HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-23 ENR Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 23,2010
7p.m.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road 8 East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes: May 21,2010
5. New Business
a. Wetland Variance - Goodwill Development (2580 White Bear Avenue) [45 min.]
b. Wetland Variance - The Shores at Lake Phalen (940 Frost Avenue) [45 min.]
c. Capital Improvement Plan Presentation [30 min.]
d. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Presentation
[30 min.]
6. Unfinished Business
a. Alternative Energy Ordinance [tabled until July]
b. Chickens in Residential Districts [tabled until July]
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
9. Staff Presentations [10 min.]
a. Update on the June 14, 2010, City Council Meeting -Items Reviewed Include
the Stormwater Ordinance
b. Recycling Contract Request for Proposals - Update on Letters of Intent
c. Subcommittee Updates
d. Community Development and Parks Department Tour: Tuesday, June 29, 5:30
to 8:30 p.m.
e. Maplewood Nature Center Programs
10. Adjourn
Agenda Item 4
DRAFT
MINUTES
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
7:00 p.m., Monday, May 17, 2010
Council Chambers, City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chair Trippler.
B. ROLL CALL
Dale Trippler, Chair
Randee Edmondson, Commissioner
Judith Johannessen, Commissioner
Carole Lynne, Commissioner
Carol Mason Sherrill, Commissioner
Bill Schreiner, Commissioner
Ginny Yingling, Commissioner
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the Agenda:
Ms. Finwall added 1.7. Community Development Annual Tour and 1.8. Active Living Ramsey
County.
Commissioner Lynne added H.3. Rain Gardens.
Commissioner Schreiner moved to approve the aqenda as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Yingling.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of March 24, 2010, Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Minutes
Commissioner Schreiner had a correction under F. 2. a. the sentence needs to flow better.
Commissioner Mason Sherrill said F. 3. under stormwater ordinance and stormwater issues, it
should say stormwater mitigation issues.
May 17, 2010
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
1
Commissioner Lynne moved to approve the March 24. 2010, Environmental and Natural
Resources Commission Meetinq Minutes as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Schreiner.
Ayes - Chair Trippler,
Commissioners Johannessen,
Lynne, Sherrill & Schreiner
Abstain - Commissioner Yingling
The motion passed.
Approval of April 19, 2010, Environmental and Natural Resources Minutes
Commissioner Johannessen had a correction on page 3, F. 2. a. in the paragraph change effect
to j!ffect wind turbines.
Commissioner Yingling moved to approve the April 19. 2010. Environmental and Natural
Resources Commission Meetinq Minutes as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Schreiner.
Ayes - All
The motion passed.
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Landscape Ecology Awards Program
(LEAP)
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the introduction and introduced Mark Gernes.
b. Mark Gernes, Member of the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Watershed
Advisory Commission and Maplewood resident, gave a presentation on the L.EAP.
annual award program.
2. Maplewood Tree Program
a. Natural Resources Coordinator, Ginny Gaynor gave a report on the Maplewood Tree
Program along with tree diseases, tree inventory, removal, planting, purchase rebate
programs, and educational programs on trees.
3. Extreme Green Makeover - Request for Judge
a. Natural Resources Coordinator, Ginny Gaynor gave a brief update on the Extreme Green
Makeover and the contest dates that a judge would be needed.
Commissioner Mason Sherrill volunteered to serve as a judge for the Extreme Green
Makeover in Maplewood.
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Alternative Energy Ordinance (Heard out of order)
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall updated the commission and gave the report on
the draft alternative energy ordinance.
The commission discussed questions and concerns with staff regarding the draft
ordinance as follows:
1. Concern was expressed about the fact that the ordinance didn't address how turbines
might affect bats, birds, or other wildlife.
May 17, 2010
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
2
2. Concern was expressed regarding how the city will deal with the aesthetic impacts of
wind turbines.
3. Concern was expressed about how a turbine will affect the environment overall, such
as the removal of trees for the installation or efficiency of turbines.
4. A question was posed as to how a turbine actually reduces a home's energy
consumption?
5. There is confusion in the ordinance regarding guide wires and the difference between
micro versus macro turbine standards.
6. A question was posed regarding what type of procedures would be required for wind
turbine permitting?
7. The commission discussed how many roof-top turbines should be allowed?
8. The commission asked for clarification on the minimum setback distance of 2Y:z times?
9. The commission discussed having all turbines reviewed by the community design
review board for aesthetic review, similar to their review of cell towers.
10. The commission discussed several other aspects of the ordinance that the consultant
should review prior to a final to ensure consistency.
Ms. Finwall will review these changes with the consultant and bring back a revised draft in
June.
2. Chickens in Residential Districts
a. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave an update on the report for chickens in
residential districts and the draft ordinance.
1. Concerns were expressed regarding heating the chicken coops and safety issues
involved in this practice.
2. The ordinance should refer to chicken breeds, not chicken species.
3. The commission discussed whether chickens should be allowed in accessory
structures, such as attached or detached garages.
4. The commission discussed the slaughtering of chickens. The ordinance prohibits it,
but the owner could send the chickens out to have them slaughtered for meat.
5. Before moving any further with this ordinance, the commission thought the city should
exam the costs associated with permitting, inspecting, and enforcing such an
ordinance to ensure it is not a financial burden on the city.
6. The commission recommended checking with the animal control officer regarding his
time and cost if this ordinance went into effect.
Chair Trippler took a poll of the commissioners to determine who thought the chicken
ordinance should move forward. Four commission members were in favor of it and two
were not in favor. Commissioner Edmundson was absent but had voiced her approval of
the ordinance at previous meetings.
Commissioner Yingling offered to assist staff in reviewing the costs associated with
permitting, inspecting, and enforcing the ordinance. Staff will review the financial aspects
of such an ordinance and bring this information back to the commission in June.
G. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
H. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS (Heard out of order)
1. St. Paul Pioneer Press Article - Internet Antenna Proposed for Apple Valley Park
Chair Trippler discussed an article regarding cell phone towers going up at an Apple Valley
Park. Chair Trippler stated that typically when a city receives a proposal for a cell phone
May 17, 2010
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
3
tower the federal and local rules allow the tower to be constructed, regardless of
neighborhood concerns. But in the Apple Valley case, residents complained about a cell
phone tower in a park in Apple Valley and the city council denied the request for the tower to
be built. Ms. Finwall indicated that many cities lease park space cell phone towers in order to
offset their park fees.
2. Organized Collection Panel Discussion (Trash Hauling Subcommittee)
Commissioner Lynne discussed attending the organized collection panel discussion held at
the City of Golden Valley at the end of April. They discussed the pros and cons of having one
hauler verses a number of haulers in a city to handle trash and recycling. Commissioner
Lynne also discussed the city council workshop in which she and Chair Trippler attended and
discussed the Environmental Commission's goal of reviewing the city's trash hauling system.
In general, the city council was receptive to the review of our current system.
Chair Trippler stated that during the panel discussion some cities stated that they regretted
setting up trash zones which allowed for one hauler per zone, with several zones in the city.
Administratively they state that it would have been easier to have one hauler for the entire
city.
3. Raingardens (added by Commissioner Lynne)
Commissioner Lynne discussed how sand from the street had settled into the raingarden
located in front of her house. She wanted to point out that the sand should be removed from
the entry point of the raingarden, to ensure proper infiltration. Other commissioners
recommended throwing that sand in the trash, rather than placing into the garden because of
possible pollutants.
I. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
1. Update on May 10, 2010, City Council Workshop and Meeting - Organized Collection
Discussion, ENR Commission Annual Report, Stormwater Ordinance, Flood Plain
Ordinance and Recycling Request for Proposal -
Ms. Finwall gave an update on the organized collection discussion at the May 10, 2010, city
council meeting. The city council adopted the ENR Commission Annual Report. The city
council approved the first reading of the Stormwater Ordinance and the first reading of the
Flood Plain Ordinance. The recycling contract proposal was approved and the RFP will go to
the haulers June 1, 2010, with a deadline for proposals on June 30, 2010.
2. Recycling Contract Proposal Review Committee
Ms. Finwall said three commissioners are needed to serve on the RFP review committee.
These commissioners will review and score the proposals. The review will take place after
the June 30, 2010, deadline for proposal and before the July 19, 2010, ENR Commission.
Dale Trippler, Bill Schreiner and Ginny Yingling said they would be willing to serve on the
RFP review committee.
3. ENR Subcommittee Update
Greenways: Ms. Finwall said staff will set up a greenway subcommittee meeting in June to
discuss plans for two to three neighborhood meetings to discuss general concepts of
greenways in order to gain neighborhood feedback.
Trash Hauling: Ms. Finwall said the trash hauling subcommittee received positive feedback
from the city council on the review of the city's hauling system during a recent workshop. The
subcommittee will meet to discuss a work plan that will meet state statute and city
requirements for organizing the city's trash hauling system.
May 17, 2010
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
4
Neighborhood Environmental Groups: This subcommittee should meet to discuss the
scope of the environmental neighborhood groups. They should ensure they invite a member
of the Nature Center staff to the first meeting.
4. Waterfest
Ms. Finwall said the Ramsey-Watershed Metro Watershed District is holding Waterfest at
Lake Phalen on Saturday, May 22,2010, from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. There will be several city
sponsored booths including Extreme Green Makeover, Nature Center Live Animals, Tree
Care, and Recycling/Composting. The ENR Commission is welcome to attend or volunteer to
assist with these booths.
5. Time or Date Change for June 21, 2010, ENR Meeting Due to Special City Council
Meeting (Possible New Start Times 4 or 5 p.m.; Possible New Dates - Wednesday, June
23 or Thursday, June 24)
Ms. Finwall said the June ENR Commission meeting needs to be rescheduled. She will e-
mail possible dates to all commissioners.
6. Maplewood Nature Center Programs
Ms. Finwall reviewed some of the Nature Center programs that are coming in May and June.
Information can be found on the city's website or by calling 651-249-2170.
7. Community Development Annual Tour
Ms. Finwall said the planning commission is holding the annual tour on Tuesday, June 29,
2010. All commissions are invited. The tour will leave city hall at 5:30 p.m. and return around
8:30 p.m. Tom Ekstrand is the liaison for the tour.
8. Active Living - Ramsey County
Ms. Finwall said this program was formed in 2005 with the mission of creating and promoting
environments that make it safe and convenient for people to integrate physical activity into
their daily routines. The group meets the second Monday of the month from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m.
The goal is to push the policy of creating changes in design, transportation, and public and
private policy. Historical Preservation Commission member, Ron Cockriel has been acting as
the liaison with this coalition but he can no longer serve on this group. If you are interested in
this group staff will forward this information to the commission.
J. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Trippler adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
May 17, 2010
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Meeting Minutes
5
Agenda Item 5.a.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Goodwill-Wetland Buffer Variances
2580 White Bear Avenue
June 16, 2010
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Jim Kellison, of Kelco Services, LLC, is proposing to build a 20,928-square-foot Goodwill store at
2580 and 2582 White Bear Avenue. The existing office building and Mogren Landscaping
buildings on this site would be removed.
Requests
Mr. Kellison is requesting approval of 1) a 70-foot wetland buffer variance from the creek on the
north side of the site and 2) a 15-foot wetland buffer variance from the Manage C wetland on the
east side of the site. The code requires a 100-foot buffer from the creek and a 50-foot buffer
from the Class C wetland.
The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission should review and forward a
recommendation to the city council on the proposed wetland buffer variances.
The applicant is also asking for approval of the following requests which have been reviewed by
the Community Design Review Board and the Planning Commission.
. Site and building design approval.
. A minor parking waiver to have eight fewer parking stalls than the code requires. Code
requires 83 spaces. The site plan shows 75 proposed parking spaces with three "proof of
parking" spaces to be put in if they are needed.
. Approval of a lot combination since the site is presently comprised of two parcels.
DISCUSSION
Wetland Buffer Variances
There is a Manage C wetland located on the east side of the property and a creek located to the
north of the property, within the Ramsey County Open Space. The city's wetland ordinance
requires a 50-foot buffer adjacent a Manage C wetland and a 100-foot buffer adjacent a creek.
The current development has concrete and Class 5 material built up to the edge of the Manage
C wetland on the east side of the property (zero buffer), and building and asphalt are built within
10 feet of the north property line (which is approximately 30 feet from the edge of the creek).
Manaqe C Wetland Buffer: Redevelopment of the site will establish a 50-foot plus wetland
buffer along the east side of the new parking lot to the Manage C wetland. However, the
applicant is proposing a small portion of their infiltration trench within the wetland buffer (800 s.f.,
which encroaches up to 15 feet into the buffer). The wetland ordinance does not permit
stormwater facilities within a buffer and as such a 15-foot buffer variance is required adjacent
the Manage C wetland, on the east side of the property.
Creek Buffer: Kohlman Creek is located adjacent the northern property line, which is
approximately 420 feet in length. The new development will be constructed along 285 feet of the
length of the creek, with the remaining portion of the development adjacent the creek re-
established as buffer and a storm pond. The new parking lot will maintain a 15-foot setback
from the property line, with an overall buffer from the creek averaging 45 feet along the 285-foot
length of the north property line, which would require a 55-foot buffer variance. However, the
applicant is proposing raingardens (stormwater facilities) between the parking lot and the
property line (within the new buffer). For this reason, a 70-foot buffer variance is required
adjacent the creek, on the north side of the property.
Averaging is allowed on a creek with a minimum of 75 feet and an average of 100 feet. If the
portion of the development adjacent the creek was calculated to determine averaging of created
buffer versus development, the project would meet that requirement. However, since averaging
requires the protection and improvement of "existing" buffer, not re-established buffer, the
development requires the 70-foot buffer variance.
Buffer Mitiqation: Overall, the redevelopment of the site will create improvements to the
management of stormwater and the buffers of the wetland and creek. As such, staff is
supportive of the buffer variances as long as they are mitigated. Refer to the attached
environmental review submitted by Shann Finwall, environmental planner, and Virginia Gaynor,
natural resource coordinator, for additional information on wetland buffer mitigation
requirements.
Wetland Ordinance Variance Requirements: The wetland ordinance requires that the Planning
Commission and the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission give
recommendations on wetland variances. The Planning Commission held the required public
hearing on June 15, 2010, where they recommended approval of the project, including the
proposed wetland buffer variance. The wetland ordinance states that the city may require an
applicant implement one or more mitigation strategies when approving a wetland buffer
variance. The ENR Commission should review the proposal to determine if the appropriate
mitigation strategies have been met as follows:
1. Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as
by using appropriate technology.
2. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the buffer.
3. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations
during the life of the actions.
4. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute buffer land
at a two-to-one ratio.
5. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
2
6. Where the city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or contractor
shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A restoration plan must be approved by
the city before planting.
7. Any additional conditions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the soil and
water conservation district shall apply.
8. A wetland or buffer mitigation surety, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit, of one
hundred and fifty percent (150%) of estimated cost for mitigation. The surety will be
required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by the administrator.
Funds will be held by the city until successful completion of restoration as determined by
the city after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety does not include other
sureties required pursuant to any other provision of city ordinance or city directive.
COMMISSION ACTION
On May 25, 2010, the community design review board recommended approval of the plans for
the proposed Goodwill store. The board moved approval of staff's recommendation, but also
required that the applicant revise the plans to provide a bike rack and to add decorative design
elements to the north and south building elevations, subject to staff approval.
On June 15, 2010, the planning commission recommended approval of the wetland buffer
variances, the parking waiver and the lot combination.
RECOMMENDATION
The Environmental and Natural Resources Commission should make a recommendation on the
proposed wetland and creek buffer variances. Staff and the Planning Commission have
recommended approval of the wetland variance based on the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship because
complying with all of the wetland buffer reqUirements stipulated by the ordinance would
deplete the site area by approximately one half of its original size, substantially
diminishing the development potential of this lot.
2. Approval of the requested wetland buffer variances would benefit the adjacent wetland
and creek because the site is presently developed up to the wetland and creek edges.
3. Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed restoration
and mitigation of the wetland and creek buffers will greatly improve the quality of the
creek to the north and the wetland to the east.
4. The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has approved the applicant's plans.
The applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
1. Comply with all of the conditions of approval in the Environmental Review report by
Shann Finwall, Maplewood Environmental Planner, and Ginny Gaynor, Maplewood
Natural Resources Coordinator, dated May 14, 2010.
3
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 2.81 acres
Existing Use: Mogren Landscaping and office building
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Bachman's
South: Discount Tire
East: Open space owned by Ramsey County
West: White Bear Avenue and Maple Ridge Shopping Center
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: C (commercial)
Zoning: BC (business commercial)
Findings for Variance Approval
State law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance. These are:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official
controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created
by the landowner, and a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the
property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
APPLICATION/DECISION DEADLINE
We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 4, 2010. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. The deadline
for city action on this proposal is July 3, 2010.
p:sec11\Goodwill ENR Report 610 te
Attachments
1 . Location Map
2. Wetland Map
3. Site Plan
4. Landscape Plan
5. Applicant's Letter of Request dated April 20, 2010
6. Environmental Review dated May 14, 2010
7. Engineering Plan Review dated May 13, 2010
8. Variance Resolution
9. Plans date-stamped June 7, 2010 (separate attachment)
4
"
, D
\flg"
~
~
''''
{)..H";'"'.'''
'''U''''''''''''
D
~
"'ej
~CJ
ili
~. \:Q:;i tQj
..
, ~"iID
ti!!0f-1:lFL
~
.
,
GERVAIS AVE
11TH AVE
.>;\>~/.........\
;p; \-
,/ /'\.-/
<( ./,. .
"-/ ~elValS
(ourt
~
/ ''v
. "-
~deemngla'l~C~)
'" /
"'" ~//
"\",.//
Tee
""
~
Cub Foods
[!}
[!}
[D'
~
,
[i}
!1!
'l'
'l:'
if
'l1
~
~
~
GERVAIS CT
DDQ.~
I' I
LOCATION MAP
~~~ 0
tJ
~
Attachment 1
PROPOSED
GOODWILL
LOCATION
/.,\ IS",,"Ar::J D 2529
<\. ;,\
\ 116117
\ He 120
o
o
r9
'"
to
r--
'"
~CJ
DO
9 0
o
c::J Q 0
'" ",
co eo
~
J
;;
::
era
;ad ;;;
~
"
~
Ibow
:JS
~
l
,
" "
".-
,,0
"
....I7 (, 5: 4 3: i 1
"' '"
:E .~
00..
...,
'"
c.
'"
0..
Harmony learning
Center
I I
Attachment 2
o
o
o
c;:\gO
o
N
1
1
~
<(
'"
ilJ
'"
/!!
j
to
en
~
'"
V
<D
N
COUNTY ROAD C
~.~
~1
o
~11
o
o
~
o
o
2635
aribou
Coffee
[J27
f613
~7
2600
02599
to
CI)
<:::
en
EO
-<:::
II
en
ll:l
go
~
2EJ
CCJ
[395
[1587
o
(
2525
1
Jj
2515
520
o
0499
V Maplewood TOWflhomes
D~~
~~l
MaplJtwood
n
".".r......
WETLAND MAP
\l105'3NNII"l'C100~\li'l
= ,~g,;2,.'2..E>
, -'f' '-"--'
--[;::7?/. "',.,~u"""'.........
""""""""."",,,,,..-
~"""''''''''''''''''"'''''
----....--.........-""" ....~""'~~'='I
I
I ,
f f
I i
I I
I '
,
I
I
I
I i
/,if
/ ;~ I
1,'1,
I ,)~ !
/1
, ,/
I
I
1
;
1
1
'....j
-~
I--
I
I
I
l-~
,
,
S.lN:31^13^O~dl^ll 3.1IS
OlSO~~::;NOHd
g,Q\>g",,'NOS<1l1H
~:rrlf1~~"",f'lf'ltW~
aOOM3-1d\iv\i ~
~~ """"""""
1
!
!
~
Ci
'0
iit
'"
.<>
i'.,
".
R:
'<
~
~
~
---------~,'-
/
,
I
1
r
1
I
,
I
i
i
I
1
\
i
,
I
!
j
"
;:
Ci
:2
~ ~
~
, ~ ~
, tq.ttZ 3"Zri,BZ.OOS
\ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
"- ~ ~
"- ~ ~
"-
" ~ ~
""- -"-, ~
""- .~
-..
~ "-
^e
*
,
"- ;,
- ~--- '"
- ~ ~
--..
~
"
,,"
::>
<0
"
~
"
;
I.
ie;!
'.
~
~=-:,:J,trt ~
,L"6S
r:-
l-~""t
I"';'
"--~.,
.6l
i_ --1
~,
r
-~;.
;,
.;
"
.J
"
ttlq
"'"'
0'"
WOl
U)W
OIL
[l,1L
o
'"
[l,
,g'rr ~
i; _"'~~
;,
.;
.
;,
~
----'---,!r
.6>
" "ixI~ ill;;;"
;k
"
1,1 I I'
1"-"1 JIG
--_ I
~
~
I ;"'1 I
. I i I
I
"
06'09t 7
.
Z6Zttt C/
, - "OO,L 1.8=0
---
'~
--
-"'1/f1f/f38~-
N'ifld 3.115
S::J
""-"""'s
..ro Attachment 3
".
",,-0,""
O'=~
~
~+l~
~
\
~
" .
1i
ci
"
~
G~
z~
~G
xC
wz
x.
o.
~~
.~
~o
,r'SG
mf
g~
.~
zc
~y
zc
~f!
U1
w
'"
f:
f-
Z
:l
o
U
U)
o
~
OG
~~
c<
O~
~.
..
!
!
!
,
~~~ ~
-'O~ ~
...",-- -----.-- !
: 'th ~
,
~
- ~
I
./ ',I
I
--- -- - ---- --~--_.:- - ---.--- -------
SITE PLAN
.
.
~I Mr
~<'"
o
c
o
n:
.
~
1'1
J
fa fo ~
!;;: " z f
D 1 3: ~
~ 11 ~ i
~ I
l- ~~
~ ~~
~ ~!
0'.
z8Il
I 1 111111 l Wl!!m!!, ~~~ !!~!!!~~!!~~~~~~~~~~~~
I; ~ - ~ I 'il<'
I' I liP! 'I < j, < < 'l',
I Ii dl i, illl1m Iljllli! iii !ll!!j Ih Ii i! I
I! Ill!!! il p! lIild!i m I IIIi Iii !IIi! Ii lllll! ilhll
! lid, i!, I '! i l, h
I lj; " 'I ph II ! I i q ,I, '!II i ,I
! I III i!! 11,1 <! I' i I! II il!/pl,! l'illl!q!!II!!!
