HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 11-08 City Council PacketAGENDA
Maplewood City Council
7:00 P.M., Monday, November 8, 1982
Municipal Administration Building
Meeting 82 -30
(A} CALL TO ORDER
(B) ROLL CALL
C} APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes 82 -26, September 27, 1982
Minutes 82 -27, October 7, 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.
1. Accounts Payable
2. T.H. 36 at Atlantic & English Streets
3. Abandonment of the Condor Storm Sewer Project
4. State Aid Transfer - Holloway Avenue
5, Handset Purchase - Budget Change
6, Soo Line Resolution
7, Public Hearing Date - Revenue Note (Maplewood blest)
(F) PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Rezoning: Stillwater Road & Stillwater Ave. (7:00).
2. Code Amendment: Billboards - 2nd Reading (4 Votes) (7:15)
3. Variance: St. Paul Business Center (7:30)
4. Variance: English & Lark (7:45)
5. Variance: 2745 Gem (Gray) (8:00)
60 Preliminary Plat: Schwichtenberg Addition (8:15)
(G) AWARD OF BIDS
(N) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Code Amendment: Double Dwelling Entrances (2nd Reading) (4 Votes)
2.
3.
4�.
5.
Rubbish Removal: (2nd Reading)
Code Amendment: Setbacks to R -1 Zones
Code Amendment: Screening
Fees: Coin-operated Amusement Devi
NEW BUSINESS
1. Electric Fee Increases
2. Plan Amendment - Gladstone Neighborhood
3. Time Extension: Maple Greens 3rd Addition
4, Assessment: Dave Zachor
5. R.C.E. Corporation - Exiting - Right Turn Only
6, Holloway Avenue from 7th Ave. - McKnight - Designate County Road
7. Concordia Arms -- Pedestrian Crosswalk
8, Crestview Drive - Water Main
9. Ordinance Limiting Terms on Boards & Commissions - 1st Reading
10. Ramsey - Washington County Watershed Appointment
ill St. Paul Water Utility - Overcharge Review
MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M., Monday, September 27, 1982
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 82 -26
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 7:02 P.M. by Mayor Greavu.
B. RO LL CALL
John C. Greavu, Mayor Present
Norman G. Anderson, Councilmember Present
Gary W. Bastian, Councilmember Present
Frances L. Joker, Councilmember Present
MaryLee Maida, Councilmember Present
C. A PPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
D. APPRO OF AGENDA
Mayor Greavu mov to approve the agenda as a mended:
1. Polling Places
2. Reconsideration — Health Resources, Inc.
3. Council and Staff
4. Special Use Permit Amendment
5. Rescind Motion — Frost Avenue Zoning
6. Gambling Licenses
Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes — all.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Greavu moved, seconded by Councilmember Bastian, Ayes — all, to approve the
Cons Agenda It ems 1 throu 5 as recommende
1. Accounts Payable
Approved the accounts: (Part I Fees, Services, Expenses — Check No. 000896 through
Check No. 000940 — $196,225.72; Check No. 014257 through Check No. 041378 — $216,189.25:
Part II — Payroll Check No. 04926 through Check No. 05044 — $77,996.17) in the amount
of $490,411.14.
2. Audit Contract for 1982
Authorized staff to execute an agreement with DeLaHunt, Voto and Company for the 1982
audit.
3. Transfer — Debt Service
Authorized the transfer of surpluses in the following construction accounts which
— 1 — 9/27
were financed by the 1979 Temporary Improvement Bondsto -the debt service account
for the 1979 Temporary Improvement Bonds:
$ 18,000 Project 75 -06 Howard Larpenteur Storm Sewer
110,000 Project 77 -09 Gervias Avenue — Germain to White Bear Avenue
221,000 Project 79 -01 Cope Avenue
$349,000
4. Time Extension — Gonzalez Addition
Approved a one year time extension for the Gonzalez Addition preliminary plat on the
basis that progress is being made toward application for final plat.
5. Gambling license — Hill Murray
Approved a temporary gambling license for Hill Murray High School Mothers and Fathers
Club to have a raffle and paddle wheel on November 7, 1982.
EA APPOINTMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS
1. Park and Recreation Commission
a. Manager Evans stated that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that
effective September 27, 1982 Rita Janisch, 2673 Upper Afton Road be appointed
to the Park and Recreation Commission for the term expiring December 31, 1983.
b. Councilmember Bastian moved to appoint Rita Janisch, 2673 Upper Afton Road
to the P ark and Recreati Commission effective September 27, 1982 for the term
irinR Be
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes — all.
2. Bob Menge — Ramsey Ramble
a. Mr. Bob Menge, Ramsey County Fair Board, stated the Fair Board is adding a
special race known as the Ramsey Ramble to the Ramsey County Fair Program. The
race will start at Bald Eagle Avenue in White Bear Lake (which is the site of
the original Ramsey County Fair) to the present Ramsey County Fair grounds. He
is requesting Council's permission and support to hold such a race. -
b. Councilmember Bastian moved that Council go on record as supporting the 1983
Rams Ram and pr ovide whatever staf assista is necessary.
Seconded by Councilmember Maids. Ayes — all.
F. PU BLIC HEARINGS
1. Special Use Permit:'Beaver Lake Mobile Home Park — 7:00 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request
for a special use permit for the Beaver Lake Estates Mobile Home Park to increase
the number of home sites from 250 to 254. The Clerk stated the hearing notice
was in order and noted the date of publication.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
C. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation:
— 2 — 9/27
"Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the revised Beaver Lake Estates Special Use Permit to allow the number
of home sites to increase from 250 to 254, subject to the following conditions:
1) Beaver Lake Estates Sepcial Use Permit shall be subject to City Council review
in five years, 2) access to the home site in Proposed Addition 2, Map 3 shall
be from Antelope Way, a private drive within the mobile home park, 3) the total
population of the mobile home park shall not exceed 541 persons unless additional
shelter capacity is provided or there is a presentation of a justification for
a waiver from this Limit, and 4) the 1300 square foot basement of the office building
shall be used as a storm shelter and posted as such and shall not be-used for
storage. purposes.
Commissioner Kishel seconded. Ayes -- Commissioners Axdahl, Barrett, Ellefson,
Fischer, Hejny, Howard, Kishel, Prew,
Sletten, Whitcomb."
d. Mr. Stephen Taylor, contract purchaser, Beaver Lake Estates, spoke on behalf
of the proposal. Mr. Gary Pearson, Resident Manager, answered questions from
the Council.
e. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard.
f. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
g. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
h. Councilmember Anderson moved to revise the Bea ver Lake Estates Mobile Home
Park s pecial u permit to allow the number of sites increase from 250 to 254
and introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
82 — 9 — 129A
WHEREAS, Stephen Taylor has requested a revision to the special use permit
for the Beaver Lake Estates mobile home park to increase the number of sites from
250 to 254; said property being described as follows:
The SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, subject
to Maryland Avenue, except the following described property:
Beginning at a point on the south line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4,
said point being 1076.48 feet westerly of the southeast corner
thereof; thence deflecting 64 51' 00" to the right a distance
of 260.55 feet to the west line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; thence
southerly along said west line adistance of 507.47 feet to the
south line of said SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4; thence easterly along said
south line a distance of 246.04 feet to the point of beginning, subject
to Maryland Avenue.
Such above property being also known and numbered as 2425 East Maryland Avenue,
Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance request is as follows:
1. That a special use permit request has been initiated by Stephen Taylor,
pursuant to the requirements of Section 911.010 of the Maplewood Zoning
Code;
2. That said special use permit request was referred to and reviewed by the
— 3 — 9/27
Maplewood City Planning Commission on the 20th day of September, 1982,
at which time said Planning Commission recommended to the City Council -
that said special use permit be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the special
use request, 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 special use permit be granted subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Beaver Lake Estates special use permit shall be subject to City Council
review in five years.
2. Access to the home site in proposed Addition II shall be from Antelope
Way, a private drive within the mobile home park.
3. The total population of the mobile home park shall not exceed 541 persons,
unless additional shelter capacity is provided.
4. The 1300 square foot basement of the office building shall be used as a
storm shelter and posted as such.
5. Flush hydrants one /year if complaints occur.
6. Maintain park according to State law, city ordinance and park rules.
Seconded by Councilmember Joker. Ayes — all.
2. Rezoning: Carlton Street (West Side) 7:15 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a proposed
change in zoning district from M -1, Light Manufacturing, to R -3, Multiple Residence,
properties located west of Carlton Street, and approximately 650 feet south of
Minnehaha Avenue. The Clerk stated the hearing notice was in order and noted the
dates of publication.
— 3a — 9/27
b. Manager Evans_ presented the staff report.
c. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation:
"Commissioner Kishel moved the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the resolution rezoning the site from M -1, Light Manufacturing, to
R -3, Residence District (Multiple).
Commissioner Whitcomb seconded. Ayes -- Commissioners Barrett, Fischer,
Hejny, Howard, Kishel, Prew, Sletten, Whitcomb."
d. Mayor Greavu called for proponents and opponents. The following expressed
their views:
Ms. Phyllis Schwartz, 649 Ferndale, voiced her concerns as to what could be constructed.
e. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
f. Councilmember Bastian introduce the following res a nd mo it s adoption_
82 -9 -13o
WHEREAS,a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City of Maplewood for
zone change from M -1 to R -3 for the following described property:
The west 830 feet of the south half of the northwest quarter of the northeast
quarter of Section 36, Township 29, Range 22, lying west of the centerline of
Carlton Street.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning procedure is as follows:
1. That a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City of Maplewood pursuant
to Chapter 915 of the Maplewood Code;
2. That said rezoning procedure was referred to and reviewed by the Maplewood
City Planning Commission on the 16th day of August, 1982, at which time
said Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said rezone
procedure be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the rezoning
procedure, notice thereof having been published and mailed pursuant to law;
and
4. That all persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be
heard and /or present written statements, and the Council considered reports
and recommendations of the City Staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY
COUNTY, MINNESOTA that the above - described rezoning be granted on the basis of
the following finding of fact:
The rezoning would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan.
- Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
3. Rezoning: Carlton Street (Wast Side) 7:15 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a proposed
change in zoning district from M -1, Light Manufacturing to BC(M) Business Commercial
- 4 - 9/27
(Modified) property at 500 -600 Carlton Street. The Clerk stated the hearing notice
was in order and noted the dates of publication..
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
C. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation:
"Commissioner Sletten moved the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the resolution rezoning the site to BC (M), Business Commercial (Modified).
Commissioner Barrett seconded Ayes - Commissioners Barrett, Fischer,
Hejny, Howard, Kishel, Prew, Sletten, Whitcomb."
d. Mayor Greavu called for proponents and opponents. The following voiced their
opinions:
Ms. Phyllis Schwartz, 649 Ferndale.
e. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
f. Councilmember Maida introduced the followin¢ resolution and moved its adoption:
82 - 9 - 131
WHEREAS, .a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City Council of Maplewood
for a zone change from M -1 and B C to BC (M) for the following- described property:
That part of the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 36, Township
29, Range 22 that is east of the centerline of Carlton Street and west of the
west line of blocks one and two, Minty Acres.
Such above property being also known and numbered as Numbers 500, 586 and 600
Carlton 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 16th day of August, 1982, at which time
said Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said rezone
procedure be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the rezoning
procedure, notice thereof having been published and mailed pursuant to law;
and
4. That all persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be
heard and/or present written statements, and the Council considered reports
and recommendations of the City Staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE .COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY
COUNTY, MINNESOTA that the above - described rezoning be granted on the basis of
the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The present zone is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
- 5 - 9/27
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes — all.
4. Street Vacation`. Edgehill Road — Rawlings 7:30 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a proposal
to vacate Edgehill Street from White Bear Avenue westerly approximately 165 feet.
The Clerk stated the hearing notice was in order and noted the date of publication.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
C. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation:
"Commissioner Kishel moved the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the resolution vacating Edgehill Road, lying west of White Bear Avenue,
subject to retention of the east 27 feet for the future expansion of White Bear
Avenue, on the basis that improvement of the right —of —way would serve no public
purpose.
Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes — Commissioners Axdahl, Barrett,
Ellefson, Fischer, Hejny, Howard, Kishel, Prew, Sletten, Whitcomb."
d. Dr. Charles Rawlings, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the proposal.
e. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard.
f. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
g. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
h. Councilmember Bastian in trodu c ed the fo llowing resolution a nd moved — its adoptio
82 -9 -132
WHEREAS, Dr. Charles Rawlings has initiated these proceedings to vacate the
public interest in the following described real property:
Except the east 27 feet, that part of Edgehill Road, lying westerly of
White Bear Avenue in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29,
Range 22
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the vacation application is as follows:
1. That an application for vacation was initiated by Dr. Charles Rawlings on
20th day of July, 1982;
2. That a majority of the owners of property abutting said street have signed
a petition for the above described vacation;
3. That said vacation has been referred to and reviewed by the Maplewood Planning
Commission on the 20th day of September, 1982 and referred back to the Maplewood
City Council with the recommendation of approval;
4. That pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851 a public
hearing was held on the 27th day of September, 1982 preceded by two weeks
published and posted notice at which meeting the City Council heard all who
expressed a desire to be heard on the matter, considered the Planning Commission
recommendation and staff reports.
— 6 — 9/27
WHEREAS, upon vacation of the above described street public interest in the
property will accrue to the following described abutting properties:
Lots 13 -16, Block 6, Maplewood Addition
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maplewood City Council finds that it
is in the public interest to grant the above described vacation because improvement
of the right of way would serve no public purpose.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk be and hereby is directed to prepare
a notice of completion of the proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 412.851 and shall cause the same to be presented to the County
Auditor for entry in his transfer records and that the same shall be thereafter
filed with the Ramsey County Recorder, subject to the retention of:
The east 27 feet of right of way for the future expansion of White Bear Avenue.
Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all.
5. Variance and Special Exception: Bennington Woods - 7:45 P.M.
a.- Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearirg regarding the request
of Wood Mark,Inc. for a variance to allow nine by 20 foot parking stalls and a
special exception to construct 56 condominium units. The Clerk stated the hearing
notice was in order and noted the dates of publication.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
c. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation:
"Commissioner Prew moved the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the special exception for the Bennington Woods Condominiums on the
basis that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The
proposed buildings do fit the property and are compatible to adjacent development.
Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes - Commissioners Axdahl, Barrett,
Ellefson, Fischer,Hejny, Howard, Kishel, Prew, Sletten, Whitcomb."
d. Mr. David Briggs, Vice President of Wood Mark, Inc., spoke or: behalf of the
proposal.
e. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard.
f. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
g. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
82 - 8 - 132A
WHEREAS, a special exception permit request has been initiated by Woodmark, Inc. to
"nstruct condominiums on the following described property:
- 7 - 9/27
That part of Lot 2, Moore's Garden Lots according to the plat thereof on file and
of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Ramsey County, Minnesota
described as beginning at the southwest corner thereof, thence on an assumed bearing
of east along the south line on said Lot 2 a distance of 417.61 feet; thence north
0 00' a distance of 224.55 feet; thence north 61 18' east 210.22 feet; thence north
17 45' 50" west 197.52 feet; thence north 84 39' west 541.37 feet more or less to
a point on the west line of said Lot 2 distance 564.09 feet north from the southwest
corner of said Lot 2; thence southerly along said west line to the.point of beginning.
Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of said
Lot 2 described as commencing at the southwest corner thereof; thence on an assumed
bearing of east along the south line of said Lot 2 a distance of 417.61 feet; thence
north 0 00' a distance of 224.55 feet; thence north 61 18' east 210.22 feet to the
point of beginning of the easement to be described; thence north 17 45' 50" west
38.18 feet; thence wouth 74 42' east to the southeasterly line to its intersection
with a line that bears south 74 42' east from the point of beginning; thence north
74 42' west to the point of beginning.
Such above property being also known as the Maple Hills Golf Course Driving Range on Larpen-
teur Avenue, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this special exception request is as follows:
1. That a special exception permit request has been initiated by Woodmark, Inc.,
pursuant to the requirements of Section 907.010 (2.a.) of the Maplewood Zoning
Code;
2. That said special exception permit request 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 special
exception permit be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public meeting to consider the special
exception request; and
4. That all persons present at said meeting were given an opportunity to be heard
and /or present written statements, and the Council considered reports and recom-
mendations 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 special exception be granted on the basis that the pro-
posal is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Seconded by Mayor Greavu.
Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson,
Bastian and Maida.
Nays - Councilmember Juker..
- 7a - 9/27
Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
82 - 9 - 132B
WHEREAS, a variance request has been initiated by Woodmark, Inc. for a parking variance
to provide 9 by 18 foot parking stalls for the following described property:
That part of Lot 2, Moore's Garden Lots according to the plat thereof on file and
of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Ramsey County, Minnesota
described as beginning at the southwest corner thereof; thence on an assumed bearing
of o east along the south line of said Lot 2 a distance of 417.61 feet; thence north
0 a 00' a distance of 224.55 feet; thence north 61 18' east 210.22 feet; thence north
17 45' 50 west 197.52 feet; thence north 84 39' west 541.37 feet more or less to
a point on the west line of said Lot 2 distance 564.09 feet north from the southwest
corner of said Lot 2; thence southerly along said west line to the point of beginning.
Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of said
Lot 2 described as commencing at the southwest corner thereof; thence on an assumed
bearing of east along the south line of said Lot 2 a distance of 417.61 feet; thence
north 0 00' a distance of 224.55 feet; thence north 61 18' east 210.22 feet to the
point of beginning of the eastment to be described; thence north 17 45' 50 west
38.18 feet; thence westerl� along said southeasterly line to its intersection with
a line that bears south 74 42' east from the point of beginning; thence north 74
42' west to the point of beginning.
Such above property being also known as the Maple Hills Golf Course Driving Range on Larpen-
teur Avenue, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance request is as follows:
1. That a variance request has been initiated by Woodmark, Inc., pursuant to Chapters
912 and 1000 of the Maplewood Code and Section 462.357(g) of State Statute;
2. That said variance request was referred to and reviewed by the Maplewood Community
Design Review Board on the 7th day of September, 1982, at which time said Board
recommended to the City Council that said variance be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the variance
request, 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 conisdered reports and recom-
mendations of the City Staff and Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY,
MINNESOTA that the above described variance be granted.
Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson,
Bastian and Maida.
Nays - Councilmember Juker.
G. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
- 7b - 9/27
H. UNF INISHED BUSINESS
1. Permit Fees
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Councilmember Bastian mo ved first reading of an ordinance to incr the follow -
in fees: °
Zone Change
SUP and PUD
Special Exception
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Variances
R -1
All other zoning districts
Vacations
Lot Divisions
Preliminary Plat
Home Occupation Permit
$ 125.00
125.00
50.00
125.00
35.00
75.00
40.00
25.00 each lot created
5.00 for each lot with a minimum of
50.00 and a maximum of
175.00
35.00 for the initial permit and
10.00 for annual renewal
Seconded by Councilmember Maida
Ayes. - all.
C. Councilmember Bastian introduced th following res olution and mov its adoption:
82 - 9 - 133
RESOLVED that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, approve the following
yearly permit and license fees effective immediately:
Commercial Revenue Note Application $ 750.00
On Sale Liquor License $ 3,850.00 -
Tavern or Display License $ 200.00
Home Occupation Permit $ 35.00 for initial fee and
$ 10.00 renewal
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - Mayor Creavu; Councilmembers Anderson,
Bastian and Maida.
Nays - Councilmember Juker.
d. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolut and moved its adoptio
82 -9 -134
RESOLVED that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota approve the following
yearly permit and license fees effective immediately:
Cigarette and tobacco $ 25.00
Bingo (one night /week) 100.00
Lodging Establishmen 1 - 15 40.00
16- 35 60.00
36- 100 100.00
101 125.00
Food Establishments 110.00
Special Food Handling 35.00
- 8 - 9/27
Seconded by
Councilmember Juker.
Ayes
— all.
e. Councilmember
Anderson moved first
reading
of an ordinance regarding sign fees
Signs —
1 — 10 square feet
$
5.00
11 — 25 square feet
10.00
25 — 50 square feet
20.00
51 — 100 square feet
50.00
100 square feet and over
100.00
Seconded by
Councilmember Maida.
Ayes
— all.
— 8 a — 9/27
I . Councilmember Anderson introduced the followin resolution a moved its adoption:
82 -9 -135
RESOLVED that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota approve the following
yearly permit and license fees effective immediately:
Billboards $ 185.00 per advertisement.
Seconded by Councilmember Suker. Ayes — all.
g. Coin Operated Amusement Devices
1. Mr. Scott Nelson, Hanson Distributing stated he felt the proposed fee
discriminates against the businesses who have only one or two machines.
2. Several proposals were made by Council.
3. Councilmember Bastian moved to table this item.
Seconded by Councilmember Maids. Ayes — all.
I. NEW BUSINESS
1. Special Exception: Maplewood Mall — Sharro's
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report with the following recommendation:
Approval of a special exception for a game room in the proposed Sharro Restaurant
since the use does not appear that it would be objectionable to adjacent businesses
Approval is subject to:
1. The applicant shall provide written approval from Homart Development.
2. All required licenses for operation shall be obtained from the City.
3. This permit may be renewed after one year of operation provided there have
been no problems caused by the facility.
b. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation:
"Commissioner Kishel moved the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of a special exception for a game room in the proposed Sharro Restaurant
since the use does not appear that it would be objectionable to adjacent business.
Approval is subject to:
1. The applicant shall provide written approval from Homart Development.
2. All required licenses for shall be obtained from the City.
3. This permit may be renewed after one year of operation provided there have
been no problems caused by the facility.
Commissioner Sletten seconded. Ayes — Commissioners Axdahl, Barrett,
Ellefson, Fischer, Hejny, Howard, Kishel, Prow, Sletten, Whitcomb."
C. Mr. Brian McPherson, Maplewood Mall, explained where the proposed Sharro's
would be located.
—9— 9/27
d. Councilmember Bastian moved approval of aspecial exception for a ga room
i n Sharro's Restaurant Maplew Mall, and introduced th following res olution
and moved i ts ad option: T
82 - 9 - 135a
Whereas, a special exception permit request has been initiated by Franchise
Contracting and Equipment Company to operate a game room in a BC, Business Com-
mercial district for the following described property:
Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood Mall Addition, ground floor, Section 2,
Township 29, Range 22
Such above property being also known and numbered as Number 3001 White Bear Avenue,
Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this special exception request is as follows:
1. That a special exception permit request has been initiated by Franchise
Contracting and Equipment Company, pursuant to the requirements of Section
907.010 (2.c.) of the Maplewood Zoning Code;
2. That said special exception permit request 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 special exception permit be approved; -
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public meeting to consider the special
exception request; and
4. That all persons present at said meeting were given an opportunity to be
heard and /or present written statements, and the Council considered reports
and recommendations fo 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 special exception be granted on the
basis that the use does not appear that it would be objectionable to adjacentbus-
inesses.
Approval is subject to:
1. The applicant shall provide written appro
2. All required licenses for operation shall
3. This permit may be renewed after one year
been no problems caused by the facility.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes
Nays
✓al from Homart Development.
be obtained from the City.
of operation provided there have
- Mayor.Greavu, CouncilmembersAnderson,
Bastian and Maida.
- Councilmember Juker.
- 10 - 9/27
2. Community Design Review Board Evaluation
a. Chairman Tony Phillippi presented the Community Design Review Board's self
evaluation report.
b. Councilmember Bastian moved to accept the report
Seconded by Councilperson Juker'. Ayes - all.
3. Billboard Ordinance
KI
•
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Mr. Jack Lawrence, Signcrafters, spoke against the proposed ordinance.
c. Ms. Julianne Bye, Naegele Advertising, spoke against the proposed ordinance.
d. Mr. Harald Haugan, 1763 Onacrest Curve, and Mr. Dick Myers, 1820 No. McKnight
Road, both stated billboards should not be allowed in Maplewood.
e. Councilmember Juker moved first reading of an ordinance regulating billboard
signs as presented in Alternate II as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
4. Sewer Rates - Jon Belisle
a. Mr. Jon Belisle, 2594 Brookview Drive, expressed his displeasure as to the
sewer rental charges.
b. No action taken.
5. Uniform Fire Code
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Councilmember Juker introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
Ordinance No. 523
An Ordinance Amending Chapter
1703 Of The Maplewoo Code
Relating to Fire Prevention Code
- 10a- 9/27
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1703.010 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
11 1703.010. ADOPTION OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. There is hereby adopted by the City
of Maplewood for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazar—
dous to life and property from fire or explosion, that certain code known as the
Uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition and the whole thereof, published by International
Conference of Building Officers, of which not less than three (3) copies have
been received and now are filed in the office of the Fire Marshal of the City
and the same are hereby adopted and incorporated as if fully set out at length
herein, and from the date on which this ordinance takes effect, the provision
thereof shall be controlling within the limits of the City of Maplewood."
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after
passage and publication.
Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes — all.
6. Refuse Haulers Ordinance
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Councilmember Anderson moved to table this item u nti l such time as all
rubbish ha serving Mapl ewood could attend a meeting — with — the — Council
that staff — should investigate alternativ of providing rub haulin wit
the City.
Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes — all.
J. VI SITOR PRESENTATION
1. Mrs. Janice Feist
a. Mrs. Janice Feist, 2725 E. Conway Avenue, stated she feels the Park and Recreation
Commission passed over 2 members of the M.A.A. who were candidates for the Commission.
She does not feel the selection was fair.
b. No action taken.
K. COUN PRESENTATIONS
1. Polling Places
a. Councilmember Maida stated she had received a complaint due to the fact there
are steps that may prohibit the handicap to vote at Precinct 3, City Hall.
b. Counci- lmember Maida m oved to d staff to pur obta ining Gladstone — Baptist
Church as a polling place for Preci 3.�
Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes — all.
3. Reconsideration: Health Resources, Inc.
a. Councilmember Anderson moved . to reconsider council action regarding the denial
of a z one chang for Heal - - TE wilt — 'be t - Ln�nz! , r - 7, t , 9$2 -
— 11 — 9/27
Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes — all.
3. Council and Staff
a. Councilmember Anderson requested a meeting be set with Council and staff for the purpose
of discussing several matters.
4. Special Use Permit Amendment
a. Councilmember Bastian stated the City ordinances regarding conditions for special use
permits are vague. He stated he had read the ordinance from White Bear Lake which has specific
conditions.
b. Councilmember Bastian moved that this matter be placed on the agenda at a later Council
meeting and he will prepare a draft regarding specific conditions for special use permits.
Seconded by Councilmember Joker. Ayes — all.
5. Rescind Motion: Frost Avenue Rezoning
a. Mayor Greavu moved to rescind the motion of the Council on August 23, 1982 regarding the
denial of the rezoning on Frost Avenue (Mularoni).
Seconded by Councilmember Bastian.
Ayes — Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Bastian
& Maida.
Nays — Councilmembers Anderson and Juker.
6. Gambling Licenses
a. Mayor Greavu moved that the applications for temporary gambling permits be handled
administratively.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes — all.
L. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
None.
M. ADJOURNMENT
11:17 P.M.
City Clerk
12- 9/27
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 Present
Norman G. Anderson, Councilmember Present
Gary W. Bastian, Councilmember Present
Frances L. Juker, Councilmember Present
MaryLee Maida, Councilmember Present
C. A PPROV AL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes No. 82 -25 (September 13, 1982)
Councilmember Anderson moved that the Minu of Meeting N o. 82-25 (Septemb 13,
1982) be appr as corrected:
Page 9 — Item F -2 1g: "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. CON SENT 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 mo to increase the Election Budget by $950 to cover
co of relocating Precinct !_
3 - -!--
Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes — all.
d. Mayor Greavu moved to increase the Fi re D budget by the 4% that
was deleted earlier.
— 1 — 10/7
Seconded by Councilmember Maida.
Councilmember Bastian mo ved to increase the Fire D epartments 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 in troduced the fol reso adopti the 1983 _
Budge 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 _
$ 5,550,190
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
221,030
Special Assessment Fund - -Debt
Service Accounts
5,432,350
Total $ 13,762,820
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all budget changes shall require City Council
approval except for budget transfers of up to $1,500 between accounts which shall
be implemented upon approval by the City Manager.
- 2 - 10/7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that authorization is hereby given to transfer
$307,000 of revenue sharing monies to the General Fund to - partlyfinance 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 followin res olution and moved 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 $ 3,223,980
Debt Service Funds 88,300
Special Assessment Fund 5 02,700
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:
Descri
1964
Water Improvement Bonds
$
54,364
1964
Consolidated Improvement
Bonds
20,000
1965
Municipal Bonds
684
1965
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
17,000
1966
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
24,000
1967
General Obligation
Sanitary Sewer Bonds
-2,200
1967
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
8,600
1968
Improvement Bonds
6,500
1969
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
45,000
1971
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
-
65,000
1972
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
- Series 1
1,600
1972
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
- Series 2
2,000
1973
Improvement Bonds
95,000
1977
Public Works Building
Bonds
6,400
1977
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
- Series 2
65,000
1979
General Obligation
Improvement
Bonds
9,900
1980
Fire Station Bonds
8
Total
$507,248
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
Descr In Lev
1970 General Obligation Improvement Bonds 3,100
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
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
j. 1983 Delinquent Sewer Accounts
Councilmember Bastian intr oduced the following resolution and moved its ado ption:
- 4 - 10/7
Prin.
