HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 11-22 City Council PacketAGENDA
Maplewood City Council
7:00 P.M., Monday, November 22, 1982
Municipal Administration Building
Meetinq 82 -31
A) CALL TO ORDER
B) ROLL CALL
C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes 82 -27, October 7, 1982
Minutes 82 -28, October 18, 1982
D) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E) CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
City Council and w i l l be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There
will be no separate discussion on these items. If discussion is desired, that
item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately.
11 Accounts Payable
2. Preliminary Plat Time Extension (Lake Ridge Park)
3. 1490 - 1512 Co. Rd. 'B' Parking
4. Property Transfer
5, Sale of City Property
6, Liquor License - Renewal - Off Sale
7. Liquor License - Renewal - On Sale
EA) SPECIAL ITEMS
1. State Fire Chiefs Poster Contest - 1982
F) PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Rezoning - Stillwater & Ferndale (7:00)_
2. PUD Revision: Acorn Greenhouses (7:15)_
3. Code Revision: Shoreland Ordinance (7:30)
G) AWARD OF BIDS
1. Maplewood In Motion
H) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11 Maplewood Toyota Project
2. Rubbish Removal (2nd.Reading)
3. Code Amendment: Set Backs R -1 & R -2 (2nd Read i ng - 4 Votes)
4. Code Amendment: Screening (2nd Reading - 4 Votes)
I) NEW BUSINESS
1.* Sewer Fees
2, Code Amendment: Environmental Protection (1st Reading)
3. Frost Ave. Reconstruction
4 - 0 White Bear Ave 36 to Edgewater Ave.
5. Ordinance Limiting Terms to Boards & Commissions -
6. Court Lease - 1983
7, Hydrant Charges
J) VISITOR PRESENTATION
K) COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1.
Q
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
100 - - -- - --- ---- --
M) ADJOURNMENT
Minutes of Maplewood City Council
6:00 P.M., Thursday, October 7, 1982
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 82 -27
A. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council
Chambers, Municipal Building and was called to order at 6:02 P.M. by Mayor Greavu.
B. ROLL CALL
John C. Greavu, Mayor
Norman G. Anderson, Councilmember
Gary W. Bastian, Councilmember
Frances L. Juker, Councilmember
MaryLee Maida, Councilmember
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
1. Minutes No. 82 -25 (September 13, 1982)
Councilmember Anderson moved that the Minutes of Meeting No. 82 -25 (September 13,
1982) be approved as corrected:
Page 9 - Item F -2 lg: "Seconded by.Councilmember Anderson. Ayes all."
Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all.
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Greavu moved to approve the agenda as amended
1. volunteerism
2. Staff and Council
3. 25th Anniversary Run
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
1. 1983 Budget 6:00 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding adoption
of the 1983 Budget .
b. Manager Evans presented the budget to the Council.
c. Councilmember Maida moved to increase the Election Budget by $950 to cover
costs of relocating Precinct 3.
Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all.
d. Mayor Greavu moved to increase the Fire Departments budget by the 4% that
was deleted earlier.
1 ni-7
Seconded by Councilmember Maida,
Councilmember Bastian moved to increase the Fire Departments budget by 3 %.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - Councilmembers Anderson and Bastian.
Nays - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers -Juker
and Maida.
e. Fire Chief Bill Mikiska, Gladstone Fire Department and Don Hove -, East County
Line Fire Department explained their budget requests.
Voting on original motion. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson,
Juker and Maida.
Nays - Councilmember Bastian.
f. Mayor Greavu called for proponents and opponents. None were heard.
g. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
h. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution adopting the 1983
Budget and moved its adoption:
82 - 10 - 136
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that
the budget for 1983 is hereby adopted with the following appropriations for each
department and fund:
General Fund:
General Government $ 679,680
Finance 174,910
City Clerk 152,020
Public Safety 2,677,180
Public Works 939,240
Community Services 687,280
Community Development 239,880
5,550
Hydrant Charge Fund:
Public Works 61,910
Sewer Fund:
City Clerk 169,220
Public Works 1,914,650
V.E.M. Fund:
Public Works 299,470
Park Development Fund:
Community Services 114,000
Debt Service Funds 2211030
Special Assessment Fund - -Debt
Service Accounts 5,43 2,350
Total $ 13
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all budget changes shall require City Council
approval except for budget transfers of up to $1 between accounts which shall
be implemented up.on approval by the City Manager.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that authorization is hereby given to transfer
307,000 of revenue sharing monies to the General Fund to partly finance the
contracts between the City and its three fire departments: Gladstone, Parkside
and East County Line.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
i. Resolution Levying Taxes Payable in 1983
Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resoluti and mo its adoption:
82 - 10 - 137
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that:
1. The following amounts of taxes be levied for 1982, payable in 1983, upon the
taxable property in said City of Maplewood, for the following purposes:
General Fund $ 3,223
Debt Service Funds 88
Special Assessment Fund 502,700
Total Levy $ 3,814,980
2. There is on hand in the following sinking funds excess amounts as indicated
after each fund and such shall be used to pay on the appropriate obligations
of the City:
Description
1964 Water Improvement Bonds 54
1964 Consolidated Improvement Bonds 20
1965 Municipal Bonds 684
1965 General Obligation Improvement Bonds 17,000
1966 General Obligation Improvement Bonds 24
1967 General Obligation Sanitary Sewer Bonds 2,200
1967 General Obligation Improvement Bonds 8,600
1968 Improvement Bonds 6
1969 General Obligation Improvement Bonds 45,000
1971 General Obligation Improvement Bonds 659000
1972 General Obligation Improvement Bonds - Series 1 1,600
1972 General Obligation Improvement Bonds - Series 2 2
1973 Improvement Bonds 95
1977 Public Works Building Bonds 6,400
1977 General Obligation Improvement Bonds - Series 2 6590.00
1979 General Obligation Improvement Bonds 9,900
1980 Fire Station Bonds 84
Total 507
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 475.61 and 273.13, Subd. 19 (3), (a),
b), (c) and Chapter 297a and Chapter 162 of Minnesota Statutes, the County
Auditor of Ramsey County is hereby authorized and directed to reduce by the
amounts above mentioned the tax that would be otherwise included in the rolls
for the year 1982 and collectible in 1983,
3. It has been determined that the following bond issues have insufficient projected
assets to meet projected liabilities, as required by State Statute, and the
original resolution levying ad- valorem taxes must be increased in the following
amount:
3 - 10/7
Increase
Description In Levy
1970 General Obligation Improvement Bonds 3
1977 General Obligation Improvement Bonds - Series 1 115,900
In accordance with Minnesota Statute 475.61, Subd. 2, the County Auditor of
Ramsey County is hereby authorized and directed to increase by the amount
above mentioned the tax that would be otherwise included in the rolls for
the year 1982 and collectible in 1983.
4. Changes set forth in sections one (1) and (2) above result in a net reduction
of $388,248 and are summarized and hereby adopted as Schedule "A ". Such amounts
shown are the total amounts to be spread on the rolls in 1982 and collectible
in 1983 for each of the bond issues shown, including the reductions and increases
in levy amounts set forth in sections one (1) and two (2) above.
5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to furnish a copy of this
resolution to the County Auditor of Ramsey County forthwith.
BONDS & INTEREST LEVIES COLLECTIBLE 1983
BOND ISSUES
Water Main Extension Improvement
Consolidated Improvement
Municipal Building
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Imp. San.Swr
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
State Aid Bonds
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Obligation Improvement
General Oblig. Imp.- Series 1
Public Works Building Bonds
General Oblig. Imp.- Series 2
General Obligation Bonds -1979
Fire Station Bonds
ft TAX LEVIES PLEDGED TO REDEEM G.
TAX LEVIES PLEDGED TO REDEEM G.
Prin.
Amount
600M
975M
175M
83 5M
750M
645M
450M
380M
1,980M
605M
1, 740M
540M
Date
9/15/64
12/1/64
5/1/65
12/1/65
12/1/66
7/1/67
12/1/67
12/1/68
12/1/69
12/1/70
8/1/71
8/1/71
Code
No.
509
509
301
509
509
503
504
505
514
521
514
302
Per Bond
Register
54,364
20,000
16,884
17,000
24,000
12,000
12,000
6,500
45,000
10,000
65,000
1,090M 5/1/72 510 30,000
670M 12/1/72 511 30,000
2,175/7/1/73 513 95,000
1 11/1/74 521 45,000
1 12/1/75 521 75,000
1 5/1/76 521 128
3 4/1/77 519 12,400
995M 4/1/77 303 78
3 10/1/77 520 65,000
825M 8/1/79 522 53
470M 8/1/80 304 84
979,248
0. REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS 1974
O. REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BONDS 1977
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
j. 1983 Delinquent Sewer Accounts
Amount
Levied
16,200
9
31400
13,100
28 , 400
28,000
45
75
128,600
128,300
72,100
43
591,000
Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
A - 1n/ 7
82 - 10 - 138
RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to
the Auditor of Ramsey County the attached list of delinquent sewer rental charges
and hydrant charges said list made a part herein, for certification against the
tax levy of said property owners for the year 1982, collectible in 1983, and which
listing includes interest at the rate of thirteen (13 %) percent on the total amount
for one year.
Total amount to be certified: $47,842.34.
Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all.
k. 1983 Delinquent Weed Cutting Charges
Councilrnember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
82 - 10 - 139
RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to .certify
to the Auditor of Ramsey County the attached list of delinquent weed cutting charges
said list made a part herein for certification against the tax levy of said proper-
ty owners for the year 1982, collectible in 1983 and which listing includes interest
at the rate of thirteen (13 %) percent on the total amount for the year.
57 48950 010 01 $ 62.16
57 62750 010 01 39.56
57 27500 100 01 41.82
Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all.
2. Plan Amendment - Health Resources, Inc. 6:30 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting regarding a plan amendment from S C Service
Commercial to RB Residential Business as requested by Health Resources, Inc. 2696
Hazelwood Avenue.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
C. Mayor Greavu called for persons who wished to be heard. The following residents
voiced their opinions:
Mrs. Barbara Love, 2661 Hazelwood (against)
Mr. Ed O'Mara, 1706 Maryknoll (in favor)
Mr. Steve Lukin, 1681 E. County Road C (against)
Mr. Ron Erickson, 2673 Hazelwood (against)
Mr. Jim Love, 2661 Hazelwood (against)
Mrs. Christine Stone, 2727 Hazelwood (against)
d. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
e. Counrilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
82 - 10 - 140
1
WHEREAS, a proceedings for the amendment of the Maplewood Comprehensive
Municipal Plan entitled "Plan for Maplewood" has been initiated by Health Resources,
Inc. for a change of Planned Use from S C- Service Commercial to RB- Residential-
5 - 10/7
Business, for the following generally described area:
Except Hazelwood Park, all that property lying north of the south 510 feet in the
Southwest quarter (SW 1/4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of Section three
3), Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the proposed amendment is as follows:
I. The City of Maplewood has a Comprehensive Municipal Plan entitled "Plan for
Maplewood" adopted pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota 'Statutes, Chapter
670, Laws 1965 (the Municipal Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes Annotated,
Sections 462.351 to 462.364 thereof);
2. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subdivision 2 and 3 thereof, provide
for amendment of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan or of any section thereof;
3. An amendment of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan has been proposed by Health
Resources, Inc. and referred to the Maplewood Planning Commission, which
held a public hearing on the 16th day of August, 1982 pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, 462.355, Sub division 2 thereof, notice by mail and publication having
been given, heard all who wished to be heard, considered all written and staff
reports and analysis.
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Planning Commission, having considered the testimony
of those present, all written submissions to it and staff reports, approved the
amendment on the following findings of fact:
1. The present designation of SC- Service Commercial is overly intensive and out-
of- character with adjacent planned uses.
2. The resultant density would not be inconsistent with the surrounding land
uses.
3. The site is well suited for a seniors' residence.
4. Six of 39 acres of higher density residential land would be regained which
had been lost in this neighborhood during the Plan Update process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council hereby certifies
the above - described amendment to its Comprehensive Municipal Plan entitled "Plan
for Maplewood."
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
Councilmember Bastian excused himself from the meeting at 7:50 P.M.
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Commercial Development Revenue Note - Emerald Inn 7:00 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request
of Emerald Inn of Maplewood for a $1,100,000 commercial development revenue
to construct a 66 unit economy motel on County Road D east of White Bear Avenue.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
6 — 10/7
c. Mr. Fred Chute, Jr., President Chayton Corporation, the applicant, spoke on
behalf of the proposal.
d. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard.
e. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
f. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
g. Mayor Greavu introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
82 - 10 - 141A
RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT
PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA
MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION
FOR APPROVAL OF SAID PROJECT TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA -
AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
IN CONNECTION WITH SAID PROJECT
WHEREAS,
a) The purpose of Chapter 474, Minnesota
Statutes, known as the Minnesota Municipal Industrial
Development Act (the "Act ") as found and determined by the
legislature is to promote the welfare of the state by the
active attraction and encouragement and development of economi-
cally sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible
the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of
chronic unemployment;
b) Factors necessitating the active promotion
and development of economically sound industry and commerce are
the increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan
areas and the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of
governmental services required to meet the needs of the
increased population and the need for development 'of land use
which will provide an adequate tax base to finance these
increased costs and access to employment opportunities for such
population;
c) The City Council of the City of Maplewood
the "City ") has received from Judson Dayton, Duncan Dayton,
Fred Chute, Dr . Edward Chute, David Chute and Arthur B.
Johnson, who propose to form a corporation or partnership (the
Company ") a proposal that the City undertake to finance a
Project hereinafter described, through the issuance of revenue
bonds in the form of a single debt instrument ("the Note" )
pursuant to the Act;
7 — 1017
d) The City desires to facilitate the selec-
tive development of the community, retain and improve the tax
base and help to provide the range of services and employment
opportunities required by the population; and the Project will
assist the City in achieving those objectives. The Project
will help to increase assessed valuation of the City and help
maintain a positive relationship between assessed valuation and
debt and enhance the image and reputation of the community;
e) Company is currently engaged in the
business of real estate development. The Project to be
financed by the Note is an Emerald Inn hotel facility to be
located in the City and consists of the acquisition of land and
the construction of buildings and improvements thereon and the
installation of equipment therein, and will result in the em-
ployment of 25 additional persons to work within the new
facilities;
f) The City has been advised by representa-
tives of Company that conventional, commercial financing to pay
the capital cost of the Project is available only on a limited
basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic
feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly
reduced, but Company has also advised this Council that with
the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing
cost, the Project is economically more feasible;
g) A public hearing, which was a rehearing on
the Project, was held on October 7, 1982, after notice was
published, and materials made available for public inspection
at the office of the City Clerk, all as required by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b at which public
rehearing all those appearing who so desired to speak were
heard;
h) No public official of the City has either a
direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will
any public official either directly or indirectly benefit
financially from the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Council hereby gives preliminary approval to the
ro osal of Company that the City undertake the ProjectPnPP •y vial DevelopmentpursuanttotheMinnesotaMunicipalIndust ActP
Chapter 474 Minnesota Statutes) , consisting of the acqui-
sition, construction and equipping of facilities within the
Cit ursuant to Company s specifications suitable for thePyP
v and to a revenue agreementoperationsdescribedabove between9 ,
the City nd Company upon. such, terms and conditions _ with
y
time as necessary, so as
provisions for revision from time to y
to P roduce income and . revenues sufficient to pay, when due, the
principalal of and interest on the Note in the total principal
8 - 10/7
amount of approximately $1,500,000 to be issued pursuant to the
Act to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of
the Project; and said agreement may also provide for the entire
interest of Company therein to be mortgaged to the purchaser of
the Note; and the City hereby undertakes preliminarily to issue
its Note in accordance with such terms and conditions;
2. On the basis of information available to this Council
it appears, and the Council hereby finds, that the Project
constitutes properties, real and personal, used or useful in
connection with one or more revenue producing enterprises
engaged in any business within the meaning of Subdivision lb of
Section 474.02 of the Act; that the Project furthers the
purposes stated in Section 474.01, Minnesota Statutes; that the
availability of the financing under the Act and willingness of
the City to furnish such financing will . be a substantial
inducement to Company to undertake the Project, and that the
effect of the Project, if undertaken, will be to encourage the
development of economically sound industry and commerce, to
assist in the prevention of the emergence of blighted and
marginal land, to help prevent chronic unemployment, to help
the City retain and improve the tax base and to provide the
range of service and employment opportunities required by the
population, to help prevent the movement of talented and
educated persons out of the state and to areas within the State
where their services may not be as effectively used, to promote
more intensive development and use of land within the City and
eventually to increase the tax base of the community;
39 The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by
the City subject to the approval of the Project by ; the
Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development (the
Commissioner"), and subject to final approval by this Council,
Company, and the purchaser of the Note as to the ultimate
details of the financing of the Project;
4. In accordance with Subdivision 7a of Section 474.01
Minnesota Statutes, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized
and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the
Commissioner requesting his approval, and other officers,
employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to
provide the Commissioner with such preliminary information as
he may require;
5. Company has agreed and it is hereby determined that
any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the
financing of the Project whether or not the Project is carried
to completion and whether or not approved by the Commissioner
will be paid by Company;
6. Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, acting as
bond counsel, is authorized to assist in the preparation and
review of necessary documents relating to the Project, to
consult with the City Attorney, Company and the purchaser of
the Note as to the maturities, interest rates and other terms
and provis ions of the Note and as to the covenants and other
provis ions of the necessary documents and to submit such
documents to the Council for final approval;
7. Nothing in this resolution or in the documents pre -
pared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any
municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues derived
from the Project or otherwise granted to the City for this
purpose. The Note shall not constitute a charge, lien or
encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of
the City except the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment
thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability
thereon. The holder of the Note shall never have the right to
compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the
outstanding principal on the Note or the interest thereon, or
to enforce payment thereof against any property . of the City •
The Note shall recite in substance that the Note including
interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenue and
proceeds pledged to the payment thereof . The Note shall not
constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation;
8. In anticipation of the approval by the Commissioner
and the issuance of the Note to finance all or a portion of the
Project, and in order that completion of the Project will not
be unduly delayed when approved, Company is hereby authorized
to make such expenditures and advances toward payment of that
portion of the costs of the Project as Company considers
necessary, including the use of interim, short -term financing,
subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the dote if and
when delivered but otherwise without liability on the part of
the City;
9. If construction of the Project is not started within
one year from the date hereof, this resolution shall thereafter
have no force and effect and the preliminary approval herein
granted is withdrawn;
10. The actions of the City Clerk in causing publication
of notice of the public rehearing, describing the general
nature of the Project and estimating the principal amount of
the Note to be issued to finance the Project and in preparing a
draft of the proposed application to the Commissioner, for
approval of the Project, which has been available for
inspection by the public at the City Hall from and after the
publication of notice of the hearing, are in all respects
ratified and confirmed.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
h. Mayor Greavu introduced the following resolution and moved its ado tion:
82 - 10 - 141B
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
DEFINITIONS, LEGAL AUTHORIZATION AND FINDINGS
101, Definitions.
6- 10 - in/7
The terms used herein, unless the context hereof
shall require otherwise shall have the following meanings, and
any other terms defined in the Loan Agreement shall have the
same meanings when used herein as assigned to them in the Loan
Agreement unless the context or use thereof indicates another
or different meaning or intent.
Act: the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended;
Assignment of Rents and Leases the agreement to be
executed by the Borrower assigning all the rents, issues,
profits and leases derived from the Project to the Lender to
secure the repayment of the Note and interest thereon;
Bond Counsel the firm of Briggs and Morgan, Professional
Association, of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, or any
other firm of nationally recognized bond counsel, and any
opinion of Bond Counsel shall be a written opinion signed by
such Bond Counsel;
Borrower: Emerald Inn of Maplewood, a Minnesota general
partnership, its successors, assigns, and any surviving,
resulting or transferee business entity which may assume its
obligations under the Loan Agreement;
C_ itY the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, its successors
and assigns;
Construction Fund: the fund established by the City
pursuant to this Resolution and into •the Proceeds Account of
the Construction Fund the proceeds of the Note will be
deposited;
Construction_ Loan _Agreement: the agreement to be executed
by the C y,it the Borrower and the Lender, relating to the di s-
bursement and payment of Project Costs for the acquisition,
construction and installation of the Project;
Guarantors [to come]
Guaranty: collectively, the guaranties of the payment of,
among ther things, the principal of, premium, if any, andg
interest on the Note to be executed by the Guarantors as of the
date of this Agreement;
Improvements the structures and other improvements,.b constructed orincludinganytangiblepersonalproperty, to e
installed b'Y the Borrower on the .Land in accordance with the
Plans and Specifications;
Land : the real property and any other easements and
rights cdescribed in Exhibit A attached to the Loan Agreement
Lender: First National Bank of Minneapolis, in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, its successors and assigns;
Loan Agreement the agreement to be executed by the City
and the B rrower , providing for the issuance of the Note and
the loan of the proceeds thereof to the Borrower, including any
amendments or supplements thereto made in accordance with its
provisions;
Mart a e : the Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement
and Fixture Financing Statement between the Borrower as
mortgagor, a or, to the Lender, as mortgagee, securing payment of the
Note and interest thereon including any mortgage supplemental
thereto entered into in accordance with the provisions thereof;
Note: thee Commercial Development Revenue Note
of 1982, (Emerald Inn of Maplewood Project) to be issued by the
City pursuant to this Resolution;
Note Register: the records kept by the City Clerk to.
provide for the registration of transfer of ownership of the
Note; 0
Plans and Specitications the plans and specifications
for the construction and installation of the Improvements on
the Land, which are approved by the Lender, together with such
modifications thereof and additions thereto as are reasonably
determined by the Borrower to be necessary or desirable for the
completion of the Improvements and are approved by the Lender;
Pledge Agreement the agreement to be executed by the
City and the Lender pledging and assigning the Loan Agreement
to the Lender;
Princi al Balance so much of the principal suns on the
Note as remains unpaid at any time;
Project: the Land and Improvements as they may at any
time exist;
Project Costs the total of all "Construction Costs" and
Loan and Carr in Charges, " as those terms are de f ined in theYg
Loan Agreement;
Resolution this Resolution of the City adopted October
7- ..982 authorizing the issuance of the Note, together with
any supplement or amendment thereto.
All references in this instrument to designated
Articles," "Sections" and other subdivisions are to the desig-
nated Articles, Sections and subdivisions of this resolution as
on inal l ado ted . " " hereof" and "hereund-q y p The words herein,
er" and other words of similar import refer to this Resolution
as a whole not to an Y particular Article, Section or subdivis-
ion.
1 -2. Legal Authorization
The City is a political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota and is authorized under the Act to initiate the
revenue producing project herein ref erred to, and to issue and
sell the Note for the purpose, in the manner and upon the terms
and conditions set forth in the Act and in this Resolution.
1.2 - 10/7
1 -3. Findings
The City Council has heretofore determined, and does
hereby determine, as follows:
1) The City is authorized by the Act to enter into a
Loan Agreement for the public purposes expressed in the Act,
2) The City has made the necessary arrangements with the
Borrower for the establishment within the City of a Project
consisting of certain property all as more fully described in
the Loan Agreement and which will be of the character and
accomplish the purposes provided by the Act, and the City hasP
xecut'by this Resolution authorized the Project and the on ofei
the Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement., the Note and the
Construction Loan Agreement, which documents specify certain
terms and conditions of the acquisition and financing the
Project;
3) in authorizing the Project the City's purpose is, and
in its judgment the effect thereof will be, to promote the pub-
lic welfare by: the promotion of tourism in the state, the
attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound
industry and commerce so as to prevent , so far as possible , : the
blightedemergenceof and marginal lands and areas of chronicgg
unemployment; the development of revenue- producing enterprises
to use the available resources of the community, in order to
retain the benefit of the community's existing investment in
educational and Public service facilities; the halting of the
movement of talented, educated personnel of all ages to other
areas and thus preserving the economic and human resources
needed as a base for providing governmental services and facil
ities; the provision of accessible employment opportunities for
residents in the area the expansion of an adequate tax base to
finance the increase in the amount and cost of governmental
services, including educational services for the school
district serving the community in which the Project is
situated;
4) the amount estimated to be necessary to partially
finance the Project Costs, including the costs and estimated
costs ermitted b Section 474.05 of the Act, will require the
P Y
issuance of the Note in the aggregate principal amount of
1,100,000 as hereinafter provided;
5) it is desirable, feasible and consistent with the
objects and purposes of the Act to issue the Note, for the
purpose of financing the Project;
6) the Note and the interest accruing thereon do not
constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of
any constitutional or statutory limitation and do not consti
Mute or give rise too-a pecuniary liability or a charge against
the general credit or taxing powers of the City and neither the
full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City are
pledged for the payment of the Note or interest thereon; and
13 - 10/7
7) the Note is an industrial development bond within the
meaning of Section 103(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and is
to be issued within the exemption provided under subparagraph
D) of Section 103 (b) (6) of the Code with respect *to an issue
Of $10,000,000 or less; provided that nothing herein shall
prevent the City from hereafter qualifying the Note under a
different exemption if, and to the extent, such exemption is
permitted by law and consistent with the objects and purposes
of the Project.
