Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-2010 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00p.m.,Monday,August 9, 2010 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No.17-10 A.CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:05p.m.by Mayor Rossbach. B.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C.ROLL CALL Will Rossbach, MayorPresent Kathleen Juenemann, CouncilmemberPresent James Llanas, CouncilmemberPresent John Nephew, CouncilmemberPresent Julie Wasiluk, CouncilmemberPresent D.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added or changed to the agenda by the city council: F1.Mayor Rossbach Presentation–Mayor Rossbach H1.Agenda items I1 and I2 were moved ahead of H1.the public hearing–Councilmember Nephew N1.Taste ofMaplewood–Councilmember Juenemann N2.Rolling HillsPark –Councilmember Nephew Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. E.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approvalof July 26, 2010, City Council Workshop Minutes Councilmember Nephew stated under D.2c.ChaddLarson’s nameshould be removed and Jon North, Ehler & Associatesshould be added. Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve the July 26, 2010, City Council Workshop Minutesas amended. Seconded by CouncilmemberLlanas.Ayes –All The motion passed. August 9, 2010 1 City Council MeetingMinutes 2.Approval of July 26, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl had corrections to packet page 8 & 9 of the minutes. On page 8: Mayor Rossbach closedcontinued the public hearing to August 9, 2010. On page 9: New language is underlinedand deletions are stricken and should read: 2.NoticeContinuation of Hearing; Filing of Program and Plan. The city Manager is hereby authorized to cause a notice of the hearing, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published as required by the Act and to place a copy of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan on file in the Manager’s Office at City Hall and to make such copies available for inspection by the public.It is hereby acknowledged that the Public Hearing previouslycalled for called on July 26, 2010 for the same purpose of consideration is delayedcontinued to August 9, 2010. Councilmember Nephew said on page 20, at the bottom of the pageit should say Bond Counsel instead of Council. Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve the July 26, 2010, City Council Meeting Minutesas amended. Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk.Ayes –All Themotion passed. F.APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Mayor Rossbach presentation Mayor Rossbach presented Councilmember Wasiluk with a card and flowers from the city council and thanked herfor her service as an appointed member to fill the seat vacated byformer Councilmember Rossbach when he was elected as Mayor last Fall. G.CONSENT AGENDA 1.CouncilmemberNephewmoved to approve items1-5. Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. 1.Approval of Claims CouncilmemberNephewmoved Approval of Claims. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $694,802.46Checks # 81809 thru # 81873 Dated 07/20/10 thru 07/27/10 $ 115,284.26Disbursements via debits to checking account August 9, 2010 2 City Council MeetingMinutes Dated 07/16/10 thru 07/23/10 $357,091.78Checks #81874thru # 81954 Dated 07/30/10 thru 08/03/10 $ 367,452.96Disbursements via debits to checking account Dated 07/23/10 thru 07/30/10 __________________ $ 1,534,631.46Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $595,358.07Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 07/23/10 $ 2,736.75Payroll Deduction check #1009253thru #1009255 dated 07/23/10 ___________________ $598.094.82Total Payroll GRAND TOTAL $ 2,132,726.28 Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. 2.Approval of Resolution Approving Donation to Police Reserves CouncilmemberNephewmoved toapprove the resolution approving the $425 donation to police reserves. RESOLUTION 10-08-438 AUTHORIZING GIFT TO CITY WHEREAS, Maplewood is AUTHORIZED to receive and accept grants, gifts and devices of real and personal property and maintain the same for the benefit of the citizens and pursuant to the donor’s terms if so-prescribed, and; WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Agricultural Societywishes to grant the City of Maplewood the following: $425, and; WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Agricultural Society has instructed that the City will be required to use the aforementioned for: the benefit of the Maplewood Police Reserves, and; WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has agreed to use the subject of this resolution for the purposes and under the terms prescribed, and; WHEREAS, the City agrees that it will accept the gift by a super majority of its governing body’s membership pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §465.03, that the Maplewood City Council approves, receives and accepts the gift aforementioned and under such terms and conditions asmay be requested or required. The Maplewood City Council passed this resolution by a super majority vote of its membership on August 9, 2010. August 9, 2010 3 City Council MeetingMinutes Signed:Signed:Witnessed: __________________________________________________________ (Signature)(Signature)(Signature) Mayor______________Chief of Police_________City Clerk____________ (Title)(Title)(Title) ____________________________________________________________ Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. 3.Approval of Agreement for Use of Harvest Park for the Susan G. Komen 3-Day Race for the Cure Event Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve the agreement for the use of Harvest Park for the Susan G. Komen 3-Day Race for the Cure EventAugust 20-22, 2010. Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. 