HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/2002BOOk
1. Call to Order
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 17, 2002, 7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. May 20, 2002
5. Public Hearing
None
6. New Business
a. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Hmong Alliance Church (1770 McMenemy Street)
b. Conditional Use Permit- Sinclair Fuel Station (223 Larpenteur Avenue East)
c. Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Amendment
d. Annual Tour
e. Follow-up from meeting with Barb Strandell
f. Planning Commission Applicant Interviews
7. Unfinished Business
None
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
a. May 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach
b. June 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer
c. June 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson
d. July 8 Council Meeting: Ms. Junek
10. Staff Presentations
11. Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process.
The review of an item usually takes the following form:
The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and
ask for the staff report on the subject.
Staff presents their report on the matter.
The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal.
The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to
comment on the proposal.
This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal.
Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and
then your comments.
After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the
chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are
allowed.
The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision.
All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council makes the final decision.
jw/pc\pcagd
Revised: 01/95
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MAY 20, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 8:25 p.m.
I1. ROLL CALL
III.
Commissioner
Commtss~oner
Commtss~oner
Commtss~oner
Commissioner
Comm~sstoner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Staff Present:
Mary Dierich Absent
Lorraine Fischer Present
Matt Ledvina Present from 8:25-9:25 p.m.
Jackie Monahan-Junek Absent
Paul Mueller Present
Gary Pearson Present
William Rossbach Present
Dale Trippler Present
Ken Roberts,, Associate Planner
Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director
Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the agenda.
Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson,
Rossbach, Trippler
IV.
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 6, 2002.
Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 6, 2002.
Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Pearson, RossbaCh
Abstention - Fischer, Mueller, Trippler
The motion passed.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-2-
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue)
Mr. Roberts said Mr. Mike Ackerman is proposing to develop nine townhouses (in four twin
homes and one single unit) in a development called Dearborn Meadow. It would be on a 2.11-
acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. A homeowners' association
would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding,
aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a
two-car garage.
To build this project, Mr. Ackerman is requesting that the city approve:
1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2
(single and double dwellings) for the site.
A change to the zoning map. This would be from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (single
and double dwellings) for the site.
A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow
the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to
have them on a private driveway.
4. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units.
5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings.
City staff also is proposing to change the zoning and land use plan designations for two areas
next to the proposed development. These changes would be from M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
to R-2 (single and double dwellings).
Mr. ROberts said on April 17, 2000, the planning cOmmission considered Mr. Ackerman's requests
for a 10-unit townhouse development. The commission tabled action on the proposed plans to
allow the developer's engineer to review the drainage patterns in the area. This was to insure
that the proposed development would not increase storm water runoff onto adjacent properties.
On May 15, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of the land use plan and
zoning map changes and the lot-area and lot-width variances for the 10-unit proposal. For the
preliminary plat, the commission split their vote four to four.
On May 23, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council deny
the 10-unit proposal. The board felt that the site was too dense based on the configuration of the
buildings. They felt that 15 feet between structures was too little and that the southerly buildings
should be reoriented to face north with their backyards butting up to the backyards to the south.
After much discussion and the recommendation from these meetings, Mr. Ackerman withdrew his
development requests before staff sent the 10-unit proposal to the city council.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-3-
Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The
proposed townhouses would be near Highway 36 and next to single dwellings. In addition,
developers will often build town homes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New
Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing
this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and town homes. There are many other
examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Carriage
Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case.
Several neighbors expressed concern over the potential for increased runoff and flooding due to
this development. The neighbors also have told staff that there has been an ongoing drainage
problem for the area between Cope and Castle Avenues for several years. Specifically, there are
properties that have Iow areas that tend to collect storm water, and this water does not drain off
quickly. The city should require that the grading/drainage plan would not increase the storm
water flow onto any neighbor's land.
Since the planning commission last reviewed this proposal in 2000, the developer has revised the
grading plan. He is now proposing to expand the wetland to form a larger area for the collection
of storm water. As proposed, the utility plan shows most of the storm water from the site,
including the private driveways, and the drainage from the undeveloped area east of the site,
going into the expanded ponding area. The developer is proposing that the overflow from the
pond go into new and existing storm sewer pipes that connect to the city drainage system in Cope
Avenue.
Based on the latest plans, the developer's engineer provided the city engineer with information
and calculations about the storm water. These show that this project will actually reduce the
amount of storm water running off the site.
Commissioner Trippler said if the city decides that there is not enough on-street parking, who
decides after the fact that additional parking is necessary, who gets stuck with the bill for that?
Mr. Roberts said as part of the conditional use permit, staff could make the developer pay for
that. He does not believe there will be a need for more parking. He said the condition could be
taken out.
Commissioner Trippler said he feels comfortable that increasing the size of the pond will take
care of minimizing the amount of run-off from the development. He asks if any of the water
issues from the homes at 1949 or 1953 Cope Avenue are related to ground water at all? He
wonders if you increase the capacity and the area of the wetland you may increase the amount of
ground water flow. If it is an issue of water going into those basements that may be causing a
problem that the city may not be thinking about.
Mr. Ahl said when the city extends storm sewer they find almost the opposite. The storm sewer
itself has a tendency to lower the ground water slightly. They are moving water that would sit and
infiltrate into the ground and that will dissipate and have more of an impact on the ground water.
When there is a storm sewer they don't have any surface water that sits around. The flow of the
ground water follows the lay of the land and flows downward.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-4-
Mr. Mike Ackerman of Mike Ackerman Construction at 7317 Brian Drive, Centerville, addressed
the commission. He said the townhouses would be one level with an unfinished basement and
have 14,050 on the main level, and with a finished basement there would be 2,000 square feet of
finished space with attached two-car garages. Typically the buyers for this type of development
are retired and/or single working individuals. This type of housing is in high demand. The storm
water runoff situation should improve the current situation by developing this site.
He has worked hard with the staff, engineers, and met with neighbors in regard to this proposed
development. He does not feel adding these nine proposed town homes will increase the traffic
in the area significantly. In speaking to Patrick Kinney, the owner of the two properties on Cope
Avenue, Mr. Kinney would prefer the layout as it is proposed facing the sides as opposed to
facing the back. If the units were turned the other way, there would be more roof area draining off
the back and toward the south.
Maplewood resident Mrs. Bobby Haugles at 1988 Castle Avenue addressed the commission.
She and her husband are concerned about the grading on the lot. When it rains, they can look
out the back and see the water going across the backyard towards the pond. She asked if this is
built would that water back up?
Mr. Ahl said the city anticipates that the drainage will improve. They are extending a pipe out to
that area. Not only will the water not back up but the city thinks the water will leave quicker than
currently.
Mrs. Haugles asked if the homes are built up to a higher level, are you saying you are adding
drainage pipes like gutters to collect the water to run underground and not on top of the land?
Mr. Ahl said the pipes are extended between the homes out toward your home from the street
they are proposing. That should more than adequately remove the water. In addition, there is a
swale in between the homes. If that should become plugged, the water will overflow and go down
to the pond.
Mrs. Haugles asked if that is going to cover the vacant lots between 1988 and the new addition
that is going to be rezoned? There are about five small lots between where they live and where
the proposed addition is going to be.
Mr. Ahl said the pipe is extended to the Haugles' eastern property line, so it doesn't go onto those
properties but it should help move the drainage through the area.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page 35 of the staff report. This
resolution changes the land use plan for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties
on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (light
manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because:
1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
This area would eliminate the planned commercial area that would have been between two
residential areas.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-5-
This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential
use. This includes:
a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and
commercial land uses.
b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street.
c. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no
traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page 36 of the staff report. This
resolution changes the zoning map for the Dearborn Meadow plat and two adjacent properties on
the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. This change is from M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those
required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for
double dwellings.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution starting on page 38 of the staff report.
This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the
Dearborn Meadow development on the south side of Castle Avenue. The city bases this
approval on the findings required by code. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve
major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor
changes to the plans. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation.
(2)
All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on
one side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide.
(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet.
o
The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval
or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated May 14, 2002.
The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow PUD shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet,
maximum - 35 feet.
Planning Commission -6-
Minutes of 05-20-02
b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none.
c. Rear-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line.
d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet
minimum between buildings.
5. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the townhouses
are occupied, the city may require additional parking and the developer will bear the
additional expense.
6. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing
unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
7. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the Dearborn Meadow preliminary plat (received by
the city on April 24, 2002). The developer shall complete the following before the city council
approves the final plat.
1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs.
d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility
easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility
easements along the side lot lines of each lot).
e. Cap and seal any wells on site.
f. Have Xcel Energy install a streetlight at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the
proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be
subject to the city engineer's approval.
g. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs
shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that 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.
h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-7-
2. *Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans.
These plans shall
include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet
all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated May 14, 2002 and shall meet the
following conditions:
a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code.
b. The grading plan shall:
(1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site.
The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb.
(3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save
large trees.
(4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) Include the tree plan that:
· Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan
shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
· Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer
with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff
from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall
have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post
development runoff.
c. The street and utility plans shall show the:
(1) Water service to each lot and unit.
(2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the
public utilities and builds the private driveways.
(3) Design of the sanitary sewer allowing for the unrestricted access to the sanitary
sewer in the development from the undeveloped adjacent to the site (primarily to the
east).
Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans.
Change the plat as follows:
a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-8-
b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These
easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet
wide along the side property lines.
c. Label the private street as Castle Place and label Castle Street as Castle Avenue on all
plans.
d. Label the common area as Outlot A.
e. Provide easements to allow for unrestricted access to the storm sewer, sanitary sewer
and water main in the development from the undeveloped parcel to the east.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site
drainage and utility easements.
6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage.
The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer
or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for
grading.
8. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community
development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat.
9.* Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community
development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the
maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas.
* The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or
approves the final plat.
Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes-Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson
Rossbach, Trippler
Commissioner Trippler added a friendly amendment for c. 5. If the city council decides there isn't
enough on-site parking after the townhouses are occupied, the city may require additional
parking and the developer will bear the additional expense.
CommiSsioner Pearson moved to approve the friendly amendment with the altered wording.
The motion passed,
This goes to the city council on June 10, 2002.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-9-
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Home Occupation License (Sewing Business) - 2492 Highwood Avenue
Mr. Roberts said Jerianne Cullen and Doua Lee are requesting a home occupation license to
operate a sewing shop business from their residential property at 2492 Highwood Avenue. Ms.
Cullen and Ms. Lee have been conducting their business (Home Based Industries, Inc.) from 990
Payne Avenue in St. Paul for the last three years. They now propose to relocate their business to
an existing barn located on their property.
To operate the sewing shop business from their residential property, Ms. Cullen and Ms. Lee are
requesting that the city approve a home occupation license.
The applicants' business includes sewing products such as clothing and bags that are ordered by
various companies. According to the city's home occupation ordinance that applicants' business
requires a home occupation license due to the fact that they process a product from the premises
for more than 30 days a year.
Ms. Cullen and Ms. Lee both live on the premises and will be the only employees in the home
occupation. The applicants state that they may receive customer visits about once a week
between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, UPS delivery will
come to the business about three times a week during their peak season (April through October).
The applicants' property is zoned Farm Residence and all surrounding properties are zoned
Single Dwelling Residential. The property is the location of an old farmstead that includes 3.95
acres of land and a barn estimated to be over 100 years old. Since the applicants purchased the
property three years ago, they have made improvements to the barn including residing, reroofing
and putting in a new second floor.
The applicants are working with a group called Barn Again out of Denver, Colorado to help find
financial resources to further renovate their barn as well as work with federal and local historical
societies to ensure that the barn renovation follows the original architecture. One financial
resource that may be available to the applicants is a federal tax break on improvement costs if the
barn is used as an income generator. If the home occupation license is approved, therefore, the
applicants will have a greater source of funding for the barn renovation.
Future barn improvements proposed by the applicants include exterior painting, adding 12
windows, electrical upgrades, and interior finish. The applicants are working with the city's
building official and fire marshal to ensure that the renovations meet all building and fire codes.
Commissioner Trippler asked if there is a limit to the amount of employees that can work in this
home sewing business. And how does the city ensure that the number of employees doesn't get
exceeded?
Mr. Roberts said there are limits set both by the ordinance and secondly, if the city feels it is
necessary, they can set additional conditions on number of employees. The staff is also
recommending that the home occupation license get reviewed in 1 year. Home occupations are
to get licensed by the city clerk once a year as well. The biggest control is from the neighbors. If
the neighbors start to see the business or traffic increasing, staff will investigate.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-10-
Mr. Roberts said the staff relies on the neighbors to keep watch of these types of situations.
Commissioner Ledvina said the ordinance allows the placement of one sign. How large can the
sign be and where will the sign be placed for this business?
Mr. Roberts said the code allows the sign to be up to 2 square feet in size and it can be anywhere
in the front yard, it just cannot be on the public right-of-way.
Commissioner Mueller said many of the comments were pertaining to the junk on the property. It
'doesn't have anything to do with the sewing business, but can the city say the junk has to go?
Mr. Roberts said in condition 7 the staff is recommending the applicants clean up the south side
of the barn because that is the most visible from the neighbors. The staff could have the health
officer take a look at the property if there is inoperable vehicles, junk or debris that would be
unsafe or unhealthy on any property. The staff just felt that would be a good neighborly thing to
take care of.
Commissioner Pearson asked staff if the farm zoning on this change in any way the number of
dogs and kennel license requirements?
Mr. Roberts said he doesn't believe so. It is standard throughout the city.
Commissioner Pearson asked if you have three or more dogs are you required to have a kennel
license?
Mr. Roberts said he believes that is correct, but he doesn't want to speak to that. As the city
clerk's office reviews requests for kennel licenses.
Chairperson Fischer asked if staff checked if the percentage of floor space that will be used for
the business will meet the limits that are set for the code?
Mr. Roberts said-the code limits it to 20% of the floor area. He will have Ms. Finwall check the
percentage of floor space before it goes to the city council meeting.
The applicants, Jerianne Cullen and Doua Lee, 2492 Highwood Avenue, addressed the
commission. Ms. Cullen said she thinks some of the neighbor comments may have led to some
misunderstandings. They only own two dogs. The vehicles on the property are licensed and
tabbed. They don't have a garage to put their cars in, and the vehicles are parked on a gravel
driveway. One of the neighbors does not like to look at it. They moved it because that was the
recommendation. They have made a lot of improvements, and if you read the positive comments
they state that as well. They have been on the property for three years and have put thousands
of dollars into the property in landscaping, the barn and the home.
Commissioner Pearson asked if the number of dogs fluctuated from time-to-time?
Ms. Cullen said they had one dog awhile back that passed away, and now they have two dogs.
Commissioner Pearson said the reason he asked is even the people that gave recommendations
that this be approved went on to say they were irritated with the barking dogs.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-11-
Ms. Cullen said there are other dogs in the neighborhood and they are on a pretty large piece of
property. To pinpoint whose dog is barking is very hard to do. When she went outside on
Saturday night, there were people on her property and the dogs barked. Nobody was on the
property for four years before they moved in. Some of the neighbors have felt like they have
freedom to go back and forth through her property because the property was vacant.
Commissioner Ledvina is wondering about the traffic that this business will generate. He asked
how many customer vehicles would the applicant anticipate during the week?
Ms. Cullen said if they happen to work with a company, one person will bring the business to
them but customers do not frequent her business. They would maybe have one customer come
a week. They have UPS delivering rolls of material but that is about it. They are looking at this
home business as a semi-retirement business. Doua Lee is retiring from the St. Paul Schools.
They currently have a 12,000-square-foot business in St. Paul. They are downsizing their
business, not upgrading.
Commissioner Trippler said when he went out to look at the property, he discussed with the
applicant the six evergreen trees that staff had recommended putting on the southeast corner of
the property. The applicant had expressed a concern regarding the expense associated with
putting six evergreens on the property to shield the vehicles in site.
Ms. Cullen said she wanted to put up a section of fence. She was told that the neighbor on the
south does not want a fence put there so, therefore, she should put up the evergreen trees. She
had agreed to the evergreen trees. The cost of six evergreen trees that are six-foot high do not
come inexpensively. To install a fence would probably be the same price, except the fence would
eliminate people walking, biking, and riding ATVs through her property. The fence would also
eliminate her dogs seeing any activity that causes her dogs to bark. She'll do whatever the staff
recommends, but she would prefer to install the fence.
Commissioner Mueller asked the applicant if she planned to fence the entire south side of the
property?
Ms. Cullen said not necessarily. She would fence at least the south end of the property where the
neighbor's house is.
Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the home occupation license for Jerianne Cullen and
Doua Lee of 2492 Highwood Avenue to conduct a sewing shop business from the barn on their
residential property. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance.
2. Deliveries and customer hours are limited from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
3. All customer pick-ups and other deliveries are restricted to the garage door located on the
west side of the barn.
4. The applicants must obtain all necessary building permits for the renovation of the barn.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-12-
5. At a minimum, the renovation of the barn should include painting the entire barn one solid
color.
The renovation of the barn cannot include any additional windows on the south side of the
barn, unless the applicants can prove that no noise associated with the home occupation will
be generated through the windows onto the adjacent residential properties.
7. The applicants must remove all exterior storage from the south side of the barn.
To help screen the barn from the residential property to the south (1016 Sterling Street South)
the applicants must install six 6-foot high evergreen trees between the barn and the east
property line.
9. Any garbage container associated with the business must be stored in the barn or screened
from view of the adjacent residential properties.
10. The city council will review this home occupation license in one year.
Commissioner Trippler seconded.
Ayes-Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson,
Rossbach, Trippler
Nay- Mueller
The motion passed.
This will go to the city council June 10, 2002.
Commissioner Ledvina left the meeting at this time.
b. Lexus Dealership Conditional Use Permit Revision - 3000 Maplewood Drive
Mr. Roberts said Mr. Brian Teeters, representing Ryan Companies and Lexus, is proposing a
revision to the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Lexus Dealership at 3000 Highway 61. This
revision includes three additions to the existing building and changes to the parking lot and
driveway layout to accommodate the building additions. The proposed building additions would
be rock-face concrete block, EIFS (exterior insulation finish system), a stucco-look material and
glass and would match the existing building.
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve:
A revision to the existing conditional use permit (CUP) for a maintenance garage. The
city code permits the sale of new and used vehicles from this location. The code,
however, requires a CUP for service and maintenance of cars.
2. The revised architectural, site and landscape plans.
On February 26, 1996, the city council approved the design plans, a conditional use permit and a
wetland setback variance for Lexus.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-13-
On April 8, 1996, the city council reconsidered the conditional use permit and the design approval
for the project. This was to allow the applicants to start construction after they sign a developer's
agreement and provide a letter of credit for the extension of a water main to the site.
On September 10, 2001, city staff approved plans for a minor construction project for Lexus. This
was to allow Lexus to expand their parking lot by 59 spaces. This expansion was onto the vacant
part of their site north of their building. Except for some minor site restoration, they have finished
this parking lot.
On January 14, 2002, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for this site and agreed
to review it again in one year.
The city council should approve the CUP revision, as the proposal would meet the necessary
findings. The owners have operated the existing dealership without a problem since the
contractor finished the construction.
The applicant had originally proposed to store all refuse and parts in the building. Since then,
they have started keeping their trash dumpsters and other debris on the back (east) side of the
building. As such, the applicant is now proposing to add an enclosure for the dumpsters on the
east side of the building. This enclosure would be a welcome addition to the site, as it would
allow Lexus to keep the dumpsters more out of site.
Lexus should correct some minor issues as part of this building project. These include removing
the old silt fence along the bottom of the slope near the wetland and the old fence sections that
Lexus has put in a pile near the south property line.
The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the parking requirements for an automobile
dealership, i.e., parking spaces for automobile inventory. The code, however, does list parking
requirements for a variety of other land uses. The code would require Lexus to have 160 parking
spaces if one uses the ratio of 1 space for each 200 square feet of office/showroom, 1 space for
every 1,000 square feet of parts storage, 3 spaces for each service bay and 1 space per
employee. The applicant's plans show 190 parking spaces before the construction and 176
parking spaces after the construction. Staff feels that there should be sufficient parking for the
needs of Lexus.
The Maplewood Police Department and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District both
had no comment about the proposed expansion. The Fire Marshal noted that Lexus will need to
maintain clear access around all sides of the building, especially on the east side.
Commissioner Rossbach asked staff what the minor items were that have to be finished
regarding the Lexus parking lot expansion?
Mr. Roberts said on the south side of the site there is still some silt fencing near the wetland. He
also discovered there were some fence sections piled up on one corner of the sitel Those will
need to be cleaned up.