Code
Per Bond
Amount
BOND ISSUES
Amoun
Date
No
Register
Levie
Water Main Extension Improvement
$ 600M
9/15/64
509
$ 54,364
$ -
Consolidated Improvement
975M
12/1/64
509
20,000
-
Municipal Building
175M
5/1/65
301
16,884
16,200
General
Obligation
Improvement
835M
12/1/65
509
17,000
-
General
Obligation
Improvement
750M
12/1/66
509
24,000
-
General
Obligation
Imp. San.Swr,
645M
7/1/67
503
12,000
9,800
General
Obligation
Improvement
450M
12/1/67
504
12,000
3,400
General
Obligation
Improvement
380M
12/1/68
505
6,500
-
*General
Obligation
Improvement
1,98OM
12/1/69
514
45,000
-
* *General
Obligation
Improvement
605M
12/1/70
521
10,000
13,100
*General
Obligation
Improvement
1,74OM
8/1/71
514
65,000
-
State Aid Bonds
54OM
8/1/71
302
-
-
General
Obligation
Improvement
1,090M
5/1/72
510
30,000
28,400
General
Obligation
Improvement
670M
12/1/72
511
30,000
28,000
General
Obligation
Improvement
2,175M
7/1/73
513
95,000
-
* *General
Obligation
Improvement
1,240M
11/1/74
521
45,000
45,000
* *General
Obligation
Improvement
1,360M
12/1/75
521
75,000
75?000
-- General
Obligation
Improvement
1,990M
5/1/76
521
128,600
128,600
General
Oblig. Imp.-
Series 1
3,730M
4/1/77
519
12,400
128,300
Public Works Building
Bonds
995M
4/1/77
303
78,500
72,100
General
Oblig. Imp.-
Series 2
3,815M
10/1/77
520
65,000
-
General
Obligation
Bonds -1979
825M
8/1/79
522
53,000
43,100
Fire Station Bonds
470M
8/1/80
304
84,000
-
$979,248
$591,000
*TAX LEVIES PLEDGED
TO REDEEM G. 0.
REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT
BONDS
1974
*TAX LEVIES PLEDGED
TO REDEEM G. 0.
REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT
BONDS
1977
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
j. 1983 Delinquent Sewer Accounts
Councilmember Bastian intr oduced the following resolution and moved its ado ption:
- 4 - 10/7
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
Councilmember Bastian introduced the foll
82 - 10 - 139
resolution and moved its a
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 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 Ol
57 62750 010 01
57 27500 100 Ol
$ 62.16
39.56
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 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. Councilmember Anderson intro the following resolution and moved its adoption:
82- 10 -140
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:
1. 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, Subdivision 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 note
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 - 10/7
(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
proposal of Company that the City undertake the Project
pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act
(Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes), consisting of the acqui-
sition, construction and equipping of facilities within the
City pursuant to Company's specifications suitable for the
operations described above and to a revenue agreement between
the City and Company upon such terms and conditions with
provisions for revision from time to time as necessary, so as
to produce income and revenues sufficient to pay, when due, the
principal 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;
3. 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 provisions of the Note and as to the covenants and other
provisions of the necessary documents and to submit such
documents to the Council for final approval;
- 9 - 10/7
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 Note 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 adoption
82 — 10 — 141E
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
DEFINITIONS, LEGAL AUTHORIZATION AND FINDINGS
101. Definitions.
— 10 - 7.0/7
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;
City 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 City, the Borrower and the Lender, relating to the dis-
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 other things, the principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on the Note to be executed by the Guarantors as of the
date of this Agreement;
Improvements the structures and other improvements,
including any tangible personal property, to be constructed or
installed by the Borrower on the.Land in accordance with the
Plans and Specifications;
Land the real property and any other easements and
rights described in Exhibit A attached to the Loan Agreement;
Lender First National Bank of Minneapolis, in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, its successors and assigns;
- 11 - 10/7
Loan Agreement the agreement to be executed by the City
and the Borrower, 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;
Mortgage the Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement
and Fixture Financing Statement between the Borrower as
mortgagor, 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 the $1,100,000 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 or the registration of transfer of ownership of the
Note;
Plans and Specifications 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;
Principal Balance so much of the principal sum 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 Carrying charges," as those terms are defined in the
Loan Agreement;
Resolution this Resolution of the City adopted October
7 , 1982, 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
originally adopted. The words "herein," "hereof" and "hereund-
er" and other words of similar import refer to this Resolution
as a whole not to any 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 referred 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.
12 - 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 has
by this Resolution authorized the Project and the execution of
_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
emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic
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 permitted by Section 474.05 of the Act, will require the
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-
tute or give rise to 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.
1 -4. 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.
The Note issued pursuant to this Resolution shall be
in substantially the form set forth herein, with such appropri-
ate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or
required by this Resolution, and in accordance with the further
provisions hereof; and the total principal amount of the Note
that may be outstanding hereunder is expressly limited to
$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
- 14 - 10/7
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, 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
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 specified in
paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) hereof (the "Tax Exempt Rate ") or at
such higher rate as provided in paragraph 1(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 after the date hereof through and
including September 1, 1983, interest only shall be paid at the
rate of 8 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 principal 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 % per annum and a final installment on September 1, 2012
(the "Final Maturity Date ") which shall be equal to the unpaid
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
interest rate on this Note shall be increased, retroactively
effective from and after the Date of Taxability (as hereinafter
defined) to % per annum (the "Taxable Rate "). The City
shall immediately upon demand pay to the Holder and to each
prior Holder affected by such Determination of Taxability an
amount equal to the amount by which the interest accrued
retroactively at such increased rate from the Date of
Taxability to the date of payment exceeds the amount of
interest actually accrued and paid to the Holder and any such
prior Holder during said period. (Such obligation of the City
shall survive the payment in full of the principal amount of
this Note). Commencing on the first day of the month next
following the date of payment of such additional interest and
continuing on the first day of each month thereafter (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
paragraph (b) hereof, the monthly payments
of interest only hereunder shall be
increased to reflect the accrual of
interest at the Taxable Rate and the
monthly installments of principal and
interest payable commencing with the
October 1, 1983 payment shall be recomputed
on the basis of the Taxable Rate on an
assumed thirty year amortization; or
(B) if amortization of the Principal Balance
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,T4xable Rate
and amortization over the remaining portion
of the original assumed amortization.
(ii) Upon a Determination of Taxability, the
Holder may declare the entire Principal Balance of this Note
together with accrued interest thereon at such retroactively
increased Taxable Rate to be immediately due and payable, plus
the prepayment premium, calculated in accordance with paragraph
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 contest,
litigation or appeal, provided that the Borrower shall
indemnify and hold harmless the Holder and each prior 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 "Borrower ").
2. In any event, the payments hereunder shall be
sufficient to pay all principal and interest due, as such .
principal 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 Project, 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
pursuant to a resolution of the City Council duly adopted on
September 13, 1982 (the "Resolution ").
5. 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 coarse]
to the
Lender collectively, the Guaranty 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 P oceeds Account of the Cons ruction Fund
at the Completion Date as such 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 l(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.
S. (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.
- 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 so
prepaid shall be multiplied by (i) the amount by which $
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 "), (c) 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 l(c)(ii) 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 Agreement, 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, thip Note is transfer-
able upon the books of the City at the office of the City
Manager by the Holder in person or by his agent duly authorized
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
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 sum or sums so paid, and the City shall
not be affected by any notice to the contrary.
- 19 - 10/7
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
pledged to the payment thereof, and do not give rise to a
pecuniary liability of the City or, to the extent permitted by
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 of the City, 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 perform
or cause the performance 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.
12. It is agreed that time is of the essence of this
Note. If the City defaults in the payment when due of any
installment of principal 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
or the Loan Agreement, 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
the sources specified in paragraph 11 hereof. Failure to
exercise such option at any time shall not constitute 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.
- 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 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.
I. Councilmember Juker introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
H2 -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
rezoning procedure, notice thereof having been published and mailed pursuant
to law; and
4. That all persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to
be heard and /or present written statements, and the Council considered
reports and recommendations of the City Staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY
County, Minnesota that the above - described rezoning be granted on the basis of
the following findings of fact:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plana
- 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 clarif th type of restaura and recreation us
that woul b e prohibite -�
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
G. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
I. BU SINESS
1. Planning Fees
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Councilmember Anderson intro duced the following ordinance and moved its adoption
ORDINANCE NO. 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
Special Use Permit
Planned Unit Development,
Special Exception
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Variances:
R -1
all other districts
Vacations
Lot Divisons
Preliminary Plat
Home Occupation Permit
$125.00
125.00
125.00
50.00
125.00
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
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 100 100..00
-- (2) the fee for billboards shall be $7.00 for the first five square feet, plus
400 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 -1 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, 1982.
I. NEW BU SINESS
None.
J. VI SITOR 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 meeti be Wednesday, October 13, 19 7:00 A
at Denny's Restaurant with Police Chief ICen Collins. e
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes — all.
— 23 — 10/7
L. ADMINISTRATIVE PRE SENTATIONS
None.
M. ADJOURNMENT
5:09 P.M.
City Clerk
— 24 — 10/7
}
l
a
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
A C C O U N TS P A Y A B L E
DATE 11 -08 -82 PAGE 1
CHECK*
A M ,C U N T
C L A I M A N T
P U R P 0 S E
0010b2
306.08
BARRY EVANS
TRAVEL t TRAINING
001063
156.00
MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES PA YA BLE
001064
2.920 2000
MINN STATE TREASURER
MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001065
2,156.15
MINN STATE TREASURER
MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001066
159.00
MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
_ 001067
59050
RAMSEY CO CLERK OF DIST
CNTY D/L FEES PAYABLE
001068
19-819000
MINN STATE TREASURER
MV LICENSE FEES FAYABLE
001069
= 140000
MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
0 0107 0
154.00
CITY OF MI NNET ONKA
TRAVEL t TRAINING
001071
19217075
MINN STATE TREASURER
MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001072
2439 00
MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001073
. 00
VOID CHECK
VOIDED CHECKS
001074
30.00
RAMSEY CTY CONCILIATION
A/R — PARAMEDIC
001075
3*479oCD
-MINN STATE TREASURER
MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001076
277.00
MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001077
256.37
FIRST STREET STATION
SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
001078
3.196. 08
MINN STATE TREASURER
MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
_00107
238.00 _
_ MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES FAYABLE
001080
000
VOID CHECK
VOIDED CHECKS
001081
791t597.74
MUELLER PI PELINERS INC
AWARDED CONST CONTRACTS
0 0108 2
49628o25
METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM
S.A.C. PAYABLE
001883
_ _ 6e08
SPRINGER COLLECTIONS
A/R — PARAMEDIC.
_ 00108
i z e 09 . 50
MN STATE TREASURER -FERA
CONTRIBUTIONS, PERA
001085
.3,886.32
MN STATE TREASURER —PERA
P.E.R.A. DED PAYABLE
AND — CONTRIBUTIONS, FERA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD A CCOUN TS -PAY ABLE DATE 11-0 PAGE 2
CHECK* A M 0 U N T C L A 1 4 A N T P U R P 0 S E
001086 8,335o59 SIN STATE TREASURER—PERA P• E. R. A. DED PAYABLE
AND— CONTRIBUTIONS, FERA
001087 449.89 BEISSWENGER NW BRIGHTON EQUIPMENT- OTHER
449o30 MINN STATE TREAS—SURTAX SURCHARGE TAX PAYABLE
001089
19 669* 50
MINN STATE TREASURER
MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001090
150000
MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001091
72000
RAMSEY Co CLERK OF DIST
CNTY D/L FEES PAYABLE
001092
172. co
MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
0-01,093
1v83.6e00
MINN STATE TREASURER
MY LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001094
10o64
ST PAUL DISPATCH
SUBSCRIFTIONS+MEMBERSHIP
001095
2,p480s00
MINN STATE TREASURER
MV LICENSE' FEES PAYABLE
001096
250000
"INN STATE TREASURER
STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE
001097
19000608
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT CLAIMS
DEPOSITS WITH PAYING AGT
001098
253000
MINN STATE TREASURER
STATE O/L FEES PAYABLE
001099
T 2,P269*75
MINN STATE TREASURER ------
MV LICENSE FEES PAYABLE
001100
46,042.59
ORFEI + SONS INC
AWARDED CONST CONTRACTS
collot
482*89
ICMA RETIREMENT CORP
DEFERRED -COMP PAYABLE
AND—DEFERRED COMPENSATION
001102
15,483o55
"APLEWOO* ' - st'Att --- 'B -- ANk+ --------------
-- FED INCOME . TAX AX PAYABLE
001103
7, 242.60
STATE OF MN
STATE INCOME TAX PAYABLE
001104
200000
NN STATE RETIREMENT SYST
DEFERRED COMP PAYABLE
00105
291*68
AFSCME LOCAL-2725
UNICN DUES +PAY ABLE
AND—FAIR SHARE FEES PAYABLE
001i05____
METRO SUPERVISORY ASSOC
UNION DUES PAYABLE
0 0110 7
277000
"N MUTUAL LIFE INS CO
DEFERRED COMP PAYABLE
001108
10,0972050
CITY + CTY CREDIT UNION
CREDIT UNION DED PAYABLE
CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD
A C C O U N TS P A Y A B L E
DATE 11 -08 -82 PAGE 3
CHECK*
A M 0 U N T
C L A I M A N T
P U R P 0 S E
801109
145.08
ROSEMARY KANE
WAGE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE
Ocilla
167.50
MAPLEWOOD STATE BANK
WAGE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE
001111
276 .90
_ _MN BENEFIT ASSOC
MBA INS PAYABLE'
001112
148s24
WISCONSIN OPT OF REVENUE
STATE INCOME TAX PAYABLE
001113
139402.14
MN STATE TREASURER —FICA
PREPAID EXPENSE
AND — F.I.C. A. PAYABLE
001114
38.42
SPEEDOMETER RADIO SERV
REP. t MAINT., RADIC
_ - -- -_— 53
_ - - -- 220,619.26
NECESSARY EXPENDITURES SINCE
LAST COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF
MA PL EWOOD
A C C 0 U N T S - P A Y A B L E
DATE 11-08-82 08 82
CHECK*
-- - - - - - --
A M 0 U N T
- -- - - --
C L A I M A N T
4
p U R P O S E
014668
ib. 70
A CRO- MINNESOTA INC
SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014669
37050
ADVANCE LIGHTING M
o
SUP. LIES, JANITORIAL
- _ 014670
_ 28 1. 14 _-
__ ____ALBRECHT_ LANDSCAPING _, -___
MAINTENAN
-- -- CE MATERIALS
014671
1,512.2,0
ARNALS AUTO SERVICE
REP + MA INT., VEHICLES
014672
- -- - - - -_ .
264.75
BSN CORP
SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014673
_ �_47.98
BEAVER BROTHERS
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014674
36, 844.50
--
BOARD OF WATER COMM
OTHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
014675
- - - -- i, 2TT. 02'
BOARD Of WATER COMM
U
0 TSiOE E1vGINEERIhG FEES
01467 - - _ . 6 _ _---- -_ -_
-- 897.14
BOARD OF HATER COMM
- -
_ _.OUTSIDE ENGINEERING FEES
EE
014 E77
77.54
BRISSMAN- KENNELY INC
SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
014E78
i$.05
BROWN PHOTO
F EES, SERVICE
- _ -.- -
AND - SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
---------
014579
- - - - -_
5160 -____
CAPITOL SUPPLY Ca - - -- - --
Film Process* ng
1�AI
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
AND SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
014 680
33.00
CAPITOL RUBBER STAMP CO
SUPP tIES, OFFICE
014 68 i
_� - - -_ - 152.41
CASE -POWER -E QUIP
SUPPLIES • VEHICLE
014
18000
CLUTCH + TRANSMISSION
REP. + MAINT., EQUIPMENT
0 14 68 3
_ - -- _ -- 702033
COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONST
REP. + MAINT., EQUIPMENT
AND -REP. + MAINT. , BLDG +GRDS
AND -REP. + MAINT., UTILITY
014684
210.05
KENNETH V COL LINS
UNIFORMS + CLOTHI
014685
220. 00
COPY DUPL ICAT ING PROD -- - .
DUPLICATING COSTS
- - 014686__
37.50
- - - - -- - __- ____ - -_-
COPY EQUIPMENT
St3 P PLI ES , EQUIPMENT
014687
5.04
COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC
MAINTEHANCE MATERIALS
014688
23.50
CURTIN
SUPPLIES OFFICE
014E89
1,575:00
-
DAILY + SON BLACKTOP
LAND IM PROVEMENT
014690
__ -_ - - - - - -_ _ --
165.00
—_"
DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFE
RE N T AL s EQ
CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD
A C C O C N T S P A Y A B L E
DATE 11 -06 -82 PAGE 5'
CHECK'S
A M 0 U N T
C L A I M A N 7
P U R P 0 S E
014691
20
EKBLAD PARDEE +BEWELL INC,
IN SURANCE
- __
- - - - -- -- 200. 00
_ BARRY EVANS
VEHICLE ALLOWANCE
01469
_ 3 :066.
FABRA GRAPHICS
SUPPLIES PROGRAM
014694
45
MICHAEL A FRANTIEN
REP. + MAINT •, VEHICLES
014 E95
- -- - 703.96
GOODYEAR SERVICE STORE
REP. + MA c
INT., VEHICL
014 696
251.25
DUANE GRACE
_
PEES SERVICE
s V ICE
014E97
11.74
HALLMARK
Temp. Inspector
FEES, SER
-- -
014698 --------------
. - - - -- - 67.80
HO�LITE DIV OF TEXTRON
Film Processing
REP. + MAINT. VEHICLES
—_ 014E99
46060
MOWIES LOCK ♦ KEY SERVIC ^-
SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
ANA?- SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
AND -REP. + MAINT., VEHICLES
- _._ _ - - - - --
_ - - - -- - - - --
AND- SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
014700
65.28
INTL BUS MACHINES CORP
SUPPLIES, OFFICE
14701
120000 -
-- INTL CONE QF BLDG OFEICI - -- -
SUBSCRIFTIONS + MEMBER SHIP
014702
120000
J +J TRt3PNYS
SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014 703
64.50
JOE1S SPORTING GOODS
SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014 TO 4
* ._3 5.53 -- --
- - - JOLLY T YM E E A y L'RS - -�� -- - -_ - -- --
SU PPLIES, PROGRAM!
01470 5
265.46
KNOX LUMBER COMPANY
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014 70 6
32.50
RICHARD J LANG
SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014 707
197 0D. 00
AKE FORD TRACTOR - -- -- -__
LONG LAX
SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014708
692.46
Po R. SIGN COMPANY INC
SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT
Q IPMENT
AND -SIGNS + SIGNALS
_014709
—__ 1, 175.37_ -
_ MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT - I - NC
VEHICLE
014710
119030069
!MERIT CHEVROLET CO
A/R - INSURANCE
AND -REP. + MAI NT. , VEHICLES
014
87.939.93
METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM
SEWAGE TREATMENT
014 712
32.50 - - - --
- - - n A NI EL _jt 'TT L ER --- - - - - -- - _
_ SU PPLIES - PROGRAM
- 01 __—
_ 155021 _ --
INN ESOTA TORO
SUPP LI E S, VEHICLE
CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD
A C C O U N T S -P A Y A B L E
DATE 11 -08 -82 PAGE 6
CHECK
A M O U N T
C L A I M A N T
P U R P 0 S E
014714
39084.29
MN UNEMPLOY COMP FUND
UNEMPLOYMENT COMP.
014715
875.10
MOTOROLA INC
REP. + MAINT., RADIO
014716_
33 080
_ NAT"L BUSINESS FURNITURE
FEES, SERVICE
Microf iche - Proce s s ing
014717
9.85
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FED
SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014718
479.26
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
UTILITIES
14719
19075072
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
UTILITIES
014720
6,708.34
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
UTILITIES
014721
- - 919053
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
UTILITIES
_014 722
1 231.46
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
UTILITIES
014723
16.66
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
UTILITIES
014724
6.00
LAVERNE NUTESON
TRAVEL f TRAINING
014 725
151.84
GEOFFREY OLSON
TRAVEL. + TRAI
014 72 6
10.13
#SARK MACHINE INC
SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014727
72s09
RADIO SHACK
REP. + MAINT9 RA DI C
-- - - 014 72 8
- -- _ -- 12 �. Ofl
-_. RAMSEY CLINIC ASSOC P A
FEES, SERVICE
Physical
014729
24.00
RAMSEY COUNTY CHIEFS OF
TRAVEL + TRAINING
014730
- 333.72
RAMSEY COUNTY TREASURER
OUTSIDE ENGINEERING FEES
AND- OTHER CONSTRUCTION CCSTS
014731
127.76
RICHARDS MARKET- ___ - - -____ ___
S UPPLIES• VEHICLE
ANO- SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014732
49187.00
RO -SO - - _._.__..._ -..
REP. + MAINT., UTILITY
_ _014733
_ 33.25
RYCO SUPPLY CO
SUPPLIES, JANITGRIAL
014 734
* 372.45
S + S ARTS + CRAFTS
SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
014 735
116.93
S + T OFFICE PRODUCTS
SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014 736
1 20010
A C SCHADT
TRAVEL + TRAINING
014737
29745.00
T A SCHIFSKY ♦ SONS INC'
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
A C C 0 U N T S P A Y A 8 L E
DATE 11 -08 -82 PAGE 7
CHECK*
A N 0 U N T
C L A I M A N T
P U R P O S E
814738
4
SCHOELL + MADSCN INC
OUTSIDE ENGINEERING FEES
_ 014 73 9
23e19
SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINN
SUPPLIES, PROGRAM
AND- SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014 740
29012
SEAMAN NUCLEAR CORP- - - - - --
REP. + "AINT., EQUIPMENT
014 74 1
95. 97
SEARS ROEBUCK + CO
SMALL TOOLS
014 74 2
25093
CHRISTINE SOU TTER
SUPPLIES, PROGRA
AND- TRAVEL + TRAINING
014743
15.56
ST PAUL STAMP WORKS INC
SUPPLIES, OFFICE
014 744
76050
TABULATING SERV BUREAU
FEES, SERVICE
Data Processing
01474 '
73.23
TARGET STORES INC
SUPPLIES, PROGRAM!
014746
14.43
DOUG TAUBMAN
TRAVEL ♦ TRAINING
014 747
149 251.18
TOLZ g KING, DU VALL,
OUTSIDE ENGINEERING FEES
AND -FEES, CONSULTING
014 74 6
- - - - - -- - 86.60
TRIA RCC ARTS + CRAFTS - - - - - - --
- SUPPLIES, PROGRA"
014749
69015
TRUCK UTILITIES + M FG CO
SUPPLIES, V
014750
37.50
TNIN CITY FILTER SERV IN
FEES, SERVICE
Filters Cleaned
-
014751
- - - -- 15..65
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED - -- - --
UNIFORMS + CLOTHING
014752
323040
VALIANT INC
SUPPLIES, VEHICLE
014753
28.50
VIRTUE PRINTING CO
SUPPLIES. OFFICE
0147
WARNERS TRUEVALUE HDW
SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
52047
AND - MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014755
42.88
WEBER + TROSETH INC
SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
01475
9 5.70
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014757
99099
WINDSOR LANDSCAPING INC
MAINTENANCE MATERIALS
014758 -
10.75 -
ZEP MFG C0_
SUPPLIES, JANITORIAL
0 14 75 °
239 .08
FRED ABBOTT
WAGES, P/T + TEMP.
014760 �`
277.00
ROBERT ABBOTT
WAGES, P/ T + TEMP.
CITY Of
MA PLEWOOD
A C C O U N T S -P A Y A B L E
DATE 11-08-82 PAGE 8
CHECK*
A M 0 U - N T
C L A I M A N T
P U R
P 0
S E
014761
*
30000
TIMOTHY ARMSTRONG
WAGES,
PIT
+ TEMP.
014762
60.00
JAMES M BAUER
WAGES
PIT
+ TEMP.
0147
*
b0.
-- - -- __
- -_ ROBERT S BILSKI
NAGES,
P/
♦ TEMP.
014764
35000
JANINE M DINDERMAN
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
-------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - --
014765
67.50
- MICHAEL A DINDERMAN
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
14
142.50
JOHN ALLAH EASTW - 00D
WAGES,
P/T
+ TE
014 76 7
122.50
JACQUELINE G EASTWOOD
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
96.00
SCOTT J ELLIOTT
WAGES,
P/1
+ TEMP.
014
*
223. 50
MICHAEL L OWENSERG _
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP
014 770
137050
RANDY LONENBERG
WAGES,
P/1
+ TEMP.
`- - 014771
* -------
- - - - -- 125.00
RICK S LOWENBERG _._.
WAGES,
P/T
+ T EMP.
014
88.50
MICHELE ANN MAHREiAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
014 773
*
187.50
BROOK A MARTIN
WAGES,
P/T
♦ TEMP.
014 774
45. 00
CARMEN MARIE MARTIN
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
014 775
13 2.50
KEVIN G "CMA NN
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
014776
*
.65.00
JODI ANN MICKELSON
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
014"7
*
- -- 220. 00
- JOANN M HURP Y
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
01 4778
5 0000
DANIELS 0 CONNOR
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
014779
15.00
MICHAEL 0 CONNOR
WAGES,
PIT
+ TEMP.
014780
110000
LORI J PEARSON
WA GES, %P /T
+' TEM
1478
184.50
MIKE PELTIER
WAGES
P/T
+ TE'mP.
O i4 782
20000
LYNELL RANDALL
WAGES,
P/T
+ TEMP.
014783
�
48. 0 - 0 - -
GARY RANG ALA - -- _______._------- __...__ -_
- WAGES,
P/T
+ TE?sP.
0 14784
275.
MINCE ROTH
WAGE
P/T
t TEMP.
014785
39.75
NANCY J SULLIVAN
WAGES
P/T
+ TEMP.
- -CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
A C C O U N T S PAY A B L E
DATE 11 - 08-82 PAGE 9
CHECK*
A H O U N T
C L A I M A N T
P U R P 0 S E
014786
75.00
ROBERT PAUL WALKER
WAGES, . P/T + TEMF.
0 14 78 7
* 187000
JOHN WARLING
WAGES, P/T + TEMP.
01478
32 e00
SPEEDOMETER RADIO SERV
REP. + MAINT., VEHICLES
014.789
30.00
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
TRAVEL + TRAINING
014790
2.95
DEPT OF NATL RESOURCES
BOOKS
014791
3 000
NATL COUNCIL OF STATE
BOOKS
014792
66036
PLANNING DESIGN RESEARCH
SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT
+ 014793
75.00
ST CLOUD UNIVERSITY
TRAVEL + TRAINING
014 794
6 097
WISCONSIN DEPT OF NATL
SUBSCRIPT IONS+ MEMBERSHIP
0 14 795
1,125. 00
CHILDRENS THEATRE
FEES, SERVICE
-
Youth Special Events
014 796
93.94
CRAZY LOU IES
SMALL T COLS
014 797
8 9,499. 20
INSI TUFORM OF MICHIGAN
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION
014798
5.95
MAD RIMER PRESS
SUPPLIES, OFFICE
-- - - - - -- - 131 -- - -
- - - -- 279, 43 7.22
CHECKS WRITTEN
TOTAL OF
184 CHECKS TOTAL 500-
INDICATES
ITEMS FINANCED BY RECREATIONAL FEE
CITY OF
CHECK
W
NAME
PAYROLL RMRT
CERTIFICATION REGISTER
GROSS PAY
CHECK DATE 10 -22 -82
NET PAY
05526
ANDERSON
NORMAN
G
275.00
181.95
05526
GREAVU
JOHN
C
3 50.00
254.61
05529
JUKER
FRANCES
L
275000
230020
HARTLIE T
- Z 5e -0
_ __ ._ z.3� . 0 4 - - - - --
05531
BEHM
LOIS
N
5 86. 62
407.44
05532
EVANS
BARRY
R
1, 817.54
19211.86
u 55
AL FRED
1
0 5 34
SCHLE ICHER
JOHN
F
1 12.63
112.63
05535
CUBE
LARRY
J
191.54
145.44
-
--- 0 1 5536
UDC EK I T
KAIHLEEN
-- m
3 0 5,* 0
055
ZUERC
JOHN
L
1
115 .13
05538
FAUST
DANIEL
F
- 1* 446.46
950 *53
At INL
05 540
MATHEYS
ALANA
K
677.54
459.85
0 5541
VI GRREN
DELORES
A +
586.62
348.51
--
- AIJR'E LIDS_
__L i7LI L7
- 55 - 0 07 6 -
_- - 671 -� "9.4 ._
05543
SELVOG
BETTY
0
711.
