HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 01-14 City Council PacketMAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, January 14, 2001
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 02 -01
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of Meeting from December 17, 2001 (01 -30)
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.
J. Approval of Claims
2. Donation to DARE Program
3. National Night Out Award
4. Purchase of Patrol Vehicles
5. Donation to Police Department
6. Upgrades for Paramedic Equipment
7. Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board Reappointments
8. Conditional Use Permit Review -Lexus (3000 Highway 61 North)
9. Conditional Use Permit Review - Mounds Park Academy (2051 Larpenteur Avenue)
10. Conditional Use Permit Review -APT Telecommunications Monopole (1300 Gervais Avenue)
11. Pet Licenses - 2002 Prorate and Fee Adjustment
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 7:00 P.M. Carefree Villas (Gervais Avenue)
Land Use Plan Change (R -1 to R -3 (H)) (4 Votes)
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
Lot Division
Design Approval
2. 7:15 P.M. Water Resources Management Plan
3. 7:20 P.M. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) Ordinance Amendment (First
Reading)
I. AWARD OF BIDS
J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
K. NEW BUSINESS
1. Storm Sewer Improvements on County Ditch No. 18 @ Markham Pond, City Project 02 -02:
Receive Petition and Authorize Preparation of Preliminary Report
2. County Road D Roadway Improvements, City Project 01-15: Approve Preliminary Report and
Call Public Hearing
3. English Street Roadway Improvements, City Proj ect 01 -14: Approve Preliminary Report and
Call Public Hearing
4. Gladstone West Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00-05: Resolution Directing
Modification of Construction Contract, Change Orders Nos. 1 & 2
5. Bush Avenue Improvements, City Project 01 -04: Resolution Directing Modification of
Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1
6. Approve Assessment Rates for the 2002 Construction Season
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. Assistant Listening Devices are also
available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability.
RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY
Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings - elected officials, staff and citizens. It is
hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone s opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when
appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another,
keep emotions in check and use respectful language.
W ..r
MINUTES a
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
Action by Council
5:00 P.M., Monday, December 17, 2001
Council Chambers, Municipal Building Date
Meeting No. 01-30 Endorsed
Modified
A. CALL TO ORDER: Rejected
A meeting of the City Council was held in Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called
to order at 5:00 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Robert Cardinal, Mayor
Sherry Allenspach, Councilmember
Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember
Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember
Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
D. CLOSED SESSION
1. Litigation
Mayor Cardinal resumed the council meeting at 5:15 p.m. The council reviewed a settlement
offer for the McGuire arbitration and sent it to him for signature.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilmember Collins moved to approve the City Council Minutes (Meeting No. 01 -29) of December
10, 2001 as presented.
Councilmember Koppen seconded. Ayes -All
Councilmember Allenspach moved to approve the Council /Managers Workshop Minutes of December
10, 2001 as presented.
Councilmember Koppen seconded. Ayes -All
F. APROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Councilmember Wasiluk seconded. Ayes -All
City Council 12 -17 -01 1
G. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Cardinal recognized Sherry Allenspach for her years of service to the city as a council member
for eight years (1994 - 2001).
H. CONSENT AGENDA
Item H12 will be voted on separately.
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve Consent Agenda items 1 -11 and 13 as presented.
1. ACCOUNTS
D AvAUT 1�1
$174,842.25 Checks #56182 thru #56283 dated 12/7 thru
12/11/01
$298,245.71 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 12/3/01 thru 12/10/01
$473,087.96 Total Accounts Payable
U A VT? (1T T
$361,856.03 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated
12/7/01
$28,405.07 Payroll Deduction checks #86909 thru #86915
dated 12/7/01
$390,261.10 Total Payroll
$863,349.06 GRAND TOTAL
2. Designation of Depositories for Investments
Adopted the following resolution designating a depository for time deposits for the City of
Maplewood:
RESOLUTION 01 -12 -125
DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITORIES
BE IT RESOLVED, that the following be and hereby are selected as depositories for
time deposits of the City of Maplewood:
U.S. Bank
Wells Fargo Bank
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the deposits in any of the above depositories
shall not exceed the amount of F. D .I. C . insurance covering such deposit unless collateral or a
bond is furnished as additional security, and
City Council 12 -17 -01 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that funds in the above depositories may be
withdrawn and wire transferred to any other depository of the city by the request of the
Finance Director or Assistant Finance Director.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that these depository designations are effective until
December 31, 2003.
3. Budget Changes for 2001 Bond Issues
Authorized staff to make the appropriate 2001 and 2002 budget changes.
4. Assessments for Unpaid Ambulance Bills for 1999
Adopted the following resolution to certify $13,110.59 of unpaid ambulance bills:
RESOLUTION 01 -12 -127
UNPAID AMBULANCE BILLS
RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the Auditor of
Ramsey County the attached ambulance service charges totaling $13,110.59 for collection with
the taxes of said property owner for the year 2001, collectible in 2002 with interest at the rate of
eight percent (8 %) on the total amount for one year.
5. 2002 Pay Rates for Temp /Seasonal &Casual P/T Employees (Non- Union)
Adopted the following resolution establishing pay rates for temporary, seasonal and casual part -
time employees:
RES0LUTI0N01 -12 -128
PART -TIME EMPLOYEE RATES
WHEREAS, according to the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act, part -time
employees who do not work more than 14 hours per week and temporary /seasonal employees who work
in positions that do not exceed 67 days in a calendar year, or 100 days for full -time students, are not
public employees and are therefore not eligible for membership in a public employee union.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following pay ranges and job classifications
are hereby established for temporary /seasonal and part -time (14 hour or less) employees effective
January 1, 2002, upon Council approval.
Accountant
Accounting Technician
Administrative Assistant
Background Investigator
Building Inspector
Building Maintenance Assistant /Attendant
Clerk
Clerk- Typist
Custodian Maintenance Worker
Customer Service Assistant
CSO
$10.00 -18.00
per hour
$9.00 -15.00
per hour
$9.00 -20.00
per hour
$25.00- $35.00
per hour
$14.00 -25.00
per hour
$5.50 -9.00
per hour
$6.50 -11.00
per hour
$8.50-15.00
per hour
$8.00 -12.00
per hour
$6.00 -10.00
per hour
$8.00 - $16.00
per hour
City Council 12 -17 -01 3
CSO/Paramedic
$12.00 -18.00
per hour
Data Entry Operator
$8.00-12-00
per hour
Dispatcher
$15.00 -20.00
per hour
Election Judge
$6.50 - 12.00
per hour
Election Precinct Chair
$7.50 -14.00
per hour
Engineering Aide
$7.00 -11.00
per hour
Engineering Technician
$10.00- $16.00
per hour
Fire Department Custodian
$575-$690
per quarter
Fire Inspector
$9.00 -15.00
per hour
Intern
$6.50- 15.00
per hour
Laborer
$6.50 -12.00
per hour
Lifeguard
$6.00 -12.00
per hour
Receptionist
$7.50 -11.00
per hour
Recreation Instructor /Leader
$6.00 -30.00
per hour
Recreation Official
$7.00 -25.00
per game
Recreation Worker
$6.00 -18.00
per hour
Secretary
$9.00 -18.00
per hour
Theater Technician
$20.00 -30.00
per hour
Vehicle Technician
$9.00 -15.00
per hour
Video Coordinator*
$11.00 -19.00
per hour
Video Technician*
$10.00 -18.00
per hour
Water Safety Instructor (WSI)
$7.50 -12.00
per hour
WSI & Head Lifeguard Differential
$1.00
per hour
(Lifeguards or WSIs working as Head Lifeguards; Lifeguards working as WSIs)
*Video positions shall be paid a guaranteed minimum flat fee of $50 for 4 hour or less.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager shall have the authority to set the pay rate within
the above. ranges.
6. Budget Adjustment for 2001 Engineering Overtime Pay
Approved to transfer $16,000 from engineering revenue to the engineering operating budget to
pay for additional overtime.
7. Change Order and Final Payment for Abandonment of Lift Station No. 9., City Project 99- 02
Approved change order No. 1 in the amount of $10,214.40 and final payment in the amount of
$48,195.70 to Barbarosa & Sons, Inc. for the Abandonment of Lift Station No. 9, City Project
99 -02.
8. Payment of Sewer - Backup Invoice: 1897 Edgerton Street North
Authorized payment to Marsden Building Maintenance in the amount of $1,966.50 for clean -up
services at 1897 Edgerton Street North and revise payment schedule amount.
9. Bush Avenue Tax - Forfeited Lands Acquisition
Approved the following resolution to acquire the tax - forfeited property PIN 25- 29 -22 -33 -0009.
City Council 12 -17 -01 4
RESOLUTION 01 -12 -129
TAX FORFEITED PROPERTY ACQUISITION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, The State of Minnesota has declared certain properties held in trust located within the City
of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota to be Tax Forfeited;
WHEREAS, The Office of Tax Forfeited Lands, Department of Revenue and Taxation, Ramsey
County, Minnesota has granted the City of Maplewood opportunity to acquire said properties pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.01, Subdivision 1;
WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon the city to provide for sufficient Right -of -way for streets and control
of storm water runoff and drainage containment;
WHEREAS, said property is identified by the engineer as necessary for street right -of -way and drainage
purposes in Maplewood Public Improvement 01 -04, Bush Avenue Street and Storm Sewer project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council deems it in the public interest and
approves the acquisition of the following described Tax Forfeited property:
PIN LEGAL
PLAT NAME
COST
25- 29 -22 -33 -0009 Ex. E. 252', the S V2 of Lot 3 Auditor's Subdivision No. 77 $9,271.70
All in Section 25, Township 29 West, Range 22 North in Ramsey County.
10. Budget Change- Community Development Contract Employees
Approved the requested budget changes for Revenue and Expenditures Accounts.
11. Annual Renewals - Intoxicating Liquor License /On -Sale
Adopted the following resolution approving the one -year liquor licenses for the listed
establishments:
RESOLUTION 01 -12 -130
ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSES
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, that the following On -Sale Liquor Licenses, having been previously duly issued by this Council, are
hereby approved for renewal for one year, effective January 2002, with approval granted herein subject to satisfactory
results of required Police, Fire and Health Inspections:
Robert James Selander
AMF Maplewood Lanes
1955 English Street
Dorothy Helen Piotrowski
Applebee's
2112 Maplewood Mall
Pat Dalton
Bennigan's
1749 Beam Avenue.
Stephen Yantes Judith Landreville
Bleechers Champp's
2220 White Bear Avenue 1734 Adolphus
Scott Uttley Cheryl Wentland
Best Western- Maplewood Inn Chi -Chi's Restaurants
1730 E. County Road D 3069 White Bear Ave
Tom McDonough Steve Shirvinski
Chalet Lounge Chili's Restaurants
1820 Rice Street Southlawn & Beam
City Council 12 -17 -01 5
Patricia Belde Brian Meyer
Matthew Alan Willius Keller Clubhouse The Bird
Chipotle Mexican Grill 2166 Maplewood Drive 3035 White Bear Avenue
2303 White Bear Avenue
Colleen Danford
Ciatti's Italian Restaurant
1900 E. County Road D
Stephen Parr
Outback Steakhouse
1770 Beam Avenue
Thomas Hecker
The Olive Garden
1749 Beam Avenue
Paul J. Mateyka, Jr.
Deans, Inc.
1986 Rice Street
Raymond R. Emerfoll
Garrity's
1696 White Bear Avenue
Bernard Micharel Diebel
Goodrich Golf Course
1820 N. Van Dyke
Michael Gengler
Gulden's
2999 N. Highway 61
Brenda Probasco
Red Lobster
2925 White Bear Avenue
Gregory Kuhns
Smiley's D.G. Burger
2425 Highway 61
Cheri Ottem
Stargate Bar & Danceclub
1700 Rice Street
Suzanne Schilling
Suzanne's Cuisine
2100 White Bear Avenue
13. Write Off Uncollectible Ambulance Bills for 1999
Michael Paul Miranowski
The Rock
2029 Woodlyn Avenue
Club On -Sale
Harlan Johnson
Loyal Order of Moose 963
1946 English Street
Wine On -Sale
Balbir Singh
Taste of India
1745 Cope Avenue
Kin Phing Lee
Singapore Chinese Cuisine
1715-A Beam Avenue
Approved writing off the uncollectible 1999 ambulance bills in the amount of $128,078.10.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk
Ayes -All
12. Annual Renewals - Intoxicating Liquor License Separate Vote
Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adopt the following resolution approving the one -year liquor
license renewals for the listed establishments:
RESOLUTION 01 -12 -131
OFF -SALE LIQUOR LICENSES
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, that the following Off -Sale Liquor Licenses, having been previously duly issued by this Council, are
hereby approved for renewal for one year, effective January 1, 2002, with approvals granted herein subject to satisfactory
results of required Police, Fire and health inspections:
City Council 12 -17 -01 6
Todd Norman
A -1 Liquor, Inc.
19 North Century Avenue
Laber's Liquors
Arthur Mark Stein
1700 D Rice Street
Wendy Lauber
Maplewood Wine Cellar
1281 Frost Avenue
Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Joseph Hudy
M.G.M. Liquors Warehouse
2950 White Bear Avenue
Marvin C. Koppen
Party Time Liquor
1835 E. Larpenteur Ave.
Christopher Sarrack
S arrack's International
Wine & Spirits
2305 Stillwater Road
Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers
Allenspach, Wasiluk, and Collins
Abstain - Councilmember Koppen
1. Dorland Road Access Improvements, City Project 01 -26: Public Hearing
a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing.
b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
C. City Engineer Ahl presented the specifics of the report.
d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The
following persons were heard:
John Tessar, applicant, 2310 Mailand Road, Maplewood
Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty
e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution ordering this improvement and
directing the acquisition of Outlot B for the Dorland Road Access Improvements:
RESOLUTION 01 -12 -132
ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted October 22, 2001, a report has been prepared
by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of Dorland Road Access Improvements, City
Proj ect 01 -26, and this report was received by the council on December 10, 2001, and
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost -
effective, and feasible,
City Council 12 -17 -01
7
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 $40,000.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 17th day of December,
2001, in the council chambers of city hall at 5 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice
of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
I. AWARD OF BIDS
None
K. 'UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Residential and Commercial False Fire Alarm System Fines Second Reading
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report and presented the specifics of the
report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the false alarm ordinance for both'residential and
commercial fire alarms as presented:
ORDINANCE 821
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FALSE FIRE ALARMS
Section 1. Purpose.
It is the purpose of this ordinance to encourage fire or medical alarm users and alarm users and alarm
businesses (including, but not limited to, sales, installation, and /or monitoring) to maintain the
operational reliability and the proper use of alarm systems so as to limit unnecessary fire and emergency
medical responses to false alarms and alarm malfunctions.
This ordinance governs fire and medical emergency false alarms, provides for service fees for excessive
false alarms, and provides for issuance of citations in lieu of assessing such service fees.
Section 2. Definitions.
"Alarm Site" means a single premise or location, or a multi- tenant location, served by an alarm system
or systems.
"Alarm System" means any mechanical, electrical, or radio controlled device or system which is
designed to emit, transmit, or relay a signal or message and which, when activated, is intended to
summon or that would reasonably be expected to summon, police, fire or emergency medical services.
Alarm system does not include:
1. An alarm installed on a vehicle, unless the vehicle is permanently located at a site, or
2. An alarm designed to alert only inhabitants of a premise, and which does not constitute a local alarm.
City Council 12 -17 -01
"False Alarm" means that activation of an alarm system, signal or message which elicits notification to
or response by the Maplewood Fire Department when there is no evidence of a fire, medical emergency,
or other activity which warrants a call for immediate fire fighting, or emergency medical assistance. This
may include, but is not limited to, an alarm discovered by a firefighter before notification of an alarm
from a monitor or from a local alarm system that is not monitored.
"Fire or Emergency Medical Alarm" means a system or portion of a combination system consisting of
components and circuits arranged to monitor and annunciate the status of fire or medical emergency or
medical emergency or supervisory signal initiating devices which are intended to summon fire or
emergency medical services of the Maplewood Fire Department.
"Warning Notice" means a notification provided to the owner or person in charge of an alarm site by the
Maplewood Fire Department for alarm due to system malfunction or when no reason can be determined
for the false alarm. The warning notice will require the alarm system to be inspected and/or serviced
within five (5) working days with written documentation submitted to the Maplewood Fire Department
that the system is in working order.
Section 3. Fire Emergency Medical Alarm Systems.
Subd. 1. Each time the Maplewood Fire Department responds to a false alarm due to system malfunction
or when no reason can be determined for such false alarm, the Maplewood Fire Department shall issue a
warning notice.
Subd. 2. A service fee for excessive false alarms at residential sites shall be charged as follows:
1. No service fee shall be charged for the first three (3) false alarms occurring within a twelve (12)
month period, calculated from the beginning of the calendar year.
2. A fourth (4) false alarm within a twelve (12) month period shall result in a service fee of $100.00.
3. Each false alarm in excess of four (4) false alarms occurring within a twelve (12) month period shall
result in a service fee of $200.00 per false alarm.
Subd. 3. A service fee for excessive false alarms at commercial sites shall be charged as follows:
1. No service fee shall be charged for the first two (2) false alarms occurring within a twelve (12) month
period, calculated from the beginning of the calendar year.
2. A third (3) false alarm within a twelve (12) month period shall result in a service fee of $200.00.
3. A fourth (4) false alarm within a twelve (12) month period shall result in a service fee of $300.00.
4. Each false alarm in excess of four (4) false alarms occurring within a twelve (12) month period shall
result in a service fee of $400.00 per false alarm.
Subd. 4. No service fee shall be assessed if the false alarm is:
1. Caused by an electrical storm, tornado, or other act of God when there is clear evidence of physical
damage to the alarm system;
2. Caused by the intermittent disruption of telephone circuits beyond the control of the alarm site owner;
3. Caused by electrical power disruption or failure in excess of two (2) hours beyond the control of the
alarm site owner;
City Council 12 -17 -01
9
Subd. 5. All false alarm service fees are due and payable within thirty (30) days from the date of the
invoice, in the event that false alarm service fees are not paid as required by this ordinance, the
Maplewood Fire Department may refer the matter to the City Attorney for appropriate legal action,
including but not limited to, certifying the same for collection against the real property taxes as with
other unpaid municipal services.
Subd. 6. A person commits an offense in violation of this ordinance if such person intentionally sets off
a false alarm in excess of three (3) false alarms within a twelve (12) month period, calculated from the
beginning of the calendar year. Upon commission of this offense, he or she shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000.00) and by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days.
Section 4. Severability
Should any section, subdivision, clause or other provision of this ordinance be held to be invalid by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or
of any part thereof, other than the part held to be invalid.
Section 5. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All
2. Residential and Commercial False Fire Alarm System Fines Second Reading
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
b. Finance Director Faust presented the specifics of the report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the resolution certifying special assessments for Color
Tile and Super America:
RESOLUTION 01 -12 -133
DELINQUENT FALSE ALARM CHARGES
RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the Auditor of Ramsey
County the following delinquent false alarm charge for collection with the taxes of said property owner for the
year 2001, collectible in 2002, and which includes interest at the rate of eight percent (8 %) on the total amount
for one year:
PROPERTY
ACCOUNT STREET ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION AMOUNT
Super America 11 Century Ave. 01- 28 -22 -41 -0001 $54.00
Color Tile 2950 White Bear Ave. 02- 29 -22 -24 -0003 $988.20
TOTAL $1
Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes -All
City Council 12 -17 -01
10
L NEW BUSINESS
1. Springsted Proposal
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the specifics of the report.
Councilmember Collins moved to approve the proposal with Springsted for the Economic
Development Financial Tools and Action Plan.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes — All
2. Proposed Purchase Agreement — Van Dyke Street Property
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the specifics of the report.
C. Bruce Mogren spoke for the agreement.
3.
9
Councilmember Koppen moved to direct staff to finalize. and prepare for signature the proposed
purchase agreement for the purchase of four city -owned properties on the west side of VanD ke
Street between County Road B and Cope Avenue.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes — All
Ramsey County Fair Board Request of Funds
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report and presented the specifics of the
report.
b. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing. The following person was heard:
1. Joe Foxx, Ramsey County Board
Councilmember Wasiluk to provide additional funds from the contingency account for fireworks
and directed staff to research the availability of funds.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen
Ayes — Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers
Allenspach, Wasiluk, and Koppen
Nays - Councilmember Collins
Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement at Comfort Bus Site (1870 Rice Street N.), Project 01 -21;
Order Preparation of Feasibility Study
a.
City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
City Engineer Ahl presented the specifics of the report.
City Council 12 -17 -01
11
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution accepting the report and
ordering the improvement for the sanitary sewer main repair at the proposed Comfort Bus Site,
City Project 01 -21:
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes — All
5. Presentation at 6:00 p.m.: Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission on Mall Area Traffic
Study, City Proj ect 01 -11
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
b. City Engineer Ahl presented the specifics of the report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to receive the Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study and Direct
that staff present the study as part of area neighborhood meetings during the next two months
Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes —All
M. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
N. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. Note to the Public: The city council will review the City Manager's performance at the January
14 City Council Meeting.
O. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
None
P. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Allenspach moved to adjourn the meeting at 7: 00 P.M.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - All
City Council 12 -17 -01
12
AGENDA NO. G -1
AGENDA REPORT on C
TO: City Council Date
ROM: Assistant Finance Director
Eridcrsed
RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS .
DATE: January 7, 2002
Modified
.Rejected
Attached is a listing of paid bills for informational u oses. The City Manager has reviewed P rp y g d the
bills and authorized payment in accordance with City Council approved policies.
ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE
$58,798.97 Checks #56284 thru #56285 dated 12/11/01
$282,963.13 Checks #56286 thru #56351 dated 12/14 thru 12/18/01
$93,778.01 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated
12/7 thru 12/17/01
$145,792.46 Checks #56352 thru #56353 dated 12/17 thru 12/20/01
$230,515.16 Checks #56354 thru #56424 dated 12/26/01
$122,595.35 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated
12/14 thru 12/21/01
$63,510.61 Checks #56425 thru #56465 dated 12/31/01
$158,165.52 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated
12/21 thru 12/31/01
$99,003.77 Checks #56466 thru #56470 dated 1/2/02
$481,246.76 Checks #56471 thru #56545 dated 1/8/02
$1,649,,899.31 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated
12/28/01 thru 1/07/02
$3,386,269.05 Total Accounts Payable
UeVl?M T
$362,146.84 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 12/21/01
$27,153.99 Payroll Deduction checks #87083 thru #87087 dated
12/21/01
$363,299.72 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 1/4/02
$29,396.11 Payroll Deduction checks 987269 thru #87275 dated
1/4/02
$781,996.66 Total Payroll
$4,168,,265.71 GRAND TOTAL
Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 770 -4514 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 JanV.doc
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
12/14/2001 10:08:52AM City of Maplewood
Check
Date
Vendor
Description /Account
Amount
56284
12/11/01
01311
P.E.R.A.
ER ID #6120- 00,01,51 - 12/7/01 P/R
39,916.68
56285
12/11/01
01284
POSTMASTER
PERMIT 4903 - MAPLEWOOD IN MOTION
3,000.00
56286
12/18/01
02074
AHL, R CHARLES
REIMBURSE - PARKING 10/18 TO 11/30
22.00
56287
12/18/01
00064
ALDRIDGE, MARK
REIMBURSE - TUITION
665.54
56288
12/18/01
00110
ANDREWS, SCOTT
REIMBURSE - TUITION
658.50
56289
12/18/01
00111
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, INC.
PATROL & BOARDING FEES
975.80
56290
12/18/01
00173
BELDEN, TIM
PIANO TUNED
75.00
56291
12/18/01
00240
C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES
APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECK
50.00
56292
12/18/01
00255
CAPITOL RUBBER STAMP CO.
RUBBER STAMPS
40.47
56293
12/18/01
00272
CARVER, NICHOLAS
REIMBURSE - MEETING FEE 12/4
20.00
56294
12/18/01
00305
COLEMAN, MELINDA
REIMBURSE - BREAKFAST SUPPLIES
296.76
56295
12/18/01
00307
COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONST. CO.
FURNISH & INSTALL (2) 25HP PUMPS
8,283.00
REPAIR SIREN #5
234.50
56296
12/18/01
00330
COPY SERVICE CORP.
SERVICE CONTRACT
148.77
56297
12/18/01
00346
CROSSON, LINDA
REIMBURSE - MILEAGE 11/6 TO 11/9
103.50
56298
12/18/01
00358
D & D TOWING SERVICE INC.
TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE
167.80
TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE
147.80
TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE
94.55
56299
12/18/01
00463
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT.
REPAIR RESCUE 3 VEHICLE
1,969.40
56300
12/18/01
02308
FLAUGHER, JAYME
REIMBURSE - UNIFORM CLOTHING
162.80
56301
12/18/01
02305
GRILL, CARL
INSTALL STORAGE WALL & DOOR
250.00
56302
12/18/01
02149
HERSOM, HEIDI
REIMBURSE - MILEAGE 8/27 TO 11/15
8.28
REIMBURSE - MILEAGE 11/26 TO 12/11
9.66
56303
12/18/01
00682
HORWATH, RON
REIMBURSE - MILEAGE 11/7 TO 11/9
103.50
56304
12/18/01
01916
INSITUFORM TECH USA INC
CURED -IN -PLACE PIPE PROJ 01 -02
91,458.00
56305
12/18/01
02306
ISAKSEN PROMOTIONAL SPECIALTY
GIFT BAG RADIOS
1,065.08
56306
12/18/01
00789
KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE CO
7000 GAL UNLEADED MID -GRADE GAS (
5,784.45
BATTERY CHARGER
75.71
56307
12/18/01
01894
KELLY & FAWCETT PA
LEGAL SERVICES - NOV
9,067.61
PROSECUTION RETAINER FEE - NOV
5
56308
12/18/01
00821
KVAM, DAVID
REIMBURSE TUITION
691.83
56309
12/18/01
00840
LANDE, DAVE
SCHEDULES GYMS FOR BASKETBALL
763.93
56310
12/18/01
00872
LINDORFF, DENNIS
REIMBURSE - UNIFORM CLOTHES
154.98
56311
12/18/01
00891
M.A.M.A.
LUNCHEON MEETING - NOV
16.00
56312
12/18/01
00893
M.A.U.M.A.
M.A.U.M.A. LUNCHEON - 12/20
20.00
56313
12/14/01
00908
M.R.P.A.
MRPA - TIMBERWOLVES - 115 TICKET P
1,152.00
56314
12/18/01
00908
M.R.P.A.
MRPA - BUS TOUR
17.00
56315
12/18/01
00917
MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
CARBIDE BLADE
1,693.35
56316
12/18/01
00932
MAPLEWOOD BAKERY
BIRTHDAY CAKES
71.25
ROLLS FOR LMC
17.87
56317
12/18/01
00942
MARSDEN BLDG MAINTENANCE CO.
EMERGENCY CLEANUP SEWER BACKU
758.17
SEWER BACKUP CLEANING
374.88
56318
12/18/01
02309
MARTIN LAKE CONTRACTING INC
REBUILD PLANTER PROJ 99 -13
240.00
56319
12/18/01
01020
MINNEAPOLIS RAG STOCK CO.
2 - 50# BOXES OF RAGS
70.08
56320
12/18/01
01051
MN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
PRE- EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
390.00
56321
12/18/01
01060
MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC
2002 MEMBERSHIPS
260.00
56322
12/18/01
01117
MUNICILITE COMPANY
2 AMBER PERM /PIPE MOUNTS, STROB
736.55
DAYCO FITTING NET
35.46
56323
12/18/01
01149
NATURAL RESOURCES RESTOR INC
FARM SITE - CLEARING TREES & EXOTI
2,335.00
CUTTING & STUMP TREATING BUCKTH
300.00
56324
12/1.8/01
01961
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
WIRELESS SERVICE
2,127.10
56325
12/18/01
01184
NORTHERN DOOR CO.
SERVICE GARAGE DOORS
97.50
56326
12/18/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF MICHAEL CAMPBELL - MEMBERSHI
133.13
56327
12/18/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF CHRIS JOHNSON - SWIM
45.00
vchlist Check Register Page: 2
12/14/2001 10:08:52AM City of Maplewood
Check Date
56328
12/18/01
56329
12/18/01
56330
12/18/01
56331
12/18/01
56332
12/18/01
56333
12/18/01
56334
12/18/01
56335
12/18/01
56336
12/18/01
56337
12/18/01
56338
12/18/01
56339
12/18/01
56340
12/18/01
Vendor
00001
00001
00001
00001
02270
02103
01289
01313
01345
01337
02239
01359
01340
56341
12/18/01
01388
56342
12/18/01
02222
56343
12/18/01
01484
56344
12/18/01
01527
56345
12/18/01
01569
56346
12/18/01
01574
56347
12/18/01
01889
56348
12/18/01
01860
56349
12/18/01
01190
56350
12/18/01
01798
56351
12/18/01
02307
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONETIME VENDOR
PALDA & SONS INC
PINK BUSINESS INTERIORS INC
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC.
PUMP AND METER SERVICE, INC.
RAMSEY COUNTY
RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV
REFLECTIONS PRINTING INC
REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL
REGIONS HOSPITAL
ROSSMAN, KEITH
SHEFFIELD, OLSON & MCQUEEN INC
SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS
STEFFEN, SCOTT
SWEET COMPUTER SERVICES, INC
T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
VOYAGEURS AREA COUNCIL
WORDEN, KRISTEN
XCEL ENERGY
YOCUM OIL CO.
YORKOVICH, JOHN
Description /Account
REF KATHERINE O'GRADY - PROGRAM
REF MARY ACOSTA - CHILD CARE
REF JUSTINA HENDRICKSON - PROGRA
REF PERRY FEDERS - PROGRAM
PROJ 01 -04 BUSH AVE PYMT #2
STORAGE UNITS & WALL TRACK
PRAIRIE MANAGEMENT
PUMP DIESEL SUMP & DISPOSAL FEE
TAX FORFEITED LAND PURCH PROJ 01
DATA PROCESSING - OCT
2001 WINTER NEWSLETTER
CAR WASHES
2001 MEDICAL DIRECTION FEE
PARAMEDIC TRAINING
MCC INSTRUCTOR
DCRP & FLEX PLAN WEEKLY PYMT
RADIAN IS RECEIVER KIT RENTAL
REIMBURSE - UNIFORM
UPGRADE TO AMAZON BILLING STAND
VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NO
CADET LAW ENFORCEMENT CONFEREI`
SKETCHES & INK DRAWINGS
MONTHLY UTIL STMT 12/5/01
FUEL FOR ENGINE 2
BASKETBALL CLINIC INSTRUCTOR
Amount
40.00
39.65
6.00
5.00
126,871.17
682.30
260.24
226.81
9,246.70
1,007.50
1,858.43
187.42
21,828.00
110.00
400.00
658.62
532.50
55.49
2,939.80
562.00
435.00
332.00
33,645.80
42.11
100.00
68 Checks in this report Total checks: 384,678.78
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date P a�ree
Description
11/30/01
12/07/01
Elan Financial Services
Purchasing card items
12/07/01
12/07/01
MN Dept of Natural Resources
DNR electronic licenses
12/10/01
12/11/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
12/10/01
12/11/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
12/07/01
12/11/01
MN State Treasurer
State Payroll Tax
12/11/01
12/12/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
12/11/01
12/12/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
12/12/01
12/13/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
12/12/01
12/13/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
12/13/01
12/14/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
12/13/01
12/14/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
12/14/01
12/17/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
12/14/01
12/17/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
TOTAL
Amount
17,720.75
1,188.50
631.00
11,405.75
14, 705.48
1,138.00
20,200.15
577.75
12,628.38
410.00
6,639.00
350.00
6,183.25
'JV, / I V.V 1
3
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
12/21/2001 10:31:29AM City of Maplewood
Check
Date
56352
12/17/01
56353
12/20/01
56354
12/26/01
Vendor
02285 KELLY & FAWCETT, PA TRUST ACCT
00891 M.A.M.A.
00070 ALLIED PLASTICS, INC.
56355
12/26/01
00081
AMERICAN DESIGNER CLASSICS
56356
12/26/01
02310
ANDERSON CABINETS
56357
12/26/01
00111
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, INC.
56358
12/26/01
02311
BACCHUS HOMES INC
56359
12/26/01
00152
BANICK, JOHN
56360
12/26/01
00159
BARTZ, PAU L
56361
12/26/01
00171
56362
12/26/01
02312
56363
12/26/01
00198
56364
12/26/01
00216
56365
12/26/01
02313
56366
12/26/01
02314
56367
12/26/01
00241
56368
12/26/01
00354
56369
12/26/01
00360
56370
12/26/01
00463
BEHAN, JAMES
BERTHIAUME, KIM
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A.
CARLSON, BOB
CONTROLLED F.O.R.C.E. INC
CSI SOFTWARE
CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS, INC.
D.C. SALES CO., INC.
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT.
56371
12/26/01
00531
FRA -DOR BLACK DIRT & RECYCLE
56372
12/26/01
00539
FREEDOM VALU CENTER
56373
12/26/01
02319
GERNES, CAROL
56374
12/26/01
02318
GERNES, MARK
56375
12/26/01
00584
GOPHER STAGE LIGHTING
56376
12/26/01
00585
GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL
56377
12/26/01
00588
GRACE, DUANE
56378
12/26/01
02320
56379
12/26/01
00648
56380
12/26/01
00669
56381
12/26/01
00719
56382
12/26/01
02316
56383
12/26/01
00750
56384
12/26/01
02232
HACKSETH, NATHAN
HESC
HILLTOP TRAILER SALES INC
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. #622
INSIGNIART PLAQUES OF PRIDE
JAMES STEELE CONSTRUCTION
JOHN, GREG
Description /Account
PURCH PROPERTY AT 209 E LARPENTE
8 HOLIDAY LUNCHEONS 12/20/01
PLASTIC WINDSHIELDS
PLASTIC WINDSHIELDS
REF GRADING ESC - 2644 PROMONTOR
REPLACE DRAWER GLIDES
INSTALL FILE DRAWER GLIDES
PATROL & BOARDING FEES
REF GRADING ESCROW - 2626 KELLER I
REIMBURSE - TUITION & BOOKS
.REIMBURSE MEALS -11/24 TO 11/30
REIMBURSE MEALS -12/1 TO 12/7
REIMBURSE - MILEAGE 11/5 TO 11/14
PROF PICTURES FOR MARKETING
MONTHLY WATER UTIL - NOV
LEGAL FEES ON 2001 BOND ISSUE
BASKETBALL REFEREE
3 DAY INSTRUCTOR TRAINING
2500 CARDS - KEY TAGS, CAMERA
STROBE TUBE ASSEMBLY
FILTERS
PUMP TEST ENGINE 1
PUMP TEST ENGINE 2
PUMP TEST ENGINE 4
PUMP TEST ENGINE 7
PUMP TEST RESCUE 1
PUMP TEST RESCUE 2
PUMP TEST RESCUE 3
PUMP TEST RESCUE 7
PUMP TEST TANKER 4
BLACK DIRT
CAR WASHES
BOTANICAL INVENTORY OF PLANTS
PROF GARDENING SRVS - KOHLMAN P
PROF GARDENING SRVS - KOHLMAN P
LIGHT BULBS
TICKETS LOCATED
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
PLAN REVIEWS
REIMBURSE - HAZMAT CLASS
DRUG & ALCOHOL COLLECTION FEES
SO OFFICE TRAILER RENTAL - DEC
MIXED BLOOD PERFORMANCE FLYER
PATCH PLAQUES
MCC EXPANSION - APPL #9
DJ ENTERTINMENT
Amount
145, 632.46
160.00
493.74
444.74
1,050.14
110.00
279.00
1,025.36
1,049.18
664.56
8.00
14.71
17.07
1,000.00
776:51
7,350.00
117.00
350.00
1,170.00
40.74
93.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
269.00
275.00
269.00
250.00
250.00
90.53
102.00
600.00
180.00
120.00
213.15
4.65
5,823.45
6,122.15
1,877.65
8,215.95
4,632.30
958.70
- 2,303.84
-65.00
3,846.25
552.95
243.75
200.00
410.03
165.40
172.90
19,652.00
300.00
vchlist
12/21/2001
10:31:29AM
Check Register
City of Maplewood
Page: 2
Check Date
56385 12/26/01
56386 12/26/01
Vendor
00779 K.D. HOMES
00912 M.T.I. DISTRIBUTING CO.
56387
12/26/01
00932
56388
12/26/01
02317
56389
12/26/01
00942
56390
12/26/01
02145
56391
12/26/01
02082
56392
12/26/01
01090
56393
12/26/01
01088
56394
12/26/01
01126
56395
12/26/01
01175
56396
56397
56398
56399
56400
56401
56402
56403
56404
56405
56406
56407
56408
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
12/26/01
00001
00001
00001
00001
00001
00001
01311
01238
02270
01909
01284
00396
01324
MAPLEWOOD BAKERY
MAPLEWOOD POLICE BENEFIT FUND
MARSDEN BLDG MAINTENANCE CO.
MCDONALD HOMEBUILDING COLLAB
MICRO WAREHOUSE INC
MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 612001
NORTH ST. PAUL, CITY OF
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
P.E.R.A.
PAKOY, EUGENE F
PALDA & SONS INC
PARKOS CONSTRUCTION CO
POSTMASTER
PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF
RCCF GREENHOUSE, NURSERY
56409
12/26/01
00069
RISK MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
56410
12/26/01
01397
RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING CO.
56411
12/26/01
02222
SHEFFIELD, OLSON & MCQUEEN INC
56412
12/26/01
01468
SLABA, JACLEE
56413
12/26/01
01473
SMITH DIVING
56414
12/26/01
01537
STREAMLINE DESIGN INC.
56415
12/26/01
01560
SUPERIOR SERVICES INC
56416
12/26/01
02110
TEVLIN, TODD
56417
12/26/01
01698
UNITED WAY OF THE ST. PAUL
56418
12/26/01
01709
VASKO RUBBISH REMOVAL
56419
12/26/01
01724
VOICE TREK
56420
12/26/01
01734
WALSH, WILLIAM P.
56421
12/26/01
01749
WATER TECHNOLOGY INC
56422
12/26/01
01750
WATSON CO INC, THE
56423
12/26/01
01764
WESTLING, TOM
56424
12/26/01
01860
WORDEN, KRISTEN
Description /Account
REF GRADING ESC - 2525 BETH CT E
MISC SUPPLIES
MISC SUPPLIES
BIRTHDAY CAKES
REFUND OF MONEY RECEIVED 1 -24 -97
WATER LEAK AT 1897 EDGERTON ST
REF GRADING ESC - 838 NEW CENTUR
REF GRADING ESC - 830 NEW CENTUR
REF GRADING ESC - 2711 SNOWDRIFT (
REF GRADING ESC - 2717 RED SPLEND
REF GRADING ESC - 2691 SNOWDRIFT (
REF GRADING ESC - 822 NEW CENTUR
DIGITAL CAMERA & SCANNER
MAINT SUPPLIES
COLLECTION SYS OPER CONF
PERA LIFE INS (P /R DED IN DEC)
MONTHLY UTILITIES 11/13 TO 12/6
SEWER & SECURITY LIGHT 11/15 TO 12
REF HELENMARY CONLEY - MEMBERSH
REF COLLEEN MCCORMICK - MEMBERS
REF MARY BOROWSKE - MEMBERSHIP
REF CHARLES HURLEY - DBL CHARGE
REF JON OLSON - MEMBERSHIP
REF KELLY ROSENTHAL - MEMBERSHI
ER ID #6120-00,01,51 - 12/21/01 P/R
INSPECTIONS
PROJ 99 -12 APPL #3 - RIPLEY AVE
GLADSTONE FIRE STATION APPL #10
BULK PERMIT 4903 & 625 RENEWALS
POLICE MGMT COURSE
PROJ 99 -13 BARTLEMY ACRES RAI NWA7
PROJ 99 -07 HAZELWOOD ST - PLANTS
PROJ 99 -07 HAZELWOOD ST - PLANTS
PROJ 99 -13 BARTELMY ACRES PLANTS
PROJ 99 -08 KNOLLWOOD CIR - PLANTS
COMMISSION PYMT TO COLLECTIONS
COMMISSION PYMT TO COLLECTIONS
COMMISSION PYMT TO COLLECTIONS
ANNUAL TESTING
DCRP & FLEX PLAN WEEKLY PYMTS
POSTERS LAMONT CRANSTON
BASIC SCUBA CLASS
BASIC SCUBA CLASS
BLACK BAGS
T -SHIRT
RECYCLING - NOV
UNIFORM
QUARTERLY PAYMENT
RUBBISH DUMPSTER
VOICE TREK CONCERT
COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSPECTIONS
ANNUAL SEMINAR 1/16 & 1/17/02
MERCH FOR RESALE
TENNIS INSTRUCTOR TRAINING
KIOSK DRAWINGS
Amount
2,569.79
4.85
67.38
85.50
2,209.71
1,966.50
1,071.23
1,070.41
1,061.10
1,039.73
1,027.40
1,018.49
1,534.06
57:64
707.00
225.00
1,250.67
620.21
149.10
140.00
127.80
60.00
40..00
30.00
40, 049.26
18, 693.95
6,769.83
37,809.05
250:00
180.00
3,453.80
575.10
154.43
73.49
1,677.38
222.46
179.14
103.94
3,865.00
1,154.21
110.00
385.00
385.00
48.00
14.00
16,472.58
180.96
802.50
335.00
4,863.00
2,204.60
350.00
216.26
50.00
226.93
vchlist
12/21/2001
e 's
10:31:29AM
Check Register
City of Maplewood
Page: 3
Check Date Vendor
Description /Account Amount
73 Checks in this report Total checks: 376,262.62
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date P ayee
12/07/01
12/14/01
Elan Financial Services
12/14/01
12/14/01
MN Dept of Natural Resources
12/17/01
12/18/01
MN State Treasurer
12/17/01
12/18/01
MN State Treasurer
12/14/01
12/18/01
CBSA
12/18/01
12/19/01
MN State Treasurer
12/18/01
12/19/01
MN State Treasurer
12/12/01
12/19/01
MN Dept of Revenue
12/19/01
12/20/01
MN State Treasurer
12/19/01
12/20/01
MN State Treasurer
12/20/01
12/21/01
MN State Treasurer
12/20/01
12/21/01
MN State Treasurer
12/12/01
12/21/01
MN Dept of Revenue
TOTAL
Description Amount
Purchasing card items
78,435.31
DNR electronic licenses
416.00
Drivers License #697
559.50
Deputy Registrar #149
7
Dental Claims
430.90
Drivers License #697
619.50
Deputy Registrar #149
11,011.97
Sales Tax
8
Drivers License #697
396.50
Deputy Registrar #149
7
Drivers License #697
545.75
Deputy Registrar #149
5
Fuel Tax
317.00
1 GG ,�77J.JJ
7
vchlist ,
12/28/2001
11::01:12AM
Check Register
City of Maplewood
Page:
Check
date
Vendor
Description /Account
Amount
56425
12/31/01
00018
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
MONTHLY CELLULAR PHONE CHARGES
121.99
56426
12/31/01
01908
ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF
INTERNET EMAIL - NOV 2001
374.85
56427
12/31/01
02321
ALEXANDRIA TECHNICAL COLLEGE
FIREARMS TRAINING COURSE
500.00
56428
12/31/01
01996
ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEMS
PRE - EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
130.00
56429
12/31/01
01811
BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC
MERCH FOR RESALE
402.00
MERCH FOR RESALE
160.80
56430
12/31/01
02167
BUNCE, LARRY
LADE COUNTRY CHAPTER MTG
15.00
56431
12/31/01
00272
CARVER, NICHOLAS
LAKE COUNTY CHAPTER MTG
15.00
56432
12/31/01
02071
FISHER, DAVID
LAKE COUNTY CHAPTER MTG
15.00
56433
12/31/01
00527
FOREST PRODUCTS SUPPLY CO.
STAMP HOLDER
50.00
56434
12/31/01
02319
GERNES, CAROL
BOTANICAL INVENTORY OF WILLOW
600.00
56435
12/31/01
00589
GRAF, DAVE
KARATE INSTRUCTOR
153.00
56436
12/31/01
01856
HAAG, MARK
SAFETY SHOES
165.00
56437
12/31/01
00483
IDEACOM MID- AMERICA
SERVICED EXECUTONE SYSTEM
375.75
SERVICED EXECUTONE SYSTEM
90.53
SERVICED EXECUTONE SYSTEM
136.00
SERVICED EXECUTONE SYSTEM
228.00
SERVICED EXECUTONE SYSTEM
940.20
SERVICED EXECUTONE SYSTEM
881.03
ACTIVATED TDD JACK
114.00
REPROGRAMMED MAILBOX
98.00
2 IDS MODE TELEPHONES & INSTALLA
1
56438
12/31/01
01605
INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCH, THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM -10/31/01
350.00
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM - 12/4
350.00
56439
12/31/01
00782
KPMG LLP
ANNUAL AUDIT YEAR ENDING 12/31/01
5,000.00
56440
12/31/01
00906
M.P.E.L.R.A.
