Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 03-05 City Council PacketLb AG Mbl ewood colty ound l' C, 5 981 00 P�Jl � h, u Ma r. N y n -crati o B "al A— n u ic p .-A m ull-din M eeti n 8 1 5 Lt.-.. TO`-��:DRDER ALL R AF: APPR .,OF: MlN.VTtb None, .. . . . ..'AGE 0 NDA 0, N S� E T -.AGEND A s ' n e de r t 6 . C a a, f% d -t A e tons L�.. b - h e 0 n d, red to�!:bl S e t e e -h n � ",.., 0 W L d L w e n e. b m h f OrM sit, ed- 6 t ho� ib t e'd 0 fle 0 t T on. n - t L di ' S 1 s c u s S din' para e ese in t) �;' L: se S" & 1 n if .:L d on' on o �ere, �� hat It wi, 1 . n :L r q -n a :an be t th onsent A d em. emov :e Trow.: e �ered'.L r a. Yl Act Pa ta S, as 1 bi 'Ad 61 b h: U s 'S 6:ft i ewr Stud e rm -6as i� I Stud g bt Road Wat a OM p r iI 1 er r a omp&ny L, L r T T E te.. M ra ime x n is-1, S C . 0 #2 F i e E unt ne 5' --h rd n Y%. i 4r a e a 1 Se VL S .. cb h t, v n rAtt Eh me a 'ar nie e d t T a f 7 i, e r 0 bi T V s -C DU f 'd�e �H, EA R. I NG S. O'd iD en . 7 0 0 -n t 4 e . �Keve t e w, rel �'n a, M b 1 a ores 7 3: H : 1, . L ''. L ( 7 � 30 e. n U n t"e%e Vkl A' t n e C S w d' R:' g ,,,u a S 7 4 5 o 'Q F: RI 1SERL E e t p t 0 .4 R: 0 f _ E 0 R� ,17 FN 'T 'N ��. T Ur nArl.t "U" CNE CK* A N O U N T A L 6 U V N I� r R T A 06 L C L A IN A N T U AI It U -31MU74iiiiiiii"04 T PURPOSE - N NN 1111-1 limp -ST A 326.25 HI NN STAT E TR EASURER DEPOSITS- DEPUTY REGIST• fl0548� _ 005 yg2 . � bfl.00 NN REC � PARKS ASSOC FEES, SERVICE State Basketball IN C 11 11111 } , Volle ball Tournament COUNTY D/L FEES PAYABLE CO U 00 5484 40.50 RA MSEY CO CLERK Of DI ST _ 005485 'X 2 0 0 LAND 0 LAKES WRESTLI - FEES , SERVICE AAU Wrestling R e g r • 48 • 0 0 5 X487 15.0 0 NC DON ALD S SUPPLI PROGRAM _._.. 00548 g i, .85 X49 TREA SURER-PER.A . MN STATE TREA S�3R CO PER —. 89 s • . AN# - CONTRIBUTIONS _PERA - - -- ffT 4 9 of 4 r • G • R • r1 • &• s— L i • •� •r -.- ANO-CONTRIBUTIONS• PERA STATE D /�. FEES PAY nr�c"r�p b�. fl0 MINN STATE TR _ - STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE 005493 115.00 MINN STATE TREASURER . . PD S�5= �#E�U�Y R��tST'� _ COMM Alit MISCEL 00549 5, 606996 M E �' R O WASTE CONTROL 005496 118.98 BURGER KING FEES, SERVICE - COOL KIDS CAPENS E�CTR� ~a7����AY -A . � DE P O ST T 5- O E PUT Y �E GIST 005498 68.9* 15 - MINN STATE TREASURER , .� N� FEES , SERVICE 72.80 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINN, 005499 "COOL KIDS CAPERS -E RR E� �N rST R . 0 �3 T3, TO ICMA RETIR = CORP CEFERRED COMP PAYABLE 0 0550 1 t CITY OF MAPLE WOOD CHECK* A M O U N T D 05 50 Z b,5b1. Zz a Z! x_ 9;a ACC0 - • • .. - -- - �IILLCREST MI0 AMERICA UN 00.5507 1 r�+ M ►� CL 95.28 CN AI T 0 SUP AND -FAIR SHAME FEES PAY . .P U R P 0 S,E STATE of GITY' ♦ CTY C REDIT UNION CREDIT UNION DEO FAYABIE uU77U 005504 aft A ar 1i f% r 145.00 49JL *75 4 7 _T9; g7 ROSEMARY KANE WAGE 0£000tI0N5 PAYABLE EAM l 0 lii:L HILICREST MiDAMERICA QED INCOME TAX PAYABLE UU77 wD ------------- - - • • .. - -- - �IILLCREST MI0 AMERICA WAGE OEOUCT IONS PAYABLE 00.5507 lb 2.50 ... ........... .............. 0 508 fl 5 95.28 CN AND -FAIR SHARE FEES PAY T 0 SUP AND -FAIR SHAME FEES PAY . 005510 7.4 N N� N A/R INS CONTINUANCE 005511 270085 • NERAL LIFE INS CO-. COIN CE — _ -� � URTBUT N U 22.00 M1NN STATE TREASURER STATE D/L FEES PAYABLE 005512 0 EPOSI TS- DEPUTY REGIST 005513 i9007925 MINN STATE TREASURER - C -URTY A 70.00 MARY .ETA BLA t�S�CI A/R - PARAMEDIC ------------- 005515 DEPOSITS- DEFUTY REG 005516 .211 53..38 MINN STATE TREASURER . _ X i 125,o 00 JOHN FITZP ATRI�CK TRAVEL t 'TRAINING j --------- - 005518 5 03 i�Eb . �. - MINN ST AT � TREAS- SURTAX SURCHARGE TAX PAYABLE -- 005519 - 44.00 MINN STATE TREASURER TRAVEL t TRAINING 005520 . — fi�TR��hO.__...______ • C: 7A�A ��T --0-0 ;�T�' � CITY OF MAPLEW000 A C C. 0 U N T S P A Y A B L E DATE 03 -Q5- t$j rALIt � CHECK* AMOUNT 'CLAII ANT . P u R P o S E MINN STATE TREASURER DEPOSITS- DEPUTY REGIST. 792025 005522 fl 05 52 - 3 4. N NN S ' 005524 33.00 RAMSEY CTY C ONCILIATION _ A/R -. PARAMEDIC - ,. a 05525 500000 POSTMASTER PREPAID EXPENSE - T= DuE 045525 1$, 2 .80 MINN S T U 137.00 MINN STATE TREASURER STATE O!L FEES . 045527 _ 005526 93 �. POSTMASTER POSTAGE ITUR_ES_S_1fif GSA OCQ AG OR PpsE CY OF HAPLEM � r' L A 1�iE C T. s Qu P M E N T � R P. t MAIN ........................... NESS MACNI�i BUSINESS SMALL JOOLS LL ._ _-- 9270 ANCE NATERI�LS 08 A H�ARp � ARE 5b. CE VEHICLES _ .. RE + MA3 NT. AMERICAN AUTO TRIM C - Z19.00 AMER AVEL } TRAININ NC 09 27 2 TR UTI ONS • I NSURA -------- 40.23 C A V3p L ARNOLD AH B- GO NT R I O 0 09 273 CaNTR.iBU TIO"'t INSURANC= 0�92T4 � A URELIUS — 5 , o o �, u CI L �. NE 8 H INSPEItTIONS INSURANCE CONTRI NOLOMEN .. RICM�I RD BART -- NS�iNSVRAN 10.04 CONTRi 009276 WILLIAM L IAM L BIT TNER 0.0 4 HYDRANT 27 7 1 -�� 01 go 0 09 M A t � -- "i� • 8 � A OFFICE 049 78 . . .................. ' SUPPLIES* BURK su��LtEs MARTS � N SU i�A NCE 00927 ______� -- ------ 11.98 CONTRIBUTIONS' MYLES BVR - G, a 009280 - _--- -- 0 _ -- MAINT� �- N�►NC E MATERI �►* .S i .�3 -a 2-81 C O CAPITOL SUPPLY GE 41.2 pE ES , SERVICE 009282 - - SPR INGS CO COOLER - -__ GHIf'f'ENA _WATER_ C l 3.2 0 0 09 28 3 - -O PUL L ♦ '� N., BLG G+ — 4 .� REP* t A I flfl92 CT RICAL COLL E - E _ GO NST NSURANC ONS� I i21,. ib CONTRIOUTI KENNETH V COLLINS. i0.0 _ . 0092 _ SU PPL I Es r VEHI ------- GOT3'ENS INC VEHICLE 66,944 SUpp�.LES+ 0 0928 8 - --- ---- -- C 0 T T ES IG O U9289 2 7 4 . E 5 �3.�� i� T I O NS s I N Su R A N C p N T R 18 V _— ���� USIGK 009291 --_ - CITY OF MAPL£WOOD A C S 0 N T S P A Y A 8 L E LATE 03 - Q5 - 8l PAGE 5 CHECK* A X 0 U N T C L A I M A N T P U R C 09292 1. 9 -836.0 V I N U AND — EQUIPMENT, OTHER NN D ELMCNT DICTAPHONE CORP ACCTS PAY , MI SC 00 9294 9 b2.7fl DICT REPAIR 009295 5.00 RICHARD C DREGER CONTFIBUTIONSv INSURANC -_ - -- O NTRIBUTI 1114 SQL C9 0 �9 29� 1 OTC - THOMAS EKSTRAND C ONTRIBUTIONS, INSUR ANCE 009297 10.0 a T H G _ _ 009293 5* 00 JAMES £MBERTSCN CONTRIBUTIONS, INSURANCE R VA-N ANT RI UTI O S 9 1 0 09300 16.00 DANIEL , F FAUST TRAVEL f TRAINING � = ODN TR -U - IXSIFtK fl 09341 � -- 009302 •:: - G9 - 3fl� 009304 ��+ 3 1 15.5+ 1fl.00 FLAGHOUSE INC FRANKS NURSERY - � J AMES FULLER J -- SU PP LIESs P ROGRAM ._ --- SUPPLIES, PRbGRAN — Go - NT ID N NS - U N CONTRIBUTI INSURANC _ 009305 14.00 HAL.TER N GEISSLE R CONTRIBUTIONS, INSU RANC -,�- -- O 91 GENET EC 033 a b!+ • . 009307 � � 290.Oa GEO CAS. ENG C ORP OUTSIDE ENGINEE F E -- - +` Proj# 80 -14 009308 �o.�a D AV ID GERMAIN CONTRIBUTIONS, INSURAN - P-A�RN 60 BE - -- - St.�v MEN 009 310 4 GOPH OIL CO SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT 009311 57.00 OUANE GRACE FEES, SERVICE. JAN. INSPECTION G pq T oft.- Qu N Z - N _ _ �9�� • L b fft - N .JANET ORr.W TRAVEL # TRAINING 0 0931 3 14.49 _ - ;ITY OF MAPLEWOOD CHECK* A M H U N T 93i 4 257.05 Q0 '00931 l0 . •. A n A C C D u N T S P A Y A d L t C L p I M A N T __ G OSS INOUS R1 A THOMAS L HAGEN RnLAND HE1.EY PURP0S -.E UN ARMS f ANfl ,wFEES, SERVICE RUG LE ANING A NCE cflNTRIBt1TI4NSsINSU R CONTRIBUTI CO NT RI . 009310 - - -- -FE ES , SERVICE - MARTIN PSYC NOS GST POLICE OF 1 T 5.0 a MO BE RT EV 0 09 317 TEXTRUN SU PP LI ES, - EOy�rp MEN T �' ITE DIV OF 0.34 N o tL L 0093 SUPFLIES,9 VEHIC K KEY SERVIC , --- , B1 1 Q09319 6 2. T £� H O M I E S 'LOG ________- �ASU P P. SUPPLIES E �4DI'�lENT --------------- 63.00 320 N AND R MFG CO - - 009 _ BOOKS ............. ....................... I-- 40.80 INTO. C O NP OF BLDG OFF ICI + 009321 UP L 7 E�s .0 # J 14 � flP�tYS # PO 322 BUTLONS, INSU RA�10E 009 CONTRI 0 0 323 10.00 MICHAEL A� R KA N E C0 t�� �tI 9 BUTI ONS, I NSt! RA NCE _ KLAUSI NG HENRY l 0.33 _ N N 1109 87.99 KNOX LUMBE - " P 00 r ,ADDER TO WERS I NC 1 9 0 9 2 . 0 0 _ --- -- 6--- -- fl LAKE SANITATION 009327 159.5 . 0 � RICHARD J �- AN 932 32 � � 00. SUPPLIES9 PROGRAM -- NTI3i T O� 009329 DUPLICATING COSH'S LESLIE PAP 9330 ib3.50 - BUT IONS INSU RA 00 .• CO CO�tTRI VIVIAN LENIS - - 9331 i0. UO t�FfAZ�T._s �fG 00 v D - E �i ........... ........... 0 "53s� MAI NTENANCE MA MA I 0 09 333 ? 1.9 4 LUGER CUMBER — _- - JOHN MACD QNA�.D D09 334 .10.00 - CT S PAYA SLE - MI SC AC _ CoN TRIBUTIONS, INSURAN S ervic e c;O . ASH -REMOVAL ' TRASH , SERVICE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD C14ECK* A N 0 U N T A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E C L A I M A N T lfl• Dfl MARK MARUSKA CO NTRI BUTIONSf INSU RANG fl fl9 350 DATE 03 -05 - 8i PAGE T P U R P O S E M10 Y nnoX 2145.70 NPLS STAR * -TRI BUNE GO It PU BLIS HIND .. up ./ �— .� SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT 0 344 9 2. fl 0 MN BLU�P2 I NT 4 9 ._� _ --�. --� h�S►TR Arc + Elf E . ASSOC PUOLI n ne ��� 35. flfl MN REC t PARKS _ --- ter.. Div } DEPT ASSOC. SUPPLIESs 347 10_.00 MN STATE FIRE P ROGRAM . Dfl9 . - 1 ziurr�ir.Q9 0 933 flfl933G. 238.31 MAPLE WOOD REVIEW OTHER CONSTRUC . COST SHH N� - -- 40 � CO NTRI BUTI ONS, I NSU RANG PROJECT# 78 -24 ifl, 00 DENNIS MULVANEY CONTRIBUTIONS* I NSURANCE 00 9337 lfl• Dfl MARK MARUSKA CO NTRI BUTIONSf INSU RANG fl fl9 350 10.00 CONTRIBUTIONS, INSURANCE 409 338 iD• Ofl ALANA K MATHEVS wl P�vL�S 9 VE`N2� 93 9 flfl �li��I JOHN J H NUL Y . fl D934fl 86 METRO WASTE CONTROL. COMM RENTAL, SEWER CO NT R I BUT I O NS, I N.SU R A N 32.50 DANIEL. METTLER SU PPLI ES 9 PROGRAM 00934 1 ----- M10 Y nnoX 2145.70 NPLS STAR * -TRI BUNE GO It PU BLIS HIND .. up ./ �— .� SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT 0 344 9 2. fl 0 MN BLU�P2 I NT 4 9 ._� _ --�. --� h�S►TR Arc + Elf E . ASSOC PUOLI n ne ��� 35. flfl MN REC t PARKS _ --- ter.. Div } DEPT ASSOC. SUPPLIESs 347 10_.00 MN STATE FIRE P ROGRAM . Dfl9 . - IZZA L tCA CO NTRI BUTI ONS, I NSU RANG 009349 ifl, 00 DENNIS MULVANEY . _ CO NTRI BUTIONSf INSU RANG fl fl9 350 10.00 - GEORGE MULWEE P�vL�S 9 VE`N2� �li��I - CO NT R I BUT I O NS, I N.SU R A N 0 09 352 10 . a 0 ED NA DE AU ----- CO NT RI BUTIONS, INSURAN flfl9 353'' i0. a0 ROBERT D NELS DN V -- -- �09►35 F� !iYDRANT . AND FEES, SERVICE WATER SERVICE CHARGES ISRTN - - -- � 009356 168. 20 NO�ttHERN SPATES POWER CO UTILITIES ITY OF MAPLEWOOD CHECK* AN.OUN . U T S p A A � L E U AL r. uO .w� - �i • � -- O N Y � C G P U R P O S E C L A I N A' N T -- i 4.0 T N ORT H 4r.z E#tN BELL TEI. C 0 TELEFHONL ---- 009357 10.00 EDWARD REINERT TRAVEL t TRAINING 0093 58 11.40 LAVERNE NUT ES GN ----------- C4NT RIBUTIONS, INSURANCE 009359 359 10.0 0 ROBERT ODEGARD ON , N U RANC - n - 9 r6 fl 5 ' 00 GEOFFREY flLSON " SU PPLIES,9 PROGRAM 0 0 9 3b1 `. 35. 38 PA KO FILN SERVICE VICE REP. f #�AiNT•: 8LO G }GRCS 10936 409 REFRIGERATION INC PALEN ___— - _ - �. � - O NS , I N SU R N I B COR 009 363 _ 10.00 OENNIS PECK CONTRI D UTIpNS, INSURANCE 009 364 i0' G0 M F FELTIER WILLIAM TRAVEL # TRAINING 11.40 JOSEPH PRET'tNER 0Q 93G5 -- - 00 - 9 - 36 - £� 262.50 RAN SEY L I NIC ASSfl' + Rv _ to menu Phyqca Pre em y N" ES, PROD Ra � _.. .,► r` N AR L ES REED PR CO � SUP P L fl 09367 CONTRI BUTT ONS1 10.00 EDWARD REINERT 0 09368 ----- — # N 0 �3b 9 0 9 - — �E O 0.0 4 NT R I OUTI ONSo INSURANCE CD 009 370 10.OD CAROL RIC HIE SUPPLIES, OFFICE 42E *62 S T OFFICE PRODUCTS - EQUIPMENT, OFFICE AND- ----- 0093 DUCTS S } T OFFICE PROD PNENT, ,�OFf OFFICE �. EQ aFFICt -1; AN D w SUPPLIES, - 09372 " 20 ©• 38 009373 1 a.00 A C SCHAOT CONTRIBUTIONS! 'jN tiUKAN%J i 9 j.w • v is - -- - . ' I N�'ERNATI �3NAL 009375 � 1 l9 4 * 95 SCIENTIFIC D NAB �!I S G ACCTS PAYABLE _ ,. J L SNIELY GO emrri F. Salt - - mot .. 00937 0 + %1 &P .a• -w , ---- •22.41 • SNYflE RS DRUG STORES INC 039377 SU PFLI ES CITY OF MAPS, Ei�000 ACCOUN Y A • '. . } ' ' AND -wREP. + MAINT., EQUIP fl093T9 45 iT STS PA N PAY ABLE CHECK A M O U N T C L A I M A N T • DATE 03 -05-81 PAGE P U R P O S E 9 009384 224.03 SYLVANIA LIGHTING SERV REP. + MAI NT. , 8LU G +GRDS -- 8 TIGR:U t�D 9 '�` -9 -� ANC -FEES, SERVICE DATA PROCESSING ES V- 16 � AND SUPPLI£Ss OFFICE AN Q SU PPLI ES , PROG RAM - _ - - - -- CONTRIBUTI INSURANCE 009387 10000 HARRY TEVLIN . _ - SUPPLIES, PROGRAM •lV 147 w - - -- i 009 390 3 5 .9 Y A • '. . } ' ' AND -wREP. + MAINT., EQUIP fl093T9 45 iT STS PA N PU L N N 009380 � 6.40 ST PAUL DISPATCH SU8SCR3PtI0NS +ME�lUERSHIP - - 809381 £5.00 ST PAUL. + SUBURBAN BUS ACCTS PAYABLE - MI SC ----- BUS - GALS .GET -AWAY N N S� + - CL - UTR IfG - 09 3 8RC 009383 444. � SPRING + ALIGNMENT ,.TQ SP#c I REP. + 1MAINTe s VEHICLES — 009384 224.03 SYLVANIA LIGHTING SERV REP. + MAI NT. , 8LU G +GRDS -- 8 TIGR:U t�D 9 '�` -9 -� ANC -FEES, SERVICE DATA PROCESSING ES V- 16 � AND SUPPLI£Ss OFFICE AN Q SU PPLI ES , PROG RAM - _ - - - -- CONTRIBUTI INSURANCE 009387 10000 HARRY TEVLIN . _ - SUPPLIES, PROGRAM •lV 147 w - - -- i 009 390 1, 369.00 TRUCK UTILITIES + MFG CO EQUIPMENT, OTHER -- 009391 553. E4 TRUCK UTILITIES + MFG CO REP. + NAINT., VEHICLES MY9 392— __3.zo, - SUPPITES - g — JANITDRI 009393 009394 24.65 TWIN CITY FILTER SERV IN FE£Ss SERVICE FILTERS i 9E•53 TWIN C TY JANITOR SUPPLY MAINTENANCE MATERIALS -- OD�93g� " CI R ,--- �PPTIESs OFFI-CE- CITY TESTING ACCTS PAYABLE - MI SC 009396 218.50 TWIN C _..� -- SOIL TESTING u r- T ` *I@ qw qw 4w p u R, P 0 S E BECK A � o uNT c�,a��3a►NT 58. 5 UNIFORMS UNLi HI . v , RI flUTi ONS-9 INSU RANGE NO 97 NIT GaN D9 398 . 10.00 �,a��AI�E VIET 4R . SU P PLIESq EQUIPMENT TER VIKING IN CU ST RI AL CEN TER AN n - EQUIP' MENT, CTH ER 9 09399 . 3 375.9 SUPPLIES: OFFICE EQUIPMENT 855.33 G CO VIRTUE PRINTING - PLIES ANO SUS' 09 09 _ SUPPLIES-9 OFFICE � D - Et�UIPMENT 9 OFF IC i,17b• D 0 WAGERS INC AN 109401 i SI f SIGNALS � r T.RUEV ALUE HOWRE �IARN�RS AN0 -SMALL TOOLS 0 00 9402 SU P P L IES, VEHICLE 00940 13.50 MERE R + T ROSE; N INC � I�TI ONS � ZNSVRANCE CCNTRIB . ROBERT WE N GER _..__. N I U B S 4 0 0940 4 — - - ----- E CITY O�I�E SEAR L P RO D j� E OFFI OFFICE SUPPLIES � P' 74 V W HI TE BE AR s i 0 09406 - ---- -- ---- R� NICE CONTRIBUTI p NS, � N Su 009407 BERT WI LLIA MS CN RO BERT OT HER CONS TRUCTION . COSTS ----- 009 408 g'' 00 N INOSUR LAND INC FIRE STATION OIL XEROX CORPORATI 9 4 10 CSC. DD 0'0 JOSEPH A ZAPS' A 009411 411 27. �9 )UPLICATIN —SST _ - - TRAVEL t TRAINING AN O�S_��IL iiaws + F ANp UNIFORMS + GLO?RING IT Y OF M APL E WOOD CHECK A M O U N T A C C O U N 7 S P A Y A 8 STEVEN DIESEL CLA 009427 214.50 - O N LINDA DIXON ANT S A LARI ES+ W AGES- P/T +T EMP DATE p U R p O S E A N 0- CONTRI SUTI ONS 9 INSURANI 0 0 DENNIS BARTHOLOMEW SALARIES +W AGES -P /T +.TEMP. 009412 28. _ _ ♦� 0 w AWwi 9 00941 009415 ____ 009417 009+18 009428 D09421 �0 9 4 z _ nn JOHN BE* HLER n LY • YY 114.00 20.00 2 1.00 80.50 5 32.00 11-2000 AU ME S ALARIES+WAGES -P /T }TEMP. MARY BERT HI _ T NW ELL S ALARIES +WAGES /T ♦TEMP' GREGORY BO L Y SALARIES +WAGES -P /T +TEMP. MICHAEL B OT HW ELL S ALARIES+ — P /T +TEMP• RICHARD BUNKS _ SALARIES +WAGES -P /T }TEMP. LEETHA CARLSON . S ALARIES #WAGES - P/ ' +T '• STEVEN CLARK SALARIES +WAGESwP /T +TEMP. - 0094Z SALARIES }WAGES -P /T + . MF 009424 7 . CHARLENE M OI EBE ...... a " wo A SA L ARI ES# W AGES- P/T +T EMP . �. 80.75 STEVEN DIESEL S ALARIES+WAGES-mP /T+TEMP. 009427 214.50 - O N LINDA DIXON S A LARI ES+ W AGES- P/T +T EMP 009429 .110.25 HORN JA HART SHORN S ALARI ES ;WAGES -P;IT f ;EMP . a09�30 2#1.00 '' UE HN MICHAEL K l ES f WX GES SALaRI ES +WAGES -- P /T +TEMP 009432 Z 4.00 THEODORE LEDMAN --- . ft SALARIES +WAGES -P1T +TES 009433 34.00 .TAMES MAGILI. . RZES+W A - + CITY OF HAPLEW00D A CC 0 U N T S P AV AS L ...E DATE 03 -05 -81 PAGE 12 CHECK* .AMOUi�T C A L I M A N T � P U R P O'S E -. 009435 192.49 WILLIAM MONET TE .. SA L. RI S +WAGES —P/ +T EM SALARIES +W AGES /T +TEMP 009441 120 * 75 AND— ACCTS PAYA - MIS' 009 4 35 . 12,000 J AMES S ULLEW S LAR ES +WAGES — /T +TEMP 10119437 T.40 ROGER S NELSON SALARIES +WAGES -P /T +TEMP. _ 00943 � 33.25 D C NI ELSEN RONAL SALARIES }WAGES —P /T +TEMP . 009439 � 40.00 M C A T HERINE PER IA SALARIES +WAGES — + NP 009440 SALARIES +WAGES —P /T +TEMP 196* 35 ALBERT RASCHKE SALARIES +W AGES /T +TEMP 009441 120 * 75 JEFFERY RASCHKE SALARIES +WAGES —P /T }TEN 009442 21. DD KE NNETH L 09_,S8_E f zF /T +T 009443 54900 THOMAS ROSS SALARIES }WAGES -P /T +TEMP- 009444 15. DENISE RXDEN SALARIES +WAGES —P /T +T EMP 009445 to* 5ly JESSICA R YOEN 000944 �. $ .5 0 TIMOTHY SANDBERG SALARIES +WAGES - wP /T +TEMP 0x944? � 287o 00 BERT SCHWINTEK ROBERT _ SALARIES +WAGES —P /T +TEMP. 944 8 40*750 XERKY 009449 33 JULIE SULLIVAN SALARIES +WAGES —P /T +TEMP 009450, . 13E�.54 MICHAEL J TOENSING SALARIES +WAGES —P /T +TEMP 009451 5i; 75 00 9452 9000 KIRK DUiELLMAN SLARiES +WAt�t��Ylt +� ter �1 REP. + FAINT., VEHICLES 009.453 JUDY WIDMOL1 R E F U N D 009 455 T 00 FRAN RONG STAR R E F U N D 009456 JOHN FITZPATRICK R E F U N D ACC 0 U N T -S PA Y A B L E DATE 03 =05 -81 PAGE �s CITY O� �A�LEMtOO�D . J �� T ���R�osE CHECK* A N 0 U N T C L A I M -p u HINZ - SUB ON 0944 8 4• SK T } 189 113 , 434.05 CHECKS W RITTEN TOTAL O F 238 CHECKS TOTAL 208,582.22 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CHECK REGIS - , PAYROLL DATED 02- •27 - 81 CHECK N04 CLAIMANT ;. 26985 NORMA4 G ANDERSUN 26986 16987 GARY W BAST I ASI JOH=N C GRE AVU . 26988 FRANCES L JUKER 2_6989- 26990 EARL L NELSON BARRY R EVANS 26991 26992 VIVI AN R LEWIS DANIEL F FAUST 26993 26994 ARLINE J HAGEN AL ANA K MATHEYS 26995 26996 JAMES M MAHO DELORES A V I G� 26997 LUCI LLE E AURELI US PHYLLIS C GREEl 26998 26999 BETTY D SELVO., LORRA I'VE S V I ETOR 27000 27001 JE ANN L SCHAD T ALFRED J PELiOQU I t'i 2'7002 27003 JAMES G_KLEIN 27004 27005 TERRANCE C R I _EY CAV.ID L ARN OLD 27006 27007 JOHN H ATCH I SON ANTHONYr G CAHA� 27008 27409 � .I DALE K ,LAUSO KENNETH V COLLINS 27010 GENIIS J GELMOIT RICHARD C DREGER 17011 27012 RAYMOND E FER Ow 27013 27014 NORMAN L GRE "I THOMAS L HAGr:l 27015 21016 KEVIN R HALWE�� STEPHEN; J HE I;17_ 27017 MICHAEL J HEACERT UAAILL R JAQUITH 2 7013 27019 RICHARD J LAN11 - 3 27020 27021 JOHN J MC NULTY JAMES E MEEHA ; I _JR 27022 27023 DANIEL B METTLER RICHARD m MOE SCHTER 21024 27025 RAYMOND J MOIRELLI ROBERT D KIEL S(.1 4 _ 27026 27027 - WILLIAM F PELT .IER RICHARD W SCHALLER 27028 27029 UOwALD W SKALM A GREGORY L STAF:lE 27030 27031 VERi4O4 T STILL DARRELL T STOCKTON 27032 DUANE J W I L L I A M S 27033 27034 JOSEPH A ZAPPA DEBORAH A SASTYR 27035 JAYME L FLAUGHER 27036 27037 JA S D FULLER GEOi(GE W MULWEE 27038 KAREN A N'ELSC 27039 27040 JOY E OMATH JOA'4r-IE M SVE 4DSEy 27041 MICHELE A TUCH 27042 27043 RONALD D BECKER DE�J'���IIS S CUSI�K 27044 CAV I D M GRAF 21045 27046 ROGER W LEE JON A MELANDER 27047 27048 CAROL M 1 4E LSO 1 DALE F RALSKAZC)FF 27049 27050 CAROL L RICHIE MICHAEL P R Y A I 27051 27052 ROBERT F VORWERK JAMS G YOUNGR�_:N 27053 JAME M EMBERTSON 27054 ALFRED C SCHADT 27055 LARRY J CUDE GROSS 275.00 2 75.00 350.00 275.00 275.00 1, 620.44 660.00 1,289.78 756.00 550.22 147.20 439.34 19 204900 709.07 616.OD 507.23 2 54.40 634.67 131.75 123.25 1 fl19. 11 852.00 1,022.67 8 52.X70 1,023.11 1, 187.56 1 852.00 1 45 1, 269.78 852.00 528.44 852. U0 528.44 889.78 1,094.00 836.44 950.24 896.24 836.44 1, 052.85 L,o01.78 1, 374.67 907.30 905.08 836.44 879.8 8 883.11 1, 042.00 481.91 616 .66 515 66 523.11 550.2.7 512.53 536.22 559.10 922.96 1, 187.56 906.3 7 916.59 839.78 930.59 889.78 446.50 839.78 889.78 948.07 780.89 1, 005.33 146.22 DATE 02 -27 - 81 NET 245.46 238.42 247.06 208.45 238.42 909.53 440.07 828.15 318.70 445.29 137.40 279.94 632.11 484.40 .393.42 341.72 205.18 $0,99 116.85 118.11 340.74 602.84 524.29 55.56 135.89 55.53 593.65 306.59 544.69 220oOl '+26.x2 354.95 490.36 359. 95 485.46. 207.35 443.29 612.24 563.56 563.55 672.82 559.48 838.93 48.24 556.41 497.98 5 80.00 455.31 667.06 238.02 398.33 .381.11 333.66 342.21 342o66 383.78 3o I..74 228.78 756.47 425.49 535.78 50.83 569.91 129.46 297.08 415.64 84.02 562.91 524.68 609.80 112.53 . � L r k x j : x r w CITY OF MAPL.EWOOD CHECK REGISTER - PAYROLL DATED 02 -27 -81 DATE 02 -27 -81 CHECK K NO* CLAIMANT GROSS NET p 27056 27057 KATHLEEN M DONERTY WILLIAM L BI TTNER 215.20 1,235.71 170.55 818.63 27058 27059 JAMES G EL I A S - MARY A NEMETZ 824.46 490.22 455.52 318. . 27060 2 706 L DENNIS L PECK JUDITH A WEGWERTH 900.96 224.52 496.41 176096 27062 27063 ROBERT F W I L L I AMSON WALTER M GE I SSLER 770.22 833.78 479.56 520.64 27064 27065 JAMES T GF SS EL E KENNET H G HA I DER 764.44 964.44 5 01916 366.2 3 27066 27067 JAML� N WYMA i WILLIAM C CA SS 651.11 984.44 451.51 4 94 . X32 27068 27069 RONALD L FREBE - RG RONALD J HEL EY 956.39 963.54 585008 58 8.57 27070 27071 MICHAEL K KANF� HENRY F KL.AUS i 3NG 1. 012.26 962.33 465.35 551, 73 2707?. 27073 GERALD w MEYER JOSEPH B PKETTIAER 964.5.E 1, 214.02 489.97 178.54 27074 27075 EDWARD A R E I I`R T GEORGE J RI CHARD 949.23 920* 61 81.60 131 .06 2.7076 21077 HARRY J T E VL I `W J R G I LdER T G LAROCHE 999.96 564.89 669.54 375.89 27078 27079 M PAUL INE AUA'MS LOIS J BRENNE�ti 899.11 612.86 533.69 213.31 27080 27081 BARBARA A KRUMMEL ROBERT D ODEGARD 255.41 1, 2.16.89 140.15 757.10 27082 ROY G WARD 310.89 23x3.47 27083 27084 MYLES R 3URKE DAVID A GERM.A Id 763.20 763920 399.93 478.00 27085 27086 MELV I N J GUS LIDA ROLAND B HEL EY 970.62 763.20 535o78 492.81 ' 27087 27088 MARK A MARUSKA REED E SANTA 707.37 76.3, 20 448.27 417,12 E 27089 27090 GARY P JOHNSON RICHARD S VERB.; ICK 55.80 306.00 54. 67 283.79 27091 { 27092 DARE -1 C WYSOCK i JOH14 SCHMIDT 272.00 154000 233.64 142.88 27093 27094 BARBARA J BRUNELL JANET M GREW 269.86 577.7 8 203.12 3 79.14 27095 27096 JUDITH A _HORS`' FLL CH I ST I N' SOUT TE 2 284.00 577.78 211.29 _39E3.4.3 27097 27098 JUDY M CHLEBECK THOMAS G EKS TR AND 616000 714.08 230.64 4 39.73 2709 21100 RANDALL L JOHNSON NAN CY J MI SKELL 721.34 249.96 �+7O.�U0 186.51 27101 27102 GEOFFREY W OLSON MARJOR I E OSTROM is 195.11 1 J 010.67 669.54 633.33 s 27103 27104 ROBERT J WENGER RI CHARD J BARTHOLOMEW 711.11 777.60 465.76 445.68 27105 { 27106 DAVID B EDSON EDWARD. A NADEAU 930.69 941.94 572.56 611.19 21107 LA�/�RNE S 4UTFSOA 1 07$.30 792.18 449. i5 517. 09 i 27103 - ` 27109 GERALD C OWE N JOH A E MACUOA"A LD 857.38 543.16 27110 DEN 1 I S M MULV ANE Y X328.86 510.66 CHECK NUMBER 26985THRU 27110 94024o57 51#977o53 PAYROLL DATED 02 -27 -81 AQW MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works DATE: February 26, 1981 STTRJECT : ADOLPHUS SANITARY SEWER It is recommended the Council initiate a feasibility study for the replacement of the Adolphus Trunk Line Sanitary Sewers. The capacity of the system is substantially below existing and ultimate flow. The sewer is almost continually surcharged. The inadequancy was indicated in the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan completed in 1972. The 1980 update of the plan shows this problem in the highest priorty category with immediate need for improvement. It is recommended the'firm of Toltz, King, Duvall and Anderson be engaged to complete the study. They have recently completed the update of the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan and are familiar with the problem. by IR e j ct o U.... F.... Date -� ! imp - _ r te- i � �' • aw ARK -^- AV E. .. r LAURIE R D.n .� ° ' �" �• o coocc.. ooavo 44 13 hop cc a IL Va fto ¢ COUNTY RD. e _ cn_ ` •- t i — ! �_ Q EIDRtDG AVE. w . • •• Sandy Lake r - • ftw C SK ILLMAN AVE. d a . �� °C a D • U t1 L •' m t/) t f ..J . , :.:r: c = = SKILL MAN AVE. 1 -�. t7 10 , •- - w I . . 1 _ 3 . Q '` _ C _ Q MOUNT VERNON AVE. ` cc R MOUNT VERNON = O s c ! DOWNS AVE. bVC V L- •r V V r V . r O r a � - W Ric= beet" ` � r BELLWOOD AVE. - - - - AY 6E WOOD E _ •. ^ ^^ •• + • . � w V � G v � •..J V �' v.r r � � v v 1 • ', � 0 v � w t SUMMER AVE. + ' CC= �ccc -�.. •-% _ D .. Dal 0.0 to 0 4w 0 w Z • ¢ * 0 . 4 Sit N t� RIPLEY AVE Ap �- - : - •� 1" � , _ + , � = ► � � J � C -'.• � '� • } � p - ♦- box 60 i V • •r co Lu = 'cn - -V� E��: t fi `''t ' - O �[ L o . 4m + - �5 c O ¢ ° --� KINGSTON O O 0 O O .,,,. + w 0 I O (� ,' AYE. cl _ - a �— ti PR ICE AVE. Wilill v 40b IL dp- � R _ ► � � it .. •� �1 EARPENTEUR AVE. •. - D - _ cc ooc C amp C ' w w • �'RUn�K SEWER SERVICE RREA D EFICIENCIES t � J r t, MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Public Works DATE: February 26, 1981 SUBJECT: `nTATERMAIN , MCKNIGHT ROAD, LARPENTEUR TO MARYLAND — IMPROVEMENT 78-19 It is recommended the Council reinitiate a feasibility study for construction of the above referenced watermain and study of necessary system changes to service the Stillwater, Mary- land area from the Beebe Road booster station. In 1979, the Council ordered construction of watermain on McKnight from Larpenteur south to the railroad right -of -way. It was anticipated that this project could be extended to tie into facilities constructed with the Maryland.Avenue right-of-way. The ordering was subject to Hillcrest Development Corporation entering into a developers agreement for payment of a p ortion of the improvement, which included sanitary sewer. As this was not accomplished, the project terminated under the time limitation of the State statutes. The Stillwater- Maryland Avenue area is the City's most critical water service deficiency. Low static pressure exists and hydrant flows s interru t normal domestic service for many residence. During 1 p peak usage period St. Paul's Stillwater-tank operates dangerously close to empty* . The pumping station at Beebe Road was designed p p p to help eliminate this deficiency. It is also anticipated that Ramsey County will proceed with the McKnight Road upgrading in the near future. It will be necessary to have local facilities improved prior to the street construction. In 1980 temporary improvement bonds were sold to finance this improvement, under the assumption the original project was to be constructed. 1,ct i cn by 0 0=0i Endorsed Y o d, i L Re jected.. Bate - E HOLLOWAY AVE. I TIERNEY AVE. Z En � W W — � Y W LC cr W r Y v � RIPLEY V AVE. L '� I o = Z Q 3 � J Y W _ v F-- LARPENTEUR AVE. N 1. II EXT. 12" W. M. I� IDAHO AVE. w cr O m HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT VEL 0 ° SITE 120 AC RES D m v z ST H. NO. 212 Li a cr D 1— W u o zao' soo' G8 U 0 o " Z o W -w ? o .� \% , S EN to Q Q < Q O NOKOMIS ~ Cr E. MARYLAND AVE : w Q MARYLAND AVE. EXT. 16 w• M. z w STS GE 0 w L.I ........... 3 7 :; 9- BEAVER ac GERA NIUM AvE L AK -� . APPROVED FILE NO. 7807 r LOCATION, MAP DATE DRAWING NO 8/2/79 j r► MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Renewal of Special Use Permit LOCATION: 3M Center near building 216 (see map ) A ction by Council'*' NER:3 APPLICANT /Ow M Company PROJECT: Temporary Trailer - Car Pool Operations Endorse DATE: February 18, 1981 r Re j e c E ..�....�. -- Dat e Request Renewal of a temporary permit to use a mobile home as a temporary office for a car pool operation. Proposal 1. Refer to the enclosed letter 2. The trailer is now in place and in use, 3. The present application is for renewal of a one year permit. 3M eventually pl ans to provide a permanent office s pace to replace the trailer. A _ _ 1. A J • 1. Council approved the origi nal permit on December 21, 1978 and granted a one year time -extension on December 20, 19790 2. Council originally reviewed thi s proposal since it was required by Code that office uses in a M -2 Heavy Manufacturing District may only be permitted by a special use permit. Anal i s There is precedent for this application. City Council has approved a series of -temporary permits for the use of mobile homes as commercial office uses. 'for ..the Maplewood State Bank and Northwestern National Bank. Staff sees no reason to require subsequent yearly reviews of this permit. The trailer is not in public view, so the usual design aspects of a review do not apply. Yearly reviews on matters such as this only seem to take up Staff's Council's and the applicant's time. The City should review this permit after five years if the trailer is still in use. Recommendation Renewal of the temporary permit for 3M Company to continue the use of a mobile home as office space, subject to compliance with all Building Codes. This permit shall be reviewed again by the City in five years, if needed. Enclosed: 1. 