Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 04-25 City Council PacketAGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, April 25, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05 -08 A. B. C. D. E. F. 190 1111111111 Cox*] N Q 4 N PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes from the City Council /Manager Workshop -April 11, 2005 Minutes from the City Council Meeting -April 11, 2005 APPROVAL OF AGENDA 0:2 e]10 &111 :2N *i=I0 IEel0 V Proclamation — National Tinnitus Awareness Week A XQ0 F140 1 111 &W4 0 1 U7e1 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. Approval of Claims Conditional Use Permit Review — Sibley Cove (1996 County Road D) Conditional Use Permit Review —Van Dyke Village (2191- 2231 Van Dyke Street) Conditional Use Permit Review — Gruber's Power Equipment (1762 White Bear Avenue) Purchase of 2005 -2006 Winter Road Salt Legacy Parkway Improvements, City Project 03 -26 — Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 2 Waive Temporary Food Permit Fee for Ramsey County Voiture 838 at Ramsey County I:P Fair 8. Council approval for Temporary Gambling and Beer Permits for St. Paul East Parks Lions Club at Ramsey County Fair 9. Budget Changes for Fire Fighters Pension 10. Closure of Street Construction State Aid Fund 11. Closure of Debt Service Funds 12. Transfers to Close Funds for Improvement Projects 13. Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Mahtomedi 14. Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Oakdale 15. Joint Powers Agreement with the Town of White Bear Lake 1 . 01- 1I lei 01 e1NI0 7:00 p.m. Tax - exempt Financing Request — Vomela (Highway 36 and English Street) 7:00 p.m. Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04 -15 — Resolution Adoption of Assessment Roll 7:15 p.m. Springside Drive Extension, City Project 03 -36 — Resolution Adoption of Assessment Roll AWARD OF BIDS Employee Uniforms and Floor Mats Public Works Building Addition — City Project 03 -19 — Resolution Receiving bids, rejecting all bids, approving revised project plans and authorizing receipt of bids Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04 -15 and Springside Drive Extension, City Project 03 -36 — Resolution for Award of Bids UNFINISHED BUSINESS I 0 11L1l10 * *1 1. Easement Vacation (Wyngate Town Homes — Legacy Village) 2. Heritage Square Fourth (County Road D, west of Highway 61) Preliminary Plat Parking Lot Setback Variance Design Approval 3. White Bear Avenue at Community Center — Resolution Requesting Ramsey County Consideration of Turn Lane Improvements 4. White Bear Avenue Improvements — City Project 02 -21 — Resolutions Approving Joint Powers Agreement Revision with Ramsey County and Increasing Project Budget 5. TH 61 — County Road D Court — TH 61 Frontage Road Improvements — City Projects 03- 07 / 04 -06 / 04 -25 — Resolution Combining Projects for Bidding; Approving Plans and Specifications; and Authorizing Receipt of Bids 6. County Road D Court — City Project 04 -06 — Approve Exchange Agreement with Hillcrest Animal Hospital 7. County Road D Court - City Project 04 -06 — Resolutions (2) Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll, and Ordering Assessment Hearing 8. TH 61 Frontage Road Improvements - City Project 04 -25 — Resolutions (3), Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll, Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing 9. Hazelwood Street Improvements - City Project 03 -39 — Resolution Ordering Assessment Hearing 10. Dahl Avenue Improvements (Woodhill Development) - City Project 05 -10 — Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS I0 ll�el• LVi11n1 : .11 :fill ID1=1111:2:1 *1140 fill IIQ01 W 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) 249 -2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings - elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. MINUTES COUNCIL /MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, April 11, 2005 Maplewood Room, City Hall 6:05 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. FU 1 Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present Jackie Monahan - Junek, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission (PC) Interviews Agenda Item D1 Planning Commissioner Daniel Lee submitted a written resignation dated 04- 11 -05. The following candidates were interviewed in their respective order for the fourvacancies on the Planning Commission: 1. Tushar Desai 2. Lorraine Fisher 3. Jim Kaczrowski 4. Valerie Taylor Applicant Jeremy Yarwood interviewed on March 28` due to his inability to attend this meeting. After completion of the interviews, the councilmembers ranked the applicants on a scale of 5 -1. The city council will vote on the appointments at the following city council meeting. E. FUTURE TOPICS None F. ADJOURNMENT With there being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. City Council/Manager Workshop 04 -11 -05 Agenda Item D2 Draft -- MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:02 P.M. Monday, April 11, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05 -07 A C. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the City Hall, and was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present Jackie Monahan - Junek, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the Council /Manager Workshop, March 28, 2005 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the March 28, 2005 City Council /Manager workshop as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 2. Minutes from City Council Meeting -March 14, 2005 Councilmember Monahan - Junek moved to approve the minutes from the March 28, 2005 as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All 3. Minutes from Council /Manager Workshop -March 14, 2005 Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the minutes from the April 04, 2005 as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Abstain — Councilmember Monahan - Junek City Council 04 -11 -05 1 E F 0»:161TIM 1K*1 4 0 DIM M1. City Clean Up Day M2. Environmental Committee M3. Code Enforcement M4. NEST M5. League of Minnesota Cities M6. Barns of Minnesota G4. Temporary Impound Lot Contract Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS 1. Maplewood Planning Commission (PC) Appointments a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. Ayes-All b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to appoint the following persons to fill the four vacancies on the Planning Commission: 1. Lorraine Fisher with a term expiring December 31, 2007. 2. Tushar Desai with a term expiring December 31, 2007. 3. Jim Kaczrowski with a term expiring December 31, 2007. 4. Jeremy Yarwood with a term expiring December 31, 2006. C Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 271,841.57 Checks # 66540 thru # 66617 dated 03/25/05 thru 03/29/05 $ 131,882.51 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 03/18/05 thru 03/24/05 $ 557,227.11 Checks # 66618 thru # 66666 dated 04/05/05 $ 269,463.45 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 03/25/05 thru 03/31/05 $ 1,230,414.64 Total Accounts Payable City Council 04 -11 -05 2 PAVUnr r Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 03 -25- $ 430,159.54 05 $ 3,855.39 Payroll Deduction check # 100874 thru 100877 dated 03 -25 -05 $ 434,014.93 Total Payroll $ 1,664,429.57 GRAND TOTAL 2. Conditional Use Permit Review— Schlomka Landscaping (2511 Carver Avenue) Approved to review the conditional use permit for a landscape business (Schlomka Landscaping, Inc.) at 2511 Carver Avenue again in two months (June 2005). If Mr. Schlomka has not complied with the entire engineering department's requirements by this time, the city council should consider the revocation of the conditional use permit for a landscape business. 3. Donation to Police Department for Cops & Kids Fishing Clinic Accepted the donation of $200 from Saturn of St. Paul for the annual Cops & Kids Fishing Clinic. H. J Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach PUBLIC HEARINGS None AWARD OF BIDS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS consent aaenda items 1 -3. Ayes-All 1. Troutland Automobile Dealerships (New County Road D, west of Highway 61) Conditional Use Permits a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to table the conditional permit reviews for Trout Land Auto Dealers until the applicant is ready with plan revisions. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes-All City Council 04 -11 -05 3 K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Intoxicating Liquor License Manager Approval —Carle Hemmingson, Buffalo Wild Wings a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report. C. Carie Hemmingson, 3652 Auger Lane, White Bear Lake, was present for council questions. Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to approve the Intoxicating Liquor License for Carie Hemmingson for Buffalo Wild Wings at 3085 White Bear Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 2. Ramsey County 800 Mhz Antenna Facility (645 Sterling Street South) Conditional Use Permit Design Approval a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. C. Planning Commissioner Desai presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Ramsey County Manager Kirkwald addressed the Council. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the conditional use permit and the desian plans for the Ramsev Countv 800 MHz Antenna Facilitv proposal. subiect to the several conditionals of approval CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 05 -04 -042 WHEREAS, Mr. Tim Mayasich, representing Ramsey County, applied for a conditional use permit to install a new 800 MHz antenna facility at the existing water tower at 645 Sterling Street South. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property on the southwest corner of Sterling Street and Hillwood Drive. The legal description is: Outlot B, Beth Heights First Addition, according the recorded plat in Section 12, Township 28, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 12- 28 -22 -43 -0012) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 7, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. At this meeting, at the request of the applicant, the planning commission tabled action on the request until their meeting on March 21, 2005. 2. On March 21, 2005, the planning commission continued the public hearing for this request. City staff sent notices about the continued hearing to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. At this meeting, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this City Council 04 -11 -05 permit. 3. April 11, 2005, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction of the new antenna facility must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. Any antenna or equipment that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require the owner to remove it. 5. Ramsey County shall be responsible for the costs and implementation of any corrections or changes necessary because of interference or other problems caused by this facility. The county shall make any such corrections or changes in a timely manner. Approved the plans date - stamped February 4, 2005, and the revised site and landscaping plan dated March 22, 2005, for an antenna facility (including antennas and an equipment building) on the property at 645 Sterling Street South (on the southwest corner of Sterling Street and Hillwood Drive). Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: City Council 04 -11 -05 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following: a. A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area. b. A revised landscape and screening plan that: (1) Shows the preservation of as much of the existing vegetation as possible. (2) Shows the clean -up and the restoration of all turf areas with sod. c. A driveway, sidewalk, grading, drainage and erosion control plan for the project site. d. The plans for the equipment building that show the proposed exteriors with the designs, colors and materials. e. Project plans and specifications that meet all the requirements of the city building official. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall remove and dispose of any debris and ensure that the site is cleaned up. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All County Road D Improvements (TH 61 to Southlawn), City Project 02 -07 —Approve Property Acquisition Agreement with Northern States Power Company (dba as Xcel Energy) City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. City Engineer AN presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the following acquisition agreement with Northern PURCHASE AGREEMENT This PURCHASE AGREEMENT ( "Agreement') is made as of the _ day of , 2004, by and between Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, with an address of 414 Nicollet Mall, Mezzanine, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 ( "Seller "), and the City of Maplewood, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, with an address of ( "Purchaser "). Purchaser desires to purchase certain property owned by Seller, and Seller desires to sell such City Council 04 -11 -05 property to Purchaser pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser agree as follows: Article 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: 1.1 Agreement This Agreement, including the following exhibits attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof: Exhibit A Legal Description of Land Exhibit B Permitted Exceptions Exhibit C Property Access Agreement 1.2 Closing Concurrently, the transfer of title to the Property to Purchaser, the payment to Seller of the Purchase Price, and the performance by each party of the other obligations on its part then to be performed, all in accordance with the article entitled "Closing ". 1.3 Closing Date The Closing shall occur on 2005. The Closing shall be held at 10:00 a.m. on the Closing Date at the offices of Title Company or at such other place, date and time as Seller and Purchaser may agree. 1.4 Commitment The title insurance commitment with respect to the Real Property described in Section entitled "Title Evidence'. 1.5 Earnest Money. The earnest money deposit, together with any interest earned thereon, made by Purchaser and held by Title Company described in Section entitled "Purchase Price'. 1.6 Feasibility Period. The time period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on the date which is 30 days after the Effective Date. 1.7 Improvements All buildings, structures, fixtures and improvements located on the Land, if any, excepting therefrom Seller's equipment, structures or fixtures used in Seller's normal course of business. 1.8 Land The real property in the City of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, said real property being legally described on Exhibit A together with all appurtenances thereto. 1.9 Proper . The Real Property. 1.10 Purchase Price The purchase price for the Property described in Article 3. 1.11 Real Property The Land and the Improvements, if any, collectively. 1.12 Survey The survey of the Real Property described in Section entitled 'Title Evidence ". 1.13 Title Company Capital Title Corporation, 1210 West County Road E, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 1.14 Title Evidence The title commitment and copies of exceptions with respectto the Property described in Section entitled 'Title Evidence'. 1.15 Title Policy The Owner's Policy of Title Insurance to be issued pursuant to the Title Commitment, obtained as part of the Title Evidence. Article 2. Purchase and Sale. Seller hereby agrees to sell, and Purchaser hereby agrees to purchase, upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Property. Article 3. Purchase Price. 3.1 Amount Purchaser shall pay to Seller as and for the Purchase Price for the Property the sum of Two Hundred Eight Five Thousand Dollars ($285,000.00). 3.2 Manner of Payment The Purchase Price shall be payable as follows: 3.2.1 Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) as Earnest Money, to be deposited by Purchaser in escrow with Title Company contemporaneously with the mutual execution and delivery of this Agreement and held and disbursed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Earnest Money shall be non- refundable to Purchaser except as provided in Sections entitled "Correction of Title', "Feasibility Period ", "Condemnation ", and "Default'. The Earnest Money shall be paid bythe Title Company to Seller at Closing, or upon any termination of this Agreement except as provided in this Section. The Earnest Money will be credited against the Purchase Price at Closing. Purchaser acknowledges that the non - refundable character of the Earnest Money is to compensate Seller for its costs incurred in connection with this Agreement and its lost opportunity costs in taking the Property off the market. 3.2.2 The balance of the Purchase Price in cash or by certified or cashier's check or wire transfer of immediately available funds on the Closing Date. Article 4. Closing. 4.1 Seller's Closing Documents At Closing, subject to delivery by Purchaser of the Purchase City Council 04 -11 -05 Price and performance of its other obligations under this Agreement, Seller shall execute, acknowledge (where appropriate), and deliver to Purchaser the following, each dated as of the Closing Date: 4.1.1 A limited warranty deed conveying to Purchaser the Real Property, subject only to Permitted Exceptions (the "Deed "). 4.1.2 An affidavit of Seller regarding liens, judgments, tax liens, bankruptcies, parties in possession, mechanics' or materialmens' liens and other matters affecting title to the Real Property in customary form as may be reasonably required by Title Company to delete the so- called "standard exceptions" from the Title Policy. 4.1.3 All reasonable and customary documents and instruments which (a) Purchaser or Title Company may reasonably determine are necessary to transfer the Property to Purchaser subject only to the Permitted Exceptions, (b) Purchaser or Title Company may reasonably determine are necessary to evidence the authority of Seller to enter into and perform this Agreement and the documents and instruments required to be executed and delivered by Seller pursuant to this Agreement, (c) Title Company may require as a condition to issuing the Title Policy or (d) may be required of Seller under applicable law. 4.1.4 A settlement statement consistent with this Agreement. 4.2 Purchaser's Closing Deliveries At Closing, Purchaser shall cause the following to be delivered to Seller: 4.2.1 The Purchase Price less the Earnest Money, as adjusted pursuant to Section entitled "Closing Adjustments ", by cashier's check or by federal wire transfer of immediately available funds. The Earnest Money shall be applied to and credited against the Purchase Price and shall be disbursed to Seller by Title Company at Closing. 4.2.2 All normal and customary documents and instruments, each executed and acknowledged (where appropriate) by Purchaser, which (a) Seller or Title Company may reasonably determine are necessary to evidence the authority of Purchaser to enter into and perform this Agreement and the documents and instruments required to be executed and delivered by Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement, or (b) may be required of Purchaser under applicable law. 4.2.3 A settlement statement consistent with this Agreement executed by Purchaser. 4.3 Closing Escrow Purchaser and /or Seller at their option may deposit the respective Closing deliveries described in the Sections entitled "Seller's Closing Deliveries" and "Purchaser's Closing Deliveries" with Title Company with appropriate instructions for recording and disbursement consistent with this Agreement. 4.4 Closing Adjustments The following adjustments shall be made at Closing: 4.4.1 Seller shall pay when due all real property taxes for the Property imposed for the period up to and including the date of Closing, and Purchaser shall be responsible for any real property taxes forthe Property imposed after Closing. In the event Purchaser receives a tax bill for the Property for some or all taxes due from Seller pursuant to this Agreement, Seller shall remit the full amount of taxes due to Purchaser within twenty (20) days following its receipt of the tax bill. In the event Seller receives a tax bill for the Propertyfor some or all taxes due from Purchaser pursuantto this Agreement, Purchaser shall remit the full amount of taxes due to Seller within twenty (20) days following its receipt of the tax bill 4.4.2 Personal property taxes applicable to any of the Personal Property due and payable in the year of Closing shall be prorated between Seller and Purchaser on a daily basis as of the Closing Date based upon a calendarfiscal year, with Seller paying those allocable to the period priorto the Closing Date and Purchaser being responsible for those allocable subsequent thereto 4.4.3 Seller shall pay in full all special assessments, which are due, and payable prior to the Closing shall be paid by Seller. Any other special assessments (and charges in the nature of or in lieu of such assessments) levied, pending or constituting a lien with respect to any of the Real Property shall be prorated as of the Closing Date, with Seller paying those allocable to the period prior to the Closing Date and Purchaser being responsible for those allocable subsequent thereto 4.4.4 Purchaser shall pay all sales tax due regarding this transaction. 4.4.5 Purchaser shall pay the documentary fee required in connection with the recording of the Deed. 4.4.6 Seller shall pay the cost of recording any documents necessary to place record title to the Property in Seller in the condition required pursuant to the Section entitled "Correction of Title ". Purchaser will pay the cost of recording all other documents, including the Deed. 4.4.7 Purchaser will pay the premium for the Title Policy and the cost of any lender's title insurance, and any endorsements desired by Purchaser or required by its lender. 4.4.8 Purchaser shall pay any escrow fee and /or Closing fee payable to Title Company with City Council 04 -11 -05 8 respect to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. 4.4.9 The charges for any utility expenses, including water, fuel, gas, electricity, telephone, sewer, trash removal, heat and other services furnished to or provided for the Property shall be prorated between Seller and Purchaser on a daily basis as of the Closing Date, with Seller paying those allocable to the period prior to the Closing Date and Purchaser being responsible for those allocable subsequent thereto. Seller agrees to have all meters with respect to any such utilities read as of the Closing Date and Purchaser agrees to transfer any meters located on the Property to Purchaser effective as of the Closing Date. 4.4.10 Except as provided in the Article entitled "Default ", Seller and Purchaser shall each pay its own attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this transaction. If any of the amounts allocated under this Section cannot be calculated with complete precision at Closing because the amount or amounts of one or more items included in such calculation are not then known, then such calculation shall be made on the basis of the reasonable estimates of Seller and Purchaser, subject to prompt adjustment (by additional payment or refund, as necessary) when the amount of any such item or items become known. 4.5 Possession Seller shall deliver possession of the Property to Purchaser on the Closing Date, subject to the Permitted Exceptions. Article 5. Title Examination. 5.1 Title Evidence Purchaser, at its sole cost and expense, shall have the option to obtain the following: 5.1.1 a commitment to insure title to the Real Property issued by Title Company in an amount equal to the Purchase Price and copies of all documents, instruments and matters shown as exceptions which are recorded in the office of the clerk and recorder of the county in which the Real Property is located. 5.1.1 A current survey of the Real Property prepared and certified by a land surveyor licensed in Minnesota. The survey shall (a) conform to the "Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for Land Title Surveys" as adopted in 1992 by the American Land Title Association and the American Congress on Surveying & Mapping, and (b) contain a certification to Purchaser, Title Company and /or lender designated by Purchaser, if any. 5.2 Purchaser's Objections and Requirements Purchaser shall be allowed ten (10) days after delivery of the last of the Title Evidence for examination thereof and making any objections to the form and /or content of the same. Any objections not made within said ten (10) day period shall be deemed to be waived by Purchaser and shall be Permitted Exceptions, along with the items set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto. Purchaser shall have an additional five (5) day period in which to object to any revisions or endorsements to the Title Evidence as may be issued from time to time. 5.3 Correction of Title Seller shall be allowed until Closing to cure Purchaser's title objections but will be under no obligation to do so. If such cure is not completed prior to the Closing Date, Purchaser shall have the option to do any of the following: 5.3.1 Terminate this Agreement. 5.3.2 Waive its objection(s) and proceed to Closing. Article 6. Representations and Warranties. 6.1 Seller's Representations and Warranties Seller represents and warrantsto Purchaser as of the date of this Agreement as follows: 6.1.1 Seller has not entered into any contracts for the sale of any of the Property other than this Agreement. Seller has received no notice of and has no knowledge of any rights of first refusal or first offer, options to purchase any of the Property or any other rights or agreements, which may delay or prevent this transaction. 6.1.2 Seller has received no notice of and has no knowledge of any pending or proposed special assessments affecting the Property or any proposed or pending public improvements which may give rise to any special assessments affecting the Property. 6.1.3 Seller has received no notice of and has no knowledge of any pending or threatened condemnation or transfer in lieu thereof affecting any of the Property, nor has Seller agreed or committed to dedicate any of the Property. 6.1.4 There is no pending, or to the best of Seller's knowledge, threatened or contemplated, litigation, investigation, arbitration, condemnation or other proceedings of any kind affecting the Seller or any of the Property. 6.1.5 To Seller's knowledge, without investigation, there is no condition existing with respect to the City Council 04 -11 -05 Property or the operation thereof by Seller, or any part thereof, which violates any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, code, other, decree or ruling of any city, county, state or federal government, agency or court. Seller has not received notice from any governmental or quasi - governmental agency requiring the correction of any condition with respect to the Property, or any part thereof. Seller has not received notice of, and has no other knowledge or information of, any pending or contemplated litigation or condemnation action with respect to the Property, or any part thereof. 6.1.6 Seller has been incorporated under, and in good standing under, the laws of the State of Minnesota, and has the requisite power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and the documents and instruments required to be executed and delivered by Seller pursuant hereto. Execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the documents and instruments required to be executed and delivered by Seller pursuant hereto does and will not conflict with or result in a violation of Seller's articles of incorporation or by -laws or anyjudgment, order or decree of any court or arbiterto which Seller is a party, or any agreement to which Seller and /or any of the Property is bound or subject. 6.1.7 Seller has not (i) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, (ii) filed any involuntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Seller's creditors, (iii) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of Seller's assets, (iv) suffered the attachment or otherjudicial seizure of all, or substantially all, of Seller's assets, (v) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due, or (vi) made an offer of settlement, extension or composition to its creditors generally. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section entitled "Seller's Representations and Warranties ". Sellerwill not be deemed to be in breach of this Agreementwith respect to facts or conditions, which are the subject of the foregoing representations, which are disclosed to, or discovered by, Purchaser prior to the expiration of the Feasibility Period. Further, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the liability of Seller hereunder, if any, shall be limited to the Purchase Price of the Property. Subject to the foregoing, Seller's representations and warranties shall survive Closing, provided Seller shall have no liability with respect to any breach of a particular representation and warranty if Purchaser shall fail to (a) notify Seller thereof within a reasonable time after discovery thereof, or (b) commence an action against Seller with respect to the breach in question within six (6) months after Closing. Wherever herein a representation is made based upon the knowledge of, or notice to, Seller, such knowledge or notice, is limited to the actual knowledge of, or notice received by Gina L. Bulloch, Director Corporate Real Estate, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. 6.2 Purchaser's Representations and Warranties Purchaser represents and warrants to Seller as of the date of this Agreement as follows: 6.2.1 Purchaser has been duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota and is in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Property is located, is duly qualified to transact business in the jurisdiction in which the Property is located, and has the requisite power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and the documents and instruments required to be executed and delivered by Purchaser pursuant hereto. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by Purchaser and is a valid and binding obligation of Purchaser enforceable in accordance with its terms. This Agreement and the documents and instruments required to be executed and delivered by Purchaser pursuant hereto have each been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on the part of Purchaser and that such execution, delivery and performance does and will not conflict with or result in a violation of Purchaser's articles of incorporation or by -laws or any judgment, order or decree of any court or arbiter to which Purchaser is a party, or any agreement to which Purchaser and /or any of the Property is bound or subject. 6.2.2 Purchaser has not (i) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, (ii) filed any involuntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Purchaser's creditors, (iii) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of Purchaser's assets, (iv) suffered the attachment or otherjudicial seizure of all, or substantially all, of Purchaser's assets, (v) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due, or (vi) made an offer of settlement, extension or composition to its creditors generally. The foregoing representations and warranties are express representations and warranties, which Seller shall be entitled to rely on regardless of any investigation or inquiry made by, or any knowledge of, Seller. Consummation of this Agreement by Seller with knowledge of any such breach shall not constitute a waiver or release by Purchaser of any claims arising out of or in connection with such breach. The foregoing representations and warranties shall survive Closing or termination of this Agreement. Article 7. Feasibility Period. City Council 04 -11 -05 10 (a) During the Feasibility Period, Purchaser may investigate the Property and all matters relevant to its acquisition, development, usage, operation and marketability, and any and all permits and approvals necessary for Purchaser's usage. Such investigations shall be conducted at Purchaser's sole expense and may include, without limitation, studies or inspections (including environmental inspections) of the Property. Any environmental or other physical inspection of the Property shall occur pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Property Access Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit C. Subject to the terms of this Agreement and the Property Access Agreement Seller shall reasonably cooperate with Purchaser's inspections during the Feasibility Period. Purchaser shall deliver copies of any reports or results of any tests regarding the Property within five (5) days of receipt by Purchaser. (b) Seller, without additional cost to Purchaser, shall deliver to Purchaser copies of all surveys, engineering studies, feasibility studies, soil and water test results, maps, plats, contracts, documents, agreements, permits, licenses, reports and data pertaining to or affecting the Property that it has in its possession. These documents shall be delivered to Purchaser on or before five (5) days after the Effective Date. In the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason after the Effective Date, Purchaser, without additional cost to Seller, shall promptly return to Seller all of the above listed materials pertaining to the Property, which are in the Purchaser's possession or under Purchaser's control. Purchaser shall keep all such materials confidential and shall not disclose such information or documents to any third party without the prior written consent of Seller. (c) Seller does not warrant the accuracy of any record, document or information made available to Purchaser or any of the records or documents. Statements of fact or opinion contained in any record, documents or information made available to Purchaser shall not be deemed to be a representation or warranty hereunder. The records, documents or information made available to Purchaser are being provided to Purchaser for informational purposes only and shall be read in the context that they were prepared by Seller or Seller's consultants for intercompany use without expectation that such documents would be disseminated to third parties in connection with this transaction. Further, it is agreed that Purchaser is responsible for its own due diligence despite receiving information and documentation relating to the Property from Seller. Purchaser agrees that Purchaser shall independently verify such information provided by Seller and Purchaser releases Sellerfrom any and all liability, damages and claims associated with Purchaser's reliance thereon. (d) If either the Purchaser or Seller, in their sole discretion, is not satisfied with the results of said inspection, Purchaser or Seller shall deliver written notice thereof to the other party on or before the expiration of the Feasibility Period. If such notice is received by either party, as set forth above, and if Purchaser and Seller have not agreed, in writing, to a settlement thereof on or before ten (10) days after the expiration of the Feasibility Period (Resolution Deadline), this Agreement shall terminate three calendar days following the Resolution Deadline; unless the party that received the termination notice receives written notice from the other party waiving objection to any unsatisfactory condition prior to the Resolution Deadline. If said written notice of such unsatisfactory condition(s) is not received on or before the date specified above, then this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the contingency as set forth in this paragraph shall be deemed to be waived. (e) Purchaser shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Sellerfrom any claim, liability, or cost, including attorney fees, which Seller may incur or which may be asserted against Seller or the Property by reason of Purchaser's inspections, tests, and investigations of the Property, or as a result of Purchaser's entrance onto the Property, including without limitation injury to persons or property and the assertion of any mechanic's liens or claims for payment; provided, however, that Purchaser shall have no liability relating to the mere discovery of adverse conditions on the Property not created by Purchaser. The provisions of this Section shall not be construed to merge with the passage of title to the Property and shall survive Closing or other termination of this Agreement. (f) The Property is sold by Seller and acquired by Purchaser "As -Is, Where -Is, With All Faults" with no right of set -off or reduction in the Purchase Price, and that except as explicitly set forth in this Agreement or in the Deed (with respect to warranties of title) such sale shall be without representation of warranties, express or implied, either oral or written, made by Seller or any agent or representative of Seller with respect to the physical or structural condition of the Property, or with respect to the existence or absence of petroleum, hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants in, on, under, or affecting the Property or with respect to the compliance of the Property or its operation with any laws, ordinances or regulations of any government or other body. Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that Seller has not made and does not make any representations, warranties or covenants of any kind or character whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to warranty of income potential, operating expenses, City Council 04 -11 -05 11 uses, habitability, tenant ability, or suitability for any purpose, merchantability, or fitness of the Property for a particular purpose, all of which warranties Seller hereby expressly disclaims. Purchaser is relying entirely upon information and knowledge obtained from its own investigation, experience, or personal inspection of the Property. Purchaser expressly assumes, at closing, all environmental and other liabilities with respect to the Property and releases and indemnifies Sellerfrom same, whether such liability is imposed by statute or derived from common law including, but not limited to, liabilities arising under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( "CERCLA"), the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( "RCRA "), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, all as amended, and all other comparable federal, state or local environmental, conservation or protection laws, rules or regulations. The foregoing assumption and release shall survive closing. All statements of fact or disclosures, if any, made in this Agreement or in connection with this Agreement, do not constitute warranties or representations of any nature. The foregoing provision shall survive Closing and shall not be deemed merged into any instrument of conveyance delivered at Closing. Article 8. Indenture Release. Seller shall apply for and obtain a release of the Property from Seller's Corporate Indenture ( "Indenture Release ") within ninety (90) days after Closing. Article 9. Lot Split. The sale and purchase of the Property requires a lot split. Purchaser shall obtain the approval of the required governmental agencies for said lot split prior to the expiration of the Feasibility Period, and shall complete the lot split, including subsequently obtaining certificates of title for the split parcels from the Examiner of Titles, all at Purchaser's sole cost and expense. Article 10. Reservation or Dedication of Easements. Seller shall reserve in the Deed any utility easements it requires for the present and future operation of its facilities over, under and across the Property. Article 11. Contingency. The sale of the Property by Seller shall be contingent upon, and occur contemporaneously with, the granting of an easement by Burlington Northern Santa Fe to Seller and the associated transactions related to property adjacent to the Property, as set forth in that certain Agreement by and between Seller and Purchaser dated 2004. Article 12. Condemnation. If priorto Closing eminent domain proceedings are commenced against any material portion of the Property, Seller shall immediately give notice thereof to Purchaser, and Purchaser at its option (to be exercised within fifteen (15) days after Seller's notice) may either (a) terminate this Agreement, or (b) proceed to Closing and receive at Closing either a credit against the Purchase Price in the amount of the award, in the case of a completed eminent domain proceeding, or an assignment of all rights in eminent domain, in the case of a pending eminent domain proceeding. Prior to Closing, Seller shall not designate counsel, appear in, or otherwise act with respect to any eminent domain proceedings, or commence any repair or restoration resulting therefrom, without the consent of Purchaser. Article13. Brokers. Each of the parties represents to the other that such party has not incurred any brokerage commission or finder's fee as a result of this transactions and each party agrees to hold the other harmless from all liabilities incurred by the other relating to such brokerage commission or finder's fee incurred as a result of the actions of such party. The provisions of this Article shall survive Closing or termination of this Agreement. Article14. Default. In the case of any default by Purchaser, Seller's sole and exclusive remedy shall be termination of this Agreement and, upon any such termination, the Earnest Money shall be forfeited to Seller as liquidated damages. In the case of any default by Seller, upon Purchaser's option, Purchaser may terminate this Agreement whereupon the Earnest Money shall be returned to Purchaser. Purchaser also shall have the right to specifically enforce this Agreement, provided that any action therefore is commenced within six (6) months after such right arises. Purchaser waives any right it may have to recover damages from Seller in any action or proceeding to enforce this Agreement or anyterm hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. Article15. Assignability. Purchaser may not assign its rights under this Agreement without the consent of Seller, provided, however that, one time only, without Seller's consent, but upon notice to Seller, Purchaser may assign its rights under this Agreement to an entity owned and controlled by Purchaserwhich agrees to assume all of City Council 04 -11 -05 12 Purchaser's duties and obligations under this Agreement. Article16. Confidentiality. Seller and Purchaser agree to retain the confidentiality of the identity of the other and of the terms of this Agreement, and not to disclose the same to any third party other than to the extent required by applicable law. Article17. Notices. Any notice, consent, waiver, request or other communication required or provided to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivered personally or when mailed by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or when dispatched by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, in any event, addressed to the party's address as follows: If to Seller: Gina L. Bulloch Director, Corporate Real Estate Corporate Real Estate Department Xcel Energy Services, Inc. 55015 th Street, Suite 1000 Denver. Colorado 80202 With copy to: Jennifer Thulien Smith, Esq. Law Department Xcel Energy Services, Inc. 800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 2900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 If to Purchaser: City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 With copy to: Sarah J. Sonsalla, Esq. Kelly & Fawcett, P.A. 2350 U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffrey Plaza 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 or to such party at such other address as such party, by ten (10) days prior written notice given as herein provided, shall designate, provided that no party may require notice to be sent to more than two (2) addresses. Any notice given in any other manner shall be effective only upon receipt by the addressee. Article 8. Miscellaneous. 8.1 Entire Agreement; Modification This Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding between Seller and Purchaser, and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements, relating to this transaction. This Agreement may not be amended, modified or supplemented except in a writing executed by both Seller and Purchaser. No term of this Agreement shall be waived unless done so in writing by the party benefited by such term. 18.2 Survival; No Merger The terms of this Agreement shall survive and be enforceable after the Closing and shall not be merged therein. 18.3 Governing Law This Agreement shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 18.4 Severability If any term of this Agreement or any application thereof shall be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and any other application of such term shall not be affected thereby. 18.5 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence under this Agreement. 18.6 Construction The rule of strict construction shall not apply to this Agreement. This City Council 04 -11 -05 13 Agreement shall not be interpreted in favor of or against either Seller or Purchaser merely because of their respective efforts in preparing it. 18.7 Captions, Gender, Number and Language of Inclusion The article and section headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not define, limit or prescribe the scope or intent of any term of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, the masculine, feminine and neuter adjectives shall include one another, and the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: (i) "including" shall mean "including but not limited to ", (ii) "terms" shall mean "terms, provisions, duties, covenants, conditions, representations, warranties and indemnities ", (iii) "any of the Property" or "any of the Real Property" shall mean "the Property or any part thereof or interest therein" or "the Real Property or any part thereof or interest therein ", as the case may be, (iv) "rights" shall mean "rights, duties and obligations ", (v) "liabilities" shall mean "liabilities, obligations, damages, fines, penalties, claims, demands, costs, charges, judgments and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees ", (vi) "incurred by" shall mean "imposed upon or suffered or incurred or paid by or asserted against ", (vii) "applicable laud' shall mean "all applicable Federal, state, county, municipal, local or other laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations ", (viii) "about the Property" or "about the Real Property" shall mean "in , on, under or about the Property" or "in, on under or about the Real Property ", as the case may be, (ix) "operation" shall mean "use, non -use, possession, occupancy, condition, operation, maintenance or management ", and (x) "this transaction" shall mean "the purchase, sale and related transactions contemplated by this Agreement ". 18.8 Binding Effect This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall bind the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of Seller and Purchaser. 18.9 Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. Article 19. Recording Neither party shall record this Agreement. In the event Purchaser records this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and Seller shall have the remedies setforth in the Section entitled "Default ". Article 20. Offer This proposal shall expire unless accepted in writing, by Purchaser and Seller, as evidenced by their signatures below, the offering party receives notice of such acceptance and Purchaser deposits the Earnest Money on or before noon on December 17, 2004 (Acceptance Deadline). If accepted, this document shall become a contract between Seller and Purchaser. SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY (MINNESOTA) AND CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Seller and Purchaser have caused this Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the date first above written. SELLER: NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, MINNESOTA By: Gina L. Bulloch City Council 04 -11 -05 14 Its: Director, Corporate Real Estate_ Its: PURCHASER: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD By: Its: P . EXHIBITA Legal Description of the Land A severed parcel over and across the following described property: TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 262, files of the Registrar of Titles, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Said severed parcel is all that part of above - described property which lies southerly and southeasterly of a line drawn parallel and concentricwith and distant 50.00 feet northerly and northwesterly from the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the northeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East along the north line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 3, for 535.77 feet; thence southwesterly for 908.99 feet along a non - tangential curve, concave to the southeast, radius 850.00 feet, central angle 61 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds, the chord of the said curve bears South 59 degrees 06 minutes 48 seconds West to the beginning of the line to be described; thence South 28 degrees 28 minutes 38 seconds West for 1007.59 feet to a point of curvature; thence southwesterly for 495.09 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, radius 460.00 feet, central angle 61 degrees 39 minutes 58 seconds; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 25 seconds West for 200.00 feet and said line there terminating. P.I.N. #: 03- 29 -22 -21 -0002 EXHIBIT B PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS The lien for real property taxes not yet due and payable. Utility and drainage easements. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, and state and federal regulations. Restrictions relating to use or improvement of the Property. Reservation of any mineral rights to the State of Minnesota. Perpetual right and easement to erect and maintain a line of towers and wires for the transmission of electrical current including telephone wires, granted to Northern States Power Company by easement recorded in Book 75 of Misc., Page 136. Easement granted to Northern States Power Company of a perpetual right, privilege and easement to construct, operate, maintain, use, rebuild or remove electric transmission lines with all towers, structures, poles, crossarms, cables, wires, guys, supports, counterpoises, fixtures and devices over, across and upon a strip 225 feet in width, and recorded as Doc. No. 514455. Right of Way Conveyance granted to Standard Oil Company to lay, maintain, inspect, operate, replace, change or remove a pipeline for the transmission of oil, gas, or the products thereof, filed for record as Doc. No. 243980, Said Right of Way Conveyance having been assigned to the American Oil Company, a Maryland corporation, by Doc. No. 426627, which Right of Way Conveyance has been confined to a Strip 50 feet in width, by Doc. No. 591006, the location of said strip being as described in said partial release. City Council 04 -11 -05 15 Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for the Woodhill Development, Project 05- 10 — Accept Petition Requesting Public Improvement and Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. City Engineer AN presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution ordering the preparation of the feasibility studv for the Dahl Avenue. Street Utilitv Improvements for the Woodhill Development. City Protect 05 -10: RESOLUTION 05 -04 -043 ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, it is proposed to make Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for the Woodhill Development, City Project 05 -10, and to assess the benefited properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. report. FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $5,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes-All Myrtle Street Drainage Improvement, City Project 05 -11 — Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Study City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. Public Works Director AN presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution ordering the preparation of the feasibility study for the Myrtle Street Drainage Improvements, Project 05 -11: RESOLUTION 05 -04 -044 ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, it is proposed to make improvements to the Myrtle Street Drainage Improvements, City Project 05 -11, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it City Council 04 -11 -05 16 should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. report. FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $5,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Municipal State Aid Street Revision — Resolution Requesting Designation of Sterling Street and Brookview Drive as Municipal State Aid Routes City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. Public Works Director AN presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving the request to designate Sterling Street and Brookview Drive as Municipal State Aid Street Routes: RESOLUTION 05 -04 -045 REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET ROUTES WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood may designate up to 20% of its local streets as Municipal State Aid Streets, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that 0.83 miles of streets remain available for designation within the City of Maplewood, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Department of Transportation State Aid for Local Transportation Division, State Aid Operations Chapter 8820 Rules, 8820.0700 Selection Criteria, the City Engineer has reported the following regarding Sterling Street between 1 -94 right -of -way (Hudson Place) and Brookview Drive and Brookview Drive from Sterling Street to Century Avenue: The justification for designating these routes is as follows: Each route functions as a neighborhood collector to access a major arterial, 1 -94, and a major collector, Century Avenue, and functions as a local bypass of the arterial system. Each route connects points within the community of traffic interest, parks, and recreational areas within the urban municipality. Each route provides an integrated street system affording a network consistent with projected traffic patterns. The termini of these segments are 1 -94 trunk highway right -of -way (Hudson Place) to the west and Century Avenue, a trunk highway, on the eastern end. Sterling Street from 1 -94 right -of -way (Hudson Place) to Brookview Drive is 0.13 miles. Brookview Drive from Sterling Street to Century Avenue is 0.50 miles. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The designation of Sterling Street from 1 -94 right -of -way (Hudson place) to Brookview Drive and Brookview Drive from Sterling Street to Century Avenue is hereby requested of the District State Aid Engineer for approval. 2. The City Engineer is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the MnDOT District State Aid Engineer requesting his concurrence and requesting he forward said resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation certifying said designation. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes-All City Council 04 -11 -05 17 7. Dispatch Consolidation Consideration a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report and specifics from the report. b. Police Chief Thomalla and Fire Chief Lukin presented additional specifics from the report. C. Former Mayor George Rossbach addressed the Council. d. Commissioners McDonough, Reinhardt and the newly hired county dispatch manager Scott Williams, answered questions of the council. e. Mayor Cardinal submitted the following two documents into the record: To: Richard l4tristrian, City Manager. N[aptewocid (FAX 249-2059) OC Victerria. Reinhardt JiMNSDOEICLO From: David I JVa, Ramsey County Manager Dale QT 7005 Re: Library Levies you ask about how Libricry Levies are divided up within Ramsey County and why we could tint consider the same type of arraignment Where by Only then communities that were pad of the Pzmsey County Dispatch Center would pay for its operation, Under Chapter 134, Minnesota Statues, it specifically allows for cities and counties to establish public library services, This Statute was enacted way back in 1913 and has been amended p times air= teal, but the basic law has been that cities and counties may levy air annual tax on a taxable property for library services ' " e _ -x p-I cou nties - not tax fn� which is qhvczo� t kALWMAtMa: - gWB ingdtitp-Olic lib M-S. 134.0 AND M.S. 134.11 The effect of this is that since SL POW doos 1 LVY for public library services, Ramsay County conrot. No similar togis[atim exists that would allow separate taxadurr for dispatch services. While it might be possible fiv- special le&lmicm that would provide fur u levy Only in d, commu nities that = pan of -at individual dispatch ccntm, I would not recommend t hi s to h C ounty B SIT= (1) na tio n wide the push has bccry to wasolidide dispatch cen d t improvements in technology that makes Lourny wide or even regional di c raw cost effective and (2) splintering the tax base for imljvldrcd services always creates problems Should only those curintrun that h ave large numbs o f l i noustrig pay for human services? Should c o rr ections and jail services be paid for an a pct tan, basis by only those communizes whose residents have committed the crun&.' Should only those people wbo have children in sclAvnI pay for the scilools?!5hould only those people who use city parks pay for parks and recreation? Cities and Counties all provide a bundle of services that may not be u3M by each and every citizen, but provide a better quality of 5fe at a reasonable cost To all of our citizens. We all need to support consolidation of services where they make sense and Where m erc i an improvement in services an d cog savings. I hope this answers your questions, pl contact me should you need further iftformaliCal. City Council 04-11-05 18 From: john.f.hardirg9att.net X Save Address > R.eminder Tot sscott0imoneerpress.ocum FF a. ynirr srrw -la or S + tss[i]S Lin yvittca,+irta n ;norm Y l5ate: Sat, 26 Mar 2045 21:09.23 +0000 LY40y Stab Dear Mr... Scott, I work In the Land Mobile Radio industry so, naturally, I read your article, t r_3,. t o :3:yree Fi r, r. °'- t' e-.s o f !,Ia,.aXrtnA a- nct wS :h 1 to -n a metres alert system, Please note that I am not a citizen of Maplewood and although. II am In the business of selling radio products I have no political connection to the issue. I understant that many of the police officers on the Maplewood force are also trained. as EMT specialist. This puts them in a unique situation on that basis atone But I atso know that the City of Maplewood Trent on a County system a few a � r• - equipment. The Problem for them, as i recaii, was the fact that the dispatches were not getting out In a timely manner. Also, Maplewood has two Target Stores and when a call want out to dispatch a squad to 'the. Target strore' there were some dispattes that sent the pollee to the wrong store:. The dispatchers did not show sulmcfent concern toward that type (it situation... I know that a lot of politicians have been touting the new systems but the truth ,s it is one of Lne ningest has in the hIST #ry of comma Pcations ikniirie Fire and other fiirsi responders cannot afford the lapses in Who or the confusion that a multi -use system can generate. I suggest you Contact some of the police officers in Pb Ilidelph a, PA. or any of the other major cities. But 00 NOT talk to the policy makers. Talk to real five cops and firemen. Some cf t here will tell you that their system Is just fine while others have horror stories about late dispatches,: delays and hang -ups with the equipment, and too rruch confusintl traffic on the air... delhuve 0e, i t,uum UC makiEug a i(A ul (money Se iilii.4Lo iiiCSe LypeSo m SvhLek S but I have little faith In some of the human /technical operat tonal efflionahyy of many of these. systems... I always seems to me that the city of St, Paul Is just trying to get surrounding juriseictlons to pay for a new disvatt:h system. As I say, I do not have a dog in this hunt but as ah average catizen with some e,fpenence with Land /Mobile Communications.. I think the whole idea of 'i_e[it�w�ix�ei a.iitY ti�iihtit't t5 vklt u. vtaaw itt9 ittYk'tis arts, T.YZte si w, ry a ._ n tiE R.v i :r floc i. it "st tr @Spurr �.sr`s ars ts. aw bhvir fobs ai e cLr e.v`, zai nee the very vest the taxpayers can give them. Local Control is always better. ALWAYS. I hank you for your consideration.. )ohn Harding Minneapolis Mayor Cardinal read the following document into the record: City Council 04 -11 -05 19 PSAP Consolidation Consideration With Ramsey County I . Should utilize the largest and fastest telecommunications platform with unrivaled high-speed, high-volume notification and call- handling capabilities. Should share information and receive feedback from employees, customers, and affiliated agencies quickly, directly, and reliably at any time. I Should provide an on-demand back-up for all call centers, to taking calls and making calls simultaneously and without interruption, 4. Should be able to handle a high volume of inbound calls in a short time, especially in the event of an emergency, also, can quickly overload all switchboards and call centers. 5. Should be able to answer every inbound call while keeping outbound lines operi 6. Should allow meeting the ongoing needs of communities without interruption, 7. Should have no caller receive a busy signal and can immediately provide information instruction and peace of mind. S. Should make all organizations more capable and responsive. 