Authorization and Ratification of Project
The City has heretofore and does hereby authorize the
Borrower, in accordance with the provisions of Section
474.03(7) of the Act and subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Construction Loan Agreement, to provide for
the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project
by such means as shall be available to the Borrower and in the
manner determined by the Borrower, and without advertisement
for bids as may be required for the construction and acquisi—
tion of municipal facilities; and the City hereby ratifies,
affirms, and approves all actions heretofore taken by the
Borrower consistent with and in anticipation of such authority
and in compliance with the Plans and Specifications*
ARTICLE TWO
NOTE
2 -1.Authorized Amount and Form of Note.
issued pursuant to this Resolution shall be
The Nate P
in substantiallyntiall the form set forth herein, with such appropri-
ate variations,onmissions and insertions as are permitted or
solution, and in accordance with the further
required by this R
hereof; and the total principal amount of the Note
provisions he ,limited to
at may be outstanding hereunder is expressly limited
Y
1,.100, 000 unless a duplicate. Note is issued pursuant to Sec -
tion 2 -6. The Note shall be in substantially the following
form:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Commercial Development Revenue Note of 1982
Emerald Inn of Maplewood Project)
1,100,000
Gob 14 - 10/7
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the CITY OF MA.PLEWOOD, Ramsey
County, Minnesota (the "City "), hereby promises to pay to the
order of First National Bank of Minneapolis (the "Lender ") , its
successors or registered assigns (the Lender and any such a
successor or registered assignee being also sometimes
hereinafter referred to as the "Holder"),, from the source and
in the manner hereinafter provided, the principal sum of ONE
MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,100,000) or so much
thereof as remains unpaid from time to time (the "Principal
Balance ") , with interest thereon at the rate spe in
ara raphs 1(a) and 1(b) hereof (the "Tax Exemptt Rate ") or atg
such higher rate as provided in paragraph l(c) hereof the
Taxable Rate "), in any coin or currency which at the time or
times of payment is legal tender for the payment of public or
private debts in the United States of America, in accordance
with the terms hereinafter set forth.
1. (a) From and a f ter the date hereof through and
including September 1, 1983, interest only shall be paid at the
rate of _% per annum. Interest shall accrue from the date
hereof and shall be payable on the first day of the calendar
month next succeeding the date hereof and on the first day of
each and every month thereafter through and including September
1, 1983•
b) Commencing on October 1, 1983 and on the
first day of each calendar month thereafter, the Principal
Balance shall be amortized in equal consecutive monthly
installments of P rincipal and interest the amount of each of
which is to be calculated on an assumed thirty -year
amortization with interest from September 1 1983 at the rate
of $ er annum and a final installment on September 1, 2012
P
al t0 the un idMaturityDate") which shall be equal ap
Principal Balance and accrued interest thereon. Any payment
shall be applied first to accrued interest and thereafter to
reduction of the Principal Balance.
c )( i) In the event that the interest on this
Note shall become subject to federal income taxation pursuant
to a Determination of Taxability (as hereinafter defined), the
interestst rate on this Note shall be increased, retroactively
effective from and after the Date of Taxability (as hereinafter
defined) to % per annum (the "Taable bate ") . The City
shall )
P
inuned fate 1 Y uponon demand pay to the Holder and to each
0
prior Holder affected by such Determination of Taxability an
amount equal to the amount by which the interest accrued
amO
eased rate from the Date of
retroactively at such increased
T yaxabilit to the date of payment exceeds the amount of
interest actual accrued and paid to the Holder and any such
prior Holder duri said period. (Such obligation of the. City
wive the payment in fullshallsurvivePYml o f the principal amount of
thiss Note) . Commencing on the first day of the month next
followingwin the date of payment of such additional interest and
continuing on the first day of each month ther eafter (unless
the Holder shall accelerate the maturity of the Note pursuant
to clause (ii) of this paragraph (c)), this Note shall be
payable as follows:
15 - 10/7
A) if amortization of the Principal Balance
had not theretofore commenced under
interest only
paragraph (b) hereof* the monthly payments
of hereunder shall be
increased to reflect the accrual of
interest at the Taxable Rate and the
monthly nstallments of principal and
Y
interest payable commnenci.ng with the
October l 1983 payment shall be recomputed
on the basis of the Taxable Rate on an
assumed thirty year amortization; or
i f amortization of the Principal BalanceB)
had theretofore commenced under paragraph
b hereof, the monthly installments of
principal and interest payable commencing
with the next succeeding payment shall be
recomputed on the basis of the . Taxable Rateaamortizationovertheremainingportion
of the original assumed amortization*
U n a Determination of Taxability, the
ii) Po Note
Holder may declare the entire Principal Balance of this
together with accrued interest thereon at such retroactively
increased Taxable Rate to be immediately due and payable, plus
the reps ent premium, calculated in accordance. with paragraphPYrn
8 hereof*
iii) The Holder shall give notice, as soon as
practicable, to the Borrower of any Notice of Taxability, as
hereinafter defined, received by the Holder and permit the
Borrower to contest, litigate or appeal the same at- its sole
expense; provided that any such contest, litigation or appeal
is, in the reasonable opinion of the Holder, being undertaken
and carried forward in good faith, diligently and with reason-
able dispatch. In the event any such contest, litigation or
appeal is undertaken, the increased -interest provided in
paragraph (b)(i) shall , nevertheless, be payable to the Holder
and shall be held by the Holder in escrow (without paying
interest thereon) pending final disposition of such conte smt ,
litigation or appeal, provided that the Borrower shall
i ndemnify and hold harmless the Holder and each Holder,
from any and all penalties, interest or other liabilities which
they - may incur on account of such contest, litigation or
appeal*
iv) The terms "Determination of Taxability, " .
Date of Taxability" and "Notice of Taxability" shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Loan Agreement, dated
the date hereof (the "Loan Agreement ") , between the City and
Tanners Lake Partners (the "BorrowersTo
2 In any paymentsevent, the hereunder shall be
sufficient to pay all principal and interest due, as such
principalal and interest becomes due, and to pay any premium or
16 - 10/7
penalty, at maturity, upon redemption, or otherwise. Interest
shall be computed on the basis of a 360 day year, but charged
for the actual number of days elapsed.
3. Principal and interest and any premium due
hereunder shall be payable at the principal office of the
Lender, or at such other place as the Holder may designate in
writing*
4 • This Note is issued by the City to provide funds
for a Pro as defined in Section 474.02, Subdivisions lb,
Minnesota Statutes, consisting of the acquisition, construction
and equipping of an Emerald Inn Motel, pursuant to the Loan
Agreement, and this Note is further issued pursuant to and in
full compliance with the Constitution and laws of the State of
Minnesota, particularly Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, and
p ursuant to a resolution of the City Council duly adopted on
September 13, 1982 (the " Resolution " ).
59 This Note is secured by a Pledge Agreement of
even date herewith by the City to the Lender (the "Pledge
Agreement ") , a Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and
Fixture Financing Statement, of even date herewith between the
Borrower as mortgagor, and the Lender as mortgagee (the
Mortgage ") by an Assignment of Rents and Leases, of even date
herewith, from the Borrower to the Lender (the "Assignment of
Rents and Leases ") and Guaranties from [to come]
to the
Lender collectively, the "Guaranty "),D The proceeds of this
Note shall be placed in the Proceeds Account of the
Construction Fund established pursuant to the Resolution and
the Construction Loan Agreement (hereinafter referred to) and
disbursement of the proceeds of this Note from the Construction
Fund is subject to the terms and conditions of a Construction
Loan Agreement of even date herewith among the Lender, the City
and the Borrower (the "Construction Loan Agreement ") .
6. The Holder may extend the times of payments of
interest and /or principal of or any penalty or premium due on
this Note, including the date of the Final Maturity Date, to
the extent permitted by law, without notice to or consent of
any party liable hereon and without releasing any such party.
However, in no event may the Final Maturity Date be extended
beyond thirty (30) years from the date hereof.
7. The Borrower may prepay the Principal Balance. in
whole or in part in increments of $100,000 on the first day of
any month upon at least 30 days advance written notice to the
Holder (or such lesser period of notice as the Holder may
approve) and upon payment of an amount equal to the principal
amount being so prepaid, plus accrued interest.hereon to the
date of prepayment, plus the prepayment premium calculated in
accordance with paragraph 8 hereof. This Note is also subject
to mandatory prepayment in whole or in part pursuant to Section
17 - 10/7
3.1 of the Construction Loan Agreement in the amount of any
sums remainin in the oceed s Ac count of the Construction Fund
at the om le ?ion toCpDa as suchch terms are defined in the
Construction Loan Agreement) , in which event a prepayment
premium shall also be payable in accordance with paragraph 8
hereof, and the time of such prepayment may not-be extended
pursuant to paragraph 6 hereof* Upon the occurrence of certain
Events of Default" under the Construction Loan Agreement, the
Loan Agreement and /or under the Mortgage, and as provided in
paragraph 12 hereof, the Holder may declare the Principal
Balance and accrued interest on this Note to be immediately due
and payable (any such action and any similar action pursuant to
paragraph 1(c) (ii) hereof being hereinafter referred to as an
acceleration" of this Note) , in which event a prepayment
premium shall also be payable in accordance with paragraph 8
hereof.
Upon the occurrence of certain events of damage,
destruction or condemnation, the Holder may, as provided in the
Mortgage, apply the net proceeds of any insurance or condem—
nation award to the prepayment, in whole or in part, of the
Principal Balance in which event a prepayment premium may be
payable in accordance with paragraph 8 hereof*
This Note may be called for redemption and
prepayment, in whole , at the option of the Holder, on October
1, 1992 (or at any time within six months following October 1,
1992) , on October 1, 1997, on September 1, 2002 and on October
1, 2007, (the "Call Dates"),, upon at least thirty (30) days
advance written notice to the Borrower (or such lesser period
of notice as the Borrower may approve)* The Borrower has the
right under this Note on any Call Date of which the Holder has
given the required notice, in lieu of redemption of this Note,
upon five (5) days advance written notice prior to such Call
Date, to purchase the Note from the Holder or give notice to
the Holder that it has secured a purchaser for the Note. The
Holder agrees, in lieu of redemption of this Note to sell the
Note to the Borrower or such purchaser on such Call Date at a
purchase price equal to the Principal Balance and accrued
interest.
8. (a) If at the time of any prepayment on or prior
to October 1, 1987 or acceleration of this Note occurring prior
to October 1, 1987, the Borrower shall pay, together with the
premium, 'if any , set forth in paragraph (b) hereof,, an amount
equal to 1 -1 /2 % of the amount of principal so prepaid. Not-
withstanding the foregoing, no such prepayment premium shall be
payable with respect to a prepayment made at the option of the
Holder pursuant to.Article Five of the Mortgage or Section 5.02
of the Loan Agreement, unless an Event of Default had occurred
under the Loan Agreement, Construction Loan Agreement or the
Mortgage and remains uncured at the time such prepayment is
made.
low 18 - 10/7
b) If at the time of any prepayment or
acceleration of this Note, occurring prior to October 7, 1992
the yield on U.S. Treasury securities (as published by the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York) having a maturity date
closest to October 1, 1992 (the "Government Yield ") , as
determined by the Holder as of the date of prepayment or
acceleration, is less than % the Borrower shall pay a
premium calculated as follows: a the amount of principal sop $
prepaid shall be multiplied by U ) the amount by wh
exceeds the Government Yield as of the date of prepayment or
acceleration, times (ii) a fraction, the numerator of which is
the number of days remaining to October 1, 1992 and the
denominator of which is 360, (b) the resulting product shall
then be divided by the number of whole months then remaining to
October 1, 1992 yielding a quotient (the "Quotient "), ( the
amount of the prepayment premium payable under this paragraph
shall be the present value on the date of prepayment or
acceleration (using the Government Yield as of the date of
prepayment or acceleration as the discount factor) of a stream
of equal monthly payments in number equal to the number of
whole months remaining to October 1, 1992, with the amount of
each such hypothetical monthly payment equal to the Quotient
and with the first payment payable on the date of prepayment or
acceleration. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no such
prepayment premium shall be payable with respect to a
prepayment made at the option of the Holder pursuant to
paragraph 1( (i i) hereof or pursuant to Article Five of the
Mortgage or Section 5.02 of the Loan Agreement unless an Event
of Default had occurred under the Loan Agreement, Construction
Loan A9 rtement, or the Mortgage and remains uncured at the time
such prepayment is made.
9. The payments due under paragraph 1 hereof shall
continue to be due and payable in full until the entire
Principal Balance and accrued interest due on this Note have
been paid regardless of any partial prepayment made hereunder.
10. As provided in the Resolution and subject to
certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is transfer-
able upon the books of the City at the of f ice of the City
Manager b the Holder in person or by his agent duly authorized
g y
in writing, at the Holder's expense, upon surrender hereof
together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to
the City Clerk duly executed by the Holder or his duly
authorized agent* Upon such transfer the City Clerk will note
the date of registration and the name and address of the new
registered Holder in the registration blank appearing below.
The City may deem and treat the person in whose name the Note
Y
is last registered upon the books of the City with such
registration noted on the Note, as the absolute owner hereof ,
whether or not overdue, for the purpose of receiving payment of
or on the account of the Principal Balance, redemption price or
interest and for all other purposes, and all such payments so
made to the Holder or upon his order shall be valid and
effective to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Note
to the extent of the sun or sums so paid, and the City shall
not be affected by any notice to the contrary.
in ,r%i-7
11. This Note and interest hereon and any premium due
hereunder are payable solely from the revenues and proceeds
under the Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof
pursuant to the Pledge Agreement, except as the same may
otherwise be payable in accordance with, the Mortgage, the
Guaranty and the Assignment of Rents and Leases, and , do not
constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory limitation, are not payable from or
a charge upon any funds other than the revenues and proceeds
to the payment thereof, and do not give rise to apledged
t the extent permitted bypecuniaryliabilityofthaCityor, o P
law, of any of its officers, agents or employees, and no holder
of this Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise
of the taxing power of the City to pay this Note or the
interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any
property YoftheCity, and this Note does not constitute a
charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any
property of the City, and the agreement of the City to performPY
o performancercausethe of the covenants and other provisions
herein referred to shall be subject at all times to the
availability of revenues or other funds furnished for such
purpose in accordance with the Loan Agreement, sufficient to
pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof e
12. It is agreed that time is of the essence of thisg
f an
Note . If the City de f aul is in the payment when due o y
principalinstallmentofrineial or interest or any premium or penalty
due hereunder and if said default shall have continued for a
period of five (5) days, or if an Event of Default shall occur
as set forth in the Mortgage, the Construction Loan Agreement
9ortheLoanA reement, then the Holder shall have the right and
option to declare the Principal Balance, and accrued interest
thereon, together with the premium, if any, payable under
paragraph 8 hereof, immediately due and payable but solely from
9 raP ,
the sources specified in paragraph 11 hereof* Failure to
n at an time shall not constituteexercisesuchoptiony a waiver
of the right to exercise the same at any subsequent time.
13. The remedies of the Holder, as provided herein
and in the Mortgage, the Assignment of Rents and Leases, the
Guaranty, the Loan Agreement and the Construction Loan
Agreement, are not exclusive and shall be cumulative and
concurrent and may be pursued singly, successively or together,
at the sole discretion of the Holder, and may be exercised as
often as occasion therefor shall occur; and the failure to .
exercise any such right or remedy shall in no event be
construed as a waiver or release thereof*
14. The Holder shall not be deemed, by any act of
omission or commission, to have waived any of its rights or
remedies hereunder unless such waiver is in writing and signed
by the Holder, and then only to the extent specifically set
forth in the writing . A waiver with reference to one event
shall not be construed as continuing or as a bar to or waiver
of any right or remedy as to a subsequent event e
20 - 10/7
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all conditions, acts and things req-
uired to exist, happen and be performed precedent to or in the issuance of this
Note do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form as
required by law.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
2. Rezoning - 2669 and 2677 E. 7th Street 7:15 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the rezoning
of two lots at 2669 and 2677 E. Seventh Street from M -1 Light Manufacturing to
R -1 Residence District.
b. Manager Evans prese',
c. Mayor Greavu called
d. Mayor Greavu called
e. Mayor Greavu closed
f. Councilmember Juker
rated
for
for
the
int
the staff report.
proponents. None were heard.
opponents. None were heard.
public hearing.
roduced the followinE resolution and moved its adoption:
82 -10 -142
WHEREAS, a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City Council for a
zone change from M -1, light manufacturing to R -1, residence district (single
dwelling) for the following described property:
Lots 19 and 20, Block 4, Midvale Acres
Such above property being also known and numbered as Number 2669 and 2677 E. Seventh
Street, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning procedure is as follows:
1. That a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City Council, 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 20th day of September, 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
re'zoning 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 f indings of fact:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
21 - 10/7
2. The property is used for single dwellings, rather than light manufacturing.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
3. Code Amendment - BC M 7:30 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a proposal
to amend the BC (M) Business Commercial - Modified zone to exclude restaurants
and places of amusement recreation or assembly other than a theatre.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
c. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard..
d. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
e. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
f. Mayor Greavu moved first reading of an ordinance amending the BC (M) Business
Commercial Modified zone to clarify the ty e of restaurant and recreation uses
that would be prohibited.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
G. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Planning Fees
as Manager Evans presented the staff report,
b. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following ordinance and moved its ado tion:
ORDINANCE N0, 524
PLANNING FEES
Section 1. The Zoning Code of the City of Maplewood is hereby amended to add
Chapter 36 -26.
36 -26 Fees. The following nonrefundable application fees shall be required:
Zone Change $125.00
Special Use Permit 125.00
Planned Unit.Development 125.00
Special Exception 50000
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 125.00
Variances:
R -1
all other districts
Vacations.
Lot Divisons
Preliminary Plat
Home Occupation Permit
35.00
75.00
40.00
25.00 for each lot created
5.00 for each lot, with a minimum
of $50.00 and a maximum of $175.
35.00 for the initial permit and
10.00 for an annual renewal.
22 — 10/7
I
Section 2. Section 818.040 (c) of the sign code is amended as follows:
36.258 (c). Permit Fees: (1) A sign permit fee (except for billboards) shall be
paid in accordance with the following schedule:
Square Feet Fee
1 -10 5.00
11 -25 10.00
26 -50 20.00
51 -100 50.00
over 100 100000
2) the fee for billboards shall be $7.00 for the first five square feet, plus
40 for each additional square foot.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after its passage and publication.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
2. City Council /Planning Committee Meeting,
a. manager Evans stated the City Council, on September 13, decided to set a date
on October 7 for a study meeting with the Planning Commission and staff to discuss
the proposed environmental protection ordinance and the proposed ordinance regulating
setbacks to R - zones.
b. Council set a Staff - Council work session at 7 :00 P.M. and a meeting with the
Planning Commission at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, October 21, 19829
I. NEW BUSINESS
None.
J. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
K. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. Volunteerism
a. Councilmember Maida questioned if Maplewood had an organized volunteer group.
She had attended a Volunteer for Minnesota Kick Off Conference and feels Maplewood
could benefit from an organized group There will be planning and training sessions
available. The City can apply to be selected for the pilot program.
b. Manager Evans was instructed to investigate the volunteer program.
2. Staff - Council
a. Councilmember Juker moved that the Council and Manager meet with the'Staff
individually and the first such meetin .be Wednesday, October 13, 1982, 7.:00 A.M.
at Denny's Restaurant with Police Chief Ken Collins
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - a11.
L. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
None,,
M. ADJOURNMENT
8:09 P.M.
City Clerk
24 - In /"7
MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
1:30 P.M., Monday, October 18, 1982
Conference Room, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 82 -28
A. CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, was held in the Conference
Room, Municipal Building, and was called to order at 1:30 P.M. by Mayor Greavu.
B. ROLL CALL
John C. Greavu, Mayor Present
Norman G. Anderson, Councilmember Present
Gary W. Bastian, Councilmember Present
Frances L. Joker, Councilmember Absent
MaryLee Maida, Councilmember Absent
C. COUNCIL PRESENTATION
1. Driveway Width— Arcade Street - Piletich
a. Director of Public Works Ken Haider stated on November 19, 1981, Mr. Voya Piletich was
given approval to construct a 20 ft. driveway from Arcade Street east to serve the houses along
Keller Lake. He is in the process of constructing a 30 ft. wide driveway.
b. Mrs. Piletich spoke in behalf of the 30 feet.
c. Councilmember Bastian moved to approve a 30 foot driveway between 2128 and 2130
Arcade Street with the intent that it is a driveway as it does not meet City standards for a street;
the driveway must meet City standards as it pertains to fire protection; that it be designed so that
fire protection can be given to the three homes.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes — all.
D. ADJOURNMENT
1:30 P.M.