4 _
05544
GREEN
PHYLLIS
C
752.26
519.74
5545..__ - SZEADT
jEANNE
L
7
055
VIETOR
LORRAINE
S
561969
381.8
05547
HENSLEY
PATRICIA
A
268.65
201063
D 5 48
- ETC TTLEMYEK
-- L u i I ti
- �b�8 �� - --
- _ _ b 8. 0 _
05549
BASTYR
DEBuRAH
A
532.16
255.44
05550
COLLINS
KENNETH
V
1s 504.62
196.47
N
CITY -BRA PLE WOOD PAYROLL REPORl — - —_ At"
p GE. 2
05554
CERTIFICATION
REGISTER
CHECK DATE 10-22-82
CHECK
NAME
GROSS PAY
NET PAY
05551 HAGEN
THOMAS
lv 424.31
317008
-D55-52-- 0M ATH__
joy
- 553
702*00
05553 RICHIE
CAROL L
501*23
294*73
05554
SVENDSEN
JOANNE
M
F28036
467*21
---UA 91
-4 22.75
05556
ATCHISON
JOHN
H
I.036o15
702*00
05557
BOWMAN
RICK
A
629*54
419025
A HD-NY
135060
05559
CLAUSON
BALE
K
1-9 03b.15
158*08
0 55 60
DREGER
RICHARD
c
lv257o45
721097
05562
HALWEG,
KEVIN
R
1s 075.39
552*23
05563
HEINZ
STEPH'EN
J
871e38
558e36
55 64—
__-- -HERBERT
U -58:08
6 -11:37
05565
JAQUITH
DANIEL
R
907.56
55 8.23
0 55 66
KORTUS
DONALD
v
101068
89087
55 67
'_'_L_A'N"G__
R'TCFIA RU . .........
-15 715 14
5568
MCNULTY
JOHN
J
19206o92
173*38
05569
MEEHANvJR
JAMES
E
997038
516,049
35.170
ETTUER -A 'ILL
___05571
MOESCHTER
RICHARD
M
1910-5974
192.42
05572
MORELLI
RAYMOND
1
1* 016.77
689,008
-0557 3 —
-----------
PELTIER
05574
SKALMA N
DONALD
w
190169.77
153*94
05575
STAFNE
GREGORY
L
627098
CITY OF HAPIEWCOD
NELSON
PAYR3L[
REPORT
1
-'.P A G E -__ -- _- _-_-_
-- 59 - -
--- AB
CERTIFICATION
REGISTER
CHECK DATE 10 -22 -82
CHECK
NAME
GROSS PAY
NET PA
05576
STILL
VERNON
T
997.35
606.57
r
55"7
SIFUCKTON
441.90
292.46
We-26 -- -- _- -
05578
ZAPPA
JOSEPH
A
1, 208.77
682.96
05579
BECKFR
RONALD
D
1 06523
256 »47
--- __1"550
460.23
3 32.28
05600
CASS
05581
LEE
ROGER
W
1
640.08
05582
MELANOER
JON
A
U86%23
25.40
55 83
CA KUL
m
05584
RAZSKAZOFF
DALE
E
1
209.33
05585 RYAN NICHA£L P 1, 08 4.29
ROBE w.
05587 YOUNGREN JAMES G 1
442.16
667.40
05568 EMBERTSON JAMES M 944.31
+5539 -- l SC HAD T ALFRED c 12 7 :54
6 23.3 9
B7'D: - 6TH
0559 FLAU JAYEE L 7 11. 4 2 463 .14
55591 EULLER VOID JADES fl- -------bAb..bZ--------418.9b--
--- 155 92' "RTI - W SHAWN m Z TV: B - - -- 2 89:7 2 _-
05593 NELSON KAREN A 677951 426.46
05594
NELSON
ROBERT
D
1
652.96
-- 59 - -
--- AB
055
WILLIA
O
J
1, 055.54
480.76
05597
BARTA
MARIE
L
441.90
292.46
- ETH -
3; i0
05599
WEGWERTH
JUDITH
A
460.23
3 32.28
05600
CASS
WILLIAM
C
t 197.08
571.33
s'
CITY OF HAPLEW001) R - - - -- - -PAGE _ 4
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK DATE 10 -22 -82
CHECK NAME GROSS P AY NET P AY
05601 FREB£RG RONALD L 624.00 + 76.34
ill HEL J
056 HOCHBAN JOSEPH H 824900 5 38.45
05604
KANE
MICHAEL
R
824.00
376.94
�D 6 05
- _ _ 4 4 D *'97'- - -.
K L-AUSIN6
_� 8 4: +0 0
056
M EYER
GERALD
w
8 24 0
4 39.5 0
0 56 07
PRETT NER
JOSEPH
$
1, 088.00
698.82
5608
-- 529:68 -- -
---A
2�"
05
T
HARRY
J
8 41. 95
534.35
05610
ELIAS
JAMES
G
981.69
608.96
__0 - 56 1i_v_
-- G E 1S - S L
LTER
0 56 12
GESS
JAMES
T
89 3.5 4
600.48
05613
PECK
DENNIS
L
981.69
485.15
05
LU
DAVID
P
562.
3
05616
BREHEIM
ROGER
W
769.60
481.42
DON_
-- vm
05618
HULWEE
GEORGE
W
827.32
51 5.98
05619
NADEAU
EDWARD
A
B57. T9
576089
- �D - 56 - 20
3�8: �88 -
-- 574 :3 7 - --
05621
OWEN
GERALD
C
840.00
5 00. 86
. 05622
i
MACDONALD
JOHN
E
908060
4 69.45
0 56 23
- 57 80-4-0 , 3 1 59 .9 4
I��
056
BRENNER
LOIS
J
690.2
413.60
t 05625
KRUMMEL
BARBARA
A
270.40
125.98
Q•
- G E - - - -- - 5
FL_E*0 OD
CERTIFICATION REGISTER CHECK OATS 10 -22 -82
CHECK NAME GROSS _ PAY NET FA Y
05626 ODEGARD ROBERT D 1 :364.77 848.60
05628 SAUER A LAN H 2 72.00 228.48
05629
BURKE
MYLES
R
824.00
_Y 444.52
- -- RIiA
__ _B 7 4:�0
5 21: 8 0 --
D 5630
05631
GU SINOA
MELVIN
J
1
618.85
05632
HAAG
MATTHEW
J
256.00
256.00
-- D"56' - 33____R LLR
t ANA — �S
�Ti:��
� 48 :b3 -- - - - - --
0 5634
LEMON.
JEFFREY
S
91080 —
_ 91.80
0 56 35
HARUS KA
MARK
A
8 29.04
5 30.43
�lI L
� 5b3G
056
SA NDQUIST
THOMAS
J
30
3 0.88
05638
SANTA
REED
E
824o00
356.26
1 5'090" 1 5'0 - -
05640
WARD
ROY
G
328.62
253.25
05641
GREW
JANET
H
684.92
446.14
'0 56 42 _
—.. �UT TER
05 643
CH LEBECK
JUDY
M
711.23
296
05644
OLSON
GEOFFREY
W
1 :340.31
823000
_ -o- 56 -45 -
- --EX STR AWD
iROMAS
G
-
0564
J OHNSON
RANDALL
L
92.5.46
584.75
05647-
OSTROM -
MARJORIE
is 133.54
709.30,
T - D 5648
- 57: - 54
___'4 9 5 0* 1 0 8
RD'B
CHECK
REGISTER TOTALS
1 0 i, 21
54, 693.79 -
05649
fuller
James
D
498.44
362.99
CHECK REGISTER TOTALS 101,130.49 .54,637.82
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: T. H. 36 at Atlantic Street and English Street
DATE: November 1, 1982
Action by r r,)-u- -c f I :
Endc..r,s e
Y. e Cf
e e c t e d,.
Date -
The MnDOT has submitted final plans and specifications for approval, This
job invol traffic signals at English Street and T. H. 36, closing the
median at Atlantic Street and construction of a short section of the north
frontage road.
Final approval is recommended.
ESO rq
y o
a
O
OF
Minnesota
Department of Traizsportation
District 9
3485 Hadley Avenue North, Box 2050
North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109
(612) 770-2311
October 19, 1982
Mr. Barry Evans
City Manager
City Hall
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
In reply refer to: 319
S.P. 6211 -65, 66 (36 =118)
Construction Plans & Special Provisions
From 1000 Ft. W. to 240 Ft. E. of English St.
Construct Frontage Rd., Turn Lanes,
Intersection Improvements, & Traffic Control
Signal System
Dear Mr. Evans:
Transmitted herewith are Construction Plans and Special Provisions,
together with a recommended form of resolution, relating to the
proposed Location and construction of the above referenced project
within the corporate limits of your City.
Please review these plans and special provisions for presentation
to and approval by the City Council.
This project is scheduled for letting on November 19, 1982. Since
State Statutes require City consent prior to opening of bids, it is
requested that you place this matter on the agenda of your
November 4, 1982 Council meeting. If you find it necessary to have
a representative from our Department in attendance at the Council
meeting, please call our office and advise.
The resolution should be executed, CERTIFIED, and returned to our
off ice no later than November 15, 1982.
Thank you for your consideration.
ncer
Y* r ��
C
e it K. McRae, P.E.
Ditrict Engineer
closures
An Equal Opportunity Employer
., <,:.',
Mn /Dot 2523 (8-78)
State Project 6211-65,66(36=118)
Fed Proj HES 064-1 (58)
R E S O L U T I O N
At a meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood , held on the
day of , 1982 �, the following Resolution was offered by
seconded by ,
• to wit:
WHEREAS the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota has prepared: plans,
special provisions, and specifications for the improvement of Trunk Highway No 118 ,
renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 36 , within the corporate limits of the City of
ftlewood , from tbw 1000 Ft. W.
to 200 Ft. E. of English St.
and seeks the approval thereof:
NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said plans and special provisions for the improvement of said
Trunk Highway within said corporate limits of the City, be and hereby are approved including
the elevations and grades as shown and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in
grade occasioned by said construction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby agree to require the parking of all vehicles,
if such parking is permitted within the corporate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway,
to be parallel with the curb adj acent to the highway, and at least 20 feet from any crosswalks
on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway.
Upon the call of the roll, the following council members voted in favor of the Resolution:
•
and, the following council members voted against the adoption of the Resolution:
whereupon the mayor and /or the presiding officer declared the Resolution adopted,
Dated: , 19 82
Mayor
Attest
STATE OF ) City Clerk
}
COUNTY OF Ramsey ) ss.
CITY OF Maplewood )
I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which due and legal notice was given) of the
City Council of the City of Maplewood Minnesota, on
the day of , 19 8 2 r _; at which a majority of the members of
said Council were present, the foregoing Resolution was adopted.
Given under my hand and seal this day of
1982
City Clerk
Mn /Dot 2523 (8-78) State Project �,• � _{�; t,;- -ills)
Fed Proj .
R E S O L U T I O N
At a meeting of the City Council of the City of ,held on the
day of , 19, the following Resolution was offered by
seconded by
to wit:
WHEREAS the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota has prepared: plans,
special provisions, and specifications for the improvement of Trunk Highway No 118
renumbered as Trunk Highway No. within the corporate limits of the City of
3 4 nfJ , from t
to 00 't. E. of EtAllish St.
and seeks the approval thereof:
NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said plans and special provisions for the improvement of said
Trunk Highway within said corporate limits of the City, be and hereby are approved including
the elevations and grades as shown and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in
grade occasioned by said construction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby agree to require the parking of all vehicles,
if such parking is permitted within the corporate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway,
to be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway, and at least 20 feet from any crosswalks
on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway.
Upon the call of the roll, the following council members voted in favor of the Resolution:
and, the following council members voted against the adoption of the Resolution:
whereupon the mayor and /or the presiding officer declared the Resolution adopted.
Dated: , 19 82
9
Mayor
Attest
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
City Clerk
COUNTY OF RV 7;::*?y ) s
CITY OF
I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which due and legal notice was given) of the
City Council of the City of M,'avIe -wood , Minnesota, on
the day of , 1982_; at which a majority of the members of
said Council were present, the foregoing Resolution was adopted.
Given under my hand and seal this _� day of 19 82
City Clerk
w
l
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM: Finance Di rector
RE: Abandonment of the Condor Storm Sewer Project 78 -18
DATE: October 29, 1982
PROPOSAL
It is proposed that the above project be abandoned and the appropriate
financial transfers be made including a $15,202 transfer from the General
Fund to finance engineering and related costs.
RArvr.Pni 1Nn
The following Council actions have been taken on this project:
2 -15 -79 F e a s i b i l i t y study ordered
12 -06 -79 Feasibility study received
1 -17 -80 Public hearing held
2 -21 -80 Public hearing continued - action on project tabled
3 -13 -80 Project ordered
6 -19 -80 Final plans approved
7 -16 -81 Public hearing held - easement acquisition difficulties
delayed project and a new hearing was required by
State law. The project was again ordered.
As of this date, the necessary easements still have not been acquired. It has
been determined that it would not be financially feasible to acquire these by
condemnation. Therefore, the project should be abandoned at this time.
The financial transactions for this project through September 30th have been
as follows:
$ 33 Bond sale proceeds
+ 4 Investment interest on preceding
- 19 5 267 Engineering and administrative expenses
18,666 Project balance on 9 -30 -82
According to State law, the investment interest of $4,065 can be used to finance
part of the $19,267 of expenses incurred on this project. The remaining $15,202
will have to be financed by a transfer from the General Fund. There are sufficient
monies available in the General Fund as $30,000 was budgeted for this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution which abandons
the Condor Storm Sewer Project and provides for the necessary transfer of funds.
cc: Public Works Director
RESOLUTION ABANDONING CONDOR STORM SEWER
PROJECT 78 -18
AND
PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS
(a) The City of Maplewood has heretofore undertaken the Condor Storm Sewer
Improvement Project pursuant to the authority granted in Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429.
(b) The City of Maplewood has heretofore issued Temporary Improvement Bonds
of 1980, dated August 1, 1980 to finance all or a portion of the cost of the
Project.
(c) The City Council desires to abandon this Project and provide for the
transfer of the moneys held in the respective Construction Account attributable
to the Project as hereinafter set forth.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City of Maplewood abandons the Project as i t is not financially
feasible.
2. The investment earnings of $4,065 which accrued on the Bond proceeds held
in the Construction Account for the Project shall be used by the City to pay the
cost of the Project prior to the date of abandonment.
3. The remaining Project costs shall be financed by a transfer of $15,202
from the General Fund.
4. The $33,868 of Bond proceeds in the Construction Account for the Project
shall be transferred to the Debt Service Account for the Temporary Improvement
Bonds of 1980.
MEMORANDUM
Action by Council:
Endorsed
Mod 'if i ed-- .._______
r TO: Ci Manager _ Rei ected.
FROM: Fi nance ' Director Date.. .......... ...._.._,,�
RE: State Aid Transfer - Holloway Avenue Project
DATE: October 21, 1982
Manl ewo.od' s porti on of the above project costs are anti cipated to be
$421,920 according to the February 25, 1982 report. Bonds'were sold
earlier this year to finance the portion of the project to be assessed
which is $194,260. The remaining costs of $227,660 were planned to be
financed by State Aid. Since th i 's project is now underway, it is
recommended that the Council authorize the transfer of, $227,660 from the
City's Street Construction State Aid Fund to the Special Assessment Fund
for the Holloway Avenue Project.
cc: Public Works Director
October 20, 1982
MEMORANDUM
To: City Manager Barry Evans �G S
From: Fire Marshal A. C. Schadt
Subject: Purchase of Handset at Reduced Cost
I have recently been informed that a current City bid is now in progress
until November 20, 1982, relative to purchase of radio equipment.
As you are aware, the City Council has approved $2,100 in the 1983 budget
for replacing ac i n a 14-year-old h g
p g y handset.
et .
If we could possibly purchase this set prior to the above- ment'i oned date, this
same radio could be acquired for $1,430. After that date, the same set w i l l
be $2,250. This would mean a savings of $820 to the Fire Marshal Capital
Outl budget for 1983.
I would suggest increasing the 1982 budget by $1,430 and reducing the 1983
budget by the same amount to acquire this saving.
Your handling of the above would be appreciated prior to November 20, 19820
It is my understanding payment will not have to be made until January 1983.
ACS: i s
cc Chief Kenneth Collins
Finance Director Dan Faust
b:
F
m; SF -00006 -02
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT Natural Resources - Trails & Waterways 011 ice M
To : Members of the Soo Line Task Force DATE: October 19, 1982
FROM : Harry R. Roberts Action by Council PHONE (612)/296 -6485
Trails Planner
Trails Planning Section Endorsed
?��o d i f'i ed_,._. .
SUBJECT Minutes and Sample Resolution it j ected_
Dat:(�__
The Soo Line Task Force met Thursday, October 14 at 3:00 p.m. Harry
Roberts presented the revised legislative proposal to the task force.
He also outlined the committments that the other members must provide
to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) by November 15 if there
is a chance the Governor will allow the legislation into his overall
legislative program. The necessary written committments are outlined
in the sample resolution (attached). The City of Maplewood and MnDOT
indicated they would have no problem providing their resolutions by
that date. North Saint Paul, Saint Paul, Ramsey and Washington counties
indicated they may have trouble providing a resolution by the 15th.
Ramsey county felt that if the three municipalities in the county sign
the resolution, the county would also. Washington county suggested
E that the two counties vote to assign their paid lobbyist to work for
the. legislation. Those agencies that were unsure about the 15th, indicated
they expected to provide the resolution or some other document of support
soon after the 15th.
The task force set the next meeting for Monday, November 15 at 3:00,
in Conference A, sixth floor at 444 Lafayette Road.
Finally, Harry Roberts announced that this was his last meeting as a
task force member. He is transferi.ng out of the Trails & Waterways
Unit. Donald M. Carlson stated that Dan Collins will coordinate DNR's
membership in the task force.
HRR /jls
Attachment
RESOLUTION
Whereas, The Soo Line Railroad Company has abandoned and is offering for
l sale its railroad rights -of -way which runs approximately from Interstate 35 -E
and Arlington Avenue in Saint Paul to Interstate 694 and County 68 in Oakdale,
and
Whereas, if no action is taken the rights -of -way or portions of it could
revert to noncompatible uses, and
Whereas, a task force consisting of elected officials and staff from
nine ( ) governmental units -- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN /DNR),
Minnesota Department of Transportaiton (MN /DOT), Metropolitan Council, Ramsey
County, Washington County and the cities of Saint Paul, Maplewood, North Saint
Paul and Oakdale -- have reviewed the rights -of -way and potential private uses
and
Whereas, the most practical approach to a planned use of the rights -of -way
as determined by the above named task force is legislation authorizing the
MN /DNR to purchase the entire corridor, develop a comprehensive, master plan
and then resell unneeded parcels to the other individual units and to private
parties;
f NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
1, supports the concept outlined
in the proposed legislation (attached);
2. in conjunction with the other
members of the task force, will actively pursue sponsorship of the proposed
legislation from area legislators;
3. will actively support the
legislation by testifying before committees and lobbying as necessary to assure
passage of the legislation.
4. will, if applicable, budget
funds in its next budget period or commit funds from existing budgets (cross
out the one that does not apply) for acquisition of any parcels in the corridor
it needs for its purposes.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to State Trails, amending Minnesota Statutes 85.015, by adding
a Subdivision #14.
Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 85.015, Subdivision 14 is added reading:
Subd. 14. Trail, Ramsey and Washington Counties
a. The trail shall originate at Trout Brook Junction near milepost 446
in the city of Saint Paul in Ramsey County and thence extend
in an east - northeasterly direction along the Soo Line Railroad
right -of -way into the city of Oakdale near milepost 438 where
it will join the Minnesota - Wisconsin Boundary State Trail and
terminate.
b. The trail shall be developed primarily for non - motorized recreational
uses.
c . In addition to the authority granted in Subdivision 1, lands
or interests in lands for the Trail
may be acquired by gift, purchase and /or eminent domain pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117. The Commissioner may dispose
f
of land deemed not necessary for a trail as determined by the
trail.Master Plan in the following manner.
1. The Department of Natural Resources will work with an interagency
task force consisting of all affected local units of government
as well as the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department
of Transportation throughout the trail master planning process
in an effort to determine the best possible trail configuration
and use for all parties involved. Lands not needed by DNR
or MN /DOT will be declared surplus.
2. The affected local units of government shall have one year
from the completion date of the master plan to declare an
interest in any unneeded parcels along the trail. Full or
partial interest in these parcels shall be then conveyed to
these governmental units for the appraised market value at
the time of state purchase. The proceeds from any such sale
shall be returned to the fund from which the entire trail
right -of --way was purchased.
1
' f�j
n
Q�� 2 e
ek
kl- lei V.
)r
tea - --
ve- iN L S4
�AOodet oo� r,7,s000v
r \
I
i
r
�F
CHARLES W. BRIGGS (1887 -1978)
J. NEIL MORTON
GOLE OEHLER
A. LAURENGE DAVIS
FRAxH HAMMOND
LEoNARD J. KEYEs
B. G. HART
JOHN M. S ULLIVAN
BERNARD R FRI EL
BURT E. SWANSON
M. J. GALVIN, JR.
DAviD G. FORSBERG
JOHN J. MGNEELY
GERALD H. S WANSON
MCNEIL V. SEYMOUR, JR.
TERENGE N. DO YLE
RICHARD H. KYLE
JONATHAN H. MORGAN
JOHN L . DEVNEY
R. L. SORENSON
PETER H. SEED
PHILIP L. BRUNER
SAMUEL L. HANSON
R ONALD E. ORCHARD
Av$oN L. GORDON
JOHN R. KEN EFICH
J OHN R . FRIEDMAN
DAVID J . SPENCER
DANIEL J. GOLE, JR.
PETER W. SIPHINS
DOUGLAS L. SHOR
MICHAEL H. JERONIMUS
R. SCOTT DAVIES
JAMES W. LITTLEFIELD
JOHN B . VAN DE NORTH, JR .
STEVEN Z. KA PLAN
RICHARD G. MARH
ANDREW G. BECHER
J EROME A. GELS
STEVE A. BRAND
MASH W. WESTRA
ALAN H. MACLIN
LAW OFFICES
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
Avww
2452 I D S CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
(612) 291 -1213
November 1, 1982
1z �; i� by Council ;
i. ?' •� i A -f i e
RI- C 4
REPLY TO
Mrs. Lucille Aurelius
City Clerk
City Hall
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Dear Lu :
Re: City of Maplewood (Maplewood West Project)
A�iain
MA.RH R. MILLER
JEFFREY F. SHAW
DAVID G. GREENING
DAVID B. SAND
BETTY L. HUM
G nARLES R. HAYNoR
ROCCO J MAFFEI JR.
ANDREA M. BOND
MARTIN H. FISH '
JOHN B ULTENA
ROBERT L. DAVIS
RICHARD H. MARTIN
TRUDY H. SCHROER
MARY L.IPPEL
ROBYN L. HANSEN
WILLIA24 J. JOANIS
MARGARET K. SAVAGE
JEANNE M. FORNERIS
BRIAN G. BELISLE
TONY R. STEMBERGER
MARY SGHAFFNER EVINGER
MICHAEL H.. STREATER
STEVEN T. HALVERSON
JOHN H. LIxDsTRoM
RICHARD D. ANDERSON
SALLY A. SGOGGIN
JAMES F. GHRISTOFFEL
BARBARA JEAN D'AoUILA
DAVID G. McDoNALD
BRUCE W. MOOTY
VIRGINIA A . DWYER
ERIC NILSSON
TRUDY R. GASTEAZORO
ELIZABETH J. ANDREwS
PETER G. HALLS
GHARLEs B. ROGERs
OF COUNSEL
RICHARD E. KYLE
SAMUEL H. MORGAN
F RANK N. GRAHAM
St. Paul
Enclosed in connection with the above referenced
matter are five, copies of each of the following documents:
1. Resolution Calling for Public Hearing,
including the Notice of Public Hearing
2. Preliminary Resolution
3. Form of City's letter to Department of Energy,
Planning and Development
4. Form of Briggs and Morgan letter to the
Department of Energy, Planning and Development
5. Form of Bank's letter of feasibility
As we discussed, the City Council should adopt
on November 8, 19 82 the Resolution Calling fora Public
Hearing On December 13 I assume that you will handle
the necessary fi teen days publication of notice in regard
to the hearing.
.Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should
have any questions or Comments,
Very truly yours,
Caroline H. Bates
CHB/ j w Legal Assistant
pin , 1 nc! »rc=kc
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON A PROPOSAL FOR A COMMERCIAL
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AUTHORIZING
THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF SAID HEARING
WHEREAS,
(a) Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes,
known as the Minnesota Municipal Industrial
Development Act (the "Act ") gives muni-
cipalities the power to issue revenue bonds
for the purpose of the encouragement and
development of economically sound industry
and commerce to prevent so far as possible
the emergence of blighted and marginal lands
and areas of chronic unemployment
(b) The City Council of the City f
Maplewood ewood ( "Cit " Y P "City") has received from
Maplewood Nest, a limited partnership
organized under the laws of the State of
Minnesota (the "Company ") a proposal that the
City assist in financing a project
hereinafter described, through the issuance
- of its industrial revenue bonds (which shall
be in the form of a single debt instrument)
(the "Bonds ") pursuant to the Act;
(c) Be fore proceeding with consider-
ation of the request of the Company it is
P Y
necessary for the City to hold a public
hearing on the , proposal pursuant to Section
474.01, Subdivision 7b, Minnesota Statutes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows
1. A Public Hearing on said proposal - of the Company
will be held at the time and lace set p y
p forth in the .Notice of
Hearing hereto attached,
2. The general nature of the proposal and an
estimate of the principal amount of bonds to be issued to
finance the proposal are described in the form of Notice of
Hearing hereto attached.
3 . The Notice of said Public Hearing shall be in
substantially the form contained in the Notice hereto attached.
4. A draft copy of the proposed application to the
Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development, State of
Minnesota, for approval of the project, together with proposed
forms of all attachments and exhibits thereto, is on f i le in
the of f ice of the City Clerk .
5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
to cause notice of said hearing to be given one publication in
the official newspaper and a newspaper of general circulation
available in the City, not less than 15 days nor more than 30
R days prior to the date fixed for said hearing, as shown in the
notice of hearing hereto attached.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, this 8th day of November, 19820
Mayor
ATTEST:
T
City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON A PROPOSAL FOR . A COMMERCIAL
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
To whom it may concern:
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the
City of Maplewood, Minne will meet at . the he city Hall in the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota at
_.m. on
December 13, 1982, to cons the proposal of Maplewood
that the City ssist in financing , P Nest
Y ncing a project hereinafter
described by the issuance of industrial development revenue
bonds. P e enue
Description of Project
The proposed project shall consist of the
construction of an office and retail building
to be located between Kennard Street and the
Maplewood Mall on the North side of Beam
Avenue and East of the Health Resources
complex in the City of Maplewood, Minnesota
and to be leased to various parties.
The estimated principal amount of bonds or
oche r
obligations to be issued to finance this project ' is
$4,000,00o.
Said bonds or other obligations if and when iss
will not constitute a charge,.lien or encumbrance upon po any
prove y of the City except the ro 'ct. and
� � P � e such bonds or
obligations will not be a charge against the City' s general
credit or taxing powers but are a able
1 ewood P Y from sums to be paid by
Maplewood Nest pursuant to a revenue agreement.
A draft copy of the proposed application to the
Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development,
Minnesota for j State of
r approval of the project, together with all
attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for ublic
beg inning inspection be P
9 g from . _______ _ • m. to
Monday through Friday, at _ t __ h __ e '_ City Hall in Ma lewood.
P
At the time and place fixed for said Public Hearing,
; the City Council of the City of Maplewood will give alI p ersons
who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views
with respect to the proposal.
Dated this 8th day of November, 1982.
(BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By /s/ Lucille Aurelius
City Clerk `
5
1
MEMORANDUM
1
Action by cou - ncil:
T City - Ma - Endo
FROM:
Director of Community Development Mo _
SUBJECT: Rezoning _ . lle
LOCATION: Stillwater Road and Stillwater Avenue �eJ ect`�-,�
�
APPLICANT: City of Maplewood ate
OWNER: Gaughan Land, Inc.
DATE: September 30, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
Request
Rezone the site from BC, Bus i nes& Commercial and F, Farm Residence to R -3,
Multiple,
Proposed Land Use
The site was approved in 1979 for a 192 unit apartment project,
P p � .
CONCLUSION
Commen
This proposal is being considered because of the BC zone at the corner of Stillwater
Road -and Stillwater Avenue. The City Council initiated a program to " down zone"
properties with a more intense zoning than designated nated on the City Land Use P1
. g y an.
Rezon the corner from BC to R -3 would accomplish this.
The purpose of this rezoning is to prevent the commercial development of the
corner by rezoning to a district that is consistent with the RH, Residential High
9
Density designation on the Land Use Pl The main issue is whether to rezone
the whole property to R -3 or just the BC zone on the corner. Since Council has
approved apartments on this property in 1969 and 1979, it seems 1 ogi to rezone
the entire site to R - to reflect previous Council deci sions.
Recommendation (Requires at least four votes on second reading)
i Approval of the enclosed resolution ' rezoning the site from BC and F -
9 to R 3.
BACKGROUND
s Site Description
Acreage: 11.56 acres
Existing land use: undeveloped
Surrounding Land Uses
Northerly: single dwellings
Easterly: Gethsemane Lutheran Church and School
Southerly: undeveloped.
Westerly: Beaver Lake Lutheran Church
Past Actions
2- 19 -59: Council rezoned the northeast corner of the site from F to BC for a
gas station. ti
3- 17 -66: The BC zone on the corner was slightly expanded.
10 -2 -69: Council approved a planned unit development for 240 apartment units.
9- 13 -79: Council approved a PUD for 192 apartment units
6- 28 -82: Council initiated a "down - zoning" program for the City
Planning
Land Use Plan designation: RH, High Density Residential
Zoning: BC and F
ADMINISTRATIVE
Procedure
1. Planning Commission--recommendation
2. City Council--first reading
3. City Council--second reading (requires at least four votes for approval)
i
jc
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Beaver Lake Neighborhood Land Use Map
4. Resolution
MARYLAKE NO.