9. Should ensure the continuity of operations and free up people to focus on their core responsibilities. 10. Recognize the limitations and vulnerabilities of an on-site system-, the costs of managing and maintaining a self-operated, on-site system. I LAII future system upgrades should be available automatically at no additional cost; a solution that wil I never become obsolete. I.I.Trust the most critical communications solutions to be completely secure, redundant, and reliable. I Ueams such as emergency management or executive to be secure for conference bridge up to 75 people being always available. 14.World-class support available always live, and around the clock help desk. City Council 04-11-05 20 15.Systems should be continually tested, ably backed up with UPS generators- 16.Community"s confidence should never be compromised. 17.Systern as a high-speed, high-volume notification and inbound call handling system that is accessed, controlled, and maintained via the Internet. I S.Should make available more than 3,000 outdial VRU ports (lines) and additional 30,000 inbound VRtj ports. Plus, 30,000 fax ports. Should have large call capacity and a system to offer inbound call handling. This means that 180,000 thirty-second outgoing calls could be made per hour, without affecting volume of incoming calls received and rerouted simultaneously. 19.Should allow searchable, sortable database and (jeoCoded mapping features which allows to isolate a calling area by simply outlining it on a map, and then the database ensures you have the most current and complete calling information available. This eliminates the need to build and maintain own database. 20.Should be prepared for any situation, even ones that have not been anticipated. 2 1 Should allow setting up the system requirements with no equipment to be purchased, no phone lines to be installed, and no software to be maintained. This means equipment on-site cannot be disabled in the even! of a physical catastrophe at the site location, 22.System operated via the Internet with 100% generated backup, to ensure continuity of operations. System will operate even if there is an interruption in the electrical supply. 23.System help desk available 24 hours a day, every day of the year for technical support or for assistance in executing a notification procedure should our Internet access be unavailable. 24.Systcm to include no hardware or software to purchase or maintain, and requires no additional phone lines. Installation, time and expense would be minimal, and any future system upgrades would be automatically made available to all users at no additional cost. City Council 04-11-05 21 25.System should be able to be used for any number of both emergency and day -to -day uses„ including the call -up of emergency teams and key personnel or mass public notification alerts for severe weather warnings, evacuation instructions, or AMBER Alerts. System should allow calling lists to be generated from existing in -house databases, and CreoCoded mapping functions. 26. Using massive inbound call handling capability being offered should handle Public Safety use of existing numbers to establish public information hotlines. Providing this information on- demand should greatly reduce the burden on the 9 -1 -1 system and local dispatching call centers, which in turn allows emergency personnel to focus on the event. 27.System should allow to reach key personnel and officials regardless of their location„ providing real -time reporting so that the status ofcach call can be confirmed. 28.You don't know= w=hat you don't know, Mayor Cardinal moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with negotiations with the County for dispatch consolidation. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Koppen, Monahan - Junek and Rossbach Nay - Councilmember Juenemann Mayor Cardinal moved to direct City Manager Fursman to take action to consider consolidation with Ramsey County and start negotiating on the agreement. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Koppen, Monahan - Junek and Rossbach Nay - Councilmember Juenemann City Manager Fursman defined the principals of the proposal. Councilmember Monahan - Junek moved to reconsider. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All Mayor Cardinal moved to agree in principal to the terms of the offer. Then Maplewood will move in the direction of consolidated dispatching with the intent of contracting with Ramsey County provided: City Council 04 -11 -05 22 An acceptable contract can be negotiated. A dispatching protocol acceptable to Chief Lukin and Chief Thomalla is established. If contract conditions and dispatching protocols cannot be agreed to, Maplewood will reconsider its position. Mayor Cardinal added that all of the unanswered questions from the evening need to be answered. Councilmember Monahan - Junek asked City Attorney Kelly to define "agree in principal." Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Koppen, Monahan - Junek and Rossbach Nay - Councilmember Juenemann A five minute recess was taken. L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Bob Erickson, 47 Kingston, Maplewood, provided council with an update on the traffic problems on his street and statewide. M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS City Clean -Up Day - Councilmember Juenemann reminded citizens that Saturday, April 23'' is City Clean Up Day at the Aldrich Arena site. A nominal fee is charged for most items. Details can be found on the city website. Environmental Committee — Councilmember Juenemann informed residents that the Committee is working on a storm water brochure that will be released in the near future. Also, Sub - committees have been formed to pick a city pond or wetland to clean -up and restore. The committee is also working on a tree planting program for 2006. 3. NEST — Councilmember Rossbach reported on the last NEST meeting and updated the council on financial struggles the program is having. 4. League of Minnesota Cities — Councilmember Rossbach informed council of the League of Cities conference that he, Councilmember Juenemann and City Manager Fursman attended. 5. Barns of Minnesota — Wednesday, May 11, 2005, Heart of the Farm will be held at the Maplewood Community Center, with Bruentrup Farm being featured. 6. Cops and Lobsters - Councilmember Juenemann requested that Police Chief Thomalla give a report on their Cops and Lobster's program at the Red Lobster Restaurant, which will be held on April 27, 2005, 5:00 p.m. to close. 7. Code Enforcement -Mayor Cardinal reminded residents that the code for the parking of cars on your property will be enforced by fines. Cars must be parked on a hard surface, not grass. City Council 04 -11 -05 23 ILI ll�ilQLVilln1.11:lilIVj=I :a *114LI III rilIIQLI&I White Bear Avenue Parade Assistant City Manager Coleman asked council to respond to her within a couple days if they would like to participate in the WBA parade on Thursday, July 14, 2005. O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Juenemann moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - All City Council 04 -11 -05 24 Agenda Item F1 PROCLAMATION Whereas, approximately 50 million Americans are afflicted with tinnitus, a medical condition what causes a person to hear noises like hissing, ringing, or whooshing when no external source is present; and Whereas, approximately 12 million Americans suffer such debilitating symptoms from their tinnitus that they are forced to seek medical help; and Whereas, many tinnitus sufferers think the only solution to their condition is to "learn to live with it'; and Whereas, tinnitus presently has no cure, and the American Tinnitus Association would like to rally support for research around a theme of Now Cure This! And, whereas, in many cases, simple hearing protection and awareness of risk would help protect people form hearing loss or further damage to their hearing; and Whereas, this proclamation would help inform children and adults about the three basic rules that help protect good hearing: 1. Turn down the volume when it's too loud. 2. Use earplugs or earmuffs in noisy environments. 3. Walk away from noises that are too loud. Whereas, the American Tinnitus Association has taken as its mission the charge to silence tinnitus through education, advocacy, research, and support, and is celebrating National Tinnitus Awareness Week 2005 as a means of raising public awareness, educating people throughout these United States, and advancing the quest for cures, Now, therefore, I, Bob Cardinal, Mayor of Maplewood, do hereby proclaim National Tinnitus Awareness Week, May 21 -28, 2005. April 25, 2005 Bob Cardinal, Mayor AGENDA NO. G -1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: April 25,2005 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. ACCOUNTSPAYABLE: $ 132,880.76 Checks # 66667 thru # 66718 dated 4/12/05 $ 650,460.49 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 4/01/05 thru 4/07/05 $ 52.00 Checks# 66719 dated 4/12/05 $ 115,873.32 Checks # 66720 thru # 66760 dated 04/15/05 thru 04/19/05 $ 288,745.91 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 04/08/05 thru 04/13/05 $ 1,188,012.48 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 447,405.13 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 4 -08 -05 $ 5,520.38 Payroll Deduction check # 100981 thru # 100986 dated 4 -08 -05 $ 452,925.51 Total Payroll $ 1,640,937.99 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651- 249 -2902 if you have any question on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. ds attachments cAMy Documents \Excel \Miscellaneous \05- AprClms 04 -08 and 04 -15 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 04/08/2005 11:09:44 AM Check Date Vendor 66667 66668 66669 66670 66671 66672 66673 66674 66675 66676 66677 66678 66679 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 02074 AHL, R CHARLES 00089 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSN 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC 00157 BARR ENGINEERING CO 00174 BELDE,STAN 01986 BUSACK, DANIEL 03367 CAIN OUSE ASSOCIATION INC 00255 CAPITOL RUBBER STAMP CO. 02865 CENTEX HOMES 00305 COLEMAN, MELINDA 02789 COMCAST CABLE COMM INC 02761 DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW AND UBAN 00358 DGM INC. 66680 66681 66682 66683 66684 66685 66686 66687 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES 00103 EARL F ANDERSON INC 01973 ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC 02071 FISHER, DAVID 00543 GE CAPITAL 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC 00771 JOHNSON, RICK 01894 KELLY & FAWCETT PA 66688 4/12/2005 02453 KNABE, WILLIAM 66689 4/12/2005 00827 L M C IT 66690 4/12/2005 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 66691 4/12/2005 02823 MARTIN, JERROLD 66692 4/12/2005 03098 MCFARLANE PROPERTIES LLC 66693 4/12/2005 02452 METRO CISM TEAM 66694 4/12/2005 00901 MN GFOA 66695 4/12/2005 01051 MN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 66696 4/12/2005 01028 MN STATE TREASURERSTAX 66697 4/12/2005 03307 MOULTON, DAVE 66698 4/12/2005 01978 NATURALAREAS JOURNAL 66699 4/12/2005 01156 NELSON, JEAN 66700 4/12/2005 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC 66701 4/12/2005 00001 ONETIMEVENDOR 66702 4/12/2005 00001 ONETIMEVENDOR 66703 4/12/2005 01349 RANGER RICK 66704 4/12/2005 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL 66705 4/12/2005 02976 RICE, MIKE 66706 4/12/2005 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 66707 4/12/2005 03073 SANDERS WACKER BERGLY INC 66708 4/12/2005 03278 SKRYPEK'S DAIRY QUEEN 66709 4/12/2005 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 66710 4/12/2005 01537 STREAMLINE DESIGN INC. 66711 4/12/2005 01550 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS 66712 4/12/2005 01564 SUZANNE'S CUISINE, INC. 66713 4/12/2005 01578 T.R.F. SUPPLY CO. 66714 4/12/2005 02793 TRANCENTRIX INC Description /Account REIMB FOR MILEAGE - MAR MEMBERSHIP THRU 4/30/2006 ANIMAL CONTROL SRVS 3/26 - 3/31 PRIORY PRESERVE -PROF SRVS 1/29 -2/25 K -9 MAI NT - APR REIMB FOR GUN SAFE PROJ 03 -39 STREET LIGHTING DESIGN STAMP ESCROW RELEASE REIMB MEALS, SHUTTLE, & INTERNET INTERNET SRVS ACCT #87 7 21 0 5 3701 975 9 8 CONSULTING TOW VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE TOW VEHICLE ADVANCED EFFECTIVE MGMT FROG SIGN SUPPLIES CAR WASHES - MAR REIMB FOR MILEAGE 1/6 - 2/23 REIMB FOR MILEAGE 2/24 - 3/24 COPIER LEASE 4/13 - 5/12 REMOVETREE DEER REMOVAL - MAR PROSECUTION SERVICES - MAR LEGAL SERVICES - MAR REPAIR FIRE VEHICLE CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE 11051532 BIRTHDAY CAKES REIMB FOR UNIFORM PROJ 02 -08 REIMB FORADDL WORK TRAINING REGISTRATION MONTHLY MEETING 4/20 PRE - EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS MONTHLY SURTAX - MAR TUNE MCC PIANO MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL REIMB FOR MILEAGE 1/4 TO 3/30 PARKS & REC BROCHURE MCC NEWSLETTER REF MARJORIE KEMP - AMB 04020721 REF BRIAN UPHUS - PARKS FROG 1 YR SUBSCRIPTION PARAMEDIC PROGRAM SUPPLIES REIMB FOR BLDG INSP TEST 4 -6 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES STERLING OAKS - LANDSCAPE ARCH SRVS BIRTHDAY CAKES PROJ 99 -02 SEWER REPAIR TRAINING COURSE - 9 PARAMEDIC PROGRAM SUPPLIES HOCKEY TEE SHIRTS ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS MCC EVENT E01132 MAINT SUPPLIES SAFETY GLOVES & HEARING PROTECTION ANNUAL 3M EPAYMENT SOLUTIONS FEE Amnunt 94.77 757.50 471.29 2,577.33 35.00 100.00 1,723.55 22.87 49,133.54 173.46 50.08 3,119.50 182.12 90.53 90.53 90.53 122.48 90.53 90.53 90.53 600.00 891.63 124.00 58.32 42.93 293.94 266.25 100.00 9,825.00 8,105.17 2,016.00 888.41 64.00 250.63 320.00 120.00 15.00 812.50 2,513.09 100.00 30.00 67.47 12,745.00 1,499.52 76.81 10.00 17.00 143.84 140.00 29.07 1,352.50 99.00 6,205.34 360.00 1,839.92 1,190.00 5,574.00 354.11 61.77 628.40 150.00 Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 66715 4/12/2005 01649 TRI -STATE BOBCAT, INC. 5130 BOBCAT LOADER AS PER QUOTE AND 1,943.63 66716 4/12/2005 03103 WASHINGTON CTY CHIEF OF POLICE ANNUAL DUES 100.00 66717 4/12/2005 01190 XCEL ENERGY ELEC UTILITY - STMT DATE 3/25 9,630.93 66718 4/12/2005 01805 ZIEGLER INC. REPAIR IMPLEMENT PUMP 2,118.91 52 Checks in this report Total checks: 132,880.76 9 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 03/31/05 04/01/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 19,371.50 03/31/05 04/01/05 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 464.50 04/01/05 04/01/05 US Bank Trust 3 Debt Service payments 473,941.69 04/01/05 04/04/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 21,725.98 04/04/05 04/05/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 20,920.93 04/04/05 04/05/05 Pitney Bowes Postage 2,985.00 04/05/05 04/06/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 21,211.37 04/06/05 04/07/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 17,121.62 04/01/05 04/07/05 Elan Financial Services* Purchasing card items 72,717.90 TOTAL *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached. 650,460.49 H Transaction Review For Transactions posted between 03/19/2005 to 04/01/2005 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 04/01/2005 U OF M CCE ON LINE 180.00 R CHARLES AHL 03/21/2005 SAFE AND KNIFE COMPANY 1,927.94 SCOTT ANDREWS 03/28/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 7.60 SCOTT ANDREWS 03/29/2005 INTERSAFE WHOLESALE SAFET 223.85 SCOTTANDREWS 03/31/2005 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIPM 394.00 SCOTTANDREWS 03/22/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 4.85 MANDY ANZALDI 03/25/2005 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 66.09 MANDY ANZALDI 03/21/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 537.52 JOHN BANICK 03/21/2005 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 154 683.61 JOHN BANICK 03/23/2005 MN PHOTO 5.49 JOHN BANICK 03/23/2005 WWW.REGONLFNE.COM 65.00 JOHN BANICK 03/24/2005 MN PHOTO 66.60 JOHN BANICK 03/25/2005 SHRED -IT 213.12 JOHN BANICK 03/28/2005 MN PHOTO 6.23 JOHN BANICK 03/28/2005 MINNESOTA LAW ENFORCEMENT 1,320.00 JOHN BANICK 03/31/2005 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN 2 85. 00 JOHN BANICK 03/31/2005 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIPM 217.54 JOHN BANICK 03/31/2005 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIPM 33.25 JOHN BANICK 03/31/2005 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIPM 457.90 JOHN BANICK 04/01/2005 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE 74.00 JOHN BANICK 03/21/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 36.17 JIM BEHAN 03/21/2005 CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC 389.75 JIM BEHAN 03/21/2005 BALDWIN SUPPLY CO 566.08 JIM BEHAN 03/28/2005 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 23.32 JIM BEHAN 03/28/2005 WALGREEN 00031229 5.51 OAKLEY BIESANZ 04/01/2005 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS INC 88.42 OAKLEY B IESANZ 03/21/2005 AUTOZONE #3082 4.88 RON BOURQUIN 03/22/2005 MENARDS 3022 9.33 RON BOURQUIN 03/23/2005 KMART 00071068 12.12 RON BOURQUIN 03/21/2005 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 8.30 ROGER BREHEIM 03/21/2005 MENARDS 3059 165.50 TROY BRINK 03/24/2005 FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 46.01 HEIDI CAREY 03/31/2005 WEBER & TROSETH INC 120.00 STEVE CARLSON 03/25/2005 MARRIOTT 337F2 SAN FRAN 876.91 MELINDA COLEMAN 03/21/2005 PRICE CHOPPER INC 1,828.72 LINDA CROSSON 03/28/2005 TIME WARNER CABLE 109.79 LINDA CROSSON 03/31/2005 PARTYCELEBRATION.COM 84.82 LINDA CROSSON 04/01/2005 FITNESS WHOLESALE INC 721.65 LINDA CROSSON 03/21/2005 VIDEO SERVICES OF AMERICA 73.68 ROBERTA DARST 03/21/2005 VIDEO SERVICES OF AMERICA -4.50 ROBERTA DARST 03/25/2005 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SVC 120.00 ROBERTA DARST 03/28/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 41.27 ROBERTA DARST 03/31/2005 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 25.03 ROBERTA DARST 03/28/2005 NORTHWEST LASERS INC 74.73 JOHN DUCHARME 03/28/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 5.07 PAUL E EVERSON 04/01/2005 AMZ SUPERSTORE 19.74 DANIEL F FAUST 03/24/2005 STREAMLINE DESIGN 2,142.00 GREG FINN 03/24/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 467.40 GREG FINN 03/24/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 467.40 GREG FINN 03/24/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 281.10 GREG FINN 03/24/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 100.65 GREG FINN 03/24/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 85.58 GREG FINN 4/5/2005 5 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 03/21/2005 GLENWOOD - INGLEWOOD 106.34 DAVID FISHER 03/24/2005 MINNESOTAS BOOKSTORE 32.10 DAVID FISHER 03/21/2005 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 1,672.05 MYCHALFOWLDS 03/21/2005 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 35.09 MYCHAL FOWLDS 03/24/2005 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 314.18 MYCHALFOWLDS 03/25/2005 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 76.68 MYCHAL FOWLDS 03/28/2005 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 3,808.80 MYCHAL FOWLDS 03/28/2005 ALTEX ELECTRONICS LTD - 150.00 MYCHALFOWLDS 03/30/2005 ALTEX ELECTRONICS LTD - 150.00 MYCHALFOWLDS 03/31/2005 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 489.76 MYCHAL FOWLDS 03/31/2005 MSTECHSUPPOR MICROSOFT 245.00 MYCHALFOWLDS 04/01/2005 CATALYSIS - MICROSOFT 4.95 MYCHAL FOWLDS 04/01/2005 ALTEX ELECTRONICS LTD 150.00 MYCHALFOWLDS 03/25/2005 DR ABC AMBER WORDPERF 21.25 NICK FRANZEN 03/25/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 4.16 NICK FRANZEN 03/31/2005 HP DIRECT - PUBLICSECTOR 1,373.17 NICK FRANZEN 04/01/2005 CIRCUIT CITY SS #3137 19.16 NICK FRANZEN 04/01/2005 HPSHOPPING.COM 3,995.96 NICK FRANZEN 04/01/2005 SYX TIGERDIRECT.COM 39.03 NICK FRANZEN 04/01/2005 SPS COMPANIES -ST. PAUL 27.23 RONALD FREBERG 03/21/2005 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS IN 28.25 PATRICIA FRY 03/25/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 38.72 PATRICIA FRY 03/24/2005 WWW.REGONLFNE.COM 75.00 RICHARD FURSMAN 03/22/2005 EXXONMOBFL34 01125517 43.88 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 03/24/2005 EXXONMOBFL34 05975446 16.79 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 03/25/2005 EXXONMOBFL34 05975446 41.02 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 03/25/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2810 82.86 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 03/28/2005 EXXONMOBFL34 01187624 36.52 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 03/28/2005 EXXONMOBFL34 05975446 49.01 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 03/28/2005 EXXONMOBFL75 04740643 49.51 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 03/31/2005 DR. WIRELESS, INC 5.00 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 03/28/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 9.90 CAROLE GERNES 03/23/2005 STAMP SOLUTIONS Of OF Of 138.85 KAREN GUILFOILE 03/30/2005 INT'L INST OF MUNI CLE 495.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE 03/30/2005 INT'L INST OF MUNI CLE 495.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE 03/22/2005 JOHN FRYE DISTRIBUTING 75.60 MARK HAAG 03/21/2005 AMOCO OIL 07847502 12.72 JODIHALWEG 03/31/2005 XPEDX 4,106.77 LORI HANSEN 03/21/2005 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS IN 57.54 LORI HANSON 03/21/2005 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC 85.73 LORI HANSON 03/24/2005 REED BUS INTO ACCT REC 282.80 LORI HANSON 03/28/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 365.15 LORI HANSON 03/29/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 44.90 LORI HANSON 03/29/2005 TARGET 00011858 10.51 MICHAEL HEMQUIST 03/23/2005 THE METAL DOCTOR INC 248.36 GARY HINNENKAMP 03/23/2005 PURE BLUE SWIM SHOP 411. 00 RON HORWATH 03/30/2005 PURE BLUE SWIM SHOP 4 10. 00 RON HORWATH 03/22/2005 BEST BUY 00000109 72.40 STEVE HURLEY 03/23/2005 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 180.55 STEVE HURLEY 03/25/2005 HP DIRECT - PUBLICSECTOR 1,607.09 STEVE HURLEY 03/30/2005 ERIE COMPUTER 2,878.84 STEVE HURLEY 03/30/2005 METRO SALES INC 01 OF 01 245.00 STEVE HURLEY 03/30/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 23.42 STEVE HURLEY 03/30/2005 CABLING SERVICES CORPORAT 625.78 STEVE HURLEY 04/01/2005 ERIE COMPUTER -94.00 STEVE HURLEY 04/01/2005 COMPUSA #197 106.49 STEVE HURLEY 11 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 03/28/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 148.44 SCOTT JACOBSON 03/21/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 31.94 DAVID JAHN 03/24/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 331.46 DAVID JAHN 03/29/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 122.86 DAVID JAHN 03/21/2005 MURPHY USA 6.75 DAVID KVAM 03/21/2005 FRULLATI SAN ANTONIO A 9.16 DAVID KVAM 03/21/2005 HOLIDAY INN SELECT FB 9.65 DAVID KVAM 03/21/2005 MSP AIRPORT PA20002002 70.00 DAVID KVAM 03/28/2005 RAY ALLEN MFG CO INC 14.95 DAVID KVAM 03/30/2005 PWP TRAINING PROD 139.15 DAVID KVAM 03/31/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 1,516.31 DAVID KVAM 03/31/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 1,526.13 DAVID KVAM 04/01/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 45.26 DAVID KVAM 04/01/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 57.99 DAVID KVAM 03/25/2005 EXPEDIA SERVICE FEES 5.00 SHERYL L LE 03/25/2005 NWA AIR 0121198598737 402.30 SHERYL L LE 03/31/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 45.13 SHERYL L LE 03/23/2005 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 17.77 DENNIS LINDORFF 03/24/2005 MENARDS 3022 27.29 DENNIS LINDORFF 03/25/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 179.99 DENNIS LINDORFF 03/25/2005 MENARDS 3022 211.73 DENNIS LINDORFF 03/31/2005 TWIN CITY HARDWARE 35.34 DENNIS LINDORFF 04/01/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 23.26 DENNIS LINDORFF 03/22/2005 SBC PAGING 17.72 STEVE LUKIN 03/24/2005 ALLIED PLASTICS, INC 572.80 MARK MARUSKA 03/28/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 776.07 MARK MARUSKA 03/30/2005 AM LEONARD 524.65 MARK MARUSKA 03/30/2005 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 81.60 MARK MARUSKA 03/30/2005 EARL F ANDERSEN INC 2,282.30 MARK MARUSKA 03/31/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 2,779.81 MARK MARUSKA 03/31/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 2,790.30 MARK MARUSKA 03/31/2005 ARCH WIRELESS 37.46 ED NADEAU 03/21/2005 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC 60.06 BRYAN NAGEL 03/28/2005 UNITED RENTALS/HTG #229 784.66 BRYAN NAGEL 03/28/2005 MENARDS 3059 75.80 BRYAN NAGEL 03/21/2005 DEMCO INC 78.39 ILAN NELSON 03/30/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 2.97 RICHARD NORDQUIST 03/21/2005 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC 121.41 MARSHA PACOLT 03/22/2005 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC 402.25 MARSHA PACOLT 03/30/2005 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC 350.28 MARSHA PACOLT 03/31/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 23.42 KURT PARSONS 03/28/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 43.59 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 03/29/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 37.08 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 03/30/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 147.61 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 03/30/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 73.01 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 03/24/2005 MENARDS 3022 19.22 ROBERT PETERSON 03/21/2005 FEDEX 844- 961087570 26.41 PHILIP F POWELL 03/25/2005 FEDEX 289 - 508017266 5.75 PHILIP F POWELL 03/28/2005 PLIMUS.COM ONLINE STORE 28.50 PHILIP F POWELL 03/30/2005 ELECTRONICS FOR LESS 174.00 PHILIP F POWELL 04/01/2005 FEDEX 289- 508716893 11.50 PHILIP F POWELL 04/01/2005 FEDEX 289 - 508716894 5.50 PHILIP F POWELL 04/01/2005 FEDEX 042 - 050009012 20.79 PHILIP F POWELL 04/01/2005 FEDEX 042 - 050009029 47.00 PHILIP F POWELL 04/01/2005 FEDEX 305- 508716892 7.00 PHILIP F POWELL 04/01/2005 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 99.58 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 7 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 03/21/2005 MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT IN 921.33 STEVEN PRIEM 03/21/2005 MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT IN 53.78 STEVEN PRIEM 03/21/2005 MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT IN 103.48 STEVEN PRIEM 03/21/2005 MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT IN 450.27 STEVEN PRIEM 03/21/2005 TRUCK UTILITES INC 31.63 STEVEN PRIEM 03/23/2005 SUNRAYBTB 55.74 STEVEN PRIEM 03/24/2005 EAT INC 959.41 STEVEN PRIEM 03/25/2005 SUNRAYBTB 45.85 STEVEN PRIEM 03/25/2005 SUNRAYBTB -5.21 STEVEN PRIEM 03/28/2005 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 119.27 STEVEN PRIEM 03/29/2005 CATCO PARTS & SERV # 1 257.18 STEVEN PRIEM 03/29/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS 67.04 STEVEN PRIEM 03/29/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS 52.10 STEVEN PRIEM 03/30/2005 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 1,169.90 STEVEN PRIEM 03/31/2005 INSTRUMENT CONTROL COMPAN 192.01 STEVEN PRIEM 03/31/2005 SUNRAYBTB 58.37 STEVEN PRIEM 03/31/2005 EDEN PRAIRIE TUITION OFFI 150.00 STEVEN PRIEM 04/01/2005 CATCO PARTS & SERV # 1 64.93 STEVEN PRIEM 04/01/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS 62.07 STEVEN PRIEM 03/23/2005 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD 978.86 KEVIN RABBETT 03/23/2005 CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC 294.00 KEVIN RABBETT 03/28/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 9.39 KEVIN RABBETT 03/28/2005 MARTEL ELECTRONICOI OF 01 245.95 KEVIN RABBETT 03/31/2005 PORTABLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS 51.30 KEVIN RABBETT 03/31/2005 PORTABLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS 83.79 KEVIN RABBETT 04/01/2005 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 2,099.73 KEVIN RABBETT 04/01/2005 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD 175.50 KEVIN RABBETT 03/21/2005 BEST BUY 00000109 53.24 TERRIE RAMEAUX 03/23/2005 TARGET 00011858 87.59 AUDRA ROBBINS 03/24/2005 SUBWAY 4501 11.69 AUDRA ROBBINS 03/25/2005 MICHAELS #2744 78.20 AUDRA ROBBINS 03/28/2005 WALGREEN 00016873 26.88 AUDRA ROBBINS 03/29/2005 INSTANT SCIENCE LES 10.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 03/31/2005 MARCUS OAKD.CIN #488 Q25 101.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 03/31/2005 MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CNTR 49.50 AUDRA ROBBINS 04/01/2005 UNDERWATER WORLD 122.59 AUDRA ROBBINS 03/22/2005 MENARDS 3022 590.01 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 03/23/2005 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 33.97 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 03/21/2005 FAXAWAY 10.00 DEB SCHMIDT 03/25/2005 SHRED -IT 16.65 DEB SCHMIDT 03/22/2005 GENERAL SECURITY SERVICES 51.82 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 03/24/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 36.00 GERALD SEEGER 03/28/2005 RON'S VIRTUE PRINTI 307.48 ANDREA SINDT 03/28/2005 AMOCO OIL 04836300 42.01 PAULINE STAPLES 03/23/2005 TARGET 00011858 49.88 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 04/01/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 397.87 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 03/21/2005 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 56.58 RONALD SVENDSEN 03/25/2005 CRAWFORD DOOR SALES CO OF 351.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 03/28/2005 NWA AIR 0122115234965 279.41 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 03/28/2005 NWA AIR 0122115234966 279.41 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 03/29/2005 PEN FDIC/FIRE ENGINEER 60.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 03/30/2005 CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPM 402.40 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 03/21/2005 61 STOP 00828723 8.49 LYLE SWANSON 03/23/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 84.44 LYLE SWANSON 03/23/2005 VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL 42.50 LYLE SWANSON 03/25/2005 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE 50.77 LYLE SWANSON N Post Date Vendor Name 03/28/2005 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 03/28/2005 EXCELLCOM 03/31/2005 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 03/21/2005 QWESTCOMM TN651 03/25/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 03/21/2005 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN 03/21/2005 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN 03/21/2005 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN 03/21/2005 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN 03/21/2005 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN 03/24/2005 VIKING #1090 03/24/2005 VIKING #1090 03/28/2005 VIKING #1090 03/28/2005 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 03/31/2005 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 03/31/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 03/31/2005 QUILL CORPORATION Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 196.00 LYLE SWANSON 19.16 LYLE SWANSON 222.51 LYLE SWANSON 344.23 JUDY TETZLAFF 12.20 JUDY WEGWERTH 35.00 SUSAN ZWIEG 35.00 SUSAN ZWIEG 35.00 SUSAN ZWIEG 35.00 SUSAN ZWIEG 35.00 SUSAN ZWIEG 182.52 SUSANZWIEG 18.79 SUSANZWIEG 22.60 SUSAN ZWIEG 31.20 SUSAN ZWIEG 10.22 SUSANZWIEG 181.03 SUSANZWIEG 134.15 SUSANZWIEG 72,717.90 A Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 04/15/2005 10:45:33 AM Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 66719 66720 66721 66722 66723 66724 66725 66726 66727 66728 66729 4/12/2005 4/15/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 01341 RAMSEY CTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSN 01284 POSTMASTER 03368 BROTHERS INDUSTRIAL CLNG INC 00240 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES 00494 CHILDREN HOME & FAMILY SERVICE 00340 CRAMER BUILDING SERVICES 00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES 02642 GALLES CORP 00615 HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD 03257 12 INC 00718 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #622 RAMSEY CTY FIRE CHIEFS BANQUET -4 REPLENISH POSTAGE FOR CITY NEWS CLEAN KITCHEN EXHAUST FAN APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECK YOUTH DIVERSION SRVS - MAR SCHEDULED MAINT - 2ND QTR ADV EFF MGMT TRAINING RED PAINT FIRE RELIEF PENSION OPTIONS ANALYST NOTEBOOK INV SOFTWARE BASKETBALL GYM SUPERVISION VOLLEYBALL GYM SUPERVISION VOLLEYBALL GYM SUPERVISION VOLLEYBALL GYM SUPERVISION BASKETBALL GYM SUPERVISION #2 DIESEL LOW SULPHUR RED DYED PROJ 04 -23 PROF SRVS THRU 3/31 PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS THRU 3/31 CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE #11018986 WORKSHOP REGISTRATION FEE MCC ADVERTISING PUBLICITY SRVS FOR WORKSHOPS QUARTER UNEMPLOYMENT HS SOFTBALL LEAGUE REGISTRATION PROJ 03 -19 PUBLIC WORKS THRU 3/26 REF MATTHEW JACKSON -AMB 04020558 REF JULIE SONTERRE - MCC PROGRAMS REF KAREN MORGAN - AMB 04014206 REF KATHY JOHNSON - MCC PROGRAM REF JEFFREY VELURE - AMB 03019355 HOSE REF ESCROW - 575 RIPLEY AVE ASPHALT MIX VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS TONER CARTRIDGE INK CARTRIDGES LIMEROCK MAINT SUPPLIES DOOR HINGES JANITORIAL SRVS 2/21 - 3/18 PROJ 04 -15 TELEVISE SEWER WINTER MIX REF AMB 04013621/05001077 J BOGEN COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP REIMB FOR MILEAGE 3/23 MEMBERSHIPS EMT TRAINING - 7 MONTHLY UTIL - STMT DATE 4/5 52.00 10,000.00 344.42 50.00 3,526.08 2,132.50 600.00 46.33 5,190.00 4,784.00 741.00 96.00 120.00 236.00 397.39 12,286.00 754.33 874.50 577.25 20.00 220.00 390.00 6,557.80 300.00 38,564.06 150.00 104.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 80.73 553.77 853.35 684.80 184.16 195.42 44.90 434.25 563.13 776.45 195.00 982.27 494.20 2,369.20 5.26 30.00 6,728.00 11,361.81 66730 4/19/2005 00789 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE CO 66731 4/19/2005 02728 KIMLEY- HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 66732 66733 66734 66735 66736 66737 66738 66739 66740 66741 66742 66743 66744 66745 66746 66747 66748 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 00827 L M C I T 00857 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 03371 MARKETFEST 03372 MEISTER, DEBBIE 01089 MN UC FUND 01131 NSPAA 02886 OERTEL ARCHITECTS 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 01225 OSWALD HOSE & ADAPTERS 03373 OWENS, THOMAS 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 01546 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR LLC 01572 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. 66749 66750 66751 66752 66753 66754 66755 66756 66757 66758 66759 66760 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 4/19/2005 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 01578 T.R.F. SUPPLY CO. 01995 TAC COURT SYSTEMS 01580 TSE, INC. 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC 03334 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP 02825 W P S MEDICARE PART B 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 01828 WEAVER, KRIS 03374 WILD ONES 01789 WOODBURY, CITY OF 01190 XCELENERGY 42 Checks in this report Total checks : 115,925.36 10 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 04/07/05 04/08/05 MN State Treasurer 04/08/05 04/08/05 ICMA (Vantagepointe) 04/07/05 04/08/05 MN Dept of Natural Resources 04/08/05 04/11/05 MN State Treasurer 04/08/05 04/11/05 U.S. Treasurer 04/08/05 04/11/05 P.E.R.A. 04/08/05 04/11/05 Orchard Trust 04/11/05 04/12/05 MN State Treasurer 04/08/05 04/12/05 MN State Treasurer 04/08/05 04/12/05 Federal Reserve Bank 04/12/05 04/13/05 MN State Treasurer TOTAL Description Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation DNR electronic licenses Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. Deferred Compensation Drivers License /Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax Savings Bonds Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Amount 16, 871.77 9,356.10 726.50 18,458.68 94,462.84 52,067.51 24,590.00 31,994.13 18,085.75 250.00 21.882.63 288,745.91 11 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 04/08/05 CARDINAL, ROBERT 422.42 dd 04/08/05 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 371.77 dd 04/08/05 KOPPEN, MARVIN 371.77 dd 04/08/05 MONAHAN- JUNEK, JACQUELINE 371.77 dd 04/08/05 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 371.77 dd 04/08/05 COLEMAN, MELINDA 4,233.20 dd 04/08/05 DARST, ROBERTA 1,673.55 dd 04/08/05 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,638.25 dd 04/08/05 SWANSON, LYLE 1,707.45 dd 04/08/05 LE, SHERYL 4,083.50 dd 04/08/05 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,353.34 dd 04/08/05 FAUST, DANIEL 4,253.24 dd 04/08/05 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,442.95 dd 04/08/05 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,149.40 dd 04/08/05 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,287.76 dd 04/08/05 JACKSON, MARY 1,802.95 dd 04/08/05 KELSEY, CONNIE 792.15 dd 04/08/05 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,802.95 dd 04/08/05 FRY, PATRICIA 1,673.35 dd 04/08/05 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,980.98 dd 04/08/05 OSTER, ANDREA 1,771.56 dd 04/08/05 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,616.46 dd 04/08/05 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,216.15 dd 04/08/05 JAGOE, CAROL 1,616.46 dd 04/08/05 JOHNSON, BONNIE 1,012.59 dd 04/08/05 MOY, PAMELA 905.91 dd 04/08/05 OLSON, SANDRA 1,327.58 dd 04/08/05 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,736.55 dd 04/08/05 BANICK, JOHN 3,834.90 dd 04/08/05 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,614.15 dd 04/08/05 POWELL, PHILIP 2,246.22 dd 04/08/05 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,640.82 dd 04/08/05 SPANGLER, EDNA 569.25 dd 04/08/05 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,247.72 dd 04/08/05 ABEL, CLINT 2,201.18 dd 04/08/05 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,857.04 dd 04/08/05 ANDREWS, SCOTT 3,191.12 dd 04/08/05 BAKKE, LONN 2,473.33 dd 04/08/05 BELDE, STANLEY 2,742.65 dd 04/08/05 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 1,985.68 dd 04/08/05 BOHL, JOHN 2,743.19 dd 04/08/05 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,265.84 dd 04/08/05 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,078.38 dd 04/08/05 CROTTY, KERRY 2,903.83 dd 04/08/05 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,596.97 dd 04/08/05 DUNN, ALICE 2,709.97 dd 04/08/05 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 1,771.74 dd 04/08/05 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,845.39 dd 04/08/05 HILBERT, STEVEN 2,204.41 dd 04/08/05 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,302.62 12 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 04/08/05 KARTS, FLINT 2,814.53 dd 04/08/05 KONG, TOMMY 2,340.10 dd 04/08/05 KROLL, BRETT 2,345.40 dd 04/08/05 KVAM, DAVID 3,257.27 dd 04/08/05 LARSON, DANIEL 313.82 dd 04/08/05 LU, JOHNNIE 3,402.24 dd 04/08/05 MARINO, JASON 2,201.18 dd 04/08/05 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,419.22 dd 04/08/05 MCCARTY, GLEN 2,023.71 dd 04/08/05 METRY, ALESIA 2,555.65 dd 04/08/05 NYE, MICHAEL 1,778.95 dd 04/08/05 OLSON, JULIE 2,478.02 dd 04/08/05 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,450.09 dd 04/08/05 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,028.06 dd 04/08/05 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 1,584.25 dd 04/08/05 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,676.98 dd 04/08/05 TRAN, JOSEPH 5,650.51 dd 04/08/05 WENZEL, JAY 2,404.84 dd 04/08/05 XIONG, KAO 2,201.18 dd 04/08/05 BARTZ, PAUL 2,553.80 dd 04/08/05 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,037.59 dd 04/08/05 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,821.48 dd 04/08/05 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,619.21 dd 04/08/05 EVERSON, PAUL 1,831.75 dd 04/08/05 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,249.58 dd 04/08/05 FRASER, JOHN 2,688.91 dd 04/08/05 HALWEG, JODI 1,719.17 dd 04/08/05 L'ALLIER, DANIEL 1,961.97 dd 04/08/05 LANGNER, SCOTT 1,913.85 dd 04/08/05 PALMA, STEVEN 2,689.30 dd 04/08/05 PARSONS, KURT 2,250.25 dd 04/08/05 THIENES, PAUL 2,690.86 dd 04/08/05 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,818.34 dd 04/08/05 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,792.15 dd 04/08/05 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,818.34 dd 04/08/05 NOVAK, JEROME 1,851.09 dd 04/08/05 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,869.15 dd 04/08/05 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,896.50 dd 04/08/05 GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE 2,729.91 dd 04/08/05 BAUER, MICHELLE 2,629.12 dd 04/08/05 FLAUGHER, JAYME 2,802.55 dd 04/08/05 HERMANSON, CHAD 952.00 dd 04/08/05 HUB IN, KENNARD 1,569.35 dd 04/08/05 LAFFERTY, WALTER 2,189.03 dd 04/08/05 LINN, BRYAN 1,921.80 dd 04/08/05 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,339.34 dd 04/08/05 RABINE, JANET 2,140.95 dd 04/08/05 SCHAULS, ADAM 340.00 dd 04/08/05 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,207.11 dd 04/08/05 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,731.90 dd 04/08/05 SVENDSEN, AUSTIN 2,991.94 dd 04/08/05 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,745.35 dd 04/08/05 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 282.07 dd 04/08/05 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,329.30 dd 04/08/05 GROHS, JUDITH 1,752.28 dd 04/08/05 NIVEN,AMY 1,187.82 13 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 04/08/05 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,604.66 dd 04/08/05 BRINK, TROY 1,948.87 dd 04/08/05 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,366.47 dd 04/08/05 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,657.55 dd 04/08/05 JONES, DONALD 2,694.64 dd 04/08/05 KANE, MICHAEL 2,941.68 dd 04/08/05 LUTZ, DAVID 1,826.77 dd 04/08/05 MEYER, GERALD 2,708.66 dd 04/08/05 NAGEL, BRYAN 2,002.06 dd 04/08/05 OSWALD, ERICK 2,268.97 dd 04/08/05 TEVLIN, TODD 2,522.81 dd 04/08/05 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,270.46 dd 04/08/05 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,323.66 dd 04/08/05 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 2,007.59 dd 04/08/05 JACOBSON, SCOTT 2,191.48 dd 04/08/05 KNUTSON, LOIS 1,004.88 dd 04/08/05 LABEREE, ERIN 3,716.71 dd 04/08/05 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 3,624.79 dd 04/08/05 MURRA, AARON 240.35 dd 04/08/05 PECK, DENNIS 2,330.59 dd 04/08/05 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 3,947.05 dd 04/08/05 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 3,833.35 dd 04/08/05 ANDERSON, BRUCE 4,199.42 dd 04/08/05 CAREY, HEIDI 1,991.75 dd 04/08/05 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,749.97 dd 04/08/05 MARUSKA, MARK 2,649.16 dd 04/08/05 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,776.47 dd 04/08/05 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,824.46 dd 04/08/05 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,388.92 dd 04/08/05 HAYMAN, JANET 1,178.57 dd 04/08/05 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,312.22 dd 04/08/05 NELSON, JEAN 1,000.49 dd 04/08/05 SEEGER, GERALD 535.32 dd 04/08/05 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 1,957.36 dd 04/08/05 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,014.19 dd 04/08/05 KROLL, LISA 1,173.56 dd 04/08/05 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 969.88 dd 04/08/05 SINDT, ANDREA 1,586.15 dd 04/08/05 THOMPSON, DEBRA 645.66 dd 04/08/05 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,466.95 dd 04/08/05 FINWALL, SHANN 2,232.55 dd 04/08/05 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,578.41 dd 04/08/05 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,728.26 dd 04/08/05 FISHER, DAVID 3,234.20 dd 04/08/05 RICE, MICHAEL 1,846.95 dd 04/08/05 SWAN, DAVID 1,936.55 dd 04/08/05 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,600.55 dd 04/08/05 ANZALDI, KALI 321.75 dd 04/08/05 WORK, ALICIA 41.25 dd 04/08/05 FINN, GREGORY 2,088.02 dd 04/08/05 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,830.59 dd 04/08/05 KELLY, LISA 1,308.62 dd 04/08/05 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 240.63 dd 04/08/05 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,997.38 dd 04/08/05 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 229.50 dd 04/08/05 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,797.48 14 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 04/08/05 WERNER, KATIE 533.39 dd 04/08/05 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,826.77 dd 04/08/05 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,831.39 dd 04/08/05 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,838.80 dd 04/08/05 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,044.16 dd 04/08/05 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,179.63 dd 04/08/05 COLEMAN, PHILIP 215.00 dd 04/08/05 COLLINS, ASHLEY 115.50 dd 04/08/05 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 40.00 dd 04/08/05 CROSSON, LINDA 2,780.14 dd 04/08/05 EVANS, CHRISTINE 637.42 dd 04/08/05 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 553.84 dd 04/08/05 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 2,007.26 dd 04/08/05 SCHULZE, BRIAN 471.99 dd 04/08/05 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,898.01 dd 04/08/05 BRENEMAN, NEIL 473.72 dd 04/08/05 CRAWFORD, RAYMOND 80.00 dd 04/08/05 ERICKSON- CLARK, CAROL 67.75 dd 04/08/05 ESTRADA, KIEL 232.00 dd 04/08/05 EVANS, KRISTIN 21.00 dd 04/08/05 FONTAINE, KIM 756.37 dd 04/08/05 GREDVIG, ANDERS 203.44 dd 04/08/05 HALEY, BROOKE 54.60 dd 04/08/05 HORWATH, RONALD 1,978.42 dd 04/08/05 IRISH, GRACE 155.40 dd 04/08/05 KOEHNEN, AMY 72.45 dd 04/08/05 KOEHNEN, MARY 1,069.51 dd 04/08/05 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 483.85 dd 04/08/05 MARUSKA, ERICA 254.74 dd 04/08/05 MATHEWS, LEAH 42.25 dd 04/08/05 NELSON, SIERRA 65.00 dd 04/08/05 OVERBY, ANNA 77.20 dd 04/08/05 POTTRATZ, DIANE 22.93 dd 04/08/05 PROESCH, ANDY 422.32 dd 04/08/05 SHAW, KRISTINA 31.15 dd 04/08/05 SMITH, ANN 150.00 dd 04/08/05 TUPY, HEIDE 141.40 dd 04/08/05 TUPY, MARCUS 405.28 dd 04/08/05 WERNER, REBECCA 26.00 dd 04/08/05 WHITE, NICOLE 570.60 dd 04/08/05 GROPPOLI, LINDA 376.80 dd 04/08/05 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 18.38 dd 04/08/05 BEHAN, JAMES 1,702.83 dd 04/08/05 LONETTI, JAMES 1,024.04 dd 04/08/05 MILES, LAURA 115.50 dd 04/08/05 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,044.92 dd 04/08/05 PRINS, KELLY 1,152.87 dd 04/08/05 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,580.55 dd 04/08/05 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,867.76 dd 04/08/05 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,049.35 dd 04/08/05 BERGO, CHAD 2,255.30 dd 04/08/05 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 2,228.71 dd 04/08/05 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 1,512.86 dd 04/08/05 HURLEY, STEPHEN 3,370.74 wf 100887 04/08/05 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 100.00 WE 100888 04/08/05 CARLSON, STEVEN 1,838.34 15 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT WE 100889 04/08/05 JAHN, DAVID 1,577.26 WE 100890 04/08/05 MORIN, TROY 178.50 WE 100891 04/08/05 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,979.43 wf 100892 04/08/05 GENNOW, PAMELA 1,040.00 wf 100893 04/08/05 HANSEN, LORI 1,679.76 wf 100894 04/08/05 PALANK, MARY 1,616.46 wf 100895 04/08/05 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,786.59 wf 100896 04/08/05 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 2,781.96 wf 100897 04/08/05 STEINER, JOSEPH 642.00 WE 100898 04/08/05 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,563.55 WE 100899 04/08/05 BAUMAN, ANDREW 328.00 WE 100900 04/08/05 GERARD, JAMIE 80.00 WE 100901 04/08/05 FREBERG, RONALD 2,772.79 wf 100902 04/08/05 RUNNING, ROBERT 1,617.45 wf 100903 04/08/05 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 242.25 wf 100904 04/08/05 EDSON, DAVID 2,110.07 wf 100905 04/08/05 HELEY, ROLAND 2,062.70 wf 100906 04/08/05 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,828.63 wf 100907 04/08/05 LINDORFF, DEWS 1,826.77 WE 100908 04/08/05 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,945.41 WE 100909 04/08/05 GERNES, CAROLE 69.56 WE 100910 04/08/05 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 72.19 WE 100911 04/08/05 ERICKSON, AMY 15.00 wf 100912 04/08/05 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 202.00 wf 100913 04/08/05 GRAF, ASHLEY 210.00 wf 100914 04/08/05 KYRK, HALEY 30.00 wf 100915 04/08/05 ROBBINS, EMERALD 45.00 wf 100916 04/08/05 SHOBERG, KARI 39.19 wf 100917 04/08/05 HAAG, MARK 1,887.59 WE 100918 04/08/05 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,930.14 WE 100919 04/08/05 DOBLAR, STEVE 51.80 wf 100920 04/08/05 GLASS, JEAN 1,786.43 wf 100921 04/08/05 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 184.75 wf 100922 04/08/05 UNGER, MARGARET 553.89 wf 100923 04/08/05 VELASQUEZ, ANGELA 511.00 wf 100924 04/08/05 ANDERSON, CALEB 50.05 wf 100925 04/08/05 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 65.00 wf 100926 04/08/05 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 91.00 wf 100927 04/08/05 BRENEMAN, SEAN 23.28 wf 100928 04/08/05 CLARK, PAMELA 51.00 wf 100929 04/08/05 COSTA, JOSEPH 410.33 wf 100930 04/08/05 DEMPSEY, BETH 134.40 wf 100931 04/08/05 DUNN, RYAN 712.39 wf 100932 04/08/05 FENGER, JUSTIN 43.58 wf 100933 04/08/05 FLICKINGER, JUANITA 39.00 wf 100934 04/08/05 GRANT, MELISSA 126.00 wf 100935 04/08/05 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 741.00 wf 100936 04/08/05 HOLMGREN, LEAH 10.05 wf 100937 04/08/05 HOULE, DENISE 133.80 wf 100938 04/08/05 LEMAY, KATHERINE 224.25 wf 100939 04/08/05 LUTZ, CHRISTINA 81.25 wf 100940 04/08/05 MCCANN, NATALIE 33.00 wf 100941 04/08/05 PETERSON, ANNA 165.75 wf 100942 04/08/05 ROSTRON, ROBERT 29.25 wf 100943 04/08/05 RYDEEN, ARIEL 159.60 wf 100944 04/08/05 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 214.50 16 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 100945 04/08/05 SCHRAMM, BRITTANY 50.38 wf 100946 04/08/05 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 165.39 wf 100947 04/08/05 SMITLEY, SHARON 345.00 wf 100948 04/08/05 STAHNKE, AMY 78.00 wf 100949 04/08/05 TRUE, ANDREW 167.10 wf 100950 04/08/05 WARNER, CAROLYN 163.40 wf 100951 04/08/05 WOODMAN, ALICE 227.75 wf 100952 04/08/05 ZIEMER, NICOLE 472.10 wf 100953 04/08/05 BOSLEY, CAROL 291.60 wf 100954 04/08/05 DOBBS, SYDNEY 54.00 wf 100955 04/08/05 HAGSTROM, EMILY 108.88 wf 100956 04/08/05 LEWIS, AMY 155.75 wf 100957 04/08/05 ODDEN, JESSICA 42.81 wf 100958 04/08/05 OIL, REBECCA 137.00 wf 100959 04/08/05 PARAYNO, GUAI 159.10 wf 100960 04/08/05 QUINN, KELLY 22.75 wf 100961 04/08/05 STODGHILL, AMANDA 33.00 wf 100962 04/08/05 VAN HALE, PAULA 232.05 wf 100963 04/08/05 WALKER, DAPHINE 98.05 wf 100964 04/08/05 BALDWIN, JANA 79.80 wf 100965 04/08/05 DOUGLASS, TOM 996.92 wf 100966 04/08/05 HER, CHONG 407.80 wf 100967 04/08/05 HER, PHENG 204.08 wf 100968 04/08/05 MARGOT, NICHOLAS 215.90 wf 100969 04/08/05 NAGEL, BROOKE 241.51 wf 100970 04/08/05 O'GRADY, VICTORIA 89.78 wf 100971 04/08/05 O'GRADY, ZACHARY 95.56 wf 100972 04/08/05 OLSON, CHRISTINE 165.10 wf 100973 04/08/05 SIMPSON, JOSEPH 92.30 wf 100974 04/08/05 SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN 39.90 wf 100975 04/08/05 THEESFELD, CALEB 86.45 wf 100976 04/08/05 VAIL, LUCILLE 79.38 wf 100977 04/08/05 VANG, KAY 89.78 wf 100978 04/08/05 VANG, TIM 33.25 wf 100979 04/08/05 WALSH, AMANDA 165.10 WE 100980 04/08/05 ZIMMERMAN, STEPHEN 139.65 447,405.13 17 Agenda Item G2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT PROJECT LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern Conditional Use Permit Review Sibley Cove Apartments 1996 County Road D April 14, 2005 10 :To] 111,191115C 0 Project Description The conditional use permit (CUP) for Sibley Cove Apartments at 1996 County Road D is due for review. This CUP is for a PUD (planned unit development) in the BC (business commercial) zoning district. Refer to the maps and plans on pages four through eight and the city council minutes starting on page nine. BACKGROUND On April 28, 2003, the city council approved the following for the Sibley Cove project: 1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change was from BC (business commercial) to R -3(H) (residential high density). A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 100 -unit apartment development. The applicant requested the CUP because the existing BC (business commercial) and LBC (limited business commercial) zoning districts limit the uses on the site to commercial, office and retail uses and allow multiple - family residential uses only with a conditional use permit. (See the property line /zoning map on page five.) The CUP for this project was subject to ten conditions of approval. 3. The project design plans. (See the building elevations on page seven.) On April 26, 2004, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit and agreed to review it again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. DISCUSSION The contractor for the apartments has completed most of the building and site construction. However, there is landscaping and other site work that the contractor still needs to finish. The approved landscape plan calls for the planting of two rain gardens on the south end of the property. (See landscape plan on page eight.) Upon recent inspection, most of the plantings in one of the rain gardens have died. In addition, the triangular landscaped island planned for the southwest corner of the parking lot is not present. The contractor should plant the five ornamental trees that were planned for the island elsewhere on the site. The contractor also needs to install a 3.0' sump manhole in the parking lot on the south end of the building to capture and remove sediment before discharging run -off into the on -site storm water pond. City engineering staff is currently in discussion with apartments, about the installation and maintenance garden. David Steele, the owner's representative for the of the sump structure and the condition of the rain Since not all of the site improvements are complete, the city council should review this permit again in six months. This review will give staff and the property owner a chance to ensure that the project is meeting all city ordinances and conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Sibley Cove Apartments at 1996 County Road D again in six months (October 2005) or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. 01 1:14 a 4 N =0 M=1111 ILI IMQ :JILYA Fil VQ 011 Site Description Site size: 7.1 acres Existing land use: New apartment building Surrounding Land Uses North: Perkins and Emerald Inn across County Road D. East: A daycare center and Birch Glen apartments across Ariel Street. South: Commercial businesses on the north side of Woodlynn Avenue. West: Commercial businesses on the east side of White Bear Avenue. Reasons for the Requests This proposal needed a land use plan change because: State law does not allow a city to adopt any regulation that conflicts with its comprehensive plan. One of the findings required by code for a CUP is that the use is in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan. The land use plan showed this site for BC (business commercial) uses, which do not include multiple - family housing. The developer is applying for a CUP because the zoning on this site is BC (business commercial) and LBC (limited business commercial). The BC and LBC zones allow a variety of commercial, retail business, and multiple dwellings with a conditional use permit (CUP). The developer chose to apply for a CUP, rather than a zone change. A CUP for a PUD is only for a specific use and site plan. A rezoning to R -3 (multiple dwelling residential) would allow a variety of multiple - dwelling uses and plans. p:sec2N \Sibley Cove Apartment review - 2005.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Landscape Plan 6. April 28, 2003 City Council minutes Attachment 1 WHITE BEAR LAKE 1. N. BARTE4 Y 2 N, CHIPPFWA cT, 3 SRENWOOD Cv COUNTY �j E 7f U� --- � D IN LOCATION MAP 1.694 PERKINS cnmlT ARBWS o 3100 30 -- � - - --- I - - wil� A - , DAYCARE � -3070 A� c) 4{ SITE ARBWS o 3100 30 -- � - - --- I - - wil� A - , DAYCARE � -3070 CENTER SITE X, SITE 1985— I --- -- 4-- -- m S ZOZ9 WOODLYNN AVENUE PLAZA 3000 i 5 1 DAYCARE CENTER SITE SITE I --- -- 4-- -- m S ZOZ9 WOODLYNN AVENUE PLAZA 3000 i 5 1 0 (,7 too J- w j � _ = A {{ i �•.'. I ,', r.:� SruyA , , ; ctt a'xadxtux^. �. a � i t, `.. 3 ] C t ` t I s it i t t Nr.;kr.axwGi 3 "ZPN- 217 } 4AOtJS Io RAEtU5 w � I s 5 ?OW#tjtp Ekrt:"4YG 9UKb}Ffl �- �� ��� "� =.. ��� • f ] SIT f TA r'?E A ?A M U 2Jl;J NG h R 3B S —x9 G a.. t. PpLrpa Sio- >uRr AcE ._...1 SM]s +M1'C4lvca` 2 FAp! ^ ✓tCAFEv ?..._ S PLAN l.] N Affarhmant d BUILDING ELEVATIONS e Attachment 5 y4 -a t } { d V m F �t < l A, f r i. t 7ur -.. ✓`� � i fs .. -� r' y _ RAIN GA RU -- rya — mss-- -- 4 F \ pUy \ t s� y ' 8u BJG<'t*.Y SiG'TMG „ 9£ L56 V!C£ 9MK } I t f �-«— a� >� 2 = t i � k _ _ r >�� _ f•z -F i _ � _ __ _ l k1 3 Y ll t �I s3r�,a i FROZE aRS 6� 't IANGSCAFE #atAF LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 . N 3, 8:05 p.m. Sibley Cove Apartments Reconsideration (County Road D) Land Use Plan Change (BC to R-3 (ID) (4 Votes) Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development Design Approval a. City Manager Foreman presented the staff report, b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report. c. Commissioner Mueller presented the Planning Commission Report. d, Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: e, Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing, Councilmember Collins moved to adopt the fiallmvirl'a resolution for the land use man charee from BC (business com rterciallm R-31H {residential high density , This is for the 7- I-acre site of the Sibley Cave Ilausing Development: RESOLUTION 03-04-070 LAND USE PLAN CIIANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, David Steele, representing MyY'F Properties, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from BC (business commercial) to R- 1(H) (residential high density). WHEREAS, this chance applies to the undeveloped property located on the south side of County Road D, west of Ariel Street and cast of White Bear Avenue, 9 City Council 04-28-03 WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On February 19, 2003, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed plan amendment, On March 10, 2003, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff, 3. On Apr -if 28 200 the city council again considered this request, The council again considered reports from city staff and the testimony given at the meeting, I I — NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described chances for the following reasons: This site is proper for and Consistent with the city's seats, objectives and policies for high- density residential ]and use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses, b. Being near a collector street, being between two arterial streets and is near open space and shopping and services. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The on-site pond and large setback from Woodlyrin Avenue will separate the apartment building from the properties to the south. b. There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern keeps the apartment traffic separate from the existing single dwellings and other residences. There should be less traffic from this development than from a commercial development on the same site. Seconded by Councilinember Wasiluk Apes .ill Councilmember Juenernann moved to adopt the following resolution for a conditional use permit fora fanned unit develo ment for the Sibley Cove A : arunent T}evelo meat on Countv Road D west of Aerial Street: RESOLUTION 03-04-071 CONDITIONAL USE PE IT RESOLUTION 'sNIEREAS, Mr, David Steele, representing 'SIAT Properties, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Sibley Cove apartment planned unit development (PUTD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the undeveloped property on the scrub side of County Road D 10 City Council 04-2S-03 between Art-,[ Street and White Bear Avenue, The legal description is: r; PARCEL A: The Easterly 239M feet of the Westerly 329.3I feet of the Southerly 428.33 feet of the Northerly 681,13 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 2 Township 29 -North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, PARCEL B: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 29, Range 1 22, more completely described as follows: Commencing at a point 33 feet South of the North 1 /4comer of said Section 2: thence running South on North and South 1 /4 line of said Section 2, a distance of 615,15 feet to a point; thence East a distance of 90.31 feet to a point; thence North a distance of 615,15 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of County Road "D"; and thence West, a distance of 9031 feet to the point of beginning. I PARCEL C: The North Ten (N 10) acres of the East Twenty (E 20) acres of the North Half (N 1 /2) of the Northwest Quarter (Nth' 1 /4) of Section Two (2), Township Twenty-nine (29) North, Range Twenty-two (22) West, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, subject to White Bear Avenue and County Road "D", excepting the following portions thereof, to wit: Except the South One hundred (S 100) feet thereof; and Except that part thereof lying West of the Easterly line of White Bear Avenue; and Except that part thereof described as follows: Except that part thereof described as follows: 11 Cio Couwil 04-28-03 The West One hundred fifty (W 150) feet of the East Three hundred sixty-seven (E 367) feet of the North Three hundred forty and fifty hundredths (N 340.50) feet thereof, except County Road "D" right of way, and Except that part thereof described as follows: Except that part thereof described as follows: Except that part thereof described as follows: Except that part of the following described parcel lying Westerly of the Easterly 114. feet drereof� That part of the North 10 acres of the East 20 acres of the North Half of the yforthwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Easterly right-of-way line of White, Bear Avenue and tile North line of the South 100 feet of said North 10 acres; thence Easterly along said North line of the South 100 feet, a distance of 309,40 feet; thence Northerly at a right angle, 15-5.94 feet to a point on a line parallel with and distant 493.50 feet South of the North line of the Northwest 12 Or, Council 04-28-03 Quarter of Section 2; thence Westerly along said parallel line to the Easterly right-of-way line of White Bear Avenue; thence Southerly along said right-of-way line to the point of beginning. All in the NE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 29, Range 22, {PINS 02-29-22-12-0009, 02-29-22-12-0010 and 02 -29- 22_21 -0017} peliEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On February 19, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit, 2. Onlvlarch 10, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners, The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning corturnesion. 