HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 07-25 City Council PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, July 25, 2011
City Hall, Council Chambers
Meeting No. 14-11
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country.
C. ROLL CALL
Mayor’s Address on Protocol:
“Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all
discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public
Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and
Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. Before addressing
the council, sign in with the City Clerk. At the podium please state your name and
address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and
Council. The Mayor will then direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond
to comments.”
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of July 11, 2011, City Council Workshop Minutes
2. Approval of July 11, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Swearing in Ceremony for New Firefighters Ryan Bradbury, Bob Bresin, Becky Dierich,
Chris Mellen, Peter Monson and Al Pacheco – No Report
2. Appointments to Commissions and Boards
a. Environmental & Natural Resources Commission
b. Community Design Review Board
c. Housing Redevelopment Authority
G. CONSENT AGENDA – Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and non-
controversial and are approved by one motion of the council. If a councilmember requests
additional information or wants to make a comment regarding an item, the vote should be held
until the questions or comments are made then the single vote should be taken. If a
councilmember objects to an item it should be removed and acted upon as a separate item.
1. Approval Of Claims
2. Approval of Developer Agreement, Cottagewood 2nd Developer, City Project 11-05
3. Approval to Accept Alcohol Compliance Check Grant
4. Conditional Use Permit Review, St. Paul Regional Water Services (McCarron’s Treatment
Plant), 1900 Rice Street
5. Conditional Use Permit Review, St. Paul’s Priory Planned Unit Development, Benet Road
and Monastery Way
6. Approval of Driving Diversion Program Agreement
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, Project 04-21
a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m.
b. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of Chicken Ordinance Summary Publication (Super Majority Vote)
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Approval of Transfer of Environmental Utility Funds for July 16th Storm Clean-up and
Investigation
2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Revision, Parking Reduction Waiver and Design
Review Former Corner Kick Soccer Center, 1357 Cope Avenue
3. Approval of Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Parking Reduction Authorization
for South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care Facility, 1111 Viking Drive
K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
L. AWARD OF BIDS
M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. Recommendation for Special Work Session on August 29 for Organized Collection and
2012 Budget Summary Update
2. Update on Fish Creek Acquisition Project
N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
O. ADJOURNMENT
Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The
request for this must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at 651.249.2001 to
make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability.
RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY
Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings
– elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone’s opinions can be heard
and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is
understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep
emotions in check and use respectful language.
Agenda Item E1
July 11, 2011
City Council Manager Workshop Minutes 1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 p.m., Monday, July 11, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 5:18 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach.
B. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
James Llanas, Councilmember Present
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew Ayes – All
The motion passed.
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Council Discussion – Discussion of Legal Strategies (Attorney-Client Communication;
Minn. Stat. 13D.05, subd.3(b))
a. Declaration of Intent to Close Meeting for Attorney Update
i. City Project 09-13 – Holloway-Stanich Street Reconstruction
ii. City Project 09-15 – Hills and Dales Street Reconstruction
iii. City Project 10-14 – Western Hills Street Reconstruction
iv. Potential Appeal of Jackson litigation
Meeting was closed at 5:20 p.m.
Meeting was reopened at 6:05 p.m.
2. 2012 Budget – Review of 2011 Expenditure/Revenue Status and Discussion of Strategy
for Review of 2012 Budget Requests
Assistant City Manager Ahl presented the report and answered questions of the council.
E. NEW BUSINESS
None.
F. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Packet Page Number 1 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes 1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m., Monday, July 11, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 13-11
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Rossbach.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Will Rossbach, Mayor Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
James Llanas, Councilmember Present
John Nephew, Councilmember Present
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added or changed to the agenda by councilmembers:
J5. Approval of Neighborhood Stop Sign Requests - moved to after the consent agenda.
N1. National Night Out – Councilmember Juenemann
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of June 27, 2011, City Council Special Meeting/Economic Development
Authority (EDA) Minutes
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the June 27, 2011, City Council Special
Meeting/Economic Development Authority (EDA) Minutes as amended naming councilmember
john nephew as chair of the EDA.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
2. Approval of June 27, 2011, City Council Meeting Minutes
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the June 27, 2011, City Council Minutes as
submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 2 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes 2
F. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation by Ramsey County Attorney John Choi: Ramsey County Attorney John Choi
introduced himself to the City Council and also recognized his good working relationship with
Chief Thomalla and City Attorney Kantrud. He stated that he looked forward to working with
the City.
2. Presentation of Maplewood’s 2011 City of Excellence Award from the League of Minnesota
Cities. City Manager Antonen presented the Mayor and City Council the award for performing
outstanding work in the Community for the joint efforts with North St. Paul in forming a joint
powers agreement for Recreation Programming.
3. Presentation on the Maplewood Community Garden Program. Oakley Biesanz, Naturalist
gave a report on the community gardens located throughout the City and the benefits of the
gardens to the community. Also speaking was Jon Addington from First Evangelical Free
Church on the importance of community gardens in the community.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda items 1-14.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
1. Approval Of Claims
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Approval of Claims.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 378,379.89 Checks # 84585 thru # 84639
dated 06/20/11 thru 06/08/11
$ 166,880.04 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 06/17/11 thru 06/24/11
$ 681,856.90 Checks # 84640 thru # 84704
dated 06/27/11 thru 07/05/11
$ 347,439.90 Disbursements via debits to checking account
Dated 06/22/11 thru 07/01/11
$ 1,574,556.73 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$ 521,248.46 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 06/24/11
$ 2,335.01 Payroll Deduction check # 84529 thru # 84531 dated 06/24/11
$ 523,583.47 Total Payroll
$ 2,098,140.20 GRAND TOTAL
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 3 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes 3
2. Approval of Spring 2011 Clean-Up Event Summary
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Spring 2011 Clean-Up Event Summary.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3. Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Carole Lynne, Environmental and
Natural Resources Commission
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution of Appreciation for Carole Lynne,
Environmental and Natural Resources Commission.
RESOLUTION 11-7-597
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, Carole Lynne has been a member of the Maplewood Environmental and
Natural Resources Commission for four years and five months, November 27, 2006 to May 6,
2011; and served on the Environmental and Natural Resources Committee for two years prior to
her appointment to the Commission. Ms. Lynne has served faithfully in those capacities; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission has appreciated her
experience, insights and good judgment; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Lynne has freely given of her time and energy, without compensation,
for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Lynne has shown dedication to her duties and has consistently
contributed her leadership and effort for the benefit of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Carole Lynne is hereby extended our gratitude and
appreciation for her dedicated service.
Passed by the Maplewood
City Council on July 11, 2011.
_________________________________
Will Rossbach, Mayor
Passed by the Maplewood
Environmental and Natural Resources
Commission on June 20, 2011.
_________________________________
Bill Schreiner, Chairperson
Attest:
________________________________
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 4 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes 4
4. Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Shelly Strauss, Business and Economic
Development Commission
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution of Appreciation for Shelly Strauss,
Business and Economic Development Commission.
RESOLUTION 11-7-598
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, Shelly Strauss has been a member of the Maplewood Business and
Economic Development Commission since March 1, 2010, until April 28, 2011, and has served
faithfully in that capacity; and
WHEREAS, the Business and Economic Development Commission has appreciated
her experience, insights and good judgment; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Strauss has freely given of her time and energy, without
compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Strauss has shown dedication to her duties and has consistently
contributed her leadership and effort for the benefit of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Shelly Strauss is hereby extended our gratitude
and appreciation for her dedicated service.
Passed by the Maplewood
City Council on _______, 2011
____________________________________
Will Rossbach, Mayor
Passed by the Maplewood
Business and Economic Development Commission
on June 23, 2011
____________________________________
Mark Jenkins, Chairperson
Attest:
________________________________
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
5. Approval of Resolution Certifying Election Judges for the August 9, 2011 Primary
Municipal Election
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution Certifying Election Judges for the
August 9, 2011 Primary Municipal Election.
Packet Page Number 5 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes 5
RESOLUTION 11-7-599
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ELECTION JUDGES
RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, accepts the following list of
Election Judges for the 2011 Primary Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, August 9, 2011.
Ahrens, Fran
Aikens, Meridith
Albu, Josephine
Anderson, Beverly
Anderson, Elsie
Anderson, Nancy
Anderson, Suzanne
Anderson, Vivian
Ansari, Ahsan
Arnold, Ajla
Arnold, Carole
Bartelt, Joan
Bedor, David
Behr, Jeanette
Belland, Jaime
Berry, Robert
Bjorklund, Diane
Bolden, Donita
Bortz, Albert
Bortz, Jeanne
Bunkowske, Bernice
Carbone, Joyce
Carle, Jeanette
Carson, Fannie
Cleland, Ann
Combe, Edward
Connelly, Thomas
Connolly, Colleen
D'Arcio, India
Deeg, Edward
Demko, Fred
Desai, Kalpana
DeZelar, Phil
Dickson, Helen Jean
Droeger, Diane
Duellman, Audrey
Eickhoff, Carolyn
Erickson, Elizabeth
Erickson, Eric
Erickson, Sue
Evans, Carol
Fernholz, Jean
Finch, Roberta
Fischer, Mary
Fischer, Lorraine
Fischer, Peter
Fitzgerald, Delores
Fosburgh, Anne
Fowler, Cynthia
Franzen, James
Freer, Mary Jo
Friedlein, Charlene
Friedlein, Richard
Fuller, Mary Katherine
Galligher, Patricia
Gebauer, Victor
Gierzak, Sister Clarice
Gipple, Kristine
Golaski, Diane
Gudknecht, Jamie
Guthrie, Rosie
Haack, Donita
Hafner, Michael
Hahn Ohs, Sandra
Hanson, Joan
Hart, Barbara
Herber, Darlene
Hickey, Donna
Hill, Jan
Hilliard, Barb
Hines, Constance
Hinnenkamp, Gary
Horgan, Gerald
Horgan, Sharon
Horwath, Ivori
Hulet, Jeanette
Hulet, Robert
Iversen, Mildred
Jaafaru, Timothy
Jagoe, Carole
Jahn, David
Jefferson, Gwendolyn
Jensen, Robert
Johannessen, Judith
Johansen, Kathleen
Johnson, Barbara
Johnson, Warren
Jones, Shirley
Jurmu, Joyce
Kaul, Shirley
Kirchoff, Harold
Kliethermes, Jami
Knauss, Carol
Knutson, Lois
Koch, Rosemary
Kramer, Dennis
Kramer, Patricia
Krekelberg, Mona Lou
Kwapick, Clemence
Kwapick, Jackie
Lackner, Marvella
Lampe, Charlotte
Larson, Michelle
Lauren, Lorraine
LaValle, Faylene
Lawrence, Donna
Leiter, Barbara
Leo , Pati
Leonard, Claudette
Letourneau, Sandra
Lincowski, Steve
Lincowski, Vi
Liptak, Marianne
Lockwood, Jackie
Loipersbeck, Darlene
Loipersbeck, Jules
Lowe-Adams, Shari
Lucas, Lydia
Luttrell, Shirley
Mahowald, Valerie
Mahre, Jeri
Manthey, John
Marsh, Delores
Maskrey, Thomas
Mauston, Shelia
McCann, John
McCarthy, Peggy
McCauley, Judy
McCormack, Melissa
Mealey, Georgia
Mechelke, Geraldine
Mechelke, Mary Lou
Miller, Charlotte
Moen, Bill
Moenck, Mary Ann
Moreno, Marlene
Mudek, Dolores
Mudek, Leo
Muraski, Gerry
Myster, Thomas
Nephew, Shelly
Nettleton, Janet
Newcomb, Mary
Nichols, Miranda
Packet Page Number 6 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
6
Nieters, Louise
Nissen, Helen
Niven, Amy
Norberg, Ann
Noyes, Douglas
O'Brien, D. William
(Bill)
Olson, Norman
Olson, Lois
Olson, Anita
Olson, Stacy
Oslund, Kathryn
Paddock, Ken
Parent, Dian
Peitzman, Lloyd
Peper, Marilyn
Philbrook, Frances
Pickett, William
Priefer, Bill
Renslow, Rita
Rieper, Allan
Rodriguez, Vincent
Rohrbach, Charles
Rohrbach, Elaine
Roller, Carolyn
Rudeen, Elaine
Saltz, Rosalie
Sandberg, Janet
Satriano, Pauline
Sauer, Elmer
Sauer, Kathleen
Sauro, Janet
Scheunemann,
Marjorie
Schiff, Marge
Schluender, Cynthia
Schneider, Mary Ann
Schultz, Louise
Scott, Jacobs
Shores, Teresa
Skaar, Delaney
Skaar, Susan
Smart, Katherine
Spangler, Bob
Spies, Louis
Stafki, Tim
Steenberg, Judith
Steenberg, Richard
Stenson, Karen
Stevens, Sandra
Storm, Mary
Strack, Joan
Sweningeon, Rudolph
Taylor, Lori
Taylor, Rita
Thormforde, Faith
Tolbert, Franklin
Trippler, Dale
Tschida, Micki
Urbanski, Carolyn
Urbanski, Holly
Urbanski, Michelle
Urbanski, William
VanBlaricom, Beulah
Vanek, Mary
Volkman, Phyllis
Wasmundt, Gayle
Webb, Paulette
Weiland, Connie
Wessell, Warren
Whitcomb, Larry
Witschen, Delores
Wold, Hans
Wood, Susan
Yorkovich, Cindy
Zacho, Karen
Zager, Scott
Zian, Helen
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
6. Approval of Amended 2011 Pay Rates for Temporary/Seasonal, Casual Part-time
Employees
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Amended 2011 Pay Rates for
Temporary/Seasonal, Casual Part-time Employees.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
7. Approval of Settlement Agreement and General Release with Parsons Electric, LLC
and ECS Maplewood, LLC for Facility Lease at Maplewood Community Center for
Solar Panel Installation
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Settlement Agreement and General Release
with Parsons Electric, LLC and ECS Maplewood, LLC for Facility Lease at Maplewood
Community Center for Solar Panel Installation.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 7 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
7
8. Approval to Enter into IT Shared Services Agreement with the City of Roseville
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve to Enter into IT Shared Services Agreement with
the City of Roseville.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
9. Approval to Enter into Collocation License Agreement with Ramsey County Library
Board
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve to Enter into Collocation License Agreement with
Ramsey County Library Board.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
10. Approval to Make Payment for Safari Yearly Support Contract
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve to Make Payment for Safari Yearly Support
Contract.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
11. Approval of Bid for Boulevard Tree Inventory
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Bid for Boulevard Tree Inventory.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
12. Approval of Resolution Directing Modification of Existing Construction Contract,
Change Order No. 1, Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-14
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution Directing Modification of Existing
Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1, Western Hills Area Street Improvements, Project 10-
14.
RESOLUTION 11-7-600
DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 10-14, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made
Improvements Project 10-14, Western Hills Area Street Improvements, and has let a construction
contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and
designated as Improvement Project 10-14, Change Order No. 1.
Packet Page Number 8 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that:
1. The mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by
executing said Change Order No. 1 which is an increase of $29,307.90.
The revised contract amount is $5,435,667.21
Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on this 11th day of July 2011.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
13. Resolution Approving Final Payment and Acceptance of Project, for Lift Station #18
Rehabilitation, City Project 05-29
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Resolution Approving Final Payment and
Acceptance of Project, for Lift Station #18 Rehabilitation, City Project 05-29.
RESOLUTION 11-7-601
APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
LIFT STATION #18 REHABILITATION, CITY PROJECT 05-29
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered
Improvement Project 05-29, Lift Station #18 Rehabilitation, and has let a construction contract
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Lift
Station #18 Rehabilitation project, City Project 05-29, is complete and recommends acceptance
of the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that
1. City Project 05-29 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by
the city; and the final construction cost is $104,020.27. Final payment to the United States
Treasury, and the release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized.
Approved this 11th day of July 2011.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
14. Approval to Purchase Phone Equipment off of State Contract
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve to Purchase Phone Equipment off of State
Contract.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 9 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
9
H. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, Project 04-21
a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m.
b. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll
Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing
Councilmemeber Nephew moved to continued the Gladstone Area Redevelopment
Improvements, Project 04-21 Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll to the July 25,
2011 meeting.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Trash Collection System Analysis - Consider Approval and Release of the Request
for Proposals (RFP) for Comprehensive, Residential Trash Collection Services
Environmental Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report. Dan Krivit, representing Foth
Infrastructure & Environment LLC gave a report to the council.
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve and release the Request for Proposals (RFP) for
Comprehensive, Residential Trash Collection Services.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew Ayes – Mayor Rossbach, Councilmembers
Juenemann, Llanas, Nephew
Nays – Councilmember Koppen
The motion passed.
The council took a 10 minute recess.
2. Chicken Ordinance – Consider Approval of the Second Reading of the Chicken
Ordinance and Adoption of a Resolution Setting Chicken Permit Fees
Environmental Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report. Shann will send new verbiage
to include 100% approval of adjacent property owners.
Councilmember Llanas moved to approve the Second Reading of the Chicken Ordinance and
Adoption of a Resolution Setting Chicken Permit Fees including 100% approval of adjacent
property owerns.
ORDINANCE NO. 913
An Ordinance Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in
Single Dwelling Residential Districts
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This section amends the Maplewood Zoning Code to allow the keeping of
chickens in single dwelling residential districts (except for the R-1S, Small Lot Single
Packet Page Number 10 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
10
Dwelling Residential District). (Additions are underlined and deletions are stricken from
the original ordinance.)
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3 (R-1 Residence District)
Sec. 44-6. Definitions.
Poultry means domesticated birds that serve as a source of eggs or meat and that include
among commercially important kinds, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, peafowl, pigeons,
pheasants and others.
Sec. 44-103. Prohibited uses.
The following uses are prohibited in the R-1 Residence district:
(1) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as outlined in
Sections 10-476 through 10-487, Chickens) or animals causing a nuisance, except
for licensed kennels.
Section 2. This section amends the Maplewood Zoning Code to add clarifying language to
the R-1S (Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential District) and R-1R (Rural Single Dwelling
Residential Conservation District).
There are five single dwelling residential districts in the City as follows: R-1, R-1S, RE-
30,000, RE 40,000, and R-1R. The R-1 district lists the specific uses. Two other single
dwelling residential districts (RE-30,000 and RE 40,000) refer to the R-1 district for
permitted and prohibited uses. Clarifying language is needed in the R-1S and R-1R
districts to ensure the permitted and prohibited uses are carried over from the R-1 district
as well (except for raising of chickens in the R-1S district). (Additions are underlined and
deletions are stricken from the original ordinance):
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 5 (R-1S Small-lot Single
Dwelling Residential District)
Sec. 44-192. Permitted uUses.
(1) Permitted uses. The only permitted uses allowed in the R-1S small-lot single dwelling
residential district are the permitted uses in the R-1 district.
(2) Prohibited uses.
(a) Accessory buildings without an associated dwelling on the same premises.
(b) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry or animals causing a nuisance, except
for licensed kennels.
(c) Because of small lot sizes in the R-1S district, the keeping of chickens as outlined
in Sections 10-476 through 10-487, Chickens, is prohibited in the R-1S district.
Chapter 44 (Zoning), Article II (District Regulations), Division 3.5 (R-1R Rural
Conservation Dwelling District)
Sec. 44-118. Uses.
(a) …
(b) …
(c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1R zoning district:
Packet Page Number 11 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
11
(1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the same
property.
(2) The raising or handling of livestock, poultry (except for chickens as outlined in
Sections 10-476 through 10-487, Chickens) or animals causing a nuisance,
except for licensed kennels.
Section 3. This section adds language to the city’s Animal Ordinance (Chapter 10) to
address the permitting requirements for chickens in single dwelling residential districts
(except the R-1S district):
Chapter 10 (Animals), Article IX (Chickens)
Sec. 10-476. Definitions.
Brooding means the period of chicken growth when supplemental heat must be provided,
due to the bird’s inability to generate enough body heat.
Chicken means a domesticated bird that serves as a source of eggs or meat.
Coop means the structure for the keeping or housing of chickens permitted by the
ordinance.
Exercise yard means a larger fenced area that provides space for exercise and foraging
for the birds when supervised.
Hen means a female chicken.
Officer means any person designated by the city manager as an enforcement officer.
Rooster means a male chicken.
Run means a fully enclosed and covered area attached to a coop where the chickens can
roam unsupervised.
Sec. 10-477. Purpose.
It is recognized that the ability to cultivate one’s own food is a sustainable activity that can
also be a rewarding past time. Therefore, it is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to
permit the keeping and maintenance of hens for egg and meat sources in a clean and
sanitary manner that is not a nuisance to or detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Sec. 10-478. Investigation and Enforcement.
Officers designated by the city manager shall have authority in the investigation and
enforcement of this article, and no person shall interfere with, hinder or molest any such
officer in the exercise of such powers. The officer shall make investigations as is
necessary and may grant, deny, or refuse to renew any application for permit, or terminate
an existing permit under this article.
Sec. 10-479. Limitations for each single dwelling residential unit, except the R-1S district
where the keeping of chickens is prohibited:
Packet Page Number 12 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
12
(1) No more than ten (10) hens shall be housed or kept on any one (1) residential lot in
any area of the city zoned for single dwelling residential with a permit as outlined
below.
(2) Roosters are prohibited.
(3) Slaughtering of chickens on the property is prohibited.
(4) Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and the
owner’s address and telephone number.
(5) A separate coop is required to house the chickens. Coops must be constructed and
maintained to meet the following minimum standards:
(a) Located in the rear or side yard.
(b) Setback at least five (5) feet from the rear or side property lines.
(c) Interior floor space – four (4) square feet per bird.
(d) Interior height – six (6) feet to allow access for cleaning and maintenance.
(e) Doors – one (1) standard door to allow humans to access the coop and one (1)
for birds (if above ground level, must also provide a stable ramp).
(f) Windows – one (1) square foot window per ten (10) square feet floor space.
Windows must be able to open for ventilation.
(g) Climate control – adequate ventilation and/or insulation to maintain the coop
temperature between 32 – 85 degrees Farenheit.
(h) Nest boxes – one (1) box per every three (3) hens.
(i) Roosts – one and one-half (1 ½) inch diameter or greater, located eighteen
(18) inches from the wall and two (2) to three (3) inches above the floor.
(j) Rodent proof – coop construction and materials must be adequate to prevent
access by rodents.
(k) Coops shall be constructed and maintained in a workmanlike manner.
(6) A run or exercise yard is required.
(a) Runs must be constructed and maintained to meet the following minimum
standards:
1) Location: rear or side yard.
2) Size: Ten (10) square feet per bird, if access to a fenced exercise yard is
also available; sixteen (16) square feet per bird, if access to an exercise
yard is not available. If the coop is elevated two (2) feet so the hens can
access the space beneath, that area may count as a portion of the
minimum run footprint.
Packet Page Number 13 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
13
3) Height: Six (6) feet in height to allow access for cleaning and
maintenance.
4) Gate: One gate to allow human access to the run.
5) Cover: Adequate to keep hens in and predators out.
6) Substrate: Composed of material that can be easily raked or regularly
replace to reduce odor and flies.
(b) Exercise yards must be fenced and is required if the run does not provide at
least sixteen (16) square feet per bird. Exercise yards must provide a
minimum of one-hundred seventy-four (174) square feet per chicken.
(7) Chickens must not be housed in a residential house or an attached or detached
garage, except for brooding purposes only.
(8) All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept clean from filth,
garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop and its surrounding
must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall not be allowed to
accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or causes odors detectible
on another property. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the officer
removing chickens from the premises or revoking a chicken permit.
(9) All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken permit
shall be kept in a rodent proof container.
(10) Hens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance to the
occupants of adjacent property.
(11) Dead chickens must be disposed of according to the Minnesota Board of Animal
Health rules which require chicken carcasses to be disposed of as soon as possible
after death, usually within forty-eight (48) to seventy-two (72) hours. Legal forms of
chicken carcass disposal include burial, off-site incineration or rendering, or
composting.
Sec. 10-480. Permit required.
The officer shall grant a permit for chickens after the applicant has sought the written
consent of one hundred (100) percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly
owned real estate that are located adjacent (i.e., sharing property lines) on the outer
boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested, or in the alternative,
proof that the applicant’s property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any
house.
Where an adjacent property consists of a multiple dwelling or multi-tenant property, the
applicant need obtain only the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in
charge of the building. Such written consent shall be required on the initial application
and as often thereafter as the officer deems necessary.
Sec. 10-481. Application.
Any person desiring a permit required under the provisions of this article shall make
written application to the city clerk upon a form prescribed by and containing such
Packet Page Number 14 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
14
information as required by the city clerk and officer. Among other things, the application
shall contain the following information:
(1) A description of the real property upon which it is desired to keep the chickens.
(2) The breed and number of chickens to be maintained on the premises.
(3) A site plan of the property showing the location and size of the proposed chicken
coop and run, setbacks from the chicken coop to property lines and surrounding
buildings (including houses and buildings on adjacent lots), and the location, style,
and height of fencing proposed to contain the chickens in a run or exercise area.
Portable coops and cages are allowed, but portable locations must be included with
the site plan.
(4) Statements that the applicant will at all times keep the chickens in accordance with
all of the conditions prescribed by the officer, or modification thereof, and that failure
to obey such conditions will constitute a violation of the provisions of this chapter
and grounds for cancellation of the permit.
(5) Such other and further information as may be required by the officer.
Sec. 10-482. Permit conditions.
(1) If granted, the permit shall be issued by the city clerk and officer and shall state the
conditions, if any, imposed upon the permitted for the keeping of chickens under this
permit. The permit shall specify the restrictions, limitations, conditions and prohibitions
which the officer deems reasonably necessary to protect any person or neighboring use
from unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or odors, or annoyance, or to protect the
public health and safety. Such permit may be modified from time to time or revoked by
the officer for failure to conform to such restrictions, limitations, prohibitions. Such
modification or revocation shall be effective after ten (10) days following the mailing of
written notice thereof by certified mail to the person or persons keeping or maintain such
chickens.