3M Center Map 2. Applicant's letter dated 2 -12 -81 r JIL - c AVE c= ,j� - _:_ --•� f t 210 1 T 1 1 2 - - 208 2 219 — —. _ � _ / if It "'� Q — r , ,� , • zz ille 207 3 VL Tel .: - ---� sw 7 _ sti � . 1 .-- -•-- - � . ---- -� I M � r `� : r� � � o 20! 22� C 1 � Z30 IftFORMATPDX • : T 220 f • i t t ..•:;� _'::•. � 3M CENTER '-- .� r.s.�...,,a..,. 4 N Central - Engineering Department/3M PO Box 33331 St. Paul, Minnesota 55133 612/778 5049 February 12, 1981 Mr. Geoffrey Ol Director of Community Development City of Maplewood 1902 East County Road B St. Paul, MN. 55109 RE: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION - TEMPORARY TRAILER - 3M CENTER Dear Mr. Olson: Mr. Tom Ekstrand of your office has requested that 3M apply for an extension of the Special Use Permit for a temporary trailer located adjacent to our fuel dispensing station south of Building No. 216 at 3M Center. The original permit for this structure was granted by the City of Maplewood on December 21, 1978. The structure continues to be used as a shelter for gas attendants and as a reservations and check-in point for 3M pool vehicles. The temporary trailer structure is very important in continuing the successful operation of our Fleet Rental Car, Pool Car and Commute -a -van services. These programs are necessary to help reduce the need for employees to drive their own cars to work and to provide transportation for employee business travel. As you know, energy conservation, improved air quality and reduced congestion are a few of the benefits from these programs. Our long range plans remain, to combine the entire Ground Transportation Department in a permanent location at some future date. At this time no schedule has been set for this project, however, we w i l l keep you fully informed of our progress in this regard. Please contact me if you should need any additional information, Your er truly, � Robert wens, P.E. Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist RDO :mw February 26, 1981 STAFF REPORT To: City Manager Barry Evans -From: Director of Public Safety Richard W. Schaller .Subject: Change Order Review for New Fire Station East County Line #2 Please find attached the memorandum that I have received from Fire Marshal A. C. Schadt regarding Change Order #3 for a new manhole at Fire Station #2 in the amount of $950. This item has been approved by our architect, Peter Racchini, and should be considered for authorization for payment by the City Council. In the case of item #5 on the letter of January 16, 1981, from Maplewood Sewer and Water, Inc., it appears this was not authorized or needed. For your information, review and direction. ti✓ RWS : j ss�., -- �. ---., cc Director of Public Works Fire Marshal Fire File b- Crtior! u' • n 1.. 1 11 • .J s '+.p - � j a Fl r � : 3 L .10 February 25, 1981 MEMORANDUM To: Director of Public Safety R. W. Schaller From: Fire Marshal A. C. Schadt ; {6 �^ Subject: Change Order — New Fire Station h Attached is correspondence and a change order received from the architect, Peter Racchini, relative to the new fire station. Please note our City Engineering Department required four items to be completed before release of final payment (memorandum dated January 5, 1981). In a letter from Maplewood Sewer and Water, Inc., to Rivard Plumbing and Heating, Inc., one of the sub — contractors, they indicate five items with one item completed at a cost of $2,160. This item, number five, according to the architect, was done without approval and was not necessary.' Item number three, and again according to the architect, is not approved or necessary. I - am submitting this to you for review, handling and return to me for dis— tribution as requested. Again,. I call your attention to item number five in the amount of $2,160 ,which they claim has been completed. Please advise after Staff review the direction that will be taken. ACS: j PETER RACCHINI AND ASSOCIATES Architects Getty Building, 716 Third Street WHITE BEAR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55110 DATE � 3 SIGNED ❑ .PLEASE REPLY NO REPLY NECESSARY t' I' `1 CHANGE O WNER o ARCHITECT ORDER CONTRACTOR FIELD AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER PROJECT: Maplewood Fire Station No. 2 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 3 (name, address) Maplewood, Minnesota TO (Contractor) F dor ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 7929 ��� �� �� mil CONTRACT FOR: General Construction 0 L � � CONTRACT DATE: March 11, 1980 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Add a manhole for storm sewer at the bend in the line. Add $950.00 The original Contract Sum was - $ 367 4,950,o 00 • Net change by previous Change Orders $ 4 8. 0 6 • The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . . . . . . . $ 367,998.0.6 - The Contract Sum will be (Increased) by this Change Order. . $ 9 50'9 0 0 • The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . . $ The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) 368 06 g � b s. Y � ) Days. The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is R.et RAcchin.i &Assoc.. ARCH ITEL7 CONTR CTOR OW ER 716 Ord S reet ,..� 1 3RQ T!rn t v • ` Address A dress Address White- ._.B+eA'C Lake- Mi.nn t; 1 1 water . Minnecot Ant zwoorl . Mn.- SS I,C)4 BY BY - DATE DATE .Z DATE AIA 'DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER APRIL 1970 EDITION AIA®• 0 1970 THE ONE PAGE AMFRirAN INCTITI ITF nl: ARFHITrrTS 1785 NFW VnPk' Avg k1w u /ACU1ksf--rf%k1 n r 01mme L. e - -., .� ape +a ar '� ��1� •i[�'� • ` ' ? -- Ida z +t,+ ♦ .•y„i' _ �r _ f., t ••r „S � ..� ' •+ i.. M•• a ♦ � � •`_� �•4 a �- ` +• r F . r t � •r �'' � - • +' i � f � . • '- � '• s � * ' .W.. ,� . •.r• � ` p.. � ` ♦ • 4 . 'L_ �:�� _ T �.. .:•L•� '�'_ r'L.� .!r .'• _ �• • .. � .t./� ^M 1 .•♦-1'. '• •t'r" `'r"' - .. i • l �� f L •n ,• •• • .". ' ` •"�+� - a, - ' • „ ~ .�'i r � .-. a►, . P , - . ! if - {.....•YI tip ' ��"E�,. a�ll�T� !• Y ' - _ r s fM ~ F - •• �_ ;•'•'•. •.alL• s' l� .k "'_.'.+�_►�.. � Ja ti� '. .� •• '-It_ti .' `�- 7p : • •y_ t .._ � : 'i • • _ y .� .r ... 't,!- � `r � • � �• • ti•. � .` - _ �� • _ j nu '�!.~ r -, V �'•, -rP ;:;� _ a aSv_: 3 tr � T � • «�,a k .� -� t.i - ,�►' • _i _�.. }�1�►, =�. :a. A+.-r' �•' �, �.;� !y a ...K.1 ..' • ~ �:1. . ' - ' F, l"• .t ♦ w �a Vita 1► J_ 4, , a, .` M- . . t��r a .y �_' r '1) i -. aft' '� •t �• a • F �j ••,.-_•±; �•� ''i_ ,:' rt. ' , :D - ��•t .:�� - '• r` . .•.• .� A } _ s�• _ •- •.� �, .S Y I a . a .yy •1},�f �.�.w. •' -t "•r: ~ � 14 ar x.�a, - t.-:•v_ `•' . �IF.?+a ' -- a�• .• F - #, _ .. . •+ e. r vX , •'* t + � r r• , a.� ;a - .� v �• - �_ J ♦ ••+, .► • r.; ar ''[« :j - �' - i.a '..'�y�r w i •'....�_ +yJ 'r�'_• �iV.•' i -]�t.. • i."' r ayM1, ►► i . .. • '•�9! 4 !. T � r '. �• L '• �.r. ' ~t '.•� • 1 } - . • L x -. t ♦ '�y' J... - t' - - > _ • E IIC •...`$�!i .i • z "'.� ' 14- 4 _>!. >' a, - ,-�•- "J S •1+� - `•..Sw'•- •. . _ ='fi .i��,. • •,+� �,�;•f,� ._ •,�� «� t ,t - � - . ••'�i .Jr. R :. . .� A ♦ •' .. '� .. '.I i' t v _ •' a r l.. .a - L . • . • + rr,,:` '�► ' .... •}'� . �.�. ' ,-_ .3} M • { - ►� _• • •- r'.,a • • _ •�i. !C � `„••� µ t- .,r, y • r '• .� Y.. .. . - '.2 S .. - » *Zr'� - ` 3 ` ''Fi a - �:••' _ b .'•L.,� .. i `t - y rl.�.• . -Att r+ . ��. Jj ./e% _ , cam •- >r.. _ .. -�R• � •. .{ •1 '�. ..+ �, f .•' L ya :+.'• ;. •: sue;;{ - .•w ►i • b-_ _•• • .� • - M }•, ..a• • +.,. .. ~ - • _ • - _ca+ •• `' - {♦ '�.:. _.•. ♦ir!� P..r+;�is - .'':. .r as•Y -'. yr • �•*- ••t��. •i•,� •�. �i..:,>♦...A.iiy',_.,p• -•I :' •j - 7 t` . - _ - '3 AV ; .. -� .1t► � `` - • � -� . . . - ' • � ,w �• ♦ • • !''6V �.- ... a .s.� .. �. - � • Ii . s 1KEMORAN DUM TO: Fire Marshal _ •: FROM: Assistant City Engineer DATE January. 5, ' 19 81 - � .• _, _ : , , ' _. _ • • . : - „ r � • - • .' - , ' "• .t L•• ... :' � r �rT- �'a►.. •-+�r Thy - . - SUBJECT,, _ NEW FIRE STATION - LONDIN LANE .. -. .., _ - +' - r _ • r' • .. - �.�''}S f Y ; ;'•` Vi i: - _v s�� `• • - i,. a• • ' ► • - ,rte -•� . _ .....�-'a- - - -�� . -- •�,,,.�•��• A few months ago an inspection ection of the new fire• station wa 4 ` 9 p s conducted with the architect present. At that time, I iA • pointed out several items needing re P air•._,.or additional t3 work. A list of these items follows: • 1 • Catch basins should be cleaned and finishing Ex - of the interiors completed. 2• A•manhole must be installed at the bend in rx ` the storm sewer northwest of the parking lo t. . 3 • Coverin g the storm sewer with at least 2 feet f _ of dirt . - � � - to ••' 1 E4 a . Restoration an ' fsne grad�.ng of �h+� area disturbed during. construction _of the ._ sto•rr.� .� �t+i•�, - - I; i • _ . r _••..� t •� : ^� ->t,I+��i!` 11 � ,n.... _ - r ��� i .2.. *� � � ' �" i.� ewer v .:- �t _S +. 4>•+! - iL' .av 'a _ .�.•'� .. - � • ._ ..,5, ..�_ _� • c ys 'r ♦ � - ��r._.� +• h. =. _ -i i+•M•. y . -ti � ti • •� A _ -.. I �- �. ~I. f .y ...•i t- - r ! w •a. ♦ - '� ,lw' + _-+.E '.V i _ ... •,,. ' • ._ I$ ... ..�' r.� .�...• ,.. _ + -. - . .:�. �•. .� � 1 ". ••' 'Q = �: ••'�!_ at � ... *• � -� ► •c E�i+4 •+iv � "� 1y -'_. _' 1 =� .� '•:af' .. . -�.� •*•�• _ -'�. ..a, • '�•. - .•. -* -.' • a: �.. :y!� - rrte� `; i .�'4. t- • '�..J� _ _w �= r.: _•.r ,_ •�:�• _ (} '' Y `' +.a.+ a s ��. - y . - - •r. . r .. u. .. - •�r1 "� .' '. w _.. •,'•1 .�.., �'° -�_'._ .•Z �' .A- . -i c a 1� - ia J � .._ I '�. +- '1 � f"''. ' .�_ - :-.. A6 ems ... •�..• _ _'�� �. �� "•- •`•• ��• -R` �, �' d '�t�'�'��r- •A' •: - - � *s= '.3+•� fi- :" ; # �'+�t�.•'ti' ,-- •+i�Pa""� _ -. r' '�� .'' a f' � ''`�.� t"'.._ _ T f� Todate, none of these items have been corrected. Be fore _ releasing final payment to the contractor or architect, suitable arrangements should be made to complete the above work r: XG H/im All -� F.._ «,�. -sr�•• aS.. `' • �' -• ! '-;•'. #' /' t a a` L - .'.ter .. L t .. �,. •} - •ice _ w•: G +"'<_ .ef• - ►�"• lie •:»�'•� 3 _ .rn. •fi .a•.,Y - iy • ..•'Y .J i.i '....� X f. �'� , l .• - •' :! ,�' ...t 't.,.� .. a, V ` " , f-• ~! ! s ` .•♦•!k f�y�►•+ r r�T' =„' .;tr'' « * '.. _ , .. sL�, r r� * .. •:'id • t ) a - '* A r_ i �•� .r, k •1 i 7 lj 4 r .!•t •�:. ^ t •_�; �,•, ., a..' �• 'fit► `r . • r��.�j, f y. +4+. :1 .r •_ . 't•��i•�� • .•! .•' -. wt. • _ • t - ' r i _ ,!�]j "�. n .r. t • ./ t � t �•. .'tom .. !' .,.+ • _ .• ;,. • �i,,; Se °.•s•*� ,1 �• ' u r •: ~ T •'"' _•t•• i • - � Vr • •v ry ���-, y /�I • r ^ •�„ �` ., , y , � , ,�.`� •' {. r�rt ... h �•�- �,,, +t• . a" j. : H �,` a . _ o� : •• r t = ".�.. •r., :j . • i' • -�' ► 'irtT _ % ; . ' .'�1•,• f:i .. { •r �„•r _ r ,•• •r - �a _'• r~ ` r'_` , •.i• c 'r~ S f . • 'j 1 :. _ •'i: .. -♦: . r y'�a '+ .. • . k' • ••' t - r• 4 .. ,,,. • :3 •mar... .,e. 1 .y t♦ j J ^ a ••. p " '• • r+, , - }' :r �• a + • ' , . , * .� �' •N" d'•r Ay -Y. rs �'��• w�2..w� " ti ��: h� a • 's •` f , iy��v.,tit � �' ��,,�w •��_:• � •.��.•w ^ �•� �+..�� � ..�1�,� y i, t - ,r ''s� . -.��•� •� . w• ..' wAC N� , T•t' y al ]t' r �y � t ♦': y � • ►` .• /+ •� . . t M �' y �,,,�� . � ��., I ` _, 4y. ..•�w a •••� 'f i.. •'• t j �_ i•�• j ~�...• • ' • _ . s y i s •. a . +'�F . T .. Vii., - - .�.yt r.1•� •14 - t •: �c •. ,j 1j 'r , ..,1 A: F' " �` s .+•7. =•�•or fp'/t y s �• 'a ••y.• /� • - � - `�• i t •'1♦�! r {' t • •'.•• • • "►` 7 • :r :. , • 'r + _ $ > � 7• i , • .�•.S/'� ...� --+. "� - � � .tti„ � �` • T++� W" • ! ­ t � •.• .� ��.• � �.. '• ♦ • Y t - +.R„ *_ .}` � we , , ..J � �•., - . - .�. ..'s',.;I�► ..i - �. - �"• ..'`. 1 _ Qf':.•�'.••i.r' ", ` � ' /lFf�! ••• � r - ...� ".�.� 1' � ' r t'. •• - ys 4 .. . +'y i. r' • w • - ~� t F S'1►+•'�- r ... .r1t ..R.y��•�r. '•�. .� !�' • wa t f' , + N e• -� �4, .• 1 •' a ti :�. «_ Y .x • �r.`: r l r"i, r •w+ » �t'� •tii_ • y - ''� ♦' r - +r► " s�.•.Y c• �' �' ` t om ♦ • 1 • �}► .._ . a► - ' a�i {t► ...:� w r - • 1 . -A r w� r A • • r • ;i w .� r •� , �, f • : - . •w i :r '� • r . ,•... `�• 7,, _ rte. +• _ • - 4 • a- •� y��•• •• ..' -'� .. • �'••�..s. � � ' .. t� � = -• . .�' _��� •� y,•• � •� � : . _ T N • �• �r .�•� + � �':r� ••���• � . '•+.•.�. r '.. • ; • w• �.♦. ,, :K- .�, � +Ali ►r 'J+ • •? -, .. Fd" 11111 J6 AIL �" r. =• a'. ^ tom ... ... a �. •' !" •+! ;�.� • " • •�• ti a r : �.. ` ; :r" _ JL _ i ;♦ !•.T _ c�/. ! r a '�- ..!ice. �'i'': `'• _ •.f • • . J + ;^'�`� • - '�� ~• s - �� t• '! - . ' a • >l .`• •`�. _ • . Ph" 778.1199 c 0 . Complete Sewer and Water Installations 1690 ENGLISH STREET `ST. CAUL, MINNESOTA 55109 Jan. 16, 19$1 Rivard Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 2050 White Bear Ave. St Pau1,'Minn 55109 RE: New Maplewood Fire Station: - In answer to the memo of Jan. 5, 19$1: - -l. Will be taken care of as soon as weather permits: 29 Installation of manhole: This can be done for the additional cost of Nine Hundred Fifty Dollars [$950.00] 3. Covering the storm sewer. This can be done for the additional cost of $350900 l _ Restoration and 'fine grading:. Will be done as soon as the -- - - __ _ _. - frost is out this spring We have install an additional 1$0 of 12" R.C.P. for the additional cost of $2,160.00 For which we have not been Paid: Aespec ' -,Pat aleq res. . AVO 04� I BOARD OF HEALTH E Robert J. Orth , Chairman Donald E. Salverda John T. Finley r s Diane Ahrens } Anthony A. Danna Warren W. Schaber Hal Norgard RAMSEY COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES Raymond G. Cink, Director Division of Environmental Health 934 Woodhill Dr. Rm. 118 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 298 -5972 ` February 25, 1981 Barry Evans, Manager City of Maplewood 1380 Frost Avenue . Maplewood, NN 55109 Dear Mr, Evans: Enclosed are two copies of the 1981 contracts for provision of - environmental health services. Please attach the required insurance documents as described in Section IV, Indemnity and Insurance and have the contract signed by the appropriate municipal representatives and return as soon as possible. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at 483 -5845. Si rely, •• Dou las Wood, Merger Division of Environmental Health Dcw /gt J ' Action by Council:, Endor c d d, Rejecte �.,�..�......_._..�. Date CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into by and between the Ramsey County Board of Conmi.ssioners , hereinafter referred to as the "County" and Ci Maplewood , Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the icipa ity WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Municipality wishes to provide Coumnity Health Services under the Commun Health Services Act of 1976; and WHEREAS, funds are available from the Minnesota Department of Health for the provision of Community Health Services; and WHEREAS, the County wishes to support such services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements herein- after set forth, the County and the Municipality agree as fol lows : I . TERM OF AGREE qFM The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1 1981 , throu h December 31,1981 , subject to the cance provisions herein. II. CONDITIONS OF COUNTY SUPPORT A. The County agrees to make payments to the Municipality for the pro- vision of Community Health Services in the area of Environmental Health Services as described in Exhibit A; such Exhibit being incor- portated into and made a part of this Contract. B. The total cash payments to the Municipality shall not exceed � or actual allowable expenditures The County shall provide u�1T payment of this amount to the municipality within 15 days of execution of this agreement. �Oh„yevo t0s mss. III. The Municipality . will provide an annual Environmental Health Services report within thirty (30) days of the end of the contract period, to the County describing the nature and results .and actual costs of services provided. Format of the report is contained in attached B.' IV . INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. municipality will defend, hold harmless and pay on behalf of the County of Ramsey, its officials and employees any demands, claims or suits arising out of the Municipality's premises or P erformance of this contract. No Civil Service status or other rights of employment will be acquired by virtue of the Municipality's sery ices. From any award to the Municipality there will be no deductions for any state income tax or FICA payments, nor for any state income tax, nor for any other known purposes which are associated with an employer7e ployee relationship unless required by law. Payment of federal income tax, FICA payments and state income tax are the responsibility of the Municipality. B. INSURANCE The Municipality does further agree that, in order to protect itself as well as the County under the indemnity provision herein above set forth, it will, at all times during the term of this contract, have and keep in force: (1) Comprehensive general liability insurance policy with the County of Ramsey as additional assureds in the minium amount of $100,000 bodily injury or death of one person, ,000 bodily injury per occurrence, and $100,000 property damage. Coverage pertains to operation of the Municipality. (2) Workers compensation insurance. (3) A professional liability insurance policy with the County of Ramsey and its contracting department named as additional as sured s in the minimum amount of $100,000 bodily injury or death of one person, $300,000 bodily injury per occurrence and $100,000 property damage. A certificate of insurance covering bonding, indemnity, comprehensive general liability, automobile liability and workmen's compensation must be an attachment to this agreement. V. CONDITIONS OF THE PARTIES' OBLIGATIONS A. This agreement may be cancelled by either party at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days' notice, in writing delivered by mail or in person. B. Before the termination date specified in this agreement, the department may evaluate the performance of the Contractor in regard to the terms of this agreement to determine whether such performance merits renewal of this agreement. C. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing, duly signed, and attached to the original of this agreement. D. No claim for services furnished by the Contractor, not specifically provided in the agreement, will be allowed by the County, nor shall the Contractor do any work or furnish any material not covered. Such approval shall be considered to be a modification of the agreement. E. The County may, at its discretion, require financial audits relating to the provision of services under this Contract, and shall after arrange consultation with the Municipality, e for such an audit. g VI.. AGREENM WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPART HM OF HEALTH It shall be the duty and obligation of the City to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Health accepting delegated authority from the State for performing functions of Minnesota Statutes 157, of licensing and inspecting hotels, motels, boarding houses, lodging houses, restaurants, places of refreshment, and resorts located in the City, as well as enforcement of applicable ordinances and /or rules pertaining thereto. A copy of the agreement will be maintained with the. County. Failure to obtain such written agreement shall be grounds for non- renewal or cancellation of this contract. VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Entire agreement: It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this agree- ment supercedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS MEREOF, the County and the Contractor have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. Dated: RAMSEY COUNTY MUNICIPALITY r B y: C6 - 6 - dt - y Executive hector B execfor, u geting an ccounting Approved as to Form Ass y stant County Attorney �APMvEo s> Deli A►Nc Manager i •i s • i J j is EXHIBIT A PROGRAM TITLE Environmental Health Services - Maintenance of Existing Programs ULTIMATE GOAL Eliminate or improve environmental factors and conditions that act or potentially act as an agent (s) to cause or aggravate disease, injury • . or deleteriously affect the general well -being of a person or community. OBJECTIVES 1. Prevent foodborne disease transmission, contamination and decomposi -- _ tion of food during P roduction, processing, distribution, storage, preparation and service. 2. Promote safe and sanitary environments in Motels, =Hotels and boarding { houses to P revent injuries and illnesses associated with such places,. 3: Prevent transmission of acute and chronic disease agents by ensuring q Y ualit drinking water,' plus safe and sanitary disposal of waste - water: - 4. Prevent irritations, illnesses, injuries, deaths associated with environmental conditions r of recreational areas and swimming- pools. 5. Provide basic environmental health services consistent with the characteristics of the geographic area and the population, health through educational seminars, media, b. Promote environmental heal g bulletins, etc. METHODS 1. Provide envl_ronmeAtal health services, consisting of routine inspection, complaint investigation, licensing, plan review and laboratory testing services by qualified full -time or part -time personnel. j 2. Develop, as appropriate, agreements with the Minnesota Department .f op of Health for-delegation of authority to p ermit municipal responsi- bility for certain licensing and inspectional activities. 12/78 h �e a EXHIBIT L PROGRAM ACTIVITY REPORT A PROGRAM NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER. OF _ FACILITIES INITIAL FOLLOW-UP OTHER COMPLAINTS OR SERVICES INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS CONTACTS% RECEIVED Food Establishments ,Restaurants /Schools /Day Care /Similar Where Food Served Retail Grocery /Superette Meat Shops/Department (where cut) Del icatessen ere re aced cut p ±1d .) Warehousing /Distributors Processors Food Vehicles Vending Machines Other (candy only, offsale liquor, ice, soft drinks, etc.) Motel /Hotel /Lodging /Resorts Children's, Camps Swimming Pools (Public/ semi. - public) Beaches (Public ic) (m -Site Water Supply Systems Lodging /Camps /Institutions/ other Single Family /Multiple Dwellings t- I On-Site Sewage Systems - ---- - - - - - - . J.. Contacts include correspondence, telephone calls, stop -ins, etc., not related to follow--up inspections resulting from an initial inspection. EXHIBIT B PROGRAM ACTIVITY REPORT B P R O G R A M COMPLAINTS RECEIVED COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS. & FOLLOW -UP INVESTIGATIONS NON - COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS S4 FOLLOW -UP INVESTIGATIONS Community Sanitation Garbage and Refuse Y EXHIBIT B PROGRAM ACTIVITY REPORT B P R O G R A M COMPLAINTS RECEIVED COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS. & FOLLOW -UP INVESTIGATIONS NON - COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS S4 FOLLOW -UP INVESTIGATIONS Community Sanitation Garbage and Refuse Animal - Rodents .- Insects - 0 Cher Housing Single Family Multiple Dwelling Air Water Noise February 25, 1981 STAFF REPORT To: City Manager Barry Evans From: Director of Public Safety Richard W. Schaller Subject: Budget Transfer Request Proposal It is proposed that the City Council authorize an increase in the revenues and expenditures within the 1981 paramedic budget in the amount of $3,460. Background On December 21, 1978, the City Council authorized an Emergency Medical Technician Training Program and the expenditure of Public Safety Paramedic Training Funds (4390) to provide such training. The Minnesota Health Department has accredited our curriculum and, as such, all training costs incurred by Maplewood are reimbursed with State grant money. With these types of grants, payment is not made to the City until the successful completion of the course by each student is documented. The majority of instruction is done by our paramedic officers along with physicians and nurses from St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center who are paid their respective salary rates through the reimbursement funds. In addition to the above salary expenses, books, handout material, medical equipment and secretarial services are needed during the course. We now have the need to provide a second Basic 81 —Hour EMT Class to our volunteer firefighting personnel who assist within the Paramedic Program. The following is a projected cost summary to provide this training prior to receiving our grant money allocation: Account 4010 150 hours of paramedic instruction time ($15) $2 15 hours of clerical time ($10) 150.00 4020 40 hours of lay instruction time ($10) 400.00 4170 Materials 100.00 4480 National Registry examination fees 350.00 6 hours of physician instruction time ($35) 210.00 $3,460,00 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council authorize an increase in revenues and expenditures within the appropriate Paramedic Wage and Commodity accounts as described above. toe RWS:js cc Finance Director EMS File Budget File Lieutenant Cusick Action by Council End o -, Pe" ecto Date MEMORANDUM • TO City Manager FROM : Finance Director RE Budget Transfer - Cable Communications Commission DATE February 23, 1981 On January 8, 1981 the City Council approved a joi powers agreement which established the Ramsey /Washington Counties Suburban Communications Commission. A budget transfer of $1,000 from the General Fund conti ngency account is now needed to finance Maplewood's portion of the initial costs for this commission. Approval of the above budget transfer is recommended. Acti011 by R �.h W E a L 0 M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: OWNER: PROJECT: City Manager Director of Community Development Preliminary Plat Cope Avenue and Kennard Street (See enclosed map) Rolling Green Properties, Inc. Reuben and Melinda Ristrom Maple Park Shores Action by Council Endor s e d Mo dif i e.—,...�.,_.....�. Eeiec�ud .� SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Rey ues t e Approval of a preliminary plat Proposal 1. The plat would create 20 townhouse lots and an outl ot. A l ot would be pl atted directly under each unit. The balance of the property (outl A) would be owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. 2. 80 parking spaces are proposed - 40 garage spaces and 40 open spaces. .30 Access would be limited to Cope Avenue, Site Description 1. Acreage: Gross 3.7 acres Net: 3.6 acres 2. Existing Land Use: A drainage pond, single fami dwelling, and two garages. 3. Existing easements: a. A 10 foot wide right -of -way easement for Cope Avenue, along the north property l i n e b. A pondi ng easement of approximately 1.7 acres over the westerly portion of the site Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Cope Avenue ...-Easterly: Undeveloped Kennard Street right -of -way Southerly: Undeveloped Lark Avenue right -of -way' Westerly: Germain Street Past Action 8-30-62: Council vacated the eas -west alley. 2- 15 -72: Council ordered a feasibility study for the construction of Kennard Street, between Lark Avenue and Cope Avenue. Council then rezoned the easterly 250 feet of Lot 1 , Block 7. plus the north h a l f of the vacated alley to LBC . 5 -3 -73: The Kennard Street project was found feasible and a heari -Ag was set for June 7. 6- 7-73: Council did not order the project. 11- 14 -74: The Maplewood Municipal Facilities Study, was completed. It recommended that a 21 acre site at Hazelwood and Cope Avenues be the site for a civic center complex, including a city hall and multi purpose recreation center. The Applicant's site was part of the area proposed for the civic center complex. 