3, On April 28, 2003, the City Council field another public hearing about this proposal. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the nearby property owners. The city council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and to present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and of the planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: L The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be inconformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. I The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area, 3, The use would not depreciate property values, 4, T use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, burns, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe, access on existing or proposed streets, G. The use - be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. S. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the developnown, design, 9, The use Would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 13 City Council 04-28-03 14 City CoLncil 04-29-03 6. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boars or trailers. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day to -day transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site. 8. The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population, 9, The city council shall review this permit in one year. 10. The owner/manager of Sibley Cove shall require every tenant to review and sign a "noise disclaimer" with their lease agreement. This disclaimer form shall be approved by the city staff. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the design Plans for Sibley Cove Apartment this aDoroval on the findi re aired by the code, and the develoner or contractor shall do the LO- Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans, The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code, (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100 - year high water elevation, b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards, and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical, (it) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans, 11f)i city engineer shall approve the plans, Chy Council 04-2S-03 specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass, (a) Show all retaining wells on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city, (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal, (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The design of the storm water pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer, The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements, (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter, (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24 -foot width--no parking on either side and 28-foot width--parking on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards, (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north and cast property lines near the daycare center, Chance the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. (9) The developer shall install a six-foot-wide concrete sidewalk alone Ariel Street between the existing sidewalk north of Woodlynn Avenue and the M I south property line of theltiycarc center, City Council 04-28-03 1 (9) Include a storm water management plan, including drainage and pending calculations, for approval by the city engineer. (10) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated February 10, 2003. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads, a. Subs nt a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including large trees) remaining along the northern and eastern property lines (near the dayeare center) as possible. (3) The planting of native grasses, flowering plants and low-level shrubs around the proposed storm water pond. These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond, (4) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for the rainwater garden at the northeast carrier of the building e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. g. The developer shall record the following with Ramsey County. (1) The documentation to combine the properties into one property for ots and identification purposes. A ten-mot-wide, permane4t7easement for public street ri -of -way and Cio Council 04-28-01 public utility purposes alone the south side of the County Road D right-of- way. fi. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans, i. The fire chief shall approve the access to the back (northeast side) of the building for firefighting needs, j. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling containers and enclosures. If the developer wants to build such facilities, the enclosure shall have materials that are compatible with the building, and they shall have gates that are 100 percent opaque, ls. Submit plans for city staff approval of the south elevation. including the garage. 1. Submit samples of the proposed building materials and colors to staff for approval, n. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvement The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. tr This approval does riot include the 20-unit addition on the cast end of the site. The developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to the CDRB for their approval before the city may issue a building permit for this part of the project, 3. Complete the followin - before occupying the building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction, b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof - mounted equipment visible, from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) a. Construct trash durapster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers t44 the owner or building manager would keel) Cay Council 04-28-03 City (',ouncil 04,-2S-03 approve minor changes, Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All 20 City Council 04-28-03 Agenda Item G3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review PROJECT: Van Dyke Village Town Houses LOCATION: 2191 — 2231 Van Dyke Street DATE: April 14, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description The conditional use permit (CUP) for Van Dyke Village town houses at 2191 — 2231 Van Dyke Street is due for review. This CUP is for a PUD (planned unit development) in the BC (business commercial) zoning district. Refer to the maps and plans on pages three through eight and the city council minutes starting on page nine. BACKGROUND On April 28, 2003, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for 20 town house units on this site. The applicant requested the CUP because part of the site would be on property that the city had zoned BC (business commercial). The code allows multiple - dwellings on BC -zoned land only with a conditional use permit. (See the property line /zoning map on page four.) The CUP for this project was subject to ten conditions of approval. On May 27, 2003, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the design plans for this project. This approval was subject to six conditions. (See the building elevations on page seven.) On April 26, 2004, the city council reviewed the conditional use permit and agreed to review it again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. DISCUSSION The contractor for the town houses has completed the site work for the building including the construction of the tot lot, the maintenance building, sidewalk, and the screening fence along the west and north sides of the project (see the site plan on page 5). The majority of the landscaping is complete including the planting of evergreen shrubs and ornamental trees in front of each entry, deciduous shrubs at the back of each unit, and decorative rock with edging along each unit. The three rain gardens affronting Van Dyke Street on the westerly edge of the property are also complete (see the landscape plan on page 8). Staff feels that the city council should review this permit again in one year. This review will give staff and the property owner a chance to ensure that the rain gardens are healthy and functioning properly and that all the landscaping continues to grow. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Van Dyke Village Town houses at 2191 — 2231 Van Dyke Street again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. SITE DESCRIPTION I N4a4:7=I0 Id=111110 1 1;101NLVi /evi IIQ0 Site size (project area): 3.56 acres Existing land use: Town houses (under construction) SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the proposed development) North: Goodwill and undeveloped property owned by the adjacent daycare center South: Emma's Place town houses West: Finalube, NAPA Auto Parts and an auto body shop on White Bear Avenue East: Single dwellings across Van Dyke Street »_1olollo w Land Use Plan designation: R3 -M (medium density residential) and BC (business commercial) Zoning: R3 and BC Land Use Plan Provision The land use plan provides that most of the land use plan categories coordinate with the city's zoning categories. The uses permitted in these land use categories are the same as those in the corresponding zoning district. Ordinance Requirements The land use plan showed this site for BC (business commercial) uses, which do not include multiple - family housing. The developer applied for a CUP because the zoning on this site is BC (business commercial) and R -3 (multiple - family residential). The BC zone allows a variety of commercial, retail business, and multiple dwellings with a conditional use permit (CUP). The developer chose to apply for a CUP, rather than a zone change. A CUP for a PUD is only for a specific use and site plan. A rezoning to R -3 (multiple dwelling residential) would allow a variety of multiple - dwelling uses and plans. p:sec11 \Van Dyke Village review - 2005.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Grading and Utility Plan 5. Building Elevations 6. Landscape Plan 7. April 28, 2003 City Council minutes Attachment 1 ,�i6R T H 1 4�f r f i Cl` N7}i E3 @ Cr AYE M 8iLWE t-- �fE E T� . LQJFW RD. AVE. 1700' A 40 EZ.DR AGE AYE. # A n TA r,. 1 Ate., A GEORNMAM its �� ,�i6R T H f AVL H A VE WA AVE i I iT t A& "' PUY Cl` N7}i 7 @ Cr AYE M 8iLWE t-- �fE E T� . LQJFW RD. R 1700' f AVL H A VE WA AVE i I iT t A& "' PUY • @ Cr AYE M 8iLWE AYE. Q 2 t+'at 9LWE AA. ,.. 40 EZ.DR AGE AYE. # x+n c� n 54 r,. BCJOOW A its �� A A D AVr- K f AVL H A VE WA AVE i I iT t A& "' PUY Attachment 2 Kc lk 4131 Z ik, U 6 7;" M fir 23 2 2 9 EMMA'$ PLACE 2 - — cou 2230 r ml z -i z Attachment 2 Kc lk 4131 Z ik, U 6 7;" M fir 23 2 2 9 EMMA'$ PLACE 2 - — cou 2230 r LAURIE 2PS E r aa) 37 2 2 0 E Lij mr a1 ui r m 2194 Gt SANDHURST Attachment 3 SITE PLAN 4 N Attachment 4 ✓r. rs a _ n, xs � s s ...., r am ( Air J ,FJ y, lJ N( uS+ 4 R4 +ram` Yv.2 i. {'$`� 1��_��iL_ "��� �•,S / 'x w R a.+L£ 'LC i 3NFyR4 re SNSTiVC vEW { {*wR,Q Oa+T _9iPN'A trH `aY[ 5> 6 ='NIT« _ � 0£A55 4 UN S a r T�s Q � > 6 WAF.'i LQ } 111 111 s 6 } 924tA' , I .mn i S 1�4 --- - ------ BUILDING ELEVATIONS I Attachment 6 LANDSCAPE PLAN Attachment 7 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7-15 P.M., Monday, April 2u, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building ,Meeting Noe 03 -08 c. Bruce Mogren, the developer, provided further specifics, Councilmember Wasiluk moved to acloto the followins resolution a a conditional use perm: =t for a �0 unit fanned development for the Van l3vke Village Town Rouse Development on the west side of _Van Dyke Street, north of County Road B RESOLTUION 03.04-074 CONDITIONAL USE PERNUT RESOLUTION IST]EREAS, Mr. Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit to build a 20-unit town house development known as Van Dyke Village, WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at the west side of Van Dyke Street, north of Courl"Y Road B and east of White Bear Avenue. The legal descriptions are: V Parcel 1: That part of the West 90 feet of the East 360 feet of Lot 2, Block 20, Smith and Taylor's Addition of North St, Paul, lying East of the West 41 feet thereof; inciuding that part of the North half of adjoining Sandhurst Avenue, vacated, lying between the extension and across said street of the East line of the West 41 feet of the East 360 feet of Lot 2, and the West line of the East 270 'set of said Lot 1 Parcel 2: The East 270 feet of Lot 2, Black 20, together with the North 2.65 feet of said Lot 2, Block 20, except the West 23114 feet thereof, and the South 2.65 feet of Lot 1, Block 20 except the West 2 feet thereof, all in Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St, Paul, accruing thereto by reason of vacation thereof. Parcel 3: All that part of Lot 1 Block Strath and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul, except the South 2.65 feet thereof, and except that part described asfollows: commencing -'a a point on the West line of said Lot 1, distant 2,65 feet North of the Southwest corner of said L ot I thence Eas parallel to the South line of said Lot I a distance of 2 L49 feet; thence North on a soluchL line to a point an the Norta line of said Lot 1, distant 272,06 felt East of the Nordiw'-st comet of said Lot 1 i thence West alonl� said North line of Lot I a distance of 272.06 feet to said Northwest corner of said Lot l thence South alone the West line of said ot I -', distance of 121 38 feet to tile p0ill-1 0i beginning, and txcepr the South 1, � of vacaoA L Laurie AvenUe l adja to the '��"ordl of the excepted tract and herein described. Parcel 4: All that part of Lot I Block 13, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul including the North half of vacated Laurie Avenue, lying adjacent to and South of the tract herein described, except that part of Lot 2, Block 13, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Lot 2, thence East thong the South line of said Lot 2 a distance of 272 feet to a point, thence Northerly on a straight line to a point of the North line of said Lot 2, a distance of 272.01 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 2; thence southerly along the West line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning and excepting there from that part taken for widening of White Bear Avenue, and except the Nord T 1 A of vacated Lurie Avenue lyin adjacent to and south of the excepted tract herein described. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On parch 3, 2003, the planning commission reviewed this request but did not make a recommendation about this permit. On April 14, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also Considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission, The council, with the approval of the applicant, tabled action on this request. 3, On April 25, 2003, the city council continued their discussion about this proposal, The Council save ss at the meeting a chance to speak and to present written statements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLSTD that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1, The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. I The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area, 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including sneers, froUccand I - fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. I 7. -r - usevvisuki not create excessive additional costs for public facilities t i I he or services. ces . 8 Ti e U be WoL ud tone , i nt i Ze h e powersat In L T, of and incorporate the site's natural and si'tanc fwuurs'= 10 into the dcvelopment design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The final construction plans may show up to 20 town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major chances to the plans. The Director of Community Development miry approve minor changes to the plans, Such changes shall include revising the grading and site Mans to show. a. The developer Immunizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation, lc. All driveways at tease 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. c. All parking stalls with a width of at least 9,5 feet and a length of at least 18 fact. d, Revised stout water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer, The pondsshall meet the city's design standards, e. The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as posaible. 2. The proposed constructon must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the per tit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans with no more than 20 units, These plans shall meet all the conditions and chim-aes noted in the engineer's Marno dated February 24, 2003. These shall include: a, The grading, utility, drainage. erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining wells, driveway and parking lot plans. b. A storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds and rainwater gardens shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements, 5 . The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements, I b. Place temporary Oran safety fencim and signs at the grading limits, I -- - - - c. Remove an oi-junk frorn the site. I d. Install the required sidewalk alorna Van Dyke Street. it 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Van Dyke Villagle shall be: a, From-yard setback (froma public street): minimum - 30 feet. maximum - 40 feet b. Rea-yard setback: 50 feet from any adjacent residential property line c. Side -yard setback (tcovn houses): minimum - 40 feet from the west property line and 50 feet front the south property line. 7, The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (RAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The developer shall close on the purchase of the property with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. 9. The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and property managed and shall have an on-site manager fivine- on the property, IR, The city council shall review this permit in one year, IM Agenda Item GA MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Gruber's Power Equipment LOCATION: 1762 White Bear Avenue DATE: April 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for Gruber's Power Equipment is due for review. The city council issued the CUP to allow Gruber's to expand their exterior storage area at 1762 White Bear Avenue. Refer to the location and site plan attached (Attachments 1 and 2). BACKGROUND On October 27, 2003, the city council approved the following land use permits associated with the expansion of Gruber's exterior storage area: 1) a variance from the Hillcrest Village moratorium in order to allow Junior Achievement to subdivide .258 acres of land from their property and sell it to Gruber's Power Equipment; 2) a minor subdivision in order to subdivide the land; 3) a five -foot parking lot setback variance in order to allow the new lot line to be created next to Junior Achievement's existing parking lot (zero setback); 4) a CUP for the expansion of Gruber's exterior storage area; and 5) site plan approval of the expanded exterior storage area. Due to the fact that Gruber's Power Equipment is located within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area where exterior storage is now prohibited, the city council approved the CUP on the condition that the exterior storage use cease within five years of approval (October 27, 2008). Refer to the October 27, 2003, city council minutes attached (Attachment 3). On February 23, 2004, the city council rezoned and reguided the Hillcrest area, including Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue, from Business Commercial (BC) to the newly created Mixed Use (M -U) zoning district. The exterior storage then became a pre- existing nonconforming use which can remain until the October 27, 2008, sunset date approved by the city council. DISCUSSION A condition of approval was the review of the CUP by the city council one year after issuance (October 27, 2004). The CUP review is overdue by six months due to this city staff's leave of absence, as well as recording and title issues relating to the sale of the property from Junior Achievement to Gruber's. Matt Gruber explains the delays in the attached March 10, 2005, letter (Attachment 4). A history of the delays follows: The first step in the expansion of Gruber's exterior storage area was the purchase of the above - mentioned land from Junior Achievement. The initial closing date was scheduled for April 15, 2004, at which point it was discovered that a previous owner was still listed on Gruber's title and needed to be removed. This process was time consuming due to the fact that the previous owner lived in another country. Once the title issues were cleared and another closing date was scheduled, Gruber's discovered that Ramsey County would require a Registered Land Survey (RLS) of the subdivision, rather than the meets and bounds survey which was approved by the city council. The property had to be resurveyed and resubmitted to the county for review. The RLS was recorded with the county on December 28, 2004. All supporting documents for the property acquisition had to be revised due to the change in the legal description from meets and bounds to an RLS. This included a parking lot lease agreement for the use of 46 parking spaces on Junior Achievement's property and a driveway easement for access to Gruber's exterior storage area from Junior Achievement's North St. Paul Road driveway which were both required by the city council. All of the documents have been revised and approved by city staff. A new closing is tentatively scheduled for Friday, April 22, 2005. Because Gruber's does not formally own the land, they were unable to obtain the necessary permits to construct the fence and complete all other exterior improvements proposed including landscaping, painting of the building, and striping of the front parking lot. Over the last two months, however, Gruber's has worked closely with city staff to ensure all other conditions of approval have been met including the submittal of a revised grading plan, revised site plan, revised landscape plan, and have also formally applied for and submitted all required materials needed for the building permit to construct the fence. Gruber's has experienced several setbacks to the completion of their CUP expansion over the last year. They have continually updated city staff on these setbacks and have done their best at meeting city council deadlines. For this reason, staff recommends that Gruber's be given an additional six months in which to finalize the closing of the property and complete all required exterior improvements associated with the expansion of exterior storage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council review Gruber's Power Equipment's conditional use permit for exterior storage at 1762 White Bear Avenue again in six months (October 2005). p:sec14 \Gruber's Power Equipment\2005 CUP Review Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. October 27, 2003, City Council Minutes 4. Letter from Matt Gruber dated March 10, 2005 Attachment 1 III Gruber's Power Equipment 1762 White Bear Avenue d Cl 11 ❑o Q ` ®y ® eee N V� Location Map 91 Attachment 2 Tl- S C jruber5 �W QCC�J tb \� y�' V 1et JV lot i te Ian 4 Attachment 3 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., October 27, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03 -26 2. Gruber's Power Equipment (1762 White Bear Avenue) a. Minor Subdivision b. Moratorium Variance c. Parking Lot Setback Variance d. Conditional Use Permit for Expansion of Exterior Storage a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. C. Matt Gruber, the applicant spoke in agreement of staff s proposal. d. Larry Griffith, representing Junior Achievement, spoke to the 5 -year parking lease. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a variance from the Hillcrest Village moratorium for Gruber's Power Equipment and Junior Achievement. This variance allows Gruber's to subdivide .258 acres of land from 1800 White Bear Avenue (Junior Achievement) to combine with 1762 White Bear Avenue ( Gruber's) within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area: RESOLUTION 03 -10 -207 HILLCREST VILLAGE MORATORIUM VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gruber's Power Equipment and Junior Achievement have applied for a variance from the Hillcrest Village development and subdivision moratorium ordinance in order to subdivide .258 acres of land from Junior Achievement's property at 1800 White Bear Avenue to combine with Gruber's property at 1762 White Bear Avenue. The legal description for the .258 acres of land is: Parts of Lots 6, 9, and 10, Block 1, Meister's Highlands, According to the Recorded Plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 834 of the city code establishes a development and subdivision moratorium for the Hillcrest area which includes land located north of Larpenteur Avenue, east of White Bear Avenue, south of Ripley Avenue, and west of Hazel Street, as well as properties on the west side of White Bear Avenue located north of Larpenteur Avenue and south of Frost Avenue. WHEREAS, Gruber's is proposing to expand their exterior storage area into the newly subdivided land. WHEREAS, the subdivision of land requires a variance from the moratorium ordinance. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: The city council held a public hearing on October 13, 2003. City staff published a notice City Council 10 -27 -03 5 in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The city council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council tabled the request to allow city staff time to prepare conditions of approval. The city council held a second hearing on October 27, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the Hillcrest Village moratorium variance as described above. This variance is because: 1. The city has no adopted timeline for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment plan at this time. 2. The city has no adopted land use and zoning for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment plat at this time. 3. Gruber's is a longstanding business within the city. 4. Gruber's acknowledges that the minor subdivision and subsequent use of the land for exterior storage is not compatible with the proposed land use and zoning, rather a necessity for their growing business at this time. 5. Improvements proposed with the minor subdivision and exterior storage expansion will include screening of all exterior storage, landscaping of the site, parking lot improvements, and loading and unloading access improvements. These will improve the aesthetics and safety of the site for Gruber's customers and the city as a whole. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve Gruber's Power Equipment's request for a minor subdivision in order to subdivide .258 acres of land from 1800 White Bear Avenue (Junior Achievement) to combine with 1762 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the following conditions: a. Deeds describing the two new legal descriptions must be drafted and submitted to city staff for approval prior to recording with the county. b. Access easement between Junior Achievement and Gruber's must be drafted and submitted to city staff for approval prior to recording with the county. The easement must legally describe the area and purpose of the easement, which will allow Gruber's access to their rear lot through two proposed accesses on the north and east side of their exterior storage area. C. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the fence around the exterior storage area, the applicants must submit proof of recording the deeds and easement with the county. The deeds and easements must be recorded within one year of the date of approval (October 27, 2004) or the minor subdivision will become null and void (city code requirement). d. Prior to issuance of a fence permit for the exterior storage area, the applicants must submit proof that Gruber's existing lot was combined with the newly created lot. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -All City Council 10 -27 -03 6 Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a 5 -foot parking to setback variance for Junior Achievement at 1800 White Bear Avenue. This variance is requested in order to allow Gruber's new lot fine to be placed right up to Junior Achievement's parking lot, rather than the required 5 -foot setback Approval is based on the following findings: PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLUTION 03 -10 -208 WHEREAS, Junior Achievement applied for a 5 -foot parking lot setback variance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to 1800 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: Meister's Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Subject to Easements and Vacated Van Dyke Street Accruing and Ex. N 201.4 Feet of the East 137 Feet and Vacated Van Dyke Street Adjacent Accruing the Following Tract: Lots 1 through 6 and 9 through 14, Block 1. WHEREAS, Section 44- 20(c)(5) of the city's ordinances requires a parking lot to maintain a 5- foot setback from a side property line. WHEREAS, Junior Achievement proposes to subdivide .258 acres of land and sell it to the adjacent property, Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue. WHEREAS, the new lot line will be placed right up to Junior Achievement's parking lot, rather than the required 5 -foot setback. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: On September 15, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on October 13, 2003. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The city council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council tabled the request to allow city staff time to prepare conditions of approval. 3. The city council held a second hearing on October 27, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described variance for the following reasons: 1. The portion of Junior Achievement's parking lot requiring a 5 -foot setback variance will be leased and maintained by Gruber's, the adjacent property owner. 2. Gruber's lease of the parking lot will ensure safety for Gruber's customers and employees by allowing them adequate off - street parking. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for exterior storage at Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue. Approval City Council 10 -27 -03 7 is based on the following conditions: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 03 -10 -209 WHEREAS, Gruber's Power Equipment applied for a conditional use permit for exterior storage for their business. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1762 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description is Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Meister's Highlands. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On September 15, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this conditional use permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on October 13, 2003. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The city council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council tabled the request to allow city staff time to prepare conditions of approval. 3. The city council held a second hearing on October 27, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: The use would not depreciate property values. 2. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 3. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 4. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 5. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: a. This permit shall end on October 27, 2008. b. Proof of the existence of a parking lot lease agreement between Gruber's and Junior Achievement, or subsequent owners of 1800 White Bear Avenue, and yearly thereafter. The parking lot lease agreement language must be submitted to city staff prior to issuance of a fence permit and yearly thereafter, and must cover the following: 1) Junior Achievement allows Gruber's the use of 46 parking spaces within Junior Achievement's parking lot, adjacent Gruber's business. City Council 10 -27 -03 $ 2) The parking lot lease agreement must be for at least five years. 3) Cancellation of the lease by Junior Achievement must allow Gruber's six months to cease the use of the 46 parking spaces. 4) Because Gruber's conditional use permit is directly tied to the use of the 46 above - mentioned parking spaces, Gruber's conditional use permit for exterior storage will become null and void in the event that they do not have a lease agreement for the use of the 46 parking spaces, unless alternative parking arrangements can be made, as approved by the city, or the city approves a special agreement with Gruber's to allow for reduced parking. C. All exterior storage must be screened by a 10- foot -high screening fence. d. There shall be no loading or unloading of tractors, equipment, or other inventory from White Bear Avenue. All loading and unloading must be accomplished on the north or east side of Gruber's exterior storage area, as allowed within the required access easement between Junior Achievement and Gruber's. e. There shall be no noise - malting business activity conducted in the lot, or made by vehicles entering or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all day Sunday as required by code. f. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. g. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve Gruber's site plan date sampled May 29, 2003, for the expansion of their exterior storage area at 1762 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the following conditions: a. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or fence permit: 1) A revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan which addresses all conditions as specified in the Maplewood Engineering Department's June 27, 2003, engineering review. 2) A revised site plan showing the following: a) Entire site plan should show Gruber's lot, as well as the area of Junior Achievement's lot held under lease by Gruber's. b) Striping of parking spaces on the front parking lot (west side of the building). Parking must comply with city code and Americans with City Council 10 -27 -03 9 Disabilities Act requirements. Striping of parking spaces is to be completed by June 1, 2004. 3) Revised fence elevations showing the following: a) No portion of the fence will exceed 10 feet in height. b) A green painted stripe on the top portion of the fence, to match the existing green strip on the building. 4) A revised landscape plan that shows the 12 proposed amur maples replaced with 12 alternative ornamental trees to be approved by city staff. 5) Prepare a landscaping maintenance easement agreement that explains the duties and responsibilities for the care and, if necessary, the replacement of the landscaping that is for the Grubers site that is on the Junior Achievement property. The applicant shall record this agreement with Ramsey County. 6) A photometrics plan must be submitted to the city for any new outdoor lighting. Freestanding lights shall not exceed 25 feet in height and light illumination from outdoor lights must not exceed .4 -foot candles at all property lines. 7) Dumpster must be stored behind 10- foot -high screening fence at all times. 8) A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of all required exterior work and must be submitted prior to issuance of a grading or fence permit. b. All exterior improvements must be complete by June 1, 2004. C. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes -All ID] City Council 10 -27 -03 Attachment 4 Est 1953 == -PO fipU/PMENT ✓near ovEdnar Power Ealda <•.uei�r sPecirlisC March 10, 2005 To: Shann Finwall / City of Maplewood / Maplewood City Council Re: Conditional Use Permit Review As many of you may have noticed not much has changed with our site since we last met This is not because our desires have changed or a lack of effort, but because of an inability to get the property purchase to closing. After approval was granted to go forward with our proposed expansion we felt with a couple of last steps we would be able to close on the property and proceed to the next phase. We had established necessary funding and were excited about moving forward. On February 23 2004 we had our parking lot lease agreement meeting the guidelines of the city and the council and then signed. The next phase was establishing driveway easements. On March 19 2004 we had easments established and thought the next step would be closing on the property. We established a closing date of April 15`", 2004 and anticipated things would go smoothly. At this point it was discovered a previous owner was still on title of our exsisting property and needed to be removed. A simple process we thought, but this individual was and is still living in a different country which made the process very time consuming. This problem was eventually taken care of late summer, and we thought we were ready for closing again. So with the thought we were waiting for final paper work to be done, another issue came up. Ramsey County wanted a Registered Land Survey for the property acquisition. Junior Achievement and their representatives, Dorsey Law Firm, took initiative and acquired the services of Schoell & Madson, Inc. to do the Registered Land Survey. On November 2 2004 we ( Grubers Power Equipment) received a contract to sign to do the Registered Land Survey. The Letter was signed and this phase was moving forward. On December 2e, 2004 we received a bill for Shoell & Madson, Inc.'s services and were told the information had been forwarded to Ramsey County. At this point we assumed some time after the holiday season had ended we would be moving this to closing. We received a final closing e-mail on January 11 ", 2005 saying we were closing on the property January 13'", 2005. This closing did not transpire either. Upon reviewing the closing papers, First American Title had the wrong name and address on all the paper work and had some concerns with the property easement and how they were drafted. They did not know if the easments would be recordable as they were drawn up. The proper easements were then shown to the title company, the title company drafted them as they saw fit and shared them with Junior Achievement At this point Junior Achievement is having their Lawyers look at it. We assume closing is real close, but that has been our assumption all along. Please take into consideration the time and money spent on this project and the effort put forth by all parties involved. And note we are aware f how long this taking and wish it would happen a lot faster than it has. Since el�, MStt G ( ar Gruber's Power Equipment rii �n =sod c5iG6'= 'lone: 65i 790.7SG'U= -r�.��: 65 i 7i(l.7Yl A 11 Agenda Item G5 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: R. Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Mike Kane, Street Superintendent SUBJECT: Purchase of 2006 -2006 Winter Road Salt DATE: April 6, 2005 INTRODUCTION Each year the street maintenance division purchases de -icing salt under a state cooperative purchasing agreement. Description In order to be included in this program, the state requires us to submit our estimated salt needs for the 2005 -2006 season by April 30, 2005. Based on what was carried over from last season, we estimate our salt needs at 880 tons for the 2005 -2006 season. The expenses for this purchase are budgeted under the snow and ice control program. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize purchase of road salt under the state contract, not to exceed $35,000. Agenda Item G6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Legacy Parkway Improvements (Southlawn to Hazelwood), City Project 03 -26 Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 2 DATE: April 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION On May 24, 2004, the city council awarded a construction contract to Ryan Contracting Co. in the amount of $1,154,703.70 for the Legacy Parkway Improvements. On November 22, 2004, the city council approved Change Order No. 1 for the amount $75,647.50. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution Directing the Modification of the Existing Construction Contract and approving Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $84,826.83. Background Change Order No. 2 reflects additional work performed by the contractor at the request of the engineer due to unforeseen conditions or due to field revisions that were required during construction. The details of the change order are summarized detail in the attached Memo from city's project consultant, Kimley -Horn and Associates. Items listed under Schedules C and D were reductions or additions to the final quantities from what had been bid. Schedule 1 is an adjustment to the final quantity of retaining wall that had been approved with Change Order No. 1. The cost of the additional retaining wall is covered by developer's agreement with Town and Country Homes. Most of the items listed under Schedule 2 are for work related to the construction of the trail between Kennard Street and Legacy Park along the south side of the Legacy Property. Originally this trail construction was to be done as part of the Legacy Park Construction, but for reasons of logistics and efficiency was proposed to be added to the Legacy Parkway Contract Items 11 through 15 were additions request by the engineer due to unforeseen conditions that need to be modified in the field. Budget Impact No revision to the project budget is required for this change order as these changes fall with in the approved budget. This project is funded through assessments and tax abatement funding. There is no tax levy funding on this project, therefore this action will not have a direct impact on the current tax levy. Agenda Item G6 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution Directing the Modification of the Construction Contract with Ryan Contracting by $84,826.83 for the Legacy Parkway Improvements, City Project 03 -26, by approving Change Order No. 2. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Memo from KHA, 3 pgs 3. Change Order 2, 2 pgs Agenda Item G6 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 03 -26, Legacy Parkway Improvements, Southlawn to Hazelwood, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 03 -26, Change Order No. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $84,826.83. The revised contract amount is $1,315,178.03. No revision to the financing plan is required at this time as all items fall within the proposed budget Memorandum To: Chris Cavett From: Chadd Larson Date: April 1, 2005 Subject: Legacy Parkway Improvements (C.P. 03 -26) CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 Change Order No. 2 reflects additional work performed by Ryan Contracting Company at the request of the City of Maplewood This change order also includes some additional work that was required due to unforeseen field conditions. Below is a detailed description of items included in Change Order No. 2. REVISE BID SCHEDULE D — STREET IMPROVEMENTS Subgrade Excavation 2550.00 CY $5,865.00 Due to unforeseen poor soil conditions on the west end of Legacy Parkway, the field engineer directed the contractor to excavate additional material prior to preparing the roadbed. The total cost for this additional subgrade excavation is $5,865.00. Street Sweeper 22.00 HR $2,640.00 On June 28, 2004, the City received notice from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District that they needed to increase the amount of street sweeping on Kennard Street while trucks are hauling. The total cost for this additional street sweeping is $2,640.00. Aggregate Base, Class 6 780.00 Ton $7,215.00 On the west end of Legacy Parkway where the additional subgrade excavation was required, the field engineer directed the contractor to place additional aggregate base material to ensure an adequate roadbed was achieved prior to paving. The total cost for this additional aggregate base is $7,215.00. Memorandum Legacy Parkway Improvements Change Order No. 2 April I, 2005 4" Non - metallic Conduit 533.00 Lf $2,132.00 The adjacent developer, Town and Country Homes, requested that an estimated 700 LF of 4" non - metallic conduit be included in the City's contract for small utility crossings under future driveways. During construction, the developer realized that more conduit would be required than originally anticipated. The total cost for the increased amount of conduit is $2,132.00. TOTAL SCHEDULE D $17,852.00 REVISE BID SCHEDULE 1 — CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Modular Block Retaining Wall 698.00 SF $11,517.00 Field adjustments were made to some of the walls constructed around the box culvert. Most of these modifications were necessary to adequately tie in to the existing grading conditions that were constantly changing and also to avoid excavation near the BP gas line. In addition, the City agreed that it made sense to tie the north east retaining wall into Town and Country's proposed retaining wall. The entire wall was constructed under the City contract with the intent that Town and Country Homes would reimburse the City for their portion. TOTAL SCHEDULE 1 $11,517.00 ADD BID SCHEDULE 2— CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 Pay Items 1 Through 10 Total $41,590.00 City staff requested Ryan Contracting Company to construct approximately 1000 feet of additional bituminous trail on the Birch Run property located on the south end of Legacy Village. Pay items I through 10 reflect the additional work required to construct this trail. The total cost for this additional work is $41,590.00. F & I Concrete Valley Gutter LS $2,088.00 Upon inspection, the field engineer determined the new intersection of Legacy Parkway and Southlawn Drive would not drain properly if constructed per the plans. It was determined that the existing survey data did not accurately reflect the existing drainage flow patterns. The field engineer determined the best solution was to install a concrete valley gutter at this intersection. The contractor submitted an invoice for this Memorandum Legacy Parkway Improvements Change Order No. 2 April I, 2005 work in the amount of $2,088.00. A copy of this invoice is attached to this memo. Storm Sewer Modifications LS $4,409.11 During a heavy rain event during construction, a section of 30" HDPE pipe traveling under a proposed bituminous trail filled with water and floated out of position. The field engineer determined that due to field conditions, the HDPE pipe was not suitable for this location and directed the contractor to cut the pipe, install a manhole and replace the pipe with a section of reinforced concrete pipe. The contractor submitted invoices for this work in the amount of $4,409.11. Copies of these invoices are attached to this memo. Hydrant Extensions LS $1,692.46 Due to adjustments in final grading, the field engineer directed the contractor to add extensions to 3 hydrants on the project. The contractor submitted an invoice for this work in the amount of $1,692.46. A copy of this invoice is attached to this memo. Construct Storm Manhole (90" Dia) 1 LS $5,800.00 During the shop drawing approval process, the concrete manhole supplier determined that pipe sizes and angles would require MHCB43 to be a 90" diameter manhole instead of a 72" diameter manhole as shown on the plans. The contractor submitted an invoice for the labor and materials in the amount of $5,800.00 in lieu of being compensated for a 72" diameter manhole in the contract. A copy of this invoice is attached to this memo. Replace Existing Manhole (72" Dia) 1 LS $2,923.26 The field engineer determined that MHCB41, which was previously constructed under the Kennard Street project, could not be salvaged and needed replacement. The field engineer directed the contractor to install a new manhole. The contractor submitted an invoice for the labor and materials in the amount of $2,923.26. A copy of this invoice is attached to this memo. TOTAL SCHEDULE 2 $58,502.83 TOTAL NET CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 $87,871.83 If you have any questions regarding the details of this change order, please feel free to contact me at (651) 643 -0409 or by e-mail at chadd.larson(a kimley- horn.com Copy: File 160500007/4.1 Page] of 2 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO: CONTRACTOR: CHANGE ORDER NO.: DATE: CHANGE ORDER CITY OF :VLYPLEWOOD DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS I.egacv Parkway Improvements City Project 03 -26 Ryan Contracting Company Two (2) April 11. 2005 The following changes shall he made in the contract documents: REVISE SCHEDULE C —STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Quantity Price Amount 32 Const. CB Manhole (72 ")(Deduct) EA -1.00 $1045.00 - $3,045.00 TOTAL SCHEDULE C EA 33.00 $80.00 - S3,045.00 REVISE SCHEDULE, D— STREET IMPROVEMENTS CY 270.00 $15.00 Item 4 Aggregate Base, Class 6 Ton Unit $1650 No. Item Description Unit Quantity Price Amount 18 Subgrade Excavation CY 2550.00 $230 $5,865.00 20 Street Sweeper HR 22.00 $120.00 $2,640.00 25 Aggregate Base, Class 6 Ton 780.00 $9.25 $7,215.00 35 4" Non - metallic C onduit LF 5 $4.00 $2.132.00 TOTAL SCHEDULED $17,852.00 REVISE SCHEDULE 1 — CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Quantity Price Amount 3 Modular B Retaining Wall __SF_ _ 698.00 $ ---$] 1,5 17-00 TOTAL SCHEDULE 1 $11,517.00 ADD BID SCHEDULE 2 - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 Item No. Item Description Unit Unit Quantity Price Amount 1 Clearing EA 3100 $140.00 $4,620.00 2 Grubbing EA 33.00 $80.00 $1640.00 3 Common Excavation (E V) CY 270.00 $15.00 $4,050.00 4 Aggregate Base, Class 6 Ton 800.00 $1650 $13,200.00 5 Type 41B Bituminous Mixture Ton 120.00 $49.00 $5,880.00 6 Adjust Gate Valve EA 1.00 $375.00 $375.00 Page 2 oft 7 8 Adjust Frame & Ring Casting Silt Fence, Type Preassembled EA 1.00 $375.00 $375.00 9 Seed Mixture MnDOT 350 LF Acre 1350.00 0.50 $2.00 $1500.00 $2,700.00 10 Sodding, Type Lawn SY 2000.00 $3.50 $750.00 $7,000.00 11 12 F & I Concrete Valley Curter LS 1 $2,088.00 $2.088.00 Stornt Sewer Modifications LS 1 $4,409.11 $4,409.11 13 14 Hydrant Extensions LS 1 $1,692.46 $1,692.46 Construct Manhole (90" Dia) LS 1 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 15 RanlaccExistneManhole 72" _ LS 1 $2,932.26 $2,92326 TOTAL SCHEDULF 2 558,502.83 TOTAL NET CHANCE ORDER NO. 2 584,826.83 CONTRACT STATUS: Original Contract: $1,154,703.70 Net Change of Prior Change: $75,647.50 (Change Order No. 1) Change this Change Order: 584 826 83 Revised Contract: $1,315,178.03 Recommended By: Kimlcy -Horn and Associates, Inc. C7 By. / Date: Agreed to By: jyan C6ntra'ctina Cortmanv By: Date: � - / / —!!� City of Bv: fJjM_ ayor By: — fL City Engineer Date: Date: / r/ z j e Agenda Item G7 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk RE: Permit Fee Waiver DATE: April 18, 2005 Ramsey County Voiture 838 Arcade - Phalen Post 577 of the American Legion has applied for a fee waiver for a temporary food permit to be used at the Ramsey County Fair. Post 577 will have a food booth open for the duration of the fair which runs from July 13 — 17, 2005. Proceeds from profits made will be used for programs sponsored by the Post, including: nurses training scholarships, disaster relief, and Americanism and youth sports. The food booth will be manned by volunteer members. Approval is sought for the fee waiver for the temporary food permit. Agenda Item G8 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: April 18, 2005 RE: Miscellaneous Permits - Ramsey County Fair Robert Reistad, on behalf of St. Paul East Parks Lions Club, has applied for a temporary gambling license and a 3.2 beer permit for the Ramsey County Fair that will be held from July 13 through the 17 This is an annual event for the St. Paul East Parks Lions Club. Approval is sought for the following temporary gambling resolution: RESOLUTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for St. Paul East Parks Lions Club. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. rGTe1A0 1.7- [.�e0' AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Fire Chief and Finance Director RE: BUDGET CHANGES FOR FIRE FIGHTERS PENSION DATE: April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The budget needs to be adjusted for state fire aid received and a revised certification from the relief association. A 6Y8111:1.1 [a].I The City received supplemental state fire aid of $7,000 for the Maplewood Fire Fighters Relief Association. All state fire aid must be paid to the association. When the aid revenue exceeds the budget, there is a corresponding amount of expense that exceeds the budget. In addition, the City received a revised certification from the association which required a payment that is $2,980 higher than the budget. This difference can be financed by the contingency reserve in the General Fund for the fire suppression program and the fund equity in the Ambulance Service Fund for the emergency medical services program. FINANCIAL IMPACT In 2005 revenues will increase by $7,000 and expenditures by $9,980. The difference can be financed by reserves in the General Fund and Ambulance Service Fund. INx8101MI MI:Iki ULA III [a]ki I It is recommended that the City Council approve the appropriate budget changes for the additional state aid of $7,000 and $9,980 increase in pension payments. PAFINANCEWORMAGMFIRE PENSION.doc rGTe1Akq 107G1kq [.�11IHI AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Closure of Street Construction State Aid Fund DATE: April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Street Construction State Aid (SCSA) Fund needs to be closed as the remaining balance has been designated to be used for a public improvement project. DISCUSSION Street construction state aid in the past was recorded as revenue in the SCSA Fund and then transferred to public improvement project funds. Sometimes the aid received for a project was greater than the aid used for the project which caused a balance to accumulate in the SCSA Fund. This situation has not occurred for many years and the balance in the SCSA Fund has decreased to $3,716.83. This remaining balance can be used for Project #02 -21, White Bear Avenue, Woodlyn to Buerkle. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the city as the proposal is to transfer money between funds. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council authorize a transfer of $3,716.83 from the SCSA Fund to the fund for project 02 -21 and approve the appropriate budget changes. PARNANCEWORMAGMSCSA FUND.doc rGTe1Akq 107G1kq [.�111111 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Closure of Debt Service Funds DATE: April 19, 2005 I. 1111 : Z s] 11110 11 [ a] Two debt service funds need to be closed because bonds have been called and refinanced by refunding bonds. DISCUSSION The Improvement Refunding Bonds Series 2004A were issued to refinance the Improvement Bonds Series 1995A which were called and paid off on 2 -1 -05. A transfer of $554,252.41 is needed from the fund for the refunding bonds to close the fund for the 1995 bonds. The Tax Increment Refunding Bonds Series 2004F were issued to refinance the Tax Increment Bonds Series 1995B which were called and paid off on 2 -1 -05. A transfer of $149,308.43 is needed from the fund for the refunding bonds to close the fund for the 1995 bonds. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the city as the proposal is to transfer money between funds. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council authorize the following: (1) A transfer of $554,252.41 from the fund for the Improvement Refunding Bonds Series 2004A to close the fund for the Improvement Bonds Series 1995A, (2) a transfer of $149,308.43 from the fund for the Tax Increment Refunding Bonds Series 2004F to close the fund for the Tax Increment Bonds Series 19958, and (3) The appropriate budget changes. PARNANCEMORMAGN \close debt funds.doc rGTe1A0 107G10 [.�111X AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: Transfers to Close Funds for Improvement Projects DATE: April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION Financial transfers and budget adjustments are needed to close several funds for public improvement projects that have been completed. DISCUSSION Project 01 -21, Sewer Repair on North Rice Street, has been completed. There is a surplus balance of $17,470.41 in the project fund (due to investment interest and project expenditures being under budget) that needs to be transferred to the Sewer Fund which financed the project. Project 03 -02, Maplewood Drive Improvements, has been completed. There is a surplus balance of $106,811.09 in the project fund (due to investment interest and project expenditures being under budget). A transfer of $9,305.46 should be made to Project 02- 14, Parkway Lift Station Removal and a transfer of $97,505.63 to Project 01 -09, Sewer Replacement on Lakewood /Maryland, to eliminate deficits in the projects and close the funds for projects 03 -02 and 02 -14. Project 02 -04, Maple Hills Lift Station Relocation, has been completed. A transfer of $23,813.00 is needed into the project fund from the Sewer Fund to finance unassessed sewer costs. A transfer of surplus bond proceeds totaling $12,342.39 should be made from the project fund to the fund for Project 01 -14, English Street Improvements, to finance project costs. Project 00 -03, Gladstone South Streets, has been completed. A transfer of $47,044.00 is needed into the project fund from the Sewer Fund to finance unassessed sewer costs. Surplus bond proceeds totaling $489,469.53 should be transferred from the project fund as follows: $18,315.69 to the fund for Project 01 -04, Bush Avenue Improvements, to close the fund, $82,320.18 to the fund for Project 98 -12, Pleasantview Streets, to finance the remaining project costs and $388,833.66 to the fund for Project 01 -14, English Street Improvements, to finance project costs. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the city as the proposal is to transfer money between funds. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council authorize the following: (1) A transfer of $17,470.41 from the fund for Project 01 -21 to the Sewer Fund, (2) A transfer of $9,305.46 from the fund for Project 03 -02 to the fund for Project 02 -14, (3) A transfer of $97,505.63 from the fund for Project 03 -02 to the fund for Project 01 -09, (4) A transfer of $23,813.00 from the Sewer Fund to the fund for Project 02 -04, (5) A transfer of $12,342.39 from the fund for Project 02 -04 to the fund for Project 01 -14, (6) A transfer of $47,044.00 from the Sewer Fund to the fund for Project 00 -03, (7) A transfer of $18,315.69 from the fund for Project 00 -03 to the fund for Project 01 -04, (8) A transfer of $82,320.18 from the fund for Project 00 -03 to the fund for Project 98 -12, (9) A transfer of $388,833.66 from the fund for Project 00 -03 to the fund for Project 01 -14, (10) The appropriate budget changes. PARNANCEWORMAGWdose pip funds.doc Agenda Item G13 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson. Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: April 8, 2005 for the April 25, 2005 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Mahtomedi to Provide Lifeguard Services Introduction Enclosed is a joint powers agreement between the city of Maplewood and the city of Mahtomedi to provide guarding services for Mahtomedi Beach. The city's parks and recreation department has provided these services for the past two years to Mahtomedi Beach. Background The contract remains the same as in previous years with one exception. The exception is that the city of Mahtomedi has chosen to add a dock at the beach. City aquatics director Ron Horwath spoke at the city of Mahtomedi's council meeting and indicated that this would be an increased risk and would require additional guarding staff. The city of Mahtomedi understood the increased guarding needs and the proposed 2005 agreement reflects a 20% increase and /or $4,000 to offset the additional guard staff costs. The agreement has been approved by the city of Mahtomedi and the city attorney has reviewed the contract for form and content. Recommendation Staff recommends that the city council enter into the agreement as submitted. kph \mahtomedi aquatics.mcc Enclosure 2005 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MAHTOMEDI AND THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD REGARDING THE OPERATION OF MAHTOMEDI BEACH THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into on the _ day of , 2005, by and between the city of MAHTOMEDI (hereinafter referred to as Mahtomedi, or city of Mahtomedi) and the city of MAPLEWOOD / MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER (hereinafter referred to as Maplewood, or city of Maplewood); both of which are governmental subdivisions of the State of Minnesota located in the Counties of Washington, and Ramsey, respectively. PURPOSE It is the city of Mahtomedi's desire that the city of Maplewood, through the Maplewood Community Center (MCC) hire, train, supervise, and manage personnel to work at Mahtomedi Beach under the terms of, and during the time period set forth in, this agreement, below. AUTHORIZATION The cities of Mahtomedi and Maplewood enter into this agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 471.59, (2003). AGREEMENT NOW, in consideration of the mutual understanding as expressed herein, the cities of Mahtomedi and Maplewood agree as follows: 1. Services Provided. The city of Maplewood shall provide the following services: a. Recruit, interview, hire, train, evaluate, supervise and monitor all aquatic staff. Aquatic staff shall consist of lifeguards, water safety instructors, and water safety aides. All aquatic staff shall be employees of Maplewood and Maplewood shall discipline and terminate employees, as necessary. All aquatic staff working at Mahtomedi Beach shall have a minimum of six (6) months experience working at the MCC, shall be familiar with and follow Maplewood personnel policies, and shall demonstrate excellent dependability and responsibility. ii. All lifeguards working at Mahtomedi Beach shall maintain the following certifications, at all times during employment at Mahtomedi Beach: 1. Current certification in American Red Cross Lifeguard Training. 2. Current certification in CPR for the Professional Rescuer. 3. Current certification in Waterfront Lifeguarding. iii. All swim -class instructors working at Mahtomedi Beach shall maintain current certification as an American Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. iv. All water- safety aides working at Mahtomedi Beach shall maintain current certification as a Maplewood Community Center Water Safety Aide. b. Determine and set hours of daily operation for Mahtomedi Beach, subject to final approval by the city of Mahtomedi (12:00pm to 7:00pm, Sunday through Saturday, has been recommended by the MCC). c. Make decisions regarding closing the beach and /or canceling or rescheduling programs due to poor weather conditions. d. Administer and maintain Mahtomedi Beach and aquatic staff beginning on June 11, 2005, through August 21, 2005 (open swim dates). e. Provide, at Mahtomedi Beach, at all times during the hours of operation during the open swim dates, a minimum of two on -duty lifeguards, one of which shall be a Beach Coordinator, Recreation Supervisor, or Head Lifeguard, as described below. The number of lifeguards necessary, in excess of two, will be determined by the MCC, based on demand. f. Monitor all aquatic staff and ensure that all aquatic staff members maintain current the certifications listed above. Expiration of any required certification shall result in release from employment at Mahtomedi Beach. In the event that any aquatic staff member is released from employment, for any reason, it shall be the duty of the city of Maplewood to replace that employee with another employee who meets all requirements contained in this agreement. g. Administer a swim test to all aquatic staff (speed and endurance), along with other skills tests, to ensure that all aquatic staff are physically and otherwise capable of performing all tasks required of a Red Cross certified Lifeguard. All aquatic staff must achieve "good" or passing standards in the tests before beginning or continuing employment at Mahtomedi Beach. h. Prior to Mahtomedi Beach's opening, the MCC shall assist in the preparation, and opening, of Mahtomedi Beach. Conduct a minimum of five (5) in- service training sessions for aquatic staff working at Mahtomedi Beach, throughout the summer. In- services shall consist of both in and out -of -water training sessions. Attendance at these in- service training sessions shall be mandatory. Lifeguarding, teaching or swimming skills will be evaluated at the "in— water" in- service and information vital to the success of the aquatic program will be given at the "dry-land" in- services. j. In addition to any other training sessions, the city of Maplewood shall conduct training sessions on Right to Know, AWAIR, and Blood Borne Pathogens. k. Ensure that MCC administrative staff visits Mahtomedi Beach a minimum of once per week during the open swim dates, to critique, evaluate, and advise aquatic staff on performance and operation of Mahtomedi Beach. In addition, periodic unannounced visits shall be made by MCC administrative staff to evaluate on- the -job performance of aquatic staff, and to conduct on- the -job skills testing. I. After evaluating aquatic staff, meet with staff members individually and discuss the staff member's evaluation /critique and offer feedback regarding skills at which the staff member excels and skills upon which the staff member can improve. m. Ensure that, at all times during the hours of operation of Mahtomedi Beach, a Head Lifeguard is on duty. A Head Lifeguard, Beach Coordinator, or Recreation Supervisor must be a minimum of 18 years of age and have excellent Lifeguarding and leadership skills, as well as customer - service experience. n. Manage pay records and issue paychecks to all lifeguard staff working at Mahtomedi Beach. o. Assist with the daily upkeep and cleaning of the facilities at Mahtomedi Beach, including the beachfront, restrooms, and guardhouse. Any maintenance or mechanical problems shall be immediately reported to the city of Mahtomedi. p. Supply all equipment necessary to day -to -day lifeguarding operations at Mahtomedi Beach including, but not limited to, one backboard, one rescue board, four rescue tubes, one megaphone, and three sets of snorkeling gear. q. Administer the operation of a swimming lesson program, following the guidelines of the American Red Cross Learn to Swim Program. American Red Cross certified Water Safety Instructors shall teach the following classes: 1. Parent /Child classes. 2. Tot Swim classes. 3. Preschool classes. 4. Level 1 -6 classes. ii. Course descriptions for all classes shall be made available upon request. iii. Registration for all swim classes shall be the responsibility of the city of Maplewood, and all fees collected in conjunction with swim classes shall be applied to payment for swim -class program and staff expenses. iv. Records shall be kept and be made available regarding the numbers of residents and nonresidents enrolled in the swimming lesson program. 2. Insurance. The cities of Mahtomedi and Maplewood mutually agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless for any and all occurrences relating to coordination, supervision, management, instruction, lifeguarding, and all other relevant issues relating to the coordination and operation of a comprehensive aquatics program. The cities of Mahtomedi and Maplewood shall list each other as coinsured for all beach - related activities and /or beach operation and maintenance. All insurance policies and /or agreements relating to beach - related activities and /or maintenance must be reviewed and approved by the respective city attorneys, city administrator for the city of Mahtomedi, and the city manager for the city of Maplewood. All insurance policies and /or agreements relating to beach - related activities shall provide that the insurance carrier will notify the cities of Mahtomedi and Maplewood, individually, at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any policy cancellation, modification, or non - renewal. 3. Swim -area Location. The area of Mahtomedi Beach to which this agreement pertains (swim area) shall be the southern 75 feet of the city of Mahtomedi's beach property fronting White Bear Lake. 4. Dock Location. The city of Maplewood will assist the city of Mahtomedi with determination of the proper location and formation of the dock structure. Factors determining the location, formation and adjustment will be based upon providing maximum safety for patrons and staff. Installation and adjustments of the dock will be performed by the city of Mahtomedi. 5. Compensation. The city of Mahtomedi agrees to provide the city of Maplewood with an annual administrative and employee- expense fee of $22,000.00 for services rendered pursuant to this agreement. Mahtomedi shall pay this sum in three payments, under the following terms: a. The first of such payments, in the amount of $7,333.33, shall be made to the city of Maplewood no later than July 1, 2005. b. The second payment, in the amount of $7,333.33, shall be made to the city of Maplewood no later than August 5, 2005. c. The final payment, in the amount of $7,333.34, shall be made to the city of Maplewood no later than September 2, 2005. 6. Data Compliance. The city of Maplewood agrees to comply with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and all other State and Federal laws relating to data privacy of confidentiality. The city of Maplewood will immediately report to the city of Mahtomedi any request from third parties for information relating to this agreement. The city of Maplewood agrees to promptly respond to inquiries from the city of Mahtomedi concerning data requests. The city of Maplewood agrees to hold the city of Mahtomedi, its officers, and employees harmless for claims resulting from the city of Maplewood's unlawful disclosure of use of data protected under State of Federal laws. 7. Discrimination and Harassment Compliance. The city of Maplewood agrees to abide by the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Human Rights Act (Minnesota Statute Chapter 363), and Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws deal with discrimination based on race, gender, disability, religion, sexual preference and sexual harassment. Violation of any of the above laws will render this agreement terminable at the discretion and election of the city of Mahtomedi. 8. Termination. This agreement shall terminate on September 10, 2005. In the event that this agreement shall terminate prior to that date upon agreement of both parties or as indicated in Part 3, above, compensation shall be paid to the city of Maplewood on a pro -rata basis, for services rendered. 9. Breach. Upon breach of any term of this agreement, the breaching party shall immediately act to remedy the breach and reimburse the nonbreaching party for any and all costs and expenses, including attorney fees incurred due to the breach. Upon failure to immediately remedy any breach of any term of this agreement, the breaching party agrees to be liable to the nonbreaching party for any and all costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred due to the breach. 10. Notices. Any notice, demand, or correspondence authorized and /or required under the agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by hand or sent via certified mail to the other party as listed below. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed effective this day of , 2005, and shall remain binding and in effect until such time as the city of Mahtomedi makes final payment to the city of Maplewood, according to the terms set forth in this agreement. This agreement may be extended or renewed beyond the date of termination, by election and execution of and by both parties hereto of a document of renewal or extension setting forth the terms of the renewal or extension. CITY OF MAHTOMEDI 600 Stillwater Road Mahtomedi, MN 55115 Dated 2005 By Judson Marshall Mayor AND By Scott Neilson City Administrator CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Dated 2005 By Robert Cardinal Mayor AND By Richard Fursman City Manager Agenda Item G14 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: April 19, 2005 for the April 25 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Oakdale to Provide Aquatic and Administrative Services for Tanners Beach Introduction Enclosed is a joint powers agreement between the city of Maplewood and the city of Oakdale to provide lifeguarding, administrative and concession operations for Tanners Beach. The city's parks and recreation department, through the Maplewood Community Center aquatics division, has provided this service for the past six years. Background The agreement remains consistent with previous years and provides the city with approximately 20% revenue stream after all expenses are paid for administration overhead. Recommendation Staff recommends that the joint powers agreement between the cities of Maplewood and Oakdale be approved assuming formal approval by the city council of Oakdale. kph \oakdale aquatics.mcc Enclosure 2005 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF OAKDALE AND THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD REGARDING THE OPERATION TANNER'S BEACH This agreement made and entered into on the day and year hereinafter set forth by the City of Maplewood/ Maplewood Community Center (MCC) and the City of Oakdale (Oakdale) both of which are governmental subdivisions of the State of Minnesota. This contract is effective May 1, 2005 to August 31, 2005 and will be reviewed on a yearly basis by both parties. PURPOSE 2. Oakdale is desirous of having the MCC hire, train, and manage all personnel to work at Tanner's Beach from June 11- August 14, 2005. AGREEMENT Now, therefore in consideration of the mutual understanding herein expressed, the City of Oakdale and the City of Maplewood agree as follows: The MCC shall provide the following services: a. Determine the hours of operation for Tanner's Beach and beach program based on Oakdale recommendation. In the event of poor weather conditions, the MCC will be responsible for the decision of closing the beach and / or canceling programs. MCC will notify the City of Oakdale when programs have been canceled or the beach has been closed. MCC will also be responsible for opening and closing the beach facility on a daily basis and administration of keys to personnel. b. Develop Oakdale's Tanner's Beach program schedule. MCC will submit program information to Oakdale before publication. C. Recruit, interview, hire, train and evaluate all aquatic staff. Aquatic staff may consist of a beach coordinator, lifeguards, swim instructors, swim aides and concession attendants. MCC will hire, evaluate, discipline and terminate employees. d. Manage pay records and issue paychecks to all aquatic personnel working at Tanner's Beach. e. Ensure employees working at Tanner's Beach are employed by the City of Maplewood and follow Maplewood personnel policies. Employees must meet the minimum requirements to work in the appropriate positions Lifeguards - current certification in Red Cross Lifeguard Training - current certification on C.P.R. for the Professional Rescuer - current certification in Red Cross waterfront lifeguard training Swim Instructor - current certification in Red Cross Water Safety Instructor - current certification on C.P.R. for the Professional Rescuer - authorized instructor in the St. Paul Red Cross Chapter Swim Aides - trained and authorized as an MCC Water Safety Aide. Comply with the following standards related to the swim lesson program. (1.) At no time should any class or part of a class be unattended. (2.) A lifeguard must be on duty during and between all classes and programs. (3.) The maximum instructor to child ration should be as follows: Parent/child classes 1:10 Preschool classes 1:6 Youth classes (Levels 1 &2) 1:9 Youth classes (Levels 3 -6) 1:10 g. Monitor aquatic personnel certification to ensure that all certifications remain current Expired certifications will result in being released from duties. h. Administer water examinations for all lifeguards. i. Conduct in- service training sessions each year. In- services consist of both in and out of water training sessions. Attendance at these in- service training sessions will be mandatory. Lifeguarding, teaching, or swimming skills will be evaluated at the "in — water" in- service and information vital to the success of the aquatic program will be given at the "dry -land" in- services. J. Review and visit the Tanner's Beach to critique and advise staff. k. Critique staff by either conducting "on-the-job" evaluations for lifeguards or critiquing a class for swim instructors and aides. 1. Ensure staff follows all policies and procedures as authorized providers of the St. Paul Chapter of the American Red Cross. M. Maintain all course records and any other information required by the St. Paul Red Cross Chapter. n. Establish all class schedules and program fees with input from Oakdale. o. Review enrollment and make decisions relating to class status. P. Oversee the daily upkeep of the aquatic facilities and communicate all maintenance needs immediately to Oakdale. q. Administer aquatic program evaluations and provide a copy of the summary to Oakdale. 4. The City of Oakdale shall provide the following services: a. Obtain concession permits and contracts for Tanner's Beach. b. Advertise aquatic programs in Oakdale Update newsletter. C. Handle all swim lessons and aquatic programs registrations for Tanner's Beach. Oakdale will follow class maximum sizes when taking registrations. Oakdale will allow Maplewood residents to register at the resident rate and Maplewood will allow Oakdale residents to enroll at the resident rate. d. Supply the MCC staff with class list one week prior to the start of class. Communicate to participants when there are changes to their classes. (For example, classes are cancelled due to low enrollment or beach is closed due weather.) e. Maintain the beach and beach facility and concessions. I. Reimburse the City of Maplewood for lifeguard, swim instructor, swim aide and concession staff salaries (as outlined by City of Maplewood). Reimburse the City of Maplewood for expenses needed for the operation of the concession stand, or beach. g. The City of Oakdale hereby agrees to provide the City of Maplewood with an annual administrative fee ot$8,500, payable according to the schedule listed below. The City of Oakdale will retain all registration fees for swimming and aquatic programs as well as and concession revenues from Tanner's Beach. 1. The first of such payments, in the amount of $2,833.33, shall be made to the city of Maplewood no later than July 1, 2005. 2. The second payment, in the amount of $2,833.33, shall be made to the city of Maplewood no later than August 5, 2005. 3. The final payment, in the amount of $2,833.34, shall be made to the city of Maplewood no later than September 2, 2005. h. The City of Oakdale agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Maplewood, its officers and employees from any liability, claims, damages, cost, judgment and expenses including attorney's fees resulting directly or indirectly from an act of mission with respect to the suitability, design, usual maintenance, and operations of the facilities provided by and maintained by the City of Oakdale and its agents. The City of Oakdale represents that said facilities are suitable for the coordination and for the aquatic programs. All policies of the insurance shall provide that the insurance company will notify the City of Maplewood at lease thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any policy cancellation, modification, or non - renewal. The City of Oakdale agrees to comply with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and all other State and Federal laws relating to data privacy of confidentiality. The City of Oakdale will immediately report to the City of Maplewood any request from third parties for information relating to this agreement. The City of Oakdale agrees to promptly respond to inquiries from the City of Maplewood concerning data requests. The City of Oakdale agrees to hold the City of Maplewood, its officers, and employees harmless for claims resulting from the City of Oakdale's unlawful disclosure of use of data protected under State of Federal laws. k. The City of Oakdale agrees to abide by the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Human Rights Ace (Minnesota Chapter 363), and (Title7) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws deal with discrimination bases on race, gender, disability, religion, sexual preference and sexual harassment. Violation of any of the above laws can lead to termination of this agreement. Notices Any notice, demand correspondence that is authorized and required under the agreement shall be in writing, shall be sent by hand or delivered certified mail the other party as follows: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed effective and will be in effect for the year 2005. Dated: : CITY OF OAKDALE By Mayor AND By City Administrator CITY OF MAPLEWOOD By Mayor AND By City Manager Agenda Item G15 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: April 19, 2005 for the April 25 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Joint Powers Agreement with the Town of White Bear to Provide Aquatic and Administrative Services for Bellaire Beach Introduction Enclosed is a joint powers agreement between the city of Maplewood and the town of White Bear to provide lifeguarding, administrative and concession operations for Bellaire Beach. The city's parks and recreation department, through the Maplewood Community Center aquatics division, has provided this service for the past four years. Background The agreement remains consistent with previous years and provides the city with approximately 20% revenue stream after all expenses are paid for administration overhead. Recommendation Staff recommends that the joint powers agreement between the city of Maplewood and the town of White Bear be approved assuming formal approval by the town board of White Bear. kph \white bear aquatics.mcc Enclosure JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF WHITE BEAR AND THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD REGARDING LIFEGUARD SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on the _ day of , 2005, by and between the Town of White Bear (the TOWN), and the City of Maplewood /Maplewood Community Center (MCC); both of which are governmental subdivisions of the State of Minnesota located in the County of Ramsey. PURPOSE 1. The TOWN has leased, from the County of Ramsey, the property located on the south shore of White Bear Lake in the Town of White Bear. known as "Bellaire Beach ". 2. The TOWN is desirous of having MCC hire, train, and manage all beach personnel who work at 'Bellaire Beach" from May 28, 2005 to September 5, 2005 (Labor Day). 3. Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, provides that two or more governmental units, by agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties or any similar powers, including those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they are exercised. AGREEMENT Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein expressed, the Town of White Bear and the City of Maplewood /Maplewood Community Center, agree as follows: 4. That MCC shall provide the following services: a. MCC will determine the hours of operation for Bellaire Beach based upon TOWN recommendations. MCC will be responsible for the operations at Bellaire Beach from May 29, 2005 through September 6, 2005 (Labor Day). The beach shall be open only on weekends and Memorial Day until June 11, 2005 at which time regular hours shall commence. The beach shall be open only on weekends and Labor Day after August 26th, 2005. In the event of poor weather conditions, the MCC will be responsible for the decision of closing the beach. MCC will also be responsible for opening and closing the beach facility on a daily basis and administration of keys to personnel. b. Recruit, hire, train and evaluate all lifeguard staff. MCC will hire, train, evaluate, discipline and terminate employees. C. Manage pay records and issue paychecks to all aquatic personnel working at Bellaire Beach. d. Ensure employees working at Bellaire Beach are employed by the City of Maplewood and follow all Maplewood personnel policies. Employees must meet the minimum requirements to work in the appropriate position. Lifeguard: • All lifeguards hired must hold a current certificate in American Red Cross Lifeguard Training and CPR for the Professional Rescuer. • The MCC will monitor Aquatic Staff certifications to be sure that all certifications remain current. • All aquatic staff is required to maintain current certifications. Expired certifications will result in being released from duties. • In the event of an expired certification, the MCC will remove the person, fill their shift with certified staff and make every attempt to renew the individual's certification in order to return to work as soon as possible. • In an effort to encourage fitness and develop strong lifeguards, the MCC will administer the Coopers Swim Test to all lifeguards at the start of their employment along with other skill tests. These skills are also performed periodically throughout the year at mandatory in- service trainings. • Lifeguards who are not achieving "good" standards according to the Cooper Test will need to attend additional training sessions conducted by certified lifeguard Training Instructors and Water Safety Instructors. This will help to improve their swimming skills. • Lifeguards who are selected to work at the beach must be American Red Cross Waterfront certified, have six months experience working at the Community Center, and have demonstrated excellent dependability and responsibility. These high expectations are to insure that all staff who are working off site are aware and following Maplewood policies and work well independently. • The TOWN will be able to participate in the final selection of guard staff should they desire, but the final hiring selection shall solely be the responsibility of MCC. e. Give an orientation to lifeguard staff on beach management, rules and regulations, preventive responsibilities, emergency procedures, operation of facility, suggest in- service training curriculum of the Bellaire Beach 2005 summer season. f. Administer Bellaire Beach for the entire 2005 beach season. g. Conduct minimum of five in- service training sessions (one every two weeks). In- services consist of both in and out of water training sessions. Attendance at these in- service training sessions will be mandatory. Life guarding skills will be evaluated at the "in- water" in- services and information vital to the success of the aquatic program will be given at "dry-land" in- services. h. Visit Bellaire Beach a minimum of once per week during the months of June through August, to critique and advise staff on operations and gather input from participants. There will be an Aquatic Program Representative or Head Lifeguard available on site during times that the beach is open. Head lifeguards must be a minimum of 18 years of age and have excellent guarding, customer service, and leadership skills. i. MCC administrative staff will also conduct "On the Job Evaluations" for lifeguards periodically throughout the year without previous warning to the staff being evaluated. The skills evaluated in an "On the Job Evaluation" may be guarding technique, CPR skills, first aid skills, and prevention of accidents. After evaluating the lifeguard, the administrative staff will meet with the staff individually and discuss any critiques, or comments that they have to improve life guarding or teaching techniques. j. All employees will be evaluated for their performance formally at the end of the summer season. Employees will also be evaluated on a less formal basis midway through the summer. k. Ensure staff follows all policies and procedures as authorized providers of the St. Paul Chapter of the American Red Cross. I. Oversee the daily upkeep and cleaning of the Beach facilities including the guard house and toilets. Any maintenance or mechanical problems will be immediately reported to the TOWN. M. Oversee use of other Bellaire Beach facilities including picnic shelter, picnic tables and grounds. Patrol the entire park once per day to clean -up litter, empty trash receptacles into park dumpster as needed. Clean beachfront daily including removing weeds and other debris from shoreline. Remove weeds and remove trees which tend to grow in shallow water areas of beach. n. MCC agrees to abide by the requirements and regulations of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Human Rights Act (Minnesota Chapter 363), and (Title 7) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws deal with discrimination based on race, gender, disability, religion, sexual preference and sexual harassment. Violation of any of the above laws can lead to termination of this agreement. 5. That the TOWN will provide the following services: a. Provide proper signage for beach. b. Reimburse MCC for lifeguard salaries (as outlined by MCC) on a monthly basis. C. The TOWN hereby agrees to provide MCC with an annual fee of $18000, payable in three (3) monthly payments of $6000.00 each. The fee will be adjusted for beach closings due to poor weather and will be reflected in the monthly billing. d. The TOWN agrees to indemnify and hold harmless MCC, its officers, and employees from any liability, claims, damages, cost, judgments, and expenses including attorney's fees resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission with respect to the suitability, design, usual maintenance, and operations of the facilities provided by and maintained by the TOWN and its agents. The TOWN represents that said facilities are suitable for beach operation. e. All policies of insurance shall provide that the insurance company will notify MCC at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of any policy cancellation, modification, or non - renewal. f. The TOWN agrees to comply with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and all other State and Federal laws relating to data privacy or confidentiality. The TOWN will immediately report to MCC any requests from third parties for information relating to this Agreement. The TOWN agrees to promptly respond to inquiries from MCC concerning data requests. The TOWN agrees to hold MCC, its officers, department heads, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the TOWN's unlawful disclosure of use of the data protection under State or Federal laws. 6. This Agreement will remain in effect through September 5, 2005, and after which time the parties shall meet to discuss any renewal of this Agreement for the following year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of White Bear and the City of Maplewood /Maplewood Community Center have caused this Agreement to be executed on their behalf by their proper officers, Council and Board. TOWN OF WHITE BEAR By: ROBERT J. WEISENBURGER. Chair ATTEST: By: WILLIAM F. SHORT. Clerk- Treasurer CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 0 LTJUffle And By: CITY MANAGER Agenda Item H1 ILriI =I LVAI ] ZIM 0 Bill TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Tax - Exempt Revenue Financing — Vomela LOCATION: 2354 English Street North DATE: April 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION Randy Hines, representing Vomela, is requesting that the city council give host approval for up to $3.5 million in tax - exempt revenue note financing. They would use this financing to cover the costs of recent and upcoming equipment purchases for their facilities, including their site at 2354 English Street. Vomela manufactures and prints commercial graphics including signs, murals and other displays that retailers and truck fleet operators use. (Please refer to the financing narrative on page two and the maps on pages three through five.) Vomela is requesting that the city approve this financing so the bond interest would be tax - exempt. The state and federal governments require the local government in which the company will spend the bond proceeds to approve the tax - exempt financing. BACKGROUND On April 14, 1997, the city council approved a request from Vomela for up to $1 million in tax - exempt bond financing and a parking lot expansion for Vomela at 2354 English Street. DISCUSSION This request should meet the city's requirements for tax - exempt financing. Maplewood will not be liable for this financing. The Saint Paul Port Authority will be issuing this financing and Vomela expects to spend about $750,000 of that on equipment that they will use in their Maplewood facility. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution starting on page six. This approves Maplewood giving host approval for up to $3.5 million in tax - exempt revenue financing for Vomela, including funds for use at their facility at 2354 English Street. p /Sec 10 /Vomela tax - exempt fin - 2005 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Financing Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Property Line /Address Map 4. Approved Site Plan 5. Financing Approval Resolution Attachment 1 lie: 53,500,000 Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul Tax Exerript Revenue Bonds, Series 200 Federal law requires that a public hearing be held, and that a governmental unit approve the issuance of bonds, for every jurisdiction in which bond proceeds are to be spent. In this case, that will require a public approval in the City of Saint Paul (to be field by the Saint Paul Port Authority) and in the City of Maplewood, which 'Vornela has asked the Maplewood Ot Council to hold. The City of Maplewood will have no responsibility with respect to the issuance or repayment of the 200 Bonds, All of the documents executed in connection with the issuance of the 200'� Bonds will make it clear that the City of'Maplewood has no ongoin.- responsibility with respect to those Bonds, and that the 2005 Bonds are payable solely front payments made by Votnela under the amended Loan Aorcement, APPLICANT'S FINANCING NARRATIVE W Attachment 2 x Harreat P=r`, t NI -aHWAY 36 3 z .. . x x Harreat P=r`, t NI -aHWAY 36 3 Attachment 3 GERVAIS AVE 23$b t 2 4-M 23 70 14QG ui ui 140C -- — — — — — HIGNWAY 36 PROPERTY 11 DR MAP 4 kT� P�G�ndc.. �- dM1OC�- r MINN. TRUNK HWY.,NO. 36 PROPOSED PARKING LOT EXPANSION AREA U bvt ac i 8 gse�f� PP �LVIb EFY Y-�rwf� op NWY ,Na 35 (j T oll VC A ? to +" ffi V Co X68 � 9". kT� P�G�ndc.. �- dM1OC�- r MINN. TRUNK HWY.,NO. 36 PROPOSED PARKING LOT EXPANSION AREA N7ema Ctfv a 45jp F? Q.9 f+f40.t�. jj bvt ac i 8 gse�f� PP �LVIb EFY Y-�rwf� op NWY ,Na 35 N7ema Ctfv a 45jp F? Q.9 f+f40.t�. jj Attachment 5 :1 *161ILIj I RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE PORT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL ON BEHALF OF VOMELA SPECIALTY, INC. BE IT RESOLVED by the Maplewood City Council (the "City'), as follows: SECTION 1 Recitals 1.1 The Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul (the "Port Authority') has previously issued its $3,255,000 Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (the "2002 Bonds "), and loaned the proceeds to Vomela Specialty, Inc. (the "Company "). These proceeds were to refinance the construction of a facility located in the Riverview Industrial Park in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in which the Company has a facility, and to provide financing forthe purchase of printing equipment the Company will use at the Project. The Port Authority has now received a proposal from the Company requesting that the Port Authority consider the issuance of approximately $3,500,000 of 2005 Bonds (which may be in the form of one or more notes or series) (the "2005 Bonds'). These bonds would be to provide financing for the purchase of additional printing equipment, some of which the Company is likelyto use at its Maplewood facility (the "Project'). 1.2 The Company has represented to the City that the Project will assist the Company in improving its facilities in the City, for the benefit of the residents of the City and surrounding area; thatthe issuance of tax-exempt or taxable revenue bonds is essential to the successful completion of the Project; and that the Port Authority has evidenced a willingness to issue tax - exempt or taxable revenue bonds and loan the proceeds thereof to the Company to finance the proposed Equipment. 1.3 A notice of public hearing was published on April 6, 2005 in the Maplewood Review. Pursuant to such notice, the Maplewood City Council held a public hearing about the proposal of the Company to finance the Equipment through the issuance of revenue bonds by the Port Authority. The city council heard from all those at the hearing who desired to speak, and in connection with the hearing, the City took written comments in advance. M Consent to Issuance 2.1 On the basis of the information given to the City to date, the City hereby consents to the issuance by the Port Authority of approximately $3,500,000 of its revenue bonds, and the loan of the proceeds thereof to the Company to finance the Project. The adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed, however, to establish a legal obligation on the part of the City, its Council or the Port Authority to issue or to cause the issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds, if issued by the Port Authority, shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City or the Port Authority. The Bonds shall be payable solely from said revenues and property of the Company specifically pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt or pecuniary liability of the City or the Port Authority within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 2.2 The appropriate officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute any documents and certificates that the Port Authority or its bond counsel reasonably requires to the transaction described herein. The execution of the documents and certificates or any other instrument by the appropriate officer or offices of the City shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms of this resolution. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on April 25, 2005. Mayor Attest: CityClerk 7 Agenda Item H2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, Project 04 -15 1. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m. 2. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll DATE: April 15, 2005 INTRODUCTION All property owners have been mailed a notice of the exact amount of their assessment, as well as notice that they must submit a written objection either at or prior to the hearing if they disagree with the assessment amount. The city council should conduct the assessment hearing, receive any objections, refer those objections to the staff for action at the May 9` 2005 council meeting and consider approving the attached resolution adopting the assessment roll without the property owners who have submitted objections. Background The project involves the reconstruction of 2.2 miles of residential streets with associated storm sewer and watermain construction, and sanitary sewer main and service repairs. All streets are proposed to be reconstructed to their existing widths and locations. The proposed assessments for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements total $936,591.96. The assessments are consistent with the proposal included at the public hearing for the feasibility study on November 22, 2004. A copy of the assessment roll is provided as a supplement to this report. As outlined in the feasibility study, the assessments are based on the standard rates approved for the 2005 construction season, and are as follows: Residential street reconstruct assessmer Comm./ M.F. /Inst. street assessment = Single family storm sewer assessment = Comm./ M.F. /Inst. storm assessment = Sanitary sewer service for new units = Water service for new units = it = $4,380 per unit $87.60 per front foot $680.00 per unit $13.60 per front foot $2,000 per unit installed $1,330 per unit installed Objections Filed As of April 15, 2005 staff has received three written objection to the proposed assessments as follows: Richard and Marcile Esbolt, 1970 -1974 Dieter Street (PIN 152922240085): The Esbolts disagree with the commercial (Multi - Family) rate that has been applied to the front footage of their property to determine the assessment for their duplex. They have indicated that the assessment poses a financial hardship for them. Agenda Item H2 2. Sayed and Kathryn EI- Kandelgy, 1976 Eldridge (PIN 152922210052): The El- Kandelgys disagree with the commercial rate that has been applied to the front footage of their property to determine the assessment for their duplex. They have indicated the assessment poses a financial hardship for them. Gladys Olson, 1999 Clarence Street, (PIN 152922230083): Ms. Olson is a senior citizen and has indicated that the proposed assessment will create a financial hardship. Ms. Olson is requesting consideration for a senior citizen deferment. An application packet for deferment of the assessment has been mailed to Ms. Olson. Until such time as their application is received and reviewed, their property will remain on the assessment roll. 4. Judy Widholm, 1424 Burke Avenue, (PIN 152922210025): Ms. Widholm's property is a corner lot at Birmingham Street and Burke Avenue and request that her assessment be reduced by half due to the fact that only Birmingham Street is being improved. 5. Mohamed Elakkad, Director of the Islamic Institute of Minnesota, 1460 Skillman Avenue, (PIN 152922240001): On behalf of the Islamic Institute Mr. Elakkad is requesting the assessment be reduced due to the Islamic Institute's limited budget which relies solely on donations. Mr Elakkad has indicated the proposed assessment will create a financial hardship. Staff will review all objections and provide the city council recommendations for motion at the May 9` 2005 city council meeting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached Resolution for the Adoption of the Assessment Roll for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvement Project, City Project 04 -15. - 111 Bic] =1119hVil2i%I The proposed assessments are part of the project financing plan, approved in November, 2004. Any assessments that may ultimately be reduced or deferred will have an impact on the tax levy. A statement of tax levy impact will be made for the May 9` council meeting when all the assessments objections and recommendations are considered. Attachments: 1. Resolution: Adoption of the Assessment Roll 2. Assessment Roll 3. Location Map 4. Letter from Richard and Marcile Esbolt 5. Letter from Sayed and Kathryn EI- Kanelgy 6. Senior Citizen Deferment Application from Gladys Olson 7. Letter from Judy Widholm 8. Deferment form and letter from Islamic Institute of Minnesota Agenda Item H2 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on March 28"', 2005, calling for a Public Hearing, the assessment roll for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04 -15, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: 1. Richard and Marcile Esbolt, 1970 -1974 Dieter Street 2. Sayed and Kathryn El- Kandelgy, 1976 Eldridge 3. Gladys Olson, 1999 Clarence Street 4. Judy Widhohn, 1424 Burke Avenue 5. Mohamed Elakkad, Director of the Islamic Institute of Minnesota, 1460 Skillman Avenue NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections received and report to the City Council at the regular meeting on May 9"', 2005, as to their recommendations for adjustments. 2. The assessment roll for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements as amended, without those property owners' assessments that have filed objections, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 3. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2006 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.1 percent per annum for the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2005. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than October 1, 2005, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after October 1, 2003, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 5. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after October 1, 2005, but no later than November 15, 2005, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council on this 25 "' day of April 2005. Maplmood MN Gladstone North Area Streets Project 04 -15 03rz8/05 City Project 04 -15 Gladstone North Area Streets ASSESSMENT ROLL 2: 2 2' 21 2: 21 21 T 3 3: 3: 3 3! 31 3: 31 31 41 4 4: 4: 4 4' 41 4: 41 41 a 5 5: 5: 5 Page 1 of 4 Street Assessments Storm Assessments Totals Parcel ID Taxpayer Street Number Street Comm. Residential Residential Comm. Assessments $ 87.60 $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ 13.60 152922219992 CHESTER E EVERSON ETAL 1474 COUNTY ROAD B E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219917 STEVE BODER 1475 BURKE AVEE $ _ $ 2,199.99 $ - $ - $ 2,199.9 152922219918 WILLIAM SCHMIDT 1474 BURKE AVEE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219925 JUDYWIDHOLM 1424 BURKE AVEE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210026 RALPH J LUDDEN III 1425 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219927 RANDALL J MOTT 1431 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219928 DONALD J WORREL 1439 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219929 MERLIN J MILLER 1445 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219939 BETH RYLAND COLLOVA 1453 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219931 DONALD A HOULE 1461 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219932 BRENT H MYSTER 1469 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219933 MARGARETM OSCARSON 1475 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210036 THOMAS HOPKINS 2116 BARCLAY STN $ 7,165.68 $ - $ - $ - $ 7 152922210046 ALLEN W FARRANKOP 2046 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219947 JEFFREY T GARROW 2952 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219948 JUDITH S MONETTE 2060 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219949 JULIANA ROBYN BURVEE 2068 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219959 DANIEL G FLINT 2989 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219951 GERALDINEANNA WALEK 2992 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219952 BAYED M EL KANDELGY 1476 ELDRIDGE AVE E $ 9,636.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 9,636.0 152922219953 JAMES A LANCETTE 1468 ELDRIDGE AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219954 RONALD P MILLESON 1460 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219955 JAMES M WALSH 1454 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210056 GREGORY BORNDALE 1446 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219957 MYRNA C MATYKIEWICZ 1438 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219958 LARRY RMOST 1439 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219959 ROBERT ALLEN YZERMANS 1424 ELDRIDGEAVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210060 DAVID L PERCIVAL 1425 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210061 GREGORY D ENGFER 1431 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210062 MORRIS F HOLES 1439 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210063 ADAM J BOBST 1445 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210064 WILLIAM D FWALD 1453 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210065 ANTHONY COMMON 1461 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210066 ANITA L SANDFORD 1469 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210067 ANN RZIAN 1475 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210068 GEORGE M MILLER 1474 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210069 DIANE K SCHNEIDER 1466 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219979 ROBERT KING 1460 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219971 TAMARA L BAZILLE 1452 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219972 MARY RUSTAND 1446 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219973 ROGER J PACHANO 1449 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219974 JOEL R JOHNSON 1432 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219975 JOHN ETARNOWSKI 1428 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922210076 JEFFREY W JELINEK 1427 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219977 JEREMY C SCHURR 1431 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219978 THOMAS LYNCH 1439 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219979 CRAIG A SINDT 1445 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219989 MARILYN CUNNINGHAM 1451 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219981 KATHLEEN P ROBBINS 1459 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219982 LELAND A BENDICKSON 1465 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219983 DANIEL LEE DOCKED 1473 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219984 BEARD AVENUE ESTATES 2149 BARCLAY ST N $ 23,634.48 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,634.4; 152922210086 BONNIE GEAR 2124 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922219993 JANE M JACKSON 1 2198 BARCLAY STN I $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 2: 2 2' 21 2: 21 21 T 3 3: 3: 3 3! 31 3: 31 31 41 4 4: 4: 4 4' 41 4: 41 41 a 5 5: 5: 5 Page 1 of 4 Maplmood MN Gladstone North Area Streets Project 04 -15 03rz8/05 City Project 04 -15 Gladstone North Area Streets ASSESSMENT ROLL 5! 51 5: 51 51 fit 6 6: 6: fi 61 fit 6 E E C T ]: ]: P 7' ]1 ]: C C 81 8 8: i 8: 81 81 91 9 9: 9: 9 9' 91 9: 91 91 191 10 19: 19: 19 1m 91 9: 191 Page 2 of 4 Street Assessments Storm Assessments Totals Parcel ID Taxpayer Street Number Street Comm. Residential Residential Comm. Assessments $ 87.60 $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ 13.60 152922229991 OPERATIONS ISD 622 2135 BIRMINGHAM ST N $ 11,826.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 11,826.00 152922229992 RICHARD H SCHULTZ ETAL 2111 BIRMINGHAM ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229993 MARVIN D BLOCK 2991 BIRMINGHAM ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229911 CLARENCE J KRAEMER 1355 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229912 MARY C DAVIS 1361 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229913 MARK ABBOTT 1369 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229914 MICHELLE R KIHERI 1371 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229915 LARRY J MILLER 1383 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229916 JOHN M DIESSLIN 1391 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229917 DAVID A JANSSEN 1397 BELMONT LNE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229918 RAYMOND E ROTH LE 1411 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229919 JOYCE M KARNOWSKI 1412 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229929 GENE MELVIN HOGATE 1406 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229921 SCOTT M DANSKY 1499 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229922 DENNISA SVENDSEN 1392 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229923 WILLIAM JOSEPH 1384 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229924 JODY L CUSHMAN 1376 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229925 EDWARD A FASTNER 1368 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922220026 MICHAEL P SHIELDS 1360 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229927 ROGER A OSS 1354 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229928 ROBERT J HAKAIA 1348 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229929 SAMUEL A MACKENZIE JR 1347 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229939 THOMAS J SPODEN 1353 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229931 JOSEPH PETER POLENCHECK 1359 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229932 PENNY M PRAY 1397 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229933 DONALD L RENSTROM 1375 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229934 ELEANORE W SCOTT 1383 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229935 BETTY I BEARDSLEY 1391 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922220036 ROBERT J SULLIVAN 1399 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229937 CLYDE COLE 1495 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229938 JUDITH E HARRINGTON 1411 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229951 ELLEN M SCHWARTZ 1384 ELDRIDGE AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229952 WILLIAM M PRIEBE 1366 ELDRIDGE AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922229953 DENNIS G JORIMAN 1349 BELMONT LN E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239911 MAPLEWOOD LEASED HOUSING ASSOC 2924 CLARENCE ST N $ 31,842.60 $ - $ - $ - $ 31,842.60 152922239913 MAPLEWOOD LEASED HOUSING ASSOC 20051DE STN $ 10,862.40 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,862.40 152922239914 THOMAS R WARDEN 1979 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922239915 JEFFREY MEYER 1960 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,060.0 152922230016 MICHAEL B MURPHY 1938 CLARENCE ST N $ 8,935.29 $ - $ - $ 1,387.29 $ 19,322.49 152922239938 JAMESLANG 1351 FROST AVEE $ 29,586.00 $ - $ - $ 3,196.00 $ 23,782.99 152922230056 MICHAEL L SHACKING 2919 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239975 RICHARD C WEISS 1352 SKILLMAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922230976 RICHARD G ENGELSTAD 2923 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239979 JOSEPH A BONAIUTO JR 1991 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239989 LESTER W YEADON 2917 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239981 YVONNE STOREBY 2997 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239982 JEFFREY LEECH 2993 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239983 GLADYS E OLSON 1999 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239984 MARK J ACOSTA 1995 CLARENCE ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922239985 CELENA L LONGBEHN 2992 CLARENCE ST $ 3,985.89 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,985.8 152922230086 JOSEPH M BALAZS 2999 CLARENCE ST $ 3,985.89 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,985.8 152922239987 DOUGLAS CARLSON OFROST AVEE $ 11,475.60 $ - $ - $ 1,781.60 $ 13,25].29 152922249991 ISIAMIC INSTITUTE OF MN 1469SKILLMAN AVE E $ 40,646.40 $ - $ - $ - $ 40,646.40 152922249993 DENISE L SOGN 2026 DIETER STN I $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 5! 51 5: 51 51 fit 6 6: 6: fi 61 fit 6 E E C T ]: ]: P 7' ]1 ]: C C 81 8 8: i 8: 81 81 91 9 9: 9: 9 9' 91 9: 91 91 191 10 19: 19: 19 1m 91 9: 191 Page 2 of 4 Maplmood MN Gladstone North Area Streets Project 04 -15 03rz8/05 City Project 04 -15 Gladstone North Area Streets ASSESSMENT ROLL 19! 111 11 11: 11: 11 11' 111 11. 111 11! 121 12 12: 12: 12 12' 121 12: 121 12! 131 13 13: 13: 13 13! 131 13: 131 1T 141 14 14: 14: 14 14' 141 14: 141 14! la 15 15: 15: 15 15! 151 15: 151 15! fit 6 Page 3 of 4 Street Assessments Storm Assessments Totals Parcel ID Taxpayer Street Number Street Comm. Residential Residential Comm. Assessments $ 87.60 $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ 13.60 152922249994 LEONARD E KRAUSE 2918 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249995 CAROLINE M WARNER 2912 DIETER STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922240006 ALICIA M NELSON 200E DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249997 JAY M DIETER 2999 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249998 BERNARD C LONGED 1994 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249999 PEARL D SCHICHEL 1988 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249919 THOMAS P MULVANEY 1984 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249911 PAUL D HINTON 1985 HAZELWOOD ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249929 DARLENE W LISTERUD 1959 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249921 THOMAS R GESE 1948 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249922 ROBERT FKULT 1521 FROST AVEE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249928 RICHARD J ESBOLDT 0 HAZELWOOD ST N $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ 152922249929 BRIAN P DODGE 2912 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249939 LUCRETIA KLENK 2994 BARCLAY STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249931 TIMOTHY W MOLOHON 1998 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249932 DAVID E DAVIDSON 1984 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249933 SHINS CHEUNG SHEK 1595 RYAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249934 LORRAINE V ANDERSON TRUSTEE 1993 DIETER STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249935 MARY MBAH 1999 DIETER STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922240036 KENNETH A MCCLAINE 2007 DIETER STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249937 KENNETH C ROVIE 2913 DIETER STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249938 WALLACE W RISTOW 2919 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249939 DOUGLAS H JOHNSON 1499 RYAN AVE E $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249942 JAMES E BUDKE 1948 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249943 EDWARD L PERISH 1949 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249944 THURSTON B TRUMBOWER JR 1938 BARCLAY STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249945 CARMEN J VAZQUEZ 1928 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249947 CHARLES R BENGTSON 1593 FROST AVEE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249959 EDWARD L PERISH 0 DIETER ST N $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ 152922249951 STEPHEN W SHEA 1945 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249952 WILLIAM C SANDERCOCK 1953 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249953 ROBERT J DYKEMA 1961 DIETER ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249954 WARREN J COURNOYER 1973 DIETER STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249955 RODNEY C LARSON 2996 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922240056 CHRISTOPHER ROSE 1996 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249957 JASON G CHIARELLA 1984 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249958 ANDREW G OAKS 1985 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922240061 DOROTHY L PINCH 2995 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249962 ELAINE I WELDON 1972 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249963 THOMAS DIAZ 1974 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249964 TIMOTHY D WALL 1956 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249965 JANET SALOMONSON 1959 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922240066 TIMOTHY JUST 1948 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922240067 JODY TIMPANE 1936 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249968 PATRICIAA THOMPSON 1928 MANTON ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249969 FRED CARPENTER 1467 FROST AVEE $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249979 FLORENCE M MORRIS 1929 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249971 CAROL A YOBBIE 1939 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249972 DARREN M LINDAHL 1947 BARCLAY ST N $ - $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249973 JOLENE CHLEBECK 1961 BARCLAY STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249974 JAMES P WERNER 1963 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 1529222499]5 RICHARD J JU KER 1965 BARCIAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 15 29222400]6 BERNICEA EKLOF 19]3 BARCIAY STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 19! 111 11 11: 11: 11 11' 111 11. 111 11! 121 12 12: 12: 12 12' 121 12: 121 12! 131 13 13: 13: 13 13! 131 13: 131 1T 141 14 14: 14: 14 14' 141 14: 141 14! la 15 15: 15: 15 15! 151 15: 151 15! fit 6 Page 3 of 4 Maplewood, MN City Project 04 -15 Gladstone North Area streets Gladstone North Area Streets Project o4 -15 ASSESSMENT ROLL o3rz8 /05 162 16' 164 16° 6E 61 fib 69 7C 71 TOTALS $ 248,705.16 $ 663,570.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 10,716.80 $ 936,591.96 Page 4 of 4 Street Assessments Storm Assessments Totals Parcel ID Taxpayer Street Number Street Comm. Residential Residential Comm. Assessments $ 87.60 $ 4,380.00 $ 680.00 $ 13.60 152922249977 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 622 9 MANTON ST N $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ 152922249978 OPERATIONS ISD 622 1945 MANTON ST N $ 3,777.29 $ - $ - $ 1,632.00 $ 36,409.20 152922249979 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 622 C MANTON ST N $ 19,512.99 $ - $ - $ 1,632.00 $ 12,144.99 152922249989 IND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 622 CMANTON STN $ 7,998.99 $ - $ - $ 1,988.99 $ 8,996.9 152922249981 CHOU YANG 1937 DIETER STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249982 STEPHEN J CHLEBECK 1979 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249983 WADEAVARLAND 1964 BARCLAY STN $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 152922249984 RUSSELL KOSTOHRYZ 1997 BARCLAY ST N $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ 680.00 $ - $ 5,969.9 152922249985 RICHARD J ESBOLDT 1974 DIETER ST N $ 11,826.