HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 09-27 City Council PacketI) _ NEW BUSINESS
1. Special Exception: Maplewood Mall (Sbarro's)
2. Community Design Review Board Evaluation
3. Billboard Ordinance
4. Sewer Rates - Jon Belisle*
5. Uniform Fire Code
6 -. Refuse. Hauler's Ordinance
J) VISITOR PRESENTATION
K) COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
M) ADJOURNMENT
4 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD A C C O U N TS P A Y A B L E DATE 09 -27 -82 PAGE
CHECK*A M 0 U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P D S E
000896 1,GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURNCE CONTRIBUTIONS INS URAN 4
000897 2,345055 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURNCE A/R — INS CONTINUANCE
AND— HEALTH INS PAYABLI
AND —LIFE INS DED PA YA
AND-CONTRIBUTIONS, I NSI
000898 4, 319.03 MN MUTUAL LIFE INS CO CONTRIBUTIONS iNSUs RAN
000899 3, 518. 93 MN MUTUAL 'LIFE INS CO A. /R — INS CONT TNUANCE
AND HEALTH INS PAYABL:
AND —LIFE INS DEB PA YA
AND— DENTAL INS PAYABL
AND- CONTRI BUTI ONS, I NS
i 000 900 5000 06 RICHARD KNUTSON INC CONT PBL - RET PCT
Construction Contract
000901 751 * ZZ POSTMASTER' ------ - - - -.- .- - -.POSTAGE
000902 Zi #. 00 MINN STATE TREASURER.STATE D/L FEES PAYABL:
000903 G, 540.75 MINN STATE TREASURER'MV LICENSE FEE PAYAS 8
000904 65.50 RAM.SEY CO CLERK Of DIST CNTY . D/L FEES PAYABL8
0 00 90 5 4 20 MINN STATE TREASURER HMV LICENSE FEES PAY AS
000906 750 00 MINN STATE TREASURER STATE 0/L FEES PAYABL
000907 50. 00 ACCOUNTING CST TRAVEL f TRAINING
000908 123o00 ANOKA RAMSEY CGMMUNITY TRAVEL 4 TRAINING
000909 2 716* 83 MINN STATE TREASURER MV LICENSE FEES PAYAB
000910 3010 00 MINN STATE TREASURER - -._STATE D/L FEES PAYABL
0 00 911 18.9000 INN STATE TREASURER STATE D/L FEES PAYABL
0009L2 4, 680.25 MINN STATE TREASURER MV LICENSE FEES PAYAB
000913 i, 891062 HN STATE TREASURES -PERA --- _----------- -CONTRIBUT.I ONS PERA
000914 3 9644 75 MN STATE TREASURER-PERA P.E. R.A. BED PAYABLE
AND—CONTRIBUTIONS, PE
000915 8- 9. 5 9 5 * 6 0 MN STATE TREASURER —PERA P E. R. A0 DED PAYABLE
AND—CONTRIBUTIONS, PE
000916 39 435. 00 MINN STATE TREASURER Nil LICENSE FEES PAYAB
CITY OF MAPLEW00p A C C O U N T S P A Y A S L E DATE 09 -27 -82 PAGE
CHECK*A M 0 U N T C - L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
009917 318. DO MINN STATE TREASURER STATE D/t FEES PAYAB
0a0'9i8 •175 0 ----I NTL .. CITY MGM T ASSOC --JR - AVEL TRAINING
0 00 919 2, 258.00 NORD STROI RISK MGMT INC INSURANCE
000920 57.80 KEVIN HA N EG TRAVEL * TRAINING
000921 799. 82 ---CONN GENERA _ . - ' LIFELIFE INS CD CONTRIBUTI ONS i NSU RA
0 0 0 922 3 77.97 C ON N G EHE RA L LIFEI _. INS C O A/R — INS C O N T I N U A N C
O 0A 923 74. 09 RA MSEY CO CLERK OF DIST CNT D/L FEES PA YABi
000924 2, 8b8.47 MINN STATE TREASURER MY LICENSE FEES PAYA!
000925 122004 _MINN STATE T REASUR STA T E
000926 236.00 TMINNN _ ATE TREASURER STATE D/t FEES PA Y
000927 3, 275. 00 MINN STATE TREAS URER MV LICENSE FEES PAYAI
000928 9 0. o.0 A D I S S O _- - - _ _ ______ _ _ ______TRAVEL-t f TRAINI
000929 2 66 I CMA RETIREMENT CORP DEFERRED COMP PA YAMLEDEFERRED
C OM PENS
000930 15, 837.50 tAPLEwOOI STATEE BANK FE INCOME TAX PAYA DL
0 0 93 1 9, 29 4. 20 S TATS OF ##STATE INCOMEE TALC PAYA
0 00 932 200.00 -N STATE R TE IREMENT SYST OEFERREQ COMP PAYABLE
000933 297.43 AFSCME LOCAL 2725 UNION DUES PAYABLE
SHARE FEES - F
000934 24. DO 14ETR 0 SUPERVISORY ASssoc UNION SUES PAYABLE
000935 277. 00 MN MUTUALL LIFE INS CO DEFERRED COMP PAYABLE
000936 145. 0___ROSEMARY..WAGE DEDUCTIONS PAYA8
000937 6 08.50 MN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 UNION DUES PAYABLE
000938 I0, 967. 00 CITY t CTY CREDIT UNION CREDIT UNION BED PAYA
000939 9s, x`90. 15_ - -- --INN STATE TREASURE M LICENSE FEES PAYABj
000940 183000 MINI4 STATE TREASURER STATE O/L FEES PAYABLI
45 196, 225. 72 NECESSARY EXPENDITU SINGE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
a CITY OF MAPLEWOOD A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E DATE 09- 27--82 PAG E
CHECK*A M 0 U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P 0 S E
014257 126.66 ACE HARDWARE MAINTENANCE MATERIALSL
014 25 8 160.13 A CRO- MINNESOTA INC SUPPLI ES OFF _. - --
014259 961* 40 ARNALS AUTO SERVICE REP. } SAINT. EHsV ICL
014260 43.63 AUTOMATIC VOTING MACHINE SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
014261 100.05 BATTERY + TIRE WHSE INC SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014262 113.40 BERG- TORSETH INC SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014253 2,557.91 aG OF RATER COMM OUTSIDE ENGINEERING F
014264 52. 17 BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
014265 3.95 CAPITOL RUBBER STAMP CO SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT
014266 34.20 CHIPPEWA SPRINGS CO FEES SERVICE
Water Cooler
01426 76.49 CLUTCH + TRANSMISSION SUPPLIES, VEHICLE -
014268 122.92 COPY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
AND — SUPPLIES, OFFICE
01426 9 4.86 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC SUPPLIES PROGRA
014270 87.29 DALCO CORP SUPPLIES JANITORIAL
014271 360* 00 PAT DALEY FEES, SERVICE - --
Plumbing Inspector0142721.95{ATHLEEN DOHERTY SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014273 45 540. 00 EAST CO LINE FIRE DEPT FEES SERVICE
Fire Protection
014274 19e50 EAST SIDE GTC SMALL T COLS
0 14275 44.90 ERIC KSON PETROLEUM CORP SUPPLIES, RANGE
014276 8.00 BARRY EVANS TRAVEL TRAINING
014277 79083 FARMERS UNION COOP OIL CHEMICALS
014278 1.55 FIRE SAFETY PRODUCTS INC SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
0142,79 108.27 GENERATOR SPECIALTY CO SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
0 187.46 GENUINE PARTS CO SUPPLIES s VEHICLE
014281 52 GLADSTONE FIRE DEPT FEES SERVICE
Fire Protection
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD A C C 0 U N T S P A Y A B L E DATE 09 -27 -82 PAGE
CHECK*A M C U `N T C L A I M A N T P U R P 0 S E
014 28 2 25.20 GOPHER BEARING CO SUPPLIES VEHI
014283 93.08 DUANE GRACE FEES- SERVICE
Temp. Inspector01428428.98 JANET GREW TRAVEL f TRAINING
1014285 256. 80 G }K SERVICES UNIFORMS # CLOTHINGING
014286 76. 80 G+K SERVICES -UNIFORMS t CLOTHING
0-14287 176* 94 HALLI NG BROS SUPPLIES VEHICLECE
014288 10.16 HILLCREST GLASS CO SUPPLI SE 9 .JANITORIAL
014 3.00 HOWIES LOCK t KEY SERVIC SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014290 59.32 JRVING MILLER CO SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014291 20.40 JOLLY TYME FAYCRS SUPPLIES PROGRAMROGRAM
014292 12* 00 JOURNAL OF CIVIL DEFENSE SUBSCRIPT IONS MEMBERS
014293 225o45 KNOX LUMBER COMPANY MA INTENAN MATERIALSTERIALS
014294 122* 96 LOCAL CO INC SUPPLIES VEHICLE
01429.5 289.50 LAKE SANITATION FEES, SERVICE
Rubbish Removal
014296 199 326. 25 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA DUE TO OTHER GOVT UNI
porkers Comp. premium02429719. 05 LEES AUTO SUPPLY SUPPLIES VEHICLE
014298 88.06 LUGER LUMBER SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
AND - MAINTENANCE MATER
014299 114* 74 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC- _...SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014 30 0 5.72 MA NDO PHOTO FEES, SERVICE
Film Processing01430116. 68 MAPLE #Qfl 3 BAKERY SUPPLIES, PROGRA M
014302 333..MAPLEWOOD REVIEW_ __ _ _- ---- -_ - - --SUBSCRIPT IONS }MEMBERS
AND-- PUBLISHING
AND-*FEES, SERVICE
Cities 25th Aniv. Cel
014303 1, 352.59 MCCA NN INDUSTRIES INC FEES, SERVICE
Police Chief analysis014304470, b0 MERIT CHEVROLET CO __ __ _ _._._SUPPLIES9 VEHICLE -
AND -REP. + MAI NT. , VE
I
m
CITY OF MAPLEW00D A C G0 U N T S P A Y A B L E
CHECK*A M 0 U
DATE 09- 27--82 PAGE
N T C L A .I M A T P U R P O S E
014 30 5 4b1. 40 METROPOLITAN INSP E TI ON FEES, SERVICE0143Db15. 0#ID DWA Y _ _. _____ __ _.._..._ __. --TRACTOR electrical Tns .Aectlon
Di4307 1207 98 MN DEP ARTMENT
RERENTAL EQUIPMENT
PUBLIC R TAL, EQUIPMENT01430875. 0 0 M N N F 0 A
TRAVEL + TRAINING0143090b. 03 HIMINNESOTA TORO
D 14310 MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
1,437.37 ._MIRA CL• EQUIPMENT CO MAINTENANCE MATERIALS01431175. 08 NOGREN BRAS LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE MATERIALS014312i 5 2 7 . Q 4 CITY . _ ._. _ . - - -- - _..OF NORTH ST PAUL UTILITIES
014313 13. 12 NORTH ST PAUL G-}HTGPLB H A I N T E N A N C E MATERIALS014-314 i , 3 0 9 s 9 5 NORTHERN STA TES POWER CO UTILITIES
014315 7 * 8Q NORTHERN STATES POWERR CO UTILITIES - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -
014 316 202.25 NORTHWESTERNESTERN BELL TEL CO T E L E P H 0 N E
014 317 31 60 NO BELL TEL Co TELEPHONE
0.14313 617, 30 NORTHWESTERNN BELL TEL CO TELEPHONE
014319 96e06 OFFI ELECTRONICS INC SUPP LIES, OFFICE
14 32 €l 47, 58A O SA LD F IRE HOSE
r
SUPP LI£Sf EQUIPMENT014.321 3 D . 0 b PARK MAC .._ _ _ . ___ _.. _.Chit NE INC SUPP VEHIC - - --.LIES,
014 32 2 _34 i 0 i. 25 PARK SIDE FIRE DEPT FE E S 9 SERVICE
014323 2 075. 00 PETER SON, BELL t CONVERSE
Fire Protection
G14324 195.00 POWERR BRAKE EQUIP CO
FEES, SERVICE -Sept,
Prosecuting Attorng
014325 SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
130.50 _RAMSEY CLINIC sSSOC P A F SERV
014326 242. 20 RA MS E Y COUNTY TREASURERRER Physical- ---- __ - - -- .- .---_. _--- - - _-
RENTAL, EQUIPM
AND -FEES, SERVICE
014327 43.35 CHARLESS REEfl PRINTING CO
ata, Processin
014328
S UPPLIES, PROGRAM!
45.0 7 REED ____ _ - ---- - ---- -- ----- -___S SALES f S£RV.ICE SUPPLIES VEHICLE0143299,1.2 0 RUGG ED RENTAL RUGS FEES, SERVICE
Rug Cleaning
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD A C C O U N TS P A Y A 8 L E DATE 09-w27-w829 -2T- 82 PAGE
CHECK*A M 0 U N T C L A I N A . TN P U RP O S E
OL4330 72.50 RYCO SUPPLY CO SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
014331 9. 04 S # T OFFICE FR DU0 CTS SUPPLIES , ..OFFICE
014332 164e94 SEARS ROEBUCK CO MALL TOOLS
014333 38, 381.46 SHORT —ELL 10TT—HENDRI CKSN OUTSIDE ENGINEERING
014 33 4 1, 0 D 0 . fl 0 CITY OF ST PAUL ---- - -__.. _ ___ . __ -_ - --A/R MISCELLANEOUS
014335 78. 12 SUFE RA MER I CA
3 M Fire Run
BUFFET ES1 OFFICE
014336 76.50 TADUL.ATING SERY BUREAU FEES, SERVICE
014337 8T, 85 H R TOLL CO
Data Processing
SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
a 14 33 8 2 5. 9 8 T 0 L Z , K Z NG D J A ___.__ ___ _.___-s LL tTSIDE ENGINEERING
0 14 33 9 24.58 HERB TOUSLEY ' FORD INC REP. + SAINT., VEHIC
014340 941083 TRIARCQ ARTSRS t CRAFTS SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014341 54.54 -THIN CITY JANITOR SUPPLY ________U PPLI ES EHI c LE
014 342 139.30 TW CITY NURSERY OTHER CONSTRUCTION Ct
014 34 3 392. 7fl TWIN CITY T ESTiNG OUTSIDE ENGINEERING f
014344 19502.86 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED - - - -- ---------- - -_.__i TED UNI FARMS CLOTHI NG
AND- - SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
0 14 34 5 i 41.40 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED _ __ .. __...__- __-UNIFORMS + CLO T H I N G
0143+ 6 100. 50 VIRTUE PRINTING CO SU PP L I ES i OFFICE
014347 10 5.84 WARNERS T R,UEVALU.E HOW SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
AND MAINTENAt'vCE MATER
AND— SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
AND— SUPPLIES, JANIT CR
o14348 3 2.2 4 - _ -W E BE R # T R 0 S E INCTC REP. } MAIN T., "IEHI CL
014349 T3.57 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014 35 0 14.94 WHITE gEA R FO FILE PROD SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014351-30i. 54 XEROX CORPORATION DUPLICATING COSTS
014352 273.87 MICHELLE ANDERSON WALES P/ T + TEMP.
CITY OF DATE 09 -27-82 PAGE
MAPLEWOOD A C C O U N T S P A Y # 8 L E
CHEGK A N 0 U N T C L A I N A N T P U R P Q S E
014 353 21e79 MARILYN JOYCE GA BRAL i TH WAGES, P/ T } TEMP*
014354 15.80 THERESA A JENTS WAGES - P/ f__. _ ... -'-___s T TEMP.
014 35 5 88. 00 CAROL LOE FFLE R WAGES, p/ T # TEMPS
0 14 356 216* 00 ROBE RTA OLSON WAGES, PST + TEHP.
014357 30000 PAUL PETERSON - ___WAGES, P/ T + TEMP. - -- _.
01435 8 12. 48 ALBERT RASCHKE TRAVEL f TRAINING
014359 144.00 JEFFERY RASCHKE WAGES P/T } T EHP.
014 36 0 303. 59 BRIAN SHERBURNE _WA G ES, P/ T + TEMP. -
AND— TRAVEL + TRAININ(
014361 13.78 _._._.MARTIN SPANNBAUER .._._. _.._ ----------------- _.._._..___.._TRAVEL f TRAINING
014362 184.00 PATRICK JAMES TOWNL E WAGES, P/ T f TEMP.
014363 3.00 IONS ASCHENB R E f uN0
014364 30.08 DOUGLAS SERENOS R£ F J N O
014365 11.00 SALLY F'ITZGERAL0 R E F uN0
014 366 3o VI V FORSBE GR R E F U N D
014367 15. 50 MARILYN GALBRAITB R E F U N 0
014368 3s 00 CE IL R JE NS E N R E F U N 0
014 36 9 21.e'84 CAROL LOE FF L E R TRAVEL + TRAINING
014370 11608 CHERYL MI NCHER _. __ -R E F U N 0
014 371 21. 06 VAL MEYER.TRAVEL TRAINING
014 37 2 21. 06 KATHY NELSON TRAVV£L TRAINING
014 37 3 -- -22.3 ..DOUG OLSO H ._____ _ __ ___ - -. --TiA V£L + TRA iN I NG
014374 3.00 LE,NNORE RASSETT R £ f U N 0
014375 3.00 PEG SCHWEIZER R E F U N D
0 376 11000 LEE TUCCI.R E F U N Q - - -- - -'- -- -- .
014,377 41000 LORA I NE WEST R£ F U N B
CITY OF NAPLEWOOO A C C 0 U N T S P A Y A 9 L E DATE 09-27-82 PAGE
CHECK* A N 0 U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P 0 S E
0 14 37 8 25.00 HELEN KAY STEFAN FEES, SERVICE
Art Wo rk
122 216, 9.25 CHECKS WRITTEN
T CT AL 'OF 167 CHECK TU TA L 412 , 4.14.97
INDICATES ITEMS FINANCED BY RECREATIONAL FEES
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PAYROLL REPORT PA_ - ..GE i
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK DATE 09 -10 -82
CHECK WANE GROSS PAY NET PAY
04926 SEHM LOIS N 58 6.62 4 07.44
04 EVANS BARRY R 1, 817.54 i 10.21
04928 PELOQUIN ALFRED J 747.23 1.93.39
04929 SCHLEICHER JOHN F 102.00 102.00
04930 CUDE LARRY 191.54 145.44
04931 DOHERTY KATHLEEN M 305.00 217.56
04932 ZUERCHER JOHN L.115.39 125.13
04933 FAUST DANIEL F 1, 446.46 950.94
0 49 34 HA GEN _ARLINE 88.92 40 4.43
0 49 35 H ATHEYS ALANA K 677.54 473.93
0 49 36 V I G CRE N D EL OR ES A 5 8 6.62 399079
0 49 37 AURELIUS LUCILLE E 1, 350.46 7 D5.29
04938 SELVOG BETTY 0 711.23 463 *700
0 49 39 GREEN PHYLLIS C 738.92 511. T i
04940 VIETOR LORRAINE S 561.69 386.08
04941 HENSLEY PATRICIA A 238o80 182.0 2
04942 FREDERICKSON RITA M 22.00 22.00
04943 STOTTLEMYER EDITH G 63.00 63.08
04944 BASTYR DEBORAH A 532.16 261.3.9
049+5 CCLLINS KENNETH V 1,527.19 221.28
04946 HA GEN THOMAS L t 424.31 3 3 1.fl8
04947 ONAT.H JOY E 553.39 382.01
04948 RICHIE CAROL L 501.23 334948
04949 S VENOSEN JOANNE M 718.83 467090
0 49 50 ARNCLD OA* 10 L i, 30 8.64 5 00.74
ITY OF MAFLEWOOO
v
4
CHECK
1
ri 04951t
1 04952
04953
C
0 49 54
04955
0 49 56
0 49 57
0 49 58
0 49 59
04960
0 49 61
0 49 62
r 04963
a
0 49 64
0
04966
04967
04968
04969
04970
04971
04972
04973
04974
04975
N AME
ATCHISON
BOWMAN
CAHANES
CL AUSON
D RE GFR
GREEN
HALWEG
HEINZ
HERBERT
JAQUITH
KORTUS
LANG
MCNULTY
MEEHAN,JR
M E T TLER
MOESCHTER
40RELLI
PEL T I £R
SKALMAN
SMITH
S T AFNE
STILL
STOCKTON
ZAPPA
BECKER
PAYRJLL REPORT PAGE 2
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK DATE 09m10-82
GROSS PAY NET PAY
JOHN H 1.67$.37
RICK A 62 9.54 4 32.8 0
ANTHONY G l 210.15 139* 72
DALE K is 036.15 156.73
RICHARD C 1. 473.34 828.72
N ORMAN L 1,657.26
KEVIN R 1'5 31.15
STEPHEN 774.46 4 9 0 * 21
MICHAEL J 1, 016.77 5 82.84
DANIEL R 774.46 4 89.46
DONALD v 629.15 426.28
RICHARD J t 056.00 561.94
JOHN J 1 206* 92 196e58
JAMES E i, 034.78 524o95
DANIEL a 1 665.26
R.1CHA RD H is 016.77 133.X33
RA .YHOND J 1 671.99
WILLIAM F i 170.35 665.67
DONALD W 1s 016.77 165.46
SCOTT 241.20 241.20
GREGORY L 1, 016.77 628.42
VERNON T 997.38 5 76.91
OARRELL T 997.38 640.81
JOSEPH A 1, 2080 77 744.03
RONALD D 19 065.23 210.23
CITY OF MARL£W%GD
d CHECK
0
04977
04978
84979
04980
04981.