9- 27 -75: The City acquired the easement for " K- .nuckl ehead Lake". 7- 17 -80: Council chose to no longer consider the Applicant's site as p art of the larger site proposed for a ci vi c * center complex. 7- 31 -80: Council approved a rezoning of the site from: R-1, Single Family Residential; BC, Business Commercial; and LBC, Limited Business Commercial to R -3C, Multiple Dwell i ng- Townhouse, with access limited to Cope Avenue. 10 -2 -80: Council denied a proposed vacation of Kennard Street and Lark Avenue. 10- 28 -80: The Community Design Review Board approved the project, subject to: 1. Approval of design plans does not constitute approval of a building permit 2. Removal of all existing buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit 3. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer 4. The applicant shall provide any easements or ponding dedications as required by the City Engineer 5. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted for Board review 6. There shall be continuous concrete curbing around the parking lot 7. Exterior utility meters shall be screened or placed in inconspicuous locations. Screening shall be subject to Staff approval t 8. If outdoor trash storage is to be utilized, the dum ster shall be kept p p in a masonry enclosure. The location and appearance of which shall be subject to staff approval 9. The site plan shall be adjusted to move 'the southerly 6 -unit building nine feet to the south. This would put the. south curb six felt from the Lark Street right -of -way 10. Owner and applicant agree to the above conditions in writing. IWM DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATIONS Plannin 1. =Land Use Plan Designation: RM, Medium Density Residential. This site is proposed for a park in the Land Use Plan Update. 2. The proposed density is 18.3 persons /net acre. The maximum allowable density is 22 persons /net acre. 3. Zoning: R -3C, Multiple Dwelling - Townhouse 4. The Comprehensive Plan lists the following goals and objectives which are pertinent to this case: (8) (c) Preservation of natural features such as ponds and trees (p. 49) 5. The Village should conserve permanent wetlands, drainageways, impounding basins and peat soil areas in order to (p. 69): a. Carry and accommodate storm water run -off and thus reduce flooding; b. Conserve natural areas and promote ecological study areas; c. Minimize the conversion of sub - marginal land for urban development; d. Provide for a recharge of the ground water supply; e. Provide for the dual use of land in the. Village for recreation and protection. Public Works 1. Sanitary sewer and water are available to the site. 2. Enlargement of the existing pondi ng facility is required to bring it into conformance with the Maplewood Drainage Plan. 3. Easements for all u t i l i t i e s and a dedication of land for the holding pond are needed over outlot A. Other Agencies 10 =The Soil Conservation Service has recommended approval of the plat, .:recommending that the fol 1 owing six conditions be followed: _ a. The storm sewers handl i flows from adjacent properties !�fiould be of adequate size . and in good location to .prevent upstream f 1 ai0di ng . b♦ Proper desi measures should be taken to avoid damage to structures and paged surfaces. by frost action and by shrink swell action. - 3 - c. The increased capacity of the large holding pond should be checked to ensure that it is adequate to compensate for the loss of the smaller pond shown on the Maplewood Drainage Plan. d. The acute angles in the northeast-and southeast corners of .=the holding pond (see positions #1 & #2 on plat map) should be roundeF . This w i l l spread the downs flows that concentrate here over a broader area, reduce the hazard of erosion at this point and ease the job of establishing vegetation. e. The slope at the edge of the pond should be flattened to 5:1 or flatter, begin at 903 elevation. This will provide the pond with a more gradually sloped edge having the following benefits: i) Greater safety for small children. ii) Provide a fringe of emergent vegetation that will help maintain the water quality of the pond and provide good wildlife habitat for ducks & geese and winter cover for pheasants. f. Siltation of the holding pond by erosion during construction should_ be controlled. The following measures w i l l assist accomplishment of control: i) Excavation of the holding pond and construction of the west facing slope should be done first. This slope will then form a dike separating the eastern portion from the rest of the property. The slope should be vegetated immediately. The storm sewer system and filling of the rest of the property may then be done behind the dike. Once the fill is brought to grade, it is important to control erosion on i t before being paved. If paving w i l l not occur within a week or so then the entire area should be mulched with straw at the rate of 3000 -4000 lbs per acre. If protection is needed for as long as two months to twelve months then a temporary seeding should be applied as follows: Early spring to July 1: Ili bu /acre of oats July 1 to October 15: - 1 2 bu /acre of rye October 15 thru winter: use mulch. Traffic areas should be gravelled, 2. The Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed Board has conditionally approved the plat z. and a grading permit. Recommendation Approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the condition that tho final plat shall not be approved until: 3 1, The City Attorney has approved the bylaws and rules of the proposed homeowner's association to assure that all common areas will be maintained. _ 4 - i 2. A signed devel o ers agreement for the construction of utilities through the s i t e p g a and enlargement of the existing pending facility is submitted and approved by the Director of Public Works. 3. An easement over Outl of A shall be dedicated to the City for drAi page and utility purposes on the final plat. k Enclosures 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Plat Map 5 _ {m 1r -00, i a r KOHLMAN U) I[ AVE. H ROAD J J W 61 r r > W' N � N W KOHLMAN w Y H • EDGEHILL RD. AS 1 AV h a DEMO � AVE. � w V _ C JoRO0K AVE 2 O _ m U) ;. �.• AVE. , II tN t. � W i < V' doe { m � 1 } SE XT AV i GERVAIS AV E. , ERVAI AV G 6NDVIEW - - - -- 3 6 I VIKINQ D R. -C ASTL )) SHERREN VE R EN E S m COPE h A COPE AVE. LARK AVE. ~ LA AVE AVE. ►- H > v) :25) w Q TY C � R LAURIE _ ° LAURIE RD x LELAN C] 25 3 c I SAND A T VE. �5 N r Z < jr o JUN TiON AVE . a 0 Y > U RKE AVE. Y 8U KE t - - - J (� t a R = ELORIDG -t AVE. � ►dLiR.EW 00 t-4 V J w PUBLIC WORKS R . AN AELMON T or AVE. < 64 > BLDG. ; _ VE I SKILLMA II N m AVE. NA R1S S► ROS WOOD AVE. RYAK _ RY !• •i pJ � R Q � o FROS T v m AVE h h 7 • � �' �e Ili �+� • � w F NT.ON AVE. < d: _ Q h SU R 4 at it O W W < �c FRISSIE AVE. oc O m 5 • 3 RIPLEY AVE. • Q W Wakefield of � SO PH I A AVE _ �� t 29 m _ Loke 2 Q = H Z V$ SOP AV ` c = Z 3 _ J PRICE z < -j Z P R I E A V �`� > 7 . 3 rl r] r] 65 FIHF ST. PAUL r ITY LOCATION MAP i O a PROPERTY LINE MAP Q N .10 -1 12 - j N %N.J C- S ►k�• I Loi N I v a _ � ,,'r <. ,t- .._ z 1.7 acres• `. :, • `• ;� PROPOSED ° J • A il _ - ! - AT eX1 St1 ng SITE ho ldin i • .7o , • ... - • , easement ., ErVT t7SEPT/97S to „ X99 ,.` & o4 < (40 0 L•A R K AVE 3 ,.3E �-- ...AZ. 57- � � '� - . •�, � fit" � � - F; •r _ PROPERTY LINE MAP Q N — .•....,._ _ .-.— -•.i :� .:l!' .. � •► tom. ,_. � a _ � ,,'r <. ,t- .._ z 1.7 acres• `. :, • `• ;� PROPOSED ° J • A il _ - ! - AT eX1 St1 ng SITE ho ldin i r w pond 1 f r 3 ... - • , easement ., ErVT t7SEPT/97S „ X99 ,.` & o4 L•A R K AVE 3 ,.3E �-- ...AZ. 57- � F; . — �s t • - - °� - s , -' L.AIRIE - ROAD OWO = Vj - •••�� So ;a :•' z ° ^ .L vhf- �7 ♦ Y V 7r. d2? 020 =- `' ' UJ UJ 1 10 9*0 7-1 •3' ` e !► a • • . - r H U ST ` • . 3 . ... '_ s.�- jF ��'` ,���.� '-` '*5 '•o � � , Ap ,- ?5 -• ^S * ac! � • •. aoo •-• - '_� :Sp '�• � ! .t r, . Ilk a. PROPERTY LINE MAP Q N • -r f , .�. .• .. • .n +.• ........ �.. w. r�"."••.•. Iiq '!'n'•+w. +�,••�M�••p••.N�'N►' ' ... f...�•lT.��••r••�.••� �ww. r_•.•... . �.��IM••'�� /k 1.1� • 1 •..w -•. .» r ..• .w. ;. •. � � 1 �. 1 ' . •rw�.....�•w•.ww•�wwr�•ww•rr� .w.r.�lrrwr�wwr w•r.��w�rw���w•M�•••w�r• - r•..•• • •.•a•w•r• •w m•wr••• .. .. ... ..... ... • •..� �Awwlr•f�rw+'►T.••ww w 0 a om� . •1•�r!•wrw�•.�r �• •.w • •.... � •.•••• r• a • � • • • • w • • . •. /� � • • + �t� o ti�111� , ,f ��+ �IJ•/AM�' 01/►A6/M bM•.Ih1N /• �� �. •' . i84141100 f1+� .�I..d o+146&PVr►1 -- I'm 118 60 •. ►•!. A.•1 -;.•. (• •Ib•• • C �w'f+o11 A •b w /1•'• 1 uvu.) �1.•• . a.•11r•w I w•.• Y•••1 o0�1•dNV•16 • /� 1 •■r . « �.r.•. ' «. . ll0d h11 • N ......�.. .. • .... .•.. .. +.� .r.�•..�; .L7�.. •i.......►........ �.'... .r..... L'�S-aLa•ws L, -�•.= �• .... � . .. ..... .•.. rl�.. .. .. � � _ ......r ... . «�� / -. .....w«. � • f • • I •' � 4 � •'�I•�i• 4j# 1gtie A ( • ..,,,•w- .•. . �• 1�• •� I.r• • /.a�lr. 1 So CI 6 Unit IN ow"hi Atli"" ' • o1µ•" 1 •►iN 1 .. �/ • • • • of Otte _ 1 ! �.�• 1 F144� •IL+ 1 l �i 11111J.r�t•tIM�'1 1 I ' ' ' • W t T•aw tttNtt_ o p &, • , / 1 , ' Y'J�• tt / No IN Fog I ' 1 ' •• 1 ♦ • . / ' •• Z �� ^� \, �I � � •♦ ,• • 1 11 , 1 ' • •, � ' � � �� f7Mr #•T �wny.,tr * •1111• '• �. ; • '•I �� • ; i �r Y f l y.' 4 -"t r 4 • . ' 1 1'• • '1 OAN •1 No • � O •�II.11 � r11Ji.1•Tt)A•� d 1 1, � , 1 • A 11.11.1 v .. • 1• • r♦� (no I % woil 01;'!at + N • willo •- • • ...•• '. ••.• •.•�•••• ♦•..••...••06••••1••••• . .. •'•.• .. .► . ..• • • » .•w• ••.irr•r• '• ' - • •�•• • , ' w • • � ,��1�(� �0111Hr � • I t �. r • MITI CLAN � • om ..full '7 1 • l o date •� 11&6»1 • ' •� r IMi (l l• (N1 i . M1A • op ;P . . y N•11 IV •� 1111 less" - ......... � ' 111 ♦•• Mdl•1M tllwAwl// Y•Il• • ' %,#.• Iluw a LIv1/q •N /%• •• � !t/�f _ Lwb/ FI.4»tl LIb11•d 111 .y. 1/. W. Ilo A• 1 U4.1 LIv1o11 A1•bt 1 440 N. 11. • NIYI'rlftlwll IOpFI• 1..1• 1 0n•1 1. 1111•• 1 11• 1 11A •n•1 T•Fin•• I:�eFIN Ml►*!ll n � F A1141ti. to 11.1.1. A Paul. •ul. / 11 ••n•v x••^ v, NlOna1 •11, Ind' /& C•1••1•d F6111oi/ &post/ the ••,•1.11 •11.1 lylny logo-grid ••1.1 1•' • 1 4014 J. ! / 0,••.•s / IlolN n11 1 (low.. 1/ A,•.r r••► Ib IIIA•1'N 6 ►rVRlar4.1 0.11 /11y UI•/n 01.y.•111••. A A. 111 { 111.09.0 • 411118641.1,6 MIU,.vo•Il0 1 •••wr f 11 N11YR1•AI 111011 6 •••&.1.1.0, In1., 6101 IH• 1111'1 , Iw.o1 1.010 JIM M /A1 ` 1• 001 1 I 140161 11111 116•/11 ►y. f1. r r rlrllwrlrl r..•• a M•••.1.1 • 1116 &11.01 1.6. tr.,.l, M•r i11{MI•r1, • 1 AI•u►1•nl• If1tI 1 4 • '• 1.11 •iq's •••h • MIb/ w • / +11•Ib1.t• &1111 II.II! W. Ili � • � 1•N w 1A/ 1 1 R11141w1 a'1A/r1FWay llw/ 10.1 • i a(1/ W�t1111 + ' ► 1111►011h• Yo /1 l.w.•ww••o ( , '0 , �' tor6bl Alibi 91111.111 so. f1• t IM•Il ' �� 1' • 1 • 1.11 /11111 / NN • ' / A.►•r••1114gr 110161. 1r:A1114 1.1 •• •bo. 0►.,/ p, 1••/ ( , ' st0.1.1N 1•I p4••pI1 I f 1 d1•gN 11111 ' • • • / ! NII•IMR1 so 1x111 1/ Into Sold 1 106.41•'1 11* wily / 1 1 1st// stool 1&11 /1• ft• I 1 1/.1/ 1 • !. • 1 it •' s - ;s (. 1 / • . it •.. • LE PAF11( M IMES l 1 1/.�11 1 �1� / NI� , / , F• •,.o• 1 a •vv.d 644 f c i t y •1:« i • lob 1 of w .•«.+ IIAP1•!1 QOA 4 �ylll lip>1 TA �► J ' r 1 � 1 / v '• • •� 1.. 1'M f + 1 1 •1 • 4011 • p • 1 1 • / , ' •/ It lbw•/ L' l ' l .li '•. v •' ' ' 1 1 f 1 1 1 NrINM •O "O _ l I • 1 • 1 � ! • 1 I r 1 ' 4 �• 1 , • r i • ••• • 1 : '. ••� r •' • I"�� • 1 '. , •• • , ��Itl•���I��.�/V�� 1 f.i..•�R 7 w� .• , . , • • • :1, f • 1•' •. • 1• 1 ••. f 1• •. • . 1 •• •.•• / 1 .. .'. •.J• •• �i 1 A a , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LAND 7.A. Notice is hereby given that the Maplewood City Council -will conduct a public hearing on March 5, 1981 at 7:15 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Maplewood Municipal Bui 1 di ng located at 1380 Frost Avenue, Maplewood. The purpose of said hearing is to consider all - publ i c remarks regarding a proposed land subdivision plat proposed by: SUBDIVIDER: Rolling Green Properties, Inc. 14667 Forest Boulevard N. Hugo, Minnesota 55038 DESCRIPTION: South of Cope Avenue, west of Kennard Street NUMBER OF LOTS 20 Townhouse lots ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AND BE HEARD r 3 MEMORANDUM TO: F. SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT /OWNER: PROJECT DATE: City Manager Director of Community Development Street Vacation (Hawthorne Avenue) Century Avenue and Maryland Avenue Samuel S. Cave Caves Century Addition February 11, 1981 Action by Council *j i � . � �... v .- �- ; ..c. r . r e a s*rrtaxaa..r..i>ii6sJai►V r. Request To vacate that portion of Hawthorne Avenue shaded on the enclosed map. .Proposed Land Use 1. See attached map 2. The shaded portions of Hawthorne Avenue on the enclosed map are not planned for use as a street. ^- - ^ --'- - 2 -7 -50: Council approved the preliminary plat and PUD. Unfortunately, when the public hearing notice was published, the street vacation was not included. Planning Considerations State Statutes requires that in order to vacate public right -of -way, it must be found to be in the interest of the public and be preceded by two weeks published notice of the public hearing. Recommendation Approval of the vacation of that portion of Hawthorne Avenue from the west line of the Century East Apartment property to Ferndale Street, except that part shown on the Cave's Century Addition plat for street use and except that 20 foot part planned for a bike trail to the Century East Apartments. Approval is based on the finding that such right -of -way has no public purposes and is in the interest of the City to vacate. �. Enclosed: 1, Location Map 2, Street Vacation Map - 30 Z _ •. T 0 = = ko AVt. Z r r �r 1t D. :. MY at i- • O *� Trailer Court `� 6$ Private) - =: C - _ � � ..... .r 2I2 . F AT IE . KAWIPLA x o . . . . . 0- •;; 31 • ST . 69 B rover MA L A AYE . Q.. O Ir G8 69 _ =A3E • t- z R T •: 212 W •-f �.. LA. ... . L R A N D AYE .r T. 32 � �' _ = -• TT" AVE. z T TM AVE. .� • ,� Tz" ~ AV L t R Z2V 3t 31 = IL - �� ••- -MAM AV Ne 34 ... 3 � i T i y iS fY �7 R, �v I� CA VE 7S CENT uk>y A DDIT/Off PLA-14NED UNIT DEvELoPn�PJT 1 OL A T-vy Fl T I. Ai ----------- AD 4p 10- ------------------- ------------- pt r ------------------------- --- - ------ ----- - - LA • Ld ----------------- A—z- ml ku 7Z Ot � Q ' low AVE. FAS STREET VACATIONS ---------------------- ca t 's =1 of the 1Q a1_ , r� o Hawtho...�'�e Avenue fr t Ve n.. ,�r�, a!q Apartment . roperty ._to Ferndale Stre -ej,, ex that , _. .� s ` , .v`'� D IW^ t s�.owo.�on the �D at for street use and � except th 2 0 foot - par D an ned for V , bi kg ' 1 okk� Centu t Apartments . .�.�. An y- aljs,h. a ,Qr _ n i,n , that su ch riqht-o h as 6o ub1 i c p p_Qs Ad i a f e in Brest pf the ,C i ty to vacate. Commissioner Sherburne seconded Ayes all . a -WO i r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING STREET VACATION Notice is hereby given that the Maplewood City Council at its meeting of March 5, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. i n the Council Chambers of the Maplewood Municipal Building located at 1380 Frost Avenue, Maplewood , will consider and. publicly. hear remarks regarding a proposal to vacate Hawthorne Avenue from the west l i n e of the Century East Apartment property to Ferndale Street, except that part shown on the preliminary plat (Cave's Century Addition) for street use. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AND BE HEARD • 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City 14anager FROM: Di rector of Community Development - SUBJECT: _ :Revised Critical Area Plan DATE: �,:. December .._10,_ 1980 Background The enclosed revisions to the Maplewood Critical Area Plan and Regul ati ons were prepared in response to Metropolitan Council and Environmental Quality Board comments. Please refer to your copy of the Plan and bring it to the January 5, 1981 meeting. A copy p of the regulations is enclosed, Copies of the Plan and proposed revi s i ons w i l l be sent to each affected property owner along with a public hearing notice for the City Counci 1 meeting, Past Actio March 1, 1979: Council gave second reading and final adoption to the Critical Area Plan and Regulations, subject to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) approval, November 21, 1979: Metropolitan Council notification of revisions necessary o bri y g the Plan and regulat into conformance with Regional Policies December 19, 1979: EQB notification of revisions necessary for their approval September 22, 1980: EQB approval of revised Plan and regulations, subject to City Council approval, Staff learned of this approval on November 5, 19800 Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the proposed revisions to the Critical Area Plan and Regulations, Proposed revisions to the Critical Area Plan and Regulations. Development Restrictions Map Cri ti cal Area Regulations as adopted 3 -1 -79 9 .. Acti by Cn Un cil E Drs e I?eSe et e d '. ��te PROPOSED REVISIONS TO MAPLEWOOD'S CRITICAL AREA PLAN I . Amend. S 918 - Critical Area - - Overlay District - of City_ .Cob as follows (-underl i n ng ; i ndi cates °proposed 1 anguage) : J E Definitions (918.050) B1 uffl i ne - a l i n e delineating a top of a sloe with direct drai t the Mississippi River or Fish Creek, connecti n the of nts at which the slope becomes less than 18 ent. More than one hl uffi i ne m be encountered p ro _ ceeding landward from the river Park Dedication Fee - as defined in Section 911,010 of City Code� B. Site Plan Approval Standards (918.110) 1. Change existin Subsections A and B to D and E. Substitute new sub - 9 sections A and B as follows: A. No develo ment shall be permitted on slo es of 18 ercent or greater which are in direct drainage to the Mississippi River Bluffs or Fish Creek. Refer to map on file with the Director of Community Devel o - ment.) B. In areas not in direct drainage to the Mississippi River Bluffs or Fish Creek, no devel o ment shall be allowed on slop gr eater than 40 percent. Refer to map on file with the Director of Communit Development. 2. Revise.'existin 9 subsection C to read: C. No development, whether or not in direct drainage to the Mi ssi ssi i • Fish Creek, shall be. permitted on land having n a River Bluffs or g slop e , before alteration, in excess of 12 percent unless the applicant proves the following conditions are met: (Conditions 1- 7- remain unchanged, delete condition 8.) 3. Change existing letters D through 0 to F through Q. Substitute a new subsection D as follows: D. All new structures and roads shall be laced no closer than 40 feet from a bluffline. Exceptions shall be: 1. Public recreation faci 1 i ti es., scenic overlooks , ubl i c "observation ` -= platforms ' or public trail systems r The co nstruction of above-ground um i n stati o8s for sewer 1 i nes , 2 such stations shall be screened from - view from the river 3. Other development, when the Applicant can conclusively demonstrate that neither construction or final development will negatively impact slopes with a grade of 18 percent or greater. 4. Eliminate existing Subsection P. Subsection C(4) speaks to the same issue.. _a r� - _. _ 59 Change - existing Subsections R.- T to S -- U . Change e i sti ng Subsection U to W. 6. Add a *new Subsection v to read as follows: f V. Development proposed along the Fish Creek-Corridor shall be subject to the of the City's F1 ood Plain Ordinance On Site Sewer Disposal (918.170) Replace Sections A -J with the following statement: The ui del i nes set forth in WPC -40 shall serve as the minimum standards and criteria for the design, location, installation , use, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems Change existing Subsections 918.170 (Maintenance Requirements) ) and.918.180 (Alternative Systems) to Subsections 918.180 and 918.190. C. II. Amend Section 1004.080 of the City Platting Code to include a new subsection (e): (e) Within the legal boundaries of the City' desi nated Critical Area the Ci t Council may require dedication for public � o en space or scenic easement, bl Uff 1 ands which are 18 ercent or greater in sl o e and which are in direct drai naoe to the Missis River Bluffs or Fish Creek. The City Council may release the developer in part or in total from a park dedication fee in lieu of the value of the above dedicated blufflands III. Editorial Revisi - Printed Plan Page 6 - Second paragraph, change 138 acres to 128 acres . Page 16 - a. Replace principle 1 with: b. Replace principle 2 with: - 2. - . No slope in excess of .40 percent should be developed. Page 24 - Change OPEN SPACE REGIONAL to OPEN SPACE - COUNTY 1. No development should be permitted on slopes of 12 to 40 per- cent, unless the Applicant proves that construction and site planning techniques are capable of minimizing alteration of undisturbed _slopes and overcoming restr-ictive site conditions to avoid environmental damage. -2- Page 32 - Replace policy 6 with the following: 6. No. development shall be permitted on slopes 18 percent or greater and in direct drainage to the Mississippi River - Bl uffs or Fish Creek.` r 7. Development. -may be permitted on slopes less than 18= percent which are in direct drainage to the Mississippi River Bluffs or Fish Creek, provided the Applicant can demonstrate that neither construction nor final development will negatively impact sl opes 18 percent or greater. 8. Development may permitted on slopes up to 40 percent which are not in direct drainage to the Mi ssi ppi River Bluffs or Fish Creek provided: a. The Applicant can demonstrate that site planning and construction techniques are capable of minimizing the alteration of un- disturbed slopes and of overcoming restrictive site conditions to avoid environmental damage. b . _ The Applicant can demonstrate that development will, in no manner, negatively affect slopes of 18 percent or greater draining to the Mississippi River or Fish Creek. Page 33 - Add new policy section as follows: . UTILITY CRITICAL AREA CROSSING 1. New uti 1 i ti es crossing the Critical Area River Corridor should be located so as to minimize visual impact on the river corridor. Under- ground placement of all utility facilities shall be given priority, where practical. 2. Minimize rights -of -way in both quantity and dimensional width in the river corridor. 3. Vegetative screening shall be provided at all utility crossings Page 35 - Change the heading Open Space - Regional to Open Space - County Page 36 - Add a new policy "g" as follows: g. If i n , the future, public sewer services are ions i dered to service the area ..south of.:F i s h . Creek , an engineering study will be necessary to determine f e a s i b i l i t y of ex ±ending public sewer. A detailed study i s ..necessary ..due to the soil condition, steep - sl.ope$ ,- and surf i ci al geology. Until such a study is undertaken, a clear direction as to -the . bi l.i ty of public :..sewer in. thus area cannot;=be given. If proven feasible, Council may extend sanitary sewer to this area Also, if larger than 3 acre lots are necessary to support on -site systems, then the three acre minimum lot sizes will be increased. -3- ..age 37 - Capital Improvements Program tCIP} Add the following new language Authorization of a capital .improvement_ within the City's bsignated ..­-.-,.._ . area, i:s not_ .anti c -i pated duri. ng the next five ye&rs. At -the time of Ahi s writing, Maplewood As developing a ci tyw fde CIP ..in conjunction with the requirements-of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. When completed, a copy will be forwarded to the Env' ronmental Quality Board EQB) , if a project I's subsequently authorized. Page 38 - Change the last paragraph in the second column to. read: In addition to administration of all local ordinances in the designated Cri ticai Area, the City sh.al 1 notify th_e ' Enyi ronmental Quality Board (EQB) prior to ado ti on of any amendments or dis- cretionary actions relating to the Cri ti cal - Area Plan or Re u ati ons t Page 39 - Change 1.2(c) to read ". Executive Order No. 130, effective November 23, 1976. Page 39 - Section 2.4. mi'ddl e of second column is out of order. It should follow Section 2.3 at the bottom of the page. _4_ 1 i 1 •1 1 � { ` 1 .I VIP , to Ord- �ry 5p a o� r . .m IPA Jill IN J .P till 111111i I � Cl • C1TY - = NcwPan .\ lip t \ °r a • Cb P 1 111, 4 0 . • -• ., LEGEND 1 t SLOPES 40% OR GREATER, NOT IN DIRECT • DRAINAGE TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLUFFS It OR FISH CREEK I - 1 • SLOPES 18% OR GREATER, IN DIRECT DRAINAGE • TO MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLUFFS OR FISH CREEK (40 FOOT SETBACK APPLIES) • t SLOPES 18% OR LESS, IN DIRECT DRAINAGE TO • MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLUFFS OR FISH CREEK SLOPES 12% TO 40% NOT IN DIRECT DRAINAGE ♦ TO MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLUFFS OR FISH CREEK SLOPES 12% OR LESS, NOT IN DIRECT DRAINAGE TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER • BLUFFS OR FISH CREEK ' ..• »� , SLOPES 12% to 18 %, IN DIRECT DRAINAGE TO .� MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLUFFS OR FISH CREEK ♦ owns BOUNDARY OF. CRITICAL AREA Topographic Interpretation by the Soil Conservation Service November 1980 IIIIIIII �IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII�IIIII lF I / '.I�I NOTE: f /ELDRVERIFICAT�0N RMA TION SUBJECT TO 0 ��vt�111l�' Development Restrictions Maplewood Critical Area F 4 a CITY OF MAPLEWOOD NOTICE OF 'PUBLI C HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Maplewood City ' y9 p yCouncil at its meeting of Thursday, February 5, 1981 at 8:00 P.M. i n the Council Chambers of the Maplewood Municipal Building located at 1380 Frost Avenue, will consider and publicly hear remarks regarding proposed revisions to the Maplewood Critical Area Plan and Regulations for the area of the City of Maplewood described below: That portion of property located south of Carver Avenue, west of I -494, east of the shared muni ci pa 1 boundary with the City of St. Paul, and north of the shared municipal boundary with the City of Newport.. The State of Minnesota is requiring special planning and regulations for the development of these properties. Proposed regulations cover minimum lot sizes, preservation of natural features, and development restrictions. ANY PERSONS HAVING INTEREST IN THIS MATTER ARE INVITED TO ATTEND AND BE HEARD 770-4560 I °you .-have any questions or would like further - i nformatigP call . Randy Johnson, 770 -4560 s VIP 7 i �4• -la. G. Critical Area Plan and Regulations Associate Planner Johnson said the revisions are in response to Metropolitan Council and Environmental Quality Board comments. Staff is recommending approval of the revisions, Chairman Axdahl asked if the development restrictions would be applied to any other property within the City. Secretary Olson said no, this would be just for the Critical Area as designated - by the Metropolitan Council, Commissioner Ki shel moved that the _ P1 anni ng Commission re to the Ci Counc adoption of the o_pos r evisi on s to the . �Cri ti cAl, Area Plan and Regul . Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes - 10 Abstained - 1 (Commissioner Ellefson) Commissioner El l efson said he was concerned with leaving l and undevel P o ed and the possibility of "wild fire" and the of various diseases which could more easily spread in a wooded area and eliminate species f p o trees, t s ORDINANCE N09 461 Section 16 - The zoning G EN E RAts PROVISIONS CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT 01tDINANCE ' An OZ d inance Promoting the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Citizens of Maplewood, Minnesota, by amending the zoning ordinance, adopting new sections, creating a Critical Area Overlay District, and creating a Site Planning Requirement therein. Code of the City of Maplewood is amended to add=Chapter 918. 