The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005 07-11 City Council PacketAGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, July 11, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05 -13 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country C. ROLL CALL Mayors Address on Protocol: "Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments /questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. 1 then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments.' D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes from the City Council Meeting -June 27, 2005 �e1 > > : Z ] /ems ] yeZ H . I BY-11 I�_ W as] I , Ill dM1:1. Ill &91:2d *94. Ill IFeAd[a].6I G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Conditional Use Permit Review - Olivia Gardens PUD (Olivia Court, west of Stillwater Road) 3. Kennard Street Improvements, Project 03 -04 Resolution for Acceptance of Project 4. St. Paul Regional Water Services Resolution Requesting Water Aid for Public Improvement Projects: a. County Road D West (TH 61 to Highridge) City Project 02 -08 b. Guldens /Venburg Frontage Road City Project 04 -04 C. County Road D Court City Project 04 -06 d. Kennard Street (Beam to County Rd D) City Project 03 -04 5. Dahl Avenue Street Improvements (Woodhill Development), Project 05 -10- Resolution for Approving Conditions of the Magellan Pipeline Encroachment Agreement 6. Temporary Gambling Church of St. Jerome H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Solid Waste Ordinance Amendment Multi - Family Residential Recycling (Second Reading) 2. 7:40 p.m. Sign Ordinance Amendment Political Signs (First Reading) IATJ/e1 N eZa]0 -1II UNFINISHED BUSINESS Charitable Gambling Requests TH 5 and TH 120 Vacant MnDOT Property -City Project 03 -20- Presentations and Review of Site Plan Proposals: a. Independent School District #622 /City of North St. Paul b. Hill- Murray School C. MnDOT Marsh Ron Cockreil Ramsey County Joint Powers Agreement- Dispatch Consolidation K. NEW BUSINESS Richie /Anondson Non - Conforming Three and Four - plexes (1349 and 1359 County Rd C) a. Land Use Plan Change -(R -2 (double dwelling) to R -3(H) (high density multiple family residential)) (4 votes) b. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Lark Avenue Right -of -Way Vacation (between Hazel and Van Dyke Streets) Lot Width and Setback Variances (1774 McMenemy Street) TH 61 Improvements (Beam to 1 -694) City Project 03 -07 Resolution Approving Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT County Road D Realignment (Southlawn to TH 61) City Project 02 -07 Approve Revisions to Realignment Agreement with BNSF Railroad, Minnesota Commercial Railroad, Xcel Energy, Ramsey County Board and Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority County Road D Realignment West (Surcharge Contract), Project 02 -07 Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders 2 & 3 L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 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: Showrespect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. DRAFT -- MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, June 27, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05 -12 FIN Cae1R1111111faP]NQ4N PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL E. F G Robert Cardinal, Mayor Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Jackie Monahan - Junek, Councilmember Will Rossbach. Councilmember APPROVAL OF MINUTES Present Present Present Present Present 1. Minutes from the City Council Meeting -June 13, 2005 Agenda Item D1 Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the minutes from the June 13, 2005 City Council Meeting as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Abstain — Councilmember Monahan -Junek 2. Minutes from the City Council /Manager Workshop -June 06, 2005 Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the June 06, 2005 Council /Manager Workshop as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach Abstain — Councilmember Monahan -Junek APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to approve the agenda as amended. G9. VFW Temporary Gambling Resolution M1. Charitable Gambling Funds Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve consent agenda items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9. City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 1 Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes-All Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve consent agenda items 2, 4, and 7. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 140,769.39 Checks # 67144 thru # 67205 dated 06/14/05 $ 284,486.63 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 06/03/05 thru 06/08/05 $ 772,778.33 Checks # 67206 thru #67261 dated 06/17 THRU 06/21/05 $ 143,091.42 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 06/09 thru 06/16/05 $ 1,341,125.77 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 487,457.84 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 06/17/05 $ 2,673.00 Payroll Deduction check # 101642 thru # 101644 dated 06/17/05 $ 490,130.84 Total Payroll $ 1,831,256.61 GRAND TOTAL 2. Purchase of Squad Cars Approved the purchase of two 2005 Ford Crown Victoria's for the Police Department. 3. Waterfest 2005 Summary Accepted the Waterfest 2005 report from Environmental Management Specialist Konewko. 4. Annual Spring Clean Up Summary Accepted the 2005 Spring Clean up event from Environmental Management Specialist Konewko and supported the following recommendations: Continue with the fall collection event in September /October at Gethsemane Church. City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 2 Continue to implement service fees (recommending no increase) for residents who utilize this service. Consider eliminating the fall collection event in 2006. Reduce the hours for the 2006 spring collection from 7:00 a.m. -2:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Continue to hold the spring collection event at Aldrich Arena in conjunction with Ramsey County's Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program. Staff will evaluate the clean -up program after the 2006 spring collection and present updated findings to the City Council. Ramsey Nursing Home Foundation — Temporary Liquor and Food -Fee Waiver Approved the temporary liquor and food licenses for The Ramsey Nursing Home Foundation, 2000 White Bear Avenue, on September 16` and granted the fee waiver. Holy Redeemer Parish — Temporary Gambling License and Fee Waiver for Food Adopted the following resolution approving the charitable gambling license for Holy Redeemer church, 2555 Hazelwood Street, to be used on October 2, 2005: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHARITABLE GAMBLING 05 -06 -99 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Holy Redeemer Parish, 2555 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute 349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit 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. 7. Budget Change for Demolition of Old Gladstone Fire Station (1900 Clarence Street) Approved the expenditure of $45,000 for the demolition of the old Gladstone Fire Station at 1900 Clarence Street. 8. Hazelwood Street Improvements (Beam to County Road D), Project 03- 39- Resolution Revising Project Completion Dates Adopted the following resolution for the Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 03 -39, revising the project completion dates. RESOLUTION 05 -06 -100 REVISING PROJECT COMPLETION DATES FOR HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT 03 -39 WHEREAS, the award of the construction contract for Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03 -39, was awarded on June 13, 2005, and WHEREAS, the published advertisement for bids and the contract documents stated that construction was to begin on the project on or about May 31, 2005, and City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 3 WHEREAS, the city's contractor has requested that the contract completion dates be revised to reflect the delay in the contract award. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the completion dates for the Hazelwood Street Improvements, Project 03 -39, are hereby revised as follows: Substantial Completion: August 15, 2005 Final Completion: September 19, 2005 Project Completion: October 17, 2005 This revision has the effect of revising the dates for which incentives would be awarded, or liquidated damages assessed as stated in the contract. 9. VFW 8901 - Temporary Gambling Adopted the following resolution approving the temporary gambling permit for VFW 8901, located at 1946 English Street for July 1 S and 17` RESOLUTION 05 -06 -101 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for VFW 8901. 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. H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:12 p.m. Dispatch Consolidation a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Police Chief Thomalla and Fire Chief Lukin presented specifics from the report. C. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Louis Spies, 1915 Myrtle Street, Maplewood Bob Schneider, 1781 English Street, Maplewood George Rossbach, 1406 County Road C, Maplewood Ann Fosberg, 2516 East Idaho, Maplewood Diana Longrie, 1771 Burr Street, Maplewood d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. This item will be on the July 11, 2005 City Council Meeting agenda. City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 At 8:20 p.m. a five minute recess was taken. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Dahl Avenue Improvements (Woodhill Development), City Project 05- 10- Resolution for Award of Bids a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Public Works Director AN presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to adopt the following resolution accepting the bids and awarding the contract to Danner, Inc. in the amount of $423,817.68: RESOLUTION 05 -06 -102 AWARD OF BIDS WHEREAS, the city engineers deems it in the best interest of the city to combine the Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for the Woodhill Development, City Project 05 -10 for bidding and award of bid, and AND WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on May 23r 2005, for advertising for bid for Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for the Woodhill Development, Project 05 -10, bids were received opened and tabulated according to law, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, 1. The bid of Danner, Inc. in the amount of $423,817.50 is the lowest responsible bid for the construction of Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for the Woodhill Development, City Project 05 -10, 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. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Solid Waste Ordinance Amendment — Multi - Family Residential Recycling (First Reading) a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Environmental Management Specialist Konewko presented specifics from the report. C. Jim Beardsley, Maplewood Environmental Committee, was present to answer council question. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the first reading of the following proposed multi - family recycling ordinance amendment: City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 Draft # 4 — May 24, 2005 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CHAPTER 30 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 30 -107 OF THE CITY CODE AND ADDING A SECTION RELATING TO REQUIRED RECYCLING SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH TWO OR MORE DWELLING UNITS Section 30 -107 of the Code of the City of Maplewood is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 30 -107. Program established. The city has established and developed a local recycling program throughout the city. The city's goal is to promote public education and solid waste reduction and recycling. The city shall require all the owners and managers of multiple family dwellings to assure that they provide recycling services to all their residents. 30- 107.1. Required Recycling Services; Multiple Family Dwellings. (1) Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, the following terms have the meanings indicated: (a) "Multiple family dwellings" means a building or a portion thereof containing two or more dwelling units. (b) "Designated recyclables" means the following recyclable materials: aluminum cans; steel cans; glass jars and bottles; paper recyclables; plastic bottles; and corrugated cardboard. (c) "Aluminum cans" means disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum, commonly used for soda, beer, juice, water or other beverages. (d) "Steel cans" means all disposable containers fabricated primarily of steel ortin used for food and beverages. (e) "Glass jars and bottles" means unbroken jars and bottles, and containers (lids /caps and pumps removed) which are primarily used for packing and bottling of food and beverages. (f) "Paper" means newspapers; household office paper and mail; boxboard; and magazines /catalogs. No boxboard containers used for food product storage in the refrigerator or freezer are included. (g) "Plastic bottles" means plastic bottles shaped with a neck, rinsed and with lids, caps, rings and pumps removed. Recyclable plastic bottles shall be identified on the bottom with the SPI plastic codes #1 (PETE) and #2 (HDPE) including bottles containing: liquor; milk; juice; soft drinks; water; certain food; soap and cosmetics. (h) "Corrugated cardboard" means cardboard material with double wall construction and corrugated separation between walls but not plastic coated cardboard. (i) "Collection" means the aggregation of recyclable materials from the place at which it City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 6 is generated and includes all activities up to the time when it is delivered to a recycling facility. . Q) "Recycling container" for multiple family dwellings means any bin, cart, dumpsteror other receptacle for temporary storage and collection of designated recyclables from tenants in multiple - family dwellings priorto collection. Such recycling containers must be separate, explicitly labeled as to recyclables included, and colored differently from other containers for mixed solid waste or trash. (2) Collection Services Required. The owner ofa multiple family dwelling shall make available to the occupants of all dwelling units on the premise services forthe collection of designated recyclables. The recyclables collection services shall be available on the premises and shall be provided on a regularly scheduled basis of at least twice a month. This collection service shall be for at least four broad types of designated recyclable materials. The collection schedule and recycling containers' capacity shall provide for regular removal or the recyclables such that there is adequate storage capacity available in the recyclable containers to prevent overflowing containers. The owner may use the city's recycling contractor to provide the recycling collection services orthey may independently contract with another licensed hauler and /or recycling contractor to provide the recycling collection services at the owner's expense. (3) Recycling Information Required. The owner of a multiple family dwelling shall provide recycling information to the occupants of each dwelling unit on the property. This information shall notify the occupants of the availability of collection services, describes the procedures required to prepare the designated recyclables for collection, and identifies the dates and times of collection. If the owner elects to use the city's recycling contractor, the city's recycling contractor will supply the owner with the information needed to create this informational fact sheet. (4) Container Requirements. The recycling containers shall be: (a) Sufficient in number and size to meet the demands for recycling services created by the occupants; (b) Equipped with self - closing lids; (c) Equipped with standardized labels identifying the type of recyclable material to be deposited in each containerand colored differentlyfrom other containers for mixed solid waste or trash. (d) Maintained in proper operating condition and reasonably clean and sanitary; (e) Repaired or replaced on a reasonable schedule if stolen or broken. (5) Responsibility for Providing and Maintaining Recycling Containers: (a) If the owner of a multiple family dwelling uses the city's recycling contractor, then the contractor shall provide and maintain adequate recycling containers for demand and needs of the property and its occupants. Or, (b) If the owner uses an independent recycling contractor, the owner shall assure adequate recycling containers are provided and maintained by the independent contractor. (6) Containers Location(s). Recycling containers shall be placed in a location on the premises that permits access for collection purposes but does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. All such locations shall comply with the City's zoning and other ordinances. City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 (7) Transportation and Disposal. Upon collection by the city's recycling contractor orthe owner's independent hauler, that person shall deliver the designated recyclables to a recyclable material processing center, an end market for sale or reuse, or to an intermediate collection center for later delivery to a processing center or end market. It is unlawful for any person to transport for disposal or to dispose of designated recyclables in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility. The contractor or hauler shall transport all designated recyclables in a covered vehicle so the recyclables do not drop or blow onto any public street or private property during transport. (8) Scavenging Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person, otherthan the city's recycling contractor or owner's independent hauler, to collect, remove, or dispose of designated recyclables after the materials have been placed or deposited for collection in the recycling containers. The owner, owner's employees, owner's independent hauler's employees, or city's recycling contractor's employees may not collect or "scavenge" through recycling in any manner that interferes with the contracted recycling services. (9) Annual Report. Each owner or manager of a multiple family dwelling shall file an annual report with the city by January 31 of each year on a form to be provided by the city recycling coordinator. The report shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (a) name of owner and building manager and contact information; (b) address of multiple family dwelling; (c) number of dwelling units; (d) description of recycling collection services made available to occupants, including location of containers, dates of collection and whether collection services are provided by owner, owner's employees, or a licensed collector; (e) description of methods used to inform occupants of availability of recycling services; (f) tonnage estimates for each type of material recycled as provided by the city's contractor or owner's independent recycling contractor; (g) name and address of licensed hauler /recyclerthat provides collection services and where the recyclables were taken for processing. (10) Administrative Penalties. Violation of this chaptershall be charged as an administrative fine as follows: a fine of $200.00 for the first offense; a fine of $300.00 for the second offense at the same location within a 12 month period; a fine of $500.00 for the third offense or additional offenses within a 24 month period at the same location. The owner shall be notified in writing of the violation and if the owner fails to take action within 15 days of receiving the notice of violation, the owner shall be cited for violation in accordance with the fine schedule. 11) Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the City from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this chapter. If the City elects to seek misdemeanor prosecution, then no administrative fine will be imposed under subpart (8) above. This ordinance shall be effective three months following the date of publication. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 2. Pondview Townhomes (Krongard Construction) (Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street) Preliminary Plat City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 Setback Variance Design Approval a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report. C. Commissioner Grover presented the Maplewood Planning Commission report. d. Boardmember Longrie presented the Maplewood Community Design Review Board report. e. Mr. Krongard, the applicant representing Krongard Builders was present for council questions. Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to approve the Pondview Townhomes preliminary plat date stamped May 9, 2005. Prior to final approval of the common interest community plat by the city, the owner or developer must complete the following: a. Revise the location of the wetland /ponding easement to ensure a 20 -foot buffer from the delineated wetland. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. b. Prepare and submit easement documents, if needed, for the required utility and wetland /ponding easements to city staff for approval. C. Revise the grading /drainage /utility plans as specified by the city's engineering department in their June 2, 2005, engineering plan review. d. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit the owner or developer must complete the following: 1) Record the utility and wetland /ponding easements. 2) Since the plat is a common interest community plat and not officially recorded until after the structures are built, all five individual lots must be combined into one property for tax and identification purposes, and a revised lot line subdividing the two buildings must be administratively approved by city staff in order to allow the construction of the two buildings on two separate lots. e. Prior to certificate of occupancy for the buildings, the owner or developer must record the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a 16 -foot setback variance to the adjacent residential property for the proposed Pondview Townhomes located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and AdolDhus Street: VARIANCE RESOLUTION 05 -06 -103 WHEREAS, Jack Krongard of Krongard Builders, Inc., applied for 16 -foot side yard setback variance in order to construct a multiple dwelling housing unit ( Pondview Townhomes) closer than the required 50 feet to an adjacent residential property line. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 Avenue and Adolphus Street. The legal description is: The West 75 feet of the East 375 feet of the South 290 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County Minnesota; ALSO The West 75 feet of the East 300 feet of the South 290 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota; ALSO The East 75 feet of the West 150 feet of the East 300 feet of the South 290 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota; ALSO The East 150 feet of the South 190.04 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, except the South 190.04 feet thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: On June 6, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing for the variance. 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 also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended approval of the variance. 2. The city council approved the variance on June 27, 2005. The city council considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described variance for the following reasons: a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. b. The developable area for the two buildings is limited due to: 1) the additional 15 feet of Adolphus Street right -of -way required by the city; 2) the location of a proposed storm sewer in the center of the property; and 3) the required 30 -foot front yard setback to Adolphus Street. c. The reduction in the town house setback to the adjacent residential property line will be mitigated by the following factors: 1) the town house will be located approximately eleven feet lower than the adjacent residential lot line; 2) the town house proposed is only a two -story structure, and not a large multi - dwelling building; and 3) additional landscape screening will be added to buffer the two properties. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the plans date stamped April 18` and May 9, 2005, for the Pondview Townhomes to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Adolphus Street. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised grading /drainage /utility plans which comply with all city engineering City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 10 department requirements as specified in Erin Laberee's June 7, 2005, engineering plan review, including, but not limited to, the developer entering into a developer's agreement with the city to ensure the sidewalk, easements, right -of -way, homeowners documents, and other items are provided for. 2) Revised site plan showing the following: a) Relocation of the guest parking areas to ensure a 15 -foot setback to the right -of -way. One way of accomplishing this is by reconfiguring the 5 westerly, 90 degree parking stalls as 3 parallel parking stalls. b) The location of a 20- foot -wide wetland buffer easement (20 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland). 3) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) A row of Black Hills spruce or Austrian pine trees (at least 8 feet in height) to be installed along the western property line, running from the front of the town house to the back of the town house. b) Landscaped planting beds to include low maintenance shrubs and perennials to be located in the following areas: 1. In between the driveways, halfway down the drive; 2. Along the end unit sidewalks; 3. Along the back of the buildings, on the sides of the patios. C) Landscaping to be located on the berms along Adolphus Street and Larpenteur Avenue. Landscaping to include low maintenance perennial shrubs, flowers, evergreen and deciduous trees. d) An underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping on the site is watered as required by city code. 4) Submit a lighting plan that shows the location and style of all proposed exterior lights. 