Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 02-25 City Council PacketMAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, February 25, 2002 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 02 -04 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of City Council Meeting from February 11, 2002, Meeting 02 -03 2. Minutes of Meeting from Council /Manager's Workshop, February 11, 2002 E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims - -- 2. Penalty Structure Tobacco Non - Compliance 3. Transfer to Close Fund for Tri- District School Pond Outlet Project 4. Change Order - Maplewood Community Center Dehumidification System Upgrade H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 Gladstone South Neighborhood Street Improvements, Project 00 -03 A. Resolution Ordering Improvement After Public Hearing — 4 Votes 7:15 Carriage Homes of Maple Hills (Parkway Drive) A. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development B. Code Variation — Street Right -of -Way Width C. Code Variation — Street Pavement Width D. Design Approval I. AWARD OF BIDS J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Hazelwood Street Improvements (Gervais to County Road C), Project 99 -07 A. Resolution to Direct the Modification of the Construction Contract B. Resolution for Acceptance of Project 2. English Street Improvement, Project 01 -14 A. Approval of Sidewalk Location B. Resolution Requesting Variance from Standards for. State Aid Operations 3. Edgerton/Roselawn Signal System Replacement, City Project 02 -05 A. Approve Project Initiation B. Approve Signal Justification Report C. Approve Project Plans D. Approve Cost Share Agreement with Ramsey County 4. Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Discussion L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk =s Office at (651) 770 -4523 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 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. DRAFT -- MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, February 11, 2002 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 02 -03 nsm N , oN 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 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. Action by Coin B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Date C. ROLL CALL Endorsed Modified Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Rejected -- Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Present Kathleen A. Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Present Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present Cub Scout Pack 197 and Boy Scout Troup 73 are in the process of learning about being a good citizen and were present to watch the functions of the City Council. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Council Workshop Minutes of January 28, 2002 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All Councilmember Collins moved to approve the City Council Minutes of January 28, 2002 meeting No. 02 -02 as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M1. Neighborhood Policing and Block Watch M2. RFP for Prosecuting Attorney Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS None City Council Meeting 02 -11 -02 1 G. CONSENT AGENDA Item #14 was pulled for separate vote. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit Review for Comfort Bus Maintenance Garage (y 1870) Rice Street. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes- Councilmembers Collins, Juenemann, Koppen and Wasiluk Abstain -Mayor Cardinal Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items 1 -13 and 15 -21. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS T) At7AT1T T $380.00 Checks #56727 thru #56728 dated 1/22 thru 1/23/02 $35,139.58 Checks #56729 thru #56772 dated 1/25 thru 1/29/02 $97,440.26 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 1/18 thru 1/28/02 $29,231.21 Checks #56773 thru #56775 dated 1/30 thru 1/31/02 $435,411.28 Checks #56776 thru #56850 dated 2/1 thru 2/5/02 $156,811.70 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 1/25 thru 2/4/02 $754,414.03 Total Accounts Payable n A '%rrn nT T $393,464.50 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 2/1/02 $40,008.95 Payroll Deduction checks #87742 thru #87749 dated 2/1/02 $433,473.45 Total Payroll $1,187,887.48 GRAND TOTAL 2. Transfers from Tax Increment Funds Authorized the appropriate 2001 budget adjustments and 2001 transfers totaling $544,045 from the Tax Increment Funds to the Debt Service Fund City Council Meeting 02 -11 -02 2 3. Renewal of Contract for Investment Management Services Approved the renewal of the contract with Voyageur Asset Management for investment management services for a five -year period. 4. Carry Over of 2001 Appropriations to 2002 Approved the carryover requests from Department Heads of unspent funds from 2001 to 2002. 5. Disposal of Old Financial Records Adopted the following resolution to destroy financial records that have passed their required legal retention period: RESOLUTION 02 -02 -012 DISPOSAL OF OLD FINANCIAL RECORDS WHEREAS, M. S.A. 13 8.17 governs the destruction of city records; and WHEREAS, a list of records has been presented to the Council with a request in writing that destruction be approved by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA; 1. That the Finance Director is hereby directed to apply to the Minnesota State Historical Society for an order authorizing destruction of the records as described in the attached list. 2. That upon approval by the State of the attached application, the Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to destroy the records listed. 6. 2002 Vehicle and Equipment Purchases - Public Works Authorized the purchase of two 1 /2 -ton pickup truck replacements, two park mower replacement, one 12- passenger van replacement, two asphalt rollers and disposal of replaced vehicles /equipment thorough state auction services after new vehicles /equipment are delivered. 7. Maple Hills Lift Station Relocation, City Project 02 -04: Adjust Scope of Preliminary Report Adopted the following resolution authorizing an adjustment to the scope of the preliminary report for the lift station relocation at the Maple Hills Development: RESOLUTION 02 -02 -013 ORDERING REVISIONS TO A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, on January 28, 2002, the Maplewood City Council approved a resolution to prepare a preliminary report to abandon a lift station and construct a new lift station within the proposed Maple City Council Meeting 02 -11 -02 3 Hills Development at Parkway Drive and T.H. 61, City Project 02 -04, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, Maplewood Public Works staff has determined that significant financial benefit will likely be received to abandon the Parkway lift station within the City of St. Paul, and WHEREAS, Ramsey County Public Works staff has determined that drainage improvements may benefit improvements along. Parkway Drive as a portion of the Maple Hill Development proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That all proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended, and FURTHERMORE, additional funds in the amount of $20,000 are appropriated from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to prepare this feasibility report. 8. Gambling Resolution - Merrick, Inc. at The Rock Adopted the following resolution approving the renewal of the Lawful Gambling License with the State of Minnesota for the Merrick Companies Inc. at the Rock, 2029 Woodlynn Avenue: RESOLUTION 02 -02 -014 LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premises permit for lawful gambling is approved for Merrick Companies to operate at The Rock, 2029 Woodlynn Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute 349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute 349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. 9. Gambling Resolution - Merrick, Inc. at Garrity's Adopted the following resolution approving the renewal of the Lawful Gambling License with the State of Minnesota for the Merrick Companies Inc. at Garrity's, 1696 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota: City Council Meeting 02 -11 -02 4 RESOLUTION 02 -02 -015 LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premises permit for lawful gambling is approved for Merrick Companies to operate at Garrity's, 1696 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute 349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute 349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. 10. Gambling Resolution- Church of St. Jerome at Dean's Tavern Adopted the following resolution approving the renewal of the Lawful Gambling License with the State of Minnesota for St. Jerome's Church to operate at Dean's Tavern, 1986 Rice: RESOLUTION 02 -02 -016 LAWFUL GAMBLING BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premises permit for lawful gambling is approved . for St. Jerome's Church to operate at Dean's Tavern. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute 349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute 349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. 11. Gambling Resolution- Church of St. Jerome's School Adopted the following resolution approving the renewal of the Lawful Gambling License with the State of Minnesota for St. Jerome's Church to operate at St. Jerome's School, 376 E. Roselawn Avenue: City Council Meeting 02 -11 -02 RESOLUTION 02 -02 -017 LAWFUL GAMBLING BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premises permit for lawful gambling is approved for St. Jerome's Church to operate at St. Jerome's School, 376 E. Roselawn Avenue. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute 349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute 349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. 12. Animal Control Services 2002 Contract Approved the 2002 contract from Animal Control Services, Inc., for animal control in Maplewood. 13. Conditional Use Permit Review -Lot Division (1101 County Road C) Approved reviewing the conditional use permit for the lot division to create two 70- foot -wide residential lots at 1101 and 1107 County Road C only if the owner proposes a major change or if a problem exists. 14. Pulled for separate vote. 15. Conditional Use Permit Review -North Saint Paul Post Office Annex (1686 Gervais Avenue) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the North St. Paul Post Office Annex at 1686 Gervais Avenue again only if a problem develops or if the owner proposes a ma' e. or change. g 16. Preliminary Plat Time Extension- Woodlynn Heights Townhomes No. Seven (Woodlynn Avenue) Approved a one -year time - extension for the Woodlynn Heights Townhomes Number Seven preliminary plat. 17. 2002 City Manager's Employment Agreement Approved changes to the City Manager Employment Agreement. 18. New SCBA Compressor -Fire Department Accepted and awarded the bid to Alex Air in the amount of $19,189 for a new SCBA Compressor, for the Fire Department and directed the finance department to make the necessary budget transfer. City Council Meeting 02 -11 -02 6 19. Disposal of Surplus Equipment -Fire Department Declared three -fire trucks excess inventory and noted that the proceeds of the sale of these three vehicles would go back into the city truck replacement fund. 20. Renewal of Landfall Agreement -Fire Department Approved the Landfall fire contract and the revisions that have been setforth by this new contract. 21. Accept Donation from Home Depot -Fire Department Accepted a grant of $600 from Home Depot for the fire prevention fund from supplies and handouts for public education needs. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS None I. AWARD OF BIDS None J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Adult Use Fee Structure and Code Change a. Mayor Cardinal opened the meeting for a discussion about proposed code changes for adult uses and their fees. b. City Clerk Guilfoile presented the specifics of the report. Councilmember Collins moved to place a moratorium on Adult Use Stores for a six -month time frame. Staff was directed to rewrite the ordinance to include a new license and investigative fee and zoning code restrictions. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Gladstone South Neighborhood Street, City Project 00-03: Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Engineer Ahl presented the specifics of the report. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the following resolution accepting the report and calling for a public hearing for the Gladstone South Neighborhood Street Improvements: City Council Meeting 02 -11 -02 7 RESOLUTION 02 -02 -018 ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted November 27, 2000, a report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of the Gladstone South Neighborhood Streets, City Project 00 -03, and this report was received by the council on February 11, 2002, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant - to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $3,280,000. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 25th day of February, 2002, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes -All L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ken Gervais 2373 Linwood, Maplewood, questioned whether a recent settlement with a former city employee was paid by city insurance or with city funds. Finance Director Faust will research and inform council. M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Neighborhood Policing and Neighborhood Block Watch Councilmember Juenemann explained the city neighborhood policing program and encouraged citizens to become aware and involved. 2. RFP for Prosecuting Attorney City Manager Fursman asked for Councilmember Juenemann and Wasiluk's assistance in pursing a Request for Proposal. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Retreat April 3 rd will be an all day Team Building retreat for the city council and city department heads. O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 P.M. Seconded by Councilmember Ayes - All City Council Meeting 02 -11 -02 0 A. Be C. MINUTES AGENDA U&M N Q -. CITY COUNCIL /MANAGER WORKSHOP - - - -�- - -- - -- - - - - -.- Monday, February 11, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall Action by Council 6:00 p.m. Date Endorsed Modified CALL TO ORDER Rejected,� ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Kathleen A. Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present Present Present Present Present Others Present: City Manager Fursman Assistant City Manager Coleman City Clerk Guilfoile Human Resources Director Le Parks and Recreation Director Anderson City Engineer Ahl Finance Director Faust Police Chief Winger Fire Chief Lukin APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Collins moved to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk NEW BUSINESS Ayes -All 1. Recreational Burning - Councilmember Collins expressed concerns about the number of people burning recreational fires and the problems it causes for homeowners and the environment. Chief Lukin explained the process of how the Fire Department polices the issue and what the standards of recreational burning are. After discussion, council directed staff to do a study on recreational burning in other communities to bring back to the council. 2. Merit Pay Program -After much discussion Council directed City Manager Fursman to report back to them regarding the pros and cons of merit pay from his perspective. Council/Manager's Workshop 02 -11 -02 1 E. FUTURE TOPICS 1. Exploring the Possibilities of a Sister City 2. White Bear Avenue StreetScapes 3. Housing and Business Redevelopment 4. Ordinance Regulating Buckthorn 5. Organized Collection 6. Planning Commission Interviews 7. ' Health/Restaurant Inspections 8. Ward System as Presented by Maplewood Resident Emil Sturzenegger 9. City Hall Courtyard 10. Open Space F. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Collins moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:5 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All Council/Manager's Workshop 02 -11 -02 2 AGENDA NO. G -1 AGENDA REPORT Action by Council TO: City Council Date FROM: Finance Director Endorsed RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Modified DATE: February 19, 2002 Reiected 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 nATTA TIT T77 $624.56 Checks #56851 thru #56852 dated 2/4 thru 2/7/02 $161,384.75 Checks #56853 thru #56942 dated 2/8 thru 2/12/02 $3,801,047.83 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 2/1 thru 2/8/02 $10,500.00 Check #56943 dated 2/8/02 $354,,880.28 Checks #56944 thru #57021 dated 2/15 thru 2/19/02 $206,952.93 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 2/8 thru 2/19/02 $4,535,390.35 Total Accounts Payable DAVDM T $381,999.22 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 2/15/02 $36,396.61 Payroll Deduction checks #87938 thru #87943 dated 2/15/02 $418 Total Payroll $4,953,786.18 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 770 -4513 if you have any questions on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. hu attachments PAFINANCE \Word\AGN\ApC1AR F619.doc vchlist , Check Register Page: 1 02/08/2002 11:02:47AM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 56851 2/4/02 02361 BOHL, JOHN POLICE OFFICER AT FIRE DEPT DINNE 175.00 56852 2/7/02 02391 MARUSKA, MARK Addition to merit pay 449.56 56853 2/12/02 00052 ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC. TRAINING SIGNS 159.75 56854 2/12/02 02234 AIRBORNE 1 CORPORATION HIGH RESOLUTION LIDAR DEM DATA, P 536.86 56855 2/12/02 01830 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO INC 1 COMPIX VIDEO CG DESKTOP SYSTEM 3 56856 2/12/02 00081 AMERICAN DESIGNER CLASSICS REF GRADING ESC -2624 ROMONTORY F 1,022.19 REF GRADING ESC -909 NEW CENTURY 1 19019.59 56857 2/12/02 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, INC. PATROL & BOARDING FEES 628.21 56858 2/12/02 02366 ARMSTRONG CONSTRUCTION REF GRADING ESC - 1681 -2 COPE AVE E 1,026.30 56859 2/12/02 .00149 BACHMAN'S CREDIT DEPT. REF GRADING ESC -2600 WHITE BEAR A 1,015.75 56860 2/12/02 00170 BECKER, RONALD REIMBURSE MILEAGE 1/14 TO 2/1/02 69.35 56861 2/12/02 00195 BLAKE BUILDERS REF GRADING ESC -770 -1 STERLING ST 1,148.08 REF GRADING ESC - 770 -2 STERLING S 2,267.81 56862 2/12/02 00209 BRANDL ANDERSON HOMES REF GRADING ESC -1500 MARY ST NO 1,200.00 56863 2/12/02 00211 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. PROJ 01 -23 GEOTECHNICAL EVAL SRV 2,400.00 56864 2/12/02 02367 BROWN, JULIE REF GRADING ESC -1765 MYRTLE ST N 1 56865 2/12/02 02368 BUZICKY, CHUCK REF GRADING ESC -626 STERLING ST S 1,169.04 56866 2/12/02 02369 CALLAHAN, DON REF GRADING ESC - 1101 -2 CO ROAD C E 1,032.33 56867 2/8/02 02362 CARLSON, JULIE REISSUE MAY /JUNE 2001 PAYROLL CHE 55.41 56868 2/12/02 02370 CHEUNG, DAN REF GRADING ESC -2520 HALLER LN E 3,344.25 56869 2/12/02 00306 COLLEGE CITY CONSTRUCTION REF GRADING ESC -1771 LAKEWOOD D 1 56870 2/12/02 02371 COMMERICAL UTILITIES REF GRADING ESC - 2610 -2 FLANDRAU S 529.18 56871 2/12/02 00312 COMPRESSAR & EQUIPMENT CO. O -RING FOR EQUIPMENT 6.73 56872 2/12/02 00336 COUNTRY HOME BUILDERS REF GRADING ESC -2691 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2686 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2690 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2696 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2698 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2687 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2700 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2703 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2699 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2693 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2695 NEW CENTUR 518.56 REF GRADING ESC -2697 NEW CENTUR 518.56 56873 2/12/02 00358 D & D TOWING SERVICE INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 74.55 TOW POLICE VEHICLE 53.25 56874 2/12/02 00373 DAN BROWN CONSTRUCTION REF GRADING ESC -2017 ARCADE ST N 1,187.12 56875 2/12/02 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPY MACHINE CHARGES 328.54 56876 2/12/02 00449 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC. INFORUM GOLD UPGRADE - FINAL PYM 625.00 INFORUM GOLD UPGRADE - FINAL PYM 125.00 56877 2/12/02 00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT. REPAIR AIR COMPRESSOR ON ENGINE 1,194.53 REPAIR PUMP SHIFT ON ENGINE 4 524.25 REPLACED ALTERNATOR ON AMBULAN 755.94 56878 2/12/02 00489 FACILITY SYSTEMS, INC DESIGN SRVS FOR WORKSTATION 247.50 56879 2/12/02 02107 FASULO, WALTER FIRE STATION SUPPLIES 33.31 56880 2/12/02 02372 FOOD SERVICE CONCEPTS INC REF GRADING ESC -1745 BEAM AVE E 2,979.21 56881 2/12/02 00579 GONYEA HOMES REF GRADING ESC -2564 MONTANA AV 1,029.18 56882 2/12/02 02373 GREENINGER, TIM REF GRADING ESC -2289 HOYT AVE E 1,156.99 56883 2/12/02 02374 HARRIS, J REF GRADING ESC -1777 EDGERTON ST 1,102.05 56884 2/12/02 02375 HOMES BY CHASE REF GRADING ESC -2563 HALLER LN E 3,171.64 56885 2/12/02 00684 HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY PROJ 99 -02 LIFT STATION #9 546.18 PROJ 00 -01 LIFT STATION #2 7 FLOW METERING - OAKDALE AT CENTU 1,583.73 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 02/08/2002 11:02:47AM City of Maplewood Check Date 56886 2/12/02 56887 2/12/02 56888 2/12/02 56889 2/12/02 56890 2/12/02 56891 2/12/02 56892 2/12/02 56893 2/12/02 56894 2/12/02 56895 2/12/02 56896 2/12/02 56897 2/12/02 Vendor Description /Account 02376 02377 00779 01894 01897 02378 02047 02363 02248 02393 00902 00904 J R BARTOW & CO JESPERSON HOMES K.D. HOMES, INC KELLY & FAWCETT PA KRAUS - ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO LANGER CONSTRUCTION LARSON, DAN LETTA LINN, BRYAN LOCHEN, MIKE M.E.M.A. M.L.E.E.A. REF GRADING ESC - 2054 EDGERTON S REF GRADING ESC -2022 EDGEMONT S REF GRADING ESC -619 STERLING ST S LEGAL SERVICES - JAN REF GRADING ESC -1760 BEAM AVE E REF GRADING ESC -2075 PROSPERITY R REIMBURSE LUNCH & PARKING 1/8 TO 1 TERRORISM CLASS REIMBURSE MEALS & MILEAGE 1/14 TO REIMBURSE TUITION & BOOKS 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES EXPLORER CONF REGISTRATIONS FOR 2002 ASSOCIATION DUES TRUCK WASH BRUSHES & HANDLES BIRTHDAY CAKES BIRTHDAY CAKES REF GRADING ESC -1750 LAKEWOOD D REF GRADING ESC - 1681 -1 COPE AVE E REF AMB 00022901C JONI AANENSON REF GRADING ESC - 2355 -2 MARYLAND A REF GRADING ESC - 1954 -2 DIETER ST N EMERGENCY MGMT PAGERS MONTHLY SAC - JAN REF GRADING ESC -2676 BARCLAY ST N SCHOOL FIRE & LIFE SAFETY CLASS MONTHLY SURTAX - JAN MAGNETIC MOUNT LIGHT BAR CODE EDITORIAL FEE INSTALL ALTERNATOR ON DC #2 VEHIC CHECK BATTERY & OIL CHANGE 2002 MEMBERSHIPS CITY NEWSLETTER - FEB REF JOHN NUTH - RUNNING CLUB ER ID #6120- 00,01,51 - 2/8/02 P/R REF GRADING ESC -1397 MYRTLE ST N REF GRADING ESC -1749 MYRTLE ST N REF GRADING ESC -2328 KINGSTON AV REF GRADING ESC -2306 KINGSTON AV REF GRADING ESC -2328 SOUTHCREST REF GRADING ESC -2332 MAMIE AVE E REF GRADING ESC -1049 DORLAND RD REF GRADING ESC -2311 MAMIE AVE E REF GRADING ESC -810 STERLING ST S REF GRADING ESC -1079 DORLAND RD POLICE PERSONNEL MGMT TRAINING REF GRADING ESC -1430 MARY ST NO CITY DONATION FOR COUNTY FAIR FILING FEES FOR EASEMENTS, QCD'S, I DOWN PYMT JULY 4TH DANCE /CONCER REIMBURSE MILEAGE 1/18 TO 2/1 PROJ 01 -19 - ABATE ALL ABESTOS MISC SUPPLIES CANDY & SNACKS CANDY & SNACKS REF GRADING ESC -1435 STERLING ST 56898 2/12/02 00888 M/A ASSOCIATES 56899 2/12/02 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 56900 2/12/02 00956 MCDONALD CONSTRUCTION 56901 2/12/02 02379 MEISINGER CONSTRUCTION 56902 2/12/02 02364 MET LIFE 56903 2/12/02 02380 METRO GENERAL SERVICES 56904 2/12/02 00978 METROCALL 56905 2/12/02 00986 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 56906 2/12/02 02381 MITTLESTAEDT BROS 56907 2/12/02 00509 IMN STATE FIRE MARSHAL DIV 56908 2/12/02 01028 MN STATE TREASURER STAX . 56909 2/12/02 01117 MUNICILITE COMPANY 56910 2/12/02 01933 MUNICIPAL CODE CORP 56911 2/12/02 02000 NORTH METRO AUTO 56912 2/12/02 02072 NORTH STAR CHAPTER 56913 2/12/02 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC 56914 2/12/02 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 56915 2/12/02 01311 P.E.R.A. 56916 2/12/02 02382 PIONEER DEVELOPMENT 56917 2/12/02 01292 PREFERRED BUILDERS 56918 2/12/02 00396 56919 2/12/02 01317 56920 2/12/02 01931 56921 2/12/02 01337 56922 2/12/02 01613 56923 2/12/02 01398 56924 2/12/02 02365 56925 2/12/02 01418 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF QUALITY CHECKED CONST. RAMSEY COUNTY FAIR RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV ROCKIN' HOLLYWOODS, THE RYAN, MICHAEL S.K. &N. ENVIRONMENTAL SRVS INC SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 56926 2/12/02 02383 SCHLOMKA, CAROL Amount 1,104.25 1,258.63 1,173.01 8,498.70 3,071.17 1,669.79 26.00 320.00 89.14 614.16 60.00 2,090.00 30.00 54.87 142.50 85.50 1,249.45 1,153.56 292.16 528.42 503.84 63.01 13,068.00 1,236.44 40.00 2,425.48 500.42 4,792.50 311.78 216.00 70.00 2,589.00 75.00 12,396.39 1,230.27 1,224.66 1,220.00 1,206.44 1,143.42 1,140.68 1,140.68 1,114.66 1,102.33 1,065.89 120.00 1,148.90 3,500.00 823.00 1,200.00 30.66 3,200.00 120.46 127.26 125.20 1,165.07 vchlist Check Register Page: 3 02/08/2002 11 :02:47AM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Mmm%A so: Mi:A oft /AAAA..Mi A ffiftm ....f i 56927 2/12/02 02384 56928 2/12/02 02385 56929 2/12/02 02386 56930 2/12/02 02222 56931 2/12/02 01455 56932 2/12/02 02387 56933 2/12/02 02392 56934 2/12/02 01556 56935 2/12/02 02275 56936 2/12/02 02164 SCHONHARDT HOMES INC SCHREIER, RICHARD SHADE TREE CONSTRUCTION SHEFFIELD, OLSON & MCQUEEN INC SHORTREED, MICHAEL SKRYPEK, JEROME SPEARS, SHANE SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC SUPERIOR HOMES OF MN TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON REF GRADING ESC -1378 MYRTLE ST N REF GRADING ESC -1870 MCKNIGHT RD REF GRADING ESC -2453 HALLER LN E DCRP & FLEX PLAN WEEKLY PYMTS REIMBURSE MEALS, PARKING & CITY V REF GRADING ESC - 2610 -1 FLANDRAU S REISSUE PAYROLL CHECK 4/27/01 FUEL REF GRADING ESC -2334 SNOWSHOE L PROJ 01 -04 PROF SERVICES PROJ 01 -16 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENT BOBCAT LOADER & GRAPPLE REF GRADING ESC -1993 EDGEMONT S REF GRADING ESC -2485 MONTANA CIR REF GRADING ESC - 2051 -4 LARPENTEU REF GRADING ESC -3016 FRANK ST NO REIMBURSE MILEAGE 1/30 56937 2/12/02 01649 TRI -STATE BOBCAT,INC. 56938 2/12/02 02388 VANDERBILT HOMES 56939 2/12/02 01713 VENTURA HOMES 56940 2/12/02 02389 WESTBROOK DEVELOPMENT 56941 2/12/02 02390 WICKLUND CONSTRUCTION 56942 2/12/02 01807 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,224.1 1 2 3,254.25 1,206.31 212.39 1,073.15 83.11 91.47 2,305.89 1,595.31 224.58 1,772.32 1,169.32 1,162.74 2,590.34 1,106.85 10.95 92 Checks in this report Total checks : 162,009.31 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 02/01/02 02/01/02 US Bank Debt Service 3 01/25102 02/01/02 Elan Financial Services Purchasing card items 21 01/30/02 02/01/02 MN Dept of Natural Reso DNR electronic licenses 236.00 02/04/02 02/05/02 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 9 02/01/02 02/05/02 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 15,366.39 02/05/02 02/06/02 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 10 02/06/02 02/07/02 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 9 02/07/02 02/08/02 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 9 TOTAL 3.801.047.83 n vchlist Check Register Page: 1 02/15/2002 9:09:52AM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 56943 2/8/02 00164 BAY FIREWORKS, INC. FIREWORKS PROGRAM - JULY 4TH 10,500.00 56944 2/19/02 01047 3M 3990 WHITE 8 3/4" X 50 YDS 5,208.02 TPM 5 TRANSFER TAPE 9" X 100 YDS 212.23 56945 2/19/02 02394 ACCENT INS RECOVERY SOLUTIONS IREF AMB - VALERIA BLOCK 00022223 62.23 56946 2/19/02 01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF DATA ACCESS ROUTER SRV - DEC 392.00 56947 2/19/02 02074 AHL, R CHARLES REIMBURSE PARKING 1/3 & 1/9 12.00 56948 2/19/02 00142 AWARDS BY HAMMOND, INC. RETIRING MEMBER PLAQUES 215.15 56949 2/19/02 01810 BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. ARBITRATION - EMPLOYMENT GRIEVAN 700.00 56950 2/19/02 00159 BARTZ, PAUL REIMBURSE MEALS, LODGING, FUEL, & 245.79 56951 2/19/02 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC MERCH FOR RESALE 241.20 MERCH FOR RESALE 361.80 MERCH FOR RESALE 40.20 MERCH FOR RESALE 281.40 56952 2/19/02 01865 BOWMAN, DON VOLLEYBALL REFEREE ASSIGNMENTS 457.50 VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 3 MATCHES 57.00 56953 2/19/02 00240 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECKS 161.80 56954 2/19/02 01871 COOPER, KENNETH VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 8 MATCHES 152.00 56955 2/15/02 00354 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS, INC. ONE TRIPLE COMBINATION PUMPER 191,740.00 56956 2/19/02 00354 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS, INC. CHG ORDER #1 ADD TO NEW FIRE ENG 479.00 56957 2/19/02 02395 CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC REPAIR ICE MACHINE 150.00 REPAIR ICE MACHINE 289.38 56958 2/19/02 00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES EFFECTIVE MGMT PROG REGISTRATIO 822.43 56959 2/19/02 01866 EMME, MARK VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 3 MATCHES 57.00 56960 2/19/02 02396 FINWALL, SHANN REIMBURSE MILEAGE 1/23 21.90 56961 2/19/02 02262 GEBO, ROBERT L VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 3 MATCHES 57.00 56962 2/19/02 01867 HANSON, PERRY VOLLEYBALL REFEREE -15 MATCHES 285.00 56963 2/19/02 02246 HOM, HEATHER UNIFORM PANTS 64.98 56964 2/19/02 00719 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. #622 PRINTING - HRC DIVERSITY FLYERS 247.53 56965 2/19/02 02397 KANE, MICHAEL REIMBURSE - SAFETY BOOTS 132.95 56966 2/19/02 00790 KELLER ELECTRIC INC. ELECTRICAL WORK AT AFTON PARK BL 350.52 56967 2/19/02 01894 KELLY & FAWCETT PA PROSECUTION RETAINER FEE - JAN 5,250.00 56968 2/19/02 02399 KONECZNY, JENNA M REISSUE PAY CHECK #87056 12/21/01 38.79 56969 2/19/02 01874 KULAS, RONALD C. VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 20 380.00 56970 2/19/02 00828 L.M.C.I.T. MCGUIRE CLAIM 22,429.22 56971 2/19/02 02266 LADEW, JEFF VOLLEYBALL REFEREE -12 228.00 56972 2/19/02 00836 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER MARCH 2002 SEMINAR 175.00 56973 2/19/02 02347 LAKE COUNTRY /NORTH STAR CHAP NORTH STAR CHAPTER EDUC 2/21/02 50.00 56974 2/19/02 01873 LAYMAN, KARI VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 15 MATCHES 285.00 56975 2/19/02 00857 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGISTER - POLICY ADOPTION EVENT 60.00 56976 2/19/02 02248 LINN, BRYAN REIMBURSE MILEAGE 2/4/02 53.29 56977 2/19/02 00891 M.A.M.A. 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES 45.00 56978 2/19/02 00893 M.A.U.M.A. 2001 -2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES 30.00 56979 2/19/02 00896 M.C.M.A. MCMA MID- WINTER SEMINAR 145.00 56980 2/19/02 00908 M.R.P.A. 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES 133.00 56981 2/19/02 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY BIRTHDAY CAKES 128.25 MERCH FOR RESALE - DEC 388.25 MERCH FOR RESALE - JAN 418.96 56982 2/19/02 00945 MASYS CORP HARDWARE /SOFTWARE MAINT - MAR 738.68 56983 2/19/02 01819 MCLEOD USA DSL SERVICE - PUBLIC WORKS 169.62 DSL SERVICE - EDGERTON 99 DSL SERVICE - STATION 1 69.95 56984 2/19/02 00983 METRO SALES INC. COPY MACHINE CHARGE 196.00 56985 2/19/02 01035 MN CHAPTER IAAI FIRE INVESTIGATIONS REFRESHER 95.00 56.986 2/19/02 01080 MN CHF OF POLICE EDUC FOUND CONFERENCE REGISTRATIONS 556.00 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 02/15/2002 9:09:52AM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 56987 2/19/02 01088 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY WASTEWATER LICENSE FEE 23.00 56988 2/19/02 01117 MUNICILITE COMPANY SNAP IN BULB 17.00 56989 2/19/02 02398 NONIN MEDICAL INC CARRYING CASES 148.50 56990 2/19/02 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF EVELYN DIASSLIN - AMB 315.67 56991 2/19/02 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JAMES ERLANDSON - MEMBERSHI 95.85 56992 2/19/02 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF DENISE HOULE - CHILD CARE 39.65 56993 2/19/02 01311 P.E.R.A. ER ID #6120 - 00,01,51 - 2/15/02 P/R 42,983.28 56994 2/19/02 01863 PACKER, ROGER VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 42 MATCHES 798.00 56995 2/19/02 01254 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY MERCH FOR RESALE 385.50 MERCH FOR RESALE 350.15 CREDIT MERCH FOR RESALE - 159.50 56996 2/15/02 01284 POSTMASTER PERMIT 4903 - MAPLEWOOD IN MOTION 6,000.00 56997 2/19/02 01326 R.C.L.L.G. 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,350.00 56998 2/19/02 02227 RABINE, JANET TRAINING REGISTRATION FEE 95.00 56999 2/19/02 02239 REFLECTIONS PRINTING INC CONFERENCE CTR POCKET FOLDERS 4,765.88 - SHINGLED SHEETS 7,263.73 57000 2/19/02 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE MERCH FOR RESALE 480.03 MERCH FOR RESALE -9.47 MERCH FOR RESALE 514.12 MERCH FOR RESALE 312.22 57001 2/19/02 01025 REVENUE, MN DEPT OF 2001 HAZARDOUS WASTE TAX 50.00 57002 2/19/02 00069 RISK MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES COMMISSION PYMT TO COLLECTIONS 392.69 57003 2/19/02 01384 ROSEVILLE FIRE GROUND ACCT NAMETAGS 37.00 57004 2/19/02 01398 RYAN, MICHAEL REIMBURSE MILEAGE 2/3 TO 2/11 32.70 57005 2/19/02 01875 SANDER, JAMES E. VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 8 MATCHES 152.00 57006 2/19/02 02222 SHEFFIELD, OLSON & MCQUEEN INC DCRP & FLEX PLAN WEEKLY PYMTS 509.22 57007 2/19/02 01468 SLABA, JACLEE POSTERS 220.00 57008 2/19/02 02273 SPLITTSTOESSER, STEVE VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 7 MATCHES 133.00 57009 2/19/02 02086 ST PAUL AREA CHAMBER OF COMM 2002 MEMBERSHIP INVESTMENT 520.00 57010 2/19/02 01526 STATE TREASURER MANUFACTURED STRUCTURES SEMIN 70.00 57011 2/19/02 01915 STEFFEN, NANCY VOLLEYBALL REFEREE -14 MATCHES 266.00 57012 2/19/02 01550 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS MECHANICAL INSPECTIONS 3,689.20 57013 2/19/02 01578 T.R.F. SUPPLY CO. CLEANER, HAT LINERS, GLOVES 315.80 GLOVES, HAND CREAM, SCRUBS, TOW 448.90 57014 2/19/02 01868 TOSKEY, RON VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 23 MATCHES 437.00 57015 2/19/02 01717 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO. REPAIR SPRINKLER SYSTEM 250.00 57016 2/19/02 00592 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. TRASH CANS & LIDS 62.43 57017 2/19/02 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 124.00 COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSPECTIONS 165.68 57018 2/19/02 01750 WATSON CO INC, THE CREDIT - MERCH FOR RESALE - 246.33 MERCH FOR RESALE 284.35 MERCH FOR RESALE 322.82 MERCH FOR RESALE 202.67 MERCH FOR RESALE 240.71 57019 2/19/02 01753 WEATHER WATCH, INC. WEATHER SERVICE & PAGER RENTAL 210.00 WEATHER SERVICE & PAGER RENTAL 385.00 57020 2/19/02 01872 WEBER, MARK VOLLEYBALL REFEREE - 11 MATCHES 209.00 57021 2/19/02 01190 XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY UTIL - STMT DATE 2/5/02 4,471.72 MONTHLY UTIL - STMT DATE 2/5/02 39,495.14 79 Checks in this report Total checks : 365,380.28 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date P a�ree 02/01/02 02/06/02 02/08/02 02/11/02 02/12/02 02/13/02 02/14/02 02/13/02 02/15/02 02/15/02 02/14/02 02/15/02 02/08/02 02/08/02 02/11/02 02/12/02 02/13/62 02/14/02 02/15/02 02/15/02 02/19/02 02/19/02 02/19/02 02/19/02 Elan Financial Services MN Dept of Natural Resources MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN Dept of Revenue MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer MN Dept of Revenue CBSA TOTAL Description Purchasing card items DNR electronic licenses Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar MN Care Tax Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax Sales Tax Dental Claims Amount 26,092.30 368.00 8,847.00 13,226.00 12,273.26 6,168.00 6,277.50 165.40 6,623.25 105,474.22 21,342.00 96.00 206, 952.93 7 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 3 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 02/15/02 COLLINS, KENNETH 357.47 dd 02/15/02 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 357.47 dd .02/15/02 KOPPEN, MARVIN 3 57.47 dd 02/15/02 DARST, ROBERTA 1,265.66 dd 02/15/02 FURSMAN, RICHARD 8 dd 02/15/02 S CHLINGMAN, PAUL L951.14 dd 02/15/02 SEEGER, GERALD 512.36 dd 02/15/02 SWANSON, LYLE 1 dd 02/15/02 YOUNG, DILLON 742.95 dd 02/15/02 CARLSON, THERESE 2,017.99 dd 02/15/02 EDSON, KAREN 231.25 dd 02/15/02 LE, SHERYL 4,442.74 dd 02/15/02 FAUST, DANIEL 3 dd 02/15/02 URBANSKI, HOLLY 1 dd 02/15/02 ANDERSON, CAROLE 2,335.23 dd 02/15/02 BAUMAN, GAYLE 5,707.00 dd 02/15/02 JACKSON, MARY 1,797.72 dd 02/15/02 KELSEY, CONNIE 2,070.19 dd 02/15/02 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,442.34 dd 02/15/02 FRY, PATRICIA 1,553.54 dd 02/15/02 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2 dd 02/15/02 OSTER, ANDREA 1,611.94 dd 02/15/02 CABLE, JEANETTE 1,490.34 dd 02/15/02 JAGOE, CAROL 1,497.13 dd 02/15/02 JOHNSON, BONNIE 1,053.08 dd 02/15/02 OLS ON, SANDRA L611.15 dd 02/15/02 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,554.51 dd 02/15/02 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,335.11 dd 02/15/02 MARTINSON, CAROL 1 dd 02/15/02 POWELL, PHILIP 1,860.59 dd 02/15/02 SPANGLER, EDNA 374.00 dd 02/15/02 THOMALLA, DAVID 3,002.66 dd 02/15/02 WINGER, DONALD 3,747.55 dd 02/15/02 ABEL, CLINT 1,429.05 dd 02/15/02 ALDRIDGE, MARK 202.91 dd 02/15/02 ANDREWS, SCOTT 2,624.01 dd 02/15/02 BAKKE, LONN 203.16 dd 02/15/02 BANICK, JOHN 2 dd 02/15/02 BELDE, STANLEY 2,351.12 dd 02/15/02 BOHL, JOHN 2 dd 02/15/02 BOWMAN, RICK 2,301.20 dd 02/15/02 BUSACK, DANIEL 1,825.48 dd 02/15/02 HALWEG, KEVIN 2 dd 02/15/02 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD E CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 02/15/02 HERBERT, MICHAEL 2,303.38 dd 02/15/02 HIRBERT, STEVEN 2,351.12 dd 02/15/02 JOHNSON, KEVIN 2,480.09 dd 02/15/02 KAKIS, FLINT 2,962.68 dd 02/15/02 KONG, TOMMY 1,686.93 dd 02/15/02 KROLL, BRETT 1,487.57 dd 02/15/02 KVAM, DAVID 2,396.43 dd 02/15/02 LARS ON, DANIEL 1 dd 02/15/02 LU, JOHNNIE L676.15 dd 02/15/02 MARINO, JASON 1 dd 02/15/02 MARTIN, JERROLD 1,485.41 dd 02/15/02 OLSON, JULIE 1 dd 02/15/02 PALMA, STEVEN 2 dd 02/15/02 PIKE, GARY 2 dd 02/15/02 RABBETT, KEVIN 2,598.90 dd 02/15/02 STEFFEN, SCOTT 2,861.30 dd 02/15/02 STOCKTON, DERRELL 2 dd 02/15/02 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2 dd 02/15/02 WATCZAK, LAURA 2 dd 02/15/02 WENZEL, JAY 1 dd 02/15/02 XIONG, KAO 1 dd 02/15/02 BERGERON, JOSEPH 2,564.64 dd 02/15/02 CROTTY, KERRY 2 dd .02/15/02 DUNN, ALICE 2,553.52 dd 02/15/02 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,281.38 dd 02/15/02 EVERSON, PAUL 1,716.30 dd 02/15/02 FLOR, TIMOTHY 2 dd 02/15/02 FRASER, JOHN 2,513.34 dd 02/15/02 HALWEG, JODI 1,332.74 dd 02/15/02 MORNING, TIMOTHY 1,465.54 dd 02/15/02 PARSONS, KURT 1,536.74 dd 02/15/02 ROSSMAN, DAVID 2,182.27 dd 02/15/02 THIENES, PAUL 2 dd 02/15/02 GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE 2 dd 02/15/02 BOYER, SCOTT 1 dd 02/15/02 FEHR, JOSEPH 1,733.18 dd 02/15/02 FLAUGHER, JAYME 1,762.69 dd 02/15/02 HOM, HEATHER 1,554.34 dd 02/15/02 LAFFERTY, WALTER 1 dd 02/15/02 LIMN, BRYAN 1,399.15 dd 02/15/02 PACOLT, MARSHA 1 dd 02/15/02 RABINE, JANET 1 dd 02/15/02 STAHNKE, JULIE 1, 615.14 dd 02/15/02 LUKIN, STEVEN 2,894.71 dd 02/15/02 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,311.32 dd 02/15/02 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,611.94 E CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 10 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT .dd 02/15/02 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 260.67 dd 02/15/02 AHL, R. CHARLES 3,514.36 dd 02/15/02 NIVEN, AMY 697.27 dd 02/15/02 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2 dd 02/15/02 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1 dd 02/15/02 BRINK, TROY 1,324.74 dd 02/15/02 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1 dd 02/15/02 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,646.34 dd 02/15/02 KANE, MICHAEL 2 dd 02/15/02 LUNDSTEN, LANCE 2,706.02 dd 02/15/02 LUTZ, DAVID 1 dd 02/15/02 MEYER, GERALD L742.66 dd 02/15/02 NAGEL, BRYAN 1 dd 02/15/02 OSWALD, ERICK 1,678.34 dd 02/15/02 TEVLIN, TODD 1,324.74 dd 02/15/02 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 2,828.79 dd 02/15/02 DUCHARME, JOHN 2 dd 02/15/02 PECK, DENNIS 2 dd 02/15/02 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,952.42 dd 02/15/02 SCHACHT, ERIN 2,309.54 dd 02/15/02 ANDERSON, BRUCE 3 dd 02/15/02 DOHERTY, KATHLEEN L611.95 dd 02/15/02 MARUSKA, MARK 576.00 dd 02/15/02 MARUSKA, MARK 2,341.54 dd 02/15/02 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,670.34 dd 02/15/02 GREW- HAYMAN, JANET 1 dd 02/15/02 HUTCHINSON, ANN 3,023.54 dd 02/15/02 KOS, HEATHER 550.00 