City Clerk
DATE 11 -22 -82 PAGE 1CITYOFMAPLEWOODACCOUNTSPAYABLE
CHECK*A M C U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P 0 S E
00.1115 3,431.00 MINN STATE TREASURER MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
0 0111 E 2580 DO MINN STATE TREASURER - --STATE _D /L FEES PAYABLE
0 0111 7 1 CO .OD THE MELON PATCH SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
001118 30000 COMPUTER KING TRAVEL + TRAINING
001119 47. 91 L U - CI Lt A U RE L I -- __ __SUPPLIES, OFFICE
AND - SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
AND- TRAVEL + TRAINING
AND- SUPPLIES - , v PROGRAM
AND- SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
AND -BOOKS
001120 29640.25 MINN STATE TREASURER MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001121 108000 MINN STATE TREASURER STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001122 72._50 RA MSEY CD - CLERK- 0F DIST -_ - - -_ __ - -Cfir'TY __D /L FEES FA YA BLE
001123 00 VOID CHECK VOIDED CHECKS
001124 8000 METRO AREA MGT ASSOC TRAVEL + TRAINING
001125 50o 00 KATHY C&BRIEi- -_ -__ - _ -- _ _ _ __ _.._SU PROGRAM
001126 66.97 DANIEL F FAUST TRAVEL f TRAINING
001127 89. 00 MINN STATE TREASURER STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001128 5:00 ------STATE OF MN - __ - -- -- - - -- - -- - - -- - -- _FEES 9 - Renewal Fee,
Bulk Fuel License
001129 4, 651. 05 MI STATE T MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001130 25000 AMERICAN HEART ASSOC TRAVEL + TRAINING
001131 501498fl MINN STATE TREASURER -- --- -- -MV L FEES PAYABLE
001132 225. 00 MINN STATE TREASURER STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001133 288000 MN REC +,PARKS ASSOC TRAVEL ! TRAINING
0 0 4 1A 8E LLFS --- _ -_ _ ____ ___ ---- ____.U PPLZES, OFFICE
001135 206. 00 MINN STATE TREASURER ST D/L FEES PAYABLE
001136 69 881. T5 MINN STATE TREASURER MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD A C C 0 U N T S P A Y A B L E DATE 11 -22 -82 PAGE 2
C A H C U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P 0 S E
001137 5, 607.75 MINN STATE TREASURER MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
00113 8 -296: DO-NI NN STATE TREASURER - - - -STATE - D /L FEES PAYABLE
001139 3 MINN STATE TR STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001140 3.0.87.00 MINN STATE TREASURER MV LICENSE FEES PAY ABLE
0 01141 -- - -3,33 . E9 -IRN - Mi7TUAL - L+IFE - IWS - C 0 - -- - - -- --CON TRIB'UTI OHS, INSURANCE
001142 2 MN MUTUAL LIFE INS CO CONTRIBUTIONS,INSURANCE
001143 *3 312.20 MN MUTUAL LIFE INS CO A/R - INS CONTINUANCE
AND- HEALTH INS PAYABLE
AND -LIFE INS DED PAYABLE
AND- DENTAL I FAYABLE
AND - CONTRIBUTIONS, I NSURANCE
M144144 1 s 816.49 MN STATE TREASURER-PERA CONTRIBUTIONS, PERA
D 01145 -3, 869. b0 -.._14N - STATE TREASURER --PERA - -- -P. E.R.A. DED PAYABLE
AN D - CONTRIBUTIONS, PERA
001146 8,364. 14'--MN STATE - TREASURER PERA P.E. -RSA: D£D PAYABLE
AND - CONTRIBUTIONS, FERA
001147 113.00 RAMSEY CO CLERK OF DIST ___..CNTY - - D /L FEES PAYABLE
001148 2,462.71)MINN STATE TREASURER MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001149 119000 MINN STATE TREASURER STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001i50 3, D64. 1)D XINN - STATE TREASURER LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001151 202.00 MINN STATE TREASURE STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001152 91050 MN REC + PARKS ASSOC TRAVEL ; TRAINING
001153 *470:00 OLD It - THEATER `---- - - - - -_ -- _
Gals Get -A -Way
C 01154 *6110 00 RUSTY SCUPPER RESTR FEES, SERVICE
G -- Get --A -Way
001155 851.39 CONN GENERAL LIFE INS CO CONTRIBUTIONS,INSURANCE
A/R - - CNTINUANCE
AND - CONTRIBUTIONS, INSURANCE
100-53 --1ZWA' R£T1RENENTVRP_EFERRED - COMP PAYABLE
AND-DEFERRED COMPENSATION
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DATE 11-22-82 PAGE 4ACC0UNTSPAYA8LE
CHE CK*A M C U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P 0 S E
014799 107.4b ACE HARDWARE SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
AND -SMALL TOOLS
AND - MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014800 65.31 ACRD- MINNESOTA INC SUPPL OFFICE
014801 93090 ANCHCR BLOCK MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
C14802 - -7 - 2. OD UAZYME - MIDWEST - ' - - -- - --F'£ES, 'SERVICE
014803 135.73 DAVID L ARNOLD UNIFORMS CLOTHING
014804 23.72 BELL INDUSTRIES SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014505 70992 BOARD OF MATER -- COMM
01480E 299,012 BOARD OF WAT ER CCMM OTHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
014807 143.13 BILL BOYER FCRD SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014808 BROWN -FHOTO _- - - - - -- - -- - _ - -SUPPlIES; _PROGRAM
AND -FEES, SERVICE
Film Processing
014809 29198035 BRYAN EQUIPMENT - - -- - - - -- __- _._MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014810 35.52 WILLIAM CASS TRAVEL * TRAINING
014811 1 008098 COPY EQUIPMENT REP. + MAINT., EQUI FMENT
AND-SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014812 73.94 DALCO CORP SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
014813 230. 0D PAT DALEY - - -- _ - -- - - -- -- - - - __ -.____ _FEES, - SERVI - CE
Plumbing Inspector
014814 1,364.00 DICTAPHONE CORP REP* + MAINT., EQUIPMENT
014815 42.76 V W EIMICKE ASSOC INC SUPPLIESs OFFICE
01481E 228.'00 FULLS MFG - CO -- -_ - - -- - -- _ ___._ -- _MAINTENANCE " A TER IALS
014817 92.88 FEDERAL L CO MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014 818 12. Oa WALTER M GEISSLER FEES, SERVICE
Certification
0 14819 VEHICLE
014820 590028 GOODYEAR SERVICE STO REP. + MAINT VEHICLES
014821 220.90 GOPHER ATHLETIC SUPPLIES, PROGRA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ACC OUNTS PAYABLE DATE 11-22-82 PAGE 5
CHECK*A M 0 U N T C L A I M A N I P U R P 0 S E
014822 99e59 R L GOULD + CO INC SMALL TOOLS
014823 185.0o 20-G+K 'SERVICES UN IFDRMS '"4- -CLOT HI NG
014824 148e40 G+K SERVICES UNIFORMS + CLOTHING
014825 100 00 GRUBERS HARDWARE HANK MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014826 IFORMS
AND-TRAVEL + TRAINIt G
014827 I-RPROVEMENT
01462e 89*00 HEJNY RENTALS INC RENTAL, EQUIPMENT
014829 95o03 HILLCREST GLASS CO MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014830 47o-90 HOLM AND "OlSON------------ '_______-_-RAINTENA`CE MATERIAL-S''
014831 20*85 JOLLY TYNE FAVORS SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014832 7010 JOLLYS SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014 833 XNOX -LUMBER_'_U0_MPA4Y - ---------------- ----MAI NTENANCE - -KA T ER I A L S
014834 199050 LAKE SANITATION FEES, SERVICE
Rubb-l'sh-Removal
014835 11660 LEES AUT3 SUPPLY SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014836 409e41'_'_'LION BROTHERS CO - 1 hiC UNIFORMS 4-ZLOTHING
014837 79e50 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
01483E 341. b0 LUGER LUMBER MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
D14839 7,e k5 f4A_NDC-fHOT()------FEES It" -SERVICE
Photo Refinishin
014 84 0 231*72 MCINTOSH TOOL SMALL TCOLS
014841 810*20 HETROPCLITAN INSPETION FEES, SERVICE
Electrical Inspection
014842 140: Oa ACADEMY -OF PROS ECUT'-TRAVEL. 4 TRAINING
014843 1s 372.98 MN DEPARTMENT PUBLIC RENTAL, EQUIPMENT
014644 120000 WINFIELD A MITCHELL LANG, EASEMENTS
1_6_9*_50_____lR0"GR_EN BROS' - L'A - NDSE'AP-IN'G---*-------M-A-INTERAtTUE'-7MATERIALS-"
014846 19238o95 CITY OF HOUNDS WIEN FEES, SERVICE
DAt'a_Ptbces'_s__l-ng
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD A C C 0 U N T S P A Y A B L E DATE 11 -22 -82 PAGE 6
CHECK*A M 0 U N T C L A I 4 A N T P U R P 0 S E
014847 276.72 MUNICILITE CO SUPPLIES. VEHICLE
Ci4848 ___.__._700+97 ROBERT - D NELSCh _._. - .- ___ - -- -UNIFORMS + CLOTHING
014849 15.46 CAROL NELSON SUPPL EQUIPMENT
014850 1.473.04 CITY OF NORTH ST PAUL UTILITIES
B 14 85 1-i6:Sb --NORTHERN - POWER 'PROD - - - - -- -SUFPLiES, VEHICLE
014852 1 NORTHWESTERN BELL TEL CO TELEPHONE
014853 965.62 NORTHWESTERN BELL TEL CD TELEPHONE
014854 851.15 NORTHWESTERN BELL - -- TEL: - CO TELEPHONE
014855 409.88 NORTHWESTERN SELL TEL CO TELE
014856 276.92 NORTHWESTERN BELL TEL CO TELEPHONE
114857 218.72 PALENIKIMBALL CC - - _ - - - -It£P. } VAINT., BLDG +GROS
014858 1 PAPER CALMENSON + CO SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014859 219075000 PETERSON, BELL + CONVERSE FEES, SERVICE - Retainer
inProsecutin Attorney01486023.74 DAVID J PILLATZKE - -TRAVEL +
014861 106.13 E K GUEHL CO SUPPLIES, OFFICE
ANU -SUP TLI ES, EQUIPMENT
014862 9.04 RADIO SHACK REP. + MAINT., RADIC
014663 164o36 REEDS SALES + SERVICE SMALL TOOLS
AND- MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014864 5000 ROAD RESCUE INC REP. + MAINT., VEHICkES
014865 13.65 ROSE VILLE __:AREA - SCHDQtS -- -- _..FEES, -- SERVICE _ Custodian
For Election -_
014866 124.15 RUGGED RE RUGS FEES, SERVICE
Rug Cleaning
014 867 99070 RYCO SUPPLY CC SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
014865 35: 8 --S -+ - T._ OFF IZE- PRODUCTS -- - - -- -- - _SUPPLIES, _
014869 1 15 CITY OF ST PAUL REP. + MAINT . v RADI C
014870
i
64000 STEICHENS SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
r
CITY OF MA P L EWOOD A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E DATE 11 -22 -82 PAGE 7
CHECK*A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
014 871 20. b3 TARGET STORES INC SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
01487 -29 9 DO _TRACY CIL - - --INVENTORY Of SUPPLIES
014873 15.50 TRIARCO ARTS * CRAFTS SUPP PROGRAM
0 14 87 -- - 4 1 66.00 TURNOUIST PAPER -CO SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
D 14875 i, InSe 49' -UNIFORYS UNLIMITED U1vIFOR1iS _ +..CLOTHING
014876 32.08 WARNERS TRUEVALUE HOW SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
AND- SUPPLIES, E4UIaMENT
AND- SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014877 780 85 7EP W C0 - -- - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - -...—JANITORIAL
014878 195000 MARK PET BACKLUND WAGES, P/T + TEMP.
014979 TO.Oo MERTON PETER BACKLUND WAGES, P/T +. TEMP.
014 88 0 242.50 EUGENE BE A RTN -
014 881 4 0.00 JAMES A BOWD ITCH WAGES, P/ T + TEMP.
0 i4 88 2 13.82 ELIZABETH CASSEDAY WAGESs P/T + TEMP•
014 88 3 2 0 o DO DEANNE - MARIE CICCHESE -_ - -- _ - --WAGES, P/T + TEMP.
01 13 .82 GERALD DIESEL WAGES, P/T t TEMP.
014885 393.00 TIMOTHY EAST WOOD WAGES, P/ 1 t TEMP •
014 . 886 248.00 _.-CRAI G -..E -- - - - --- ---- --TH IER - - - -T A GES, - - - ! T - TEMP.
014887 60.00 JOHN JOSEPH GLOVER WAGES, P/T t TtMr-.
014888 60.00 STEVEN C GLOVER WAGESv P/T + TEMP.
Z00 0D___JULIE ANN GUSTAFSGN -WAGES, P/T + TEMP.
014890 85.00 SANDRA HAMMES WAGES, P/1 + TEMP.
014891 67, 50 KARIN LYNN KNOLL WAGES, P/1 + TEPP.
D 14892 33:J8 —_-FCKT - JO - KRUMNEL -- - -TtAGES, - P /T + TEMP. -
014893 4 PAUL LEDI N _ —_ -WAGES, P / 1 +,TEMP•
014894 60.00 MICHELE ANN MAHRE 'WAGES, P/T + TEMP.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DATE 11-22-82 PAGE 8ACC041NTSPAYABLE
CHECK*A H 0 U IN T C L A I H A N T P U R P 0 S E.
014895 85*00 MICHAEL ALAN MURRAY WAGES, P/I + TE"Pe
0141196 MAIRTE NASSEFF WAG_ESlv---P/l_+_'TEMP.
014897 90.00 TRACY BETH NORMAN WAGES, P/1 + TEMP.
014898 63*75 MIKE PELTIER WAGES, P/1 + TEMP.
014 89 9 OD'—212 0 FRED ES,9 ?/I + -TEr.po
014900 75*00 JOY MARIE STEVENSON WAGES, P/1 + TEMP*
014901 90000 JILL STEVENSON WAGES, P/T + TEMP.
014902 9l* 00 REED. 'STO"D ALE P/7 + TEMP.
014903 63*75 JOHN WARLING WAGES, P/T + TEMP.
014904 13*82 DAWN MARIE SPANNBAUER WAGES, P/T + TEMPO
SHIRLEY A-MUNMN U' _ D
014906 15* 00 LOIS HILLESTAD R E F U N 0
014907 48*00 JOAN DECKER R E F U N 0
0 i1+9011 260-83 LUDLOW 90
014909 4*40 ERIC/SMEAC INF REF CENTR BOOKS
01491D 8000 GARY LEE SPECHT R E F U N 0
0 14 911 2 ,80 00 JO-HN - --M ARI TZ D _. -- -- -. _ ..
014912 200.00 AMIS FEES, SERVICE
He'a5Ar - bitri - ' a t" 16
014913 77e50 CITY OF EDINA FEES, SERVICE
Data Processin
63,9834l.-Bl-'---'-.-CHEC'KS--RRITTtN
TOTAL OF 170 CHECKS TOTAL 168,70 0.82
INDICATES ITEMS FINANCED BY RECREATIONAL FEES
CITY OF MAPLE WOOD REPORT PAGE 1PAYROLL
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK DATE 11 -05 -82
CHECK NAME GROSS PAY NET PAY
LOI S N 5 8 6.62 4 0 7.4 4
05652 EVANS BARRY R 19 817.54 i, 211.8b
95653 PELOQUIN ALFRED J 747.23 351034
05654 SCHLEICHER JOHN F 116088 116088
05655 C UDE LARRY J 191.54
i
14 a 4 4
05656 DOHERTY KATHLEEN M 305000 217.56
05657 ZUERCNER JOHN L 11:.39 115.13
05658 FAUST DANIEL F 1, 44E.46 950.53
05659 HAGEN ARLINE J 888.92 410.15
05660 AT ALANA K 677.54 459.85
05661 V IGOREN DELORES A 586.62 348.51
05662 AURELIUS LUCILLE E 1, 350.46 671.94
05663 SELVOb BETTY 0 711.23 463.65
05664 GREEN PHYLLIS C 73 8.92 511071
05665 S CHADT JEANNE L 215.36 178028
05666 V IETOR LORRAINE S 561069 38 6.0 3
05667 HENSLEY PATRICIA A 238.80 182.02
05668 KELSEY CONNIE L 228.61 210.15
0 5669 f REOERICKSON RIT A M 7 5.00 7:. 0 0
05670 STOTTLEMYER EDITH G 94.00 94.00
05671 BASTYR DEBORAH A 536.22 262.12 - --
0 5672 ---C0LLINS _ -_ _ _KENNETH .V 1. 50 4. E2 20 3.47
05673 HAGEN THOMAS L 1 324.08
05674 O NA Tip JOY - - - --E 55 3.39 3 8 0.9 6
05675__RICHIE__- - -CAROL -- -L 506003 - --297 . 19___ __..
CITY OF MAPLE N000 PAGE 2PAYROLLREPORT
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK GAIE 11-055-82
CHECK NAME GROSS PAY NET PAY
05676 SVENDSEN JOANNE 485053
05677 ARNOLD DAVID L 19182092 429o75
05676 ATCHISON JOHN H 1,036o15 678.25
05679 RICK 629*54 423*45
05680 CAHANES ANTHONY G 1, 21E.15 135060
05681 CLAUSON DALE K 19036.15 146033
RICHARD C 19212o00 702.52
05683 GREEN NORMAN L 19207.38 648*94
05684 H AL WEl"a KEVIN R 19 0 7 5, . 39 532068
STEPHEN 871e38 539011
05686 HERBERT MICHAEL 1 1, 064.43 591011
0 56 87 JAQUITH DANIEL R 934o19 542.52
05688 KORTUS DONALD V 305.04 213.94
05689 LANG RICHARD 1 19122*73 559*09
05690 MCNULrY JOHN J 1, 28E.12 2Z 8.98
05691._.__._.MEEHA39 JR JAMES E 997.38 492.74
05692 METTLER DANIEL 8 19 03E*61 666*16
05693 MOESCHTER RICHARD M 1, 01E.77 127059
RAYMOND i 1, 016.77 671018
05695 PELTIER WILLIAM F is 163.08 597e04
05696 SKALMAN DONALD W 142o19
0_56_97 S.-T A FNE GREGORY L 19 016.77 608o43
05698 STILL VERNON T 997e38 582.82
05694 STOCKTON iuARRELL T 0 19003*62 544.56
05700 ZAPPA JOSEPH A 110208077 693e46
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PAGE 3PAYROLLREPORT
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK DAZE 11 -05 -82
CHECK NAME GROSS PAY NET PAY
0570 -1_BECKE - -- -RONALD -19151.02 27808?---- -
05702 GRAF DAVID M It 065.23 507.17
05703 LEE ROGER w 1 634.77
0 57 0 .._ELANDS R _- - -- -- -JON 1,16 0.56 _61.13 -
05705 NELSO4 CAROL M 1 79E.59
05706 RAZSKAZOFF DALE E 1235E.60 245.88
05707 RYAN MICHAEL P 1,146.25 477.45
05708 VORWERK ROBERT E 1 309.67
05709 YOUNGREN JAMES G 1,055.19 624.38
05710 EMBERTSON JAMES M 944.31 627.59
05711 SCHAOT ALFRED C 1,127.54 68 1.15
05712 FLAUGHER JAYME L 677.54 445.47
JAMES G -58b.52 -.418.96 .
05714 MARTIN SHAWN M 544.69 377098
05715 NELSON KAREN A 6 45.23 408.46
05716-N ELSON ROBERT C 1.25 3.85 671s04
05717 RASINE JANET L 549.69 372.23
05718 WILLIAMS DUA NE J 1, 055.54 461.21
05719 SARTA MARIE L 477. b9 3i t.29
05720 HAIDER KENNETH G 1 391.08 205.04
05721 WEGWERTH JUDITH A 49b.54 355.45
057 CASS WILLIAM C 1,157.08 571.33
05723 FREBERG RONALD L 824.00 476.34
05724 HEL.EY RONALD J 824.00 524.85
05725 HOCHBA ___.____JOSEPH_i 829.04 550.35
CITY OF MAPLE WOOD PAYROLL REPORT PAGE 4
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK DA 7E 11 -05 -82
CHECK NAME GROSS PAY NET PAY
05726 KAN MICHAEL R 82E.52 378033
05727 KLAUSING HENRY F 829.04 443.92
05728 MEYER GERALD W 839.12 -437.80
05729 PRETT. NE§t JOSEPH 8 1, 088.00 704.67
05730 REI NERT EDWARD A 82 4.00 52 9.6 8
05731 TEVLINgJR HARRY J 859.28 543.86
0 5712 E LI AS JAMES G 98 l- 69 60 8.9 6
05733 GEISSLER WALTER M 935.08 569.52
05734 G ESSELE JAMES T 893.54 600s48
05735 PECK DENNIS L 981.69 485.15
05736 P ILLAT ZKE DAVID J 1,15 7.08 796.63
05737 LUTZ DAVID P 77.2.11 490.19
05738 BREHEIM ROGER W 769.60 481942
05739 EDSON DAVID 8 997.50 637.20
05740 MULMEE GEORGE W 769.60 483.83 -
05741 NADEAU EDWARD A 19 179.43 748.73
05742 NUTESON LAVERNE S 1 509.28
05743 OMEN GERALD C 934.50 552. b9
05744 MACDONALD JOHN E 908080 469.45 '
05745 MULVANEY DENNIS M 878.40 559.94
05746 8RE NNE R LOIS J 715.65 18783
05747 KRUMIM BARBARA A 277.16 206e44
05748 ODEGARD ROBERT D i, 364.77 848.60
05749 STAPLES PAUL NE M I 65 684050
05750 SAUE ALAN H 306000 254.57
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PAGE 5PAYROLLREPORT
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK DATE 11 -05 -82
CHECK GROSS PAY NET PAYNAME
05751 BURK -MYLES R 824.0.0
05752 GERMAI N OAV IO A 824.00 526.0 0
05753 MELVIN J 1, 098.20 614.34GUSINDA
05754 HAAG -MATTHEW J 288.00 288000
05755 HELEY ROLANO 8 824.00 548.63
05756 JEFFREY S 93.50 93060LEMON
MARK _.A _.829.98 542.94
05758 SANDQUIST THOMAS J 30088 30088
05759 E 829.44 368.55SANTAREED
05760 WARZEKA RICHARD A 49.00 49.00
05761 TAUBMAN DOUGLAS J 804.00 509.50
05762 WARD ROY G 32 8. b2 25 3.2 5
05763 GREW JANET M 584.92 44E.14
05764 SOUTTER CHRISTINE 697.76 475.31
05765 CHLESECK JUDY -M - - --11.23 300.63 - -
0 OLSO[!1 - - - --GEOFFREY -ii - --1, 340.31 -..823.00
05767 EKSTRANO THOMAS G 918.10 55E.59
05768 L 822.36 528.9EJOHNSONRANDALL
0 OSTRO - - - --MARJORIE 1 133.54 716.30
05770 WENGER ROBERT J 857.54 495.08
CHECK REGISTER TOTALS 1019 80 8.69 54, 292.80
0565._0 K1 --_- -Connie L.27.0.-68 244.13
CHECK REGISTER TOTALS 102 54,536..93
Sop 01.0
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
PROJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand -- Associate Planner
Preliminary Plat Time Extension
2778 -80 White Bear Avenue
Sidney Johnson
Nu -Way Builders, Inc.
Lake Ridge Park
November 15, 1982
Action by - urc , .v L J .
Endo rs
M, o di f l ... ......._.
Re ,J ected
Date
Request
Approv of a one time extension for the Lake Ridge Park preliminary plat.
Proposal
Three eight -unit townhouse buildings (24 units).
Past Action
7-2-81:.Council approved the preliminary plat for Lake Ridge Park, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Dedication of an additional 27 feet of right -of -way for Whi Bear Avenue
within the plat.
2. Move block 1 ten feet to the north to allow for a 30 -foot wide drive
from White Bear Avenue to the west line of block 2.
postedosted on the drives east of the west line of
3. No parking signs shall
block 2.
4. Turn around aprons and additional visitor parking shall be provided at the
east end of each drive
5. Blocks 1 and 2 shall be moved 20 feet to the west.
6. Change lot 1, block 4 to Outl of A.
7. A signed P ersineddevelo ' agreement for the utilities shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works
final grading, , drai page, and utility plan must be approved by the Director
8' A 9 9
of Public Wor Such plan shall include the following e rosion control
measures:
a. The street should be installed first to act as a division and protect
the lower slopes from-runoff generated on upper slopes.
b. A buffer zone should be maintained for as long as poss thle between the
P reserved area" and the area being graded.
c. The straw mulch applied should be clean and applied at the rate-of .3, 000
to 4,000 lbs. /acre. The mulch must be anchored in some way.
f d. Overland flows on vegetated areas should not exceed 4.5 fps for a
10 year, 24 hour storm.
9. Refer to staff the Counci 1 's concerns regardi ng el evation of Bui 1 di ng No. 2.
10. Require a 6 -foot privacy fence along the entire north l i n e of property.
1- 26 -81: The Community Design Review Board approved plans for the Lake Ridge
Park townhomes , subject to five conditions .
11- 19 -81: Council approved a time extension for the preliminary plat, subject
to the original conditions,
Analysi s
The developer's agreement has been signed and site grading is presently taki ng
place. According the enclosed letter, the applicant is expecting to submit
the final plat before the end of the year.
Recommendation
Approval of a one -year time extension for the Lake Ridge Park preliminary plat,
subject to the original conditions. Approval is based on the following findings:
1. Council has approved a number of time extensions for preliminary plats in
the past.
2. There have been no changes in the area that would justify denial of the time
extension.
3. Site work is in progress.
mb
Enclosures.
1. Location Map
2, Lake Ridge Park Preliminary Plat
3. Applicant's Letter Dated 11 -10 -82
2
r
N 11 TV F I C Or—A LAMM
68 t61
7}
COUNTY ROAD D
GALL A%ssT30NR22W w00DLYNN WE.
4 _ FLRKSS rs .
T29NR22w ! LYDIAA a LYIXA
OO
CL ! a=c STAND-
MAPLE Ilf
SEAM AVE. REAM .,.-
MAPLEVIEW AYE.
R A AT ..... (1.) M/
g fib (2 .) CH
3.) C
ki NORTH ST.0
H W
i
W KOHL N AVE.
t
2640 N.
n -
E DGE HILL RD.
j 65
OEMONT AVE t = ., W
K AVE vii 3
l A 11 tti AVE.
SEXT
AMAIS AV 2400 N. j
36 Kim OSTLE AV
EEE
C
i
5 R EN AVE. i
OPE AVE
LARK AVE. t-
a LAURIE RDZC '•»Ic
t = . J sL'
AvE. 65 , W
W =J >
a 2160N.
6U 6KE A , ( I)•j
NAOY R
PUBLIC WOFOCS = tf1 STANICH CT.