Sec. 10-483. Violations.
(1) Any person violating any of the sections of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with section 1-
15.
(2) If any person is found guilty by a court for violation of this section, their permit to
own, keep, harbor, or have custody of chickens shall be deemed automatically
revoked and no new permit may be issued for a period of one (1) year.
(3) Any person violating any conditions of this permit shall reimburse the city for all
costs borne by the city to enforce the conditions of the permit including but not
limited to the pickup and impounding of chickens.
Sec. 10-484. Required; exceptions.
No person shall (without first obtaining a permit in writing from the city clerk) own, keep,
harbor or have custody of any live chicken.
Sec. 10-485. Fees; issuance.
Packet Page Number 15 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
15
For each residential site the fee for a permit is as may be imposed, set, established and
fixed by the City Council, by resolution, from time to time.
Sec. 10-486. Term.
The permit period under this section shall expire one (1) year from the date the permit is
issued.
Sec. 10-487. Revocation.
The city manager may revoke any permit issued under this ordinance if the person holding
the permit refuses or fails to comply with this ordinance, with any regulations promulgated
by the city council pursuant to this ordinance, or with any state or local law governing
cruelty to animals or the keeping of animals. Any person whose permit is revoked shall,
within ten (10) days thereafter, humanely dispose of all chickens being owned, kept or
harbored by such person, and no part of the permit fee shall be refunded.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew Ayes – Mayor Rossbach, Councilmembers
Koppen, Llanas, Nephew
Nays – Councilmember Juenemann
The motion passed.
Couniclmember Koppen moved to set the Chicken Permit fee of $75 for initial application and $50
for renewals.
Seconded by Mayor Rossbach Ayes – Mayor Rossbach, Councilmembers
Koppen, Llanas, Nephew
Nays – Councilmember Juenemann
The motion passed.
3. Heritage Preservation Ordinance Amendments – Consider Approval of the Second
Reading
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Second Reading of the Heritage Preservation
Ordinance Amendments.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes – All
The motion passed.
J. NEW BUSINESS
1. Conditional Use Permit / Parking Lot Setback Violation, Merit Chevrolet, 2695
Brookview Drive
Assistant City Manager Ahl presented the report informing the council that Merit Chevrolet has
agreed to all of the changes requested by staff that brings them into compliance of the conditional
use permit.
2. Consider Resolution Opposing County-Wide Taxes to Support Stadium Proposal
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Resolution Opposing County-Wide Taxes to
Support Stadium Proposal as submitted.
Packet Page Number 16 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
16
RESOLUTION 11-7-596
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE IMPOSITION OF A ½ CENT SALES TAX IN RAMSEY
COUNTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A VIKINGS STADIUM IN ARDEN HILLS
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council recognizes the social and economic value of the
Minnesota Vikings Football team to the State of Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, to preserve the Minnesota Vikings as a valuable State amenity, the
Maplewood City Council understands the desire to find a solution to the Vikings’ stated interest in
developing a new stadium; and,
WHEREAS, a proposal has been put forth by the Minnesota Vikings and the Ramsey
County Board of Commissioners to construct a new stadium in Arden Hills on the site of the
former Twin Cities Army Ammunitions Plant (TCAAP); and,
WHEREAS, to finance the construction of this facility, the Ramsey County Board has
proposed the imposition of a ½ cent sales tax collected in Ramsey County in an amount sufficient
to generate $350 million; and,
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the taxpayers of Ramsey County be denied the
right to vote for or against a stadium-funding sales tax increase in a referendum; and,
WHEREAS, Maplewood retailers face competition from nearby counties that would have
lower sales tax rates if this stadium tax were approved, as well as internet retailers who often do
not collect sales taxes at all; and,
WHEREAS, a higher local sales tax rate may make Maplewood commercial properties
less attractive than those in neighboring counties, potentially hurting property values in an already
difficult real estate market and increasing the relative tax burden on residential properties; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood, even while losing all Market Value Homestead Credit
payments from the State of Minnesota, has sought both to minimize the growth of taxes on our
residents and to maintain the funding of basic municipal functions; and,
WHEREAS, it is unfair and inequitable for the residents and businesses of Maplewood to
be asked to bear a disproportionate financial burden for the construction of a State-wide and
region-wide amenity, particularly when the benefit to taxpayers is tangential at best;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maplewood City Council opposes the
imposition of a ½ cent sales tax in Ramsey County to support the construction of a Vikings
stadium in Arden Hills; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Maplewood City Council encourages the
Governor, the Legislature, the Ramsey County Board, the Minnesota Vikings and other interested
parties to consider options for constructing a stadium that minimize risk to the taxpayers, limit the
level of public subsidy (particularly for the host community), and promote a fair, multi-jurisdictional
participation for a State-wide amenity.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew Ayes – All
The motion passed.
3. Approval of Lease Agreement with Subway Real Estate, LLC to Operate in the MCC
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Lease Agreement with Subway Real Estate,
LLC to Operate in the MCC.
Seconded by Councilmember Llanas Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 17 of 206
Agenda Item E2
July 11, 2011
City Council Meeting Minutes
17
4. Approval of Contracts for the Installation of Lights at Goodrich Park Field #1
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Contracts for the Installation of Lights at
Goodrich Park Field #1.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes – All
The motion passed.
5. Approval of Neighborhood Stop Sign Requests (this item was heard ahead of item
H1.)
Addressed the council: Gene Leslie, Maplewood
Chad Remackel, Maplewood
Gary Lonetti, Maplewood
Councilmember Juenemann moved to table the Neighborhood Stop Sign Requests for staff to
further research the issue and bring additional information back to the council for consideration at
a future meeting. This is to include a polling of the neighborhood and input from Mounds Park
Academy.
Seconded by Councilmember Nephew Ayes – All
The motion passed.
K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
1. Dave Schelling, Maplewood
2. Bob Zick, North St. Paul
3. Paul Pearson, Homeless
4. Bryan Olson, Ramsey County Charter Commission
5. Mark Bradley, Maplewood
L. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
None.
N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. National Night Out
Councilmember Juenemann reminded everyone that national night out is on August 2, 2011 and
encouraged the community to participate.
O. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rossbach adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p.m.
Packet Page Number 18 of 206
Agenda Item F2
Agenda Report
TO: James W. Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Sarah Burlingame, Senior Administrative Assistant
DATE: July 19, 2011
SUBJECT: Appointments to Commissions and Boards
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
There are a total of three (3) openings on the City’s commissions and boards; one on the
Environmental & Natural Resources Commission, Community Design Review Board and the
Housing Redevelopment Authority. Each of these vacancies are due to a resignation, therefore
the individuals appointed to these positions will serve the remainder of those terms. However,
the term for the Housing Redevelopment Authority expires at the end of September. Because
of this and the need to stagger the terms of the current members of the commission, staff will
recommend that the council appoint the individual to a one year term. Thereafter, the position
will serve 5 year terms, according to state statute.
The City has advertised and accepted applications from interested individuals. The City Council
then interviewed the candidates during Council-Manager Work Session prior to this regular
meeting. Staff anticipates that the Council ballots will be tallied allowing the Council to make the
appointment during this meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution to appoint the candidates
with the highest number of votes to the commissions and boards. The term expiration dates are
as followed
Environmental & Natural Resources Commission
_____________________, Term expiring 9/30/2013
Community Design Review Board
_____________________, Term expiring 4/30/2012
Housing Redevelopment Authority
_____________________, Term expiring 9/30/2012
Attachments:
1. Resolution for Appointment
Packet Page Number 19 of 206
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. ______
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA:
Hereby appoints the following individuals, who have interviewed with the Maplewood City
Council, to serve on the following commissions:
Environmental & Natural Resources Commission
_____________________, Term expiring 9/30/2013
Community Design Review Board
_____________________, Term expiring 4/30/2012
Housing Redevelopment Authority
_____________________, Term expiring 9/30/2012
Packet Page Number 20 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
AGENDA NO.G-1
TO:City Council
FROM:Finance Manager
RE:APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
DATE:
660,728.95$ Checks # 84706 thru # 84739
dated 7/12/11
190,779.36$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 06/24/11 thru 7/08/11
132,333.05$ Checks # 84740 thru # 84781
dated 07/19/11
317,243.82$ Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 07/06/11 thru 07/15/11
1,301,085.18$ Total Accounts Payable
517,149.67$ Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 07/08/11
2,375.01$ Payroll Deduction check # 9984564 thru # 9984566
dated 07/08/11
519,524.68$ Total Payroll
1,820,609.86$ GRAND TOTAL
kf
attachments
Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651-249-2902 if you have any questions on the
attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary.
PAYROLL
AGENDA REPORT
July 25, 2011
Attached is a listing of paid bills for informational purposes. The City Manager has reviewed the bills
and authorized payment in accordance with City Council approved policies.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
Packet Page Number 21 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
Check Description Amount
84706 01337 REFUND OF STB FILING FEES 1,800.00
84707 01337 FLEET SUPPORT FEE - MAY 595.84
84708 01409 POLICE NEEDS STUDY 4,994.80
01409 CITY DUMP INVESTIGATION 3,421.62
01409 DESIGN & SPECS JOY PARK PHASE II 2,306.67
84709 01463 MCC MASSAGES - JUNE 1-15 1,073.00
84710 01546 STAFF/CAMP SHIRTS 1,561.50
84711 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 1,798.97
01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 512.15
01574 RIVER ROCK FOR STORM SEWER REPAIR 336.81
84712 04845 RECYCLING - JUNE 27,649.50
84713 04192 EMS BILLING - JUNE 3,810.00
84714 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 14,060.68
01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 55.10
84715 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL FEES 6/6 - 7/1 2,788.00
84716 00116 CAR WASHES - APRIL & MAY 295.16
84717 03631 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE 21,766.64
03631 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE 21,766.64
84718 04220 EVERGLAZE RESTROOM FLOORS 650.87
84719 00827 WORK COMP QTR JUL-SEP 2011 105,371.75
84720 00001 REFUND J KARRAS FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 152.80
84721 00001 REFUND D BJORKLUND HP BENEFIT 140.00
84722 00001 REFUND J HALE FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 133.70
84723 00001 REFUND A REYNOSO FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 114.60
84724 00001 REFUND M PEARSON HP BENEFIT 40.00
84725 00001 REFUND TETZLAFF HP BENEFIT 40.00
84726 00001 REFUND THIETS HP BENEFIT 40.00
84727 00001 REFUND M ABERNATHY CHG SILVER S 20.00
84728 00001 REFUND S DICKEY BCBS BENEFIT 20.00
84729 00001 REFUND J KAISER BCBS BENEFIT 20.00
84730 04901 TRILLION BTU PROG PARTICIPATION 400,000.00
84731 01284 MAILING RECREATION ISSUE - AUG 4,500.00
84732 03446 DEER PICKUP - JUNE 200.00
84733 01836 CRIME LAB SERVICES - MAY 130.00
84734 01550 ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS - JUNE 2,349.00
84735 04055 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 3/31 - 7/6 125.15
84736 04885 SUBMARINE STATION POOL FEATURE 19,500.00
84737 01615 REPAIR WORK AT MCC 5,751.57
84738 04515 SPRING WEED CONTROL IN PARKS 9,836.43
84739 02359 DOWNPMT REUPHOLSTERY OF (4) CHAIRS 1,000.00
660,728.9534Checks in this report.
07/12/2011 THERMO-DYNE, INC.
07/12/2011 TRUGREEN-5635
07/12/2011 WALLY'S UPHOLSTERY
07/12/2011 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS
07/12/2011 JAMES TAYLOR
07/12/2011 THEMESCAPES, INC.
07/12/2011 POSTMASTER
07/12/2011 RICK JOHNSON DEER & BEAVER INC
07/12/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 PORT AUTHORITY OF ST PAUL
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 L M C I T
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/12/2011 ELK RIVER FORD
07/12/2011 ELK RIVER FORD
07/12/2011 ISS FACILITY SERVICES-MPLS
07/12/2011 XCEL ENERGY
07/12/2011 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
07/12/2011 APPEARANCE PLUS CAR WASH CORP
07/12/2011 TENNIS SANITATION LLC
07/12/2011 TRANS-MEDIC
07/12/2011 XCEL ENERGY
07/12/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
07/12/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
07/12/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
07/12/2011 S.E.H.
07/12/2011 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE
07/12/2011 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR
07/12/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
07/12/2011 S.E.H.
07/12/2011 S.E.H.
07/12/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
Check Register
City of Maplewood
07/08/2011
Date Vendor
Packet Page Number 22 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee Description Amount
6/24/2011 7/1/2011 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 1,099.01
6/30/2011 7/1/2011 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,436.00
6/30/2011 7/1/2011 US Bank Merchant Services Credit Card Billing fee 1,947.70
7/1/2011 7/5/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 37,620.40
7/1/2011 7/6/2011 US Bank VISA One Card*Purchasing card items 72,926.74
7/5/2011 7/6/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 11,930.00
7/6/2011 7/7/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 18,838.00
7/6/2011 7/8/2011 ICMA (Vantagepointe)Deferred Compensation 4,312.76
7/6/2011 7/8/2011 ING - State Plan Deferred Compensation 27,237.00
7/7/2011 7/8/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 13,431.75
TOTAL 190,779.36
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Packet Page Number 23 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
Check Description Amount
84740 04842 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - JUNE 270.00
84741 04137 KARATE INSTRUCTION 345.00
84742 01973 CAR WASHES - JUNE 96.00
84743 01949 CANDIDATE SCREENING-FIREFIGHTERS 1,300.00
84744 04060 TURN OUT PANTS 656.00
04060 SCBA REPAIR 203.32
84745 04265 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - JUNE 531.00
84746 01337 MULCH FOR CAMPUS RAIN GARDENS 222.30
84747 01409 PROJ 09-08 ENGINEERING FEES 30,874.58
01409 PROJ 04-21 ENGINEERING FEES 6,493.09
01409 ENGINEERING FEES 1,067.94
84748 01574 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 343.60
84749 01750 MDSE FOR RESALE 381.95
01750 MDSE FOR RESALE 161.05
84750 01190 ELECTRIC UTILITY 1,387.05
84751 01798 CONTRACT GASOLINE - JULY 16,841.46
01798 CONTRACT DIESEL - JULY 8,864.05
84752 02324 HERBICIDE TREATMENT-BEAVER CREEK 814.39
02324 HERBICIDE TREATMENT-BEAVER CREEK 664.32
02324 HERBICIDE TREATMENT-BEAVER CREEK 281.82
02324 HERBICIDE TREATMENT-BEAVER CREEK 63.81
84753 04904 DAY CAMP - HORSE FARM FIELD TRIP 1,671.47
84754 00258 ESCROW RELEASE 2538 DAHL AVE 3,018.77
84755 04843 KETTELBEE INSTRUCTION APRIL-JUNE 314.70
84756 00399 TRAFFIC PAINT FOR MESSAGE PAINTING 994.26
84757 04374 AMBUTRAK LICENSE FEE 399.00
04374 AMBUTRAK LICENSE FEE 399.00
84758 01401 DAY CAMP BUS FEE - BUNKER PARK 350.00
84759 04846 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 279.28
84760 03553 FLOOR EXTRACTOR 9,962.25
84761 00809 POLICE OFFICER - MCC WEDDING 7/2 262.50
84762 04900 BRIDE PAID FOR CEILING DRAPING MCC 600.00
84763 02336 FITNESS CONSULTANT SRVS 2ND QTR 1,500.00
84764 04038 CLEANING OF MCC AIRHANDLERS UNITS 14,748.75
84765 00986 MONTHLY SAC - JUNE 8,830.80
84766 00901 REGISTRATION FEES 450.00
84767 04793 PRIZE FOR WORK ON WELLNESS 60.00
84768 02175 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 5/31 - 6/30 43.35
84769 00001 REFUND DRESLER HP BENEFIT 140.00
84770 00001 REFUND FINKELSON HP BENEFIT 60.00
84771 00001 REFUND J FROEMMING BCBS BENEFIT 20.00
84772 00001 REFUND S JACOBS BCBS BENEFIT 20.00
84773 00396 SRVS (CJDN) PROVIDED TO PD-2ND QTR 1,920.00
84774 01931 RIDE TICKETS FOR DAY CAMP 250.00
84775 04221 MDSE FOR RESALE 177.60
04221 MDSE FOR RESALE 89.80
84776 04090 MAINT & RENEWAL DELL/EQUALLOGIC 3,510.00
84777 03879 EMS FEES - JULY 577.08
84778 01836 RECORD MGMT SOFTWARE FEE - JULY 3,798.00
01836 A/C ASPHALT - JUNE 135.33
84779 01578 POP UP SCRIM TOWELS 380.47
01578 SAFETY GLOVES 199.40
84780 04528 ZUMBA INSTRUCTION - JUNE 107.50
84781 02526 PROJ 05-29 FINAL PAYMENT 5,201.01
Check Register
City of Maplewood
07/15/2011
Date Vendor
07/19/2011 MARY JOSEPHINE ANDERSON
07/19/2011 MES - MIDAM
07/19/2011 MES - MIDAM
07/19/2011 MARIA PIRELA
07/19/2011 THE EDGE MARTIAL ARTS
07/19/2011 ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC
07/19/2011 GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA
07/19/2011 S.E.H.
07/19/2011 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
07/19/2011 THE WATSON CO INC
07/19/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV
07/19/2011 S.E.H.
07/19/2011 S.E.H.
07/19/2011 YOCUM OIL CO.
07/19/2011 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
07/19/2011 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
07/19/2011 THE WATSON CO INC
07/19/2011 XCEL ENERGY
07/19/2011 YOCUM OIL CO.
07/19/2011 CARDINAL HOMEBUILDERS INC
07/19/2011 HEATHER JEAN DAYTON
07/19/2011 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS
07/19/2011 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
07/19/2011 APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
07/19/2011 BUNKER PARK STABLE
07/19/2011 HEALTHEAST
07/19/2011 HILLYARD / MINNEAPOLIS
07/19/2011 TOMMY KONG
07/19/2011 EMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC
07/19/2011 EMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC
07/19/2011 FIRST STUDENT INC
07/19/2011 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
07/19/2011 MN GFOA
07/19/2011 LYNN K. MUNSON
07/19/2011 LASTING IMPRESSIONS BY AMY LLC
07/19/2011 M A TAYLOR INC
07/19/2011 METRO-CLEANING SERVICES, INC.
07/19/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/19/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/19/2011 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
07/19/2011 AMY NIVEN
07/19/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/19/2011 ONE TIME VENDOR
07/19/2011 RONSBERG TECH. PARTNERS, INC.
07/19/2011 SANSIO
07/19/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL
07/19/2011 RAMSEY COUNTY FAIR
07/19/2011 RANDY'S MEATS & GOOD STUFF
07/19/2011 RANDY'S MEATS & GOOD STUFF
07/19/2011 SARA M. R. THOMPSON
07/19/2011 UNITED STATES TREASURY
132,333.0542Checks in this report.
07/19/2011 CITY OF ST PAUL
07/19/2011 T R F SUPPLY CO.
07/19/2011 T R F SUPPLY CO.