VY • AVE 0
Trailer Court
68 (Private)
MARYLAND AVE.
IflRO
CL
Oke
(ni
Xj
]-2
os
AVE
c kA ST
69
0 4&W=W pVE
6
ERAN ftwv
MAGNOLIA AVE.
1
0
0
z
WT
l
4
M&
Z
J
0
69 kc HARVESTER
00� I=
WS,44 k 40 1�- Z,
3 M �n
MATCH LINE
19N
130
—RZIW
Jos
AVE �`/
L
34
MARGARET AVE..
[E. 5 tH AV E.
IFRE,MOI[ T AVJ
cr
de
If
SERVICE RD.
120
4
f
---AVE
j •. T . PAUL f
S .�•.
- 'MATER TOWER
-.J6
L r J, J
r
r
r
tl� �j .iC• �► - •:•� -- ------- .� • ------ -----' - .1. :l: fit. ---- - - - - -- --- .i:• � _.�
G ETHS E MA t/�U'
, 1
'rt -
�r
.1
l:
•- •- L UTH E n
CHURCH
'! :•
r
:
�Y
l :•
- L�
t:
w
BEAVER E
V R ��� -: ...... ............
LAS
E
::z �:.
L T
H
• •.
:S
U E
RA
H _
CH �=
UR I
CH
i
:r
•l'
:•o:
.Y '
Z.
••. :•
l
�f� f
T
v:
•! • 1
'.t. mi l• ••.•►.
ltJ :ti•
..� . t .. - :1� . t• • J. • . .•:. : t :L :• :`:• :lam ': I. : : : :• :: S `:: '.•: : :. . 1
•.ti :�l : l :• . s : ' •' •: : : :•: :::: :•:�
.
.w.
,� •: :tit �:.• : f • .. �.� Z.
:1: ........ . �:: '•
•l...
• ::1•• _ ... flit' :• ::'
ex
y
v
Y
jLAO - �\
Ln
A3 41
R
P OPERTY LINE MAP
sc
W
cc
m
sc
Rm
r
A
r
O
w
E
O
sc
O R .
interchange
•
C
•• 1 - ' ---" interchange..
' L
Beaver lake
- map le wood NEIGHGO211000 LAND USE PLAN
19-21
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE
WHEREAS, a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City Council for a
zone change from BC, Business Commercial and F, Farm Residence to R -3 Multiple
for the following described property:
An area bounded on the north by the centerline of Stillwater Avenue, on
the east by the centerline of Stillwater Road, on the south by the quarter
section l i n e , and on the west by the east l i n e of Registered Land Survey
No. 137 extended southerly to the quarter section line.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning procedure is as follows:
1. That a rezoning procedure has been initiated by the City
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 4th day of October
1982, at which time sai d ,Pl anni ng 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:
The site is not planned or proposed for commercial use.
Adopted this day of
Attest:
1982.
Mayor
Manager
City Clerk
si
s
s G. Rezoning--Stillwater Road and Stillwater Avenue
16 - '-
Secretary Olson said the request is to rezone the site from BC and F
to R -3. Approval is recommended.
Al Hamel, representing P J. Gaughan, Inc., reviewed the history of
the proposed development of the property.
Commissioner Fischer moved the P1 annLng _ C ommission recommend that t he
Pily_Counc l a pprove tht r esolut io n rezoning the site from BC, Business
_Cor►�m a l and F. Farm to R -3, Res i�ence D� stri ct Mul ti pl e
Commissioner Kishel seconded Ayes -- Commissioners Axdahl, Barrett,
El l efson, Fischer, Howard, Ki shel , Pel l i sh, . Prew, S1 etten, Whitcomb
q.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Code Amendment -- Billboards
DATE: November 1, 1.982
Action by Ccid C •
Endor
Moi
R ej e
Dat
Council gave first reading to this ordinance on September 27. At least
four votes are required for approval.
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed ordinance.
0 RD I NANC E NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE MAPLEWOOD
CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO BILLBOARDS
The Maplewood City Council ordains as follows (additions are underlined and
deletions are crossed out):
Section 1. The fol lowing definitions in section 36 - 230 of the Maplewood
Code of Ordinances are amended to read as
Section.36 -230. Definitions.
Sign types :° By function
Nenaeeessery- S }gn- �Bff- PreR4se4:A- sign -wh Eh -d reet attent en -te
a -bus 4 Res s eewed4y, - serv4Ee ; - er - eRtert a4Rfflent 3 - net- exeIus4vely
rebated -te the- pre��ses- at- wh�Eh- the - sign- �s - �BEated er -te -
business - Ees��edity - ser�r�Ee er- enterta�n�ent- wh�Eh- �s - EendbEted,
seId- e r- effered- elsewhere- than -en -the - preen *ses- at- wh4eh- the - s4gn
4s leeated.
Sign types: By structure
Billboard: A neeaeeessery An off - premi sign erected for the
purposes of advertising a product, event, person, institution,
activity, business, service, or subject not ent}rely- re4ated -
located on the premises on which said sign is located.
Section 2. Sections 36 -291 to 36 -296 of the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances are amended to read as follows:
DIVISION 4. BILLBOARDS
. Section 36 =291. Annual permi fees; revocati -
(a) The -- provi s i ons' of section 36 -258 of this article, relating to
permit fees for the erecti rebui moving, etc, of signs,
s
shall apply equally to billboard signs,
(b) Annual permit renewals are required for billboard signs from the
director of commu.ni t devel opment. Permit renewals will not be
accepted more than sixty 60 calendar days prior to expiration
of a permit. All permits will expire on the first worki day i n
Januar of each year.
z
(c) The annual fee for such renewals shall be as establ shed. by the
council by ordinance. 4n the same - amednt as presef4bed - -fef - the
erig4nal perrfl4t- under- seet4ep -36- 258- ef- th *s- art4e4e.
(d) A double , permit fee penalty ef- twe- dellars- �$288� -wi41 shall
be charged upon failure to pay the annual permit fee for renewal
on or before the first working day of January Jely =f4rst of each
year
(e) The aministrator may revoke a permit granted under this article, for
cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice of hearing to the
permittee. Such notice and hearing are subject to_�e procedure
as outlined in section 36 -260 of this chapter. (Ord%`No. 427,
§ 818.140 (6), 7- 14 -77) L
Seet -3 292: Rev4ew- by- eeffifflen4ty- des4gn- rev4ew -bea -d
The pester pane er bellet4ns- en- bi44beards- are- sebjeEt -te- review
e�Eept fer eepy ; - by- the- Ee��dn }ty- design- review- beard - �8rd : - P�e: - 42� - 8�8: X48 - }�
7-14-
Section 36 -293 36 -292. Locations and distances between,
ka)- B441boa rds- niay be- leeated- 4n- 4ndustr}al3- Faanefaetbr4n �
g ; - eeere4al-
er reta4l zen4ng- d4str4ets;- subjeet- te- restr }et }ens- set- eut -}ii-
th4s- art4e4e:
(a) Billboards may only be located in the following zoning districts:
SC, Shopping Center, BC, Business Commercial, M -1 Li ht Manufacturin
and M-2 Heavy Manufacturin zones .
Billboards shall not be permitted on a building,
f b) Pie b sign - fay be- leeated- eleser - any - ether- sweh advert4s4ng
dev4Ee - - the - same s4de - ef - the- street- er- h4ghway- fae4ng- traff4e
head4ng - 4n the - safe -d 4reet4en- than- f4ve- hdndree- X5884- feet -.e1q-any
e4ty- street7- pr4fary- h4ghway - interstate -er- fully- eeptrel4ed - Cree-
way - withi* n the tneerperated - e}ty; - prev4ded - hewever that - th4 s
previsien -deer- net - prevent- ereet4ep ef- debble -i aeed back- te - baek -
V - type - s4gns; - w4th- a- fax4fdRi- of - ene -sign- per -fae4R :- -The -fern a -4 n -
d4staRee -requ4 peRients -de- net - apply- te- s4gn- streetures separated-
by- be44d4ngs -er- ether- ebstruet }ens- 4n- sweh -a- Panne'- that- enIy - ene
s4gn the abeve spae *Rg d +staRee 4s Y4s4bTe-
freRi- the- h4ghway - er- street -at- any- ene t *fe - k8rd: - 427 -9-815.
448- k14 - -k34 -7 -44 -774 -a
c Billboards shall not be located closer than the following di stances,
unless the council a roves a special use permit:
1 2300 feet to another billboard on the same side of the same
street.
f 2) 100 feet to a commercial, industrial or institutional building,
or an on - premises sign. -
(3) 200 feet to a residential district or 1000 feed to a residence.
L 4J 300 feet to apy part of an interchan e •
p ublic c roa 9 or in tersecti on on of two
. p roa
d A b i l l b o a r d sha not be erected or maintained n '
� tanned in such a lace or
manner as to obscure or otherwise h si ca l l i nterefere wi
official traffic control an
di vi ce or a railroad safety si nal or si n
or to obstruct or physical l i th nterefere wi the dr ` '
a roachi n mer i n or i ��`e'rs v� ew of
ntersecti traffic for a. -di stance of
500 feet.
e No billboard shall be erected or maintained
nta � ned � n or within � n 500 feet
of local arks, historic sites, and ublic icn' •
rovided that, an advert' �c or rest areas,
sin device may be permitted within 500
feet of a park, site or area on commercially z
oned ro ert �,w i t
the approval of a s eci al use ermi t.
Section 36 -294 36 -293. Size.
The maximum area of the sign face of a bi
_ _ X8584 square feet, including n shal not exceed 450
e� b t_ ha �d�
but excluding ed f}fty border a '
di n base a g an trim,
• g , . apron , supports and other structura members. The
said maximum size 1 i mitat i on on shal 1 apply to each side '
es PP Y e of � sign structure.
a�d_s�
g Signs may be placed back -to -back or in a V -type Eenstreet�ee .
'
arran ement if there ar
more than two sin faces, exce t that the e no
o en end separation on shat 1
not exceed fifteen feet. A bill board may only '
at a time � i s 1a one messa e
on any s� gn face.
Section 36 -294. Height.
The maximum for billboards shall be 35 fee •
t, unless council
approves a special use permit.
Section 36 -295. Ill umination and l
(a) Billboards shall not be illuminated with
th flashing lights, except
those gi public servi0 ce information, such as b '
to time date, but not limited
ted
te, temperature, weather or news,
(b) Billboard lighting shall be effective '
effectivel shielded so as not to
impair the vision of any operator of a motor veh icle,
h�cle.
(c) Billboard li ghting must not interfere •
with the effectiveness of
or obscure any official traffic sign, device or si gnal. . ( No.
27
9 818. 140 (5) , 7- 14 -77)
(d) Billboards shall not use lights between midnight and 6:00 a.m.
Section 36 -296. Nonconforming signs,
Any bi sign, l awful ly existing and i n use
n as of July 14, 1977,
but not conf orming forme ng to the provisions ons of this article shall b r
as .legal_ nonconformin i � , _ e • regarded
repaired and maintained, g sign which may continue to be i n use, i f rQ erl
repai as provided p p Y
P �n this article and �f �n con-
formance with other ordinances of this city. Such
signs whic ch legal nonconforming
•
immediately g i ch are structurally altered, relocated or replaced aced
with al P shall comply
1 provisions of this chapter. (Ord. No. 427 § 1
40 f.7 9 7 -14 -77 8 8.
Section 36-297, Ground restoration.
a
And ground ar ea disturbe du to the construction, repair, or remov
of a billboard, shall be restored to its on i nal condition as art
of the construction, removal or repair work.
Section 36-298. Conflicts. -
Any. previously adopted requirements that conflict with this ordinance
shall be null and void
Sections 36 -297 36- 299 - -36 -305. Reserved.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after its passage and
publication.
Passed by the City Council of the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota, this
day of 1982.
Mayor
Attest:
Ayes- -
Clerk Nays --
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager Ac + on by Cour�cil:
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand -- Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Sign Setback Variance - Endorsed .�...�....
LOCATION: 235 E. Ros el awn Avenue __ NIodif i ed
� S
APPLICANT: St. Paul Business Center l ?'Jected —..
OWNER: William S. Rei 1 i ng and Donald L. Bachmei er Date...._.. ....
,___
PROJECT: St. Paul Business Center
DATE: October 6, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
Request
Approval of a sign setback variance of nine feet from the side lot line.
Proposal
1. The applicant is proposing a 3'8" x 16' identification sign at th entrance
drive on Rosel awn Avenue. The sign would be one foot from the west property
line,
2. City Code requires a ten foot setback. A variance of nine feet is, therefore,
required.
3. Refer to the enclosed sign sketch site plan and letter dated 9-14-82.
Anal ysi s
The proposed sign is not excessively large. I f setback requirements could be
met, the applicant would have. no problem in obtaining a sign permit.
State law requires that the variance be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Code. The si deyard setback requirement is primaril meant to prevent crowd-
ing of signs on adjacent parcels, and the ten foot setback assures at least twenty
feet between signs. In this case, however, there is no other sign nearby on' the
residential land so the intent of the Code would be met.
State Statute also requires that it be found that strict enforcement would cause
undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The property does
create the hardship in that the only permitted access to the site is off of
Rosel awn Avenue over a narrow access easement. According to the site plan, this
easement is 38 feet wide and breaks down into a 28 foot wide driveway with a ten
foot setback from the west lot line. The land immediately to the east is a
Minnesota Department of Transportation holding pond. The applicant is. very limited,
therefore, as to where the sign could be placed,
Recommendation
s
Approval of the enclosed resolution to allow a nine foot s i deyard setback variance
for a business sign for the St. Paul Business Center, on the basis that:
a; 1. The 'variance would be in keeping with the. spirit and intent of the ordinance
since there are no signs on the adjacent residential 'land which would create
a sign clutter problem.
2. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship since the approved access to
the St. Paul Business .Center is too narrow for setbacks to be met.
3. The proposed sign . i s well within the size limitations for this type of use.
A business sign for this use could be as large as 150 square feet. The
proposed sign would total 57.6 square feet .
-2-
BACKGROUND
Site Description
1. Site Area: 12 acres -_
T
L
2. Existing Land Use: St. Paul Business Center - -a four building office /warehouse
complex
Surrounding Land Uses
The properties to the west and south of the proposed sign are developed with
single dwellings. The land to the east is a MnDOT holding pond, and to the north,
the St. Paul Business Center.
n 4. A.4-4,-.ft
3-9-82: The Board approved a comprehensive sign plan for the center, subject to
the following conditions:
1. With the exception of the four two -foot by four -foot wall signs on units 7,
7a, 8 and 8a in building two, all si gnage shall be confined to. the front side
of the canopies above the entrances.
2. The four two -foot by four -foot signs on building two shall be subject to
staff approval.
3. Any freestanding sign which would be erected shall comply with all require-
ments of the sign ordinance and be subject to staff approval.
4. All canopy signs shall be centered and shall be set in at least one foot from
the outside edge of the canopy. Single unit signs shall be set in one foot
from the center of the sign canopy so the minimum distance between two adjacent
signs will be two feet.
9- 27 -82: Staff issued a permit for a thirty foot by four foot ground sign for the
applicant, which would be visible from 135E. This sign is of concrete block
construction s i m i l a r to the proposed entry sign.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Land Use Plan designation: LSC., Limited Service Commercial Center.
2. Zoni n 9 : F, Farm Residence District. The project, however, is covered under a
Special Use Permit for a planned unit development.
4. Section 818.080(2.b.) of the City Code states that no freestanding sign shall
be located any closer to an adjoining lot than ten feet. -=
-3-
4. Schedule Iv of the Zoning Code states that for M -1, Light Manufacturing
uses, multiple occupancy buildings facing intersecting streets are permitted
two freestanding signs if they are located on separate streets and are spaced
at least 100 feet apart. If two are used, they shall together comprise no
more than 150% of the total area permitted, which would be 300 square feet
in this case.
5. State law requires that the following findings be made ' before a variance can
be granted:
a. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration.
b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
"Undue hardship as used in connec
the property in question , cannot be
conditions .allowed by the official
due to circumstances unique to his
and the variance, if granted, w i l l
locality.
Citizen Comments
ti on with the granting of a variance means
put to a reasonable use if used under
controls. The plight of the landowner is
property, not created by the landowner,
not alter the essential character of the
Staff sent notices explaining the proposed sign to five surroundin g neighbors
and received one reply. The party at 216 Rosel awn Avenue has no objection and
prefers this sign to the existing one.
jw
Enclosures:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Site Plan
4. Sign Sketch
5. Applicant's letter dated 9 -14 -82
6. Resolution
-4-
11
l
J
1
1
58 -
CO. R
• 36 ao a
. ` A Rx y -.. �- - .
E -'� „ r, ar VIKING
'
N V W
LITTLE CANADA o
35E LAURIE RD. -� D W a
J V
Y � H 4
4t z
R A •,�« \ Q H •4
CD a 25
cr
t•�Q _ BURKE AV.
gn
MON
ELDRIDGE j vs tDRS
San d y _ Q �- _E A I
o
oVE BELMON
a T
Lake sK1
LL L
dr W A. v AV 58 4
i SKILLMAN A .
�� tuft �•�n ¢ W KF' D It
�,- o�
VERtiON 4V�cr, a oz a ` Q
/MT
M . VERNON AVE ¢ m i
DOWNS AVE. ? ! a W Z z ERNCN ,
O O W
60/�
�- W O 5 'J
ISELAwN AVE. w a W Ix 0 26
I c LLWOOD AW_ o v BE LWOOD AVE. BELL W 4t,
40 suM ors. Q n
FEN TON AVE. Q - Z 0 x �
O
l ►- I CES T N � � 11- y a !
y . RIPLEY AVE Z�
� = N T W W W
V p o�olll
Y W N 1 0 W J «J
W 4c F. �
!- ~ V_ ¢
KSNGS� TON a �. r Z m KING �,�, STON �CYE. RO,
W a o m ti Z 4
w US w Y PR !CE AVE. - p�
4 m
W -Q 30
wo
LOCATION MAP
I®
s
v � \
te -
1
i
i -
1
, 1
•
C
t •
r
LJ
II 1
• r is
( f f
7 W r ';
dOP
t
PROPOSEDSIGN
s:
R E
� CAP RTY LI NE MAP
� 1
t
VA
i.
p
T AND FOURRE- INC
WR'CHTECTS
21 Gra r1ed. A,' .nl-;
I I '' F� E S I c �
1
• j
i
i
� o
t }
r
1 1 t
. t
t
r 1°
x
i
i
1
{
F
;
` L
f f
9
K
f �
r
i
At I
C3 u (e I S 64 E 1:)
10% 14"
"FuL.L. Lfmc,-,'4
C A►L-C s
X�CT AND FOURRE, INC.
A R C H I T E S
Grand Avenue
, ST. FAUL, NOW iLSOIA 51 05
PLEASE REPLY TO:
ST. PAUL BUSINESS CENTER
235 E. ROSELA WN A VE., SUITE 12
SAINT PAUL, -MN 55117
(612) 488 -7229_
14 September 1982
Thomas Ekstrand
Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
Dear Tom,
Re: Sign Variance, Saint Paul Business Center,
In respose to items 5b,1, &5b, 2 of the zoning code appeal,
we feel strict enforcement of this zoning code would in-
flict undue-hardship to this property because of the fol-
lowing circumstance:
Enforcement of the distance requirements would render it
unfeasible to position a:zy form of permanent entry sign.
(An essential item for any place of business.)
Also, It is our understanding that the intent of this ordi-
nance is to protect adjacent property owners and the City
of Maplewood from unnecessary signage done in poor taste or
similar forms of visual pollution. We feel this sign would
not deviate from Vnis spirit due to its attractive design,
professional erection, and careful positioning. These are
all important .items to us as owners as well as to the City
of Maplewood. Thank you for considering this proposal.
Yours Truly,
06-
1�
s �F.
F•
The TOWLE REAL ESTATE Company 9 600 Second Avenue South * Minneapolis, MN 55402 • (612) 341 - 4444
w
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPL EWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, a variance request has been initiated by the St. IPaul Business
Center for a nine foot sign setback variance for the following described property:
That part of the East 3 1 - 2 - of the Northeast 4 of Section 18, Township 29,
Range 22, lying Westerly of Highway No. 10, except the North 900 feet
thereof.
Such above property being also known and numbered as Number 235 E. Rosel awn
Avenue, Maplewood, Ramsey County,. Minnesota:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance request is as follows:
1. That a variance request has been initiated by St. Paul Business Center,
pursuant to Chapters 912 and 1000 of the Maplewood Code and Section
462.357(g) of State Statute;
2. That said variance request was referred to and reviewed by the Maplewood
Community Design Review Board on the 12th day of October, 1982, at ,whi ch
time said Community Des i gn Review Board recommended to the City Council
that said variance be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the
variance request, notice thereof having been published and mailed pursuant
to 1 aw; 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 Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY
COUNTY, MINNESOTA that the above - described variance be granted on the basis of the
following findings of fact:
1. ; The variance would be in keeping. with the spirit and intent of the ordi -
nance since there are no signs on the adjacent residential land which
would create a sign clutter problem
`
2. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship since the approved access to
the St. Paul Business Center is too narrow for setbacks to be met.
3. The proposed sign is well within the size limitations for this type, of use*
A business sign for this use could be as large as 150 square feet. The
proposed sign would total 57.6 square feet.
d :
Adopted this 12th day of October, 1982,
ATTEST:
Mayor
City clerk
Manager
A. Sign variance - -St. Paul Business Center (35E and Roselawn) _
Don Bachmeier, St. Paul Busi Center indicated -
5 � sated he agrees with the
conditions outlined
by staff. He indicated the- sig will 1 -
the ground. 9 be 44 inches off
The adjoining property owner said he would -
be please to have the s
installed.
It will give directions to peopl e of n '
p going to the site.
Mr. Bachmei er indi cated the sig wou ld �-
buildings were. There will l - be flood l ights g ul d be constructed o ' the same block
as the bui
n. The which will
shine only on
the si
g e 1 etters w ill l be dark brown. The sign will b
freeway. 9 e seen from the
Secretary Ekstrand suggested the applicant ' -
pp � cant review the proposed location
on
of 1 •
ghts with Ramsey County.
Board Member Deans moved the Board recommend approval •
• ' oval of the resolution
to allow a nine foot side- yard setback variance for a I business -
s � n for the
St. Paul Business Center
on the basis that:
1. The variance would be i keeping
epi ng with the spirit t and intent of the
ordinance since there are no signs on the adj acent '
• J residential land
which would c a s clutter problem.
2. Strict enforcement would cause - -
undue hardship p s� nce the approved access
j to the St. Paul Business Center is too narrow for
.setbacks to be met.
3. The proposed sign is well within - -
the size limitations for this type of
use. A business sign for this use could be as l arg e a as
9 � 50 square feet.
The
proposed sign would total 57.6 square feet.
Board Member Fol 1 e seconded
y Ayes--all,
w R`'
{ R
{
t
3 •
MEMORANDUM
T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT /OWNER:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand-- Associate Planner
Corner Lot Width Variance --
Southwest Corner -- English Street and Lark kvenue
Bernhart Construction, Inc. -
October 13, 1982 Acti by C o °,zc 1_ ?
Endo : - s od
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL Matd J e"..�
Re nest -
Da t e..
Approval of a corner l width variance of thirteen teen feet to construct a
single dwelling.
Proposal
1. The parcel is a corner lot measuring 87 b y 125 feet.
2. Code requires that corner lots have at least 100 feet
of frontage.
3. The applicant, therefore, needs a variance of thirteen
feet.
4. Refer to the enclosed maps.
CONCLUSION
Issues
The spirit and intent of the ordinance can be met since the 1 '
of � s wide enough
for all minimum setbacks to be observed. In fact this lot '
� �s larger than
most of the other
corner lots i n .the area. As the Property Line Ma indicates
most of the developed corner l ots i n the P '
neighborhood have less frontage than
the proposed lot.
The hardship involved is that additional frontage can '
compliance. 9 not be acquired for code
com
p e. Therefore, i f code requirements were enforced the
could not be developed, property
Approval of this variance would allow the lot to be developed,
oped which would
eliminate an eyesore of weeds-and debris,
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed resolution approving n a lot Width •
that • P 9 h vary ance, on the basis
s
1. There i s a hardship since the property c ould •
P p y o d not be developed �f the code
requirements were strictly enforced.
2. The variance would be in keeping with •
p g the s pir it t and i nte-nt of the ordinance
in that all required setbacks can be met.
3. The City as a pproved ppro ved comparable l wi dth variances in the P ast .
4.� The variances would permit the development of the •
�` P e s i to and eliminate m� Hate an
eyesore.
5. Most of the developed corner lots in the neighborhood
than have__ l ess frontage
the proposed lot.
-2-
BACKGROUND
Site Description
1. Lot area: 10,875 square feet --
2. Existing land use: Undeveloped
Surrounding Land Uses
The property is bounded on the north, south and west b si n
y gl a dwell i ngs . The
property to the east, across English Street, is proposed for the English Manor
Town House development,
�.....9. A► Lz__
8 -6 -81: Council approved a lot width variance of twenty eet to allow ow the develop -
ment of an 80 by 125 foot corner lo on the southwest corner of Birmingham Street
and Cope Avenue, subject to a grading and
g g dray Wage plan being approved by the
City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building P ermi t.
DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
1. Land Use Plan designation.: RL, Low Density Residential
210 Zoning: R -1, Residence District (S �Dwel l i n 9)
3. Ordinance requirement: Minimum corner lot width--100 feet
4. Statutory requirements: State law requires that the following findings be
made-before a variance can be granted:
a. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration.
b. The variance would be in keeping ith the sp and 9 p intent of the
ordinance.
"Undue hardship" as used in connec
the property in question cannot be
conditions allowed by the official
due to circumstances unique to hi s
and the variance, if granted, w i l l
locali
tion with the granting of a variance means
put to a reasonabl a use if used under
controls. The plight of the landowner is
property, not created by the landowner,
not alter the essential character of the
Public Works
Water and sanitary sewer . are a v a i l a b l e .
iW
Enclosures
1. Location Map
2. Property Li ne' Map •
3. Resolution
,. 3
Lake
0
U;� V)
LIM
4L
41 KOHLMAW AVE.
W Kt
23
CQVI!TY ROAD c
L
Nei
cr
IL 0
IL z
z
EDGE HILL f
IF: cc
z DEMO
U) NT LL. AVE-
22 tD-200A AVE.2. 0
AN
SEE X T NT Ay
L
L 1 A'
GERVAIS AV E.
=L_ ="-- Q"VAIS
Ke Ile r
0 LA
/061
%
vs
%
x in
LA K
:OVNTY cy
0� I k ;I:
LLELANO
JUNCTION il A
R . R.
G kANDVI V
ji A
=VI K =1 LD R.
;79
SMERREN AV.Ej
p E A
LON
C
LARK
AVE LARK I[AVE.
R =D
#0 FLAURILrjj
z Rc).
z
25 5 A 6�j Z [A V E.
4 @
U
1 KE FA V
R L Z AVE.
8U 6 oc F— Z�
>
ll
)01
#-: ELDRI FL7J
AVE
N. L
AN
V)
w MELMON T lowjr
>
AVE. kJ
Oka
-w
64 > 1
MAR
PUBLIC
BLDG.
x VE.
l-
SKI 4WD
— I
AVE.
MAR Rls
500
-i
0
d..��..,
111 os IW OOD ) AVE.
FROST
U 0 A VIE
-j
FRISDIE AVE.
IL
kil P L E Yj
P H 1A 4.1t, E
w x
x $-
z
62
dA P NT
oil tell 0 A 12- 8u ;tk
SU,M" F 0 A Jv
ac m 5 1
2
W 0.
kefield
or
dw
Lok e i z 29
SOP
z 31:
49 . .
6E ra z z
AV
64 - •�
ri
QT DAI 11 65
In
LOCATION MAP'
L o g e / f / /�25
:Loke
—
F� ,
- � v
f
off
+ 1 "7
— 18
1
14
Ir
w
f _y
R
LELAND
r
r
x j
T
Q
f
7♦
i
ROAD
V L.
PROPERTY LINE MAP
N
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE -_
WHEREAS, a variance request has been initiated b B nh r '
q y er a t C onstruct�on, Inc.
for a thirteen foot l width variance for the following descri bed : ro ert
P P y
Lot 28, except the west 30 feet, and all of Lots 29 and 30, Block 7,
Clifton Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota,
Such above property being also known as the southwest corner of Lark Avenue and
English Street, Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance request is as follows:
1. That a variance request has been initiated by Bernhart Construction, Inc.,
pursuant to Chapters 912 and 1000 of the Maplewood Code and Section 462.357(g)
of State Statute;
2. That said variance request was referred to and reviewed by the Maplewood
City Planning Commi ss on on the 18th day of October, 1982, at which time
said Planning anni ng Commission recommended to the City Council that said variance
be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the
variance request, notice thereof having been published and mai 1 ed P ursuant
to law; and
40 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 variance be granted on the basis of the
following findings of fact:
1. There is a hardship since the ro ert could not be developed '
P P y e oped � f the code
requirements were strictly enforced.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance
in that all required setbacks can be met.
3. The City has approved comparable l width variances in the past.
4. The variances would permit the development of the site and eliminate an
eyesore.
