policy options.
How much insurance premiums woul increase •crease f r employees are algroupcoverageisdifficulttoredic tocontinuetheir
predict. • I t Will depend on howmanyemployeesexercisetheoptionandwhattheirhealthcondition •ton 15• .Also, tcanbearguedthatwithouttheoptiontocontinuegroupinsurance, man emworkuntilthey .are eligible for M y employeesmaydecideto
ed as Medicare. In that case, their claims9experiencetothesamegroupthattheaimswouldbechar
continue group insurance was in of y would if the option tofect.
State law, Chapter 62A.17 requiresires 'lay off q citieses to allow employees upon. terms na ti on _ to continue their group health coverage
on or
ge for one year. However, emp eesthatretirearespecsfi.cal ly excluded from this re ui r m471..61, all ctes the option q e ent. State law, ChapterPnofcontinuinggrouphealthcoveragefretiredemployees. g or its
On February 6th, surrounding cities were surveyed by phone regardingoninsura9 their 'u ante for retired employees. Of polcythe16citiessurveyed, 10 allowed retiremploytocontinuetheircoverage, but 3 of these
c
e ctes limited the continuanceperiodto6 -12 months. (These three cities seemed •
Chapter 6
to have the misunderstandingthatStatelawChaP2A.17 requ i red them to allow ret i red •Of the employees to conttheirgroupcoverage.) l0 that allowed continu •employee pay the entire cost uance, 8 requ that theThetwocitiesthatpaypartoftheretirpremiumsareSt. Paul and South St. Paul, insurance
A 1983 survey by the League of Minn •i 9
cities contact
Cities of outstate cities over 10 000tonindicatedthata)1 seven c popu-la
ted allowed retired employees tocontinuetheirgrouphealthcarecoverage. However, only wo of •y these cites paidanypartofthepremium. Another
end' 1983 survey, which was conducted b Coon RsatedthatonltwoofnineMinneapolisy
suburbs contacted allow retired employeestocontinuetheirgrouphealthcarecoverage,,
Once a decision is made to allow retired •employees to continue their group health
i
care coverage, the next dec needed s what orti on f •shoul the City a At P o_ the .premium,. i f any,Y P y ched are two excerpts from the Minnes Cities mregardingthissubject (Exhibits C and D These magazine
0
important question raised )
e articles contain very usefulinformation, An iExhibit y
n C i whether a city dolspentonbenefitsforretiredemployeesbuysasm '
or
y Y much public service as a dollor spentonsalarybenefitisforcurrentemployees. The article i n •example showing how Exh b t D contains angexpensivecitypaymentsforretiredemployees` insurancebecome. It also indicates that future sit -
can
city -paidd prem ums for retired employees woulhavetobetreatedasacurrentcostandshouldbefund 'funded prior to retirement of theemployee. • Any city which accumulates lar a unfu •cou]d m a
9 u ded post - retirement health benefits.P i r its credit rating and raise i cost of borrowi
POLICY OPTIONS
The City has three basic options:
1. No change of the present Policy of not allowing r9 employees tocontinuetheirgrouphealthinsurancecoverage.
2. Allow retired employees to continue their rou9 p health insurance
coverage at their expense.
3. Allow retired employees to continue their rou heal '
art of 9 P healt insurance withPthecostpaidforbytheCity.
The advantages to the City of Option l are (a) health care premiums would notincreaseasmuchwhenretiredemployeescannotcontinuetheirgroupcoverage,b) no city cost with this option, and (c) may help discourage productiveemployeesfromretiringearly. The only possible disadvantage of Option 2 is
that it would not provide an incentive for early retirement of senior employees,some of whom could be replaced with lower paid employees.
Option 2 advantages to the City are (a) little or no City cost with this optionand (b) may help discourage productive employees from retiring early. Disadvantagesofthisoptionare (a) health care premiums would increase and (b) would not provideanincentiveforearlyretirementofsenioremployees, some of whom could be replacedwithlowerpaidemployees.