Packet Page Number 24 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee Description Amount
7/6/2011 7/11/2011 P.E.R.A.P.E.R.A.87,005.10
7/6/2011 7/11/2011 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax 97,644.68
7/8/2011 7/11/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 15,990.90
7/6/2011 7/12/2011 Labor Unions Union Dues 1,843.00
7/6/2011 7/12/2011 MidAmerica - ING HRA Flex plan 15,221.58
7/6/2011 7/12/2011 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 21,028.98
7/11/2011 7/12/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 16,784.85
7/12/2011 7/13/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 23,488.02
7/13/2011 7/14/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 15,075.39
7/6/2011 7/15/2011 Optum Health DCRP & Flex plan payments 1,890.57
7/13/2011 7/15/2011 MN Dept of Revenue MN Care Tax 5,581.00
7/13/2011 7/15/2011 VANCO Billing fee 121.75
7/14/2011 7/15/2011 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 15,568.00
TOTAL 317,243.82
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Packet Page Number 25 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
CHECK #CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME
07/08/11 COFFEY, KEVIN 3,092.21
07/08/11 BOHL, JOHN 3,242.23
07/08/11 BUSACK, DANIEL 3,573.61
07/08/11 BENJAMIN, MARKESE 2,811.46
07/08/11 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 3,759.49
07/08/11 BARTZ, PAUL 3,356.94
07/08/11 BELDE, STANLEY 2,954.18
07/08/11 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,472.17
07/08/11 BAKKE, LONN 2,954.61
07/08/11 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,882.15
07/08/11 ABEL, CLINT 3,001.43
07/08/11 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 2,081.79
07/08/11 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,936.26
07/08/11 PALANK, MARY 1,886.77
07/08/11 POWELL, PHILIP 2,903.66
07/08/11 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,882.15
07/08/11 KVAM, DAVID 4,188.29
07/08/11 WEAVER, KRISTINE 2,288.55
07/08/11 JAGOE, CAROL 180.00
07/08/11 RICHTER, CHARLENE 889.77
07/08/11 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH 1,178.18
07/08/11 MOY, PAMELA 1,467.69
07/08/11 OSTER, ANDREA 1,886.77
07/08/11 LARSON, MICHELLE 1,758.15
07/08/11 MECHELKE, SHERRIE 1,107.69
07/08/11 SPANGLER, EDNA 1,086.09
07/08/11 CORTESI, LUANNE 1,143.86
07/08/11 NEPHEW, MICHELLE 1,630.15
07/08/11 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 2,719.20
07/08/11 CAREY, HEIDI 2,005.19
07/08/11 GUILFOILE, KAREN 4,376.43
07/08/11 RUEB, JOSEPH 2,493.80
07/08/11 ARNOLD, AJLA 889.77
07/08/11 JACKSON, MARY 2,131.97
07/08/11 KELSEY, CONNIE 2,569.23
07/08/11 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,173.29
07/08/11 DEBILZAN, JUDY 1,270.58
07/08/11 BAUMAN, GAYLE 4,214.97
07/08/11 FORMANEK, KAREN 1,849.37
07/08/11 KARIS, DYLAN 858.00
07/08/11 RAMEAUX, THERESE 3,223.77
07/08/11 FARR, LARRY 2,885.65
07/08/11 JAHN, DAVID 1,840.37
07/08/11 KANTRUD, HUGH 184.62
07/08/11 CHRISTENSON, SCOTT 2,126.11
07/08/11 ANTONEN, JAMES 5,800.00
07/08/11 BURLINGAME, SARAH 1,954.40
07/08/11 STRAUTMANIS, MARIS 202.00
07/08/11 AHL, R. CHARLES 5,358.72
07/08/11 NEPHEW, JOHN 416.42
07/08/11 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 473.15
07/08/11 KOPPEN, MARVIN 416.42
07/08/11 LLANAS, JAMES 416.42
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
AMOUNT
07/08/11 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 416.42
Packet Page Number 26 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
07/08/11 JONES, JONATHAN 360.00
07/08/11 IMM, TRACY 309.00
07/08/11 JOHNSON, JAMES 78.00
07/08/11 HENDRICKSON, NICHOLAS 2,236.38
07/08/11 HUTCHINSON, JAMES 196.00
07/08/11 HALE, JOSEPH 567.00
07/08/11 HALWEG, JODI 2,682.93
07/08/11 EVERSON, PAUL 2,957.23
07/08/11 FOSSUM, ANDREW 2,575.55
07/08/11 DAWSON, RICHARD 2,648.38
07/08/11 DIERICH, REBECCA 126.00
07/08/11 CAPISTRANT, JOHN 588.00
07/08/11 CRAWFORD, RAYMOND 342.00
07/08/11 BRESIN, ROBERT 120.00
07/08/11 CAPISTRANT, JACOB 339.00
07/08/11 BOURQUIN, RON 240.00
07/08/11 BRADBURY, RYAN 60.00
07/08/11 BAUMAN, ANDREW 2,575.55
07/08/11 BECK, YANCEY 30.00
07/08/11 BAHL, DAVID 364.00
07/08/11 BASSETT, BRENT 336.00
07/08/11 ACOSTA, MARK 144.00
07/08/11 ARKSEY, CHARLES 96.00
07/08/11 WENZEL, JAY 3,092.21
07/08/11 XIONG, KAO 2,842.94
07/08/11 THIENES, PAUL 4,044.43
07/08/11 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,955.28
07/08/11 TAUZELL, BRIAN 2,646.38
07/08/11 THEISEN, PAUL 3,223.07
07/08/11 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 2,785.00
07/08/11 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 3,035.97
07/08/11 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 4,060.51
07/08/11 STEINER, JOSEPH 3,298.60
07/08/11 REZNY, BRADLEY 3,508.94
07/08/11 RHUDE, MATTHEW 2,798.01
07/08/11 OLSON, JULIE 3,115.21
07/08/11 PARKER, JAMES 1,895.18
07/08/11 METRY, ALESIA 3,971.11
07/08/11 NYE, MICHAEL 3,240.82
07/08/11 MARTIN, JERROLD 3,031.75
07/08/11 MCCARTY, GLEN 3,139.76
07/08/11 LYNCH, KATHERINE 2,275.05
07/08/11 MARINO, JASON 3,314.90
07/08/11 LANGNER, TODD 3,187.98
07/08/11 LU, JOHNNIE 3,249.53
07/08/11 KROLL, BRETT 3,026.48
07/08/11 LANGNER, SCOTT 2,996.32
07/08/11 KONG, TOMMY 2,869.16
07/08/11 KREKELER, NICHOLAS 842.40
07/08/11 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,945.52
07/08/11 KALKA, THOMAS 913.08
07/08/11 HER, PHENG 2,885.75
07/08/11 HIEBERT, STEVEN 3,117.76
07/08/11 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 2,721.32
07/08/11 HAWKINSON JR, TIMOTHY 2,939.08
07/08/11 FRASER, JOHN 3,370.20
07/08/11 FRITZE, DEREK 3,195.88
07/08/11 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,574.41
07/08/11 FORSYTHE, MARCUS 1,947.18
07/08/11 DUGAS, MICHAEL 3,609.60
07/08/11 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 1,752.67
07/08/11 DEMULLING, JOSEPH 2,824.00
07/08/11 DOBLAR, RICHARD 3,886.81
07/08/11 CROTTY, KERRY 3,575.20
Packet Page Number 27 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
07/08/11 HELMER, JACOB 800.00
07/08/11 EDSON, DAVID 2,170.59
07/08/11 GUNDERSON, ANDREW 1,079.00
07/08/11 ZIEMAN, SCOTT 1,079.20
07/08/11 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 4,590.46
07/08/11 LOVE, STEVEN 3,281.23
07/08/11 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 4,228.27
07/08/11 KUMMER, STEVEN 3,354.65
07/08/11 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,713.97
07/08/11 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 3,011.37
07/08/11 KREGER, JASON 2,948.29
07/08/11 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 2,459.77
07/08/11 JACOBSON, SCOTT 2,413.60
07/08/11 BURLINGAME, NATHAN 2,006.40
07/08/11 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,713.98
07/08/11 SETNES, SAMUEL 1,120.00
07/08/11 TEVLIN, TODD 2,125.35
07/08/11 OSWALD, ERICK 2,627.35
07/08/11 RUNNING, ROBERT 2,726.84
07/08/11 MEISSNER, BRENT 1,940.15
07/08/11 NAGEL, BRYAN 3,408.40
07/08/11 HAMRE, MILES 1,440.00
07/08/11 JONES, DONALD 2,125.35
07/08/11 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 2,125.35
07/08/11 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,221.17
07/08/11 BRINK, TROY 2,392.51
07/08/11 BUCKLEY, BRENT 1,986.95
07/08/11 NIVEN, AMY 1,411.62
07/08/11 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,713.17
07/08/11 ZWIEG, SUSAN 2,377.76
07/08/11 KNUTSON, LOIS 1,996.56
07/08/11 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 3,867.86
07/08/11 LUKIN, STEVEN 4,475.33
07/08/11 SVENDSEN, RONALD 2,828.26
07/08/11 WHITE, JOEL 30.00
07/08/11 SEDLACEK, JEFFREY 2,648.38
07/08/11 STREFF, MICHAEL 2,609.20
07/08/11 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO 324.00
07/08/11 SCHULTZ, JEROME 192.00
07/08/11 REYNOSO, ANGEL 438.00
07/08/11 RICE, CHRISTOPHER 463.50
07/08/11 RAINEY, JAMES 336.00
07/08/11 RAVENWALD, CORINNE 576.00
07/08/11 PLACE, ANDREA 2,553.32
07/08/11 POWERS, KENNETH 447.00
07/08/11 PETERSON, MARK 700.00
07/08/11 PETERSON, ROBERT 2,796.53
07/08/11 OLSON, JAMES 2,575.55
07/08/11 PACHECO, ALPHONSE 222.00
07/08/11 NOVAK, JEROME 2,665.66
07/08/11 NOWICKI, PAUL 168.00
07/08/11 MORGAN, JEFFERY 338.00
07/08/11 NIELSEN, KENNETH 312.00
07/08/11 MILLER, NICHOLAS 222.00
07/08/11 MONDOR, MICHAEL 3,089.18
07/08/11 MELLEN, CHRISTOPHER 33.00
07/08/11 MELLEN, RICHARD 186.00
07/08/11 LINDER, TIMOTHY 2,445.63
07/08/11 LOCHEN, MICHAEL 580.00
07/08/11 KONDER, RONALD 150.00
07/08/11 KUBAT, ERIC 2,189.88
07/08/11 KARRAS, JAMIE 252.00
07/08/11 KERSKA, JOSEPH 264.00
07/08/11 KANE, ROBERT 511.00
Packet Page Number 28 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
07/08/11 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 573.15
07/08/11 ZIELINSKI, JUDY 53.90
07/08/11 AICHELE, MEGAN 326.80
07/08/11 VANG, KAY 408.38
07/08/11 VUE, LOR PAO 255.00
07/08/11 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 487.48
07/08/11 STARK, SUE 210.44
07/08/11 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 596.63
07/08/11 PENN, CHRISTINE 2,199.26
07/08/11 KULHANEK-DIONNE, ANN 398.25
07/08/11 OLSON, SANDRA 56.00
07/08/11 HOFMEISTER, MARY 1,047.43
07/08/11 HOFMEISTER, TIMOTHY 420.38
07/08/11 HANSEN, LORI 3,057.86
07/08/11 HER, PETER 357.20
07/08/11 GADOW, ANNA 171.66
07/08/11 GLASS, JEAN 2,103.67
07/08/11 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 571.84
07/08/11 EVANS, CHRISTINE 1,334.02
07/08/11 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,313.28
07/08/11 BRENEMAN, NEIL 1,527.70
07/08/11 KLOOZ, AUSTIN 920.00
07/08/11 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,914.49
07/08/11 GERMAIN, DAVID 2,134.60
07/08/11 HAAG, MARK 2,288.55
07/08/11 TURI, EMILY 376.00
07/08/11 ADAMS, DAVID 1,819.41
07/08/11 TAYLOR, JAMES 2,466.23
07/08/11 THOMFORDE, FAITH 959.65
07/08/11 RYCHLICKI, NICHOLE 403.75
07/08/11 SCHALLER, SCOTT 107.50
07/08/11 ROBBINS, AUDRA 2,847.74
07/08/11 ROBBINS, CAMDEN 38.75
07/08/11 GERMAIN, BRADY 280.00
07/08/11 JANASZAK, MEGHAN 1,220.00
07/08/11 BETHEL III, CHARLES 78.63
07/08/11 BJORK, BRANDON 880.00
07/08/11 WELLENS, MOLLY 1,693.35
07/08/11 BERGER, STEPHANIE 612.75
07/08/11 FISHER, DAVID 3,778.99
07/08/11 SWAN, DAVID 2,738.95
07/08/11 BRASH, JASON 2,259.75
07/08/11 CARVER, NICHOLAS 3,211.95
07/08/11 FINWALL, SHANN 3,202.15
07/08/11 MARTIN, MICHAEL 2,606.15
07/08/11 THOMPSON, DEBRA 752.86
07/08/11 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,800.52
07/08/11 OLSON, ERICA 1,009.38
07/08/11 SINDT, ANDREA 2,013.80
07/08/11 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 3,211.95
07/08/11 KROLL, LISA 1,759.67
07/08/11 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 878.06
07/08/11 WACHAL, KAREN 854.68
07/08/11 HAYMAN, JANET 945.51
07/08/11 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,622.79
07/08/11 DEAVER, CHARLES 625.96
07/08/11 GERNES, CAROLE 567.02
07/08/11 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 2,129.97
07/08/11 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,309.52
07/08/11 NAUGHTON, TYLER 825.00
07/08/11 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,127.66
07/08/11 MARUSKA, MARK 3,183.11
07/08/11 NAUGHTON, JOHN 2,125.35
07/08/11 HINNENKAMP, GARY 2,138.46
Packet Page Number 29 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
07/08/11 BEHAN, JAMES 2,055.37
07/08/11 DANIEL, BREANNA 398.50
07/08/11 ZAGER, LINNEA 103.50
07/08/11 WOLFGRAM, TERESA 380.00
07/08/11 BOSLEY, CAROL 212.50
07/08/11 WILLIAMS, KRISTINE 66.00
07/08/11 WOLFGRAM, MARY 122.70
07/08/11 WARNER, CAROLYN 396.00
07/08/11 WEEVER, NAOMI 90.63
07/08/11 TUPY, HEIDE 45.80
07/08/11 TUPY, MARCUS 261.25
07/08/11 THORWICK, MEGAN 29.40
07/08/11 TREPANIER, TODD 538.00
07/08/11 SMITH, ANN 182.70
07/08/11 SMITLEY, SHARON 336.70
07/08/11 SKAAR, SAMANTHA 70.00
07/08/11 SKUNES, KELLY 539.35
07/08/11 SCHUNEMAN, GREGORY 594.58
07/08/11 SJERVEN, BRENDA 18.00
07/08/11 SCHREINER, MARK 24.90
07/08/11 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 244.40
07/08/11 RONNING, ZACCEUS 49.28
07/08/11 SCHREIER, ROSEMARIE 148.00
07/08/11 RICHTER, DANIEL 75.60
07/08/11 RONNING, ISAIAH 277.45
07/08/11 QUANT, JENNA 14.40
07/08/11 RESENDIZ, LORI 2,129.22
07/08/11 NADEAU, KELLY 395.51
07/08/11 PROESCH, ANDY 945.83
07/08/11 MCCANN, NATALIE 152.00
07/08/11 MCCORMACK, MELISSA 119.44
07/08/11 LAMEYER, ZACHARY 332.96
07/08/11 LAMSON, ELIANA 72.00
07/08/11 KOLLER, NINA 572.60
07/08/11 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 934.39
07/08/11 JOYER, JENNA 72.90
07/08/11 KOHLER, ROCHELLE 36.00
07/08/11 JOHNSON, JAMES 58.00
07/08/11 JOYER, ANTHONY 74.00
07/08/11 HORWATH, RONALD 2,589.01
07/08/11 JOHNSON, BARBARA 151.55
07/08/11 HEINRICH, SHEILA 554.00
07/08/11 HOLMBERG, LADONNA 515.50
07/08/11 HAGSTROM, EMILY 60.30
07/08/11 HANSEN, HANNAH 320.13
07/08/11 GRAY, MEGAN 223.64
07/08/11 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 473.73
07/08/11 FONTAINE, KIM 497.25
07/08/11 GIPPLE, TRISHA 419.63
07/08/11 ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL 49.00
07/08/11 FLACKEY, MAUREEN 267.38
07/08/11 DUNN, RYAN 1,059.18
07/08/11 EKSTRAND, DANIEL 192.94
07/08/11 CRANDALL, KRISTA 307.57
07/08/11 DEMPSEY, BETH 176.75
07/08/11 BUTLER, ANGELA 34.00
07/08/11 CAMPBELL, JESSICA 297.82
07/08/11 BRUSOE, CRISTINA 67.80
07/08/11 BUCKLEY, BRITTANY 475.48
07/08/11 BIGGS, ANNETTE 107.20
07/08/11 BRUSOE, AMY 186.11
07/08/11 ANDERSON, MAXWELL 489.60
07/08/11 BAUDE, SARAH 18.25
07/08/11 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 519.65
Packet Page Number 30 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
9984545
9984546
9984547
9984548
9984549
9984550
9984551
9984552
9984553
9984554
9984555
9984556
9984557
9984558
9984559
9984560
9984561
9984562
9984563 07/08/11 STEFFEN, MICHAEL 87.00
517,149.67
07/08/11 SCHMIDT, EMILY 526.88
07/08/11 WEINHAGEN, SHELBY 423.81
07/08/11 NORTHOUSE, KATHERINE 27.19
07/08/11 ROSTRON, ROBERT 541.75
07/08/11 MCLAURIN, CHRISTOPHER 103.20
07/08/11 NADEAU, TAYLOR 418.68
07/08/11 FLUEGEL, LARISSA 232.96
07/08/11 HASSAN, KIANA 229.35
07/08/11 BAETZOLD, SETH 50.75
07/08/11 DIONNE, DANIELLE 129.58
07/08/11 MUELLNER, CHADD 247.50
07/08/11 VUKICH, CANDACE 37.50
07/08/11 MALLET, AMANDA 658.75
07/08/11 MARTIN, ARIELLE 346.50
07/08/11 ANDERSON, BRIAN 96.00
07/08/11 WYSE, ROBERT 48.00
07/08/11 HILL, DAVID 212.50
07/08/11 VALLE, EDWARD 182.50
07/08/11 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 3,669.86
07/08/11 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 2,601.28
07/08/11 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 2,183.27
07/08/11 BERGO, CHAD 2,651.63
07/08/11 AICHELE, CRAIG 2,191.91
07/08/11 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,390.15
07/08/11 XIONG, NAO 195.75
07/08/11 ZIELINSKI, JESSICA 87.00
07/08/11 THOMPSON, BENJAMIN 414.00
07/08/11 VANG, PETER 166.75
07/08/11 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,915.75
07/08/11 SCHULZE, KEVIN 420.00
07/08/11 MALONEY, SHAUNA 270.00
07/08/11 PRINS, KELLY 1,255.62
07/08/11 JOHNSON, JUSTIN 67.50
07/08/11 LONETTI, JAMES 480.00
07/08/11 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,320.90
07/08/11 FULFORD, ZAHKIYA 116.00
07/08/11 COLEMAN, PATRICK 120.00
Packet Page Number 31 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
Transaction Date Posting Date Merchant Name Transaction Amount Name
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $26.78 CLINT ABEL
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 $5.00 R CHARLES AHL
06/18/2011 06/20/2011 HILTON GARDEN INN $254.25 JAMES ANTONEN
06/18/2011 06/20/2011 HILTON GARDEN INN $119.17 JAMES ANTONEN
06/22/2011 06/22/2011 ICMA INTERNET $600.00 JAMES ANTONEN
06/21/2011 06/22/2011 SUPER ONE FOODS #50 $15.15 MANDY ANZALDI
06/23/2011 06/27/2011 MARSHALLS #0367 $19.25 MANDY ANZALDI
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 MY MYSTERY PARTY $16.99 MANDY ANZALDI
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 MY MYSTERY PARTY $101.85 MANDY ANZALDI
06/16/2011 06/20/2011 L A POLICE GEAR INC $90.80 PAUL BARTZ
06/18/2011 06/20/2011 BATTERIES PLUS #31 $26.02 PAUL BARTZ
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 TABLE TOTER, INC $99.17 JIM BEHAN
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $46.29 JIM BEHAN
06/21/2011 06/22/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $4.27 JIM BEHAN
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 MINVALCO INC $892.94 JIM BEHAN
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 BDI*BEARING DISTRIBUTR $90.52 JIM BEHAN
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $8.48 JIM BEHAN
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 THERMO DYNE INC $1,025.00 JIM BEHAN
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLE $540.00 JIM BEHAN
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 KEYMETRICSOFTWARE $55.00 CHAD BERGO
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 KEYLESS LOCK STORE $51.00 OAKLEY BIESANZ
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 USPS 26833800033400730 $28.16 OAKLEY BIESANZ
06/21/2011 06/22/2011 SPRINT-ROSEVILLE KIOSK $10.71 NATHAN BURLINGAME
06/25/2011 06/27/2011 AMAZON MKTPLACE PMTS $66.86 NATHAN BURLINGAME
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 ACTION IMPRINTS $616.60 DAN BUSACK
06/16/2011 06/20/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $117.71 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $131.38 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $17.60 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT.$555.75 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 VIKING ELEC-CREDIT DEPT.$230.85 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $396.81 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $2.76 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $5.27 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 OVERHEAD DOOR COMP $750.35 SCOTT CHRISTENSON
06/18/2011 06/20/2011 MENARDS 3022 $45.46 CHARLES DEAVER
06/20/2011 06/22/2011 RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY $81.36 CHARLES DEAVER
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 FRATTALLONES WOODBURY AC $2.45 CHARLES DEAVER
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 FRATTALLONES WOODBURY AC $6.41 CHARLES DEAVER
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY $34.98 CHARLES DEAVER
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER $612.76 THOMAS DEBILZAN
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT $12.80 THOMAS DEBILZAN
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 PANERA BREAD #1305 $17.96 RICHARD DOBLAR
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 NOODLES & CO 313 $9.69 RICHARD DOBLAR
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY $21.25 DOUG EDGE
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 $128.52 LARRY FARR
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 G&K SERVICES 182 $946.57 LARRY FARR
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 G&K SERVICES 182 $567.13 LARRY FARR
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 ELECTRO WATCHMAN INC $137.50 LARRY FARR
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 ELECTRO WATCHMAN INC $2,180.25 LARRY FARR
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE SERV $1,985.69 LARRY FARR
06/27/2011 06/29/2011 STAPLES 00118836 $257.10 LARRY FARR
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 A&K EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC $2,518.00 LARRY FARR
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 THE TRANE COMPANY $569.00 LARRY FARR
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 BEST BUY MHT 00000109 $632.03 LARRY FARR
Packet Page Number 32 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 LINDERS FLOWER MART $44.99 LARRY FARR
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 AQUA LOGICS INC $3,235.96 LARRY FARR
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 SYX*GLOBALINDUSTRIALEQ $438.48 LARRY FARR
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 RUTTGERS SUGAR LAKE L $125.00 DAVID FISHER
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 WM EZPAY $396.64 DAVID FISHER
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 WM EZPAY $414.15 DAVID FISHER
06/25/2011 06/27/2011 CURTIS 1000 INC.$50.41 KAREN FORMANEK
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 CURTIS 1000 INC.$50.41 KAREN FORMANEK
06/21/2011 06/21/2011 COMCAST CABLE COMM $54.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 QWESTCOMM*TN651 $75.95 MYCHAL FOWLDS
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 CUSTOMER SUPT CENTER $898.82 MYCHAL FOWLDS
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 VERIPIC $4,433.20 MYCHAL FOWLDS
06/21/2011 06/21/2011 HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR $985.55 NICK FRANZEN
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 DRI*STELLAR*PHOENIX*SW $106.05 NICK FRANZEN
06/25/2011 06/27/2011 IDU*PUBLIC SECTOR $654.45 NICK FRANZEN
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 BEST BUY MHT 00000109 $711.36 NICK FRANZEN
07/01/2011 07/01/2011 HP DIRECT-PUBLICSECTOR $2,467.85 NICK FRANZEN
06/18/2011 06/20/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $116.99 JOHN FRASER
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 U OF M CCE NONCREDIT $15.00 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 BAT CONSERVATION INTL $30.00 CAROLE GERNES
06/26/2011 06/28/2011 SPRINT STORE #226 $42.84 CLARENCE GERVAIS
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 CENTURY COLLEGE-BO $1,450.00 CLARENCE GERVAIS
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 CENTURY COLLEGE-BO $345.00 CLARENCE GERVAIS
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $26.60 CLARENCE GERVAIS
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $14.37 JEAN GLASS
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 HEALTHWAYS HEALTH SUPPORT $160.69 JEAN GLASS
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 LINDERS FLOWER MART $16.60 MILES HAMRE
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 LINDERS FLOWER MART $24.10 MILES HAMRE
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 LINDERS FLOWER MART $34.28 MILES HAMRE
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 LINDERS FLOWER MART $21.53 MILES HAMRE
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $4.05 MILES HAMRE
06/22/2011 06/22/2011 SPRINT WIRELESS $214.24 PHENG HER
06/16/2011 06/20/2011 INSTANTWHIP FOODS, INC $293.00 RON HORWATH
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 ARAMARK MINNEAPOLIS OCS $1,299.37 RON HORWATH
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $21.37 RON HORWATH
06/18/2011 06/20/2011 WI SHS MADELINE ISLAND $22.16 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/23/2011 06/27/2011 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE $6.16 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 PAYPAL *SHOPATRONIN $52.14 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/25/2011 06/27/2011 PETSMART INC 461 $11.77 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 PAYPAL *RAHUSINSTIT $1,740.00 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 PAYPAL *PERSONSHELP $205.75 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 BLUE SUN PRINTS $283.16 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 PAYPAL *RAHUSINSTIT ($1,740.00)ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 PAYPAL *POWERENZ $108.32 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 KOTULAS CATALOG $107.07 ANN E HUTCHINSON
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $11.83 DAVID JAHN
06/19/2011 06/21/2011 MILLS FLEET FARM #2,700 $144.46 KEVIN JOHNSON
07/01/2011 07/01/2011 COMCAST CABLE COMM $143.76 DUWAYNE KONEWKO
06/20/2011 06/27/2011 MILLS FLEET FARM #2,700 ($19.27)NICHOLAS KREKELER
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $124.18 LISA KROLL
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 SCRANTON GILLETTE COMM $175.00 LISA KROLL
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPE $2,028.51 LISA KROLL
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 ULTRA MAX $781.00 DAVID KVAM
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 SPECIALIZED ARMAMENT WARE $800.00 DAVID KVAM
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 CLASSIC COLLISION CTR $2,271.27 DAVID KVAM
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 STREICHERS INC $137.84 DAVID KVAM
Packet Page Number 33 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 ULTRA MAX ($781.00)DAVID KVAM
06/21/2011 06/22/2011 SIGNALSCAPE INC $1,000.00 DAVID KVAM
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 STILLWATER VETERINARY $565.43 DAVID KVAM
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 THE GRAFIX SHOPPE $80.16 DAVID KVAM
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 CLASSIC COLLISION CTR $688.00 DAVID KVAM
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 THE GRAFIX SHOPPE $133.59 DAVID KVAM
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 SPRINT STORE #226 $29.98 DAVID KVAM
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 GOOGLE *XMT LOCOCITATO $41.21 DAVID KVAM
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 MENARDS 3059 $8.55 MICHAEL LOCHEN
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$130.00 STEVE LUKIN
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 ASPEN MILLS INC.$265.15 STEVE LUKIN
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL $207.25 STEVE LUKIN
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL $137.85 STEVE LUKIN
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 ATTM*878423931 NBI $115.84 STEVE LUKIN
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 JOANN ETC #1970 $8.66 STEVE LUKIN
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 OFFICE MAX $435.37 STEVE LUKIN
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 MENARDS 3059 $12.28 STEVE LUKIN
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 FEDEX OFFICE #0617 $325.16 STEVE LUKIN
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 MENARDS 3059 $5.35 STEVE LUKIN
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 FEDEX OFFICE #0617 $9.16 STEVE LUKIN
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 METRO FIRE $609.23 STEVE LUKIN
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 $12.48 STEVE LUKIN
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 OVERHEAD DOOR COMP $1,355.31 STEVE LUKIN
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE $235.20 STEVE LUKIN
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $24.54 JERROLD MARTIN
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 MILLS FLEET FARM #2,700 $9.98 JERROLD MARTIN
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 VICTORY PARKING INC $6.00 MIKE MARTIN
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT $202.42 MARK MARUSKA
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 TRUGREEN # 5635 $622.04 MARK MARUSKA
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 TRUGREEN # 5635 $240.76 MARK MARUSKA
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 VALLEY CREEK EXPRESS INC $1,836.00 MARK MARUSKA
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 VALLEY CREEK EXPRESS INC $972.00 MARK MARUSKA
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 $85.69 MARK MARUSKA
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $32.43 MARK MARUSKA
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $44.91 MARK MARUSKA
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION $4,903.02 MARK MARUSKA
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 THE SALVATION ARMY 11 $38.65 ALESIA METRY
06/21/2011 06/22/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $1,727.66 MICHAEL MONDOR
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 PRIMARY PRODUCTS COMPANY $341.40 MICHAEL MONDOR
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $86.30 MICHAEL MONDOR
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 BECKER FIRE AND SAFETY SV $203.01 MICHAEL MONDOR
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 OFFICE MAX $38.40 MICHAEL MONDOR
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 GERMAN LEATHER AND SHOE $48.00 MICHAEL MONDOR
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $831.46 MICHAEL MONDOR
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 THE MERRI ARTIST INC $50.00 SHELLY NEPHEW
06/26/2011 06/27/2011 BATTERIES PLUS #31 $66.69 MICHAEL NYE
06/16/2011 06/20/2011 TARGET 00021352 $16.58 MARY KAY PALANK
06/16/2011 06/20/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $15.27 MARY KAY PALANK
06/16/2011 06/20/2011 OFFICE DEPOT #1079 $9.48 MARY KAY PALANK
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 BROADWAY RENTAL $203.00 CHRISTINE PENN
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 CANDYWAREHOUSE.COM, INC.$122.66 CHRISTINE PENN
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 CASES BY SOURCE SOURCE PA $66.39 PHILIP F POWELL
06/20/2011 06/22/2011 ALL-SPEC STATIC CONTROL $79.20 PHILIP F POWELL
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 BATTERIES PLUS #31 $10.03 PHILIP F POWELL
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $28.68 PHILIP F POWELL
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 OVR*OVERSTOCK.COM $39.94 PHILIP F POWELL
Packet Page Number 34 of 206
S:\FINANCE\APPROVAL OF CLAIMS\2011\AprClms 7-08-11 and 7-15-11
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 ADORAMA INC $851.06 PHILIP F POWELL
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 EFOAMSTORE $26.42 PHILIP F POWELL
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $102.15 STEVEN PRIEM
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 PERFORMANCE TRANSMI $123.56 STEVEN PRIEM
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $329.54 STEVEN PRIEM
06/20/2011 06/22/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $338.45 STEVEN PRIEM
06/21/2011 06/22/2011 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS $478.80 STEVEN PRIEM
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 BOYER TRUCK PARTS ($71.74)STEVEN PRIEM
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $30.10 STEVEN PRIEM
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $35.82 STEVEN PRIEM
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 TRI-STATE BOBCAT INC.$360.33 STEVEN PRIEM
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $95.69 STEVEN PRIEM
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $96.09 STEVEN PRIEM
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $8.98 STEVEN PRIEM
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $395.04 STEVEN PRIEM
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 BAUER BUILT TIRE 18 $753.34 STEVEN PRIEM
06/23/2011 06/27/2011 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP-MN $128.53 STEVEN PRIEM
06/27/2011 06/28/2011 POLAR CHEVROLET MAZDA PAR $90.43 STEVEN PRIEM
06/27/2011 06/29/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $185.50 STEVEN PRIEM
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $105.26 STEVEN PRIEM
06/28/2011 06/29/2011 ZIEGLER INC COLUMBUS $272.53 STEVEN PRIEM
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920 $47.00 STEVEN PRIEM
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $241.66 STEVEN PRIEM
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $12.44 STEVEN PRIEM
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $6.68 STEVEN PRIEM
06/29/2011 06/30/2011 JOHN FRYE DISTRIBUTING $95.06 STEVEN PRIEM
06/29/2011 07/01/2011 TOUSLEY FORD I27228006 $26.06 STEVEN PRIEM
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $11.53 STEVEN PRIEM
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 AUTO PLUS NO ST PAUL $27.08 STEVEN PRIEM
06/22/2011 06/23/2011 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $638.72 MICHAEL REILLY
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $1,117.08 MICHAEL REILLY
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 TARGET 00011858 $13.79 AUDRA ROBBINS
06/23/2011 06/27/2011 STARS & STRIKES ENTERT $681.35 AUDRA ROBBINS
06/23/2011 06/27/2011 MICHAELS #2744 $40.58 AUDRA ROBBINS
06/25/2011 06/27/2011 MAD SCIENCE OF MINNESOTA $220.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
06/27/2011 06/29/2011 ST. PAUL SAINTS $55.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 MIDWEST FENCE $27.32 ROBERT RUNNING
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 IIMC $75.00 DEB SCHMIDT
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO $159.71 SCOTT SCHULTZ
06/28/2011 06/30/2011 USA MOBILITY WIRELE $16.07 SCOTT SCHULTZ
06/20/2011 06/21/2011 PAYPAL *LOCKCODEPTY $20.00 MICHAEL SHORTREED
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 GALT HOUSE HOTEL $327.78 MICHAEL SHORTREED
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 MINNESOTACO $40.90 MICHAEL SHORTREED
06/22/2011 06/24/2011 OUTBACK #2412 $30.00 ANDREA SINDT
06/23/2011 06/24/2011 JAKE'S CITY GRILLE - M $30.00 ANDREA SINDT
06/24/2011 06/27/2011 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $30.68 JOSEPH STEINER
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 METRO SALES INC $616.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN
06/21/2011 06/23/2011 ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM $50.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES530 $20.35 RONALD SVENDSEN
06/17/2011 06/20/2011 MENARDS 3059 $11.56 RONALD SVENDSEN
06/30/2011 07/01/2011 MOGREN TURF LLP $16.60 TODD TEVLIN
06/27/2011 06/29/2011 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $398.00 SUSAN ZWIEG
TOTAL $72,926.74
Packet Page Number 35 of 206
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Developer Agreement, Cottagewood 2nd Developer, City Project
11-05,
DATE: July 15, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider approving the developer agreement and the corresponding maintenance
agreement for the Cottagewood 2nd Developer, City Project 11-05, which directly relates to the final
completion of private improvements associated with the Cottagewood Private Development off of
Highwood Avenue.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
As part of the approved Cottagewood Private Development, City Project 06-08 the City Council
approved the city to enter into a developer agreement and a storm water maintenance agreement with
Lauren & Company, L.L.C. on September 25, 2006. The private development was substantially
completed, however several items currently remain unfinished and no homes were constructed by
Lauren & Company, L.L.C.