04982
0
04984
04985
04986
04987
04
04969
04990
04991
04992
04993
04994
04995
04996
04997
0499a
04999
05000
NAME
C
GRAF _
LEE
NELANDER
NELSON
R A ZSKA ZOFF
RYAN
V ORWER K
Y OU NGRE N
EMBERTSON
SCHADT
FLAUGHER
FULLER
14ELSON
NELSON
RABINE
WILLIAMS
BARTA
HAIDER
WEGWERTH
CASS
F RE BERG
HELEY
HOGHBAN
KANE
PAYROLL R E P C R T .. _.____
w _ _
F_A.G. E _. __ ,_ 3
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK DATE 094010
GROSS PAY NET PAY
BENN I S S i, 32 7.56 852.48
AVID i 1, 065.23 510.12
ROGER W 1 10 4. 00 62 5.4 7
JON A 1,065.23 20.57
CAROL M 1, 226.67 898.97
DALE E 1, 08 4. 61 121.59
MICHAEL p 19 06 5.23 47 0..11
ROBERT E 1, 17 2. 04 276.99
DAMES G 19 045.84 621.06
JAMES M 944.31 631.56
ALFRED C 1, 127.54 685.12
JAYEE L 671.54 445.27
JAMES D 58 6.62 428. i 6
KAREN A 645.23 408.46
ROBERT a i, 220.47 660040
JANET L 549.69 380.43
DUANE J 1, 055.54 472.42
MARIE L 495.69 325984
KENNETH G It 391a 08 229.34
JUDITH A 505.42 360.99
WILLIAM C to 157.08 573.03
RONALD L 824.00 485.54
RONALD 824.00 538 *88
JJSEPH H 827.15 549.51
MICHAEL R 824.00 370.68
toll Uc RArLtwUuU PAYROLL REPORT GE 4
G CERTIFICATION REGISTER CH DATE 09 — i (I—$ 2a
CHECK
4
NAME GROSS PAS'NET PAY
Si
a 050 01
ti
i KLAOSI NG HENRY 844.05 462099
0 50'02
s
MEYER _GERA.D w 844016 450055
lI
x
i;
f - -- 05003 _P_R.FTT JOS 19088000 698995
050 REINERT EDWARD 824.00 538988
T E Y L I N , J R HARRY 8 3 7 526.18
05006 _E L I A S JAMESNES _ -_ --G i, 110 54 6 b 9.44
050 07 GEISSLER WALTER M 952.61 573.20
GESSELE JAMES T 893.54 b 03.0 3
05009 --PECK DENNIS 9 8 6 9 485 *2 0
05010 PI LLATZKE DAVID 1 15'7* 0 8 792.t2
0 5011 W Y M A N JAMES N 932.13 629.58
05012 LUTZ OAVID p 562..62 384o18
05013 SREHE.IM ROGER N 7£9.60 494.07
05014 ED SON DAVID 9 903.00 603087
05015 MULWEE GEDRGE w 798.46 0 9.0 9
05016 N ADEAD EDWARD A 879* 66 592o27
NUTESON L.AVERNE S
Y - -
1 088 88 4 82.4 0
T 050 iS .0WEN C 8 4 0.0 0 5 0 0 6
05019 MACDO NALD JOHN E 908.88 459.78
0 50 20 M uL W A N E Y i)E NNI S 8 7 ... __...__.__0 95 _ - -_53 .5
05021 -B --__b 7 7.5 4 2 6 2. 2
05022 KRUMMEL BARBARA A 29 5* 75 143.71
05023 ODEGARD ROBERT D i, 3 2. 3
05024 ST
686935
0 50 25 9URKE M Yl. ES_R 824.00 4682
CITY OF M A PL E W C CU PAYROLL REPORT PAG E 5
CERTIFICA REGISTER CHECK DATE 094010-082
C H EC K GROSS PAY N PA Y
4 50 Zb GERMA TN DAVID A 824.00 535.20.
05027 G U S I N D A H E l V T N -..69's . i, .20 620957
0 L A N 8 4. 0 a 5 4 8.6 3
05029 LEMON JEFFREY S 113.40 113040
05030 H A R U S K A MARK -A 8 b 2. _ . 63 2 _5 6 . _. -_ - .
0 50 31.-PARENTEAU- - -__ __.T.HO MA S J 256*00 2 5 6.0 0
05032 RASCHKE ALBERT F 291010 259.96
0 50 33 SANUQUTST THOMA S 5 7.0 0 5 7.0 0
04923 SANTA REED E 824.00 472.81
05034 TA UNMAN DOUGLASLAS 8D4. 00 5 17.20
0 50 35 WARC ROY G 328.62 253.25
05036 GREW ._ .JANET...M 684 *9292 4 48.5 9
05037 SOUTTER CHRISTINENE i84.92 47 0.04
05038 CNLEBECK JUDY 711.23 300e63
0 50 39 0LS0N - _.._GEOFFREY w 19340 8 22
0 5 0 4 0 E K S T R N O THOMAS G 914942 563.85
05041 JOHivSON RANDALl.L 9 4 0.19 6 01.6 9 .
4 S T R O M -_ -._ _ .- _.H a R J O R i E i 31 T i 6. 3 0
05043 W E N GE R R 0 B E R T J 85 7.54 4 97.5 8
CHECK REGISTER 7GTALS 102 s 3 24.93 5 5, 3 62.65
04925
05044
Tuchner __._ _
Cusick
Miche l.e A 6 9 4. 62 354.46-
Dennis 2 4 - 1012---- ----_ - -2-2 -, 27 - . U6
CHECK REGISTER TOTALS 127 775996.17
i
a
9
L:
1
MEMORANDUM
TO Cit Manaqer
FROM: Finance Director
Annual Audit - 1982
DATE :September 20, 1982 _
r
DeLaHunt, Voto & Company,. our present auditing firm, has presented for
approval and.execution the attached agreement for auditing services for
the City's Fiscal year ending December 31 1982. The proposed aareement
reflects a 9.8/ increase in hourly rates. However, this firm has agreed
to limit the total cost of the audit to $20,900 which is only 5/ more than
last year.
DeLaHunt, Voto &Company has provided Maplewood with satisfactory auditing
services since 1967. The firm is experienced in municipal audits and
presently has approximately fifteen other governmental bodies as clients
including the cities of White Bear Lake, South St. Paul, Stillwater, New
Brighton, Shoreview, Oakdale, Woodbury and Cottage Grove.
Therefore, it is recommended that staff be authorized to execute an agreement
with DeLaHunt, Voto & Company for the 1982 audit.
DFF:1 nb
DELAHUNT VOTO & CO. LTD CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Birch Lake Professional Building • 1310 E. Hwy. 96 • White Bear Lake, MN 55110 • Phone 426 -32635f:
August 12, 1982
Mr. Dan Faust,
Finance Director
City of Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
RONALD ). DFLAHUNT, RETIRED
ROBERT ). VOTO, CPA
TIMOTHY E. REARDON, CPA
ROBERT G. TAUTGES, CPA
Dear Dan:
Enclosed are two copies of our standard Agreement f or Auditing /Ac counting
Services for 1982/1983. This contract is similar to last years contract
except for rate changes necessitated by general economic factors.
Upon the approval of this agreement by your Council and execution, please
return one copy to our office and retain the other copy for your files.
Your early consideration of this contract will assist us in preparing our
1982/1983 audit schedule and will be greatly appreciated. If you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
DE LA HUNT VOTO & CO•, LTD.
v
Robert J. Voto, CPA
RJV/ 1 lk
enc /2
cc: Correspondence File
MEMBERS OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS • PRIVATE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTION
MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION • MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS
AGREEMENT FOR AUDIT ING/ACCOLNL TING SERVICES
This agreement by and between the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
hereinafter referred to as the "City", and the accounting f irm of DE LA HUNT VOTO
CO. , LTD.,, hereinafter referred to as the "Auditors ", WITNESSETH:
In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements as hereinafter
set forth, the parties hereto contract and agree as follows:
I .
The Auditors agree to perform an audit of the financial statements and
transactions of the City for the year ended December 31, 1982. Such audit and
examination shall be made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards
and the minimum audit procedures prescribed by the Minnesota State Auditor pur-
suant to the provisions of M.S.A. , Chapter 6. Such audit and examination will
include tests of the accounting records and such other audit procedures as are
considered necessary to enable the Auditors to render an opinion on the fairness
of the City's financial statements. It is not contemplated that the audit will be
a detailed examination of all transactions nor that the audit will necessarily
discover mis- conduct, should any exist. The Auditors will, however, promptly
inform the City of any findings which appear unusual or abnormal.
II•
The Auditor's report and management comments shall be addressed to the City
Council. Such management comments shall contain specific disclosure and recommen-
dations with regard to the following:
a) Non - conformity with policy and procedures prescribed by Council
Action., State Statutes, and /or Federal Rules and Regulations*
b) Mon- conformity to generally accepted governmental accounting
principles.
0
c) Defects in accounting policies and procedures that make accountingtangand /or auditing time consuming and /or inefficient.
d) Any failure of the accounting department to prepare and distribute
financial reports required or needed for administrative purpose.urP ose .
e) Any other information deemed appropriate of City Council
consideration.
III.
The 1982 Annual Financial Report of the City shall be prepared in accor-
dance with generally accepted accounting principles and the "Minimum ReportingPng
Requirements - City Financial Reporting" prepared and issued b the Office ofY the
Minnesota State Auditor. Should the City require assistance in preparing --P g and com
piling its financial data and records to meet these requirements, the Auditors
agree to assist the City as required and as determined jointly by the Auditors and
City Administration. . Fees for such services (if required) shall be billed on the
basis of the hourly rates contained herein, but shall be billed separate from
audit fees.
IV.
The City herewith engages the Auditors for the work hereinbefore specified
and agrees to pay the Auditors on the basis of:
Partner 60.00 @ Hour
Audit Supervisor /Manager
Staff Auditors:
Senior
Semi- Senior
Junior
Intern
Statistical Typists and
Report Processors
Charge per Copy of
Financial Statements
48-00 @ Hour
34.00 @ Hour
26-00 @ Hour
22.00 @ Hour
18.0 0 @ Hour
15-00 @ Hour
15000 @ Copy
V9
The Auditors shall provide the City with detailed statements as to the
classifications and hours worked. Payments of the Auditor's fees shall bee ma de by
the City within thirty days after submittal of an itemized claim correctly showing
the amount due the Auditors.
Claims for payment will be submitted for payment upon completion of the
interim audit; upon completion of the final fieldwork; and upon completion of hPPthe
entire audit and submittal of the Annual Financial Report and the Auditor'sPrs
Management Comments and Recommendations thereon.
vi.
If any circumstances disclosed by the audit and examination call for a more
detailed investigation than would be necessary under ordinary circumstances, such
circumstances will be called to the attention of the City authorities before pro-
ceeding further with such investigation. If authorized to proceed further with an
investigation in this area, compensation for these additional services shall be at
the regular rates designated in this agreement.
IN WHEREOF, the City and the Auditors have executed this agreement
the day and year written below.
DE LA HUNT VOTO & CO., LTD.
Certified Public Accountants
By
Robert J. Voto, President
Date:
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
By
Mayor
Date:
By
Manager
Date:
E -3
MEMORANDUM
T0: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
RE: Financial Transfers Related to 1982 Bond IssueDATE:- September 21, 19$2
PROPOSAL
Ac icn b --
It is proposed that $349,000 of surplus balances in three construction
accounts be transferred to the debt service account for the 1979
temporary improvement bonds .
RArvapni imn
On May 20th the Council approved the financial plan related to the 1982
Temporary Improvement Bonds. Part of this plan involved the use of
surplus balances in construction accounts to finance the retirement of
the 1979 Temporary Improvement Bonds. Proceeds were received last month
from the 1982 bond issue. The financial transfers related to this bond
issue are now needed.
The following surpluses exist in three construction accounts which were
financed by the 1979 Temporary Improvement Bonds:
18 Project 75 -06 Howard- Larpenteur Storm Sewer
110 Project 77 -09, Gervais Ave. - Germain to White Bear Ave.
221, 000 Project 79 -01, Cope .Avenue
349,000 Total
These surplus amounts should be transferred to the debt service account
for the 1979 Temporary Improvement Bonds as originally planned.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council authorize the above transfers.
DFF :1 nb
I
ff E to A -
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager9er
FROM: Associate Planner - Johnson Ac io ±
SUBJECT: Time Extension -
APPLI CANVOWNER: Rodol fo Gonzalez
PROJECT • Gonzal ez AdditionAdd
DATE: September 10, 1982 r
Request
Approval of a one -year time extension for the Gonzalez Addition
preliminary plat, to create five single - dwelli lots,
Status
The applicant anticipates approval of the plat from the Ramsey County
surveyor ` s office within the month. Application for final plat will thenbeappliedfor.
Recommendation
Approval of a one -year time extension for the Gonzalez Addition rel imi nar
plat on the basis p y
P that progress i s being made toward applicationcation for final
plat.
BACKGROUND
Code Requi rements
Section 1005 (3) of the Platting Code states that preliminary approval
shall be authorized for a period of one year, after that time "the City ma
extend the period by agreement with the subdi vi der and subject to all appli-
cable performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission
of a new application, unless substantial physical activity and investment has
occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider
will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement
to submit a new application."
Past Actions
8 -6 -81: Council approved the Gonzalez Addition preliminary plat, subjectectPJ
to the following conditions:
1. Payment-of deferred assessments of 1,312.50 for Sanitaryy Sewer and
630.15 for street improvement on County Road C;
2. An erosion control and grading plan shall be prepared with the advice
of the Soil Conservation Service and submitted for Staff approval priorPP
to final plat approval,
mb
Enclosures:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Applicant's Letter of Request
i
I
t L
v
N
RIDGE
L.A.
EANON AVE
60
22
Gervois
Lake
wrw
Z
V
W
Y
J
qAV. AV.
9ELMOMt
B
4
W c
Z
T.
Z EN^
EL
s
PETITIONER Rodolfo Gonzalez
REQUEST Preliminary Plat
WNPI
Or—
M
1. Location Map
is VADNAIS HEIGHTS
a
Z k•:.
v •
o W
J
h
ROAD
J W
UZ
2W
W
Cr /
AC
J
U
n
I 1 i
W
t
f Ato C
Z
M
co ry MOOD G
J-4
d t....• . r /
n./
l.o'.< ii o-a I S. : /.ma Js.,c. a al! -+ .
ws •s NvF i< See-4;&J" f - Z1 -Z2
v
ti 1
O y
v
1 1
so Ste. po S • r g
V L J a J t to y
K
e
le
Ae
ID
w
v w R Z
3 l ,
Vc .lo+ Lr
i
2 V7
1 of Ai!iL /
1 r
PRELIMINARY PLAT
GONZALEZ ADDITION f 4.
N
r
R . Iaul, September ?, 1902
Ci tv of' 1.. a - ol -w o oc
vo1 1 lunl + .[JCV ` op 11 U .
Att.: Mr. R. Johnson
With reference to a proposed subdivision at
my property located at 2 626 Keller rkway- . , I wish to inform
you that we are nroceedin&r ahead and expect to have final
approval from the Ramsey County Surveyor's office in two
weeks..
Thanking you for our attention to thisgyyis
I remain,
Yours truly,
P.
Ile i
R.Gonzalez
2626 Keller rkway,
St. laui, I'An
lot
IM
jr .
t qr s
r'
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Application for Gambling License
Application is hereby made under Maplewood Municipal Code Chapter 822 which reads
in part:
SECTION 10• Chapter 822 of the Maplewood Code is hereby adopted governing licensing
and regulating of gambling as approved by the State Legislature and is
to read as follows:
11822.010. PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW ADOPT4D. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 349, and Laws of Minnesota, 1978, Chapter 507, relating to the definition
of terms, licensing and restrictions of gambling are adopted and made a part of this
Ordinance as if set out in full."
118229020. LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. No person shall directly or indirectly operate
a gambling device or conduct a raffle without a license to do so as provided in this
Ordinance."
118229030. PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR A LICENSE. A license shall be issued only to frater—
nal, religious, and veterans' organizations, or any corporation, trust, or association
organized for exclusively scientific, literary, charitable, educational or artistic
purposes, or any club which is organized and operated exclusively for pleasure or
recreation as distinct from profit making purposes. Such organization must have
been in existence for at least three (3) years in the City of Maplewood, and shall
have at least thirty (30)active - members."
for a gambling license.
1. Name of Organization: Mill Murray High School Mothers and Fathers Club
2. Address of Organization: 2625 East Larpenteur Avenue
3. Date of Application: September 13, 1982
4. Date of first meeting that has regularly continued to date in Maplewood:
Organized September, 1970-
5. List Officers of Organization:
TITLE NAME ADDRESS PHONE #
listattached)
Page 2
Application for Gambling License
6. Type of Permit
X Temporary Single Occasion.
comm-
Date November ?, 1982
Annual
X Paddle Wheel
X Raffle
w
Tipboard
7. Profits to be used for:
Assist the Mothers and Fathers Clubs in their efforts to further the
educational, extras curricular religious and athletic interests of the
students of Hill — Murray High School.
8. Gambling Manager
Name James M. Johnson
Address 1567 North Hinton Trail
Phone # ? --6687
Date of Birth 4—im45
Bond for Gambling Manager must be attached).
9. Premises upon which gambling will be conducted:
Address: 2625 E. Larpenteur Avenue
10. Total prizes to be offerred. (Explain).
1. 1982 Chevrolet Chevette
2. Quasar Color Television
3. na Micro —Wave Oven
11. Bank that will carry gambling account:
Name Maplewood State Bank
Address 2866 White Bear Avenue
Authorized Account
Signatures Mr. Wally Wessels and /or Mrs. Ruth McCarthy ( Parent Club Presidents)
12. Meeting date at which organization authorized this application
September 81 1982
I hereby certify that all statements herein are true and correct to the best of myknowledge, that this, application is in accordance with applicable ordinances and
statutes and that I am authorized to make application in behalf of this eligible
organization.
NAME
DATE
ignaLU e)
eL R
Subscribed and Sworn before me this
j day of , 19
CATHERINE F PICCOLO
Notary Publ NOTARY PUSL'C "-MINNEYCORAMsSyCOUNrMMaaioMsxesOCT. ZO, f !8
m
MIDWAY NATIONAL AGENCY, INC.
i 1578 University Ave. St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
September 10, 1982
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: St. Paul Priory, Sisters of the Orders of St. Benedict,
Archdiocese of St. Paul -- Minneapolis, Hill- Murray High
School, Policy #SP DO 22 01 79 3
Gentlemen:
The above named insureds, under the captioned School Package
Policy, carries a $10,000 Blanket Fidelity Coverage, Insuring
Agreement 1C on - all it's employees. The term of the present
policy is from 7/24/82 to 7/24/83. A copy of the applicable
endorsement is attached.
Very truly urs,
Carl A. Bennetsen
General Manager
cc: INA Insurance Company
Attn: Nancy Langhoff
3b
eon 198243
David Ttarstoo, Ch-air 2853 forth Second Street 482-9277 777-9192
North St. Paul, M 55109
D un Berniah, Vics- Chairman 1963 Birch Street 221- 4371 429-2592
White Bear Lke, MCI 55110
Philip MoC sy 1808 lC aard Street 933 -1715 5308
ste p,ul, tQ1 55109
Joseph 3tej alcal 2561 East Poplar Avenue 733 -6023 777-3453
North St. Paul, I4t 55109
Clyde lQoaaer 6288 - 43rd Street 6801
North St. Paul, NW 55109
Robert Sev ch 12 Oakhili -Court 733 -5652 426 -4696
White Bear Lake, lffN 55110
Sister Awe Moea, O.S.B.2675 Fast Larpenteur Ave.7?? -8181 7 -8181
St. Paul, NN 5-5109
Sister Marie lltJaa, 0.3.8.2600 East Zarpentevr Ave-*6 7?? -5462
Ste Paul. I+N 55109
Walter Wessels;2448 E. ampler Avemie 772 -2585 770 - 926
North St. Paul, 19N 55109
Ruth McCarthy 96 Hickory Street 426 -2487
Ir(aahtomedi, Md 55115
Yonne McCaaber. Recording Sec.3431 Daerald Drive 77? -1376 1800
White Bear Lake, MN 55210
Robert D. Burke Catholic Education Center 291 -450?
