Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2001MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. January 2, 2001 Unfinished Business a. None New Business a. Conditional Use Permit -Lot Division (1101 County Road C) b. Rice/Roselawn Auto Sales (1908 Rice Street) Conditional Use Permit Setback Variances 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. January 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness b. February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2001 II. III. IV. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Mary Dierich Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Lori Hansen Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 2, 1001. Commission Frost moved approval of the minutes of January 2, 1001. Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. Ayes-5 (Frost, Fischer, Mueller, Trippler, Ahlness) Abstentions-2 (Ledvina, Rossbach) The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 01-17-01 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Conditional Use Permit-Lot Division (1101 County Road C). Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager, gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Callahan, the applicant, is requesting city approval of a conditional use permit to divide a 140-foot-wide lot into two 70-foot wide lots. This property is on County Road C just west of Highway 61. The Maplewood city code allows interior lots with widths between 60 and 75 feet in the R-1 zone with city council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). Mr. Callahan is requesting this CUP for a lot split to construct two new homes. The new houses will be on the two new lots after Mr. Callahan demolishes or removes the existing house and garage from the property. Section 36-442 of the City Code gives nine standards for approval of conditional use permits. Section 36-69(2) of the City Code gives the following additional condition for approving new interior lots that are between 60 and 75 feet in width: "There are at least two developed lots-of-record with the same or less width than proposed, within 350 feet of the site on the street. Larger minimum side yard setbacks may be required to balance the separation between structures." This request meets the required findings for approval of a conditional use permit and for narrow- width lots. There are six lots on County Road C within 350 feet of the site that have a width of either 65 or 70 feet. This proposal is within character of what is happening along that street. The site is in the shoreland district of Kohlman Lake. The city code has several requirements for placement and design of the proposed single dwellings near lakes, including this site. These include a requirement that each lot be at least 20,000 square feet in area. The city code defines lot area as "the area of a lot, excluding drainage easements, wetlands and the land below the ordinary high water mark of public waters." Each of the proposed lots, however, would not have 20,000 square feet of buildable land outside of the wetland and lake area. Each lot would have about 8,000 to 10,000 square feet of buildable area. The shoreland code has a provision to deal with this situation. Section 36-566 (b)(1)(c) of the code says that the minimum lot requirements shall not apply to a development that is at least eighty (80) percent screened from view from at least eighty (80) percent of the shoreline during the summer. As such, if the applicant could prepare and implement a screening plan for the two lots that show how the new houses would be screened from the lake to meet the 80 percent requirement, then the city could approve the lot division. Section 36-573 of the city code says that "Each lot created through subdivision shall be suitable for development with minimal alteration. The city shall not consider lots suitable for development that would create any of the following effects: (1) Susceptibility to flooding; (2) filling of wetlands; (3) building on soils with severe development limitations; (4) creating severe erosion potential; (5) building on steep topography; (6) inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities or (7) creating a loss of protected wildlife habitat." The proposed lot division can meet the above-listed objectives and the lots are suitable for development. Having two houses on this property, if the owner properly screens them from the lake and if the owner carefully places them on the property, should not cause any negative effects on the lake, on the environment or on the health, safety or welfare of the citizens. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 01-17-01 This site is next to a Class I wetland. As such, the city has several regulations about the use of land and the placement of the structures near the wetland. Because the site is near a wetland and a lake, the city asked the staff of the RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District to comment on this proposal. They recommend that the applicant not make any impact on the wetland as it would require a lengthy review under the Wetland Conservation Act. They also noted that since much of the buffer area had been disturbed they would only require the applicant to dedicate a 10-foot-wide no-disturb buffer instead the 100-foot-wide no-disturb buffer that the code would usually require. Both the shoreland code and the wetland code have language about the placement of structures near a lake and near a wetland. Section 36-566 (c)(1) of the code has language about the placement, design and height of structures in the shoreland areas. Specifically, this part of the code says that "where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, the owner or builder may change the structure's setbacks without a variance to meet the adjoining structures setbacks from the ordinary high water level." Section 9-196(d)(1)a of the city code says that the wetland setback regulations shall not apply to "structure, vegetation and maintenance activities and practice in existence on the date this ordinance becomes effective. (May 13, 1996.) A