Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 03-28 City Council PacketAGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, March 28, 1988 Municipal Administration Building Meeting 88 - 6 CALL TO ORDER (B) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Meeting No. 87 - 27 (December 14, 1987) 2. Meeting No. 88 - 5 (March 14, 1988) (E) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Accounts Payable 2. Appropriation of Funds to Repair Jim's Prairie 3. Appropriations from PAC Funds to Park Projects 4. Final Plat: Highwood 2nd Addition 5. Council ;Action to , Amend 1988 Budget 6. Wage and Benefit Proposals (F) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 P.M.; Code Amendment - R -2 Lot Width (First Reading 2. 7:10 P.M.; Conditional Use Permit: Menards a. Conditional Use Permit b. Parking Space Authorization c. d. C.D.R.B. Appeal Initiate Public Improvement Project (G) AWARD OF BIDS (H) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Variance: Bradley (DeSoto Associates) �I) NEW BUSINESS 1. Harvester Avenue Storm Sewer, City Project 87 -31, Schedule Public Hearing 2. Meyer Street Watermain, City Project 87 -13 - Order Public Hearing 3. Highway 61 Watermain, City Project 87 -44 - Schedule Public Hearing 4. 5. 6. 7. County Road C, City Project 86 -25 - Schedule Public Car Don Estates Water SAC Charge Refund Appeal Electrical Permit Fees Noise Ordinance - Amendment (J) VISITOR PRESENTATIONS (K) COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. 4 7 (L) ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS (M) ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, December 14, 1987 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 87 - 27 A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood,, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Mayor Greavu. B. ROLL CALL A John C. Greavu, Mayor Present Norman G. Anderson, Councilmember Present Gary W. Bastian, Councilmember Present Frances L. Juker, Councilmember Present Charlotte Wasiluk, Councilmember Present C. APPROVAL OF MINUT 1. Minutes of Meeting No. 87 -18 (September.14, 1987) Councilmember Juker moved to approve the Minutes of Meeting No. (September 14, 1987) as corrected Page 35, Item K -5a encourage quality commercial development Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. 2. Minutes of Meeting No. 87 - 19 (September 28, 1987) Councilmember Anderson moved to approve the Minutes of Meeting, No. B7 -19 September 28, 1987) as corrected. Page 9, Item F -2h Seconded by Councilmember Anderson Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. 3. Minutes of Special Meeting October 19, 1987 Councilmember Juker moved to approve the Minutes of October 19, 1987 meeting as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - a11. D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Greavu moved to approve the Agenda as amended: 1. Employees 2. Editorial in Lillie Suburban Newspaper 3. Plan of Maplewood 4. Staff recommendations 5. Construction Questions 6. City Hall 7. John Glenn Middle School i, ,. Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - all_ E. CONSENT AGENDA Council removed Items E -4, 5 and 6 to become Items I -9, 10 and 11. Mayor Greavu moved, seconded by Councilmember Anderson, Ayes - 1. Accounts Payable Approved the Accounts (Part I- Fees, services, and Expenses Check Register dated November 30, 1987 through December 3, 1987 - $693,028.37: Part II - Payroll dated November.25, 1987 - $72,783.15) in the amount of $765,811.52. 2. Approval of Plan Document for Self Insurance Dental Plan Authorized approval of the self insurance dental plan document. 3. Budget Transfer - Finance Department and City Manager's Office Approved a budget transfer of $4,700 from the City Manager's budget to the Finance Department budget for revised allocation of secretary's time. 4. Elimination of Special Assessment Fund for Public Improvement Projects. Discussed as Item I -9. 5. Custody Services Agreement for Investments Discussed as Item I -10 6. Ordinance to Increase Hydrant Charge Rates (1st Reading). Discussed as Item I -11. 7. Acorn Greenhouses Assessment Cancellation Project 86 -03 Resolution No. 87 - 12 - 217 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 87 - 5 - 79 of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, adopted May 11, 1987, the special assessments for the construction of Improvement 86 -03 were levied against property de- scribed by Property Identification No. 24- 29 -22 -23 -0037; WHEREAS, $237.50 of the aforesaid assessment was levied in error; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the assessment for Imp. 86 -03 against the property de- scribed by Property.Identification No. 24- 29 -22 -23 -0037 be correctly certified to the Auditor of Ramsey County by deleting therefrom the amount of $237.50. - 2 - 12/14 8. Fish Creek - Carver Avenue Stormwater Pond - Feasibility Study Resolution No. 87 - 12 - 218 WHEREAS, it is proposed to establish a storm water detention pond to serve the drainage area roughly bounded by 1 -494, Carver Avenue, Dorland Road extended and Fish Creek and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all conven- ient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. 9. Hillwood Drive, City Project 86 -05 - Reduction of Retainage Resolution No. 87 - 12 - 219 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of Improvement Project 86 -05, Hillwood Drive - east of Crestview-Drive and has entered into a contract with Danner, Inc., for the construction of said improvement project. WHEREAS, the contractor has formally requested a reduction in the retainage percentage. WHEREAS, the state of completion of this project is such that a reduction in retainage from 57 to 2% of the work completed is not ad- verse to the interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD that reduction of retainage for CityProject 86 -05 to 27 is hereby authorized. 10. Highwood Addition, City Project 86 -11 - Final Acceptance Resolution No. 87 - 12 - 220 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore entered into a contract for public improvements for City Project 86 -11 described as Highwood Addition, and WHEREAS, said project has been certified as completed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the project is completed and the utilities are hereby accepted as part of the distribution systems. - 3 - 12/14 F. P UBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 P.M., Cottages of Maplewood (Woodlynn Avenue) a.. PUD b. Reduced Parking c. Curbing Variance d. Setback Variance (West Lot Line) e. Setback Variance (South Lot Line) f. Tax Exempt Financing g. Tax Increment Financing 1. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of Arkell Development Corporation for a planned unit development, approval for reduced parking and three variances to construct a 60 unit senior citizen housing development. 2. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report 3. Director of Community Development Olson presented the specifics of the proposal. 4. Commissioner Bob Cardinal presented the Planning Commission report. 5. Commissioner Dale Carlson presented the Housing and Redevelopment report. 6. Board Member Don Moe presented the Community Design Review Board report. 7. Mr. John Bossard, Bossard- Christenson; Mr. John Arkell, Arkell Development and Mr. Gary Tucci, Tucci Architects, all spoke on behalf of the proposal. 8. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard 9. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. The following were heard: Mr. Ray Hoyt, 2993 Furness Court Mr. George Rossbach, 1406 E. County Road C , reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation. 10. Director of Public Works Haider presented the recommendations pertaining to the drainage. 11. Mary Ippel, Briggs and Morgan, explained the tax increment and tax exempt financing for this project. 12. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. 13. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: (PUD) - 4 - 12/14 87 - 12.- 221 WHEREAS, Arkell Development Corporation initiated a conditional use permit for the Cottages of Maplewood planned unit development at the following - described property: The South 662.87 feet of North 1325.74 feet of East 263.63 feet of Northwest 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, Town 29, Range 22, and; The West 263.63 feet of East 527.26 feet of North 1321.30 feet of Northwest 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, Town 29, Range 22, and; The East 20 feet of the following parcel, the East 263.634 feet of the West 790.902 feet of the North 1265.7 feet of the NE 1/4 in Section 2, Township 29, Range 22, and; The East 20 feet of the following described parcel, the south 55.6 feet of the North 1321.3 feet of the East 263.634 feet of the west 790.902 feet of the NE 1/4 in Section 2, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the procedural history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. This conditional use permit was reviewed by the Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) on October 6, 1987. The BRA recommended to the City Council that said permit be approved. 2. The site plan and building elevations for the proposed development were reviewed by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) on November 24, 1987 The CDRB recommended to the City Council that said permit be approved. 3. This conditional use permit was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on November 16, 1987. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said permit be approved. 4. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on December 14, 1987. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City Staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above- described conditional use permit be approved for the - 5 - 12/14 A. This development shall not be converted to nonseniors housing without revision of the plannedunit development. For purposes of this permit, seniors housing is defined as a residence occupied by persons that are 60 years of age or older. B. Trailers and vehicles that are not required for.day -to -day transportation needs shall not be parked on -site, unless the City determines that there are excess parking spaces avail- able. C. If Council determines that there is insufficient on -site parking after one year of 95% occupancy, additional parking may be required. D. Adherence to the site plan printed on December 18, 1987 and the floor plans date - stamped September 29, 1987, with the changes required by the Community Design Review Board. Future changes may be approved by the Community Design Review Board. E. An on -site storm shelter shall be provided in as central location as possible. F. Art 80% opaque screen with berming shall be constructed along the south lot line. An opportunity shall be provided for neighborhood input as to fencing or plantings. Approval is on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. The use is in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and with the purpose and standards of this chapter. 2. The establishment or maintenance of the use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 3. The use would be located, designed, maintained and operated to be compatible with the character of that zoning district. 4. The use would not depreciate property values. 5. The use would not be hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to present and potential.surrounding land uses, due to the noises, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 6. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and shall not create traffic congestion, unsafe access or parking needs that will cause undue burden to the area properties. - 6 - 12/14 7. The use would be serviced by essential public services, such as streets, police, fire protection, utilities, schools and parks. 8. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services; and would not be detrimental to the welfare of the City. 9. The use would preserve and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 10. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval includes a 7 -foot setback variance from the south lot line, a 13 -1/2 foot setback variance from the west lot line for a driveway, and a variance to allow more than eight units in each structure. Approval of the variances in on the basis that: 1. Senior housing creates less traffic noise than a conventional multiple- dwelling project. 2. The building is only one - story. 3. The setback along the west property line is not needed since: a. The adjacent use is proposed to be a parking lot for a church. b. A 20 -foot setback and screening is required between the church parking lot and lot line. 4. Requiring screening along the south property line would com- pensate for the reduced setback. 5. The most common setback used by other cities is five feet. 6. Certain regulations contained in this chapter do not realisti- cally apply to the proposed development because of the unique nature of the proposed development. 7. The variance would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 8. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 9. The variance wuld not constitute a threat of a substantive nature to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of adjacent or nearby land, nor be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the people. - 7 - 12/14 10. The variance is required for reasonable and practicable physical development and is not required solely on the basis of financial considerations. Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - all. 14. Councilmember Bastian A. The parking -space requirements contained in the zoning code do not realistically apply to the proposed develop- ment, because these requirements are designed for family housing and do not consider the fewer number of cars per unit needed for senior housing. B. The City has approved a reduced number of parking spaces and garages for all previous senior developments. C. The reduced number of parking spaces has proven adequate for a similar project in Stillwater. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - all. 15. Councilmember Bastian moved to deny the concrete curbing variance on the basis that: A. Omitting the curbing would not produce a development of equal. or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the ordinance. Curbing adds to the aesthetics and drainage of a site. Curbing also provides a definitive boundary for the parking spaces and the driveways that will prevent rollups onto the yard area, as well as sig- nificantly reduce the potential for yard damage from snowplow- ing. B. The variance is not required for reasonable and practicable physical development of the site. Rather, this variance is proposed solely on the basis of financial considerations. C. Each of the other subsidized seniors residences has provided concrete curbing. Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. 16, Councilmember Anderson moved to approve the 13 -1/2 foot setback from the west lot line. Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. 17. Councilmember Bastian moved to table the discussion of the south lot line variance for two weeks. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. - 8 - 12/14 18. Councilmember Bastian moved to table the discussion of Tax Increment Financing for two weeks. Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. 19. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved . its adoption: (Tax Exempt Financing) 87 - 12 - 222 RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A.. . FINANCING PROGRAM FOR A MULTI GAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT AND THE PROGRAM PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD TO ISSUE HOUSING REVENUE BONDS AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF FINANCING PROGRAM FOR APPROVAL TO THE MINNESOTA. HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID PROJECT AND PROGRAM (THE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOOD PROJECT) WHEREAS, (a) Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act ") confers upon Cities, or housing and redevelopment authorities or port authorities authorized by ordinance to exercise on behalf of 'a city the powers conferred by the Act, the power to issue revenue bonds to finance a program for the purposes of planning, administering, making or purchasing loans with respect to one or more multi - family housing developments within the boundaries of the city; (b) The City has received from The Arkell Development Corpora- tion (the "Developer ") a proposal that the City undertake a program to finance a Project hereinafter described, through the issuance of revenue bonds or obligations (in one or more series) (the "Bonds ") pursuant to the Act; (c) The City desires to: facilitate the development of rental housing within the community; encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities for residents of the City; encourage the develop- ment of housing facilities designed for occupancy by elderly persons; and encourage the development of blighted or underutilized land and structures within the boundaries of the City.; and the Project will assist the City in achieving these objectives. (d) The Developer is currently engaged in the business of real estate development. The Project to be financed by the bonds is the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 48,000 square foot (approximately) multifamily rental_ housing development of approxi- mately 60 rental units located south of Woodlynn Avenue and East of Ariel Street, in the City of Maplewood, and consists of the con- struction and equipping of buildings thereon which will result in the provision of additional rental housing opportunities to persons - 9 - 12/14 within the community;. (e) The City has been advised by representatives.of the Developer that conventional, commercial .financing to pay the capital costs of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the project would be significantly reduced, but the Developer has also advised the City that with the aid of municipal financing, and resulting low borrowing costs, the Project is economically more feasible; (f) A public hearing on the Project and the financing program therefor was held on December 14, 1987, after notice was published, all as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.05, subd. 5, at which public hearing all those appearing at said hearing who desired to speak were heard and written comments were accepted and considered; (g) No public official of the City has either a direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will any public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: The City hereby gives preliminary approval to the proposal of the Developer that the City undertake the Project, described above, and the program of financing therefor, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, consisting of the acquisition and construction of multi- family rental housing facilities within the City pursuant to the Developer's specifications and to a revenue agreement between the City and the Developer.on such terms and conditions with pro- visions for revision from time to time as necessary, so as to pro- duce income and revenues sufficient to pay, when due, the principal and interest on the bonds in the total principal amount of approxi- mately $2,800,000 to be issued pursuant to the Act to finance the acquisition and construction of the Project; and said agreement may also provide for the entire interest of the Developer therein to be mortgaged to the purchasers of the bonds, or a trustee for the holder(s) of the Bonds; and the City, acting by and through the City, hereby undertakes preliminarily to issue its bonds in accor- dance with such terms and conditions; 2. At the option of the City, the financing may be structured so as to take advantage of whatever means are available and are permitted by law to enhance the security for, or marketability of, the Bonds; provided that any such financing structure must be consented to by the Developer. 3. On the basis of information available to the City it appears, and the City hereby finds, that the Project constitutes a multi- family housing development within the meaning of subdivision 5 of Section 462C.02 of the Act; that the availability of the financing under the Act and the willingness of the City to furnish such financing will be a substantial inducement to the Developer to undertake the Project, and that the effect of the Project, if undertaken, will be to encourage the provision of additional multi - family senior rental housing opportunities to residents of the City, and to promote more - in - 1 9 iii, intensive development and use of land within the City; The Project and the program to finance the Project by the issuance of revenue bonds, is hereby given preliminary approval by the City subject to the approval of the financing program by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ( "MHFA ") and subject to final approval by the City, the Developer and the purchasers of the bonds as to ulti- mate details of,the financing of the project; In accordance with subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05, Minnesota Statutes, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to sub- mit the program for financing the project to MHFA, requesting its approval, and other officers, and employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide MHFA with preliminary information as it may require; 6. The Developer has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the financing of the Project whether or not the project is carried to completion and whether or not approved by MHFA will be paid by the Developer; 7. Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, acting as bond counsel, is authorized to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Project and the financing program therefor, to consult with the City Attorney, Developer and purchasers of the Bonds (or trustee for the purchasers of the Bonds) as to the maturi- ties, interest rates and other terms and provisions of the Bonds and as to the covenants and other provisions of the necessary documents and submit such documents to the City for final approval; 8. Nothing in this Resolution or the documents'prepared pursuant hereto j shall authorize the expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the City for this purpose. The bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City except the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. The holder of the bonds shall never have the right to com- pel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstand- ing principal on the bonds or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereon against any property of the City, except such property as may expressly pledged for the security of the Bonds. The Bonds shall recite in substance that Bonds, including the interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the pay- ment thereof. The bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. j -. 9. In anticipation of the approval by MHFA and the issuance of the Bonds to finance all or a portion of the Project, and in order that completion of the project will not be unduly delayed when approved, the Developer is hereby authorized to make such expenditures and advances toward payment of that portion of the costs of the Project to be financed from the proceeds of the bonds, as the Developer - 11 - 12/14 considers necessary, including the use of interim, short -term financing, subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the Bonds if any when delivered but otherwise without liability on the part of the City. 10. The actions of City Staff in causing the notice of public hearing to be published in the Maplewood Review are hereby ratified, con- firmed and adopted. 