918. Findings. The City of Maplewood finds that the Mississippi River Corridor within the Metropolitan Area and the river is a unique and valuable local, state, regional and national resource. The river is an essential element in the local, regional, state and national transportation, sever and eater, and recreational system and serves important biological and ecological functions. The prevention and mitigation of irreversiblE damage to this resource and the preservation and enhancement of its natural, essthetic, cultural, and historical - values is in furtherance of the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. 918.020. Purpose and Intent. , It is the purpose and intent prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique and national resource, to preserve and enhance its valu+ tect and preserve the system as an essential element in sewer and water, and recreational systems in accordance policies: - of this ordinance to state, local, regional, e to the Public and pro - the city's transportation, with the following (a) The Mississippi River Corridor shall be manaf ed as a multi- Purpose public resource by conserving the scenic, environmental, recreational, mineral, economic, cultural, and historic resources and functions of the river corridor and providing for the continuation of development of residential and open space uses wi thin the river corridor. I - (b) The Mississippi River Corridor shall be managed in a manner consistent with its natural characteristics and its existing development and in accordance with regional plans for the development of the Metropolitan Area. (c) The Mississippi River Corridor shall be managed in accordance with the Crit- ical Areas Act of 1973, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of 1973, and the Governor's critical area disignation order, Executive Order No. 130 dated November 19, 1976, and other applicable state and federal laws. 918.0,30. Establishment of Critical Area Overlay District. A critical area overlay district with its attendant regulations is. hereby established as part of the zonin g ordinance of Maplewood,- Minnesota. This district shall overlay existing zorking districts, so that any parcel of land lying in the overlay district shall also lay in one or more of the underlying established zoning districts. Te.rri- 'on to' -3� within the overlay district shall be subject to the ' requ -2-rements establish- ed b y �� other a p p licable ordinances and regulations of the City ?]Pf Maplewood. Within the overlay district, all uses shall be permitted in accordance with the T r regulations for t underlying underl in zoning district(s) provided, however, that such us es shall not be entitled to or issued the appropriate development permit until the have first satisfied the additional requirements established in this ordinance. 918.040. District Boundaries. This overlay ordinance shall apply to the critical areas district which is specially delineated on the official zoning map of the of Maplewood for purposes of determing the application of this ordinance to City p p .s parcel of land, the above -- referenced map shall like on file in the any particular p - • Director of Community - Development and shall be azilable for in- of f rte .of the D = sped-tion and . copying. _ 915.050: Definitions. 1. Critical Area she area kno c _ w-n as the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Rnated by the Governor i Area desi Executive Order No. 130 dated November, Co d 19760 2. Crown Cover the ration between the amount of land shaded by the vertical • projection of the branches and foliage area of standing trees to the total area of land, usually expressed as a percentage. 3. Dimens nal - minimum and maximum setbacks, yard requirements, or structure height or size restriction in the Zoning Ordinance Section. o 4, Erosion - th•a g p rocess general b which soils are removed by flowing surface Y or sub -surfs -e water or wind. 5. Gross Soil Liss - the aver g • average annual total amount of soil material carried from one acre of land by erosion. b ' ion - a facility, usually including pumping facilities, for the Lift Station t Y . . lifting sewage a or stormwater runoff to a higher sewage facility or storm g water runoff facility. 7. Natural Rate of Absorption - the amount of stormwater absorbed into the soil during a storm of once in twenty year occurence. 8, - individual firm, corporation, partnership, association or Person any : . other private or governmental entity* 9 round line of pipe including associated pumps, valves, Pipeline -- an underground P liquids, gases, and other structures utilized for conveying sewage or other finely divided solids from one point to another. lo. Retaining etainin wall - a structure utilized to hold a slope in a position which it would not naturally remain in. r 11:.. Iva .Sediment - suspended matter carried by water, sewage or other liquids.. .. � l2 � ' t reatment and disposal o� human waste Septic Tank -any device for the t � liquid of the waste into the lizes the percolation of the Portion which utilizes f said system which are not contained inside including ncluding all portions o y . a building. 2 - �. r,,, �„ �t.. ar/ �. r... ��..►+ ����'•' �` �w�+. t'. �... �r. t' �+ ��"' ��I�r- ..- wr+r�►�.....r++w��- .�.r -• �'�""► �� � • ��ry► .��..� r ..r�r�.r �.�� ..� +.�r.�..� �+�V+��.wrr �w.�r'��►r�a.rw���� �� �+� w•'. • 13. Slope - the inclination of the natural surface of the land from tie hori- _ zontal. 14. Soil ' - the u PP er la er of earth which may be dug or plowed; the loose sur- y face material of the earth in which vegetcation normally grows. 150 Structure anything manufactured, construction, or erected which is normally o attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures. 16. _r Substation - an utility structure other than lines, pipelines, holes or y Y towers. 17. Terrace - a relatively level area bordered on one or more sides by a retain - i-ng -wall. - 18. Tree any wood y plant that has at least one truck whose diameter is four feet above' the ground is four inches or greater. 190 Utility Y -- tilit Facility physical facilities of electric, telephone, telegraph, cable television, water, sewer, solid waste, gas, and similar service operations. g 20. Vegetation - all plant growth, especially tree, shrubs, mosses and grasses. - _ 21. Uater Body - any lake, stream pond, wetland, or river. - 22. Wetland n y land - land which is seasonably wet or flooded including all marshes, bogs, swamps, and floodplains. 918.060. Site Plan Contents. A. Sit e plans shall be prepared to a scale appropriate to the size of the . project ect and suitable for the review to be performed. B. The following information shall be provided in the site plan: (1) location property ion of the including such information as the name and numb adjoining numbers of ad ' oinin roads, railroads,' existing subdivisions, or other landwards. (2) the name and address of owner(s) or developer(s), the section, township and range, northpoint, date and scale of drawing, and number of sheets. (3) existing topography s indicated on' a contour map having a contour y interval no g • al renter than 2 feet per contour; the topography map shall also clearly an earl delineate bluffline, all streams, including intermittent Y and swales waterbodies, statement of water quality and aclass- .. streams , ification given to the waterbod b the Minnesota Department of Natural n Y Y = and the Minnesota PCA, if any. . The topography map shall in- Resources It dicate the f loodway and /or .flood fringe lines. ' (4) a plan delineating xisting drainage, of the water setting fort in g • volume and at what rate stormwater is conveyed from j which direction the . he site and setting forth those areas of ' the site where stormwater collects t - and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to stream or lake. • 3 mo. i SITE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS e 1 No building permit, zoning approval or subdivision 918.070• Site Plan I'.ec�uilec . g shall be is • - tif icate sued for any action located in an r approval permit or cei ' e until a site lan has been prepared and approved area covered by this ordinance P n accordance with the Provisions of this ordinance. t .918.0803 tion g be required for an existing single- family dwelling nor ,A.o site plan shall q tion thereof nor accessory for the extension, enlargement, change or altera structures thereto, provided that the dwelling remains a single - family dwelling. for any use permitted on a temporary basis B. No site plan shall be required blished without site preparation Ig for a period not to exceed two years «her_ such use is esta • ion and makes no discharge on to the site. o extensions . ranted beyond the two-year shall be g ear temporary permit. . • en 918.090. Site Plan Application. A written application for site plan approval shall • communit Development containing evidence adequate be filed with the Director of y proposed to show that the ro osed use will conform to the standar ds set forth in this • ce. Three (3) sets of clearly legible blue or � black: -lined copies or ordinance. shall be submitted to the Director of Corte unity drawings and required Information _ T D e.v p fee of $ 30.00. elo ment and shall be accompanied by an application _ } including a map indicating soil types ( 5)*a'description of the soils of the slue in a soil sc_ien- by areas to be disturbed as well as a soi.l report prepared by - � suita�iilit of the soils " tist containing Znzormatzon on the y for the type of proposed and de- �- proposed and for the type of sewage disposal prop development propos • be taken b the developer to render the soils scribing any remedial steps to y identified b soil type, All areas proposed for grading shall be y suitable. A �' yP both as a to soil type of existing top soil and soil type of the new contour. . tent of an erosion area shall be indicated. bil The sta - The locatio�l and ex �' included in the soils descript- y it of rock units along bluff . Lines shall be ion. • n which occupy the site or are occasion a description of the flora and fau a • , here unique plant (6) forth with detail those areas w 4 ally found hereon, setting - or animal species may be found on the s ite. buildings or areas which are of historic , (7) a description of any features, g significance. • grading shown at contours at the same a ma indicating proposed f Znlshed g g to the relat- P, or as require to clearly indicate intervals as provided above q an d remaining features* ionshi of proposed changes to existing topography P scale including dimensions and (9) a landscape plan drawn to an appropriate cation type, size and description &f all existing distances and the location, yp ' d describing � any vegetation proposed for re- vegetation, clearly locating an • • g added to the site landscape materials which will be moval and all proposed . _ as part of the -development . w r 4 d� (10) a Proposed drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction, the volume, and at what rate stormwater will be conveyed from the site and - setting forth the areas of the site where sto - , g rmwa ter will be allowed to collect and gradually percolate into the ground, or be slowly released to stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth hydraulic capacity of all drainage structures to be constructed or existing structures to be utilized, including volume of holding ponds and design storm. (11)-*-an erosion and sedimentation control plan indicating the type, location, w and necessary technical information on control measures to be taken both --during and after construction including a statement expressing the calcu- lated anticipated gross soil loss expressed in tons /acre /year both during and after construction. (12) the proposed size, alignment, height and intended use of any structures to be erected or located on the site. (13) a clear delineation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced including a description of the surfacing material to be used. (14) a description of the method to be provide3 for vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development and Public access to the river and /or public river view opportunities both before and after development: a des- cription of the development's impact on existing views of and along the river. (15) a description of all parking facilities - to be provided as part of the de- velopment of the site including an analysis of parking needs generated by the proposed development. (16) a delineation of the area or areas to be dedicated for public use. (17) a delineation of the location and amounts of excavated soils to be stored on the site during construction. (18) any other information pertinent to the particular project which in the opinion of the Director of Community Development or applicant is necessary or helpful for the review of the project. (19) the Director of Community Development may waive any of the above require- ments that are not applicable. 918.100. Site Plan Approval. The Director of Community Development shall approve or deny all applications, except those that would normally need approval by the City Council. . If the .applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the Dir- ector of Community Development, the decision may be appealed to the City Council after a .recommendation from the Planning Commission. 918.1101 Site Plan Approval Standards. No site Plan which fails to satisfy the S following standards shall be approved by the City Council or Director of Com- munity Development. A. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed development shall be IP P P P planned, designed, constructed and maintained to avoid substantial probab- � ilities of: ~ 5 r (1) accelerated erosion. (2) pollution, contamination, or siltation of water bodies, rivers and streams. . (3) damage to vegetation. . (4) injury to wildlife habitats. .(5) increased flood potential. r_(b) decreased ground water recharge. B. The applicant shall demonstrate that the types and densities of land use proposed shall be suited to the site and soil conditions and shall not present a threat to the maintenance of the groundi:ater quality, a potential increase in maintenance cost of utilities, parking areas, or roads, and shall not be subject to problems due to soil, limitations, including, but not limited to soil bearing strength, shrink /swell potential, and excessive frost movement* to 1 C. No development shall be permitted on land having a slope before alteration in excess of 12 percent unless the applicant shall prove that the f ollotti�n r conditions are met: • (1) The foundation and underlying material of any structure, including roads, shall be adequate for the slope condition and soil type. (2) Adequate controls and protections exist uphill from the proposed develop- ment such that there is no danger of structures or roads being struck b y g rock, ock, mud, uprooted trees, or other materials. ( 3 ) The p roposed development presents no danger of falling rock, mud, up P ro P rooted trees, or other materials to structures downhill. ( The view of the developed slope from . the river . and opposite ri is consistent with the natural appearance of the undeveloped slope, consistent with any historic areas nearby, compatible with the view from- historic areas, and compatible with. surrounding architectural feat- ur e s. To the maximum extent possible, .the use of natural devices, in- g • cludin vegetation management shall be preferred over the construction of artificial devices, including culverts, holding ponds, walls, and terracing. ( 5) All other structures other than buildings and roadway surfaces, but Including retaining walls shall meet the following design requirements: (a ) g retai.nin walls or terrace contours shall not exceed five feet in height; . construction materials shall be subject to CommunL Design Review constr _ k Board approval, (c) the minimum space in between terraces and retaining walls shall be twenty feet. • (b) Any lift stations required to service- the slope development with local sewer systems are designed in accordance with local design standards and approved by the city engineer. The applicant shall furnish a satis- • factory arrangement or agreement by which the cost of maintenance and operation of the lift station are borne by those serviced by the facility. .s (7) No septic tank shall be placed on a slope of greater t Aan 12 %. The natural slope may not be altered in any way where the Septic tank system or part thereof is to be located. The drain limes shall be %located parellel to contour lines. - (8) In no case shall slopes with a* natural slope in excess of 45% be developed. . do D. Development shall be accomplished only in such a manner that on -site gross soil loss levels shall not exceed five (5) tons acre per year during construction, but only two (2) tons per acre per year when the site is adjacent to a water body or water course and 0.5 tons per acre per year after construction activities are completed. " E. Development shall not substantially diminsh the scientific, historical, educational, recreational or aesthetic value of natural areas and unique plant and au species, and shall not substantially alter the reproductive cycle of the species. F. Erosion protection measures shall make maximum use of natural in- place veg- etation rather than the placing of new vegetation on site as erosion control facilities. The use of natural erosion control devices shall be preferred to the maximum extent over the construction of artifical drainage devices including culverts, holding ponds, and ditches. G; The development shall be located in such -a manner as to minimize the removal s of vegetation and alteration of the natural topography. H. The applicant shall demonstrate that there are no feasible or prudent alter- natives to cutting trees on the site: development shall be permitted only in such a manner that the maximum number of trees shall be preserved. No trees may be cut except those occupying the actual physical space in which a structure, drive or roadway is to be erected. In the event that solar collection is utilized, trees may be cut to allow sufficient sunlight to the solar collectors if the applicant can demonstrate there are no feasible or prudent alternatives. If trees are cut, the denssty of trees shall be re- stored to that which existed before development, but in no case shall the applicant be required to raise the density above 10 trees per acre. The _ applicant shall demonstrate that all grading which takes place will be con- ducted in a manner that preserves the root zone aeration and stability of existing trees and provides an adequate watering area equal to at least one - balf of each tree t s crown cover.. - . t I. Development in woodlands shall not reduce the existing c W wn cover greater than 50 percent and shall be conducted in such a manner ehat the understory and litter is preserved. i J. Fishing in a wetland shall not -exceed the excess storage and nutrient stripping capacities of the wetland based on thq ultimate projected develop merit of the wetland watershed. Flood storage and nutrient stripping capaci- ties shall be calculated in accordance with Appendix B. K. Wetlands and other water bodies shall not be used as primary sediment traps during or after construction. .s L. The proposed development will not increase the runoff rate decrease the r natural rate of absorption of stormwater. M. The quality of water runoff and water infiltrpted to the water table or aquifer shall as high after development as it was before development of the site. N. When f filling in a wetland, a minimum amount of f illing may be allowed when necessary but in no case shall the following restrictions on total amount of filling be exceeded.. Since the total amount of filling which can be per- mitted is limited the City of Maplewood, when considering permit applicat- ions, shall consider the equal apportionment of fill opportunity to riparian land owners. 1. Total filling shall not cause the total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below the projected volume of runoff from tLe whole developed wetland watershed generated by a 6" rainfall in 24 hours. . Any increase in runoff must be detained for on -site infiltration through the soil to the water table. 2. Total filling shall not cause the total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fall below the nutrient production of the "-� wetland watershed for its projected development. 3. Only fill free of chemical pollutant and organic wastes may be used. 00' No part of any septic tank system shall be located closer than 150 feet f rom the edge of a water body or water course unless it can be shown that no effluent will directly or indirectly reach the water body, water course or wetland. P. The development is consistent with the reasonable preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties and by the public ri.gLlts- of - way has been minimized. Q. The grades of any streets shall not exceed 10 percent. R. Any and all erosion control, s tornnaater runoff, utility access, and similar structures shall be designed to be maintained, cleaned out, and otherwise operated without requiring the crossing of private lands with or the operation of motorized. heavy maintenance vehicles and equipment, such as - bulldozers, trucks, and back -hoes on slopes in . excess of 8 percent. As used 4 in this section, private lands includes any out - -lots. . S. The proposed development, both vehicular ^nd pedestrian, lball be adequate P P and consistent with local transportation and thouroughfare planning. *.T. The proposed development shall not lessen public access to and along the river bluf f, nor does it lessen public opportuni�y to view the river from Within the .corridor. imp g • - , radii landsca ing, structure placement, and street rile conduct of all g g, F� routing shall be consistent with and to the maximum extent in furtherance of the g oals and policies for the development of the river corridor adopted • by the City of Maplewood on March 1, 19790 CRI TICAL AREA CROSSINGS. 120. Utility acilities. Utility crossings of the critica area corridor or 918. y • routing within the corridor shall meet the following standards: A . _4. Underground placing of the utility facility shall be re unless econ- g omic , technological ical and land characteristic factors make undergroun3 place- _ anent feasible. Economic considerations alone shall not be made the mayor determinant regarding feasibility. 8. Overhead crossing s , if required, shall meet the following criteria: ( 1) The crossings shall be adjacent to or part of an existing utility corridor, including bridge or overhead utility lines. (2) All structures utilized shall be as compatible as practicable with land use scenic views, and existing transmission structures in heigt, material, color, and design. • ( 3 ) R i g ht f clearance shall be kept to a minimum* g ht way (4) Vegetative screening shall be utilized to the maximum extent consistent with safety requirements* shall avoid unstable soils, blufflines, or hi (5) Ro utin g gh ridges, the alteration of the natural environment, including grading shall be minimized. (6) The crossings be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in � Article II. - C. Utility Subs y • Substations. Utility substations shall be subject to the following . standards: (1) All substations shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in Article II. (2) h � ew substations ons or refurbishment of existing substations shall be com- , patible in height, ht scale , building materials, landscaping and signing with surrounding rroundin natural environment or land uses. Screening by natural means is encouraged and should be compatible with the surroun inr environment. - . d utility facilities shall be subject D. Pipelines. P�pel�nes and undergroun y to the following standards: :r . + • e' sub' ect to the site All i eli.nes and underground fac_. -sties shall b � ( 1) p ipelines 1S.o7�. • forth in Article 9 planning requirements set _ _ (2) The facilities ities shall be. located to avoid wetlands, woodlands, and areas of unstable soils. - .'.' 9 ... • .i. r ��� �..�• • A.•� � /...r�•�•• �r.i1► �r• ►' •fir-W. rr ••• !M. �.. r . (3) All underground placing of utility facilities and pipelines shall be followed by revege to tion and rehabilitation to the conditions which existed on site prior to development providing the original conditions were environmentally and aesthetically desirable. 918.130. Publi and Private Roads. New roads crossing the critical area corridor or routed within the critical area corridor shall meet the following standards: A. Roads shall be constructed to minimize impacts on theAnatural terrain and. natural landscape. B. Extreme cuts and fills are to be avoided. =C. All roads shall be subject to the site ptannin_g requirements set forth in Article 918.070, D. New roads shall not utilize the river corridor as a convenient right -of --way for new arterials. E. - New roads shall be restricted to those facilities needed to access existing and planned residential uses. 918.140. Existing Structures. Existing structures, the location, or the use of r which is inconsistent with this ordinance or the critical areas designation x order shall not be eligible for any Permit granted by the City for expansion, r F Ir } change .of us.e, renewal of existing permit, or building permit, unless the Gar • following cr:�teria are met: ', IT I.e A. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate screening of the structure ' from the water through the use of natural vegetative means. B. The pulali.c's ability to view the river and river corridor from existing public streets shall not be further degraded by the proposed activity. 918.150. Signs. - A. All advertising signs permitted within the critical area shall conform with the provisions of the Maplewood Sign Ordinance, B. Views of the water from vistas and Public roads shall not be impaired by i the placement of business or advertising signs. � r C. All advertising signs, the location of which is not in conformance with this section are deemed non - conforming uses and shall be removed within three years of the effective date of this ordinance. ON SITE SEWER DISPOSAL. 918:160. Purpose and Intent. The following regulations are. adopted to: =A. Regulate individual sewer disposal systems as to prevCLnt .contamination of underground -bodies of -water, streams or other surface %odies of water. B. Prevent individual sewer disposal systems from creatii' g a health hazard and /or a nuisance for the general public or for individuals. ... 10 MW • • ++r i —�.�.. �. �.�r r�r�►. r -�•r �. •w ...•n.•w�r•r�..• �/.! •. fir— 1��w....w• .w�.r.�.r�� 1rw���•wr �._ �1• • • . ��r� fir• w .�� • ••� 1-� -�� .