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 11,826.99 152922249987 SAO LEE 0DIETER ST $ _ $ 4,389.99 $ - $ - $ 4,389.9 162 16' 164 16° 6E 61 fib 69 7C 71 TOTALS $ 248,705.16 $ 663,570.00 $ 13,600.00 $ 10,716.80 $ 936,591.96 Page 4 of 4 S AVE. � u ua GRANDVIEW AVE. 36 VIKING DR. t SHERREN AVE. �-- v Knuckle Head Lake COPE CT. COPE LARK AVE. L_ Q N AVE. LARK x Q ~ z CO. RD. C z Of LAURIE U e mSherwoodf F 1 LEALAND RD. — = SAND HURST Of Park z JUNC TION Q AVE. z B� w Y EL : 7z Tp bkr� a Q , R F BURKE ®af BURKE AVE. ® BURKE D 4 T CSR f ELDR IDGE AVE. O LN, N J John Gle 64 �R E. BELMON LN. °p �� GgTEWgy h 0 SKILL �P NE o SKILLMAN AVE. I HARRIS AVE. SliR _ Q J ROSEWOOD V) AVE , Of t x w Robinhood ROSEWOOD o RYAN N U Z Pork R AN AV. w zz TRAIL ParkkF- w v N Q cn In a a �I v FR ST AVE. :m � NTON AVE. o w Ln N o IN g w AVE. In z U) Gloster M ER AV E. v SU MMER J Park m W kefield Q Q FRISBIE AVE. z w ark 3 In RIP LEY E. � °— z �I Project location no scale Exhibit 1 Project Location Gladstone North Area Streets 04 -15 Agenda Item H2 April 13. 2005 Oflice oft'ity Clark City of Maplewood `-Japlewood, SIN 55109 RE: Gladstone North Area Street Improvements ProJect rat, 04-15 Property Put 4 152922240085 property Address: 1970, Dieter Street (Side by Side Duplex) Owners: RICIIARDJ & MARCILL, MESBOLDT (husband &wife) 1974 - homesunnied by owners. since 1997, both retired senior citizens 19 - occupied to widowed sister -in -law of owners. to senior sit izen I We are proud ofour family duplex & strive to keep it well maintained (photo enclosed), we vnJoy I i %, i no in Map lewood l 3 1 yr residents) and we also see the need for street impow The purpose of this letter. however, is to obJect to the unfair method of calculating the special assessment on our residence, We feel the classification of our family duplex as CONIIN4ERCIAl. STREET PROPERTY with the excessively high assessment of $11,826,00 is wrong. We are ienint citizens I iving on as fixed income, trying to maintain at modest lite :style. Since tie could not pay this assessment off inu the size oftinq assessment would add over $ 100 per month to our taxes for the next 13 years. This won Id create a great firumc is] burden for us. Please clumne the property classification to reflect a fair method of calculating this special assessment, ti Agenda Item H2 Mr 11� - Ths ls not a bill - .33/19! 19'7'•x' 1974 r-it"rvit ST N MIZIM IRSIDENTIM, .0 RTCHARD .1 r ' SBUCT 'ARCME K ESBCLDT iWO-071, m0FA !;T WL13110t) MN 55109,4414 Rarnsey County , . fopeny +.oass , .— Kvlf j. M— - ri'd '11. ',',I I Q - TIN - - f. 1.1R, a .1e — -,' .. In W V.k',.' i- " i. - '., c� :{xox e, *W. te G Vlw f, wl V" i r 3ES pioeff • jaefei Aij i be if p it i i ic,i insd-d fc-n i aporfe 10 prCiDedy I a f emot %l, Leo, Irw;a OeIN WIVS Of 3cvorlmw k' i,vif n v Uf qu�oio' cu'-rV"c. the P.P.,ed PF3FO-R tay OW.'. 0' !h e inco:m-qm 0 a J—A! 01K Of �gyfjlnnia';t q no increAsinif f% prepeiR 13ee5 'Of TW5 Of it IN ific' IS Kl et OYO Itiv We qf Met ... im it •vr va I 'i.. . poadi bi " .11r . >4 '"', Men 'I be'i is iik'� -i' pir I,- ".' e flate Cfe"W"i -A, PlNilefop&ny AdlmssfAhbreviAbid Tax bewffown RICHARD i rSBOLDT fetARCILL' M ESBC�LDT 1970 DIETER $T 1974 MAPLEVY00n M4 55100 -4414 N W,iii- Pqiti: "i M O'OP'R s' I�X- f 19A DIETER S I N Abt. . 5 1 WD 9 -02 Hence 0CP 3-ACCIONC PLA 1 7. --�RAoo 'f CA eiiif.i.i Re-tEO k.. Win owr PioefESTEAV Agee #m@ Pa e 6, ,EZEE = Mr. ` year- / ndol » retired \ \' / be ` years ®'. < Pin IS2922210052 z. . Sam d M. E! ndk Kamer\ S. El-Kandeigy Agenda Item H2 ASSESSMENT HEARING APPEAL FORM G-ADSTONE NORTH AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS 5"' - 7 7 1 - ry PROJECT A4-15 Andress of assessed parse /!F C 4,4"yCA y Property idevifired on rurnber -- -- -- -- ---- 0 2 cigit number) Do you wish to address wc, say council tonight? Yen No Please clorpliste trip frerr if you intend to appeal to the city council to defer, marts or cancel your assessment, This form must be completed and filed with the city clerk no later than the close of tonight's city council assessment hearing. Your request will become part at the public hearjrq vecom. I request that tne, city counzil calls del (shape cost: a. Soria citizen defferfrou" (over 155 yary of age) 117, b F Disability hardship defi rcrent (where retired by vi% no o¥ a plernanerr one ­ - - total diraleffily) C. 0 F Undeveloped property cl. C........1 Cloopellation of aropprone'd e, 1- 1 Revision of aperesmert Rfailson f-,f the resplast: %) ay- . .............................. M Dare Aporeae at p:aeF. (yvfw 1 -06, T4S3errane t ......... .. .. . .. : Siate zip Agenda Item H2 April l8, 2005 City of Maplewood Maplewood, MN 55109 Department of Public Works Office of the City Engineer To Whom It May onown! , 41P I spoke to Chris Covert about the half assessment for corner properties and he said it is arbitrary and not a hard and fast rule, fits also said that it is approved on a case by case basis. I do not know what criteria you could use thatwould be fair to all residents, t am a °dow on a fixed income--would that be taken into consideration? It is my understanding that in the Pact you have billed a half assessment for a home on a comer lot. An assessment of $2,190 for my house on a corner lot is what I believe would be fair since only one of my strects will be improved- i believe the assessment of mY property should be eval teal .I would appreciate it if you could notify me of the change before any interest would ace . My phone number is 651- 77"7 -$744 if you have any questions. Agenda Item H2 ASSESSMENT HEARING APPEAL FORM LADSTONE NORTH AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 04 -15 Address of assessed parcel _ q VA t Cf rrtgn G Property identification number: - pop w ilt become part of the public hearing record. I request that the city council consider (check one): a. Senior citizen deferment (over ES years of age) b. Disability hardship deferment (where retired by virtue of a permanent and ® total disability) c. El Undeveloped property d. ❑ Cancellation of assessment a. zn Revision of assessment Reason for the request: Agenda Item H2 Islamic Institute of Minnesota 1460 Skillinm Av, Maplewoo4, MN FOB 130154 Rowvffle, MN 55113 To Whom it May Concem: Agenda Item H3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Springside Drive Extension, Project 03 -36 1. Assessment Hearing, 7:16 p.m. 2. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll DATE: April 15, 2005 INTRODUCTION All property owners have been mailed a notice of the exact amount of their assessment, as well as notice that they must submit a written objection either at or prior to the hearing if they disagree with the assessment amount. The city council should conduct the assessment hearing, receive any objections, refer those objections to the staff for action at the May 9` 2005 council meeting and consider approving the attached resolution adopting the assessment roll without the property owners who have submitted objections. Background The project involves extending Springside Drive approximately 250 feet. Sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer will be constructed to service several new properties. A rainwater garden will also be constructed to treat runoff from the site. The proposed assessments for the Springside Drive Extension total $117,731.04. The assessments are consistent with the proposal included at the public hearing on August 9` 2004. A copy of the assessment roll is provided as a supplement to this report. The sanitary main and service and the water main and service assessments are based on the standard rates as follows. The street and storm sewer rates are based on the cost of construction. Street and storm sewer assessment = $23,717.76 per unit Sanitary sewer main = $5,520.00 per unit Sanitary sewer service = $2,100.00 per service Water main = $5,520.00 per unit Water service = $2,100.00 per service OBJECTIONS FILED As of April 15, 2005 staff has received one written objection to the proposed assessments as follows: 1. Brad and Dawn Fedorowski, 2439 Springside Drive (PIN 122822340072): On behalf of the Fedorowski's, Patrick B. Steinhoff of Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP has submitted a written objection to the assessment. The letter states, "the project does not constitute a public improvement rather a project benefiting only private interests ", among other reasons for the objection. A copy of the letter is attached. Agenda Item H3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached Resolution for the Adoption of the Assessment Roll for the Springside Drive Extension, City Project 03 -36. The proposed assessments are part of the project financing plan, approved in November, 2004. Any assessments that may ultimately be reduced or deferred will have an impact on the tax levy. A statement of tax levy impact will be made for the May 9` council meeting when all the assessments objections and recommendations are considered. Attachments: 1. Resolution: Adoption of the Assessment Roll 2. Fedorowski Objection Letter 3. Assessment Roll 4. Location Map Agenda Item H3 RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on August 9th "', 2004, calling for a Public Hearing, the assessment roll for the Springside Drive Extension, City Project 03 -36, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429: 1. Brad and Dawn Fedorowski, 2439 Springside Drive (PIN 122822340072) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections received and report to the City Council at the regular meeting on May 9"', 2005, as to their recommendations for adjustments. 2. The assessment roll for the Springside Drive Street Extension as amended, without those property owners' assessments that have filed objections, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 3. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2006 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.1 percent per annum for the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2005. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than October 1, 2005, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after October 1, 2005, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 5. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after October 1, 2005, but no later than November 15, 2005, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council on this 25 "' day of April 2005. Agenda Item H3 M A L K E R S 0 INT C I L L I LA N 1) M A RTI N I DOO LJ 5. trs "A i',AIA S LID 1 H TnVVZ R R F: c E; BF VO� 11 M,NNESOT4 'J'J402 612_144- ;414 PatricL & Swin haft, K�q, Dircut Dial (612) 455-0649 wNpad nxxr (My Oak (TyOfNlapk;vvtkxl € 9W) County Road H Ew Malaknvood,MN 5ijinr VIA CERTIFIED NIA-11, & US MAIL Be: N"caeartent - Parcel 12 82234f)072? Dcar SdrfMadmw 'rhis the represents h4r. Brad Fudnawski, pmed of wal property locam in the City(A'Maplewood. Mr, R-donowski has received a nofineofassevZoterd hearing lot an assessmusa or his pruperl• for "Pubbe Iniprovcraent Pr;,nrv1 Nutriber 03 30 Ka rhearl hy ffit mja;jfaa-iK)d (:try Council on Monday, ApnI 25, 2005 at 71 p.rm, Mr, Fadorow.Ai hero)y ob It t% to 111a• P opo aaSCaSHWTV, Jur IN following rwernw The proposed a"eSsrutntn vailaic arepruvisnans or Minnevulis Wharc (Thapler 42 iwhrding. wuhAn Wahar, Sawwas 129AWS! ami, 429116 t 2 The Pawned Cole4iltneall UnCtelatiftlu(Mal airing oflirnpimy 114' propoacd lasessimerns vii fart Mr. Fedcnroveki'w COre4iftHrO9131 due mrOCUs, and equal procetion rights .4, rra propowd pay"t ckws nol cartArmic a puNic it"pronvancut But taflnu a proiecl hencrung 'ady privare maelosts. i Thc proposed nt;vcd am) purpans! increase in value to the real puquaty Agenda Item H3 fly Cl kek City of Maplewood April 14.2005 page 2 6, The pyWond assewnwors -Adan; relevant paw is of the N.-laplewood City (We. I'lle profemed asnoisurvnis viohoc other Mprnevoi;i knv and s4aowN, %tt"e fto Ond If toqUCv1 thifl tl Wee OnCtl i0n$ ha UCCCIACA no [NUI 0 H In' rovi ird behire I In C of Vol Y truly yourv, A Pa nick 13. StChill(Iff ok! I fooiod A Rosner N&qm smd Cly Council lylernhcrs cof Viallkwiail Preliminary Assessment Roll Springside Street Extension C.P. 03 -36 Exhibit 4 No. Parcel ID Number Street ZIP Owner NameI No. of Street Units STREET $ 96,573.89 No. of Storm Units STORM No. of Residental Services SANITARY WATER $ 7,'14387 $ 2,76000 $ 9,050.00 $ 2,760.00 $ '1.050.00 MAIN SERVICE I MAIN SERVICE I TOTAL 1 122822340012 0 LINWOOD AVE E 55119 -0000 JOHN L POIRIER 2 $ 33,147.78 2 $ 14,287.74 2 $ 5,520.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 5,520.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 62,675.52 2 122822340071 2437 LINWOOD AVEE 1 55119 -5824 KIRKA HUGO 1 1 $ 16,573.891 1 1 $ 7,143.871 1 1 $ 2,760.001 $ 1,050.00 $ 2,7fi0.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 31,337.76 3 122822340072 0 SPRINGSIDE DR 1 55119 -0000 1 BRADLEY FEDOROWSKI 1 1 $ 16,573.891 1 1 $ 7,143.87 0 1 $ $ $ $ - $ 23,717.76 $ 997,739.04 TOTAL 4 1 $ 66,295.56 4 1 $ 28,575.481 3 1 $ 8,280.001 $ 3,150.001 $ 8,280.001 $ 3,150.001 $ 997,739.04 RAMSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL n-� �. FACILITY LONDIN LN. R Crestview D Park )ND J��� w1N O � �� O'DAY 39 O L CL ' P N v MARY LN. cn u Q LN. AVt. PONDS OF ST Q C') 0�DAY Q BATTLE CREEK KING MAILAND �� CIR. ° GOLF ry O COURSE w ° c O 1. CRESTVIEW Q Vista Hills Z Mailand FOREST _ Z O Park Park J DR. O DD -i � � 1 2 ' 2. DEER RIDGE D O w TEAKWOOD DR. cn LN. o Q OAKRIDGE DR, HILL W z �� WOOD D D � Q C) w 2. DR. HILL/QgKR /DG ° u C 1 . �� T E ~ Q S PRINC ��2 t w Of SIDE U 0-1 u o ° OR. C� � LINWOOD AVE. ,HL AVE. L I NWOQD �� z ° C �P PRO MONTORY ° u G\� Z Applewood �� BVLD. G QS J Park RED � � PROJECT z SPLENDER I(( LOCATION z TINARFR CIR. Exhibit 1 no scale Project Location Springside Drive Extension, C.P. 03 -36 West of Sterling St. Agenda Item 11 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: David Fisher, Building Official SUBJECT: City Employee Uniform and Floor Mat Services DATE: April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION City staff recently prepared a request for proposal (RFP) and sought sealed bids proposals from companies to provide city employee uniforms and mat leasing / cleaning services. On April 15, 2005, city staff received two sealed bids for providing the city's uniforms and mats. BACKGROUND The City of Maplewood has used G & K Services for about twenty years for employee uniforms and floor mats. It is good business practice to go out for bid for services on a regular basis. This helps to keep the vendors competitive. The city recently received sealed bids from Aramark Uniform Services and G & K Services for providing city employee uniforms and floor mats. G & K Services bid came in $12,699.30 less over 5 years than Aramark Uniform Services. BUDGETIMPACT In 2004, the city spent $49,444 on uniforms and mat services. The new contract with G & K Services will save the city about $159,000 over the five year contract. The numbers above reflect the yearly cost and the five year total cost of service from both Aramark and G & K Services. These numbers are from the bids supplied to the city by the two bidders. N x901 Lrihri14 L UL1111 9 I L l Staff recommends that the city council award the five year contract for city employee uniform and floor mat service to G & K Services and authorize city staff to sign the contract. This contract shall start June 1, 2005. Aramark G & K First year $19,338.88 $17,510.29 Second year $19,339.88 $17,510.29 Third year $19,920.08 $17,510.29 Fourth year $20,517.68 $17,510.29 Fifth year $21,133.21 $17,510.29 Total $101,250.73 $87,551.43 The numbers above reflect the yearly cost and the five year total cost of service from both Aramark and G & K Services. These numbers are from the bids supplied to the city by the two bidders. N x901 Lrihri14 L UL1111 9 I L l Staff recommends that the city council award the five year contract for city employee uniform and floor mat service to G & K Services and authorize city staff to sign the contract. This contract shall start June 1, 2005. Agenda Item 12 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works Building Addition, City Project 03 -19: Resolution Receiving Bids, rejecting all bids, approving revised project plans and authorizing receipt of bids DATE: April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The 2005 Budget includes an allocation within the Fleet Maintenance fund for expansion of the Public Works Building. Bids were received on April 14, 2005 that exceeded the project budget. Revisions to the plans have been made and the project should be re -bid. Background The city's Public Works staff is housed at 1902 County Road B East. The building was constructed in 1976 and is currently used by the Public Works Maintenance personnel for offices, equipment storage and vehicle maintenance. In April 2004, the Engineering Division relocated to the upper floor where office areas were leased to the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District until March 2004. A final budget for the Building Addition, including the Salt Storage Facility was established in January 2005 at $2,350,000. Plans for the project were approved in March 2005. Bids were received on April 14, 2005 as follows: Building Expansion Bid Amount Architect's Estimate $2,000,000 Ebert Construction $2,468,000 Jorgenson Construction $2,579,000 Merrimac Construction $2,582,291 Weber, Inc. $2,601,000 Arkay Construction $2,652,000 Meisinger Construction $2,755,000 Salt Storage Building Bid Amount Greystone Construction $92,500 Ebert Construction $122,000 Architect's Estimate $100,000 -31 17e1 �1e1 A'&IIl;Ne1 L III Ql;1fl11*11 [Q The project bids for the building expansion are 23.4% over the architect's estimate. A number of factors contributed to this over run. Public Works staff and the architect have met to review the overall building design and developed a plan to reduce the project costs, a new project schedule and a plan for proceeding with construction during the summer months. The bids for the salt building are very good. It is recommended that the contract for that work be awarded to Greystone Construction for work to be completed prior to the 2005 -2006 snow season. PROJECT REVISIONS Agenda Item 12 The Public Works staff and architect have revised the project plans and developed the following approach to reduce the overall project cost: Project Revision /explanation Cost Reduction Change roof design to standard (lifetime to normal roof) $170,000 Eliminate upgrade of existing mechanical system to meet code $ 72,000 Change pre -cast panel design (lesser quality) $ 50,000 Change metal siding to dryvit: $ 43,000 Reduce internal electric lighting levels $ 12,000 Reduce quality of internal finishes $ 22,000 Eliminate Upstairs Restroom $ 8,000 Eliminate Upgrade of Mechanic's area $ 16,000 Eliminate exterior painting of existing building $ 10,000 Leave Conf Rm and Staff Work Area Unfinished $ 20,000 Have PW Staff complete curb, retain wall and landscape $ 40,000 TOTAL REVISIONS $463,000 Reduce Building Expansion Size (to be bid as alternate) $100,000 Budget Impact and Options The above - listed cuts are mainly reductions in the quality of the project. The design of the building is very appropriate. Unfortunately, this building was ignored for 25 years and the cost of upgrading the existing system is significant. The architect made only one error, that being his estimate of what the work would cost, not in the design. A high majority of the work proposed to be eliminated will eventually be a cost that the City will face. For example, the lesser quality roof will require the City to replace the roof within 15 -20 years. The existing mechanical system will eventually need to be brought up to meet code requirements. The unfinished areas will eventually need to be finished; while the work to be performed by the PW Staff will reduce the amount of work done in other areas of the City. Our recommendation is to make the cuts listed above, as the financial options are very limited. The City has already sold a bond for $700,000 toward this project. We have extended the replacement schedules on equipment to avoid creating deficits in the Fleet Management Fund. The only option to proceed with the current design and award a construction contract to Ebert Construction would be for the City Council to authorize issuance of an additional $400,000 - $500,000 in bonds. The bond issue would result in an annual debt levy of approximately $36,000 for the next 20 years, which would likely require an increase in the overall levy or delay the funding for other City priorities. The Council is faced with making decisions of short -term pain versus long -term gain. The original design is the best long -term plan for the building; however due to the expense and impact on the overall budget, we have chosen to implement the shorter - term vision cuts. While the additional bonding is an option; given the current City Council direction, we have not recommended that option. Revised Project Schedule The revised schedule for the project is: El Re- Approval of Plans and Specifications April 25, 2005 El Legal Bidding Period (3 weeks) April 27 to May 18, 2005 El Bid Opening Date: May 19, 2005 El Award of Bids /Construction Contract May 23, 2005 El Construction Start June 1, 2005 El Construction Complete October 31, 2005 RECOMMENDATION Agenda Item 12 It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution receiving the project bids, rejecting all building expansion bids, awarding a contract to Greystone Construction in the amount of $92,500 for the Salt Storage Facility, approving the revised project plans and specifications for the Public Works Building Expansion, City Project 03 -19, and authorizing the receipt of bids at 10:00 am on May 23, 2005. Attachments: 1. Resolution RESOLUTION RECEIVING PROJECT BIDS REJECTING BIDS Agenda Item 12 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SALT BUILDING APPROVING REVISED PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on March 14, 2005, plans and specifications for the Public Works Building Expansion, City Project 03 -19, were prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, and bids were received on April 14, 2005, as follows: Building Expansion Bid Amount Architect's Estimate $2,000,000 Ebert Construction $2,468,000 Jorgenson Construction $2,579,000 Merrimac Construction $2,582,291 Weber, Inc. $2,601,000 Arkay Construction $2,652,000 Meisinger Construction $2,755,000 Salt Storage Building Bid Amount Greystone Construction $92,500 Ebert Construction $122,000 Architect's Estimate $100,000 WHEREAS, the overall project budget has been established at $2,350,000 by City Council motion, which does not provide adequate funding for the construction of the project, and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works /City Engineer has presented a revised set of plans potentially eliminating work that will bring the project within the City Council budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The bids received for the Building Expansion are hereby rejected and the Public Works Director is hereby directed to return the bid bonds accompanying said bids. 2. The revised 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. 3. 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 10:00 a.m. on the 19th day of May, 2005, 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. 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 23, 2005. 4. The bid of Greystone Construction in the amount of $92,500 is the lowest responsible bid for the construction of the Salt Building Facility and the mayor and manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the city. Agenda Item 13 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04 -16 Springside Drive Extension, City Project 03 -36 Resolution for Award of Bids DATE: April 15, 2004 INTRODUCTION Final plans and specifications for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements and Springside Drive Extension were approved by the city council on March 14, 2005, and authorization was given to advertise for bids. Those bids were received and opened on Friday, April 15, 2005. The Springside Drive Extension Project was originally bid on September 17` 2004. At that time, all of the three bids received were rejected as they were significantly over the engineer's estimate. The project was re -bid and included with the Gladstone North Project 04 -15, in anticipation that the bids would come in lower when combined with the larger Gladstone North project. The city council will consider accepting the bids and approving the attached resolution for Combining Projects and Award of Bids. Background The bids were received and publicly read aloud at 10:00 a.m., on Friday, April 15, 2005. The following four bids were received: 1. T.A. Schifsky & Sons 2. F.M. Frattalone Exc. & Grading 3. Forest Lake Contracting 4. Park Construction Bid A = $1,766,328.58 Bid A = $1,905,922.74 Bid A = - Bid A = $2,392,993.05 Bid B = $1,792,241.30 Bid B = $1,939,006.99 Bid B = $1,955,744.25 Bid B = $2,382,043.14 All bids have been checked and tabulated. The engineer's estimate for the project was $1,928,331.30. The low bid from T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. of $1,766,328.58 is 8% less than the engineer's estimate. Two alternates were bid under this project: Bid A included High Density Polyethylene Pipe (H.D.P.E.) for the storm sewer and Bid B included concrete pipe for the storm sewer. Both materials are acceptable for storm sewer construction. It is proposed to award Bid A for the H.D.P.E. storm sewer pipe since it is the less expensive of the two options. DISCUSSION T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. has worked on several projects in Maplewood in the past. The previous two projects included Kennard /Frost Area Street Improvements in 2003 and Hazelwood /County Road C Agenda Item 13 Improvements in 2004. Both projects were satisfactorily completed. Staff expects that they will be able to perform to the project schedule and contract specifications. N =19161 LVA I LVA I NI 0 17A INCH It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution accepting the bids, combining projects and awarding the contract to T.A. Schifsky and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $1,766,328.58. BUDGETIMPACT There would be no impact to the approved budget based on the above recommendation. The bid falls within the approved project budget and estimated construction cost established in the feasibility study. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map Agenda Item 13 RESOLUTION COMBINING PROJECTS AND AWARD OF BIDS WHEREAS, the city engineers deems it in the best interest of the city to combine the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04 -15 and Springside Drive Street Extension, City Project 03 -36 for bidding and award of bid, and AND WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on March 14` 2005, for advertising for bid for Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, Project 04 -15 and Springside Drive Extension, Project 03 -36 bids were received opened and tabulated according to law, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, 1. The Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04 -15 and Springside Drive Street Extension, City Project 03 -36 shall be combined for bidding and award of bid. 2. The bid of T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $1,766,328.58 is the lowest responsible bid for the construction of Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04 -15 and Springside Drive Extension Project 03 -36, and the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the city. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. GERVAIS AVE. Fl COPE CT. COPE )R' _ J LARK W `_J 1 LEALAND RD. — JUNC TION Q AVE. 1 P F R F BURKE A� D — J �'- Ll GRANDVIEW AVE. VIKING DR. c SHERREN AVE. Knu Head Lake AVE. AVE. LARK ° LAURIE Q � Sherwoodz � AND S HURST Pork z n AVE. CD BURKE m LN F-� CiR ELDR IDGE c E. BELMON LN. h SKILL �P VE. SKILLMAN AVE. Lij l - h 0 � SHR� Cnn PVE � v J D w Robinhood D RY AN = U U Park R rn TRAIL Flicek Park H n c.� z w F NTON AVE. 0 4 4- Gloster Ct Cr i ? J n Pork _ FRISBIE AVE. o Ln IF RIP LEY / w z Q HII o F U z _ Q N I AVE. :20 Vl N Q LM ER AV E. LLJ I II D AVE. � C — f) �\ AVE. John G • • ■ /m I BURKE // Al .J / GATEWAY HARRIS AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. S. 0 SU MME?, AVE. I �I Project location no scale Exhibit 1 Project Location Gladstone North Area Streets 04 -15 RAMSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL n-� �. FACILITY LONDIN LN. R Crestview D Park )ND J��� w1N O � �� O'DAY 39 O L CL ' P N v MARY LN. cn u Q LN. AVt. PONDS OF ST Q C') 0�DAY Q BATTLE CREEK KING MAILAND �� CIR. ° GOLF ry O COURSE w ° c O 1. CRESTVIEW Q Vista Hills Z Mailand FOREST _ Z O Park Park J DR. O DD -i � � 1 2 ' 2. DEER RIDGE D O w TEAKWOOD DR. cn LN. o Q OAKRIDGE DR, HILL W z �� WOOD D D � Q C) w 2. DR. HILL/QgKR /DG ° u C 1 . �� T E ~ Q S PRINC ��2 t w Of SIDE U 0-1 u o ° OR. C� � LINWOOD AVE. ,HL AVE. L I NWOQD �� z ° C �P PRO MONTORY ° u G\� Z Applewood �� BVLD. G QS J Park RED � � PROJECT z SPLENDER I(( LOCATION z TINARFR CIR. Exhibit 1 no scale Project Location Springside Drive Extension, C.P. 03 -36 West of Sterling St. Agenda Item K1 REPORT SUMMARY TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Easement Vacation Request for Wyngate Townhomes LOCATION: North Side of Legacy Parkway DATE: April 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION On October 26, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for the 50 -unit Wyngate Rental Townhomes at Legacy Village. After this approval, the applicant found that there is an unneeded drainage and utility easement on the site. This easement had followed a lot line that was created as part of the original Legacy Village plat. When the site was replatted for the Heritage Square Second Addition town house development and the Wyngate site, this lot line was moved to the west to enlarge the Wyngate property. The end result was a remaining drainage and utility easement that serves no purpose as it would lie under the building. Request Mr. Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, Inc., is requesting that the city council vacate this easement. DISCUSSION Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed this proposal and has determined that there is no reason to retain this easement. Staff recommends that the city council vacate this easement since it would serve no public purpose. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating an unneeded drainage and utility easement on the Wyngate Town house site. This vacation is because it is in the public interest since this drainage and utility easement would serve no public purpose. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Easement Vacation Request for Wyngate Townhomes LOCATION: North Side of Legacy Parkway DATE: April 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION On October 26, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for the 50 -unit Wyngate Rental Townhomes at Legacy Village. After this approval, the applicant found that there is an unneeded drainage and utility easement on the site. This easement had followed a lot line that was created as part of the original Legacy Village plat. When the site was replatted for the Heritage Square Second Addition town house development and the Wyngate site, this lot line was moved to the west to enlarge the Wyngate property. The end result was a remaining drainage and utility easement that serves no purpose as it would lie under the building. Refer to the attachments. Request Mr. Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, Inc., is requesting that the city council vacate this easement. BACKGROUND Legacy Village Actions that Involve this Site July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax - abatement plan and preliminary plat. Refer to the approved PUD concept plan. September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final plat for Legacy Village. This plat established the location of the subject easement. July 26, 2004: The city council approved the PUD revision, preliminary and final plat and the design plans for the Heritage Square Town Homes Second Addition. This final plat moved the westerly lot line for the Wyngate site to the west, thereby enlarging the site and causing the easement to now exist in the location of the future building. October 26, 2004: The CDRB approved the design plans for Wyngate. Findings for Approval To vacate an easement, the city council must find that it is in the public interest. DISCUSSION Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed this proposal and has determined that there is no reason to retain this easement. Staff recommends that the city council vacate this easement since it would serve no public purpose. COMMITTEE ACTIONS April 4, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of this easement vacation. N =19161 kh I kh Iml 0 WIN IIQ0 Adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating an unneeded drainage and utility easement on the Wyngate Town house site. This vacation is because it is in the public interest since this drainage and utility easement would serve no public purpose. p:sec 3 \V\yngate Easement Vacation 4'05 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Original Legacy Village Concept Development Plan 3. Heritage Square Second Addition Final Plat 4. V\yngate Site Plan with Proposed Easement Vacation 5. Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation Exhibit 6. Easement Vacation Resolution I 0 I i N i i il L- 7 pm MR, T7 I 0 I i N LEGACY VILLAGE AT MA-PP LIB WOOD MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WYNGATE TOWNHOMES mmmmmm 0 IF 1 0 IT Rd PFEi KY c-ri I k HERJTAGE SQUARE SECOND AMMON 0� , 6�A\ lo� x. si t $4..! �� ����{'���" `��, a s•.., _. _......� v ...._ —'=�= �� _:::,�xgaa Vp f t S i'V 15 L5 17 t L A M . 3 CD — =M . ...... LANDFORM M . 3 CD NOT IN CONTRACT ---L%l I '=- I f I I--- - 11 11 ORIGINAL - WEST L 1 0 1 T L , IN 11 E LOCATION RECEIVED OCT 0 12004 HE Vol (P T L @-4N - *- - - 1 11 - li MR VCAN N �, O �O� A (I V, p- C71 DRANAGE ANID JTLITY EASEMENT P-R F�LA 7 OF HERiiAEA SOUARE SECOND ADDITION S89'46'1 2"'N 1 � 11 Attachment 5 WE S �� -T B OF :OT 4 N89'46'l 2"E it 4-- '4F S89 -'12"Oj `--SOUTHy%lFlST COPNER OF LCJ 4 7 Attachment 6 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Janes, of The Hartford Group, applied for the vacation of the following: Vacating the Drainage and Utility Easement as Dedicated on the plat of LEGACY VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD, Ramsey County, Minnesota over that part of Lot 1 and Lot 4, Block 2 described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 4, thence North 2 degrees 50 minutes 09 seconds West along the West line of said Lot 4, a distance of 10.01 feet to the point of beginning of the easement to be vacated; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 10.01 feet; thence North 2 degrees 50 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 144.94 feet; thence North 2 degrees 49 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 21.43 feet; thence South 44 degrees 49 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 27.66 feet; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 1.50 feet; thence South 2 degrees 49 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 1.78 feet; thence South 2 degrees 50 seconds 09 minutes East a distance of 145.02 feet; thence South 89 degrees 46 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 10.01 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this request. WHEREAS, on April 25, 2005, the city council this request after considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described vacation because it is in the public interest since this right -of -way is not needed for any public purpose. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on April 5, 2005. 1.1 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2005 1TM111- 311 [am :1 *11NI.[L3 a. Easement Vacation (Wyngate Townhomes — Legacy Village) (7:03 -7:05 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said on October 26, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the plans for the 50 -unit Wyngate Rental Townhomes at Legacy Village. After this approval, the applicant found that there is an unneeded drainage and utility easement on the site. This easement had followed a lot line that was created as part of the original Legacy Village plat. Mr. Ekstrand said when the site was replatted for the Heritage Square Second Addition town house development and the Wyngate site, this lot line was moved to the west to enlarge the Wyngate property. The end result was a remaining drainage and utility easement that serves no purpose as it would lie under the building. Mr. Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, Inc., is requesting that the city council vacate this easement. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Frank Janes, of the Hartford Group, Inc., addressed the commission. The planning commission did not have any questions for Mr. Janes or for staff. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating an unneeded drainage and utility easement on the Wyngate Town House site. This vacation is because it is in the public interest since this drainage and utility easement would serve no public purpose. Commissioner Bartol seconded. Ayes Bartol, Desai, Fischer, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on April 25, 2005. Agenda Item K2 N 4 :101 : i W1111 L V i I L V i/ i 1: V 1 TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat, Parking Setback Variance and Design Review PROJECT: Heritage Square 4 Addition LOCATION: New County Road D and Hwy. 61 DATE: April 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Town and Country Homes is proposing a 90 -unit, seven building town house complex as part of the Trout Land development. This town house development, called Heritage Square 4` Addition, would be located on the west side of the future County Road D Extension. There would be six 12 -unit buildings and one 18 -unit building. The proposed buildings would be two stories tall and all resident parking would be underground beneath the building's living space. There would be two spaces for each unit and 47 visitor parking spaces. Requests Town and Country Homes is requesting approvals for: A preliminary plat. Afive -foot parking lot and driveway setback variance. Site, landscaping and building design plans. DISCUSSION Staff finds the plat acceptable and in line with other similar plats approved by the city. The shape and grade differences of the site provide difficult development constraints, thereby, giving basis for the driveway- setback variance. Staff also finds that the building design and landscape plans are attractive. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the applicant's three requests. ILVil =ILVAI ] ZIM 0 Bill TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat, Parking Setback Variance and Design Review PROJECT: Heritage Square 4 1 " Addition LOCATION: New County Road D and Hwy. 61 DATE: April 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Town and Country Homes is proposing a 90 -unit, seven building town house complex as part of the Trout Land development. This town house development, called Heritage Square 4` Addition, would be located on the west side of the future County Road D Extension. Refer to the maps. There would be six 12 -unit buildings and one 18 -unit building. The proposed buildings would be two stories tall and all resident parking would be underground beneath the building's living space. There would be two spaces for each unit and 47 visitor parking spaces. Requests Town and Country Homes is requesting approvals for: 1. A preliminary plat. 2. Afive -foot parking lot and driveway setback variance. The variance is needed because the proposed frontage drive and parking areas would be set back 10 feet from the front lot line. The code requires 15 feet. Please note that the applicant's letter of request states that they are proposing a nine -foot front setback. Since their submittal, they revised the site plan to provide a ten -foot setback as requested by Chris Cavett, the assistant city engineer, in his review. 3. Site, landscaping and building design plans. BACKGROUND Trout Land Town House Site —Original Council Action On July 12, 2004, the city council approved a land use plan change to R3M (medium density residential) for the proposed townhome site. The council reclassified the property to R3M in stead of approving the requested R3H (high- density residential) land use being requested at the time by Kelco Real Estate Development Services. The council found the change to medium density to be compatible with the abutting single and double dwellings. The council also approved a land use plan amendment to designate the County Road D Extension on the plan map and to rezone the site to R3 (multiple dwelling) to allow townhomes. Heritage Square 4 Addition Committee Actions March 7, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat. March 8, 2005: The community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the design plans. April 4, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the variance. Trout Land Commercial /Industrial Sites March 28, 2005: The city council reviewed a proposal by the Ryan Companies for two automotive uses on the M1 (light manufacturing) lots fronting on Highway 61 across the County Road D Extension. The council found the plans to be vague and tabled action on these proposals. April 11, 2005: The council reconsidered the automotive uses and tabled this review indefinitely, at the applicant's request, to enable them time to prepare detailed plans. DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, has provided a report detailing his comments about the site. Refer to his attached report. He advises that two trail segments be included in the plan — one between Lots 5 and 6 to connect with the Duluth Street homes to the west and one from Building 2 to the northwest to connect with Sunset Ridge Neighborhood Park. The developer's drainage plan is workable provided several detailed design modifications are met. Chris also provides advice on what needs to be done to address some severe erosion control issues. He suggests planting extensive areas with native vegetation that does not require extensive maintenance. There are no traffic issues. The proposed preliminary plat will enable the applicant to sell individual town house units. This proposed plat is similar to the applicant's previous subdivision proposal for their earlier Heritage Square developments in Legacy Village. Staff finds no major issues with this request. Setback Variance ineer's Comments Chris Cavett reviewed this proposal and has the following comments: The city requires a 10- foot -wide utility easement with subdivision plats. The applicant's proposed nine -foot front pavement setback would need to be moved at least one foot further back to meet this 10 -foot easement requirement. As noted, the applicant has revised their plans to provide a 10 -foot front setback. W The site grading is difficult. It makes sense to try to keep the buildings from encroaching any further to the west. State Law Requirements State law requires that to approve a variance, the city council must determine that: . Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. . The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Unique Circumstances The site is difficult to develop due to its unique physical characteristics. The site narrows substantially in the middle making setback compliance difficult to meet. The steeper grades on the west side of the site, furthermore, prevent moving the buildings to the west without a considerable amount of additional grading and, possibly, retaining wall construction. Doing so would also bring the buildings closer to the homes to the west which is not desired by the neighbors. Spirit and Intent Approval of this setback reduction would meet the spirit and intent of the code since there would still be room for landscaping between the driveway pavement and the street boulevard. Staff does not feel that this six -foot reduction to the applicant's driveway would be visually noticeable or hazardous in any way. Neiahbor's Comments Bob and Cindy Kranz, of 1264 Highridge Court, expressed three concerns about this proposal. Refer to their attached letter. They are concerned about: Traffic congestion on the County Road D extension due to the proposed 90 units. A reduced setback would bring pedestrians too close to the street. There is inadequate visitor parking for the proposed units. The concern about traffic congestion is not relevant to this setback variance proposal. It is more a question of allowed density and one that has already been established. The concern about the reduced setback being hazardous for pedestrians is not applicable because the sidewalk along future County Road D would be on the public boulevard and not affected by the applicant's proposed driveway and parking lot location. The applicant's proposal, therefore, has no bearing on sidewalk location. The issue about a need for adequate visitor parking spaces is a very important one but one that has already been addressed in the design review. The city has established a visitor - parking ratio elsewhere in Maplewood of one -half space for each one unit, or stated another way, one space for each two units. By this ratio, there must be at least 45 visitor parking spaces for this project. One point of concern is that the northerly building needs at least nine visitor parking spaces. The applicant is now proposing ten. Staff's Conclusion 191 This request meets the findings required for variance approval. Requiring parking lot/driveway setback code compliance on this difficult site would result in a lessened building setback on the westerly side which would impact the neighbors by bringing the buildings closer to them and would result in considerably more grading and retaining wall construction. Design Considerations The exterior materials consist of vinyl shakes, cultured stone, and lap siding. Two color schemes are being studied for this project. Colors include earth tone browns, tans, and greens Outside stairs, railings, and trim are white. Significant landscaping using over -story and coniferous trees is planned for the slope on the west side of the site. The rest of the site will also have generous amounts of shrubs and trees. Additional Concerns by Neighbors Several neighbors have written letters or submitted e-mail messages. Their replies are enclosed and summarized as follows: This project should not be built. There is too much density and too much traffic. The buildings are taller than expected because of underground garages. Therefore, evergreen trees at least 8 feet tall should be planted along the west property line. The buffer trees need to be planted as soon as possible. Lighting at entryways should be recessed in order to reduce light impacts on the existing neighborhood residents. Can underground parking be built on former wetlands? Will they flood? Collapse? Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had several construction comments. The only design comment concerned the need for a 20 ft. emergency access road. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had several comments related to building construction and codes that really do not come into play when reviewing a preliminary plat. However, he did want verification that the soils are okay to build on with the steep slope proposed in several locations. Density Discussion There is some confusion and disagreement that resulted from the city's review of the Trout Land development proposal last summer and the establishment of the density noted above. The following information is given to hopefully clear up the issue of what is the allowed number of townhomes for the Heritage Square 4` Addition, should the question be raised at the city council meeting. 51 The allowed density for the townhomes in the Trout Land development was calculated based on the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Density was based on the "gross" number of acres that the developer, Kelco, purchased for town house development. The gross acreage totaled 15.38 acres. The land use plan defines gross acreage as follows: "Gross acreage is the total area of the lot to be developed, including streets and drainage areas." It should be noted that the actual net - acreage for the proposed townhomes is 11.9 acres. The density, therefore, was based on all of the acreage of the original property the developer purchased for multi - family development (we did not include the commercial areas). The acreage we counted included: 1) the original 6 -acre Prokosch property, 2) the 8.53 -acre property lying between future County Road D and 3) half of the future County Road D right -of -way (.85 acres). Refer to the attached Acreage Map. When calculating density, it is standard practice to consider the entire piece of land prior to its division by roadways and the loss of land area to holding ponds and other areas to be designated for special purposes such as for wetland easements, utility easements, conservation areas or tot lots. I have included some examples. Refer to the attachments showing the Highwood Farms Townhome development and the Woodlynn Ponds Townhome development and the recently approved Overview Townhomes. Each of these had property in excess of the buildable area. Each, however, was allowed a density based on all their land, including their roadways and unbuildable areas. In these instances where part of the total area of the lot is not to be built with residential units, the developer still got credit for that acreage for his density calculations. One point of confusion that leads to disagreement is that the land use plan classification for the existing Prokosch property was not changed to R3M as was the town house site. Some have questioned why that site was counted in the formula for the overall town house density if it is not zoned or guided that way? As stated above, the gross - density calculation was figured based on the entire property purchased for town house development. As this development proposal was reviewed and property -sale terms negotiated with Mr. and Mrs. Prokosch, it later turned out that they would remain in their home. Their site could have been incorporated as town houses. As it was, density credit was given to the developer for that site since it was part of the overall development. It is staff's intention, however, that there never are more than a total of 92 units, including the existing Prokosch site, on Trout Land town house property. The planning commission, furthermore, recommended on March 7, that "the Prokosch property be excluded from any further development when they move from the property." Some of the abutting property owners disagree with this method for density calculations. In her attached letter, Ms. Kelly Lenz points out that she feels that the remaining Prokosch piece should not have been included in the density calculations. She further points out a concern discussed at by the planning commission that if we allow the current Prokosch home site to be included in the "gross" acreage, what prevents that site from being developed in the future with more units? As stated above, the planning commission shared this concern. Based on the allowed density of 92 units for all portions of the original property, only two units could be allowed on the Prokosch lot in the future. This, though, would depend on a rezoning to R2 (double dwelling residential). As noted, the site is currently zoned R1 which would allow only one single dwelling. 5 Staff has talked to Jim Kellison, developer of the Trout Land development about this. Mr. Kellison has no objection to the filing of a deed restriction limiting the future density of the Prokosch home site to no more than one unit as it is currently zoned. As a condition of the preliminary plat approval, staff is recommending that a deed restriction be filed with Ramsey County stating that the Prokosch site not be developed with more than one single family home. COMMITTEE ACTIONS March 7, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat. March 8, 2005: The community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the design plans. April 4, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the variance. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approval of the preliminary plat date - stamped February 8, 2005 for the Heritage Square 4` Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall dedicate trail easements and drainage and utility easements as recommended by Chris Cavett in his memo dated March 1, 2005. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city for the construction and dedications of: a. Watermain between the south drive and the Duluth Street stub. b. Trail construction. c. Easement dedications for trails, storm sewer, utilities and watermain. d. Native turf establishment adjacent to the ponds. e. Other issues deemed necessary by the city engineer. The applicant, or the seller of this property to the applicant, shall provide a deed restriction, be filed with Ramsey County, stating that the Prokosch site shall not be developed with more than one single family home. This document shall be submitted to the city attorney for approval. B. Approve the plans date - stamped February 8, 2005 for the Heritage Square 4` Addition. The developer shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Comply with the requirements of the city engineer and those of Chris Cavett in his report dated March 1. 2005. 2. Meet all requirements of the building official and fire marshal. 3. Obtain all required permits from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District. M 4. Revise the site plan to provide a 15 -foot setback for the proposed frontage drive and visitor parking spaces or obtain a setback variance from the city council. The applicant must provide at least .5 parking spaces for each unit. The northernmost building needs two additional visitor spaces. 5. Revise the site plan to provide pedestrian trails as recommended by Mr. Cavett in his memo dated March 1, 2005. The applicant shall construct these trails as part of this development. 6. The city will allow one building permit before the plat is filed. The plat must be recorded before the city will issue permits for any additional buildings. 7. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 8. The applicant shall install an inground irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 9. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan for staff approval before getting a building permit for the first building. 10. Atemporary sales office is allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 11. The director of community development may approve minor changes to these plans. C. Adopt the resolution in the staff report approving a five -foot parking and driveway setback variance from the future County Road D Extension right -of -way line. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. Complying with the 15 -foot parking lot/driveway setback code would cause the applicant undue hardship due to the narrow shape of the site which makes setback compliance difficult. 2. Relocating the parking lots, frontage drive and buildings to the west would require additional grading and slope stabilization and would impact the neighbors by reducing the building setback to the west. 3. The variance would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there would still be adequate area to plant trees between the driveway curbing and the front lot line. The reduced setback would also not be visually noticeable. Approval of this variance is conditioned upon the applicant providing a 10 -foot pavement setback in order to stay off of the required 10- foot -wide utility easement. As required previously, the applicant must also provide at least nine visitor parking spaces for the northerly building. 7 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 11.9 acres (net); 15.38 acres (gross for density - calculation purposes) Existing Land Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: County Road D and single family homes in Vadnais Heights South: Car dealerships West: Single and double dwellings East: Gulden's Roadhouse, Venberg Tire, Sparkle Auto and two proposed auto dealerships PLANNING Land Use Plan Designation: R3M Zoning: The property is zoned R -3 Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. APPLICATION DATE /APPROVAL DEADLINE The city received the preliminary plat and design review applications on February 8, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. The variance application came in on March 17, 2005. In order to get all items to the city council at one meeting, staff extended the review deadline for the original two applications along with the variance application to May 16, 2005. Council action is required by that date. 1.1 p:sec4:Heritage Square 4 "Addition Varte 2 Attachments: 1. Location/ Zoning Map 2. Land Use Map 3. Site / Landscaping Plan 4. Site Plans Showing Proposed Setback Reduction 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Building Unit Summary Map 7. Parking Plan 8. Building Elevation Reduction 9. Project Narrative dated January 31, 2005 10. Memo from Kevin Rabbett 11. Memo from Butch Gervais 12. Memo from David Fisher 13. Memo from Chris Cavett 14. Ten Survey Replies from Neighbors 15. Applicant's Letter of Justification dated March 11, 2005 16. Letter from Kelly Lenz dated March 11, 2005 17. Email Correspondence from Bob and Cindy Kranz dated March 25, 2005 18. Highwood Farms Townhomes Site Plan 19. Woodlynn Ponds Townhomes Site Plan 20. Overview Townhomes Site Plan 21. Location Map for Highwood Farms, Woodlynn Ponds and Overview 22. Gross - Acreage Map 23. Variance Resolution 24. Colored Site Plan dated March 17, 2005 (separate attachment) 25. Plans date - stamped February 8, 2005 (separate attachment) W7 HERITAGE SQUARE 4 T " ADDITION 0 AtUid%ient I Attachment 2 LAND USLE MAP HERITAGE SQUARE 4 TH ADDITION �3 BEAM AVE, is Iml Lu BEAM AVE, is �1L T. 1p, Fl IZl kHJT,ii 3I L.1 d2 � . I . I . I . . . . . -Ai JN E P P IIA 4� WO 21 "Vo r. J I L 0- M D%�Aff, Harm -IMMMMAM� -NM,!vq E �K KII WINA', ifth".yp""T, Hill o,q SQU IX, LANDFORN4 1 6 J -- g-B15 - I � � � � . � \ d�� 1,3 REG IV E [i W', iK�3 W�ANr' A� �OU.NTY kO&j 11 - W, I u 1a ­ V) v �' >EJtXjI�' ��� o �� � C � � 1`�� 7 „Ec x . �' F � r, 12 - uNt I t m i sod TOM— Mus J 1 0 t � 4 All I r -1 % --- T Any -- RER ct5 ide t WOW- sit i n HERITAU SQiu: RUM11 AlcrrltS PV LANDFORI%4 C5, 1 is .X AI At3 R3 Rt — Rf ?3i x tt RP j !32 Att 81 Rt 83 RY Ri no li A2 A2 . BLOCK I t i 02`FR? C R $1 r II3 U2 0Y R3 ,M 1 A2 U2Ri A2 Al:" A2 Rt 62 ) Al RI x x H2 n ;3 A ?' R7 R2 d2 RY A2 � ,r Al > µ- Al R!`s A i 1 64 [12 `' U25 U `k Lop 61 } c! I AAl a 32 R.AJ r f3t Jig_ I r R3 RJ 332 Ri A! 7 h 2 A 2 0 S£ 3& U =1 A2 . Heritage Square Fourth Addition ------- F �.NI rTUHfl1 - c, [ {Y . • .� "' � :Uaplewsuld, M7nnRS. !i!.7M €�� LL� S {5 u 4 i- 4 a. 11 11, j.5rrra �Ui�f ff fP 1F 1!f f!!!ta � Z r; x N\ ` per .,, Nk a i £ £ l 1 i t t Y4 tlV ii FG R� 4k ( ) �.�hu£g 3urru£tary Ri lrFlryC Y�E �'s krit3 #8s� .,iraiiv TM> !J(S f7teet Yaa�r'd1 _ i*�ak.; i liK Heritage Square Fourth Addition LtiK17FORM C U�, � ( €Z1' ..,.•'" "...`�•,." Maplewnad, Nlinnevata k31,�A @.`i REGENCY ELEvA"rIDN 6 Regency Collection Color Option 1 Corner Eleva tion Project Narrative — January 31, 2005 PROJECT N- ME'/L0CATI" Heritage Square e Addition Trout Land — Intersection of County Rd D and 1-1-wy 61 LANDOWNER Trout Land, LLC -- Gonzalo Medina DEVELOPERIAPPLICANT Town and Country Homes 75 16 Smetana Lane, Suite 180 Eden Prairie,, MN 55344 Contact: Krista Novack ph. (952) 253-0474 fax (952) 944 -3437 I 3} I E1 7 FLOPMENI DAI A Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Medium Density Residential Proposed Zoning: R3M - Medium Density Residential PROPOSED DEVFLOPMENT SLT - vFsIARY Gross Density: 7.6 homes/ac. Gross Acreage: 12.2 so, Total Unit Count: 90 PROJEC F-N2 TIEKT SQUARE 4 th Addition - MAPI,!-WOOD. M-N w VNTRQDUCTIOiN L Town as Country homes is requesting the follovAng nciriews for s- rcw m ti i I Corrullucity called Heritage Square IV� Preliminary Plat n pplication The Herusige Square IV plan provides 90' homes within 7 town holes buildiluls. T.'!"' cormyc"nky is pi in a way that we fee: opom�ves the L: l--ility- of tile site, ­Fhe plim coenes an attractive transition between single-famils homes and commercial, prcscrsoel green s by linuctig impervious surface, and provides rhythmic building lay outs. Sire F-Iist The site - was recently approved for a land use change in July of 2004. It was changed from ,S-Mgle-Farnily Residential and 1 Nianinecturmly, to I'viedium Density Resicermal, This land use change was approv b the council for the following reasons: 1, The Development would he consistent win the goals son po;ic:ei Q' � � U1 e comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed town houses would he ost w ith ti c i& s po mr medium - density residential uses, since they -would create transitional land use between commercial, 91 property and sin le-fardwelling ly dwelling properta. 1 3, Town houses would he compatible with the abutting townhouse development. 4. The difference in grade between the proposed town homes and the existing room homes to the west will create a natural buffer between developments, 5. There would be no significant impact on the existing neighborhood streets to the 'West Tj- Lc=nT =-S The Regerig Codeilrion Trsvn ,illd Country Homes is pleased to debut yet another brand new horn c-srilc o- ours to the City c,F Maplewood, and the Heritage Square comn-r-inity, AIA 90 hornes in Fl iV will be cl� our R--genc,, Collection, - T own So Cleumiry newest to-'w- "nomt, """ look herw-arc to an opportunit to c-xisand, on our success in Heritage Square b new and exa� LIng 21"Chi-CeCtoce. The specud - eaw7es of Lu' Romucy CoJccii-n are "he uncierground ptc.iong mur-sid . ed ,irchitect appeal, hk1d. garages, and cra-ft.sinan details. Diffcrcnt rnaterials s usuC" -e s-cKik, aud be ly-band nim, and brcak up monoton�7 l- to vinyl make 'acc=-s, - I ' a o%ck �c 11FRITAGE SOUARE4e` Addition - iAAPLEWOODJYIF''e ME ai-yi ng too Eines, tapered colierels, and k7ont POrch' also adcl in ri - - C. 