5) Revised elevations as follows: a) Extend the brick or ledgestone wainscot along the entire east side of the easterly building. This extension of brick or ledgestone wainscot should be included along the east side of the attached garage and the east side of the town house. b) Adding a more prominent front entry for each unit by adding brick or ledgestone to the front wall of the entries. C) Addition of decorative vinyl shakes within the gables of the east elevation on the east building. d) Addition of a contrasting color belly board along the middle of the east elevation on the east building. e) City staff shall approve the final building products City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 11 6) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. C. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in- ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. 5) Install the required six - foot -wide sidewalk along Larpenteur Avenue. 6) Install wetland buffer signs that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping with the wetland buffer. 7) Remove all unneeded silt fence from the site. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All 3. Charitable Gambling Requests a. City Manager Fursman presented the report and its specifics. b. Police Chief Thomalla spoke regarding the Maplewood Police Reserves. C. The following persons were heard: Char Wasiluk representing the Bruentrup Farm George Rossbach representing the Ramsey County Fair Linda Christenson representing the Heritage Theatre Company JoAnn Galvin representing Hill Murray School Cedric Long representing Webster School PTL Jeanie Summer representing the Dispute Resolution Center Mayor Cardinal and each councilmember will submit their recommendations to City Manager Fursman who will total the numbers for approval at the July 11` City Council Meeting. 4. 2005 -2006 Dispatcher Labor Agreement a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Human Resources Director Le Presented specifics from the report. City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 12 Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following proposed 2005 -2006 negotiated labor agreements between the City and IAFF Local A -22 representing the Public Safety Dispatchers: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AND IAFF LOCAL A -22 - DISPATCHERS CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT June 1, 2005 Wages and Duration: Two year contract for 2005 -2006; General wage increase of 2% for 2005 and 3% for 2006 with the provision that if the City receives the previously withheld Homestead Value Credit from the State for 2005, the wage adjustment will increase to 3% retroactive to January 1, 2005. If the City does not receive this aid, the wage adjustment for 2005 will remain at 2% and the wage adjustment for 2006 will change to 2% on January 1, 2006 and an additional 2% on July 1, 2006. The two percent increase for 1 -1 -05 will be retroactive. 2. Shift Bidding: We added a requirement to rebid shifts if an employee terminates and there is more than 90 days before the normal bid time. We also added language requiring timely bidding of shifts and consequences for not bidding within 24 hours of notification. (Employee moves to bottom of the list.) 3. Timely Vacation Bidding: We added similar language on bidding vacations in a timely manner. The only difference is the employees have 48 hours to bid. 4. Filling Shifts: We agreed to "post open or unfilled shifts as soon as practical." We also agreed that "reasonable efforts will be made by the Employer to minimize the negative impact on Employees who are assigned to cover shifts." 5. Holiday Overtime: We agreed to clarify which hours are covered by holiday overtime as follows: "Holiday pay shall be for shifts of the actual holiday beginning with the shifts with starting times of 8 pm or later the evening prior to the holiday and prior to 8 pm the day of the holiday." 6. Solitary Pay Differential: We agreed to pay an additional 60 cents ($.60) per hour for solitary work in excess of ten hours per week due to the difficulty of being restricted to the Communications Center without assistance and without being able to leave. Employees working alone for 10 or fewer hours would not be eligible. This additional pay is only for hours in excess of ten in a week per individual. 7. We also made some minor housekeeping changes. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes -All L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS None City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 13 None O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Juenemann moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All City Council Meeting 06 -27 -05 14 AGENDA NO. G -1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: July 11, 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: $ 26.20 Checks# 67262 dated 06/21/05 $ 291,659.65 Checks # 67263 thru # 67322 dated 06/28/05 $ 1,744,337.42 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 06/17/05 thru 06/22/05 $ 927,087.27 Checks # 67323 thru # 67377 dated 07/05/05 $ 124,766.65 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 06/23/05 thru 06/28/05 $ 3,087,877.19 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 495,930.65 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 07/01/05 $ 2,673.00 Payroll Deduction check # 101773 thru # 101775 dated 07/01/05 $ 498,603.65 Total Payroll $ 3,586,480.84 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 06 -24 and 07 -01 1 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 06/24/2005 City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 67262 6/21/2005 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV TAX FORFEITED PARCEL 15- 29 -22- 26.20 67263 6/28/2005 03235 2ND WIND EXERCISE EQUIPMENT AB FITNESS MACHINE 2,996.91 67264 6/28/2005 00052 ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC DECALS 30.89 67265 6/28/2005 00110 ANDREWS, SCOTT REIMB FOR UNIFORM 200.00 67266 6/28/2005 02572 BECKER,SHANE REPAIR AIR CONDITIONER 500.00 67267 6/28/2005 03418 BERNAL, LAURA REF GRADING ESC - 2197 MCAFEE 2,504.25 67268 6/28/2005 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC MERCH FOR RESALE 162.00 MERCH FOR RESALE 270.00 67269 6/28/2005 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS MONTHLY WATER UTIL 203.21 67270 6/28/2005 03412 BRAT PACK RADIO ENTERTAINMENT - JULY 4TH 1,850.00 67271 6/28/2005 00211 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS THRU 2/25 8,878.64 67272 6/28/2005 00230 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. BASE MATERIALS FOR WBA 687.75 67273 6/28/2005 02791 DAVIS & LAGERMAN INC PROJ 02 -07 EASEMENT 500.00 67274 6/28/2005 00419 DOWN ON THE FARM PETTING ZOO 6/4 320.00 67275 6/28/2005 01401 FIRST STUDENT INC BUS FEE TO FLAHERTY'S BOWL 150.00 67276 6/28/2005 02626 FRERICHS CONST CO REF GRADING ESC - 2191 VAN 500.00 67277 6/28/2005 03416 FUN JUMPS ENTERTAINMENT INC INFLATABLE FUN JUMPS - 7/4/05 984.40 67278 6/28/2005 00585 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL NET BILLABLE TICKETS - MAY 1,203.30 67279 6/28/2005 00643 HEALTHEAST ST JOHNS HOSPITAL PROJ 03 -39 TEMP & PERM 48,284.00 67280 6/28/2005 03330 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT 24,628.17 GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT 24,599.98 GLADSTONE REDEVELOPMENT 9,130.67 67281 6/28/2005 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC TREE REMOVAL 773.19 67282 6/28/2005 02728 KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC PROJ03 -22 PROF SRVS THRU 4/30 4,429.46 PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 5,222.26 PROJ 05 -10 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 25,429.36 PROJ 03 -22 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 413.40 PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 9,749.34 PROJ 03 -26 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 759.60 PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 2,988.30 67283 6/28/2005 02607 KINNICKINNIC NATIVES LLC RAIN GARDEN PLANTS 347.40 PROJ 03 -18 HAZELWOOD - PLANTS 1,185.56 67284 6/28/2005 00843 LANDSCAPE ALTERNATIVES RAIN GARDEN PLANTS 165.72 67285 6/28/2005 00908 M R P A STATE SOFTBALL TOURN 700.00 67286 6/28/2005 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY BIRTHDAY CAKES 5 -10 TO 5 -17 61.00 67287 6/28/2005 03417 MCFARLAND, P.C., THOMAS F PROJ 02 -07 ABANDONMENT 6,769.86 67288 6/28/2005 01819 MCLEOD USA LOCAL PHONE SERVICE 5/16 - 6/15 2,102.87 67289 6/28/2005 01044 MN FIRE SERVICE CERT BD FIRE FIGHTER RECERTIFICATION 15.00 67290 6/28/2005 01126 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE PERA LIFE INS (PAYROLL DED IN 309.00 67291 6/28/2005 02105 MN TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE MEMBERSHIP DUES 625.00 67292 6/28/2005 01162 NEW MECH COMPANIES INC RPZ TESTING 245.00 67293 6/28/2005 01175 NORTH ST PAUL, CITY OF MONTHLY UTILITIES 2,451.46 67294 6/28/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF LISA BAILEY -AMB 03009229 647.00 67295 6/28/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF WENDY ROLAND -SWIM 39.00 67296 6/28/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF WILLA HILBORN - 37.27 67297 6/28/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ANNE WELLE -AMB 05004693 16.11 67298 6/28/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF LINI ZIAN - CANCELED CLASS 15.00 67299 6/28/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF PAULA KELTY- CANCELED 15.00 67300 6/28/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JANET HOUCK- CANCEL 15.00 67301 6/28/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF LINDA SHAIN - PARKS 12.00 67302 6/28/2005 01560 ONYX WASTE SRVS MIDWEST INC RECYCLING - MAY 19,093.79 2 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 06/24/2005 City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 67303 6/28/2005 01239 PALANK, MARY KAY REIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/22 8.91 67304 6/28/2005 01254 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY MERCH FOR RESALE 486.95 67305 6/28/2005 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV PROJ 03 -18 HAZELWOOD - PLANTS 357.84 RAIN GARDEN PLANTS 160.28 PROJ 03 -18 HAZELWOOD - PLANTS 3,606.62 RAIN GARDEN PLANTS 422.81 67306 6/28/2005 01360 REINHART FOODSERVICE MERCH FOR RESALE 413.00 MERCH FOR RESALE 188.27 67307 6/28/2005 03398 SHAMROCK GROUP MERCH FOR RESALE 457.00 67308 6/28/2005 01537 STREAMLINE DESIGN INC. SOFTBALL SHIRTS 20.00 67309 6/28/2005 01546 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR LLC T SHIRTS 200.00 SUMMER CAMP TSHIRTS 570.50 67310 6/28/2005 01568 SWANSON, LYLE REIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/12 29.16 67311 6/28/2005 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 912.52 67312 6/28/2005 01580 TSE, INC. JANITORIAL SRVS - 4/17 - 5/14 965.25 67313 6/28/2005 03413 TWIN CITIES COMM CAPITAL FUND TCCCF FUND PARTICIPATION 5,000.00 67314 6/28/2005 03420 ULTIMATE MARTIAL ARTS INC KID SMART DEMONSTRATION 6/23 225.00 67315 6/28/2005 01698 UNITED WAY OF THE ST. PAUL QUARTERLY PAYMENT 684.00 67316 6/28/2005 03414 VADNAIS HEIGHTS, CITY OF BOOTH TO PROMOTE MCC 8/20 & 50.00 BOOTH TO PROMOTE MCC 11/5 40.00 67317 6/28/2005 03419 VERSA -LOK RATINAING WALL SYS CREDIT- RETAINING WALL FOR - 1,224.39 RETAINING WALL FOR WBA 89.19 RATAINING WALL FOR WBA 2,153.50 RETAINING WALL FOR WBA 1,224.39 67318 6/28/2005 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 714.58 67319 6/28/2005 01750 WATSON CO INC, THE MERCH FOR RESALE 220.29 MERCH FOR RESALE 253.08 67320 6/28/2005 03415 WELLS FARGO BANK TCCCF FUND PARTICIPATION 45,000.00 67321 6/28/2005 02410 WELLS FARGO LEASING INC RICOH COPIER LEASE 6/9 - 7/9 1,467.57 67322 6/28/2005 01190 XCEL ENERGY MONTHLY UTILITIES 13,746.21 61 Checks in this report Total checks : 291,685.85 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 06/16/05 06/17/05 06/07/05 06/16/05 06/17/05 06/17/05 06/17/05 06/17/05 06/20/05 06/20/05 06/17/05 06/17/05 06/17/05 06/21/05 06/07/05 06/17/05 06/17/05 06/17/05 06/17/05 06/20/05 06/20/05 06/20/05 06/20/05 06/20/05 06/21/05 06/21/05 06/21/05 06/21/05 06/22/05 06/22/05 MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) MN Dept of Revenue MN Dept of Natural Resources MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. Orchard Trust JP Morgan Chase MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) MSA/Dispatch /AFSCME Unions MN State Treasurer MN Dept of Revenue TOTAL Description Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation Sales Tax DNR electronic licenses Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. Deferred Compensation Investment purchase Drivers License /Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax RHS Contribution Union Dues Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Fuel Tax Amount 11,038.71 9,256.10 6,740.00 1,056.00 16,948.55 99,709.34 57,528.98 24,880.00 1,466,759.17 10,595.30 20,182.95 974.50 2,425.36 15,987.46 255.00 1,744,337.42 H vchlist Check Register Page: 1 07/01/2005 City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 67323 7/5/2005 03421 3RD LAIR SKATEPARK SKATE BOARD INSTRUCTION - 7/12- 1,280.00 67324 7/5/2005 02622 ACE SIGN DISPLAYS INC 2 ENTRANCE SIGNS 48" X 72" & 4,276.40 67325 7/5/2005 00064 ALDRIDGE, MARK REIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/21 6.90 67326 7/5/2005 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC PATROL & BOARDING FEES 6/11 - 1,507.86 67327 7/5/2005 00174 BELDE, STAN REIMB FOR MEALS & LODGING 6/26- 201.02 67328 7/5/2005 02914 BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF MN MONTHLY PREMIUM 124,963.00 67329 7/5/2005 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS WATER UTILITY 1,893.25 67330 7/5/2005 00211 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. PROJ 04 -15 PROF SRVS THRU 6/17 2,099.00 PROJ 03 -36 PROF SRVS THRU 6/17 818.50 67331 7/5/2005 00279 GEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO. CONCRETE FOR WBA SIDEWALK 1,056.48 67332 7/5/2005 02929 CNAGLAC LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE 907.04 67333 7/5/2005 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS COPIER LEASE 511.20 67334 7/5/2005 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS RICOH COPIER - JUL 161.88 67335 7/5/2005 00499 FAUST, DANIEL REIMB FOR MEALS & TAXI 6/26 - 107.01 67336 7/5/2005 00529 FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO MONTHLY LTD PREMIUM 2,342.57 STD PLAN 4043120 -0 -1 JUL 1,516.84 67337 7/5/2005 00543 GE CAPITAL COPIER LEASE 6/13 TO 7/12 293.94 67338 7/5/2005 03422 GE SUPPLY REPLACE HOUR METERS 137.38 67339 7/5/2005 00589 GRAF, DAVE KARATE INSTRUCTOR 169.00 67340 7/5/2005 00647 HARDWOOD CREEK LUMBER INC PINE LATHS 156.34 67341 7/5/2005 02547 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC INC #2 DIESEL FUEL LOW SULPHUR 11,913.90 67342 7/5/2005 02995 INTEGRATED LOSS CONTROL INC HEALTH SAFETY SRVS - 2ND QTR 1,743.00 67343 7/5/2005 02728 KI MLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC PROJ 05 -17 PROF SRVS THRU 5/31 1,102.40 67344 7/5/2005 03256 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE FLSA JOB AUDITS 3,450.11 67345 7/5/2005 01599 LODMILL, SUZANNE DRAMAINSTRUCTOR 625.00 67346 7/5/2005 00908 M R P A SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT 140.00 67347 7/5/2005 00925 MAJESTIC LANDSCAPE CONTR INC SPRINKLER REPAIR 409.56 67348 7/5/2005 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY BIRTHDAY CAKES 45.75 BIRTHDAY CAKES 45.75 67349 7/5/2005 02511 MCHUGH, DAN LACROSSE INSTRUCTOR 348.00 67350 7/5/2005 02872 METLIFE SBC MONTHLY DENTAL PREMIUM 9,548.91 67351 7/5/2005 00983 METRO SALES INC COPIER MAINTENANCE 1,389.41 67352 7/5/2005 00985 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER - JUL 185,478.30 67353 7/5/2005 01018 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT AUTOMATED PAWN SYSTEM FEE - 532.00 67354 7/5/2005 01085 MN LIFE INSURANCE MONTHLY PREMIUM 3,933.70 67355 7/5/2005 02300 OAKDALE LOCKSMITHS KEYS 11.72 67356 7/5/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF NEDEGAARD CONST - DEV 40,000.00 67357 7/5/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REIMB ROSEMARY KOCH -SMALL 117.15 67358 7/5/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF DOUGLAS OSLUND - P &R 70.00 67359 7/5/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF ROCHESTER COMM- 51.00 67360 7/5/2005 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF SHANNON YARITZ - P &R 40.00 67361 7/5/2005 02270 PALDA & SONS INC PROJ 02 -08 CTY RD D PYMT #4 65,541.92 67362 7/5/2005 01941 PATRICK GRAPHICS & TROPHIES YOUTH SOFTBALL TROPHIES 1,727.23 67363 7/5/2005 03423 PINOTTI, DONNA REF GRADING ESC - 2715 1,000.55 67364 7/5/2005 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF CHEMICAL STORAGE FEE 100.00 67365 7/5/2005 01387 ROSSINI, DR. JAMES ADMINISTRATIVE FEE - JUN 100.00 67367 7/5/2005 01409 S.E.H. PROJ 03 -07 TRUNK HWY 61 - OCT 32,454.45 PROJ 04 -28 PROF SRVS - NOV 82.03 PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS - NOV 15,589.83 PROJ 04 -06 PROF SRVS - NOV 10,552.66 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 5 Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 07/01/2005 City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 67367 7/5/2005 01409 S.E.H. (Continued) PROJ 03 -04 PROF SRVS - NOV 2,001.99 PROJ 03 -04 PROF SRVS - DEC 1,153.35 PROJ 04 -28 PROF SRVS - DEC 2,962.08 PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS - DEC 16,903.98 PROJ 04 -28 PROF SRVS - JAN 329.06 PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS - JAN 6,050.88 PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS - JAN 50,477.58 PROJ 04 -06 PROF SRVS - JAN 25,243.88 PROJ 03 -04 PROF SRVS - JAN 201.68 PROJ 03 -39 PROF SRVS - FEB 3,517.19 PROJ 04 -28 PROF SRVS - FEB 580.02 PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS THRU 2/28 32,638.36 PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS - FEB 1,069.77 PROJ 04 -22 PROF SRVS - FEB 800.48 PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS - MAR 6,009.36 PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS- MAR 3,500.00 PROJ 02 -08 PROF SRVS - MAR 323.92 PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS - MAR 1,516.83 PROJ 01 -14 PROF SRVS - MAR 17.50 PROJ 03 -39 PROF SRVS - MAR 2,466.85 PROJ 04 -28 PROF SRVS - MAR 254.39 PROJ 04 -22 PROF SRVS - MAR 18,880.37 PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS - MAR 37,589.88 NPDES PHASE II PERMIT 2,191.00 PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS - APR 1,795.71 HAZELWOOD PROF SRVS - APR 90.00 PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS -APR 1,193.15 TH 36 CORRIDOR STUDY - APR 7,994.85 NPDES PHASE II PERMIT 245.00 PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS - APR 26,663.70 ENGINEERING PROF SRVS - APR 2,073.77 PROJ 04 -22 PROF SRVS -APR 21,929.20 TH36 CORRIDOR STUDY - FEB 6,449.20 TH 36 CORRIDOR STUDY - MAR 13,726.48 PROJ 02 -08 PROF SRVS -APR 1,046.20 67368 7/5/2005 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT MERCH FOR RESALE 164.19 MERCH FOR RESALE 120.51 MERCH FOR RESALE 113.14 VENDING MACHINES SUPPLIES 209.76 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 138.78 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 11.84 MERCH FOR RESALE 81.79 MERCH FOR RESALE 261.96 67369 7/5/2005 03215 SHAFER CONTRACTING CO INC PROJ 02 -07 CTY RD D PYMT #2 69,906.50 67370 7/5/2005 03278 SKRYPEK'S DAIRY QUEEN BIRTHDAY CAKES - JUN 54.75 67371 7/5/2005 01527 STEFFEN, SCOTT REIMB FOR UNIFORM 21.98 67372 7/5/2005 02981 STORK TWIN CITY TESTING CORP PROJ 02 -07 PROF TESTING SRVS 855.00 67373 7/5/2005 01654 TRUGREEN- CHEMLAWN #4635 BROADLEAF WEED CONTROL- 18,794.06 67374 7/5/2005 03026 UPPER MIDWEST COMM POLICING TRAINING 2/23 129.00 67375 7/5/2005 02464 US BANK PAYING AGENT FEES 100.63 67376 7/5/2005 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 1,179.20 67377 7/5/2005 02605 WESTBERG, RICK REF GRADING ESC -1501 BROOKS 2,506.58 54 Checks in this report Total checks : 927,087.27 l.9 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 06/22/05 06/23/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 22,687.23 06/20/05 06/23/05 ARC Administration DCRP & Flex plan payments 989.57 06/23/05 06/24/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 18,373.67 06/17/05 06/24/05 WI Dept of Revenue State Payroll Tax 1,719.13 06/23/05 06/24/05 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 1,544.93 06/24/05 06/27/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 16,282.00 06/27/05 06/28/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 19,606.24 06/24/05 06/29/05 Elan Financial Services* Purchasing card items 43,563.88 TOTAL 124,766.65 *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached 7 Transaction Review 6/30/2005 For Transactions posted between 06/11/2005 to 06/24/2005 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 06/23/2005 BROWNELLS INC 48.00 SCOTTANDREWS 06/13/2005 FIGARO'S PIZZA 31.67 MANDY ANZALDI 06/15/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 44.64 MANDY ANZALDI 06/16/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 77.43 MANDY ANZALDI 06/20/2005 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 25.60 MANDY ANZALDI 06/20/2005 WALGREEN 00016873 20.74 MANDY ANZALDI 06/21/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 26.81 MANDY ANZALDI 06/21/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 62.26 MANDY ANZALDI 06/23/2005 RAINBOW FOODS 00088526 15.31 MANDY ANZALDI 06/13/2005 MN PHOTO 29.77 JOHN BANICK 06/14/2005 STREICHER'S 4,544.74 JOHN BANICK 06/15/2005 MN PHOTO 3.55 JOHN BANICK 06/15/2005 COPYMED, INC. 28.63 JOHN BANICK 06/17/2005 BIFFSINC 337.06 JOHN BANICK 06/17/2005 SHRED -IT 93.24 JOHN BANICK 06/20/2005 DON' PAINT & BODY SHOP 73 6. 00 JOHN BANICK 06/22/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 886.55 JOHN BANICK 06/23/2005 MN PHOTO 6.32 JOHN BANICK 06/13/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 20.46 JIM BEHAN 06/13/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 7.98 JIM BEHAN 06/13/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW 49.31 JIM BEHAN 06/14/2005 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 825.79 JIM BEHAN 06/16/2005 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING 551.74 JIM BEHAN 06/16/2005 CARPETS PLUS COLORTILE -M 1.71 JIM BEHAN 06/17/2005 NUCO2 Of OF Of 67.00 JIM BEHAN 06/17/2005 NUCO2 Of OF Of 57.40 JIM BEHAN 06/17/2005 NUCO2 Of OF Of 52.56 JIM BEHAN 06/17/2005 NUCO2 Of OF Of 82.00 JIM BEHAN 06/17/2005 NUCO2 Of OF Of 70.80 JIM BEHAN 06/21/2005 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 545.18 JIM BEHAN 06/23/2005 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 860.00 JIM BEHAN 06/23/2005 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 490.00 JIM BEHAN 06/13/2005 TARGET 00000687 22.99 OAKLEYBIESANZ 06/20/2005 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKL 7.88 OAKLEY BIESANZ 06/24/2005 AUTOZONE #3082 49.65 RON BOURQUIN 06/20/2005 PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI 8.30 ROGER BREHE FM 06/23/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 52.19 TROY BRINK 06/13/2005 MINNE SOTA SCTY ASC EXC 315.00 HEIDI CAREY 06/13/2005 RUSH KING PROMOTIONS 48.90 HEIDI CAREY 06/14/2005 DGI DYNAMIC GRAPHICS 79.00 HEIDI CAREY 06/16/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 27.11 HEIDI CAREY 06/20/2005 FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 93.29 HEIDI CAREY 06/15/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW 42.41 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 06/22/2005 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE 32.74 LINDA CROSSON 06/22/2005 COMCAST CABLE COMM 87.16 ROBERTA DARST 06/22/2005 SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP 297.40 RICHARD DOBLAR 06/23/2005 PERFORMANCE TRANSMI 62.91 ROBERT J DOLLERSCHELL 06/24/2005 TARGET 00011858 12.77 JOHN DUCHARME 06/15/2005 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT 31.94 DOUG EDGE 06/13/2005 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMENT 11.26 DAVE EDSON 06/20/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 31.05 THOMAS G EKSTRAND 06/15/2005 BEST BUY 00000109 85.19 VIRGINIA ERICKSON N Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 06/13/2005 VRZN WRLS VZSRVE W 73.49 DANIEL F FAUST 06/13/2005 OVERHEAD DOOR OF NORTH 122.70 DAVID FISHER 06/15/2005 BESTBUY 00000109 95.84 DAVID FISHER 06/22/2005 GLENWOOD - INGLEWOOD 106.34 DAVID FISHER 06/13/2005 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 1,009.19 MYCHAL FOWLDS 06/24/2005 CRABTREE COMPANIES INC 974.48 MYCHAL FOWLDS 06/16/2005 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR 48.69 NICK FRANZEN 06/16/2005 HP DIRECT - PUBLICSECTOR 808.34 NICK FRANZEN 06/14/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 1.68 PATRICIA FRY 06/15/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 1.68 PATRICIA FRY 06/20/2005 PITNEY BOWES INVOICE 196.95 PATRICIA FRY 06/24/2005 ICMA INTERNET 50.00 RICHARD FURSMAN 06/17/2005 FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 42.60 CLARENCE GERVAIS 06/21/2005 XPEDX 391.49 JEAN GLASS 06/21/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 5.00 MIKE GRAF 06/24/2005 PRINTGLOBE INC 33.63 MIKE GRAF 06/17/2005 JOANN ETC # 1902 0.71 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 06/24/2005 FEDEX KINKO'S #0626 35.45 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 06/13/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW 64.94 KAREN E GUILFOILE 06/13/2005 OFFICE MAX 00000257 91.03 KAREN E GUILFOILE 06/13/2005 PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC. 50.