328 West Sixth Street
Ste Paul, MN 55102
Funk Jlseabrcnaer, Principal 2625 E. Iarpanteur Ave.1376
St. Paul I M 55109
James Boblik Aaaistaat Principal
Brother Ftancia Carr, Aasistwnt Priacigal &Athletic Director
Jeers Jebasoa' Aaaistant Principal &Director of Development &Student Affairs
Sister Pat Colliers, Aasistaat Principal & Director of Guidance
Kevin Macki.a, ftculty Senate
Catheria& Piocolo Huaiaeas Office
Student Cwncil Representativo 4/o Terry Brova
A E4dowI,
3
a
a
MEMORANDUM r
T Barr Evans iY C ty Manager
From: Robert D. Odegard, Director of Community Servi cesP
Subj : Appointment of Park and Recreation Commissioners .
Date: September 15, 19.82 N
Wi th the resi gnati on of Marvi n Mahre i n July of 1982 from the Park
and Recreation Commission, we proceeded with the usual method for
replacement of a member of the commission.
Four candidates replied to the notice of the vacancy and each one
was invited to the September 13th meeting for an interview. The
fol l.owi ng persons were interviewed by the Park and Recreation Com-
mi ssi on:
Janice L. Feist - 2725 E. Conway Avenue
Rita Jan i sc h - 2673 Upper Afton Road
Larry Morgan - 2434 Nemitz
Marvi n Si gmundi k - 1697 E . County Road C
The Park and Recreation Commission recommends to the Maplewoodewood Ci tP yCouncilthateffectiveSeptember27, 1932, Rita Janisch, 2673 UpperAftonRoad, be appointed to the Park and Recreation Commission for
the term expiring December 31, 19830
MEMORANDUM
To: Barry Evans, Ci ty Manager
From: Robert D. Odegard, Di rector
Subj : Jim' s Prai rie as Part of the
Date: September 15, 1982
ti
of Community ervi svll .y ce
Minnesota Natural Heritage Regi ster
Enclosed is a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding for inclusion of
portions of Jim's Prairie, City of Maplewood, on the Minnesota Natural
Heritage Register,
Mr. Keith Wendt, Plant Ecologist for the Natural Heritage Program, to-
gether with Maplewood naturalist staff, reviewed on site Jim's Prairie.
At the August 9, 1982, Park and Recreation Commission meeting, Mr.. .
Wendt presented a project evaluation (copy enclosed) of the site and
a discussion of the Natural Heritage Program which is under the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources for the State of Minnesota. Upon concl usi on
of lengthy discussion of the benefits to the City of b ng a part of
the Natural Heritage Program, the Park and Recreation Commission re-
quested that a Memorandum of Understanding be prepared by .Minnesota
Natural Heritage Register. The Memorandum (copy enclosed) was further
discussed at the September 13th meeting of the Park and Recreation Com-
mission.
It is the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation that the
City of Maplewood enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for in-
clusion of portions of Jim's Prairie, City of Maplewood, on the Minne-
sota Natural Heritage Register and that the memorandum be signed by
the proper authorities for the City.
It is the Commission's observation that the City of Maplewood is not
commi tted to any special requi rements , but yet gai ns the management
expertise of the staff on the Natural Heritage Program. In the early
discussion, the Commission felt strongly about opening this area to
the general pu -bl i c and this feeling is reflected - in the first para-
graph under Public Use on page 2 which indicates that the specific
location of J i m ' s P r a i r i e w i l l not be included in their published ma-
terials.
Enc. ( 2 )
iemorandum of Understanding
for inclusion of portions of
Jim's Prairie, City of Maplewood
on the
Minnesota Natural Heritage Register
Lands selected for the Minnesota Natural Heritage Register are
representative of Minnesota's original landscape, and contain
outstanding ecological features such as unique plant communities
rare plant and animal species, and significant geologic sites.
These lands are vital to the develooment and maintenance of a
statewide system of scientific and natural areas, which P rovideunequaledopportunitiesforscientificresearchandnatural
history education.
The intent of this memorandum is to promote voluntary cooperationbetween ?Maplewood and DNR's Natural Heritage Program for the
purpose of recognizing the statewide significance of the areaknoimasJim's Prairie and to insure its perpetuation throughgappropriatemanagementactions. Through this agreement the
City of Maplewood agrees to accord Jim's Prairie recognitiongtion
as a prairie of statewide significance and, to . the best of the
city's ability, to manage the site in a consistent manner.
To this effect the Natural Heritage Program will P rovide technical
assistance in developing more detailed management plans and in
implementing those management actions. The raHeritageProgramggwillalsoassistinfuturemonitoringofJim's Prairie to determine
any management problems and considerations.
Natural Feature of Interest
Jim's Prairie is a 3 acre remnant of the black -soil prairiethatwasoriginallydistributedthroughouteastcentralMinnesota
in a matrix pattern with oak savanna and deciduous forest.
Today only fragments of native prairie remain in this part of
the state and this plant community is considered threatened bytheNaturalHeritageProgram. Currently there are only 11
prairies remaining in east central 'Minnesota that are of natural
area quality totaling approximately 324 acres. While Jim's
Prairie is small, the prairie community appears intact with no
evidence of degradation due to grazing, plowing, or mowing,
The Natural Heritage Program considers Jim's Prairie a significant
natural area and recommends its preservation.
Management Guidelines
Both historically and currently, the occurrence of fire plays
an .important role in maintaining prairies. In the absence of
fire, woody plants increase in abundance and may eventually
convert
Y y
c t prairie to shrub forest land. Fire also serves to
recycle nutrients previously bound up in stems from previous
years that accumulate near the ground. The release of these
e 2
nutrients is noticeable by the increased rowth and '
plants full .
g vigor oftheprairiepowingfire. In view of the importanceoffiretotheprairiecommunityitisimportant
a fire managementeme Jim's
to attempt todesigngntplanforJimsPrairle . This plan needstoconsiderthefeasibilityofburningtherairieaswfrequencyandtiming
p well asthefreqyngappropriateforthearea.
Because of the small size of Jim's Prairie, it mighttoimplementementotherg be necessaryPcontroltechniquestolimitthespreadofwoodyvegetation, particularly aspen. Manuall cuttin 'and selectivel treating
Y g saplingsYgstumpswithanappropriateherbicidemaybeadvisableatsomepointintime.
In keeping with the natural area quality f Jim's Prairie, irie , theintroductionorremovalofplantoranimalspecieswillbeprohibitedwithoutcarefulreviewbcityofficialsYyandconsul-tation with the Heritage Program. Such actions can reduce thescientificvalueoftheprairiebartificiallyyextendingdistributionsofintroducedplantsorreducingormergplantpopulationstothepointwheretheyarenolongerviable.
Other management considerations include the designationg of abufferareaaroundJimPrairie. A buffer will minimizetheimpactsofadjacentlanduseupontheprairiePprieandalsowillallowfortheopportunityforlimitedexpansionoprairie .p f the
Public Use
The small size Of Jim's Prairie limits the amount and degreege ofpublicusethatcanbeaccommodatedwithoutharmfuleffectsonthevegetationorsoils. For this reason the HeritageProgramwillnotincludethes
g
specific location of Jim's Prairieinanyoftheirpublishedmaterials. Interested people willbeaskedtocontacttheappropriatemanagingagencywithintheCityfMaplewood.
g g Y
y
The agreement does not change the existing authority r -
trent re spon s ibi I i t of the
Y manage-
y e City o f Map 1 ewood with re toJim's Prairie. Cooperation between the City of Ma lei .*7ood andheNaturalHeritaggProgramtoprotectandenhanceJim'sPrairieisbasedonthemutualrecognitionofitsimportancepublicvalue.P ce and
for the City of Maplewood for the Natural Heritage Programogram
Barbara Coffin, Coordinator Date
Natural Heritage Program
Date
Roger Holmes, Act. Director Date
Div. of Fish and Wildlife
y
a
a
NATURAL HERITAGE PROC
PROJECT EVALUATION
J_k:t OF PROJECT: Jim's Prair COUNTY: Rantsevi
LANDSCAPE REGIO ;" : Sout:ern Oak Barrens DNR D AD , ^ - C DL. Sl
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: T29LN 822:11 S:1, N r SEA Sec 24
PRESENT STATUS: Recor.m. ended registered area Na n rg (Natural Her.taQ ,.., P ,- OL am)
APPROX . ACREAGE: 3 OWNERSHIP: City o f Maplp
ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT AREA
Jim' Prairie is a small but fine example of wet - 'mesc to .wetblack -soil prairie. In the presettlement landscape black-soilprairiesinE .
landscape, ack -soil
P central Minnesota occurred in patches In a matrix ofoaksavanna, and deciduous forest. Historically he frequencyy offiresplayedasignificantroleindetermininghevrevalengceanddistributionofplantcommunitytypeshere. Oak savanna andmaple- basswood ( "Big Woods ") were the dominant vegetation types,gMuchoftheblack-soil prairie was restricted to the deev soils onthenearlyleveloutwashplainsandterraces. Today, I a fewY• YfragmentsofnativeprairieremaininE. C, Minnesota. The NaturalualHeritageProgramconsiderstheE.C. black -soil rairie to be a threat-hre at -ened plant community in Minnesota. Remaining examples of theseprairiesaregivenhighpriorityforpreservation. Jim' Prairieisa3 -acre level tract of native prairie on silt loam soils
surrounded by irregularly sloping morainic hills. The rairie isborderedontheeastb
P
y an esker, portions of which are colonizedbyburoaks. Although Jim's Prairie is only acres it containY , s
over 150 species of native plants. The prairie coin -munit apearsintactandthereisnoevidence
p
nce of degradation due to plowing,grazing, or mowing. A native prairie plant of state -wide concern
cowbane ( Oxypolis rigidior) , is found here, and is the only knoim
occurrence for Ramsey County. Jim's Prairie is surrounded by
abandoned land, mostly old field, and is well buffered from adverse
impact* Future protection of this unique prairie will requiremaintaininganadequatebufferzone. The esker borderin g the
east side and portions of the old field to the south and west would
serve this purpose. The adjacent old field corim.unity containszns
occasional native grasses and forbs making the potential for
restoration possible. Maintenance of Jim' Prairie will also requireperiodicburningtocontroltheencroachingofshrubsandtrees;invasion of trembling aspen is noticeable on the west and southern
parts of the tract,
The Natural heritage Program considers Jinn's Prairie a sig
natural area and recommends its preservation, There is only one
other occurrence -of black -soil prairie known for Ramsey County,Y
Y where nearly all land is urbanized or under cultivation . In E . -
Central Minnesota, there are 11 known bl ack -soi 1 rairi es o f naturalp
area quality, totaling 324 acres. The proximity of Jim's prairie to
the Twin Cities makes this area ideal for educational uses, and adds
to its value for preservation. The Maplewood Nature Center currently
uses the prairie for natural history instruction .
2
Overall Ele-ment -.DL.ank
21afC-.-K Prairie (E.C. LLN) B3 = State threatened
lement Occurrence Rank
Jim's Prairie: B-Cr Natural areas w1hich due to sliaht man induceddisturbancesortheirsmallsizearenotcon's ide red"" outs tan dinnaturalareas (rank -.A)
are
However • trepresenthese areas st-ill maintain theirecoloin4Ceandativeoftheuresett--tlement"Y %w
landscape. These tracts are especiall valuable to local co:=,unities
as .education sites.
I
3
s
j
t!
1 • '
o
til ` . I '.', • •;
T .• . :• ' •i
i• • .f t..'. • .•• i ,. •
of
iiiiiiii !!I
Ir
on
TI 3
1f •, .• ••f I • . '•'•! • -. ••, Ii •, •a • ' d /•• -•. •• • J •l - : .':' ti•/.•'• • .fir: .• `• -
i y
is .i - '•• •. , .. • ' `'/•.. •.•. • •'•••'•' '• • r '' Z• - '• . • •
air . ••/ r •:• • _•. M' • .:••• r. '• :r ...i .• •``; I 1llf -• ' =, • .r..'. r •.i I•: • • •• _ • -)+.•.i • • •.•.•.•.••.. • ate• •••'' •••• .` -'•` •• •'
aft - • .f;• •i•• ••.: T. 7'"
3 AW
loovosoI
CJ . - Cr
fit • •• •- w r ~ • •. • - _ - r • '•i •, ••tI t./ \y1 1. J t •..r~• ,ti- .•k: ! ''•. \JI. i •t ••: '. • •• •. •I
Z
a ,
C7
ip -
r•• 1 \' r -` • 777fi ' , `` ",. A.! t ; .
t
HIV t ,:,`• /. •- .T Yti
Jlf 1 " .r ! •'
a ' ? i •ar./. •}`' • : •.•.• :.titir
JA
PRAIRIE
Nor
r., .. •• -- OAK AND OAK SAVANNA;
a•. •., .: - =t ASPEN PA R:-itr rl 0o1 .
1 ,All.t
rl J MAPLE
s' •
sssooD
lf. /,. ! :',..; _ •. _SPRUCE-FIR,nc uds•;
bog coniferswA
PINE
af •elf 1f ' •
f • '" i i _ _
off •/ /• ` '• " • T •. /. -+T' ELM -ASH -COTTONW00D
e
Af
J•- / J.tt,,• i.. x,11, • s11,. /I ,.t, :: •. ,.u. `:'' -
atf -df,1 .tir. f, • ..
rl111, •ll •. i, , ,
li
t
a!, X11, ,.111. .b . . ! . ..f .••
AI
Aj
t J, •.! 1 *I
M POISON
rn( Adap
r•
III. Presettleeht vegetation ty in ilinnesota. tech b y • yP } Patricia l from •
an unpublished map drawn by P. J. ila.rschn`r in 19.30 S0fortheUnitedStatc
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.
7
A e. k ofI / I
ylu""''JCC= ..- .'" +r +•'.w •- r . +r _+.. .. r .. •..
a+..rr.-- ...r..fm.r . -... «,•.w ......_..:..- . _. .. ,..... _ ..-- .. _,... _ - - •
1
l
Sm
kooz
it
z
demo
co
00, •
111 •....
4 . , i / _
r..
f \ •
tD
CD
X J
dIA
1 C
VON-
x t7
tp // x / ' X t .
VI x CD
0Iro
4 ,/-- , Ckcool
7
x
O Q /
rn '
MEMORANDUM
TO:City Manager
FROM:Associate-Planner--Randall Johnson
SUBJECT:Special Use Permit -- Revision
APPLICANT:Stephen Taylor (Contract Purchaser)
OWNERS:Robert Berglund and Perry Shortri dge
PROJECT:Beaver Lake Estates -- Mobile Home Park
DATE:August 27, 1982
Request
F.., /
Revise the special use permit for the Beaver Lake Estates mobile home park
to increase the number of home sites from 250 to 254.
Proposal
1. See the applicant's letter of request.
2. Map two shows the location of the proposed home sites within the mobile
home park.
3. Map three shows the size of each proposed site.
CONCLUSION
Analysis
This request is consistent with Land Use Plan density requirements and HousingPlanpoliciestoencouragehousingopportunitiesforlowtomoderateincome
persons.
As long as the park population remains less than 541 persons, the present on-
site storm shelter facility is adequate. The basement of the office buildinghasastormsheltercapacityof433personsorninetypercentofthepark's
proposed population of 483 persons The Director of Emergency Preparedness
recommends that a shelter(s) with a capacity for 80 percent of a park's popula-tion is adequate to meet the intent of state law.
Further, a study recently completed by the City of Blaine found that fifteen
to twenty percent of park residents are not at home during the hours of 5 to
7 p.m., the hours of peak storm frequency.
Recommendation
Revise the Beaver Lake Estates special use permit to allow the number of home
sites to increase from 250 to 254, subject to the following Conditions:
1. The Beaver Lake Estates special use permit shall be subject to City Councilreviewinfiveyears.
y ounci
2. Access to the home site in proposedPosed Addition II (Mai three) shall be from
Antelope Way, a private drive within the mobile home park,
3. The total population of the mobile home park shall not exceed 541 ep rsons,unless additional shelter capacity is provided.
4. The 1300 square foot basement of the office building shall be used as a
storm shelter and posted as such.
2-
6-6-68: Council approved a special use permit for this m •to Council approval
P mobile e home park, subject ectppalofthefinalsiteplans.
7- 31 -69: Council approved the final site l ans for 'P he entire mobile home parkandauthorizedtheissuanceofbuildingpermitsforPhaseIconsistinghomesites, subject to:o f 133
1. Forty feet of right -of -way shall be dedicated along 'entire property;ng the south side of the
2. The area designated as McKnight Road realignment and9 Maryl ake Road shal 1 beexcludedfromtheoverallplanapprovalandPhaseIconstruction. Further aquitclaimdeedtotheseareasdescribedshallbesubmittedtotheVillage.
3. Construction of the Phase I shallall commence prior to July 10, 1970;
4. All sign location and design shall be subject to .staff approval;
5. A landscaping plan, including execution shall be
staff
submitted and approved byVillageaffpriortooccupancyofanymobilehomespace;
6. Approval of mobile home storagei age s permitted on the area designated asMcKnightghtRoadrealignment. Such approval of storage shall:-- 1=9 _ be approved foratimenottoexceedNovember1, 1969;
7. All drainage and utility service lans must be approvedpproved by Village staff;
8. The conditions checked in red on attached staff re •
imposed conditions port shall also be Conc 1imPitionsnapprovaloftheoverallplanandPhaseIconsturction.No such report is in the file.
3-
BACKGROUND
Site Description
Size: 40 acres -
Existing Land Use: Mobile home ark with 'p 250 home sites ancl an officebuildingwitha1300squarefootbasementstormshelter.
Surrounding Land Uses
North:Undeveloped land, lanned and zoned _P ed for_ Business _Warehouse use
Northwest:Bulk storage facility9y
East:Undeveloped 1 and , planned for open space 'p p and medium density res i den-tial This isarea part of the Maple Greens 1 anned unitPnit development .
South :Maryland Avenue. Across Maryland Avenue, , undeveloped land, plannedforresidentialmediumdensityuse. The Beaver Lake Hills develop- evel op-ment has been approved for this site.
West:Undeveloped 1land, , pl anned for medium density residential use and therealignmentofMcKnightRoad.
Past Actio
6-6-68: Council approved a special use permit for this m •to Council approval
P mobilee home park, subjectectppalofthefinalsiteplans.
7- 31 -69: Council approved the final site l ans for 'P he entire mobile home parkandauthorizedtheissuanceofbuildingpermitsforPhaseIconsistinghomesites, subject to:o f 133
1. Forty feet of right -of -way shall be dedicated along 'entire property;ng the south side of the
2. The area designated as McKnight Road realignment and9 Maryl ake Road shal 1 beexcludedfromtheoverallplanapprovalandPhaseIconstruction. Further aquitclaimdeedtotheseareasdescribedshallbesubmittedtotheVillage.
3. Construction of the Phase I shallall commence prior to July 10, 1970;
4. All sign location and design shall be subject to .staff approval;
5. A landscaping plan, including execution shall be
staff
submitted and approved byVillageaffpriortooccupancyofanymobilehomespace;
6. Approval of mobile home storageiage s permitted on the area designated asMcKnightghtRoadrealignment. Such approval of storage shall:-- 1=9 _ be approved foratimenottoexceedNovember1, 1969;
7. All drainage and utility service lans must be approvedpproved by Village staff;
8. The conditions checked in red on attached staff re •
imposed conditions port shall also be Conc 1imPitionsnapprovaloftheoverallplanandPhaseIconsturction.No such report is in the file.
3-
6 -4 -70 : Council denied a new and used mobile •1 e home sales licensecensa for this siteonthebasisthat "this is a residential area." The rthisactionandtook . the issue p operty owners contestedto .
s i on .
court. A court date for October 5 1970Thereisnorecordofadeci wasset,
4-21 -71: Council approvedpp Phase II of the development, consi=sti nsites , subject to all applicable conditio for Phase I _
9 of 122 home
I.
DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
1. Land Use Plan Designation : Rm - R •es dente a1 Medium Density
2. Permitted Density: 22 persons/netpsons /net acre
3• Proposed Density: 15.9 persons /net acre or 635 persons
4. Zoning: Farm Residential
S. Compliance with Land Use Laws:
a. Ordinance:
1. Section 911.010(7) states that a special use permit may be requiredformobilehomeparks.
2. Section 911.050 states that: "1) The City Council, in granting aspecialusepermit, may attach to the permit such conditions andguaranteesasmaybenecessarytotheprotectionofthepublic,the rights of others and the City. 2) All special use permitswhichdonothaveaspecificterminationdateorprovisionfor aperiodicreview, shall be reviewed within one (1) year of the dateofpassageandpublicationofthisOrdinanceandeveryfive (5)years thereafter.
The Council may, upon such review, determineshallbmei
ne that new conditionsonsposedandthat, if reasonable under the circumstances,a termination date for said special useP permit may be establishedandfurtherthatwheretheuseshouldnotinvolvetheconofanyspecialbuildingr
struction
g structure of a monetary value in excessofFivethousandandno /100 ($5,000-00) Doll • . Dollars, that the specialusepermitmaybeterminated,"
b. Statutory:
Section 3276 of State Statute was amended in •arks to provide
1982 to require mobilee homePpodefortheshelterofsafeevacuationof-parkin,ti mes of severe weather. P k res dents
6. Housing:
Page C- 32 - -Map1 ewood' s oal for 1980-
I
housing
g 1983 s to provide 73 new or 95 existingngopportun01tiesforlowtomoderateincomepersons.P ns . The proposed fourmobilehomesiteswouldbethefirstnewconstructiontocounttowardthisgoal
4-
Public Works
1. Sewer and water are available.
2. A deed has been drafted and submitted to the property owner for siPY gnaturetoobtainaroadwayeasementoverthenorthwestcornerofthesiteforthefutureMarylakeRoad.
Public Safety -- Emergency Preparedness
16 No local state or federal specifications appear to exist for storm sheltercapacityformobilehomeparks.
2. The Director of Emergency Preparedness suggests that on-99 site sheltershouldbeprovidedanddesignedtohandleeightypercentofaark' splannedpopulation. This suggestion
P
gg sti on i s based upon a City of studyofmobilehomeparkresidentsthatfoundfifteentotwentypercentof
generally
Y p theresidents9yarenotathomeduringthepeakstormeventhoursof5to7p.m.
3. The Emergency Preparedness Director also suggests three square feet99qet per personasadesignstandardforshorttermsevereweathershelters. The City ofBlaineusesfoursquarefeetbut
y
q a mix of adults and children is notassumed. (Three square feet equates to a square with 21 inches on a side,which is adequate room for sitting and standing.)
4. At three square feet per person, the existin office building basement9gcapacityis433personsorninetypercentoftheparkoulation . Themaximumarkpopulationati
P P
P p p on could be 541 persons without providing additional
storm shelter area. The present population is 474 persons. The highestpopulationsince1977was517persons,
9
p ons , since then a larger adults -onlyareawasestablished.
5. The City of Blaine is involved in a pilot project for the construction ofstormshelterswithCommunityDevelopmentBlockGrantmonies. A shelterfor126personscostsabout $17,000.
Other Agencies
Ramsey County Highway Department
1. The realignment of McKnight Road will cross the southwest corner of this
site, as illustrated on Map two. A deed for a roadway easement over this
property has been prepared and given to the applicant for signature.
2. An eight foot wide bike path is included within the ro osed right-of-way.P P 9 ay.
iw
Enclosure
I. Location Map
2. Site Plan -- Entire Site
3. Site Plan--Proposed Additions
4. Applicant -s Letter of Request
5-
L E, T j AVE
t
0 0
U
i
L ARPE WTE V R AVE r Z
0 _
IDAHO AVE.
W -_W =
O t ;
W Q Q
cr
v
IZ
V
o RY.
r u AD,
U
r- Li
QIVYAf40
Q Trader Court ,o
68 (Privote)
E MARYLAND
J 212
AV
I20
69)
41
e
w.
Q BtOY« MA QUO LIA AVE.
p ' -
All
CA 69 z Z R V S TER
C AVE.
t '' } - .
k 212 W % L LA-32 o E BRA AVE.
K 2 T.
TTM Av E Z 'E. 7 T t
Ir
v RUSH Z . F. T29N . .
AVE. k 1t22W 2530
R2rw
W 36
W t t •
a 1 MAMA AVE. 2 70>v
34 •
34
I Map :1
LOCATION MAP Q
N
r
I -
ed
LEA N
fun
as
Jzas
Jai
7
ZZZ!
g r" 1
M23
I
I
WW ITS >
12. ~ _ Jz
tlf l
1
c O
0 , - • - W I
t P
a W -2 — 1
No
H 1 N. Ra 1291b
A \
ILQ
I
ID
S N d N "• _ 12.0 277 I
7
1
rz
S {
a M i { _ ..
lzTt
Iz{ 0
1 Gs
1 r '1
12Ld 12.L4 t
Q Addition I
12 sc J Iz st [Y I
r
rzso
LZG• ` J
t24s -
I ,*S IZi2
M40 IZ
J
1
me Its Izac _
lJ RSa 121:
G
1 IS , lzat , '
1
N ~ res,
r 1'o 112 1 Z") tZZ7
1 1. ;
12c ttia W
ts29 I
O RZO 112
Y + 1 li 12141
site MIS
d i t ion I I tat. t :,s
190
3 'J
D •1
000' }
3
j_
V 12iZ JIM
J'tl _ • Moo
I:os rt!{
twos • wurrr.w 1
MARV -X D AVENVC
rQawoas:o)
Proposed Lot Splitpl t
i
i
Map 2
BEAVER LAKE ESTATES
MAPLEWOOO, MINNESOT^
Proposed Additions
N N
T
x 2 5
159• 70
4-
al z
o
50 - 5
Oc
A DD*1 10N a
9 / r r
2
Map 3
SITE PLC' N r
5D
Additions I & II .
e
t
t
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
a v e r Lakes Estates2425E. Maryland Ave. •St. Paul,Minnesota 55119 t Area Code 612.777.1341
June 22, 1982
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development •Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota - ,55109
Dear Mr. Olson:
Beaver Lake Estates mobile home225MarylandAvenue community located atispresentlyoperating •use permit with 250 home siteso
on a special
We are requesting permission - to increase the number ofhomesitesbyfour (4) . Add i ti othree n one consisting of3) lots is in open site cen tralarea. to our adult onlyThesiteattractschildrenawayPlayarea. from their planned
Addition two, consisting of one 1
our Office
one ( 1 ) lot is adjacent t.oceandlaundrybuildingandwillbeusedResidentManager's home*
ed for the
Enclosed are the twelve set oflaposalperourrequest.
P ns describing our pro -y
Respectfully submitted,
BEAVER LAKE ESTATES
Stephen Mo Taylor, S,?5- - Zq- 2:5
Managing Partner
SMT lkr
Enclosure iT
b
S. M.TAYLOR COMPANY
312 SONS OF NORWAY WILDING • 1455 WEST LAKE STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS408 • PHONE (612) 825 -2425
0
September 1, 1982
Aft
Mr. Larry Cude
Director of Emergency Preparedness
City f Ma
P
Y Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Dear Mr. Cude :
This letter is to confirm that the basement of the exist-ing laundry- office building will be made availablevailable toBeaverLakeEstatesresidentsintimesofsevereweatherconditionsincompliancewithrecentlyss
the operation •
Y P ed state statuesregulatingPionofmobilehomeparks.
The residents shall be cons icuousl •P y notified of the plan.
The area will be used for no other specific uPpurposese otherthantoaccomodateexistingpermanentimprovements*
I understand that this lan meetstPs with your approval.
Respectfully - submitted.
l
Stephen M. Taylor
Beaver Lake Estates
Partner
SMT /Ikr
cc. Gary Pearson -
1
T
SEP
F-2
MEMORANDUM
y
t _
of y j ` t 6l •...
L .: .i- V / lam.: `•' LA.v.d
TO: City Manager -.
FROM: Director of Community Development P
SUBJECT: Rezoning
LOCATION: Carlton Street`
APPLI CANT: City of Maplewood.
OWNERS: Dorothy Arbore (2534 Mi nnehaha )
Thomas Honsa (2546 Minnehaha)
Otto and Jacqueline Bonestroo (Tax Parcel #040 -01)
DATE: August 12, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
4 _ quest
The City is proposing to rezone this site from M -1, light manufacturing to R -3,
Multiple Dwellings.
Proposed Use
No specific development i.s proposed for this site.
CONCLUSION
Analysi s
This rezoning i s part of the downzoni ng program initiated by the City Council on
June 28. The purpose is to bring the zoning of properties into conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed resolution rezoning the ' si to from M -1 to R -3.
BACKGROUND
Site Description
Acreage: 5.2 acres
Existing land use: Undeveloped
Surrounding- Land Uses
Northerly: Single dwellings
Easterly: Carlton Street and the Carlton Racquetball Club
Southerly and Westerly: 3 -M ComDany
DEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
Land Use Plan designation: RH, residential hi h densityenslty _
Zoning: - M -1
ADMINISTRATIVE
Procedure
1. Planning Commission recommendation
2. City Council - -1st reading
3. City Council - -2nd reading and adoption
ei
Enclosures:
1. Location Ma'p
2. Property Line Map.
3. Beaver Lake Land Use Plan
2 -
I®
s
J `
fib 69 a
CASE asr w I.- Z i HARVESTER -
T-
o AVE.to > O Jt32 = w
212 W D
C E1. LA. BRAND AVE.:::
32 10 -
8T.0
E . 7 T H AV9. -TTH a E z' `
T29N
Y w BUSH r 2530
AVE. 2W , 3
R21MYop
W a Q S O)Z1Z 1 HAHA AV /`
34 YRTE. 7MAVE
fr E s TN v E
J
O
FRE NT AV
M o
Z
CONWAY r . mlll A SERVICE RD,
cr
r
o
Y
Q
0
35
Tonne
Lake'
1
X16
LOCATION MAP 4
N
r
r
t j
r 1
IL R1
Lo
1 S
R
mi mi
CARLTON RACQUETBALL CLUB — —
F1
N f ! • 1 lee
I ! • •
r •
w• 1 F+
1 • EUROPEAN HEA SPA -1
r 13MCOMPANY ; - — — -- — — —
ml
r — - -— - -.— — — — —
R I
M 1 r D1 •, , rt - - -- • - -- - - -- -_
i - - - -- - - -- jEl !
ElISACOMM - - ---
4r - - - -- - --
SAT E LITE CENTER
I L_j i
SERVICE STATION - - — -- — — — -Q _ ---
IS • .r
r
NORTHWESTERN APARTMENTS- , j I
BELL CUp
14
1
PROPERTY Llt MAP
I rl
Ot
R I
sc
r
r
rJ
W
cc
Y
cc
O
m
SC
R m
fees
a..
v
O
w
E
O
sc
r — U IK -
art fit ____
r •+
interchange •
Beaver Lake
ma to wood NEIGHGORHOOD LACED USE PLAN
19 -21
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE
WHEREAS, a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City of MaplewoodforzonechangefromM -1 to R -3 for the following described property:y
The west 830 feet of the south half of the northwest quarter of the
northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 29, Range 22, lying west of
the centerline of Carlton Street.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning procedure i s as follows:g p
1. That a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City of Maplewood
pursuant to Chapter 915 of the Maplewood Code;
2. That said rezoning procedure was referred to and reviewed by the
Maplewood City Planning Commission on the 16th day of August, 1982,
at which time said Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
that said rezone procedure be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the
rezoning procedure, notice thereof having been published and mailed
pursuant to law; and
4. That all persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to
be heard and /or . present written statements, and the Council considered -
reports and recommendations of the City Staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD,RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA that the above - described rezoning be granted on the
basis of the following finding of fact:
The rezoning would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan,
Adopted this
Mayor
Manager
ATTEST:
day of
City Clerk
D. Rezoning: Carlton Street (west side)
Secretary Olson said the proposed zoning is a portion of the down zoning
program initiated by the City Council. The proposal is to zone from M -1
to R -3.
Chairman Prew asked if there was anyone present who wished to ' comment
on the proposed zone change.
Joe Li ndbeck, 2550 East Mi nnehaha Avenue, said he is concerned that
with the change in zoning, someone will fill in the swamp and try and
construct on it. He would like to see the property stay as it is,
Dorothy Arbore, 2534 Mi nnehaha, said she wishes to have the neighbor-
hood remain it is. She agrees with down zoning, however, would prefer
single family homes.
Tom Honsa, 2546 Mi nnehaha Avenue, the owners of the property under
consideration wish to have the property remain open as it is,
Secretary Olson said Mr. Bonestroo who is property owner along Carlton
did call and indicate he was interested in residential development or
possibly developing part of the property for parking lot to handle the
overflow parking for the racquetball court.
The Commi ssi on discussed with Secretary Olson the best zoning desi gati on
for the property to control its development and maintain as much of the
wetlands as possible. The Commission also commented on the types of uses
that are permitted under the M -1 zoning classification.
Commissioner Ki shel moved the Pl anni ng Commission recommend to the
Ci.t Co --.aprproval of theres_.Ql u on rezon1.D9 the si te_f rom-M -1.
Li ht Manuf acturi n to R -3, Residence District (Multiple)
Commissioner Whitcomb seconded Ayes- - Commissioners Barrett, - Fi scher,
Hejny, Howard, Ki shel , Prew, S1 etten, Whitcomb
rr.
MEMORANDUM Actic.L.L
0. City Manager
FROM Director of Community r -
SUBJECT: Rezoning
LOCATION: 500 -600 Carlton Street
APPLICANT: City of Maplewood
OWNERS: Otto Bonestroo, Edward Bi ful k, Northwestern Bell TelephoneDATE: August 12, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
Request
The City is proposing to rezone this site from M-1, light uhtmanufact ri ng toBC (M), Business Commercial Modified.
Proposed Use
No specific development is proposed for this land.
CONCLUSION
Analysis
This rezoning i s part of the City -wide downzoni n program initiated ' ty9op .g by the ciCouncilonJune28. The purpose is to bring the zoning of propertieswiththeComprehensive9 into conformancepensivePian.
The BC (M) zone is designed as a buffer to residential areas and is now used onthesouthsideofBeamAvenue. The BC (M) zone is recommended since it allowsrecreationaluses, such as the spa and racquetball club, while prohibiting car lotsanddrive -in restaurants that are allowed in the BC zone. Office uses, such asNorthwesternBellarealsoallowed. Council, however, has placed a moratorium onrestaurantandrecreationalusesinaBC (M)zone. If Council eventually prohibitsrecreationalusesinaBC (M) zone, the spa and racquetball club would be non-conforming uses if rezoned to BC (M).
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed resolution rezoning the site to BC (M).
IV
BACKGROUND
Site Description
Acreage: 9.7 acres -
F sti ng land uses: Carltonton Racquetball Club 60 0 Carlton StreeSpa0586CarltonStreet), t) European Healthreet) , and Northwestern500CarltonStreet). Bell Telephone
Surroundi n Land U s es
Northerly and Easter • -l.Y• Single dwellln s9
Southerly: Conway Avenuevenue and 3 -M Company
Westerly: Carlton Street
DEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
P1 annin g
Land Use Plan designation . LSC s limited service commerciala1
The l commercial center classification refers toocommercialfacilitiesonaneighborhoodscale . Heavy,industrial uses, department stores motaccessorystoreset el s, auto
land
etc. would be prohibited, whileusesofamediumintensity other
nature would be permittedsubjecttomeetingcertainperformancestandards.Zoning: M -1 and BC.
ADMINISTRATI
Procedure
1. Planning Commission recommendation-
2 • City Counci 1 -- •1st reading
3 • City Council--2nd •nd reading and adoption
Enclosures
1. Resolution
2. kocati Map3• Property Line Map4. Beaver Lake Land Use Plan5• BC (M) Zoning' Uses Ale
2 -
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE
WHEREAS, a rezoning rocedure has been initiated bMapforp the 'p a 20ne change from M -1 and
y City Council of
property: BC to BC (M) for the fo11 owi -ng described
That part of t west half of the northeast uar •q ter of Sect 36,Townshi 29, Range 22 that is east of the centerline of Carl towestofthewestlineofblocks nStreetand
one and two, Mi Acres.
Such above property being al600CarltonStrg so known and numbered as Numberseet, fapl ewood, Ramsey Count . ' e s 500 586 andy, Minnesota;
IJHEREAS, the procedural history -follows: °ry of the s rezoning procedure is as
1. That a rezoning procedu •9 p ure has been ni t ated b the '
P Code;
to Chapter 915 of the Maplewood y City Council pursuant
2. That said rezoning procedureMaplewoodCityP1ann
g p r , ure was referred to and reviewp ng Comri ssi ed by the
at whi time said
n on the 16th day of August, 1982dPlanningCommissionrecom 'that said rezone Procedu mended to the City Councilpurebeapproved;
3. That the Maplewood City 'y Council held a public hearing •rezoning procedure, notice thereof • to consder the
pursuant to having been published and mailed1aw; and
present hearing werehearptatsaidheari given an •
4. That all persons
d and /or present written statements, . opportune ty to beatementsandtheCouncilconsideredrecommendationsoftheCitySt
reports and r
y Staff and Planning Commi
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDRAMSEYCOUNTY BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITYTY, MINNESOTA that the above - OF MAPLEWQOD,
findings described rezoning be ranted •g ndi ngs of fact:9 on the basisofthefollowing
1. The proposed rezoning •g would be consi with the Comprehensivemprehensive P1 an.
2. The present zone is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted this da ofy 198
Mayor
ATTEST:
Manager
City C erk
70)
TOO
Loi
16)
L
r
LO CATION MAP
R
4
7
kit
6 k r . •
WaGAIL-
Ea
mi
ovo
R _ ----
miI
v CARLTON RACQUETBALL CLUB
n
Q.
i
EUROPEAN HEALTHHEALTH SPA - - - - --- a `='
3M COMPANY j _- - -_ - --2 3 ,
Rtla C
mi
mii
AE5/ ---
ISACOMM SATELITE CENTER ? 1
LJ
i El YN
SERVICE STATION. - --
ORTHWESTERN .
APARTMENTS _
1 -_._. _ 1 - fie. p 1 t : • _ •... . _ _ - - --- - - —
y - - C r,--— AY
PROPERTY LINE MAP f
N
0
Y
CR
r
Rl
f o
S C L!r
1
c
u
0
Y
cc
t
O
m
sc
RM
w
w
0
w
E
O
sc
UR
r
interchange •IL
interchange=
L
11
Beaver Lake
ma le wood NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PL •
19 -21
r °
a
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CIIAPTER 907 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLI S1II,NG A BUSINESS AND
COMMEl"C =AL (MODIFIED) BC ( M) Col-"ME RCIA
DISTRI
4
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLfWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 907.050 is added to the Maplewood Municipal Code ChaptertPp .er 907.
9.07.050. BC (11) COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. In a BC (M) Commercial District thefollowingregulationsshall _apply:
10 USE REGULATIONS. A building may be erected or used and a lot may beusedoroccupied, for any of the following purposes, and no other:
a) Retail Store; professional and administrative offices • bank. or
savings and loan; personal service, craftsmen' s shop, mortuar •
b) Hotel, motel;
1(c) Theater, walk in;
Y •
d) Job printing shop;
e) Bakery or candy shop producing oods for on- regp wise retail sale;
f) Any use of the same ' character ag s any of the above
permitted use; as determined by . the Cite Council P rovided
that no use which is noxious or hazardous shall be permitted.
2. The following uses when authorized by the lawful overnin body bggy y
means of a . special use permit:
a) All uses permitted in R -3 Residence Districts, except the con- -
structi.on of dwelling houses permitted in 904, R -1 and 905 , R -;
b) Laundromat or similar automatic self-service laundry;
c) Restaurant;
d) Place of amusement, recreation or assemblyy other than a theater.
3. Prohibited uses:
a) Drive -in theaters, drive -in restaurants;
b) Commercial or fee parkin lots where such useg is the only use of
a given parcel or where such use provides for general rather than
specific use parking,
AW
IN
a
E. Rezoning: 500 - -600 Carlton Street (east side)
Secretary Olson said this is a proposed rezone from M -1 to BC (M).
Chairmanrman P rew asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment
on the proposed zone change.
