Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-23 CDRB Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, February 23, 2016 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. December 22, 2015 5. Design Review: a. Design Review, Hill-Murray, 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East b. Design Review, Fish Creek Trail 6. New Business: a. 2015 Community Design Review Board Annual Report b. 2015 Code Enforcement Year-End Report c. Election of Officers (No report) 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: 9. Staff Presentations: 10. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Kempe called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Absent Boardmember, Leo Burger Chairperson, Bill Kempe Present Boardmember, Jason Lamers Present Vice Chairperson, Matt Ledvina Present Absent Boardmember, Ananth Shankar Staff Present: Michael Martin, Economic Development Coordinator 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff recommended moving New Business ahead of Design Review since the Costco representative is not present yet. Boardmember Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes - All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the November 24, 2015, CDRB minutes as submitted. Seconded by Boardmember Ledvina. Ayes – Chairperson Kempe, & Lamers Abstention – Boardmember Ledvina The motion passed. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. MnDOT Discussion Regarding I-35E Vegetation i. Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Martin gave a brief introduction to the MnDOT I-35E Vegetation item and turned the discussion over to the speakers for MnDOT. ii. Project Manager with MnDOT, Marcel Walker, addressed and answered questions of the board. iii. Senior Landscape Architect with MnDOT, Todd Carol, addressed and answered questions of the board. December 22, 2015 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 1 No action was needed. 6. DESIGN REVIEW a. Design Review, Costco, 1431 Beam Avenue i. Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Martin gave the design review report on Costco and answered questions of the board. ii. Shawn Murphy, Landform, representing Costco addressed and answered questions of the board. Boardmember Lamers moved to approve the plans date-stamped December 11, 2015, for the proposed 5,220 square foot Costco addition. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. This approval is good for two years. After two years, the design-review process shall be repeated if the developer has not begun construction. 2. Obtaining city council approval of the planned unit development amendment and parking waiver. 3. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 4. The applicants shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and Ramsey County. 5. The applicants shall comply with all requirements of the Maplewood Engineering Report from Jon Jarosch dated December 10, 2015. 6. The applicants shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for any exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of environmental and economic development may approve minor changes. 8. All roof-top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building. Boardmember Lamers moved to approve parking waiver as proposed subject to the retention of the proposed proof-of-parking spaces in case they are needed for future parking needs. If a parking shortage develops after the paving and curbing of the proof-of-parking spaces, the city council may require parking lot restriping to add more spaces. Seconded by Boardmember Ledvina. Ayes – All The motion passed. This item goes to the planning commission on January 5, 2016 and to the city council on January 25, 2016. December 22, 2015 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 2 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 8. BOARD PRESENTATIONS None. 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Staff clarified the exact wording of screening roof-top equipment for the board. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Kempe at 6:27 p.m. December 22, 2015 Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes 3 MEMORANDUM TO :Melinda Coleman,City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Design Review, Hill-Murray, 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East DATE: February 17, 2016 Introduction Jay R. Pomeroy, of Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc.,representing Hill-Murray School, is proposing to reconstruct the school’s existing running track, currently gravel, and football field, currently grass,on the north side of the school property. To move forward with this project Mr. Pomeroy and Hill Murray School is requesting city approval of the following: 1.Design approval for the reconstruction project. This includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. Background On April 8, 1996, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for Hill-Murray to make changes and improvements to their athletic fields. This approval was subject to ten conditions. On July 14, 1997, the city council reviewed the CUP for Hill-Murray. At this meeting, the council changed Condition 8 of the 1996 approval to read as follows: “Applicant may be required to plant 30 native species of trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at a future hearing on the conditional use permit.” On May 11, 1998, the city council approved a wetland buffer setback variance and a conditional use permit revision for the Hill-Murray athletic facilities. These requests were to update and revise the plans that the city had approved for the school’s athletic facilities in 1996 and in 1997 and were subject to several conditions. On June 28, 1999, the city council approved the following for Hill-Murray High School: 1.Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They proposed several changes to the approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. This approval was for the school to replace and expand the school’s main entry, which they have now completed. The school also proposed an expanded parking lot on the east side of the school building. 2.The designs for an addition to the main entry of the school. This included the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. On November 13, 2001, the city council approved a CUP revision for the school. This revision was for plans for an addition on the west side of the school that included a chapel and a student entrance. On August 28, 2006, the city council approved a CUP revision and the project plans for the school. These approvals were so that Hill-Murray could: 1.Put a 31,500-square-foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym and locker room space. 2.Renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building. On September9, 2013, the city council approved a CUP revisionand project plans for construction of a new tennis court complex. Discussion Design Review Site and Layout Plan The applicant is proposing the construction of a new 8-lane all-weather running track and areas for field events as wellas a new synthetic turf football and soccer field. The existing visitor side bleachers and the two north field lights would be located slightly to the north of the current placement. The applicant will be reinstalling the bleachers and lights. The applicant is not proposing to increase seating counts or light levels on the field.The proposed track and football field are beyond the buffer requirements for the nearby wetlands. The baseball diamonds on the site had required wetland buffer variances in the past but this portion of the campus meets all setback requirements. Hill-Murray Campus, 2015 Aerial Photo Red box indicates project area Landscaping Within the Hill-Murraysite, there are at least 270significant trees. The applicant is proposing to remove 21significant trees. Because the overall campus is large, the applicant is removing less than 20 percent of the significant trees on site and is only required to replace trees on a one-to- one basis. The code requires 21trees be planted and the applicant is proposing to plant 36 trees. Department Comments Staffengineer Jon Jarosch hasreviewed this proposal and submitteda report. Please refer to the attachments. Recommendations A.Approve the project plans date-stamped February 3, 2016,(site plan, landscape plan andgrading and drainage plans) for the track and football field reconstructionat Hill Murray School at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2.Complete the following before the city issues a grading or building permit: a.Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and sidewalk plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Jon Jarosch’smemo dated February11, 2016. b.Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required landscaping improvements.The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3.Complete the following before occupying the addition: a.Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b.Restore and sod damaged turf areas. c.Complete all landscaping fortheproject. d.Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). 4.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a.The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b.The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. Any future restroom or concession building projects require design review and approval by the city. 6.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of the environmental and economic development departmentmay approve minor changes. Reference Information Site Description Site size: 47acres Existing land use: Hill-Murray School and athletic fields Surrounding Land Uses North:Single dwellings and undeveloped property South:Larpenteur Avenue and single dwellings West:Sterling Street, ponds and The Maplewoods Apartments East:Tubman Center and the St. Paul Priory Planning: Land Use Plan designation: I(Institution) Zoning: R-3 (multiple dwelling residential) Application Date The city received the complete applications and plansfor this development onFebruary 3, 2016. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by April 3, 2016,unless the city files for or the applicant agrees to a time extension. Attachments 1.AreaMap 2.Project Narrative 3.Proposed LayoutPlan 4.Proposed LandscapingPlan 5.Jon Jarosch Report, datedFebruary 11, 2016 6.Project Plans (Separate Attachment) Maplewood Heights Kohlman Lake Hazelwood Sherwood Glen Parkside Western Hills Gladstone Hillside Beaver Lake Battle Creek Vista Hills Highwood Carver Ridge Maplewood, City of Maplewood Hill-Murray School Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i- Overview Map cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Attachment 2 January 28, 2016 Mr. Michael Martin, AICP Economic Development Coordinator City of Maplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 email:michael.martin@maplewoodmn.gov RE: COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION Track and Field Construction Project Hill-Murray School 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East, Maplewood Dear Mr. Martin: We are pleased to provide the enclosed information related to Hi and Field Construction” project. As discussed on the phone, H-M is planning to reconstruct their gravel, and football field. To support the constructing of the n and field events as well as a new synthetic turf football/ socce bleachers and the two north field lights must be relocated north be re-installed. With that in mind, we are not proposing to incr on the field. You will note that we have included a ‘’ including quantities of Tree Removal Inventory “significant” trees proposed to be removed (see Removals Plan, S proposed replacement plantings to account for/ off-set those rem Sheet L1.1). As noted on the plans, There are no less than 270 ' Hill-Murray School property. The proposed 'significant' tree rem we propose to provide no less than 21 new trees. For your review, we have included: 1.Completed Community Design Review Board Application; 2.Two (2) full-size (24"x36") Plans sets; 3.Ten (10) reduced copies (11"x17") Plan sets; 4.1 (one) electronic copy of the Plans (emailed); 5.Stormwater calculations; 6.Fees to cover the application fee ($1,650) and engineering esc Attachment 2 As a note, we provided drawings and calculations to Ramsey-Washi District- they have provided feedback and comments and the proje board meeting agenda. With this submittal and barring no significant issues with your will be on the agenda for the February meeting of the Community If you have any questions or need additional information, please Respectfully Submitted, ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Jay R. Pomeroy, LA attachments cc:Tom Betti - 292 Design Group Bill Schafhauser, Dir. of Facilities- Hill-Murray School Attachment 3 TRACK & FIELD CONSTRUCTION 15134 HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL SITE LAYOUT 01/27/2016 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA PLAN JRP 2625 Larpenteur Ave East(8-LANE TRACK & FIELD) Maplewood, MN 55019 10 Attachment 4 TRACK & FIELD CONSTRUCTION 15134 HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL LANDSCAPE 01/27/2016 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA PLAN JRP 2625 Larpenteur Ave East(8-LANE TRACK & FIELD) Maplewood, MN 55019 9 Attachment 5 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Hill-Murray Track & Field PROJECT NO: 16-02 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer DATE: 2-11-2016 PLAN SET: Engineering plans dated 1-27-2016 REPORTS: Storm Water Management Report – Dated 1-13-2016 The applicant is proposing to replace the existing track and field surface at Hill-Murray School. The existing grass field and gravel track will be replaced with new synthetic surfaces.The applicant is requesting a review of the current design. As the amount of disturbance on this site is greater than 0.5 acre, the applicantis requiredto meet the City’s stormwater quality, rate control, and other stormwater management requirements.The submitted stormwatermanagement plan depicts the project meetingthe City’s requirements via the use of an underground infiltration system. This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents for final review.Thefollowing are engineeringreview comments on the design and act as conditions prior to issuing permits. Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)The project shall be submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) for review. All conditions of RWMWD shall be met. 2)Emergency overland overflows shall be identified on the plansfor the underground infiltration system. Grading and Erosion Control 3)All slopesshall be 3H:1V or flatter. 4)The neighboring wetland areasshall be protected from sedimentation throughout construction. 5)Inlet protection devices shall be installed on allexistingand proposedonsite storm seweruntil all exposed soils onsite are stabilized. Attachment 5 6)Adjacent streetsand parking areasshall be sweptas needed to keep the pavement clear of sediment and construction debris. 7)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 8)A copy of the project SWPPP and NDPES Permit shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9)The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 10)All emergency overland overflows shall contain adequate stabilization to prevent soils from eroding during large storm events. 11)The proposed retaining wallswill require an engineered design as well as a building permit. 