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE 06/16/2005 HOLIDAY INNS MSPEA 498.16 KAREN E GUILFOILE 06/16/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 68.03 LORI HANSON 06/16/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 100.83 LORI HANSON 06/17/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS -70.25 LORI HANSON 06/22/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 28.28 LORI HANSON 06/23/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS -82.43 LORI HANSON 06/23/2005 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSP 1,287.82 LORI HANSON 06/17/2005 HEJNY RENTAL 159.38 GARYHINNENKAMP 06/16/2005 SCOUT SHOP - ST. PAUL 3.48 RON HORWATH 06/23/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 15.25 RON HORWATH 06/23/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 10.14 RON HORWATH 06/23/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 5.50 RON HORWATH 06/13/2005 NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS 52.17 STEVE HURLEY 06/15/2005 CABLING SERVICES CORPORAT 1,326.24 STEVE HURLEY 06/15/2005 DS MILLER.COM 73.16 STEVE HURLEY 06/17/2005 BESTBUY 00000109 63.89 STEVE HURLEY 06/20/2005 NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS 184.36 STEVE HURLEY 06/13/2005 NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS 37.46 ANNE HUTCHINSON 06/13/2005 LANDSCAPE ALTERNATIVES IN 1,281.51 ANN E HUTCHINSON 06/16/2005 HANCOCK FABRICS 6037 46.71 ANN E HUTCHINSON 06/23/2005 CUB FOODS - SUN RAY 23.29 ANN E HUTCHINSON 06/15/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 446.44 DAVID JAHN 06/20/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 55.26 DAVID JAHN 06/20/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 2.29 KEVIN JOHNSON 06/20/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 63.59 KEVIN JOHNSON 06/17/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 3.60 FLINT KARIS 06/13/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 19.16 MARY B KOEHNEN 06/24/2005 FITNESS WHOLESALE INC 59.30 MARY B KOEHNEN 06/13/2005 BESTWESTERN 269.64 DAVID KVAM 06/20/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 131.90 DAVID KVAM 06/23/2005 ARMSTRONG RANCH KENNELS 284.36 DAVID KVAM 06/16/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC -7.35 MICHAEL LIDBERG 06/16/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC -22.05 MICHAEL LIDBERG 06/13/2005 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP -MN 11.69 DENNIS LINDORFF 06/17/2005 MENARDS 3022 37.40 DENNIS LINDORFF A Post Date Vendor Name 06/20/2005 06/20/2005 06/22/2005 06/13/2005 06/15/2005 06/22/2005 06/15/2005 06/20/2005 06/24/2005 06/13/2005 06/15/2005 06/24/2005 06/17/2005 06/24/2005 06/20/2005 06/14/2005 06/13/2005 06/17/2005 06/15/2005 06/17/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/16/2005 06/13/2005 06/14/2005 06/14/2005 06/14/2005 06/15/2005 06/16/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/17/2005 06/20/2005 06/20/2005 06/20/2005 06/21 /2005 06/22/2005 06/22/2005 06/22/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/23/2005 06/24/2005 06/24/2005 06/15/2005 06/24/2005 06/24/2005 06/16/2005 06/13/2005 06/23/2005 06/13/2005 06/15/2005 06/17/2005 06/20/2005 06/20/2005 06/20/2005 OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER RADIO SHACK 00161133 MENARDS 3022 NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS VERIZON WRLS 12KW SBC PAGING VERIZON WRLS 12KW LTG POWER EQUIPMENT PATIO TOWN OAKDALE TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 0000 VERIZON WRLS 12KW TARGET 00011858 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS FEDEX KINKO' S #0617 QWEST COMMUNICATION PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC. S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS THE HOME DEPOT 280E OFFICE MAX 00002204 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT MENARDS 3059 SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LABS THE HOME DEPOT 280E POMPS TIRE SERVICE FACTORY MOTOR PARTS PAM OIL INC BAUER BULT TRE33200023 EAT INC CATCO PARTS & SERV # I CATCO PARTS & SERV # I KATH AUTO PARTS TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 EAT INC BAUER BULT TRE33200023 DAVIS /SUN TURF /ST. PAUL KATH AUTO PARTS KATH AUTO PARTS KATH AUTO PARTS SUNRAY BTB KATH AUTO PARTS DAVIS /SUN TURF /ST. PAUL KATH AUTO PARTS KATH AUTO PARTS FASCO AMOCO OIL 09498072 BEST WESTERN RAMKOTA FITE THE STAR TRIBUNE - ADVERTIS DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE TARGET 00011858 MICHAELS #2744 THE HOME DEPOT 280E FLAHERTY'S ARDEN BOWL CUB FOODS, INC. CUB FOODS, INC. Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 137.39 DENNIS LINDORFF 16.03 DENNIS LINDORFF 44.58 DENNIS LINDORFF 1,118.80 STEVE LUKIN 55.58 STEVE LUKIN 17.72 STEVE LUKIN 36.23 MARK MARUSKA 99.61 MARK MARUSKA 171.22 MARK MARUSKA 755.09 ED NADEAU 61.85 ED NADEAU 12.77 ED NADEAU 57.36 BRYAN NAGEL 14.44 JEAN NELSON 2.43 AMY NIVEN 673.00 MARSHA PACOLT 50.00 DENNIS PECK 51.03 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 10.63 ROBERT PETERSON 15.96 ROBERT PETERSON 20.21 ROBERT PETERSON 132.66 ROBERT PETERSON 400.71 PHILIP F POWELL 8.72 STEVENPRIEM 639.00 STEVENPRIEM 20.22 STEVENPRIEM 62.11 STEVENPRIEM 134.79 STEVENPRIEM 353.58 STEVENPRIEM 393.99 STEVENPRIEM 122.27 STEVENPRIEM 79.57 STEVENPRIEM 27.60 STEVENPRIEM 40.74 STEVENPRIEM 351.45 STEVENPRIEM 56.86 STEVENPRIEM 131.09 STEVENPRIEM 31.89 STEVENPRIEM 48.03 STEVENPRIEM 30.10 STEVENPRIEM 43.61 STEVENPRIEM 16.72 STEVENPRIEM 19.92 STEVENPRIEM 47.36 STEVENPRIEM 543.15 KEVIN RABBETT 29.50 KEVIN RABBETT 320.28 KEVIN RABBETT 1,787.58 TERRIE RAMEAUX 1,182.68 MICHAEL REILLY 37.53 MICHAEL REILLY 105.49 AUDRA ROBBINS 81.07 AUDRA ROBBINS 19.94 AUDRA ROBBINS 450.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 36.77 AUDRA ROBBINS 51.26 AUDRA ROBBINS 10 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 06/20/2005 TOYS R US #6048 161.76 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/22/2005 USA INFLATABLES 1,278.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/23/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 38.61 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/23/2005 JOES SPORTING GOODS 13.26 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/23/2005 TARGET 00011858 52.05 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/24/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 27.94 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/24/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 7.50 AUDRA ROBBINS 06/21/2005 CONCRETE FORM ENGINEERS 165.85 ROBERT RUNNING 06/17/2005 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 16.15 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 06/21/2005 BESTBUY 00000109 12.24 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 06/23/2005 MENARDS 3022 19.04 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 06/24/2005 SHERWIN WILLIAMS #3127 25.39 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 06/21/2005 CURTIS 1000 87.44 DEB SCHMIDT 06/24/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 30.78 DEB SCHMIDT 06/13/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 5.80 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 06/13/2005 ARAMARK REF SVS #6013- 266.95 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 06/13/2005 PETSMART 00004614 13.83 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 06/14/2005 FITNESS WHOLESALE INC 150.60 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 06/15/2005 ROTHHAMMER INTERNATIONAL 250.64 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 06/24/2005 MENARDS 3022 45.02 GERALD SEEGER 06/13/2005 T- MOBILE 24.95 ANDREA SINDT 06/15/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW 45.15 ANDREA SINDT 06/24/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 78.16 ANDREA SINDT 06/13/2005 TGTTARGET.COM 217.05 PAULINE STAPLES 06/23/2005 PATIO TOWN OAKDALE 345.83 PAULINE STAPLES 06/13/2005 TARGET 00011858 8.25 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 06/23/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 93.90 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 95.75 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 110.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 99.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 110.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 139.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 110.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 139.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 110.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 110.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 110.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 139.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN COLLEGE 99.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 MINN FIRE SVC CURT BOARD 55.00 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 BEST BUY 00000109 67.08 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/17/2005 HAWK LABELING SYSTEMS 523.44 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/17/2005 CRAWFORD DOOR SALES CO OF 306.50 AUSTIN SVENDSEN 06/13/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 41.54 LYLE SWANSON 06/13/2005 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE 8.52 LYLE SWANSON 06/14/2005 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 139.42 LYLE SWANSON 06/16/2005 SEARS ROEBUCK 1122 24.47 LYLE SWANSON 06/17/2005 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 76.57 LYLE SWANSON 06/20/2005 US WATER SERVICES 573.95 LYLE SWANSON 06/21/2005 MAUTZ #3525 17.03 LYLE SWANSON 06/21/2005 ANOKA HENNEPIN TECHNIC 62.00 LYLE SWANSON 06/22/2005 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE 28.22 LYLE SWANSON 06/23/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 9.56 LYLE SWANSON 06/24/2005 ON SITE SANITATION, IN 1,739.35 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 06/21/2005 QWESTCOMM TN651 341.50 JUDY TETZLAFF 06/16/2005 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS #807 65.38 TODD TEVLIN 11 Post Date Vendor Name 06/13/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 06/14/2005 WOLF CAMERA #1530 06/13/2005 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS 06/15/2005 MINUTEMAN PRESS 06/16/2005 GREEN STUFF INC 06/20/2005 WAL- MART #3404 06/24/2005 ROS RELIABLE OFFICE SU 06/24/2005 QUILL CORPORATION Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 16.97 JOSEPH WATERS 40.81 JOSEPH WATERS 173.16 SUSANZWIEG 94.80 SUSANZWIEG 104.37 SUSANZWIEG 10.16 SUSAN ZWIEG 54.12 SUSANZWIEG 105.07 SUSANZWIEG 43,563.88 12 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/01/05 CARDINAL, ROBERT 422.42 dd 07/01/05 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 371.77 dd 07/01/05 KOPPEN, MARVIN 371.77 dd 07/01/05 MONAHAN- JUNEK, 371.77 dd 07/01/05 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 371.77 dd 07/01/05 COLEMAN, MELINDA 4,233.20 dd 07/01/05 DARST, ROBERTA 1,673.54 dd 07/01/05 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,638.25 dd 07/01/05 SWANSON, LYLE 1,647.57 dd 07/01/05 LE, JENNIFER 119.25 dd 07/01/05 LE, SHERYL 4,083.50 dd 07/01/05 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,353.34 dd 07/01/05 FAUST, DANIEL 4,253.24 dd 07/01/05 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,442.96 dd 07/01/05 ANDERSON, CAROLE 909.89 dd 07/01/05 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,403.12 dd 07/01/05 JACKSON, MARY 1,802.95 dd 07/01/05 KELSEY, CONNIE 1,182.29 dd 07/01/05 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,802.95 dd 07/01/05 FRY, PATRICIA 1,673.35 dd 07/01/05 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,980.98 dd 07/01/05 OSTER, ANDREA 1,747.66 dd 07/01/05 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,675.26 dd 07/01/05 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,009.45 dd 07/01/05 JAGOE, CAROL 1,616.46 dd 07/01/05 JOHNSON, BONNIE 1,041.99 dd 07/01/05 MOY, PAMELA 773.60 dd 07/01/05 OLSON, SANDRA 1,126.68 dd 07/01/05 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,736.55 dd 07/01/05 BANICK, JOHN 3,834.90 dd 07/01/05 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,614.15 dd 07/01/05 POWELL, PHILIP 2,246.22 dd 07/01/05 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,621.08 dd 07/01/05 SPANGLER, EDNA 264.00 dd 07/01/05 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,247.72 dd 07/01/05 ABEL, CLINT 2,414.21 dd 07/01/05 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,639.19 dd 07/01/05 ANDREWS, SCOTT 3,470.27 dd 07/01/05 BAKKE, LONN 2,643.27 dd 07/01/05 BELDE, STANLEY 2,677.76 dd 07/01/05 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 2,349.63 dd 07/01/05 BOHL, JOHN 2,563.55 dd 07/01/05 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,265.84 dd 07/01/05 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,013.49 13 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/01/05 CROTTY, KERRY 2,416.69 dd 07/01/05 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,596.97 dd 07/01/05 DUNN, ALICE 2,585.35 dd 07/01/05 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 2,298.47 dd 07/01/05 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,463.66 dd 07/01/05 HILBERT, STEVEN 2,406.28 dd 07/01/05 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,442.20 dd 07/01/05 KALKA, THOMAS 1,237.48 dd 07/01/05 KARTS, FLINT 2,749.92 dd 07/01/05 KONG, TOMMY 2,276.45 dd 07/01/05 KROLL, BRETT 2,705.94 dd 07/01/05 KVAM, DAVID 3,387.46 dd 07/01/05 LARSON, DANIEL 398.69 dd 07/01/05 LU, JOHNNIE 2,967.28 dd 07/01/05 MARINO, JASON 2,376.30 dd 07/01/05 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,545.57 dd 07/01/05 MCCARTY, GLEN 2,042.25 dd 07/01/05 METRY, ALESIA 2,277.52 dd 07/01/05 NYE, MICHAEL 1,605.88 dd 07/01/05 OLSON, JULIE 2,499.23 dd 07/01/05 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,450.09 dd 07/01/05 RHUDE, MATTHEW 1,584.25 dd 07/01/05 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,041.24 dd 07/01/05 STEINER, JOSEPH 660.68 dd 07/01/05 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 1,584.25 dd 07/01/05 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,441.20 dd 07/01/05 WENZEL, JAY 2,648.84 dd 07/01/05 XIONG, KAO 2,355.70 dd 07/01/05 BARTZ, PAUL 2,542.47 dd 07/01/05 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,568.16 dd 07/01/05 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,940.44 dd 07/01/05 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,550.80 dd 07/01/05 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,040.06 dd 07/01/05 FRASER, JOHN 2,737.12 dd 07/01/05 LANGNER, SCOTT 1,913.85 dd 07/01/05 PALMA, STEVEN 2,616.98 dd 07/01/05 THEISEN, PAUL 2,133.58 dd 07/01/05 THIENES, PAUL 2,783.98 dd 07/01/05 CARLSON, BRIAN 1,794.43 dd 07/01/05 DAWSON, RICHARD 2,093.51 dd 07/01/05 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,951.51 dd 07/01/05 EVERSON, PAUL 2,218.67 dd 07/01/05 HALWEG, JODI 1,794.43 dd 07/01/05 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,967.98 dd 07/01/05 NOVAK, JEROME 2,047.39 dd 07/01/05 PARSONS, KURT 1,916.83 14 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/01/05 PETERSON,ROBERT 2,159.56 dd 07/01/05 PRECHTEL, ROBERT 2,216.57 dd 07/01/05 SVENDSEN, RONALD 2,341.21 dd 07/01/05 GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE 2,757.93 dd 07/01/05 BAUER, MICHELLE 2,028.30 dd 07/01/05 FLAUGHER, JAYME 2,290.02 dd 07/01/05 HERMANSON, CHAD 1,715.15 dd 07/01/05 HUBIN, KENNARD 2,068.93 dd 07/01/05 LAFFERTY, WALTER 2,312.58 dd 07/01/05 LINN, BRYAN 2,389.38 dd 07/01/05 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,339.34 dd 07/01/05 RABINE, JANET 3,035.68 dd 07/01/05 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,685.29 dd 07/01/05 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,731.90 dd 07/01/05 SVENDSEN, AUSTIN 2,991.94 dd 07/01/05 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,745.35 dd 07/01/05 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 282.07 dd 07/01/05 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,329.30 dd 07/01/05 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,471.57 dd 07/01/05 GROHS, JUDITH 1,752.28 dd 07/01/05 NIVEN, AMY 1,187.82 dd 07/01/05 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,604.66 dd 07/01/05 BRINK, TROY 1,655.75 dd 07/01/05 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,822.15 dd 07/01/05 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,832.15 dd 07/01/05 ELIAS, BRANDON 800.00 dd 07/01/05 JONES, DONALD 1,943.15 dd 07/01/05 KANE, MICHAEL 30,282.53 dd 07/01/05 MEYER, GERALD 1,916.19 dd 07/01/05 NAGEL, BRYAN 2,276.71 dd 07/01/05 OSWALD, ERICK 2,024.26 dd 07/01/05 RUNNING, ROBERT 1,585.95 dd 07/01/05 TEVLIN, TODD 1,708.75 dd 07/01/05 BEYER, MEGAN 934.13 dd 07/01/05 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,270.46 dd 07/01/05 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,323.66 dd 07/01/05 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,611.53 dd 07/01/05 ISAKSON, CHAD 967.33 dd 07/01/05 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,894.43 dd 07/01/05 KNUTSON, LOIS 972.37 dd 07/01/05 LABEREE, ERIN 2,274.95 dd 07/01/05 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,323.66 dd 07/01/05 PECK, DENNIS 2,330.59 dd 07/01/05 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,325.97 dd 07/01/05 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 2,210.15 dd 07/01/05 ANDERSON,BRUCE 4,199.42 15 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/01/05 CAREY, HEIDI 1,991.75 dd 07/01/05 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,749.97 dd 07/01/05 GERVAIS, DAVID 912.00 dd 07/01/05 LUND, ERIC 384.00 dd 07/01/05 MARUSKA, MARK 2,649.16 dd 07/01/05 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,703.75 dd 07/01/05 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,824.46 dd 07/01/05 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 2,806.84 dd 07/01/05 HAYMAN, JANET 1,178.57 dd 07/01/05 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,240.46 dd 07/01/05 NELSON, JEAN 1,039.69 dd 07/01/05 SEEGER, GERALD 593.81 dd 07/01/05 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 2,148.48 dd 07/01/05 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,014.19 dd 07/01/05 KROLL, LISA 1,173.56 dd 07/01/05 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 969.88 dd 07/01/05 SINDT, ANDREA 1,586.15 dd 07/01/05 THOMPSON, DEBRA 645.66 dd 07/01/05 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,466.95 dd 07/01/05 FINWALL, SHANN 2,232.55 dd 07/01/05 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,655.31 dd 07/01/05 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,743.92 dd 07/01/05 FISHER, DAVID 3,244.09 dd 07/01/05 RICE, MICHAEL 1,846.95 dd 07/01/05 SWAN, DAVID 1,936.55 dd 07/01/05 SWETT, PAUL 1,040.00 dd 07/01/05 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,600.55 dd 07/01/05 ANZALDI, KALI 741.57 dd 07/01/05 BJORK, ALICIA 129.63 dd 07/01/05 BJORK, BRANDON 780.00 dd 07/01/05 FINN, GREGORY 2,192.66 dd 07/01/05 GOODRICH, CHAD 700.00 dd 07/01/05 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,923.70 dd 07/01/05 KELLY, LISA 1,171.42 dd 07/01/05 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 960.00 dd 07/01/05 ROBBINS, AUDRA 2,097.08 dd 07/01/05 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 110.25 dd 07/01/05 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,797.48 dd 07/01/05 ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH 28.00 dd 07/01/05 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,831.39 dd 07/01/05 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,866.55 dd 07/01/05 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,044.16 dd 07/01/05 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,379.17 dd 07/01/05 COLLINS, ASHLEY 104.00 dd 07/01/05 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 84.00 dd 07/01/05 CROSSON, LINDA 2,586.54 16 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/01/05 EVANS, CHRISTINE 719.99 dd 07/01/05 MILES, LAURA 363.83 dd 07/01/05 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 481.92 dd 07/01/05 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 2,007.26 dd 07/01/05 SCHULZE, BRIAN 550.31 dd 07/01/05 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,898.01 dd 07/01/05 ZIELINSKI, JUDY 234.30 dd 07/01/05 ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL 176.75 dd 07/01/05 BRENEMAN, NEIL 863.64 dd 07/01/05 EDSON, JAMIE 253.75 dd 07/01/05 ERICKSON- CLARK, CAROL 22.60 dd 07/01/05 ESTRADA, KIEL 204.00 dd 07/01/05 EVANS, KRISTIN 63.00 dd 07/01/05 FONTAINE, KIM 764.67 dd 07/01/05 GREDVIG, ANDERS 543.57 dd 07/01/05 GUZIK, JENNIFER 567.21 dd 07/01/05 HALEY, BROOKE 534.68 dd 07/01/05 HORWATH, RONALD 1,978.42 dd 07/01/05 KERSCHNER, JOLENE 1,063.13 dd 07/01/05 KOEHNEN, AMY 72.45 dd 07/01/05 KOEHNEN, MARY 1,486.03 dd 07/01/05 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 800.36 dd 07/01/05 MATHEWS, LEAH 406.25 dd 07/01/05 NELSON, SIERRA 293.25 dd 07/01/05 OVERBY, ANNA 77.20 dd 07/01/05 POTTRATZ, DIANE 369.51 dd 07/01/05 PROESCH, ANDY 638.45 dd 07/01/05 SCHULTZ, MATTHEW 71.50 dd 07/01/05 SCHULTZ, PETER 21.45 dd 07/01/05 SMITH, ANN 323.44 dd 07/01/05 TUPY, HEIDE 80.80 dd 07/01/05 TUPY, MARCUS 110.25 dd 07/01/05 WERNER, REBECCA 221.75 dd 07/01/05 GROPPOLI, LINDA 297.60 dd 07/01/05 BEHAN, JAMES 1,702.83 dd 07/01/05 HOUSE, JEFFREY 41.28 dd 07/01/05 LONETTI, JAMES 1,121.36 dd 07/01/05 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,204.76 dd 07/01/05 PRINS, KELLY 1,168.62 dd 07/01/05 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,580.55 dd 07/01/05 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,889.35 dd 07/01/05 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,049.35 dd 07/01/05 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 1,542.95 dd 07/01/05 BERGO, CHAD 2,255.30 dd 07/01/05 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 1,976.78 dd 07/01/05 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 1,512.86 17 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD i[3 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 07/01/05 HURLEY, STEPHEN 3,370.74 WE 101658 07/01/05 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 106.25 WE 101659 07/01/05 WORKMAN, ROBERT 68.75 WE 101660 07/01/05 JAHN, DAVID 1,634.60 WE 101661 07/01/05 MORIN, TROY 161.50 WE 101662 07/01/05 MITCHELL, KELLY 176.00 WE 101663 07/01/05 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,980.08 WE 101664 07/01/05 HANSEN, LORI 1,802.09 WE 101665 07/01/05 MUNKHOLM, ILA 80.00 WE 101666 07/01/05 PALANK, MARY 1,616.46 WE 101667 07/01/05 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,786.59 WE 101668 07/01/05 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 4,794.35 WE 101669 07/01/05 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,395.14 WE 101670 07/01/05 GERARD, JAMIE 64.00 WE 101671 07/01/05 FREBERG, RONALD 1,871.48 WE 101672 07/01/05 HOEPPNER, STEVEN 800.00 WE 101673 07/01/05 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 1,088.00 WE 101674 07/01/05 EDSON, DAVID 1,859.48 WE 101675 07/01/05 GORE, MICHAEL 800.00 WE 101676 07/01/05 HELEY, ROLAND 1,859.48 WE 101677 07/01/05 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,849.60 WE 101678 07/01/05 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,826.77 WE 101679 07/01/05 LUND, MARK 800.00 WE 101680 07/01/05 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,770.55 WE 101681 07/01/05 BERGREN, KIRSTEN 202.50 WE 101682 07/01/05 GERNES, CAROLE 367.50 WE 101683 07/01/05 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 303.75 WE 101684 07/01/05 GITZLAFF, ANDREW 792.50 WE 101685 07/01/05 BALLESTRAZZE, THAD 860.00 WE 101686 07/01/05 BUSMAN, CHRISTINA 153.00 WE 101687 07/01/05 DAMIANI, ROBERT 80.00 WE 101688 07/01/05 EGGIMANN, LINDSEY 512.00 WE 101689 07/01/05 FRANK, SARAH 16.00 WE 101690 07/01/05 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 590.63 WE 101691 07/01/05 GEBHARD, MADELINE 706.88 WE 101692 07/01/05 HAGSTROM, KEVIN 220.00 WE 101693 07/01/05 HAGSTROM, LINDSEY 150.00 WE 101694 07/01/05 KOLIAS, JESSICA 505.75 WE 101695 07/01/05 KYRK, HALEY 120.00 WE 101696 07/01/05 MARTINUCCI, KAITLIN 150.00 WE 101697 07/01/05 ROBBINS, EMERALD 294.00 WE 101698 07/01/05 SCHLOUGH, CARRIE 416.00 WE 101699 07/01/05 UNGAR, KRISTOPHER 144.00 WE 101700 07/01/05 HAAG, MARK 1,753.35 WE 101701 07/01/05 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,930.14 WE 101702 07/01/05 GLASS, JEAN 1,797.14 i[3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 19 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT WE 101703 07/01/05 HER, CHONG 84.70 WE 101704 07/01/05 NAGEL, BROOKE 177.10 WE 101705 07/01/05 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 650.50 WE 101706 07/01/05 UNGER, MARGARET 456.64 WE 101707 07/01/05 VELASQUEZ, ANGELA 561.00 WE 101708 07/01/05 ANDERSON, CALEB 140.69 WE 101709 07/01/05 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 243.75 WE 101710 07/01/05 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 297.38 WE 101711 07/01/05 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 485.49 WE 101712 07/01/05 BRENEMAN, SEAN 516.14 WE 101713 07/01/05 COSTA, JOSEPH 362.20 WE 101714 07/01/05 DEMPSEY, BETH 139.80 WE 101715 07/01/05 DUNN, RYAN 675.39 WE 101716 07/01/05 GESKERMANN, MARK 87.75 WE 101717 07/01/05 GRANT, MELISSA 101.85 WE 101718 07/01/05 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 708.78 WE 101719 07/01/05 HEINN, REBECCA 96.00 WE 101720 07/01/05 HOULE, DENISE 44.60 WE 101721 07/01/05 JOYER, MARTI 474.37 WE 101722 07/01/05 KOZA, KAREN 138.45 WE 101723 07/01/05 LAUMER, MELISSA 20.25 WE 101724 07/01/05 LEMAY, KATHERINE 146.25 WE 101725 07/01/05 LUTZ, CHRISTINA 178.75 WE 101726 07/01/05 MCCANN, NATALIE 44.50 WE 101727 07/01/05 MCMAHON, MELISSA 359.88 WE 101728 07/01/05 MILLS, ANNE 182.70 WE 101729 07/01/05 PEHOSKI, JOEL 247.38 WE 101730 07/01/05 PETERSON, ANNA 26.00 WE 101731 07/01/05 RICHTER, NANCY 34.00 WE 101732 07/01/05 ROGNESS, TRYGGVE 207.22 WE 101733 07/01/05 ROSTRON, ROBERT 175.50 WE 101734 07/01/05 RYDEEN, ARIEL 599.40 WE 101735 07/01/05 SCHAEFER, ANDREA 81.00 WE 101736 07/01/05 SCHMIDT, EMILY 174.00 WE 101737 07/01/05 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 128.38 WE 101738 07/01/05 SCHOMMER, SUMMERS 81.00 WE 101739 07/01/05 SCHRAMM, BRITTANY 85.88 WE 101740 07/01/05 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 412.87 WE 101741 07/01/05 SMITLEY, SHARON 359.25 WE 101742 07/01/05 STAHNKE, AMY 313.63 WE 101743 07/01/05 TRUE, ANDREW 497.60 WE 101744 07/01/05 WARNER, CAROLYN 191.60 WE 101745 07/01/05 WEDES, CARYL 140.10 WE 101746 07/01/05 WHITE, NICOLE 835.88 WE 101747 07/01/05 WOODMAN, ALICE 185.58 WE 101748 07/01/05 BOSLEY, CAROL 237.60 19 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD 20 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT WE 101749 07/01/05 DOBBS, SYDNEY 30.00 WE 101750 07/01/05 FARLEY, JAMIE 284.00 WE 101751 07/01/05 HAGSTROM, EMILY 22.75 WE 101752 07/01/05 LEWIS, AMY 206.50 WE 101753 07/01/05 ODDEN, JESSICA 106.18 WE 101754 07/01/05 OIL, REBECCA 8.56 WE 101755 07/01/05 PARAYNO, GUAI 240.50 WE 101756 07/01/05 STODGHILL, AMANDA 81.00 WE 101757 07/01/05 VAN HALE, PAULA 140.40 WE 101758 07/01/05 WALKER, DAPHINE 159.10 WE 101759 07/01/05 ANDERSON, MATT 76.20 WE 101760 07/01/05 BALDWIN, JANA 166.25 WE 101761 07/01/05 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,147.31 WE 101762 07/01/05 HER, PHENG 228.50 WE 101763 07/01/05 O'GRADY, VICTORIA 126.35 WE 101764 07/01/05 OLSON, CHRISTINE 63.18 WE 101765 07/01/05 SIMPSON, JOSEPH 261.90 WE 101766 07/01/05 SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN 151.16 WE 101767 07/01/05 THEESFELD, CALEB 104.25 WE 101768 07/01/05 VAIL, LUCILLE 137.55 WE 101769 07/01/05 VANG, KAY 86.45 WE 101770 07/01/05 VANG, TIM 242.10 WE 101771 07/01/05 WALSH, AMANDA 19.95 WE 101772 07/01/05 ZIMMERMAN, STEPHEN 26.60 495.930.65 20 Agenda Item G2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review PROJECT: Olivia Gardens PUD LOCATION: Olivia Court, west of Stillwater Road DATE: June 29, 2005 I.III I3s] 111,101 [a]. Project Description The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Olivia Gardens PUD is due for review. This CUP is for a 14 -unit townhouse PUD (planned unit development). Refer to the maps and plans on pages three through six and the city council minutes starting on page seven. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2004, the city council approved the following for the Olivia Gardens project: 1. A change in the city's land use plan. This change was from R -1 (single dwellings) to R -2 (single and double dwellings). 2. A zoning map change. This change was from R -1 (single dwellings) to R -2 (single and double dwellings). 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 14 -unit town house development. The CUP for this project was subject to six conditions of approval. 4. A preliminary plat to create the lots for each unit. On October 26, 2004, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the design plans for the development. On January 10, 2005, the city council approved the final plat for Olivia Gardens. DISCUSSION The contractor has completed the site grading, utilities, the private driveway and has started constructing two of the seven buildings. However, there is landscaping and other site work that the contractor still needs to finish. Since not all of the site improvements are complete, 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 project is meeting all city ordinances and conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit (CUP) for Olivia Gardens PUD again in one year (July 2006) or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 2.79 acres Existing land use: Townhouse development (under construction) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Vacant city -owned property South: Houses on Stillwater Road West: Houses on McKnight Road East: Houses across Stillwater Road PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R -1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R -1 (single dwellings) Proposed Land Use and Zoning: R -2 (single and double dwellings) Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44- 1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. p:sec25 \Oliva Gardens PUD review - 2005 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Approved Final Plat 5. July 12, 2004 City Council minutes N Attachment 7 LOCATION MAP 3 N Attachment 2 a f 796 � 2329 2 9 6 i7 2375 0 23'15 784 ' 2314 - - - 1 n y 23W 23' I ' _ I 342 j 152 2363 ,,,JC6 2372 ( 23M{i- — �� p 2304 RE7cN'E'Y'AVE - - - —. 2302 UOolu I k MIR 4 N li > r j cr i2AQ ' ! ' .249E Rl ' 3ethserriane Park --. SEVENTH J - 2339 t - "7 1 834 r s .. ,....- ZT315 _ . SITE 233w r .. -. r q 2323 1 o ._ '7 ... a f 796 � 2329 2 9 6 i7 2375 0 23'15 784 ' 2314 - - - 1 n y 23W 23' I ' _ I 342 j 152 2363 ,,,JC6 2372 ( 23M{i- — �� p 2304 RE7cN'E'Y'AVE - - - —. 2302 UOolu I k MIR 4 N Attachment 3 L — — — — -- — z --L - 11 2 r Attachment 4 m _ - W 1/� .�,, f Sac 25, T. 9. R. 22 am H-IM457.981 E-5970MM4 I Sub. N.. .NN-4s"-w 20.w �6b,� E H. U. a LM 8, AU��. 263.M Na-01WE 90212 H, 4=2 277. D9 7am L 111H. Yle 4483 °t 9136 -e 2aso Has" J$W 3Y WOO 3.4 00 N'Hsvm'.`f 7004 29 ? 1 MW 4 Mal E 7 "Nes'M t MW J M § : HEZ3SIrE MtZ , % pPoM.I. rn JUKI OUTLOT A .- .0i'l E �'s WE V " (OmMW@ and UMIty 8 \ E..�t th.p—t /; I 9 7 7 di f WU.y A) MES w64 .01 MIN 89 " 41`¢6 '& '56 50.40 -Z T ...... E o 7, A.,nW. 871 I&Q.82 S IAO 04 Sac B5. T. 29, 00 ,. 1/2 tN by 14 MN k. pip ..vnt bk rnd mar*btl by .U.M. "'kbd !..t!m ".I. a p 4 " V b. . � b. 7� .1. Mh Year .? Uh. �, dbt. of IPw plaL M�umw� Vdl b* 1/2 li,�, by 14 �� ',m 'I.. b, 'M}M BicOcg..M1pwn w. bow UPm Lt 8, kb&�'. Sub. Nz 7 Ran..y Co. Wort r 1 h., ash, of NN by, I/, HE 1/4: hl SE I/- ;4"' L MNNCMKHA A4 vi initv New T-1 M Rl Ll Attachment 5 2N LNUTES LNUiPLE.WOOD CITY COUNCI 7 :07 P.M. Monday, July 12, 2004 Council Chambers, `Municipal Building Meeting No. 04 -1 J. UNi TLN S 17 BUS I11'ES5 I Olivia Gardens (2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road) Land Use Plan Chance - R -1 (single dwellings) to R -2 (double dwellings) (4 votes) Zoning Map Change (R -1 to R -2) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. Councilmember hfonahan -Junek moved to admit the following resolution Changing the land use plan for the Olivia Gardens plat on the west side of Stillwater Road. north of Bush Avenue; LAND USE PL?:N CHA GE RESOLUTION 04 -07 -123 WHEREAS, Neely Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, proposed a change to the city's tared use plan from R -1 (single dwellings) to R (single and double dwellings), W- REFREAS, this change applies to the Properties at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, ZNCrinesota. (The property to be known as Lots I- 144 of the proposed Olivia Gardens) WHEREAS, AS, the history of this change is as follows: On May 17, 2DO44, the planning conuniss wan held a public hearing. The city' start published a hearing notice in the lapeewood Rei L-w and sent: notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone. at the hearing a chance to speak and prtscnt written statements. The planning cc= . ssion recommended chat the city council approve the plan amendment. 2. On June 14, 2004, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan Change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning conunission and City staff. 3. On July 12, 2004, the city council again considered this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE Fr RESOL'V'ED that the city council approve the above - described change For the following reasons: C:ty Council lVeetim, (r12-04 I. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that was between two residential areas, 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: ii. It is on a minor arterial street and is near a collector street. b. 'VErfirrdzing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution changing the zoning WHEREAS, Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites UC, proposed a change to the zoning map from R- I (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). WHEREAS. this chance applies to the property at 2329 and 2335 Stillwater Road. WFIEREAS, the legal description of these properties are: Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway and except the South 50 feet lying Easterly of the West 243 feet, the following; Lot 7. (PIN 25- 29 -22 -33 -0071) 2. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway, Lot 6. (PIN 25-29-22-33-00 All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, (The property to be known as Olivia Gardens) 'W'BEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1, On May 17, 2004, the planning conmussion recommended that the city council approve this change. 2. On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public hearing- The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave City Council Meeting 07-12 -04 everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. 3. On July 12, 2004, the city council again considered this request. NOW, THE ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area `included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare, 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop this property for double dwellings. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the conditional use permit to planned unit development for the Olivia Gardens development to the west side of Stillwater road, north of Bush Avenue: WIMFEAS, Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Olivia Gardens residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Olivia Gardens development plan the city received on April 21, 2004. The legal descriptions of these properties are: 1. Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Highway and except the South 50 feet lying Easterly of the West 243 feet, the following; Lot 7. (PIN 25-29-22-33-0071) 2 Auditors Subdivision No. 77, Subject to Ilighway, Lot 6, (PIN 2- All in Section 25, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, IvEnnesota. (The property to be known as Olivia Gardens) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: L On May 17, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve City Council AIeeting 07-12-04 this permit. 2, On June 14, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a I W notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. 3. On July 12, 2004, the city council again considered this request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: 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. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6, The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services, 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 0 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: City Council Meeting 07 - 12 -04 a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide, (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet, (4) The driveway in front of Lots I and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible while still accommodating the required screening and tree planting, 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberce's memo dated July 1, 2004. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Olivia Garden shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum — 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the 12relirrinaa plat (received by the council on June 28, 2004). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: City Council Meeting 07-12 -04 a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten- foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the intersection of Stillwater Road and the proposed private driveway (Olivia Court), The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 2.- Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 26, 2004, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved prelim nary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees, (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: (a) Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (b) Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. City Council Meefin.- 07-12-04 (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Stillwater Road (street, trail and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. (3) Driveway in front of Lots I and 2, Block 6, as wide as possible while still accommodating the necessary screening and trees. 3, Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These 0 0 easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the private driveway as Olivia Court and label Stillwater Road on all plans, c. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage 0 The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, the publicly-owned parcel to the north, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 9. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. These documents shall include provisions for the care and maintenance of the publicly-owned parcel north of the project site, City Council Nfeetin,g 07-12-04 b. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. i. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. ii3Obtain a INPDF_S construction permit from the Nfinnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) . iii.The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, equipment building and the other structures from the two properties. iv.Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. v.If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junk Ayes-All City Council Meeting 07-12-04 Agenda Item G3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Kennard Street Improvements, (Beam Ave. to County Road D), City Project 03- 04: Resolution for Acceptance of Project DATE: June 30, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Kennard Street extension from Beam Avenue to County Road D was constructed in 2004. Final construction expenses and financing have been determined. The final project budget is over the approved budget by $331,693.41. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution for acceptance of the project. Background The project is final and complete. The approved budget for the project is $939,744.80. The project cost is over budget by $331,693.41. All over runs were documented in change orders and approved by the city council with revised financing to add funds to the project budget. The final project cost is $1,271,438.21. Attached is a letter from the city's consultant engineer, SEH, detailing the final payment along with application for final payment to Forest Lake Contracting. Budget Impact No increase in the project budget is required as final project budget falls within the contingency of the original approved budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for the Kennard Street Improvements, (Beam Avenue to County Road D), City Project 03 -04: Acceptance of Project. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Letterfrom SEH 4. Application for payment Agenda Item G3 RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Kennard Street Improvements (Beam Avenue to County Road B), City Project 03 -04, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 03 -04 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR LANDSCAPING, PAVING, LIGHTING CONDUIT, AND IRRIGATION KENNARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS KENNARD STREET - LEGACY PARKWAY FROM SEAM AVENUE TO COUNTY ROAD D CITY PROJECT NO. 03 -04 ATION GolHER STATE ONE CALL SCSTEM_...16 0.25 -IHAA NOTE THE E%ACT IOCATIOH OF AND RGRO UNP ON J TIE S SUCH AS GAS, TELEPHONE FIE EROPTIC ELEUMC, CABLE N, AND PIPE LINES ARE UNI(NONN. THE CONTNACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE GLL BEFGRC COMMQNLYNO AACAVATION, Agenda Item G3 M j me its. M5 Kcrunn J Sol scA I esp� I I: twort, c T % liQuI N I n IS 14 SAINO Mw"All 4131A.AAMMUMV Mr flubi'woll (AYJ INLQWWLI WD E Omumv Rd 13 MN i) 100-2702 Dem N It Clatt: Ilew mul encklard Hte Apokuticm hm I hyvw As 9 o Final) Inn the rcfkwlt;,'d III', tv"ZL nq!eth;.f %vIll nQ papec"ork docunIvIox is Mot - Consent of Surely tv FiouO Pw-., Inew The qmWO mWkwol lo date Woe ha-m imi,mcd ami w Well , ienmunend arptin.1 W 1AW puyneam to Mut LaW Mw�xqhg ble w Me Anumint it Si IM it,# W 01'4 Iso tonf Jw nyls u0must anurlsom is 'a1 1 AW 1. one Il.ithen -, lls.ok%olt Show MI 1 ', I Not I 1, jIloject Psl�zna Associalo !0whou., Agenda Item G3 A PPLUATUM FOR VAYXMNT - Conaune-1 Wid ( : ns r: Aimmat $93%74AA0 Sint ual Slow, SM on M. Mw hwarpmawd On W 1 'eNwit lainfac:c st'vily's IL Its i0rwn(AsT4".&daNv, 2 is f al lui-Ors 01:41) 5 3 AN Off Sh&b 24 5 5VIS,105 VONTR WT09"S AFFIDAVIT Toral 'An xim if S900.2 wWVM LKS C A PAR,! M Apph,= :, It C I IMPUL 3 W4 A&M11% C O•Q MM ON PMAJOH, J)Jtaaffll;u hinn"hef 1 'eNwit lainfac:c st'vily's IL Its pimmil Kinfew I oc 004 is f al lui-Ors 01:41) 5 3 AN Off Sh&b 24 pia"M G awwas Wool 01,1005 MAS ANUX NTLAT 1117 z I LAM 0 vW xLLy1NiGF, VLAI AMIJUNT T;UT. TO NATF 110 bkSS PREV:011a APMMAE WAY v L225o v(0 t; AMLANT DUE THIS AMMUTS MA TO ui) TS aw.m.qued, c lowansw heway mv, o(Niyury !hn i j Al Ii o ui °miirww wecA e4 login li, Wav -Mace.m! 14 ourk ps ku mild inott INC Co 11fint Wree 0) ANA C hlaO Inca aPT11'ej i)v Jw Aijer"bind Izt.. {iti'�1, x 3 '.al ac -shyawnWA we vuempned awwmd in CoAlwAo'n Wilh AKWI Wwrm A Im An AnOwinwis ki ?yaw a w0a uid o win i five :ins d, Q; J At Ihn, .Jams.. i, eCwiry inkrelts uidziinawnbranixy. Pau SS SFAMIN Pvi"Te;1W un fh: . ..... i, . ..... ..... .20 C S cm. ox Apphiabi, for MYWM -K AM"M An hAu'o t LAC in, mw au'd Hi 3r M% a UMNA M CWMC I ne EiCk. aaliai iti, Obw, NJ M! t An laws APNISKaLd, i if S900.2 wWVM LKS C A PAR,! M Apph,= :, It C I IMPUL 3 W4 A&M11% C O•Q MM ON PMAJOH, J)Jtaaffll;u hinn"hef under 0n, cia:ft.A" have 5V an A,Nhid i In IS, Nei io j,cha y w Q! A! a Wow obh,&a.,ix in H)RCOUAn fli� ...k by Uh - i?rl.w Nxphcu.l . hm •MM Spa J PM H "Wilckwiri IM L) w k? 1 Ln 14 PAC C! LY City 4 --------------- S E H 9 5t. a ni omqb Mwc- 57 Faut hamnsua 551 ir A-M Agenda Item G4 / e [ r ] :l . U 7 e \ :14as] :1 I TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: St. Paul Regional Water Services — Resolution Requesting Water Aid for Public Improvement Projects: a) County Road D West (TH 61 to Highridge) — City Project 02 -08 b) Guldens /Venburg Frontage Road — City Project 04 -04 c) County Road D Court — City Project 04 -06 d) Kennard Street (Beam to Cty Rd D) — City Project 03 -04 DATE: July 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION As part of construction projects in 2004 and 2005, the City has installed improvements to the water system that are the responsibility of the St. Paul Regional Water Services ( SPRWS). A resolution is necessary as part of the Operating Agreement (the most recent version is Amendment No. 2) to request reimbursement for these expenses. Approval of this resolution to allow for this reimbursement is recommended. Background Attached is a letter to SPRWS requesting $189,210.00 for four projects. The requests for each project are: County Road D Water Main Phase 2, CP 04 -04 (Gulden's Utilities) Consistent with Amendment No. 2, the City is requesting Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing, 125 -foot assessment corner credits, and assessable footage with no benefit. As detailed in the Feasibility Study and Report, the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $33,550. These water system improvements have been completed. 2. County Road D Water Main Phase 3, CP 02 -08 (County Road D West) Consistent with Amendment No. 2, the City is requesting Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing and 125 -foot assessment corner credits. As detailed in the Feasibility Study and Report, the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $18,740. These water system improvements have been completed. 3. County Road D Water Main Phase 4, CP 04 -06 (County Road D Court) Consistent with Amendment No. 2, the City is requesting Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing, 125 -foot assessment corner credits, and assessable footage with no benefit. As detailed in the Feasibility Study and Report, the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $118,920. These water system improvements will be completed in late 2005 or early 2006. 4. Kennard Street (Beam Avenue to County Road D), CP 03 -04 As discussed at our meeting on May 9, 2005, these improvements were not included as a part of the attached Feasibility Study and Report; however, they are closely related to the County Road D improvements. Consistent with Amendment No. 2, the City is requesting Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing. The total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $18,000. These water system improvements have been completed. Agenda Item G4 Budget Impact This is reimbursement for expenses incurred on each of the four projects listed. These funds were anticipated as part of the project costs or as part of budget amendments. There is no tax impact to this resolution. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution requesting $189,210 from St. Paul Regional Water Services as reimbursement for project expenses. Attachments: 1. Resolution Requesting Water Aid 2. Letter to SPRWS Requesting Water Aid Agenda Item G4 RESOLUTION REQUESTING WATER AID FROM ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES County Road D West, City Project 02 -08 Guldens/Venburg Frontage Road, City Project 04 -04 County Road D Court, City Project 04 -06 Kennard Street, City Project 03 -04 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of County Road D West, City Project 02 -08, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of Guldens/Venburg Frontage Road, City Project 04 -04, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of County Road D Court, City Project 04 -06, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore ordered the construction of Kennard Street, City Project 03 -04, and authorized the finance director to implement a financing plan for the project, and WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has entered into an Operating Agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services for the ownership and operation of the water system within the corporate boundaries of the City of Maplewood, the most recent revision titled Amendment No. 2, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the City of Maplewood does hereby request of St. Paul Regional Water Services the following reimbursement for project expenses: 1. County Road D Water Main Phase 2, CP 04 -04 (Gulden's Utilities) Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing, 125 -foot assessment corner credits, and assessable footage with no benefit; the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $33,550. 2. County Road D Water Main Phase 3, CP 02 -08 (County Road D West) Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing and 125 -foot assessment corner credits; the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $18,740. 3. County Road D Water Main Phase 4, CP 04 -06 (County Road D Court) Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing, 125 -foot assessment corner credits, and assessable footage with no benefit; the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $118,920. 4. Kennard Street (Beam Avenue to County Road D), CP 03 -04 Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing; the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $18,000. Approved this 1 1` Day of July, 2005. June 20, 2005 Mr. Bill Tschida Saint Paul Regional Water Services Engineering Division 1900 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55113 Re: Request for Water Utility Aid County Road D Related Improvements City Projects 02 -08, 04 -04, 04 -06 & 03 -04 Dear Mr. Tschida: Consistent with Amendment No.2 to the Agreement between the City of Maplewood and the Board of Water Commissioners, the City of Maplewood is requesting Water Utility Aid for recent water system improvements associated with the reconstruction/realignment of County Road D. These improvements are detailed in the attached January 2004 Feasibility Study and Report and they have been previously discussed with Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) staff. Amendment No. 2 requires that the final amount and authorization of Aid payment must be approved by Board resolution prior to payment. We, therefore, request that the Board consider and approve payment to the City of Maplewood as follows: County Road D Water Main Phase 2, CP 04 -04 (Gulden's Utilities) Consistent with Amendment No. 2, the City is requesting Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing, 125 -foot assessment comer credits, and assessable footage with no benefit. As detailed in the Feasibility Study and Report, the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $33,550. These water system improvements have been completed. Mr. Bill Tschida June 20, 2005 Page 2of3 2. County Road D Water Main Phase 3, CP 02 -08 (County Road D West) Consistent with Amendment No. 2, the City is requesting Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing and 125 -foot assessment corner credits. As detailed in the Feasibility Study and Report, the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $18,740. These water system improvements have been completed. 3. County Road D Water Main Phase 4, CP 04 -06 (County Road D Court) Consistent with Amendment No. 2, the City is requesting Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing, 125 -foot assessment comer credits, and assessable footage with no benefit. As detailed in the Feasibility Study and Report, the total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $118,920. These water system improvements will be completed in late 2005 or early 2006. Kennard Street (Beam Avenue to County Road D), CP 03 -04 As discussed at our meeting on May 9, 2005, these improvements were not included as a part of the attached Feasibility Study and Report; however, they are closely related to the County Road D improvements. Consistent with Amendment No. 2, the City is requesting Water Utility Aid for watermain oversizing. The total amount of Aid requested for these improvements is $18,000. These water system improvements have been completed. The total amount of Aid requested for all water system improvements detailed above is, therefore, $189,210.00. The Maplewood City Council approved this request for Water Utility Aid at their meeting on July 11, 2005. A copy of the Council resolution is attached for your information. Please let me know if you have any questions or you need any additional information. Mr. Bill Tschida June 20, 2005 Page 3of3 Sincerely, CITY OF MAPLEWOOD R. Charles Ahl, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer Enclosures cc: Jon Horn/Kimley -Horn & Associates Agenda Item G5 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Dahl Avenue Street and Utility Improvements (Woodhill Development), City Project 05 -10; Resolution Approving Conditions of the Magellan Pipeline Encroachment Agreement DATE: June 30, 2005 INTRODUCTION As part of the Dahl Avenue Street Improvements, the city is planning on constructing sanitary sewer and water main on Linwood Avenue along with a trail to Applewood Park. The sanitary sewer and water main will cross Magellan pipeline at one location. The trail is proposed for construction within the pipeline easement. An Encroachment Agreement is needed from Magellan Pipeline to proceed with the construction of the utilities and trail. The city council will consider a resolution approving the conditions of the Magellan Pipeline Encroachment Agreement and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreements. Background Final action on the agreement requires that the city council pass a resolution approving the Encroachment Agreement and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement. A draft copy of the Encroachment Agreement is attached that binds the city to the terms and provisions of the agreement which includes the approved encroachments, no additional encroachments, a Magellan on -site representative, protection of Magellan facility, breach of agreement provision, contractors insurance, indemnification and Magellan's rights. A set of plans detailing the utility and trail construction is available in the office of the city engineer. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution Approving the Conditions of the Encroachment Agreement and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Agreement with Magellan Pipeline. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2 Location Map 3. Magellan Pipeline Encroachment Agreement Agenda Item G5 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONS OF THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE ENCROACMENT AGREEMENT WITH MAGELLAN PIPELINE WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood wishes to construct sanitary sewer, water main and a trail within the Magellan Pipeline easement WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer, water main and trail will be located within the corporate limits of Maplewood, WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood will be granted an approved Encroachment Agreement for the purpose of constructing said sanitary sewer, water main and trail, pending the receipt of a Resolution Approving the Conditions of the Encroachment Agreement and Authorizing the City Mayor and City Manager to sign the Encroachment Agreement with Magellan Pipeline. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESTOA THAT: The City of Maplewood agrees to the terms and provisions of the Magellan Pipeline Encroachment Agreement. The City further assumes all liabilities, obligations or responsibilities described in Encroachment Agreement and pertaining to the construction maintenance, operations and supervision of the sanitary sewer, water main and trail in conjunction with the Dahl Avenue street and utility improvements.. The City of Maplewood authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Encroachment Agreement with Magellan Pipeline. Adopted by the City Council of Maplewood this 11th day of July, 2005 .. �� KING ST, � �7 ODAQ BATTLE CREEK MAI LAND ° GOLF CIR. o COURSE ° ° c O 1. CRESTVIEW Q ° ° vista Hills Z z MPark Park J FOREST EAK- Q O Park Of DR. O NOOD � � 1 2 ' 2. DEER RIDGE ==3 O w TEAKWOOD DR. Cn LN. CT. ° Q OAKRIDGE DR. 3: w Off. HILL WOOD LL z cn Q cn o > 2 ' DR. HILL 04k RIOGE ly- L�j v 1 CT SPR/NCSIDE �r(T��` U AE ° DR. Q� w AVE. LINWOOD w KP H L AVE. LINWOOD oP� PROMO o � ° y NTORy z U Z r OJECT D z SPLEN LOCATION o Li TIMBER WHITE OAk sNOw TIMBER TR. o LER DR. C� 8011M Le B� z SG�pL CIR. 5 PHYLIS CT, < U ADR. � U w P\N J z 2 VVIEWY �� VALLEY VIEW AVE. ReDP 3 3. /NE 1 AV. _ -- I-- -- OAR. 1. a 2. HIGHWOOD Cn Cn cn AVE. 1 7 1 7 � o w L/q /E n o Q o z = MAMIE AVE Q Q71 AVE. cn O W O Y ¢ MP�P. NEMITZ 4g4 o° AVE. < � NEMITZ ST. ER )RI CIF �LN no scale Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for Woodhill Development C.P. 05 -10 Location Map Agenda Item G5 (Drafted by &when filed return to: Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P., P.O. Box 22186, MD 27 -2 (S. Guthrie), Tnlsa, Oklahoma 74121 -2186, 918 7350.) ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This Encroachment Agreement ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into by and between Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, whose address is P.O. Box 22186, Tulsa, Oldahoma, 74121 -2186, (hereinafter called "Magellan "), and City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipality, whose mailing address is 1902 County Road B East, Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 , its heirs, successors, assigns and grantees (hereinafter called "City "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City represents and warrants that City owns the right to construct "ENCROACHMENTS UNDER REVIEW" on all the certain land (hereinafter "Subject Land "), described on attached Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, Magellan is the owner of certain pipelines, pipeline facilities and appurtenances (hereinafter referred to as the "Magellan Facilities ") and easement rights therefor, (hereinafter referred to as the "Easement ", whether or not rights were granted in one or more documents or acquired by operation of law). For purposes of this Agreement only, "Magellan's Easement Tract" shall be considered to be any area within Fifty (50) feet of any Magellan Facilities, unless a different right of way tract width is specifically described in the Easement, in which case such specified width shall define Magellan's Easement Tract. The land referenced in the Easement includes a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the North half of Section 15, T -29 -N, R -22 -W, Ramsey County, Minnesota, pursuant to those certain instruments recorded in the records of said county and state and described as follows: "REVIEWING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS" WHEREAS, for the purposes of this Agreement an "Encroachment" is defined as any use of the land within Magellan's Easement Tract by someone other than Magellan which could interfere with Magellan's Easement rights or could create safety concerns related to Magellan's Facilities as more fully described in Magellan's General Encroachment Requirements as set forth in attached Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by reference. Magellan does not permit or authorize any Encroachments unless specifically approved in a written agreement identifying all "Approved Encroachments "; and WHEREAS, City desires to obtain Magellan's consent for one or more Encroachments on Magellan's Easement Tract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby aclmowledged, Magellan, subject to the following terms and provisions, hereby consents to the Encroachments listed below as "Approved Encroachments" described and limited pursuant to the following specified plan drawings, which were furnished by City to Magellan ( "Plan Drawings ") and attached hereto as Exhibit "C ": Agenda Item G5 TERMS AND PROVISIONS 1. Approved Encroachments. The Approved Encroachments, as further identified, described and limited in the Plan Drawings as set forth in Exhibit °C" are limited to the following: (a) "ENCROACHMENTS UNDER REVIEW" 2. No Other Encroachments. Except for the Approved Encroachments as defined in the Agreement, City shall not create, erect, place or construct any other Encroachment on, above or below the surface of the ground on Magellan's Easement Tract, or change the grade or elevation of the ground surface within Magellan's Easement Tract or at any time plant or allow any trees thereon or cause or permit any of these to be done by others, without the express prior written permission of Magellan. 3. Magellan On -Site Representative. Exclusive of Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays, City shall notify Magellan a minimum of 48 hours in advance of any Encroachment activities on Magellan's Easement Tract so that Magellan may arrange to have a representative present. At Magellan's option and at City's sole cost and expense, Magellan's representative may be on site during all Encroachment activities over or within ten feet (10') of the Magellan Facilities to confirm that no damage occurs to the Magellan Facilities. The presence of Magellan's representative or any verbal instructions given by such representative shall not relieve City of any liability under the Easement or this Agreement, and will not change the terms of the Easement or this Agreement, which may only be changed by written agreement by authorized representatives of City and Magellan. If pipeline, coating, cathodic protection and /or any other repair of Magellan Facilities is required by Magellan or if the safety of the Magellan Facilities is jeopardized, in Magellan's sole judgment, City shall stop all construction activities on Magellan's Easement Tract until said repairs are completed or until any unsafe construction practices are resolved to the satisfaction of Magellan's on -site representative. Written notification of such construction activity shall be made to MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, Coordinator of Operations & Maintenance, Howard White at 2451 West County Road C, St. Paul, MN 55113, Office:(651) 633 -9339, Cell: (612) 759 -9452, Fax: (651) 633- 8217, or such other representative of Magellan, which Magellan may from time to time designate. 4. Protection of Magellan Facilities. City shall protect the Magellan Facilities if excavating and backfilling become necessary within Magellan's Easement Tract. If excavating within 2 feet of any Magellan pipeline or when otherwise deemed necessary by Magellan's on -site representative, City shall perform any necessary digging or excavation operations by hand digging. City shall reimburse Magellan for all costs of having a representative of Magellan on -site during construction activities related to the Approved Encroachments. 5. Breach. If either City or Magellan breaches this Agreement and the non - breaching party commences litigation to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, the reasonable cost of attorneys' fees and expenses will be payable to the non - breaching party by the breaching party upon demand, for all claims upon which the non - breaching party prevails. 6. Insurance. City shall procure or cause its contractors and subcontractors to procure and maintain in force throughout the entire term of this Agreement insurance coverage described below with insurance companies acceptable to Magellan for work performed related to the construction of the Approved Agenda Item G5 Encroachments. All costs and deductible amounts will be for the sole account of the City or its contractors and subcontractors. Prior to commencing any activities related to the construction of the Approved Encroachments, the City must deliver to Magellan certificate(s) of insurance. Non - renewal or cancellation of policies must be effective only after Magellan receives written notice from the insurance company thirty (30) days in advance of such non - renewal or cancellation. The limits set forth below are minimum limits and will not be construed to limit the City's liability: (a) Workers' Compensation insurance complying with the laws of the State or States having jurisdiction over each employee and Employer's Liability insurance with limits of $1,000,000. (b) Commercial or Comprehensive General Liability insurance on an occurrence form with a combined single limit of $5,000,000 each occurrence and project specific annual aggregates of $5,000,000. Coverage must include premises /operations, independent contractors, blanket contractual liability, and products /completed operations coverage, broad form property damage, personal injury, and sudden and accidental pollution; such coverage must be maintained for two (2) years following completion of work activities related to the construction of the Approved Encroachments. Magellan, its affiliated companies, and its and their respective directors, officers, partners, members, shareholders, employees, agents and contractors shall be included as additional insureds. (c) In each of the above policies, the City or its contractors and subcontractors agree to waive and will require its insurers to waive any rights of subrogation or recovery either may have against Magellan and its affiliated companies. (d) Regardless of the insurance requirements above, the insolvency, bankruptcy, or failure of any such insurance company providing insurance for the City or its contractors and subcontractors, or the failure of any such insurance company to pay claims that occur, such requirements, insolvency, bankruptcy or failure will not be held to waive any of the provisions hereof. (e) In the event of a loss or claim arising out of or in connection with the construction of the Approved Encroachments, the City agrees, upon request of Magellan, to submit a certified copy of its insurance policies for inspection by Magellan. (f) The City shall require all of its contractors and subcontractors for work related to the construction of the Approved Encroachments to provide adequate insurance coverage, all to be endorsed with the Waiver of Subrogation wording referenced in Section (c) above; any deficiency in the coverage, policy limits, or endorsements of said contractors and subcontractors, shall be the sole responsibility of the City. 7. Indemnification. City will indemnify, save, and hold harmless Magellan, its affiliated companies, directors, officers, partners, employees, agents and contractors from any and all environmental and non - environmental liabilities, losses, costs, damages, expenses, fees (including reasonable attorneys' fees), fines, penalties, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings (including administrative proceedings), judgments, decrees and orders resulting from City's breach of this Agreement or caused by or as a result of the construction, use, maintenance, existence or removal of the Approved Encroachments and Other Encroachments located on the Magellan Easement Tract. The presence of Magellan's representative or any instructions given by such representative will not relieve City of any liability under this Agreement, except to the extent that such liability results from Magellan's or its representative's gross negligence or willful misconduct. Agenda Item G5 8. Damage or Loss. City covenants that: (a) If at any time, in the sole opinion of Magellan, it becomes necessary for Magellan, to cross, occupy, utilize, move or remove all or portions of the Approved Encroachments placed on Magellan's Easement Tract or constructed pursuant to this Agreement, for any purpose, including but not limited to surveying, constructing new facilities, maintaining, inspecting, operating, protecting, repairing, replacing, removing or changing the size of a pipeline(s) and appurtenances on Magellan's Easement Tract and such activities by Magellan result in damage to or destruction of the Approved Encroachments, then repair, replacement or restoration of such Approved Encroachments shall be at the sole cost and responsibility of City. (b) If at any time, any encroachments belonging to or permitted by City which are not authorized by this or another written agreement ( "Other Encroachments ") are found to be on Magellan's Easement Tract, Magellan may at any time request City to remove such Other Encroachments, and if City refuses or fails to do so within a reasonable time, Magellan's may remove them from Magellan's Easement Tract to a location off of Magellan's Easement Tract at City's expense, unless they are allowed to remain by a written agreement between Magellan and City. Should such removal activities by Magellan result in damage to or destruction of the Other Encroachments, then repair, replacement or restoration of such Other Encroachments shall be at the sole cost and responsibility of City, and such Other Encroachments may not be repaired, replaced or rebuilt on Magellan's Easement Tract without a written agreement between Magellan and City. (c) If during the exercise of the rights granted by the Easement or by this Agreement, the Approved Encroachments and Other Encroachments, if any, are damaged, destroyed or suffer loss of value, City agrees to release Magellan, its affiliates, and its and their respective directors, officers, members, partners, shareholders, employees, agents and contractors from and against any and all liabilities, and damages or losses which may arise as a result of the damage to or loss of use of the Approved Encroachments and Other Encroachments, if any, caused by Magellan, its employees, agents and contractors. 9. Magellan Rights. Magellan and City agree that the existence of the Approved Encroachments or this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of Magellan's rights under the Easement. Magellan hereby reserves and City hereby grants and confirms all of Magellan's rights, title and estate as set forth in the Easement. 10. The terms and conditions of this Agreement will constitute covenants running with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors, assigns and grantees. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. This Agreement shall become effective upon its complete execution by the parties hereto. 11. (Example of a Unique or Specific Provision) Water Diversions. City shall install water diversions at locations specified by Magellan's Coordinator of Maintenance to prevent erosion of the soil from Magellan's Easement Tract. Agenda Item G5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands on the dates expressed below. MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P By: Magellan Pipeline GP, LLC, its general partner By: Name: Title: Authorized Signatory for Company Date: .2005 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD A Minnesota municipality By: Name: Robert Cardinal Title: Mayor Date: _ 2005 Agenda Item G5 STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) SS COUNTY OF TULSA ) Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the county and state aforesaid, on this day of , 2005, personally appeared , to me personally known to be the Authorized Signatory for MAGELLAN PIPELINE GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, who being duly sworn did acknowledge to me that he /she executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of said limited liability company as the free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses, purposes and consideration therein set forth. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the county and state aforesaid, on this day of , 2005, personally appeared ROBERT CARDINAL to me lrnown personally to be the Mayor of the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, a Minnesota municipality, who being duly sworn did acknowledge to me that he /she executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of said City of Maplewood as the free and voluntary act and deed of said City, for the uses, purposes and consideration therein set forth. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission Expires: Agenda G6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Cleric DATE: July 1, 2005 RE: Temporary Lawful Gambling Resolution Introduction The Church of St. Jerome is having their annual fund raising event on September 18, 2005 at the church located at 380 Roselawn Avenue. The event will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and will include bingo and pull tabs. It is requested that council approve the following resolution for the temporary gambling. RESOLUTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Church of St. Jerome. 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. Agenda Item H1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Management Specialist SUBJECT: Multi - Family Recycling Requirement — Proposed Ordinance Amendment DATE: June 28, 2005 INTRODUCTION The city currently has no ordinance language that requires multi - family residential properties to provide recycling opportunities to their tenants. State law requires all counties to ensure that all residents have an opportunity to recycle (Minnesota Waste Management Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section: 115A.552 "Opportunity to Recycle "). Ramsey County is requiring all cities within the county to assure all multi - family residential properties offer recycling services to their tenants. If cities choose not to implement this requirement, Ramsey County will reduce the amount of state grant money these cities receive to help finance their municipal recycling programs. BACKGROUND The City of Maplewood's municipal recycling program has been operating for more than fifteen years. Unfortunately, not all residents who live in multi - family residential properties are served by the city's recycling program. Staff estimates that approximately twenty percent of these multi - family properties do not have recycling services available to them. The city's Environmental Committee, along with city staff, accepted the challenge of ensuring that the city's recycling program was in compliance with state and local regulations. Staff and the Environmental Committee have been working on the development of an ordinance amendment for the past six months that would require all multi - family residential properties to assure that they provide recycling services to their residents. The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 30, Article IV, Section 30 -107 of the city code by adding a section that would require property owners and managers to provide recycling services at all multi - family residential properties. One of the primary goals of this multi - family recycling requirement is to ensure that recycling services are available at all of the city's multi - family residential property locations. Other goals of this recycling ordinance amendment are to enhance service and to increase recycling tonnage collected at these multi - family locations. DISCUSSION The Environmental Committee and staff invited all multi - family property owners and managers to an informational meeting on April 20, 2005, to discuss proposed changes to the City of Maplewood's Recycling Ordinance. The purpose of the meeting was threefold. One, discuss how the city is planning to implement this requirement. Two, answer any questions and hear comments regarding the proposed ordinance. The third purpose of the meeting was to incorporate any suggested changes to the proposed ordinance. The informational meeting also provided an opportunity to discuss problems that have surfaced in the past and exchange ideas on how the city should restructure the recycling program in the future. The first reading of the proposed recycling ordinance amendment was conducted at the City Council meeting on June 27, 2005. The City Council did not have any changes to the proposed ordinance. However, staff was directed by council to invite all multi - family residential property owners and managers to the public hearing that the Council will hold on July 11, 2005. A packet of information, including a copy of the Public Hearing Notice and a copy of the proposed ordinance, was sent out by staff on June 29, 2005, to all of the multi - family residential properties in Maplewood. Nx8101MI MI:Iki ULA III [a]ki Adopt the proposed multi - family recycling ordinance amendment starting on page 3 with an effective starting date of January 1, 2006. Delay the Administrative Penalties component of the ordinance until July 1, 2006. This will provide the City, owners and managers of multi - family residential properties, and our recycling contractor time to work together to allow for a smooth transition. The public hearing notice was published on June 29 and July 6, 2005, in the Maplewood Review. Attachment: 1. Multi- family Recycling Ordinance Amendment 2 Final CITY OF MAPLEWOOD CHAPTER 30 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 30 -107 OF THE CITY CODE AND ADDING A SECTION RELATING TO REQUIRED RECYCLING SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH TWO OR MORE DWELLING UNITS Section 30 -107 of the Code of the City of Maplewood is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 30 -107. Program established. The city has established and developed a local recycling program throughout the city. The city's goal is to promote public education and solid waste reduction and recycling. The city shall require all the owners and managers of multiple family dwellings to assure that they provide recycling services to all their residents. 30- 107.1. Required Recycling Services; Multiple Family Dwellings. (1) Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, the following terms have the meanings indicated: (a) "Multiple family dwellings" means a building or a portion thereof containing two or more dwelling units. (b) "Designated recyclables" means the following recyclable materials: aluminum cans; steel cans; glass jars and bottles; paper recyclables; plastic bottles; and corrugated cardboard. (c) "Aluminum cans" means disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum, commonly used for soda, beer, juice, water or other beverages. (d) "Steel cans" means all disposable containers fabricated primarily of steel or tin used for food and beverages. (e) "Glass jars and bottles" means unbroken jars and bottles, and containers (Gds /caps and pumps removed) which are primarily used for packing and bottling of food and beverages. 