5. Most of the developed corner lots i n the neighborhood have l ess frontag than
the proposed lot.
Adopted this day o f
ATTEST:
City Cl
, 198 .
Mayor
Manager
y ' r
A. Lot Width Variance: English and Lark (Bernhart Construtti on
Secretary Olson said the applicant is requesting approval of a corner
lot variance of thirteen feet to construct a single d w e l l i n g . Staff is
recommending approval as outlined in their report
Chairman Axdahl asked .if there was anyone present who wished'
to
comment on the proposal.
No comments were heard.
Commissioner_ Ki shel moved the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the resolution granting approval of a lot width .variance on the basis
that: '
1. There is a hardship since the property could not be developed if
the Code requirements were strictly enforced.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance in that all required setbacks can be met.
3. The City has approved comparable lot width variances in the P ast.
4. The variances would permit the development of the site and eliminate an
eyesore,
5. Most of the developed corner lots in the neighborhood have less frontage
than r g
the proposed lot. _
Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes- -Commi ssi oners Axdahl ,
Barrett, El l efson, Fischer, Hejny, Ki shel , Pel l i sh, Prew, Whitcomb
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
'Director of Community Development
SUBJECT:
Lot - Frontage Variance
LOCATION:
2745 Gem Street
APPLICANT:
Steven Gray
OWNER:
Elizabeth Gray
DATE:
October 27, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
Action by Council:
Endorsed.._„
14 odifie
Reiected...,,..
That e
Request -
A lot frontage variance to subdivide a property into three residential lots.
Proposal
Create two 75 foot wide lots and a flag-shaped lot with fifty feet of frontage
on Gem Street, requiring a lot frontage variance of ten feet.
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed resolution. approving a ten foot lot frontage variance
for 2745 Gem Street, to permit three residential 1 ots , subject to
1. Constructing a paved, five-ton, twelve foot wide drive to within 150 feet
of the farthest part of the existing dwelling. A letter of credit may be
provided to the City instead, if the drive cannot be constructed until
after the deeds are recorded.
2. Payment of the deferred water assessment for project 75 -16.
3. The depth of the lots will be determined at the time of lot division approval
and may vary from those shown on the enclosed map.
Approval is recommended on the basis that:
1. The driveway would be brought into conformance with the requirements of the
Uniform Fire Code and meet setback requirements.
2. The variance is minimal .
3. The lot has more than enough . area for three lots,
BACKGROUND
Site Description
Size: 1.7 acres, with 200 feet of frontage on Gem Street
Existing Land Use: Single dwelling, approximately 36 feet in width, facing Gem
Street with an attached garage. The existing dwelling is
accessed by a gravel driveway, approximately 540 feet long.
Surrounding Land Uses
North Ramsey County Open Space
East: Gem Street. Across Gem Street, single dwellings
South: Single dwelling and undeveloped land planned for lower density residential
and open space use
West: Undevel op -ed land, planned for lower density residential use
DEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
1. Land Use Plan Designation: RL -Lower Density Residential and Open Space
2. Zoning: F -Farm Residence
3. Policy Criteria from the Plan: All properties shall have safe and adequate
access (p.18 -4).
4. Compliance with Land Use Laws:
A. Statutory
1) State law requires that, the following findings be made before a
variance can be granted:
a) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circum-
stances unique to the individual property under consideration.
"Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a
variance means the property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official
controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute
an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under
the terms of the ordinance.
b) The variance would be in keeping with the s p -i ri t and intent of the
ordinance.
2
B. Ordinance
Section 1008 (f) (1) (b) requires single dwelling lots to have not less
than sixty feet of width at the front lot line. Proposed parcel three
(map two) would have only fifty feet of frontage on Gem Street, requiring
a variance of ten feet.
Public Works
1. Sewer and water are available in Gem Street.
2. The existing dwelling is not required to hook up because A t is located greater
than 150 feet from Gem Street.
Public Safety
The existing dwelling is located approximately 540 feet from Gem as measured
along the existing driveway. Section 10.207 of the Uniform Fire Code requires
an "al 1- weather, five ton, twelve foot wide access within 150 feet of the
farthest part of a dwelling unless a fire protection system is
Other Agencies
Ramsey County Open Space
r
1. A property line survey should be made by the owner.
2. If the existing driveway is located on Ramsey County Open Space property,
it should be moved.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Procedure
1. Planning Commission recommendation
2. City Council decision
30 If the variance request is approved ,an - an admi ni strati ve lot division will be
approved. -
jW
Enclosures
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Resolution
3
i m
COUNTY ROAD I "D"
W ~
TSONR22W W
34
/4
/ 3
T29NR22W 06
/ Q``�C a\`
c
AVE. Q
BE AM AVE.
a
R A A T �
° r
= o W
> W
KOHLM4N AVE. W KOHLMAN AVE.
cr
ROA " x Q 23
> ;.
Z z EDGEHILL RD.
W
z = 65
V DE MONT 4 AVE
C ROOK AVE . — C S
a h 3
Q -
W ' Ay
SEX7
GERVAIS AV E.
,
.'
VAt 1 AV
0 � ANDV17Ew l
36 �, 3
OR. aSTLE A •
�` ! SHE RREN =AV C
AVE.
R E N
COPE AVf . OPE
AVE.
LARK AVE.
J ~ LARK AVE ': ~ LARK AVE. F
°
Rp LA URtE
= or LAURIE RD
_ I�t:�.�J � = a v E. n C
1...! � J W
UM TtOt AVE. M " W CA Z .. _
h 0 •� Y (A < = 2•
�+
V/� M,► lore Irl AVE. �- � 1 9 KR E A
�
' Map 1
r
LZZ��
AA.
r*
0
i �dZ
NOW -900r-l� --- INW-UNEW
i t CLI
r L. d LA
Pf
cry
ca
o
UNIMPROVED
EXISTING DRIVEWAY'
. -- � 1-i -�
2Z6
co
PARCEL 1 SIC,,
PARCEL 3
vi, r ; ,
C) PARCEL 2, r*.% • 1�
. u�. r , ,,..,.,...,.
1 7,
Li Cc
CAL
CJLJ
ru
150" t4960 C411
0
c s I s
C V 1410
• t- L L V
r
4)l Pr� 14 a 1
Q 69 8 Do
(o —0'.3' �
Ij
Map 2 PROPERTY LINE MAP
I rl
Ii
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, a lot frontage variance request has been initiated by Steven Gray
to subdivide the following described property into three parcels:
That part of the North 200 feet of the South 1,243 feet of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SEA of SE4) of Section 3,
Township 29, Range 22 lying west of the center line of Gem Street;
Excepting therefrom the west 408 feet; Subject to Gem Street, together
with the North 30 feet of the South 1,043 feet of the East 100 feet of
the West 508 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SEk
of SE4) of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22; Subject to drainage
easement.
Such above property being also known and numbered as Number 2745 Gem Street,
Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance request is as follows:
1. That said variance request is pursuant to the requirements of Section
1008 (F)(1)(b) of the Maplewood Code and Section 462.357(8) of State
Statute;
2. That said variance request was referred to and reviewed by the Maple-
wood City Planning Commission on the 18th day of October, 1982, at
which time said Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
that said variance be approved;
3. That the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing to consider the
variance request, 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 CouInci 1 considered
reports and recommendations o 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 variance be granted on the
basis of the following findings of fact:
1. Delivery of public safety services would not be jeopardized.
2. The driveway would be brought into conformance with the requirements of
the Uniform Fire Code and meet setback requirements.
3. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code
because direct access, at least the width of the existing d
would be retained for the existing dwelling.
Adopted this day of
ATTEST:
, 198
Mayor
City Clerk manager
B. Variances--2745 Gem Street (Gray)
Secretary Olson said the applicant i's requesting a lot frontage and
access variance to subdivide a property into three residential lots.
Staff is recommending approval of alternative one and a 20 foot lot
frontage variance.
John Gerti n, attorney at 1014 Payne Avenue, said the structure is
existing, they are requesting three different sites for the property.
They are not interested in lots to be used for' double dwel 1 i ngs, single
family only. The property has been assessed for municipal improvements.
They feel the proposal they submitted is appropriate because it would be
a low usage of the property,
The Commission discussed with Director of Public forks Haider the
possibility of the extension of Flandrau Street adajcent to the back
property l i n e of this parcel. Director Haider indicated there is a
proposal for ponding north of County Road C where Flandrau would be
constructed.
The Commission discussed the three alternatives and which one
they felt would be best.
Mr. Gerti n questioned how a driveway could be constructed to
meet the needs according to staff's 'alternative one as the garage
doors are on the north side of the structure.
Commissioner Whitcomb moved the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council denial of the applicant's request for a thirty foot lot
frontage variance and an access variance to create three residential 1 ots
at 2745 Gem Street, on the basis that:
1. The resulting house- behind -a -house development would hamper the
delivery of public safety services to the existing dwelling.
2. The request is not due to characteristics unique to the property,
3. Approval would set an undesirable precedent, making denial of similar
requests difficult.
. 4. An alternative exists for the reasonable use of the property.
Commissioner Pel 1 i sh seconded Ayes- -Commi ssi oners Axdahl ,
Barrett, El l efson, Fischer, Hejny, Ki shel , Pel l i sh, Prew, Whitcomb
Commissioner Whitcomb moved the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Alternative #two as outlined in the staff report * dated October 8 1982
based on the fact that alternative 41 is not consistent wi thaUie Maplewood
lot sizes and the problems with placing the driveway over the septic tank
could be more readily solved..
Commissioner Pellish seconded
The Commission discussed whether they should make a recommendation
such as this or if the applicant should return to the staff and work
with them_ They also questioned if the parcel was too large to limit
to just two building sites.
Mr. Gerti n said Mr. Gray i s agreeable to amending the request to it ter -
nati ve #1. There is some urgency because they wish to get the vacant house
on the market.
Commissioner Ki shel moved approval of the resoT uti on approving n a ten
P 9
foot lot frontage variance for 2745 Gem Street to permit three residenti
lots, sub j ect� to:
1. Constructing a paved, five -ton, twelve foot wide dri to within 150 feet
of the farthest poi of the existing dwelling. A l etter of credit may
be provided to the City instead, if the drive cannot be constructed until
after the deeds are recorded.
r
20 Payment of the deferred water assessment for Project 75 -16,
3. The depth of the lots will be determined at the time of l di vision
approval and may vary from those shown on the enclosed map.
Approval is recommended on the basis that:
1. The driveway woul be brought_ into conformance with the requirements
of the Uniform Fire Code and meet setback requirements.
2. The variance is minimal.
3. The lot has more than enough area for three lots.
Commissioner Ellefson seconded Ayes -- Commissioners Axdahl ,
Barrett, El 1 efson, Fischer, He jny, Ki shel , Pel l i sh, Prew, Whi tcomb.
4 .
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Associate Planner -- Johnson
LOCATION: Linwood Avenue, East of McKnight Road
APP-LICANT: Ralph and Joybe Schwi chtenberg
PROJECT: Schwi chtenberg 2nd Addition
DATE: October 14, 1982
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
A ction by Counc
c �
Endorsed,
Modif
Rejected-.
Date
Request
Preliminary plat approval to create thirteen single-dwelling l ots and a large
remnant l ot to be developed later.
Pr opos al
1. See map three for the proposed l and street configurations.
2. The Dorl and Road right -of -way would be dedicated up to .the west property
line to access the property to the wrest in the future. A temporary cul -de-
sac would be constructed until the property to the west develops.
3. The outl of proposed on map three would be divided. The northerly portion
would be combined with lot three, block two, and the southerly portion would
be redesignated as Outl of A. - The applicant would retain Outl of A for future
combination with the property to the west.
4. Outl of B would be retained by the applicant for future combination with the
property to the west.
5. Outl of C would be dedicated to the City for park.
CONCLUSION
Ana lysi s
The appl i cant has agreed to ded the southwest portion of this site for City
park. The issue is where to gain access to the park.
A future trail is to be constructed across the southeastern portion of the site,
but it w i l l not adjoin an improved street until the property to the south
(Leonard Oak Hill or the property to the east develop. No feasible access can
be gained from the developed properties . to the southwest (Phylis and
Chesterwood II). The only alternatives are across parcel 040- 29 three)
when Dorl and Road is extended or along side . the westerly boundary of proposed
lot eleven, block one, as illustrated on map three.
The a a 1 ong .1 of eleven is preferred, s ince n ce a •
� park � s of little value without
u an access. This alignment may be relocated to the southwest at su
040 -29 develo s. ch time that parcel
p
Recommenda
Approval of the Schwi chtenberg Second Addition ref imi nar •
1 p Y plat for thirteen single-
dwelling l subject to:
1. Lot five, block one and lot one, block two shall be at least 100 feet in
width, at the established building setback l ine ne from Dorl an
- • d Road.
2. That part of the outl lyi ng northeast of a _line from o the northeast corner
of parcel 040 -29 to the center of the temporary orl and a
' y Road cul -de -sac
shall be comb ,
fined with lot three, block two, as illustrated on ma three.
The remainder of the outlot shall be redesignated as Outl of A P ee.
A.
3. Lots seven and nine, block one, shall be at least 7 f •
5 feet wide at the building
d� ng
setback line, as measured parallel to the of Dor
1 and Road.
4. Lots five through eleven, block one, shall be Chan ed to lots one through
seven b 9
lock three.
5. A signed developers' agreement shall be a roved b the '
p� Y City Eng r. The
develo pers' agreement shall include provisions for:
a. Dedication of storm sewer easements as follows:
(1) Twenty -feet wide from Dahl Road to the existing n
. g pond, centered on
the east line ne of lot five through eight, block one,
.(2) Over the existing pond.
b. _Dedication of storm sewer and trail easements
is or � ncl us � on with
outl of C as follows:
A l) Twenty feet wide adjacent to the southwester) a d southerly .
lines of l ot eleven, block one.
(2) Ten feet wide across the northwest corner of lot
eleven,
block one as measured from the west - l i ne of the P 1 at.
c . Construction of public streets and utilities -
• _ 1 � t� es � nternal to the plat, including
ud� n
easements, construction and elimination of the to g
the ends of Dorl an temporary cul-de-sacs at
d and Dahl Roads,
6 Approval by the City Engineer neer of final
9 grads ng, drainage, and uti lity pl ans.
7�
Submission of an erosion control. p lan to the •
p e C� ty E ngineer, �ons� stent wi th
the recommendations of the Soil Conservation '
Serve ce. This �1 an shall address
the trail 1 access to the park (Outlot C).
8. Outl of C may be used for calculating density yon lot four, block one
2
9. Prior to issuance of an occupancy * the developer shall grade an eight-
foot wide trail within the storm water easement adjoining lot eleven, block
one from Outl of C to the temporary cul-de-sac for Dorl and Road. The align-
ment within the storm water easement shall be approved by the City Engineer.
(A recommended trail alignment is illustrated on map three.)
100 Except for the land lying east of the trail (item nine) , the area southwest
of the southwest l i n e of lot el even, bl ock one and north of the easterly
extension of the south line of parcel 040 -29 (map three) shall be designated
as Outl of B. The excepted land shall be combined with lot bl ock one.
11`: Outl of C shall 'be dedicated to the City for. park.. This dedication shall not
be in l i e u of park avai l abi 1 fty charges,
3
A
BACKGROUND
Site Description
Gross acreage: 18.23
Net acreage: 4.06 (proposed'development- 1 of 4, block 2)
13.06 (lot 4, block 2 -- future development)
17.12 TOTAL
Existing land use: undeveloped
- Surrounding Land Uses
Northerly: Linwood Avenue, the undeveloped three-lot Schwi chtenber Additi
'
9 ion,
and
a single d w e l l i n g . North of Linwood Avenue are single dwellings.
Easterly: An undeveloped 14.5 acre parcel with a single dwelling, planned for RL,
.
Res i dente al Lower Density and Open Space use. The property is zoned
F, Farm Residence.
Southerly: Undeveloped property with several wetlands, The wetlands are
designated on the Land Use Plan for OS, ace Open S use. The balance
p p
of the property is planned for RL, Residential Lower ._ Density. The
property is zoned F, Farm Residence,
Westerly: The northerly -most property is the VanDahl Addition, developed with
single dwellings. The next parcel south is a 4.35 acre parcel, with
a si ngle dwelling fronting on McKnight Road. The property owner,
Carl Mai dment, has no immediate plans to develop. The next parcel
south is the Chesterwood II Addition, developing wi th single dwellings.
Past Actions
8- 21 -80: Counci approved a preliminary plat of twelve single dwel for the
Schwichtenberg Addition (map four) with the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be approved until:
a. Provision is made to extend sanitary sewer to the lots on Linwood Avenue.
b. Lot 13 shall be changed to "Outlot A
c. A signed developers' agreement is submitted to the Di rector of Public
Works for his approval. The developer's agreement shall include:
(1) Construction and easements for tem orar cul-de-sacs at the end of
P y
Dorland and Dahl Roads.
(2) Storm sewer easements along the east l i n e of lots 11 and 12 and over
the existing pond.
(3) Final approval of grading, drainage, and utilit lad s.
Y p .
(4). Implementation of e rosion control measures as recommended b the
� y
Soil Conservation Service.
(5) Extension of the Dorland Road sewer to serve lots 1 and 2.
N
F
2. Payment of the cash. connecti on charge for water main servi �e i n Linwood Avenue
($42.00).
3. Removal of the barn and ara es or redraw lots 1 and 8 to et the barn and
9 9 9
house on one lot.
12 -4 -80 3-19-81 7 -2 -81 and 7- 26 -82: Council approved 90 day time extensions
for the preliminary plat.
8 -3 -81: The Planning Commission recommended approval of a Plan amendment from
RL, Low Density Residential to RLE, Low Density Residential Extended. Approval
- i conditioned on the Community Design Review Board making a finding that the
town houses would be of a scale, design, and location that is compatible with
single - fami homes, located in any ad jacent RL area.
This Plan amendment was part of a revised preliminary plat consisting of town
homes, double dwellings and single-fami dwellings. This proposal was, dropped
by the applicant and not considered by Council,
9 -9 -82: Council approved a three l final plat for the Schwi chtenberg Addition
(map three) . This site had previously been part of the twelve lot preliminary
plat approved on August 21, 19800
DEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Planning
1. Land Use Plan designation:
RL, Residential Lower Density.:
2. Permitted density: 14 persons /net acre.
3. Proposed density: 13.1 (excluding lot 4, block 2)
4. Zoning: F, Farm Residence.
5. Code requirements:
a. Section 1008 (f) (1) requires single - dwelling interior lots to be 75 feet
wide at the building setback line. Lots seven and nine, block l are
73 and 74 feet wide at this point.
b. Section 1008 (f) (2) requires single - dwelling corner lots to be 100 feet
wide at the established setback line. Lot five, block 1 and lot 1, block 2
are 99 feet wide at the setback line from Dorland Road.
Environmental
1 . Topography - -the site is composed of steep h i l l s i d e s , knolls, and depress ions .
These depressions can be wet and dry. Slopes over. 18% range from less than
100 feet to over 250 feet in length. Elevations within the property change
by up to 90 vertical feet. _
r
2. Vegetation--largely open field, except for woodl ots around the pond and along
Linwood Avenue frontage.
5
a _
3. Wetlands--the site contains a pond on the south end which will be retained.
4. Soils--the soils are generally suitable for. the - proposed use.
Public Works
1. Water and sewer are available for extension along proposed Dahl Road,
2. The proposed Dorl and Road street grade should be lowered, beginning at a point
-- adjacent to lot nine, block one so that a finished elevation of 955 is
achieved at the west property line. This change should be addressed in the
final grading, utility and street plans.
Parks
1. A future mini-park is planned on the southern portion of this site
2. On June 8, 1981, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed a planned unit
development request from the applicant for an area larger than the present
request. The Commission recommended construction of a trail'
rai l ' across the
southeastern portion of the present site, extending to the northeast up to an
easterly extension of Dahl Road.
3, The Director -of Parks and Recreation recommends that the same trail alignment,
as it affects the present proposal, should be dedicated when lot four,
block one is subdivided.
4. The Parks Commission will meet on October 18 to consider the recommendations
presented in item three.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Procedure
1. Planning Commission Recommendation
2. Council decision
ic
Enclosures
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Preliminary-Plat
4. Preliminary Plat (8- 21 -80)
6
m
LOWER AFTON RD.
N O r� ,
(2
AV ( ,) N 39
fib
• (4) •
} (4) i
_ wAILANO R0. o -
J ' (2) --
(1) LAKEWOOD DR.
(2) TEAKWOOD DR. }"
(3) CRESTVIE OR. ~ ~
44) OA r OG E OR Z Z �
(s) MILLWOOD OR. Q O O
25 `
2 23
L AVE.
A NV 72 ,
HL Z
T ALJ 0 f
TZON
R2Zw 1 ! 3 R21W
1e ?
f' YL Q
3
72
'
494
H r Hw -AYE.
. 14 -`
25
AIIE AVE.
o� E W TZ LAVE
25 )
SOUTHC S
72
Corver
AVE. = Loke
....r...,.,.
494 - --
. ?
68
0 72
C E
CARVER
43 4
Je
a
r
is
t
275:92 car �C
-
L
;17 4i. W)L.s= 7S.Q 75.2
VA DA L D.D.
3 2
It* 0 c E-
Bo;
r.
y _
8 7 ri a !' ►q q• �
15 c 10
DAHL 4*
0
Y i
1i0.�S ,o5.ss t7�T.3g i 110 id 1j.4'.3Q e.
o so
icn Z o
t,
�.3 •
132 r 3o • �SZ. 7►f iao
10 G 9
NO
�(f ..,Zp • -J �.
7
� ~ a 14 - o o c S
15 w 13 b ti
`' v ► � -is.�t 234.01'
b � i
TAM
MAP 2 PROPERTY LINE MAP
• f + 1
+ • •
- -- Vii— — 1 �— 4 - -- � •, =7 � :��_. u. t ._ �,ti • - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- • — •
+ • _AC A.Al3j 141PT -.41
Mfg pww
- • � /• • i ! 'r a ♦r. • , I r i s•• , /,, :•• i
SCHW I CHTENBERG - f ;• 1 ` '
ADDITION
.1
-__ •';:Z_:' .tip f
• -` yam
� • • •: •- it v lome
C4
i - -- • • •---------
-- - - -- • _
Ou t l o t A >,� _ _: • - _-.>. . •.._- .-_ __ : _�- _ .- - -rte - . __._ - ••
AAA
Recommended Tra i 1�
Al i gnment t <<
tl t r
o B
..•.,, , •••: r I cl t 1 J
"
� Z •
• ' I:
op
/,,l , � I: jf i • : i
____.. r...._..__ -i... , ft� I I - / • / • I ` '•'`
1 A
t Out i o t C ` _ •......i • .. � ,,- + • ' � ' � • . ` •q
1 1 '. 4 ``` •••
f F
_ `;;tit fi :ir'•': to 1
4" 00 to 00 410 won as
MAP 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT SCHWICHTENBERG SECOND ADDITION
._
LAND TO BE DEDICATED FOR PARK '
•• 41. 40 •r . /■)� j • 7.•• •rte - ir _y.< . • j
mog i . `�• �r �/ • \•� ►dwo �• ` ice_ r - _��� __��• �••_•- =••fir �1i�w�•
•� ...ww: /s • • -'��o rte_ / L.. --�• • �•r. • - 1 . �,w ..,...� •/YYr'�.�� ••
.�..i • � ► �1 • ' •I / ti now i f" • t/• .••w/ • •
T Eta �'` . '�: � .�' . - . c ' .,:. � � � _ • _ ���5��►tv� = = =- '`
•
• • / • • •' '••rr • • /•• • . •
♦ • • •
% -Mb 0 0
_ ._, 1 • sob • _ s -
Mob a
• -- .• •
••_
oL
U11
%age
—1119 we I ". I .. -4. . :. :— Z .,�
lotwo do IN,
0
do
j Q1 ' t ��.. i _ •. • • • �_ 1 i
4
- __::�
• ) 1 1
. f 1
.�• • • w • • = •- - ter
jail . •
•• - • ; •
Ob
do dl-
_ .. •♦ • _ _ • ..• • i
o
0.
o
• • • ) • _• • i I t ~ YY Woo - -- - -• •- •
do
l_ • • - i ••• Z • • . /� •- • ••t =•. _„__ - •••► •___ •.______� r
1 �_
do
w d o
S .
do
•
err % - _ • _ I/� • , i •/ ♦\ •. ~.`
/�� i• ii • : , i
•
_• -•� f - 1
• s.
�
•s
o
. .� •
o
t o .•.••• • / •.'I
i I
-�� o 0- • •+� .� �•���• k. : Ir i Imo• I• • �I i
off o p
41 4 .14
10L a
V.
VA
• ♦• Z • l • ti
do t
t � Jolf .0
dire
---- --
Ma p 4
SCHWICHTENBERG ADDITION
(preliminary approval granted 8 -21 -80
C. Preliminary P1 at- -Schwi chtenberg Addition
Secretary Olson 3ai d the applicant is* requesting approval of a preliminary
plat approval to create thirteen single - dwelling lots and a large remnant lot
be developed later. Staff is recommending approval as outlined in their
report.
The Commission discussed with the applicant the. alignment of the
trail, the dedication of the land for park purposes
Commissioner Ki shel moved the Planning Commission recommend to. the
City Council approval of the Schwi chtenberg Second Addition pre) imi nary plat
for thrteen single - dwelling lots, subject to:
1. Lot five, block one and lot one, block two shall be at least 100 feet
i
in width, at the established building setback line from Dorland Road,
2. That part of the outl of lying northeast of a line from the northeast
corner of parcel 040 - 29 to the center of the temporary Dorland Road
cul - de -sac, shall be combined with lot three, block two, as illustrated
on map three. The remainder of the outl of shall be redesignated as
Outlot A.
3: Lots seven and nine, block one, shall be at least 75 h
feet wide at the
building setback line, as measured parallel to the ri ht -of -wa of
Dorland Road. g y
4. Lots five through el even block ock one, shall be changed to lots one through
seven, block three.
5. A signed developers' agreement shall be approved b the Ci Engineer.
PP ..
The developers' y
elopers agreement shall include ude prove si ons for:
a. Dedication of storm • sewer and trail easements as follows: \
(1) Twenty -feet wide from Dahl Road to the existing p and centered
on the east line of lots five through eight, block one.
(2) Twenty -feet wide adjacent to the southwester) and s outherl y
y o y
lines of lot eleven, block. one.
(3) Ten - feet wide across the northwest corner of lot eleven, block
one as measured from the west line of the plat. •
(4) Over the existing pond.
b. Construction of ubl i c streets internal
P ets and ut�l sties to the plat,
including easements, constructi and elimination of the temporar
P y
cul -de -sacs at the ends of Dorland and Dahl Roads.
59 Approval by the City Engineer of final radi n drain '
plans.
9 g, a��, and utility
7. Submission of an erosion control plan to the City Engineer, consistent
with the recommendations of the Soil Conservation Service. This plan
shall address the trail access to the park (Outlot C).
8. Outl of C may be used for calculating density on lot four, block one.
9. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permi t, the developer shall grade an
eight -foot wide trail within the storm water easement adjoining lot
eleven, block one from Outl of C to the temporary cul-de-sac for Dort and
Road. The* alignment within the storm water easement shall be approved
by the City Engineer. to recommended trail alignment is illustrated
on map three.).
10. Except for the land lying east of the trail (item nine) , the area
southwester of the southwest l i n e of lot eleven, block one and north
of the easterly extension of the south line of- parcel 040 -29 (map three)
shall be designated-as Outl of B. The excepted land shall be combined
with lot eleven, block one.
1 1 . Outl of C shall be dedicated to the City for park . not in l i e u of PAC charge.
Commissioner Pel 1 i sh seconded Ay -es -- Commissioners Axdahl , \
Barrett, El l efson, Fischer, Hejny, Ki shel , Pel l i sh, Prew, Whitcomb.
F
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager Action by Council
FROM: Associate Planner -- Johnson
SUBJECT: Code Amendment-- Double Dwellings Endorsed
DATE: September 22, 1982 Modified...
i ReJ ected.
INTRODUCTION Date - .............
Re •
Revise the zoning code to delete the requirement for two entrances to each
unit of a double dwelling.
Reason for Change
On June 7, the Planning Commission considered a zone change request from F-
Farm to R -2, Residence District (Double Dwelling) for Grant Haffel y, , 1559 East
County Road C. The zone change request was recommended for approval but
a clarification was requested to the legality of requiring two entrances for
each unit.
Objective
Eliminate the zoning code inconsistency with the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code.
CONCLUSION
Analysis
Mapl ewood' s present requirement for two exits for each unit of a double dwell-
ing is unenforceable according to the Attorney General's office (enclosed letter).
A local code cannot be more restrictive than the provisions of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC), unless the regulatory purpose of the local code is different.
than that of the UBC . .
The zoning code requirement for two entrances was adopted prior to the adoption
of the UBC. Its purpose is assumed to have been for occupant safety, the same,
regulatory purpose for the UBC requirement. Therefore, the zon,i ng code should
be amended to eliminate the inconsistency with the UBC.