12)The applicant shall detail the type of seed mix proposed in restoration areas. This mix shall be approved by the City Naturalist. Sanitary Sewer and Water Service 13)The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to the improvements proposed with this project. 14)It does not appear that changes are being proposed to the existing sanitary sewer or water system. If changes are proposedthey will need to be reviewed by the City and Saint Paul regional Water Services. Other 15)The plans shall be signed by a professional engineer currently licensed in the State of Minnesota. 16)The Owner shall submit a signedcopy of the joint storm-water maintenance agreement beingprepared for the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Districtto the City. 17)The applicant shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies. Please provide copies of other required permits and approvals. - END COMMENTS - MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator James Taylor, Parks and Recreation Manager Steve Love, City Engineer / DeputyPublic Works Director DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Review Plans for Fish Creek Trail Introduction City staff has completed design of a proposed bituminous trail at the Fish Creek site. The Community Design Review Board will review and provide input on the proposed Fish Creek Trail design. Background The 70-acre Fish Creek site was acquired by the City of Maplewood in December 2013. Ramsey County owns 142 acres of property adjacentto the Fish Creek site. The City and County developed a Master Plan in 2012 covering both the City’s and County’s property and areworking together on managementof these properties. The City of Maplewood was awarded a $318,000 grant from the Metropolitan Council in 2014 for improvements to the Fish Creeksite. On August 10, 2015, the City Council authorized staff to begin working on designand specifications for the proposed trails. During the design process, City and County staff proposed updates to the Master Plan. After review by three commissions and a public open house the City Council approved the updated Master Plan on January 25, 2016 (Attachment 1). The approved Parks System Master Plan identifies the Fish Creek site as a Community Preserve. Community Preserves are “integrated, multi-purpose areas set aside for preserving natural resources, connecting people to nature, and providing educational programming and historical interpretation.” Discussion The proposedproject will construct over 1 mileof trailsat the Fish Creek site as identified in the Fish Creek Master Plan. Proposed trail design plans have been prepared and areattached to this report (see Attachment 2). Trail The proposed trail is designed as an 8.0 foot wide bituminous multi-use trail. The minimum width for a multi-use trail is 8 feet. The design width was chosen in order to minimize impacts to thenatural areawhile still being wide enough to be a multi-use trail. The design follows ADA accessibility guidelines. Wetland and Creek Impacts No impacts towetlands have been identified within the project area. Fish Creek lies north of the proposed trail location. The City’s wetland ordinance requires a 100’ buffer for streams. One portion of the proposed trail will run along the edge of the 100’ creek buffer. Stormwater Management The proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land and will therefore need to meet the City’sstormwater standards. Several infiltration areas have been identified for the construction of rain gardens in order to meet the stormwater treatment standards. The infiltration areas are located to help direct water flownear the trails. These will appear as natural swales in the landscape, and will be seeded with native prairie species. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will also be included in the design. Tree Preservation The proposed trail has been designed to minimize the number of significant trees impacted by the trail construction. Arecord of the final number of trees removed will be kept.Additional trees will be planted by volunteers in upcoming projectsto replace those removed. Parking The Fish Creek Master Plan calls for a parking lot near the east end of the proposed trail. This parking area would be constructed as part of future improvements. A 24 foot by 30 foot gravel parking area is proposed to provide an area for vehicles to turn around during programmed events. No parking lots areproposed for this phase of the project. City Council Review It is anticipated that this project will be brought to theCity Council at the March 14, 2016 council meeting to approve the plans and specification andadvertisement for bids. Recommendation It is recommended that the Community Design Review Board review the proposed project and provide input on the Fish Creek Trail Plan. Attachments: 1.Fish Creek Master Plan 2.Trail Plan MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Kempe,Community Design Review Board FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: February 17, 2016 SUBJECT: Approval of 2015 Annual Report Introduction Attached to this memo is