3 (f) "Paper" means newspapers; household office paper and mail; boxboard; and magazines /catalogs. No boxboard containers used for food product storage in the refrigerator or freezer are included. (g) "Plastic bottles" means plastic bottles shaped with a neck, rinsed and with lids, caps, rings and pumps removed. Recyclable plastic bottles shall be identified on the bottom with the SPI plastic codes #1 (PETE) and #2 (HDPE) including bottles containing: liquor; mills; juice; soft drinks; water; certain food; soap and cosmetics. (h) "Corrugated cardboard" means cardboard material with double wall construction and corrugated separation between walls but not plastic coated cardboard. (i) "Collection" means the aggregation of recyclable materials from the place at which it is generated and includes all activities up to the time when it is delivered to a recycling facility. . (j) "Recycling container" for multiple family dwellings means any bin, cart, dumpster or other receptacle for temporary storage and collection of designated recyclables from tenants in multiple - family dwellings prior to collection. Such recycling containers must be separate, explicitly labeled as to recyclables included, and colored differently from other containers for mixed solid waste or trash. (2) Collection Services Required. The owner of a multiple family dwelling shall make available to the occupants of all dwelling units on the premise services for the collection of designated recyclables. The recyclables collection services shall be available on the premises and shall be provided on a regularly scheduled basis of at least twice a month. This collection service shall be for at least four broad types of designated recyclable materials. The collection schedule and recycling containers' capacity shall provide for regular removal or the recyclables such that there is adequate storage capacity available in the recyclable containers to prevent overflowing containers. The owner may use the city's recycling contractor to provide the recycling collection services or they may independently contract with another licensed hauler and/or recycling contractor to provide the recycling collection services at the owner's expense. (3) Recycling Information Required. The owner of a multiple family dwelling shall provide recycling information to the occupants of each dwelling unit on the property. This information shall notify the occupants of the availability of collection services, describes the procedures required to prepare the designated recyclables for collection, and identifies the dates and times of collection. If the owner elects to use the city's recycling contractor, the city's recycling contractor will supply the owner with the information needed to create this informational fact sheet. (4) Container Requirements. The recycling containers shall be: M (a) Sufficient in number and size to meet the demands for recycling services created by the occupants; (b) Equipped with self - closing lids; (c) Equipped with standardized labels identifying the type of recyclable material to be deposited in each container and colored differently from other containers for mixed solid waste or trash. (d) Maintained in proper operating condition and reasonably clean and sanitary; (e) Repaired or replaced on a reasonable schedule if stolen or broken. (5) Responsibility for Providing and Maintaining Recycling Containers: (a) If the owner of a multiple family dwelling uses the city's recycling contractor, then the contractor shall provide and maintain adequate recycling containers for demand and needs of the property and its occupants. Or, (b) If the owner uses an independent recycling contractor, the owner shall assure adequate recycling containers are provided and maintained by the independent contractor. (6) Containers Location(s). Recycling containers shall be placed in a location on the premises that permits access for collection purposes but does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. All such locations shall comply with the City's zoning and other ordinances. (7) Transportation and Disposal. Upon collection by the city's recycling contractor or the owner's independent hauler, that person shall deliver the designated recyclables to a recyclable material processing center, an end market for sale or reuse, or to an intermediate collection center for later delivery to a processing center or end market. It is unlawful for any person to transport for disposal or to dispose of designated recyclables in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility. The contractor or hauler shall transport all designated recyclables in a covered vehicle so the recyclables do not drop or blow onto any public street or private property during transport. (8) Scavenging Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person, other than the city's recycling contractor or owner's independent hauler, to collect, remove, or dispose of designated recyclables after the materials have been placed or deposited for collection in the recycling containers. The owner, owner's employees, owner's independent hauler's 5 employees, or city's recycling contractor's employees may not collect or "scavenge" through recycling in any manner that interferes with the contracted recycling services. (9) Annual Report. Each owner or manager of a multiple family dwelling shall file an annual report with the city by January 31 of each year on a form to be provided by the city recycling coordinator. The report shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (a) name of owner and building manager and contact information; (b) address of multiple family dwelling; (c) number of dwelling units; (d) description of recycling collection services made available to occupants, including location of containers, dates of collection and whether collection services are provided by owner, owner's employees, or a licensed collector; (e) description of methods used to inform occupants of availability of recycling services; (f) tonnage estimates for each type of material recycled as provided by the city's contractor or owner's independent recycling contractor; (g) name and address of licensed hauler /recycler that provides collection services and where the recyclables were taken for processing. (10) Administrative Penalties. Violation of this chapter shall be charged as an administrative fine as follows: a fine of $200.00 for the first offense; a fine of $300.00 for the second offense at the same location within a 12 month period; a fine of $500.00 for the third offense or additional offenses within a 24 month period at the same location. The owner shall be notified in writing of the violation and if the owner fails to take action within 15 days of receiving the notice of violation, the owner shall be cited for violation in accordance with the fine schedule. 11) Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the City from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this chapter. If the City elects to seek misdemeanor prosecution, then no administrative fine will be imposed under subpart (10) above. Ll This ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 2006. The Administrative Penalties piece, Section 30- 107.1, item number 10, shall have an effective starting date of July 1, 2006. Passed by the City Council of the City of Maplewood on this date day of month, 2005. Robert Cardinal, Mayor ATTEST: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk 7 Agenda Item H2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Political Campaign Sign Ordinance Amendment APPLICANT: City of Maplewood DATE: June 30, 2005 INTRODUCTION City planning staff and the community design review board (CDRB) have been working on an ongoing project to update the City of Maplewood's sign code. Staff anticipates the completion of a draft sign code ordinance for the city council's review by fall of this year. The city has experienced problems in previous elections regulating political sign usage. The current sign code requires political signs to be placed on private property, and not within the right -of -way. This has caused confusion by political candidates and the public as right -of -ways vary in width, making it difficult to determine where the lot line is located. In addition, the current code does not regulate the size or number of political signs. Therefore, city staff is requesting that the sign code pertaining to political signs be reviewed by the city council before they review the new sign code later this year. DISCUSSION Proposed Changes There are three main changes that the staff is suggesting to the existing political sign code as follows: Each political sign be limited to 16 square feet in area and 6 feet in height, and that the total area for all political campaign signs on one property be restricted to 64 square feet in area. These regulations would apply to local elections only. State elections would be restricted by state statute, which currently does not prohibit the size or number of signs allowed per property. Currently, political campaign signs can be placed up to the lot line of private property but not in the public right -of -way. City staff has responded to many inquires in the past from candidates and the general public as to where the lot line begins relative to the street edge. Due to the varying widths of public right -of -ways it is difficult to give an accurate answer without researching the individual property. Therefore, city staff recommends that political campaign signs be allowed in the public right -of -way, provided that all signs maintain at least a five foot setback from the edge of the nearest street and at least one foot setback from any sidewalk or trail. The signs should not be placed at any location that interferes with driver or pedestrian visibility, in addition, the consent of the underlying property owner or the property owner fronting the proposed location of the sign must be obtained before placement of such sign. The duration that political signs can be displayed during local elections should be increased from the current restriction of 30 days before an election to 60 days before an election or after filings for office opens, and the signs should be removed 7 days after the election. This timeframe is consistent with surrounding communities. For state elections, state statue allows political signs to be displayed from August 1 to 10 days after the election. Committee Action On June 28, 2005, the CDRB reviewed the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance and recommended approval of items 2 and 3 as stated above. The CDRB, however, was not in favor of item 1 which restricts the size and height of political campaign signs during local elections for the following reasons: The City of Maplewood should not restrict political signs during location elections further than allowed by state statute, which does not restrict size or height. Enforcement of the size and height restrictions would be difficult. Political campaign signs are a temporary situation. City staff, however, continues the recommendation for size and number restrictions in order to prevent an excessive amount of political signage which adds to the visual blight of the streetscape and imposes a safety hazard by obstructing the visibility of passing motorists and pedestrians. In addition, the height limit will help prevent incidents of "double- stacking" political signs which had been an area of concern by many residents and candidates in previous elections. RECOMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1). This resolution amends the city's sign code pertaining to the size, number, and placement of political signs. P: \com_dvpt \ord \political sign ordinance 7 11 2005 CC Attachments: Political Campaign Sign Resolution Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SIGN SECTION OF THE SIGN CODE The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 44 -735, subdivision (1.f.) (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): (1.f) Political campaign sign means any sign which states the name or portrays the picture of an individual seeking election or appointment to a public office or pertaining to a forthcoming public election or referendum or pertaining to or advocating political views or policies. Section 2. This amendment changes Section 44 -891, subdivision (8) (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Section 44 -891. Special purpose and temporary signs in all districts. The city permits the following special purpose and temporary signs in all districts. Such signs shall be exempt from section 44 -807, which pertains to temporary signs, and schedule 2 in subdivision 3 of this division, which pertains to permitted signs by zoning districts. Such signs shall be subject to the following limitations: (8) Political campaign signs: (a) For local elections and referendums, political campaign signs may be displayed after filings for office open or for sixty (60) days before the election or referendum, whichever comes first; provided that such signs are removed within seven (7) days following said election or referendum. Political campaign signs shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height. The total area of all political campaign signs shall not exceed sixty -four (64) square feet per property. (b) In a state general election year, the size, number, and duration of political campaign sign displays shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 211.6., and nothing in this chapter shall be construed as applicable except location restrictions. (c) All political campaign signs shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the edge of the nearest street and at least one (1) foot from any sidewalk or trail. Said signs shall not be placed between a street and a sidewalk or trail or at any other location that obstructs driver or pedestrian visibility. The consent of the underlying property owner or the property owner fronting the proposed location of the sign must be obtained before placement of such sign. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on 2005. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Agenda Item A MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman FROM: Melinda Coleman SUBJECT: Charitable Gambling Awards DATE: July 6, 2005 I.I&IN III [a] At the June 27` City Council meeting action on Charitable Gambling awards was tabled. The City Council agreed to review the applications and fill in the spreadsheet with individual recommendations for funding for each request. The results of this exercise are attached. Please note that the Hill Murray request was not funded in keeping with the caveat that if 4 members indicated $0 funding, that applicant would not receive anything. Please review and prepare to approve funding levels for the 2006 charitable gambling funds. S: charitablegambling.06.fnal Attachment: Charitable Gambling Spreadsheet Charitable Gambling Requests 2006 H:cmhr /mc /charitable gambling requests Recommenda- Organization Requests BC MK KJ JMJ WR tions Dispute Resolution Center 5,000 5,000 0 4,000 2,000 0 2,200' Tubman Family Alliance 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 1,000 0 800'' Maplewood Historical Society 27,000 17,000 5,000 12,000 3,000 10,500 9,500' Family Institute for Well Being 7,600 1,000 0 3,200 2,000 3,800 2,000' Century College 5,000 1,000 0 1,600 3,000 0 1,120' Edgerton Community Drama Club 1,000 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 900' Police Explorers 8,000 4,000 8,000 3,500 8,000 5,000 5,700' Webster School PTO 5,000 1,000 4,600 1,000 5,000 3,060 2,932' Hill Murray School 74,500 5,000 0 0 0 0 0'' Heritage Theatre Co. 5,840 2,000 5,000 3,900 5,840 5,840 4,516 Ramsey County Fair 5,500 5,200 5,500 1,500 250 5,500 3,590' Fire Explorers 5,000 2,000 5,000 2,500 5,000 5,000 3,900' Police Reserves 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000' MCC Room Rentals 25,000 10,000 20,000 12,500 10,000 15,000 13,500' Total* 179,440 57,700 57,100 51,700 49,090 57,700 53,658'' Reserve Balance 0 600 6,000 8,610 0 4,042' *Available funds $57,700 H:cmhr /mc /charitable gambling requests Agenda Item J2 / e [ r ] :l . U 7 e \ :14as] :1 I TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: TH 5 and TH 120 Vacant MnDOT Property -- City Project 03 -20 Presentations and Review of Site Plan Proposals: a) Independent School District #622 /City of N. St. Paul - Greg Hein b) Hill- Murray School - Joe Peschges c) MnDOT Marsh — Ron Cockrell DATE: July 5, 2005 I.III I3s] 118831 [a].I The excess right of way on the western side of TH 120 at the intersection with TH 5 has been under discussion for 5 years regarding the possibility of relocating the ISD #622 bus maintenance facility from downtown North St. Paul to this site. In the past year, Hill- Murray School has also expressed an interest in the property for expansion of their campus and athletic fields. An environmental group, represented by Ron Cockreil, has also expressed interest/concern with site proposals. Each of these groups have been asked to make a presentation to the City Council on their proposal. The action by the City Council will be to consider the proposals and indicate support or dissent on the land use and to provide each of the three groups with direction on how to proceed. Background The City Council considered this item during the Fall of 2003. Attached is a copy of the staff report, dated October 20, 2003, providing a resolution of support for the locating of a Bus Facility to this property. The City Council failed to adopt this resolution and City Manager Fursman sent a letter to ISD #622, dated November 3, 2003, requesting additional information. On April 7, 2004, the City of North St. Paul responded to questions from the St. Paul's Monastery on concerns with theirjoint proposal. A copy of that letter from Walter Wysopal, dated April 7, 2004 is also attached. On January 6, 2005, Maplewood staff invited all interested parties to a meeting to share ideas. A Work Group was established as noted in the attached meeting minutes from January 6, 2005, along with a summary of the discussions. Each of the parties interested in this property has submitted background information that is included with this packet. The ISD #622 proposal from Greg Hein, Director of Business for ISD #622 includes background information on a number of Work Group meetings, including a list of issues raised by Maplewood staff that they have attempted to address. The Hill- Murray proposal from Hill- Murray President Joe Peschges, indicates opposition to the ISD #622 /North St. Paul proposal and identifies a plan to convert the property into athletic fields and provide for a second access to their campus facility. Finally, the MnDOT Marsh proposal from Ron Cockreil provides an outline of questions regarding the other proposals. Issues /Discussion A review of each of the proposals should be conducted. This is a unique issue due to the involvement of North St. Paul and their actions regarding the existing ISD #622 Bus Garage Facility in downtown. The MnDOT property can be provided to another level of government at no cost providing the use is for transportation purposes. MnDOT has determined that the Bus Garage use would be a transportation use and the property would be provided to ISD #622 without charge. This is a major benefit to ISD #622 for their needed expansion. Agenda Item J2 Maplewood staff identified a couple of issues for each of the proposals to attempt to address: El North St. Paul's redevelopment efforts have precluded ISD #622 from expanding in the current location. This opens up property in N. St. Paul and moves the ISD #622 facility to Maplewood, thereby expanding N. St. Paul's borders. What benefit does Maplewood receive? This property has been severely degraded with maintenance operations over the past 30+ years. What new impacts will result from your proposals that may impact surrounding uses? The excess right of way should be conveyed to Maplewood. What conditions exist so that Maplewood is not protected from future claims? El A new roadway will be required to access TH 120 at TH 5. By MnDOT policy the roadway must be a public roadway and built by the City. Who pays these costs and how far to the west and south should the roadway be extended? The site has significant existing and future environmental concerns, including wetland mitigation and protection of existing wetlands. What provisions are provided with each plan? Other site impacts and /or benefits should be identified in the proposals. Future Action A review of each of the proposals will likely raise a number of issues for investigation. The City Council may wish to provide the applicants with some direction for further study. These are not formal applications for action. If the City Council wishes to give direction to either the ISD #622 or the Hill- Murray proposal, they should direct the proposer to prepare a formal land -use application including a request for a conditional use permit for the use of the property. The Council could add conditions that they suggest will need to be addressed on this site; for example environmental conditions related to runoff and wetland mitigation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review each of the three presentations on the TH 5 and TH 120 excess MnDOT Property from ISD #622, Hill- Murray School and MnDOT Marsh. Following review of each of the presentations, the City Council should provide direction on future use of the property. Attachments: 1. Agenda Report on Support for ISD #622 Bus Facility, dated October 20, 2003 2. Letter to ISD #622, dated November 3, 2003, from City Manager Fursman 3. Letter to St. Paul's Monastery, Dated April 7, 2004, from North St. Paul City Manager Wysopal 4. Minutes of January 6, 2005 Interested Parties Meeting 5. School District 622 Proposal for Property Use from Greg Hein (Copies provided for Mayor and Council) 6. Hill- Murray Proposal for Property Use (Copies provided for Mayor and Council) 7. Outline of Presentation from MnDOT Marsh — Ron Cock eil AGENDA ITEM I_ [ e T 4 i• G7 eI V A d i 1:41 TO: City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting School District #622 Locating a Bus Facility on Excess MnDOT Property at TH 5 and TH 120 Intersection DATE: October 20, 2003 Introduction The City of North St. Paul has been working to relocate the bus garage for School District #622 from their downtown area to a location in Maplewood. The excess right of way at TH 5 and TH 120 is owned the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). A resolution of support by the City Council has been suggested as appropriate to convey the city's support for locating the bus garage at that location. Background The City of North St. Paul has addressed the Maplewood City Council on a number of occasions regarding relocation of the School District #622 bus garage to excess right of Way i Maplewood at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 120 (Century Avenue). The City of North St. Paul has denied the School District's request to expand their bus facility in the current location due to North St. Paul's desire to redevelop their downtown area. It is staff's understanding that North St. Paul's plans for redevelopment are similar to Maplewood's plans for the Hillcrest area, although details of North St. Paul's redevelopment have not been studied. Over the past years, North St. Paul has studied relocating the School District to a site just south on Holloway Avenue on Century Avenue, east of the TH 5 and TH 120 intersection. The property is right of way originally purchased by MnDOT for the extension of TH 5 through Maplewood into St. Paul. The extension of TH 5 plans have long ago been abandoned and MnDOT has slowly disposed of the property acquired. North St. Paul has proposed a number of plans for the site over the past 4 years, including a plan for Maplewood to agree to annex the area to North St. Paul. The Maplewood City Council rejected the annexation proposal unanimously in 2002. A plan that included an MnDOT electrical facility garage has also been abandoned due to MnDOT 's lack of need for the facility. There is considerable uncertainty about the available property. North St. Paul has proposed development of as much as 22 acres of the 40 -acre site. Some reports indicate that 35 of the 40 acres may be wetlands or previously were wetlands that will be restored as part of MnDOT project mitigation plans. The School District has indicated that a 4 -5 acre site would meet their needs, and the City of North St. Paul appears to be pursuing the acquisition of that amount of property for exclusively the School District's needs. The attached resolution indicates the City Council's support for locating the School District bus garage facility at this location. Provisions within the resolution exclude support for locating other facilities at this location until a detailed environmental evaluation is conducted. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution supporting School District #622 locating a Bus Facility on Excess MnDQT Property at the TH 5 and TH 120 (century Avenue) Intersection. Ew Attachment: Resolution 3 Maps of site Letter from North St. Paul to School District SUPPORTING SCHOOL DISTRICT #622 LOCATING A BUS FACILITY ON EXCESS MnDOT PROPERTY AT THE TH 5 AND TH 120 INTERSECTION WHEREAS, the City of North St. Paul has denied expansion of the School District #622 bus facility in its current location within downtown North St. Paul, and WHEREAS, School District #622 provides educational service to a large portion of the City of Maplewood, and WHEREAS, the City of North St. Paul has proposed to acquire property from the Minnesota Department of Transportation on the eastern side of TH 120 (Century Avenue) at the intersection with TH 5 for the purpose of relocating the bus facility, and WHEREAS, information provided to the City of Maplewood indicates that up to 5 acres of this site is not public wetland areas, and WHEREAS, the MnDOT property was acquired for the purpose of extension of TH 5 through Maplewood into the City of St. Paul, and WHEREAS, said TH 5 extension is no longer a valid project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That the Council supports locating the bus facility on up to 5 acres of property on the eastern side of TH 120 in Maplewood at the TH 5 intersection as a necessary facility for service to School District #622 2. That the Council requests additional information on wetland and possible wetland mitigation at this location be provided prior to supporting any other uses for the property. 3. That this resolution shall be provided to MnDOT representatives, School District #622, and the Cities of North St. Paul and Oakdale as an indication of the City Council's support of the School District facility needs. I I PENH AtwT / \ CITY PUBLIC WORKS /� End IuIT 822 MAINTENANCE c q P,VE n 5>�� ¢ MNDOT 1 nd AVE. 120 1 1 `� //� Z i 1 -_ CITY OF Si7UTH J� W SURKE -�i AVE. 25 AVE n ELDR7DGE� zo� EI_D RSDa AVE. _ M DE Lo-i GNr AVE. RTII L- C LA, a w N of > sK I�LMAN o A t. PAUT� i z a Y d 1 AVE.pj(¶® G� S HRYER AVE. w z PYAN CL ,T ✓, a ��? ' _ � w � PL w r- CLWERN z� P _- �4 L n T liS ¢�iIER NEY P,VE, 0 MEA DGW DR. w KNNLL SIR r a RIPS — RIP Lcy AVE, w 1 Fy A KINGSTEN� 0AvE. 9 � � 4 o t `t 0 D i� 3 R, c LARPF.NTEUR AVE. SAINT r� I� IDAHO AVE. PAUL �, <<� � w HnYT AVY E a �e MONTANA AVE. MAPLEWOOD NEBRASKA AVE. n w - -o q j . w N ST PAUL 40th L ST. N. a /" _. .. — w.,'.»:w,�:d a! r C7 JOINT USE �.HwtN E q� 4 ��— aResHa �� ! MAINTENANCE FACILITY �GReNADA cIR CONCEPT > PLAZA �� a. ecEHU _ D, �, GRANADA 3 11 GRANADA CTRT TN`,VD, rh'AtT j7 _IS7 1 i. �aEP -S�w 1�U U P ) _ sr. PAUL MINNEAPOLIS GRANA L NADA P. �-- 36 th y SEVEN COUNTY AREA D6 NAD LE �i.�'v q' ¢ +'� Z \.W.L_ `il CT• ti ,ate .. Tev, 4 U� peR 35 {,`!� ST, Gf } 34th ST w N El 33rd S SITE FEASIBILITY snmY w j > Z y - OAKDALE Q > a E� r . W a z a =nd sl 'T r w ¢ ,3lst z ST T i V / 00 .J Q /� ` ¢ 3O o v 3S tr ' GR ANADA <q +s s l. PE¢ 26 UP 2P tI, U sT PER 2Bth ST, N. TKDA I2� IRa Xz —w w S•N. �,2e tl ¢ L �N SITE > �7 LOCATION ST, r GlR w > s CT. MAP > th u � 7 +h, m S ? 26 i,h CCU/ �J ' N ORTH ST 2410. , a I� 2410 I �' KN CIR ! 