Cc,zmi ss i oner Sl etten moved the P l ann i pg Commission recommend t
the City Cou 1 ap of the resolution rezoni ng site t
BC -M.), B Commerci al___ I odifie
Commissioner Barrett seconded Ayes -- Commissioners Barrett, Fischer,
He j ny, Howard, Ki s hei , P rew, S1 etten, Whitcomb
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Associate Planner--Johnson
SUBJECT: Street Vacation
LOCATION: Edgehi 11 Road, West of Whi Bear Avenue
APPLI CANT: Dr. Charles Rawlings
DATE :. August 17, 1982
Fall
V
Pk
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
Vacate Edgehi l l Road, lying west of White Bear Avenue. The applicant's office
building is presently constructed on a portion of this right -of -way, causing
title problems (map three) .
CONCLUSION
Anal ys i s
There is no public need to retain this right -of - way.
Recommendation
Approval of the attached resolution, vacating Edgehi l l Road, lying west of White
Bear' Avenue, subject to retention of the east 27 feet for the future expansion
of White Bear Avenue, on the basis that improvement of the right -of -way would
serve no Dubl purpose.
BACKGROUND
Description of the .right -of -way
1. An unimproved thirty -foot wide by 160 -foot long street right-of-way. The
north thirty feet of the right -of -way was vacated by a di stri ct court action
in 1909.
2.: The applicant's office building encroaches nearly to the southern boundary of
the right -of -way (map three).
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Office building
East: White Bear Avenue, across White Bear Avenue, an unimproved thirty -foot
wide portion of Edgehi l l Road and commercial businesses.
South: Property owned by the applicant which is crossed by County Ditch 18.
West: Outlot A (map three) of the proposed Maple Ridge Mall plat, to be dedicated
to Ramsey County for County Ditch 18 and undeveloped land _planned, for open
space.
Past Actions
7 -5 -73: Council conditionally approved building and site plans for Mr. Gerry Mogren
to construct the office building which presently encroaches upon the subject right-
of way. The property survey and City property l i n e maps failed to show the
existence of this right -of -way.
DEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
1. Land Use Plan Designation: SC- Service Commercial
2. Zoning: BC - Business Commercial
3. Compliance with Land Use Laws: Section 412,'851 of Stale Statutes allows a City
to vacate any interest in property, when' the Council makes a finding "that it
appears to be in the public interest to do so."
Public Works /County Highway Department
The easterly 27 feet of Edgehi l l Road should be retained for the planned future
expansion of White Bear Avenue to a 120 -foot wide right -of -way. White Bear Avenue
presently has a 66 -foot right -of -way.
mb
0.
Enclosures:
I. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Petition
4. Resolution
2 -
LLJ
IEAM
Lake-ky
ir
4p
LOC*ATfON MAP'
r ---- l[ ---
AV E. ,_____/___/
6AD
c
COPE AVE.
U -lF
PARTLE
OPE AVE.
IL L ARK LARK I[AVE.
ILELAND] 25 Q 5 T 2SA
JUNCTION - ji 64 25
or rAVI
DRIDG AVE.jcp C,
PUBLIC WDRKS
VE. KILLWA K AVE. MAR RIS .... 4Soo
J
tVE
ccc
6J511 th AVE.
r--
ro
Ir
e
i
of
OAK
l
smomm sew
17 - -
393.
133 -
rQ-
cj
I
J r. A
CD
M 0
cc }
PROPERTY LINE MAP 4
N
w
i
a
OD
30
V
b
Z
D
r
D
Z
C '
CJ
C
co `
J'
Co y
rn
i
D
m
m
I
30
MAP 3
SITE PLAN
Unimproved Edgehi l l Road Drainage Easement to bed dedicatededca ted
right - - way
L• i
1
Office Building 1ding
563.04
OUT LOT A (To be dedicated to Ramsey
County Open Space
County Ditch 18 ,
485.70
WESTERLY EXTENSION OF S. LINE OF N. 20.00 FEET
OF BLOCK 6,MAPLEWOOD ADD. TO NORTH ST. PAUL
r
4, I '
PROPOSED MAPLE R I D G E r - ° - {
M A L L 22 is
i J. ±-
rn I
rnz
tit
rn
0
O
0. M y
T
m 0
Q)
149-
r
n 7
i
rn
L)i
N11
n
F
n .
p
In
Z rn
0
n
O 1 f
I Z.Z r
A A N fw
MAP 3
SITE PLAN
Unimproved Edgehi l l Road Drainage Easement to bed dedicatededcated
right - - way
PUBLIC VACATION PETITION
We, the undersigned, being a majority of the owners of land abutting on the (street) ,
all or (public easement) described as : That art of Ed ehi l 1 Road lying S
1
p g y g outherl
of the NW of the NE- of the NW4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 ,
lying Westerly of the Westerly right —of —way line of White Bear Avenue
and Northerly of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block b, Maplewood Addition.
do hereby petition the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, to vacate the above described arei
Yr
qe6v4,10,
Name
Please print or type) Abstractor's List No.
ecxcl%kv-s
PA:=
t
e
tie
T
rn c K A)
1%
Signature
ra RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMS EY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING VACATION
OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Dr. Charles Rawlings has initiated these proceedings to vacate
the public interest in the following-described real property:
Except the east 27 feet, that part of Edgehi l 1 Road, lying westerly
of White Bear Avenue in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 11,
Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the vacation application is as follows:
I. That an application for vacation was initiated by Dr. Charles Rawlings on
20th day of July, 1 982;
2. That a majority of the owners of property abutting said street
have signed a petition for the above- described vacation;
3. That said vacation has been referred to and reviewed by the Maplewood Planning
Commission on the 20th day of September, 1982 and referred back to the
Maplewood City Council with the recommendation of approval;
4. That pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851 a
public hearing was held nor -the day of 519 preceded
by two -weeks published and posted notice at which meeting the City Council
heard all who expressed a desire to be heard on the natter, considered the
Planning Commission recommendation and Staff reports.
WHEREAS, upon vacation of the above-described street public interest in the
property will accrue to the following-described abutting properties:
Lots 13 -16, Block 6, Maplewood Addition
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maplewood City Council finds that it
is in the public interest to grant the above-described vacation because improvement
of the right -of -way would serve no public purpose.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk be and hereby is directed to prepare
a notice of completion of the proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 412.851 and shall cause the same to be presented to the County
Auditor for entry in his transfer records and that the same shall be thereafter
filed with the Ramsey County Recorder, subject to the retention of:
The east 27 feet of right -of -way for the future expansion of White Bear Avenue.
ADOPTED THIS day of 19
ATTEST:Mayor
Manager
City Clerk
i
i
1
r" n
MEMORANDUM
TO : City Manager
1 cS r
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand Associate Planner TM - -- --
SUBJECT: Special Exception and Parking Variance
LOCATION: Larpenteur Avenue, West of Parkway Drive--
APPLICANT/OWNER: WoodMark, Inc. .
PROJECT: Bennington Woods
j - DATE: September 13, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
Req
Approval of a special exception to construct 56 condominium units. The
applicant also is requesting approval of a variance for 9 by 18 -foot parking
sp Code requires 10 by 20 -foot spaces.
Proposal
1. Refer to the enclosed site plan and letter dated August 16, 1982 Please
note, however, that the applicant has applied for a - special exception and
not the planned unit development as mentioned in the letter.
2. Fourteen one- bedroom uni and 42 two - bedroom units are proposed.
CONCLUSION
Issues
Staff does not find any hardship which is unique to this property. The
question to be asked, therefore, is whether ten -foot by twenty -foot stalls
are needed, _especial with the number of small cars increasing. Refer to
the enclosed parking stall survey of metropolitan communities closest to
Maplewood in population. The majori of those cities surveyed require a
width of at least nine feet and a minimum depth of twenty feet.
Alternatives:
I . Approve nine by twenty -foot stalls for the proj
As indicated on the survey, nine-foot wide spaces are most often required
by other cities. This stall width is a1 so most often requested by devel-
opers when preparing their site plans.
H. . Deny the, variance and require ten by twenty -foot stalls
This alternative would result in a slight loss of lawn arect,• but would not
hamper the site plan.
Recommendation
I . Approval of a special exception for the Bennington Woods Condominiums
on the basis that the proposal 'is consistent with the Comprehensive Lard
Use Plan.
I I . Approval of a parking stall width variance of one foot to P ermi t the
parking spaces to measure nine feet wide. Approval is on the basis that:
1. The majority of metropolitan communities closest to Maplewood 'p ood in
population require nine-foot wide stalls.
2. Nine -foot wide stalls would increase landscaping area on the site.
3. Cars are smaller and no longer need ten -foot wide parking spacesaces
Deny the variance for eighteen -foot deep stalls, on the basis that:
If the variance is approved, Staff recommends that Council initiate a
code amendment all owing nine -foot wide stalls so that future developerswillnothavetoapplyforavariance. _
z
2 -
BACKGROUND
Site Description
1. Site Size: 5.59 acres
2. Existing Land Use: Maple Hills Golf Course driving range-
Surrounding Land Uses
Northerly: Maple Hills Golf Course
Southerly: Larpenteur Avenue. South of Larpenteur Avenue are single
and double dwellings in St. Paul
Easterly: Hapl e Hills Golf Course and a single dwelling
Westerly: Mount Zion Cemetery
Pas Actions
May 9, 1974: The City Council approved a special exception permit and a
building height variance to allow apartments to be constructed on the subject
site.
December 19, 1974: The City Council approved site and building plans for a
138 unit apartment compl ex whi ch encompassed the site.
May 1, 1875: The City Council authorized staff to enter into a contract for
deed to purchase a portion of the golf course to retain for permanent open
space (never materialized).
April 8, 1980: The Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority passed a
motion in favor of conceptual support for a proposed housing project consistin
of forty units of elderly housing and thirty units of family housing.
September 7, 1982: The Community Design Review Board approved plans for
Bennington Woods with sixteen conditions. The Board also recommended approval
of a variance to allow nine by twenty -foot parking stalls..
Parking Related:
October 4, 1979: Council denied Gerry Mogren's appeal of the Design Review
Board's requirement for 10 by 20 foot parking stalls at his office building at
2580 White Bear Avenue.
June 18, 1981: Council denied Otto Bonestroo' s request for the arki n stallsP9
at the Carlton Racquetball C1_ub to measure 8.66 feet in width,, required him
to provide these stalls at a width of ten feet.
3 -
DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
1. Land Use Plan Designation: Rh High Densityt Res i -9 y dential_
2. The Rh cl assi fi cation is designated for such housing t es
two-family homes, townhouses, nursing homes, dormator
9 g . yp _ as apartments,two i es, or elderlyThemaximum ,p yhousing. p pul ati on density i s 34 people per net acre.
3. The density proposed is 22.3 ersons perpp acre.
4. Zoning: BC, Business Commercial
5. Section 907.010 (2.a.) of the Zoning ode allows m 'g multiple dwellings upontheapprovalofaspecialexceptionbytheCityCouncil.
6. State law requires that the following findings be made before a variance
can be granted:
a. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration.
b. The variance would be in keeping with the spiritrit and intent ofp the
ordinance.
Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance
means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonaDle
under conditions
se if used
tions al 1 owed by the offi,ci al controls. The plighhpgt of thelandownerisduetocircumstancesunique . to his property not created , bybPyythelandowner, and the variance, if granted, W i l l not alter the essentialcharacterofthelocality.
Public Works
Sanitary sewer and water are available.
mb -
Enclosures:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Site Plan date stamped 8 -16 -82
4. Applicant's letter dated 8 -16 -82
5. Parking Stall Survey
6. Resolution
4-
y
om
ST. PAUL
BURKE
I E
BEI mojv
Wit I
LOCATION MAP
r
36 co, -- - Mae 1
LARK XVE
CANADADA
W35LAURIEAD. c
d 0
a
h • -_ -6311
N
EL DRI ESen
BELMONT LA.
A A
Laks •
Ki a y Fu I
W A h AV r
oJfO N ON AVE
OWNS AVE. MT VERNON
s
LWOOD AVE.
j SUMMiR AVE.t 1
t AVE t
O
C
j
O
lo
F_-
G
W
H H
4 m
25
41
c
28
W
i
N
o. ;
MD
eve • , co c•o Y. plat 3.a5 a .fs -• too
ho
y C
3T. T8 - Z
if•
2 = 62 S 1re. of N E`a of Y4
t7L.5 vrCAT y16Z io M.. CL -t...
IV '9
Lot
T 4
i 3 330 s .. f
ZOO ' ! - - - { - •
a , ` '0 loo --+y _; *a Q
cv'3 Z
so
ell
A 27 l
1
t -- -- , , • ! t...'' X9 two ..tr C%4 S y ^ at
Iota IwN
Zro
6 41, t, f , Z a ••)
L h \ 9`•e L% % -
G i
k
24
23 —t 4 [
ut 02
40 34
0 to
O ! 8 17 f
7 Z:, arc . or T 50, 400 p / !
T -.
two A 3 3 r"i s •l
H e- f f r / ..
I _ f _! J-- 'oo _ j ZTS.Z4 - fr• 4 „ _
7.S 1 :.c - :• for H:. -, ' -' -- - -r - -- - - -- - - - 42 5 ac.
j
MAPLE HILLS GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE =
S .
a : :::: •••• oat ' 1-
Y: ::: : :.•f •:. • - . : :. : : :•. ;.:•• : • ::: • .:mow':.• •• •a ': :.•:jam• : ::: ' :::: • •14 Irar.
dp
MAPLE HILLS OFFICES t
i :. • • i : r :. • •: •: j • •: •• :: • i : :: f: : ::•ii •1• t•ra':• :.:' ii • •'.: • •; :: -
W : • :tiff : • •:ti•: ..; ., ....•:. •:: : :.: , • •
LL.j .. . };:: :.. •: . • ,••, • :: ;::,. .. :4;i:r:; ; • •::: j 403 Z Z !
y:! l:•• : 1.;1 ' •. •.` • :•: : • . •;....: iii • ::.•j ' :. . 1/ t'•
a
i: :ti' { •' ' •' ' :: ;.::• ;. }., :: ::•:•:•:•::. ; :: • r
r ::.:::•:.::.::: •:. SINGLE {• {
f••j. ••• • • • ••• • •: • ,
O • :LO • i • .'rY rir :,.I' 'l :: • : :i • '•• • j• ' r:..: • i ::•: • :• :.• :.• • • ..
i
r. :•. r.
a. '.hY: r::: f :::: f ::: ' •.:•::.:. ::::::r:; :::::.: DW E L L I NA 4 ` 3 jL• :: ' : :jti V • • j '::.: • :: • • •, j • • • .• .r .
f }r ti`W, 'rtiti .i: f '•.•.V • ' y.{:: V : • : i ., tiY W:rj '•1j• • • }1 : :•:;.;•;. .. .: 2 j : •' 'f .. r'•:
RESIDENCE
Ve
L j:• •,,• J•ti' ::1 • •: i • • ;rjr,. • r: r r• f: •' :. • • • .,. j
r
v.{ T 3 rv046 Z.
to oo R
7 -!' 4- ' • • ,
N
tT Q1 t0 . 3, • —
AR P _ E i E U F( , .'A V A
554%
JUNE 2 1961 W.H.R. SCALE 1 : 200'
PROPERLY LINE MAP
N
r
op
v
ap :'• / { /
r , • ~ ,`•• - - -/ /d'GOL.F COURSE ! 1 11 \• ` ` •`'. ~ : ' t // /
f+a '/
i '0'I r' • / fe!'I; e , , 11 \ • •.' r• i rOp
JI / I r
ap
OF
t 1 f / •' a tars crm N —
1 1 f •ref s .,
1 1 % pr Ilia
1 _-.- —
S. ,.. 1 • ,` `, \I 1 `, l,r t t . ' r i ° It • , 1..,. ff GOLF COUR'
del
Mme \ ` ' \ • t 1 1 1,•;Y• t }w•
t • i / i w
r.r 1 _ f ( ...
11 \ \ ` ' ' 1 • +'` i Y--•, % • . -, - ,t . ttrs trf • ; `- l ) f `: ' w'"" i. ;,
V M
1 1 ` j i 1 {
1 \1 ' 11 { - ,. 1 f, l•J /`'•e`
0 . y^ ; v ., ?
vs .
lop
00
p 00
i t 1 j I I t 1 i 1 ' r• +
r r•i , ` V / /7 ` .• '' , 00
Ol
I
if •'
I Y tiAll . , J' • c I '
JLr ( SINGU FAMILY RESIDENCE
tf17 •— , / / i / / 1 ` • . 1 1 L7, ' , •
I.. rei_ '` 1 I
r
I / 1 `' \ , . ` i
Lie
l / 1 ` 1 1 Tyr , • s /r
1 ., r' —_` \ \ ` `
1 . i 1 j / jI f t ` 1 ' j•• / ,ir a r.. ,.. i 1 ' • ` ` %4 \
IV
top
r I / 1 \ , . ) ,' . ,., I t • ti / 7 •• •.
r
a w wa I...,, wss ` \ \`
rlr I I 1
y• r: •\ 1 •( 'ice,, •' -_ ` `
jr
efte-ft
4V
Of —todW
1 1 r_
III ' / 1 , ,.— •.
r —•,.r- —r ...r +~— —••• 1, ••• ••• ` N_ •+.. . .• —_` •
rv . -- . . __ _ _ ._':' =` •" c err . a w-c c • 1
w
j • .... 1 _ .----- • ++ __._.- — WPENTEUR AVE.1 - - t
CAFWPW
J ••„' y,r 1/•A• }err r ..
AUG 16 19. --
SITE PLAN 4
N
WOODMARK, INC.
M 1707 Cope Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55109
612 -770 -9100
August 1982
Mr. Geoffrey Olson
City of Maplewood
1380 Front Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Sir:
RE: Bennington Woods
Enclosed are ten copies of the Site Plan for our proposed BenningWoodshousingdevelopmentand
g
g p our Community Design Review Board Application.We have also submitted applications to Washington- Ramsey Metro Watershed
District and to Ramsey County for access control to Count roads.Y
The proposed project is a planned unit development consisting of 56 unitsincondominiumstyleownershipsituatedin4 -four lex buildings andPgsn
5 -eight plex buildings. The architectural style is colonial with a
considerable amount of concern given to authenticity. We feel the
buildings and site plan will give the attractive feel of a village of
Early American buildings. We have strived to meet all known City of
Maplewood design and zoning requirements in the planning of this ' ro ect .P
The roads for the project will be private drives with public sewer and
water. Storm water is being handled by retention ponds on the site with
the water being discharged into a retention pond located north of the
site on the golf course via a private storm sewer . line.
We have installed "D 4 -12" curbing throughout the site as indicated on
the site plan with the exception of the entrance drive and the area
around the catch basin. In these areas, a standard curb and gutter will
be used.
We are requesting, with this application specific approval of a changesize '
s P PP c geintheseoftheparkingstallsfrom10x20feetto9x18feet. We
feel this size is more appropriate in residential areas and is compatiblewiththegeneralreductioninsizeoftheautomobileoverthePastfew
years.
As your review progresses, please communicate directly with this office
or those members of our design team as appropriate.
S' cerely,
y
David C. Briggs
Enclosures
SURVEY OF MtTROPOL I TAN COMMUNITIES
CLOSET TO MAPLEWOOD B POPULAT
6 - 77 - 81
PARKING STALL DIMENSION
CITY DIAGONAL PARKINGNGFOR90DEGREEPARKINGAT60DEGREE
St. Louis Park 9 x 20
Minnetonka 8.5 x 20
Richfield 9 x 20
Coon Rapids 10 x 20
Rosevi 9 x- 18
Burnsville 9 x 20
Plymouth 9 x 18.5 9 x 22
Brooklyn Center 8.6 x 19.5 9 x 20
Fridley 10 x 20
Blaine 9 x 20
Crystal 9.5 x 20
New Hope 9 x 20
Golden Valley 9 x 20
White Bear Lake 9 x 19
Apple Valley 10 x 20
South St. Paul x 20
Eagan 10 x 20
Maple Grove 9 x 2 0
Columbia Heights 9 x 20
All dimensions are in feet.. Width dimensions
par -king stall stripes.
aree measured perpendicular to
Most of the surveyed communities used this
riht angle9g parking.
dimensionon for da -Qnal as well
Of the 19 cities surveyed,y
twelve (63 %) required at least
four (21 %) had a minimum width
9 feet of width, two (11 %)
requirementrement of 10 feet,,t,
one (5 %) was at 9.5 feet.
were under 9 feet, and
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, a variance request has been initiated by WoodMark, Inc, for
9 by 18 foot parking stalls for the following described property:
That part of Lot 2, Moore' s Garden Lots according to the plat thereof on f i l e
and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Ramsey County,
Minnesota described as beginning at the southwest corner thereof; thence on an
assumed bearing of east along the South l i n e of said Lot 2 a distance of 417.61
feet; thence North 0 00' a distance of 224.55 feet; thence north 61 18'
E.210.22 feet; thence North 17 45' 50" West 197.52 feet; thence North 84
39' West 541.37 feet more or less to a point on the West l i n e of said Lot 2
distant 564.09 feet North from the Southwest corner of said lot 2; thence
Southerly along said West l i n e to the point of beginning.
Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part
of said Lot 2 described as commencing at the Southwest corner thereof; thence
on an assumed bearing of East along the South l i n e of said Lot 2 a distance of
417.61 feet; thence north 0 a distance of 224.55 feet; thence North
61 18' East 210.22 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be
described; thence north 17 45' 50" West . 38.18 feet; thence South 74 42'
East to the Southeasterly line of said Lot 2; thence Southwesterly along said
Southeasterly l i n e to its intersection with a l i n e that bears south 74 42
east from the point of beginning- thence North 74 42' West to the point of
beginning.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance request is as follows:
1. That a variance request has been initiated by WoodMark, Inc., pursuant to
Chapters 912 and 1000 of the Maplewood Code and Section 462.357 (g) of
State Statute.
2. That said variance request was referred to and reviewed by the Maplewood
Community Design Review Board on the 7th day of September, 1982, at which
time said Board recommended to the City Council said variance be
approved for 9 by 20 foot stalls.
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the
variance rquest, notice thereof having been published and mailed pur-
suant to law; and
4. That all persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be
heard and /or present written statements, and the Council = considered
report. and recommendations of the City Staff and Board. -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD,
RAMSEY COuATY, MINNESOTA that the above - described variance be granted for 9 by 20
foot stalls on the basis of the following findings-of fact:
1. The majority of metropolitan communities closest to Maplewood in population
require nine -foot wide stalls.
2. Nine -foot wide stalls would increase landscaping area on thee "site.
3. Cars are smaller and no longer need ten -foot wide parking spaces.
Adopted this day of 1982.
Mayor
Manager
Attest:
Ci ty Cl erk
6
A
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Assocate Planner-- Ekstrand
SUBJECT: Special Exception
LOCATION: Maplewood Mall
APPLICANT: Franchise Contracting and Equipment
OWNER: Homart Devel opment
PROJECT: Sbarro, The Italian Eatery
DATE: September 16 , 1982
wr
SUMMARY. OF THE PROPOSAL
Request
Approval to operate a game room in conjunction with a restaurant.
Proposal '
le Fifteen games are proposed.
2. The proposed entertainment area would have adult supervision. Tokens could be
purchased on the premises to be used for the games.
3. Refer to the enclosed floor plans,
CONCLUSION
Analysis
Staff's only concern is this facility has the otenti al far becoming a hangPgg out
for teenagers and adolescents if supervision becomes lax, There should be
perodi c review of this facility, therefore, to determine if there are any p robl ems .
Recommendation
Approval of a special exception for a game room in the proposed Sbarro Restaurant
since the use does ;not appear that it would be objectionable to adjacent businesses.
Approval is subject to:
1. The applicant shall provide written approval from Homart Development,
2,r All required licenses for operation shall be obtained from the City.
3. This permit may be renewed after one year of operation provided there have
been no problems caused. by the facility,
I "1
BACKGROUND
Site Description
1. Floor area: 1,715 square feeteet
20 Existing use: vacant. Formerly -'y The Parlor"
3. Location: Maplewood Mall--first floor
Past .A
5 - - 75: The City Counci approved a speciala1 exc •the vial l . p exception for Al adds n' s Castle inside
2 - -79: Council approved a special exception r
their amusement p pe mi tti ng Aladdi Ca to expandcenter
Council approved a speci exception f -P or the Pizza Time Theatre i n theMall. The Pizzazza Time Theatre, a similarar faci 1 i ty offering amusement
ed • 9 as part ofarestaurant, was never developed i n the Mall,
11 -5 -81: Council approved a special •Mall.P exception for the Cir to locate n the
DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
1. Land Use Plan designation: DC, Diversified Center
2. Zoning: BC, Business Commercial
3. Section 907.010 2. c. of the •t ) e Zoni ng Ordinance requiresres tmentmayonlybqthat places of amuse-y y • e permitted when authorized by the lawful governing bodyspecial1exceptson. g 9 y as a
City Clerk
All necessary licenses for food and amgame machines must be obtained.
ic
enclosures:
1. Location Map
2. Maplewood M a l l Map
3. Floor Plan dated 8 -30 -82
OV
r
F
L LA1911 11)
l E w tX
2 .) Dtj PP
t30 C Ail sbf W.
NORTH ST. R-P-4
KO+iL W Ak AVE.
Z3 2640 N.
t Du E rV LL Ott.
DEMONT AV
s[
F W
I
3
ti M AVEW
CIO _
SF YTl KT A -
2400 N!--
jEIX EW
36
RREIi
cW AVE.
AV E.
R
OPE AVE. — w
tc IE F; L A R K AVE.
1E RD. ¢ kiE —RQ •_;. _
Lot ST = Zt LA V F—I
y " • fA i 2 16 O N.
it -71
LOCATION MAP
4) E.
iTE SEAR LAKE `6' K K
7) k
IL
V
CT
Y ry E. l`.'7t JA
1 41 QF
4
N
I f
94
dba
rr
ter,.. r ..•t .
Z t .. . tom,.,.. ..- - .. - • ..r- ...• '..'. _ • - "' _ - ,
O
0
n
rn
1
Parcel A
a
4f
i
i
t
1
J
I
I
f
S
T awl
Z i t•y
t
j ' l
mot . ••E
Y ir` • _ t 1 71I w .j •!. sr +ter
BEAM AVENUE
ti
Y
ii
f
MAPLEWOOD MALL
c ct
N
d
N
co
EXISTING UTILITIES
SHOWN ON STREETS
1 1 Z
Ln •
V
s+r+co
1
w
I
uw
Z
W
a
ct
N
r
AAape ,
or
lj
Wt
L'
6 . +
1 . • . . \ n `\
t ,
R i— I to
V 1010
A.
1. . — - 1111
ail
M Ds. "MUZ44W A) LIii MW MNDIT".
I .
It
MEMORANDUM
r. )- r-'
TO Mayor and City Council
L
f rt
FROM: Community Design Review Board Tl
y - ---- ---
r
SUBJECT: Community Design Review Board Self - Evaluation - - --
DATE: September 2, 1982
The Maplewood Community Design Review Board serves the City of : Maplewood by
reviewing and recommending (or not recommending) for approval the following:
Sign plans
Ordinance revisions
Sign variances
Building plans
Landscaping layouts
Between January 1980 and July 1982 the Community Design Review Board has
reviewed 106 cases . During those meetings nineteen sign plans, seven
ordinance revisi six sign variances, fifty - eight building plans and
sixteen landscape layouts have come before the Community Design Review
Board.
During the review process the Community Design Review Board performs a
dual function--the first is to represent or safeguard the City and its
citizens, and the second i s to act the first step of an appeal process
for the applicants.
The Community Design Review Board represents the City by allowing
citizen input into the review process. Neighbors are certainly
aware of the special problems that a development may have or cause.
By providing for the possibility of citizen input, additional under-
standing is gained by the City's representatives, the applicant, and
the citizens themselves. Citizens attended 16% of the meeting
between January 1980 and July 1 982. There is also the possibility
of applicant concessions in order to provide better neighborhood
relations. At 7% of the meetings between January 1980 and July 1982,
citi effected a change in the final recommendations. The Com-
munity Design Review Board can also repres the citizens of the
City by placing additional conditions in the recommendations of a
proposed development without citizen input. Between January.1980
and July 1982 this happened in 5% of the reviews.
The Community Design Review Board also acts as a method of appeal
for applicants who feel unreasonable staff conditions have been
listed i -ithei r recommendations Between January 1980 and Jul 1982,
1 of the Board's motions were less restrictive than the Staff's
recommendation.
V
F
The decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the
applicant. icant. Between January 1980 and July 1982 4% of the reviews were
appealed. The appeal process resulted in three ' changes by the City
Council.
In conclusion, the Community Design Review Board approved a majority of. the
reco dat i ons of the Staff. However, in the remaining cases, either the
e g ev pnihborsthedelo er, or the Board was not satisfied with either the pro
P osai or the Staffs recommendations. For those cases, some function o f
government must be available to the citizens and to the developer. Some
method of getti interested parties together in order to review, commun i ca
ate must be provided. At the resent time the Community DesignandnegotiatepP
Review Board serves this function.
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director. of Community DevelopmentlopmentSUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment - - Billboards
DATA: September 20, 1982
r -3
A , L ` -
Alternative II in the enclosed memo has been revised •to include CouncilmemberBastian `s suggestions,
ic
cc: Julianne Bye
Naegel e Outdoor Advertising
F
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand-- Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment: Billboards
DATE: July 6, 1982
Reque
The City Council, on April 15, 1982, requested that staff prepare an ordinance
amendment to ban new construction of billboards and to require the removal of
al existing billboards within ten years.
Alternatives (from most to least prohibitive)
Alternative I (see enclosed ordinance) -- Prohibit the display of commercial
messages visible from a public street on billboards.
Alternative II (see enclosed ordi nance) - - Increase the restrictions -gove rni ng
billboards,
Alternative III- -Take no action, thereby maintaining the existing ordinance.
Comments
Alternative I accomplishes the intent of Counci request, while complying with
a recent Supreme Court decision concerning banning of billboards. (Refer to the
enclosed "Zoning and Planning Law Report" on the Metromedia, Inc. v. Cit of
San Diego decision.) This alternative prohibits commercial messages on new
bi'llboa - rds. visible from a public street. New billboards may continue to be built
for noncommercial messages, subject to the standards of the sign ordinance.
Exi sting billboards are allowed to continue advertising commercial messages for
ten years. The sign must then be limited to noncommercial messages or the sign
must be removed within 120 days.
Atl ernati ve II would allow billboards, but would tighten up standards by: -
1. Only allowing them in SC, Shopping Center; BC, Business Commercial; M-1,
Light Manufacturing and M -2 Heavy Manufacturing zones.
2. Increasing minimum spacing requirements between billboards from 500 to 1200
feet.
30 Reducing the maximum sign area permitted from 850 square feet to 300 square
feet.
4. Requiring all disturbed ground beneath the sign to be restored .
a
5. Establishing a height limit,
60 Eliminating the exemptionon t •p that nonconforming billboards now. have from theremovalrequirementsthatallothersignsUnderthecurrentordinance,,all nonconforming signs, except bil lboards must be removedinstallationfour ten years. afteroryearsafternotificationcationofnonconfiormty, whichever islonger,t
Alternative II was reviousl 'p y consi dered by the Counci 1 on August 6, 1981. Noac - on was taken on this proposal , since a moratorium was declared.
Alternative III would result in no change. Lf the existing-code remai ned -neffect, the following problems would continue:
1. The potential would remain fora roliferation ofp billboards, due to the 500footminimumspacingrequirement. Refer to the map indicating he number ofpossiblesignlocatiunderthecurrentordinance
g
2. The existing code .allows b to be 850 square feet in area. This seemstoolargeforasuburbancity.
3. Billboards are allowed on land zoned BC M and •under the current ordnance. TheonlyareaszonedBC (M) in the City are the south side of Beam Avenue and DonJohn's property on Stillwater Avenue. These zones are intended to bufferadjacentsingledwellings. Billboards should not be allowed,
4. There i.s no height limitation,
5. The City cannot require the removal of nonconforming billboards.
Mapl ewood' s requirements are more lenient than those of ma 'man cities i n themetroareaofsimilaarpopulation. (See the enclosed survey results.
Recommendation
I. Staff recommends alternative I or II d '
s not recommended, on the basis that
d on Councs preference.Alternative III i :
A. The potential would remain for a rol i ferati 'p on of billboards.
B. Billboards could continue to ,. be excessive) .l e. arY 9
C. Ground restoration is not required,
D. Billboards are permitted in BC (M) districts.
E. There are no height limits.
F: The City cannot require the removal of n onconforming billboards.
Note: Alternative I requires a majorityt vote& sin 'Y i nce t does not regul ate byzoningdistrict. Alternative requires at 1 east . four votes si r-ul ate b zoni di _e re t does9Ygstrict. Alternativeve III requires no action.
I I .Since the moratorium ends on August 20, Council shoulld extend i t 1 f they wishtostudythebillboardissuebeyondthisdate.
2
REFERENCE INFORMATION
Ex sti ng Code
Refer to the existing billboard ordinance enclosed Al terna 'tve III).
t
Past Actions
1
7 =14 -77: The current Sign Ordinanc _ • ously9cewasadopted. The City previp - rohi bi ted billboards.
12 - 20 -79: aCouncilpassed a moratorium •P i um on the erection of billboards until suchtimeastheSignOrdinancehasbeenfulreviewed.s
4'2 -81: Council tabled action on an amendment to' the billboardoard ordi Hance thatwouldhaveprimarilyincreasedthespacingrequirementbetweenb'g q billboards andreducedthemaximumsizpermittedfrom850squarefeetto300squarefeet.Counci also moved to remove the moratorium 'on the con.struct on of billboards.
8 -6 -81: Council considered the same billboard amendment and tabled acts ' on untilAugust20, 1981.
8 - Council placed a moratorium on the issuance of billboard- 's perms isforaperiodnottoexceedoneyearoruntilanordinanceispresented,
9-3-81: Council tabled action on revising the fee schedule for billboards untilanordinanceamendmentforbillboardsignsispresented,
4- 15 -82: Council moved that staff prepare an ordinance to ban the new constructionofbillboardsandtoplaceatenyearamortizationonexistingbillboards,
7- 13 -82: The Community Design Review Board recommended a •approval of Alternative H.
PrnrPHijrPc
I. Recommendation from the Community Design Review Board
2. City Council--public hearing and first reading of the proposed9pposed amendment.3.City Council--second reading of the proposed amendment.
Fnr 1 nc i j rac
1. Proposed billboard ordinance (Alternative I
2. Revised billboard ordinance (Alternative II)3. Current billboard ordinance (Alternative III
46 Zoning and Law Report
5. Existing billboard map
6. 7 of possible billboard locations under current Ord -'na nce.7.- `file -- dumber of possible billboard locations under ro8. Billboard survey
9. Naegel e' s Proposal
3
ALTERNATIVE
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 819 TO ! THE MAPLEZ -FOODCODECONCERNINGNGOFF - PREMISES COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAP.LEWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Maplewood City Cod 'y e s amended to add Chapter 819:
819 COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING CAN BILLBOARDS
819.010 DEFINITIONS
1. Sign: refers to any structure, device advertisement, •t sement adverts s ngdevice, or visual representation intended •to advertise, identify, fy, orcommunicateinformation, to attract the attention of theandwithout public for anypurputpreyprejudicetothegeneralityityoftheforegoingnincludesanysymbols, letters, figures, 9 9 cl udes
gures , illustration, or forms painted or other -wise affixed to a building or structure, and an beacon 'y nor seach 1 ghtintendedtoattracttheattentionofthepublicforanyuroseandalsoanystructureordevicetheprime
p p °a p ime purpose of which i s to border, i l 1 um-inate, animate, or project a visual representation ro 'dpv ed, however,that this definitiontion shal 1 not be held to include official notices issuedpubliccoffiuedbyanyCourtorpofficeorofficerintheperformanceofapublicorofficialduty, and traffic control signs as defined 'Vehicle AGt ". F
g in the MotorForthepurposeofremoval, signs shall also includealsignstructures,
29 Premises: means the contiguous land in the same •ownership which s notdividedbyanypublichighway, street or alley or right-of-way .ght of way therefor.
819.020 OFFENSES
1 . It shall be unlawful to maintain upon an signpy constructed on or after theeffectivdateofthisordinance, any commercial message excepthadvertisesaroductgP a messagewhichp , service, activity, ty, event, person, institution orbusinesslocatedonthepremiseswherethesinislocatedrentalof9edorthesaleorsuchpremises.
Ten years after the effective date of this ordinancew ' t shall be unlawfultomaintainntainuponanysconstructedbeforetheeffectivedateofthisordinance, any commercial message x - •g e a message whic advertises aproduct., service, activity, event, person, institution or _
ent
b-usi ness locatedonthepremiseswherethesignislocatedorthesaleorr - a 1 of suchpremises.
4
3. After the effective date of this ordinance, -nce, i t shall be i n violationat1on here_of to maintain any structure formerl sed as a
form formerly ,used sign and not i n use for any.other purpose ore than 120 days after its use for a sign has ceased.
819.030 EXCEPTIONS
This ordinance does not apply to:PP Y
1. Any sign which is not visible _ b1e to motorists or pedestrians on an publichighway, street or alley.y p c
y
2. Any temporary sign, as defined = •in the City Sign Ordinance (.Chapter 818).
3. Signs providing directions to l 'local businesses.
Section Z. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and P ubl i cati on
Passed by the City Council of
the City of Maplewood, Minnesota
this day of , 1982
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
Ayes - -
Nays --
5
ALTERNATIVE II
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 818 OF THE
MAPLEWOOD CODE RELATING TO SIGNS
Tl'E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES HE .HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS.
Section 1. The following portions of Chapter 818 of the Maplewood Codeareherebyamendedtoreadasfollows: (Additions are underlined and deletionsarecrossedout):
818.020 DEFINITIONS
g. Bi 11 board: refers- te- a- nenaeeessery an signforthepurposef9 erected
p p se o advertisinging a product, event, person, institutionactsvity, business, servi or subject not eptlrel - related -t '
remi •
elocatedonthepses . on which said si i s locate
g • f refers to a sign whEh- dreEtsattent4en- te- a- bes}ness s - eeffed}t - sery4ee , - er- enterta4efent -exe4us4vel - related -t - -n et
a the -prey ses at whlEh the s }gn 4s- Teeated -e -4a- business; - eefflffled4ty - , - serviEe er - enterta}nfent wh4eh- }s -E eEtedselder - effered elsewhere - than - en - the- preRilses- at- wh4eh -th - ' 'e sign - }sleeated:
818.140. BILLBOARDS
1. Location:
Pester - panels er - bd are sabjeet- te- rev4ew - exee t -fer- -Eeent -8es - - _ _ be- leeated- en - Indastr}al; Manefaetur-
P Eepr- b - tbeygeRev4ewBeardand -a
4ng : Eeffifflere4al : er- Retall Zene- 94str4ets sebjeet- te- restrlet4ens -seeet- 4n- th 4s- erd4nanEe
a. Billboards may only be located in the fol l owi n zoni n , q districts
SC, Sh2ppiShopping Center, BC, Business Commerci al,M-1,LightManufacturinandM -2, Heayy Manufacturin zones.
b. Billboards shall not be permitted on a building
2. Spacing:
Ne b44lbeard -s4 n -a - _ _ _g y4e leeated eleser to any ether- sdel.- advert4s4ndev - en - the - safe- s4de -ef- the -str - - _ d .eet er h }ghwa+ faEpg-- - affE- headpginthesaRiedthan - f}ve - hundred- 588 - feet -en -a — -- -nY e4t street,prifa-ry- h4ghwa i- i*. nterstate er- fully- eentrelled freewa
eer -
w4th4n- the -4n-orated - Ct -- revd d -- -- _ P y p e hewever, th }s prev4s }en lees - net - preventereet} en ef- deable- faeed;- back- te. -baek - er -V -ty a -s es- w4th a- max4Riuf -ef
e ne- 1 -s n- er -fa
P g3gPEng.
YI
T abeve- spa e dees -flet- apply- te- stFwetbres - arated -b - be34d }R s -
ebstreEt
p y 5 ether
ens - seh -a- yapper -t ,at -ep y- epe aE ;9eated w4th }e -theabeyespaE4Fig- d4staeee- 4s- Y4s4ble -freRi- the -q4 hway - street - - leRe - 'g y 3+ me -
a. Billboards shall not be located closer than:
1 2300 feet to another billboard on the same side of the sae street .
2) 100 feet to a commercial industrial r '0 institutional or
an on-premises si n, un1 ess the - CounciltCounci1 a _ proves .- a special use
ermi
13) 200 feet to a residential district or 1000 feet to a residence.
L4) 300 feet to part of an interchange or intersection of two publiroads,
bi 11 board s hal 1 not be e rested or ma i nta i ned i n such a 1 ace or manne r
as to - obscure or otherwise Dhvsically interfere with an official traffic
Control device or a railroad safety si na1 or si n or to obstruct or
DhYsically i nterefere with the drivers' view of approaching mer i n , orintersectintrafficforadistanceof500feet.
c.No bi 11 board shal 1 be erected or mai ntai ned i n or wi thi n 500 feet of 1 oval
arks, historic sites, and ubl is picnic or rest areas ; _ provideddedi that, an
advertisin device may be permitted within 500 feet of a ark site or area
on commerci . ally zoned propey with the approval of a s eci al use rme it.
