HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 04-23 City Council PacketNo Pre- Agenda Meeting
Council/Manager Workshop - 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M., Monday, April 23, 2001
Council Chambers, Municipal\ Building
Meeting No. 01 -09
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of Meeting 01 -08 (April 9, 200 1)
2. Minutes of Council/Manager Workshop Meeting (April 9, 200 1)
E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS
None
G. CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted
by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the
Consent Agenda and will be considered separately.
1. Approval of Claims
2. Transfer to Close Debt Service Fund for 1977 Bond Issue
3. Transfer to Close Debt Service Fund for 1991 Bond Issue
4. Approve Payment for City Logo on Cope Water Tower
5. Increase Budget for Temporary Engineering Intern Positions
6. Surplus Property
7. Human Relations Commission Annual Report
8. National Night Out - Food Vendors
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 7:00 P.M. Tilsen South Neighborhood Streets, Project 00 -04
2. 7:15 P.M. Residential Parking Ordinance Amendment (First Reading)
I. AWARD OF BIDS
1. Tilsen South Neighborhood Streets, Project 00 -04
J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment (Second Reading)
K. NEW BUSINESS
1. Schedule Meeting to Review 2000 Annual Financial Report and Audit Reports
. . p
2. Receive Petition for Roadway Improvements to Bush Avenue and Authorize Preparation of
Preliminary Report
3. Agenda Order - Visitor Presentation
4. Chipotle Mexican Grill, 2303 White Bear Avenue - Intoxicatin and Sunda Liquor License
Intoxicating Y q
5. Annual Charitable Gambling Renewal and Fund Distribution
L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
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
g .� �
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 ect rinci les: Show respect
p p p
for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language.
MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M., Monday, April 9, 2001
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 01 -08
A.
Be
co
E.
CALL TO ORDER:
A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, p ood, 0 P.M Minnesota was held in the Council Chamb
Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:0 ers,
.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Robert Cardinal, Mayor
Present
Sherry Allenspach, Councilmember
Present
Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember
Present
Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember
Present
Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember
Present
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilmember Allenspach moved to aDDrove the
e minutes of Meetin'2 No. -07-(March 26 200
presented. 01 1 as
Seconded by Councilmember Ko en _
pp Ayes all
Councilmember Allenspach moved to '
p a rove the minutes of k
Council/Manager Wors
2001) as resented. ho March 26
Seconded by Councilmember Ko en _
pp Ayes all
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Councilmember Collins moved to a rove the
pn Agenda as amen
M 1.
Isaiah
M6.
Police •
lice Overnight Parking
M2.
Waste Haulers
M7.
Pr '
Proposed Parking Ordinance
M3.
Bruentrup Farm
M8.
Visitor .
sitor Presentations
M4.
Open Space
M9.
City Roads
M5.
Website
N1.
Par '
Park Commission Reappointments
Seconded by Councilmember Ko en _
pp Ayes all
4 -09 -01
1
F.
G.
APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS :
1. Police Civil Service Commission Appointment
City Manager Fursman recommended that the Police Civil Service Commission e
omm on a pp ointments b
tabled until such time as the Police Civil Service Commission has an opportunity to interview
pp Y
candidates and that candidates that were unable to come before the city ouncil have another
Y
opportunity to interview at the May 14th meeting.
Councilmember Collins moved to table the Police Civil Service Commission a ointments until
the Ma 14 , 2001 council meeting.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all
CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes - all
Approval of Claims
1.
Approved claims.
ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE
$4.
Checks #53583 thru #53585 dated 3/20 thru 3/21/01
$56.
Checks #53586 thru #53639 dated 3/27/01
$72,507.88
Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 3/20 thru 3/26/01
$445.50
Check #53640 dated 3/28/01
$389,908.11
Checks #53641 thru #53720 dated 3/30 thru 4/3/01
$ 79,696.21
Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 3/27 thru 3/30/01
$603,375.51 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$333,793.82 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 3/30/01
$ 22,676.04 Payroll Deduction check #83419 thru #83423 dated 3/30/01
$356. Total Payroll
$959,845.37 GRAND TOTAL
Budget Changes for Wage Increases
2.
Approved the appropriate budget changes to finance the wage increases for the four bargaining
units that total $250,860.
4 -09 -01
2
3. Conditional Use Permit Review - Maplewood Fire Station Number 2 (1955 Clarence Street)
Reviewed the conditional use permit for Maplewood Fire Station Number 2 at
1955 Clarence
Street and will review again in one year.
4. Conditional Use Permit Review - Wheeler Lumber Storage Yard (English Street and Gervais
Avenue)
Reviewed the conditional use permit for the Wheeler Lumber landscape material al center on the
southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue and will review again i
g none year.
5. Recreation Fund Budget Transfer
- Approved a budget transfer of $4,500 from the contingency account in the recreation fund to
finance replacement of the moon walk and to pay for phone bills.
6. Approve Purchase of Loader
Authorized a contract with Ziegler, Inc., under state contract #425196 for the
purchase of the
replacement of the rubber -tired loader in the amount of $124
7. Temporary Beer and Carnival License - Church of the Presentation of the Blessed
ssed Virgin Mary
Approved a carnival license and a temporary beer license for the Church of the Presentation resentation of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1725 Kennard Street, for an event the are having on
2
y g May 5th and 6th,
001.
8. Resolution - Building Quality Communities
RESOLUTION 01 -04 -031
BUILDING QUALITY COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the top values and priorities of citizens include safety, job y� Y� opportunities,
health, the well -being of children, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, many of the services cities provide directly nhance those citizen priorities;
y and
WHEREAS, the connection between city services and how the benefit citizen '
y priorities and
i
concerns s not always understood by citizens; and
WHEREAS, it is one of the responsibilities of city officials to ensure legislators, g tors, media and
citizens understand their governments through open and frequent comet '
p q communication using various
avenues and means; and
WHEREAS, it is important to encourage citizens to actively p articipate in
y p p city government, to
share their views, and to work in partnership with city fficials to ensure y u e that the needs of the
community are met; and
4 -09 -01 3
WHEREAS, partnerships developed between citizens and city
y officials can result i n greater
understanding of the connection between Minnesota's high qualit '
g q lity of life and the services
provided by Minnesota cities, as well as in reater trust b citizens g y itizens in the efforts of their city
government;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of �� y Maplewood hereby declares its
commitment to loin in the Minnesota Cities: Building Quality Communities" ties " statewide
educational effort in cooperation with our fellow members o • •
f the League of Minnesota Cities.
We hereby designate Richard Fursman as the City f Ma le y p wood ' s key contact for this effort,
and will inform the League of Minnesota Cities of this designation.
9. Approve Payment of Sewer Repair - 1353 E. Skillman
Avenue
Approved payment of sewer repairs made at .1353 E. Skillman Avenue due to a sewer problem
that was beyond the property owner's control.
10. Approval of Plans and Specifications - Edgerton Park
Approved plans and authorized staff to bid the Edgerton P •
g ark improvement project with the
understanding that awarding of bids will be forwarded to the
City Council for final approval.
11. Fee Waiver - Maplewood Historical Society
Approved a temporary food permit for the Maplewood Historical rical Society to sell doughnut and
beverage at the Spring Clean Up Day on April 28 2001 and d waived the permit fee. Monies
collected will be used for the Bruentrup Farm.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 7:00 P.M. (7:10 P.M.) Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment (First Reading)
a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting fora . ublic hearing.
g
b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
c. � Community Development Director Coleman man presented the specifics of the report.
d. Commissioner Will Rossbach resented the Planning '
p i ng Co report.
e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents g g p ponents or opponents. The
following person was heard:
Kathleen Juenemann, 721 Mt. Vernon Avenue East Maplewood
Julie Teslaa, of Larkin, Hoffman, Dal & Lindgren, Ltd '
Y g .representing Voice Stream
f. Mayor Cardinal closed the . ublic hearing.
g
4 -09 -01
4
Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the first reading of the following ordinance which
revises and updates the regulations about commercial use antennas and towers in Maplewood:
ORDINANCE NO. 812
AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE CITY
CODE ABOUT ANTENNAS AND TOWERS.
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances:
Section 1. This section changes the following parts of the Maplewood City Code: (Additions have been
underlined and deletions are crossed out.)
CHAPTER 36 ARTICLE XI
COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS
Section 36 -600. Purpose.
To accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health,
safety and general welfare of the community, the Maplewood City Council Ends that these regulations are
necessary to:
1. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of
the city.
2. Require tower equipment to be screened from the view of persons located on properties contiguous
to the site and/or to be camouflaged in a manner to complement existing structures and to
minimize the visibilit h
and the adverse visual effects of antennas and towers throu careful desi
and siting standards.
3. Ensure the operators and owners of antennas and towers design, locate and construct antennas and
towers that meet all applicable code requirements to avoid mid potential damage to adjacent
properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements.
4. Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings for new wireless
telecommunication antennas to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community.
y
5. The following preferences shall be followed when selecting sites:
a. Primary structural location preference for wireless communication equipment as
permitted uses.
(1) Water towers or tanks.
(2) Co- location on existing towers.
(3) Church steeples or the church structure, when camouflaged as steeples, bell
towers, or other architectural features.
(4) Sides and roofs of buildings or structures over two (2) stories.
(5) Existing power or telephone pole corridors.
4 -09 -01 5
(6) Light poles or towers at outdoor recreational facilities.
(7) Parking lots maybe used to locate towers des where the structure
replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards
and fixtures of the parking lot.
b. Primary land use areas for towers requiring conditional use permits.
(1) Industrial and commercial.
(2) City-owned proppa (except water towers) other government-owned propert
schools, churches O1q�r -Qr-� -�Bt � -- --t - -- ' or places of worship, utility, p Y�
institutional sites.
(3) Public parks /golf courses, when compatible with the nature of the ark or course.
P
(4) Open space areas when compatible with the nature of the area and site.
Section 36 -601. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this section or ordinance shall have the following meaning
g
unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Accessory structure. A use or structure subordinate to the principal use of the land or buildin g with a tower
or antenna.
Antenna. Any structure, or device used for collecting r radiating
g
electromagnetic waves telecommunication microwave television or radio sienals including but not
limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and satellite dishes and omni- directional
antennas, such as whips.
Personal Wireless Communication Services. Licensed commercial wireless communication services
including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR),
paging and similar services.
Public Utility. Persons, corporation, or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, sewer
p >
or land line telephone service to the public. For this ordinance, commercial wireless telecommunication
sources shall not be considered public utility uses.
Tower. Any pole, monopole spire, or structure, or combination thereof including supporting pporting lines, cables,
wires, braces and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mountin an antenna meteorological de
g g vice,
or similar apparatus above grade.
UBC. Uniform Building Code. Published by the International Conference of Building fficials an
d
j urisdictions adopted by the State of Minnesota to provide with building
related standards and r
g egulations.
Section 36 -602. Existing antennas and towers.
Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of January 3 1997 that do not
rY � meet or comply
with this. section are subject to the following provisions:
4 -09 -01 6
1. Towers may continue in use for the existing purpose now used and as now existing but may not be
replaced or structurally altered without meeting all standards in this section.
2. If such towers are damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause at all, (unless the user or owner
voluntarily removes the tower), the owner or operator may repair and restore the tower to its
former size, height and use within one (1) year after first getting a building permit from the city.
The location and physical dimensions shall remain as they were before the damage or destruction.
Section 36 -603. Interpretation and Applicability.
a. It is not the intention of this ordinance to interfere with, abrogate or annul any covenant or other
agreement between parties. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions upon the
use or premises for antennas or towers than are imposed or required by other ordinances, rules,
regulations or permits, or by covenants or agreements, the provisions of this ordinance shall
govern.
b. This ordinance does not apply to the use or location of private, residential citizen band radio
towers, amateur radio towers or television antennas.
Section 36 -604. Inspections and Violations.
a. All towers, antennas and supporting structures must obtain a building permit and are subject to
inspection by the city building official to determine compliance with UBC construction standards.
Deviations from the original construction that a permit is obtained, ''Other than antenna adjustments,
is a misdemeanor.
b. Notice of violations will be sent by registered mail to the owner and the owner will have thirty (30)
days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the building
official that the repairs have been made, and as soon as possible after that, the building official will
make another inspection and the owner notified of the results.
C. Adjustments or modifications to existing antennas do not require a conditional use permit or a
building permit.
Section 36 -605. Conditional Use Permit.
a. In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial
antennas, towers, and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the:
(1) Standards in the city code.
(2) Recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board.
(3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of
residents of surrounding areas.
(4) Effect on property values.
(5) Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
4 -09 -01 7
b. The applicant shall provide at the time of application, sufficient information to show that
construction and installation of the antenna or tower will meet or exceed the standards and
requirements of the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
C. Conditional use permits will not be required for:
(1) Repair or replacement or adjustment of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a
tower or antenna, if the repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor.
(2) Antennas mounted on water towers, sides or roof of existing structures and on existing
towers, power, light, or telephone poles.
d. The fee to be paid for the conditional use permit shall be set by city council resolution.
e. The applicant shall have a prMeLty acquisition specialist and a radio freguency en ineer attend all
city- related meetings to be available to answer questions.
Section 36 -606. Communication Towers Proposed in Residential Zoning Districts,
No person, firm or corporation shall build or install a tower in a residential zoning district zene without
obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council Such a tower shall be subject to, but not limited to,
the following conditions:
1. . The city will only consider such a tower in the following residentially - zoned locations or
properties:
a. Churches or places of worship.
b. Parks, when the city determines the facility would be compatible with the nature of the
. park•
C. City -owned property,_ government, school, utility and institutional sites or facilities.
2. There shall be no more than one freestanding tower at one time on a propertv that the city has
planned for a residential use or that the city has zoned residentially, unless one of the following
applies:
a. The additional towers or antennas are inco orated into existing structures such as a
church steeple, light ,pole, power line support device or similar structure.
b. The residential property is at least five (5) acres in size.
C. If the proposed tower is to replace an existing tower and if the owner /user of the existing
tower agrees to remove the existing tower within thirty (3 0) days of the completion of the
new or replacement tower.
3+. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage /interference analysis and capacity
P Y
analysis, that location of the tower as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and
spacing needs of the cellular or personal wireless communication services systems ,and to
4 -09 -01 8
provide adequate personal wireless communication or portable cellular telephone coverage and
capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive
district or on an existing structure.
4-2. If no existing structure that meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for
mounting the antennas, such antennas may be mounted on a tower not to exceed seventy -five (75)
feet in height. The tower shall be located a distance of at least the height of the tower plus twenty-
five ,25, feet from the nearest residential structure. ,
533. The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of one hundred twent five (125) ene
43 1
feet if the tower and base area are -i-s designed and built for the co- location of at least
one other personal wireless communication service provider antennas and equipment.
64-. Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure
whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and
switching, the owner or operator shall locate it at least ten (10) feet from the side or rear lot line
and shall landscape and screen it. The community design review board shall review such a
building, and the landscaping and screening. The owners and operators of all new equipment or
utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall design and construct such structures to
blend in with the surrounding environment.
7. Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city
determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would lessen the
negative impacts of such a facility on nearby_ properties.
8. The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow the
integration of a tower into an existin or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light pole
power line support device or similar structure.
9. Towers shall be built at least ten (10) feet from side and rear propertv lines, unless the site is next
to a residential property .line or next to a property that the city _is planning for a residential use. If
the tower would be next to a residential property line or next to a property that the cit is planning
for a residential use then the tower must be located at least the hei ht of the tower plus twenty-five
(25) feet from the nearest residential structure. The owner or operator shall locate ground
equipment and accessory structures at least ten (10) feet from side and rear propertv lines.
10. The owner or operator of any tower shall screen ground- mounted equipment from view by suitable
vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects and complements the
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
11. Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off -site views of
the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower.
12. The existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
4 -09 -01 9
13. The community design review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on the plans for
towers, utilit e quipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screenin and
landscaping_.
14. Towers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uniform wind loading as
prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code
Z
Section 36 -607. Construction Requirements, Setback and Height Restrictions in Zoning Districts or
Locations Other Than Residential.
No person, firm or corporation shall erect a tower in a location other than residential without first obtaining
a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject to, but not limited to, the
following conditions:
a. No part of any tower or antenna shall be constructed, located or maintained at any time,
permanently or temporarily, in or upon any required setback area for the district in which the
antenna or tower is to be located.
b. All antennas, towers and accessory structures shall meet all applicable provisions of this code and
this section.
C. Antennas and towers shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The antennas maybe mounted on a single pole or tower ton. not to exceed one
hundred seventy -five (175) feet in height. The pole or tower shall be setback at least the
height of the pole or tower plus twenty -five (25) feet from any residential lot line.
(2) Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material.
(3) The use of guyed towers is prohibited.
(4) Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for off -site
views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower.
(5) Existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
(6) The installation shall be designed to be compatible with the underlying site plan. The
owner or operator shall landscape the base of the tower and any accessory structures.
Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with any principal structures on the site._ All new equipment or utility
buildings and accessory structures for towers shall be designed and constructed to blend
in with the surrounding environment. The community design review board shall review
the design plans for towers, utility, equipment or of any accessory structures, site plans
and proposed screening and landscapin f. '
(7) Towers shall be a light blue or gray or other color shown to reduce visibility. No
advertising or identification visible off -site shall be placed on the tower or buildings.
4 -09 -01 10
(8) Antennas placed upon the tower shall comply with all state and federal regulations about
nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such facilities.
(9) Wireless telephone or personal wireless communication service antennas, where located
on an existing structure shall not extend more than twenty -five (25) feet above the
structure to which they are attached. Such antennas are a permitted use in all zoning
districts of the city. The city council, after a recommendation from the community design
review board, must approve the plans for all sets of antennas on a building after the
second personal wireless communication service provider has installed their antennas on
the building.
10) Towers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uniform wind
loading as prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
(11) Telecommunications equipment located on the side of an existing structure or on a roof of
a structure shall not be screened.
12 Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street unless the
city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would
lessen the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby properties.
13 The cit ma y reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow
the integration of a tower into an existin or proposed structure such as a church steeple
light pole, power line support device or similar structure.
14 Towers shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from side and rear property lines unless the
site is next to a residential lot line. If the tower would be next to a residential property
line or next to a property that the cit is planning for a residential use, then the tower
must be located at least the height of the tower plus twentv -five (25) feet from the nearest
residential structure. The owner or operator shall locate ground equipment and accessory
structures at least ten (10) feet from side and rear property lines.
15 The owner or operator of a tower shall screen ground- mounted equipment from view by
suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects and
complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
16 Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening_ possible for off -site
views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower.
17 The existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
18 The communit desi review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on the plans
for towers, utilit e quipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screening
and landscaping_
4 -09 -01 11
Section 36 -608. Lights Signs and Other Attachments.
No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any lights, reflectors, flashers, daytime
strobes or steady nighttime light or other illuminating devices except:
1. Those needed during time of repair or installation,
2. Those required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications Commission or the
city.
3. For towers in parking lots, lights associated with the parking lot lighting.
In addition, no tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk,
crows nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair.
No antenna or tower shall have signam advertising or identification of any kind visible from the ground or
from other structures, except necessary warning and equipment information si na e required b l� the
manufacturer or by Federal, State or local authorities.
Section 36 -609. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers.
Any tower and/or antenna that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and maybe required
to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for dangerous or unsafe
structures established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 through 463:26.
Section 36 -610. Co- location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment.
A. The city shall not a�rove a request � for a new personal wireless service tower �
�e - unless it can be documented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the city council that
the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an
existing or approved tower or commercial building within one -half mile radius, transcending
municipal borders, of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following:
1. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved
tower or commercial building.
2. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned
equipment at the tower or building.
3. Existing or approved structures and commercial buildings within one -half mile radius
cannot or will not reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary
to function.
4. X %JX a VXXLI "' -&. o aivi P * LX L o x to ., 'tee The applicant must demonstrate, by providing a city -wide in
coverage /interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the antennas as proposed
is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication service
system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately
served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or on existing structure.
4 -09 -01 12
v i -� a K
M w -
RAN ellitipilli 1 11 9 5 LIME P-WATITKWJ R I MALVALTAIA I im a
TAI I I ,11 III IIIII Uvif iNg I ltz4 ILWI WI%7=ovm v A I A E OWN -
-
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'llil wkw1w1wA 6167M *-VAN 4 5 LVA'A 0 1 0 oft
_ _
: ; : MARM EMOL V IN •
B. Additional Submittal Requirements. Besides the information required elsewhere in this code, all
conditional use permit applications for towers also shall include the following information:
1. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and their successors to allow the shared use
of the tower if an additional user agrees to meet reasonable terms and conditions for
shared use.
2. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed facility is necessary to fill a significant
existing _gap in users coverage or to accommodate system capacity needs. This
documentation shall include:
a. Coverage maps of all the aDDlicant's or the providers' existing antenna sites
within one (1) mile of the proposed facility.
b. A map showing all existing_ personal wireless communication service antenna
sites within one (1) mile of the proposed facility
3. That the proposal is the least intrusive method of achieving the necessary coverage or
additional system capacity in the area and that other Alternatives will not work.