, \!ii!, l !hllil ! ill!,!!il!,!l II I , I ,
~ D ~N~"~" " l:lQ~D-~"~~"''- ''''l:''>Il~''~''~~~~'' ~li!li~~~1!!'l1!1!1!
o
Oi
~
~
'I
o
/ j,"I i /rn ~/ ~/ i
"-lf~}~ L- j,
-' "" ~ !l~H ~ / !I i
~]~ -'-! ~
'I! < j, ~H
0,,2 It, jll! 'I'
<' ,ll!
-" ~! ~~ e
1
!.'
t~l
aj
j!~
i.!~t;
o
.
II
,
i
~ Xl
I U
g e
!l
'I
L
,
<
,
<
~-g
o
o
::0./ ~-'-,
I
1 '.
I 'Il'"
~ .] fD~H
III ji 'llltll
1! . ~ ~ ~ ~ l '
j U hih!lH
" !" til"'1
.J> ,hH ,j"
~"~ ~ - J
, h J;lH',il
~I
z
<
..J
c..
W
c..
<
o
(J)
c
z
<
..J
.,~"'"
a"~'<"..,.
- -,-~:'-'_:' - >":', -,;:-,-
"'~'''%
KELCO
Attachment 5'
1935 West County Road B-2
Suite 68
Roseville, MN. ssm
Office: [651] 762-5781
Fax: [651] 429-8075
Cell: [651] 248-5211
April 20, 2010
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN. 55109
Re: Mogren Ventures, LLC
2580 & 2582 White Bear Ave.
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
Please accept this letter in conjunction with the other materials supplied as the application for approval for a
redevelopment project by Mogren Ventures, LLC at 2580 & 2582 White Bear Ave. The project will consist
of the demolition of two existing structures and all existing site amenities, except for the monument sign,
and the complete site improvements and new construction of a 22,600 sq. ft. retail building to be leased to
Goodwill Easter Seals, Inc. of Minnesota.
It is currently anticipated that demolition will commence in early July and the project will be completed no
later than December 1, 20 I 0 to meet the requirements of Goodwill.
This redevelopment will benefit the city in many ways. I) The retention of a good creditworthy tenant such
as Goodwill is the first, and possible foremost, benefit. 2) As you and staff are aware, the current
development on the site dates back over thirty years and there was no provision for ponding or storm water
containment required at that time so all the site water, including the debris for the landscaping company
material storage area, is presently running directly into a significant wetland at the east border of the
property. 3) There will be an aesthetically designed new building in place of two older structures which
will not only increase the tax base for the city, but will add to the attractiveness of White Bear Ave. 4)
Mogren Landscaping will be applying for a new building development on land across the street for the
business which will be an additional increase to the tax base and will allow for proper storage of the outside
materials as well as compliance with current storm water management standards. 5) The new site amenities
will increase the buffer from the wetland and the drainage ditch on the north using, hopefully,
demonstration-quality buffer materials as this is a unique opportunity in the city.
"'-.
a',,',
c,",.,',_.:,"''','.":..,,:,,, '
. ", ":_-',
.... -"'.-:'
'8t:'~:
KELCO
1935 West County Road B-2
Suite 68
Roseville, MN. 55113
Office: [651] 762-5781
Fax: [651] 429-8075
Cell: [651] 248-5211
Part of this application for approval requests the combination of two parcels of land commonly known as
2580 White Bear Ave. and 2582 White Bear Ave. The two lots have had common ownership for over thirty
years and have each had a building on them With cross use access and parking. Since the properties Will
now be utilized for a single building, the owners wish to combine them into one parceL The survey shows
the two lots as being combined.
The architect has calculated a requirement for 80 parking stalls to meet city code. We have shown 77 to be
constructed and 3 as "proof-of-parking." The three stalls are in an existing landscape benne area for
headlight shilelding with a nice tree. The tenant doesn't require the three stalls and, therefore, we are asking
for approval of the parking as noted on the drawings.
There is a drainage ditch along the north side of the property approximately 25 feet north of the north
property line. The ditch is about 10 feet below the elevation of the property. There is a requirement for a
setback of 100 feet from the edge of the drainage creek and the project requests a variance from that setback
to an average setback of approximately 50 feet. The current use of the site has buildings and pavement
within 5 feet of the property line and is not graded to prevent run-off into the creek. Also, there is currently
a storm water culvert draining directly into the creek. The new plan corrects those deficiencies and provides
a well landscaped water absorbent rain garden concept to protect the drainage creek and beautifY the
property edge. This is a very unusual condition as the property was developed prior to the ordinance being
enacted and, therefore, the creation of the buffer is an opportunity to improve the existing conditions. The
variance is required to make the project viable and the proposed development meets the spirit and intend of
the ordinance to improve the water quality and aesthetic value adjacent to the drainage creek.
Please review the application and let me know what additional materials are required and how I might
improve the approval process for this excellent project.
R(jeCtfullY yours,
,;W~__:-~-=_-: _.~-
/James E. Kellison
Attachment to
Environmental Review
Project:
Goodwill
Date of Plans:
May 5,2010
May 14, 2010
Date of Review:
Location:
2580/2582 White Bear Avenue
Reviewers:
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shannJinwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
(651) 249-2416, virqinia.qavnor@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background: The project involves the redevelopment of 2580/2582 White Bear Avenue
with a new Goodwill Store. Mogren Landscaping and office building are currently
located on this 2.95 acre site. There is a Manage C wetland on the east side of the
property and a creek to the north, within the Ramsey County Open Space.
A. Tree Preservation Ordinance: Maplewood's tree preservation ordinance
describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in
diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a
softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. The ordinance requires
any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a tree mitigation
calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree and bases
replacement on that size. In essence, the ordinance requires an applicant to
plant a greater amount of smaller replacement trees because they removed a
significant number of large trees.
Tree Removal and Required Replacement: The certificate of survey submitted
with the application shows a total of 18 trees on the site, 13 of those are
significant. All of the trees are proposed to be removed during redevelopment of
the site, for a total of 168 caliper inches removed. The required tree replacement
for this project is 201.6 caliper inches.
The applicant's landscape plan shows a total of 34 trees to be replanted on the
site. Because there is no legend on the landscape plan, it is difficult to determine
the caliper inches of trees replaced. But in staff's review it appears that
approximately 100 caliper inches of trees will be replanted with the
redevelopment of the site. This does not meet the city's tree replacement
requirements.
Tree Preservation Recommendation: The applicant must submit a revised
landscape plan showing a legend with the number, species, size, and placement
of new trees on the site. The overall amount of trees replaced must equal 168
caliper inches. If there is no room for additional trees, mulched beds of native or
1
drought tolerant shrubs can be used in the calculation, or the applicant can pay
into the city's tree fund at a rate of $60 per caliper inch.
B. Wetland Ordinance: There is a Manage C wetland located on the east side of
the property and a creek located to the north of the property, within the Ramsey
County Open Space. The city's wetland ordinance requires a 50-foot buffer
adjacent a Manage C wetland and a 100-foot buffer adjacent a creek.
The current development has concrete and Class 5 material built up to the edge
of the Manage C wetland on the east side of the property (zero buffer), and
building and asphalt are built within 10 feet of the north property line (which is
approximately 30 feet from the edge of the creek).
Redevelopment of the site will establish a 50-foot plus wetland buffer along the
east side of the new parking lot to the Manage C wetland. However, the
applicant is proposing a small portion of their infiltration trench within the wetland
buffer (800 sJ., which encroaches up to 15 feet into the buffer). The wetland
ordinance does not permit stormwater facilities within a buffer and as such a 15-
. foot buffer variance is required adjacent the Manage C wetland, on the east
side of the property.
On the north, the new parking lot will maintain a 15-foot setback from the
property line, with an overall buffer from the creek averaging 45 feet, which would
require a 55-foot wetland buffer variance. However, the applicant is proposing
raingardens (stormwater facilities) between the parking lot and the property line
(within the new buffer). For this reason, a 70 foot buffer variance is required
adjacent the creek, on the north side of the property.
Overall, the redevelopment of the site will create improvements to the
management of stormwater and the buffers of the wetland and creek. As such,
staff is supportive of the buffer variances as long as they are mitigated.
The minimum mitigation required for buffer restoration without a variance request
is to seed the buffer with a native seed mix. The mitigation of the buffer
variances should go above and beyond just seeding within the buffer. The
applicant's landscape plan shows seeding the wetland buffer with a native
wetland mix, and planting several trees and shrubs within the buffer. There is no
mitigation proposed along the creek.
Wetland/Creek Recommendations:
1. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted with the following
additions/changes:
a. Show zones of planting within the wetland buffer, i.e.,
shoreline/transition zone, storm pond wet zone, slopes/upland.
b. A species list for each zone shall be provided, and shall include
both grasses/sedges and flowers.
2
c. The infiltration basin and the shoreline/transition zone shall be
plants and not seed.
d. The only area that may be seeded is from the top of the eastern
berm on the infiltration basin (contour 920') to within 3'-5' of
wetland (depending on grade).
e. If seed is used as above, the developer shall work with staff to
determine an appropriate seed mix. The mix will include both
grasses and flowers.
f. If native seed is used, the seeding contractor shall specialize in
native restoration and the applicant shall maintain a maintenance
contract for the seeding. The city requires establishment of
natives, not just establishment of cover crop. We encourage
developers to obtain a "guarantee" of esqtablishment from their
contractor (i.e. the contractor will reseed, control weeds, etc. until
the seeding is established).
g. Instead of lawn, the applicant should plant native shrubs and
ground cover between the parking lot and the north property line
to expand and mitigate the buffer to the creek. Another alternative
is listed below in item h.
h. The slopes of the creek buffer are owned by Ramsey County. An
alternative mitigation strategy to the creek buffer variance would
be to enhance the slope to the buffer, which would require
partnership with the county.
8. The applicant could reduce the creek buffer variance by removing the ten
parking spaces located on the north side of the parking lot: This would
create additional room for re-establishment of a creek buffer in this area,
or this area could be used to enlarge the rain garden. This
recommendation is only warranted if parking on the site can be reduced.
10. After grading and planting of the site the applicant shall install city
approved wetland signs at the edge of the approved wetland and creek
buffer that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or
dumping be allowed within the buffer. The signs must be placed every
100-feet along the edge of the buffer at a minimum. The placement of
these signs must be verified with a survey to ensure proper placement.
12. The applicant must submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150
percent of the wetland and creek buffer restoration.
13. The applicant must sign a wetland buffer restoration maintenance
agreement with the city which will require the applicant to ensure the
native plants are established within the buffer within a three-year period.
C. Stormwater Plantinqs:
3
The applicant is proposing a large infiltration trench on the east side of the
parking lot, slightly within and adjacent the wetland buffer; a ponding area on the
northeast corner of the property, adjacent the buffer; and two small raingardens
on the north side of the parking lot.
Rain Garden Planting Recommendations:
1. The rain gardens plantings cannot be approved until more information is
provided regarding drainage.
1. The city requires that rain gardens and infiltration basins be planted, not
seeded. The plan shows the rain gardens will have 4" pots and
containerized shrubs. The infiltration trench should also use
containerized material (see wetland above).
4
Attachment 7
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Good Will: 2582 White Bear Ave
5-13-10
Page 1 of 3
EnqineerinQ Plan Review - Supplemental Comments on Revised Plans
Community Desiqn Review Board
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO:
COMMENTS BY:
Gervais Woods
10-10
Steve Kummer, P.E. - Staff Engineer
DATE:
5-13-10
PLAN SET:
City Submittal Set: 4-5-10 rev 5-6-10
COMPS:
Drainage Computations prepared by Running Waters, LLC
Dated 5-11-10
Summary
Kelco is proposing to redevelop the Mogren landscaping property at 2582 White Bear Avenue.
GoodWill is planning on building a store at this location. As well, the development will
temporarily relocate Mogren's offices as well as landscaping materials to a parcel directly
across White Bear Avenue on the north side of Kohlman Creek (a.k.a. County Ditch No. 18).
The majority of the property at 2582 White Bear Avenue currently drains into an existing wetland
east of the property and into Kohlman Creek to the north of the property. The proposed
development of the property will continue to discharge into the wetland and creek. However,
the applicant is proposing rain gardens and infiltration swales around the periphery of the
parking lot to manage runoff from the new building roof and parking lot.
Sanitary sewer and Water utilities are available to the property, and it appears that the
developer intends to relocate and utilize the existing lines into the property.
Applicant understands that these comments are not all-inclusive. Additional
comments/provisions may be added for consideration by other commissions and City Council.
Storm Water Runoff Comments
Rain gardens and filtration basins are proposed for storm water management.
1) All new impervious surfaces on the site shall be graded such that the drainage reaches a
storm water BMP designed for this site. All drainage flows produced by the newly
developed site shall be managed on site and not dependent on neighboring private
storm sewer systems.
2) Applicant shall submit volume computations of the proposed rain water gardens. All rain
gardens shall capture and infiltrate 90% of 1-inch off all new impervious surfaces. If
storm water runoff areas will act for filtration, then applicant shall expand the volume of
basins by the infiltration volume multiplied by a 1.4 factor.
3) Applicant shall compare existing vs. proposed runoff rates and volumes from the site
and utilize a 6.0 inch event for the 100-yr/24-hr storm and 2.8 inches for the 2-yr/24-hour
storm. The City will consider existing conditions to be the site in its present state as of
the time of this report.
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Good Will: 2582 White Bear Ave
5-13-10
Page 2 of 3
4) Applicant shall submit a drainage area map corresponding to the submitted HydroCAD
computations.
5) Applicant shall indicate point of discharge for underdrain.
6) The applicant is showing a proposed sediment pond on the northeast corner of the site.
Is the intent of the pond to hold a permanent pool or as infiltration?
7) The applicant shall include as part of the escrow or letter of credit for this site 150% of
the cost of construction for the proposed filtration basins and wetland buffer restoration.
8) Note on plans: "Applicant's contractor shall contact Maplewood Public Works staff 48
hours prior to construction of the infiltration basins and wetland buffer restoration areas."
g) Applicant shall delete Maplewood Plate No. 116 from their details as this plate is for the
construction of residential rain gardens on City projects only and is not intended for
developer use. Applicant shall provide a functional as well as aesthetic design for the
rain gardens original to the site.
10) Add note to the plans: "The contractor and engineer shall meet with Maplewood
Engineering staff as a condition of the grading permit due to the potential impacts
on the wetland area to the east of the site. The applicant shall have prepared a
proposed staging plan for grading and setting of erosion control measures on this
site for review prior to the meeting. No construction is allowed to commence
without a meeting with city of Maplewood personnel."
Site Gradinq. Geometries and Access
1) Applicant shall construct median barrier at driveway access and post a "No Left Turn" or
equivalent signage to force a right-turn only onto northbound White Bear Avenue. No
left turns will be permitted from this driveway access onto White Bear Avenue. Driveway
access shall be designed for a 53-foot semi-trailer.
2) Applicant shall provide a copy of an access agreement between this property and the
property to the south at 2570 White Bear Avenue.
3) Applicant's plan is showing a 1-way flow from east to west for the vehicle drop-off area
on the north side of the building. Yet, it appears that semi-traffic for the loading dock will
need to drive the opposite direction in order to back into the loading dock. Is this the
intent, or is semi traffic intending on accessing the loading dock from the south side of
the building?
4) Applicant shall construct 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk along White Bear Avenue.
Applicant shall show minimum 4-foot boulevard between the back-of-curb along White
Bear Avenue. Sidewalk shall have maximum 2% cross slope and maximum 5%
Maplewood Engineering Comments - Good Will: 2582 White Bear Ave
5-13-10
Page 3 of 3
longitudinal slope. Applicant shall construct handicapped accessible ramps at the
driveway entrance with truncated dome plates.
5) The detail of the proposed curb spillways is prone to grass overgrowth. Applicant shall
show a detail with a short extension of concrete off the edge of the curbs and spillways
such that water does not pond at the parking lot edges.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Service
1) Applicant shall verify condition of sanitary sewer and water services prior to construction.
A televising record of the service to the mainline is required and shall be submitted to the
City for review and replaced as required.
2) Applicant shall verify condition of water service with Saint Paul Regional Water Services
and coordinate any curb stop replacements with SPRWS.
Temporarv Storaqe Area - Property SW of 2635 White Bear Avenue
1) Temporary materials storage area shall be managed as a construction site with erosion
control BMP's and shall be included in the SWPPP for the GoodWill site. Gravel parking
lot shall be periodically treated with calcium chloride to reduce dust. Applicant shall
water and/or treat parking lot at the request of City personnel.
2) If applicant does not start construction on this site for a proposed development by
October 15, 2010, applicant shall either pave the area or remove the gravel and
establish with a temporary roadside mix. Applicant shall provide escrow or letter of
credit for 100% of the cost of constructing a paved lot.
3) Applicant shall utilize lot for intended use as part of this application only. Applicant shall
not use as a parking lot for area businesses, for example, unless expressly permitted by
this application.
4) Applicant shall design temporary sedimentation basin to accommodate 1,800 cfs/acre
drained. Applicant shall show seeding and establishment of the basin as well as
establishment of the pond berms.
-END COMMENTS-
Attachment 8
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, James Kellison, of Kelco Services, LLC, applied for a variance from the
wetland protection ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to property located at 2580 and 2582 White Bear
Avenue. The property identification numbers for these properties are:
11-29-22-21-0060 and 11-29-22-21-0061
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 895, the Environmental Protection and Critical Area
Ordinance dealing with Wetlands, requires a wetland protection buffer of 100 feet in width
adjacent to creeks and a wetland protection buffer of 50 feet in width adjacent to Manage C
wetlands.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing wetland protection buffers of 30 feet, requiring a
variance of 70 feet, from the creek and a wetland protection buffer of 35 feet from the Manage C
wetland, requiring a variance of 35 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On June 15, 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this
proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the
hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission
also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning
commission recommended that the city council these variance requests.
2. On June 23,2010, the environmental and natural resources commission
reviewed this proposal and recommended that the city council these
variance requests.
3. The city council held a public meeting on ,2010, to review this
proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
described variances based on the following reasons:
the above-
1. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship because
complying with all of the wetland buffer requirements stipulated by the ordinance would
deplete the site area by approximately one half of its original size, substantially
diminishing the development potential of this lot.
2. Approval of the requested wetland buffer variances would benefit the adjacent wetland
and creek because the site is presently developed up to the wetland and creek edges.
Page 1
3. Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed restoration
and mitigation of the wetland and creek buffers will greatly improve the quality of the
creek to the north and the wetland to the east.
4. The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District has approved the applicant's plans.
The applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
1. Comply with all of the conditions of approval in the Environmental Review report by
Shann Finwall, Maplewood Environmental Planner, and Ginny Gaynor, Maplewood
Natural Resources Coordinator, dated May 14, 2010.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2010.
Page 2
Agenda Item 5.b.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
The Shores at Lake Phalen - former St. Paul Tourist Cabin Site
Link Wilson of Kaas Wilson Architects, representing the owners and
developers, Jack Rajchenbach and Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior
Living, LLC
940 Frost Avenue
June 16, 2010
SUBJECT:
APPLICANTS:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Jack Rajchenbach and Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC are proposing to redevelop
the 7.02 acre former St. Paul Tourist Cabin site (940 Frost Avenue) with a senior housing
development to be called The Shores at Lake Phalen. The development will consist of 105 units
of senior housing in a three-story building with underground parking. The Shores at Lake Phalen
development would be the first redevelopment project within the Gladstone Neighborhood
Redevelopment area.
The three-story building will be 85,894 square feet in area. There will be 32 memory care
apartments with secure common areas for people with light dementia. There will be 73 assisted
living units with kitchens in each apartment. The applicant is proposing a club room which would
be open to seniors in the community. Other proposed amenities would include a beauty shop and
spa, a library, a computer center, a craft room, and an exercise room. The applicant states that
the spaces are designed to promote activity and interaction amongst guests, clients and staff.
The proposed building will be staffed and managed by Southview Senior Living Communities,
who is a partner in the project and operates other similar facilities in the Twin Cities metropolitan
area.
In 2007, the city council approved a four-story, 180 unit senior housing complex with underground
parking. The project was never built and the 2007 approvals have now lapsed. A site plan of this
previously approved project has been included as an attachment.
Requests
To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city approve the following:
1. A conditional use permit for a planned unit development within the shoreland overlay
district of Phalen Lake.
2. Wetland buffer variance
3. Lot division
4. Design review approval
BACKGROUND
July 25,2006, the city council held a public hearing to review the closure of the St. Paul Tourist
Cabin site. This hearing was required by state law to review the impacts that the park closing
might have on the displaced residents and the park owner.
December 13, 2006, the Metropolitan Council awarded the City of Maplewood a $1.8 million
Livable Communities grant to help fund the proposed Phase I public improvements in the
Gladstone redevelopment area. Public improvements planned were the reconstruction of Frost
Avenue from Highway 61 to Phalen Place, which includes a roundabout at the intersection of
Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive, sidewalks, decorative street lighting, and landscaping. In
. addition, the grant was to help fund the construction of stormwater treatment ponds and devices
to treat stormwater that are currently discharged directly to Lake Phalen without any form of
treatment.
March 12,2007, the city council approved the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan.
This plan will help guide the redevelopment of the Gladstone area with a mixture of 650 new
housing units and neighborhood retail and commercial uses.
August 13, 2007, the city council approved the following land use requests for The Shores
development:
1. Street Right-of-way vacation
2. Public easement vacation
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
5. Design Approval
December 14, 2009, the city council returned the $1.8 million Livable Communities grant to the
Metropolitan Council due to expiring deadlines and a lack of a developer. The city has
resubmitting a request to the Metropolitan Council for this grant now that a developer is lined up.
DISCUSSION
Wetland Buffer Variance
There is a Manage C wetland located on the east side ofthe property, adjacent East Shore Drive.
When the city adopted the new wetland ordinance and wetland classification maps in December
2009, this wetland was upgraded from a Class 5 wetland with no buffer requirements to a
Manage C wetland with a 50-foot buffer requirement. No grading, building, or cutting is allowed
within the required buffer.