Recommendation (Requires at least four votes fora approval)
)
_Approve the attached ordi hake to delete the requirement for two entrances to
each unit of a double dwelling,
a+
Reference Information
g; Existing Code
Section 905.010(2) of the zoning code requires each living unit of a doubl e
dwelling to have "a private front and rear entrance."
i
Procedures
1. Planning Commission recommendation
2. City Council: First reading
Second reading and final adoption
Enclosures:
1. Letter from the State Building Code Office
2. Ordinance
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 905
OF THE MAPLEWOOD ZONING CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DGES HEREBY ORDAAN AS
FOLLOWS:
_- Section 1. Section 905.010(2) of the Maplewood Code is hereby amended
to read as follows (language to be deleted is crossed out) :
2. Double dwellings, either one or two stories, double bungalows with
court or patio, each living quarter having a minimum of six hundred
square feet (600 sq . ft.) of floor area, Eaeh -pest- have- a- pr4vate-
freet- apd- reaf- entraRee- Duplexes must have a minimum of twelve
hundred square feet (1200 sq. ft.) of floor area.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and
after its passage and publication, as provided by law.
Passed by the City Council
of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota
thi s day o f , 1982.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
SAINT PAUL
BUILDING CODES AND
STANDARDS DIVISION
s
August 30, 1982
Mr, Randall Johnson
Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
1902. East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Johnson:
409 METRO SQUARE
7TH AND ROBERT STS.
ST. PAUL, MN 55101
Phone: 612/296 -4639
Per your inquixy regarding whether or not the City of Maplewood could, via
a zoning ordinance, require two separate entrances for each unit of a . double
dwelling.
The issue has been discussed with Larry D. Starnes, .Special Assistant Attorney
General,
The State Building Code supercedes Municipal Building Codes (Minn. Stat. 16.851)
the intent to provide uniform standards for building construction.
Municipalities do have specific regulatory authority to adopt ordinances for
land use and zoning which proamote the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare. These ordinances classify as "zoning ord
Should an ordinance seek to control the manner of construction of any portion
of a building covered by the State Building Code, the code is pree ptive and the
ordinance is not enforcable. (See City of Minnetonka vs. Mark Jones Assoc.
306 Minn. 217, 236 N.W. 2d 163 (1975)),
The code does address the number and arrangement of exits from two-- family dwellings.
The City ordinance in question also addresses the number and arrangement of exits
from two-family dwelling', The city ordinance appears to be unenf orcable because
it regulates an aspect of construction, which is the exclusive P rovince of code.
` I have enclosed a copy of 'an attorney general's opinion dated February 21, 1980,
which you requested.
'Feej free to contact our office if we can be of further assistance.
Yours truly,
BUTT ING CODES & STANDARDS DIVISION
Elroy Bahl
Codes Administrator
EB/C3 cc: Larry Starnes
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �.n�
Enclosure AN �i � 1,i- -=
MINNESOTA LEGAL REGIS R
FEBRUARY 1950 Vol. 13, No. 2
Page 7
�f
Opinions of the Attorney General
Hon. WARREN SPANINAUS
CrriES: COUINTIES: BWADL�TG CODE: "PLICA-
TION: 'Minnesota Statute §16.M (Supp. 1979) does
not affect the applicability of building criteria hati-ing
statutoi -y authority independent of the State Building
Code. -
James A. Hiniker, Jr. February 21, 1980
Commissioner of Administration 59a -9
2nd Floor, State Administration Building Mr. Ref. 125a,
50 Sherburne Avenue 188, 338, and 270c)
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55165
In your letter of August 8, 1979, you submitted the
following:
FACTS
Minn. Scat+ $16.868 (Supp. 1979) provides in rele.
vant part that:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law to
the contrary, a county that is not a metropolitan
county .... may provide ... that no portion of
the - state building code except :. 1^u=lding require-
ments for handicapped persons shall apply within its
jurisdiction." .
You point out that the Minnesota State Building Code
consists of rules comprising a code of standards for
the design and construction of buildings. These stand-
ards include national and statewide specialty. codes,
adopted by reference, with modifications,- as well as
standards promulgated by you under specific statutory
authority.
You then ask substantially the following:
QUESTION ONE
If a county rescinds the Minnesota State Building
Code pursuant to Minn. Stat. $16.865 (Supp. 19 79) does
the provision "...except the building requirements
for handicapped persons .. mean that the county
must adopt and enforce Chapter 55 (2 MCAR J$1.15501-
1.15548) of the State Building Code?
OPINION
We answer your question in the affirmative.
In excluding "building requirements for handicap-
ped persons" from the referendum, the manifest intent
of the legislature was to exclude all necessibiiity and
useability requirements for handicapped persons. Build-
ing code provisions which relate specifically to hand!-
capped persons are located in 2 MCAR. 9 1.15501 - 1.15508,
a sectiQq often referred to as chapter 55.
7%i "building requirements" is not meant
to mead; all provisions concerning the design and ton -
structi� of buildings. Such an interpretation would
mean that without regard to the referendum, all coun-
ties would be required to enforce provisions concerning
the design and construction of buildings. Since such
provisions obviously would affect all persons, whether
handicapped or not, and since the scope of the state
bul' Sing code is the design and construction of build-
ings, the end result would be that all counties would,
in effect, be required to enforce . the state code. This
IN THIS ISSUE
5 u b j cct . - O P. !N o. Doted
CITIES: Counties. Building Code, Application.
59a -9 2/21/M
PUBLIC PARKS: Counties, Gifts.
3306- 2/21/80
would mean that section 16.868 would be meaningless.
In order to give effect to the statute, we interpret sec-
tion 16.868 as excluding only the accessibility and use-
ability requirements for handicapped persons from the
referendum.
Minnesota law generally requires each municipality
to adopt and enforce the state building code. See Minn.
Slat~ § 16.851 (1973), Op. Atty. Gen. 59a -9, February 14,
1c78. As stated above, the referendum permitting a
county to not adopt the code does not Pxtend to ^.hap -
r£r 55. Tnerefore, in regard Ito the "building require-
ments for handicapped persons" the requirements that
th. n county "adopt . and enforce" still remain in effect,
regardless of the referendum. As a result the enforce -
:c' nt provisions set forth in Minn. Stat. 1 16.84 (1978) .
et r-Aq. are still in effect for purposes of enforcing
ct-.rpter 55. These procedures include providing for en-
forcement by building officials, for the issuance of
building permits, for the imposition of a surcharge, for
appeals, and so on.
QUESTION TWO
If a county rescinds the Minnesota State Building
Code pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 16.868 (Supp. 1979) will
all of the following be rescinded?
_
A. State Building Code (2 MCAR §g 1.10101.1.18M).
53. 17riif ono Buildhig Code.
C. Minnesota Mechanical Code.
D. Design and Evaluation Criteria for Energy Con -
sen-ation in New Buildings, Additions and Remodeled
Elements of Builders and Standards for Criteria Exist -
Ing in Public Buildings.
E. A,SHRAE Standard 90 -75.
F. Standards of Performance for Solar Energy Sys-
tem and Subsystems Applied to Energy Needs of Build-
Mgs.
G. Flood Proofing Regulations of the Office of the
Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army,
H. Minnesota Plumbing Code.
L National Electrical Code.
J. State of Minnesota Mobile Home Installation
Standards.
K American National Standard Safety Code for
Elevators, Dumb Waiters, _Escalators, and Moving
Walks.
IA. Uniform Building Code Standards.
M. One and Two Family Dwelling Code.
N. Design Criteria Identified Throughout the State
Budding Code.
OPINION
To the extent that the above - listed documents are
8
MINNESOTA LEGAL REGISTER
(LISPS 351 -820) _
Published monthly and containing all Opinions
of the Minnesota Attorney General
Office of Publication - 1414 Soo Line Building.
Minneapolis, MIN 55402
Sold only in combination with Register - Mirror
(weekly) at $35.00 for 2 years in Minnesota.
Out -of -state $37.00 for 2 sears. Payable in
• advance. Binder and index service Included.
Second -class postage paid at Minneapolis, M.N.
part of the = Minnesota State Building Code, we answer
your ques-tion in the affirmative.
Minn. Stat. § 16.868 (Supp. 1979) clea--ly provides
that "no portion of the state building code," ti:'ith the
e :- Ception of building requirements for handicapped
persons (see above), shall apply in certain counties in
which a majority of votes is cast in the negative on a
proposition involving the adoption of the code. The
above-1 sted documents which are either adopted by
reference or incorporated directly by rule into the state
code contain, many of the standards which together
iurm the State Building Code. Since § 16.8b8 provides
that "no portion of the state building code" shall apply, 1
the above documents, as a portion of the state code.
40
are not. applicable in those counties voting to not adopt.
It should be noted that thi's holding does not mean
.that building standards having separate statutory au-
tbority establishing their existence and - applicability-
will be affected by a majority negative vote. Building
criteria having such separate authority may not be
affected by the outcome of the referendum. For fur-
ther discussion of this issue, refer to Question Three,
infra, .
: - QUESTION THREE
If a county rescinds the code in an election author!-'
zed by -Minn. Stat. § 16.868 (Supp. 1979) does Minnesota
la%v provide for a11 y buiWing'st.andards or uriterla in
the following areas: .
.A.. Electrical.
B. -Plumbing. :
C.- -Energy.
D. Steamfitting.
E. Flood - proofing.
OPINION
Introduction
As previously noted, the state building code encom-
passes rules which form a code of standards concern-
ing the construction and design of buildings. Although
the cdde is composed of numerous sections and docu-
ments, some of which are rational and statewide spe-
cialty codes- -adopted by reference, it is treated' as a
single document both by statute and by legislative
intent. See Ann. Stat. § 16.84, subd. 4 (1978), 2 MCAR
1.10101. For example, except for a fete isolated in-
stances - such as certain appendices to the code* and
the handicapped provisions referenced in section 16.868,
there is no provision for the separate adoption and en-
forcernent of any particular section or portion of the
V The State Bulldina Code provides that certain appendices,
anuetes or supplemental material are not mandatory when
the Code is adopted. See 2 ?11CAR § 1.10109(B).
FEBRUARY 1980
code; a municipality must adopt and enforce the coin-
plete code. Consistent with this view, section ]G.8
addresses the applicability of the code as a single Ln.d
distinct entity when it provides that,
""'ot%ithstanding any other Provision of law to
the contrary, a county . - , may provide . . . that no
portion of the state building code .. shall apply
within its jurisdiction."
If a- county votes to not adopt the state buildin^
a
.code, the municipality will, in effect, no longer be sub-
ject to the provisions of section 16.34 (197S) et S4N1.
(except in regard to chapter 55, supra.) since it is those
statutory sections which establish the code and pro-
.vide for - its enforcement~ However, there are laws such
as Minn. Stat. §1326.213 and 326.37 which relate to cri-
teria and standards for building construction in spe-
cialized areas. while these statutes rn- ay contain the
same or similar subject matter to that covered in the
state building code, their applicability and existence
are not necessarily dependent upon the vlab:lity of the
code. Thus, for each subject area listed in your ques-
tion, it is essential that the law regarding the given
topic be re% iewcd to determine if there is sufficient
statutory authority to establish statewide standards
not 6ependent upon the existence-of the state building
code.
There is ample evidence that the legislature did
not intend to autozzatically eliminate all building stand-
ards in the state, regardless of their dependence on the
state building code, when it provided for a referendum
in section 16.868, "notwithstanding any law to the con -
trary." For one thing, section 16.868 refers to the code
as a distinct entity and not to the subject matter with
with the code is concerned. In addition, since statutes
such as those concerning electrical and plumbing stand-
ards were never repealed, the presumption that the
legislature intends all statutes to be effective and cer-
tain aids credence to the view that standards indepen-
dent c'. the code are still in force. See Minn. Stat.
§. 645.11(2) (1 1 978). r
A- Electrical Standards.
Minn. Stat. §326.... (1978) provides for safety
standards for electrical installations as follows:
"All electrical wiring, apparatus and equipment for
electric light, heat and power shall .. , be installed
in conformity % ith accepted standards of construc-
tion for safety to Iife and property. For the purposes
of this chapter, the regulations arid safety standards
stated at the time the work is done in the then most
recently published edition of the National Electrical
Code as approved by the United States of America
Standards Institute, and the National Electrical Safe-
ty Code as issued by the National Bureau of Stand-
ards, shall be prima facie evidence of accepted stand-
ards of construction for safety to life and property;
provided further, that in the event a 11nnesota build-
ine code is formulated pursuant to 1innesota Sta-
tutes 1965, Section 16.85, containing approved meth-
ods of electrical construction for safety to life and
property, compliance with said methods of electrical
construction of said !Minnesota building code shaD
also constitute compliance %vitil this section, ..."
(emphasis added).
This statute establishes standards for electrical instal-
lations by t•equiring that work conform to accepted
C
C
FEBRUARY 1980
standards o� construction. The statute recog g that
compliance with the state building code meets this ac-
cepted standard. However, even though section 326.243
references the code, it stands as an independent stand-
ard and is not affected by the section 16.868 referendum
submitted to the electorate. Consequently, regardless
of the status of the state code, the electrical standards
set forth above are still effective.
Section 326.243 also provides that,
"• . . nothing herein contained shall prohibit any
political subdivision from making and enforcing more
strs'ngent requirements than set forth -herein..: '
We note that while nothing in section 326.243 would
- prohibit -A local authority from establishing criteria re-
lated to electrical installations, the statutes establish-
ing the state building code would prohibit such action.
By providing that,
"The state building code shall apply statewide and
supersede the building code of any municipality..."
(Minn. Stat. 1 16.851 (1978)) the legislative intent vas
that the state building code preempt municipal laws
concerning the design and construction of buildings Ln
order that there be uniform construction standards and
that the problem of "[a] multitude of laws, ordinances,
rules. regulations and codes regulating the construc-
tion of buildings and the use of materials therein 0 "
be prevented. See City of DU=etcr_ka v. Jones, 306 Minn.
217, 236 N.W.2d 163 (1975). As a while the leg-
islatively establlished standards for electrical wiring,
apparatus and equipment for electric light, heat, and
power contained in section 326.243 are appropriate, a
municipality is prohibited from establishing further
criteria.
B. Plumbing Criteria:
Minn. Stat. 1326.37 provides:
"The state commissioner of health may, • by rule,
prescribe minimum standards which shall be uniform,
and which standards shall thereafter be effective
for all new plumbing- installations, •including adds-
tions, extensions, alterations, and replacements ' con- ,
ne% with any water 'or sewage disposal system
o or operated by or for any municipality, resti-
tution, factory, office building, hotel, apartment build.
ing, or any other place of -business regardless of lo-
cation or the population of the city or town in which
located. Violation of the rules shall be a misdemeanor.
• The commissioner shall administer the ' provisions
of sections 326.37 to 326.45 and for such purpose's may
employ plumbing inspectors and other assistants.
Here the legislature has provided that the Corninis-
sioner of Health may establish rules prescribing mini-
mum standards for new plumbing installations. Pur-
suant to this authority,. the Commissioner established
the. Minnesota Plumbing-Code presently located in 7
MCAR H- 1.120.1.135.
The Cbmmissioner of Administration, whose auth-
ority is t4 establish the code of standards "governing
matters of structural materials, design and construc-
tion, fire protection, health, sanitation and safety"
(Minn. Stat. 1 16.85 (1978)) has authority to hold all
state hearings regarding any subject matter dealt with
in the code:
"Subd. 4. The commissioner, notwithstanding any
law to the contrary, shall hold all state hearings and
make all determinations regarding any subject mat.
9
ter dealt with in the code including those in which
another department or agency proposes to alopt . or
amend rules and regulations which are incorpb. ed
by reference into the code or whenever the commis-
sioner proposes to incorporate such regulations in'Zo
the state building code. In no event shall a state
agency or department subsequently authorized' to
adopt rules and regulations involving state build' ;
code subject (natter proceed =to adopt the rules and
regulations without prior -consultation with the con -
rnissioner." _
Minn. Stat. 116-86, subd. 4 (1978). The Minnesota Plumb-
ing Code is incorporated by reference into the state
building code in 2 MCAR 1.1.18701; therefore, under sub-
division 4 the Commissioner of Administration has rule -
making authority in regard to plumbing installations.
As a result of sections 326.37 and 16.86, subd. 4, both
the Commissioners of Health and Administration have
authority over plumbing criteria. In such a situation
where two statutes potentially conflict, the rule of sta.
to Cory construction is to construe each, if possible so
is to give effect to both. Minn. Stat, i 645.26, subd. 1
(1978). While the Commissioner of Administration's au-
tl:ority, originally enacted in 1971, appears at first im -.
- cession to supersede that o� the He.-OtIn Corr- n- 15sioner,
}.'%- not repealing section 326.37; the legislature's appar.
ent intent was that the two statutes be mead together.
::is interpretation is * bolstered by the statement in
s ;:tion 16.86 that the Commissioner has the authority
to hold hearings even when "another department or
C :ericy proposes to adopt or amend rules..." The dual
rc Lwonsibility of the two - departments was within the
contemplation of the legislature.
Section 16.86 subdivision ' 4 requires that in regard
to- plumbing installations, the Commissioner of Admin-
istration hold state hearings and make all determina-
tions in regard to the adoption or amendment of . the
proposed rules. By so providing, the legislative inten-
tion expressed in section 16.83 that there be *`uniform
performance standards" is fulfilled. While recognising
that sorne hearings will coi.cern proposals - - tor° rules
which are "adopted by reference," the legislature has
nevertheless provided for one standard statewide in a
situation such as the present one where there is* dual
jurisdiction. It is important to note that * the plumbing
code remains a Minnesota Health Department rule, in-
corporated by reference into the code.
Under the above rationale, the treatment *of plumb.
ing standards is as follows: Tlie Health Department
rules concerning plumbing installations were adopted
by reference by the Commissioner of Administration
and are presently part of the state building code. In
those municipalities in which' "no portion of the state
building code ... shall apply" the code as a distinct
entity has no applicability. However, the rules of the
Commissioner of Health found in 7 MCAR 1.1204.135,
hating an. existence separate from and not dependent
upon the code, have the force- effect of law and
are applicable on a statewide basis for those structures
described in section 326.37. In tTds regard it makes no
difference if the hearing for - the Commissioner of
Health's rules is held by the Commissioner of Admin-
istration or if he makes the final determination for
the adoption or amendment of rules. Consequently, • if
a county determines to rescind the code, the independent
•10
statutory authority of the Commissioner - of Health
'which resulted in the Minnesota Plumbing Code remains
unaffected and the criteria so established remain in
effect. .
C. Energy Criteria:
• In 1974 the Minnesota legislature enacted nfinn.
Stat. 1116H.01 et seq. which created the Minnesota
Energy Agency. After recognizing that the demand for
energy, if continued, would result in the serious deple-
tion of fuel, the legislature provided for numerous
conservation standards throughout the state. Many of
.-these standards, including some established or -authori-
zed In Minn. Stat. H 116H.12 and 116H.129 (1973), and
promul ;abed by the Commissioner of Administration,
have no - relationship to the state,build.ing code.* * These
conservation standards which are not included within
the state building code are not a "portion of the state
building code" and are, therefore, not affected by the
outcome of the election authorized by section 16.868.
However, many energy conservation - standards
which were promulgated by the Commissioner of Ad-
ministration in consultation with. the Director of -the
Minnesota Energy Agency are part of the state. build-
ing code. For example, section 116H.12, subd. 4, provides:
In recognition of the. compelling need for energy
conservation in order to safeguard the public health,
safety and welfare, it is necessary to provide.building
design and construction standards consistent with the
most efficient use of energy. Therefore, the commis.
sioner of administration, in consultation frith the direr.
tor, shall, no later than August 1, 1975, and pursuant
to chapter 15, promulgate building deslgn and con.
st standards regarding heat loss control, illu
. - zrination and climate control. Such standards *.shall ap-
ply to all new buildings and remodeling affecting heat
loss control, illumination and climate control. Such
standards shall be economically feasible in that the
resultant savings in energy procurement shall ex.
ceed the cost of the energy conserving requirements
amortized over the life of the building. The standards
shall :..come part of the suite bull Tina a o(le and be
effective six months after promulgation.
t (emphasis added).. By legislative mandate, standards
such as those promulgated under the above -cited sta.
_ Lute are "part of the state building code." See 2 MCAR
H 1.16041- 1.16006. Unlike those for plumbing Installa-
tions, these standards were. not "adopted by reference"
and have no separate existence from - the - code. There-
fore, if there is a negative referendum vote in -a par-
ticular county so that "no portion of the state building
;code .. , shall apply" no energy standards shall be
in effect for that portion of the county so voting. * **
=D. SteamfitUng Criteria.
The supervision of high pressure steam piping lies
00 Ste e.% 2 MCAR 1.16201 - 1.16207, the rules promulgat-
ed pursues t to liinn. Stat. § 116H.129 (1978) concerning
minimum - energy efficiency standards for existing residen.
ces.
***This opinion takes no position on whether the general
rulemaking authority In Minn. Stat. § 116H.08 (a) (1978)
would permit the Director of the Minnesota Energy Agency
to promulgate rules providing conservation standards to
building design and construction. Such would have to be
determined under the provisions of the Minnesota * Admin.
Istrative Procedure Act~ - -
FEBRUARY 1980
w•Ah the department of labor and industn•.
'The department of labor and i :n lustn- shall _surer-
' vise all high pressure steam piping in connect;on
%rith all building in this state and may p:L-s; : ily^
minimum standards which shall be uniform.
The department shall employ inspectors and other
assistants to carry out the provisions of sections
326.46 to 326.52." _
Winn. Stat. § r-6.46 (1978).
• The authority of the department of labor and in-
dustry to prescribe minimum standards is similar to
that of the Commissioner of Health in section 326.37.
However, the Commissioner of Administration has not
- incorporated rules on high pressure steam piping Into
the - code. Thus the only rules of statew'de impact in
regard to this matter are those of the department of
labor and industry. Consequently, the applicability- of
the state building code in a particular county is irre-
lez to the applicability of standards concerning high
pressure steam piping. The independent statutory au-
thority for minimum standards expressed in section
326.46 is unaffected by the vote authorized by section
16.568. .
E. Flood Proofing.
The state build ' n1 - code a 3opts by reference, with
certain modifications, the "Flood Proofing Regulations"
promulgated by the Office of the Chief Engineers of
the United States Army. In addition, the code adopts
the Flood Plain Zoning Map of the Department of Na-
tural Resources. See 2 MCAR :1.10110. Under the ra-
tionale expressed in Section B of this opin concern-
ing the separate authority of the Commissioner of
Health for plumbing criteria, rules of the Commission-
er of Natural Resources, such as the zoning . map, would
not be rescinded. However, the "Flood Proofing Regula-
tions" contained in the state building - code would ro
longer. be in effect since such has no separate existence.
While the Commissioner of the Department of Na-
tural Resources has not adopted the above- referenced
"Flood Proofing Regulations" he has established some
I'111ES conc vino building codes. 6 ITCAK ; 1.0059 (NNR
89). To the extent these rules require a municipality to
establish a building c, le other than the state building
code, the rules are not since, as previously noted,
the state building code has superseded the code of a
municipality. See this opinion, Question Three (A),
supra. However, rules of the Commissioner of the De-
partment of Natural Resources which directly concern
the design and construction of buildings and are inde-
pendent of the rules of a municipality, will be unaffec-
ted by a negative referendum vote under section 16.868.
wARRL"Lq SPAIN' NAUS, Attorney General
Sheila S. Fishman, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen.
C
P
D. Code Amendment— Doubl a -Dwel 11" Entrance
� g
Secretary -Olson said the proposal is to revise the zoning code to
delete the requirement for two entrances to each unit of a double dwelling,
9
Chairman Axdahl asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment
on the proposal.
Commissioner Fischer moved the Plannin C ommi s sion re comm e n d that
Ci a pprove the _reso to dele the requirement for tw o
entrances to each unit of _a double dwel1 i ng _ in ord t o ma ke the zoni
c ode consis w the Uniform Buildi Co de.
Commissioner Pel l ish seconded Ayes -- Commi ssioners Axdahl , Barrett,
El l efson, Fischer, Howard, Ki shel , Pel 1 ish, Prew, Sletten, Whitcomb
•
LAIS, BAN N IGAN & KELLY, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
409 MIDWEST FEDERAL BUILDING
5TH AND CEDAR
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
DONALD L. LAIS
JOHN F. BANNIGAN, JR.
PATRICK J. KELLY '
September 21, 1982
Mr, Barry Evans
City of Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, NN 55109
IRE: Amendment to Sectim 1402.0 30
Dear Nt . Evans:
Please find herein the following to wit:
- Proposed Amendment of Section 1402.030
- Reference letter City of Hiding
- Newspaper article City of Hopkins
- Reference Ordinance, City of Maplewood
If you have any quest•icns please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
±s f BC & Kelly, P.A.
.
E
1 .
If
Patrick J lly
PJK /pkg
Enclosures
F
. 4
AREA CODE 612
224 -3781
_L
i _ 1, A_ .
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMEND SECTICN 1402.030 OF THE MAP
C CDE FM ING TO THE DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE AND RUBBISH
THE CCJUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAP DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FO .
_ IS�CXnTS .
Section 1. Section 1402.030 of the Maplewood Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1402.030. GARBAGE CCNT AINE&q. Every person, firm Cr co '
rporation, as a
householder, occupant and /or owner c f any dwelling, boarding ding house, ap t
building, or any other establishment that accunulates arba
g ge shall provide one
or more f ly and water tight metal Cr equivalent rodden roof ar
P garbage container
to contain all the garbage which accumulates between arba e •
g g collection unless
they are required to canpl with Sectic n 14 •
y 02.030, Subsection (C) hereof .
Approved capacity of container shall be as follows,
1. 30 - 32 gallon capacity
2. 80 - g0 gallon capacity
3. 300 gallon capa
I� y
(A) All persons living in accanodations not covered
under Section 1402.030 (C)
hereof shall place garbage in a 1 &1/2 mil miniminn 1 eth
equivalent in performance po y ylene .bags or
Pe_ ormance of 32-gallon capacity or equivalent system
which shall be kept in the aforementioned. said �ontainers the day of collection th f • except that on .
e filled bags are to be closed or sealed so as
to be water and fly tight and removed frcam the containers
at the curb line or � then placed
next to the alley for pickup, unless special arrangements
are made for walk in Service. Rubbish shall be lace in 1& 1 2 m • '
bags p / it minimum
polyethylene
gs cr equivalent in performance in amounts not wei him in
excess of 75 lbs . car more than 32 gallon g f
pickup c� g capacity, and may be placed for
p p the garbage pickup dat riex to the curb line or next to the alley .
(B) Tree limbs not exceeding our inches hes in diameter nor three feet in length,
i
tied n bundles of no more than eighteen inches in diameter,
and Christmas
trees up to seven feet in 1 may also •
� Y be placed in the same murvner .
(C)
(D)
The Owners, operators of managaers of . an building containing
units or f y g ontaining mare than two
dwelling o any fine or corporation where garbage accuznul.ate . in
in excess of four 30 -32 gallon cantainers per week shall have vat '
weekly from a vial t hauler liven service
YID licensed to do business in Maplewood
The vats shall be of a nu nimum capacity of on •
e cubic yard and of an approved
sanitary type with the proper attachments for lifting
cn to refuse trucks,
Waste Material, Such items defined as wa material under 1402.020,
ste materi
Subsection (C) shall be disposed of b means of a -
a hauler properly y special pickup of these
items
by P perly equipped to render such service.
Sectim 2 . This ordinance sha 11 take effect and be in force form and after its
passage and publication.
Passed by the Council of the City of Maplewood
this day of 1982,
MAYOR
Ayes -
Nays -
Attest:
CLERK
BELLAIRE SAN T
I ATION, INC.
.� �! �_�� 8678 75TH STREET NORTH
STILLWATER., MINNESOTA 55082
(612 429-6766 -
2
04
Cit
e r 1:
'it e—ood
r T S In
cc)
one c a
os a
-��-� .p p 0 cal w I ch'
c s c cl� &�
tj L rice! or,
C ,
Cj -4L
t U,
a
.L
0
wh-1c'
U. CL
a t
C I- i 1 L,
. I • C ., A " r E n
U
L C.
d 1, rclz.!d
..i. A. h.., •
U. A
Lf L-
c Al
J1.
- 4-
C
Rose vi
a' r lle
.: d
C 0 r, - :a n c r y� : : ` ,� r -- � -a A.. L� 1 C p - - -
74-
n a i n
a fts a
n
I& C-
A7 e
r r o c. IF
L -L a n 6 i. ca�
t
and J. L 'n
U C- C�, 17 "1
C LID S 0 our sey 1 9 3'? �• , . r , r~.
0 U V ?"'c
kli- c k e t a v,, e Iro 1: n o
-% J.
C e 0 1%) C .,. h iY, A, o e curb b
-r +, -,- ,
y d
a 0 --�, ".. k •
thel. are an q - u
A *.d %, .Lm, cur e '"-,' c e a ;
leas -.Lz
e s oz
c Cat n b c a s c,
1 C
IL
- �-,, r e
e
-L
es e C 0 rj _ �1 1
4L C
C t 0 Vc C
C "
incere l
uP 9�
JchnS--,o
a jetz 1 .'�:1 �'�''
0 AL
Mob
6
fic
cla
US sotv Ur asue of
114FORMT au an d 16e
JLef eretIce - tpavt 9 3300 Un Date
14U'nic of 14irk'ncsota
. si tv
i'tMoso 0\ a %
14 13 iv Iliec
e S. sc 9 55414 SU 't
,,, tow
toast 00�14 � if
a pol di G
e AA 91 AW ;Mjw
ft v illage
�_ "I r - - - l , to
woe" Owl
NOY rv fte. CW KQP_W a t 60 wl�`
cat 101 -
- A one" iAW
OF Pe
,00
mange
cc kr s-of 14 1EVO any
s t"Ute .. 4j%jV,"
iia - BO VA.