dd 02/15/02 NELSON, JEAN 1,053.07 dd 02/15/02 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA L565.55 dd 02/15/02 COLEMAN, MELINDA 3 dd 02/15/02 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 2,424.62 dd 02/15/02 KROLL, LISA 984.46 dd 02/15/02 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 979.98 dd 02/15/02 SINDT, ANDREA 1,270.34 dd 02/15/02 THOMPSON, DEBRA 684.73 dd 02/15/02 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,175.94 dd 02/15/02 BERGO, CHAD 1,805.39 dd 02/15/02 FINWALL, SHANN 1,735.94 dd 02/15/02 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2 dd 02/15/02 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,230.34 dd 02/15/02 FISHER, DAVID 2,508.26 dd 02/15/02 ANZALDI, MANDY 574.00 dd 02/15/02 BJORK, BRANDON 345.32 dd 02/15/02 FINN, GREGORY 1 dd 02/15/02 FLUG, ELAINE 55.50 10 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 11 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 02/15/02 GRAF, MICHAEL 1 dd 02/15/02 KELLY, LISA 1 dd 02/15/02 LUSHANKO, ADAM 56.00 dd 02/15/02 MCBRIDE, PATRICK 160.00 dd 02/15/02 NIEMCZYK, BRIAN 160.00 dd 02/15/02 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1 dd 02/15/02 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,357.46 dd 02/15/02 WOODFORD, MATT 20.00 dd 02/15/02 BREHEIM, ROGER 1 dd 02/15/02 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1 dd 02/15/02 OTIS, MARY ELLEN 750.97 dd 02/15/02 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 1,783.30 dd 02/15/02 COLEMAN, PHILIP 382.99 dd 02/15/02 CROSSON, LINDA 1,950.34 dd 02/15/02 EASTMAN, THOMAS 2 dd 02/15/02 ERICKSON, KYLE 553.12 dd 02/15/02 HABLE, NATASHA 543.90 dd 02/15/02 HERS OM, HEIDI L571.94 dd 02/15/02 MCCLUNG, HEATHER 1,206.94 dd 02/15/02 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,565.11 dd 02/15/02 AHL, KAREN 95.88 dd 02/15/02 ATKINS, KATHERINE 180.14 dd 02/15/02 CORNER, AMY 60.30 dd 02/15/02 ERICKSON, CAROL 43.50 dd 02/15/02 GREENWALT, SARAH 444.43 dd 02/15/02 HASSENSTAB, DENISE 200.63 dd 02/15/02 HORWATH, RONALD 1 dd 02/15/02 KOEHNEN, AMY 59.40 dd 02/15/02 MARUSKA, ERICA 197.20 dd 02/15/02 WHITE, NICOLE 92.57 dd 02/15/02 W ORWA, LINDSAY 356.93 dd 02/15/02 GROPPOLI, LINDA 365.05 dd 02/15/02 RENSLOW, RITA 397.75 dd 02/15/02 LONETTI, JAMES 793.14 dd 02/15/02 PRINS, KELLY 804.43 dd 02/15/02 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,314.34 dd 02/15/02 SARPONG, SEAN 181.00 dd 02/15/02 STEINHORST, JEFFREY 189.88 dd 02/15/02 HURLEY, STEPHEN 2,509.08 Wf 87763 02/1 5/02 CARDINAL, ROBERT 406.20 Wf 87764 02/15/02 WASILUK, JULIE 357.47 Wf 87765 02/15/02 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 125.00 wf 87766 02/15/02 JAHN, DAVID 1494.08 Wf 87767 02/15/02 MORIN, TROY 150.00 Wf 87768 02/15/02 GENNOW, PAMELA 455.00 Wf 87769 02/15/02 MATHEYS, ALANA 1 11 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 87770 02/15/02 HANSEN, LORI 1 wf 87771 02/15/02 VIETOR, LORRAINE 1 wf 87772 02/15/02 BECKER, RONALD 120.00 wf 87773 02/15/02 PALANK, MARY 1 wf 87774 02/15/02 RICHIE, CAROLE 1 wf 87775 02/15/02 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,670.73 wf 87776 02/15/02 TICHY, PAMELA 72.00 wf 87777 02/15/02 BARTZ, PAUL 2 wf 87778 02/15/02 HALEY, BRANDON 1 wf 87779 02/15/02 RYAN, MICHAEL 1,305.00 wf 87780 02/15/02 STEINER, JOSEPH 180.00 wf 87781 02/15/02 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2 wf 87782 02/15/02 MEEHAN, JAMES 2,425.90 wf 87783 02/15/02 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 2 wf 87784 02/15/02 CUDE, LARRY 418.59 Wf 87785 02/15/02 FREBERG, RONALD 1,707.14 wf 87786 02/15/02 JONES, DONALD 1,455.14 wf 87787 02/15/02 ELIAS, JAMES 2 wf 87788 02/1 5/02 GROVER, CAROLYN 1 29.60 wf 87789 02/15/02 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,370.94 wf 87790 02/15/02 EDSON, DAVID 1 wf 87791 02/15/02 HELEY, ROLAND 1 wf 87792 02/15/02 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,770.60 wf 87793 02/15/02 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,670.34 ,wf 87794 02/15/02 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1 wf 87795 02/15/02 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,447.14 wf 87796 02/15/02 O'DONOVAN, KEVIN 270.00 wf 87797 02/15/02 GERNES, CAROLE 300.00 wf 87798 02/15/02 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 330.75 wf 87799 02/15/02 BUNCE, LARRY 1,705.54 wf 87800 02/15/02 WENGER, ROBERT 21 wf 87801 02/15/02 ADAMS, CAILIN 50.00 wf 87802 02/15/02 ANDERSEN, ERIC 48.00 wf 87803 02/15/02 ANDERSON, MIKE 52.50 wf 87804 02/15/02 CHOINIERE, ROBERT 31.50 wf 87805 02/15/02 CHRISTIANSON, SARA 380.00 wf 87806 02/15/02 CONLIN, NICOLE 21.00 wf 87807 02/15/02 DIEBEL, CHRISTOPHER 22.00 wf 87808 02!15/02 ECKER, JEFF 22.00 wf 87809 02/15/02 FITCH, CYNTHIA 30.75 wf 87810 02/15/02 FLUG, MEGAN 37.13 wf 87811 02/15/02 FRANK, LAURA 342.13 wf 87812 02/15/02 FRANK, SARAH 65.00 wf 87813 02/15/02 FURLONG, MICHAEL 21.00 wf 87814 02/1.5/02 GORE, MICHAEL 42.00 wf 87815 02/15/02 GOULET, NICOLE 22.00 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 13 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT Wf 87816 02/15/02 HALLAMEK, ANTHONY 50.00 wf 87817 02/15/02 HARGROVE, CAYLA 123.75 Wf 87818 02/15/02 HELKAMP, KAYLA 26.00 Wf 87819 02/15/02 HORNER, JAY 33.75 Wf 87820 02/15/02 HORNER, KIMBERLY 13.00 Wf 87821 02/15/02 JAWORSKI, ERIC 21.00 Wf 87822 02/15/02 JOHNSON, SARA 19.50 Wf 87823 02/15/02 KIMLINGER, LAURA 21.75 Wf 87824 02/15/02 KINNING, KATIE 28.00 Wf 87825 02/15/02 KRIER, JOHN 44.00 Wf 87826 02/15/02 LANDE, JOSEPH 36.25 Wf 87827 02/15/02 LIUKONEN, SHAWN 43.00 Wf 87828 02/15/02 MARTINUCCI, ERIN 15.00 Wf 87829 02/15/02 MARTINUCCI, KAITLIN 32.50 Wf 87830 02/15/02 MCNAMARA, EMILY 52.50 Wf 87831 02/15/02 MICK, KYLE 43.00 Wf 87832 02/15/02 MULLEN, DANIEL 33.50 Wf 87833 02/15/02 NIELSEN, ABBY 20.50 Wf 87834 02/15/02 NIEMCZYK, ANTHONY 24.00 Wf 87835 02/15/02 O'GRADY, BENJAMIN 36.25 Wf 87836 02/15/02 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 428.00 Wf 87837 02/15/02 PETERSON, BRYNN 13.00 Wf 87838 02/15/02 PREW, BRIANNE 26.00 Wf 87839 02/15/02 RASMUSSEN, DAVID 22.00 Wf 87840 02/15/02 RAYE, HOLLY 26.00 Wf 87841 02/15/02 REICHLING, DANIEL 21.00 Wf 87842 02/15/02 ROERING, JORDAN 32.25 Wf 87 843 02/15/02 SHOBERG, KARI 335.63 Wf 87844 02/15/02 SIKORA, JACOB 84.00 Wf 87845 02/15/02 SIKORA, PAUL 126.50 Wf 87846 02/15/02 SPENCER, WILLIAM 45.00 Wf 87847 02/15/02 TARR -JR, GUS 40.00 Wf 87848 02/15/02 UNGAR, KRISTOPHER 132.00 Wf 87849 02/15/02 WALSH, JESSICA 28.00 Wf 87850 02/15/02 WESTBROCK, REBECCA 68.00 Wf 87851 02/15/02 WILLIAMS, ERICA 13.00 wf 87852 02/15/02 YORKOVICH, BRADLEY 121.50 Wf 87853 02/15/02 ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH 29.00 wf 87854 02/15/02 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,683.14 wf 87855 02/15/02 HAAG, MARK 1,756.88 Wf 87856 02/15/02 NADEAU, EDWARD 4,070.54 wf 87857 02/15/02 FUDGE, SUSAN 74.80 Wf 87858 02/15/02 GLASS, JEAN 1 Wf 87859 02/15/02 HOIUM, SHEILA 1,033.29 Wf 87860 02/15/02 JONES, ANN 74.80 Wf 87861 02/15/02 MOY, PAMELA 372.26 13 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 14 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 87862 02/15/02 PARTLOW, JOSHUA 270.10 wf 87863 02/15/02 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1,503.14 wf 87864 02/15/02 SHOBERG, CARY 622.68 wf 87865 02/15/02 SKRYPEK, JOSHUA 168.75 wf 87866 02/15/02 UNGER, MARGARET 754.40 wf 87867 02/15/02 VELASQUEZ, ANGELA 333.12 wf 87868 02/15/02 BACHMAN, NICOLE 152.41 wf 87869 02/15/02 BADEN, ALISON 363.32 wf 87870 02/15/02 BRENEMAN, NEIL 88.83 wf 87871 02/15/02 BURGESS, JOHN 21.13 wf 87872 02/15/02 CHAPMAN, JENNY 664.36 wf 87873 02/15/02 COSTA, JOSEPH 166.60 wf 87874 02/15/02 DEGRAW, KRYSTAL 196.51 wf 87875 02/15/02 DEMPSEY, BETH 62.15 wf 87876 02/15/02 DIERICH, ANDREA 159.25 wf 87877 02/15/02 DUNN, RYAN 172.25 wf 87878 02/15/02 FIERRO WESTBERG, MELINDA 40.20 wf 87879 02/15/02 FONTAINE, ANTHONY 34.20 wf 87880 02/15/02 FONTAINE, KIM 260.70 wf 87881 02/15/02 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 287.70 wf 87882 02/15/02 HAGGERTY, KATHRYN 46.10 wf 87883 02/15/02 HAWKE, ASHLEY 161.00 wf 87884 02/15/02 HEINN, REBECCA 127.98 wf 87885 02/15/02 HEXUM, AMANDA 78.00 wf 87886 02/15/02 HOLMGREN, LEAH 112.80 wf 87887 02/15/02 HOULE, DENISE 240.60 wf 87888 02/15/02 HUDELLA, NICOLE 110.94 wf 87889 02/15/02 HUPPERT, ERIN 199.04 wf 87890 02/15/02 IRISH, KARL 160.31 wf 87891 02/15/02 JOHNSON, ROBERT 268.38 wf 87892 02/15/02 JOHNSON, SUSAN 81.00 wf 87893 02/15/02 JOVONOVICH, TODD 35.15 wf 87894 02/15/02 JOYER, MARTI 124.75 wf 87895 02/15/02 KOEHNEN, MARY 605.56 wf 87896 02/15/02 KROLL, MARK 113.60 wf 87897 02/15/02 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 413.63 wf 87898 02/15/02 MCMAHON, MELISSA 139.75 wf 87899 02/15/02 MOSSONG, ANDREA 514.68 wf 87900 02/15/02 O'REAGAN, CHRISTINE 69.00 wf 87901 02/15/02 OLSON, MARGRET 78.00 wf 87902 02/15/02 PEHOSKI, JOEL 153.00 wf 87903 02/15/02 SCHAEFER, ROB 83.91 wf 87904 02/15/02 SMITLEY, SHARON 247.20 wf 87905 02/15/02 TUPY, HEIDE 18.00 wf 87906 02/15/02 TUPY, MARCUS 188.00 wf 87907 02/15/02 WARNER, CAROLYN 172.80 14 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 15 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT Wf 87908 02/15/02 WEDES, CARYL 120.60 Wf 87909 02/15/02 WOODMAN, ALICE 212.50 Wf 87910 02/15/02 BOSLEY, CAROL 101.64 Wf 87911 02/15/02 ESALA, HOPE 30.00 Wf 87912 02/15/02 HAGLUND, BRIAN 210.00 Wf 87913 02/15/02 HANSEN, ANNA 100.80 Wf 87914 02/15/02 HUPPERT, ERICA 296.63 Wf .87915 02/15/02 KONECZNY, JENNA 42.00 Wf 87916 02/15/02 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 21.00 Wf 87917 02/15/02 SCHROEDER, KATHLEEN 321.20 wf 87918 02/15/02 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 155.83 Wf 87919 02/15/02 VAN HALE, PAULA 21.00 Wf 87920 02/15/02 BEHAN, JAMES 1,459.94 Wf 87921 02/15/02 DIXON, NICOLE 91.70 Wf 87922 02/15/02 DOUGLASS, TOM 551.75 Wf 87923 02/15/02 HEGG, MICHELLE 211.24 Wf 87924 02/15/02 KOSKI, JOHN 1 Wf 87925 02/15/02 KYRK, ASHLEY 101.50 Wf 87926 02/15/02 LESLIE, DUSTIN 178.10 Wf 87927 02/15/02 PATTERSON, ALBERT 884.81 Wf 87928 02/15/02 PETERSON, LYNDSAY 59.85 Wf 87929 02/15/02 RISTOW, JONATHAN 113.05 Wf 87930 02/15/02 SCHMIDT, WILLIAM 152.95 Wf 87931 02/15/02 SCHULZE, BRIAN 279.30 Wf 87932 02/15/02 SEVERSON, HOLLY 165.13 Wf 87933 02/15/02 YOUNG, MATTHEW 228.75 Wf 87934 02/15/02 ZIEMER, NICOLE 91.70 Wf 87935 02/15/02 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,494.34 Wf 87936 02/15/02 MULVANEY, DENNIS 1 wf 87937 02/15/02 PRIEM, STEVEN 1 381,999.22 15 AGENDA # 9C � MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Cler DATE: February 19, 2002 RE: Penalty Structure Tobacco Non - Compliance The City is a member of Minnesota ASSIT. Minnesota ASSIST is a shared project between the Minnesota Department of Health, the American Cancer Society, Minnesota Division, and is funded by the National Cancer Institute. The City is also a member of the North Suburban Tobacco Compliance Project, that includes several surrounding communities. One of the main objectives of both of these organizations is to prohibit the illegal sale of tobacco to minors by enforcing local and State laws that pertain to licensed tobacco dealers. There are fifty (50) licensed Cigarette and Tobacco dealers in the City. Currently the City Code includes no provision for a penalty for non - compliance of tobacco sales to minors. The following amendment to Chapter 10 Cigarette Dealers is recommended for Council approval. Ordinance Amending Chapter 10 of the City of Maplewood Code Relating to the Illegal Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors Sec. 10 -22 Prohibited Sales It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. No person shall sell, offer for sale, or dispense single packages of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco in open displays which are accessible to the public without the intervention of a store employee. No person shall sell, offer for sale or dispense any other tobacco - related product through the use of self - service merchandising unless a responsible employee is present to view and monitor the self - service display and prevent the purchase or theft of such products by minors and the self - service display is equipped with an alarm system or locking device capable of preventing the theft of tobacco - related products and the display is located within ten (10) feet of the sales counter and in plan view of a responsible employee. A license holder who operates an establishment or fully enclosed portion of an establishment that sells only tobacco - related products is exempt from the self - service merchandising provision if the license holder prohibits anyone under eighteen (18) years of age from entering the establishment or fully enclosed portion of an establishment unless accompanied by a parent and the license holder conspicuously displays a notice prohibiting persons under eighteen (18) years of age from entering the establishment unless accompanied by a parent. Sanctions for License Violations: A licensee shall pay to the City a civil penalty of $250 for an initial violation, $500 for a second violation and $1,000 for a third violation of any provision of the Section or state laws governing the sale of tobacco-related products. The imposition of a civil penalty shall be issued by the City Manager or the City Manager's designated representative. The decision of the City Manager or the City Manager's designee maybe appealed by the licensee to the City Council within (10) days after receiving written notice of the decision. The City Council may revoke or suspend a license for a fourth violation or any subsequent violation of a provision of this Section or state laws governing the sale of tobacco - related products. A revocation, suspension or civil penalty shall be preceded by written notice to the licensee and a public hearing before the City Council. The notice shall give at least eight (8) days' notice of the time and place of the public hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee. AGENDA NO. AcdOn bye Council hate AGENDA REPORT Endorsed Modified Rejected J TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director��" RE: TRANSFER TO CLOSE FUND FOR TRI- DISTRICT SCHOOL POND OUTLET PROJECT DATE: February 8, 2002 The Tri- District School Pond Outlet Project (99 -16) has been completed. Revenues for this project were $62.57 over budget and expenditures were $1 over budget. There is a deficit of $133.33 in the fund for this project. It is recommended that the Council close this project, approve a transfer of $133.33 from the Street Construction State Aid Fund and authorize the appropriate budget changes. P \agn \dose99- 16.D0C kt AOENDA ITEM NO, G-� 1 STAFF REPORT To: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director From: Paul Schlingman, Chief Building En ' eer Date: 2/19/2002 Re: Approval of change order for the Maplewood Community Center pool area dehumidification system upgrade. Introduction: On Oct. 11, 2001 city staff publicly opened bids for the upgrade of the dehumidification system at the Maplewood Community Center. Snell Mechanical was awarded the bid and a Purchase Order was issued on Nov. 16, 2001 in the amount of $7,630.00. Snell Mech. began work on this project in mid December. Background: City staff hired MSD Inc. a mechanical engineering firm to design the specifications for the dehumidifier upgrade. While performing in accordance to these specification's Snell Mechanical found that the air handling system was delivering approximately 16,000 cubic feet per minute of air. The system was designed to deliver 30,000 c.fm. of airflow. Snell Mechanical began to investigate into this large loss of airflow and discovered that the evaporator coils had detiorated beyond repair. Snell Mechanical made City Staff aware of the problem. Staff called MSD Inc. and requested that they inspect the coils to determine their condition. Staff examined the coils with Doug Pearson a mechanical engineer from MSD Inc. and Randy Koenig from Snell Mechanical. It was determined that the evaporator and condenser coils needed to be replaced. Staff requested that Snell Mechanical provide the City with the cost of replacing these coils. Staff received a quote from Snell Mechanical on Jan. 31, 2002 in the amount of $26,845.00. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that City Council approve a change order for an additional amount of $26,845.00 to replace the coils in the dehumidification system at the Maplewood Community Center. cc. Melinda Coleman, Asst. City Manager David Fisher, Building Official Tom Eastman, Community Center Manager Snell Mechanical Inc. 8850 Wentworth Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 Phone: (612) 866 -1351 FAX: (612) 866 -6829 January 31, 2002 Paul Schlingman City of Maplewood 1830 E. Co. Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Swimming Pool Unit - - -- Replacement Evaporator & Condenser Coils Dear Paul, I am pleased to provide you with pricing for the following: Evaporator Coils -To Include: (2) New exact replacement coils. Heresite coating. Disposal of old coils. All misc. materials. All labor to change out. Replacing aluminum skin that has to be removed during replacement. Leak testing. Start -up, test & adjust super heat. 1 year parts & labor warranties. All freight & taxes. TOTAL INSTALLED PRICE .......................... (6wkdeQ---$ - 12,718,00 (Down tune —one week} (5 wk del) -- -$3,314.00 (4 wk del) - -- $13,909.00 Condenser Coil -To Include: Same as above. TOTAL INSTALLED PRICE ........................... s (6 wk del) - -- $14,127.00 " (Down time -- -one week) (5 wk del) - -- $14,954.00 (4 wk del) - -- $15,754.00 Not Included: Overtime or premium pay. FEB. Clarifications: 1. If condensers are to be replaced, pricing assumes the y re will be laced at the p same time as evaporator coils. 2. Unit will have to be shut down during change out. Heating, Air Conditioning, Temperature Control, Process Piping and Sheet Metal Snell Mechanical Inc. 8850 Wentworth Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 Phone: (612) 866 -1351 FAX: (612) 866 -6829 PAGE 2 (CONY.) If any additional parts, labor or material are necessary, they will be provided on a T &M basis upon your approval. If you have any questions, please call me @ (612) 866 -1351. Sincerely, Randy Koenig Sale/Estimator See reverse side for terms and conditions of sate upon which this proposal is based. Heating, Air Conditioning, Temperature Control, Process Piping and Sheet Metal AGENDA ITEM 141 7' AGENDA REPORT Act TO: City Manager Date FROM: Assistant City Engineer Endorsed MOM Modified SUBJECT: Gladstone South Neighborhood Street Improvements, Project OOftcted a. Public Hearing, 7:00 p.m. �1 b. Resolution Ordering Improvement after Public Hearing (4 votes) DATE: February 18, 2002 Introduction The public hearing for this project has been scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, February 25, 2002. Notices of the public hearing have been mailed and published. The feasibility study has been provided as a supplement to the council packet. The study includes information on the proposed improvement, proposed financing and probable assessments. The city council should consider ordering the improvement following the public hearing. Background Project development began in this neighborhood with meetings in the spring and fall of 2000 with the residents on Ripley Avenue. Initially it was planned to construct Ripley Avenue from English to Hazelwood in 2001 as a state aid street project. Through the evolution of neighborhood meetings, the entire scope of this project has changed. The city council ordered the preparation of this feasibility study at the November 27, 2000, city council meeting. Note: As described in the study, the residents of Sophia Avenue and Ide Street (south of Ripley) signed a petition to be excluded from the project. In the feasibility study, staff has suggested that these two streets could be deferred to a future project (see cost and financing plan,. Option 8). There may be some opposition from others throughout the neighborhood, as they will not wish to deal with future construction in their neighborhood. The residents will have an opportunity to attend another neighborhood meeting this week to give property owners an opportunity to view the completed proposal and the findings of the study prior to the public hearing. Ide /Sophia residents will meet on 2/21/02 and the rest of the neighborhood on 2/19/02. The overall project objectives as proposed to the neighborhood are: • Reconstruct a badly deteriorated street in an environmentally sound manner. • Provide a street design that maintains the feel of the neighborhood. • Treat property owners consistently in regards to assessments. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the improvement of the Gladstone South Neighborhood Streets, City Project, 00 -03. Budget Impact The resolution calls for establishing a project budget of $3,630,000. The financing plan is outlined specifically in the feasibility study and calls for funding from a number of sources: assessments, sewer utility fund, St. Paul Regional Water Services participation and city general tax levy. CIVIC jw Attachment Budget Impact The resolution calls for establishing a project budget of $3,630,000. The financing plan is outlined specifically in the feasibility study and .calls for funding from a number of sources:. assessments sewer utility fund, St. Paul Regional Water Services participation and city general tax levy. CMC jW Attachment RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 11 th day of February, 2002, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed construction of the Gladstone South Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00 -03, AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on February 25, 2002, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be heard on the matter and has fully considered the same; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That it is necessary, cost - effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the City of Maplewood make improvements to the Gladstone South Neighborhood Streets, City tY Project 00 -03. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 25th day of February 2002. 3. The city engineer is designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement. 4. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. A project budget shall be established as approved g pp by the city council. WHEREAS, two financing plans have been presented for council approval. Option A includes all streets as presented in the feasibility study, and Option B has excluded costs and financing for eliminating Ide Street and Sophia Avenue from the project, as identified in the feasibility study. Option A Option B Street assessments: $1,076,520 (30 %) $1,004,500 (30 %0) Storm assessments: 155,680 (4 %) 155,600 (4 %0) Sewer utility fund: 172,100 (5 %0) 153,500 (5 %) SPRWS obligation: 256,500 (7 %) 223,100 (7 %0) City general tax levy 1,976 (54 %) 12809,300 (54 %) Total $3,630,000 (100 %) $3,346,000 (100 %0) Agenda # MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Carriage Homes of Maple Hills LOCATION: 907 Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course) DATE: February 18, 2002 Project Description A ction- by Coup . cl Date,_,,.,, Endorsed„` Modified Rejected ""•" -�• Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex o p p y H omes, is proposing to develop a 100 -unit planned unit development (PUD) called the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. It would be on a 20.5 -acre site on the north side of Parkway Drive, on the site of Maple Hills Golf Course. (Please see the maps starting on page 20.) There would be a mix of two bedroom and three bedroom units and the buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal -lap siding, asphalt shingles and vinyl trim, shutters and fascia boards. There also would be a partial main level brick veneer wainscot on the front and sides. Requests To build this project, Mr. Nelson is requesting several city approvals including: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) fora - 100 -unit housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36- 566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings with more than four units when the site is in the shoreland district of a lake. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Round Lake and would have 100 for -sale townhouse units in 12 buildings. The 12 buildings would have a mix of four units, eight units and 10 units. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such as setbacks and street right -of -way and pavement widths) than the Standard city requirements would normally allow. 2. A variation from the pity code to reduce the required street right -of -way width. The developer is asking to reduce the width of the public street right -of -way from 60 feet to 50 feet. 3. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width. The developer is asking to reduce the width of the street from 32 feet to 24 feet from gutter to gutter. 4. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the enclosed maps from the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills application materials and the enclosed project plans.) 5. Design approval of the project plans, including architectural and landscape plans. Al so refer to the developer's project narrative on pages 31 through 35, the developer's application booklet and the plans for more information about these proposals. BACKGROUND On April 11, 1983, the city council rezoned the majority of the golf course from BC (business commercial) to R -3 (multiple - dwelling residential) so the zoning would match the R -3 land use designation on the site. On August 23, 1983, the community design review board approved project plans for a development called Somerset Ridge. This development was to have 96 condominium units in 11 eight -unit buildings g and two four -unit buildings on the southern 14 acres of the golf course. DISCUSSION Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plans The city has planned and zoned this site for multiple - family residential development since the early 1980s. Specifically, Maplewood intends areas designated in the land use plan as residential high density (R -3H) as areas for town houses or apartments of up to 16 - units per gross acre. (See the land use plan map on page 21.) For areas the city has zoned multiple - family residential (R -3), Maplewood allows a mix of housing types including double dwellings, town houses and apartments. The proposed development plan is consistent with the density allowed by the comprehensive plan and with the zoning designation for the property. Specifically, the 100 units on the 20.5 -acre site means there would be 4.9 units per gross acre. This proposal would be well below the high - density residential development standards. outlined in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for this site and would even be below the standard of six units p er gross acre for medium - density residential development. In addition, the proposed development density would be consistent with the density standards recommended by the Metropolitan Council for housing in first -ring suburbs. This is a good site for medium- density or high- density housing as it is on an arterial street (Parkway Drive), is near two major arterial streets (Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61) and is near open space and park facilities. With a proposal such as this, the city must balance the interests and rights of the property o his roe � g p p � Y caner to develop property rty with the city s ordinances, development standards and Maplewood 's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan balances the land owner's rights to use and develo p the property versus the city's interests in preserving the wetland and ponding areas on the site. Golf Course /Open Space /Parks Many neighbors prefer to keep this property as a golf course or have it as open space or a park. The operators of the golf course have decided, however, to close the golf course and to sell the property. Maplewood has not included this site in its park or open space acquisition plans. Maplewood or Ramsey County would have to buy this property to keep it undeveloped or as open space. There are several areas of publicly -owned open space and park land in this part of Maplewood. Ramsey County has many acres of open space and park land around Round Lake, Phalen Lake and Keller Golf Course near this site. In addition, the Gateway Trail is to the north of the site so development of this property would not create a shortage of open space or park land in this area. Conditional Use Permit The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 100 -unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD because Section 36- 566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings with more than four units. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Round Lake and would have 100 town house units in 12 buildings. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard' city requirements would normally allow. The developer intends to sell each of the townhomes. 2 Compatibility Staff does not find a problem.with compatibility in terms of land use. The proposed town houses would be next to an existing town house development, single dwellings, an office building and a cemetery. In addition, townhomes are often built next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Centur Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds and Bennington Woods where this is the case as well. Property Values The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual review of the conditional use permit is a built -in safeguard to ensure that the city council will regularly review this development. Traffic I had Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, review the proposed development. (His comments are in the memo on page 41). Traffic- generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes generate an average of six vehicle trips per day. In this case, with the proposed 100 town house units, the development would generate about 600 vehicle trips to and from Parkway Drive each day. Currently there are about 9,300 vehicles per day Y on Parkway Drive. Mr. Soler notes that the additional traffic from this development "will not have a measurable effect on traffic operations." In addition, the residents of this development will have lent of options for vehicle travel p Y p once they get to Highway 61 or to Larpenteur Avenue. Shoreiand District Regulations As I noted earlier, most of this site is in the shoreland district of Round Lake. Maplewood adopted the current shoreland district regulations, under the guidance of the DNR, in 1996. The code says that the shoreland district "is to provide specific regulations to protect the city's shorelands. It is in the public's y p s best interest to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands. The objectives of the shoreland code are: 1. Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters. 2. Protect the natural environment and visual appeal of shorelands. 3. Protect the general health, safety and welfare of city residents. As such, there are several shoreland ordinance regulations that apply to this request (including pp Y q the requirement that the city approve a CUP for a PUD)' These include open space requirements, the maximum building height, vegetation preservation and screening requirements. Specifically, the shoreland code requires the following: - at least fifty (50) percent of project area remain as open space; that the buildings have a maximum height of 25 feet (unless the city approves taller structures); that the developer minimizes the loss or removal of natural vegetation; - the applicant to prepare a storm water management Ian for the proposal; and p p p that the developer design the structures to reduce their visibility from the lake. The plans as proposed by the applicant will meet all the requirements of the shoreland ordinance including the Open space and impervious surface requirements. Park Department, Review I had Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, review the proposed development plans. Mr. Anderson supports the development plan as submitted, including the proposed trail and sidewalk and the developer not building a tot lot within the site. Code' Variation - Reduced Street Right -of -Way Width The proposed plat shows the public street (Maple Hills Drive) with a 50 -foot -wide street right -of -way. Section 29 -53 of the Maplewood City Code requires local residential streets to have 60 feet of right- of-way. The developer is proposing to have 24 -foot -wide streets in the 50 -foot -wide right -of -way. This narrower street right -of -way with a narrower street pavement width will require less grading and will allow for an easier fit between the ponding area and the proposed buildings. The additional right -of- way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or convenience. Code Variation - Reduced Street Pavement Width Section 29 -52 of the city code requires that local streets be 32 feet wide (curb to curb). The code says that the city council may permit variations from this requirement in specific areas that do not effect the general purpose of this section. The applicant wants to build Maple Hills Drive as a 24 -foot- wide street. I had the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal review this request. As long as the access standards of the Uniform Fire Code are met or exceeded (with parking restrictions), they did not express a preference about the street width. Since 1993, the council has approved narrower street widths with parking restrictions for the Oak Ridge, Maple Woods, Highwood Estates 4 th Beth Heights, Parkview and New Century developments. The narrower street would provide a larger setback between the street and the homes and would put less impervious surface on the site. On- Street Parking Standards The applicant is proposing that Maple Hills Drive be 24 feet wide. I had the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal review the proposed streets and their widths. According to Article 9, Section 902 of the Uniform Fire Code, all fire access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. As such, all the streets and driveways in this development must be at least 20 feet wide with no parking on either side of the street If the developer or the city wants to allow parking on one side of the street, then the street must be at least 28 feet wide. The fire marshal has reviewed the preliminary i P plans and s comfortable with the proposed 24- foot -wide public street looping around the pond and the design of the private driveways. Preliminary Plat Lots, Outlots and Ownership The proposed preliminary plat (page 25) has 12 lots and five outlots. The 12 lots are for the 12 buildings and the five outlots are for various pieces of extra property around the site. The proposed development and preliminary plat with 100 units meets the city's density requirements for medium-* density and high - density residential development. The applicant has designed this development as a common interest community (CIC) with the developer platting a lot for each of the 12 buildings. The H builder will then divide each building into separate units, with the buyers owning from wall to wall, as opposed to owning the land that the town house sits on and a small portion of the land surrounding it. The developer will be forming a homeowner's association with documents (declarations) specifying the legal responsibility of the association and homeowners for maintenance of the units and common grounds. The main difference in platting a town house development as a CIC as opposed to platting each town house unit with its own lot is that there is only one sewer and water hookup to each buildin 9 rather than one per unit. City Code allows this type of utility connection as long as the declarations specify the parties responsible for maintenance. In this case, the homeowner's association will be responsible for the on -site sewer and water systems, .rather than one property owner. As noted above, the proposed plat has five outlots. Specifically, Outlots B and C are areas around wetlands. Outlot A is an open space area with the trail to the Gateway Trail and Outlot D is on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive between Parkway Drive and the ponding area near the center of the site. The developer is proposing that the homeowner's association own and maintain these four outlots and that each outlot have a drainage and utility easement over it. In addition, the city should require the developer to record an 18- foot -wide pedestrian easement over the art of p Outlot A that will have the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail. Finally, the plans show a proposed Outlot E around parts of the existing parking lot on the north and west sides of the existing office building at 905 Parkway Drive. The developer is proposing to deed this outlot to the owners of the office building to better clarify the ownership of the parking lot and the green space areas around the parking lot. (Please see the detail drawing of this part of the site on page 29 and the letter from the owners of the office building on pages 45 and 46.) Public Street As I noted above, the developer is proposing to have 24 -foot -wide streets in the 50- foot -wide right -of- way. This narrower street right -of -way with a narrower street pavement width will require less grading and will allow for an easier fit between the ponding area and the proposed buildings. The additional right -of -way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or convenience. The new public street (Maple Hills Drive) would connect with Parkway Drive north of the existing office building at 905 Parkway Drive. It would loop around the pond and would provide two -way traffic access around the pond in the center of the site to the proposed town houses. The distance from the split in the proposed street near Building One to Building Eight near the Gateway Trail is about 700 feet. Because this street would .provide for traffic, the fire marshal believes that the proposed street and driveway plans will provide adequate vehicle access within the site. Wetlands, Drainage and Watershed District Most of the site drains to the existing wetland /ponding area in the center of the property. The developer's engineer told me that by using the existing ponds as storm water detention facilities, the development will not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site. will be at or below current levels. The city engineer supports this design within the plan. The developer's engineer has provided the city engineer with information and calculations showing that this project will not increase the amount of storm water running off of the site. The developer had the four wetlands on the site delineated by a trained wetland professional. The watershed district has classified one of these wetlands as a Class IV wetland (located in Outlot B) and the other three as Class V wetlands. The city wetland protection ordinance requires the developer to protect the wetlands and their buffer areas on the site. Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance requires a minimum 25- foot -wide no- disturb buffer around the Class Il wetland on the property. The wetland ordinance also requires the building foundations to be at least 35 feet from these wetlands. The proposed development will meet these requirements. It also is important to note that the city does not usually allow any ground disturbance, including grading, within the buffer area. However, Sections. 