contractor or owner may remodel, reconstruct or replace affected structures if the new construction does not take up more buffer land than the structure used before the remodeling, reconstruction or replacement." These code sections say that the applicant may line up the rear of the new houses with the rear of the neighbor's houses and that the new construction may occur as long as it does not further impact the wetland buffer. The applicant has not yet submitted specific site plans for the proposed lots. It appears, however, that there is enough room on the two lots to meet the setback requirements of the shoreland code and those in the wetland regulations. Staff's recommendation is to approve the conditional use permit for the property at 1101 County Road C for Donald Callahan for two 70-foot wide interior lots in the R1 zoning district. The permit is subject to the noted conditions, with the first being the one Mr. Callahan would like to discuss with the commission. It states the construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The front setback for each house shall be 25 feet and the rear of each house shall not be more than 65 feet from the front property line. Staff feels there is a possibility of increasing that to 75 feet and still keep what is within the character of the neighborhood as long as the grading limits do not disturb the wetland easement. Mr. Trippler asked how many feet would be between the no disturb zone and the back of the house. Ms. Coleman responded by saying there would be about 13 feet to the line. Mr. Rossbach asked if tree planting is allowed in the buffered zone. Staff responded by saying a certain species is allowed to be planted there and this is something that should be reviewed by the DNR and watershed district. The city's goal is to screen the area with deciduous and coniferous trees so a buffer is created. Mr. Ledvina questioned the ordinance setback from the wetlands. He asked if it was the opinion of staff that the site falls into the category of remodeling, reconstruction, or replacement? Ms. Coleman confirmed that was their opinion. She added that there had been so much degradation of the whole area that they were comfortable with the development of the property as long as it was not encroaching any closer than what was presently happening. She also added that the DNR was comfortable with this proposal. Mr. Trippler asked why the house was not included in the demolition verbiage. Ms. Coleman stated when the lot is split, the garage will be ¼ on each lot. From a practical standpoint, she felt both buildings would be demolished. Mr. Trippler would be more comfortable if the conditions stated the buildings would be demolished and properly disposed of. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 01-17-01 Donald Callahan, 975 County Road C, the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He explained the area to the east of the property, which appears to be a ravine, was a driveway at one time. The present retaining wall is 8 to 10 feet high. The elevations of the homes are considerably above the wetland delineation. Mr. Callahan has talked with the DNR and one of the requests he will be making will be to create a channel out to the open water that would serve both lots. The expected size of the homes will be 2200 square feet and will include a triple garage. Mr. Rossbach was concerned with the side lot setbacks, the size of the homes being built and the homes blocking the view of the lake for neighbors. Mr. Callahan responded in saying the current plans do meet the side yard setbacks. The width of the existing home is basically the same width as the proposed attached three car garage. The footprint of the home is approximately 55x55. The distance between the two living areas of the proposed homes is 20 feet. The commissioners are concerned the main objective of the builder is putting as much house as possible on the land. Mr. Ledvina is not comfortable that the proposal fits the "grandfathering" requirement of remodeling, reconstruction or replacement for the wetland setback ordinance. He does not feel the construction of two new homes fits into that category. Mr. Mueller feels a smaller footprint would be more appropriate to preserve the wetland. Ms. Coleman reiterated that the commission has the right to recommend other setback requirements that would better suit the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Rossbach is in favor of splitting the lots only because of the pressure to increase the density and provide housing in the city. He does not feel developers need to fill every bit of land with as much homes as possible. In this particular case where the city is allowing a developer to build on a piece of land that is considered substandard on a shoreland lot, the city should be able to dictate what, and how much, is built on that parcel. He feels larger side yard setbacks would be appropriate. Mr. Ledvina stated in many cases where there is a reduction in the wetland buffer there is a monument placed on the edge of the buffer stating requirements not to mow or disturb the buffer, and feels the monument would be appropriate in this case. The planning commission suggested the following adjustments to the conditions in the recommendation: 1. Condition 1: change 65 feet to 70 feet. Add: In addition, the side yard setbacks shall be 20 feet total (either side). 2. A modification would be made to condition 5a which would now read: Remove or demolish the existing house and garage from the property in accordance with all applicable state demolition ordinances and ensure all demolition debris is properly disposed of in a licensed demolition landfill. 3. Condition 5e would be added to require one wetland easement marker per lot. Commissioner Frost moved the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the property at 1101 County Road C for Donald Callahan. This permit is for the creation of two 70-foot-wide interior lots in the R-1 zoning district. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow site plans approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The site plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The front setback for each house shall be 25 feet. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 01-17-01 o o b° The rear of each house shall not be more than 70 feet from the front property line. There shall be at least 20 feet of side yards for each house - at least 10 feet on each side. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The applicant or building contractor shall provide a grading, drainage and erosion control plan with each building permit application. These plans shall show: ao The proposed house pad and the proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each lot. The house pads shall be such that minimize the grading on the lots so the builder can save as many of the existing trees on each lot as possible. b° Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. This shall include the existing and proposed drainage patterns with elevations and contours for each lot. c. The wetland and the wetland buffer area being outside the grading limits. All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. All retaining walls on the plans. Any new retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. f° No grading beyond the property boundaries without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). The city engineer must approve these plans before the city will issue a building permit. The applicant or building contractor providing the city a tree plan that: a° Shall be approved by the city engineer before building demolition or removal, site grading or final lot split approval. b. Shows where the developer or builder will remove, save or replace large trees. c. Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. d° Shows the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 ~) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. Before the city approves and stamps the lot division deeds, the applicant or owner shall complete the following: ao Remove or demolish the existing house and garage from the property according to all applicable state demolition ordinances. This is to ensure that the owner or contractor properly disposes all demolition debris in a licensed demolition landfill. b. Record a wetland buffer and drainage easement over all the property that is north Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-01 -6- of the wetland buffer easement line shown on the survey on page 16 of this staff report. Provide city staff with a screening plan for each lot. This plan is to show how the applicant will meet the code requirement that the new houses be at least eighty (80) percent screened from view from at least eighty (80) percent of the shoreline of the lake during the summer. Prepare and record covenants with each lot that requires the property owners to keep the required screening on each lot. Install one permanent wetland buffer sign per lot. These signs shall be around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easement and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundary. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes-6 (Fischer, Frost, Trippler, Rossbach, Ahlness, Mueller) Nays-1 (Ledvina) Mr. Ledvina's nay vote was due to his belief that this proposal does not meet the exemption for the variance process as it relates to the wetland setback. This proposal will go the city council on February 12, 2001. B. Parking Lot Setback and Curbing Variances and Conditional Use Permit--Rose-Rice Auto (1908 Rice Street). Ms. Coleman gave the staff report for the city. Brad Beatty, of Rose-Rice Auto Sales, is requesting approval of a parking lot setback and curbing variances for his recent parking lot expansion and a conditional use permit for used car sales. Mr. Beatty recently paved the easterly part of the site. This is the unpaved side yard that has been used for unapproved car-parking by the previous owner, Jerry Anderson. The applicant has improved the property by residing the two buildings, adding a pitched roof to one of the buildings, and in general, cleaning up the site. He also removed the cars Mr. Anderson had parked on the grass east of the building. This project requires the following approvals: 1. A parking lot setback variance since the new parking lot is paved up the east (side) and north (front) lot lines. The city code requires that the parking lot have a five-foot side yard setback and a 15-foot front setback from the Roselawn Avenue right-of-way. (The applicant said that the new pavement is setback about 20 feet from the south lot line.) The applicant would also need a curbing variance since the code requires continuous concrete curbing around the new parking lot. 2. A CUP (conditional use permit). The city code requires a CUP for used car sales. The previous owner did not have this permit, as he was grandfathered in. The current owner needs a CUP because of the expansion of the paved parking lot. This property has been a continuous source of parking code violations when the previous owner Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 01-17-01 was in charge. The city has worked long and diligently to gain compliance on this site. Staff feels the building has been improved greatly. The current operation has been run very well and the appearance has improved greatly. Ms. Coleman stated "It was upsetting that the applicant made the parking lot improvements without working with the city on that improvement". David Parupsky, 3229 A. Casco Circle, Wayzata, was present to answer questions for the applicant. Mr. Parupsky explained the old, unpaved parking lot had been there for thirty years. When he was told by Mr. Ekstrand, Associate Planner, that the lot had to be paved, he paved it. Unfortunately, prior to paving, he did not apply for a permit or address setback requirements. State law requires that the city council make two findings in order to approve variances. First, they must determine that the applicant cannot meet the code because of "circumstances unique to the property." They must find that the applicant cannot meet the code due to some unique physical characteristic of