11. The Developer shall enter into various agreements with the City which shall impose the following restrictions on the Developer and the Project: (a) Construction must begin within one year of preliminary approval on the Project (December 14, 1987). The City Council may grant a time extension if just cause is shown. (b) Contracts entered into with Contractors doing work on the Project shall provide that: (i) the Contractor shall not discriminate in the hiring or firing of employees on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability of age. (ii) The Contractor shall compensate employees with wages and financial remuneration as provided under the United States Code, Section 276A, as amended through June 23, 1986, and under Minnesota Statutes 1985, Sections 177.41 - 177.44. (iii) the Contractor shall be required td employ Minnesota residents in at least 807 of the jobs created by the project; and, at least 607 of the group shall be resi- dents of the seven - county metropolitan area. Resident status under both of the above categories shall be de- termined as of the date of the Project's preliminary approval by the City council (December 14, 1987). How - ever, if the contractor can show that these quotas are not feasible because of a shortage of qualified personnel in specific skills, the contractor may request the City Council for a release from the two residency requirements. The requirements shall continue for the duration of the con - struction project. (iv) the Contractor shall be an active participant in a State of Minnesota apprentice program, approved by the Department of Labor and Industry. (v) All provisions of these tax - exempt finance requirements shall apply to all subcontractors working on the Project. (c) A written opinion, with supporting justification from a qualified expert acceptable to the City, shall be submitted with the application requesting tax exempt mortgage financing to document that: - 12 - 12/14 (i) The Project will not adversely increase the vacancy rates of rental multiple dwellings in the City that are existing or have received preliminary City ap- proval over the metropolitan average. (ii) There is reasonable assurance that the Project will be able to comply with the federal, county and City low -to- moderate income requirements over the life of the bond issue. (d) The bond indenture for the Bonds shall require: (i) The Developer to periodically certify to the City and trustee, compliance with the federal low -to- moderate income requirement. The frequency of certification shall be determined on a case -by- case basis. (ii) The trustee is to inform the City of noncompliance trends with federal low -to- moderate income require- ments. . (e) As a condition of approving the Project, a lump -sum fee at Bond closing or an annual fee over the life of the Bond will be required. The City reserves the right to choose the fee option that will be the most beneficial to the City. This choice will be made when the final resolution for the Project and the Bonds is adopted. Factors to be taken into account will include, but not be limited to: (i) The size of the bond issue. (ii) Unbudgeted City funding needs at the time of the request. (iii) The number of requests. (iv) Federal arbitrage considerations. (f) The formula for each fee option is as follows: (i) Annual fee: (1) Full bond maturity: An annual fee payable on each anniversary of the Bond issue of not less than one - eighth of one percent of the unpaid balance and one - quarter of one percent of the Bond issue shall be paid at.bond closing, subject to federal arbi- trage restrictions. (2) Prepayment of Bonds: The same as the full Bond maturity requirement, except if all of the outstanding Bonds are prepaid prior to final Bond maturity, the developer shall pay, at the time of such prepayment, a lump -sum fee equal to the present value of the - 13 - 12/14 remaining annual fee payments, from the date of prepayment to final Bond maturity, subject to federal arbitrage restrictions. (ii) Lump -sum fee; At Bond closing, a lump -sum fee shall be .paid that is equivalent to the present value of the annual fee option. The present value must be determined by a qualified expert, acceptable to the City. (g) 20% of the Project units shall be occupied by households that have an adjusted gross income of 50% or less of the metropolitan median income, unless the Developer elects to provide 40% of the Project units complying with the 60% median income requirement; (h) 75% of the Project units shall be occupied by households that have an adjusted gross income of not more than 110% of the metropolitan median income; and (i) 51% of the Project units shall be affordable to households which have adjested gross incomes of no more than 80% of the metropolitan median income. Seconded by Councilmember.Anderson. Ayes - all. 2. 7:10 P.M., On -Sale Liquor License a. Days Inn, 1780 E. County Road D 1, Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of Deborah D. Snyder, Ronald L. Ringling, Robert S. Snyder and Delvin D. Junker for an On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License at Days Inn, 1780 E. County Road D. 2. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. 3. Mr. Robert Snyder, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the request. 4. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard. 5. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard. 6. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. 7. Councilmember Wasiluk introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; 87 -12 -223 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that pursuant to action by the City Council of the City of Maplewood on December 14, 1987,an On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License was approved for Deborah Snyder, dba Days Inn, 1780 E. County Road D. - 14 - 12/14 The Council proceeded in his matter as outlined in the Municipal Code. Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. b. Chesters, 3088 White Bear Avenue 1. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of David M. Ryan for an On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License at Hoff -N- Sipper (formerly Cheaters) 3088 White Bear Avenue. 2. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. 3. David Ryan, the applicant, spoke on behalf of his request. 4. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard. 5. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard. 6. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. 7. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution.and moved its adoption: 87 - 12 - 224 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to action by the City Council of the City of Maplewood on December 14, 1987, an On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License was approved for David Ryan, dba Hoff -N- Sipper, 3088 White Bear Avenue (formerly Cheaters.) The Council proceeded in this matter as outlined in the Munici- pal Code. Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. 3. 7:20 P.M., Code Amendment: Metal Storage buildings (2nd Reading - 4 Votes) a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the adoption of a proposed ordinance to allow metal storage buildings in an M -1 light manufacturing zone. b. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. c. Commissioner Bob Cardinal presented the Planning Commission report. d. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard. e. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard. f. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. g. Mayor Greavu introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: - 15 - 12/14 ORDINANCE NO. 616 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING METAL STORAGE BUILDINGS THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 9 -6 (a), metal pole buildings, are amended as follows: Sec. 9 -6 Metal storage buildings. (a) It shall be unlawful to erect a metal storage building in the City which is of a design commonly referred to as a "pole barn" or "agri- building", unless such building: 1. would be located in a F, farm residence district, 2. would be a metal storage building commonly used as a back yard storage shed 3. would be located in a M -1, light manufacturing or M -2, heavy manufacturing district and would be substantially screened so as to be 807 opaque as viewed from residentially -zoned land or streets. If the screening is removed or dies and is not re- placed, the City Council may require removal of the building. If the value of the building exceeds $25,000, the City Council shall, allow at least a five -year amortization period, or 4. would be located in a BC, business commercial district and approved with a conditional use permit as required in Section 36 -153 (2) (f). Section 2. Section 36 -153 (2) is amended as follows: (2) Conditional uses: The following uses are allowed when authorized by the City Council as a conditional use: (a) All uses permitted in R -3 Residence Districts. (b) Processing and distributing station for milk or other beverages, carting or hauling station. (c) Place of amusement, recreation or assembly, other than a theater, when conducted indoors. (d) Yard for storage, sale and distribution of ice, coal, fuel oil or building materials, when enclosed within a fence of not less than six (6) feet in height, but not including junkyard, salvage, automobile or other wrecking yard. (e) Used Car lot. - 16 - 12/14 (f) Metal storage buildings, provided that in addition to the general findings required for a conditional use, the following additional findings must be made: 1. The building would be substantially screened so as to be 80% opaque as viewed from streets or residentially zoned land. 2. The building would not be of lesser quality than surrounding development. If the screening is removed or dies and is not replaced, the City Council may require removal of the building. If the value of the buiiding'exceeds $25,000, the City Council shall allow at least a five -year amortization '. period. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. G. AWARD OF BIDS None. H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Hardship Ordinance (2nd Reading) a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. ,! b. Mayor Greavu introduced the following_ ordinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 617 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR APPLICATIONS FOR INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS OF CHARGES DUE TO HARDSHIP Section 35 -26 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances is amended to add the following language: "Section 35 -26. Applications for Installment Payments Due to Hardship. Any person financially unable to pay a cash connection charge may make applica- tion to the City Manager to provide for installment payments for such connection charge. Such application shall include the following information: 1. Name and address of applicant 2. Owner and legal description of subject property 3. Reason and proof of financial hardship of applicant 4. A copy of the most recent income tax return 5. A sworn financial statement showing all assets, liabilities, sources of income and expenses. If the City Manager finds sufficient financial hardship to the applicant, the Manager may provide for payments of such charge in annual installments for a - 17 - 12/14 period not to exceed five years, and collectable with property taxes due on the subject property. The applicant may appeal the Manager's decision to the City Council." Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. 2. Code Amendment: Townhouse - 2nd Reading (4 Votes) a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Director of Community Development explained the proposal. c. Commissioner Bob Cardinal presented the Planning Commission report. d. Mayor Greavu moved second reading of an ordinance amending the require- ments for townhouses by deleting the minimum lot area requirements; revise Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Bastian and Wasiluk Nays - Councilmembers Anderson and Juker. Motion defeated. 4 Votes required. I. NEW BUSINESS 1. Code Amendment: BC (M) District - Gas Pumps (1st Reading) a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Director of Community Development Olson presented the specifics of the proposal. c. Councilmember Anderson moved first readine of an ordinance amendino the Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson, Bastian and Wasiluk Nay - Councilmember Juker. 2. Beam Avenue Watermain, City Project 84 -12 - Change Order N2 a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report:. b. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: - 18 - 12/14 87 - 12 - 225 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 84 -12 and has let a construction con- tract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 84 -12 Change Order Two. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order Two. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all. c. Councilmember Anderson moved to authorize Sta Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. 3. Beam Avenue Watermain - City Project 84 -12 - Change Order No. 3 a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Mayor Greavu introduced the following r esolution and moved its adoption: 87 - 12 - 226 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 84 -12 and has let a construction con- tract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 84 -12 Change Order Three. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order Three. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - all. 4. Appointment - School Boundary Criteria Meeting a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b.. Councilmember Anderson School Boundary Criteria C - 19 - 12/14 Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson, Bastian and Wasiluk Nay - Councilmember Juker. 5. Policy on Alcohol /Drug Abuse, A.I.D.S. and Sexual Harassment. a. Manager McGuire stated there are no formal policies at this time, but they are being developed. b. No action taken. 6. White Bear Avenue /11th Avenue Redevelopment a. Director of Community Development Olson presented the Staff report. b. Tami Skweres and Mike Jansen, Merrill Lynch Realty, 1876 Beam Avenue, explained their redevelopment proposal for the area. c. The following area residents asked questions regarding the redevelopment of the area. Roger Anitzberger, 1949 Castle Avenue Wm. McGraw, 1958 Gervais John Hardenbrook, 1970 Gervais Roger R. Kult, 2444 White Bear Avenue d. No action taken. Councilmember Anderson moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 P.M. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all. 7. North /Tartan Band Boosters a. Manager McGuire presented a letter from the North /Tartan Band Boosters requesting help in financing their bands invitation to represent Minnesota at the Nall of Fame College Bowl in Tampa, Florida, on January 1, 1988. b. Council urged citizens to donate to this endeavor. 8. Council /Staff Workshop a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Bastian moved to establish a 1988 Council /Staff Leadership Workshop on January 8 and 9, 1988, at Riverwood'Conference Center. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - Councilmembers Bastian and Wasiluk. Nays - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson and Juker. Motion failed. - 20 - 12/14 9. Elimination of Special Assessment Fund for Public Improvement Projects a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Mayor Greavu moved to table this item for further information. Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson, Juker and Wasiluk Nay - Councilmember Bastian. 10. Investments Custody Services Agreement a. .Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Anderson moved to deny the request = execute a custody aoreamant with Pir.¢i Trust and the est_ah7.ishment_ of the annronriate ne- Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson and Juker. Nays - Councilmembers Bastian and Wasiluk. 11. Ordinance to Increase Hydrant Charge Rates a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. i b. Councilmember Bastian moved first reading of an ordinance to increase the hydrant charge rates. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes -'all. J. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. Mr. Joseph Timmers, 1621 E. Sandhurst. a. Mr. Timmers stated his opinion of the attempt to correct the drainage problems at Sherwood Park. b. No action taken. M. ADJOURNMENT 11:00 P.M. City Clerk - 21 - 11/14 MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, March 14, 1988 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 88 - 5 A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, was held in the Council, Chambers, Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7 :01 P.M., by Mayor Greavu. B. ROLL CALL John C. Greavu,.Mayor Present Norman G. Anderson, Councilmember Present Gary W. Bastian, Councilmember Present Frances L. Juker, Councilmember Absent George F. Rossbach, Councilmember Present C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Meeting No. 88 - 4 (February 22, 1988) Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the Minutes of Meeting No 88 - 4 (February 22, 1988) as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - all. D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Greavu moved to approve the Agenda as amended- 1. MWCC Letter 2. Wooded Lots 3. Maplewood Playhouse 4. Comparable Worth Meeting 5. Schedule Dates for Public Hearings 6. Hill Murray Proclamation 7. 1996 Olympics - Resolution Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes - all. E -A APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Design Review Board a. Manager McGuire presentedthe Staff report. b. Mr. Del Aziz, the applicant, spoke on behalf of his appointment. c. Councilmember Bastian moved_ to appoint Mr. Del Aziz to the Community Design Review Board. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all. 3/14 E. CONSENT AGENDA Council removed Item E -7 to become Item I -15. Mayor Greavu - all. to annrove 1. Accounts Payable Approved the accounts (Part I, Fees, Services, Expenses Check register dated March 7, 1988 - $582,864.53; Part II, Payroll for pay period ending 2 -1248 in gross amount - $145,712.46) as submitted. 2. Designation of Official Depository and Financial Services Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 2 - 24 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maplewood State Bank is hereby designated as ,the depository for demand deposits of the City of Maplewood, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an agreement is hereby approved with Maplewood State Bank for financial services based upon the terms in their proposal dated February 26, 1988, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funds deposited in said bank may be withdrawn by check when signed by the signature,. or by the facsimile signature; of the Mayor, City Manager and Finance Director, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funds in said bank may be wire trans -' ferred at the request of the Finance Director, Assistant Finance Director, or Accountant for the purchases of City investments, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that deposits in said bank shall not exceed the amount of F.D.I.C. insurance covering such deposit unless collateral or a bond is furnished as additional security, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this depository designation shall be effective upon adoption of this resolution and continue to be effective until a new depository is designated. 3. H.R.A. Reappointment Council reappointed Commissioner Dale Carlson to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for a five -year term. 4. Return of funds to PAC Commercial Account Authorized the following projects cancelled and the amounts of monies to be returned to the Commercial PAC Fund: Project # Project Amount 346 Heritage Center $ 15,150 361 Hazelwood Soccer 75,640 - 2 - 3/14 364 Kohlman Park 5,000 366 Trails 23,270 374 Trails at Hazelwood 10,050 390 Trail at Nature Center 8,445 391 North Hazelwood 25,265 397 Playcrest Excavation 10,000 5. Budget Transfer: Council Audio System Approved the budget transfer in the amount of $1,700 from the Contingency Account to cover the costs that exceeded the budgeted amount to replace the sound and recording system for the Council Chambers. Total price -- $13,643. 6. District No. 6 Water Project - Final Payment RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 2 - 25 WHEREAS, construction for Water District No. 6, Project 86 -03, has been completed in accordance with the contract; . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, CITY COUNCIL that Staff is directed to make final payment on such contract. 7. Budget Transfer - Promotional Pins Discussed under 1 -15. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 P.M., 1764 E. County Road B (Svendsen) a. Variance b. Rezoning (4 Votes) 1. Mayor Greavu convbned the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of Marion Svendsen for approval of a density variance and a zone change from R -1 to R -2, double dwelling, in order to split the property at 1764 E. County Road B to create 65 foot wide dwelling lots. 2. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. 3. Director of Community Development Olson presented the proposal in detail.. 4. Mrs. Svendsen, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the proposal. 5. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard. 6. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard. 7. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. - 3 - 3/14 88 -2 -26 WHEREAS, Marion L. Svendsen applied for a variance for the following- described property: West 10 feet of Lot 3, all of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, and the North half of the vacated alley in Kredel's Addition to Gladstone. This property is also known as 1764 East,County Road B, Maplewood;, WHEREAS, Section 36 -88 (e) of the Maplewood code of ordinances requires that the density in a R -2 residence district shall not exceed the maximum density permitted by the City's land use plan; WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing an overall neighborhood density of seventeen persons per net acre, requiring a variance of three persons per net acre; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance is as follows: 1. This variance was applied for on October 23, 1987. 2. This variance was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Com- mission on February 29, 1988. The Planning Commission t: recommended to the City Council that said variance be approved. 3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on March 14, 1988 to consider this variance. Notice,thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said.hearirig were given an opportunity to be heard and present written state- ments. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City Staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above - described variance be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because the City has not completed a sewer study necessary for the Metro- politan Council to approve the City's new density criteria. 2. The delay is not the fault of the property owner. 3. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The resulting density would comply with the new criteria. Single dwellings are proposed in a single dwelling neighborhood. The adjacent lot to the east is not planned for residential, Group Health is across the street and the lots would front on County Road B - a high traffic road. - 4 - 3/14 4. The variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all. 9. Mayor Greavu introduced the following adoption resolution and moved its 88 -2 -27 WHEREAS, Marion L. Svendsen initiated a rezoning from R -1, single dwelling residential to R -2, double dwelling residential for the following described property: West 10 feet of Lot 3, all of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, and the North half of the vacated alley in Kredel's Addition to Gladstone. This property is also known as 1764 East County Road B, Maplewood; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows: 1. This rezoning was initiated by Marion L. Svendsen, pursuant to Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood code of ordi- nances. 2. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on February 29, 1988. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said rezoning be approved. 3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on March 14, 1988, to consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given aw opportunity to be heard and present written state- ments. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City Staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above - described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. ` 5 - 3/14 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and con- veniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public ser- vices and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. 2. 7:10 P.M., Conditional Use Permit: Castle Avenue (Leer, Inc.) a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of Leer, Inc., for a conditional use permit for truck topper sales on Castle Avenue. b. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. c. Director of Community Development Olson presented the proposal in detail. d. Commissioner Sue Fiola presented the Planning Commission report. e. Mr. Ralph Armstrong, dealer for Leer, Inc., the applicant,spoke on behalf of the proposal. f. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. The following were heard: - Mr. Palmish, owner of vacant property in the area g. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. The following were heard: Joan Themmes, 192'8 Castle Valarie Jaworski, 1922 Castle Janet Gehrke, 1917 Cope Resident of 2660 Highway 36 Mrs. Marino, 2672 Craig Place Roger Anitzberger, 1949 Castle A representative of the Parkway Terrace Addition h. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. i. Councilmember Anderson moved to table the request of Leer Inc. until a feasibility study for the storm sewer is completed Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - all. 3. 7:20 P.M., Hennen Hillwood Court Addition a. Preliminary Plat b. Street Vacation c. Rezoning (4 Votes) - 6 - 3/14 1. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of Hennen Development, Inc., for approval of a preliminary plat, street vacation and rezoning for the Hennen.Hillwood Court Addition. 2. Manager McGuire presented a staff report. 3. Director of Community Development Olson presented the specifics of the proposal. 4. Commissioner Fiola presented the Planning Commission recommendation. 5. John Daubney, attorney representing the developer, spoke on behalf of the proposal. 6. Mayor Greavu called for persons who wished to be heard. The following expressed their views: Joseph Negus, 2310 Mailand Road John Severance, 2320 Mailand Road Betty Severance, 2320 Mailand Road Ken Benson Emil Kucera, 1348 Tamborwood Trail, Woodbury Resident of 406 Lakewood Drive Resident of 567 Lakewood Drive 7. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing. 8. Mayor Greavu liminary plat (p a. The bulb of the cul -de -sac shhll be shifted the south to create a lot south of Lot Twelve (2320 Mailand Road) as shown on the revised plat concept on page 16. The cul -de -sac bulb shall be located so that adequ ° ate area is provided to create two lots on the property to the west. These lots shall conform with minimum dimen- sion requirements. A scaled plan for these lots shall be submitted. This plan shall include the surveyed location of the south wall of the dwelling at 2310 Mailand Road. b. A deed to convey Outlot B to the City. A restriction shall be recorded against the title stating that this outlot may not be used for access to the cul -de -sac or transferred to another ownership until a fair reimbursement of costs for street, water and sewer is made to the City. The City Council shall determine what a'fair reimbursement is. The City shall then attempt to reimburse this money to the de veloper. If the developer cannot be located, the City shall retain this money. c. Provide evidence that the boundary between this property and 2310 Mailand Road (north line of proposed Lot Eight) is 459± feet south of center line of Mailand Road rather than 480 feet, as shown on Ramsey - 7 - 3/14 County's section map. If the section map is correct, Lots One- Eight, Block Two shall be revised accordingly. Lot One shall not be reduced in area unless a site plan is submitted for the lot showing that an adequate rear setback will be provided. d. The dedication of right -of -way for Mailand Road, across the north part of Lots Eleven and Twelve, shall be reduced from 40 to 33 feet. e. Land survey evidence shall be submitted to show that the proposed east line of Lot, Twelve will be at least five feet east of the garage to be retained on this lot. f. Show a thirty - foot -wide utility easement (for water main) from the cul -de -sac to Mailand Road, as shown on the revised plat concept on page 17. The garage on Lot Twelve shall not encroach upon this easement g. A recordable deed shall be submitted to the City Engineer to transfer title for Outlot A and C to the City. h. Rename "Hillwood Court" to "Dorland Road." i., Approval of final grading, utility, erosion control and drainage plans by the City Engineer. (1) The grading plan shall include the location of the proposed building pads and the style of each proposed dwelling (walkout, split- entry, etc.). The proposed house styles and locations and > street plans shall provide for, or be revised to show: (a) an undisturbed fifteen- foot -wide strip along the east and west plat boundaries and (b) the removal of as few healthy, mature trees as possible to construct necessary public improvements, dwellings and driveways. Future revisions to the approved grading plan may be authorized by the City Engineer, provided the intent of the overall grading plan is not compromised. (2) Each mature tree to be saved shall be shown on the grading plan. These trees shall also be identified on the site. J. Submittal of a signed developer's agreement with the required surety. This agreement shall address, but not be limited to: (1) Construction of all required on -site public improvements. (2) Removal of the temporary cul -de -sac for Hillwood Drive, construction of a permanent Hillwood Drive street section (curb, gutter, etc.) and restoration of the temporary cul -de -sac area outside of the permanent street section to an acceptable grade with grass. (3) Construction of Hillwood Drive at least thirty feet west of the southwesterly extension of the East line of Lot One, Block Two (4) Replanting of trees, as necessary, so that there are at least 10 trees on each acre (2 -inch plus new or 4 -inch plus diameter existing) following all construction. Trees may be relocated to the berm on Outlot A (city pond) subject to the location being approved by the City Engineer. k. The owner(s) of this property shall release, by deed, any right that may run with this property to use the 33- foot -wide access ease- ment that abuts the northwest corner. 1. Any changes to the preliminary plat conditions must be approved by the City Council. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes - all. 9. Councilmember Rossbach introduced the £ollowinp resolution and moved its adoption: (Street Vacation) WHEREAS, Hennen Development, Inc. initiated the vacation of the following- described street easement: A 60 -foot permanent easement for the construction and maintenance of public roads, utilities and appurtenances over, under, across and through that part of the following described property, to wit: The East 10 acres of the West 25 acres of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 28, Range 22, except the North 480 feet thereof and except the East 200 feet of the South 391 feet of the North 871 feet thereof, together with an easement for roadway purposes over the West 33 feet of the North 480 feet thereof. That lies within 30 feet of either side of the following described center line within the above - described property, to wit: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the NW 1 /4.of the SW 1/4 thence on an aasumed bearing.to the South 88 °45'35" West, along the South line''of said NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4, a distance of 632.48; thence Westerly and Northwesterly.a distance of 148.03 feet along a tangential curve concave to the North having a radius of 275 feet and a central angle of 30 ° 50'28" to a point hereinafter designated as a point "A "; thence continuing Northwesterly along the last described curve a distance of 125 feet and said center line there terminating. Together with that part of the above- described property lying Southerly of the previously- described permanent easement. Also together with that part of the above - described property lying Northerly of the aforesaid permanent easement and within the circumference of a circle having a radius of 55 feet. The center of said circle is the previously- described point "A ". WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. A majority of the property owners abutting this street easement signed a petition for this vacation; 2. The Planning Commission discussed this vacation on February 29, 1988. They recommended that the City Council approve this vacation. '- 9 - 3/14 3. The City Council held a public hearing on March 14, 1988. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the abutting property owners as required by =. law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission. WHEREAS, after the City approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: The East 10 acres of the West 25 acres.of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 28, Range 22, except the North 480 feet thereof and except the East 200 feet of the South 391 feet.of the North 871 feet thereof, together with an easement for roadway purposes over the West 33 feet of the North 480 feet thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described vacation on the basis that this easement will be replaced by a platted street right -of -way. Adopted on March 14, 1988. 88 -3 -29 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from F, farm residence to R -1, single dwelling for the following described property: The east 10 acres of the west 25 acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 28, Range 22, except the East 200 feet of the South 391 feet of the North 871. feet thereof. And the East 200 feet of the North 871 feet of the West 25 acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 28, Range 22, all in Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows; 1. This rezoning was initiated pursuant to Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. 2. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commis- sion on February 29, 1988. The Planning Commission recommended .to the City Council that said rezoning be approved. 3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on March 14, 1988, to consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommenda- tions of the City Staff and Planning Commission. - 10 - 3/14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above - described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact.: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and'that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is ade- quately safeguarded. - 10a - 3/14 j 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and con- veniences of the community, where applicable and the public welfare. k. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient and economical extension of public ser- vices and facilities,;such as public water, bewers,.police and fire protection and schools. 5. Approval would prohibit any farm related nuisance use, such as the raising of livestock, from being carried on in this single - dwelling neighborhood. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. 11. Mayor Greavu instructed Staff to resubmit the Hillwood Drive feasibility study to Council Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. C. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Cope Avenue Water Tank - Repainting a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Mayor Greavu introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 88 -3 -30 BE IT RESOLVED BY HE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the bid of Rainbow, Inc., in the amount of $82,010 is the lowest responsible bid for the repair and painting of the interior of the Cope Avenue water tank, and the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the City. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes - all. H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. I. NEW BUSINESS 1. C,D.R.B. Appeal: Office Shores - Beam Avenue a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Director of Community Development Olson presented the details of the appeal. - 11 - 3 /14 c. Board Member Don Moe presented the Community Design Review Board report. .d. Mr. Carl Lein, representing Mr. Dick Schreier, spoke on behalf of the Office Shores proposal. e. Councilmember Anderson moved to refer this item back to the C.D.R.B. for further review. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes - Councilmembers Anderson, Bastian and Rossbach Nay - Mayor Greavu. 2. I -494 Interchange a. Director of Community Development Olson presented the Staff report. b., No action taken. 3. Suburban Community Channels /Equipment a. Ginny Holder, Executive Director of Suburban Community Channels made a presentation on how the City can better utilize Cable T.V. and to inform the Council that grants are available for cable equipment. b. Councilmember Anderson moved to authorize Staff to apply for a grant for the cable equipment. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes- Councilmembers Anderson, Bastian and Rossbch. Nay - Mayor Greavu. 4. St. Paul Water Board a. Proposed Legislation b. Appoint Council Representative to Water Board 1. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. 2. Councilmember Anderson moved to annoint Con c Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes - all. 3. Councilmember Rossbach moved to appoint 'the following residents to the St. Paul Water Department Advisory Board: Bill Engman John Nowak Carolyn Peterson and the following three residents as alternates: Clarence Osen Marge Dura Jacquelyn Benjamin - 12 - 3/14 Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. 4. Councilmember Anderson _moved to delay the proposed legislation until next year. Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - all. Councilmember anderson moved to amend the agenda and discuss I -12 at this time Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all. 12. Beam Avenue - New Bus Route a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Mr. Ralph Flauger, 2140 Beam Avenue, presented a petition signed by 64 residents opposing the bus route. c. A resident at 2224 Beam Avenue also spoke in opposition. d. Councilmember Bastian moved to authorize Staff to direct a letter to the M.T.C. denying their request. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes - all. Mayor Greavu called a 5 minute recess at 9:25 P.M. Mayor Greavu reconvened the meeting at 9:30 P.M. 5, Discuss Developers Meeting a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Bastian moved to d;rari- fitaff Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes - all. 6. Century Avenue - Carver Avenue Street.Sign a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: I 88 -3 -31 WHEREAS, the curves and limited sight distance at Century Avenue and Carver Avenue necessitate additional care by and WHEREAS, the children playing near the street and on driveways near the intersection pose a special hazard; and 13 - 3/14 WHEREAS, Carver Avenue and Century. .Avenue at this location are under the jurisdiction of Ramsey County. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City of Maplewood requests the Ramsey County Engineer to evaluate the need of additional warning signs at Century Avenue and Carver Avenue to advise motorists of the need for additional caution to protect the safety of nearby children. The Ramsey County Public Works Department is requested to expedite the installation of warning signs. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. 7. Present Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing - City Project 87 -20 87 -29, Ferndale and Geranium. a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Mayor Greavu introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 88 -3 -32 WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of Maplewood has been authorized and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improvement of Geranium Avenue from Ferndale Street to Century Avenue and Ferndale Street from Mary- land Avenue to Stillwater Road, City Project 87 -20 and 87 -29 by construction of water main, service connections, storm sewer, street and curb and gutter, and related work, and WHEREAS, the said City Engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for the improvement herein described: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNE- SOTA, as follows: 1. The report of the City Engineer advising this Council that the proposed improvement on Geranium Avenue from Ferndale Street to Century Avenue and Ferndale Street from Maryland Avenue to Still- water Road by construction of water main, service connections, storm sewer, street with curb and gutter, and related work is feasible and should best be made as proposed, is hereby received. 2. The council will consider the aforesaid improvement in accordance with the reports and the assessment of benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement according to MSA Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $243,715. 3. A public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 1830 East County Road B on Monday, the eleventh day of April, 1988, at 7:00 P.M. to consider said improvement. The City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing and improvement as required by law. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson and.:Rosshach Nay - Councilmember Bastian - 14 - 3/14 R Present Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing, City Project 87 -19, Boxwood. a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Anderson introuced the following resolution and moved its ADOPTION:. 88 -3 -33 WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of Maplewood has been authorized and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improvement of Boxwood Avenue from McKnight Road to Dorland Road, City Project 87 -19, by construc- tion of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main, service connections, street with curb and gutter, and associated work, and WHEREAS, the Said City Engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for the improvement herein described: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNE- SOTA, as follows" 1. The report of the City Engineer advising this Council that the proposed improvement on Boxwood Avenue from McKnight Road to Dorland Road by construction of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main, service connections, street with curb and gutter, and associated work is feasible and should best be made as proposed, is hereby received. 2. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvement in accordance with the reports and the assessment of benefited property for all'or a' portion of the cost of the improvement according to MSA Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $248,020. 3. A public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 1830 East County Road B on Monday, the eleventh day of April, 1988, at 7:10 P.M. to consider said improvement. The City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing and improvement as required by law. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers Anderson and Rossbach Nay - Councilmember Bastian. Present Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing - City Project 8741 - Ski Jump a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. 9 - 15 - 3/14 I , b. Mayor Greavu introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 88-3 -34 WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of Maplewood has been authorized and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improvement of ski jump property storm sewer, City Project 87 -21 by construction of storm sewers, ponding area, pumping station, force main, access road, and appurtenances, and WHEREAS, the said City Engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for the improvement herein described: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. The report of the City Engineer advising this Council that the proposed improvement on ski jump property storm sewer by construction of storm sewers, ponding area, pumping station, force main, access road, and appurtenances is feasible and should best be made as proposed, is hereby received. 2. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvement in actor- - dance with the reports and the assessment of benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement according to MSA Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $152,150. 3. A public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 1830 East County Road B on Monday, the eleventh day of April, 1988, at 7:20 P.M. to consider said improvement. The City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing and improvement as required by law. Seconded by Councilmo'mber Anderson. Ayes - all. 10. Resolution Transferring MSA Funds to County Road C East of White Bear Avenue a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved it adoption: 88 -3 -35 WHEREAS, it has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of Maplewood to participate in the cost of.a construction project located on CSAH No. 23 within the limits of said municipality, and WHEREAS, said construction project has been approved by the Commissioner of Transportation and identified in his records as SAP 62- 623 -30. - 16 - 3/14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we do hereby appropriate from our municipal state -aid street funds the sum of $64,042.66 dollars to apply toward the construction of said project and request the Commis-' sioner of Transportation to approve this authorization. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. 11 Ayes - all. Resolution Restricting Parking Along Proposed Sterling Street from Highwood Avenue to Hillwood Street. a, Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has planned the construction of Sterling Street from Highwood Avenue to Hillwood Street; and WHEREAS, the City will be expending Municipal State Aid funds (M.S.A. Project Number 138 - 120 -01) on the improvement of said street; and WHEREAS, said improvement does not conform to the approved minimum width standards with unrestricted parking; and WHEREAS, approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Project is dependent upon specified parking restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the,City of Maplewood prohibits the parking of motor vehicles on the west side of proposed Sterling Street from Highwood Avenue to Hillwood Street._ Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. Beam Avenue - New Bus Route Discussed after Item I -4. City Hall - Final Payment a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 12 13 88 -3 -37 WHEREAS, construction for City Hall has been completed in accordance with the.contract. - 17 - 3/14 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL that Staff is directed to make final payment on such contract. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all. 14. T.H. 120 - Signals Agreement a. Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following pur- poses, to wit: The removal of one (1) existing hazard identification beacon and three (3) existing temporary traffic control signals, and installa- tion of nine (9) new or permanent traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre- emption, and signing at vari- ous locations on Trunk Highway No. 120 in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 64515, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all. 15. Budget Transfer - Promotional Pins a. - Manager McGuire presented the Staff report. b. Councilmember Bastian Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. J. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS the Ayes - all. 1. A resident on Beam Avenue inquired if Council could construct pedestrian lanes, sidewalks or street trails along Beam from White Bear Avenue to McKnight Road. 2. Council instructed the resident to obtain a petition signed by the area residents requesting such improvements. - 18 - 3/14 K. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. M.W.C.C. Letter a. Councilmember Bastian stated that the letter from Ms. Judy Fletcher, M.W.C.C. was incorrect and directed Staff to notify them of the error. 2. Wooded Lots a. Councilmember Anderson stated that 10 trees per acre for new plats was not enough. b. Staff to conduct a survey of what is required in other communities. c. Councilmember Anderson also suggested the elimination of farm zones. 3,, Maplewood Playhouse a. Councilmember Anderson commented on the progress of the Maplewood Playhouse Theatre. L. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Comparable Worth Meeting a. Manager McGuire suggested the Council meet to discuss comparable worth. b. Council established the date of March 17, 1988, 9:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M. for the comparable worth meeting. 