The wetland delineation report prepared by SEH for the previous development describes the
wetland as a Type 2 (wet meadow) with fringes of Type 1 (seasonally wet woodland). The wet
meadow portion of the basin is dominated by reed canary grass and the woodland is dominated
by balsam poplar and occasional American elm. Common buckthorn, a noxious shrub, is also
present in both the wet woodland fringe and the upland woodland areas. There is a culvert at the
southeast corner of the wetland that is plugged with sediment, trash, and dead vegetation. There
are several areas along the wetland boundary where yard waste has been dumped into the
wetland, Also, the north boundary of the wetland has been partially encroached upon from
mowing and recreational use in the adjacent yard.
2
The Shores development proposal shows grading to within 5 feet of the wetland at its closest
point. The building will be located 35 feet to the wetland and the parking lot will be located 27
feet to the wetland. Since no grading, building, or cutting is allowed within the required wetland,
the project requires a 45-foot wetland buffer variance in order to grade to within 5 feet of the
wetland edge. Shann Finwall, environmental planner, and Michael Thompson, city engineer,
reviewed the wetland and wetland buffer plans and requirements. As noted in these reports, the
city and the applicant will mitigate the buffer encroachment with an overall approach to storm
water and wetland management. Please refer to their reports which are attached for additional
information and recommended conditions of approval.
The wetland ordinance requires that the Planning Commission and the Environmental and
Natural Resources (ENR) Commission give recommendations on wetland variances. The
Planning Commission held the required public hearing on June 15, 2010, where they
recommended approval of the project, including the proposed wetland buffer variance. The
wetland ordinance states that the city may require an applicant implement one or more mitigation
strategies when approving a wetland buffer variance. The ENR Commission should review the
proposal to determine if the appropriate mitigation strategies have been met as follows:
1. Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as by
using appropriate technology.
2. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the buffer.
3. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations
during the life of the actions.
4. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute buffer land
at a two-to-one ratio.
5. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
6. Where the city requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or contractor
shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A restoration plan must be approved by the
city before planting.
7. Any additional conditions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the soil and
water conservation district shall apply.
8. A wetland or buffer mitigation surety, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit, of one
hundred and fifty percent (150%) of estimated cost for mitigation. The surely will be
required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by the administrator.
Funds will be held by the city until successful completion of restoration as determined by
the city after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety does not include other
sureties required pursuant to any other provision of city ordinance or city directive.
Shoreland Overlay District
The city code requires properties within the Phalen Lake Shoreland Overlay District to have a
maximum of 40 percent impervious surface area. The applicant has submitted plans that indicate
33.3 percent of the site will be impervious surface. The Shoreland Overlay District also requires
3
that buildings be designed to reduce visibility (under summer conditions) from public waters and
adjacent shorelands. Since this development will be constructed on the north lot, adjacent to
Frost Avenue, the existing vegetation on the south lot will achieve the screening requirement to
Phalen Lake. Care should be taken in the design of the future development to the south to
ensure this requirement is met.
OTHER COMMENTS
Deputy Police Chief Dave Kvam, Maplewood Police Department: Refer to Deputy Police Chief
Kvam's comments attached. In summary, the Maplewood police department does not identify
any significant concerns with the proposed development.
Dave Fisher, Building Official: Refer to Mr. Fisher's comments attached. In summary, Mr. Fisher
states that the building must meet the current International Building Code requirements.
Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal: Shall install all fire protection systems according to state and local
codes. Must also have minimum 20-foot access road for fire department.
Richelle Nicosia, Saint Paul Regional Water Services: An 8-inch public water main is available in
East Shore Drive and construction plans and installation must be in accordance with Saint Paul
Regional Water Services' Standards for the Installation of Water Mains.
Historical Preservation Commission: The previous Shores development was originally reviewed
by the Historical Preservation Commission at its May 15, 2007 meeting. The commission had
two recommendations as follows: 1) signs indicating the previous long-term use of the property
(St. Paul Tourist Cabins) should be constructed at the entrance or inside the gathering areas of
the building; 2) preserve the large cottonwood tree located along Frost Avenue, adjacent to the
former St. Paul Tourist Cabin entrance. This tree was included in a published book about
Maplewood's Heritage Trees by Joe Quick. Staff is continuing these recommendations to the
current proposed development. Also, the Historical Preservation Commission will be receiving a
copy of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Environmental and Natural Resources Commission should make a recommendation on the
proposed wetland buffer variance. Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended
approval of the wetland variance based on the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship because
complying with all of the wetland buffer requirements stipulated by the ordinance would
deplete the site area, substantially diminishing the development potential of this lot.
2. Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent wetland
because the wetland is currently in poor condition and development of this site will allow
for rehabilitation of the wetland and buffer areas.
3. Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed restoration
and mitigation of the wetland buffers will greatly improve the quality of the wetland.
4
Approval of this wetland buffer variance is subject to the following conditions:
1. All permits and approvals by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District will need
to be secured.
2. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Thompson, dated
June 7, 2010.
3. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall and Ms.
Gaynor, dated May 28,2010.
5
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 27 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. There were
3 written replies. One was in favor, one had concerns and one was against the project.
In Favor
1. Mindy Mac Runnel, 1890 Adele Street (sent via e-mail): I have no comment against this
project or the changes requested. I thought it was a great idea from the start.
Concerns
1. Jason and Erika Zerwas, 1866 East Shore Drive (sent via e-mail): We are hoping to get
more info about public hearings on this matter. The senior living looks a lot better then the
first plan that was developed in 2007, however we are very concerned with the dividing of
the property. It was very clear that back in 2007 the property was to stay as one lot with
the (zoning)? of senior and or memory care units only, no other uses were wanted by the
neighborhood. We are just making sure that the property will not be divided up and than
allowed to have other types of housing other than senior living. We are concerned that
this is opening up the property to be used at a later date for higher density living with the
possibility for low income or other development. Other concerns would be the side walk
down East Shore Drive to the Lake that is in poor repair and not suitable for elderly foot
traffic. Will this sidewalk be upgraded for their safety? Please respond to this e-mail
informing us that it was received and that we will receive notice of future meetings.
Aqainst
1. Cheryl LeMire, 1886 Adele Street North: I do not want High Density Residential
development as it would increase traffic, destroy the trees, the north shore beauty of
woodland and wildlife. Why was the area zoned as high density?
6
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size:
Existing Land Use:
7.02 Acres
Vacant - Formerly a Manufactured Home Park
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
South:
East:
West:
Frost Avenue and Gateway Trail and Keller Golf Course Across the Street
East Shore Drive and Lake Phalen Across the Street
Single Family Houses
Four-Story Apartment Complex
PLANNING
Existing Land Use:
Existing Zoning:
High Density Residential
Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3M)
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Criteria for Variance Approval
State law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance. These are:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official
controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created
by the landowner, and a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the
property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
7
Application Date
The city received complete applications for a conditional use permit for a planned unit
development, wetland buffer variance, lot division and site and design plans approval on June 7,
2010. The 60-day review deadline for a decision is August 6, 2010. As stated in Minnesota State
Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete
the review of the application.
P\Sec16\St Paul Tourist Cabin Site\May24, 2010 Submittal\Shore_ENR_062310
Attachments:
1. Applicant Narrative
2. Location Map
3. land Use Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Pial Map
6. Grading and Drainage Control
7. Landscape Plan
8. Building Elevations
9. City Engineer Michael Thompson comments, dated June 7, 2010.
10. Phase I Gladstone Public Improvements
11. Deputy Police Chief Dave Kvam comments, dated May 27,2010
12. David Fisher, Building Official, comments, dated June 8, 2010
13. Shann FinwalJ, Envrionmental Planner, and Virginia Gaynor, Natural
Resources Coordinated comments, dated May 28, 2010
14. 2007 Shores Site Plan
15. Wetland Variance Resolution
16. Applicant's plans (separate attachment)
8
Attachment 1
"
~
'A. '
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Proiect Narrative
June 15, 2010
The Shores at Lake Phalen Gateway to Gladstone
(proposed project signage along Frost Ave)
Introduction
This lakeside property, on the north side of the Lake Phalen, provides a setting for a very successful low-
to moderate-income assisted living for senior residents in the City of Maplewood. Our project, The
Shores at Lake Phalen, has been designed to accommodate seniors looking for a more affordable
assisted living option than the senior facilities currently available in Maplewood. Assisted living
residences or assisted living facilities (ALFs) are a very good investment now as they are not dependent
on home sales, but are more dependent on an age group who need services in an apartment setting (see
market study). ALFs provide supervision or assistance with activities of daily living; coordination of
services by outside health care providers and monitoring of resident activities to help to ensure a
residents health, safety, and well-being. Assistance may include the administration or supervision of
medication, or personal care services provided by a trained staff person. Assisted living, as it exists
today, emerged in Minnesota in the 1990s as an eldercare alternative on the continuum of care for
people, normally seniors, for whom independent living is no longer appropriate, but who do not need the
24-hour medical care provided by a nursing home. Assisted living is a philosophy of care and services
promoting independence and dignity.
There is no nationally recognized definition of assisted living in the United States. ALFs are regulated and
licensed at the state level. More than two-thirds of the states use the licensure term "assisted living."
Other licensure terms used for this philosophy of care include Residential Care Home, Assisted Care
Living Facilities, and Personal Care Homes. Each state licensing agency has its own definition of the term
it uses to describe assisted living.
As varied as the state licensing and definitions are, so are the types of physical layouts of buildings that
provide assisted living services. ALFs can range in size from a small residential house for three residents
up to very large facilities providing services to hundreds of residents. An assisted living falls somewhere
between an independent living community and a skilled nursing facility in terms of the level of care
provided to its residents.
Below are the high points of what we feel are the key issues regarding this specific project, The Shores at
Lake Phalen, proposed on the site of the former Saint Paul Tourist Cabin (mobile home park) site at 940
Frost Avenue.
Application Requests
This site was approved in the 2006 comprehensive plan to have 180 units of senior oriented housing.
The Planning Commission, Community Design Review Board and City Council approved a Kaas Wilson
Design of a 4 story 180 unit ALF on this site in December of 2007 with the following attributes:
1. Vacation of the existing sewer which is shared between lots and coordination of a new line to city
sewer services.
2. Preliminary Plat Approval
3. Community Design Review Board approval for project function and appearance
Tel; 612,879.6000
21044'" Avenue South. Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404
www.kaaswilson.com
Attachment 1
,.
~
'. ,
4. Conditional use permit for the P,UD. a planned unit development for the development of senior
housing within the shore land overlay district.
5. Four story Height
The new Development will be asking for a reduced number of senior units: 105 units, and only three
stories in height. The concept plan will show a future housing component of 56 apartments to the south.
Goals of the project from the city perspective
It is the hope of the development team that this project will fulfill many community based goals:
1, Become the Gateway to the Gladstone Neighborhood. The Frost Avenue fa~ade will be examined
closely by the city (see signage shown above),
2. Clean up a blighted site that was a nuisance to the police department, contained uncapped wells,
and contributed polluted runoff that flowed into Lake Phalen,
3. Senior Housing with services is the best use of the site. Statistics from the state demographer's
office indicate that every large city in Minnesota has, or will have, a significant need for senior
housing. Senior housing with services also helps to stem economic issues related to the rising
costs of health care in our community.
4. It is a goal of this project to provide supervised common spaces, in the building, for seniors in the
community to come and use. We hope these common areas will become an asset to the
Gladstone Neighborhood and surrounding community.
5. The project will create over 120 jobs which, with city bus service, could all be locally supported by
Maplewood residents.
6. The project will provide filtration for a substantial amount of stormwater runoff, from Frost Avenue
and the site, currently polluting Lake Phalen.
7. The project will re-align the malfunctioning sewer system running adjacent to the site.
Services
There will be 32 memory care apartments with secure common areas for people with light dementia.
There will be 73 assisted living units with kitchens in each apartment. Three meals a day will be provided
in two spacious dining areas. There will be a club room open to seniors in the community. Other
amenities include a beauty shop and spa, a library, a computer center, a craft room, and an
exercise/fitness room. These spaces are designed to promote activity and interaction amongst guests,
clients and staff. The building will be staffed and managed by Southview Senior Living Communities, who
is a partner in the project and has very successful senior living projects already in operation in the metro
area,
Description of Building Exterior
From the integrated stone signage marking the entrance to the Gladstone Neighborhood, to the stone
accented fa~ade along Frost and the main entry, it is the goal that this be a respectable facility for the City
of Maplewood. The remainder of the building will be brick, Hardi-Panel and Hardi-Plank. All facias and
soffits will be maintenance free.
Mechanical equipment over the dining room will be screened along Frost Avenue, and residential ground
based air-conditioners will have landscape screens,
Tel: 612.879.6000
21044'" Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404
www.kaaswilson.com
Attachment 1
,.
...
'. ,
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Parkinq
June 15, 2010
We are requesting a variance for the amount of required parking to be provided by The Shores at Lake
Phalen senior living project. Typically, the majority of residents in an assisted living facility do not, or are
unable to, drive. Furthermore, residents in a memory care situation cannot operate motor vehicles.
Given that our project is exclusively an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility, few of the project's
residents will ever drive, and most will not own a vehicle. Thus the majority of the parking for projects of
this type is for staff and visitors, which greatly diminishes the necessary parking for the project as a
whole. For The Shores, staff parking will be provided in the garage and visitor parking will be located on
the surface, at the building entrance.
Southview Senior Living Communities (SSLC), who will be the operator of The Shores, also
owns/operates many other projects around the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In each case, there has
been a significant reduction in the parking provided (below what is typically required for multi-family
housing), and this reduction in parking has not negatively impacted the residents, staff or visitors of the
project. In fact, the reduced parking allows for less site disturbance and greater pervious/landscaped
area on site, which has substantial benefits - from added stormwater infiltration, to reduced heat island
effects, and more.
Here are the parking figures from some other Twin Cities metro-area projects owned/operated by
Southview Senior Living Communities:
Project Inver Glen The Cascades Faribault The Shores
Units 103 105 90 105
Unit Breakdown (MC/ALlIL) 33/31/39 15/56/34 14/51/25 32/73/0
Garage Parking Stalls 35 49 28 28
Surface Parking Stalls 23 27 35 24
Total Parkinq 58 76 63 52
It is important to note that the other SSLC projects listed are facilities which include "Independent Living"
units. These units are occupied by able-bodied (and able-minded) seniors who live active and
independent lifestyles. Most (or all) of the car-owning residents in these senior living facilities are
"Independent Living" seniors. Since The Shores will be exclusively an Assisted Living and Memory Care
facility, the necessary parking for the residents of this project will be significantly less than even the
parking figures for the other three projects listed above. Essentially, the only necessary parking for The
Shores project will be for staff and visitors. Given these considerations, while also bearing in mind the
significant stormwater-related concerns on site, we feel that reducing the amount of required parking will
be incredibly beneficial to the project itself, as well as the surrounding Gladstone Neighborhood and Lake
Phalen.
Kaas Wilson Architects would be happy to arrange a tour of the Inver Glen Senior Living facility for any
City of Maplewood staff interested in seeing a Southview Senior Living Communities project firsthand.
Tel: 612.879.6000
2104 41h Avenue South! Suite 8, Minneapolis, MN 55404
www.kooswilson.com
Attachment 1
'"
~
'. ,
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Wetland Encroachment
June 15, 2010
This site was approved in the 2006 comprehensive plan to have 180 units of senior-oriented housing. The
Planning Commission, Community Design Review Board and City Council approved a Kaas Wilson
design for a 180-unit assisted living facility on this site in December of 2007, At the time of approval the
wetland on site was classified as a Class 5, and the approved plan included the reshaping and
enhancement of the wetland on site, and construction occurring up to 25' from the surveyed edge of the
wetland.
Maplewood recently adopted a new wetland ordinance, and the wetland on site is now classified as a
Manage C wetland, with a 50' minimum buffer width, It is important, however, to note the wetland does
not currently function at all in an infiltration capacity, due to pollution and destruction of the natural water
flow on and around the site, and contaminated stormwater currently flows through our site and into Lake
Phalen without proper treatment. The current wetland on our site essentially functions as a stormwater
pond. Under the direction of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., this wetland will be completely regraded and
enhanced by the City of Maplewood, in addition to enhancements and regrading along Frost Avenue and
East Shore drive, to restore it to healthy function. Due to the wetland not functioning, and other factors,
this site has been a significant contributor of polluted runoff flowing into Lake Phalen.
Kaas Wilson Architects is working closely with the city and its consultants to clean up the blighted site.
Our project has been designed such that 100% of our stormwater is infiltrated on site. Additionally, we
are providing a number of raingardens on our site, two of which are being deliberately oversized for the
purpose of infiltrating the city's stormwater runoff, thus filtering contaminants before the water reaches
Lake Phalen, These two raingardens will filter 13,776 cubic feet of the City's stormwater runoff, in
addition to their on-site load of 1,488 cubic feet of runoff. This will vastly improve the overall state of
stormwater runoff filtration from its current state,
This project, particularly the Frost Avenue border of our site, will become the gateway to the proposed
Gladstone Neighborhood. The city has expressed a desire to keep as many of the mature trees located
in the northeast corner of the property as possible, and (as with the previous design) honoring this
request has been a driving factor in the project's current design. While the scope of the project has been
scaled back from the previously approved 2007 plan, the relationship of our building to the wetland is still
similar to the previously-approved design. Proposed construction still occurs up to (but not less than) 25'
from the wetland, and maintains approximately a 50' average buffer from the wetland. While this means
construction will be closer to the wetland than the recently adopted ordinance allows, we feel - given the
wetland is being completely reshaped and enhanced as part of the overall project - that honoring a 25'
minimum buffer, while preserving as many of the mature trees on site as possible and providing additional
rain gardens to the city for the infiltration of stormwater runoff, presents the best solution for handling
stormwater while still complying with the city's vision for the site and the Gladstone Neighborhood.
Tel: 612.879.6000
21044" Aveoue South. Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404
www.kaaswilson.com
Attachment 1
,..
~
'! ,
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Lot Division
June 15, 2010
Due to the economic strains that have arisen since the project was previously approved in 2007, it has
become more difficult to acquire financing for large multi-family residential projects. While the demand for
senior-oriented units is still there, the current market is more supportive of developments that are smaller
in scale or constructed in phases. Consequently our project, The Shores at Lake Phalen, has been
scaled back in scope from the previously-approved design of 180 units of senior housing to the proposed
design of 105 units, Despite this reduction in size, it is still the desire of the City of Maplewood and the
project team to address the entire site from a cleanup, stormwater and utilities standpoint.
Improvements are to be made along Frost Avenue and the entire length of East Shore Drive. An existing
sewer line running along the west edge of the property is to be abandoned and removed, and a new line
constructed along East Shore Drive, which will serve The Shores project as well as the residential
property to the east of the project, currently on a septic system. A new public walkway, by the City of
Maplewood, will run from Lake Phalen along the west edge of East Shore Drive to the entrance drive for
The Shores. From there, Kaas Wilson Architects will create a public walkway through the project site,
connecting the City's East Shore Drive walkway with the Frost Avenue walkway to the northwest.
Kaas Wilson Architects is working to address stormwater and enhancement concerns on the site in a
comprehensive manner. Though the size of the building itself has been reduced, we feel it is still
important to make civil, utilities and landscaping improvements to the entire site, and we are working with
the City of Maplewood and its consultants to accomplish this. We have proposed a lot division which
splits the overall property into two lots: a northern lot on which The Shores at Lake Phalen will be located,
and a southern lot for future development. We feel this is the best solution to maintain the viability of a
senior housing project on the site, while also addressing the City of Maplewood's concerns for civic
improvements to the project site and the future Gladstone Neighborhood. This split also allows a viable
project to be constructed on the southern lot in the future, ensuring the continued vitality of the Gladstone
Neighborhood development from the City's standpoint.
Tel: 612.879.6000
21044" Avenue South, Suite 8, Minneapolis, MN 55404
www.kaaswilson.com
Attachment 1
".
~
'. ,
The Shores at Lake Phalen: Storaqe
June 15, 2010
We are requesting a variance for the amount of required storage to be provided by The Shores at Lake
Phalen senior living project. Typically, in senior housing projects, little storage space is required by
residents outside of their units. Given the nature of this project, as exclusively an Assisted Living and
Memory Care facility, the residents at The Shores will likely not need any storage space outside the
closet space being provided in their units.
Southview Senior Living Communities (SSLC), who will be the operator of The Shores, also
owns/operates many other projects around the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In each case, there has
been a significant reduction in the amount of storage provided (below what is typically required for multi-
family housing), and this lack of dedicated storage space has not negatively impacted the residents. In
fact, Southview Senior Living in West Saint Paul, the flagship project of Southview Senior Living
Communities (which include "Independent Living" units), does not include any dedicated storage areas for
its residents.
Here are the storage figures from some other Twin Cities metro-area projects owned/operated by
Southview Senior Living Communities:
Proiect Inver Glen The Cascades Faribault The Shores
Units 103 105 90 105
Unit Breakdown (MC/ALlIL) 33/31/39 15/56/34 14/51/25 32/73/0
Storaqe Lockers 28 10 23 0
It is important to note that the other SSLC projects listed are facilities which include "Independent Living"
units, Since The Shores will be exclusively an Assisted Living and Memory Care facility, the storage
space needed by its residents will be significantly less than even the figures for the other three projects
listed above. Additionally "The Seasons at Maplewood," a senior living project approved for construction
in the City of Maplewood earlier this year, is providing approximately 675 cubic feet total dedicated
storage space for the entire project (between four storage closets on one level). The Seasons is a 150-
unit project that includes Independent Living, and the storage space available to its residents is rentable -
not dedicated to particular units.
Given these considerations, we feel that reducing the amount of required storage area will be very
beneficial to the project as a whole. Kaas Wilson Architects would be happy to arrange a tour of
Southview Senior Living or Inver Glen Senior Living, for any City of Maplewood staff interested in seeing
a Southview Senior Living Communities project firsthand,
Tel,612.879,6000
21044'" Avenue South, Suite B, Minneapolis, MN 55404
www.kaaswllson.com
Attachment 2
The Shores of Lake Phalen- Request for Conditional Use Permit,
CDRB Review, Wetland Variance and Lot Division
t
Location Map
City of Maplewood
May 25, 2010
NORTH
a~ ~,
o '-rJ ~
~~~
~ ~
~Q ~
'" i;l;1
o ~
~ "'II ~
b'" 8
c..