4.Approval of Conditional Use Permit Review –Beaver Lake Town Houses, Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive CouncilmemberNephew moved to approve the conditional use permit review forbeaver lake town housesatMaryland Avenue and Lakewood Driveto be reviewed again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site or to the project plans. Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. 5.Approval of funding for the following park improvement projects: a.resurfacing tennis courts at Four Seasons Park b.resurfacing tennis courts at Maplecrest Park c.resurfacing of the basketball court at Four Seasons Park (In-House) d.replacement of the backstop at Goodrich #3 Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve the Community Development and Parks Director to enter into a contract with: a.)Finley Bros., Inc. for the resurfacing of the tennis courts at Four Seasons Park b.)Finley Bros., Inc. for the resurfacingof the tennis courts at Maplecrest Park c.)Authorize Public Works to move forward with the resurfacing of the basketball court at Four Seasons. d.)Able Fence Company for the replacement of the backstop and sideline fences at Goodrich Park field #3. Seconded byCouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. August 9, 2010 4 City Council MeetingMinutes H.PUBLIC HEARING 1.7:00 p.m. Tax Increment Financing Housing District 1-10–The Shores of Maplewood Within Gladstone area –Consider Resolution Establishing Tax Increment Financing District a.Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report and answered questions of the council. 1.Tom Denaway, Springsted, Inc. gave the presentation and answered questions of the council. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing. 1.Mark Jenkins,Maplewood. Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Nephewmoved to approve the Tax Increment Financing Housing District 1-10 – The Shores of Maplewood within Gladstone area –Consider Resolution Establishing Tax Increment Financing District EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA HELD: August 9, 2010 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, was duly called and held on the 26th day of July, 2010, at 7:00 th p.m., and continued to the 9day of August, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. The following members of the Council were present: All and the following were absent: None Member Nephewintroduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 10-08-439 APPROVING THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-10 AND APPROVING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR WITHIN MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 WHEREAS: A.It has been proposed that the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the “City”) modify the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 and establish Tax Increment FinancingDistrict No. 1- 10 (“TIF District No. 1-10”) therein and approve and accept the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1799 (the “Act”); and B.The City Council has investigated the facts and has caused to be prepared a modification to the development program for Municipal Development District No. 1 (the “Development Program”), and has caused to be prepared a proposed tax increment financing plan for TIF District No. 1-10 therein (the “TIF Plan”); and C.The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Municipal Development District No. 1 and TIF District No. 1-10 therein, and the adoption of a modification to the Development Program, asamended, and TIF Plan therefor, including, but not limited to, August 9, 2010 5 City Council MeetingMinutes notification of Ramsey County and School District No. 622 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in TIF District No. 1-10 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood as follows: 1.Development District No. 1. There has heretofore been established in the City a municipal Development District No. 1 (the “Development District”), the initial boundaries of which are fixed and determined as described in the Development Program. 2.Development Program. The Development Program, as modified, for the Development District, a copy of which is on file in the office ofthe City Manager, is adopted as the development program for the Development District. 3.Tax Increment Financing Plan. The TIF Plan is adopted as the tax increment financing plan for TIF District No. 1-10, and the City Council makes the following findings: (a)TIF District No. 1-10 is a housing district as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 11, the specific basis for such determination being that the construction of an approximately 162 unit multifamily housing facility will provide safe, decent, sanitary housing for persons or families of low and moderate income in the City, and will help prevent the emergence of blight and result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the State. (b)The proposed development in the opinion of the City Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. The reasons supporting this finding are that: (i)Private investment will not finance these development activities because of prohibitive costs relative to rental revenues for low and moderate income multifamily housing units. It is necessary to finance these development activities through the use of tax increment financing so that development of affordable multifamily housing and other development by private enterprise will occur within the Development District. (ii)A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of TIF District No. 1-10 and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis isfound in Exhibit F-3 of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of TIF District No. 1- 10 and the use of tax increments. (c)In the opinion of the City Council, the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of TIF District No. 1-10 permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan. The reasons supporting this finding are that: (i)The estimated amount by which the market value of the site will increase without