64 > BLDG.
R ,
HA RIS Soo
LOCATION MAP
r,
r r r r r r ID
r i , 1
qq we 41
rw sw ooc few*s - • . • . / Zj
iwlro.lo r w, n Nre -+' _ :a.• = — , ",- L!!'!.t!-Y' . -
j tarty 4•V•7••f + - .
T,- -- -. - --
66
wrote w.M- . •+ « ..
s i tu•
P
as M M so
M p F i
fi .. .. , .. nor 1 ec. CK 4 - (mw oiv AREA "
w•
1
1 1
f
t
f
1
i 1 1
r r r r r r ID
r i , 1
qq we 41
rw sw ooc few*s - • . • . / Zj
iwlro.lo r w, n Nre -+' _ :a.• = — , ",- L!!'!.t!-Y' . -
j tarty 4•V•7••f + - .
T,- -- -. - --
66
wrote w.M- . •+ « ..
s i tu•
P
as M M so
M p F i
fi .. .. , .. nor 1 ec. CK 4 - (mw oiv AREA "
w•
PRELIM11W,4RY PLAT " OF
LAKE RIDGE PARK
i
9
f
f
t
f
PRELIM11W,4RY PLAT " OF
LAKE RIDGE PARK
i
9
f'
swa
1866 TIOGA BLVD.
ST. PAUL, MN. 55112
612) 633 -6507
r 1
I
MEMORANDUM I r -t
TO: City Manager
s
FROM: Director of Public Work
t .
1490 -1512 County Road B Parking
SUBJECT. 2DATE-06 November 15 198
s at this address have requested temporary
The management of the apartment Parking would
front of the buildingsdings, Temporary p g
parking be allowed in
maintenance. This matter has been
itate moving in and out and building ma
ere are nofacilandRamseyCounty. Th
discussed with the Public Safety Department
objections.
Staff to request Ramsey County
recommended ze
I t s ended the City Council author
a of 1490 -1512 County Road "
Establish a one -hour parking zone in the are
OFF
MEMORANDUM _
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Property Transfer
DATE: November 15, 1982
The Carsgrove Meadows Addition construction is well underway. In a short
time, the ffnal plat will be submitted for approval, Prior to final
plat being submitted, the City must relinquish rights to a previously con-
veyed parcel intended for street right -of -way. The existing parcel is not in
the proper location for the approved street alignment. It is best that the
City convey the exi.sti ng parcel back to the original owner now to simplify
the platting process.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize execution of a Quit Claim
Deed conveying the parcel back to the original owners, Raymond L. Nowicki
and Edith M. Nowicki.
mb
f
LAIS, BANNIGAN & KELLY, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
409 MIDWEST FEDERAL BUILDING
5TH AND CEDAR
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
DONALD L. LAIS AREA CODE 612
JOHN F. BANNIGAN, )R. 224 -3781
PATRICK J. KELLY September 14, 1982
Mr. Ken Haider
City of Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Re: City of Maplewood - Nowicki Property
Dear Mr. Haider: -
I am herewith enclosing a Quit Claim Deed proposed to be executed
by the City running to Raymond L. Nowicki and Edith M. Nowicki,
husband and wife as joint tenants. I am also enclosing a copy
of the letter dated August 28 1981 from Roger L. Ginkel in which
he refers to the use of a new street. called Forest Street to
provide access to the property. It. is my recolection that ba -ck
in August, 1981, we discussed this matter and, assuming that.
Forest Street would be platted as indidated, that we would then
be able to release the 60 feet as indicated in the letter of
August 28th.
If this meets your approval, I would request that you then put .
this on the agenda for approval for execution by the Mayor and
the Clerk. If not, please give me a call,
very truly yours,
S, BANNIGAN & KELLY, P.A.
t
V
Donald L. Lais
DLL /me
Enc.
cc: Timothy J. Jessen, Esq.
E P'1)1982
c1 of MAFLEV.O
4EE CHICI
N
MEMORANDUM
City Manager If I _
FROM: Director of Public Works L..._-
SUBJECT: Sale of City Property Rej eCe ~-%
DATE: November 15, 1982 Date . -...
Attached is a letter from an individual interested i n .purchasing a City-
owned parcel between Radatz and Beam east of Whi Bear Avenue. About a
year ago, an appraisal was prepared and the City Council approved the sale.
The Sale to that individual, however, was never completed. The current
interested party wishes to buy the entire lot.
It is recommended the City :to authorize Staff to prepare the necessary
documents and sell the property at market value.
mb
7 2
t
bkcA
VA
rc.11yr c- r/1 -Ccw T[•— .e- M (.AJ - S
O
4ke. %%& t -- 4,49,, t
4ec ci
400000mor
tn
e i
AL
Y 50
ZjT CITY PARK -
ry
s ._'_ ; `• , ;.ass a .oo.o
BEAM VENUE
app S
30Di
a A
EXIS It
8 WATER MAIN
ZL`310
V
ar
f. COP
c
Lj
L A •4t .
ft
Is
co
J 120 z
r.
RA AATZ AVENUE
L
w' 1
own
LI
r . Z c r . , e'S ., •-- - ""':
r f
t---1 •
do
1
rib 4r
OleLai Is 4
CITY of N ORTH ST. PAUL •:t
1
Property Line Map 0 Q
a'
i
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, MinnesotathatthefollowingOffSaleLiquorLicenseshavingbeenpreviouslydulyissuedbythisCouncil, are hereby approved for renewal for one year, effective Januar y 1 1983
with approvals granted herein subject satisfactory results of require. d Police
Fire and Health inspections:
C & G Maplewood Liquors
1347 Frost Avenue
J & R Liquors
2730 Stillwater Road
Laber Liquors
1730 Rice Street
Maplewood Wine Cellar
1281 Frost Avenue
North Country Vineyard & Spirits
1870 Beam Avenue
Party Time Liquors
1740 VanDyke Avenue
Red Wagon Liquors
2290 Maplewood Drive
Sarrack's International Wines & Spirits
2305 Stillwater Road
0 ""s
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
that the following On -Sale Liquor Licenses having been previously duly issued by this
Council, are hereby approved for renewal for one year, effective January 1, 1983, with
approvals granted herein subject to satisfactory results of required Police, Fire and
Health inspections:
Bali Hai Restuarant Garrity's
2305 White Bear Avenue 1696 White Bear Avenue
Chalet Lounge & Restaurant Gulden's Inc.
1820 Rice Street 2999 N. Highway 61
Chicone's Bar & Cafe, Inc. Holiday Inn of Maplewood
2289 E. Minnehaha 1780E County Road D
Dean's, Inc.
1986 Rice Street
Esteban's of Maplewood, Inc.
3069 White Bear Avenue
Fiddlers Deli & Lounge
3035 White Bear Avenue
Fox & Hounds Supper Club
1734 Adolphus
Keller Clubhouse
2166 Maplewood Drive
Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre
2950 White Bear Avenue (Wine License)
Payne Avenue Lodge x#963 ( Club License)
Loyal Order of Moose
1946 English
Hook ' n Ladder
2280 Maplewood Drive
Maple Wheel Lounge
2220 White Bear Avenue
Maplewood Bowl Entertainment Center
1955 English
Northernaire Motel
2441 Highway 61
Red Rooster Liquor Lounge
2029 Woodlyn
Town Crier
1829 No. St. Paul Road
F -A-
November 15, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
fiction by C . _._ ' •
Principals, Parti 4th and 5 • ° "``' _ "-_
T - ___n.__..
P g 5th Grade Teachers and ,
Students - Maplewood Elementary Schools
A. C. Schadt, Fire Marshal _ - --
State Fire Chiefs Poster Contest - 1982
This year 167 students from our Maplewoodewood el em •P elementary schools partic ntheannualMinnesotaStateFireChiefsPosterContest.
Attached for your information are local Maplewood winners awardreceivedand
s to be
schools competing.
Congratulations to the winners and all other aartici nts who inPP some waycontributedinourendeavortocreateafire - safe society.
First place winners will be forwarded on to h •to t he State Chiefss Association forcompetitioninearlyJanuary1983, the results of which will be made knownshouldacontestantfromMaplewoodbechosen.
Awards will be presented to the local winning ontestants at 7:0g .0 p.m.,December 13, 1982, in the Maplewood City Council chambers, 1380 Frost Avenue,prior to the regular Council meeting
Again, my appreciation and thanks to all of you who pinmakingyPgated and. assisted
g this program another success for our young eo le.P P
acs :js
Local winners in the 1982 Minnesota State Fire Chiefs Poster Contest from
Maplewood Elementary Schools that participated are as follows:
East County Line Fire District
1st Place Kathryn Marco Age 10 Transfiguration School
2nd Place Kurt Krummel Age 10 Transfiguration School
3rd Place Lisa Webster Age 10 Transfiguration School
Gladstone Fire District
1st Piace Josie Dittmer Age 10 Weaver School
2nd Place Angie Standberg Age 10 Presentation School
3rd Place Kristin Watnemo Age 10 Weaver School
Parksi de Fire District
1st Place Shelly Kottke Age 9 St. Jerome's School
2nd Place Peter Robelia Age 9 St. Jerome's School
3rd Place Mica Brown Age 11 St. Jerome's School
First place winners receive a $25 check from their District Fire Department and
a Tonka Toy aerial fire truck donated by Tonka Toy Corporation, Minneapolis.
Second place winners receive a $15 check from their District Fire Department.
Third place winners receive a $5 check from their District Fire Department.
Posters were judged and evaluated by fire personnel.
School Participating
St. Jerome's
Transfiguration
Gethsemane
Presentation
Weaver
Mounds Park Academy
G1 adstone Academy
Pri nc i pal s
Sister M. Clarice
T. Zarembski
D. Dittderner
Sister M. Geraldine
T. Fisher
R. Kreischer
R. Skoog
1
t
v
MEMORANDUM Action 1,
TO: City Manager
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand-- Associate Planner
J , i li ! L .a....•..cs ..asva.,..:....ur..r.
SUBJECT: Rezon
LOCATION: Southwest Corner -- Ferndale Street and Stillwater
APPLICANT: City of Maplewood
OWNER: Virginia L. Hanson
DATE: October 14, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
Request
Rezone a parcel from BC, Business Commercial to R -1, Residence District (Single
Dwell - i n g) .
Proposed Land Use
The property is proposed for RL, Low Density Residential in the Land Use Plan.
No development is currently being proposed.
CONCLUSION
Comments
The City initiated this rezoning as part of its "downzoni ng" program. This is
where the zoning allows a greater intensity of land use than i proposed by the
Land Use Plan.
All land adjacent to this parcel is zoned and presently used as residential
property. The only tion is the commercial property kitty- corner from thisyexceP
site. Rezoning the subject lot would bring it into character with the adjacent
properties and into conformance with the Land Use Pla
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed resolution rezoning the parcel from BC to R -
BACKGROUND
Site Description
1, Lot Si ze: 12,415 square feet
2. Existing Land Use: Undeveloped
Surrounding Land Uses
Single dwellings except for the retail store kitty-corner from this site.
Planning
1. Land Use designation: RL
2. Zoning: BC
ADMINISTRATIVE
Procedure
1. Planning Commission -- Recommendation
2. City Council - -First Reading
3. City Council--Second Reading (requires at least four votes for adoption)
mb
Enclosures:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Beaver Lake Land Use Plan
40 Resolution
2-
z
NARYLANK ItD.
IVY
froilir Court
Privote)
E. MARYLAND Am
02
o
U&Trm i imi.w
m
LOCATION MAP
0
0.6)
MOP
0$70
34
fUT
AVE.
LAJ
j
24 % 001 1
1 6 eCL
a Q
ri
mrj 140
Jos
Tn
1-1 T.-I Ft V L-1 fil i f I t, ; I L 44
00,
IMERCIALCOMM
t*
01 its
RETAIL
oo"
4
MAPLE OAKS too
FUNERAL HOME
ti3
13
tol
k
tw
1Y. El
i if @4
Olt 00
PROPERTY LINE MAP
With Existin Zonin
Proposed R-1
4
qp
m
a
AC
eD
0
SC
1
Rm
A
v
L
w
o
w
E
sc
1 t
C
0 i
interchange m
Bearer Lake
NEIGHBORHOOD LAUD USE PLAN
A
r
rrColo
w
L
ti
R I
W
sc Ap
4
N
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A ZONE CHANGE
WHEREAS, a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City Council
for a zone change from BC, Business Commercial to R -1, Residence District,
Single Dwel 1 i ng) for the following-described property:
Lot 4, Block 2, Perkins View Addition
Such above property being also known as the southwest corner of Ferndale
Street and Stillwater Avenue, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning procedure is as follows:
1. That a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City Council,
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 18th day of October, 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 con-
sidered 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 findings of fact:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
2. The rezoning would be compatible with all adjacent development.
Adopted this day of 19 .
Mayor
Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Ma L1V .
FROM: Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development EnP
LOCATION: McKnight Road and Montana Avenue fu_
APPLICANT /OWNER: Howard Christensen eiet_ LL, ._..... -- -
PROJECT: Acorn Greenhouses Dat e - - --
DATE: November 10, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
Req
Approval of a revision to the Acorn Greenhouse planned unit development to add adouble-dwelling lot.
Proposal
1. Lot four, block one would be divided as illustrated on Map Two
2. A double dwelling would be constructed on the westerly 5 feet fy0 lot four.The lot would contain-12 square feet.
3. The applicant's homestead would retain the easterly 40 feet of l fytour.
4. See the enclosed letter of justification.
CONCLUSION
Anal,si s
The double-dwelling l should be approved. The resulting densi w
permitted y ul d be less than
p tted by the land use plan and the structure would not be out-of - character iw ththedevelopmentproposedforneighboringproperties.
This lot was
I
planned .for, but not i •included i n, the original plat to allow the appl i-cant a larger ` ,homestead and the ability to sell the property when desired orfinancial) nece
P yysary. If the lot would have been included in the plat, it would havebeenrecommendedforapproval.
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed resolution, revising the •e Acorn Greenhouse planned un tdevelopmenttoincludeadouble - dwelling lot on the westerly 5 fee fblockyto 1 of .four,
one, Acorn Greenhouses.
BACKGROUND
2. Net Acreage: 11.6 (Does not include outlot A)
3. Existing Land Use: Two single dwellings one under construction) and two
quad structures (one under construction). (See Map Two
for the locations.)
Site Description
1. Gross Acreage: 15.1
4. Outlot A will be develoPed in the future, separate from the Acorn Greenhouses
Planned Unit Development. As such, it is not included in the net density
calculations for this development.
Surrounding Land Uses
Northerly: Single - dwelling homes
Easterly: Undeveloped land, planned for lower density residential use
Southerly: Single - dwelling homes and undeveloped land, planned for lower
denssty residential use
Westerly: A double dwelling at 1530 McKnight Road and single dwellings.
West of McKnight Road is a golf course
Past Actions
4-30-64: Council rezoned. 1530 McKnight Road from R -1, Single Dwelling Residential
to R -2, Double Dwelling Residential
3-19-81: Council approved a plan amendment for the site from RL -Lower Density
Residential to RLE, Lower Density Residential--Extended.,
8 -6 -81: Council conditionally approved the Acorn Greenhouse preliminary plat
and planned unit development, as illustrated on Map Three'.
2- 18 -82: Council approved the Acorn Greenhouse final plat.
DEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
1. Land Use Plan Designation: RL, Lower Density Residential
2. Permitted Density: 14 persons /net acre
Previously approved densi ty:11.5 persons /net acre
Proposed Density: 12.2 persons /net acre
3. Compliance with land use laws:
Section 36-438(d)(4) states that "any vari ati ors from the plan (planned uni t
development) shall .require recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval
by the City Council."
2_
0
Public Works
Water and sewer services are unavailable to the property line.
mb
Enclosures:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
30 Plat Map
4. Applicant's letter of request
5. Resolution -
t)
3
W W '..
2160 No
MAPLEW80D (1) STANICH C.T.
WORnUSLIC
L5,
uBLIc
ire .
1100
j r E
NORTH ST PAUL
29
68 1 12008
HOLLOW ((Ay AV
LLJ 5
1212i
5
7 Rl 'AVE. 'PLEY
6INGST AVE 0 0
U Uj1PRICEXAVEJ
0
LARPENTEUR AVI
30 z
inn
4A 11DANO AVE.ZWil
T29NR22W z
14113 c a cn
23124
A C NTA N.
LL;
1440 No
rj MARYLA
LLI
IVY
C)Troiler Court
68 Pr ivate
E. MARYLAN1200NO AVE,
LOCATION MAP"
E
in
oFRAN/
o E
r.. .ifs - -4m ... ...fs
f '
D
fo 1,540
PROPOSED SPLIT - - -
W 140.
7 5 7 5 ti _ ti ; := =:: `:'• :,r' x : ,;;•: =:ti; So 85 9 y. 70 .
2
w -:' :., .•...; ': v::' ti'= tip' :_:'` L 2.'14. 85.0 ` "" Soo' t o c
vri:: - :Car: —
2 3 .:..ti I Y t 14 '77.5 7S' ! •
i-
r
T Zt 99.94 200 324.L7
240. t F97.J 'l75.G3' o 99.94 -
r
SZ.o7
i
87
r
7NO 72n t9.T e. N
r Q ° 1dq3. N
yy ti O TH c,
3 0
N OUTLOT Q
14 9: X61 - 99. 5` 77 . L.9 L 1
134. e,39. 70
UNDER tCONSTRCIONCONSTRUCTED
P w
ti OT N V
cap L
ct A
ISO-of ] /.9a. sy G3S. R4
y.
R
r
f
X .
r 1
PROPERTY LINE MAP
ACORIV GREEIVHOUSES-
can.@.
z 'a wc r • r".* er Santo t•gtoo •9 Obawwfor ALACTO
419M
0 r 4,w Off,sattess amp am w, •s "rue
vai
ZZ ne can
00 Met so 41, laa
@•of 40•ff lower
or"
oa—
Beam soap •aooe
1
1 " 'j-40
lI
2 ft. 6 •LLS
Sit 0;
ft ..
0
ON --a 3
4& - , i z.- 5
i ; A -j L.0 2
1 CSC)
It - . t' .4-ft :__ = —j t( 6 Y , C
9 R , SFJ ZtoOGEQT411OfEstaffm '00,0110
2 3 4 (5F) 5 F (50 -
I F, _ js +, CS f : ` • 1 a. 4 a, 00
AVENUE vas? a
31 so 7 sead, it
sr fair 'WCO a . jrse did
Pc LA ItA j .
1111111111d,,, ,
160to ------- — :4- SAEI — QU D eeSAL ------------- Tm
gas-
je, So--
i a ,,. ,•s - r } + C) a Sao
witm.
2 4
ct OU TLO T
L -'.' : ,, =1 6 :ai : d -= `__. : r•:'J— '1
r
490.1 — Lost 9 wt.
1 0 tee r_........ 28r_ &I-k r
OUTLOT c
fp. t:
0
0-
AJ
pf 0
a
go
eye
0 o9.9W• •0o If- For" 414FIF .11
a.SF) Sin Dwelli.n
DF) Double Dwelling
Mr. Dennis F. Peck
108 W. Lawson Avenue
St. Paul, Mn. 55117
October 16, 1982
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director . of Cumnunity Development
City of Maplewood
1902 E. County Road C
Maplewood, Mn. 55109
Re: Special Use Permit
Lot Split: Lot 4, Block 1, Acorn Greenhouses
Dear Mr. Olson:
Please find enclosed Special Use Permit Application,
a check in the amount of $100.00 to cover the cost of same and
a sketch of the proposed lot split which constitutes the special
use requested. Payment of the proposed lot split has alreadybeenmade, *and it is our understanding that the list of adjoining
property owners previously submitted is deemed adequate. It is
further our understanding that while a lot split is normally an
administrative decision to be made at the staff level since the
site is part of a PUD, a special use permit and the attendant
hearings are necessary,
As I have previously indicated to you the ' special use
request is for a split of Lot 4, Block 1, Acorn Greenhouses
hereinafter "Lot 4". Our proposal is to divide Lot 4 into two
sites parcels A and B as indicated on the sketch. Request is
made . that parcel A be designated a duplex site. Parcel A would
consisit of approximately 12,185 square feet with 85 feet of
frontage along Montana Avenue. Parcel B would remain a singleg
family site and consist of approximately 19,315 square feet with
141 feet of frontage.
In installing the site improvements for the Acorn -
Greenhouses plat additional sewer and water services were installed
along. Montana Avenue in contemplation of a future lotsplit,Allowancece for this extra site and the increased density t would
entail was also contemplated in the lattin of Acorn Greenhouses.P g
Excluding Outlot A and areas platted for roads there remains
within the Acorn plat 11 - 91 net, acres. If our understandingg
of the applicable density requirements of the City of Maplewood
is correct (14 persons per acre) , the overall densitv, allowed
on the Acorn plat site is 166.74 persons. Under the-present.
platting there will be 133 persons, allocated as follows:_
12 single family x 4..1 49.2
Mr. Geoff 41on
October 16, 1982
Page Two
1 double family x 8.2 8.2
7 3- bedroom quad x 3A 23.1
21 2- bedroom - quad x 2.5 52.5
1
The lot division was not included in the original
platting so as to allow the Christensen family a large home-
stead lot while retaining the, flexibility of a future division
if necessary or profitable. With a division of ownership of
the Acorn plat,now is deemed the proper time to proceed.
I
Please be advised that the enclosed sketch plan is
a reproduction of Carley Engineers' Specifications for utilit
construction. only the most westerly quad site which consists
presently of just a foundation and the existing Charistensen
homestead (building on Parcel B) are within a 100 feet of the
site. Dimensions, placement of services and buildings are accurate,
We trust that our request i's consistent with the
rest of the planning considerations previously made with re and
to the Acorn site and with your other requirements. We would
appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
If you have any questions in regard to any of the
above please let me know at 482 -9176.
Sincerely,
Dennis F. Peck
DFP /tba
Encls.
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMS E Y
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT
AND APPROVAL OF A REVISION TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, a revision to the special use permit for the Acorn Greenhouse plan-
ned unit development was requested by Howard Christensen to add a double dwelling
lot to the development. Said 'devel opment property being described as follows:
w
The North 1/2 of the North 112 of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest
quarter of Section 24 Townshi p 29, Range 22; excepting that part of the
Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 29
North, Range 22 West, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the
West line of said Section which is 35 feet South of the Northwest corner
of said Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence South along
said Section line 129.75 feet; thence East parallel to the North of
said Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter 175 feet; thence North
parallel with the West l i n e of said Section 97.75 feet; thence Northwesterly
to the point of beginning;
also except that part of the North 1/2 of the Southwest quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County,
Minnesota beginning at the Northeast corner thereof, thence due West a
distance of 329.70 feet to the point of beginning of this description;
thence due South 120 Teet to a point, thence due West 200 feet to a
point, thence due North 1.20 feet to a point, thence due East 200 feet to
the point of beginning of this description.
The East 1/2 of the South 112 of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, and the East 145.2
feet of the West 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4
of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this special use permit revision is as
fol 1 ows :
1. That a revision to the special - use permit for the Acorn greenhouse -
planned unit development was requested pursuant to the requirements of
section 36-438(d)(4) of the Maplewood Zoning Code;
2. That said special use permit revision was referred to and reviewed by
the Maplewood Planning Commission on the 15th day of November, 1982,
at which time said Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
that said special use permit revision be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the
revision of said special use permit, notice thereof having been published
and mailed pursuant to law; and
40 That all present at said hearing were given " opportunity to
be heard and /or present written statements, and the Council considered
reports and recommendations of the city staff and Planning Commission
R NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL, that the
above-described special use be granted on the basis of the following findingsndins
of fact:
1. The request would not exceed the permitted density.
2. The proposed double dwelling would not be out of character with the
proposed development on neighboring lots.
Adopted this day of , 1982.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1
1
2r
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager Action by
FROM: Associate Planner -- Johnson
SUBJECT: Shoreland Management Ordinance
DATE: October 7, 1982 Iodi e y ,... .__...._...
d -Re
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has requested that the City comment
on their preliminary shorel and classifications for thirteen lakes and two
istreams n Mann ewood.
2. The DNR is requiring adoption of a shorel and management ordinance, based
upon their Model Shoreland Overlay District Ordinance for Municipalities.