Commissioner Trippler said on the south side of the property is a canopy. Is that going to be an
enclosed area, and is that what the addition is?
Planning Commission -14-
Minutes of 05-20-02
Mr. Roberts said that was his understanding.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Greg Madsen, the Senior Architect for R.J. Ryan Companies in Minneapolis, addressed the
commission. Mr. Madsen said they are excited to be coming before the commission again and
increasing the size of the Lexus dealership. R.J. Ryan Companies is in agreement with the staff's
· conditions except for item 3. c. for the in-ground irrigation system for the parking islands. The silt
fence stored on the site will be used when they do the construction for the trash enclosure.
Commissioner Mueller said item 3. c. is a community design review board item and the applicant
will have to discuss this with the staff and the CDRB at their next meeting.
Commissioner Pearson asked what the applicant plans on doing with the sections of privacy
fence that are on the property?
Mr. Madsen said they would use those fence sections for the doors for the trash enclosure.
Commissioner Trippler said when he was on the site he was looking at the trash piled up in the
back. He is concerned about the tires in the back because it could be a haven for mosquito
growth. He is also concerned about a dumpster that is there for spent oil filter cartridges. There
is a 200-to-250 gallon used-oil tank that has a containment structure that will contain the oil in
case of a failure. He did not see any containment structure that has the spent oil filters in them. If
that is going to continue to sit out where it could fail, there should be some containment structure
provided for that.
Mr. Madsen said that is another reason they are looking forward to this addition for Lexus. Not
only will there be additional part storage that will be enclosed inside this building, but there will be
additional amenities that will handle those issues rather than having them in the dumpsters
themselves.
Commissioner Trippler said he saw a couple of tires that were located in the wetland area.
Mr. Madsen said they would clean that up immediately.
Commissioner Rossbach said his understanding is that there is some silt fencing that is already in
the ground being used for the old project.
Mr. Roberts said that was his understanding.
Mr. Madsen said they want to maintain that until they are done with this construction. If there is an
issue with that, obviously they will take care of it.
Mr. Roberts said if the silt fence is being used for the construction, that is fine. Staff just wants to
make sure it gets cleaned up when the construction is done.
Commissioner Rossbach asked the applicant if they are planning on using old privacy fence
sections for the trash enclosure doors?
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-15-
Mr. Madsen said they plan on repairing those fence sections and paint them for the trash
enclosure.
Commissioner Rossbach said he believes the doors will be broken off in one year. He said that
trash enclosures are heavily abused by truck drivers and half the time the doors are missing or
broken off, particularly when they are made of wood.
Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 23-24 of the staff report. This
resolution approves a revision for an existing conditional use permit for a maintenance garage at
the Lexus dealership at 3000 Highway 61. The city bases this approval on the findings required
by the code and subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. This shall include the sump
pump catch basin design submitted on February 26, 1996. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
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.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the annual maintenance and
upkeep of the sump catch basins. The owner shall do such maintenance at least once a
year and provide city staff with written documentation about the maintenance tasks that
are performed.
5. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building,
except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure.
6. Vehicle transports shall not load or unload vehicles on the public right-of-way of Hiqhway
61.
7. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces.
Commissioner Mueller seconded.
Ayes-Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson,
Rossbach, Trippler
The motion passed.
This goes to the city council on June 10, 2002.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-16-
c. Easement Vacation (Tillges Medical Office Building) - Hazelwood Street
Mr. Roberts said Robert Tillges is proposing to develop a 3.57-acre lot located south of Beam
Avenue and east of Hazelwood Street. The proposal includes two phases of development. The
first phase is a 23,094-square-foot office building that will house Mr. Tillges' existing prosthetics
and orthotics practice currently located at 1983 Sloan Place, Maplewood, as well as other
medical-type tenants. The second phase, to be constructed in the future, is an 11,778-square-
foot office building that will house medical-type tenants as well.
To build this development, the applicant is requesting that the city vacate an unused sewer
easement.
The property is zoned Business Commercial-Modified (BC-M). Within this zoning district a
commercial office building, such as Mr. Tillges' proposed medical office building, is a permitted
use. The proposed development also meets the required setbacks and building requirements.
However, in order to construct the building five feet from the south property line as proposed, the
city must vacate a 1 O-foot-wide unused sewer easement that runs along the south property line of
the site. The sewer easement was never used or developed for its original purpose and is not
required for this or any other development.
The planning commission should make a recommendation on the vacation of the sewer
easement. The design elements will be reviewed by the community design review board at their
May 28, 2002, meeting. The development will then be presented to the city council for final
approval at their June 10, 2002, meeting.
Commissioner Rossbach said in the future he would like to have a brief understanding of what is
going to happen with the creek as this development progresses.
Mr. Ahl said the creek would be piped underneath the ground. The city will put in a storm
structure and pipe it through and fill over the top.
Commissioner Rossbach said for the record, he is going to object to doing that when that time
comes.
Chairperson Fischer asked if the sewer is not in the easement the city has, is there an easement
for the place where the sewer is?
Mr. Roberts said that is not necessary, it is city property.
Commissioner Rossbach asked if the situation with the creek is going to happen now or will that
happen in the future?
Mr. Ahl said the piping of the creek has already been approved by the city council.
Commissioner Rossbach asked why didn't that issue go through the planning commission?
Mr. Ahl said that is a public improvement petitioned by the developer, so it would not have been
part of any review authority that the planning commission has.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-17-
Commissioner Rossbach asked who the city council had testify that putting a creek into a pipe
was a good idea?
Mr. Ahl said the Watershed District and the city engineering staff approved the plan.
Commissioner Pearson said what is the setback from the building to the south to Markham Pond?
Mr. Roberts said he does not have that dimension.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Robert Tillges, the developer at 1200 Junction Avenue in Maplewood, addressed the commission.
He said he is just requesting the city approve the sewer easement so they can build this proposed
project.
Alan Kretman, with ProTerra Design Associates, Inc., addressed the commission. The setback to
Markham Pond is about 60 feet. It will increase further to the south. There is an outlot structure
controlling the pond which discharges north and goes up into the creek. This currently goes
through a pipe and is outletted into the creek. The city is going to extend the same pipe.
Commissioner Trippler said for the record, the applicant is his neighbor across the street from his
residence in Maplewood. Mr. Trippler contacted Mr. Roberts to see if there was any reason why
he should exclude himself from the vote. The only reason he would have to eliminate himself
from voting is if Mr. Trippler would be benefiting in anyway from this proposal, and he is not
benefiting in anyway.
Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the reSolution on page 10 of the staff report. This
resolution is for the vacation of a 10-foot wide unused sewer easement located along the south
property line of the Tillges Medical Office Building site. The reasons for the vacation are as
follows:
It is in the public interest.
The sewer easement is unused.
The sewer easement is not needed for the proposed Tillges Medical Office
Building development.
Commissioner Pearson seconded.
Ayes- Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach,
Trippler
The motion passed.
This goes to the city council on June 10, 2002.
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 05-20-02
-18-
VIII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS
None.
IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Mr. Ledvina was the representative for the planning commission at the city council
meeting May 13, 2002.
Mr. Ledvina had to leave the meeting early. Mr. Roberts said the only planning commission
item at the city council meeting was the Gladstone Park Addition. The council approved the
proposal ayes - all.
b. Mr. Rossbach will be the representative for the planning commission at the city
council meeting Tuesday, May 28, 2002.
A large agenda item will be the Beaver Lake Town Homes.
c. Ms. Fischer will be the representative for the planning commission at the city council
meeting June 10, 2002.
Items to be discussed will include the Dearborn Meadow Town Homes, Home Occupation
License Sewing Business, Lexus Dealership Conditional Use Permit, and the Easement
Vacation for the Tillges proposal.
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Annual Tour July 29, 2002
Mr. Roberts asked members to mark their calendars for the annual tour, which will be held on
Monday, July 29, 2002. Typically the meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. but more information will
follow.
b. Upcoming Items
Mr. Roberts said the following two items will be coming up in the next planning commission
meeting.
Hmong Alliance Church Expansion - McMenemy Street (expanding their parking
lot and adding a driveway out' to Desoto Street.
2. Sinclair Station Remodeling - Larpenteur Avenue
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review - St. Paul
Hmong Alliance Church
1770 McMenemy Street
June 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Proposal
The St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church, at 1770 McMenemy Street, is proposing to build an
addition onto the south side of their existing parking lot. Refer to the maps on pages 9-16.
They also are proposing to add a playground to the east side of the church building and a new
driveway from the expanded parking lot to DeSoto Street. Refer to the narrative on page 17
and the enclosed plans.
(The plans show a future Church addition as well. The applicant will apply for the approval of
this expansion later. Staff is not considering the future church addition as part of this review.)
Requests
The applicant is requesting:
A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. Specifically, they want city approval to change the
approved site plan to expand their parking lot, to add the new driveway to DeSoto Street
and to add a playground. The city code requires a CUP for churches.
2. Approval of project plans.
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1997, the city council approved a CUP revision and the design plans for this site.
These requests were for the church to expand their building by adding space for Sunday school
and a solarium to the front of the church.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit Revision - Parking Lot and Playground
The church is now meeting the conditions of their CUP and staff is not aware problems, other
than the traffic from the site, with the church. The proposed parking lot expansion meets the
requirements for the CUP and would fit the site. If approved, the parking lot would grow from 95
spaces to 254 spaces (an increase of 159 spaces). This expansion should meet the parking
needs of the church for the next several years. Proper landscaping and screening will ensure
that nearby homes are buffered from the parking lot. The proposed playground should be a
good fit and should not cause any problems. In addition, the city has approved several CUPs
for church expansions in the past few years.
Conditional Use Permit Revision - New Driveway
The proposed plans show a new driveway from the expanded parking lot to DeSoto Street. The
neighbors near the church have mixed reactions to this part of the proposal. Those living on or
near McMenemy Street thought the new driveway would be a good idea and those living on or
near DeSoto Street thought that the new driveway was a poor or dangerous idea. One neighbor
said the city should deny this project because there already is too much traffic from the church.
City staff has not received any traffic complaints about the existing church and parking lot
layout. We understand, however, that the new driveway to DeSoto Street is a change to the site
and the area that is a concern to many of the neighbors.. It is their opinion that DeSoto Street,
because of its condition and design, could not handle the additional traffic. The neighbors also
are concerned that the additional traffic from the church would make DeSoto Street unsafe for
pedestrians and for the homeowners on the street.
Because of the neighbors' concerns, the church agreed to have a traffic study done. They hired
Benshoof and Associates, Inc. to study the existing traffic patterns and to prepare an analysis
of what will happen if the church adds the driveway to DeSoto Street. (Please see the traffic
study starting on page 23.) This study shows that about 60 additional vehicles would use
DeSoto Street between the driveway and Larpenteur Avenue during the church peak hour on a
Sunday morning. The study also notes that "the impacts of the volume increase on this
segment of DeSoto Street will not be significant, because there are fewer than 10 homes along
DeSoto Street south of the proposed driveway location. Also, this volume condition would occur
only for a few hours one day per week."
The traffic study has three conclusions (see page 27). Specifically, the traffic consultants
recommend that the church construct the driveway for three reasons:
1. It will not create adverse impacts on DeSoto Street.
2. It will improve convenience for church users.
3. It will reduce the Sunday traffic volume on McMenemy Street.
The city should monitor the parking demand and traffic situation and keep track of any
complaints after the church completes the project. If traffic and parking problems occur, the city
council could require the church to close the driveway to DeSoto Street or make other changes
to the site.
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping plan (page 15) shows the applicant planting trees and shrubs
around the proposed ponding area and in the islands in the parking lot. The proposed plan,
however, does not show additional landscaping along the south side of the new parking lot.
Section 36-27(a)(1) of the code says "a landscaped and possible screened area of not less than
twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where a nonresidential use abuts a residentially
zoned or planned property." The code also says that the CDRB shall require shrubs or trees in
this area (the 20 feet) unless they deem it not appropriate. In addition, Section 36-27(b)(4) of
the code says, "screening shall be provided where a parking lot is constructed next to a
property that is used for single or double-dwelling use. The CDRB may waive this requirement if
they determine that screening would not be needed or would not protect surrounding property
values."
In this case, there is not a need for screening and landscaping along the entire south property
line of the church property. Much of this area abuts the backyards of the houses at 1750
McMenemy Street and 1771 DeSoto Street. There is a need, however, to screen the south side
of the parking lot and the new driveway to DeSoto Street when they are next to the adjacent
houses. The code requires that such screening be at least six feet tall and be 80 percent
opaque. The church may provide such screening with a fence, berming or trees. The applicant
should provide a revised landscape plan that shows significant screening and landscaping
along the south side of the parking lot and the new driveway to DeSoto Street in the areas next
to the adjacent houses. This plan must meet the code requirements and should be subject to
staff approval.
Grading
The applicant provided the city engineer a grading plan. (See the engineering department
comments on page 19 and 20.) Staff does not have any major concerns with the proposed
grading because of the substantial building setbacks and because there is a need for the
additional parking. The applicant must provide, however, additional information before starting
the grading. This includes an easement for the grading on the property to the south and a
detailed grading and drainage plan that meets the conditions of the city engineer and the
watershed district before the city will issue a building permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution on pages 37 and 38. This resolution revises the conditional use permit
for a church at 1770 McMenemy street. This permit is based on the standards for approval
required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions to the permit
conditions are underlined; deletions are crossed out):
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes. This approval includes the parking lot
expansion, the new driveway to DeSoto Street and the proposed play.qround.
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.
Regularly maintain the grounds and pick up all debris as well as maintain the decorative
wood screening fences along the north side of the site..,,.,~,, ,"'-" '*~' ,,, ,,,""'~, ,,,, ,,~'*~' .,,,,,..,~'"~ ,,,"* *~'",,,,,
l-'""" '"" '~ '""
4. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
5. The city council may require additional parking spaces if a parking shortage develops.
The plans for the future church addition and future gymnasium are not approved. These
~ shall be submitted to the City Council [or approval of a revised conditional use
permit.
The city council may require the church to make chanqes to the site, including closing
the new driveway to DeSoto Street, if the council deems it necessary or prudent, durin.q
future reviews of the conditional use permit.
The church shall provide adequate screeninq of the new parking lot and the new
driveway from adiacent homes by planting, bermin.q or both.
Approve the plans date-stamped April 30, 2002, for the parking lot expansion, new driveway
and playground additions on the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church, 1770 McMenemy Street.
The property owner shall meet the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this expansion.
2. Before starting the construction of the parking lot and the new driveway, provide for staff
approval the following plans:
A revised landscape plan that shows significant screening and landscaping along the
south side of the parking lot and the new driveway to DeSoto Street in the areas
next to the adjacent houses. Such screening shall be at least six feet tall and be 80
percent opaque and may be accomplished with a fence, berming or trees.
Provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval. The erosion control plan shall meet ordinance requirements and all the
plans shall meet the requirements of the city engineer. If the grading plan shows the
elimination of any mature trees (eight inches in caliper or more), the applicant shall
replace these trees in accordance with the woodland protection ordinance.
3. Resod the lawn that is disturbed by construction activities.
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 city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed owners of the 31 properties within 350 feet of the church property. Of the 15 replies,
three were in favor, nine were opposed and three had comments.
In Favor
As a resident along McMenemy Street, I have no problem with the proposed expansion and
particularly the driveway to DeSoto Street to relieve traffic levels along McMenemy Street
when the church lets out. (Waegener- 1739 McMenemy Street)
A lot expansion is an obvious necessity, also DeSoto Street should be utilized to its utmost,
as the church membership doubles, I do not wish to see the post-service procession double
by the end of my driveway. The playground is a fine idea. (Dahlquist - 1774 McMenemy
Street)
3. I strongly support the approval of the Hmong Church expansion request due to its current
membership. (Vang - 415 Kingston Avenue)
Opposed
I am against having any driveway coming out onto DeSoto. The street is not designed for a
high flow of traffic on its south side, between Ripley and Larpenteur. It is not lit very well at
night, it has poor visibility to oncoming traffic and to the driveways. To the north, Ripley to
Roselawn, we now have a senior building that exists onto DeSoto, Roselawn traffic does not
stop. I do not think there is a good or safe way to exit or entrance the traffic onto DeSoto
Street. (Duellman - 1835 DeSoto Street)
I feel DeSoto is inadequate for that amount of traffic and there is too much traffic on there
now coming from Saint Paul, plus walkers and children playing. I think McMenemy is the
primary street to handle (the traffic) rather than DeSoto Street. (Peterson - 1747 DeSoto
St.)
I do not think the church putting this drive onto DeSoto is a good idea because: if you look
at the road texture difference between DeSoto and McMenemy, McMenemy is better built
for traffic. Also, since the church has the deed to the property (on McMenemy Street) along
side their driveway, they can expand the driveway out to McMenemy to give them better
access. (Petterson - 1764 DeSoto Street)
4. I do not agree to let the church open a driveway to DeSoto Street. Currently, this street is
small and in bad condition. (Vo- 416 Ripley Avenue)
The church parking lot (new) would de-value our property and we would like the church to
do more research about the new parking lot. Also, we would like the church to fence the
church property so children wouldn't be running around during weekends. (Kong - 1748
McMenemy Street)
I do not want to have the driveway come out on DeSoto Street because more people will
then, without permission, use the private drive past my house to get to Kingston Street. We
do not need any more traffic!! (Kline - 1771 Burr Street)
Also, see the letter from Julie Knabe on page 29, the letter from the Crosbys on page 30, the
letter from the Duellmans on page 31 and the letter from Diana Longrie-Kline starting on page
32.
Miscellaneous Comments
My only concern is the entrance/exit to DeSoto Street. We do not want to see it used as a
thru street. Need to have speed bumps and gates with limited times that they are open. Do
not want this exit to DeSoto (if it happens) to be a reason that DeSoto Street is widened in
the future. (Pertzsch - 426 Ripley Street)
Our property borders the church property on the south and next to where the new holding
pond will be. Our concern is that the new road be constructed in a manner so that the water
runoff would not end up on our property. Also, when the pond is built that the bank of our
property be protected. When we went to the meeting at the church, it was mentioned that
some of the landscaping might be done in the future. On the proposed landscape plan, we
see no plan for landscaping between the new road and our property.
We hope the lighting will be done in a manner that directs the light at the parking lot and not
at our house, Also at the church meeting it was said that the access of the new road onto
DeSoto would be gated, closed and used only during the time of service. We would be in
favor of the access if that idea were carried out. (Nelson - 1771 DeSoto Street)
3. See the letter from Kristi Wheeler on page 28.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Lot size: 7.42 acres
Existing land use: The St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Single dwellings
South: Single dwellings and the undeveloped backyards of deep lots
East: DeSoto Street and single dwellings
West: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) highway maintenance facility
PAST ACTIONS
November 24, 1986:
December 28, 1987:
May 24, 1988:
December 22, 1988:
December 11, 1989:
April 26, 1994:
June 24, 1996:
The city council granted the initial CUP.
The council reviewed the CUP and required a review again in one year.
The CDRB approved the design plans.
The council reviewed the CUP and required a review again in one year.
The council reviewed the CUP and required a review again in five years.
The CDRB approved a 32-square-foot ground sign for the church.
The city approved a lot split for the lot to the south so the church could
buy the abutting land and enlarge their property.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: C (church)
Zoning: F (farm residence district)
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for churches.
CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL
Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards for
approval in the resolution on pages 37 and 38.
Application Date
We received the complete application materials for this request on May 7, 2002. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a
proposal. As such, the city council would normally have to act on the proposal by July 6, 2002.
However, on May 22, 2002, the applicant agreed to have a consultant do a traffic study with the
understanding that the city would process the application as quickly as possible. Because of the
delay caused by the traffic study, the city council needs to act on this request by July 8, 2002.
'7
sec17\hmong CUP Revision - 2002.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Area Map
4. Existing Site Plan
5. Proposed Site Plan
6. Proposed Grading Plan
7. Proposed Landscape Plan
8. Proposed Site Plan (and proposed parking and paving plan)
9. Written Narrative date-stamped April 30, 2002
10. Engineering Plan Review dated May 12, 2002, revised June 12, 2002
11. May 9, 2002 letter from RamseyANashington Metro Watershed District
12. Traffic study dated June 10, 2002
13. Letter from Kristi Wheeler
14. Letter from Julie Knabe
15. May 7, 2002 letter from Crosbys
16. Letter from Duellmans
17. May 12, 2002 letter from Diana Longrie-Kline
18. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution
19. Plans date-stamped April 30, 2002 (separate attachment)
Attachment 1
2400N
,3
z
(_)
RD. B2
COUNTY
LI'FI'LE CANADA
RD. B
SKILLMAN AVl.