thedraft of the community design review board’s (CDRB) 2015 Annual Report. The CDRB has produced this report every year to forward on to the city council for its review of the board’s work throughout the previous year. Discussion The format of the 2015 Annual Report is similar to previous years. Staff has included a section for 2016 activities. This was done with the intention of the CDRB having a discussion at its February 23, 2016 meeting to develop its goals for the upcoming year.Staff will be looking for feedback from the CDRB as to what it would like to accomplish in 2016 outside of its design review duties. Recommendations Approve the attached draft 2015 Annual Report. Attachment 1.2015 CDRB Annual Report MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Bill Kempe,Community Design Review BoardChair DATE: February 23, 2016 SUBJECT: Approval of the 2015 Community Design Review Board Annual Report Introduction Annually the community design review board (CDRB) reports the board’s actions and activities for the city council for the previous year. In 2015, the CDRB reviewed the following 18items during its 8 meetings: Type of Proposal #Reviewed New DevelopmentProposals3 1.Design Review, Tuj Lub Courts, Keller Regional Park (February 24, 2015) 2.Design Review, Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East, Between Hazelwood Street North and Kennard Street (August 25, 2015) 3.Design Review, Porsche of St. Paul, 2450 Maplewood Drive (October 27, 2015) Expansions/Remodels/Revisions9 1.Design Review, Porsche of Maplewood remodel, 2780 Maplewood Drive (March 24, 2015) 2.Design Review, Kline Volvo Expansion, 3040 Maplewood Drive (May 27, 2015) 3.Design Review, Beam Avenue Medical Building, 2001 Beam Avenue(May 27, 2015) 4.Design Review, Shores at Lake Phalen, Parking Lot, 1870 East Shore Drive (July 28, 2015) 5.Comprehensive Sign Plan, HealthEast, 1600 St, John’s Boulevard(July 28, 2015) 6.Design Review, Minnesota Women’s Care Clinic expansion, 2603 White Bear Avenue (July 28, 2015) 7.Design Review, Xcel Energy’s Kohlman Lake Substation Security Improvements, 1480 County Road D East (October 27, 2015) 8.Design Review, Maplewood Auto Mall, 2529 White Bear Avenue (November 24, 2015) 9.Design Review, Costco Expansion, 1431 Beam Avenue (December 22, 2015) Special Projects and Presentations 6 1.2014 CDRB Annual Report (February 24, 2015) 2.2014 Code Enforcement Year-End Report (February 24, 2015) 3.Maplewood Parks System Plan (February 24, 2015) 4.Election of Officers (March 24, 2015) 5.Promoting Civility in Public Meetings and Parliamentary Procedures (November 24, 2015) 6.MnDOT Discussion Regarding I-35E Vegetation (December 22, 2015) Total 18 Comparative Information YearNumber of Items Reviewed 200527 200633 200727 2008 15 200918 2010 20 201125 201228 201321 201414 201518 Membership The CDRB consists of five members appointed by the city council. Membership terms are for two years, with extensions for additional terms approved by the city council. The current membership is as follows: Board Member Membership Began Term Expires Attendance Ananth Shankar 8/8/944/30/16 7 of 8 Leo Burger 2/11/134/30/16 7 of 8 Matt Ledvina 3/10/974/30/17 6 of 8 Jason Lamers 5/26/094/30/18 5 of 8 Bill Kempe 2/11/134/30/18 8 of 8 Members Lamers and Kempe terms were up for reappointment in 2015. Both were re-appointed to the board on April 27, 2015. On March 24, 2015, Bill Kempe was elected chair by the board and Matt Ledvina was elected vice- chair. Discussion 2015 Actions/Activities In 2015, the CDRB reviewed 18items, a slight increase from the previous year.In 2015, the CDRB reviewed an increased number of new development, remodels/revisions/expansions, and special projects and presentations in 2015, compared to 2014. The CDRB also reviewed 16 additional projects via the 15-day minor construction review process. In 2016, the CDRB expects to review a similar number of projects. In 2015,the CDRB reviewed mainly commercial projects – most notably the Conifer Ridge Development as a part of the Legacy Village planned unit development. The CDRB has consistently demonstrated keen interest and skill in their reviews of these development projects to ensure they are of the quality of design and materials that complement the surrounding areas and improves a site’s aesthetics. The reason for the rise in redevelopment and remodelprojectsis that the city has seen the amount of vacant land available for new developments diminish. In addition, several other projects that occurred in 2015 were smaller in nature allowing city staff to process many of the city’s remodels and additions as 15-day reviews, as allowed by code, rather than the more formal review by the CDRB. Because of the developed nature of the city, many of the new commercial and residential developments reviewed by the CDRB are either redevelopment of existing buildings or in-fill development. 2016 Activities In addition to its design review duties, the CDRB lists these potential activities for 2016: 1.The CDRB has a strong desire to work on broader design-related policy issues for the city; the CDRB does not have to be just a reactive group. 