CONCLUSION
Ana
DNR' s classification scheme and model ordinance were not conceived with the
metropolitan area in mind. With land use planning mandator and sanita andy
storm sewer systems common in the metropolitan region, some problems arise as
to the applicability and public purpose of some of the model shorel and development
requi rement s .
The enclosed ordinance represents several months of negotiation between DNR
end City Staff. The ordinance has been approved by DNR. (See enclosed letter.)If Council wishes to make any revisions, DNR approval will be required.
Significant revisions agreed upon between the DNR and Staff include:
1. An expansion from three to five lake classification categ to take into
account factors such as : public ownership, planned land use, and remaining
development potential in shorel and areas. A provision for an impervi
surface area bonus has also been included to add greater flexibility, where
developer is willing to construct on -site facilities for the treatment or
reduction of urban runoff.
2. Relaxation of DNR' $ maximum thirty percent impervious surface area requirement
for all development. A compromise was reached al l'owi ng increased impervious
surface areas dependent upon the lake classification, and whether a water
frontage or a back lot property.
3. Relaxation in development standards for properties that would be separated
from a protected water by an arterial roadway. ,
4. DNB's definition of planned unit development was revised to eliminate their
approval authority for multiple- dwelling developments which would not varfromtheshorelandordinanceprovisions.
5. "Minimum lot area" was revised to "average lot area." Where only one lot
would be involved, the "average lot area" requirement would be the minimum
al 1 owabl e. This approach meets the intent of the State legislation overni n
shorel and densities, while reduce ng the number of time consuming minor variance
requests.
The remainder of the development standards, with minor excepton, are as required in
DNR' s model shoreland guidelines. The changes outlined above would eliminate
overly restrictive requirements relative to Maplewood', shoreland areas, while
maintaining the spirit and intent of the shoreland legislation. :The effect on
developed properties would be minimal. Any lawful structure caused to be sub-
standard, due to the enactment of the proposed shoreland ordinance, would be
allowed to expand, provided that the substandardness would not be increased.
Lots of record could be developed, provided the shoreland ordinance provisions
wo.ul d be met so far as practical .
Recommendation
I. Approve the following Department of Natural Resource (DNR) preliminary
shoreland classifications for Maplewood's thirteen lakes and two streams
that have been designated as protected waters:
Basin
Beaver Lake
Casey's Lake
Carver Lake
Gervai s Lake-
Keller Lake
Ko h l ma n Lake
Lake Ph a 1 en
Oehrl i ne' s Lake
Round Lake
Silver Lake
Spoon Lake
Tanners Lake
Wakefield Lake
Battle Creek
Fish Creek
3M Pond
DNR Preliminary Classification (see background
information)
NE
RD
RD
GD NE -- Natural Envi ronmental
RD RD-- Recreational Devel opmei-
RD GD-- General Development
RD
RD
NE
RD
RD
GD
RD
GD
GD
GD
II. Approve the enclosed shoreland ordinance.
IWM
BACKGROUND
Purpose of Shorel and Management
Shorel and management requirements were enacted by the Legislature to reduce the
negative effects of shorel and overcrowding and uncontrolled development, such as:
shoreland erosion, increased pollution, flood damages, and inade area for on-
site sanitary facilities.
Definition of Shoreland - and Applicability
1. By statute, shorel and is defined as:
a. 1000 feet from the normal high water mark of a pond, lake, or wetland
b. 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward side of a designated9
fl oodpl ai n, whichever is greater
2. For administrative purposes, the DNR only requires shorel and regulations for
the fol 1 owi ng waters:
a. lakes or ponds in excess of ten acres
b. streams or rivers with watersheds in excess of two square miles
Shorel and Management Classifications
The three shorel and classifications are defined as follows (source-, "Classification
Scheme for Public Waters, DNR, April 1971 "):
1. Natural Environmental Lakes and Streams (NE): to preserve and enhance high
quality waters by protecting them from pollution and to protect shorel ands
which are unsuitable for development; to maintain a low density of development;
and to maintain high standards of quality for permitted development.
2. Recreational Development Lakes (RD): to provide management policies reasonably
consistent with existing development and use; to provide for the beneficial
use of public waters by the general public, as well as the riparian owners;
to provide a ; balance between the lake resource and lake use; to provide for
a balance between the lake resource and lake use; to provide for a multiplicity
of lake uses; and to protect areas unsuitable for residential and commercial
uses from development.
3. General Development Lakes and Streams (GD): to provide minimum regulations of
areas presently developed as high density,multipla use areas; and to provide
gui dance for future growth of commercial and industrial establishments which
require locations on public waters.
History
1969: The State Legislature enacted the Shorel and Management Act, requiringrin each9q9
county . to adopt a shorel and management ordinance for unincorporated areas.
7 -1 -73: The State Legislature amended the Shorel and Management Act (Statute
105.485) to require the regulation of shorel and areas within municipalities.
9-21-81: DNR notified Maplewood that the existing zoning code did not meet the
intent of the Shorel and Act and that a shorel and ordinance must be adopted
by September 21, 1982.
3_
w 10- 15 -81: Council adopted DNR' s Model Shorel and Overlay District Ordinance for
Municipalities, sho reland development guideline.
10 -1 -82: ONR approved the ordinance as proposed by Staff (letter enclosed).
mb
Enclosures:
1. Map of DNR Proposed Shoreland 1Management Basins
2. Table 1- -DNR Preliminary Shorel and Classifications
3. Table 2- -DNR Preliminary Classification Criteria
4. Proposed Ordinance
5. DNR' s Letter of Approval
4 -
This rnao is for Plannrg
purposes only and should
not be used where precise
meastirerrteni is required
CH 1 (.ITTLft tANA8A
1 / u
O
i
V
I
I
f % j
DNR PROPOSED SHORELAND MANAGEMENT BASINS
G D General Development
RD Recrea Development
NE Natural Environment
MAP 1
I
1!0
0
v
r
x
N
f
3
1
7t4
Oil
YA1lM low
Oft
RDA
M'
J 1 w
v. •w
NI INtog"sW'0 1, •w, +
C911111"1111 10"t ello. I-41"ll
M
In Q
IS
1
v v
M i t
r r
L 1
1 f ! tom)
nMilM.l1IY
9
w f ,
Enftl
ell
I !
Ii
I
I 14 I
Ill coAAA- IT ILY—
1
was"I"Ofam CO
if[MQMT
my
1 • r_ 40
d w
1,
3M 1111 •.,.,...
TABLE I
DNR PREL I MI'NARY SNORELAND CLASSIFICATIONS
triN I C I PAL S31ORELAND CLASSIFICATION DATA
IDENTIFICATION SASIN CHARACTERISTICS
City of _ _ MAPL
CLASSIFICATION INFO.
n _ c
z
n N
o `to
t Y i F
w vs see r
v
p' n e
On to
LOCATION SHORE ctz V; I to
1 K} RNME 7D T R SEC't•IOtZS
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
MI LES
Z
DNR PRELIMINARY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
Silver 62 -1 -68A 2.1
M a
0 0
r H
9.5 32.3
Co
CO taseys 62 -5 14
c r o
0 0
CLASSIFICATION INFO.
n _ c
z
n N
o `to
t Y i F
w vs see r
v
p' n e
On to
LOCATION SHORE ctz V; I to
1 K} RNME 7D T R SEC't•IOtZS ARf-A MI LES
DNR PRELIMINARY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
Silver 62 -1 -68A 2.1 18 0 0 9.5 32.3 RD
CO taseys 62 -5 14 6 6 17 0 0 11922/F925 28.3 23.3 RD
Kohlman 62 -6 84 6 6 20 O O N959/F963.6 33.3 140.0 RD
a) 6ervais 62 -7 234 2.8 41 70 0 0 N959/F963.6 25.0 83.6 GD
Kel 1 er 62 -10 72 1.7 6 20 (b)0 0 N959/F963.6 11.8 42.4 RD
Wakefield 62 -11 23 8 8 15 0 0
less than
19.8 28.8 RD
Round 62 -12 23 6 19 0 (b)0 0 N959.0/F963.6 38.3 ME
a ) Phal en 62 -13 193 3.2 70 0 (b)0 0 N959.0/F963.6 60.3 RD
Unnamed 62 -14 Oehrline's Lake
11 6 22 0 0 36.6 18.3 RD
a) Beaver 6246 65 1.3 7 10 0 0 N950/F952.2 7.7 50.0 NE
Unnamed 62 -17 3M Pond 24 1.1 0 0 4 N976.7/F979.9 3.6 21.8 GD
bullhead-
panfish panfish pan fish
N/A
Spoon Lake (t)
over.lS over 1S
Lake Depth feet deep feet deep
t Tanners - 82 -115 73 1.69 45 48 O 4 N963.1/F965.4 28.4 43.2 6D
a Carver 92-166 95 1.3 36 7 1 0 N906.2/F910.'i 5.4 73.1 RD
STREAM NAME
or wet soil,veg., moderate vel., moderate
Battle Creek .
flat slopes to steep slopes to steep slopes
6D
Fish Creek
6D
body bordered by at least one other local unit of government. data given for the entire water body
b) No private riparian property
WIncluded by DNR with the classification of Keller Lake
All rivers and streams having a total drainage area of greater than 2 square miles are assigned a shoreland
classif of General Development
TABLE I I -
DNR PRELIMINARY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
RANK OF
CRITERIA NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT GENERAL OEVELOnfENT
1 2 3 4 S 6
under two under three between 3 under three over 2S between 3 and
Development dwellings dwellings and 25 dwellings dwellings 2S dwellings
Density per mile per mile dwellings per mile per mile of per mile of
per mile of shoreline shoreline
shoreline
less than between 60 greater than
Crowding 60 acres and 22S acres 12S acres of
Potential of water of water per_water per
area per mile mile
wile
winterkill-NOT winterkill-NOT winterkill-
Ecological roughfish or roughfish or roughfish or
Classification bullhead-bullhead-bullhead-
panfish panfish pan fish
under 1S over.lS over 1S
Lake Depth feet deep feet deep feet deep
few trees sand or loam sand or loan
Shore Soil shrub vege-soil,decidious soil, decidious
A vegetation tation, clay or coniferous or coniferous
or wet soil,veg., moderate vel., moderate
flat slopes to steep slopes to steep slopes
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO INCLUDE
A SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances is amended to add
Article IX as follows:
ARTICLE IX. SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
Sec. 36 -561. Purpose and intent.
a) It is the purpose of this ordinance to provide for the wise * utilization
of shores and areas, in order to protect water quality, the natural
characteristics and visual appeal of protected waters, the local tax
base, and the general health, safety and welfare of community residents.
b) Enactment of this ordinance is to provide a mechanism to reduce the
negative effects of shorel and overcrowding, such as water pollution,
inadequate space on lots for drainage and sanitary facilities, flood
damages, and degradation of the aesthetic. appeal and natural character-
istics of .designated shorel and and adjacent water areas.
Sec. 36 -562. Establishment of a shorel and overlay district.
a) 'A shorel and overlay district, with its attendant regulations, is
hereby established as part of the zoning ordinance. This district shall
overlay existing zoning districts, so that any parcel of land lying in
the overlay district shall also lay in one or more of the underlying
established zoning districts.
b) Within the overlay district, all uses may be permitted in accordance
with regulations for the underlying zoning district(s), if the uses
meet the additional requirements established in this ordinance.
Sec. 36 -563. District boundaries.
This overlay ordinance shall apply to the shorel and districts which are
delineated on the official zoning maps. These maps shall be on file in the
office of the director of community development for i nspecti on ' and 6opying.
Sec. 36 -564. Definitions,
Average lot area: The average of the lot areas within a single development
or phase. For a single lot, the minimum allowable area shat i be no less
than, the average lot area requirement.
Boathouse: A structure used solely for the storage of boats or boating
equipment.
Building of record: A structure which was in existence or for which
a building permit was issued prior to (effective date of this ordinance).
Lot of record: A lot recorded with the Ramsey County Register of Deeds
or Registrar of Titles prior to (effective date of this ordinance)
Multiple Dw e l l i n g . Any residential structure containing two or more livinguniis .
Nonpoi nt source (NPS) A contaminant that enters water b washingoffthea
Y 9
o land or seeping into ground water, which alters the physical,
chemical, or biological properties of water or the discharge into water
of any substance that may create a nuisance or render such - water detrimental
or injurious to public health, safety or welfare.
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollutant treatment: Storm water management practiceswhichwillreducenonpointsourcepollutionpriortoreachingaprotected
water.
Ordinary high water mark (OHWM): A mark delineating the highest water
level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave
evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark is commonlythatpointwherethenaturalvegetationchangesfrompredominantly
aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.
Planned Unit Development: A development planned as a unit which incorporates:
1. Residential and commercial land uses, or
2. Variation (s) from this shorel and overlay ordinance 'Y ce or underlying zoningdistrictct • regulations relating to, but not limited to, density, setbacksheightlimitsandminim 'um lot area which are permitted by negotiatedagreementbetweenthedeveloper, the muni ci pal i ty, and the commissionerofnaturalresources.
Protected waters. Formerly referred to as public waters, means an waterofthestateasdefinedY
i n Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.37, subdivision14.
Regional flood: A flood which is representativeve of largeP1ge floods known
to have occurred in Minnesota and that can be expected to occur on an
average frequency of once every 100 years.
Shoreline: Land abutting the ordinary high water mark.
Shorel and: Land located within the following distances from
water:
om a protected
1. 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a 1 ake, P and or
flowage; and _
2. 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood
plain on such a river or stream, whichever is 9 reater,
The practical limits of shorel ands may be less than the statutory limits
where such limits are designated by the natural drainage dividesdes at a i .sserdistanceandapprovedbytheDepartmentofNaturalResources.
W.
Structure: Any building, except aerial or underground utilit lines such
r as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph or gas lines, including towers
poles and other supporting appurtenances.
Urban run -off: Storm water that flows over land or through a man -made drainagesystem, that usually ontain 9
y s litter, tter, organs c . or bacterial.al wastes .
Sec. 36 -565. Shorel and classifications.
a) Criteria for classification
Percentages apply only to shoreland located in Maplewood)
1) Class I waters are defined as those DNR designated General
Development waters in which at least 75/ of the shoreland area is
planned for commercial or industrial use, as defined by the
Maplewood Land Use Plan.,
2) Class II waters are defined as those DNR designated General
Development waters not qualifying for Class I status
3) Class III waters are defined as those DNR designated Recreation
Development waters having:
a. At least 60/ of the shoreline in public ownership, or
b. At least 50% of the shoreland in public ownership, or
c. Less than 10% of the shoreland remaining for development,
excluding public open space, as of (date this ordinance becomes
effective)
4) Class IV waters are defined as those DNR designated Recreation
Development waters not qualifying for Class III status.
5) Class V watery are defined as those DNR designated Natural Environ-
mental waters.
b) Classification of protected waters
1) CJass I waters
3M Pond
Tanner's Lake
2) Class II waters
Battle Creek `
Fish Creek
Ge rva i s Lake _
3) Class III waters
Casey Lake
Keller Lake
Lake Phalen
Silver Lake
Spoon Lake
Wakefield Lake
3
0
4) Class IV waters,
Carver Lake
Kohlman Lake
Oehrl ine's Lake
51 Class V waters
Beaver Lake
Round Lake
Sec.36 -566. District development standards.
a) Class I waters.
With
Commerc1 ial Deve 1 o pment . Sari i tart' Sewer
a. Minimum building setback from
th OHWM t feet} 50
50
70
IL
75
40
60
4
50
75
40
50
60
Without
Sanitary Sewer
50
50
50
4
75
100
50
40
c
b.Minimun on -site sewage system
setback from OHWM (feet)
c.Maximum Impervious surface
area(°6)
with bonus(b)*
2) MUltiule Dwelling.
a.Minimum building setback from
OHWM (feet)
b.Maximum impervious surface
area (%)
with bonus
b) Class II and III waters.
1) Commercial Development.
a.Maximum building height (stories)
b.Minimum building setback from
the OHWM (feet)
c.Minimum water frontage (feet)
d.Minimum on -site sewage system
setback from.the OHWM (feet)
e.Maximum impervious surface
area(%
with bonus
water frontage lotsO
other lots (:%)
50
70
IL
75
40
60
4
50
75
40
50
60
Without
Sanitary Sewer
50
50
50
4
75
100
50
40
c
P) Single dwelling.
a.Minimum water frontage 75
b.Minimum building setback from
the OHWM (feet)50
c.Minimum on -site sewage system
setback from the OHWM (feet)
d.Average lot area
water frontage lots (sq.ft.) 15,000
e.Maximum impervious surface
area O 30
with bonus*
water frontage lots 40
other lots ( %)50
3) Multiple dwelling.
a.Maximum building height (stories)4
b.Minimum building setback from the
OHWM (feet)75
c.Minimum water frontage per
development (feet)85
d.Maximum impervious surface
area( %)40
with bonus*
water frontage lots ( %)50
other lots ( %)60
e.Average lot area per unit
water frontage lots (sq.ft') 10,000
G) Class IV and V waters.
1) Commercial development.
a.Maxi -mum building height (stories)3
b.Minimum building setback from
the OHWM (feet)75
c.Minimum water frontage per
development (feet)75
d.Minimum on -site sewage system
setback from the OHWM (feet)
100
75
50
20,000
30
3
100
150
75
5
e.Maximum impervious surface
area ( %)30 30
with bonus
water frontage lots (%)40
other lots 50
2) Single dwelling.
a.Minimum water frontage and lot
width at building setback line (feet)75 150
b.Minimum building setback from
the OHWM (feet)75 100
c.Minimum on -site sewage system
setback from the OHWM (feet)75
d.Average lot area
water frontage lots (sq.ft.)20 40
other lots (sq. ft.)15 40
e.Maximum impervious surface
area (%)30 30
with bonus
water frontage lots 40
other lots ( %)50
3) Multiple dwelling.
a.Maximum building height (stories)3
b.Minimum building setback from
the OHWM (feet)75
c.Minimum water frontage per
development (feet)5
d.Maximum impervious surface
area N)40
with bonus*
water frontage lots 50
other lots (%)60
e.Average lot area per unit
water frontage lots (sq.ft.)15
other lots (sq.ft.)5
Refer to section 36- 566(e)for requirements to qualify for an
impervious surface area bonus. Impervious surface area limits shall be
determined using the total developable area of a parcel above the ordinary
high water mark and suitable for development),exclusive of streets and
sidewalks.
G
d) Roads and parking areas.
1) Roads and parking areas shall be de .cigned and located so as to
retard urban run -off.
2) Where practical and feasible, all roads and parking areas shall
meet the structure setback standards from the ordinary high water
mark specified in section 36 -566 (a), (b) and (c). In no instance
shall these impervious surfaces be located less than fifty feet
from the ordinary high water mark.
3) Natural vegetation or other natural materials shall be used to screen
parking areas when viewed from the water.
e) Impervious surface area bonus.
To qualify for an impervious surface area bonus, as permitted in section
36 -566 (a), M and (0, si gni fi cant man -made facilities shall be provided
and maintained for the reduction of storm water flow or the treatment of
urban run -off for nonpoint source water pollutants.
The director of public works and the Department of Natural Resources shall
determine whether a proposed management practice(s) is adequate to warrant
a bonus. A bonus may range from one to twenty percent for non -water front-
age lots and from one to ten percent for water frontage properties,
dependent upon the practice(s) proposed.
f) Water quality management plan.
1) All development within a shoreland area shall be subject to a
water quality management plan, which is to be approved prior to
construction by the director of public works, except single and
double dwellings meeting the following criteria:
a. The parcel is not part of a plat created after (effective date
of this ordinance)
b. The parcel does not have frontage on a protected water
2) A water quality management plan shall include, but not be limited to ,
a statement of the construction and effective maintenance of non -
point source pollutant treatment methods to be used to reduce
potential water pollution associated .with:
a. Urban run -off
b. Soil erosion after construction is complete, and
c. Soil erosion during construction.
These methods shall be in addition to any significant man -made
facilities proposed for an impervious surface area bonus as
permitted by section 36 -566 (f).
7
g) Elevation of the lowest floor.
Where no regulatory flood protection elevation has been established,
no structure, except boathouses, piers and docks, shall be placed at
an elevation such that the lowest floor, including basement, is less
than .three feet above the highest known water level. In those
instances where sufficient data on known high water levels are not
available, the ordinary high water mark shall be used. +
h} Drainage.
All development within shorel and areas shall be consistent with the
intent of the Maplewood Drainage Plan, dated January 1974.
i) Exemption from setback requirements.
Setback requirements from the ordinary high water mark shall not
apply to boathouse, piers and docks, Location of piers and docks
shall be controlled by applicable state and local regulations.
Reduction in development standards.
Where a shorel and property is--a) separated from all protected waters
by a principal or major arterial roadway, as defined by the Maplewood
Land Use Plan, b) the area does not -drain directly to a protected water,
and c) the visual impact of the area from the lake surface is minimal,
all applicable development standards may be reduced in restrictiveness
by one protected waters classification. (i.e., Property subject to
Class III standards may be subject to Class II development standards,)
k) Substandard lots and buildings.
t1 } Lots of record, not meeting the minimum lot area requirements of this
shorel and overlay ordinance, may be allowed as a building site,
provided all other dimensional requirements of this shorel and overlay
ordinance are complied with insofar as practical.
2) A building of record, which is caused to be substandard due to the
enactment of , thi s ordinance, may be expanded, provided that:
a. The use and expansion are allowed by the zoning ordinance .
b. Where practical and feasible, the improvements will not
increase the substandardness of the building relative to the
requirements of section 36 -566, except as permitted in section
36 -566 (k) (2) (c), or
C. The setback of the structure, if a water .frontage lot, is the
average setback of adjacent residential structures from the
ordinary high water mark or fifty -feet, whichever is greater.
J
1) Boathouses.
Boathouses may be allowed up to the OHWM provided:
1) They do not contain sanitary facilities.
2) They are not used for human habitation. _
3) They are no larger than 160 square feet in area and story
in height.
4) They are designed to be aesthetically compatible with the natural
soft setting insofar as practical.
Sec. 36 -567. Shoreland alterations.
a) Selective removal of natural vegetation shall be allowed, provided that
sufficient vegetative cover remains to screen cars, dwellings and other
structures when viewed from the water for aesthetic purposes.
b) Grading and filling in shorel and areas may be authorized by a grading
and fill permit. Such permit may be granted by the director of public
works, subject to the approval of an erosion control plan. At a minimum,
an erosion control plan shall require that:
1) The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed fora short a time
as feasible.
2) Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground
cover, such as sod, is planted.
3) Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed.
4) Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards.
c) Excavation on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to a
protected water, shall require a permit from the director of public works
before construction is begun. Permits may be obtained only after the
Commissioner of Natural Resources has issued a permit for any work on the
beds of protected waters.
d) Any work which w i l l change or diminish the course, current or cross section
of a protected water or wetland shall be approved by the Commissioner of
Natural Resources, and such approval shall be construed to mean the .
issuance by the Commissioner of Natural Resources of a permit under the
procedures of Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.42 and other related statutes.
Sec. 36 -568. on -site sewage treatment systems.
a) All on -site sewage treatment systems shall be designed and installed in
accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Individual Sewage
Treatment Systems Standards (6 MCAR 4.8040). -
i
b) All existing sewage treatmeot systems inconsistent with the standards in
f
Section 36 -568 (a) shall be brought into conformance or discontinued within
five years from the date of enactment of this ordinance. Any noncon-
forming sanitary facility found to be a public nuisance shall be brought
into conformity or discontinued within thirty days after, receiving written
notice from the Maplewood environmental health official:
Sec. 36 -569. Plan review.
a) Subdivisions.
1) All plats which are inconsistent with the provisions of this
ordinance shall be reviewed by the commissioner of natural resources.
Such review shall require that the proposed plats be received by the
commissioner at least ten days before city council approval of a
preliminary plat.
2) A copy of all plats within the shoreland overlay district shall be
submitted to the commissioner of natural resources within ten days
of final approval of the city council.
b) Planned Unit Developments. (PUD)
Altered zoning standards may be allowed as exceptions to the zoning
ordinance for PUD' s ,provided that:
1 Proposals must be approved by the DeDartment of Natural Resources
prior to final approval by the municipality. The Department of
Natural Resources s h a l l have thirty days from the date of written
notification from the city to reply, after which time said proposal
shall be considered approved.