MT. VERNON
BELLWO00
I BELMONT LN.
SKILLMAN
ROSELAWN
LWOOD
BELMONT
KINGSTON
i!®
LOCATION
9
7-
ST. PAUL
MAP
KiNGSTON.~ AV~.
Attachment 2
77I
77
1779
1767
1741
1737
1733
(e}
c PO_ND
THE GARDENS
1780
1774
RIPLEY AVE RIPLEY
AVE
~'~° ~' SAINT PAUL HMONG (._q ~1.77~0
.-
ALLIANCE CHURCH
~8Ol
1750 L) , ~,eo,_. 1771
~o~ ~.~ 1765
4-~1~,' ~ I ~8~' - -
1740 *.~. ~-~
ON-
Attachment 4
2..e. artkal _t~1~3¢~J Wo,'~K,~n ~ ,exmt~ c~k~e Ixmed ~
N
E
Attachment 5
N
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
13
Attachment 6
N
Attachment 7
N
Attachment 8
N
(AND PROPOSED PARKING AND PAVING PLAN) , J
16
Attachment 9
SI:. Paul H nonB =Alliance Church
770 McMenemy Street Maptewood Minnesota 55117-2451
April30,2002
Ken Roberts
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
APR 3 0 2002
RECEIVED
CUP Application
Proposed Parking Lot Expansion
St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church
1770 McMenemy St.
Maplewood, MN 55127
Dear Mr. Roberts,
In accordance with our CUP application we are submitting a written description of the
project and our reasons that the city should approve the application.
The church is seeking approval from the city to expand out current parking lot, add a
drive to Desoto Street, and construct a playground behind the current church. The church
currently owns the land to the south of the existing parking lot and land to the east to
Desoto Street. We would like to utilize this land to expand our parking and provide an
additional drive.
The current parking lot provides about 100 parking stalls. Our current attendance at
morning services usually is about 450 people per service not including children and youth
in the Sunday School classes. In the current situation, cars park on McMenemy, along
the drive entrance aisle, and in the grass area adjacent to the south side of the existing
parking lot. The number of cars can easily reach several hundred.
In addition, to help control traffic flows at certain times we would like to construct a
drive that connects to Desoto Street on the East. We know that the neighbors may not
like this idea, however, we are willing to work with them to come to an agreement that
would limit the times the drive would be open. For example, maybe the drive would be
used as an exit only and/or the drive could be gated to restrict access. Also this second
drive would allow additional access for emergency vehicles.
We also want to build a small playground area on the east side of the church building.
The church has a large number of children in its membership. Currently children have no
area to play other than in areas where cars are parking. We look at this as providing a safe
Phone 651-774-7955 Fax 651-774-186I
17
place for the children to play during certain times. We anticipate providing adult
supervision for the playground area.
We feel the city should approve our proposed project since it helps us meet our parking
needs, provides better emergency vehicle access and is in the best interest of the
neighborhood by reducing the on street parking and congestion.
We feel the parking addition and new drive will allow us to use our current site for many
years even as our membership continues to grow. We look forward working with city in
the approval process. If you have any questions or need additional information please
contact me at
Best regards
Kao Lee
Parking Lot Plan Committee Chair
Tel: 612-730-5335 (Cell)
18
Attachment 10
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT:
CHECKED BY:
St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church
Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett
Maplewood Engineering Department 5/12/02, revised 6/12/02
The St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church is proposing to expand their parking lot and
connect a new drive to Desoto Street. A new pond is proposed and the existing pond
will be expanded to compensate for additional runoff due to an increase in
impervious area. As these ponds have no outlets they have been sized to retain runoff
from a large storm event and infiltration can be improved. Unlike the pond at the
nearby Gardens Development, we are not recommending a fence due to the fact that
slops are not as steep and the depth of the water is not expected to be very great.
The following changes are recommended:
SHEET C3 - Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control
1)
Construct and prepare the ponding areas as infiltration areas. Add a requirement
to the pond grading to: Deeply scarify the soils in the bottom of the ponding area
following grading and again prior to planting the native vegetation and
landscaping. For more information on bioretention basins please see the
Metrocouncil BMP Manual at their web site:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/enviroment/Watershed/bmpmanual.htm
2) Provide drainage calculations for the northwest and eastern ponds.
3) Grading Easement is required for any grading beyond the property line.
4) Where is the silt fence and other erosion control proposed. These items are not
clearly marked on the plan.
5)
To reduce the likelihood of an erosion problem, we strongly recommend that the
drainage coming off the parking lot be picked up by an adequate number of catch
basins and then be allowed to flow into the bottom of the pond through a pipe.
Provide a emergency overflow from the low parking lot down into the pond.
Line the overflow swale with permanent erosion control blanket, (Enkamat,
Miramat, NAG C350 or equal).
If curb cuts and spill ways are to be utilized instead of catch basins and pipes,
provide an exact detail of the spill way on the revised plans. The spillway must
be constructed to adequately protected the pond slope and to ensure that no
erosion takes place.
19
SHEET C4 - Site Plan
1)
Provide curb along the entire south and west sides of the parking lot to direct
storm water west into the pond. Provide curb openings or catch basins to manage
runoff.
SHEET L1 - Landscape Plan
1) Provide a native turf establishment plan for the proposed ponding areas and
additional landscaping in and around the eastern pond.
MISC. - Traffic Study - Staff Comments
1)
Staffhas reviewed the traffic study by Benshoof & Associates and concurs with
its findings. Basically Desoto Street has relatively low traffic volumes and the
traffic volumes that would be added on Sunday mornings are reasonable for this
type of street. In addition the traffic volumes on Sunday morning would be
similar to those experienced on a typical weekday a.m. peak hour. With the
eventual reconstruction of Desoto, (currently listed for 2005 in the CIP), most all
of the safety concerns regarding the roadway can be addressed with a new street
design.
2)
Often public safety concerns arise from a level of comfort that a driver
experiences on a roadway. In many cases, a lower level of comfort can result in
safer traffic conditions because drivers are traveling at lower speeds and are
paying more attention to their surroundings. When this is done intentionally, it is
referred to as "Traffic Calming".
2O
Ramsey-Washington Metro
District
Attachment ll
1902 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
(651)704-2089
fax: (651)704-2092
email: office@rwmwd.org
519102
Ken Roberts
Maplewood Community Development
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
HAY ! 0 2002
RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Roberts,
This letter is in response to your request for a review on the St. Paul Hmong
Alliance Church.
This project has been approved by the Watershed Board and is on hold until the special
provisions have been met. I am enclosing a copy of those provisions.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Karl Hammers
District Technician
21
02-23
Special Provisions
Low floor elevations shall be provided for all buildings surrounding the property.
Calculations shall be submitted for the storm water detention pond. The calculations shall
show that the Iow floor elevation of all surrounding buildings is a minimum of 5 feet above the
lO0-year flood elevation of the pond. The normal water elevation of the detention pond shall
be considered as the bottom of the pond (lowest elevation) or the elevation at which mottled
soil is encountered, whichever is higher.
All storm sewers shall outlet at the bottom of the storm water detention pond.
An overflow swale shall be installed from the 'parking lot to the bottom of the storm water
detention pond. The swale shall be 1 foot deep, 10 feet wide and completely lined with
permanent synthetic erosion control fabric.
NAY I 0 2002
RECEIVED
Attachment 12
~UN-10-2002 13:44 BENSHOOF & ASSOC. 952 238 1671 P.02/06
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO I HOPKINS, MN 55.343 / (952) 23a.16671 FAX (952) 238-1871
June 10, 2002
Kefer to File: 02-43
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Kao Lee, St. Paul I-knong Alliance Chumh
Ben~hS~
James A. md Aravind Gottemukkula
JUN ! 0 2002
RECEIVED
Review of Traffic Feasibility Pertaining to Proposed Church Driveway on Desoto
Street
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
This memorandum is to present thc results of our review ofthe traffic feasibility pertaining to the
proposed Church driveway on Desoto Street. The Church in discussion, called the St, Paul Hmong
Alliance Church, is located between McMcnemy S~cct and Desoto Street, south of Rosclawn
Avenue, in thc City of Maplcwood. The figure on the following page shows the project location.
As shown in this figure, one driveway on McMenemy Street presently provides sclc access to thc
Church.
Consistent with thc Church's concerns, our observations of Church traffic activity on Sunday, June
2, 2002 indicate that thc existing driveway is experiencing congestion for few hours on Sunday
mornings. Also, thc existing demand for parking spaces exceeds the existing supply. To alleviate
congestion at the existing driveway and to effectively meet their parking needs, the Church
proposes to construct a new driveway on Desoto Street and increase the number of parking spaces
on the Church property.
EXISTING CONDITIONS ON DESOTO STREET AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
Desoto Strcct is a 22 fcct wide two-lane residential street. 'The speed limit on Desoto Strcct is 30
miles per hour. Desoto Street south of Riplcy Avenue has multiple curves and dense vegetation on
both sides. Driveways on Desoto Street south of Riplcy Avenue have limited sight dislancc due to
the dense vegetation along the street.
To understand existing traffic patterns on Desoto Sheet and effectively estimate future changes, we
collected t~vo-way traffic volume data on Desoto Street just south of Roselawn Avenue on Sunday,
June 2, 2002. We observed that 64 vehicles used Desoto Street south of Roselawn Avenue
between 10:00 and I 1:00 a.m. (peak hour for Church traffic). From our counts, a total of 947
vehicles used Desoto Street south of Roselawn Avenue on the day of our traffic count.
23
$UN-10-2002 13:45 BENSHOOF ~ ASSOC. 952 238 1671 P.O3x06
$1(ILLUAN AVE.
vERNON AVE.
DOWNS AVE.
BELLWOOD AVE.
SUIdMER AVE.
LARPE. NTEUR
WHEELO£K
i
LOW ~
--'RT
APPROXIMATE S~ALE
o ~ooo' !1
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
ELD RIDGE
BELMONT LA.
SK ILLUAN
AVE..
ET AvE.
'~' PROPOSED
.-. DRIVEWAY
,.:
~ KINGSTON avE.
HOYT
CALIFORNIA
ID~ HO
WONT
DA
BRASXA
ARLINGTON
AVE.
ST. PAUL HMONG
ALLIANCE CHURCH
;1~ ~IOOF & ASSOCIATES, tlC,
TMAMIII~3RTATION ENelIIEEP~ AND FIANNEIB
REVIEW OF TRAFFIC
FEASIBILI'W PEFITAINING
TO THE PROPOSED CHURGH
DRIVEWAY ON DESOTO ST.
PROJECT LOCATION
24
$L~-10-2002 13:d5 BENShOOF & ASSOC. 952 238 1671
Mr. Kao L~e -3- June 10, 2002
To address potential impacts of Church traffic on Desoto SWeet south of the proposed drivtnvay
location (north of Larpenteur Avenue), we have estimated existing volumes on Desoto Street at this
location baaed on traffic volume information provided by the City and based on our counts on
Sunday, June 02, 2002. We estimate that 37 vehicles presently are using Desoto Street north of
Larpenteur Avenue between the hour~ of 10:00 and 11:00 a.m, on Sunday mornings. A daily total
of about 600 vehicles are presently using Desoto Street north of Larpenteur Av~znu¢ on a Sunday.
Aa part of their capital improvement program, the City of Maplcwood has plans to widen Desoto
Street from its current 22 feet to 28-32 feet. This improvement would be accomplished in the next
three to five years. The City anticipates no changes in traffic volumes aa a result of this
improvement.
TRAFFIC CHANGES ON DESOTO STREET UPON COMPLETION OF THE
PROPOSED CHURCH DRIVEWAY
To effectively forecast changes in traffic patterns upon completion of the proposed Church
driveway, we collected traffic volttmcs on the existing Church driveway on Sunday, June 02, 2002.
A total of 259 vehicles were recorded during the peak hour for thc Church (10:00 - i 1:00 a.m.). A
daily total of 1,451 vehicles were recorded on the day of the count. We also obs~'vcd traffic
patterns at the Church driveway and at thc intersection of McMenemy SWeet and Larpenteur
Avenue. Based on our observations, we determined that thc existing Church traffic on a SUnday is
distributed in the following manner.
· 50 percent to and from the west on Larpentcur Avenue
· 18 percent to and from the east on Larpentcur Avenue
· 18 percent to and from the south on McMcncmy Strect
· 2 percent to and from the north on McMcncmy SWeet
· 8 percent to and from thc west on Roselawn Avenue
· 2 percent to and from the east on Roselawn Avenue
· 2 percent to and from the north on Desoto Street
Next, anticipating that most motoris~ use the most convenient route to get to their destination, we
estimated directional Percentages for Church traffic after completion of the proposed driveway on
Desoto Street. We estimate that the entire 18 percent of vehicles presently to and from the east on
Larpenteur Avenue would usc the new driveway on Desoto Street. Five percent (of the 18 percent)
of the vehicles presently to and from the south on McMenemy Street would use ~he new Church
driveway. Also, the two percent of the vehicles to and from the east on Roselawn Avenue, and two
percent to and from the north on Desoto Street would use the new driveway. We estimate that all
of the remaining vehicles would use the existing driveway on McMenemy Street upon completion
of the proposed driveway on Desoto Street.
Based on the directional percentages presented above for Church traffic afl~ completion of the
proposed driveway, we determined volumes on Desoto S~'eet south of Roselawn Avenue and north
of Larpenteur Avenue, both during the peak hour for the Church and for the whole day on a
Sunday. The resultant volumes are shown in the following table.
~UN- 10-~00~ 1~' 45
Mr. Kao Lee
BENSHOOF & ASSOC.
-4-
952 238 1671 P.05/06
June 10, 2002
Two-Way Volumes on Desoto Street on a Typical Sunday
South of RoseLawn Avenue North of I.arpenteur Avenue
Time Period Existing With Proposed Existing With Proposed
Driveway Driveway
Church Peak Hour (10:00-11:00a.m.) 64 74 37 97
_Daily 947 1,005 600 934
COMMENTS REGARDING TRAFFIC FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
ON DESOTO STREET
Based on thc traffic volume data we collected, our observations at thc site, and review of
information presented earlier in this memorandum, wc have established several comments
regarding the traffic feasibility of the proposed Church driveway on Desoto Street. All our
comments fall under one of the following three categories:
· Traffic Effects on Desoto Street to the NOrth ofthe Proposed Driveway
Thc peak hour volume of 74 vehicles on Desoto Street (just south of Roselawn
Avenue) after completion of the proposed driveway is less than thc existing
weekday a.m. peak hour volume of 89 vehicles (our counts on Tuesday June 4,
2002). Thus, the u'affic effects on this peak Sunday morning hour will be less than
experience during thc typical weekday a.m. peak hour.
The daily volume of 1,005 vehicles on a Sunday is within the typical daily volume
range of 400 - 1,500 vehicles for local streets ("Residential Streets, Third Edition,
2001", co-published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers).
· Traffic Effects on Desoto Street to the South of the Proposed Driveway
The daily volume of 934 vehicles on a Sunday is within the typical daily volume
range of 400 - 1,500 vehicles for local stxeets ("Residential Streets, Third Edition,
2001", co-published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers).
The impacts of the volume increase on this segment of Desoto Street will not be
significant, because there are fewer than 10 homes along Desoto Stre~ sou& of the
proposed driveway location. Also, this volume condition would occur only for few
hours on one day per week.
· Traffic Effects at the Proposed Dnveway Intersection on Desoto Street
The propo~d driveway will reduce delay for Church u~ers by splitting the total
Church traffic between the two driveways. In addition, due to the shift of a portion
of the vehicles to the new driveway, the volume on McMenemy Street will be
reduced.
- To address the subject of safety at the driveway, we measured sight distance to the
north and the south of the propoaed driveway location and coordinated our
SUN- 10-~00~ 1~: ~6
Mc Kao Lee
BENSHOOF & ASSOC. 952 2~8 1671 P.06/06
-5- June i0, 2002
measurements with the standards published by thc Minnesota Department of
Transportation. Our conclusion is that adequate sight distauce will be provided at
the proposed driveway on Desoto Street. Iu addition, thc existing sigh! distance
likely will be increased in conjunction with the planned reconstruction of Desoto
Strcct.
CONCLUSION
Based on thc information presented in this memorandum, we recommend that thc proposed
driveway be constructed for the following three reasons:
a) The proposed driveway will not create adverse impacts on Desoto Street.
b) Thc proposed driveway improves convenience for Church users.
c) The proposed drivcway will reduce thc Sunday uaffic volume on McMenemy Street.
TOTAL P.06
Attachment 13
Kenneth Roberts
Office of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN. 55109
Dear Kenneth Roberts:
I appreciated our telephone conversation last week. As I mentioned, a number
of families on DeSoto Street have been very concerned about the proposal to
add 159 parking spaces as well as another driveway to/from the church with
an outlet on DeSoto Street. -
As you know, DeSoto Street is an old, narrow winding county road. When our
family moved there almost 15 years ago, it was a very quiet neighborhood
bordered by woods and fields. It was this peaceful character which attracted
many of the present families who have young children.
Within the last ten years, a new housing development has sprung up west of
DeSoto on Ripley Street, the Church was built and then later expanded, and,
most recently, a large new senior housing complex has been added at the
north end of the street at DeSoto and Roselawn. All this development has
changed and greatly increased the traffic flow in the neighborhood and
made it far more dangerous for residents to walk along the street --
particularly with children. My own children are grown, but I am now caring
for grandchildren.
The fact that the church has planned to keep the east gates locked during most
of the week has been reassuring, but, for a number of residents across from
the driveway, the prospect of trying to back out of our homes into even more
oncoming traffic on Sunday mornings would be extremely dangerous and
remains a very serious concern.
Widening the street in the future would be costly and still not solve this
serious safety issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
Sincerely,
Krist[ Wheeler
1780 DeSoto Street
Maplewood, MN. 55117
28
' -~%ttachment 14
HAY ! 3 2002
RECEIVED
29
Attachment 15
To: Kenneth Roberts - Associate Planner
From: Dale Crosby and Debra Jensen
1801 Desoto St.N.
Maplewod, MN. 55117-2407
RE: Proposed Hmong Alliance Church Expansion
May 7,'2002
Dear Mr. Roberts,
In regards to the proposal for the expansion of parking, and the addition of a playground for the
Hmong Alliance Church. We find.these to be appropriate additions for the betterment of the
congregation, with little negative impact on the neighborhood. I would only request that the lighting
be directed away from the rear of the churches property boardering my lot. This allows our childrens
bedrooms located on the West side of my home to be unchanged by the additional lighting.
We do strongly object to the addition of the exit directed to Desoto Street. Desoto is a quiet, older
street, and simply not modern enough to accomodate the addition of even a portion of the proposed
2000 membership traffic. The proposed access to Desoto creates increased noise, and a danger to
the children of the area who can now walk and ride their bikes without the threat of this proposed
increased traffic. We enjoy the peace, and quiet atmosphere of Desoto Street.
I have lived here for 40 years, safety and quiet are the foremost reasons my family and I choose to
live here. We all enjoy the absense of rushing traffic. For our family's safety and for our peace of
mind, my family and I aJJl object to the addition of this driveway access to Desoto Street. In a
meeting with my neighbors, we all agree against the additional traffic caused by the driveway.
The danger to our children greatly outweighs the potental benefit for access to the church.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
-"- Dale
Debr~Je~nsen Don Crosby
Eric Crosby
Alex Crosby ("'5 ,7
Amber Crosby
Sean Cro~
30
MAY-26-2002 OS:O@P FROM:AUDREY
Attachment 16
To Ken ROberts and Associate planners for the city of Maplewood:
From: Tom and Audrey Duellman - 1843 Desoto - Maplewood
2 S 2002
We are concerned about the proposal to make an exit onto Desotl~EC E IiV£~
Street from the church on McMenemy Street.
Desoto Street is a small - narrow street that is saturated with traffic
now. Additional traffic is not wanted. In the last few years we
have added traffic from the north (from the apartments north of
Roselawn). From the east the addition of Ripley and Burr and
Bellwood houses were added, and Ripley sty. to the west of
Desoto, and recently the new apartment on the comer of Desoto
and Roselawn. This has created a lot of traffic. We are at our
maximum capacity. Another thing, is there is a entrance problem
to Larpentuer because of limited vision from the bridge on
Larpentuer.
Mcmenemy St. is a wide street that does not have a lot of traffic at
this point and this has a much better traffic flow than Desoto st.
We feel that the church could create a better traffic flow within
their property to solve their problem. Maybe a one-way drive - a
bigger entrance onto Mcmenemy st. or possibly two driveways.