CO
~
(J)
UJ
::)
"C
C
CO
....J
f!!
::s
....
::s
u..
~
(J)
C
o
....
UJ
"C
CO
-
C)
~
<ll ~
~ <ll
U ~~
<( U <ll
~ <( ~
Q)'-L..U
cd!~ <ll <(
(/)UQ.l....
_.... <ll
.-........ ff) 0..
Cl....:!:::::
:J <ll c lJ)
LOa.::>~
~~~:J
I eOOID
U")::>T"""Lrio
c:i 0 ' N <(
-c.ci~ I L..
m.tO"t""""Q)
:;:::; to :=: 0 0-
C N'~ or- $
Q) +-' -.-
-0- c _ c
'00 iii <ll .!!! :J
Q) .- ""C +-'
0:: C 'en a5 C!
Q)Q)-OT"""
~"C 0::'- ('i)
.- .- en
~ ~ ~2 0'
<ll 0:: '00 u. .
o">..c>.~_ c-
$: +.0. Q) :!::::: co Q) n:l
O '00 0 ~ 3l '0 - E c
C l.... as 0
--.J Q) E Q) ::> Q) .t: c :;:::;
:::;::;o:JO"'OE+-'lo...::s
CD'- Q)ECI)Q).....~
l.... s: "0 .r::. X ::s > :;:::; L...
::::l 0 Q) .2l.- 0 ""C 0 VJ m
0::--'2I20ECJCo...
I I I
Attachment 3
(j)
"0
"-0
...
N
o
o
"!.
o
<ll
U
III
Cl. III
C/) L- ~
C Q)Oo
Q) _..c:.....
0.. co o~
o $.0.0
.eN
.:st.!;!>:.
~o>='
~z~
z .....-.(
Attachment 4
The Shores of Lake Phalen- Request for Conditional Use Permit,
CDRB Review, Wetland Variance and Lot Division
t
Zoning Map
City of Maplewood
May 25, 2010
NORTH
E.~,"""'l!..~'.:"'.=l UI,::t=.. \ ~ 0
~-r;. _..,.Jm-' '\ .." .
~ V ~
:a;i[ / !Mk :l
,.rL N I .il~1 J:
I ' _ '-- << . .'; 0::
~_ ---. " / ~:fIl
, ' ~I~, _'-'='-- :,,'"^ ...... I"'{ II! :!i!
I' A"~"" - ~ " LJ I'IIt <(
'- " I" ")
[ . ....- .OD ~lJ'~ ............ " ,"'
~+ )- --_:. oN'".!> ........ "' ) ,,-
: }'l~ I --~...~. ... ~ ~""- (
\,~~ 1 "'" '0, ).l'r... '- "J .( I
"I" , '" j'/'\""'" '- '" "
I ': ",..-t... ^"'" 0; l< I)
~ '0 I ).. ~~ ,,'~ -............ ('J Ii <OJ..
u 01 ..,~ .-;~' "'a;. (I>
I '~\ . .,y 1\.." , . ~ .- - - - - "~~~RJ ,.~ .""J
\ <D. I ~".f-- ... ~"';,; I ",",'^'UH,.V' - - a,~ D D" I'
\, "'.~I \ _-.: ... !.!~;:,. ,"VI.L.J.:;II~ln.l'" :=:r.~~3:"" 1r::f\~J'1 ---... ~Q\l'll::<3* II [L
"~..' .~ <. ____' 08' ,~-~", 'l:, \~l I '. co
\ '\~ \ .\ " ,,' Po .,. --=k__~ .",.~,'f'" I',. ! .. :1
~I ": \ ~, -.." ...."'.~'.St...... J 3"J~C 3~CHS ~\'3 i-"'~ai \1\ Po!! " i;i
.' -;. \ ,"-.... >"i\', ""'" , ,~"." ~ ,I'll II "
" \' \ ,"'", ''-;j"...~_ _ ;' I ,_ "-","'"'" "'~" __ i __.'~t"~ .1 \ ni:i..- I. :0
1'\ ... _\' '~'-"""',""'--F""".l \-_......t;"'r~ -- -- - '- ~l... 1 \f I f~'~...11,1
.1 .<' i -""- 1d. 0_ ~ ------ ' ") t,c,
'/' , \ \ ~ 'if"\.;; ~>: ---J.__ 'J :
\~ ' :II: I} --- -_/ \
\:J 'II'! 0" \ !! ,,):- -, r, tJ
"-7 'n111 \_ l> ... _ J
~,,;>'~.t \\\ :' 0" 0( '\:.~
~~\~~;\,'~~ 1'5 .-., ~ \~\
\':1-"(" 1\1;.'\'\ 0 ct. :::~ 0
"'1\ I,,":\. al U) \
f..l) \~~:~ '~\~.....: 0
\' '("\'1>": \ ::; , eo' \
<<?.t\ \~ \ -l \
\{:::;~~ ...~~ \
\~~ ~~\ \
~i \ ,,\;
\('~Y';;:',,\ \
\ '\~ \ \
\)'!:':
/ /~.-;.
...r"'- \ .~\ \
I //~ \.
\1,/"-/ \\ \
!~~ I
llit
Cf)
w
a:
o
J:
Cf)
W
~
"
eo'
"
'w
,.0
~ 11 r~
! ;-.h~~
I ~~"ijl. ~
i Hju~ 1
i '.~-Id ~
f I~h';:~ ;
f l~ '~i~ _!
: :ij~ ~~i! :j[
.,.r i~-:.l.d ~
U"!~i I
- -,...H...r
I ~1"1; .
a f '':-q i
~ l,.ll~H 1
~I !Li~;: 1>
~~ i~Hn h
;U "n;~,!; n
U liHH n
~t ~h~H t_~,
!i~ i~d~~~ :;:.~
;-.! i~~! !II "
~! !hiH 1;
,,~ ~H~lit {~
;i't ~!. i.f~f h.'.
~i ilkfii -
1';1: H
" II
I
!
.
i
l
i
1
1
I l
,
I
I
,
,
I I
! t
ill 'It
i .i
i 2-1
E It
!
!i
-;~
H
n
H
"
,II'
u
'6~ i
i! L
J
!
i
P
~l
I]
"
"
'I
L
-'"
. .
J~'~
i~,li..,
ihH
'I;,Hj'
! ~3
~nn~
,>,Ii
ihh
~t...'!il !<
!!ill']
H!n
'll~ i'
~i 1~
~,~~U 1
Ih.~l I
h~~l .
- ~f ~ ~ -.
Hi1j 1
d.1}:~
~ '-1
~H~l"
H~~
l."~!
~Hn
Il'il
<J ~}~;
l~n..;
...iHl
!
,
!
,
I
I
!
~
,
I
z
,
,
~
1
1
,
I
.
,
.
,
i
1
,
!
j
&!
ij:;;':
. ~j
&!
-i
,
~
,1
il
.:."!
i->'
'I
1 '!l~
! t~
lL;~.
.
I
,
,
j
,
!
I
,It
!.u
to i~
d ~I
l:iB b
I
,
11
d
"I
h
1'1
-
..
lr
H
IJ
H
j,
!_~ e
~j
U
H
a
g;f
, --
~ u:
i ~~
II'
IIi
. ~"
I U
5 iSH
~
,~
,
.
,
"
~
j
!
j
!
J
,
,
,
.
I
,
I
i
1'1
1,' I.
"
1 !l
~ =~
I"
! n
I ! H
,
I
.
.
~~
.'
,!
"
~~
t;~
!~;
~I: '
~ia ~
,-j. ,
i~:~ ~
..~;c
",,,,~..
~~N~
!I!!
,
,
..~
,
,
~,!
:~;
i1~D
;0:<'"'
.!!;~
,,"
:l~;
5l~~6
,
.
i
I
,
"
~~ !l ~
~~ a;
~ ,! II
~ elil i!
Ii n!!iR
,
,
.~
,
,
. 0 gg
jl
ij
~.l
Ai
I
Ii
II
Ii
.,
n
n
H
~~
!I
, "
r
j -11
j ~"
~ j!!
In
~ 6 t Ii
.
.
,
I
!
",u;l~:ro ffil~(l',l;J'3lOl~ I)
InW NII~ ml~it1lll0l3l\o;m- ,
S00J.3'I}lns/ SH33NIf>tB I SlBNNYld :
'::lUI 'II!H 'M sower '
...~"
u;vt.....I9iN"'1flY~~ll3\l.""V1ffla>ffil_1
llNIAl'IlIOINllS .!llIIAHJJlOS
~
tlV'ld Sf>VlIIYlIa 'i f>lIIOVllf> 'lVN1iI
Vws.lHHIIl'llOOM7loMl
S:;rnOHS :ilIIJ.
> .
PI <> j!i
~a ~s -
~ C$~.
~S1 g
s~ ::i
~~ 3"
~
,
~. ]
4' ~ ,
..
~, M
~,-,....,
...,........--
,.--.....- ....
~1.."::....-:::-":::
--...-
...,.......'.....-
\
\
\
\
\
\
--L
=&i
j! /"-'
,/~2;/
I
,I
,
,
/' ,-- ~-":,-::':'-::":~
. '7' ,"~:"_L._,o.::;'.....
.-,~:~~" ;.~,." ;'~L~L~~..~,'- ~
i>!l"- ""- ~ /~ _ ~ _ ~ __ _ -
~ii7~~~~'-~'2~-~-~" L"
'~l<\~~~~&~~:'C~
."OIO&f "'''"OOIl<:t
. .....
. At;~ctil11~~t7
..."-m~,,o<>/!l"l"!'J!.1lKI
w=dn<>lliuli!r.lpJO\l",,""""'" ~O"'''''I
881'!1"Ptt"IS9:aID1l001"1
SfIl.!l!lNVi"f-'<l~~1I ""_VJ....""'l.I~1Im- II
6lllW.ld.uii$O[J"lq...IBJ.ns""_*..."odOnp...... _.:=
:>" 'dnOJ9 u6!saa >u\JeO ~ .0:-
~
n:_WSIll'1'O'f,l~.u:w'':MYJrlY<J.\lW__1
llNLll'J lIllINltS JI.:mHJ.llOS
~
.NV'ld :!IdVnSaNV'I "J\f.N1[
Y.1llS3'l...'mCIII31dYn
S:;mOHS:;mJ.
J;; 0
i 3: ~<::.
< g~!t
. .
o
d
" z
li:d ...2 ~
$!~ ~~,.;
o ~
-~_........
..---........-,
.......,.............-.-
~_~_...-__ft
_....~"...__,
~
~
~
,
~
,
t
dl
tU
ill
.1'
I,!
lfl,
!u
!II' !
I,' ,
l!-H
~ H ~
Hq
HH
!.~ I
Ill!
HH
~t f ' !. If ~ ~
I! II! I tl .! I . 1111111, ,. ,}I;, Ii'
" I. ;., . j'J i~ ; ,l i!! j 1 .! I} 1 II i! li-q
t ,1 i ir .PI l ~ 1 1. 1. II I 1f!
! I I ill I! lilt' i jill' HI 1:\' udlli! iii in ! nUl
I' '\" Ill' . .!. III ',., ' n". "II'!
J., I 1~ j I :J ! i ;I~ I J ~ 11! I Ii f 11 h, ~ it U f, f t "Ii < . 5 ~ ~ ~ ~
I Ii i il f 11 i: : Pill!! i f! 1 I It ~unll UiHPi Ii IPP ~ ~ L" o.
1 U l!l I if ii I!~ I ijU U { H j it! ~~!Ii:~ .j PIli 1 i 1f jJ ! ~
I fl .Il! lJin: i'll ,.1 nil ii! hI! :,j!ll!, bllPI;j ILl j li l J ,Ii
~ ;! ~ 0 Ii i tHiLt If U~ ~l fJi i:n i!H ~~Hi I, 11 n iP I h n ! ~
P Ii U 11 i UHj!iq HI~ ! h It fit ! li I It iff i....' ij ni n a I' i Ii !
1111 ! ill II!! l!llllll!i IIi I! Ill. .1111 !~l In i Illlll ill I i II ill ~~ n i i L i
U It, I t{ ih '1:( itl Hi it i ! mt ~ 11 Ii It !ji jI~1 ~~j un ! i JHd n U ill ~ ~ -
~!!:H H!j~iBh~H ~H!nn ihH ~l ~ ~~H! w?ulHHHn Ii:
nnUHH
! .J'!
Jl . . ,
1,.!tlHn~
~".djHh
H l !
1 r ! ~ ~ 1
qll!jJl!1
h}lj>tU1
t-nq i ~
h!~1h ~ f
Hijj~! } i
, 1 i
!H).i i
h~Ut t~
1"11'1'111
u <! ,4
!
III
III
"'
d~
'I
J,
".
,
~~--~""'.Q ~~
~:ai~ih( ~lll!
J~dIliU~ !r.~. n -ifu "-
"
"
.
.
t~~,;;.~... ~ ~~"
"' -
~
"'
. Cl
Cl
z
-<:
"'
13
z
.... /./
, ,.#' / ,
',,' ?"/ '~--,/- /
/' ;' ,,-f /0
" ,
" ,
J ,
^
-
g'
,
,
~,
~ll
IW!
ml'
..,1
~~
"
"
!1lI!!' I '
ii!ly Ll IIi ji
!ij!i1 !Ihlli nl
mruliUlill1l ~l
"
.
,;
Z
~
~
~
~
g
01
~l
"
! OJ
" ,;,1 II
1 J i i I IIP!~!
'II" I,,! ,'"
g < ., I . ~..
'dl'
/ ' ,,<c~;:~'~
x~;,;~~~:;i
h'J'U' " ,m ~~~.
!I
,
;::;0"'11
~ iHI
hnn
......
...-
,...
I ~
;
All chment 8
o
o
I.()
<(
~
~
>
:0
'Pho
,0'2
C{,.~
-<'0"1,
'l-- 0,0
"
.g:f1
. 0
JjJ!
w
'" .
~ :~ ii!
..2 ~ ~~
~.~ ~i
t= ~!/::ll
~ ~ if
I ~ i i
J! <'l to <5
tt 1 t t
'!? ~t "f It gl
" I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
, , ,
I I I
t111 t
n" r ~1'
,
lW'll""OSP''''''"I'l_,,..,y~'lII_''''"''^''"'''''"'''''''''''''.''''''''"Ill'<>
j:
-
....,.....
It
jj~'i'
ll~
ill
~ !;
.l....~!..;
'! .!
~ ~ L ; .
il :; ~ ij ~
g ~ ~ i ! ~ ~
J !l ~ it :I l" Ii
,
,
I
,
....1lt:J;!<UOlm:hVll """""""'1"'''0;0''1'>'''0:>
Attachment 9
Page 1 of 8
City of Mavlewood - Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review
PROJECT NAME: The Shores Senior Living
PROJECT NO: 10-11
REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson, P.E., City Engineer
SUBMITTAL NO: Snbmittall, May 25, 2010
REVIEW DATE: Jnne 7, 2010
The applicant, Link Wilson ofKaas Wilson, who represents Maplewood Senior Living LLC, is
proposing to build a 3-story (I 06-unit) senior housing complex on the Saint Paul Tourist Cabins
site. The developer improvements would be coordinated with public improvement projects on
Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive.
The public improvements are proposed to include the following:
. Mill and overlay along Frost Avenue from approximately 250 feet east of Trunk
Highway 61 (TH 61) to Phalen Place.
. The construction of a roundabout at the Frost A venue and East Shore Drive
intersection.
. The installation of street lighting along Frost A venue.
. The installation oflandscape/urban design enhancements along Frost Avenue from
the Frost Bridge over Phalen Creek to Phalen Place.
. The construction of a 10' wide bituminous trail along the south side of Frost Avenue
from East Shore Drive to the west along the northerly boundary of The Shores
property.
. The reconstruction of the existing bituminous trail on the east side of East Shore
Drive from Frost A venue to Lake Phalen.
. The construction of a pedestrian sidewalk/trail along the west side of East Shore
Drive from development access driveway south to Lake Phalen.
. Extension of utilities on East Shore Dr N to service the development
. Restoration of the existing wetland on The Shores Senior Living property.
. Construction of storm water treatment facilities including final construction of rain
gardens (RG) 100, 101 and B2 on the Shores Senior Living property and a rain
garden adjacent to Phalen Lake along East Shore Drive.
The following comments are to be addressed by the developer's engineer.
Drainage/ Routing/ Wetlandl Treatment
1. The applicant shall provide an area and drainage summary with calculations showing that
the post development runoff for the 2, 10, and 100 year critical duration storm events are
at or below pre development rates.
2. As discussed during our project coordination meeting on April 16, 20 I 0, the overall
approach to storm water management and wetlands was for the city to lead the permit
application submittal process for the project area as a whole including three separate
Attachment 9
Page 2 of 8
projects: East Shore Utility City Improvements; The Shores Senior Living; and Frost
Avenue City Improvements. As part of the lead, the city will also prepare final design
documents and complete construction ofRG 100,101 and B2 as shown on the JR Hill
Plans. The City will also complete the wetland enhancement work around the existing
wetland area. Plan notes should be added to these items to indicate work to be completed
by others.
3. The City is planning to construct stormwater detention and treatment facilities within the
boundaries of The Shores property. The developer shall coordinate site improvements
with the public stormwater improvements to be constructed by the city. The developer
shall coordinate the alignment of public storm sewer onto the property, including
showing such improvements and labeling them "By Others" on the appropriate plan
sheets.
4. The plan should note that RG 100,101 and B2 will be rough graded to the finished grade
of the RG. Final excavation, grading and placement of planting soil mix will then take
place as part of the Frost Avenue City Improvements.
5. The project narrative should describe that routine annual vegetation and landscape
maintenance ofRG 100, 101 and B2 will be completed by the owner. Less frequent
major maintenance activities to maintain the function of the systems will be the
responsibility of the city. The developer will be required to execute a maintenance
agreement for the storm water treatment systems.
6. The existing drainage map shows no detail on sheet 2.1 and is hard to view properly.
Please ensure information is legible.
7. One area that is not clearly identified on Sheet 2.1 is the drainage area to the trench drain
on the underground parking drive and the adjacent area to the west. This area needs to be
shown and included in the HydroCAD model. Both maps should also show the drainage
on the south parcel/portion of the property and include the proposed addition of culvert
FES 7 in the HydroCAD modeling.
8. It appears that the emergency overflow from the trench drain area is currently into the
garage at the GS elevation shown as 865.83. The overland flow elevation to the west-
southwest is something less than 868. Is it possible to grade an overflow swale to the
west-southwest if the trench becomes plugged, so that the overflow can overtop the curb
instead of flooding in the garage?
9. Sheets 3.1 and 4.1 show the overall storm sewer system routing. Plan notes should be
added that clarify portions of the work that will be completed by others (i.e., the City).
These include: FES 3; FES 7; drain tile for RG 100, 101 and B2.
10. The plans should show "future diversion of Frost drainage" on two locations along Frost
Avenue into RG 100 and 101 and one along East Shore Drive into RG B2.
II. FES 4 directs new discharge directly onto the private property to the west. This should
be redirected further to the north or to the south with the addition of a shallow grassed
Attachment 9
Page 3 of 8
swale prior to the outflow entering the private property. The model edits referred to in
Comment 7 would need to show no increase in the overall peak discharge rates from the
site.
12. The drain tile from RG 100 also is shown within the private property to the west. Please
direct this outlet to the south and into the swale area suggested in comment 12.
13. FES 3 is shown within the boundary of the wetland. The FES and rip rap should be
moved outside the boundary of the wetland. FES 3 has an elevation error - should say
864.95.
14. Drain tile from RG B2 and RG 101 should extend an additional 30 feet,just short of the
wetland edge.
15. No specific information was provided on the proposed level of imperviousness or for the
extent of volume control needed to meet the City and RWMWD standards. However this
information was pulled out of the PDF version ofthe HydroCAD model report and
preliminary estimates run for the project area as a whole, including the planned Frost
Avenue City Improvements. Estimates show that the overall project area consisting of
The Shores Development and the Frost and East Shore Drive City Improvements need
roughly 14,000 cubic-feet of volume control credit. As proposed roughly 19,000 cubic-
feet is provided which treats stormwater above and beyond requirements and could be
considered towards mitigation of wetland requirements. The developer should still
provide specific numbers on the level of imperviousness on site so that staff can confirm
estimates for the combined RWMWD permit application.
16. Based on the HydroCAD model provided, the proposed rainwater gardens have a
planting soil depth... to the under drain, ranging from less than 1 foot to just over 2 feet.
The typical detail uses a minimum depth of the planting soil of2 feet as show on Sheet
3.1. Please modify the model to show a minimum of2 feet of planting soil, and
preferably 2.5 feet, over the drain tile.
17. The drain tile under RGs should be changed to 8-inch. The riser and clean outs can
remain 6-inch pipe.
18. STMH 102 shows an invert elevation of868.0 at the bottom of the RG Basin. The
HydroCAD model includes a weir structure with an invert at 870.0. The plans should
include a detail of this structure showing the primary outlet, the weir and the overflow.
19. The existing wetland is higWy degraded and the city has prepared preliminary plans to
restore the wetland and surrounding buffer. This work will be completed with the Frost
A venue City Improvements. The plans for the Shores development should reference this
future work by others. Any work in the buffer adjacent to the proposed retaining wall
and entry drive should be consistent with the city plan (see Preliminary Plan -
attached).
20. The wetland class with buffer setback shall be shown on the plans. Also the date ofthe
wetland delineation and delineator must be shown on the plans. Ensure a note is made on
Attachment 9
Page 4 of 8
the plans that buffer areas are to have no disturbances, and must be signed such upon
completion of the improvements.
21. Show rip rap type and quantity including filter fabric placement.
22. Include a more legible rain garden detail on the plans.
23. 3-foot deep sumps at all drainage structure just upstream of rainwater gardens/infiltration
basins will be required in order to act as pretreatment.
Standard Plans
24. City Project 10-11 shall be given on each sheet in the title block location.
25. Existing utilities shall be shown in dashed lines.
26. Surveying bench mark information shall be placed on all plan sheets.
27. Plan Sheet] .2, Existing Conditions, is incomplete. The developer shall re-submit the
plan to the city for review with the appropriate level of detail, showing the Lot 1, Block 1
south property line and identifying existing site conditions and features by note and/or
legend.