4. That the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated at any
existing tower or antenna facility. The city may find that a co- location site cannot
accommodate the planned equipment for the following reasons:
a. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the preferred co-
location site, and the preferred co- location site cannot be reinforced, modified or
replaced to accommodate the planned equipment or its equivalent at a reasonable
cost, as certified by a qualified radio frequenc eng ineer;
b. The planned equipment would significantly interfere with the usability of existing
or approved equipment at the preferred co- location site and the interference
cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio
frequency engineer-
C. A preferred co- location site cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a
height necessary to function reasonably, as certified by a qualified radio frequency
engineer; or
d. The applicant, after . a good -faith effort, is unable to lease, purchase or otherwise
secure space for the planned equipment at an existing antenna location.
The city may require the applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research b
qualified radio frequency engineer to determine the need for the proposed tower.
4 -09 -01 13
5. Materials or documentation demonstrating to the city that the applicant has made a good
faith effort to co- locate on existing towers but they could not reach an agreement to co-
locate on an existin2 tower.
6. Design information and documentation showing how the applicant, owner or operator of
the tower has designed structurally, electrically and in all respects the tower to
accommodate both the applicant's antennas and the antennas for at least two (2)
additional users if the tower is equal to or more than one hundred (100) feet in hei hg t in
all locations or for at least one (1) additional user if the tower is equal to or more than
sevent -five ( 75) feet in height. The applicant and owner must design and install a new
tower to allow for the maximum future arrangement of antennas on the tower, to accept
antennas mounted at varying heights and to accommodate the equipment and other needs
of future users.
7. Photo - illustrations or similar - styled artist's renderings of the proposed tower and base site
that show the appearance of the proposed tower and the proposed ground equipment or
buildings after the contractor completes them.
Section 36 -611. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications.
All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with public safety
telecommunications.
Section 36 -612. Additional Submittal Requirements.
Besides the information required elsewhere in this Code, building permit applications for towers shall
include the following supplemental information:
(1) A report and plans from a qualified and registered engineer or others that:
a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation.
b. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co- located
antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas.
C. Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can
hold.
d. Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number, if applicable.
e. Includes all other information necessary for the city to evaluate the request.
Section 36 -613. Variances,
The City Council may grant variances to the requirements of this section. All variances must follow the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. For variances regarding antennas and towers, the applicant
must show the city the followin
4 -09 -01 14
1. There are unique circumstances or characteristics peculiar to the property and that the provisions of
this code would inflict undue hardship on the property owner or applicant.
2. The property cannot be developed or put to a reasonable use by strictly conforming with the city
code.
3. The applicant or property owner did not create or cause the hardship.
4. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area or the zoning district.
5. The proposed variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief from the city code standards.
6. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance
The applicant for a variance for an antenna or tower related matter shall submit with their variance
application a statement showing how the proposal would meet these findings.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official newspaper
publishes it.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all
I. AWARD OF BIDS
None
J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. NURP Pond Ordinance Amendment (Second Reading)
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
b. Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics of the report.
Councilmember Collins moved to adopt the second reading of the following ordinance which adds
lan uage to the city code about the use of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design
criteria for ponds:
ORDINANCE NO. 811
AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE
CITY CODE BY ADDING THE NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM (NURP)
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PONDS
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
4 -09 -01 15
Section 1. This section changes the following parts of the Maplewood City Code:
(Additions have been underlined and deletions are crossed out.)
Section 9 -193. Generally,
f Where feasible, all new storm water detention ponds shall be designed and
constructed to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program P) design
criteria of removing at least six1y(60) percent of the phosphorous. The engi� neer
or designer may use the Walker pondnet model or the Pitt pond model when
desi naming storm water ponds ( as noted by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency(MPCA ) Protecting Water QuahU in Urban Areas manual). The
applicant or applicant's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the
necessary calculations to verify the pond desi rm.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official
newspaper publishes it.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - all
K. NEW BUSINESS
1. Opting out of PERA - City Manager
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
b. Human Resources Director Le presented the specifics of the report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the election of
Richard Fursman, City Manager, to be excluded from the Public Employees Retirement
A ssoci oti on
RESOLUTION NO. 01-04-032
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ELECTION OF RICHARD FURSMAN
TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, Richard Fursman has notified the City Council of his election to be excluded from
membership in the Public Employees Retirement Association and has provided this Council with a
copy of his written election to do so, all as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 353.028.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood as
follows:
1. The Council makes the following findings:
a) Richard Fursman is the City Manager of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota.
4 -09 -01 16
b) That position is provided for in the ordinances of the City of Maplewood.
C) He was duly appointed to serve in that position effective October 16, 2000.
d) The City Manager is the chief administrative officer of the City of Maplewood.
e) Acting under Minnesota Statutes 353.028, he has elected to be excluded from
membership in the Public Employees Retirement Association, effective upon his
filing such election with the Executive Director of that association.
fl In making this election, he has agreed that he will not at any time in the future
seek any authorization to purchase service credit for any period of excluded
service. He has further agreed that this election is irrevocable.
2. Said election is therefore approved.
3. A certified copy of this Resolution shall be provided to the Executive Director of said
association.
Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes - all
2. Menards Building Exterior Revision Approval (2280 Maplewood Drive)
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
b. Community Development Director Coleman presented the specifics of the report.
C. Boardmember Matt Ledvina presented the Community Design Review Board report.
d. . The following persons addressed the council:
Gary Colby, Menard's, 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Will Rossbach, City of Maplewood Planning Commissioner
Kathleen Juenemann, 721 Mt. Vernon Avenue East, Maplewood
Conncilmember Koppen moved to approve the plans date - stamped March 19, 2001, for the
building design and landscaping changes for the Menards store addition at 2280 Maplewood Drive.
Approval is subi ect to the property owner doing the following_:
1. Painting all flashing and building fascias hunter green.
2. Painting or staining a horizontal accent stripe on the west, north and east sides of the
addition. This stripe shall be hunter green to match the fascia and flashing. The width of
this stripe shall be at least three feet high. This stripe shall be placed under the
" Menard's" sign on the north side of the building.
4 -09 -01 17
3. Installing all landscaping on the site by the time of the occupancy of the addition or the
applicant shall provide escrow as required previously by the city council.
4. Installing the two- tiered retaining wall planters with a brown -tone color as a contrast to
the building color and a rock -face front that totals a height of five feet.
5. Compliance with the October 25, 1999, city council conditions except as stated above.
Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes - Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers
Collins, Koppen, Wasiluk
Nays - Councilmember Allenspach
3. Council Meeting Date Change - Memorial Day
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report and presented the specifics of the
report.
Councilmember Wasiluk moved to change the May 28, 2001 Memorial Day) Council Meeting
date to Tuesday, May 29, 2001 because of the holiday
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all
4. Dog and Cat License - Senior Citizen Fee
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report and presented the specifics of the
report.
Mayor Cardinal moved to approve a 15% discount for senior citizens, age 62 years or older, for cat
and dog licenses, making the fees $15 for a regular license and $13 for animals that are spayed or
n P»tere'd
Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes - all
5. Gladstone West Neighborhood Streets, Project 00 -05
a. Approve Plans and Advertise for Bids
b.' Order Preparation of Assessment Roll
C. Order Assessment Hearing
a. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report.
b. Director of Public Works Ahl presented the specifics of the report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving plans and advertising
for bids for the Gladstone West Neighborhood Street Improvements, Project 00-05:
RESOLUTION 01 -04 -033
4 -09 -01 18
APPROVING PLANS
ADVERTISING FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on March 12, 2001, plans and
specifications for the Gladstone West Neighborhood Streets, City Project 00 -05, have been
prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and
specifications to the council for approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA:
1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk.
2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the
Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement
under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published
twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be
done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10
a.m., on the 11th day of May, 2001, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered
unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond,
payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid.
3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and
read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids
received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular
city council meeting of May 14, 2001.
Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes - all
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution ordering the preparation of the
assessment roll for the Gladstone West Neighborhood Street Improvements, Proi ect 00-05:
RESOLUTION 01 -04 -034
ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL
WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the improvement of the
Gladstone West Neighborhood Streets, City Project 00-05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to
be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land
abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall
file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection.
FURTHER, the clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council
thereof.
Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes - all
4 -09 -01 19
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution ordering the assessment hearing
to be held on May 14, 2001 at 7:15 p.m..
RESOLUTION 01 -04 -035
ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING
WHEREAS, the clerk and the engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an
assessment roll for the construction of the Gladstone West Neighborhood Streets, City Project 00-
05, and the said assessment is on file in the office of the city clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of May, 2001, at the city hall at 7:15 p.m. to pass
upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property
affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to
such assessment.
2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the
hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment.
3. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of
the improvement the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with
the clerk and that written or oral objections will be considered.
Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes - all
L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
1. Kathleen Juenemann, 721 Mt. Vernon Avenue East, Maplewood - She feels the council still needs
to work on their respect for one another.
2. Will Rossbach, 1386 County Road C East, Maplewood - He said that in the past 11 years he has
worked for the city he feels that Menard's has been a terrible neighbor because they have had to be
forced to. do everything that they need to do and they have not worked with the neighborhood
group in good faith.
M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. Isaiah - Councilmember Koppen moved to approve a letter of support sent by the Isaiah) from the
council for inclusionary housing_
Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes - all
2. Waste Haulers - Councilmember Wasiluk said she would like to see printed in the Maplewood In
Motion where the waste haulers take their waste so that the residents can be aware whether the
4 -09 -01 20
waste is going to be recycled or not.
3. Bruentrup Farm - Councilmember Wasiluk said that last week she had the opportunity to testify at
the legislature for some more funding for the Bruentrup Farm so that they can get it open and,
hopefully, it will be self serving and they won't have to come back and ask for more money.
4. Open Space - Councilmember Wasiluk wanted to take a look at the city's policies for open space.
Some residents wanted to know what the rules are for open space, can the open space be altered in
any way and, if so, what are the restrictions. Staff will provide this information to Councilmember
Wasiluk.
5. Website - Mayor Cardinal has been asked that our agenda be put on the website as soon as
possible. Staff is working on this.
6. Police - Overnight Parking - Mayor Cardinal asked Police Chief Winger to explain the overnight
parking. Police Chief Winger said in August 2000 the parking ordinance was changed. Prior to
that time vehicles could only be parked on the street between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. for not more
than two hours. The ordinance was changed to ban parking altogether between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00
a.m. The reason for the parking ban is it reduces crime, it increases the opportunity to do street
maintenance and it ensures that vehicles are moved in a timely manner. There is an opportunity
for citizens who have overnight guests or have extra cars in their lot to give the police department a
call and they will allow parking for up to 15 days.
7. Proposed Parking Ordinance - Mayor Cardinal wanted the public to know that this was included in
the April Maplewood In Motion on Page .4 and that it will be coming up on the April 23, 2001
agenda and if anyone has any comments they should attend this meeting. Councilmember Wasiluk
mentioned that the Historical Society will be serving coffee and donuts during this time.
8. Visitor Presentations - Mayor Cardinal said it has been requested that Visitor Presentations be
moved up on the agenda. Some people feel that instead of sitting through public hearings they
would like to be moved up on the agenda which would save them from staying late into the
evening.
9. City Roads - Mayor Cardinal asked Public Works Director Ahl if he has identified the worst road
in Maplewood. Mr. Ahl said that after much consideration they came down with two roads. One
is Gervais Avenue west of Highway 61 which is almost nonexistent. The other is English Street
which was reduced down to a single lane at the time until the crews put over a 1,000 tons of
material out there to try to restore that. Mr. Ahl said both these roads will be back before the
council soon for proposals to upgrade. Mayor Cardinal wanted to alert the public that if they have
potholes that need addressing that they can call the city hall at 770 -4500 and leave that message
and staff will see that it gets addressed.
Assistant City Manager Coleman said that the Annual Spring Clean Up Day will be April 28, 2001 from
8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the city campus. Staff encourages everyone to come in through County Road B.
Staff also will be collecting food that day for Second Harvest Food Bank and said that if the public could
bring canned goods it would be greatly appreciated.
4 -09 -01 21
N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1. Park Commission Reappointments -City Manager Fursman said that the city council has been
presented with three names of Park and Recreation Commission members who have requested that
they be reappointed. These members are Bonnie Qualley, Marabeth Timmers, and Peter Frank.
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the reappointment of Bonnie Oualley, Marabeth
Timmers and Peter Frank to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes - all
O. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Collins moved to adjourn the meeting at P.M.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - all
Nays -
Abstain -
Karen E. Guilfoile, City Clerk
4 -09 -01 22
12.
City of Maplewood
CITY COUNCIUMANAGER WORKSHOP
Meeting Minutes
Monday, April 9, 2001
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
6:01 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
Mayor Robert Cardinal
Present
Councilmember Sherry Allenspach
Present
Councilmember Kenneth Collins
Present
Councilmember Marvin Koppen
Present
Councilmember Julie Wasiluk
Present
Others Present:
Co
FBI
City Manager Richard Fursman
Assistant City Manager Melinda Coleman
City Clerk Karen Guilfoile
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Allenspach moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - all
NEW BUSINESS
1. Police Civil Service Commission Interviews - City Manager Fursman said that there were
four candidates applying for appointment to the Police Civil Service Commission. Only
one candidate was present and the council interviewed him.
2. Park Board Reappointment - City Manager Fursman said there were three individuals up
for reappointment to the Park Board. The Park Chair, Peter Fischer, introduced the
following individuals who are up for reappointment: Bonnie Qualley, Marabeth Timmers,
and Peter Frank. Each of these people came before the council and said why they would
like to be reappointed. This item will be placed on tonight's council agenda for approval.
-1-
3. Discussion with Commission Chairs on Appointments and Reappointments - The council
had a discussion with the Commission Chairs as to what role the commissions should
take in screening candidates that come before the city council. Council asked staff for
recommendations on putting together a standard procedure for appointments and
reappointments by the commissions and council.
E. - FUTURE TOPICS
1. Commission Meetings
2. Update on the Rush Line Corridor
F. . ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Councilmember Wasiluk moved and Councilmember Collins
seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
-1-
1
AGENDA NO. G -1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council Action by Council
FROM: Finance Director Date
Endorsed
RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Modified
Rejected
DATE: April 16, 2001
Attached is a listing of paid bills for informational purposes. The City Manager has reviewed the
bills and authorized payment in accordance with City Council approved policies.
ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE
$11 Checks #53721 thru #53722 dated 3/30/01
$109,919.98 Checks #53723 thru #53794 dated 4/6 thru 4/10/01
$700,839.52 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 4/2 thru 4/9/01
$135,463.63 Checks #53795 thru #53861 dated 4/17/01
$179,018.09 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 4/10 thru 4/16/01
$1,136,719.97 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$327,953.07 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 4/13/01
$27 1 11 95.76 Payroll Deduction check #83569 thru #83576 dated 4/13/01
$ Total Payroll
$1,491,868.80 GRAND TOTAL
Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 770 -4513 if you have any questions
on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if
necessary.
hu
Attachments
C:\OFFICE\WP-DOCS\AGENDA\APCLOO16.APR
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
04/06/2001 11:27:23AM City of Maplewood
Check
Date
53721
3/30/01
53722
3/30/01
53723
4/10/01.
Vendor
Description /Account
01027
01027
00018
MINN. STATE TREASURER
MINN. STATE TREASURER
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
DRIVERS LICENSE FEES
MOTOR VEHICLE FEES
CELL PHONE
CELL PHONE
DATA PROCESSING - FEB 2001
MPWD PATROL & BOARDING FEES
MERCH FOR RESALE
FIELD WATER TEST - MCC
MERCH FOR RESALE
QTRLY UTI L - 3/31/01
MUFFLER
REPAIR DIFFERENTIAL
"> "2001 MEMBERSHIP DUES
WORK BOOTS
IJB /IJBC
TOWING CHARGES - MAR 2001
REPAIR GYM DIVIDER
CHECK SIREN #6
REPAIR TO ENGINE 2
REPAIR TO RESCUE 1
REPAIR ENGINE 1
PATCHING MATERIAL
SQ -EDGE RECT LAM 30D 24W
FBI NO CENTRAL LAW ENF EXC DEV SE
3/21/01 BUS CHARGE DI FF
REPAIR TRIGGER STIHL 009L
SHEEP LAB (2)
REIMBURSE FOR BASKETBALL
MOTOROLA HT750 VHF /SPEAKER
MOTOROLA HT750 VHF
PRINTER REPAIR
CONST MGMT SRVS THRU 2/28/01
ADV AREA MAP
CONDUITS
MISC MAINT SUPPLIES
RIVETS
MONTHLY SAC - MAR 2001
MERCH FOR RESALE
MERCH FOR RESALE
MIXED BLOOD PERF 4/9
2001 SPRING WORKSHOPS
MONTHLY SURTAX - MAR 2001
REG & TITLING FEE
TELECOMM SERVICES & SUPPLIES
FIRE TRUCK REPAIR
FIRE TRUCK REPAIR
NEWSLETTER - APRIL 2001
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 12/13 TO 3/6
REF RON KULAS - NO REF
REF KIM ALTON - NO REF
REF JOAN KUBACI - NO REF
REF LINDA ELBERS - NO REF
REF SARAH WILLEMS - NO REF
REF MELANIE STROBEL - NO REF
53724
4/10/01
01908
53725
4/10/01
00111
53726
4/10/01
00121
53727
4/10/01
02014
53728
4/10/01
01811
53729
4/10/01
00198
53730
4/10/01
00206
53731
4/10/01
00274
53732
4/10/01
00251
53733
4/10/01
00272
53734
4/10/01
00329
53735
4/10/01
00358
53736
4/10/01
02016
53737
4/10/01
00462
53738
4/10/01
00463
53739
4/10/01
02021
53740
4/10/01
00489
53741
4/10/01
02017
53742
4/10/01
01401
53743.
4/10/01
00551
53744
4/10/01
00604
53745
4/10/01
02022
53746
4/10/01
00723
53747
4/10/01
00778
53748
4/10/01
01897
53749
4/10/01
00869
53750
4/10/01
00972
53751
4/10/01
00973
53752
4/10/01
00986
53753
4/10/01
00998
ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, INC.
ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES
ARCHITECTURAL TESTING INC
BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
C.A.T.C.O.
CAPITOL CITY MUTUAL AID ASSOC:
CARVER, NICHOLAS
COPY EQUIPMENT, INC.
D & D TOWING SERVICE INC.
DANA ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION
EMBEDDED SYSTEMS, INC.
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAI NT.
ENVIROTECH SERVICES INC
FACILITY SYSTEMS,INC.
FBI /LEEDS
FIRST STUDENT BUS COMPANY
GARCEAU HARDWARE & POWER EQUIP
GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC.
HENNESSEY, TIM
INFINITY WIRELESS
KBS COMPUTER SERVICES
KRAUS- ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO
LINCOLN MARKETING, INC.
MENARDS
MENARDS
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO.
53754
4/6/01
01091
_ MIXED BLOOD THEATER CO
53755
4/10/01
01045
MN GIS /LIS CONSORTIUM
53756
4/10/01
01028
MN STATE TREASURER STAX
53757
4/10/01
00395
NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPT OF
53758
4/10/01
01961
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
53759
4/10/01
01173
NORTH METRO AUTOMOTIVE
53760
4/10/01
01202
NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC
53761
4/10/01
01215
OLSON, SANDRA K
53762
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
53763
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
53764
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
53765
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
53766
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
53767
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
Amount
447.50
11,031.25
174.77
11.07
440.00
1,285.93
160.00
1,250.00
281.40
125.48
181.74
2,763.68
50.00
165.00
130.74
678.47
175.00
150.00
296.60
211.91
459.44
4,650.00
1,703.35
700.00
11.00
36.61
126.00
30.00
1,590.20
1,941.99
85.00
52,685.05
239.00
17.64
70.10
27.58
3,415.50
460.60
892.85
400.00
240.00
934.56
962.00
515.62
467.01
962.23
2,099.36
6.58
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
vchlist 1
Check Register
Page: 2
04/06/2001
11:27:23AM
City of Maplewood
Check
Date
Vendor
Description /Account
Amount
53768
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF IND YTH ENRICH -GRP 3/15
20.40
53769
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF BEVERLY JACKSON - SWIM
40.00
53770
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF AMY HINRICHS - VB TOURN
110.00
53771
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF STEVE VANKEUREN - VB TOURN _
110.00
53772
4/10/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF BEAU'S FOOD - SOFTBALL
200.00
53773
4/10/01
01679
QWEST DEX
MCC - MARCH 2001
99.00
53774
4/10/01
02018
RADWORKS
PROGRAM SUPPLIES
147.55
53775
4/10/01
01337
RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV
DATA PROCESSING - FEB 2001
1,007.50
53776
4/10/01
01359
REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL
CAR WASHES - MAR 2001
146.72
53777
4/10/01
01360
REINHART FOODSERVICE
MERCH FOR RESALE
377.07
53778
4/10/01
01387
ROSSINI, DR. JAMES
FITNESS PROGRAM FEES - MARCH
250.00
53779
4/10/01
01418
SAM'S CLUB DIRECT
PROGRAM SUPPLIES
289.84.
MERCH FOR RESALE
336.89
53780
4/10/01
01455
SHORTREED, MICHAEL
LUNCH & PARKING 3/6
24.55
53781
4/10/01
02019
SPECIALITY SHEET METAL INC
INSTALL CENTER CONSOLE
276.90
53782
4/10/01
01550
SUMMIT INSPECTIONS
ELECTRIC .CONTRACTOR INSP
4,400.80
53783
4/10/01
01560
SUPERIOR SERVICES INC
RECYCLING - FEB 2001
11,363.44
53784
4/10/01
01572
SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC.