A new developer has purchased the land with the intent to complete the development. Drafts of both
the new developer agreement and corresponding maintenance agreement have been prepared by the
city and are attached for reference. The agreements define the responsibilities of both the city and
developer in moving forward with the completion of the Cottagewood Private Development. Copies of
both agreements have been provided to the developer and his legal counsel.
It is important to note that the new developer, Thomas Wiener, is picking up exactly where the previous
developer left off, finishing the few remaining items such as grading corrections, landscaping, and final
paving. The developer agreement provides assurances that the private developer will complete the
necessary improvements as defined by the developer agreement through financial guarantees
including the posting of a $44,500.00 cash escrow. Furthermore special conditions as previously
outlined by the city council are attached to the developer agreement and are also secured by the
posting of the escrow.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the council approve the developer agreement and corresponding maintenance
agreement and authorize the mayor and city manager to sign the agreements signifying council
approval. Minor changes to the agreements can be made by the city attorney. It is also recommended
that the council authorize the city engineer to have the agreements recorded as deemed necessary.
Attachments:
1. Developer Agreement
2. Maintenance Agreement
3. Location Map
Agenda Item G2
Packet Page Number 36 of 206
148489.2
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Contract for Residential Development
Cottagewood
City Projects 06-08, 06-10 & 11-05
THIS AGREEMENT (herein called the “AGREEMENT”), made this _____ day of_________,
2011, between the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, acting by and through its mayor and city manager,
herein called the CITY and Cottagewoods I, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company herein called
the DEVELOPER.
IN CONSIDERATION of the following mutual agreements and covenants, the parties hereby
agree as follows:
1. In consideration of the CITY approving and accepting the completion of the original
improvements constructed in 2006 as part of City Projects 06-08, 06-10 (the
“DEVELOPMENT”) and outlined in the “Development Agreement for Cottagewood” dated
October 13, 2006, the DEVELOPER and CITY agree to abide by the stipulations and
requirements specified by this AGREEMENT and as outlined in the Special Conditions,
Plans and Specifications attached to this AGREEMENT.
2. The DEVELOPER agrees to complete those improvements which are not currently
completed and which are specifically outlined in the Special Conditions, Plans and
Specifications attached to this AGREEMENT.
3. The DEVELOPER agrees that all internal improvements shall be considered private
utilities and/or improvements and shall be maintained by the DEVELOPER until the
DEVELOPER conveys the private utilities and/or improvements to the home owner’s
association (“ASSOCIATION”), at which point the ASSOCIATION shall maintain the private
utilities and/or improvements.
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 37 of 206
148489.2
2
4. The DEVELOPER agrees to pay for all costs associated with cleaning, televising,
conducting any necessary repairs or inspections on site utilities and/or improvements and
shall ensure that all improvements are in an operating condition acceptable to the CITY.
5. The ASSOCIATION agrees to execute a maintenance agreement establishing the
maintenance requirements and responsibilities for the infiltration trenches, sump
structures, rain gardens and ponds. The DEVELOPER agrees to include all stipulations of
the maintenance agreement within the Homeowner’s Association documents.
6. The DEVELOPER shall post a cash escrow for the remaining site improvements as
outlined under Term 8 of this AGREEMENT. If the surety is in the form of a letter of credit,
the letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit (from a
financial institution approved by the City Attorney) in the name of the City of Maplewood,
payable on demand, to assure compliance with the terms of the developer’s agreement.
The letter of credit shall be of a one-year duration and must have a condition indicating
automatic renewal, with notification to the CITY of minimum of 60 days prior to its
expiration. The letter of credit shall be bonded and/or insured in the event of closure of the
financial institution from which the letter credit is drawn.
7. The DEVELOPER shall reimburse, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2(a),
any direct costs incurred by the CITY for all engineering, legal and administrative services,
associated with the project. A $1,000 non-refundable cash escrow shall be established for
these services. Any additional costs above the original escrow will be billed to the
DEVELOPER.
8. The DEVELOPER shall furnish the CITY with a site escrow in the amount of $44,500 to
cover the proposed bituminous wear paving, landscaping and remaining site grading and
erosion control costs. It is understood that funds so deposited or so committed shall
guarantee all cost of the work herein specified including, but not limited to, grading, erosion
control, turf establishment, pavement of bituminous wearing course, and CITY engineering
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 38 of 206
148489.2
3
and utility expenses, whether such costs are equal to or more than the estimated cost as
indicated in the Special Conditions.
9. The CITY agrees to grant a reduction in site escrow guarantee or letter of credit, pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 2(a), after written request by the DEVELOPER based on
the value of the completed improvements as mentioned in Term 8 and any outstanding
service fees at the time of the requested reduction. The amount of the reduction will be
determined by the City Engineer or his designee. The CITY reserves the right to hold the
escrow for a period of one year from the time of final acceptance of the project for the
purposes of guaranteeing work performed by the DEVELOPER.
10. The DEVELOPER shall furnish all professional services for the project including but not
limited to:
a. Preparation of any additional plans and specifications necessary to complete the
DEVELOPMENT prepared by an appropriately licensed professional.
b. Construction supervision, staking and surveying.
c. Preparation of a full set of 11x17 reproducible and PDF format plans and digital
base drawing files to be submitted to the CITY as record/as-built plans. Said as-
built plans, approved by the City Engineer, shall be submitted within 120 days of
final acceptance of the DEVELOPMENT/project improvements to the CITY.
11. No work shall be performed within the public rights-of-way unless a CITY inspector has
been notified 48 hours prior to the start of construction activity or is present on site. The
CITY will not exercise direct supervision and inspection for private construction activities.
The City Engineer or the City Engineer's representative will make periodic inspection of
work and may require certain tests to be made, which in the sole judgment of the City
engineer are necessary to assure compliance with CITY Standards and the Plans and
Specifications. The CITY will work with the DEVELOPER or a representative of the
DEVELOPER concerning engineering and construction matters.
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 39 of 206
148489.2
4
12. The DEVELOPER agrees that the work that it is required to perform under this
AGREEMENT shall be done and performed in the best and most workmanlike manner;
and all materials and labor shall be in strict conformity with respect to the approved Plans
and Specifications and improvement standards of the CITY, and shall be subject to the
inspection and approval of the CITY or a duly authorized engineer of the CITY; and in case
any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the CITY or engineer, as defective or
unsuitable, based upon the standards specified in the CITY’s plans, specifications and
standards for the DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPER shall promptly correct such labor and/or
material by bringing it within compliance with said standards.
13. After completion of all the work required, the City Engineer or the City Engineer's
designated representative and the DEVELOPER or a representative of the DEVELOPER
will make a final inspection of the work. Before final acceptance of project improvements is
made, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in
accordance with the approved Plans and Specifications; and the DEVELOPER or
DEVELOPER’s representative shall submit a written statement attesting to same.
14. It is further agreed anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, that the City of
Maplewood City Council and its agents or employees shall not be personally liable or
responsible in any manner to the DEVELOPER, the DEVELOPER's contractor or
subcontractor, material suppliers, laborers or to any other person or persons whomsoever,
for any claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character
arising out of or by reason of the obligations of this AGREEMENT or the performance and
completion of the work or the improvements provided herein. The DEVELOPER will hold
the CITY harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, actions or causes or actions
arising out of or by reason of the DEVELOPER’s obligations under this AGREEMENT or
the performance and completion of the work or the improvements by DEVELOPER herein,
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 40 of 206
5
148489.2
provided they are a direct result of the acts or omissions of DEVELOPER and not the
result of any act or omission of the CITY.
15. The DEVELOPER will furnish the CITY proof of insurance in the amount as required by the
approved specifications covering any public liability or property damage by reason of the
operation of the DEVELOPER's equipment, laborers, and hazard caused by said
improvement and add the CITY as an additional insured.
16. The CITY shall provide notice to DEVELOPER any claim of breach, specifying the cure
required and providing a period of thirty (30) days within which DEVELOPER may cure the
breach. Breach of any terms of this AGREEMENT by the DEVELOPER shall be grounds
for denial of building or occupancy permits for buildings within the addition until such
breach is corrected by the DEVELOPER.
17. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this AGREEMENT shall be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the
remaining provisions contained herein and any other application thereof shall not in any
way be affected or impaired thereby.
18. The terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT shall be binding on the parties hereto, their
respective successors and assigns and the benefits and burdens shall run with the land
and may be recorded against the title to the property. The terms and conditions of this
AGREEMENT and the Special Conditions, Plans and Specifications attached hereto,
constitute the entire agreement by and between the parties and may not be modified
except in a writing signed by both of the parties.
19. Notices. Whenever it shall be required or permitted by this AGREEMENT that notice or
demand be given or served by either party to or on the other party, such notice or demand
shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses hereinafter
set forth by certified mail. Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely give when
delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 41 of 206
6
148489.2
addresses of the parties hereto for such mail purposes are as follows, until written notices
of such address has been given.
As to the CITY: City Engineer
City of Maplewood
1902 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
As to the DEVELOPER: Cottagewoods I, LLC
533 Hayward Ave North
Suite 100
Oakdale, MN 55128
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 42 of 206
148489.2
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and DEVELOPER have caused this AGREEMENT
to be duly executed on the day and year first above written.
SIGNATURE - COTTAGEWOODS I, LLC
By: ____________________________
Its: ___________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________________,
2011, by ______________________________, the _____________________________ of
Cottagewoods I, LLC on behalf of the company.
___________________________________
Notary Public
SIGNATURE - CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
By: ______________________________
Its: Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _______________,
2011, by __________________, the Mayor of the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 43 of 206
148489.2
8
SIGNATURE - CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
By: ______________________________
Its: City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of________________,
2011, by ___________________, the City Manager of the City of Maplewood, a municipal
corporation.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 44 of 206
148489.2
9
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
FOR
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
1. Subdivision Information:
a. Plate Name: Cottagewood
b. Developer: Cottagewoods I, LLC
c. Engineer: Auth Consulting Associates
d. Financial Guarantee:
(1) Type: Cash Escrow – Engineering Services
Amount: $1,000
(2) Type: Cash Escrow or Letter of Credit
Amount : 125% of the construction cost of Bituminous Wear Paving,
Landscaping remaining site grading and erosion control.
2. Scope of work contemplated under the terms of this contract and covered by
escrow guarantee are outlined in the conditions of development approval from
the August 28, 2006 city council meeting as follows:
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans for 18 15 detached town houses as approved by
the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of
Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes
shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation.
(2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking
on one side of the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide.
However, widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the
driveway from the east property line.
(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18
feet. Also, review and possibly revise the parking spaces and the turn-
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 45 of 206
148489.2
10
around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to
be saved and to minimize the amount of hard surface area.
(4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required
by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city’s
design standards.
(5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation
including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees as possible in
the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer’s memo dated July
28, 2006. These shall include:
a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, retaining
walls, driveway and parking lot plans.
a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, retaining walls,
driveway and parking plans. This approval includes the design of the proposed
private cul-de-sac.
b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This
land is to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors
shall protect this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side
of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling.
c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal.
4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood’s design standards and shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be
responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area.
d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will
meet the state’s noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other
documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to
build the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be
done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound-
deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this
documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses.
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 46 of 206
148489.2
11
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Cottagewood PUD shall be:
a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20
feet, maximum – 35 feet
b. Rear-yard setback: 12 feet from any adjacent residential property line
c. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line
and at least 12 feet between units.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each
housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8. Submit the homeowner’s association documents to city staff for review and approval.
9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the
common open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions,
covenants or public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final
plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction.
10. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
11. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes or any signs.
The project design plans, including architectural, signs, site, lighting, tree and
landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design
review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council.
b. For the driveways:
(1) Minimum width - 20 feet.
(2) Maximum width - 28 feet.
(3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for “No Parking” on
both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and
shall be posted for No Parking on one side.
c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the
planned unit development (PUD).
12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code
requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the
preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on August 28, 2006.
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 47 of 206
STORM WATER TREATMENT STRUCTURES
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _____ day of ___________, _____, by
and between the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota (hereinafter called “CITY”), Cottagewoods I, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (hereinafter called “DEVELOPER”), and the Cottagewood Homeowner’s Association,
a Minnesota non-profit corporation (the “ASSOCIATION”).
WITNESSES:
1. Purpose. The CITY has determined that it is consistent with the CITY’s plans,
regulations, purposes and goals to provide a storm water quality protection system
for the property at Cottagewood (2666 Highwood Avenue) described herein as
follows:
Cardinal Cottagwood Outlots A and B. (“PROPERTY”)
It is understood that the OWNER shall be responsible for the initial work necessary
to bring the infiltration trench, infiltration basin and two (2) three-foot sump structures
in the location as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto into working order and is also
responsible for the initial planting and successful establishment of plantings within
the infiltration basin on Outlot B.
The ASSOCIATION, from time to time shall be responsible for the cost of cleaning
and maintaining the infiltration basin, infiltration trench and sump structures to ensure
their full working capacity.
It is understood between the parties the that CITY shall not be responsible for the
costs associated with the initial work necessary to bring the infiltration basin,
infiltration trench and sump structures into working order, which shall be the sole
responsibility of the DEVELOPER.
2. Responsibilities of the Parties
a) The DEVELOPER shall be responsible for any costs related to bringing the
infiltration basin, infiltration trench and sump structures to their working condition
according to their initial design intent. The DEVELOPER shall be responsible for
any costs associated with landscaping of the infiltration areas.
b) The ASSOCIATION shall be responsible for annual cleaning and maintenance of
the infiltration basin, infiltration trench and sump structures.
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 48 of 206
c) The ASSOCIATION shall provide to the CITY an annual inspection report
prepared in connection with such annual cleaning and maintenance. The CITY
may from time to time inspect the infiltration basin and sump structures to
determine if the operation meets the original design intent.
3. Right of Access. The ASSOCIATION and the DEVELOPER hereby grant the CITY
the right to enter onto the PROPERTY to inspect and monitor the infiltration basin
and sump structures. In the event the CITY requires repairs to the infiltration basin
and sump structures, the ASSOCIATION shall have thirty (30) days following written
notice from the CITY in which to make said repairs. If the ASSOCIATION fails to
make said repairs within thirty (30) days after receiving said notice from the CITY,
the CITY shall have the right to enter on the PROPERTY to make any repairs
necessary for the infiltration basin and sump structures to work to their original
design intent. The ASSOCIATION shall be responsible to the CITY for any and all
fees and costs associated with said maintenance and repairs.
4. Warranty of Ownership. The DEVELOPER hereby warrants and represents to the
CITY, as inducement to the CITY to enter into this Agreement, which the
DEVELOPER’s interest in the property, is as fee owner. The DEVELOPER warrants
that it has the right and authority to enter into this Agreement.
5. Binding Effect. The CITY, DEVELOPER and ASSOCIATION are all bound by the
terms and provisions of this Agreement and they shall be binding on all respective
successors, purchasers and assigns. The obligation of the ASSOCIATION and
DEVELOPER set out herein shall be incorporated within the Declaration of
Cottagewood and said covenants shall run with the land. This Agreement, at the
option of the CITY, shall be placed of record so as to give notice thereof to
subsequent purchasers and encumbrances of all or any part of the PROPERTY.
The DEVELOPER hereby consents to the recording of the Agreement with the
Ramsey County Recorder.
6. Notices. Whenever it shall be required or permitted by this Agreement that notice or
demand be given or served by either party to or on the other party, such notice or
demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the
addresses hereinafter set forth by certified mail. Such notice or demand shall be
deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in
accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto for such purposes
are as follows, until written notice of a chance of such addresses has been given in
accordance herewith:
As to the CITY: City Manager
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 49 of 206
As to the OWNER: Cottagewood Homeowner Association
c/o Cottagewood I, LLC
533 Hayward Ave North, Suite 100
Oakdale, MN 55128
As to the ASSOCIATION: President
Cottagewood Homeowners Association
___________________
Maplewood, MN 55119
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY, DEVELOPER and ASSOCIATION have caused this
AGREEMENT to be duly executed on the day and year first above written.
COTTAGEWOOD I, LLC
By: ____________________________
Its: ___________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________________, 2011, by
______________________________, the _____________________________ of Cottagewood I, LLC,
on behalf of the company.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 50 of 206
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
By: ______________________________
Its: City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _______________, 2011, by
_________________________, the City Manager for the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation.
___________________________________
Notary Public
COTTAGEWOOD
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
By: ______________________________
Its: President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _______________, 2011, by
_________________________________, the President of Cottagewood Homeowners Association, a
Minnesota non-profit corporation.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 51 of 206
Agenda Item G2
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 52 of 206
Packet Page Number 53 of 206
Packet Page Number 54 of 206
Packet Page Number 55 of 206
Packet Page Number 56 of 206
Packet Page Number 57 of 206
Packet Page Number 58 of 206
Packet Page Number 59 of 206
Packet Page Number 60 of 206
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review
PROJECT: St. Paul Regional Water Services (McCarron’s Treatment Plant)
LOCATION: 1900 Rice Street
DATE: July 19, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The conditional use permit (CUP) for the St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) facilities at
1900 Rice Street is due for review. The CUP allowed for the expansion of the facility that
includes three new buildings: (1) a two-story 36,000-square-foot office building with 240 parking
spaces, (2) a one-story 11,230-square-foot meter shop and warehouse, and (3) a one-story
17,350-square-foot vehicle maintenance and storage building with associated parking and
landscaping features. In addition, a plan to build a cold vehicle storage building was included
on the plans. (See the attached maps).
BACKGROUND
December 15, 1988: The city council approved a CUP for SPRWS to construct a clear-water
pond west of Sylvan Street and north of Larpenteur Avenue.
June 10, 1996: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion of the
solids dewatering facility.
August 11, 1997: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of two
building additions and a new building at the water treatment plant.
December 10, 2001: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion and
renovation of the water treatment plant.
June 23, 2003: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of three
new buildings on the water services campus.
On July 12, 2004, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year.
On July 25, 2005, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year.
On August 14, 2006, the city council reviewed this CUP and agreed to review it again in one
year.
On September 10, 2007, the city council considered this CUP review and tabled action on it to
allow city staff and the staff of SPRWS to review the status of landscaping on the site.
On November 26, 2007, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one
year.
Agenda Item G4
Packet Page Number 61 of 206
On July 20, 2009, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year.
On July 26, 2010, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year.
DISCUSSION
The St. Paul Regional Water Services three newest buildings and the associated parking lots
and driveways are complete. The contractor completed the installation of the required
landscaping, including the trout stream and buffer restoration (with native trees and grasses),
within the campus. Staff visited the site and determined that the landscaping requirements are
being met and the site overall is very attractive.
The only project left for this CUP is the construction of a cold vehicle storage building. Brad
Eilts, engineer for SPRWS, has communicated to city staff that SPRWS is no longer planning on
constructing this building. Because the applicant is not planning on any more construction, staff
is recommending reviewing this permit again only is a problem arises or a major change is
proposed. If SPRWS were to decide to go forward with the cold vehicle storage building in the
future this CUP would be brought back to council for review.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) campus
at 1900 Rice Street again only if SPRWS starts construction on the cold vehicle storage
building, a problem arises or a major change is proposed.
P:sec 18\st paul water utility cup review_072511
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line/Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. June 23, 2003, City Council Minutes
Packet Page Number 62 of 206
5
Packet Page Number 65 of 206
City Council 05-27-03 1
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:30 P.M., June 23, 2003
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 03-13
A. CALL TO ORDER:
A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal
Building, and was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present
Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Present
Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. 8:55 p.m. St. Paul Regional Water Services –McCarron’s Water Treatment Plant
a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report.
b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report.
c. Commissioner Fischer presented the Planning Commission Report.
d. Boardmember Olson presented the Design Review Board Report.
e. Jim Butler, architect for the project provided further specifics.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a stream
setback variance at the St. Paul Water Regional Water Service at the McCarron’s Water
Treatment Plant:
RESOLUTION 03-06-117
STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE
WHEREAS, David Wagner, of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services, asked the city to
approve a stream setback variance from the zoning ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the water utility property at 1900 Rice Street. The legal
description is:
Attachment 4
6
Packet Page Number 66 of 206
City Council 05-27-03 2
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD
REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22.
(PIN 18-29-22-31-0042)
WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 60-foot-wide
stream buffer area next to streams.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 40-foot-wide stream buffer.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this
variance.
2. The city council held a public hearing on June 23, 2003. City staff published a notice in
the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by
law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written
statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
variance for the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the property. The 60-foot-wide stream buffer requirement would make
development of this site difficult.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the
applicant would greatly improve a portion of the stream buffer over its present state and
the proposed development plans will treat storm water from the site with rainwater
gardens, bio-retention basins and other best management practices.
Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following:
1. Dedicating a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property
line of the site adjacent to the future cold storage building and creating a buffer along the
entire length of the stream contained or bordering their property. The buffer shall be 50
feet wide in all possible areas. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall
describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting,
grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement
before the city issues a building permit.
2. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of all the stream-protection
buffer on the west side of the site, including all the day-lighted parts of Trout Brook. This
plan shall show extensive use of native plantings and grasses and shall be subject to city
staff and watershed district approval.
7
Packet Page Number 67 of 206
City Council 05-27-03 3
3. Installing city approved signs at the edge of the stream-protection buffer that prohibit
any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional
use permit revision for the addition of four building a new parking lot and associated site
plan changes for the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron’s Water Treatment Plant
at 1900 Rice Street North:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 03-06-118
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Water Utility has requested a revision to their conditional use permit
to add four new buildings, parking and landscaping to plant facilities at the St. Paul Water Utility
McCarron’s Water Treatment Plant.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1900 Rice Street North. The legal description
is:
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD
REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22.
(PIN 18-29-22-31-0042)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit.
2. On June 23 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The 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 council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described
conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit
because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city’s comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding
area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods
of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
8
Packet Page Number 68 of 206
City Council 05-27-03 4
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor,
fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness,
electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would
not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems,
schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and
scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this
deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the design plans for the St. Paul Regional Water
Services McCarron’s Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North:
Approve the plans (date-stamped April 24, 2003) for the proposed office building, meter
shop and vehicle maintenance buildings (with the associated parking and landscaping) at
the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron’s Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice
Street North. This approval does not include the future cold vehicle storage building
shown on the plans along the west side of the site. The city bases this approval on findings
required by the code. The property owner or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project.
2. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or building
permit:
9
Packet Page Number 69 of 206
City Council 05-27-03 5
a. Building material and color samples of the plaster, metal panels, roofs, trim, and
garage doors.
b. A revised landscape/screening plan that shows the following:
(1) The spruce trees proposed for the south and east sides of the parking lot and
the property revised from 6 feet in height to 8 feet in height.