the use of tax increment financing is $0, plus a small amount attributable to appreciation in land value; (ii)The estimated increase in the market value that will result from the development to be assisted with tax increment financing is $17,205,057 (from $1,600,000 to $18,805,057); and (iii)The present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the district permitted by the tax increment financingplan is $5,355,734. August 9, 2010 6 City Council MeetingMinutes (d)The Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-10 conforms to the general plan for development or redevelopment of the City of Maplewood as a whole. The reasons for supporting this finding are that: (i)TIF District No. 1-10is properly zoned; and (ii)The Tax Increment Financing Plan will generally compliment and serve to implement policies adopted by the City. (e)The Tax Increment Financing Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City of Maplewood as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Development District by private enterprise. The reasons supporting this finding are that: The development activities are necessary so that development and redevelopment by private enterprise can occur within the Development District. 4.Public Purpose. The adoption of the Development Program for the Development District, and the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-10 therein conform in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the State which is already built up to provide employment opportunities and provide safe, decent, sanitary housing for all residents of the City, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. 5.Certification. The Auditor of Ramsey County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of TIF District No. 1-10 as described in Tax Increment Financing Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased in accordance with the Act; and the City Manager is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within TIF District No. 1-10 for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this Resolution. 6.Filing. The City Manager is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Development Program and Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-10 with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Office of the State Auditor. 7.Administration. The administration of the Development District is assigned to the City Manager who shall from time to time be granted such powers and duties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.130 and 469.131 as the City Council may deem appropriate. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Wasilukand upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: All and the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk.Ayes –All The motion passed. The city council took a 10-minute break and then moved onto item J1. I.UNFINISHED BUSINESS (This item was heardbefore H1) August 9, 2010 7 City Council MeetingMinutes 1.White Bear Avenue/County Road D Improvements, Project 08-13, Resolution Adopting Revised Assessment Roll a.City Engineer,Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thomsongave the report and answered questions of the council. b.City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council. Councilmember Juenemannmoved to approve the White Bear Avenue/County Road D Improvements, Project 08-13, resolution adopting revised assessment roll. RESOLUTION10-08-440 ADOPTING REVISEDASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on July 26, 2010,the assessment roll for theWhite Bear Avenue / County Road DImprovements, City Project 08-13, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, eleven (11) propertyowners filed objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: 1.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0008–Denny’s Inc.; 3050 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Mogren Landscaping, the property owner, for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not increase. b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process. c)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County theywere told that there would be little or no assessment. 2.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0014 Jiffy Lube/Acapulco Restaurant.; 3069/3073 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Woodring Company, the property owner, for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not increase. b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process. c)The businesses have access from the ring road of Maplewood Malland they do not feel that they should be assessed for improvements to White Bear Avenue and County Road D. 3.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0016–Maplewood Square Shopping Center; 3035 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood Square Associates, the property owner, for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not increase. b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process. c)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that there would be little or no assessment. 4.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0027–Plaza 3000 Shopping Center.; 3000 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Plaza 3000 Partnership, LLP, the property owner, for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not increase. b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process. c)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that there would be little or no assessment. August 9, 2010 8 City Council MeetingMinutes 5.Parcel 02-29-22-24-0003–Maplewood East Shopping Center.; 2950 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood East Associates, the property owner, for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not increase. b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process. c)When the property owner settled the condemnation with Ramsey County they were told that there would be little or no assessment. 