2. Proclamation - Hill Murray a. Mayor Greavu introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, the Hill Murray High School Hockey Team represented Section Three in the Minnesota State Hockey Tournament; and WHEREAS, Hill Murray High School is located in the City of Maple- wood; and WHEREAS, the hockey players gave fully of their time, talent and energy to lead their team to the finals of the Minnesota State Hockey Tournament; and WHEREAS, the Hill Murray High School Hockey Team received the Secord Place Trophy for their endeavors, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL and all of the citizens of Maplewood, that the Hill - Murray High School Hockey Team be congratulated and commended for their outstanding achievement of Second Place in the Minnesota State Hockey Tournament. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. - 19 - 3/14 a. Mayor Greavu introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 88 -3 -40 WHEREAS, the Secretary General of the United States Olympic Committee has initiated an inquiry to determine whether the Cities of Minneapolis -Saint Paul are interested in hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics; and WHEREAS, the 'Mayors of Minneapolis -Saint Paul have asked area munici- palities for their general support to the concept of hosting the 1996 Summer Olympic Games; and WHEREAS, the Minneapolis -Saint Paul Metro Area enjoys a temperate summer climate well suited to international athletic competitions and now possesses numerous excellent athletic facilities suitable as Olympic venues; and WHEREAS, the Minneapolis -Saint Paul Metro Area has the capacity to provide the necessary accomodations to support visiting athletes and spectators; and WHEREAS, the 199f Summer Olympic Games would bring significant revenues to the Minneapolis -Saint Paul Metro Area as well as extensive international recognition, without expending taxpayer funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood, State of Minnesota, hereby express to the Mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul its firm support for the concept of hosting the Summer Olympic Games in 1996. Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all. 4. Establish Hearing Dates for Public Hearings a. Manager McGuire suggested that there be a special meeting for public hearings for two proposed improvements. b. Council established Monday, May 2, 1988, as a special meeting to hold public hearings on the following= 6:30 P.M., Foot Print Lake Area Storm Sewer 7:30 P.M., Roselawn, Edgerton Storm Sewer. M. ADJOURNMENT 10:50 P.M. City Clerk - 20 - 3/14 °Z MEMORANDUM Aotion by Councii: To: Michael A. McGuire, City Manager Endorse From: Robert D. "Odegard, Director of Parks & Recreatio Modified._ Subj: Appropriation of Funds To Repair Jim's Prairie d._ Date: March 18, 1988 Redeoted� D ate ------ �� Introduction At the March 14th meeting of the City Council, final payment for Project 86 -03, District No. 6 Watermain was approved. Due to damage to Jim's Prairie by the contractor, the amount of $1500 was reduced from the final payment. It is requested that the City Council appropriate $1500 from City Project 86 -03 to the Park Development Fund titled Jim's Prairie Restoration. Attached is a memorandum dated August 31, 1987, indicating how the estimate of $1500 was arrived at by our staff. Att: (1) c: City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Ken Haider, Director of Public Works From: Robert D. Odegard, Director of Parks & Recreation Subj: Repair of Damage to Jim's Prairie Date: August 31, 1987 0 The Nature Center staff and Margaret Kohring of the Nature Conservancy have been involved in the examination of the damage to Jim's Prairie that was caused by Rehbein Construction Co. equipment. Restoration of the area damaged will be a long term project requiring the seeding of prairie grasses that match the present prairie and keeping the weeds from developing in the damaged area. The following costs are the result of the negligence of Rehbein Construc- tion Co. and may also be the responsibility of the consulting firm. 1987 costs include seed collection, planting, $200 and removal of any weeds. 1988 and 1989 growing seasons $800 Work includes weeding and seeding in the early months and collecting seed and sowing seed in later months. Work would be approximately every two weeks from late May to September with an average of four hours per day. (10) four hour days at $10.00 /hour = $400 per season 1990 to 1992 growing seasons $240 Work in the area two half days or four hours each in late June and August. 8 hours at $10.00 /hour; $80.00 per season Equipment: plastic bags, gloves, rakes, $100 shovel, etc. Nature Center administrative costs during the $160 six years Total Cost $1,500 We request that Rehbein Construction Co. either pay the Citv $1,500 or the City withhold payment of $1,500 from their contract and that this money be placed in a Prairie Restoration Fund. cc: City Manager Nature Center AGENDA ITEM E MEMORANDUM lc :ion 1 {- Csttrcf.l.: TO: City Manager D1 :1,,1- , ., FROM: City Engineer - - ' — ' - SUBJECT: Final Payment District 6 Water, Project 86 -03 " " ' DATE: March 8, 1988 Attached is the recommendation for final payment from the engineer for District 6 water. The contractor has completed the work in conformance with the plans and specifications. It is recommended the city council adopt a resolution approving final pyament to L & 0 Rehbein in the amount of 662,131.84. jc Attachment ENGINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS NPLANNERS February 8, 1988 Mr. Ken Haider City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Haider: 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612 464.0272 RE: MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 6 TRUNK WATERMAINS CITY PROJECT NO. 86 -03 SEH FILE NO.: 86217 All construction and corrective work has been completed. The Contractor therefore has made Application for Final Payment in the amount of $63,631.84. D to damage on City own ed lands, caused by the Contractor, this amou is recommended to or a final be re uced y $1,50 payment of $62,131.84. — The final contract amount is for $589,677.48, which is $75,132.68 above the amount originally bid. The reasons for the increase are as follows: 1. Addition of Change Order No. 1 to perform grading in a ponding area near Beaver Creek. 2. Addition of Change Order No. 2 to perform grading in the Geranium Park. 3. Addition of casing pipe along Larpenteur Avenue due to conflict with an abandoned watermain not shown on City records. 4. Paving of a driveway in return for construction easements. 5. Addition of several air vents and blow offs, as required by the St. Paul Water Utility after plan approval. 6. Addition of landscape plantings, as required by the St. Paul Parks Department for sue of their property for a watermain easement. 7. Additional muck removal and granular fill along the Sterling Street alignment. After the watermain plans were approved and bids received, the developer requested that the street SHORT FU IOTI' Sr PAUL. ( MI'I`l 10 /'AI I HENURICRSON INC MINNESOTA IUb(0N,IN alignment follow the watermain. At the request of the City, additional peat was removed adjacent to the watermain berm .'to allow for adequate subgrade for the future street. Reductions to the construction cost were made by deleting topsoiling, seeding and culverts along the Sterling Avenue berm. This work will be performed under the Hillcrest Trunk Sanitary Sewer. The Contractor has experienced financial difficulties during the course of the project. The Bonding Company has been contacted and is advising the assignment of final payment; a joint check in the names of Water Products and L & G Rehbein in the amount of $7,747.83, and a joint check in the names of U.S. Pipe and L & G Rehbein in the amount of $54,374.01. Sincerely, David J. Pillatzke DJP /kru MEMORANDUM To: Michael A. McGuire, City Manager From: Robert D. Odegard, Director of Parks & Recreatio Subj: Appropriations From PAC Funds To Park Projects Date: March 21, 1988 Introduction Endorse Modifie Rejecte Date The City Council on February 8, 1988, approved the hiring of Wehrman Bergly Asso- ciates as consultants for the Parks and Recreation Department for the develop- ment of Sherwood, Playcrest, Geranium and Hazelwood Parks. A previous agreement was made with Holy Redeemer Church at the time of the purchase of Harvest Park that a fence would be installed between the City property and the church property. It is requested that Commercial PAC charges be appropriated for the following projects: Harvest Park Fence Survey $855.00 It is requested that Neighborhood PAC Funds be appropriated for the following projects: Sherwood Park Consultant $6,480.00 Survey $1,675.00 *Miscellaneous Expenses $5,000.00 Geranium Park Consultant $8,700.00 Survey $ 675.00 *Miscellaneous Expenses $5,000.00 * Miscellaneous Expenses include soil borings, topo maps, hydrologists, printing, etc. Funding for Playcrest and Hazelwood Park consultant and Miscellaneous Expenses are covered through previously approved Tax Increment appropriations. Action by Councila c: City Clerk MEMORANDUM ,Action by Council: Endorsed— _ -- Modified--- T0: City Manager Rejected FROM: Randy Johnson -- Associate Planner Date SUBJECT: Final Plat LOCATION: Valley View Avenue and Ferndale Street APPLICANT /OWNER: Good Value Homes, Inc. PROJECT: Highwood Second Addition DATE: March 18, 1988 SUMMARY Introduction The applicant is requesting final plat approval for the Highwood Second Addition to create 19 single - dwelling lots. Com ments This final plat is for a portion of the Highwood Addition Second Addition preliminary plat. (Refer to the map on page 3.) Each of the conditions that pertain to this first phase has been satisfied. Recommendatio Approve the Highwood Second Addition final plat. REFERENCE Past Actions 5- 11 -87: Council approved the Highwood Second Addition preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions being met before final plat approval: 1. Sterling Street must be realigned to the west, as determined by the city engineer, to increase the setback to the pipeline. (Phase II) The developer may acquire the additional right -of -way and construct the street or wait for the city to build it. Until contracts are signed for Sterling Street, no more than 1,000 feet of street and associated lots shall be platted from Valley View Avenue and proposed O'Day Street. The balance of the property may be platted as an outlot or left as property. (Phase I - satisfied) 2. Lots 7 - 11, Block 2, and 11 - 15, Block 3, shall not be platted until contracts are signed to construct a water tower for this area. (Phase II) 3. Outlot A shall be divided into Outlots A and B, separated by the Phylis Avenue right -of -way. (Phase II) 4. Temporary 100 - foot - diameter easements shall be submitted for all dead ends. (Satisfied Phase I) 5. Fifteen -foot -wide storm sewer easements shall be shown, centered in each proposed storm sewer. (Satisfied Phase I) 6. City engineer approval of final 13rading, drainage, utility and erosion - control plans. The trees to be saved shall be shown on the grading plan and identified as such in the field. (Satisfied Phase I) 7. Submission of a signed developer's agreement, with required surety, for all required public improvements and the oil - containment system (Phase II) proposed along the east boundary of Lots 1 - 3, Block 4. S. "O'Day Street" shall be changed to "Ferndale Street ". (Satisfied) 9. " Phylis Avenue" shall be changed to "O'Day Street ". ( Phase II) 10. If Timber Avenue is to become part of the east -west collector (page 3), it shall be named Schaller Drive. (Phase II) 11. Deed restrictions shall be submitted to the city to run with the title of Lots 1 - 3, Block 4. These restrictions shall require the homes to be built at the front -yard setback to maximize the setback to the pipelines. (Phase II) 12. The west lot line of Lot 4, Block 4, shall be relocated to the west to be perpendicular to Timber Avenue. (Phase II) 71 Attachments 11 Preliminary Plat 2. Final Plat (8 1/2 x 11) 3. Final Plat (separate enclosure) 0 2 � 1. Hig hwood 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat 3 A 7 r : 10 /­4 ullilty 9 SO 9 RC 22 92 $83.56! .9, 4 04 , C,1 33 1p — .Ar. 4z 4 7 x /j1 60 7 to , �4 2 4,1 ,A 1 040 - � % _ 4 Noriherly If t .KIGHWOOD A JM SrRE 4 R fi 4 3 46.14 9401 130.00 S8V59r56Vl .. ..... .. . 9 w 0 -A 0 Zi VALL.EYVIEW AVENUE .... 345.35 O D,.;".Se /­4 ullilty 4 2� 0 4,1 0 2 2 An 4 60. :143.01 5.00 S00 60 2 rz FINAL PLAT Highwood Second Addition (Phase I) 4 Attachment 2 L N Z -�_ Action by Council :. MEMORANDUM Endorsed Modifie Re TO: City Manager Mike McGuire Date � FROM: Director of Emergency Services Larry J. Cude Da - -- DATE: March 8, 1988 RE: Council Action to Amend 1988 Budget Council action is needed to amend the 1988 budget by a $400.00 increase to the appropriation for equipment capitol outlay (101- 112- 4640). Reference receipt #54213, dated October 25, 1985. Council approved this donation to Emergency Services by the Maplewood - Oakdale Lions Club for the purchase of radios in October of 1985. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. LJC:ajo L z �' AGENDA # Z�' _ 6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Mayor & Council FROM: City Manager RE: Wage & Benefit Proposal - Non -Union DATE: March 23, 1988 Action by Council-, Endorsed� , Modified___.,, Re,jectedm _ „ Date.,- .e. _,_„„ „.,.. _.,_ The attached Wage and Benefit Proposal is the same as agreed to at the March 17, 1988 negotiation meeting.except that the increase in the health insurance benefits has been removed from the proposal, It is recommended that the Council adopt the proposal for all non -union employees. MAM:1nb CITY OF MAPLEWOOD WAGE AND BENEFIT PROPOSAL TO NON -UNION EMPLOYEES 1. Duration The following shall be effective 1 -1 -88 throuqh 12 -31 -89 2. Deferred Compensation Increase deferred compensation $10.00 /Month 3. Life Insurance Increase life insurance coverage from $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 4. Dental Insurance City agrees to pay for 100% of employee dental coverage 5. Cost of Living Adjustment_ - (see Appendix A) Cost of living increases shall be granted in the amount of: 1988 - 3.5% 1989 - 4.0% 6. Merit Pay Employer agrees to establish a merit pay system whereas all covered employees shall be eligible for merit pay, based on performance, of up to 5 %. 7. Comparable Worth Employer agrees to implement applicable Comparable Worth adjustments by granting 50% of difference effective 1 -1 -88 and the balance 1 -1 -89 (see Appendix A) 3 -22 -88 APPENDIX A POSITION POINT Public Safety Dir. 108 Public Works Dir. 108 Finance Dir. 105 City Clerk 108 Community Dev. Dir. 105 Parks & Rec. Dir. 99 Police Captain 91 Fire Marshal 80 Dep. Fire Marshal 79 Mgr. /Fin. Sec. 57 CITY OF M MAPLEWOOD PROPOSED S SALARY PLAN FOR NON -UNION E EMPLOYEES 1 ACTUAL 1 1986 1986 1 1986 PAY [0 3710 3817 3523 3513 3558 Bi ma 2949 2492 1693 4009 4000 3812 3209 3242 3489 3538 2950 2449 1403 3900 3900 3790 3900 3790 3570 3276 2872 I8T 2 3 4 PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED 1986 1988 1989 BASE BASE BASE 4000 4266 4456 4000 4130 4456 3900 4133 4345 3600 3815 4011 3600 3810 4011 3600 3834 4011 3300 3535 3676 2800 2999 3119 2550 2701 2841 1867 1907 2080 NOTE: Any employee who is above the proposed base will continue at the higher level. The C.O.L.A. will be calculated on the proposed base and then added to their actual salary. NOTE: Any employee who is above the proposed base will continue at the higher level. The C.O.L.A. will be calculated on the proposed base and then added to their actual salary. � MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment--R~2 Lot Widths DATE: January 26, 1988 SUMMARY HICAMCtion Action by Council: Endorse Modifie Rojnuta Council directed staff to prepare a code amendment that would "grandfather" R^^2 double-dwelling residential lots that had a minimum lot width of 75 feet prior to December 9, 1985 (the date of the code change requiring a minimum of 85 feet of lot width). 1. This amendment is the result of the December 28, 1987 council review of Richard Schreier's proposed 2.7-foot lot width variance for an R~2 zoned lot on Bradley Street. (See map on page 3^) 2" There are several areis that this ordinance would apply to" (See pages 3 and 4 .) The three undeveloped, R^2 zoned lots on page 3 are owned by Mr. Schreier" Adoption of the code amendment on page 2 mb Attachments: 1° Proposed amendment 2 and 3. Maps of substandard R-2 lots ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING DOUBLE- DWELLING CONSTRUCTION ON LOTS WITH 75 TO 85 FEET OF WIDTH The Maplewood City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 36 -88 (c) is amended to read as follows (additions are underlined): (c) The minimum lot width in an R -2 Residence District for: (1) Single dwellings shall be sixty (60) feet for interior lots and eighty -five (85) feet for corner lots. (2) Double dwellings shall be eighty -five (85) feet for interior lots and one hundred (100) feet for corner lots, e xcel7 t that the Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on 1988. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Ayes- - Nays -- Attachment 1 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Attachment 2 0 N V (31) 2 Wa P13 1* 3 14 A � l I 18 �f la 2,0 1 A ce � !� I 1 ' I I Te I d5' !a MI GO S O) 2 21 a d s x 17 (4 —ar to 4 '5 q 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 to 5 r. 17 uo Ice Z F u w I s 1.-1 6) TV > a: (Ar�) to T,, 13 L4_ 420 17 J. Is (As) 14 17 p 36 301 g . 1, t"WERYAN 0 30 1 Z A. W 7-C W zs Y I OR ( O 24 23 4 lz L4 I NJ 7 6 It ZI ?. SCHOOL CHO ki — 7 : g 10 21 19 ,. N 'IV : 0 0 !L_ 7 of 12 4j N %4 9 IL 5 4 ; 1r15 t4 ts 3 OX 3 NEW e U1 0 C 40 11 2 fil L 27 2tr ar 27 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Attachment 3 E3 SUBSTANDARD—FRONTAGE UNDEVELOPED R-2 LOTS 4 0 N Planning Commission Minutes-2-1-88 Delete Outlot A in favor of the pi7� posed drainage easement xtend the abutting lot lines thpdugh this area. 4. Approve die resolution to rezoperthe entire site from F, farm residence, to R , single - dwelli use. Commissioner Barret VI. VISITOR PRESENTAT VII. COMMUNICATI Ayes -- Axdahl, Parrett, Cardinal, Dempsey, Fiala, Fischer, Goins, Larson, Sigmundik, Sletten retar Olson said there would be a meeting on February 2, 1988 rar ng the locations of additional interchanges on I494 in south ewood and Woodbury, and to contact him for further information. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Code Amendments R -2 Lot Widths The background and staff report were presented to the commissioners. The commissioners discussed the R -2 zoning within the city and how the amendment of the code would affect this land. Richard Schreier, 2125 Desoto, discussed the zoning of his property on Desoto Street. He said that eventually he would split a lot onto the new Arkwright Street. Commissioner Goins moved the planning commission adopt the code amendment that would "grandfather" R -2, double - dwelling residential lots that had a minimum lot width of 75 feet prior to December 9, 1985 (the date of the code change requiring a minimum of 85 feet of lot width) . Commissioner Sigmundik seconded Ayes -- Axdahl, Barrett, Cardinal, Dempsey, Fiola, Fischer, Goins, Larson, Sigmundik, Sletten B.'�a Amendment: Private Garages Secretary Olson nted the staff rt for the code amendment for private garages whi ou low garages up to 1,250 square feet on lots over one a commission discussed the ordinance and the issue of t story garages aining living space. Commissio Larson moved adoption of the code an4Tent allowing a garag p to 1,250 square feet on lots one acre or larger and limi ing the maximum number of garages to two. Y Planning Commission Minutes 2 -29 -88 exi ting> trees on each a e of ground are located on the to following all c nstruction. Trees may be reloca ed to the berm o Outlot A (city pond) subject to the cation being pproved by the city engineer. 1. The owner(of th property shall release, by deed, any right that y run ith this property to use the 33- foot -wide access asem nt that abuts the northwest corner. IX X . XI. 2. Approve the resolut n to vacate the right -of -way dedicated for the tembbb or y Hillwood Drive cul -de -sac. The resolution shall not e s t to the county to be recorded until the preliminary plat ndi ions are met. 3. Approve the re olution ko rezone the site from F, fafm residence to R -1, iyingle dwel ing. Commissioner Slet/ten seconded Ayes-- Axdahl, Ayers, Barrett, Cardinal, Dempsey, Fiola, Fischer, Goins, Larson, Sigmundik, Sletten D. I -494 terchange Secretary lson gave a presentation on the proposed I -494 intercha oe. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Code Amendment: R -2 Lot Widths Secretary Olson presented the staff report and confirmed with planning commission that it stated the commission's intent. COMMISSION PRESNNTATIONA A. Council MeeVkngs STAFF PRESENTATIO A. Council Meet B. National P The commissio than one comm planning conf an important name from c Commission February 8 and 2.2, 1988 March 14, 1988: ing \Conference Sue Fiola n rs discus ed what the policy would be when more sioner is Interested in attending the national rence. Bev al commissioners said longevity is consideration. Commissioner Dempsey withdrew his sideration in a tending this conference, since Fiola has more s niority on the commission. I Action by Council: MEMORANDUM Endorsed. Modifie TO: City Manager Rejecte FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner bate SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Parking Authorization LOCATION: 2280 Maplewood Drive OWNER: Winthrop and Weinstine PROJECT: Menard's DATE: March 17, 1988 SUMMARY Introduction 1. Menard, Inc. is proposing to purchase the Keller Lake Shopping Center property. Menard's would occupy the former Warner's store and the Country Club Market. The remaining space would be leased to tenants. The following exterior changes are proposed: a. A new facade on the north and west elevation adding several new doors and windows. b. The parking lot would be resurfaced and restriped. C, An exterior storage /sales yard would be constructed, with a security building at the entrance. d. The driveway at the southeast corner-of the site would be raised. e. An 8- foot -high screening fence (of the same prefinished metal material that the facade is constructed of) on the east and south side of the property and a brown vinyl coated chain link fence on the west and north side of the exterior storage /sales yard. f. The roof top mechanical equipment which is visible will be screened with the same prefinished material as the facade and screening fence. g. The dry cleaner /fuel station building would be removed. The outlot would be used for future sale or development. 2. Menard, Inc. is requesting the following approvals: a. A conditional use permit to add an exterior storage /sales yard within 350 feet of a residential zone. b. Authorization for fewer parking spaces than code allows. 395 spaces are proposed and 456 spaces are required. I Discussion The proposed storage yard meets the criteria for a conditional use permit and would create an opportunity to achieve several public benefits: 1. Eliminate the lift station at the southeast corner of this site. The lift station is costly to the city to maintain and operate. 2. Improve the screening of the homes to the south with a new fence. There should not be a significant change in noise from the exterior storage yard from the time it was used as a parking lot for the grocery store. The parking request for 395 spaces seems adequate based on the survey of parking lots at other Menard's stores. (See page 11.) Recommendation I. Approve the resolution on page 17 approving the conditional use permit for one year, subject to the following conditions: A. Adherence to the site plan dated March 15, 1988, unless a change is approved by the city's community design review board. B. Materials in the storage yard shall be no more than 80% visible from the residential lots to the south. This may limit stacking heights or require a higher fence height. C. Hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7:00 a. M. to 10: 00 P. M. II. Authorize 395 parking spaces, rather than the 456 required, on the basis that: A. There are more parking spaces for each square foot of building than the average Menard's store. (See the chart on page 11.) B. Peak hours for Menard's would be opposite of the bar. C. There has always been more parking than needed on this site. Note: The desiqn review board will establish conditions for development. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the surrounding 36 property owners within 350 feet for their opinion of this request. Of the 20 replies, twelve were in favor and seven objected: K In Favor Comments I am in favor of this proposal because: 1. It should draw business to Maplewood. 2. The area should be developed. 3. We are remodeling right now. 4. It would be a shopping place that would carry more than one type of item. 5. We have always used Warner's for hardware items. 6. Any development of commercial must be a plus for trade and community enrichment. 7. There was a Warner's Hardware and Lumber and I don't see any difference in Menard's. I'd rather have this than a motel or apartments. 8. We had a Warner's store already. 9. Menard's is a nice store and will be a good draw of customers which will help the other businesses in the center also. 10. It would be better than the building sitting vacant. Objections Refer to the replies on pages 12 through 16 . Staff comment: The objections are generally over the potential nuisance and disturbance the storage yard may cause, and over the potential impact on residential property values. The applicant has responded to the following concerns: after hours deliveries - none vehicle noise - There would be cars, forklifts and trucks in the storage yard. visual objections - the eight- foot -tall screening fence would screen the majority of the materials. Products may be stacked up to twelve feet high. The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has stated that any negative impact of the residential property values would have already occurred, since these lots have abutted this commercial development for many years already. It is difficult to say if there would be any further effect. 31 REFERENCE Site Description 1. Acreage: 13.37 acres 2. Existing land use: Keller Lake Shopping Center Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Highway 36 Southerly: Single Dwellings Easterly: Countryside Volkswagen /Saab Westerly: Highway 61 Planning 1. Land Use Plan designation: LSC 2. Zoning: M -1 3. Ordinance requirements: Section 36 -187 (a.3) will allow in an M -1 zone, any use listed as a permitted use in a BC, business commercial district, if the property is designated for LSC, limited service commercial or RM, residential medium density use on the city's comprehensive plan. Section 36 -187 (b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within three hundred fifty (350) feet of a residential district without a conditional use permit. Section 36 -442 (b) states that approval of a conditional use permit shall be based upon the findings in the resolution on page Section 36 -22 (a) requires one feet of commercial floor area feet of warehouse space. parking space for each 200 square and one space for each 1000 square The applicant has stated that there would be 50,000 square feet of warehouse space (code requires 50 spaces), 50,000 square feet of warehouse - showroom space (code requires 250 spaces) and 30,000 square feet of retail- tenant spaces (code requires 150 spaces). 450 spaces are required in total. Public Works To upgrade an existing sanitary sewer deficiency, the applicant should construct a new sanitary sewer service from the building to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's interceptor at the southwest 4� construct a new sanitary sewer service from the building to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's interceptor at the southwest corner of the property. This would eliminate the need for the lift station, which is difficult and expensive for the city to maintain. kd Attachments: 1. Sherwood Glen Land Use Plan 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Applicant's Parking Justification 6. Chart Showing Parking at Menard's 7. Objections From Neighbors e. Resolution Dated February 9, 1988 Stores 5 0 m • 0 0 u v 0 0 � b A m a e N G O 2 SHERWOOD GLEN LAND USE PLAN 6 ' Attachment 7 0 M O m O G I M� X 'I 1 LL T AW v LOLL ` U VW—SAAB =• s— IN <;. }y t•.t•:..: ;t., , c M W C � \ / !� ;;k e ? + ^. } "}> :.hSnt, C INTERCEPTOR .:;£ ?F # } • ?' •fc?. t:: (tfCFk' :•A�h.:?..`4�i' %`' :.:fi' 11J• CONNECTION «,,' R:.•r ���y! ,:: }..: 2rL :H:?;k: ?wi' '4:3d.:•Y`;r'4:''?^a:. .. :_. '$� .i;3e::: , I r G Gas Stati :}:;;• :: :'e',k::��":�,y_'f2�:}',�:J ;, k2; .. :,,��t M1ht ; aka .arr.. .eTY . Ik` 2"R•yt � %k v }'. � ?:R:`` s $ � '' e I I I h�•� ;� ".�': v .�,C�; n• "+�'•'} >^ .. x`kc:f h• �`' 'O. . � / � G u 111 I le l u {.kv�.: E @:2' h. .;' +sti:�: ^ ' k � ,;via. <; . ' ;'i:'3: ; }�• }: "Y.'c.: k, \?o, }::.:cyh. t� " ^. .0 •ih\1`•'Y•.: LL ik' fyi' k:: i .:�i� \ \ s :{ ;:���• : : : : ? ?:y: I 4K ^Yh }:i ti:: +.. � 1> H vih:::<::?; :i \: ? ^N.i }:jiv: <:i} yy��'\ } n•.;M1R;::: tik:f it v I i:uR. Y M 22 LIFT STATION 1,J1Y �asj 2233 1. *n n f z {a }i__ _ 1127 W I ' ),a - r.1 ^. -.r 1137' �- r�'M 2223 > o� H 91101 1115 1.1,43 >.Iw 1071 1 2 I ..... __1- ,J+e, I �b.11 z 42M iao �' ul I T a, (s'J� iiillt w'i3 »Fl_.� -!- �'��1 t' '.i.•. Ly >Y I''u a � i `a � (,ti n iricl�6xl Im PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Existing sanitary sewer �.♦ Direction of flow 7 Attachment 2 JI I )[• Idrl I(W I � � ISf1Ip.J II'I ,•• I ; +� wl�. Jt>diL�llm l t � L .tfiJls�i LARK I V-3 (z.) 14 eeY oe ('I) — 4 L am^ Q35.i..) 21 20 05 � T AW v LOLL ` U VW—SAAB =• s— IN <;. }y t•.t•:..: ;t., , c M W C � \ / !� ;;k e ? + ^. } "}> :.hSnt, C INTERCEPTOR .:;£ ?F # } • ?' •fc?. t:: (tfCFk' :•A�h.:?..`4�i' %`' :.:fi' 11J• CONNECTION «,,' R:.•r ���y! ,:: }..: 2rL :H:?;k: ?wi' '4:3d.:•Y`;r'4:''?^a:. .. :_. '$� .i;3e::: , I r G Gas Stati :}:;;• :: :'e',k::��":�,y_'f2�:}',�:J ;, k2; .. :,,��t M1ht ; aka .arr.. .eTY . Ik` 2"R•yt � %k v }'. � ?:R:`` s $ � '' e I I I h�•� ;� ".�': v .�,C�; n• "+�'•'} >^ .. x`kc:f h• �`' 'O. . � / � G u 111 I le l u {.kv�.: E @:2' h. .;' +sti:�: ^ ' k � ,;via. <; . ' ;'i:'3: ; }�• }: "Y.'c.: k, \?o, }::.:cyh. t� " ^. .0 •ih\1`•'Y•.: LL ik' fyi' k:: i .:�i� \ \ s :{ ;:���• : : : : ? ?:y: I 4K ^Yh }:i ti:: +.. � 1> H vih:::<::?; :i \: ? ^N.i }:jiv: <:i} yy��'\ } n•.;M1R;::: tik:f it v I i:uR. Y M 22 LIFT STATION 1,J1Y �asj 2233 1. *n n f z {a }i__ _ 1127 W I ' ),a - r.1 ^. -.r 1137' �- r�'M 2223 > o� H 91101 1115 1.1,43 >.Iw 1071 1 2 I ..... __1- ,J+e, I �b.11 z 42M iao �' ul I T a, (s'J� iiillt w'i3 »Fl_.� -!- �'��1 t' '.i.•. Ly >Y I''u a � i `a � (,ti n iricl�6xl Im PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Existing sanitary sewer �.♦ Direction of flow 7 Attachment 2 JI I )[• Idrl I(W I � � ISf1Ip.J II'I ,•• I ; +� wl�. Jt>diL�llm l t � L .tfiJls�i LARK I V-3 (z.) 14 eeY oe ('I) — 4 I . 9 D 0 v i 'Isle co lC o fir 6 �S. 0 It Qk � 5 J i A �W 4: j4 F �a • b r W J a a � 8 S t 1; 1 o� A Fis � _ m R .H e �� a I r Z a �i +e 41 % Attachment 3 0. 7f } ! I; P i I � :;?i n "eyl: raromi. .,t' ij ,•j 1 �j LIs' I N nox e.' ax:; V !'n sign :':I�,� f. _- _ �� NeNI•NN�IN6 `�ir� /Y AI V.o00.nu Building Elevations 9 1 Attachment 4 Of 0 N 21 22. '88 February 19,1988 Mr. Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood 1830 E. County B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR LESS NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THEN REQUIRED Dear Mr. Ekstrand: As discussed with you, we have designed the available parking to meet our needs. Our retail store will occupy approximately 50,000 square feet and the inside storage area will occupy a similiar amount of space. This will leave approximately 30,000 square feet for smaller tenants who are very low traffic generators. We normally design our parking area to 200 cars + or -, which is about four cars per 1,000 square feet of retail space. Tenant space we design at about three cars per 1,000 square feet of retail space. Attached is a partial list of our stores with their retail square footages and the number of parking spaces provided. I think a point to remember is that if this space were no longer a Menard store, the outside storage area could again be used for parking. If you have any further questions please just give me a call. Sincerely, Mary Frochask Vice President of Real Estate Menard, Inc. MP:fh encl. 10 Attachment 5 4777 MENARD DRIVE EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703 PHONE: (715) 874 -59.11 TELEX:260032 FAX#: 715- 874 -5901 0 11 Attachment 6 O,,l REWARD'S FAREINO S�,lES OROSS PARKING 151metS1 LOCATIO FLOOR AREA SPACE AFFLETON 49,920 150 cars 1/33.3 EURNIMLLE 1!.970 202 cars - CEDAR WIN 77,000 230 cars 11 33 6 CBEOTER 49.920 150 care 1 /M4 COON Ruin 49,920 119 care I /Z79 • .EAU CLAIRE '" 49.920 160 ears 1 / Z 7 7 EDEN FRAIAIi 49,920 222 as" I/Z ZS • 'FAR60 49.920 171 cars I/Z ?Z- FRANKLIN 49,920. 19 cars I/L67 OOLDEN PALLET 49,920 140 ears II3 b7 OREEN EAT - , 49,920 136 oars 1 /3G JANE -MLL; 49,920 143 Oars 113 9 LA CROSSE - 49.920 99 airs 11s q MILWAUKEE 49.920 166 ears I1301 MONONA 100,000 304 cars 1 /349 OAKDALE 49,920 192 ears 06NEOSE•. 49.920 216 oars I/Z ; 1 . ROCHESTER 49.920 152 care 1/3L$ ST. CLOUD 49.970 104 care I/y6o WATERLOO ' 49.920. 157 ears II3Ig , WAUKZSHA 49.920 107 care Ifs' WAOSAU 49,920 100 care / /Z% 7 • so, coo 0 11 Attachment 6 1,11 CITY OF 10 WASV� ML NAVE 1830 EAST CO. ROAD B AIAPLEWOOD, DIINNES(71'A 35109 ' OFFICE OFCONIMUNITYDEVELOPAIENT 612.770.4i60 January 8. 1988 Scott Lee & Lora Lee t53GH80 SURVEY -2558— Hazeaweed— Aveaue. 1081 C U CS St. Paul, MN 55109 This survey is to get your opinion on an application the city has received to develop property.in your neighborhood. The application is to remodel the Keller Lake Center for a Menards Store. (See the enclosed maps.) Your opinion is needed to assist the city staff and planning commission in preparing a recommendation to the city council. Once this survey is completed, you will be notified of any public hearings. Please indicate your opinion and comments below and return this entire letter to me in the enclosed postage —paid envelope by January 18, 1988. If you would like further information, please call me at 770 -4560 between 8 a.m, and 5 p.m. Thank you for your comments. They will be given careful consideration. GE r OLSON, AICP — DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT mb Enclosures I am in favor of this proposal because I have no comment. v( ilu I object to this proposal because ,a , ,4LW 'H%e - rcR-4t^�L4' -LL X ,4 I4i7l thteuzcUU,"LQ It you object, describe below or ora make this project acceptable. 'v7 Cl(1 O T n U tV�Yefl� - N-k .L c Project: Menards .tU 1 e 4o o-u -A � C ��e on the enclosed map any changes that 44 t1L e Vl U-tt'Bt L. WU4 12 Attachment 7 I _I object to this pro o al because n i � p- anY -ehan9 hat-wou- ID o-Jec J ccep Me. r I Q Pro,Iect: �JC�� ""G�PJ �Caxr+r� /> •+� �j�r.�.�2`�� `� ��'o') .�l`r - �i .�1�.1� G ,�� �Gd /, 0���""" � c� L•Y�����ie - �'r �'E''C�/ !� C�c�' - �'`� „cK`✓'��/�Y�?y�+� .� iln/N�Gec{J' 13 s 0 G How Ualgc AT ,wgtd'r 4/ t 1 5 opr-u 1 Gv hw I VU,t lJh t, f3- by Ilvt tY t dl t7tlF kbvGG Y AXV /fr ,vlt /fT Z 1 5a lv/fA I&Ia/v op AN11117Y ? Voisy Z pw u vvt,r Ag - 57 1414 If Wt, ft.o W 7H67 Fff, 6 ?- fly' ota pp oar rifw- Frog (A"( (Wir. YlKv MAT 13 ",PU ltV9L, Wfl JIM TOP 6F`tl1&r- mvzqz) J GUouul� S7 wowy t.Y s u�r��rt,T S?vwGs rit�rr /f�yls L�,�a�13� -/�S f plow, 5 , oYS l hJ41 S vuj no ua r owover (S fns jtoWvt V Fox- tVW Gow - OF- 11 N N n j3 ,rUa d/ gOIVJ , 4140M ? ao Irv>; vY,av 1 SMA, I � s ©u 1 CAAII i s , ,tv o`hltt W Avvtsn Alor DN IMS S -TOFF. ll� 53 5 14 1 A. _�I object to this proposal because �Xl�lt`�� �(� ►�t) If you �m ►a�nr,r,n�t a� 1 ��11�0 �/� ^�5 � �,rRll� f � ;`1(i�j�; If you object, describe below or draw on he enclosed map y changes that would make this project acceptable. •. Project: Menards C 'O 1ti � t h �� LL) % �r� A -'C laJ -)(In(.2 & Qx Coo\or ()4' ku. try) h -1 l 7 VA� o/J )ry c%0aive J ke G(!'1loa - !'C)rpls/�d ln (lilC�lrtlr ���1'j fJ `I �U � �. /urnGQ r ►- /e� �rC� b e kl vet C%`.�1'i/ V44 j �..�d� t/ I object to this proposal because ,p ' ZQ 7t.l. !w c � C � lirtl a /LU �k�i lQ iu I f object, des tribe low or raw on the enclosed map any changes that would you make this project acceptable. Project: Menards C� � pp� ,iAs$++�1(;l �A kx - ' - knito" 46, I object to this proposal because toe do no+ - t cr d `4nd 111ere t.oi l If you objeldt, describe below or draw on the closed map any cnanges tnat wou make this project acceptable. � �la+ VCeaI.,r. l �I his e :,1acf 15 v i av °4A. \� as IU �bs xi 16 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota was duly called and held in the council chambers in said city on the day of , 1988 at 7 p.m. The following members were present: The following members were absent: WHEREAS, Menard, Inc. initiated a conditional use permit to construct an outside storage yard within 350 feet of a residential district at the following- described property: Parcel 1: That certain triangular tract of land situated in the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, described as follows, to -wit: Commencing at a point on the East line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 9 at its intersection with the Easterly line of United States Highway No. 61, as widened; thence South on the East line of said Southwest Quarter to a point 100 feet North of the North line of County Road B; thence West and parallel with the North line of said County Road B to the Easterly line of United States Highway No. 61, as widened; thence Northeasterly along the Easterly line of said United States Highway No. 61, as widened, to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: The South 107 feet of that part of the North 5 acres of the South 50 rods of the North 105 rods of the West 32 rods of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, which lies Southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the South line of said 5 acre tract which line is the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, distant 60 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence running Northeasterly to the Northeast corner of said tract and there terminating. Parcel 3: All that part of the West 32 rods of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 29, Range 22 lying North of County Road B, except Heinemann's Belleview Addition to Gladstone, and except highway. Parcel 4: Block 16, lying South of State Trunk Highway No. 36, except the East 240 feet thereof; and Block 15, except the East 240 17 i. Attachment 8 feet thereof, and except part thereof taken for highway; and Block 10, except the East 30 feet thereof, and except that part of the West 225 feet of the East 255 feet thereof lying South of the North 30 feet thereof, all in Clifton Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota. This property is also known as 2280 Maplewood Drive, Maplewood; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. This conditional use permit was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on March 21, 1988. The planning commission recommended to the city council that said permit be 2. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on 1988. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL THAT the above - described conditional use permit be approved on the basis of the following findings -of -fact: 1. The use is in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and with the purpose and standards of this chapter. 2. The establishment or maintenance of the use would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 3. The use would be located, designed, maintained and operated to be compatible with the character of that zoning district. 4. The use would not depreciate property values. 5. The use would not be hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to present and potential surrounding land uses, due to the noises, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 6. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and shall not create traffic congestion, unsafe access or parking needs that will cause undue burden to the area properties. 7. The use would be serviced by essential public services, such as streets, police, fire protection, utilities, schools and parks. 8. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services; and would not be detrimental to the welfare of the city. 18 i y 9. The use would preserve and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 10. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Adherence to the site plan, dated March 15, 1988, unless a change is approved by the city's community design review board. 2. Materials in the storage yard shall be no more than 80% visible from the residential lots to the south. This may limit stacking heights or require a higher fence height. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Adopted this day of , 1988. Seconded by Ayes -- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF RAMSEY > SS. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD > I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City of Maplewood, held on the day of , 1988, with the original on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript insofar as the same relates to a conditional use permit. Witness my hand as such clerk and the corporate seal of the city this day of , 1988. City Clerk City of Maplewood 19 1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT /OWNER: PROJECT: DATE: I City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Lot Width Variance Bradley Street DeSoto Associates Double Dwelling December 1, 1987 MEMORANDUM SUMMARY Action by Counoilr Endorsed._ Modiffed� ReJeote . Date Introduction The applicant is requesting approval of a 2.7 -foot lot width variance. Code requires that double - dwelling lots be at least 85 feet wide; the applicant's lot is 82.3 feet wide. Background 7- 11 -74: This property was rezoned from R -1, single dwelling residential, to R- 2, double dwelling residential. (At that time, there were no minimum lot width requirements fpr R -2 lots. The R -1 lot width minimum of 75 feet was applied.) 12 -9 -85: Council amended the lot width ordinance for double- dwelling lots to require 85 feet of lot width, rather than 75 feet, to be consistent with the platting code. 8- 25 -87: The community design review board approved plans for a twin home on this lot, subject to: 1. The lot shall be sodded and as many trees shall be retained as practical. 2. Each dwelling unit shall have its address clearly posted in numbers that,are at least 3 -1/2 inches tall. 3. The applicant shall obtain a lot -width variance prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9 -2 -87: Desoto Associates attained fee title of this property according to the abstract office at Ramsey County. Alternatives 1. Approve the variance. 2. Deny the variance. 3. Initiate an amendment to the zoning and subdivision ordinances to allow a lesser frontage requirement for double dwellings in R -2 zones. 4. Initiate an amendment to the code to "grandfather" in the lots that were zoned R -2 and at least 75 feet in width on the date that the code was amended to require 85 feet in width (December 9, 1985). Discussion Staff would not object to a double dwelling on this lot if it was 85 feet wide. There are townhouses to the south and double dwellings across the street. In 1985, the city decided that a double dwelling should not be built on less than 85 feet of width. The state required finding of a hardship "unique to the property" cannot be made. There are two other undeveloped, substandard, R -2 lots of 84 and 75 feet of width in this neighborhood. (See the map on page .) There are other undeveloped, R -2 lots in the city with less than 85 feet of frontage. There are also single dwellings on R -2 zones with less than 85 feet of frontage that may consider remodeling to duplexes. The city should be careful not to set a precedent that would effect these situations. It should also be noted that the applicant acquired this property after the.code was amended requiring 85 -foot -wide lots for double dwellings. Recommendation Denial of a 2.7 -foot lot width variance for Got 4, Block 1, Kodale Addition for the construction of a double dwelling, on the basis that: 1. There is no hardship caused the applicant due to circumstances "unique to the property." 2. This variance is not unique to this lot. There are two other undeveloped R -2 lots with substandard widths of 84 and 75 feet in this neighborhood. Approval of a variance would set a precedent for approving double dwellings on these lots. 3. The property can be put to a reasonable use - -a single dwelling. The three lots zoned R -2 to the north are also zoned R -2. 4. The basis for the variance is primarily economic. 5. The lot was substandard before the applicant purchased it. 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 33 surrounding property owners within 359 feet of this site. of the'18 replies, four had no comment, four were in favor and ten objected. In Favor Comments 1. The variance in lot width isn't that much. I can't see why 2.7 feet would make much difference. (Three replies.) 2. More rental property would add to the Maplewood tax base. 3. The property is properly zoned and I feel it would compliment the neighborhood. Objections 1. This lot is too small for a double dwelling. This property should be used for a single - family home. A double dwelling would detract from our neighborhood. Stick to code. Staff Comment: According to the zoning map on page 7, R -2 zoning is common in this neighborhood. The majority of homes on the west side of this street are double dwellings. There are townhouses to the south. 2. There should be brick on the front and be sure aluminum siding is used so it blends with townhomes and does not end up looking like what is across the street in a few years. Staff Comment: The design of the structure was approved by the design review board on 8- 25 -87. There will be aluminum siding, but no brick. Notices were mailed to the neighbors for this meeting. 3. The density in the neighborhood is too high already. we are already saturated with this type of housing. Staff Comment: The present density in the neighborhood is below the allowable density according to the Land Use Plan. Refer to planning considerations on page 4. Thirteen parcels that are zoned R -2 for double dwellings are presently developed with single - family homes. 4. It does not meet the law. They should only be allowed to build a single - family homes. Rental properties bring in undesirables. 91 0 REFERENCE Site Description 1. Lot Area: 24,473 square feet 2. Existing Land Use: undeveloped Surrounding Land Uses Southerly: Highland Townhomes Northerly: Single dwellings Easterly: Single dwellings Westerly: Bradley Street twinhomes and the Edgerton Highlands Apts. Planning Considerations 1. Land Use Plan designation: RM, medium density residential 2. Average allowed neighborhood density: 18.32 persons per acre Existing density: 12.32 persons per acre 3. Zoning: R -2 4. Section 36 -88 (C.2) Lot Dimensions. Double - dwelling lots shall be 85 feet wide for interiox lots and 100 feet wide for corner lots. 5. Section 367.10 Subdivision 6 (2) of the state law requires that the following findings be made before a variance can be granted. a. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. mb Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Property Line /Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Building Elevations 6. Applicant's letter dated 9 -2 -87. 4 L/TTLE CANADA N W' SA /NT On �J PAUL tilt toke ,ll LOCATION MAP 5 Attachment 1 ll N LAND USE PLAN Attachment 2 0 N PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Attachment 3 0 N etc v /Do, 7 v 0 z .38 M /-o - r / W OOD -°D N X1 D D /_7-/o / vq 1_ r 407' Al / ✓60 elk J<OVAILC AC>PI7'.IOA,) SITE PLAN AUG 05 1981 Attachment 4 �n 0 Aluminum Soffit and fascia Horizontal Aluminum Siding r = I _._ Aluminum Soffit _ and Fascia Horizontal Aluminum Siding NE.". _ Front and Rear Elevations -AUG 05 1981 9 Attachment 5 0 N SEP 0 2 19ff ' ....._lam: n a b- s I: ! T�6 CA Da WMf COA- -r -dr25 APAS,/2 7W6' L ii. . I�... tk� Y`�i,Aivc� !3 �tle�C- 6ss.egrr� pEe.4-us� rW6' �Z . u d -A p er !m7 7`dA II' 7'�J6 Cv9" 15 /�DJO /NINE �yctJN�wosff 7 V- 14 V / S !