MPELRA/LMC WINTER CONFERENCE
140.00
56441
12/31/01
00912
M.T.I. DISTRIBUTING CO.
ADAPTER KIT
33.84
56442
12/31/01
00888
M/A ASSOCIATES
DETERGENT
222.68
56443
12/31/01
00917
MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
9 CARBIDE BLADES
1,308.35
56444
12/31/01
00932
MAPLEWOOD BAKERY
MERCH FOR RESALE - NOV
361.90
MERCH FOR RESALE - OCT
340.72
56445
12/31/01
02053
MCI WORLDCOM
LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CHARGE
37.42
56446
12/31/01
01819
MCLEOD USA
LOCAL PHONE BILL
5,096.99
56447
12/31/01
01819
MCLEOD USA
INTERNET - EMERGENCY MGMT
71.15
INTERNET - EDGERTON
101.58
INTERNET - STATION 7
101.66
INTERNET - STATION 1
71.07
INTERNET - STATION 4
484.40
INTERNET - MALL
101.64
INTERNET - PUBLIC WORKS
71.15
INTERNET - NATURE CENTER
71.75
56448
12/31/01
01023
MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC
DUI VEHICAL ADMIN FORFEITURE FORKo
24.05
TRAFFIC CODE & CRIMINAL ELEMENT B
1,570.25
56449
12/31/01
00395
NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPT OF
DNR FEES
7.00
56450
12/31/01
02322
OHIO UNIVERSITY
MN K -9 UNIT MGMT COURSE
295.00
56451
12/31/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF LISA HEESCHEN - MEMBERSHIP
45.00
56452
12/31/01
01254
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
MERCH FOR RESALE
340.80
MERCH FOR RESALE
383.90
MERCH FOR RESALE
189.85
56453
12/31/01
01678
QWEST
LOCAL PHONE SERVICE
1,687.28
LOCAL PHONE SERVICE
1
56454
12/31/01
01360
REINHART FOODSERVICE
MERCH FOR RESALE
244.71
MERCH FOR RESALE
351.12
MERCH FOR RESALE CREDIT
-20.90
vch l ist Check Register Page: 2:
12/28/2001 11:01:12AM City of Maplewood
Check
Date
Vendor
STREICHER'S
j 56454
12/31/01
01360
REINHART FOODSERVICE
56455
12/31/01
02222
SHEFFIELD, OLSON & MCQUEEN INC
56456
12/31/01
01463
SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE
56457
12/31/01
01504
ST PAUL, CITY OF
56458
12/31/01
01538
STREICHER'S
56459
12/31/01
01580
TS E, INC.
56460
12/31/01
02323
UNITED WAY - 911 FUND
56461
12/31/01
01698
UNITED WAY OF THE ST. PAUL
56462
12/31/01
01704
URBANSKI, HOLLY
!
56463
12/31 /01
01734
WALSH, WILLIAM P.
56464
12/31/01
01755
WEBER ELECTRIC
56465
12/31/01
01876
WHAT WORKS INC
41
Checks in this report
Description /Account
(Continued)
MERCH FOR RESALE
MERCH FOR RESALE CREDIT
DCRP & FLEX PLAN WEEKLY PYMTS
MCC MASSAGES - NOV
RADIO SRV & MAINT - NOV 2001
RADIO SRV & MAINT - NOV 2001
CRIME LAB SERVICES - NOV
HYDRANT RENTAL & WATER
RES #02 -8697 2001 ST PAUL SEWER MA
RES #02- 7254 -BASED ON 2001 SEWER N
MAINT SANITARY LIFT STAT- PARKWAY
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
POLICE SUPPLIES
POLICE SUPPLIES
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
SILENT AUCTION & BOOK SALE
BAKE SALE & WALLYBALL PROCEEDS
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 8/1 TO 12/20
COMMERCIAL PLUMBING - INSPECTIONS
INSTALL CCTV SYSTEM
STAFF RETREAT.
Total checks:
Amou
362.31
-78.70
112.90
2,357.00
123.00
3,369.65
280.00
123.65
1,123.00
5,009.91
12, 600.35
2,312.35
71.25
23.38
750.19
234.96
321.25
7.87
125.00
4,347.74
2,500.00
63,51 0.61
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Paxee
Description
Amount
12/21/01
12/21/01
MN Dept of Natural Resources
DN R electronic licenses
647.00
12/21/01
12/24/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
446.75
12/21/01
12/24/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
6
12/21/01
12/24/01
U.S. Treasurer
Federal Payroll Tax
77,694.96
12/21/01
12/24/01
MN State Treasurer
State Payroll Tax
14,414.40
12/21/01
12/24/01
Elan Financial Services
Purchasing card items
26,491.15
12/21/01
12/24/01
Federal Reserve Bank
Savings Bonds
350.00
12/24/01
12/26/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
481.75
12/24/01
12/26/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
9
12/26/01
12/27/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
128.00
12/26/01
12/27/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
2,310.88
12/21/01
12/27/01
CBSA
Dental Claims
657.50
12/21/01
12/27/01
WI Dept of Revenue
State Payroll Tax
1
12/27/01
12/28/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
621.00
12/27/01
12/28/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
7
12/28/01
12/31/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
646.00
12/28/01
12/31/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
8,363.36
TOTAL
1589165.52
vchlist Check Register Page:
01/04/2002 11:02:49AM City of Maplewood
Check Date
56466
1/2/02
56467
1/2/02
56468
1/2/02
56469
1/2/02
56470
1/2/02
56471
1/8/02
56472
1/8/02
56473
1/8/02
56474
1/8/02
56475
1/8/02
56476
1/8/02
56477
1/8/02
56478
1/8/02
56479
1/8/02
Vendor
Description /Account
00644
00966
01085
02203
02207
01024
00174
00178
01811
00198
00211
00230
00384
00463
HEALTHPARTNERS
MEDICA CHOICE
MN LIFE INSURANCE
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LTD
DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF MN
AGRICULTURE, DEPT OF
BELDE, STAN
BERGGREN, GORDON
BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
BRAUN INTERTEC CORP.
BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC.
DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT.
MONTHLY PREMIUM
MONTHLY PREMIUM
MONTHLY PREMIUM
MONTHLY PREMIUM
MONTHLY PREMIUM
2002 RENEW LIC - NON COMM PESTICI
K -9 HANDLER
NAME SIGNS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MERCH FOR RESALE
4TH QTR WATER UTILITIES
PROF SRVS - SUBSURFACE EXPLORAT
66.09 TONS GRAVEL
COPY MACHINE RENTAL
REPAIR RESCUE VEHICLE #1
REPAIR ENGINE 1
REGISTRATION FEE -2002 GFOA CONF
2002 MEMBERSHIP
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 10/9 TO 12/17
SAFETY SHOES
REFLECTIVE SAFETY VEST (M -LG)
TOOLS & HARDWARE FOR REELS & MA
K -9 HANDLER
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 12/3 TO 12/19
GYM SUPWRENTAL
MOTOROLA CDM250 VHF RADIO
SEALED OLD WELL AT 215 E LARPENTE
3RD QUARTERLY W/C INSURANCE
QUARTERLY INSURANCE INSTALLMEN
MN CRIME PREVENTION ASSOC
2002 MEMBERSHIP
M.G.F.O.A. MEMBERSHIP RENEWALS
2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES
2002 CHARITABLE GAMBLING ALLOCATI
2002 CHARITABLE GAMBLING ALLOCATI
HARDWARE /SOFTWARE MAINT - JAN
WASTEWATER - JAN
MONTHLY SAC - DEC
SAFETY BOOTS
ASSAULT INVESTIGATION PHOTOS
6 RUBBER CHAIRS
2002 MPSA MEMBERSHIP
MONTHLY SURTAX - DEC
2002 CHARITABLE GAMBLING ALLOCATI
THREE- POSITION RADIO CONSOLE, TA
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 11/1 TO 12/31
MAPLEWOOD IN MOTION
REF BIRGIT OOM - INS PAID AMBULANC
REF MIKE KARGEL - ROOM DEPOSIT
REF JANE MEYER - MEMBERSHIP
REF JACKIE HIGGINS - MEMBERSHIP
REF COLLEEN NELSON - MEMBERSHIP
REF JOHN KLINGNER - MEMBERSHIP
REF GINA CHILDS - ICE SKATING
ER ID #6120- 00,01,51 - 1/4/02 P/R
56480
1/8/02
00499
56481
1/8/02
00510
56482
1/8/02
00555
56483
1/8/02
00568
56484
1/8/02
02278
56485
1/8/02
00649
56486
1/8/02
00668
56487
1/8/02
00681
56488
1/8/02
00719
56489
1/8/02
00723
56490
.1/8/02
01857
56491
1/8/02
00827
56492
1/8/02
00828
56493
1/8/02
01081
56494
1/8/02
00902
56495
1/8/02
00901
56496
1/8/02
00906
56497
1/8/02
00936
56498
1/8/02
02328
56499
1/8/02
00945
56500
118/02
00985
56501
1/8/02
00986
56502
1/8/02
00988
56503
1/8/02
00997
56504
1/8/02
01090
56505
1/8/02
01052
56506
1/8102
01028
56507
1/8/02
02174
56508
1/8/02
01111
56509
1/8/02
01156
56510
1/8102
01202
56511
1/8/02
00001
56512
1/8/02
00001
56513
1/8/02
00001
56514
1/8/02
00001
56515
1/8/02
00001
56516
1/8/02
00001
56517
1/8/02
00001
56518
1/8/02
01311
FAUST, DANIEL
FIRE MARSHALS ASSN. OF MINN.
GAYNOR, VIRGINIA
GERMAI N, DAVE
HEAD LITES CORP
HEFFERNAN, PATRICK
HIEBERT, STEVEN
HORSNELL, JUDITH
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. #622
INFINITY WIRELESS
JOHNSON BROS WELL DRILLING
L.M.C.I.T.
L.M.C.I.T.
M.C.P.A.
M.E.M.A.
M.G. F.O.A.
M.P.E.L.R.A.
MAPLEWOOD HISTORICAL SOCIETY
MARROW FOUNDATION
MASYS CORP
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
MEYER, GERALD
MIDWEST CHILDREN'S RESOURCE CT
MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT
MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSOC.
MN STATE TREASURER STAX
MOM'S CLUB MAPLEWOOD NORTH
MOTOROLA, INC
NELSON, JEAN
NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
ONE TIME VENDOR
P.E.R.A.
Amount
37, 308.14
49,117.13
2,904.68
2,724.82
6,949.00
10.00
35.00
30.00
281.40
75.29
11,950.00
420.21
328.54
133.80
794.55
275.00
35.00
93.01
153.00
4,506.23
159.27
35.00
26.05
983.50
3,329.32
758.00
29,284.50
38,689.50
30.00
75.00
120.00
150.00
4,340.00
2,000.00
738.68
162, 339.50
29,601.00
165.00
22.80
543.15
35.00
2,441.37
500.00
17,157.78
63.68
2,508.96
425.57
300.00
95.85
74.55
31.95
30.00
22.00
40,193.53
vchlist
01/04/2002
11:02 :49AM
Check Register
City of Maplewood
Page: 2
Check
Date
Vendor
Description /Account
Amount
56519
1/8/02
01250
PECK, DENNIS
PARKING & 3 EASEMENTS
26.95
56520
1/8/02
01254
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
MERCH FOR RESALE
424.50
MERCH FOR RESALE
520.85
56521
1/8/02
01329
R.L.S. SPORTSWEAR INC.
156 BALL HATS -
2,340.00
MFDDUD UNIFORM COAT
2,278.80
EMBROIDERY ON EMERG MGMT SHIR
115.25
56522
1/8/02
01931
RAMSEY COUNTY FAIR BOARD
2002 CHARITABLE GAMBLING ALLOCATI
1,000.00
56523
1/8/02
01337
RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV
PLANTS - NATURE CTR DEMO GARDENS
958.50
MISC NATIVE PLANTS
303.53
56524
118/02
01360
REINHART FOODSERVICE
MERCH FOR RESALE
495.52
MERCH FOR RESALE
329.65
56525
1/8/02
01373
ROBBINS, AUDRA
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 11/1 TO 12/28
33.81
56526
1/8/02
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 01 -14 DESIGN SRVS - NOV 2001
2,377.08
PROJ 01 -19 PROF SERVICES - NOV 20
1,783.34
56527
1/8/02
01418
SAM'S CLUB DIRECT
RETURN EXECUTIVE CHAIR
-89.99
PROGRAM SUPPLIES
216.14
GLOVES, GLUE, BASKETBALLS
194.21
MERCH FOR RESALE
132.34
FUND RAISER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
71.96
MERCH FOR RESALE
56.34
PROGRAM SUPPLIES
41.72
MERCH FOR RESALE
183.92
MERCH FOR RESALE
8.96
SNACKS
88.65
SNACKS
90.63
RAMSEY CHIEF MEETING SUPPLIES
59.87
MERCH FOR RESALE
93.54
56528
1/8/02
02296
SCHNITKER & ASSOCIATES
PROJ 01 -19 LEGAL SERVICES - OCT
229.50
PROJ 01 -19 LEGAL SRVS - NOV
850.00
56529
1/8/02
01426
SCHULTZ, SCOTT
UNIFORM
169.98
56530
1/8/02
02222
SHEFFIELD, OLSON & MCQUEEN INC
DCRP & FLEX PLAN WEEKLY PYMT
1,109.78
56531
1/8/02
01864
SIGN ART COMPANY INC
REPAIR SIGN
175.50
56532
1/8/02
01473
SMITH DIVING
SNORKELING CLASS INSTRUCTORS
105.00
56533
1/8/02
01504
ST PAUL, CITY OF
4 TONS ASPHALT
109.14
56534
1/8/02
01550
SUMMIT INSPECTIONS
ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS
3,884.80
56535
1/8/02
01574
T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS NO
211.13
56536
1/8/02
02164
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
PROJ 01 -04 PROF SRVS THRU 10/31
13,612.76
PROJ 01 -16 PROF SRVS THRU 10/31/01
3,158.94
56537
1/8/02
01635
TOWER ASPHALT
WINTER PATCHING MIX
191.25
56538
1/8/02
01577
TR COMPUTER SALES, LLC
2002 PERMIT WORKS LIC & SUPPORT
2,015.87
56539
1/8/02
02326
UNGER, MARGARET
ART SUPPLIES
150.00
56540
1/8/02
02290
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - STD
SHORT TERM DISABILITY - JAN
931.99
56541
1/8/02
02165
URS / BRW INC
PROJ 01 -11 MALL STUDY THRU 10/12/01
28,997.96
PROJ 01 -15 CTY RD D IMPRV THRU 10
22,142.37
PROJ 01 -10 PROF SRVS THRU 11/9
11,288.50
PROJ 01 -11 MALL TRAFFIC STUDY THR
5,319.56
PROJ 01 -15 CTY RD D IMPRV THRU 11/9
15,297.63
56542
1/8/02
01732
WAKOTA MUTUAL AID ASSOC.
2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES
25.00
56543
1/8/02
02327
WASHINGTON SOIL & WATER CONS
DOGWOOD SHRUBS
22.50
56544
1/8/02
01750
WATSON CO INC, THE
MERCH FOR RESALE
701.36
56545
1/8/02
01807
ZWIEG, SUS
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 12/17 TO 12/27
1 8Y63
80 Checks in this report Total checks : 580,250.53
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee
12/28/01
12/28/01
Wells Fargo
12/21/01
12/28/01
Elan Financial Services
12/28/01
12/31/01
MN Dept of Natural Resources
12/31/01
01/02/02
MN State Treasurer
12/31/01
01/02/02
MN State Treasurer
01/02/02
01/03/02
MN State Treasurer
01/02/02
01/03/02
MN State Treasurer
01/03/02
01/04/02
MN State Treasurer
01/03/02
01/04/02
MN State Treasurer
01/04/02
01/07/02
MN State Treasurer
01/04/02
01/07/02
MN State Treasurer
01/04/02
01/07/02
U.S. Treasurer
TOTAL
Description Amount
Investment Purchase
1
Purchasing card items
27,414.67
DNR electronic licenses
1
Drivers License #697
901.50
Deputy Registrar #149
11,254.00
Drivers License #697
808.50
Deputy Registrar #149
11,653.75
Drivers License #697
921.50
Deputy Registrar #149
11,257.08
Drivers License #697
1,019.50
Deputy Registrar #149
11
Federal Payroll Tax
77,413.56
1
13
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
MAI
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
12/21/01
ALLENSPACH, SHERRY
339.27
dd
12/21/01
COLLINS, KENNETH
339.27
dd
12/21/01
KOPPEN, MARVIN
339.27
dd
12/21/01
FURSIVIAN, RICHARD
4,195.60
dd
12/21/01
DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT
251.25
dd
12/21/01
OSTER, ANDREA
1
dd
12/21/01
CARLSON, THERESE
1,921.31
dd
12/21/01
LE, SHERYL
3,3 61.92
dd
12/21/01
FAUST, DANIEL
3
dd
12/21/01
URBANSKI, HOLLY
1,525.54
dd
12/21/01
ANDERSON, CAROLE
1,303.85
dd
12/21/01
BAUMAN, GAYLE
2481.89
dd
12/21/01
JACKSON, MARY
1,575.94
dd
12/21/01
KELSEY, CONNIE
676.61
dd
12/21/01
TETZLAFF, JUDY
1
dd
12/21/01
DARST, ROBERTA
1
dd
12/21 /01
FRY, PATRICIA
1;497.94
dd
12/21/01
GUILFOILE, KAREN _
2,203.3 8
dd
12/21/01
CAROE, JEANETTE
1-438.34
dd
12/21/01
JAGOE, CAROL
1,444.89
dd
12/21/01
JOHNSON, BONNIE
.882.64
dd
12/21/01
OLSON, SANDRA
883.89
dd
12/21/01
WEAVER, KRISTINE
936.45
dd
12/21/01
CORCORAN, THERESA
1
dd
12/21/01
MARTINS ON, CAROL
1, 805.00
dd
12/21 /01
POWELL, PHILIP
1 9 793.07
dd
12/21/01
THOMALLA, DAVID
2
dd
12/21/01
WINGER, DONALD
3
dd
12/21/01
ALDRIDGE, MARK
2,172.52
dd
12/21/01
ANDREWS, SCOTT
2
dd
12/21/01
BAKKE, LONN
2,286.29
dd
12/21/01
BANICK, JOHN
2,743.10
dd
12/21/01
BELDE, STANLEY
2
dd
12/21/01
BOHL, JOHN
2
dd
12/21/01
BOWMAN, RICK
2
dd
12/21/01
BUSACK, DANIEL
1
dd
12/21/01
HALWEG, KEVIN
2,853.29
dd
12/21/01
HEINZ, STEPHEN
2
dd
12/21/01 -
HERBERT, MICHAEL
2
dd
12/21/01
HIEBERT, STEVEN
2,489.24
dd
12/21/01
JOHNSON, KEVIN
2
dd
12/21/01
KARIS, FLINT
2,549.48
dd
12/21/01
KROLL, BRETT
2,976.30
dd
12/21/01
KVAM, DAVID
2,630.47
MAI
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
15
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
as
12/21 /01
LARSON, DANIEL
1,879.31
dd
12/21/01
LU, JOHNNIE
1
dd
12/21/01
MARINO, JASON
2
dd
12/21/01
MARTIN, JERROLD
2J08.50
dd
12/21/01
OLSON, JULIE
1,849.66
dd
12/21/01
PIKE, GARY
2
dd
12/21/01
RABBETT, KEVIN
2,504.96
dd
12/21/01
STEFFEN, SCOTT
3
dd
12/21/01
STOCKTON, DERRELL
2,260.60
dd
12/21/01
SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS
2,484.93
dd
12/21/01
WATCZAK, LAURA
2
dd
12/21/01
WENZEL, JAY
1
dd
12/21/01
XIONG, KAO
205.42
dd
12/21/01
BERGERON, JOSEPH
3
dd
12/21/01
CROTTY, KERRY
2
dd
12/21/01
DUNN, ALICE
2
dd
12/21/01
ERICKSON, VIRGINIA
2
dd
12/21/01
FLOR, TIMOTHY
2
dd
12/21/01
FRASER, JOHN
2,279.53
dd
12/21/01
HALWEG, JODI
1,496.40
dd
12/21/01
MORNING, TIMOTHY
1,410.02
dd
12/21/01
PALMA, STEVEN
2
dd
12/21/01
PARSONS, KURT
1
dd
12/21/01
ROSSMAN, DAVID
2,104.74
dd
12/21/01
THIEVES, PAUL
2,162.21
dd
12/21/01
GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE
2
dd
12/21/01
BOYER, SCOTT
2,190.59
dd
12/21/01
FEHR, JOSEPH
1,688.92
dd
12/21/01
FLAUGHER, JAYME
1,910.24
dd
12/21/01
HOM, HEATHER
1
dd
12/21/01
LAFFERTY, WALTER
2
dd
12/21/01
LINN, BRYAN
1
dd
12/21 /01
PACOLT, MARSHA
1 10 772.31
dd
12/21/01
RABINE, JANET
1
dd
12/21/01
STAHNKE, JULIE
L615.14
dd
12/21/01
CALLAHAN, COLLEEN
1
dd
12/21/01
SPANGLER, EDNA
607.75
dd
12/21/01
LUKIN, STEVEN
2,790.06
dd
12/21/01
SVENDSEN, RUSTIN
2
dd
12/21/01
ZWIEG, SUSAN
1
dd
12/21/01
AHL, R. CHARLES
3
dd
12/21 /01
NIVEN, AMY
627.17
dd
12/21/01
PRIEFER, WILLIAM
2,076.74
dd
12/21/01
WEGWERTH, JUDITH
1,555.14
dd
12/21/01
BRINK, TROY
1
dd
12/21/01
DEBILZAN, THOMAS
1,395.94
15
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
16
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
12/21/01
EDGE, DOUGLAS
1,583.74
dd
12/21/01
KANE, MICHAEL
2,822.34
dd
12/21/01
LUNDSTEN, LANCE
2
dd
12/21/01
LUTZ, DAVID
L611.94
dd
12/21/01
MEYER, GERALD
1,686.02
dd
12/21/01
NAGEL, BRYAN
1,617.94
dd
12/21/01
OSWALD, ERICK
1,634.94
dd
12/21/01
TEVLIN, TODD
1,350.98
dd
12/21/01
CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER
2,634.33
dd
12/21/01
DUCHARME, JOHN
1,932.74
dd
12/21/01
PECK, DENNIS
2,514.32
dd
12/21/01
PRIEBE, WILLIAM
2,027.94
dd
12/21/01
ANDERSON, BRUCE
3
dd
12/21/01
DOHERTY, KATHLEEN
1
dd
12/21/01
MARUSKA, MARK
2 3 8 8.84
dd
12/21/01
SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES
1
dd
12/21/01
GREW- HAYMAN, JANET
1,212.45
dd
12/21/01
HORSNELL, JUDITH
1
dd
12/21/01
HUTCHINSON, ANN
1,853.54
dd
12/21/01
NELSON, JEAN
907.90
dd
12/21/01
GAYNOR, VIRGINIA
L510.34
dd
12/21/01
COLEMAN, MELINDA
3
dd
12/21/01
EKSTRAND, THOMAS
2,213.16
dd
12/21/01
KROLL, LISA
907.47
dd
12/21/01
LIVINGSTON, JOYCE
863.00
dd
12/21/01
SINDT, ANDREA
1
dd
12/21/01
THOMPSON, DEBRA
553.58
dd
12/21/01
YOUNG, TAMELA
1
dd
12/21/01
BERGO, CHAD
1
dd
12/21/01
FINWALL, SHANN
1
dd
12/21/01
ROBERTS, KENNETH
2,087.94
dd
12/21/01
CARVER, NICHOLAS
2,151.14
dd
12/21/01
FISHER, DAVID
2,417.62
dd
12/21/01
ANZALDI, MANDY
122.50
dd
12/21/01
FLUG, ELAINE
37.00
dd
12/21/01
FLUG, MEGAN
123.75
dd
12/21/01
GRAF, MICHAEL
1,477.14
dd
12/21/01
KELLY, LISA
1,109.72
dd
12/21/01
ROBBINS, AUDRA
1
dd
12/21/01
TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS
2
dd
12/21/01
BREHEIM, ROGER
1,623.94
dd
12/21/01
NORDQUIST, RICHARD
1
dd
12/21/01
OTIS, MARY ELLEN
634.54
dd
12/21/01
SCHULTZ, SCOTT
1
dd
12/21/01
COLEMAN, PHILIP
381.42
dd
12/21/01
CROSSON, LINDA
1,881.54
16
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
17
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
12/21/01
EASTMAN, THOMAS
2,195.14
dd
12/21/01
ERICKSON, KYLE
628.65
dd
12/21/01
HABLE, NATASHA
3 03.5 7
dd
12/21/01
HERSOM, HEIDI
L516.74
dd
12/21/01
MCCLUNG, HEATHER
850.01
dd
12/21/01
SKRYPEK, JOSHUA
663.75
dd
12/21/01
STAPLES, PAULINE
2
dd
12/21/01
ATKINS, KATHERINE
105.38
dd
12/21/01
CORNER, AMY
80.40
dd
12/21/01
HASSENSTAB, DENISE
165.00
dd
12/21/01
HORWATH, RONALD
1,18 5.54
dd
12/21/01
KOEHNEN, AMY
39.60
dd
12/21/01
WHITE, NICOLE
59.42
dd
12/21/01
WORWA, LINDSAY
198.76
dd
12/21/01
RENSLOW, RITA
242.81
dd
12/21/01
REILLY, MICHAEL
1
dd
12/21/01
SCHLINGMAN, PAUL
1
dd
12/21/01
SEEGER, GERALD
410.11
dd
12/21/01
SWANSON, LYLE
1
dd
12/21/01
YOUNG, DILLON
637.16
dd
12/21/01
HURLEY, STEPHEN
2
Wf
86920
12/21/01
CARDINAL, ROBERT
385.50
Wf
86921
12/21/01
WASILUK, JULIE
339.27
Wf
86922
12/21/01
INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS
50.00
Wf
86923
12/21/01
CUDE, LARRY
511.46
Wf
86924
12/21/01
GENNOW, PAMELA
395.00
Wf
86925
12/21 /01
MATHEYS, ALANA
1,679.31
Wf
86926
12/21/01
HANSEN, LORI
1
Wf
86927
12/21/01
VIETOR, LORRAINE
1
Wf
86928
12/21/01
BEHM, GERALD
18.00
Wf
86929
12/21/01
BREIDENSTEIN, ANNA
128.00
Wf
86930
12/21/01
BROWN, DONNA
136.00
Wf
86931
12/21/01
EINEKE, JOHN
18.00
Wf
86932
12/21/01
SPANGLER, ROBERT
124.00
Wf
86933
12/21 /01
PALANK, MARY
1, 8 05.00
Wf
86934
12/21/01
RICHIE, CAROLE
1,577.29
Wf
86935
12/21/01
SVENDSEN, JOANNE
1,655.42
Wf
86936
12/21/01
TICHY, PAMELA
72.00
Wf
86937
12/21/01
ABEL, CLINT
1
Wf
86938
12/21/01
BARTZ, PAUL
2
Wf
86939
12/21/01
HALEY, BRANDON
2,077.59
Wf
86940
12/21/01
KONG, TOMMY
1
Wf
86941
12/21/01
STEINER, JOSEPH
180.00
Wf
86942
12/21/01
WELCHLIN, CABOT
2
Wf
86943
12/21/01
EVERSON, PAUL
1
Wf
86944
12/21/01
MEEHAN, JAMES
2,360.56
17
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
iT.3
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
Wf
86945
12/21/01
SHORTREED, MICHAEL
2
Wf
86946
12/21/01
MONROY, JON
3
Wf
86947
12/21/01
SCHWAB, TAHIRAH
418.94
Wf
86948
12/21/01
FREBERG, RONALD
1,666.14
Wf
86949
12/21/01
JONES, DONALD
1,419.94
Wf
86950
12/21/01
ELIAS, JAMES
2,067.94
Wf
86951
12/21/01
LINDBLOM, RANDAL
1,932.74
Wf
86952
12/21/01
EDSON, DAVID
1,642.38
Wf
86953
12/21/01
HELEY, ROLAND
1,639.14
Wf
86954
12/21/01
HINNENKAMP, GARY
1,611.94
Wf
86955
12/21/01
LINDORFF, DENNIS
1
Wf
86956
12/21/01
NAUGHTON, JOHN
1,270.34
Wf
86957
12/21/01
NOVAK, MICHAEL
1
Wf
86958
12/21/01
GERNES, CAROLE
206.25
Wf
86959
12/21/01
SOUTTER, CHRISTINE
101.25
Wf
86960
12/21/01
BUNCE, LARRY
1,645.54
Wf
86961
12/21/01
WENGER, ROBERT
2,109.54
Wf
86962
12/21/01
ANDERSON, MIKE
10.50
Wf
86963
12/21/01
BJORK, BRANDON
208.13
Wf
86964
12/21/01
BJORK, THEODORE
85.00
Wf
86965
12/21/01
BOTHWELL, KRISTIN
99.00
Wf
86966
12/21/01
CHOINIERE, ROBERT
31.50
Wf
86967
12/21/01
CHRISTIANSON, SARA
171.25
Wf
.86968
12/21/01
FINN, GREGORY
1,561.74
Wf
86969
12/21/01
FRANK, LAURA
314.50
Wf
86970
12/21/01
GORE, MICHAEL
31.50
Wf
86971
12/21/01
JAWORSKI, ERIC
31.50
Wf
86972
12/21/01
KAREL, BRADLEY
44.00
Wf
86973
12/21/01
KIMLINGER, LAURA
29.00
Wf
86974
12/21/01
KINNING, KATIE
28.00
Wf
86975
12/21/01
KRIER, JOHN
33.00
Wf
86976
12/21/01
LANDS, DAVID
48.00
Wf
86977
12/21/01
LIUKONEN, SHAWN
21.50
Wf
86978
12/21/01
LUSHANKO, ADAM
60.00
Wf
86979
12/21/01
MARTINUCCI, ERIN
15.00
Wf
86980
12/21/01
MCBRIDE, PATRICK
75.00
Wf
86981
12/21/01
MICK, KYLE
32.25
Wf
86982
12/21/01
NIEMCZYK, ANTHONY
48.00
Wf
86983
12/21/01
NIEMCZYK, BRIAN
75.00
Wf
86984
12/21/01
O'GRADY, BENJAMIN
21.75
Wf
86985
12/21/01
OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN
332.75
Wf
86986
12/21/01
PETERSON, BRYNN
19.50
Wf
86987
12/21/01
RASMUSSEN, DAVID
11.00
Wf
86988
12/21/01
RICHARDSON, LARA
176.00
Wf
86989
12/21/01
SHERRILL, MASON
90.00
Wf
86990
12/21/01
SHOBERG, KARI
153.75
iT.3
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
86991
12/21/01
SIKORA, JACOB
42.00
wf
86992
12/21/01
SIKORA, LEAH
29.00
wf
86993
12/21/01
SIKORA, PAUL
86.00
wf
86994
12/21/01
THOMAS, RUSSELL
44.00
wf
86995
12/21/01
WALSH, JESSICA
28.00
wf
86996
12/21/01
WILLIAMS, ERICA
13.00
wf
86997
12/21/01
YORKOVICH, BRADLEY
27.00
wf
86998
12/21/01
ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH
21.00
wf
86999
12/21/01
GERMAIN, DAVID
1
wf
87000
12/21/01
HAAG, MARK
1
wf
87001
12/21/01
NADEAU, EDWARD
2
wf
87002
12/21/01
GLASS, JEAN
1,053.52
wf
87003
12/21/01
HOIUM, SHEILA
924.51
wf
87004
12/21/01
MOY, PAMELA
354.50
wf
87005
12/21/01
PARTLOW, JOSHUA
191.70
wf
87006
12/21/01
SCHMIDT, RUSSELL
1
wf
87007
12/21/01
SHOBERG, CARY
647.79
wf
87008
12/21/01
UNGER, MARGARET
671.08
wf
87009
12/21/01
VELASQUEZ, ANGELA
227.38
wf
87010
12/21/01
AHL, KAREN
81.25
wf
87011
12/21/01
BADEN, ALISON
39.88
wf
87012
12/21/01
BERINGER, JASON
61.88
wf
87013
12/21/01
BURGESS, JOHN
21.13
wf
87014
12/21/01
CHAPMAN, JENNY
293.09
wf
87015
12/21/01
COSTA, JOSEPH
137.20
wf
87016
12/21/01
DEMPSEY, BETH
164.40
wf
87017
12/21/01
DIERICH, ANDREA
123.50
wf
87018
12/21/01
DUNK, RYAN
121.88
wf
87019
12/21/01
ERICKSON, CAROL
43.50
wf
87020
12/21/01
FIERRO WESTBERG, MELINDA
10.05
wf
87021
12/21 /01
FONTAINE, KIM
227.70
wf
87022
12/21/01
GREENWALT, SARAH
465.44
wf
87023
12/21/01
GRUENHAGEN, LINDA
184.95
wf
87024
12/21/01
HAWKE, ASHLEY
282.13
wf
87025
12/21/01
HEINN, REBECCA
374.00
wf
87026
12/21/01
HEXUM, AMANDA
58.00
wf
87027
12/21/01
HOLMGREN, LEAH
96.00
wf
87028
12/21/01
HOULE, DENISE
160.40
wf
87029
12/21/01
IRISH, KARL
150.70
wf
87030
12/21/01
JOHNSON, ROBERT
220.88
wf
87031
12/21/01
JOHNSON, SUSAN
81.00
wf
87032
12/21/01
JOVONOVICH, TODD
97.63
wf
87033
12/21 /01
JOYER, MARTI
115.38
wf
87034
12/21/01
KASPERSON, LISA
178.75
wf
87035
1 2/21 /01
KOEHNEN, MARY
653.70
wf
87036
12/21/01
KROLL, MARK
108.80
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
S�J
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
Wf
87037
12/21 /01
KRONHOLM, KATHRYN
194.60
Wf
87038
12/21/01
MCMAHON, MELISSA
205.28
Wf
87039
12/21/01
MONSEN, LISA
107.25
Wf
87040
12/21/01
MOSSONG, ANDREA
446.97
wf
87041
12/21/01
O'REAGAN, CHRISTINE
90.63
Wf
87042
12/21/01
PEHOSKI, JOEL
113.40
Wf
87043
12/21/01
SCHAEFER, ROB
29.11
Wf
87044
12/21/01
SENGLAUB, MARGARET
46.88
Wf
87045
12/21/01
SIMONSON, JUSTIN
265.63
Wf
87046
12/21/01
SMITLEY, SHARON
271.50
Wf
87047
12/21/01.