6.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0015-MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, 3065 White Bear Avenue MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, the owner of the Wedding Day Jewelers property, is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the value will not increase. b)They feel that revenues will decrease during the construction process. 7.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0019-Chung Hing Wong, 3070 White Bear Avenue Chung Hing Wong is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public improvement. b)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. 8.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0005-HLW LLC, 3094 White Bear Avenue HLW LLC is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public improvement. b)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. 9.Parcel 02-29-22-23-0003-Sears Roebuck and Company, 3001 White Bear Avenue Sears Roebuck and Company is objecting to the assessment and requesting that the assessment be reduced to $0 for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed specialassessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public improvement. b)They also feel that the City has failed to strictly comply procedurally with the terms and conditions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. c)They feel that the proposed assessment violates City Code and other Minnesota law and statutes. d)They feel that the assessment form is not legal and that other properties that should have been assessed were not assessed. 10.Parcel 02-29-22-22-0013-Lai Ching Woo, 1900 County Road D East Lai Ching Woo is requesting that the assessment be cancelled and revised. 11.Parcel 35-35-22-33-0008-Walter F. Whitney, 1905 County Road D East Walter F. Whitney is objecting to the assessment for the following reasons: a)They do not feel that the property receives benefit from the improvement and the proposed special assessment exceeds the special benefits to the property derived from the local public improvement. August 9, 2010 9 City Council MeetingMinutes NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: A.That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to the assessment roll for the White Bear Avenue / County Road D Improvements, Project 08-13: 1.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0008–Denny’s Inc.; 3050 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Mogren Landscaping, the property revise owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $23,339.88 to $21,206.30 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal. 2.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0014 Jiffy Lube/Acapulco Restaurant.; 3069/3073 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Woodring Company, the property revise owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $12,199.97 to $8,083.55 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal. 3. Parcel 02-29-22-21-0016–(This PIN has been changed by Ramsey County to 02.29.22.21.0029), Maplewood Square Shopping Center; 3035 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood Square Associates, the property owner. Our recommendation to the council is to revise the special assessment from $59,754.24 to $53,504.24 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal. 4.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0027–Plaza 3000 Shopping Center.; 3000 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Plaza 3000 Partnership, LLP, the revise property owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $65,016.00 to $58,766 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal. 5.Parcel 02-29-22-24-0003–Maplewood East Shopping Center.; 2950 White Bear Avenue Azure Properties is objecting to the assessment on behalf of Maplewood East Associates, the revise property owner. Our recommendation to the council is to the assessment from $46,761.48 to $40,511.48 based on a past storm water assessment agreement and also under the condition the assessment is not appealed within 30 days through signing of a waiver of appeal. 6.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0015-MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, 3065 White Bear Avenue MHN Restaurant Partnership, LLC, the owner of the Wedding Day Jewelers property, is objecting deny to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment. 7.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0019-Chung Hing Wong, 3070 White Bear Avenue deny Chung Hing Wong is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment. 8.Parcel 02-29-22-21-0005-HLW LLC, 3094 White Bear Avenue deny HLW LLC is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment. 9.Parcel 02-29-22-23-0003-Sears Roebuck and Company, 3001 White Bear Avenue Sears Roebuck and Company is objecting to the assessment and requesting that the assessment deny be reduced to $0. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment. 10.Parcel 02-29-22-22-0013-Lai Ching Woo, 1900 County Road D East August 9, 2010 10 City Council MeetingMinutes Lai Ching Woo is requesting that the assessment be cancelled and revised. Our deny recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment. 11.Parcel 35-35-22-33-0008-Walter F. Whitney, 1905 County Road D East deny Walter F. Whitney is objecting to the assessment. Our recommendation to the council is to the cancellation or revision of the assessment. B.The assessment roll for the White Bear Avenue / County Road D Improvements as amended, is hereby accepted, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. C.Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 8 years for, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2011 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2010. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. D.The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than October 1, 2010, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after October 1, 2010, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before October 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. E.The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after October 1, 2010, but no later than October 15, 2010, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. th Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on this 9day of August, 2010. Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk.Ayes –All The motion passed. 2.Sign Ordinance Amendment –Temporary Window Signs and Temporary Banners (Second Reading) a.Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave anupdate on the reportand answered questions of the council. Mayor Rossbach asked if anyone wanted to address the council regarding this item. 1.Marv Koppen, Business Owner, Maplewood addressed the council. CouncilmemberJuenemannmoved to approve the (second reading)of the temporary window sign and temporary banners ordinance. August 9, 2010 11 City Council MeetingMinutes ORDINANCE NO.908 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THETEMPORARY WINDOW AND BANNER SIGN SECTIONS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE TheMaplewood city council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: This amendment revises Article III (Sign Regulations) pertaining to temporary window and banner signs as follows: Section 3. Definitions 1. Long-Term Exemption to Temporary Window and Banner Signs. Community Design Review Board review process for approving long-term variations to the temporary window and banner sign sections of the ordinance. Long-term exemptions would allow a one-time, long-term (greater than three (3) months) variation from the temporary window or banner sign size or number requirements. Short-Term Exemption to Temporary Window and Banner Signs. Administrative process for reviewing and approving short-term variations to the temporary window and banner sign sections of the ordinance. Short-term exemptions would allow a one-time, short-term (up to three (3) months) variation from the temporary window or banner sign size, number, or time display limits for a special event with a specific deadline. Window Sign. A sign painted on a window or placed inside the building to be viewed through the glass by public. This does not include merchandise on display. Window. Any transparent or translucent glass or similar material that comprises part of the surface of a wall, regardless of its movability. Entire walls of transparent or translucent glass or similar material are excluded from this definition. Window Sign. A sign painted on a window or placed inside the building to be viewed through a window by the public. This does not include merchandise on display in a window, seasonal displays of holiday pictures, decals, lights, and decorations that do not contain a commercial message or signs which are legally required to be posted. Section 2. Comprehensive Sign and Mural Plans 2. A comprehensive sign plan shall be provided for the following: (a)Business premises with five (5) or more tenants on the premise and all multiple-story buildings with two (2) or more tenants in the building. (b)Dynamic display wall signs (also refer to Section 13 –Dynamic Display Signs). (c) Large campuses consisting of buildings and land of ten (10) or more acres. (d) Shared signs. (e) All developments approved as a planned unit development. (f) Murals on business premises. (g) Temporary sports facility sponsorship signs (also refer to Section 12 –Signs in Park Designated Land Use in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan). August 9, 2010 12 City Council MeetingMinutes (h)Long-term exemptions to temporary window and banner signs (also refer to Section 8 – Signs Exempt from Regulations in this Ordinance). Such a plan, which shall include the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all signs and/or murals, shall be submitted for preliminary plan approval by the city. Exceptions to the sign ordinance of this article may be permitted for sign areas, densities, and dynamic display changeover rates for the plan as a whole if the signs are in conformity with the intent of this article, results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan, andencourages and promotes the removal of nonconforming signs through the use of shared signs, and in the case of long-term exemptions to temporary window and banner signs show that there are unusual circumstances with the request. In addition, murals must be tasteful, in keeping with the business premise and surrounding properties, and not contain any defamatory, obscene, treasonous expressions or opinions, including graffiti. Comprehensive sign plans shall bereviewed by the community design review board. The applicant, staff, and city council may appeal the community design review board’s decision. An appeal shall be presented to the administrator within fifteen (15) days of the community design review board’s decision to be considered by the city council. Section 8. Signs Exempt from Regulations in this Ordinance 2. (a) Any public notice or warning sign required to be maintained or posted by law or governmental order, rule, or regulation. (b) Flags and emblems of a political, civic, religious, or other non-commercial nature. Flags that do not meet these requirements will be considered banners and be regulated as such. (c)Any sign inside a building, not attached to an exterior window, not legiblefrom a distance of more than ten (10) feet. (d) Traffic control signs, as defined by state law. (e) Memorial plaques, cornerstones, historical tablets, and the like. (f)Seasonal displays of holiday lights and decorations that do not contain a commercial message. (g)Short-term exemption to temporary window and banner signs which exceed the size, number, or time display limits if approved by the Community Development Director. Applicant must submit a temporary sign permit application