TONER CARTRIDGES
358.22
53785
4/10/01
01578
T.R.F. SUPPLY CO.
TYVEK SUITS
454.22
53786
4/10/01
01592
TAYLOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
PHONE SUPPORT
170.00
AUTOCAD TRAINING
495.00
53787
4/10/01
02023
TEE'S PLUS
DARE MERCH
300.00
53788
4/10/01
01635
TOWER ASPHALT
SC COLD MIX
554.02
53789
4/10/01
01693
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
REPLENISH POSTAGE METER
3,000.00
53790
4/10/01
01711
VECTOR INTERNET SERVICES INC
WEB SPACE & DOMAIN HOST
24.00
53791
4/10/01
02020
VIBES TECHNOLOGIES INC
MODEL 32 (NEW EMPLOYEE)
181.53
53792
4/10/01
01734
WALSH, WILLIAM P.
COMM PLUMBING INSP
166.00
53793•
4/10/01
01750
WATSON CO INC, THE
MERCH FOR RESALE
234.16
MERCH FOR RESALE
200.00
MERCH FOR RESALE
234.16
53794
4/10/01
01757
WELCHLIN, CABOT
MEALS 3/19 TO 3/23
26.95
74 Checks in this report
Total checks:
121,398.73
P
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to . Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date
Date
Pa ee
Description
03/30/01
04/02/01
U.S. Treasurer
Federal Payroll Tax
04/02/01
04/02/01
Salomon Smith Barney
Investment purchase
04/02/0.1
04/03/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
04/02/01.
04/03/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
03/30/01
04/03/01
MN State Treasurer
State Payroll Tax
03/30/0
04/03/01
WI Dept of Revenue
State Payroll Tax
03/30/01
04/03/01
CBSA
Dental claims
04/03/01
04/04/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
04/03/01
04/04/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
03/30/01
04/04/01
Elan Financial Services
Purchasing card items
04/04/01
04/05/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
04/04/01
04/05/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
04/05/01
04/06/01
MN State Treasurer.
Drivers License #697
04/05/01
04/06/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
04/06/01
04/09/01
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License #697
04/06/01
04/09/01
MN State Treasurer
Deputy Registrar #149
TOTAL
Amount
74,570.30
497,91.2.50
659.50
19,550.52
13, 357.14
2,193.24
309.14
835.25
19,466.72
16,870.13
657.25
18, 038.43
703.25
19,731.77
778.00
15,206.38
700.839.52
3
vchtist Check Register Page: 1
04/13/2001 10 :15:54AM City of Maplewood
Check
Date
Vendor
53803
53795
4/17/01
01048
3M
53796
4/17/01
00033
ACE HARDWARE
53797
4/17/01
00049
ADT SECURITY SERVICES
53798
4/17/01
00052
ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC.
53799
4/17/01
00104
ANDERSON, EVERETT A
53800
4/17/01
00152
BANICK, JOHN
53801
4/17/01
00159
BARTZ, PAUL
53802
4/17/01
02024
53803
4/17/01
00178
53804
4/17/01
01811
53805
4/17/01
00182
53806
4/17/01
00267
53807
4/17/01
00307
53808
4/17/01
02026
53809
4/17/01
00338
53810
4/17/01
00412
53811
4/17/01
00420
53812 4/17/01 00425
53813 4/17/01 00443
53814 4/17/01 00449
BATTERY ZONE
BERGGREN, GORDON
BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC
BESETH, GORDON
CARQUEST - MAPLEWOOD
COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONST. CO.
COMMUNICATION SRV FOR THE DEAF
CRABTREE COMPANIES INC.
DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES
DOWNTOWNER
DUCHARME, JOHN P.
EASTMAN, THOMAS
EDEN SYSTEMS, INC.
53815
4/17/01
00432
EDGE, DOUG
53816
4/17/01
00463
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT.
53817
4/17/01
00519
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO.
53818
4/17/01
00612
GYM WORKS INC
53819
4/17/01
00677
HOME DEPOT - GECF
53820
4/17/01
01605
INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC PSYCH, THE
53821
4/17/01
00789
KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE CO
53822
4/17/01
01894
KELLY & FAWCETT PA
53823
4/17/01
00857
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
53824
4/17/01
00872
LINDORFF, DENNIS
53825
4/17/01
00904
M.L.E.E.A.
53826
4/17/01
00973
MENARDS
53827
4/17/01
00977
53828
4/17/01
00998
53829
4/17/01
01015
53830
4/17/01
00394
53831
4/17/01
02025
53832
4/17/01
01953
53833
4/17/01
02027
!A - - - - -��
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO.
MINNCOMM
MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE, DEPT OF
MPPOA
MUNICI -PALS
NATIONAL MEDICAL REVIEW OFFICE
1178 BLACK 24" X 50 YARDS
1178 BLACK 24" X 50 YARDS
1178 BLACK 24" X 50 YARDS
MISC SUPPLIES - MARCH 2001
REPAIRS CITY HALL SEC SYS
ACCESS TAGS FOR SEC SYS
HELMET LETTERS
REIMBURSE MILEAGE - 3/6 TO 3/30
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
PARAMEDIC SCH 3/5 TO 3/9
PARAMEDIC SCH 3/19 TO 3/23
PARAMEDIC SCH 3/26 TO 3/29
PARAMEDIC SCH' 4/2 TO 4/6
MOTOROLA REPLACEMENT BATTERIES
3 NAME SIGNS
MERCH FOR RESALE
MERCH FOR RESALE
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 3/24 TO 4/6
MISC SUPPLIES
STOP RELAY FOR LIFT STATION 6
INTERPRETER - COUNCIL MTG 3/26
LASERJET 815ON (C4266A)
FACILITATOR FEE
GAS
DETAIL AUCTION VEHICLES
DETAIL AUCTION VEHICLE
DETAIL AUCTION VEHICLES
SAFETY BOOTS & LITH BATTERY
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 4/10
UPGRADE SOFTWARE - EQUIPMENT
UPGRADE SOFTWARE - EQUIPMENT
SAFETY BOOTS
REPAIR TO MEDIC 1
HOSE REEL SWIVEL
LIFECYCLE SEATS
SLEDGE HAMMERS
STATION SUPPLIES
PSCHOLOGICAL EXAM - 1
PSYCH EXAMS - 2 PO CANDIDATES
CABLE TIES
LEGAL SERVICES - MAR 2001
PROSECUTION - MAR 2001
SUBSCRIPTION - CITIES BULLETIN
STEEL TOE BOOTS
CONF FOR CADETS AT BREEZY POINT
MISC SUPPLIES
WIZARD FLEXSHAFT TOOL
HOCKEY CORD
MERCH FOR RESALE
PAGERS
12 POLICE LICENSE PLATES
2001 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES D
ANNUAL SPRING BUSINESS MTG
DRUG TEST COLLECTION FEE
3,502.36
2,643.50
105.73
227.19
350.39
452.63
120.35
45.54
392.32
36.79
39.47
30.16
39.43
171.00
45.00
80.40
160.80
8.28
117.31
221.43
100.00
3,455.93'
2,637.57
7.00
117.65
117.65
117.65
169.25
21.39
968.75
855.00
148.75
475.46
319.50
123.02
31.82
139.65
350.00
700.00
28.48
8,820.44
5,250.00
60.00
131.75
1,980.00
22.93
53.24
42.79
508.30
163.98
36.00
20.00
429.00
100.00
vchlist
04/13/2001 10:15:54AM
Check Register
City of Maplewood
Page: 2
Check
Date
Vendor
Description /Account
Amount
53834
4/17/01
00395
NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPT OF
DNR FEES
722.00
53835
4/17/01
01212
OLSON, ARNOLD G
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 3/19 TO 4/6
77.28
PLAN REVIEWER & CODE CONS
1,590.00
53836
4/17/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF JIM CARTER - ANNUAL FEE
287.55
53837
4/17/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF ANGELA PANKRATZ - SOFTBALL
100.00
53838
4/17/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF DAWN FINKEN - CAMP ADV
50.00
53839
4/17/01
00001
ONE VENDOR
REF SHANNON ANDERSON - FENCING
50.00
53840
4/17/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF KATHLEEN PRINS - SOFTBALL
40.00
53841
4/17/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF MICHAEL MACKIEWICZ - SOFTBAL
35.00
53842
4/17/01
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF HEATHER WHITE - T BALL
30.00
53843
4/17/01
01311
P.E.R.A.
ER ID #6120- 00,01,51 - 4/13/01 P/R
36,256.18
53844
4/17/01
01238
PAKOY, EUGENE F
HEATING INSPECTIONS
4,407.99
53845
4/17/01
01267
PIONEER PRESS
ADVERTISING MCC
503.68
53846
4/17/01
` :01268
PIONEER RIM AND WHEEL CO.
MISC SUPPLIES
16.40
53847
4/17/01
01295
PREMIER BANK
ANNUAL RENTAL FEE BOX #424
110.00
53848
4/17/01
01337
RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CHARGES
4,527.50
TRUTH IN TAX NOTICE REIMBURSEMEN
2,691.32
53849
4/17/01
01341
RAMSEY CTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC.
2001 DINNER & MEETING.
82.25
53850
4/17/01
01340
REGIONS HOSPITAL
PARAMEDIC SUPPLIES
361.80
53851
4/17/01
01360
REINHART FOODSERVICE
MERCH FOR RESALE
111.10
53852
4/17/01
00069
RISK MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
PAYMENT FOR PRE - COLLECT
29.00
53853
4/17/01
01418
SAM'S CLUB DIRECT
CANDY /POP
181.13
53854
4/17/01
01504
ST PAUL, CITY OF
RADIO SRV & MAINT - MAR 2001
1,034.47
53855
4/17/01
01564
SUZANNE'S CUISINE, INC.
LUNCH - COUNCIL/STAFF.'RETREAT
288.61
53856
4/17/01
01591
TAYLOR SALES, INC.
REPAIR YOGURT MACHINE
87.00
53857
4/17/01
01683
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC
PANTS
44.06
PANTS
45.95
PANTS
45.95
PANTS /GLOVES /KEEPERS /BELT /BULB
40.40
53858
4/17/01
01750
WATSON CO INC, THE
MERCH FOR RESALE
278.55
53859
4/17/01
01980
WHITE BEAR GLASS INC
INSTALL I.G. IN GREEN ROOM
644.20
53860
4/17/01
01190
XCEL ENERGY
MO UTIL - STMT DATE 4/4/01
43,382.25
53861
4/17/01
01807
ZWIEG, SUSAN
REIMBURSE MILEAGE 4/3/01
18
67 Checks in this
report
Total checks:
135,463.63
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Pa ee Description
04/09/01
04/10/01
04/09/01
04/10/01
04/06/01
04/10/01
04/10/01
04/11/01
04/10/01
04/11/01
04/06/01
04/11/01
04/ 11 /01
04/ 12/01
04/11/01
04/12/01
04/12/01
04/13/01
04/12/01
04/13/01
04/12/01
04/13/01
04/13/01
04/16/01
04/13/01
04/16/01
04/13/01
04/16/01
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
CBSA
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
Elan Financial Services
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
MN Dept of Revenue
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
U.S. Treasurer
Drivers License #697
Deputy Registrar #149
Dental claims
Drivers License #697
Deputy Registrar #149
Purchasing card items
Drivers License #697
Deputy Registrar #149
Drivers License #697
Deputy Registrar #149
MNCare Tax
Drivers License #697
Deputy Registrar #149
Federal Payroll Tax
TOTAL
Amount
868.75
15,584.50
2,180.41
996.75
22,167.13
11, 341.72
925.00
18, 946.94
676.50
14,269.25
2,399.00
609.50
16,112.55
71,940.09
179.018.09
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE.CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
CHECK DATE
________EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
----------- - - - - --
ALLENSPACH,SHERRY
--------------
339.27
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ALDRIDGE,MARK
2876.69
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
BOHL ,JOHN C
2797.08
DIRECTDEPOSTT
04/13/01
FLOR, TIMOTHY
2368.57
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
FRASER, JOHN
2389.10
DIRECT DEPOSIT.
04/13/01
TAUBMAN,DOUGLAS J
2185.25
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
PALMA, STEVEN
2389.10
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
JOHNSON, KEVIN
2155.80
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ERICKSON, VIRGINIA A
2200.74
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
CROTTY,KERRY
2104.74
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HASSENSTAB, DENISE R
149.50
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HIEBERT, STEVEN
972.24
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DUNK, ALI CE
2104.74
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
CORNER, AMY L
160.80
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
BELDE, STANLEY
2360.09
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
RENSLOW, RITA
DIRECT DEPOSIT
282.75
04/13/01
BAKKE,LONN A
2138.69
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
BOWMAN,RICK A
2219.14
DIRECT DEPOSIT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
KOPPEN,MARVIN
339.27
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
PIKE, GARY K
2578.79
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HEINZ, STEPHEN J
2328.54
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HERBERT ,MICHAEL J
2572-96
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
STOCKTON, DERRELL T
973-94
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ROSSMAN,DAVID A
2288.11
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HALWEG, KEVIN R
2457.55
7
CHECK NUMBER.
CHECK DATE
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04 / 13 / O 1
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
EMPLOYEE NAME
MARUSKA,ERICA
OLSON, JULIE S
BREHEIM,ROGER W
LARSON,DANIEL J
THIENES,PAUL
ANZALDI,MANDY
POWELL, PHILIP
SZCZEPANSKI,THOMAS J
WENZEL, JAY B
DOBLAR , R I CHARD N
COLLINS,KENNETH V
CAMPBELL ,CRAIG D
DOLLERSCHELL,ROBERT J
ERI CKSON, KYLE F
WEAVER,KRISTINE A
HAWKI NS ,LISA A
KOEHNEN, AMY
MCGUIRE,MICHAEL A
OSTER,ANDREA J
URBANSKI,HOLLY S
ANDERSON,CAROLE J
JACKSON, MARY L
TETZLAFF , JUDY A
CASARE Z , G I NA
CARLE,JEANETTE E
AMOUNT
310.45
1656.34
1465.22
1761.25
2182.11
577.50
1767.60
2373.04
1570.34
1813.99
339.27
1570.34
251.25
859.83
864.91
19.95
197.48
1555.14
1338.26
1303.84
1691.02
1391.94
1369.54
1438.34
�0161
t%J
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
----------------- - - - - --
JAGOE, CAROL
1438.34
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
OLSON, SANDRA
870.80
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
CORCORAN, THERESA M
1239.14
. DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
MARTINSON, CAROL F
1438.34
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
EVERSON, PAUL
1898.86'
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
PARSONS, KURT G
1617.42
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
S PANGLER , EDNA E
798.74
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ZWIEG, SUSAN C.
1775.97
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DeBILZAN, THOMAS C
1385.54
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
EDGE ,DOUGLAS
1610.14
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
LUTZ ,DAVID P
1609.54
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
MEYER, GERALD W
1676.74
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
NAGEL,BRYAN
1636.54
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
OSWALD, ERICK D
1655.54
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DUCHARME ,JOHN
1929.54
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
PECK,DENNIS L
2067.94
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
PRIEBE,WILLIAM
3336.39
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DOHERTY,KATHLEEN M
1554.34
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
SCHINDELDECKER,JAMES
1611.94
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
GREW- HAYMAN,JANET M
1042.21
DIRECT DEPOSIT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HORSNELL,JUDITH A
871.97
DIKECTDEPOSIT
04/13/01
NELSON, JEAN
942.82
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13 /01
GP,YNOR,VIRGINIA A
1500.74
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
LIVINGSTON,JOYCE L
863.00
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
THOMPSON, DEBRA J
555.54
t%J
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD.
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NTJMP, v"",
C -TIECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
X / 13 / 01
EKSTRAND , THOMAS G
2213.16
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ROBERTS , KENNETH
2080.26
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
CARVER ,NICHOLAS N
2091.14
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
KELLY ,LISA
1118.28
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
NORDQUI ST , RI CHARD
18 41.5 2
DIRECT DEPOSIT
0 4/ 13 / 01
OT I S, MARY ELLEN M
630..80
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
CHRIS TENS EN , JOD I E D
941.21
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
COLEMAN PHILIP
384.49
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
FARR ,DIANE M
364.49
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HORWATH , RONALD J
550.55
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
LARSON DEBRA
273.19
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
SEEGER , GERALD F
422.83
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
STEINHORST,JEFFREY
568.67
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
SWANSON,LYLE
1677.30
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
FLUG MEGAN L
166.63
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
WATC ZAK, LAURA
2104.74
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HOIUM,DORA
476.00
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
MORNING,TIMOTHY L
1397.76
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
SCHULTZ,SCOTT M
1677.01
DIRECT DEPOSIT
.04/13/01
REILLY,MICHAEL R
1398.93
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
YOUNG,DILLON J
763.80
DIRECT DEPOSIT
.DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ATKINS,KATHERINE
70.88
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
RAWLINGS , RINDA M
1210.21
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
McCLUNG, HEATHER A
269.43
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
DARST , JAMES M
1579.14
10
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
CI- ?ECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
'-' `� /13/01
------------- -----------------
S INDT , ANDREA J
------------
1226.34
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
WORWA, L INDSAY M
140.78
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
JUNG, STEPHANIE J
1870.98
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
FRY, PATRICIA
1525.54
DIRECT DF.F'OSIT =
04/13/01
CARLSON, THERESE
1881.27
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
LE, SHERYL
3486.92
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
FAUST, DANI EL F
3630.30
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
BAUMAN , GAYLE L
2374.77
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
KELSEY, CONNIE L
1098.81
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
GUI LFO I LE , KAREN E
2328.38
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
WINGER, DONALD S
3506.12
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ANDREWS, SCOTT A
2511.80
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
BANICK,JOHN J
2743.10
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
KARIS,FLINT D
2440.92
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
KVAM ,DAVID
2403.13
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
RABBETT,KEVIN
2367.31
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
STEFFEN,SCOTT L
2606.80
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
THOMALLA,DAVID J
2743.10
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
BERGERON, JOSEPH A
2489.68
DIRECT DEPOSIT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
GERVAI S- JR , CLARENCE N
2040.22
DIRECT DEPOSIT :
04/13/01
CALLAHAN, COLLEEN J
1985.93
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
LUKIN, STEVEN J
2657.40
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
SVENDSEN, RUSTIN L
2121.80
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
PRIEFER,WILLIAM
1991.94
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
KANE ,MICHAEL R
2235.14
11
.CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
---------------------
AMOUNT
DIRECTDEPOSIT
04/13/01
- - - - --
LUNDSTEN, LANCE
-------- - - - - --
2 544 .51
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04 / 13 / O 1
CAVETT, CHRI STOPHER M
2634.33
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ANDERSON, BRUCE
3325-98
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
MARUSKA, MARK A
2 2 3 5 .14
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HUTCHINSON, ANN E
1853-54.
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
COLEMAN, MEL INDA
3490.34
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
GRAF,MICHAEL
1311.94
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
ROBBINS , AUDR.A L
1311.94
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
CROSSON, LINDA
1743.14
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
EASTMAN, THOMAS E
2195.14
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
STAPLES, PAULINE
2472.00
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
SCHLINGMAN, PAUL
1882.34
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HURLEY, STEPHEN
2314.62
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
JOHNSON, BONNIE
865.94
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
BERGO ,CHAD M
1673.54
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
MARTIN,JERROLD
1379.14
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
HALWEG,JODI A
1286.34
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
AHL,R. CHARLES
3562.11
DIRECT DEPOSIT
DIRECT DEPOSIT
04/13/01
LU,JOHNNIE T
1379.14
DIRECT DEPOSIT
SCHROFER, ROBERT J
1569.95
83421
04/13/01
CARDINAL, ROBERT J..