One in and one out to go with a circular one-way road. They have
a lot of property to work with and should be able to do something
that will not affect the neighbors.
I know Desoto St. is going to be redone in a few years but it still
will be a small narrow road and the improvements will be nice but
will not warrant additional traffic.
Thanks for any consideration and we would like to be informed of
any and all meetings that pertain to this project.
31
Attachment 17
Mr. Ken Roberts
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
CUP Application
Proposed Parking Lot Expansion
St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church
1770 McMenemy St.
Maplewood, MN 55117
May 12, 2002
Dear Mr. Roberts:
As requested in your letter dated May 2, 2002, I am providing my comments and input regarding
the CUP application of the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church to construct a playground, expand
their existing parking lot, and develop a driveway to feed onto DeSoto Street.
Construction of the playground.
I have no comments, constructive suggestions, or objection to the construction of the play
ground. As a home owner at 1778 DeSoto for over 18 years, I am happy the church's
membership is growing and that the children attend church with their caregivers. Children need
a safe place to congregate and play.
Expansion of current parking lot.
I attended the neighborhood meeting held with regard to the church's proposal and I
appreciate their need to expand their parking lot. It is my understanding that often the cars are
double parked, parked on the grass, parked along the driveway leading to the church, and parked
along McMenemy. While safety, accessibility for emergency vehicles, and increased church
membership are cited as the supporting reasons for increasing the existing parking lot, certain
questions remained unanswered. How would adding an additional service alleviate the parking
problem? What is Maplewood's parking requirement regarding the number of parking spaces
per square footage of building or per building capacity? If the church is planning on future
expansion as depicted in the plans submitted, what level of parking will be required? How much
space is required around the perimeter of a parking field to allow for the accessibility of
emergency vehicles to the church? I have no particular objection to the church expanding their
parking lot, but I would like to see the above questions addressed. Particularly, I think it is
important to know what the objective criteria is for determining what amount of parking is
needed today and what level of parking will be required in the future to meet obvious plans to
expand the church. In addition to increasing the number of parking spaces, I feel the church may
need to provide solutions within their control such as adding more services.
32
Page 2
CUP Application
Development of a driveway to feed onto DeSoto Street.
I am absolutely opposed to this proposal.
Attached to my letter is a copy of the deed to 1768 McMenemy Street, showing the property is
owned by the church and my hand drawn additions to the site plan provided in your letter
illustrating several of my comments and suggestions that follow. I hope that you have the
opportunity to go to the proposed access road location and observe the topography of the land.
DeSoto is a very narrow secondary street that can not accommodate the increased traffic to and
from the church if the church is permitted to construct a driveway to feed onto DeSoto Street.
Additionally, such a development is a safety hazard for those people living on that portion of
DeSoto Street affected by the proposal. The homes are close to the road, there are many walkers,
joggers and children on bikes.
DeSoto Street is half the street McMenemy is. DeSoto has no shoulders, is very narrow, has a
couple of tight curves and has a road base designed for a low amount of traffic. Additionally, the
proposed location for the access drive to feed onto DeSoto is directly across from a blind private
driveway that serves three homes. This private driveway is my private driveway and is right
next to my house. The two homes behind me that are also served by this driveway have an
address of Burr Street; a street which does not actually exist at this location. One of the homes is
actually land locked and has access to DeSoto by virtue of an easement over this blind private
driveway. While the private drive does connect DeSoto Street to Kingston, it is down a very
steep hill, with two 90 degree curves. Occasionally unauthorized joy riders and people in four
wheel drives like to use the driveway to as a "short cut" or an exciting driving experience. A
little further to the south of my blind driveway are five other blind driveways. Imagine the safety
hazard with cars going to church and leaving church from DeSoto Street and the large number of
blind driveways. The topography around this section of DeSoto Street is not flat.
Upon close inspection of the site plan, it is easy to see that the church and the proposed church
expansion are closer to DeSoto Street than to McMenemy. If the church is having trouble with
church members parking on McMenemy and walking to the church, it is a very real possibility
we will have problems with them parking on DeSoto Street if an access road to DeSoto is
constructed. If anyone has ever driven on Roselawn when the church members of St. Jerome's
are parked up and down Roselawn, it is easy to envision the havoc and danger such a situation
will create on DeSoto. Furthermore, DeSoto Street will become impassable and unusable each
and every Sunday for all of the people who live on DeSoto.
In a related side bar, the church suggests that the driveway will only be used on Sundays and will
be gated. However, even if they could guarantee this is the only time the access drive would be
used by cars and there would be a gate, people attending church functions during the week will
park on DeSoto, which has no shoulders, and walk around the gate and up the driveway.
33
Page 3
CUP Application
I have attached a copy of the deed to 1768 McMenemy showing that the church owns this
property in addition to the property they have included as part of their proposal. I think this is
important because I feel it provides the key to solving the issue of increased access to and from
the church as well as providing for the safety needs of the people on DeSoto Street. I suggest
that the driveway accessing McMenemy be widened to include a mm lane. This solution would
require less road construction than developing an entirely new access drive to DeSoto. While the
drainage areas along the current driveway and the new drainage area required for the additional
parking area may need to be modified, this option should be seriously considered. If
Maplewood's staff does not have enough information to fully evaluate this option, I ask that they
request the church have their engineers draw plans showing the same. McMenemy is a primary
road. McMenemy is designed for heavy traffic. The fire station and the county garage are on
McMenemy. If emergency vehicles need to get to the church, it makes sense that they would
come from off of McMenemy Street and not drive a circumvented route to access the church
from DeSoto Street. McMenemy is a straight road and the visibility along the street in either
direction from the current driveway is much greater than is possible along DeSoto Street.
Please call me at my work number, 612-761-1551 if you would like to discuss my comments in
greater detail.
Sincerely,
Diana Longrie-Kline
34
i'
Individual (~) to Corporation
No delinquent tat:es and transfer entered; Certificate
of Real Estate Val~~_.m~X[j~ejluired
Certificate of Real~£sta~.~ ~I~£~4 [~
~ L,~_.~*~.., ~o~nty~uditor
'~~~e pu ty
ST. 2E DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ 214.50
Date .. January 6 , 19 88
FOR '.V;.LUABLE CONSIDERATION,
_;
I (rese~wed for recording data)
Frank I. Cinc0tta and June W. Cinc0tta, Husband and Wife
, Grantor ts),
hereby convey~.)and warrant~)to
Missionary Alliance
a Co~por,tion
Hmonq Christian and Missionary Alli*nce Church of the Christian ~nd
, Grantee,
under the laws of Minnesota
rea/property in Ramsay County, Minnesota, described as fellows:
The South 95 fact of th~ West 167 feet of the North five acres of the North 1/~ (fi 1/2) of the Southwest
one-quarter (SK 1/~) of the Southwest one-quarter (S~ 1/4) of Secticn 17, lownship 29, Range 22,
;ccording to the U.,S. Government survey thereof; subject to McMenemy Street. -
~lso
Tho North
Southwest
R~nge 22,
CERT
BY--
together with all
~ feet of the West 1~? feet of the South five (5) acres of the North ten (~0) acres of the
one-quarter (SW q/f) ~ the Southwest one-quarter (SW ~/t~) of Section ~?, Township 29,
~ccording tc the U.S. r~overnment ~urvey thereof; subject to McMenemy Street.
OIK ~ -STATE '.tALUI
(if more space is needed, continue on back)
hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions:
Seller: Frank I. Cincotta
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF Ramsay I ss.
!
The foregoing instrument wa~ acknowledged before me this 6th day of January
by Frank I. Cincotta and June W. Cincotta~ Husband and Wife
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK)
/, ¢¢//i
TI:IS INSTRUMnNT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND
Brody & Hickok Hmong Christi,n and Hissionary Alliance Church
Suite ~220 9768 McMenemy
22}~ N. H~mline Ave. M~plevood, M~.
Roseville, MN. 5511~
AGRIC~ ~?NSERV ATi ON
/ FEE PAID
36 ~,~s~: co~
~itie Insurance Co [:.~,-,,. '/ Mihn.
~."~u~-~b%5~a-Ef ~ ~[e-~ v mslon ................. .
o1~ ~o~. NT~A~I
Attachment 18
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church applied for a revision to their conditional
use permit because of their plans to enlarge their church parking lot, to add a ddveway to DeSoto
Street and to add a playground to their property.
WHEREAS, this permit allows the church and Sunday school.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1770 McMenemy Street. The legal description is:
Except South 95 feet of West 167 feet and except East 200 feet; the North 5 acres and
except West 167 feet and except East 200 feet; the North 4 feet of South 5 acres; being in
North 10 acres of Southwest 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 (subject to road and easements) in
Section 27, Township 29, Range 22.
And
Commencing at a point on the West line of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, said
point being 166.98 feet South from the Northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 17; running thence East and parallel with the North line of said
quarter quarter Section 1308.4 feet to the intersection with the East line of said quarter
quarter Section, thence running South along the East line of said quarter quarter Section
166.98 feet; thence running West and parallel with the North line of said quarter quarter
Section 1308.4 feet to the intersection with the West line of said Section; thence running
North along said last named line 166.98 feet to the place of beginning; excepting therefrom
the West 342 feet thereof; and except land described in Document No. 2137431.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On November 24, 1986, the city council granted a conditional use permit for a church at
this location.
2. On June.17, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit revision.
The city council held a public heating on ,2002. City staff published a notice
in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding 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 of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described
conditional use permit revision, because:
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.
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
37
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 generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
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.
o
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.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes. This approval includes the parking lot
expansion, the new driveway to DeSoto Street and the proposed playground.
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.
3. Regularly maintain the grounds and pick up all debris as well as maintain the decorative
wood screening fences along the north side of the site.
4. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
5. The city council may require additional parking spaces if a parking shortage develops.
6. The plans for the future church addition and future gymnasium are not approved. These
shall be submitted to the City Council for approval of a revised conditional use permit.
The city council may require the church to make changes to the site, including closing the
new driveway to DeSoto Street, if the council deems it necessary or prudent, during
future reviews of the conditional use permit.
8. The church shall provide adequate screening of the new parking lot and the new driveway
from adjacent homes by planting, berming or both.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2002.
3~
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Conditional Use Permit
Sinclair Oil Corporation
223 Larpenteur Avenue East
June 11, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Sinclair Oil Corporation is proposing to expand and remodel the Sinclair Gas Station located at
223 Larpenteur Avenue East. The expansion includes a 290-square-foot addition to the
convenience store, refacing of the convenience store, and construction of a 50-foot x 56-foot,
2,800 square foot, fuel island canopy. The six existing fuel dispensers will be replaced with four
new pumps. These fuel pumps will have two vehicle fueling stations each, for a total of eight,
and will allow for payment at the pump. The proposed expansion and remodeling will be
consistent with Sinclair's Rice Street Gas Station remodeling that was approved by the city
council last October.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city approve the following:
1. A conditional use permit to operate a motor fuel station within the business commercial,
BC, zoning district.
2. Design review.
DISCUSSION
Existing Business
Sinclair Gas Station was constructed in the late 1970s. The building is 1,641 square feet in
area and houses a small convenience store and three automobile service bays. Budget Towing
currently leases the site for their towing and tire operation. They also sell gasoline under the
Sinclair name.
Sinclair was constructed before the city's requirement that a conditional use permit be obtained
for a motor fuel station within the business commercial zoning district. Because of the
expansion of their facility, a conditional use permit for the motor fuel station is required. Staff
finds that the expanded facility meets the nine standards of requirement for a conditional use
permit as specified in the resolution on pages 21 and 22.
Hours of Operation
The city code states that no motor fuel stations within 350 feet of a residential lot line shall be
operated between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Sinclair is located next to residential
properties to the south, in St. Paul, and residential properties to the west that include three city-
owned housing replacement lots on the corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street.
Budget Towing has been operating their business 24 hours a day for the past year. Once the
remodeling and expansion of the motor fuel station is complete, Sinclair Oil Corporation
proposes to comply with the city's required hours of operation and limit their business from 6
a.m. to 11 p.m. In addition, with the new style of fuel pumps that allow payment at the pump,
many fuel stations have been allowing 24-hour, pay-at-the-pump fueling. A condition should be
added to Sinclair's conditional use permit that limits pay-at-the-pump fueling between the hours
of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. as well.
Building Design
The three existing automobile service bays will be removed and a 290-square-foot addition will
be constructed on the east side if the building. Interior of the building will include a convenience
store, office, and restrooms. The existing roofline on the exterior of the building will be refaced
with a new fascia system to create a fiat-roof appearance. Exterior building materials include
stucco, brick, and windows.
Canopy Design
The canopy will be 2,800 square feet in area and 19 feet in height, which is three feet higher
than the building. Overhead canopies within a motor fuel station are required to be set back at
least 15 feet from the street right-of-way. Sinclair's new canopy will be set back 15 feet from the
Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way.
Four round steel columns will support the canopy. The columns will be painted white to match
the underside of the canopy. The canopy fascia will be nonilluminated, but signage proposed
for the canopy will be illuminated. This proposal does not include signage, which will require
separate sign permits and must comply with the city's sign ordinance.
Driveway Access
There are two existing driveways located on Larpenteur Avenue. City code specifies that
driveways must be set back at least 30 feet from intersecting rights-of-way. Sinclair's westerly
driveway is approximately 18 feet from the intersecting Adolphus Street right-of-way.
Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, states in his review of the project on page 20 that the
west driveway should be eliminated and a new driveway constructed on Adolphus Street. The
driveway should be centered on the pump aisle, which is 30 feet from the intersecting rights-of-
way.
Larry Feldsien, Sinclair representative, states that the Sinclair Oil Corporation is not receptive to
the alternative driveway arrangement. However, in order to avoid vehicle operation problems
during peak hours on Larpenteur Avenue, staff recommends that the westerly driveway on
Larpenteur Avenue be relocated to Adolphus Street.
Sinclair 2 June 11, 2002
Parking Lot
Vehicle Parking
City code requires a motor fuel station to have at least four parking stalls, plus one stall per fuel
pump. The parking stalls in front of the fuel pumps count toward the overall parking
requirement. Sinclair Oil Corporation is proposing eight parking stalls in addition to the eight
parking areas in front of each fuel pump.
Parking Lot Setback
The existing parking lot does not have curb and gutter and is constructed up to the Larpenteur
Avenue right-of-way and approximately 12 feet at its closest point to Adolphus Street. City code
requires that all parking lots have curb and gutter and be set back 15 feet from street rights-of-
way.
With the reconstruction of the parking lot, Sinclair is proposing curb and gutter as well as a 10-
foot setback to Larpenteur Avenue and a 20-foot setback to Adolphus Street. Increasing the
parking lot setback to the required 15 feet on Larpenteur Avenue is not possible because of
limited space between the fuel island pumps and the new parking lot curb.
The new 10-foot parking lot setback to Larpenteur Avenue will create a more conforming
parking lot. For this reason, and because the parking lot will be located 30 feet from the paved
portion of Larpenteur Avenue, staff finds the 1 O-foot pavement setback adequate.
Landscaping
Landscaping proposed for the site includes 10 evergreen trees and 52 shrubs. This plan is a
vast improvement over the nonexistent landscaping located on the site currently. However, in
order to accommodate the new curb cut along Adolphus Street and ensure screening from the
future residential properties to the west, staff recommends a revised landscape plan be
submitted. The revised plan should include additional plantings along the west side of the site.
Lighting
The lighting on the site is a particular concern due to the fact that there are residential properties
to the west and south. The city's lighting ordinance states that exterior lights must not produce
glare to adjacent residential properties, must not exceed 0.4-foot candles at the property lines,
canopy lights must be a flush-mount type fixtures, and the maximum height of parking lot lights
is limited to 25 feet.
Lighting proposed for the site includes 16 flush-mount canopy lights and two 16-foot high
parking lot lights. The photometric plan submitted shows the canopy light luminary exceeding
the required .4-foot-candles at the Larpenteur Avenue property line. A revised photometric plan
must be submitted which shows compliance with the city's lighting ordinance.
Trash Enclosure
To accommodate the addition, an existing fenced trash enclosure and shed will be removed
from the east side of the site. Sinclair proposes to construct a new trash enclosure constructed
of 6-foot high chain link fence with white slats. Samples of the fence with slats should be
submitted for staff approval in order to ensure that the fence is 100 percent opaque.
Sinclair 3 June 11, 2002
OTHER COMMENTS
Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer: Mr. Cavett's review of the proposed grading and
drainage plan for Sinclair's expansion and remodeling are outlined in the report on page 20.
Staff recommends that all grading and drainage concerns as outlined in the report be addressed
with the city engineering department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Lieutenant John Banick: No public safety concerns.
Dave Fischer, Building Official: Sinclair Oil Corporation must obtain two building permits, one
for the canopy and one for the remodeling of the convenience store.
Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: Sinclair Oil Corporation must submit a letter with information on
underground tanks including the age and installation date. The building appears to be under the
allowable area for sprinkler requirements, but further information on building size will be needed.
Historical Commission: Project is okay.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution on pages 21 and 22 approving a conditional use permit to operate a
motor fuel station within the business commercial, BC, zoning district for the Sinclair Gas
Station located at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East. Approval is based on the findings
required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
ao
The fuel station's hours of operation, including pay-at-the-pump fueling, are
limited to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency regarding fuel tanks, fuel spillage, monitoring wells, any
contaminated soil, etc.
Co
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
do
The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of the
city council's approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council
may extend this deadline for one year.
e. The city council shall .review this permit in one year.
Approve the plans date-stamped May 10, May 16, and May 23, 2002, for the building
addition, remodeling, and construction of a new canopy and fuel islands for the Sinclair
Gas Station at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East. Approval is subject to the following
conditions:
ao
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit:
Sinclair
(1) A revised site plan showing:
4 June 11, 2002
Sinclair
(a)
Removal of the westerly driveway on Larpenteur Avenue and the
replacement of all required curb and gutter along Larpenteur
Avenue and the parking area.
(b)
At least a 24-foot-wide driveway entrance on Adolphus Street.
The ddveway must be setback at least 30 feet from the Larpenteur
Avenue right-of-way.
(c)
The easterly driveway on Larpenteur Avenue widened to 36 feet.
Three lanes should be marked with paint and arrows to include an
entrance lane, a left-turn exit lane, and a right-turn exit lane.
(2) Revised grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans.
(3) A revised landscape plan showing the following
(a)
Increased plantings along the west side of the property. The
increased plantings should ensure screening of the site from the
residential properties to the west, across Adolphus Street.
(b)
In-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. If the
installation of a sprinkler system is not feasible because of existing
pavement, the applicant must submit written agreement to hand
water all landscaping.
(c) All planting beds must be edged and mulched.
(4)
Revised canopy elevations showing that the lights beneath the canopy
are flush mount. The lenses of the lights must not drop below the opaque
portions of each lighting fixture.
(5)
A revised photometric plan showing that the site lighting does not exceed
.4-foot candles at all property lines.
(6)
Trash enclosure fence sample mUst be submitted to staff to ensure the
fence is 100 percent opaque.
Complete the following before occupying the building:
(1) Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
(2) Install all pavement, curb, and gutter.
(3)
Install stop signs at both exits and a handicap-parking sign for the
handicap-parking stalls.
(4)
Widen the easterly Larpenteur Avenue driveway to 36 feet. Three lanes
should be marked with paint and arrows to include an entrance lane, a
left-turn exit lane, and a right-turn exit lane.
(5)
Install the approved trash enclosure.
5
June 11,2002
(6) Install all required landscaping.
If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
(1)
The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
(2)
The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the
unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by
June 1, 2002.
(3)
The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any
unfinished work.
This approval does not include the signs. All proposed signs require a separate
sign permit and must comply with the city's sign ordinance.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Sinclair 6 June 11, 2002
CITIZEN COMMENTS
I surveyed all owners within 350 feet of this site. Of the 11 surveyed, one responded positively as
follows:
Alden Landreville of Champps Americana, 1734 Adolphus Street: I feel it would be an
asset to the area.
Sinclair 7 June 11, 2002
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size:
Existing Land Use:
43,246 square feet
Motor Fuel Station/Towing and Tire Business
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
West:
South:
East:
Champps Americana Restaurant (zoned BC)
Single Family Homes (City-Owned Housing Replacement Lots) (zoned R1)
Single Family Homes in St. Paul
Interstate 35E
PLANNING
Existing Land
Use Plan:
Existing Zoning:
Limited Business Commercial (LBC)
Business Commercial (BC)
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards.
Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 21 and 22.
APPLICATION DATE
We received the complete applications and plans for Sinclair's proposal on May 23, 2002. State
law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a
proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by July 22, 2002.