3. Size:
The maximum area of a sign face shall not exceed e4ght-husdred-f4fty-k8694 450
square feet, including border and trim, but excluding base and apron supportsandotherstructuralmembers.
p ppebers. The maximum size limitation stated in this
paragraph shall apply to each side of a sign structure, and - 64gns Signs mayybeplacedback -to -back or in a V type eeigstruet}ep arrangement if there are no
more than two si n faces. A billboard may only di s 1 a one message at a time
on any sign face.
4. Height
The maximum height for billboards shall be 35 feet
5. Lighting:
a. Bill boards w444 shall not be illuminated with flashing light or lexceptthosegivingpublicserviceinformationsuchas, but not limited
to, time, date, temperature, weather or news.
Billboard lighting w444 shall be effectively shielded so a not to impairthevisionofanyoperatorofamotorvehicle.
c. Billboard lighting fest shall not interfere with the effedi veness of or
obscure any official traffic sign, device or signal,
d. Billboards shall not use 1 i hts between mi dni ht and 6:00 a .m.
6 . Fees and Permi
a. The fee schedule as set forth in this ordinance w441 shall apply equally
to billboard signs.
b. Annual permit renewals w i l l be required from the Director--of Commun i t
Development Permit renewals will not be accepted more t4 , an sixty 60
calendar days prior to expiration of permit. All perm is — Vi l l expire on
June 30 of each y ear.
c. The annual fee for such renewals will be on the same. basis and schedule
as prescribed for the original permit.
d. A penalty of two ($2.00) Dollars will be charged upon failure to pay
the annual permit fee for renewal on or before July 1 of each year.
e. The administrator may revoke the permit granted herein, for cause upon
thirty (30) days written notice of such hearing to the permittee. Such
notice and hearing are subject to the procedure as outlined in Section 818,
040 Subsection 9 of this ordinance.
7. Nonconforming Signs:
Any billboard-sign existing at the time of the enactment of this ordinance
and not conforming to its provisions, shall be regarded as legal nonconforming
Signs which may be continued, if properly repaired and maintained as provided
i n this ordinance and continue to be in conformance with other ordinances of
thi municipality.
Nonconforming signs which are structurally altered, relocated, or replaced
shal compl immediatel with all provisions of this code.
6. Ground Restoration
Any ground area disturbed, due to the construction or removal of a billboard,
shall be restored to its original condition
7. Any previously adopted requirement's that conflict with this ordinance shall
be null and void .
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after its passage and
publication.
Passed by the City Council of the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota, this
day of 1982.
Attest:
C ~ 1 erk
Mayor
Ayes--
Nays--
ALTERNATIVE 111'
y
1
Section 14. 818.1400 BILLBOARDS,
1. Location:
Poster panels or bulletins are subject to review, except for copy, by the Com-
munity Design Review Board and may be located on Industrial, Manufacturing, Com-
mercial or Retail Zone Districts subject to restrictions set out in this ordin-
ance. Billboards shall not be permitted on a building,
2. Spacing:
No billboard sign may be located closer to any other such advertising devices
on the same side of _the street or highway facing traffic heading in the same
direction than five hundred (500) feet on any city street, primary highway, in-
terstate or fully controlled freeway within the incorporated City, provided,however, this provision does not prevent erection of double.faced, back -to- back,or V -type signs with a maximum of one (1) sign per facing.
3.' The above spacing does not apply to structures separated by buildings or other
obstructions in such a manner that only one (1) sign facing located within the
above spacing distance is visible from the highway or street at any one time.
4. Size:
1
l
The maximum area of a sign face shall not exceed eight hundred fifty (850) squarefeet, including border and trim, but excluding base and apron supports and other
structural members. The maximum size limitation stated in this paragraph shall
apply to each side of a sign structure and signs may be placed back -to -back, or
in a V -type construction.
5. Lighting:
a. Billboards will not be illuminated with flashing light or lights except those
giving public service information such as, but not limited to time, date,
temperature, weather or news.
4
b. Billboard lighting will be effectively shielded so as not to impair the vision
of any operator of a motor vehicle.
C* Billboard lighting must not interfere with the effectiveness of or obscure
any official traffic sign, device or signal..
6. Fees and Permits:
a. The fee schedule as set forth in this ordinance will apply equally to bill-
board signs.
b. Annual permit renewals will be required. Permit renewals will not be accepted
more than sixty (60) calendar days prior to expiration of permit. All per -
mits will expire on June 30th of each year.
c. The annual fee for such renewals will be on the same basis and schedule as
prescribed for the original permit.
d. A penalty of Two ($2.00) Dollars will be charged upon failure to pay the
annual permit fee for renewal on or before July 1 of each year.
e. The administrator may revoke the permit granted herein, for cause upon
thirty (30) days written notice of such hearing to the permittee. Such
notice and hearing are subject to'the procedure as outlined in Section
818.040, Subsection 9 of this ordinance. _
7. Non- conforming Signs:
Any billboard sign existing at the time of the enactment of this ordinance and
not conforming to its provisions, shall be regarded aslegal non - conforming
signs which may be continued, if properly repaired and maintained as provided
in this ordinance and continue to be in conformance with other ordinances of
this municipality.
Non - conforming signs which are structurally altered, relocated, or replaced
shall comply immediately with all provisions of this code.
i
AW I
w
x 1 - i -_ i+,. .' . . sf a - ri
v ~';
Y . e . ' AM
Vt
roman.+:. —«t — ;t,- . ;_.
r yob T:: . fir- .r ..
i aa ou
LI 1
Vol. 4, No. 8 September, 1981
THE METROMEDIA OPPORTUNITY
by Clan Crawford, Jr.
Clan Crawford, Jr. practices law in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he has served on the city council, Zoningboardofappealsandhistoricdistrictcommission. He is the author of a number of books and numerous
articles on various aspects of zoning and has lectured extensively on the subject.
Supreme Court's Metromedia Decision • Model Sign Control Ordinance Offered
Supports Control of Signs and -
Billboards
First Amendment Considerations
On July 2 , 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a momentous decision in the case of Metromedia,
Inc. v. City of San Diego. This constitutes the first time that the high Court has ever given full considera-
tion to the legality of general billboard and sign regulation. Because the Court invalidated San Diego's
ordinance, it has been widely assumed that the decision represented a victory for billboard interests and
a setback to public efforts to control community aesthetics. In the following article, author Crawford
argues that the Metromedia decision actually advances the opportunity for controlling billboard blight and
presents a model ordinance which he feels comports with the constitutional requirements demanded by
the Supreme Court. Crawford highlights the salient points of the Metromedia decision by discussing how
the proposed ordinance would deal with the particular objections and requirements enunciated by the
Supreme Court in its judgment of San Diego's ordinance.)
Introduction
The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in
Metrom dia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. -,
101 S. Ct 2882 69 L. Ed. 2d 800,49 U.S.L.W. 4925
July 2, 1981), rev g, 26 Cal. 3d 848,164 Cal. Rptr.
510 610 P.2d 407 (1980), has been grossly mis-
reported in the lay press. This is probably the result
of the unusual alivnment of opinions and views taken
by the various Supreme Court Justices in that case.
According to the general press, San Diego "lost" be-
cause its ordinance was held _invalid. In fact, how-
ever, San Diego, along with a lot of other municipali-
Zoning and Planning Law Report is published eleven times per year by Clark Boardman Company, Ltd.
435 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014. Subscription: $62.50 for eleven issues.
Q 1981 by Clark Boardman Company, Ltd.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. M is sold with the
understanding that the pubhsher is not engaged in rendering legal. accounting. or other p service. ft legal advice or other expert
assistance is required. the services of a competent person should be sought — From a Declaration of Principles pantty adopted by aCommitteeoftheAmericanBarAssociationandaCommitteeofPublishers
ties, may hate won big, because it apCPP that the
has now solidified enough uestionable a9law isprovideanadequatelegalbasisforsomehighlyrestrictivesignlegislation.
The confusion stems from the fact that there werefiveseparateopinionsandnoonemajorityopinion,and in the way they lined up. The Arhite group i
an opinion written by Justice White and sd als 0byJusticesStwell, made anumberofrulingis, discussed below, which are highlyfavorabletosignregulations, but held the ordinance
garded It as discninvalidbecausetheseJusticesre • mi
nating unlawfully against signs with noncommercial
messages- and among different types ofcialmessages. '' noncom mer-
In particular, they objected to the factthattheordinancepermittedcommercialommercialsigns places where noncommercial suns werere barred. 101S. Ct. at -.-._, 69 L. Ed. 2d at 818 --20 49 U.S.L.W. at4931 -32.
Justice Brennan, joined b Justicea B1 ackm un,abreed that the ordinance was invalid but for verydifferentreasons, described more fully below. 101S. Ct. at —, 69 L. Ed. 2d at 824-35 49 U.S.L.W.
nva
at 4934 -39. Thus, six Justices voted to i
the ordinance. invalidate
nance The other - - - three -Chief Justice Bur-
ger, 101 S. Ct. at —, 69 L. Ed. 2d at 845-54, 49U.S.L.W. at 4939 -42, Justice Rehnqat4 , 101 S. Ct.69 L. Ed. 2d at 854 -55, 49 U.S.L.
4942-43; a
U.S.L. at
and Justice Stevens, 101 S. Ct. at 69L. Ed. 2d at 835 - 45, 49 U.S.L.W. a 4943 --47`voted to uphold the ordinance in separate 'but their v' P opinions,
sews were closely aligned with those of theWhitegroupexceptonthediscriurinationissuewhichprovedcriticaltotheresult. As a result had theSanDiegoordinancebeenwordedabitdifferently, itappearsthatitwouldhavebeenupheldba '7_2 vote.y e.
The Metrom Opportunity
Brennan noted that the opinion of the
o c
White group concluded that San Diego ouId, vvitb-out violating the First Amendment, ban all billboardsllboards
speechcontainingcommercialsh me
I ai
P messages and com_
p ned that they were "thereby sending he me
to municipalities t g messagepshatbifurcatedbillboardregulationsprohibitinggcommercialmessagesbutallowingon-
pass
commerc
1
ial messages would ass constit utional mus-ter." 01 S.'-Ct. at - , 69 L. Ed. 2d at 824, 49U.S.L.W. at-_4934.
This aspect of the plurality's decision as accuratelyperceivedbyjusticeBrennan, is THE MT
MEDIA RO-
OPPORTUNITY.
A Model 0
Let us have a look at a model. The following ord-nance was prepared, after . the Metromedia decision _
for use by Michigan munici alit'g p ies, but it would prob-ably be equally suitable in man othery states:
AN ORDINANCE To REGULATE THE USE OF SIGNSANDPROVIDEFORREMOVALo: OBSOLETE STRUC-TURES.
n The City (Township) of
ewart, Marshall and Po
ordains:
Section 1. Findin s. It is heeb det 'g y ermined that thenumberofsignsintheCityiysexcessiveandisundulydistractingtomotoristsandedestprians,creates a traffic hazard, and in some laces reducescestheeffectivenessofSignsneededtodirectthepublic.It is also determined that the appearanceTownshipPPnce of the Cityp) is marred by the excessive Dumber of
signs. It is also determined that the number of dis-
tracting signs ought to be reduced in order
the aforement' to reduce
coned effects, and that the signs of leastvaluetopeoplewithinthe
and
Towmsbip
b
y are thosewhichcarrycommercialmessaesothergthanthead-vertisement of any product, service event, in-stitution or business located on the remisp es where theSignislocatedorthesaleorrentalofsuchpremises.It is also determined that the regulatio •b ns contained InthisOrdinancearetheminimumamount -of retionnecessarytoachieveitsPruPoses.
Section 2. Definitions. As used in the ordinance:A) SIGN means any structure or wall •or other objectusedforthedisplayofanmessy
B
y e.g
PREMISE means the contiguous land 'b In the same
ownership which is not divided b an publicyyp higway, street or alley or right -of -way therefor.
Section 3. Offenses. After the 90tb da after this
Ordinance takes effect it shall be a violation hereof tomaintainuponanySignanycommercialmessagesageex-cept one which - advertises some product, Servi ac-tivity, event, person, institution or business located onthepremiseswhere' the sign s located orgn the sale or
rental of such premises. It shall be a violation hereof
to maintain any structure formerly sed as a signgn andnotinuseforanyotherpurposeformorethanan120
days after its use for a sign has ceased.
Section 4. Exceptions. This ordina does not ap-ply to any sign which is not visible to motoristsnsts or
pedestrians on any public highway, street or alley, I ey, nortoanyspecificinformationpanelforthedirection
of motorists which may be located, under authority of
any statute, on any highway prole of the Statem' of
Michigan. This ordinance does not regulate the 'g e size,lighting or spacing of signs.
Section 5. Penalty - Effecti Date. whoever violates
this Ordinance shall. upon conviction thereoff, be pun -ished by a fine of not more than 100 'or i
146
ment in the County Jail for not more than 30 days,
or both, for each offense. Each and every day on
which a violation is committed or e ermitted to con-
tinue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be
punishable as such hereunder. This ordinance shall
take effect on (no sooner than the 31 st day after first
publication) .
Section 6. Severability. This ordinance, and the
various parts, sections and clauses hereof, are hereby
declared to be severable. If any part, section or clause
is adjudged invalid, the remainder shall remain in full
force an effect.
Analysis of Model Ordinance Under
Metromedia Criteria
The first thing that should be noted about this ordi-
nance is that it neither prohibits the future erection of
new signs nor forbids the continued use of existing
signs. It does not control signs at all, just the mes-
sages thereon. The astute will at once recognize that
this technique is intended to sidestep a lot of the
grounds on which sign regulations have been held
invalid where they required the removal of existing
signs or prevented the erection of new ones.
Now let us go through the ordinance one section at
a time to consider the legal issues presented and test
them against the Metromedia opinions.
Traffic Hazards and Aesthetics as Police Power
Justifications
The legislative findings in the first section are in-
tended to provide the rationale for the exercise of the
police power. As experienced zoning lawyers are
aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has laid down a gen-
eral limitation on zoning power which would pre-
sumably be applicable to sign laws such as the model.
In Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188, 48
S. Ct. 447 L. Ed. 842 (1927), where a zoning
ordinance was held invalid as applied to a particular
tract, the Court stated that "[s]uch restriction cannot
be imposed if it does not bear a substantial relation
to the public health, safety, and morals, or general
welfare."
The City of San Diego asserted in Metromedia that
traffic safety and aesthetics provided the substantial
relation. =The White group opined that either was
sufficient; quoting from the decision of the Supreme
Court of California below, 26 Cal. 3d at 859, 164
Cal. Rptr. at 515, to the effect that "a.s a matter of
law . . . an ordinance which eliminates billboards
designed to be viewed from the streets and highways
reasonably relates to traffic safety" and that "bill-
boards are intended to, and undoubtedly do, divert a
driver's attention from the roadway." 101 S. Ct. at
69 L. Ed. 2d at 815,49 U.S.L.W. at 4930.
The three dissenters concurred: Stevens, 101 S. Ct.
at , 69 L. Ed. 2d at 836, 49 U.S.L.W. at 4943;
Burger, 101 S. Ct. at , 69 L. Ed. 2d at 848, 49
U.S.L.W. at 4940; and Rehnquist, 101 S. Ct. at ,
69 L. Ed. 2d at 854, 49 U.S.L.W. at 4943. Even
Brennan and Blackmun went along with the idea, but
unlike the rest of the Court, they would not accept the
city's determination that the ordinance would promote
traffic .safety or was necessary for aesthetic reasons.
They took the position that the city should have and
failed to produce convincing evidence in support of its
position, 101 S. Ct. at , 69 L. Ed. at 827 -31, 49
U.S.L.W. at 4935 - 37.
This urging by Brennan and Blackmun that a city
should be required to prove that its ordinance ad-
vances traffic safety and aesthetics is the main distin-
guishing feature of their opinion. A number of bill-
board regulation cases have turned upon surveys
presented by well - heeled billboard companies which
purport to show that billboards do not create any
traffic hazard. In the realm of aesthetics, it is rather
easy to point to other eyesores in most communities
and argue that since the municipality has done noth-
ing to eliminate them, it is merely picking on the bill-
board companies in an arbitrary fashion. Fortu-
nately, none of the other Justices went along with
Brennan and Blackmun on this vital point and, in the
long run, this fact may turn out to be the most im-
portant aspect of Metromedia.
This authority should be useful in excluding testi-
mony of surveys purporting to show that billboards
create no dangers. If necessary, it may be opportune
for the municipal attorney to ask the witness whether
billboards are designed to attract attention and
whether accident avoidance requires both drivers and
pedestrians to pay close attention to what they are
doing.
Is Aesthetics Alone a Sufficient Justification:'
Hopefully, the foregoing may find broad utility in
convincing some of our reluctant state courts to hold
that police power regulations may be based upon
aesthetic considerations alone. In the Metromedia
decision below, the Supreme Court of California so
held, 26 Cal. 3d 848, 164 Cal. Rptr. 510, 516 -19,
610 P.2d.407, 413 -16, revers1ng its own prior hold-
ing in Varney & Green v. - Williams, 155 Cal. 318, 100
P. 867 (1909). However, wstill have many states
like Michigan. In Wolverine 3'ign Works v. Bloom-
field Hills, 279 Mich. 205 208 271 N.W. 823
1937), appears the following: "Aesthetics may be
an incident but cannot be the moving factor." This
statement has been often repeated, not only in sign
147
control cases, but in others as well. The most recent
N. lichigan sign case is Central Advertising v. Ann
Arbor, 391 Mich. 533, 213 N-W.2d 27 (1974).
A number of other important courts have now held
that aesthetics, alone, is enough. Suffolk Gautg ` door
Advertising Co. v. Hulse, 43 N.Y.2d 483, 402
N.Y.S.2d 368, 363 N.E.2d 263 ( 1977) , papeal
drsm d, 439 U.S. 809 (1978),, John Donnelly & Sons
v. Outdoor Advertising Bd., 369 Mass. 206 339
N. E.2d (1975), and Oregon City v. Hartke, 240 Ore.
35 400 P.2d 225 (1965), are examples. Readers
may also wish to examine articles b Buford "Be-
ond t
y - '•
y he Eye of the Beholder: A New Majority of
Jurisdictions Authorize Aesthetic 'lc Reulat b.
on, 48
UMRC L. Rev. 125 (1980) and Polis "Regina-
ti on of Signs and Billboards," appearin g in ZONING
AND PLA?4NING LAW REPORT, Vol. 1, No. 7 (May
1978). . PoIisky also discusses, in considerable detail,
cases having to do with political and "For Sale" signs.b
Ordinance Definitions
The definitions in Section 2 of the model ordin
require little The definition of dgsign is
more Iimited than we see in most sign control ordi-
nances, but should be adequate for the kind of 're gu-
lation involved. The definition of "premises" is *in-
tended to prevent the owner of a store or gas station
from buying the property across the street t i 'o give himtherighttoputupan "on- premises" sign.
Distinction Between On- and Off -Premises Signs
Section 3 of the model contains the operative reu -latory wording. It raises several questions. The first
is the validity of making a distinction between on-
premises and off- premises signs. It has often been
argued that if -a sign advertising a as station is al-
lowedd on the premises of a gas station, a sign adver-
tising some brand of beer or chewing gum should also
be allowed at the same place. The argument was
made and discussed iscussed in Metromedia. It was rejected
explicitly by five Justices --The White rou , 101 S.
Ct. at — g P
1' 69 L. Ed. 2d at 809 -10, 49 U.S.L.W. at
4927 --28, and Justice Stevens, 101 S. Ct. at —, 69 L.
Ed. 2d at . 836, 49 U.S.L.W. at 4943 and was re-
jected implicitly by the other two dissenters. Brennan
and Blackmun did not commit themselves.
Putting St Companies Out of Business
It may be asserted that the ordinance is invalidIld be -
cause it will put sign companies out of business. In
Metromedia, the parties stipulated that the San Diegogordinance, if enforced, would "'eliminate the outdoor
advertising business in th, City of San Diego." 101 S.