28. Please provide logs for the soil borings shown on the plans.
29. The proposed concrete patio on the north side of the building encroaches on the proposed
10' drainage and utility and sidewalk and trail easements (see Right-of-Way/Easement
Comments). Please make the revisions necessary to avoid encroaching on the proposed
easements.
30. The City is preparing a utility bid package in Fall 2010 for East Shore Drive City
hnprovements. In addition to water main and sanitary sewer improvements including
service stubs to the development, the City will construct the driveway apron to the site as
well as storm sewer in the vicinity of the driveway. Further coordination with City
engineering staff will be required.
Grading and Drainage
31. The grading and drainage plan shall include contours and spot elevations, and all storm
sewer information including pipe lengths, size, slope, invert/rim elevations, etc.
32. The applicant shall add the following text on the storm sewer plans sheet:
"Owner, at Owner's sole cost and expense, shall maintain the private drainage pipeline
in good working order and repair commensurate with the city's standards for similar
drainage pipelines such that water flows freely though the system. Owner shall take all
necessary action to keep the drainage pipeline free from debris, trash, foliage, and any
Attachment 9
Page 5 of 8
other obstruction that may alter or impede the flow of water. Owner shall also perform
any relocation of the drainage pipeline pursuant to the standard specification of the city
should relocation be necessmy due to pipe failure or blockage, as determined necessary
by the city. "
33. Driveway slope extending from East Shore Drive shall be shown. Recommended slope is
between 2% and 8%. Consideration should be given to proposing a slope at or near 2%
at the intersection approach with East Shore Drive (landing area).
34. All retaining walls over 4-feet require submittal to the City of Maple wood Building
Department and must be stamped by a licensed engineer in order to secure the required
building permit. The developer shall submit a retaining wall plan and details for review.
Information provided shall indicate the wall type and include a section view detail of the
proposed walls.
35. An emergency overland release path, with spot elevations and arrows, for stormwater
shall clearly be shown on the grading plan (assume pipes are blocked).
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
36. The disturbance is over one acre and necessitates a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The
approved grading and erosion & sediment control plans shall be incorporated into the
SWPPP.
37. The NPDES log sheet shall be kept on site during all construction activities.
38. Plan Sheet 3.2, Erosion and Sediment Control, is incomplete. The developer shall re-
submit the plan to the City for review with the appropriate level of detail, including
identification of erosion and sediment control features by note and/or legend. The plan
shall be in accordance with all NPDES and Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed
District requirements. Also the developer's engineer shall:
a. Identify erosion and sediment control measure at project boundary limits of
disturbed areas on the plan sheet (i.e....silt fence, straw wattle, etc...).
b. Identify locations for equipment/material storage, debris stockpiles,
vehicle/equipment maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. Address measure to
contain area and specify that all materials stored on site shall have proper
enclosures and/or coverings.
c. Identify locations and provide details for concrete washouts.
d. Identify locations and provide details for stabilized construction accesses (rock
entrance pads).
Attachment 9
Page 6 of 8
e. Identify the quantity of materials to be imported or exported from the site (cu-yd).
f. Describe measures (e.g...sediment basin, sediment trap, etc) taken during the
rough grading process to intercept and detain sediment laden run-off to allow the
sediment to settle and how the settled stormwater wjJ\ be de-watered and
introduced to the public drainage system.
g. Show that inlet protection and other temporary erosion control measures shall be
installed to protect existing storm sewer structures along Frost A venue and East
Shore Drive during grading operations on The Shores site.
h. Place the following verbiage shall be added to the plan:
"Effective erosion and sediment controls shall be in place prior to any storm events. "
Storm / Sanitarv / Water / Fire
39. The storm sewer details need to be incorporated into the grading and drainage plan as
mentioned previously.
40. Verify sewer service slopes and pipe material and that adequate capacity exists to service
the project site.
41. The city plans to abandon a segment of existing sanitary sewer along the westerly
boundary of Outlot A. The developer shall grant the city a right-of-entry to complete the
sanitary sewer abandonment work.
42. The City will install sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain service stubs as a part of
the public improvements along East Shore Drive. The developer shall coordinate the
location of the services with city engineering staff.
43. According to the Fire Chief an additional internal fire hydrant shall be installed on the
Frost Avenue side of the proposed building.
44. The 8" DIP plug shown splitting off to service the future development site (Outlot A) is
not permitted. A separate stub would be extended to Outlot A as part ofthe East Shore
Drive City Improvements. Future coordination with city engineering staff is required to
identify the location of these future stubs and possible looping of the internal system.
45. Ensure the internal fire flows for the sprinkled building are adequate assuming the
hydrants are in use.
Agency Submittals
46. Permit approval from Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District will be required
since the site disturbs over one acre. The city will coordinate the submission of the
Attachment 9
Page 7 of 8
overall permit package and treatment calculations; however the developer shall be
responsible for all non-city portions of the overall project.
47. Coordinate proposed water with Saint Paul Regional Water Services. Review and
approval must be received.
48. Verify needed permits with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
49. Other agency approvals may be needed and it is the responsibility of the developer or the
developer's engineer to ensure all necessary permits and approvals are obtained.
Traffic / Streets / Access
50. Provide a typical cross section of the driveway on Sheet 5.1.
51. A "No Parking" condition will be required along the entire length of the private driveway
and loop as a result of the 24 foot wide drive aisle. This is required for emergency
vehicle access. The plans shall include signage stipulating No Parking.
52. According to the Fire Chief, the 5' wide sidewalk connecting Frost Avenue to the internal
driveway shall be a minimum of 10' wide drivable surface to accommodate fire access.
53. The city shall construct the driveway apron as a part of the public improvements. The
developer shall coordinate the location, width, and slope of the driveway with city
engineering staff.
Landscape Comments
54. The proposed landscape improvements on the site shall be coordinated with the proposed
public landscape improvements along Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive, including the
type and location of plant material. Also, refer to comments developed separately by
Ginny Gaynor, City Naturalist.
55. In order to address the City's tree preservation ordinance, the developer shall prepare a
tree plan showing the location, type, number, and size of trees to be removed and shall
include a tree mitigation/replacement schedule as outlined in the Woodlot Alteration
Permit Application. The developer shall work with city staff to identify possible
locations for replacement trees, including the possible installation of trees within the
right-of-way along Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive.
Right-of-WavlEasement Comments
56. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided around all public stormwater facilities
on the site. The exact location and extent of the easements shall be coordinated with city
engineering staff. The developer shall provide the city with right-of-entry over The
Shores property to allow for the construction of the public improvements.
Attachment 9
Page 8 of 8
a. Drainage and utility easements are needed over the areas covered by RG 100, 101
and B2 to allow the city access for fmal construction. These rain gardens will be
located within the public easement however the Developer shall have
maintenance responsibilities as will be defined in a separate maintenance
agreement (refer to comment 64).
57. The current preliminary plat shows a 20' by 20' right-of-way triangle at the northeast
corner of Lot I, Block 1 for construction of the proposed roundabout at the Frost
Avenue/East Shore Drive intersection. The right-of-way triangle needs to be revised to
be 30' by 30'.
58. The developer shall dedicate a 10' wide drainage and utility easement along the south
side of Frost A venue along the entire northerly boundary of The Shores property on the
plat.
59. The developer shall also dedicate a 10' wide sidewalk and trail easement along the south
side of Frost Avenue along the entire northerly boundary of The Shores property.
60. All right-of-way/easements shall be shown on all plan sheets.
Miscellaneous
61. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction
stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this
project.
62. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies.
63. A lighting plan shall be submitted.
64. The owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city that covers all
private stormwater treatment devices (list devices i.e... . sumps, swales, gardens/basins,
etc...) and RG 101,102, and B2.
65. The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the city. The city will
prepare this agreement.
*************** END OF COMMENTS **************
~'WII'l~l~~_\\:M_l<\."'ple07{llllll~e.rla{2DO?ll,'Ul:Dfl>I
~iH
><..!Ii
!!l ~ ~
I'I!I'
,
.
~
!
,
!Ii
m
III
i~
~;S
ii.
'I
I
,
"
~~
"'h
!tl~~
~,
r~?
Ji"';2;
..~w
~3.~
-.0
0'0
o
;;;~
~j:!!
~.~
i
z
m
~~
r
Iii
ii
~~ ~
glnj5
~
i
\
\
,
,
\
.,
\
\
\
,
,
,
/
"'''
?;;~
.~
-"
wo
'1''"
-z
!!20
"
00
om
wi
:;:
. . .. . .~
i~g~~F~g~~~I!i~~
~~~i~~~iW~~€~~z~
-"U"~~ .. '
~~g ~ 6~ ~!ii ~
IU ~ u ~~h
"~ ! .~ ~~.~
!!"'~ - Ga z~~Rl
~~'" ~o 11:" i;!:d!110
"'!iiP - .J; 5l!ll~>!
~e~ ll!:;; 3(!;!i\;:l
!j~J!i : ~~ !!lJill
U~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
","" ~ l:~ ~ :(
~U ~ ~$ ~ ~
~g!lll ;:; h'C) l'ii :!j
<:::":::1 il <;I:" '"
~5~ !: ~~ ~ g
Iil~~ ~ U ~ ~
!ill~' , ~
"'~~~g~m
~ ~ ~ ~
"
. . . . . . .~
~~g~b~~~~i~~~zZ~~~~a
~~~~~~~~n~~g~~~~~~~~
~'E-"'"'F"",~~",z,
~d~~~~~~i~!m~~~~i~E!
~FnZ0 m~. ~ZIZ~~ ~zz~~
i"@~~ i~ ~~~p~lil;i~n"z
~~il\~ m~ ~~: ~!l~~E~~~
i@~~ il ~~~ ~~~~ii~~
~~m~ G~ ~~~ i!~~go~~
>O'E 0- ,., '"!'o"-
$~~~ ~~ ~~m z~ ~~~0rn
~"'mz o~ '" ~ ~ x~f~~
~~~~ ~~ a ~ g~~~~~~o'
0;:10 -no;;! :>:-IIi""
~~m ~i ~ ~ 5~o~~~t~
~"~ t~ " ~ ~~~~~~~m
j~. ~. ! i f~~~~~3.~
l:'~~ o!i: ;:j " ~g!,"" ~!" ?i
~~> ~.. ~ 0 <fi~ ;:j ~
~g~ ~: !i\ i l~~ ~ ~
m~t~~fl:::~ g
~~['!g;:;~~.~ ~
"m 1::.-. '" c 'TI
~~~~ ~~j;
. . . . .. .~. .!,
o",z"~~~;:j~o~"~o~ <~~~:>:~~ ;
~~~~~~~~~~~E~~~ ~~~S~~~ ~
~~~~,,:~~~~~~~~.. ~~gl!:~~~ ~
:;:;;iilSl~~~~",~g~6^ fi~,,~~z'. 0
~~0~z~~~2g~~~~ 5~ ;~~ ffi
~~~:;s~~~~~~~~s !~ ~~~
!2z!i-lc-jl!-,?;;gbF"" "':r CZ~ ~
. o<>~z.<~z:::j:::;:;aii ;lffi lib ~
~~~"'~~~~g~~~~ ~~ lo:; ~
..~g~lDi~mmz<;::>: ~!! ~i1lo '"
~_~07.~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ai ~
m~~~ ~ e~~~~;:; ~~ ~~~ ~
~~~~ ~ ~~~~8~ ~6 ~~i ~
..~~~ ~ ~?~~~E ~m ig~
:. E'; .." I ,,"
ga 3 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~
5!~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ g ~~~
h ~ ;; ~ g~ ~ ~ ;~~
~I;' g t !il l!i<, z ~.,,~
i~ ~ F ~ z~ ~ ~ ~~~
:z~ ~ '" ~ <0 ~ ... ,,"'0
g.:> !:: m 1; 0;; ~ ~ ~p=
., 0 f , .. > < - ,
r ." < ~ ~~ ~ ~ g~~
;;: ;y "'. m
Attachment 10
\\
"
,\
\ ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, '
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, '
, ,
, ,
, ,
, \
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
,
,
\
,
,
,
mn
~~i ;i
J~. 0"
..~ ~~
Ul" ~g
"'... :I:;::
...:1:. ~..
i~ ~m
~ ~g
~~D~II
. ~
~ ~
, ~"
. .~
'" (!I~
m ~~
~ 'i<l"~
h
f'
".
.
.
~
~
1
z
~
.
.
~
~
.
~
I
~
~
~
ij
.
~
~
~
~
~
c
b
~
c
~
~
)j
- --.--.-,........
.... -"..---..-
.-"---- --,-_.~_.'-.,....."'. ....,~'.;..,..:...,-.--
.. -- - .
....,_:.:.,..., ",.
Attachment 11
Maplewood Police
Memo
To: MichaelMartin, City Planner
From: Dave K vam, Deputy Police Chief
Date: 5/27/2010
Re: Project Review, Maplewood Senior Living, LLC, 940 Frost Avenue
I was unable to identifY any significant concerns with the proposed development, from the
police department's perspective.
Initially, I was concerned with ensuring sufficient security was provided to help minimize
thefts of and from vehicles which are common to multi-housing environments and other
places where vehicles congregate. However, the proposal reflects there will be limited resident
parking, in anticipation oflow need, so that should not be a significant concern.
Though the elderly, statistically, are the least likely population group to be affected by crime,
they express the most concern about it Proper building security and lighting needs to be
ensured, not only to prevent actual criminal occurrences, but also to provide residents the
peace of mind they seek.
The only other concern I identified was the choice of ingress/egress to the complex. If many
cars are expected to come and go from the development, particularly during moming and
afternoon hours, the likelihood of accidents increases. Though an entrance/exit onto East
Shore Drive may come with some visibility limitations, it is preferable to Frost Avenue which
has higher speeds and heavier traffic volumes.
1
Attachment 12
Memo
To: Michael Martin, Planner
From: David Fisher, Building Official
Re: The Shores, 940 Frost Avenue - Proposed Public Vacation, Preliminary
Plat, CUP far a PUD & Design Review
Date: June 8,2010
The city will require a complete building code analysis when the
construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits.
All exiting must go to a public way.
Verify the building meets all the requirements for noise based on the
Minnesota Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota from the MPCA.
Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings.
The building setbacks must comply with the 2006 IBC for exterior wall
protection.
Retaining walls over 4 feet require engineering and a building permit.
Provide fire sprinklers to NFPA 13.
I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the contractor, the
project manager and the city building inspection department.
Attachment 13
Environmental Review
Project:
The Shores at Lake Phalen
Date of Plans:
April 16, 2010
Date of Review:
May 28,2010
Location:
940 Frost Avenue
Reviewers:
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
(651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Virginia Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator
(651) 249-2416, virqinia.Qavnor@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Background: The project involves subdividing the 7.06 acre property at 940 Frost
Avenue into two lots, with the northern lot being developed with a 1 06-unit senior
housing development called the Shores at Lake Phalen. The site was previously a
manufactured home and tourist cabin development. All of the manufactured homes and
tourist cabins were removed from the site in 2007 and 2008 for a previous senior
housing development which was never built.
Environmental issues include the location of the property within the Shoreland Overlay
District of Phalen Lake, heavily treed site, a Manage C wetland located on the east side
of the property, adjacent East Shore Drive, and stormwater runoff into Phalen Lake
watershed.
A. Shoreland Overlay District: City code requires properties within the Phalen
Lake Shoreland Overlay District to have a maximum of 40 percent impervious
surface area. The applicant has submitted plans that indicate 33.3 percent of the
site will be impervious surface.
The Shoreland Overlay District also requires that buildings be designed to reduce
visibility (under summer conditions) from public waters and adjacent shorelands.
Since this development will be constructed on the north lot, adjacent Frost
Avenue, the existing vegetation on the south lot will achieve the screening
requirement to Phalen Lake. Care should be taken in the design of the future
development to the south to ensure this requirement is met.
Shoreland Overlay District Recommendations: To reduce impervious surface
on the site, the applicant should consider using pervious pavers for the parking
spaces on the surface parking lot. This was a requirement of the previous
development.
B. Tree Preservation Ordinance: Maplewood's tree preservation ordinance
describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in
diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a
softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. A specimen tree is
1
Attachment 13
defined as a healthy tree of any species which is 28 inches in diameter or
greater. The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced
based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the
size of a tree and bases replacement on that size. In essence, the ordinance
requires an applicant to plant a greater amount of smaller replacement trees
because they removed a significant number of large trees.
The previous development submitted a tree survey for the overall site which
shows 246 significant trees on the property (3,883 total caliper inches). Of those
trees, five are considered specimen trees (including a large 48-caliper-inch
cottonwood tree located on the north side of the property near Frost Avenue).
Tree Removal and Replacement: No tree removal plan has been submitted
with the new development proposal. The landscape plan submitted with the new
development reflects that 70 new trees will be planted on the site.
Tree Preservation Recommendations: The applicant must submit the
following:
1. A tree survey showing the location, species, and size of all significant
trees on the site.
2. A revised grading plan which overlays the significant trees on the plan,
showing which significant trees will be removed.
3. A tree replacement plan calculating the number of significant trees
removed with the number of trees replaced to ensure it meets with city
code requirements.
C. Wetland Ordinance: There is a Manage C wetland located on the east side of
the property, adjacent East Shore Drive. When the city adopted the new wetland
ordinance and wetland classification maps in December 2009, this wetland was
upgraded from a Class 5 wetland with no buffer requirements to a Manage C
wetland with a 50-foot buffer requirement. Regardless of the previous
classification, the city required the previous development to maintain a 25-foot
buffer. The new development proposal shows grading to within 5 feet ofthe
wetland. For this reason, this development will require a 45-foot buffer
variance.
The wetland delineation report prepared by SEH for the previous development
describes the wetland as a Type 2 (wet meadow) with fringes of Type 1
(seasonally wet woodland). The wet meadow portion of the basin is dominated
by reed canary grass and the woodland is dominated by balsam poplar and
occasional American elm. Common buckthorn, a noxious shrub, is also present
in both the wet woodland fringe and the upland woodland areas. There is a
culvert at the southeast corner of the wetland that is plugged with sediment,
trash, and dead vegetation. There are several areas along the wetland boundary
where yard waste has been dumped into the wetland. Also, the north boundary
of the wetland has been partially encroached upon from mowing and recreational
use in the adjacent yard.
2
Attachment 13
The minimum mitigation required for buffer restoration without a variance request
is to seed the buffer with a native seed mix. The mitigation of the buffer
variances should go above and beyond just seeding within the buffer. The
applicant's grading and landscape plan shows a series of rainwater gardens
which will cleanse the water prior to entering the wetland or leaving the site.
These stormwater management improvements will help mitigate the wetland
buffer variance, if they go above and beyond stormwater requirements and are
constructed and planted correctly. In order to assess whether mitigation of the
wetland is adequate, the applicant must submit more detailed landscape and
mitigation plans showing planting in the entry rain garden and steps to be taken
within the degraded buffer to mitigate the variance.
Wetland Recommendation: The applicant must submit the following:
1. A wetland buffer mitigation plan showing how the applicant will mitigate
the reduction in buffer. The mitigation plan should include which tasks
would be completed by the applicant and which ones would be completed
by the city as part of the public improvements along Frost Avenue and
East Shore Drive. Types of mitigation might include, but are not limited
to:
a. Restore buffer and/or wetland with native plants.
b. Manage weeds in buffer and/or wetland.
c. Reduce stormwater runoff impacts (many options).
d. Give the city a stormwater easement to create rain gardens on the
site that filter runoff from Frost Avenue. The only portion that counts
towards mitigation is that which goes beyond the filtration required for
the development.
2. A revised landscape plan showing the following detail within the wetland
buffer:
a. the removal of the turf grass on the south side of the wetland and
replacement with native seed or plantings.
b. if seed is used within the buffer, the developer shall work with staff to
determine an appropriate seed mix. The mix will include both grasses
and flowers.
c. If native seed is used, the seeding contractor shall specialize in native
restoration and the applicant shall maintain a maintenance contract
for the seeding. See requirements for native seeding below (E:
Seeding Natives).
3. Prior to grading, the applicant will install city approved wetland signs at
the edge of the approved wetland buffer that specify that no building,
mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the buffer.
The signs must be placed every 100-feet along the edge of the buffer at a
minimum. The placement of these signs must be verified with a survey
to ensure proper placement.
4. The applicant must submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150
percent of the wetland mitigation.
3
Attachment 13
D. Stormwater Plantings: The applicant is proposing four filtration basins on the
site. Our engineer has provided comments regarding the filtration basin. The
comments in this section apply solely to the planting of the basins. The rain
garden in the center of the entry circle will be planted and maintained by the
owner. Native seeding of this rain garden is not appropriate since: 1) this is a
major focal point that needs quick establishment for aesthetic reasons and 2)
seeding the bottom of a rain garden is rarely successful.
Filtration planting recommendation:
1. The plan should indicate a temporary cover crop will be seeded in the three
rain gardens being planted by the city.
2. The applicant must provide a detailed landscape design for the center rain
garden. We strongly encourage the use of trees, shrubs, and perennials in
this planting.
a. At least 5000 square feet must be planted with plants (not seed) and
we recommend that the whole area be planted.
b. If cost is an issue, using very small shrub plants (# pots or bareroot 1-
2 year olds) would be preferable to using seed.
c. If the whole basin is planted (no seed used), this shall be considered
part of mitigating the requested buffer variance.
d. Seed may not be used on the bottom of the basin.
e. If some of the slope are is seeded with natives, the requirements
below (E: Native Seedings) apply.
E. Native Seedings: The applicant is proposing to seed much of the site to native
grasses and flowers. It is very difficult to establish native prairie seeding. Most
native seedings done as part of new developments fail. The applicant should
understand that it takes three to five years to establish a native seeding and
during that time the site is very weedy and residents often complain about the
aesthetics. Please note that due to the length of time for establishment the city
will hold escrow until the prairie (not the cover crop) is established. The applicant
may want to consider a different type of ground cover.
Native Seeding Recommendations: If the applicant wishes to seed native
prairie grasses and wildflowers, the applicant must indicate the following in the
plans (this applies to areas with native seed, it does not apply to areas planted
with containerized or bareroot plants.
1. The native seeding shall be done by a contractor that specializes in native
plant restoration and whose business is at least 50% native
plants/restoration.
2. The applicant will enter into a three year maintenance contract with the
seeding contractor that ensures establishment.
3. The applicant must sign a wetland buffer restoration maintenance
agreement with the city which will require the applicant to ensure the
native plants are established within the buffer.