(2) The planting of more coniferous trees along the south and east sides of the
proposed parking lot to help screen the parking lot from the houses to the
south and east.
(3) Landscaping details for the stream buffer area and for the proposed
rainwater gardens. If the basin area will only be seeded, the area must be
vegetated with native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be approved
by the city before the contractor does the seeding.
(4) An in-ground irrigation system (including sprinkler heads) for the areas that
would have sod. The city does not require irrigation for areas with native
grasses or for the rainwater gardens.
c. Detailed grading, drainage, paving, utility and erosion control plan for
approval by the Assistant City Engineer. These plans shall meet all the
requirements of the Assistant City Engineer.
d. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting showing the
location, style, height and design of the proposed light fixtures. All
freestanding lights shall not be taller than 25 feet, and the illumination from any
outdoor light must not exceed 0.4-foot candles at all property lines.
e. Plans for any trash-dumpster enclosures. The gates for such enclosures shall be 100
percent opaque, and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible
with those of the new buildings. These plans shall be subject to staff approval.
f. Proof of recording of a 40-foot-wide stream protection buffer easement along the
west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall
describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing,
cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this
easement before the city issues a building permit.
g. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The
amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
3. Complete and install all required exterior improvements, including the approved
landscaping and any dumpster enclosures before occupying the buildings.
11
Packet Page Number 70 of 206
City Council 05-27-03 6
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or
contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June
1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six
weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or
summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All
12
Packet Page Number 71 of 206
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: St. Paul’s Priory Planned Unit Development Review
DATE: July 19, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The conditional use permit (CUP) for the St. Paul’s Monastery planned unit development (PUD)
at 2675 Larpenteur Avenue East is due for its annual review. The PUD allowed the
development of the monastery property with the following uses:
• A 40-unit senior-housing apartment building to be operated by CommonBond Communities.
• A 50-unit town house development also to be built and operated by CommonBond.
• A conversion of the monastery to a family-violence shelter by the Tubman Family Alliance.
• A future monastery on the north end of the property.
BACKGROUND
May 14, 2007: The city council approved this PUD and the preliminary plat for Century Trails
Commons, the town house complex. Refer to the attached city council minutes.
February 12, 2008: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the design plans for
the new monastery.
April 14, 2008: The city council approved the final plat for Century Trails Commons.
April 22, 2008: The CDRB approved the design plans for the Century Trails Commons town
homes.
July 27, 2009: The city council approved the design plans and a revision to the PUD allowing
unit sizes that are less than the required 580-square-foot minimum as stated in the zoning
ordinance for the CommonBond Communities senior housing apartment building.
July 12, 2010: The city council approved revised landscape plans.
On July 26, 2010, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year.
Code Requirement
Section 44-1100(a) of the zoning code states that CUPs shall be reviewed by the city council
within one year of approval. At the one-year review, the council may specify an indefinite term
for a subsequent review or a specific term not to exceed five years.
Agenda Item G5
Packet Page Number 72 of 206
DISCUSSION
The new monastery, 50-unit Trails Edge Town Homes and 40-unit Century Trails Senior
Housing Apartments are complete. The Tubman Family Alliance recently received a building
permit to begin its internal building remodeling for the family-violence shelter. The Tubman
Family Alliance have already moved offices into the building and constructed their parking lot.
The city council should review this permit in one year to check on the progress of the remaining
elements of this PUD.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul’s Monastery PUD in one year.
p:sec13-29\Priory\priory pud annual rev_072610
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. May 14, 2007 City Council Minutes
3. July 27, 2009 City Council Minutes
4. Site Plan
Packet Page Number 73 of 206
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m., Monday, May 14, 2007
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 07-09
2. St. Paul’s Monastery Redevelopment (Century and Larpenteur Avenues) Public
Comment on this matter was taken at a Special City Council Meeting on May 7,
2007. Public Comment is now closed. Discussion is limited to City Council questions
for City Staff.
a. Application for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
b. Preliminary Plat for Century Trails Commons
Senior Planner Ekstrand presented the report and responded to questions from the
council.
Ellen Higgins, in charge of development for Common Bond Communities,
addressed the council regarding the proposed affordable housing.
Mayor Longrie thanked Ms. Higgins for her suggestion that a transportation task
force be created to work toward increasing public transportation to this site. Mayor
Longrie stated her support for increasing transportation on the site and creating a
task force to look at these issues.
Councilmember Hjelle
That part of the South ½ of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 29, Range 22,
Ramsey County, Minnesota lying east and north of a line described as beginning at a point
on the south line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 13 985 feet west of the southeast
corner of said Southeast Quarter of Section 13; thence 78 degrees 40 minutes to the right
proceeding in a north-northwesterly direction for 620 feet to a point of curve; thence to the
left on a curve having a radius of 100 feet a distance of 157.08 feet to a point of tangent;
thence 90 degrees to the right, at right angles to the tangent to said curve at said point of
moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use
permit for a planned unit development for the Sisters of St. Benedict of St. Paul’s
Monastery.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 07-05-071
WHEREAS, the Sisters of St. Benedict of St. Paul’s Monastery applied for a conditional use
permit for a planned unit development to develop their 31.04-acre site with a 50 -unit town
house development; a 40-unit seniors housing apartment building; to convert the existing
monastery building as a multi-use family-violence shelter with 37 housing units, offices and
support facilities and to build a future monastery building on the north end of their property.
WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for
institutions of any educational, philanthropic and charitable nature.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2675 Larpenteur Avenue. The
legal description is:
Packet Page Number 75 of 206
tangent, a distance of 450 feet; thence 90 degrees to the left a distance of 200 feet; thence
90 degrees to the right a distance of 225 feet, more or less, to the north line of said South ½
of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13.
Except that part of the Southeast Quarter of said Southeast Quarter of Section 13
which lies northeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 100 feet southwesterly of a
line described as beginning at a point on the east line of said Section 13, distant
1324.13 feet north of the southeast corner thereof; thence run westerly at an angle
of 90 degrees with said east section line for 186.63 feet; thence deflect to the right
on a 10 degree curve, delta angle 29 degrees 20 minutes, for 293.33 feet; thence on
tangent to said curve for 100 feet and there terminating;
together with all that part of the above described tract, adjoining and southerly of the
above described strip, which lies easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 60
feet westerly of the following described line: Beginning at the point of intersection of
the above described line with the east line of said Section 13; thence run southerly
along the east line of said Section 13 for 540 feet and there terminating;
also together with a triangular piece adjoining and southerly of the first above
described strip and westerly of the last described strip, which lies northeasterly of
the following described line: From a point on the last described line, distant 150 feet
southerly of its point of beginning, run westerly at right angles to said line for 60 feet
to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run northwesterly to a
point on the southerly boundary of the first above described strip, distant 100 feet
westerly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 33 westerly of the
east line of said Section 13.
Which lies easterly, northerly and easterly of a line described as commencing at said
southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13; thence westerly, along said south
line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, a distance of 832.02 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting to the right 78 degrees 40 minutes
00 seconds a distance of 750.06 feet; thence deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds a distance of 204.00 feet; thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds a distance of 638.98 feet to said north line of the south half of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 13 and said line there terminating.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On March 20, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners.
The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and
present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and
recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city
council approve this permit.
2. On May 7, 2007, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
Packet Page Number 76 of 206
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and
scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Packet Page Number 77 of 206
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. This planned unit development shall follow the concept plans date-stamped January
11, 2007. These plans are considered concept plans because the applicant must
submit design plans to the city for approval for the proposed apartments, town
houses, future monastery; shelter and any other future use. Staff may approve
minor changes.
2. This planned unit development does not give any approvals for Lot 1, Block 1 since
this site has not been proposed for any future development and its future use is
unknown. The development of this site would require a revision of this planned unit
development and must comply with all city development requirements.
3. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void.
4. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
5. The property owner shall be required to dedicate right of way for a roadway to be
studied by the City Engineer during the next three to five year period. The final
location of the roadway shall be studied by the City Engineer and reported with a
recommendation to the city council. The final need for the roadway has not been
determined but will likely be necessary if additional development occurs on this
property in excess of that currently being proposed or at higher density levels than
approved; and also if property sold includes a major expansion of uses that
generate significant additional traffic to be generated at Hill-Murray.
6. The applicant must obtain all necessary and required permits from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, Ramsey County and the Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District.
7. The applicant must provide a right-turn lane on Century Avenue into the site, subject
to MnDOT’s approval.
8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the engineering reports by Erin
Laberee and Michael Thompson dated February 22, 2007 and by R. Charles Ahl
dated April 19, 2007.
9. The applicant shall install sidewalks wherever possible along Larpenteur Avenue.
10. Staff may approve minor changes to the plans.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach
A friendly amendment was added to the motion requiring the following conditions be
included in the resolution:
11. Establish a neighborhood committee of no less than nine members whose
membership composite shall be one representative from Hill-Murray administration
or trustees, one day care parent from Maple Tree Day Care, one parent whose child
Packet Page Number 78 of 206
attends Hill-Murray, three neighborhood citizens who signed the petition included in
the council packet and three neighborhood citizens who are from the yellow cards
received by the city. The committee’s purpose shall be to facilitate communication,
develop neighborhood solutions to neighborhood concerns, and provide feedback to
all parties subject to the planned unit development. The committee shall report
periodically to the council and disband when no longer needed.
12. Establish a transportation task force of neighbors and parties to the planned unit
development to work on public transportation service and options for the site, to
work in coordination with the neighborhood committee.
13. The proposed project shall be reviewed by the Community Design Review Board
and all requirements of that board shall be followed.
14. Include two playground areas within the planned unit development as discussed at
the hearing that were to be added to the plans.
15. Develop a security plan in partnership with all of the parties subject to the planned
unit development and the neighborhood committee.
16. Monastery Way and Bennett Road shall be public roads and the cost of city sewer,
storm water, public street infrastructure and city water shall be borne by the
developer.
17. The applicant shall install sidewalks along applicant’s property on Larpenteur
Avenue and internal streets.
The council voted as follows: Ayes-all
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on May 14, 2007.
Councilmember Hjelle
5. The property owner shall be required to dedicate right-of -way for a roadway to be
studied by the City Engineer during the next three to five year period. The final
location of the roadway shall be studied by the City Engineer and reported with a
moved approval of a preliminary plat for Century Trails Commons
located at 2675 Larpenteur Avenue. Approval is subject to:
1. Redesigning the public street right-of-way within the site to be 60 feet wide.
2. Complying with the applicable requirements of the engineering reports by Erin
Laberee
and Michael Thompson dated February 22, 2007 and by R. Charles Ahl dated April
19, 2007.
3. Street lights shall be installed if required by the city engineer, subject to his
approval.
4. The applicant shall dedicate any additional right-of-way if required by Ramsey
County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Packet Page Number 79 of 206
recommendation to the city council. The final need for the roadway has not been
determined but will likely be necessary if additional development occurs on this
property in excess of that currently being proposed or at higher density levels than
approved; and also if property sold includes a major expansion of uses that
generate significant additional traffic to be generated at Hill-Murray.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-all
Packet Page Number 80 of 206
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
6:30 p.m., Monday, July 27, 2009
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 15-09
(THIS ITEM WAS HEARD OUT OF ORDER PER THE COUNCIL MOTION)
L6. Planned Unit Development Revision For Century Trails Apartments By CommonBond
Communities
a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council.
Mayor Longrie asked if anyone wanted to address the council to come forward.
1. JudyWordock, Housing Development Manager, CommonBond Communities.
2. Paul Holmes, Architect with Pope Architects.
3. Gary Pearson, Planning Commission member gave the planning commission report.
4. Carolyn Peterson, 1801 Gervais Avenue, Maplewood.
Councilmember Nephew moved to approve the Planned Unit Development Revision For Century
Trails Apartments By CommonBond Communities. To also include recommendations from the
Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board.
RESOLUTION 09-07-225
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, CommonBond Communities applied for a revision of the conditional use permit for a planned
unit development (PUD) for the St. Paul’s Monastery development plan. This PUD included a 40-unit senior
housing apartment building as part of the development project.
WHEREAS, CommonBond Communities has requested approval to build apartment units that have
unit size reductions ranging from 550 square feet to 575 square feet of gross floor area with a maximum of 540
square feet or net habitable area which is less than the required 580 square foot minimum area stipulated by
city ordinance.
WHEREAS, Section 44-1093(b) of the city ordinances states that the city council may grant deviations from
the city ordinance as part of a PUD.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at the southwest corner of Benet Road and Century
Avenue. The legal description is:
Lot 1, Block 2, CENTURY TRAILS COMMONS
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. On July 7, 2009, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The
planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit.
2. On July 27, 2009, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
Packet Page Number 81 of 206
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council passed the 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 Code of Ordinances.
1. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to
any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or
air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or
other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. Ayes – All
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 82 of 206
Packet Page Number 83 of 206
Agenda Item G6
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: David Thomalla, Police Chief;
H. Alan Kantrud, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Approval of Driving Diversion Program Agreement
DATE: July 15, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Maplewood has been asked to sign onto an extended contract with the Driving Diversion
Program that has been in Pilot Status with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for a few
years. It was rolled out in a few target cities to gauge its success and has been quite beneficial
to the cities that have participated. Maplewood worked with the director of the program to bring
this opportunity to Maplewood approximately one year ago as one of the first metro suburbs to
utilize it, based primarily on the success that Saint Paul had. The pilot “year” is complete and
Maplewood has been granted participant-status by the DPS to continue the program.
BACKGROUND
Maplewood residents (and anyone pulled over in the City) who are driving without a valid license
may now contact Diversion Solutions and inquire about the Driving Diversion program now
available for Maplewood arrestees.
The Driving Diversion Program (DDP) was developed to support participants in paying any
outstanding citations and fulfill state designated requirements necessary to reinstate a
participant’s driver’s license. This program is fully managed by Diversion Solutions at no cost to
Maplewood.
The DDP helps break the cycle of repeat offenders who may owe thousands of dollars because
they keep driving without a valid license, many times simply to get to work. Diversion Solutions
provides an online reporting system that ensures accountability is built into the program’s
evaluation so that its degree of success can be objectively monitored, measured, and reported.
The DDP is an accountability and learning program for participants.
* Accountability – The diversion program will be in contact with participants on a monthly or
bi-monthly basis until all requirements of the program have been completed.
* Training – The participant must take part in the four hour Self Development Seminar
which includes basic life skills, paper work required by state, etc.
* Restitution – Offenders are required to pay full restitution on fines and fees as related to
the revocation or suspension of participant’s drivers’ license. Diversion Solutions works
directly with DPS to clear all citations, new and old.
Packet Page Number 84 of 206
DISCUSSION
The typical offender, stopped in Maplewood, who does not have a “valid” driver’s license is
suspended, revoked, or cancelled by the DPS for many reasons. Once privileges are taken
away, the average driver will work to clear up the problem and regain “valid” status. Sadly, many
get cited for driving without privileges and simply continue to drive; they play a form of driving
Russian-roulette, hoping that they simply won’t get “stopped” again, disregarding their previous
ticket(s) and feeling somewhat hopeless as it relates to actually working towards getting their
privileges back. Thus, their tickets accumulate and the problem compounds.
The DDP attempts to work with the offender (usually chronic) by giving them their “privilege” to
drive up front and allowing them to continue to drive to work without fear of further tickets while
at the same time forcing them to pay-off their outstanding tickets over a period of time and
pursuant to a payment schedule. As indicated above, there is a cognitive skills aspect to the
program as well that attempts to inculcate life-skills that includes a heavy personal accountability
component.
Maplewood, being on the edge of Saint Paul, ends up citing many drivers from the big-sister-city
that have these sorts of issues, as well as citing residents from its own geography. These
offenders are cited by Maplewood, so that “ticket” is paid by the offender (it is added to the list):
so it is not a pure hand-out to the offender.
There are, however, acceptance criteria. For example, participants must have the ability to pay
and have a stable “living” environment (address, phone, &ct). Drivers who lost privileges due to
impaired driving, however, are not eligible.
Officers who are on the street have the option of citing the driver and releasing OR giving the
driver the further option of the DDP program. At that point the driver is required to make first
contact with the program and actively enroll, so our officers are not saddled with any more
administrative burden than that of writing a ticket. Information, and the option, is simply given
with the ticket—our effort is simply to refer the driver to the program.
The added bonus to the City by participating is that tickets already filed on a driver, if the driver
enrolls in Maplewood or elsewhere, also get paid. This has netted Saint Paul a considerable
amount of money. The nice part is that those “latent” tickets are simply added to the offender’s
payable amount without necessity of actually picking them up on the ticket previously issued, yet
unanswered. Many offenders from such far-flung places as Minneapolis, while cited in
Maplewood, never appear or pay their tickets as they ever come back to be accountable for
them or never get caught. This program changes that.
As an aside, the City already utilizes this group’s “check diversion program” and has been using
them for years in that regard (with great success), so Diversion Solutions is not a new vendor to
Maplewood at all, just this program is.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is pleased to be one of the first suburbs in Ramsey County to be given the opportunity to
participate in this program. To the extent that it affects Maplewood residents, it gives them the
opportunity to get a valid driver’s license and remain working, productive, members of the
community. Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached Contract for participation
on that basis.
Packet Page Number 85 of 206
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 86 of 206
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, Project 04-21
a. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m.
b. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll
DATE: July 18, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The land owner (Rand Corporation) and developer (Maplewood Senior Living, LLC) of the only parcel
that is proposed for assessment on the project have been mailed a notice of the exact amount of the
assessment, as well as notice that they must submit a written objection either at, or prior to, the hearing
if they disagree with the assessment amount. This is a developer driven project with only the developer
property being assessed. If an objection is filed by the developer, it would be a violation of the
development agreement and the City would be pursuing a legal remedy, including redeeming the
$400,000 letter of credit; but the City goal would still be to sustain the assessment against the parcel. A
closing to transfer the property from Rand Corporation to Maplewood Senior Living, LLC is still being
delayed. The property owner and developer representatives will be present at the Assessment Hearing
to provide an update on their progress and continued intent to develop the property. Because the land
has not transferred due to the final details of financing and platting, they are not prepared to finally
agree to the assessment and will be requesting additional time to complete their transaction, at which
time they would waive their right to object to the assessment amount.
Final plans and specifications for the above referenced project were approved and advertisement for
bids was authorized at the April 25, 2011 council meeting. The bid opening was held at 10:00 am on
June 3, 2011 and a construction contract was awarded on June 27, 2011 to Lunda Construction
Company in the amount of $3,529,950.25. The council accepted the assessment roll and ordered the
assessment hearing for the project at the April 25, 2011 meeting. The assessment hearing was
originally scheduled for May 23, 2011; was continued until June 27, 2011 and again continued to July
11, 2011, and again to July 25, 2011 due to delays in closing on the property. An assessment notice
was sent to both the land owner (Rand Corporation) and developer (Maplewood Senior Living, LLC) of
the only parcel that is proposed for assessment. The public improvements (installation of the public
road and utilities) began the week of July 4, 2011 and the developer has signed all necessary
developer agreements.
The issue of formalizing the assessment amount, the TIF agreement and the payment of various costs
as part of the project remain stalled until the land is transferred. That process has taken an extensive
amount of extra time due partially to the complexity of the previous developer issues. The developer
has engaged architects and engineers and is prepared and anxious [as is the City] for this project to
begin; however the final approvals continue to languish in various agency and financing groups. We
continue to anticipate that closing and thus the project start date are within weeks. The developer and
land owner will be present to testify to that extent during the Assessment Hearing. They will be
requesting that the Council again delay the levy of the assessment, which is not a concern for staff.
Agenda Item H1
Packet Page Number 87 of 206
BUDGET IMPACT
The assessment amount is not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, but rather on a pre-
determined assessment amount as outlined in the developer agreement. The method of assessment is
the same as was outlined in the feasibility study. The proposed assessment amount of $2,200,000
remains consistent with the original financing plan, approved in March 28, 2011. The developer
property will be fully assessed the amount of $2,200,000.00 over a 20 calendar year period at a 5.0%
interest rate. Therefore there is no impact on the original financing plan. The proposed assessment will
be for costs relating to the street and utility improvements. The actual levy of the assessment amount
does not need to be finalized for a couple more months, so further delay is not a problem. Within the
assessment is a payment to the developer of $1,000,000 which will not occur until the closing; as well
as various site improvements and savanna improvements which have not begun. Additionally, the
developer has deposited a non-refundable $400,000 letter of credit with the City, so the risk for City
costs is minimal, if not zero.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council again agree to delay the approval of the attached Resolution for
the Adoption of the Assessment Roll for Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, Project 04-21.
The staff recommends that the City Council conduct the Assessment Hearing and receive testimony
from the developer/land owner group and any other interested parties. At the conclusion of testimony,
we would recommend that the Council not close the hearing but continue the hearing until Monday,
August 22, 2011 at 7:00 pm at which point any additional parties could testify and the landowner would
need to file any objections at that hearing. This process would assure that the landowner understands
that the Council intends to levy the assessment at that time.
Attachments:
1. Resolution: Adoption of the Assessment Roll
2. Assessment Roll
3. Location Map
Agenda Item H1
Packet Page Number 88 of 206
RESOLUTION
ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on April 25, 2011, calling for a
Public Hearing on May 23, 2011, the assessment roll for the Gladstone Area Redevelopment
Improvements, City Project 04-21, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the City Council opened and continued said Public Hearing from May 23, 2011 to
June 27, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the City Council opened and continued said Public Hearing from June 27, 2011 to
July 11, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the City Council opened and continued said Public Hearing from July 11, 2011 to
July 25, 2011, and
WHEREAS, no property owners have filed objections to their assessments according to the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is
hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein,
and each tract of land therein is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in
the amount of the assessment levied against it.
2. The assessment roll for the Gladstone Area Redevelopment Improvements, a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. 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.
3. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 20
years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2012 and
shall bear interest at the rate of 5.0 percent per annum for 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, 2011. To each subsequent installment when
due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
4. 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 November 15, 2011, 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 November 15, 2011, 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 November 15 or
interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
5. The City Engineer and City Clerk shall forthwith after November 15, 2011, but no later than
Agenda Item H1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 89 of 206
November 16, 2011, 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.
Adopted by the Council on this 25th day of July 2011.
Agenda Item H1
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 90 of 206
Gladstone Area Redevelopment
City Project 04‐21
Final Assessment Roll
Parcel ID Street
Number Street City ZIP
Deeded
Acres TOTAL ASSESSMENT
162922310025 940 FROST AVE E MAPLEWOOD 55109-4258 6 2,200,000.00$
Agenda Item H1
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 91 of 206
Agenda Item H1 Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 92 of 206
Agenda Item I.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Chicken Ordinance Summary Publication (Super Majority Vote)
DATE: July 19, 2011 for the July 25 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The city council adopted the chicken ordinance on July 11, 2011. The ordinance goes
into effect upon publication. According to state law, the City Council may direct that a
summary of an ordinance be published rather than the entire ordinance text. The
chicken ordinance contains six pages of text which would be costly to publish. As such,
staff is recommending the City Council authorize a summary ordinance for publication.
DISCUSSION
State statute requires that summary ordinances give an accurate synopsis of the
essential elements of the ordinance. Staff proposes the following language for the
summary ordinance:
Ordinance No. 913
An Ordinance Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential Districts
On July 11, 2011, the Maplewood City Council adopted an ordinance which would
allow the keeping of chickens in most single dwelling residential zoning districts with
a permit. A summary of the ordinance follows:
1. Up to 10 hens (no roosters) allowed in single dwelling residential districts
(except for small lot single dwelling district) with a yearly permit.
2. Initial permit must be approved by 100 percent of the property owners that are
adjacent applicant’s property.
3. Permit fee approved by City Council by resolution: $75 for initial permit, $50 for
renewal permit.
4. Slaughtering of chickens on the property is prohibited.
5. Leg banding of all chickens is required. The bands must identify the owner and
the owner’s address and telephone number.
6. A separate coop and run is required to house the chickens. Coop must be
located in the rear or side yard and be setback at least five feet from the
property lines.
7. Exercise yards must be fenced and is required if the run does not provide at
least 16 square feet per bird.
Packet Page Number 93 of 206
2
8. All premises on which hens are kept or maintained shall be kept clean from
filth, garbage, and any substances which attract rodents. The coop and its
surrounding must be cleaned frequently enough to control odor. Manure shall
not be allowed to accumulate in a way that causes an unsanitary condition or
causes odors detectible on another property.
9. All grain and food stored for the use of the hens on a premise with a chicken
permit shall be kept in a rodent proof container.
10. Dead chickens must be disposed of according to the Minnesota Board of
Animal Health rules which require chicken carcasses to be disposed of as soon
as possible after death, usually within 48 to 72 hours. Legal forms of chicken
carcass disposal include burial off-site incineration or rendering, or composting.
The chicken ordinance goes into effect after publication. An official copy of the chicken
ordinance is on file in the office of the Maplewood Community Development Department
at 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood, or can be obtained on the city’s website at
www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/sustainability. Questions regarding this ordinance should be
directed to Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner at (651) 249-2304 or
shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the above-mentioned chicken ordinance summary publication. Once approved by
the City Council, staff will publish the summary ordinance in the city’s official newspaper.
Packet Page Number 94 of 206
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
Steven Love, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Approval of Transfer of Environmental Utility Funds for July 16th Storm
Clean-up and Investigation
DATE: July 19, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The council will consider authorizing the establishment of an engineering project fund budget, “2011
Flood Response” for the purpose of analyzing locations and identifying improvements for areas that
experienced localized flooding during the recent rainfall event. A transfer from the Environmental Utility
Fund into the Project Fund would be made.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Friday evening through Saturday morning (July 15-16) the city received 4.54 inches of rain, with a
majority of that total received over a 3 hour span on Saturday morning. A 100-year storm event, which
has only a 1% chance of occurring in any given year, equates to 3.8 inches of rain over a 3 hour span.