The only Option 3 advantage to the City is that it would provide an incentive for
early retirement of senior employees, some of whom could be replaced with lower paidemployees. The disadvantages are (a) health care premiums would increase, (b) some
productive employees that are hard to replace may retire early, (c) City costs
would increase, (d) accurate current funding of this benefit' would be difficult
because future costs would be hard to predict, (e) City money spent on benefits for
retired employees would have little or no impact on the quality of City employeeshiredcomparedtomoneyspentonbenefitsforcurrentemployeesand (f) insurance
for retired individuals is a social issue more appropriately handled at the state
or federal level.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 2, which would allow retired employees to continue their group health insurance
coverage at their expense, is the best because (a.) it is a good compromise between
Options 1 and 3, (b) a majority of City employees in the past were in favor of it
and (c) the increase in premiums should be minimal if it is limited to
the time until Medicare eligibility begins. Therefore, it is recommended that the
City policy be revised to allow employees who retire on or after March 1, 1986 to
continue their group health care coverage (including dependent coverage) at their
expense until the retired employee is eligible for Medicare coverage.
DFF:Inb
it
CITY OF
MA
180 FROST AVENUE M APT EWOOI MINA EgpTA 55109
PARTMENT OF PUBLIC
MEOW wwa
SAFETY— OFF1C'E OF CHIEF OF POLICE 612-770-4S30An
November 19, 1985
City Council Members
City of . Map 1 ewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Counci 1 Members:
I a recent conversation witth Council Member Norman Andergraveconcernarose, this being son. a matter of
have their h 9 the.Opportunity for City eosp ta) zat on paid for unti th
Y P ogees to
could be covered under Medicare y reach an age whereby the.
of employees
e or some other carrier or the
y
retaining the opportunity to Possibilityty
continue to be covered b pay their own premium but
age,
y the present carrier when the •y are at a retirement
Mrs Norman Anderson ask .
s reitaskedmetosendhimthisrequest •can be brought up when the Cit
t n a written form sotyCouncilmeetsinanexecutivevesession.The rationale for th • ithisisthat n the past we, the Serg •group, have requested such an o r
9e8nts negotatingManagersbutthPPotunitywfienmeetingwiththeCieformerManagerswouldneverty
r
e 90 forward with this request,We now feel it would be a pp opriate to present this to thea Ci Council, andtheycouldmakeitapartoftheare
the hiring criteria in the in -y using to hire a new Manag for interview processtheCityofMaplewood,ewood.
Very truly yours,
LO
Vol
01
tm
EXHIBIT B
TO City Manager
FROM: Employee Insurance Committee
RE Health Insurance for Early Retirees
DATE: February
Attached is a report from the Employee Insurance Committee on health insurance
for early retirees which recommends the following:
1. The proposed amendment the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
policy for early retiree insurance no longer be considered
as it is not financially feasible.
2. Employees antici retirement.that are covered b Bluey
Cross and Blue Shield should consider converting to Group
Health Plan as upon retirement they can convert to a non-
group plan which provides exce coverage at a low cost.
It is recommended that you endorse.these recommendations and arrange to have
copies of this memo and the attached report distributed to all City employees
and the Council*
Action by City ]Lgr. 3l
Encrse
T ' J V _ • ' I'- 1
1y
MEMORANDUM
TO All City Employees
FROM: Employee Insurance Committee
RE : Health Insurance for Early. Retirees
DATE: February, 1979
For the past several months, your Employee Insurance Committee has been attemptingtoarrangehealthinsurancecoverageatareasonablecostforemployeesthatretirePriortoage65. Early retirees according to law are allowed to convert to a non-
group policy but those employees covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield have foundthis -to be very expensive. For example, an early retiree at age 62 with a spouseofthesameagewouldhavetopayBlueCrossandBlueShield $93.05 per month.
This is $3.09 greater than the X89.96 monthly premium for family coverage chargedforpresentemployees.
Consequently, when the specifications were prepared for the September 1978 roug p
insurance bids, alternate bids were requested to allow early retirees to remain
covered by the City's group health insurance plan. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
submitted the low bid for health insurance and indicated that there would be no
extra charge to have early retirees included in the City's group plan. However,the claims for retired employees would be charged back to the City's group and
would be used with the claims experience for current employees to adjust premium
rates. The effect of this would be increase in the premium rate over a periodoftimeasmoreandmoreretiredemployeesareaddedtotheCity's group plan.y 9 P PThisisbasedupondatafromBlueCrossandBlueShieldthatindicatesa retired
couple in their early sixties would be charged $97.23 per month on a non -group
policy which compares to $55.00 per month for a young yfami1 of four.
Another disadvantage of adding coverage for early retirees is that at a later
time it cannot legally be eliminated or decreased unless the individuals covered
agree to it. Thus, if a retired employee has unusually high claims there would
be no way to remove him from the group unless he agreed to it. In this case,
the unusually hiqh claims would result in an increase in every employees' premium.