'We are cLxreudy I - - 'lax ahoo; 2 color options for the Regency exteriors, but the color packages are in the process o.� oeoig rep Ised t, CtL pcslhenc Or the bui� lg, We pl"M 10 1) mrioer ennance c-i- Lou I C1 in have updated renderings for the pi 1blic :searing. 1BLAA EjaW�N E W'S ASS LOCIATBON All p-livate drives, sprimder systems, monument signs, and common open space areas -l6ll be owned and maintained by one ilomeowner's association. GUEST PARKING There are 2 packing spaces in ail garages, and 44 additional Sliest parking spaces (pl ease refer to parking plan in submittal packet), Overnight Spier parking will be available on private streets and parking bays. 'fhe project is proposed for site construction in a single phase. The Dev--IOPQ intends to develop the property as soon as all governmental approvals and permits are in place. I f iv ARRATI VE M Attuchment lO From. Lt. Kevin Rabbet Z� Dam: 2-22-05 Re ProjectReview: Heritage Square, 4" Addition, Hacy 61 and Co,Rd D I have reviewed the attached plans and find no public mahetv concerns. If you have any questions or comments, please call mmatx28O4� M Attachment 11 p I rqjcct Review Cornments Februtn-y 17, 2005 Protect: Too,11 Country I lowes Fourth !Wd iz,u)n B L I i I ding: Condo's/Town, llornes Planner: Tom F. strand Rcvi-),per: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshad cor r- prat Install f ction pe a Install mini sounders in each unit to alert occupants incase fire protection is ae - Ii vated 3. Monitor fire protection system per-code 20 [t. emersency access road 5. Install fire department lock box 6. All permits, inspection cards and approved plans shall be on-site m Attachment 12 February 14, 2005 From: David Fisher, Building Official To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Re: 00 unit development Heritage Square IV After reviewing the letter and information submitted by Town & Country Homes the following code issues would have to be addressed: 7. Verify there are no sound requirements from the environmental study. 8. Submit complete plans using Minnesota registered design professionals, 24 Attachment 13 FrIKiplacring_Plan Review rKicy JlA .' �I toerl age :�(Ryiare 4� Aiddi illli'tTryoiqt 1,41110 Site) REVIEWED BY: Chris Cavelit, Assistant City Engineer DATE: March 1. 200.5 (Updated) T owle and Country Homes has Itioposed a multi-fanitiy town hollle clvveiopmuol on acres of t he Trout Land development, evitich i s located west ot'Tl I 61 and west ol'the new County Road D realignment J, tie site is so nietv Ila! cilarlengung due to topograpny yet tilt" applicant has dune a ' Ooo job to work with the site. In general, the proposal from an emit neerma standpoint is very sound. There are a number of items that shall still be addressed in a final plan subtnittal: REVIEW CONIMFNTS Trails and Easements- I . C:oozsttuc t two a - Pilot - wide bituminous trails pel° city staucartis anti provide ttte --------- - - necessary casements (2(i -fiest imin, width) by separate document The traits shall be located as to link the following location a. Trail 1: From the County Road D trail in front of Building 5 to the Duluth Street via the water rierin and trail easement directly west of Butibl'ing 6, Desitinine the trail to meet maximum grade standards only require some switch-back design and retaining walls. ly. Trail 1 From the trail on County Road D near Building I to the end of the existing trail located approximately 100 west of tile west property In the vicinity of the BE pipeline. Exact alignment between the west property line and the end of the existing and has yet to be determined. as temennons have yet to be finalized with the property owners. This trail will Complete It vital segment of the regional trail system and wilt link tilt" development to Sunset Ridge Neighborhood Park. Ali trails should inest: AD A standards whine feasible. Any valiationfroilithose standards shall be noted. The city crigmear shall have final approval of location, design and alignment of these trails, virasihm. DLd Erosion Control, x — 2. Re- submit drainage calculations. The drainage calculations previously submitted for review are hour the city's ovetall suarusater riyanagellialit plan on the area and are not specific to this site. Subalit drainage calculations detailed to the site : l test 011, MCRIG V aland RANS froill ie Lif )U UJIN Win SWIM C capacit, drainaec areas it IlIx bLOOD viewer to diturt, to Inv souill and illLo the South I AJJKI. .Nyj sfol'III sevicy shall drain into the vziteny in County Read 1), as that system has net been dt"'O , I lo otkt�, flovv )Imn dus - he eyo I (wfiICSINdAl iIlbU!,`lIV I area on the uOrth side, Of Building 2 that flo%, into the public stotnn 1�yw to be relocated, M T net e see nis to JUC(LUC eldliNIMC still Lre I be conat atconsisezricies bei�kiesn the �Ni slorin plan for pipes sizes between runs: 105& 106, HO & 111, isevisc die dfaina for the souiii end w Lilt 5) k-'Wrently the tharna ijorn [lie southerly buildings and parking lots has insufficient storm sewer and mists. The gradine, and "hainage shah he revised to ensure that theft is SURICnoll, HIM capacity and storm sewer to prissrint most overflows front leaving the site, 6 rovide a i-foot surnp strociure to remove debris and finger sediment ircre the storm smscs before it discharges into the city pond. Cleaning of the surrip SULIGRA 0 S I SeGiniern snail he the resporeubdity ovine association, the association shall agreem with e City to guarantee that the g -- -- sump structure will be maintained and cleaned on a rep-tilar basis. 7. Provide a minimum 2() drainage ahL1 Utility closarloat over the storm sewer that is shown to be relocated at the rootheiriv end of the site. Me site is rather steep in man v locations. In addition there are areas where surface flows will become concentrated in swales '['base locations shall be armored with permanent suit sta ` , ; I fabrics. Most notably is title Swale along the west property line and the flow path to the pond, Verify estimated I ows at il is , drain and pit t n tocintort, A chMi chase, otui a surnice )e wili be necessary to main the west swide down to the 1 W1, of the pond. N I C. I lie city 8 naiv n loom 1S so ractinim for 0 - r '--' "-' ' e itirf'restoration stood' the nor!' early spring, The submitted plans show the pond slopes, being extended up to the elevation co the pall area of Buda 1. if me dev ax ' able tot lerq n- on the a I l ge a a the city b isgirmi I& native ---- -- vegt�latioll - nT v c tv wilt extend t Lie seedin - g area to dpe . jo , of the sing The pond slope shall be heavili, protected by the developer during grading and i Ounantu coils! rucfion� H easy silty and 11 layers or sin I Qnce shall he utilized to protect tire fieshi eeAbliSlung Tellico Stripes, i L: lieu i, 4 -10 1 11 the a W ace j a st N Vv of the Nks' corner Hul air?: 1 iij{; considerable, Trees vvorlb savine. The mininial arach-m— as shown on the submitted plans vviii moreulan likely requile !Lie removin in mose o vvAn sortie .1 mmirrial adjustment to the plaiting and possibly inctirporadon ol'a soled ictainin`� E fvao, Tins clurnp o� it call bt savvd. (-m the revillicu tnalfim" iari� nolv Ow .- pi CXtC111 Of the LiVe line and revise the gradma olan to iav-c as a cnv Of these t zth p(3Swal }l e. I I . Retainuot over 4-feet in height vsquLre a buildinL� fiction water roa[W, L, fil 12, N { a connection To the existing public, sanitary sewer main in County Road D will tie permnied, The sire tvas provided access to The sanitary sewer at tile SOULneliv end of the site. Revise the sanitary sewer flesh) n wutilize i tie in-place sanitary sewer stub located near the southerly drive, I Li. Coordinate design and construction 01'sh P"Ohe and private water mains isim, St, Paul Regional Water Services, (SPRNVS)r Provide the necessary water main casements, I . raffic 1 private c connection to the Ven'bure"'Guldelle Frontage Road is too close to the intersection with County Road D. Revise the design to move the intersection Ofthe private drive further to the south and/or revise me design to provide a fight-turn-only exit from the east end of the private drive at the v QnOte'g/riuldens Frontage Road'. Afso, the private "rive is cut rantiv to be encroachnin within the 15-foot setback of the right-of-way. "'llseella neous 15. Before revisions are made to the plans, the applicant's engineer shall arrange a skedgm construct ion coordination meeting with Curia Craven, Assistant rity Engineer [651 "44 -t40i) and Nick Landwer, (612-373-6500), URS Riwject N—lanager of the County Road D Realignment West project, 1 6 The applicant shall sign a rhwelnDeCs agreement with the city for construction ot. a. Water main construction between the south drive and the Duluth St, stub o, 'frail Constructions a, Easement dedications for: Trails, Storm sewer and Watermain d, Native Turf Establishment adjacent tothe ponds, 17. Submit plans to the Ramsey Washington %Nhetro Watershed District for review 1 18, Ai this firuethe env bse no pleats vtn, ' r landscaping the pon(fing areas, otherlhall 0 t TO I to plant a Jew trees and shrubs H'the applicant v they are encourriawd to their huitis- e asement o�'d exien(l I -aping Into 1hQ eafsen L tic north and sorrin ponds, io tit the pi landscaping plan fc)r the der eic)pineiit, Ant landscaping in IIIQ polo I i or: wiro liippropleir, trauve nuQs anssnjttb,ti unri shall be applOVell by` the city ennincer, The fia-fivu svedimi shall be protected M Attaclu.qent 14 February 8, 2005 1 ��l 1 243 DUL i­i, = - M'A2L _'vf\55 I D9- DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL — HERITAGE SQUARE 4 ADDITION I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by February 19, 2005, If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a, m, and 4:30 p.m. You can also email me at tom.ekstrand ci.maolewood.mn.us. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideration____ __\ TOM EKSTRAND SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Written Proposal 2, Location Map 3, Site Plan 4, Building Unit Summary 5. Building Design 6. Site A Landscaping Plan T Landscaping Materials List I have no comments: OFFICE OF COMNUNITA DEVELOPMENT ---------- E et TT r �0 0 CiTy OF N API -rWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD E n EIA MAPLEWOOD, WIN 53109 W February 8, 2005 NFII� 1-11" . � R NE"u UPOwRR ?9' 6 .. I'-P'- ;V N 53")-5 ;j I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by February 19, 2005, Enclosures: 1. Applicants Written P ro p osa l 2, Location Map 3, Site Plan 4, Building Unit Summary 5. Building Design 6. Site & Landscaping Plan 7, Landscaping Materials List I have no comments: 17F.2 -/ 7 Z33j;i CITY 04� MAPLtZWOOD '830 COUNTY ROAD IS EAST 29 FAX: 65 MAPLEWOOD, NIN Tuesday, February 15, 2005 TomEirstraod SeniorPfannsr Office o{ Community Development 1B3O East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota, 551U9 Re: Proposed Development behind Duluth Street |8Maplewood Dear Mr, Ekmtmxnd: I am in the owner of a new home at 2y94 Duluth Street, Maplewood, Minnesota, abutting the proposed development of town homes and apartments. The follow constitutes nn9objections tU the proposed townhouse development as requested: The density ofthe proposed town house development should bm reconsidered as it will overpopulate and congest the area, 2. The developer should landscape and maintain the entire buonun the west side of the property. ~"' uc John ughter, Jr Owrosr c'��\^��) Im February 8, 2005 C F �V' NO KH S7 NLAPLZX�00D, M\ - 55!'_)3­5';'31 I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by February 19, 2005. If you would like further information, please call me at 651-249-2302 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. You can also small me at tom.e strar16 ciTna lewood mn pe. I will send you notices of the public hearing on this r equest when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful consideratiorr,-' TOM EKSTRAND SENIOR PLANNER T. Landscaping Materials List OFFICE OF COW-MUN(TYIDEVELOPMENY 6.9 1 -249-2300 CITY 05 MAi'LEWOOD 85O COUNTY ROAD A ST __ I FAX: 651-249-2319 NIAPLEWOOO, MN 55� ON.; a I have no comments: PEB 1 7 2005 Februavy 14, 2005 Dour Mr. Ekstrand, We would finq like to express that we are satisfied with the designed town borne proposal. We like the idea 01 four -sided architecture and undermousid parking so we do not have to stare at garages and/or backs of houses. We 'u, however have a few suggestions that we hope you take into consideration, Because of the underground parking garage, these buildings will be taller than a traditional rwo town home and therefor: taller than we had expected. o backyard will by facing one of the town home units and we would like to see th to evergreens planned to be planted between the single-family homes and the town homes to be a minimum of 8 feet tall. 2) We would like to s the landscaping and trees planned for alone 1� the division between the singl homes and the town homes to be planted as soon as possible. This would allow the trees to begin growing right away. It would also allow us to plan our own landscaping plan for our backyard so we can coordinate with the trees that will be immediately behind our home, 3) Because of the four -sided architecture, many of the fronts of the town homes will be facing the single-family homes. We would like to see the external lighting (front door and• or patio/sheck lighting) be recessed to reduce the amount of ligbt shining directly into our homes. Thank you for vour time, Sincerely, Kathy and Steve Ignagni 301 Duluth Street C� F V r. M February 8, 2005 M� I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by February 19, 2005. TOM EKSTRAND — SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1, A ' ppliraut's Written Proposal 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4• Building Unit Summary 5. Building Design 6. Site & Landscaping Plan 7, Landscaping Materials List I have no comments: OFFICZ OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 65 C1 TY OF c1- 1830 COUNTY ROAD..' 5 EAST FAX: 651 -2 A P L E VVO01 M N F.}31 C R w February 8, 2005 J CSEPH L r�Fj�A 1 - N ,�, DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL — HERITAGE SQUARE 4 ,ADDITION I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city Council, Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by February 19, 2005. ��� TOM EKSTRAND —SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Written Proposal 2, Location Map 3. site Plan 4, Building Unit Summary 5, Building Design 6, Site & Landscaping Plan 7. Landscaping Materials List I have no comments: e, try? View,y;l�r A&FAX�r ,/Nz�c /r , 4lu 4, Iry 'Oki rl , OFF:-Cc OF COMMUNITY DEVELc`,Mar4T CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1 830 COU NTY ROAD B Eksy "47'�11 71h�dArr ''G->L'!£(,fez FAX: 65 MAPLEWOOD, FAN 55109 34 February 8, 2005 NL�l IR'Y E 'D iL__N1 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL — HERITAGE SQUARE 4 ADDITION I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by February 19, 2005, Enclosures: 1 ° Applicant's Written Proposal 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4, Building Unit Summary 5. Building Design 6. Site A Landscaping Plan 7, Landscaping Materials List I have no comments-, FEB 1 4 2005 OF OF COMMUN'TY DEVELOP 7ke- rrAy . I Q_-�� �1 t Y Ljr I4'.-.AFLZ1,AooD I S30 COUN" ROAD C AST r2 . A PL E-WOOD, V, N 55 4 0- 35 V=LLER 125 2 -I'GH PU -7 NfA? M DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL — HERITAGE SQUARE O ADDITION I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council. Please to your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by February 19, 2005. TOM EKSTRAND — SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Written Proposal 2, Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Unit Summary 5, Building Design 6, Site A Landscaping Plan 7, Landscaping Materials List OFFICE OF COMMUNITY OCVELOPMENT 651-249-2300 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 83 0 COUNTY ROAD 8 EAsT FAX: F""•.51- 24D-2.3t MAPLEWOOD, MN S5 E I have no comments: February 8, 2005 H D D LC'T E=" N L�- -N 12 COUNTRY Cly ' MS` "- DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - HERITAGE SQUARE 4 ADDITION I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city council, Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by February 19, 2005. If you would like further information, Please call me at 651-249-2302 between B a.m. and 4:30 p.m, You can also email me at torn.eksfrnn Za ci maplewood mn us I will send you notices of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments. I will give them careful comdderafior ---- -\ TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER Enclosures: 1. Applicant's Written Proposal 2. Location Map 1 Site Plan 4, Building Unit Summary 5. Building Design 6, Site A Landscaping Plan 7, Landscaping Materials List I have no comments: Or`rsCE OF COMMUNITY OvNcLOFNIENT 60 -249-2300 AX: S,91 v A 2 L-ITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY R--An 5 EAST MAPL-EVVOOD, NIN 55 OR M Attach—ent 15 %J TOMN& RYHOMES vhnnesuw March 11, 2005 Re: Heritage Square 4th Addition — Variance Application Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Town & County Homes would like to request a variance to the 15ft, setback requirement from the new County Rd, D Right-Of-Way, Please find the Variance Application attached, along with exhibits of the areas in discussion. As you can see on the attached exhibits, our setbacks from County Road D vary between Oft. and 18ft,, for an average of 13.5ft. The majority of the setback between County Road D and the "parking street" for buildings 2 through 5 is 9ft. The required setback is 15ft. We request that the City approve the setbacks as shown on our current plans, 4 4. 38 We anticipate the following public hearing schedule for Heritage Square zi" Addition. Preliminary Plat @ CC 3/28/05 Variance Application @ PC 414105 Variance & Final Plat @ CC 5/9/05 Please contact me at 952.253.0474 with any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, Krista M. Novack Community Planning Manager Land Development IM Attachment 16 N1a-ch11,2U0 5 Citv CounoU�Olembe/sm[ the CiyoyNladleincod.IvIN— N1ynaroois0o||yLenz My husband. Jason, and 1 live at 3027 Dulutr Se livre t elore's Pi R|WQe, J:isroyunde/atmndinQ that 1hm[/tyCounti| has hner/mske8byTmwn&Co-in y Ionics 0z approve UI preliminary p|mtfnrthnRO'unitHoritmBe��u are 4" AdditonuntheTrnu1 Land Dmvm|oprne,d mlthe March 28,2U05Ofty<1 The kUmp|avvoudPimnn|n0Cornnnosionrnv|evvedLhup/n|in'|nary plat request et their mechnQonyNm/ch7 2005vvhioh|mttaodad The, c-rm|irninary pi-It am presences, was epp:mved a measure or 6&yes (Fisnher.PamrsonTripp|ar.Ah|nmms.Baftn/.LeMtu3 rays 'Ocoa.Oedch.G»ovm/) However, / feet that in, City Cnumxt,' should not take the roc0omnendmtiam from the &dardmvincwd Planning Commission and mtmaidnot apomrvsdhmprmlido/imxyp/at My loosens for this recommendat are 1, The calculated cfenairyuYthe proposed plat 2 Th�incuneoKmrnoun1c�d�nuM�/un�soa|cu��8���r�haTymutLanUDeva|oprnmnts�8m.aonunmn�y zonnd and p|onreedin the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan. � he ccliftsion that was caused by usinq the rvarra�t acrecce at the May 1T 2004 planning onmrniosimnmmetinQvvhm,mcunlnnendedthnrou,iu||approvotheohmngoin|andummtoR3Ko � |b��hk�t��y���OnJu|y12.2C04�hItCMy Council appncv*daneaV|udonanlmn6in8 the Napkaw/omd Comprehensive LondUaoP1a8fo[th|s0noAeiyfrornR1 Ising|o family raaidmmra|) and A1 (|iI ruanUfaidunrig) to R-M hoodlum density residents!) as they were presenteawirn a proposal f kte|cc Real Estate. Development for cove-kiding town homes oil this site IT rout Land Developmeripi I he City Council was asked to approve the chance for several reasons as stated |n the City Council minutes page 7 acted Juiy1Z.2804 The first 3 reasons gimanvvwrw 1 Thedevm|op:nwniwnold bmcnnslistentwrth the gca|uondpmiciaeof the comprehensive plan, 2 The proposed town homes would benonmimtentv/ith the city's po|ioe emforrnmd|umpdens1y rea|dentia|ummm.n/ncethmyvvuu|dcnaateatranwi0ona|landusabm8wemn--mrnnnern|a|propo/ty and single dvue||in8property 3� Tmm/nhomeavvmu|dbmcurnpmt|b|mxvththaobut"|ngtmunhoumsdo*o|oprnant, | spoke vvrhhkKr Tom 2Jkstrand, Senior Plarinerieth the Orty a] Maplewood, several times via a phore convensatiunmnTue*dmy March 08,2OO5. and reviewed the Town & Country docunnentation abuutthe preliminary plat, |t|srnyundamatand|ag that Town & Country is proposing ,o build $QV-unit town hours oornnmunitAAmUheoe are identified eatmm/nhoo/em.they*/ou|d be set - at m density ieS act acre porthu Conopnahmoeiva Lana Use Plan for G@0i(nnediunndensityresidwnUa|) Hmnn|nnnyf|st|saue.. How is the crass iicrreage- calculated for tne clevelopment? If you rsivs the Tovvn& '�'ountrydocurnentebontheys*atnthmttheQruaon|noaorua8oim11S1mcrenUs|ngtheTovrn& Coun unitm. well bm|c*v this 00 pre, cuseU F{nw/ower,/n$pmmk/ nit */|thrNr Ekstrend| vvmmhisunsormtmndingthatthe oa!@romaacreage furt-,aTruu LandQeve|0fiq-aitVV'OU|d|ninud-- zhePpo&oaoh lard <,i47mnres|m/hioh!a near ana' across Uae street oY |hmnevvu||0ned�ounty Road Dmnu nor indudwd|nTovvn& County 'sp/e/mm|anyp|atams/gn, TeePruNmmmhland, parif&n EkmAvan«y isa/oa--oite*/atR4pmXngne-faoo/�'rao/m/eoWellinmrR-Fomthe /andoeotnf Cmmnty/ZmadD and tNeprodcsedbmJdingimlse, Since the Fro6occh piece ioananedmn P/, they would ma(ybmallowed a density of3 units <,erma»s not 6 for a town home. /���hsP|ann/nQ[�omrnism/onn�amUnQnnMmo:h7.%O�5.(�i!yGtmffn��n�!mn�Uthot�hmrev o8rmmnnmn list slmiesihatmePnzkoachacreoQmvvnu|dbm�nc|uo��d|n the"Qross''m�r�mBa/*ftheTmuiLmnd[)ew|opnlent(|e., The Qeve|ommrAQrewnomn Hn��nv�C Pm0m1of3 M -aoed u stch Eror or 0 7 1 wrii s and ather,,'',oussions, the coo. rssion apj)rrvs- �hc n - i ecomme t - - wcjld i made a �-vffere n---, I believe, r, n i - ndat�ori of use to R3M, A� �O unit aisc -5SCUSE-OnS of'd itib,note C 'o !.`7e reocn-.rnenaato� erjcn r � i by I i i . - crnrnssion I didvcicc? nny COm3-�flj aT tri- Pilarol 7, 2905 P!arinir- Gox-, Inestrig, about this discre-an anc ti` - !°`2r 1A.1- - cc -ived after the i''ray . 17' meetin Also I askoci at the March 7 200 Planwrig Cornmission meeting to see a copy of th e "Ke: iorn he C " a-.raen and vvas said to iota. HavAwVer, SS I fOUnd cutor March 8, 2005 acie - i ieallY believe the Pianrung Commissior Isrould have 'Iever ati-rovital 'he pre] iminar ti lazatltheir rravanc if "ley would have known fhaTthis agreement d rot exist, Unfortunately the Planning cc rm issiOn did rel-ommend tre attibro✓al of the preii plat at their vlarct 7 - 4005 meefir-- by a vote of 6 to 3 . As i believe that a 4 fie Pral:innnary Plat should have no-, beer 510--noved, try aiternative is to prevent my saves t th Cit , -ounci I really feel that based upon the issues raised above; the Coy Council should not approve tre proposed Tons? & Country Prelortmary plat of 90 -units as the density is above the 71 allowed units per the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, In addition, I still be presenting the City Council with a petition signed by many residents of Higitswilart Ridge and Duluth Street that concur with my conclusion- I thank each of you to lour trine and ccinsidera'fon 1 am planning on a%oerfdina the March -fyi' SI Count il meeting. However if you hane any q uestions co l ci - a -a, please feel free to contact me i n di cirectly Sincerely, Kelly Lenz 530 27 Duiuth Street 651 771,a453 inapleavood Planning Commission Members pace 3 '2 � U Is march 1Y, 2005 AtbanheJ You vW|:fndahele7 dated &Yarohi1.203��ho�|�wntvionm�a|�owachmytheC,tvCouncil KjndRm0arde. Kell v Le, z Pane I o I' I Attachment 17 To Ekstrand From: KrauzFam@aol,corn Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 9:28 AM To: Torn Ekstrand Subject: Heritage Sq 4th Cando Project Variance Request Tom: We received the Public Hearing Notice yesterday for the Planning Commission meeting on April 4 to consider the setback variance request for the Heritage Condominium project, We have reviewed the layout drawings showing the areas in front of buildings 1,2,3,4 and 5 where the variance is being requested. We are opposed to the granting of these variances. Our primary concerns are: Traffic Congestion - If we assume there are two vehicles for each unit (there could be more for 2 and 3 bedroom units), there will be 180 additional vehicles each day entering and exiting new County D The new auto dealerships an the east side of D, will also be feeding many vehicles onto the D right of way. There wilt be backups at most intersections Safety of Pedestrians and Drivers - The full 15 feet setback required by the city code will be needed to protect pedestrians walking on the sidewalk on the west side of D in this area. Some of these Pedestrians will be coming from trail extension under the powerline and pipeline land. The visibility along this winding and sloping section of 0 will be challenging for drivers. The 35 mile per hour proposed speed, especially as drivers are rising up and over the pipeline high point, will be problematic. This is very near the undivided section of D allowing access to the large 1 a unit condo. Inadequate Onsite parking For Condo Visitors - There are only 7onsite parking spaces shown for the 18 unit building. Since traffic from this building feeds directly onto D, there is no place for visitors and any excess vehicles from the 2 and 3 unit condos to park safety. This 18 unit building is cloddy too big for the site. It should be reduced in size. It appears buildings 2,3,4 and 5 only have 25 onsite spaces for their 48 units, Any kind of holiday or other party at these units will surely result in inadequate parking. We believe the size of each of these units should be reduced . Thankyou for your consideration, 03 ON I 21 PREJAMI-NARY PLAT- HIGHWOOD FA'Kk'M 1�11 Mill 14, I .. ........ =r7u. a t .. . . . . . . . . ff fry I Err =r7u. a RECEIV ;; 'MAY 2 0 200 _ __... Mr n r f3r.ac n,t ; r _ .._ _.... i _ jlj 2; ( t t n }}' ` i -r !• �'�,� h ". t t t ^- �1 g f �: i�i ""' V , __ -L'F' '�' + .. + i n N .x-7 f � I �� �R�. t t �. �_ c✓ I im � ° u q r V ', Wr �t 1. I 4 f 1 Yf t C \ L s � t .. t t x �i f '� e i to • v ( by f I {� J vi µ t ' z=: y �. `� ' • �-! "i 7 t y I �� �1 ' fff� x?✓ m - }}. f_. nz�� {- �j,��, �• `E "�1'�!j y m -L ls' t { tit LO 0 vw —w met SS 1 } � N N 4 •4 t � I t � i I �k f tn: ERO£ln�g4 E�3MFMT 4CStE5. �o . __.. _ ......_ .._..... __._......__ r .: ,. ...... Attachment 20 OVERVIEW PRELMNIAR Y PLA T GRA-DLVG P I ss ME Egg Of PROPOSED GRADING PLAN m t ffil ELI ss ME Egg Of PROPOSED GRADING PLAN m OVERVIEW TOWNHOMES SITE xa CN co co TROUT LAND u. MOy Af ilfm,'-'��"ss -fji' # 1 7 T _­ nr Ir7 Won J '? its j - woo ply Ir" zo :inn To Thl wom. P,4fc cp'o' too I _0 DIUet 1_4 7,;v tt Is _@LCEIVED Now s"TE 2 1 ZUDA WHEREAS, Town and Country Homes applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the proposed townhome development site west of the future County Road D Extension. The legal description is: LOT 8, BLOCK 1, HERITAGE SQUARE 4 TH ADDITION WHEREAS, Section 44-20(C) (5) (a) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that parking lots be set back at least 15 feet from a street right-of-way- WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a ten-foot front setback. WHEREAS. this requires a variance of five feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: On April 4, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The City Council held a public meeting on April 25, 2005. The council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council _ this variance request, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above- described variance for the following reasons: (1) Complying with the 15-foot parking lot/driveway setback code would cause the applicant undue hardship due to the narrow shape of the site which makes setback compliance difficult. (2) Relocating the parking lots, frontage drive and buildings to the west would require additional grading and slope stabilization and would impact the neighbors by reducing the building setback to the west. (3) The variance would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there would still be adequate area to plant trees between the driveway curbing and the front lot line. The reduced setback would also not be visually noticeable. Approval of this variance is conditioned upon the applicant providing a 10 -foot pavement setback in order to stay off of the required 10-foot-wide utility easement. As required previously, the applicant must also provide at least nine visitor parking spaces for the northerly building. Adopted on April 25, 2005, Im MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005 V. PUBLIC HEARING b. Heritage Square Fourth Addition (County Road D, west of Highway 61) (7:33 -10:30 p.m.) Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner, said Town and Country Homes has requested a new subdivision plat for part of Lot 1, Block 5, Frattalone's Highpoint Ridge. The developer is proposing to plat 7 lots for condominium construction and one common lot surrounding the 7 lots occupied by the condominiums. Ninety units are proposed for the parcel. Commissioner Dierich said she really likes this design. This is not an easy site to work with and she likes the layout of the buildings because it gives the least amount of view into each others' windows. She asked what the maximum number of units were that could be built on this site if this was zoned R -3(M)? Mr. Roberts said he thought it was 92 units. Commissioner Dierich asked if it would be higher than 92 units for R -3(M) for apartments? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Dierich asked what the density would be without the power line in the picture? Mr. Thorvig said either 9 or 10 units per acre. Commissioner Dierich asked how this compared to the New Century development? Mr. Roberts said he doesn't have an exact number but he believed this development would be very similar. Commissioner Dierich said she likes the underground garages and believes it's worth losing a little bit of site line. She believes the neighborhood will benefit from having townhomes in this area. She has this same mix of single - family residential and townhomes in her south Maplewood neighborhood and there haven't been any troubles with traffic or access and these units will be farther away from the single - family homes than where she lives because the townhomes are right across the street. She commends the developer for the job they did given the topography. Commissioner Bartol thinks this is a great design and isn't bothered by the askew angles of the buildings. It would do the site a disservice to align the homes parallel. Commissioner Bartol said furthermore, the additional information relative to the setback would cause further challenges. He asked if the city defines the setback as horizontal or could it be vertical. He asked given the nature of this site, could there be a large retaining wall along the frontage road or driveway that offsets it four to five feet from County Road D but in a vertical direction as opposed to horizontal. Mr. Thorvig said setbacks are measured horizontal. Commissioner Trippler asked where the drainage for the south part of this site would go. Mr. Thorvig said the drainage goes into the regional collection system to the south which was discussed at the February 23, 2005, planning commission meeting regarding the Trout Land Auto dealerships proposed to be located on this site. Commissioner Trippler said that regional collection system is not located on any of the maps in the report. Mr. Roberts said the collection system is located behind the Maplewood Toyota service shop south of the site. Commissioner Bartol said there are very low points behind buildings six and seven and he sees that as a huge pond of water and /or ice. Erin Laberee, Maplewood Staff Engineer, addressed the commission. She said there would be a ditch behind units six and seven that would drain to the south. Commissioner Trippler has concerns about the 30 foot drop off at the north edge of building one and thinks someone could fall into the pond. He asked if there was a way to move the building or to fill the area to protect people from falling off the drop off and he would recommend the developer do that. Mr. Thorvig said he would let the developer speak regarding that when he has the opportunity to come forward. Mr. Roberts said he didn't think the building could be moved to the south because of the minimum pipeline setback requirement of 100 feet. A fence could be put in along the top of the slope outside the sidewalk to prevent a person from tumbling down the slope. Commissioner Trippler said when the proposal came before the commission to realign County Road D he had many concerns regarding the traffic and still has concerns about the traffic in this area. He envisions disastrous traffic tie ups for cars trying to turn into the first driveway. Between the edge of Highway 61 and this turn only measures about 320 feet which means 20 cars could get backed up trying to turn in here. There will be 70 condominium units in this particular area and two commercial establishments using this road. You will have people trying to get into the car dealerships and miscellaneous drivers using County Road D and this area is going to be a disaster waiting to happen. The turn lane will handle about four cars, so imagine trying to make a left hand turn during rush hour, you can't see more than 150 feet up the hill before the road turns and then you can't see cars anymore. This is going to be an insurance nightmare and he predicts nothing but problems. Commissioner Trippler said at the very least you should either require the residents who will live in these condominium units to go to the north end to get out onto County Road D to alleviate some of the problems at the sharp corner at County Road D or use signage to direct traffic in and out. Commissioner Trippler said he isn't sure people will follow the direction or read the sign, but it may help. As an example, Rainbow Foods in the Mapleridge Shopping Center has a 'no left turn' sign onto White Bear Avenue. The no left turn sign exists because of the traffic tie ups and accidents, but drivers choose to ignore the sign anyway. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if engineering had any comments on the potential for traffic problems? Ms. Laberee said Chris Cavett, Maplewood Engineer, reviewed this plan and noted the same issues with the entrance located here and his recommendation was to either move the entrance further from County Road D or to sign the entrance with a right turn only' in and out from the east to the private drive. Commissioner Desai recalled the meeting last year regarding the approval for 78 units that was a staff error and later was approved by the city council for 90 units for this development. However, he doesn't recall anyone explaining that the right of way, pipeline and power line easement would be included in the calculation and that nothing would be built there. Now he sees the developer trying to squeeze 90 units into a smaller space than what it was originally but at the same time counting the space as part of the R -3 zoning and saying it meets the requirements and he is concerned about this. He has concerns regarding the drainage in the area because the space below this development consists of asphalt for the commercial properties. He lives in this area and throughout the winter he sees a lot of snow being dumped into the holding pond so he isn't clear how the drainage problem would work out. Mr. Thorvig showed the commission the area on the map where a holding pond would be located to hold a 100 -year rain. Chairperson Fischer asked if there would be a separate review by the CDRB for the building design features and landscaping? Mr. Thorvig said he would be presenting this item tomorrow evening to the CDRB. Commissioner Ahlness asked what guidance the city gives to developers when looking at the design of the detention ponds? Ms. Laberee said generally the city recommends a 3 to 1 slope. The pond shown on the plans is an existing pond that has been graded already and the developer is tying into existing pond slopes which look to be 2 to 1 slopes. She is unsure of the condition of the pond or why the 2 to 1 slope is being used. Commissioner Ahlness asked regarding the pedestrian access, whatwas the purpose of the pedestrian access, was it to provide a convenience for people to get down to the future bank and convenience store location? Mr. Thorvig said there are maximum lengths for blocks in subdivisions and this has no street from Beam Avenue all the way up to County Road D. This is a standard practice. If you can't have a street you should at least have a pedestrian way so people don't have to walk all the way around the development to get between the neighborhoods or businesses. Commissioner Ahlness said he would be interested in the neighborhood's feedback regarding this access. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to explain to the newer commissioners how staff calculates the density in developments and how ponds and things are included in the density calculation. Mr. Roberts said city staff looks at the gross acreage of the site, including ponding areas, easement areas such as pipelines and power lines that set the maximum density. It's up to the builder or developer to fit the buildings on a site like this and if they can't, they can't. The city practice has been for 20 or 30 years to go by "gross acreage' and not 'net acreage' and that is why the developer gets the benefit of the ponding area, pipeline and power line easement when calculating density. Commissioner Bartol asked if there was an alternative exit through Guldens Restaurant and Venburg Tire? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Bartol said he thinks people will cut through the Gulden's and Venburg Tire parking lot frontage road and wind their way through the community. It may be safest if it eliminates a left hand turn but how would those commercial property owners feel about that? He asked what the street control on Highway 61 and the frontage road is? Mr. Thorvig asked city staff how the service road meanders through the car dealerships to the south? Mr. Roberts said the frontage road system is going to be installed as part of the new County Road D and the access layout for that was all negotiated with the Gulden's and Venburg Tire owners as part of the new County Road D alignment and they were always aware there was going to be residential properties built in this area. The common driveway was going to be shared by the new residents and businesses. This intersection was designed for that as part of the County Road D project and the frontage road was redone for the benefit of Guldens and Venburg Tire. Commissioner Bartol asked if there was direct access to Guldens Restaurant from Highway 61? Mr. Roberts said there is access from Highway 61 but he believed that access would be eliminated when the new County Road D is complete. Commissioner Trippler asked if you can get to LaMettry's from Highway 61? Mr. Roberts said LaMettry's and the Toyota shop share an entrance off Highway 61 which is a right turn in and right turn out and would remain in place. Commissioner Trippler asked if there is access from LaMettry's and the Toyota shop to get to Guldens or Venburg Tire? Mr. Roberts said as part of the new County Road D there will be access as part of the frontage road. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development for Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie, addressed the commission. He said Heritage Square Fourth Addition would consist of 90 condominium units builtwith the Regency style home and would have 1,600 to 1,800 square feet. The recent zoning that was approved was for 91 units and they are proposing 90 units. The units range from 1 bedroom, 1' /z baths to 3 bedrooms, 2' /z baths and each unit would have two underground private garage spaces with separate garage doors and private entries to their home. Their market study has found there is sufficient demand and minimal supply for this type of product. These homes will be priced from the mid to high $200,000s and are comparable to their Majestic project, although they are offering more options so the price could be upwards of $300,000. The challenge will be with the topography of the site. There is an existing pond on the site not shown on the plans that has been there for a long time but he's not sure how old the pond is. There have been a lot of studies done on this property regarding storm water management, grading, setbacks, elevation of the product and utilities to service them. Mr. Clark said Town & Country Homes chose the Regency collection for its underground parking which allows them to reduce the amount of street coverage and increase the amount of green space or open space on the site. The focus is to provide buffering between the new homes and the existing neighborhood to the west. The Regency design has four -sided architecture that presents an attractive and aesthetic fagade on all four sides of the building so no matter where the building is oriented on the property it has a nice architectural look. The homes are interconnected by a system of concrete sidewalks that connect to the public right of way either by a walk or connecting to the trail on County Road D. Mr. Clark said they are willing to construct trail number 2 leading to Sunset Ridge Park as described in Mr. Cavett`s memo but feel to construct trail number 1 as shown in his memo would be very difficult due to the grade and the need to build switch backs and retaining walls and feel it would not meet ADA standards. Because of these reasons they would prefer not to be required to build trail number 1, however, they are willing to work with staff regarding the trail issue. Mr. Clark said regarding the location of the frontage road and its relationship to County Road D and the right of way, this came at the very last minute and they have been working with staff and the seller understanding all the constraints and items addressed in earlier proposals. Mr. Clark said earlier conversations pointed them in the direction regarding the setback that they had flexibility in that area and the requirement for the setback from the right of way was never part of the equation. Granted maybe they should've researched that better but unfortunately it went unnoticed until Town & Country Homes received the staff report late last week and now have the chance to respond to this issue. The setback is 15 feet and they are currently at 10+ feet. Mr. Clark said for the greater public good and benefit of the neighborhood to the rear, the four or five feet that is the issue is probably a better benefit to the west than it would be to accomplish a small segment of green space between the right of way and the proposed parking drive. Mr. Clark said moving the drive to the west five feet raises the buildings. If they move the buildings to the west they create more steps and more retaining wall and more inefficient and challenging storm water management. A lot of things would change and not improve the site. They have arrived at a very workable and attractive site. He is asking if the commission could consider any approval contingent upon them working through a variance process. Town & Country Homes feels they can come to some sort of an agreement with city staff and the engineers. He said they would be able to provide a soils report for the building department. They had a neighborhood meeting on January 24, 2005, and there was both positive neighborhood feedback as well as neighborhood concerns regarding density, traffic and the buildings in general. Commissioner Trippler asked if they had a traffic consultant look at the potential traffic problem with this site? Mr. Clark said they didn't. Regarding Commissioner Trippler`s earlier question about the left turn lane onto Venburg Drive, they talked to engineering and are proposing to make that a right in and right out only and will sign that area accordingly and direct traffic in their sales literature to the buyers stating the predominant entrance and exit would be from the northerly entrance to the private drive. Regarding the use of the drive, earlier discussions had evolved where there is a reciprocal easement agreement between all the property owners that will use the private drive. Because of the reciprocal easement agreement, they are all partners for the road and its maintenance. Commissioner Trippler asked if he understood that they would be building the trail along the power line easement area and if they would have some type of a connecting sidewalk from the northern trail down to the south end or was Mr. Clark saying there wasn't enough space to do that. Mr. Clark said the trail under the city's contract would go along the west boundary of County Road D and their trail would connect to the west as proposed in their plan. The southern trail is something they would prefer not to build. Commissioner Trippler said he understands Town & Country Homes feel the southern trail is impractical to build. He looked on the diagram for a trail that went along the west side of County Road D but he wasn't able to see one. Mr. Thorvig said the map shows a sidewalk right along the west edge of the new County Road D and that is the trail connection. Commissioner Desai asked if the northern most trail is going to connect up to Duluth Street. Mr. Clark showed how the trails would connect on the map. Chairperson Fischer asked any neighbors that wanted to address the commission to come forward, give their name and address and sign in for the record. The following people spoke during the public hearing for the Heritage Square Fourth Addition proposal to build 90 condominium units. 1. Joyce Lambert, 2986 Duluth Street, Maplewood Ms. Lambert said she's in front of the planning commission again with some of the same concerns that she brought here a year ago. At that time they discussed a concept plan which included an apartment building and townhomes and the residents in the Highridge Court townhomes were against an apartment building being built there. At that point itwas approved for 71 units based on the acreage. Two months after the planning commission meeting the neighbors received a letter from Tom Ekstrand stating there had been an error in calculating the number of units and that the developer could now build 91 units rather than the 71 units as was originally approved by the planning commission. Now the developer wants to cram 90 units onto the same size of land and she feels this is ridiculous. The view she once had is now gone. She appreciates that the planning commission thinks this is going to be a nice development, however, now she gets to look into the windows of these buildings instead of looking at the view she used to have. The buildings are going to be positioned so the people living in the condominiums don't look into each others` windows but now instead she gets to look into their windows and at the rooftops. She knows there are grading problems and that drainage is a huge problem. She has seen rain storms that have wiped out that whole area and she isn't sure but she doesn't believe that one pond can handle the drainage. She has concerns going back to the realignment of County Road D. She is starting to wonder if there is a conspiracy theory here. The County Road D realignment was supposed to be built to alleviate the traffic on Highway 61 and now the commission is talking about the concerns with traffic on County Road D. Wasn't that supposed to alleviate traffic on Highway 61 and people were supposed to use County Road D to get to Maplewood Mall? This whole area has been proposed in bits and pieces and you couldn't get the big picture of how it would end up so it has been hard to know how this whole thing would end up. She isn't happy to see how it's going so far. She doesn't know what the tax base would be for these condominium units but she pays a lot of taxes in Maplewood herself and isn't happy she will have to look into someone else's windows. She's frustrated to see how this was planned out cramming 90 housing units in this amount of land and feels her neighborhood is being crowded out. Ms. Lambert said she expected development when she moved here 10 years ago. It's a matter of how it happened and how they want to get more and more housing units and buildings in a small space. Because the land is very challenging to build on the developer is using the height of the buildings to get more housing units and the height of the building is what she has a problem with. There is no good solution and she understands that, but it seems like they are cramming too many units in a small amount of space and are going to create traffic problems. She doesn't think building the southern trail makes any sense. It also makes no sense to put steps in just so people can walk to Duluth Street because you are going nowhere. 2. Tony Valento, 2978 Duluth Street, Maplewood He lives next door to Joyce Lampert at 2986 Duluth Street. He has lived in this home since June 2004 and he is concerned about the density, the elevation and the proximity of Town & Country Homes proposed residential development. He sent his concerns regarding this development as well as the commercial developments in a letter to Tom Ekstrand dated January 30, 2005, (not included in the staff report). (Tony Valento continued) He knows the city council previously approved 91 units. In the report the developer refers to these dwellings as townhouses and in the Webster dictionary a townhouse is defined as a single family house with two or three stories usually connected to a similar house with a common side wall. A condominium is defined as individual ownership in a multi -unit structure such as an apartment building. This proposal consists of 6 buildings of 12 units and 1 building of 18 units. In his opinion this sounds like 7 apartment buildings with 90 units. That is cramming too many units in too small of land. The underground parking garage increases the height of the units. He attended the informational meeting on January 24, 2005, and at that time they were talking about a 35 foot elevation. Today his view from his deck is rolling hills, Venburg Tire, Guldens, and Highway 61 and now his view is going to be the broad side of an apartment building. He understands there are standard setbacks from property lines and it was his understanding that setbacks vary based on the square footage of the site of the building facing the property line. It was his understanding that there would be variances requested but he recently heard conversations that leads him to believe otherwise. If that is true, given his concerns about the density and the elevation over the development, you can imagine how he feels to have an apartment building even closer to his property line than the standard setback would require. He understands in July 2004 there was a change in the zoning of the property from single family residential and light manufacturing to medium density residential. According to what he read at that time that the proposed townhomes would be compatible with the abutting townhouse development which is the Highridge Court townhomes composed of 36 townhomes or twin homes, which is a very nice development. He walked the neighborhood and spoke to his neighbors about the proposal and was surprised by some of the things he heard. He heard the price of the proposed townhomes was to be about $350,000. The neighbors were surprised and disappointed when they heard about the $250,000 price that was mentioned at the January 24, 2005, informational meeting. His home is an investment and is valued at over $600,000 and he doesn't like the idea of a $250,000 condominium next door to his house. He is concerned about the variances requested for the car lots going from a 350 foot setback to a 167 to 169 foot setback and causes him further concern about the market value of these condominium units. He is concerned about a ripple effect with the houses in his neighborhood and across Carey Heights Drive. The current residents aren't necessarily being considered in the development of this area. He thinks the developer is trying to cram too much into too little land. 3. Bob Kranz, 1264 Highridge Court, Maplewood He was at the planning commission meeting last year and the neighbors said they did not want an apartment building on this site. He had the memo dated May 28, 2004, from Tom Ekstrand, which followed the planning commission meeting. The letter stated the density had to be changed from the planning commission meeting when 71 units were approved. After the meeting Mr. Ekstrand stated an error was made in the calculation for housing units when it was calculated for 'net acreage not the 'gross acreage like it should have been. The net acreage comparison was 11.86 acres and the gross acreage is 15.38 acres. This is quite a difference in housing units. He is disappointed that the Prokosch home site, power line easement, ponding area etc. have been included in the gross acreage. He assumed when the Prokoschs either pass on or move away the Prokosch land could not be developed since it had already been used in the density calculation. 4. Elena Makhonina, 3042 Duluth Street, Maplewood Ms. Makhonina said she was at last year's planning commission meeting when the zoning was changed from commercial to residential zoning. She had the letterfrom Tom Ekstrand as well. She asked for clarification of what the difference was in zoning classifications. She said she is here to support her neighbors and the neighborhood and she is not happy their neighborhood will be overlooking this number of condominium units. 5. Cindy Kranz, 1264 Highridge Court, Maplewood Ms. Kranz said she lives behind the proposed 18 unit condominium building. Ms. Kranz asked what the acreage of the Prokosch home site was. (Mr. Roberts wasn't sure off hand.) She said let's assume the property is 3 to 4 acres in size. It is on the other side of the new County Road D yet the land is being used in this recommendation to come up to the 15.38 acres and the density is based on land across the way which Mr. Roberts said somebody else will probably develop so there is a possibility that the land could be changed to commercial property. The calculation is screwy to her and if you look at the map you will realize this is the wrong calculation. If the developer can't make this work with 71 units then the developer paid too much money and that is not the surrounding residents' problem. She believes this shows the city can double dip so to speak when calculating the density of the land. Commissioner Grover said there must be an error on the staff report because there are conflicting numbers shown. Page 2 of the staff report states 11.91 acres for the site size with 7.6 units per acre. The applicant's project narrative states 12.2 acres with 7.6 gross density. But then the residents have just stated 15.38 acres. Which is correct and does it ordoes it not include the Prokosch property? Mr. Thorvig said he and Tom Ekstrand traded e -mails on February 22, 2005, concerning this issue. Mr. Thorvig did the calculation based on the 11.91 acres from the applicant's submittals. There is also a 15.38 acre number floating around including the Prokosch property. Mr. Ekstrand responded to Mr. Thorvig that the history on density is the applicant is allowed up to 91 units based on the gross acreage calculations. Mr. Ekstrand"s e-mail response was 15.38 acres including the County Road D right of way as well as the home of the Prokoschs until they move to another type of housing. Mr. Thorvig said this is a result of lot of negotiations with Kelco. However, their actual site is less now but that was part of the agreement that the city was handed. The discrepancy is in what the actual size of the site is versus what the size was that they calculated the density on and apparently there was more land somehow that was part of the agreement with Kelco and the city. Commissioner Desai said according to the figures on page 14 of the staff report the applicant has stated 12.2 gross acres at 7.6 homes per acre. If that is correct that equals 11.91 acres without the Prokosch property so the applicant is already meeting the density without the Prokosch property. That means the Prokosch property can be developed down the road when they have moved on. Commissioner Dierich asked if the staff error in the acreage was made and then corrected before or after the city council acted on this proposal? The planning commission made their approval for 78 units and she is wondering if city council based their decision on the planning commission's recommendation of 78 units as proposed orat 90 units after the numbers were corrected by staff when they realized they made the error? That makes a difference legally where the city stands. Mr. Roberts said he understood that after last year's planning commission meeting, the city council agreed to allow medium density residential for this site. Then the number of units is based on the acreage. Including the Prokosch property it comes to 15.38 acres. This site is about 12.2 acres so that means the Prokosch property is about 3.3 acres. It is his understanding with Trout Land and Kelco that the agreement included the right of way and the Prokosch property and could have up to 92 units which is consistent with medium density. This will all be clarified before this goes to the city council. Chairperson Fischer said this is not showing some of the land which was used in the calculation to determine the number of units. Mr. Roberts said the density and the number of units was never a question in staffs mind. They feel the applicant is meeting everything that the city council approved last year. Commissioner Dierich said even without the Prokosch property, according to page 32 of the comprehensive plan she calculates 7 X 12= 84 units. If you go to the table on page 33 of the comprehensive plan it equals 72 units and that is a far cry from 90 units that the applicant is asking for. According to the comprehensive plan those numbers don't meet the density requirements even if the Prokosch property isn't counted. Mr. Roberts said according to the table on page 33 of the comprehensive plan, those numbers are calculated to the apartment category and not according to the townhouse category because they are larger buildings and do not have individual property lines under the individual units. The city does not have aline for condominiums in the comprehensive plan. Then you have to look at the density similar to the apartments, then there is one line for buildings with 10 -18 units for medium density and then it goes up to 7 units per acre. Commissioner Trippler said the problem with the staff report is there is wrong information on site size and density. Site size should be 15.38 acres and density should be 7 units but if those things are corrected then 90 units is within the criteria. If 15.38 acres is wrong then the city has a problem with the numbers. Mr. Thorvig said the site plan does not include the Prokosch property but somewhere in the negotiations concerning the road a deal or agreement was struck that the applicant was entitled to 91 units on this site. The applicant came in with the request for 90 units and that is what the planning commission sees. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what verbiage the commission could use to prevent the Prokosch land that is not included in this from further development in the future due to the fact that the development rights have been included in the computation for this site already. Mr. Clark said the Prokosch property is not part of this proposal so it is not fair to Town & Country Homes to have that agreement attached to it. They asked the typical questions like what the zoning was, the density, and what the comprehensive plan showed. The response was city council approved this land for 91 units and that was the total zoning and that is maybe why it doesn't fit in with the tables in the comprehensive plan. This has been a piece of a larger picture and the city council arrived at 91 units. He is not sure how the planning commission should establish verbiage stating this piece of property is approved based on the fact that the Prokosch property cannot be developed upon in the future. Mr. Roberts said he doesn't have the file from last year in front of him and because Tom Ekstrand could not be here tonight, staff is short handed for information to give the history of what occurred. Staff will get this all clarified before it goes to the city council. These concerns will be recorded in the minutes for the city council to read. 6. Kelly Lenz, 3027 Duluth Street, Maplewood Her issue is the letter from Tom Ekstrand from May 28, 2004. The letter said when this went to the planning commission it was discussed and voted on approving 78 units and then she received the letter stating city council approved 91 housing units. Her question is what went to the city council, the numbers that were approved by the planning commission or the numbers that were changed by Tom Ekstrand? There was no discussion or public meeting stating the zoning had been changed from 78 units to 91 units. She asked if the neighbors are going to get another letter stating the 91 units was also incorrect and then not hold a meeting to discuss this again? She has been waiting for another public hearing to discuss this further and there has not been another meeting until now. She asked the planning commission if they would have approved 91 units if they knew the density was calculated incorrectly? She didn't believe they would but because this decision has already been made by the city council everyone has to go along with it. Her issue is the high density and the potential for high traffic in the area. If the traffic is too high on the new County Road D people will drive through Walter Street and onto Beam Avenue and that area is already backed up with the stop lights. She wants to make sure that with this change in density and all these units having cars driving through the area, to make sure these cars aren't going to get backed up and try to take whatever shortcut they can to get out of the area. She said people keep talking about the Kelco and Prokosch agreement and she would like to see that document. She will call Tom Ekstrand for a copy of this agreement. Commissioner Trippler said when this concept plan came before the planning commission they were looking at R -3(H) zoning which would have allowed around 170 plus units in the development. The commission thought that was too many units so the commission recommended to the city council R -3(M) zoning and they were given an acreage that was calculated incorrectly by city staff using the net acreage instead of gross acreage' When staff realized they made an error, staff modified the number of units that were allowed. The commission doesn't have control over what that number is because it is already laid out in the comprehensive plan. The planning commission is only an advisory board that makes a recommendation to the city council and the city council makes the final decision. Commissioner Grover said the problem is unclear when the city council made the decision to approve the 91 units. Did it happen when the city council received the planning commission's recommendation for 78 units under the net acreage or did they take the recommendation from the planning commission after staff realized they made an error and staff changed the acreage to gross acreage with 91 units? Mr. Roberts said the city council made their decision in July 2004 so it must have been after staff realized the error in the report. Mr. Roberts said he wanted to clarify something that Dale Trippler said earlier that the commission's action was based on the medium density standard and that was for the land use and not based on the number of units but as a type of use that would go there. The change in acreage is what changed the number of units, not the type of land use. Commissioner Dierich said she knows the planning commission members were not thinking along the line of apartment buildings being put in this development. More than the issue of the acreage is that the commission wanted townhomes, twin homes, or condominiums. They did not want apartment buildings, but it appears that staff did the calculation based on apartment buildings rather than townhomes. There is a hole in the density requirements in the comprehensive plan that doesn't account for condominiums. Mr. Roberts said there are density requirements forapartments, townhomes and twin homes but not for condominiums. But even after doing the calculation based on apartments it comes out to be around 90 units. For these to be categorized as townhomes all the developer would have to do is put property lines underneath each unit and it would have the same number of units and look the same but it would be called townhomes. Regarding including verbiage into the motion that the Prokosch property cannot be developed, you can't bind a future action of future city council because three years from now something totally different could happen and things can change over time no matter what the planning commission recommends. (After checking further into past planning commission minutes, the recording secretary discovered the previous staff report stated that the Prokosch property was listed at 5.67 acres. The Trout Land property was to be heard at the city council meeting on June 14, 2004, however, because there were issues to be worked out the item was delayed and the recording secretary could not find a rescheduled date for the item to be heard.) 7. Jennifer Holm, 3035 Duluth Street, Maplewood They had an incredible view and then things changed. The townhomes aren't going to be a huge issue for her because she lives higher up on Duluth Street. She is here to support her neighbors. It's sad that these tall buildings are going to be built. When people bought homes up on this hill there was a sign that said commercial, and that is what people thought would be built here. People figured it would be one story commercial buildings that you could still see out your windows and enjoy the view and they did not think the zoning would change and they would be looking out into tall condominium units. At the January 24, 2005, neighborhood meeting neighbors asked what the target client would be to purchase these homes and he said singles, newly- married people, and empty nesters. (Jennifer Holm continued) Ms. Holm said she doesn't think single people can afford these units on their own unless they have a very good job, and she remembers when she was newly married it was hard to come up with the down payment to buy your first home especially at $250,000 to $275,000 for a condominium unit. She also doesn't believe empty nesters are going to want to buy units with steps that you have to go up and down to get from level to level. Especially bringing their groceries into the house and having to drag bags up different levels of steps. Empty nesters or retired people want one story homes, not multi -unit homes. When the Masterpiece townhomes were built they were snatched up in a minute because of the style of townhomes they are. She is sad the city is not requiring builders to build more one level homes in the city so people could move out of the multi -story homes. She and her husband toured the new Town & Country Homes and thought they were beautiful. She asked a salesperson if they were planning on building any one level townhome units in Maplewood, and they said unfortunately no. The sales person said if they were selling one level units they would have been sold out immediately. She said they have had so many people touring the units and asking that same question for one story townhomes. She asked if these were going to be built in phases or built as they were sold. She would rather have them being built as they were sold so units don't sit vacant. She personally thinks they are going to have a problem selling these units because of the multiple stories. Commissioner Dierich asked if each commissioner could state how they feel about this proposal one by one to be reflected in the minutes? Commissioner Ahlness He said the commission is looking at development units that are going to hold their value with underground parking, brick facades, a good location and a good transition from the commercial properties. These buildings will not deprive people's enjoyment of the use of their land, they might not have the view they once had but development happens. He doesn't see a problem with selling their home for a fair economic price in the future with these condominium units in this location. This is a nice development to look at compared to looking at commercial property, Highway 61 and listening to the traffic. These buildings along with the landscaping will be a nice buffer from the highway. He would encourage the developer to check into the Gladstone Redevelopment Area because these types of homes and higher density would be a nice addition to the Gladstone area. Commissioner Lee He approves of the site design; he likes the idea of positioning the buildings at angles rather than the cookie cutter design. He likes the design of the homes and the whole plan as it stands. Commissioner Desai He likes the look of the buildings but he definitely has a concern about the density fully realizing that the city council had already approved 90 units since the planning commission approved 78 units May 2004. Is the parcel in question 12.2 acres or 15.38 acres and does it include the Prokosch property or not part of the process. The whole thing is very confusing and he is still not sold on what the agreement was or what the truth is here. This is a real key issue with the density and approving this proposal. Chairperson Fischer The question is how many acres are involved in the medium density? She has no problem with the layout and she has no problem with medium density. It is confusing not knowing the correct amount of acreage that is involved here. It seems there is not much support for the second trail to the south. She thinks it is necessary to include verbiage stating the Prokosch property either is or is not included in the development rights of this site and what the future holds for the property. Commissioner Pearson Overall he likes the layout of the plan. He doesn't like the south trail. Building number one makes him nervous because he believes it is going to create a hazard with a drop off right out the back door. So much of this density has been discussed over the past two years with the public hearings that were held for County Road D. A lot of what the developer agreed to is to facilitate County Road D becoming a reality. He doesn't feel anyone has a solid handle on the exact density the city should be working with, especially realizing there is confusion in the comprehensive plan not having a specific density for condominium units. Because of this he would have a negative vote. Commissioner Bartol If he were on the city council he would have a hard time including the acreage for the Prokosch property into the calculation. However, that decision was already made by the city council and it was made for the betterment of the neighborhood and the city overall for rerouting County Road D. The developer has met a reasonable density at 7 units per acre for a total of 90 units. Given the criteria and the problems with the site, the developer has come up with an attractive design. This development could block noise from Highway 61 and maybe even from County Road D. He agrees with the decision not to build the southern trail which could be an insurance liability. Although he has reservations with this proposal he would probably approve it. Commissioner Trippler He has always thought this was a difficult site to work with. Given the complications and difficulties with trying to deal with the topography has gotten the city to where they are. The units look nice despite the feeling of the neighbors who will have to look down on $250,000- $275,000 condominium units from their $600,000 homes. He has always had a problem with the County Road D extension. The traffic that is going to build up and trying to get cars in and out of this development is going to be a mess. Based on what the applicant is requesting he doesn't see how the city can deny this proposal especially since the city council has already agreed to the density and 90 units. He would prefer the buildings lined up rather than the so- called helter - skelter design. Commissioner Dierich She would have a hard time voting for this because the planning commission is unclear on the whole issue of density, not knowing the correct acreage here, and because the commission is unclear if the Prokosch property is included in this or not. She would recommend that the city council fix the problem of not having condominium units listed in the comprehensive plan. She likes the underground parking, four sided architecture and she likes the design, but because of the density and the other issues she has, she will not be voting for it. Commissioner Grover He is not comfortable voting for this in a positive way even if there are straightforward errors that were made in the report and the way the acreage was originally calculated. He is uneasy voting for this not because of anything the builder has done but more on the city's side not clarifying the proper acreage, questions about density, and not knowing if the Prokosch property is included or not included. He also has issues with the potential traffic problems. Commissioner Ahlness moved approval of the preliminary plat for the Heritage Square 4' Addition, subject to the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) The applicant shall dedicate a trail easements on the utility easement and drainage and the applicant shall follow drainage and utility easements as recommended by Chris Cavett in his memo dated March 1. 2005. 2. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city for the construction and dedications of: a. Water main between the south drive and the Duluth Street stub. b. Trail construction. c. Easement dedications for trails. storm sewer. utilities and water main. d. Native turf establishment adjacent to the ponds. e. Other issues deemed necessary by the city engineer. f. Add a fence restricting access to the detention pond g. Addition of a sidewalk along the frontage road between the development and Venburg Tire. 3. Recommend that the Prokosch property be excluded from further development when they move from the property. Commissioner Lee seconded. Ayes Ahlness, Bartol, Fischer, Lee, Pearson, Trippler Nays Desai, Dierich, Grover The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 28, 2005. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2005 LT= :III - 311 [am :1 *11NI.[L3 a. Parking Lot Setback Variance (Heritage Square 4 th Addition — County Road D, west of Highway 61) (7:15 -7:40 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said Town and Country Homes has requested approval of a 90 -unit town house development on the Trout Land development site west/northwest of Guldens Roadhouse and Venburg Tire. During the staff review of this proposal, we found that the interior frontage drive and some of the parking spaces do not meet the required 15 -foot setback from the County Road D Extension right -of -way. The proposed pavement would be nine feet from the front lot line requiring a six -foot setback variance. The applicant has revised the plan to have a 10- foot -wide utility easement as recommended by Chris Cavett in engineering. On March 7, 2005, the planning commission reviewed the applicant's preliminary plat. On March 8, 2005, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed the design plans. The CDRB required that the applicant 'Revise the site plan to provide a 15 -foot setback for the proposed frontage drive and visitor parking spaces or obtain a variance from the city council. The applicant must provide at least .5 visitor parking spaces for each unit. The northernmost building needs two additional visitor spaces while taking into account the 15 -foot setback requirement.' The applicant recently revised their plans to have three additional visitor spaces. Mr. Ekstrand said state law requires that to approve a variance, the city council must determine that: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff feels the variance should be approved. Commissioner Trippler asked if the CDRB had a preference for granting or not granting the variance? Mr. Ekstrand said at that time the staff recommendation was that the site plan would need to be revised. The applicant said they would prefer to ask for the variance. At that point the CDRB amended their recommendation to either change the site plan or obtain a variance. Staff didn't get a sense for their preference for or against the variance. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development for Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Eden Prairie, addressed the commission. Mr. Clark said because of the changes in the design of County Road D, changes to the Town & Country Homes design plan had to be made, and this is the reason for the variance. Chairperson Fischer said if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item, they should come forward and address the commission. Mr. Hal Tetzloff, 1260 Highridge Court, Maplewood addressed the commission. He appreciates the additional parking that has been added to the site for the 18 -unit townhome building but he still has concerns about where visitors will park when people have parties or holidays. He asked if cars would be allowed to park along County Road D? He believes people will be forced to park along County Road D because there will be no other parking alternative for the additional visitor vehicles. Mr. Ekstrand agreed with Mr. Tetzloff that visitor parking is still a concern. Even though the applicant has met the city standards for parking, staff realizes the serious need for additional visitor parking which there never seems to be enough of. He frequently visits friends and relatives who live in townhome communities and finds a lack of parking most of the time. At the time of reviewing the Legacy Village development plans, which is currently being built behind Maplewood Mall, staff established a formula for at least' /2 a visitor parking space for every unit (or 1 parking space for every two units) and that is what staff is recommending the applicant provide. He is sure there will be overflow parking problems, and if cars park on County Road D, there would probably be tickets issued. The city would encourage the applicant to put in as many additional parking spaces as they can, even though they meet the city standards. Mr. Tetzloff is concerned about the curviness and the grade of the road if people decide to park on County Road D. Parking along County Road D would be a public safety concern as well for the cars driving on County Road D. Mr. Ekstrand said the street is not designed for on -site parking. The road is meant to move traffic along. He believes County Road isn't intended for parking, but he would clarify that. He would estimate people would try to park within the townhome development and along the driveway area before they would try parking along County Road D. Mr. Ekstrand said he would be happy to check into this matter further and would telephone Mr. Tetzloff with the answer. Mr. Tetzloff is also concerned about the trail connection and sidewalk to be built in the area where a lot of pedestrian traffic will occur and would be a safety concern. Mr. Clark said there is a pre- construction meeting Tuesday April 5, 2005, regarding County Road D so the question of parking or not parking on County Road D could be answered then. Commissioner Bartol said the city must know how wide County Road D will be, and he would assume because this is a county road there wouldn't be parking allowed on this street. The resident raises some very good issues that should be looked into. He is concerned where the snow would go when it gets plowed because this could further cause a lack of parking spaces. Mr. Clark said the homeowners association would have a contract for snow 'removal' and not snow 'storage', so snow would have to be removed from the site and therefore would not take up parking spaces. In earlier discussions with Trout Land, this situation didn't occur until there was an adjustment in the location of County Road D and the design where it got pushed to the west. This is the residual impact of the design of this. Commissioner Desai asked if there had been any discussions with the commercial property owners along County Road D to see if overflow parking could park in those parking lots? Mr. Clark said there hasn't been a specific appeal to any of the commercial property owners, but that is something they could check into. Mr. Ekstrand mentioned a brief telephone conversation that he had with a resident in the area, Mr. Edmund Trolander, 1256 Highridge Court, Maplewood Mr. Trolander voiced his opposition and felt the setbacks should be met and that there is a reason the City of Maplewood has codes. Mr. Tetzloff knows there are economic reasons why people do or don't do things. He would like to see the applicant reduce the number of units for this 18 -unit building down to 16. The applicant probably wouldn't like this, but it is the easy solution which would take care of the parking problem and the setback. The building originally had 20 units, and the applicant reduced the number of units by two. The applicant could reduce the number of units by two more, and this would take care of all the problems except for the applicant's economic need. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on page 5 of the staff report approving a five -foot parking and driveway setback variance from the future County Road D Extension right - of -way line. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. Complying with the 15 -foot parking lot/driveway setback code would cause the applicant undue hardship due to the narrow shape of the site which makes setback compliance difficult. 2. Relocating the parking lots, frontage drive and buildings to the west would require additional grading and slope stabilization and would impact the neighbors by reducing the building setback to the west. 3. The variance would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance since there would still be adequate area to plant trees between the driveway curbing and the front lot line. The reduced setback would also not be visually noticeable. Approval of this variance is conditioned upon the applicant revising the plans to provide a 10 -foot pavement setback in order to stay off of the required 10- foot -wide utility easement. As required previously, the applicant must also provide at least nine visitor parking spaces for the northerly building. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes Desai, Fischer, Pearson, Trippler Nay- Bartol The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on April 25, 2005. Commissioner Bartol said he voted against this proposal because of the challenging site, the topography, curves and width of County Road D, the unknown traffic volume, as well as the minimal amount of visitor parking. To grant another variance goes against what he feels is a sound decision for this neighborhood and the overall community that would be using the thoroughfare. This development has a history. This item was discussed less than one year ago when the planning commission recommended medium density for roughly 72 units. The developer was fine with that density a year ago, and it should work economically now too. Reducing the number of units on the site by one or two units would greatly ease the lack of visitor parking, and the variance would be unnecessary. The economic benefit of the developer is not a sufficient enough reason to vote for this variance. MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005 b. Heritage Square 4 th Addition, T & C Homes, Highway 61 (6:16 — 7:45 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand introduced Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner. Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner, said Town and Country Homes has requested a new subdivision plat for part of Lot 1, Block 5, Frattalone`s Highpoint Ridge. They are asking for CDRB approval of building and location plans. Mr. Thorvig said the developer is proposing to plat seven lots for condominium construction and one common lot surrounding the seven lots occupied by the condominiums. Ninety units are proposed for the parcel. Six of the seven condominium buildings would have 12 units. One building would have eighteen units. Each of the condominium units would have an exterior entrance. The units would sit back -to -back on top of an underground parking garage that would accommodate two parking spaces for each unit. There would be a private staircase to the garage from each unit. The buildings would be two stories tall, not including the underground parking garage. The first floor would be about eight steps up from grade level. The exterior materials consist of vinyl shakes, cultured stone, and lap siding. Two color schemes are being studied for this project. Colors include earth tone browns, tans, and greens. Outside stairs, railings, and trim are white. There would be two parking spaces in the underground garage and 44 additional guest spaces (.5 per unit) distributed throughout the site that meet the code requirement. Significant landscaping using overstory and coniferous trees is planned for the slope on the west side of the site. The rest of the site would also have generous amounts of shrubs and trees. Board member Shankar asked what the distance between the six buildings was? Mr. Thorvig said the buildings are about 20 feet apart which meets the code requirement Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board. Ms. Krista Novack, Community Planning Manager, Town and Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 130, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. These units will be built with their newest townhome called the Regency Collection and they are excited to present these units to Maplewood. There are four floor plans to choose from with many windows to make the floor plan feel bright and airy. They brought new color palettes to show the board and will present them tonight. The two color packages include lap siding, vinyl shake and shingle products. Board member Olson asked if they proposed to make all the units the same color scheme or to alternate the two color schemes between the buildings? Ms. Novack said they would probably alternate the color schemes between the buildings but would like input from the board. Board member Olson asked why the dark forest green color was eliminated from the color selection that was shown in the CDRB packet of information? Ms. Novack said they tried to create color packages that would complement each other. Board member Olson asked if the dark green color scheme was eliminated that is shown in the staff report? Ms. Novack said they eliminated the green color package and feel that they have provided equally if not better color packages as an alternative that they brought samples of tonight. Board member Shankar asked if color option I was still an option? Ms. Novack apologized if this was confusing the board. The colors shown in the CDRB packet are old colors that they have eliminated and the new color palettes are shown in the samples they have provided tonight for the board to see. One is in the cream and brown family and the other is in the gray family. Board member Olson said it appears the porches are white in the staff report and now the board sees the porches shown on the screen as dark brown. Ms. Novack said correct. Board member Olson asked if they had samples of the rock face block? Mr. Mitch Litfin, Division Architect, Town and Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 130, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. He said they didn't bring samples of the rock face block with them tonight but they would use a similar product as they did with the Majestic Collection in the Heritage Square development. The style is reminiscent of a brown stone building that you would see out east. Board member Olson prefers the white porch over the dark brown. The dark porches look dirty, recessive and not inviting. Mr. Litfin said they were going for a natural wood tone look to the porches. Board member Olson said these buildings remind her of a building down on West Seventh Street in St. Paul. She prefers the color choices shown in the board packet over the color samples shown tonight. Board member Shankar agreed with Board member Olson regarding the white porches. The dark brown porch seems too intense to him. Mr. Litfin said they can offer the white porches but they wanted to offer something different. Town & Country Homes wanted to show the board they are willing to offer different trim colors other than the typical white or linen color and that is why they have shown darker colors. Board member Olson said she likes the light tan color trim but doesn't care for the dark brown color for either the trim or the porch color. Chairperson Longrie said maybe an eggshell color would work? Mr. Litfin said they could use a linen color or another lighter color. Board member Olson said she sees the dark brown porch as forming cubbyholes and looks uninviting. Perhaps the white colored porch would attract more dirt and possibly an off -white color on the porch would be nice. Town & Country Homes and the board members spent a lengthy amount of time discussing the color choices for the Regency Collection units. Mr. Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development, Town and Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 130, Eden Prairie, addressed the board. Board member Olson asked the applicant to address the issue of the sidewalks around the buildings? Mr. Clark said they are in the process of working through the plan review with city staff and one of the things they are addressing is upgrading these buildings to include a second exit door, which is at the opposite end of the underground garage entrance /exit. This will connect to a walkway from the exit door to an adjoining walkway. Because of the grade they didn't look at connecting the sidewalks around the buildings but would check to see if it's feasible to connect the sidewalks around the building. Board member Olson said the second exit door makes sense, especially for security. She asked where the trash would be contained and where the meters would be located? Mr. Litfin said the garage is set up to maintain the garbage and most of the services that are needed. Each unit will have its own electrical and gas meter but the meters will be banked on the building exterior. The water meters are located in a room off the garage that will hold the sprinkler, water and drainage systems. The electrical and gas meters would be banked on the outside of the building, out of view, away from the front and at the opposite end of each building. Chairperson Longrie asked if the applicant could describe how they plan to screen the meters. Mr. Litfin said these meters will be a foot to one and a half feet tall and they would plant some bushes in front of the gas and electrical meters. They will be out of view, but still easy to read when someone needs to read them. Chairperson Longrie asked what type of landscaping and how tall the landscaping would get? Ms. Novack said Town & Country Homes has submitted landscape plans for the foundation plantings for the site which was displayed on the screen. Mr. Litfin said shrubbery and bushes would be planted to block the view of the gas and electrical meters. They aren't going to bank the meters together, they plan on spacing them one foot to one and a half feet off the ground. If they banked the meters together the meters would extend out of the ground about six feet tall and about four feet wide. These bushes would protect the meters, be kept low to the ground and keep the building exterior looking nice and clean in appearance. Board member Olson asked about the trail through the abandoned Lydia corridor and the trail under the power lines and asked if staff could discuss the density. Mr. Clark said they have looked at this area along with the different grades. It would require a series of retaining walls and switch -back trails and be very difficult to build. Town & Country Homes asked themselves if it's necessary to have two trails connecting to the same area. The neighborhood responded that they were not in favor of having both trails. There are public safety concerns and Town & Country Homes feels there is a hardship in building both of these trails. The planning commission recommended building the southern trail and eliminating the northern trail. Chairperson Longrie said it made sense to her to build off the existing trail and continue the trail along County Road D. It's important to have the trail there for a more walkable neighborhood especially with such high density in this area. Board member Olson agreed with the planning commission's decision that the trail to the abandoned Lydia corridor isn't necessary. Mr. Ekstrand said he would like to introduce Mr. Kellison who is representing the Trout Land Development to discuss the density. Mr. Jim Kellison, Kelco Properties, 7300 Hudson Boulevard, Oakdale, addressed the board. He said about 1' /z years ago the 91 units were approved by the city council so there really isn't much to discuss. Ms. Novack discussed the landscaping plan for the site. She said the neighbors requested as many trees be planted on the site as possible. Therefore, the plan would be to plant as many trees as possible that would not be affected by the construction. Some of the trees at maturity would reach as high as 60 feet. Mr. Thorvig said staff finds Town & Country Homes has provided a generous landscape plan. Board member Shankar asked if there was an exterior lighting plan? Mr. Thorvig said they don't have a lighting plan but that is one of the conditions of approval and staff would make sure the lighting plan complies with the ordinance. Board member Olson asked if there were plans for individual street lights or wall pack lights on the buildings of any kind? Mr. Novack said for the safety of the community they install lights on the entrance of the townhome buildings. Mr. Ekstrand wasn't sure about the lighting plan but he knows the realignment plan for County Road D has been looked at. Mr. Kellison said there will be street lights there as part of the County Road D realignment which is part of the assessments the developer is paying. The height of the lights and the spacing of the light poles were designed per the county standards with the redevelopment of County Road D. Board member Olson was concerned about having a streetlight right outside someone's window. Chairperson Longrie said the board is concerned where the streetlights would be placed because the light could be a nuisance as well as the proximity of the trees in relationship to the light posts. Mr. Clark said typically people close their blinds or curtains if light is shining into their windows and he assumes the homeowners would do the same in this situation if light was a factor. Mr. Thorvig said the trees would be placed in the best location given the location of the light posts. Board member Shankar asked who would be installing the lights? Mr. Thorvig said the county would be installing the lights and city staff would coordinate the placement of the light posts with the county and with Town & Country Homes for the tree placement for this development plan. Mr. Ekstrand asked if the board was concerned that the lights would be a nuisance or is the concern that there would not be enough lights? Board member Olson said both are concerns for her. These are tall buildings and even if the lights direct light downwards she is concerned the lights could cause problems for the residents as well as the placement of the lights relative to the landscaping. She believes the lighting plan and the landscaping plans should be worked out together rather than independently of each other. Mr. Ekstrand said that is what city staff will do. Board member Olson moved to approve the building and location plans based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (changes or additions are underlined.) Comply with the requirements of the city engineer and those of Chris Cavett in his report dated March 1, 2005. 2. Meet all requirements of the building official and fire marshal. 3. Obtain all required permits from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District. 4. Revise the site plan to provide a 15 -foot setback for the proposed frontage drive and visitor parking spaces or obtain a variance from the city council The applicant must provide at least .5 parking spaces for each unit. The northernmost building needs two additional visitor spaces while taking into account the 15 -foot setback requirement. 5. Revise the site plan to provide pedestrian trails as recommended by Mr. Cavett in his memo dated March 1, 2005. The applicant shall construct these trails as part of this development. 6. The city would allow one building permit before the plat is filed. The plat must be recorded before the city would issue permits for any additional buildings. 7. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 8. The applicant shall install an inground irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 9. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan for staff approval before getting a building permit for the first building. When city staff does the final lighting and landscaping plan they shall consider the lighting and landscaping plan together to form a harmonious plan for the residents. 10. A temporary sales office is allowed until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 11. The director of community development may approve minor changes to these plans. 12. The electrical and gas meters shall be shielded with landscaping that is at least two feet tall. 13. The applicant shall submit revised elevations for staff to review incorporating color scheme number 1 and color scheme number 2. Color scheme number 1 shall include sandlewood shingles, pebblestone clay, cameo and wicker. Color scheme number 2 shall include oakwood shingles with silver gray, everest wood gray, and white shakes. Both color schemes shall incorporate the linen color window trim and be incorporated with the porch and railing trim color. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes Longrie, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council March 28, 2005. Agenda Item K3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: White Bear Avenue at Community Center: Resolution Requesting Ramsey County Consideration of Turn Lane Improvements DATE: April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION Councilmember Koppen has requested a Resolution that requests improvements to White Bear Avenue at the Maplewood Community Center to install turn lanes. A sample resolution is attached. Background The section of White Bear Avenue between County Road B and Frost Avenue has a number of turning movements, including access at two locations to the Community Center parking lot. This section of roadway is beginning to experience delays and conflicts that indicate a growing traffic volume conflict. Councilmember Koppen has suggested the need for turn lanes as a solution to these problems. A sample resolution is attached to request Ramsey County consider the turn lanes through a traffic study. Budget Impacts This corridor is included for study as part of the Hillcrest area redevelopment in the Maplewood Capital Improvements Plan. The current state of roadway funding at both Ramsey County and Maplewood through the gas tax (or lack of gas tax funds) has caused staff to recommend delays in these improvements to 2010 at the earliest. Both Ramsey County and Maplewood have dedicated a majority of their State Aid Gas Tax Monies to the Maplewood Mall Area Improvements. Ramsey County is one of the few metropolitan counties to not provide levy funds for roadway improvements. Thus, Ramsey County is not currently taking requests for projects in the next five year (2006 -2010) construction period. They report that all funds have been dedicated to projects committed for construction. This corridor is not within Ramsey County's plans for improvement. The resolution may help to prioritize the need for improvements after 2010, but will likely require Maplewood to help fund the project. Our CIP does not include any funds for this project until 2010, and at that time, will require cooperative funding arrangements with Ramsey County for advanced funding or other sources of revenue for the improvements. That plan has not been developed. Certainly an increase in the state - collected gas tax could change this outlook. However, until that action occurs, funding for these types of improvements (possibly $1,000,000) does not appear likely. :7xK1]LUILUI40 WIN IIC01 It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution requesting Ramsey County to conduct a study of White Bear Avenue at the Maplewood Community Center for the possibility and programming of turn lanes. Attachments: 1. Study Area Map (A colored map will be provided to the mayor and council.) 2. Resolution White Bear Avenue County Road B to Frost Avenue (White Bear Avenue at Maplewood Community Center) a. 1 i -a-- i �e �.t' {iruik.trc }ti r N City Hall a. 4J ® j 4. u? 4. White Bear Avenue Study Area, ? Frost Avenue to County Road B -a-- i �e �.t' {iruik.trc }ti r N City Hall a. 4J ® j 4. u? 4. Agenda Item K3 RESOLUTION REQUESTING TRAFFIC STUDY WHITE BEAR AVENUE AT MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY CENTER WHEREAS, traffic volumes along White Bear Avenue between County Road B and Frost Avenue have substantially increased in the past five years; and WHEREAS, Maplewood has observed conflicts and delays with turning movements into and from the Maplewood Community Center; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County has jurisdiction over White Bear Avenue. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, 1. The City of Maplewood does hereby request of Ramsey County to conduct a traffic study of White Bear Avenue between County Road B and Frost Avenue. 2. The City of Maplewood does hereby request of Ramsey County to consider the installation of turn lanes to White Bear Avenue to assist with the safe movement of traffic into and from the Maplewood Community Center. Agenda Item K4 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: White Bear Avenue Improvements, City Project 02 -21: Resolutions Approving Joint Powers Agreement Revision with Ramsey County and Increasing Project Budget DATE: April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION Ramsey County and Maplewood staffs have jointly studied the necessary improvements to White Bear Avenue between Radatz Avenue in Maplewood and Buerkle Road in White Bear Lake. A revision to the existing cooperative agreement is needed to continue with project funding arrangements. Background The 2001 Mall Area Transportation Study identified the White Bear Avenue corridor between Radatz Avenue and Buerkle Road as the most congested and most critical segment of roadway in the Maplewood Mall area. Specifically, improvements at the 1 -694 interchange and at the County Road D intersection were of the highest priority. Ramsey County and Maplewood executed a joint powers agreement to conduct a corridor study to identify and scope the improvements needed in the area. That agreement provided for a 50 -50 cost split for a $90,000 project engineering (Maplewood's share of $45,000.) Traffic volumes were studied within the corridor. It was found that volumes on White Bear Avenue at the 1 -694 intersection are currently at 41,500 vehicles per day. This far exceeds the projections for traffic on this roadway by nearly a factor of two. Normally, a four -lane roadway (two in each direction) is at capacity when traffic volumes are near 30,000 vehicles per day. This capacity deficiency helps explain why the current average speed on the roadway is 8.6 miles per hour. A 2% rate of growth of traffic in the area is planned for the next 20 years, which will only further compound congestion unless improvements are implemented. Without improvements, the currently unacceptable corridor delays are expected to nearly double by 2010. Two major improvements are needed for this corridor. A major infrastructure improvement to widen White Bear Avenue to a six -lane divided facility with turn lanes is recommended. Ramsey County and Maplewood were successful in the jointly- submitted request for federal funding of this $6.4 million project. Construction of this project is expected to begin in 2008. The second major improvement planned is a new interchange at 1 -694 and White Bear Avenue. The study found that there is not adequate room for an expansion of the roadway to a six -lane facility with turn lanes and that the interchange needs upgrading. This next phase of engineering provides for the preliminary analysis for funding on the interchange and coordination of the White Bear Improvements. The interchange is not funded in the future years and will range in cost from $18.0 -$22.0 million depending on right of way and design issues. Proposed funding is through a Ramsey County transportation- bonding program with construction beginning as early as 2010 or 2012. Further discussions and study are needed prior to planning for each of these improvements. Agenda Item K4 Budget Impacts All total, there are $ 29.0 million in improvements that are being contemplated for this corridor in the next 4 -7 years. The Maplewood share of this major initiative has been estimated at $1.0 million in our Capital Improvements Plan. The city involvement in the transportation studies, however, involves significant transportation engineering fees. These costs are eligible for reimbursement from the city's Municipal State Aid Account. Various joint agreements and studies are being pursued and will be presented to the city council. In the interim, funding for the continued engineering expenses is needed. The original authorization was for $150,000 in June 2004. Staff estimates that the attached agreement will require an additional $100,000 authorization from MSAS funds is needed for the remainder of 2005 and 2006 to continue developing the final funding and construction program. This will result in a $200,000 increase in the project budget as Ramsey County will pay 50% of the project cost. Additionally, it appears that Ramsey County and Maplewood have been successful in receiving $500,000 of High Priority Project Funding in the Federal Transportation Funding Package currently approved by the U.S. House of Representatives. MnDOT has prioritized $200,000 of funds in 2006 for the necessary studies as well. The additional Maplewood funds will be match funds for these monies. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Joint Powers Cooperative Agreement with Ramsey County and Increasing the Project Budget for the White Bear Avenue Improvements (Radatz to Buerkle), City Project 02 -21. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Study Area Maps 3. Cooperative Agreement - White Bear Avenue Improvements Agenda Item K4 RESOLUTION APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND REVISING PROJECT BUDGET WHEREAS, preliminary studies conducted by the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) indicate that it is feasible, practical and technically proper to combine the White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65) Radatz Avenue to County Road D project with the White Bear Avenue / 1 -694 Interchange project; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County and Maplewood have previously entered into a Cooperative Agreement funding arrangement establishing a 50% County — 50% City arrangement for cost splits on engineering studies after MnDOT and Federal Funding is received in Cooperative Agreement PVV2003 -06: and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported the need for additional studies and investigations regarding the approvals for improvements to White Bear Avenue and the White Bear Avenue /1 -694 interchange; and WHEREAS, Ramsey County and the City of Maplewood have successfully applied for federal funding for the improvement of White Bear Avenue between Radatz and County Road D in Maplewood. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, 1. The Cooperative Agreement Revision in the amount of $52,125.00 is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement. 2. The project budget for the White Bear Avenue project is hereby increased by $200,000, which shall include the funds to be received from Ramsey County under the Cooperative Agreement and the city- share, which shall be designated to reimburse from the Municipal State Aid Street Account. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. N- j encla Item K4 PROJECT LOCATION MAP Cty ofVapk -ad, Dcpa enr Wlill E REAR AVENUE Engn ee:. g rX INPROVENiENT PR03ECT FIGURE I N- Item K4 ----------- ------ ------------------- LQ__j ------- --- - --jujAv Av -4 i nfo AN" nty,f.wqpj,,swd, V=Csow D'v=WK a"Nx Mks ANg%,M&,g - ------------ --- �u PROJEcr LIMITS WETE, BEAR AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROALT FIGURE 4 RAMSEY COUNTY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Agreement between the County of Ramsey and the City of Maplewood Maplewood: Estimated Amount Receivable from Ramsey County Preliminary Engineering: $52,125.00 Re: Preliminary Design of: White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65) /Interstate -694 Interchange White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65) Beam Avenue to County Road D Construction Project Attachment: Scope of Services and Work Plan THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Ramsey County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County "; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties hereto have previously entered into a joint agreement (PW 2003 — 06; in the amount of $45,000) and effort providing for the preliminary design of the construction of the White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65)/1 -694 and the construction of White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65) from Beam Avenue to County Road D; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to continue the preliminary design efforts to further advance the project towards eventual implementation and hereto desire to enter into supplemental joint agreement #2 (PW ) in accordance with the Scope of Services and Work Plan contained in the attachment; and WHEREAS, preliminary studies and reports which have been conducted by the City, the County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( Mn /DOT) indicate that it is feasible, practical, and technically proper to combine the two construction projects and provide for the construction improvements; and WHEREAS, the County has applied for and been granted Federal Highway Administration Funding for the construction of White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65) from Radatz Avenue to County Road D; and 1 (PW ) WHEREAS, White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65)/1 -694 interchange and the construction of White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65) from Radatz Avenue to County Road D are in the City; and WHEREAS, the City and the County desire to retain the services of a professional engineering consultant to continue development of the preliminary design plans for the project; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: The City shall retained the services of a professional engineering consultant to develop the preliminary design work which consists of signal optimization plan implementation as a result of the previous scope of work, other probable short term solutions, traffic analysis, an additional interchange geometric layout, preliminary right of way plans and estimates and continued agency and public involvement, meeting criteria established for the project. The project is defined as the White Bear Avenue (CSAH 65)/1 -694 interchange. Cost distribution of the contract is factored at 50% ($52,125.00) cost to the County, 50% ($52,125.00) cost to the City based on the relative share of the overall project scope. Preliminary design plans and studies developed by the City shall be submitted to the County for review and approval. The design shall meet County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Standards and be approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The County shall cooperate with the City's consultant in the preparation of the preliminary design plans as may be beneficial to the timely completion of the project. The County without cost to the City or Consultant, will supply for use in the design all available materials previously prepared for the project. This shall include reports, drawings and digitized mapping in Autocad format. The City shall administer the contract for consultant engineering services and make payment for all services rendered. The City shall invoice Ramsey County for its share of preliminary design costs paid to the consultant by the City. The County shall pay to the City its proportionate share of the consultant's design costs on the contract the City has with the consulting firm. The City shall invoice the County periodically for design services at a cost not to exceed $52,125.00. Costs in excess of $52,125.00 will require an amendment to this agreement. The Consultant shall deliver to the County reproducible originals of the preliminary design plans and /or studies for the project. 2 (PW ) City and the County agree to indemnify each other and hold each other harmless from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, judgments, charges, demands, costs and expenses including, but not limited to, interest involved therein and attorneys' fees and costs and expenses connected therewith, arising out of or resulting from the failure of either party to satisfy the provisions of this agreement or for damages caused to fourth parties as a result of the manner in which the City or the County perform or fail to perform duties imposed on each party by terms of this agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of the statutory limits of liability or either party. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that this agreement shall not be modified or amended except in writing duly signed by each of the parties. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect until terminated by mutual agreement of the City and the County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 0 THE COUNTY OF RAMSEY go Chairperson Its _ Mayor Board of County Commissioners M Attest: Chief Clerk County Board Its Date: City Manager Date: Assistant County Attorney Budgeting and Accounting Recommended for Approval: Kenneth G. Haider. P.E. Director and County Engineer Approved as to Form and Insurance: 3 (PW ) EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NUMBER 5B (FIVE B) WHITE BEAR AVENUE and WHITE BEAR AVE/I -694 INTERCHANGE CITY PROJECT 02 -21 IPO #5 and #5A included various services to assist the City and Ramsey County in developing scope, traffic analysis, layouts and funding mechanisms for White Bear Avenue and the White Bear Avenue/1694 Interchange. This IPO is for additional services required and/or requested by City and Ramsey County staff to continue to move the project forward. 1. WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT No additional services. 2A. SHORT TERM TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY Signal Timing Optimization Implementation SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this task is to develop and implement signal timings for seven (7) signalized intersections along White Bear Avenue from Buerkle Road to Beam Avenue in the Maplewood Mall Area. Task I -Data Collection Kinley -Horn will use the turning movement count (TMC) data previously provided for the AM and PM peak periods. In addition, we will provide directional average daily traffic volumes along White Bear Avenue in two locations that will allow us to generate noon and weekend peak TMC data (a subconsultant will be used to collect weekend counts). Task 2 - Timing Plan Development Kinley -Horn will develop traffic signal timing plans for the coordinated signal system (seven intersections). Timing plans will be developed using Synchro5.0 Professional. Four timing plans will be prepared for White Bear Avenue to include the AM, Noon, PM and Weekend peak periods. The PM plan has already been completed as part of the initial White Bear Avenue Traffic Analysis. The AM plan will be developed based on AM TMC data previously provided by the County. The noon and weekend data will be generated based on a percentage of the average daily traffic volumes collected in Task 1. Kimley -Horn will recommend the proposed time clock information for the system and indicate timing changes for both weekday and weekend variations. Task 3 - Prepare Coding Sheets Existing timing parameters (coding sheets with cycle lengths, splits, and offsets) will be provided by the County for the seven signalized intersections. Kimley -Horn will prepare coding sheets for the Econolite ASC2 controller. These coding sheets will be prepared in an electronic format using Microsoft Excel. The coding sheets will include proposed coordinate timings for AM, Noon, PM, and Weekend peak period for the seven signalized intersections and the proposed time -of -day clock. Coding sheets will not include the local controller settings. 4 (PW ) Task 4 - Implementation and Fine - Tuning The County will perform implementation of the new signal timing plans. At the time of installation, Kimley -Horn will be available to make the necessary adjustments as recommended for fine - tuning. Kinley -Horn will observe traffic during the AM, Noon and PM peak periods implemented to identify any operational issues and will advise the County accordingly. The County will again make all further adjustments. We will observe the weekend plans during a noon weekday to identify any coding errors and make the necessary offset and split adjustments. 3A. PREPARE ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY GEOMETRIC LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE Task I - WBAII -694 Interchange Compressed Diamond. Complete preliminary geometric layout alternative for interchange (County D to Buerkle) including layout for expanded I -694 from east side TH 61 to west side Rice street (exact limits to be coordinated with Mn/DOT and Ramsey County). The geometric alternative is to be a tight or "compressed" diamond interchange. The I694 mainline expansion will be used to establish preliminary agency agreements, determine preliminary bridge geometry and design, and determine preliminary ROW impacts. Note: The layout will be preliminary and intended for general concurrence with Mn/DOT and Ramsey County only. It will not be complete with profiles etc. which will eventually be required for final Mn/DOT approval (future IPO). Task 2 - Present Layout. Present preliminary geometric layouts to City Council /County Board as requested. Submit preliminary plan view layout to Mn/DOT for initial geometric committee review. Task 3 - Prepare Preliminary Opinion ofProbable Cost. Prepare preliminary opinion of probable cost for compressed diamond alternative to help facilitate comparison of cost to single point urban interchange (SPUI) option. Task 4 - Conduct traffic operations analysis. Prepare traffic operations analysis to determine operational differences and impacts between SPUI and compressed diamond interchange alternatives. KHA will assess the traffic operations characteristics for White Bear Ave. under two geometric alternatives. The first alternative involves the assumption of a single point urban interchange and the second alternative involves the assumption of a compressed diamond interchange. The purpose of the traffic operations assessment is to provide the City and County with information that will help each agency weigh the relative traffic benefits of each alternative versus the estimated construction cost of each option. 4. FUNDING APPLICATION No additional services. 5. DEVELOP PRELIMINARY RIGHT OF WAY PLAN Task I - Prepare preliminary Right of Way Plan Prepare preliminary right of way exhibit for White Bear Avenue expansion to match current layout plan. Limits of Right of Way identification to include WBA from Radatz to South Ramp 5 (PW ) of interchange, County Road D, Woodlynn Ave., Lydia Ave. and Beam Ave. all east and west of WBA. Task 2 - Prepare preliminary estimate of taking. For each parcel impacted by roadway expansion, prepare preliminary estimate of temporary construction easements, permanent easements, and fee title takings for roadway. 6. AGENCY /PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. Task I- Meeting attendance w /Agencies. Prepare agenda's, background information, and attend meetings with City staff, other consultants, and other agencies. This will include meetings with the following: Ramsey County City of White Bear Lake Mn/DOT City Council Task 2- Public Meetings. Prepare agenda's, background information, exhibits, graphics, and attend meetings with the general public and/or businesses to begin process of public input, information and project feedback. This could include a few newsletter articles, or other information pieces as requested by agencies. Mailings and other mass produced documents are assumed by others and not included. 6 (PW ) FEW *:I:II:l1 r:3 ESTIMATED COSTS INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NO. 5B (FIVE B) WHITE BEAR AVENUE and WHITE BEAR AVE /I- 694INTERCHANGE CITY PROJECT 02 -21 Consistent with IPO #5 and #5A, Kimley -Horn proposes to perform all services for the project on an hourly (cost plus) basis using the attached hourly rate schedule. The following is a summary of the estimated costs for each task detailed in the Scope of Services (Exhibit A). WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT No change. 2A. SHORT TERM TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY. Signal Timing Optimization Implementation. IPO # 5A included an estimated fee for this task of $28,500. We propose a revised fee of $38,000 to include the additional tasks and direct expenses described as a part of this IPO. A sub - consultant will be used to conduct traffic counts as identified in the scope of services. 3A. PREPARE PRELIMINARY GEOMETRIC LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE. IPO # 5A included an estimate for this task of $47,400. We propose a revised fee of $74,500 to include the additional tasks described as a part of this IPO. 4. FEDERAL FUNDING APPLICATION. No change. 5. DEVELOP PRELIMINARY RIGHT OF WAY PLAN. This is a new item added in this IPO. We propose a fee of $9,500 to include the tasks described as a part of this IPO. 6. AGENCY /PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. 