So clearly the 100-year storm event was eclipsed causing many problems throughout the city. The
high intensity storm event taxed the overall storm sewer networks especially the ponds and lakes which
could not drain fast enough to avoid flooding and backups in the storm pipe networks.
The following is a list of areas to date that have reported localized flooding issues:
1. City Hall Pond – Overflowed into the MCC parking lot and receded 3 to 4 hours later.
2. Ivy Pond System – The area south of Ivy Avenue between Century Avenue and Ferndale
Street experienced a large amount of issues as a number of yards were flooded when the
Mn/DOT ditch from Century Avenue overflowed into the area and then down into the
neighborhood. Additionally, pavement patching and repair work to Farrell Street was damaged
and washed away.
3. Glendon Pond – The low areas around Glendon Pond were underwater and waters
encroached upon yard areas. This basin drains north across Maryland Avenue and the
discharge rate is controlled by the system on the north side of Maryland Avenue. During large
events the Glendon Pond area is slow to recede as it must allow the water on the north side of
Maryland Avenue to move through the system first.
4. McKnight Road – Experienced areas of flooding, below are 4 major areas observed:
a. McKnight Road in North Saint Paul, under T.H. 36 had a number of cars stalled with
water reaching window levels.
b. McKnight Road, approximately 300 feet south of Larpenteur Avenue, was flooded with a
couple of stalled cars.
c. The parking lot of the gas station along the northeast corner of McKnight Road and
Larpenteur was flooded. The owner later reported that his fuel tanks had been flooded.
d. McKnight, south of Maryland, where it turns into Lakewood Boulevard (near Beaver
Lake), the entire roadway flooded and at the time of observation had receded to allow
one lane to be passable.
Agenda Item J1
Packet Page Number 95 of 206
5. Wakefield Lake – Experienced sewer backup issues related to the storm event. At the time of
this report a total of 4 homes (Hazelwood & Prosperity) were subject to basement flooding that
may have been caused by lake and drainage systems overflowing into and flooding the sanitary
sewer system. Cleaning services were provided to these homes. Currently the sanitary sewer
main pipes are being televised to determine if there was a cross connection issue.
6. Larpenteur Avenue – East of Sterling Street water had risen up onto the west bound lane of
Larpenteur Avenue near the Hill-Murray baseball field. The water was not too deep and
vehicles were able to get through.
7. Knuckle Head Lake – The Knuckle Head Lake system had several localized flooding issues:
a. The Knuckle Head Lake system east of Hazelwood was nearly backed up onto Cope
Avenue causing water to overflow into the parking lots of several businesses and south
into the park.
b. 1673 & 1665 Lark Avenue – The back yard flooded Saturday morning and water entered
into the homes.
i. Staff has been coordinating with both residents. The resident of 1673 Lark
Avenue stated that his building has previously flooded twice in 1987.
8. Edgerton Pond – A number of headstones were reported under water at the cemetery.
Currently no structures have been reported as having received water damage, but a number of
yards were flooded. This will mark the third time this year the Edgerton Pond has had to be
pumped and in the past 5 years the pond has been pumped almost a dozen times.
9. T.H. 36 Underpass for the Bruce Vento Trail – This area was flooded with a stalled car. This
area has had a repeated history of flooding during events in 1984, 1987, 1994, and 2000.
10. 1398 Myrtle Street – The wetland behind the property rose 3-5 feet according to reports from
the resident and they were worried about possibly losing their oak trees and how the outlet from
the wetland was working. Later reports from the resident indicated the level of the wetland had
started to recede.
11. 1874 & 1866 East Shore Drive – The wetland area behind the homes rose to a high level and
pumping ensued.
12. 500 Ripley – This small no outlet pond filled and is subsequently being pumped.
13. Schneider’s Pond/443 Roselawn- Experienced localized flooding issues with no reported
structural flooding and required temporary pumping to prevent basin from overflowing and
causing damage.
14. County Road D Court – East of Highway 61 a storm sewer culvert and a section of the road
were washed out during the storm event. Emergency repairs were required for this area in
order to provide access to the Xcel sub-station and dental business.
15. 2496 Flandrau Street – The resident called in concerned about the level of water behind his
house. Public Works Maintenance staff responded by sending out a pump to reduce water
level.
16. Truck Utilities – This facility is located near T.H. 36 and English Street south of Gerten Pond.
The facilities backyard storage area had 30 inches of standing water.
17. Additional Issues – 2 sink holes and 6 down trees were reported as a result of the storm. An
anonymous phone message was left regarding the elevation of Silver Lake. The City of North
St. Paul was contacted and they are looking into this.
Please refer to the attached City Map showing the approximate general location of the previously
localized drainage issues listed.
Following the storm event the Public Works Maintenance staff was involved with immediate response
activities such as visiting homes and verifying the condition of vital storm sewer outfalls and reviewing
localized flooding areas to determine an appropriate response. Since the immediate response the
maintenance staff has provided temporary pumping of Edgerton Pond, 500 Ripley, Schneider’s Pond
Agenda Item J1
Packet Page Number 96 of 206
near 443 Roselawn Ave, 1874 & 1866 East Shore Drive, and 2496 Flandrau Street. The city of
Vadnais Heights shared one of their unused pumps. The maintenance staff has been monitoring and
maintaining the catch basins and outlets to ensure the city’s storm sewer system remains free of debris,
removing down trees, and dealing with sink holes. The engineering department staff has met with a
number of affected businesses and residents to gather relevant information to help in identifying future
improvements.
A small number of locations that experienced flooding during this event have also required pumping in
the past, namely Edgerton Pond. These will be priority areas in identifying improvements in addition to
the location of the two homes on Lark Avenue that flooded as a result of high water levels of Knuckle
Head Lake. According to the one owner on Lark Avenue this area also flooded during the storms of
1987.
With an increasing number of these 100-year storm events additional measures are needed. In order
to best determine what improvements can be made to minimize the risk of future localized flooding it
will be necessary to investigate and analyze the existing systems listed above.
Over the past few years the City has made improvements to the local drainage system on private
property by acquiring easements and improving overflow elevations and installing new overflow piping
outlets. Identifying minor improvements such as these in addition to more substantial improvements
are expected.
BUDGET IMPACT
There would be a transfer of $100,000 from the Environmental Utility Fund into the engineering project
fund.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the council authorize a budget of $100,000 to be established for investigation
and remediation efforts of localized flooding issues and transfer the necessary funds from the
Environmental Utility Fund to City Project 11-19.
Attachments:
1. 2011 Flooding Issues Map
Agenda Item J1
Packet Page Number 97 of 206
CITY OF MAPLEWOODLEGENDSTATE HIGHWAYSCOUNTY ROADSCITY STREETSAgenda Item J1 Attachment 1Packet Page Number 98 of 206
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Revision, Parking Reduction Waiver and Design
Review
PROJECT: Former Corner Kick Soccer Center
(Simple-majority vote required for approval)
LOCATION: 1357 Cope Avenue
DATE: July 19, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mike McGrath is proposing to remodel the former Corner Kick Soccer Center building. The west half of
the building would be occupied by All Metro Glass, a window and door fabrication/installation business.
The east half would be available for a future light manufacturing business. The proposed changes to the
building and site are:
Repair and restore the parking lot.
Add a new dock door to the west-facing, north end of the building.
Replace an existing overhead garage door and double door also on the west side of the building.
Add a patio on the front of the building.
Add a new canopy over the westerly front building entrance.
Add screening walls along the front and west side of the building.
Repair and restore the landscaping.
The applicant has obtained a building permit for interior demo, interior build-out and window and door
replacement.
Requests
To make the changes to the site and the facility, Mr. McGrath is asking for approval of:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision. The building has an existing CUP because of its proximity to
the residential zoning district south of Cope Avenue. When the soccer center was proposed, the city
ordinance required a CUP because the structure would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district.
The existing building is 220 feet from the residential district across Cope Avenue. The proposed
building and site renovations require an amended CUP to revise the previously approved building and
site plans.
2. A parking reduction of 66 spaces. The city ordinance requires 126 parking spaces. The applicant has
a need for about 30. The applicant estimates that the building at full occupancy would require 60
spaces for two light manufacturing uses.
Agenda Item J2
Packet Page Number 99 of 206
3. The revised design and landscaping plans.
BACKGROUND
On September 18, 1984, CDRB approved the project plans for the soccer center.
On April 10, 1995, the city council approved a conditional use permit and the design plans for a 3,000-
square-foot addition on the front of the soccer center. This approval was subject to three conditions of
approval.
On June 11, 2007, the city council approved a CUP revision and design plans for a substantial expansion of
Corner Kick. Soon after work began for this expansion, the owner of the soccer center stopped work and the
building went into foreclosure.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit Revision
The original CUP was required of Corner Kick because the building was proposed closer than 350 feet to
the residential district south of Cope Avenue. The proposed use as a light manufacturing establishment
(window and door fabrication/installation) is allowed by the M1 (light manufacturing) zoning district. The
only issue requiring a revised CUP is the fact that the applicant is doing site work and making some
building renovations.
CUP Findings for Approval
The zoning ordinance requires that the city council determine that all nine “standards” for CUP approval
be met to approve a CUP. In short, these state that the use would (refer to the resolution for the
complete wording):
Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code.
Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood.
Not depreciate property values.
Not cause any disturbance or nuisance.
Not cause excessive traffic.
Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection.
Not create excessive additional costs for public services.
Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features.
Not cause adverse environmental effects.
The proposed building and site improvements meet these nine criteria. The proposed building
improvements would improve this building that is in need of repair and put it back into use. The
proposed dock areas would be on the north end of the building facing west and would be hidden or as far
from residents at possible minimizing or eliminating the view of any dock activity.
Packet Page Number 100 of 206
Parking Reduction
City ordinance bases parking requirements on the use of the floor area within the building. Office space
requires one stall per 200 square feet; manufacturing space requires one stall per 400 square feet and
warehouse space requires one stall per 1000 square feet. The building has a total square footage of
51,647 square feet. All Metro Glass would occupy 23,522 square feet of building area with 28,125
square feet remaining for a future use.
The applicant has determined for the city how the entire building would realistically be apportioned for
the proposed use and another typical light manufacturing use. Based on the data the applicant provided
in their narrative, they estimate 25 percent office space, 30 percent manufacturing space and 45 percent
warehouse space. In this building of 51,647 square feet in area, the parking ratios provided in the
ordinance would require 64 spaces for office, 39 spaces for manufacturing and 23 spaces for
warehousing, equaling a total parking requirement of 126 parking spaces.
The applicant has stated that they have a need for about 30 parking spaces and that a future light
manufacturing use, based on their own parking needs as an example, would also require 30 spaces for a
total of 60. In addition to the 60 spaces proposed, there would be 23 future parking spaces available
along the front landscaped area to be added should the need arise. Staff, furthermore, feels that there is
room to easily add 15 more parking spaces on the ends of the center parking rows and at the ends of the
future parking row.
Based on the applicant’s description of the parking needs for the building and the availability for 38 future
parking spaces (23 future spaces proposed and 15 possible additional ones), staff supports the request
for a parking reduction.
One additional handicap-accessible parking space would be required. This is noted in the
recommendation and was pointed out by the planning commission. The site plan should be revised to
indicate the adjustment to provide 9 ½ foot wide visitor parking spaces and three handicap-accessible
spaces while yet maintaining a total of 60 spaces.
Building and Site Renovations
Architectural
The changes to the building exterior are minimal. The applicant proposes to replace old dock doors, add
a new dock entrance, add a canopy over the front entrance, add an outdoor patio and provide screening
walls. The applicant describes the screen walls as follows: the screen walls will be made of metal wall
panels. Some will be perforated and some solid. The LED lighting indicated on the screen plans would
be changed to high output fluorescents (cost savings). The perforated metal panels are colored metal
panels with a series of holes (typically 1/16 to 1/8” or so in diameter) at a uniform distance from each
other. See attached product sheet for an idea of what the panel would look like. This perforated panel
allows the lighting to be placed inside the screen wall and breaks up the solid metal wall panel. The
purpose of the screen wall is to add an element to help with the look of the building and create a focal
point and add visual depth at the entry. The lighting is accent lighting to add a visual interest at night.
Packet Page Number 101 of 206
Landscaping
The proposed landscaping would be attractive, but the landscaping along the site’s frontage should be
increased for completion across the entire site frontage. As proposed, the proposed trees and shrubs
would only cover the east half of the site.
Ordinance also requires that parking lots be screened so headlights from commercial parking lots do not
shine into residential windows. The low shrubs proposed should be revised to be shrub varieties that
would provide a headlight buffer about three to four feet tall. A revised landscaping plan should be
submitted to staff for approval before permits are issued for the building exterior.
Lighting
Staff did not require a lighting plan because site lighting is already in place. The applicant should be
aware, though, to make sure that the wall-mounted fixtures on the front of the building do not shine into
the residential windows across the street.
Department Comments
Engineering
Steve Kummer, staff engineer, has reviewed the plans and submitted his comments in the attached
report. In short, Mr. Kummer has noted several changes he recommends the applicant to make in their
civil engineering plans. Refer to Mr. Kummer’s report.
Police
Lieutenant Richard Doblar reviewed this proposal and has no recommendations or concerns with this
request.
Building Official
Dave Fisher, the building official, had the following comments:
The applicant must obtain building permits for all new construction.
All plans shall be signed by a design professional.
Proper access around the building shall be verified for the fire marshal.
Neighbor’s Comments
Staff surveyed the surrounding property owners for their comments about this proposal. There were five
replies—one no comment, two in favor and two opposed.
Those opposed stated these objections:
There are vulnerable adults across the street that would be at risk if this was approved.
Traffic would increase and be unsafe.
Noise is a concern.
It could be a problem if the hours of operation increased beyond 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Packet Page Number 102 of 206
This would affect property values of neighboring residents.
Truck drivers are not as cautious for pedestrians crossing Cope Avenue at the Vento Trail
This property has always been planned and zoned for light manufacturing use. The proposal by All
Metro Glass is a permitted use by the city. Staff feels that anyone driving a vehicle, must follow safe and
courteous driving practices on city streets. The city can’t assume that the tenants of this building will not
do so. Violations should be reported to the police department.
City ordinance prohibits any excessive noise between 7 p.m and 7 a.m. Being that the applicant’s hours
are between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., staff does not anticipate a problem.
The Ramsey County Assessor’s office has informed us that they do not feel that this light manufacturing
use would be a detriment to the neighbors or affect property values. In fact, the poor condition of this
building and site in recent times is a greater detriment to property values. Unkempt properties, as this
site has been, have a greater potential to reduce nearby property values than a clean, kept-up property.
Staff asked the applicant for a description of the amount of truck usage expected. They responded that
typically the only truck traffic will be deliveries in and out throughout regular daytime business hours.
There should not be any long term truck parking. Only an occasional trailer left for short periods while
loading materials to be sent out to jobs.
Summary
Staff supports this proposal. It will take a vacant building and site that has been in poor condition and
make it useable and presentable once more. Staff will revise the existing CUP for this property in the
typical fashion of the deletion of old, unneeded language and the insertion of the new, applicable
conditions. All the former conditions relative the soccer facility would be deleted.
COMMISSION ACTIONS
June 28, 2011: The CDRB recommended approval and required additional landscaping along the front
and west side of the site. The CDRB also required that there be 9 ½ -foot-wide parking spaces provided
along the front sidewalk for visitors and that the screening wall material be submitted to staff for
approval.
July 5, 2011: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP and parking reduction with
the staff recommendation.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
Packet Page Number 103 of 206
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a revision for the conditional use permit for 1357 Cope Avenue, the
former Corner Kick Soccer Center, based on the findings required by city ordinance and subject to the
following conditions (the additions are underlined and the deletions are crossed out):
1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped April 6, 2007 and the plans date-stamped May
31, 2007. The city council may approve major changes to the plans and city staff may approve
minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the project plans to meet all the conditions of the city engineer (including the addition
of a sidewalk along Cope Avenue) and city staff.
b. Revising the building elevations as may be required by staff, the Community Design Review
Board (CDRB) or the city council.
2. The owner or contractor shall start the construction for this permit revision within one year of city
council approval or the permit revision shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one
year.
3. The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of approval.
4. The owners/operators of the soccer center, the fire marshal and the city building official shall
agree on a plan for the soccer center to make the required life safety and building improvements
to the existing building. This plan shall include the installation of:
a. The required fire protection (sprinkler) systems.
b. An early warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring).
c. Additional emergency lights and exit signs (if necessary).
d. The necessary changes to meet the handicapped accessibility code requirements.
e. A proper address on the building.
f. Any other changes the fire marshal or the building official deem necessary.
5. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet
all the conditions and changes that the engineer noted in the memo dated April 23, 2007, including
the installation of the sidewalk along Cope Avenue.
6. The owner or operator shall be responsible for the maintenance and clean up of the ponding areas
on their property.
7. The owner or operator shall post the driveways and drive aisles as no parking zones.
8. The owner or operator of Corner Kick shall ensure that visitors or users of the facility do not cause
disturbances or make unreasonably loud noise in the parking lot that disturb nearby residents. The
owner or operator shall submit a plan to city staff for the education of their patrons about behavior
outside the center, for the enforcement of noise rules and how they will deal with, control and
minimize other disturbances on their property.
Packet Page Number 104 of 206
1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 17, 2011. The city council shall review
any major changes proposed. Staff may approve minor changes.
2. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the city engineer, building official and fire
marshal.
4. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan for staff approval to provide for a visual buffer
along the frontage of the property between the two driveways to block headlights from shining
into neighboring properties. This buffer shall be at least three to four feet tall.
5. Site lights and noise shall be controlled to follow the requirements of the city ordinance.
6. This permit includes a parking waiver for the applicant to provide 60 parking spaces with the
potential for 23 additional future spaces. If further spaces are needed, the applicant shall
restripe the parking lot to provide at least 15 additional spaces at the ends of the proposed
parking rows.
B. Approve the plans date-stamped May 17, 2011 for the building and site renovations at 1357 Cope
Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. This approval is
subject to the applicant or contractor doing the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a grading permit or a building
permit for this project.
2. Before getting a building permit for the exterior improvements the applicant shall
provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval showing the continuation of the
landscaping across the entire frontage of the site between the two driveways. This
revised plan shall also include a visual buffer along this frontage to block headlights
from shining into neighboring properties. The applicant shall also revise the plan to
include three trees on the west side of the parking lot to match those proposed along
the east lot line. The applicant shall also plant an ornamental tree in each of the
parking lot islands.
3. As required by ordinance, if outdoor trash storage is used in the future, the applicant must
provide a screening enclosure to keep the dumpster in. The location and design plans shall be
subject to staff approval.
4. The applicant shall provide cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150
percent of the cost of the landscaping and other site improvements that may not be installed by
occupancy. An irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following provisions:
The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in the name
of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand.
Packet Page Number 105 of 206
The letter of credit shall have a stipulation indicating automatic renewal, with notification to
the city by certified mail a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration.
5. The site plan shall be revised for staff approval to provide for 9 ½ foot wide spaces along the
front sidewalk for visitor parking as required by ordinance. The applicant shall also provide one
additional handicap-accessible parking to comply with code.
6. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the engineering report and any
requirements of the city engineer.
7. The applicant shall provide a sample of the proposed screening wall material to staff for
approval along with color chips.
Packet Page Number 106 of 206
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
City staff surveyed the owners of the 47 properties within 500 feet of the site for their comments. Of the
five replies, two were in favor, two objected and one had no comment.
In Favor
We do not mind a window and door facility at Corner Kick. (Cardenas, 2261 Birmingham Street)
Truck Utilities has no problem with the proposal. However, we are concerned about water runoff. As
we’ve had problems with flooding in the past. (Truck Utilities, Inc., 2370 English Street)
Opposed
The home immediately across from the east entrance on Cope is a home for vulnerable adults. We are
concerned about increased traffic on Cope Avenue. We are concerned about noise, large trucks, etc.
We do not believe that the parking numbers make sense. We are not opposed to the plan, however, we
would appreciate the opportunity to have an additional conversation about our concerns. As stated in
the document, “it would not increase traffic.” We believe though that it will increase large vehicle traffic
immediately across from our driveway. We are also curious as to whether or not the business is always
7-5 if that will change (or production will increase) if the economy improves. (Dakota Companies)
We were ok with Corner Kick being so close to residential because we could have been the one using
the facility for exercise & recreation. To put in a window & door manufacturing facility will effect the
property of all of us around it dropping our property values. This is not an industrial park nor should it
become one. The trail used next to the facility gets heavy use and with added vehicles going in and out
it just adds more danger to the pedestrians. Families are more aware of the crosswalks at that location.
Truck drivers don’t always stop to let pedestrians cross. We use that crossing point a lot and have had
this happen a lot. (Stepnick, 2250 Ide Court)
Packet Page Number 107 of 206
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.64 acres
Existing land use: Former Corner Kick Soccer Center Building
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Highway 36
South: Single dwellings and one double dwelling
West: Vacant property zoned M1
East: Bruce Vento Trail
PLANNING
Zoning: M-1 (light manufacturing)
Land Use Plan: C (commercial)
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44-637(b) requires a CUP for any building or exterior use in the M-1 zoning district if it is within
350 feet of a residential district.
Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to
these findings listed in the resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
The city received all the materials for a complete application for this request on May 17, 2011. State law
requires that the city council act on requests such as this within 60 days. That date for final action by the
city council would have been July 16, 2011. Staff extended this review period, as allowed by statute, an
additional 60 days since council review is not anticipated until July 25, 2011 at the soonest. The new
deadline for city action is September 14, 2011.
p:sec10/Corner Kick Building Remodel CUP Revision CC Report 7 11 te
Attachments:
1. Location/Zoning Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Site/Landscaping Plan
4. Applicant’s Narrative
5. Perforated Metal Panel Detail for the Screening Walls
6. Engineering report dated June 23, 2011 by Steve Kummer
7. CUP Resolution
8. Plans date-stamped May 17, 2011 (separate attachment)
Packet Page Number 108 of 206
Packet Page Number 109 of 206
Packet Page Number 110 of 206
Packet Page Number 111 of 206
Packet Page Number 112 of 206
Packet Page Number 113 of 206
Packet Page Number 114 of 206
Packet Page Number 115 of 206
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 116 of 206
Packet Page Number 117 of 206
Packet Page Number 118 of 206
Packet Page Number 119 of 206
Attachment 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mike McGrath requested a revision to the conditional use permit for the former Corner Kick
Soccer Center to make exterior building and site renovations because the proposed building
improvements are taking place within 350 feet of residential property.
WHEREAS, Section 44-637(b) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for any building or
exterior use in the M-1 zoning district if it is within 350 feet of a residential district.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1357 Cope Avenue legally described as:
10-29-22-32-00-14
IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, EXCEPT WEST 398 FT; THE PARTS OF HWY 36 &
WEST RAILROAD R/W (Bruce Vento Trail) OF THE NW ¼ OF SW 14 (SUBJECT TO ROAD)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. On July 5, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice
in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission
gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission
also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission
recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit revision.
2. On __________, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit revision. They
considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council _________ the above-described conditional
use permit revision for the following reasons:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any
person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air
pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or
other nuisances.
5. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
Packet Page Number 120 of 206
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site’s natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 17, 2011. The city council shall review
any major changes proposed. Staff may approve minor changes.
2. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the city engineer, building official and fire
marshal.
4. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan for staff approval to provide for a visual buffer
along the frontage of the property between the two driveways to block headlights from shining
into neighboring properties. This buffer shall be at least three to four feet tall.
5. Site lights and noise shall be controlled to follow the requirements of the city ordinance.
6. This permit includes a parking waiver for the applicant to provide 60 parking spaces with the
potential for 23 additional future spaces. If further spaces are needed, the applicant shall
restripe the parking lot to provide at least 15 additional spaces at the ends of the proposed
parking rows.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ____________, 2011.
Packet Page Number 121 of 206
Packet Page Number 122 of 206
Packet Page Number 123 of 206
Packet Page Number 124 of 206
Packet Page Number 125 of 206
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Parking Reduction
Authorization for South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care
Facility
(Simple-majority vote required for approval)
LOCATION: 1111 Viking Drive
DATE: July 18, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Request
South Metro Human Services is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to
operate the Community Foundations program, a mental health care facility with temporary
housing for 16 patients, at the former Ethan Allen furniture store located at 1111 Viking Drive.
The proposed therapeutic treatment facility would have 16 transitional housing units as well as
space for counseling, clinical and office purposes. The city ordinance requires a CUP for the
housing portion of this proposal. The counseling, clinic and office uses are allowed by
ordinance.
In addition to the CUP, the applicant has also requested:
Approval of design plans to remodel the building exterior and add landscaping.
Approval of a parking waiver for 21 parking spaces. The city code requires 39 parking
spaces for this use. There would be 18 spaces provided.
Project Description
The proposed facility would include:
16 single room dwellings for clients requiring continuous care and supervision. Each
dwelling space would have a kitchenette and bathroom in addition to a studio-style sleeping
room.
Two lounges and private secure patio to encourage clients to participate in group activities.
A licensed commercial kitchen with a communal dining area to accommodate up to 20
people.
8-10 offices for professional staff to alternately be used as offices and counseling spaces.
Multiple conference rooms for meetings and group therapy trainings.
Interior common spaces that can be observed from the business/reception office,
conference room and one private office. Access to the building would be controlled and
supervised by the Business/Reception Office.
Agenda Item J3
Packet Page Number 126 of 206
Native exterior landscaping and parking lot to accommodate 16-18 vehicles.
Secure back entrance and loading dock accessible to commercial kitchen.
