Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-24 City Council Meeting Minutes MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, August 24, 2026 City Hall, Council Chambers Meeting No. 19-26 A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by Mayor Abrams. Mayor Abrams thanked staff, the Lions club, and everyone who attended the fun Celebrate Summer event and also commented on fall coming soon. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Marylee Abrams, Mayor Present Rebecca Cave, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Chonburi Lee, Councilmember Present, attended remote via Zoom Nikki Villavicencio, Councilmember Present D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 10, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Councilmember Cave moved to approve the August 10, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. 2. August 14, 2026 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the August 14, 2026 City Council Special Meeting Minutes as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Villavicencio Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 1 F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Administrative Presentations a. Council Calendar Update City Manager Sable gave an update to the council calendar and reviewed other topics of concern or interest requested by council members. 2. Council Presentations None 3. Resolution Awarding the 2026 Maplewood Heritage Award to Laura Koski Communications Manager Sheeran presented the award to Laura Koski. Laura Koski addressed the council and expressed appreciation. Mayor Abrams read the resolution. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution awarding Laura Koski, former HPC commissioner, with the Heritage Preservation Award. Resolution 26-08-2520 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE 2026 MAPLEWOOD HERITAGE AWARD TO LAURA KOSKI WHEREAS, Laura Koski led a project to update the inventory of the 100-year-old houses; and WHEREAS, she researched to document the history of more than 20 significant buildings and prepared them for GIS mapping; and WHEREAS, Ms. Koski showed commissions how to navigate the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database; and WHEREAS, she volunteered her industry expertise as a geologist to inform and guide Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) discussions and decisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT IS RESOLVED on behalf of the City of Maplewood, that Laura Koski is presented the Maplewood Heritage Award, which recognizes an individual who has significantly contributed to preservation of Maplewood history or historic sites through research, preservation, or education and outreach. Seconded by Councilmember Villavicencio Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. G. CONSENT AGENDA – Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and non- controversial and are approved by one motion of the council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment regarding an item, the vote should be held until the questions or comments are made then the single vote should be taken. If a councilmember objects to an item it should be removed and acted upon as a separate item. Councilmember Cave moved to approve agenda items G1-G5. August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 2 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. 1. Approval of Claims Councilmember Cave moved to approve the approval of claims. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 2,282,058.39 Checks # 125937 thru # 125994 dated 8/11/26 $ 267,434.79 Checks # 125995 thru # 126047 dated 8/14/26; 8/17/26; 8/18/26 $ 500,879.99 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 8/3/26 thru 8/16/26 $ 3,050,373.17 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 851,387.72 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 8/14/26 $ 851,387.72 Total Payroll $ 3,901,760.89 GRAND TOTAL Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. 2. Purchase of a Half-Ton Truck (Unit 512) Councilmember Cave moved to approve the purchase of a half-ton truck and direct the mayor and city manager to enter into a contract with Karl Chevrolet under MN State Contract #258521 in the amount of $47,145. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. 3. Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing for September 28, 2026, 2026 Maplewood Street Improvements, City Project 25-21 August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 3 Councilmember Cave moved to approve the resolution accepting assessment roll and ordering assessment hearing for the 2026 Maplewood Street Improvements, City Project 25-21. Resolution 26-08-2521 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ORDERING ASSESSMENT HEARING CITY PROJECT 25-21 WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the city council, prepared an assessment roll for the 2026 Maplewood Street Improvements, City Project 25-21, and said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on September 28, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owner of all property affected by said assessment. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and city engineer and that written or oral objections will be considered. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. 4. Affordable Homeownership Grant Program Agreements between the Metropolitan Council, the City of Maplewood and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity Councilmember Cave moved to approve and authorize the mayor and city manager to execute agreements with the Metropolitan Council and Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity for a $400,000 Affordable Homeownership Grant. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. 5. Century Ponds Second Addition, 601 Century Avenue South a. Final Plat Resolution b. First Amendment to Planned Unit Development Agreement Councilmember Cave moved to approve the final plat resolution to authorize the Century Ponds Second Addition for 14 single-family homes at 601 Century Avenue South. August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 4 Resolution 26-08-2522 FINAL PLAT RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Century Ponds of MN LLC has requested approval of a final plat for Century Ponds Second Addition, where 14 single-family lots will be created on Outlots G and J of the original Century Ponds plat. 1.02 This final plat applies to the property at 601 Century Avenue South in Maplewood, Minnesota. 1.03 The property for the Century Ponds plat is legally described as: Outlots G and J, Century Ponds, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Section 2. Final Plat Standards 2.01 City ordinance requires that subdivisions and platting be subject to the procedures and application requirements established in Chapter 34 - Subdivisions of the Maplewood City Code. Section 3. Findings 3.01 The proposal meets the specific platting standards. Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering this final plat request. 1. On September 16, 2025, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the preliminary plat. 2. On October 27, 2025, the city council discussed the preliminary plat. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff and approved the Century Ponds preliminary plat. 3. On August 24, 2026, the city council reviewed the Century Ponds Second Addition final plat. Section 5. City Council August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 5 5.01 The above described Century Ponds final plat is approved based on the findings outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Approval is subject to, and only effective upon, the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the Preliminary Plat approval shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Plat approval and release shall be conditional on adherence to all requirements of the city attorney, including, but not necessarily limited to, any express requirements contained in the city attorney’s plat opinion. 3. Prior to the City signing the final plat for recording, the applicant must submit the following: a. The First Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to the release of the Final Plat for recording. b. Applicant shall submit payment of all costs associated with the Century Ponds Second Addition final plat application. c. Plans must meet the requirements of August 10, 2026, Environmental Review. d. Plans must meet the requirements of February 23, 2026, Engineering Review Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. Councilmember Cave moved to approve a First Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement with Century Ponds of MN LLC. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS – If you are here for a Public Hearing please familiarize yourself with the Rules of Civility printed on the back of the agenda. Sign in with the City Clerk before addressing the council. At the podium please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor will then direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments. None I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Saint Paul Police Training Facility, 2621 Linwood Avenue East a. Conditional Use Permit Resolution b. Design Review Amendment Resolution August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 6 Community and Economic Development Director Parr gave the presentation. Anthony Edwards Assistant City Attorney for St Paul and Joshua Lego, St Paul Police Department Commander, addressed council and shared additional information. Michael Burnett, St Paul Construction Manager and Jean Kruger, Ramsey County Director of Real Estate, provided additional information. Council asked questions of the applicant and discussed the agenda item. City Attorney Batty provided additional direction to council. Mayor Abrams moved the resolution denying a conditional use permit resolution for constructing a training facility at 2621 Linwood Avenue East, based upon the findings included in the resolution. Resolution 26-08-2523 RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 The City of Saint Paul Police Department (the “applicant”) has requested a Conditional Use Permit to build a 1,224 square foot training facility on the property at 2621 Linwood Avenue East. 1.02 The property located at 2621 Linwood Avenue East is owned by Ramsey County (the “Property Owner”) and is legally described as: The west 600 feet of the South 525 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 28, Range 22, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Ramsey County, Minnesota. PIN: 122822440044 Section 2. Standards. 2.01 City Ordinance Section 44-1092 (1) requires a conditional use permit for public service or public building uses. 2.02 General Conditional Use Permit Standards. The City Ordinance states that the City Council must base approval of a Conditional Use Permit on the following nine standards for approval. 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed, and operated to be in conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 7 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site’s natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Section 3. Findings. 3.01 The proposal does not meet the specific Conditional Use Permit standards for the reasons set forth below. 3.02 According to the applicant’s submitted documentation, the applicant may have last performed lead management on the property in 2015. Applicant’s submitted documentation includes a contract for lead screening and an AIA application and certification for payment from the applicant’s contractor. Still, there is no other indication of satisfactory project completion or documentation of any report, whether quantitative or qualitative, on the lead management or the property following project completion. It is also unclear whether the applicant performed any lead management activities on the property before 2015 or between 2015 and the present. 3.03 The applicant’s environmental sampling report identified copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) above each metal’s respective laboratory reporting limits within the property’s drinking water. The property is not connected to City water. The applicant’s use involves equipment or a method of operation that would be hazardous or detrimental to persons because of water pollution in the drinking water. Further, the elevated levels of these metals and the ability to reduce their concentrations to minimal levels indicate that the applicant’s use is not served by adequate water systems. 3.04 The applicant has failed to manage the property in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges established by the EPA. The EPA’s Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 8 Ranges indicates that while lead management and removal frequency are best determined by range use and environmental factors, there is no evidence of the applicant’s consideration of these factors throughout its use of the property and in its submitted Environmental Stewardship Plan. See Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges, Section 3.3.5. Further, in the same EPA Best Practices document, the EPA cites an NRA recommendation of lead cleanup frequency between one to five years, “even on ranges with minimal use.” Id. The applicant’s lack of submitted documentation on the property’s status following the 2015 lead management contract provides a lack of clarity on the applicant’s consideration of environmental stewardship factors in its operation of the property in the intervening years. In the event that the 2015 contract was not satisfactorily performed, the period between identified lead management activities extended significantly beyond best practice frequencies. However, assuming that the 2015 contract was performed fully, it still does not appear that the applicant’s management of the property was consistent with the EPA’s Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges, given the established period of over ten years since the last lead management on the property. 