P:Secl 8/sinclair
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
13.
Sinclair Oil Corporation Letter
Location Map
Zoning Map
Land Use Map
Site Plan
Grading Plan
Landscape Plan
Existing Building Elevations
Proposed Building Elevations
Canopy Elevation
Assistant City Engineer Comments
Conditional Use Permit Resolution
Separate Plans Date Stamped May 10, May 16, and May 23, 2002
Sinclair 8 June 11, 2002
Attachment 1
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road "B" East
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Site Upgrade and Building Remodel
223 East Larpenteur Ave.
Maplewood, MN.
Sinclair Oil Corporation is making an application to the City of Maplewood to continue
oPerating a convenience store with gasoline facilities at 223 East Larpenteur Ave.,
Maplewood, MN. In general the plan involves a small expansion to the building, remodeling
the building interior, changing the building exterior graphics and installing new gas dispensers
under a new canopy. Existing site conditions and the proposed plans are indicated on the
attached drawings.
A convenience store with three, car, service bays currently exist at the site along with the
gasoline fueling function. Sinclair Oil Corporation obtained this site in the late 1970's and has
operated the gasoline and car service facilities since that time. The facility existed as a
gasoline station prior to Sinclair purchasing the property.
It was indicated to Sinclair that ten feet of additional Right-of-Way is desired along Adolphus
Street. At this time Sinclair management takes no exception to a ten foot easement for Right-
of-Way along Adolphus Street. On the Larpenteur Ave. property line, a curb and pavemem
exists up to and along the property line. The plan is proposing a ten foot pervious area onto the
site between the entrances along Larpenteur Ave. With this arrangement a through lane
remains available to allow vehicles to freely move around the site. The plan also shows the
existing shed, east of the building, to be removed. A trash enclosure is proposed to be installed
in that same area. It is proposed to change the high rise sign from the Sinclair trapezoid to a
rectangular sign showing the Sinclair trapezoid logo on a green background.
The proposed plan closes the service bays and expands the sales area of the convenience store.
The basic use of the site remains unchanged and it is proposed to continue to operate as a
convenience store with gasoline dispensing. It is Sinclair's opinion that the proposed project
will not change the character of the surrounding area and it should not affect adjacent property
values. This project will not change the requirements for public utilities and public services
from what are in place today.
1001 E. CLIFF ROAD · SUITE 201 · BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
(952) 736-1100
Sinclair Oil Corporation asks for approval of the proposed plan as presemed. The proposed
plan represems a considerable investment and we plan to remain an active business in the
community. If there are any questions, please call me at 952 736 1100 or on a cell phone at
612 791 8216. Thank you for your consideration and review of our proposed project.
Sincerely,
Lawrence F. Feldslen, PE
Engineer
SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION
Application attached.
l0
Attachment 2
Little Canada
St. Paul
St. Paul
Sinclair Gas Station
223 E Larpenteur Ave
Location Map
11
Attachment' 3
.
S
ZONING
Light Manufacturing
Heavy Manufacturing
Neighborhood Commercial
Commercial Office
Limited Business Commercial
Business Commercial Modified
Business Commercial
Shopping Center
Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential
Single Dwelling Residential
Double Dwelling Residential
High Multiple Dwelling Residential
High Multiple Dwelling Residential Condo
Planned Urban Development
30000 Residential Estate
40000 Residential Estate
Farm
Sinclair Gas Station
223 E Larpenteur Ave
Zoning Map
12
Attachment 4
.
N
IARPl
LAND USE
~ Light Manufacturing
~ Heavy Manufacturing
~ Neighborhood Commercial
~ Commercial Office
E~'~ Limited Business Commercial
~ Business Commercial Modified
~ Business Commercial
' Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential
Single Dwelling Residential
~ Double Dwelling Residential
i~'-i Low Multiple Dwelling Residential
~ Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential
~IB High Multiple Dwelling Residential
~ 30000 Residential Estate
~ 40000 Residential Estate
~ Park
Open Space
~ School
~ c~y
i_~i~ Libra;y
~ Church
~ Fire Station
Sinclair Gas Station
223 E Larpenteur Ave
Land Use Map
13
Attachment 5
o oo :
P1K)~JCT
11'o0'
o t/t__ j
si[ ~/'c-5
N
Site Plan
14
Attachment 6
0
/ {
~,1 ii
/
/
%
LARPENTEUR AVENUE
N
w Grading Plan
15
Attachment 7
0
<
CONVENIENCE
STORE
\
\
\
\
\
',Q o oO :
iQir ........ O 'L~FO O ....... ~ll ~
ID o oo
LARPENTEUR AVENUE
N
LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
~IARK ITEk{ QTY SIZE
1 PINU5, SYLVESTRUS "SCOTCH" 10 3-4 FT
2 AUSTRIAN PINE LEUCODERMUS DWARF2 4-5 FT
3 MUGHO PINE $~M55 MOUNTAIN PINE 6 18-24"
4 ROSE, EXPLORER 10 2 GAL.
5 JUNIPER WIL1NII 14 2 GAL.
6 YEW, EVERLOW 10
7 EUONYMUS STATUS STD. "BURNING RUSH" 10 5 GAL
Landscape Plan
16
Attachment 8
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION
EXISTING REAR ELEVATION
EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
Existing Building
Elevations
17
Attachment 9
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION ,o ...:~. ~..
EAST ELEVATION
Proposed Building
Elevations
18
Attachment 10
.1
56'-0'
COLUMN TYP FINISH
ELEVATION
CANOPY ELEVATION
Canopy Elevation
19
Attachment 11
Engineering Plan Review
Project:
Reviewed by:
Sinclair Oil Corp. (Larpenteur / Adolphus)
Erin Schacht and Chris Cavett
Maplewood Engineering Department, June 7, 2002
The Sinclair Oil Corporation is proposing improvements to their site at 223 East Larpenteur. A small
expansion to the building along with new gas dispensers and a new canopy are proposed. Curb and gutter
and new pavement are included in the design of the site. Currently, there is no management of storm water.
The majority of the existing storm water sheet drains untreated out to Larpenteur Avenue. The applicant
has not proposed any changes to the on site drainage. Two entrances to Larpenteur Avenue currently exist
and the applicant has proposed no changes to those entrances.
The applicant shall address the following staff comments and revise plans before grading and utility
permits will be issued:
Storm Water Management/Storm Water Treatment & Misc~ drainaRe issues:
The drainage design as proposed is not acceptable. Storm water runoff, sheet draining directly into
Larpenteur Avenue is no longer an option for this site. Best Management Practices, (BMP's) must be
incorporated into the storm water drainage design for this site. Storm water runoff shall be treated on
site and discharged into an appropriate storm management system. Pollutants, such as oils and fuel
must be able to be separated from storm water before it leaves the site. See the Metro Council website
for additional information on best management practices.
http://www.metrocouncil.org/enviroment/Watershed/bmpmanual.htm
Contact Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, Chris Cavett at 651-770-4554, to discuss some viable
options. Some options that are described in the BMP manual and which the applicant might consider
Installing catch basins to capture flow before it is allowed to leave the site. Treating the flow with
appropriate storm water treatment structures for this type of site. There is an existing storm sewer
catch basin on the north end of the property, located in the parking lot area leased by Champs.
"Treated" storm water may be discharged into that system. The applicant shall provide the city
their maintenance plan to regularly clean the treatment structure. Submit design information and
runoff calculations for the site and the treatment structures proposed to be used.
· Consider using Rainwater Gardens in some of the landscape areas to manage storm water from the
east side of the site.
Miscellaneous:
Eliminate the west entrance to Larpenteur Avenue. A second entrance may be constructed off of
Adolphus Street. It appears that a driveway centered on the pump aisle will be no more than a 10%
grade to Adolphus with no grade changes, but can be reduced more with adjustments to the grades and
drainage on the west side of the site.
Maintain minimum 3:1 slopes throughout the site, notably at the northeast comer. Proposed contours
elevations do not tie into the correct existing contour elevations. The 95 contour ties into the 95.5
contour, etc. Label proposed contours, as they are difficult to follow.
3. Submit the signed Roadway Easement to the City of Maplewood Engineering Department for the
Easement shown along Adolphus, and the City will file it with Ramsey County.
20
ATTACHMENT 12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Sinclair Oil Corporation applied for conditional use permit to operate a motor
fuel station within the BC, Business Commercial, zoning district;
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East. The
legal description is:
The West 300 feet of the South 290 feet, except the West 30 feet thereof, of the West % of
the Southeast % of the Southeast % of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On June 17, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit.
On ,2002, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The city council
gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described
conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit
because:
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.
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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
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.
21
o
The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
The fuel station's hours of operation, including pay-at-the-pump fueling, is limited to 6 a.m.
to 11 p.m.
The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
regarding fuel tanks, fuel spillage, monitoring wells, any contaminated soil, etc.
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of the city council
approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council may extend this
deadline for one year.
5. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,2002.
22
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance
June 12, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC), and many manufactured home park residents in
Maplewood, requested that the city council pass an ordinance that would guarantee park
residents financial assistance to relocate if their park closed. On February 25, 2002, the city
council directed staff to review this request and forward a recommendation to them. Refer to the
attached Apdl 3, 2002 memorandum for details.
Staff has invited the five Maplewood manufactured home park owners and representation from
APAC to attend the planning commission to discuss APAC's request.
BACKGROUND
Apdl 9, 2002: The Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) discussed this
matter. The HRA tabled this issue until the city receives notification of a manufactured home park
closing. They felt that since there are no proposed or pending closings at this time, there is no
urgency to act immediately.
The HRA discussed the needs-vs.-greed aspects of APAC's suggested ordinance. The HRA also
wanted to know from the city attorney if the city would have sufficient time to enact an ordinance
at the time of a proposed park closing that would be applicable to that park or if it would only
apply to future closings in the city. (The city attorney said that, in such a case, an ordinance
enacted would apply to future closings, not to a current one.)
DISCUSSION
Staff has not formed a recommendation about this matter. The input received at the planning
commission meeting will aid staff in forwarding a recommendation to the city council.
RECOMMENDATION
None at this time.
p:com_dvpt\ordVnanufactured home parks.4'02.doc
Attachments:
Memorandum dated Apdl 3, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner
Manufactured Home Park-Closing Ordinance Discussion
April 3, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Background
In 1987, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a law allowing cities and municipalities to pass
park-closing ordinances (Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095). The purpose of such an
ordinance is to help protect citizens living in manufactured home parks in the event of a park
closing by requiring park owners to reimburse homeowners for relocation costs if their home can
be moved, and if not, purchase the manufactured home. (See Section 327C.095 on pages 5
through 8.)
The City of Maplewood received a proposed manufactured home park-closing ordinance for the
city council's review from All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) (see attached APAC letter and
proposed ordinance on pages 9 through 13). APAC is a non-profit organization that serves as a
tenant's union for manufactured home owners. They help organize park residents to understand
and protect their rights as specified in state law.
APAC sent a mailing to a majority of the city's park residents regarding their proposed ordinance.
In the mailing they requested that the residents show their support of a park-closing ordinance by
signing their name and address to a postcard and sending it to the city. To date, the city has
received 190 postcards in support of the proposed ordinance. (See the language used by APAC
on the postcard and the names and addresses of the residents in support of the proposed
ordinance on pages 14 through 24.)
On February 25, 2002, after reviewing APAC's proposed manufactured home park-closing
ordinance, the city council directed staff to review the request and forward a recommendation to
them.
Request
Staff is requesting input from the Maplewood Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to assist
us in our review of APAC's request, and the many manufactured home park resident's request,
for the city to pass a manufactured home park-closing ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Manufactured Home Park-Closing Legislation
The park-closing legislation came out of a situation in Bloomington when Lyndale Lodge
Manufactured Home Park was sold for redevelopment as a car dealership. Many of the homes
were too old to move and therefore forced the residents to sell their homes for very little. This left
many of the residents financially devastated and homeless. Alarmed by these events, the
legislature passed the park closing law in 1987.
The law states that a park owner must notify the city and the residents of a park closing nine
months prior to the proposed closing. Once notice is received, the city must hold a public headng
to review the impacts that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park
owners. The city may require payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident
for reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another park within 25
miles of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an
average of relocation costs awarded to other residents. The law further states that the city may
also require that other parties, including the city, involved in the park closing Provide additional
compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the
resident.
After the law was enacted, the City of Bloomington adopted a park-closing ordinance and
required the Lyndale Lodge Manufactured Home Park owner to reimburse the park residents for
relocation costs or purchase the homes. The park owners brought the City of Bloomington to
court over the ordinance claiming that it was a land taking. The Minnesota Court of Appeals
upheld Bloomington's ordinance in Arcadia vs. City of Bloomin.qton, 1994, and the park owners
were required to reimburse the homeowners for relocation costs or purchase the homes.
Existing Park-Closing Ordinances
Thirteen cities within the State of Minnesota currently have park-closing ordinances: Apple
Valley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Hopkins, Elk River, Dayton, Fridley, Lake Elmo, Moundsview,
Oakdale, Red Wing, Roseville, and Shakopee. Most of these ordinances require that park
owners reimburse manufactured home owners to relocate their homes within 25 miles. If
relocation is not possible, the park owner or land developer must purchase the home for the
market value as determined by an independent appraiser approved by the city. In addition, some
cities' ordinances place a cap on the amount of reimbursement. For example, the park owner or
land developer would only have to reimburse up to 20 percent of the purchase price of the park or
the assessed value of the park.
Two cities within the State of Minnesota, Brainerd and Willmar, reviewed park-closing ordinances
and chose not to pass one. Both of these proposed ordinances were brought on by actual park
closings.
All Parks Alliance for Change Proposed Ordinance
APAC's proposed ordinance mirrors Elk River's ordinance passed in 1997. It states that the park
owner or land developer shall pay the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating the
home to another park within 25 miles. Reasonable costs include expenses incurred in moving
the home and personal property, insurance for replacement value of the property being moved,
and cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take down, move and set up the
home. If the home cannot be moved, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an
average of costs awarded to other residents plus the park owner or land developer must
purchase the home at the amount equal to the estimated market value of the home. APAC's
proposed ordinance does not include a cap on the amount that a park owner or land developer
would have to reimburse the residents.
Upon notice of APAC's proposed manufactured home park closing ordinance, Traci Tomas,
agent for the St. Paul Tourist Cabins, submitted a letter to the city regarding her experience with
park-closing ordinances passed in the Cities of Fridley and Shakopee (see attached St. Paul
Manufactured Home Park Closings
2 April 3, 2002
Tourist Cabin letter and Fridley's and Shakopee's park-closing ordinances on pages 25-30). As a
manufactured home park owner representative, Ms. Tomas found that the City of Shakopee's
ordinance allowed for the most flexibility for possible future city development of manufactured
home park properties.
City of Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks
There are five manufactured home parks with a total of 789 homes within the City of Maplewood
(see map on page 37):
Park Name Date Established No. of Sites
No. of Homes
Beaver Lake 1970 254 254
2425 Maryland Ave.
Maplewood Man. Home Park
1880 English Street N.
Approx. 1957 19 19
Rolling Hills 1984 357 357
1319 Rolling Hills Ddve
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
940 Frost Avenue
Approx. 1955 45 39
Town and Country
2557 Highway 61
Approx. 1950 120 120
TOTAL 795 789
St. Paul Tourist Cabins and Maplewood Manufactured Home Park have older manufactured
homes, many of which would not meet current building code standards. Since the St. Paul
Toudst Cabins have been under new ownership as of last year, six of the older manufactured
homes have been removed. The new owners state that they will be replacing the older homes
with newer homes.
Beaver Lake, Rolling Hills, and Town and Country have a mix of new and old homes. These
three parks have given residents the opportunity to trade-in their existing manufactured home for
newer models, or when a resident leaves, the park owners purchase the older home and replace
it with a newer home.
Manufactured home park residents own their home but rent the land the home sits on. The
average cost of a new manufactured home is from $30,000 for a standard size to $60,000 for a
double wide. The average cost of an older manufactured home varies widely from $500 for the
oldest models to $4,000. Rental space is approximately $270 per month and usually covers
sewer, water, garbage, and snow removal.
There are no studies to indicate the average annual income of manufactured home park residents
within the City of Maplewood. However, a study of manufactured home park residents in East
Bethel, Minnesota, conducted by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs in 1998, indicated
Manufactured Home Park Closings 3 Apdl 3, 2002
that the mean annual household income of manufactured home residents was from $10,000 to
$29,999.
Possible Pros and Cons
Pros:
APAC points out that it would prove difficult to find an available manufactured home site within a
25-mile radius of a park within the City of Maplewood because of the Iow vacancy rates. Also,
many of the manufactured homes are older and cannot be moved. Because of this and the fact
that most of these homeowners have lower-income, a park closing could prove to be a financial
catastrophe for many of the city's residents.
As stated by APAC in their attached letter, residents living in conventional homes receive
compensation when their property is sold for redevelopment. However, residents that own a
home within a manufactured home park are not guaranteed anY kind of compensation if their park
is closed because they do not own the land that their home sits on. APAC states that a park-
closing ordinance would ensure that the residents of the manufactured home parks in Maplewood
would receive fair compensation for their homes in the event a park closes.
Cons:
Mark Brunner, executive vice president of Minnesota Manufactured Housing Association
(MMHA), states that such an ordinance would hinder redevelopment within the City of Maplewood
due to the added expense to the developer. He points out that bank lenders may also be more
hesitant to refinance loans for park upgrades and improvements if such an ordinance were in
place and questions the fairness of how the values of the manufactured homes are determined in
some of the existing ordinances. Also, MMHA believes that the language in the law which states
"other parties involved in the park closing may provide additional compensation to residents" is
intended to not only mean the park owner or developer, but entities such as the city, housing
redevelopment authority, or other entities that may be able to tie into reimbursement.
Mr. Brunner states that the current law gives the manufactured home residents the protections
needed because it allows cities to determine compensation to the residents at the time of a
closing. MMHA is opposed to such an ordinance because it could be considered a land taking
and would put a burden on the property owner.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the HRA provide input into the proposed manufactured home park-closing
ordinance.
P:ord~'nan. home park
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
State Park Closing Law
APAC's Letter Dated 1/11/02
APAC's Proposed Park-Closing Ordinance
Manufactured Home Park Residents' Petition in Support of Ordinance
St. Paul Tourist Cabin's Letter Dated 3/11102 including Fridley's and Shakopee's Ordinances
Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks Map
Manufactured Home Park Closings
4 April 3, 2002
Attachment 1
327C.095 Park closings.
Subdivision 1. Conversion of use; minimum notice. At
least nine months before the conversion of all or a portion of a
manufactured home park to another use, or before closure of a
manufactured home park or cessation of use of the land as a
manufactured home park, the park owner must prepare a closure
statement and provide a copy to the local planning agency and a
copy to a resident 'of each manufactured home where the
residential use is being converted. A resident may not be
required to vacate until 60 days after the conclusion of the
public hearing required under subdivision 4. If a lot is
available in another section of the park that will continue to
be operated as a park, the park owner must allow the resident to
relocate the home to that lot unless the home, because of its
size or local ordinance, is not compatible with that lot.
Subd. 2. Notice of hearing; proposed change in land
use. If the planned conversion or cessation of operation
requires a variance or zoning change, the municipality must mail
a notice at least ten days before the hearing to a resident of
each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place, and
purpose of the public hearing. The park owner shall provide the
municipality with a list of the names and addresses of at least
one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time
application is made for a variance or zoning change.
Subd. 3. Closure statement~ Upon receipt of the
closure statement from the park owner, the local planning agency
shall submit the closure statement to the governing body of the
municipality and request the governing body to schedule a public
hearing. The municipality must mail a notice at least ten days
before the hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in
the park stating the time, place, and purpose of the public
hearing. The park owner shall provide the municipality with a
list of the names and addresses of at least one resident of each
manufactured home in the park at the time the closure statement
is submitted to the local planning agency.
Subd. 4. Public hearing; relocation costs. The
governing body of the municipality shall hold a public hearing
to review the closure statement and any impact that the park
closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner.
Before any change in use or cessation of operation and as a
condition of the change, the governing body may require a
payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident
for the reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot
relocate the home to another manufactured home park within a 25
mile radius of the park that is being closed, the resident is
entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation
costs awarded to other residents.
The governing body of the municipality may also require
that other parties, including the municipality, involved in the
park closing provide additional compensation to residents to
mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon
the residents.