the site. There is not unique circumstance in this case. The applicant could have met the setback and curbing requirements if they had checked with the city before paving this site. Secondly, the variances must meet the "spirit and intent of the ordinance." The purpose of the setback and curbing requirement are so parking lots do not crowd neighboring properties, so there is area provided for snow storage and landscaping for esthetics. Curbing also provides a neat edge to parking lots and controls storm water runoff. Staff appreciates the improvements the applicant has made at this site. Their buildings are attractive and the site is now nicely maintained. Mr. Beatty also did an excellent job of removing Jerry Anderson's cars from the unpaved side yard, which for a long time was an eyesore. Unfortunately, staff cannot make the finding that state law requires for the approval. Staff recommends that the applicant make the necessary changes and corrections to the new parking lot as follows: saw-cut the bituminous to meet the required five-foot side setback as well as the required 15-foot front setback; provide continuous concrete curbing around the south, north and east sides of the parking lot (keeping in mind that the required setbacks must be measured to the back edge of the curb); backfill behind the curbing and restore with sod. Staff is not recommending that variances be granted. Staff is recommending that the applicant make the necessary changes and corrections to the new parking lot as follows: Cut out the bituminous to meet the required 5-foot side yard setback as well as the 15 front yard set back and to provide continuous concrete curbing around the south, north and east sides of the parking lot. Also, backfilling where the pavement has been cut out. The operation to sell used cars does meet the intent of the ordinance. It is an activity that has been going on there for quite some time. Other than the setback and curbing issues, the applicant has greatly improved the corner by refurbishing the buildings and eliminating a long occurring eyesore. Staff recommended the approval of a conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant correct the parking lot issues. Staff would also recommend the applicant have until next summer to correct the issues since we are in the middle of winter. With the exception of the requirements to meet the setback and curbing requirements, the site plan looks fine. The parking lot should be striped according to parking spaces and drive aisles as required by code. This would be spaces that are 9 % feet by 18 feet and drive aisles of 24 feet Wide. Staff's recommendation is that the proposed parking lot setback and curbing variances be denied because they do not meet the findings required by state law. Strict enforcement of the code would not cause undue hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could have met the setback and curbing requirements without any hindrance by site characteristics. Two of the variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The ordinance requires parking lot setbacks and curbed edges to maintain a neat appearance, control drainage and provide an on site area to store snow in the winter. Secondly, staff is recommending the commission to adopt the resolutions to approve the conditional use permit for used car sales at 1908 Rice Street. Commissioner Mueller was concerned with the cars that are parking on Roselawn Avenue. He also noted there is a 10-foot fence on the east and north side of the property facing Roselawn Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 01-17-01 Avenue with pavement that extends right up to the fence. Mr. Parupsky explained they did extended the asphalt up to the fence, but felt if they were to tear out the 5 feet of asphalt and re-sod, it would not change the appearance due to the 10-foot fence screening the view of this area. He was not aware of any cars parking on Roselawn Avenue. Ms. Coleman explained that she was not aware of the street parking either, and suggested a requirement could be added to the conditions that the applicant should designate customer parking on the site plan. The applicant explained at one time there were 130 "for-sale" cars on the lot, but currently there are only about 40. He felt that should leave plenty of parking for shoppers on the lot so they would not have to park on Roselawn Avenue. Commissioner Rossbach asked where the runoff from the parking lot flows. Mr. Parupsky stated the lot is sloped to the south side of the property where they will now be building a curb. Ms. Coleman explained the city is allowed to not require curbing if the public works director sees a reason for drainage purposes not to have curbing. In the conditions it states the plans for curbing must be submitted to staff for approval by the city engineer who will evaluate the parking lot for drainage control. She also stated, due to the ordinance change, the commission could give the engineer latitude to say there should not be curbing on that south side to allow for drainage. Mr. Rossbach also noted that the 10-foot fence is a cyclone fence that you can see through. Therefore, you could see whether there was grass or pavement on the other side of the fence. Mr. Parupsky confirmed that would be the case. Mr. Mueller reiterated the importance of parking being designated as customer parking so it is made obvious where they are to park. He also expressed his concern of having "one big corner" filled will asphalt, busses, and cars and across the road from a swimming beach for families. Mr. Rossbach moved the commission to recommend to the city council to: Al. Approve the proposed fifteen-foot parking lot setback variance from the north property line since the proposed variance does meet the following findings required by state law and it is a continuation of an existing parking lot and non-conforming use; it also meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance. A2.. Deny the proposed parking lot setback and curbing variance on the east side of the lot since the proposed variance does not meet the following findings required by state law. Strict enforcement of the code would not cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could have met the setback requirements without any hindrance by site characteristics. The variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The ordinance requires parking lot setbacks to provide room for snow storage and so not to crowd adjacent properties. B. To approve a conditional use permit for used car sales at 1908 Rice Street. This resolution also approves the recently expanded parking lot which maintains the existing nonconforming setback from Roselawn Avenue. Approval of the reduced front setback is because the continuation of the existing pavement setback would meet the spirit and intent of the code. The conditional use permit for car sales is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 01-17-01 VII. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, except as stated below. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The applicant shall revise the site plan for staff approval as follows: a. Cut away the part of the new easterly parking lot which encroaches into the required fifteen-foot side setback area. b. The excess pavement material shall be removed from the site. The edges of the new parking lot shall be curbed with upright continuous concrete curbing. The plan for this curbing shall be submitted to staff for approval by the city engineer who will evaluate the parking lot for drainage control. The curbing requirement may be waived if deemed necessary for drainage purposes by the city engineer. The required fifteen foot setback shall be measured to the back of the curb, if the engineer requires curbing, not to the parking lot edge. e. Stripe the parking spaces as required by code. The applicant shall designate four customer parking spaces on the west side of the building. There shall be one handicap-accessible parking space. This space must meet the requirements of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The applicant shall complete these parking lot corrections by June 30, 2001. The city council shall review this permit at that time if the work is not completed. The council may extend this deadline if an extension is warranted. The city council shall review this permit annually as required by the code, unless they determine that there is no need for such subsequent reviews. Mr. Frost seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. The proposal goes before city council on February 12th, 2001. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Mr. Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director, was present to share information on the Lake Links Trail Plan. During the last eighteen months Mr. Anderson has served on the technical advisory task force for the area wide Lake Links Trail Network Masterplan. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 01-17-01 The planning for the project is now completed and is currently in the review process through the 13 communities and 2 counties involved in the process. This proposal will be going to the city council February 12 for their review and eventual adoption. The study area involved northeast Ramsey and Washington counties. The four main goals were to: 2. 3. 4. Establish a trail loop around White Bear Lake. Establish a trail loop around Silver Lake. Extend the Bruce Vento trail from Maplewood to the Hugo Trail System. A trail link to each of the above to the Gateway and Stillwater Trail System. The trail corridor for Maplewood follows County Road D at Highway 61 heading east to Century Avenue. The cost of the entire trail systems is about 12 million dollars for the complete 34 mile trail segment. Copies of the entire masterplan are available through Ms. Coleman. Commissioner Ledvina left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. Election of Planning Commission Officers: Mr. Frost moved the commission to reinstate the current slate of offices for the 2001 year: Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson and Jack Frost, Vice-Chairperson. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-5 (Frost, Rossbach, Mueller, Ahlness, Trippler) Abstention-1 (Fischer) B. January 8th City Council Meeting: Mr. Frost attended the meeting and gave his report. The ATP Monopole proposal was approved. The Independent Estates proposal was also approved. The seller of the property was allowed to continue his trucking operation with the elimination of some of the big vehicles on his property. He was given a 10 year extension, with a 2 year reviewal. The Mounds Park Academy addition and the Deer Management (Trap and Shoot) were also approved. A resolution was passed that Ramsey County could go forward with their 9 hole golf course. The Planning Commission reappointments were also approved. C. Mr. Ahlness will attend the January 22nd, 2001, city council meeting. D. Mr. Trippler will attend the February 12th, 2001, city council meeting. E. Mr. Mueiler will attend the February 26th, 2001, city council meeting. Fo Planning Commission 2000 Annual Report: Chairperson Fischer confirmed with Mr. Rossbach there were no further projects he would like added other than the ones that were adopted. Monopoles: Mr. Trippler wondered if the plan to create a new ordinance for monopoles would be resurrected. Ms. Coleman informed the commission that they have not forgotten about the request. The city has been working with the League of Minnesota Cities and some of the providers to draft a new ordinance. AT & T has filed a lawsuit against the city regarding the denial of Taste of India proposal. The city is working with AT & T to find an alternative site for them. When a draft of the ordinance is completed, the planning Commission and the providers will be included in the process. -11- IX. Mr. Trippler questioned why Christmas trees are not being picked up by the rubbish haulers. Ms. Fischer believed the licensing agreement for the rubbish haulers in the city of Maplewood is that they will indeed haul away Christmas Trees. Ms Coleman will research the problem. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.