7 (PW ) This is a new item added in this IPO. We propose a fee of $19,500 to include the tasks described as a part of this IPO. Reimbursable Expenses Reimbursable expenses (copy /printing charges, plotting, mileage, delivery charges, faxes, etc.) will be charged as an office expense at 5.5% of the labor fee. Any subconsultant charges will be excluded from the office expense and will be passed directly to the City with no Kimley -Hom markup. IPO #5 and #5A included an estimated amount of $5,150 for the reimburseable expenses. We propose a revised estimated amount of $8,250 for the reimburseable expenses. (1) (2) Estimated Cost Summary Services 1. Work Plan Development 2 Traffic Operations Study 3. Prelim Geometric Layout 4. Federal Funding Application 5. Prelim Right of Way Plan 6. Agency /Public Involvement Previous Estimate Fees & Expenses $10,000 $28,500 $42,000 $9,500 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 Revised Estimated Fees and Expenses $10,000 $38,000 $74,500 $9,500 $9,500 $19,500 $8,250 $169,250 7. Reimbursable Expenses Totals: 2. Total Estimated Cost this IPO 8 (PW ) $ 79,250 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NUMBER 5C WHITE BEAR AVENUE and WHITE BEAR AVE /I -694 INTERCHANGE CITY PROJECT 02 -21 IPO #5, #5A, and #513 included various services to assist the City and Ramsey County in developing scope, traffic analysis, layouts and funding mechanisms for White Bear Avenue and the White Bear Avenue /I694 Interchange. This IPO is a new IPO for subsequent/on -going services required and/or requested by City and Ramsey County staff to continue to move the project forward. 1. WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT No additional services. 2. SHORT TERM TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY No additional services. 3. PRELIMINARY GEOMETRIC LAYOUTS No additional services. 4. FUNDING APPLICATION No additional services. 5. PRELIMINARY RIGHT OF WAY PLAN No additional services. 6. AGENCY COORDINATION /PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Kimley -Horn will continue to work with the agencies to develop the scope of the project and move the project forward. Services to be continued include: Working with the City of Maplewood and Ramsey County to advance the project. Assisting Ramsey County with funding policies and presentation materials. Meetings with Mn /DOT, the FHWA, and the sponsoring agencies to advance and coordinate the project. 9 (PW ) Meetings with Mn /DOT and the FHWA to develop the appropriate scope and process for proceeding with the project including: traffic modeling, environmental determinations, and geometric layouts. Mn/DOT /FHWA GEOMETRIC STUDY Kimley -Hom will work with the City of Maplewood and Ramsey County to prepare a summary of the required work plan for geometric study efforts for improvements to the I- 694/White Bear Avenue interchange. To date, Kimley -Horn, the City of Maplewood and Ramsey County have evaluated the likely ways to improve White Bear Avenue adjacent to Maplewood Mall and at the I -694 interchange. Conceptually, the County and the City have identified a single point urban interchange as the preferred alternative. The City and the County have presented these concepts to Mn/DOT and the FHWA. Mn /DOT and the FHWA have concurred with the general need for improvements to the I -694 / White Bear Avenue interchange and have concurred that the City and the County should undertake further steps in transportation planning, traffic operations analysis, conceptual geometric design, and environmental documentation. The overarching purpose of this work effort is to gain concurrence from Mn /DOT and FHWA as to the preferred geometric design of the improved interchange. Ultimately, a staff approved geometric layout is to be achieved. A key step toward that goal is concurrence from Mn /DOT and FHWA as to the configuration of the interchange. This IPO includes services to work with Mn /DOT and the FHWA to develop the required work plan for the geometric study phase of the project. The actual completion of these tasks will be performed under a future IPO. 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Kimley -Horn will work with the City of Maplewood and Ramsey County to develop the work plan for the environmental assessment efforts required for the development and acceptance of the appropriate environmental documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Aid process as described in the MnDOT Manual for the Preparation of Project Development Documents ( MnDOT 5 -892, 1993). This IPO includes services to work with Mn /DOT and the FHWA to develop the required work plan for the environmental assessment phase of the project. The actual completion of these tasks will be performed under a future IPO. 10 (PW ) B. EXHIBIT B ESTIMATED COSTS INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NO. 5C WHITE BEAR AVENUE and WHITE BEAR AVE /I -694 INTERCHANGE CITY PROJECT 02 -21 Kimley -Horn proposes to perform all services for this project on an hourly (cost plus) basis using the attached hourly rate schedule. The following is a summary of the estimated costs for each task detailed in the Scope of Services (Exhibit A). 1. WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT No additional services. 2. SHORT TERM TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STUDY No additional services. 3. PRELIMINARY GEOMETRIC LAYOUTS No additional services. 4. FUNDING APPLICATION No additional services. 5. PRELIMINARY RIGHT OF WAY PLAN No additional services. 6. AGENCY COORDINATION /PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IPO #513 included an estimated amount for this task of $19,500. We propose a revised fee of $37,450 to include the additional tasks described as a part of this IPO. Mn/DOT /FHWA GEOMETRIC STUDY This is a new work task We propose an estimated amount of $2,200 for the tasks described as a part of this IPO. 11 (PW ) 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This is a new work task We propose an estimated amount of $3,500 for the tasks described as a part of this IPO. 9. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable expenses (copy /printing charges, plotting, mileage, delivery charges, faxes, etc.) will be charged as an office expense at 5.5% of the labor fee. Any subconsultant charges will be excluded from the office expense and will be passed directly to the City with no Kimley -Hom markup. IPO #5, #5A, and #513 included an estimated amount of $8,250 for the reimbursable expenses. We propose a revised estimated amount of $9,600 for the reimbursable expenses. 12 (PW ) Previous Revised Estimated Fees Estimated Fees Services & Expenses & Expenses 1. Work Plan Development $10,000 $10,000 2 Traffic Operations Study $38,000 $38,000 3. Prelim Geometric Layout $74,500 $74,500 4. Federal Funding Application $9,500 $9,500 5. Prelim Right of Way Plan $9,500 $9,500 6. Agency Coordination/ Public Involvement $19,500 $37,450 7. Mn /DOT /FHWA Geometric Study $0 $2,200 8. Environmental Assessment $0 $3,500 9. Reimbursable Expenses $8,250 $9,600 Totals: $169,250 $194,250 1. Total Estimated Cost this IPO NO. 5C (Five C) $25,000.00 12 (PW ) Agenda Item K5 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: TH 61 Improvements - County Road D Court Improvements - TH 61 East Frontage Road Improvements - City Projects 03 -07 / 04 -06 / 04 -26 - Resolution Combining Projects for Bidding; Approving Plans and Specifications; and Authorizing Receipt of Bids DATE: April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION The city has been working on various roadway improvements along Trunk Highway 61 in cooperation with MnDOT and the local businesses. Access points and driveways are a major concern for traffic movement. All efforts to consolidate the driveways are being made to improve safety and traffic efficiency. Three projects have been designed and are ready to proceed to the bidding phase. Approval of the plans and authorization to receive bids is recommended. Background Public hearings were held for three projects as noted in the heading of this report on December 13, 2004. The projects were studied and reviewed as separate improvement projects, and separate public hearings were held. The overall goal for the area was to improve traffic flow through the corridor on Trunk Highway 61 (TH 61) between Beam Avenue and Interstate 694. Included in the overall package is the installation of the signal at the intersection with newly - aligned County Road D. The intersection improvements include the addition of turn lanes and merge lanes. A cooperative agreement approved by MnDOT in 2004 is part of this project. This is Project 03 -07, the TH 61 Improvements. The combinations of driveway points along the eastern side of TH 61 between new County Road D and 1- 694 are part of the long -term traffic solution for this area. MnDOT has provided the city with a cooperative agreement award of $540,000 that includes consideration of driveway consolidation. Kline Volvo is interested in providing a frontage road system that serves their property and connects to the Nissan site. Lexus has also agreed to participate in the frontage road that would consolidate three driveways into a single driveway. The frontage road would also provide an area for off - loading new vehicles that is not on the public road system. The frontage road would be a private roadway that would be maintained by the private businesses. The reason for this project being constructed by the city is that access points and median improvements need to be constructed by a public agency according to MnDOT requirements. The city will facilitate the improvements and assess the costs back to the private businesses. This is Project 04 -25, TH 61 East Frontage Road. Finally, MnDOT has requested that the City provide implementation of a merge lane from the West Bound 1 -694 exit to southbound TH 61. This merge lane requires the closure of the existing County Road D access point and the creation of County Road D Court. MnDOT is providing additional cooperative agreement funds for the merge lane construction and money toward the construction of the cul -de -sac necessary at County Road D Court. This is Project 04 -06, County Road D Court. Agenda Item K5 Project Approvals The plans and specifications for each project are complete and have been reviewed by MnDOT to meet the Cooperative Agreement requirement. The work for each project is dependent upon the completion and coordination with the other projects, so a final decision has been made to have one contractor bid each project. This should allow for the best prices and easiest coordination of project items. The engineering consultant is preparing the final submittal to MnDOT to meet the Cooperative Agreement provisions and the project will be ready to advertise for bids in May. The final bid date will need to be agreed to by MnDOT; however, it will likely be set for May 26` or June 3 The attached resolution establishes the May 26` date, but authorizes the City Engineer to extend the date as needed to meet MnDOT final agreement provisions. It is anticipated that an award of contract will be made at the June 13, 2005 meeting, construction will start later in June and be completed by October or November of 2005. Budget Impact The approved project budgets for each project are: 03 -07, TH 61 Improvements: $1,295,835 04 -06, County Road D Court: $ 653,740 04 -25, TH 61 East Frontage Road: $ 421,000 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGETS $2,370,575 An update of the detailed financing plan for this project will be prepared after bids are received. The project is dependent upon final MnDOT calculations for the Cooperative Agreement and their participation, therefore detailed numbers cannot be finalized until bids are received. The plan will be presented at the time of project award. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution combining the TH 61 Improvements; County Road D Court; and TH 61 East Frontage Road projects For bidding; approving the plans and specifications for each of the three projects; and authorizing receipt of bids on either May 26 or June 3 at 10:00 am, with the specific date to be determined by the City Engineer. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Project Map (A colored map will be provided to the mayor and council.) Agenda Item K5 RESOLUTION COMBINING PROJECTS FOR BIDDING APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AUTHORIZING BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on May 24th, 2004, plans and specifications for TH 61 Improvements (Beam Ave. to Interstate 694), Project 03 -07 have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, and WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on December 13th, 2004, plans and specifications for County Road D Court (TH 61 to new County Road D), Project 04 -06 have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, and WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on December 13th, 2004, plans and specifications for TH 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25 have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that it would be in the City's best interests for cost and construction coordination issues that these three said projects be combined for bidding and construction purposes. 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 10:00 a.m. on the 28th day of May, 2005, (or, if necessary as determined by the City Engineer to meet MnDOT requirements at 10:00 am on the 3'' day of June, 2005) 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 June 13 ` , 2005. �. �E GA 4- Agenda Item K6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Court Improvements (TH 61 to Cty Rd D), City Project 04 -06 — Approve Exchange Agreement with Hillcrest Animal Hospital (Xaris Properties) DATE: April 17, 2005 INTRODUCTION As part of the realignment of County Road D, west of Trunk Highway 61, the existing portion of County Road D will become a local street and will become a cul -de -sac. Ramsey County will provide funds as part of the turn back of the roadway, and because the roadway is on the Maplewood — Vadnais Heights border, a joint improvement project is required. A public hearing was held on December 13, 2004. Approval of the agreement with Hillcrest Animal Hospital for right of way acquisition is required. Background and Budget Impact The current action will not affect the approved project budget. Funding for this project will be from various sources: MnDOT will be providing a cooperative agreement award of $312,062 that pays 100% of the cost of the acceleration lane work and $25,000 toward the construction of the cul -de -sac. Ramsey County policy calls for a roadway upgrade contribution of $64,099. The remainder of the project is a split of improvements between Maplewood and Vadnais Heights. The Vadnais Heights contribution is $62,042. The final Maplewood share is $190,537. Of this amount, assessment under the City's roadway reconstruction policy and provisions for new water main service will justify assessments of $55,295. The remaining funds ($115,267) are proposed to be paid through City debt service and an allocation of $29,921 from St. Paul Regional Water Services for water main costs. The debt service payment for bonds of $115,267 is approximately $8,000 annually. The original plan for the cul -de -sac proposed the roadway to end near TH 61. Upon discussion with Vadnais Heights, it was determined that the roadway could be shortened significantly, with the cul -de -sac ending just east of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital. This revision requires acquisition of right of way from the Animal Hospital, which is owned by Xaris Properties. As part of the public hearing, Dr. Bouthilet from the Animal Hospital indicated concern with signage. An allocation to provide appropriate signage for the roadway changes is included within the agreement. Approval is recommended. Dr. Bouthilet has reviewed the agreement and staff understands that she has agreed to the proposed cost allocations, purchase price and assessment amounts. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached agreement with Xaris Properties for the County Road D Court Improvements (New County Road D to TH 61), City Project 04 -06 and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement. Attachments: 1. Exchange Agreement 2. Location Map EXCHANGE AGREEMENT This Agreement, dated April , 2005, is between the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City ") and Xaris Properties, LLC, a limited liability company in the State of Minnesota doing business as Hillcrest Animal Hospital (hereinafter "Hillcrest "). WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a project Imown as the County Road D Court Improvements, Project Number 04 -06; WHEREAS, Hillcrest owns property in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota with said Project Area, legally described as: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22 which lies North and West of the Saint Paul and White Bear State Highway and North of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point in the West line of said Section 3, which point is 185.55 feet South of the Northwest comer of said Section 3; thence Southeasterly in a straight line 406.11 feet to a point in the centerline of Saint Paul and Duluth Highway No. 61, which point is 323.36 feet southwesterly from the point of intersection of said centerline of said highway with the North line of said Section 3. "Subject Property;" WHEREAS, Hillcrest operates its Hillcrest Animal Hospital business on the Subject Property; WHEREAS, the City is in need of a roadway parcel portion of the Subject Property for roadway purposes and a temporary easement for construction purposes over, under and across the Subject Property. Said roadway parcel being that part of the above described parcel lying northerly of the following described fine: Said line commences at the northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter; thence south 01 degrees 13 minutes 44 seconds east, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 33.01 feet; thence south 89 degrees 50 minutes 48 seconds east, parallel with the north line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 147.05 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described: thence southeasterly, easterly and northeasterly a distance of 106.55 feet along a non - tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 56.67 feet, a central angle of 107 degrees 43 minutes 44 seconds, a chord length of 91.54 feet and a chord bearing of south 89 degrees 50 minutes 48 seconds east, to the south line of the north 33 feet of said Parcel (also being the south line of County Road D) and there terminating. "Roadway Parcel" Said roadway parcel containing 1,490 square feet (0.034 acres), more or less. Said temporary easement being that part of the above described parcel (Subject Property) described as follows: The south 10.00 feet of the north 43.00 feet of the west 94.48 feet of said parcel, which lies adjacent to and southerly of the south right of way of County Road D. "Temporary Easement Property" Said temporary easement containing 945 feet (0.022 acres), more or less. WHEREAS, in exchange for grant of fee simple title to the above - described Roadway Parcel the City shall pay Hillcrest consideration of five thousand, nine hundred and sixty dollars ($5,960); WHEREAS, in exchange for grant of a temporary easement over, under and across the above - described Temporary Easement Property by Hillcrest, the City shall pay Hillcrest consideration of one dollar ($1.00); WHEREAS, City's roadway and construction purposes will result in the removal or destruction of certain Signage currently in use on Subject Property; and WHEREAS, in exchange for the grant of fee simple title to the above described Roadway Parcel and a temporary easement over, under and across the above - described Temporary Easement Property by Hillcrest, the City shall pay Hillcrest additional consideration for the relocation or replacement of said Signage not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000), NOW THEREFORE, Hillcrest agrees to the following: 1. Hillcrest agrees to convey to the City fee simple title by Warranty Deed to the above - described Roadway Parcel free of all encumbrances and to obtain all necessary mortgage releases. The total area of the Roadway Parcel is 1,490 square feet, as described in attached Exhibit A and illustrated in attached Exhibit B. Hillcrest agrees to be responsible for paying all real estate taxes on the Roadway Parcel due at the time of the exchange. Real estate taxes must be paid prior to recording the deed. 2. Hillcrest agrees and dedicates unto the City a temporary construction easement over, under and across the above- described Temporary Easement Property. The City's rights under this Agreement shall commence upon the execution of this Agreement by Hillcrest and the City and shall automatically expire on the 1 st day of September, 2006 ( "Term "). This Agreement shall be of no further force or effect after the expiration of the Term. 3. Hillcrest agrees to execute all documents necessary to fulfill the obligations and terms of this Agreement. 4. Hillcrest agrees to pay all assessments on Subject Property outstanding or pending. Hillcrest further agrees not to contest an assessment amount of $19,594.34 or lower for the County Road D Court improvements. Hillcrest expressly agrees to waive the notice of hearing, hearing and its right to appeal said assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.061, et al. Minnesota case law supports waiver of assessment procedures such as the right of notice and public hearing. In Re Nemzek, 58 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 1953). 5. Hillcrest represents and warrants to the City that: A. Hillcrest has all requisite power and authority to convey to the City fee simple title to Roadway Parcel and the officers of the Hillcrest who execute the conveyance on behalf of Hillcrest have the power and authority to do so and bind the Hillcrest. B. Hillcrest has all requisite power and authority to grant the Temporary Easement and the officers of the Hillcrest who execute the Temporary Easement on behalf of Hillcrest have the power and authority to do so and bind the Hillcrest. C. To the best of the knowledge of Hillcrest, after due investigation, the conveyance of the Roadway Parcel pursuant thereto will not violate any applicable statute, ordinance, governmental restriction or regulation, or any private restriction or agreement applicable to the Roadway Parcel, or to Hillcrest. D. To the best of the knowledge of Hillcrest, after due investigation, the granting of temporary easement to the Temporary Easement Property pursuant thereto will not violate any applicable statute, ordinance, governmental restriction or regulation, or any private restriction or agreement applicable to the Temporary Easement Property, or to Hillcrest. E. Hillcrest has not used the Roadway Parcel or Temporary Easement Property and, to the best of Hillcrest's knowledge, the Roadway Parcel and Temporary Easement Property have never been used for the production, storage, deposit or disposal of toxic, dangerous or hazardous substance pollutants, wastes or contaminations, including but not limited to nuclear fuel or wastes or wastes that are considered hazardous by law and regulations, and to the best of Hillcrest's knowledge and belief, no such substances, pollutants, wastes or contaminants exist on the Roadway Parcel or Temporary Easement Property. To the best of Hillcrest's knowledge and belief, there are no underground storage tanks on or under the Roadway Parcel or Temporary Easement Property. F. Hillcrest will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement. G. Hillcrest has good and marketable title in fee simple to the Roadway Parcel free and clear of all liabilities, liens, leases, encumbrances, assessments, obligations, charges and options of any kind whatsoever, except for such matters, if any, to which the City, at its option, may consent to in writing, and except for permitted encumbrances. H. To the best of the knowledge of Hillcrest after due investigation, there exists no judgment, lien, suit, action or legal, administrative, arbitration or other proceeding, or any change in the zoning or building ordinances affecting the Roadway Parcel or Temporary Easement Property pending or, to the best of Hillcrest's knowledge and belief, threatened against Hillcrest which could result in a judgment or lien against Hillcrest or could result in a re- zoning or taking of the Roadway Parcel or Temporary Easement Property; there exists no other basis for any assertion against Hillcrest which would interfere with or prevent the transactions contemplated hereby. I. Hillcrest represents that no other parties have an interest in the Roadway Parcel or Temporary Easement Property either by claim of damage or ascertain of any rental or leasing rights. J. Hillcrest hereby agrees that the truthfulness of each of the foregoing representations and warranties and of all other representations and warranties herein made is a condition precedent to the performance by the City of its obligations hereunder. The representations contained herein shall survive closing hereunder. The other representations shall survive only to the extent that the matter represented is to constitute a lien or charge against the premises. Upon the material breach of any thereof, the City may declare this Agreement to be null and void. 6. In the event wells are located on the Right -of -Way Property, the responsibility for sealing and capping said wells including all costs is the responsibility of Bloomer Properties. 7. The City's obligation under this Agreement shall be conditioned, for the sole benefit of the City, upon the following: A. Contingent on the City's engineering studies finding that the Roadway Parcel is suitable for the City's intended use. B. Contingent on the City's engineering studies finding that the Temporary Easement Property is suitable for the City's intended use. C. Contingent upon review and approval of final terms by the City Council. 8. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby. 9. No provision contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to have been abrogated or waived by any reason of any failure to enforce the same. 10. The terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon the owners of the Property or any lot located within the boundaries of the Property, their heirs, successors and assigns. 11. This Agreement has been entered into in the State of Minnesota and shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager XARIS PROPERTY, LLC By: Its: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by Robert Cardinal, the Mayor, and Richard Fursman, the City Manager of the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by , the of XARIS PROPERTIES, LLC, a limited liability company in the State of Minnesota on behalf of the limited liability company. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: KELLY & FAWCETT, P.A. 2350 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 P , . `I VADNAIS # I TS CT. W K a 3 3 4. ,❑ nom ke COUNT N Kohlmon Palk Ul N w a AVE. s w i 0 EXTANT AVE. / PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY f I 1 s LYI a [�S;T.JOHN `S a 3 1. SUMMIT CL 9LVC. z 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIE w _ J. DULUTH CT- 4. LYDIA AVE. 0 BEAM AVE, E © w a RACATZ 0 0 3 p z N \MarPafa RAMSEY z — CCUNIY ¢ COURT �'A YE�� F ' w KOHLM AN kco AVE. pQ C co � FY o -} �Ii / � K W �. z Lo EDGEHILL RD. w w u U DEMONT 111 AVE �.. H.'V [ P,k BROOKS AVE BROOKS F. p D I AVE. EL EV eN Ty SEX TANT r AVF - -- 2. 0 ROAD 1 NOR AVE. GERVAIS AVE v G GRA m VIKING SHERREN AVE. \ = COP COPC Z LARK g CT 5 FILE NO. PHONE: (651) 490 -2000 AMAPLE0405.00 �- 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. DATE: ST PAUL,. MN 55114 SEH 6,4,04 Knuckle Head Lake .. AVE COPE AVE. r - u LARK AVF ¢ N.. m ¢ LOCATION MAP COUNTY ROAD D COURT pq.gr TH 61 AT TH 694 N0. 1 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Agenda Item K7 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Courl Ordering Preparation DATE: April 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION Improvements, City Project 04 -06 — Resolutions (2) of Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing With an earlier item on this 4/25/2005 agenda, the city council would have approved the combining of this project for bidding with projects 03 -07 and 04 -25, as well as approved final plans and advertising for bids. The next step in the public improvement process is to order the preparation of the assessment roll and to order the assessment hearing. The city council shall consider approving the attached resolutions Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll and Ordering the Assessment Hearing for the County Road D Court Improvements, Project 04 -06. Background The amounts proposed to be assessed for the County Road D Court Improvements, Project 04 -06, are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, rather on predetermined assessment rates established in the city's pavement management policy, as well as in the feasibility study or by easement acquisition agreements. A total of four properties are proposed to be assessed for this project. An abridged version of the assessment roll is attached to this report. A complete detailed version of the assessment roll is available in the office of the city engineer. It is recommended that the assessment hearing for the County Road D Court Improvements, Project 04 -06, be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 13` 2005. Budget Impact The current action will not affect the approved project budget. Funding for this project will be from various sources: MnDOT will be providing a cooperative agreement award of $312,062 that pays 100% of the cost of the acceleration lane work and $25,000 toward the construction of the culdesac. Ramsey County policy calls for a roadway upgrade contribution of $64,099. The remainder of the project is a split of improvements between Maplewood and Vadnais Heights. The Vadnais Heights contribution is $62,042. The final Maplewood share is $190,537. Of this amount, assessment under the City's roadway reconstruction policy and provisions for new water main service will justify assessments of $55,295. The remaining funds ($115,267) are proposed to be paid through City debt service and an allocation of $29,921 from St. Paul Regional Water Services for water main costs. The debt service payment for bonds of $115,267 is approximately $8,000 annually Due to revisions in the length of the proposed cul -de -sac and respectively the length of assessable front footage of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital property, there has been a reduction in the proposed assessment revenue from what had originally been estimated in the feasibility study. This reduction in assessment revenue would appear to be offset by the reduction of the cost of the street construction. Agenda Item K7 :7 =1911111 L U I L U 14 0 11 1 T I 101 It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for County Road D Court Improvements, Project 04 -06 — Ordering the Preparation of Assessment Roll and Ordering the Assessment Hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, June 13` 2005. Attachments: 1. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll 2. Resolution Ordering Assessment Roll Hearing 3. Pending Assessment Roll for Project 04 -06 4. Location Map (A colored map will be provided to the mayor and council.) Agenda Item K7 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the County Road D Court Improvements, Project 04 -06. 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. Agenda Item K7 RESOLUTION ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the County Road D Court Improvements, Project 04 -06, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 13` day of June 2005, at the city hall at 7:00 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 city engineer and that written or oral objections will be considered. Maplewood, MN County Road D Court Project 04 -06 04/18/2005 City Project 04 -06 County Road D Court ASSESSMENT ROLL TOTALS 55,295.52 Pagel of 4 Totals Parcel Parcel ID Taxpayer Street Parcel Street Owner Street Address Owner City /State /Zip Assessments Number 042922110002 NELLIE J 1296 COUNTY ROAD D E 1296 COUNTY ROAD D E MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 -5258 $ 8,940.00 MCMAHON XARIS 032922220021 PROPERTIES 1320 COUNTY ROAD D E 10559 MANNING AVE N STILLWATER MN 55082 -4657 $ 19,594.34 LLC M 042922110003 1290 COUNTY ROAD D E 1290 COUNTY ROAD D E MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 -5258 $ 17,821.18 M MJAMES TRO 042922110082 1272 COUNTY ROAD D E 2695 TOWN LAKE DR WOODBURY MN 55125 -8702 $ 8,940.00 LLCAND TOTALS 55,295.52 Pagel of 4 Pending Assessment Area Agenda Item K8 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: T.H. 61 Frontage Road Improvements - City Project 04 -2 5 Approving Revision to Project Financing Plan, Ordering Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing DATE: April 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION — Resolutions (3) Preparation of With an earlier item on this 5/23/2005 council agenda, the city council would have approved the combining of this project for bidding with projects 03 -07 and 04 -06, as well as approved final plans and advertising for bids. The next step in the public improvement process is to order the preparation of the assessment roll and to order the assessment hearing. In addition, revisions to the design will require a revision of the financing plan. The city council shall consider approving the three attached resolutions: Revising the Project Financing Plan, Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll and Ordering the Assessment Hearing for the T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25. Background This project involves the construction of a frontage road along the east side of T. H. 61 from Lexus on the south to the old County Road D on the north. The frontage road construction coincides with median and turn lane work proposed as part of the T.H. 61 Improvements. The purpose and benefit of this project is to reduce drive access points and conflicts on T.H. 61. The amounts proposed to be assessed for the County T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25, are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, rather on predetermined assessment rates defined in the feasibility study and finalized in agreements with the affected property owners, (Lexus, Kline Volvo and Kline Nissan). Three parcels, (Lexus, Kline Volvo, Kline Nissan), are proposed to be assessed $306,400 for this project. An abridged version of the assessment roll is attached to this report. A complete detailed version of the assessment roll is available in the office of the city engineer. It is recommended that the assessment hearing for the T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25, be scheduled for 7:15 p.m., Monday, June 13` 2005. Budget Impact Initially the approved funding on this project called for funding entirely from assessments and State Cooperative Agreement Funds with no contribution from the tax levy. During the project design and meetings with MnDOT the scope of the project has evolved. The new frontage road will be required to be connected to existing County Road D, and will require improvements to the existing County Road D connection at T.H. 61. This addition to the project has resulted in a new project cost of $39,700 that is Agenda Item K8 proposed to be funded from tax levy. In addition, $31,400 in additional costs have been added to the project at the request of the auto dealers. The additional $31,400 will be assessed to the respective property owners and is covered by agreements for which the property owners have waived their right to appeal the amount of the assessments. Below is a summary of the project funding approved on 12/13/2004 and revised project funding proposal: Approved Funding Assessments: Cooperative Agreement Funds: Tax Levy $275,000 81,085 0 $356,085 Revised Funding $306,400 75,000 39,700 $421,100 Approval of the revised financing plan results in an increase in an additional $39,700 in tax levy funding. The debt service payment for bonds of $39,700 is approximately $2,700 annually. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for County T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25 — Revising Project Financing Plan, Ordering the Preparation of Assessment Roll and Ordering the Assessment Hearing for 7:15 p.m., Monday, June 13` 2005. Attachments: 1. Resolution Revising Project Finance Plan 2. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll 3. Resolution Ordering Assessment Roll Hearing 4. Pending Assessment Roll for Project 04 -25 5. Location Map (A colored map will be provided to the mayor and council.) Agenda Item K8 RESOLUTION REVISING PROJECT FINANCING PLAN FOR T.H. 61 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT 04 -26 WHEREAS, on December 13` 2004, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota had heretofore ordered the Improvement of T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25, and authorized the finance director implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, during the design process it the Engineer determined that it was necessary to make revisions to the design and scope of the project, thus increasing the estimated cost of the project, and WHERAS, it is now expedient that the financing plan for the project be revised to reflect the revised project costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTAthat the finance director is hereby directed to revise the financing plan for the T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25 as follows: Approved Funding Revised Funding Assessments: $275,000 $306,400 Cooperative Agreement Funds: 81,085 75,000 Tax Levy 0 39,700 $356,085 $421,100 Agenda Item K8 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25. 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. Agenda Item K8 RESOLUTION ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, Project 04 -25, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 13` day of June 2005, 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 city engineer and that written or oral objections will be considered. Maplewood, MN T.H. 61 East Frontage Road Project 04 -25 4/18/2005 City Project 04 -25 T.H. 61 East Frontage Road ASSESSMENT ROLL TOTALS 306,400.00 Page 1 of Parcel Parcel ID Taxpayer Street Parcel Street Owner Street Address Owner City /State /Zip Comm. / M.F. / Institutional Number 32922220015 RICHARD G KLINE MAPLEWOOD DR N 2610 HIGHWAY 61 N MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 -1000 $ 84,800.00 32922220016 BLOOMER PROPERTIES 1-1-C 3000 MAPLEWOOD DR N 16200 WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 55391 -2018 $ 61,700.00 32922220022 RICHARD G KLINE MAPLEWOOD DR N CO KLINE VOLVO INC 3040 HIGHWAY 61 N MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 -1081 $ 159,900.00 TOTALS 306,400.00 Page 1 of Pending Assessment Area T.H, 61 East Frontage Read Improvements City Projert 04- (03-07} Agenda Item K9 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chuck Vermeersch, Engineer I SUBJECT: Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03 -39: Resolution Ordering Assessment Hearing Resolution Approving Revised Project Financing Plan DATE: April 15, 2005 INTRODUCTION At the March 28` 2005, city council meeting, the city council approved the final plans and advertising for bids for the Hazelwood Street Improvements project, and ordered the preparation of the assessment roll. The assessment roll has been prepared and the next step in the improvement process is to order the assessment hearing. At the November 22, 2004 city council meeting the council adopted the proposed project financing plan for Hazelwood Street Improvements as set forth in the feasibility study. The total amount of the proposed assessments on the assessment roll is less than the amount proposed in the feasibility study due to subsequent developer agreements. The city council shall consider approving the attached resolutions Ordering the Assessment Hearing for the Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 03 -39, and Revising the Project Financing Plan for the Hazelwood Street Improvements. Background The project involves the reconstruction of Hazelwood from Beam Avenue to the newly aligned County Road D, as well as the connection to Legacy Parkway. Included in the project are signal improvements at Beam Avenue, drainage improvements, construction of turn lanes, parking bays, sidewalks on both sides of the street and lighting and signal improvements. The property owners affected by the project and associated assessments are Cardinal Pointe, St. John's Hospital, Desoto Associates, and the Southwinds Development. There have been ongoing discussions with each of them throughout the design process. An abridged version of the assessment roll is attached to this report. A complete detailed version of the assessment roll is available in the office of the city engineer. The amounts proposed to be assessed for the Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 03 -39, are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, rather on a predetermined assessment rate established in the city's pavement management policy. The method of assessment is the same as was outlined in the feasibility study. The five parcels of land that comprise the Southwinds Town Homes development are adjacent to the Hazelwood Street Improvements, project 03 -18. The feasibility study for 03 -18 proposed assessments for these five parcels as part of the project financing plan. The parcels and the proposed assessed amounts from the feasibility study are summarized in the table below. Agenda Item K9 Southwinds Parcels PIN FRONT FOOTAGE TAXPAYER STREET ASSESSMENT STORM ASSESSMENT 032922120067 90 City of Maplewood $ 7,884 $1,224 032922120067 110 City of Maplewood $ 9,636 $1,496 032922120067 190 George A. Supan $16,644 $2,584 032922120067 125 Southwinds Holdings Inc. $10,950 $1,700 032922120067 275 Southwinds Holdings Inc $24,090 $3,740 Totals $69,204 $10,744 A subsequent developer agreement approved by the city council under project 04 -12 waived these assessments contingent on satisfaction of the conditions of that agreement. As such, the financing plan for Hazelwood Street Improvements needs to be revised to reflect a decrease in the assessed amount of $79,948 as outlined in the table above. Below is the project financing plan for Hazelwood Street Improvements as proposed in the project feasibility study and approved by the city council following the public hearing on November 22, 2005. Street and Storm Assessments: $ 407,200 (29 %) Municipal State Aid Bonds: $1,016,600 (71%) Total: $1,423,800 (100 %) The revised financing plan proposed is as follows: Street and Storm Assessments: Municipal State Aid Bonds: Tax Abatement Fund (# 432): Total BUDGET IMPACT $ 326,941 (23 %) $1,016,911 (71 %) $79,948 (6 %) $1,423,800 (100 %) Ordering the Assessment Roll Hearing will have no effect on the approved project budget, and since funding has been set aside as part of the developer agreements entered into by the city and Southwinds Builders, revising the budget as outlined above will not affect the approved project budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 03 -39 — Ordering the Assessment Hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 23r 2005 and Revising the Project Financing Plan. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Resolution Ordering Assessment Roll Hearing 3. Resolution Revising the Project Financing Plan 4. Pending Assessment Roll for Project 03 -39 Aaenda Item K9 RDA D D LEGA KWA7 COUNTY" AD D o ST. JOHN'S BLVD_ a ' BEAM AVENUE Y Q nF D 0 0 4 w Markham. Pond x W x KOHLMAN A VE- } Mae�uyDd fr 1 COUNTY OAD C C is L FT 3 O NO SCALL \ —P ROJEC t LOCAI ION PRO POSLD S € HLL I II vlPROVLP41LN 1 Agenda Item K9 RESOLUTION ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03 -39, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 23'' day of May 2005, at the city hall at 7:00 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 city engineer and that written or oral objections will be considered. Agenda Item K9 RESOLUTION REVISING PROJECT FINANCING PLAN FOR HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 03 -39 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered the construction of Hazelwood Street Improvements, project 03 -39 and authorized the finance director implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has entered into developer agreements with Southwinds Builders Inc.. and WHEREAS, said agreements waive the amount proposed to be assessed to the affected parcels under the Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 03 -39, and WHEREAS, the waiver of these assessments affects the financing plan for the Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 03 -39 it is now expedient that the financing plan for the project be revised to reflect the reduction in proposed assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTAthat the finance director is hereby directed to revise the financing plan for the Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 03 -39 as follows: Street and Storm Assessments: $ 326,941 (23%) Municipal State Aid Bonds: $1,016,911 (71%) Tax Abatement Fund (# 432): $79,948 (6 %) Total: $1,423,800 (100 %) Mairimood MN CITY PROJECT 03 -39 Ha elwood St. Impmvemer( HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS City Pq.e t03 -39 4/192005 ASSESSMENT ROLL Parcel ID Owner Name 1 Owner Street Address Commercial Street and Storm '? Assessment 32922240013 DESOTO ASSOCIATES P O BOX 17830 $29,550.40 32922240014 DESOTO ASSOCIATES P O BOX 17830 $75,394.00 32922130011 ST.JOHNS NORTHEAST COMM HOSP 2696 HAZELWOOD AVE $125,488.00 32922210007 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210008 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210009 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210010 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210011 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210012 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210013 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210014 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210015 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210016 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210017 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210018 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210019 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210020 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210021 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210022 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210023 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210024 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210025 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210026 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210027 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210028 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210029 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210030 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210031 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210032 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210033 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210034 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210035 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210036 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210037 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210038 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210039 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210040 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210041 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210042 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210043 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210044 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210045 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210046 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210047 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210048 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210049 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210050 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210051 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210052 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210053 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210054 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210055 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210056 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210057 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210058 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210059 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210060 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210061 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210062 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210063 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210064 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210065 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210066 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210067 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210068 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210069 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210070 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210071 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210072 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 Mairimood MN CITY PROJECT 03 -39 Ha elwood St. Impmvemer( HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS City Pq.e t03 -39 4/192005 ASSESSMENT ROLL Parcel ID Owner Name i Owner Street Address Commercial Street and Storm '? Assessment 32922210073 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210074 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210075 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210076 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210077 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210078 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210079 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210080 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210081 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210082 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210083 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210084 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210085 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210086 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210087 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210088 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210089 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210090 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210091 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210092 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210093 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210094 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210095 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210096 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210097 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210098 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210099 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210100 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210101 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210102 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210103 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210104 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210105 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210106 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210107 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210108 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210109 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210110 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210111 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210112 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210113 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 32922210006 CARDINAL POINTE OF MPLWD INC 3003 HAZELWOOD ST $893.60 $326,940.77 SOUTHWINDS TOWNHOMES PARCELS - SUBJECT TO DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS ALREADY APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL Parcel ID Owner Name Owner Street Address Commercial Street and Storm '? Assessment 32922120067 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B E $9,108 32922120068 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B E $11,132 32922120069 GEORGE A SUPAN 3480 HIGHLAND AVE $19,228 32922120070 SOUTHWIND HOLDINGS LLC 5960 HGHWY 61 N $12,650 32922120071 SOUTHWIND HOLDINGS LLC 5960 HGHWY 61 N $27,830 $79,948.00 PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED PARCELS- FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Parcel ID Owner Name l Owner Street Address ommerdal Street and Storm Assessment 32922210004 RICHARD J SCHREIER P O BOX 17830 NA 32922120039 TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES INC 7615 SMETANA LN #180 NA 32922120025 LEGACY HOLDINGS MW LLC 12100 SINGLETREE LN #101 NA Agenda Item K10 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Pubic Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for the Woodhill Development, City Project 05 -10 Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing DATE: April 18, 2005 INTRODUCTION The city's consultant engineer, Kimley Horn and Associates has completed the feasibility study for the Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements and is available for review in the office of the city engineer. Attached is a copy of the executive summary. Copies of the complete study will be made available to the city council prior to the public hearing. The study includes information on the proposed improvements, proposed financing and probable assessments. The city council will consider accepting the feasibility study and ordering a public hearing. Background Nedegaard Custom Homes is developing the property at 2516 Linwood Avenue with16 single - family lots on a cul -de -sac. The development was approved with Dahl Avenue as a public street with public utilities. The developer has petitioned the city to prepare the engineering plans for Dahl Avenue within the Woodhill Development. All of the improvement costs shall be assessed to the benefiting properties. A project layout is attached. A brief description of the project, project cost and financing are summarized in the attached Executive Summary. The proposed project area is illustrated on the attached project location map. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution accepting the report and calling for a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 9 2005, for the Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Project Layout 4. Executive Summary RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING Agenda Item K10 WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted April 11, 2005, a report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of Dahl Avenue, City Project 05 -10, and this report was received by the council on April 25, 2005, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $599,700. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 9` day of May 2005 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. E 0 0 c9 CJ CT'u NORTH ue, 7 o- MAVER a W a PHRK L- a k w r y HO DR.� JAMES- ➢R. '�' 'V z� R y � RIDGC R °V Q ¢ 35� w- POWERS a £ w A Cf q W '�' MJT GHELL AVE. q @ Mf a 4 w 4 w C a z a ti w a 3 o qq 35 DR CT NI o �N m E u H LD]N AVES w m UPPER .WZ. AFTON o V� o u 54. OAK KNOLL DR. � BERL AND PL. z a _ 55. TIPPER AFTON C1 A u v7 Lp N6FELLOW z N GAR➢ INAL PL. ti 120 3 [' 84. EAGLE RIDGE A 5 87. EAGLE RIDGE R G ro AVE. 3 ° r ADOw Op➢ ➢p fe PARK RIDG AVE DELLRIDGE . OW 147 AVE MAPLEW❑ ❑D a E DGEBRpp 163 ASPEN 9 T29N RE GT. ON AVE. T26N R22W o ET. 3a O ti GLENR7DGE AVE.© 2 1 1990 POP. 30,954 �POPLA A 3 NAP 7TAR y o HILLS II IP i DR z - 1 P G q Tog d ➢qLE AVE ]6a Rg T65 SPRUCEWBOA OF o z ti 83. RED SPLENDER GIN. SANDLrw 3 84. WHITE OAK CIR. LINDEN DR RV O EA a RD. 85. SNOWDRIFT ❑R. OAKWOOD W T tiO N y z 86. P]NKSPIRE LA. BIRCH WU09 RD o s ew Cy D 12 ° q wa °� AISC E w a o 2 ASSw PL Y SIR RD. cr , 3 GEA B 9 LpNmN LA. cIR. o P V1 DN q 4 -. 7 C d p. 3 POND W O AVE V. O,DpY LP. 3 Vdv CT. o TV 0 z a AVE. g9 w PUNUw MAftY PD u V �'%rppD ➢R. P z ° O z 35 u 9 o AH , „ p'DAV r j °� � VALLEY a w a N/U AD 1 �E 7/� D q . E �' Ci R. o 2 q q OF P d C� U(-:A N q W 3 0 �- KW00➢ 3 12 5 9 TEA TEAK OD DR. ARE W as �- 9 CENTURY CIE. C CT ' < pAKRJ ➢6E DR. REST DR. ` �h 3 n ° W N]LL ➢ r 70. CRESTVIEW DO=)WE G> O POULIPT n 04, wINTHROP 5 0 0 0 b� A g➢- CT. Z P OAK E zDR. MU� CAPRIDG[ V� d Sp DW 4 3 P no q IN T*SI ➢E D, q HIINT]NGTpN GT. 3 EJM U o Q9V 9W LINWOOD AVE. 2 Q IAN AVE . N ST LCr , WW 2 z Lq MOO.�/ PE "' ON CID S) RYA" L9 . S 9AHL 3 h g 'r j N J i W A ?T G1 P BL VD. f D OW y EWD P AVE. v c,AV V - MATTERHp RN o O� I W A<IRN L. 83. W g q LA O P D PL Q � �E. WILLIA I w EV q TIMBER Sz 1 84 85. `PG It LQ1 9 VJ P wTCLL RD £� WnM BER CT. ` �' V F/VI URA � ^ '9 S . LFE k P` RE EMERALD m z DR R6- a 07 Q w z C1.T PHYLIS LT.N q AVE. W r VRAE 3 RG �GS� ja VALLENIEWPL. VALIEY L7 ® VALLE D Y VIEWAVE. RED 7 z q C1R PIN CDUPLLR J W T HIGHWO w 0 21 ��OD " AVE. N U 3 5 � v IT vl A BC 78. w 83. �y C9 NAM 'IT Ny qi� a Q �AV E. MAMIE AVE.q�'PPO q z i7 C 2 z r V > 1 , �0 CE AT o z W a MAIDA 3 MI7Z r 4 N Vf R ➢. 82. SOUTHCREST AVEE O �8� OF AVE NEMT AVE. o CpPP OF U CE OGDEN CT. pPl< HEIGHT y SOU" CREST PV E. RL V @' g'J DOUGLYNN CL a q 'TE L e MORELAN➢ U QPW vD"P(, CT. 10. 5 b 4 U �S 49 CQ' V CI W P DWpwSHOE LA. ° 2 S �7 F F Lake JORDAN CT. W r o z BOXWOO AVE. A, WE S u aW 3 V qe AR K a mo C LA. 10. SNOWSHOE CT. w O 2R,➢ �`�-' CT. ti O p "VC AVE. 7 " O MAGBETH � b 4 CARVER AVE 4 \ - YORK ALGOV J C w Z & City of Maplewood, Minnesota Department of Public Works Engineering Division ❑ ❑ Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 2Y UHMRSBY AW. V T. SUIX 31 I H0. (651) M -4197 ST. PAUL MINNMTA 55114 FAC NO. (651) 60-5116 DAHL AVENUE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LOCATION MAP CITY PROJECT 05 -10 EXHIBIT I ..w.. I I I I j g I I I I� \ E I r i� GtF-ofMaplewood, Minnesota Department of Pubtzc Works Engue -&j Division DAHL AVENUE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 05 -10 STREET AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS LE( END PRWMED RMDW.\E MPRDYEVEMi4 PRWMED RIIUNINd W.\L PRDPMED Sigh OVER tro ❑_❑ n. nx, rwn sx m " rna a �d� wme EXHIBIT J 0L MWOOD ME.L — — - - -- - -_ CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DAHL AVENUE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 05 -10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Feasibility Study and Report has been prepared for the Dahl Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 05 -10. The proposed project includes the following improvements: • Construction of anew street identified as Dahl Avenue for the Woodhill development. Dahl Avenue is proposed to be a cul- de-sac roadway with an entrance on Linwood Avenue. • Installation of new gravity sanitary sewer main along Linwood Avenue and Dahl Avenue to service the proposed Woodhill development. The proposed sanitary sewer will connect to an existing sanitary sewer west of the proposed Woodhill development along Linwood Avenue. • Installation of new watermain along Linwood Avenue and Dahl Avenue to connect to existing watermains east and west of the Woodhill development along Linwood Avenue and Ferndale Street. • Construction of rainwater gardens and storm sewer to filter and convey runoff from Dahl Avenue to adjacent wetlands. • Construction of an 8 -foot wide bituminous trail to extend from the Dahl Avenue cul- de-sac to approximately 1,000 feet south to proposed Applewood Park. The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10% construction cost contingency and a 31.5 % allowance for indirect costs. Proposed Improvement Estimated Cost Street Improvements $ 113,100 Storm Sewer Improvements $ 61,700 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 197,000 Watermain Improvements $ 198,700 Trail Improvements $ 29,200 Total Project Cost $ 599,700 The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special assessments to benefiting properties along with City funds. The following is a summary of the estimated funding amounts from each of the proposed financing sources: Financing Source Amount Assessments $ 570,100 P.A.C. Funds $ 21,300 Environmental Utility Funds $ 8,300 Total $ 599,700 The following is a proposed schedule for the project if the City Council votes to proceed. Feasibility Study Accepted, Call Public Hearing April 25, 2005 Public Hearing /Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specs May 9, 2005 Approve Plans and Specifications June 13, 2005 Bid Opening July 15, 2005 Award Contract July 25, 2005 Construction Start August 8, 2005 Construction Complete September 30, 2005 Assessment Hearing October 10, 2005 Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this report, the proposed Dahl Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 05 -10 are feasible, necessary and cost effective and would benefit the City of Maplewood. 11