Subd. 5. Park conversions. If the planned cessation
of operation is for the purpose of converting the part of the
park occupied by the resident to a common interest community
pursuant to chapter 515B, the provisions of section 515B.4-111,
except subsection (a), shall apply. The nine-month notice
required by this section shall state that the cessation is for
the purpose of conversion and shall set forth the rights
conferred by this subdivision and section 515B.4-111, subsection
(b). Not less than 120 days before the end of the nine months,
the park owner shall serve upon the resident a form of purchase
agreement setting forth the terms of sale contemplated by
section 515B.4-111, subsection (d). Service of that form shall
operate as the notice described by section 515B.4-111,
subsection (a).
Subd. 6. Intent to convert use of park at time of
purchase. Before the execution of an agreement to purchase a
manufactured home park, the purchaser must notify the park
owner, in writing, if the purchaser intends to close the
manufactured home park or convert it to another use within one
year of the execution of the agreement. The park owner shall
provide a resident of each manufactured home with a 45-day
written notice of the purchaser's intent to close the park or
convert it to another use. The notice must state that the park
owner will provide information on the cash price and the terms
and conditions of the purchaser's offer to residents requesting
the information. The notice must be sent by first class mail to
a resident of each manufactured home in the park. The notice
period begins on the postmark date affixed to the notice and
ends 45 days after it begins. During the notice period required
in this subdivision, the owners of at least 51 percent of the
manufactured homes in the park or a nonprofit organization which
has the written permission of the owners of at least 51 percent
of the manufactured homes in the park to represent them in the
acquisition of the park shall have the right to meet the cash
price and execute an agreement to purchase the park for the
purposes of keeping the park as a manufactured housing
community. The park owner must accept the offer if it meets the
cash price and the same terms and conditions set forth in the
purchaser's offer except that the seller is not obligated to
provide owner financing. For purposes of this section, cash
price means the cash price offer or equivalent cash offer as
defined in section 500.245, subdivision 1, paragraph (d).
Subd. 7. Intent to convert use of park after purchase.
If the purchaser of a manufactured home park decides to
convert the park to another use within one year after the
purchase of the park, the purchaser must offer the park for
purchase by the residents of the park. For purposes of this
subdivision, the date of purchase is the date of the transfer of
the title to the purchaser. The purchaser must provide a
resident of each manufactured home with a written notice of the
intent to close the park and all of the owners of at least 51
percent of the manufactured homes in the park or a nonprofit
organization which has the written permission of the owners of
at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park to
represent them in the acquisition of the park shall have 45 days
to execute an agreement for the purchase of the park at a cash
price equal to the original purchase price paid by the purchaser
plus any documented expenses relating to the acquisition and
improvement of the park property, together with any increase in
value due to appreciation of the park. The purchaser must
execute the purchase agreement at the price specified in this
subdivision and pay the cash price within 90 days of the date of
the purchase agreement. The notice must be sent by first class
mail to a resident of each manufactured home in the park. The
notice period begins on the postmark date affixed to the notice
and ends 45 days after it begins.
Subd. 8. Required filing of notice. Subdivisions 6
and 7 apply to manufactured home parks upon which notice has
been filed with the county recorder or registrar of titles in
the county where the manufactured home park is located. Any
person may file the notice required under this subdivision with
the county recorder or registrar of titles. The notice must be
in the following form:
"MANUFACTURED HOME PARK NOTICE
THIS PROPERTY IS USED AS A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
PARK OWNER
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARK
7
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (IF APPLICABLE)"
Subd. 9. Effect of noncompliance. If a manufactured
home park is finally sold or converted to another use in
violation of subdivision 6 or 7, the residents do not have any
continuing right to purchase the park as a result of that sale
or conversion. A violation of subdivision 6 or 7 is subject to
section 8.31, except that relief shall be limited so that
questions of marketability of title shall not be affected.
Subd. 10. Exclusion. Subdivisions 6 and 7 do not
apply to:
(1) a conveyance of an interest in a manufactured home park
incidental to the financing of the manufactured home park;
(2) a conveyance by a mortgagee subsequent to foreclosure
of a mortgage or a deed given in lieu of a foreclosure; or
(3) a purchase of a manufactured home park by a
governmental entity under its power of eminent domain.
Subd. 11. Affidavit Of compliance. After a park is
sold, a park owner or other person with personal knowledge may
file an affidavit with the county recorder or registrar of
titles in the county in which the park is located certifying
compliance with subdivision 6 or 7 or that subdivisions 6 and 7
are not applicable. The affidavit may be used as proof of the
facts stated in the affidavit. A person acquiring an interest
in a park or a title insurance company or attorney who prepares,
furnishes, or examines evidence of title may rely on the truth
and accuracy of statements made in the affidavit and is not
required to inquire further as to the park owner's compliance
with subdivisions 6 and 7. When an affidavit is filed, the
right to purchase provided under subdivisions 6 and 7 terminate,
and if registered property, the registrar of titles shall delete
the memorials of the notice and affidavit from future
certificates of title.
HIST: 1987 c 179 s 10; 1991 c 26 s 1-7; 1997 c 126 s 6; 1999 c
11 art3s 10
Copyright 2001 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
An Organization
of Manufactured
Home Residents
2395 University
Avenue West,
Suite 302
St. Paul MN
55114
(phone)
(651) 644-5525
flax)
(65D523-0173
(email)
apac~mtn, org
January ll, 2002
Attachment 2
Shann Finwall
Maplewood Planning Dept.
1830 E. County Rd. B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Shann Finwall,
We are writing to ask for your support in the passing of a park-closing
ordinance for the city of Maplewood. This ordinance would protect manufactured
homeowners' families from displacement in the case of their park closing for
redevelopment. A park-closing ordinance would ensure that the residents of
manufactured home parks in Maplewood would receive fair compensation for
their homes, which likely cannot be moved, in the event that their manufactured
home park would close for redevelopment. Residents living in conventional
homes receive compensation when their property is sold for redevelopment.
However, residents that own a home within a manufactured home park are not
guaranteed any kind of compensation if their park is closed because they do not
own the land that their home sits on. Under a standard park-closing ordinance, if
a home is a newer model and can be moved to another park, the owner and/or new
buyer of the park would have to pay to relocate the home to another park within a
25 mile radius or buy the home at its assessed value.
Under Minnesota State Law (§327C.095), cities and municipalities have
the authority to pass a park-closing ordinance. Thirteen cities in Minnesota have
already passed Park Closing Ordinances because they understood the necessity of
an ordinance to protect their constituents. This ordinance is very important to
your constituents in Maplewood that live in manufactured home parks. These
voters and taxpayers make up nearly 5% of the population of Maplewood, almost
900 households. Many of the parks in Maplewood are very large and if a park
closed it would be catastrophic.
We plan to present the proposal before the city council on February 25th,
2002. We hope that you and the other Council Members will decide to pass this
ordinance for manufactured homeowners in Maplewood. Enclosed with this letter
are some informational materials for your perusal, including a copy of the
proposed ordinance and Minnesota Statute 327C.095. If you have any questions
regarding this issue we urge you to contact us. Thank you for your consideration
and we look forward to meeting with you on the 25th.
Sincerely,
Jeff Swanberg, Chair of the St. Pail Cabins
Resident Association
www. allparksallianceforchange, org m·r~be~
Attachment 3
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Ordinance NO. -
Manufactured Home Park Closings
Section XXXX.O0 Purpose:
In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by the closure or conversion of
manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and
general welfare will be promoted by requiring compensation to displaced residents of
such parks. The purpose of this ordinance is to require park owners to pay displaced
residents reasonable relocation costs and purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay
additional compensation, pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 327c095.
Section XXXX.02 Definitions:
The Following words and terms when used in this Section shall have the following
meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Closure Statement: A statement prepared by the park owner clearly stating the park is
closing, addressing the availability, location and potential costs of adequate replacement
housing with/n a twenty-five (25)mile radius of the park that is closing and the probable
relocation costs of the manufactured homes located in the park.
Displaced Resident: A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured home ho rents a lot
in a manufactured home park, including the members of the resident's household, as of
the date park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission.
Lot: An area within a manufactured home park, designed and used for the
accommodation of a manufactured home.
Manufactured Home: A structure not affixed to or part of a real estate, transportable in
one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or
forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three hundred and twenty
(320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be
used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the
required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical
system contained in it. The City of Maplewood also elects to expand these provisions of
protection to manufactured homes that are smaller than the dimensions of, eight (8) feet
or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, are three
hundred and twenty (320) or more square feet, and which are built on a permanent
chassis and designed to be used as dwellings with or without permanent foundations
when connected to the required utilities, and include the plumbing, heating, air
conditioning, and electrical system contained in them. Some manufactured homes that are
currently in Maplewood are smaller than the definition for manufactured homes provided
in Minnesota Statute 327C thus, the City of Maplewood feels that since these homes fall
10
under the definition of a manufactured home, except for their size, that these home should
also be covered under this ordinance.
Park Owner: The owner of a manufactured home park and any person acting on behalf
of the owner in the operation or management of a park.
Person: Any individual, cooperation, firm, partnership, incorporated and unincorporated
association or any other legal or commercial entity.
Section XXXX.04 Notice of Public Hearing-
The Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the City Council to
schedule a public hearing. The City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the
public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place
and purpose of the hearing. The park owner shall provide the City with a li'st of the names
and address of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time the
closure statement is submitted to the Planning Commission.
Section XXXX. 06 Public Hearing:
A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the purpose of reviewing the
closure statement and evaluating what impact the park closing may have on the displaced
residents and the park owner.
Section XXXX.O8 Payment of Relocation Costs:
After the service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal
by the displaced resident of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses,
the park owner shall pay to the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating
the manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a
twenty five (25) mile radius of the park that is being closed, converted to another
use, or ceasing operation. Reasonable relocation costs shall include:
The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced resident's
manufactured home and personal property, including the reasonable cost
of disassembling, moving and reassembling any attached appurtenances,
such as porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired
after notice of closure or conversion of the park and utility "hook-up"
charges.
B. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being
moved.
C. The cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take
down, move and set up the manufactured home.
11
If a resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-five (25)
mile radius of the park which is being closed or some other agreed upon distance,
and the resident elects not to tender title to the manufactured home, the resident is
entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to
other residents in the park.
A displaced resident compensated under this section of the bill shall retain title to
the manufactured home and shall be responsible fbr its prompt removal from the
manufactured home park.
The park owner shall make the payments under this section directly to the person
performing the relocation services after the performance thereof, or, upon
submission of written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced
resident, shall reimburse the displaced resident for such costs.
The displaced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for
relocating the manufactured home to the park owner as a condition to the park
owner's liability to pay relocation expenses.
Section XXXX. 10 Payment of Additional Compensation:
If a resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within a twenty-five (25) mile
radius of the park that is being closed or some other agreed upon distance and tenders
title to the manufactured home, the resident is entitled to additional compensation to
be paid by the purchaser of the park in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact
of the park closing. An such instance, the additional compensation shall be in an
amount equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured home as determined
by an independent appraiser experienced in mobile home appraisal approved by the
City Administrator. The purchaser shall pay the cost for the appraisal. The purchaser
shall pay such compensation into an escrow account, established by the park owner,
for distribution upon transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid to
the displaced residents no later than the earlier of sixty (60) days prior to the closing
of the park or its conversion to another use.
Section XXXX.12 Penalty:
1. Violation of any provision of this Section shall be a misdemeanor.
2. Any provisions of this Section may be enforced by injunction or other appropriate
civil remedy.
The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuse of the
manufactured home park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable
location costs and the purchaser of the park has provided additional compensation
in accordance with the requirements of this Section. Approval of any application
for rezoning, platting, conditional use permit, planed unit development or
variance in conjunction with a park closing or conversion shall be conditional on
compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.
Section XXXX. 14 Effective Date:
This ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
13
Attachment 4
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal,
I am a resident of Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We,
residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I
am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing
Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and
preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense
of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in
Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting
Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would
further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate-
income residents. Thank you for your consideration.
Beaver Lake Estates
2425 Maryland Avenue
Maplewood MN 55119
Vicki Aerbst
Beaver Lake Estates
2405 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Dorothy Anderson
Beaver Lake Estates
2420 Amberjack Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Vera Anderson
Beaver Lake Estates
1231 Cougar Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Donald Andrews
Beaver Lake Estates
1277 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
Mary Jane Belisle
Beaver Lake Estates
1259 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Leonard Bergman
Beaver Lake Estates
2425 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
JoAnn Bohrer
Beaver Lake Estates
1293 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
Tom Brockway
Beaver Lake Estates
1217 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
Kevin Burns
Beaver Lake Estates
1232 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Steve Carlson
Beaver Lake Estates
2409 Amberjack Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Constance Conroy
Beaver Lake Estates
1253 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
lone Coon
Beaver Lake Estates
2461 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Louise Crosby
Beaver Lake Estates
1231 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Margaret Cunningham
Beaver Lake Estates
1218 Beaverdale Road
Maplewood MN 55119
Rita Deutsch
Beaver Lake Estates
1240 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Judith Ehnstrom
Beaver Lake Estates
1200 Cougar Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Wallace Eilers
Beaver Lake Estates
1237 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
Mary Sue Fiola
Beaver Lake Estates
1247 Deerfield Drive North
Maplewood MN 55119
Steve Fry
Beaver Lake Estates
2400 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Karen Galvin
Beaver Lake Estates
2404 Coyote Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
14
Quanita Garcia
Beaver Lake Estates
2440 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Cory T. Griffin
Beaver Lake Estates
1246 Beaverdale Road
Maplewood MN 55119
John Herron
Beaver Lake Estates
2428 Coyote Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Owen Hoff
Beaver Lake Estates
2453 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Colleen Jones
Beaver Lake Estates
2408 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Thomas Krenn
Beaver Lake Estates
2425 Coyote Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Mr. Larson
Beaver Lake Estates
2477 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
James Lyons
Beaver Lake Estates
1235 Cougar Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Kerry McAmis
Beaver Lake Estates
1224 Cougar Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Dorothy Metzger
Beaver Lake Estates
1238 Beaverdale Road
Maplewood MN 55119
Lawrence Giles
Beaver Lake Estates
1269 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
Lillian Hanna
Beaver Lake Estates
2412 Amberjack Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Steve Hill
Beaver Lake Estates
1268 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Darleen Hofland
Beaver Lake Estates
2408 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Jim Kallio
Beaver Lake Estates
2425 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Euphemia Kroll
Beaver Lake Estates
1283 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Jeannine Latterell
Beaver Lake Estates
2420 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Ray Mann
Beaver Lake Estates
2453 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Michael McCormack
Beaver Lake Estates
1228 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Michael MierVa
Beaver Lake Estates
2473 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Tina Gray
Beaver Lake Estates
1211 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Anthony Herbert
Beaver Lake Estates
2461 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Warren Hobbick
Beaver Lake Estates
1216 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Carol Johnson
Beaver Lake Estates
1227 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Wendy Kelley
Beaver Lake Estates
1212 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Casey LaCasse
Beaver Lake Estates
1208 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Harold Lee
Beaver Lake Estates
2400 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
William McAmis
Beaver Lake Estates
1228 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Margaret McCrank
Beaver Lake Estates
2472 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Catherine Minnear
Beaver Lake Estates
2413 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
15
Arnold North
Beaver Lake Estates
2469 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Jerry Page
Beaver Lake Estates
1215 Cougar Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Frances Parent
Beaver Lake Estates
1215 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Delores Price
Beaver Lake Estates
1219 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Teresa Reichert
Beaver Lake Estates
2413 Coyote Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Robert Schirmer
Beaver Lake Estates
2465 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
David Schneider
Beaver Lake Estates
1239 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
James Scott
Beaver Lake Estates
1222 Beaverdale Road
Maplewood MN 55119
K.D. Smith
Beaver Lake Estates
1259 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Richard Stevens
Beaver Lake Estates
1220 Cougar Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
L. Odden
Beaver Lake Estates
1224 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Kathleen Pakulski
Beaver Lake Estates
1272 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Donna Peick
Beaver Lake Estates
2416 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Tricia Quaale
Beaver Lake Estates
2460 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Carol Ristau
Beaver Lake Estates
2424 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Elba Schirner
Beaver Lake Estates
12131 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
David Schreier
Beaver Lake Estates
1236 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Mike Sheehan
BeaverLake Estates
1247 BobcatLane
Maplewood MN 55119
Tina Sorenson
Beaver Lake Estates
2424 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Mark Swanson
Beaver Lake Estates
2433 Amberjack Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Robert Ogilvie
Beaver Lake Estates
1249 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
Leonard Parent
Beaver Lake Estates
1267 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
John Pfluger
Beaver Lake Estates
1297 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
Walter Rasmussen
Beaver Lake Estates
2412 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Jan Rottach
Beaver Lake Estates
1196 Antelope Way
Maplewood MN 55119
Donna Schmitz
Beaver Lake Estates
1210 Beaverdale Road
Maplewood MN 55119
Jerome Schultz
Beaver Lake Estates
1216 Cougar Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Mary Sizemore
Beaver Lake Estates
2461 Bison Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Craig M. Spreigl
Beaver Lake Estates
1219 Bobcat Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Thomas Sward
Beaver Lake Estates
1251 Deerfield Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
David Toff
Beaver Lake Estates
2420 Dolphin Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Robert Warner
Beaver Lake Estates
1214 Beaverdale Road
Maplewood MN 55119
Lisa Williams
Beaver Lake Estates
2449 Elkhart Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Sandra Zimmerman
Beaver Lake Estates
1255 Bobcat Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
17
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal,
I am a resident of Maplewood Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We,
residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I
am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing
Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and
preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense
of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in
Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting
Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would
further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate-
income residents. Thank you for your consideration.
Douglas Chestnut
Maplewood Mobile Home Park
1876 English Street
Maplewood MN 55109
Mike Cobb
Maplewood Mobile Home Park
1880 English Street North
Maplewood MN 55109
18
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal,
I am a resident of Rollin.q Hills Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We,
residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I
am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing
Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and
preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense
of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in
Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting
Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would
further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate-
income residents. Thank you for your consideration.
Mary Andersen
Rolling Hills
2622 Oakhill Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Klm Atkinson
Rolling Hills
2638 Angela Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Myron Axtman
Rolling Hills
1324 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Scott Benson
Rolling Hills
1340 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Floyd Brown
Rolling Hills
1398 Pearson Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Carol Brown
Rolling Hills
1394 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Richard Bunde
Rolling Hills
1387 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Dan Charboneau
Rolling Hills
2628 Benlana Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Shelly Christensen
Rolling Hills
1358 Pearson Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Larry Coffman
Rolling Hills
2676 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Rene Comstock
Rolling Hills
2633 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
John Cournoyer
Rolling Hills
2655 Oakhill Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Fred Creager
Rolling Hills
2644 Benlana Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Dorothy Dickinson
Rolling Hills
1341 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Denise Elmquist
Rolling Hills
2700 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Mona Lou Emerfoll
Rolling Hills
2638 Oak Hill Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Ray Garcia
Rolling Hills
2637 Benlana Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Carolyn Ann Garrison
Rolling Hills
1373 Rolling Hills Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Judith Gilmore
Rolling Hills
1332 Birch View Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Frank Goddfrey
Rolling Hills
2642 Angela Court
Maplewood MN 55119
William Guerin
Rolling Hills
1342 Pine Tree Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Diane Hakes
Rolling Hills
1389 Rolling Hills Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Sonnia Hess
Rolling Hills
1324 Pine Tree Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Melvin Johnson
Rolling Hills
1392 Pine Tree Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Marjorie Krull
Rolling Hills
2696 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Wanda Leiner
Rolling Hills
2624 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Bert Logsdon
Rolling Hills
1346 Pearson Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Jim Norring
Rolling Hills
1380 Pine Tree Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Kathy Paulson
Rolling Hills
1344 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Jessica Reardon
Rolling Hills
1349 Pearson Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Eva Snaza
Rolling Hills
2630 Oak Hill Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Nick Hanson
Rolling Hills
1321 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Donna Hickey
Rolling Hills
2648 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Sam Keenan
Rolling Hills
2646 Angela Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Patricia Lakman
Rolling Hills
1356 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Andrea Lewis
Rolling Hills
2625 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Colleen Murphy
Rolling Hills
1335 Pine Tree Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Matt Olson
Rolling Hills
2632 Benlana Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Jean Pearson
Rolling Hills
1339 Pine Tree Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Arthur Roy
Rolling Hills
1372 Rolling Hills Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Terry Sokol
Rolling Hills
2637 Benlana Court
Maplewood MN 55119
20
Cindy Herrick
Rolling Hills
2636 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Wayne Hogstad
Rolling Hills
1336 Birch View Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Chris Klein
Rolling Hills
1357 Pearson Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Harold Larson
Rolling Hills
2652 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Wesley Lodge
Rolling Hills
1352 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Phyllis Nereson
Rolling Hills
1331 Pine Tree Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Robert Olson
Rolling Hills
2621 Mickey Lane
Maplewood MN 55119
Richard Pearson
Rolling Hills
1109 Crestview Drive
Hudson WI 54016
Dave Seidel
Rolling Hills
1369 Rolling Hills Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
William Stangl
Rolling Hills
2634 Oak Hill Court
Maplewood MN 55119
William Thaluber
Rolling Hills
1339 Rolling Hills Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
J. Vasquez
Rolling Hills
1350 Pearson Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Colette Votel
Rolling Hills
1396 Rolling Hills Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Eldridge Wanlesi
Rolling Hills
2635 Oak Hill Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Jackie Wanned
Rolling Hills
2647 Angela Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Barbara West
Rolling Hills
2626 Oak Hill Court
Maplewood MN 55119
Ronald Zemke
Rolling Hills
1398 Birchview Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park
1319 Rolling Hills Drive
Maplewood MN 55119
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal,
I am a resident of St. Paul Tourist Cabins Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood.