�• 918.170. General Requirements. A. Location and installation of the individual sewage disposal system and each '-- part thereof shall be such that, with reasonable maintenance it will f unctio: ` in a sanitary manner and will not create a nuisance nor endanger the safety of any domestic water supply. In determining a suitable location for the system, consideration shall be given to the size and shape of the lot, slope of natural -and finished grade, soil permeability, dept4i of ground water, geology, proximity to existing or future water supplies, accessibility for •.r maintenance, and possible expansion of the system. "B. No part of the system shall be located so that it is nearer to any water supply, or so that surface drainage f rom its location may reach any domestic water supply. . C. Raw sewage, septic tank effluent, or seepage from a soil absorption system shall not be discharged to the ground surface, abondoned wells, or bodies of surface water, or into any rock formation the structure of which is not conducive to purification of water by filtration, or into any well or other excavation in the ground. This requirement shall not apply to the disposal of sewage in accordance with a precess approved by the State Board of Health or the water Pollution Control.Commis�ione D. The lot size shall be 3 acres or more to permit installation of the individ- ual sewage disposal system in accordance with all the requirements pertai.ni.n; • thereto. 'E. Installation of individual sewage disposal systems shall not be made in low �., swampy areas or areas which may be subject to flooding. t F. tabl or where limestone or an In areas with high ground- y geological formation similarly faulty is covered by less than fifty (50) feet or earth, the final disposal unit shall be a title field. The bottom of the trenches shall be not less than four (4) feet above the highest known or calculated water table or the surface of the faulty rock formation. G. Bull dozers , , � trucks or other heavy machinery shall not be driven over the system after installation. H. The system or systems shall be designed to receive all sewage from the dwelling, building or other establishment served, including laundry waste and basement floor drainage. Footing or roof drainage shall not enter any part of the system* 14here the construction .of additional bedrooms, the installation of mechanical equipment, or other factors likely to affect the operation of the system can be reasonably anticipated, the installation of P y a system adequate for such anticipated need shall be required. . I. The system shall consist . of a building sewer, a septic tank, and a soil absorption unit. The soil absorption unit shall consist of a sub -- surface disposal .field. All sewage shall • be treated in the septic tank and the P septic tank of f luent shall be discharged to the dispotal f ield. The septic tank drain field system shall be considered the only 4cceptable sy em for installation n unless it can be demonstrated. that this System is not feasible on the a rticular .lot in question and if it can be deomonstrated that the system being proposed as an alternate will not create a pollution problem. y _g P 11 J. Soil absorption systems for the disposal of sewage waste shall not be in- stalled on land where the slope exceeds twelve percent (12 %). 918.170. Haintenance Requirements. A. At least once a year the owner of any septic tank or his agent shall measure or arrange for measurement of the depth of sludge and scum in such septic tank. - When, as a result of such measurement tlX top of the sludge layer in the tank or any compartment of the tank is f land to be less than �- twelve (12) inches below the bottom of teh outlet baf fle or submerged pipe, or is the bottom of the scum layer is less than three (3) inches above the bottom of the septic tank out let baffle or submerged pipe, the owner or agent shall arrange for the removal and sanitary disposal of sludge and scu :? from the tank; provided that such requirement for measuring shall be waived for any septic tank which is cleaned as indicated at least once each calends; year. B. At least once each year the otv rner of any system equipped with a distribution box shall arrange for the opening of the distribution box and the removal of an y settled solids therein. Such material shall be disposed of to the septic tank or by other means acceptable to the City. C. At least once between May 1 and June 30 of each year the depth of liquid in each seepage pit shall be measured. When, as a result of such measure- ment it is found that the liquid level in the pit is less than one foot below the inlet a second measurement shall be made eight (8) to twelve (12) hours after the first measurement, during which tire no liquid shall be discharged to the seepage pit. If, as a result of the second meast=_rer it is found that the liquid level in the pit has not loloered at least two ( 2) feet furing the indicated period of time, an additional seepage pit or other acceptable soil absorption system shall be provided. _ D. Servicin g of septic tanks and soil absorption units shall conform to the Minnesota Department of Health -and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency spec - ifications. Disposal of sludge and scum removed from the system shall be: (1) into a municipal sewer disposal system . where practible. ( 2 ) in the absence of a public sewer, at a disposal site approved by the Pollution Control Agency. ( 3) sludge shall not be discharged into any lake or water- course, nor upon. land without burial. Is 918.180. Alternative . Sys tems. methods of sewage disposal such as holding tanks, electric A. Alternative m g or gas incinerators, g r biolo ical and /or tertiary treatment plants or land .^ sal systems, wherever required or allowed in particular circu,nstan is P o y ' criteria rules ar�d regulations of the shall be subject to the standards, � a De artment of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agenc and Minn e s o t p shall •O so require approval of the City Council. . oi q pp 12 - ti Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after its assa e' acid publication, P s � tion. Passed by the City Council of the City of Ifaplewood, Minnesota, this 1st day of March, 1979. Mayor Attest: 'Clerk Nays - 0 s s / 4 .. +••.•...n.�� •�.r��r...� �. .. .....r�•�+.rwr.� �. ����r ���r•.► �r. ���.���.��.�.rr�.w�...,..��.ww. �.....r �.. +...r. +.�Mr�.►w.s• Rom: Ci ty Mgr. February 24, 1981 Re ferrad To: jij �-:I yor IN, Cocinci! C. • C��t i. S i.� %3 rf J , r 016h zr Roger E. Lake, President Board of Managers Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District P.O. Box 2128 St. Paul, Minnesota 55109 l� � ,,,, wIN C1't 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota . 55101 Telephone 612/291-6359 t - on RE: Battle Creek Improvements Supplemental Report Channel Stabilization, Project No. 1 ' ~.` . R Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 7412 -3 J� Dear Mr. Lake: At its meeting on Febr uary 12, 1981, the Metropolitan Council considered the Battle Creek Improvement Project. This consid- eration' was based on a report of the Physical Development Committee, Referral Report No. 81 -34. A copy of this report, which was adopted as presented, is attached, The Council adopted Resolution No. 81 -26 (copy attached ) which provides that: 10 That the Battle Creek project be found consistent with policies of the Metropolitan Council and proceed as proposed. 2* That a total of $692,300 should be identified in an amendment to MWCC' s 1981 Capital Budget to pay the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District's assessment for the Battle Creek project. 3. That Council consideration of funding for the assessment against the St. Paul Parks Department is deferred until such a request is made. At that time the Council will evaluate the request for: a. Consistency with the Recreation Open Space Policy. Plan and the master plan for Battle Creek Regional Park, and b . Impact on the regional parks capital improvement programs and precedent it would set for future actions. An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: Y .Anoka Count o Carver County O Dakota County O Hennepin County O Ramsey County O Scott County O Washington County Roger E. Lake, President Board of Managers Di strict Ramsey Metro Watershed February 24 1981 Page Two � o 0 �y � �riv ciz 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone 612/291 -63 s a copy o Also attached i f a letter from the Ramsey County Board _ of C ommissioners s commenting on this project. S incer a ly , METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Charles R. Weaver Chairman CRW:emp Attachments t, pawl cc: George Latimer, Mayor, City of S , George Lusher, Chief Administrator, MWCC r e Executive Ass Mar gar e t Tho p , t. , Ping. & Development, _ Ramsey County wood James V. Lacina, City Evans, City Manager, City • of Maple Barry Admin . • City of Woodbury Gary Ober is , Metropolitan Counci Staff ment of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising: An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Develop p Washin ton County r Count ty o Ramsey County o Scott County � Anoka County O Carve Y o Dakota County O Hennepin Coun t e • J. ort Board of Robert ps t .,ct I - ctlai rr ne Ahrens R C YSS1012 ers . Dia pistn J? arnse G o an ct 4 OR2 h - rV A. Danna Ant District 5 e St. Paul, Minnesota 5510 Jo _ hn T. Finley Suite 316 Court Hous , District 3 Hai Nor 9 and Phone (612) 298 -4145 District 7 1980 Donald E. Saiverda December 26 District 2 Warren W. Schaber ' District 6 Larry J. Brown Executive Director Mr. John Rutford Referral Coordinator . Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, MN 55101 • Referral F i l e 7412 -3 Re. Re Battle Creek Proje ct #1 a Dear Mr. Rutford: rin Supplemental Feasibility he above referral. the Enginee nee 9 for the Washy ngton Metropolitan. In response to t Watershed Distri of the Ramsey - comments Report w e would like to provide seve Battle Creek Project, not received i i n this off ce referral, dated 12 - 10 80 was 1 this was 1. The it requests a one week repys ' until December 15. While 1 e q h s • � n County ' the need to coordinate wit impossible, gi ven W r eal i.ze the constraints rtments , . as we Council Y l 1 as holidays* 1 e however. De b the Districts timetab , placed upon the s taff of our Department of Pa rks and Recreation 2. The pl s the Creek project and ' he revised plans for he Battle ark than has reviewed t with the regional p f i nds that they are far more compatible i neers have responded ri nal plans. The District engineers rete f 1 ume were the o 9 i n concerns. While the conc to most of the County s des 9 r removal, as requested _ has not been scheduled fo a t Upper Afton Road in December, 1979, our staff and the Ci of St. Paul wo uld add by the County a nd repl acement acement of the s recog fl urge . nines that the removal a P - ect. 9 he expense of the pro consi derably tot P • uld request again that the _ • 1 requested in 1979, we wo q • 3 • As prey ous Y q commitment to close ' i ct' s Board of Managers .make an explicit � 1 andscape D is tr ict's e 1 r en sneers and the County s coordination between th 9 • l for that portion of the • the development of the deta� the architects n reek Reg pro i onal Park. To date , project which affects Battle e C toff but we d • ultants have cooperated with . ours � d o f engineer � ng cons and recognition from the Boar believe that a clear commitment the Park is be he impact of thi project upon Managers regarding t P m. ar y to assure a successful progra neces s -i 7 P is _ pag 2 Dec. 269 1980 • ord Re: Referral File 7412-3 Mr. Sohn Rutf • rs ' report • From d appraisers e abridgep easonably • h ears r a reviewed t f assessments app 4. We have a allocation o reason that 7% i al review, the unce rtain as to the the our snit er We are unCe re us ed to figure • equitable. Howev interest rates we q a nd 79'0 C COMM � scion and d ual i of l ati on a o f i tan Waste Co rthern Rat 1 road ann f i is for Metrop ion Burlington No special benefits n s orta / reci ate further sp artment of Tra t p ic. We would app Minnesota Dep o f seem realist t hese f � gores d0 n sea- as t f the formula u expl o • d the axation has receive complete reside t of Property T of the reside 5. our Department en the size of man G � f a nd when the ai 5ers report' • s essential that di strict apprai belie eve i t i s certi f i ed, the assessments d the as being. t is ordered an s a t once of the rs will not pro3 ec ndi vi dual taxpayer the taxpaye of the ties. Otherwise months, until the notify 'nst their proper ti perhaps several mon asses l ag as for P Since the e aware of the nts are mai led* 1 ed. d we believe b ann ual tax statements the are certifies i zees County S a interest as soon as y the off ected ci t i accr n accru • inter should note fy be rness without interest begin i ct, �n a ll fay he assessments the Distr t they may p t edi atel y so that o to d s, • t h e wish risers if y e n g ineering and app risers' • comments on the g icant issues wit • these specific i c several Si gni f e In addition to our attention addressed by th I ould call t0 y et , been reports We w . that have no as y to th1 s prod ect regard watershed district: nanCe this 41 nds to finance t the district in e a nd that bonds , our finance While 1 e we understand neral obi i gate on i stri ct as to 1 • n t .issued ge ion from the d project with coo y tact or information so far as we P shave had no contact di str� ct � as yet, a ement for manage n• Nor has the construc g a finanfinancing ng tion man P a financial and in needs to be d any program for ' Hance a1 prog 9 • devel ope , bel i eve such f i f the s project. his prof ect . We t f the development o of the next phase o P art roce . � s rod ect has now . eded to the ante of te h • 1 anni ng for th P . ons and mai nten h e 2. In addition P r eventual operate intends to share s • which a pl an f o f the di stri ct 7e ar��ent point at b developed• I a nd Recreation P • ovements must ies the Parks it should begin impr with the count i 1 i t tea j uri sdi cti ons � for res y an d other affec table program it of St. Paul evelop an a a d. the C .y edi ately to d ccep re complete eats when they. work with them �� nce of .the improvem ati ons and mai ntena ve l o p some °per .s the need to de the above item � o erations - and. loSely r elated to for the on going P• assessment 3. C cost estimates n for equitable easonably f I rm ents and a P1 a e a e nci es and r f the �mprovem Th 9 enance o nefitted parties. may nt ro ri ate be i n the nedr future , hose costs to aPP P c t need to know, to be °f t cted by the prod a ments � s 1 i kel y taxpayers of f e . or these improve ork. n- oing cost f construction w what the o g _time cost of the . as well as the one Re: Referral File 7 Rutford Re . Ref 412 -3 Page 3 Dec. 26, 1980 e , Mr. John t of an effective contribute to Bevel opmen u have these comments will Battle Creek. If y° We ho for improvement of a contact me at th e d equitable program her information , pleas an or would l i k e further a ny questions above number. S i n cerel y s Mar gar Thorpe E& cut`s ve Assistant Planning and Development (SIT /sab grown cc: Larry J• Commissioner Warren W. Schaber Karen Gauger Bernard Edmonds METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Bu ilding , . Suite 300 Metro Square Bu g � Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 RESOLUTION NO. 81- 26 RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR THE BATTLE CREEK IMPR0vEMENT PROJECT OF THE RAMS Ey-WASHINGTON METRO WATERSHED DISTRICT itan Council is authorized, pursuant to WHEREAS, the Metropol Minnesota Statutes Section 473.1651 to review the action of • mm ions, boards, and agencies; and independent co itan Council is authorized, pursuant to WHEREAS, the Metropolitan or Minnesota Statutes, Section 112.46, to review f , • regional plans all watershed district consistency with. g P and P ro • ects according to Section 473.165; 7 �' Cou ncil is authorized, WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Cou pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.161 subd. 3 to approve any • ures not included in t capital expenditures he Metropolitan Waste Control Commission annual capital budget; and • o Watershed District has submitted WHEREAS, The Ramsey - Washington Metro it review, improvement Project for Counc ew, and Battle Creek the , udied and reviewed the project and has the Council has studied determined ned that the project P i s in conformity with the Metropolitan Development Guide chapters- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Creek project be found consistent with 1, That the Battle C o P , 3 policies of the Metropolitan Council and as proposed. p 692,300 should be identified in an 2. That a total of $ a the Ramsey - amendment to MWCC's 1981 Capital DistriBudget top y • Metro- Watershed ct's assessment for the .Washington Metro Battle Creek project. • consideration of. funding for the assessment 3. That Council considera the S te deferred until such a request is made* A . against Paul Parks Department i ate g t that time, the Council will.evalu . the request for: Recreation ea t ion Open Space policy Plan a, Consistency with the a and the master plan for Battle Creek Regional Park, and ' arks capital improvement tai improv b, Impact on the regional p P future actions. program s and precedent it would set for ► Adopted this 12th day o f Februar 19810 ITAN COUNCIL METROPOLITAN " By Etg a E. Franc he`t', Charles R. Weave=, E utive Secretary Chairman. Business Item No. B -2 F or Release : 4:00 p. m. , 2.12.81 ETRO p0LITAN C0UNCIL Suite 30 M� 0 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 . 291 -6359 1981 Fe br uar y 5 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE" REPORT OF THE PHYSICAL REFERRAL REPORT NO . 81-34 T0. •- Metropolitan COUncll ovements Supplemental Repor t SUBJECT : Ba ttle Creek Impr District Metro Wa ter she d Ramsey-Wash Me tr opol i tan Council Distric 3 and 14 il Re fer,r al No. 7412 -3 Metropolitan C ounc • merit Committee considered February 5 1981, the physical Develop On Fe br y • the attached report and made the following changes* A. CONCLUSIONS ONCLUS IONS ' added to the staff report: The. following conclusion was • net benefit to the The Me tr opli tan Council determines mines a the 8 ' T rived at by deducting the recomm MWCC of $790,000. � from the gross bens fit of $1,035,040. of credits $244,700 Be. RECOMMENDATIONS The staff r ecomaenda ti on s were ame nded and adopted as follows: . t the Battle Creek project be found consistent with policies 1. That' -and of the Metropolitan Council proceed as proposed* P identified in an amendment to should be iden o f 2, That a total of $692,300 Metro 1 Ca i tal Budget to pay the Ramsey-Washington , MWCC s 198 P of the Battle Creek pr oject. Watershed D i str ict's assessment for the assessment against Council consideration of funding is 3. That Cou is deferred until such a req the Ste Pau 1 Parks Departme . a the req for . . the Council will evaluat made 0` At that time , • n Space Policy Plan Consistency ith the Recreation Ope P and a• y k Regional Park. and the master plan for Battle Cree • ca tai improvement Im act on the regional parks i 0 P tion s p precedent it would set for future ac programs and Respectfully submitted, Mar c Benne tt, Chairperson s Ma: sJe �i ri �r� fir►` +��rY.Y +•� i� wt ..�Y � ... lr•'Y�. .! r0 .y�..y�ly.� �wrr� �..� �� �� .� 1/ •Y� w 1. - �- .rl- w•Y•'WY' �� .... _._ .. _. . l' METROPOLITAN COUNCIL • Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Suite 300 Metro Square 9 RESOLUTION NO. 81- RESOLUTION ADOPTING.COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR THE BATTLE CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OF THE RAMSEY-- WASHINGTON METRO WATERSHED DISTRICT Metropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to WHEREAS, the P Minnesota Statutes Section 473.1 6 5 , to review the action of independent commissions, boards, and agencies; and WHEREAS, the M etropolitan Council is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 112.46, to review f or with regional plans all watershed district consistency '� 5• and P roj ects according to Section 473.16 Metropolitan Council WHEREAS, the is authorized, pursuant to � subd . 3 to approve-any Minnesota Statutes 'Section 473.161 expenditures not included in the Metropolitan Waste capital Control Commission annual capital budget; and on Metro Watershed District has submitted WHEREAS, The Ramsey-Washington the Battle Creek Improvement Project for Cou ncil review, and has studied and reviewed the project and has the Council with the determined that the project is in conformity Metropolitan Development Guide chapters, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Creek project be found consistent with 1. That the Battle Cre P , � proceed as proposed* policies of the Metropolitan Council and proc 2• That a total of $692,300 should be identified in an amendment to MWCC's 1981 Capital Budget to pay the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District's assessment for the Battle Creek projecto consideration of funding 3. That Council c for the assessment i ed until such a request s m deferred - against the St. Paul Parks Department is ade. At that time, the Council will evaluate the request for: a• Consistency with the Recreation Open Space Policy Plan and the master plan for Battle Creek Regional Park, and regional arks capital b. Impact on the regio improvement p P Pr g P pr ograms and precedent it would set for future re actions. ' da of , 1981. Adopted this y. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Y. By By Charles R. Weaver, Chairman Eugene E. Franchett, Executive Secretary r a I TAN COUNCIL M E T R O P O L M innesota 5510 1 • Metro Suite 30 0 Square Building, St. Paul, M 4 M E M O R A N D U M mom � 4 � January 29 1981 TO: physical sical Development Committee FROM: Env Planning (Gary Ober is ) k Imp rovements SUBJECT: Battle Cr ee Supplemental Report , p _ Ramsey- Washington Metro Wat ershed District Metropolitan Council Districts 3 and 14 Metropolitan Council Referral No. 7412 -3 INTRODUCTION stabilization and storage The Battle Creek channel project has been found consistent • d b the Metropolitan previously reviewe Y litan Council and dons of Aril 21, 1980, the PDC with Council policies. in its act p memorandum and adopted the recommendations contained in the staff i1 for a naval, which occurred on 3 forwarded to them to the full Council Pp the Sep tember fo nt 1 Reference is also made to May 8, 1980 (Attachme ) 'ch outlines the 7, 1979 staff memorandum (with Attachment �-) which • s a series ,of initial. recommend ations. project background and makes ton • � re- evaluated by the The original project has been Ramsey - Washington s. The d District after a series of public g Metro Watershed • En D istrict subsequently came out with an " En g ineer's supplemental h of which • and a revised assessment report, bo Feasibility Repor a Council is reviewing the are reviewed in this memorandum. The C the City of se of initial objections raised • by assessment report becau ion (MWCC) . Pa ul and b the Metropolitan Waste Cont rol Commi St. Pa Y REVIEW AUTHORITY • provides that a district 112.46 of the Watershed District Act p " Section considered a plan under Section statement of work or proje cts is co Council determines is a two -stage process• First, the . 4739165* I t ' de or mult icommui ty effect or a whether the proposal has an areawi t, if the Council finds effect on metropolitan l tan developmen ence s . In substantial , . circumstances, review of the plan comet one or mor of these scop of review. is cons istency with the • se cond stage of the process, the ,p . this se g velo ment Guide (MDG) and with .Metropolitan De p Area. If - e development of po ect) itan , the orderly and ec the Metro this case, a .District proj e Council finds that such a plan (in and th , • the MDG or as detrimental to the orderly • is inconsistent with ea the Council can econom is development of the Metropolitan Area, p indefinitely suspend f the op ation of the plan or part ther this prop project ecommended formal Council review o p , Staff, has r n it ef fects of the prod ect and because of potential inter�ommu Y re sewers) are systems (parks and sanitary because tw o g ional basis involved.. Past .reviews have p roceeded on this . 2 -- a PR OPOSED REVISIONS ONS liza stabi • involve adding or removing t, Most of the revisions or rea li g ning channels. - Pro ec adjusting culvert sizing• structures, add proj are described by stream Flon c hanges the original .The proposed c es to g reach as f ollows: • Northern Railroad yard d into the Burlington N Bred ing and Below T•B• 61 an reali nment, channel g , now be some channel 9 of this addition there will e t • All of the cost construction of a drop 1 will be paid by MnDOT and BNRR. ' or reach , of interest to o Upper Afton Road ( the maj r eg io nal ark . _ From T . R . 61 t PP din the damaged r eg io P CC and the reach g � s tructures , and a ne w _- the � on six "waterfall drop. the damaged sloe stabilizati • ditions to restore P 1 are proposed as ad . . low flow channe p part of the park* o osed for the Suburban N �. New piping to inc flow capacity y i p Ave, basin area. p between Upper. Afton ._ storm sewer extension is propo - One new sto Rd. and Ruth S t. • ht Rd. are proposed. - No changes between Ruth St. and McR cKnight • sto rage basin will have two new small storage ponds The M sto 9 tures (outlets) . with PP h a ropriate control s ruc the only proposed changes Creek Park to Century Ave. an additional - From Battle rt modifications with the r of culvert realignment. are �' some additional charm drop structure and • e from Century Ave. to Battle Creek Lake is the 4W The only change heck dam replac el imination of a private c • these changes and from _ iced cost resulting from d in early Assessments. .The rev t of the proposal reviewe - fn--flatio i $ 5,906.8 - 00; the .cos adjustments incr costs and subseq s $ , 800. The incre h are f . in paren 1980 was merits below, whit have re salted in the assess. ssment represents from theses by the app change the new asse Y the earl 1980 assessment: _ ($314.000 more) o nes $1,222,612 . Ma lewood -city and. er P p .