385.50
83428
04/13/01
WASILUK,JULIE A
339.27
83429
04 /13j(}1
FURSMAN,RICHARD F
4438.99
83430
04/13/01
HENSLEY,PATRICIA
174.30
83431
04/13/01
ZICK,LINDA
460.00
12
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
------ - - - - --
CHECK DATE
---- - - - - --
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
83432
04/13/01
------------------------ - - - - --
CUDE,LARRY J
-------- - - - - --
403.46
83433
04/13/01
BEHM,LOIS N
550.00
83434
04/13/01
MA.THEYS,ALANA KAYE
1748.09
83435
04/13/01
WEGWERTH,JUDITH A
1523.14
83436
04/13/01
VIETOR,LORRAINE S
1711.58
83437
04/13/01
MICHNA,PATRICIA M
96.00
83438
04/13/01
PALANK,MARY KAY
1438 .34
83439
04/13/01
RICHIE,CAROLE L
1497.27
83440
04/13/01
RYAN,MICHAEL
1555.23
83441
04/13/01
SVENDSEN,JOANNE M
1785.48
83442
04/13/01
TICHY,PAMELA M
168.00
83443
04/13/01
BARTZ,PAUL
2452.34
83444
04/13/01
BUSACK, DANIEL P
1572.63
83445
04/13/01
KONG,TOMMY T
1441.84
83446
04/13/01
WELCHLIN,CABOT V
2162.19
83447
04/13/01
MEEHAN,JAMES
2528.20
83448
04/13/01
SHORTREED,MICHAEL P
2558.90
83449
04/13/01
DARST,ROBERTA L
548.75
83450
04/13/01
SCHWAB,TAHIRAH H
112.00
83451
04/13/01
CHLEBECK,JUDY M
1611.94
83452
04/13/01
NIVEN,AMY S
623.17
83453
04/13/01
FREBERG,RONALD L
1639.14
83454
04/13/01
JONES,DONALD R
1385.54
83455
04/13/01
ELIAS,JAMES G
2067.94
83456
04/13/01
EMMS,MELISSA K
43.60
13
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT-PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
------ - - -
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
- --
83457
---- - - - - --
04/13/01
------------------------ - - - - --
LINDBLOM,RANDAL
83458
04/13/01
EDSON,DAVID B
83459
04/13/01
HELEY,ROLAND B
83460
04/13/01
HINNENKAMP,GARY
83461
04/13/01
LINDORFF,DENNIS P
834 =62
04
NOVAK,M.ICHAEL J
83463
04/13/01
BERGREN,KIRSTEN A
83464
04/13/01
McCUSKER,ELIZABETH A MANNING
83465
04/13/01
HANSEN,LORI L
83466
04/13/01
ANDERSON,EVERETT
83467
04/13/01
BESETH,GORDON R
83468
04/13/01
OSTROM,MARJORIE
83469
04/13/01
WENGER,ROBERT J
83470
04/13/01
ANGLES,JERI L
83471
04/13/01
FINN,GREGORY S
83472
04/13/01
FRANK,LAURA
83473
04/13/01
GEBHARD,JILLIAN R
83474
04/13/01
NIVEN,NICK R
83475
04/13/01
OHLHAUSER,MEGHAN M
83476
04/13/01
SHOBERG,KARI A
83477
04/13/01
VAUGHAN,PATRICK J
83478
04/13/01
WERNER,KATIE M
83479
04/13/01
GERMAIN,DAVID
83480
04/13/01
HAAG,MARK W
83481
04/13/01
NADEAU,EDWARD A
AMOUNT
2602.14
1639.14
1639.14
1585.62
1609.54
1236.74
117.00
68.00
925.55
509.29
60.00
2569.54
2053.54
96.00
1403.14
255.75
244.13
152.25
12.00
219.31
134.00
145.31
1623.94
1337.99
2235.14
14
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER,
------ - - - - --
CHECK DATE
---- - - - - --
EMPLOYEE NAME
------------------------
AMOUNT
83482
04/13/01
- - - - --
GLASS,JEAN
-------- - - - - --
922.16
83483
04/13/01
HOIUM,SHEILA
896.86
83484
04/13/01
HOOGE,NICK S
159.80
83485
04/13/01
MOFFAT,ETHAN J
99.40
83486
04/13/01
PARTLOW,JOSHUA J
170.00
83487
04/13:/01
POWERS,NICOLE L
290.55
83488
04/13/01
RIDLEHOOVER,KATE I
531.70
83489
04/13/01
SCHMIDT,RUSSELL
1289.54
83490
04/13/01
SHOBERG,CARY J
342.46
83491
04/13/01
SMITH,AMY L
65.21
83492
04/13/01
UNGER,MARGARET A
630.81
83493
04/13/01
ABRAHAMSON,REBECCA L.
40.98
83494
04/13/01
ANDERSON,TIMOTHY R
100.63
83495
04/13/01
BACHMAN,NICOLE T
126.73
83496
04/13/01
BODZIAK,MICHAEL D
283.75
83497
04/13/01
CARLSON,JULIE ANN
20.00
83498
04/13/01
CHAPMAN,JENNY A
333.05
83499
04/13/01
CMIEL,NICHOLAS S
52.80
83500
04/13/01
COSTA,JOSEPH P
225.00
83501
04/13/01
DeGRAW,KRYSTAL M
662.03
83502
04/13/01
ERICKSON,CAROL A
84.60
83503
04/13/01
FALKENSTEIN,MONICA A
74.75
83504
04/13/01
GRUENHAGEN,LINDA C
308.25
83505
04/13/01
HAGGERTY,KATHRYN A
56.70
83506
04/13/01
HAWKE,ASHLEY RYAN
833.42
15
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
------ - - - - --
CHECK DATE
---- - - - --
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
83507
-
04/13/01
------------------------ - - - - --
HEINN,REBECCA L
-------- - - - - --
350.15
83508
04/13/01
HOLMGREN,LEAH M
309.03
83509
04/13/01
HOULE,DENISE L
340.85
83510
04/13/01
IRISH, KARL D
143.00
83511
04/13/01
JOHNSON,ROBERT P
241.75
83512.:.04/.13/01
JOHNSON,ROLLAND H
50.75
83513
04/13/01
JOVONOVICH,TODD R
67.45
83514
04/13/01
KERSCHNER,JOLENE M
227.25
83515
04/13/01
KOEHNEN,MARY B
641.42
83516
04/13/01
KROLL,MARK J
54.40
83517
04/13/01
KRONHOLM,KATHRYN R
201.50
83518
04/13/01
MEISEL,TAMBREY
27.00
83519
04/13/01
MOSSONG,ANDREA M
288.26
83520
04/13/01
McMAHON,MELISSA E
45.50
$3521
04/13/01
OLSON,ABIGAIL E
120.88
83522
04/13/01
OWEN,JONATHAN
239.57
83523
04/13/01
PEHOSKI,CAITLIN M.
175.50
83524
04/13/01
PEHOSKI,JOEL T
146.20
83525
04/13/01
REGESTER, DOUG
21.25
83526
04/13/01
SMITLEY,SHARON L
261.35
83527
04/13/01
SWANER,JESSICA
159.90
83528
04/13/01
WARNER,CAROLYN
166.80
83529
04/13/01
WELTER,ELIZABETH M
162.33
83530
04/13/01
WHITE,NICOLE B
237.49
83531
04/13/01
WHITE,TIMOTHY M
40.50
16
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
------ - - - - --
CHECK DATE
---- - - - - --
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
83532
04/13/01
------------------------ - - - - --
WILLIAMS,KELLY M
-------- - - - - --
831.54
83533
04/13/01
WOODMAN,ALICE E
208.05
83534
04/13/01
ZIELINSKI,JENNIFER L
79,80
83535
04/13/01
BOSLEY,CAROL
137.35
83536
04/13/01
BRAUNIG,MELISSA J
180.00
83537.
:04/13/01
BREITBACH,GARY J
598.50
83538
04/13/01
GLASS,GILLIAN
89.15
83539
04/13/01
GROPPOLI,LINDA M
241.50
83540
04/13/01
HANSEN,ANNA K
100.51
83541
04/13/01
HANSEN,EMILY J
12.00
83542
04/13/01
HOPKINS,ERIC T
127.50
83543
04/13/01
HUPPERT,ERICA L
241.98
83544
04/13/01
KONECZNY,JENNA M
24.00
83545
04/13/01
RADKE,ANN M
81.00
83546
04/13/01
SCHROEDER,KATHLEEN
356.40
83547
04/13/01
TARNOWSKI,MICHAEL
21.45
83548
04/13/01
ANDERSON,LINDSEY J
78.00
83549
04/13/01
BEHAN,JAMES
1368.74
83550
04/13/01
CHAPEAU,GREG M
62.15
83551
04/13/01
DOUGLASS,TOM
182.70
83552
04/13/01
JAHN,DAVID J
1390.18
83553
04/13/01
KOSKI,JOHN F
1041.69
83554
04/13/01
LANGEVIN,KRISTINA A
130.50
83555
04/13/01
LESLIE,DUSTIN G
150.00
83556
04/13/01
LONETTI,JAMES F
756.23
17
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
CHECK NUMBER
------ - - - - --
CHECK DATE
----
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
83557
- - - - --
04/13/01
------------------------ - - - - --
MAINA,FRANK
-------- - - - - --
138.00
83558
04/13/01
MORIN,TROY J
150.00
83559
04/13/01
PATTERSON,ALBERT
650.19
83560
04/13/01
PETERSON,LYNDSAY P
18.00
83561
04/13/01
PRINS,KELLY M
361.31
83562
04/13/01
RISTOW,JONATHAN W
54.00
83563
04/13/01
ROSEBEAR,CRYSTAL J
81.00
83564
04/13/01
SARPONG,SEAN D
204.00
83565
04/13/01
SEVERSON,HOLLY A
54.00
83566
04/13/01
AICHELE,CRAIG J
1431.94
83567
04/13/01
MULVANEY,DENNIS M
1779.94
83568
04/13/01
PRIEM, STEVEN A.
1640.58
327953.07
ffe'll
AGENDA NO. " a�
Action by Council
Date
Endorsed
AGENDA REPORT Modified _.-
Rejected -
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director j
RE: TRANSFER TO CLOSE DEBT SERVICE FUND FOR 1977
BOND ISSUE
DATE: April 13, 2001
PROPOSAL
It is proposed that Debt Service Fund #315 for the 1977 Improvement Bonds be
closed by a transfer in of $2,391.03 from the General Fund and that the
appropriate budget adjustments be approved.
BACKGROUND
The final principal and interest payments have been made on the 1977
Improvement Bonds. The current deficit in the debt service fund for the bond
issue is $2,391.03. This deficit could be eliminated by a tax levy payable in 2002
or by a transfer from the General Fund. Due to the relatively small size of the
deficit, a transfer from the General Fund is the best option.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Debt Service Fund #315 for the 1979 Improvement Bonds
be .closed by a transfer in of $2,391.03 from the General Fund and that the
appropriate budget adjustments be approved.
P: \agn \closedebfiFund315.doc
AGENDA NO. &,3
Action by Council
Date
AGENDA REPORT Endorsed
Modified
Rejected
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
RE: TRANSFER TO CLOSE DEBT SERVICE FUND FOR 1991
BOND ISSUE
DATE: April 13, 2001
PROPOSAL
It is proposed that Debt Service Fund #323 (for the 1991 Improvement Bonds) be
closed by a transfer in of $175,860.58 from Debt Service Fund #334 (for the 1998
Refunding Improvement Bonds) and that the appropriate budget adjustments be
approved.
BACKGROUND
The final principal and interest payments have been made on the 1991
Improvement Bonds. The current deficit in the debt service fund for the bond
issue is $175,860.58. This deficit should be eliminated by a transfer from Debt
Service Fund #334 (for the 1998 Refunding Improvement Bonds) because these
bonds were issued to refinance the 1991 Bonds.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Debt Service Fund #323 (for the X991 Improvement
Bonds) be closed by a transfer in of $175,860.58 from Debt Service Fund #334
(for the 1998 Refunding Improvement Bonds) and that the appropriate budget
adjustments be approved.
P:\agn\closedebtfund323.doc
AGENDA ITEM G
AGENDA REPORT
Action by Council
TO: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Date
- -- -
FROM: Lance Lundsten, Public Work Coordinator Endorsed ed
SUBJECT: Cope Avenue Water Tower Rejected
DATE: April 13, 2001
This spring the Saint Paul Regional Water Services is performing maintenance on the
Cope Avenue water tower. This includes repainting of the tower. Saint Paul does not
include logos or lettering in their maintenance. Therefore if an agency wishes to retain
its logo and lettering on the structure, the agency must finance it. Through negotiations
with St. Paul's contractor, Outland Protective Coating, they have agreed upon a cost of
$6800. As the City of Maplewood was not aware of the project until the fall of 2000, no
funds were budgeted for this project.
Staff recommends the transfer of funds in the amount of $6800 from the general
contingency fund to PublicWorks Administration 101 - 501 -4480 to facilitate logo and
lettering application (same as current markings) of the Cope Avenue tower.
LAL
jw
attachment
Odland Protective Coatincys. Inc.
7655 V ernoil Street
Rockford. N/IN 55373
7ti 1_477.65
Sold To:.
John Starr, St Paul Wator
1900 Rice Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
-,ogo and Lettering on Cope Ave. Tower
. 'r
.J
. .: .. ess: : : : : : :, : : : : : : : : :.....
Invoice Number: 2001-051
Invoice Date: January -3. 2001
OKWOO 0@f�
Billed To: (If other than Sold To:)
City of Maplewood
a
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA REPORT Action by C
oi,n a
Date
TO: City Manager Endorsed
°
Modified
FROM: Assistant City Engineer Rejected
SUBJECT: Increase Budget for Temporary Engineering Intern Positions
DATE: April 16, 2001
The Maplewood Engineering Department has continued to be very busy and is currently
preparing for a busy 2001 construction season. With the proposed work load, there will
be more work than can be handled by the current number of staff.
Each year at this time, we evaluate our needs for the coming construction season. It is
anticipated that during the height of this construction season, we will need three full -
time positions. In the fall it would be anticipated that at least one part -time position
would be warranted. We typically fill these positions with university engineering
students looking to work in an internship position. Currently, we have one student
intern working with our department and there is an engineering budget of $10,000 for
wages /temporary.
It is estimated that the cost of three temporary full -time positions would be
approximately $24,000. It is estimated that all the positions would be a minimum of
50% billable to projects, resulting in a revenue of at least $37,000. This excess
revenue is returned to the general fund. The impact to the general fund is a positive
$13,000.
Staff recommends that the city council authorize staff to hire two additional
temporary engineering interns and to make the necessary transfers from the
general fund contingency to increase the engineering budget for wages/
temporary from $10,000 to $24,000.
CIVIC
jc
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA REPORT
Action by Co ncij
TO: Chuck Ahl Director of Public Works Date
' Endorsed
FROM: Lance Lundsten Public Works Mimed
b c o ks Coordinator
Rejec
SUBJECT: Surplus Property A
DATE: April 11, 2001
Declare as surplus property and authorize disposal at police /city auction or state
surplus auction.
1. Model #15109, S.N. 4057 Sun performance analyzer machine cabinet.
2. Model 1115 Sun performance analyzer, city tag # 00334.
T is eq ui pmen - t i-s obsolete - a - nd has -- not -- been usedJn 7 - 10 - yea rs -.
AGENDA NO. CVO* I
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager
FROM: Colleen Callahan, COS Coordin for
RE: HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSI N ANNUAL REPORT
DATE: April 9, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Action by Council
Date
Endorsed
Modified
Dejected
Attached is the 2000 Human Relations Commission Annual Report for your information
and review.
RECOMMENDATION
HRC recommends approval of the 2000 Human Relations Commission Annual Report.
gc
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3, 2001
TO: Mayor Robert Cardinal
City Council
City Manager
FROM: Donna Brown, Chair
Human Relations Commission
RE: 2001 ANNUAL REPORT
The Maplewood Human Relations Commission respectfully submits its 2001 Annual
Report pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 2 -75 of the City Ordinance.
During 2001 the Commission continued its mission of improving the human relations
climate of our community by sponsoring community events, throughout the City of
Maplewood. The activities and accomplishments of the Commission are outlined in
this report, as well as its goal and objectives for 2002.
We look forward to expanding our activities in 2002 to include collaborative ventures
with other organizations and commissions. We look forward to enhancing our
relationships with all Maplewood City officials and departments for the benefit of our
residents.
February 3, 2001
To the Citizens of Maplewood:
It is my pleasure to submit to you, the citizens of Maplewood, the 2001 Maplewood
Human Relations Commission's Annual Report.
Throughout the year, the Commission has attempted to bring to Maplewood citizens
various programs, contests, and dedications that serve as a reminder of what this
Commission promotes - -an end to racial prejudice, and bias hate crimes, equal
housing opportunities and, human rights for all.
Through increased programming we have tried to heighten awareness of
Mapelwood citizens on what we do, and to encourage more participation and
involvement in our community.
Throughout the year we have sponsored many new and creative programs to
encourage a celebration atmosphere about our diverse community. We sponsored
two Mixed Blood performances this year and two additional performances are
scheduled in 2002. We facilitated the dedication ceremony of all city building as
"World Peace Sites ". We have challenged the schools in our district to ded icate their
facilities as "peace sites" as well, this means we are dedicated to promoting safety
for all and encouraging peace on a broader scale - "World Peace ".
Our Commission worked with Hill Murray High School on a project to determine how
truly accessible our businesses are. Not only was it educational to us, but the youth
became more aware of daily struggles individuals with handicaps experience. I wish
to personally thank HealthEast for use of wheelchairs, walkers and canes for use by
the students in this project.
During the next year, I would like to challenge citizens of Maplewood to become
more involved. Our meetings are open to anyone interested in learning and
experiencing first hand, what we actually do. I challenge citizens of Maplewood to
become more active in the are of human rights - -It is something that impacts our
whole community. Get involved and help continue to and make our community a
place to be proud of.
Cooperation and collaboration are necessary for change. Change is an indication
of growth. Growth is necessary to keep up with those around us. Be an active
participant, realize that `taking part in local goverment" can make a difference.
Sincerely,
- te�
Donna R. Brown, Chairperson
MHRC
LISTING OF RESOURCES FOR VICTIMS OF
ACTS OF BIAS OR HATE CRIMES
MN CENTER FOR CRIME VICTIMS SERVICES (651) 282 -6256
245 E. Sixth Street (651) 205- 4827(TTY)
St. Paul, MN 55101 (888) 622 -8799
REGIONS HOSPITAL CRISIS PROGRAM (651) 221 -8922
Psychiatric Social Worker (Crisis Situations)
640 Jackson /Emergency Room
NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTICE CENTER (651) 222 -4703
500 Laurel Avenue
St. Paul
NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTICE CENTER (Spanish speaking) (651) 227 -8497
426 South Wabasha
St. Paul
RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER (651) 215 -0600
(Legal Assistance)
MAPLEWOOD HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (651) 770 -4500
MAPLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT
(Emergency) 911
(Non - Emergency) (651) 777 -8191
(Supervisor of Investigations) (651) 770 -4537
MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL (651) 770 -4500
(651) 779 -4995 (TTY)
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (651)296-5663
(Interpreters available for (651) 296 -1283 (TTY)
languages other than English)
FIRST CALL FOR HELP (651) 224 -1133
(Information &Referral)
MINNESOTA RELAY SERVICE* 1- 800 - 627 -3529
If you are hearing or speech impaired or need to contact someone who is: Dial 1-
800- 627 -3529. Give the communications assistant (CA) your area code and number
and the area code and telephone number of the person you are calling. The CA will
stay on the line to type /voice communication.
** procedural response to acts of bias and prejudice to follow.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POLICY AND ORGANIZATION .................................... 1
COMMISSION ROSTER/ATTENDANCE RECORD ..................... 2
2000 CALENDAR OF.ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS .......... 3
2000 DIVERSITY AWARD WINNER ................................. 4
2001 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....... a . a 8 a, . 1p a a . a a 0 . 6 a 6 a a a a a a a . a a a 5
POLICY AND ORGANIZATION
The MAPLEWOOD HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION was created by City
Ordinance No. 239 on April 18, 1968.
It is the policy of the Commission to fulfill its charge as a partner with the State
Department of Human Rights, in securing for all citizens equal opportunity in
housing, employment, public accommodations, public services and education;
and to work consistently to improve the human relations climate of the
community.
There are seven members on the Commission appointed for three -year terms by
the City Council upon recommendation of the Commission. Meetings are held
monthly (except July and August) at 7:00 p.m. normally on the first Tuesday of the
month at Maplewood City Hall. All meetings are open to the public.
It shall be the duty of the Commission to implement its policies. Such
implementation may be accomplished by making reports and /or
recommendations to the City Manager and /or the City Council, and by engaging
in public relations and educational programs as it deems necessary to
accomplish established policy.
Additional copies of this report are available at the Maplewood City Hall upon
request. Contact the Commission Chairperson through the City Manager's Office
(651- 770 -4524) concerning any matters relating to the Commission.
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
ROSTER AND ATTENDANCE
Original
Colleen J. Dirkswager (ex officio)
Community Oriented Services Coordinator
2
Appointment
End of
No. Meetings
Date
Term
Attended
Rita Ander, Vice Chair
6/00
12/03
4/10
Donna Brown
4/99
12/02
8/10
Carol Cude, Secretary
11/93
12/00
9/10
Gordon Heininger
1/91
12/98
7/10
Barbara Skoglund
4/99
12/00
3/10
Regina Laroche - Theune,
3/95
12/98
4/10
Elmo Mattox
6/00
12/03
3/10
Joan Wurdeman, Chair
2/98
12/00
7/10
Colleen J. Dirkswager (ex officio)
Community Oriented Services Coordinator
2
2000 CALENDAR OF ACTIVITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
JANUARY
Discussed In- service opportunities for Commission and Community
1. Mixed Blood Theater Performance
2. Community Policing /Diversity
Updated Annual Report
Bias Report (1)
FEBRUARY
Prepared cover letter and annual report for distribution.
Bias Offense Report (1)
Request and receive approval from City Council for funds to schedule Mixed
Blood Performances
Lynn Elling with World Citizen Inc. spoke to Commission about peace site
dedications
Published article in Maplewood In Motion
MARCH
City Manager reminisces about his many years of involvement with
Commission
Publish article in Maplewood In Motion
APRIL
Selected winners for 2000 Diversity and Poster Contests
Publish article in Maplewood In Motion
Bias Offense Report (2)
MAY
Sponsored community event Mixed Blood Performance of According to Coyote
at Maplewood Community Center
Prepared for National Night Out
Submit annual report to City Council
Request City Council to designate City facilities as peace sites
Bias Offenses (1)
JUNE
Bias Offense Reports (1)
Interviewed two Commission Candidates
Continued work on National Night Out
Worked on Peace Site Dedication
JULY
No Scheduled Meeting
AUGUST
No Scheduled Meeting
Participate in annual City event - National Night Out
SEPTEMBER
Review National Night Out
Bias Offense Reports (1)
Planned 2001 calendar of activities.