Due to the controversial nature of th -is issue, the Employee Insurance Committee
recommended to the City'Council that coverage for retired employees be provided
if 75% of the employees covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield are in favor of it.
During the month of October, survey forms were prepared which provided background
information and proposed wording for amendment of the City's group insurance policy.
These survey forms were sent out to City employees on October 27th. The results of
the survey indicated that of the 57 employees covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
25 voted yes, 1 voted nay, and 31 abstained. The yes votes indicated that only 44%
of the employees were in favor of the proposal.
On November 27th, the Employee Insurance Committee met and debated the significance
of the large number of abstentions on the survey. No conclusions were reached but
it was decided to re- survey City employees and inform them that abstentions would
not be counted as no votes. A total of 43 responses were received on the second
survey and all of them were in favor of insurance for early retirees.
On January 2nd, the Employee Insurance Committee met to discuss the results of
the second survey. The question was raised of would the City be . requi red - to self-
insure if coverage for early retirees was added and then , at a later date was unable
to get a company to bid on coverage for early retirees. It was decided to refer
this question to the City Attorney. He indicated that it was probable that
legally the City would be forced into a self - insurance program. The feasibility
of a self - insurance plan (including coverage for early retirees) for the City
was referred to an expert consultant in the field of self - insurance. The con-
sultant indicated that a self - insurance plan including coverage for early retirees
was not financially feasible for Mapl ewood' s size of its group.
On January 29th, the Employee Insurance Committee met to consider the opinions
of the City Attorney and insurance consultant. At this meeting, it was indicated
that employees covered by Group Health Plan that retire can convert to non -group
coverage which costs less than family coverage under the City's group plan. A
retired couple is charged $68.05per month on a non -group plan which compares to
93.60 per month on the City's group plan. The reasons for this lower premium
are
1. The group plan is based on an average family size of 3.4
persons whereas the non -group plan rate for a retired
couple is computed on.a 2 person size family.
2. The group plan provides for 365 days of hospital coverage
whereas the non - group plan provides for 180 days of
coverage.
3. Maternity benefits are lower.under the non -group plan.
4. Non - group plan rates are calculated on the same loss
ratios as group plans and there is no experience
rating by group.
It is the opinion of the Employee Insurance Committee that Group Health Plan is
the best buy for early retirees. Annually, there is an open enrollment period
for Grou p Health Plan whereby employees covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield
can convert to G.H.P, without evidence of insurability. Also, employees at any
time can convert to G.H.P. subject to evidence of insurability. Therefore, it
is recommended that employees planning on retiring arrange to convert to G.H.P.
prior to their retirement. In this way, upon retirement they can convert their
group G.H.P, coverage to a non - group plan. (G.H.P. will' not allow employees
covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield to convert to a G.H.P. non- group.plan.
Only individuals covered by a G.H.P. group plan can convert to a G.H.P. non-
group plan.) Furthermore, the Employee Insurance Committee recommends that the
proposed amendment to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy for early retiree
insurance no longer be considered.
4-
f
dod
ki 0
ou
STANLEY PESKAR
EDITOR'S NOTE: The questions below
are typical of the thousands of inquiries
the League recei%es each year, for
more comprehensive treatment of
questions, the information service of the
league is al%a) s asailable to
Muni(ipal officials.
Pf RSONNE! —RE TIRE ME NT
sf 1
t
i
t
ff +
1
i it t% tw r)e)r %Onn(•1 l() grant
It 1 ), h1c, dental, and other
emph)% m%uran( v
re ft,rf I(/ ( it (•ni j)1()% (•tw•!
N1_S. 41.01, Sutxl. a permits
cttwt k t() pr(» id(l group health, life,
and wher insura benefits to
rewed ( it% Elml)luy -ees and their
dependents. Ho%%e% -er, . under Xi.S.
1 79 .03. Sul) 18, a city need not
nego tialle on any pension benefit
Item. 1 hu•. , city could legally granthealthhenefitstoretiredemployee
an(l their cIependtants, but it is not re-
4111"1 t)% la" to bargain with anyI &II) r e, ganir.(tiun al)ui,t this subject.