4
Attachment 13
4. The applicant shall post small signs indicating this is a native seeding and
that it will take 3-5 years to establish.
5. The applicant shall revise the Type I seed mix, which is not an ideal mix
for our region. The areas with Type I seed mix could be Prairie
Restoration's short/dry or mixed height/mesic mixes, or a similar mix
approved by staff.
5
I " ~ .
~ ~ ~... $ 8~
. ~. " . -., H."" ,. I." "
~'z - h i'--I l' ~~"8 'I'I.l! ~ :..,:3 i
.. ~ ~E i ~U ,;~~ ~8 liB m~ l! j~~ Ii
~o~~! ~.li.ci~ ~-r~~ ~ .::s:...1;'Ei~ 8
"". .:l1')!ll~I.s;~,.~~ 1l~.(iiS:e~ i~Kz!~ -;
lfiI ~i~~~! g~dhJ! ~1~I~i! ~~!~~i ~
" c
~go Q)
.! "'05"'5 !!:
_ z"'It) ..c ~z
i i~~~~ CL J!li
li."'6,., Q)!fIo
"<'ee-".j5~g
~l~iJ! -3 ~m
Attach~I,rl,i!nt 5
'0
I
co
0<0
CLII
c
.
E
~
tuil
D>
roo
00
1 i..
~ g 5
,,~
~
U1 Qj
"
o
"'
t III -r N ~ ... t~....'O
...J. OJ OJ C OJ ,M 0 O[;j 110= .& >.
tg) ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~" j;.c:~ 8:~ ~t t
~!l- u> WOJ 0 OJI'! l:~ d.-'1l o~ ....l... OJ+' NO~1:
Eii ~< @~~iil~.!;; ~d ~~ fd Ooa !!lg ~~ ....zf....
01[; ;t: O...~O...."D 6"'D'OJ~"'!l{!C1I1l.1: ~""OJ d" .31:lAOI
~~~$f ~~~~~~ z&~(A~B]'ON....~~~~ ~~~............~
~~~~~.!;;~tlll~wb ~b....~mM"DOJt~~.!;;~.!;; ~~Ot~~~
'O~~~'O~~'Od~'O~ ~~C1~~IIl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
t l5a1:i'~~.... >.~.....?:-"D....~ OJl'Oa~:::~; t aN-g g'~t":;!+, fu"ll ~~f
[=eN >.~ ~ &r~ t ~ ~ ;~:5 ~ l... OJ ~ "6~'" ~ ~ S <>3!J:ltt;l ~8~'" 0]
~~~~~~at€at~a~o~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~i1
Fa1&8a~2~82~~2~'08~~i~~sg~~~$'O~~~~~&~~
~
o
-
.
c
.
c
.
.
o
.
o
.
. .
O~
..
~O
~"
,.
0.
o
Attachment 15
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects Representing Jack Rajchenbach and
Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC, applied for a variance from the wetland
protection ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the following property:
Address: 940 Frost Avenue
Property Identification Number: 16-29-22-31-0025
Existing Legal Description: That part of Government Lot 2, Sec. 16, T. 29, R. 22,
Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies S' of Frost Avenue as described in Document
No. 1999021, W' of Frost Avenue Connection as described in Document No.
1999021, N' of East Shore Drive as described in Document No. 367903, and NE' of a
line described as commencing at the center of said Section 16, thence S 89 degrees
32 minutes 38 seconds W, assumed bearing, along the N line of said Government Lot
2, 1130.00 feet, to the point of beginning; thence South 27 degrees 23 minutes 03
seconds East, 1121.18 feet to an angle in the north line of said East Shore Drive, said
angle point being 658.56 feet westerly of the East line of said government lot 2 as
measured along the N line of said East Shore Drive and said line there terminating.
New Legal Description (After Lot Division): All that part of Lot 1, Block 1, The Shores
of Lake Phalen, Ramsey County, Minnesota that lies northerly of the following
described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1, thence North 27
degrees 23 minutes 03 second West, along the southwesterly lot line of said Lot 1, a
distance of 509.1 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
North 64 degrees 53 minutes 46 seconds East, a distance of 160.32 feet; thence
North 69 degrees 51 minutes 35 seconds East adistance of 105.83 feet; thence
South 61 degrees 19 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of 74.90 feet to a point on
the easterly line of said Lot 1 and there terminating.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 895, the Environmental Protection and Critical Area
Ordinance dealing with Wetlands, requires a wetland protection buffer of 50 feet in width
adjacent to Manage C wetlands.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to grade up to five feet from the wetland,
requiring a variance of 45 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On June 15, 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this
proposal. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the
surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The
planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city
staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council
these variance request.
Attachment 15
2. The city council held a public meeting on , 2010, to review this
proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city
staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
described variances based on the following reasons:
the above-
a. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause the applicant undue hardship
because complying with all of the wetland buffer requirements stipulated by the
ordinance would deplete the site area, substantially diminishing the development
potential of this lot.
b. Approval of the requested wetland buffer variance would benefit the adjacent
wetland because the wetland is currently in poor condition and development of this
site will allow for rehabilitation of the wetland and buffer areas.
c. Approval would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the proposed
restoration and mitigation of the wetland buffers will greatly improve the quality of the
wetland.
Approval of this wetland buffer variance is subject to the following conditions:
a. All permits and approvals by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District will
need to be secured.
b. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Thompson,
dated June 7,2010.
c. Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Ms. Finwall and Ms.
Gaynor, dated May 28,2010.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2010.
2
Agenda Item 5.c.
AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
Review of Draft 2011 - 2015 Capital Improvement Plan
June 17, 2010
TO:
FROM:
INTRODUCTION
As part of the budget process, the City annually prepares a Capital Improvement Plan to help estimate
the major capital expenses and projects that will have an impact on the debt levels and levy
expenditures in the next 5-year period. The Capital Improvement Plan, or CIP, is a planning tool and
does not authorize projects or purchases, but allows the City Council to review these expenditures and
provide direction on the overall capital goals for the City. The staff has been working on various
requests and plans since March 2010. After establishment of goals by the City Council, the plan is
prepared and projects recommended, along with a list of the project that based upon the staff
recommendations are deferred or listed as declined, which is also called unfunded needs.
The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission should review the pertinent section of
the CIP for 2011 to 2015 and offer feedback and recommendations. The ENR recommendations will
be provided to the Planning Commission, who conduct the Public Hearing on the conformity of the
proposed CIP to the Comprehensive Plan, and then all recommendations are forwarded to the City
Council for final adoption.
SUMMARY
Attached are portions of the draft 2011 - 2015 CIP which relate to the environmentor parks. The full
version of the draft Capital Improvement Plan is available on the city's website at
www.ci.maplewood.mn.us (Departments, Finance, CIP). The total proposed CIP for 2011 - 2015 is
$62,845,385. Due to funding limitations, a total of $42,567,210 of projects deemed necessary by the
staff are recommended to be declined in the next 5 years.
RECOMMENDATION
The ENR Commission should review the proposed CIP areas related to the environment and parks
and make a recommendation for approval, approval with revisions, or denial to the City Council.
Attachments:
1. Draft 2011 - 2015 CIP (Partial Copy)
2. Full Draft CIP can be obtained at: www.cLmaolewood.mn.us (department, finance, CIP)
Attctt. n rnerrt \
~~
-I
p21M1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
SECTION I-INTRODUCTION
Principal City Officials.......................................................................................................................... I
City Manager's Letter of Transmittal ....................................................................................................2
Highlights ..............................................................................................................................................5
New Proj ects ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Proj ects by Category ............................................................................................................................. 8
Schedule for Construction and Financing of2010 Projects ................................................................ 10
Schedule for 2011 Bond Issue.............................................................................................................11
Projects by Category for 2011............................................................................................................. 12
Projects Scheduled for 2011................................................................................................................13
Funding Sources for the Capital Improvement Plan ...........................................................................15
General Community Development Information ................................................................................. 18
Undeveloped Land Map ...................................................................................................................... 19
Maplewood Population Statistics........................................................................................................ 20
SECTION 11- DEBT CAPACITY AND FINANCING STRATEGY
Debt Capacity ..................................................................................................................................... 25
Debt Transactions Past Five Years and Next Five Years....................................................................26
C.I.P. Impact on City Debt..................................................................................................................27
Debt Per Capita................................................................................................................................... 28
Debt to Market Value .........................................................................................................................30
Legal Debt Margin.............................................................................................................................. 32
Capital Improvement Plan Financing Strategy ....................................................................................33
Impact on Property Taxes.................................................................................................................... 34
SECTION 111- PROJECT DETAILS
Proj ect Details.......................................................................................................... ,.......................... 35
Map of City by Neighborhood ......................................................................................................... 37
Western Hills... Neighborhood #1
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................38
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 39
Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Streets ............................................................................................ 41
Parkside - Neighborhood #2
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................42
Neighborhood Map ..........................................................................................................................43
Kohlman Lake - Neighborhood #3
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................44
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 45
Hazelwood - Neighborhood #4
Map Legend and Population Data.................................................................................................... 46
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 47
Existing County Road D, East ofTH 61 to Hazelwood ..................................................................49
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
SECTION 111- PROJECT DETAILS (continued)
Maplewood Heights - Neighborhood #5
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................50
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 51
Joy Park Improvements.................................................................................................................... 53
Sherwood Glen - Neighborhood #6
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................54
Neighborhood Map ..........................................................................................................................55
TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements ................................................................................... 57
Gladstone - Neighborhood #7
Map Legend and Population Data.................................................................................................... 58
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 59
Gladstone Area Streetscape - Phase I ..............................................................................................60
Gladstone Savanna Improvements ...................................................................................................61
Gladstone - Phase II ........................................................................................................................ 62
Gladstone - Phase III ....................................................................................................................... 63
Hillside - Neighborhood #8
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................64
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 65
Fire Training Facility ............,.......................................................................................................... 66
Goodrich Park Improvements.......................................................................................................... 67
Beaver Lake - Neighborhood #9
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................68
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 69
Lions Park Improvements ................................................................................................................ 70
Bartelmy Mayer Area Streets...........................................................................................................71
Bartelmy Street, Minnehaha A venue to Stillwater Road ................................................................. 72
Farrell/Femdale Area Street Improvements .....................................................................................73
Battle Creek - Neighborhood # 10
Map Legend and Population Data............................................;.......................................................74
Neighborhood Map ..........................................................................................................................75
Vista Hills - Neighborhood #11
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................76
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 77
Pond AvenueIDorland Road ............................................................................................................79
Sterling Street - Londin Lane to Crestview Forest Dr. .................................................................... 80
CrestviewIHighwood Area Streets ...................................................................................................81
Highwood - Neighborhood #12
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................82
Neighborhood Map .......................................................................................................................... 83
Lakewood/Sterling Area Streets ......................................,...............................................................84
Fish Creek Open Space .................................................................................................................... 85
Carver Ridge - Neighborhood #13
Map Legend and Population Data....................................................................................................86
Neighborhood Map ..........................................................................................................................87
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
SECTION 111- PROJECT DETAILS (continued)
Projects without a Neighborhood Designation.................................................................................... 89
Replacement of Fire Truck............................................................................................................... 90
Replacement of Fire Truck............................................................................................................... 91
Ambulance Replacement .................................................................................................................92
Ambulance Replacement ................................................................................................................. 93
Phone System................................................................................................................................... 94
Fiber Optics...................................................................................................................................... 95
MCC Exercise Equipment................................................................................................................ 96
MCC Exterior Metal Painting ..........................................................................................................97
Wetland Enhancement Program....................................................................................................... 98
Community Field Upgrade...............................................................................................................99
Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement............................................................................ 100
Cab for Jacobsen Mower................................................................................................................101
Jetter Truck.................................................................................................................................... 102
Parallelogram Lift .......................................................................................................................... 103
Single Axle Plow Truck.................................................................................................................104
Lift Station Upgrade Program........................................................................................................105
Two Toro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers ................................................................................... 106
One Tractor Loader and Three Wheel Truckster ........................................................................... 107
One Snow Plow Truck ...................................................................................................................108
I-Ton Trucks.................................................................................................................................. 109
Jet/V ac Truck ................................................................................................................................. 110
Two Toro Lawn Mowers and One 4 Wheel Truckster .................................................................. III
One I Ton, One I Yz Ton and One y, Ton Trucks.......................................................................... 112
SECTION IV - APPENDIX
Project Listings:
Grouped by Department.................................................................................................................113
Grouped by Funding Source ..........................................................................................................114
Grouped by Project Category .........................................................................................................118
Grouped by Neighborhood.................................................................................................... ......... 120
Grouped by Department - Declined .............................................................................................. 123
Projects Deferred/Declined............................................................................................................ 124
Financial Projections for Capital Project Funds and VEM Fund:
Ambulance Service Fund............................................................................................. .................. 126
Capital Improvement Projects Fund...............................................................................................129
Environmental Utility Fund ...........................................................................................................130
Fire Truck Replacement Fund........................................................................................................133
Fleet Management Fund................................................................................................................. 134
Park Development Fund....... .......................................................................................................... 136
Redevelopment Fund ..................................................................................................................... 137
Sanitary Sewer Fund ...................................................................................................................... 138
Water Availability Charge Fund-North St. Paul Water District ....................................................140
Water Availability Charge Fund-St. Paul Water District...............................................................141
iii
lQge/lter We Can
Mayor and City Council
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
The 2011 - 2015 Proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the City of Maplewood is submitted
herewith. The intent of this document is to coordinate the planning, financing and timing of major
equipment purchases and construction projects. The document is divided into four sections:
Introduction, Debt Capacity and Financing Strategy, Project Details, and Appendix.
The focus of this CIP is on the maintenance and protection of the City's existing assets, its buildings
and streets/infrastructure. The staff has spent numerous hours of analysis in an attempt to provide
the most cost-effective and prioritized projects for 2011 - 2015 to meet that focus.
Highlights of the 2010 - 2014 CIP are:
1. In 2007 and 2008, the City Council was presented with plans to advance roadway
reconstruction projects to take advantage of competitive pricing and to address a deteriorating
roadway system. The plan called for an annual expenditure of $10,000,000 through 2012 for
neighborhood street upgrades. This advanced plan has resulted in very favorable bids in
2007,2008,2009 and again in 2010 that have provided savings in the program approaching
25-30% of the estimated costs. This expanded program has resulted in a major increase in
debt service payments in the current and future years. Due to the Council's desire to reduce
the amount of City debt and stabilize the tax levy for debt service, the CIP no longer reflects
that expanded effort and a number of projects have been deferred to minimize debt levy
increases. The cost savings of advancing projects is continuing in 2010. The City debt
service levels are projected to begin a reduction but not until 2014 or 2015, so this CIP
reflects a slowing down of the investment in infrastructure. If the City Council wishes to
consider advancing additional projects, an allocation of the debt levy will be needed for this
program. The projections for expenses to this program begins to diminish in 2011 and
continues at a lower level through 2014 as planned expenditures are reduced to the $5-6
million amount which is down from the projected level of $1 0-12 million in 2007 - 2010.
Expenditures thereafter should be lower as Maplewood streets are upgraded to more of a
maintenance level rather than a reconstruction need.
2. The Gladstone redevelopment initiative is reflected in this plan. Major improvements totaling
$5,300,000 are planned for Phase 1 in 2010 and 2011, plus an additional $1,200,000 for the
Gladstone Savana in 2011. The second phase of the redevelopment is estimated to be
delayed from the original plan in 2012 to 2013-14 at $3,500,000 and the third phase has been
delayed in this plan at $5,750,000 from 2014 to 2015. The staff reviewed redevelopment
plans for other areas of the Community and reviewed options for beginning the Hillcrest Area
Redevelopment during this timeframe. Unfortunately, funding limitations required that the
Hillcrest Area Redevelopment initiative not be started until Gladstone is completed, which
delays that important project to post-2015.
2
3. Development of a Master Trail Plan was a priority for the City in 2008 and 2009. This Plan
prioritizes the use of PAC fees for the acquisition and construction in existing parks and
requires the delay of trail corridors and trail extensions. Construction of the transportation and
recreational components to meet citizen needs and desires for trail connections and corridors
throughout the community will remain within street projects as part of the reconstruction
program and as a part of coordinated projects with Ramsey County and MnDOT. Some trail
projects in 2011 continue with expenditures for trail development as well as trails at and near
Joy Park and Lions Park.
4. Additional improvements were proposed to continue building maintenance of City facilities at
City Hall and Maplewood Community Center. The Maplewood Community Center is unable
to support operational costs due to nearly 45% of those costs for large increases in
replacement of mechanical and building features. These requests have been delayed for a
number of years due to the need for financial adjustments to the MCC Fund. Additional
improvements at City Hall have also been delayed due to the lack of a dedicated funding
source. As the Council debates the levy for 2011, consideration needs to be given to
dedicate funds to these needs. The improvements have been removed from the CIP
reflecting this lack of funding and are shown in the deferred/declined list.
5. Replacement of vehicles and equipment in the Fleet Management Fund reflects a need to
delay the replacement of equipment. An annual expenditure of $300,000 to $350,000 is
proposed for the planning period for replacements. This has meant a significant deferral of
needed replacements that will add to maintenance costs.
6. The Park Development Fund is showing a continued slow down of revenues as the housing
market and building of commercial industrial facilities slows due to the slowing economy. A
number of projects have been delayed or deferred from the requests of the Park Commission.
7. A new addition to the 2011-2015 CIP is the planned Fire Training Facility. The East Metro
area is lacking in a quality fire training facility. This facility will allow firefighters to enhance
their skills in a safe environment. Much of the cost of this facility will be financed with grants
including the grant of the land from MnDOT. The facility will utilize wind, solar and geothermal
technologies. A joint powers agreement will enable costs to be borne by the many
metropolitan area fire departments that will benefit from it.
8. TH 36 and English Street will be under pressure to be revised to an interchange due to the
project that removed signals from TH 36 in North St. Paul. Funding is proposed for a major
interchange project in 2014-2015. Most funding, $12,000,000 of the $14,800,000 total will
come need to come from grants and MnDOT sources.
The total 2011 - 2015 CIP reflects a reduced investment in capital program. This CIP, which differs
dramatically from past years, shows an 13.1 % decrease from the previous year's program.
Significant re-prioritizing of funds shows that investment is proposed to decrease for buildings,
equipment and Public Works, while Parks and redevelopment improvements are identified for
substantial increases. The 2010 - 2014 CIP was a $77.76 Million plan, while the 2011 - 2015 CIP is
a $65.73 Million plan. Much of this decreased cost is directly attributable to the delay and deferral of
projects due to limited funding options. The 2010-2014 CIP included grants of $13,900,000 while the
2011-2015 CIP includes grants in the amount of $16,300,000.
3
As with the previous year, a section of this CIP is listed within the Appendix of Deferred Projects.
These are projects that were recommended by staff and Commissions and are significant needs
within the City. An analysis of the impacts of these projects identified that funding is not available
under current programs totaling $54,233,410. In the 2010 - 2014 CIP the Deferred Projects liste was
for $21 ,409,672 worth of projects, which is a 253% increase in deferred-delayed projects and directly
attributable to the lack of funding dedicated to capital replacement. If other funds become available,
these projects may be reconsidered in future years.
The property tax impact of projects included in this CIP was evaluated. Estimates were prepared of
the new tax levies that will be required to support these projects assuming that new bonds will be
issued to finance CIP projects. For 2009, the city's total tax levy was $16,670,046 and of that amount,
$3,624,702 was for debt service on bond issues. The total Debt outstanding for Maplewood is
proposed to reach $76,157,297 in 2011 based upon the current plan within this CIP. 2010 total debt
is $79,047,297. The City's total debt is limited by statute to not more than 3% of market value of
taxable property of the City. Very little of the debt of the City, approximately $2,000,000 is actually
subject to the legal debt margin. Staff continues to monitor total city debt as a percent of market value
with the intention of keeping total debt within 2%. With the new debt projected by this CIP, the City
will remain at or below that objective at 2.0 declining to 1.6% by 2015.
It is recommended that the CIP be formally adopted by the City Council following a Public Hearing
that is required to be held by the Planning Commission. As part of this adoption process, a strong
commitment is needed to follow the construction and financing schedule for the public improvement
projects planned for 2011. This allows the City's engineering staff to be fully utilized and will minimize
the need for consultant engineers. Also, it will facilitate the planning for the year 2011 bond issue by
the Finance Department.
The CIP, by design, is a planning tool for City staff and elected officials. The CIP gives the City
Council the flexibility to proceed with the proposed projects based on the political, economic, and
financial realities of each year. After the CIP has been formally adopted by the City Council, the
projects scheduled for 2011 will be included in the Proposed 2011 Budget document. This will
provide the City Council another opportunity to review the proposed year 2011 projects.
The 2011 - 2015 CIP presents an excellent combination of maintenance and redevelopment projects.
By proceeding with these scheduled improvements, the City Council can be assured the City's
infrastructure, facility and equipment needs meet those of its citizens.
R. Charles Ahl
Assistant City Manager
James W. Antonen
City Manager
4
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The five-year total expenditures within the 2011-2015 C.I.P. are $65,735,385, Changes by project
category over the last C.I.P. are as follows:
2009-2013 2010-2014 2011~2015 Increase (Decrease)
C.I,P C.LP C.l.P Amount Percent
Buildings $1,311,000 $4,365,599 $3,849,000 (516.599) -11.8%
Redevelopment 12.250,000 10,625,000 14,550,000 3,925,000 36.9%
Equipment 3,285,098 3,731,659 3,089,185 (642,474) ~17.2%
Parks 2,165,000 6,300,000 6,900,000 600,000 9.5%
Public Works 46,748,000 52,741,499 37,347,200 (15.394,299) -29.2%
TOTALS $65,759,098 $77,763,757 $65,735,385 (12.028,372) -15.5%
The five largest projects within the C.I.P. are as follows:
1. TH 36 - Enallsh Intersection Imorovements - $14.800.000
Contruction of this project is planned for 2014. With the recent improvements along TH36,
this is the only remaining signaled intersection. $2.5 million of City funding is anticipated
with the rest coming from grants and other state funding.
2. Western Hills/Laroenteur Area Streets - $5.980.000
Contruction of this project is planned for 2011. The majority of the streets will require full
reconstruction.
3. Gladstone Phase III - $5.750.000
Phase III includes improvements along Frost Avenue from English Street through Hazelwood.