SWANER, JESSICA
276.56
Wf
87048
12/21/01
TUPY, MARCUS
146.00
Wf
87049
12/21/01
WARNER, CAROLYN
127.60
Wf
87050
12/21/01
WEDES, CARYL
120.60
Wf
87051
12/21/01
WOODMAN, ALICE
203.75
Wf
87052
12/21/01
BOSLEY, CAROL
211.93
Wf
87053
12/21/01
GROPPOLI, LINDA
260.75
Wf
87054
12/21/01
HANSEN, ANNA
43.20
Wf
87055
12/21/01
HUPPERT, ERICA
334.55
Wf
87056
12/21/01
KONECZNY, JENNA
42.00
Wf
87057
12/21/01
KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE
51.00
Wf
87058
12/21/01
LARKIN, JENNIFER
5 8.5 0
Wf
87059
12/21/01
SCHROEDER, KATHLEEN
308.00
Wf
87060
12/21/01
SHERRILL, CAITLIN
142.00
Wf
87061
12/21/01
VAN HALE, PAULA
12.00
Wf
87062
12/21/01
BEHAN, JAMES
1,368.74
Wf
87063
12/21/01
DIXON, NICOLE
29.48
Wf
87064
12/21/01
DOUGLASS, TOM
428.75
Wf
87065
12/21/01
HEGG, MICHELLE
222.70
Wf
87066
12/21/01
JAHN, DAVID
1,403.94
Wf
87067
12/21/01
KOSKI, JOHN
1,071.86
Wf
87068
12/21 /01
KYRK, ASHLEY
36.25
Wf
87069
12/21/01
LESLIE, DUSTIN
178.10
Wf
87070
12/21/01
LONETTI, JAMES
796.43
Wf
87071
12/21/01
MORIN, TROY
150.00
Wf
87072
12/21/01
PATTERSON, ALBERT
816.49
Wf
87073
12/21/01
PETERSON, LYNDSAY
73.15
Wf
87074
12/21 /01
PRINS, KELLY
676.57
Wf
87075
12/21/01
SARPONG, SEAN
129.50
Wf
87076
12/21/01
SCHMIDT, WILLIAM
246.05
Wf
87077
12/21/01
SCHULZE, BRIAN
271.13
Wf
87078
12/21/01
SEVERSON, HOLLY
166.25
Wf
87079
12/21/01
ZIEMER, NICOLE
32.75
Wf
87080
12/21/01
AICHELE, CRAIG
916.54
Wf
87081
12/21/01
MULVANEY, DENNIS
1,845.14
Wf
87082
12/21/01
PRIEM, STEVEN
1
S�J
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT
362,146.84
21
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
22
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
01/04/02
COLLINS, KENNETH
357.47
dd
01/04/02
KOPPEN, MARVIN
357.47
M
01/04/02
FURSMAN, RICHARD
4
dd
01/04/02
OSTER, ANDREA
1,555.14
dd
01/04/02
CARLSON, THERESE
1,904.28
dd
01/04/02
LE, SHERYL
3
dd
01/04/02
FAUST, DANIEL
3,630.30
dd
01/04/02
URBANSKI, HOLLY
1,525.54
dd
01/04/02
ANDERSON, CAROLE
1
dd
01/04/02
BAUMAN, GAYLE
2A1.89
dd
01/04/02
JACKSON, MARY
1, 5 7 5.94
dd
01/04/02
KELSEY, CONNIE
1
dd
01/04/02
TETZLAFF, JUDY
1,3 91.94
dd
01/04/02
DARST, ROBERTA
1,080.74
dd
01/04/02
FRY, PATRICIA
1
dd
01/04/02
GUILFOILE, KAREN
2 5 328.38
dd
01/04/02
CAROE, JEANETTE
1,438.34
dd
01/04/02
JAGOE, CAROL
1
dd
01/04/02
JOHNSON, BONNIE
945.94
dd
01/04/02
OLSON, SANDRA
811.87
dd
01/04/02
WEAVER, KRISTINE
989.16
dd
01/04/02
CORCORAN, THERESA
1,578.60
dd
01/04/02
MARTINSON, CAROL
1,809.00
dd
01/04/02
POWELL, PHILIP
1
dd
01/04/02
THOMALLA, DAVID
2,893.94
dd
01/04/02
WINGER, DONALD
3
dd
01/04/02
ALDRIDGE, MARK
2
dd
01/04/02
ANDREWS, SCOTT
2,498.86
dd
01/04/02
BAKKE, LONN
2,111.87
dd
01/04/02
BANICK, JOHN
2
dd
01/04/02
BELDE, STANLEY
2,351.12
dd
01/04/02
BOHL, JOHN
2,435.05
dd
01/04/02
BOWMAN, RICK
2,301.20
dd
01/04/02
BUSACK, DANIEL
1,825.48
dd
01/04/02
HALWEG, KEVIN
2,769.49
dd
01/04/02
HEINZ, STEPHEN
2
dd
01/04/02
HERBERT, MICHAEL
2
dd
01/04/02
HIEBERT, STEVEN
2,631.71
dd
01/04/02
JOHNSON, KEVIN
2,810.80
dd
01/04/02
KARIS, FLINT
2,594.54
dd
01/04/02
KONG, TOMMY
1
dd
01/04/02
KROLL, BRETT
1
dd
01/04/02
KVAM, DAVID
2,484.75
dd
01/04/02
LARSON, DANIEL
2337.57
22
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
23
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
01/04/02
LU, JOHNNIE
1,873.30
dd
01/04/02
MARINO, JASON
1,578.61
dd
01/04/02
MARTIN, JERROLD
1
dd
01/04/02
OLSON, JULIE
1,936.87
dd
01/04/02
PIKE, GARY
2,444.84
dd
01/04/02
RABBETT, KEVIN
2
dd
01/04/02
STEFFEN, SCOTT
2;737.38
dd
01/04/02
STOCKTON, DERRELL
2,202.09
dd
01/04/02
SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS
2,301.20
dd
01/04/02
WATCZAK, LAURA
2
dd
01/04/02
WENZEL, JAY
1,901.70
dd
01/04/02
XIONG, KAO
1,429.05
dd
01/04/02'
BERGERON, JOSEPH
2,722.18
dd
01/04/02
CROTTY, KERRY
2,182.27
dd
01/04/02
DUNK, ALICE
2
dd
01/04/02
ERICKSON, VIRGINIA
2
dd
01/04/02
FLOR, TIMOTHY
2,222.41
dd
01/04/02
FRASER, JOHN
2,406.50
dd
01/04/02
HALWEG, JODI
1
dd
01/04/02
MORNING, TIMOTHY
1,593.84
dd
01/04/02
PALMA, STEVEN
2
dd
01/04/02
PARSONS, KURT
1,806.52
dd
01/04/02
ROSSMAN, DAVID
2
dd
01/04/02
THIENES, PAUL
2,241.74
dd
01/04/02
GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE
2,121.83
dd
01/04/02
BOYER, SCOTT
2
dd
01/04/02
FEHR, JOSEPH
2
dd
01/04/02
FLAUGHER, JAYME
1,718.43
dd
01/04/02
HOM, HEATHER
1,771.85
dd
01/04/02
LAFFERTY, WALTER
1,870.90
dd
01/04/02
LINN, BRYAN
1,534.90
dd
01/04/02
PACOLT, MARSHA
1,772.31
dd
01/04/02
RABINE, JANET
789.00
dd
01/04/02
STAHNKE, JULIE
L615.14
dd
01/04/02
CALLAHAN, COLLEEN
1,985.93
dd
01/04/02
SPANGLER, EDNA
702.42
dd
01/04/02
LUKIN, STEVEN
2,790.06
dd
01/04/02
SVENDSEN, RUSTIN
2,227.89
dd
01/04/02
ZWIEG, SUSAN
1
dd
01/04/02
DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT
251.25
dd
01/04/02
AHL, R. CHARLES
3,5 62.11
dd
01/04/02
NIVEN, AMY
631.17
dd
01/04/02
PRIEFER, WILLIAM
2
dd
01/04/02
WEGWERTH, JUDITH
L555.14
dd
01/04/02
BRINK, TROY
1
dd
01/04/02
DEBILZAN, THOMAS
1,684.34
23
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
24
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
01/04/02
EDGE, DOUGLAS
1
dd
01/04/02
KANE, MICHAEL
2,258.34
dd
01/04/02
LUNDSTEN, LANCE
3,484.09
dd
01/04/02
LUTZ, DAVID
1,973.89
dd
01/04/02
MEYER, GERALD
1
dd
01/04/02
NAGEL, BRYAN
1,817.28
dd
01/04/02
OSWALD, ERICK
1,973.31
dd
01/04/02
TEVLIN, TODD
1
dd
01 /04/02
CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER
2
dd
01/04/02
DUCHARME, JOHN
1,932.74
dd
01/04/02
PECK, DENNIS
2,599.80
dd
01/04/02
PRIEBE, WILLIAM
2,139.66
dd
01/04/02
ANDERSON BRUCE
3,420.74
dd
01/04/02
D OHERTY, KATHLEEN
L555.14
dd
01/04/02
MARUSKA, MARK
2,258.34
dd
01/04/02
SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES
1,611.94
dd
01/04/02
GREW- HAYMAN, JANET
1
dd
01/04/02
HORSNELL, JUDITH
957.09
dd
01/04/02
HUTCHINSON, ANN
1,853.54
dd
01/04/02
NELSON, JEAN
960.28
dd
01/04/02
GAYNOR, VIRGINIA
1
dd
01/04/02
COLEMAN, MELINDA
3,553.40
dd
01/04/02
EKSTRAND, THOMAS
2,213.16
dd
01/04/02
KROLL, LISA
907.47
dd
01/04/02
LIVINGSTON, JOYCE
793.16
dd
01/04/02
SINDT, ANDREA
1,226.34
dd
01/04/02
THOMPSON, DEBRA
603.92
dd
01/04/02
YOUNG, TAMELA
1
dd
01/04/02
BERGO, CHAD
1
dd
01/04/02
FINWALL, SHANN
1
dd
01/04/02
ROBERTS, KENNETH
2
dd
01/04/02
CARVER, NICHOLAS
2,151.14
dd
01/04/02
FISHER, DAVID
2417.62
dd
01/04/02
ANZALDI, MANDY
21.00
dd
01/04/02
FLUG, MEGAN
115.50
dd
01/04/02
GRAF, MICHAEL
1,477.14
dd
01/04/02
KELLY, LISA
1,066:92
dd
01/04/02
MCBRIDE, PATRICK
60.00
dd
01/04/02
ROBBINS, AUDRA
1,447.14
dd
01/04/02
TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS
2,272.59
dd
01/04/02
BREHEIM, ROGER
1,643.72
dd
01/04/02
NORDQUIST, RICHARD
1,727.79
dd
01/04/02
OTIS, MARY ELLEN
699.18
dd
01/04/02
SCHULTZ, SCOTT
1
dd
01/04/02
COLEMAN, PHILIP
390.64
dd
01/04/02
CRO S S ON, LINDA
1
24
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS. EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
25
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
01/04/02
EASTMAN, THOMAS
2,195.14
dd
01/04/02
ERICKSON, KYLE
467.26
dd
01/04/02
HABLE, NATASHA
438.62
dd
01/04/02
HERSOM, HEIDI
1
dd
01/04/02
MCCLUNG, HEATHER
742.01
dd
01/04/02
SKRYPEK, JOSHUA
328.50
dd
01/04/02
STAPLES, PAULINE
2
dd
01/04/02
CORNER, AMY
40.20
dd
01/04/02
HASSENSTAB, DENISE
100.00
dd
01/04/02
HORWATH, RONALD
I ,185.54
dd
01/04/02
KOEHNEN, AMY
59.40
dd
01/04/02
MARUSKA, ERICA
246.76
dd
01/04/02
WHITE, NICOLE
82.20
dd
01/04/02
WORWA, LINDSAY
94.63
dd
01/04/02
RENSLOW, RITA
173.44
dd
01/04/02
REILLY, MICHAEL
1,268.74
dd
01/04/02
SCHLINGMAN, PAUL
1, 8 82.34
dd
01/04/02
SEEGER, GERALD
397.39
dd
01/04/02
SWANSON, LYLE
1,570.62
dd
01/04/02
YOUNG, DILLON
776.54
dd
01/04/02
HURLEY, STEPHEN
3,758.47
wf
87092
01/04/02
CARDINAL, ROBERT
406.20
wf
87093
01/04/02
JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN
357.47
wf
87094
01/04/02
WASILUK, JULIE
357.47
wf
87095
01/04/02
HENSLEY, PATRICIA
84.00
wf
87096
01/04/02
ZICK, LINDA
391.00
wf
87097
01/04/02
INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS
62.50
wf
87098
01/04/02
EDSON, KAREN
906.25
wf
87099
01/04/02
GENNOW, PAMELA
252.50
wf
87100
01/04/02
MATHEYS, ALANA
1,679.31
wf
87101
01/04/02
HANSEN, LORI
1,360.19
wf
87102
01/04/02
VIETOR, LORRAINE
1,544.81
wf
87103
01/04/02
PALANK, MARY
1,629.67
wf
87104
01/04/02
RICHIE, CAROLE
1,516.91
wf
87105
01/04/02
SVENDSEN, JOANNE
1,857.79
wf
87106
01/04/02
TICHY, PAMELA
66.00
wf
87107
01/04/02
ABEL, CLINT
1
wf
87108
01/04/02
BARTZ, PAUL
2,287.19
wf
87109
01/04/02
HALEY, BRANDON
1
wf
87110
01/04/02
STEINER, JOSEPH
180.00
wf
87111
01/04/02
WELCHLIN, CABOT
2,202.09
wf
87112
01/04/02
EVERSON, PAUL
1,734.24
wf
87113
01/04/02
MEEHAN, JAMES
2
wf
87114
01/04/02
SHORTREED, MICHAEL
2,546.74
wf
87115
01/04/02
SCHWAB, TAHIRAH
382.16
wf
87116
01/04/02
CUDE, LARRY
403.46
25
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
26
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
87117
01/04/02
FREBERG, RONALD
1,977.70
wf
87118
01/04/02
JONES, DONALD
104.34
wf
87119
01/04/02
ELIAS, JAMES
2,067.94
wf
87120
01/04/02
LINDBLOM, RANDAL
1,932.74
wf
87121
01/04/02
EDSON, DAVID
1,773.96
wf
87122
01/04/02
HELEY, ROLAND
1
wf
87123
01/04/02
HINNENKAMP, GARY
1,814.56
wf
87124
01/04/02
LINDORFF, DENNIS
1,611.94
wf
87125
01/04/02
NAUGHTON, JOHN
027.94
wf
87126
01/04/02
NOVAK, MICHAEL
1
wf
87127
01/04/02
SOUTTER, CHRISTINE
47.25
wf
87128
01/04/02
BUNCE, LARRY
1
wf
87129
01/04/02
WENGER, ROBERT
2,109.54
wf
87130
01/04/02
ANDERSON, MIKE
42.00
wf
87131
01/04/02
BANICK, STEVE
42.00
wf
87132
01/04/02
BJORK, BRANDON
108.76
wf
87133
01/04/02
BJORK, THEODORE
42.50
wf
87134
01/04/02
CHOINIERE, ROBERT
21.00
wf
87135
01/04/02
CHRISTIANSON, SARA
268.00
wf
87136
01/04/02
ECKER, JEFF
55.00
wf
87137
01/04/02
- FINN, GREGORY
1
wf
87138
01/04/02
FITCH, CYNTHIA
41.00
wf
87139
01/04/02
FRANK, LAURA
250.75
wf
87140
01/04/02
FRANK, SARAH
45.50
wf
87141
01/04/02
FURLONG, MICHAEL
52.50
wf
87142
01/04/02
GEBHARD, JILLIAN
148.50
wf
87143
01/04/02
GORE, MICHAEL
42.00
wf
87144
01/04/02
HOLDER, RYAN
46.00
wf
87145
01/04/02
HORNER. KIMBERLY
26.00
wf
87146
01/04/02
JAWORSKI, ERIC
31.50
wf
87147
01/04/02
KAREL, BRADLEY
22.00
wf
87148
01/04/02
KLEM, JOSH
40.00
wf
87149
01/04/02
KRIER, JOHN
33.00
wf
87150
01/04/02
MARTINUCCI, ERIN
22.50
wf
87151
01/04/02
MARTINUCCI, KAITLIN
39.00
wf
87152
01/04/02
MICK, KYLE
43.00
wf
87153
01/04/02
MILLER, SHELBY
26.00
wf
87154
01/04/02
NIELSEN, ABBY
30.75
wf
87155
01/04/02
NIEMCZYK, ANTHONY
48.00
wf
87156
01/04/02
NIEMCZYK, BRIAN
60.00
wf
87157
01/04/02
O'GRADY, BENJAMIN
21.75
wf
87158
01/04/02
OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN
384.00
wf '
87159
01 /04/02
PETERSON, BRYNN
19.50
wf
87160
01/04/02
RAJAN, RAJIU
33.00
wf
87161
01/04/02
RASMUSSEN, DAVID
22.00
wf
87162
01/04/02
REICHLING, DANIEL
42.00
26
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
27
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
87163
01/04/02
SHERRILL, MASON
24.00
wf
87164
01/04/02
SHOBERG, KARI
129.38
Wf
87165
01/04/02
SIKORA, JACOB
31.50
Wf
87166
01/04/02
SIKORA, LEAH
54.75
wf
87167
01/04/02
SIKORA, PAUL
64.50
Wf
87168
01/04/02
SPENCER, WILLIAM
30.00
Wf
87169
01/04/02
UNGAR, KRISTOPHER
30.25
Wf
87170
01/04/02
WALSH, JESSICA
21.00
Wf
87171
01/04/02
WILLIAMS, ERICA
13.00
Wf
87172
01/04/02
YORKOVICH, BRADLEY
45.00
Wf
87173
01/04/02
ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH
28.00
Wf
87174
01/04/02
GERMAIN, DAVID
1,727.79
Wf
87175
01/04/02
HAAG, MARK
1,632.96
Wf
87176
01/04/02
NADEAU, EDWARD
2
Wf
87177
01/04/02
GLASS, JEAN
1
wf
87178
01/04/02
HOIUM, SHEILA
896.86
Wf
87179
01/04/02
JONES, ANN
68.00
Wf
87180
01/04/02
MOY, PAMELA
332.24
Wf
87181
01/04/02
PARTLOW, JOSHUA
298.20
Wf
87182
01/04/02
POWERS, NICOLE
67.05
Wf
87183
01/04/02
RIDLEHOOVER, KATE
156.45
Wf
87184
01/04/02
S CHMIDT, RUSSELL
1,43 0.18
Wf
87185
01/44/02
SHOBERG, CARP
1 631.26
Wf
87186
01/04/02
UNGER, MARGARET
663.81
Wf
-87187
01/04/02
VELASQUEZ, ANGELA
367.76
Wf
87188
01 /04/02
AHL, KAREN
42.25
Wf
87189
01/04/02
BACHMAN, NICOLE
58.22
Wf
87190
01/04/02
BADEN, ALISON
184.88
Wf
87191
01/04/02
BITTNER, KATIE
72.25
Wf
87192
01/04/02
BRENEMAN, NEIL
19.65
Wf
87193
01/04/02
BURGESS, JOHN
21.13
Wf
87194
01/04/02
CHAPMAN, JENNY
217.42
Wf
87195
01/04/02
COSTA, JOSEPH
58.80
Wf
87196
01/04/02
DEGRAW, KRYSTAL
438.69
Wf
87197
01/04/02
DEMPSEY, BETH
100.25
Wf
87198
01/04/02
DIERICH, ANDREA
29.25
Wf
87199
01/04/02
DUNK, RYAN
79.63
Wf
87200
01/04/02
ERICKSON, CAROL
43.50
Wf
87201
01/04/02
ESTES, KERI
101.25
wf
87202
01/04/02
FONTAINE, KIM
85.80
Wf
87203
01/04/02
GREENWALT, SARAH
177.65
Wf
87204
01/04/02
GRUENHAGEN, LINDA
164.40
Wf
87205
01/04/02
HAGGERTY, KATHRYN
92.20
Wf
87206
01/04/02
HAWKE, ASHLEY
360.83
Wf
87207
01/04/02
HEINN, REBECCA
263.02
wf
87208
01/04/02
HEXUM, AMANDA
58.00
27
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
87209
01/04/02
HOLMGREN, LEAH
379.45
wf
87210
01/04/02
HOULE, DENISE
140.35
wf
87211
01/04/02
HUPPERT, ERIN
224.00
wf
87212
01/04/02
IRISH, KARL
17.13
wf
87213
01/04/02
JOHNSON, ROBERT
135.38
wf
87214
01/04/02
JOVONOVICH, TODD
71.00
wf
87215
01/04/02
JOYER, MARTI
61.75
wf
87216
01/04/02
KASPERSON, LISA
71.50
wf
87217
01/04/02
KERSCHNER, JOLENE
316.88
wf
87218
01/04/02
KOEHNEN, MARY
463.21
wf
87219
01/04/02
KROLL, MARK
54.40
wf
87220
01/04/02
KRONHOLM, KATHRYN
142.48
wf
87221
01/04/02
MCMAHON, MELISSA
210.45
wf
87222
01/04/02
MONSEN, LISA
39.00
wf
87223
01/04/02
MOSSONG, ANDREA
347.48
wf
87224
01/04/02
PEHOSKI, JOEL
86.40
wf
87225
01/04/02
POWERS, JESSICA
240.95
wf
87226
01/04/02
SIMONSON, JUSTIN
178.00
wf
87227
01/04/02
SMITLEY, SHARON
185.40
wf
87228
01/04/02
SWANER, JESSICA
245.59
wf
87229
01/04/02
TUPY, HEIDE
36.00
wf
87230
01/04/02
TUPY, MARCUS
143.50
wf
87231
01 /04/02
WARNER, CAROLYN
107.00
wf
87232
01/04/02
WEDES, CARYL
100.50
wf
87233
01/04/02
WELTER, ELIZABETH
139.69
wf
87234
01/04/02
WHITE, TIMOTHY
137.81
wf
87235
01/04/02
WOODMAN, ALICE
155.00
wf
87236
01/04/02
BOSLEY, CAROL
201.11
wf
87237
01/04/02
BREITBACH, GARY
2,110.50
wf
87238
01/04/02
ERVIN, EMILY
12.00
wf
87239
01/04/02
ESALA, HOPE
12.00
wf
87240
01/04/02
GROPPOLI, LINDA
178.80
wf
87241
01/04/02
HANSEN, ANNA
32.40
wf
87242
01/04/02
HUPPERT, ERICA
272.75
wf
87243
01/04/02
KONECZNY, JENNA
12.00
wf
87244
01/04/02
KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE
24.00
wf
87245
01/04/02
LARKIN JENNIFER
22.75
wf
87246
01/04/02
SCHROEDER, KATHLEEN
184.80
wf
87247
01/04/02
SHERRILL, CAITLIN
96.00
wf
87248
01/04/02
VAN HALE. PAULA
24.00
wf
87249
01/04/02
BEHAN, JAMES
1,368.74
wf
87250
01/04/02
DOUGLASS, TOM
383.50
wf
87251
01/04/02
HEGG, MICHELLE
248.90
wf
87252
01/04/02
JAHN, DAVID
1,480.59
Wf
87253
01/04/02
KOSKI, JOHN
1
wf
87254
01/04/02
KYRK, ASHLEY
36.25
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
29
CHECK ##
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
Wf
87255
01/04/02
LESLIE, DUSTIN
143.85
Wf
87256
01/04/02
LONETTI, JAMES
796.43
wf
87257
01 /04/02
MORIN, TROY
153.00
wf
87258
01/04/02,
PATTERSON, ALBERT
784.67
Wf
87259
01/04/02
PETERSON, LYNDSAY
99.75
Wf
87260
01/04/02
PRINS, KELLY
483.60
Wf
87261
01/04/02
SARPONG, SEAN
294.05
wf
87262
01/04/02
SCHMIDT, WILLIAM
206.15
Wf
87263
01/04/02
SCHULZE, BRIAN
225.80
Wf
87264
01/04/02
SEVERSON, HOLLY
103.08
wf
87265
01/04/02
YOUNG, MATTHEW
13 5.5 5
wf
87266
01/04/02
AICHELE, CRAIG
1
wf
87267
01/04/02
MULVANEY, DENNIS
1 845.14
Wf
87268
01/04/02
PRIEM, STEVEN
1
363,299.72
29
Date
Endo rsed
To: City Manager Richard Fursman
F rom : • Chief Donald Win Modified
ge ,�,r
j ecte r
Subject: Donation to D.A. R. E. Program
Date: December 17, 2001 77M
Introduction
The Maplewood Police Department has received a $50 donation for the D.A. R. E.
program from Hill- Murray School, 2625. E. Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood.
Background J
On December 14, 2001, Maplewood D.A. R. E. Officers received a $50 donation from
Hill- Murray School. It was specified that this donation be used for the D.A. R. E.
program.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Maplewood Police Department be allowed to accept this
donation and that the necessary budget adjustments be made so that it may be used
for the D.A. R. E. program.
Action Regui=
Submit to the City Council for review and approval.
DSW:js
AGENDA frtM N04
AGENDA REPORT
To: City Manager Richard Fursrpan
l�
From: Chief Donald Winger1v�
Subject: National Night Out Award
Date: December 18, 2001
,Acs; ;_� ` �U I1
D atc, -
Endors
Modified
Rejected
�
n#rnrl i i off i n n
The City of Maplewood has received an award from the National Association of Town
Watch for its participation in the 2001. National Night Out program.
Background
National Night Out is an event that has been held for the past several years, and the
Maplewood Police Department has always participated in it. The philosophy behind
National Night Out is that neighbors get together to fight crime in their neighborhoods.
In recent years, the event has moved to the City Hall campus, and all City departments
and various groups and businesses also participate.
Maplewood submitted its 2001 program to the National Association of Town Watch
Award Panel for consideration. We were recently notified that we were a National
Award Winner and placed 40th in Category 3 (cities of 30,000- 99,999 population).
According to the National Association of Town Watch, they had their largest event ever,
with 33 million people in 9,700 communities participating.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City f Maplewood accept the plaque from the National
Y p p p q
Association of Town Watch and that the employees and groups who participated in the
2001 National Night Out program be recognized for their help in making the event a
success.
Action Required
Submit to the City Council for review and approval.
DSW:js
AGENDA REPORT
To: City Manager Richard i-ursman
`From: Chief Donald Winger
Subject: Purchase of Marked Patrol Vehicles
Date: January 4, 2002
q
r
AGEN ITEM N
Action by Council
Date
Endorsed
Modified
Rejected
Mone y g was allocated in the 2002 budget to purchase patrol vehicles, and we are
requesting authorization to order four 2002 Ford Crown Victoria squad cars. (two for the
q g
Patrol Division and two for the Paramedic Division).
Background
Police Departments are only able to lace orders for squad cars one time during the
p Y p
Y ear, and we purchase them in conjunction with the State of Minnesota, City of Saint
Paul, Ramsey County, Washington County, and many other municipal departments.
The vehicles we will be orderin g are under State of Minnesota Contract ##426133,
Release A- 174(5), and they cost $20,736 each.
The vehicles must be ordered now for delivery this summer.
Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be 9 iven to purchase four 2002 Ford Crown
Victoria squad cars.
Action Required
Submit to the City Council for review and approval.
DSW:js
E
:l
The Maplewood Police,Depa men as receive a ono ion rom c z ry
Volkswagen -Saab.
Backg pp
To show his appreciation to the Maplewood Police Department for their efforts in the
last year, John Schmelz has made a $3,000 donation and asked that the funds be used
as needed by the department to continue .to make the community a safe place.
Recommendation
AGENDA ITEM NO ( i
AGENDA REPORT
Action. by Council
Date
To: City Man Richard Fur man Endorsed
Y 9 er � Modred
From:- Chief Donald Wingeclf/ RejecteRejected ,
Subject: Donation to Police Department
Date: January 4, 2002
Introduction
rinn�4inn frnm CnhMcl (`n"n +nicirlc
It is recommended that approval be given to accept this donation from Schmelz
Countryside Volkswagen -Saab and that the necess budget adjustments be made to
expend the funds as needed by the department.
Action Required
Sumit to the City Council for review and approval.
DSW: js
AGENDA ITEM N0.4.
Action by Coo* ncii
AGENDA REPORT Dc a
Endorsed
Modified
To: City Manager Richard Furs an Rejected j
From: Chief Donald Winger5�
Subject: Request to Purchase Upgrades for Para_ medic Equipment
Date: January 4, 2002
Introduction
The Police Department is requesting authorization to purchase up for our four
monitors /defibrillators.
Background
The Maplewood Police Paramedics currently own four monitors /defibrillators, used in
the treatment of patients with cardiac problems. Our Medical Director, Regions
Hospital, has mandated that upgrades be made to this. equipment. The upgrades
include bi- phasic waveform, 12 -lead monitoring /printing capability with 12 -lead
p Y
breakaway cable and EtCO2 monitoring parameter with reusable sensor.
Budget Imp -.
Funds for this upgrade, which will cost $19,995, were included in our 2001 budget.
Recommendation
It is recommended that authorization be given to expend 2001 funds to purchase this
p p
upgrade, which is mandated by our Medical Di rector.
Action Regui_ red
Submit to the City Council for review and approval.
DSW: js
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Commission and CDRB Reappointments
DATE: December 18, 2001
Agenda #
Action by Council
Date
Endorsed
Modified
Rejected .
INTRODUCTION
At the end of 2001, the terms expire for the following planning commission and community
design review board (CDRB) members:
Plannina Commission
Member Appointment Date
Matt Ledvina 12 -8 -97
Lorraine Fischer 1970
Eric Ahlness 12 -11 -00
All three of these planning commission members wish to have the council reappoint them to the
planning commission for another three years.
Community Design Review Board
Member Appointment Date
Ananth Shankar 8-08 -94
Craig Jorgenson 8 -23 -99
Mr. Shankar and Mr. Jorgenson wish to have the council reappoint them to the CDRB for another
two- years.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Reappoint Mr. Ledvina, Ms. Fischer and Mr. Ahlness to serve on the planning commission
for another three years. These terms would end on December 31, 2004.
B. Reappoint Mr. Shankar and Mr. Jorgenson to serve on the community design review
board for another two years. These terms would end on December 31, 2003.
pniscell /pcterms.02 (6.1 appts)
Agenda '#
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City Manager
Date
Endorsed
Modified
Rejected '
Shann Finwall, Associate Planner ---
Conditional Use Permit Review - Lexus Automobile Dealership
3000 Maplewood Drive North
January 3, 2002
The conditional use permit for Lexus automobile dealership and maintenance garage at 3000
Maplewood Drive is due for review.
BACKGROUND
February 26, 1996: The city council approved design plans, conditional use permit, and a
wetland setback variance for the construction of the Lexus automobile dealership.
April 8, 1996: The city council reconsidered. the conditional use permit and design plans for
Lexus. This was required in order to allow construction after a signed developer's agreement and
letter of credit were supplied to the city by the developer for the extension of a water main to the
site.
July 22, 1996: The city council considered a sign variance request to allow Lexus a second
freestanding sign. The council denied the sign variance.
September 24, 1996: The community design review board waived the requirement to screen
rooftop equipment at Lexus.
July 28, 1997: The city council reviewed Lexus' conditional use permit and recommended review
in one year.
October 12,1998: The city council reviewed Lexus' conditional use permit and recommended
review in one year.
September 10, 2001: City staff approved a minor construction project that included a parking lot
expansion of 59 new parking stalls which were constructed on the north side of the property.
DISCUSSION
During construction of the dealership, Lexus was required to install a sump pump catch basin in
the parking lot. The sump pump catch basin is designed to help clean and filter water runoff from
the parking lot prior to running into the adjacent wetland. A condition of Lexus' conditional use
permit is that the sump pump catch basin be inspected and cleaned annually. Lexus hired Hydro -
Vac, Inc., who inspected and cleaned the sump pump catch basin on December 12, 2001.
.action by Council
In addition to the above - mentioned requirement, staff found two outstanding items which still
need addressing: 1) dumpster. enclosure to be constructed on the east side of the building; and
2) silt fence to be removed. After several discussions with the general manager of Lexus, Robert
Katz, the following arrangements were made to address these items: 1) Landmark Fence has
been hired by Lexus to draft a dumpster enclosure plan. The plan will include a 6 -foot high or
higher cedar fence with gate to be installed in the spring of 2002; and 2) Lexus employees will
remove the silt fence from the property once all new sod and landscaping, which were required
for the parking lot expansion, have been established (summer 2002).
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit for the Lexus automobile dealership at 3000 Maplewood Drive
again in one year.
p:sec3 \lexus 01 -02 -02
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
4. 2 -26 -96 City Council Minutes _
5. 4 -8 -96 City Council Minutes
F4
Attachment 1
61 .
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
- -------------
lb
CC- JNr
COUNTY RD.
•
C
. . • • ; 4. W �,� 1. o
. .
�► ��' 1. SUMMIT 3
Ck \' : 2. COU IEW CIR. 51 W =
JO
•. ''y 4 ��. 3. 0 . 1 DIA ST W
4 6� yo yN,S o
. BEAM 1 AVE.
VE, f
• . �' ° 19 BEAM
W
`
T o -
W Morkham
. • .� W N Pond 41 Kohlmon g 1
Grrvii ! Lake v
.
U 0
V„j Lake \ • KOHLMAN AVE. �n
' Miooe
COUNTY ROAD C v O
•. S
A • , 23 ��t r °P �
D �, 5 :3 o
tAao OR PALM '" c , T C3 N
I z
W
.ALLE DA CREST DR CT. P► to a v o W
gm aCR w 3 3 CT C EDGEHILL
•• CONNp R C0% IY CON NOR V W
• A AVE. I DEMONT AVE.
. CT. DEMON Og.
•' • 2 Pte. o
• W
•� , BROOKS C
• 12 GERVAIS
• ., Ft
• R
' • ' PKWY
•, •. 00
..r.r.
VIKING OR. Keller
W 60 Lake
LAURIE CT. .�
z5
"KE Cr
BURKE AV
PW*
ELDRIDGE A
• •n &IT /d
t T BROOKS AVE BROOKS
�n t AVE.
SEx TANT� row
AVE. }. GERVAIS °� a
v GRANDVIEW AVE. W
�t
VIKING DR.
LOCATION MAP
3
�v
GE
Q
N
SHERREN AVE.
K c • ad Lake
v,
OP
COPE
�—`"' —)
AVE.
LARK'
W'
AVE.
C7
�n LARK < AVE.
O z5
0 <
CO.
RD. z
�.
V
LAURIE RD.
�n o
3hwwg" LAURIE RD.
• LELAND
RD. c
SANDH URST
z AVE.
ta°c
}
JUNCTION
AVE. W
z
a-No g
f
z
W COr RD.
o o
CL eV�PKE
(1) CHAMBERS ST (t)
AVE
m BURKE AVE, o
BURKE AVE. E yy
�
Mp
O
ELDR IDGE AVE.
' a""'
64
O
. c COU RSE
�ii �.VE.
BELMONT
AVE.
�� .CRF4 no,,�,�
E.
LOCATION MAP
3
�v
GE
Q
N
r
l�
r
.q
.
'0
0
I!l�l
L /
:L
7
EXISTNG Ei
OF WETLA�
?r n
' 0
i
Mo rc
59 New pa �� sT�
s r�-s
� I o
EXISTING LEXU5
BUILDING
11,400 S.F.
c � �
4
t
4
ci (i
i . 9
7
•
i
EXISTING EDGE
' OF WETLAND
--I
Z
SITE PLAN
4
N
•
•
•
EXISTING EDGE
' OF WETLAND
--I
Z
SITE PLAN
4
N
Attachment 3
M I MITES . OF MAP LEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7 :00 P.M., Monday, February 26, 1996 -
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No 96.04
8 Automobile Dealership 61 North P )
.a. Mayor Bastian presented the Lexus request for reconsid eration..
q �deration..
b. C ity Attorney Kelly commented on the requirements for reconsideration
q econsideration
and the rules which allowed waiver of the Rules of Procedure and stated
all the requirements had been met.
c. Di rector of Community Devel opmentCol eman presented the specifics of the
re uest f •
q or Variance and the Conditional Use Permit which had been
rejected at the March 11, 1996 meeting, and the new information which
has been supplied since then.
d. Mayor Bastian asked if anyone wished to speak before '
Y p ore the Council
regarding this matter. The following was heard:
John Dietrich, RLK, consultant for Ryan Construction
e. ..Councilmember Carlson introduced the followinq Resolution and moved its
adoption
96 - 02 - 25
VARIANCE RESOLUTION - WETLAND SETBACK
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc applied for
pp a variance from
t zoning ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to property on the east side of Hig hway 61 between
Beam Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is:
9 Y
Tracts D and G, Registered Land Survey No. 525
WHEREAS, Section 36.196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a '100-
foot -wide wetlan d bu
. q
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 25- foot -wide wetland buffer.
WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 75 feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
rove this
Council approve variance.
2 -26 -96
5
2. The City' Council held a public hearing on February 12 , 1996. City t staff
y y
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the
surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone
at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The
Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and
Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ci Council approve the above - described
vari -ance for the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner.
The 100 - foot -wide wetland buffer requirement would make development of this
site difficult. The difficulty was created by the new ordinance.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance, since the applicant would improve the quality of the wetland
buffer substantially over its present state.
Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following:
1. Submitting a grading and landscaping plan subject. to the requirements of the
City staff and the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District for the
wetland buffer.
2. Dedicating a wetland- buffer easement. This easement shall describe the
boundary of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling
or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record the deed for this
easement before the City will issue a building permit.
3 Accepting responsibility for the annual maintenance and upkeep P of the sum catch
basins.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers
Allens ach, Carlson, Koppen
Nays - Counci member Rossbach
f. Mayor Bastian introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
96 -'02 - 26
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,. Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. applied for a
conditional use permit for a motor vehicle maintenance garage as part of a
new Lexus automobile dealership;
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property on the east side of Highway 61
between Beam Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is:
Tracts D and G. Registered Land Survey No. 525
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council approve this permit.
6
2 -26 -9(
2. On February 12, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing.
The City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices
to the surrounding property owners. The Council gave everyone at
the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the
City staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described-conditional use ermit based on the building and site plans. The
.City approves this permit Eecause:
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 ; detri mental , disturbing or cause a nuisance - to any
person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke,
dust, odor, fumes, water or air ollution, drainage, water run-
off, vibration, general unsight iness, 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, and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for P ublic
facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the
site's natural. and scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental.effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the
City. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design
submitted on February 26, 1996. The Director. of Community
Development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within
one year of Council approval or the permit shall become null and
void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year.
7 2 -26 -9F
■
• 4. Before the issuance of a building permit, the City must g p y t have a
signed construction contract for the extension of the 'water main
to the -Lexus site. The water system must be operational before
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
5. The future expansion is not allowed with this permit. The
applicant must apply for design approval and an amendment to the
conditional use permit before building this expansion. The
.future expansion must be at least 100 feet from the billboard.
6. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the
annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins.
7. The applicant shall submit the plans for the sump catch basins
and discharge rip rap to the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed
District for their approval before the City w i l l issue a
building permit
f . Mayor Bastian moved to approve the site pl ans (stamped December 7 1995
and the site plan stamped February 1, 1996) for proposed Lexus
dealershiQ on Highway 61 based on the findings required the code.
Approval, is , subject to the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the City has not issued a
building permit for this - project,
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall:
a. Dedicate and record a wetland- buffer easement. This easement
shall describe the boundary of the buffer and prohibit any
building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer.
b. Submit a revised landscape plan providing for any planting and
ground reshaping or restorat i o.n of the wetland buffer as may be
required by the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District.
Re lace the seed on the Highway 61 right -of -way with sod if
al owed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The
right -of -way shall have an.in- ground lawn irrigation system
unless prohibited by MnDOT,
3. Before the i ssuance of a building permit, the City must have a
signed construction contract for the extension of the water main to
the Lexus site. The water system must be operational before the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
4. The applicant shall complete the following before occupyi ng the
building:
a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
b. Install'reflectorized stop signs at both exits, a handicap
parking sign for each handicap parking space and an address on
the building-,
c. Screen all roof- mounted equipment visible from streets or
adjacent property. (code requirement)
8
2 -26 -9E
d. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure, subject to staff approval,'
if there would be outside trash storage. (code requirement)
e. Install an in- ground lawn irrigation. system for the parking lot
islands and the sodded areas between the highway and the parking
lot. Lawn irrigation in the right -of -way may be waived if MnDOT
will not allow it.
f. Post signs designating at least 55 customer and employee P arking
spaces.
g. Post'one -way traffic signs for the narrow driveway beneath the
canopy on the south side of the building.
5. The future expansion is not allowed. The PP applicant must a ly for
design a proval and an amendment to the conditional use, permit rigor .
to buil ing this expansion. The future expansion must be at east
100 feet from the billboard.
6. If any required work is not done, the City may allow temporary
occupancy if
a. The City determines that the work is not essential to the public
health, safety or welfare.
b. The City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of
credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the
cost of the unfinished work.
7. This approval does not include the signs. Signage will be reviewed
by staff through the sign permit process.
8. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community
Development may approve minor changes.
9. Traffic flow in and out of the Lexus dealership shall be reviewed by
MnDOT. Any site plan change is subject to staff approval.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen
Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers
Allens ach, Carlson, Koppen
Nays - Counci member Rossbach
9
Attachment 4
c. Mayor Bastian asked i f anyone wished to speak before the Council
l
y y
regarding this matter.. The-following was heard:
Steve Bloomer, Owner Lexus of Wayzata
d. Councilmember Carlson moved to amend the. conditions of the Lexus
Conditional Use Permit in order to allow construction of the buildin
to begin to the si ni n of -the water system. construction
Zo'cumentst' there uirements that there be.no combustible material
on site and the Lexus Company rovide the City with a letter of credit.
Seconded b Councilmember�Allens ach Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers
y �
Allens ach, Carlson, Koppen .
Nays - Counci member Rossbach
e. Council member Carlson introduced the following Resolution and moved its ado t i on
96 - 04 - 53
AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION - LEXUS
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota. Inc. applied for a
conditional use permit for a motor vehicle maintenance garage as part of a
new Lexus automobile dealership;
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property on the east side of Highway 61
between Beam Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is:
Tracts D and G, Registered Land Survey No. 525
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as-follows:
1. On February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended that
the City Council approve this permit.
2. On February 12, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing..
The City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices
to the surrounding property owners. The Council gave everyone at
.the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements.
The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the
City staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above
described conditional use ermit based on the building and site plans. The
City approves thi - s permit E ecause:
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.
4.8 -96
10
46 The use would not involve any activity, process , materials,
equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous,
hazardous, detrimental, disturbing.or cause , a nuisance to any
person or property, because of excessive noise, glare,. smoke,.
dust, odor, fumes, water or air ollution, drainage, water run-
off, vibration, general'unsight iness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
5.
The use would 9 Y 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 ade uate public facilities and
services, including streets, po ice and. fire protection,
drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
70 The use would not create excessive additional costs for public
facilities or services.
8 P
. The use would maximize the reservation of and incorporate the
site's natural and scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is-,subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the
City. This shall include the sump pump catch basin design
submitted on February 26, 1996. The Director of Community
Development m-ay approve minor changes.
2. The ro osed construction must be substantially started within
P P
one year of Council approval or the permit shall become null and
void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year.
30 The City Council shall review this permit in one year.
4. Before the issuance of a building permit, the City a
development agreement and letter of credit guaranteeing the
extension of the water main to the Lexus site. The water system
must be operational before the presence of .substantial amounts
of combustible materials,. as required by the Fire Chief.
5. The future expansion is not allowed with this permit. The
expansion
applicant must apply for design approval and an amendment to the
conditional use permit before building this expansion. The
future expansion must be at least 100 feet from the billboard.
6. The property owner shall agree to accept responsibility for the
annual maintenance and upkeep of the sump catch basins.
70 The applicant shall submit the plans for the sump. basins
and discharge rip rap to the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed
District for their , approval before, the City w i l l issue a
building permit.
Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach
Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers
Allens ach, Carlson, Koppen
Nays - Counci member Rossbach
11 4.8 -96
Agenda #
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
Action by Council
FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Permit Review Date
PROJECT: Mounds Park Academ Endorsed
Y Modified
LOCATION: 2051 Larpenteur Avenue
DATE: December 19, 2001 Dejected
INTRODUCTION
The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Mounds Park Academy is due for review. Refer to the maps
on pages 2 through 5.
BACKGROUND
On April 27, 1992, the city council approved a revision to the conditional use permit for Mounds Park
Academy to build two additions and expand their recreation areas.
On November 14, 1994, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit for the academy. The
council required a review again either six months after Independent School District 622 completes their
proposed access road to Beebe Road or in three years, whichever is first.
On June 12, 1995, the city council approved a CUP and the design review for Independent School
District 622. This was so the school district could expand their parking lot and reroute their driveway to
Beebe Road.
On January 8, 2001, the city council approved more revisions to the CUP for Mounds Park Academy.
This approval was for the school to build an addition between their existing building and the former
school district building at 1801 Beebe Road. (See the maps on pages 4 and 5.) This approval was
subject to seven conditions. (See the council minutes starting on page 6.)
DISCUSSION
The school is proceeding with the construction of the approved addition. The contractor has not
finished all the landscaping and outside site work. They expect to finish the required site work in the
spring.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit (CUP) for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue again
in one year.
PA
..1sec141moundpk.rvw.doc
Attachments:
1.
Location Map
2.
Property Line / Zoning Map
3.
Full Site Plan
4.
Partial Site Plan
5.
01 -08 -01 council minutes
ATTACHMENT I
LOCATION MAP
z
4
N
MA RX
N
�� �-- Arm
' _
W
1
P OND
�c (! ) 9 (T) Pp/ VATF sma7
JAI
W 0 H L MA N
(MYSSAB/ AV)
North
a v Hazelwood o
o
NORTH SA IN T PA UL
2 Pk
W
o
Z
CO > RD 23 C"
5
z
T29NR22W
a
W
W
39
..)
.�..3 i ?
+-
EDG
HILL RD 10' I I
Z)
lest
g
�•
�
.'
DE MONT AV
F-
go
30
z
ELE f
PANT
Four
XTAN T AV Smsons
AV
0 a
Pk
GERVAIS
GER1A41 R GERV
N1EYV
Z
AV z
CT
t
N G
x
Df�
TL E AV
36
Knu ckle Head Lake
G P S� E
�..— ..... --
COPE
AV
N Cn
�}
Cn
Z
14
Y L�
Q
'
Q
Ix
'
= l.� RIE RD
lRST
wo�Pk
(C Z
A
_
25
W Y
v
CO
> RD
•�E,.
�
�-
.
o
Abbinhood AV
Pk
�G� = :�
-�
� G7trhh/l
L
tR p
RRIS
•
N ROSEWOOD
S AV
�.
NORTH
SAINT PAUL
� SSE ������•�.�
29
8 40 H Av
•
28
GQO F Gov
OL o
— — —
OLLO
AY
>
N
6
. ...
.........
..........
5
S UM R �
W
Y
Q
P Ich
�1 vs
Z
Hillside W
k .,/
P �.
Y QQ
N
:
Px o
a
121
?
Z A
RIP
S AV
N
R I P
AV
�.
Z
y �l LD x x a
•�• - i KINGSTON
= .............
_
� Z
°�
_ CD
o LAKE
s
a PRICE
>
A
ti • '
ti •'"••
•,
cc ;
W
Y W
MC KN /GH T LN
.
.,
:;
2
.. ..
... -CARPE NTEUR
LOCATION MAP
z
4
N
A R3
E �3 184 t�8
,� a.z3 o
r
5 r
% ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■I�■f!
Ale
1f
r er
ml
.1
Qeg_�3tO
Al. O F
w
Y
,t 'ab
J
F
a o
� ARCHER HEIGHTS
� APARTMENT&
,
�� _
fp ( P UD) 1
A..03
\fir \t�
(v
� 1
8zz. -,6
WI ILIA M. S 9 '1 Pf* L: NE CO.
sit a
�v) �T) �� •) �)
17 2 �• s') Z�I 1 1 1 40 ) 392- ( �+ 'o �. •rte _ ..,
9 t ° W
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4 id Z. V .1 B o.••
1786 13 $ = SC7 1 N DS �
1780 ,l �: �� ■
22 21 20 ; 19 i8 17 15 1s
( (.Is) CLS) (as) :L'1 Ctv) Css) t. 1772 `
.1
AV E
o �. ;1 MA PLEW o�
1766 ■
(v►i (am. : 4.+ 4;1. C4ij 40) ;SO)
1758 �D c�3 Q
7 8 9 10 II 12 13 � � � o
7 - _
o
h
1752.
2ND ■At
2 2 2 1 2 19 : a I7 16 1744
�.
ss` t s•y sj1 is . i T .41
1736
AV E
V) 4
WWI
G ��- s3 »G • - - N
Cray C'1) Cam) C'S --, G 14 ; ui
7 e 9 tG* — 107
13 z 1722 ; I-
15 5 .� ..J E,•+•
3 1714 2
ro 2
all
-o- r 1 2 0 � „` 1 t 08. (.tt� : -- 138. • 1 �14
wJ `► • ZSG ore . $G of 3s 41 '
i3 10 5 1700 ' '••-•`i.4L
.�= C ,.� v • r.��o�. MAPLEWOOD�
ova 8 .- `PUMP STATION
4 Z 9 69 'r
rA
Ls c e 7
1686:3 2025 202 �»
' 295 �; •• r � z 3 .�.s ,
1689 ! - ^ , � � s�
----- LARPENTEUR AVE .---= - ' ---- --- �
PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP
3
4
N
0
0
ATTACHMENT 3
' '•�. I _ III 1 / i / ../ / l I � !. ► \ � � \'
o l
ool
_� II v \ \11 / I / j l I /'�'1h \� 1 �� .-,l M s• low :39 in
' \I a . f `�\\��z ,• 11 \ /1 1 J / I j I / � �� ��� ---- •_ � ... � ' • :. .
\ 1 \��\ I .. l 1 1
11\
NN
oo
•
111 I I / // ``\ ;... \\ III ! �\ r / i! \\A.
I �' 1 •111 � •:" ;fit \ '' \ .. I \ i LI, \ \... .� .: ` \\\\ ..
111 J 1 }' . 1 •fs\ ' .. ii 1 1 11' I \ \ \ \\
TRACT. III' /j i ��` I ' ' j �� ... :::.'; I I; / 1 ,—•� \� \ \ \ \\ .
\ � := •.
LOCATION OF
THE PROPOSED
- CONNECTING LINK
/ 1 I •� / /. 1 • • :• •:••� � :f'• : :•:::;.:: \ �-' it
j W
W _— �• I `- � ,,�� / I \ \ 1 ' , ''f;':' ;; :ti::� 1 11 � � % >• �� �i \ I v II 1 .
/ I
\ �\ �/ 1 rr'� ' i 1 7!. x ss.et � \ Iit � 1 ,� j I � _'_'�' ) • � I
40 11 I
\. \`:.ice ` r .• p � \ rte /. / ��. \ `'` J II \
C •,•..- � / 6RICK 61NLDIIJb S! � 1 \ i t I 1/ 1 J/.
_ �� -��\y� • - t\ � ' Utz ,o ;. � 1�" � ��• ` � . .. - i I � 1 • I - j � .. - . � J
Was
1
.�/
t I ► \ \ \ s a 4100
El
264. - -�� •01 r �'� / ,�
1 1 I N ti9' Sr' a ^.� �'�b, � •i � \ % � I ' � I I l / � � / % • �/ / / / / J 1 I I
/ �� ,? �,� 1 ' / t; . r� 1 •I I 1 r \ / I i \ 1 �_ ���\. \' \ w
IL u
: � / / ,, , / I \ \ I 1 II I .. J I � - 1 . 1 1 ( \. ► 1 m
VA
_1, \ \� -' \�� l• %% / / / I '" �o I � \ _ s Q:'. I 1 1 i ! ,� JII.
� I I•I I � 1 ( I 't \
.:.
m
1\ Il___1 1 C 1 \ I 1 1 1 \ 5
� �� 1 �� 1 I I 1 te r. -� � � , • \ 1 1 \ N7^ 1 �yiiw�r.�.rr.r�"•�
t \ \ ' \ \ 1 ( � \ • I � \I WM•rr�r•r��u1 •.•+•a +�"i .q.�
1 1 \ LAIR PENT EUl \\ TR,ac H 1 AviNUa
FULL SITE PLAN
4
4
N
ATTACHMENT 4
t
I I
Iti
1�
FORMER
SCHOOL DISTRICT
BUILDING
kc �
i am
'fie 1: '� . .•(` � �
mum \
BMW
... \
A am
S aw
Amw
Ar
4k
rArs
Q .
.�.
PROPOSED
CONNECTING LINK
z
I • 3
3 0
3'
I r d
I
PARTIAL SITE PLAN
5
Kum I,
``� • � ado
•cam�
rc
I
d
i�
0
4
N
Attachment 5
MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL C
7:00 P.M., Monday, January 8, 2001 "
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 01 -01 '
3. 7:30 P.M. (8:38 P.M.) Mounds Park Academy (2051 Larpenteur Avenue and 1801
Beebe Road)
Conditional Use Permit
Design Approval
a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing.
b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
C. Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics of the
report.
d. . Commissioner Jack Frost presented the Planning Commission report.
e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or
opponents. The following persons were heard:
Myron Carlson, Business Manager for Mounds Park Academy, the
Applicant
Don Palony, 175 8- Ruth Street, Maplewood
f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the
conditional use hermit revision for Mounds Park Academy:
RESOLUTION 01 -01 -005
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mounds Park Academy requested a revision of their conditional use
permit.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2051 Larpenteur Avenue East and 1801 Beebe
Road. The legal description is:
Tracts A, D, E, F, G and H of Registered Land Survey No. 396, Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. The planning commission discussed the conditional use permit revision on
D
December 18, 2000. They recommended that the city council approve the
revision.
2. The city council held a public hearing on January 8, 2000. City staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the
hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the
above- described conditional use permit revision for the following reasons:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated
to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of
Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the
surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or
methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental,
disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of
excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would 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.
70 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.
7
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction must comply with the site plan, date - stamped November
17, 2000. The city council may approve major changes. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
2. The city council shall review this permit revision one year from the date of
approval, based on the procedure in the city code.