K(-I(, v Liking any steps in this
direction, policy- making official
should consider all implications of of
fering these benefits. Perhaps the fac
for which should create the most
reticence is the difficulty Of late r
backing away from what employee
will regard as a commitment. If these
benefits are granted to presently
retired employees, current
employees with some jusification,
will assume that part of the compen-
satlon for which they are working istheavailabilityofcity -paid grouphealthcoverageafterretirement.
gSomesortofcontractualclaimmig
even be arguable if current salaries
are lower than they would otherwise
be and some funds are set aside for
future premium costs as well as for
paying current premiums. In any
event, a council that for financial or
other reasons wants to discontinue
or reduce an existing program of this
type will face great political pressure
and moral indignation from all
former and current employees and
yfromallthesupportingcitizen that
these employees can muster.
The costs of these programs, once
started, are difficult to predict or con-
trol. Health insurance premiums
have in recent years escalated at a
Yfrighteningrate. Though man future
retirees will be eligible for Medicare
and may be demanding only sup-
plementary Insurance from their
former employer, the gap between
total medical costs and the part paidbyMedicaremaywellgrove. To con-
trol inflation in the health care in-
s dustry. the federal got
pears to be coming
nt
establishing around
g a policy that a signifipartofthecostofcafemust
the ' . b0byindividualtreated. Tht s, s theory goes, gives the patient a 14healthcarerovideraniPincentive ,minimize costs. To the extent thafederalgovernmentincreasestthheatientcostshare, pressures will rno
on cities wit retired emp ee ptar
un
i,
to increase benefits, thus increasiCitycostsanddefeatingtheWert 'ederPolicyobjective.
Finally, a city- contemplatingretiredemployeehealthcare
g
needs to consider whether a 414-
spent on retired employee heak•
coverage buys as much publi k ,
vice as a dollar spent on salary- a
other benefits for current emploThoughsecurity- for retired cn,
employees may be a legitimate
secondary objective, cities in Mir
nesota function primarily to pro%
specific services such as police anc
fire protection, streets, libraries, anc
recreation. It is primarily a federa'
state, and county responsibility tc
provide general social benefit;
Those benefits arguably should I
relatively uniform for all citizens it
stead of directed to a fairly sma'
class. If, In the future, retiree healtf
insurance becomes a %videspreacp
benefit in both the private and pub'
spheres, as ha% general pensio•
benefits, a stronger argument for cit
entry into such a program can the -
be made.
ELEVATED TANK SERVICE INC.
Water Tower Specialists All Work Guaranteed
WELDING 4D NEW AooF TWENTY FNEWRISERSSANDBLFIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE
PAINTING BOARD OF HEALTH AND AWWABONDEDANDAPPROVEDINTERIORCOATINGSNEWSHELLSINSURED `
MEMBER AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSO'CIITION A
1 1W
Insulated Frost .Jackets of = t - , •
Double Metal Construction WATER TOWER MAINTENANCE
TWENTY -FOUR HOUR Roll Olson
EMERGENCY P. us: (605) 30CYSERVICEoBoxBoa
SIOUX FALLS, S. D. 57101 RES: (605) 344.2232
l
ii 1 it k $P'
MI!`'NESOTA CITI`'
IL
Did YOU 11110W: Stanley Peskar
Early retirement and group health plans
Should cities provide group
health insurance to retired einploy-
ees as an inducement to early
retirement?
Although this question is largely one
of policy, the consequences of an ill-
considered decision can impact city
budgets for years to come. Some tem-
porary savings might occur if certain
people retire early and if a tight budget
would otherwise force layoffs. How-
ever, once a program to encourage
early retirement by providing health
insurance for retired employees is in
place, it is difficult to effectively target
the plan to cause retirement of individ-
uals whose loss would least cripple the
city. Those choosing early retirement
may include productive employees
whose replacement is neither easy nor
inexpensive.
Another problem with the insurance
inducement to early retirement is that
most communities find it difficult to
firr the benefit to a certain "window"
period, such as to a retired employee
under the age of 65. At least some
retirees may be basic plan members
with no social security coverage and no
entitlement to Medicare at age 65.
Once started, a cite will often extend
retired employees' health insurance
plans to dependents and employees
who ' retired after a certain date.
Retired employees' group health
1"HI
AN FINSON,Q
HENDRICKSON & CO.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTANTS
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
COMPUTER FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AUDITS/ADVISORY SERVICES
RATE STUDIES
BUDGETS- SPECIAL LEVIES
Park National Bank building .