Sponsored community event - Mixed Blood Performance of Minnecanos at
Carver Community Gym
Accessibility grading of local business (in Partnership with Hill Murray
Students)
OCTOBER
Finalize new calendar
Prepared Diversity Announcements for Contests
Bias Report (1)
'
Support Emma's Place - equal opportunity housing
NOVEMBER
Determined topics writing assignments for HRC Corner in Maplewood In
Motion
Investigate Maplewood In Motion distribution to businesses and discuss
business related section in Maplewood In Motion
Bias Reports (1)
DECEMBER
Elet;ted new officers for 2001
Bias Reports (2)
Interviewed Candidates for Commission
Prepared materials /presentation for 622 principal meeting in January on peace
sites and diversity contests
Evaluate and update diversity contests
3
20.00 Diversity Awareness Award
Awarded to Hill Murray Schools Aardvark Student Diversity Committee composed of
fifteen students in grades 9 - 12.
The Aardvark Student Diversity Committee chose as their mission the following:
1. Learning about the diversity of people
2. Creating a safe place to share their wisdom and experiences of diversity
3. Promoting a welcoming and safe school environment for all students
4. Educating their school about diversity issues
To accomplish the above mission the student committee participated in the following
activities:
1. Weekly meetings -to learn about multicultural theories and sharing their own
experiences with diverse people.
2. Participating in a Fall Diversity Retreat - visits to the downtown Family Shelter, a
worship service at Our Lade of Guadalupe Church, brunch at the Boca Chica
Restaurant on the West Side of St. Paul.
3. Organize and facilitated a Martin Luther King week evaluating his dream of
racial equality.
4. Sponsored a talk and photo exhibit by Lorna Rockey to focus on the importance
of the travel experience to learn about other people and about oneself.
5. A service trip to the new Family Service Center in Maplewood to interact with
people from difficult economic backgrounds and from a variety of racial
backgrounds.
6. Planning a school Spring Diversity Week highlighting a cultural dress day.
7. Meeting with students from other private and public schools to plan a Student
Diversity Conference featuring guest speakers on diversity.
8. Researching Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Native American religions to
better understand religious diversity in our community and throughout the world.
The Aardvark Student Diversity Committee was awarded $500.00 thru the generosity of
the Premier Bank of Maplewood which they will use to raise awareness and to support
the committee activities during the coming year.
4
2.001 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Establish a partnership with local businesses, educational, religious and /or
fraternal organizations regarding human rights.
Sponsor and promote activities for the residents of Maplewood which will:
increase sensitivity in, and awareness of, an area(s) of human
rights; and /or
provide an opportunity for interaction between diverse members
of the community.
Offer no -fault grievance mediation services to residents of Maplewood.
Invite and encourage local schools to participate in the annual Diversity
Awareness Award and the Diversity Awareness Poster Contest sponsored by
the Maplewood Human Relations Commission and Premier Bank.
Develop a working relationship with one or more of the Human Relations
Commissions in the Twin Cities area.
Attend various workshops and educational/ informational activities related to
diversity and human rights.
Collaborate with the Department of Human Rights on projects of mutual
concern.
Advise the Mayor, City Council and the City of Maplewood of human relation
issues.
Collaborate with the Maplewood Police Department when acts of bias,
discrimination, and prejudice are reported.
Promote and support awareness of the Americans with Disabilities Act
throughout the Maplewood private and public sectors.
5
MAPLEWOOD HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
PROCEDURAL RESPONSE TO
ACTS OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE
Action SteDS:
1. A Coordinator, appointed from within the Commission on a yearly basis,
will handle any contact of reported acts of bias and prejudice from the
Commission membership or the general public.
2. The Chief of Police will mail a cover letter, from the Police Department and
also enclose a letter from the Commission with a brochure outlining the
victim's rights and resources that they might want to contact for further
assistance.
3. If a victim of a bias crime calls us, the Coordinator can offer to make a
visit with another Commission member to discuss, in detail, any further
options they may want to pursue. This visit, if requested, should be
arranged as soon as possible.
4. Subsequent information regarding the incident will be shared with the
Commission and the media if relevant and appropriate.
5. Follow up to the victim(s) in writing or contact will be made if deemed
necessary.
6. Relevant names, titles, and phone numbers of those persons who may
have to be involved include:
CHIEF OF POLICE HRC STAFF LIAISON
Don Winger Colleen Callahan
651- 770 -4545 651- 770 -4579
CITY MANAGER HRC CHAIR
Richard Fursman Donna Brown
651- 770 -4524 651-
2000 BIAS RESPONSE COORDINATOR
Regina Laroche - Theune
651 - 773 -0673
1/01
AGENDA TEEM N _ 9 _ Mona
MEMO Action by Council
Date
Endorsed
To: Richard Fursman, City Manager Modred
From: Colleen J. Callahan '�, '
Rejected
Subject: National Night Out — Food e o
Date: April 10, 2001
C: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager /Community Development Director
DISCUSSION
Maplewood has held National Night Out in conjunction with the City Open House for five years.
Each year we invite local businesses to participate in bringing our larger community together.
The businesses have a couple of options for participation; 1) information /activity booth; 2)
donation for silent auction; or 3) food booth.
For the past five years the City Council has waived the one day food permit fee. This has
encouraged restaurants and local service groups to participate. They are still required to
complete the application form, meet and work with Bob Wenger for food handling procedures
and set up.
This year National Night Out is scheduled for August 7, 2001 from 5:30 -8:30 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION
Waive the permit fee for 2001
Date
TO: City Manager Endorsed
Y g
Modified
FROM: Assistant City Engineer Rejected
y g eer
SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing, 7 p.m., Monday, April 23, 2001
Tilsen South Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 00 -04
DATE: April 16, 2001
Booklets for the proposed assessments have been provided separately as a
supplement to the agenda. The proposed assessments are the same as were outlined
in the feasibility study and as were presented at the neighborhood meetings. The
proposed assessments have been mailed out to the affected property owners, providing
them with the specific assessment information for their properties.
Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached Resolution for the
Adoption of the Assessment .Roll for Project 00 -04.
CIVIC
jC
Attachments
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the city
council has met and heard and passed on all objections to the proposed assessment
for the construction of the Tilsen South Neighborhood Streets as described in the files
of the city clerk as Project 00 -04, and has amended such proposed assessment as it
deems just,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA:
I. Such proposed assessment, as amended, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is
hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending
over_ a period of 8 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or after the first
Monday in January, 2002, and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.8 percent per annum
from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment
shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until
December 31, 2001. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest
for one year on all unpaid installments.
3. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the council to reimburse itself in
the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds
by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as provided for the
assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not
made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not herein assessed for
the improvement, when changed conditions relating to such properties make such
assessment feasible.
4. To the extent that this improvement benefits nonabutting properties which
may be served by the improvement when one or more later extensions or
improvements are made, but which are not herein assessed, therefore, it is hereby
declared to be the intention of the council, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section
420.051, to reimburse the city by adding any portion of the cost so paid to the
assessments levied for any of such later extension or improvements.
5. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment
to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal
taxes.
AGENDA NO • �,
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Residential Parking Issues and Code Change
DATE: April 12, 2001
INTRODUCTION
Action by Council
Date
Endorsed - -
Modified - --
Rejected --
On September 25, 2000, the city council again discussed the issue of residential parking.
Because of strong support and interest in this issue, the city council directed staff to prepare city
ordinance revisions about parking in residential areas.
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 1999, the council reviewed several concerns and alternatives about off - street
parking in residential areas. The council had varying opinions and concerns with the proposed
ordinance and took no action on the matter. Therefore, the city made no changes to the parking
ordinance.
On February 14, 2000, the city council again reviewed this matter. The council took no specific
action at this meeting about residential parking issues but agreed to have this matter on an
upcoming workshop agenda for further discussion.
On December 6, 2000, the planning commission reviewed a draft ordinance amendment about
parking in residential areas. The commission asked staff to make changes to the proposed
ordinance and then bring the revised ordinance back to them for further review and comment.
DISCUSSION
Over the last 2- 3 years, staff has seen an increase in the number of complaints received about
junk vehicles and cars parked in front yards. We are concerned that a large number of vehicles
and improper storage can have a detrimental effect on the character of residential
neighborhoods.
In March 2000, the city council asked staff to review city regulations about parking in residential
areas. They also directed staff to seek public input on this issue. Before writing any new
ordinances, staff and the city council felt that it would be beneficial to hear from the community
and see how they feel about the issue. As such, we had information published in the Maplewood
Review and the Maplewood in Motion. Several residents responded to our request for
comments by writing or telephoning city staff and several persons spoke at the September 25,
2000, council meeting. The majority of the people that commented supported code changes as
outlined by staff.
The items or ideas listed in the articles included the following:
1. Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in the front yard.
2. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking.
3. Requiring all vehicles parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable.
4. Requiring a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his
property.
5. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass or unimproved areas that
are not intended for a vehicle.
6. Creating an exemption provision that would allow city staff or the city council to waive
these requirements under certain circumstances.
Citizen Response
After publicizing the above- listed information, staff received 39 phone calls and 21 letters about
this issue. One of the letters had signatures of support for code changes signed by 21 residents.
Another had signatures of support from three households.
Following is a representation of the kind of responses received through the phone calls and
letters.
* Several offering general support for the proposed changes.
* Something should be done about overnight parking on city streets. People are parking boats,
RV's and semi's on the street.
* Should not be allowed to park multiple vehicles, bobcats and other items in front yards.
* Junk cars should not be allowed to be stored anywhere outside.
* Car repair businesses should not be allowed in residential areas.
* Need consistent enforcement of overnight parking ordinance.
* Home businesses that have vehicles for non - residents should not be allowed in residential
areas.
* Un- licensed vehicles should not be allowed to be parked in yards.
* No parking (period) on unpaved areas.
* Need also to address junk and appliances that are stored in yards.
* No vehicle parking on lawns and owner is required to obtain permission from neighbor to
expand /create additional parking surfaces besides a standard driveway.
* Recreational vehicles, boats, etc. should not be allowed to be parked in front of a house, only
on a driveway or improved side yard.
* Class 5 or crushed rock should be considered to be a hard or improved surface.
* New ordinances are fine, but need city staff to enforce them.
* Penalties and fines for violations need to be defined.
* Need to define what improved or hard surface means.
* Should be allowed 30- 60 days to make vehicles operable.
* Exemption provision a good idea but need defined criteria.
* Something needs to be done about cars for sale on city streets, private property and business
parking lots.
* Why can't we park on the street overnight?
* The city should not require paved parking or limit the number of vehicles on a property.
* The city should not limit the number of vehicles people park, consider small lots that don't have
a lot of options. This is a violation of personal property rights.
2
The list above is a representation of the comments received. The number of times a statement
was made was not recorded but staff noted the responses that were opposed to any code
changes. We received two calls against any new prohibitions on parking and 3 letters, one which
was more concerned about lack of enforcement of existing rules. I have attached a small
representation of letters (starting on page four) we received. It was and is the city's intention to
listen :to resident input on this issue and then, with direction from the city council, draft an
ordinance that starts to address the problems identified by residents, city staff and the planning
commission. The council, at their meeting on September 25, 2000, suggested that city staff
include the following items in a code change about residential parking:
1. The city will consider crushed rock or gravel as a hard surface for parking and storage
purposes.
2. The city should not require a paved driveway with other home improvements.
3. The city may allow exceptions to the rules, subject to the input of the neighbors, city staff
and city council.
The council also wants to see a comprehensive approach to address junk and debris in yards.
Our goal is to develop an ordinance that balances the interest of private property rights with one
that provides more control and order to the parking of trucks, cars and recreational vehicles. The
proposed ordinance puts into writing the direction the city council gave to city staff after they
considered the testimony of the interested parties. The proposed ordinance also includes
changes suggested by the city attorney and the planning commission at their December 6, 2000
meeting.
COMMISSION ACTION
On February 5, 2001, the planning commission recommended approval of the attached
ordinance amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the code change starting on page 13 about off - street parking in residential areas.
plordlparking2.01
Attachments:
1. Response Letters
2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
3
ATTACHMENT 1
• , • • • , f . . , i • i •
• f • ' • • • f • • • • • i • i
' U • O
0 Cv T F� 0/1 �g
4- If 4 i ;j ic 6�0, eD
j ,��d7eklV I -Ij 711
s • �.� f,+�,�. •• `�' �.� � � l f' �'/r � `,. � �� /' �t��4 -mot; •
Allj Ox) 7�lfft 7//f
fr� l
Or,
• t ' `' � r• � %.._ v f� ( � � � V � i l � ,` f �,, /,� � � f'���� -•y � ` % � �� �
w
• • s
j J �.� � -� ♦ .ice � � +♦ �,�� t ..!' t .: / 1 O
7-
1
• , 11 \ �,,, t• 1 A_ � �_ � .��J � � u 'rte. �... (_ J t � � ► � •
Yj
/ Y
tj Ca
'Ili-Ilk"
rz��
f
• i � i
•/, i .-� �./ �� ' Y � �'" �'� G- / `�" � � lam- ��; � �
••
ors,
/ -., -� � ) - •,, �� � . .� M-1 _} .\ •rte '�..�_:..:..�: � .�.v.. •
I + .
v AI c i i *)nnn
-- b
R
• • f i O i • • i • • • • 0 . •
a
4
S-
L� /Acl
FA)
�% �� Cam-' -�` %,� C= G- e)
ir e - 40,
dr
7 D
WT
�� �= � � - -�. - c tit "�- � fi � �...Lr =� ��
�-5
oo
A) 1 C2 1.5
P42 T
10., rc-
September S, 2000
Ms. Melina Coleman
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
'Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Coleman:
We read about the upcoming plans to review zoning regulations relating to parking in
residential areas in the September issue of the Maplewood Motion. If it is necessary to
review these regulations, we would like to share some comments and concerns.
o By l imiting the amount of driveway area in the front yard would certainly limit the
number of vehicles allowed. How would the amount of driveway area be
determined? Many households have three or four members that are licensed drivers
and these families have more than two vehicles and only one -car garage.
e. g g
+ Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking is a good idea. However, the term
hard surface needs to be defined (e.g., rock, avel, asphalt, or blacktop).
�' p P) .
Requiring vehicles to be licensed and operable is also good. However, we think there
should be a time limit allowed for s repairs (e.g., 30 -60 da .
p y)
Prohibiting vehicle parking on unimproved areas or without a hard surface also is a
good idea.
• Creating an exemption provision may be a good idea, but what criteria would be used
for allowing an exemption (e.g., financial hardship, medical reasons).
Residential areas should not be used as a repair shop unless garage space is available
to store them.
We feel the issue of a `well maintained" yard should be addressed in Conjunction with
vehicle issues. we have seen yards that look like a "Junk yard" that are unkept and have
multiple storage areas with various equipment laying around (even though their vehicles
are parked on a paved surface.
7
SEP
i
t
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Page 2
September 5, 2000
we .Gan really appreciate the difficulty the city faces in making changes, trying to balance
property rights and having a nice looking neighborhood. If u have questions or need
Y
clarification, please contact one of us. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
Sincerely,
Diane and Jurgen Droeger
1443 Laurie Road
Maplewood, MN 55109
(651) 777 -3768
cA
� t � 1
l and Jun Gierhet
1451 Laurie Road
Maplewood, MN 55109
(651) 773 -8327
?Rayy Sheryl Brunner
1446 Laurie Road
Maplewood, MN 55109
(b51) 770 -0270
July 14, 2000
Ms, Melinda Coleman
Mr. Ken Roberts
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Coleman and Mr. Roberts:
This letter is to enthusiastically endorse the proposed new zoning regulations relating to
parking in residential areas. we are in favor of this proposal because we realize it will
help maintain our property values and preserve the character of our quiet suburban
neighborhoods.
We endorse all of the following proposed regulations:
1. Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in front yard.
2. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking.
3. Requiring all vehicles parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable.
4. Requiring a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his
property.
5. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass, unimproved areas or
areas without a hard surface that are not intended for a vehicle.
In addition, we would also like to propose the following additional regulations:
7. Limit to 2 the number of vehicles that can be parked or stored outside.
8. Prohibit on- street parking completely between midnight and 6 am.
9. Increase the penalty in existing noise regulations for vehicles that do not have fully
functioning mufflers.
Thank you for your efforts to preserve the quality of our suburban neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Name
r
r
Address
� d
Phone
0432/
G�l7�� -
E'�
7 7C)
Name Address Phone
7
I)A
V 1 3
C,
01
July 14, 2000
Ms. Melinda Coleman
Mr. Ken Roberts
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Coleman and Mr. Roberts:
This letter is to enthusiastically endorse the proposed new zoning regulations relating to
parking in residential areas. We are in favor of this proposal because we realize it will
help maintain our property values and preserve the character of our quiet suburban
neighborhoods.
We endorse all of the following proposed regulations:
1. Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in the front yard.
2. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking.
3. Requiring all vehicles .parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable.
4. Requiring a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his
property.
5. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass, unimproved areas or
areas without a hard surface that are not intended for a. vehicle.
Thank you for your efforts to preserve the quality of our suburban neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Address
f
-� & Itil-4
L
Phone
- )'7 7,
7 7 0 -, 101 C.,
C�s
2 6 1 7
10
Name �.
V2
Name Address Phone
2N� W rl-� ILI'
/
VIN V
( / C .
• Y�, �tWilTilfi&P Viri -2 - 7r)
�� �� � � 5
-7 '
7 77-
11
Page 1 of 1
Melinda Coleman
From: Jon Belisle <belisle @usinternet.com>
To: < Melinda .coleman @ci.maplewood.mn.us>
Cc: <Ken.roberts c@ci.maplewood.mn.us>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:38 PM
Subject: Comments on Proposed Parking Ordinance
Dear Melinda -
It has been over a year since I last wrote you on the proposed changes to off - street parking. Based on the proposed
ordinance, as published in the current issue of Maplewood In Motion, I have a number of specific questions as follows:
1. The ordinance details "Vehicle Parking" -- what about boats, trailers, snowmobiles, pick -up toppers?
2. You need to define "screening ". Something can be screened with shrubbery in July but clearly visible in
January. There is an old VW Beetle in our neighborhood that has been under a tarp for 5+ years -- is that
screening?
3. You have not defined enforcement -- is it the responsibility of the police department, environmental affairs, or
some other department?
4. You have not defined the penalty for non - compliance. If the homeowner does not cooperate, what specifically
happens?
Without aggressive enforcement, the ordinance is of little value. There is a junk car in our neighborhood (on the grass
next to the driveway), that is it has no engine, no hood, no doors, no license and yet I reported this to the Maplewood
Police 2 months ago and it is still there.
Please respond with the city's answers to the above 4 questions.
Thank you,
Jon Belisle
12
4/12/01
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ABOUT OFF - STREET PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances: (I have underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.)
SECTION 1. This section changes the language of Section 19 -9(24) of the Maplewood City
Code as follows
(24) All other conditions, acts or things which are liable to cause injury to the person or
property of anyone. This shall include, but not be limited to, the parking or storage of
vehicles in the front yard of a residential property on grass, unimproved areas or areas
without a hard surface.
SECTION 2. This section adds the following definition to Section 36 -6 of the Maplewood City
Code.
Vehicle: A device for carry. a or conveying persons or property that may be self - propelled or may
be propelled, drawn or towed by a self - propelled vehicle.
SECTION 3. This section adds Subsection 36 -220) to the city code as follows:
Section 36 -22(i)
W Pur ose
The purpose of this Article of the City Code is to control, through zoning regulations.
certain land uses and activities that have a direct and detrimental effect on the character
of the City's residential neighborhoods. As such, the Maplewood City Council finds that, in
order to accommodate the off - street parking needs of residents while protecting the
interests. of the public, regulations and performance standards are desirable and
necessary for off - street parking areas in residential zoning districts.
fZ Findin s
To the ,purposes listed above, the Maplewood City Council finds that the use and
Possession of vehicles are an important factor in the lives of many residents of
Maplewood. The city council also finds that the number of vehicles, the improper storage
of vehicles and the parking of and storage of excessive numbers of vehicles can be a
nuisance and can affect the neighborhood character as well as the public health, safety
and welfare, .property values and the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighborina
properties. The city council further finds that the establishment of these regulations
further the goals in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan relative to the establishment and
enhancement of residential neighborhoods and similar goals. In making these findings,
the city council accepts the recommendations of city staff and planning commission that
have studied the experiences of other suburban cities that have reviewed and regulated
off- street parking in residential areas. The Maplewood City Council establishes these
regulations as a means to balance the interests of the owners of vehicles, nearby
residents and the public.
13
( 3 ) . Goals
Goals in adopting this ordinance include the following:
a. Preserving nei hborhood character. public health, safetv and welfare and propert
values.
b. Allowing all residents a reasonable use of and a chance to enjoy their property
C. Minimizina the nuisances and the adverse effects of off - street vehicle parking
through careful site design standards.
d. Requiring the owners and builders of residential drivewa a nd parking areas to
design and build them to reasonable standards.
e. Avoiding nuisances and potential damage to adjacent properties from off - street
vehicle parkin and parking areas through desian standards and setback
requirements.