3.05 The applicant has failed to manage the property in accordance with the National Rifle Association's Range Source Book: A Guide to Planning and Construction, adopted as best practices under Minnesota Statutes 87A.02, Subd. 2. The Range Source Book states that “reclamation would seem unlikely to occur annually at most ranges, and more likely to take place at intervals of perhaps 2 to 5 years, and perhaps as long as 10 years or more at lightly used ranges.” See Range Source Book, Section 2.04. The applicant’s failure to submit documentation regarding the property’s status following the 2015 lead management contract creates uncertainty about the applicant’s consideration of environmental stewardship factors in its operation of the property in the intervening years. In the event that the 2015 contract was not satisfactorily performed, the period between identified lead management activities extended significantly beyond statutory best-practice frequencies, even if the range was lightly used and shot volume was relatively minimal. While the applicant’s submitted documentation for a to-be-completed lead management activity indicated an estimate of 5-10 tons of lead on the property, this is a significant range and does not clearly indicate the rate of use or shot volume on the property. The applicant’s lack of performing lead management for a period of over ten years, exceeding the ‘perhaps as long as’ best practice for a lightly- used range, indicates a reasonable likelihood that the applicant has not managed the property in accordance with the best practices for management of a shooting range adopted under Minnesota Statutes. 3.06 The City established “enhancing the water quality of surface waters” and “where practicable, improving the functions, values, biodiversity, and acreage of wetlands and their buffer areas” as goals under Chapter 13 of its 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s environmental sampling report indicated lead (Pb) in surface water at concentrations above the state’s ambient water quality standards. The property affects two wetlands in the Manage A category, August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 9 one of which is sited on the property. It is reasonably likely that the elevated concentrations of lead in the property’s surface water may be related to the applicant’s history of non-conformance with range operation best practices for lead management, as established by the EPA and Minnesota Statutes. Applicant’s history of operations on the property in conjunction with its existing use of the public building on the property, which the Applicant intends to update with this Conditional Use Permit, does not establish that Applicant’s public building use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects, maximize the preservation of the site’s natural features, or be maintained and operated to conform with the City’s comprehensive plan. Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering this conditional use permit request. 1. On May 19, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission allowed everyone to speak and present written statements at the hearing. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this resolution. 2. On June 8, 2026, the City Council discussed this request. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. The Council requested that the applicant provide environmental review and testing of land and water on the gun range site, including well and septic, and provide past lead mitigation and past testing reports. 3. On June 11, 2026, the City extended its review of the conditional use permit request. The City requested the additional information requested by the City Council, as well as an environmental stewardship plan for management of lead/bullets at outdoor shooting ranges. 4. On August 11, 2026, in response, the applicant provided its environmental stewardship plan, a proposal for lead reclamation on the property, contract documents for lead mitigation from 2015, and an environmental sampling report to the City. 5. On August 24, 2026, the City Council discussed this resolution. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and City staff. Section 5. City Council 5.01 The City Council hereby approves the resolution denying the applicant’s request. Denial is based on the findings outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Seconded by Councilmember Villavicencio Ayes – All, via roll call August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 10 The motion passed. Mayor Abrams moved the resolution denying the design review amendment for constructing a training facility at 2621 Linwood Avenue East. Resolution 26-08-2524 RESOLUTION DENYING A DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 The City of Saint Paul Police Department has requested approval of a design review amendment to build a 1,224 square foot training facility on the property at 2621 Linwood Avenue East. 1.02 The property located at 2621 Linwood Avenue East is legally described as: The west 600 feet of the South 525 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 28, Range 22, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Ramsey County, Minnesota. PIN: 122822440044 Section 2. Site and Building Plan Standards. 2.01 City ordinance requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing, or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development are in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and are not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly, and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures, and colors. Section 3. Findings. August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 11 3.01 The proposal does not meet the specific findings for design review approval for the reasons set forth below. 3.02 A conditional use permit is required for public service or public building uses per city ordinance. The city council has denied the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit. Without the city council's approval of a conditional use permit, the design review cannot be approved. 3.03 The proposal does not include connecting to the city's sanitary sewer or water services. 3.04 The applicant’s history of operations on the property, in conjunction with its existing use of the public building on the property, does not establish: the proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing, or proposed developments; or provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors. Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The community design review board reviewed the proposal on May 19, 2026, and recommended that the City Council approve the design plans. Section 5. Council Action. 5.01 The City Council hereby approves the resolution denying the applicant’s request. Denial is based on the findings outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. J. NEW BUSINESS 1. Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Newport for Bailey Court Public Works Director Love gave the staff report. Councilmember Cave moved to approve the joint powers agreement with the City of Newport for Bailey Court and direct the mayor and the city manager to sign the agreement. Minor revisions as approved by the city attorney are authorized as needed. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. 2. Agreement Between the City of Maplewood and Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. for Services Pertaining to 2050 Comprehensive Plan August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 12 Assistant Community and Economic Development Director Martin gave the presentation. Councilmember Cave moved to approve and authorize the mayor and city manager to execute an agreement with HKGi to provide the city with comprehensive planning services in order to complete the required 2050 Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All, via roll call The motion passed. K. AWARD OF BIDS None L. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Abrams adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Andrea Sindt, City Clerk August 24, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes 13