3. The school shall turn the tennis court lights off by 9:00 p.m. Only the
school shall use the tennis court lights.
4. The school shall only use the area between the tennis courts and pond and
the west lot line as a track or route for running during fall and spring
cross- country meets.
5. The city council may reconsider the need for the school to open the
driveway to Beebe Road from time to time.
6. The city council requires that the school keep the westerly access at Price
Avenue barricaded, except for emergency- vehicle access.
7. The wooden screening fence shall be kept in good repair.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - all
NQve,mber 17, 2000 for the proposed addition to Mounds Park Academy. based
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit
for this project.
2. Before obtaining a building permit for the addition, the property owner
shall:
a. Provide staff with evidence that their two properties have been
combined into one legally- described lot.
b. Review with staff the need for additional screening on the east side
of the northerly building and of the proposed addition. The
applicant shall provide screening as may be required by staff.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition:
a. Repair or replace any broken or missing parts of the wooden
on
screening fence.
b. Restore all ground that is disturbed by the proposed construction.
C. Comply with previous landscaping -plan requirements.
.- - rove e screening on the east sl e o the site i r qer if by
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy
if •
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public
health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for
the required work. The amount shall be 1 %2 times 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 or within
six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - all
9
Agenda #
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review
LOCATION: 1300 Gervais Avenue
PROJECT: APT (VoiceStream) Telecommunications Monopole
DATE: December 19, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Action by Council
Date
Enorsed
Modified
Rejected J
The conditional use permit (CUP) for the telecommunications monopole at 1300 Gervais Avenue
is due for review. The CUP is for VoiceStream to replace the existing monopole on the site with a
taller monopole and new ground equipment. (See the maps on pages 2 through 7 and the city
council minutes starting on page 9.)
BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2000, the council approved the following for this site:
1. A CUP for outdoor storage.
2. The design plans, including those'for the building, site and screening fence.
On January 8, 2001, the city council approved a CUP revision and the design plans for the
replacement of the existing telecommunications monopole on the site with a taller monopole and
new ground equipment. (See the council minutes starting on page 9).
DISCUSSION
The applicant has not yet replaced the existing monopole with the city - approved taller monopole.
They expect to replace the existing monopole with the taller monopole in the second quarter of
2002. (See the letter from Julie Townsend of VoiceStream on page 8.)
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit for the telecommunications monopole at 1300 Gervais Avenue
again in one year.
Kr /p:sec9Japttower. rev
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Site Plan (Existing Conditions)
4. Site Plan (For Wheeler Lumber)
5. Site Plan (Proposed)
6. Site Plan (Enlarged)
7. November 26, 2001 letter from Julie Townsend
8. March 27, 2000 City Council Minutes
Attachment 1
�z 3
- r - �• 2, 1. SUMMIT CT. Z
2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. ST w =
3. DULUTH CT. B� �p y �, Y
G •�
. 3. J o 4. LYDIA ST. cn Q S o
BEAM AVE. ° ® AVE.
19 BEAM
cT o
cr-
� ��' p o 0 o
Markham
p Z Pond
Kohlman w
Lake _
U ►V H
KOHLMAN AVE.
Q H azelwood wood W
Park 0 Z
V) w 23
COUNTY , ROAD C t�
�<< ro ® V ,
Kohiman �`�` C�;
PALM V Park J to z w Z w V)
�M Cv • c D �EHIC
C-) Q o
CT. PA LLLJI 5 o CT wo: Z EDGE
NOR 3 CON � � �
CONNOR COQ E. NOR v DEMONT AVE.
AVE. � m
CT. DEMpN� AVE. 0�' H #°rte t BROOKS BROOKS
22 (n a AVE. cn
0
W w AVE. D
Q
BROOKS o SEX TANT Q Four
CT • Q a AVE. :2 ssoaons 0
SEXTANT AVE. w Park Z
12 GERVAIS AV GERVAIS w
F,Q G RAN DVI EW AVE w
pp00 PKWY, m VIKING DR. Y
'La e
SHERREN AVE. F Knuc e ead Lake
v p COPE AVE.
� CO V)
-� = LARK Z CT. �,' F : v LARK Q AVE.
..: I n --1 w AVE.
Keller I ce-
60 / � 0 RD. _ v LAURIE RD. � LAURIE z RD.
Lake o CO. LA
w o v7 � V
o t J w Q Q Pork Q
i
� ; o LELAND RD. 0 — = SANDH URST � z AVE. �.. �
i
Z w (i
JUNCTION AVE. w d Z B Y CO. RD.
}" GI a on
BURKE CT. -00 a Timber -� a �O CI
/ p_ Pa D CL URK BURKE BURKE AVE. A o ® G
Mvplecreat
Pork � � 1 ) CHAMBERS ST :5 ��� o � I
� John Glenn
AV �� MON ELDR IDGE AVE.
J 64
T LN. w o
A VE. V) VE. I BELMONT �� A = Gvtewv
v ' GOL a` AV E•
SKILL
SKILL MAN AVE. HARRIS AVE.
N OOD
KE��'ER SH w ROSEWOOD AVE. N
� E � >
. Robinhood ,A ROSEWOO D
D RYAN v Pork
RYAN AV. �� AVE. S. J
TrOl Fik;ek 4 F
28 Park F Q j 0 Lo
�] FROST = 0 4 J AVE.
Ole 17-3 A � w n
LOCATION MAP
2
4
N
PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP
3�
4
N
Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT 3
K err ..err moo .set•s1 e
V wan !.
• �.
•'room not
air tot a It" rawrtar _
CER VA 16' A VENUE i I
......... . . .. . ................................. . (GRANTED TO THE CITY Cif MAPLEWOOD AS PER DOC. NO. 1710917)-,--:: •-- -..._...__.... ...._.......- .......... . �1
';�.... ....
• '' � i 111M Vi[ Q anew ..�-• • -�' ^' _ - ��..• -'• �. , /�'` • � I uw � _._ -_ _
_......
n it Pelf - -Mv •' I - � ,- �:.��`.' err .J..
Ina t� m �n N89'24 • 39 « E 353.02 '
__ _ ..._ • - �••..• _ _ DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS "•� -, • ---
-- — _ 1 DOC. N 0. 20a4►0-�'k-
c
t- - 33.0 - - -;•- - 3s.
_
Eo - ; 11 - - AI I
C)q rem
I ( tAAlO�G SE1t1Apf t•1E -.�
10.0 �. / /�• �• — / _.�- • - � r .�•
" . 0 0 ° o
P I W I
4
Vt
41E 0
cc
04 04
is � �y eO � � ' • ' � � �
Z o
Y- Z ......" _- - - -- - �4 i.
... „:. • - OUTDOOR STORAGE YARD: I , z
y ,
N a : a -•• VIED GA! ` �( ` w
>! i
s awe � ,� f (V •� /;'�- .. - -• _30.0 -- , 3
P CB
W .i % ',,` l ip , — E 1 5 T 1 N
1 _ 5 _s ----------- - ..V. ..._- ..._... ��
Q A C C E S ' �7db�iic sCi�i�nc - uE t
E ASE
S89'24'1 9 "W 353.02 • - - - --
r....-------- Soo -- t - - - - - -- 330 -_.
•nonm LIML or THE SM114 100 FEE►
Of QOCk 24 CLifOM ADDITION
OWNER:
A.A. ME MOVING
AND ST►ORACE COMPANY
I
PROPOSED APT LEASE TRACT DESCRIPTION
The meet 60.00 het of the east 353 feet of aleck 2 +. 0e c V t the *Guth 100 foot LEGEND
theriof• and except %a north 40 feet t%@nmg, 011tan Addition. Ramsey County. p YAMIIOIE
Minnesota.
' • CATC31 USM
The ergo Of the Proposed loess tract is 13.113 square foot.
SITE PLAN
(EXISTING CONDITIONS)
4
4
N
Attachment 4
Gervvis Avenue
333.02
5S'
TE WX
POLE
SITE PLAN
(FOR WHEELER LUMBER)
5
4
N
FENCE WN SCREEN
TOTAL AREA
80802.73 S.F.
CrrY MW
12770.44 S.F.
EXISTING TOWER
6300.00 SA
PROPOSED AREA
61732.31 S.F.
•1PERb10ln
PARKWrC
2300 S.E.
TOTAL
3276 SA Si
PERVIOUS AREA
GRASS
392 SA
GRAVEL
32700 S.F.
L#9WSTURBED
21832.31 S.F.
TOTAL
56436.31 S.F. 9SX
■ossom
mama■■ mammon
sassa■
■■moss
oa■aa■
:•MEMO mosses
dW
■as�:� mosses
■assn■ ■aosm■
Newsom
■■ass■
■a■am■
■s■ass
�
-amaa■
■asaas
■ooam■
mammon
■osss■ ■a�;�■
----�� Emmons ■mm■■■
■lasso
Massa■
■s■aa■
■ ■ ■so■
mammon ■omaaa
•Momma
�aa ■ ■a
■soar■
s
■ ■m■■■
mammon
• r 7. ,
I L
M
5S'
TE WX
POLE
SITE PLAN
(FOR WHEELER LUMBER)
5
4
N
FENCE WN SCREEN
TOTAL AREA
80802.73 S.F.
CrrY MW
12770.44 S.F.
EXISTING TOWER
6300.00 SA
PROPOSED AREA
61732.31 S.F.
•1PERb10ln
PARKWrC
2300 S.E.
TOTAL
3276 SA Si
PERVIOUS AREA
GRASS
392 SA
GRAVEL
32700 S.F.
L#9WSTURBED
21832.31 S.F.
TOTAL
56436.31 S.F. 9SX
5S'
TE WX
POLE
SITE PLAN
(FOR WHEELER LUMBER)
5
4
N
ATTACHMENT 5
t ow.a .00.s=
�� IOt C01!{IMIL70w
own ME or mom
aq own= ma mw WNWUL MR. is oa - taws
.SUN"
E
� ••+..•w ..� .+. r- •.mow + ,�.,�
manse in som" on war MEN ROOM rn -• •••«w b �• • ..r.. � «ve.
APT ,.� .� �.. , M ..., .. .�
• K =9 poom w r 0amm Peat[ maps �.�www1 b�.,. �nr.► w bw w w w wwo ss�r
8a0 ai u w lO nR ac loom x" woo
OO1Y0011M1 UK MY NO N CO SWOWOU ar w
W< L" of "a 0wom . se NoARaMa tom
AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM an ffum me _ IL 4pwm or am
awe+rac 004M of olomw an .elmu roe
NOW No rw � OR" tww � R s s aimn q�2s/n
sow ammm
SITE PLAN
(PROPOSED)
6
I ?
N
ATTACHMENT 6
I
I
�
Mwww ft
-+. •• "� *'�' sti w"""`" "'�"' MAPLEWOOD- GERVAIS & ENGLISH
wOTCL• llkS ORM.wc VA MOT sm 1Uam#t! AM sw w' +PmW Mr w. aI . m a AM A"ett
w..r•� *M IM � • wrr N.Wwa..a pMS w rR AI N050
R M SOL
E E PROPOM Of A/T wwwEMOUS. W. kp�rl U�
e/. mo
+► w• "&a &"s of tti
Mo a uw To THE Wmows MR "OR sat. of wmw"194. w. waRUS 01 / 12 / 00 ENLARGED PLAN
wf
CO+OtMMI USE ON-Y. IMO w COwsomnow OF ea7o w �.w
7W taw wwok" waw
a TMS a mow , n+[ a6
APT MINNEAPOLIS INC . M � NOT K EP MPOM. m ON 1300 GERVNS ST �
on U MSE C OSFO Of OMEMY oR wowECLY. FOR �w rA
fVIMSw R AW PUW95t 01WER IWA ■wfJ1 R K �� ��, 1A N rr
Odo �NMrIM� �'.��� ed1 UArrY YR SCaI[ 0Yt1WO MU1MQ C
a w o Al N050 -C2 6 Y
SITE PLAN Q
(ENLARGED) � T
7 1V
Attachment 7
Mr. Ken Roberts
City of Maplewood Planning Department
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Conditional Use Permit 1300 Gervais Street
Dear Mr. Roberts,
NOT11
RECEIVED
I am contacting you concerning the conditional use permit issued to VoiceStream
Wireless in January 2001. The CUP was granted to VoiceStream Wireless to replace an
existing monopole at 1300 Gervais Street. I am aware the CUP is due to expire in
January 2001, one year after issuance. I am contacting you with a request to the City
Council for a one -year extension of the CUP.
When VoiceStream Wireless went before the City Council over a year ago it was our
intent to construct the monopole in 2001. Due to unforeseen budget restrictions
VoiceStream Wireless had to suspend replacement of this tower until 2002. It is our
intention to construct the new monopole in the second quarter of 2002. We are making
arrangements with Sprint PCS to be involved in the construction of said tower. Having
Sprint directly involved will benefit both companies to ensure a quicker build of the
replacement site.
Thank you for the consideration of our request to extend the conditional use permit. If
you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at 952 -833-
4078.
'Loll
8000 West 78th Street, Suite 400 Edina, MN 55439
Respectfully,
November 26, 2001
Attachment 8
MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M., Monday, January 8, 2001
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 01 -01
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 7:00 P.M. (7:28 P.M.) APT Monopole (English Street and Gervais Avenue)
Conditional Use Permit
Design Approval
a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing.
b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
C. Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics of the
report.
d. Commissioner Jack Frost presented the Planning Commission report.
e. Boardmember Ananth Shankar presented the Community Design Review
Board report.
f. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or
opponents. The following person was heard:
Peter Coyle, of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Inc., representing the
Applicant
g . Ma Cardinal closed the public hearin
-/ :t PII •11 its • • ••"� •1 1� • to i • ••1 • 1• W04 /
r : '1 MU M ifiAM
RESOLUTION 01 -01 -004
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Steve Katkov, representing American Portable Telecom (APT),
Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to install a 175- foot -tall
telecommunications monopole and related equipment.
9
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property on the southwest corner of English
Street and Gervais Avenue. The legal description is:
Subject to streets; except the South 100 feet; the East 353 feet of Block 24,
Clifton Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County,
Minnesota. (PIN 09- 29 -22 -41 -0019)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On December 6, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the
city council approve this permit.
2. The city council held a public hearing on January 8, 2001. City staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the
hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning
commission. At this meeting, the council tabled action on this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the
above - described conditional use permit, because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated
to be in conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of
Ordinances.
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,
disturbin g or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of
excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
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.
10
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's
:natural and scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The
director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction of the new monopole must be substantially
started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null
and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers'
telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable
lease conditions.
5. The applicant shall remove the existing monopole and antennas within 30
days of the completion of the -new monopole and antennas.
6. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that
would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility.
7. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the
city may require that it be removed.
8. The applicant or APT shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to
ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of
the site. The applicant/developer may provide a copy of the lease
indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and related
equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial
guarantee.
Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes - all
C ouncilmember Koppen m• -. to .••• - the design Wan ..- .m•-.
►• -��•- • 111 • •• •���� .• •� 211
- .•. -• , •��-�
11
Qn the nronerty on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue
( 1300 Gervais Avenue), AnDroval is basedon the findings re b codQ and
subject to tlie applicant doing the foilowin�:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this
proj ect.
2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the
following:
(a) A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed
new construction, the location of the property lines and existing
site features around the proposed lease area. The proposed
driveway shall have a bituminous surface and shall be at least five
feet away from the side property line.
(b) A landscape and screening plan that:
(1) Helps to hide the base area of the proposed facility.
(2) Shows the preservation of as much of the existing
vegetation as possible.
(3) Includes the planting of 8- foot -tall coniferous trees between
the south side of the lease site and the existing parking lot.
(4) Shows the clean-up and the restoration of all turf areas with
sod. This shall include the boulevard along Gervais Avenue
and the area between the south side of the lease area and the
existing parking lot to the south.
(c) A driveway, grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the
project site.
(d) The plans for the equipment buildings that show exteriors with
designs, colors and materials that are compatible with the existing
buildings in the area.
3. The monopole shall be light gray.
4. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall remove and
dispose of any debris and ensure that the site is cleaned up.
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy
if..
12
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public
health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for
the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the
unfinished work.
60 All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes -all
13
Agenda # e
MEMORANDUM Acdon by counc
Date
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager Endorsed
Modified
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk Rejected
DATE: January 9, 2002
RE: Pet Licenses - Prorate and Adjust Fee
Introduction
The license period for a cat and dog permit currently ends on February 28, of any given year. To make
the renewal and issue process less complicated and to encourage the licensing of pets, I would like to
propose a couple of changes in our current procedures.
The permit for 2002 will be good only until December 31, 2002 and the fee for the license will be
prorated. All subsequent permits will be on a calendar year basis.
Although the City provides a reduced permit fee for spayed or neutered animals, the 1996 User Fee
Study did not include a separate fee and has not been a part of annual increases submitted to council for
approval.
Recommendation
The reduction for a pet license if the animal is spayed or neutered will be $3.00 annually. This fee will
be part of the annual City Clerk Increase in Fee Charges that is submitted to the city council for approval.
The fee for 2002 license, which will be good for ten months and expire on December 31, 2002 will be
$15.00. If the animal is spayed or neutered the fee will be $12.50.
Agend # �1 I
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV)
LOCATION: Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue
APPLICANT: - Bruce Mogren
DATE:. January 7, 2002
INTRODUCTION
. Project Description
Action by Council
Date
Endorsed
Modified
Rejected
Bruce Mogren, representing the Carefree Cottages Villas, is proposing to build 12 units of senior
housing and two single dwellings. He is proposing to build this project on the north side of Gervais
Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood and the property at 1733 Gervais Avenue. (See
the Location map on page 14 and the property line /zoning map on page 17.)
The development would have two areas. As shown on the proposed site plan (page 20), there would
be two one -story buildings with a total of 12 townhome units north of Gervais Avenue, next to the
driveway for the existing Carefree Cottages. The other part of the project would be along Gervais
Avenue and would include three single dwellings (the existing house at 1733 Gervais and two new
houses on either side of the existing house). The 15 total units would be on a 1.9 -acre site for an
average of 7.9 units per acre.
The site would have 20 open parking spaces — one in front of each garage stall and eight additional
stalls scattered through out the site. The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal -lap siding,
gray asphalt shingles and vinyl trim and fascia boards.
Requests
To build the development, Mr. Mogren is requesting that the city approve the following:
1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from R -1 (single dwellings) to
R -3H (residential high density) for the 12 townhouse units. (See the existing and proposed
land use plan maps on pages 15 and 16.)
2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15 -unit housing
development. This PUD would have 12 units of rental senior housing and three single dwellings.
The applicant is requesting the CUP because the proposed development has a mix of housing
types, lot sizes and densities. 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 zoning requirements would
normally allow. For example, the new proposed lots on Gervais Avenue would be 9,375 and 9,384
square feet in area. (See the property line /zoning map on page 17, the proposed lot split map on
page 19 and the proposed site plan on page 20.)
3. A lot division to divide the property into four lots -three Tots for the single dwellings along Gervais
Avenue and one lot for the 12 town house units. (See the map on page 19.)
4. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings, including having no curbing for part of one
of the driveways (for drainage purposes).
1
DISCUSSION
Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plans
The city has shown this site planned for low- density residential development (R -1) on the land use map
(see the map on page 15). To have town houses, the applicant is requesting that the city change this
designation to high - density residential (R- 3(H)). Maplewood intends areas designated as R -3(H) as
areas for town houses or apartments of up to 12 units per gross acre. Maplewood has zoned this
property R -1 (single dwellings). This zoning designation only allows single dwellings and their
accessory uses. Because of this zoning designation, the developer has also applied for a conditional
use permit for a planned unit development for this proposal.
The proposed development plan is consistent with the density allowed by the proposed comprehensive
plan designation. Specifically, the 15 new units on the 1.9 -acre site means there would be 7.9 units per
gross acre. This proposal would meet the density standards outlined in the Maplewood Comprehensive
Plan for high - density residential areas.
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 a mix
of housing styles and densities. It is next to an existing senior housing development, on a collector
street (Gervais Avenue) and near an arterial street (White Bear Avenue) and a church.
Conditional Use Permit
The applicant is requesting the CUP for the PUD because the proposed development has a mix of
rental town houses and three single dwellings. The current R -1 zoning only allows single dwellings,
unless the city approves a PUD for a mix of housing for the site. Having the PUD also gives the city
and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such as
setbacks and lot size) than the standard zoning requirements would allow.
The developer intends to rent the town houses to seniors. As proposed, the 15 dwelling units would be
on about 1.9 acres for an overall project density of 7.9 units per acre.
Compatibility
Staff does not find a problem with compatibility in terms of land use. The proposed senior town houses
would be next to an existing senior housing development. In addition, townhomes are often built next to
single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer,
Robert Engstrom, is presently developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes.
There are many other examples in Maplewood where this is the case as well.
Property Values
The Ramsey County Assessors Office has told us 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. As stated
above, it is common that residential developers mix single dwellings and townhomes in their projects.
2
Traffic
Traffic- generation data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that residential units like townhomes
generate an average of five vehicle trips per day. In either case, with the proposed 12 town house units
and three single dwellings, there would not be a large number of cars added to this area.
Public Utilities
There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water in Gervais Avenue and in the existing Carefree
Cottages to serve the proposed development.
Drainage Concerns
The grading plan (on page 21) shows the developer using a rain water garden and the existing storm
sewer in Gervais Avenue to control the storm water. The project plans also show part of one driveway
with no gutter to allow storm water to run -off the driveway to the rainwater garden and drainage swale.
The city engineer support's 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.
On December 11, 2001, the community design review board moved to require the developer to install
concrete curb and gutter along the edges of the primary driveway. Staff had recommended waiving the
curbing where the city engineer felt that not having the curb would help facilitate the use of the
rainwater gardens for storm water treatment. The city council may either hold with the CDRB's
recommendation to have curb and gutter throughout the site or accept the city engineer's
recommendation that curbing is not necessary on the south side of the driveway. Staff's
recommendation is to allow the city engineer to decide whether the curbing is necessary next to the
rainwater gardens as it would impede runoff to them.
Tree Removal /Replacement
As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade most of the property to prepare the site for
construction. The proposed plans show the developer removing 13 large trees (maple, oak and
basswood) and transplanting 21 coniferous trees within the site. (See the plans on pages 20 and 21.)
With careful grading and construction, the developer will be able to save several of the large trees on
the site -- primarily along the east side of the site and along Gervais Avenue. The applicant is
proposing to plant at least five replacement trees (including ash and maple) with his plans. In addition,
city staff is recommending that the developer plant additional trees for screening on the site.
Sidewalk
I had Chuck Ahl, the Maplewood Public Works Director, review the proposed development plans. Mr.
AN noted that the developer is not proposing to build any trails or sidewalks with the development. He
recommends that the developer install a six - foot -wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of
Gervais Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the west property line of the site.
This sidewalk would allow people to walk between the homes on Flandrau Street and the new houses
on Gervais Avenue to the commercial area to the east without having to go on the street. The city
engineer also told me that he would allow some flexibility with the design and location of the new
sidewalk to allow the developer to work around the existing trees and grades in the location of the
sidewalk. The applicant has told staff that he is opposed to building this sidewalk.
3
Lot Division and Access
The proposed plans show access to the northerly town houses from the existing driveway for the
Carefree Cottages. The applicant told me that he would be arranging for cross easements and access
agreements for his development to use this driveway. City staff should review these agreements before
the project receives final approval from the city. The town houses on the south side of the development
will have access from a new driveway that would connect to Gervais Avenue.
As proposed, the 12 town houses will be on one parcel and the three single dwellings will each be on
their own parcel. (See the proposed lot split map on page 19.) Since the proposal includes creating
four parcels, the city needs to approve a lot division so the developer may divide the property as
proposed.
Building Design, Site Layout and Landscaping
Design Review Discussion
The proposed buildings would be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing Carefree
Cottages in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (with a wood grain finish),
vinyl trim and the roofs would have pewter gray asphalt shingles. (See the proposed elevations on
pages 23 and 25 and the enclosed project drawings.) These buildings would be very similar, if not
identical to, the existing Carefree Cottages to the north and east of the site. Staff does not have any
major concerns about the proposed plans since this development will be on a private driveway and
would be somewhat isolated. In fact, only the tenants of the town houses and the residents in the
existing town house building would be able to see the fronts of the new buildings.
Parking
It should be noted that the city will not allow parking along the new driveway in the site since it will be
24 feet wide. There is little room on the site to add off - street parking within this development without
squeezing two.spaces between the driveways of the four -unit and eight -unit buildings and possibly
west of the four -unit building. The applicant's revised plan (dated January 5, 2002 on page 20) does
show eight off - street parking spaces scattered throughout four locations on the site.
Landscaping
The developer should further develop the landscaping plan to increase the screening between the
proposed town houses and the existing and proposedsingle dwellings. There are at least three areas
that will need additional plantings or another type of screening method. Specifically, these additional
trees should include Colorado Blue Spruce, eastern red cedar and eastern arborvitae. These
additional trees should be located as follows:
(1) Along the north property line of 1725 Gervais Avenue.
(2) Along the south side of the new driveway (along the south property line of Parcel A).
(3) Along the west side of the new driveway (along the east property line of Parcel B).
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.
Watershed District
It 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. The applicant must contact Karl
Hammers of the watershed district at (651) 704 -2089 to inquire about their plan review and permitting
requirements.
Fire Marshal's Comments
Butch Gery p
ais the Maplewood Fire Marshal, stated that the fire department must have clear passage
to the buildings.
The final site plan should be reviewed by Mr. Gervais to ensure fire safety needs are
q
met. He also noted
that the code requires that the buildings have a sprinkler system for fire protection.
Building Code Concerns
the Maplewood Building Official, noted that the building code requires that the town
David Fisher, p
houses have at least a three -foot setback from the north and south property lines and at least a five -
foot setback from property
m the side lines. The applicant may need to change the site plan to meet
these setback requirements.
COMMISSION ACTIONS
On December 11, 2001,
the CDRB recommended that the city council approve the proposed design
plans for the Carefree Villas.
01 the planning commission, on a 2 -
On December 17, 20 p 9 6 vote, recommended that the city council
deny the proposed
ed land use Ian change, PUD and lot division for the proposed Carefree Villas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
e resolution on page 29. It changes the land use plan from R -1 (single dwelling
A. Approve the p g
residential) to RH (residential high density) for the 12 town hou se units of the Carefree Villas of
Maplewood. The city bases this change on the following findings.
1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high- density residential use. This
includes b ein g 9 9 next to existing high-density senior housing units, a collector street and near two
churches, shopping and Four Seasons Park.
2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties
because:
a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values.
b.
There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
B. Approve the resolution starting page 30. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for
p 9
a planned unit development for the Carefree Villas, based on the findings required by code.
(Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions:
n shall follow the plans dated November 26, 2001 except where the city requires
1. All construction p
changes. Such changes shall include revising the grading and site plans to show the additional
5
parking spaces and the required sidewalk along Gervais Avenue. The city council may approve
major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor
changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or,
the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The owner shall not convert the town houses in this development to non - seniors housing without
the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines senior housing as
a residence occupied by persons that are 55 years of age or older.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers at or around the
townhouses.
5. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day -to -day
transportation on the town house site.
6. If the city council decides there is not enough on -site parking after the town houses are
occupied, the city may require additional parking.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit
at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8. The three single dwellings are exempt from reviews for conditional use permit revisions for any
expansions, additions or changes provided that such changes would meet all applicable zoning
and building standards and requirements.
9. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
C. Approve the proposed lot split shown on page 19. This plan creates four parcels for the Carefree
Villas development on Gervais Avenue. This lot division shall be subject to the developer or applicant
completing the following conditions before the city approves the lot division deeds:
1. The developer or owner recording drainage and utility easements along all existing and new
property lines, subject to the approval of the city engineer.
2. The developer or owner recording cross easement and access agreements for Parcel A to have
access to Gervais Avenue across the adjacent property (the existing Carefree Cottages).
3. Signing an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten -foot drainage and utility
easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five -foot drainage and utility
easements along the side lot lines of each lot).
d. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic - control, street identification and no parking signs.
e. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Gervais Avenue indicating that it is a
private driveway.
f. Provide for the repair of Gervais Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the
developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway.
g. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans.
4. Changing the proposed lot divison as follows:
a. Dedicate drainage and utility easements along all property lines. These easements shall
be pedestrian and utility easements in the front and shall be ten feet wide, shall be ten
feet wide along the rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines.
b. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-
, site drainage and utility easements, subject to the city engineer's requirements.
6. Record the following with the lot division deeds:
a. All homeowners association documents.
b. An access agreement for the proposed town houses that ensures the tenants may use
the existing driveway(s) for ingress and egress.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for
approval before recording to assure there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of
the common areas, private utilities, driveways and structures.
7. The city will not issue building permits until the deeds for the town house site and the three
single dwelling lots are recorded and the developer has met the city conditions.
D. Approve the plans (site and landscaping) dated January 5, 2002 and the building elevations (dated
November 26, 2001) for the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. 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 permit for this project.
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:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The final grading plan shall include:
(a) Building floor elevation, driveway and contour information.
(b) The street, driveway and sidewalk grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(c) No grading beyond the boundaries of the development without temporary
grading easements from the affected property owner(s).
(d) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the
watershed district. The design of the overflow swales shall be approved by the
city engineer.
(3) There shall be no parking on either side of the new private driveway. The developer
or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs.
(4) 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 and proposed houses to the south. 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 and
other species.
(c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 20 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.
(5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter
except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes.
(6) The design of the rainwater garden and its outlet shall be subject to the approval of the
city engineer. The outlet shall be protected to prevent erosion. The developer shall
give the city an easement for this drainage area and shall be responsible for getting
any needed off-site pond and drainage easements.
(7) Provide a minimum of six - inch -thick sidewalk section at each driveway.
(8) The site, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show:
(a) Asix - foot -wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Gervais Avenue
between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the west property line of
the site. The public works director shall approve the location and design of
the sidewalk.
(b) A water service to each unit.
(c) Repair of Gervais Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer
connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway.
0
(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.
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) Foundation plantings of perennials and shrubs (with mulch) for the areas between the
sidewalks and the proposed buildings.
(2) The planting of additional native evergreens on the site to provide additional screening.
These additional trees should include Colorado Blue Spruce, eastern red cedar and
eastern arborvitae. These additional tress should be located as follows:
(a) Along the north property line of 1725 Gervais Avenue.
(b) Along the south side of the new driveway (along the south property line of
proposed Parcel A).
(c) Along the west side of the new driveway (along the east property line of Parcel
B.)
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.
(3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the vegetation
within the rainwater garden.
(4) Having in- ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
d. Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds, cross easements and all
homeowners 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. Revise the site plan or the property lines so that the town houses meet the setback
requirements of the building code and of the building official.
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 comers.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas outside of the rainwater
garden.
C. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Gervais Avenue exit, a handicap - parking sign for each
handicap - parking space, no parking signs along the private driveway and addresses on
9
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 on the north side of Gervais Avenue
between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the west property line of the site. The
Maplewood Public Works Director shall approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
e. Provide pedestrian ramps in the sidewalk along Gervais Avenue to match the entrance
driveway. Any future driveway shall match the grade of the new sidewalk.
f. Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping, the rainwater garden and an
in- ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement).
g. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open
parking stalls, except where the city engineer determines that it is not necessary.
h. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives 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, 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 any unfinished work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor
changes.
10
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 19 property owners within $50 feet of the site about the proposal. There were three
responses.
For
1. This would be just fine for us. (Owner — 1730 Gervais Avenue)
2. We need lots more senior housing in Maplewood! We need to take better care of our senior
population and give them opportunities in housing. (Anonymous)
3. I am very pleased with the proposal to add units to the Carefree Villas. I believe they will be a nice
addition to the neighborhood. (Fenton — 1725 Gervais Avenue)
REFERENCE
Site Description
The site has a single - family home.
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Existing Carefree Cottages of Maplewood.
East: Existing Carefree Cottages of Maplewood.
South: Gervais Avenue. South of Gervais Avenue are light industrial land uses such as Cook's Auto
Repair, an office- warehouse complex and Schwan's Foods warehouse.
West: The Seasons Park Addition with single- family homes along Flandrau Street, a Lutheran church and
Four Seasons Park.
Reasons for the Requests
This proposal needs a land use plan change because:
1. State law does not allow a city to adopt any regulation that conflicts with its comprehensive plan.
2. One of the findings required by code for a CUP is that the use is in conformity with the city's
comprehensive plan.
The land use plan shows this site for R -1 (single dwelling) uses, which do not include multiple - family
housing.. The developer is applying for a CUP because the zoning on this site is R -1 (single dwellings). The
R -1 zone only allows single dwellings and their accessory uses. The developer chose to apply for a CUP,
rather than a zone change, to have the town houses on the site. A CUP for a PUD is only for a specific
use and site plan. A rezoning to R -3 (multiple dwelling residential) would allow a variety of multiple -
dwelling uses and plans.
11
PLANNING
Existing Land Use Plan designation: R -1 (single dwellings)
Proposed Land Use Plan designations: R3.-!H (high density residential) and R -1
Zoning: R -1
CRITERIA APPROVAL
Land Use Plan Change
There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be
consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 36 -442 states that the city council must base approval of CUPs on the nine findings stipulated in
the resolution on pages 30 & 31.
Design Approval
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 to neighboring,
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 in 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 development would provide a desirable environment
for its occupants, as 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. 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.
- Whenever possible, changes in types of land uses should occur so that similar uses front on the same
street or at borders of areas separated by major man -made or natural barriers.
12
Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural
or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses,
manufactured homes, single- family housing, public- assisted housing and low- to moderate - income
housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing.
Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering
and separation.
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 for a diversity of housing styles, types 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 revised plans from the applicant on November 26, 2001. State law requires that the city
take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city must take
action on this request by January 25, 2002.
kr /c: Sec 10 /villas. mem
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Existing Land Use Plan Map
3. Proposed Land Use Plan
4. Property Une/Zoning Map
5. Existing Property Line Map
6. Proposed Lot Split Map
7. Proposed Site and Landscape Plan
8. Proposed Grading, Tree and Utility Plan
9. 8 -unit Building Floor Plan
10. Proposed building elevation
11. 4 -unit building floor plan
12. Proposed building elevations
13. Applicant's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Statement
14. Applicant's CUP Statement
15. Resolution: Land Use Plan Change
16. Resolution: CUP for PUD
17. Project Plans date - stamped November 26, 2001 (Separate Attachment)
13
- Attachment 1
tiff 1. SUAIMiT CT. Lff- YvHN'S �- ig
2. COUMRYVIEW ClR. BLVD.
3. DUItl7H CT. �
O iii �� 4 ;; � bU4Pil
Kgw1 O � AVE.
1 NNW
v&V AVE.
o � < Y i AVE.
MESAM
Moikhom AVE
Pond
/ X NC
j f t.%';rj� f'O(flVTY
r= � � COURT `,�.`,..
KOF�AbW AVE. � � " �.+ KOHIWW � Icas eY\.
Lak
�n AVE. e i '
k
. RWrD � � C
lob vzi [El
Z
E EHILL RD. O
OEMQNT AVE.
ROOK
E.
a It to Ay E
pow
SEXTANT
- AVE. AVE.
G »
�� � � 0
GAIVDMEW =AVE. D
VIKING J L�m to
SFiERREN AVE.
�v
nuo��Heod Lake
� AVE. K �
COPE AVE. ' --�"J � AVE. � COPE AVE. �.
LARK � q �:r K o AVE. � N
Wt
R0. � v IAURIEJ R0. Z L4URIE ?dRp. LAURIE RD.
g W
I[� SAND] Q
AVE. a L 1 0 . "A RD.
6URKE AVE. MMEoZ AVE S AP
a
[ I AVE. AM
,,VE B% L..,LN.
OA WA L
AV E. SKIU.UWr FUNiRIS AVE.
V E. � � � � R05EM= AVE. N
PW* � ICJ Ay t�,a� AVE. S. o J � IVY HOla E �0 1.
� �' Q Q�' R GRO!lNOS 2y
ST � AVE. � � �• �i► 150 p. H OLL 04YAY ul
4 �n (El �i► r � O W O ��
um ER AV E. � Mtl�
AVE. � Q
ARENA
LOCATION MAP
14
4
N
Attachment
r
t
i
1
o
oil
� t� • i f i � "`_
L B C
BC i
interchange
0
LEGEND
U
0
R -1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS
L-
R -3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
O
P = PARK
U
C = CHURCH
�-
OS = OPEN SPACE
0
U
M -1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
c�
.=
BBC = BUSINESS COI IMERCIAL
LAND USE MAP
(EXISTING)
is
4
N
Attachment 3
D
� l
C
IL
K
BC
LBC
LBC
BC
_ Highway 36 ,----
.- i t e c h a n g e
L
O
LEGEND
U
W Q R -1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS
6. R-3(H) = HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
0 P =PARK
U C = CHURCH
6 W OS = OPEN SPACE
U M -1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
•-^ URiNG
Cz .' BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
E
LAND USE MAP
(PROPOSED)
is
4
N
Attachment 4
4-0 0' ou
l5b of b' 15() . Of .:1 .'3
15 rd 3. S' ::Z,
L
-fin T.S. 4- 1 2 S ;R
fn 7 Aw. I - I
30 '3750.57' 3 6
P` "_' �� "-' � x ��S) a � 4 14.8 �'� � 0' � .. E S�
2 e
44 (463)
7
7s �74%10 Q* Q 3
41b 1� 2
NS (67)
0 (31)
7s_
(40)
AVE --- r. f,0 'LIM (.0- (30)
7S
T
.89 12-
(41) 36.9
29)
(1-7)
C �)
p 19 135. Z3 • 1. 307ac.1 w (,-3&) 10
(�T) O : ' *. - •1 34 ".
Z)
13S.27 r; rj
4
f"'
17-71 2465 P . 2464 %n
T
as (r73) 1 I (J
135.
(Z3)
. 2457 2456
V C,
133.5
ul \0
2449 2448
tie At CAREFREE COTTAGES
I
all
1,n
(z3) t.. 2440
41
re co CID V) 13S.45
"r'2432
Gj
41
%n to P C .. ........ . ---------
. . . . . . ... ....
C#j 2424
J * ....... ......
4 C-k
00, r
-4.
4145 e 0:.
O �. o 13 S
.SS
241 . ............
4
RIAW :.::.:.:.:.:: ::::::::::•:
1 3 T. _T9
z
_ 2408,
z ................. I
LL /33.4
1 695
2400
NOW,
3c
0
GERVAIS AVENUE
M =_ N
7
(35)
(3C)
(37)
(40)
3 31
(OF rf
to
9
g 04
J * ....... ......
4 C-k
00, r
-4.
4145 e 0:.
O �. o 13 S
.SS
241 . ............
4
RIAW :.::.:.:.:.:: ::::::::::•:
1 3 T. _T9
z
_ 2408,
z ................. I
LL /33.4
1 695
2400
NOW,
3c
0
GERVAIS AVENUE
M =_ N
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
17
4
4 _T'
.(
3 3 1. (65'
3 31
(OF rf
'10
4. 5 am
4.3 (a ac
5
4
3
2 , .0
6-1 -
L
C D
4 1
<
Z4
Ir
In
tn
1700
1730
1770
41
23
(A
Lp
A 2 Z
X
10
OZO
�
� (5) 2L
o f
in
co
.95
;
32-
13
Uzi
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
17
4
Attachment 5
PARCEL "A" DESCRIPTION:
t
1
i
The North 125 feet of the South 300 feet of the Went 100 feet of Lot 2,
E.G. Rogers' Garden Lots, AND ALSO; The East 10 feet of the West 100
feet of the South 1 75 feet of Lot 2, & G. Rogers' Garden Lots, all in
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY UNE
IMMAM
i
i
' � ....r . ..'
J
1
3..0 33
GERVAIS A VENUE
— ---- — — ----- — — --- — —
ssrsssssssssssassessssssss:
SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTHEAST WARTER OF SECTION 10.
SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY UNE
VICINITY . EXISTING LOTS
MAPLIV as WOOD =
EXISTING PROPERTY LINES
18
4
N
Attachment b
G Z R v A I a
•
MM 1 x*fr -. r- NAY UNL
AVINUI
9QU'11! URE W TW W71'WAIT QUAiMlRR W 3WnQN 10.
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
19
t
o
C5
r
�
I
ULU
I
�
Ip
I
i
I�
I
Q
{
PARCEL "A" b
o
'L—.�
\ 1
V
WVMAW
unurf I I
I I
R
2
_
! S1.2S s
R ?6.00 i
•
—
PARCEL "D" I
I PARCEL "C" I
I PARCEL "B" I
'
I
I
2375.00 sz �'
1 M447.96 M
I
M4 %39 ,4 R I
A
SCE
M 30 FEET
6
I
I
HOUSE I
I
MC M 1Moff- � -1MA7 UW.
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
' �-- — -- — — --
L. — — — -- — -- —J"
l
—...MO&
75.00
1 2 91.25 2
2 76.16 !
xago5x4vw
i 24L42
G Z R v A I a
•
MM 1 x*fr -. r- NAY UNL
AVINUI
9QU'11! URE W TW W71'WAIT QUAiMlRR W 3WnQN 10.
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
19
t
Attachment 7
y
i�.l ■R ::i�fii�NQiTri i ■■ ■ - ■w!� �w■�t�:�m ■w1 ■ ■■
VIA
Dim
isso, rgi M J,;�
�� �� �. ��' �. '�'. �. � ` �I l,�j I I � 111 �f ,III' � �
-"� • ■ ■
Alp- vim
WE
,�
O p4 C �� - -- -- - - -- -- -- -- - - -- -. _ ! nai^tww•■�
r1c■►-7,...r�**r- r�.��,..
� ran■^-? -- mr 77.-.a■ :r�+^t■
ru
I
� I
i
O
PROPOSED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
20
4
N
Attachment 8
� 1
�o
4 �
O
1
1
4
1
�
� 0
- --- --,
n
o
- dp- - -.J
i
1
1
i
O r
L t ,
i
i
r1ET TAP MATER MAN
WgrACL CM Box AND GA TE V ALVE
(SCE AS PER ME:CftA AM D{ I00
2W - Tr PVC • CL4X t• •.�.
W . 0nre
CORE CUT ww r= No
MA/111" RE ULID WM f
i OAKA&f
�•• --• Wr TAP MATER MAN
_. WT'ALL CURB BOO( AM GATE VALVE
(Std AS PER MfSHNW -AL E?MEM)
1 EiE C
E(WD E )MMA 10 FEET WE
BmMMA Dww To NEW CURB
~� CLW42 CUT
Z OLNUIOUNTAMZ CM
p TYPE 34 (TWWAl3
i
g� EXTEND SIDEWALK
1
"•. F9MCVE E CSTN0 WW W"
nEP+ACE VAIN a 1WIC L AND 3W
Ca l
RIMw914.10
INV/-911.00
12' RCP tLA • 1-OX
%�� OONCwitE �EwALX
gI1s1 //� � 113.J�3 i
`�' ` DoE Our MID C� WIM wi
as�o �a � IOU= omm"k ,
N s A9HlR »{ 10 "Im MAIL
Pao vwv
A= OMtAIWZ (SKM DETAL)
- ---- -� (3) — 42 NAMMM BY s Met• DW R= KLTRATMN MM"
(CAI! Qtt 8 ED ROCK 1 1/2 IM MR=) MAPPED K
TYK a. { WJW7= t AT L , Pori a 9 W" 0%90.AP. � T F� 1W �C 1 9�
a AP
EMIOIED BE KACED APPR=MA11ELY 12 WMES BEL M
4{M1C { FMWW Wr= OF 7bE RAKWA70 GAMM
�w 10 ar 3K W .APE MAN Fdt F1RtifER DBTAIS W RAN
{
00- DR/WAGE SINUCIUMM CAN BE BOLT WTH A CCMM"T=
OF SMALL 27' CONCRETE CA7M BASW AND NWE FTTTW=
18TH ORATES► NiYOKA4'T AND SOME OTHER HDPE MAMFACUM
t! !aR ALSO MAKE SHALL NDPE DRMAOE STKt<J=FMS AS AN
ALTIEN 7E 70 CONCRETE SIMCTURM
PROPOSED GRADING, TREE AND UTILITY PLAN
21
4
N
Attachment 9
8 -UNIT FLOOR PLAN
22
li .
N
Attachment 10
dA9YLT flab!