(4) Off - Street Parkina Standards for Single and Two Family Dwellings. The following
standards shall apply to off - street parking for sinale and two family residential properties
in the RE -40. RE -30. RE -20. F. R -1, R -1(S) and R -2 zoning districts.
a. Vehicle parkina in the front vard setback area (the area between the front of the
residential structure and the street right -of -way I_ ine) of single and two family
residences shall only be on a hard surface driveway or on improved and
designated parking areas. Such a hard surface shall include bituminous, concrete,
brick, aravel or crushed rock or another hard surface approved by city staff.
b. The city prohibits vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass, unimproved
areas or areas without a hard surface.
C. Driveways and parking areas shall be at least five feet from a side propert I}� ine
and parking areas shall not be in the street right -of -way or on other public
property
d. No owner or operator shall park a vehicle that would block a sidewalk.
e. All vehicles parked or stored outside on a residential property shall not be
abandoned (as defined in Section 19 -28), shall have a current license and
registration and shall be in operable condition. (Also see Sections 19 -28.
Definitions and 19 -29, Violation.)
f. The total area in the front yard setback area of a single dwelling lot improved for
parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the front
yard setback area.
The total area in the front vard setback area of a duplex or double dwelling lot
improved for parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of
the front vard setback area.
14
g. The city may approve an increase in front yard driveway coverage, a different
driveway setback or a different driveway surface for a single or double dwellin bX
administrative review of minor construction plans as outlined in Section 25 -65 of
the city code. The city may approve an increase in front yard driveway coveraage = a
different driveway setback or a different driveway surface where such approval
would meet the standards required by code for unique circumstances and where
the above ordinance standards do not fit or where they would create a hardship
for the property owner.
As part of such an approval, the city may require the property owner or applicant
to add screening next to or around the parking area or driveway. The city may
require such screening to help hide the parking area and vehicles from the view of
adjacent residential properties or from the view from the public street. The
property owner or applican may use a .privacy fence,. additional landscaping or
other means to meet the screenina requirement. City staff shall approve and
inspect all such screening
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect on August 1, 2001. (After the City Council
approves it and the official newspaper publishes it).
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on , 2001.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Ayes-
Nays-
15
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2000
Mr. Ken Roberts gave the report for the city. On September 25, 2000, the city council again discussed
the issue of residential parking. Because of strong support and interest in this issue, the city council
directed staff to prepare city ordinance revisions about parking in residential areas. The council is
choosing to take small steps versus jumping in head first. The council, at their meeting on September 25,
2000, suggested that city staff include the following items in a code change about residential parking:
1. The city will consider crushed rock or gravel as a hard surface for parking and storage purposes.
2. The city should not require a paved driveway with other home improvements.
3. The city may allow exceptions to the rules, subject to the input of the neighbors, city staff and city
council.
The Ordinance amendment clarified what the violation is for an abandoned motor vehicle to make it clear
that is a code violation and can be prosecuted accordingly. The purpose, findings and goals sections of
the report are included to show the legislative intent and why the ordinance is being created. The
proposed ordinance would apply to all property less than one acre in size, and for the residential zoning
district. except the RE -40. There was question at the staff level if this should include all residential
properties no matter the acreage. The ordinance does not apply to side yards or rear yards which may be
another important discussion point to consider.
Mr. Roberts informed the commission that Mr. Trippler has distributed language that Mr. Trippler is
requesting be added to the proposed ordinance as item I.
Mr. Thompson felt item D was not clear. He questioned that if he paved his driveway could he park a car
next to the curbing in the front yard? Mr. Roberts responded saying there is a public boulevard along
every street that is 10 to 15 feet wide that is public property. You cannot be on the public boulevard at all,
and if you do want to make a paved parking spot in your front yard, it has to be into your private property
at least 10 feet. Mr. Thompson felt it was indiscriminatory to commercial property. Chairperson Fischer
pointed Out a resident's property line could be very close to the curb, or they might have a twenty -foot
setback. Mr. Roberts pointed out item H in the ordinance covers unique situations or where normal rules
don't apply, somewhat similar to a variance. The reasoning for item D is due to snowplowing and sanding
issues. Item D asks for no parking at least 10 feet back from the street right of way, Ms. Fischer
questioned whether engineering felt that was really necessary. Mr. Roberts responded in saying they
didn't specifically have engineering's input on that issue. He also did not see a problem with the
commission asking him to reduce that to a smaller number.
Mr. Trippler had two concerns with the proposed ordinance. One included what the difference was
between items A and C in the proposed ordinance. He also did not understand why the ordinance applied
only to properties less than one acre in size. Staff felt larger properties may not have problems with the
parking issue. Past history has proven the problem lies with the smaller lot, residential areas which are
those less than one acre. Staff thought if it is a 10 -acre lot and a neighbor cannot see it, why would they
care if their neighbor parked next to the garage on grass or in his front yard on grass. Ms. Fischer pointed
Out what if it is on a 10 -acre lot and you can see it? Mr. Trippler felt setting the property size for the
ordinance to less than 5 acres seemed more appropriate. Staff also felt A and C in the ordinance had a lot
of the same language and could be combined.
Mr. Rossbach felt the ordinance should include some type of language to address screening. He said if
there was proper screening to obscure the vehicle so it was not a nuisance there should be proper
language in the ordinance to allow for that. " What the ordinance is trying to accomplish is to not have an
unsightly situation for neighbors, or for people driving down the street. Just by having a large lot does not
necessarily accomplish this" stated Mr. Rossbach. He would also like to see the type of language used in
the ordinance be addressed. Using "the front setback area" would only make sense to planners and
suggested further definition was needed.
Mr. Rossbach also didn't feel it was reasonable that an owner would have to go 10 feet into their property
to park a car.
Mr. Mueller was disappointed the ordinance did not address recreational vehicles or campers. Mr.
Roberts responded in saying the council did not want to address those issues at this time.
Mr. Thompson pointed out Ms. Coleman straightened out his thinking regarding townhomes having more
than 50 percent hard service in their front yard. She pointed out townhomes would be excluded from this
ordinance due to their zoning classification.
Darlene Laube, 134 Downs Avenue, Maplewood, was present with questions. Her main concern was
people and how they maintain their property. She doesn't feel they screen their boats or junk vehicles as
they should and feels it runs down the neighborhood. She thought the ten feet from the property line
proposal was ridiculous and viewed parking to the side of property in a "mud pile" also a problem.
Mr. Rossbach felt the ordinance was addressing this issue by requiring some type of solid surface that
has been prepared for parking.
Ms. Fisher added that in many families when they have the young adult drivers, the families will add a
crushed rock temporary driveway, and when the vehicles are gone, they resod or landscape.
Ms. Laube did not feel the ordinance covers vehicles parked in backyards in view of their neighbors'
backyard.
Mr. Rossbach reiterated the ordinance is not trying to dictate how people landscape, but to gain control on
what people are putting into their yards as far as vehicles go. Personally Mr. Rossbach would also like to
see back and side yards addressed in the ordinance. His understanding is the city is starting with the
front, see what happens, and then go beyond possibly to the back yard or side yards.
Mr. Roberts has found there are some people who just don't make good neighbors no matter how many
rules are written. They simply don't care. There is only so much the city can do.
Mr. Thompson questioned the petitions that were submitted from what appeared to be one neighborhood.
He drove over to the neighborhood expecting to find a serious offense, only to find one driveway with five
cars. It was a Sunday afternoon where they could be visiting at the residence to watch the football game.
Mr. Trippler shared that one member of his car pool was one of the petitioners. He thought maybe he
sparked their interest about the parking issue. Mr. Thompson wanted to commend the neighborhood for
taking the time to register their feelings.
Mr. Trippler presented a motion to add an item I in the ordinance that would state:
Four or more adult residents each living at a different address and within one block of the residents having
the offending vehicle may petition the city of Maplewood to have their neighbor remove or relocate an
offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle will be required, within 30 days of receiving a copy
of the petition, to do one of the following actions:
1. Remove the offending vehicle from the property.
2. Relocate the offending vehicle to another location or area of their property which is agreeable to
all of the signers of the petition.
3. Request from the Maplewood City Council a special variance to retain the offending vehicle on
their property.
The intent of the motion is that the ordinance proposed by the staff does not address:
1. The number of vehicles parked at a residence.
2. The type of vehicles parked at a residence.
3. 'Vehicles parked 'on either side or backyards of a residence.
Trying to address any or all of these issues, and the infinite number of possible scenarios which might
occur is almost impossible. This proposal allows any or all of the above situations to be addressed and
allows for the diversity of lot sizes and neighborhoods which exist throughout the city of Maplewood.
Staff felt Mr. Trippler's proposal may inspire vigilantes to pick on neighbors they simply don't like and
would suggest that the city attorney needs to review the proposal.
Mr. Rossbach felt the proposal was taking law into your own hands; a form of vigilante justice.
Ms. Fischer questioned if there was an avenue of appeal if the person who is looking for a variance did not
agree with the staff recommendation in the proposed ordinance. Staff responded in saying that process
would fall under item H.
Mr. Thompson seconded Mr. Trippler's motion to add his amendment to the proposal.
Staff agreed with Mr. Rossbach that the nuisance ordinance would cover junk cars or expired tabs, but
would not cover esthetic opinions.
Mr. Pearson did not feel he could support the amendment because it may put power in the hands of
people who simply just may not like another person.
Mr. Mueller felt there should be a vote on whether everyone was in agreement of calling to question Mr.
Trippler's amendment. Chairperson Fischer established there was no disagreement.
Ayes -2 (Trippler, Thompson)
Nays -4 (Fischer, Pearson, Mueller,
Rossbach)
Motion failed.
Mr. Roberts was flexible with the less than one acre stipulation and felt items A and C could be combined
since there was a lot of overlap. Item D (the 1 0-foot requirement) was a starting point, stated Mr. Roberts
and could be adjusted to what the commission deemed appropriate. The ordinance at this point was an
attempt to follow the city council's direction. If the commission felt strongly about addressing RVs, motor
homes, screening, or parking on the boulevards, the staff will work on language to present at the next
meeting.
The majority felt the ordinance should apply to everyone regardless of lot size. A suggestion was made to
also add some type of verbiage regarding screening, possibly under item H. Mr. Roberts also noted there
is no suggested deadline at this point.
Ms. Fisher noted the suggested changes /additions to the proposed ordinance:
1. Page 12, sixth line from the bottom should read "relative to the establishment ".
2. Page 13, under item 4, the size of the lots should be eliminated.
3. Four A and C seemed redundant and should be combined.
4. Item B, the second line would have a period after surface, and the rest of the sentence would
be stricken.
5. Item D, the 10 foot setback could. be reduced if agreed to by engineering. The consensus
was 0 feet (adjacent to the lot line).
6. It was established that item H included an appeal process.
7. Include in parenthesis what a front setback is. (The distance between any part of the
principal structure and a street right of way line).
8. Staff will check with other cities to find out what, if any, verbiage they use on screening, and
work on creating verbiage about screening.
The issue of grandfathering was brought up by Mr. Thompson. Staff responded in saying the city has the
right to require a resident to improve their parking areas as required to meet the current ordinance. Staff
will have the city attorney review the grandfather application to the authority of the ordinance.
Mr. Pearson moved the commission to table the proposed ordinance for staff to make revisions.
Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes -All
Motion carried.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 5, 2001
A.
Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Staff is bringing back to the commission a revised
ordinance, that was originally looked at by the planning commission on December 6, 2000. The
city attorney has looked at the draft ordinance and has added suggestions. The implementation
of the grandfathering clause for those parking situations that do not meet the proposed ordinance
was confirmed by the city attorney. The city cannot enforce the new ordinance and regulations on
someone who has an existing parking situation that does not meet code. With that being said, if
the city finds an individual parking in the grass and making mud, which creates a nuisance, it can
be treated as a nuisance.
The statement that the ordinance excludes those properties larger than one acre in size has been
removed.
The ordinance will apply to all single and two - family residential properties in the RE -40, RE -30,
RE -20, F, R -1(S) and R -2 zoning districts.
Ms. Fischer requested "residential" be.added to item a. (The area between the front of the
residential structure and the street right -of -way line).
The total area in the front yard setback area of a single- dwelling lot improved for parking and
driveway purposes shall not exceed forty percent of the front -yard setback area.
Screening language was added to the ordinance for the city to have the option to require
screening to help hide the parking area and vehicles from the view of adjacent residential
properties, or from the view from the public street.
Mr. Ahlness asked staff what the most pertinent issue was from other cities regarding parking
issues. Mr. Roberts responded in saying "there is no magic wand. You can read the ordinances
from ten different cities and get ten different sets of rules." Staff has attempted to create a set of
rules for Maplewood that works best for the situation in Maplewood.
The other cities' ordinances that staff reviewed included: Mahtomedi, Woodbury, Oakdale, and
North St. Paul.
Mr. Ahlness clarified with Mr. Roberts that the "yardstick" used to handle an existing situation
would be the city staff and the adjacent neighbors.
Mr. Roberts also clarified with Mr. Rossbach that inoperable and unlicensed parked vehicles are
not currently allowed.
As far as screening is concerned, Ms. Dierich asked if city staff had the only say in the type of
screening used. Staff noted Section 25 -65 of the city code requires notification of the neighbors
and gives them the opportunity to comment.
Mr. Mueller asked if a homeowner parked directly adjacent to the curb would be grandfathered in
with the new ordinance. Staff responded in saying they are already breaking the law, because
prior to this ordinance, you could not park in a right -of -way. Therefore, that party would be in
violation of the ordinance.
The standards for commercial parking are as high as the residential parking requirements, as
clarified by staff for Commissioner Ahlness.
Ms. Dierich asked. where the 40% maximum for parking and driving surface of the front yard set-
back area was derived from. Staff noted it was based on surveys and site plans done on recent
homes that were built.
Mr. Trippler asked if driveways should be stricken from 4C. Staff suggested that "parking areas"
be added, now to read: "Driveways and parking areas shall be at least five feet from a side
property line and parking shall not be in the street right -of -way or on other public property ".
Ms. Dierich was concerned with the 40% rule. Mr. Rossbach responded in saying he felt that
regulation would be self regulating. He didn't feel people were going to want to put a bunch of
paving and concrete in their front yard.
Ms. Fischer asked what the vehicle was for a property owner to appeal if they disagreed with the
ordinance or staff interpretation. Staff felt Section 25 -65 did cover an appeal situation.
Mr. Trippler moved that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the code
change about off - street parking in a residential area with the following amendments:
1. Paragraph 4a, insert the word residential at the end of the first line. The sentence will now
read: "Vehicle parking in the front yard setback area (the area between the front of the
residential structure and the street right -of -way line)."
2. Paragraph 4c, insert the words parking areas. The sentence will now read: "Driveways and
parking areas shall be at Feast five feet from a side property line and parking areas shall not be
in the street right -of -way or on other public property."
3. Paragraph 4f, insert setback area after yard. The sentence will now read: "The total area in
the front yard setback area of a single dwelling lot improved for parking and driveway
purposes shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the front yard setback area. The total
area in the front yard setback area of a duplex or double dwelling lot improved for parking
and driveway purposes shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the front yard setback area."
Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes -All
Motion carries.
This proposal may go before the city council on February 26, 2001, for the first reading.
AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA REPORT Action by Council
Date
TO: City Manager er Endorsed
Modified
FROM: Assistant City Engineer ineer Rejected
SUBJECT: Award of Bids, Tilsen South Neighborhood Streets, City Project 00 -04
DATE: April 10, 2001
Bids for the Tilsen South Neighborhood Streets project are scheduled to be opened at
10 a.m. on Friday, April 20, 2001. A tabulation of those bids, a staff recommendation
as well as the corresponding resolution will be made available with a supplementary
report, to be inserted into the agenda packet at that time.
CIVIC
jC
AGENDA NO S MW
MEMORANDUM Action by Council
TO: City Manager Date
FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Endorsed
SUBJECT: Antenna and Tower Ordinance Modified
DATE: April 12, 2001 Rejected
INTRODUCTION
The p lanning commission asked city staff to review and revise the antenna and tower ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the current antenna and tower ordinance.
On February 20, 2001, the planning commission considered a proposed antenna and tower
ordinance amendment. The commission tabled action on the proposed ordinance amendment to
allow staff time to investigate their questions and concerns with the proposal.
On March 5, 2001, the planning commission again considered a revised tower and antenna
ordinance. After much discussion and questions, the commission tabled action on the proposed
ordinance to allow staff to make further changes to the proposed code language.
On April 9, 2001, the city council gave the attached ordinance first reading.
DISCUSSION
I am proposing many revisions to the ordinance. These changes are based on comments from
the planning commission and city council and are intended to strengthen and clarify the
ordinance. Areas of attention in the proposed ordinance include language about the co- location
of antennas and additional language about setback and design standards for towers.
On February 20, 2001, we received a letter from Peter Coyle of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and
Lindgren, the law firm that represents VoiceStream Minneapolis, a personal wireless
communication service provider. (See the letter starting on page 3.) His letter expressed several
concerns about the proposed ordinance and recommended several changes to the ordinance.
Staff has reviewed these concerns and made changes to Sections 36- 606(2) and 36- 610(6)(2) of
the proposed ordinance to address some of the concerns.
An important change to note in the proposed ordinance is Section 36 -606 (5) about tower height
and co- locating in residential zoning districts. I am proposing to increase the maximum height of
towers in residential areas from 100 feet to 125 feet. This change should allow for easier co-
location of antennas and will hopefully lessen the number of towers in the city.
Another matter to consider with this ordinance amendment is whether the city wants to allow
towers as a permitted use (rather than as a conditional use) in some locations. For example, the
city might allow a tower in the BC (business commercial) or M -1 (light manufacturing) zoning
districts as a permitted use if the tower would be 350 or 500 feet from a residential property line.
The city could still require the tower and base equipment to meet certain design and performance
standards and to be approved by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB). The city may
want to consider such changes after adopting the proposed ordinance amendment.
COMMISSION ACTION
On March 19, 2001, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance
amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the ordinance starting on page 7. This ordinance revises and updates the regulations
about commercial use antennas and towers in Maplewood.
p: \ord \tower.5
Attachments:
1. Letter dated February 19, 2001 from Peter Coyle
2. Proposed ordinance
2
Attachment 1
ROBERT L HOFFMAN
GERALD H. FRIEDELL
EDWARD J. DRISCOLL
GENE N. FULLER
JOHN D. FUL.LMER
FRANK I. HARVEY
CHARLES S. MODELL
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN.
LINDA H. FISHER
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
JOHN E. DIEHL
JON S. SWIERZEWSKI
THOMAS J. FLYNN
JAMES P. QUINN
TODD 1. FREEMAN
GERALD L SECK
JOHN B. LUNDQUIST
DAYLE NOLAN'
JOHN A. COTTER'
PAUL B. PLUNKETT
ALAN L. KILDOW
KATHLEEN M. PIODTTE NEWMAN
MICHAEL B. LEBARON
GREGORY E. KORSTAD
GARY A. VAN CLEVE'
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
ALAN M. ANDERSON
MICHAEL W. SCHLEY
RONN B. KREPS
TERRENCE E. BISHOP
GARY A. RENNEKE
CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL
KENDEL J. OHLROGGE
BRUCE J. DOUGLAS
WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR.
'JOHN R.'HILL
PETER J. COYL E
LARRY D. MARTIN.
JANE E. BREMER
JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN
MICHAEL J. SMITH
February 19, 2001
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Mr. Roberts:
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8G LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1194
TELEPHONE (952) 835 -3800
FAX (952) 896 -3333
F. R�tt�"
FREDERICK W. NIcBUHR
4 RENEE L. JACKSON
!. WILLIAM G. THORNTON
CHRISTOPHER K. LARUS
DOUGLAS M. RAMLER
ANN M. MEYER
STEPHEN J. KAMINSKI _
TWAM S F AEE!X INDEA °" : •
:k._r:�.Zie r�.y
SHARNA A. WAHLGREN
JOHN F. KLOS
ADAM S. HUHTA `
NICHOLAS A.J. VUETSTRA
C. ERIK HAWES
JAMES M. SUSAG
DANIEL J. BALUNTINE
JOHN A. MACK
JEFFREY D. CAHILL
SEAN D. KELLY
SONYA R. BRAUNSCHWEIG
JOSEPH J. FITTANTE, JR.
JONATHAN J. FOGEL
CYNTHIA M. KLAUS
MARK D. CHRISTOPHERSON
NEAL J. BLANCHETT
TAMARA O'NEILL MORELAND
JAMES A. MCGREEVY, ill
THOMAS A. GUMP
TODD A. TAYLOR
CHRISTOPHER J. DEIKE
MARLA M. ZACK
DIONNE M. BENSON
JEREMY C. STIER
OF COUNSEL
JAMES P. LARKIN `
JACK F. DALY
D. KENNETH LINDGREN
ALLAN E. MULLIGAN
JOSEPH GITIS
' ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN
This firm represents VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. ( "VoiceStream ") in connection with its development
of personal wireless communication facilities ( "PCS ") within the State of Minnesota. VoiceStream's
system requirements may,.in the future, entail construction of PCS facilities within the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota ( "the City ").