2410 _ 2s 2 } IV, III " rl - : 7 � 3 7 D X r G n T> m 6 1 ' S T 2 4Y AC F I FT. —132,3 , 6,8 3 ACRE y mld = FT S.TA No, Ih ti CITY PUBLIC WORKS !SD 622 MAINTENANCE MNDOT CITY OF N. ST. PAUL JOINT USE MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONCEPT SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY TKDA SITE LIMITS City of r,, d TH ST. PAUL September is, 200 Mr. Dan Kaler, Superintendent ISD 622 Education Center 2520 E 12th Avenue North Saint Paul, MN 55109 Dear Dan, 2,526 East Seventh Avenue North Saint Paul, M;nnesota 55109 The- City of - Noi - h Saint Paul is nca i ng tiic completion of acquli`mg the rights to 5 acres of MNDOT property located at the intersection of Highways 5 and 120. 1 will be meeting with MNDOT representatives soon to finalize the agreement. Apparently, MNDOT will need the majority of acreage of the entire 24 acre site for wetland mitigation stemming from other highway projects. Therefore, only 5 acres will be available for the School District. Our desire is to acquire the 5 acres so that we may use it as trade material with the School District for its existing bus garage property located in North Saint Paul. As you know, the 5 acres of property is located in the municipal boundary of the City of Maplewood, You will need to gain zoning and building approvals from the City of Maplewood. It is, however located in the City of North Saint Paul's electric distribution area. The nearest Water and sewer services lines are located in North Saint Paul. It is our understanding the construction financing would be done by the School District. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this project. We appreciate your continued cooperation. Sind � z Palter T. Wys p City Manager /Cc. Richard Fursman, City Manager Maplewood November 3, 2003 Dr. Dan Kaler Superintendent School District 622 2520 East 12 °i Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55109 RE: Bus Garage Dear Dan: The Council took action at the October 27, council meeting on the proposed bus garage to be Located on the MNDOT owned and operated site in Maplewood. The Council would like in consider a resnlution in favor of the project, but would like School District action first. The Council would like a resolution from the School Board indicating that they are in favor of, and intend to move ahead with a bus garage in the aforementioned location. The Council would further like the board to indicate that other sites have been found to be unsuitable as a result of your search. As the council prepares to act on this issue they would like to be assured that the board is in favor of the action and would like the City's assistance. If you have any questions on this matter, please let me know. Very truly yours, ,-Richard Pursman City Manager Richard .fir rsrnanll�ci,n�le wond.mn _.us OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 651 -770 -4524 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 Cary o[ W)RTH u ST, PAUL April 7, 2004 Sister Annette St. Paul's Monastery 2675 Larpenteur Ave. E. Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Sister Annette; 2526 East Seventh Avenue North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55109 Thank you for the hospitality you showed the Mayor, myself and Scott Duddeck the other morning. We were pleased to be able to provide to you an overall project summary for the joint use facility between the City of North St. Paul and the North St. Paul( Maplewood/Oakdale School District. We were grateful to have the opportunity to answer the many questions that were raised by the sisters, the friends of the Monastery and neighbors. If additional questions come up, please do not hesitate to give me a call. in reviewing my notes from the meeting there appeared to be three areas of concern raised. The first being environmental impacts a bus garage may have on the animals, plants, and hydrology of the area. Second was the possible noise impacts the bus garage would have on the Monastery and nearby homes. Thirdly was the concerning proper procedures with the DNR and MnDOT. The City and the School District will be using the next 30 days to prepare further studies regarding these issues. The School District will also be preparing a financial analysis to discern financial feasibility. The next step for this project will be to take any revised plans to the Maplewood City Council for consideration. It is expected this would take place in mid May. We will provide you advance notice of that meeting and also make ourselves available for a meeting with you and your community prior to the Maplewood City Council meeting. We assure you that the City and School District will give the environment the same high level of attention and concern to the siting of a bus garage as you are giving to your own redevelopment plans. Sincerely, j Walter T. o al.% City Manager Cc: Mayor and City Council Dan Kaler, Superintendant Richard Fursman, City Manager, Maplewood Your hometown with a future as great as its past. TH 5 — TH 120 Property Meeting Minutes January 6, 2005 In attendance: Chuck Ahl, Sister Jeron Osterfeld, Ron Cockriel, Dave Kvam, Greg Hein, Scott Duddeck, Mark Goess, Greg Mack, Cliff Aichinger, Ginny Gaynor, Tina Carstens, Melinda Coleman, John Sprangers, Joe Peschges, Peggy Lynch, Dan Kaler Chuck Ahl opened the meeting by explaining that the City of Maplewood was hosting the meeting at the request of Hill- Murray with the intent of reviewing their proposals. The intent of the meeting was to see if any common ground existed based upon Hill - Murray's proposals and for all parties to understand the various agency positions. Following introductions, the meeting was turned over to the Hill- Murray representatives. Joe Peschges from Hill- Murray reviewed their situation and the various proposals: Hill- Murray wants to stay in Maplewood; They do not own the current site; they lease from the Monastery. Hill- Murray started on the site in 1972. They are exploring the purchase 40 acre site they currently use. Need for athletic fields and parking -Option 1 — Swap wetlands for Ramsey County Park & Recreation to develop fields -Option 2 — Swap land; use MNDOT for fields; possible joint fields; MNDOT needs acreage, probably about 5 acres for their needs. Greg Mack of Ramsey County Parks explained that the County has allowed exchange of property with no net loss, value provisions are allowed. Scott Duddeck of North St. Paul reviewed their previous proposals for a Joint -use facility with the School District to relocate bus garage, which requires 4.0 acres + 1.0 acres; additionally NSP needs to find space for their public works facility and space for wetland mitigation. Their conversations indicated that MNDOT needed space from the site of 5 acres for a total of 10 acres as a minimum to make their proposal work This would likely require their public works facility and the wetland mitigation to occur elsewhere. They would definitely like to consider a connecting trail system with Maplewood. Marc Goess of MNDOT indicated that they could relocate the 5.0 acres for maintenance operations to a different site under the right conditions. Marc did note that they would require that the only access to this property be at signal. Discussion on the various proposals provided the following comments: Scott from North St. Paul has done wetland study and credits that need to be considered with any proposals. Dave Kvam from Maplewood Public Safety indicated that their perspective is to support added 2 °a access, need more parking. Dan Kaler from ISD 622 would like to still consider bus garage. Cliff Aichinger from the Watershed commented that 2 -3 acres of wetland on 27.0 acres that would need to be mitigated. Dan Kaler from ISD 622 said that if the plan on site is approved he believes that the site could work and funds are available. Dan agreed on the benefits of a continuous trail system. P:A WORKS\ AGENDA\ 7- 11- 05 \TH5- TH120Meeting minutes 10605.doc Ron Coclaiel from the Marsh 212 Project mentioned that there may be environmental issues from the prior wetlands. He will scrutinize all proposals. The City of Maplewood perspective from Chuck Ahl is that the City Council has not taken formal action on any of the proposals. The Council has indicated a strong preference for support of ISD #622. Maplewood and the City Council will be especially concerned with the environmental issues on the site and would like to work to a common solution that includes an environmental upgrade for the property. The Time Frame to consider the proposals: Hill- Murray would like to move as quickly as funding is available, work groups are needed on proposals. North St. Paul and ISD 622 are aiming for a 2005 -2006 project. The Priory feels that anything good for Hill- Murray would be supported. It was decided that enough common ground existed to explore a common project. A Work Group of the following Members was established: Ramsey County Parks ISD 622 North St. Paul Ramsey - Washington Metro Water District MNDOT Hill- Murray Maplewood Environment Greg Mack Greg Hein Scott Duddeck, Andy Golfas Cliff Aichinger or Tina Carstens Marc Goess Joe Peschges Chuck Ahl, Bruce Anderson Ron Coclaiel The Work Group will be meeting within the next month. Chuck Ahl agreed to arrange the next meeting in late January or early February. Minutes submitted by Chuck Ahl. P:A WORKS\ AGENDA\ 7- 11- 05 \TH5- TH120Meeting minutes 10605.doc Agenda Item J2 Noitm St. P,wi - Mhr1_ei;oon - 1)v,i��1a It ii Dunnr i 6221.w anon: (:rr:na 2!O F_ 1 ? ;h n .SI. I * NiN 551114 BUSINESS SERVICES .tune 29, 2005 MEMO FROM: GREG f1E1N 1SD 4622 Dircctor of Business TO : MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL Attached is a submittal of information for the City COUnCII July I 1 meeting. It includes answers to shed Gc questions raised by Chuck Ahl, City Engineer for review by council members prior to our presentation. Sincerely, Greg Hein CONTACT REPORT To: Attendees From: Gregory Hein, C.P.A., ISD 622 Director Re: Meeting Land Development Plans, 6/13/05, 3:00 p.m., ISD Administration Center Site: MN DOT Land Adjacent to Highway 120, South of Holloway Avenue in the City of Maplewood Attendees: Frank Pafko, MN DOT Marc Goess, P. E., MN DOT Steve Moravitz Hill Murray High School Gregory Hein, CPA, ISD 622 Director Andrew J. Golfis, System G Inc. Scott Duddeck, North St. Paul Community Service Manager Randy Wagner, A.I.A., D.S.G.W. Chuck Ahl, P.E., Maplewood P.W. Director Richard Fursman, Maplewood Admin The ISD 622 Director requested the meeting to review Hill Murray High School plans for additions to the proposed site development on MN /DOT property (location above). A history of the MNIDOT property proposed development plans over the past three years was given by Frank Pafko of MN /DOT. This brought us up to date on MN /DOT current plans which include the following: • MN /DOT will retain 5 acres for continued dry storage operation. • MN /DOT will, with the concurrence of the City of Maplewood, convey 5.4 acres to the ISD 622 for a future bus facility in exchange for wetland credits in the existing watershed. • MNDOT would convey the remaining 8 acres to the City of Maplewood or ISD 622 in exchange for wetland credits and site screening to be negotiated, if the City would use the site for a public purpose. • MIN DOT would consider conveying the remaining 8 acres to the City of Maplewood or ISD 622 for fair market value, if the city or School district would use the site for a non - public purpose. • MNDOT will retain the entire parcel if mutual concurrence cannot be obtained. • Because of the proposed bus facility timeline has been held up by additional meetings with Hill Murray High School in order to accommodate their proposals. MN /DOT has agreed to issue a permit to construct to the I.S.D. 622 Bus Facility in order to meet their construction deadline of the fall of 2006. I.S.D. 622 prepared a revised layout of the site with a suggested road alignment to Hill Murray School and had sent a copy of the layout to Hill Murray for their cornments a week before the meeting and didn't receive any comments back. The I.S.D. 622 prepared the layout because Hill Murray did not want to spend any more time on revising plans. T he Hill Murray staff person at the meeting was 'there to take note and offered no suggestions to the proposed layout. Chuck AN with the City of Maplewood suggested that the road should not cut the site in half but should tie into the Hill Murray High School and not impact wetlands to the west. At this point Chuck AN informed the attendees that Hill Murray High School had made a request to meet with the City Council with an independent plan of their own. The City Council was scheduled to meet on July 11, 2005 and Mr. AN had scheduled time for I.S.D. 622 and Hill Murray High School to present their plans at that time. He also had prepared a list of questions that he thought would be helpful to address in the presentation on the 11 and if possible, to have written answers in advance of the presentation, July 1, 2005 being the deadline. Attached is the list of questions from Mr. Ahl. Questions Maplewood will be looking for answers /discussion on the following issues/questions regarding your proposal: • The actions of North St. Paul have moved [tie Bus Facility (a non -tax paying property use) from downtown North St. Paul onto property in Maplewood as a redevelopment initiative. This redevelopment initiative appears to expand the borders of property in North St. Paul by opening new developable properties. What is the benefit to Maplewood? • The Bus Garage Facility creates significant potential for air and noise pollution during operations. What controls are proposed if the facility is placed in Maplewood to provide relief to area residents? • MnDOT policy provides that excess right of way within a jurisdiction is conveyed to that jurisdiction. What conditions are involved in Maplewood conveying the property to ISD #622? • We understand a roadway is proposed in any of the scenarios on the property. What costs are associated with this roadway? We assume the roadway will be a public roadway due to the access point at TH 51120. In any public roadway scenario, the City of Maplewood will be constructing that roadway. What assurances of payment of roadway costs are included in the proposal? • This site has significant environmental concerns. Either the Hill- Murray proposal or the ISD #622 proposal will need to have environmental controls provided, especially, mitigation of any wetlands within the drainage district and low impact development criteria applied What conditions to protect the environmental features are included in your plans? • The Maplewood City Council has been informed on the on -going discussions regarding this site but will need presentations from both ISO #622 and Hill- Murray on their proposals. We have met with Hill- Murray and informed them of the issues related to their desired use of the site and wilt) this e -mail, I believe you also are informed of the information that we would like you to respond to. We have scheduled a hearing to allow both )517 #622 and )tilt- Murray to present their information to the City Council on Monday evening, July 11th. Our meetings start at 7:00 pm. I will know a little better about 5 days prior to that meeting the approximate time you will be on the agenda. We look forward to seeing your proposals and hearing your plans for the property. Richard and I will be in attendance. Chuck Question 1. See Questions Answer: The City of North St. Paul is not involved with the development or ownership of the ISD 622 Bus Facility. The ISD 622 is the sole developer of the proposed project and has worked with MN /DOT for the past three years negotiating a land exchange for a new facility that had the following attributes: • More room to expand the current operation 60 buses to 72. • Find a site with good proximity to major traffic collectors. + A location that is centrally located in the ISD 622 School District service area. (See Map A) Benefits to the City of Maplewood: • A better school bus facility to serve all District 622 students. • Ease of traffic congestion by adding additional access point to Hill Murray. • Expands District 622 property tax base, benefiting taxpayers in Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale, Lake Elmo and Woodbury. • Provides city with an 8 acre parcel for future use of which District 622 would consider a possible joint project to construct an en'vironnm reintal fear ring center. Question 2: See Questions Answer: The proposed bus facility will not exceed any state or federal threshold for air or noise pollution. The proposed facility will be visually screened by berms and vegetative plantings. The proposed building will be constructed with the environment in mind, in which consideration will be given to the possibly of incorporating LEED certification design criteria which includes the following features: L Ground source beating and cooling (renewable energy) 1 Green roof for stormwater management and accessible fie observing wetlands 11 Recycled building products 1 Rapidly renewable building products 1. Minimize finishes b Daylighting to minimize artificial light 4 Orientation of building for optimum solar exposure L Waste oil boilers forbearing purposes a- Ntotion detectors for lighting systems +k Rainwater collection for landscape irrigation purposes or reuse at wash bay (innovative waste water technology) 1 Pavers to minimize impervious surfaces in parking lot i, I ligher R- values for insulation, windows and doors 4- Windenergy 3. Solar collectors for domestic water heating k Storage and collection of recyclables I Low emitting materials 4- Mechanical systems controls for night setback L Pavers to minimize impervious surfaces in parking lot k Alternative transportation to site (Bike path) k Stonn water management (below ground storage tanks for retention) 4� Light and noise pollution control (Minimize yard lighting) 4- Reduce site disturbance (protect and even enhance open space) i. Landscape to reduce heat islands in parking lot Question 3: See Questions Answer: MN /DOT can convey title of property that it owns directly to public entities for a transportation purpose, which includes ISD 622. Question 4: See Questions Answer. MN /DOT will convey 1.5 acres of land to the City of Maplewood for construction of a public road to access the ISD Bus Facility and Hill Murray High School and any other public development that may occur on the remaining property. The City of Maplewood will be responsible for road construction costs. (See Maps B &C) Question 5: See Questions Answer: The ISD 622 Bus Facility has been coordinating all proposed elements with the Ramsey/Washington County Watershed District for the past 3 years identifying wetlands and reviewing the results with Torn Peterson with the Ramsey County SWCD Office, Mark Gernes with the MN /PCA, and Torn Fell with the Corp of Engineers. The DNR are not involved because there are no protected waters. The coordination started with a delineation of existing wetlands and compared them with aerial photography for 1957, 1970 and 1996 witch were used to identify existing wetlands before MN /DOT graded the site. We reviewed this with Cliff Aichinger and staff of the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District to determine which wetlands were natural and which were created. (See map D &E) The Blue tine indicates wetland boundaries from 1957, the Yellow areas are wetlands created by grading the interchange and are not considered natural wetlands that need to be mitigated by state law. The Green shaded areas are wetland that currently exist and were there in 1957. i ii evaluation of the site for development of the Bus Facility was located on the site to minimize its impact to the Green wetlands. The total impact to these area wetlands for the Bus Facility is .20 acres. Mitigation of 1.0 acres will be within the drainage district on land the ISD 622 owns. MAP A % -0,a ), d 11 unn., n„ t I.'.T_11 ?��:`��+r•�t:}a,��7t °� �'*r't "' -x,51 __ � -,-- � , 4 �\ V E X i / #T a r' •. it i• a rcR i F A- N IM I Kj lh ,i'Vli'1Tf1 1G�__} it , rSilf "Lf1lV 9vtA St, Pau(, Ali...iesatn t MAP C MNDOT 5.2 ACRD CHOOL Dl� ZTRICT 622 5• ACRES— -- CITY OF MAPLEWOOD/ISD 622 8 ACRES -- _. -- _.._ ',,. (` -Anr 54 PoOJ, Ili R y - Y ( A � 'f t OY r�X e Ipi u t � i P-•`t s i� .M 4Y'�d .: V � y i • I'I i � ` �y t 'ILi a 1 � K TOTAL PRE' f� A � / 1 a �11 x Y + r F 4 d f Y L ` � 'Y Y v � R y - Y ( A � 'f t OY r�X e Ipi u t � i P-•`t s i� .M 4Y'�d .: V � y i • I'I i � ` �y t 'ILi a 1 � K TOTAL PRE' f� A � / 1 a �11 f"I MM / \ �CHOOIL RICT 622) / .V \ �� 5. ACRES_. ' � I I I I� s.aa � I MHDOT 5.2 ACRES "p CITY APLEWOW /ISD 622 � a $ ACRES Surth St. Paul Mhmeanm Agenda Item J2 Hill- Murray School Background & Proposal for Development of MnDot Land Presented to Maplewood City Council July 11, 2005 0 Hi11— Ylurray School 2625 L,arpenteur Ave. E. Maplewood, MN 55109 Proposal for Use of MnDot Land On July 11, 2005, both Hill- Murray School and Independent School District 4622 (North St. Paul /Oakdale /Maplewood) will present differing proposals to the Maplewood City Council for the development of land contiguous to the property that Hill- Murray currently occupies. The approximate 20 acres is owned by MnDot. The 20 acres are contiguous to a significant amount of area designated as wetlands. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation owns approximately 39 additional acres bordering the MnDot land and the Hill- Murray campus. In a series of open, forthright individual and group meetings over the past months, Hill - Murray has met with the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County Parks, Ramsey /wAl ill otnn County x4mrn Wat —hed DiStri't City nf]\l,;-A; Ct Paat Cit of Oakdale, 3M, St. Paul's Monastery, and private citizens concerned with the environment. As a result of these conversations and meetings, Hill- Murray School must oppose the use of the land for a bus terminal as proposed by ISD ft622 for the following reasons: 1. Health, safety, and quality of life concerns for its students and area residents related to bus emissions, noise pollution, and bus traffic. 1 The negative environmental impact on wetlands and other natural resources that would result from the bus terminal. 3. Safety issues and congestion by adding bus traffic to streets already congested. Because of these traffic safety concerns and health concerns for it students and other Maplewood residents in the area such as the Mapletree Daycare center bordering the land proposed for the bus terminal and the Sisters of St. Benedict of St. Paul's Monastery, I-fitl- Murray proposes a plan that will better serve the community than a joint plan with Independent School District 4622. Hill- Murray's Proposal (See map at back of packet) Hilt- Murray's request for the entire parcel of approximately 18 acres stems from its needs to: • Alleviate unsafe congestion and traffic conditions on Larpenteur and Century Avenues. Hill- Murray has conducted a joint study with the City of Maplewood and consulted with the Maplewood Police Department to determine how to ameliorate these public safety issues. Currently a large number of Hill- Murray students must park on Larpenteur Avenue, and Hill- Murray only has entrances to its site from Larpenteur. During the morning and afternoon drop -off and pick -up periods, there are often traffic back up issues extended all the way to Hwy 5 from Hill- Murray entrances. The Maplewood Police Department states that it wishes to support a plan that alleviates these unsafe conditions. • Add parking, athletic fields and learning areas to its present campus of less than 40 acres. Studies indicate that a school of 1000 -1500 students requires at least 60 acres. Hill- Murray's enrollment of 1000 continues to grow. • Hill - Murray's plan calls for the development of athletic fields, and the City of Oakdale has expressed interest in the possibility of working with Hill- Murray on their development. The athletic fields are needed to address gender equity at Hill - Murray as well as to support the needs of surrounding communities. When the school was built 40 years ago, there was no "Title IX and girls athletic programs were minimal. Since the explosion of girls' athletics, Hill- Murray has dealt with the need for resources in a piecemeal fashion. But the school now needs to address the issue in a comprehensive way, by adding more athletic fields. • Hill- Murray is open to sharing usage with the area residents of Maplewood and other surrounding communities. The plan also calls for an environmental education park surrounding the athletic fields that would include walking trails incorporated into the forested areas and the wetlands. The park could be open for use by the public. • Hill- Murray also proposes a roadway that would connect Century Avenue to Larpenteur Avenue, giving the school new entrances and exits from the east and west sides of the campus, which would have a large impact on alleviating congestion on Larpenteur and Century. Benefits of the Hill - Murray Proposal 1. The H -M plan will have a much lower environmental impact than the ISD 4622 plan. Athletic fields are permeable, minimizing impact on wetlands. The bus parking facility will require more hard surface areas. Bus emissions and noise will have an impact on Hilt- Murray students, Mapletree Daycare children, and the Maplewood and Oakdale residents who Live very near. There is a Healtheast hospice facility across Century Avenue from the proposed site; St. Paul's Monastery is very near; and a housing development is very nearby the location. Hill - Murray's athletic fields and environmental education plan will present neither of these issues. 2. The Hill :'Murray plan will alleviate traffic safety issues, while the ISD 4622 plan will bring large numbers of buses into the problem area. It is very questionable that a new terminal on the site as proposed by the school district will alleviate traffic safety issues in the area, even accounting for the addition of a new roadway. With the bus terminal in that location, buses will need to use Century Avenue to enter and exit the terminal, and are likely to use Larpenteur Avenue as well. The bus traffic may cause additional safety issues on these busy thoroughfares. 