- cit properties and more) St • Paul $1, 978 ,133 ($791000 y. P de artment 9 1S6 ($202, 000 more) parks. P ernes $ S3 ' 00 more) Oakdale - city and prop $ 950,132 ($908,0 Oa t an d propert ci 9 1 r 778 ($270,000 more) Wood box r y Y $ 9 � 0 More) ' Lake Elmo - Properties 15,779 ($ 11,00 L s $ 53 000 less) Landfall - rope $ 735, 400 t$ • L al benefit t _ sec 7 x.00 ($ 27, 000 less) MWCC P $ 18 , ecial benef it 100 ($ 27,000 leSs) MnDOT SP $ 18 7 , Tess) RR - special benefit 0 ($115,500 BN and open space $ P y - arks Ramsey Count - 3 - ' that are paying more are In general, those entities doing so because because the re t p Y - evaluation of g due to inflation or of the rise in cost ibutions, yielded a higher assessment, according to runoff contr f r i ht -of- the so becauue o g Those paying less are generally doing _value. p y of the re - evaluation situatio n• way r storage credits, or because Y ANA LYS I S . � o perform will be divided The analysis that the Council is asked t p • e stand oint, Th s Y • -- ect and assessment. From a project p into two aspects pro? Battle Creek situation is the Council staff still believes that the Bat do C The pr opos ed changes worst urban erosion problem in the Region. •1 approved on May e staff recommendations which theCounci pp. - not alter the , • engineering feasibility (Attach 1980 relative to project need and and 8 ' made to that memorandum for staff analy ment 1) . Reference i s recommendations. • 1 public improvement s is the case in most high capita projects, no p ro'ect becomes the 1 the are received, paying for the p matter how well y ree project is no exception ' ect of heated debate* The Battle C P � . le to subject t of watershed dis being ab to the rule. The new concept-of "contributors" w ater problems has ca assess contributors to used tremendous uproar a p see no problem and wonder why they should upstream owners because the p further complicate the Battle to help downstream owners. To , p a y terce for runs right down the bottom Creek situation, a mayor MWCC in p re damn a in the lle and, as such, has undergone seve g • s of the creek va Y shave eroded. The creek also i ast as the cree . k which has p k channel and bank al ark (Battle Creek Regional Par ) located in a region P All of then e been damaged to a great extent at Several locations. sub'ect of an " " 3, benef fitted or c ontributing" entities have been the tread cost the watershed district assessment procedure that has a Y $54,000. • to the Counci The two assessments of particular concern l a those CC assessment • d St. Paul Parks Department. The MW . against the MWCC an • 937 000 assessment minus various is for $735, 000 (arrived at from $ . Act. Section • Metro ol itan Reorga ( credits). According to the ni p � ded in the an - ca ital expenditure not 473.161, subd. 3) , Y p In this case, any assessment et must be approved by the Council. to be budg a roved b the Counc accepted by the MWCC and. pp Y il will have 1 Capital Budget or as a s epar at e amendment to the 198 added as an CC's statutes (Sec item. in the 1982 Budget. The MW tion 473.545) oval before paying similarly r e 4 uire the MWCC to receive Council appr an assessments levied against th e MWCC. Y , • MWCC totalled $937,000. Th cost The initial assessment against the nt value of he "s ecial benefit" representing the prese is based upon t p remainin life of the Battle o'ected maintenance costs over the g tual cost is Pr 7 The ac interce for sewer, assumed to be 10 years. CC to Creek p th of ex end i tur es paid by the MW based on the past l0 years wor P maintain the sewe re r and air it when it has f ailed. P 4 ict then evaluated -all of the individual correc The Watershed Dsitr based on • is installed by the MWCC and gave various credits tion p ec ro � the benefit of the project to the District's prop sal . - For exmaple, lit in at several places was given a 50 cre parallel sheet pil g will be needed since dep reciation because less backfill (soil) wi minus dep All together, the MWCC was the cling preserved in -place soil. g with P worth of contributable costs associa credited with $201,700 ive credits for three r eaches of the Creek. The District did not g improvements made by the MWCC were aimed at other areas because the • i p sta bilizing the sewer pipe and have no benef to the Distr permanent project. assessment and disagrees with The MWCC has evaluated the net $735,000 parts of the assessments A letter from MWCC Administrator Lusher to Chairman Weaver (Attachm ent 2 states that the MWCC analysis shows a � o the MWCC of over $1 million based on s projects they p ro ] net benefit ject • rshed ro does not proceed. The MWCC expect to do if the wate P upper end of the, further sta that two proj i t undertook in the • pp . watershed were not credited and that none of the credits given were ap preciated to present day worth. • representatives of the MWCC an Council staff met with represents d the District itin MWCC • approach taken by the Distr g to discuss the pp tr ict in crediting Pr ] o'ects. it was discovered at that tim that credits were not given in the channel for two MWCC proj upstream of McKnight Roa d because the District had not yet eva luated how, or i f , these is writi to the p At the time of th g structures would . fit in P � the benefit of ' believes that they will not determine the District • filed des i n stage for this reach of these structures until the detailed g should not be • s believes that the $35rOOO stream. Council sta credit sh taint as to whether the " c laimed at this time becauue there is uncertainty , A con re of a value to the Districts project. • MWCC structures a any it assurance that if these s tion with the District resulted in the , ver a t0 the ro'ect, they will be credited structures are found to f in P ] , • same formula used for the other creditse according to the . t.at Upper Afton Road by the MWCC under The large structure bull PP en no credits by conditions in _the summer of 1980 was giv e mergency • • ture does not fit into the District project the Distr The s .. se sheet-piling must be cut through and in fact caus a problem becau P in order for the storm sewer to be properly installed* that the . Counc i 1' s staff counsel is unsur It should be noted here n a sewer line. leg ality of paying a about the 9 Y special assessment o Staff f counsel will research ttee when Its legality and r e p ort to the Physical Development Commit it discusses this project February 5). reciation, request by the MWCC, On the matter of the $43,000 app The .reason agrees that this credit should be given. Council staff g or this position is that if the MWCC had not installed these f � ct would have to do it now at ro ects when they did, the D istrict on $ 166v2OO P i t f s be i n claimed only current costs. Appreciation cred g credit iven for backfill soil was of the credits. The $35 9 costed -out by the District at current costs. - 5 - • that over 1 million would likely be spent by In summary, it appears $ , next 10 ears if the District project were not to the MWCC in the Y based on anticipated proceed. The • p MWCC is being assessed $937,000 o' ect offers to the MWCC. Credits of $201,700 are benefits the project , • st MWCC projects that can be incorporated given the MWCC based on pa P � staff agrees ees • contribute to the Distr prof ect. Council g into, and co � with the MWCC that an additional $43,000 credit be given to more • g • reflect replacement costs in current financial terms. realistically ref) p two MWCC - Staff believes the request for a $35,000 credit for structures is .not yet justified because the District has not evalu a ted their role, if any, in the District project; staff, therefore, . request should not be included at this time* believes the $35t000 q the Council should approve This leaves a net assessment $692,300 that for the MWCC bu dget* et. I f the Distr finds that the two structures o fit into the project, they have assured upstream of McKnight Road d . staff that p roper credits will be given, The other assessment of concern to the Council is the $541,850 assessed against the St. Paul Parks Department. This amount was • a ssessment rep ort to pay for those improvements added in the amended a P to Battle Creek Park requested by St. Paul Parks an d not included in the first pr p lan* Council Parks and Open Space staff indicated that t y • he City of St. Paul is considering a refusal to pay rounds that the park should the assessment on the g be restored to its o oblem� in essence, n i nal condition by those contributing to the pr , • • original "special benefit" i s a penal i zat i on . for they are stating that something omethin not caused by them. our Parks and Open Sp in its Space staff , f this project 3) agree with that review memorandum o p ro' � ( Distr have resulted in p conce t. Subsequent conver the realization that objection with the if ob'ection is raised to the assessment, that 1 parks and the portion of the project requested by St. Pau p • $541 cost will simply be eliminated, with the contributing to -the it existing ion being controlled., but the banks left in the g park eros g shape* a articular) affected position because the The Council is in a . p articularly . y . ark funds, , in ' assessment might be eligible for regional p this p roject • could be asked to pay the assessment* case the Council c ssment. if th its commitment en the Council will have to decide whether does happen, to restoring the expenditure. In light of Battle Creek Park merits p p the fact that ark if no improvements will be made to the regional p the assessment i s refused fl and the fact that the MWCC assessment was problem it too d t i accep not cause, it would seem ted to alleviate a , a request fo P it to at least consider consistent for the Council regional funds. The decision, of course, will have to be made at the time of request* CONCLUSIONS Battle Creek project prepared by the Ramsey 1. The original Batt P , � on May g, hin ton.Metro Watershed District was approved y 1980; ! Was g . ect has not proceeded since that point and the Region' the prod p most severe.erosion problem has worsened a nd costs have revised Battle Creek project reviewed in . escalated. The slightly oss able. this memorandum should proceed in as quickly a manne r as p - 6 - • roceed, the MWCC would Creek project were not top mon its 2, if the Battle in the next 10 years to } likely send over $1 million •of Battle Creek. li Y P located in the channel interceptor sewer • falls below the benefit assessment against the MWCC fa _ The $93 7,000 asses g received* . 3 illion that would be (over $1 m ; of $201,700 given by th e district for past MWCC 4. The credit to reflect current _ projects should be increased by $43,000 replacement costs. •• • re nested by MWCC for two projects should not credit q t does not know if or 5 - The because the district e included at this time o the project* The Dis-- b s involved would P how the structure ld fat into credits will be given has assured staff subject reach of tr ict ff that proper c o f final design for the 1 warranted at the time _ stream. _ reasonable* staff . against the MWCC as r ,n a 6 , An assessment of $692,300 of the Council 1 pay i g ' s researching the legality rt to th pDC counsel i a sewer; counsel will repo special i al assessment this P s this ro *ect (Feb. 5)* when it review P • position to judge whether or ouncil is currently not in a could .be paid from 7. The C e ent assessment co not the St. Paul Parks D artm judgment P • nds. A will a made if such a request b regional park fu be made at this timeo is received, but no commitments c an RECOMMENDATION • consistent with policies., e Creek project be found c 1. That the Battle d proceed as proposedo of the Metropolitan Council an p 2 . 3. identified in an amendment to of $692t3oo should be ide ton Metro That a total , the Ramsey - Washing ' s 1981 Capital Budget to -pay Creek project if MWCC ' s assessment for the Battle, Watershed District 11 appropriate for the staff coups e 1 finds that it is legally Council to do so • r the assessment against ns ider i aton of funding f est is o That Council co until such a bequ Tha is deferred u the St. Paul Parks Department aluate the request for: made , At that t time , the Council will evaluate a. b . SA2892 1.29.81 • n Open Space Policy Plan Consistency with the Recreatio P 'opal Park, and Con Y n for Battle Creek Reg i and the master pia • capital improvement act on the regional parks c P . Imp dent it would set for f uture actions programs and precedent • • � _ � l�•SSi.0 4 L. RV�F Ay►C.' ri� �. �Y"'d �.I ; r , � •-�'� Ts1� .i ;.�: -.:�.- va•'..i ,,. •i :�� •�,�..�7'a'X.'.::.. � ,,, - ' • rai � � r - :s � '"�•r.. .'.�yr�.�'�,"ESC�,S• :. '.:•Oi: ''..�_t�F`."�w•��++i�{�. ' •.. •+t,•�. � + - � - c v - ><• 'll ` .M mod• ��y y �Y`Rt!-' ice` >+R'S... i,, ^�1 '�••••ri .i s�.:._ ..�^ i- �.r i "' _...! �_ '�.: ;J!ri" ._. i.l f1.4�f}!�• .��..'�. t { r / -1 +s'r'y'r.. Ts��, r1.'.� :s :Jr� - ..r , ,Y •. ---- - .rte - .: iM1',.r'i�.:" � w.. r•_ M r - M V „. .Sr,�• •�< ;. _ei' :'yl� - •� �'_ •. . r � : �•�. • •.:r �1'. � .Y 4: •� '^.err :,✓� ;e_ �•. .''�:'i n.,�Y S'.'. •d.�” - • S�f�.iC_.�•. :rss ..+�.�. v. ,r, �r !j . ._ I ' 9 '! r - =rN• • 'r"t�.:.+ ♦'L•�:' " M1r - .. ;4 � • 'Will •a.-. •; : - i'. L t. .•a -. J , � t JJ - v,,, mot,. :Z - , s''�c'.F - � - ,tY�;�•' - $' t - - _y ". i� 'fit _ :.•... 4•': ..s. - � >`•, y h•:: _ .•r,.•c _ !' A NiEN •J . X7'1.+ - N. •F � ' t ... . 1 }1 r l - i •.fir. - '�� J! -% •,M�� ,l�vf•'� '), "i!• . - I _ _ - i - - - - Sus ine s S Ltem Not fore Release. Untz.Y. 4 :.'0 0 J? .M 50-081 so METR4PULITAN COUNCIL • •. Buildin , Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, Suz.te 340 Metro Squar e 291!. -6 35 9 _ s T�AL OEVELOPMMT COMM�c�cTE REPOVM o THE P nj . �ERR��L. REPORT No • Metro oUtan .Counc TO . P ton: Metro Wate Dis trict. e llashi L SU�TECT: Y� g { Battle Creek Prot ect { �....w etto out Council Districts 3 and: 14 # ks Ref rra • F ile . No�� e .74-11Z_1... , { .. Committee la s g ^ 8 the: Physical. Development At.. it. meeting o f..• May 1, . r considered the. attached Coun c s taf f report re lAtzng to the •� e: discussion, the Cov=tttee adapted abo�re' fale� io1..�.owing th the staff `> s` recom�nendatz.ons-..' Re commendatlon Emma- transmit itan- Council. adopt. the attached report and t i That. the Metropol. , it to the- interested partzes-. : Respectfully submitted, Marcia Bennett,- Chairperson E S a _ - .spa _ e� •��,.t, - .t„�.� . _ _ .. �.If _ i t t i - - MR' Metro S quare Building, St: - Paul, Minnesota 55 Suite 340 Q - M N� Apri1 E MORANDU 21, 1980 TO Phys is al Development Committee FROM:. Environmental. Planning (Marcel Jouseau) SUBJECT. Ramsey - Wash in 9 ton Metro Water shed District . Battle Creek Project Metropolitan Council . Districts 3 and 14 Referral File Number 7412 -1 tabled Development Committee - On September 13 ,� 1979 , the Physical action on the roposad Battle Creek improvement Project. It P directed the staff to reappear at a later meeting in Octobero also suggested that the Watershed The committee a �3g District meet be found to .alleviate with St* Paul to see �. f solutions could the concerns of St. Paul-* The C i tv of S t. Paul had presented to the committee several . ' ns to the plan regarding the manner in which the costs :... obj ect io P t of the ro ' ect were assessed, with the resulting burden on St. .....:' P 3 Paul* other objections inclu ded design c and the omission of various slope restoration projects. _ Since September 1979, the Watershed District, has met several times with the City of St. Paul as well as various citizens groups.. The City of St.. Paul and the Watershed District have made substantial progress in making agreeable changes, as wof evidenced by Mayor Latimer' s letter of April 2, 1 M a y or Latimer o3 i tan recommends that the Metrop (attached) . Y � in conformance X11 th Council now find the Batt1.. � Creek project Metropolitan plans. Recommendations 1. That the p h Metropolitan Council advise the Minnesota 77ater Resou s Board and the Watershed District - that the Battle Creek 1 ro'ect is consistent with Council policies. P Metropolitan Council advise the Minnesota 2. That the P � Envi ronmental nual i tv Board that the Battle Creek P roject is consistent with the Mississippi Critical Area In Develop Reg ulations and the City of St. Paul Cr itical Area Plan, as reviewed by the Council* '• ►fi -•... �� .� w•wr� �. =. : '1 �.�• . DWMOM 1 i • That the Metropolitan opoLi tan Counc I i advise the Watershed District . • the Me tropol i tan Waste Control to continue to meet with cunt - Paris and the Ci t of St. Paul, Ramsey C Y P Commission, Y reach agreement over th ens ace and other parties to g op p assessment and pr oject design concerns. - cil advise the �rtatershed District ' 4a That the Metropolitan Coun Waste Control Commission that the and the Metropolitan Was the assessment that is not approving the paying • of -• will Counc il. p e Commi.ss ion. The Councl l mi ht be levied against the the Capital 9 time the MWCC makes a request through act at the ti val rocess. The program budget appro p no s i tion as improvement this act ion-, takes po Metropolitan Council, by nts or the propriety to the method or amount . of any assessme of assessing any specif entitles. CR8 31 A _ - - _ _.._..._- ...... -- +► r----- -_- -. ..m --- - -- - . _. ..-.- '.w . • - - - - - - - ... S _ .(1' - ' �♦` r ..rr - _ .. .. ; Wit.• _ - .•.. RO UTING r Admin. PR 7 1980 - CITY OF S PA7UL P. R. OF FICE OF TH BYO$ H. R. _, .. OF CS1Pl0 -- j - - - -Fdr-your information - - ? 347 CITY 13.A►LL SA=T PAUL, XMrgZSO& 55102 Take appropriate action T 1 GEOAGE LATI[ ER (gyu) 298 - 4323 XAYOR Please reply Prepare reply for Chmn sig April 2 1980 mr. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Mr.' Weaver: e Ph y, Development Committee tabled on September 1.3 , 1979 , th Y action on the propos ed Battle Creek Watershed project. No action • • e proposal in conformance with Metro plans. was taken to find th P P the ro osed assessment because of identified concerns relating to P p concepts* By tabling the proposal, the com dow. formula and design P • • � se Washington Metro Watershed District rciittee was allowing the Ramsey affected. municipalities e time to better communicate with the of , mor t alternate solutions to the problems. and questions and consider al � identified with their formal pro f osal. of Saint Paul has had an opportunity to Since last fall, the City d better understand the proposal and recomme nd changes g to the Board of Managers.. Rec ent actions by the Board have addressed most of our major concerns. • l was opposed to the The City of Saint Pau pP assessment logic sand we resented originally Proposed by the Board of Manager p or1g Y P rmula concept. options for their consideration. two assessment formula � e ' rejected, recent approval While both of the City's options were r j is e managers of the "80 % -20% channelization concept" by, th g as a more logical la and equitable formu acceptable to the City for assessing channelization costs in a manner which recognizes channeliza w and total volume. Spreading 80% o f the . • both peak flow e entire Battle Creek Watershed District is tion costs over the logical because 80% of the sediment carry capacity of the water which erodes the creek channel is during non -peak flow times- Most of our design concerns have been en addressed in a cooperative � spirit b the Board of Managers The City of and responsibl e P y will continue to work with Saint Paul has minor concerns that we the Board of Managers to addres a sit 2 19 - �2.m- Ap . 1�.. Ch rile s We aver rt the updated ' cats that we support o f Managers d. like to indicate b the Board in s t�aaae we W advocated Y i ently is be included At proposal llcw:-ng cflnCeP Battle Creek P , n tha the fo t h e . u nderstandi g with be the final- prOPosa� fission Waste Control as e Metropolit to their property Z) Tha � ciao. benefit assessed a spe fi prop • of 1ed � the or s.g pr . de ideas s systemwi wised that MWCC • �,aru� -nq • has been ad pl facilities P The city rfor�•n�= the 2 _ =ecO ends consultant Pe ' s ions of PL9 0 • in ned d under the prove f be re St taz. reek study NE inter Wo ceptor of Battle Lions that the cation along PQr Batt present location that the proposed e itable d appear ar therefore the MWCC are � It wool P d a ssessments • t C will, not Creek Waters s 1 , if the C it of justified. Obvs.ou Y benefit � the � .and is of special s osits.on of cce t assessmen o r econsider i •t assessment S P l would have t • Pau spec benefie Sa3.nt to acce a sP Tonal Park °f b willing which is a reg Batt Creek P ark • � for •tan s i gn if i cance* �aetraP °h that a special - Managers recognize Board of aul for sub,,�ban 2) That th $O City of Saint P trol future sment to the Y e • red to con caus asses i ovements r Lake {which I Avenue Pond' ow from Beaver areas water Overflow f rom ge aint p aul clear d flow which originate as red on by . S by overlaaa pain) should be passed oon to ou tside of saint . ci alit3.es in P � . ou ntri mans P to the co but £total flow • their share ° clear water - t a Lie c • ated t B eaver ver Lad=e studies It i antsclp t after the B olitan Council r will be bui l for the Me ° p f the Sews under contract findings currentl! at based on t}�e ow will leted: and � contribu•tz.ng flow are cow mvn3.cipaliti f constructing studies* th for the cost o tershed project their fair share d Battle Creek a pay nd the related t h e sewe urban Avenue Pon E A eeded at of Manage in wi � the Board ais�t P aul • Linos to work t h e City of s - staff will con ro oral s tha t at the City s Battle Creek P P for the PrOl ect formal Saint Paul refining the solid su'pPOZ't The CitY of be able to Si °e SU this spri ion to find the will anticipated f vncil take a►ct P ubic hearing a Metropolita CO ' recomends that th t 1 t i r � t 0 April 2 1980 f -3- - - Mr. Charles We aver . - • ' n conformance with metro-r Battle Creek Watershed pro J ect to be i Public • the• Board of Managers hold their politan. plans before f ou nd to be in confo hearings- with in obviously, a project f °u affected g • Plans will be better received by t Metropolitan pla attend th public hearings property owners anticipated to a • coo eration in this important manner. Thank you for your continuing P Respectfully Y requested, Geor Latimer Mayo GL:lmP Jerome Segal cc City Council members Thomas Kelley Ramsey County Board of. Comm Brown 'lliam McCutcheon Larry Chief Wl 1 Bernard Edmonds Representative Randy Kelly Re P inson John Rutf ord Representative John Toml Jo De nnis Palmer Todd Lefk Toni Baker - Martin Kellogg Bill Dorgan Charles Rafferty Roger Lake . Donald. Nygaard. Marcel. Joseau T. William Donovan .�..r- "' ----- - ._.�_� -.. ------ - � -- ._ - _ - _ � - - mot ._ • _ _. :' :.•: .'' - � I��. r � , r „ I:+ wJ ✓'..:. +%..ti✓u":- ...� -- -- - J' -, r-- T • -. _ _ ' . .. .•.r- " '� - -:•� : • �;% :JR:: ii.• iVy;��iJ�w.J'r t...r iar �.e • - -�,t O F' O L r T A N Co N� N� C, ota 55101. r M H- � St. p Minnesota S uite 300 Metro Square Building , _ September T, 1979 MEH N D U M p .. Physical. Development Committee • Gary Ober is and. Marcel FROM •. Fnv i ronmental. Planning Divis t Jouseau) hed District , Battle Creek T: Ramsey-Washington Metro Waters pile Number 7412 -1 Proj ect, MC D istricts istricts 3, 14, Referral - Descr ii2 tion of Pro ect dr • stream draining portions of Battle Creek is a. westward flowing s lmo and Woodbury (see Paul, Maplewood, Oakdale, Lake a m as a eastern St. P � . erosion occurs In the stye attached figure) Major channel g nt with..litt �= reg for erosion result of past watershed developme f the ana ement � The current condition o control and stormwater m g • th deeply erosive channels one of severe degradation, wi P Creek is lands and to trunk sanitary os in imminent thr eats to adjacent Battle Creek is the most posing r alley and cross. the Creek• sewers that pa in the Metropolitan Area severely eroded major: stream ` Watershed District has propose a• The Ramsey-Washington-Metro W nsist lion and co of • improvement costing about $4 mil. major creek imp crea tion of a. stormwater storage ,three subprojects, including modification and • McKnight i ht Road n Battle- Creek. Park facility at M g • t at Suburban Avenue and of a stormwater storage fa expansion um• stru i ctural measures n the installation of many minimum -to -maxim Lake in Woodbury to TH 61 Battle Creek from 8att� -e Creek La . se County channel of B ro ' ect was petitioned by Ram • y in St.' Paul (see maps) . The 7 t , Brie descriptions of r 112 the Watershed District Ac under Chapte � the subprojects follow* • create b building a dike on Ro ad Storage. Basin. will. be creat Y The McKnight Ro a ,Creek. Park. Two erosi n con o- of McKnight Road in Battl rie within the east side will be installed in the Chan roe drop structures (weirs) a two small ponds behind. t P will b The result o£ thin activity dike during per the drop structures and - the. park.. T flooding of land behind the •efts are proposed to store flow in the Creek. These proj nods of high and to pr event eros ion of water for subsequent slow release Road Storage runoff he total cost Of the McKnig the channel in the par k, T Basin is $629,400* of an existing site The Suburban Avenue Basin will take advantage the storage The project wned by Ramsey Countye calls for enlarging p at currently bypasses . the • connecting a tributary area that o f this pond basin and to Battle Creek. The purpose nd, discharging directly ease. The total cost of is to store ru not f water for subsequent rel ' a Basin is $160,000. the Suburban Avenue Storage - the channel work The largest e lemaent of the entire improvement is o f the s tre am is reek. Each of six reaches natives. _ proposed for Battle C cif is robl.ems - and alter P - seised relative to spe problems-and the stream energy separately as o dissipate P The major objective is t vailable. tal construction consistd a To reduce channel erosion. • nments , 18 sewer and thus ctur 12 channel reali over 30 drop stru ed, sewer, and miscellaneous of o feet o€ concrete nhole covers. e xtens ions � crete e Total cost = a � � ash racks and ma . ,additions such as rip P is 3,285,4. • eat o€ the pro3e'ct 00 $ for this element according 0 w �,i,l be assessed acco • 9 to o ' ect cost. of $4, 074, 80 A ited p as benefits received. Chapter 1 .describes benef t value) i.e. , increased proper Y receive direct benefits { b virtue of locati those that r a ute to flow in the stream y will be and those that contribute aordinary assessments contributing watershed. Extr Paul Park in the n, St. contr a Control Commissio • st the Metropolitan Wast of Transportation made again artment, Minnesota Department and Recreation Dep ilroad.. and Burlington Northern Ra contained in the Battle Creek Watershed Management Th project is co adopted by the Distr in November 197 70 Plan Review Autbor district 'strict Act p • • .2.45 of the Watershed D Provides that a i " lan" under Section Section 1.1 is cons idered a p f fans statement of work or projects , it Ac t. council review o P 1,65 of the Metrapo].itan Counc first, the Council determines 4? 3 . , .155 is a. two -stage PrpCess. effector a under 473 reawide or �nulticom�aLnity finds er the propos al. has an a o eat. If the Council whether t on metropolitan opol i tan devel pm al of f ec o f the lan commences . In substanti ircumstances., review P ' ew is one or more of these c the Council scope of real • and stage of the process, nt Guide {MDG) and with this sec h the He Developme • w�.t etro Titan Area- If consistency development of the M po ' ro ect) the orderly and economi this case, a Distric P 3 finds that such a plan {in o the orderly and the Councs.l f o r i s detrimental t , inconsistent with the M an Ar ea, the Council can is of the Metropl3. economic development Tan or part thereof . • s the operation of the P indefinitely su P ed project it review P has recommended formal. Couni c w of this proposed s o f the project and . Staff intercomMun ty effects sewers} are involved* because of Po ms {parks - and-san i t ar y becaus& two regional sY ste Background_ on problems for many years.. been Iagued with Bros i P r cent of the Battle Creek has be p were erected over 10 Pe der annel. protection structures bilization work has been under channel P 2 and 1937. Other sta e3. in 193 er shed without stormawate= charm fold . be urbanization of the wa to increase many taken since. T runo pea flow rate ent has caused the ee ' ravines in the nar row, management flow ra t e , Cutt ing d P over the natural peak steep valley • • Agreement was signed by the municipalities in . In 1.9 ?2, a Joint Power Ag ' the watershed to undertake erosion control projects (Ste Paul, North Woodbury, Lake Elmo. Maplewood)*, lack. of agree - St.