We have reviewed the proposed revisions to Chapter 36, Article XI of the City Code, the Commercial Use
Antennas and Towers Ordinance ( "the Tower Ordinance "). This letter represents VoiceStream's
comments on some of the revisions. We are pleased to have the opportunity to state our position on the
proposed changes to the Tower Ordinance. In addition, we welcome the chance to address this issue in
any public hearing held on the matter.
The City's current Tower Ordinance, and its proposed revisions, present a good framework for the
regulation of telecommunications towers and antennas and is generally compatible with VoiceStream's
plans. The Tower Ordinance gives wireless service providers the ability to site telecommunications
facilities within the City while giving the City control over the location, height and design of the
structures. This allows the City to fulfill its regulatory function and allows the creation of a PCS network
within the City in conformity with the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7) ( "the Telecommunications Act ").
The Telecommunications Act requires that cities accommodate new wireless facilities, to the extent
feasible. No city may enact an ordinance which has the effect of prohibiting the availability of wireless
services. Moreover, no city may enforce its ordinances in such manner as to discriminate against
3
LARKiN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
February 19, 2001
PaLye 2
telecommunications service providers; the mere fact that land -line phone services or other wireless
services exist in the community is not a basis for rejecting the development of new wireless service
capacity. Cities are expressly prohibited from regulating the environmental effects of PCS facilities.
Finally, the actions of a city must be based on substantial evidence, supported by a record and written
findings.
The City's responsibility is to revise the Tower Ordinance so that it protects the City's inhabitants'
health, welfare and safety while, at the same time, allowing the development of a wireless communication
network. To be constitutionally valid, an ordinance must be "rationally related to the achievement of a
legitimate government purpose." Skeen v. State of Minnesota, 505 N.W. 2d 299 312 (1993). It must
also be certain in its terms. City of St. Paul v. Morris 104 N.W. 2d 902 (1960), cert. denied 365 U.S. 815
(1961). Courts will analyze a zoning action to determine whether it is reasonable. Honn v. City of Coon
Ral2ids, 313 N.W. 2d 409 (1981). In making that determination, courts look into the circumstances of the
decision. Therefore, a city has an obligation to keep a record to demonstrate a factual basis for its zoning
decision. C.R. Investments, Inc. v. City of Shoreview, 304 N.W. 2d 320, 328 (1981).
VoiceStream cautions the City to carefully examine any revisions to the Tower Ordinance in light of the
requirements of the Telecommunications Act. Some of the proposed revisions contained in the February
13, 2001 draft of the Tower Ordinance will make the continued development of a wireless
communications network more difficult. This could place the City in the position of effectively
preventing the provision of PCS service within its boundaries in violation of the Telecommunications Act.
Below are our comments on portions of the draft Tower Ordinance:
Section 36 -600. Purpose
Section 36- 600(5)(a)(1) slightly expands the type of structure available for permitted telecommunications
tower siting. This provision allows antennas to be located on water tanks, as well as, water towers.
Section 36- 600(b) also expands the primary land use areas where telecommunications towers can be sited
with a Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP "). The revision allows the siting of telecommunications towers in
the commercial areas of the City. It also potentially allows tower siting on City -owned property and
property owned by other governmental units.
VoiceStream appreciates the expansion of potential locations for telecommunications towers. It also
appreciates the City's effort to site antennas on structures more conducive to such equipment. However,
by creating a distinction between primary locations and structures for tower siting and other locations and
structures within the City, the Tower Ordinance limits the number of potential sites, including co- location
sites, available to providers.
The City may violate the Telecommunications Act if a tower applicant is denied a Building Permit or a
CUP after clearly demonstrating the necessity to construct a tower or site antennas on a non - primary
location or structure. VoiceStream recommends the deletion of language creating primary locations and
structures. We recommend the City evaluate each telecommunications tower application on its own
merits regarding location, height, design and technical necessity.
0
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
February 19, 2001
Page 3
Section 36 -606 Communications Towers Proposed in Residential Zoning Districts
Section 36- 606(1) allows the consideration of telecommunication tower siting within a residential zoning
district only when a proposed tower will be located on church property, parks (under certain
circumstances), City or other governmentally -owned property, schools, utilities or institutional sites or
facilities. This provision is consistent with the proposed language of Section 36 -600 of the Tower
Ordinance.
VoiceStream appreciates the City's effort to site towers on land and/or structures in residential areas
where it is conducive to do so. However, the City may violate the Telecommunications Act if a tower
applicant is denied a CUP after clearly demonstrating the necessity to construct a tower in another
residentially -zoned location. VoiceStream recommends that the first sentence of subsection 1 be revised
to read "Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this
ordinance are preferred in the following residentially -zoned locations, unless the City Council determines
that an alternative location is technically necessary to achieve coverage requirements."
Section 36- 606(2) prohibits the construction of more than one (1) telecommunications tower on a
residentially -zoned piece of property. While this restriction appears to be reasonable, there are instances
where siting more than one tower on a certain piece of property is advantageous to both the City and
wireless services providers. VoiceStream recommends the deletion of Section 36- 606(2). VoiceStream
recommends the City evaluate applications on this point on a case -by -case basis.
Section 36- 606(5) limits the height of telecommunications towers in residential zoning districts to
seventy -five (75) feet and creates a setback of at least one hundred (100) feet from the nearest residential
structure. The current Tower Ordinance allows an exemption from the setback requirement when a
qualified structural engineer specifies, in writing, that any collapse will occur within a lesser distance.
VoiceStream views the 75 -foot height limitation as an unreasonable restriction which could lead to the
construction of additional telecommunications towers within residential zoning districts. Higher
telecommunications towers provide greater continuous coverage and will allow uninterrupted service
throughout the City. The tower height limitation also affects providers' ability to co- locate antennas.
VoiceStream recommends the City adopt the same height limitation in residential zoning districts as the
Tower Ordinance currently imposes in non- residential zoning districts. In addition, we recommend that
the language proposed for deletion in Section 36- 606(5) be retained in the Tower Ordinance.
Section 36 -610 Co- Location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment
Section 36- 614(B)(2) requires a telecommunications tower applicant to provide coverage maps of all
existing antenna sites within one (1) mile of a proposed facility in order to demonstrate existing coverage
gaps. The language seems to require an applicant to provide information on towers not owned by it.
Wireless service providers are unlikely to provide proprietary technical information regarding the range
and coverage of telecommunications towers to competitors. The City is in possession of portions of this
information through the zoning process. Requiring an applicant to duplicate it is unreasonable.
VoiceStream recommends the deletion of this provision of Section 36 -610.
5
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts
February 19, 2001
Page 4
VoiceStream looks forward to working with the City to develop its Tower Ordinance. Please feel free to
contact me at (952) 896 -3214 if you have any questions regarding this issue.
M
Peter J. Coyle, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Mr. Steve Katkov
Mr. Mike O'Rourke
Scott Slatter Esq.
::ODMA\PCDOCS \LIB 1 \653868 \1
0
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
THE CITY CODE ABOUT ANTENNAS AND TOWERS,
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This section changes the following parts of the Maplewood City Code: (Additions
have been underlined and deletions are crossed out.)
CHAPTER 36 ARTICLE XI
COMMERCIAL USE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS
Section 36 -600. Purpose.
To accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the
public health, safety and general welfare of the community, the Maplewood City Council finds that
these regulations are necessary to:
1. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and
businesses of the city.
2. Require tower equipment to be screened from the view of persons located on properties
contiguous to the site and /or to be camouflaged in a manner to complement existing
structures and to minimize the visibility and the adverse visual effects of antennas and towers
through careful design and siting standards.
3. Ensure the operators and owners of antennas and towers desian, locate and construct
antennas and towers that meet all applicable code requirements to avoid i potential
damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback
requirements.
4. Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings for new wireless
. telecommunication antennas to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community.
5. The following preferences shall be followed when selecting sites:
a. Primary structural location preference for wireless communication equipment as
permitted uses.
(1) Water towers or tanks.
(2) Co- location on existing towers.
(3) Church steeples or the church structure, when camouflaged as steeples, bell
towers, or other architectural features.
(4) Sides and roofs of buildings or structures over two (2) stories.
(5) Existing power or telephone pole corridors.
(6) Light poles or towers at outdoor recreational facilities.
7
(7) Parking lots may be used to locate towers r�rs where the structure
replicates, incorporates or substantially blends with the overall lighting standards
and fixtures of the parking lot.
b. Primary land use areas for towers requiring conditional use permits.
(1) Industrial and commercial.
(2) City -owned property (except water towers), other government -owned property,
schools, churches or places of worship, utility, and
institutional sites.
(3) Public parks /golf courses, when compatible with the nature of the park or
course.
(4) Open space areas when compatible with the nature of the area and site.
Section 36 -601. Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this section or ordinance shall have the following
meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Accessory structure. A use or structure subordinate to the principal use of the land or building
with a tower or antenna.
Antenna. Any structure, equipment or device used for collecting or radiating
electromagnetic waves, telecommunication, microwave, television or radio signals including but
not limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and satellite dishes, and
omni - directional antennas, such as whips.
Personal Wireless Communication Services. Licensed commercial wireless communication
services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized
mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services.
Public Utility. Persons, corporation, or governments supplying gas, electric, transportation,
water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the public. For this ordinance, commercial wireless
telecommunication sources shall not be considered public utility uses.
Tower. Any pole, monopole, spire, or structure, or combination thereof, including supporting
lines, cables, wires, braces and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna,
meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade.
UBC. Uniform Building Code. Published by the International Conference of Building Officials
and adopted by the State of Minnesota to provide jurisdictions with building - related standards and
regulations.
Section 36 -602. Existing antennas and towers.
Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of January 13, 1997, that do not meet
or comply with this section are subject to the following provisions:
1. Towers may continue in use for the existing purpose now used and as now existing but may
not be replaced or structurally altered without meeting all standards in this section.
0
2. If such towers are damaged or destroyed due to any reason or cause at all, (unless the user
or owner voluntarily removes the tower), the owner or operator may repair and restore the
tower to its former size, height and use within one (1) year after first getting a building permit
from the city. The location and physical dimensions shall remain as they were before the
damage or destruction.
Section 36 -603. Interpretation and Applicability.
a. It is not the intention of this ordinance to interfere with, abrogate or annul any covenant or
other agreement between parties. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions
upon the use or premises for antennas or towers than are imposed or by other
ordinances, rules, regulations or permits, or by covenants or agreements, the provisions of
this ordinance shall govern.
b. This ordinance does not apply to the use or location of private, residential citizen band radio
towers, amateur radio towers or television antennas.
Section 36 -604. Inspections and Violations.
a. All towers, antennas and supporting structures must obtain a building permit and are subject
to inspection by the city building official to determine compliance with UBC construction
standards. Deviations from the original construction that a permit is obtained, other than
antenna adjustments, is a misdemeanor.
b. Notice of violations will be sent by registered mail to the owner and the owner will have thirty
(30) days from the date the notification is issued to make repairs. The owner will notify the
building official that the repairs have been made, and as soon as possible after that, the
building official will make another inspection and the owner notified of the results.
c. Adjustments or modifications to existing antennas do not require a conditional use permit or a
building permit.
Section 36 -605. Conditional Use Permit.
a. In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit for the construction of commercial
antennas, towers, and accessory structures, the city council shall consider the:
(1) Standards in the city code.
(2) Recommendations of the planning commission and community design review board.
(3) Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of
residents of surrounding areas.
(4) Effect on property values.
(5) Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
b. The applicant shall provide at the time of application, sufficient information to show that
construction and installation of the antenna or tower will meet or exceed the standards and
requirements of the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
c. Conditional use permits will not be required for:
(1) Repair or replacement or adjustment of the elements of an antenna array affixed to a
tower or antenna, if the repair or replacement does not reduce the safety factor.
(2) Antennas mounted on water towers, sides or roof of existing structures and on existing
towers, power, light, or telephone poles.
d. The fee to be paid for the conditional use permit shall be set by city council resolution.
e. The applicant shall have a property_ acquisition specialist and a radio frequency engineer
attend all city- related meetings to be available to answer questions.
Section 36 -606. Communication Towers Proposed in Residential Zoning-Districts.
No person, firm or corporation shall build or install a tower in a residential zoning district zone
without obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject to,
but not limited to, the following conditions:
1. The city will only consider such a tower in the following residentially -zoned locations or
properties:
a. Churches or places of worship.
b. Parks, when the city determines the facility would be compatible with the nature of the
park.
C. City -owned property, government, school, utility and institutional sites or facilities
2. There shall be no more than one freestanding tower at one time on a property that the city
has planned for a residential use or that the city has zoned residentially, unless one of the
following applies:
a. The additional towers or antennas are incorporated into existing structures such as a
church steeple. light pole, power line support device or similar structure.
b. The residential property is at least five (5) acres in size.
c. If the proposed tower is to replace an existing tower and if the owner /user of the existing
tower agrees to remove the existing tower within thidy (30) days of the completion of the
new or replacement tower.
3+-. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage /interference analysis and capacity
analysis, that location of the tower as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and
spacing needs of the cellular or personal wireless communication services systems sue,
and to provide adequate personal wireless communication or portable cellular telephone
coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas
in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure.
42. If no existing structure that meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for
mounting the antennas, such antennas may be mounted on a tower not to exceed seventy-
five (75) feet in height. The tower shall be located. a distance of at least the height of the
tower plus finrenty -five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure. �i��ss- a- �gttafi#te�F
'Oft An
-nee und
setbael�
10
53. The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of one hundred twenty five (125_) me
Iql-nalle-01 44n E�
I lul lul %-,%A k I feet if the tower and base area are -is designed and built for the co- location of
at least one other personal wireless communication service provider antennas and
equipment.
e
64: Transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within an existing structure
whenever possible. If a new equipment building is necessary for transmitting, receiving and
switching, the owner or operator shall locate it at least ten (10) feet from the side or rear lot
line and shall landscape and screen it. The community design review board shall review such
a building, and the landscaping and screening. The owners and operators of all new
equipment or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall design and construct
such structures to blend in with the surrounding environment.
7. Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, unless the city
determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the tower or would lessen the
negative impacts of such a facility on nearby propert ies.
8. The city may reduce or vary the required setback for a tower from a public street to allow the
integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, liaht
pole, .power line supDort device or similar structure.
9. Towers shall be built at least ten (10) feet from side and rear property lines, unless the site is
next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city is 0anning for a residential
use. If the tower would be next to a residential property line or next to a property that the city
is planning for a residential use, then the tower must be located at least the height Of the
tower plus twenty -five (25) feet from the nearest residential structure. The owner or operator
shall locate around equipment and accessory structures at least ten (10) feet from side and
rear property lines.
10. The owner or operator of any tower shall screen around - mounted equipment from view by
suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonveaetative screening better reflects and
complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
11. Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screenina possible for off -site views
of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower.
12. The existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
13. The community desian review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on the plans for
towers, utility, equipment or accessory buildings, site plans and proposed screening and
landscapina
14. Towers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uniform wind loading
as prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
Section 36 -607. Construction Requirements, Setback and Height Restrictions in Zonin
Districts or Locations Other Than Residential.
NO person, firm or corporation shall erect a tower in a location other than residential without first
obtaining a conditional use permit from the city council. Such a tower shall be subject to, but not
limited to, the following conditions:
11
a. No part of any tower or antenna shall be constructed, located or maintained at any time,
permanently or temporarily, in or upon any required setback area for the district in which
the antenna or tower is to be located.
b. All antennas, towers and accessory structures shall meet all applicable provisions of this
code and this section.
c. Antennas and towers shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The antennas may be mounted on a single pole or tower rnnanapete not to exceed
one hundred seventy -five (175) feet in height. The pole or tower shall be setback
at least the height of the pole or tower }9ole plus twenty-five (25) feet from any
residential lot line.
(2) Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material.
(3) The use of guyed towers is prohibited.
(4) Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screening possible for
off -site views of the facility and to lessen the visibility of the tower.
(5) Existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable extent.
(6) The installation shall be designed to be compatible with the underlying site plan.
The owner or operator shall landscape the base of the tower and any accessory
structures. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be
architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site. All new
equipment or utility buildings and accessory structures for towers shall be
designed and constructed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The
community design review board shall review the design plans for towers, utility,
equipment or of any accessory structures, site plans and proposed screening
landscaping. '
(7) Towers shall be a light blue or gray or other color shown to reduce visibility. No
advertising or identification visible off -site shall be placed on the tower or
buildings.
(8) Antennas placed upon the tower shall comply with all state and federal
regulations about nonionizing radiation and other health hazards related to such
facilities.
(9) Wireless telephone or personal wireless communication service antennas, where
located on an existing structure shall not extend more than twenty -five (25) feet
above the structure to which they are attached. Such antennas are a permitted
use in all zoning districts of the city. The city council. after a recommendation
from the communitv design review board, must approve the plans for all sets of
antennas on a building after the second personal wireless communication service
provider has installed their antennas on the building.
12
(10) Towers with antennas shall be designed and constructed to withstand a uniform
wind loading as prescribed by the UBC (Uniform Building Code).
(11) Telecommunications equipment located on the side of an existing structure or on
a roof of a structure shall not be screened.
Towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street
unless the city determines that such a location would lessen the visibility of the
tower or would lessen the negative impacts of such a facility on nearby
properties.
13 The cit ma y reduce or vary--the required setback for a tower from a public street
to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a
church steeple. liaht pole, power line support device or similar structure.
Towers shall be setback at least ten ( feet from side and rear property lines
unless the site is next to a residential lot line. If the tower would be next to a
residential property line or next to a property that the city is plannina for a
residential use, then the tower must be located at least the height of the tower
plus twen ty-five (25.) feet from the nearest residential structure. The owner or
operator shall locate around equipment and accessory structures at least ten (10
feet from side and rear property lines.
15 The owner or operator of a tower shall screen around - mounted eaubment from
view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening
better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neiahborhood.
Tower locations should provide the maximum amount of screenina possible for
off -site views of the facility and t0 lessen the visibility of the tower.
17 The existina on -site veaetation shall be preserved to the maximum practicable
extent.
The community design review board (CDRB) shall make recommendations on the
glans for towers, utility, , equipment or accessory buildings, site plans and
proposed screening and landscaping.
Section 36 -608. Lights Signs and Other Attachments.
No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way any lights, reflectors,
flashers, daytime strobes or steady nighttime light or other illuminating devices except:
1. Those needed during time of repair or installation,
2. Those required by the Federal Aviation Agency, the Federal Communications
Commission or the city.
3. For towers in parking lots, lights associated with the parking .lot lighting.
In addition, no tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform,
catwalk, crows nest, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair.
13
No antenna or tower shall have signaae, advertising or identification of any kind visible from
the around or from other structures, except necessary warning and equipment information signage
required by the manufacturer or by Federal, State or local authorities.
Section 36 -609. Removal of Abandoned or Damaged Towers.
Any tower and /or antenna that is not used for one (1) year shall be deemed abandoned and
may be required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as for
dangerous or unsafe structures established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 through
463.26.
Section 36 -610. Co- location of Personal Wireless Communication Service Equipment.
A. The city shall not approve a request for a new personal wireless service tower
unless it can be documented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the
city council that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be
accommodated on an existing or approved tower or commercial building within one -half mile
radius, transcending municipal borders, of the proposed tower due to one or more of the
following:
1. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved
tower or commercial building.
2. The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned
equipment at the tower or building.
3. Existing or approved structures and commercial buildings within one -half mile radius
cannot or will not reasonably accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary
to function.
4. The applicant must demonstrate, by providing a city -wide
coverage /interference and capacity analysis, that the location of the antennas as
proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the
communication service system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas
that cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or
on existing structure.
B. Additional Submittal Requirements. Besides the information required elsewhere in this code.
all conditional use permit applications for towers also shall include the following information:
1. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and their successors to allow the shared
use of the tower if an additional user aarees. to meet reasonable terms and conditions for
shared use.
14
2. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed facility is necessary to fill a significant
existing gap in users coverage or to accommodate system capacity needs. This
documentation shall include:
a. Coveraa_e maps of all the applicant's or the providers' existing antenna sites
within one (1) mile of the proposed facility
b. A map showing all existing personal wireless communication service antenna
sites within one (1) mile of the proposed facility.
3. That the proposal is the least intrusive method of achieving the necessary coverage or
additional system capacity in the area and that other alternatives will not work.
4. ' Th - at the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated at any
existing tower or antenna facility. The cit� may find I that a co- location site cannot
accommodate the planned equipment for the following reasons:
a. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the preferred co-
location site, and the preferred co- location site cannot be reinforced, modified or
replaced to accommodate the planned equipment or its equivalent at a
reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio frequency engineer;
b. The planned equipment would significantly interfere with the usabilit of existing
or proved equipment at the preferred co- location site and the interference
cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified radio
frequency _ engineer:
C. A preferred co- location site cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a
height necessary to function. reasonably, as certified by qualified radio
frequency enaineer: or
d. The applicant, after a good -faith effort, is unable to lease, purchase or otherwise
secure space for the planned equipment at an existina antenna Location.
The city may _require the applicant to hire or pay for a study or other research by a
qualified radio frequency engineer to determine the need for the proposed tower.
5. Materials or documentation demonstrating to the cit that the applicant has made a a000d
faith effort to co- locate on existing towers but they could not reach an agreement to co-
locate on an existing tower.