2) Open space is preserved, that would not have been preserved without
the PUD.
3) Where a density bonus is considered, the following factors are
evaluated to ensure the proposed density will be consistent with
the resource limitations of the protected water:
a. Physical and aesthetic impact of any increased density
b. Density of current development
c. Amount of public shoreland and shoreline
d. Levels and types of water surface use and public access
e. Possible effects on over-all public use of the protected water
4) Any shoreline recreation facilities, such as beaches, docks and
boat launching facilities are centralized.
5) The development is consistent with requirements for a PUD in the
City Zoning Code.
10
6) An approved PUD shall not be modified unless approved in writing
by the Department of Natural Resources and the city council. The
Department of Natural Resources shall have thirty days from the date
of written notification from the city to reply, after which time,
said request shall be considered approved.
c) Multiple family and commercial developments.
Nonsingle dwelling detached developments which would disturb at least
one acre of shoreland, shall be submitted to the Commissioner of
Natural Resources for review and comment at least ten days prior to
Community Design Review Board approval.
d) Deduction of development standards,
Where standards would be reduced under section 36- 5660), notification
of the request shall be submitted to the commissioner of natural resources
at least ten days prior to issuance of building permit or Community Design
Review Board approval, whichever would come first.
Sec. 36 -570. Variances and amendments.
a) A copy of public hearing notices to consider variances and amendments
to the provisions of this ordinance shall be received by the commissioner
of natural resources at least ten days prior to such hearings.
b) A copy of final decisions granting variances or ordinance amendments shall
be submitted to the commissioner of natural resources within ten days of
final action.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force after its
passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of
Maplewood, Minnesota this
day of 2.
Mayor
Attest:
Ayes -
Clerk Nays
11
STATE OF
U V U V lSJ 1=ti1
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BOX CENTENNIAL OFFICE BUILDING • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155
DNR INFORMATION
612) 296 -6157 -' FILE NO,
October 1, 1982
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1902 East County Road 6
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. 01 son
APPROVAL OF MAPLEWOOD'S SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the draft shorelandmanagementordinancesubmittedbyMr. Randall Johnson on September 9, 1982 for
compliance with the "Statewide Standa and Criteria for the Management of
Muni Shorel and r
g
Areas of Minnesota" (Minn. Regs. NR 82 -84) . The draft
ordinance is in substantial compliance with the above - noted standards exceptPSection920,,060,D.2. In accordance with M.S. 1059485, Subdivision 6 I . hereby
approve Maplewood's shorel and management controls, subject to revision of the
section to read as follows.
2. Where practical and feasible, all roads and parking areas shall meet
the structure setback standards from the ordinary high water mark
specified in Sections 920.060, A, 6, & C of this ord i nance. In no
instance shall these impervious surfaces be located less than 50 feet
from the ordinary high water mark.
The Department appreciates the effort and initiative taken b the ityCity of
Maplewood in developing an innovative and comprehensive management a roachPPforitsshorelandareas. As a result of this effort, the natural resources of
the lakes and associated shorel ands throughout Maplewood will be P rotected and
enhanced for future generations.
Please send two (2) published or certified copies of the "Shore l and OverlaDistrict "., Section 920 of the Maplewood Municipal Code after official adoption
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER OCT Z
O
ot
Mr. Geoff Olson -_
Page 2
October 1, 1982
to the DNR for our f i l e s . Also, notices required by the ordinance to be sent
to the Commissioner of Natural Resources should be sent to the DNR Region VI
Waters' Office at 1200 Warner Road, St: Paul, Minnesota 551069 In the
future, staff from that office will be a v a i l a b l e should you need assistance in
interpreting or administering your shorel and management controls.
Sincerely, -
DI S RIIIN 0 -WATE S
Yoo
Larr ur
Di rec or
LS /SP: jl
cc: Randall Johnson, Maplewood Associate Planner
Tom Peterson, Ramsey Co. SWCD
City of Little Canada
Region VI Waters
4076D
j
MA
1380 FROST AVI;NL'E MAI'IEWOOD, MINNES01'A 55109
CITY O.F
3 ...w
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 770 -4574
MEMORANDUM
Ylf`
To • Barry Evans
From: Pauline Staples
Re: 1983 Bi ds for Ma 1 ewood In Moti on
Date: November 5. 1983
Bids were received and opened at 10:30 a.m. , Friday, Novem-
ber 5, 1982. Present at the opening of bids were Mr. Robert
Odegard, Director of Community Services, and Pauline Staples
Assistant Director of Community Services.
Printers presenting sealed bids were as follows:
Cost per pg . Label i ng Total Cost
Per 24 pages a four for
Per 0 issue issues Four Issues
10,195.16LillieNewspaper
Moline Printing
Dawson- Patterson Printing
Artcraft Press
Sexton Printing
yt) . y0/ P9 . x 44 4qD . VVA +-
2302.80 983.96
97.00 x 24=160.00 x4=
2328.00 640.00
58.33 x 24=139.50 x4=
13.99.92 55.8.00
78.75 x 24=301.79 x4=
1890.00 1207.16
88.17 x 24=
2116.08
9
6,1 57.68
8,767.16
8 , 464 .32
A
MAPLEWOOD IN MIOTION
AMOUNT OF BID
NAME OF BIDDER (1) (2) (Net)
Dawson - Patterson $58.33 $139.50 $1539.50
Lille Newspaper 383.80 983.96 1367.76
Artcraft Press
Sexton Printing
Moline Printing
Witness
X d
Witness)
78.75 1 301 .79 1 2191 .79
88.17 1 2116.00 1 2116.00
97.00 1 160.00 I 2488.00
November 5, 1982 10:30 - 10:40 a.m.
pp4
i
I
BKM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
825 Thornton Street S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
November 15, 1982
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
ATTENTION: Ms Lucille Arnelius, City Clerk
RE: Maplewood Toyota Project
Gentlemen:
M 4
z
e2
In April, 1981, a resolution was passed by you authorizing the use of
tax exempt financing for the construction of a facility for Maplewood
Toyota. Because of conditions in the economy, uncertainties about the
automobile industry and extremely high interest rates, it was not
possible to complete the long -term financing at that time. BKM Management
was fortunate in that N.W. National Bank of Minneapolis agreed to
provide interim conventional construction financing, and we were able
to construct the facility.
Maplewood Toyota opened in June, 1982, and has already provided thirty
30) new jobs, and is in the process of hiring people.
With the improvement in the money markets, and with the change of the
tax laws regarding the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds,
we feel it is imperative to secure long -term financing . prior to December 31,
1982. Several attempts have been made to place the financing, but with
no success. With the assistance of Allison & Williams Company, N.W.
National Bank of Minneapolis has given tentative approval, subject to
your approval, to the use of a Bank letter of credit to secure the
financing. We are fully aware of your requirement to privately place
tax - exempt financings; however, we do hereby respectfully request to be
on your City Council's agenda November 22, 1982, to discuss the following
matter with you:
1. This issue is required to be closed prior to January 1,
1983. Briggs & Morgan, Bond Counsel, has assured us
that the documentation can be completed on a timely basis
if the bonds are sold.
2. Allison & Williams Company has indicated to us that the
financing can be completed if they are allowed to offer
bonds, in addition to institutions, to certain sophisti-
cated individual investors. Because of depressed earnings
f'
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Page 2
November 15, 1982
in many of the financial institutions, their demand for
tax exempt investments has been greatly reduced.
3. The security for the bonds, the letter of credit, provides
greater security for the investor and provides for reduced
interest rates which will insure the continued long -term
success of Maplewood Toyota as a provider of jobs and payer
of taxes in Maplewood.
We appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter with you.
BKM MANAGEMENT COMPANY
By: Fed H. Bame, Partner
AN ORDINANCE A14MING SECTION 16 -4 OF THE MAPLEWOOD CODE
RELATING TO GARBAGE, REFUSE, RUBBISH AND OTHER SOLID WkSTE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLIDWS :
SECTION - 16.4 - I ECEP'rACT - PXQUIRED; exception.
Except as otherwise provided in this article, every person, fi.nn or corporation
as a householder, occupant or owner of any dwelling, boardinghouse, apart building
cr any other structure utilized for dwelling purposes, and any restaurant, firm,
corporation or establishment that accumulates garbage, in the City, shall provide
one or more f ly- and water -tight metal, or equivalent, rodent proof garbage containters ,
of thirty -two (32) gallon capacity, or eighty (80) gallon capacity, or ninety (90 )
gallon capacity, to contain all the garbage which accumulates between collection. No
such thirty -two gallon capacity container shall be filled in excess of seventy -five
7 5) pounds, and no such eighty (8 0) gallon capacity container or ninety (90) gallon
capacity container X11 be f it led in excess of one hundred fifty (150) pounds
The ordinance shall take effect and be in force fran and after its passage and
publication.
Passed by the City of Maplewood this day of 19820
MAYOR
Attest.
Ayes -
Nays -
a
MEMORANDUM Action by Cono.i7.:
Endo e
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development R ectZ.:d..
SUBJECT: Code Amendments -- Setbacks to R -1 and R -2 Zones/Screeni ng ate..=DATE: August 11, 1982
Request
The City Council, on May 6, directed staff to recommend minimum setbacks for
all types of buildings from R -1 residence district (single dwelling) zones
that are based on the height of the building.
Probl em
Council felt that the Code allows tall , massive buildings to be built too cl
to single dwellings. The proximity of Concordi Arms to the homes to the east
is an example. Council also wanted to consider increased screening standards.
Objectives
1. Provide enough space between single dwellings and larger buildings on
adjacent lots to prevent the average homeowner from feeling intimidated by
the larger b u i l d i n g ,
2. Prevent the larger building from casting a shadow on an adjacent home.
3. Avoid being anymore restrictive than necessary.
CONCLUSION
To achieve the Council 's objectives, the foll changes should be made in the
Zoning Code.
Minimum Setback
Minimum side and rear yard setbacks from ' farm, single and double - dwelling zoning
districts should be established for all multiple dwelling, commercial and
industrial structures. Twenty feet i for a multiple-dwelling, with
less than seventeen units, and a limited business commercial structure. Fifty
feet is suggested for multiple dwellings with more than seventeen units, all
commercial, other than limited busi commercial, and industrial structures.
Where a residential structure is a non - conforming use (i single dwel in
a business zone), these setback requirements would not apply. Requiring a
restrictive setback i n these instances would constitute an unnecessary hardship
for the developer--resulting in larger setbacks than would eventually be requi red
when the area develops as zoned.
Building Mass to Setback
A maximum of 2000 square feet of exterior wall area should be permitted at the
minimum side or rear yard setback for multiple dwellings, commercial and industrial
k; buildings, when abutting property is zoned for residential use. For every
1000 square feet, or part thereof, of wall area in excess of 2000 square feet,
the minimum setback should be increased by five feet to a maximum of 75 feet.
Concordia Arms is set back 56 feet, with an east wall mass of 8128 square feet.
The suggested code would require a similar structure to be at the maximum setback
of 75 feet. The Maplewood Dental Specialist (11th and white Bear Avenues) is
set back twenty feet, with 2160 square feet of mass facing north, as measured
from the top of the roof line. Under the proposed code, a similar structure
would have to be setback at least 25 feet.
Attachment B illustrates a perspective view of the setbacks that would be
required for buildings with 2,000, 4,000 and 7,000 square feet of wall
mass facing a single - dwelling Zoning district.
Bui 1 di nQ Hei Qht to Setback
At the minimum side and rear yard setback, the maximum building height should be
limited to 25 feet. Structures that would exceed 25 feet in height should be
required to be set back an additional two feet for each one foot of building
height above 25 feet. The present code requires a one foot setback increase for
each foot over 36 feet of height, with a minimum of fifteen feet.
The purpose of the setback to height ratio is to reduce the apparent mass of
taller structures and to limit shadowing of nearby residential dwellings.
If this provision would have been imposed on the Concordia Arms structure, a
setback of 64 feet would have been required, as compared to the existing setback
of 56 feet.
Attachment B illustrates how setbacks would increase with the height of a
building.
Screening
The Community Design Review Board presently requires landscaping plans, but
standard requirements for screening do not exist. The commercial office zoning
district is the only district in which landscaping i s specifically required to
buffer adjacent residential uses. This requirement, however, is limited to the
provision of a 25 foot landscaped area." No mention is made as to the type of
landscape materials to provided,
The zoning code should be amended to require a landscaped area of not less than
twenty feet wide where a multiple residential, commercial, or industrial
structure would abut a single or double dwelling zoning district. Within the
landscaped area, screening should be provided to a minimum of six feet in height
and be at least eighty percent opaque. Subject to Community Design Review Board
approval, berms, fencing, plant materials, or any combination thereof could be
used for screening. _
Recommendation
Approve the enclosed ordinance proposals to establish screening and minimum setback
requirements, based upon building height and mass, for multiple dwelling,
commercial and industrial structures that would abut F- Farm Residence, R -1
Residence District (Single Dwelling) , and R -2., Residence District (Double Dwelling) .
2
REFERENCE INFORMATION
1. Apartments and town houses with less than seventeen units are limited in
height to 36 feet. The minimum setback is fifteen feet.'
2. Apartments with seventeen units or more have the same height and setback
requirements, except that for each foot of height increase above 36 feet,
the setback must be increased by one foot to a maximum of 100 feet front
yard setback and 75 feet side yard setback.
3. There are no height or setback limits in the commercial zones, except for
the CO, commercial office zone. The CO district has a height limit of five
stories or fifty feet. The CO district also requires a minimum setback of
fifty feet or twice the building height, whichever is greater from any
property line where adjacent property is zoned for or developed to residential
uses.
4. The M -1, light manufacturing district and the M -2, heavy manufacturing district
have no height or setback limns. The M -1 district, however, requires approval
by the city council to build within 200 feet of a residential district. The
M -2 district requi res council approval to build within 250 feet of a residen-
tial district.
Concordia Arms
Concordia Arms is 56 feet at its closest point to the east property line. It is
32 feet in height and 254 feet in length along the east elevation.
Building Official and Public Safety
1. Special building and fire requirements must be met for any structure to exceed
three stories. Buildings that would exceed 36 feet in height should require
approval by special use permit.
2. A minimum of twenty feet of side and rear yard setback should be required-for
all multiple residence and commercial structures when adjacent to residential
structures.
Survey of Metropol i tan Area Communities
Of twenty -six metropolitan area cities surveyed, sixteen have setback requirements
that are more restrictive than Maplewood for multiple dwellings. Only two of
the twenty -six communities rely on the UBC, as does Maplewood, to regulate set-
backs for commercial structures. (See Attachment A.)
Cottage Grove is the only community presently studying the possibility of establish-
ing setback requirements that would be specifically designed to protect solar
access.
Procedure
Planning Commission Recommendation
City Council: First reading (at least three
I
votes)
Second reading and adoption (at least four votes)
11911
jw
Enclosures:
1. Survey
2. Proposed Ordinances
a. Minimum Setback Requirements
b. Landscaping and Screening Requirements
4-
ATTACHMENT A
SURVEY OF METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNITIES
BUILDING SETBACK FROM SINGLE DWELLING DISTRICTS
TYPE OF BUILDING
C ty
1. Apple Valley-
2. Blaine
3.0- Brooklyn. Center
4. Burnsville
5. Columbia Heights
6, Coon Rapids
7. Cottage Grove
8. Crystal
9. Eagan
10. Fridley
11. Golden Valley
12 Little Canada
13. Maple Grove
Maximum Height
Multiple
40 feet
50 feet
25 feet or at
least twice the
height
Industrial Uses
40 feet 60 feet
30 feet 100 feet
35 feet 100 feet
40 feet 30 feet 50 feet
Uniform Building Code
35 feet plus one 50 feet 50 feet
foot for every
one foot over 25
feet in height
50 feet 50 feet from RM
buffer required) 75 feet from Rh Ale'
Solar access studies to determine any special
height limitations
15 feet Uniform Building Code
Screening required)
30 feet 30 feet LBC 100 feet
Planting buffer 50 feet BC
required) 6 stories SUP to go over 3 stories)
maximum
Uniform Building 50 feet 100 feet
Code Screen-
ing is required.
50 feet 50 feet 100 feet
Maximum 3 to 8
stories depending over 3 stories or forty feet
on zoning district,requires a varience)
unless a variance is approved
50 feet 100 feet 100 feet
UBC 30 feet 30 feet
35 feet 40 feet 40 feet.
C t
14 . New Brighton
15. New Hope
16. Newport
17. North St. Paul
18 "Oakdale
19. Plymouth
20. Roseville
21. Shoreview
Height limitationsr:
22. South St. Paul
Height limitations:
23. Vadna i s Heights
24. West St. Paul
Height limitations:
25. Whi to Bear Lake
Height Limitations:
26. Woodbury
Multiple Commercial Industrial Uses
30 feet 30 feet 60 feet
20 feet 25 feet 75 feet
5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
15 feet 12 feet 75 feet
UBC 50 feet 50 feet
25 feet 75 feet 75 feet
UBC UBC
30 feet 50 feet with 20 feet of screening
35 feet 40 feet 40 feet
A SUP is required for a higher
structure)
15 feet -side UBC UBC
35 feet -rear Screening is required)
3 stories or 35 None None
feet, unless a
variance granted
30 feet or height 50 feet 50 feet
of the building,
whichever is greater
30 feet 100 feet 50 feet
Screening with a 6 -foot,
50% opaque fence or hedge)
If over 35 feet, set-
backs must be 3/4 the None 45 feet
height
UBC 35 feet 75 feet
Screening is required)
SUP required for any structure over 35 feet in height
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Where buildings are within 150 feet of a residential zone, such bu -i 1 di n s shall be
limited to the average height of existing residential buildings within 150 feet of
the commercial building.
1
fil I N I MUM S E T B K
REQUIREMENTS
R•38 (17 units or more)
Minimum setback 50 feet
SETBACK BASES UMN 14AL w
35 _....... --
ti °
d a
o ' " TALL MASSojet a1x6 SQ , FT
L
114 •-
YyHLL MAS S
4 0 tf SQ FT
ATTACHMENT B
SETBACK BASED UPON BUItDINfi HEIGHT
30
Z5'
15' 0000
Q o a p O
70
26' so ----
4 --w- 60
IF A CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN TIDE TWO
REQUIREMENTS, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE
SNALL APPLY.TALL MASS
0 o ,' 7000 So. FT.
ORDINANCE N0,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD ZONING CODE
RELATING TO SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AS FOLLOWS (language underlined
is to be added, language crossed out is to be deleted):
Section 1. Section 36 -119 (Multiple dwellings with less than seventeen units --
R- 3A) i s hereby amended to read as follows:
f) Side and rear yard requirements.
f) - S}de - yard - requirements : -- The R 3A mu4t4p4e dwe44in aee - s4de - and - sgy psbabene - 4ess - than - fifteen - 454- feet- fer- nalt4p4e- dwe444ng- an4ts- and -
4ess - than f4ve - 54 - feet - fer - any - park4ng - space - ara e- -Ear ert - -sw} igg p ngpeel- er- i4ke- struetare-
g4 - - Rear - yard requ - -- The - rear -yard- setbaEk- sha44- be- ne -4ess -than
thirty - 38 feet fer - niult }pie- dweiiing- an4ts- and ne -iess- than -f4ve 5 -
feet fer a park4ng- spaee.- gauge;- earpert sw4ll ing- pee4-e - Tike - aEte e.
1. The minimum side and rear and setback re uirements for an R -3A multipledwel1ing, shall be twenty feet.
2. Parking spaces, ara es, carports, or like structures shall be set back
n0 less than five feet from a side or rear property line and no less
than fifteen feet from a ubl i c street right-of-way,
g)* Setbacks increased. The minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks for
an R -3A multiple dwelli shall be increased, not to exceed 75 feet by the
most restrictive of the following re ui rements, where the l abuts a Farm
Residence, Residential Estate, Sin 1 e Dwellin or Doubl Dwelling zonindistrict
a. Buildin Height: The buildin setbacks shall be increased two feet for
each one foot the buildi exceeds 25 feet in hei ht.
b. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces residential l -zoned
ro ert , the setback of the wall shall be increased five feet for each
1,000 square feet, or art thereof, in excess of 2,000 s ware feet.
Section 2, Secti 36 -122 (Multiple dwellings in excess of seventeen -units...
R -3B units) is hereby amended to read as follows:
f) Front and -side yard requirements. The minimum front and -s4de y and
rega } rements- shaii -be- the- saime - as - these- set- fertb- fer -R -3A -mint }piedwell4ngs- }n- seeton- 36- } }g(e) T (f - e €- th4s- d4v4sien= -exec -t - -fptbat., er
eaeh feet ef be 4merease- abeve- thirty six -1364- feet; - these- setbaEk s
shall -be- increased- by -ene- feet te a- maxifaf- of -ene- hundred- 1094 -feetfront - yard- setbaEk- and- a- maxiriuri- a € - seventy -f4ve- f764-feet-s4de-yregardless : height: setback for an R -3B multi 1 e dwelling1in shat 1 be thirtfeet. This minimum setback shall be increased acco rdin to the rovisions
of Section 36 -11 _ 910) , __ This setback, shall not be re ui red to be reat r than
75 feet. •
e
J
g) Side and rear yard requirements* rements . The -rear- ard- setback -sha - -q y be ne
4ess- than- 04rty -39- feet- fer- mu4t4ple- dwe444r j- en4ts- and -ne -Tess -than
f}ve -454- feet- fer- a- park4ng- spaee;- garage;- earpert sw4Hif4ng -pe 4- er -14ke
straetare-
1. The minimum side and rear yard setbacks for an R -3B multi 1 e dwellin
shall be twenty feet, unless the lot abuts a Farm Residence, Residential
Estate, Sin le- Dwellin or Double-Dwelling zoning district, in such case,
the minimum setback shall be increased according jo-the rovi si ors of
Section 36-119 FO
2. Regardless of building height. or external wall area, the side and rear
VW. yard setbacks shal 1 not be require d to be rester than 75 feet.
3. As provided in Section 36- 119(f) (
h) Height regulation. No R -3B multiple dwelling shall be erected or
structurally altered to exceed a height of fear -444 three stories, or
ferty- f4ve4454 35 feet, whichever is greater, measured from the front or
street side of such building, unless granted a special use permit by the
City Council.
Section 3. Section 36 -124 (Townhouses-R-3C)is hereby amended to read as
fo11 ows :
6) Side yard requirements,
a7-- S4Ri4lan- te- seet4en- 36- 4494f)- ef- 04s- d4v4s }en;- emeept -that -these
shall - refer -te- the - total -s} te- deve4epfent -rege} refents ; and -each
dwell4ng -en4t- shall- pave- a -regu *red - f4re -- rated - party -waTI7
a. As applied to the total development site, the side and shall be
no less than twenty feet in width.
b. Where two or more buildings or eight units occur on one lot, the
side yards between buildings shall be a minimum of twenty feet.
7) Rear yard requirements.
a:-- S4m4lar- te- seet4en -36- 419- ef- th4s- d }v}s4en-
a. Asa lied to the total develo ment site, the rear and shall be
a minimum of twenty feet in width.
Section 4. Section 36 -140 (Commercial Office District) is hereby amended
as follows:
f) Building setbacks:
1._ Adjacent to residentially zoned property: The A building shall be- set - back
a - m4RIMuFfl fifty - {58 - feet have minimum side and rear and setbacks . of
fifty feet and a minimum front and setback of thiy feet. er -tw4ee -the _
bb4Id4hg he4ght greater - #rem- aRy preperty - 4411e - where- adiaeeRt
preperty s - wed- fer- er- develeped- te- res4dent}a4- uses: --A-25- feet -w4ee-
landseape- area - shall- be- prev4ded- adjaeeRt -te- any res4dent}a4 -afea :
2_
These minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75 feet
subject to the most restrictive of the following requirements:
a. Buildin height: The buildin setbacks shall be increased two feet
for each one foot the building exceeds 25 feet in height,
b. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a residential l -
zoned property, the wall setback shall be increased five feet for
each 1,000 square feet, or part thereof, in excess of 2,000 s uare
feet.