Improvements include burial of power lines, streetscape, new roadways, new storm
water initiatives and utility extensions. Phases I and II Will precede this project with a total
anticipated cost of $7,715,000,
4. Gladstone Area Streetscaoe Phase I - $5.300.000
Construction of this project is planned for 2011. The majority of the project will include
improvements that are coordinated with the redevelopment of the Tourist Cabin property.
5. Crestview/Hiahwood Area Streets - $4.779.700
Contruction of this project is planned for 2013. The majority of the streets will require
partial reconstruction while others will require full reconstruction due to utilities improvements.
Details regarding the projects included within the C.I.P. are in the third section of this document. The projects
are grouped by neighborhoods and there is a separate page for each project. There are 51 projects in the
current C,I.P. The 2010-2014 C,I.P, had 71 projects,
5
PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR 2011
PROJECT PROJECT
NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CATEGORY COST
FD09,030 Fire Training Facility Buildings $570,000
$570,000
FD03.020 Replacement of Fire Truck Equipment $449,730
FD08.010 Ambulance Replacement Equipment 117,500
PW09.010 JeWac Truck Equipment 325,000
$892,230
PM10,010 Wetland Enhancement Program Parks $25,000
PM11,010 Fish Creek Open Space Parks 2,250,000
PM11,02 Goodrich Park Improvements Parks 100,000
PM03,010 Joy Park Improvements Parks 50,000
PM03,060 Joy Park Improvements Parks 100,000
PM07.010 Community Field Upgrades Parks 25,000
PM08.040 Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement Parks 20,000
PM08.050 Gladstone Savanna Improvements Parks 1,200,000
$3,770,000
PW07.060 Western Hills/Larpenteur Area Streets Public Works 5,780,000
PW07.100 TH 36-English Intersection Improvements Public Works 800,000
PW08,100 Sterling Street, Landin Lane to Crestview Forest Dr. Public Works 100,000
$6,680,000
CD04,010 Gladstone Area Streetscape - Phase 1 Redevelopment $5,300,000
$5,300,000
Grand Total $17,212,230
13
FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
GROUPED BY PROJECT CA TEGORY
PROJECT
Status: Accepted
PROJECT TITLE
FD09,030
MT10.030
MT08.040
FD03.020
FD06.020
FODS.DiD
FD09.020
IT09.010
IT09.020
PW11.010
PW11.020
PW11.030
PW11.040
PWOO.010
PW06.060
PW06,070
PW07.030
PW09,010
PW09.020
PW09.030
PM10.010
PM11.01O
PM11.020
PM03.DiD
PM03.060
PM07.010
PM08.040
PM08.050
Fire Training Facllity
MCC Exercise Equipment
MCC Exterior Metal Painting
Replacement of Fire Truck
Replacement of Fire Truck
Ambulance Replacement
Ambulance Replacement
Phone System
FiberOpUcs
Cab for Jacobsen Mower
JetterTruck
Parallelogram Lift
Single Axle Plow Truck
Two Taro Lawn Mowers and Two Trailers
One Tractor Loader and Three Wheel Truckster
One Snow Plow Truck
1-TonTruck
JeWacTruck
Two Toro Mowers and One 4-Wheel Truckster
One 1 ton One 11/2 ton and One 112 ton Trucks
Weiland Enhancement Program
Fish Creek Open Space
Goodrich Park Improvements
LIons Park Improvements
Joy Park Improvements
Community Field Upgrades
Park Equipment, Fence and Court Replacement
Gladstone Savanna Improvements
PROJECT
CA TEGORY
Building
Building
Building
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Equipment
Parks
Parks
Parks
Parks
Parks
Parks
Parks
Parks
TOTAL
COST
3,700,000
59,000
120,000
PRIOR
YEARS
30,000
o
2011
570,000
o
ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR
2012 2013 2014
3,100,000 0 0
o
o
o
o
60,000
o
59,000
60,000
2015
o
o
o
3879000
o
449,730
481,280
117,500
121,025
120,000
300,800
18,000
185,000
114,320
185,730
86,200
82,500
171,000
71,200
325,000
98,300
161,600
:mnnn
!i7nOflO
o
449,730
o
1100000
o
o
o
18,000
185,000
o
Gnann
o
o
o
o
o
120,000
o
119000
o
o
o
o
121,025
o
o
o
o
o
117,500
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
100,800
o
o
o
86,200
82,500
o
o
300,800
o
o
481,280
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
325,000
o
o
o
o
71,200
o
o
o
114,320
o
o
o
o
o
o
60,800
o
171,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
185,730
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
98,300
o
o
308918!i
765310
125,000
4,250,000
500,000
350,000
300,000
160,000
125,000
1,700,000
o
89? 210
50,000 25,000
o 2,250,000
o 100,000
300,000 50,000
200,000 100,000
35,000 25,000
25,000 20,000
o 1,200,000
30'lSOO
25,000
20,000
o
4?0700
o
o
2,000,000
400,000
o
707145
o
50,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
25,000
20,000
250,000
o
25,000
20,000
o
o
o
o
o
25,000
20,000
250,000
7510000
?95000
118
fi1nooo
1770000
45 nnn ? tHIS oon
9S0no
FIVE- YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
GROUPED BY PROJECT CA TEGORY
Status: Accepted
PROJECT TOTAL PRIOR ALLOCATION OF COSTS BY YEAR
PRO IEGT PRO.IEGT T1TLF CA TFr,ORY C()~T YEARS 2011 ?012 2013 2014 2015
PW03.210 Lift Station Upgrade Program Public Works 200,000 0 0 25,000 25,000 150,000 0
PW04.110 County Rd D Court, East of TH 61 to Hazelwood PuhlicWorks 1,007,500 0 0 0 0 0 1,007,500
PWD5.0BD Pond Avenue/Dorland Road Public WOrks 870,000 30,000 0 0 0 840,000 0
PW07.060 Western HilIslLarpenteur Area Streets Publ1cWorks 5,980,000 200,000 5,780,000 0 0 0 0
PWD7.100 TH 36 - English Intersection Improvements Public Works 14,800,000 0 800,000 1,000,000 500,000 12,500,000 0
PW08.050 LakewoodfSteriing Area Streets PublicWor1<s 2,430,000 200,000 0 2,230,000 0 0 0
PW08.060 Crestview/Highwood Area Streets Public Works 4,779,700 0 0 200,000 4,579,700 0 0
PW08.070 Bartelmy Meyer Area Streets Public Works 1,440,000 0 0 0 100,000 1,340,000 0
PW08.080 Bartelmy Street, Minnehaha Ave. to Stillwater Rd. Public Works 1,170,000 0 0 0 150,000 1,020,000 0
PW08.100 Sterling Street,Londin Lane 10 Crestview Forest Dr Public Works 770,000 0 100,000 670,000 0 0 0
PW09.080 FarrelllFemdale Area Street Improvements PublicWol'ks 4,330,000 0 0 0 0 0 4,330,000
17777'(1(1 4.1(10(1(1 /1/1800(10 4.1'5(1(1(1 5154.70(1 1585(100(1 53375(10
CD04.010 Gladstone Area Streetscape-- Phase I Redevelopment 5,300,000 0 5,300,000 0 0 0 0
CD09.020 Gladstone-Phase II Redevelopment 3,500,000 0 0 0 400,000 3,100,000 0
CD09.030 Gladstone-Phase III Redevelopment 5,750,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,750,000
14.550000 0 5100000 0 4.00000 3100000 5750000
/16805185 1070000 17 '1' '30 7571800 8930400 1987114.5 1'14781(1
119
PROJECTS DEFERRED/DECLINED
In the course of preparation of this Capital Improvement Plan, several noteworthy
projects were proposed hut deemed by staff to not be appropriate for inclusion at this
time. These projects are discussed below and included for your review.
. Hillcrest Area Redevelopment - Staff recommends that this project be deferred
until the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment is further along so as to avoid
competing with each other.
. Honsing Replacement Program - This is a worthwhile project and the current
economic conditions would call for some investment in this project. City
finances are not currently available to provide sufficient benefit.
. Commercial Property Redevelopment - While this is a worthy project, staff
does not believe that the costs are a priority use of tax levies. Staff will continue
to look for opportunities in this area.
. Various Requests for Trucks, Lawn Mowers, etc. - This equipment will
continue to need periodic replacement and other similar requests are included in
the CIP. These projects are indicative of a need to keep replacements down to an
only-as-needed basis.
. Police Department Expansion - This is an expensive proposition and its need
has not been adequately demonstrated. Space needs at City Hall continue to be
evaluated. This project may require a referendum to identify a source of funds.
. Replacement/repair of Fire Station - This item will need to be addressed in the
coming years, as a couple of stations need to be brought up to code and major
repairs to roof areas and internal areas need attention. This item was deferred
due to the high cost and a lack offunding identified. The Fire Chief will be
conducting a station feasibility study to determine warrants for replacement.
. Police Department and Public Works Carpeting - The carpet in these areas
are showing wear. Staff believes this need needs to be deferred for a few more
years due to the lack of funding.
. Community Center Gym Roof, Pool Area Sand Filter, Aquatic Lighting,
LaplLeisnre Pool, Boilers, Carpet and Ultra-voilet Treatment System -
Numerous maintenance initiatives are recommended for the Community Center.
Staff believes the financing for replacement items at MCC need to be discussed
as a new method of funds are identified, as the current MCC operational revenue
does not sustain these larger maintenance costs.
. Ambulance Replacement - the replacement rates for the ambulance fleet has
been delayed by one year at the recommendation of the Fire Chief based upon
current department needs.
. City Landfill Closure - Staff continues to monitor the landfill and work with
authorities. When closure is mandated, this will be added to the next CIP.
. Signal System at County Rd. D and Hazelwood - 3 way stop signs are
installed and are effective. Signal lights are not yet warranted.
124
. Park Projects - The source offunding for expansion of the parks system has
been diminishing and with the economic slow-down, has become minimal. A
new source of funding for parks and park amenities needs to be identified. The
following projects were deferred due to funding limitations:
o Gethsemane Park - this proposal for improvements will not proceed until
a development proposal is brought forward. An alternative plan for
purchasing the property may be explored.
o Trail Development - this program is being deferred due to lack of
funding. The trail plan will be implemented with street improvement
projects.
o Neighborhood Parks - this program is being deferred due to lack of
funding and funding priorities directed to major park improvements.
o Goodrich Park - the proposed expansion and improvements to Goodrich
Park needed to be reduced by approximately 50% due to limited available
funding and priorities in existing projects.
o Joy Park - the proposed continuation of improvements to Joy Park were
reduced by 50% due to limited funding and priorities in existing projects.
. Various Street Improvements - The following street improvement projects are
deferred to 2016 or beyond and will be considered in the normal street
improvement plan due to limited funding and a desire to reduce the level of City
debt:
o East Shore Drive Area Streets
o MontanalNebraska Area Streets
o Carver Crossings Area Improvements
o County Rd C Area Streets, TH 61 to White Bear Avenue
o Beebe Road, Holloway to Larpenteur
o City-wide sidewalk improvements
o FerndalelIvy Area Street Improvements.
o DennislMcClelland Area Street Improvements
. Edgerton - Roselawn Storm Sewer - Due to funding limitations for this large
and expensive project, along with the controversial nature of the improvements,
this project has been deferred out ofthe next 5-year period.
125
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Joy Park Improvements I TOTAL COST:
PROJECT NUMBER: PM03.060 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks
DESCRIPTION: Joy Park DevelopmentlManagementlTrail/Shoreland Protection
JUSTIFICATION:
$300,000
Joy Park is a 63-acre park site that was conveyed to the city in 1995. The park is located at the intersection
of Joy Road and Century Avenue. Joy Park is arguably one of the most beautiful land forms in the city park
system. Phase I improvements began in 2008-09 with construction of the Lake Links Trail, reconstruction of
boat launch parking lot, installation of five rain gardens, and enhancement of the western wetlands. In 2010
the shorelines will be restored and step platforms and fishing piers will be installed. Phasing for the rest of
the project is as follows: 2011--reconstruct western parking lot and internal park trails. 2012- install
playground and picnic facilities. 2013--Restore woodlands and wetlands south of road. Woodland and
wetland restoration at the park (south of Joy Road), and activities at the preserve (north of Joy Road) are
covered under Open Space Improvements.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
Ftlrldihg'${)urcel,-Priotyecks',i _ _ _ ",20.11,_ .'''...... 10.__.-._.-._.20:12 ! 20131 :2014 '
e~.~~m~~.~~.I.~.~.~.~.~~"~~~~.~'m.~_ ".m....m....._.Lm.m_.m_~~'~.~_~?gJ_~m_mm~g_~_~~~.J_.........._ ....m .... ...g.J .-_.......m..m..m.......~_,L._~_m_._.m.~.m_.__~] ...
2015
tFuridingTotal[
OL_.300..o.00J
PROJECT COSTS
NEIGHBORHOOD: 05 - Maplewood Heights
Equipment and other:
Project Costs:
------,--
$25,000
$0
$225,000
$50,000
$300,000
PROJECT STARTING DATE:
May 2007
Preliminaries:
Land Acquisition:
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: September 2011
Construction:
53
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Gladstone Area Streetscape- Phase I TOTAL COST: $5,300,000
PROJECT NUMBER: CD04.010 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Redevelopment
DESCRIPTION: Gladstone area (Frost and English Streets) Improvements
JUSTIFICATION:
The redevelopment of the Gladstone area was proposed to begin in 2008. A failure of the original
development proposal delayed the project 2 years. This will include street improvements as part of Phase I
at the former St. Paul Tourist Cabin Site. Proposed improvements include installation of sidewalks,
decorative streetlights, entry monuments, street side landscaping, and colored concrete crosswalks. The
level of the improvements require an agreement with the Developer of The Shores project and are TIF
supported in order to accomplish the goals as noted within the Master Plan. Major storm water
improvements and improvements to the Savanna are included in various stages of the project elsewhere in
the Capital Improvement Plan.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
i:": 'l"ul1dingb- ..', i:< ...... .<.2011 ",' ". '.2012 '2013', ,'..2014.' 2015..'. :FI.IJ1dlngTd!ail
IEnvironmental Utility Fund 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 !
!Street Light Utility Fund 0 600.000 0 0 0 0 600,000 !
!Bonds-Tax Increment 0 700.000 0 0 0 0 700,000 I
!Bonds-special Assessment ,
0 800.000 0 0 0 0 800,000 I
IMnlOOT 0 1.600,000 0 0 0 0 1,600,000 I
!Grants 0 1,200.000 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 I
~~.~~.ary Sewer Fund 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 1 O?,O~~J
..."_.".....m....._......__m..... m... .m. ",..,"_~>,~_~___~ ...........~-"...--->--_.__.- .m...mm..m......_._H._ -'-~^-~-'~..." ..-.- ......m......'.mm' M'___'
PROJECT COSTS
PROJECT STARTING DATE: July 2010 Preliminaries: $1,000,000
Land Acquisition: $0
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2011 Construction: $4,300,000
Equipment and Other: $0
,,-
NEIGHBORHOOD: 07 - Gladstone Project Costs: $5,300,000
60
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Gladstone Savanna Improvements TOTAL COST: $1,700,000
.- I PROJECT CATEGORY: --~----
PROJECT NUMBER: PM08.050 Parks
DESCRIPTION: Restore Native Plant Communities and Install Trails and Interpretive Signage
JUSTIFICATION:
Gladstone Savanna is a 23-acre neighborhood preserve that formerly housed railroad maintenance facilities.
Located in an area undergoing redevelopment, the improvements at the preserve will add much to the
neighborhood and will celebrate Maplewood's cultural and natural heritage.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
!......,.......'.,..'..,,',' IS""rc,,><. ,2011""'" <>2012 ,"".,""'. 21114 ..2015 Tolal
!Environmental Utility Fund 0 200.000 0 0 0 0 200,000
IBonds-SpeCial Assessment 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000
~_ark D::.'::~~?P~~~~~~~~~~._"...,..,._ ,.... o 600,000 0 250,000 0 250.000 1.100.000
-~-_.__...- .,... - .._....-..~.~- ..........,..-.-.- ''''''''-'''-'''- ".- ....m......._.m...
PROJECT COSTS
~,,-,,---''''-~. -,,-
PROJECT STARTING DATE: July 2011 Preliminaries: $300,000
~..~-.- m_._.___ -----.- ----
Land Acquisition: $0
----
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2015 Construction: $1,400,000
Equipment and Other: $0
NEIGHBORHOOD: 07 - Gladstone Project Costs: ' $1,700,000
61
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Gladstone - Phase II TOTAL COST: $3,500,000
PROJECT NUMBER: CD09.020 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Redevelopment
DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of Gladstone
JUSTIFICATION:
The second phase of Gladstone is proposed to include improvements from Walter Street (the terminus of
Phase I) and extend easterly through and include English Street. The improvements will include burial of
power lines, streetscape, new roadways for development, new storm water initiatives and utility extensions.
It is proposed that this be a cooperative project with a developer although it may be necessary for the City to
show investment to spur the development community. The grants are not secured at this time but are part of
the future proposed financing needs to proceed with projects.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
>/..".,'..,' ..... PrlorY""rs 2011/ 2012/ ',2()13> 2()14/ /2015..'."',. 100al
!Sonds-Special Assessment 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 0 1,500,000
lBonds-M.SA 0 0 0 0 350,000 0 350,000
~rants 0 0 0 0 1,250,000 0 1.250.000
~anitary Sewer Fund 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 250,000
l~~,~~,r_~~~:.ntal Utili~..:..~.~~,_.~..>_..~^~_ 0 0 0 150.000 0 0 150.000
...mmm...... ...m..mm.....m._.m"._mm'h^m -.. ^..m_~_m_m_ _~. ..~...m.._m~mmm .__mmm..mm__mm~______~. .............mm..m..'.....,
PROJECT COSTS
PROJECT STARTING DATE: January 2013 Preliminaries: $1,000,000
Land Acquisition: $0
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2013 Construction: $2,500,000
Equipment and Other: $0
NEIGHBORHOOD: 07 - Gladstone Project Costs: $3,500,000
62
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Gladstone - Phase III TOTAL COST: $5,750,000
PROJECT NUMBER: CD09.030 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Redevelopment
DESCRIPTION: Final Phase of Gladstone Redevelopment
JUSTIFICATION:
The first two phases of Gladstone will propose improvements to Frost and English from the west to the east.
The final phase will include improvements along Frost Avenue from English Street to Hazelwood.
Improvements will be streetscapes, trails, burial of overhead power lines and utility improvements. The grant
is not currently secured but will likely be necessary to make a project feasible and to secure a developer.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
"'.',;.;";,:FU"di,,q ;;ii..".:',; .2011; ., .,.',2012 '..",2013>", """'2014.. ,2615 I''[j"din~ lotai'
!Bonds-Special Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000
lBonds-Tax Increment 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000
!Sanitary Sewer Fund 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 250,000
!Grants 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 ".1.,~??!,O,~,O,.
-"~~,~~~,-,-,-"~~,",-"~-,."_._-~~-~_._-- ... ..m_...m.~_._"'_~'_"_~ ^~._.._---~~~.- .._~.-......,...,....,. ,.
,
PROJECT COSTS
PROJECT STARTING DATE: July 2015 Preliminaries: $1,250,000
Land Acquisition: $0
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2015 Construction: $4,500,000
Equipment and Other: $0
. -_.,-,,~,~,~----
NEIGHBORHOOD: 07 - Gladstone Project Costs: $5,750,000
63
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Fire Training Facility TOTAL COST: $3,700,000
PROJECT NUMBER: FD09.030 I PROJECT CATEG-ORY: Building Maintenance
DESCRIPTION: East Metro Fire Training Facility
JUSTIFICATION:
The East Metro area is lacking in a quality fire training facility. This facility will allow firefighters to enhance
their skills in a safe environment. It will allow for better training with the additions of a burn building, confined
space area, tower burn building, a training room and other training props as needed. This facility will be
operated under a joint powers agreement with all fire departments who would like to be a part of it. The
property that us available for us is located west of the intersection of Highways 120 and Highway 5. The
facility will be built on five acres and will be environmentally friendly utilizing wind solar and geothermal. This
facility will bring a sustainable green environment to the location. We have already received the property
along with site cleanup funds totaling $1.95 million so the total cost that needs to be funded from grants or
bonding is the amount of $3.37 million.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
,,','..' '" ...."'..'2011.,.. . 2lJl2' , ....001' ".""2014. ....2015. 10lal
IRamsey County 0 450,000 0 0 0 0 450,000
jEnvironmental Utility Fund 15,000 60,000 50,000 0 0 0 125,000
iGrants 0 0 3,000,000 0 0 0 3,000,000
Ic.l.p. Fund 15,000 60,000 50,000 0 0 0 125,000
Lm...mmm......"^....mm.m.mmm.......__. _..__.^,.~"'" H_~'____ ......._..^~._.~_~_..m...__. - ^"_"._h,."mmO,.___.... "n_..... "".^..".-.,~"..~
PROJECT COSTS
- _.,_.._-~-----
PROJECT STARTING DATE: July 2009 Preliminaries: $300,000
Land Acquisition: $0
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2012 Construction: $3,400,000
Equipment and Other: $0
_____m__~_._.._.___ m.'__
NEIGHBORHOOD: 08 - Hillside Project Costs: $3,700,000
66
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Goodrich Park Improvements
-
PROJECT NUMBER: PM 11.020 I PROJECT CATEGORY:
DESCRIPTION: Goodrich Park Improvements
JUSTIFICATION:
I TOTAL COST:
Parks
$500,000
Goodrich Park is a 25 Acre Park located at 1980 No. St. Paul Rd. The park is in extremely poor condition. It
is the host site for our adult softball program. The park has significant erosion, standing water, and major
water drainage problems throughout the park. Parking has also become a increasing issue. The playground
equipment is in extremely poor condition. The expenditure will provide for development of the parks master
plan that will be completed in 2011.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
i i 2011 i 2012 i .2013 i 2014 i 2015 11
IPark Develol'l11enlF'lJnd ........ ...........1 0 I 100.000 I 0 I 400.000 I 0 I 0 I 500.000 i
PROJECT COSTS
PROJECT STARTING DATE:
April 2011
Preliminaries:
$50,000
$0
$450,000
$0
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: April2013
Land Acquisition:
Construction:
Equipment and Other:
NEIGHBORHOOD: 08 - Hillside
Project Costs:
$500,000
67
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Lions Park Improvements TOTAL COST: $350,000
I PROJECT CATEGORY: -,--
PROJECT NUMBER: PM03.010 Parks
DESCRIPTION: Lions Park renovations
JUSTIFICATION:
Lions Park is a three-acre neighborhood park site located at the corner of Century Avenue and Farrell Street.