9- 196(d)(1)(fl and 9- 196(h)(2) of the code allow .a contractor or owner to alter a buffer area where the watershed district has approved a permit for the project. For the Type V wetlands, the city does not require any buffer areas or special protection. In addition, Sections 9 -196.. (d)(1)(b), (d) & ( of the code give three examples of exemptions to Maplewood's wetland protection ordinance. These include the construction or maintenance of public drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds or erosion control facilities, where the city council waives these requirements for the construction of utilities or trails or where the watershed district has 'approved a wetland filling permit. The city code goes on to say that the city shall require mitigation for any disturbed buffer land and may only allow the construction 'of utilities through buffers where there is no other practical alternative. In addition, the code also notes that the city shall require the owner or contractor to replant the disturbed areas with appropriate native vegetation after construction ends. The contractor should place the silt fence and temporary construction fencing so they protect the buffer areas during all construction. The applicants engineer has submitted preliminary utility and grading plans with calculations that the city engineer has reviewed for consistency with city standards. The assistant city engineer is generally satisfied with the plans, but does have changes that he will be requiring of the developer. (See the assistant city engineer's comments on pages 37 through 40.) Meeting all city and other agency standards should be a requirement of the conditional use permit and the design approval. It also is important to remember that the applicant or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. That is, the watershed district will have to .be satisfied that the developer's plans will meet all watershed district standards, including he types of 9 Yp plantings used for restoration and providing adequate protection to the wetlands and their buffer areas. The applicant must contact Karl Hammers of the watershed district at (651) 704 -2089 to inquire about their plan review and permitting requirements. Building Design, Site Layout and Landscaping Building Design Review The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing buildings in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (with a wood grain finish and in four or five colors in neutral tones), vinyl trim and shutters, a partial wainscot of masonry (brick) on the front and side elevations, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. Each unit also would have a 10 -foot by 12 -foot concrete patio outside its door. (See the proposed elevation on page 30 and the enclosed project drawings.) Front and Rear -Yard Setbacks As proposed with the lot and building sizes, layouts and site topography, the developer has shown a variety of building locations on the proposed grading plan. The proposed front -yard setbacks shown on the project plans (20 to 65 feet) do not meet the standard setbacks the city usually requires in the R -3 zoning district. (Typically, 30 to 35 feet from the front property line.) The proposed side -yard and rear -yard setbacks shown on the plans meet all city standards. Having a variety of setbacks in this development will allowthe developer to do less mass grading and to save more trees, especially on the east side of the site. Cl Off- Street Parking Standards The city code requires the developer to provide at least 200 off - street parking spaces (two for each unit) in this development. The developer noted that they would be providing at least 224 parking spaces (including two garage spaces per unit) within the site. This number exceeds the minimum city 'requirement and should be enough parking for the residents and their guests. It should be noted that the city will not allow parking along the new public street in the site since it will be 24 feet wide. The applicant's plan does show 24 off - street parking spaces (besides those in and behind the garages) and 12 proof -of- parking spaces in locations scattered throughout the site. Entrance /Monument Signs The applicant presented conceptual tans to the CD site. These would P RB for possible entrance /monument si ns for th uld be along Maple Hills Drive near the intersection e n la n with Parkway Drive. City staff will need to approve the final sign plans to ensure that the signs would meet all cit -code sta including their number, size, location and setbacks. y ndards Trails and Sidewalks The developer is proposing to build an ei ht- foot -wi ' Hills Dri g de trail from the north end of the new street (Maple Drive) to the DNR'�s Gateway Trail. They Y also are proposing a six- foot -wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the existing wetland/ ondin p g area in the center of the site. Both of these features should be nice amenities for those in the development and will ive the residents in the development off - street access to the G 9 new Gateway Trail and #o each other. To prevent any confusion about ownership and property rights for trails, the count recommends Y mends that the city have the developer locate the trail in a right-of-way trails within the de or within an easement on the plat. All the velopment should be for all to use and not just for those living se living in the development. For paved off - street paths, Maplewood usuall requires eight- foot -wide bituminous paths centered in _ aright -of- -way or easement that is at least ten feet wide • • r than the trap. In this case, the developer is showing the proposed new trail to the Gateway rail p require the d y in Outlot A (between buildings 8 and 9). The city q developer to record a separate easement for this trail with should re th the final plat. The city should require the developer t with the p o install the wetland buffer signs, sidewalks, trails and fenc streets and driveways before final plat a roval. This is es that the trails and sidewalks are there. pP to ensure that the lot buyers know Fencing /Screening Several of the neighbors (primarily in Bennington Wo between the ro erne 9 ods) requested that the developer install a fence p p s for privacy and security. The floor elevation of the • proposed development will be six to ten feet below the elevation of Bennington Woods. It is staff's opinion that h ; n a fence - between the project site and Bennington Woods is n y of necessary because of the grade chan a that will occur between the two sites. It is unlike) that r g the south into Ben Y residents in the new town houses will be walkin to nington Woods, as they would need to climb u a landscaped g scenario p aped slope to get to the existing town houses. A more like) into the ne Y o is that residents in Bennington Woods will want to walk w development to walk around the pond and to et get the Gateway Trail. Having additional landscaping on the slo pe on the south side of the development site the p g top of the slope) will better serve the new res' (p rimarily near residents and the existing residents in Bennin ton landscaping discussion. Woods. I have outlined this in more detail below in the 9 on. 7 Trees The applicant completed a tree inventory of all the large trees on the site. This inventory ound ry 150 large trees on the property (an average of 7.3 trees per acre) with the plans showin g the removal of 74 trees and the saving of 76 - trees. In this case, the city code requires the re developer to lace the p p removed trees on a one -for -one basis. As ,noted on the landscape plans and as I discuss below, the developer will be planting and transplanting on- site -more than enough trees to meet the tree replacement requirements of the city. Landscaping The developer should further develop the proposed landscaping plan (page 27 and in the 'ect plans) to increase the screeni roJ p ng and privacy between the proposed town houses and the existing single dwellings and town houses. There are at least three areas that should have additional plantings or another type of screening method. Specifically, the additional trees in these areas should include Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae for screening. In addition, these areas should have a variety of shrubs (including Alpine Current, Yew Gloss y Black Choke Berry, American Cranberry (short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to g ) provide p a variety of colors and textures. These additional planting areas should be located: (1) Along the north property line of Bennington Woods. (2) In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive. (3) Along the south .side of Lot 12, east of the driveway to the new building. The evergreen trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. The developer has provided a typical planting plan (on page 28) for the foundation area of each building. This plan is acceptable. Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that the fire department must have clear e assa p 9 to the buildings. He has reviewed the preliminary plans and is comfortable with the - ro osed 24-foot- p p t wide public street looping around the pond and the design of the private driveways. The final project Y p J plans should be reviewed by Mr. Gervais to ensure fire safety needs are met, including the location of the fire hydrants. He also noted that the code requires that the larger buildings have a sprinkler system for fire protection. CONCLUSION The proposed -project plans, if built, will provide the city with additional owner-occupied housing while p 9 preserving many of the natural features of the site. While many of the neighbors would p refer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the right to reasonably p develo and use his land. The proposal provides good protection for the wetlands on the site while giving the owner the g 9 opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should strive for with every development. COMMISSION ACTIONS On February 4, 2002, the planning commission recommended approval of the ro'ect. p J On February 12, 2002, the CDRB recommended approval of the design plans for the ro osed development. p p 8 'RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 47. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hilts development on the north side of Parkway Drive on the site of the Maple Hills Golf Course. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city ouncil may approve Y Y pp major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. , 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. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills Townhome PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none b. Front -yard setback ublic side street): minimum - 20 feet maxi - \ (p ) mum none c. Rear -yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line. d. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. if the city council decides there is not enough on -site parking after the town houses are occupied, the city may require additional parking.'. 6. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. B. Adopt the resolution starting on page 49. This resolution approves a cit y code variation to have a 50 -foot -wide street right -of -way instead of a 60- foot -wide right -of -way for Maple Hills Drive in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city should approve this code variation because: 1. The variation will lessen the amount of grading, ground disturbance and tree removal in the development. 9 2.: The additional right -of -way is not necessary for public health, safety, welfare or convenience. C. Adopt the resolution starting on page 50. This resolution approves a city code variation fora 24- foot -wide public street (Maple Hills Drive) in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. This variation is subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no parking on both sides of the street. 2. The developer shall pay the city for the cost of the no-parking ' p g signs. D. Approve the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills preliminary p p ry plat. The developer shall complete the following, before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: p . a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and mee t all city requirements. p b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Excel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at leas ' g t 10 locations - primarily at street and driveway intersections and street or driveway curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city en y J y gineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary'easements. e. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. f. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review 9 p w of the construction plans. g. For the trails and sidewalks, complete the following: g (1) Construct an eight - foot -wide paved ublic walkway from Ma ' p y Maple Hills Drive to the Gateway Trail. This trail shall be in an 18 -foot -wide trailway or pedestrian way or in an easement. (2). Construct a six -foot -wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills. Drive and the and in the center of the site. p (3) The developer shall build the trail, sidewalks and fencing with the driveways and streets before the city approves a final plat. (4) The .city engineer must approve these plans. h. Petition and work with the city for the realignment of the sanitary sewer and the installation of the sewer lift station on the site. This sewer project also will require an assessment agreement between the q 9 e developer and the city to compensate the city for the benefit the developer receives from the city sewer construction. 2.* Have the .city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shat 9p p I include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk, driveway nd street plans. Specifically: Y 10 a. The plans shall meet the requirements of the city engineer, including the comments and requirements of the Assistant City Engineer as outlined in his memo of 1- 29 -02. b.* The tree plan shall (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This Ian shall p 9 p II include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screenin trees. p g The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1 /2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the trail (d) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors (e) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing town houses to the south The developer may use the tree groupings to separate the different types of residences. (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is done. c. The street, trail, sidewalk and utility plans shall show the coordination of the water main q locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul . Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire. Department. d. Revise the design of the entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets Parkway Drive) so it is as far south on Parkway Drive as possible and so it has aleft -turn and a right -turn exit lane.' 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final p lat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. 11 b. Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the watershed district. c. Make as many of the property lines as is reasonably possible radial to the cul -de;sacs or perpendicular to the driveways and street right -of -ways. d. Show the trails in* publicly -owned property or easements. The developer shall record with Ramsey County a separate deed for the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail. 5. Secure and record with the final plat all required easements for the development. These shall include: a. Any off -site drainage and utility easements. b. Wetland easements over the wetlands and any land within 25 feet surrounding a Class IV wetland. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 25 feet of the Class IV wetland or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 25 feet of the wetland or within the wetland itself. The purpose of the easements is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer and runoff. They also are to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. c. Any easements the city may need for the realignment of the sanitary sewer or the construction of the. new lift station on the site. d. The easement for the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the Gateway Trail. 5. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. These documents must assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways, signs and structures. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless. approved by the city council. c. For the property at 905 Parkway Drive: (1) All agreements between the developer and the property owner of 905 Parkway Drive for changing the parking lot of the office building and for any changes to the existing ingress and egress agreements. (2) The deed that transfers the ownership of Outlot E to the owner of the property at 905 Parkway Drive. d. All wetland, drainage, utility and trail easements. The applicant shall submit the language for these documents, easements, dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. These are to assure there will be one responsible party for the maintenance. of the common areas, private utilities, driveways, signs and structures. 12 7. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 8. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District for . radin g 9 If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat; the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading per or approves the final plat. E. Approve the development plans (date- stamped January 22 and January 23, 2002 ) for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city bases this approval on the 'findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a' building ermit for this project. p p 1 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building. permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and requirements of the assistant city engineer outlined in his memo dated 1 -29 -02 and the following: (1) There shall be no parking on either side of Maple Hills Drive or on the private driveways. The developer or contractor shall post the street and the driveways with no parking signs. (2) The tree plan shall: (a) Show where the developer or contractor will remove, save or replace large trees. (b) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The new screening trees shall be grouped together. These planting areas shall be along the south, and east sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing properties to the south and east. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species. (c) Show the planting or transplanting of at lea8t74 trees after the site grading is done. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading - and tree limits. (e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list (� Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: 191 (1) (Z) (3) ( (5) near the ponding areas on the slopes along the trail along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing town houses to the south (3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (4) The site, street, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (a) Asix - foot -wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills drive and the pond in the center of the site. The public works director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. (b) A water service to each unit. (c) The repair of Parkway Drive (street and boulevard) and the driveways in Bennington Woods after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways and public street. (d) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire -flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (� The entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets Parkway Drive) as far south on Parkway Drive as possible with aleft -turn and a right- turn exit lane. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. C. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) The planting of additional native evergreens and shrubbery on the site to provide additional screening and privacy between the proposed town houses and the existing single dwellings and town houses. The additional trees should include Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae. These additional trees should be located as follows: (a) Along the north property line of Bennington Woods. (b) In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive. (c) Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the driveway to the new building. The trees in these locations shall be at .least six feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. (2) Also show the areas noted in (1) above planted with a variety of shrubs (including Alpine Current, Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, American Cranberry (short 14 cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to provide a variety of colors and textures. (3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the vegetation within the ponding area and on the steep slopes. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with a wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (4) Having in- ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). d. Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and all homeowner's association documents for this development before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit. e. Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the city code. f. Submit revised elevations for staff approval showing the following: 1. The brick wainscoting on all four elevations of each building. 2. A screening plan for all mechanical units and meters on or near the buildings. g. The monument sign plans submitted by the developer at the February 12, 2002 ` CDRB meeting is conceptually approved. The applicant shall submit final sign plans, including the location, height, materials for staff approval. h. Submit samples of all building materials and the color schemes for the buildings to the city for staff approval. l 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and set new property irons for the new property corners. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the ponding areas C. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Parkway Drive exit, no parking signs along both sides of Maple Hills Drive and the private driveways and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by staff. d.. Construct a six- foot -wide concrete public sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the p pond in the center of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. e. Install the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the DNR Gateway Trail. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the trail. f. Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping (including the foundation plantings), ponding areas and an in- ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). 15 r g. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Y p h. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city taff approval.' Y pp 4. If . any required work, is not done, the city may allow temporary ccu anc if: rY p Y a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health safety or welfare b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, f or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. C. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete an unfinished work. o p Y. 5: All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. p Y pp 16 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 88 properties within 350 feet of this -.site about this proposal and received 26 written replies. Those who wrote had several concerns about the proposal. I have summarized their issues with that plan as follows: 1. Possible effects of storm water run -off and drainage (potential for flooding). 2. The effects on the wildlife. 3. The proposed plans have too many units. The density is too high on an acreage this small. 4. Concerned about the loss of privacy by adding new housing and construction next to us. Have the developer install. a fence (privacy) or a hedge to separate Bennington Woods from the development. We do not want people cutting through our property (Bennington Woods). 5, Can the existing lift station handle the additional sewage flow? 6. There would be too much traffic, congestion and noise (especiallyo'n Parkway Drive). Can Parkway Drive handle the additional traffic (especially with vehicles turning in and out)? 7. Keep it as park or open space. It is our hope that this or any other, development will not take place. 8. It will ruin the nature area and destroy the quiet. 9. It will alter the character and could decease the economic value of adjacent properties. Also see the letters on pages 42 through 46. I also received several telephone calls from nearby residents about the proposal. The expressed _ p p y p ssed concerns about the loss of open space, storm water drainage, the loss of privacy and increased traffic. 17 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: - 20.5 acres Existing land use: Maple Hills Golf Course SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Cemetery across the Gateway Trail South: Bennington Woods and a single dwelling on Lar P enteur Avenue West: Cemetery East: Single dwellings on Parkway Drive and on Arcade Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designations: R -3(H) (high' density residential) and OS (open space) Existing Zoning: R -3 (multiple - family residential) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36- 442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 47 and 48. Section 25 -70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship o neighboring, p g g, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is i keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. .3. That the design and location of the proposed develo ment would provide a des' p p desirable environment for its occupants, a`s well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these three apply to this proposal. pp y p p al. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate.to this project. They are: - Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic,' social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents regardless of age, et ' g g ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments 18 town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing and low-to- mode rate-i ncome housing, and rental and owner occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses b adequate buffering and separation. p Y q The housing plan also -has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life -cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations fora diversity of housing styles, les, t Yp es and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long -term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Application Date We received the complete application materials for this request on December 28 2001. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city council would have normally had to take action on the proposal b February 7 2002. p y � ' kr /p: /sec17 /Carriage Homes of Maple hills.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Location Map .4. Property Line /Zoning Map 5. Existing Conditions Map 6. Site Plan 7., Proposed Grading Plan 8. Proposed Landscape Plan 9. Example Foundation Planting Plan 10. Exhibit "C" (Outlot E detail) 11. Proposed Building Elevation 12. Developer's Project Justification Text 13. 1 -16 -02 letter from David Deebach 14. 1 -29 -02 memo from Chris Cavett 15. 1 -24 -02 memo from Dan Soler 16. 1 -17 -02 letter from Kurt:Trygg 17. 1 -16 -02 letter from Husten 18. 1 -22 -02 letter from Hackleman 19. 1 -15 -02 Fetter from D. Patrick McCullough 20. Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Resolution 21. Street Right -of -Way Width Code Variation Resolution 22. Street Pavement Width Code Variation Resolution 23. No Parking Resolution 24. Project Plans (separate attachments - including 11x17s and full -size) 19 Attachment 1 Gervais '�•�, �, Lake r KOHL ��� ti 26 �- �;�.�'' C OUNTY I PLAZA CIR rop hlmw► 3 ELLECRST DR 0R PALM In Pat* Trailer o 4 DEAUV DR CT. L�II CVR- ( Court 5 MERIDIAN DR pfd 5 2 ' CO d��' � 3 N r ' 3 Q NNOR v OR 0 '"" : N1 AVE. �• AVE' C Q DEMO p z n < 22 o 0 U X -� 8 OdKS w c LLJ �. C�' � I1 AVE 2 60 GER VAIS poo 140 58 CO. RD, 82 Lade 3fi COP CT. LARK VI fNV DR. W Keller 3 5E a `'-' Lake 25 v Ca. RD. o � > o LAU BE RD. � : w 1� t ( cr LELAND RD. z LAURIE T. . JUN TION d AVE. BUR KE CT f Q4� Timber}.-. 'j r BURK Mcpkcr+est ! r } Pork E Park f a. Q o A - EL RIDGE AV C" , �LDRI AVE. �' �, r cn ao BELMONT LN. r,; 5g Lake a BELMONT v SKILLMAN AVE. l SKILLMAN AV. K NV 000 z t to Y �u L , F— W w AVE. a. z 3 a off- 60 o Y ao n m W z W MT. � VERNON AVE. Ed rton W w o+ 0, W Pork wn Nerk Q W W. ( n ROSELAWN 8EI LWOOD F... AVE. 0 004ELLWOOD a q` 1 ER o z o � T. c �-, . z w m �U Y 4 W RIPLEY Z Hills .O e- as AVE. ' GA TEWAY (n � ' C A RIPLE AVE Round � z � � KfNGSTONQ AVE. ,..~, M. 0 3 w . j ' 11 ke) I -' w Y PRICE ZAVE, s AVE. a Q UIE s 61 a � ST. PAU �b 10 �' G (A N VE AV SKILL �`�`� g as ��� �� SHE Ay � J U1 � RYAN o c R AIL ca t , � nksk Park a Au w w FE NTON AVE. r*i c 62 w �-- ,..: c Q w GO DO a FRISBIE AVE. 11' s a � � i Q RIP '-L PH IA ST. z U V? z Lake ,� J z Phoien LOCATION MAP PROJECT SITE 4 N LV4A - I is I k miAi nip iii NMI an m wil 10 o � • r. - r a .. r • r i iii �° �� I � ■ see • • • • r ■ ; � • r r r r t - i 154 �. �■, i �■r Mm C �l ■1 • t 1 loft t•• ■■ a f d ■• r • t w 1 1 I ow IL IN 1 LttjtND c "' R -2 ° R -3(H) _ o co GEM = CEMETERY o� OS\= OPEN SPACE CD R m cc E R -1 = SINGLE D DWELLINGS Lu t�u 3 R -3(H) = MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HIGH DENSITY) BC _ - BUSINESS COMMERCIAL BC(M) = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL L MODIFIED . Attachment 3 �— Traii Gateway CU �e t oa� 2 Maplewood St. Paul Location Ma p 22 Larpenteur Avenue Attachment 4 iL rotas FIim d ,�0 it 30 • r X28 8 t1 �� l --� Q , c _ �' w f B S / `� T / 14, lj � ~ in k p 40 o ° o �6.s ? ( ---� O 1 2 Z 1.9 4% 'S 12 x°�`') o S O V Sru) yl v 4-��'' Q 73 • 1 13/ I 4C. / 14 v (48) � r S,� �� 121 � 15 (fps) 5 � uar, 15p k(b 5 / IT �1 W �s 2s 16 �� �` `� 476.44 y 5 0 Is so 1', % :.,�C -- !�� 817 ► I 6 . C 66 0 17 (1(1,4A) �� 0 70 0 J IA �i -' 0 u s0 84 1 0 0 32ac. PLAT C 3 .00 ac) b� t 2 �dj►nT0 f ZZ �O (0) 9 ' ('e) . ,^ `, 49.5 ci r ` � • . � � 42.0 ;'� a yf � �l02 1 In 16 9C it 29 s.ao IO�o. OIp 1`vl N'N M 4.3 2 zc 1 * _ 50 i 3�5o FA _ y�AY TAIL R 1`.x.&0. _ GpTE . I � a' t. M1 . M1L. t M1M1 {:• M1 'y •} • 'ti • • k ' :, M1 L+ M1' ' 'yL • {' ' M1 ' . }v• '#L, •L - - '3 •t •, t , }y '� • ti } l L � F' •t : L • •�•; L S'' y t vL; � �, 1•Z /�C• I ��� dl. � - \ L { { �'�v} , }r• y � {• ,, .x.• ,fit• � < n • 1'i {S, •M1 -' � , \�� J�. ` OS� .� : y..• }'b +' { { \ 'M ,. M1, h Y• •S rya t 7� �:. � � . / l '`4 ',;y yy M1M1,.S •:, .�{ M1 'M1 • +. { • i � ' �' • t L \. }�. • � y' ' . -; I � -� -/� rl 'J . �:: ''' • • • •' i �• r • • F • { L by r y ••�• M1' ;:: Y + •. +,• }'} : • • y l •'r Y �r y Q 3�3.� ~ � � 5 /) t C 1 07 r '% r : • M1 M1 Lti •/ }• T M1 �' ,h, :} .• ;,' { ,\ + L '•'Y•'' t l •� 42 -„ I 1 .1 I !11•�'. t'' C r t ?i.. ,:r ' .Z {• +•• }' .S• {. 8 I • L r M1 at ` � c � � �� • 1 �: 2 1 ii � � / I I •�?.� I 1 '�, -� .� { r t+L ;{• .+ } v • '\ - _9�,�%;, ��` � � 1 � 1 W 23 24 ?5 26 2F 28 29IwN1 2 .,`.' r .. .. <•. rF .� ,� ��« o ' I I n . :� Y � . S :, S r• t•:• rvr. '{• r• ., , �;: } •. y r' y k y ,r. A ,. -! -_� _� 3 D 1 - rrL ., , 3 : :. ' '{ .ti ' vr' . ,{' + 't•' {y y •y •• y .};�' ' h;},,, { 1 4�:,ktryk tr . y , - �.. `�� . /�' N f :( 1 wVACAT�p DoC 1`I9 t.'795 '1.4-•1('• Q� �. ''i' : }. ,; '\ 14:yfa�S'L. M1•• • rk • :$t. ti•Y. � L Y''h: r � ' \ �� N I . ��T _ - - _ � _ _ - _ _ _ N � . + { L � •• � t •.r�•. M1 tM1 L • 'f;,t, , F ? ,, r F r 'v� { S a 4 ,S h • . ;1 t � ' � � � .._,\ ((- r �I �.. 4 � • d}�..• { { +C' . v.. y .r . ••� FM1, • y y �'y },'��,, � .M1� M1,:• ; +' :, � � / � p RI { I I } {, Y ' {� t�k • ; }`,i2 'rL L; • {.• t • }, ;; ,y2 F' y b { ' • y ,. ,. 8 - , ' - 1 1 � . 1 -� ,} S ' ' •' ''y ti � ?{{y'.}ti • ; r r . /f': {. . }�• , M1Y ' y�' '{;{{ti M1 '' YiiD : ', } ' •t �. y , • r � � ... I ' , I �• •Q 1 • a • ti, ' {' '+ 4k ti. r . r. .`';pl ;.t ..L;rS S;C {M r f *C ?. r'M1' t ' i 1 k 1 '_ • 1 �`yr' 0 I 9 n rl �,,, r '; `Y .: }v: y} t M1 M1 k tt : •{}• • •i'{ • •• y • _Sl' \ ' 1 ��� ...1� M( �I., L. •L• ;t. L' .jIL ; ��'++'.y'Y, x � {: '}; 'M1 ti ?. }� •r '• +{:• } { y• ±.'�• :�. / ��a. �:. :1 � � 1 I I � I {Vr".. 1-., � _ Y:; r •L • •;yy 'r ' + :$Y,.�' Y .,,''C.t. y'r.' S " }v • ' t 4 3 '� ry; ': • r • : }�C•: ': •••'{',:, • ';• Q• •' � L , t' '•{: � � �� ;� � •,11.3 _ _ J� � _ _ � _ .�� _ . 1 _ _ � _�_ � . _ 14'� 4d1 1 �" M1 •y • • t� • •�,:L•�1� .Y } Y • r. \ ;: •'�• •t :Fy f ' }Y{'LVj. �'{ • Y ' •t M1 { Y � }• ' • M1 r: • � / I 1 . •' .. � - ''s �� j- _ ti • +• ;y f • r 'S } �4••;••� '•Xr ; {•} y , • M1y �'r�{t� . ::.'S. F { • +• ti• }•,F T .1 t.. � Q p• ,' . • {• {'S;..: yy . ." �'' °' • M1: r Y 1 •L. 321 Vl � �' k. I i ♦ 'F ':t r ' y}, �. r M1 +;. •kk. r +; ¢ �.} { .'S�Y ' Y,M1, '�? } - •rr ' , ' M1, +t { F' • r• ,n•' •• • • ''t •ti• a :yy+ : S > y ; , G! - L 4v� LTM1S:f +'^ : ; . t M1 '' +w+ d Y ' rit' t • ? { Yi, .: { •' t • fi. y //� I x R - -- sT�S._.. .._..� '�'' M1.• .t••.fiy, .t, '�� •' <• ;j/r • }• � y �•' `/ ` i • r •:,4C•{ v•{.}'M1 L % +•r ';.{ S^ }F ••• ' y ' ' •: Y M M1• ',' _ • ' ` ]' '`' M1'• {•%• A •A'' +4 , ry{' {+• •:: .�'�'.} :'''•t' HIM •t r ' > : • `. { :•,'.2{{•• .:,� . • :e r • ?C ••• . v.•' • rn • r v ,} . •FF' M1 '`+W' { >i. : ..fi •{{. ;•: . M1, { }, 'v^.t ■ Q ,1... + ,: .. .� yi • S + .•{. M hy�. ..S v t , L .}F f n. {'; {' {' L ■ •.t �, Y•:•v • ';+ M1 ••'r + ';.� { % 4 t,L h F S L . 'i , t+ ' +•• • { { } ••} { L M1 ; ;, •S: /;,rt{r' y1,, , .7'., �; r. •• . �. pjr .,.. •:M1 ,t \ :•SN �,t �:" } '•y ,: • F {} 1. ,}, r } ' 5 '• . '. Y . {.�✓., •.Y • j :�+r' ,, r �yy� {' �' :r;�t • r Yv�'�+ r .. }} .;!;:+ {+ i... r i ' {y: :} Y: ,+� � � }r �y�} ,M , .y ! • - '••:?' } +', {, ?3��� i. M1 ��. •' .M1� �; .Y:S2}�. v'N • ; 1 n y ;•Y, • ••Yi. , Y t} { :T'•'7r :rr \n r {Y%' ' }. Nr. •'�' . �.: {:M1,.}. •};{:..F' r r: � ' �t,n t { t . r t • t; %fi a • • _ I •; YF:S{ 1 :.,. + y�' • q�� r%t; rr. •'•.,�,:•�. , : • y'�, � {• ' Y•3i;. • { .}� k4 • :f' Y v r { .y • � � I ''�r0 • l�C� MO.. I Q • %. r,. i.}fiwy;•,. •;yt ti � . • \y� FS:'. ,•$ r: F . rn;�•.�' L� ; •' •••''' + • _ M '•, ; •• • • O N i 0 .. .. . L Q ¢ .n , , . ;r } Y M1 • i { }, •' , ,•;:;, • ,y : >r y '•;'i�ti 1•. 14 U . . �� • � � \ � � ' ,r ;"; M1 v y r{ ' ,$ 'Y ' � .... fop �, / H 1 N p 4 y f . : y t r r AC. 4 Q 0 3 AA�r •.t''r }ky 'rL IT VACATED Q 1 3 �yv q ; {.; S1• :• rr }r 1 0 0N 19, j 1 1 R R W • s 'r. �� i E V . \ E • F•1�t .0 J• r ,(O 1D.v.�� i �liy�r �� IS I�� h , 1 .r,•1 ', O �� ds ,`yb ` .,t C k'• YYPVVI 81 I I .. :� 5Tti�1�� � e°� � � � • � 9 � 1 CE M E TE•RY►� g, X 04 4 N N � (1 ) fi r. ! � J \ �i 2 � - A !}" :N A� N 7 • 1 I 8 r 140 In I Id LEGEND PLAT A o ho E0 6, (", 3 a me I !�� = RESIDENCE T "RUE ,tiNl'�14415 ` Ida', ; �y • g � �i s � B _ 91 I „ • 7 �) 9'� - I_ �1 w c .37 1 . �:�� �. R -1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS' _ T 1 .� Go, -3 — MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-7 ►jo4.s RPENTEUR AVENUE v E ?_ TIAL - - - -- -- I BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL 9 y BC(M) = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL SAINT PAUL ' MODIFIED � . PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 23 PROJECT SITE 4 N Attachment 5 WA 7-7 ............. .......... ©� ...... -SAIL __ - S TATF OF I � �---; ... G .�-- ..----- --.""' `.`rr�*�• .� ---" -- a ..- G� M1NN ..................... . ......... ,1. � \ Ali a,o. Its - 4, L \ p rl, r / spy « �\e•� e � � \ e . � \ 1� � µ e" \ I lk N v . 17, �7 0e I ♦ � ` \. • 1e71e1� MR ewro MR r/t• � \ � � \ MD6 tOMl11A/Olt 100 M� IlelgO \ \ I a ` 1 01 0 \ ,\ .2 \ Me IVAN) BylLT) a wl '10 BLOCK I 9 g 2ND P �� f it .� 7 \ 4 �l � � } • �� � � \ u �, s ent , " , �� t `Rr 1NGS TO N AV E.' (NO T ALT) °i ° � v � �a �`� i � MOUNT ZION 1 \ \ �� �/ / � ei � HEBREW ' \ r ! CEMETERY r ,� �* \ Vj i PLAT A AWN / ppP i op I BENNINGT\gN WOODS 1 ` • �/ j � ♦ `�� -� "'•✓ ,rte � \ n� 1` 1 �`�� N\ r Jf SPIN I If 00 mrvwc mum* wow m on POMMY Rim p o�oo'M, wi Ira jam / NN4 e / V .000 EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP 2 s 4 N `l ; 2 1 3 1 f � t1/ ' 5 1 6 � ♦ `�� -� "'•✓ ,rte � \ n� 1` 1 �`�� N\ r Jf SPIN I If 00 mrvwc mum* wow m on POMMY Rim p o�oo'M, wi Ira jam / NN4 e / V .000 EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP 2 s 4 N Attachment 6 4 GATEWAY TR 1 . - -• ... .................. INNESGTA . �-1�• .,.. of ...�........... . .. , 1 STATE - . - .._ ..._....- ...._- - -• -.. -- — .. ...... .- ' --•... �•........ .;''r'wigorop ----- ...�......_.. _. war. '� � - - � -'?_• 1!f ate. AIf f7f J1'i< 11< rA M P ` 1 SPACE ARFA :� •ti;., �* -- - - / 41 IF. 4 I:Z LOT 4 ,ow �, �.. SUN NR If� �, +fi 1 Pam' s 6 10 UWr o 1 � wcluw • lea -- �Me r Q Ule 1 V 10 N.N. IF ' 10 UNIT — I 4 a r, 4 uNr' 1 291301 �� .44! N T 8 ILT 3 uNrt \ 1 2 BLOCK 1 . , �. . .1 M ; r, U 9 8 2ND PLAT M• �r\ ��/ . 1e. �\ / i 6 7 _l J..J L INGST_ON AVE. ,o UNR 10 u�rT 3 �, Iff.31 L BLM V (NOT BU ILT) ar. r / .� MOUNT ZION 314M r ♦ t ! 4; UNR ,' � Ir r., , it / • HEBREW � — — CEMETERY / — — . — / / r +`• ' 7 >y •+r PLAT A Is a. M4. n M� , - / / 19 UNIT ; + 4 ' '�!"�. - •. SAM qL LOT 10 UNIT BENNIN, G 0P4 W4QDS ', ;'', ,. owe If 00 / i sec \ \\NA �., WIN TR wave ON-srtE tso .�� � / TOTAL TREES RE)AONED 74 4N 37i Typr TREES t ,,�� �• *2'2 TOTAL EwWM I /AC. DMSmr .32 TTR Aa \ .� PROPOSED NO. TREES �Q BE REPLACED 74 TREES t" we d 4 H TOTAL PROPOSED TR£i_ [AC. DEJ+ISfiY 7.34 TREES /IC. / sown M FOV4EIIEM TREES/UNT 0.7 TREES/UNR RE C E I VE 0 PropoNd soning 11 :3" / PUD EES TO BE IfWALM BY ,Bmpm ) \ _ Allow* �er,�t� MaL 0.4 tow*WJss unlb /proa 0cm ' No on srto drain to public raters. som 3 Allowable no d wilts 213 unM ?. � • Step wopes (s % a onsr SO' w1ot�p). Prop. no. of unitr 100 unit 1'S W. MAU • May reduce 1600' NmR by CRy stet(. P ro. Qen.1b nq v 2.0' CL.S AWRMTE • Zonl Ordlnanoe: Open space (7 ores) 10 6 5~0.1111) a«+ 2' SAND f (VERIFY 1M/ 50r1 EtK:R) PUO r"d. for tamhouas with over 4 unHa /bldg. (Soc. 36-374). No. etnd parldn9 sor►e Nile)) 73 parting ttdls ((NO SJND BASE FOR ATE ORAINIM.E AT EACH CB 100 D EACH AMA R-)) • Tbr *14th 267' No. ouNt porldrp l�- etrset) 24 parldrq stoNs ' • 111n. 'S07i open .puce re td. M gd. t » Use Cl. IV std. of Cl. V ( Shoreland Std.) (Zoning Ord. See. 36- 566(b)tI 4 N Attachment 7 • CJQ ,. STATE • ' aid WNW (N T B IL I ) \ BLOCK I 1 .9 1 8 1 k 6 1..1 _...� L. - 7. �w AVE.- --14 --- (NOT BUILT) MOUNT ZION HEBREW CEMETERY PLAT A � T I \ ,• 4 1 BENNf GT\0N�WOODS '' once s rwr awsrr / ° ' ! 10 uw / �vre.aty ♦ � �� (w "w9 I Z 1 2 �3 I � 1 4 Q- ,/ r / 'S 6 I _ i7 Nar�� N�w T N� C ~ - 1 '' I'' � A+o p oeuent N+enn ra N.oa oroo -..- '' ' I � r�r oN►D n° ionbr '°° , e�� ,u V , NOTE ALL SLOPES 01IEA J:1 lO BE LANDSCAPED BY BUILM / WITH NO AWNTENENCE MATER PER IANOSCAPE KM. NO RETAININO W WAALLLS TO B 9 DESIGNED BY B AEG. EENOIL PER Cffy. PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 26 4 N 1.3 Off. WEAR d ir! je�M1.1 a N.nr iM A `w""..�.�" �" ''' a ° C�a'AGGREQUE �, ..,�►+ �... �.+ z (( SAND USE M MFY W/ SOIL 04R.) T� ��b D DRAI AT MN CS (100' WAY) SSURVM ON-S" 150 TOTAL TREES TOTAL TREES ttEM041E0 TOTAL TREES 5AVE0 74 (4S 3X 7e (50.771 �A ��,4 r.C. , TOTAL MONO TREES /AC. DENSfTY NO. TREES TO BE REPLACED 7.31 /�. 74 TREES o O ono. - �xor p�e�owy A "low to . �.a' aev, o�or) TOTAL PROPOSED TREESIAC. DENSfTY PROPOSED RE7MEAIEN TREES /UNR 7.57 TREES AC. 0.7 TREES NR o4 Al i� � pw - t (TREES TO BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER) Z 1 2 �3 I � 1 4 Q- ,/ r / 'S 6 I _ i7 Nar�� N�w T N� C ~ - 1 '' I'' � A+o p oeuent N+enn ra N.oa oroo -..- '' ' I � r�r oN►D n° ionbr '°° , e�� ,u V , NOTE ALL SLOPES 01IEA J:1 lO BE LANDSCAPED BY BUILM / WITH NO AWNTENENCE MATER PER IANOSCAPE KM. NO RETAININO W WAALLLS TO B 9 DESIGNED BY B AEG. EENOIL PER Cffy. PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 26 4 N PAP A Wj ZVI It M �►� `� %IP NO 4f,4 Attachment 9 LANDSCAPE LEGEND :sL im PUM to aw go - KEY1110TANICAL MME COMMON E carp I IV or filak COWER SHRUBS GPM*& ic p MA Y JUNfP[R TM rAUNTON SPREAD#c YEw N& Own DECOUMIS SHRUBS w 0 1 06L liap" low UPON ." CS Corwe serica IMMU ISWTI QOGINOOO CMWI MAD4 A am UK wu Kewd SP Spiova 'Goldmound' GOLDWOUND SF40EA PLAIn 0 RAN -va- at Nix UK FRITSCH SPIREA SF Spkoea lril"Qna A MrAml g. SACK 1M01 r-d' wv�lwa- Awl" SJ Spirow a bu(MWG *DOM'S Rod* pARrs RED O f As vwtv— Wm 6rLz= 'Pairumm TNT PVC MIA 0 wu - ft INIUM SM S mwtw Vauwn' NA ";MM. p OWAW KOREAN LILAC s'-s' Disawsm am MTh I A . �& ria MAC., SW Vr Womramn apLdws *Nanwn' DWARF EUROPGAN CRANSERRYBUSH al sawwo WF wei ftro w 'Nlrojot!' W GLM Now ow. Z , . MINUET WEMA M MIN w &M or wr I HONIG Ro 51wWard' IF WAVAL 431WIM cyw j "CAP WON"` K LUT an LOOM AN TURN CNINK AllnuMEM."M WL an 1011.1" W IIIIII. FIDINa Vat" fA WIL, No PIANOS RINGS. S.C. N LWI Cli a . 