We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in
Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed
Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would
help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well
as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other
cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so
protecting Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood
would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to
moderate-income residents. Thank you for your consideration.
Madge Asp
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
967 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Robert Bland
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
963 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
James Devanez
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
954 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Alphonso France
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
943 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Robert Hollingsworth
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
986 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Harry Lebo
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
983 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Duane Lonecor
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
944 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Richard Moore
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
957 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Inez Schuchard
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
965 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Jeff Swanberg
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
969 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Sam Webb
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
961 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Steve Weib
St. Paul Tourist Cabins
952 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
St. Paul Trailer Park
940 Frost Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109
Tracy Thomas
St. Paul Trailer Park
CIO PLJ, INC.
2501 Lowry Avenue NE
St. Anthony MN 55418
22
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal,
I am a resident of Town & Country Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We,
residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I
am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing
Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and
preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense
of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in
Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting
Iow-income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would
further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its Iow to moderate-
income residents. Thank you for your consideration.
William Bailey
Town & Country
1055 Deauville Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Kenneth Bennett
Town & Country
1100 Atvarado Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Orvis Bixby
Town & Country
1044 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Aimee Evanson
Town & Country
1059-Deauville Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
William Gilbert
Town & Country
1046 Deauville Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Linda Harmeling
Town & Country
2565 Plaza Circle
Maplewood MN 55109
Donna MacRunnel
Town & Country
1040 Deauville Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Pearl Pitlick
Town & Country
2581 Plaza Circle
Maplewood MN 55109
Richard Buckley
Town & Country
1058 Alvarado Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Joyce Fernette
Town & Country
1048 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Robert Grillickson
Town & Country
1050 Deauville Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
D. Hermann
Town & Country
1063 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Pat Nau/JV Properties
Town & Country
2557 Highway 61
Maplewood MN 55109
Rebecca Potthoff
Town & Country
1096 Alvarado Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Roger Erickson
Town & Country
2563 Plaza Circle
Maplewood MN 55109
Rogert Fritz
Town & Country
1059 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Donna Gutwiler
Town & Country
1066 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
David Huot
Town & Country
1046 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
T.V. Nordstrom
Town & Country
1036 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Sandy Private
Town & Country
1050 Alvarado Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
23
Geraldine Pullen
Town & Country
1065 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Charlene Stansbury
Town & Country
2568 Plaza Circle
Maplewood MN 55109
Betty Verdick
Town & Country
1042 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Ronald Richardson
Town & Country
1050 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Ron Strong
Town & Country
2565 Plaza Circle
Maplewood MN 55109
Joanne Wagner
Town & Country
1061 Bellecrest Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Tammie Schweiker
Town & Country
1062 Alvarado Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
Paul Vankirk
Town & Country
2573 Plaza Circle
Maplewood MN 55109
Carol Whaley
Town & Country
2562 Plaza Circle
Maplewood MN 55109
Beverly Winston
Town & Country
1056 Alvarado Drive
Maplewood MN 55109
24
St. Paul Cabins
2501 Lowry Avenue NE
St. AnthOny, MN 55418
612-781-3149
FYI
Attachment 5
Maplewood City Council
Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
March 11, 2002
Dear Mayor Robert Cardinal and City Council Members:
I am writing in regards to the city council meeting held Monday, February 25, 2002. I attended
the meeting to hear all of the comments and concerns regarding the Manufactured Home Park
Closing Ordinance Discussion.
'I represent the owners of St. Paul 'Cabins Manufactured Home Community. I received
information about the meeting from a letter sent by the City of Maplewood. I am happy to hear
that staff is directed-to research and gather information to make an informed decision about
whether a park closing ordinance is appropriate for the City of Maplewood.
· Just last year I worked with the City of Fridley on the wording of a park-closing ordinance. I
have attached that ordinance for your review. When taking on such a large task, there is no way
to satisfy the residents, the owners or even all city officials. Despite some wording I'd like
changed in the City of Fridley ordinance, I believe the staff did a terrific job of diplomatically
listening to all the party's viewpoints and coming to a fair compromise.
Also enclosed please find the City of Shakopee park-closing ordinance. I represent the owners of
a Manufactured Home Community in Shakopee as well. Many of the owners worked with the
City of Shakopee officials to word the ordinance currently in effect. I believe this particular
ordinance has the most flexibility for possible future city ~development of the property
Manufactured Home Communities are on.
In closing I'd like to offer any support or assistance I can. I'd appreciate the opportunity to work
with staff on the wording of a park-closing ordinance if you decide to proceed.
Thank you fOr your time.
Sincerely,
Agent
25
FRIDLEY CITY CODE
CHAPTER 223. MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS
('R~f Ord I 1~1)
223.01. PURPOSE
In .view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by thc closure or conversion of
manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general
welfare will be promoted by requiring compensation to displaced residents of such parks. The
propose of this ordinance is to require park owners to pay displaced residents reasonable
relocation costs and purchasers ofmauufactured home parks to pay additional compensation,
pursuan! to the authority granted nnder Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095.
223.02. DEFINITIONS
The following words and terms when used in this ordinance shall have the following meanings
unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
1. Closure Statement.
A statement prepared by the park owner clearly stating the park is closing, addressing the
availability, location and potential costs of adequate replacement housing within a twenty-five
(25) mile radius of the park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured
homes located in the park.
2. Displaced Owner.
A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured home who rents a lot in a manufactured home
park, including the members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a
closure statement to the Citys Planning Commission.
3. Displaced Resident.
A displaced owner.
4. Lot
Al1 area within a manufactured home park, designed and used for the accommodation of a
manufactured home.
26
Fridley City Code Chapter 22~
Section 223.02,10.A.
5. Manufactured Home.
A structure, not affixed to or part of real estate, transportable in one of more sections, which in
the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more ia width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or,
when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a
permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation
when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning,
and electrical system contained in it.
6. Park Closure.
A closure, conversion of use, or termination of tree, whether in whole or in part, ora
manufactured home park. For purposes of this definition, usc shall mean any usc related to the
manufactured home park and related services.
7. Park Owner.
The owner of a manufactured home park.
8. Person.
Any individual, corporation, firm; partnership, incorporated and unincorporated association or
any other legal or commercial entity.
9. Purchaser.
The person buying the manufactured home park from the park owner. In the event that fhe park
owner intends to retain ownership and convert the park to a different use, all references to the
purchaser refer to the park owner.
10. Rclocation Cost.
Oll~natey mat ts being closect or converted to another use to another manufactured home
park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park as follows:
A. Preparation for Move.
Thc reasonable costs incurred to prepare thc ehgible manufactured home for
transportation to another site. This category includes crane services if needed, but not the
cost of wheel axles, tires, frame welding or trailer hitches.
27
Section 223.04
B. Transportation to Another Site.
Reasonable costs ~wcc~..ed~O_ ,t~,,spo~ the ~H~/bl_c mauufactured home and personal'
property within a y-xtvc tz:) roue rantus. This category a/so includes the cost of
insuring the manufactured home and contents while' the home is in the process of being
relocated, and thc cost of obtaining moving permits provided that the park owner shall
not be required to pay delinquent taxes on a manufaCtured home if necessary in. order to
obtain a moving permit. This category also includes the reasonable cost of
disassembling, moving, and reasstmabling she. ds and any attached appurtenances, such as
porches, steps, decks, skirting, air conditioner units and awnings, wh/ch were acquired
before the notice of closure or conversion of the park.
Hook-up at New Location.'
The reasonable cost of connecting the eligible manufactured home to utilities at thc
relocation site, including crane services if needed. The park owner shall not be required
to upgrade the electrical or plumbing systems of thc manufactured home.
D. Insurance.
The cost of insurance for thc replaCement value of the property being moved.
Relooation costs do not include the Cost of any repairs or modifications to the manu-factured
home needed to bring the home into compliance with the state and federal manufactured home
building standards for the year in which the home was constructed. Relocation costs also do not
include the cost of any repairs or modifications to the home or appurteaances needed to bring the
home or appurtenances into compliance with the rules and regulations of the manufactured home
park to which the manufactured home is to be relocated, if those rules and regulations are no
more stringent than the rules and regulations of thc park in which the home is located and the
resident was notified ofnon-complianoe with the rules and regulations of the park in which it is
located within sixty (60) days prior to delivery of the closure statement.
223.03. PARK CLOSURE NOTICE
ff a manufactured home park is to be closed, converted in whole or part to another use or
terminated as a usc of the property, the park owner shall, at least nine (9) months prior to the
closure, conversion to another use or termination of use, provide a copy of a closure statement to
a resident of each manufactured home and to the City's Planning Commission.
223.04. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City's Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the City Council and
request the City Council to schedule a public hearing. Thc City shall m~l a notice at least ten
(10) days prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating
28
Fridlc~ City Code Chapter 223
Section 223.07.4
the time, place and purpose of the heating. The park owner shall provide the City with a list of
the names and addresses of at least one displaced resident of each manufactured home in the park
at the time the closure statement is submitted to the City's Planning Commission.
223.05. PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing shall be held before the City Council at~er.receipt of the closure statement for
the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating what impact the park closing may
have on the displaced residents and the park owner. .
223.06. DISPLACED RESIDENT OBLIGATIONS
A~ a condition of receiving assistance under this Chapter, a displaced resident shall submit a
contract or other verified cost estimate ofrelocahon costs to the park owner for approval. If the
park owner refuses ,to pay the contract or other verified cost estimate, thc park o _wrier must
arrange for relocating the manufactured home and pay the actual relocation costs incurred. In the
alternative, the displaced resident may submit a written statement to the park owner, identifying
that the displaced resident either cannot or chooses n°t to relocate his or her manufactured home
to another manufactured home park within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the park to be closed
and elects to receive either relocation assistance as defined in 223.07.02 or compensation as
defined in 223.08.
223.07. ELECTION TO RELOCATE
1. A_f~er service of the closure stat,merit by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced
resident cfa contract or other verification of relocation expenses, the park owner shall pay to the
displaced resident the reasonable costs as defined in 223.02.10 of relocating the manufactured
home to another manufactured home park located within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of thc
park that is being closed, converted to another use, or ceasing operation.
~_If~.a ~c..ed r?den, t. carm__o? or ch. oose.s not to relocate the manufactured home within a ·
~[y-nv, t,~) rmie ramus of the park whmh is being closed, and the displaced resident elects
to retain title to the manufactured home, the displaced resident is entitled to relocation costs as
defined in 223.02 based upon an average of the actual relocation costs paid to other displaced
residents in the manufactured home park. );or purposes of this section, in the event that it is not
possible to calculate the average using this formula, the amount of compensation shall be based
on the average of the estimated relocation costs submitted by other residents in the park.
3. 3. displaced resident compensated under this section shall retain title to the manufactured
home and shall be respons~le for its prompt removal from
the manufactured home park.
4. The park owner shall make the payments under this section directly to the person
performing the relocation services after performance thereof, or, upon submission of written
evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall reimburse the displaced
resident for such costs.
29
Ffidley Cit~ Code Chapt~ 223
Section223.11
5. The displaced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for
.relocating the manufactured home to the park owner as a condition to the park owner's liability
to pay relocation expenses.
223.08. ELECTION TO RECEI~E COMPENSATION
Ifa displaced resident chooses not to relocate thc manufactured home within a twenty five (25)-
mile radius oft]ac park that is being closed and tenders title of the manufactured home to the park
owner, the displaced resident is entitled to compensation, to be paid by the purchaser of the park
in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of thc park'closing. In such instance, the
compensation shall be an amount equal to:
1. The current fair market value of the manufactured home as determined by a real property
appraiser licensed by the State of Minnesota, or
2. If no appraisal exists, the current assessed value for tax purposes of the manufactured home
as established by Anoka County.
Under 223.08.01, the appraisal may be provided by either the displaced resident, the park owner
or the purchaser. Any disputes over Valuation shall be resolved through judicial action in Anoka
County District Court. Thc purchaser shall pay such compensation into an escrow account,
st~Iished by ~e park owner, .for distribution upon transfer of title to the manufactured home.
ucn cornpensaUon shall be paid to the displaced resident sixty (60) days prior to closing of the
park, conversion to another use, or later at resident option and the park owner shall receive title
and possession of the manufactured home upon payment of such compensation.
223.09. LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNT OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
ANI) COMPENSATION PAID TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS
The total amount of relocation assistance and compensation paid to displaced residents of the
manufactured home park, shall not exceed the greater of twenty percent (20%) of the County
Assessor's estimated market value of the manufactured home park, as determined by the County
Assessor for the year in which the park is scheduled to close, or twenty percent (20%) of the
purchase price of the park.
223.10. APPLICABILITY
Relocation assistance aad related compensation described under 223.02, 223.07 and 223.08 of
this ordinance shall not apply in the event that a displaced resident receives compensation under
the Uniform Relocation Act et. al. (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655).
223.11. PENALTIES
1. Violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be a misdemeanor.
30
Section 223. I I
2. Any provisions of this ord/nance may be Chromed by injunction or other appropriate civil
remedy.
3. The City sha~I not issue a building perrrht in conjunction with reuse of manufactured home
park property unless the park owner has p~id rcasormble location costs and the purchaser of the
park has provided compensation in accordance with the requirements of the ordiuance. Approval
of any application for rezoning, platting, cond/tional usc permit, planned unit development or
variance in conjunction with a park closing or conversion.shall be conditiona/on cornplimace
w/th the requircrnents of this ordinance. .
31 TOTAL P.07
ORDINANCE NO. 5~3~
AND ADDEqG SECTION 4.61 TO THE CITY CODE
TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
~ - The Shakopee City Code is ~ded by adding a new section ~o read:
~N4.6 p S
s, e~t fthe~ ~ ~o he auth n
· ' u cl indi ~es 'se:
dr in he vail iii i fin ot tis] co o ate I ent u' ' ' 25
'e 'us of hat i closin and relocation as the ho
Dis laced sid t- resid t of o er man ho w re~ a t
h me inc d' 'v ~ f r~s' ent' hou f
t arkownet b 'ts Io ement th i 'sP ' o 'ssi n.
- ar within r ho dm or th~
m~_.~, .~ur~ hon~.
D M~ Ho e- st ctu no to of t ieino ._=_'
re io hich in the ' is g or e' wi h or 40 mo_ m
e~ or h er on site is 320 or mo an w'his ilt n& erin '
d i ~o · ed a weI~ ' or wk a -i~ n fi
· u me ark- ' lot fidd fl w' two r
· red ho ! hether e r ti rio ind es
$ J'T-- 159l~2
SBZS~-23
32
APR 0 3 2002
the ma~i~.~u~ed home ~4c. This dcfir~ition does not incb_,de f~li~ie~ which are o_~n only duri~
_thr~e or f~ver __~Om of the
F. park Owner - The owner of a m~,,._~_~,_rcd home park ~d anv p~rson lictin~ on behalf of the
~-wner in th~ operation or mana~emept of a ~
G. ~P~on - A~ indivi_d-~l_ co_r~osafion. ~ partner~.hip, incorporated or unin~ted
,~.~o_~a6on or any_ other legal or commercial entity_.
_Subd. 3. NOTICE OF CLO$12qG. If ~ m~-~-- home ~srk is to I~ c, lo~_,a,~4_ converted in whole
or part to another us~ or t~a,~ ~s a u~e of the _pm_z~rty. t~e Dark ow~' sh_~ll_ st le~t ~ montK.
prior to the closure, co~-,,~-slon to ~,-~other u~ or termination of use. _~r~vid~ a cogy of' a clot~.,
~_~ ~,~__mt to a r~ident ot'~¢h m~nut~.~ed b0me and to the City's Planning Co~,~-r~sion.
~ul~l. 4. TAX 1~1~ FINANCING. At any time prior to or ~ deliven/of the Notice~f
Closing to the Plmmin8 Commission- but prior to the Publi~ Hearin,, se~ forth in Subd. 6. the ~
owner or prospo~iv¢ ~x~rch~er of the _~k may make ~spplic~tion to the City for the use of
in~.-~c, iem financ~8_ to finane~ the cost ofreloeat_ia8 ~md ~rcl~ing the displae_~ m~-f~tvred hom~.
any incidental costs ~iated ~rewith. and ~nv od~ devcJnpm~nt ~e~se tlmt the Ci~
al;,?ro_ofi~-~-¢ or eli~ble for such ~ad~z. The City_ in Rs sole and ~limit~ ~___~-~tion may d~
whether tax haer~ent fi~ncin_~ should be ,~__~1_ for such ?a _r~oseS. If the City detenig~e~ ihat
inc~e~xgnt f~mcing should not be ~Sed for such mrposes, the park owner ~ elect tO r~.--h-~l
Notice of Closure ~d r¢_~,me operation of' the m~,~_~ r~ home park_ provided; hgwever.
pofie.~ of any su~:h re.-~-'-s~on shall be given to lyark r~sidents uo lat~ than 90 d~vs #ter the .Nofi .ce of
Closure has been riven.
Subd. 5. NOTICE OF PUBLIC H~ARI~G. The Planning Commission .shall submit the closure
~_a~_~,~t to the City. Cou,cll md request the City_ C_~,~41 to schedule ~. ~_,bli¢ h,,*rinz The C~ ~,~.
mail a nofic~ ~t least ten days prior to the ~ublic he*_,ing to a resident of :~.~-h .m~-'gured home in
piu-k ~tlalz the time. _~l~_ee lind pu _rpose or,be ~_ea, i~_~ The park owr~r s_h_~!! _~rovide the City_ with
ti~ of the names ~nd add~es~s of at lea.st one r~L_,d,~.. Of e~_¢h m~u __C-~'~mred home in the park at
time th~ closure ~:~_tement is submitted to the Plannin~ Commlssion~
Subd .6, PUBLIC HEAR~G. A public hearing ~ be held befor~ ~e City_ Council within 90 da_w
afcer [o:~_-ipt ofthe Notice of Ciosin~ for the pu _rpose of reviewin_~ the ciogJre statement and evaludi~,~
~ imga~t that the pm'k c!~sin~ may have on di_~l~c_~ residents ~d the park owner.
Fulfil. 7, PA~ OF RELOCATION COSTS.
A. Afl~er ~ecvice ofth~ closure statem~t by_ the park owner 8~d completion of~he public hearin~
and upon 9~hir, ln~! _by the disp!~t-_~l_ resident ors contract or other veriflc~_!'__~l 9f relocatign exp_ en~
the i~k owns' dutil pay ~9 the di_~l~e--ed resident fl~ r~t~o~!e cost Of r~loc~tin_~ the ma~ufacture~
hom~ to .another manufa~tur~ home _~ark located ~ a ~S ndle radi~s of the park ~ is I~int
vlose~± converted to a~ther -,.,, or ce*~in_~ o~afio~. Rel_n¢~_t_ion costs mu~t he _mild not less than 9~_
days prior to ~he clos'mg of the pm'k or its conversion go an~?ther u~. R,-~,,o_~ble.reloc~ion .costs
JJ'T-I $9B42 2
I ' ' mo' di i t's
~ r · ' the nab f ' ' . ~
~ ' w' ir afternofi of re r ' n
,~m'~iw''hoe_k-up'' char~_es.
(2) The co~ of h-~m~ce for the f~ol~c_.,~nent vn~e of the _ _mopertv being movecL
e le ' r · ' or . .
m the ed me m it exi ' to .
· ' 'O!1
n~.m~ _~ed home _oad~
B. .rio co n t' iud a ts aid nbc of i I id b
o ero ur hase r theo ero t~ ho tow' ' I '
C. The total amount of reio,~:~:on _oa~,~,ts paid to a dl._~!~c_-~_ resident shall not ex__eee~_ the
· et ho determ/ned'- ub 'on Aoft' Se~-~on.