6. Design information and documentation showing how the applicant, owner or operator of
the tower has designed structurally, electrically and in all respects the tower to
accommodate both the applicant's antennas and the antennas for at least two (2)
additional users if the tower is equal to or more than one hundred (100) feet in height in
all locations or for at least one (1) additional user if the tower is equal to or more than
seventy -five (75) feet in height. The applicant and owner must design and install a new
tower to allow for the maximum future arrangement of antennas on the tower. to accept
antennas mounted at varying heights and to accommodate the equipment and other
needs of future users
15
7. Photo- illustrations or similar - styled artist's renderings of the proposed tower and base
site that show the appearance of the proposed tower and the proposed around
equipment or buildings after the contractor completes them.
Section 36 -611. Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications.
All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with
public safety telecommunications.
Section 36 -612. Additional Submittal Requirements.
Besides the information required elsewhere in this Code, building permit applications for
towers shall include the following supplemental information:
(1) A report and plans from a qualified and registered engineer or others that:
a. Describes the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation.
b. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-
located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas.
c. Describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it
can hold.
d. Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number, if applicable.
e. Includes all other information necessary for the city to evaluate the request.
Section 36 -613. Variances.
The City Council may grant variances to the requirements of this section. All variances must
follow the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. For variances regarding antennas and
towers, the applicant must show the city the following:
1. There are unique circumstances or characteristics peculiar to the property and that the
provisions of this code would inflict undue hardship on the property owner or applicant.
2. The property cannot be developed or put to a reasonable use by strictly conforming with
the city code.
3. The applicant or property owner did not create or cause the hardship.
4. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the area or the zoning_
district.
5. The proposed variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief from the city code
standards.
6. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance
16
The applicant for a variance for an antenna or tower related matter shall submit with their
variance application a statement showing how the proposal would meet these findings.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official
newspaper publishes it.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on 2001.
Rordltower.5
17
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001
A. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment
Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The commission considered the update to the
antenna and tower ordinance at their last meeting during which there were questions raised about
the proposed language. The commission tabled the proposal and asked staff to work on the
verbiage and bring it back to the commission. The changes staff made included:
1. Page 9, paragraph 2 stated no more than one free standing tower on a property. One of the
attorney's who commented on the report suggested that it may be too restrictive. To alleviate
that, ;a newparagraph "b" was added stating "if the property was at least five acres in size, a
second tower could be considered."
2. Page 13, B2 discussed the coverage and coverage map responsibility. It now requires that the
applicant provide coverage maps of all the applicants and antenna sites within one mile of the
proposed facility. Also, they would need to submit a map to the city showing all of the existing
antenna sites within one mile of the proposed facility.
3. Page ten (paragraph 8) and twelve (paragraph 13) each contain language about the
replication of a structure. The last sentence in each of those paragraphs should be deleted.
Commissioner Trippler was concerned with the language stating there should not be more than
one freestanding tower on a property at any one time. "What if a tower is built with the intention of
removing the previous tower at completion ?" Staff felt a phrase (item C) could be added stating
when two towers would be allowable. Mr. Trippler also felt "and or business structure" should be
added to the residential guideline of a 25 -foot setback plus the height of the tower. In the case of
a tower collapsing, the safety aspect should be applied to businesses as well as residences. Staff
felt the ordinance intent was to limit the residential tower sites (zoned residential) for safety and
esthetic reasons. It also ensured some separation between the towers and residents homes.
Commissioner Ahlness asked if trails are included in Section 36 -606 (1). Staff stated they
potentially could be. He also asked where the one -mile radius was derived from when
considering a significant gap in coverage. Mr. Roberts stated that was the typical standard found
in other ordinances and requirements given by providers. He also clarified that the current density
of towers per square mile varies within the City of Maplewood.
Mr. Jim McGreevey, attorney with Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South,
Bloomington, was present to represent Voice Stream Minneapolis, Inc. Mr. McGreevey wanted to
thank the staff and the commission for listening to Voice Stream's concerns in the previous
commission meeting, and adjusting the tower ordinance accordingly.
Mr. McGreevey stated most providers are attempting to co- locate before building a tower.
Through the normal course of the co- location investigation, they would identify where the towers
were located within a particular city.
In section 36 -606, item 5, regarding the setback issue, Voice Stream had suggested adding
language from an applicant's engineer stating that if a tower fails, it will collapse progressively
onto itself. This, he felt, would be a benefit to the city and to the providers.
Mr. Rossbach stated one of the radio towers on Highway 61 and Beam did fail and fall over. He
assumed an engineer signed off on that tower. When the ordinance was originally granted there
were safety issues addressed. "What they are designed to do, doesn't always happen ".
Mr. Mueller added 100 feet seems like a long way, but when it is your back yard, it doesn't appear
to be that far at all. Even if a resident can be guaranteed that this tower is not going to fall down,
they can still see the tower. Esthetics should be a concern in addition to the safety issue. Mr.
Mueller would much rather see a tower go 175 feet up with numerous antennas, rather than to
view two towers in his backyard.
Mr. Ahlness asked Mr. McGreevey what "environmental effects" is addressing in the letter their
law firm submitted to the city. Mr. McGreevey stated the federal government left radio frequency
up to municipalities. The letter also stated the cities actions must be based on substantial
evidence. Mr. Ahlness asked if significant resident complaint letters reach the level of substantial
evidence. Mr. McGreevey stated neighborhood opposition to a tower could be one factor in a
local government's decision making, about whether to place a tower at a certain site. He did not
feel ,opposition, in and of itself, would rise to the level of substantial evidence without other
concerns from the government. Staff noted the proposal at the MnDOT site on McMenemy and
Highway 35E went to court over neighborhood opposition. The city lost the case, and there is
now a tower at that site.
Peter Beck was present on behalf of AT & T Wireless Services. If a user cannot get on an
existing tower due to insufficient height, he wondered if there was more impact having a separate
pole next to that one, or to have a separate pole somewhere else. He personally felt two poles
next to each other may not be ideal, but in many instances felt it could be better than having a
second or third pole somewhere else in a residential area. Maplewood does have large
residential areas.
Mr. Beck reiterated that monopole technology does not experience tower failures of a flop over
nature. The vendors that AT & T use have never had failure experience. Although he felt an
engineer would not accept responsibility for damage caused by a failure, the owner of the tower
should.
Mr. Trippler asked as more and more people start utilizing cell phones, does that mean there will
have to be more and more towers. Mr. Beck stated "for better or worse, it does ". That decision
was made at a federal level. This service must be available to every inch of the landscape and will
be provided through a competitive model with multiple companies. Mr. Beck clarified with Mr.
Trippler that satellites are not the answer for mobile phones. Numerous companies have gone
bankrupt trying to deliver telephone by satellite.
Mr. Frost suggested that the city look at making antennas in commercial areas available with just
a permit. (If an applicant chose to locate a tower on one of the designated areas, they would not
have to go through the planning commission or city council, but simply apply for a building permit).
Staff stated they have not as of yet, but it is certainly something they could consider.
Ms. Deirich confirmed with Mr. Beck that the taller the tower, the larger the base building would
need to be.
Mr. Frost moved the commission table the tower and antenna ordinance until the next planning
commission meeting. Staff will bring back the comments and suggestions in a revised ordinance.
Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes -All
Motion passed.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD MINNESOTA
MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2001
Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment
Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Staff and the planning commission have been
working on an amendment to the tower and antenna ordinance. This was the third time the
proposal with the amended changes has been brought before the commission. The
proposed changes include:
1. In item 36- 606.5, which is regarding the height of a tower and co- locating in a residential
district, staff is proposing to raise the 100 feet to 125 feet. In allowing a taller height,
hopefully it will minimize the number of towers in the same districts.
2. Page 10, item 2C was added. The statement will now read: "If the .proposed tower is to
replace an existing tower and if the owner /user of the existing tower agrees to remove the
existing tower within thirty (30) days of the completion of the new or replacement tower."
3. Page eleven, item 5 will read: The height of a tower may be increased to a maximum of
one hundred twenty five (125) feet if the tower and base area are designed and built for
the co- location of at least one other personal wireless communication service provider's
antennas and equipment.
4. On page 11, items 8 and 13, the second sentence was deleted.
5. On page 13, item 14, the same language (second sentence) was deleted.
6. Page 15, items 2 and 3, language was added about accommodating system capacity
needs.
7. On top of page 16, a requirement was added that the applicant supply photo illustrations
or similar styled artist rendering of the proposed tower or antenna.
Mr. Roberts wanted feedback from the commission on if the city should start making some of the
locations for towers a permitted use. For example, if the areas around the mall (a large
commercial or industrial area) with no residential sites nearby, the city would have no reason to
deny the proposal. Therefore, the city might be better off to identify particular areas as permitted
use which would encourage the providers to look at those locations first. The applicant would still
be required to meet design and performance standards but they would not be required to obtain a
conditional use permit.
Mr. Frost was in strong support of the permitted use option. He felt there are areas in the city that
there really is no reason for the proposal to come before the commission. Technology is changing
rapidly in this field. He feels if we are proactive we can start directing these facilities to a place
where they are not going to cause problems.
Mr. Rossbach confirmed with staff that if permitted use had been applied, in the Taste of India
case, for example, the only way to ensure there was not neighborhood opposition to the tower
was to execute neighborhood surveys.
Mr. Ledvina was uneasy with the concept of permitted use as he felt towers are a different animal
because of being so tall. They can affect land uses that are quite far away from the physical base
of the tower. He felt possibly having one zone as permitted use, such as an industrial zone, may
work.
Mr. Trippler felt all of these issues could be handled with the condition of allowing some specific
land use areas to bypass the planning commission by simply stating that if there are any
objections to the location of a site, which can't be resolved, it would come in front of the
commission. If no one objects, and it is in an industrial or business class, he would rather not see
it. He would like to see the planning commission become more proactive and select out specific
zoning areas for permitted use.
Although initially Mr. Ahlness felt the permitted use would be a good deal, he has changed his
mind after seeing how quickly a proposal can be approved by the commission (just a few minutes
for AT & T this evening). As a safeguard to the community he feels that it would be a good thing
to have all proposals reviewed before the commission.
Mr. Rossbach does not feel permitted use would provide a huge benefit to the providers. In their
past comments, they have expressed to the commission the sites they choose are dictated by
their cell layout and where they have to put the towers to make it work. On one hand he feels
they are telling us "give us permitted areas and we will put up towers there ", and on the other
hand are saying "they have little control over where their towers go up ". Mr. Rossbach does not
feel the two mesh together very well.
Jim McGreevy, from the Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Law Firm, was present representing
Voice Stream, Mpls. In response to a concern Mr. Trippler had regarding towers and property
values, he stated that areas where there are lakes may not have as many cell phone towers.
Other city ordinances may state no towers in residential areas. He does not feel the placement of
towers is reflective of property values. He stated the number one criteria in looking for a location
for a tower is coverage for the operators system.
Mr. McGreevy felt a provider would choose the location of towers based on numerous issues, not
specifically whether or not an area was permitted. He has dealt with a few other cities that had
designated permitted areas for towers and those areas were generally zoned industrial.
Mr. Pearson questioned what information the city receives to indicate a tower is abandoned. Staff
was not certain since we have not been informed of one in the city.
Staff noted that the intent of the revision was to have all applicants provide coverage maps of their
facilities, and a map locating other sites (not the coverage of those sites) within one mile, inside or
outside of Maplewood.
Mr. Trippler felt the towers should be EQUAL TO or more than 100 feet in height. Under the same
item in the ordinance, Mr. Mueller would like to have the statement reflect that providers design
and install all new towers to allow for the MAXIMUM of antennas on the tower.
Mr. Trippler wanted the commission to take into consideration that until the ordinance is actually
passed, and on the books, any company making application for a tower is grandfathered in with
the conditions in effect during the time they made application. Therefore, he would really like to
see the commission move on the ordinance and start applying some control over the siting
process. Step two in the process could be the permitted land use issue.
Mr. Trippler moved the board to adopt the proposed antenna and tower ordinance amendment
with the following additions:
1. Section 36 -605, part e: The applicant shall have a property acquisition specialist and a
radio frequency engineer in attendance at all city meetings to answer all questions
relevant to their application.
2. Section 36 -609, part b6, modify the section to add the words "equal to or'. It will then
read: if the tower is equal to more than one hundred feet in height, and if the tower is
equal to or more than seventy -five feet in height.
3. In the same section, "the maximum" will replace "future rearrangement of'.
Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes -All
Motion carries.
AGENDA NO. ��I
Action by Con . _� _ j
Date
AGENDA REPORT Endorsed
Modified
Rejected
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director AZ
RE: SCHEDULE MEETING TO REVIEW 2000 ANNUAL FINANCIAL
REPORT AND AUDIT REPORTS
DATE: April 13, 2001
Recently, the City's 2000 Annual Financial Report and audit were completed.
The reports are scheduled for delivery on April 20.
It is recommended that the City Council schedule a meeting to discuss these
reports with Steve Laible, the partner at KPMG who was in charge of the audit.
Steve is available on Monday, May 14 if a special meeting were to be held at
6:00 p.m. immediately preceding the regular Council meeting. Steve is also
available on Thursday, May 24, if a special Council meeting were to be held at
5:15 p.m. immediately after the regular "Pre- agenda" Council meeting.
It is requested that the meeting be held in the Maplewood Room because a
screen is needed for my portion of the presentation.
PAagn\afrmeeting.doc
AGENDA ITEM Koo O�
AGENDA REPORT Action by Council
Date
TO: Richard Fursman y ger Cit Mana Endo:d
ied
FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City En g e ine �e 4
DATE: April 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Receive Petition for Roadway Improvements to Bush Avenue and
Authorize Preparation of Preliminary Report
Introduction
A petition was submitted to the engineering staff in June 2000 to consider repaving of
Bush Avenue, east of Stillwater Road. The city council has a olic for street
p Y
reconstruction that includes sharing of costs of the project through assessments to the
property owners. The city council should receive this petition and authorize engineering
staff to prepare a preliminary report on the proposed improvements to Bush Avenue.
Background
Attached to this memo is a copy of the petition received from the neighborhood.
Actually, Bush Avenue is not included in the city's Pavement Management Plan (PMP)
for consideration for reconstruction until after 2006. The petition requests that the
council consider moving improvements to the roadway into the next p
5-year period.
Y
The property owners along Bush Avenue are not aware of the city's policy for pavement
management. The street is in need of reconstruction; however, due to the numerous
streets within the city in need for reconstruction, it is not rated within the next 5 years for
work Other than emergency patching. The petition was routed, however, without
information on the cost - sharing policy. Many of the petitioners are not aware that
reconstruction includes an assessment to their property.
The requested action by the council would authorize engineering staff to work with the
neighborhood to develop a plan for Bush Avenue through neighborhood meetings that
includes consideration of streets already designation for reconstruction within the PMP.
Meetings with the property owners would likely begin in May 2001.
Unfortunately, this petition was delayed in being presented to the city council due to
staff changes in 2000. All future petitions will be forwarded to the Council when
received, along with a staff recommendation for action.
Bush Avenue 2 April 16, 2001
Recommendation
The petition from Bush Avenue is recommended to be received and authorization to
prepare a preliminary report is recommended by the staff to address the neighborhood
concerns. An improvement to the roadway within the next 5 years will be proposed, if
acceptable to the property owners and coordinated with the city's Pavement
Management Plan.
RCA
jc
Attachment
Petition for repavin p* a'v'l"n" g
June 27 2000 �'�°�� � � �
I have been informed that our street, Bush Avenue between Stillwater
Road and up to Bartle'm Lane is not scheduled to be repaved until the.
y ear 2006. The cit of Maplewood will onl patch it until then.
If y ou would like to see this road repaved- not patched- before 2006
please si below. Thank y ou
rr
address- AZa") E oh
2.
address
3.
add re
40
address. 26 o
50
address_,337/
6. U J'z�
address.,a-j.�a_
7.
address 7,E 5' m"Z�/
8.
address
90 __ �_ ����
100
—address
address L1 (8 px�w.
11.
address
12.
address - Be .: f a� y , I ije
130
address-
14. .L�l
address 00&
I N VW
1 0
address, 9'3�w
16.
address t
170
address
-
•
-
•
20.
address
rr
Agenda # Ka* 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
DATE: April 16, 2001
RE: Agenda Order - Visitor Presentation
Action by Council
Date
Endorsed
Modred
Rejected
At the April 9, 2001 meeting, staff was directed to put agenda order on the April 26, 2001
council meeting for the purpose of discussion, specifically Visitor Presentation.
The present agenda order is designed to address items in an efficient way and is approved by the
City Council in the Rules of Policy and Procedure Manual. After addressing normal procedures
such as Approval of Minutes and Approval of the Agenda, Council approves the Consent
Agenda and proceeds to allow public testimony during items that are under: Public Hearings,
Unfinished Business and New Business. All items have been researched by staff, reports have
been written and provided to the Council for review prior to the meeting. Items under Public
Hearings have been published, neighborhood meetings have been held and citizens attend with a
general time in mind that they will be able to speak.
Citizens speaking during Visitor Presentation are given the opportunity to address Council
towards the end of the meeting after normal business has been conducted.
If it is the decision of the City Council to change the current order of the agenda, staff should be
directed to make these changes in the Rules of Policy and Procedure Manual.
Agenda #
Action by Council
MEMORANDUM
Date
TO: Richard Fursman City Manager er Endorsed
Modified
FROM: Karen Guilfoile Cit y Cler Rejected
DATE: April 16, 2001 `
RE: Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor License for Chipotle Mexican Grill
Introduction
Ryan Michael Judge has submitted an application for an intoxicating and Sunday liquor license
for Chipotle Mexican Grill located at 2303 White Bear Avenue.
Background
As required by City ordinances, the necessary background investigation was completed by the
Police Department on Mr. Judge. There was nothing found that would prohibit him from holding
a liquor license in the City. Mr. Judge has been given a copy of the City Code of Ordinances
that apply to being an intoxicating liquor license holder and he has met with Chief Winger.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the liquor license application.
AGENDA REPORT s ,,
Item #
to: Richard Fursman City Manager Acts hl �5
from: Colleen J. Callahan, Community Orie t 1 es Coordinator Date
subject: Charitable Gambling Requests o 20 Endorsed
date: April 17, 2001 Modified
Rejected
INTRODUCTION
In December 1998 the City Council approved. a revised process for reviewing and approving
Charitable Gambling Requests. The new guidelines were established to coincide with the budget
process. All requests must be submitted by April 15 of each year for the following years
allocations.
Each request is evaluated based on its overall city wide benefit. Funds are generally distributed
for projects, equipment or activities that are based in the community and which primarily benefit
City residents. Receipt of funds one year does not automatically guarantee continued funding in
subsequent years. Projects which involve the purchase of equipment, supplies or specific items
will be looked upon more favorably than requests for salaries or general operating costs. All
funds are required to be expended for the requested project within one year of the date of receipt
of the funds from the City.
The City of Maplewood grants funds from lawful gambling profits, for lawful purpose to support
City- related activities / events. "Lawful purposes " as outlined by the State Gambling Board are:
1) lawful purposes outlined by statute; which are; a) 501(c)(3) organizations & 501(c)(4) festival
organizations; b) relieving the effects of poverty, homelessness, physical or mental disability; c)
treatment of: delayed posttraumatic stress syndrome or compulsive gambling; d) public or
private nonprofit education institution registered & accredited by the State; e) a scholarship fund;
f) recognition of humanitarian or military service; g) activities and facilities benefiting youth
under age 21; h) expenditures for police, fire and other emergency or public safety- related
services, equipment and training; I) nonprofit organization which is a church or a body of
communicants; j) wildlife management project that benefits the public -at- large, provided that the
Department of Natural Resources approves; k) costs related to grooming and maintaining
snowmobile trails that are grant -in -aid trails, or other trails open to public use provided that the
commissioner of natural resources has approved; 1) conducting nutritional programs, food
shelves, and congregate dining programs primarily for persons who are age 62 or older or
disabled; m) community arts organizations, or expenditures to fund arts programs in the
community.
All requests must meet one or more of the "lawful purposes" outlined above to be considered.
The first priority in the granting of funds will then be given to City of Maplewood Organizations;
and the second priority or consideration will be given to funding requests from other
organizations which are used for City- related purposes.
Item #
Annual Charitable Gambling Review /Allocation for 2002
Page 2
The following is a listing of the organizations and groups who have submitted requests for
charitable contributions:
1. Non Profit / 501(c)(3) Room Rentals at the MCC
2. Mid Summer Night Celebrations (23)
3. Community Puppet Playhouse
4. National Night Out Community Celebration
5. Maplewood Law Enforcement Explorers
6. Ramsey County Fair Community Activities
7. Moms Club of Maplewood -North
8. Maplewood Area Historical Society
9. Red Cross Blood Drive and Bone Marrow Program
Total Amount Requested
Total Amount Available
Shortage
$ 25
$ 18
$ 1000.00
$ 7,000.00
$ 12
$ 7,000.00
$ 5 00.00 (match for bake sale at NNO)
$ 4,340.00
$ 2,500.00
$86,340.00
$43,800.00
($42,540.00)
RECOMMENDATION
All of the requests meet the basic requirements established by the City Council. Each of them
benefit the city and comply with "lawful purpose" in varying degrees. There are not enough
funds to support each of the requests. Determine which of the requests will be funded and to
what degree.