4LVp Tww a.r.Z!F:. ANN IN , = =tMl-?lWMlJ%22r an rK g r w &INIPIN rmm To Ac. a a Q~ M A 00"4 o- Ir N n — mmmmdm me n N A UM w r Niso Na SC► •40plow me .La F4AOMIL IQ Sm. Mime" m N , Rome Poona DECIDUOUS THEE ELANTING DETAIL CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETA LL SHRUB PL NOT TO SCJAE NOT TO SCAE DETAIL L,. NOT To SCALE PLANTING NOTES I. ALL PLANTS MUST K HEALTHY, VIGOROUS MATERIAL. FR OF PESTS ANC OISEXX AND at CGHUM G on g&UM NO QrISUIRLAPKO AS INDICATED IN THE PLANT LAST. 1, ALL ES OC STRAIGHT "EO AND FULL LEADED AND MEET I! fKO=TS SPEW I THE LANDSCAPE AN04RCT RESERVES TK RIGHT TO K.CC7 ANYKMTS *4104 JIME DaWCO UNSATISFACTORY WFORIE. OLSONC ORAFTER INSTALLAML 4. SO UAST111UTIONS Of PLANT MATERIAL SHALL K ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVED IN VOTING- By " LAKOW.APE AOM=f. S. ALL ftA at D%N. M004 nocL Cowou in *4 '"w3acm STANDARD FOR HLOSIERY STOCK,' 493I -164 LAMST IMAM, Of FK AhIMAN ASSOMMICH OF NURSERYMEN. J AND SHALL CQM MINNOAA QUALITY AEOUIREMEMTS FOR PLAINS MATERIALS, &. EXISTING Mus me SWAM To mEN.Aw SNAL K MOIECIO To THE DRIP LINE FROM ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, 511DRACE OF wATERLALS Cm. WITH 4' 14T. QkAmM PLASTIC orn rpavaG ' AGEOU ARLY SUPPORIED GY SI FO POSTS 4'QQ AiA*§dU#A SPACl 7. ALL PLANT MATERIALS QUANTITIES, SHAPES Or MS Me 0CATHMS *00M AM APPR CONINAClog $ " A " K RESPONS& f Com COV Or ALL A.M" BEDS AT SPAC04C SHOWN AND A"STEO To COWORM 10 THE EXACT lo"'I'lo" OF 111E THE 94ALL APPROVE [HE STARING 3CA OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS ►RM to L ALL TREES M AND STAN AS SHOWN IN Of OE7A 1. ALL PLANTING AREAS MUST K COMPLETELY MULCHED AS SKOFIM. 10-ML&Qt WEDOW HARDWOOD "ACK QlAM AND FRU Of 40 I IDUS FEEDS ON OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL, IN ALL MASS PLANTING KOS APO FOR TREE LESS IND AS ROCK hkAXN ON 011AWAMOS. SUBMIT SAMPLE TO LMOSCAPE ARCHIM PWAI to XUVlR ON-STE FOR APIPADVAL DELIVER MULCH ON CAT Q ' NSTALLA TION. USE 41 FOR TREES, siliftis a". *AD 11 FOR PERENNIALAMOUND CQVM "AS, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED. It. THE PLAN LAKES PRECEDENCE OVER I PLANT SGH [DuLf IF XSCREPAMQES EXIST. ME SPECIMAnota TAKE PlMoMpia )KA W "RHO NOTES APO QDiEAAL MOVES. iZ. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL K RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NuLCWS U410 PLANTING SOL QUANIJUS to C OMA X 71 I MAX SHOWN ON THE PLAN. VEAFN ALL OUAIIJIM SHOWN O I PLANT iCHEOULJ. U. LONG-TERM STORAGE OF MATERIA an SUPPM a wa.k. Nor K ALLOWED. N. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP PAVEMENTS. PLANTERS Me PULDiNGS CLEAN AND UNST"40. ALL PEDESTRIAN 00 VO4CU ACCESS TO BE MAINIANED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION PE&W ALL PASTES SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE ANY ANY 4,ANT SMICK Not PLANTED ON DAY OF OEUVOY %4A BE J 4EE]EQ 4 AND WATERED UNIL WVALlA%OK PLANTS NOT MAINI'AMEO IN WS %AHHIER WILL K W.IECTED. ANY DAMAGE to Elab ACLIMES SHALL BE RIPAVED AT THE CONTRACIOWS EXPEASL D. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL K RESPONSIBLE FOR C&APLOO 01h ALL APPLICA&Z CODES REGULATIONS 400 PERMITS OVERmaw; WA wQxR . EXAMPLE FOUNDATION PLANTING PLAN zs . I N - PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: - I'm 10' Attachme t 1 w -- �`�► `` EX. SHEDI f- EXISTIN.G .. OUTLQT D o � ' ` I BUILDING 4 UNIT 2-, HILLS. ' C ' . J � x 20,140 SF 6 R M l „' ' .s �� mil• � , �, ♦• 01 ���� , T td►p� QP�'� � � � /' �O Q� ,�, � �� a .h ♦`o ♦ 1 o Q � I O / Q , v 2�t,'" � �� h I df y Q` Q 9 q ir I EXISTING FENCE TO" REMAIK tag • ~ ` ' - , I I JAN 2 2 2002 I f O� P OS� E Q-.... CARRIAGE . H OMES I I Of Mf�E _ __ . R E C E I V E D 50 0 50 Boa MINNESOTA I . I SCALE IN FEET . I EX HI IT C.. . I M DEVELOPMENT I 1/18/02 Terra Engineering Inc. 29 Attachment 11 1 n7 r. A. • ,, l� Y t .r � � r ® gy m •• � .■,` • y '•�I rlti �� •b• � � � 7 • � � � - 9� .�• '4� a► r i '��,�� 7•. �' ta. ,U; , • � � ,� ,.� s� / 1 �. � ° �•% - � ✓AIL � �� �• - • ^ �. .� . � n � b"1'�T 1►'t , =� „£;F4�� •�;� �• r•.�C`Iai •ca : l " i°�=: ! '��)`� w� =FY� _ �° � � : ''�I�I'P'� y 9' tn :+i '•"�, �ll•��.���' •�j�, �% � �'ao�j�� ` �� e *.fa +J•:�I�. �S - ' i� � gt \ 7- �.'� �ti��d�•�i' � � �i,ti.. - _° / —�- ��- _ —.���` G +� _ _ `,` _ _ .__ -- __ , cam- �.- .-- ��.��:• -r.'.: �'�.�'-_ :� � _-_ �.. -Qi.. _ � ', •�'•' 1 �5t� - = n..'�G� - ___ _ .___�. _ _ __ _ _ _ •.�,• ,�--�_ "rte_ � '!'i.�;s,s - � ��' -.:.�- �� � :!,� !Y. ! s _ -- _ � j'Y - � _..r �"��_1.,.�• •:��_ t " - _�� - s "'g � °,�,/ ; r., ^?'•- _ m �:I I.1 i a ,j. .rl:., `� -.a `j �� �1 ' � . • ° ���..�� ° -�%�' ,:.'-:"i::_^ �'`�° ""�G' - •�- �'a:�. ® � s• � �v� .;tulle tlrll `` r � tl� � . �+ Z; --' _ ��'�.�. -�. t':.::i• 'T' -- '_•�.: .. :.� �:� ::a:r,. ` Is.�..r . - '"r' '•� •:I` ,1 ! ",��7�, /• !' �� ..I.. r.... -.IVT .C"�.. • 'e -= � � � •�;:::::'� � .- .-- Z$ =.�. ate.- iaaa�i. � :mss °g.� ..rreulnm __.�u,. i.r.rl, �:: 1 iiito -_ :�.- '�C�_x �..t'�_t� ��1..GC���� �........ a�...��.r ° �� .:[i...•c r�l_�aa::....,lr ���,II ,y. e . .:7 y ' � 'T'� K �' ,_ :�'��a1,' .i::-:::•-- - - '°'�"y��� °m..�. -�3JC" �:..:.� � '., e:lr., l:,2rz�- ..�tlllllr _ ;:�\';.I� ,{..:': ' i : �. /`.•".�. ::'s`� �.=.�•,a At■•�I�,���.ii t... _ --' - Illltl •, i:ll ••.;`�--_- -'- -_- --- �'- '= -....- � _ -�_ •1 .II•.:rt. " ii iiltl1 \.'tl� 11 �• :y .�. .' .� ..... -... �.•.. _.. ,. ..' _:. - Illy.: �.; f%--� `�:I, r •i t C1B � 1 [al / 1 t7 - - � Mi � ' f � ��'c'• ��- _ - -_ -�'_ - - � illl � � I n`� �Iit1�� —� 9p f S ^ ;'C , 1 •�. � "'°��.' —_ _- -- L•o :+� - ! — � � I" _ :�^ .. �:'_ "- _�•�.� �m�:..�' 'll� �'-�a I .� ..rt•r.^ 'a ii J : �A "y: i. ,,a $RL.it •IE �,• - _,,o .I. - .I17 ^c:t� -• ��- 5 li :i� ' Ir':i ":�.7 .I�•c '::R S •.t !_! �,_ .n•7. �JII t. .,.' �s,b:.t_:o• :.I... - �l;... �• lr • :• °rte. {e 1,, � •%' ,�•1 •ir. � I • .� I�„1 � - -- r:: - ::: • r7 r"'• � e 'r .�: � t: � ill ° `i :i�J %..'•. �� � 1 1: .1 i:Yap _ ^y: � ►tl .I,� " f• - �� fll �i 1 I Li - t�(� �'�' {' , :i • �i ❑ '1' it i 1: :iiiii Dui �ieiiii:..:,7 5 ..1 � Y�{ ..c �;ia•��r•. �' . <i..,�...:: w.l.i1 :, t -? * i t — 1L : '� J _,�} ■^ a �� �a.. ..1 ...............::::::::: I' • .... :� 'n: ..M!;:p ".ew-- P°••��- Meal... -.q II ' V.I . 1 •�• f � � i�i .I _•... �. �Nllt � 71l1 T - :.il.0 :i::•....... +! :td • y:� : tltq [1 . ; -- �,I. 4 -�' -^'' 1 ' } �'1` � "'....�....>_.. I , Y If � _ U� I !I i1:1 � _ ! "w�' F I e ; I ■ 3 �� i � ti���a'c: � a i Ja.- -i 1 s ' - f . II I lu I 1 �o1 1C-�;,I • "- •1. �.o t1 t y� �•i a •_ -� : I I .. i i 7 l „�, _y �a• 4- 1 7 r 1 � I �- � �� 1 _ r ` ' i --� : �•sa -� • � Ii '' ll ' 'r :/!'.: ;',) ':.. - -- -�'��' � i �I ■. � ,� t �.. ��_ ti) '1. i � 1 =� ' � c.: � � �'�� �� : D.1 . �� 0 : I•.�T •I i � •�lll � 1� �' t% �:1 � �. �•t�P,,.y' .4i ��. .`� :I .� �.,, t y: ' J Y � i 'l a•'t'• ' �: a �, -m '.. ! _-- [ �s ^ .' . it I • I� I!, II•,. / f ,, ,f�',I fl sw -- (: •' 11_ i•__eear_ i - ,�-s.- . � �.t � •�, •• �mr 2 f.. '�St 0_merrnT =m eri•..�. i^ 3 I I ' , 1 , lu lit I "!t yll;•. rtj.' ' _ -.a a.��cm�ll '`j•s. ,Tl J��. // '.%aa' I er l�� � �ti�`•,� - .-tom_ '.`- .-��.• mc[m'• r• r i I I I V I , 1 � '�'�.. - ,i�'' •-- _- „,���_ _ - .�:uK7'`�a Q,,{ 4 � _ t ^K' � I: ,M.t� "r - .'S ly. ' +.�yIP _ I fY'I �. 'R�A �}�- _`ti�s� -_'� •, �l-V��k'°• ^ :' ..iS — ..� -�;.- '"�.- r sl �..^.:,:,(si('.kMGG�"�� __ • � i ,rA V ..�!��7. �'� I r I ��'d , I �'� • - ••":�' ''.' �?`, `• 'i` ��lt Ya; M . # _ r;�n�, • �T �' --+"�. _ „(_� -_ - .• "rA _£1 . _ ���,i-- �.,•1~ . •••;'t �:: r '1'7`1: aw.. wtrl'� "••7 � • � r, � - '� ^ -- - 1 i ,(/'• •7'� :•m;�,s�d '.r�'. `'^`f-- wa,ty - .y } I,.o , �1 I mo• _ ��s"•�'w.'�ftraJ:hr s '"!;;; �, .;,�X;:id..” .'.1 -'- ..�• T �— - - _ --- __:..,_�__���'( � .t• � . � }�: / I - ' -gt� � .'L' �: � �� � y •+ice•• n?•r�' - S r •� � � v LCNICJC HOMES KEY EXTERIOR ELEMENTS Floor Plans Sizes: 1400- 1600SF Key Customers Demographics Dominant age Group: 25 -34 Household Size: 1-2 Household Income: Avg. $50K Group: Young Midscale Suburban Singles & Couples ELEVATION STYLE: Eclectic ROOF STRUCTURE: Front to Back Roof: 5:12 pitch with F -0" overhang & 6" rake Side to Side Roof: 8:12 pitch with l -0" overhang & 6" rake ENTRY /PORCH: Covered entry porch Porch Columns: 8" Architectural column EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Siding: Wolverine Restoration Collection premium, Double 4" Clapboard, low -gloss wood grain finish, vinyl. The Restoration Collection is approved by many preservation commissions. Masonry Veneer: Partial main level wainscot at front and side elevations .WINDOWS: Type: Vinyl sliding windows Window Grilles: Colonial grille pattern all windows EXTERIOR TRIM: Comer Boards: Wide 3 1 /2" outside corner post, vinyl Window Trim: Wide 2 1 /2" vinyl window and door surrounds reflect architectural tradition; Fascia: Wide 4" aluminum clad Shutters: Louvered Shutters, vinyl Specialty Trim: Decorative louvered vents in gables, vinyl per elevation PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION 30 T J Attachment 12 Develaument Reauest Bridgeland Development is requesting app' ' p Q g pp oval of this Planned Unit Development (PUD and Preliminary Plat for 100 multi - family homes on the 20.49 acre site. The e site is .currently zoned R -3 0 Multi - Family Residential which allows a maximum f 213 0 multi- family units. The proposed development consists of 12 buildings wi h . . t a configuration of four, eight, and ten housing units . er building. g Legal Description The attached Existing Condition Plan shows the legal description g escnption and the boundary survey for this property as prepared by John Oliver and Associates. The final lat and assoc p c ated condominium plats will be prepared by John Oliver and Associates at a future time. Lacation /Owner - shipMeyelon�r This 20.49 acre parcel is currently operating as the Maple Hills Y p g p Hi s Par 3 Golf Course. The . Site is located west of Parkway- Drive and Highway 61 north of enteur gh y Larp Ave., and south of the DNR Gateway Trail in the western portion of Maplewood. The site abuts Forest Lawn Cemetery to the west, Bennington Woods multi -famil residential neighborhood to the south, and single family esidential neig gh borhoods to the north and east. The site also abuts a small office build* to the southeast. g The applicant/developer is Develo ment - Brid eland and the r g p proposed builder is Centex Homes. The current fee owner of the property is Maple Hills Par Three LLC 616 Lincoln p , Ave., St. Paul, MN_ 55102. 31 Vegetation Vegetation on - the site is a mix of maintained lawn areas mature trees ponds, and wetlands. As shown on the Existing Condition Plan, a total of 150 trees were surveyed and inventoried on -site. These trees consist of mostly oaks and pines. Four wetlands /ponds were identified on the site and are described in the accom an ' Ymg wetland P report prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company. The topography as shown on the plan is in two foot intervals. The site generally drains from the outside boundary lines to the center land- locked P ond. This on -site land- locked pond takes drainage not only from our 20.5 acre site, but also from approximately 3 3.9 acres off -site. This. land - locked P and has no outlet'. Sails Eight soil borings and a soil report were re aced . for this site b STS Consultants LTD. P P Y Their report, dated November 29, 2001, accompanies -our proposal. This report indicates that the on -site soils are generally suitable for our proposed townhome development. Their report states that "After appropriate site preparation, it is our opinion that the townhomes can be supported on conventional relatively hallows read footings bearing Y P g g on compacted upper sand, stiff naturally occurring clayey and sandy silt, or on compacted fill. The upper sand soil at this site will be competent for floor slab support, and as a subgrade below pavements." Surrounding Land UsdZon The present zoning of this site is R-3(H) Multi- Family Residential at a maximum densit of 10.4 townhome units per gross acre (213 allowable units). The existing site is currently used as a par three golf 'course and is called Maple Hills Golf Center. Abutting our property to the south is the Benm*ngton Woods townhome site that is also zoned k-3(H) Multi - Family Residential. The land to the north, across the DNR Gateway Trail, is zoned R -1 and has single family homes. The land to the east is also zoned R -1 and has single family homes. The land to the west and northwest is the Forest Lawn Cemetery and is zoned Cemetery. Abutting our roe to the southeast if an existing P P rtY g small office building that is zoned B -C(M). 32 Existing Transportation Sys tem rails /Sidewalks/P$rks Thiss site fronts on Parkway Drive, a Maplewood city street. Parkway Drive connects p tY y directly, within one block, ' of both Larpenteur Ave. and State Hi hwa #61. These public g Y p roads provide good and efficient access to this site. This site directly abuts the DNR Gateway rail to the north. There is currently y cu ently no direct access from this site to the paved trail. The Phalen- Keller Regional Park and olf courses are located immediately east f ' g y o this site across Highway 61. Two neighborhood city arks (Edgerton tY p Park and Roselawn Preserve) are located about 3/4 of a mile northwest of this site. Existing Utilities The site is served by public sanitary, sewer and water from Parkway Drive. The existin storm sewer in the area is .too shallow to drain the existing land - locked pond that is on- site. 33 PLAN PROPOSAL The objective of this proposal is to provide a for -sale Multiple Residential Community in . .. P tY the starter to middle pricing range with a Home Owners Association. This communit proposal is sensitive to the surrounding needs of single family homes, townhomes office building, and the neighboring community by providing adequate setbacks and buffers between the proposed buildings and these adjacent uses. The internal layout of the site plan is sensitive to saving trees and careful mitigation of wetland concerns. The site is currently zoned R-3(H) Multi - Family Residential, and is appropriate ro riate for this project. The existing zoning allows up to .10.4 townhome units r gross acre (or 213 P allowable units). Our proposal requests a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zonin P g with a density of only 4.9 townhome units per acre. A Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment . P will not be required. Planned Unit Deyelonment (PUD) This multiple family esidential development proposes that Y p p p t o PUD be adopted. Through. the PUD process, land plan design enhancements can be achieved. The lam p h P P P that Maple Hills Drive be constructed through the project as a residential 50' right public street. The drives that serve the individual buildings are ro osed to be private and P P P be maintained by the Home Owners Association. No buildings will be fronted or have individual unit driveways on Maple Hills Drive, and all individual driveways will be accessed on the private drives. Additionally, great care has been taken to reduce the impact on the existing xisting trees and quality wetland areas. Due to the topography and other site constraints a small area of PY , the existing pond (Wetland #3) will be filled and mitigated on -site. 'Wetland #3 is shown in the City's zoning ordinance as the City's lowest quality wetland "Class 5" Because . q ty . e o f our relatively low site density (4.9 units /acre versus 10.4 units /acre allowed), we are able to save approximately 50% of the existing on -site trees. Per the City's tree ordinance, 74 trees will be replaced on -site as shown on our proposed Landscape Plan. A minimum 50 foot setback is shown adjacent to all residential areas. As shown on the Preliminary Plat, we are also proposing to ,deed Outlot E to the owner of the adjacent office building to help the existing parking and setback issues. 34 �. The proposed plans call for a 20 foot front setback to the e public street right -of -way. The nearest the proposed buildings will be to the street itself will ' be 33 feet, which is comparable to a typical townhouse project street setback re it qu ement.. The proposed. project also indicates a 24' one -way street with parkin allow ' p g allowed on one side as, discussed with the City staff. In .addition to the arkin in front of the h - P g t e two car garages and the on- street parking, we are proposing to construct an additional 24 - • . off-street guest parking stalls. Per the City zoning ordinance (Sec. 36 -43 8), it is. the intention of the planned unit developments to `Provide a means to allow flexibility s • ty y s u bstantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks height and other . di � gh regulations." This project, meets or exceeds the City's PUD standards Sec. 36 -442 described • ( ) as follows. (1) The ro osed� project conf ' P P p ) orms with. the City's comprehensive P lan. The comprehensive plan allows up to 213 townhome units on this i s to and we are proposing 100 townhome units. (2) This project will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. (3) The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values. (4) This project will not involve any activity that is dangerous, detrimental, nuisance, noisy or unsightly. (5) This project will not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on Parkway Drive or other adjacent streets. (6) There are adequate public, to serve this site in utilities, . eluding streets, . police and fire, and schools and parks. (7) The proposed, project will not additional • P , p o create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. (8) This project will maximize the reservation of the site's n ' P natural and scenic features. Because of the relatively low site density half f ' y, o the existing trees on the site will remain. Over 50% of the site will remain as open p space. There will also be minimal wetland im acts to the existin o g to ponds and wetlands. (9) This proposed development will cause minimal adverse environmental effects. (10) This project is not proposed as a public building. 35 Attachment 13 CENTEX HOMES Minnesota Division 12400 Whitewater Drive Suite 120 January 16 , 2002 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner Phone: 952-936-7833 City of Maplewood p Fax: 952 -936 -7839 1830 East County Road B r Maplewood, MN 55109 Re. Preliminary Plat /PUD, Carriage Homes of Maple Hills, Maplewood, Minnesota. 1 8 2002 Dear Mr. Roberts: RECCR , Centex Homes requests that the Tot Lot depicted on the above referenced Preliminary Plat /PUD be modified so as to serve the needs of the typical buyer of the proposed residential product. - This requ :sted ;coda %.O%A i^n is fou;.ded in ar; a;�al� of hilwar demographics reveal in the amt - 'gat a TQt Lot g �...e fz.r1: is not an amenity that will attract or benefit the average resident of this new community. Our experience in building this particular style of home in the Twin Cities is extensive. Since 1990 Centex Homes has constructed and sold in excess of 2,153 of these units in 12 Twin City neighborhoods that are similar to the neighborhood proposed on this Preliminary Plat /PUD. In only one case (Bristol Ridge Carriage Homes, 148 units, Burnsville, Minnesota) did we construct a small play area. The typical Carriage Home buyer is under 40 years of age (64 0 /6), is single (72 %), has an annual income under $40,000.00 (55 %), is a first time homebuyer (55 %) and has no children (82 %). A demographic analysis of the children residing at our Carriage Home neighborhood in o Hu Carria e 9,( g Homes of Bald Eagle, 88 units) reveals that there are 6 pre - school age children, 7 children in grades 1 -8 and 16 post high school age young adults. In fact, 74 of the 88 units (90 %) do not have any children. It is. reasonable to assume the quantity and age breakdown of the children at the new Carriage Homes of Maple Hills will be similar to that of the existing Hugo neighborhood. We at Centex Homes believe the minimal number of children is a result of the housing type and the profile of the typical buyer. Changing the Tot Lot to a grass covered neighborhood gathering area with park benches or picnic tables would provide the opportunity for our typical buyer to meet other neighbors or sit and enjoy a relaxing view of the pond. This area would also serve as the perfect location for a "cool- down" after an invigorating walk on the adjacent Gateway Trail. In either case, the designated use of this meni should be targeted at the typical buyer of this residential product. Upon your receipt and review, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Centex Homes David B. Deebach Land Acquisition Manager Copy: Steve Nelson, Bridgeland Development Co. 36 Attachment 14 Maplewood Engineering Plan Review -Chris Cavett, 01/29/02 Carriage Homes of Maple Hills, Project 02 -03 ' Revised 02106102 The developer's engineer shall meet with the Maplewood Engineering Department before p � g p. finalizing the engineering plans. This meeting will ' be to discuss the plan review and the findings of the study to relocate the sanitary sewer station. Listed below is the Maplewood engineering department's first comments to the Yeliminar plans. Additional p comments and changes may be necessary as the final plans for the project(s) are prepared. Grading and Erosion Control: 1 The applicant's engineer shall submit a finalized erosion control plan that outlines Mri detail exact measures, phasing and methods of erosion control to be implemented. The submittal shall include, but not be limited to, temporary sedimentation basins, materials to be utilized, locations, temporary turf establishment and phasing. 2. Due to the grades around the site and the "no- outlet" condition of the pond, the erosion control around the pond is extremely g critical during the construction and until turf is established on the site. As such, the applicant's engineer shall revise the grading and erosion control plan to address this critical area of the J ro'ect. Note: p Standard silt fence shall NOT be acceptable for erosion protection around the pond. At a minimum, heavy - duty - polypropylene silt fence, in conjunction with other measures, shall be required. 3. Revise the grading to include, a permanent erosion control blanket, (Enkamat, Miramat,� NAG C3 S 0, etc.) shall be placed in defined 10- foot -wide emergenc g Y overflow swales on the pond banks between the pond and the low points in the street. 4. Revise the grading and erosion control plan to address the temporary and permanent p rY p turf establishment around the pond. Once grades have been established around the pond, the banks around the pond shall be immediate) Y seeded. Erosion control matting and blankets, as well as intermediate silt fencing shall be placed on all slopes 3:1 or greater to protect the seeded area and the slope from erosion. 5. The grading plan and landscape plan shall be revised to specify the exact seed mixtures to be utilized on the site.. "No Maintenance" areas (including steep slopes) shall be seeded with a native. grass and forbes mixture Appropriate upland and lowland mixtures shall be used in specific locations. Great care shall be taken to ensure that other temporary seed mixtures used in the rest of the site shall not contaminate the native areas with evasive vegetation. Seeding and mulching of the site. shall be done in phases to secure the site and shall be s completed with in 14-days Y of the completion of the grading. 37 6. 2:1 slopes shall tNOT be permitted on the banks leading into the ond. Revise the . g p grading plan to utilize natural retaining wall systems to maintain 3:1 embankment slopes, with wall stepping not to exceed 2 -feet vertical. Consider implementing short p g boulder retaining walls into the landscaping around the pond to achieve the 3:1 slopes. 7. 2:1 slopes shall NOT be permitted above retaining walls unless a certified structural design detail is submitted. J 8. Revise the grading plan to eliminate a 2:1 slope on-the north east side of the main entrance. 9'. Revise the grading plan to indicate that the retaining alls will be constructed as art g p of the mass grading of the project. Retaining walls are typically the responsibility of the developer, unless there will be only one builder on the development and the - developer is assuming responsibility for the builder's work. 10. The grading plan shall be revised so all other slopes designed to be steeper than 2:1, have a detailed plan for erosion protection and permanent turf establishment and landscaping (including the use of no- maintenance landscape materials). 11. The grading plan shall be revised to include a permanent - 4 -foot high, black- vinyl, chain link fence around the pond. The location of the fence should be approximately along the 850 contour. This fence shall have three removable accesses (gates or sections) located next to. the storm outlets at the north, south and .east sides of the pond. Street: 1. Based on the soils report and the soils encounter at boring No. 7, roadwork at the site will likely encounter variability in the soil conditions. The contractor shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Analysis report b STS p Y Consultants, dated 11/29/2001. Roll testing of the subgrade and density testing of the .trench and embankment work shall be carefully followed and strictly administered. 2. Submit detailed plan and profile sheets for the street and storm sewer desi . 3. Submit a drawing of the typical street sections. Revise the typical section to show a turf boulevard and the sidewalk no closer than 5 -feet behind, the back of curb. The embankment can slope away from the edge of the sidewalk at a 3 :1 slope. 4. Revise the plans to include a traffic guardrail or another means of vehicle p rotection across from the bottom of the main entrance to the development. The guardrail should also include a bicycle safe railing on the sidewalk side of the guardrail. W 5. Revise the plans to make the street two -way. Where it is desired to have parking the street width must be 28"- feet -wide. Where space and grade will not allow parking, the width can be narrowed to 24 -feet. 6. Provide aright -turn lane from the main exit leaving the development. Drainage /Storm Sewer: L 'Revise. the"' plans to include the following: Provide at a minimum, three additional catch basin structures at the main entrance to the development. Two catch basin inlets should be placed at the bottom of the main entrance to pick up any flow before it enters the street around the pond (ring road). A third catch basin inlet shall be laced on Parkway Drive on the uphill side of the - ro osed street entrance. Revise p Y p p p - the plans to include a new storm pipe installed to direct flow from the existing structure on Parkway Drive to the proposed structure. The existing storm, pipe, draining from Parkway Drive to the pond, should be removed or abandoned as necessary. 2. Revise the plans to include a storm water force main and pumping inlet structure. A stonn water force main shall be located in the street right -of -way of the main entrance between the pond and Parkway Drive. An inlet structure shall be designed such that a temporary, pump can be installed and .connected to the force main by the city if needed in the future. The force main shall be directed to either a connection structure or a new storm sewer structure adjacent to Parkway Drive. The purpose of the connection structure is to connect temporary piping to the proposed force main during pumping. The city is also investigating the feasibility to provide a gravity flow connection from Parkway Drive to the east. The final engineering plans shall be revised to correspond to the findings of this study. The developer's agreement shall provide for some. cost participation of a gravity line between Parkway Drive and T. H. 61 if the city determines it to be feasible. If a gravity storm sewer line is constructed by the city, if would likely be done in conjunction to the lift station relocation. 3. Revise the elevation of the culvert located at the east side of the site, such that it may pond a small amount of runoff between the inlet and the property line. (i.e.: place the inlet at approximately 850.5 or higher). 4. The locations of the sump manholes are acceptable. Revise the plan to include a sump manhole on the revised line coming from the main entrance. Submit a detail of the sump manholes with the revised plans. Sump structures shall be a minimum 48" diameter with a minimum 36" deep sump. 5. Submit plan and profile designs of the street and storm sewer. Include profiles of sanitary sewer and water utilities to illustrate possible conflicts. 6. Revise plans to show location of perforated PE drainpipe to be used. 39 S anitary Sewer: 1. Submit plan and profile designs of the sanitary sewer and water main. Include storm sewer profiles to.Wustrate possible conflicts. Include benchmarks on the plan. 2. Revise sanitary sewer design, if necessary p to correspond with the relocation of the proposed lift station. At this time, the city is having a feasibility study prepared for the relocation of the sanitary lift station. Right now it appears that the location of the lift station will be in the general vicinity to where it is shown in the p lans. Landscaping/Rainwater Gardens: (Condition added 216102) 1. Design and construct rainwater gardens into the landscaping in-front of each building. p g . g Rainwater gardens can be situated to capture, store and infiltrate water directed from the parking/drive areas and roof down spouts. Grade swales and rovide spillways to p direct this flow into the rainwater gardens. 2. Rock Infiltration Sumps must be installed below the rainwater gardens to facilitate infiltration. Provide a detail in the plan., p Rock infiltration sum should be a minimum of 4' Dia. X 3' tall. 1 %" clean clear rock wrapped in type 5 geotextile filter fabric, (felt). The top of the rock infiltration sump should be placed approximately 12- inches below finished bottom of - the rainwater garden. 3. Provide detail and a description on the plan how the rainwater g arden area should be prepared:, The garden area should be sub -cut to provide 12- inches of bedding material. The bedding material should consist of a mixture of 50% salvaged on -site topsoil and clean 50% organic compost. The subsoils in the rainwater garden should be scarified to a depth of 12- inches before the bedding material is placed. The rainwater garden should 'be protected with silt fence after adin to prevent silting � g p g into the area, as well as compaction of the soil by construction equipment. The rainwater garden area should be topped before or after planting with "shredded" wood . p g mulch.. "woodchips" are NOT acceptable mulching material. 4. A landscape plan for the rainwater gardens shall be required .as part of final plan approval. 40 Attachment 15 MIL wAMSEYcouNnr Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 551.02 (651) 2662600 • Fax 266 -2615 E -mail: Public.Works @eo.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM ENGINEERING /OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Sheet - Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484 -9104 • Fax 482 -5232 —^ -• ..,- 1 --- , .,,...._�.— ....•,..m•.,.�.+ar, TO: Ken Roberts IF' City of Maplewood 2002 J .z 9 FROM: Dan Soler.. .Ramsey County Public Works SUBJECT: Bridgeland Development — Maple Hills Golf Redevelopment Redevelo p p DATE: January 24, 2002 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the ro osed redevelopment p p p t plan for the existing Maple Hills Golf Course on Parkway Drive west of TH 61. This ro p ert is p p y being proposed for redevelopment from the existing golf course use into a 100 -unit residential townhome development. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. . - g g g p P 1. The• use of the site will change from commercial /recreational (public off course to g ) residential. I am assuming that the 'number of g y 'trips , generated b . the site will increase from*-* approximately 200 /day to about 600 /day. Based .on the current traffic volume of 9300 vehicles ' per day on Parkway Drive this increase will not have a measurable effect on traffic operations. 1 2. It is difficult to see from the site plan how access will be handled on the site. Currently y there are four access points onto Parkway Drive serving the golf course and commercial building. I am assuming that the one access south of the commercial building will remain, the next access north will remain and the two northernmost access oints will be replaced b .p p y one street entrance into. the townhome complex. It is unclear whether the townhome street will have access into the commercial parking lot as well. As this lan is developed further 1 p p please submit nay access modifications to the County for review. Consolidation of as many accesses i as possible s desired. 3. The new access point on Parkway Drive will require a permit from Ramsey Count y for construction onto County right of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility y work within County right-of-way. . Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have an q uestions or any any additional information please give me a call. 41 Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10% post- consumer content Attachment �. January 17, 2002 Kenneth Roberts -- Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Maplewood ; 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 -2797 Kenneth, Thank you for the opportunity to express comments regarding the ro osed — Carriage e g g p p g Homes of Maple Hills -- Parkway Drive. First, let me make my opinion clear of being opposed to this development. Maple Hills p p Golf Course has been part of Maplewood for 50 or so years, and being one of the few remaining open areas left i 'the city, would be a p shame to allow development of 100 or so Townhomes. Regardless of the size and cost of these Townhomes, more.people mean more traffic and crime, and the somewhat isolated setting, which attracted m family i Y here, becomes less i solated. What used to be a few houses on a side street surrounded by parks and a golf course with little, if any crime, now is vulnerable, due to easier access to our homes from the -proposed Townhome area, as well as, :a potential lowering of the estimated market value in my home because of this vulnerability, Another issue I would like to discuss is the expected increase of traffic along Highway 61 /Arcade, onto. Parkway Drive. Today, Parkway Drive going onto Highway 61 backs u nearly to Larpenteur Ave. at times during the morning and ' afternoon commute times. It also becomes difficult during. these timeframes to exit from nay house onto Parkway Drive (Taking a Right), due to the traffic coming south from Highway 61. Adding g y g another 200 or so vehicles coming in and out of the proposed entry on Parkway Drive increases the likelihood of accidents for cars entering /exitin the development, and J g p to /from Highway 61, due to frequent stopping and slowing down for cars going into the development. Kenneth, I appreciate the opportunity to `sound ofd and hops you and your peers consider the above comments during future discussions. I will plan to attend ' public meetings I am able to. S' r l Kurt W Tryg 1791 Arcade St Maplewood, MN 55109 42 Attachment 17 tl 16/ 2002 TO: KENNETH ROBERTS FROM: LAWRENCE P. - HUSTEN AND SHEILA J. HUSTEN 735E E. LARPENTEUR BENNINGTON WOODS MAPLEWOOD, MN 5517 PHONE 651-772-1362 DEAR MR. ROBERTS: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS/IDEAS ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER OF 6/8/2002.. LET US SAY FIRST THAT OUR OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS THAT IT WOULD REMAIN A GOLF COURSE OR PERHAPS A PARKLAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. WE'LL ADM-IT THAT OUR VIEWS ARE SOMEWHAT SELF-SERVING, SINCE WE'VE LIVED HERE 18 YEARS AND HAVE GROWN TO LOVE THE AREA AS IT IS, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMBIENCE WOULD BE THE SAME WITH 100 HOUSING UNITS DESTROYINGTHE LANDSCAPE. AT THE SAME TIME, WE BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY THIS PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED. NUMBER ONE, IT IS A HAVEN FOR MIGRATORY BIRDS. IN THE SPRING AND THE FALL THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF GEESE,, DUCKS AND OTHER WATERFOWL WHO COME T GRAZE ON THE ACRES OF GRASSLANDS. NUMBER TWO. OUR PROPERTY AND ALMOST ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES DRAIN ON TO THE GOLF COURSE. WEARE WONDERING WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE GET ONE OF THOSE OCCASSIONAL "GULLY WASHERS" OF 3 OR MORE INCHES. WE CAN TELL YOU THAT MORE THAN ONCE IN THE PAST 18 ' YEARS WEVE SEEN THE GOLF COURSE 2-3 FT. DEEP IN WATER, NUMBER THREE. WE HAVE WORKED HARD AS A COMMUNITY TO MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTY AT.THE HIGHEST LEVEL. AS A RESULT, OUR HOMES ARE, HIGHLY DESIRABLE. WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ENHANCE THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES: IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE WILL ALMOST SURE OCCUR. IN ADDITION, ASSESMENTS FOR SEWERS ETC., WHICH ARE ALM ALWAYS A BY-PRODUCT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS A A 1 1 1 ! j t­;r r- ! ii j i A V-Fi � _ I A *-% ALMOST ' 1 r% F- I A-, I A 'NI A' BURr"EN "N BENNINGTON WOODS vvt. it if I t : _ RESIDENTS, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE EL m =r_11 Y I A R A r% i i r r- A I- -t-N -F- I 1.r-.r-w n 1; i i ; rn —. ; r- A • a us w w -fto, • a 5&_A --; — • xi- 1-111-Zin-DONS I COULD GIVE, BUT I'VE PROBABLY r�ktf& A. I I I i fill 119% 1— A PTI(—'! Ill 'a TP OVERSTAYED M Y A IKVI It=— L-0 I I v 1: 1 M E_ (3) T 3� 4s &E R -'(S-1 W :.s...:._ i' J- n: 1 "wo- I— "A —r 7r U A K C:V! I I K YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOW'I'NG in Ti r- v i C 03 L I i I - - - - - US TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS. SINCERELY, L AWRE,1k1y'CE.& SHEILA HUSTEN +: JAN 2 7 2 �02 43 Attachment 18 I am sorry to see any development of the Maple Hills golf course. However, Wit must be developed, I would very much like to see Bridgeland Development be required to plant a hedge along the southern property line between Bennington Woods and the Maple Hills development.. A hedge (please, not a fence) might restore some of the privacy we have had for the last 15 years and give the illusion of restoring some the natural view we will be losing. I would also like. to propose that b uilding 3 along the southern edge of the site be reduced to a 6 -unit building. This would provide for alittle more open land between Bennington Woods homes and the proposed new construction. With the current pl'n, that building will only be slightly more than 50 ft. from the front living room windows of the home owners at 735 Larpenteur. I drove up to Hugo to Carriage Homes of Bald Eagle Lake to see what the buildings would be like. There are no 10 -unit buildings at the Bald Eagle site and the 8 -unit buildings- ar'e.very large. Any additional open land that can be created between current homes and the new homes will be good for both the current residents and the future residents of Maplewood. Thank you sending out this survey. I look forward to hearing from you when any meetings with the city are determined regarding this proposed development.' / Y) � LFIRP�hIi�U£ F�V� 44 Attachment 19- McCULLOUGH, SMITH WRIGHT & KEMPE, P.A. D. PATRICK McCULLOUGH *t Attorne y sat Law Office JEFFREY M. SMITH Maple Hills Office Center Manager DIANNE WRIGHT * *t 905 Park MARGARET A. CORBO JOHN R. KEMPE way Drive Law Clerk LISA WATSON CYR St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 -1098 MORGAN A. DUSHANE LAYNE B. JEFFERY (651) 772 -3446 Fax (651) 772 -2177 WRITER'S E -MAIL; . dpmccullough @mswklaw.com January 15 2002 Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner Community Development Department City Of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 -2797 Re: Proposed Carriage Homes of Maple Hills — Parkwa y Drive Dear. Mr. Roberts: My wife Marlys and I own the office building known as 905 Parkway Drive and which is contiguous to the proposed develo p p ment. We have met with Mr. Steve Nelson on more than one occasion, we have corresponded with him and we have talked with him on the hone. He has been ver y cooperative, forthright and revealing to us as to the plans. Obviously, we will miss the golf course which has been a beautiful scenic site behind my office for over 30 years but, of course, people have a right to utilize their ro ert the see fit within p p y as y the regulations of the applicable governmental authorities. Mr. Nelson has provided - me with a preliminary plat together with a reliminar p Y draft_ of an agreement regarding the property that would be deeded to my wife and I. After consulting with others smarter than myself. I determined that it would be difficult for some. of the delivery trucks or larger trucks, especially in the winter time p v , to make the turn by the carport to access the back of the building unless a couple more feet were added to the northeast proposed property line and the northwest proposed property line. sent a letter to Mr. Steve ' Nelson on that subject and he immediately called and left me a voice mail that he believed that that would be accomplished. He has since redrafted -the plans showing two feet more on the entire northeast boundar y and the entire northwest boundary. 