RflO�K ILlllelwlM►1
VMIi away A?ro ved
vwrt"W"wr SWUM
asvew -nimmu � s"
vMLWIMow swop � nrefanvenoom
Invelfe- a6MOMaoq t�
%WLOdAUrQADMM
noao�aulnol - MCNAW IVU
vM Igvelfe -erne walsl falY - nary srllr
MM "WMM CM scwam - �n a� — !� ���
e ve eerae apq Q L ❑ aa. Grp w�wss
wn rnazssww
wxvse- eraeaolapol - - -'
lU VAT10N
j V4%W
.-JL-LJME
-
i
Ia. AT1oN
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
23
4
N
Attachment 11
1 •t UNIT rL00lct 1°1.ON
4 -UNIT FLOOR PLAN
24
4
N
Attachment 12
8
Z 81>aR SLiVbT10N
aw•na
3 MAR NLZVATI
WOW
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
25
4
N
�,'��R >C�YA.TION
a�rti+�o'
Attachment 13
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NOV 13 2001
Intended Use of Property R E C E I V E 1)
Filing Requirements requested by Ken Roberts `
Mogren Development Company intends to construct twelve single
level townhomes on the northern half of this property. These
townhomes would be restricted to renters that are 55 and older. The
south half of the property would be developed into three single- family
lots (one of the lots has an existing home). I feel that this proposed
development would blend very well with our current townhomes, which
border the property on the east and north. I believe that townhomes
would also be a better fit for the single family neighbors to the west.
Townhomes would require a side setback of 50 feet from the
neighboring single - family homes, as compared to the single- family
minimum setback of 10 feet. The townhome buffer would be fully
landscaped to provide more privacy.
I have consulted with Development Engineering, the engineering
company for this proposed project and they have concluded that this
project would have a minimal impact on the existing utilities,
specifically sewer and water. Changing the density from Rl to
multifamily will increase the number of living units from seven to
fifteen. Twelve of the .units are restricted to tenants 55 years of age and
older. Senior tenants -have fewer persons per household and typically
use less water and sewer than a family would. 'Senior households, on
average, are rated at two persons ,per household while families are rated
at 2.75 per household. Mathematically we are requesting a net increase
of housing for thirteen additional senior people over the current zoning.
Development Engineering concluded that this proposed development's
impact on utilities should not be significant.
26
Attachment 14
REASONS WHY TIC CITY SHOULD
APPROVE THIS REQUEST
1.) This property is currently zoned R1. The development that is being
submitted does not conform to the current comprehensive plan or
zoning. Up until now this property has been virtually "Land
Locked" because of its location. The proposal calls for rental
housing restricted to "senior citizens ", very similar in nature to the
existing Carefree Cottages which currently borders this property on
two sides.
2.) This proposed development would not change the existing or
planned character of the surrounding area. The property is
currently zoned "R -1" Residential. I am proposing a P.U.D. because
I feel that multi - family would be a good fit with the surrounding
properties. This property does have a unique nature
because it is bordered on the -west by single family homes and on the
north and east by multi - family townhomes. If the property were to
be developed as single family residences, (the current proposed
zoning), and the side setback from the single - family neighbors to the
west would be only ten feet from their backyards. The single - family
lots created would also be surrounded on two sides by senior citizen
townhomes. If the city allows the proposed P.U.D. plan, the side set
back from the single - family homes to the west would be fifty feet.
This fifty feet consists of mature trees and the intention of this
developer is to maintain as much as possible this fifty foot "buffer
area" in it's current natural state.
3.) It is my opinion that the proposed P.U.D. would, at a minimum,
maintain the property value of the adjacent single family homes. It
stands to reason that this P.U.D. provides an extra fifty feet of green
space adjacent to the neighbor's backyards as opposed to a single-
family residence, which can be as close as ten feet away from these
backyards. Plus, it is very unlikely that the senior rental units
would create noise or disturbances in the neighborhood.
27
4.) Not applicable
5.) The development would only add twelve additional "senior citizen"
living units to join the two hundred forty eight units, which already
exist on this site. The traffic created by these additional units would
have very little or no impact on the neighborhood.
6.) & 7.) There are currently adequate public facilities and there
should be minimal impact with these additional units.
8.) & 9.) See the answer to #2
28
Attachment 15
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Bruce Mogren applied for a change to the city's land use plan from R -1 (single dwellings) to
R -3H (residential high density).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the north side of
Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phases I and II) and the house at 1733
Gervais Avenue.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1 . On December 17, 2001, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published
a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners.
The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny the plan
amendment.
2. On January 14, 2002, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered
reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described changes for the
following reasons:
1 . This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high- density residential use. This
includes being next to existing high- density senior housing units, a collector street and is near two
churches, shopping and Four Seasons Park.
2. 1 This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because:
a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values.
b. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2002.
29
Attachment 16
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Carefree Villas (Phase IV)
planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the undeveloped property on the north side of Gervais Avenue between
the existing Carefree Cottages of Maplewood (Phases I and II) and the house at 1733 Gervais Avenue.
The legal description is:
The North 125 feet of the South 300 feet of the West 100 feet of Lot 2, E.G. Rogers' Garden Lots,
and also; the East 10 feet of the West 100 feet of the South 175 feet of Lot 2, E.G. Rogers' Garden Lots,
all in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And
Except the West 100 feet, the South 300 feet of Lot 2, E.G. Rogers' Garden Lots in Section 10,
Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1 . On December 17, 2001 the planning commission recommended that the city council deny this
permit.
2. On January 14, 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 gave everyone at the
hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports
and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described conditional use
permit, because:
1 . The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with
the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that
would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or.
property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic
congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and
fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features
into the development design.
30
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction shall follow the plans dated November 26, 2001, except where the city requires
changes. Such changes shall include revising the grading and site plans to show the additional
parking spaces and the required sidewalk along Gervais Avenue. The city council may approve
major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The owner shall not convert the town houses in this development to non- seniors housing without
the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines seniors housing as
a residence occupied by persons that are 55 years of age or older.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers at or around the
townhouses.
5. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day -to -day transportation
on the town house site.
6. If the city council decides there is not enough on -site parking after the town houses are
occupied, the city may require additional parking.
7. The developer or builder wily pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit
at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8.' The three single dwellings are exempt from reviews for conditional use permit revisions for any
expansions, additions or changes provided that such changes would meet all applicable zoning and
building standards and requirements.
9. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2002.
31
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 11, 2001
a. Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV)
Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue
Mr. Ekstrand said that Bruce Mogren, representing the Carefree Cottages Villas, is
proposing to build 12 units of senior housing and 2 single dwellings. He is proposing to
build this J ro'ect on the north side of Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of
p
Maplewood and the property at 1733 Gervais Avenue.
The development would have two areas. As shown on the proposed site plan (page 20
of the staff report), there would be two one -story buildings with a total of 12 town home
units north of Gervais Avenue, next to the driveway for the existing Carefree Cottages.
The other part of the project would be along Gervais Avenue and would include 3 single
dwellings (the existing house at 1733 Gervais and 2 new houses on either side of the
existing house). The 15 total units would be on a 1.9 -acre site for an average of 7.9
units per acre.
The site would have 12 open parking spaces — one in front of each garage stall. (The
proposed plan does not show any guest parking spaces). The buildings would have
p
exteriors of vinyl horizontal -lap siding, gray asphalt shingles and vinyl trim and fascia
boards.
To build the development, Mr. Mogren is requesting that the city approve the following:
1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change would - be from R -1 (single
dwellings) to R -3H (residential high density) for the 12 town house units:
2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15 -unit
housing development. This PUD would have 12 units of rental senior housing and
three single dwellings. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the proposed
development has a mix of housing types, lot sizes and densities. In addition,
havin g g Y a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site
design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would
normally allow. For example, the new proposed lots on Gervais Avenue would be
9,375 and 9,384 square feet in area. (See the property line /zoning map on page
17, the proposed lot split map on page 19 and the proposed site plan on page 20.)
3. A lot division to divide the property into four lots - 3 lots for the single dwellings
along Gervais Avenue and one lot for the 12 townhouse units. (See the map on
page 19 of the staff report.)
4. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings.
Mr. Ekstrand said the city is recommending that the developer extend the sidewalk that
is in place along the north side of Gervais Avenue to the westerly boundary.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff is concerned about the parking spaces. The applicant is
meeting code with providing one outside space and one garage space. There are not
any other visitor parking spaces on this site. The city tries to. make sure parking for
guests is provided. There is not any room for curbside parking; therefore staff wants the
review board to consider the need for some additional visitor parking spaces.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff is recommending that the landscaping plan be more developed
to provide additional screening behind the home at 1725 Gervais Avenue. Additional
landscaping is also being recommended along the south of the driveway to help provide
screening for the existing and future homes on Gervais Avenue.
Staff is recommending the approval of recommendation D on page 7 of the staff report.
Recommendations A -C will be acted on by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ekstrand added item 2. e. on page 9 require:
e. A photometric plan as required by city code.
Mr. Ekstrand said he spoke with the building official, David Fisher, and he said the
setbacks for the proposed garages should have a three -foot setback from the north lot
line.
Currently they are directly abutting the lot line. Also on the east side the units abut the
easterly bounds of the property. The building code would require a five -foot setback
there. This will some require shifting within the site to accommodate these setbacks.
q g
Chairperson Ledvina asked if staff recommends an additional condition to state that?
Mr. Ekstrand said yes.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if that could perhaps be put under number 6. on page 10?
Mr. Ekstrand said yes.
Board member Olson asked if the building on the west could easily be shifted south.to
accommodate the three - foot - setback from the driveway side. The east -west shift looks
possible to accommodate, but the north -south shift looks tight.
Mr. Ekstrand said the only leeway he can find is in the depth in the three single - family
lots.
Board member Olson said the lots would have to be adjusted in size.
Mr. Ekstrand said if they took three feet off the depth of those lots they could make it fit.
Board member Olson asked that would cause a problem.
Mr. Ekstrand said no, two of the undeveloped lots are just under the 10,000 square foot
minimum. Being a planned unit development it would be possible to do that. They have
the right within the ordinance to make those adjustments without requiring it a variance.
Board member Olson said better to make those changes earlier than later.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if they could just require "modifications acceptable
to staff."
Mr. Ekstrand said that would be fine.
Chairperson Ledvina said more input can be given from the applicant on this issue.
Board member Olson asked staff about the lighting ordinance. Staff has. asked for a
gp
li htin Ian, how do the existing cottage lighting plans fit in with the current lighting
g
ordinance. Do you for -see any problems?
Mr. Ekstrand said when Mr._ p
Mogren has the chance to speak he can explain the lighting
g cottages. The
at the existin cotta resent code says, when adjacent to residential, the
applicant needs to provide a lighting plan. That is just to make sure that staff is seeing
that the fixtures used are not going to create glare and that they are attractive.
Board member Olson asked staff if they had noticed any violations in the existing plans?
Mr. Ekstrand said no, and he would hop e that the lighting fixtures proposed on these
buildings are going to be compatible with what is being used in the existing cottages
development.
Board member Shankar asked staff if there is anything in the code that requires one of
these twelve units to be a handicapped accessible unit?
Mr. Ekstrand said maybe Mr. Mo ren could answer that. It is possible that that is a
Y g
building ode requirement that a certain number of units are handicapped accessible
g
but Mr. Ekstrand is not aware that any of these twelve units are handicap accessible.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the density in this development that is 7.9 units
per gross acre. What is the existing density for the cottages?
Mr. Ekstrand said he does not know for sure what the existing density is, he does not
have the background data. But the code does allow up to twelve units per R -31-1.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about the current use of this area, it seems to be a low
-lying area and he noticed it was all graded out. Is it functioning as a holding pond
right now?
Mr. Ekstrand said he did not think it had been. His recollection' is that it was a treed
area and he does not think any water was being held there. The applicant could
address that.
Mr. Ekstrand said it does drop six feet or so. It is lower than the land to the north and to
the west.
Chairperson Ledvina questioned if the grading complies with the grading /drainage plan.
Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Mogren is working with the city to make sure he is meeting the
cities needs. He also needs a watershed district permit for grading.
Chairperson Ledvina asked staff if these units are owner - occupied?
Mr. Ekstrand said they would be rental units.
Mr. Ledvina asked Bruce Mogren, the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Mogren said that he is willing to work with the city on a lighting plan.. He wants to
provide safety and security and does not want to disturb the neighbors with light glare.
Currently they have one handicapped unit. They typically setup the units with the wider
doors to accommodate wheelchairs to make it accessible. They want their residents to
be able to stay there as long as possible. Typically, in the town homes, the tenants are
a bit younger and in the villas they are for a bit older.
Mr. p
Mogren spoke to Jim Elias in Public Works about the grading and fill. Jim Elias was
g
okay with the grading plan.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if he knows what the density is for the town
homes?
Mr. Mogren said they started out with 10 acres and they have 248 units.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if this area collects water right now, is this area
used for ponding in any way?
Mr. Mogren said no it is not, the previous owners had a daycare out there. He knows
the area is lower, he is letting his engineers take care of the technical end of it. There is
no vegetation to suggest any wetlands. .
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if the issue with the building setbacks on the
north line and the east line, how do you see that affecting your proposal?
Mr. Mogren said from a practical stand point Mogren Development owns all the
surrounding property. He wants this proposal to fit in as well as possible with the
existing 248 units. It would be nice not to have to move those pine trees, it creates a
nice buffer zone. They have hired Frattalone excavating and he thinks they would like
to keep that area possible.
Board member Olson asked Mr. Mogren about the parking problem, is there any way
you can squeeze any additional parking onto this site?
Mr. Mogren said it was just brought to his attention this week. He would be willing to
look into adding some parking spaces. He would meet with his engineer to see where
they could add visitor parking. He understands that people might need additional
parking for guests and celebrations.
Chairperson Ledvina -asked Mr. Mogren if he looked at adding some architectural
elements to the villas like some brick, wainscoting on the fagade, etc. to dress it up?
Mr. Mogren said they wanted these villas to fit in with the other units. They have
changed some of the patterns on the siding. This will only be visible to the project itself,
if you were driving by, you would not notice them from the street.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren about the sidewalk plan. He is confused about
the sidewalk plan and the theme that is used.
Board member Olson said she appreciates the sidewalk plan, they have a shared
sidewalk that will provide less for the maintenance person to shovel, that also allows
more green space and less covered surface.
Chairperson Ledvina disagrees with that statement. He thinks some sidewalk could be
eliminated and still keep the green space. He does not see the value of the T_ in the
sidewalk plan.
Mr. Mogren asked if that could be put in the report that he can work it out with staff
regarding the sidewalk issues.
Chairperson Ledvina said one of the things he is struggling with in terms of this design
is overall the site plan that creates double- fronted residential lots. He realizes that this
is not a public street, but it is a roadway. The two residential lots on eastern part of the
development are essentially double fronted.
Mr. Mogren said the cottages are built in quads of four, and that is how they ended up
with the plan. He understands what Mr. Ledvina is saying but that road is not really a
road, essentially it is a driveway to service just those homes. He has seen a lot of
single - family subdivisions over the past 25 years and he understands the concern.'
Board member Olson asked staff about the. landscape plan. Would you recommend
four additional trees be planted to the east to extend that buffer in an east west pattern?
Mr. Ekstrand said es, he cannot say the exact amount of trees that should be there.
Y Y
He also noticed in the report that it should say 6 -foot taY trees instead of 8 -foot trees.
Chairperson Ledvina asked if that was the required tree height at the time of planting?
Mr. Ekstrand said yes.
Mr. Mogren said he wants to make sure the landscaping is done in such a manner that
it is a buffer and not have to been removed when someone decides to build homes on
those sites..
Mr. Ekstrand said staff would have to make sure a grading plan is approved to make
sure the landscaping is not taken out.
Mr. Mogren said almost everyone that builds a house loves trees and they would do
what ever it takes to keep those trees. Maybe it could be made to work out something
with staff regarding this issue with the trees.
Mr. Mogren said that his excavator Frattalone Excavating suggested that there is a
berm along the west line of the existing development.. Maybe they could
continue that bern to the south and this could provide the people to the west a better
buffer. If they did, maybe they could tuck a few parking spaces in that area.
Mr. Ekstrand said the berm sounds like a good idea.
Board member Olson said she liked that suggestion.
Mr. Mogren said they want to be good neighbors. There are still some trees remaining
and he would not want to disturb those trees.
Mr. Ekstrand said staff does take into consideration existing vegetation. They would
just like to see that area enhanced.
Mr. Mogren said he spoke with the Fenton's who are some of the neighbors and they
wanted to keep some of the trees in the area. He said the area is pretty well screened.
The other comment is regarding the sidewalk on the property by the street. There, are
several trees that are right along the street.. It would be pretty hard to snake a sidewalk
g g
through that area. It may be more disruptive doing that than being more helpful.
Mr. Ekstrand said it was the city engineer that suggested putting a sidewalk in. He can
appreciate Mr. Mogren's comments, you . would hate to lose some trees. Right now
there is a dead end sidewalk that ends at the cottages property line.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Ekstrand who would that sidewalk serve?
Board member Olson asked what the other sidewalk conditions in this section of
Gervais Avenue? Are there existing sidewalks or would this be the first piece?
Mr. Ekstrand said the sidewalks would go easterly towards Rainbow Foods but they do
not go any further to the west.
Mr. Mogren said for the record, he does not want to put any sidewalks in along the
street for fear of losing any of the mature trees..
Chairperson Ledvina said he went out to the site and he did not think a sidewalk could
be done.
Mr. Mogren said he didn't think it could either but he would like board members to go
and walk the site to see for themselves.
Chairperson. Ledvina said he understands the design concept of matching the existing
exterior but he does not agree with the rationale that this area is not that visible. He
thinks the quality of the design shouldn't be compromised.' It should be quality
construction for the benefit of the people that live there. He certainly understands Mr.
Mogren's point in terms of matching the architecture. The landscaping will dress up the
area. -
Board member Shankar asked Mr. Mogren what kind of windows are you proposing to
use?
Mr. Mogren said he believes they are double hung windows.
Chairperson Ledvina asked Mr. Mogren if there will be clear panels in the garage
doors?
Mr. Mogren he believes they would.
Board member Shankar asked Mr. Mogren who will be replacing the light bulbs outside?
Mr. Mogren said there are four people on staff that take care of the tenants.
D. Board member Olson moved to approve the plans (site and landscaping) dated
November 26, 2001, and the building elevations (dated November 26, 2001,) for
the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. The city bases this approval on the findings
required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review two years if the city has not issued a building permit for
this project.
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:
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The final grading plan shall. include:
(a) Building, floor elevation, driveway and contour information.
(b) The street, driveway and sidewalk grades as allowed by the
city engineer.
(c) No grading beyond the boundaries of the development
without temporary grading easements from the affected
property owner(s).
(d) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer
or by the watershed district. The city engineer shall approve
the design of the overflow swales.
(e) Submit a lighting plan.
(3) There shall be no parking on either side of the new private
driveway. The developer or contractor shall post the driveways
with no parking signs.
(4) 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 and proposed houses to the south. 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 six (6) feet tall and shall be a mix of
Austrian pine and other species.
(c) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 20 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.
(5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous
concrete curb and gutter.
(6) The design of the rainwater garden and its outlet shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer. The outlet shall be protected to
prevent erosion. The developer shall give the city an easement for
this drainage area and shall be responsible for getting any needed off-
site pond and drainage easements.
(7) Provide a minimum of six - inch -thick sidewalk section at each
driveway.
(8) The site, driveway, sidewalk and utility plans shall show:
(a) A six - foot -wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Gervais
Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and the
west property line of the site. The public works director shall
approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
(b) A water service to each unit.
(c) Repair of Gervais Avenue (street and boulevard) after the
developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private
driveway.
(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.
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) Foundation plantings of perennials and shrubs. (with. mulch) for the
areas between the sidewalks and the proposed buildings.
(2) The planting of additional. native evergreens on the site to provide
additional screening. These additional trees should include Colorado
blue spruce, eastern red cedar and eastern arborvitae. These
additional trees should be located as follows:
(a) Along the north property line of 1725 Gervais Avenue.
(b) Along the south side of the new driveway (along the south
property line of the proposed Parcel A).
(c) Along the west side of the new driveway (along the east property
line of Parcel B.)
The trees in these locations shall be at least 6 feet tall, in staggered
rows. (if possible) and are to provide screening that is at least 80
percent opaque.
(3) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall approve the
vegetation within the rainwater garden.
(4) Having in- ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code
requirement).
d. Show city staff that Ramsey County has recorded the deeds, cross
easements and all homeowners association documents for this
development before the city will issue a certificate of occupancy for the first
town house unit.
e. A photometric plan as required by city code.
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
rainwater garden.
C. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the Gervais Avenue exit, a handicap -
parking sign for each handicap - parking space, no parking signs along the
private driveway 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 on the north side of
Gervais Avenue between the west end of the existing sidewalk and 'the
west property line of the site. The Maplewood Public Works Director shall
approve the location and design of the sidewalk.
e. Provide pedestrian ramps in the sidewalk along Gervais Avenue to match
the entrance driveway. Any future driveway shall match the grade of the
new sidewalk.
f. Complete the site grading and install all required landscaping, the
rainwater garden and an in- ground lawn irrigation system for all
landscaped areas (code requirement).
g. Install continuous concrete curb .and gutter along all interior driveways and
around all open parking stalls, except where the CDRB determines that it
is not necessary.
h. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff
approval.
i. Construct a six- foot -wide concrete sidewalk on the north side of Gervais
Avenue from the west end of the existing sidewalk (near the easterly
driveway) to the west property line of the site.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or-
welfare.
b. The city receives 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, 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 any unfinished
work.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
6. Acceptable modifications to the setback requirements as determined by staff.
7. To work with staff to add additional parking.
8. To negotiate with staff parameters and layouts for the sidewalk on the proposed
site and future site.
Board member Shankar seconded the motion. Ayes — Olson, Shankar
Nay - Ledvina
The motion is passed.
Chairperson Ledvina said he still has an issue with the overall design of this site. He
does not feel the residential lot should have a double fronted view. He felt that overall
the site plan could be improved to eliminate that. Perhaps it would relate to reducing
the number of units.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001
a. Carefree Cottages Villas (Phase IV)
Behind 1733 Gervais Avenue
Mr. Roberts said that Bruce Mogren, representing the Carefree Cottages Villas, is proposing to build
12 units of senior housing and 2 single dwellings. He is proposing to build this project on the north
side of Gervais Avenue between the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood and the property at 1733
Gervais Avenue.
The development would have two areas. As shown on the proposed site plan, there would be two
one -story buildings with a total of 12 town home units north of Gervais Avenue, next to the driveway
for the existing Carefree Cottages. The other part of the project would be along Gervais Avenue and
would include 3 single dwellings (the existing house at 1733 Gervais and 2 new houses on either side
of the existing house). The 15 total units would be on a 1.9 -acre site for an average of 7.9 units per
acre.
The site would have 12 open parking spaces —one in front of each garage stall. (The proposed plan
does not show any guest parking spaces). The buildings would have exteriors of vinyl horizontal -lap
siding, gray asphalt shingles and vinyl trim and fascia boards.
To build the development, Mr. Mogren is requesting that the city approve the following:
1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from R -1 (single dwellings) to
R -3H (residential high density) for the 12 town house units.
2. A _conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15 -unit housing
development. This PUD would have 12 units of rental senior housing and three single
dwellings. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the proposed development has a
mix of housing types, lot sizes and densities. 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 zoning requirements would normally allow. For example, the new proposed lots
on Gervais Avenue would be 9,375 and 9,384 square feet in area.
3. A lot division to. divide the property into four lots - 3 lots for the single dwellings along
Gervais Avenue and one lot for the 12 townhouse units.
Item D. on page 7 of the staff report was a Community Design Review issue that was done at
the meeting December 11, 2001.
Mr. Roberts said there is a typo on page 6 item C. 3. b. removing the * from item b.
Mrs. Fenton of 1725 Gervais Avenue called Mr. Roberts today and said she was unable to
attend the meeting but wanted Mr. Roberts to relay to members that she is very supportive of the
project and would like to see it go forward.
Mr. Roberts said one recommendation from Mr. Ahl, the public works director, is that the
developer extend the sidewalk that was built with the earlier phases of the cottages to the west
along Gervais Avenue as part of this project. It is staffs opinion that the city council is going to
be looking into more detail regarding the opportunity for developers to build sidewalks for eo le
p p
to use as a means of transportation whenever possible.
Mr. Roberts said the developer, Mr. Bruce Mogren, has some concerns regarding he sidewalk
g
issue and that will need some discussion.
Mr. Roberts said this item did go to the Community Design Review Board December 11, 2001.
The members did have several concerns with the proposal, one that needs to be worked out is
the property line of the garages and the setbacks and the buildin g code. In this case the
garages should be setback three feet.
Commissioner Trippler asked staff in the recommendations on page 5 item B. 3. it talks about
the Y g city defines senior housing as being for persons that are 62 ears of age or older. In the
Will applicants presentation he talks about persons over 55 for this development. there be a
problem with this? If in fact it is a senior housing development and there is age restriction, how
does the city get involved with finding out if people are of the appropriate a e or not?
g
Mr. Roberts said the city has required from some developments that annual reports be filed with
the city showing the ages of the tenants and the city.would get a copy of this which is one way to
review that. As far as the age of senior housing being 55 or 62, the city has had senior housing
developments with 55 -age minimum and some with 62 -age minimum. He believes if you go to
the age 55 there are some different rules that come into play with HUD and fair housing law
verses age 62. What ever works with the developer is probably fine with the city but the city and
the developer should be consistent. Mr. Bruce Mogren could probably speak more about this
issue.
Commissioner Trippler asked if the city gets a report from a housing unit and there are people -
that are under age 55 or under age 62, then what does the city do?
Mr. Roberts said fortunately the city has never had that happen. But if it did happen the city
would have to contact the management and see why it happened and try to get the p roblem
resolved 'as quickly as possible or bring the conditional use permit back into the council for a
review.
Mr. Bruce Mogren did give Mr. Roberts a slightly revised plan with changes to show additional
parking spaces.
Commissioner Frost asked Mr. AN regarding reviewing the initial project they did talk about
sidewalks from that development to Flandrau. They ended up stopping short of the three single -
family lots. One of the issues was a large tree in front of the existing single - family house.
Because the lot is so small, would you move the tree in front of their window to put this sidewalk
in or cut the tree down? He is not sure you can get a six -foot sidewalk in and still meet the
requirements.
Mr. AN said his opinion is that the city can make it work, if necessary they may not have to make
it a full six -foot sidewalk in some areas. He feels it is necessary to provide a facility to make sure
the pedestrians are not out on this roadway. He feels the road has enough traffic that this
should be provided for the pedestrians and the traffic will increase if these units are built causing
more need for the sidewalk to be there.
Commissioner Ahlness asked.what the technical way that the city can have the garages come
right up to the property line?
Mr. Roberts said the term in the past that has been used is called zero lot line. For example, if
you have a duplex, you have a property line down the middle between two units, there's wall
against wall and there is a property line down the center of that. In speaking to the building
official David Fisher, he wasn't sure that could be done along the garage wall because there is
an opening there and that wall moves with the garage door going up and down. So the wa y to
possibly resolve that is to do a lot division so the lot Fine is moved up three or five feet away from
the units and the development parcel becomes a little larger, the existing cottages site becomes
a little smaller by transferring that strip 'of land to this development site. It doesn't change the
look of it, it simply moves a line on paper. The intent of the building code is that you don't want
building next to building with openings and have a fire spread from building to building. In this
case with having the driveway there they know it is going to stay, but you still need to meet the
technical needs of the building code. By moving the property line, that may be one way to
resolve this issue.
Commissioner AhIness said it would also be true at this point, as it is drawn, the construction is
too large for -the lot because it does not meet the setback requirements. It requires a change in
property line for it to meet the standards.
Mr. Roberts said yes, although through the PUD process the city could approve the site plan if
they think it is a good fit and wave the normal setback requirements. The proposed plan is
meeting the 50 -foot setback requirement on the west that is the minimum code requirement for a
multiple family building residential. It is the internal property lines with the buildings that are
becoming a difficult challenge.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff if this property.would be in one - ownership right now then these
would not be problems? If you combined the property into one site the problems would
disappear?
Mr. Roberts said correct. Because it has been under separate ownership and now Mr. Mogren
has assembled it there are existing - property lines to deal with.
Commissioner Ahlness asked staff about the parking spaces, some of the issues have been
answered, but how much green space does that actually leave around the properties once you
add in the six or eight additional parking spaces?
Mr. Roberts said it does reduce the green space some. On the western edge the plan does
leave a fairly green area even though it is shown with landscaping and trees. This green space
is really no different than the cottages that are already built and occupied as far as the green
space verses the number of buildings on the site. It is in character with what is already there.
Commissioner Trippler said the one thing that was an issue for him was the parking. When he
drove back in that area a lot of the existing cottages have two garages which allows for an
additional parking spot and they have adequate spots available. behind the garage before you
get to the street so if they had company come they would at least be able to park their vehicles
on the driveway and off the street. The streets are extremely narrow and you would basically
have to pull up onto someone's yard to park to make room for a car to get down the street.
Particularly for the eight unit development there just isn't enough space south of where the
garages are on the four units to the south unless they park their car diagonally across two
garages. He feels real uncomfortable saying go ahead and build this development if the
p city
finds out that there is inadequate parking something will be worked out to find '
just g more parking
space. There isn t enough space for parking. In the new plan where the architects squeezed
q zed
a few more parking spaces in here and there that may alleviate some of the problem. Y p However,
this is senior citizen housing and he uses his arents as a good example, if
p g p his father had to
walk 30 or 40 feet to get to someone's house, he probably ould not o visit them. So
parking that is very near the door, that is why Y g ,unless
you have parki there is handicap parking near p p g e door
and not in the back lot, even if you provide some additional arkin spaces here and there p g p e that
would not be adequate.
Commissioner Trippler asked what the developer had in mind if the arkin was inadequate p g q e to
needed to find adequate space?
Mr. Roberts said what staff was looking for is exact) what Mr. Mo ren provided here with
. Y g p the
additional parking spaces in this new revised plan. He agrees that there is not a lot of room for
or
parking and that was a concern of staff as well. This new plan adds eight new parking spacesto
g p g
the site, four areas with two parking spaces each. It was staff's and the develo er's intent
p to
have enough room between the garage and the road to allow a car to ark. He believes
p the
parking spots are 18 -to -20 feet long in front of every garage door on the south side. On the
e
north side it is about 22 feet.
Commissioner Rossbach asked if there is any reason that these would not be exact) the same
me
as the other cottages, are they not owned by the same people? Why ouldn't we take this new
i Y
area and make t part of the cottages?
Mr. Roberts said he would have to defer that question to Mr. Mo g ren to answer.
Commissioner Mueller asked who owns the cottages to the north?
Mr. Roberts said Mr. Mogren is a partner in those cottages, but they are not the same partners in
this development.
Commissioner Mueller asked if it is a matter of conversation with Mr. Mo ren and these other
g
partners to determine the property line matter or would this be a significant issue?
Mr. Roberts said that would be a question for Mr. Mo g ren.
Commissioner Ledvina asked what the purpose was for lacin the orange fencing around an
entire property?
p g g g
Mr. AN said it is used to restrict the area that is disturbed so the fence keeps the contractor
doing exactly what your plans say. If you get the fence established it makes sure somebody
doesn't get carried away in doing more grading and it makes the construction q
Ian equal the
plans.
p
Commissioner Ledvina asked if this is- something new that is bein g done now?
Mr. AN said it is relatively new in the industry n the past five
ry ears. p y
Commissioner Mueller asked about the south side of the driveway s far south as it can actually
y
be placed according to the property line of the homes down below?
Mr. Roberts said the gap between the driveway and the property line is for screening nd
g
landscaping to provide a separation of properties.
Commissioner Trippler said on page 6 on item B. 8., does this pertain just to the three single-
family dwellings or does it pertain to the three pieces of property that they sit on? Because he
noticed in the plan unit development the rain holding basin has a tail that extends across the
property of 1733 Gervais. If it is stated that the are excluded from an review or condition
Y Y s
would that possibly cause a problem in the installation of the storage retention and if they
Y
decide they don't want it there?
Mr. Roberts said the intent for number 8 was if the plan does go ahead and there are two new
single - family homes there and somebody wants to put a deck on or an addition that they do not
have to get an amendment to the PUD to be allowed to add on. The rain water garden and, the
drainage areas and all going to be covered by drainage and utility easements which gives the
city some review and control of what happens in those easements. So if people start changing
g g
approved plans within those easement areas they would be allowed to do so and would need
city approval to do that. So in both ways the city has it covered and he would not foresee a
problem.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant address the commission.
Mr. Bruce Mogren, of Mogren Development Company addressed the commission
Mr. Mogren said regarding the age 55 for senior housing, you can restrict the age level for senior
citizen housing but the lowest age level you can have is 55 years old. He currently has 248 units
of senior housing and he would not want to jeopardize his federal standin g on an of those
Y
existing units so they are very careful to check that. That is federally regulated. He would like to
recommend that he could still comply with federal law but drop the age restriction from 62 to 55
years of age for his residents. He would have to verify but he believes his second project age
restriction is 55 years of age.
Mr. Mogren said regarding the onsite parking, he met with the architect to add eight additional
parking spaces. Most of the time he has found they don't have issues with parking.
Occasionally people have birthday parties or special events then they do need some additional
parking but otherwise it hasn't been a problem.
Mr. Mogren said he would disagree with Mr. AN regarding the sidewalks. In walking the
development in the early 1990's that sidewalk issue came up then as well. At that time it was
determined he is not sure how sidewalks could be added without taking down three or four
decent sized trees. There is also some significant grade changes there between the driveway of
the existing home and the lotto the east. Also, when Gervais Avenue was expanded it made the
front yards smaller, and if you introduce a six -foot sidewalk into a restricted front yard you will
have it right up to the front door. He has a very hard time envisioning putting a sidewalk in that
location. He did speak to Mrs. Fenton at 1725 Gervais Avenue and she did not want the
sidewalk to be put in all the way through because she has some large trees in her front yard.
When you weigh the situation, where does the sidewalk go? Gervais Avenue is four lanes right
now.
Mr. Mogren said in his opinion when you weigh the cost of the trees and the grade change the
disadvantages outweigh the advantages of putting a sidewalk in. As far as the property lines go,
Mr. Mogren owns the property for the cottages along with two other partners and he and his
family own 80% of the cottages. He would appreciate it if he did not have to move the property
lines because of the different financing they have for the development to the north
p and to the
east. It becomes more difficult with lenders to work with changes to the property lines.
g p p y They
have financing with Freddie Mac for 15 years and there is 7 more ears before it expires. xpires. At the
end of 15 years then he is sure they will be refinancing hat at that point and time the g p y would be
paying it off. If they did a realignment of lot lines he would p refer to do it at that time.
Mr. Mogren said he would not mind moving the pine trees onto the back of one of the
e single -
family lots to produce more screening. If the ine trees were to be put on th
p p e side of the lot they
probably would be destroyed or disrupted in the building process.
Commissioner Frost asked Mr. Mogren since he owns the three single family residential g y teal lots
couldn't you move the lot lines to equal out the size of the lots?
Mr. Mogren said if he moved the trees onto the back art of the lot that would make the '
P e lot size
even smaller, if a person likes trees they won't mind the smaller size for . rivac
p Y
Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if the lots are less than 10,000 square feet?
q eet .
Mr. Mogren said yes. -
Commissioner Rossbach asked how much smaller than 10,000 square feet?
Mr. Mogren said you would have to ask Mr. Roberts.
Mr.. Roberts said on. page 19 of the staff report, one lot is.9,375 square feet and the other i
q s
9,384 square feet.
Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if the existing house on one
g g lot and it would be
subdivided to create the other two lots?
Mr. Mogren said that is correct.
Commissioner Rossbach asked why was it chosen to make the lots less than 10,000 square feet
which is the minimum lot size?
Mr. Mogren said this is the way the engineers laid it out and to accomplish what the wanted and
p Y
they are applying for under a PUD.
Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Mogren if these lots are to be sold off individually?
Y
Mr. Mogren said yes eventually.
Commissioner Rossbach asked why ould you want to intentional) set u
Y Y y plots that less than
10,000 square feet which is the minimum requirement?
Mr. Mogren said in the past when did that over on Lydia Avenue.
ue.
Commissioner Rossbach said yes but those were R -1S they were designed to be small. None of
the adjoining single family residential homes in that area are that way. He finds that to be a bi
• . Y g
stumbling block that you are creating individual house sites that are less than the city's minimum
size whether it is a PUD or not. PUD allows the mixture of the two together. He has a 10 000
g ,
square foot lot right next to his and it is a postage stamp. Their backyard is no more than 20 feet
wide and it adjoins his backyard, so basically they are in his backyard. He finds it a read p roblem
having these tiny lots.
Chairperson Fischer said a tiny lot depends on the zone and the density. If you are on a R -M
density when you have those smaller lots they are quite acceptable in that zone.
Commissioner Rossbach asked if these lots are in R -1 correct?
Mr. Mogren said yes.
Commissioner Mueller said right now in looking at this plan it is one big lot. Your engineers have
decided to divide it up parcel a, b, c, d. Because parcel c has the largest square feet couldn't
you move some square footage over onto parcel b and parcel d to even it out better? It seems
kind of arbitrary how the lines are drawn out. Couldn't ou make some changes to make it closer
Y g
to the minimum 10,000 square feet for all three lots?
Mr. Mogren said part of the problem is the anticipation of the garage on the existing home. The
garage is rough and it is there while it is a rental property but once it is not rental property p Y a
garage will be added. To answer Mr. Rossbach's question this is zoned as R -1 at this point.
This will blend in nice. If it was single family lots being built instead of carefree villas on this site
you would have houses a lot closer than this being within 10 feet of their backyards. With this
plan with the villas there is a 50 -foot setback allowing more privacy for the residential homes.
With a PUD this allows more flexibility with these kinds of things.
Commissioner Rossbach said he is not following the point Mr. Mogren is trying to make with the
10 -foot setback he is referring to.
Mr. Roberts said he believes what Mr. Mogren is trying to say is instead of more town homes
coming off the driveway and the cottages as an alternative if there were single family homes
fronting on the private driveway then the setback is only 10 feet verses the 50 -feet setback on a
multiple family home.
Commissioner Trippler said he did not understand that the planning commission was approving
parcel a,b,c, and d. Where does that show up in the report? What if the commission disallowed
the three individual single- family lots ?. Can the commission just approve the PUD for the
cottages?
Mr. Roberts said the commission could make that a recommendation. On page 6, item C, that
talks about.the lot split which is diagramed on page 19. In the proposal on the front page of the
staff report the items are outlined as well. The commission could recommend approval of the 12
units for the cottages and not the three lots if you chose to. Does this seem to fit in this area, if it
doesn't than staff would not recommend approval. If the commission .is comfortable with the
proposal then lets move it forward.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff that under administrative powers on a rare occasion you may
have a lot that is under 10,000 square feet, and you can administratively make a decision on that
lot size, what is the margin of leeway in a situation like this?
Mr. Roberts said there is a process for administrative variance approvals for up to 5% of lot area.
Which in this case is a minimum 9,500 square feet, - and that involves notifying immediate
property owners. Staff gives the neighbors a couple of chances to comment and raise any
concerns. If they don't and it looks reasonable, then the city staff can approve it.
Commissioner Frost said if you look at the three lots, if you look at the total acreage it is 30,000
square feet plus. The average is 10,000 square feet that makes it fairly close.
Commissioner Mueller said he feels uncomfortable going with. parcel b and d as it is just because
there is a proposed garage that they hope to put on parcel c. It is 11,000 square feet and all you
have to do is change the property lines.
Mr. Roberts said in defense of Mr. Mogren, on page 21 of the staff report it shows the proposed
grading plan and the location of the proposed garage. There is some rationale as to why he
Y
property lines are where they are because of the location of where the garage would fit in.
Commissioner Trippler said in order to get parcel b. to 10,000 square feet Y ou would have to
move the property line west five feet. If you did move it five feet and you didn't move the location
of the future garage and you did not make it any smaller, you would not be able to p ut the
garage in there anyway because it would be within five feet of the property line. You could put
the garage in a different location maybe putting it back behind the house. He looked on the map
on page 17 of the staff report and he did not see any lots on Flandrau Street that are less than
10,000 square feet in size. He certainly understands what Mr. Rossbach said earlier regarding
living next to someone with a small lot and then they use your backyard as their backyard. He
doesn't like the fact that Mr. Mogren is trying to squeeze something n just to squeeze it in.
g q
Mr. Mogren said if you look at the comments made by the residents regarding this proposed
g g p p
development they say it is a very quiet subdued - atmosphere. Usually you would see some
protests but so far there haven't been any, people are generally happy to see this proposed
development go forward. When you talk about the existing home and the proposed future
garage, someone came out and looked at the property and that is how a garage would be laid
out with the notched out home and the property lines. This is how it is'shown in the staff report
without putting the garage in the backyard of the existing home.
Commissioner Trippler said what is being discussed isn't the senior citizen homes but the three
single- family homes and the size of the lots.. If these parcels are going to be for sale to anyone
then we need to look at would anyone buy these parcels_ to build a home on it with those
property lines.
Ms. Linda Olson, a member of the Community Design Review Board, addressed the commission
regarding the Carefree Villas. .She has an -issue with the proposed sidewalks in that area. She
believes sidewalks unite a community and provide an alternative means of transportation for
people by walking. She did - go out and see the site and felt it will be extremely tight to put the
sidewalk in along Gervais Avenue. The sidewalk on parcels b,c,d should probably be delayed
until the homes are built. Especially since the sidewalk would not be extended any further west
at this time. Personally she would like to see sidewalks in every residential and commercial
roadway in the city but in this particular case there are some substantial trees that clearly would
have to go in order to put a sidewalk in. These lots are small already and puttin g a sidewalk in
the front yard may be an issue as well.
Commissioner Ledvina said he has an issue with the overall site plan. There is a private drive
that goes into this proposed development and then there are these three single - family lots that
essentially will have double frontage. He realizes this is a small drive, but he thinks in terms of
design in overall layout it is certainly not optimal. There can be some things with landscaping
that has been proposed but he does not feel the design is optimal.
Commissioner Mueller asked staff if that private drive that Mr. Ledvina is talking about is that
pushed as far to the east as it can go?
Mr. Roberts said yes it is.
Commissioner Ahlness he continues to get the. feeling that this proposed development is very
p p
tight. In looking at the garages to the north, they are right up to the ro ert line, the driveways
p p Y s y
to the south are short and vehicles may be touching to the garage door and may g han out into
the street. As a result, the lots to the south need to be made less than the minimum size. It
appears that it is being over built for the size of the parcel in question here. The are asking for
They g
exemptions at every turn in order to get it all squeezed in.
Chairperson Fischer asked members if there areas of agreement or areas of disagreement or do
g
members want to address them individually or as one motion?
Chairperson Fischer said the first request is for the change of the land use plan from R -1 to R -3H
for the twelve town homes. The second request is for the conditional use permit for the planned
unit development. The third request is for the lot split. Is there a motion?
Commissioner Mueller said personally he thinks the proposed development needs more work.
He thinks they need to go back to the drawing board and put this together in a better way. He
g Y
agrees with a number of the comments of members that they are trying to put a lot of stuff on a
small spot of land and it could be packed in tight but yet reasonably and he does not think the
reasonably part has been met in his mind.
Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Mueller if he thinks they are reasonably close or long way from
g Y
what you want to achieve?
Commissioner Mueller said he is not sure of how it could look unless you decrease the size of
the footprint of the town homes. You could maybe spin things and have a driveway own the
Y
center off the existing driveways and have the town homes going east and west? That may
increase the parcels below because you may not be able to get as many town homes in that
plan.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff where they are on the time frame with this proposal?
Mr. Roberts these plans were received by the city on November 26, 2001, and requires council
action by January 25, 2002, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. That would allow
one or two council meetings in January.
Chairperson Fischer said to staff that a great deal of discussion has been involved around
technicalities, lot lines, lot sizes, and variances. The proposal basically that members are
looking at is to put an R -H on the entire site that is proposed, is that correct? Or is it just an R -H
on the part where the town homes would be?
Mr. Roberts said it would be an R -H on the town homes would be his proposal, and keep the
single family designation for the single - family lots.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they would have had as man technicalities if the proposal
Y p p
had been R -H for the whole site?
Mr. Roberts said yes you would, it is more dealing with lot lines.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the lot lines would have been required to be 10,000 square
feet if they were in an R -H rather than in an R -1?
Mr. Roberts said yes they still would be. But it was covered in the proposal through a PUD.
Chairperson Fischer said to staff that basically takes all rules aside and acts as a law onto itself.
Mr. Roberts said yes it becomes essentially a negotiated development between the city and the
developer.
Commissioner Pearson said he is very uncomfortable with the idea that the footprint istoo big for
what they are building it on. He is wondering why parcel b. and c. could not be used for another
four -unit town home building. That way you could adjust the roadways and have all the setbacks
that you need and still allow a 10,000 square foot lot R -1 for parcel d?
Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Pearson was your thought that the existing house would be removed on
lot c?
Commissioner Pearson yes it would need to be removed?
Mr. Roberts said he thought it was the developer's intent to try to work around doing that. That
was a trade off that the developer chose. You may want to ask Mr. Mogren that.
Commissioner Trippler said we could go on all night with the different scenarios for this proposed
g p p
development. He thinks members should just decide whether they like the proposal or not and if
you don't members should think about whether the developer should come back or not. Another
scenario would be to put another four -unit town home built where the eight unit was and move
the property line for parcel b,c, and d north ten or fifteen feet. Then those lots would be 10,000
square feet. There are kinds of different ways that given this amount of property you could put
Y g p p YY P
structures on it. He agrees with a lot of comments made by members and he thinks there is too
much being squeezed onto a relatively small piece of property and it doesn't fit.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they see anything that-might be gained by tabling to work on
. g
this proposal that might meet the concerns here or do you think this is a plan that will not be
changed and members should act 'on what is before members?
Mr. Roberts that would be a question for the applicant.
Mr.' Mogren said his team has put a lot of time and effort into this project and he thinks the spirit
is to have it fit with his current project. He thinks his architects have improved this proposed
project over the other project. He understands that members want to kee p a lot to the minimum
10,000 square foot lot. Listening to Mr. Frost's comments as well and there is a PUD here and
you have 30,000 square feet and three single - family lots. From all appearances you have the
same amount of volume. He always tries. to work with staff to the best of his ability and he looks
at this as a good project. He wants to introduce some additional landscaping to mitigate 600
square feet that theyare short and he thinks this will add an extra tier of rivac . At this point he
p Y p
would like members to act on what before the commission tonight.
Commissioner Rossbach said to Mr. Mogren in the PUD this is a negotiated development. What
is it that the city gets from this verses what you as the developer are getting?
Mr. Mogren said he thinks Maplewood gets an additional 12 units of senior housin g that he
thinks will be very nice. He thinks this proposal would be a great asset to the communityjust like
the other 248 units are. He thinks the homes are on Gervais Avenue and he thinks the lots will
be decent as well. He thinks Maplewood would get good quality housing, he has proven in the
past that they do that. Not every developer that comes into the community builds as g ood of a
product as he does. He said they take pride in what they do and he thinks it will add 12 great
units for senior housing and the community and that is what the city gets.
Commissioner Rossbach said he would agree with Mr. Mogren that his company develops
projects. He encouraged the staff with the initial visit to the site and the concept seemed really
good. He does not know how he possibly went through this and never realized that these lots
were less than 10,000 square feet. Up until �/2 hour ago he was very excited about this project
and thought it would be a good fit. There are certain things where he draws the line and one of
them is dealing with the size of lots, he just can't tolerate making exceptions to. He feels very
bad that until this point he didn't realize exactly what was happening there. Certainly he would
have had the opportunity to express concerns to staff during that process when you Mr. Mogren
and the staff were just working this proposed project out. That doesn't change his thoughts
about this proposed project.
Mr. Mogren said they did not do anything to try and hide anything from anyone. It is right out in
front. It is his opinion that this proposed project speaks for itself because if you talk to any of the
residents they keep it up and maintain the properties. So it is not a matter of him talking about
himself it is a matter of him talking about the project and what he thinks the 1 ro'ects have done
p
for Maplewood. It has created some very nice senior housing for the city of Maplewood.. He
thinks whenever you get into a negotiated thing like a PUD he thinks one of the things is you
could have a 10,000 square foot lot with no trees which would be less desirable, than a 9,400
square foot with trees along the back that provides privacy. The three lots together are oin to
g g
be a total of 30,000 square feet so they will have trees back there to mitigate the size.
Commissioner Frost he is looking at the R -1 S that is on Lydia Avenue. He thought those were
very nice houses. From the commission members prospective would this be a problem having
these single - family lots being R -1 S verses R -1 ? If it is R -1 S it is well over the 7,500 square foot
minimum. He looks at these three lots as almost separate like a buffer from the proposed
cottages being built. These are almost isolated from the rest of the development as is the stuff
on Lydia Avenue. From that prospective he would not have a problem having these three single -
family lots going R -1 S and then proceed with the proposed development as is. And actual)
p p actually you
could make the lots a little smaller and get the driveway to work on the north side.
Mr. Roberts said again, the PUD accomplishes the same thing.
Commissioner Mueller said putting trees and shrubbery on a lot that is already less than 10
square feet from his prospective with having children made his lot a lot smaller. Because now I
have all these trees on his lot, it gives him more screening but it does not give him any more
room, it just lets him not see something in the next neighbor's lot. If this would pass for example,
where would you put those trees on this small than 10,000 o square foot lot? Would the trees
q g
on parcel b or parcel c's lot? These trees are going to spread out seven or eight feet wide.
Mr. Mogren said he would work with staff on that issue. If they fit on the lot that the proposed
town homes are going on he would put the trees there. Otherwise he would put them on the
back of the other lot, it doesn't matter to him. It creates a barrier or privacy between the town
homes.
Commissioner Trippler if Mr. Mogren reduced the eight -unit to a four -unit or-rotated it, would that
make the project undoable for you?
Mr. Mogren said yes it would. One last comment if these lots were located on Flandrau Street
where everything was 10,000 square feet then it makes a big difference. But this is part of a
PUD and it is kind of a separate area itself and he thinks it is not a problem.
Commissioner Frost moved that the planning commission approve the resolution on page 29 of
the staff report. It changes the land use plan from R -1 (single dwelling residential) to RH
(residential high density) for the 12 town house units of the Carefree Villas of Maplewood. The
city bases this change on the following findings:
1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high - density residential use.
This includes being next to existing high- density senior housing units, a collector street and
near two churches, shopping and Four Seasons Park.
2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties
because:
a. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on ro ert values.
p p Y
b. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
B. Approve the resolution starting on page 30 of the staff report. This resolution approves a
conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carefree Villas, based 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 dated November 26, 2001, except where the city
requires changes. Such changes shall include revising the grading and site plans to show
the required sidewalk along Gervais Avenue.
The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community
development. may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be .substantially started within one year of council approval
or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The owner shall not convert the town houses in this development to non - seniors housing
without the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines senior
housing as a residence occupied by persons that are 55 years of age or older.
4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers at or around the
townhouses.
5. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day -to -day
transportation on the town house site.
6. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing
unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8. The three single dwellings are exempt from reviews for conditional use permit revisions for
any expansions, additions or changes provided that such changes would meet all applicable
zoning and building standards and requirements.
9. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
C. Approve the proposed lot split shown on page 19 of the staff report. This plan creates four
parcels for the Carefree Villas development on Gervais Avenue. This lot division shall be
subject to the developer or applicant completing the following conditions before the city
approves the lot division deeds:
1. The developer or owner recording drainage and utility, easements along all existing and new
property lines, subject to the approval of the city engineer.
2. The developer or owner recording cross easement and access agreements for Parcel A to
have access to Gervais Avenue across the adjacent property (the existing Carefree
Cottages).
3. Signing an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten -foot drainage and utility
easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five -foot drainage and
utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot).
d. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic- control, street identification and no parking signs.
e. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Gervais Avenue indicating that it is a
private driveway.
f. Provide for the repair of Gervais Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after
the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway.
g. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction
. plans.
4. Changing the proposed lot division as follows:
a. Dedicate drainage and utility easements along all property lines. These easements shall
be pedestrian and utility easements in the front and shall be ten feet wide, shall be 10
feet wide along the-rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines.
b. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-
site drainage and utility easements, subject to the city engineer's requirements.
6. Record the following with the lot division deeds:
a. All homeowner's association documents.
b. An access agreement for the proposed town houses that ensures the tenants may use
the existing driveway(s) for ingress and egress.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for
party approval before recording to assure there will be one responsible art forthe maintenance of
the common areas, private utilities, driveways and structures.
7. The city will not issue building permits until the deeds for the town house site and the three
single dwelling lots are recorded and the developer has met the city conditions.
Chairperson Fischer seconded the motion for purpose of discussion and to get this item moving.
Mr. Roberts said if the commission is so inclined on item B. item 3. in regards to the age change
for senior housing, if it does go forward you could change the age from 62 to 55 that should not
be a problem. (changed in bold in the motion).
Commissioner Frost concurred.
Chairperson Fischer asked members if there was any further discussion or amendments to the
motion?
Commissioner Frost although the three single family lots ' are under the 10,000 square feet
minimum, when people buy the lots they will know exactly what they are gettin g and what is
surrounding the lot. You would be going in eyes wide open. He has no - problem with the
proposal.
Chairperson Fischer said she is in agreement with Mr. Frost.. As Mr. Frost said if the lot size is
there when they buy into the neighborhood that makes a difference.
Commissioner Rossbach said he would go counterpoint in that the neighborhood consists of lots
that tend to be larger than 10,000 square feet and the cottages. It is his belief it would be good
planning to continue what is there instead of introducing a completely new element into it.
Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks the small size of the lots, and the possibility of having a
rather large house on that lot makes him uncomfortable especially because you cannot restrict
what size of house is put on those small lots. They could almost put a house on those lots from
lot line to lot line. He has strong concerns about creating a backyard scenario that is a front yard
for the town homes.
Commissioner Ahlness he said if it just came down to the lot sizes that is something that may be
excused but it seemed like exemptions were asked for and excuses were made to make it work
from the north side to the south side. One of the. lot's are surrounded by three sides of a private
driveway and that is going to be used by multiple people. We say we don't want to take down
trees to put in a sidewalk but you would have to take down a big tree just to put s ara e in. Just
g g
about every where you go in this project you run into problems and he thinks the developer
needs to go back and see fundamentally what fits in there that is economically feasible. He just
thinks this project is too large to fit on this site and it needs to be reduced in size maybe with less
units on this site.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff about the three proposals, are they all intertwined? Do all
they
have to be a package as one or can they be divided?
Mr. Roberts said he thinks you could divide item a. that is the plan amendment from b. and c.
But b. and c. are definitely intertwined.
Commissioner Rossbach said he would question whether a. can be divided from b. and c.
because it reflects the changes that would follow along he property lines? Or are those property
g p p Y p p Y
lines right where the land use changes would occur?
Mr. Roberts said the intent of the amendment was to shift the' high- density line from the north line
of the south site to the south line of proposed p arcel a. that would be the south line of the
proposed town homes. So that line might move three or five feet one way or another. The intent
of the plan was accommodate the twelve town houses.
Chairperson Fischer said those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye.
Ayes — Fischer, Frost
Nays — Ahlness, Ledvina, Mueller,
Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler
Motion Failed.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff when this item goes to the city council?
Mr. Roberts said it tentatively goes to the city council January 14, 2002.
Chairperson Fischer said the city council will make the final decision.
� City of Maplewood
Official Sign -Up Sheet
By putting your name and address on this sheet, you are requesting to address the
Maplewood City Council on the following topic for up to five minutes.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Address
001,
V
4
(0.
,2 2� *.
Name (first &last) - please print
Agenda # 4.L 1�
Actio by Council
MEMORANDUM Date
Endor5ed
TO: City Manager Modified
FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Rejected
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Amendments - ISTS Standards
DATE: December 26, 2001
INTRODUCTION
The Metropolitan Council is requiring the City to amend the comprehensive plan and the city code
to add standards about individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS).
DISCUSSION
City staff has been working with the staff of the Metropolitan Council to complete the required
update of the Comprehensive Plan. This plan update is to include policies in the plan about ISTS -
and. is to have the city add code standards about ISTS. As such, city staff has updated the Water
Resources Management Plan chapter of the comprehensive plan to include policies about ISTS.
Staff has included several changes to this part of the plan as suggested by the planning
commission. The latest proposed update starts on page two.
There are about 150 ISTS in Maplewood. Therefore, the proposed ordinance would only apply to a
small percentage of the households in the city. A major concern with ISTS is ensuring that they
receive regular maintenance and inspection. The Metropolitan Council and the state require the
owners of ISTS to have the systems pumped at least once every three years.
City staff, in order to simplify and speed up the ordinance writing process, has used Washington
County's Ordinance #103 about ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment System) for the writing of our
ordinance. Washington County recently updated this ordinance making it very thorough and
comprehensive about ISTS. I have attached the proposed ordinance (with Maplewood references)
starting on page seven. This ordinance will meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Council and
the State of Minnesota. City staff will be working out how to implement the new ordinance
standards, including the inspection of new systems and the record keeping for the pumping or
maintenance of existing systems.
COMMISSION ACTION
On December 17, 2001, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed Water
Resources Management Plan and the proposed ISTS Ordinance amendment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the revised Water Resources Management Plan starting on page two.
2. Adopt the ordinance starting on page seven. This ordinance amends the Maplewood City Code
standards for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) in the city.
p:compplan /ists.doc
Attachments:
1. Proposed Water Resources Management Plan
2. Proposed ISTS Ordinance Amendment
Attachment 1
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
The goals and policies in this plan for the management of water resources in Maplewood are
consistent with the goals of Ramsey - Washington Metro, Valley Branch, Capital Region and East
Mississippi Watershed Districts, while meeting the more specific and changing needs of the City.
A map showing the four watershed districts is on page 12.
Maplewood recognizes the sensitivity of surface water and groundwater and has established
environmental protection policies and standards (as noted below) that enhance protection of the
environment, including surface water and groundwater resources, in the city and in the region.
The goals and policies in this plan provide for future development and redevelopment in
Maplewood while minimizing surface water problems and enhancing nd protecting the
g p g
environment. The City has adopted ordinances about flood plains, shorelands, wetland protection
and erosion control to address the specific problems and that these special conditions
present.
In addition, an important part of the water resources management plan is the management
(including maintenance and enforcement programs) of individual sewage treatment systems
(ISTS). The city will ensure protection of the public health and local surface water and
groundwater through implementation of the Water Resources Management Plan, the ordinances
and standards for ISTS and will continue to use. and enforce the other city ordinances noted
above.
WATER QUALITY
Goat
Maintain or enhance the water quality of Maplewood's surface waters.
Policies
1. Cooperate and collaborate with the four watershed districts to maintain and improve water
quality.
2. Cooperate and collaborate with the watershed districts in their efforts to maintain and/or to
improve the water quality of specific water resources in the City.
3. Provide an appropriate level of storm water treatment upstream of lakes and wetlands,
depending on the wetland's functions, values and management classification.
4. Use regional storm water detention facilities to enhance water quality by removing sediment
and nutrients from runoff. Pond designs will meet the national urban run -off program
(NURP) removal standards.
5. All projects using storm water treatment structures shall include a detailed City- approved
maintenance plan that meets City and watershed district standards and criteria.
6. Design storm water facility inlets to prevent debris from entering the conveyance system
and impeding the flow path. Encourage using BMPs (best management practices)
138
Ko
( "rainwater gardens," treatment structures, NURP ponds, etc.) and other detention facilities
on all improvement and reconstruction projects, whenever practical.
7. Design outlet control structures, wherever practical, that restrict both high and low flows, to
maximize sedimentation and nutrient removal.
8. Continue implementation of the City's education program that includes items about
preserving and improving water quality.
9. Solve intercommunity water - quality issues through cooperation with the adjoining cities and
appropriate watershed district.
RUNOFF MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD CONTROL
Goal
Preserve, maintain, utilize and where practical, enhance the storm water storage and detention
systems to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff, control flooding, protect public health
and .safety and to minimize necessary public capital expenditures.
Note: The map on page 12 shows the general areas in Maplewood that have the potential for
flooding. The City adopted a floodplain ordinance in 1991.
Policies
1. The City recognizes that runoff volumes typically increase with development; however, the
City will require builders and developers to maintain peak runoff rates below the pre-
development 100 -year (1 percent) recurrence event by using regional detention facilities,
rain water gardens or other on -site detention facilities and encouraging the use of infiltration
to reduce runoff volumes where practical. All hydrologic modeling shall be based on
ultimate development of the affected watershed.
2. The City encourages the pretreatment of storm water. In addition, the City encourages the
use of treatment ponds and infiltration methods for storing storm water to reduce runoff
rates and volume and to improve the water quality of area lakes and wetlands.
3. Storm water management improvements shall be designed based on the critical storm
event for, and the ultimate development of, the drainage area.
4. Projects that affect the storm water system shall have a protected emergency overflow
structure (i.e., swale, spillway) into pond outlet structures to safely convey excess flows
from storms larger than the 100 -year (1 percent) event.
5. Maplewood will require minimum building floor elevations to be above the 1 00- ear
floodplain, in accordance with City and watershed district standards. At a minimum, the
lowest opening of any building shall be 2.0 feet above the 100 -year floodplain and/or 1.0
foot above the spillway overflow elevation, whichever is greater.
6. Maintain existing intercommunity drainage patterns and solve any intercommunity drainage
issues through cooperation and collaboration with the adjoining city and the appropriate
watershed district.
139
7. Promote storm water infiltration practices where soil conditions allow and where not
detrimental to groundwater supplies.
WETLANDS
Goal
Achieve no net loss of wetlands, including acreage, functions and values. Where practicable,
improve the functions, values, biodiversity_ and acreage of wetlands and their buffer areas.
Note: The map on page 12 shows the wetlands in Maplewood. The City adopted a wetland
protection ordinance in 1996.
Policies
1. The City discourages wetland alterations. Proof that applicants or designers have given
consideration to designs that do not require wetland alteration shall be reviewed before the
City will consider any proposal that includes wetland alteration. Wetland alterations must be
mitigated by meeting the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requirements, as administered
by the local government units (LGUs) (currently the watershed districts).
2. Cooperate with the watershed districts in their administration of the WCA.
3. Cooperate with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) in the
administration of its wetland management plan.
4. Seek to restore previously existing wetlands and enhance existing wetlands.
5. Provide buffer zones of native vegetation around ponds and wetlands to' provide wildlife
habitats, in accordance with the Maplewood Wetland Buffer Ordinance.
6. Where feasible, minimize water level fluctuations (bounce) in wetlands or detention basins
to prevent adverse habitat changes.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Goals
1. Protect capacity of storm water system, prevent flooding and maintain water quality by
preventing erosion and sedimentation from occurring, .and correct existing erosion and
sedimentation problems.
2. In accordance with NPDES Phase II requirements, develop a city- maintenance plan for the
inspection of all ponds, outlet structures and inlet facilities and consider initiating a pond
delta removal program. Such a program should consider improvements to reduce sediment
loads to ponds, wetlands and lakes to help prioritize critical improvement areas.
140
4
Policies
1. Require erosion control plans for all land disturbance activities as defined by city ordinance.
The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the standards and criteria of the watershed
districts' plans, the Ramsey Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and general National
Pollutant Discharge. Elimination System (NPDES) construction storm water permit
requirements.
2. Preserve and enhance natural vegetation to the greatest practical extent.
GROUNDWATER
Goals
1. Protect the quality and quantity of groundwater resources.
2. Develop a cooperative program with the watershed district to identify infiltration- sensitive
areas and develop a monitoring and testing program to monitor the impact of improvements.
Policies
1. Provide increased green space, native vegetation and pond "dead" storage wherever
possible and appropriate to allow for the infiltration of storm water runoff and to promote
groundwater recharging.
2. Encourage use of grassed waterways to maximize infiltration where not detrimental to
groundwater supplies.
3. Promote awareness of groundwater resource issues through public education and
information programs.
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (ISTS)
Goals
1. Protect the public health, safety and welfare through a comprehensive ISTS ordinance.
2. Protect the quality and quantity of Maplewood's surface and groundwater resources through
the use of properly designed and maintained ISTS.
Policies
1. Maintain an updated record of all known on -site septic systems, and continue to prohibit the
installation of new individual sewer systems or the alteration, repair or extension of existing
systems when the builder or owner can make connection to the City's sanitary sewer.
2. Enforce individual water and septic system ordinances that are in conformance with MPCA
Rules 7080 and Metropolitan Council requirements. Maplewood will establish a management
program that includes maintenance, tracking and enforcement programs to insure that
residents properly maintain their individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS).
141
5
3. Maplewood will require property owners to meet and encourage them to exceed state rules
and local ordinances for the design, installation, maintenance, expansion and repair of private
on -site sewage treatment systems. Specifically, the City will adopt an 1STS ordinance for a
basis for the use of these systems.
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Goal
Increase public awareness, understanding and involvement in water and natural resource
management issues.
Policies
1. Continue to develop and distribute. educational materials to the public and targeted groups
about the City's Ordinances, policies and programs about water resources, groundwater,
ISIS, wetlands, native vegetation, alternative landscaping methods, litter control, pet wastes,
recycling, trash disposal, leaf collection, public area maintenance, grass clippings, lawn
chemicals and hazardous materials. Information will be distributed via the City's monthly
newsletter, local newspapers, cable television and any other appropriate media.
2. The City will consider alternative funding sources for storm water and surface water
management, including starting a storm water utility and /or imposing additional development
fees. This could be part of the Phase II NPDES storm water permit consideration process.
142
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE CITY
CODE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (ISTS) r
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This section deletes the following parts of the Maplewood City Code: (additions
have been underlined and deletions are crossed out).
^n.°TT1�6�V— r�IBTW -8� =� €`CIF ^r_c nienneni eveT�� IIIIIIIIII10 Nine
W kwl MEN r IS I I WA NELW • w • • w • • • • • • r w
• OVER 0 LW3111I ILW ILW 114 LWA w NEW 100 W I lLWA w NOW • • • w • • IN R'JIMI 0 11 a 11110 ff 1I EE onsiaLwa
w VLO.T.1k M =d !! w ! f !! ! U.1 ! w ! s 2210 i ATZ IN 14 - ! ! • Mr. ! ! !
w • • w • - • • 5 11EIL- w I W- B •
Ab EI Ira dEr—Molk dim-i&T—Iialk dZK-%&V'kmA . TWOR.R.Oft NW.KTIM "., a 'ft Ab
• • • w • • • • • �► •
• w • w • • w • � w • •
�I
SECTION 2. This section adds the following language to the Maplewood City Code:
(additions have been underlined and deletions are crossed out).
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE LOCATION, DESIGN, INSTALLATION, USE AND
MAINTENANCE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS (ISTS) WITHIN
MAPLEWOOD.
THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM ORDINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 9 -950 TITLE ................................................................ .......... .1.................... 1
SECTION 9 -951 INTENT AND PURPOSE ............................. ... ............................... 1
SECTION 9 -952 DEFINITIONS
9 952(a) Conflicting Provisions. 6 000.09 ......48611 .......... 4 .164.■ ago* .............. 2.
9- 952(b) Measurement of Distances ................ 4................... 4....4............44.4......... 2
9- 952(c) Certain Terms.... 2
9 952(d) Definitions .......... .....1...4............ ............................mesa eon ..4......4..4.... *so ....... 2
SECTION 9 -953 GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................ 4.............................. 12
9 - 953 Applicability . ............................................... ............. :. .seem.. .1...... *am *me .6......... 12
9 . . . . . . . . . ....................................................... .............................12
9- 953(b) Administration by Federal Agencies ..................... ............................... 12
9- 953(c) Administration By State Agencies. 60044446664 0.1400 @sells 000 son me Dole &0. so. 4.0640 12
9- 953(d) Administration of This Ordinance .......................... ............................... 12
9- 953(e) General Requirements .......................................... ............................... 13
SECTION 9 -954 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS .............................. ............................... 46
9 - 954 General .......awesome*** sole vamoose mongo oses* sommenesses 0 so me. 0 8 @60 an means@ *Oman 6........... 46
9 -955 Floodplain Systems .................................................. ............................... 46
9 - 956 G reywater System. 444..4 . ............... . ... 4444.. ......... on ... game . . .. .. ... • • . • • • • • ..sego 4 ......47
9 -957 Other Toilet Waste Treatment Devices ..................... ............................... 48
9 -958 Collector Systems ..................................................... .......................... . 48
9 -959 S H Tanks ..................................................... ...... was
................. 51
9 -960 Experimental Systems...... ....................................................................... 52
SECTION '9 -961 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ............... ............................... 53
9 -961 General Requirements .......................................... ............................... 53
9- 961(a) Maintenance of Septic Tanks ................................ ............................... 53
9- 961(b) Maintenance of System Components ................... ............................... 54
9- 961(c) Activities on the Soil Treatment Area ................... ....0.......................... 54
9- 961(d) Disposal of Septage .............................................. ..................... 54
SECTION 9 -962 ADMINISTRATION ... ......................:.:..... seems .... .................. .........sea 54
9-962(a) Applicability...........: ............................................... ............................... 54
9 962(b) Enforcement .................................................. ............................... s C..... 54
.9-962(c) Board of Adjustment and Appeals ..................... ago avow ...........lie ......... same no* 55
9- 962(d) Permits Required .................................................. ............................... 55
9- 962(e) Inspections Required ...................... ............................... g o o s e................. 56
SECTION 9 -963 LICENSING AND PERMITS ............................ ............................... 57
9 963(x) Licensing ................................ ............................... 0 0 6 4 :.......................... 57
9- 963(b) Permits. on .9.90699004 000806000000098006011 a as@ *needed *as 57
9- 963(c) Permit Applications . ........................ .....:................. . : :...............,............ 57
9-963(d) Term of Permit..' 58
9- 963(e) Permit Revocation ............................................... ............................... as 58
SECTION 9 -964 ENFORCEMENT. ................................... ............................... 58
.9- 964 (a) Violations and Penalties ........................................ ............................... 58
9- 964(b) Enforcement..: :...................................... -ads ............ .................... seems ...... 58
9-964(c) Public Health Act ................................................... ............................... 58
SECTION 9 -965 EFFECTUATION... ...................................... ............................... 59
9- 965(a) Separability ........................................................... ............................... 59
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM ORDINANCE
SECTION 9 TITLE
9 -950. Short Title. This Ordinance shall be known, cited and referred to as the
Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) Ordinance, except as referred to herein,
where it shall be known as, "this Ordinance ".
SECTION 9 -951. INTENT AND PURPOSE
9 -951. Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted to provide minimum standards and criteria
to individual sewage treatment systems for the purpose of:
(1) Protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of the city, present and future.
(2) Regulating the location, design, installation, use
and maintenance of individual sewage treatment
systems (ISTS) so as to prevent contamination of
the surface and ground waters within the
community.
(3) Protecting the individual water supply wells in the
city from contamination by inadequate, improperly
designed, .located, installed or maintained
individual sewage treatment systems.
(4) Providing for the orderly development of areas of
the city that are not served by central public
systems. Also to help preclude the need to install
central public sewer systems in areas not currently
planned for central public sewer systems.
(5) These standards are not intended to cover systems
treating industrial or animal waste or other
wastewater that may contain hazardous materials.
SECTION 9 -952. DEFINITIONS.
9- 952(a) Conflicting Provisions. In the event of conflicting provisions in the text of this
Ordinance, and/or other ordinances, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. The
City shall determine which is more "restrictive" and appeals from such determination
shall be made in the manner provided herein.
1
10
9- 952(b) Measurement of Distances. Unless otherwise specified all distance shall be
measured horizontally.
9- 952(c) Certain Terms. For the purposes of these standards, certain terms or words
used herein shall be interpreted as follows: the words "shall" and "must" are mandatory,
the words "should" and "may" are permissive.
9- 952(d) Definitions.
(1) Absorption Area. "Absorption area" means the area
below a mound that is designed to absorb sewage tank
effluent.
(2) Additive, Individual Sewage Treatment System.
"Additive, individual sewage treatment system" means a
product which is added to the wastewater or to the system '
to improve the performance of an individual sewage
treatment system. These are not recommended and
some are illegal and harmful to the system.
(3) Aerobic Tank. "Aerobic tank" means any sewage tank
that uses the principle of oxidation in the decomposition of
sewage by the introduction of air into the sewage.
(4) Alternate Site. "Alternate Site" means that portion of real
property that is designated by a licensed ISTS
Professional and approved by the City to be protected
from all vehicular traffic, construction and other
disturbances. The site must be maintained in its original,
natural soil condition so a future individual sewage
treatment system or device may be constructed which
meets all Ordinance requirements when the original ISTS
malfunctions, becomes non - repairable or when it fails to
comply with the Ordinance.
(5) Alternative System. "Alternative system" means an
individual sewage treatment system employing such
methods and devices as presented in Section 9 -954.
(6) As- builts. "'As-builts" means drawings and
documentationspecifying the final in-place location, size
p ,
and type of all system components. .These records
identify the results of materials testing and describe,
conditions during construction. As- builts also contain a
certified statement.
2
(7) At -grade System. "At -grade system" means a
pressurized soil treatment system where sewage tank
effluent is dosed to a drain field rock bed that is
constructed on original soil at the ground surface and
covered by loamy soil materials.
(8) Baffle. "Baffle" means a device installed in a septic tank
for proper operation of the tank and to provide maximum
retention of solids, and includes vented sanitary tees and
submerged pipes in addition to those devices that are
normally called baffles.
(9) Bedrock. "Bedrock" means that layer of parent. material
that is .consolidated and unweathered.
(10) Bedroom. "Bedroom" means any room within a dwelling
that might reasonably be used as a sleeping room.
(11) Building Drain. "Building drain" means that part of the
lowest piping of the drainage system that receives the
sewage discharge inside the walls of the building and
conveys it to the building sewer beginning at least one
foot outside the building footings. -
(12) Building Sewer. "Building sewer" means that part of the
drainage system that extends from the end of the building
drain and conveys its discharge to an individual sewage
treatment system.
(13) Capacity. "Capacity" means the liquid volume of a
sewage tank using inside dimensions below the outlet.
(14) Certified Statement. "Certified statement" means a
statement signed by a licensed installer or qualified
employee certifying that work was completed in
accordance with applicable requirements.
(15) Cesspool. "Cesspool" means an underground pit or
seepage pit into which raw household sewage or other
untreated liquid waste is discharged and from which the
liquid seeps into the surrounding soil. See Section 953(d)
(4).
(16) Chambered System. "Chambered' system" means a soil
treatment system where sewage tank effluent is
discharged to a buried structure creating an enclosed
3
12
open space with -the original soil surface to act as a
surface for the infiltration of sewage tank effluent.
(17) Clean Sand. "Clean sand" means a soil texture
composed by weight of at least 25 percent very coarse,
coarse, and medium sand varying in size from 2.00
millimeters (sieve size 10) to -.25 millimeters (sieve size
60), less than 40 percent fine or very fine sand ranging in
size between 0.25 millimeters and 0.05 millimeters (sieve
size 270), and no more than ten percent smaller than 0.05
millimeters and no larger than 2.00 millimeters. Clean
sand also means a soil texture that meets American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification C-
33 (fine aggregate for concrete) or Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MNDOT) specification .3126 (fine
aggregate for Portland cement concrete).
The ASTM specification is found in the current addition of
ASTM Standards, which is incorporated by reference.
This document is provided by the American Society for
Testing and Materials located at 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1187.
The MNDOT specification is found in the MNDOT
Standard Specifications for Construction, 1988 Edition,
and the May 2, 1994, Supplemental Specifications, which
are incorporated- by reference. These documents are
provided by MNDOT located at 395 John Ireland
Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN 55155. All references can be
found at the Minnesota State Law Library, Judicial Center,
25 Constitution Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55155, and are not
subject to frequent change.
(18)
Department. "Department" means the City of Maplewood
Community Development Department.
(19) D . "DNR" means the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
(20) Distribution Box. "Distribution box" means a device
designed to concurrently and equally distribute sewage
tank effluent by gravity to a soil treatment system.
(21) Distribution Device. "Distribution device" means a
device used to receive and transfer effluent from a supply
pipe to distribution pipes or down slope supply pipes, or
4
13
both. These devices are commonly known as drop boxes,
valve boxes, distribution boxes, or manifolds.
(22) Distribution Medium. "Distribution medium" means the
material used to distribute the sewage tank effluent within
a soil treatment system. This medium includes drain field
rock, gravel -less drain field pipe in a geo textile wrap, or a
chambered system.
(23) Distribution Pipes. "Distribution pipes" means perforated
pipes that are used to distribute sewage tank effluent in a
soil treatment system.
(24) Dosing Chamber, or Pump Pit, or Wet Well. "Dosing
chamber, or pump pit, or wet well" means a tank or
separate compartment following the sewage tank that
serves as a reservoir for the dosing device.
(25) Dosing Device. "Dosing device" means a pump, siphon,
or other device that discharges sewage tank effluent from
the dosing chamber to the soil treatment system.
(26) Drain field Rock. "Drain field rock" means crushed
igneous rock, or similar insoluble, durable, and decay-
resistant material with no more than five percent by weight
passing a 3 /4 inch sieve and no more.than one percent by
weight passing a number 200 sieve. The size shall range
from three - fourths inch to 2'/2 inches.
(27) Drop Box. "Drop box" means a distribution device used
for the serial gravity application of sewage tank effluent to
a soil treatment system.
(28) Dwell i_ng. "Dwelling" means any building or place used or
intended to be used by human occupants as a single
family or two family unit.
(29) Failing System. "Failing system" means any system that
discharges sewage to a seepage pit, cesspool, drywell, or
leaching pit and any system with less than_ three feet .of
soil or sand between the bottom of the distribution
medium and the saturated soil level or bedrock.
(30) Gas Deflecting Baffle. "Gas deflecting baffle" means an
obstructin g device on the septic tank outlet that limits the
escape of solids that are carried by septic tank gases.
W
14
(31) Gravel -less Drain Field Pipe. "Gravel -less drain field
pipe" means a distribution medium consisting of a
corrugated distribution pipe encased in a geo textile wrap
'installed in a trench.
(32) Grey water. "Grey water" means liquid waste from a
dwelling or other establishment produced by bathing,
laundry, culinary operation, and from floor, drains
associated with these sources, and specifically excluding
toilet waste.
(33) Hazardous Materials. "Hazardous materials" means any
substance which, when discarded, meets the definition of
hazardous waste in MN Rules Chapter 7045.
(3,4,) LJOI line T�nl , "Wnlrlinq tank" mAanc n Wnfinrtinht tank for
1 1V�MI1 a % ■ N■ I■ \■ I IVIU11 Iy «.rf1 11� 1 1 iVVA� IV M •• v/�rv• r.�■ .� ova• •■ • v
storag of sewage e until it can be transported to a point of
g
approved treatment and disposal.
(35) Imminent Threat to Public Health or Safety. "Imminent
threat to public health or safety" means situations with the
potential to immediately and adversely impact or threaten
public health or safety. At a minimum, ground surface or
surface water discharges, and any system causing
sewage backup into a dwelling or other establishment,
shall constitute an imminent threat.
(36) Impermeable. "Impermeable" with regard to bedrock,
means a bedrock having no cracks or crevices and having
a vertical permeability slower than one inch in 24 hours.
With regard to soils, a soil horizon or Layer having a
vertical permeability slower than 0.025 inch in 24 hours
shall be considered impermeable.
(37) Individual Sewage Treatment System OSTS }.
"Individual sewage treatment system ". means a sewage
treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or
other establishment, or group thereof, which uses
subsurface soil treatment and disposal.
(38) Invert. "Invert" means the lowest point of a channel
inside a pipe.
(39) Maximum Monthly . Average Daily Flow. "Maximum
monthly average daily flow" means the 30 -day average
daily flow for the highest consecutive 30 -day period during
the year.
6
15
(40) Mottling. "Mottling" means a zone of chemical oxidation
and reduction activity, appearing as splotchy patches of
red, brown, orange, and gray in the soil, which are less
than 2 chroma.
(41) . Mound System "Mound system" means a system
where soil treatment area is built above the ground to
overcome limits imposed by proximity to water table or
bedrock, or by slow permeable soils.
(42) Ordinary High Water Level. "Ordinary high water level"
means the boundary of public waters and wetlands, that is
an elevation delineating the highest water level
maintained for a sufficient period of time to .leave evidence
upon the landscape, commonly that point where the
natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial.
For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the
elevation of the top of the bank of a channel. For
reservoirs and flowages the ordinary high water level must
be the operating elevation of the normal summer pool.
(43) Original Soil. "Original soil" means naturally occurring
inorganic soil that has not been moved, smeared,
compacted, nor manipulated with construction equipment.
(44) Other Establishment. "Other establishment" means any
public or private structure other than a dwelling that
generates sewage.
(45) Owner. "Owner" means all persons having possession
of, control over, or title to an individual sewage treatment
system.
(46) Percolation Rate. "Percolation rate" means the time rate
of drop of a water surface in a test hole as specified in
Section 953(d) (12).
(47) Permittinq Authority. "Permitting. authority" means any
county, municipality or state agency that administers the
provisions of these standards.
(48) Plastic Limit. "Plastic limit" means a soil moisture
content below which the soil may be manipulated for
purposes of installing a soil treatment system, and above
7
16
which manipulation will cause compaction and puddling.
The soil moisture content at the plastic limit can be
measured by American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) test number D4318 -84.
(49) Previously Developed Site. Land already containing a
dwelling or other establishment.
(50) Public Health Nuisance. Public health nuisance means
any activity or failure_ to act that adversely affects the
public health.
(51) Public Waters. "Public waters" means any public waters
or wetlands as defined in Minnesota Statutes, identified as
public waters or wetlands by the inventory prepared
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
(52) Replacement. "Replacement" means the replacement of
an existing individual sewage treatment system.
(53) Required Absorption Width. "Required absorption
width" means that width, measured in the direction of the
original land slope and perpendicular to the original
contours, which is required for the sewage tank effluent to
infiltrate into the original soil according to the allowable
loading- rates in Section 9- 953(20) Table V.
(54) Restaurants. "Restaurants" shall mean any. place where
food is prepared and intended for individual portion
service regardless of whether consumption is on or off the
premises or whether there is a charge for the food
although this does not include private homes.
(55) Saturated Soil. "Saturated soil" means the highest
elevation in the soil where periodically depleted oxygen
levels occur because of soil voids being filled with water.
Saturated soil is evidenced by the presence of soil
mottling or other information.
(56) Seepage Bed. "Seepage bed" means an excavated area
larger than 36 inches in width that contains drain field rock
and has more than one distribution pipe.
(57) Seepage Pit, or Leaching Pit, or Dry Well. "Seepage
pit, or leaching pit, or dry well" means an underground pit
into which a sewage tank discharges effluent or other
liquid waste and. from which the liquid seeps into the
s
17
surrounding soil through the bottom and openings in the
side of the pit.
(58) Septa e. "Septage" means those solids and liquids
removed during periodic maintenance of a septic or
aerobic tank, or those solids and liquids that are removed
from a toilet, waste treatment device, or a holding tank.
(59) Setback. "Setback" means a separation distance
measured horizontally.
(60) Sewage. "Sewage" means any water carried domestic
waste, exclusive of footing and roof drainage, from any
industrial, agricultural, or commercial establishment, or
any dwelling or any other structure. Domestic waste
includes liquid waste produced by toilets, bathing, laundry,
culinary operations, and the floor drains associated with
these sources, and specifically excludes animal waste
and commercial or industrial wastewater.
(61) Sewage Flow. "Sewage flow" means flow as determined
by measurement of actual water use or, if actual
measurements are unavailable, as estimated by the best
available data.
(62) Sewage Tank "Sewage tank" means a watertight tank
used in the treatment of sewage and includes, but is not
limited to, septic tanks and aerobic. tanks.
(63) Sewage Tank Effluent. "Sewage tank effluent" means
that liquid which flows from a septic or aerobic tank under
normal operation.
(64) Septic Tank. "Septic tank" means any watertight,
covered receptacle designed and constructed to receive
the discharge of sewage from a building sewer, separate
solids from liquid, digest organic matter, and store liquids
through a period of detention, and allow the clarified
liquids to discharge to a soil treatment system.
( 65 ) Shoreland. "Shoreland" means land located within the
following distances from public waters: 1,000 feet from
the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond or flowage;
and 300 feet from a river or stream or the landward extent
of a floodplain designated by ordinance on such a river or
stream, whichever is greater.
X
H'?
(66) Ste. "Site" means the area bounded by the dimensions
required for the proper location of the soil treatment
system.
(67) S loe_ "Slope" means the ratio of vertical rise or fall to
horizontal distance.
(68) Soil Characteristics, Limiting. "Soil characteristics,
limiting" means those soil characteristics that preclude the
installation of a standard system, including evidence of
water table or bedrock and percolation rates faster than
one -tenth or slower than 60 minutes per inch.
(69) Soil Textural Classification. "Soil textural classification,"
where soil particle sizes or textures are specified in this
chapter, they refer to the soil textural classification in the
Soil . Survey Manual, Handbook No. 18, United States
Department of Agriculture, 1993.
(70) Soil Treatment Area. "Soil treatment area" means that
area of trench or bed bottom that is in direct contact with
the drain field rock of the soil treatment system, and for-
mounds, that area to the edges of the required absorption
width and extending five feet beyond the ends of the rock
layer.
(71) Soil Treatment System. "Soil treatment system" means
a system where sewage tank effluent is treated and
disposed of below the ground surface by filtration and
percolation through the soil, and includes those systems
commonly known as seepage bed, trench, drain field,
disposal field, and mounds.
(72) Standard System. "Standard system" means an
individual sewage treatment system employing a building
sewer, sewage tank, and the soil treatment system
consisting of trenches, seepage beds, or mounds that are
constructed on original soil which has a percolation rate
equal to or faster than 60 minutes per inch.
(73) Surface Water Flooding. "Surface water flooding" means
the 100 -year floodplain along rivers and streams as
defined by the Department of Natural Resources, or in the
absence of such data, as defined by the largest flood
of record; on lakes, high water levels, as determined or
recorded by the Department of Natural Resources or, in
the case of no Department of Natural Resources record,
10
19
by local records or experience. Other surface water
flooding or high water areas should be determined by local
information.
(74) Ten -year Flood. "Ten -year flood" means that flood which
can be expected to occur, on an average, of once in ten
years; or the level to which flood water's have a ten
percent chance of rising in any given year.
(75) Toilet Waste. "Toilet waste" means fecal matter, urine,
toilet paper, and any water used for flushing.
(76) Toilet Waste Treatment Devices. "Toilet waste
treatment devices" means privies and other devices
including incinerating, composting, biological, chemical,
recirculating, or holding tanks.
(77) Water Table. "Water table" means the highest elevation
in the soil where all voids are filled with water, as
evidenced by presence of water or soil mottling or other
information.
(78) Watertight. "Watertight" means a sewage tank
constructed so that no water can get into or out of the
sewage tank except through the inlet and outlet pipes.
(79) Wild and Scenic River Land Use District. "Wild and
scenic river land use district" means those lands
designated by the commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources as the protected land corridor along
those rivers or river segments designated as wild, scenic,
or recreational rivers.
SECTION 9 -953. GENERAL PROVISIONS
9 -953 Applicability.
9 -953 (a) The owner, builder or developer of a property must use the city sewer system
when building or remodeling a structure where the building or use produces sewage. If
municipal sanitary sewer is not available to a site or property, then any use, building or
structure producing sewage shall have an individual sewage treatment system (ISTS).
The city engineer shall determine if municipal sewer is available to a site or a property.
9- 953(b) Administration by Federal Agencies. Industrial wastewater systems and
individual sewage treatment systems serving more than 20 persons (1200 gallons per
day) are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as Class V
injection wells under Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 144.
20
9- 953(c) Administration By State Agencies. For an individual sewage treatment
system, or group of individual sewage treatment systems, that are located on adjacent
properties and under single ownership, the owner or owners shall make application for
and obtain a state disposal system permit if the individual sewage treatment system or
systems are designed to treat an average daily flow greater than 10,000 gallons per
day.
The systems must, at a minimum, conform to the requirements of these standards.
For dwellings such as rental apartments, town houses, resort units, rental cabins,
and condominiums, the sum of the flows from all existing and proposed sources under
single management or ownership will be used to determine the need for a state disposal
system permit.
Individual sewage treatment systems serving establishments or facilities licensed
or otherwise regulated by the State of Minnesota shall conform to the requirements of
these standards.
Any individual sewage treatment system requiring approval by the State of
Minnesota shall also comply with this ordinance and all local codes and ordinances.
9- 953(d) Administration of This Ordinance. All individual sewage treatment systems
installed after the adoption of this ordinance and all alterations. extensi
modifications or repairs to existing systems, irrespective of the date of original
installation, shall be regulated in accordance with all requirements of this ordinance.
Existing systems that show evidence of sewage tank effluent discharge to the ground
surface, ground or surface waters or otherwise represent an imminent threat to public
health or safety shall be replaced within thirty (30) days of notice and order to comply by
the department. Any further surface discharge of effluent must be stopped immediately
(by such methods as reducing or stopping all water use, or pumping the tank as
necessary) until such time as the system is replaced. All tanks taken out of service
must be properly abandoned. (See Section 9- 953(e)(16).
9- 953(e) General Requirements..