2. Adjacent to nonresidential: (No change in language)
Section 5. Section 36 -153 (Business Commercial District ) is hereb y amended
to add the following new language:
3. Setback from zoned residential: The building shall have minimum
side and rear and setbacks of fifty feet and a minimum front yard setback
of thirty feet,
These minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75 feet,
subject to the most restrictive of the following requirements:
a. Buildin height: The building setbacks shall be increased two feet
for each one foot the building exceeds 25 feet in hei ht.
b. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a resi denti al l -
zoned ro ert , the wall setback shall be increased five feet for
each 1,000 s uare feet, or . art thereof, in excess of 2,000 s uare
feet.
Section 6. Section 36 -154 (Limited Business Commercial District i s herebyy
amended to add the following new language:
1. (All the existing language.)
2. Setback from Rroperty zoned residential: The building shall have minimum
side and rear yard setbacks of twenty feet and a minimum front yard setback
of thirty feet,
These minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75 feet,
sub ect to the most restrictive of the following requirements
a. Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two feet
for each one foot the.building exceeds 25 feet in height.
b. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces : a residentially:
zoned ro ert the wall setback shall be increased five feet for
each 1 000 square feet or Part thereof i n excess of 2,000 square
feet.
3 -
Section 7. Section 36 -155 (Business Commercial Modified) is hereby amended
to add the following new language:
5) Setback from property zoned residential: The building shall have
minimum side and rear yard setbacks of fifty feet and a minimum front
yard setback of thirty feet.
These minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75
feet, subject to the roost restrictive of the following requirements:
a. Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two
feet for each one foot the building exceeds 25 feet in height.
b. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a residential 1
zoned property,, the wall setback shall be increased five feet for
each 1,000 sauare feet, or part thereof, in excess of 2,000 s uare
feet. _
Section 8. Section 36 -172 (General Shopping Center District) is hereby amended
to include the following new language:
6)(c) Where adjacent to a property zoned residential, buildings shall have
minimum side - and rear yar se acs o y Teet an a m ni-mum Tront
yard setback thirty ee .
These minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75
feet, subject to the most restrictive of the following re uirements:
a. Building height: The building setbacks:.shall be increased two feet
for each one foot the building exceeds 25 feet in height.
b. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a resi dential l -
zoned ro erty, the wall setback shall be increased five feet for
each 1,000 square feet, or part thereof, in excess of 2,000 s uare
feet.
Section 9. Sections 36 -189 (Light Manufacturing) and 36 -204 (Heavy Manufacturing)
are hereby added as follows:
36 -189 and 36 -204. Adjacent to residentia-ll -zoned oronert : The minimum
side and rear yard setbacks shall be fifty feet and the minimum front yard
setback shall be thirty feet.
These minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75
feet, subJect to the most restrictive of the fol l owi n re ui rements .
a. Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two feet
for each one foot the building exceeds 25 feet in height..
b. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a residentially-
zoned proper t the wall setback shall be increased five feet for
each 1,000 square feet, or art thereof, i n excess of 2,000 square
feet.
4 -
Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of
the City of Maplewood, Minnesota,
this day of 91982.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
B
F. Code Amendment: Setbacks to Residential Zones
soft
Secretary Olson said the City Council directed staff to recommend 'o end minimumsetbacksforalltypesofbuildingsfromR -1 zones that arhtofare based on theheightthebuilding. di ng. Also, screening requirements are ro osed,P P
The Commission indicated some concern with ] •locating parks ng areas witnfivefeetofpropertylinesnexttoresidentialtealzones',*,
Chairman Prew asked if there was anyone •on the proposal, .-
y e present who wished to comment
Commissioner Barrett m ved the P1 anni n Commi ion- r
ty apCouncilar --
ss recommend to the
of _the ordinance amendment to establish mi.nimusetbackreuirementsbaseduonbuilding m-
he ht and mass, for mul tips edwe_11 _n9, c_o m i a1_ and industrial s retructu s that would abut F, FarmRes_i den ce,rg -, Resd.de ce Dist c t sin 1 e Dwe 11 i n _____ RResidence _ D str ct Doubl l i n as outlined in 'Au ust 11 19820
Staff s report dated
Commissioner Whitcomb seconded
The Commission discussed what type of conditions would warrantapprovalofavariancefromthissectionofthecode.
Voting: Ayes Commi ssi oners Barrett, Howard Kish el., ., el , Prew, Sletten, WhitcombNaysCommissionersFischerandMelny.
The Commission questioned if the Community Designn Revi w Breviewedther
9 e Board had
proposed ordinance.
Secretary Olson said they would be reviewing it.
Commissioner Whitcomb moved the P1 ann i n9. Commission recomme ___. _ to theCityCouncilarovalofthescreeninqordinanceasoutlinedinStaffO.— report dated August 11 1982
Commissioner Ki shel seconded Ayes--Commissionersyers Barrett,Fischer Heny, Howard, Ki shel , Prew, S1 etten, Whitcomb
ORDINANCE NO.
S
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
MAPLEWOOD ZONING CODE RELATING TO SCREENING
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 36 -26 is hereby added as a new section as follows:
OM
36 -26. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
1. A landscaped area of not less than twenty feet in width shall be provided
where:
a. A nonresidential use would be within 200 feet of a residentially
zoned property.
b. A multiple dwelling abuts property zoned for single or double dwellings.
2. Screening shall be provided where:
a. The light from. automobile headlights and other sources would be
directed onto residential windows.
b. There would be exterior storage of goods or materials which could
unreasonably annoy or endanger surrounding property owners.
c, Except for mobile homes, town houses, single and double dwellings,
all mechanical equipment on the ground or roof shall be screened on
all sides so as not to be visible from public streets or, adjoining
property.
Such screening shall be designed and constructed of a material(s)
that is compatible with the principal building and subject to
Community Design Review Board approval,
3. Screening shall be satisfied by the use of a screening fence, planting
screen, berm or combination thereof. If the topography, natural growth
of vegetation, permanent buildings, or other barriers meet the standards
of Subsections (a) and (b) below, they may be substituted for all or artP
of the screening fence or pl anti ng . screen :
6. A planting screen shall consist of evergreen plantings. Trees shall
be a minimum of two and one -half inches in trunk diameter, two feet
above grade. Shrubs may be used in combination with a berm and shall
be a minimum of two feet in height. Spacing of trees and shrubs
shall be so as to create an eighty percent opaque screening at least
six feet in height.
b. Berms shall have mowabl a side slopes. Slopes greater than 2-1/2
to l may be used if the slopes are stepped with retaining walls.
Plant materials resistant to erosion may be substituted for sod
when approved by the Community Design Review. Board.
c. Screening fences shall be painted or stained whenever. necessary,
so as not to fade, chip or discolor. Broken or knocked down. fences
shall be repaired. Planting screens shall be maintained in a neat
and healthy condition. Plantings that have died shall be promptly
replaced.
4. Screening may be satisifed with a screening Ience. A screening fence
shall be attractive, compatible with the principal building and sur-
rounding land uses, at least six feet in height, and provide a minimum
opaqueness of eighty percent.
5. Trash storage containers shall be constructed on three sides with
break -off block, face brick, or masonry. A gate that provides 100
percent opaqueness shall be provided where a dumpster would be , vi si bl e
to the public or from an adjoining property.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and
publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City
of Maplewood, Minnesota, this
day o f November , 1982.
Mayor
Attest:
Ayes- -
Clerk Nays --
I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE
DATE:
PROPOSAL
City Manager
Finance Director
Ordinance to Increase Sewer Rates (1st Reading)
November 12, 1982
It is proposed that the sewer rates be increased effective January 1, 1983 in order
to provide the revenues anticipated in the 1983 Budget.
RdrrQniinrn
The last sewer rate increase was effective January 1, 1982 and was anticipated
to cover expenses through December 1982. It has been City policy to have small
annual increases in rates rather than less often large rate increases.
The major operating expense has been sewage treatment provided by the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission (M.W.C.C.). This expense is anticipated to be 74% of the
total operating expenses for 1983. The sewage treatment charges billed by the
M.W.C.C. are based upon sewage flow in units of million gallons per year (M.G.Y.).
Treatment charges for the oast five years have been as follows:
The average annual increase in M.W.C.C. billing rates for the past five years has
been 9.8/.
The following is a three -year comparison of M.W.C.C. charges for sewage treatment:
MGY COST PERCENT
YEAR FLOW)PER MGY INCREASE
1977 1 368.33 1.6/
1978 1 398.02 811%
1979 1 444.47 11.7/
1980 1 52737 18.7/
1981 1 575.15 9.1%
The average annual increase in M.W.C.C. billing rates for the past five years has
been 9.8/.
The following is a three -year comparison of M.W.C.C. charges for sewage treatment:
The current value credit is the amount owed the City for the sewer interceptor lines
acquired by the M.W.C.C. in 1970. The prior year adjustment accounts for differences
between the M.W.C.C. initial billings (which are based on estimated sewage flows and
costs) and their final billing (based on actual costs and flows).
1981 1982 1983
Base Charge 861 1,148 1,287,377
Current value Credit 23 23 23
Prior Year Adjustment 60 149 166.
Total 897 1 1
The current value credit is the amount owed the City for the sewer interceptor lines
acquired by the M.W.C.C. in 1970. The prior year adjustment accounts for differences
between the M.W.C.C. initial billings (which are based on estimated sewage flows and
costs) and their final billing (based on actual costs and flows).
RATE MAKING LAWS
Chapter 473.519 of state law requires that local governments have sewer rates which
allocate sewage treatment costs proportionate to usage pursuant to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. These federal regulations have been
imposed because the M.W.C.C. receives federal aid for improvements and expansion of
the Metropol i tal Disposal System. The State law in effect ,requires the City Council
to set sewer rates based upon reasonable estimates of sewage flow by type of dwelling.
Thus apartments, for example, must be billed a sewer rate that is less than the rate
for single - family dwellings.
PROPOSED RATE INCREASES
In order to generate the needed $1,917,930 in sewer billing revenues, the following
rate changes are needed:
Present Proposed
Residential (rate per quarter):
Single Family and Townhouse $ 26.20 $ 27.60
Duplex 52.40 55.20
Apartment (incl. Condominium) 20.95 22.10
Mobile Home 20.95 22.10
Senior Citizen Unit 17.35 27.60
Non - Residential (rate per 1,000 gals.):
Class A .99 1.20
Class B 1.31 1.38
Minimum Charge (per Quarter) 5.80 5.80
Overall the proposed rates are apDroximately 5/ more than the present rates with the
exception of the Senior Citizen Rate and the Class A Non - residential rate.
Supporting calculations for the proposed rates are in Exhibits A and B).
The Senior Citizen rate is 59/ more than the present rate. The reason for this is
that when the Council adopted the ordinance setting new sewer rates effective
January , 1982, provisions were iY ncluded for a phase -out of the discount for senior
o o
citizens. The ordinance provided that the discount would drop from 50/ to 33/ in
1982 and to no discount in 1983.
In the past, senior citizens were granted a 50% discount because the average occupancy
of a Yhouseownedb senior citizens was 50/ of that for an average house. Thus, it
o
was estimated that the sewage flow was 50/ of that for an average house. The discount
was allowed only when one of the occupants was at least 65 years of age and the second
poccu ant was at least 62. The Council agreed with the staff recommendation that the
senior citizen discount rate be completely eliminated as it could be construed as age
i n since those under 62 and 65 ears of agee are not eligible for the discount. o Y g
The Class A Non - residential rate is 21% more than the present rate. The reason for
this is that in the p ast the rate was based upon only 10/ of the City's Sewer Fund
administrative and billing expenses. The phase -out of this discount was started when
the Council adopted the 1982 sewer rates which were based upon 50/ of the City costs.
For 1983 the proposed rate is based upon 75/ of the City costs. The reason the
discounted rate is being phased out is because the Class A Non - residental sewage flow
discharges into public sewer mains for which the City is responsi bl a for maintaining*
No other customers receive a discounted rate based upon their nearness to sewer
interceptor mains.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the ordinance attached (Exhibit C) which provides for an
increase in sewer rates be approved for first reading-
EXHIBIT A
CURRENT SEWAGE FLOW DATA
Est. Flow No. of Flow Percentage of
Per Unit Units MGY Total Fl ow
Residential:
Single family houses 80 6 48591
Townhouses 80 451 3601
Duplexes 160 78 12.5
Apts. & Condominiums 64 1 121.9
Mobile Homes 64 443 28.4
Total 8,940 684.0 46.5/
Non - Residential
Class A 1 605.2 41.2/
Class B 246 180.9,12.3/
Total 247 786.1
Grand Total 9.187 1.470.1*100.0/
Total flow equals 84% of the flow billed by M. W. C. C. for 1981. The remaining 16%
is assumed to be unmetered flow caused by infiltration of ground water.
EXHIBIT B
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS FOR PROPOSED SEWER RATES
Sewer Billing Revenue Needed:
Total amount to be billed $ 1,917,930
Less M.W.C.C. current charges for 1983 to
be allocated between users in proportion to flow -1_ 9732
City costs to be billed to customers $ 643
Allocation of Costs (per Exhibit A flow data) :
M.W.C.C. Current Charles Flow Allocation
Class A Non - Residential 4192% $ 525
Class B Non - Residential 12.3% 156
Residential 46.5/ 592
1
City Costs
Total $ 643
Less 30.9/ allocated to Class A Non- Residential
flow of 41.2/ x 75 %) - 198
444,450
Less Residential allocation (684.0/'864.9 M.G.Y. x
444,450) - 351
Balance for Class B Non- Residential (180.9/864.9 M.G.Y.
x $444,450) 92
Determination of Rates
Annual Annual Quarterly
Est. '83
Flow
Rate Per 1,000 Gallons M.W.W.C.City
80
Flow Rate Per
Duplexes
Costs Costs Total M.G.Y.1,00 Gals.
Residential 592 X9449 684.0 1.38
Non-Residential
80 110.40 27.60
Class A 525 1989748 723 605.2 1.20
Class B 15631792 929960 249,752 18019 1.38
Totals 1,274,643,198 1,917,930 1
Residential Quarterly Charges
Annual Annual Quarterly
Flow Cha Charge
Single Family and Townhouses 80 110.40 27.60
Duplexes 160,000 220.80 55.20
Apts., Condominiums and
Mobile Homes 64 88.40 22.10
Senior Citizen Units 80 110.40 27.60
EXHIBIT C
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD CODE
RELATING TO
SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 28 -21 is hereby amended to read as follows:
The following rates and charges are hereby established for all
sanitary sewer services furnished by and in the City:
1) The quarterly
Single - Family
Townhouse
Duplex
Apartment (Irn
Mobile Home
residential rates shall be:
Dwelling $27.60
27.60
55.20
eluding Condominium). 22.10
22.10
2) Non - residential rates shall be as follows:
Class A $1.20 per 1,00 gallons
Class B $1.38 per 1,000 gallons
Class A customers are defined as those that maintain private
sewer system lines on a site of at least 200 acres,
Class B customers are defined as all other non- residential
customers.
Non - residential sewer service charges shall be a minimum of
5.80 quarterly per sewer service connection.
3) The rate for properties used jointly for residential and commer-
cial purposes that are not metered separately shall be billed
at non - residential rates.
4) In respect to property which shall be connected with the City
sewer system for the discharge and disposal of other residential ,
commercial or industrial sewage waste, or any waste unusual in
either character or amount, then in addition to all applicable
charges hereunder, the City Council reserves the right to impose
such supplemental sewage rate charges as said City Council shall
determine as reasonable and warranted on the basis of all
relevant factors.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force beginning. January 1,
1983.
MEMORANDUM
Action by C
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development Endors d _ _ -
SUBJECT: Environmental Protection Ordinance mod r=_-- .. --
DATE: November 4, 1982 _ Reje ._......
The enclosed ordinance has been revised to include suggestions made at the
joint city council /planning commission meeting of October 21 and the pl an-
ni ng commission meeting of November 1.
The major change is to guarantee property owners the maximum density
allowed in the Comprehensive Plan Update. The section on trees was also
made less restrictive. Several other minor wording and organizational
changes were made, includin several suggestions by the RamseyWashingtonMetroWatershedRoard. (See 1 sencloed 1 etter. )
Recommendation _
Approval of the enclosed ordinance
Enclosures:
Ordinance
Letter: Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed Board
ORDINANCE NO.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDINANCE
An ordinance protecting the health, safety ndwelfareofthecitizensensofMaplewood, Minnesota,-by amending City Code to adopt new sections
creating site planning requirements.
Section 1. Chapter nine of the - •a
sections:
Code of Ordinances is amended to add thefollowingsects ,
ARTICLE IX. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ORDINANCE
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 9 -186. Purpose.
The purpose of this ordinance is to rotect signifinif'which:P g scant natural features,
1) Preserve the natural characteraracter of neighborhoods
2) Protect the health and safety f residens
3) Protect water ual i tq y
4) Prevent erosion or flooding
Sec. 9 -187. Applicability.
This ordinance shall apply to any new subdivision deve - •roved b the opment or buildingdingtobeapycitycouncilorcommunitydesignreviewboard. Thisordinanceshallnotapplytoanyusepermittedonatemporary 'period not to exce p rary bas s for aPeedtwoyears, when such use i s established without sitepreparation.
Sec. 9 -188. Definitions.
Bl uffl i ne - -a line delineating a to of - •p a slope with direct drainage to aprotectedwater, connecting the points at which the sloe becomeseighteenpercent. P less thanei9P (More than one bluffline may be encountered roc •landward from the rot p eedl ngprotected. water.)
Critical Area- -the area bounded b Ca •y Carver Avenue, I -494 and the City li
Crown Cover - -the ratio between the amount f •0 land .shaded by the vertu -cal projectionofthebranchesandfoliageareaofstandingtoflandusually
ees to the total area
y expressed as a percentage
Direct Drainage: drainage into a rotected water w' •
pond or wetland
P without an intervening
0 -1
Erosion.-the genera 1 r which soilsorsub-surface P ocess by whi s are rwaterorwindr by flowing surface
Gross Soil Loss - -the avera
from one
g a annu al total amount of soi ermatia •acre o f 1 and by erosion 1 m edca
Lift Station - -a facility, includingsewageorstormwate
ng • Pumping facilities, for the lifting oerrunofftoahighersewagefacility
f
runoff faci g 1 ty a-' storm water
Pipeline - -an underground9d l i n e of Pipe including associcontroldevices - ated pumps , valvesandotherstruc ,tures utilizedized for conveyi n l usewageorotherfinelydividedsolidsfromq ids, gases,om one point to another
Protected Water -- formerly referred •to as publicc waters, means an waterdefinedinMinnesotaStatutes, Section 105.37 y
subdivisionson 14
Retaining Wall- structure utiliz to hold a slope inwouldnot position which 'naturally remain i n ch t
Sediment -- suspended matter carried
qbywater, sewage or other 1 i u •ids
Slope- -the inclination of the natural surface of the landand •y described as a ratio of the from the horizontal;e 1 ength to the height.9
Structure--anything manufactured, ured, constructed or erected which is normallyattachedtoorPositionedonland, i ncl ud ' ng portable structureszructures
Substation- -any util structure othertowerser than lines, pipelines, holes or
Terrace - -a relatively level area borderedwal1ered on one or more sides by a retain
Tree- -any woody plant, excep a shrubdiameterP ,that has at least one trunk whosesfourinchesorgreater, four feet ab the ground
Utility Facility -- physical facilities • c, telephone, teletelevisionofelectri rah cablwater, sanitary and storm sewer soli
g P e
serveice operations d waste, gas or similarP
Vegetation--all plant growth espallPy trees , shrubs, mosses or grasses
Water Body- -any lake,stream and •pond or river
Wetland- -any land which is seasonably wet or flooded, includin all marbogs, swamps or fl oodpl a i ns 9 s hes ,
Sec. 9 -189. Density Guarantee,
No requirement in this article shall preventthemaximumdenevent the development of property todensitytyallowedintheMaplewoodComprehensiviv
ui re the P e P1 an update. Thecitycouncimayreqeclusteringofdwellingsintheformhouses, quads or .apartments or s lure 1 a
of town
ruses , where i t i s necessary to reservenaturalfeatures. P
0 -2
SITE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 9 -190. Site plan required.
The applicant shall submit a site plan and any other information needed to
determine compliance with this ordinance. Specificfic re ui remPrequirements shall be
stated on an application form in the office of the director of communitydevelopment,
Sec. 9 -191. Site plan approval standards.
No site plan which fails to satisfy the following standards shall be approved:
1) General standards
a. The conduct of all grading, landscaping, structure placement, and
street routing shall be consistent with and to the maximum extent
in the furtherance of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and for develop-ment in the critical area, the Maplewood Critical Area Plan
b. The proposed development shall not lessen existing public access to
and along a protected water.
c. The proposed development shall be designed, constructed and maintained
to avoid causing:
1. Accelerated erosion
2. Pollution, contamination or s i l t a t i o n of water bodies or storm
sewers
3. Flooding or increasing the storm water run -off rate
r
4. Ground water contamination 1}
Iit:
d. Development shall not substantially dimi rash the scientific,historical
educational, recreational or aesthetic value of unique natural areasz
and unique plant and animal species, which are registered with the
State as such, and shall not substantially alter the reproductive
cycle of the species, r1-:L:
e. Views of protected waters from buildings or public streets shall not
be impaired by the placement of advertising signs.
2) Slopes
a. No development shall be permitted on existing slopes of eighteen
percent or greater which are in direct drainage to a protected water.
b. In areas - not in direct drainage to a protected water, no developmentshallbeallowedonexistingslopesgreaterthanfortypercent.
c. No development, whether or not in direct drainage to a protected water,hall b land
9 Psepermittedonhavinganexistingslope, in excess of
twelve percent, unless the applicant proves the following conditions
are met:
0 -3
e
I . Controls and protections exist uphill from the proposed development
such that there is no danger of structures or streets being
struck by falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees
or other materials.
2. The proposed development presents no danger of falling rock, mud,
sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other materials to
structures downhill.
3. The view of a developed slope within the critical area from the
Mississippi River and opposite river bank is consistent with the
natural appearance of the undeveloped slope, consistent with any
state registered historic areas nearby, compatible with the view
from historic areas, and compatible with surrounding architectural
features.
4. The city engineer may require the developer to provide a soils
engineer to certify the stability of potentially unstable slopes.
d. All new structures and roads shall be placed closer than forty feet
from a bluff l i n e . Exceptions shall be :
1. Public recreation facilities, scenic overlooks, public "observation"
platforms or public trail systems
2. The construction of above - ground pumping stations
3. Other development, when the applicant can conclusively demonstrate
that construction or final development w i l l not negatively impact
slopes with a grade of eighteen percent or greater
4. All other structures, other than buildings and roadway surfaces,
but including retaining w a l l s , shall meet the following design
requirements:
a) Retaining walls or terrace contours in excess of three feet in
height _ shall have a fence.
b) Construction materials shall be subject to community design
review board approval
e. The city council may waive the requirements of this section in the
following situations:
1. Where a slope has been substantially altered by prior excavation
or filling
2. Where a slope is too small to be significant
3. Where earth sheltered homes are proposed
3) Erosion control and soils
a. All erosion control, storm water run -off, utility and similar structures
shall be designed to be maintained and operated without requi ring the
crossing or operation of heavy maintenance vehicles and equipment, such.
as bulldozers, trucks and backhoes , on slopes in excess of eight percent .
This requirement may be waived by the city council where there is no
other alternative.
0 -4
b. Construction shall not be allowed where there are soil problems,
including but not limited to , soil bearing strength, shrink /swell
potential or excessive frost movement, unless effective soil correction
measures or building construction methods are approved by the buildingofficial .
c. Development shall - be accomplished only in such a man-ner that on -site
gross soil loss levels shall not exceed five tons per acre per year
during construction, but only two tons per acre per year when the site
1s adjacent to a- water body or water course and 0.5 tons per acre per
year after construction activities are completed.
d. A development shall be located to minimize the removal of vegetationandalterationofthenaturaltopography.
e. Erosion protection measures shall make maximum use of natural , i npl ace
vegetation, rather than the placing of new vegetation on the site.
4) Wetlands
a. Wetlands and other water bodies shall not be used as primary sediment
traps during construction.
b. Filling or construction shall not be allowed in areas proposed for
pondi ng in the Maplewood Drainage Plan, as determined by the city
engineer.
C, Filling shall not cause the natural nutrient stripping capacity of the
wetland to fall below the nutrient production of the wetland watershed
for its projected development.
d. Fill must be free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes
e. The property owners adjoining a wetland should be given the opportunity
for an equal apportionment of f i l l .