DISCUSSION
Neighbor’s Comments
Staff sent a questionnaire to the surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this property for
their comments about this proposal. Eleven persons responded. Some were beyond the 500
foot mailing radius. The following are the questions and comments we received:
A commercial neighbor was concerned that the applicant may complain about the nearby
commercial activity and commotion. Staff feels that the applicant would be aware of the
nature of this neighborhood being a commercial and light industrial area. Trucking noise
and such business activity should be expected to occur.
What will be the affect on property values? Please refer to the discussion below under
CUP Findings for Approval.
Might patients of the facility have criminal records? According to the applicant’s written
reply, this is a potential.
Might patients be sex offenders? The applicant has responded their program is not a
program for sex offenders.
Might patients be dangerous? The applicant has responded that this is an untrue stigma
and not the case.
Will patients be free to leave and exit the facility? Yes they will.
Will the applicant wish to expand this facility in the future? The applicant does not feel this
is likely since they are limited to serving 16 persons at a time.
Will the area children be safe? The applicant states that they do not recall any incidents
involving their facilities and youth in those neighborhoods.
If this is approved, will it hinder the future redevelopment of this area? Staff does not see
that this use would impact any future redevelopment efforts should that come about.
Has there been any record of clients harming others in their current neighborhoods? The
applicant feels their residents are more vulnerable to any harm than the other way around.
Is there Section 8 housing proposed near County Road C and Highway 61 west of the park
and ride? No, there is no such proposal. Furthermore, there is no proposal for any sort of
development in that area.
What are the notification rules? Several residents commented/complained that they were
not notified directly of this proposal. State law requires that we notify to a distance of 350
feet. The city’s policy is to notify to a distance of 500 feet from the proposed site. We also
posted a “Proposed Development” sign on the subject property to additionally inform
neighbors. We are happy that those who lived beyond our already increased mailing radius
commented by email or phone call to give us their comments about this proposal.
Packet Page Number 127 of 206
The quality of the staff in such facilities is typically low. What is the staff like? The applicant
explains that their staff “are on site 24/7 and fully credentialed and have years of experience
working with the population we serve.”
Patients of this facility may get hit on the busy highways like deer. This is one neighbors
concern. Staff has no comment.
Why doesn’t the applicant renovate one of their existing facilities rather than open this one?
This is the applicant’s choice. Staff has no comment.
I don’t want this in my backyard. Staff has no comment.
Staff Comments
Engineering Department
John Jarosch, staff engineer, reviewed this proposal and has the following list of requirements
for this proposal:
1. An exterior site plan shall be submitted for approval detailing the extents of all exterior
improvements including pavement removals, new pavement areas, proposed grading,
erosion control, drainage flow arrows, and permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas.
2. The developer shall provide information regarding the change in impervious areas (paved
areas, patio, etc.) on the exterior of the site. If there is an increase in impervious areas on
the site, additional measures may be required to reduce the volume of storm-water runoff.
3. The developer shall provide flow rate information for the increase in sanitary sewer usage
from the proposed development.
4. The developer shall submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Service for the water service
upgrades to ensure their standards are met.
5. The developer shall submit plans detailing the water and sewer service connections to the
main-lines. These plans shall include detail regarding the size, depth, slope, and location of
the proposed services.
6. The developer shall submit plans detailing the restoration of Gervais Avenue after the
installation of the new services. The restoration of Gervais Avenue will be subject to the
requirements of the City of Maplewood’s Right-of-Way ordinance.
7. The developer shall submit a traffic control plan detailing how traffic will be detoured around
Gervais Avenue during the installation of sanitary and water services.
8. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting
agencies.
Building Official
Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments:
Packet Page Number 128 of 206
The city will require a complete building code analysis from a design professional. This will
include items such as fire separation, exiting, occupant loads, bathroom counts and any
updates resulting from this change in use.
Building/construction plans are required by a registered design professional.
Verification that the mechanical system meets code requirements is required.
Verification of adequate bathroom facilities is required.
The building is required to have an automatic fire suppression system. Verify that the
coverage is adequate for this use.
Provide a fire alarm system. Verify these requirements with Butch Gervais, the Maplewood
Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal.
Handicap-accessible parking is required.
A handicap-accessible elevator is required.
The contractor shall have a pre-construction meeting with the city staff.
Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Install fire protection per code requirements.
Install fire alarm per code requirements.
Any doors that are locked 24/7 so people can’t leave the facility must operate according to
code if any fire alarms are activated.
There shall be proper exit signs and emergency lights.
A fire department lock box shall be installed.
The sprinkler-control room needs to be clearly marked.
The alarm-control room needs to be clearly marked.
If there is any area where biohazard is being stored it must be clearly marked. These are
areas where biohazard materials and sharp containers are stored.
Police
One of the findings for approval of a CUP that the city ordinance requires is that the proposed
use must not create excessive additional costs for public services. When staff first reviewed
this proposal, we recommended denial of the CUP since we were anticipating more than a
normal amount of police calls to the proposed facility. Staff and the applicant then spent the
next several weeks looking further into the number and the nature of such police calls to the
applicant’s existing facilities. The applicant provided data from two additional facilities for a
better analysis as to the number and type of police calls that could be anticipated by the
proposed Maplewood clinic.
Packet Page Number 129 of 206
The additional facilities reviewed were the ReEntry House in Minneapolis, a 16-bed facility and
the Carlson Drake House in Bloomington, a 12-bed facility. Both of these facilities are operated
by the director of clinical services with South Metro Human Services. Refer to the attached
letter from Mr. Terry M. Schneider and the Minneapolis Police Department Calls for Service
Report. In his letter, Mr. Schneider provided data that both of these facilities generated 30 to 40
calls per year. Chief Thomalla checked on the applicant’s data and verified those figures were
accurate. Please refer to Chief Thomalla’s memo dated June 28, 2011.
Staff’s solution is, since the city will be providing police service at somewhat of a higher
occurrence than other businesses and clinics, it would be reasonable to require that the
applicant pay for this increased cost for police service. Staff has worked out an agreement for
the applicant to pay an assessment totaling $10,000 over a ten year period to offset this
increase in public service cost to the city. After ten years, the agreement would end and there
would be no further special assessment. Based on this agreement, staff is satisfied that the
CUP requirement for “no excessive additional costs for public services” would be met.
City Attorney
State and federal laws, such as the Fair Housing Act, protect such facilities from arbitrary and
capricious treatment by a city. The planning commission’s recommendation must be based on
the findings for approval from the city ordinance and not based on any speculation about the
proposed use. Under Minnesota Law, Section 245A.11, the use as proposed cannot be denied
on zoning grounds:
Subdivision 3. Permitted multifamily residential use.
Unless otherwise provided in any town, municipal, or county zoning regulation, a licensed
residential program with a licensed capacity of seven to 16 persons shall be considered a
permitted multifamily residential use of property for the purposes of zoning and other land use
regulations. A town, municipal, or county zoning authority may require a conditional use or
special use permit to assure proper maintenance and operation of a residential program.
Conditions imposed on the residential program must not be more restrictive than those imposed
on other conditional uses or special uses of residential property in the same zones, unless the
additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the persons being served
by the program. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to exclude or prohibit residential
programs from single-family zones if otherwise permitted by local zoning regulations.
CUP Findings for Approval
The zoning ordinance requires that, in order to approve a CUP, the city council determine that
all nine “standards” for CUP approval must be met. These state that it must be determined by
the city that the proposed use would:
Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code.
Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood.
Not depreciate property values.
Not cause any disturbance or nuisance.
Not cause excessive traffic.
Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection.
Not create excessive additional costs for public services.
Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features.
Not cause adverse environmental effects.
Packet Page Number 130 of 206
Impact on Property Values
At the public hearing, there was considerable discussion regarding this proposal’s potential
impact on property values. Following the hearing with the planning commission, staff discussed
this point with the Mr. Stephen Baker, the County Assessor, to reaffirm the information staff
presented in the previous report. Staff had stated that the assessor’s office did not feel that the
proposed use would affect the property values of homes since they were not in close proximity
to the proposed site. Mr. Baker further stated, “the assessor’s office has not done any in-depth
analysis of this location. In the past, these types of uses have not been found to negatively
impact surrounding values and, given the geography of this neighborhood, we wouldn’t expect
this to be any more likely to impact value.”
Staff also spoke to Mr. Dave Haley, Assistant to the Director of the Ramsey County Human
Services Department, about this proposal and any possible property-value impact on the
neighborhood. Mr. Haley stated this is a common concern when such facilities are proposed in
neighborhoods. He commented that there has been no evidence to verify any negative effect
on home values. Mr. Haley provided staff with a synopsis of three studies that dealt with
programs serving individuals with mental illness. These studies did not show any drop in
property values. Please refer to the attached Property Value Impact Studies summary.
Summary
The proposed use would meet the criteria to approve a CUP. As discussed above, after a
further analysis about potential police calls and the applicant’s agreement to pay an assessment
for such police service calls, staff is satisfied that there would be no excessive additional costs
for public services.
Based on input from the Ramsey County Assessor and the Ramsey County Human Services
Department, there has been no evidence found that indicates that a facility like the proposed
mental health care clinic would adversely impact the property values of homes in this area.
COMMISSION ACTIONS
April 26, 2011: The CDRB moved to approve the design and landscaping changes and to
recommend approval of the parking waiver.
July 5, 2011: The planning commission recommended approval of this proposal on a four to
three vote. The three members who voted against the proposal had concerns about the
potential impact on property values and the potential for police calls to the proposed facility and
concerns regarding what the proposed facility may do to the character of the neighborhood.
BUDGET IMPACT
None
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a 16-room transitional housing
facility in conjunction with a proposed mental health care clinic at 1111 Viking Drive.
Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following
conditions:
Packet Page Number 131 of 206
a. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor
changes.
b. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one
year.
c. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
d. Before the applicant obtains a building permit, they shall sign an agreement with the city
agreeing to pay an annual assessment of $1,000 per year for ten years to defray the
cost of police calls to the facility.
e. Additional housing units cannot be added without a revision of this permit.
f. The applicant shall provide on-site staffing 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.
2. Approve the plans date-stamped March 17, 2011 for the proposed building, site and
landscaping improvements to the former Ethan Allen Building, located at 1111 Viking Drive.
Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the applicant doing
the following:
a. Revise the site plan to reduce the amount of paving from the on-site impervious surface
to under 60 percent of the total site. The applicant shall submit this revised site plan to
staff prior to getting a building permit.
b. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the building official and assistant fire
fire chief and those in the city’s engineering report prepared by Jon Jarosch, staff
engineer.
c. As required by ordinance, if outdoor trash storage is used in the future, the applicant
must provide a screening enclosure to keep the dumpster in. The location and design
plans shall be subject to staff approval.
d. The applicant shall provide a site landscaping plan and work with city staff to soften the
feel of the building on all four sides, prior to getting a building permit.
e. The applicant shall remove the existing pylon sign and add one additional parking stall in
that space, prior to occupancy.
f. The applicant shall provide cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of
150 percent of the cost of the landscaping and other site improvements that may not be
installed by occupancy. An irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following
provisions:
The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in
the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand.
The letter of credit shall have a stipulation indicating automatic renewal, with
notification to the city by certified mail a minimum of 60 days prior to its
expiration.
Packet Page Number 132 of 206
3. Approval of a parking waiver to have 21 parking stalls fewer than are required by city
ordinance. This approval is based on the applicant’s parking needs for six staff, one
transport vehicle and occasional visitors. If a parking shortage develops, the applicant shall
provide more parking spaces on the site or gain them by lease agreement from neighboring
properties. Staff shall approve any revision to the available parking either by site plan
revision or by parking agreement with neighbors.
Packet Page Number 133 of 206
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the owners of the 18 properties within 500 feet of the proposed facility. Staff
received replies from others in neighborhood beyond this mailing radius as well. In all, staff
received 11 replies, two were in favor, five were opposed and four gave comments or raised
questions, but took no stance either for or against the proposal.
In Favor
1. We have no objections to this proposal. (Second Harvest Heartland)
2. I am fine with the proposed facility, however, our building is an active warehouse facility with
many trucks and noise next door to this facility. Trucks also use the road right next to the
proposed facility. This has never been an issue in the past as the building was for retail. If
used as a residential facility, I would not want complaints of noise and truck traffic to impact
on our building being used as it always has been—an active warehouse. I hope those
considering this location for residential purposes fully acknowledge this in seeking this
change. (Eric Larson)
Opposed
1. We do not want a mental house too close to our home. It will affect property values and
could have other problems too. (Pisanu and Vipa Sukhtipyaroge)
2. Some neighbors and I have the following concerns:
Have any of the potential clients ever been convicted of a serious crime?
Are any of the clients sex offenders?
Are the clients dangerous?
Will the clients be confined to the facility? Will they be taking walks outside or around
the neighborhood? Will family members be visiting hence talking walks outside?
If approved will the facility want to expand making the facility closer to the
neighborhood?
We are concerned that having such a facility so close to the neighborhood might impact
resale value on homes?
We have a young child in our household and we are very worried about having such a
facility so close to our house. We never would have built a house knowing that a Mental
Health Treatment Facility was so close. We feel that such a facility would be better
suited somewhere else. There are approximately 37 children in the neighborhood
(Cypress, Sextant, Demont and Adele Streets) and a daycare located in the
neighborhood on Cypress. We are very concerned for the children in the neighborhood.
(Kelly Ubel)
3. Refer to the two emails from Becky Bergerson.
4. Refer to the email reply from Kathy Kleve.
5. Refer to the email reply from Richard Kleve.
Packet Page Number 134 of 206
Comments, Questions and Concerns (these replies were neither for nor against)
1. If this is allowed, would it help to set the character of the neighborhood more so than it is
now and make it more difficult for any neighborhood redevelopment? What kind of security
would the facility have? (Huey’s Saloon and Grill)
2. Since 1987 (when they started) have they had any serious problems with people getting
lose or harming anyone outside of their property? (Eugene and Jeannette Kern)
3. Much to my surprise I was informed by a neighbor tonight that there is Section 8 housing
going in across from the park and ride on County Road C and 61 next to the trailer park. In
addition I have heard but not confirmed that the old Ethan Allen building by Huey’s may be a
new location for people with issues in transition. As a Maplewood community member for
17 years this is of great concern to me. This would mean on one big block there would be
Section 8, a trailer park and whatever may be going into Ethan Allen. (Bonnie and Dan
Keran)
4. I run a family based daycare out of my home. I am concerned about how available the
residents would be to the neighborhood. If they would have access to Kohlman Park and be
able to roam through the neighborhood. Would any sexual predators be part of the
rehabilitation program? When is the proposed date for the facility to open? How would this
affect the value of our homes? I have 8 daycare families that would be interested in some
more information as well. (Michelle Dansky)
Packet Page Number 135 of 206
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 25,700 square feet
Existing land use: The former Ethan Allen Furniture Store now vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Gervais Avenue, single dwelling, K&W Roll-offs, the Northernaire Motel, Huey’s Saloon
and Grill and Sunset Realty
South: Highway 36 and Keller Lake
East: Highway 61 and Second Harvest Heartland
West: Thomas Tool Company (now vacant), Links Paint and Promotional Resources and
Hermanson Dental
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: C (commercial)
Zoning: M1 (light manufacturing)
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a CUP for residential programs.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to
the nine standards for CUP approval included in the attachments.
APPLICATION DATE
The application for this request was complete on March 17, 2011. Staff extended the review
period once for 60 days and the applicant agreed to a second 60-day extension. The deadline
for action by the city council is now September 13, 2011.
Packet Page Number 136 of 206
p:sec9\South Metro Human CUP CC Report 7 11 te
Attachments:
1. Location/Zoning Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant’s Written Narrative date-stamped June 24, 2011
5. Letter from Terry M. Schneider dated May 23, 2011
6. Calls For Service Report regarding the ReEntry House, 3000 Minnehaha Avenue
7. Chief Thomalla’s Memo dated June 28, 2011
8. Applicant’s Response to the Neighbors’ Concerns date-stamped April 6, 2011
9. Email Responses from Becky Bergerson dated March 29 and March 31, 2011
10. Email Response from Kathy Kleve dated March 29, 2011
11. Email Response from Richard Kleve dated March 29, 2011
12. Email Response from Mark Warner dated July 5, 2011
13. Email Response from Katie Rivard dated July 5, 2011
14. Email Response from Becky Bergerson dated July 5, 2011
15. Email Response from Karl Clothier dated July 5, 2011
16. Engineering Report from Jon Jarosch dated April 1, 2011
17. Property Value Impact Studies
18. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
Packet Page Number 137 of 206
Packet Page Number 138 of 206
Packet Page Number 139 of 206
Packet Page Number 140 of 206
Packet Page Number 141 of 206
Packet Page Number 142 of 206
Packet Page Number 143 of 206
Packet Page Number 144 of 206
Packet Page Number 145 of 206
Packet Page Number 146 of 206
Packet Page Number 147 of 206
Packet Page Number 148 of 206
Packet Page Number 149 of 206
Packet Page Number 150 of 206
Packet Page Number 151 of 206
Packet Page Number 152 of 206
Packet Page Number 153 of 206
Packet Page Number 154 of 206
Packet Page Number 155 of 206
Packet Page Number 156 of 206
Packet Page Number 157 of 206
Packet Page Number 158 of 206
Packet Page Number 159 of 206
Attachment 17
Packet Page Number 160 of 206
Attachment 18
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, South Metro Human Services has applied for a conditional use permit to operate
the Community Foundations program, a mental health care facility with temporary housing for 16
patients.
WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for
residential programs in zoning districts where they are not specifically prohibited.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 1111 Viking Drive. The legal
description is:
The North 55 rods of the West 32 rods of the Southeast ¼ of Section 9,
Township 29, Range 22, except portions taken by the State of Minnesota
for highway purposes. Above property is subject to a cartway over and
across North 16 feet, more or less, thereof.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On July 5, 2011, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of
city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this
permit.
2. On _________, 2011, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ________ the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor
changes.
2. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
3. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
4. The use would not depreciate property values.
5. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any
person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air
pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or
other nuisances.
6. The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
7. 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.
8. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
Packet Page Number 161 of 206
9. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
10. The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor
changes.
2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one
year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. Before the applicant obtains a building permit, they shall sign an agreement with the city
agreeing to pay an annual assessment of $1,000 per year for ten years to defray the
cost of police calls to the facility.
5. Additional housing units cannot be added without a revision of this permit.
6. The applicant shall provide on-site staffing 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on __________, 2011.
Packet Page Number 162 of 206
April 26, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011
1. DESIGN REVIEW
a. South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care Facility, 1111 Viking Drive
1. Planner, Michael Martin gave the report on the South Metro Human Services Mental
Health Care Facility, 111 Viking Drive and answered questions of the council.
2. Tom Pavl, President South Metro Human Services Mental Health Care Facility, 6363
Keswick Avenue North, gave a brief introduction and answered questions of the board.
3. Scott Werk, Architect, 475 East 4th Street, Saint Paul addressed the board.
4. Sean McFarland, 475 East 4th Street, Saint Paul, questions of the board.
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve the plans date-stamped March 17, 2011, for the
proposed building, site and landscaping improvements to the former Ethan Allen Building, located
at 1111 Viking Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the
applicant doing the following: (changes to the motion are underlined and in bold).
a. Revise the site plan to reduce the amount of paving from the on-site impervious surface to
under 60 percent of the total site. equal to the size of the proposed patio. The applicant
shall submit this revised site plan to staff prior to getting a building permit.
b. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the building official and assistant fire chief
listed and those in the city’s engineering report prepared by Jon Jarosch, staff engineer.
c. As required by ordinance, if outdoor trash storage is used in the future, the applicant must
provide a screening enclosure to keep the dumpster in. The location and design plans shall
be subject to staff approval.
d. The applicant shall provide cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 150
percent of the cost of the landscaping and other site improvements that may not be installed
by occupancy. An irrevocable letter of credit shall include the following provisions:
●The letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit in the name of
the City of Maplewood, payable on demand.
●The letter of credit shall have a stipulation indicating automatic renewal, with notification to
the city by certified mail a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration.
Boardmember Shankar moved to approve a parking waiver to have 21 parking stalls fewer than
are required by city ordinance. This approval is based on the applicant’s parking needs for six
staff, one transport vehicle and occasional visitors. If a parking shortage develops, the applicant
shall provide more parking spaces on site or gain them by lease agreement from neighboring
properties. Staff shall approve any revisions to the available parking either by site plan revision or
parking agreement with neighbors.
The applicant shall provide a site landscaping plan and work with city staff to soften the feel of the
building on all four sides.
Packet Page Number 163 of 206
April 26, 2011
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
The applicant shall remove the existing pylon sign and add one additional parking stall in that
space.
Seconded by Boardmember Lamers. Ayes – All
Boardmember Lamers added a friendly amendment that the applicant shall remove the existing
pylon sign and add one additional parking stall in that space.
The motion passed.
Packet Page Number 164 of 206
July 5, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2011
a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit for South Metro Human Services, 1111 Viking
Drive
i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the
commission.
ii. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the commission.
iii. Terry Schneider, South Metro Human Services, Maplewood.
Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing.
Fourteen neighboring property owners spoke in opposition of this proposal due to safety concerns
and property value impacts. Those opposed spoke below.
1. Steve Shay, Owner of Sunset Realty, Maplewood.
2. Kathy Kleve, Maplewood.
3. Don Huot, Huey’s Saloon, Maplewood.
4. Don Seiford, Maplewood.
5. Barb Clothier, Maplewood.
6. Dr. Skipstead, Maplewood. (Can’t read his last name and no address given).
7. Mara Coyle, Maplewood.
8. Mark Warner, Maplewood.
9. Kelly Ubel, Maplewood.
10. Katie Rivard, Maplewood.
11. Dick Seppal, Maplewood.
12. Ray Hitchcock, Maplewood.
13. Wife of Dr. Skipstead (last name and address unknown), Maplewood.
14. Karl Clothier, Maplewood.
One neighboring property owner William Knutson, Maplewood, spoke neither for nor against but
commented on this proposal based on his prior experience in managing such facilities in the past.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Yarwood moved to table the proposal particularly because of the number of police
calls , concerns about the effect on property values and because of concerns regarding what it
will do to the character of neighborhood.
Seconded by Commissioner Boeser. Ayes – Commissioner’s Boeser,
Desai & Yarwood
Nays – Chairperson Fischer,
Commissioner’s Bierbaum,
Martin and Trippler
The motion failed.
Packet Page Number 165 of 206
July 5, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a
16-room transitional housing facility in conjunction with a proposed mental health care clinic at
1111 Viking Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the
following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve
minor changes.
2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one
year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. Before the applicant obtains a building permit, they shall sign an agreement with the
city agreeing to pay an annual assessment of $1,000 per year for ten years to defray
the cost of police calls to the facility.
5. Additional housing units cannot be added without a revision of this permit.
6. The applicant shall provide on-site staffing 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.
Seconded by Commissioner Bierbaum. Ayes – Chairperson Fischer,
Commissioner’s Bierbaum,
Martin & Trippler
Nays – Commissioner’s Boeser,
Desai and Yarwood
The motion passed.
This goes to the city council July 25, 2011.
Packet Page Number 166 of 206
Agenda Item M1
Agenda Report
TO: City Council
FROM: James W. Antonen, City Manager
DATE: July 19, 2011
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Special Work Session on August 29 for Organized
Collection and 2012 Budget Summary Update
SUMMARY /RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager is recommending that the City Council call a special work session for August
29. This session would be used to update the City Council on Organized Collection and the
2012 Budget Summary. The regularly scheduled work sessions in August are already full due
to department budget presentations. In addition, due to the Labor Day Holiday, there will be no
Work Session the first week of September 2011. This additional work session will allow staff the
time to update the council on these two pertinent topics.
The trash collection system analysis scope of work includes two separate tracks: contractual
(or “organized trash hauling”) system and improvements to the city’s subscription (or “open
trash hauling”) system. The City Council adopted and authorized the release of the Request for
Proposals for a Comprehensive, Residential Trash Collection System on July 11, 2011. The
RFP was drafted by the Trash Hauling Working Group and is part of the contractual analysis
tract, which will continue until the planning and negotiation periods are complete later this year.
The August 29 Special Work Session will include a report from the Trash Hauling Working
Group on the second tract of analysis, improvements to the city’s subscription system.
Packet Page Number 167 of 206
Agenda Item-M2
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: DuWayne Konewko, Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJ: Update on the Fish Creek Acquisition Project
DATE: July 25, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to update the city council with regard to the Fish Creek
Acquisition Project. This is a discussion item only and no formal action is required by the
council. Staff has been working with the Conservation Fund, utilizing their technical
expertise and guidance in this area, to assist the city in acquiring this property. If the 70
acre parcel is acquired, approximately 50 of the 70 acres will be preserved in perpetuity
and used with the understanding that this area is an irreplaceable example of green
space worthy of permanent protection. The remaining 20 acres which occupies the
northernmost area of the Fish Creek property will not be preserved and the city’s intent
is to sell that portion. Staff will continue to explore partnership opportunities with
developers for the remaining 20 acres. The proceeds, if and when this parcels sells, will
be applied directly to help offset acquisition costs.
At this point, unless council directs staff otherwise, this item will be brought back to
council on August 8, 2011 for approval to enter into a contractual agreement with The
Conservation Fund whereby, the Conservation Fund acquires said property on City’s
behalf and City has 24 months from such date to purchase property from the
Conservation Fund.
BACKGROUND
In May 2009, Maplewood City Council established the Fish Creek Natural Area
Greenway Ad-Hoc Commission to develop recommendations and priorities for protecting
natural lands in the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway, and to identify issues and
opportunities for passive recreation in the greenway. In January 2010, the City Council
adopted the report titled “Recommendations and Opportunities for Fish Creek Natural
Area Greenway” from this ad-hoc commission. The 50 acres that will be preserved via
the Joint Powers Agreement in the Fish Creek Corridor are identified as very high priority
parcels for acquisition. Ramsey County and the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed
District agreed and this commitment to permanently protect these acres resulted in the
creation of a Joint Powers Agreement between these two parties and the City of
Maplewood.