� Paul, Oakdale, y► od) . � A - -. municipalities pre went on the project costs allocation among the p vented the u s ion undertaking of. any of the scheduled improvements. Ero sion n 4 severe- that the have cause problems are so se Y d part of Battle Creek regional parr to be. closed and. have- caused a n unusual maintenance i metro olitan sewer interceptor n the creek valley. 0 problem fora . P ct was organized resolve stormwater zed to reso In 1975p, a. watershed district g area .management.. The Council. has reviewed. the overall management plan for the district.- T The need to provide solutions, to the channel erns ion problem was identified in the plano o has also adopted a management plan for the The watershed district .p .this plan as a Battle Creek Watershed. The Council did not treat p e 8 Th informally review it. and found it acceptable. referral, but did in Y ' watershed. district must now obtain: approval of the project from the • oard • a. district he . - Minnesota Water Resources B hearing must be� held, from various final. plans must be drawn and permits must be P agencies. prior to starting on any improvements. Metropolitan Concerns Development, Framework 1 P S • contained within the Metropolitan The watershed area is fully conta a to remed Urban Service. vice Area. (MUSA) . The proposed projects ar Y s resulting rom a lack. of stormwater manageme urbanized. areas. T p rojects. ' t In to.. problems • he do not conflict with Development Framework policies o. Z.. Tr an sportat iorr shed. plan will have no significant impact on the The water p transportati on system*- However, Minnesota Department of y Transportation (Mn /DOT) is planning to improve TH 61. improve- ments to the highway and the c Tr ans P - reek should be coordinated by the two agencies for the improvements 3.. Par and Open Space The watershed plan. be beneficial to the Battle Creek Regional Park. Erosion problems have. caused part of the park ro osed plan to stop to be closed and the p erosion problems will P P agencies, . Ramsey . County. improve the park. However the operating g , P pawl are concerned o .Parks and Open Space and the City of St. b the the assessments and the cost allocation formula • developed Y • count and the watershed district should District. The city, Y assessment. - In attempt to resolve the differences over the • P d district proposes to use some of the addition, the watershed p. date permanently ark land to retain stormwater ; this will inure P P and temporarily some additional land. This an area of the park Po may have ne ative as well as beneficial mpacts. g , i 4. Water Resources For quite some t the erosion situation. on Battle Creek has been recognized as the largest major stream erosion problem in the Metropolitan Area. Ravines several feet deep with- extremely steep, erosive side- slopes are- cmm along the entire tire length of the Creek from Battle Creek Lake to TH 61. The situation is not one of a pristine natural stream attempting to reach equilibrium, but rather one of increased runoff from upstream development devastating a stream channel that simply cannot handle the increased volumes. Unfortunately, intensive structural alteration appears to be the only feasible means available to stabilize the stream channel and dissipate the energy Associated with runoff and steep gradients. a The proposed p sed project elements are outlined in the Battle Creek Management Plan (November 1977) . The Council has recognized that preparation of a management plan is essential. prior to under—* taking large -- scale. projects within a watershed. On May 5, 1977 the Council adopted Recommended Content for Watershed District P . Overall Plans (Schoettler memorandum) , which identifies manage— ment plans as element~ number five. The Water Resources Chapter policy No. 12. states that drainage plans should be done on a watershed basis with coordination between all governmental units. The Battle Creek Management Plan is one of few that have been proposed even though the Council has encouraged all to prepare similar plans. Many Council policies from the M chapters on Protection Open Space and Water Resources relate to preservation. of "naturalu areas as top priority in dealing with physical resources* Unfortunately, the Battle Creek channel. has been so devastated that the-term "natural"' really no longer describes the majority of the channel.. Development of the watershed has increased runoff volumes and rates to the point where an accelerated erosion condition now exists in the watershed. The project as proposed is consistent ' with Water Resource policy numbers 21 and 2 6 ' wh ich state that drainage problems should be handled so as to minimize ermanent damage to natural resources and to minimize P 9 impacts on the quality - of waters.. 5. Critical Area The project should be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board (BOB) for their official review of that part of the plan which is for areas within the Mississippi. Critical Area Corridor. Council staff has reviewed the plan for consistency with the Critical Area interim development regulations. The plan is found consistent with the interim development regulations. However, _the City of St. Paul and the Watershed District should be assured that the proposed projects are consistent with the requirements for grading and filling contained in the interim regulations. � .6. Metropolitan ve on several occasions undermined -a- metr.opoli- Erosion problems ha tan sewer interceptor for and caused expensive repair wor The proposed plan. would. reduce f low- peaks in the creek channel and to Po P eliminate problems*-- minate erosion. roblems thus- protect the interceptor. The Metropolitan: Waste Control. Commission (MWCC) will be assessed for r oximatel 80 0 , 00 0 on the basis s of the benefits i is derived from approximately $ . the watershed improvements. As. P art. of the- Combined Sewer overflow (CSO) study the MWCC will be. looking at alternative ways of servicing the communities inside and outside the water s g hed.. Possible solut ions are for the relocation of the interceptor outside the creek. valley. With these solutions there would be no benefits derived from the creek improvements* Thus, the assessment of $800,000 proposed P would be unacceptable e. if such asse ssment is levied against the MWCC and if it is paid off through the MWCC Capital Improvement the MWCC will be- required to get Council approval before Budget, paying off the assessment. T he Watershed District. should be advised of the studies undertaken by the MWCC and the two agencies ies should. be encouraged to evaluate the benefits to be derived from the-creek improvement F indings and Conclusions 1. T proposed. he Battle Creek Project is: an attempt to solve a long existing, severe erosion problem& 2. The 7 ro ' ect affects regional park and sanitary sewer systems P and does affect several communities in-two counties. 3 Thep ro project proposal calls for stormwater. . retention areas. and for .. 7 P ro p intensive structural work to be completed in the channel and on the channel banks, but no feasible- non - structural alternatives appear to exist.. 4. The project- is within the MUSA and is consistent with Development Framework policies. Council policies, stress preservation of natural conditions 5 .. po , t apply because of the impact development has had on the do no pP Y - channel , changing it from a natural c ondition to one of acceler ated, induced erosion. 6. T p roject ect is consistent with Water Resources policies. ' � • erosion and thus have a beneficial 7 . The project will reduce impact on Battle Creek Regional Par The inundation of park k land, however, might be detrimental. S. The benefits as reflected by the assessment, are being questioned ;v • b the City of St. Paul and Ramsey County Parks and Open Space, Y Y the operating agencies for this regional p ark. • beneficial impact o . 9, The project would hake a n an existing Metropolitan sewer interceptor. However, pr esent studies of rvi.cin the c�I3A:Lties . point • to the -alternative ways. of se g P'o ssible• relocation of the• interceptor. 100 If the interceptor-is r elocated the proposed watershed project would not benefit the- KWCC• s to the MWCC, as reflected by the assessment, are . 110 The benefit being questioned by the Commission. .. levied against the MWCC•and paid off 12. Payment of assessment g ent Bud et must be the Commission' Capital Tmprovem g through Council. approved by the M et rop olitan - • he ro ' ect to the EQB for its review in 13. The District must submit • t p r i�a Development accordance with the Mississi Critical Area i nterim Regulations. ' t to meet the require 14. Council staff finds the project requirements of the Critical Area regulations; though the City of St. P aul and the- • • assured that the requirements on filling and District must be a grading contained in the regulations will be net- • e of f ects on TH 61 improvements. Coordi— 15, The project may have some nation of the watershed project and highway project would be beneficial. Recommendations Council advise the Minnesota Water Z,. That the Metr opolitan Resources Board and the Watershed D istrict that the Battle Creek p consistent with Council policies. • it advise the Min Z, That the Metropolitan Council nesota Environmental • s consistent with. ualit Board that the Battle Creek project i • Quality al Area interim Development Regulations. . the Mississippi Critic 3. That the metropol Council .advise the Watershed District to • - - a. Submit the project to the EQB for review in accordance with the Executive Order g des nating the Mississippi Critical Area- co r r ido r be Meet with the Metropolitan Wa ste Control Commission, the en Space to City of St. Paul and Ramsey County Parks and op p - =each agreement over the assessments to be levied. c. Coor dinate with Mn /DOT the design of the creek improvement as it affects the improvements of TH 610 Council advise the Watershed District and 4. That the Metropolitan the MW CC that , . at this time, the Council is not approving the paying of the assessment that Haight be levied against the Commission. ATTACHMENT 2 January 26, 1981 fir. Charles Weaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul tiN 55101 Subject: B attle Creek Improvements and Proposed Assessment to MWCC for Improvements Dear Chuck: • revi of the i neer'.s Feasibili En This is in regard to my staffs rev 9 Report and the Appraiser's 'ser' s Re ort distributed by the Ramsey-Washington- 1m Metro Watershed District for the proposed erosion co ntrol p rovements Commission. The subsequent assessment to the to Battle Creek and the q i n $ 917,000 ' ro osi n to assess o watershed district �s p roposing g the Commission c ost of $5 about 16.4 percent) of the estimated construction c t ealiZe Minnesota Statue f or the erosi control improvements. As you the applicable i cabl a law regarding the special 473.54 {1978) sets fort PP uch assess - assessment .of f Commission property and prove des that all s confirmation by the Metropolitan Council. ments shall be subject to final the staff's comments regarding the proposed a ssessment The following are for your use in responding to the watershed distri • � a of $93.7,000 i s based on the The water - shed district's proposed asse • Commission i on has made over the .1 ast ten years fore re .expenditures the Co - adjacent to the airs to the Battle Creek Interceptor which i s i n or j P over the 1 ast , ten years should not be the creek bed. Expenditures made o Also determining the assessment of special benefits. sole basis for 9 the expenditures made over the last ten years should not be used as the basis for P rojecti ng future emergency repair costs. • d b the Commission to protect A review of the previous work performed Y to • an i nvesti ation of potential future probl the interceptor and � to expend funds to make future repairs at the following interceptor shows that the Commission can . expect P the P locations if the watershed distr ict does not P provide erosion control improvements* 1 • sheeting to maintain two existing interceptor 1. Provide additional she g between Highway i crossi betty 61 and Upper Afton Road at $100,000 ! er crossing for a subtotal cost of $200,000. l P 9 • o protect the interceptor immediately 2. Provide a sheeting wall t p A BLDG downstream of U 3so METRO Gov RE � down s tr p er Afton Road at a cost of $200 P 7TH 6 ROBERTITREET/ , /NAT PAIL mn ss10! 612 222.6423 r • �1r. lr i fis ���.��vc�z•, �.f��ii ��,:���n me tropolit(in rounc:i January 26, 1931 Pa cue T.��o. 3. Provide a sheeting wall to protect the interceptor between Upper Afton Road and Ruth Street at a cost of $75,0000 4. Provide a sheeting wall to protect the interceptor between Ruth Street and McKni nht Road at a cost of $75 5. Provide sheeting walls to protect the interceptor at five locations between McKnight Road and Century Avenue at an average cost of $75,000 each h for a subtotal . cost of $375,000. 6. Provide sheeting walls to protect the interceptor at two. locations, upstream of Century Avenue at an average cost of $50,000 each for a subtotal cost of $110,0000 ed cost for' the above potential future problems is The total estimat n the assum in present day dollars. This cost is based o P ti on that the creek flows will i conti nue to increase i $ n the future which h will accelerate erosion and create additional problems to • erce for stability. i ty. The potential future cost to the Commissio � nt p ears i s rester than to maintain the interceptor over the next ten y 9 d assessment b the watershed. Since there is an element the propose y of chance in whether or not these costs w i l l or will not be incurred, the proposed assessment I s within the realm of reasonableness as to what the amount of future benefits would be, and therefore, within acceptable limits* i s p roposi ng to allow the Cor.�ni ss i on a credit The watershed dis of $201,700 eraenc work for existing in- provements resulting from em y the proposed accom lished durinca the last ten years. This reduces P p P n to a net amount of . $735,(.100. The proposed credit special assessme improvements is allowed for only three of five ex sty ng Corr�n� ss�on p rov rated into the watershed districts erosion control which can be incorpo b an additional ro' the credit should be increased y • project. Therefore, J two additional existing nq improvements. The credit for $35,000 for the t n t day and existing improvements have not been appreciated�to y appreciated u to present day worth. This increases • t e should be pp P rate credit to credit b $43,004. It is felt that the total approp y constructed facilities should, be the Commission for previously $279,000 or an increase of $78,000. Th changes the net propose assessment from $735,000 to $657,000. assessment of $657,000 tas proposed by Commi The net special 1 to the for the district's project compares very favorab staff) potential future emergency repair costs of over $1,oO0 as esti rag ed ecial assessment is, also, much less than the by the staf f. The n et s p M Charl i4eaver, Chairman Metropolitan Council January 26 1981 Page Three cost of a future commission project which may be required to for ati,ra fror.� the creek bed, if the erosion relocate the i nterceptor y • control improvement prod ect is not implemented. • at the Metropolitan Council give the project It is r ecommended that a favorable recommendation with the above cost consi derations and urge early implementation of the proj Very truly yours, George W. Lusher Chief Adr�inistrator cc: John Tomasel l i Bill Blain GI•IL : CRP : cl l J ATTACHMENT 3 M E T R O P O L I T A N C 0 U N C I L Suite 3 00 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 M E M O R A N D U M January 2, 1981 TO: Gary Oberts, Environmental Planning Staff FROM: Charles Smith, Parks and Open Space Staff - SUBJECT: BATTLE CREEK WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1: ENGINEER'S SUPPLEMENTAL FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ABRIDGED APPRAISERS REPORT - REFERRAL FILE NO. 7412 -3 reviewed the two documents associated with this project for consistency wit I Open cation 0 Space System Policy Plan and the master plans for Battle the Recr P P Creek eek Re ional Park. The Supplemental Feasibility Report appears to be consistent with these plans. The Repor t reflects the involvement and conceptual approval of the St. Paul and Ramsey County parks departments. The improvements • should protect and restore the park resource as well as provide the flowing water amenity on which the park is based. The Abridged Appraisers Report, isers Re ort while not in direct conflict with the System Policy Plan, does cause concern. It proposes a "special benefit" of $541,850 be assess to the St. Paul Parks Department for restoration of the ravine downstream of Upper Afton Road. It is staff's opinion that this is neither a logical nor equitable means of assessing for this improvement.. The park had this benefit the day it was established. Poor planning and stormwater management upstream caused erosion of this benefit over the years. The Appraisers Report suggests that th e p P ark should now pay in full for having this benefit restored. This assessment is particularly troublesome to the Metropolitan. Council since it probably is eligible for funding out of regional park funds* The watershed managers should realize that Council staff would not recommend regional funding for this "special benefit" as it has been assessed g S p in the Report* We would advise the city of St. Paul to follow a similar course. The remaining emainin assessment to parcels in the park appears fair, particularly as ace en space _. it gives an appropriately low land use factor to o p p • Council staff , n feels this factor is based on the degree to which open space land causes stor maater runoff as compared to other land uses. The cost of ravine restoration should be assessed to those who "caused" it, that is, as part of the areawide.channel stabilization assessment. This improvement is not a "special benefit" any more than are several other improvements along the Creek*' It should have been in the original Engineers Report along with these other improvements. DMO18A r MEMORANDUM To : City Council FROM : Barry R. Evans, City Manager SUBJECT: Storm Water Run -Off DATE : February 27, 1981 As you are aware the Met Council by an 8 -7 vote has instructed the Metro - politan Waste Control Commission in the presentation of their cap ital . budget to include a change in sewer charges. The chanqe would, of course decrease St. Paul's portion of the bill and increase the suburb's. The amount of increase to Maplewood is unknown, but during the two year discussion on the matter, St. Paul was claiming 1 million a 9 y ear Y was involved. I understand they now say it may be as much as $1.6 million. In either case, I assume that Maplewood will be stuck w4th a good portion of this; and probably for a long time since St. Paul's incentive to separate its lines is now decreased due to the Met Council action. Logic apparently played a very small part in the Met Council decision. Because of the ramifications of their action and the potentially large increases to Maplewood residents (at, I might add to the benefit on St. Paul's many wet industries) I would recommend that Council authorize concerted legal action with any of the other suburbs who wish to proceed with us. I would also suggest that we discuss the lake levels of Phalen with Ramsey County. I understand the lake is kept .high because of St. Paul's recreation needs. If we are going to have to pay for overflow into St. Paul's combination sewers because of that, .then we should have some input into how the lake is drained. V ��� - -•. " E 111 ' f_ 7 .IC`s!t Re Date f r•r MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Special Exception - Home Occupation LOCATION: 1772 N. Ruth Street (See map ) OWNER /APPLICANT: Sandra L. Anderson er 7 PROJECT: Custom Drapery 9 and Decorating Business Action by C� , DATE: February 24, 1981 �� r E c j e c SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL Dat Request Permission to operate a custom drapery and decorating business .i n the h�orne . Proposed Land Use 1. Hours: An average of 20 hours per week will be devoted to the busi 2. Deliveries: One or two deliveries each week will be made to the applicant's home. 3. Traffic: The applicant will deliver all customer orders. Customers will not come to the applicant's home. Site Description 1. Lot Size: 10,125 square feet. 2. Existing Land Use: Single fami dwelling and garage. Surrounding Land Uses The property is bounded on three sides by single fami homes. To the west is Hillside Jr. High School DEPARTMENT CONSIDERATIONS P1 anni 1. Land Use Plan Desi gnation: RL , Low Density Resi dential. r 2. Zoni ng: R -1, Residence District (Single dwelling) 3. Refer to the enclosed Planning Commission Subcommittee report on home occupations. CONCLUSION Analysis Criteria from the Planning Commission Subcommittee Report: 1. The business will be conducted on a continuing basis. .2. The applicant will be the only employee. 3. Only one room will be devoted to the business use. This will not exceed 206 of the home's floor area. 4. The applicant will comply with the si gnage requirements as outlined in the Code. 5. The applicant will not be selling any merchandise from her home . . 6. No customer parking space is required. The only additional traffic generated will be from deliveries made to the home once or twice a week. 7: The only equipment involved with this business will be a sewing machine -. 8. There would be no fire or. safety hazards. The applicant w i l l not be - keeping a stock of materials or fabrics. These will be delivered when needed. Staff does not see any problem with this proposal. The City should review this permit after one year, however, to determine whether any problems have _.developed. Recommendation Approval of the proposed home occupation for a custom drapery and decorating business, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a renewal of the home occupation permit after one year. If there have been no complaints the permit may be renewed. 2. Compliance with the criteria outlined in the enclosed Planning Commission Subcommi ttee report. Enclosed: 10 Location Map 2, Property Line Map 3. Planning Commission Subcommittee Report 2 � CS = W Z DEMONT AVE. F- s _ R ox AvE 2 oc AV 11th AVE. C W E� < 4D ID SE XT AV AN D VIEW� 36 DR. CASTLE AV tREN AvE E.a EN AVE. - S J AVE. COPE AVE. lYE �.: TA RK AVE. ;IE RD. ac LAURIE RD Y � i avF. D 65 N Z Q W 64 j 25 �Q BU KE A AVE. O Maf�.EwOOD R tII PUBIC WORKS R > BLDG. Av F— N 64 AVE. = NA R1S Soo Ros WOOD AVE. 4 :..� t t� 0 29 w !- 'Q W C — m 5 s Z woka /d fY W }= • c _ 29 N _. Lok 3 ac = = Z 3 Z J AVE PRIC 2 O Q < W > < �� CD A V . 2400 N. 2160 N. 65 �innnnn ST. PAUL r � L z LARPENTEUR A"' vi 1{I<AHO A` W Z , O yC- H t � M LOCATION • MAP NORTH ST. PAUL 68 HOLLOW AY AVE. ai O 2l2 i 0 7 RI ( PLEY I AVE. tit- I 1 J :- • .. .. . PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT The Planning Commission concurs with the need for an appropriate definition of a home occupation. It is also felt that whi le certain occupations require the issuance of a special use permit, other activities such as those that do not have any of the following should be allowed without a permit. 1. Employment of any person not residing in the dwelling unit 2. Customers visiting the premises 3. Manufacture of products on the premises. The Planning Commission proposes the following guidelines for a Home Occupation: Home Occupation requiring a permit is defined as that occupation. conducted in a dwelling unit involving the manufacture and /or sale of a product or service, subject to the following limitations: 1. Is conducted on a continuing basis, that is, for more than 30 days out of the year. 2. Not more than one person other than members of the family residing on the premises shall be allowed to engage in such occupation. 3. The use of the premises for the home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its occupants, and no more than an area equivalent to 20% of the dwelling unit floor area shall be used in the conduct of the home occupation. 4. There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the building or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation other than one sign, not exceeding two square feet in area, non - illuminated, and mounted flat against the wall of the principal building.. 5 There shall be no retail sales of products produced off site in connection with such home occupation. 6. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and the need for off- street parking shall not exceed more than three off - street parking spaces for the home occupation at any given time in addition to the parking spaces required by the resident occupants; in no event shall such number of off- street parking spaces exceed a total of five such spaces for the premises and shall be off of the street other than in a required front yard. 70 No equipment or process shall be used in such home occupation which creates noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the lot, if the occupation is conducted in a single family residence, or outside the dwelling unit if conducted in other than a single family residence. In the case of electrical interference, no equip- ment or process shall be used which - creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises, or causes fluctuations in l i n e voltage off the premises. 8. No fire , safety, or health hazard shall exist for the residents of the dwelling unit; customers, or employee. J -� MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Community. Development SUBJECT: Plan Amendment LOCATION: Ferndale Street (See enclosed maps) APPLICANT: Planning Commission DATE: February 24, 1981 REQUEST Approval of a Plan amendment from LSC, Limited Service Commercial to RL, Residential Lower Density. BACKGROUND Site Description 1. The lots are all 461 feet deep, with frontages of 80 = 82 feet. 2. The lots are developed with single - dwelling homes fronting on Ferndale Street. Surrounding Land Uses 1. Northerly: Undeveloped, low, wet land fronting on Minnehah Avenue. It is zoned R -1, Residence District (single dwelling) and designated Rh, Residential Higher Density o the City Land Use Plan. 2. Eas terly: Ferndale Street and single - dwelling homes. 3. Southerly: Apartments 4. Westerly: European Health Spa and undeveloped land north of the Spa approved by the City Council for a racquetball club. The land on the east side of Carlton Street is zoned M -1, Light Manufacturing and designed LSC on the Land Use Plan Past Actions 11 16 -78: Council vacated the Fifth Avenue right -of -way, subject to retaining a uti 1 ity easement. 2- 23 -81: After a request by many of the affected property owners, the Planning Commission recommended that, the l i n e between the LSC and Rt be_ - moved to the west so it runs down the rear property l i n e of the lots on the west side of Ferndale Street, to reflect: G ' 1. The existing housing and land use P a ttern 2. The existing R -1 zoning 3. The expressed wishes to the owners of the lots Planning 1. - The Beaver Lake Land Use Plan designates the frontage of the lots on Ferndale Street for RL use and the rear of the lots for LSC use, 2. = Zoning: R -1 CONCLUSION Analysis It is doubtful that the rear of these residential properties will be developed commercially. Most of the lots do not have frontage on Carlton Street. The Commercial property on Carlton Street has adequate area to develop, without acquiring property from the residential properties to the east. Recommendation Approval of the Plan amendment from LSC to RL on the basis that: 1. The residential properties on Ferndale Street do not have frontage on Carl ton Street. 