45 *Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and the Minnesota State Bar Association .. t of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers * *Also Admitted in Wisconsin t Kenneth Roberts 01/15/02 Page No. 2 also discussed with Mr. Nelson the necessity f removing all of the light Y g standards and their bases that are on the boulevard which are uite old and especially q p Y after the wind knocked one of them down and took out the electricity in the area a year a go. Mr. Nelson agreed that they would do that. also asked Mr. Nelson about the " ment reen area" between the development and g p the entire bounda v ries of our property and he assured me that the would be responsible for making sure that that green area was properly prepared and completed such as sod, etc., and at no cost to me. I t :.; appe(aes that MR Ne.1son and his coo �n � are quite, professional and as p y q „ain, although I really hate to see the golf course go, I am at least ratified that the housing . g g project will be coordinated and completed on a professional basis. The only question or concern that I have and I believe Mr. Nelson already answered it but perhaps you could confirm the same and that is regarding parking. I g gp g want to make sure that the land area that is Left is at least sufficient and then some for the required parking spaces, relative to the number of . square feet in our building. g Could, you please let me know. Thank you. Very truly yours, MCC, U "LOUGH, SMITH, WRIGHT & KEMPE AM rtr cCullough DPM /bjb Cc: Steve Nelson 46 Attachment 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to Maple Hills Golf Course property for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD north of Parkway Drive and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61 in Section 9 Y 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 17- 29- 22- 44- 0009.) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 4, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On February 25, 2002, 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 I ave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city taff and planning Y p 9 commission. Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described . Y pp nbed 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. 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 lare smoke, ke, 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. 47 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved b the city. Pp y y The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The - Director of Community Development may approve minor p Y pp nor 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 ' � p nts to have parking on one side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide. .(3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. 2. The proposed construction must be substantial) started within o ' Y one year of council approval or the permit shall end. 'The council may extend this deadline for one Y ear. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and en ineerin tans 9 9p 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carriage i g Homes of Maple Hills Townhome PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a rivate.drivewa - p y). minimum 20 feet, maximum - none b. Front -yard setback (public side t stree : minimum 20 f ' .) feet, maximum none C. Rear -yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential ro ert line p P Y d. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. If the city council decides there is not enough on -site parking after the town houses are , occupied, the city may require additional parking. 9 6. The developer or builder will pay the city ark Access. C • Y Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2002. 48 Attachment 21 STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY WIDTH CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson, of Bridgeland Development Company, requested a variation from the city code. WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD that is north of Parkway Drive and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61. WHEREAS, the partial legal description for this property is: In the S. E. 1/4 of the S. E. 114 of Sec. 17, T.29 R.22, Ramsey County, MN. (PIN 17-29 - 22 -44 -0009) . WHEREAS, Section 29 -53 of the Maplewood City Code requires that local residential streets have 60 feet of right -of -way. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a local .street in the development with 50- foot -wide right - of -ways and reduced street pavement widths. WHEREAS, this requires a variation of ten feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on Februa ry 4, 2002. The planning commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation. The Maplewood City Council held a public . hearing on February 25, 2002. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance -to speak and to present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above - described variation subject to the; city engineer approving the construction plans. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2002. 49 Attachment 22 STREET PAVEMENT WIDTH CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Nelson of Bridgeland Development Company requested a variation from Y q the city code. WHEREAS, this code variation applies to the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD that is north of Parkway Drive and Larpenteur Avenue and west of Highway 61. WHEREAS, the -partial legal description for this property is: In the southeast Y/ of the southeast 1/4 of Sec. 17, T.29, R.22, Ramsey County, 17- 29 -22- - Y Y � (PIN 44 0009) WHEREAS, Section 29- 52(a)(9) of the Maplewood City Code requires that local residential streets shall be 32 feet in width, measured between faces of curbs. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 24- foot -wide public street with no parking on both sides of the street. WHEREAS, this requires a variation of eight feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: The Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed this request on Februa 4, 2002. The ry planning commission recommended that the council approve the proposed code variation. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on February 25, 2002. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding - property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and to present written'. statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maplewood City Council approve the above - described variation subject to no parking on the street that is less than 28 feet wide and the developer paying the city for the cost of no- parking signs. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2002. 50 Attachment 23 NO PARKING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Maplewood has approved a residential PUD and preliminary plat known a p rY p s the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. WHEREAS, the developer wants to have reduced street ri ht -of -wa widths reduced street 9 Y pavement widths and reduced. private driveway widths in this development. WHEREAS, the city has approved reduced street right-of-way idths reduced street pavement � y p widths and reduced driveway widths in the development, subject to on- street parking restrictions. WHEREAS, Section 29 -52(b) of the city code allows variations from the city code standards if they do not affect the general purpose of the city code. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that Maplewood p parking prohibits the arkin of motor vehicles on both sides of -all public streets and driveways less than 28 feet wide and prohibits parking on one side of the public streets and driveways that are 28 feet to 32 feet wide in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills PUD north of Parkway Drive in Section - 17- 29 -22. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2002. 51 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002 a. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills .907 Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course) 1. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 2. Code Variation — Street right -of -way width 3. Code Variation — Street pavement width 4. Preliminary Plat Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex Homes, is proposing to develop a 100 -unit development (PUD) called the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. There are a total of 12 buildings, eight 10 -unit buildings, one 8 -unit building, and three 4 -unit buildings. It would be on a 20.5 -acre site on the north side of Parkway Drive on the site of Maple Hills Golf Course. The proposed development includes 12 buildings encircled around a pond as well as a new city "street built to accommodate these homes and a sidewalk for pedestrian use. The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal -lap siding, asphalt shingles and vinyl trim, shutters and fascia boards. There would also be a partial main level - brick veneer wainscot on the front and sides. There are four wetlands on the site that will be preserved and the applicant must obtain permits from the Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District for this. Other prominent features of this site include the rolling topography and the mature trees. The topography will be substantially altered; there will be a lot of grading, cutting and fill that will take place to make room for the road and the home sites. There are 150 large'trees on this site, about half of which will be removed. However, the applicant will be replacing these with 139 new trees and replanting about 21 trees as part of the landscaping plan. The applicant is asking for ?a planned unit development (PUD) because half of the site is located within the shoreland boundary of Round Lake and any number of units over four requires a planned unit development (PUD) to be approved. Also a variation from the street - width requirement, right -of -way going from 60 feet wide down to 50 feet wide, narrowing of the pavement width from 32 feet to 24 feet, and an approval of a preliminary plat.- The Community Design Review Board will meet February 12, 2002. They will look at items such as the landscaping, building design, street lighting, fencing, visitor parking, tree replacement, and screening, which are primarily aesthetic issues. Staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development (PUD). This proposal would be compatible with the surrounding single - family homes and town homes, the office as well as the cemetery. The city has seen other developments in Maplewood where town homes are often built near or as part of a single - family development. Recently there has been the new century addition in south Maplewood that is building both types of housing units within their project. The proposed density is less than half of what the land use plan allows. The ' p e applicant is proposing 100 units, but they could build 213 units. There are concerns about ro ert v p p y slues raised by some of the neighbors. The Ramsey Count assessor's office explained to t Y p he staff that there should not be any negative effect 'on property values as Ion as the ' . p p Y g e site is well maintained. Also by regular reviews by the city due to the lanned unit development p p t (PUD) requirement as well as the homeowner documents that must be filed, the city an make sure ure that there is proper maintenance. One of the issues that was raised in the staff report was traffic. This development p would add 400 to 500 vehicle trips a day to Parkway Drive according o the Institute of ' g Traffic Engineers and also according to Dan Solar, the Ramsey ount Traffic E Currently, Y Y g Parkway Drive has 9,300 vehicle trips a day according to current counts per Dan Solar. . g . p Mr. Solar feels that the increase will not have a measurable effect on traffic operations p for Parkway Drive. It is a minor arterial and designed to hold additional traffic. Regarding open space, some residents requested that this land be reserved as open s p p pace. The Open Space Committee did not identify this property or reservation in the earl 19 Y p y 90s. They took a look at many sites in Maplewood but did not consider this one of those properties that the city should obtain to hold for open space. Staff also feels that the area is adequately served with open ace and arks. The site a p p p buts the Gateway Trail, and it is also close to nearby parks such as Round Lake Phalen Lake, Keller Lake and the Keller Golf Course. Regarding wetlands, there are four wetlands on this site. Three of these wetlands are classified d as class 5 by the watershed district, and that is the least si g nificant class of wetland. This does not require a buffer around it. The fourth wetland that is the smaller wetland at the northwest corner of the site is classified as a class 4 wetland by the watershed district. This wetland must have an average of 25 -foot wide no disturb buffer around it and there is room for that to be accommodated. Regarding the street right of - wa with reduction and the narrower ' Y e street, staff favors this request. It is one that staff has accommodated in the ast such as Oakrid e p g ,and Maplewood 's Highwood s Estates Four dust, to name a few. The Fire Marshal Butch Gervais supports this proposal as Fong as the requirements of the uniform fire code are met and he feels that they would be. Primarily the city does not want any p g g parking along the street so there would not be any obstruction for emergency vehicles. As for the preliminary plat, this development is proposed to. be subdivided into twelve lots for each of the twelve interest and also five outlots. The building layout would be.desi nated as a common nterest community. The developer in this ins* Y g tance would sell separate units wall to wall; there is no individual landownership owever. Each building site therefore, p g e efore, becomes one lot. The recently approved Afton Ridge Townhouse development that is currently under • p Y construction was laid out in this fashion. The advantage to the developer is that there is only one sewer and one water hookup to each building. Staff sees no problem as lon g as the homeowners documents specify the parties responsible for maintenance. The proposed lot has five outlots. Specifically out -lots B and C are areas around the wetlands. A is the open space area with the trail to the Gateway and outlot D is the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive between Parkway Drive and the ondin area near the center ' p g of the site. The developer is proposing that the homeowner's association own and maintain these four out lots and each out -lot have a drainage and utility easement over it. In addition the city should require the developer to record an eighteen -foot wide edestrian. easement over that art of p p outlot A that will have the trail that will connect to the ,Gateway Trail. The I-ast outlot to mention is outlot E and that is around the commercial building at 905 Parkway rive. The developer is Y p proposing to deed this outlot to the owners of the office building to better clarify the ownership of the parking lot and the green space areas around the arkin lot. p g Mr. Ekstrand said there are some code changes on page 9. Under item c. it should say Rear - yard setback: 50 feet. Also under item d. it should say Side-yard setback (town houses Y : Y ) Minimum — 20 feet to a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. This is per the ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand said staff is recommending the approval of the resolution in the staff report on pages 8 through 12, items A through D. Commissioner Trippler said something that bothered him about this proposal is the issue of 200 cars coming in and going out of this proposed development on Parkway Drive. He travels this route every day and there is less than five seconds to pull out and speed up to merge into traffic. Even when it was a golf course it was a dangerous intersection. There, is a statement in the staff report on page 34, number 5 that says; there is going to be no impact on This project will not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on Parkway Drive or on other adjacent streets. Commissioner Trippler asked what that was based on Chris Cavett, the assistant city engineer, said one thing that was not part of the review for the staff report was the comments from Dan Solarthe trafficengineer. His comments were, as Mr. Ekstrand specified, that Mr. Solar did not see that there would be a measurable effect on the traffic operations on Parkway Drive, Mr. Cavett said he thinks Mr. Trippler has some reason for concern about the comfort of the people trying to leave the site. The most critical times will be leaving. in the morning during rush hour with people trying to exit with people trying in to take left turns out of the site. One thing the city looked at was where there are similar situations like this one around the city of Maplewood. As an example, he looked at half a dozen sites where there are similar situations. One is McM(enemy p Street North at Lar enteurAvenue. There are'1200 vehicles per day entering onto McMenemy Street North and Larpenteur Avenue with 9,000 vehicles per day traveling with no traffic signals and only a stop sign. On McKnight Road just south of Larpentuer Avenue there are three examples that include Nebraska Avenue, Arlington Avenue and Montana Avenue. These are definitely not great comfort situations but they do work and that stretch of McKnight Road has 13,000 vehicles a day. Looking at those areas, and the judgment of the county engineer, the city engineers felt this was acceptable. One thing that was not a recommendation in the plan review, and maybe should be considered is providing a left -turn and a right -turn exit to this development. This takes some pressure off the left turning vehicles having a right turning vehicle behind them. The critical movement is going to be the left turning movement in the morning headin g towards Highway 61. Commissioner Trippler said looking at the map on page 21 of the staff report, one of the things that caught his attention that did not seem right was this diagram does not capture the problem at this intersection. What he is referring - to is where it shows Frost Avenue coming in above Round Lake. You need to drop Frost Avenue down about two inches on the map to come at an angle into .Parkway Drive, and then it drops in elevation from Highway 61 about three feet and does about a 30 degree turn and straightens out at the second house from where the proposed driveway is. Not only do you have a turn, but also you have a drop in elevation at the same time.. This means if you are sitting out there, and you are trying to get out, the best you can hope.for is to see something that is just coming through that 30- degree turn. That gives you about a second and a half to respond. It is mind boggling just to get through this intersection when there is a green light because of people traveling down Highway 61 who think that the red g Y light for them means that they are supposed to slow down to 30 m.p.h. when they make a right- hand turn onto Parkway Drive. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if there is any possibility of exiting this development north of the cemetery ?" There is supposed to be a Kingston Street that was never built. Do we still have the right of way there? Mr. Cavett said no, that has been vacated, he did check the maps, but he does not know at what time, however, that street is being used -by the cemetery. There is an easement in there, and a sanitary sewer .line, but as far as the city is aware that has. been vacated. One thing worth noting, at least as the grades are shown on the development, there is a considerable grade difference between the cemetery and this proposed development. It may be feasible, but there is a considerable grade difference. Commissioner Trippler asked if the exit could be moved further to the.south, on the south side where that business currently resides. That would at least give people trying to get in and trying to get out another couple of seconds to see whether there are cars coming or not. Is that a possibility? . Mr. Cavett said that it is not feasible. According to the space that they own, there really is not enough width there to provide a full width right- of- way..That means some additional property would have to be acquired by either the office building or the adjacent property on the corner. The other thing that would have to be questioned, which would be a question for the county traffic engineer, is whether or not a road entrance is getting too close to Larpenteur Avenue, which is something they want to avoid. This entrance, the way they have it proposed, is centered fairly between Highway 61 and Larpentuer Avenue. Commissioner Dierich said she is troubled by the traffic situation as well. She read in one of the reports the traffic is one way going in and another report she read they had changed it to two ways: She is assuming the two ways is correct. Mr. said yes it is two ways. Commissioner Dierich said she -is very concerned there is only one exit out of this proposed development for this many people. The other developments that the City of Maplewood has with that kind of density, that she has seen recently come across the planning commission, have, had two exits out. She believes that these driveways are so narrow of an area, and with that density of people, that area will be problematic over time. In her neighborhood if you back a truck up, you are either going to hit a mailbox, or drive up on somebody's grass trying to back up. She said it.looks like the fire marshal is not requiring this proposed development to have a turn around at the end of any of these driveways between the buildings, which surprises her. Mr. Ekstrand said that is a good point. The fire marshal often does require a turn around and he is not sure why it was not mentioned in this instance, b he will certainly check further into it and get a better clarification on that point. Commissioner Ledvina had questions on the overall drainage for this property. Currently it is open space and there is going to be a large amount of impervious surface added. They will probably be increasing the total amount of runoff by 30% to 54 %. Mr. Cavett said there is definitely going to be an increase in volume running to the pond itself. Basically the site is self - contained and a lot of the green area is all infiltration area. Obviously when you add impervious surface, driveways, roofs, roads, that will change. It is proposed that the volume of the pond will be revised as part of this proposed development. The applicant is following the guidelines put forth by the city and the watershed district on how to treat land- locked water - bodies and they far exceed those requirements. The properties are not in any danger of being damaged 'by floods or anything like that. What the city is concerned about is the over run and how to treat this as a maintenance issue? There is. a ossibilit that the p Y Y may experience a cycle of a lot of wet periods. The city might have to look at pumping to bring those water levels down and maintain that storage. So one of the engineering requirements is .to provide a force main so the city can connect to it if they ever have to pump this. The runoff to the pond shall increase but the volume is also being increased. Commissioner Ledvina said that is one of his major concerns here, and current) as he � currently how this is setup, there is a scenario where this wetland infiltrates the surface water with this development. You will increase the volume very significantly. si nificantl . He would also think there would be an increase in silt and other sediments going into this wetland and thereby making it more impervious to the water that is enterin g. this area. The fact that this is a wetland means that the city can't go in and maintain. it, at least, that is his understanding. He is wondering what the long -term implication of that is. Mr. Cavett said that is obviously one of the. city's concerns when they look at a- plan like this. A few things that are proposed, and are required, are a number of the catch basin structures that lead into the pond are designed to be sump - manholes. Essentially that means that they are able to pick up that heavy grit and rocks that get washed into the storm system. Fine materials do not get washed into the'system and would continue to go into the pond. His understanding is that a class 5 pond is looked at as a storm water pond and it can be cleaned out if necessary as long as it is not altered, which means sediment can be removed if it's deemed necessary. Commissioner Ledvina said number is the big wetland in the center of this development and if he is reading the grading plan correctly, it does appear that there is grading within the limits of the wetland as defined by the environmental consultant for the applicant. He did not see any mention of that in the staff report, and if he is reading the ordinance correctly, he_does not believe that is allowed. When you talk about the limit of the wetland, it does not allow that. Is this a variance,, if this is- the case? Mr. Ekstrand said you are correct. There should be no grading within the bounds of a class 5 wetland. There is no buffer requirement around a class wetland 5 but from the delineation it should not be touched. Commissioner Ledvina asked if he is reading the grading plan wrong then? Mr. Cavett said you are reading the grading plan correctly. It is showing a mitigation of the wetland that is allowed by the watershed, and he is not sure how that fits with the ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand said that is something the city can explore further. If the watershed district is in favor of doing this, the city can make sure it complies with the code. If it doesn't, then it would be a variance situation. ' Commissioner Ledvina said the commission has had that discussion many times and the watershed is evaluating various proposals, but the fact is, there are ordinances within the city that are being looked at, and the watershed does not uphold the city's ordinances. He thinks there have been conflicts in this regard before. He has questions on the shoreland district. Is there a requirement for maximum percentage of impervious surface? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, it is in the staff report, but he did not mention it in his presentation. The maximum the applicant is allowed is 50% impervious surface, and the applicant is meeting that. Commissioner Ledvina asked what is the calculation? Do you know what percentage of impervious surface they have? Mr. Ekstrand said he did not write the report so he did not check that himself, but he did check with the author of the report and he said the applicant demonstrated it and that they are meeting it. They are very close to the 50% mark and it was added as a condition of verification in the recommendation. Commissioner Trippler said several years ago the commission had an applicant who came in that wanted to develop a parcel of land very close to this down. from Highway 61. As he remembers that discussion, the commission did not approve his application. It was in the shoreland designation that he could not have more than impervious surface, and he couldn't be so many feet away from the nearest boundary. Like Mr. Ledvina, he fails to see in the staff report any discussion about all of those special characteristics on this development that are on the east side of the line that practically goes through the middle of this project. It appears to him this has been overlooked. Mr. Ekstrand said it was.addressed on page 3 of the staff report with the shoreland district regulations at the bottom of the page. It discusses the synopsis that the applicant is meeting that would need to be reviewed and considered as part of the shoreland ordinance. One is the 50% impervious surface. A lot of this deals with the view from the lake, and though this site is in the shoreland ordinance, it is not visible from the lakeshore. If it was, then there would be very strict requirements such as screening requirements, building height, etc. He knows Mr. Ken Roberts looked into these items. Perhaps the applicant can address these items when he gets the chance to speak. Commissioner Trippler said he appreciates the fact that it itemizes the things that should be considered, but then it says to look at pages 36 to 39. When he looks at those pages, he does not see those issues addressed. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they could direct the commission to the pertinent paragraphs - and series of pages? Mr. Ekstrand said pages 36 to 39 are Mr. Cavett's review of the, grading, erosion control, street issues, drainage storm sewers, and sanitary sewer matters which the staff feels are all matters that need to be addressed by the applicant before they can get a permit to start. His understanding is that those matters are fairly well satisfied, but these are issues that need to be more finely tuned before a building permit can be issued. In terms of the shoreland ordinance, he is not quite sure what more Mr. Trippler would. like of staff in that regard. Commissioner Trippler said on page 3 of the report, the first bulleted item says at least fifty 50% of the project area is to remain as open space. Where in the report, other than the sentence that states "the city engineer is satisfied with the plans" does the commission find that information ? says, see the engineer's comments on pages 36 to 39 of the report, so he would like someone to show him where it says that. Commissioner Rossbach said in the actual resolution on page 46 of the report, in the first paragraph a. (1) it says at least fifty (50) percent of project area (10.25 acres) remaining as open space. It indicates that the plan has to be drawn to indicate that that is the case. So, ultimately if the commission was to vote for this project, you would be saying that at least 50% of it has to be open space. So, they don't have to present the calculation that tells you what it is. Because you are saying that if it is approved, 50% of it will be open space. . Commissioner Trippler asked about building heights. Commissioner Rossbach said that would not be in effect because that only takes effect if you can actually see the buildings from the lake. Commissioner Dierich said that there is something in the report that says 25 feet maximum. Commissioner Rossbach said yes, but it does not take effect unless you can see the buildings from the lake. Commissioner Trippler said that same issue came up with the property that, the applicant wanted to build on Highway 61, and the commission said it doesn't make any difference. Commissioner Rossbach said that's because it was directly across the street and you could see it from the lake. Commissioner Pearson asked on the reduced width streets, are the curb and gutter surmountable? Mr. Cavett said that is not a condition that the engineers have made of the plan, it would not be a necessity. Commissioner Dierich asked what is the actual dry land that is buildable in this development and how does that relate to how many units there are? Mr.,Ekstrand said he does not have that figure handy. Commissioner Dierich said she would like that information. This is a lot of wetland in this development and it seems to her that the applicant is packing in a fair number of houses on very little buildable land. Chairperson Fischer said that 'is why at one point, they were considering whether recommending or requiring plan unit developments (PUD) on certain types of environmentally - sensitive sites. If you prohibit much development you run into the takings laws. Constitutionally you cannot deprive someone of all use of his or her lands. So, that is why in some instances you might have had someone saying you could put in a number of units but it was kinder to the environment to be putting them in as town homes or as apartments rather than single - family detached homes. And depending on the acreage and the peculiarities of the site, you get a different scenario for each particular site. Commissioner Dierich said she is still troubled by the number of the units the request to make the roads narrower, not for aesthetic reasons it doesn't seem, but more for how many units can we get into this parcel of land? The other question she had is that in the report it was 74' mature trees being replaced. Is that. with one to one or is that one 6 -foot tree for every mature tree that is being replaced? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, for each tree the applicant replaces it would be a smaller tree of course, but it would be considerably more than one to one. It will be more like three to one trees planted. To answer your question on the acreage, if you take away the ponding areas, staff has no of knowing, other than to guess, as to how many acres that those encompass but he guesses 4 acres approximately. With the one hundred units that are proposed, it would come to 6.25 units per acre verses 4.9. Commissioner Dierich asked if there are going to be some retaining walls on the southwest edge? There were some mentioned in the report and in the past, if the developer didn't put it in, it was tough luck for the people moving in. And if it is not shown on the plans right now, where does it get inserted on the plans, and who enforces that? Mr. Ekstrand said he did not believe there were any retaining walls proposed right now. Mr. Cavett said yes, there are some retaining walls shown on the grading plan, and one of the engineering conditions is that it is a requirement of the developer unless a special arrangement is made with a particular builder. Often, there are a number of builders -on the site and in this case there may be one builder, and it may make sense to have the builder do it. But for the engineers, the condition is so the developer can do it. Commissioner Ahlness asked Mr. Cavett about page 37 in the engineering report. You say that two -to -one slopes will not be permitted in this development and they have to go to three -to- one slopes. Looking at the development plan and the size of that wetland, will that significantly change .that picture? Is that picture still accurate enough to present to this commission. What that will look like? Or would that take up roughly a third amount of space that would cause them to re -look at the size of the buildings and road structure etc. Did you look at that? Mr. Cavett said yes he did. It will be up to the developer and their engineer to make sure they can obtain the three to one slopes maximum. One option that is referred to is, to do some type of natural retaining wall like with .maybe a row of boulders to step down. He has looked at that and those grades are possible, but if they need to, they will have to adjust the road, and if they have to adjust units to accomplish that, then they will have to do that. Commissioner Ahlness said in your professional opinion it may be possible to continue with the development as. designed and still achieve the three -to -one slope, but it might cause some more intensive work like step downs with boulders to achieve that more aesthetically pleasing look instead of just a slope? Mr. Cavett said that is correct. Commissioner Ahlness said Mr. - Ekstrand had mentioned earlier that this site was not considered for open spaces back in the early 1990s. Were any golf courses considered as open space at that time? Mr. Ekstrand said that is probably a good point. A golf course probably was not looked at as open space because it was open space and it was a golf course .presently at.thattime. It is the way the city tends to address the question, which is,\ leave it as open space. The city always looked at what the open space committee considered. Staff was looking at it from the standpoint that there is quite a bit of open space and parkland in the general vicinity. Especially with the Gateway Trail abutting it on the north, that is quite a nice link. Commissioner Ahlness said 'a more accurate statement would be, staff does not feel there should be additional open space in the area, not that -this parcel was not considered as a good option for open space, because no golf courses were considered for open space at that time. 1 Mr. Ekstrand said he is guessing that is the fact. He thinks both statements are true, but Mr. Ahlness is probably right that golf courses probably were not considered for open space. Commissioner Ahlness asked what commercial uses that were open were considered for open space so that when the commission hears about that in the future they know whether it would be considered or not. If it was an open field next to a place that was used to park trucks, would that be considered for purchase for open space at that time or not? Mr. Ekstrand said he was not directly involved. He. thinks they looked at, larger tracts of land that really had no use specifically. If you - look at some of the properties that the city has purchased up to this point, they really are undeveloped pieces of land. Golf courses are kind of a holding use. It is developed, but then again it is not that developed. It is, sort of waiting for the next thing to happen. Commissioner Ahlness asked if it would be fair to say the original open space committee looked at undeveloped land and now as the city is looking at redevelopment of land it may be that conclusions reached by that committee are no longer the case? Commissioner Rossbach said he is not sure why the commission is referring to the open space committee. The committee has spent all the money in the open space fund. If the city wants to consider doing a referendum to get more money for more open space, then it would be awhole different thing. The situation is, the city does not have any money to spend to buy up land at this point. Why they keep mentioning the open space thing doesn't make sense. It is a done dead. Commissioner Ahlness said just to. clarify, on attachment 13 on page 35 of the staff report it says the applicant wants to dispense of the tot lot, but in the program that was handed out to the commission, the applicant said they want it. What was the final decision on that? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant does not want to put the tot lot in. Peter, Knable is a civil engineer with Terra Engineering at 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis 55422. He is representing the developer, and he addressed the commission. One issue that was brought up was the traffic. They concur with the staff ' report in regard to the county engineer's recommendation that there will not be any adverse impact to the flow of traffic on ✓ Parkway Drive. The issue of turning out of the proposed development, he would concurwith the engineering department's recommendation of taking a look at having an additional turn lane coming out of the development. They have some room at the front of the property that is excess green space that would allow them to accommodate that additional turn lane. So if that. were a recommendation of the planning commission, they would concur that it would be a good idea. In regard to storm water issues, they have been working on this project since July 2001 with staff and the watershed district, and. they have gone through numerous situations of how to handle the storm water. There is a land lock site. The storm water does not leave the site so it's got to rise 30 to 40 feet to get out of there, so it won't ever leave the site on its own. So there are no issues of rates of runoff, storm water volumes for adjacent neighbors other than the proposed neighborhood created on site. There are about 20 acres that are going oin to be draining to this pond, and there are approximately 30 -35 acres off site that are also draining to this pond. They have taken all of those drainage, rates into account as part of the development of this proposed site. Based on the proposals and the studies they have done, they do not think it will be an issue. In the past, that pond has been relatively stable in regard to the water elevation. It has a constant ground water elevation as of today. He thinks the city is correct trying to provide some long -term scenarios for addressing n changes to that, even though g Y g g they don't anticipate that to happen. They are well above the city standards and watershed standards for heights above the 100 -year flood elevations for that p and both for the road and for any of the proposed units. Wetland 3 is the center pond, and based on their study, that has been excavated in the past as part of the golf course work. So that is basically a man -made pond and it is true, based on the staff report, that according to the watershed district's rules, a watershed of that quality, which is the lowest quality based on the city's categories and the watershed's categories, that they allow those kind of man -made ponds to be used for storm water treatment. They are going to try to pre -treat the heavier solids prior to . dischar in g g There was some discussion about the shoreland ordinance, and they would concur with the staff report, that they are meeting all of the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. The shoreland ordinance is 1,000 feet from the edge of Round Lake, and it does cut through the center of the proposed property, so that requires them to meet those requirements. The key requirements are the 50% open space requirement that they do meet, which is not by very' much, - but it is being. met. And they have shown those calculations to staff. In regard to impervious.' areas, the approximate impervious area is about 30% to 35% impervious for their site, and that does not take into account other. sites that are draining into theirs, such as Bennington Woods. But, the shoreland ordinances are being met. And since it is a land lock basin that is entirely on their property, they don't think it is an. issue for short term or long term for either the proposed development's point of view or the surrounding homes point of view. To answer the question by Mr. Pearson about the surmountable curb, the plan shows a 86 -18 six -inch high curb, not the surmountable for the main loop street around the property. They are proposing surmountable curbs for the driveways going into the individual s. So, that is buildings. p Y g g g what the plan shows, and that is what they plan on doing. That is also the recommendation from the staff as well. In regard to street widths, they are proposing a 24- foot -wide street, and there is no on- street parking. But that narrower street does not affect the number of units on the site. The number of units are dictated by the buildable area of the site and the physical size of each building. But, having a wider street back up to the city original standards, that 32 feet would not impact the number of units that they are proposing as part of. this , site. The way this project is proposed, it is a medium density development, as opposed to the high- density development that it is currently zoned. Based on the way the city ordinance is written, the zoning ordinance is written up to 213 units and that is based on the gross area, but that is the way the city ordinance is written. A higher density would be building apartments as opposed to the proposed plan that they have for the town homes. In regard to the site plan itself, what attracted the developers to the property was the trees on the property, the ponding areas, and also the availability of access to the Gateway Trail in the back of the property. They are providing that as a bituminous trail connection so that will be a public trail for the other neighbors to go through this development. The tree removal is just over 50% tree removal, and that is not uncommon for a town house development project, especially given the number of trees on the property. They are proposing to save half of the trees on the property. The city ordinance is to replace the trees one to one. The applicants are exceeding the tree replacement. Although it is not a proportional measurement replacement, rather a tree -to -tree replacement, they are exceeding the ordinance. So, they are meeting the zoning ordinance, the shoreland ordinance, the tree ordinance, and the landscape ordinance. Commissioner Pearson asked about the lineup of the driveways. Is there any reason the driveway could not be adjusted closer to the outlot E with an exit lane on the north side? Mr. Knable said on page 28 of the staff report, in the illustration, the way the property is situated, it has very little frontage on public streets. In regard to access to the property, it is surrounded by private property. It could be shifted, but there is not much room. They only have the right -of -way they are directly fronting on. So they could shift it around 20 -25 feet. That would accommodate that additional turn lane. - To go all the way around the south side of that existing office building would not work because they don't have the right -of -way or the property to be able to do that. To be able to shift it within the corridor, they do own onto the street, they would be able to do that. Commissioner Mueller asked what is the cost of these units? Steve Nelson from Bridgeland Development Company, 20141 Icenic, Lakeville 55044 addressed the commission. The price range is $135,000 to $180,000 to $190,000 depending on the upgrades .one would put into the units. Each unit will have a two -car garage, two- bedrooms, and one and a half baths, and if you want to add any upgrades, it will -raise the price. Commissioner Mueller said he was reading the letter and 82% of the tenants have no children. He read from the report that the typical carriage buyers are under 4O years old, single, income of $40,000, first -time homebuyers, and have no children. Within the last year or two there have been more children born in a year as there was after World War II, 4 million. He asked Mr. Nelson why don't they sell to people with children? Mr. Nelson said anyone can buy who wishes to buy, and those are just the statistics of Centex buyers around the metro. They are. not trying to limit their market, it is just that those are the demographics they are seeing. Commissioner Mueller.said he read the dominant age group of buyers, and the demographics are 25 to 3.5 years old. He said that just seems like that would be the time you are having children. That strikes him as strange that there are very few with children. When they said they are going to throw out the tot lot, it seemed kind of strange because demographically that would be the time people start a family. Mr. Nelson said to clarify a question that was asked earlier regarding the trees, of the 74 trees that are being removed, there are 21 trees that are proposed to be transplanted. They hired two consultants, and one is a tree removal and a nursery person. They have identified from the survey that was done, 21 trees could be transplanted, which makes him very happy. They plan on using them in strategic locations wherever possible to buffer between the ro osed p p development and the existing neighbors that are nearby. There will be almost three times more trees planted when ,all is said and done. The second consultant is a forester to g ive them a quick study of tree study so they could understand what was there. He commented that there are numerous oak trees that are dying that have frost lines or cracks or are decayed internally. Y There are also numerous trees that have irons in them and were used for other reasons like wall retention before the golf course was there. It is very important to knowwhat trees they can use. They included on the northeast corner an additional retaining wall to save some more trees that means they could keep roughly another dozen trees. Commissioner Mueller said he knows that people have a hard time finding affordable housing. g A newspaper article he read said that.it is hard to find housing for around $125,000 these days, so he commends the developer for having housing for $135,000 as the starting price when most developments these days are $180,000 to $225,000. Commissioner Dierich asked the developer if they are the same company that put in the Centex Homes around Carver Lake in south Maplewood? Mr. Nelson.said no. This Centex develops subdivision sites, roads, and platting approvals, but not the structure itself. Commissioner Trippler asked the developer if they plan on enlarging the pond that exists on the center of the site? Mr. Knable said actually, it is going to stay about the same size. The are proposing minor Y p p g filling of the existing pond, and that shows up on the grading plan that has been submitted for review by the engineer and the watershed district. Commissioner Trippler asked if that pond has an outlet? Mr. Knable said that is correct. The only outlet is percolation and evaporation. No direct pipe outlet. Commissioner Trippler asked if they plan on adding an outlet? 1 Mr. Knable said no, but the city is requiring as part of the staff report, to provide some kind of infrastructure that would allow the city to add a lift station if that is determined to be required in the future. They are looking atthe requirement for an underground forced main now that they could hook a temporary pump. up to if they needed to, so they will be working with the staff about what that may look like. Based on their calculations, and g iven the size of the drainage area and the size of the pond; and .how it has performed in the past, they do not think it will be required. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Knable, to the best of his knowledge, was last spring an unusually wet spring? Mr. Knable said yes'it was. Commissioner Trippler said if it was, do you know, where it ranked, was it a 100 -year event, a 50 -year event? Mr. Knable said he doesn't have that information. He just knows it was an unusually wet spring. Commissioner Trippler said the reason he asks the uestion is, when he played golf on the q p Y g course last spring, the pond had overflowed and it had expanded to the north end. Mr. Knable said the well land consultant that was hired to delineate the edge of all the existing wetlands on the property, surveyed the edge of the existing pond, and on the north end there is a lower area that is separate that has wetland vegetation,, so that was delineated separately so that lower area would be an area that would be flooded if it came up even a foot or two. So that is the lowest part of the wetland area on the north. It is still part of wetland number 3 but it is not the open water type of wetland. Commissioner Trippler asked Peter if he knows how far above the elevation of the standard elevation of the pond is the four -unit structure at the north end? As near as he can tell, it looks like five feet. Mr. Knable said the normal, pond elevation is approximately 841 and that is what it was surveyed at this fall. They went back and looked at some old topographic maps the city had from ten or fifteen years ago, and it showed the exact same elevation for .the water. So, that tells him that is a pretty constant normal water elevation for the p and itself. There are no basements in these buildings. They are all slab on grade. He believes 856 is the lowest building, so that would be basically 15 feet above that normal elevation, well above any calculated 100 -year flood elevation for that. Because it is a land locked basin, they are required by the watershed district and the city ordinance to provide hydraulic modeling for 200 -year events back to back. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this matter and give their name and address. Searle Roy at 723A Larpenteur Avenue East in Bennington Woods addressed the commission. Something that was not addressed and he has written notes to the planning commission regarding this. For the last nineteen years, they have had drainage that runs off the north side of the property and it runs down to the pond. In the grading for the new development, is that going to be cut off? If it is, that water will then drain into a catch basin that the city of Maplewood' has to monitor. Normal rainfalls do not cause it, but when there is a downpour there is a large gathering of water there that could cause floodin g in the one building. He does not know - if this problem has been addressed or not, and this is his question. Mr. Cavett said yes.,, the city is aware of this. There is a: storm sewer that drains off the Bennington Woods site and drains overland a short ways and gets picked up by culvert that is currently on the golf course. The developer has accounted for that in their design and they are connecting the pipes together to connect to the Bennington Woods storm sewer. Diana Longrie -Kline at 1778 Desoto Street addressed the commission. She was thinking about the traffic issue. With regard to the driveway, either you have the two lanes going out, going left or right, which is not her preferred method, she would rather it be a right turn only and then funnel that traffic to the stop light, that way they could choose to either go to Highway 61 or go out to the freeway. She is not sure if that would work or not, but that was her idea. She feels affordable housing is very important and housing is very tight in the city of Maplewood. Bob Mulmgren at 721 East Larpenteur Avenue in Bennington Woods addressed the commission. As he looks off his patio that faces the golf course, he asked himself is there any place in Maplewood that has. as beautiful piece of ground as you will find right here? Do v ou really want to destroy that beautiful place with the rolling hills, the beautiful trees and the p and just to put housing in there? Once you do that the beauty is gone, the open land is shot. He has second thoughts about seeing that being developed, and some of it might be a selfish standpoint. He thinks'they. ought to take this into consideration and make sure this is what the city really wants to do. It doesn't make sense to destroy a business that is up and going and with proper management that golf course could be a profitable organization. He knows that the city isn't interested in buying it, but maybe the. county would. They are certainly having big success.with the golf courses that they are operating, and on top of it, the are building another Y g .golf course out by the workhouse. So, golf is becoming more and more popular and is the city going to look back and say they made a mistake in changing hat property from .a golf course g p p Y g into housing? As far as traffic goes, he drives that stretch, and it is a tough area to drive. Anybody that would make a left turn from this proposed development is.going to be in trouble. They come down Highway 61 onto Parkway Drive:, they drive fast, and there will be some problems. Carol Hackelman at 735 Larpenteur Avenue in Bennington Woods addressed the commission. She said thank you to the council for their careful consideration of this project. She appreciates the issues that have been brought before the people. Regarding the 50% density, when you figure most of that open space is a pond, you are really looking at high density to accommodate the actual useable land. She is concerned about how close the buildings are and the driveway turnarounds. She did drive up to Hugo to view identical buildings that Centex i had built. there so she could see what was coming in her neighborhood. They are large buildings, the driveways are veryclosetogether, and the buildings in Hugo are 8-unit buildings, and the proposal for this development are generally 10 -unit buildings, so they are even larger. Her concern is over the, density of the development and how close the buildings are together, and she would hope-there would be- some safeguards that would be looked into before there would be approval of the development. Karen Grund at 735H Larpenteur Avenue in Bennington Woods addressed the commission. She thinks it is such a shame to take away the beautiful piece of property and flatten it out to build homes. She was also at the Hugo development to seethe buildings. She found that they were not as attractive of homes as she would like to see. She - is - concerned about having to look at the outdoor meters and the outdoor air conditioning units. She is also concerned about the driveways between the homes, guest parking is limited, the traffic going around the pond, and with two car garages that means 200 cars going out and back into, the development and exiting onto Frost Avenue. She is also concerned about the trees that are going to be kept that will only be on the northeast corner. All the lovely trees that are toward her side will be destroyed and her view will no longer be anything that she desires to look at. She would like to see as many trees saved as possible. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff how long of a cul -de -sac can the city have? And how far is it from Parkway Drive to the far end of the pond? Mr. Ekstrand said 1,000 feet. Commissioner Rossbach asked if staff is taking the position that because there is a loop around the pond that that rule doesn't apply? He also noticed that .there are driveways that are 345 feet long, 265 feet long, why don't they have to have a second exit? And what makes this different from a cul -de -sac? Mr. Ekstrand said he thinks it is essentially the same as a cul -de -sac. He asked Mr. Rossbach to clarify his question. Commissioner Rossbach said they can't build a cul -de -sac mainly for safety reasons for emergency vehicles longer than 1,000 feet. So, here is a single entrance that is over 1,000 feet long plus it has driveways going off of it that are 250 to 350 feet long. He is wondering why this is different than that scenario. Mr. Ekstrand said he doesn't see it differently.. If it is 1,000 feet from Parkway Drive to the end of the loop and then there are still driveways going off it, depending on where you measure that, some may be less than 1,000 feet to the end of the drive. It could be the same with a single- family lot at the end of a cul -de -sac with the driveway at the end and exceedin g 1,000 feet. Commissioner Pearson asked if'the realignment or repositioning of the lift station would be any problem with straightening out the entrance there? Mr. Cavett said no it would not. Commissioner Pearson asked what is the highest watermark on that pond in its current situation and where has there been 4 -inch rains? Mr. Cavett said they . have had issues where the first fairway is flooded, that is the low flood plain area that runs at 848 and 849. The lowest building opening is at 856 so they are considerably higher than 849. The boundary of the ponds is staying thesame..The sides and elevations are coming up. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to have more information on if there was a left turn off of Parkway Drive to allow people to turn into the development. Could someone draw it out for him, and how would this help the traffic situation? Mr. Cavett said he was talking about the exit leaving the development. The addition of left turn lanes on Parkway Drive is a county road and that would be left up to the traffic engineer. Based on his comments, it would not seem to be necessary. Right now it is four lanes. If there was some type of an attractant to the east where those residential homes are, the next step on Parkway Drive would be to have a three -lane road and put in a center dual -turn lane, but at this point it would not be warranted. Commissioner Rossbach asked how would adding turn lanes to the, driveway to the proposed development help anybody make a left turn ?. Mr. Cavett said . it would be critical in the morning when people are leaving the proposed development for work. You are sitting there waiting to make a left turn and you have to yield to two directions of traffic. The person behind you has his right blinker on and he wants to take a right, he only has to yield to the traffic .coming from his left. This puts less pressure on the person taking the left turn and that makes them more comfortable and less likely to rush their turning and get out into the traffic. It makes the situation safer. That is why you see right turn lanes at intersections. Commissioner Rossbach asked if they would be adding a right turn lane to the road that goes into the proposed development. and that is to ease pressure on the people who want to make a I left turn going out of the development? Mr. Cavett said that would be adding right turn lane going out of the development. g g g g Since there is no cross traffic it would be a left and a right essentially. Y Commissioner Trippler said then if there was a car in the left lane and one waiting n the right gh t Kane, how is the car in the right lane supposed.to see the traffic coming down Parkway Drive? He said it seems like the view of traffic would be blocked by,the car next to you and that could cause more of a hazard. Mr. Cavett said if you are in a small car and ou pull u next to a truck our view of the traffic Y p p , y affic would be blocked. But in most cases if they're comparable vehicles you will be able to see. Commissioner Trippler said unless you are in a fast car ou only have four seconds to pull out Y Y p and get into the lane of traffic at 35 mph. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to oint out that this is the same type of traffic p Yp intersection that is all over the city. This is not a bad development, and if there are problems with the traffic we should try to figure out the best way to solve the traffic problems. The city has these same . turn lanes at many intersections and they do work. Commissioner Trippler said this is a different situation, from the standpoint that there is an p elevational shift and there is a corner.- You don't have the capability of seeing several blocks in the traffic direction. He said you have about 200 feet that . ou can see clearly. Y Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Trippler what would he have them do, install a stoplight? Commissioner Trippler said no, because what will happen then is that traffic will be tied ,up pp p on Highway 61. The solution is maybe this is not a good place for an exit. Commissioner Rossbach said the developer has no other property that connects to a street. Commissioner Trippler said maybe the shouldn't develop this property to add 200 cars to Y p p p Y try and come in and go out. Either that or have a tow truck available every Y da for the accidents that will happen. Commissioner Rossbach said in the proposal when the applicant was still talking about putting pp g p g the tot lot in and having it hook up with the trails, the applicant thought they would get credit for that against their park accessibility fees. Is that the case? Mr. Ekstrand said no. Chairperson Fischer said earlier in the evenin g there was discussion about the turnarounds or lack there of in the proposal. Does staff have comments or recommendations on that? Mr. Ekstrand said he would have to check with the fire marshal. From a safety standpoint that i Y p s typically something he wants to have, and he wasn't sure why that wasn't addressed. Commissioner Dierich said it doesn't have to be a turnaround. Even a backu p spot would be fine, and you go to the end of that cul -de -sac and there is no place to go if you have gone down _the wrong road. Mr. Ekstrand said his understanding is that the fire marshal was okay with this layout, .but it warrants a further look into that and we will check into it. Mr. Knable said just to clarify, the site plan does show turnarounds at the end of each driveway. They're not the typical fire truck turnarounds at the end, they are basically to allow traffic turnarounds to come out of the last unit. So there is a 10 -foot extension coming out of that last driveway that would provide a turnaround. .Commissioner Rossbach said just to clarify, are- you indicating that roadway goes 10 feet past the driveway, so it is a turnaround area for somebody backing out of that driveway? Mr. Knable said yes, it is a turnaround for somebody backing out of that driveway. Commissioner Rossbach said if there is a car parked in that last driveway, then nobody can turnaround. Commissioner Dierich said if you are backing out, and you need to back around a corner, that would tell her that the roads are too narrow. If you cannot just back out into the road, and you have to have extra room, then the road is too narrow. Mr. Knable said he would have to disagree, that is a standard design detail for this type of driveway where there are multiple garages coming out. Typically, they would design an extra piece of blacktop on the end of the driveway to provide that turning movement for that last driveway. Commissioner Dierich said the Centex development around Carver Lake in south Maplewood is very difficult to' get around. Although she is aware they did not develop that area, it is the same type development as far as space. She does not have a large vehicle. She drives a Volkswagen and it'is difficult for her to maneuver around on the main roads and also on the feeder roads as well. She would encourage staff to take a good drive around that particular neighborhood. and particularly Mr. Dan Solar should go along and see how they exit onto Lake Road. Mr. Knable said the developer would want to compare the geometrics of their site to what this developer is proposing and see if they are similar. Commissioner Dierich would encourage everyone to see that area and the accessibility because it is a very comparable development. Mr. Knable said regarding that center drive between buildings, typically they are between 18 and 24 feet and the applicant is proposing 20 feet. They will look at the standards and see what will work. Chairperson Fischer asked staff when this item would have to go to the city council? Mr. Ekstrand said February 25, 20020 A. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the resolution starting on page 47 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills development on the north side of Parkway. Drive on the site of the Maple Hills Golf Course. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve rove major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: . a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the public street, then that street must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. 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. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills town home PUD shall be: a. Front -.yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none b. Front -yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear -yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential. property line. d. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. If the city council decides there is not enough on -site parking after the town houses are occupied, the city may require additional parking. 6. The developer. or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. B. Adopt the resolution starting on page 49 of the staff report. This resolution approves a city code variation to have a 50- foot -wide street right -of -way instead of a' 60- foot -wide right -of -way for -Maple Hills Drive in the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. The city should approve this code variation because: 1. The variation will lessen the amount of grading, ground disturbance and tree removal in the. development. 20 The additional right -of -way is not necessary for public health, ' safety, welfare or convenience. C. Adopt the resolution starting on page 50 of the staff report. This resolution approves a cit p pp y node variation for a 24- foot -wide public street Ma le Hills Drive in the Carriage � p ) a Homes of g Maple Hills. This variation is subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be no parking on both sides of the street. 2. The developer shall pay the city for-the cost of the no-parking signs. p g g D Approve the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills preliminary plat. The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that uarantees that the developer or contractor will: g p a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements.' b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. C. Have Excel Energy install Group V rate streetlights in at least 10 locations - rimaril at g primarily street and driveway intersections and street or driveway curves. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Provide all required and necessary easements. e. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. f. Pay the costs related to the en ineerin department's review of the construction plans. g g p p g. For the trails and sidewalks, complete the following: (1) Construct an* eight-foot-wide paved public walkway from Maple Hills Drive to the Gateway Trail. This trail shall be in an 18- foot -wide trail way or pedestrian way or in . Y p Y an easement. (2) Construct a, six - foot -wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the pond in the center of the. site. (3) The developer shall build the trail, sidewalks and fencing ith the driveway and g Y streets .before the city approves a final plat. (4) The city engineer must approve these p lans. h. Petition and work with the city for the-realignment of the sanitary sewer and the installation of the sewer lift station on the site. This sewer project also will require an assessment agreement between the developer and the city to compensate the city for the benefit the developer receives from the city sewer construction. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk, driveway and street plans. Specifically: a. The plans shall meet the requirements of the city engineer, including the comments and requirements of the Assistant City Engineer as outlined in his memo of 1- 29 -02. b.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be .approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 112) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the trail (d) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to help screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors (e) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing town houses to the south The developer may use the tree groupings to separate the different types of residences. (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is done. c. The street, trail, sidewalk and utility plans shall show the coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. d. Revise the design of the entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets Parkway Drive) so it is as far south on Parkway Drive as possible and so it has a left -turn and a right - turn exit lane. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage. and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the watershed district. c. Make as many of the property lines as is reasonably possible radial to the cul -de -sacs or perpendicular to the driveways and street right -of -ways. d. Show the trails in publicly owned property or easements. The developer shall record with Ramsey County a separate deed for the trail that will connect to the Gateway Trail. 5. Secure and record with the final plat all required easements for the development. These shall include: a. Any off -site drainage and utility easements. b. Wetland easements the wetlands and any land within 25 feet surrounding a Class IV wetland. The easement shall prohibit any building or structures within 25 feet of the Class IV wetland or any mowing, cutting, filling, grading or dumping within 25 feet of the wetland or within the wetland itself. The purpose of the easements is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from fertilizer .and runoff. ' They also are to protect the wetland habitat from encroachment. c. Any easements the city may need for the realignment of the sanitary sewer or the construction of the new lift station on the site. d. The easement for the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the Gateway Trail., 6. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. These documents must assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and structures. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits .any further subdivision ,or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. For the property. at 905 Parkway Drive: (1) All a g agreements, between, the developer and the property owner of 905 Parkway Drive for changing the parking lot of the office building and for any changes to the existing ingress and egress agreements. (2) The deed that transfers the ownership of Outlot E to the owner of the property at 905 Parkway Drive. d. All wetland, drainage, utility and trail easements., The applicant shall submit the language for these documents, easements, dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. These are to assure there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, driveways and structures. 7. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 8. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District for . radin g g If the developer decides to final plat part of the relimina plat, the director of communit p wp y development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city ssues a grading permit or Y g gp approves the final plat. 9. To recommend that the entry road to the Maple Hills Development be reviewed. It should be pushed as. far to the south on Parkway Drive as possible and have an additional right turn lane added to it to help facilitate traffic movement in and out. 10. To have the fire marshal and the fire chief further review the individual driveways as to ;the need. for a turnaround at the end of them to allow for traffic and emergency vehicles to enter and exit the premises. 11. Commissioner Ledvina added a friendly amendment that the city council consider the need for a variance for the wetland ordinance for filling within the wetland. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes — Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach Nays — Ahlness, Dierich,, Trippler The motion is passed Chairperson Fischer asked this item goes to the" city council? Mr. Ekstrand said this item will go to the city council February 25, 2002, and will be reviewed by the Community Development Review Board at. their February. 12, 2002, meeting. Commissioner Trippler stated for the record why he voted nay. He voted nay strictly because of the traffic hazards on getting into this proposed. development. Even if you move the driveway 25 feet further to the south at 35 mph that only gives you 4 /1Oths of a second. He thinks adding 200 add itiona.l.cars into the traffic at this particular location is going to be a disaster. He. would like to see the developer try to figure out a way to get more land and somehow get the exit over onto.LarpenteurAvenue. He thinks thatwould bean enormous benefit forthe'people that are going to be Living there. The people that end up buying there will be very frustrated Y rY trying to get in and out of their homes, and he thinks the commission is doing them a disservice approving this project. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 12, 2002 b. Carriage Homes of Maple Hills Parkway Drive (Maple Hills Golf Course) Mr. Steve Nelson, representing Bridgeland Development Company and Centex Homes, is proposing to develop a 100 -unit planned unit development (PUD) called the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. It will be located on a 20.5 - acre site on the north side of Parkway Drive, on the site of Maple Hills Golf Course. To build this project, Mr. Nelson is requesting several city approvals including: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 100 -unit housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because Section 36- 566(a) of the city code (the shoreland district regulations) requires a PUD for developments with buildings with more than four units when the site is in the shoreland district of a lake. In this case, the site is in the shoreland zone of Round Lake and would have 100 for -sale townhouse units in 12 buildings. The 12 buildings would have a mix of four units, eight units and 10 units. In addition, having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such as setbacks and street right -of -way and pavement widths) than the standard city requirements would normally allow. 2. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street right -of -way width. The developer is asking to reduce the width of the public street right -of -way from 60 feet to 50 feet. 3. A variation from the city code to reduce the required street pavement width. The developer is asking to reduce the width of the street from 32 feet to 24 feet from gutter to gutter. 4. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the enclosed maps from the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills application materials and the enclosed project plans.) 5. Design approval of the project plans, including architectural and landscape plans. The community design review board will be looking at item 5 of these conditions for approval. The proposed development will have a two -way public road that will wrap around the existing wetland. The developer is proposing an 8 -foot wide trail from the north end of the new street up to the Gateway Trail. In addition there will be a 6- foot wide concrete sidewalk that will be located between the wetland and the new street. All units will have two -car garages with a small private 10 X 12 foot patio and entrance. The parking on the site meets the city's parking code with a total 224 parking spaces that includes a two -car garage for each unit. The driveways will be a minimum of 24 feet in length. The exterior materials used in these town homes include horizontal vinyl siding with a wood -grain finish. There will be four to five different colors for the 12 buildings all in neutral tones. It will also include vinyl trim and shutters, brick wainscot on all elevations and asphalt shingle roofs. The price range for this development ranges from $130,000 to $190,000. It will also preserve many of the natural features on the site. For these reasons staff is recommending approval of this project. Board member Olson said she has questions about the traffic flow. Cars are going to come in and drive around this ponding area and access the garages from the center radiating out. Is that correct? Ms. Finwall said that is correct. Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff had seen the elevation drawings for the various 4,8, and 10 unit buildings? Ms. Finwall said staff has not seen all elevations. Chairperson Ledvina said they have not been submitted up to this point? Ms. Finwall said no. Chairperson Ledvina said staff mentioned brick wainscoting on all four elevations of each of the buildings completely around the building is that correct? Ms. Finwall said perhaps the applicant could answer that question. She was under the impression it was proposed on all four sides of the buildings. Chairperson Ledvina clarified that the board is looking at item E. on page 13 through 16 for approval? Ms. Finwall said correct. Peter Knable of Terra Engineering, 6001 Glenwood Avenue Minneapolis, nneapolis, is representing the developer and the builders. Mr. Knable stated the pond is an open man -made pond. In addition, ion, as part of the landscape revisions it was recommended to incorporate ' rainwater gardens that they will do. They will be added between the buildings and the street and additional areas that the topography will allow them. T hose will be incorporated before the city council meeting. The ro osed Carriage Home p p g s development is at about half the density of the Bennington Wood ' . Y g s. Carriage homes will be 5 units per acre verses Bennington Woods 10 units its per acre. impervious mpervious surface comparison is at 31% for Carriage Homes o . t g es and 56 /o for Bennington Woods. Mr. Knable said the are proposing narrower . .. Y p p g ower streets, minimizing the impervious area and will have closer setbacks to shorten the driveways. Board member Olson said she did notice a comment regarding g g off street parking. Has the applicant addressed that issue? Mr. Knable said they tried to minimize the number of spots based o ' p n Centex 's experience with similar developments and the number of uest parking stalls. g p g However, there are some guest spaces shown on the site lan with ' p additional spaces shown as proof of parking. Steve Volbrecht with Centex homes at 12400 Whitewater Drive Hopkins, MN 55343 addressed the commission. Mr. Volbrecht showed the board photo boards of the proposed development. The board discussed the proposed elevations with Mr. Knable. Mr. Knable said the development is zoned for high density residents g y al and the applicant is proposing medium density residential. The largest 1 - g 10 -unit building is 10,000- square feet in footprint. The units in Bennington g n Woods are about 8,000- square feet in footprint. Chairperson Ledvina said he noticed there are meters on the front of the proposed buildings. He knows that this is a concern because the meters become unsightly and they tend to stick out. Mr. Volbrecht said typical construction for these units is the electrical meter bank is on one end in between the two patios. That is also the entrance point for the cable T.V. and telephone. The opposite end is where the water and sewer come in. The individual gas meters are located in front where the garages are. Board member Jorgenson said he likes the look of the development and . p he is glad they kept the ponding area. He also likes the path connecting t p g o the Gateway Trail and the benches. His only concern is the traffic and the access to the development. He drives that area ever day and he is aware of th Y Y e congestion and traffic situation. Board member Olson asked if a fire truck could et into the development? g p It looks very tight. Chairperson Ledvina said for the benefit of the board members that item was discussed at the planning commission meeting regarding emergency vehicle g g g g Y s access to the property. The city's fire marshal has reviewed the development and approved the plans. Chairperson Ledvina said he thinks the units will look nice. The are one of Y the nicer elevations for a development the board has seen in a while. In terms of building design he likes. the building colors, and that they are neutral colors. He also likes that there wily 11- proposed be some variation in colors amongst the development as opposed to having all one color in the whole development. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if there was an opinion regarding the p g g monument design that was presented. From what he saw, he liked the design, it has some limestone and masonry and he doesn't have an issues. i Y He s not sure if they would approve signage with this ro osal. p p Ms. Finwall said the sign code would allow one freestanding sign. Therefore, the monuments should be included in the planned unit development (PUD). Her only concern would be the traffic visibility, sign easement and maintenance of these monuments. Board member Olson commented that the stone monuments with the printed . p panel, and a stone cap is keeping with the look of the parkway rea and it will Y be a very attractive feature. Chairperson Ledvina said he would like to see brick wainscoting on all four elevations. He thinks that is appropriate for this especially as it relates to the p Y elevations along Maple Hills Drive. For appearance and consistenc y it would be important to have that. He would make it a condition subject to staff approval and he doesn't think it would take too much to add that brick wainscoting to all four sides of the buildings. Board member Olson said she would agree that lookin g at the illustration it looks funny to her where the brick wainscoting doesn't make it around the corner. Chairperson Ledvina is concerned about the utilities units. Y ,the gas meters and g You look at these elevations � the air conditioning Then ations and they look re ' hen the pipes and gray great with the landscaping. attracti g Y boxes are added and ' very attractive. Then he would like it doesn look ve t ke the applicant to • al impact of such s work with staff to reduce visual things as meters. Board member Olson moved to approve the development sta mped January 2 an plans (date- rY d January 23 � 200 2) for the Carriag Maple Hills. � e The city bases this a g Homes of approval on the findings required developer or contractor . g q ed by the code. The d shall do the following underlined): g (C are DRB changes 1 • Repeat this review i n • two years if the has cit for this project. Y not issued a building permit t 2. Complete the following ng before the city issues a ' building permit: a• Have the city engineer • g approve final constructio • plans. These plans s nand engineering p hall include the grading, ' ' • erosion control tree g g, utility, drains e, , sidewalk and drivewa nag e, conditions y and parking lot plans. meet the following conditi • The plans shall en and requirements of the assistant city e n g ineer outlined in his memo dated 1 -29 -02 and the following: (1) There shall be no parking on either side of Maple Hills Drive or on the private driveways. The developer or contractor shall post the street and the driveways with no parking signs. (2) The tree plan shall: (a) Show where the de veloper or contractor will r or replace large trees. emove, save (b) Show the size sp ec i es pecies and location of the re la and screening trees. The p cement new screening trees shall be grouped together. These lanti south p ng areas shall be along he and east sides of the g site to help screen the development from the existing g to the south and east. The deciduous trees sha ha II be at least two and o If ( 1/2) inches in diameter e meter and shall be a mix of and white oaks, ash, linden red s, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees es shall be at least eight (8) tall and shall be a g feet mix of Austrian Pine , Black ' Hills Spruce and otherspecies. (c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 74 trees after the site grading is done. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (e) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (f) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (1) near the ponding areas (2) on the slopes (3) along the trail (4) along the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive to ` help screen the proposed buildings from the neighbors (5) along the south side of the site to screen the development from the existing town houses to the south (3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (4) The site, street, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show: (a) Asix - foot -wide concrete sidewalk between Maple Hills drive and the pond in the center of the site. The public works director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. (b) A water service to each unit. (c) The repair of Parkway Drive (street and boulevard) and the driveways in Bennington Woods after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways and public street. (d) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire -flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (e) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (f) The entry road into the site (Maple Hills Drive where it meets Parkway Drive) as far south on Parkway Drive as possible with a left-turn and aright -turn exit lane. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. C. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) The planting of additional native evergreens and shrubbery on the site to provide additional screening and privacy between the proposed town houses and the existing single dwellings and town houses. The additional trees should include Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce, Eastern Red Cedar and Eastern Arborvitae. These additional trees should be located as follows: (a) Along the north property line of Bennington Woods. (b) In Outlot D, on the north and east sides of Maple Hills Drive. (c) Along the south side of Lot 12, east of the driveway to the new building. The trees in these locations shall be at least six feet tall, in staggered rows (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80 percent opaque. (2) Also show the areas noted in (1) above planted with a variety of shrubs (including Alpine Current, Yew, Glossy Black Choke Berry, American Cranberry (short cultivar), Purple Leaf Sand Cherry and Dogwood) to provide a variety of colors and textures. (3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the vegetation within the ponding area and on the steep slopes. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with a wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (4)Having in- ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). d. Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds and all homeowner's association documents for this development before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first town house unit. e. Submit a photometric plan for staff approval as required by the city code. f. Submit revised elevations for staff approval showinq the followin 1. The brick wainscoting on all four elevations of each building. 2. A screeninq plan for all mechanical units and meters on or near the buildin s. g. The monument sign plans submitted by the developer at the February 12, 2002, CDRB meeting is conceptually approved. The applicant shall submit final sin plans, including the location height, and materials for staff approval. h. Submit samples of all building materials and the color schemes for the buildings to the city for staff approval. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction and set new property irons for the new property corners. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the ponding areas. C. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Parkway Drive exit, no parking signs along both sides of Maple Hills Drive and the private driveways and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Construct a six - foot -wide concrete public sidewalk between Maple Hills Drive and the pond in the center of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk. e. Install the trail between Maple Hills Drive and the DNR Gateway Trail. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the trail. f. Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping (including the foundation plantings), ponding areas and an in- ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install continuous concrete curb and utter along all ' g g interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. h. Install on -site lighting for security nd visibility su ' Y y, � ct to city staff approval. 4. If any required work is not done, the city m allow te Y Y p ary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the ubli p c health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter ' of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the p cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall p g be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy if the building s occupied in t g p he spring or summer. C. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city p to co m p lete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved lans. The director of p community development may approve minor changes. Board member Jorgenson seconded. Ayes — Jorg enson, Ledvina Y g , Olson The motion is passed. AGENDA ITEM 'Kl AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Introduction Assistant City Engineer Action by Council ]sate Endorsed Modified Rejected Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 99 -07 A Resolution to Direct the Modification of the Construction Contract C.O.s No. 1 & 2 Resolution for Acceptance of Project February 18, 2002 Attached are Change Orders No. 1 & 2 for the Hazelwood Street Imp rovements f ' p s rom Gervais Avenue to County Road C, Project 99 -07. Council approval is required on ro'ect change orders an to accept the project. p g d p 1 Background The original amount of the contract is based on estimated unit uantities. During ' q g construction there are increases and decreases in the plan quantities. The increases outlined in Change Order No. 1 ($27,321.82) are due to increases in a number of items related to the storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and the waters stem. The largest Y g costs were for unplanned sewer service replacements in the right -of -way that were brought to the city's after construction. � g ty s attention a Sewer service work is funded by the sewer utility fund. Additional storm sewer expenses are paid through state aid funds. Expenses to the water system are funded by SPRWS. Change Order No. 2 is referred to as a "final capitulation" ($31,274.66). The final r ' • , recapitulation �s the increases, as well as decreases in the planned unit quantities. The total sum of the increases and decreases resulted in an increase due mostly to increases in the uantities of ' blanket as well as q topsoil, sod, erosion pipe bedding, from what was initially anticipated. These increases are eligible for state aid funding. g With the approval of Change Orders No. 1 and 2, the revised contract would be increased by $58,596.48 from $609,138.43 to $667,734.91. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached resolutions directing the modification of the existing construction contract in the amount of $58,596.48 and acceptance of Project 99 -07 as final. Budget Impact No increase in the project budget is required for these change orders. Project expenses g � p ses are essentially final and the final project cost has been estimated at approximately whic pp Yh includes all engineering, administrative, legal and fiscal expenses, as well as other miscellaneous construction costs. The original project budget was $1,073,300. The city ill experience a savings approximately Y p gs of a pp y from the original project budget. CIVIC jw Attachments RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 99 -07, Hazelwood Street Improvement, from Gery i a s Avenue to County Road C East, and has let a construction contract ursuant to ' p Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 99 -07, Change Orders 1 and 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk ar Y y e hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing aid Change Orders 1 n g g and in the amount of $58,596.48. The revised contract amount is $667,734.91. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. The revised financing an is as follows: g p Original Budget State Aid: Assessments: Sewer Utility Fund: SPRWS: $746,530 282,750 16,350 0 $1,073,300 Revised Bud_.get $593,600 271,700 26,600 4,100 $896,000 RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT WHEREAS, the city engineer for the C p ity of Maplewood has determined that Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 99 -07, is complete and recommends acceptance of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 99 -07 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by the city. Release of an retains a or escrow is her authorized. Y g eby PROJECT PAYMENT REQUEST HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS (Gervais Avenue to County Road C STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, (S.A.P. 138 - 112 -02) MAPLEWOOD CITY PROJECT NO. 99-07 CONTRACTOR: T. A. SCHIFSKY AND SONS, INC. Contract Amount: $609,138.43 Payment: 5 and FINAL Period Ending: December 7, 2001 ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT QTY. TO DATE PRICE TOTAL RECAP 2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5% MAXIMUM) 2101.502 CLEARING LS 1.00 1.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 26.00 27.00 $100.00 $2.700.00 ($1 00.00) 2104.501 REMOVE CMP, HDPE OR RCP STORM SEWER PIPE TREE 24.00 22.00 $100.00 $2.200.00 $200.00 2104.501- REMOVE CONCRETE CURB LF 323.00 319.00 $11.64 $3,713.16 $46 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT /APRON/SIDEWALK LF 55.00 124.00 $2.20 $ 272.80 (5151.801 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS SY 26.00 86.00 $2.20 $189.20 ($132.00) .PAVEMENT 2104.509 REMOVE. DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SY 286.00 735.00 $1. 00 $735. 00 ($449 - 00) 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT EA .1.00 1.00 $362.00 $362.00 $0.00 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF 62 00 40.50 $4 00 $162 00 $86 -00 2104.521 SALVAGE CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 655.00 598.00 $3.00 $1,794.00 $171.00 2104.523 SALVAGE CASTING ASSEMBLY LF 30.00 0.00 $5. 00 $O. pp $150.00 2104.525 ABANDON DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 1.00 1.00 $25.00 $25.00 $0.00 2104.601 SALVAGE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 2.00 2.00 $525.00 $1,050.00 $ 2104.601 SALVAGE FOOTBRIDGE LS 1.00 1.00 $577.00 $577.00 $0.00 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (ROAD), P LS 1.00 1.00 $900.00 $900.00 $0.00 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CY 9095.00 9103.00 $5.56 $50,612.68 ($44 2105.515 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION (POND), P CY 150.00 18.00 $5.56 $100. 08 $733.92 2105.526 SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW, LV CY 1455.00 1640.00 $7.50 $12,300.00 ($1,387.50) 2123.601 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) CY 1300.00 1810.00 $12.20 $22,082.00 ($ 2130.501 WATER HR 20.00 43.50 $85.00 $3.657.50 ($1,997.50) 2211 -501 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 M GAL 180.00 183.00 $30.00 $5,490.00 ($90.00) 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 6 TON 35.00 227.31 $10.00 $2,273.10 ($1,923.10) 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 4, CV TON 5410.00 5131.60 $7.25 $37,204.1.0 $2.018.40 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE, 1.5" DEPTH CY 3655.00 3421.00 $9.25 $31,644.25 $2,164.50 2331.603 BITUMINOUS JOINT SAW AND SEAL SY 100.00 215.60 $3.00 $646. 80 ($346.80) 2331.521 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE FOR COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS, 3" THICK LF 2400.00 1814.00 $1.35 $2,448.90 $791.10 2331.521 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE FOR RESIDENTIAL DRIVES AND TRAILS, 2" THICK SY 234.00 552.00 $8.25 $4,554.00 ($2,623.50 ) 2340.508 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE(41WEA50055PG 58-28) SY 821.00 1064.70 $5.50 $5,855.85 ($1,340 2340.514 TYPE 32 BASE COURSE MIXTURE(32BBB50000PG58 -28) TON TON 757.00 945.95 $33.25 $31,452.84 ($6.282.59) 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT -� 1056.00 991.06 $31.75 $31,466.16 $2,061.85 2451.602 CRUSHED ROCK PIPE FOUNDATION W/ TYPE V GEOTEXTILE FABRIC GAL 473.00 441.00 $1.20 $529.20 538.40. 2451.603 GRANULAR BEDDING (FOR 4" TO 8' PVC PIPE) TON 194.00 50.50 $15.62 $788.81 $2,241.47 2451.603 GRANULAR BEDDING (FOR 12" THRU 24" HDPE PIPE) LF 374.00 172.00 $6.50 $1,118.00 $1,313.00 2501.515 18" CORR. HDPE PIPE APRON W/ SAFETY GRATE LF 50.00 1750.00 $7.65 $13,387.50 ($13,0$0.001 2501.515 24" CORR. HDPE PIPE APRON W/ SAFETY GRATE EA 1.00 1.00 1.00 $310.00 $310.00 .00 2501.515 24" RC PIPE APRON W/ SAFETY GRATE EA 6.00 6.00 $396.00 $2,376.00 $0.00 2502.541 4" PE CORR. PERF. PIPE DRAIN W/ TYPE 1 GEOTEXTtLE SOCK EA 1.00 1.00 $941.00 $941.00 $o 2503.511 12" CORR. HDPE PIPE SEWER, (SMOOTH) LF 2650.00 1930.00 $2.65 $511450 $5,114.50 $1,908.00 2503.511 15" CORR. HDPE PIPE SEWER, (SMOOTH) LF 71.00 71.00 $21.20 $1,505.20 $0.00 2503.511 18" CORR. HDPE PIPE SEWER, (SMOOTH) LF 175 00 175 00 $22 44 $3,927 00 $ 0.00 2503.511 18" CORK. HDPE CARRIER PIPE, ( SMOOTH) LF 993.00 993.00 $24.95 $24,775.35 $ Q.00 2503.511 24" CORR. HDPE PIPE SEWER, (SMOOTH) LF 70.00 70.00 $17.40 $1.218.00 $0.00 2503.511 12" RC PIPE SEWER, CLASS V LF 725.00 667.00 $30.73 $20,496.91 $1,782.34 2503.511 15" RC PIPE SEWER, CLASS V LF 227.00 227.00 $25.94 $5,888.38 $0.00 2503.511 21" RC PIPE SEWER, CLASS III LF 469.00 469.00 $27.78 $13,028.82 $0.00 2503.511 24" RC PIPE SEWER, CLASS III LF 569.00 569.00 $32.64 $18,572. 1'6 $0-00 2503 -603 STEEL CASING PIPE FOR 18" HDPE CARRIER, BORED, (CASING SIZE: 26" MIN TO 30" MAX) LF 768.00 768.00 $36.82 $28,277.76 $0 2503.601 CONSTRUCT 6" DIP, CLASS 53 INSIDE DROP TO SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE LF 70.00 70.00 $163.34 $11,433.80 $0.00 2503.602 CONSTRUCT 48" SS MH W/ R- 142240004 CSTG. 8 R-1422-Al LID (11.5' DEPTH OVER EX. 8" V1 LS 1.00 1.00 $1,283.00 $1,283.00 $0.00 2503.602 RECONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLE, (APPROX. 4' EACH) EA 1.00 100 $2,367.00 $2,36700 $0-00 2503.602 SADDLE TAP 4" PVC ONTO 8" VCP (MAPLEWOOD PLATE 412) EA 2.00 2.00 $593.00 $1,186.00 $0.00 2503.602 ADJUST EXISTING SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT EA 3.00 0.00 $831.00 $0.00 $2,493.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXIST. SANITARY MH, CORE -BORE FOR NEW 8" PVC PIPE SEWER EA 1.00 0.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100 2503.603 SANITARY SEWER TELEVISION INSPECTION EA 2.00 2.00 $911.00 $1,822.00 $Q_04 2503.603 4" PVC SCHEDULE 40 SERVICE LF 2378.00 3081.00 $0.55 $1,694.55 ($386.65) 2503.603 6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 SERVICE LF 109.00 0.00 $26.00 $0.00 $2,834 2503.603 8" PVC PIPE SEWER, SDR 35 LF 129.00 26.00 $27.75 $721.50 $2,858.25 2504.602 FURNISH & INSTALL 8" FORD CURB BOX SINGLE LID COVER LF 136.00 136.00 $32.44 $4,411.84 $0 2504.602 FURNISH 8 INSTALL 15" FORD CURB BOX SINGLE LID COVER EA 2.00 4.00 $436.00 $1,744.00 ($872.00) 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE BOX, WATER EA 5.00 5.00 $546.00 $2,730.00 $0.00 2504.602 ADJUST CURB STOP BOX EA 19.00 19.00 $100.00 $1,900.00 $0 2504.602 WATER UTILITY HOLE EA 38.00 36.00 $75.00 $2,700.00 $150.00 EA 10.00 12.00 $385.70 $4,628.40 ($771.40) 2504.605 2" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION 2506.502 HDPE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, 12"X 90 DEG HDPE BEND W/ 12" HDPE GRATE SY 177.80 57.00 $17.23 $982.11 2 pg $ � 1.38 2506.502 HDPE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, 18" X 12" HDPE TEE W/ 12" HDPE GRATE EA 2.00 2.00 $305.90 $611.80 $0.00 2506.502 HDPE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, 24" X 12" HDPE TEE W/ 12" HDPE.GRATE EA 200 2.00 $436.00 $ 872 00 $0.00 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, 2'X3' BOX CB W/R -3067 V CASTING & GRATE EA 2.00 ; .2.00 .$541.00 .$1.082.00 $0.00 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, 48" CB W/R -3067 V CASTING & GRATE EA 8.00 9.00 $1,280.50 11 5 $ 24.50 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, 48" MH W/R 1422 - 0004 CSTG & R LID EA 8.00 8.00 $1,427.00 $11,416.00 $0.00 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, 48" MH W/R- 1422 -0004 CSTG & R- 2422 RADIAL EA 4.00 4.00 $1,460.00 $5,840.00 $0 2506.502 -0009 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, 48" MH W/R- 5901 -F CASTING & LID EA 5.00 5.00 $1,460.00 $7,300.00 $0.00 2506.502 CONSTRUCT SPECIAL WEIR DESIGN EA 1.00 1.00 $1.404.00 $1,404.00 $0.00 2506.521 INSTALL SALVAGED CATCH BASIN CASTING ASSEMBLY EA 1.00 1.00 $3,203.00 $3,203.00 $ 0.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EA 1.00 1.00 $50.00 $50.00 $0.00 2506.602 CONNECT INTO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 10.00 10.00 $150.00' $ 1500.00 $0.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS 111 EA 1.00 1.00 $fi36.OQ $636.00 $0 2511.515 GEOTEXT(LE FILTER, TYPE IV Cy 67.00 46.70 $73.00 $3,409.10 $1,481.90 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SY 250.00 135.00 $9.87 $1,332.45 $1,135.05 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, DESIGN 8618 SF 11500.00 11210.00 $2.38 $26,679:80 $690.20 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, RESIDENTIAL LF 5000.00 5290.00 $7.27 $38,458.30 ($2,108.30) 2531.507 8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT, COMMERCIAL SY 124.00 219.80 $29.52 $ 6 488.50 ($2,828.02) 2540.602 REINSTALL SALVAGED MAILBOX SUPPORT SY 27.00 44.60 $30.75 $1, 371.45 ($541. 20 ) 2540.602. FURNISH &...INSTALL MAILBOX SUPPORT EA 14.00 12.00 $50.00 $600.00 $100.00 2557.603 INSTALL SALVAGED CHAIN LINK: FENCE EA 15.00 16.00 $75.00 $1,200.00 ($75.00) 2557.603 INSTALL WOVEN WIRE FENCE ON SALVAGED FENCE POSTS LF 30.00 0.00 $10.00 $0.00 $300,00 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LF 90.00 0.00 $15.00 $0.00 $1,350.00 2571.608 TREE PRUNING LS 1.00 1.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0 2572.501 TEMPORARY FENCE, TYPE ORANGE POLYPROPYLENE SAFETY HOUR 8.00 12.50 $75.00 $937.50 $337.50 2573.501 BALE CHECK LF 600 :00 619.00 $2.OQ $1,238.W ($38.00) 2573.502:. SILT FENCE, TYPE PREASSEMBLED MAINTAINED EA 1 fi:00 .15.00 $12.01) $180.00 $0.00 2573.602 FURNISH &INSTALL 1.5" CLEAR ROCK FOR TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANC LF 3320.00 2124.00 $1,65 $3,504.60 $1,973.40 2573.602 FURNISH & INSTALL. TYPE V GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTIO1 TON 486.00 163.70 $13.25 $2,169.03 $4,270.48 2573.603 INSTALL FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN (FURNISHED BY CITY) SY 600.00 0.00 $1.45 $0.00 $870 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE LAWN LF 100.00 100.00 $6.6€1 $660.00 $0.00 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, TYPE WOOD FIBER, 1S SY 8000.00 14413.00 $1.99 $28,681.87 ($42,761.87) 2575.525 EROSION STABILIZATION BLANKET, TYPE ENKAMAT OR EQUAL SY 2500.00 9280.00 $1.54 $14,291.20 ($10,441.2t1 ) 2575.532 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSES 10 - 10 - 10 SY 5.00 0.00 $19.00 $0.00 $95.00 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT AT TEA #1, W/ TYPE 65A MIXTURE LB 650.00 1000.00 $0.37 $370.00 ($129.50 ) 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT AT TEA #2, W/ TYPE 25A MIXTURE LS 1.00 1.00 $415.00 $415.00 $0.00 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT AT TEA #3, W/ TYPE 65A MIXTURE LS 1.00 1.00 $1,219.00 $1,219.00 $0.00 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT AT TEA #4, W/ TYPE 110A MIXTURE LS 1.00 1.00 $243.80 $243.80 $0.00 2575.555 TURF ESTABLISHMENT AT TEA #5, W/ TYPE 65A MIXTURE LS 1.00 1.00 $365.70 $365.70 $0.00 2575.601 EROSION CONTROL, CONTRACTOR PLAN (1/2 MIN.) LS 1.00 1.50 $2,194.20 $3,291.30 ($1,097.10) LS 1.00 1.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 Total $640,413.09 ($33,274.66) Original contract amount Change Order No. 1 (Invoices) Change Order No. 2 (RecalAulation) Revised contract amount Total earned to date Less 0 °/a retainage Plus Incentives Less liquidated damages Subtotal Less previous payments Amount due this payment Contractor Engineer Date Date OF $609,138.43 $27,321.82 $31,274.66 $667,734.91 $667,734.91 $0.00 $3,000.00 $664,734.91 $596,383.50 $68,351.41 CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Hazelwood St. -- Cervais to Count oad C ty Project No.: 99 -07 Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: Change Order No.: 1 Date: 12 =7 -01 Invoice DescWtion Unit Qua nti Unit Price T_ 30162 Various curb stop & valve box repairs L.S. 1.00 $402.19 $402.19 30163 Increase MH & CB size from 48" to 60" L.S. 1. 00 $2,679.60 $2,679.60 30360 Add CB in Hazelwood Park L.S. 1.0€� $315'17.50 3 5 $ 17.50 30368 Turf establishment ate xtra CB L.S. 1.00 f $1 $1 30369 Parts for curb stop box repairs L.S. 1.00 ,411.05 $464.50 464.5 � 30375 Turf establishm arou and backyard pond L.S. 1.00 $1,288.00 $1,288.00 30143 Additional grading a@) Hazelwood Park L.S. 00 1. g7 $ 4.00 $874.00 30156 � Sewer service repair to 2574 Hazelwood L.S. 1.00 $604.46 $604.46 30157 Sewer service repair to 2566 Hazelwood L.S. 1.00 $2,558-98 $ 2 5 58'98 30158 Sewer service repair t p o 2574 Hazelwood L.S. 1.00 $4,609.50 ' $4,609.50 30159 Sewer service repair to 2566 Hazelwood L.S. 1.00 $1 976.01 $ 1 97 01 301.60 Sewer service air to re p 2425 Hazelwood L.S. 1.00 ' $4,358.24 . ' � $4,358.24 30161 Hydrant relocation @ Fire Station 7 L.S. 1.00 $2l577.79 2 $ 577. 79 Original Contract: $609,138.43 Change This Change Order: $27,321.82 Revised Contract: $636,460.25 Approved Approved Agreed to by Contractor by Its Engineer It !�Z� f itle CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Hazelwood St. — Gervais to County Road . . ty d C ,Change Order No.. 2 Project No.: 99 -07 Date: 12 -7 -01 Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons The following changes shalt be made in th contract documents. Unit Description Unit Quanti Pr rcce Tota I Recapitulation. of Account (See Attached) $31,274.66 Original Contract: $609,138.43 Net Charge of Prior Change Order No. 1: $27,321.82 Change This Change Order: $31,274.66 Revised Contract: $667,734.91 Approved Approved or K V! - �. �4.v... - - -.. _ / Engineer Agreed to by Contractor by Its Title AGENDA ITEM K'� TO: FROM: AGENDA REPORT Richard Fursman, City Manager R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Action by Council Date Endorsed Modified SUBJECT: English Street Improvements, City Project 01 -14 ' Reject cd a. Approve Sidewalk Location b. Approve Resolution Requesting Variance from Standards for State Aid Operations DATE: February 15, 2002 Introduction At the January 28, 2002, city council meeting for the English Street Improvement Project t ' 9 p j he city council ordered the English Street project to be constructed. The council directed that a survey be conducted for information on the location of the sidewalk aloe the roadway, Information g Y a ion on that survey has been received and analyzed by the engineering staff. MnDOT staff supports the roundabout proposed as part of the project; however, standards for the construction of the roundabout have not been developed by the standards committee and thus a resolution requesting a variance from the existing standards is required. Background The sidewalk along English Street was proposed by the eng ineering staff to be along the g g g eastern side of the roadway. By placing the sidewalk on the east sid the arkin areas could be p 9 located on the western side, adjacent to a majority of the ro ert owners and the afternoon p p Y , sunshine in winter hours would provide melting possibilities. Survey results were as follows: Total Properties surveyed = Surveys returned Favor west side = Favor east side = Don't Care = Favor both sides = Favor no sidewalk = English Street residents only = Surveys returned = Favor west side = Favor east side = Don't Care = 373 158 112(71%) 39(25%) 4(3%) 2(1%) 1 ( >1 %) 54 total surveys mailed 31 19(61%) 11(35%) 1(4%) A clear majority feels the sidewalk would provide the best service on the west side. The design g will be altered to accommodate the neighborhood requests. English Street Improvements February 25, 2002 Page Two Issues The roundabout was approved as part of the project proposal. A committee is currently preparing standards for roundabout design. Those standards have not been finally adopted as part of the State Aid Rules. Rather than wait for those new standards, a variance from MnDOT is needed for the project to proceed. MnDOT has granted a number of variances for roundabouts in past years. The variance is to allow traffic speeds of 15 miles per hour within the intersection. State Aid rules require a design speed of 30 mph on any roadway r a stopped condition at an Y pp Y intersection. The rules never considered speed within the intersection and thus the need for the variance. Note: A roundabout exists within our area, if anyone is interested in touring one. The roundabout is near Stillwater. Take Hwy 36 east to Manning Avenue (Cty Rd 15). Go north to the first stop sign, which is Cty Rd 12. Take a right onto County Road 12 and go east to the first right turn (about 1 block). You will be entering a development and an elementary school. The roundabout is 200 feet south of County Road 12. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the sidewalk location for English Street on the west side of the newly designed roadway and approve the attached resolution requesting a variance from MnDOT's State Aid standards for the roundabout. RCA Attachment RESOLUTION REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM STANDARDS FOR STATE AID OPERATIONS ENGLISH STREET IMPROVEMENTS STATE AID PROJECT NO. 138- 104 -07 CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 01 -14 WHEREAS, on January 28, 2002, the Maplewood City Council approved a resolution ordering construction of the English Street Improvements from Cope Avenue to Frost Avenue, City Project No. 01 -14, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood desires to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street in cooperation with Ramsey County, and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood City Engineer is hereby authorized to request a variance from the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, pursuant to P p Minnesota Rules for State Aid Operations 8820.3300, as they apply to the proposed English Street Imp rovement P � • p Pr oject, City Improvement No. 01 -14, located in Maplewood, Minnesota in Ramsey County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the variance is requested from the Minnesota Rules for State Aid Operations 8820.9920, adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 161 and 162, as they apply a I to the proposed construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Frost Avenue and English Street, so as to allow a 15 mph design speed in lieu of the minimum geometric and design standards required by Minnesota Rules for State Aid Operations 8820.9920. AGENDA ITEM ,t,r AGENDA REPORT ,Action by Council TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager Date FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Endorsed g Modified Signal System Repla cement, 1��e SUBJECT: Edgerton / Roselawn Si .05 oft .1 g y p acement, Cr Project �2 -05 a. Approve Project Initiation b. Approve Signal Justification Report c. Approve Project Plans d. Approve Cost Share Agreement with Ramsey County tY DATE: February 14, 2002 Introduction Ramsey County is proposing to replace the signal system at Roselawn Avenue and Edgerton Street. Edgerton is a county road, while Roselawn is under the city's jurisdiction. A joint improvement project is required for replacement of the outdated signal system. Approval of the necessary motions to implement the project is requested. Background The signal system at Roselawn Avenue and Edgerton Street was originally installed in the mid — 1950s. Replacement parts for the various components have lon g since been discontinued from production. The intersection could operate with either a 4 -way stop condition or with a traffic signal. Ramsey County held a couple of neighborhood g p g d meetings, and it is clearly the desire of the local property owners and school district, as well as the Park Commission (due to Edgerton Park), ), that the intersection remain signalized. Replacement of the signal is required under a joint project. Council approval to begin the project, pp 9 p j t, approve a report that justifies a signal at the intersection, project plans and a cost sharing agreement 9 g with Ramsey County is required. The c share of the project is estimated at $90,100. Roselawn is part of the city's Municipal State Aid System, so the entire $90,100 is eligible to be reimbursed from this account through MnDOT. Issues The only issue on this project is that the intersection could operate with a 4-way p sto condition instead of the expensive signal system, which also has annual operating costs unlike st signs. p g p g Due to the neighborhood and school operating for the past 40+ years with a sig nal, a change would g g b e very controversial and not well received. The expenditure of funds from MSAS will not delay any proposed projects in future years. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the initiation of the rooect the signal p ! � g justification report (available. in the city engineer's office ), project plans and the cost sharing 1 p g agreement with Ramsey County for an estimated amount of $90,100 and authorize the mayor and city manager to execute said agreement. RCA jw MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION Background Agenda # K4 Action by Cou Date Endorsed ®dified City Manager Rejec Re .e � Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Manufactured Home Park - Closing Ordinance Discussion February 19, 2002 In 1987, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a law allowing cities and municipalities to pass. park - closing ordinances (Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095). The purpose of such an ordinance is to help protect citizens living in manufactured home arks in the event of a ark p p closing by requiring park owners to reimburse homeowners for relocation costs if their home can be moved, and if not, purchase the manufactured home. (See' Section 327C.095 on pages 5 through 8.) - Request The City of Maplewood has received a proposed manufactured home park - closing ordinance for the City Council's review from All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) (see attached APAC letter and proposed ordinance on pages 9 through 13). APAC is anon- profit organization that serves as a tenant's union for manufactured home owners. They help organize park residents to understand and protect their rights as specified in state law: APAC sent .a mailing to a majority of the city's park residents regarding their proposed ordinance. In the mailing they requested that the residents show their support of a park- closing ordinance. by signing their name and address to a postcard and sending it to the city. To date, the city has received 169 postcards in support of the proposed ordinance. (See the language used by APAC on the postcard and the names and addresses of the residents in support of the proposed ordinance on pages 14 through 24.) DISCUSSION Manufactured Home Park - Closing Le 9 is'lation The park - closing legislation came out of a situation in Bloomington when Lyndale Lodge g Manufactured Home Park was sold for redevelopment as a car dealership. Many of the homes were too old to move and therefore forced the, residents to sell their homes for very little. This left many of the residents financially devastated and homeless.-- Alarmed_by_these- events- the -_ legislature passed the park closing law in 1987. The law states that a park owner must notify the city and the residents of a park closing ine months nor to 9 • p the proposed closing. Once notice is received, the city must hold a public hearing to review the impacts that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owners. The city may require payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another ark within 25 p miles of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents. The law further states that the city may also require that other parties, including the city, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the resident. After the law was enacted, the City of Bloomington adopted a park - closing ordinance and required the Lyndale Lodge Manufactured Home Park owner to reimburse the park residents for relocation costs or purchase the homes. The park owners brought the City of Bloomington to court over the ordinance claiming that it was a land taking. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Bloomington's ordinance in Arcadia vs. C ty_of Bloomington 1994, and the park owners were required to reimburse the homeowners for relocation costs or purchase the homes. Existing Park - Closing Ordinances Thirteen cities within the State of Minnesota currently have park - closing ordinances: Apple Valley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Hopkins, Elk River, Dayton, Fridley, Lake Elmo, Moundsview, Oakdale, Red Wing, ,Roseville, and Shakopee. Most of these ordinances require that park owners reimburse manufactured home owners to relocate their homes within 25 miles. If relocation is not possible, the park owner must purchase the home for the market value as determined by an independent appraiser approved by the city. Two cities within the State of Minnesota, Brainerd and Willmar, reviewed park - closing ordinances and chose not to pass one. Both of these proposed ordinances were brought on by actual park closings. All Parks Alliance for Change Proposed Ordinance APAC's proposed ordinance mirrors Elk River's ordinance passed in 1997. It states that the park owner shall pay the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating the home to another park within 25 miles. Reasonable costs include expenses incurred in moving the home and personal property, insurance for replacement value of the property being moved, and cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take down, move and setup the home. If the home cannot be moved, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of costs awarded to other residents plus ,the park owner must purchase the home at the amount equal to the estimated market value of the home. City of Maplewood Manufactured Home Parks There are five manufactured home parks with a total of 789 homes within the City of Maplewood: Park Name Date Established Beaver Lake 1970 2425 Maryland Ave. Maplewood Man. Home Park Approx. 1957 1880 English Street N. No. of Sites No. of Homes 254 254 19 19 Manufactured Home Park Closings 2 February 19, 2002 Park Name Date Established No. of Sites No. of H omes Rolling Hills 1984 357 1319 Rolling Hills Drive St. Paul Tourist Cabins Approx. 1955 45 940 Frost Avenue Town and Country Approx. 