2.Continue having in-service training sessions for the CDRB. Specifically, the CDRB would like to explore developing an approved materials list to help guide development better from an architecture point of view. Perhaps different areas of the city would have different approved list to match existing and desired exteriors. 3.Continue developing policy guidelines for vegetation use along public rights-of-way. 4.Focus on educating the CDRB on sustainable building practices. Conclusion In 2016, the CDRBwill continue its dedication to the quality design of buildings and developments, ensuring a high quality of life for the citizens of Maplewood. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Approve the CDRB’s 2015annual report. MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Chris Swanson,Environmental and City Code Specialist DATE: January 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Presentation of 2015 Code Enforcement Report Introduction Property maintenance codes exist to prevent blight, maintain a residential atmosphere, and promote safe and healthful neighborhoods. Code Enforcement responds to a number of issues relating to vehicles, long grass/weeds, junk and debris, exterior storage, exterior property maintenance, home occupations, lighting, signs and other code related issues. Discussion In 2015, the City introduced a new webpage format. This was a good opportunity to change the existing handouts and forms on the code site in order to construct a more user friendly experience for the residents. Thewebsite upgrades includes a “Report an Issue” button onthe front page. When a complaint is filled out by a resident an email is sent directly to the code enforcement team with the time, location, issue, and contact information of the complaint making it easier for residents to report issues in their neighborhood.Additionally, resident can nowinclude a picture with the code complaint. Code enforcement complaints and abatements have continued to decline over the past few years as the number of foreclosures properties has decreased. Additionally,because of proactive code enforcement by staff,there has been an increase in the number of Noticeof Code Violationstagsissuedto residents. Over the past year, the Code Enforcement Department has been working closely with the Maplewood Police Department to foster a more united response to community issues. In April of 2015, the code team provided in service training to the Maplewood police officers. The training spotlighted the most common code issues and how the policeshould respond if they encounter the violation. This has helped by providing around the clock code enforcement and provided an outline for when officers should contact code staff toaddress issues at a property. Enforcement Matters Resolved Number of Complaints Resolved324 Enforcement Action in Progress7 (4 with compliance dates in 2016) Total Number of Code Violations Received470 Correction letters/Citations/Abatements Number of Correction Letters mailed274 (up 40%from 2014) Number of Citations Issued 7 Abatement Fee Charged $7046.84 Re-inspection Fees Charged$468.75 Type of ComplaintNumber of Complaints Received Pending ExteriorStorage 984 Unapproved Parking 620 Lawn Maintenance 430 House / Property Maintenance 191 Junk Vehicles 371 Trash / Garbage 180 Trash Container Storage 230 Commercial Vehicle / Equipment 41 Home Occupation 10 Miscellaneous Concerns 220 Total Number of Violations3317 *Animal complaints fall under “Miscellaneous Concerns”. Code Enforcement by Violation 2 Code Enforcement Count by Year Issue 20102011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Commercial vehicle / 1518 14 1 3 4 55 equipment Exterior Storage102103 97 95 86 98 581 Home Occupation 1523 17 10 10 1 76 House / Property 5438 55 39 37 19 242 Maintenance Junk Vehicle 11180 67 35 37 51 381 Lawn Maintenance235196 134 128 41 43 777 Trash / Garbage35503527188173 Trash Container Storage 1523 21 16 10 23 108 Unapproved Parking 124123 123 60 50 62 542 Misc. Complaints 8282 82 91 40 22 399 Total 788736 645 502 332 331 3334 Summary The number of foreclosed and abandoned properties in Maplewood has substantially decreased over the past few years. That has caused a significant drop in the number of code violations and abatements. Because of more proactive enforcement by code staff there has been an increase in the number of Notice of Code Violations tags issued to residents. Code Enforcement continues to work through a community outreach model with a focuson educating violators and including stakeholders like landlords, residents, renters, and commercial property owners. Thisapproach helps the community understand what is expected for property upkeep. Code Enforcement will continue to work to keepsMaplewood clean, safe, and attractivefor the residents in the community. Budget Impact Code Enforcement is planned and budgeted through the General Fund. Recommendation Review the information provided in the report. Attachments 1.2015 Code Violation Map 3 Code Enforce Map for 20 by property \ Code Enforcement Count by Census Block d Violations by Type nimal (10) ommercial vehicle / equipment (4) xterior Storage (98) ome Occupation (1)