(1) Surface Discharge. Unless specifically permitted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), sewage, sewage tank effluent, or
seepage from a soil treatment system shall not be discharged to the
ground surface, abandoned wells, or bodies of surface water, or into
any rock or soil formation the structure of which is not conducive to
purification of water by filtration, or into any well or other excavation in
the ground.
All new or existing. systems which discharge to surface waters or the
ground surface must obtain either a National Pollutant Discharge
12
21
Elimination System (NPDES) or State Disposal System Permit from the
MPCA and shall comply with all requirements pertaining thereto.
(2) Treatment Required. The system, or systems, shall be designed to
receive all sewage from the dwelling, building, or other establishment
served. Chemically treated hot tub or pool water, footing, roof drainage,
or garage floor drains shall not enter any part of the system. Products
containing hazardous materials must not be discharged to the system
other than a normal amount of household products and cleaners
designed for household use. Substances not used for household
cleaning, including motor oil, solvents, pesticides, flammables, photo
finishing chemicals, or dry cleaning chemicals, must not be discharged
to the system.
(3) System Components. The system shall consist of a building sewer,
sewage tank, and soil treatment system. All sewage shall be treated in
a sewage tank or toilet waste treatment device, and the sewage tank
effluent shall be discharged to the soil treatment system.
(4) Prohibited Installations. Cesspools, seepage pits, dry wells, and
leaching pits shall not be installed and shall not remain in operation.
(5) Location. Sewage treatment systems and each component thereof
shall be located and installed to insure that, with proper maintenance, it
will function in a sanitary manner, will not create a nuisance nor
contaminate any domestic water supply well.
The location of a system shall consider lot size and configuration,
proposed structures and other improvements, topography, surface
drainage, soil conditions, depth to ground water, geology, existing and
proposed water supply wells, accessibility for maintenance, and
expansion or replacement of the system.
Installation of systems in low swampy areas, drainage swales or area
subject to recurrent flooding is prohibited. Systems shall not be located
within utility or drainage easements nor within dedicated public or
private rights -of -way.
(6) Clear Water Waste. Uncontaminated clear water waste from
geothermal heat pump installations shall not be introduced into
individual sewage treatment systems. Such waste may be discharged
to the ground surface or to a body of water, however in no case shall
surface discharge be permitted where such discharge encroaches on
an adjoining property or public way. Where subsurface disposal is
provided, such installation shall be separated from the required sewage
treatment site and shall be designed and sized as prescribed for a
standard soil treatment system.
13
22
(7) System Sizing. Where the construction of additional bedrooms, the
installation of mechanical equipment, or other factors likely to affect the
operation of the system can be reasonably anticipated, the installation
or expansion of a system for such anticipated need shall be required.
(8) Site Evaluation. Before the city issues a building permit for new
construction or to add bedrooms to existing homes, or a permit to install
an individual sewage treatment system, or approval in the case of
subdivision of land, a field investigation shall be conducted by the
department or other agent of all proposed sites for sewage treatment
systems. Such investigation shall include an evaluation as to:
(a) depth to the highest known or calculated ground water table or
bedrock;
(b) soil conditions, properties, and permeability;
(c) slope;
(d) the existence of lowlands, local surface depressions, and rock
outcrops;
(e) all setback requirements from: existing and proposed buildings;
property lines; sewage tanks; soil treatment systems; water
supply wells; buried water pipes and utility lines; the ordinary
high water level of public waters; and the location of all soil
treatment systems and water supply wells on adjoining lots
within 100 feet of the proposed soil treatment system, sewage
tank, and water supply well; and
(f) surface water flooding probability.
(9) Soil Testing. Applicants for sewage treatment system permits,
site or subdivision approvals will be required to submit soil test
data derived from soil borings and percolation tests for each
proposed site or installation. The minimum testing shall be that
necessary to verify suitable conditions for two complete soil
treatment systems including detailed site plan and design. No
permit will be issued until a detailed system design is submitted
for the current proposed construction, including site plan and at
least one current boring if there is any reason to believe soil
conditions have been altered since the original soil testing.
Large systems designed for 1,200 gallon per day or more shall
require a hydro geologic investigation in accordance with Section
9- 959(c).
14
23
(10) Conduct of Tests. All testing shall be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of this ordinance and shall be done by
qualified personnel, certified under the MPCA training and
certification program and licensed by the MPCA. All .proposed
sites for sewage treatment systems shall be protected by fence
or other methods as necessary to avoid excavations,
construction equipment or other traffic that could- affect the soil
conditions.
(11) Soil Borings.
(a) Subdivision Testing. Enough borings must be done to
assure that suitable soils exist for each lot for long -term
sewage treatment. Percolation tests are not required
unless the permeability cannot be estimated, or there is
any reason to believe the soil is not original or has been
compacted.
(b) Permit Requirements. Complete testing on each
individual lot will be required prior to permit issuance
independent of any subdivision testing. A minimum of
four (4) satisfactory soil borings outlining an area of 5,000
square feet are required. Larger areas may be required
where conditions of use, soils, topography, or vegetation
require. Where soil tests require a mound, testing and
design must clearly show suitable area for installation of
two (2) complete mounds.
(Where site conditions are such that the only backup
mound will. likely be disturbed, the Department, at its
discretion, may require both, mounds to be constructed at
once.)
(c) Soil borings shall be made as follows:
(1) Borings shall be by auger or excavation and shall
be staked and protected until notification that field
evaluation has been completed. Flite augers,
which are non - continuous or disturb extracted soil
samples, are not allowed. Borings shall be made
to a depth at least four (4) feet deeper than the
bottom of the proposed system or until bedrock or
a water table is encountered, whichever is less.
15
24
(2) Any evidence of disturbed or compacted soil must
be disclosed and may result in the prohibition of
utilizing that test area.
(3) Particular effort shall be made to determine the
highest known water table by recording the first
occurrence of mottling observed in the hole, or if
mottling is not encountered, the open holes in clay
or loam soils shall be observed after standing
undisturbed a minimum of 16 hours and depth to
standing water, if present, shall be measured.
(d) A soil description shall be written for each soil observation at the
proposed site. Soils should only be evaluated under adequate
light conditions with the soil in a moist state and including the
following:
(1) The depth of each soil horizon measured
from the ground surface. Soil horizons are
differentiated by changes in soil structure,
soil texture, soil color, mottling, bedrock, or
any other characteristic that may affect
water percolation or treatment of effluent.
(2) The soil matrix and mottled color described
per horizon by the Munsell Soil Color Charts,
1992 Revised Edition, which is incorporated
by reference. This document is available
from Macbeth Division, Kollmorgen
Instruments Corporation, Munsell Color,
P.O. Box 230, Newburgh, New York 12551-
0230.
It can be found at the Minnesota State Law
Library, Judicial Center, 25 Constitution
Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155, and
is not subject to frequent change;
(3) The soil texture described using the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
soil classification system as modified below:
Minnesota USDA
16
25
Clay = Clay, sand clay, silty clay
Clay Loam = Clay loam, sandy clay loam, silty clay loam
Loam = Loam
Sandy loam = Sandy Loam
Silt loam = Silt loam, silt
Loamy sand = Loamy sand
Coarse sand = Coarse sand
(Medium) sand = (Medium) sand
Fine sand = Fine and very fine sand
(12) Percolation Tests. After soil borings have outlined the minimum area
of suitable soils, percolation tests shall be made as follows:
EXCEPTION: For sandy soils clearly in the 5 mpi range percolation
tests will not be required, however, the design rate for sizing shall be
1.27 square feet per gallon.
(a) Test hole dimensions and locations:
(1) Each test hole shall be six to eight inches in diameter,
have vertical sides, and be bored or dug to the depth of
the bottom of the proposed individual sewage treatment
system.
(2) Soil texture descriptions shall be recorded noting depths
where texture changes occur.
(b) Preparation of the test hole:
(1) The bottom and sides of the hole shall be carefully
scratched to remove any smearing and to provide a
natural soil surface into which water may penetrate.
(2) All loose material shall be removed from the bottom of the
test hole and two inches of one -fourth to three - fourths
inch gravel shall be added to protect the bottom from
scouring.
(c) Soil saturation and swelling:
(1) The hole shall be carefully filled with clear water to a
minimum depth of 12 inches over the soil at the bottom of
the test hole and maintained for no less than four hours.
Failure to adequately saturate the test hole may result in
rejection of the test.
17
26
(2) The soil shall then be allowed to swell for at least 16, but
no more than 30 hours. In sandy soils, the saturation and
swelling procedure shall not be required and the test may
proceed if one filling of the . hole has seeped away in less
than ten minutes.
(d) Percolation rate measurement: In sandy soils adjust the water
depth to eight inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole.
From a fixed reference point, the drop in water level shall be
measured in inches to the nearest one- eighth inch _ at
approximately ten - minute intervals. A measurement can also be
made by determining the time it takes for the water level to drop
one inch from an eight inch reference point. If eight inches of
water seeps away in less than ten minutes, a shorter interval
between measurements shall be used, but in no case shall the
water depth exceed eight inches. The test shall continue until
three consecutive percolation rate measurements vary by a
range of no, more than ten percent.
In other soils, adjust the water depth to eight inches over the soil
at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the
drop in water level shall be measured in inches to the nearest
one - eighth inch at approximately 30- minute intervals, refilling
between measurements to maintain an eight -inch starting head.
The test shall continue until three consecutive percolation rate
measurements vary by a range of no more than ten percent.
The percolation rate can also be made by observing the time it
takes the water level to drop one inch from an eight inch
reference point if a constant water depth of at least eight inches
has been maintained for at least four hours prior to the
measurement.
(e) Calculating the percolation rate. Divide the time interval by the
drop in water level to obtain the percolation rate in minutes per
inch. The slowest final percolation rate for all holes within the
soil treatment area shall be used for design.
(fl Frost. A percolation test -shall not be run where frost exists
below the depth of the proposed soil treatment system.
(13) Construction and Materials.
(1) Building Sewers.
(A) Plumbing and Well Codes. The design, construction, and
location of, and the materials for use in building sewers are
18
27
governed by the Minnesota State Building Code, chapter 1300,
which incorporates by reference portions of the Minnesota
Plumbing Code, chapter 4715, and by specific provisions of the
Minnesota Water Well Construction Code, Minn. Rules Chapter
4725.
(B), Water meter. All new individual sewage treatment systems
defined as mounds, alternative systems, or systems intended to
serve other establishments as defined in Section 9- 952(d) (44)
must not be installed unless a -water meter is provided to
measure the flow to the treatment system. For metered systems
that have septic tank effluent pumped to a soil treatment area, an
electrical event counter must also be installed.
(2) Sewage Tanks.
(A) In general. All tanks, regardless of material or method of
construction, must:
1) Be watertight;
2) Be designed and constructed to withstand all
lateral earth pressures under saturated soil
conditions with the tank empty, including proper
ballasting (to avoid possible flotation) where the
severity of conditions require it;
3) Be designed and constructed with adequate tensile
and compressive strength to withstand a minimum
of seven feet of saturated earth cover above the
tank top and manhole cover;
4) Not be subject to corrosion or decay; and
5) Have the manufacturer's name, model number,
and tank capacity in gallons permanently displayed
on the tank above the outlet pipe.
6) Have a written and graphic label affixed to the
maintenance hole cover warning of the hazardous
conditions inside the tank.
Any tank not having an integrally cast bottom shall not be
installed when the water table is closer than three inches
to the bottom of the excavation at the time of construction.
19
28
(13) Design of septic tanks. All tanks, regardless of material or method
of construction, shall conform to the following criteria:
1) The liquid depth of any septic tank or compartment
thereof shall be not less than 30 inches. A liquid
depth greater than six and one -half feet shall not
be considered in determining tank capacity.
2) No tank or compartment thereof shall have an
inside horizontal dimension less than 24 inches.
3) Inlet and outlet connections of the tank shall be
submerged by means of baffles.
4) The space in the tank between the liquid surface
and the top of the inlet and outlet baffles shall be
not less than 20 percent of the total required liquid
capacity, except that in horizontal cylindrical tanks
this space shall be not less than 15 percent of the
total required liquid capacity.
5) Inlet and outlet baffles shall be constructed of acid
resistant concrete, acid resistant fiberglass, or
plastic.
6) Baffles must be integrally cast with the tank, affixed
with a permanent waterproof adhesive, or affixed
with stainless steel connectors, top and bottom.
Sanitary tees, which are used as baffles, shall be
affixed to the inlet or outlet pipes with a permanent
waterproof adhesive.
7) The inlet baffle shall emend at least six inches but
not more than 20 percent of the total liquid depth
below the liquid surface and at least one inch
above the crown of the inlet sewer.
8) The outlet baffle and the baffles between
compartments shall extend below the liquid surface
a distance equal to 40 percent of the liquid depth
except that the penetration of the indicated baffle
or sanitary tees for horizontal cylindrical tanks shall
be 35 percent of the total liquid depth. They also
shall extend above the liquid surface as required
herein. In no case shall they extend less than six
inches above the liquid surface. Gas deflecting
20
29
baffles shall be installed on the outlet of the final
septic tank servicing other establishments.
9) There shall be at least one inch between the
underside of the top of the tank and the highest
point of the inlet and outlet devices.
10) The inlet invert shall be not less than two inches
above the outlet invert.
11) The inlet and outlet shall be located opposite each
other along the axis of maximum dimension. The
horizontal distance between the nearest points of
the inlet and outlet devices shall be at least four
feet.
12) Sanitary tees, used as baffles, shall be at least four
(4) inches in diameter. Inlet baffles shall be no less
than six (6) inches or no more than 12 inches
measured from the end of the inlet pipe to the
nearest point on the baffle. Outlet baffles shall be
six inches measured from beginning of the outlet
pipe to the nearest point on the baffle.
13) Access to the septic tank shall be as follows:
a) There shall be one or more manholes, at a
minimum of 20 inches least dimension, and located
within six feet of all walls of the tank. Access to
tanks will be by manhole covers with no more than
6 inches of cover. If the cover is exposed it must
be secured to prevent unauthorized entry if it is
exposed.
-b) There shall be an inspection pipe of at least
four inches diameter over both the inlet and outlet
devices. The inspection pipe shall extend through
the tank cover or the manhole cover and be
capped flush or above finished grade. A
downward projection of the centerline of the
inspection pipe shall be directly in line with the
centerline of the inlet or outlet device.
c) An inspection pipe at least four inches in
diameter must be located between the inlet and
outlet baffles for the purpose of evaluating scum
and sludge accumulations.
21
30
The inspection pipe must extend through either the
tank cover or manhole cover and must be capped
flush with or above finished grade.
14) Compartmentation of single tanks.
a) Septic tanks larger than 3,000 gallons and
fabricated as a single unit shall be divided
into two or more compartments.
b) When a septic tank is divided into two
compartments, not less than one -half or
more than two - thirds of the total volume
shall be in the first compartment.
c) When a septic tank is divided into three or
more compartments, one -half of the total
volume shall be in the first compartment and
the other half .equally divided in the other
compartments.
d) Connections between compartments shall
be baffled so as to obtain effective retention
of scum and sludge. The submergence of
the inlet and outlet baffles of each
compartment shall be as specified herein.
e) Adequate venting shall be provided between
compartments by baffles or by an opening of
at least 50 square inches near the top of the
compartment wall.
f) Adequate access to each compartment shall
be provided by one or more manholes; at
least 20 inches least dimension, and located
within six feet of all walls of the tank. The
manhole shall extend through the tank cover
to a point within six (6) inches of finished
grade. If the manhole is covered with less
than six inches of earth, the cover must be
secured to prevent unauthorized access.
22
31
15) Multiple tanks.
a) Where more than one tank is used to obtain
the required liquid volume, the tanks shall be
connected in series.
b) Each tank shall comply with all other
provisions of Section 9-953(d)(1 3)(1)(A).
c) No more than four tanks in series can be
used to obtain the required liquid volume.
d) The first tank shall be no smaller than any
subsequent tanks in series.
16) Outlet pipe from septic tank.
a) The outlet pipe from the septic tank must not
be cast iron.
b) The outlet pipe extending from the septic
tank must be of sound and durable
construction, not subject to corrosion or
decay.
c) The outlet pipe extending from the septic
tank to the undisturbed soil beyond the tank
must meet the strength requirements of
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), schedule 40 plastic pipe and must
be supported in a manner that there is no
deflection during the backfilling and
subsequent settling of the soil between the
edge of the septic tank and the edge of the
excavation.
d) The soil around the pipe extending from the
septic tank must be compacted to original
density for a length. of three feet beyond the
edge of the tank excavation.
9- 953(e)(14) Capacity of Septic Tanks. Capacity of septic tanks:
(A) Dwellings. There shall be two septic tanks in series with
the liquid capacity based on the number of bedrooms contemplated in
the dwelling served and shall be at least as large as the capacities
given below.
23
32
EXCEPTION: Upgrade of existing conforming systems need not
consist of two (2) tanks in series assuming the. primary tank capacity is
met, and there is no garbage disposal or sewage pump. System
replacement shall require two tanks in series.
Number of
Bedrooms
Tank Liquid
Capacities (Gallons)
2 or less
1,000 and 500
3 or 4
1,000 and 1,000
5 or 6
1,500 and 1,000
7 8 or 9
2,000 and 1,000
For ten or more bedrooms, the septic tank shall be sized as another
establishment with the second tank in series being at least 50 percent
capacity of the first tank. For multiple family dwellings containing two (2)
or more dwelling units, the size shall be the sum of the individual dwelling
unit requirements.
(B) Other establishments. The liquid capacity Of a septic tank
serving an establishment other than a dwelling shall be sufficient to
provide a sewage detention period of not less than 36 hours in the tank for
sewage flows less than 1,500 gallons per day, but in no instance shall the
liquid capacity be less than 750 gallons. For sewage flows greater than
1,500 gallons per day the minimum liquid capacity "shall equal 1,125
gallons plus 75 percent of the daily sewage flow. For restaurants, and
Laundromats, twice the liquid capacity shown above must be provided.
For laundromats the outlet baffle of the septic tank must be submerged to
a depth of 50 percent.
(C) . Pumping of raw sewage. A sewage pump must not
deliver sewage to a one -tank system if the pump cycle delivers more than
One percent of the liquid capacity of the tank. For systems with multiple
tanks, at least two tanks in series must be used, each having at least the
liquid capacity specified in this subpart. The volume of sewage delivered
in each pump cycle must not exceed five percent of the liquid capacity of
the first tank.
24
33
9- 953(e)(15) Location of Septic Tanks. The sewage tank shall be placed so that it
is accessible for the removal of liquids and accumulated solids. The
soil cover over a tank shall not exceed five (5) feet.
The sewage tank shall be placed on firm and settled soil capable of
bearing the weight of the tank and its contents.
Sewage tanks shall be set back as specified in Section 9- 953(2), Table
IV.
Sewage tanks shall not be placed in areas subject to flooding or in
floodplains, or in areas for which regional flood information is available
from the DNR.
9- 953(e)(16) Abandoned Tanks. At any time tanks are taken out of service they
shall be removed from the ground or abandoned in place by properly
removing all contents, disconnecting all lines, and filling the tank
completely with soil. Access for future discharge to the system shall be
permanently denied.
9- 953(e)(17) Aerobic Tanks. Aerobic tank treatment systems shall comply with the
general requirements for sewage tanks set forth in this ordinance, and
with the following:
(1) The treatment system including each individual unit or
compartment shall be easily accessible for inspection and
maintenance and shall be provided with secured covers.
(2) Aerobic tanks shall comply with National Sanitation
Foundation Standard (NSF) No. 40 (November 1990). Effluent
quality shall meet or exceed NSF . Class II Standards.
(3) An effective maintenance service contract shall be
maintained for the life of the unit and shall include inspections
and effluent quality checks at least semi - annually.
(4) No additional reduction in soil treatment area shall be
allowed with the use of an aerobic treatment tank.
9- 953(e)(18) Distribution of Effluent.
(1) All supply pipes must be protected from freezing when they pass
under driveways, sidewalks, roadways or other areas where
deep frost penetration is expected.
(2) Gravity distribution.
2s
34
(A) Serial distribution must be used to distribute effluent to
individual trenches in a soil treatment system unless the
necessary elevation differences between trenches for drop
boxes cannot be achieved b natural topography or b varying
Y Y
the excavation depths, in which case parallel distribution shall be
used. If drop boxes are used, they must ' meet the following
standards
1) The drop box shall be watertight and constructed
of durable materials not subject to corrosion or
decay.
2) The invert of the inlet pipe shall be at least one
inch higher than the invert of the outlet pipe to the
next trench.
3) The invert of the outlet pipe to the next trench shall
be no greater than two inches higher than the
invert of the outlet pipe of the trench in which the
box is located.
4) When sewage tank effluent is delivered to the drop
box by a pump, the pump discharge shall be
directed against a wall or side of the box on which
there is no outlet.
5) The drop box shall have a removable cover either
flush or above finished grade or covered by no
more than six inches of soil and must have a
vertical inspection pipe, capped flush with or above
finished grade.
(B) The distribution boxes must meet the following standards:
1) The box must be watertight with either a removable
cover or a clean out pipe extending to finished
grade and must be constructed of durable
materials not subject to corrosion or decay.
2) The inverts of all outlets must be at the same
elevation.
3) The inlet invert must be either at least one inch
above the outlet inverts or be sloped such that an
equivalent elevation above the outlet invert is
obtained within the last eight feet of the inlet pipe.
26
35
4) Each drain field trench line must be connected
separately to the distribution box and must not be
subdivided.
5) When sewage tank effluent is delivered to the
distribution box by pump, either a baffle wall must
be installed in the distribution box or, the pump
discharge must be directed against a wall or side
of the box on which there is no outlet. The baffle
must be secured to the box and must extend at
least one inch above the crown of the inlet flow
Line.
(C) Distribution pipes.
1) Distribution pipes used in trenches or beds for
gravity distribution must be at least four inches in
diameter and must be constructed of sound and
durable material not subject to corrosion or decay
or to loss of strength under continuously wet
conditions.
2) Perforated pipe used for sewage distribution pipes
must have one or more rows of holes of no less
than one -half inch in diameter spaced no more
than 40 inches apart. Holes must be spaced to.
prevent failure due to loads. Distribution pipes
must have a load bearing capacity of not less than
1,000 pounds per lineal foot.
3) The distribution pipes for gravity distribution must
be laid level or on a uniform slope away from the
distribution device of no more than four inches per
10-0 feet.
4) Other devices such as corrugated tubing wrapped
with a permeable synthetic material or a
chambered trench or bed may be used to distribute
sewage tank effluent over the soil treatment area
upon approval of the department.
(3)
Pressure distribution.
(A) Pressure distribution must be used for the following soil
treatment systems:
27
36
1) All mound systems;
2) All at -grade systems; and
3) Systems where the soil percolation rate is
0.1 to five minutes per inch if the effluent is
pumped to a seepage bed or to trenches
that are all at the same elevation.
(B) Distribution pipes used for pressure distribution must be
constructed of sound and durable material not subject to
corrosion or decay or to loss of strength under continuously wet
conditions.
(C) All pipes and associated fittings used for pressure distribution
must be properly joined together. The pipe and connections
must be able to withstand a pressure of at least 40 pounds per
square inch.
(D) Perforations must be no smaller than 3/16 -inch diameter and no
larger than one - quarter inch diameter. The number of
perforations, perforation spacing, and pipe size for pressure
distribution laterals must be as shown in Table I. The friction
loss in any individual perforated lateral must not exceed 20
percent of the average pressure head on the perforations.
Maximum Allowable Number of One - Fourth -Inch Diameter, or Smaller,
Perforations Per Lateral.
TABLE I
28
37
Pipe Diameter, Normal and Inside
Perforation
1"
1'/4"
1 %2
2
Spacing in feet
1.049
1.380
1.610
2.067
2.5
8
14
18
28
3
8
13
17
26
3.3
7
12
16
25
4
7
11
15
23
5
6
10
14-
22
28
37
(A) Perforation holes must be drilled straight into the pipe and
not at an angle.. The perforated pipe laterals must be installed level with
the perforations downward. Perforation holes must be free of burrs.
(B) Laterals must be spaced no further than 60 inches apart
and must be spaced no further than a horizontal distance of 30 inches
from the bottom edge of a drain field rock layer.
(C) Laterals must be connected to a header or manifold pipe
that is of a diameter such that the friction loss in the header or manifold
will. be no greater than five- percent of the average head at the
perforations. The header or manifold pipe must be connected to the
supply pipe from the pump.
(D) Perforated laterals must be designed and installed in such
a way that no perforations are located closer than 12 inches from the edge
of the drain field rock.
9- 953(e)(19) Lift Station.
(1) Lift Station. A lift station, where used, shall meet the following
requirements:
(A) The lift station shall be watertight and constructed of
sound and durable materials not subject to excessive corrosion or decay,
vented, and must be designed and constructed to withstand lateral
pressures when the tank is empty.
(B) There shall be one or more maintenance holes, at least
20 inches least dimension and located directly above the pump. The
maintenance hole shall extend through the lift station cover to final grade
and shall be so constructed as to prevent unauthorized entry.
(C) The lift station shall either include an alternating two -pump
system or have a minimum total capacity of 500 gallons or 100 percent of
the average design flaw, whichever is greater.
(D) A lift station must have an alarm device to warn of failure.
(E) Pumps shall be elevated from the bottom of the lift station
to protect the pump from settled solids. The pump, pump controls, and
pump discharge line shall be installed so as to be accessible for servicing
without entering the lift station.
(F) Electrical installations shall comply with applicable laws
and ordinances including the latest codes, rules, and regulations.
29
M
(2) Lift stations for gravity distribution:
(A) Where a lift station . is employed, a pump or siphon shall
deliver the dose to the soil treatment unit for ravit distribution over the
g Y
soil treatment area.
(B) For dwellings, the dosing device shall discharge at least
600 gallons per hour but no more than 2,700 gallons per hour.
(C) For other establishments, the dosing device should
discharge at a rate at least ten percent greater than the water supply flow
rate but no faster than the rate at which effluent will flow out of the
distribution device.
(D) If the dosing device is a siphon, a maintenance inspection
shall be made every six months by the owner or the owner's agent. The
siphon shall be maintained in proper operating condition.
(E) If the dosing device is a pump, it shall be cast iron or
bronze fitted and with stainless steel screws or constructed of other
sound, durable, and corrosion - resistant materials.
(F) Where the soil treatment area is at a higher elevation than
the pump, sufficient dynamic head shall be provided for both the elevation
difference and friction loss.
(G) Where the dosing device is a pump, an alarm device shall
be installed to warn of pump failure.
(3) Dosing devices for pressure distribution;
(A) The dosing device shall be a pump which is cast iron or
bronze fitted and with stainless steel screws or constructed of sound,
durable, and corrosion - resistant materials.
(B) The pump discharge capacity shall be based upon the
perforation discharges for an average head of 1.0 foot for residential
systems and 2.0 feet for other establishments. Perforation discharge will
be determined by the following formula:
q = 19.65 cd ,rh
where:
q = discharge in gallons per minute
c = 0.60 coefficient of discharge
d = perforation diameter in inches
h = head in feet
30
39
(C) The pump discharge head shall be at least five feet
greater than the head required to overcome pipe friction losses and the
elevation difference between the pump and the distribution device.
(D) The quantity of effluent delivered for each pump cycle
shall be no greater than 25 percent of one day's sewage flow.
(E) An alarm device shall be installed to warn of pump failure.
(F) A siphon will not be allowed as a lift station to deliver
effluent to a pressure distribution system.
9- 953(e)(20) Final Treatment and Disposal.
(1) Final treatment and disposal of all sewage tank effluent shall be
by discharge into a soil treatment system.
(2) Standard system.
(A) Sizing:
1) The required soil treatment area shall be
determined by the daily sewage flow, and the measured
percolation rate of the soil.
2) Acceptable methods for estimating sewage flow for
dwellings are given in Table II. The minimum daily sewage flow
estimated for any dwelling shall provide for at least two
bedrooms. For multiple residential units, the estimated daily
sewage flow shall consist of the sum of the flows of each
individual unit.
TABLE 11
Number of
Bedrooms
Gallons per day
2
300
3
450
4
600
5
750
6
900
31
40
If a grey water system is employed, estimated
sewage flow equals 60 percent of the amount
provided in Table II.
(1) For other establishments, average design flow shall be
used to size soil treatment systems. Maximum design
flow shall be used to size sewage tanks. Design flows
shall be calculated using estimated or measured values
for other establishments according to items a. and b.
a) Estimated average and maximum design flows: the
best available data as provided by the agency
shall be used if estimating the average and
maximum design flows.
b) Measured average and maximum design Bows:
1. the average design flow shall be determined
by averaging the measured daily flows for a
consecutive seven -day period in which the
establishment is at maximum capacity or
use; and;
2. the maximum design flow shall
be the anticipated peak daily flow.
2) Table - 111 (next page) gives the required trench bottom
area assuming 12 inches of drain field rock below the
distribution pipe. The required bottom area may be
reduced, for trenches only, by the following percentages:
20 percent for 18 inches of drain field rock below the
-distribution pipe; and 34 percent for 24 inches. Unless
pressure distribution is used, all seepage bed bottom
area must be 1.7 times the soil treatment areas required
in Table Ill. With pressure distribution, the bottom. area
must be 1.2 times the soil treatment area required in
Table 111.
32
41
TABLE III
Percolation Rate
(minutes per inch)
Soil Texture
0.1-
5
6 -15
16 -30
31 -45
46 -60
NUMBER
OF BEDROOMS
TANK SIZE
GALLONS
PER DAY
SQUARE FEET
2
1000 + 500
300
250
380
500
600
.660
3
1000 +1000
450
380
570
750
900
990
4
1000 +1000
600
500
760
1000
1200
1 320
5
1500 +1000
750
630
950
1250
1500
1650
6
1500 +1000
900
750
114
0
1500
1800
1980
7
2000 +1000
1050
870
133
0
1750
2100
2310
8
2000 + 1000
.1200
990
152
0
2000
2400
2640
SQUARE FEET
PER GALLON
.83
1.27
1.67
2
2.20
TABLE III (continued)
Percolation Rate in
Minutes Per
Inch (MPI )
Soil Texture
Square Feet Per
Gallon Per Day
Gallons Per Day
Per Square Foot
Faster than 0.1*
Coarse Sand
- - - --
- - - --
0.1 to 5 **
Sand
0.83
1.20
0.1 to 5
Fine Sand * **
1.67
0.60
-6 to 15
Sandy Loam
1.27
0.79
16 to 30
Loam
1.67
0.60
31 to 45
Silt Loam
2.00
0.50
46 to 60
Clay Loam
2.20
0.45
Slower than 60 * * **
Clay
- - - --
- - - --
M
42
See below for explanation of asterisks ( *).
* Soil too coarse for sewage. treatment.
** Distribution of sewage effluent shall be by pressure flow over the treatment area
or by dividing treatment area into a minimum of four (4) equal parts connected
serially, by means of drop boxes.
* ** For soils having more than 50 percent of very fine sand by weight, plus fine sand
having a particle size range of 0.05 millimeters (sieve size 270) to 0.25
millimeters (sieve size 60), the required soil treatment area is 1.67 square feet
.per gallon of sewage flow per day.
* * ** Soil with too high a percentage of clay for installation of an in ground standard
system.
(A) Location:
1) on slopes in excess of 12 percent, the soil profile shall be carefully
evaluated in the location of the proposed soil treatment system and
down slope to identify the presence of layers with different
permeability's that may cause side hill seepage. In no case shall a
trench be located within 15 feet of where such a layer surfaces on the
down slope.
2) Bed construction shall be limited to areas having natural slopes of less
than six percent.
3) Soil treatment systems shall be located as specified on Table IV.
34
43
TABLE IV,
MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCES (FEET)
FEATURE
SEWAGE
TANK
SOIL
TREATMENT
AREA
Water Supply well less than 50 feet deep and not
encountering at least ten feet of impervious
material
50
100
Any other water supply well or buried water
suction pipe
50
50
Buried pipe distributing water under pressure
10
10
Occupied buildings & buildings with basements or crawl
spaces
10
20
Non- occupied structures
5
5
Property lines
10*
10*
Above ground swimming pools
10
10
In ground swimming pools
10
20
THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OF:
LS -1 Natural Environment Lakes & Streams
150 **
150 **
LS -2 Recreation Development Lakes & Streams
75 **
75 **
LS -3 General Development Lakes & Streams
75 **
75 **
All unclassified waters
75 **
75 **
BLUFF LINES:
Shoreland Bluff lines (18% Slope)
20 **
20 **
May be altered only through normal variance. process.
** May be varied through Shoreland Management Ordinance.
4) Soil treatment areas shall not be placed in areas subject to flooding or
in floodplains or in areas for which regional flood information is
available from the DNR.
(B) Design and construction:
1) The bottom of trenches and beds shall be at least three feet above the
water table or bedrock.
35
44
2) The trenches shall be not less than 18 inches or more than 36 inches
wide. Any excavation wider than 36 inches shall be considered a bed.
No bed may be wider than 25 feet and parallel beds must not be
located closer than ten feet apart.
3) The bottom of the trench or bed excavation shall be level.
4) The bottom and sides of the soil treatment system to the top of the
drain field rock shall be excavated in such a manner as to leave the soil
in a natural, un- smeared, and un- compacted condition. Excavation
shall be made only when the soil moisture content is at or less than the
plastic limit.
5) When the percolation rate is slower than 15 minutes per inch,
excavation shall be by backhoe or other means that allow the
equipment wheels or tracks to- remain on the surface soil. Excavation
equipment or other vehicles shall not be driven on the soil treatment
area.
6) There shall be a layer of at least 12 but no more than 24 inches of drain
field rock in the bottom of the trenches.
7) The drain field rock shall completely encase the top and sides of the
distribution pipes to a depth of at least two inches. The top of the drain
field rock. in trenches, beds, and mounds must be level in all directions.
8) Drain field rock must be covered with a durable non -woven geotextile
cover specific to this purpose. The cover must be of sufficient strength
to undergo installation without rupture. In addition, the cover must
permit passage of water without allowing the passage of overlying soil
material into drain field rock.
9) The trenches or beds shall be backfilled and crowned above finished
grade to allow for settling. The top six inches of soil shall have the
same texture and density as the adjacent soil.
10) The minimum depth of cover over the distribution pipes shall be at least
six inches. The maximum depth of cover over the distribution pipes
shall be no more than 24 inches.
11) A vegetative cover shall be established over the soil treatment system.
The soil treatment system shall be protected until a vegetative, cover is
established. The vegetative cover established shall not interfere with
the hydraulic performance of the system and shall provide adequate
frost and erosion protection.
36
45
12) A vertical inspection pipe at least 1 -1/2 inches in diameter must be
installed in each drain field rock layer of every trench or seepage bed.
The inspection pipe must be located at an end opposite from where the
sewage tank effluent enters the rock layer. The inspection pipe .must
have 3/8 inch or larger perforations spaced vertically no more than six
inches apart in the rock layer, and must be solid pipe above. The
inspection pipe must extend to the bottom of the rock layer and must be
capped flush with or above finished grade.
13) All joints for gravel -less drain field pipes or chambered systems must be
secured as recommended by the manufacturer.
14) Backfilling for gravel -less drain field pipe and chambered systems shall
not crush or damage the medium.
(C) Gravel -less drain field pipe. Gravel -less drain field pipe, including
appurtenances, shall be:
1) of commercially fabricated corrugated pipe completely encased by the
manufacturer in a geotextile wrap specific to this purpose;
2) an eight -inch or a ten -inch nominal ID pipe that meets the requirements
of American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) F667, which is
incorporated by reference. The annual book of standards F667
"Standard Specification for Large Diameter Corrugated Polyethylene
Tubing and Fittings" was issued in 1985 and is available at ASTM, 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The standards can be found at
the Minnesota Law Library, Judicial Center, 25 Constitution Avenue,
Saint Paul, MN 55155, and are not subject to frequent change.
a) The pipes must be marked with an alignment stripe visible
through the geotextile wrap and installed with this stripe at top
center.
b) The pipes shall contain a row or rows of cleanly cut three - eighths
inch to one -half inch diameter holes located in such a manner to
provide storage of solids. Each row shall contain a hole in, every
other corrugation valley, staggered such that every corrugation
valley contains one hole.
3) Geotextile wraps specifically designed and tested for use with gravel-
less pipe and for installation and use in individual sewage treatment
systems.
4) The sizing shall be 1.2 times the soil treatment area required in Table
Ill.
37
46
5) Protected from heat and ultraviolet rays prior to installation.
(D) Chambered systems. Chamber media including all piping and appurtenances
shall be constructed:
1) of commercially fabricated materials specific to this purpose;
2) of materials resistant to sewage tank effluent;.
3) with an open bottom;
4) to support the load of overburden and sidewall soil;
5) with slotted or perforated sides to allow sewage to move laterally into
the soil and prevent soil penetration into the chamber;
6) no greater than three (3) feet in width; and
7) with vertical outside dimensions less than 30 inches.
E) Dual field systems:
1) Dual field systems shall be used only where the percolation rate is
slower than five minutes per inch.
2) Dual field systems shall be sized, designed, and constructed as set
forth above for standard systems except as follows:
a) The soil treatment area shall be divided into two or more parts.
b) Alternating soil treatment areas shall each be connected to a
valve box outlet.
(Z)
3) A part of the soil treatment area shall be used no more than one year
unless inspection of the effluent level indicates that a longer duration
can be used.
Mounds.
(A) Mound Requirements
1) Mounds must be constructed on original soils so that there is at
least 36 inches of separation between the bottom of the drain
field rock layer and limiting soil characteristics. as defined in
Section 9 -952,
38
47
2) There must be at least 18 inches of original soil with a
percolation rate faster than 60 minutes per inch above the
limiting soil characteristics as defined in Section 9 -952.
EXCEPTIONS For Previously Developed Sites:
a) A depth of 12 to 18 inches of original suitable soil may be
used.
b) A 61 to 120 minutes per inch rate may be used.
3) - If original soil conditions do not exist on a site proposed for a
mound, as defined in Section 9 -952, the site is unsuitable for a
mound.
4) Absorption areas shall not be placed in areas subject to flooding
as described in Section 9- 955(d).
5) On slopes of one percent or greater, and where the percolation
rate in the top foot of original soil is in the 61 to 120 minutes per
inch range, mounds must not be located where the ground -
surface contour lines directly below the long axis of the rock bed
represent a swale or draw, unless the contour lines have a
radius of curvature greater than 100 feet. Mounds must never
be located in swales or draws where the radius of curvature of
the contour lines is less than 50 feet. In no case shall mounds
be placed on slopes greater than 12 percent.
(B) Design of mounds. Drain field rock must be used as the distribution medium in
mounds.
1) The bottom area of the rock bed shall be calculated by multiplying the
average design flow by 1.0 square feet per gallon per day.
2) The width of a single rock bed must not exceed ten feet.
3) A minimum of 12 inches of clean sand must be placed where the rock
bed is to be located.
4) The required absorption width is calculated by multiplying the rock bed
width by the absorption ratio. The absorption ratio shall be determined
according to Table V, using percolation rate of the upper 12 inches of
soil in the .proposed absorption area.
5) A maximum of two (2) mounds may be placed with side -by -side rock
beds. The required absorption width shall be increased by four (4) feet.
39
TABLE V
Percolation Rate of Original Soil
Under Sand Layer, Minutes Per
Inch
Absorption Ratio
Faster than 5
1.00
6 to 15
1.50
16 to 30
2.00
31 to 45
2.40
46 to 60
2.67
61 to 120
5.00
6) The required absorption width for mounds constructed on slopes from
zero to one percent shall be centered under the rock bed width. The
required absorption width for mounds constructed on slopes greater
than one percent shall be measured down slope from the down slope
edge of the rock bed width and measured in the direction of the original
land slope and perpendicular to the original contours.
7) The side slopes on the mound must not be steeper than three (3)
horizontal units to one (1) vertical unit and shall extend beyond the
required absorption area, if necessary.
8) On slopes of one (1) percent or greater, the upslope edge of the level
drain field rock bed must be placed on the contour.,
9) Whenever mounds are located on slopes greater than one (1) percent,
a diversion must be constructed immediately upslope from the mound
to intercept and direct runoff.
10) Distribution. of effluent over the rock- bed must be by level perforated
pipe under pressure as specified in Section 9- 953(18).
11) The rock bed shall completely encase the top and sides of the
distribution pipes to a depth of at least two (2) inches above the pipe.
The rock shall extend nine (9) inches below the pipe.
12) A vertical inspection pipe at least 1Y2- inches in diameter shall be
installed and secured at each rock bed /sand interface of every mound.
40
49
The inspection pipe must have 3/8 inch or larger perforations spaced
vertically no more than six (6) inches apart. At least two (2) perforations
must be located in the rock bed. No perforations shall be located above
the permeable synthetic fabric. The inspection pipe must extend to the
bottom of the rock bed and must be capped flush with or above finished
grade.
13) The rock bed must be covered with durable non -woven geotextile cover
specific to this purpose. The cover must be of sufficient strength to
undergo installation without rupture. In addition, the cover must permit
passage of water without passage of overlying soil material into the
drain field rock.
14) Sandy to loamy soil material must be placed on the rock bed to a depth
of one (1) foot in the center of the mound and to a depth of six (6)
inches at the sides. When two (2) rock beds are installed side by side,
-the soil material must be 18 inches deep at the center of the mound and
six (6) inches deep at the sides.
15) Six (6) inches of topsoil must be placed over the entire mound. Topsoil
does not include peat soil textures.
(B) Surface preparation for mounds.
1) The supply pipe from the pump to the mound area must be installed
before mound soil surface preparation. The trench excavated for the
supply pipe must be carefully backfilled and compacted to prevent
seepage of effluent.
2) All vegetation in excess of two (2) inches in length and dead organic
debris must be removed from the absorption area. Trees must be cut
nearly flush with the ground and stumps should not be removed.
3) All surface preparation must take place when the upper 12 inches of
soil has a moisture content of less than the plastic limit and soil
conditions allow field testing of soil properties and these properties are
maintained throughout installation.
4) The absorption area must be roughened by backhoe teeth or
moldboard, or chisel plowed to a depth of eight (8) inches. Discing is
allowed if the upper eight (8) inches of soil has a texture of sandy loam
or coarser. If plowed, furrows must be thrown uphill and there must not
be a dead furrow in the absorption area.
A rubber -tired tractor may be used for plowing or discing. Rototilling or
pulverizing the soil is not allowed. The original soil must not be
41
50
excavated or moved more than one foot from its original location during
soil surface preparation.
5) Prior to placement of six (6) inches of clean sand, no vehicle shall be
driven on to the absorption area after the surface preparation is
completed.
If rainfall occurs on the prepared surface, the site must be allowed to
dry below the plastic limit and roughened as specified above.
(C) Mound construction.
1) The clean sand must be placed by using a construction technique that
minimizes compaction. If the clean sand is driven on for construction, a
crawler or track -type tractor must be used for mound construction. At
least six (6) inches of sand must be kept beneath equipment to
minimize compaction of the prepared surface.
2) The sand layer upon which the rock bed is placed must be level in all
directions.
3) The top of the rock bed must be level in all directions.
4) Construction vehicles must not be allowed on the rock bed until backfill
is placed.
5) A vegetative cover must be established over the entire area of the
mound. The soil treatment system mound shall be protected until a
vegetative cover is established. The vegetative cover established shall
not interfere with the hydraulic performance of the system and shall
provide adequate frost and erosion protection.
6) Shrubs must not be planted on the top of the mound. Shrubs may be
placed at the foot and side slopes of the mound.
(2) At -grade systems.
(A) .Location of at -grade systems.
(1) At -grade systems must be constructed on original soils so
that there is at least 36 inches of separation between the
bottom of the rock bed and saturated soil or bedrock.
(2) Percolation tests shall be conducted in the upper 12
inches of original soil. At -grade systems are only allowed
if constructed on soils with percolation rates faster than 61
minutes per inch.
42
51
(3) At -grade systems shall not be installed in areas with
slopes greater than 12 percent.
(B) Design of at -grade systems.
(1) Rock bed absorption width shall be calculated by
multiplying the linear loading rate by the soil sizing factor
as identified in 9- 953(d)(20) Table III, using the
percolation rate of the upper 12 inches of soil in the
proposed absorption area.
The linear loading rate shall be between two (2) and eight
(8) gpd /ft as determined by the relationship between
vertical and horizontal water movement in the soil. Total
rock bed width for sloping ground shall consist of the rock
bed absorption width plus enough rock on the upslope
side to provide stability.
(2) Rock bed length shall be calculated by multiplying the
soil- sizing factor by the average design flow and dividing
by the rock bed width.
(3) At -grade systems shall be pressurized in accordance with
Section 9- 953(d)(18). Distribution pipe shall be installed
in the center of the rock bed on slopes less than one (1)
percent and on the upslope edge of the rock bed
absorption width on slopes one (1) percent or greater.