AM Ev*0j"G S EC"O" k2ne volhVd mo 00
S I tFoLAT11 4 CS to at
;t0jl C �P, j"e Vill—
too
- low
VOW
66COOF" GPj t51kGF- 10"1 Me t !-
MW
ivy,
w
C J()f4 j
sat - 6 , 6 110", goo
�*AGj4TON of t he
% 4itm e coo"CA
1w
jW ow
W eby bcdAi 11 a of tP4. SOW.. I- raw SC - 000ju dy
06 as D ino
.. 10% S * a" 4611;V4
we d # ,hL4wvw
'
J1jgw :W.W:- 4HwC# w ow*
or PH! —KA.04i
j%W %dW11%W � -
dffo SC P %v AIWI few.
c i, dewmw Uctu
she, It any
Wrev Fing his ic t*w th o f W his .000 ft-.! OM shail pay
40 11 e
r ity Lai JA I* to �,W-
hw PWD� ;Pw$QM 0101, Sr i$ &TWO
-,ow
""W
q t% est8bl" jiw
PJWWc
FA
2 ,5400
r
or - TJF Aws
son 40A
" be Pr
sha lt w at ' aw ww
or*m
es
oic any
Na ll
�vv- rsom (S) S FS ... 1 1 1 1� 11 6. V N'
Ase o r the ky - so r
ve c uri-011"d by
tr6in 4.,
Ojet CK i I P roolLI
,aparl Of charg a '* .
alone, Vo ld i t i0eal WA ro oewd
v f-kelof Jiq 0 j. Of a ll
MKIN j . 0%6 11 tw w jigv't Irvoa&.
Ouw tw erS ik losviv AMC
a t% bie or Inta ilm 11 be
41
ise. tno ustriel cc all M
evy ON is any Ater ial, OW ljo AMIN
a" a ad 11%
I SZ , toa .
,ball Or M!"C
ro mt, su itable how"" 0"@� "W" A . 00
o r 09W Cove red -- ic. t
Owl
A S&OW so wcgw* 1k 1 ..� qlwt pped vfft tigh tly We d wt I
. 4
W ,Mliog jrc any OnO, to S lit# W__
Wb , & g od ve. 06 . IWIV
,, C jwreO, ,W4. R ubbish fW W , 4s "i ow-OMIA Vlwo. fW6
fhe rt"M Itainem 1 0
, C , Mlres Of any jourv the of
- all s rA ea SWN I
Ir
4i�wb` 1.
di" ObW ttK'
O ' d A ;d is any O e ,� tc lide-Illitert"g'
4PIM 11"01
wan
o ws
W4 IN ' riot ,
ks VIA wwA ?r.. vf
a ltevs,
Ws
boU keq8rds Or SIUM ed Oil 100 W
it in sjbS6dw16 VIV
WaYs. woo C; cor "M OC dt
incl Ct iop *M OF ow-e-, 1 5� -,two suth
vhe Or C oWe se w* w i be do
rv0Wge, - - kt. NI
S jbd including, such re 00d S* 08134* scil T -1 ..i , I M is
. cow ners , ony .0rdw
of I - j � h j * to
Su ch I ;�..
sw ialls. ww CIO At. 4
jr0ste 1 " 0 t "CN411 lasiligtw
Wa sted 040M wv* W sloW, S cte 32 1 Con*jthAeS *h6" l t3) "Wow. JAW vf;
voo
ittoo is %,"t NV SLKIS I& ,
*W1 06"
i6w I -
OPP
W 1KW tt. ca rnmercio
reOdu** s ," Y' sa le# Pr ov*d 114
orov
tic Carcasses end sufww"'41 Week
domes tin, vtc1L,_ wa iners ot Cost m""*- t* 94 OC40 I- sns h
jt mt.. � . -., � - -
of iW es, qr15 Int _ Ow go * , y
ration, COW % Wage alm" #904 to
V60 P16C*"*
rw
to wl, suod. co nv
0cesS411, o u" w "ItIrlot
S -,bbish CO"t a "VATO Ilk,
Pr isem bw .40 -
in
ag e or. s arb"o or to wc�h jPo
Isw M S. lidblOd
li CW prnefC4A ee i frW
Wiv%jtilon, Is 11 the Prem ' 6&-
sljb�� tear sir of and
wom this WOW - it" Fn I" Ina
WV" WS, vAvw frofn. got loca
onftr flop I I g ore r day -or.
Irass May *Mf*
*Vw sh, 41% 0 . - - 0.
atww%
sw rGe oes 0s, 9
0 - contf
CO D
All'
per, rags shoes O f it 'Aw
in� S .
Wa ste. go i ufx eflier .000
rso io1w 'C'60
n 1he n rKI l0l"W =�.
;r _ Ating fro WtWW0st 9 r,, sod rem Isoavy #
CS ows jrw. ;
0 b uildin '_6 r for vjbs*. stava
S . as or 6 We . I
re ovw to % O%rw
t 1 h a Way . iqij
.1
M or CC M% whio. Ld in Su l to WA*.'
e tc.. In siruction I qrqr7 - -
0 , jv%j &jln, of oviet Ott ®r
40WOt Uxt subst
e _d * ve
0 j"er the j* lippe Aha ..-
at * . at f
th Id 0% "o- W6 6ably
cor porgl`Ws for aftio S o - 30
'Wotty or. Wt. i Se ction
"a do"
4or" ot ide So Mayor
is a PrM
e nor! #
vga nization w ;S ol
voww or 101100 0
SOW WPAw%h%q life 0 for 011 virem
h1lP to W% (P IA. a ti *r "" Co nte' .4 t
nisg s,or bta :
, s lv%-� �,. oil
0 "r
wM st%i Cal
th O f, any of I or to�i..M
co"*
c6r
, or co p tr ol _
jp%oy .. OF . S u sing
jem ise 9 811CM
CwQ er t- 40m ily.1) F . L OW
o wing I air
icl;I&MY as
Ph v Ae TYWO j ,, j stee Or la ro vw ic
as
cc Co " ce aling contaltal C.
ow S"09111t "i, Pedow'" .. ". I
th e Wie S � b d Itobviro. 4 , 0 "WIty 04W Orin
reo urer.
r T
P"*n� the
ALA wow, carr ado 01 or
POW sut4 � *. I r% acw verrAln. may
6n..,r4wc1iiv en ts of
" 114 rearbs", dll�_ 04 90 .14,09 ) t o in I
0 . - " . 4o und a s trov; rnli Wd M 0 1.
MY pi ,, Osd IWW A the reQuI
If tv shall Ao tilly,
Stobd sari, oral. wr4d( nance def tc-ilyt so '4011 114
*-*'%' ;� to e nte - 4 . aj ,
e vtrv;K tin 11"Is or does xow!l
as , ided he C010
r4 rubWO 1 1111111111 1 row I nce, Me . 1 � r rle p ig Icel"Ont
a illillillillillllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlliiiiiiiiiiiiopw or VW -, . 0
11100 WIS ordi" . orlovider, MI ro p a tion'date
'I jhe C
W ) It I Gr 4e, by
nd Sh lected
vencY 4 Ithlo 15 day c Ary jve
w w - 0i th * dell1l
11he cW JII deficivICY " Ono
fo l v ider Of o s*r
the " It the %JS t
4 d ate, the 9 Itum-o' - n
P-0moliocle"'a how to , q.1018 lir *d W ei,
C the P41010'0
q uiect 119 It) Lico nsifte Or c cw.-.
soction u4 owae- 961""
IL
Ciro
$Jbo ng g arb"
bwtu% -4or
Un o f t ;�ftwt_
be ed
vo rall" so su ch
to c co
or rubb; rst Se cur
t , r ,. do
SdIV ICE Cit ies
inne
street 55101
A nnesflta
ification N � v • r
Class _-
Muni ciPal i tY
Date
Subject
l ow* '`
' woo r
AWK
WSW
Or
low
OF To
WiG
sty E
or
P ore
St
WONG "�'°►
P at
ow o'y ;, •V
040 1 q vo
1. of
1t womo Od om:
owl
S11 ''''
Otto
lot' wbwp
•� \ ttC t _• , ���ii�'� - •' 0.t r' . �'•
- A0 ..(
t
CUP
Classification tom•
I0N SERVICE
FQ .t4AT to Citi
ue of M� nneSo
.ag Street
30 Cedar � p�
N 55
t. P aul 9 M
moo
AU
CIA ,
be fey god oath
three #onaeW.
his or. .be ,. t . - a
to .tom ;
Q :h ar `p
�e� t
a
�: or " Se k, o
`" . bit the eaa,
uni�ipal it y
M �
Date
,ck.
Sub ject
Sub :Art
. y - + .: �C►� f '.5.��. r �5. w �` � )413^ � � •T��A& f .t.
1
?� :o r - WOO µ s
i ; • j ^ �, r� �. � t rte Jt 1 `; � ` ',� �,� , .a����''... ~ �'
•T 2 ' #
Id � •.tip � . �A � ,;�� , •�
* par
► •, i ce. s of
w tou tract
k.
io e 00 y . m i c t s ell and
•} {�` ' . � PYIT►••. _ "'° . p a y. W
�•' S4'�°�� -' � ,.�'� tai . _�- .ti .��
t Aim 1. . 1'1
:- ti mer
� ins
���`
U CMS �� ,�•� �,•:- ilY..�j^Y;4 .+;• : _ _ s
-6,. a e ' .�
it a ' � *� est a ffeet
``' h ►s : ''+ `, # ' �
etx be
.r o► t m . .
ltloAS .a vic
j a r b i' :, ; .,� ' P° .etch- v#fe ed
Amer av e,ap�= .�'lrail:� a cha"rge
den s tint axe riey ~'`
Wi g be
s e e useslu
AaW�n'�►tcd 8y qty,
= v ;. *s
• M �;oaa�h� --` - �
Virgitkilk a1*4 a a� l�►s; ' v r
welt Yndie
8ottadat ac�l
$t��►
*44 lid the etty �!�► : .
tibe
t�it►e� g�,ptee '� �
�Y :`�i'►lton • .;�uncil
'die d , .birw fn izetts
• � tit .
gUegtf6pa [ bo .� ed r .the new
wt;vtl�df ormthe$ °n�
w
d�ste� .end ae
`glae+e in k` ti hf s eom-
told them tha in-
iePP responsible •iat
b would
citizens eaxn-
p ll c itizens'
s . .a
anY : °�'e'Pxeseutativea wd°
bnro
- i
° ' to, deny • ,N e 9 t #gall. If.
.�,
ooar $A 'Y
s bogs coded
one said • lie also mes-
".Oecessa r y -e coverag ` Orge r
iioned Me . d'a
:.a►�ily which n'de
TeCet*t > e
pee . ►n � o y
.61at
lk t ... ".J
,outs 1
„. ►m ss whc, t!o k nr
ale Will �rQ01 a 9a Sn � ins
; ► ratted on wheels.
d out to the curb on
Will b Toile $ P said. H e es-
pick days: 8 hell about 4%
timated such canes #ail of .,gar-
conventional ca
babe
}
1
Action by C�-r
MEMORANDUM
En r r.,,-►
• City Re c--
ROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: -�
_
Code Amendments - Setbacks to R -1 and R -2 Zone '
August Screening
DATE: Au
g 11, 1982
Re uest
The City Council, on May 6 directed staff to recommend
es of end minimum setbacks for
all types buildings di ngs from R -1, residence district (single dwelling) zones,
that are based on the
height of the building.
Pro bi em
Council felt that the Code allows tall , massive buildings •
to be built too close
to single dwellings. The proximity of Concordia
Arms to the homes to the eas
is an example. Council also wanted to consider increased •
creased screening standards.
Objectives
1. Provide enough space between single dwellings an •
d larger buildings on
adjacent lots to prevent the average homeowner from feelin '
the larger b u i l d i n g , g intimidated da ted by
2. Prevent the larger building from casting a shad •
9 ow on an adjacent home.
3. Avoid being anymore restrictive than necessar
CONCLUSION
To achieve the Council ' s objectives, the fol 1 owi n h •
Zoning Code,
g changes should be made i n the
9
Minimum Setback
Minimum side and rear yard setbacks from farm singl e and •
. � g double-dwelling � ng zone ng
districts should be established for all multiple dwelling, commerci d
i ndustrial structures. an
y feet � s suggested for a multiple dwelling., with
less than seventeen units, and a limited busi
Hess commercial structure. Fifty
feet is suggested for multiple dwellings with more than •
an seventeen un� all
commercial, • other than limited bus i ness commercial, and industrial
Where a residential structure structures.
e is a non - conforming use sing dwelling in
a business zone_ ) these setback requirements g 9
q ements would not apply. Requiring a
restri setback in these i nstances. would constitute an unnecessary
necessary. hardsh� p
for the developer--resulting
i n . 1 arger setbacks than would eventually be required
when the area develops as zoned,
y
Building Mass to Setback
A maximum of 2000 square feet of exterior wall area
ea should be perms tted at the
minimum side or rear yard setback for multiple e dw 1 •
p e 1 � ngs , commerci and industrial al
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.
Building Height 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 resentl requires res 1 ands '
p y q landscaping plans, but
standard requirements for screening do not exist. The commercial office zonin
district is the only district in which landscaping is specifically required to
buffer adjacent residential uses. This requirement, however, is limited to the
"provision of a_ ty 25 foot landscaped area." No mention is made as to the t e of
landscape materials to be provided,
The zoning code should be amended to require a landscaped area of
q p 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.
Recom
Approve the enclosed ordinance proposals to establish screening and minimum setback.
requirements, based upon g •
q p building di ng height and mass, for multiple pl a dwelling,
commercial and industrial structures that would abut F- Farm Residence, R -1
Residence District (Single Dwelling) , and R-2. Residence District 1 e
( Doub Dwelling).
REFERENCE INFORMATION
1. Apartments and town houses with less than seventeen units are limited • � n
height to 36 feet, The minimum setback is fift een feet.
2. Apartments with seventeen units or more h •
ha the same height and setback
requirements, except that for each foot of height inc rease 9 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 limi i n the '
commercial zones, except for
the CO, commercial office zone. The CO district h •
as a height limit of five
stories or fifty feet. The CO district also requires res '
q a minimum setback of
fifty feet or twice the building height, whichever is greater from an
property i s zoned f y
property line where adjacent pro
uses.
p Y or or developed to residential
4. The M -1, light manufacturing district and the
M -2, heavy manufacturing district
have no height or setback limits. The M -1 distri
ct, however, requires approval
by the city council to build within 200 feet of a
res i dents al distri The
M -2 district requires council approval to build wit hin
thin 250 feet of a res den-
ti al district.
Concordia Arms
Concordia Arms is 56 feet at its closest of nt to the -
p e east property line, ne . It is
32 feet i n height and 254 feet in length along the east elevation
Building Official and Public Safet
y
1. Special building and fire requirements must be
met for any structure to .exceed
three stories. Buildings that would exceed 36 feet i •
n height should require
approval by special use permit.
2. A minimum of twenty feet of side and rear and •
� Y setback should be required for
all multiple resid and commercial structures when adjacent
structures, to residential
Survey of Metropolitan Area Communities
Of twenty -six metropolitan area cities surveyed, sixteen xte •
y � en have setback requirements
that are more
restrictive than Maplewood for multiple dwellings. Only two
g Y 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 th resentl stud i possibiiity of establi
• sh -
p Y y ng
ing setback requirements that would be sp
access.
des geed to protect solar
Procedure
Planning Commission Recommendation
City Council: First reading (at least_ three votes)
Second reading and adoption (at least four votes)
-3-
Jw
Enclosures:
1. Survey
2. Proposed Ordinances
a. Minimum Setback
b. Landscaping and
Requirements
Screening Requirements
-4-
Ci ter
1. Apple Valley
2. Blaine
3. 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
ATTACHMENT A
SURVEY OF METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNITIES
BUILDING SETBACK FROM SINGLE DWELLING DISTRICTS
TYPE OF BUILDING
Multiple Commerc
40 feet 40 feet
50 feet 30 feet
25 feet or at 35 feet
least twice the
height
Industrial Uses
60 feet
100 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
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
14.
15,
16.
17.
18.
19.
20,
21.
C_. ty
New Brighton
New Hope
Newport
North St. Paul
Oakdale
Plymouth
Roseville
Shoreview
Height limitations
22. South St. Paul
Height limitations:
23. Vadnai s Heights
24. West St. Paul
Height limitations:
25. White 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/ opaq fence or hedge)
If over 35 feet, set-
backs must be 3/4 the
None
45 feet
height
UBC
35 feet
75 feet
(Screening i
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 buildings shall b
e
limited to the average height of existing residential buildings di '
ngs wi th � n 150 feet of
the commercial building,
I N I M U M SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS
R•38 (17 units or more)
Minimum setback 50 feet
SETBACK BASF. wapi wALL
35� _
d
CJ d O
WALL fUS
'�•�,. A
Call
Z6• ktyp 2
ORO SQ FT
35'
y v
`•...
114'
60
MALL PASS
p p . ---�'' 70 l
� 9W.- SQ FT.
2b
35' ,
` 1111111111 IN 11111 ,
• r
' ''!ALL MASS
0 70M S . FT.
ATTACHMENT 6
S ��K BASED Uf'ION BUIIDINfi HEIGIIT
30
25� 0
l5' [ 0 1 (] 1
D O
10'
13 0 Gl
.26 50
A bu'
IF A CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN THE TWO
REQUIREMENTS, THE MORE RESTRICTIbE
SHALL APPLY.
ORDINANCE NO.
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 nequ4rements: -- The R - 3A - m0 t }p }e dwe4}4ng - s }de yard -spaee
sha be - ne - } ess - than- f4fteen -�}54- feet- fer- ma}t4p }e- dwe}44ng- ants- and -ne
} ess - than- f }ve -�64- feet - any- park4ng- spaee - garage - eanpert - sw}mm4ng
pee } -en- }eke- stnaeta�e:
-Rear- yard- nequ4rements: -- The -rear- and- yard-sh } -be-me-
. y a } be ne-
. }ess-tha n
th4rty -394- feet -fe n- ma}t4p }e- ewe}}}ng -am ts- an d - }ess - than -f}ve -464-
feet- fer- a- pank}ng -spaee T - garage; eanpent -sw } mm}ng- pee}- en - }4ke- struetere.
1. The minimum side and rear and setback re ui rements for an R -3A multiple
dwelling, shall be twenty feet.
2. Parking spaces , ara es , carports, or l i k e structures shall be set back
no less than five feet from a side or rear property l i n e and no less
than fifteen feet from a ubl i c street ri ht -of - .
(g) Setbacks increased. The minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks for
an R - 3A multiple dwell in 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, Single Dwellin or Double Dwelling zoni n
district:
a. Buildin He i ht: 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 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 square feet.
Section 2. Section 36 -122 (Multiple dwellings in excess of seventeen-units--
R -3B units) is hereby amended to read as follows:
(f ) Front . and -s }de yard requi rements . The mi ni mum front and -s}de yard
rega +rements 9ha}} -be- the- samie -as- these- set - Perth- fer- R- 3a= mu }t }p }e
dwe� } }ngs - }p suet }en- 36- } }g4e�� of - th }s env }s38�; -e�cee t- that - -Per
eaeh feet ef he}ght- 4nenease- abeve -th4 my -94x -� 36�- feet - these - setbaeks
sha}} be 4 mereased -by -ere- feet- te- a- max}maifl- of -ere- hundred - 4}993 - feet
ftoent- yard - setback- and- a- max4Rium -ef- seventy - 4 Ye 476- feet -s }de- ya rd- setbaek
re9and 4ess ef - he *ght. setback for an R- 3B 'mul ti 1 e dwelling shall be thi rt
feet. This minimum setback shall be increased according to the prov.1sions
of Section 36-119T This setback not be re ui red to be reater than
75 feet.
(g) Side ' and rear yard requirements. The - rear - yard setbaek shal4 -be -ne
l ess- than th4rty- X384-€ eet-€ er- Foaltlgle- dwell4nq- un}ts- aAd -ne. less - than
€} ve- X54- f eet- €e r a- parkl spaee;- garage;- eafpert swlfm'ln - eel- er - l4ke
s
1 . The minimum side and rear yard setbacks for an R -3B multiple dwellin
shall be twenty feet, unless the lot abuts a Farm Residence, Residential
Estate, Sin l e -Dwell i n or Double-Dwelling zo district, in such case,
the minimum setback shal be increased according to the provisions of
Section 36-119(
2. -. Regardless of building hei ht or external wall area, the side and rear
and setbacks shall not be re ui red to be greater than 75 feet.
3. As provided in Section 36-119(f) (2).
(h) Height regulation. No R -3B multiple dwelling shall be erected or
structurally altered to exceed a height of €eer -k44 three stories, or
€erty - € }de -454 35 feet, whichever is greater, measured from ' the front or
street side of such building, unless granted a special use ermit b the
City y
y Council.
Section 3. Section 36 -124 (Townhouses-R-3C)is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(6) Sidi yard requirements,
a: Slfllar te seet4en- 36- 119E €:4 - a €- th4s- elY }s }en;- e'xeept- that -these
shall -ref er - te - the - tetal- s} te- eevelepRient- rege4remieets -eaeh
dwelllnq -unit- shall - have- a- re,gwlree - €lre rated- p ar.t y - wall:
a. As as lied to the total development site, the side yard 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: -- S }�llar te seet�en - 36 - 119 - a € thls- dl�r�s�en-
a . As app j to the tota devel site, the rear a rd s h a l l 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 resi denti al l zoned property: The A building shall be- set -baek.
- €eet have minimum side and rear yard setbacks of
fifty Jifty feet and a minimum front yard setback of thirt feet. a -twlee -the
bu}ldleg- height- wh}eheyer - }s- greater- €rem -an re ert - 4}ne - where - 'aeent
. y � p y �
preperty- 4s- zoned - €er -e r- leveleped- te- res4dent}a4-- uses--- A- 25- €eet - w}de -
lapdseape - area - shall -be - prev} ded adjaeeet -te- any - resident }al -area
_ 2 _
These minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75 feet
subject to the most restrictive of the following requirements
a. Building height: The buildin setbacks shall be increased two feet
for each one foot the building exceeds 25 feet in height.
b. Exterior wall a rea: Where an ext erior wall faces a residential l -
zoned propert y, the wall setback shall be increased five feet for
ea 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 hereby amended
to add the following new language:
3. 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 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 fee 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.
Section 6. Section 36 -154 (Limited Business Commercial District) is hereby
amended to add the following new language:
1. (All the existing language.)
2. Setback from property zoned residential The buildi shall have minimum
side and rear yard setbacks of twent feet and a minimum front yard setback
th i rty feet,
These minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75 feet,
subject to the most restrictive of the following requirements•
a. Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two feet
for each one foot the bui'ldinq exceeds 25 feet in height
b. Exterior w a l l area: Where an exterior wall faces a res i denti a 11 -
zoned property, the wall setback shall be increased five feet ,for
each 1 000 square feet or Part thereof in excess of 12,000 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
T hese minimum required setbacks shall be increased, not to exceed 75
feet, subject to the most restrictive of the foll 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 w a l l area: Where an exter wall faces a residential l
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 ware
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 an rear yard se ac s o i y Teet and a mini r
yard setback of it y 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' 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 residentialIx-
zoned the wall setback shall be increased five feet for
each 1,000 square feet, or art 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 residential l -zoned oronert : The minimum
side and rear setbacks shat l be fifty feet and the minimum front and
setback shall be thirty feet.
These minimum setbacks shall be increased not to exceed 75
feet, subject 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 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.
-4-
U t
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 9 1982.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
5-
ORDINANCE NO.
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:
36-26- LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
1. A landscaped area of not less than twenty feet in width shall be provided
where:
a. A non - residential use would be within 100 feet of a residentially
zoned property.
b. n mul t i pl e d::el l i n g abuts property coned 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 ence, planting
9 P 9
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 art
P
of the screening fence or planting screen:
a. A screening fence shall be attractive, compatible with the principal
building and surrounding land uses, at least six feet in height, and
provide a minimum opaqueness of eight percent.
b. 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.
c. Berms shall have mowable side slopes. Slopes greater than 2 -1/2
to 1 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 CDRB .
d. 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. 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 visible 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
of , 19820
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
,.2..
Y - 16 - g
F. Code Amendment: Setbacks to Residential Zones
Secretary Olson said the City Counci 1 directed •
staff to recommend minimum
setbacks for all . types of buildings from R -1 zones that are b
ht of the building. � based on the
height i 1 di ng. Also, screening requirements are ro osed.
P P
The Commission indicated some concern with locating •
ro cat�ng parking areas within
five feet of
property lines nes next to residential zones.
Chairman Prew asked if there was anyone r •
on the prop
y present who wished to comment
P P •
Commissioner Barrett moved th Planni •
• nq Comm ssi .r ecommend to the
Li ty Coun 1 app roval of the ordi nn
ace amend to e min
_• st abli
setbac re ba upon buil,din hei h t and mas '
g ss, for mult pl e
dwel li ng _- cQmmerci_ai__ a nd_� ndus tri al st_ruct_ures l tha
- --._ _ ..�...____ tw ould b F, F a rjn
_ Resi dence,_g _,_ R est deuce st
Di I c t__j s n 1 e Dwel l i n _ _
-Residence _ District __j D bl D wel 1 ng as outl ined i n
)_ S taf f s r e o dated
Au u s_t 11, 19 82 . -- - --- -
Commissioner Whitcomb seconded
The Commission discussed what type of conditions would
warrant
approval of a variance from this section of the code.
Vot i ng : Ayes--Commissioners one rs Barrett, Howard Kish •
• , el , Prew, S1 etten, W hitcomb
tcomb
Nays--Commissioners Fischer and Hey, ny.
The Commission questioned if the Community Design n Revi w
reviewed the 9 e board had
proposed ordinance,
Secretary Olson said they would be reviewing it,
Commi ssioner Whitcomb moved the Planning o
Commission recommend
t. Council . -- -- -- - - -- - -- - end to the
.City ap proval of the screens n ordi nance as outlined in Staff'
report dated August 11. 1982 .
Commissioner Ki shel seconded A es- -Commi ssi o
. y hers Barrett,
Fischer, He�ny, Howard, Ki shel , Prew, S1 etten, Whitcomb
MEMORANDUM
+J y
T0: Ci Manager �.
• Director of Community Development O `` - '-e -�-
FROM y
SUBJECT: Electrical Fee Increase Re ' ect ed-,.- _
DATE: October 29, 1982 Dat e,.,--,,,
Request
An increase in the fees for electric permits
Comments
d fee schedule has been 1. The enclose approved by most of the other cities
on the enclosed letter.
2. The p resent fee schedule went into effect on January 1, 1981.
3. Mr. Petter receives 80% of the fee, except for the State surtax.
The City receives the remainder.
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed fee schedule to be effective January 1, 1983.
i c
enclosure:
Letter and fee schedule from Gunnar Pettersen
METROPOLITAN INSPECTION SERVICE INC.
0 2490 WOODBRIDGE STREET
ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 55113
(612) 484 -5633
July 14, 1982
Mr. Geoffrey Olson
Director Of Community Developement
City Of Maplewood
1380 Frost Ave,
_ Maplewood, Mn 55109
Dear Mr. Olson:
Due to an ever increasing cost of providing electrical
inspection, I am hereby requesting that the fees for
electrical permits be increased to that of the enclosed
fee schedule. My last request for a fee increase was two
years ago.
We provide electrical inspection for the following municipalities .
Arden Hills
Gem Lake
Little Canada
Maplewood
North Oaks_
North St. Paul
Roseville
Shoreview
Town Of White Bear
White Bear Lake
This same request is being made in all of the above men-
tioned municipalities. I would like to have the new fees
go into effect on January 1,1983. It is my intention to
have these rates in effect until January 1,1985,
Sincerely,
Gunnar Pettersen
Electrical Inspector
GP /cm
PROP OSED F EE SCHEDULE FOR ELEC TR I CAL PERMIT:,
(a) Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an install-
ation, replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspect-
i on only...... ... to 000 000 so 0000 . . . . . so 00 .. *a* . 00 .. go .: . . . • . . . . $iVO8 11000(
(b) Services, changes of service, temporary services,
additions, alterations, or repairs on either primary or- secondary
services shall be computed separately:
0 to 100 ampere Capacity. . .................. � 13 T88
101 to and including 200 ampere capacity ...................$16VOG
Fo r each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction
th ereof... . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
(c) Circuit, installations of, additions, alterations or
repairs of each circuit or sub - feeder shall be computed separately,
including circuits fed from sub- feeders and including the e uip-
ment served, except as provided for in items (d) thruogh �3 I(k).
1
$ 1890(
8.0(
0 to and including 30 ampere capacity ..................... $3,-25 $ 4 .0
(maximum number of 0 to 30 ampere circuits to be paid on
is 30 to any one cabinet)
31 to and including 100 ampere capacity ................... 5T88 $ 6.0
For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof .2 T 8 00
(d) Maximum fee on a single family dwelling shall not
exceed $5QvQQ $60.00 if not over 200 ampere capacity. This
includes service, feeders, circuits, fixtures and equipment.