5) Trees
a. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of healthy
trees . This requirement shall not apply to diseased trees or where a
forester certifies that thinning is needed for the overall health of a
woodl ot; in which case, a specific tree removal plan , must be approved
by the city.
b. If trees are cut, the density of trees shall be restored to that which
existed before development, but in no case shall the applicant be
required to raise the density above ten trees per acre, unless art ofPP
a required planting screen. Any trees required to be planted
shall be varied in species, shall maximize the use of species'native diseasetothearea, shall not include any species under di
epidemic and shall be hardy under local conditions. Tree diameters
shall be at least two inches.
0 -5
c. The applicant shall demonstrate that all grading which takes place
will be conducted in a manner that preserves the root zone areation
and.sta bility of existing trees and provides an adequate watering
area equal to at least one -half of each tree's crown cover.
UTILITIES AND STREETS
Sec. 9 -192. U t i l i t i e s . -
a) Underground placing of u t i l i t i e s shall be required, unless economic,
technological or land characteristic factors make underground placement
unfeasible. Economic considerations alone shall not be major deter-
mi nant regarding feasibility.
b) Overhead crossings of protected waters, if required, shall meet the
following criteria:
1) The crossings shall be adjacent to or part of an existing utility
corridor, including bridge or overhead utility lines, whenever
possible.
2) All structures utilized shall be as compatible as practical with
land use and scenic views.
3) Right -of -way clearance shall be kept to a minimum.
4) Vegetative screening shall be utilized to the maximum extent that
would be consistent with safety requirements.
5) Routing shall avoid unstable s o i l s , bl uffl i nes or high ridges. The
alteration of the natural environment, including grading, shall be
minimized.
6) The crossings shall be subject to the site planning requirements set
forth in this ordinance.
c) Utility substations
1) All substations shall be subject to the site planning requirements
set forth in this ordinance.
2) . New substations or refurbishment of existing substations shall be
compatible in height, scale, building materials landscaping and
signing with surrounding natural environment or land uses. Screening
by natural means is encouraged.
d) Pipelines
1) All proposed pipelines and underground facilities shall be subject
to the site planning requirements set forth in this ordinance.
2) These facilities shall be located to avoid wetlands; woodlands or
areas of unstable soils.
3) All underground placing of utilities or pipelines shall be followed by
turf establishment.
4) All proposed pipelines shall be placed at least eight feet under a
creek bed.
Sec. 9 -193. Streets.
a) The grades of any streets shall not exceed seven percent, unless there is
no feasible alternative as determined by the city engineer.
b) Roads shall be constructed to minimize impacts on the natural terrain and
natural landscape. -
c) All roads shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in
Section 9 -191.
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 198
Mayor
ATTEST:
Cl a rk
Ayes -
Nays -
0 -7
Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District
985 Ruth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55119
OCTOBER 20, 1952
GEOFF OLSON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1902 E. Co. Roo B
MAPLEW00D MINNESOTA 55109
DEAR MR. OLS ON:
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MAPLEWOOD ENVIRON-
MENTAL PROTECTION ORDINANCE. THE RAMSEY WASHINGTON METRO WATERSHED
DISTRICT WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF BOTH THE CONCEPT
OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE S P E C I F I C P R O V I S I O N S AS CONDITIONED BY THE
ATTACHED COMMENTS. BECAUSE OF THE VARIABLE TERRAIN AND IN MANY
CASES 9 D I F F I C U L T DEVELOPMENT COND I T I ONS THE DISTRICT BEL 1 EVES THE
ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTS ESSENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MUCH OF
THE WATERSHED D 1 STRICT. ALTHOUGH WE WOULD ALSO. SUPPORT THE P R O -
V I S I O N OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNI T i ES 9 WE ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT
IT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ENV 1 RONMENT FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
QUALITY.
THE DISTRICT SUPPORTS SUCH SPECIFIC PROVISIONS AS ALLOWING
DEVELCPMENT DENSITY CREDITS FOR PROTECTION OF S E N S I T I V E OR C R I T I C A L
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS SUCH AS WETLANDS STEEP SLOPES AND WOODLOTS.
WATER MANAGEMENT CAN GENERALLY BE ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATED IF NATURAL
FEATURES ARE LEFT INTACT AND OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE PROV 1 OED. THE
D I S T R I C T ' S GOAL IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE W I S E MANAGEMENT OF STORM WATER
RUNOFF AND WATER QVAL I TY. WE FEEL T H I S GOAL W I L L STILL BE ACHIEVED
W I T H CLUSTERS OF HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. OUR EXPERIENCE IS THAT
SLIGHTLY INCREASED D E N S I T I E S THROUGH CLUSTERING OF DEVELOPMENT DOES
NOT DAMAGE THE QUALITY OF LIFE BUT CAN SAVE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES
AND PROVIDE FOR GREATER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT i ON.
THE DISTRICT WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT1 ALTHOUGH ELEMENTS
OF THE ORDINANCE MAY BE SOMEWHAT MORE COSTLY FOR DEVELOPERS 9 OUR
EXPER i ENCE 9 AND THAT OF OTHERS 9 IS THAT THE PROTECTION OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL FEATURES INSURES SUCCESS OF MANY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS AND
GENERALLY RESULTS IN HIGHER PROPERTY.VALUES. IN CONTRAST THE-
DESTRUCTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES BY MANY DEVELOPERS IN THE
GE OFF OLS ON MR 2 40 OCTOBER 20, 1982
NAME OF OVERALL COST SAV I NGS 9 HAS OFTEN BEEN PROVEN TO ULTIMATELY
BE A LONGTERM FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR MUNICIPALITIES. THIS LIABILITY
CAN COME IN THE FORM OF INCREASED PUBLIC SERVICE AND STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT COSTS.
THE BOARD OF MANAGERS SINCERELY . HOPES THE MAPLEWOOD C I T Y - C O U NC I L
W I L L APPROVE AND IMPLEMENT THIS ORDINANCE. IF OUR APPEARANCE AT
FUTURE MEETINGS ON THIS SUBJECT WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE IN THIS
APPROVAL PROCESS 9 PLEASE CONTACT OUR ADMINISTRATOR,,' CLIFF A I CH I NGER
AT ?39 -0360.
SINCERELY I
ROGER E. LAKE
PRESIDENT
COMMENTS
DEFINITIONS
SLOPE — A COMMENT IN THE D E F I N I T I O N ON HOW THE PERCENT SLOPE IS
COMPUTED WOULD BE HELPFUL TO DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS. SEE DEFINITION
IN MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA GUIDELINES
2. C O N D I T I O N S FOR CITY COUNCIL WAIVING OF STANDARDS.
wompolumomWITH1NSEVERALSTANDARDSOFTHEORDINANCEYOUINCLUDE LANGJAGE
SUCH AS t "THIS REQUIREMENT MAY BE WAIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE~. FOR EXAMPLE SEE STANDARD
202 .259 C. 1 . IN OUR OPINION THIS LANGUAGE IS TOO VAGUE LEAVING
THE APPLICATION UP TO OPEN INTERPRETATION. FOR THE PROTECTION
OF THE ORDINANCE SOME GUIDELINES FOR WAIVING THE STANDARD SHOULD
BE DEVELOPED. SOMETHING SIMILAR TO. GUIDELINES FOR ZONING VARIANCES
MAY BE DEVELOPED WHICH WOULD STRENGTHEN THE ORD 1 NANCE AND BETTER
INSURE UNIFORM APPL I CAT 1 ON.
SECTION 202.261 B.
THIS SECTION REFERS TO OVERHEAD CROSSINGS, BUT IT DOES NOT DEFINE
WHAT THE UTILITY 1S CROSSING i.E. THE MISSISSIPPI R1VER PUBLIC
WATERS 9 ROADWAYS 9 ETC.
4. SECT 1 ON 20 2. 261 C,
A STANDARD RELATING TO CROSSINGS OF CREEKS MAY HELP AVOID SOME OF
THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN BATTLE CREEK, THE STANDARD SHOULD
STIPULATE PLACEMENT A CERTAIN DEPTH UNDER THE CREEK BED.
5. SECT 202.263 B.
THIS STANDARD SHOULD STIPULATE A MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE SHORE—
LINE (E*Go 75' ) . STATE SHORELANO ZONING REGULATION USE A
MINIMUM OF 75' SETBACK. SINCE I T IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CON—
CLUSIVELY SHOW THAT NO EFFLUENT WILL EVER ENTER THE WATER BODY
FROM AN ON —SITE SYSTEM A MINIMUM STANDARD SHOULD BE JUSTIFIABLE.
6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHY WOULD THE ORDINANCE TAKE EFFECT ONE YEAR AFTER ADOPTION?
THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY LEGAL REASON FOR THIS APPROACH.
AS AN ALTERNATIVE WE WOULD SUGGEST ADDING AN "APPLICABILITY"
SECTION TO CLARIFY THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECT
APPROVED PR TO THE DATE OF ADOPT 1 ON. OTHER STANDARD COULD
ALSO BE ADDED.
t,, r
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Frost Avenue Reconstruction
Birmingham Street to White Bear Avenue
Project No. 82-9
DATE: November 15, 1982
Attached herewith is our Feasibility Report. on the subject improve-
ments which has been prepared at your request. This report primarily
addresses the concern of determining the engineering feasibility,
estimated project costs and methods for financing for the roadway
reconstruction zs proposed by the Ramsey County Department of Public
Works.
Recommendation
We recommend that the City Council accept the feasibility study and
set a date for public hearing on December 13, 1982. The public
hearing should be held in December to coincide with the proposed
project schedule.
jW
Attachment
NOTICE OF HEARING OF IMPROVEMENT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County,
Minnesota, deems it necessary and expedient that the improvement herein-
after described, be made,
NOW, THEREFORE, notice is hereby given that the City Council w i l l
hold a public hearing on said improvement at the following time and place
within the said City:
DATE: December 13, 1982
TIME: 7:45 p.m.
LOCATION City Hall
Council Chambers
1380 Frost Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55109
The general nature of the improvement is the construction of street, storm
sewer and appurtenant roadway work in the following described areas:
1. Frost Avenue between Birmingham Street and White Bear Avenue
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENT IS $920,000.00
It is proposed to assess every lot, piece or parcel of land benefited by
said improvement whether abutting thereon or not, based upon benefits
received without regard to cash valuation.
Persons desiring to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement
should be present at this hearing.
This Council proposes to proceed under the authority granted by Chapter
429 M.S.A.
Dated this 1st day of December, 1982.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Lucille E. Aurelius, City Clerk
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
PUBLISH: Maplewood Review
December 1, 1982
December 8, 1982
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of Maplewood has been
authorized and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improve-
ment of Frost Avenue between Birmingham Street and White Bear Avenue by
construction of street, storm sewer and appurtenances, and
WHEREAS, the said City Engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for
the improvement herein described:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, as follows:
1. The report of the City Engineer advising this Council that
the proposed improvement on Frost Avenue by construction of
street, storm sewer and appurtenances is feasible and should.
best be made as proposed, is hereby received.
2. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvement in accord-
ance with the reports and the assessment of benefited property
for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement according
to M. S.A. Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improve-
ment of $920,000.00.
3. A public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at 1380 Frost Avenue on Monday, the 13th day of
December, 1982, at 7:45 p.m. to consider said improvement.
The City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such
hearing and improvement as required by law.
q
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Director of Public Works
White Bear Avenue - T. H. 36 to Edgewater Avenue` _
November 15, 1982
The County has submitted a right -of -way plan for the
concept of the project remains the same as presented
Basically a fifth lane will be added from T.H. 36 to
alterations to the cross streets at intersections.
the I -694 intersections with White Bear Avenue would
degree. A large part of the City's involvement w i l l
the signal systems w i l l be replaced and i' nterconnecti
flow*
above project. The
previously to the Council.
County Road C wi th some
The County Road D and
also be altered to some
be in signal work. All
D d to improve traffic
It is recommended the City Council approve the right -of -way plan and authorize
Staff to sign the title sheet indicating City approval.
mb
October 4, 1982
Mr. Barry Evans, City
City of Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota
Ramsey County
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
33T.' North Rice Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55112
612) 484 -9104
Manager
55109
Right of Way Acquisition Plans
White Bear Avenue - T.H. 36 to Edgewater Avenue, S.A.P. 62- 665 -23
County Road D - White Bear Avenue to Ariel Street, S.A.P. 62- 619 -07
Divisions of:
Engineering
Maintenance
Mobile Equipment
Environmental Services
Enclosed for your review and approval are plans for permanent and temporary right -of -way
acquisition on the above referenced project. This plan has been developed as part of a federal
aid project for intersection improvements and traffic signals along White Bear Avenue. Ramsey
County has offered an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with federal guidelines. This
process has been submitted to Mn/DOT and FHWA via a document entitled Opportunity for
Hearing Record." A copy of this record is enclosed for your use.
You will recall the project was discussed at a council meeting held January 7, 1982. Also, a copy
of the Project Development Report was forwarded on October 26, 1981, and a co of the 'approvedPY
Location /Design Study Report was sent in September of this year.
Acquisition costs are to be funded by County State Aid Highway funds upon municipal and Mn /DOT
approval of these plans. Construction' cost participation will be forwarded upon receipt of the
drainage calculations from Mn /DOT.
When construction plans are complete, they will be submitted to the City for approval along with
agreements for cost participation and signal maintenance. Detailed estimates will also be furnished
1withthesubmittal. Presently, cost estimates are near what was shown on page 25 of the
Location /Design Study Report.
If these plans meet with your approval, please take
appropriate signature on the titl sheet. The original
as needed.
Wayne R. Leonard, P.E.
Coordinating Engineer
the appropriate action to authorize the
title sheet will be delivered at such time
PK Jclm
Enclosure
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE LIMITING
THE CONSECUTIVE TERMS
OF MEMBERS OF ALL BOARDS
AND COMMISSIONS
The Council of the City of Maplewood does herebyy o darn - as follows:
Section 1. No person, including present incumbents, shallservemorethantwoconsecutivetermsonanyBoardorCommission oftheCityofMaplewood. However, upon a one-year absencebsence fromserviceonsuchBoardorCommission, a person may be appointed andserveonsuchBoardorCommissionasanewappointee. Service
5 0 percent
upona - Board or Commission for fifty p ent or more of an un-expired term shall be considered a full term for ur os 'Ordinance. p p es of this
Section 29 This Ordinance shall take effect upublication, pon passage and
Passed by the Council of the City of
Maplewood this day of 1982.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
R
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council =
FROM: Barry R. Evans, City Manager
SUBJECT: Boards & Commissions
DATE: July 19, 1982
You asked for the number and term of office on each of the boardsandcommissionswith. the thought of perhaps limiting terms without
a break.
The various provisions are:
BOARD MEMBERS TERM
Planning Commission 11 3
Park & Recreation Commission 9 3
Police Civil-Service Commission 3 3
Human Relations Commission 7 3
Community Design Review Board = 6
Housing & Redevelopment Authority 5 5
t
rl
i
MEMO RAN DUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Di rector of Community Devel o ment
SUBJECT: p
Limit on Commissioners Terms
DATE : November 15 , 1982
Planning Commissioners Ori inal A ointment
Current Expiration Date
January)
Paul El l efson A •pril 1977
Don hio
1983DorothyHeyny7- 17 -.80
Au ust, 19809
1984
1,984
1983DuanePrew3 -2 -72
H RA
1983DaveWhitcomb3- 20 -80
h1a rch , 1983
Lucille Br antYLorrai
1983RalhSlettenP4- 3- 80
March, 1975 1a rch , 1986
1983
Lorraine Fischer Since at l east 1969 1984BillHowardSinceatleast19691984LesAxdahl8 -8 -74 i
1984
Ed Ki shel Since at 1 east 1970 1985DickBarrettSinceatleast19701985JoePel1ish2 -26- 76 1985
Community Design Review Board
Anthony Phi l l i ppi March, 1979 1983TomDeans
Bob Fol l ey
August, 1981 1983
Don hio
Januar , 1981Y
January, . 1981
1983
Victor Lydon Au ust, 19809
1984
1,984DeanHedlundNovember, 1981 1984
H RA
Rona 1 d Smith -
Guy Glover
a
March , .1982 h1a rch , 1983
Lucille Br antYLorrai
March, 1975
Ma rch , 1.981
March, 1984
Ma rch 1985neFischer
Gre Schmi t9
March, 1975 1a rch , 1986
Ma rch , 1982 Ma rch 19 87
Those members.who would be - ineligible for rea oinpp tment.
i Z- 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manaqer
FROM: Finance Director
SUBJECT: Court Lease - 1983
DATE: November 5, 1982
L.l.:}L.__ _
Request
A representative of Ramsey County has requested a lease proposal from the City to
allow the Municipal Court to remain in the City Hall during 1983.
Background
When the City's Municipal Court was abolished effective January 1, 1975, a two -year
lease was entered into with Ramsey County at $10, per year. This amount was
based upon a rate of $5.00 per square foot determined by a comparison of market
rental rates for comparable office facilities. This rate of $5.00 per square foot
was also used by the cities of New Brighton, North St. Paul and White Bear Lake in
their court leases. When the court lease was renewed in 1977, the rental rate was
not changed. Beginning in 1978, the rental rates charged the County have increased
each year as follows:
Other Cities
It should be noted that the rates listed under Other Cities above are for New Brighton,
North St. Paul and White Bear Lake. Roseville also rents court space to the County
but has been excluded from the comparison as their rate is based upon their new City
Nall.
Anal ys i s
Continuation of the Court lease requi res an analysis of the City costs associ
with the Court in order to seta fair lease rate. This analysis involves cost
accounting calculations and was based upon guidelines used by Hennepin County for
their leases of court facilities. A breakdown of the costs is found in Exhibit A
and indicates total costs are estimated at $14,628 for 1983. Relating this amount to
the court rental area of 2,070 sq . ft. yields a square footage rate of $7.07.
Other cities in Ramsey County were surveyed to determine the rate that they are
charging the county for court space. This survey indicated the following rates perg9
square foot.
Maplewood
Percent
Year Rate Increase
1978 5.30 6.0%
1979 5.62 6.0%
1980 6.01 7.0%
1981 6.61 10.0%
1982 7.14 8.0%
It should be noted that the rates listed under Other Cities above are for New Brighton,
North St. Paul and White Bear Lake. Roseville also rents court space to the County
but has been excluded from the comparison as their rate is based upon their new City
Nall.
Anal ys i s
Continuation of the Court lease requi res an analysis of the City costs associ
with the Court in order to seta fair lease rate. This analysis involves cost
accounting calculations and was based upon guidelines used by Hennepin County for
their leases of court facilities. A breakdown of the costs is found in Exhibit A
and indicates total costs are estimated at $14,628 for 1983. Relating this amount to
the court rental area of 2,070 sq . ft. yields a square footage rate of $7.07.
Other cities in Ramsey County were surveyed to determine the rate that they are
charging the county for court space. This survey indicated the following rates perg9
square foot.
Maplewood
Proposed
Percent
1983
Rate Increase Basis
5.00 Cost analysis
5.62 12.4%Other cities
6.09 8.4%Cost analysis
6.32 3.8%Cost analysis
6.58 4.1%Cost anal
It should be noted that the rates listed under Other Cities above are for New Brighton,
North St. Paul and White Bear Lake. Roseville also rents court space to the County
but has been excluded from the comparison as their rate is based upon their new City
Nall.
Anal ys i s
Continuation of the Court lease requi res an analysis of the City costs associ
with the Court in order to seta fair lease rate. This analysis involves cost
accounting calculations and was based upon guidelines used by Hennepin County for
their leases of court facilities. A breakdown of the costs is found in Exhibit A
and indicates total costs are estimated at $14,628 for 1983. Relating this amount to
the court rental area of 2,070 sq . ft. yields a square footage rate of $7.07.
Other cities in Ramsey County were surveyed to determine the rate that they are
charging the county for court space. This survey indicated the following rates perg9
square foot.
Actual Proposed
1982 1983
Roseville 8941 X8.91
New Brighton 7.14 7180
No. St. Paul 7914 7.57
White Bear Lake 7..14 7.71
COURT .LEASE'S - 1983
f
11
Proposed rental rates for 1983 range from a 6/ to an 8/ increase over 1982. The rate
charged by Roseville has always been higher because they have a new City Hall.
The 1983 Budget includes estimated court lease revenue of $14,180 which represents a
4% increase over 1982 and $6.84 per square foot. This was based upon a guesstimate
that the lease rate would increase by about the same percentage as 1982.
Alternatives
1. Increase the lease rate by 7,4% from $6.58 to X7.07 per square foot to
recoup the estimated actual costs of the City for leasing the court
space. This would generate $14,628 per year.
2. Increase the lease rate by 15% from $6..58 to $7.57 per square foot
in order to match the lowest rate charged by another city. This
would generate $15,670 per year.
Recommendation
Staff suggests the first alternative because.this would produce revenues equal to
the costs for the space leased. Therefore, it is recommended that staff be
authorized to execute a lease agreement with Ramsey County for court space during
1983 at $7.07 per square foot.
DFF:1nb
EXHIBIT A
Supporting Calculations for 1983 Court Lease*
Variable Costs:
Building maintenance and utilities.66,230
ANNUAL COSTS
10,597
Fixed Costs. (Amortized over 20 years)TOTAL CITY COURT
City Hall construction costs 10,719 9 1
Interest on-City Hall bonds 4,228 3 676
Parking lot expansion completed in 1978 2,000 1 320
Total Fixed Costs 16,947 14,236 2,711
Variable Costs:
Building maintenance and utilities.66,230 55,633 10,597
Insurance 669 562 107
Grounds and parking lot maintenance 3 2 565
Building management 4 3 648
Total Variable Costs 74,479 62,562 11,917
Total Fixed and Variable Costs 91,426 76,798 14,628
The percentage allocation of the above costs is based upon the pro -rata share
of the City Hall used by the Court which amounts to 16/.
MEMORANDUM
T0: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director ?11f
RE: Ordinance to Revise Hydrant Charge Rates (1st Reading)
DATE: November 8, 1982
PROPOSAL
It is proposed that the discounted hydrant charge rate for senior citizens be
eliminated effective January 1, 1983.
BACKGROUND
When the Council adopted the ordi setting new sewer rates effective January 1,
1982, provisions were included for a phase -out of thethe for senior citizens.
The ordinance provided that the discount would drop from 50/ to 33/ in 1982
p and to
no discount in 1983.
In the past, senior citizens were granted a 50/ discount because the average occu-
pancy of a house owned by senior citizens was 50/ of that for an average house.
Thus, it was estimated that the sewage flow was 50% of that for an average house.
The discount was allowed only when one of the occupants was at least 65 years of
ag and the second occupant wa at.least 62. The Council agreed with the staff
recommendation that the senior citizen discount rate .be completely eliminated as
it could be construed as age discrimination since those under 62 and 65 years of
age are not eligible for the discount.
The hydrant charge for senior citizen units is $1.25, which is 50/ of the rate for
a single-family dwelling. This discount should be eliminated in order to be consistent
g y
discount on sewer rates.with the policy decision to eliminnate the senior citizen di scou .
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the ordinance attached, which provides for elimination of
t y 9hediscountedhydrantcharg rate for senior citi be approved for first reading*
DFF:1nb
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD CODE
RELATING TO
HYDRANT CHARGE RATES
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 35-52 of the Maplewood Code is hereby adopted to read
as follows:
There shall be levied a hydrant charge against all prODerties
benefiting from fire protection created by the availability
of water. Such charqe shall be imposed only within the St.
Paul Water District service area where water mains are
located. The hydrant charge shall be levied whether or not
the property is connected to water mains. The rates shall
be as follows:
1) The quarterly residential rates shall be:
Single Family Dwelling $2.50
Townhouse 2.50
Duplex 5.00
Apartment (Including Condominium) 2.00
Mobile Home 2.00
2) Non - Residential rates shall be $.09 per 1,000 gallons but
no less than X2.50 per quarter.
3) The rate for properties used jointly for residential
and commercial purposes that are not metered separately
shall be billed at non- residential rates.
4) Users in excess of 25,000,000 gals. /month shall be charged
based on the following formula
Projected Future Peak Day Usage of Customer X Annual Cash Needs
Projected Future Peak Day Usage of City of X115,000
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force beginning January
1, 1983.