$CXO SS p7,J E 5 Y2r1 — T - p� -OhvJ 6 o u.d3L6 /,b o ty�{ 65,, u i . l _._ lip it _ I' Attachment 6 MORE ANALYSIS OF THE "TAKING" ISSUE By James A. Coon, Esq. Deputy General Counsel, NYS Dept. of State On June 9, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los An- geles that where land use regulations are found to be so restrictive as to constitute a "taking" of property, the landowner may recover money damages for the period during which the regulation was im- posed Traditionally, where the government acts under its power of emi- nent domain to condemn private properly, the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has re- quired that compensation be paid to the owner. This requirement has now been extended to Include compensation for "temporary regulatory takings" (that is, land use regulations which are ulti- mately Invalidated by courts as "takings "). The decision is an attempt by the Court to establish a balance be- tween the rights of landowners and the legitimate concerns of local governments for the health, safety and general welfare of their community. It is Important to understand what the decision says and what it does not say. The decision holds that a landowner who claims that property has been "taken" by a land use regulation may recover damages for the time before it is finally determined by a court that the regula- tion is invalid as a "taking" of his property. The decision does not hold that the ordinance which was the sub - ject of the case (a Los Angeles County flood protection ordi- nance) was in fact a "taking" of the landowner's property. It is absolutely essential to understand that the decision does not alter the traditional rules for determining when a regulation in fact constituted a taking. Those rules require the landowner to estab- lish that all reasonable use of property is denied by the regulation. Whether a particular regulation does indeed constitute a "taking" depends upon the facts and circumstances of the regulation and the land involved. It Is not at all common for courts to invalidate regulations as "takings." The Supreme Court decision did not change this. By its very nature, zoning may act in some circumstances to di- minish the economic value of real property. It is a well settled rule In decisions of New York's courts as well as those of the United States Supreme Court that a reduction in the economic value of property -- even a substantial reduction -- because of zoning or 1 other regulations does no i nC an3oTitself constitute a "t aking " in I violation of the C66'sTiFufion. Only those regu aTtions which so se- verely affect property as to destroy all economic use would con- stitute such a " taking. " It is stressed that the Supreme Court's decision requires compen- sation only for those land use regulations which are so severe as I constitute a "taking" of property. It d� not regu com sensa- tion in those cases where the regulation diminishes the value of property (as long as the diminution is not so severe as to amount to a "taking "). The decision does not alter the rule that the burden of proof is on the party challenging the validity of the regulation to show that the regulation is so stringent as to amount to a "taking." That burden, which is a difficult one to meet, remains on the property owner. The decision does not address the question of how That are to be determined in those cases where a court does invalidate a regulation as a "taking." Reprinted In part from NYPF Planning News. Vol. 51, No. 4. Planning Commission — 4 — Minutes 12 -7 -87 Commissioner Rossbach moved the planning commission recommend adoptio \permitappli aterial extraction ordinance, subject to: 1. Lim ita the hours o of the dikes. f operation. 2. Lim the height 3. Reh screening. 4. No epai of machX tostate 5. Reqit apple at n how applicant will deal with the conarea resi nts. Commissioner Cardina Ayes -- Axdahl, Ayers, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Goins, Larson, Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sletten. E. Code Amen (rent: BC(M) Distric —Gas Pumps Commissio er Ayers moved the planning mmission amend the BC(M), busines commercial (modified) zoning di trict to allow gas sales with more than two pumps on a single is and. ssioner Goins seconded Ayes — Axdahl. Ayers, Barrett, Cardin 1, Fiola, Goins, Larson, RossbacK Sigmundik, Sletten F. Variance: Bradley (Desoto Associates) Secretary Olson explained the staff report and discussed the proposed lot width variance with the commissioners. Richard Schreier, 2125 Desoto, questioned the minimum frontage required in the ordinances. E Commissioner Cardinal moved the planning commission approve the 2.7 —foot' lot width variance for Lot 4, Block 1, Kodale Addition for the construction of a double dwelling, on the basis that: 1. There are townhouses to the south, double dwellings across the street and multiple dwellings across the street. 2. R -2 zoning 3. Change in the ordinance two years prior (from 75 feet to 85 feet). 4. Lot size in excess of 24,000 square feet Commissioner Rossbach seconded Ayes -- Cardinal. Sletten, Rossbach Nays -- Barrett, Fiola, Ayers, Sigmundik, Goins, Larson, Axdahl Motion failed. Agenda Number Z / AGENDA REPORT Action by counoil: TO: City Manager FROM: Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Harvester Storm Sewer, Schedule Public Hearing DATE: March 21, 1488 INTRODUCTION City Project e7-31 ...... Endorsed.� Modifie Rei acte Date___ The feasibility study for the referenced project has been completed. A copy of this feasibility report is enclosed. It is requested that the city council adopt the attached resolution to schedule a public hearing for this project. BACKGROUND The preparation of a feasibility study for the Harvester Avenue storm sewer outlet was ordered on the.basis of a letter from Mr. Peter C. Feist dated June 1, 1487. A copy of this letter is included within the feasibility study. 'The objective of the feasibility study is to determine the costs for providing a storm sewer to eliminate the overland flow of drainage from the Harvester Avenue drainage area that passes diagonally through two lots at Harvester Avenue and Sterling Street. The proposed storm sewer is adjacent to the outlet of the drainage system to the pond within the nature conservancy south of Michael Lane. Drainage presently also flows overland across another ]at at Sterling Street and Michael Lane without an easement. Even though the route of natural drainage flows through these three lots, the rate and volume of runoff has been significantly increased above natural conditions due to urbanization so as to, in effect, make the overland flow channels part of the city's storm sewer system. Either a storm sewer pipe should be constructed within the right -of -way or easements should be acquired. Easements through these lots would essentially make the lots unbuildable. Hence, the easements would riot be cost effective. Therefore, the proposed improvement entails construction of the trunk storm sewer outlet downstream from the culvert crossing on Harvester Avenue east of Sterling Street. 'The future extension of the storm sewer system within the Harvester Avenue drainage area has been evaluated, as noted in Figure No. 2 of the feasibility report, to assure that the proposed outlet is compatible. The proposed outlet will not increase the flow rate or volume of runoff presently flowing to the storm water pond within the nature conservancy site. When the storm sewer within Harvester Avenue is extended and street drainage improvements are made, the peak flow rate and volume of storm water discharged to the pond in the nature conservancy site will increase above current levels. The increased flow rates and volumes to be discharged are consistent with the Maol ewopq IQrainagg,Plan since the drainage area is unchanged. A limited analysis of the temporary increase in pond elevation after a 100 - year storm event was performed by the consulting engineer because this information is not present in the Maplewo Drainage Plan. A minimal increase of less than 2 feet above normal water level is projected after ultimate development with extension of storm sewers and street improvements. It should also be noted that the proposed design of the storm sewer outlet incorporates measures to slow down the velocity of the storm water and dissipate its energy at the outlet to the pond. These measures are intended to minimize any turbidity in the pond water that might be caused by storm water with excessive velocity stirring up sediment on the pond bottom. BUDGET IMPACT It is proposed to finance this project by assessment to the benefiting properties. The attached map shows the proposed assessment boundaries. The remaining parcels within the Harvester Avenue watershed are proposed to be assessed at some later date to finance the construction of the remaining trunk storm sewer when it is extended on Harvester Avenue. The following tables give assessment units, i.e. square feet, for each lot proposed to be assessed. At a rate of 11.8 cents per square foot ($ 0.118/8.P.) the estimated project cost of $83 can be fully funded. Contrary to the proposed project schedule within the feasibility report, it is proposed to assess after the initiation of construction. Delaying construction until after completion of assessment procedures and lapsing of the appeal period is not warranted in view of the proposed costs as contrasted with the construction difficulties encountered by later fall construction. Assessment after construction will allow restoration to be completed during this year. ACTION REQUIRED It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution that accepts the feasibility report and schedules a public hearing. PROJECT NO. 87 -31 HARVESTER STORM SEWER QUANTITY CHECK LIST COL. 1> = STORM SEWER - S.F. PIN NO. COL I 23 29 -22 -13 -0033 25-29-22-13-0034 25-29--22-13-0033 25- 29 -22 -13 -0036 25- 29- 22-13 -0037 25- 29 -22 -13 -0038 25- 29 - 22 -13 -0039 25- 29 -22 -13 -0040 25- 29- 222 -13 -0041 25- 29 -22 -13 -0042 25-29-22 -13 -0043 25- 29 -22 -13 -0044 25- 229 -22 -13 -0045 25- 29 -22 -13 -0046 25- 29-22 -13 -0047 25- 29 -22 -13 -0048 25•- 29 -22 -13 -0049 25- 29 -22 -13 -0050 25- 29- 22- 13-0053 25- 29-22-13-0054 25- 29- 2222 -13 -0055 25- 29-22-13 -0056 25- 29 -22 -13 -0057 23-29-22--13-0058 25- 29 -22 -13 -0059 25- 29 -22 -13 -0060 25- 29 -22 -13 -0061 25- 29 -22 -24 -0048 25- 29 -22 -24 -0049 25- '29- 22-24 -0050 25-29 -22 -42 -0019 25-29-22--42-0020 25- 29 -22 -42 -0021 25-29 -22 -42 -0022 25- 29 -22 -42 -0023 25 -29 -22 -422 -0024 25- 229 -22 -42 -0025 12800,00 9653.00 10640. 00 10640.00 10640.00 10640.00 10640.00 10640. 00 10560.00 24750.00 26250.00 28000.00 43180.00 25120.00 25110.00 25286.00 18706.00 19234.00 25850.00 22090.00 26505.00 20 100. 00 21910. 00 32250.00 ^24420.00 22500.00 33450.00 20184.00 8736.00 9434.00 10560.00 10360.00 10560.00 10560.00 20400.00 17424.00 10560.00 25-29 -22 -42 -0026 10560.00 25- 29- 222 -42 -0027 9240.00 PAGE 1 OF 2. 03 -22 -1988 10 :52 :31 GRAND TOTALS 710342.00 PAGE% DF�L N3-22-1988 PROJECT NO. 87-31 HARVESTER STORM SEWER PROJECT SUMMARY SEC~25-T~25~R~22~90-13 27 PARCELS ASSESSED ITEM QUANTITY PER RATE ASSESSMENT STORM SEWER ***561,564.000 S.F. AT ****$0.118 EA, ------- - ------- --- **$66,264^55 SEC^25~T-29~R'22-00-24 3 PARCELS ASSESSED ITEM -^~~~-----~ QUANTITY ~~~~^~^----`~~ PER RATE ASSESSMENT STORM SEWER ****38,354"000 -~-- S.F. AT ----`-`~-' ****$0,11B EA. --~---^^^---- ***$4,523^77 SEC~25-T-29-R-22-00~42 9 PARCELS ASSESSED ITEM -~--~^----- QUANTITY ~`~~~--~------ PER RATE ASSESSNEN STORM SEWER ***110,424.000 ~'-^ S.F. AT ``-~-`---- ****$0^118 EA. ���-- - ---- **$13,030^03 GRAND TOTALS 39 PARCELS ASSESSED ITEM ~~~~~~`^`~~ QUANTITY -----~-~~~~`-- PER RATE ASSESSMENT STORM SEWER ***710 ---- S.F. AT ^~-------- ****$0.118 EA" **$83,820.36 TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED FOR THIS PROJECT = ***$83,820.36 fiv cu.n x1 NC 7 �' Ipu.br`�•" ' 1'iii.a'. - I �-"`- 3 1!3% � L.I 1 16 I �(a7)15 R 1 .1J ' (u)14 (I) 13 '/ � I 1 ) (S) 131.97 153.57 I I J 1' 1, IS is (z) Z) 1 III pSCNOOI� DIST. ( 1 2j N O I -{ l 1'j.c g„j -I w IJ3 9 r Io� y�m N..-1 6 G (A.99ac) 9 �(I.00OC) � � � ill.9e V) I3}. 1 .v�••.I �. I s.s7 IZ(S - 70TA 1'IQ. 1'3.. 1 d3 .)j3.`.)B. -13 18 A - fi � I � (5- 0 I 11 (c a)h 1 . 1 , 1 (13) (s) r ��'•I'aA (1.29na�� o3i c I_ Ij 3.98 Ld O J ( 10 1 !b) I N 030 ' R 100 / I ' 1 1�� 9 8 1 of N 3s.vo 1'14 L 13f ]}�. 10 I b n m !J / - -- r 1 � 0 O 1 �5 d. M N s� h p 2.30 ac. r 2 h •:� O L`I_ I 7) 9 .4 7 F t n ��- lc3�N5 u aL // • 1 99.1 _�. 13 � fit+ r \" /_) N Mo 15 (4 Ott n _ai 55 Ott • 21 6 h f ( � ry gyp A` f1 h °� I a 4.p1 _.{_ - - J�. �"4�!L ILL I •1I. 6: � p y � y� _ _ _ r 4 I n Q ° u!) • sw Z \ nasx IIF {J o, � n �, o (sr) (; r� 6 po \ 11. p 4 MIl (si) .Tr..- � - I35.o I ' O \ \ ° 3 , (ss) V =� a ♦` T.w 13 .0 n 3 rN) I 0 t I' o3 , v. r 6 Lp, Al lt_05 \ '��\ (n) t,o » ^' Onc . 6o nc. n �. ' ; a a 0� 'n 1 119 AI Q = ( ° r , (53) '+( J al I ,l (s°)7 p ts]) I , ltsi ` �� 0 0 130 .saute. oeo .o,o ' i 5 1 \ s o' 07 i 01 _ Z h 5° ` I, 1 y y • as t].1 . I (s') (LT O 0 l3 (9-4) m nN (271.1) oT 95 2.5 132. Ira \ _ {sl) .' 7 o tol ;y N Ill I O /s7) n e q a 0 r to J no) 0 .i?x n1 \ 090 Ito too 710 + OD d d 100 /'$' o Z •..b a3o �\ �) p 1 nc ( ?)) - O7 07 m o + u' W I (4-1) Cu) Cas) .. Gs1) \\ ( ) 6 oQ(so) w 11B 94 . ' s s I ao ILT 70 o ! wy 9, ' Sno 30 I06' 1' all.o�A `' [. S A R V "1-` T T"[ 7•S P - io qm ,c y o• -- a (Bull �O 131. ! 131.13 60 131.13 131.13 (O- 13 k Id 2.01 ao $_ 9 (') 0 9 ((a) (Ie) 0 o (�) S z I $ (� I I ti w I f a I () co ' 4n -- - - N --} - -- ` .F r o 4 (tb) 1 <xn) • G7) (it) ° ° (e) 3 1sc uu9__ 93.x 82. ez ax 3�I)m' $ )g (4)3 m° ° - - r 13z.5 L 13z.52 I)1 7/' �u• Z4 \ nom lo3t co Iy6oz ba. r b p,l \{ P Ji 131.'t3 5 Qy 175 Ac r5U.5 R>oo.52 1.1.1. 44 noc zc ✓<.�� \ rz 5(i3) 3; r (3.42 (2 11 I Trey tX 977.28♦ N-- 1304.02 AN SAVEV 1 1 I1° ° ° I A. TER AVE, DRAINAGE A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has been authorized and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improvement of Harvester Avenue at Sterling Street, City Project 87 -31 by construction of trunk storm sewer outlet, and WHEREAS, the said city engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for the improvement herein describedo NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as followsa 1. The report of the city engineer advising this council that the proposed improvement on Harvester at Sterling Street, City Protect 57--31 by construction of trunk storm sewer outlet is feasible and should best be made as proposed, is hereby received. 2. The council will consider the aforesaid improvement in accordance with the reports and the assessment of benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement according to MSA Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $83,900. 3. A public hearing will be held in the council chambers of the city hall at 1830 East County Road B on Monday, the 25th day of April, 1988, at 7 P.M. to consider said improvement. The city clerk shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing and improvement as required by taw. AGENDA NUMBER -.L �Z AGENDA REPORT Action by Counoil: TO: City Manager Endorsod PROM: Assistant City Engineer - SUBJECT: Meyer Street Water Main (Bush to Minnehaha), City Modified Project 87 -13- -Order Public Hearing RoJocto -. DATE: March 21, 1988 Date INTRODUCTION Attached is the feasibility report on the extension of water main along Meyer Street between Bush and Minnehaha Avenue. This project was initiated by petition of a number of the residents along Meyer Street in response to the assessment of the water tower to their property when no main existed in the street. Council approval of the feasibility report and ordering of a public hearing is required. BACKGROUND On April 27, 1987, the city council received a petition dated March 4, 1987, requesting the installation of water main along Meyer Street, between Bush Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue. The council followed the staff recommendation and ordered the preparation of a feasibility report contingent on the five petitioners establishing an escrow amount of $6,000 to guarantee payment of the report preparation costs. The petitioners complained about the escrow amount and the policy was clarified with the staff. On May 21, 1987 the city council waived the escrow requirement. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the feasibility report and order a public hearing for April 25, 1988 at 7¢10 p.m. 2. Reject the report and public hearing. DISCUSSION Alternative 1 is the option required based on a petition- initiated project. The petitioners have requested this hearing to be informed of project costs, schedules and procedures. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the council approve the feasibility report and order a public Hearing for April 25, 1988 at 7:10 p.m. by passing the attached resolution. fir RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has been authorized and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improvement of Meyer Street between Hush Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue, City Project 87 -13, by construction of water main, and WHEREAS, the said city engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for the improvement herein described: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. The report of the city engineer advising this council that the proposed improvement on Meyer Street between Bush Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue, City Project 87 -13, by construction of water main is feasible and should best be made as proposed, is hereby received. 2. The council will consider the aforesaid improvement in accordance with the reports and the assessment of benefited property for all or a portion of the cast of the improvement according to MSA Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $56,500. 3. A public hearing will be held in the council chambers of the city hall at 1830 East County Road B on Monday, the 25th day of April, 1988, at 7 :10 p.m. to consider said improvement. The city clerk shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing and improvement as required by law. AGENDA NUMBER_ - 3 AGENDA REPORT Action by Council:. 'TO. City Manager Endorsed FROM a Assistant City Engineer Modifie SUBJECT. Highway 61 Water Main, City Project 57- 44•-- Schedultt. Rojeote Public Hearing Date DATE. March 22, 19HEI INTRODUCTION The feasibility study for the referenced project is hereby submitted. Preparation of the feasibility study was ordered by the city council in October 19B7, in response to a petition received from Metropolitan Imported Autos, Inc. It is requested that the city council adopt the attached resolution which schedules a public hearing for this project. BACKGROUND The feasibility study is divided into two phases. Phase I concerns extension of a dead end 12 -inch diameter water main north to Metropolitan Imported Autos from the existing tee at Kohlman Avenue. The consulting engineer was requested to evaluate the feasibility of completing the loop between Kohlman Avenue and Beam Avenue under Phase II of the feasibility study. The construction of a 12--inch diameter main between Kohlman Avenue and Beam Avenue, in addition to trunk water mains on Beam Avenue extended from Hazelwood Avenue and on Kohlman Lane extended from County Road G, is part of the recommendations of Maplewood Water System--Water Service Fr St. P aul to provide service to the area west of Highway 61 and north of Beam Avenue. It is extremely unlikely that construction of a water main along Kohlman Lane extended from County Road C would ever be economically feasible. 'Therefore, the looping of the water main on Highway 61 is the only practical method to provide a redundant source of supply to the area north of Beam Avenue and west of Highway 61. This loop was also analyzed in terms of strengthening fire flow capacities. It is recommended that both Phase I and II be ordered which has a total estimated project cost of $21:3 BUDGET IMPACT If Phase I alone is ordered, then it is proposed that the entire cost of the project be assessed to the benefited property owners. Benefit can only be demonstrated for the properties on the east side of Highway 61. If both Phase i and II are ordered, then it is proposed to assess the properties on the east side of Highway 61 for the cost of the water main and services up to Radatz Avenue. The cost of the completion of the loop between Radatz Avenue and Beam Avenue on Highway 61 is proposed to be paid from the Maplewood hydrant fund. The benefits of this connection between Radatz Avenue and Beam Avenue are systemwide. The following tables give assessment units, rates and costs proposed for Phase I atone or Phase I and II combined. A significant factor in the proposed assessment rates is that it does not seem feasible to demonstrate benefit to the frontage on the west side of Highway bi and on the east side of Highway 61 north of Radatz Avenue. If these properties were to ever develop in such a way that connection to the water main were required, then the property should be charged a cash connection fee. If such a connection were to take place within five years from the date that the project is ordered, it is proposed to proportionally recompensate the assessed properties. ACTION REQUIRED It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution that schedules a public hearing -for this project. jc Attachment PROJECT NO. 87 -44 HWY 61 WATER MAIN PHASE i PAGE 1 OF 2. 03 -22 -1988 10:39:35 QUANTITY CHECK LIST COL. 1) = WATER MAIN - FF COL. 2) = WATER SERVICES) V - EA COL. 3) = WATER SERVICES) 2 - EA COL. 4) = WATER SERVICES) 6 - EA PIN NO. COL 1 COL 2 COL 3 COL 4 04- 29 -22 -41 -0001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04- 29 -22 -41 -0002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04- 29 -22 -41 -0003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04- 29- 22 --41 -0004 246.60 0.00 1.00 1.00 04- 29-•22 -44 -0007 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04- 29 -22 -44 -0008 158.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 04- 29 -22 -44 -0009 230.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRAND TOTALS 724.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 PAGE 2. OF I 03~22-1988 PROJECT NO. 87-44 HWY 61 WATER MAIN PHASE 1 PROJECT SUMMARY SEC~03—T~29~R~22-00-32 0 PARCELS ASSESSED ITEM ------------------- QUANTITY -------,------ PER RATE ASSESSMENT WATER MAIN *********0"000 -- FF AT ---------- ***$89^470 EA. = -------------- WATER SERVICE(S) 1» *********0"000 EA AT **$654.000 EA" = *******$0^00 WATER SERVICE(S) 2 *********0"000 EA AT $1 EA" = *******$0"N0 WATER SERVICE(S) 6 *********0^000 EA AT $1 EA. = *******$0.00 SEC~04~T~29~R~22~00~41 4 PARCELS ASSESSED ITEM ------------~------ QUANTITY PER RATE ASSESSMENT WATER MAIN ----~~—~------ *******246"600 -- FF AT ---------- ***$89.470 EA, = -----~--~---- **$22 WATER SERVICE(S) 1« *********0"NN0 EA AT **$654.000 EA" = *******$0"0@ WATER SERVICE(S) 2 *********1"N0N EA AT $1 EA. = ***$1,743^00 WATER SERVICE(S) 6// *********1"0N0 EA AT $1,773"000 GA" = ***$1,773^00 SEC-04~T~29—R~33~00~44 3 PARCELS ASSESSED ITEM -----~------~-----~ QUANTITY ---------~--~-- PER RATE ASSESSMENT WATER MAIN *******478"000 FF AT ------- ***$89"470 EA. = —~----------- **$42,766^66 WATER SERVICE(S) 1 *********1.000 EA AT **$654^000 EA. = *****$654"00 WATER SERVICE(S) 2" *********0^W0N EA AT $1 EA. = WATER SERVICE(S) 6» *********0"000 EA AT $1,773^000 EA, = *******$0^N@ GRAND TOTALS 7 PARCELS ASSESSED ITEM -----------~~~----- QUANTITY PER RATE ASSESSMENT WATER MAIN -------------- *******724"60N -- FF AT ---------- ***$89.470 EA. = ----------~~— **$64,829^96 WATER SERVICE(S) 1'/ *********1"NN0 EA AT **$654.000 EA" = *****$654"00 WATER SERVICE(S) 2// *********1"000 EA AT $1 EA. = ***$1,743^00 WATER SERVICE(S) Gn *********1^NNN EA AT $1,773"000 EQ. = ***$1,773"00 TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED FOR THIS PROJECT = ***$68,999"96 Y PROJECT NO. 87 -44 HWY 61 WATER MAIN PHASE 1 & 2 QUANTITY CHECK LIST COL. 1) = WATER MAIN - FF COL 4 0.00 COL. 2) = WATER SERVICE(S) 1" - EA 0.00 COL. 3) = WATER SERVICES) 2" - EA 1.00 COL. 4) = WATER SERVICES) 6" - EA 0.00 PIN N0. COL 1 COL 2 04- 29 -22- 41-0001 82.20 1.00 04-29-22-41-0002 82.20 1.00 04- 29 -22 -41 -0003 246.60 1.00 04- 29 -22 -41 -0004 246.60 0.00 04- 29- 22- 44-0007 90.00 0.00 04- 29 -22 -44 -0008 158.00 1.00 04- 29 -22 -44 -0009 230.00 0.00 GRAND TOTALS 1135.60 4.00 PAGE 1 OF 'L 03 -22 -1988 10:35:56 COL 3 COL 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 PROJECT NO. 87 -44 HWY 61 WATER MAIN PHASE 1 B 2 SEC- 03- T- 29- R- 22 -00-32 ITEM WATER MAIN WATER SERVICE(S) i" WATER SERVICES) 2" WATER SERVICE(S) 6" SEC- 04- T- 29- R- 22 -00-41 ---------------- ---- -- ITEM WATER MAIN WATER SERVICE(S) 1" WATER SERVICES) 2" WATER SERVICE(S) 6" SEC- 04- T- 29- R- 22 -00-44 ITEM WATER MAIN WATER SERVICE(S) 1" WATER SERVICES) 2" WATER SERVICE(S) G" GRAND TOTALS ITEM PROJECT SUMMARY 0 PARCELS ASSESSED QUANTITY PER FF * * * * * * ** *0.000 EA EA * * * * * * ** *0.000 EA RATE AT ** *$89.470 EA. = AT * *$654.000 EA. = AT $1,743.000 EA. = AT $1,773.000 EA. = 4 PARCELS ASSESSED QUANTITY PER * * * * ** *657.600 FF * * * * * * ** *3.000 EA * * * * * * ** *1.000 EA * * * * * * ** *1.000 EA RATE AT ** *$89.470 EA. = AT * *$654.000 EA. = AT $1,743.000 EA. = AT $1,773.000 EA. = 3 PARCELS ASSESSED QUANTITY PER * * * * ** *478.000 FF * * * * * * ** *1.000 EA * * * * * * ** *0.000 EA * * * * * * ** *0.000 EA RATE AT ** *$89.470 EA. = AT * *$654.000 EA. = AT $1,743.000 EA. = AT $1,773.000 EA. = 7 PARCELS ASSESSED WATER MAIN WATER SERVICES) 1" WATER SERVICES) 2" WATER SERVICE(S) G" QUANTITY PER * * ** *1,135.600 FF * * * * ** ** *4.000 EA * * * * * * ** *1.000 EA * * * * * * ** *1.000 EA TOTAL AMOUNT ASSESSED FOR THIS PROJECT = MAPLEWOOD HYDRANT FUND = TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST = RATE AT ** *$89.470 EA. = AT * *$654.000 EA. = AT $1,743.000 EA. = AT $1,773.000 EA. = PAGE ,2 OF i 03 -22 -1988 ASSESSMENT * * * * ** *$0.00 *• * * * ** *•$0.00 ASSESSMENT * *$58,835.47 ** *$1,962.00 ** *$1,743.00 * * *$1, 773.00 ASSESSMENT * *$42,766.66 * * ** *$654.00 * * * * ** *$0.00 * * * * ** *$0.00 ASSESSMENT *$101,602.13 * *• *$2, 616.00 * **$1,743.00 ** *$1,773.00 * *$107,734.13 $105,386.00 $213,120.00 - -- AYA.' e ._� .. _. 