and fee to the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director will approve the short-term exemption (up to three (3) months) if the applicant shows that there are unusual circumstances with the request. The Community Development Director may attach conditions to the approval to assure that the sign will be compatible with surrounding properties. (h)Long-term exemption to temporary window and banner signs which exceed the size or number if approved by the Community Design Review Board. Applicant must submit a comprehensive sign plan (also refer to Section 2, Comprehensive Sign Plans and Murals) and fee to the city. The Community Design Review Board will approve the long-term exemption (greater than three (3) months) if the applicant showsthat there are unusual circumstances with the request. The Community Design Review Board may attach conditions to the approval to assure that the sign will be compatible with surrounding properties. August 9, 2010 13 City Council MeetingMinutes Section 11. Special Purpose and Temporary Signs Permitted in All Zoning Districts 4. (n) Banners Banners may be used as temporary signage and are not required to have a permit unless used for more than thirty (30) days. Banners shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet in area or twenty (20) percent of the wall area, whichever is greater. There shall be no more than one (1) banner at any business location. Each tenant space at a shopping center shall count as a separate business location. The city council may approve exceptions to this section if the applicant can show there are unusual circumstances with the request. The council may attach conditions to their approval to assure that the sign will be compatible with surrounding properties. (o) Window Signs Window signs may be used as temporary signage, not exceeding 75 percent of the window area. Section 12. Permitted Signs in Land Use and Zoning Districts 5. Signs in Residential Zoning Districts (Districts R-1, R-1R, R-S, R-E, R-2, R-3 and all a. subsequent Residential Zoning DistrictsAdopted after the Date of this Ordinance) (e) Temporary Banners Temporary banners may be displayed without a permit for residential subdivisions and multiple-unit developments and for all legal non-residential uses excluding home occupation businesses for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days per year, per property. No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per property at any one time. Each banner shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn or weathered. (f)(e)Temporary Signs and Displays Over Twelve (12) Square Feet Signs In the LBC (Limited Business Commercial), CO (Commercial Office), and NC b. (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning Districts (e) Temporary Banners (1) For single tenant buildings, temporary banners may be displayed without a sign permit for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days total per year, per property. No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per property at any one time, except for multiple-tenant buildings (see below). (2) For multiple-tenant buildings, each separate tenant may display temporary banners without a sign permit for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days total per year, per property. No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per separate tenant at any one time. (3) Each banner shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn or weathered. (f) Temporary Window Signs Temporary window signs are allowed without a permit. Temporary window signs shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface of a window, but shall cover no more than thirty (30) percent of the total area of the window. August 9, 2010 14 City Council MeetingMinutes (g)(e) Temporary Signs and Displays Over Twelve (12) Square Feet Signs in the BC (Business Commercial), BC-M (Business Commercial Modified), M- c. 1 (Light Manufacturing), and M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) Zoning Districts (i) Temporary Banners (1) For single tenant buildings, temporary banners may be displayed without a sign permit for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days total per year, per property. No more thanone (1) banner may be displayed per property at any one time, except for multiple-tenant buildings (see below). (2) For multiple tenant buildings, each separate tenant may display temporary banners without a sign permit for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days total per year, per property. No more than one (1) banner may be displayed per separate tenant at any one time. (3) Each banner shall not exceed sixty-four (64) square feet and must be attached to a building or other permanent structure. Banners shall be designed to be professional looking and prevented from becoming torn or weathered. (j) Temporary Window Signs Temporary window signs are allowed without a permit. Temporary window signs shall be neatly painted or attached to the surface ofa window, but shall cover no more than thirty (30) percent of the total area of the window. (k)(i)Temporary Signs and Displays Over Twelve (12) Square Feet The city council approved the first reading of this ordinance on July 26, 2010. The city council approved the second reading of this ordinance onAugust 9, 2010. _______________________________ Will Rossbach, Mayor Attest: ________________________________ Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk Seconded by Mayor Rossbach.Ayes –Mayor Rossbach, Councilmembers Juenemann, & Llanas Nays –Councilmembers Nephew & Wasiluk The motion passed. J.NEW BUSINESS 1.Approval of The Shores at Lake Phalen –Planned Unit Development, Wetland Buffer Variance, Lot Division and Design Review, 940 Frost Avenue a.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the council. b.Ron Leaf, Consultant,representing SEH, Vadnais Heights addressed the council. August 9, 2010 15 City Council MeetingMinutes c.Community Design Review Board Member, Matt Ledvina addressed the council. d.Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl answered questions of the council. e.City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson answered questions of the council. f.City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council. g.Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall answered questions of the council. h.Jim Schloomer, Architect,Kaas Wilson Architects, Minneapolis, addressed and answered questions of the council. i.Albert Miller,Developer,Maplewood Senior Living, LLC addressed the council. CouncilmemberWasilukmoved to approve the Conditional Use Permit Resolution for the Planned Unit Development for The Shores at Lake Phalen, 940 Frost Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 10-08-441 WHEREAS, Link Wilson, Kaas Wilson Architects Representing Jack Rajchenbach and Albert Miller of Maplewood Senior Living, LLC,applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to construct a 105-unit senior housing complex known as The Shores at Lake Phalen. WHEREAS, this permit 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 northerlyof the following described line:Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1, thence North 27 degrees 23 minutes 03 secondWest, along the southwesterly lot line of said Lot 1, a distance of 509.1 feet to the point of beginning ofthe line to be described; thence North 64 degrees 53 minutes 46 seconds East, a distance of 160.32feet; thence North 69 degrees 51 minutes 35 seconds East a distance 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 1and there terminating. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: August 9, 2010 16 City Council MeetingMinutes 1.On June 15, 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports from the city staff. 2.On August 9, 2010, the city council reviewed this request. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passedthe above-described conditional use permit, because: 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city’s comprehensive plan and this Code. 2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of thesurrounding area. 3.The use would not depreciateproperty values. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any personor property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or othernuisances. 5.The use wouldnot exceed the design standards of any affected street. 6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural andscenic features into the development design. 9.The use wouldcause no more thanminimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The engineering department shall review and determine approval of all final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department’s June 7, 2010 review. b.All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 24, 2010, and with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the plans. c.The project is approved with 28 underground and 24 surface parking spaces. This is a parking reduction of 158 parking spaces (210 parking spaces are required per city code). d.The project is approved with a 147 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area for the memory care and assisted living studiounits (580 square foot units are required per city code; 433 to 578 square foot units are proposed). August 9, 2010 17 City Council MeetingMinutes e.The project is approved with a 20-foot front yard setback along Frost Avenue for theone- story dining room and kitchen portion of the building (30-foot front yard setback required per city code). f.The project is approved with storage space of not less than 30 cubic feet for the memory care and transitional care units (120 cubic feet of storage area per unit required per city code). g.All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. h.Approval is conditioned on the owner constructing or funding a Gladstone neighborhood entry monument sign at the intersection of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive. i.Approval is conditioned on the applicant implementing interior or exterior signage which reflects the previous use of the property as the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. j.The approved landscapeplan and tree preservation requirements shall be subject to monitoring by city staff to assure compliance. Minor modifications to these plans shall be subject to review by staff while major modifications shall require city council approval. k.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. l.The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council passedthis resolution on August 9, 2010 Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. Mayor Rossbach moved to approve the Design Review for The Shores at Lake Phalen, 940 Frost Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Lot Division for The Shores at Lake Phalen, 940 Frost Avenue with the modification of staff to achieve the target density level. Seconded by Councilmember Llanas.Ayes –All The motion passed. Mayor Rossbachmoved to approve the Wetland Buffer Variance Resolution for The Shores at Lake Phalen, 940 Frost Avenue.(Staff will bring the Wetland Buffer Variance Resolution back to the city council on August 23, 2010 with the changes recommended by the city council). Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –Mayor Rossbach, Councilmembers Juenemann, Llanas, & Wasiluk August 9, 2010 18 City Council MeetingMinutes Nay –Councilmember Nephew The motion passed. Councilmember Nephew made a motion to extend the meeting past curfew in order to complete the remainder of the agenda. Secondedby Mayor Rossbach.Ayes –Mayor Rossbach, Councilmembers Juenemann, Nephew & Wasiluk Nay –Councilmember Llanas The motion passed. 