(C) Construction of at -grade systems.
1) Surface preparation for at -grade systems shall be the same as mound
construction.
2) Drain field rock must be used as the distribution medium in at -grade
systems.
3) The upslope edge of an at -grade system shall be installed along the
natural contour.
4) The rock bed shall completely encase the top and sides of the
distribution pipe to a depth of at least two (2) inches above the pipe.
There shall be at least nine (9) inches of rock below the distribution
pipe.
5) The entire rock bed shall be covered with a durable non -woven
geotextile cover specific to this purpose. The cover must be of
43
52
1
sufficient strength to undergo installation without rupture. In addition,
the cover must permit passage of water without allowing the passage of
overlying soil material into the drain field rock.
6) One foot of loamy or sandy cover material shall be installed over the
rock bed. Cover shall extend at least five (5) feet from the ends of the
rock bed and be sloped to divert surface water. Side slopes shall not
be steeper than four (4) horizontal units to one (1) vertical unit. The
upper six (6) inches of the loamy soil cover must be topsoil. Topsoil
must be of a quality that provides a good vegetative cover on the at-
grade system and must exclude peaty material
7) Three (3) vertical inspection pipes of at least 1.5 inches in diameter
shall be installed and secured along the down slope portion of the rock
bed. These pipes shall be located within three (3) feet of the down
slope edge of the rock bed at the middle and one -sixth of the total rock
bed length and placed as measured from the ends of the rock bed. The
inspection pipes shall have 3/8 inch or larger perforations spaced
vertically no more than six (6) inches apart. No perforations shall exist
above the permeable synthetic fabric. The inspection pipes must
extend to the rock bed /soil interface and must be stabilized and capped
flush with or above finished grade.
8) A vegetative cover must be established over the entire area of the at-
grade system. The soil treatment at -grade system shall be protected
until a vegetative cover is established. The vegetative cover shall not
interfere with the hydraulic performance of the system and shall provide
adequate frost and erosion protection.
ALTERNATIVE AND EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS
9 -954 General. The intent of this part is to provide standards for the location, design,
installation, use, and maintenance of alternative and experimental sewage treatment
systems. Alternative systems must meet the requirements listed below and can only be
used when a standard system cannot be installed or is not the most suitable treatment.
They may be employed provided:
(a) reasonable assurance of performance of the system is presented to the
permitting authority;
(b) the engineering design of the system is first approved by the permitting
authority;
(c) there is no discharge to the ground surface or to surface waters. Systems
designed with a ground surface or surface water discharge are not covered
under this chapter and must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
44
53
System permit or state disposal system permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency;
(d) a three -foot minimum separation is provided between ,the bottom of the
distribution medium and the saturated soil or bedrock;
(e) treatment and disposal of wastes is completed in a manner that protects the
public health and general welfare;
(f) the system meets all local codes and ordinances and is subject to periodic
inspections by the permitting authority to assure adherence to specifications;
(g) provide mitigative plan to the permitting authority, indicating what will be done
if the system fails to provide treatment and disposal; and
(h) provide a water meter (located down flow of any outside sill cocks) to verify
water use.
9 -955 Floodplain. Areas.
9- 955(a) There shall be no pipe or other installed opening between the distribution
medium and the soil surface.
9- 955(b) Trench systems shall be located on the highest feasible area of the lot and
shall have location preference over all other improvements except the water supply well.
The bottom of the distribution medium shall be at least as high as the elevation of the
ten -year flood. The sewage tank may be located so as to provide gravity flow to the
trenches.
9- 955(c) If a lift station is used to move effluent from the sewage tank to the trenches,
provisions shall be made to prevent the pump from .operating when inundated with
floodwaters.
9- 955(d) When it is necessary to raise the elevation of the soil treatment area, a mound
system. as specified in Section 9- 953(d)(20), may be used with the following additional
requirement: In no case shall the sand base fill for the mound exceed 48 inches below
the rock bed. The elevation of the mound shall be such that the elevation of the bottom
of the rock bed shall be at least one -half foot above the ten -year flood elevation.
Inspection pipes shall not be installed unless the top of the mound is above the
elevation of the regional flood.
9- 955(e) When the top of a sewage tank is inundated, the dwelling must cease
discharging sewage into it. This may be accomplished by either temporarily evacuating
the structure until the system again becomes functional, or by diverting the sewage into
a holding tank as follows:
45
54
If a holding tank is used for a dwelling, its liquid capacity shall equal 100 gallons times
the number of bedrooms times the number of days between the ten -year stage on the
rising limb of the regional flood hydrograph and the ten -year stage on the falling limb of
the hydrograph, or 1,000 gallons, whichever is greater. For other establishments,
storage equal to at least five times the average design flow must be provided. The
holding tank must be accessible for removal of tank contents under flooded conditions.
9 -9550 The building sewer shall be designed to prevent backflow of liquid into the
building when the system is inundated. If a holding tank is used, the building sewer
shall be designed to permit rapid diversion of sewage into the holding tank when the
system is inundated.
9- 955(g) Whenever the .water level has reached a stage above the top of a sewage
tank,. the tank shall be pumped to remove all solids and liquids after the flood has
receded before use of the system is resumed.
9 -956 Greywater system. A toilet waste treatment device shall be used in conjunction
with a - greywater system. In all cases, only toilet wastes shall be discharged to toilet
waste treatment devices. Greywater or garbage shall not be discharged to the device
except as specifically recommended by a manufacturer.
9- 956(a) Plumbing. The drainage system in new dwellings or other establishments
shall be based on a pipe diameter of two inches to prevent installation of a water flush
toilet. There shall be no openings or connections to the drainage system, including floor
drains, larger than two inches in diameter. For repair or replacement of an existing
:system, the existing drainage system may be used.
9- 956(b) Building sewer. The building sewer shall meet all requirements of Section 9-
953(13)(1) except that the building sewer for a greywater system shall be no greater
than two inches in diameter.
9- 956(d) Sewage tank. Greywater septic tanks shall meet all requirements of Section
9- 953(d)(13). The- soil treatment area shall be 60 percent of the amount calculated in
Table III in Section 9- 953(d)(20). The septic tank for a greywater system shall be a
single tank in accordance with the first tank shown in Section 9-953(d)(1 4)(A).
9- 956(d) Final treatment of greywater shall meet all requirements of Section
9- 953(d)(20).
9 -957 Other toilet waste treatment devices.
Other toilet waste treatment devices may be used where reasonable assurance of
performance is provided.
All devices shall be vented.
All electric, gas, and water connections shall conform to all local ordinances and codes.
46
55
Operation and maintenance shall follow the manufacturer's recommendations.
9 -958 Collector Systems,
9- 958(a) Where site and soil conditions do not provide suitable conditions for final
treatment and disposal on an individual lot, a soil treatment system located on another
lot or lots may be employed where approved by the city council.
9- 958(b) Collector systems shall be designed by a registered Professional Engineer,
licensed in the State of Minnesota, and certified by the MPCA as competent in the field
of on -site system design.
9- 958(c) Hydro- geologic Study - due to the effect large flows have on groundwater
quality and groundwater mounding, a hydrologist shall determine site suitability based
on the following issues:
(1) Identify the depth to the static groundwater level and any perched water or areas
likely to be seasonally saturated.
(2) Identify depth to bedrock.
(3) Identify the proposed depth of the distribution medium.
(4) Determine the direction of groundwater flow (both horizontally and vertically).
(5) Determine background groundwater quality at the location.
(6) Estimate the height of groundwater mounding from the proposed system to
confirm adequate vertical separation.
(7) Determine whether drinking water standards can be met at the property
boundary.
(8) Estimate the impact of water quality on existing or future downstream wells.
Depending on this estimate, piezometer and or monitor wells may be required.
EXCEPTION:
Systems designed for 1,200 gallons per day or less do not require a hydro
geologic study, or a design by a registered professional engineer.
9- 958(d) Application to the department shall be accompanied by the hydro - geologic
study and engineering drawings and specifications and shall demonstrate compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance, Plumbing Code and issues relating to joint ownership of
land, joint system maintenance responsibilities, homeowners associations, easements,
covenants and such other items as may apply to the specific proposal.
47
56
9- 958(e) Design.
(1) The sum of a common soil treatment system shall be based on the sum of the
areas required for each dwelling unit or establishment being served..
(2) The system shall be designed with each residence having a sewage tank or with
a common sewage tank. The tank shall be sized according to Section 9-
953(d)(13).
(3) Sewer systems shall be designed on an estimated average daily flow for
dwellings based on Table II, set forth in part 9- 953(d)(20), plus estimated flows
from other establishments.
(4) The sewer for systems with common sewage tanks shall be so constructed to
give mean velocities, when flowing full, of not less than- two feet per second. The
sewer for systems with individual sewage tanks shall be so constructed and
designed. to hydraulically conduct the flow for which they were designed. In no
case shall a gravity sewer be less than four inches in diameter. The diameter
and grade line should be based on a flow equal to 50 percent of the average
design flow occurring in a one -hour period.
(5) Flows shall be increased to allow for 200 gallons of infiltration per inch of pipe
diameter per mile per day.
(6) Cleanouts, brought flush with or above finished grade, shall be provided
wherever a common sewer joins an individual building sewer or piping from an
individual sewer tank, or every 100 feet, whichever is less, unless manhole
access is provided.
(7) There shall be no physical connection between sewers and water supply
systems. Sewers shall. be set back from water supply systems and piping as
required for building sewers. Where it is not possible to obtain proper separation
distances, the sewer connections shall be watertight and pressure tested.
(8) Pipes, pipe points and pump stations shall be watertight.
(9) Pump stations shall have manholes flush with or above finished grade for
cleaning and maintenance.
(10) Manhole covers shall be so constructed as to prevent unauthorized entry.
(11) Pumps and lift stations shall be -sized to handle 50 percent of the average design
flow in a one -hour period. Common pump tanks shall have a pump out capacity
` of ten percent of average design flow and two alternating pumps.
48
(12) An alarm system shall be provided for all pumping stations to warn of pump
failure, overflow, or other malfunction.
(13) For systems with individual septic tanks, a stilling tank of at least 1,500 gallons
Liquid capacity or ten percent of the average design flow, whichever is greater,
should be provided before the soil treatment system.
(14) Maintenance. All persons using a common drain field system shall assure, by
contract with maintenance personnel or other equivalent means, that the system
will be adequately maintained throughout its useful life. The system so
maintained includes, but is not limited to, common drain fields, common sewage
tanks, common pumps, common pump stations, common sewers, and all
individual tanks connected to the common system.
9 -959 Sewage Holding Tanks. Sewage holding tanks may be considered for
installation on previously developed sites, as a temporary method for periods of up to
one (1) year, during which time measures are being taken to provide municipal sewer
service or the installation of an approved system as provided in this ordinance.
Holding tanks may be considered on a permanent basis for nonresidential, low water
use establishments generating less than, one hundred fifty (150) gallons per day of
waste, subject to approval by the department and the issuance of a certificate of
compliance. Holding tanks may also be considered for floor drains for vehicle parking
areas, and existing facilities potentially generating a hazardous waste.
(a) Design and installation.
(1) Asewage - holding tank shall be constructed and installed as specified in
this Ordinance for sewage tanks.
(2) Holding tanks shall be located as required for sewage tanks, as in
Section 9- 953(d) Table IV, and at locations readily accessible by normal
pumping equipment under all weather conditions.
(3) Holding tanks shall be provided with aclean -out pipe of six (6) inch
minimum diameter extending to or above the ground surface, capped or
sealed to prevent odors and inflow of surface water.
(4) Holding tanks shall be provided with a manhole of twenty (20) inch
minimum least dimension to within a minimum of six (6) inches below
finished grade. Coven shall be secured to prevent unauthorized entry.
(5) When installed in areas of high ground water, within six (6) feet of the
ground surface, holding tanks shall be installed entirely above the
ground water level or shall be installed according to an engineer's
design to prevent flotation.
49
A E64,
(b) Capacity.
(1) Sewage holding tanks shall have a minimum capacity of one thousand
two hundred (1,200) gallons or four hundred (400) gallons times the
number of bedrooms for a dwelling unit, whichever is greater.
(2) For other establishments, capacity shall be based on measured or
estimated flow rates. Minimum capacity shall be equal to at least eight
(8) times the daily flow rate.
(3) Water use metering shall be required for each dwelling unit or other
establishment served by a holding tank.
(c) Service and maintenance.
(1) Where holding tanks are installed, the owner shall provide and maintain
a contract with a licensed pumper, providing for regular pumping of the
tank.
(2) Records of pumping data, to include dates, quantities and septage
disposal location, shall be maintained by the pumping contractor and
reported quarterly to the permitting authority.
(3) Holding tanks shall be provided with alarm or warning devices that will
activate a signal when the tank reaches seventy -five (75) percent of its
capacity.
(4) The permitting authority shall be provided right of access to perform
periodic maintenance and operational inspections of the system.
9 -960 Experimental Systems. Systems utilizing innovative techniques or methods
may be considered for new or existing development under the following conditions:
(a) Reasonable assurance of performance of the system is presented to the
permitting authority.
(b) System being proposed is substantiated by engineering data and approved
by the permitting authority.
(c)'System is in compliance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules.
(d) Adequate area for long -term sewage treatment by suitable soils as required
for standard systems is identified and reserved on the site.
50
59
l
(e) Performance monitoring of the system, including but not limited to water use
metering, effluent quality and system maintenance are provided.
(f) Failure of experimental system to function or to properly treat sewage to a
standard - equivalent to a standard drain field system will require
discontinuation of use until reasonable modifications can be made or the
system is replaced with a standard system.
(g) A mitigative plan must be provided to deal with possible system failure. It
must include the planned corrections and /or replacement, as well as a clear
agreement signed by all parties clarifying who will pay for the mitigation.
SECTION 9 -962. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
9 -961 General Requirements. Each individual on -site sewage treatment system
currently existing as well as those installed under this ordinance shall be operated and
maintained according to the provisions of this section.
9- 961(a) Maintenance of Septic Tanks.
(1) The owner of any septic tank or the owner's agent shall regularly, but in no
case less frequently than every three years, have the tank or tanks pumped.
As an alternative, the owner may have the tank or tanks professionally
inspected to measure the accumulations of sludge, which includes the settled
materials at the bottom of the tank, and the accumulations of scum, which
includes grease and other floating materials at the top of the tank. The owner
of any septic tank or the owner's agent must arrange for the removal and
sanitary disposal of septage from the tank whenever the top of the sludge
layer is less than 12 inches below the bottom of the outlet baffle or whenever
the bottom of the scum layer is less than three inches above the bottom of the
outlet baffle. Removal of septage shall include complete removal of
scum and sludge. If the inspector determines that pumping the tank or tanks
is not necessary, then the inspector shall prepare documentation as to the
condition of the tank(s) and submit the report to the city.
(2) The owner or the owner's agent. shall install access to the septic tanks
in accordance with Section 9- 953(d)(13) to allow for proper
maintenance.
(3) Individual sewage treatment system additives, which contain .hazardous
materials, must not be used in individual sewage treatment systems in
Minnesota.
(4) Individual sewage treatment system additives must not be used as a
means to reduce the frequency of proper maintenance and removal of
septage from the septic tank as specified in item (1).
51
•1
9- 961(b) Maintenance of System Components. Whenever inspection of pump
stations, distribution devices, valve or drop boxes indicates the accumulation of solids,
such device shall be promptly cleaned.
9- 961(c) Activities on the Soil Treatment Area.. Activities on the soil treatment area
or the alternate soil treatment area that may impair the treatment abilities or hydraulic
performance of the soil treatment system are prohibited.
(1) Any maintenance activity used to increase the acceptance of effluent to a
soil treatment system must:
(A) not be used on failing systems;
(B) not decrease the separation to the saturated soil or
bedrock;
(C) not cause preferential flow from the system bottom to the
saturated soil or bedrock; and
(D) be conducted by a qualified employee or under an
installer license.
9- 961(d) Disposal of Septage. Septage shall be disposed of only by approved means
as follows:
(1) Septage shall be disposed in accordance with all state and federal
- requirements.
(2) Septage must be disposed into a municipal treatment system.
SECTION 9 -962. ADMINISTRATION
9- 962(a) Applicability. The ordinance shall apply and be in effect for the stated
purposes for the City of Maplewood.
9- 962(b) Enforcement.
(1) The City of Maplewood shall be responsible for administration and
enforcement of this ordinance.
(2) The department or its agent shall be qualified and certified by the
MPCA as competent in the design, evaluation and inspection of
individual on -site sewage treatment systems.
(3) If the Department finds that by reason of exceptional circumstances the
strict enforcement of any provisions of this ordinance would cause
undue hardship or that strict conformity with the standards would be
52
61
unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances, the
Department in its discretion may permit modifications in individual
cases upon conditions as it may prescribe for prevention, control, or
abatement of pollution in harmony with the general purpose of these
standards and the intent of applicable state and federal laws. In no
case will the 36 -inch separation requirement be compromised.
9- 962(c) Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
(1) The Maplewood City Council shall hear and decide appeals and review
any order, decision or determination made by the department about the
enforcement of this ordinance.
(2) An appeal of an administrative decision or determination maybe filed
by any person, department, bureau, city, county, or state.
9- 962(d) Permits Required. Permits shall be required for sewage treatment
system as follows:
(1) All new installations of sewage tanks, treatment systems and
components thereof.
(2) All repair, extension, replacement or modification of existing systems
and components.
(3) Any change in use of a facility served by an existing sewage treatment
system.
(4) Permits shall not be required for normal routine inspection and
maintenance of systems.
(5) No .building permit shall be issued for any new construction until the
permit required for the treatment system has first been issued.
(6) No building permit shall be issued for remodeling involving 50 percent
or more of the structure, or alterations that would affect the water use,
such as bedrooms, bathrooms, or additions to living space (excluding
such things as screen porches, entryways,' decks, attics, patios,
uninhabitable storage space, etc.) until the treatment system has been
determined to be both adequate and conforming, or the city has first
issued a permit for a new treatment system.
(7) Where work requiring a permit under this ordinance has been
commenced without first having obtained a permit, work shall be
ordered to stop until the permit requirement has been satisfied.
53
62
9- 962(e) Inspections Required. Inspection as required determining compliance
with this ordinance shall be performed by the department or its
authorized agent under the following circumstances:
(1) Site inspections to verify and evaluate soil and site conditions and to
determine suitability of soils and system design.
(2) Necessary investigation to determine compliance of existing. systems at
the time of remodeling, alteration, or additions.
(3) Installation inspections shall be made at each installation, prior to any
work having been covered by backfilL
(A) The licensed installer shall be responsible to notify the
department a minimum of twenty -four (24) hours prior to the
timework is ready for inspection or reinspection.
(B) Work which is backfilled prior to required inspection may be
ordered to be uncovered whenever necessary to determine
compliance.
(C) When, upon inspection, any part of the system is determined not
to be in compliance with this ordinance, written notice shall be
provided by the department indicating the deficiency and the
required corrections.
(D) Noted deficiencies shall be properly corrected and reinspected
before any other work on the project is continued.
(E) No system shall be placed or replaced in service until final
inspection and approval of the installation.
(F) Contractor, upon completion of installation, shall file with the
department, as -built drawings indicating the location of system
components dimensioned from a permanent reference point.
(4) Mounds - A minimum of three construction inspections are required:
(A) When the original soil under the mound has been roughened, but
prior to placement of the sand fill. Enough of the proposed sand
fill must be present to be viewed.
(B) After placement of rock and piping but prior to cover.
(C) Final inspection, when job is completed.
54
63
(5) The owner or occupant of a property shall be responsible to provide
access at reasonable times, to the department or its agent, for the
purpose of performing inspections required under this ordinance.
(6) To enforce this ordinance the department may enter a building,
g
property, or a place where there is reason to suspect a system is failing
to properly treat or dispose of sewage.
(7) Fees for inspections, reinspections, or other services rendered under
this ordinance shall be as set by resolution of the Maplewood City
Council from time to time.
SECTION 9 -963. LICENSING AND PERMITS
9- 963(a) Licensing. All persons, firms, or corporations proposing to engage in
the business of installation, constructing, pumping, soil testing, designing, or providing
private inspection or maintenance services for on -site sewage treatment systems shall
be registered and licensed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
9- 963(b) Permits. No person, firm, or corporation shall install, alter, repair or
extend any individual sewage treatment system in the City of Maplewood without first
having obtained a permit, from the department for the specific work, and having paid the
fee prescribed for such permit as determined from time to time by the Maplewood City
Council.
9- 963(c) Permit Application. Permit application shall be made in writing upon
forms provided by the department and shall contain data including, but not limited to the
following:
(1) The correct address and legal description of the property where the
proposed work is to take place.
(2) Site plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of all proposed and
existing structures, property lines, water supply wells within 100 feet,
terrain features such as bluff lines, water bodies or water ways, buried
utilities, easements and other unique features of the site.
(3) Soil test data, including soil boring logs, percolation test data with field
notes, and the location and identification of test area.
(4) Plans and details of the proposed installation of work, including
engineering data and final design.
(5) In certain cases, a survey may be required showing all the above
information including such things as elevations, contour lines, normal
high water marks, and ten (10) year and one hundred (100) year flood
elevations.
55
64
(6) Building plans showing existing and proposed room arrangement and
uses.
(7) For other than dwellings, calculated or measured water use rates
occupancy and occupant load.
(8) Evidence of compliance with state or other jurisdiction regulations
where applicable.
9- 963(d) Term of Permit. Permits shall be valid upon issuance, for a period of
one (1) year and may be renewed, when no changes are proposed, upon application for
renewal and payment of the fee prescribed.
9- 963(e) Permit Revocation. Permits issued under this ordinance may be
revoked upon written notice of the department when such permit has been issued
based upon erroneous or inaccurate application data.
SECTION 9 -964. ENFORCEMENT
9- 964(a) Violations and Penalties. It is hereby declared unlawful for any
person, firm or corporation to violate any term or provision of this ordinance. Violation
thereof shall be a misdemeanor. Each day that a violation is allowed to continue shall
constitute a separate offense.
9- 964(b) Enforcement. In the event of a violation or a threatened violation of
this ordinance, the department, in addition to other remedies, may request appropriate
actions or proceedings to prevent, restrain, correct, or abate such violations or
threatened violations. In addition, written notice in the form of a license complaint may
be made to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). If
there is known contamination of ground water, the city also may notify .the Minnesota
Department of Health for a possible well advisory.
9- 964(c) Public Health Act. In cases where a public health nuisance has been
determined to exist the Department may institute enforcement action under the Public
Health Act Section 145A.
SECTION 9 -966. EFFECTUATION
9- 966(a) Separability. It is hereby declared to be the intent that the several
provisions of this ordinance are separable in accordance with the following:
(1) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this
ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other
provisions of this ordinance not specifically included in said judgment.
56
65
(2) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall ' adjudge invalid the
application of any portion of this ordinance to a particular property,
building or other structure, such judgment shall not affect the
application of said provision to any other property, building, or structure
not specifically included in said judgment.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on
, 2002.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective on June 1, 2002. An official copy
of this ordinance is on file in the office of the Maplewood City Clerk,
Maplewood, Minnesota.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
AYES
NAYS --
57
66
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001
ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems)
Mr. Roberts said at the planning commission meeting in November the
commission had some concerns about the Water Resources Management
Plan and many concerns about the proposed ISTS (Individual Sewage
Treatment Systems) ordinance. Staff went back and worked on both of
those, specifically on the Water Resources Management Plan on page 2 of
the staff report items 5 and 6, on page 3 items 1,2, and 6, page 4 item 5, as
well as number 2. at the bottom of page 4. Lastly on page 5 under
groundwater goal number 2, are all policies that staff changed taking the
direction of the commission.
On the ISTS (Individual Sewage Treatment Systems) ordinance and took all
the references to Washington County and the numbering to make it strictly a
Maplewood code. The technical parts of the code have not been proposed
to change. The intent of this ordinance is to go into effect for new systems
to be put in or for major city reconstruct or repair of an existing system.
Existing systems that are in place would be grandfathered in and would not
have to be moved or changed and would fall under the provisions regarding
maintenance and pumping. If they have a system that fails then they would
have to meet the new standards. Mr. Trippler approached Mr. Roberts
before the meeting and has found some technical errors in numbering that
need to be corrected. Staff is recommending the planning commission:
1. Approve the revised Water Resources Management Plan starting on
page two of the staff report.
2. Adopt the ordinance starting on page seven. This ordinance adds to
the Maplewood City Code the standards for Individual Sewage
Treatment Systems (ISTS) in the city.
Chairperson Fischer, Mr. Trippler and Mr. Mueller had some changes to the
ordinance that will be made and given to members for the next meeting.
Commissioner Ledvina asked if Washington County is currently using this
ordinance? And if so how long has it been used?
Mr. Roberts said yes it is currently being used and has been used for a few
years now.
Commissioner Ledvina asked if this ordinance has a 100 -foot separation
between the septic and well?
Mr. Roberts said yes that is what he recalls.
Commissioner Ledvina asked if previously it was 50 feet?
Commissioner Rossbach answered it was 75 feet the last time he built.
Commissioner Ledvina had a comment regarding implementing this
ordinance and operation and maintenance of septic systems on page 62.
Under Maintenance of Septic Tanks there is a major discussion stating you
need to pump the septic tanks every three years, and then as an alternative
the owner can inspect and measure the accumulations of sludge. He thinks
this alternative to the three years of pumping is going to be a very difficult
thing and also for the staff to determine whether the homeowner has
actually done the pumping. He believes the alternative part should be
eliminated from that paragraph. If staff thinks the septic systems should be
pumped every three years than that is probably enough.
Commissioner Frost said he would agree with Mr. Ledvina. However, there
are exceptions to having the septic systems pumped every three years. If
you had a septic system built for six people and now there are two people
living in the house, you will never fill that septic system back up again. So
that would be an exception. You would have to call a septic system to come
and .look at the system, the will charge as much to look at it as they would
charge to pump the system. So it would probably just be easier to have it
pumped, however, some people are knowledgeable and may know it
doesn't need to be pumped.
Commissioner Ledvina asked if there should be something said about the
owner shall document this and measure the thickness of the sludge in the
septic tank yearly after the first three years? If the homeowner does it once
and they are good for the whole life of the system. It seems to be non-
specific in terms of the guidance and it is complicated.
Commissioner Frost said it is easier if you just get it pumped every three
years and then nobody has to worry about it.
Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks someone could read the ordinance
and say they looked at the septic tank and they do not have sludge
therefore it does not. need to be pumped. And what would the city say?
Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they have a recommendation on this?
Mr. Chuck AN said on those types of issues typically the staff would inquire
a
as Mr. Frost described, some type of knowledgeable person to have done
the inspection and documented the measurement. In most cases staff does
not always take a'. persons word on things, they like to see documents in
order to meet the intent of the ordinance. This looks to him like as a staff
person is looking for intent and he would suggest it would require a
g9 q
documented inspection.
Commissioner Ledvina asked Mr. Ahl if that should be said in the
ordinance?
Commissioner Mueller asked if it could read "May have the septic tank
inspected by a certified septage inspector and documented ".
Mr. Chuck AN said that would okay.
Chairperson Fischer. asked about the wording in the water resources
management plan and if it should be referred to as retention or detention.
Mr. Chuck AN said retention means the holding of water forever and never
having an outlet. The meaning of detention means to infiltrate, slowdown
or. detain. The correct word should be detention.
Commissioner Frost moved that the planning commission approve the two
items:
1. Approve the. revised Water Resources Management Plan starting on
page two of the staff report. -
2. Adopt the ordinance starting on page seven with the modifications that
were discussed at the meeting. This ordinance adds to the Maplewood
City Code the standards for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems
(ISTS) in the city.
Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion.
Ayes — Ahlness, Fischer, Frost, Ledvina,
Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler
The motion is passed.
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA REPORT Action by Council
Date - - -
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager Endorsed -
Modified -
FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Rejecd
SUBJECT: Storm Sewer and Utility Improvements at Markham Pond Outlet, Project 02 -02:
Resolution Accepting Petition and Authorizing Preliminary Report
DATE: January 7, 2002
Introduction
Mr. Robert J. Tillges has submitted a petition request for public improvements on a parcel of
property at Hazelwood Street and Beam Avenue. The request includes a proposal to purchase a
small parcel of city -owned property. The attached letter includes a request for city assistance for
the improvements. Consideration of Mr. Tillges' request should be studied through a preliminary
report that would allow a determination of any city assistance and assessment of the cost of the
public improvements to the benefiting property.
Background
The attached map and letter describe the subject property. This parcel, which is currently
undeveloped, is bisected by County Ditch No. 18, which is the City's outlet for Markham Pond.
Any crossing of the outlet should be controlled by a public improvement project. The
southwestern corner of the parcel includes a small 4,900 square foot parcel of city -owned
property. The city originally retained this parcel for a lift station that has since been abandoned.
It would seem appropriate that the parcel be sold to Mr. Tillges to enhance the property
development.
The process for considering Mr. Tillges' request is through preparation of a preliminary
report. The report would consider the cost of the improvements along with a financing plan. The
financing plan would include assessments to Mr. Tillges' property along with any city assistance.
The report would be returned to the city council for consideration at a public hearing. The
estimated cost of the report preparation is $2,000. Mr. Tillges is aware that if the project does
not proceed to construction that the $2,000 cost must be paid by him.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution authorizing
preparation of a preliminary report for storm sewer and utility improvements at Markham
Pond Outlet and authorization to explore the sale of a city parcel for City Project 02 -02.
RCA
jw
Attachments
RESOLUTION
ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct storm •
m sewer improvements and utility
improvements at the outlet to Markham Pond at Hazelwood Street and Beam Avenue
City Project 02 -02, and to assess the benefite '
d property for all or a portion of the cost of
the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, u es, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, acity - owned parcel of ro ert e xi sts p p y xists at the southwestern corner of
the proposed property that appears to have no '
p need for city ownership.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA:
That the proposed improvement be referred to t '
he city engineer for study and
that he is instructed to report to the council with •
a!I convenient speed advising the
council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed '
p p d 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
ated cost of the improvement
as recommended, and
That the vacant city -owned parcel shall be appraised •
for value and considered
for sale to the property developer as art of this �
p project if authorized by the City Council.
FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $2,000 are
. .. are appropriated to re
this feasibility report. prepare
Y p
.;s
January 3, 2002
T o whom it may concern:
I have been a resident of Maplewood for 22 years, and a current Maplewood business
owner for 10 years. I am petitioning the City of Maplewood for assistance of the
development of the attached description of the roe in Exhibit Le D
property �►, Le escnption
in regards to:
• Ditch development and culvert installation and construction accordin g to
watershed requirements.
e Water utility development, which will require trenching of Hazelwood with
consideration of the Hazel -wood. pr6ject. -�
Connection and operation to building site from the existing sanitary _. ary sewer mane
adjacent to property on the south end.
I am requesting maximum assistance from the City of Maplewood for these required
necessary improvements.
I would also like to request consideration from the City of Maplewood to allow me to
purchase the property on the southwest corner of this property, which is currently vacant
property owned by the City of Maplewood_ This will allow for an additional, and more
desirable entrance to the property, thus controlling traffic flow and ins rovin the overall
development.
P g
I appreciate your attention and concern regarding this proposal. Should ou have an
y
questions please feel free to contact me at work 651-772-2665,, or at home 651482-8976.
Sincerely,
1"
Robert I Tillges
R E C E I V E�
JAN 0 3 2002
,
1 1 : l ip
Y
t
t ro
2
1 ga
I
Ilm
I t
I
4L 1
t
I
Poo ►io• 10�• too• yob• 150 t r2s•
�sl! es• Was"
A a
I
N
• i
` 9r.
•�
'N
N•
o i0'
lal
A
I
I
Iw
V
v
I V
I r
I
t
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�•
'SI
I
i
_ _ _
65415•
I
I ti
v
r
I ld
e'
I
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA REPORT A ction b Council
TO: City Manager _......._�. ---=
FROM: Assistant City Engineer . • �.---
Modi f ie d
SUBJECT: County Road D Improvements, Project 01 -15: pwjected---,����
Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing
DATE: January 7, 2002
Introduction
A draft of the feasibility study is complete and is available for review in the office of the City
Engineer. Final copies of the study will be made available prior to the public hearing. The study
includes information on the proposed improvement, proposed financing and probable
assessments. The city council is requested to accept the feasibility study and order a public
. p
hearing to be held on January 28, 2002.
Background
A neighborhood meeting was held on Nov. 20, 2001, with the affected property owners. The
meeting and proposed project appeared to be well received by the residents. Another
neighborhood meeting has been scheduled for January 15, 2002, prior to the public hearing, to
give property owners an opportunity to view the completed proposal and the findings of the study.
Engineering staff and the city's consultant have met on separate occasions with Open Space
Committee members and Historical Society members to discuss the project. A difference of
recommendations regarding the proposed trail system exists between the various rou s. In
g p
general, the difference focuses on whether the trail should be along the roadway, as proposed by
the Open Space Committee, or a combination of along the roadway and within the Open Space
Area, as recommended by the Park Commission, Historical Society and engineering staff. The
Open Space Committee feels strongly that paved trails in the open space are contrary to city
policy and direction. Staff recommends that these committees share their opinions about the
proposal with the council at the January 14, 2002, meeting. The public hearing will be held on
January 28, 2002, at which point property owners will present their opinions on the project and
trail location. A final decision on the trail issue will be requested of the city ouncil on January
rY
28.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution accepting the
report and calling for a public hearing for the County Road D Improvements, Hazelwood
Street to McKnight Road.
CIVIC
jw
Attachments
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted June 25, 2001, a
report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the
improvement of County Road D Improvements, between Hazelwood Street and
McKnight Road, City Project 01 -15, and this report was received by the council
on January 14, 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 $2,356,200.
2. A public hearing shall -be held on such proposed improvement on
the 28th day of January, 2002, in the council chambers of city hall at 7:20 p.m.
and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and
improvement as required by law.
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA REPORT Action by Council
DATE: January .7, 2002
Introduction
A draft of the feasibility study is complete and is available for review in the office of the city engineer.
Final copies of the study will be made available prior to the public hearing. The study includes
information on the proposed improvement, proposed financing and probable assessments.
The city council will consider accepting the feasibility study and ordering a public hearing.
Background
A neighborhood meeting was held on Nov. 7, 2001, with the affected property owners. The meeting
and proposed project appeared to be well received by the residents. Another neighborhood meeting
has been scheduled for January 23, 2002, prior to the public hearing, to give property owners an
opportunity to view the completed proposal and the findings of the study.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution accepting the report
and calling for a public hearing on January 28, 2002, for the English Street Improvements
from Frost Avenue to Cope Avenue.
CIVIC
jW
Attachment
?ate
TO: City Manager
Endorsed
Modified
FROM: Assistant City Engineer
Rejected Wo '
SUBJECT: English Street Improvements, Project 01 -14:
Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public
Hearing
DATE: January .7, 2002
Introduction
A draft of the feasibility study is complete and is available for review in the office of the city engineer.
Final copies of the study will be made available prior to the public hearing. The study includes
information on the proposed improvement, proposed financing and probable assessments.
The city council will consider accepting the feasibility study and ordering a public hearing.
Background
A neighborhood meeting was held on Nov. 7, 2001, with the affected property owners. The meeting
and proposed project appeared to be well received by the residents. Another neighborhood meeting
has been scheduled for January 23, 2002, prior to the public hearing, to give property owners an
opportunity to view the completed proposal and the findings of the study.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution accepting the report
and calling for a public hearing on January 28, 2002, for the English Street Improvements
from Frost Avenue to Cope Avenue.
CIVIC
jW
Attachment
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted June 2 5 2001 a report
has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the im p rovement
of English Street, between Frost Avenue and Cope Avenue, City Project 01 -14 and this
Y J
report was received by the council on January 14, 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
p
of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total
cost of the improvement of $1,794,200.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the
28th day of January, 2002, in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m. and the
clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as
required by law.
AGENDA ITEM KIT
, don by Council
AGENDA REPORT
Date
TO: City Manager Endorsed
M• MoModified FR
FROM: Assistant City Engineer
exec Ad
SUBJECT: Gladstone West Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00 -05
Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders No. 1 & 2
DATE: January 7, 2002
Introduction
Attached are Change Orders No. 1 and 2 for City Project 00 -05, Gladstone West Neighborhood
Street Improvements. The change orders are for changes required due to unforeseen conditions
and due to private agreements. Council approval is required on project change orders.
Background
The original amount of the contract is based on estimated unit quantities. During construction there
may be unforeseen circumstances that require the modification of the planned method of
construction or in the planned amount of work.
The increases outlined in Change Order No. 1 are due to necessary field changes made to the
sanitary sewer and storm sewer design.
The increases outlined in Change Order No. 2 are due mostly to increases in the plan quantities as a
result of field revisions and a result of the private driveway agreements. The revenue generated from
the private driveway agreements will cover any increased construction costs related to that work, as
well as the additional engineering and administrative staff time required to manage those
agreements.
With the approval of Change Orders No. 1 and 2, the revised contract would be increased by
$71,190.27 from $961,863.58 to $1,033,053.85.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the
modification of the existing construction contract in the amount of $71,190.27.
Budget Impact
Essentially there is no impact to the project budget, as all these increases still fall within the approved
project budget outlined in the feasibility study. Most of these increases will also be funded by the
private driveway agreements or by the sewer utility fund. The only required revision in the project
financing, at this time, is the revenue of $59,405 created by the private driveway agreements.
CIVIC
jw
Attachments
RESOLUTION
DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made
Improvement Project 00 -05, Gladstone West Neighborhood Streets and has let a
g ,
construction ,contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and
designated as Improvement Project 00 -05, Change Orders 1 and 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and
. .. y Y
directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Orders 1 and 2 in the
amount of $9,520.15 and $61.670.12 respectively. The revised contract amount is
$1,033,053.85.
The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessar
to implement the financing plan for the project. The project budget is increased by
$71,190.27.
CHANGE ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
Project Name: Gladstone West Neighborhood Streets Change Order No.: 1
Project No.: 00 -05 Date: 1 -7 -02
Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc.
The following changes shall be made in the contract documents:
Original Contract: $961
Net Change of Prior Change
Order No. to No.
Change This Change Order: $9,520.15
Revised Contract: $971
Approved
Y
Approved
Engineer
Agreed to by Contractor by
its ve C-V�
Title
Unit
D -ptio
Unit
ou anti
Price
Total
SANITARY
Add MH @ end of Frank St:
ea.
1
$1,622.50
$1622.50
Includes 8" PVC and connect
if
10.
$26.95
$269.50
to existing
ea.
1
$825.00
$825.00
Extra Fernco's
ea.
25
$19.62
$490.50
Couplings & clamps
ea.
15
$92.75
$1,391.25
Subtotal
$4598.75
STORM SEWER
Build 2 CB's at 1281 & 1257
ea.
2
$1,498.20
$2 996.40
Frsibie
ea.
2
$825.00
$1 1 650.00
Staking/cut sheet error @ 201 &
202 at Duluth & Larpenteur
I.S.
1
$275.00
$ 275.00
relay storm sewer
Subtotal
$4921.40
Total
$9,520.15
Original Contract: $961
Net Change of Prior Change
Order No. to No.
Change This Change Order: $9,520.15
Revised Contract: $971
Approved
Y
Approved
Engineer
Agreed to by Contractor by
its ve C-V�
Title
CHANGE ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MAPLEWOOD, MRgNESOTA
Project Name: Gladstone West Neighborhood Change •
. - --___� nge Order No.. 2
Project No.: 00 -05 Dat •
e. 1 -7 =02
Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons Inc.
The following changes shall be made in the contract documents:
Original Contract: $961,863.58
Net Change of Prior Change
Order No._ to No. - I $ 9520.15
Change This Change Order: $61
Revised Contract: $1,033,053.85
Approved
Approved
Agreed to by Contractor by
w
lts ��S -i c1,c e.Z
Title
Unit
Desgdption
Unit
uanti
Price
Total
DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION
Remove bit. driveway
sy
1,577
1.10
$ 1 , 9 734.70
Remove concrete driveway
sy
390
1.10
429.0
$ 0
Aggregate base c16 for
Driveways, conc., bit.
ton
1
10.00
$11,982.90
Type 41 mix for driveways
sy
2
12.00
$30
4 Concrete walk
sf
353.53
4.40
$1
6" Concrete Driveway
Pavement
sy
428.33
35.00
S14,991-55
Total
$
Contract Status
Time Cost
Original Contract: $961,863.58
Net Change of Prior Change
Order No._ to No. - I $ 9520.15
Change This Change Order: $61
Revised Contract: $1,033,053.85
Approved
Approved
Agreed to by Contractor by
w
lts ��S -i c1,c e.Z
Title
AGENDA ITEM f�
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Introduction
Assistant City Engineer
Date
Endorsed
Modified
Rejected
Bush Avenue Improvements, City Project 01 -04:
Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1
January 7, 2002
Attached is Change Order No. 1 for City Project 01 -04, Bush Avenue Improvements. Council
approval is required on project change orders.
Background
The original amount of the contract is based on estimated unit quantities. During construction there
may be unforeseen circumstances that require the modification of the planned method of
construction or in the planned amount of work.
The increases outlined in the change order are due to some necessary work items that were
inadvertently left out of the bid.
With the approval of Change Order No. 1, the revised contract would be increased by $4,927.61 from
$226,792.52 to $231,720.13.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached resolution for modification of the
construction contract for Bush Avenue, City Project 01 -04, in the amount of $4927.61,
represented by Change Order No. 1.
Budget Impact
Due to a construction bid lower than originally estimated, there is essentially no impact to the project
budget as these increases fall within the approved project budget outlined in the feasibility study. In
addition, most of these increases will be funded by the sewer utility fund.
Action by Council
CIVIC
jW
Attachments
CHANGE ORDER
$
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
Additions approved to date (Nos.
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
-
Engineers Architects - Planners
) $
Saint Paul, MN December 5 20 01 Comm. No. 12375 -01
Change Order No. 1
To Palda & Sons, Inc.
226,792.52
for Bush Avenue (City Project 01 -04)
$
for City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Revised Contract Amount
You are hereby directed to make the following change to your contract dated -
October 8 2001 . The change and the work affected thereby is
subject to all contract stipulations and covenants.
This Change Order will
(increase) ( -'e--re -- ) ( not eha +y ) the contract sum by
Four Thousand
Nine Hundred Twenty- Seven'Dollars and 61/100 ............... ($ 4 ).
This change order provides for changes in the work of this
contract as follows:
New MH and Castings 1 LS @
$ 1
Contractor Signs 1 LS @
$ 314.55
Televise Sanitary Sewer 1 LS @
$ 1
Remove and Replace Existing Mailboxes 1 LS @
$ 1
NET CHANGE _
$ 4
Amount of Original Contract
$
226,792.52
Additions approved to date (Nos.
) $
-
Deductions approved to date (Nos.
) $
-
Contract amount to date
$
226,792.52
Amount of this Change Order ( Add) (D ed_H,*%e_t,=_ ) ( ;tee Gam
$
41927.61
Revised Contract Amount
$
231,720.13
Approved City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Owner
By
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
By
Thomas D. Prew, P.E.
Approved Palda & Sons, In
Contractor
By
White - Owner
Pink - Contractor
Blue - TKDA
AGENDA ITEM -3 ffi�
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Introduction
City Manager
Assistant City Engineer
Actilon by Council
Er
,...,
��+
Modified
Rejected
Approve Assessment Rates for the 2002 Construction Season
January 7, 2002
Maplewood's pavement management policy outlines that the assessment rates defined in the policy
shall be adjusted on an annual basis by a factor equivalent to the change in the construction cost
index.
Background
In the feasibility studies prepared for the 2002 construction season, staff has proposed that the street
assessment rates, as outlined in the city's Pavement Management Policy, NOT be raised for 2002,
rather that the rates established for the 2000 construction season be utilized.
This proposal is being made for two reasons: (1) construction costs in the last few years have
generally not kept pace with inflation, and (2) by holding the assessment rates steady, the
assessment rates will essentially be lowered over time by the factor of inflation.
For example: based on the policy, the 2002 street assessment rate for the type of improvement
proposed for English Street and County Road D would have been estimated at approximately
$4185 /unit. By utilizing the base rates outlined in the pavement management policy for the 2000
construction season, the rate for this year's projects would now be at $4000 /unit rather than $4' 185.
The storm sewer assessment rate is still proposed to increase from $615 /unit to $630 /unit.
Staff intends to propose a revision to the Maplewood Pavement Management Policy later this year in
preparation of the 2003 construction season.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the city council establish the 2002 construction season street
assessment rates at the 2000 base rates outlined in the Maplewood Pavement Management
Policy, and establish the storm sewer assessment rate at $630 /unit.
CIVIC
jw