The maximum fee provides for not more than two rough -in inspect-
ions and the final inspection per dwelling: Additional inspect-
ions at the re- inspection rate.
(e) Maximum fee on an apartment building shall not exceed
$25Y88 0.00 per dwelling unit for the first 20 units and
$28T88 L25sOO per dwelling unit for the balance of the units.
A two-unit dwelling, (duplex) maximum fee per unit as per sing.
le family dwelling.
(f) The maximum number of 0 to 30 ampere circuits to be
paid on any one Athletic Field lighting standard is ten.
(g) In addition to the above fees:
(1) A charge of $1.00 will be made for each street lighting
standard.
(2) A charge of $2.00 will be made for each traffic signal
standard. Circuits originating within the standard will not be
used when computing fees.
(h) In addition to the above fees, all transformers and
generators for light, heat and power shall be computed separately
at $4vQQ $5.00 per unit plus 20¢ ¢ per KVA up to and including
100 KVA. 101 KVA and over at 15$ per KVA. The maximum fee for
any transformer or generator in this category is $40,rQO $
(i) In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs
and outline lighting shall be computed at $3TQ@ $4900 for the
first 500 VA or fraction thereof per unit, plus 3A0 40¢ for each
additional 100 VA or fraction tereof.
) In addition to the above fees (unless included in the
maximum mai fee filed by the initial installers) remote controll,
signal circuits and circuits of less than 50 volts shall be
computed at $3.00 per each ten openings or devices of each
system plus $1.00 for each additional ten or fraction thereof.
(k) In addition to the above fees, the inspection fee for
each separate inspection of a swimming pool shall be computed
at $15-00,Reinforcing steel for swimming pools requires a rough -in
inspection.
(1) �k� For the review of plans and inspecifications of proposed
installations, there shall be a minimum fee of $100.00 up to and
including $30,000 of electrical estimate, plus 1/10 of iJ on any
amount in excess of $30,000 to be paid by persons or firms request-
ing the review.
(m) k14 When re- inspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe
conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not sub ect
'
of an appeal pending before any court, a re- inspection fee of �8TAA
$ 1.0-00 may be assessed in writing by the inspector.
(n) km4 For inspections not covered herein, or for requested
,special, or services, the fee shall be $14T@o W800
per man hour, including travel time, plus 160 20¢ per mile traveled
plus the reasonable cost of equipment or material consumed.
This section is also applicable to inspection of emty conduits
and such jobs as determined by the city.
(o) �n� For inspection of transient projects including but not
limited to carnivals and circuses the inspection fees shall be
computed as follows:
Power supply units according to item (b) of the fee schedule. A
like fee will be required on power supply units at each engagement
during the season, except that a fee of $i4roo $17eO.O per hour will
be charged for additional time spent by the inspector, if the power
supply is no ready for inspectionas required by law.
Rides, Devices or Concessions Shall be inspected at their first
appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $9TQG 10000
per unit.
R .)
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT:
DATE:
Request
City Manager
Director of Community Development
Time Extension
Geranium Avenue
Ken Gerva i s
Part of Maple Greens 3rd Addition
November 2, 1982
t
Action by
Endo, rs e d_._.__..__ _
Re J ec t e d__.
Date
The applicant is requesting approval of a time extension for outlots A and
B of Maple Greens 3rd Addition. (See enclosed letter.
Past Actions
7- 20 -78: Council approved a preliminary plat for MaDI e -
into Greens 3rd Addition.
Outlots A
and B were divided into lots.
5- 15 -80: Council approved the final 1 at. In order
er la P to phase the plat, the
developer p part of the plat as lots and the balance as outl
ots A and
B.
Pl anning Considerations
Section 30 -5(e) of the City Code sta tes that "For one ear f '
royal and f Y following ng prel �m� nary
approval or two (2) years following owi ng final approval unl t h e '
ag ree otherwise, � e subd� v� der
and the city Y g erwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official
control shall apply to or affect the use, devel density,
out. or d tY� lot size,
lot la
Y de dicatio n on or pl requi red or permitted b the a pproved
appli cation, Thereafter pursuant '� - Y p ' p uant to f is regul ations, ons , the city may extend
the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject
performance � ct to al l applicable
P conditions ons and requi rements�, or i t may u
re i re submi of
'� q anew
appli cation, unless subs
tanti al physical activity and investment has occurred
in reasonable reliance on the approved application i cati on -
� PP and the subdivider w�11
suffer s
ubstant�al fi nancial damage as a consequence of a re qu i rement
1i q equ rement to
submit a new ap cats on . I n c onnectio n with a subdivis involving p lanned
and staged -development, the city P
y ma y by r esolu tio n on or agreement grant the
rights referred to herein for such periods of time longer tiger than two - (2 ).years
which it determines to be reasonable and a ro ri ate "
PP P .
Comments
The applicant i in the process of acquiring this •
ear. The q 9 site to and Bevel op� ng � t this
s
y e proposed plat would be to that approved b Council i
_ quads. There have PP Y "
1978 for
Q e been no changed conditions since then to 'ustif
`�equi ri ng a new application, Y
Recommendation
W_
Approval of a one ear time extensio '
Y ns on for pl ou ots A and B of Maple Greens
3rd Addition.
Enclosures:
Location Map
Property Line Map
Letter
c4
8'
� s
II3AH0 AVE. W
OK !-
O •. � } W Q Q
�.r.�� ►tif 3
f } � MCKTAtiA A. E .
Q• ,
MARYUXE AD. •.
G�
IV Y /rVE Q
D
Q '
o }
if
Tro i Court
68 Pr ivate)
212
E . MARYLAND A
I IE - -�-S-Tj
120
69
=) Beovei Ma NoL lA A
d. _Lake -v ° 0-: a
.� O
CASE fib 69 Z F z RVESTER
c AVE. ~ < 0 1
32 i w
212 U D �C EL �A• BRAND AVE
32 T.
TTH ,A� E Z E. 7 TM AVE
m '
T29N ac
BUSH 1 5
b R ZS - 2530 22w R21w
AVE. cr —
W
W < � a
MAMA AVE. � 70> �/
34 34
E. MAROARf
E S T M I a�EE.
r;
L
I
LOCATION MAP
4
N
, � �� ti
40. 003
40 0.1
G o 0,1Z
4
1 I
'IJ
ski
V).
.0•
Ou TLOT A ��
, � �� ti
40. 003
40 0.1
G o 0,1Z
4
1 I
7-51 7 77.1'.0 2 7e7 61'
8
Ou TLOT A ��
5
N .14
-,13
16 0 , °o s goo 27--l-
'1
75
OUrLOT C
2
< -4
40 4
40
17 sp
TV 7f ik 61, ,
# -.1
20
2 3
6
7
V �
� b
tK
10
1
14
1 ti
<r 60
bG
LC
1&0
4►0
18
- 4
, � �� ti
q �� S T. tss y
8
N .14
-,13
Q hj
2
< -4
e° ol
6
V �
� b
tK
05
4
Z) 4
c � . _ 4
c
(
3
Llj
'
L.L
r ID
135
37
9
s
�. - -_ � 05 r g w � /
NO
PROPERTY LINE MAP
4
y
� 4
Design & Development Co. Inc.
2419 No. Margaret St North St Paul, MN 55109 Phone 770 -6138
October 29, 1982
City of Maplewood
Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Castle Design and Development Co., Inc. has been asked. by Washington Service Corporation
to complete the Maplegreens Development.
We are hereby requesting the city council for an extension of time on the
preliminary plat approval for part of Block 2, all of 3, 4 5 and 6 - Maplegreen's
3rd Addition.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
meth D. Gervais/Vice Pres .
tle sign & Dev. Co., Inc.
3 mg/kdj
®r�,x
mum 0
November 1, 1982
Acton by Council:
City of Maplewood, z
Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons Endo ed
I request a place on the agenda of the next city council P j r yf 4-ed—
meeting. I wish to obtain a directive from you to the city clerk
to abate interest that was assessed to property I purchased on
June 11, 1982. At the time I purchased the property, the city informed
me that a special assessment would be assessed in the fall, but
they didn't know exactly when or how much the assessment would be.
On June 16, I obtained a building permit at which time a street
address was assigned to this property by the city. On July 29 a
notice was sent to property owners regarding the assessment, but I
was not sent one. On October 15 the assessment was assessed on the
properties. On October 28, I called the county and city clerk to
check on how much the assessment was going to be and see about paying
it off as I am obtaining a home loan and have to pay off the assessment.
I was informed that the assessment was already assessed and I would
have to pay a years interest in addition to the assessment principal.
Had I been informed of the details of' the assessment I would have paid
it off prior to October 15. Considering the above circumstances, I
feel it appropriate that I only be charged interest from the date the
assessment was assessed until it is paid off, and any additional interest
be abated. Would you please direct the city clerk to do this so that
I can clear this up promptly.
Sincerely,
Dave Zachor
2610 English Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
2100 SILVER LAKE RD.
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55112 636.0200
Action by C olanel :
October 8, 1982
Honorable Mayor and City Council
'City of Maplewood
1380 -Front Avenue
Mapl ewood, MN 55109
Dear Mayor and Council per-sons:
Endorsed --
Modifi ed. -
_ Re j ?t e d
D at e
On September 8, 1980, the Council reviewed and approved the Community Design
Review Board approval for the McDonal d' s restaurant and commercial building
at. the corner of Century Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue. One of the conditions
of the approval was to restrict the exiting from the center onto Century
Avenue to right turns only.
This condition is creating a hardship for us. It may jeopardize our ability
to secure financing for the project. Therefore, we have reviewed our plan
W ► th the Traffic Department at the State District office. Century Avenue
(Minnesota 120) , is a state highway in this area and any new development is
subject to their review. They have granted us a permit which allows us unre-
stricted entering and exiting to and from Century Avenue. The y tell us the
driveway, nearly 300 feet south from Minnehaha, has adequate sight and distance
from both Margaret and Mi nnehaha for proper safety. Additionally, none of the
Maplewood and Oakdale residences and businesses in this area have this restric-
tion,
r=or these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council amend the
September 8. 1980 approval by removing this condition,
Very truly yours,
R.C. Ernst
RCE /paj
cc: Kenneth G. Haider
City Engineer
Ken -We have completed the ponding area which provides the three acre feet of
storage and need the lot split approved so that the deeds can be filed at
the County.
0--.0
4
RECHVEH)
OCT.1 3 1982
CITY Or I4fir D
ENGINEFRING
A
i
R
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Public storks
SUBJECT: Holloway Avenue from Seventh Avenue to McKnight Road
DATE: 11/l/82
Staff has discussed designating Holloway Avenue from Seventh Avenue to
McKnight Road, a County road, with No. St. Paul and Ramsey County. It
was agreed that each agency would benefit from this designation. Ramsey
County would complete a link in its transportation system. The cities would
benefit through reduced construction and maintenance costs.
It is anticipated that when this portion of Holloway Avenue is constructed,
the County would participate significantly in the cost. This is particularly
helpful to Maplewood because there is some doubt about the potential for
cost recovery from adjacent property owners.
It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution supporting the
suggested designation of Holloway Avenue.
mb
°t;.. .
op
t�` fir. ►� { ~ �_ ~ J •2 •�� _ _
RAMSEY COUNTY
Ramsey County
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
167 Courthouse
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
(612) 298 -4127
October 8, 1982
David L. Koti 1 i nek
City Engineer
City of North St. Paul
2526 East Seventh Avenue
North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109
KENNETH E. WELTZIN
Director
and
County Engineer
PHYLLIS F. SPECKER
Administrative Assistant
Holloway Avenue
From Seventh Avenue to McKnight Road
The Public Works engineering staff has reviewed your
request that Holloway Avenue between Seventh Avenue
and McKnight Road be designated a County road and
agrees this segment of Holloway meets the criteria
for County road designation.
Before we can proceed to effect this change, we w i l l
need Council resolutions from the Cities of North
St. Paul and Maplewood. If you could secure these
for us, we will submit them to the County Board with
the recommendation that the County assume jurisdiction
of this segment of Holloway Avenue.
Kenneth E. Wel tzi n, . E.
Director and County Engineer
pfs:bb
Att: Sketch
E
I Vt
l • s
OCT 212
i"i i C) F E W 00D
FNf OFFICE
,. J(/ � suurN .or � � � CSA� � �. � �.
.,.,.• --
. ,. ,,
��' '� l3NR�F AVL' �t
:�,�.
•, �•,� ��
��
,•
\ \. � h
`� Avg' �
�;� � �
.�; � a � W
� � � � �
,� � Sk�[[MtiV � � S�f' /LL v
MAA� q��'
'' • �
�' :� � ��S � 4 a
r �< Sr�t rER .or � Q
� s� ereit o �
PROPOSED COUNTY ROAD � o � �
. �\ v � � ��
' COjvE,�N oL
E � � � a CR I/9
� ,� � \� �r . A E, .... ... , .. � .. .. ... . .
1� ,•
7 � � �
tap � `�'� �� P� tip V V ��®
29 � �
CJ
GS Rcpt Er A ✓E �
------ R /��ty
� � ri n��csr vH A vE ,
cif /CE /�Vr � �
t Q
� � � �
Z
ti �t � ARRiENriFtl R ,� yF
�1 i
inn �
.�..
�,r. �.t ; r � �.�.
�,�, -,
,,.
:.:
. °:4,;��
�< �. w
tit�f'+
r
� �
r; -� -�
� ✓ .r•
o
�Gt��
�''`�'
^�'F
EXISTING► COUNTY ROAD
presently under construction
�V
C�� �
ti
�i ��
N�LLOWAY AVENUE
Existing - and proposed County Road 119
1
d
• Scale 1 "= 1185'
. •
a -�
3.�
.S
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Pu is Works
SUBJECT: Concordia Arms -- Pedestrian Crosswalk
DATE: November 1, 1982
R Cr
The attached letter from the resident council of Concordia Arms requests some
traffic control to facilitate crossing Lydia Avenue. Presently a sidewalk
leads directly across Lydia Avenue and the Plaza 3000 shopping area.
It is recommended the City Council authorize staff to install crosswalk signs
and paint a crosswalk on Lydia Avenue to connect the sidewalks.
Resident Council of Concordia Arms -
2030 East Lydia Apt. 338
Maplewood, MN 55109
October 25, 1982
Ken Haider
City Engineer
City of Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Haider:
We the residents of Concordia Arms Apartments, 2030 East Lydia Avenue, are
petitioning to have a pedestrian lane or signs across Lydia Avenue from our
sidewalk to that of the Plaza 3000 Mall. Some of our residents are quite
slow, and there are lot of speeders that go by here, which presents a
danger to them.
We would greatly appreciate your taking this under co.nsi derati on and grant-
ing this petition.
Sincerely;
Rose M. Meath
Secretary
Resident Council of Concordia Arms
S
; )00
D.
Q'\
tf 1
MEMORANDUM
4
E n do s e ed_.,.. �....._....�
TO: City Manager R .
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Crestview Drive south of Hudson Place Watermai n DL4 Ue
DATE: November 1, 1982
A peti has been received, signed by a number of property owners along
Crestview Drive. It is my opinion that the petition do not have signatures
from the required 35/ of the affected owners. Further, it is doubtful that
a legal petition could be submitted. This is due mainly to a number of corner
lots and the freeway to the north and apparently not a lack of interest on the
part of Crestview Drive residents.
In view of the owners difficulty the City Council may want to consider initiating
this project on their own. The first step would be to order preparatio of
a feasibil study. This could be done by City staff.
• undersigned, do hereby petition the ` -
y P e Counc� 1 of the Ci of Mapl ewood to:
•. INSTALL CITY WATER IN CRESTVIEW DRIVE NORTH
BY BRINGING WATER FROM
STERLING STREET ALONG HUDSON PLACE AND THEN DOWN
CRESTUIEW DRIVE
TO THE CUL-DE-SAC,
SAC,
and that the said improvement be undertaken b y the Village ' Counci l � n
the ccordance with
e Provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chap ter 429 • and that
against benef� tt p � the cost thereof be assessed
a
9 ed property as provided by said Chapter 429
OWNER STRE
ET ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT- DATE
[ certify that I have witnessed the above signatures, and the proposed improvements were
iiscussed with the signers.
/0 '04
( DATE) TITION SPONSOR
36R
AGE
`` r•
7e.7
v
/61
4 C
-; 4 ZA�� --C.— 4
jo
cot",(
�
f �
i /
r
Aeg
7
4L
�'
ly ,7 L -
........
I"
-.
rr
4 o T +►
op
-v
o
[ certify that I have witnessed the above signatures, and the proposed improvements were
iiscussed with the signers.
/0 '04
( DATE) TITION SPONSOR
36R
AO
oc-,� 1 2
ry
s
c"
qr
Lo
v ��J
r
74"
4p o
(3076-714
o-�
00000;: 44;;Pz
_ i
s.
r �
�� i
" gill,
'2-'7J
131
L oop w`.�w... . .... ...r�r•rr... •w r„r. . ' .�:•�.�......1 ww`w..wrrs dlw w I Poll
Is
Crl
' ' r
1 I
` •� y r4 r
AdA
st
CD
Cp
i A
' �• '� � s '' `' �. �' T :rte ,
• •..
ti
N
-- .�
td
kk
Cn
I t ! ; �. , c fib ``����,. ti�� � �i� -. � �p t�� �,�' � `' ..•./
t
t 271
`
V{ •� ....�: 4 �:.. . .. . «. ... T..1�W ^7 P
ER LING �o s7EtR 1 N G ¢� rv,
I =, �lN.3r CN �h ( v ��
A T
o n b Y C o U n
ORDINANCE NO,
En d o -1, S-1
AN ORDINANCE LIMITING
THE CONSECUTIVE TERMS
OF MEMBERS OF ALL BOARDS
AND COMMISSIONS
The Council of the Cit of Maplewood does hereb ordain -as follows:
Section 1. No person, includin present incumbents, shall
serve more than two consecutive terms on an Board or Commis i of
s ion
the Cit of Maplewood. However, upon a one- absence from
service on such Board or Commission, a person ma be appointed and
serve on such Board or Commission as a new appointee. Service upon
a Board or Commission for fift (50%) percent or more of an un-
expired term shall be considered a full term for purposes of this
Ordinance.
Section 2, This Ordinance shall take effect upon passa and
publication.
Passed b the Council of the Cit of
Maplewood this da of
j 1982*
Ma
ATTEST:
Clerk
\ 1
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 boards
and commissions with 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
Comun i ty Design Review Board 6
Housing & Redevelopment Authority 5 5
; J
j.
�IU
Robert J. Orth
District 1
Chairman
` Diane Ahrens
District 4
Anthony A. Danna
District 5
John T. Finley
District 3
Hal Norgard
District 7
Donald E. Salverda
District 2
Warren W. Schaber
District 6
Larry J. Brown
Executive Director
Boa rd of
J?11UMse GO U12 GOMMIsSI*012eps
Suite 316 Court House, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Phone (612) 298 -4145
October 20, 1982
by CO nc
Clerk
55109 -
CL
Mrs. Lucille Aurelius,
City of Maplewood
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnesota
Dear Mrs. Aurelius:
Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 509 as enacted by the State Legislature,.made some
changes in ' the process to be used for appointment of managers to watershed district
boards. Previously, managers have been appointed throu h Ramsey County's open
appointments process in which any citizen residing within the affected watershed
district could submit an application to the County Clerk. The County Board Chairman
then recommended an appointee from those applicants and sent his /her name to the full
Board for appointment.
The new law (pertinent excerpt enclosed) provides that county commissioners must
select watershed district managers from a list of nominees "submitted jointly or
severally," by the municipalities that are wholely or partially in the watershed
district. Such a list must be submitted to the county at least sixty days prior to
the expiration of the term of office of a manager. If no list is submitted, the
County Board will then proceed. to appoint a manager through its open appointments
process.
This letter is to advise you that the term of Christopher P. Drake, presently a
member of the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District Board of Managers, will
expire on February 23, 1983, Mr. Drake is a resident of Little Canada. If the six
affected municipalities (Little Canada Maplewood, North St. Paul, St. Paul, Vadnais
Heights, and White Bear Lake) wish to submit a list of nominees for consideration by
the County Board, your joint or separate lists must be sent to me prior to December
25, 1982. (Mr. Drake's name may be submitted as a nominee for reappointment.) The
County Board is then required to act upon an appointment by January 24, 19830
Please let me know.if you have any questions about this appointment process.
S' rely,
Harry Marshall
Chief Clerk - County Board
cc: C . Drake
R. Lake
M. Timmons
R. Marshall
Commissioner Schaber
Commissioner Norgard
HEM /dw
Enc 1 . '3.s4 ss
Ch. 509 :rya LWsi.A TURR:)t
nomine ' ' eye shall - be selected as representative of the local units of
government affected &A None shall be a public officer of the eounty
state, or federal government;
(5) A map of the proposed district
(6) A request for the - establishment of: the diatrkt as proposed:
The petitioners shall cause to be w ried upon the eoun auditor ' for
auditors of the counties affected by the proposed district, the commissioner,
and the director, a copy of sed tbg nominating petition, and proof of service,
thereof shall be attached to the original petition, to. be filed with the
secretary of the board. . .
Sec. 14. Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 112.87, is amended by adding s
subdivision to read: . "
Subd, 7. The managers of a district wholly within the metronotitan s
shalL number not less than five nor more than nine. They shall be selected
froM a 1' o 'n 'oint or v call tuto and
rule , charter cities and towns having territory within the district. The List
shall Contain at least three nominees for each position t be filled. If the
cities and towns fail„ acco rdance with this subdivision. th
to nominate • in scoo .. ) . ' >:
managers shall selected as selec as pro10ided in subdivision 1.
Sec. 15. Minnesota Statutes' 1980,' Section► 11.42, • S6 bdivlsioir' 8; is
amended to read: 3 ' , 4 . ;'' :; .. :�`- �' i • : ..
da rior to the �iratioa o'tbe Merin, of office 'of
Subd. 8. At test 8Q ys p exp
the first managers mined` by the board; the county commissioners of eacEi
county affected shall meet and proceed' to appoint successors to tie fnst
managers. " - If the mminating petition that initiated the
district. shall-be originated from a majority of the cities within the district
it the district ih, wholly within the metrovolitan a the oeuuty commit
sioners shall appoint the managers from a list of neimne" no-
pe nominated id�ntly or severally by the to wnships and municipalities
within the district.. SaW list shall eoutain at least three nominees - for
each position to be filled. It shall be submitted to the affected county bo"
at least 64 days prior to the expiration of the term of office If suer t..hg list
is not submitted within 60 days prior to the expiration. of the term of office
the county commissioners shall - select the managers from eligible individuals
within the district. Said a county commissioners shall at least 30 days
before the expiration of the term of offine of any managers meet and
appoint the successors. If the district affects more than one county,
distribution of the managers among the counties affected, shall, be as
directed by the board. Ten years after the order of establishment„ upon
petition of the county board of commissioners of any county affected by the
district, the board after public hearing thereon, may redistribute the manao-
gers among the Counties if 'mish redistribution' is in accordance with the
policy and purposes of this chapter. No petition for the redistiz'bution of
managers shall be filed with the hoard , more often than once in ten years.
The term of ogee of each manager, if the number does not exceed three,
shilI be one L for a term of one year, . one for a term of two years, and one foc
Unde� r, i� and sUi It Am are as shown in e+nrolled.att
528
I
i
i
�
CITY OF
M A "I V
LE
P VOOD
i
1380 FROST lkVl -;N t' L' M A 1'I,I�WC )01A MINNESOTA 5 109
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER 770 - 4525 )"R -mxK
October 6, 1982
c� G t� i lJ 1 Y ` 1 v� n -'
Mr. Elmer A. Huset
General Manager -
Board of Water Commissioners
4th Floor - City Hall Annex
St. Paul, MN 55102
Endorsed
Dear Mr. Huset:
I noted an article in yesterday's Dispatch which indicates (1) that the
Board of Water Commissioners are levying a general rate increase and
(2) the added 20% surcharge will be maintained on Maplewood residents.
This type of notice is something which we have objected to in the past.
It is our feeling that the City of Maplewood has been more than patient
in its dealings with the Water Utility. I wrote you several months
prior to the March 30, 1982 expiration of the contract between St. Paul
and Maplewood.
As a result of that letter and subsequent meetings, you indicated that
the Utility would hire an engineering firm in an attempt to justify the
20% surcharge to Maplewood residents.
However, it took you over three months to hire such a firm, and we have
heard nothing since. We can only assume from the most recent article that
the Water Utility has every intention of proceeding as it has in the past
by placing an unfair charge on our residents.
Consequently, unless we hear in an affirmative or an acceptable explanatory
manner from you by October 31, 1982 I will request authorization from the
City Council to take whatever legal action will be required to resolve the
matter to the benefit of Maplewood residents,
3t� erely,
tilt,
Barry E ans
City Hager
cc: City Council
John Banni gan
BRE:Inb
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
.
.. EIMER A. HUSET BOARD 0 Ri dOMMIS
• G eneral Manager N..
£,X; MW
r LE Vt P L ANT
F DE80�
A H C V E''� r1M.
.h 'Gy
ss,s'la anera " :.Mana ;�`:
AN H
S��y/rr; �� •\�.... dot- r`)e�'�,�, jjj .'� : ;;r ,./ <ryrc+Y4�.�r• Dr'�v,�i. ,.
•'+�vfi! *'� ..'n' � w ' r ^Yq 't.."�t:. ^.���! va" i 1`'� 4x'2yifV:��ii'��•.S+cfa i+' :J.
V....�.> :
:.\w.rwot-.. �■p ` �,. P� �)> Sv .. •�;. � '� 4 ) ,S \ (, �..� t .'fl� ',�V \ y.,
• :X � .. . .... .oA 'N!' +' .yam_.. "T- �. ::k.� ..� ; fL .• w i.t. y:.. •.ty� �y ? �� ..
�ti M� ,�.""" T:3d ���ww- R � -. �f° <�py► w� ��' �: 4 't'�'+'' t r 1�� <" -
,. .••.a �' ... �.'�a�i :...,..n -�� ssllll� �'x't'':..w:,:... ':�a•<....w+Y�➢R''� r^:.00-�'k,:�ia '�
October 12, 1982
Mr. Barry R. Evans
City Manager
Maplewood City Hall
1380 Frost Avenue
Maplewood, Minnes 55109
Dear Mr. Evans:
W. J. CIF U W I S S E N
: r .cf Woter D i s t r i b u t i o n
ROGEff Ai MOHROR
r ev l ry` Supt of Wa te r
Supp
:. J"ACOEN
, ar uctton Engineer
Y
PUMPING DISTRIBUTION
This is in reply to your letter of October 6, 1982, regarding contract negotia-
tions between the Board of Water C issioners and the City of Maplewood.
You will recall that on March 19, 1982 Thomas D, Mogren , Assistant General
Manager, and I met with you and Ken Haider in your offices to discuss preliminary
procedures for developing a revised contract for submission to the Board and Maple-
wood City Council f or approval. We decided, at that time, to examine in detail each
of the sections in the contract dated March 30, 1962 and the amendment dated April
15 1976. We arrived at a fairly good meeting of the minds on all ite with the
exception of Section 1 of the amendment pertaining to rates,
Various ways of arriving at some agreement on rates were discussed. It was
decided that we, at the meeting, could not reach agreement on the method but that
it appeared desirable to have a cost- of -- service study to aid in the negotiations
between the Board and the City. I agreed to ask the Board to approve the use of a
consulting engineering firm for such a study and to approve the funding of the study.
I know you are familiar with the steps that are necessary to interview firms,
receive proposals and prepare documents for approval. This was all accomplished and
the Board of Water Commissioners by Resolution 3297 dated July 14, 1982 approved a
contract with the consulting 'engineering f irm of Toltz , King, Duvall, Anderson and
Associates to conduct the study at a cost not to exceed $33,000,00. A copy of the
resolution and a copy of a current status of study report dated October 6,1982, is
enclosed.
The review of the sections of the previous contract and amendment and the arrange-
ments for the cost-of-service study were all on the assumption that the City of Maple
wood desired. a "full service" type contract like in the past rather than considering
a "wholesale" type contract or combination thereof. As I mentioned at the March 19 ,
1982 meeting, I believe you should give strong consideration to negotiating with the
Board for a wholesale type contract. The benefits to both the City of Maplewood and
he Board were explained at that time. The City of Roseville now has such a contract
0 it 0 4TH FLOOR CITY HAIL ANNEX • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
� t .
Mr. Barry R. Evans -
City Manager
Maplewood City Hall -2-- October 12, 1982
and, I am sure, representatives_ of that community would be pleased to provide you
with the point -of -view of one receiving that type of service and related charges.
It is, of course, necessary for the Board to require a relatively long -term
contract for either a "full service "' or 'wholesale" type contract as capital improve
ments provided by the Board to adequately serve would differ in many respects.
Because of the long terns of next contract, it is prudent that all aspects including
rates be carefully examined by all parties and this may take more time than you origi
pally anticipated. Both. the Board and the City of Maplewood need provisions that
assure proper service and fair distribution of costs.
We had discussed the possible need of periodic meetings to keep the staff of
both entities up -to -date on progress of the study and the following negotiations.
Mr. Mogren and I believe such meetings are desirable. Please let me know if arrange-
ments are possible in this regard.
Yours very truly,
Elmer A. Huset
General Manager
EAH /ces
Encl.