5M wayZata Blvd. • Sui 410
MinnSapoli:, ININ 5516
6121545421
Health insurance cost increases
Annual Cost Tool Total
Yr.Cost 10 Ernpl.Additional Empl.Cost
1 1,200 12, 000 10 12
2 1 14,400 2) $ 2 12 17
3 1 17,280 4) 69912 14 24,192
4 2 20 6) 12444 16 339184
5 2 24 8) 19,912 18 44,802
insurance plans are typically expensive
to operate. Not only is the incidence of
use likely to be higher than that for city
employees, but health care cost infla-
tion is continuing at approximately 20
percent rates. Thus for a plan for 10
employees which costs $100 per month
per employee and which increases by a
net of two retired employees each
year, the annual cost would escalate. as
in the chart.
Even more disturbing is that because
of contractual commitments without
concurrent appropriations for the gov-
erning body's entire cost, these uncon-
trollables will saddle future councils
with major expenditure items without
the city receiving services.
Similar unfunded promises in the
pension area resulted in cities incurring
huge deficits prior to state and federal
laws requiring employers to currently
fund any promised pension benefits in
the year of the benefit promise. If the
city considers post - retirement insur-
ante benefits as severance pay, under
M.S. 465.721, the city must approve a
plan for full funding. However, sever-
ance pay statutes may not apply
because M.S. 471.61, Subd. 2a,
authorizing retirees' insurance, does
not refer to the severance pay statute
and seems to be complete in itself.
The Financial Accounting Standards
Board has issued a memorandum on
the subject of post - employment bene-
fits, including employer -paid group
health coverage. The memorandum
takes the position that the employer
should account projected costs of pre-
dictable earned benefits as a current
cost item as the employee earns the
benefit. The memorandum indicates
the trend of thinking in accounting
circles. It may also indicate that any
city which builds up large unfunded
post - retirement health benefit liabilities
could impair its credit rating and raise
its cost of borrowing. See also p. 14 of
Minnesota Cites, April 1982.
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
CODIFIERS, INC.
Exclusively for Minnesota Governmental Units
Ordinance Codification
Charter Revision
Code Update Service
Counsel Admitted to Minnesota Bar
7400 Lyndale Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55423
Phone (612) 869 -2403
la
Minnesota Cities
To* 1A
MEMORANDUM
T0: ACTING MANAGER KEN HA I DER
FROM: CITY CLERK
REGARDING: REDISTRICTING PRECINCTS
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1986
Action by Gouncii :
Endorse
Modified ---
RoJootod
Dato
Preci 6 and 11, Concordia Arms and Carver Schoolarg
Preci di
9 se in the number of regis 1, have experienced agstered .voters . This has causedsforhourstovote, g th voters to
have to w a i t in line
a .Y e City redistrictinggnewpreciatCityHag
d re
Precincts5, 6 and 7 and creating 11 (Precinct 14 anrecinc ) d red i st 'Fire Department p is the problem can be solve ct-
ng precinct 11 into .two
p t No. 2 will become Precin ed, East County Linect13.
If the boundaries arerevisedanti
not changed by the end of the11992. e year, they can not be
RESOLUTION NO..
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPL EWOOD
RESOLUTIONR AUTHORIZIRRECI NG THE CHANGE IN BOUPRECINCTSCURRENTLYIDENT NDARIES OF THOSE ELECTIONIDENTIFIEDASPRECINCTS5CTION
6, 7 and T1WHEREAS,... the City o • s empowered btochangeuncili •
nge the boundaries of y Minnesota Statuteselectionprecinct 2046.14sfromtimetotime; WHEREAS, noti
and
wood Cit
Ce of the change sha ll btyClerkforatleast e posted in the Officechange; and s xty (601 days r for of the Mapptotheeffectivedate.of
AS, the Maplewoodiewo City Clerk shalvoterof
E P od Ci
nechangeinelon of i fy each affected registereddayspriortothefirstrecinctboundariesatgisteredrstelectionheldofleastthirty (30)ter the change takes effect andWHEREAStheMaplewoodCitylerkshalllpreboundarofelectionyare •
the Se
tion precincts and fi p maps showing the newcretaryofStatelesuchmapsW1thtandwiththeStateheCountyAuditorPlanningDirector• a 'andWHEREAS.
Ilea any changes in election precinct boundaries sclearlyrecognizablehpreci •p features specifically
shall follow visiblep f Ica 11y streets. '
NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ithatthose • T RESOLVED, by the C •electiion precincts i ounc 1 of the C i t of MaplewoodboundariesChanidentifiedfiedas5, 6 y ,changed and create two new ' and 11 shall have theiinterestsofthecommunity. so as t mmunity, o reflect the best