The park is in extremely poor condition and currently has one marginal ball field with significant erosion,
standing water, and major water drainage problems running through the park. The playground equipment is
in extremely poor condition and 90% of it has been removed. There is no off-street parking and very limited
vegetation. This expenditure will provide for development of a park plan and application for grants. The
improvements will be complete by December 2012.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
> ........ ....> '",enoFlears, ..,//2.611','.. "'2Q12// /2613/ /2014< //261$//"", FuKdiri(iiifo@
!Environmental Utility Fund 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 25,000
jpark Development Fund 275,000 50,000 0 0, 0 0 325,000
,. , . ,."",
PROJECT COSTS
PROJECT STARTING DATE: May 2008 Preliminaries: $0
Land Acquisition: $0
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November 2010 Construction: $125,000
Equipment and Other: $225,000
___'.w__
NEIGHBORHOOD: 09 - Beaver Lake Project Costs: $350,000
70
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAP IT AL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Fish Creek Open Space TOTAL COST: $4,250,000
I PROJECT CATEGORY: ---.""
PROJECT NUMBER: PM11.010 Parks
DESCRIPTION: Fish Creek Open Space
JUSTIFICATION:
The City Council, acting through the Economic Development Authority, is considering purchasing the 73 acre
Fish Creek Open Space Area and developing 12-15 lots; and then considering grants and a possible Open
Space Referendum for repayment for the remaining portions of the property.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
1,< , , ,','.,..201100 ~,' ~.".'.' '<,','2014<. ,'(<2015, (Total
!Ramsey County 0 250.000 0 0 0 0 250.000
lSonds-G.O. Improvement 0 350.000 0 0 0 0 350,000
!Grants 0 0 0 2.000.000 0 0 2,000,000
jSanitary Sewer Fund 0 700.000 0 0 0 0 700,000
,
IPark Development Fund 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000
[Grants 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150.000
~.?_~~:.~.~?::~!.~~.~~"~:~me~~,.__"m._ 0 750,000 0 0 0 0 750.000
...."^-^"."." -- m..... .".~~.- .....m.. ._m........._,..".,..,..,'~_,___.~.,~,_"_".~~. ,__~___"m.__."".
PROJECT COSTS
-.--
PROJECT STARTING DATE: July 2010 Preliminaries: $300,000
-_.- _.
Land Acquisition: $2,750,000
, .--
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: July 2013 Construction: $1,200,000
Equipment and Other: $0
NEIGHBORHOOD: 12 - Highwood Project Costs: $4,250,000
85
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CAP IT AL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2011 - 2015
PROJECT TITLE: Wetland Enhancement Program I TOTAL COST: $125,000
PROJECT NUMBER: PM10.010 I PROJECT CATEGORY: Parks
DESCRIPTION: Reclamation and enhancement of wetlands and buffers throughout the community
JUSTIFICATION:
This program is an outgrowth of the Environmental Utility Fund's (EUF) establishment. The EUF fund exists
in order that wetlands within the community can be enhanced with pre-treatment structures; wider protection
buffers; cleaning of debris and deltas; and expansion of the wetland properties and areas of the existing
wetland system. Specific areas will be selected on an annual basis based upon the Annual Report on the
Environmental Utility Fund and identification of degraded receiving waters within the
community. This program was previously under the Public Works Department, but has been
moved due to departmental restructuring.
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES BY YEARS:
',',,',.<<> rSource<"...".."... ,'.<1 12011..# ~ .'2013>1 <oMA >..2015.',". ,'fotal!
l~~~~:.~':ment~_~~~..~~~_~ ",..,..,...........1.. 50,000 I 25.000 I 01 01.........50,0()01 01 125,000 ;
...... ._m......~~m___
PROJECT COSTS
PROJECT STARTING DATE: January 2008 Preliminaries: $25,000
Land Acquisition: $0
PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: July 2015 Construction: $0
Equipment and Other: $100,000
,--
NEIGHBORHOOD: Not Designated Project Costs: $125,000
98
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND (604)
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES. AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
ACCT
NO. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ooeratina revenues:
3651 Environmental utility charges $1,942.156 $2,136.371 $2,350,008 $2,467,509 $2,590,884
Total revenues 1,942,156 2,136,371 2,350,008 2,467,509 2,590,884
Ooeratina exoenses:
Administration 71,482 72,912 74.370 75,857 77,374
Billing 37,059 37,800 38,556 39,327 40,114
Nature center 80,258 81,863 83,500 85,170 86,874
Storm sewer maintenance 681,912 695,550 709,461 723,650 738.123
Street sweeping 195,401 199,309 203,295 207,361 211.508
Depreciation 407.930 416,089 424,410 432,899 441,557
Total expenses 1,474.042 1,503,523 1,533,593 1,564,265 1,595,550
Operating income (loss) 468,114 632,848 816,415 903,244 995,334
Nonoperating revenues (expenses):
3801 Investment earnings 5,210 1,130 15,510 29,600 50,460
3544 Grants 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous income 0 0 0 0 0
Interest on interfund loans 0 0 0 0 0
4930 Investment management fees (340) (70) (1.010) (1,920) (3.280)
3899 Gain (loss) on disposal of capital assets 0 0 0 0 0
Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) 4.870 1,060 14,500 27,680 47,180
Income before contributions
and transfers 472,984 633.908 830.915 930,924 1,042,514
Transfers in (out):
Public Improvement Projects Fund (2,185.000) (175,000) (396,000) (166,500) (108,000)
Add back amounts bonded for 1,100,000 0 0 0 0
Capital Improvements Projects Fund 0 0 0 0 0
Debt Service Fund 0 (155,700) (155,170) (154,410) (153,390)
Employee Benefits Fund 0 0 0 0 0
Capital contributions 0 0 0 0 0
Change in net assets (612,016) 303.208 279.745 610,014 781,124
Net assets - January 1 14,932,728 14,320,712 14,623,920 14,903.665 15,513.678
Net assets - December 31 $14,320.712 $14,623,920 $14,903,665 $15,513,678 $16,294.802
130
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY FUND (604)
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Net cash flows from operating activities $ 876,044 $ 1,048,937 $ 1,240,825 $ 1,336.142 $ 1,436,890
Net cash flows from noncapital financing
actitivities
Net cash flows from capital and related
financing actitivities (1,085,000) (330,700) (551.170) (320,910) (261.390)
Net cash flows from investing activities 4,870 1,060 14,500 27,680 47,180
Net increase (decrease) in cash and
cash equivalents (204,086) 719,297 704,155 1,042,912 1.222,680
Cash and cash equivalents - January 1 260,494 56,408 775,704 1,479,860 2,522,772
Cash and cash equivalents - December 31 $56,408 $775,704 $1,479,860 $2,522,772 $3,745,452
131
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND (403)
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
ACCT.
NO. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Property Taxes:
3011 Current $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
3012 Delinquent 0 0 0 0 0
3017 Interest 0 0 0 0 0
Interaovernmental Revenue:
3544 Other government grants 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous Revenue:
3801 Investment earnings 15,430 6,070 9,040 4,150 7,170
3851 Park availability charges - residential 417,800 142,800 397,000 147,000 401,200
3852 Park availability charges - non-residential 0 0 0 0 0
Total revenues 433,230 148,870 406,040 151,150 408,370
Expenditures:
4480 Fees for Service 0 0 0 0 0
4490 Consulting 0 0 0 0 0
4530 Outside Rental-Property/Bldgs 0 0 0 0 0
4720 Park development projects 900,000 0 650,000 0 250,000
4730 Building improvement 0 0 0 0 0
4751 Awarded Construction Contracts 0 0 0 0 0
4930 Investment management fees 1,000 390 590 270 470
4950 Administration charges-General Fund 0 0 0 0 0
4960 Engineering Charges - General Fund 0 0 0 0 0
Total expenditures 901,000 390 650,590 270 250,470
Excess (deficit) of revenue
over expenditures (467,770) 148,480 (244,550) 150,880 157,900
Other financing uses:
Transfers in
from Public Improvement Project Fund 0 0 0 0 0
Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (467,770) 148,480 (244,550) 150,880 157,900
Fund balance - January 1 771,466 303,696 452,176 207,626 358,506
Fund balance - December 31 $303,696 $452,176 $207,626 $358,506 $516,406
136
Agenda Item 5.d.
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Annual
Report
June 17, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
INTRODUCTION
As part of Maplewood's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the City
is required to prepare an annual report detailing the progress made in the previous year
toward satisfying the requirements of the permit. The city is also required to hold a public
meeting on the annual report to solicit comments from the public and address all
comments (written and oral) in the final report submitted to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
BACKGROUND
A 1987 amendment to the federal Clean Water Act required implementation of a two-
phase comprehensive national program to address pollution from storm-water runoff.
This program was named the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Since 1991, NPDES Phase I regulated cities with populations of 100,000 or
more. NPDES Phase II took effect in 2003, regulating cities with populations of 10,000 or
more. Maplewood was among a group of approximately 220 cities in Minnesota affected
by NPDES Phase II.
The State of Minnesota regulates the disposal of stormwater by a State Disposal System
(SDS) permit. The MPCA administers both NPDES and SDS permits in Minnesota and
issues combined NPDES/SDS-MS4 stormwater permits. In March 2008, the city
submitted its permit application to the MPCA. The permit cycle runs five years.
The permit application required the city to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). The MPCA has established six minimum control measures that the
SWPPP must address. They are:
. Public Education and Outreach
. Public Participation and Involvement
. Illicit Discharge and Detection and Elimination
. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
. Post-Construction Stormwater Management
. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping
Maplewood's SWPPP defines the Best Management Practices (BMPs) the city intends
to use to minimize pollution from stormwater runoff for each of the six minimum control
measures.
The city's permit and SWPPP have been available for public viewing at the Engineering
and Community Development counter and were also posted on the city's website.
Articles posted on the website and published in the city newsletter encouraged residents
to review the permit and SWPPP and submit any comments they may have. A dedicated
phone line and email address was established to receive these comments. As of
June 15, 2010, no comments regarding the SWPPP have been received.
Staff has prepared a draft of the city's annual report, will make a short presentation on
the city's SWPPP, and will report on the progress made toward the permit goals in the
previous year. The floor should then be opened to the public for any comments they
wish to make regarding the permit or draft annual report. All comments will be recorded
and addressed in the final version of the annual report.
When all public comments have been addressed and incorporated into the report, the
report will be finalized. At that point, the report and executive summary will be submitted
to MPCA. The deadline for the annual report is June 30, 2010.
CHANGES TO FUTURE NPDES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS - NON
DEGRADATION PLANS
The City of Maplewood is one of 30 cities in the state that is required to submit a Non-
Degradation Plan as part of the NPDES permitting process. The MPCA will be
responsible for reviewing the Non-Degradation Plans and determining compliance. The
selection criterion that was used to select these 30 cities was based on community size
and growth experienced by the community. In selecting these 30 MS4 cities, MPCA is
assuming that a cities' discharge is significant and has the potential for increased
loading of one or more pollutants.
The Non-Degradation Plan will require cities to develop a plan to address new or
expanded discharges (runoff) and bring these discharges back to 1988 levels. Where
increases in runoff or pollutant loading has occurred due to new or expanded discharges
from stormwater runoff, the plan must identify and include retrofit and mitigation options
or BMPs that reduce these discharges back to 1988 levels.
To meet this requirement, cities will have to perform loading assessments using water
quality modeling for discharges and pollutants. When complete, the model will be used
to determine where stormwater runoff has resulted in new or expanded discharges and
then determine what strategies can be used to bring these discharges back to 1988
levels.
The primary goal of this stormwater permit is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of "Waters of the State" through management and
treatment of urban stormwater runoff. To meet this goal, the City of Maplewood must
develop, implement, and enforce a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program designed
to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the city. As in the previous MS4 permit, public
education and outreach activities are key in obtaining compliance with the permit
requirements.
The city must implement a public education program to distribute educational materials
to the community and conduct outreach activities in the community. These educational
2
program activities will focus on impacts of stormwater discharges and what steps the
residents and businesses can take to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff.
The initial Non-Degradation application was submitted to the MPCA in June of 2007.
Maplewood's Non-Degradation plan was put on public notice by the MPCA and no
comments were received during the 60-day comment period. In order for the city to
achieve compliance with the MS4 permit/Non-Degradation requirements, the city will be
required to spend substantial monies in the future. Additional monies will be required for
infrastructure upgrades and these improvement requests will be presented to the city
council pending the results of the findings from the report. Staff will also be updating the
city council on the progress with the requirements of the Non-Degradation Plan.
Staff has included BMP Summary Sheets that speak directly to these requirements listed
above. The summary sheets describe the related BMP and also set measurable goals
aimed at meeting these requirements. Timelines are also established to complete these
goals.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that following the presentation on the City's SWPPP and NPDES
permit annual report and the update on the Non-Degradation Plan, the Environmental
and Natural Resources Commission discuss and give feedback prior to the city council
review of the report on June 28. When all public comments have been addressed and
incorporated into the report, the report will be finalized. At that point, the report and
executive summary will be submitted to MPCA. The deadline for the annual report is
June 30, 2010.
Attachment:
1, BMP Summary Sheets
2. Full Maplewood 2010 SWPPP: www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/stormwater
3
A+\I\("hme<l't \
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
It SUMMARY OF SWPPP
Background
The City of Maplewood (City) is located east of St. Paul, in the east-central portion of Ramsey
County. Maplewood shares borders with St. Paul to the south, Rosevil1e and Little Canada to the
west, Vadnais Heights and White Bear Lake to the north and North St. Paul, Oakdale and
Woodbury to the east. A smal1 portion of Maplewood borders Washington County (at the City of
Newport) to the south. The City covers approximately 11,500 acres (18 square miles) of land
consisting of a mix of residential, light and heavy manufacturing, commercial, industrial, right-
of-way, lakes/water, open space and park lands.
This submittal includes the Notice of Intent (NO!) for coverage under the NPDES MS4 Phase II
Permit, a summary of the receiving waters within the City and the existing storm water
management program and a listing of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated into
the Storm Water Pol1ution Prevention Program (SWPPP). BMP summary sheets for each of the
six minimum control measures are included.
Receiving Waters
As stated in the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (September 1990), almost
all of the storm water runoff from the City is discharged through the City of St. Paul and
eventually into the Mississippi River. One smal1 area (approximately 200 acres) at the south end
of Maplewood discharges to Newport and a second (approximately 100 acres) in the northeast
portion of the City drains east to Oakdale or south into Silver Lake. Some of the storm water
runoff is directed into adj acent MS4s before returning to Maplewood' s drainage system.
Maplewood contains several waters (lakes and streams) that receive storm water runoff. Of the
18 square miles within the City, approximately 10 square miles drain to Lake Phalen.
Approximately 7 square miles drain to smaller drainage systems throughout the City and 1
square mile in the western portion of outlets discharge to Trout Brook. The list below identifies
the waters in Maplewood where storm sewer system outfalls are or may be located. Known
outfalls to these waters are identified in the Outfall Map.
Beaver Lake
Battle Creek
Fish Creek
Lake Gervais
Kel1er Lake
Kohlman Lake
Phalen Lake
Round Lake
Silver Lake
Wakefield Lake
City of Maple wood, MN
NPDES Phase II NOI and SWPPP
Page 6
Permit No. MN R 040000
Existing Storm Water Management Program
Key City staff for SWPPP implementation activities report to the Director of Public Works, and
are primarily part of the Engineering or Street Maintenance Departments. The City has more
than 20 staff members that have responsibilities under the SWPPP. Our staff is currently
involved in storm water-related activities ranging from development plan review and
construction site inspections to street/storm water practice maintenance.
The City currently follows a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (1991) to address
water resources related issues within the City. In addition, the City follows the requirements of
the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Plan (May 2005) which has jurisdiction
throughout most of Maplewood. The City has established a storm water utility fund to provide
dedicated funding for implementation activities.
BMPs for the Six Minimum Control Measures
The table which follows outlines BMPs that form the City's SWPPP.
la-I
2a-I,2b-l,
2c-I,le-1
I-Ol-R
1-02-R
City Storm Water Education Program to Distribute Materials
Annual Public/City Council Meeting
Ib-I, Ie-I,
Id-I
Ci Newsletter and Website
Partner with Local Watershed District Education Pro ams
Information Kiosks
Maplewood Nature Center Education Program
Environmental Utility Fund (Storm Water Utili
2a-I,2b-l,
2c-I,le-1
1-02-R
Annual Public/City Council Meeting
Ic-2
3-01-R
3-02-R
3-03-R
3-04-R
3-05
3b-1 3-06
3-07
City of Maplewood, MN
NPDES Phase II NO! and SWPPP
Page 7
Permit No. MN R 040000
Ic-4
4a-1
4b-1
4<1-1
4b-I,4c-l,
4f-1
4e-1
Ic-6
3d-I,6a-1
6b-2, 6b-3,
6b-4
6b-5
6b-6,6b-7
6a-2
6a-1
6b-5, 6b-7
4-01-R
4-02-R
4-03
4-04-R
4-05-R
6-04-R
6-05-R
6-06
6-07
6-08
Public Education & Outreach Program
Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
Local Watershed District Permit Programs
Development Plan Review Process
Construction Site Inspection and Street Sweeping Follow-up
Public Education & Outreach Pro am
City StaffTrainin and Information Program
Structural BMP and Outfall Inspection Program
Storm Water System Maintenance Program
Develo ment of Storm System BMP Database
Street Sweeping Program
Spill Prevention and Control Program
Storm Water Pond Maintenance Program
City of Maple wood, MN
NPDES Phase II NO! and SWPPP
Page 8
Permit No. MN R 040000
Additional BMP Summary Sheet
MS4 Name: City of Maple wood, Minnesota
Minimum Control Measure: NA
Unique BMP Identification Number: X-I
*BMP Title: Nondegradation for Selected MS4s
*BMP Description:
The City will prepare a Loading Assessment and Nondegradation Report as per Part X, Appendix D, Sections B
& C ofthe MS4 General Permit. The City will follow the public participation process as per Part X,
Appendix D, Section D of the MS4 General Permit. After consideration of the input received during the public
participation process, the City will prepare and submit the materials required in Part X. Appendix D. Section E
of the MS4 General Permit.
During the MPCA review, notice, and preliminary determination processes, the City will work with the MPCA,
if appropriate, to respond to comments and/or revise the submittal materials to prepare them for final approval.
. After final determination by the MPCA, the City will modifY the SWPPP as per the approved submittal
materials and as needed to meet the nondegradation requirements.
*Measurable Goals:
I. The City will prepare and submit materials to meet the requirements listed above.
2. The City will respond to and coordinate with the MPCA, as appropriate, during the MPCA review, notice,
and preliminary determination processes.
3. ModifY the SWPPP as per the approved modifications and as needed to meet the nondegradation
requirements.
*TimeIinelImplementation Schedule:
I. The City will prepare and submit the required materials listed above by December 1, 2009.
2. The City will respond to and coordinate with the MPCA, as appropriate, during the MPCA review, notice,
and preliminary determination processes.
3. After the submittal materials are approved by the MPCA, the City will modifY the SWPPP, as per the
approved modifications and as needed to meet the nondegradation requirements, in a timely manner.
Specific Components and Notes:
*Responsible Party for this BMP: ,
Name: DuWayne Konewko
Department: Public Works
Phone: 651.249.2330
E-mail: duwavne.konewko@ci.maplewood.mn.us
City of Maple wood, MN
NPDES Phase II NO! and SWPPP
Page 51
Permit No. MN R 040000
BMP Summary Sheet
MS4 Name: City of Maplewood
Permit Condition: IV.D Section 303(d) listings
Unique BMP Identification Number: IV.D - I
BMP Title: Impaired Waters Review Process
BMP Description:
The City will review discharges from our MS4 system to impaired waters, as defmed by the current USEP A
approved 303( d) list. In this review, the City will:
. Identify the impaired waters that are likely to be impacted by the MS4's stormwater discharge.
. Use a combination of storm sewer maps and field surveys to identify potential stormwater discharges to
impaired waters
. Delineate the watershed area(s) that contribute to the above discharge(s)
. Evaluate the hydrology, land use and other characteristics of the watershed area(s) that may impact the
impaired water as a result of a stormwater discharge from our MS4
Based on the review process above, we will determine if any changes to the existing stormwater system or BMPs
are needed to minimize the impact of discharges from our MS4 to the impaired water(s). If such modifications are
deemed necessary, we will modify our SWPPP and submit those modifications to the MPCA with the current
year's annual report. In our review, we will consider timing and long and short term costs. The basis for our
decisions will be documented in our program records and will be kept along with other records associated with the
MS4 permit. A narrative summary of this review will then be prepared, and identify any associated SWPPP
revisions that were made.
Measurable Goals:
1. Prepare an impaired waters list. The list will address impaired waters within our jurisdictional boundaries, as
well as those outside our boundaries likely to have an impact as a result of receiving stormwater discharge from
the City; information about the stormwater discharges each impaired water receives from the City as is
available and a summary of information (studies, data, plans) that currently exist for each impaired water.
2. Update storm system map. BMP 3a-1 map will be updated to include impaired waters listed in goal I.
3. Complete a written summary. Summary will include conclusions reached during our review, the decision
making process used to determine what SWPPP revisions may be needed, and a projected schedule and
timeline to incorporate any necessary changes into the SWPPP, if needed.
Timeline/Implementation Schedule:
1. Annually
2. Annually
3. Annually
Specific Components and Notes:
This process is to be reassessed annually over the course of the permit cycle. As new 303( d) lists with additional
impaired waters listed are published in the future, the City will review changes to the list and conduct the necessary
review of additional listed waters likely to be impacted by the MS4' s stormwater discharges.. When an approved
TMDL is fmalized, the City intends to comply with the resulting permit requirements.
Responsible Party for this BMP:
Name: DuWayne Konewko
Department: Public Works
Phone: 651.249.2330
E-mail: Du W ayne.Konewko@ci.maplewood.nm.us
City of Maple wood, MN
NPDES Phase II NO! and SWPPP
Page 52
Permit No. MN R 040000