2.Approval of Rezoning of the Vacant Parcel South of the New Horizon Building from R3 (Multiple-Family Residential) to LBC (Limited Business Commercial) a.Planner, Michael Martin gave the report and answered questions of the council. b.City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council. (This item required a supermajority vote) CouncilmemberLlanasmoved to approve the rezoning of the vacant playground property along with the west side of Van Dyke Street, from R3 (multiple dwelling residential) to LBC (limited business commercial). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of these properties into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification. REZONING RESOLUTION 10-08-442 WHEREAS ,the City of Maplewood city staffproposed a change to the city's zoning map from R3 (multiple dwelling residential)to LBC (limited business commercial); WHEREAS ,this zoning map change applies to the vacant, playground property located on the west side of Van Dyke Street, south of Castle Avenue. The property identification number identifying the affected property is: PIN 11-29-22-33-006 WHEREAS ,On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that classified the land use plan for the above referenced properties to C. WHEREAS ,Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that cities amend their official zoning map within nine months of their adopting their revised comprehensive land use plan to match the new land use classification. WHEREAS , the history of this change is as follows: 1.OnJuly 20, 2010, theplanning commission held a public hearingto consider this rezoning. August 9, 2010 19 City Council MeetingMinutes The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements prior to their recommendation. 2.On August 9, 2010, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council August 9, 2010the above-described change in the zoning mapbased on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification. The Maplewood City Council passedthis resolution on August 9, 2010. Seconded by Mayor Rossbach.Ayes –All The motion passedwith a super majority vote. 3.Approval of Rezoning of the Multi-Family Housing on Van Dyke Street from BC (Business Commercial) to R3 (Multi-Family Residential) a.Planner, Michael Martin gave thereport and answered questions of the council. Mayor Rossbachmoved to approve the rezoning of the multi-family properties along with the west side of Van dyke Street, north of County Road B East from BC (business commercial) to R3 (multiple dwelling residential). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of these properties into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification. REZONING RESOLUTION 10-08-443 WHEREAS ,the City of Maplewood city staffproposed a change to the city's zoning map from BC (business commercial) to R3 (multiple dwelling residential); WHEREAS ,this zoning map change applies to the multi-family properties located on the west side ofVan Dyke Street, north of County Road B East. The property identification numbers identifying the affected property are: PIN 11-29-22-33-0054 and PIN 11-29-22-33-0056 WHEREAS ,On January 25, 2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that classified the land use plan for the above referenced properties to MDR. WHEREAS ,Section 473.865 subdivision 3 of the Minnesota State Statutes requires that cities amend their official zoning map within nine months of their adopting their revised comprehensive land use plan to match the new land use classification. WHEREAS , the history of this change is as follows: 1.OnJuly 20, 2010, theplanning commission held a public hearingto consider this rezoning. The city staff published a hearing noticein the Maplewood Review and sent August 9, 2010 20 City Council MeetingMinutes notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements prior to their recommendation. 2.On August 9, 2010, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city councilpassedthe above-described change in the zoning map based on Minnesota Statute 473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the adopted comprehensive land use plan classification. The Maplewood City Council passedthis resolution on August 9, 2010. Seconded by CouncilmemberJuenemann.Ayes –All The motion passed. 4.Consider Establishing Fund for Legal Expenses Related to Wipers Recycling Litigation and Authorizing Transfer from General Fund a.Assistant City Manager, Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl gave the report. CouncilmemberNephewmoved to approve establishing a fund for legal expenses related to the on-going Wipers Recycling Litigation and to transfer $75,000 from the Legal Program line item 101-103-000-4970 Judgments and Losses. Seconded by CouncilmemberWasiluk.Ayes –All The motion passed. K.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1.John Wykoff, Maplewood. Mr. Wykoff asked what the maximum amount that the city and the insurance company would spend on the litigation with Wipers Recycling,whatthedeductible for the city’s insurance is and whatthe taxpayers would be responsible for. 2.Paul Ruby, Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park. Mr. Ruby read a letter aloud that had been sent to Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand regarding signage in the park andthe lack of bathrooms in a storm shelter in the mobile home park.The city council discussed what is within the city’s capabilities to make changes in the mobile home park and asked staff to review the CUP for the park. L.AWARD OF BIDS None. M.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS None. N.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS August 9, 2010 21 City Council MeetingMinutes 1.Taste of Maplewood –Councilmember Juenemann thanked the staff and everyone involved in making this event so successful. 2.Councilmember Nephew continued the discussion regarding the Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park. 3.The city council thanked Councilmember Julie Wasiluk for serving the term on the council. O.ADJOURNMENT Mayor Rossbachadjourned the meeting at11:47 p.m. August 9, 2010 22 City Council MeetingMinutes