Subd, 8. PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMpENSATION.
A. If a resident oannot or chooses not to relocate the manuPd-~--~red home within a 25 mile radius
of.the Dark tb~t is bcin_e do=_-e~i due to a ~'u-o~ralor a_~¢ limitation ofh%e mnn-~- ..ttl~'~ed, ~-~o,--~ or t.~.
.1,~-k of an_v available lot.soMe within the 25 mile radius, then ~n lieu of the above rdo,:ar_;on va_wr~,-~t- ..
di.~l:,,-,,a resident is ei:~:_!_,~d_ to tev4_-r_ the title to the numu___faOu_ red howe and be paid an amount
to the _*~_~_~_--.-=:-~/na,-ket .value .of the ir~;~f~ep._~ted home as a_~-i,-dned by an ind~,.,--,dent
knowl_e4?.~hle in the w..I-nti-n of manu~_,_fe~ hoi~¢~ and RivinR due cor~du%~,on to the vR!ue a~_
condition of the home. The City shall ~L_-~_-_ the afraraiser an~ the~_~_ tn~=,=,a~er shall vav for the c~-_'
- - -' n G'~i ftifle ot~
of the ' · u or k o ** ch r,o on -- -'-
· · - ' ] ' later 'rto
me. Such co en ~aon md -,~ di
~.]n~ina af the oark or its convv~orr to aaob%~ use. and the vark owner shall _receive title and
~'~s~ion of the man-+'~_~,~. ~ted home up_on payment of such com_o~n:~u~On.
B. If a di_=?!n-c-~l- iCs~--'~t cannot or choo~ not tO reloc_~_te the qmnufactured home within
~ ra_d_i__us of the _hark thnt is ~i'~ closed a,- to a structural 'or nae ',;,¥.::_al;on of'he
home. and ',he xr.:~d~_en_ t ~--~.~ not to ~ender 1/tie to the ma~fnctured home. the re~den! is =iuiled !.'_:
relc,,-:,~_;or, costs eouat to an avera_~e of relo._~,~ cost~ oaid to other re~c~_ ts in the ?/u-k. P~t~-it o_1'
the av~a~_e re|o?~,on cosls _~_hnll be made as follows: $~)% within 10 cla~ of ap_o§,_~_~on for b%
and $0% u~n the ~e~qd of ~e fr~,~t,,'f-,~,~ home and --.."v ~,.~,~.-e~ and ~l~b~,s '--o,,-~
man, Fn_t~_~.home _o~k P&~c/~t for doublewkie manufactm~J homes shall be in an amount ec~_ ,_aJ~l tc
~ice the averane reloca~.nn c~_~s p~_d to ow1~rs of s!~?lewide ~,~,~_~.,.-oJ
JJT-13~42
34
_su~_ 9. CAP ON pAYMENT.~.
tax' ' isu tstm e a of emi ~'o co
or ~hc e~_~s~_,~-d value of thc oerk. whichever is _~'eatet
· ' is o or' such financin is r~ot ttlci t th .
th fo win t · rh 'ce · arkor eof ·
P~.-k Qv,~er City_ portion ClfNeededl
9 o0o
2o%
600 699 9
i ' ortionshall e 'd ifthe o mr u' rob idb he arkowner' ' '
o ac ~ resi t t al t ired b '~i n~7 d8 ff · tal u
duc to displ~_c~ ccsidewts occeeds the abgve pere~iages, oayment$ to displ~e~,~_ residents will be mad~
~ a pro r~ta bas~.
The purchase ofice of thc park .inc!ud~ea a)l considcratign rer~ivecl by the park owner including
~t not li~qited to e~=h,, buyer's forl~v~-~a of seller's i~___d~_.~, ~iens. mori?~_es or
~___r,c~ibcanc_~ p~d_ by buyer on seli~'s~b__alf or sp_~5'~l a~_~_~ paid or assessed by_ buyer. I. Ypcm
~requcst by th~ Ci~. ~e park owner and ourch~mer shall provide the CiW with a c~cn_~]~¢
and doo~nentation of thc sale _orior to the _oublic hearin~,~.
D. Nothing in this ~on is i~ended to orevent the City or the oark o~er from obtaining
~ononaic .~!~,ice in ~tidilion tO tax ½ncrein~nt ~u-uincine from any _zovo mT~--ntal ,a~i-V to
payment of amounts due to disvlaced residents.
Subd. 10. YEii.IFICATION OF COSTS. The displac~ r~sident m,.__,st submit a COntract or other
~--~ed cost __-~ale for reloca,'-.qe the rnaou~_~_,z'd hom~ to the oark owr~er for
~ondition to the park owner's ~j~ilitv to ~av relo,~ion expense, lfth~ uark owner ia'uses to
¢.o,~b-act or other v~ff, ed costs cslhv, ate. ~ park 9wno' shall amm~ fo-r reloc~_,Sn_z the ir.~aufactu~l
home and pay the reloc_~_fon costs ide0fificd in Subd. 7.
Subd. 10. PENALTY.
Any provision of this Section may be enforced by injunO._j.nn or other appro_vriate civil
remedy.
ffF.1~9842
4
APR 0 3 ZOt Z
35
Adopted in ~ session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minne~ta~
held the.~ da~_~tmo
Mayor of the City of Shaimpee
ATTKST:
Oerk /
,r, rT-I s~842 5
36
Attachment 6
Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks
Town and Country.
2557 Highway 61
St. Paul Tourist
940 Frost Avenue
Man. Home Park
1880 English St. N.
Rolling Hills
1319 Hills Drive
Beaver Lake
2425 Maryland Avenue
Manufactured Home Parks
37
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
City Tour
May 28, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission should start planning their annual tour of the city.
DISCUSSION
The first matter the commission should decide is the date of the tour. Typically, the planning
commission holds the tour.from 5:30 - 8:30 on an evening in mid-summer. In reviewing the
calendar and the meeting schedule of the commission, council and CDRB, I suggest that
Monday, July 29 would be a good date for this years tour.
Secondly, the commission should decide about the format of the tour. In recent years we have
driven by many sites with little time for comment or discussion at those locations. After last years
tour, several of the commission members suggested that having fewer sites while allowing more
time at those sites would be more useful. (See the attached August 6, 2001, and September 4,
2001, PC minutes for reference.) Please review these minutes and be ready to discuss your
preferences for this years tour.
Another matter for the commission to consider is what other groups to invite on the tour. To keep
the tour more focused and relevant to planning considerations, staff suggests that we invite the
city council, the CDRB and the HRA to join the PC on this years tour.
Finally, the commission should let staff know of any sites they want to include on the tour. We
usually try to visit sites that we know have upcoming proposals, where construction has started
or where the contractor recently finished the site work. Examples for this year include the
Hillcrest Village area, the Hajicek property on County Road D and possibly a manufactured home
park.
kr/memo/pctour.doc
Attachments:
1. August 6, 2001 PC minutes
2. September 4, 2001 PC minutes
Planning Commission
Minutes 8-6-2001
-8-
Attachment 1
Chairperson Fischer wanted to make sure that when officials are going out to check complaints
that they check to see that vehicles are not too close to properties.
Chairperson Fischer reminded the commission that Tuesday, August.7, 2001 was Maplewood
Night Out.
IX.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
·
a. Annual Tour Follow-up
Mr. Roberts asked membem if they are getting bored with the tour because the attendance was
not very good.
Chairperson Fischer mentioned if they do the city tour again they need to get a quieter bus with
a working microphone.
Mr. Roberts replied that they. were required to get a bus with a lift on it and were told it had a
microphone. Unfortunately the microphone was for the driver only.
Commissioner Trippler said it was so loud he could no~ hear any speakers because people were
being so loud talking amongst themselves and the bus itself was so noisy.
Members mentioned to Mr. Roberts that maybe it would be nice in the future to tour other cities
that may have something that the city of Maplewood could profit from and see how that would
relate to what Maplewood could do with their city. Members stated that they see the city of
Maplewood when they drive around on ~their own and would be interested in seeing cities they
don't see everyday like Shoreview or Stillwater.
Mr. Roberts asked Chairperson Fischer if the consensus was to continue the 'city tours or not or
did they want to discuss that amongst themselves.
Chairperson Fischer stated that several members were missing from the meeting and we should
address it again at the next meeting to get an answer on that.
Commissioner Tfippler stated he thought they could discuss that subject during a light agenda
night. A couple of meetings were cancelled and he thought they had asked for an opportunity in
some chamber setting for a chance to discuss educational things or items that people had been
thinking about.
Mr. Roberts asked if it should be tabled and members replied yes.
b. Rescheduling of September 3, 2001 meeting
Mr. Roberts asked members if they could reschedule the Monday,. September 3, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting because of Labor Day.
The consensus of the members present was to reschedule the meeting to Tuesday, September
4, 2001. '
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
2
Attachment 2
Planning Commission
Minutes of 09-04-01
-9-
am
Tour Follow-up
Mr. Roberts was inquiring about the tour and asked if members want to do anything different
with the annual tour..
Commissioner Rossbach would like to have fewer sites and longer stops at the sites to
discuss or formulate questions. I,q previous tours it seemed to be a hurried site seeing tour.
There is not much discussion happening except amongst themselves. The tours are good,
having an opportunity to bring the different commissions, and council members together to'
have some discussion about what is going on in the city. To him the best part of the tour is
the picnic.
Commissioner Frost said he thinks the tour is too much for everyone that attends the tour. He
would like to have the tour with only a few groups of people. For instance, having a tour with
the Planning Commission and the Community Design Review Board since certain sites affect
both commissions. Let the other groups go on tours separately. Fewer sites would be better
also.
Mr. Roberts stated that part of the reason all of the groups have been going together on these
tours, is this is a chance for members to meet various other commission members. About the
only other time people can do this, is at the annual city appreciation dinner. Otherwise, your
paths probably don't cross.
Mr. Roberts asked if it is the consensus of tl~e Planning Commission that we should still do
some type of a tour?.
Commissioner Ahlness said he definitely thinks the tour is valuable. As a new commissioner
it provides a good broad prospective of what is going on. You also hear from the more
experienced members about what the thinking was that went into some of the decisions that
were made. Or how it fits in with the grand scheme of things. For instance, next year we
could tour the Schlomka Landscaping. We could let the local residents and the business
owner know when are stopping by there, maybe they will want to give some feedback to the
commission about how things are working out, The most significant area we will face in the
future is the Hillcrest Village Area. What is the closest thing within a reasonable distance from
the City of Maplewood that looks like what we want? Go down to the Grand Avenue business
district for instance, and see, is that what we have Planned for the future of the Hillcrest
Village Area and then have a discussion on it. This may help us get our focus and understand
by seeing something in person regarding what is or isn't good about this plan. As the
development comes together over the years, we can help guide it through a common vision or
a practical reality and see if works well for Maplewood.
Commissioner Dierich agreed with both Mr. Ahlness and Mr. Rossbach with where they are
going with this. She thinks fewer sites with more of an eye to examples 'of the kinds of
problems that we are going to be seeing both in the future and the things we have already
acted on in the past. It seems to her that the mission for city council and for Planning
Commission is evolving from being more of meeting the ordinances so it is okay to build to
more of a clear vision and where to go with it in the future. These tours would help clarify that
thinking and get everybody on the same page with where they want to go with how to design
the city in the future.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 09-04-01
-10-
Mr. Roberts thanked everyone for their comments and he will compile the thoughts and put it
in the tour file for planning next year's tour.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
April Retreat Follow-up
June 6, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The planning commission held a retreat/training session with city staff and Barb Strandell on Apdl
29, 2002. I have enclosed Barb's notes from this meeting.
DISCUSSION
Please review Barb's notes and suggestions for a more effective commission. The commission
should discuss the notes and decide if they reflect what the participants said and if they are still
applicable or are important to the commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept or adopt with revisions the suggestions from the April 29, 2002 planning commission
training retreat.
Attachment: Apd129, 2002 meeting notes
p:miscellWpdl training followup.doc
Attachment 1
Maplewood Planning Commission Retreat
Notes (4/29/02)
Commission & Staff Agendas
In the process of reviewing applications and project, what guides your thinking?
Or, what is your primary agenda? Or, what do you rely on to inform your decision-making?
Jackie: pro landowner; follow the comprehensive plan; balance with what we do
with the environment; site visits, consult with staff and residents.
Gary: concerned that commercial does not overshadow neighborhoods; senior
housing - PUDs and variance: public good; review comprehensive plan.
Mary:
tax basis - fall on the business side but need to balance what we need with
what we want; density; environment: clean houses, yards parks; concerned
about diversity - that we deal with it.
Tom: compliance with codes; consider ramification of choices; balancing
developers right to build with residents; input from other departments.
Melinda: codes, plans, statutes; input from all stakeholders (Met Council, City
Council, other departments) comprehensive review; all factors. Strive for a
community that is inclusive of all people, incomes, lifecycle, etc.
Ken: does this make sense; balance interests of applicants with city as a whole.
Will: protecting existing residents of Maplewood from whatever is going to happen;
residents are more important than businesses.
Dale: How does it fit with what is going on around it? Does it conform to rules and
regulations that I know of? Public comments.
Lorraine: In the contest of constraints, how does it fit into plan? Protect the
environment and responsible stewardship; affordable and diverse housing
(minimize impact).
Matt:
How does it fit into what exists and what is planned? Aesthetics - the look;
neighbors; first hand experience - visualize site; information from many
sources; weigh the pros and cons.
Roles and Relationships: Discussion was held regarding the role of the staff and the
Planning commission
Suggestions:
Get vision and more direction from City Council
Get questions to Council on big topics
Have works sessions prior to meetings - for complicated applications
More meetings with City Council
o Having a clear agenda (since the last meeting was not very useful)
o Make an effort to understand their position
Training:
o Priority: zoning, PUDs, variance, legal authorities. ( would be handled in
one training session).
o Have four in-service training sessions per year
Minutes: significantly shorten minutes (some are as long as 40 pages); treat
minutes like minutes instead of transcriptions. Will have a special meeting to
discuss minutes. Minutes should also have more proof- reading. Sometimes
poorly written- jump from 1st to 3rd person etc.
Meetings: review of coming attractions; have other department
representatives there if possible; provide more context and history to
Commission (verbal).
Communication: Commissioners will be more respectful towards staff and
applicants. Staff and fellow commissioners will feel free to give commissioners
feedback when they feel that comments are offensive or getting out of line.
Chair: will make an effort to tighten up the meetings and commissioners will
interject and help chair move things along if they feel that they are getting
bogged down.
Public: PC should make meetings less formal:
o Will will get nametags and see to it that Commissioners greet the
public before the meetings.
o Citizens will be encouraged to write down their thoughts on a piece of
paper prior to presenting (Staff will provide guidelines).
o Groups will be encouraged to have a spokesperson present instead of
each individual member of the group. (Lorraine)
o Staff will provide refreshments when it looks like a difficult, long or a well
attended meeting.
o Commissioners are encouraged to interject when necessary.
Additional actions:
Provide better staff and new PC orientation. Provide code book and
comp. plans to each new member.
Change resident notice forms to give more information about projects
including possible outcome if appropriate.
Keep planning commissioners informed of training opportunities and
consider having them attend other agency meetings when
appropriate.
Will agreed to clarify issues with Matt on Carver Ridge area zoning.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
June 12, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The planning commission has a vacancy created by the resignation of Eric Ahlness. I have
attached a map of where the current planning commission members live, a map of where the
candidates live and the candidate's applications. (See pages 2-8.)
BACKGROUND
The planning commission's rules of procedure state that the commission shall recommend
candidates based on qualifications and a representative geographical distribution of members.
RECOMMENDATION
Interview the applicant's for the planning commission vacancy and then rank them as a
recommendation to the city council. After the interviews, the city council should appoint a person
to serve on the planning commission. This person would fill the unfinished term on the planning
commission that would end on December 31, 2004.
kr/p:misc/pcappt.02
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Membership Map
2. Planning Commission Applicant's Location Map
3. Five Applications
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
LEGEND
i .I
MAPLEWOOD
PLANNING
~Lorraine B. Fischer, Chair
1812 Fumess Street
Maplewood MN 55109
(~ale Trippler
1201 Junction Avenue
Maplewood MN 55109-3433
~aul Mueller
1820 Onacrest Court
(~aplewood MN 55117
ary Diedch
2624 Promontory Place
Maplewood MN 55119
Attachment 1
COMMISSION '°
--latt"
Ledvina .. _
1173 Lakewood Dr S
aplewood MN 55119
illiam Rossbach
1386 County Road C
Maplewood, MN 55109
'~r~r~a ry Pearson
1209 Antelope Way
__Maaplewood MN 55119
ckie Monahan-Junek
2430 Larpenteur Avenue E.=-
Maplewood MN 55119
F-
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
County of Romsey, bllnne$otCl
LEGEND
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS
Richard Currie
1937 West Kenwood Drive
Maplewood, MN 55117
Tushar Desai
2973 Edward Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
Lisa Egstad
384 Laurie Road
Maplewood, MN 55117
Brad Lagoon
1871 Barclay Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
o
Reginald Meissner
1955 Price Ave.
Maplewood, MN 55109
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM
ADDRESS /,~,~r~ K_~s~ /~'~ooJ~ '~.
PHONE NO. work: ~5"1 - ~2.F-o ~ ¥? Home: ~ S'"'l
- 7 7/- 7_. c~ v~ '7 DATE
1)
2)
How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood?
VVill other cor~mitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes __
Comments:
3)
4)
On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check)
__ ._ Community Design Review Board ~ Park & Recreation Commission
~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~ Planning Commission
~ Human Relations Commission ~ Police Civil Service Commission
Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities?
5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant:
6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission.9
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC.
, ~.~ r,::' ,? ~,i; i ~::,~',:'
NOV ! 3 200!
NAME
ADDRESS ;:;~_o[ '7 .,~
PHONE NO. Work:
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM
Home: ~'
t ECEIV£1
DATE
ZIP ~' ~; //~ ~
1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplew°od?
2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult?
Comments:
Yes
No ~
3)
4)
On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check)
__ Community Design Review Board __ Park & Recreation Commission
__ Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~ Planning Commission
Human Relations Commission __ Police Civil Service Commission
Do you have an,,y specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities?
5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant:
6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or .CommissLon? , ,q //)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC.
FORMS\BRD&COMM.APL
5
0196
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM
ADDRESS
PHONE NO. Work: ,/.5"/ "~/~--33 ? · Horr~: ~.S'/- ;7 ~,¢. -
EMAIL ,/¢..~,~,.S)",c~('~ ¢_..~ ~, ¢,¢.,~.~.f, C2~,~. FAX
/ ~ ,
1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? J--¢/
/
2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes
No ~
Comments:
On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check)
A description of the duties of each committee is on back.
Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission
Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~Planning Commission
Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission
4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commisison's scope of
responsibilities?
LCt~~zat,ons or clubs ,n the Commun, ,n wh,ch ou have been
5) ' o~a~ .... ~' ' y orate an active
participant:
6) Why would you like to serve on the Board or Commission?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANY ATTACHMENT PROVIDED ARE CONSIDERED
PUBLIC INFORMATION.
WORD/BRD&COMM 04/02
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM
NAME /~~
ADDRESS' ,/
PHONE NO. W~rk: ~ ~ :~TZ ~//7- ' Home:
EMAIL FAX
ZIP 5'~0~
1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood?
2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult?
Yes
No J
Comments:
On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check)
A description of the duties of each committee is on back.
Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission
Housing & Redevelopment Authority ~ Planning Commission
~Human Relations Commission ,~ Police Civil Service Commission
4)
Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commisison's scope of
responsibilities? ~ ~ ,~
5)
List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active
participant: ~)0/OC~ ..
6). Why would you like to serve on the Board or Commission?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: .
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANY A TTACHMENT PROVIDED ARE CONSIDERED
PUBLIC INFORMATION.
WORD/BRD&COMM 04/02
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM
/ ^//~./.-/~
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE NO. Work: Home:
EMAIL .~.. /14L::I.~'.~'~i~.--F)_ ~ ~D g~ FAX
1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood?
ZIP .5',5"i dj q
2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes__
No .~"
Comments:
On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check)
A description of the duties of each committee is on back.
· Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission
__Housing & Redevelopment Authority ? Planning Commission
~Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission
4)
Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commisison's scope of
responsibilities?
5)
6)
List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active
participant:
Why would you like to serve on the Board or Commission?
!
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANY A TTACHMENT PROVIDED ARE CONSIDERED
PUBLIC INFORMATION.
WORD/BRD&COMM 04/02
8