1 51;, 41 ,o7iG n j I IC3 \Y Lt. 4d l wl r I: xa4.— r r IOc � I r 0 1 V 1 -At G� (5.129c)I (. D.57ac� Tot ll &. 9wu Al IONA1- BAT'I'r -R� OROAOCAGTII, . C/ A I % 60 - 3.')4 nt' N, 101 1 It z r </ r0/ „r/',,,M If F ri 5lll atP,l. ,T 'b n'40f �dl S -1 L:5 / IG gel: E,M'r FOR S u NA " :iTS 1475485 i : f PART OF 00 i �W /' f • See S c 3 r r rl 70 9 �N Ill 1 mil. L✓ / ♦ O 7 ` 395. -.--- • (2) -� rJ A If / n, O 9: �' 0 �0 c, N. B. B. Co. , 2 0 oio ;s J c < ♦ I ore • ti: y r r�ol i� 741 , , o ac ac .,).4 �4 / 95 ' 99 I ( P I I 16 17 I to I � I � H r � I I I 15 I 14 I 1. I 12 n tn I t\ I I cmi W0 I 103.44 IN AAN AV E. a RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING "a WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has been authorized and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improvement of Trunk Highway 61 north of Kohlman Avenue, City Project 87-44, by construction of water main, and WHEREAS, the said city engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for the improvement herein describeda NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. The report of the city engineer advising this council that the proposed improvement on Trunk Highway 61 north of Kohlman Avenue, City Project 87 -44, by construction of water main is feasible and should best be made as proposed, is hereby received. 2. The council will consider the aforesaid improvement in accordance with the reports and the assessment of benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement according to MSA Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $213,120. 3. A public hearing will be held in the council chambers of the city hall at 1830 East County Road B on Monday, the 25th day of April, 1988, at 7.20 p.m. to consider said improvement. The city clerk shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing and improvement as required by law. Agenda Number AGENDA REPORT TOi City Manager - FROM: Assistant City Engineer SUBJECTo County Road C, City Project 86-25-••• - Schedule Public Hearing DATE: March 22, 1988 INTRODUCTION Action by Counoil:. Endorsed Modified Re J ecte d�_______ Dat e ------ ________ The feasibility study for the referenced project is hereby submitted to the city council. The attached resolution schedules a public hearing for this project. BACKGROUND Ramsey County has the upgrading of County Road C from White Bear Avenue to McKnight Road programmed for construction during 1988. The city council ordered the preparation of this feasibility study to evaluate city utility needs and financing of cooperative costs. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution that schedules a public hearing for April 25, 1988 at 7 :30 P.M. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has been authorized and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improvement of County Road C from White Pear Avenue to Ariel Street, City Project S6• °25 by construction of water main and services, sanitary sewer and services, storm sewer, sidewalk, and street with concrete curb and gutter, and WHEREAS, the said city engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for the improvement herein described: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. OF MAPL.EWOOD MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. The report of the city engineer advising this council that the proposed improvement an County Road C from White Bear Avenue to Ariel Street, City Project 86 -25 by construction of water main and services, sanitary sewer and services, storm sewer, sidewalk, and street with concrete curb and gutter is feasible and should best be made as proposed, is hereby received. 2. The council will consider the aforesaid improvement in accordance with the reports and the assessment of benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement according to MSA Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $112,419.42; 3. A public hearing will be held in the council chambers of the city hall at 1530 East County Road B on Monday, the 25th day of April, 1958, at 7 :30 p.m. to consider said improvement. The city clerk shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing and improvement as required by law. Action by Council: Endorse Modified._. Rejecte Date AGENDA NUMBER MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: City Engineer SUBJECT a Car -Tian Estates Water DATE March 22, 1988 INTRODUCTION A letter signed by several property owners was received requesting water service in Car -Don Estates. BACKGROUND When the public improvements for Car -Don Estates were constructed a dry water main was installed. In other words, a water pipe was constructed in the street but it is not connected to a•source of water. The connection to the system would likely be along Keller Parkway and County Road C. ALTERNATIVES 1. Order a feasibility study to investigate providing service to Car -Don Estates. 2. Do nothing. DISCUSSION The first alternative would cost approximately $4,000 - $5,000. The attached map shows the proposed route to be investigated. The project would provide water service and fire protection to an area isolated at the present time. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that a feasibility study be ordered to install water main to Car -Don Estates. It should also be pointed out that construction may not take place in 1985, depending on the disposition of other projects already in progress. j O UTLOT ,.. A g9l.b / o° 79 79 - 39973 1 I. 5 9a r.�tt 45 /u0 ]R3 -05 169.8 .B 100 ,15 _ 114.45:` ti N . 4 NZ LE �5)f '- •b .99... N • �} (9)T i4. 6o °z.)' b G. 9 1o94f d _ fp ., ° !1 � � •l• ��. n 231.3) 1 04 5� (-158 0 n , a 25 i5 OO lO O 1 D. 19 m ro m z 6 - - .51 ac. 110 " l¢� d 1.1L °. N1 2(]➢)3 1 1.48 ac. �) i 4 099 / 935 .. , W SAp ° (I'I) (IB) 360 ,4 259.33 lOd.99 191. I A I,e - 21 .1 Y!-. _ _ ,0Y.5 9 � 3 90.26 15 O -92 .109 q3_ Y O r 1 2.49 �' 8 N IN O OS '3(fi1 4 , S O (aq h ) (,(t)4 ' n� 6) C 4 ) (IS) 2: 2tc .1 �qgd 4 - 4 V 3 10 40: 5 0 (zv O (22O '(lD) ' tl � a „" GAR• 4 m 1 e. 1 33.4 2�1) O ) O 3 4 • ' 2 � N Pp,LM 1 ,. B � m �° 9 Ib ' �p.G4' SF a21.10 (a4,S iJ-.\ 5. . ,3r) �N Twp OP .3' Io1 9n 9 Ic (29) _' Q�)1 0 . k� IB EXISTING WATERMAIN PROPOSED WATERMAIN 14 4) w ° � Ino t C 09.95 10 (43) ONNOR 6. O � M1I) m B ��➢ ) •V tl (� Q ITry 1 m 1 l$.1 ( ^.II . O .96x4 1 C9) J ° N (94)a' (K 90C 2 � _ $. 9 �SO.S t$I (V T 15 5 17 °) 10 II 12 G1) A. E. \I oq a ?� $ J (9) V 20 (1) ?0 / 1n l09 1' • 100 71) 91 5 l0 85. ♦n 9e 92 �` 2A0' 13l'S a 190.2A IQ+ a n' DEMONT ° "� AVE 4 ro<. < ,J /2) Ila° _N `v ` v W w O Q O -S bB 109 5 25 69.3 (' (3) bt2�j �B) � 4 2' W (B) n N (4) IO 824 JS N P 9 (3) Q� yl •Z ° 24 a NBt/ .f 21 N Om, 23 N 7 N V 529. BI 86. °] lOOB ®O.BS m 136. +50 159.02 e.Bq 1 9.1 100 to "i P Z fid< •7 I$ .9 (B) 397 a v o, . i 13/1 n 14 N h n11 V' 124 /1 4 9.x9.. (el) ' O_v /GI `I00 L 6 , �1 .1 1 76.8 Vl/ o O �; 9 O loo \ ^ 9 BROOKS 16 17 P• 11.03..... - Q 7f ,y b5 .9e ac. (s) 4 0 I�0 7 52 Z • tl 82 (yl 2t' n fz3 0� fze o ° ) tt (39J hJ> AU 19 s 3 49. C ' �9) 10 BO / 53 21 15.89 25.09 - 205.95 , Car -Don Estates City of Maplewood March 1, 1988 • Michael McGuire, City Manager Maplewood City Offices 1830 County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Dear Sir: We are property owners located in the specifically Palm Court, and are requesting to the city water system. City of Maplewood, that we be connected We feel this request is reasonable because we have already paid for the pipeline leading into Palm Court, and the residents loca- ted in the._ar- ea-- ; j.ust east of us on Forest Street already have the use of city water. .What makes this request particularly important is that some of the well owners are experiencing high maintenance and water quality problems; for example, some wells are producing a high iron content, and in some instances the water is foul smelling, thereby necessitating the purchase of spring water to compensate for the deficiency. We would appreciate hearing from you as to when it would be possible to connect us to the water system. Respectfully, Willian'i S. ind�� Marilyn J. Halloran 4499 South Oak Leaf Court Vadnais Height, Minnesota 55127 Owner: Block 2, Lot 4 (429 -3733) William J. a d Pamela M. Rostal 1824 Florence Street White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55127 Owner: Block 1, Lot 2 (429 -7517) Richard A. Harris; hark W. Harris and Diane Utecht 820 Carla Lane Little Canada, Minnesota 55109 Owner: Block 2, Lot 1 (490 -1011) Archie D. and Jean M. Smith 613 LaBore Road Little Canada, Minnesota 55109 Owner: Block 1, Lot 1 (483 -8047) Car -Bon Estates City of Maplewood March 1, 1988 Michael McGuire, City Manager Maplewood City Offices 1830 County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Bear Sir: We are property owners located in the City of Maplewood, specifically Palm Court, and are requesting that we be connocted to the city water system. We Peel this request is reasonable because we have already paid for the pipeline leading into Palm Court, and the residents loca- ted in the area Just east of us on Porest Street already have the use of city water. What makes this request particularly Important is that some of the well owners are experiencing high maintenance and water quality problems; for example, some wells are producing a high iron content, and in some instances the water is foul smelling, thereby necessitating the purchase of spring water to compensate for the deficiency. We would appreciate hearing from you as to when it would be possible to connect us to the water system. Respectfully, James T. Krizak and Christina R. Palme- Krizak 837 Palm Court. Maplewood, Minn. 55109 Owner: Block 1, I.ot 3 481 -9055 �zG.D. � Jerry P9� and Pact' a�i'sch 845 Palm Court Maplewood, Minn. 55109 Owner: Block 1, Lot 4 481 -0413 Raymond P. and Norinne J. Kruse 854 Palm Court Maplewood, Minn. 55109 Owner: Block 1, Lot G 484 -5505 'awes t. and Judith M. Vitale 830 Palm Court. Maplewood, Minn. 55109 Owner: Block 2, Lot 2 Donald and Carol Charpentier 853 Palm Court Maplewood, Minn. 55109 Owner; Block 1, Lot 5 481 -8055 l' Goorge Jeanette Vnsilakes 838 Palm Court Maplewood, Minn. 55109 AGENDA NUMBER T--4 MEMORANDUM TOP City Manager FROMP City Engineer SUBJECTP SAC Charge Refund DATED March 22, 1988 INTRODUCTION Action by Conncil: Endorsed Modified — Re,1 eete Date Recently the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has implemented a program to refund SAC charges to cities. Maplewood did not pursue any refund based on the fact that the city will likely be 100% sewered in the future. Mr. Frank. Popplewel1 (letter attached) paid a SAC charge in 1984 for a nonsewered property and is now requesting a refund. DISCUSSION The MWCC has established a SAC charge application process. The city council must first designate areas of the city that will either be unsewered or at least unsewered for a long time. Then each SAC charge collected in the areas must be identified with the date, the permit number, the SAC rate paid, as well as other miscellaneous information. A refund would be made to the city at that point. At the city's discretion the money could be passed on to the property owner. Several items are pertinent to this issue that are not apparent. First SAC charges are projected to increase. In fact one MWCC estimate indicates a 10 -fold increase in about the next 15 years. Keep.in mind once a SAC charge is paid, whether a connection to sewer is made or not, no future SAC charge will be collected. For example, if John Doe pays $475.00 SAC charge today, but does not hook up to sewer for 15 years, he will not be charged at hookup even though the charge at the time may be $5,000. For information purposes, three cities have requested refunds with the possibility that approximately 10 additional requests may be submitted to MWCC. At least 24 cities have formally declined to participate in the refund program. Maplewood has traditionally required sewer for new development and will undoubtedly continue to do so. For - this reason Maplewood should not pursue a refund program so that in the future the same properties can pay a significantly higher SAC charge. jc Frank Popplewell 1020 S. McKnight Road Maplewood, MN 55119 March 14, 1988 Mr. Michael McGuire, Manager City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. McGuire: When we purchased our building permit on October 15, 1984 (copy attached), we were required to pay a $425 "sewer availability charge ". Because no sewer was available, however, it was necessary for us to install a septic system in lieu of sewer hookup. We understand that MWCC has since stopped collecting a SAC for properties such as ours. Two facts are now evident: 1. We presently have no sanitary sewer line available, and 2. It is possible, if not likely, that we may never have access to a sanitary sewer line from our property. In the interest of fairness -- in view of the current MWCC policy -- we believe that it is the City of Maplewood's responsibility to rebate our $425 SAC fee. We would appreciate it, therefore, if you would expedite the handling of this matter. If you need additional information, I may be contacted during working hours at 647 -4611. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Frank Popplewell t, n A ,',� it i m ri, m 0 �.. r � V `� ^. C -C �\ '7 U I i Action by Counoilti Endorse Modifie MEMORANDUM Re J eote Date- TO: Director of Community Development FROM: Building Official DATE: March 21, 1988 SUBJECT: Request for Increase in Electrical Permit Fees The State of Minnesota Board of Electricity will increase the fees for electrical inspections effective April 11, 1988. Gunnar Petterson d.b.a. Metropolitan Inspection Service, Inc., providing electrical inspection service for the City of Maplewood, is requesting an increase in the fees charged by the City of Maplewood for an electrical permit resulting in an increase of revenue to Metropolitan Inspection Service, Inc. based on 80% of the permit fee paid to the inspection service. Comparisons of fees charged by White Bear Lake and Woodbury are submitted analyzing a few categories of the fee schedule. Metropolitan does charge more than either Dennis Joriman (Woodbury) or Jim Manteufel (White Bear Lake), however services provided Maplewood meet or exceed any requirements the city demands. Maplewood Mall, St. John's Hospital, 3M and several other sizable construction projects often require short notice or immediate inspections to permit the work or occupancy to proceed. These amenities are provided by Metropolitan through full —time office staffing and radio contact with the inspectors. Arden Hills and Shoreview also served by Metropolitan, have increased their fees. The Cities of North St. Paul, Little Canada, Roseville and North Oaks have proposals identical to this request for increase. Recommend that the service for electrical inspection service be retained and that fees be increased as requested. kd Enclosures: 1. State of Minnesota Fee Schedule 2. Shoreview Fee Schedule 3. Rosemount Fee Schedule 4. Woodbury Fee Schedule COMPARISON OF METROPOLITAN INSPECTION SERVICE, INC. WOODBURY /WHITE BEAR LAKE DESCRIPTION PRESENT REQUEST WOODBURY WHITE BEAR LAKE Min. fee for any replacement, alteration or repair, limited to 1 inspection only 10.00 15.00 15.00 8.00 Max. fee for single family 200 Amp cap. 2 rough in. -1 final 60.00 75.00 60.00 50.00 Apt. bldg. first 20 units 30.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 Additional units 25.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 Circuits and feeders 0 -30 Amps 31 -100 Amps 4.00 5.00 4.00 3.25 6.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 Street - Std.- Lighting 1.00 2.00 1.25 Swimming Pools 15.00 20.00 12.00 12.00 METROPOLITAN INSPECTION SERVICE INC. 2030 WESTCOUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL, MN 55112 (612) 636 -0101 Larch 8, 1988 Geoffrey Olson Director of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN. 55109 Dear Mr. Olson: I am hereby requesting that the fees for electrical permits be increased to the fees in the attached fee schedule. It has been nearly six years since I last asked for an increase in the fees. During the past six years, the costs of wages, rent, transportation, insurance, telephones, postage, and other business related expenses have increased steadily each year. We are now at a point where we can no longer absorb the increased cost without raising the fees. The proposed fees are already in effect in the city of Shoreview. The State Board of Electricity will increase the fees for electrical inspections effective April 11, 1988. Recently, other cities in the area have also increased their fees. Sincerely, Gunnar Pettersen Electrical Inspector GP/lk Encl. PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE FOR ELECTRICAL PERMITS (A) Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspection o nly .............................................. I.......... $1-eree $15.00 (B) Services, changes of service, temporary services, additions, alterations, or repairs on either primary or secondary ser- vices shall be computed separately: 0 to 100 ampere capacity ............................ 05ree $18.00 101 to and including 200 ampere capacity ............ $1-849 $22.00 For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof .. ............................... $ - 8re6 $10.00 (C) Circuits, installations of, additions, alterations, or repairs of each circuit or sub - feeder shall be computed separately, including circuits fed from sub - feeders and including the equipment served, except as provided for in (D) through (K)s 0 to and including 30 ampere capacity ............... $ -4re9 $ 5.00 (Maximum number of 0 to 30 ampere circuits to be paid on is 30 to any one cabinet) 31 to and including 100 ampere capacity ............. $ -6re9 $ 7.00 For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof ..... ............................... $ -3re9 $ 4.00 (D) Maximum fee on a single family dwelling shall not exceed $6er66 $75.00 if not over 200 ampere capacity. This includes service, feeders, circuits, fixtures and equipment. The maximum fee pro- vides for not more than two rough -in inspections and the final Inspection per dwelling. Additional inspections at the rein - spection rate. (E) Maximum fee on an apartment building shall not exceed $3ere9 $35.00 per dwelling unit for the first 20 units and $25r6e $30.00 per dwelling unit for the balance of the units. A two -unit dwelling, (duplex) maximum fee per unit as per single family dwelling. (F) The maximum number of 0 to 30 ampere circuits to be paid on any one athletic field lighting standard is ten. (G) In addition to the above fees: (1) A charge of $4re6 $2.00 will be made for each street lighting standard. (2) A charge of $tree $3.00 will be made for each traffic signal standard. Circuits originating within the standard will not be used when computing fees. (H) In addition to the above fees, all transformers and generators for light, heat, and power shall be computed separately at $5ree $6.00 per unit plus 250 300 per KVA up to and including 100 KVA. 101 KVA and over at 2e¢ 250 per KVA. The maximum fee for any transformer or generator in this category is $5e4e $60.00. (I) In addition to the above fees, all transformers for signs and outline lighting shall be computed at $4:ee $5.00 for the first 500 VA or fraction thereof per unit, plus 400 500 for each additional 100 VA or fraction thereof. (J) In addition to the above fees, unless included in the maximum fee filed by the initial installer, remote control, signal circuits, and circuits of less than 50 volts shall be computed at $3ree $4.00 per each ten openings or devices of each system plus U,ee $2.00 for each additional ten or fraction thereof. (K) In addition to the above fees, the inspection fee for each separate inspection of a swimming pool shall be computed at $}5r99 $20.00 reinforcing steel for swimming pools requires a rough -in inspection. (L) For the review of plans and specifications of proposed installations, there shall be a minimum fee of $ OMO $125.00 up to and including $30000 of electrical estimate, plus 1/10 of 1% on any amount in ex- cess of $30000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review. (M) When reinspeotion is necessary to determine whether unsafe conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not subject of an appeal pending before any court, a reinspeotion fee of $19se9 $15.00 may be assessed in writing by the inspector. (N) For inspections not covered herein, or for requested special inspec- tions or services, the fee shall be $iV,99 $20.00 per man hour, includ- ing travel time, plus 290 21¢ per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment or material consumed. This section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and such ,jobs as determined by the city. (0) For inspection of transient projects, including but not limited to, carnivals and circuses, the inspection fees shall be computed as follows& Power supply units according to item (B) of fee schedule. A like fee will be required on power supply units at each engagement during the sea- son, except that a fee of $17ree $20.00 per hour will be charged for additional time spent by the inspector, if the power supply is not ready for inspection as required by law. Rides, Devices, or Concessions& Shall be inspected at their first appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $4er99 $15.00 per unit. NEWSLETTER NUMBER 1 -88 February 10, 1988 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (812) 842 -0800 STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE BOARD OF ELECTRICITY GRIGG$ MIDWAY BLDG. -ROOM N•191 1821 UNIVERSITY AVENUE SAINT PAUL, MINN. 88104 TO: ALL LICENSED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, ALARM & COMMUNICATION CONTRACTORS, MASTER ELECTRICIANS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING INSPECTION FEE INCREASE Please find attached a copy of the new electrical inspection fee schedule which will go into effect Monday, April 11, 1988. Any Request for Inspection received at the State Board office after Friday, April 8, 1988 will be subject to the new fee schedule. Any installation with a Request for Inspection filed on or before April 8, 1988, must be started no later than May 1, 1988 or the new fee schedule rates will apply. SEPARATE LOCATIONS REQUIRE SEPARATE REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION If you do electrical work in separate locations under one contract, separate Requests for Inspection are required for each location requiring a connection to the electric utility. An example would be a highway lighting project. THERE IS NO STATE SURCHARGE FEE FOR THE BOARD'S INSPECTION AREAS We continue to receive Requests for Inspection with fees which include the State surcharge. The State surcharge applies only to municipal inspection departments. Please do not include a surcharge with fees for areas under the Board of Electricity's inspection. MAPS OR INSTRUCTIONS ON REQUEST FOR INSPECTION FORMS The inspector no longer handles the pink copy of the Request for Inspection. Please write any instructions or maps for the inspector on the back of the white copy. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSES An electrical contractor's or alarm and communication contractor's license is valid for one business only. It is unlawful to file a Request for Electrical Inspection for work done by anyone other than the contractor. Anyone performing the work for the contractor must be an employee with his compensation for the work reported on a W -2 form. Persons who have their compensation reported on a 1099 form are not employees, and cannot do electrical work. -1- AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER INSPECTION FEES 3800.1700 PAYMENT OF INSPECTION FEES Except as provided in part 3800.1300, all state electrical inspection fees are due and payable to the board at or before commencement of the installation and shall be forwarded with the request for electrical Inspection. Statutory Authority: MS s 326.241 subd 2 3800.1800 FEE SCHEDULE Subpart 1. Schedule. State electrical inspection fees shall be paid according to the following schedule. Subp. 2. Fee for each separate inspection. The minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, replacement, alteration, or repair limited to one inspection only is $15. Subp. 3. Fee for services or power supply units. The inspection fee for each service, change of service, temporary service, power supply unit, addition, alteration, or repair to a service or power supply unit shall be: 0- to and including 200 - ampere capacity, $15; for each additional 100 - ampere capacity or fraction thereof, $5. A separate request for electrical inspection shall be filed for temporary services. Subp. 4. Fee for circuits or feeders. The fee for each circuit or feeder, or addition, alteration, or repair of such circuit or feeder including the equipment served, and including circuits fed from feeders, except as provided for in subpart 5, items A to K shall be: A. 0- to and including 100- ampere capacity, $4. B. For each additional 100- ampere capacity or fraction thereof, $2. Subp. S. Limitations and additions to the fees of subparts 2 through 4. A. The fee for a single - family dwelling, shall not exceed $55 if the electrical service is not over 200- ampere capacity. This fee includes not more than three inspections. The fee for a single family dwelling over 200- to and including 400 - ampere capacity shall not exceed $100. This fee includes not more than four inspections. These fees shall apply to each separate service, and include the service, feeders, circuits, fixtures, and equipment. The fee for additional inspections shall be the reinspection fee in subpart 7. Multifamily dwellings with individual services to each unit are computed at the single family dwelling rate. B. The fee for each farm building or farm structure with a service not over 200- ampere capacity shall not exceed $55. This fee includes not more than three inspections. The fee for each building or structure with a service over 200- to and including 400- ampere capacity shall not exceed $100. This fee includes not more than four inspections. These fees include the services, feeders, circuits, fixtures, and equipment. The fee for additional inspections shall be the reinspection fee in subpart 7. Pole -top current metering and pole -top disconnecting means on the farm yard pole are exempt from inspection and inspection fees. C. The fee for each unit of a multifamily dwelling having three to six dwelling units shall not exceed $30. The fee for each multifamily dwelling exceeding six units shall not exceed $20 per dwelling unit. This fee includes only the wiring in an individual dwelling unit and the final feeder to that unit. The fee for the service and all other circuits shall be as specified in subparts 2 to 4, except that the fee.for each house panel shall not exceed $55. A separate request for electrical inspection is required for.each building. The fee for a two -unit dwelling or duplex shall be the same as for two single - family dwellings. D. Recreational vehicle parks fees shall be in accordance with subparts 2 to 4. E. The fee for mobile home park stalls shall be $6 per unit stall exclusive of the feeder to the mobile home with a minimum fee of $15 per inspection trip. The fee for permanently installed feeders shall be in accordance with subpart 4. F. In addition to the above fees, the fee for each street lighting standard shall be $1, and the fee for each traffic signal standard shall be $2. Circuits originating within the standard shall not be used when computing the fee. -2- G. In addition to the above fees, the fees for all transformers and generators for light, heat, and power shall be $5 per unit plus $3 per ten - kilovolt- amperes or fraction thereof. The maximum fee for a transformer or generator in this category is $40. H. In addition to the above fees, the inspection fees for transformers for signs and outline lighting shall be $5 per unit. I. In addition to the above fees, unless included in the maximum fee, the inspection fee for remote control, signal, alarm or communication circuits and circuits of less than 50 volts shall be $5 per each ten openings or devices of each system plus $2 for each additional ten or fraction thereof, with a minimum fee of $15 per inspection trip. J. In addition to the above fees, the inspection fee for each separate inspection of a swimming pool shall be $15. Reinforcing steel and bonding for swimming pools requires a rough -in inspection. K. In addition to the above fees, the fee for all wiring on center pivot irrigation booms shall be $30. The fees for all other wiring for the irrigation system shall be as otherwise specified in this part. Subp. 6. Investigation Fees: Work without a request for electrical inspection. A. Whenever any work for which a request for electrical inspection is required by the board has begun without first obtaining the request for inspection, a special investigation shall be made before a request for electrical inspection is accepted by the board. B. An investigation fee, in addition to the full fee required by subparts 1 to 5, shall be paid before an inspection is made. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the fee required by subparts 1 to 5. The payment of the investigation fee does not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of the board rules or statutes nor from any penalty prescribed by law. Subp. 7. Reinspection fee. When reinspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe conditions have been corrected and the conditions are not the subject of an appeal pending before the board or any court, a reinspection fee of $15, may be assessed in writing by the inspector. Subp. 8. Special inspections. For inspections not covered herein, or for requested special inspections or services, the fee shall be $23 per hour, including travel time, plus 24 cents per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment or material consumed. This provision is applicable to inspection of empty conduits and other jobs as may be determined by the board. Subp. 9. Inspection of transient projects. For inspection of transient projects, including but not limited to carnivals and circuses, the inspection fees shall be as specified in this subpart. The fee for inspection of power supply units shall be that fee specified in subpart 3. A like fee will be required for power supply units at each engagement during the season. Rides, devices, or concessions shall be inspected at their first appearance of the season, and the inspection fee shall be $15 per unit. In addition to the fee for the power supply units, there shall be a general inspection for each engagement during the season at the hourly rate, with a two -hour minimum. In addition to the above fees, inspections required on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after regular business hours will be at the hourly rate, including travel time. An owner of a migratory amusement enterprise shall notify the board of its season itinerary and make application for initial inspection a minimum of 14 days before its first engagement in the state. For subsequent engagements not listed on the itinerary sent to the Board, where the board is not notified at least 48 hours in advance, a charge of $100 will be made in addition to all required fees. Also, a fee at the hourly rate will be charged for additional time spent by the inspector if the equipment is not ready for inspection at the time and date specified on the request for electrical inspection . The fee for reinspection of corrections is $15 for each reinspection. Subp. 10. and 11. [Unchanged.] w 1 - # February 2,.1989.' *Fee Schedule for Electrical Permits City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West P.O. Box 510 Rosemount, MN 55068 A. Minimum fee for each separate inspection of an installation, $ 15.00 replacement, alteration or repair limited to one inspection only. B. Services, changes of service, temporary services, additions, alterations or repairs on either primary or secondary services shall be computed separately. 0 to 100 Ampere Capacity $ 15.00. 101 to and including 200 Ampere Capacity $ 18.00 For each additional 100 Ampere Capacity or fraction thereof $ 8.00 C. Circuit, installation of, additions, alterations or repairs of each circuit or sub - feeder shall be computed separately, including circuits fed from sub - feeders and including the equipment served, except as provided for in Items D through J 0 to and including 30 Ampere Capacity $ 4.00 (maximum number of 1 -30 ampere circuits to be paid on is 30 to any one cabinet) 31 to and including 100 Ampere Capacity For each additional 100 ampere capacity or fraction thereof $ 6.00 $ 4.00 D. The maximum fee on an apartment building shall not exceed $35.00 per dwelling unit for the first twenty (20) units and $30.00 per dwelling unit for the balance of the units. E. The maximum number of 0 to 30 ampere circuits to be paid on any athletic field lighting standard is ten (10). F. In addition to the above fees: 1. A charge of $2.00 will be made for each street lighting standard. 2. A charge of $3.00 will be made for each traffic signal standard. Circuits originating within the standard will not be used when computing fees. G. In addition to the above fees: 1. All transformers and generators for light, heat and power will be computed separately at $5.00 per unit plus $ .25 per KVA up to and including 100 KVA. 2. 101 KVA and over will be computed at $ .20 per KVA. I City of Rosemount Electrical Fee Schedule February 2, 1988 H. In addition to the above fees: 1: All transformers for signs and outline lighting shall be computed at $4.00 for the first 500VA or fraction thereof per unit, plus $ .40 for each additional 100VA or fraction thereof. I. In addition to the above fees (unless included in the fee filed by the initial installer): 1. Remote control, signal circuits and circuits of less than 50 volts shall be computed at $6.00 per each ten (10) openings or devices of each system plus $ .50 for each additional opening. J. For review of plans and specifications of proposed installations there shall be a minimum fee of $100.00 up to and including $30,000 of cleclrical estimate, plus 1/10 of one percent (1 %a) on any amount in excess of $30,000 to be paid by persons or firms requesting the review. K. When re- inspection is necessary to determine whether unsafe conditions have been corrected and such conditions are not subject of an appeal pending before any court, a re- inspection fee of $15.00 may be assessed in writing by the inspector. L. For inspections not covered herein, or for requested special inspections or services, the fee of $22.00 per man hour, including travel time, plus $ .22 per mile traveled, plus the reasonable cost of equipment or material consumed. This section is also applicable to inspection of empty conduits and such jobs as determined by the City. M. For inspection of transient projects including, but not limited to, carnivals and circuses the inspection fees shall be computed as follows: 1. Power supply units according to Item B of fee schedule. A like fee will he required on power supply units at each engagement during the season, except that a fee of $22.00 will be charged for additional time spent by the inspector if the power supply is not ready for inspection at the time and date specified on the Request for Inspection as required by law. 2. Rides, devices or concessions shall be inspected at their first appearance of the season and the inspection fee shall be $15.00 per unit. N. Fees for services, feeders and circuits operating at over 250 volts shall be double those listed in Items B and C above. *Add $ .50 surcharge fee for each permit submitted. d VILLAGE OF SHOREVIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4665 NORTH VICTORIA STREET Shoreview. Minnesota 55126 . Telephone 484.3353 October 28, 1987 To Electrical Contractors: The City of Shoreview has increased the fees for electrical Permits. The new fees will be in effect for Permits received by the C4 office on or after Monday, November 2, 1987. Enclosed is the new fee schedule for the City of Shoreview. Sincerely, Gunnar Pettersen Electrical Inspector Phone: 636 -5555 GP /lk Encl. W J R W N O d O a a Z W 5 C J W • U O d z d 1 1 I ^ N I lb I (T N I Y I i I (' 1 3 Z I N E I .r1 i 1 rn H I b ui ro N D 1 T H N W 1 > U I •.+ c q W ul U z I O I I P7 U H ❑10 0 p 0 i o 0 O 1 M M 1 O O 1 sF w ' H 7 0 .y O ro � M O L N Y rU La N .+ O N c •d •d N +1 ., .o d N Ors p - O 00 N d M MMiC E p0 C.� O M L O N O 1n 0 W H .%1 N Ul N N W W IO H d C- ••1 .� f:. 0 0 O C O o poo 0 O O 0 0 0 O loo O O O N WNO NnCNIrlN 1(1ONNMID OO U; d' N N r• n n M M ID N N N N AI N .d 4'rC N w w c S •• e y a o O . G r w •P b O O W N . ro T .. 1 tf b1 •rl 0 0 C rd 1041C La cv O O O d'11 N - O N E 0 7 ' O OO co ... t.^ o d3 l7 0 o M B -I C o v •D •-1 r1 U N N L O O Irl ^H L G ro L r-1 N N N > S U. +! U 7 •M L ro O O 0 0 0 0 000000000000 O O O O d d .LI -111• . ^i -1 •� .L 0 0 Vi_: 2: O O O O O I O n 0 0 O O O .. ✓1 O J: �• O .d r-1 O •y ,. I � -I 1 1 I ^ N I lb I (T N I Y I i I (' 1 3 Z I N E I .r1 i 1 rn H I b ui ro N D 1 T H N W 1 > U I •.+ c q W ul U z I O I I P7 U H ❑10 0 p 0 i o 0 O 1 M M 1 O O 1 sF w O ' H 0 O O 1 M O ^ N Y rU N .+ O N c •d •d N +1 ., .o - O 00 N d M MMiC E p0 C.� O c c• D 7 O O N N o 7 DL E UI H N a ofOLN v u p caa . $w O O O O C O 000000000000 N O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO O O O O N WNO NnCNIrlN 1(1ONNMID OO U; d' p r• n n M M ID AI N 4'rC 00 T ) tiN N c S •• e y o O . G r w •P b O O W .. ri b1 •rl C rd 1041C u.0 b'd cv - 0 7 ' O OO co ... t.^ M MNi¢ l7 n •-+ •-I N J1 r1 1I v a B C N p D Us •-1 r1 U N N L „y Ip , ^H L G ro L r-1 L ,I VI N d NH fU NH i + a dd dS H a, a O O 0 0 0 0 000000000000 O O O O •J O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO O O O N O Vi_: 2: 00 4 M V• H I ID WIDMN m U 7 ... O ' H M M 1 ^ rU O N •d - N d .•1 N C.� ofOLN v u p a • o `� •YI L °; rd m v p AI N 4'rC 00 T ) tiN N c 'o V •• y o o• G•ti N ti . G r w •P b O .. ,. C rd 1041C u.0 b'd - ' O 1. ... t.^ l7 n •-+ •-I N J1 r1 1I v a C d N $ P..bL r1 U N N L ^H L G ro L •N L L ,I VI :J F -j d y••id wvwv v1) c+ (L W N Q 4 v W E E c O •N L .. r- V• C .:� •. CI L ro L L •M U 7 ... .. ••. > -. .. - .Z o . E E @@ E E IJ Y O O ' � - 'l L r• rJ ^. N_•.: ._ J 777 7 7NHW W.c W Y (; ..: (� 3 .. .� .� ' C G• : 'n •.+ o H .M E 6 E E E N N d• JJ H ` V E N) A ., �d > I ,7 x +; x y x n ry J] !•1' c .� P p ^- _•-+•. <L Ma rosstltlN N rd f0A Y L N a•c n - E ti- , Et% SsBS E—H H x U V a U 0 IC: ••�+ L N L 1 N IJ U _ _ HNM V 0w v m f1l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M o A m o 0 0 M M M M M M M p 0 0 o O o 0 h• =r •r a v w a (, O az a Z I ° 1 H I O-I I al H I q l i ft I w I U Z I Z O I ❑ 0 I 0 O 1 1 I ' I a 4n 4 •� I r�1 J N r In N 7 7 • C I C O 0 D � '[ Y � � •A JI L L M M j W 7 OMY• O 0 1 O 0i L J:L Y • C YO LI.L O i O M O H ELI L s w w •n E O ^, U 0, 0 00 C. 0 ^ 0 0 O 00 N 1 O I O VI VI 0 0 m YO' w Z b a 1 1 I N E I 0 I 7 GG I I �• I (r l0 I t w 7 I QI fi M W [•r 7 7 C 1 d 7 O•�.1: 0 0 ZD b r I •(IY O`: I O C •'' L LO H I OC r 1 O O I I V O - C4 I ti o . ' .� -• ° 1 H U (, O az a Z I ° 1 H I O-I I al H I q l i ft I w I U Z I Z O I ❑ 0 I 0 O 1 1 I ' I w O O O O O O O O f .i C .+ N N • • - r-1 '^ M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o dr m W a W d• dr N N ,.i a r In N V N M C M M .D y w Y iL •C y M O M m YO' w Z b y V-1 N N L d w 7 W W b r b N O H L Y H v 0 6 � r 4n In • nl = 0 YN O N '•I P] M� w O 0, Z w o ., C 7 r4 ,1 1 0) 0 .1 C O00 00 00 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 0 0 oOO oO 00 0 '0 0 0 0 0 j O VI SO O O OM ti ;J N N d' N N N S[1 w �.. N O r N 7 C N W •ri C •r1 Y H .. _ ro U O F. y •H L •JC w M ,� N L aii w 0 O Y r w al ^. p, G ✓_ a L L9 C W ., m n n U C O w H❑ L w w t ... y. N w� ( Il v L l� H 1� V a 0, In - o. C ..1 I., ar L u_ N m, ', ?, .� Y •• .I > '7 ", w W _� i .. `• �' N b •M h W N OI E 0; H .,, N L .. C L •., C V w 0: CI 4 .. 1 �� w M 0.. O C O W 7 .wi :: ... T 0. W S a b to.. re i.:.� -+ MH r♦ i L w w U 7. n: .. O F .. r a O , .., O O O O O O G 00 O _ O O O O O O G ., . . b y , ., v ..• o ,CIO Ul OO VIO N I[: N N .N N N co t0 % b or L 0 0. a 3 V I 3 .Oi w O O O O O O O O f .i C .+ N N • • - r-1 '^ M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o dr m W a W d• dr N N ,.i r In M N M M M M b r b N H L Y H v v m ti = 0 YN O N '•I P] M� w O w o ., C 7 r4 ,1 1 0) 0 .1 C ,y W u C, L:4 10 ;J w �.. 7 C N W •ri C •r1 H .. _ ro U O F. •+ T C w H 4 w M ,� aii w 0 O ,' ^. p, G ✓_ a L L9 C ., m n n U C O w H❑ L w 3 [T ... ::' J ( Il v L l� H 1� V a 0 .n w rl O 'J�.I fd - o. C ..1 I., ar L u_ N m, ', ?, .� Y •• .I > '7 ", w W _� i .. `• �' N b 'G'i h W N OI E 0; H .,, N L .. C L •., C V w 0: CI 4 .. 1 �� w M 0.. O C O W 7 .wi :: ... T 0. W S a b to.. re i.:.� -+ MH r♦ i L w w U 7. n: .. O F .. r a O , .., ti G r, L a r� M M G ., . . b y , ., v ..• o M V Y6 % b or L 0 0. a 3 V I 3 a til % In V) H L . w O O O O O O O O f .i C .+ N N • • - r-1 '^ M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o dr m W a W d• dr N N ,.i MEMORANDUM TOs Dwight Picha, Community Development Director FROMs Ron Glubka, Chief Building Official �1 DATE: March 15, 1988 SUBJECT: Electrical permit fees The State of Minnesota has increased their electrical permit fees effective April 11th, 1988. Several cities have also Increased or are in the process of increasing their electrical fees. i9b Woodbury has been using the existing fee schedule since 4-98x. I would like to recommend we adopt the attached fee schedule to be effective April 11th, 1988. r ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Minimum fee, one inspection, reinspections Single family dwelling 0 - 200 AMP service over 200 AMP service, see schedule below Apartment building, service fee from schedule plus first 20 units, per unit remaining units, per unit CIRCUITS AND FEEDERS Reference Fee Referen *0 to 30 AMP 31 to 100 AMP 101 to 200 AMP 300 AMP 400 AMP 500 AMP 600 AMP 700 AMP 800 AMP 900 AMP 1000 AMP 1200 AMP 1600 AMP $ 4.00 $ 6.00 $ 9.00 $ 12.00 $ 15.00 $ 18.00 $ 2f.00 $ 24.00 $ 27.00 $ 30.00 $ 33.00 $ 36.00 $ 48.00 $15.00 $60.00 $30.00 $25.00 SERVICES Fee 0 to 100 AMP 101 to 200 AMP 300 AMP 400 AMP 500 AMP 600 AMP 800 AMP 1000 AMP 1200 AMP 1600 AMP 2000 AMP 2500 AMP 3000 AMP $ 15.00 $ 20.00 $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 37.00 S 44.00 $ 58.00 $ 72.00 $ 86.00 $114.00 $142.00 $177.00 $212.00 * Maximum number of circuits of 0 to 30 AMP capacity to be paid for in one cabinet is 30. ADDITIO CHARGES Street Lighting, each standard Traffic Signals, each standard Transformers and Generators, per unit Each KVA Maximum fee for any transformer or generator Sign Transformer, per unit Each KVA Remote Control and Signal Circuits First 10 openings Each additional 10 openings Investigation fee for work started without a permit shall be equal to the permit fee. $ 1.25 S 2.50 $ 6.00 $ .35 $50.00 $12.00 $ .35 s o0 � e S RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 194 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, .MINNESOTA HELD ON NOVEMBER 10, "1982 ,, Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council of Woodbury, Minnesota, was duly held at the Woodbury 'municipal Building, 2100 Radio Drive in said municipality on the 10th day of 'iovember, 1982 at 8:00 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Orville Bielenberg, John Currell, Peter Fleming, Daniel Guider, Frances Moore and the following were absent: None Member Bielenberg introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ESTABLISHING ELECTRICAL INSPECTION PERMIT FEES FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 326, the Woodbury Electrical Code, provides that electrical permit fees shall be established by City Council Resolution from time to time. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota that the following electrical permit fees are hereby established. FEES FOR ELECTRICAL PERMITS Minimum fee (One inspection only) . . . . . . . . . S 8.00 Maximum fee for single family dwelling, not over 200 AMP . . . . S50.00 Maximum fee per unit for first 20 units of apartment building =25.00 Maximum fee per unit for remaining units of apartment building :20.00 Swimming pools, for each separate inspection . . . . . . . . . . S12.00 CIRCUITS AND FEEDERS SERVICES *0 to 30 AMP . . . . . $ 3.25 0 to 100 AMP . . . . S 13.00 31 to 100 AMP . . . . $ 5.00 101 to 200 AMP . . . . .S 16.00 101 to 200 AMP . . . . $ 7.50 300 AMP. . . . . . . . .S 23.00 300 AMP. . . . . . . . $10.00 400 AMP. . . . . . . . .S 30.00 400 AMP. ... . . . . . $12.50 500 AMP. . . . . . . . .S 37.00 500 AMP. . . . . . . . $15.00 600 AMP. . . . . . .. . .S 44.00 600 AMP. . . . . . . . $17.50 800 pip. . . . . . . . .5 58.00 700 AMP. . . . . . . . $20.00 1000 AMP , . . . . . . .S 72.00 800 AMP. . . . . . . . $22.50 1200 AMP . . . . . . . .S 86.00 900 AMP. . . . . . . . $25.00 1600 AMP . . . . . . . .S114.00 1000 AMP . . . . . . . $27.50 2000 AMP . . . . . . . .S142.00 1200 AMP . . . . . . . $32.50 2500 AMP . . . . . . . .S177.00 1600 AMP . . . . . . . $42.50 3000 A14P . . . . . . . .5212.00 * Maximum number of circuits of 0 to 30 AMP capacity to be paid for in one cabinet is 30. 1 Resolution Ilo. 82 - 194 November 10, 1982 Page 2 ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR STREET LIGHTING each standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 1.00 TRAFFIC SIGNALS each standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2.00 TRANSFORMERS AND GERATORS, per unit . . . . . . . . S 4.00 lus f each KVA up to 100 KVA . . . . . . . . . . . S .20 Plus for each KVA above 100 KVA . . . . S .15 Maximum fee for any transformer or generator 540.00 SIGN TRANSFORMER first 500 VA . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . S 3.00 Each additional 100 VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .30 REMOTE CONTROL AND SIGNAL CIRCUITS, first ten (10) openings . . S 3.00 Each additional ten (10) openings . . . . . . . . . . S 1.00 RE- INSPECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 8.00 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Guider and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted via voice: John Currell - aye Daniel Guider - aye Peter Fleming - nay Frances Moore - aye Orville Bielenberg - aye Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the Deputy Clerk. Passed by the City Council of the City.of Woodbury, Washington County, Minnesota this 10th day of November, 1982. 0 Attest: William R. Krueger, Deputy Clerk Orville Bielenberg, Mayor (SEAL) I) V&9a o f'Ande% I- 11QP,e 1460 W. HIGHWAY 98, AHOEN HILLS. MINNESOTA 66112 633.5676 March 18, 1988 Gunnar Pettersen Metropolitan Inspection Services, Inc. 2030 W. County Road D St. Paul, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Pettersen: At its meeting of March 14, the Arden Hills Council approved Resolution No. 8812, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR ELECTRICAL PERMITS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 82 -64. The Council further recommended that these fees become effective Apri•1.1: Sincerely, e w Patricia J. Morrison Clerk Administrator k % � 0 PJM:sm F_ ORDINANCE NO. Action by Counoily AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD CODE Fndo.reed .._� „ SECTION 19 -50. Modi.f:ied __ Rejected Da'te�._,_ e Section 3. Section 19 -50. Construction activities. No person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, or gas - powered machine or other power equipment except with a permit issued by the City Clerk after complying with requirements and fees set by the City Council, for purposes of noise control. Section 1. Section 19 -50 is hereby amended as follows: This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the Maplewood City Council this _ day of March, 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Ayes Nays