2. The commercial properties on Carlton Street have adequate area ea to develop without acquiring property from the -resi denti al properties to the east. 3. The extra depth of the residential lots will provide a buffer area p e between the businesses on Carlton Avenue and the residences to the east. Enclosures: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Beaver Lake Land Use Plan 2 Beaver Loke t13 y ERGS= AVE 5 } 69 tGERAN / s MA NOLIA AVE . D ER 01 * � = gZ #A U P d U) _ 'V C � 69 in ►- z HARVESTER _ yI W D ��, LA. BRAND AVE' 2 T. . TTM AVE. z E. T TM AVE. ,<<c• T29N r � R22W 2330 R21W 3af 31 `_ O t 32 r cs Y 12 Nl z O •.3M CONW ~ u L Aav I F.- - ter- -. -- n 1-w 6 __ .M . -- I $ /V� L EXISTING LAND USE PLAN LSC- Limited Service Commercial Center RL - Low Density Residential 4 N JV z RP NTE R AV E - ., 0 IF� I AV E. W z W z Ij ' W Q Q d ; M ARYLAKE RD V S � G • ►-- W ' J I Y o Q Trailer Court •' 68 (Private) E . MARYLAND - A 12� Beaver Loke t13 y ERGS= AVE 5 } 69 tGERAN / s MA NOLIA AVE . D ER 01 * � = gZ #A U P d U) _ 'V C � 69 in ►- z HARVESTER _ yI W D ��, LA. BRAND AVE' 2 T. . TTM AVE. z E. T TM AVE. ,<<c• T29N r � R22W 2330 R21W 3af 31 `_ O t 32 r cs Y 12 Nl z O •.3M CONW ~ u L Aav I F.- - ter- -. -- n 1-w 6 __ .M . -- I $ /V� L EXISTING LAND USE PLAN LSC- Limited Service Commercial Center RL - Low Density Residential 4 N mom I A N- i a :v 4. 6WO T it's 9 top uz 47b. 4r 4p, Ito -f 3 1 Z ., 'oil ` �' f �� � � f i i � � ���-� �� oo -4 Ar > 1� 41 Lr- R G R E: W — AGARE I 0 4 Ilk IV A RL If 1% 14 41 7ROPOSEU-- ftRACQUETBALL , Pts so C -LUB— r 1r t~ '• / — - - - -! V �r.�4e� 9)05- !l— s -e —ro � .'� - -- — CJ� - - - - -- Ilk- -fUROPEAN-- ► : .HEALTH r- r 5PA,, 1 r RL Lt sc J L —j i I Li L 'I a 1 4 F R Ni 0 Wr I i.. t. WAX CO WAY . . ........ ............. ......... EXISTING LAND USE PLAN PROPERTY LINE MAP LSC- Limited Service Commercial Center RL Low Densit Residential 4 z LL 6J i 4 pp k k t. WAX CO WAY . . ........ ............. ......... EXISTING LAND USE PLAN PROPERTY LINE MAP LSC- Limited Service Commercial Center RL Low Densit Residential Commissioner Fischer moved to recommend that the l i n e between the LSC and RL be moved to the west so it runs down the rear property l i n e of the lots on the west side of Ferndale Street, to reflect: 1. The existing housing land use pattern, 2. The existing R -1 zoning, and 3. The expressed wishes of the owners of the lots Commissioner Pel l i sh seconded Ayes - all r. R 4 i t MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development S- ABJECT: Minnesota Star Cities Program DAVE: February 26, 1981 The enclosed information describes a new program by the Minnesota Department of Economic Development to strengthen the economic base of cities through education and promotion. There are a number of positive elements to the program that are listed on the sheet titled "Participating in the Minnesota Star Cities Program." Recommendation Authorize Staff to submit the enclosed entry form. r s t MINNESOTA STAR CITIES New program will assist communities in attracting investors Minnesota communities will soon play a more active role in attracting and retaining business and industry as well as shaping the state's economy. Minnesota Star Cities for Economic Development, a newly launched Min- nesota DeRartment of Economic De- velopment`(MDED) program, provides an educat - ional vehicle for state com- munities to strengthen their economic base and plan for future growth. The program is designed to help Min- nesota cities attract new, expanding and relocating industry. Improving the eco- nomies of local communities through jobs and increased investment is the program's major goal. Special recogni- tion will be awarded to those com- munities that complete program re- quirements. Michael Mulrooney, MDED director of the Business and Community Con- tact Division, called the program needed and long overdue. He noted that many cities wait for business prospects to find them. "There are many wonderful cities throughout Minnesota where the qual- ity of life is superb," said Mulrooney. "We recognize the importance of Min- nesota's cities. This program was created to help them maintain their economic strength and healthy environment." "Many cities are not actively address- ing economic development in a deliber- ate way," he said. "Communities must define the type of economic develop- ment they want to occur in their cities, and design a strategy to achieve de- velopment. This program offers them development `tools' to do that." Mulrooney said that a community's . ability to use development resources to promote economic growth can be learned with professionalized technical assis- tance available in the Minnesota Star Cities program. To receive the program award in- volves several steps that must be com- pleted. The= M DED will systematically administer program, organizing re- gional meetings throughout the state. Department personnel and professional guest speakers will provide information on financing the labor force and en- vironmental concerns, as well as other related topics important to industrial and community development. Local development corporations (LDCs) are important to the program. LDCs, organized by local citizens and businesses of participating communi- ties, will implement local economic de- velopment efforts. The community will establish four key committees as well. They include: Finance, Business and Community Con- tact, Sites and Buildings and Public Information. "A major factor in the success of any economic development program is the organization behind the effort," said Mulrooney. "With a positive dynamic group of individuals banded together to spearhead such efforts, a community's image in dealing with prospective inves- tors can be improved." To receive the award, participating communities will undergo two major evaluations. After the initial application and presentation, M DED staff and private professionals will evaluate the community's preparedness, making rec- 1 1 I M At ZNI 1 �I `per ►.r i;i4 k + 1 y Y • C D E ca •r H _ :t * `+fir --. •� . - r ..., y .-. y f dam.`_ �"'._ �' �r. � �• +i'a. ' .�airii 0.. St. Paul Hamline University students Rod Hunter, left, and plena Serios, right, discuss wetlands studies with. Jim Mercheaud, Shoreview civil defense director. The students work as paid interns in a wetlands inventory program, providing community planners and developers with informa- tion on the size, location and type of area,--wetlands as well as which lands are drained by each. Thee information is a valuable management tool, says Mercheaud. The coopera tive Hamline University and Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District project is unique in the U.S. For more information, contact Robert Englund or Tim Clark, 612/641- 2216. • ommendations for improvement. When those recommendations are implement -. ed, the chief executive officer of a top Minnesota �pmpany will make another evaluation. �That critique will be l for- warded to hi DED. The program offers a twofold benefit to the communities, said Mulrooney. "The Minnesota Star Cities recognition makes the city identifiable to industries seeking a new location. The award also says a community is willing and capable of helping the expanding or relocating industry. Minnesota Star Cities for Economic Development applications are being ac- cepted now. The educational seminars will begin early in 1981. For more information write or call: Michael J. Mulrooney, director, Business and Com- munity Contact, Minnesota Depart- ment of Economic Development, 480 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101, 612/296- 5010. B►l Leslie Walters MINNESOTA October 1980 1.3 ,4 • Minnesota Depart of Economic Development February 12, 1981 r == Mr. Geoff Olson, Director Co mmi.ty Development City of Maplewood 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Dear Mr. Olson: Enclosed is information on the Minnesota Star Cities Program. The program is designed to encourage and recognize successful conmmity efforts to prepare for and promote economic development. Communities which have not fully prepared for industrial development and do not have the best resources to create a forma.1 preparedness plan on their own will find the program valuable. We encourage the participation of all conmunities throughout our great state. The elements contained in the program have proved to be effective methods for enhancing comnunities' chances to achieve desired growth through economic development. The important role that the com=ity plays in successful economic development mist be emphasized. Each year approximately 1,500 industrial plant expansions occur nationally. re Half of those expansions are to areas that provide some natural - source required in the firm I s manufacturing process. The remaining 750 plant expansion decisions are subject' to intense conpetition among cities. This compet it ion ryes it increasingly important for commnities to be prepared to address economic development in a de- liberate and professional manner. It is my hope that your conurLmity will give every consideration to participating in the program and becoming a Minnesota Star City for economic development. Sincerely, IV J C' Kent E. Ekl.i and Com.'ssioner Enclosures .r �a t 480 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101612/296 -2755 An Equal Opportunity Employer WHAT .I S THE MINNESOTA STAR CITIES PROGRAM? The Minnesota Star Cities Program is a tool to encourage well planned economic development. Through a "self help" process , the program wi 11 attempt to provide an avenue for communities to organize, establish goals and complete projects while encodragi ng interaction between public officials and local citizens, Minnesota communities make a wide range of decisions which directly affect the workings of the economic system. Strengthening the communities' economic base and making maximum use of economic re- sources should be concerns which receive the utmost attention of the community. The ability of the community to use development resources to promote economic growth is not an inherited trait. However, * wi th professional assistance i't is an activity which can be learned and directed at providing a high quality living environment for its citizens. The Minnesota Department of .Economic Development is pleased to present the Star Cities. Program. The program is designed to help communities throughout the State of Minnesota prepare for and achieve desired economic growth. The combination of elements contained in the program have proven to be effective methods for enhancing the communities' chances to achieve desired growth through economic development. The program will serve to give special recognition to communities who undertake and develop a strategy to effectively deal with their futures. Many elements of the Star Cities Program can be met by ongoing civic and community activities. Assistance in meeting the program require- ments will be made available from the Business and Community Contact Division of the Minnesota Department of Economic Development. An Economic Development Consultant will be assigned to your community to maintain contact and provide assistance when needed. r . t PARTICIPATING IN THE MINNESOTA STAR CITIES PROGRAM Any community in Minnesota is eligible to participate in the -Star Cities Program. Participation in the program ' begi ns with the compl eti orI of the - attached entry form. The form must be signed by the mayor of thec community and:._ shoul d des i gnate who wi 11 represent the ci ty i n a coordi nator s capaci ty to insure that 'all- program elements are met. When the application is completed, itthould be returned to the Minnesota Department of Economic Development, .480'Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, attention Business and Community Contact Division. ENTRIES MUST BE RETURNED BY MARCH 16, 1981. The Star Cities Program consists of several elements, each of which must be completed prior to receiving "Star City" designation from the Minnesota Depart- ment of Economic Development. The elements include: • Participation in the economic development training program sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Economic Development. • Creation of an organization responsible for the economic development efforts in the city. • Creation of a local development corporation. - • Completion of a community economic assessment. • Completion of a five year plan and strategy for economic development. a Completion of-a one year action program. -• Completion of a community slide presentation. • Completion of a labor survey. • Completion of a five year capital improvement plan. • Preparation of a community fact booklet. • Completion of an industry call program in the community on an annual basis. • Achievement of satisfactory rating from the Minnesota Department of Economic Development Star City Review Committee on the community sales presentation to potential clients. .Detailed information on each element will be sent to the community coordinator upon return of the Minnesota Star Cities Program entry form.. r . s i MINNESOTA STAR CITIES PROGR4.1 ENTRY FORM. The city of wishes to participate in the Mi n.nesota Department of Economic Development Star Program.= We realize that the program calls for hard work and a lot of effort on our part. We accept this challenge. Our city looks forward to this oppor- tunity to shape our economic future. The program calls for the formation of an economic development commission or local development corporation in an. advisory capacity to the local unit of government. During the initial organizational stage, a community coordinator has been appointed. The charge of the coordinator will be to insure that the community meets all requirements of the Star • j Cities Program. The coordinator will be the main contact person between . MDED and our community. Looking toward the future for our citizens, Signed: ` (Mayor) Date: Coordinator for Community (Name) Business Address and Phone a r s ' (Home Address and Phone N MEMORANDUM • City Manager TO: FROM: Director -of Public Works DATE: February 26, 1981 SUBJECT: WATER- SYSTEM STUDY PROPOSAL • it engage the firm o It is� recommended the City f Short- Elliott- effectiveness of pro- • n s Hendrickson, Inc, to analyze the cost effect . 1 ents. viding potable water supply under our current retail agreem BACKGROUND Maplewood is provided municipal water The mayor portion of p With the St. Paul Board under the terms of an agreement wit • supply u e agreement, effective since 1962, • of Water Commissioners. Th g • Paul to provide water to its boundaries calls for the City of St . volumes existing at at normal pressure and v the time of the water works system, to provide routine s g p a reemen tine repairs to the and directly b and meter water consumption ill Maplewood customers in St. Paul. rate 20% above the rate charged to con Suppl at a to pp Y re wired to provide the system necessary Maplewood i s q its residence and operate the system in .adequate service to accord with the rules and regulations of the Board. The agreement is in effect until February i 19 82 - Cit completed a series the early 1970's. the Y of studies re p viewing options A completely 'ons to the current retail system. . wholesale agreement were .included in independent system and a wh Council felt the p , ves considered. At that time the Co the alternatives e the system were too high and opted initial capital cost to Chang y retail contract. The studies done the existing reta to remain with capital expenditures with little at that time were orientated to cap P emphasis on long term operation costs. r } system program was completed. This program = In 1.97.5 , a water sys p g capital �.mprovements. j. l i shed the framework.- for the City's p - that established . based on continued retail service from St. Paul. Since • constructed the elevated storage tank, 3 time, the City has construct. pumping stations • and considerable trunk line faci lities. COST OF RETAIL SYSTEM more for a arent that. Maplewood residen ce are paying it is pP R - 2 water service than neighboring communities. The current water rate, which is 20% above the St. Paul customer rate, result in one of the higher water bills in the Metropolitan area for an residential custom average customer* A review of the St. Paul fin- . g � ;�: _ anci al report indicates that the St. Paul rate prov3 s for P com lete utility services. Included are all operation and capital outlay for major trunk lines, pumping stations, storage and source of supply. Maplewood customers receive only limited service from the Board. In addition to paying the high user rate, Maplewood residence have to provide for all capital improvements to the Maplewood System and for a substantial part of the operating expenses. The cost of improvements which are normally paid for by water revenue have been assessed, placed on the general tax roll or recover through special user charges such as the W.A.C. and hydrant charges. The St. Paul Board provides only - limited operation and main- tenance to the system. All major facilities such as the water tower and pumping stations are totally maintained and operated by Maplewood. In addition to the City Budget which directly •provides these services there are many indirect costs which are covered in the general fund.. Of articular concern is the lack of City revenues to provide P • for future capital improvements and operation costs. Due . to current inadequacies of the system and the anticipated growth additional capital outlay is needed. Much'of the anticipated revenue from the' user charges have been committed to pay bond issued of existing improvement. As facilities start aging (storage tank renovation, replacement of booster pumps, etc.) maintenance and operation costs will increase dramatically. There does not appear to be a revenue source which will meet the needs. PROPOSED STUDY The ro osed study will begin to address these concerns. The P P result of the study are intended to be utilized as follows:. 1. As a negotiations tool for possible renewal of the retail agreement with the Board of Commissioners. Reduction in rates, return of portion of revenues for which no service is being provided, or increased j service by the board, should be major goals of Mciple- wood in_the negotiation process* decision as to whether 2. To provide the basis for a . P Maplewood should seriously consider alternate systems. -3- K • d would include but not be limited to the following The study elements as: data and past st�idies . 1 col lect lect and review. existing da P � � ion of-detailed scope � of study . - • 2, Formulat ection of 3, Quantification ication of existing cost and p ro ] future cost over 2(Y year period on current service basis. d futuret of 4, comparison of service cost, current an Maplewood with Metro Area Suburban Communities. • resent source 5 , Review of e of income for system p f future revenues. operation and projection o 6. Investiga of additional sources of revenue. in ate or compare alter - the study well not try to in g • f fin Nate th e , It is intended to identify native contracts for servi.c on our and reviewing the equity exist course problems roblems involved in continuing The study e uit of our existing contracts* on and evaluation of any will provide the basis for camparis e futureo p tudied in th alternate arrange ment that may be s is $13,000- $15,000. $18,000 T he estimated cost of the study • • d in the 19 81 Budget for this purpose* is include . SELECTION OF CONSULT, ANT • the f of S . E . H . be employed to Staff is recommending that s based on the carry out the study* This recommendation i ' and their knowledge of the St. Pau experience with the.firm S.E.H. has completed f Water Commission. In recent years, ern for Board o Their cons • number of projects for Maplewood. a limited n�;umb p impressed the engineering staff . the best interest of the City has imp t of the a major roll in the establishment S.E.H. has played tiations with St. Paul. Roseville Water System, including rieg o RECOMMENDATION • - 's recommended that the city here the firm of Short- Elliott It � Hen drickson to complete the study. February 27, 1981 STAFF REPORT To: City Manager Barry Evans " From: Director of Public Safety R. W. Schaller Subject: Request for Revision in the Bingo Ordinance The North Maplewood Lions and Lioness have requested that the City Council consider revising the City Bingo Ordinance to permit four occasions per week rather than the present permitted two per week. The State Statute, 349.17, Subd. 3 (1), has been revised and allows four instead of the previous limit of two times per week as it was previously. Staff has reviewed this request. While it appears to have merit as proposed, the City Council should be aware that the original limit taas set based on a concern that the bingo operations might overshadow the dedicated civic purposes of the non - profit organization conducting the games. When our City Council originally considered our Bingo Ordinance, several communities were having serious problems with their bingo operations when they allowed mu-1 t i -night operations* : s r . . t For your information. l � RW'S: j ac Bingo File�'� a •� � N0. MAPUNOOD LIONS #LIONESS 1310 Frost Ave. Maplewood, Minn. Maplewood City Council Maplewood, Minn. Gentlemen: Being members of-the City Council and wage earners for your own families no one has to inform you of the effect of inflation. We as mem_ bens of the North Maplewood Lions and Lioness Clubs also feel the effects. Through the years we have donated our funds to charitable organizat. ions.a athletic associations_ Lions Eye & Hearing Foundation at the Univer_ sity of Minnesota, civic endeavors _ Ramsey County Home and private families in need of help, just to name a few. The Lions and Lioness Clubs have many requests . for money that return year after year. Each year the requests are bigger and bigger. We have been trying to keep pace with these requests from many different fund raising activities. We have catered meals to organizations in our hall, sponsored soft ball tournaments, gold plate dinner, pancake breakfast, Hole in one tournament at the county fair, concession stands at the St. Paul Ski Jumps, style shows, quilt raffles, selling of entertainment books and more. As you know we also have a bingo game two days each week. At this time we would ask the City Council to consider a change in the Bingo Ordinance. The City of Maplewood Bingo Ordinance allows 2 games per week in one hall; we hope to persuade you to allow :4 gages per week as does the Minnesota State Bingo Ordinance. The increased revenue generated by 2 more nights of Bingo at the L & L Hall wil enable the Lions and Lioness to continue to contribute to Civic betterment . and the many organizations requesting our help. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. y Sincerely, North Maplewood Lions and Lioness Clare Zuercher, Executive Secretary 9 V HOUSING DEVELOPMENT E WARREN S. CARLSON CRESTLAND BUILDING . ASSOCIATES GENERAL PARTNER SUITE 109 32 TENTH AVE. SOUTH HOPKINS, MINN. 553.43 A REA 612 TEL. 935 -0359 February 19,1981 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council City of Maplwood . Action by COLM0111 1380 Frost ay. Maplewood, Minnesota 55109nc� �... Subject: City owned lot extending between Beam Av. _ and Radatz Av. located one half block east Rej e" r, vG of White Bear Av. (cont east_ of new bank) Dear Mr. Greavu and Council Members; By this letter I am requesting, at the Councils earliest convenience, a decision on whether the Council desires to give an option to buy the North 296 feet of the sub- ject lot. The water main traverses the land from Beam to Radatz. Our interest would be for the 120 feet fronting on Beam extending back a distance of 2 feet with an easement back to the City for what ever width required for the water main. Our intention would be to combine the City lot with the two lots of the east to obtain a parcel of approximately 2.17 acres . This land is presently guided Rm and our -intention would be to develop 24 units of townhouses or apartments of low and moderate income housing. It is our understanding that the Parkside project for family housing previously funded but not constructed is no longer viable. Our pro - posal for subsidized rental housing would help meet the Maplewood quota as determined by the Metropolitan Council The deadline for submitting proposals to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is March 20 for FY 1981. The material re- q PP wired for an application is extensive and must include site control documentation. These are the reasons we would like your earliest consideration. I am sure you would like some background on dousing Develop- ment Associates, our company is a partnership of Carlson Companies, Inc. and myself. Our objective is to develop and own rental multi- housing projects. We own the Ewing Square Townhouses at 6300 France Av. N. , Brooklyn Center and the Nevada Square Townhoues at Benson, Minnesota. v ffi City of Maplewood We presently plan to break ground this summer for 44 town- houses at Plymouth and a 24 unit apartment-compies "Grand Rapids. Housing Development Associates is a financially reliable firm that builds and owns quality housing that is well managed. If there are other questions I can answer at this time please call. Since ely, Wa ren S. arlson WSC /ph CC: Mr . Barry Evans - City Manager Richard J. Kostohryz District 50B Ramsey County Committees: Education School Aids Division Environment and Natural Resources, Vice - Chairman General Legislation and . Veterans Affairs Ramsey County Delegation, Chairman i Barry Evans, City Manager City of Maplewood 1380 Frost Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Evans: S ot oa Minnes H ouse o -_ �- Representatives February 6, 1981 This letter is to inform you that residents of Maplewood Precinct #3 have expressed concerns to me about the accessibility to the polling place for their precinct at the Maplewood City Hall. The numbers of people expressing concerns have increased over each of the last several elections. Most of the concerns have been expressed by or on behalf of senior citizens who have difficulty climbing the stairs. I feel this problem could continue to increase due to the fact that some of the oldest housing stock in Maplewood is located in this precinct. I would like to ask that you discuss this matter with the City Council to see if an al ternative, more accessible, polling place for the precinct could be found. Perhaps such sites could be looked at as the Gladstone Community Education Building or the Gladstone Fire Station, I appreciate your consideration of the concerns expressed to me by residents of Precinct #3 and I hope that an alternative polling place can be found.. If I can be of further assistance �''y` 4 -hi rnattF r or on any legislative concerns of the city during V11 LL •,%^ this session of the Leg i s i at�ul l e ; n ;ease contact me. Sincerely, • Dick Kostohryz _� State Representative Action �`` �:c;�rl��.Z. RJK:mb X Reply to: 0 299C State Office Building, 'St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 0 2478 E. Indian Way, North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109 A IM OIU li. A