Packet Page Number 168 of 206
2
THE CONSERVATION FUND
Nearly 25 years ago, The Conservation Fund was founded by a small group of savvy
conservationists to save America’s magnificent land legacy – the places where we live,
work and play. Since then, with creativity and discipline, the Conservation Fund has
protected nearly 6.5 million acres of working forests, farms, and wildlife habitat and
recreation lands. The Conservation Fund assists communities plan for growth, support
sustainable small business and develop the next generation of conservation leaders.
The mission of The Conservation Fund is as follows:
The Conservation Fund forges partnerships to conserve America’s legacy of land and
water resources. Through land acquisition, community and economic development and
training and education, the Fund and its partners demonstrate balanced conservation
solutions that emphasize the integration of economic and environmental goals (from The
Conservation Fund – 2009 Year in Review). Mr. Clint Miller, Upper Midwest Field
Representative for The Conservation Fund, will be present at the August 8, 2011 council
meeting to address council and respond to questions that may arise during the
discussion.
DISCUSSION
Staff has prepared the following table titled Fish Creek Cash Flow Summary Estimates
for council’s review and discussion:
Fish Creek Cash Flow Summary Estimates
July 2011
Expenses:
Land $1,900,000
Taxes Open Issue
Due Diligence $6k – paid out of the 2011 Parks operating budget
Interest @ 4.75/5.0% $115K-$120K
Conservation Fund Fee $60k
Legal/Closing costs etc. $10k
Miscellaneous $10k
Total projected costs $2,100,000
The above total includes all costs associated with the acquisition project.
Packet Page Number 169 of 206
3
Income:
RWMWD – Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) $175,000
Ramsey County JPA – (2011) $175,000
Ramsey County JPA – (2012) $125,000
Ramsey County JPA – (2013) $125,000
City of Maplewood JPA – (2011) $175,000
City of Maplewood JPA – (2012) $125,000
City of Maplewood JPA – (2013) $125,000
3M Foundation – (2011) $100,000
Total Income to Date $1,125,000
Summary:
Total Projected Costs $2,100,000
Total Income to Date $1,125,000
Unmet Needs $975,000
Fish Creek Acquisition Details:
• Conservation Fund acquires property under contractual agreement on
behalf of the City of Maplewood – purchase price $1,900,000;
• Conservation Fund agrees to “hold” the property for a period of 24
months following the closing which is tentatively set to occur in Oct.
2011;
• City agrees to pay the Conservation Fund $60,000 for administrative fees.
Conservation Fund agrees to assist the City in securing additional funds
for acquisition project;
• City agrees to interest carrying costs on purchase price of five percent
(5%) simple interest per year;
Packet Page Number 170 of 206
4
• City agrees to pay the Conservation Fund all outstanding balances due
on or before October 2013;
• City takes possession of property in October 2013;
• As additional funds are secured, City can “pay down” interest costs.
Staff has included the Real Estate Contract between The Conservation Fund and
Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC for purchase of said property in the attachments for
councils review. In addition, you will also find the Title Insurance Commitment, issued by
Stewart Title Guaranty Company in your packet for your review. Staff (the City
Attorney), is working with the Conservation Fund to clear up the title exceptions prior to
the sale.
An unresolved issue at this time is that of the real estate taxes (see the ‘open’
designation above). Currently, the property is taxable and Lakeland has an active
petition before the County Assessor regarding valuation since the property went into
foreclosure and value is clearly an issue. There is currently no factual support for the
property to go “exempt” since it is neither owned by a non-profit nor a governmental
entity. The date for filing that for future year’s exemption is (was) July 1st
• Staff has submitted a DNR Scenic and Natural Areas Grant Request for
$425,000. There are a total of seven applicants vowing for $1,200,000. No
decision – state budget not approved.
, for payable
2013. The City Attorney will continue to work with the Conservation Fund to resolve the
tax issue. Once owned by the Fund, a PD75 can be filed to get the land off the tax roll,
but the Fund will have to work with the County for the next year or two, and make sure
that the matter is resolved with Lakeland prior to purchase.
Fish Creek Funding Update:
Total Project Costs - $2,100,000
Funding Committed to Date - $1,125,000
Unmet Needs - $975,000
Funding Goal - $975,000
Timeframe – October 2013
• Staff has also submitted a bonding bill in the amount of $700,000. No State
bonding monies have been approved by the Legislature.
• Staff has received $100,000 from the 3M Foundation. In addition, 3M has
encouraged the City to reapply when we secure $1,600,000 in funding for this
project – likely request $100,000 - $150,000.
Packet Page Number 171 of 206
5
• This project is not eligible for Legacy Funds because public hunting is not
allowed on the site. However, the City is eligible to submit a grant application to
the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR). The next
funding cycle begins in early 2012. Staff will be working directly with the Metro
Conservation Corridors Partnership Group. This corridor partnership will typically
obtain funding for a suite of acquisition projects. The Friends of the Mississippi
(FMR) has indicated that they will bring this project to the Metro Conservation
Corridor Partnership on behalf of the City of Maplewood to discuss inclusion in
the 2012 Request for Proposals.
• Staff has been working directly with the National Park Service and
representatives from Congresswoman Betty McCollum’s office to secure funding
for this project. At this point, staff has not been able to locate any additional
Federal Funds for this project. However, staff will continue to diligently pursue
and discuss potential funding sources with these future partners.
• Staff continues to work directly with Representatives Nora Slawik and Leon Lillie
as well as Senator Wiger to identify possible State funding sources for this
project.
• Staff is currently working with Great River Greening to pursue long-term
restoration of the Fish Creek Site. Fish Creek is included in a restoration grant
that was submitted to the State in July 2011for work beginning in July 2012.
• Staff is currently submitting requests to area businesses for financial support for
this project.
• Staff has reached out to more than 30 foundations and has narrowed this list
down to seven that might be eligible and will be submitting formal grant requests
to these foundations over the course of the next 12 months or so.
• Staff will begin a campaign this fall and next spring that will look at individual
contributions for this project.
• Staff will be working with our partners Trust for Public Lands and the Minnesota
Land Trust to identify possible funding sources.
• The $425,000 that the city is responsible for will come directly from monies in the
Park Acquisition Fund (PAC).
Packet Page Number 172 of 206
6
SUMMARY
Staff has secured funding for the Fish Creek Acquisition Project totaling some
$1,250,000. We currently have unmet needs of approximately $975,000 which does not
include the 20 acres the City intends to sell at a future date. The proposed contract with
the Conservation Fund requires the City to take possession of this property in October of
2013. Staff is cautiously optimistic that we will be able to bring an additional $500,000 to
$600,000 to the table for this project. However, staff cannot definitely guarantee this
amount and in this very challenging environment, we have no additional financial
commitments to date. The question directly in front of the City Council is “Is the City
Council willing to commit to cover the difference between the acquisition costs,
approximately $2,100,000, minus the amount staff has currently raised which is
$1,125,000”? In other words, if staff working with our many partners, is unsuccessful in
raising (worst case scenario) any additional capital – the City of Maplewood would be
responsible for the remaining balance of $975,000 due in October 2013. The fund has
indicated that they may be able to extend the contract if the City is making progress
toward its financial goal, but the extension would not be indefinite, certainly.
RECOMMENDATION
As previously stated, staff is looking for direction from the council regarding the Fish
Creek Acquisition Project. No formal action is required today. If council is supportive,
staff will bring this item back to council at the August 8, 2011 for formal action.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Real Estate Contract between Conservation Fund and Lakeland Construction Finance,
LLC.
2. Title Insurance Commitment – Stewart Title Guaranty Company
3. Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway Factsheet
4. Title Insurance Document
Packet Page Number 173 of 206
Packet Page Number 174 of 206
Packet Page Number 175 of 206
Packet Page Number 176 of 206
Packet Page Number 177 of 206
Packet Page Number 178 of 206
Packet Page Number 179 of 206
Packet Page Number 180 of 206
Packet Page Number 181 of 206
Packet Page Number 182 of 206
Packet Page Number 183 of 206
Packet Page Number 184 of 206
Packet Page Number 185 of 206
Packet Page Number 186 of 206
Packet Page Number 187 of 206
Packet Page Number 188 of 206
Packet Page Number 189 of 206
Packet Page Number 190 of 206
Packet Page Number 191 of 206
INFORMATION
The Title Insurance Commitment is a legal contract between you and the Company. It is issued to show the basis
on which we will issue a Title Insurance Policy to you. The Policy will insure you against certain risks to the land title,
subject to the limitations shown in the Policy.
The Company will give you a sample of the Policy form, if you ask.
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less
shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or you as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review
a copy of the arbitration rules at <http://www.alta.org/>.
The Commitment is based on the land title as of the Commitment Date. Any changes in the land title or the transaction
may affect the Commitment and the Policy.
The Commitment is subject to its Requirements, Exceptions and Conditions.
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PART OF THE TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. YOU SHOULD READ THE
COMMITMENT VERY CAREFULLY.
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company
shall be addressed to it at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252.
Page 1
Packet Page Number 192 of 206
TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT
Issued by
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
We agree to issue policy to you according to the terms of the Commitment. When we show the policy amount
and your name as the proposed insured in Schedule A, this Commitment becomes effective as of the
Commitment Date shown in Schedule A.
If the Requirements shown in this Commitment have not been met within six months after the Commitment
Date, our obligation under this Commitment will end. Also, our obligation under this Commitment will end
when the Policy is issued and then our obligation to you will be under the Policy.
Our obligation under this Commitment is limited by the following:
The Provisions in Schedule A.
The Requirements in Schedule B-I.
The Exceptions in Schedule B-II.
The Conditions on Page 2.
This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections I and II of SCHEDULE B.
This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be
hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A.
Countersigned:
Authorized Countersignature
Stewart Title of Minnesota, Inc.
Company
Bloomington, Minnesota
City, State
ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6/17/06)
245 ALTA Plain Language Commitment (6/17/06)
Packet Page Number 193 of 206
CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
(a) “Mortgage” means mortgage, deed of trust or other security instrument. (b) “Public Records” means title records that
give constructive notice of matters affecting your title according to the state statutes where your land is located.
2. LATER DEFECTS
The Exceptions in Schedule B – Section II may be amended to show any defects, liens or encumbrances that appear for
the first time in the public records or are created or attach between the Commitment Date and the date on which all of the
Requirements (a) and (c) of Schedule B – Section I are met. We shall have no liability to you because of this amendment.
3. EXISTING DEFECTS
If any defects, liens or encumbrances existing at Commitment date are not shown in Schedule B, we may amend
Schedule B to show them. If we do amend Schedule B to show these defects, liens or encumbrances, we shall be liable
to you according to Paragraph 4 below unless you knew of this information and did not tell us about it in writing.
4. LIMITATION OF OUR LIABILITY
Our only obligation is to issue to you the Policy referred to in this Commitment, when you have met its Requirements. If
we have any liability to you for any loss you incur because of an error in this Commitment, our liability will be limited to your
actual loss caused by your relying on this Commitment when you acted in good faith to:
Comply with the Requirements shown in Schedule B – Section I
or
Eliminate with our written consent any Exceptions shown in Schedule B – Section II.
We shall not be liable for more than the Policy Amount shown in Schedule A of this Commitment and our liability is subject
to the terms of the Policy form to be issued to you.
5. CLAIMS MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
Any claim, whether or not based on negligence, which you may have against us concerning the title to the land must be
based on this Commitment and is subject to its terms.
Page 2
Packet Page Number 194 of 206
ESTABLISHED 1893
INCORPORATED 1908
A NAME
RECOGNIZED NATIONALLY
AS BEING
SYNONYMOUS WITH
QUALITY
P.O. Box 2029
Houston, Texas 77252
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY 1
SCHEDULE A
1. Commitment date
2. Policies to be Issued, Amounts and
Proposed Insureds
3. Interest in the Land and Owner
4. Description of the Land
SCHEDULE B-I – REQUIREMENTS
SCHEDULE B-II – EXCEPTIONS
CONDITIONS 2
Packet Page Number 195 of 206
ALTA Commitment Schedule A
SCHEDULE A
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 5 of 12
Order Number: 149698
1. Effective Date: April 10, 2011 at 7:00 A.M.
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:Amount of Insurance
(a) ALTA Owner’s 2006 $1,900,000.00
Proposed Insured: The Conservation Fund
(b) ALTA Loan 2006
Proposed Insured: NONE
3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is
fee simple and is at the effective date hereof vested in:
Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, and
described as follows:
PARCEL A:
The West One-half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28,
Range 22, lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey
County, Minnesota;
EXCEPT the North 150 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of
State Trunk Highway 494;
AND ALSO EXCEPT that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter24, Township 28,
Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter; Section 24 and the
Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right-of-Way
line of T.H. #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be
described; thence continuing Southwesterly along Westerly Right-of-Way line of T.H. #393 a
distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line; thence deflecting Southwesterly 59
degrees 14 minutes, to the right, continuing along the Right-of-Way line of said T.H. #393, a distance
of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right-of-Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a
line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of said Westerly Right-of-Way line, as measured at
right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to
Packet Page Number 196 of 206
ALTA Commitment Schedule A
SCHEDULE A
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 6 of 12
the North line of said Southwest Quarter, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of
beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual
point of beginning.
AND the West 974.9 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township
28, Range 22, except the North 500 feet thereof, all lying Westerly of the Westerly Right-of-Way
line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
AND the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24,
Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota; except that part taken by County of Ramsey in
Final Certificate filed as Document No.’s 2254933 and 2256730.
PARCEL B:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 24, Township 28, Range 22,
Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter, Section 24 and the
Westerly Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly
Right-of-Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning
of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right-of-
Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right-of-Way line;
thence deflecting Southwesterly 59 degrees 14 minutes to the right, continuing along the Right-of-
Way line of said Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said
Right-of-Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of
said Westerly Right-of-Way line, a measured as right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less,
to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said Southwest Quarter, Section 24
and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of
176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning.
PARCEL C:
The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township
28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
PARCEL D:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22,
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
24, Township 28, Range 22, a distance of 325.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence
West along said North line a distance of 975.93 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24; thence Southerly, along the West line of said Quarter-
Quarter section line, a distance of 500 feet; thence East, and parallel with the North line, a distance
of 974.93 feet; thence Northerly 500 feet to the point of beginning; except the East 150 feet of the
North 290.4 feet and except the West 110 feet of the North 396 feet, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Packet Page Number 197 of 206
ALTA Commitment Schedule A
SCHEDULE A
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 7 of 12
PARCEL E:
That certain real property situate in the County of Ramsey, Minnesota, described as follows:
The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township
28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with an easement over that part of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24 and the Northwest
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 24; begin 33.00 feet either
side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24; thence South 89 degrees
58 minutes 49 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the North line thereof a distance of 33.00 feet
to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence Northeasterly on a non-tangential curve concave
to the Southeast having a chord bearing of North 33 degrees 43 minutes 49 seconds East with a
radius of 120.00 feet, center angle of 67 degrees, 28 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 141.37 feet;
thence North 67 degrees, 28 minutes 49 seconds East, tangent to last described curve a distance of
217.69 feet, more or less, to the Right-of-Way of Inter-State Highway No. 494 and there terminating.
PARCEL F:
The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township
28, Range 22, according to the government survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Abstract
Packet Page Number 198 of 206
ALTA Commitment Schedule B Section I
SCHEDULE B – Section I
Requirements
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 8 of 12
Order Number: 149698
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT, EXAMINATION, REPORT, OR REPRESENTATION OF
FACT OR TITLE AND DOES NOT CREATE AND SHALL NOT BE THE BASIS OF ANY CLAIM FOR
NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION OR OTHER TORT CLAIM OR ACTION. THE
SOLE LIABILITY OF COMPANY AND ITS TITLE INSURANCE AGENT SHALL ARISE UNDER AND
BE GOVERNED BY PARAGRAPH THREE (3) OF THE CONDITIONS.
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
1.A properly executed and recordable deed from Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC to The
Conservation Fund, a Maryland non-profit corporation.
2. Affidavit Regarding Seller(s) executed by Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC.
3. Affidavit Regarding Purchaser(s) executed by The Conservation Fund, a Maryland non-profit
corporation.
4. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Collateral, Assignment of Sheriff’s Certificate, Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing
Statement in the original principal amount of $10,112,452.63, dated 3-4-2009, filed 3-23-2009, as
Document No. 4146806, between Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC, a Minnesota corporation,
mortgagor, and Bank of Scotland PLC (f/k/a Bank of Scotland), acting through its New York Branch,
a public limited company registered in Scotland, United Kingdom, as administrative agent for the
ratable benefit of the Lenders, mortgagee.
5. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Collateral Assignment of Sheriff’s Certificate, Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing
Statement in the original principal amount of $10,112,452.63, dated 3-4-2009, filed 3-23-2009, as
Document No. 4146807, between Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC, a Minnesota corporation,
mortgagor, and BOS (USA) Inc., as administrative agent for the ratable benefit of the Lenders,
mortgagee.
6. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Mortgage in the original principal amount of $1,550,000.00, dated 9-15-2004, filed 9-16-2004, as
Document No. 3792276, between CoPar Development, LLC, a Wisconsin corporation, mortgagor,
and Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, mortgagee. (As to
Parcel F)
7. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Mortgage in the original principal amount of $1,025,000.00, dated 8-20-2004, filed 8-27-2004, as
Packet Page Number 199 of 206
ALTA Commitment Schedule B Section I
SCHEDULE B – Section I
Requirements
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 9 of 12
Document No. 3787082, between CoPar Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
mortgagor, and Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
mortgagee. (As to Parcel E)
8. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Mortgage in the original principal amount of $650,000.00, dated 7-27-2005, filed 8-15-2005, as
Document No. 3880188, between CoPar Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
mortgagor, and Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
mortgagee. (As to Parcel D)
9. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Mortgage in the original principal amount of $4,750,000.00, dated 5-5-2005, filed 5-12-2005, as
Document No. 3855048, between CoPar Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
mortgagor, and Lakeland Construction Finance, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
mortgagee. (As to Parcels A, B and C)
10. The company requires the following to be satisfied, subordinated or partially released:
Mortgage in the original principal amount of $700,000.00, dated 11-2-2004, filed 12-1-2004, as
Document No. 3812239, between Gary G. Schlomka, a single individual, mortgagor, and Lakeland
Construction Finance, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, mortgagee. (As to Parcels A, B
and C)
Packet Page Number 200 of 206
ALTA Commitment Schedule B Section II
SCHEDULE B – Section II
Exceptions
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 10 of 12
Order Number: 149698
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed
of to the satisfaction of the Company:
1. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed
insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
commitment.
2. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records.
3. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a
correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public
records.
5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed
by law and not shown by the public records.
6. Rights or claims of tenants, as tenants only, in possession under unrecorded leases.
7. Taxes for the year 2011 in the amount of $36,114.00. They are half paid. Base Tax amount
$36,114.00.
PIN: 24-28-22-31-0017. Non-Homestead
There are no delinquent taxes of record.
Taxes for the year 2011 in the amount of $1,610.00. They are half paid. Base Tax amount
$1,610.00.
PIN: 24-28-22-31-0002. Non-Homestead
There are no delinquent taxes of record.
Taxes for the year 2011 in the amount of $10,834.00. They are half paid. Base Tax amount
$10,834.00.
PIN: 24-28-22-32-0001. Non-Homestead
There are no delinquent taxes of record.
Taxes for the year 2011 in the amount of $7,758.00. They are half paid. Base Tax amount
$7,758.00.
PIN: 24-28-22-24-0010. Non-Homestead
There are no delinquent taxes of record.
Packet Page Number 201 of 206
ALTA Commitment Schedule B Section II
SCHEDULE B – Section II
Exceptions
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 11 of 12
Taxes for the year 2011 in the amount of $10,834.00. They are half paid. Base Tax amount
$10,834.00.
PIN: 24-28-22-32-0003. Non-Homestead
There are no delinquent taxes of record.
Taxes for the year 2011 in the amount of $9,714.00. They are half paid. Base Tax amount
$9,714.00.
PIN: 24-28-22-32-0002. Non-Homestead
There are no delinquent taxes of record.
8. There are no levied or pending special assessments.
9. Subject to the rights of Carver Avenue; Henry Lane Right of Way as laid out and traveled.
10. Terms and conditions of Easement for roadway and utility purposes as set forth in documents filed
10-30-1979, as Document No. 2060364 and Document No. 2060365.
11. Terms and conditions of Easement in favor of Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, a Delaware
corporation dated 3-21-1931, filed 5-15-1931, in Book 892 Deeds, page 350, as Document No.
817152.
Assigned to Williams Brothers Pipe Line Company, a Delaware corporation, by Minnesota Special
Warranty Deed, dated 3-15-1966, filed 4-5-1966, as Document No. 1672978.
(Note: Easement appears to be unconfined)
12. Terms and conditions of controlled access as set forth in Final Certificate dated 5-7-1962, filed 6-21-
1962, in Book 1795, page 365, as Document No. 1565350.
Also shown in Quit Claim Deed dated 9-14-1972, filed 12-1-1972, as Document No. 1843272, and as
shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 62-19, dated 7-30-2002,
filed 8-6-2002, as Document No. 3523549.
13. Terms and conditions of Easement for storm sewer and drainage purposes in favor of Ramsey
Washington Metro Watershed District as set forth in Surface Water Drainage Easement dated
6-20-1989, filed 7-7-1989, as Document No. 2499330 and 2499331.
14. Rights of the State of Minnesota as set forth in Final Certificate dated 5-7-1962, filed 6-21-1962, as
Document No. 1565350.
15. Terms and conditions of Easement for roadway purposes dated 10-4-1947, filed 10-6-1947, in Book
1261 of Deeds, page 28, as Document No. 1160446.
Packet Page Number 202 of 206
ALTA Commitment Schedule B Section II
SCHEDULE B – Section II
Exceptions
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Commitment Page 12 of 12
16. Terms and conditions of Right of Way Agreement dated 11-19-1959, filed 12-21-1959, as Document
No. 15010190.
(Note: easement appears to be partially defined)
17. Terms and conditions of Memorandum of Option Agreement dated 3-1-2005, filed 3-31-2005, as
Document No. 3844715, between CoPar Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
and The Rottlund Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. (As to Parcel E)
18. Terms and conditions of Memorandum of Option Agreement dated 3-1-2005, filed 3-31-2005, as
Document No. 3844716, between CoPar Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
and The Rottlund Company, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. (As to Parcel F)
19. Terms and conditions of Developer’s Agreement dated 9-17-2008, filed 10-16-2008, as Document
No. 4122071.
20. Subject to the following matters as disclosed on the survey prepared by McCombs Frank Roos
Associates, Inc., dated 5-6-2005:
a) Fence and buildings (As to Parcel D)
Note: Stewart Title is not in possession of the above mentioned survey. This exception was carried
forward from a prior policy.
21. Intentionally moved to Schedule B-1.
22. Intentionally moved to Schedule B-1.
23. Intentionally moved to Schedule B-1.
24. Intentionally moved to Schedule B-1.
25. Intentionally moved to Schedule B-1.
Note: Revised 5-27-2011:Schedule B-2, Item 21-25 moved to Schedule B-1
Packet Page Number 203 of 206
Packet Page Number 204 of 206
7/18/11
Protecting Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway
The Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway stretches from the Mississippi River in St.
Paul, through Maplewood, to Carver Park in Woodbury. The heart of the greenway
is Fish Creek and Ramsey County’s 142‐acre Fish Creek Open Space. In 2010,
project partners adopted a vision for the greenway and plans for protection,
stewardship, and access to nature.
Now is the time! A top priority parcel is for sale. Surrounded on three sides by
county open space, this site is a key link in the greenway. Once pasture land,
today this land is open rolling hills with wide views, a prairie remnant, oak and
aspen woodlands, and a pine plantation. The southwest corner of the site is
Mississippi River bluff land with a dramatic vista across the river valley. Part of
the Mississippi River flyway, the site is frequented by raptors, songbirds, and
wildlife species such as fox, coyote, deer, and opossum.
Views of Fish Creek from Ramsey
County Open Space.
Prairie remnant and aspen grove on the site.
Contact: DuWayne Konewko, Director Parks and
Recreation, City of Maplewood, 651‐249‐2330
duwayne.konewko@ci.maplewood.mn.us
Help Preserve This Link In The Greenway
Preserving this site will protect:
• Wildlife habitat including woodlands and grasslands.
• Fish Creek and its upland buffer.
• Mississippi River bluff lands.
• Scenic views.
Preserving this site will create opportunities for hiking and
nature exploration:
• Public access to the bluff top and its incredible views
over the Mississippi River Valley.
• Future hiking trail winding through the rolling hills.
• Access point needed to create the Fish Creek Hiking
Trail, a 1‐1/2 mile trail from Point Douglas Road in St.
Paul to Carver Lake Park in Woodbury.
• Significantly improved access to existing county lands.
• Connections to local and regional bike trails, including
the Mississippi River Trail.
This site lies within the Mississippi National River and
Recreation Area, The Mississippi River Corridor Critical
Area, and the Metro Conservation Corridor.
Project: Acquire 70 acres adjacent to Fish Creek Open Space
Intended Use: Protect natural resources and provide public access for
hiking and enjoyment of nature
Location: Maplewood, MN, Ramsey County
Partners: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Ramsey‐
Washington Metro Watershed District, The
Conservation Fund, 3M Foundation
Project Cost: $2,100,000
Unmet Need: $975,000
Packet Page Number 205 of 206
7/18/11 Welcome to the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway. Natural areas are shaded green on this map. The crosshatch indicates land in public ownership. Parcels A and B make up the 70‐acre site that is for sale. The proposed Fish Creek Hiking Trail (orange dotted line) would follow the creek for much of its route. Parcel B Parcel A Packet Page Number 206 of 206