Ct. at ---- g
69 L. Ed. 2d at 808, 49 U.S.L.W. at 4927.
The White group mentioned that the ordinance had
been attacked on this ground, but did not hold it
invalid for this reason. 101 S. Ct. at 69 L. Ed. 2d
at 812, 49 U.S.L.W. at 4929. Brennan and Black-
mun similarly allowed that "a city may total; - banthemifitcanshowthatasufficientlysustantialgovernmentalinterestisdirectlyfurtheredbythetotal
ban, and that any more narrowly drawn restriction
i.e., anything less than a total ban' would promote less
well the achievement of that dal." 101 S. Ct. at --
69 L. Ed. 2d at 827,49 U.S.L at 4935. The other
Justices voted to uphold the ordnance. Thus, none of
the Justices apparently regards an ordinance invalid
just because it happens to ut somebody out ofPy busi-
ness. Evidently the entire Court is mindful of the
large number of fireworks stands, gamblin g establish -
ments and houses of ill repute that have been put out
of business by police power regulations.
Distinction Between Commercial and
Noncommercial Signs
In Metromedia, Justice Brennan expressed doubt
that an ordinance banning commercial but ermittingPbnoncommercialbiIIboardswouldbeconstitutional,but seemed to base his doubts on - the grounds that lo-
cal officials would have censorship w 'p p ers m deter-
mining which messages are commercial and which
are not, a First Amendment rather than an Equal Pro-tection question. 101 S. Ct. at , 69 L. Ed. 2d at
831 -35, 49 U.S.L.W. at 4937 -39. The model ordi-
nance, hopefully, avoids this difficulty, since it calls
for no permit and does not give any local official
power to make such a decision, although obviously,the local attorney, in determining whether to take en-
forcement proceedings, must make a preliminarygPry de-
termination. However, this is no more than he must
do when deciding whether to prosecute an allegedyg
violation of any ordinance, and the courts, of course,
stand ready to correct any errors he may make.
Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Blackmun in
their concurring opinion in Metromedia set forth the
following examples to show the difficult y involved.
1. "Visit Joe's Ice Cream Shoppe." 2. "Joe's Ice
Cream Shoppe uses only the highest quality dairyry
products." 3. "Because Joe thinks that dairy roducts
are good f
P
g or you, please shop at Joe's Shoppe."4. "Joe says to support dairy price supsupports: they •= PmeanlowerpricesforyouathisShoppe. They cite
some other examples, showing,_ among other things,that how we regard a rnessag may depend upon
whose sign is involved. 101 S. tt. at , 69 L. Ed.
2d at 834, 49 U.S.L.W. at 4938.
Obviously, somebody has to make a determination
as to whether to permit a given message to be placed
upon a sign, but it appears to be legally much safer
to let the owner make the decision in the first instance,
r
148
and the municipal attorney may then decide whether
tc try to convince the courts that the message is
commercial.
Overbreadth Challenges
In Metromedia, Justice White cites Central Hudson
v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 563 -66,
100 S. Ct. 2343 65 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1980), as estab-
lishing the following four -part rule against overbroad
restrictions on commercial free speech. "(1) The
First Anirndment protects commercial speech only if
that speekh concerns lawful activity and is not mis-
leading. _A restriction on otherwise protected com-
mercial speech is valid only if it (2) seeks to imple-
ment a substantial governmental interest, (3) directly
advances that interest, and (4) reaches no farther
than necessary to accomplish the given objective."
101 S. Ct. at . , 69 L. Ed. 2d at 814 --15, 49
U.S.L.W. at 4930. White and his followers con-
cluded that the San Diego ordinance met the test,
101 S. Ct. at , 69 L. Ed. 2d at 818, 49 U.S.L.W.
at 4931. Justice Stevens also concurred, 101 S. Ct.
at , 69 L. Ed. 2d at 835 -36, 49 U.S.L.W. at 4943,
as, presumably, did the other two dissenters.
The model ordinance does not go quite as far as
the San Diego measure, since it places no restrictions
on signs with noncommercial messages. For this rea-
son, it would seem to meet the Central Hudson test.
In this regard, anyone claiming that the model ordi-
nance regulations are overbroad and go beyond what
is necessary to achieve the twin objectives of traffic
safety and aesthetics should be asked to set forth what
lesser regulation would do the job.
The Issue of a Total Ban
Since* the model ordinance does not totally ban
billboards it permits those with noncommercial mes-
sages and those that are on-premises—it ought to
evade such rulings as Wolverine Sign Works v.
Bloomfield Hills, 279 Mich. 205, 271 N.W. 823
1937), to the effect that statutory authority to regu-
late billboards does not extend to a total ban. It
should also avoid the First Amendment arguments
that can be made with respect to any restriction on
noncommercial speech, since such utterances enjoy a
higher de'ree of constitutional protection than com-
mercial messages.
Removal Provisions
When it comes to proceedings to require the re-
moval of abandoned sign structures, it is to be ex-
pected that the billboard companies will engage in a
lot of activity intended to forestall removal efforts in
the hope that the ordinance may be overturned or
changed to again permit billboards to be used for
commercial messages. These will probably include
use for public service messages or for displayin
works of art or other uses. However, such tactics cost
money, as does the maintenance of sign structures that
do not produce revenue. If the ordinance survives
judicial scrutiny, it can be hoped that most sign own-
ers will comply eventually with the requirement that
obsolete structures be removed. In the meantime, it
may be rather costly and unproductive to attempt to
enforce the removal gprovisidnagainst determined
opposition.
Ordinance Exceptions -and Claims of Discrimination
Section 4 of the ordinance, which contains the ex-
ceptions, was carefully worded to avoid unlawful dis-
crimination. The first exception, designed to assure
the relationship of the regulations to the stated objec-
tives of preventing traffic hazards and improving the
appearance of the municipality, merely excepts signs
not visible from the public streets. This answers an
objection of Justices Brennan and Blackmun in
Metromedia to the prohibition of signs visible from
the "boundary of the premises" in the San Diego
ordinance. They noted that traffic couldn't be hurt by
signs visible from the boundary but not from the
streets. 101 S. Ct. at , 69 L. Ed. 2d at 828 -29,
49 U.S.L.W. at 4935 -36.
The exception relating to specific information pan-
els is applicable, of course, only in those states where
state authorities have begun a specific information
panel program under the Federal Highway Beautifi-
cation Act, 23 U.S.C. § 131. In such cases, the power
of the municipality to regulate signs probably doesn't
extend to those erected on state highway land under
authority of state law anyway.
The final exception is intended merely to avoid any
conflict with state laws, such as Mich. CL. 252.305,
Mich. Stats. Anno. 9.391 (104), which purport to
occupy the whole field of regulation of the size, light-
ing and spacing of signs, and are intended to bring
ZONING AND PLANNING
LAW REPORT
Publisher: Alan L. Morse
Editor -in- Chief: Justin D. Franklin, J.D.
Editor: Fredric A. Strom, J.D.
Contributing Editor: J. Benjamin Gailey
Assistant Editor: NanCy Chapman
Published at New York, New -York monthly except in
August by
Clark Boardman Company, Ltd.
435 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10014
Subscription rate: $62.50 for eleven issues.
Copyright Q 1981 by Clark Boardman Company, Ltd.
All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
149
the state into compliance with the Federal HighwayBeautificationgY
ati on Act.
Compensation for Removal
The ordinance does not provide compensation forP
removal of signs because it does not require the re-
moval of any signs. The only thin that * it rg
to be removed is former sign structures that are totall
unused. Who has standing to raise the issue unless
be has such a structure and wants to prove that it has
substantial value, standing there doi notggmg .
Nonconfo Signszl
The model ordinance likewise does not erinit thehe
continuation of nonconforming uses. It _ is not in-
tended as a zoning ordinance, since it applies equall
roughout the community an oes not divide the
community into different districts with different re -
la ions. It is intend to be adopted unde the en-
eral laws with resp to municipal - oli ce ower re u -
anon, not un the zoning enablinR act. Land use
regu attons o this character have been recognized as
not subject to the nonconforming use provisions of
the zoning enabling acts in two decisions of the Michi-
gan Court of Appeals. Casco Township v. Brame
Trucking Co., 34 Mich. App. 466 N.W.2d 5
1971), involving a soil removal ordinance, and
Renne v. Waterford Township, 73 Mich. App 685
252 N.W.2d 842, appeal den'd 400 Mich. 840
1977), involving an ordinance requirement to dis-
continue septic tank use and hook up to a new sewer.
Conclusion
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Metromedia
does indeed seem to be a very significant case. De-
spite the number of opinions and lack of a , ma'oritYitappearstocleartheaironseveraloftheissuesthat
have raised doubts about the v •validity of many sign
regulations, mostly in favor of the regulators. Fur-
th ermore, unlike many recent decisions in the land
use control area, it appears to provide us with more
answers than new questions.
The Metromedia decision doesn't answer all of the
questions, of course. There still remain many issues
involvin& on- premises sign regulation, control of non -
commercial messages and others. In addition the
decisionFaises at least one question that is certain - in to
produce i lot of litigation. Which messages are com-
mercial and which are not? Possibly we will end upwitharulethatacommercialmessageisonethat
appears intended to advertise some commercial ac-
tivity, with the courts evading the puzzles osed bPyJusticeBrernanbyfocusingonintentratherthan
content. This is a familiar concept both in civil and
criminal litigation.
In the long run, the impact of Metromedia will
probably depend upon the extent to which it is fof -owed by the highest courts of the several states.
However, its majority rulings seernQ .o be rest mu chpyinstepwiththeleaningsofstatecourtdecisionsin
recent years and it will probably serve to popularizethesetrends.
The model ordinance whi4b I have resented aboveP
appears to meet the requireiaents of all but two of theJustices. Through the a& tion of rgPordinances em-
bodying such precepts, we may ho or better
QQ
f b daysinthestrubiletocontrolbillboardblight.
Editor's Note: In conjunction with its decision in
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, supra, the
U.S. Supreme Court, on July 2, 1981, summarily is-
posed of four other Q
y
P r pendin appeals involving sign or
billboard controls. First, the Court denied certiorari
in City of San Diego v. Metromedia, Inc., -- U.S.
101 S. Ct. , 69 L: Ed. 2d 1004, 49 U.S.L.W. 3979
No. 80— .196), which was the City Hof San Die o's
own appeal from that g
PP portion of the judgment of the
Supreme Court of California which held that the fed-
eral Highway Beautification Act, 23 U.S.C. § 131
preempted the San Diego ordinance, at least to the
extent of requiring compensation for the removal of
billboards located within 660 feet of federal Inter-
state and primary highways. Second, the Court va-
cated judgment in the case of Ryan Outdoor Adver-
tising, Inc. v. City of Salinas, U.S. , 101 S. Ct.
69 L. Ed. 2d 999, 49 U.S.L.W. 3978, (No. 80-
1 797), thereby remanding the case to the Court of
Appeal of California, First Appellate District, so that
that court might reconsider its earlier unpublished
opinion upholding a broad ban on off -site advertisininlightof- the Metromedia decision. Third, the Court
denied certiorari in Department of Transportation of
the State of Oklahoma v. Pile, U.S. , 101 S. Ct.
69 L. Ed. 2d 1004, 49 U.S.L.W. 3979 (No. 79-
1617), thus upholding a determination by the Su-
preme Court of Oklahoma, 603 P. 2d 337 (19 7 9) ,
that a state statute banning billboards should be J 'u-
dicially interpreted as not applying to noncommercial
billboards in order to avoid unconstitutionality.
Fourth, and finally, the Court summarily affirmed in
Campbell v. John Donnelly &--Sons, U.S. 101
S. Ct. --, 69 L. Ed. 999 49W.S.L.W. 3978 (No.
80- 1597), thereby upholdin& the federal Court of
Appeals' determination, 639 Fr2d 6 (1st Cir. 1980),
that Maine's statewide ban on billboards, while valid
insofar as commercial messages were concerned, was
overbroad - and in violation of the First Amendment
by reason of its virtual total prohibition of ideologi-
cal and noncommercial signs in the state.)
150
KEY
Naegele Qillboards 1 -12
Maplewood Mall Directional Signs 13
Northernaire Motel Pylon Sign 14
Mutual Service Pylon Sign 15
Tom Thumb Billboard (on building) 16
Mount Zion Lutheran Church Sign 17
St. Paul Tourist Cabins Sign 18
Laber's Liquor Store Sign 19
r ; , 1 ; .I ,$1
JL,
r
MA P 1
EXISTING - BILLBOARDS
i
MUNKV.MM OF
MAPLEWOOD
bltN!!KO?A DV" MSNT OF }0 "AU
WU OW bo WAP /MWA OF M
TRANSPORTAIlON AND TRAM=
ILANKM AND PROGRAMMING DtVMM
OMC16 or
s t
TRANSPORW70N PIANNIIOG
aus
w•/ • w aMI
Y
lEY
Y)M• A IM '
jy
Art ................
HIT[ at a L AKr
ambe file
ClBe
0
aupfAIS HEIGHTS (61
AlJ,
I xf I
1'i -- O lcJi. O V VtJ_ I . _ ;
tr !1:
Olt.
fe-c—"as see
woo v v MORTM ST PPA
26 40 N.
3M
oft
it
Ap
3M10 .9-46m, %t-!-*ftmzj 2400N.
jug
Goo Aw ".
r -LITTLIF Cawam
ICY Lomm
L
0 0 G I I 21--0 --N.s IOf
e/ - 7it C3
mumn Lwe
Irv-0 t
n St PAULa _ lei - --
j
llLWi V
n _ i..•1 U_ D
1 s H ____
me
Set&
ov0
IUa LidNIIr---
I z • I 19" Lj
till
sill
ST. PAUL CPU)
PAUL
NUMBER OF POSSIBLE BILLBOARD
LOCATIONS UNDER THE CURRENT
ORDINANCE
existin billboards are
included)
101 billboards are shown
i 'k ,
CITY OF MAPLE1400D
PETITIONER
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
REQUEST
a
N
I
L
to
C
7
0 ,
bode. ceeof
0
CL
67
f, NOW
1111ft
Mir
Erg _ -.
gem we
U
n•w 0
All.
wor
r 3M ri
00
1
low
pi r
1.
L '
WAS-044•7 CO
I I - .1 -isl I ,
I boo ;-I
E03
MEOW-.
Ir I a
L&W 13
lI. .
E I m
NUMBER OF POSSIBLE BILLBOARD LOCATIONS
UNDER PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE II
existin billboards are included)
52 billboards are shown
istin Billboards
RI
01047" $1 PAUL
gl . d
ON0
V
ff tt " 1 ; J +' a+
OF
Of LOON
11 Rrw
1440 NA 0
for COW9
IITirlfl ; + a
1200N.
61
9 En
Spa.
10
a Ff—
J
ti
72ON
I I - s Y7
3M
s 1
410N.
0
is
SA
3m
BILLBOARD SURVEY
Staff surveyed the 18 metropolitan cities that are closest to Maplewood in
population, to determine the required separation between billboards. Si x of
these cities prohibited billboards. The other 12 are ranked below bx their
answers. The number in paranthesi s after each City's name is their 1980
population.
SEPARATION REQUIRED BETWE -EN
CITY BILLBOARDS IN FEET
1. Bur "nsvi 11 e ( 2 (Presently ,000 - revisingordinance)
2. Plymouth (31,,615) Separation based on speed limit
55 MPH 1,500
35 MPH 1
3. White Bear Lake (22,528)
4. Coon Rapids (35,820)
5. Fridley (30,228)
6. New Brighton (23,269)
MEDIAN = 1,000 feet
1. Eagen (20,532)
2. Blaine (28,558)
MAPLEWOOD (26,990)
3. Crystal (25,543)
4. Richfield (37,851)
5. Minnetonka (38,683)
64 South St. Paul (21,235)
1,000
1 ,000
1
113000 `
1,000
500
500
500 on Interstates
400 elsewhere
500 on Interstates
300 elsewhere
500 on Highways - 1200 on Interstates
200 elsewhere
500 on Interstates
100 on State Highways
0 elsewhere, individually
reviewed by special use permit
State &f Minnesota Requirements
The fol lbwi ng cities surveyed do not allow an new billboards: _y
Maple Grove (20,525) .-
New Hope (23,087)
Brooklyn Center (31,230)
Golden Valley (22,775)
Apple Valley (21,818)
Roseville (35,820)
w
BILLBOARD SURVEY CONTINUED .....:.
For further information, the bi separation requirements for suburban citiesadjacenttoMaplewoodthatarenotlistedaboveareasfollow • -s. .
Oakdale Ordinance under revision,-- -
Woodbury 15000 -
NOTE only billboard promoting a business or activityt i n Woodyury are allowed}Newport Moratorium on billboards
Little'; Billboards prohibited
Vadnal s Heights 1,300
North St. Paul 40
2 -
NAEGELE PROPOSAL
a. Billboards shall not be located closer to any other such billboard
on the same side of the street or h facing traffic headin
in the same direction than:
1) 1, 000 feet on any limited access highwayY
a
2) 750 feet on the remaining arteries.
3) This spacing does not apply to structures separated by buildin s
or other obstructions -in such a manner that only one sign face
located within the above spacing distance is visible from the
highway or street at any one time.
b. Billboards shall not be located within the boundary lines of an
railroad right of way.
3. Size:
The maximum size limitation stated in this section shall apply to each side
of a sign structure - and--- s4gn-s:- Sign may be placed back -to -back or in
a V- type -eens- trot: -tjolt arran ement if there are no more than two sign faces.
The maximum area of a sign face shall not exceed:
a. 750 square feet on limited access highways, including border and trim,
but excluding base and apron supports and other structural members.
b. 450 square feet on the remaining arteries, including border and trim,
but excluding base and apron supports and other structural members
4. Height:
The height shall be measured from the grade or the highway, whichever
t
is higher.
z
The maximum heiEjht for billboards shall not exceed:
a. 40 feet on limited access highways.
b. 30 feet on the arteries.
Proposed amendments to Alternative 11.
5. Lighting: .
a. Billboards w4H shall not be illuminated with flashing light or lights,
except those giving public service information such as, but not
limited to, time, date, temperature, weather or news.
b. Billboard lighting wiH- shall be effectively shielded so as not to
impair the vision of any operator of a motor vehicle.
C. Billboard lighting mt-t shall not interfere with the effectiveness of
or obscure any official traffic sign, device or signal.
d. Billboards shall riot use lights between midnight and 6 a.m.a .
6. Specifications:
Where the structural support is visible from the road in which it is.
intended to be viewed, the billboard shall be constructed on a single pole.
7, - Ground Restoration
Any ground area disturbed., due to the construction or removal of a
billboard, shall be restored to its original condition.
37 8. 'Nonconforming Signs:
Any billboard sign existing at the time of the enactment of this ordinance
and not conforming to its provisions shall be regarded as legal nonconformingggg
signs which may be continued, if properly repaired and maintained as provided
in this ordinance and continue to be in conformance with other ordinances
of this municipality.
Nonconforming signs which are structurally altered, relocated, or replaced
shall comply immediately with all provisions of this code.
9. Any previously adopted require that conflict with this ordinance
shall be null and void.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after its passage and publication,
Proposed amendments to Alternative 11.
Passed b the Cit Council of the
Cit of Maplewood, Minnesota, this
da of 19820
fittest:
Clerk
f
Ma
A
Nays--
LI
Mr. & Mrs. Jon Belisle
2594 Brookview Dr. ~'
St. Paul, Minn. 55119 - -
17tw G
r . . -.-mac. 04-L ..
s Stun c fsirer w:p
COIWO 414. 40e46-
V
u . L$.. u llov%4 w41.- F.„.P
s
i'
j"
fQ
September 8, 1982
Z-5
r .rAMEMORANDUM =-
I
To: City Manager Barry Evans
From: Fire Marshal A. C. Schad t,
Subject: Ordinance Change - Uni fo Fire Code
New updated Fire Codes have been published, received by this office and are
ready for implementation.
There are two changes that would be necessary from our present Ordinance,
that being the date and location of copies for review by the public and
other interested parties.
A copy of our present Ordinance is attached for your information and review,
with the necessary proposed update changes shown.
If you concur, I would appreciate your handling the above with the City
Council.
ACS:js
ORDINANCE N0. 411
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
1703 OF THE MAPLEWOOD CODE
RELATING TO FIRE PREVENTION CODE.
a
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1703.010 is hereby amended in its entiret to read
as follows:
111703.010. ADOPTION OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. There is hereby adopted bytheCityofMaplewoodforthepurposeofprescribingregulationsgoverning
conditions hazardous to life and propert from fire or explosion, that certain
code known as the Uniform Fire Code, 979 dition and the w o e thereof
published by International Conference.o Building Officers, of which not less "
r
than three (3) copies have been received and now are filed in the office of
the Jerk
if fu
f the City and the same are hereby adopted,.and incor p as
r . eorated / y set out at length herein, and from the date on which this ordinance
effect, takes ethe provision thereof shall be controlling within 'j g the limits
of the City of Maplewood."
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and
after passage and publication.
Passed by the Council of the City of
Maplewood this
1981.
Mayor
Ayes -
Nays -
Attest:
City Clerk