1950 120 2557 Highway 61 TOTAL 795 357 39 120 789 St. Paul Tourist Cabins and Maplewood Manufactured Home Park have older manufactured homes, many of which would not meet current building code standards. Since. the St. Paul Tourist Cabins have been under new ownership as of last ear, six of the older manufactured cured homes have been removed. The new owners state that the will be replacing the older h with newer homes. Y p g h omes Beaver Lake, Rolling Hills, and Town and Cou have a mix of ,. Cou n and old homes. These three parks have given residents the opportunity to trade -in their existing anufactured g home for newer models, or when a resident leaves, the park owners purchase the older home and replace it with a newer home. p Manufactured home park residents own their home but rent the land the home sits on. The average cost of a new manufactured home is from $30,000 for a standard size to $60 for a double wide. The average cost of an older manufactured home varies wide) from 50 Y � 0 for the oldest models to $4 Rental space is approximately $270 per month and usual) covers sewer, water, garbage, and snow removal. Y 9 9 � al. There are no studies to indicate the average annual income of manufactured home ' park residents within the City of Maplewood. However, a study of manufactured home ark reside Bethel Minnesota p reside in East , conducted by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs in 1998, indicated that the mean annual household income of manufactured home residents was from 1 0, 000 to $29,999. $ Possible Pros and Cons Pros: APAC points out that it would prove difficult to find an avail • able manufactured home site within a 25 -mile radius of a park_ within the City of Maplewood because of the low vacancy r of the ma y tes. Also, many u actured homes are older and cannot be moved. Because of this and the fact that most of these homeowners have lower- income, a park closin could rove to b g p e a financial catastrophe for many of the city's residents. As stated by APAC in their attached letter,. residents living n conventional g a homes receive compensation when their property is sold for redevelopment. However, residents that own a home within a manufactured home park are not guaranteed an kind of co ' is Y ' p ton �f their park closed because they do not own the land that their home sits on. APAC states that a . ark- p Manufactured Home Park Closings 3 February 9 20 ry 02 closing ordinance would ensure that the residents of the manufactured home parks in Maplewood p would receive fair compensation for their homes in the event a park closes. Cons: Mark Brunner, executive vice president of Minnesota Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA), states that such an ordinance would hinder redevelopment within the City of Maplewood due to the added expense to the developer. He points out,that bank lenders may also be more hesitant to refinance loans for park upgrades and improvements if such an ordinance were in place and questions the fairness of how the values of the manufactured homes are determined in some of the existing ordinances. Also, MMHA believes that the language in the law which states "other parties involved in the park closing may provide additional compensation to residents" is intended to not only mean the park owner or developer, but entities such as the city, housing redevelopment authority, or other entities that may be able to tie into reimbursement. Mr. Brunner states that the current law gives the manufactured home residents the protections needed because it. allows cities to determine compensation to the residents at the time of a closing. MMHA is opposed to such an ordinance because it could be considered a land taking and would put a burden on the property owner. RECOMMENDATION If deemed appropriate, direct staff to research and draft a manufactured home park - closing ordinance for the City of Maplewood. If staff is to proceed, input from the planning commission and the housing redevelopment authority should be included in the ordinance development process. P:ord\man. home park Attachments 1. State Park Closing Law 2. APAC's Letter Dated January 11, 2002 3. APAC's Proposed Park - Closing Ordinance 4. Manufactured Home Park Residents' Petition in Support of .Ordinance Manufactured Home Park Closings 4 February 19, 2002 Attachment 1 327C.095 Park closings.. Subdivision 1. Conversion of use; minimum notice. At least nine months before the conversion of all or a portion of a manufactured home park to another use, or before closure of a manufactured home park or cessation of use of the land as a manufactured home park, the park owner must prepare a closure statement and provide a copy to the local planning agency and a copy to a resident of each manufactured home where the residential use is being converted. A resident may not be required to vacate until 60 days after the conclusion of the public hearing required under subdivision 4. If a lot is available in another section of the park that will continue to be operated as a park, the park owner must allow the resident to relocate the home to that lot unless the home, because of its size or local ordinance, is not compatible with that lot. �Subd. 2. Notice of hearing; proposed change in land us4. If the planned conversion or cessation of operation requires a variance or zoning change, the municip must mail . p Y a "nonce at least ten days before the hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing. The park owner shall provide the municipality with a list of the names and addresses of at le one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time application is made for a variance or zoning change. Subd. 3. Closure statement. Upon receipt of the closure statement from the park owner, the local planning agency shall submit the g y e closure statement to the governing body of the municipality and request the governing body to schedule a public hearing. The municipality must mail a notice at least ten days Y before the hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place, and purpose of the p ublic hearing. The park owner shall provide the municipality with a list of the names and addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the park at the time the closure statemen is submitted to the local planning agency. Subd. 4. Public. hearing; relocation costs. The governing body of the municipality shall hold a ublic hearing g to review the closure statement and any impact that the park closing - may have on the displaced residents and the ark owner. er. Before any change in use or cessation of operation and as a condition of the change, the governing body may require a payment by the park owner to be made to the displaced resident for the reasonable relocation costs. If a resident cannot relocate the home to another manufactured home ark within p a 25 mile radius of the park that is being closed, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of ' P g relocation costs awarded to other residents. 4z-5TkTE YPrRK C1r.5�Nb L_J}kA� The governing body of the municipality, may also require that other parties, including the municipality, involved in the park closing provide additional compensation to residents to .mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing upon the residents. Subd. 5. Park conversions. If the planned cessation of operation is for the purpose of converting the part of the park occupied by the resident to a common interest community pursuant to chapter 515B, the provisions of section 515-B.4 -111 except subsection (a), shall apply. The nine -month notice ,required by this section shall state that the cessation is for the purpose of conversion and shall set forth the rights conferred by this subdivision and section 515B.4 -111 subsection (b). Not less than 120 days before the end of the nine months, the park owner shall serve upon the resident a form of purchase agreement setting forth the terms of sale contemplated by section 515B.4 -111, subsection (d). Service of that form shall operate as the notice described by section 5156.4 -111 subsection (a). Subd. 6. Intent to convert use of park at time of purchase. Before the execution of an agreement to purchase a manufactured home park, the purchaser must notify the park owner, in writing, if the purchaser intends to close the manufactured home park or convert it to another use within one year of the execution of the agreement. The park owner shall provide a resident of each manufactured home with a 45 -day written notice of the .purchaser's 'intent to close the park or convert it to another use. The notice must state that the park owner will provide information on the cash price and the terms and conditions of the purchaser's offer to residents requesting the information. The notice must be sent by first class mail to y a resident of each manufactured home in the park. The notice period begins on the postmark date affixed to the notice and ends 45 days after it begins. During the notice period required in this subdivision, the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park or a nonprofit organization which has the written permission of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park to represent them in the _ acquisition of the park shall have the right to meet the cash price and execute an agreement to purchase the park for the purposes of keeping the park as a manufactured housing community. The park owner must accept the offer if it meets the cash price and the same terms and conditions set forth in the purchaser's offer except that the seller is not obligated to provide owner financing. For purposes of this section, cash price means the cash price offer or equivalent cash offer as defined in section 500.245, subdivision 1, paragraph (d). Subd. 7. Intent to convert use of park after purchase. If the purchaser of a manufactured home park decides to convert the park to another use within one year after the purchase of the park, the purchaser must offer the park for purchase by the residents of the park. For purposes of this subdivision, the date of purchase is the date of the transfer of the title to the purchaser: The purchaser must provide a resident of each manufactured home with a written notice of the intent to close the park and all of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park or a nonprofit organization which has the written permission of the owners of at least 51 percent of the manufactured homes in the park to Tepresent them in the acquisition of the park shall have 45 days to execute an agreement for the purchase of the park ' at a cash price equal to the original purchase price paid by the purchaser plus any documented expenses relating to the acquisition and improvement of the park property, together with any increase in value due to appreciation of the park. The purchaser must execute the purchase agreement at the price specified in this subdivision and pay the cash price within 90 days of the date of the purchase agreement. The notice must be sent by first class mail to a resident of each manufactured home in the park. The notice period begins on the postmark date affixed to the notice and -ends 45 days after it begins. Subd. 8. Required filing of notice. Subdivisions 6 and 7 apply to manufactured home parks upon which notice has been filed with the county recorder or registrar of titles in the county where the manufactured home park is located. Any person may file the notice required under this subdivision with the county recorder or registrar of titles. The notice must be in the following .form: "MANUFACTURED HOME PARK NOTICE THIS PROPERTY IS USED AS A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK PARK OWNER - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARK 7 COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION (IF APPLICABLE)" Subd. 9. Effect of noncompliance. If a manufactured home park is finally sold or converted to another use in violation of subdivision 6 or 7, the residents do not have any continuing right to purchase the park as a result of that sale or conversion. A violation of subdivision 6 or 7 is subject to section 88 31,, except that relief shall be limited so that questions of marketability of title shall not be affected. Subd. 10. Exclusion. Subdivisions 6 and 7 do not apply to: (1) a conveyance of an interest in a manufactured home park incidental to the financing of the manufactured home park; (2) a conveyance by a mortgagee subsequent'to foreclosure of a mortgage or a deed given in lieu of a foreclosure; or (3) a purchase of a manufactured home park by a governmental entity under its power of eminent domain. Subd. 11. 'Affidavit of compliance. After a park is sold,. a park owner or other person with -personal Knowledge may file an affidavit with the county recorder .or registrar of titles in the county in which the park is located certifying compliance with subdivision 6 *or - 7 or that subdivisions 6 and 7 are not applicable. The affidavit may be used as proof of the facts stated in the affidavit A person. acquiring -an. interest in a park or a -title insurance company or attorney who prepares, furnishes, .or examines evidence of title may rely on the .truth and. accuracy of statements made in the affidavit .and is not required to inquire further as to the park owner's compliance with -subdivisions 6 and 7. When an affidavit is filed, the right to purchase provided under subdivisions 6 and 7 terminate, and if registered property, the registrar of titles shall delete the memorials of the notice and affidavit from future .certificates of title. H I ST: 1987 c 179 s 10; 1.991 c 26 s 1 -7; 1997 c 126 s 6; 1999 c 11 art 3s 10 Copyright 2001 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. 8 Attachment 2 (,.U"v Qe� _ January 11, 2002 y 5hann Finwall Maplewood Planning Dept. .� p 1830 E. Count d. B An Organization � Maplewood, MN 55109 of Manufactured p Home Residents Dear Ms. 5hann Finwall, 2395 University We are writing to ask for your support in the passing of apark- closing Avenue West, ordinance for the city of Maplewood. This ordinance would protect manufactured Suite 302 homeowners' families from displacement in the case of their park closing for St. Paul, MN redevelopment. A park-closing ordinance would ensure that the residents of 55114 manufactured home parks in Maplewood would receive fair compensation for their homes, which likely cannot be moved, in the event that their manufactured (phone) home park would close for redevelopment. Residents living in conventional (651)644 -5525 homes receive compensation when their property is sold for redevelopment. However, residents that own a home within a manufactured home park are not (fax) guaranteed any kind of compensation if their park is closed because they do not (651)523 -0173 own the land that their home sits on. Under a standard park - closing ordinance, if a home is a newer model and can be moved to another park, the owner and/or new (email) buyer of the park would have to pay to relocate the home to another park within a apac@mtn.org 25 mile radius or buy the home at its assessed value. Under Minnesota State Law ( §327C.095), cities and municipalities have the authority to pass apark- closing ordinance. Thirteen cities in Minnesota have already passed Park Closing Ordinances because they understood the necessity of an ordinance to protect their constituents. This ordinance is very important to your constituents in Maplewood that live in manufactured home parks. These voters and taxpayers make up nearly 5% of the population of Maplewood, almost 900 households. Many of the parks in Maplewood are very large and if a park closed it would be catastrophic. We plan to present the proposal before the city council on February 25�', 2002. We hope that you and the other Council Members will decide to pass this ordinance for manufactured homeowners in Maplewood. Enclosed with this letter are some informational materials for your perusal, including a copy of the proposed ordinance and Minnesota Statute 3270.(}95. If you have any questions regarding this issue we urge you to contact us. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to meeting with you on the 25 Sincerely, Jeff Swanberg, Chair of the St. Pau Cabins Resident Association www.allparksailianceforchange.org 9 Co�rnmuhi�y �jp��'�johs r M ember 7 Attachment • 3 City of Maplewood, Minnesota Ordinance NO. - Manufactured Home Park Closings Section XXX.�X-0�0Purpose In view of the peculiar nature and problems resented p by the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by requiring compensation q g p on to displaced residents of such parks. The purpose of this ordinance is to require q park owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and urchasers p of manufactured home parks to pa additional compensation, pursuant to the authorit r y y g anted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 327c.095. Section XXXX.Q2 Definitions: The.Following words and terms when used in this Sect t on shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Closure Statement: A statement prepared b the p y park k owner clearly stating the park is closing, .addressing the availability, location and of p ential costs of adequate replacement housing within a twenty -five (25).mile radius of the park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes located to the park. Displaced Resident: A resident of an owner-occupied . p ed manufactured home ho rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including the members of the e resident s household, as of the date park owner submits a closure statement t • o the City's Planning COrC1nliSSlon. L_ ot: An area within a manufactured home ark designed p s geed and used for the accommodation of a manufactured home. Manufactured Home: A structure not • sect which in the traveling to or part of a real estate, transportable in one or more secti ' p ling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when. erected on site, is three hundred and (3 20) or more square feet and � twenty e • n q - which - is built on a permanent chassis and designed used as a dwelling with or gn to be g without a permanent foundation when connected to t required utilities, in he re q includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning n ' stem contained ' g d electrical system in it. The City of Maplewood also elects to expand the ' p se provisions of protection to manufactured homes that are smaller than the dimensions f o i or more in width or f - ' � ei (8} feet . forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on - ' hundred and tweet (320-) site, are three • s and dent y or more square feet, and which are built n chassis designed to be used a o a permanent g s dwellings with or without permanent foundations when connected to the required utilities and include • . de the plumbing,. heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in them. manufactured homes that are . currently in Maplewood are smaller than the definition • . .. for manufactured homes provided • in Statute 3270 thus, the City f Maplewood • Y p ood feels that since these homes fall 10 P?RrI'E:7 'PR rpn�sa�. 1� -.Mpp, P, N<, 0 1 1, under the definition of a manufactured home, except for their size that these p e should also be covered under this ordinance. Park Owner: The owner of a manufactured home ark n p a d any person acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management o p f a ark. Person: Any Individual, cooperation, firm, partnership, incor orated and unincorporated P p po ated association or any other legal or commercial entity. Section XXXX.04 Notice of Public Hearin The Planning Comnu'ssion shall submit the closure statement to h . t e City CQU t0 schedule a public hearing. The City shall mail - a notice at least ten (10) da s rior to y p the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the ark stating the tune p g ,place and purpose of the hearing. The park owner shall provide the City ith a list of t e names and address of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the ark at the time . p e the closure statement is submitted to the Planning Conixniss' Section XXXX0 earin A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the p ur p ose of reviewing . p rp g the closure statement and evaluating what impact the ark closing may have on the _ P g y d residents and the park owner. Section XXXX.08 Pa ment of Relocation Costs: After the service of the closure statement b the ark owner ;� y p e and upon submittal by the displaced resident of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses, pe ses, the park owner shall pay to the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating o ating the manufactured home to another manufactured home ark located within . p a twenty five (25) mule radius of the park that is being - closed,, to r anoth g � e use, or ceasing operation. Reasonable relocation costs shall include: A. The actual expenses incurred in moving he di ' g displaced resident's manufactured home and personal property, includin the reason g b e cost of disassembling, moving and reassembling any attached app urtenances . 5 such as porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired q after notice of closure or conversion of the ark and utility "hook- charges, _ p y p B. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the r P , property being moved. C. The cost of repairs or modifications that are required . equired in order to take down, move and set up the manufactured home. 11 2. If a resident cannot relocate the manufactured home within atwenty -five (25) mile radius of the park which is being closed or some other agreed upon distance, and the resident elects not to tender title to the manufactured home, the resident is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of relocation costs awarded to other residents in the park. 3. A displaced resident. compensated under this section of ' the bill shall retain title to the manufactured home and shall be responsible for its . p prompt removal from the manufactured home park. 4. The park owner shall make the payments under this sect y ton directly to the person performing the relocation services after the erfor mance 1 p t or, upon submission of written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall reimburse the displaced resident for such costs. 5. The displaced resident must submit a contract or other verified cost estimate for relocating the manufactured home to the ark owner as owner's a condition to the park er s liability to pay relocation expenses. SectionXXXX.10 Payment of Additional Compens �► atYon: If a resident cannot relocate the manufactured home wit 2 . within a twenty- (� 5) mil - radius of the park that is being closed or some other agreed upon distance and tenders title to the manufactured home, the resident is entitle d to additional compensation to be paid by the purchaser of the.park in order to miti gate the adverse financial impact of the park closing. In such instance, the additional compensation shall be in an amount equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured home as determined by an experienced in er independent appraiser ex mobile p obile home appraisal approved by the City Administrator. The purchaser shall a the cost f ' p y or the appraisal. The purchaser shall pay such -compensation into an escrow account J . ,established by the park owner, for distribution upon transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid to the displaced residents no later than the earlier of sixty (60) days pnor to the closing of the park or its conversion to another use. Section Penalty l . violation of any provision of this Section shall be a ' n1isdemeanor, 2. Any provisions of this Section m • may be enforced by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. 3. The City shall not issue a building ' - g in conjunction with reuse of the manufactured home park property unless the ark owner ner has paid reasonable location costs and the purchaser of the ark has r p provided additional compensation in accordance with the requirements of this Section. r App oval of any application for rezoning, platting, conditional use ermit tan p , planed unit development or 12 variance in conjunction with a ark closin r p g o conversion shall be conditional on compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. Section .14 Effective • D t a e. This ordinance shall be effective u on ' p ,pubhcation. 13 Attachment 4 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of Beaver Lake Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February 25th would help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families.. Thirteen other ' cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting low- income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing 'and serving its low to moderate - income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Douglas Chestnut 1876 English Street Maplewood MN 55109 Beaver Lake Estates. 2425 Maryland Avenue Maplewood MN 55119 Dorothy Anderson Beaver Lake Estates 2420 Amberjack Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Vera Anderson Beaver Lake Estates 1231 Cougar Lane .Maplewood MN 55119 JOAnn Bohrer Beaver Lake Estates 1293 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Steve Carlson Beaver Lake Estates 2409 Amberjack Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Louise Crosby Beaver Lake Estates 1231 Deerfield Drive Maplewood .MN 55119 Donald Andrews B eaver Lake Estates 1277 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Tom Brockway Beaver Lake Estates 1217 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Constance Conroy Beaver Lake Estates 1253 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Margaret Cunningham Beaver Lake Estates 1218 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 14 Leonard Bergman Beaver Lake Estates 2425 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Kevin,Burns Beaver Lake Estates 1232 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 lone Coon Beaver Lake Estates 2461 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Rita Deutsch Beaver Lake Estates 1240 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 "�.•, l • Judith Ehnstrom Beaver Lake Estates 1200 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Steve Fry Beaver Lake Estates 2400 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Lawrence Giles Beaver Lake Estates 1269 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Lillian Hanna Beaver Lake Estates 2412 Amberjack Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Steve Hill Beaver Lake Estates 1268 Bobcat Lane . Maplewood MN 551.19 Darleen Hofland Beaver Lake Estates 2408 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Wendy Kelley Beaver Lake Estates 1212 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Casey LaCasse Beaver Lake Estates 1208 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Harold Lee Beaver Lake Estates 2400 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Wallace Eilers Beaver Lake Estates 1237 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Karen Galvin Beaver Lake Estates 2404 Coyote Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Tina Gray Beaver Lake Estates 1211 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Anthony Herbert Beaver Lake Estates 2461 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Warren Hobbick Beaver Lake Estates 1216 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Colleen Jones Beaver Lake Estates 2408 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Thomas Kren n . Beaver Lake Estates 2425 Coyote Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Mr. Larson Beaver Lake Estates 2477 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 James Lyons Beaver Lake Estates 1235 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 15 Mary Sue Fiola Beaver Lake. Estates 1247 Deerfield Drive North Maplewood MN 55119 Quanita Garcia Beaver Lake Estates 2440 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Cory T. Griffin Beaver Lake Estates 1246 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 John Herron Beaver Lake Estates 2428 Coyote Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Owen Hoff Beaver Lake Estates 2453 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Jim Kallio Beaver Lake Estates 2425 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Euphemia Kroll Beaver Lake Estates 1283 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Jeannine Latterell Beaver Lake Estates 2420 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Ray Mann Beaver Lake Estates 2453 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 �EflobR 1;�F:6 IDE-INiTs William McAmis Kerry McAmis Michael McCormack Beaver Lake Estates Beaver Lake Estates Beaver Lake Estates 1228 Deerfield Drive 1224 Cougar Lane 1228 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Margaret McCrank - Beaver Lake Estates 2472 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Dorothy Metzger Beaver. Lake Estates 1238 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 Michael Mierva Beaver Lake Estates 2473 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Arnold North Beaver Lake Estates 2469 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 i Jerry Page Beaver Lake Estates 1215 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Frances Parent Beaver Lake Estates 1215 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Tricia Quaale Beaver Lake Estates 2460 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Carol Ristau Beaver Lake Estates .2424 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Donna Schmitz Beaver Lake Estates 1210 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 Jerome Schultz Beaver Lake Estates 1216 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 L. Odden Beaver Lake Estates 1.224 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Kathleen Pakulski .Beaver Lake Estates 1.272 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Donna Peick Beaver Lake - Estates 2416 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Walter. Rasmussen Beaver Lake Estates 2412 - D61phin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Ja Rottach Beaver Lake Estates . 1196 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 David Schneider Beaver Lake- Estates 1239 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 James Scott Beaver Lake Estates 1222 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 16 Robert Ogilvie Beaver Lake Estates 1249 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 Leonard Parent Beaver Lake Estates 1267 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Delores Price Beaver Lake Estates 1219 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Teresa Reichert Beaver Lake Estates 2413 Coyote Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Robert Schirmer Beaver Lake Estates 2465 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 David Schreier Beaver - Lake Estates - 1236 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55 -119 Mike Sheehan Beaver Lake Estates 1247 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 ���i�ER L'�IKE RESiPE�1S Mary Sizemore K.D. Smith Beaver Lake Estates Beaver Lake Estates 2461 Bison Drive 1259 Deerfield Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Craig M. Spreigl Richard Stevens Beaver Lake Estates Beaver Lake Estates 1219 Bobcat Drive 1220 Cougar Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Thomas Sward David Toft Beaver Lake Estates Beaver Lake Estates 1251 Deerfie -ld Drive 2420 Dolphin Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Lisa Williams Sandra Zimmerman Beaver Lake Estates Beaver Lake Estates 2449 Elkhart Lane 1255 Bobcat Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 17 Tina Sorenson Beaver Lake Estates 2424 Elkhart Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Mark Swanson Beaver Lake Estates 2433.Amberjack Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Robert Warner Beaver Lake Estates 1214 Beaverdale Road Maplewood MN 55119 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of Maplewood Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passin the ordinance at the meeting on Februa 25 would help protect and g g ry p p preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this, important ordinance, in doing so protecting low- income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and. serving its. low to moderate - income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Mike Cobb Maplewood Mobile Home Park 1880 English Street North Maplewood MN 55109 18 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of. Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing he ordinance at the meeting , on February 25 would help protect and g g rY p p preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting low- income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housing and serving its low to moderate- income residents. Thank you for your consideration.. Kim Atkinson Myron Axtman Scott Benson Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 2638 Angela Court 1324 Birchview Drive. 1340 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Floyd Brown Carol Brown Richard Bunde Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 1398 Pearson Drive 1394 Birchview Drive 1387 Birchview Drive - Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Dan Charboneau Shelly Christensen Larry Coffman Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 2628 Benlana Court 1358 Pearson Drive 2676 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 John .Cournoyer Fred Creager Dorothy Dickinson Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 2655 Oakhill Court 2644 Benlana Court .1341 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN, 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Denise Elmquist Mona Lou Emerfoll Ray Garcia Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 2700 Mickey Lane 2638 Oak Hill Court 2637 8enlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Carolyn Ann Garrison Judith Gilmore Frank Goddfrey Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills. 1373 Rolling Hills Drive 1332 Birch View Drive 2642 Angela-Court Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 19 William Guerin Diane Hakes Nick Hanson Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 1342 Pine Tree Drive 1389 Rolling Hills Drive 1321 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Cindy Herrick Sonnia Hess Donna Hickey Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 2636 Mickey Lane .1.324 Pine Tree Drive 2648 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Wayne Hogstad Melvin Johnson Sam Keenan Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 1336 Birch View Drive 1392 Pine Tree Drive 2646 Angela Court Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Chris Klein Marjorie Krull Patricia Lakman Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 1357 Pearson Drive 2696 Mickey Lane 1356 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Wanda Leiner Andrea Lewis Wesley Lodge Rolling Hills - Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 2624 Mickey Lane 2625 Mickey Lane 1352 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Bert Logsdon Colleen Murphy Phyllis Nereson Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 1346 Pearson Drive 1335 Pine Tree Drive 1331 Pine Tree Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Jim Norring Matt Olson Robert Olson Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 1 Pine Tree Drive 2632 Benlana Court 2621 Mickey Lane Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Kathy Paulson Jean Pearson Richard Pearson Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 1344 Birchview Drive 1339 Pine Tree Drive 1109 Crestview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 55119 Hudson Wl 54016 Jessica Reardon Arthur Roy Eva Snaza Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Rolling Hills 1349 Pearson Drive 1372 Rolling Hills Drive 2630 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Maplewood MN 551.19 Maplewood MN 55149 C �)Li..-S Tenoze:�zV'cz, Terry Sokol Rolling Hills 2637 Benlana Court Maplewood MN 55119 J. Vasquez Rolling Hills 1350 Pearson Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Jackie Wanned Rolling Hills 2647 Angela Court Maplewood MN 55119 Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park 1319 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 William Stangl Rolling Hills 2634 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Colette Votel Rolling Hills 1396 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Barbara West Rolling Hills 2626 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 21 William Thaluber Roiling Hills 1339 Rolling Hills Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Eldridge Wanlesi Rolling Hills 2635 Oak Hill Court Maplewood MN 55119 Ronald Zemke Rolling Hills 1398 Birchview Drive Maplewood MN 55119 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am -a resident of St. Paul Tourist Cabins Manufactured Home Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the proposed Park Closing Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting n February 25 would g ry help protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, as well as give a sense of security and -stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting low- income families from displacement. By passing this ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment. to preserving affordable housing and serving its low to moderate- income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Madge Asp St. Paul Tourist Cabins 967 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Robert Bland James Devanez St. Paul Tourist Cabins St. Paul Tourist Cabins 963 Frost Avenue 954 Frost, Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 Robert Hollingsworth Harry Lebo St. Paul Tourist Cabins St. Paul Tourist Cabins 986 Frost Avenue 983 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 Richard Moore Inez Schuchard St. Paul Tourist Cabins St. Paul Tourist Cabin_ s 957 Frost Avenue 965 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 Steve Weib St. Paul Trailer Park St. Paul Tourist Cabins 940 Frost Avenue 952 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 551.09 Maplewood MN 55109 Jeff Swanberg St. Paul Tourist Cab_ ins 969 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Alphonso France St. Paul Tourist Cabins 943 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Duane Lonecor St. Paul Tourist Cabins 944 Frost Avenue Maplewood MN 55109 Sam Webb St. Paul Tourist Cabins 961 Frost Avenue Maplewood - M N 55109 Tracy Thomas St. Paul Trailer, Park/ C/O PLJ, INC. 2501 Lowry Avenue NE St. Anthony MN 55418 22 Dear City Council Members and Mayor Robert Cardinal, I am a resident of Town & Count Manufactured Home Count Park in Maplewood. We, residents of manufactured home parks, make up nearly 900 households in Maplewood. I am sending this post card to request that the City Council pass the ro osed Park Closing 25 to would hel p Ordinance. Passing the ordinance at the meeting on February protect and preserve these existing units of affordable housing in Maplewood, , as well as give a sense . . g of security and stability to nearly 900 Maplewood families. Thirteen other cities in Minnesota, including Oakdale, have passed this important ordinance, in doing so protecting . . g p g low-income families from displacement. 'By passing th -is ordinance, Maplewood would further its commitment to preserving affordable housin g serving and its low to moderate - income residents. Thank you for your consideration. Kenneth Bennett Orvis Bixby Town & Country Town & _Country 1100 Alvarado Drive 1044 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 Roger Erickson Aimee Evanson Town & Country Town & Country 2563 Plaza Circle 1059 Deauville Drive- Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 Rogert Fritz William Gilbert Town & Country Town & Country 1059 Bellecrest Drive 1046 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 Donna Gutwiler D. Hermann Town & Country Town & Countr 10.66 Bellecrest Drive 1063 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 Donna M.acRunnel Pat Nau /JV Properties Town & Country Town & Count ry . 1040 Deauville Drive 2557 Highway 61 Maplewood MN 55109 Maplewood MN 55109 Pearl Pitlick Town & Country 2581 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Geraldine Pullen Town & - Country 1065 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Rebecca Potthoff Town & Country 1096 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Ronald Richardson Town & Country 1050 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 23 Richard Buckley Town & Country 1058 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109. Joyce Fernette . Town & Country 1048 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Robert Grillickson Town & Country 1050 Deauville Drive Maplewood MN 55109 David Huot Town & Country 1046 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 T.V. Nordstrom Town & Country 1036 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Sandy Private Town & Country 1050 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Tammie Schweiker Town & Country 1062 Alvarado Drive Maplewood MN 55.109 Charlene Stansbury Town & Country 2568 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 Joanne Wagner Town & Country 1061 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 Paul. Vankirk Town & Country 2573 Plaza Circle Maplewood MN 55109 24 Betty Verdick Town & Country 1042 Bellecrest Drive Maplewood MN 55109 �wN A\ C