3. Hill- Murray - -and its predecessor schools (Hill High School and Archbishop Murray Memorial High School) has been a resident of Maplewood for over 40 years, serving literally thousands of Maplewood, North St. Paul, and Oakdale students who have chosen the Hill- Murray educational option. Spurred by the need for additional land, in the last two years the school conducted extensive research about the relative merits of relocating to another community with available land. The research indicated that the school could be viable at either site. Hill- Murray chose to remain in Maplewood and continue to serve surrounding residents. Survey respondents from Maplewood, Oakdale, North St. Paul, as well as other communities nearby, indicated strongly that they wanted the school to remain in Maplewood. Hill- Murray opted to stay, but needs additional land in order to meet residents' needs. 4. St. Paul's Monastery, on land bordering the proposed site for development, has a history of contributing to the quality of life to the City of Maplewood. In past years, it has expressed its interest in maintaining forest and wetland areas, and has provided land across Larpenteur to Maplewood, and property across Century to Oakdale, two major parcels of land that will be preserved and not developed commercially. Hill- Murray's plan for an environmental education park with walking trails will offer additional opportunities to connect with trails now being planned on the land that was reserved. The Sisters of St. Benedict oppose the bus terminal on the same environmental, safety, and health issues as those expressed by Hill- Murray School. 3 5. Hill- Murray offers many opportunities for Maplewood residents, not only as a Catholic school choice but also as an important community educational and cultural resource. It is recognized as one of the state's finest college preparatory high schools, and in fact, is one of only 19 high schools throughout the entire state accredited as college preparatory by the North Central Association. It is a cultural asset, offering excellent theatre productions and concerts to the public and even free productions for area senior citizens. The local community theatre (Pioneer Theatre Co.) creates its productions on the Hill - Murray stage. It offers area elementary schools a band program, which they could not conduct themselves. It is a member of the same athletic and music conferences as ISD 4622 schools. Each year our students volunteer over 10,000 hours of community service, many of them in Maplewood. Many Maplewood vendors count Hill- Murray and Hill- Murray parents as their customers. In short, Hill- Murray is proud to be a resident of Maplewood and proud to serve its other residents. The City of Maplewood will be better served aesthetically with walking trails and athletic fields than a bus terminal located at an entry point from Oakdale to Maplewood. Plus, its campus offers residents an environment free of housing and commercial property, creating a `'green" area that enhances the community image. Conclusion Hill- Murray School looks forward to working with the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, MnDot, concerned environmental organizations, and the greater community to T, , „ develop and restore tnts parcel of properly. r lie Inii- rvmrray plan cans ror the enhancement of property wetlands for environmental and educational purposes for use by the public, the development of athletic facilities for use by Hill- Murray students as well as residents in surrounding communities, and finally the alleviation of traffic congestion and safety issues on Century and Larpenteur Avenues. 4 HILL - MURRAY SCHOOL MASTER PLAN UPDATE JULY 11, 2005 PROPOSAL FOR MNDOT LAND SPORTS FIELDS & ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PARK A MN DOT PROPERTY B RAMSEY COUNTY EXCHANGE PROPERTY 4.5 ACRES / C HILL - MURRAY SCHOOL EXCHANGE PROPERTY 4.5 ACRES +t- D NEW ROAD FILTRATION PLAN E FIELD FILTER F PARKING FILTER MITIGATION PLAN REPLACE. 23 ACRES OF WETLAND ON MN DOT PROPERTY G CREATE: 4 ACRES OF NEW WETLANC H CREATE: UPGRADED 3 ACRES OF WETLAND I HILL - MURRAY SCHOOL MASTER PLAN FACILITIES EXPANSION J TRAILS K CONNECTION TO OTHER TRAILS ALL AREAS INDICATED ARE APPROXIMATIONS ONLY - TO BE VERIFIED BY SURVEYOR N 0 50 10�are For presentation to the Maplewood City Counsel Monday July 11, 2005 By Ron Cocicriel The following is an outline of my presentation to the Maplewood City Counsel regarding the many issues and concerns surrounding the current land use and project proposals. Topic: Development of the MnDot property at Holloway and Highway 120 to insure the highest and best use of the property is determined. Who has the greatest need and best use for the property? 2. Do all interested parties have other, viable options? How will other agencies and communities benefit from alternative proposals? (MnDot, the neighbors, Hill Murray /Benedictine Monastery, District 622, Ramsey County, DNR, North St Paul, Oakdale and Maplewood) Agenda Item J3 Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: Richard Fursman Date: July 11, 2005 Subj: Joint Powers Agreement: Consolidated Dispatching Introduction: Included with this memorandum is the latest draft of the Joint Powers Agreement with Ramsey County concerning consolidated dispatching. The Draft appears ready to approve if so desired by the Council. Background: The latestjoint powers agreement draft has been modified to address most of the concerns expressed by staff and city council. The County has agreed to change language concerning personnel transitioning, membership and other minor points raised. Our employees will become County employees if the agreement is adopted. There were also language modifications to indicate that the consolidated center would continue in the event that St. Paul dropped out of the process. (This had a significant impact on section four (4)). Another significant change is the COLA requirement was dropped Maplewood Pulls back from the County and continues to pursue the 800 MHz technology change with the intention of remaining independent. II. Agree to the terms outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement: • Dispatch for Maplewood • Purchase Maplewood Consoles • MW Employees Hired by County • Include Maplewood in Dispatching Govemance Board/Working Groups • Maplewood Pays County $526,000 1st Year III. Work with the other suburban cities to lobby /establish a consolidated suburban dispatch agreement with separate facilities and charges from St. Paul. The Council should take action on one of the three listed options following discussion. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN RAMSEY COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD FOR CONSOLIDATED DISPATCH OPERATIONS This Joint Powers Agreement ispetween Ramsey County, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( "County') and the City of Maplewood, a municipality under the laws of the State of Minnesota ( "City"), both of which ar e mpowere d to enter in j oint pow agreeme to Minn. Star. §471.59. WHEREAS, The County is in the process of implementing a new 800 MHz radio communication system as a subsystem to the regionwide 800 MILK system; and WHEREAS, The County currently operates a Public Safety Answering Point ( "PSAP ") /Dispatch Center, from which dispatch services are provided for the Ramsey County Sheriff and the cities of Arden Hills, Gem Lake, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, Shoreview, and Vadnais Heights, and the township of White Bear; and WHEREAS, The City also operates an independent PSAP /Dispatch Center from which it provides police fire, CM a nd Eme Management dispatch services for its residents; and WHEREAS, The City and the Countyhave determined that it is in the best public safety interests of all residents served by the City and the County to consolidate_ City's_PSAP /Dispatch Center__ with the County's PSAP /Dispatch Center, to form a consolidated dispatch center ( "Dispatch Center") to be operated by Ramsey County; and WHEREAS, The County is planning the construction of a new facility on the campus of the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center and the Saint Paul Police Department Headquarters to house the Dispatch Center that will use the County's new Public Safety Communication System ( "PSCS" )/800 MHz radio communication subsystem; and WHEREAS, The City wishes to have Ramsey County assume the responsibility for dispatch services for the City when the new Dispatch Center becomes operational; and WHEREAS, The parties have reached agreement on the terms and conditions for the consolidation of the City and County PSAP /Dispatch Centers and for the County to provide dispatch services for the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: Article I. Purpose The purpose of this agreement is to establish the parameters for the consolidation of separate PSAP /Dispatch Centers, to establish a framework for the operation of the Dispatch Center with the participation of the City and other Dispatch Center users, and to delineate the terms and conditions under which the County will provide dispatch services. Article II. Definitions 2.01 Additional Member means any public entity or agency or governmental unit that signs an agreement with the County after the Dispatch Center becoming operational, for dispatch services by the County from the Dispatch Center. 2.02 County Manager means the Ramsey County Manager appointed by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, or the Ramsey County Manager's designee. 2.03 Dispatch Center means the location from which the County will provide emergency 911 communications and dispatching services using its PSCS /800 MHz radio communications subsystem, for police, fire, emergency medical services, and other public safety functions_ it cities and agencies that have contracted with the County for _ - Deleted: aserei�.t such services. 2.04 Initial Member means any municipality that signs an agreement with the County, prior to the Dispatch Center becoming operational, for dispatch services by the County from the Dispatch Center. 2.05 Member means either an Initial Member or an Additional Member. 2.06 Radio System Manager means the Ramsey County employee who manages the County's 800 MHz interoperable radio communication system and the County's Dispatch Center. Article III. Term This agreement shall become effective on the date executed by both parties ( "Effective Date ") and shall continue in effect for a period of twelve (12) years from the date the Dispatch Center begins providing services for the City (`Initial Term "). Thereafter, the term shall automatically renew for additional one (1) year periods, u to a maximum of 30 renewal eriods sub'ect to the ri ht of either art to terminate as set forth in Section 8.0 L - - Deleted: miless mhe party gives the other party written notice of at least me (I ) fidl calendar year of if, hhtmt not to renehv, in such case this Agremient shall Article IV. Dispatch Policy Committee expire at midnight on the last day of the calendar year following the year the 4.01 Creation notice was given. The Dispatch Policy Committee ( "Committee ") is hereby created with the powers and responsibilities as set forth herein. 4.02 Membership a. If the Cities of Maplewood Saint Paul, and White Bear Lake sign agreements to consolidate_ their PSAP /Dispatch Centers with the County's PSAP /Dispatch _ - Deleted: ,rrerse Center, the Committee is to be made up of the following elected officials- 1. The Ramsey County Sheriff 2. Four members of the Saint Paul City Council 3. The Mayor of the City of Saint Paul 4. The Mayor or one member of the Maplewood City Council 5. The Mayor or one member of the White Bear Lake City Council 6. Two elected representatives of the other cities in Ramsey County that do not operate independent PSAP /Dispatch Centers and that sign agreements with Ramsey County to receive dispatching services from the Dispatch Center, to be selected in a manner to be determined by the involved cities. b. Ifahe City of White Bear Lake does not sign an agreement to consohdate. - Deleted: either PSAP /Dispatch Center with the County's PSAP /Dispatch Center, the number of ' - Deleted: Maplehwod or theaty of Saint Paul City Council members will be reduced by one. v If the City of Saint _ Deleted: ,hherge Paul does not sign a ag reement to consolidate its PSAP /Dutch Center with the Couny's PSAP /Dispatch Center, the Committee will be made up of Deleted: if nom theory of Maplewood representatives from the jurisdic that ha e ntered in a consolid and the City of White Bea t Lake do no[ sign, agreements to merge their agreement. PSAPiDisparoh Centers h ,ith the C. If the individual ap to the Committee l the elected office, the p ublic pp omm eaves o p County's PSAPiDispatch Center, the number of Saint Panl City Cooneil entity's elected officials will be responsible for appointing a replacement mehihers will beredneed by two representative in a timely fashion. d. Committee members shall be appointed by the jurisdiction they represent for such period of time as determine by each jurisdiction. _ - - Deleted: Each Committee member shall be appointed for a one -year period 4.03 Duration oftime, Unless earlier dissolved by mutual agreement of all of the then - current Members, the Committee shall continue to operate for the duration of this Agreement. 4.04 Officers a. The Committee members shall select a Chair and a Vice Chair at its first meeting, and thereafter on an annual basis, provided that, during the first two years of its operation, the Mayor of the City of Saint Paul shall be the Chair of the Committee. Thereafter, the Chair shall be selected annually from the Committee members. The initial term of the Chair shall be two years and of the Vice Chair shall be one year. Thereafter each shall serve for one year. The Vice Chair shall be a representative of a Member other than a Member represented by the Chair If the City of Saint Paul does not si n 3n ag reement to consolidate its PSAP /Dis atch Center with the Count 's PSAP /Dis atch Center the Committee will select. a Chair and Vice Chair from Committee members from ,jurisdictions that have entered into a consolidation agreement. b. The duties of the Chair shall be as follows: 1. approve the agenda for Committee meetings, with the input and assistance of the Radio System Manager and other Committee members; 2. preside at Committee meetings; 3. sign all official documents as authorized by the Committee; 4. make reports, directly or through a designee, to the Committee and the Ramsey County Board as deemed appropriate; and 5. perform such other duties as are incident to the office and properly expected by the Committee. C. The duties of the Vice Chair shall be as follows: 1. in the absence of the Chair, to perform the duties of the Chair; and 2. to perform such duties as may be requested by the Chair. d. The Radio System Manager shall serve as executive secretary to the Committee and shall provide for all correspondence, reporting, and recordkeeping functions for the Committee, c wi Minnesot St atutes Chapter 13 an st atutes retention laws. 4.05 Powers and Authorities of the Committee a. The Committee shall assist the County in reviewing and evaluating the performance of the Dispatch Center to ensure that the service meets the needs and expectations of the communities and public safety user agencies. b. The Committee shall make recommendations to the County Manager and to the Radio System Manager concerning voice and data communications systems relating to public safety agency dispatching, public service information, education and advertising programs, and any other matter relating to the provision of emergency communications services. C. The Committee, in consultation with the County Manager and the Radio System Manager, shall develop a process for selection of the Dispatch Center Operations Manager, who shall be responsible for day to day dispatch operations under the direction of the Radio System Manager At a minimum, the process for selection shall comply with Ramsey County's Human Resources hiring guidelines, and shall provide for a minimum of three qualified candidates to be recommended by the Committee to the County Manager or designee, who shall have final hiring authority. d. The Committee shall periodically review operations and make recommendations on the operations, standards, and budget for the Dispatch Center. e. The Radio System Manager shall report to and serve at the pleasure of the County Manager as advised by the Committee relating to the functions involving consolidated dispatch services for the Members. The County Manager will work with the Radio System Manager in an expeditious manner to resolve any concerns raised by the Committee. If, however, a majority of the Committee is not satisfied with the outcome, the County Manager will take appropriate personnel action, which may involve termination. f. The Committee shall perform such other duties as may be requested by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners. 4.06 Meetings and Voting a. The Committee shall meet at least quarterly during the first year this Agreement is in effect e Thereafter, the Committee members shall determine the frequency of regular meetings. In addition, a special meeting may be called by the Chair or by a majori ty of the then - current Committee members. b. Each public entity with a member on the Committee shall be responsible for complying with requirements of State Statute relating to open meetings. C. Committee members may not appoint proxies. d. Each Committee member shall have one vote. e. A decision of the Committee shall require approval by a majori ty of the Committee members, provided there is a quorum in attendance. f. A quorum of the Committee shall require one half of the Committee members plus one to be in attendance at the time of any decision. Atits first meefin the Committee shall ado t a rocess for resolvin tie votes. Article V. Transition 5.02 5.01 General a. In order to ensure a smooth and orderly transition from the separate County and City PSAP /Dispatch Centers to the consolidated Dispatch Center, and to ensure that there are no gaps in services to the public, the County Manager, or his designee, will manage transition activities. tie : ad,nh,istranve cm,[rol of N,e b. The Committee recognizes that the first two years of the consolidated dispatch _ , Deleted: came ... der the ad,nhNStranve will be a difficult transition from separate PSAP /Dispatch Centers to one co „[rol of N,e Radio syste,,, Maf,ager consolidated Dispatch Center and the Committee will cooperate with the County Formatted: ewiets and Numbering Manager and Radio System Manager to insure success. C. The County and the City will come to mutual agreement on a date whenoCity ; Deleted: employee represef,tanves employees working at th e City P /Dispatch Center will become C r Deleted a nd employees., Deleted: the d. Transition activities will include, but are not limited to, the following: Deleted: b., Personnel actims 1. development of a transition plan, including analysis of staff skills and affecm,g the Dispatch center may be interests, and of trainin and hirin needs; g g taken through me annual budgeting Processes, or at.. ch Nine as reveime 2. training of employees and recruitment of additional staff, as necessary; ctrcmnstaf,ces dictate.l 3 _development of a Dispatch Center budget; � Deleted: c 4. bargaining the effects of this Agreement with unions representin Deleted: ary County employees ' 5. working with City representatives who are bargaining the effects of this Deleted: who shall pmvide services as — — — — Agreement with unions representing City employees; and described in bis Agreement n, such capacities as NmeRadio System Mwiager 6. working with the City to establish the date when transition will occur. shall determine Deleted: d 5.02 Personnel Deleted: conthme as City emiloyees a. No current City or County employees who are performing services at their '' after the Fffeenve Date bmt,ill provide respective PSAP /Dispatch Centers on the effective date of this Agreement shall services at the Dispatch center minder the be discharged or laid off as a direct result of this consolidation Employees may followingte'rmT ”' ]—At inch time as a City incomnent be laid o f or reason o f loss of fun ds or gran m onies, se demand covered by this Agreement terminates on of the fluctuations, or other reasons unr to the consolidation with the City, any " '' replacement personnel shall be hired as a PSAP /Dispatch Centers. The Coup is not required to refill any vacant Comity employee;l positions. 2 —City employees covered by this The Dispatch Center will be staffed b Count employees, d b m to f ` y y_ an y� _ p _ y ees o Agreenment` who provide services forthe Dispatch Center as City employees shall the City of Saint Paul in accordance with the terms of the Joint Powers be subject to the provisions ofaipplicable A greement between Ramsey County and the Ciry of Saint Paul for Consolidated , n , ion agreements between the City and Dispatch O .,ions representing City employees, wid City policyl cy, _ _ City employees working for the City PSAP /Dispatch Center on the Effective 3 Date of this Agreement will become County employees on the date agreed to by Deleted: 4., The county shall pay the the parties, shall be no later than the d ate the County begins Providing City for Nmeserdces Provided by the services for the City om the Di Center. y � City's em d ate t at N, t center from Nme date Nme Comity begins c, Any new positions authorized for the Dispatch Center shall be County positions proNidingsenices for N,eCity from the _ Ci loo ees> g for the City PSAP /Dispatch Center shall be subject to Dispatch Ce„ter. The amount to be paid _ ,rem Ciry union contracts, as modified by any MOA /MOU, until the Ci r employees will be the City's actual costs in the following categories: direct payroll become Coun r ems ee>�r em�lo, ees>�g, for the City charges; and the cost for employee fringe PSAP /Dis atch Center shall be subject to Count nion contracts, as modified b benefits for health imorwice, FICA, — —1. — — Workers'Compesation, and pefsiois.l anv MOA/MOU_ on and after the date the Citv emnlovees become Count employ f When Cit em to ees become Count em to Des the followin rovisions will apply: 1) Cif employees will be allowed to carrry over up to 120 hours of accumulated annual leave hours as vacation; any additional hours will either be carried over as sick leave hours or be at out to the em to ee by the C ity The C ity will_pay the County for the value of all vacation_ or sick leave hours transferred to the Coup 2) City employees will be given credit for their length of seance as a C ity em to ee in determinin their vacation accmal rate. 3 Ciry em loo, eel given credit for their length of service as a City employee for purposes of severance pa 4) City employees will have one of the following apply, whichever results in the hi her rate of i�'Iay for u oses of lacement into the Ramse County salary range a)_be_ credit for their length of service as a City employe or b) be paid the rate of for a Radio Dispatcher 1 that is closest to, either equal or above, the rate of pay the employee recei as a Ci r employee. If the rate of pay is established under section b), subsequent pay increases will be given as if the City employee had the lei th of Count T service that comes onds with the ste the are initiall placed at, 5 Ciry employees will be subject to the provisions of applicable County collective bargaining agreement regarding eligibility for insurance benefits.. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 5.03 City PSAP /Dispatch Center Operations The City will cease operation of its PSAP /Dispatch Center on the date when the County begins providing services for the City from the Dispatch Center. ,Article V1. Dispatch Center Operations and Services - _ Deleted: q 6.01 Mission The Mission of the Dispatch Center is to provide both field responders and citizens the best emergency communication service making maximum use of personnel and technology. 6.02 Day to Day Operations a. Day to day operations of the Dispatch Center will be under the direction of the Radio System Manager. b. The City hereby appoints and designates the County as its agent with respect to the operation and management of the Dispatch Center. 6.03 Services a. Emergency communications and dispatch services shall be provided on behalf of the City, the County, and other Members 24/7/365 for police, fire, and emergency medical service, b. The Dispatch Center will utilize a two -stage dispatching system whereby telecommunicators will take incoming requests for service and relay them to dedicated dispatchers who will be assigned for police calls as well as those for fire and emergency medical calls. This will not impact the County's ability to cross train dispatchers for fire and police dispatch. Deleted: , .,d after Imrvs emer�my notlfieatlmr for priblie works C. Standardized procedures will be formulated with input from user groups. Customization of procedures for participating agencies will be provided to the extent such customization can be accommodated by the Computer Aided Dispatch System. d. A quality assurance program will be adopted based on national standards. 6.04 Dispatch Users Croup a. A Dispatch Users Croup shall be formed, to be comprised of one chief or command officer from each of the following agencies: 1. St Paul Police; 2. St Paul Fire; 3. Maplewood Police; 4. Maplewood Fire; 5. One suburban fire department other than Maplewood; 6. One suburban police department other than Maplewood; and 7. One undersheriff or command officer from the Ramsey County Sheriff s Office. b. The Dispatch Users Gro up may adop rules rega rding the selection b the a encies of their Dis atch Users Crou member b 'ob classification and the duration of membership in the Dispatch Users Group If the City of Saint Paul does not si n an a reement to consolidate its PSAP /Dis atch Center with the County's PSAP /Dispatch Center, the Dispatch Users Group will be made up of the a ro riate re resentatives from the 'urisdictions that have entered into a consolidation agreement.. C.The suburban fire department representative will be selected annually by the Ramsey County Fire Chiefs Association. The suburban police department representative will be selected annually by the Ramsey County Chiefs of Police. The Dispatch Users Group will meet quarterly or at some other interval as determined by the group. The Dispatch Users Group shall have a Law Enforcement Subcommittee andFire and EMS Subcommittees. The Law Enforcement Subcommittee shall be ceieted: a comprised of one police officer, deputy, or supervisor from each law enforcement agency served by the Dispatch Center. The Fire and EMS Subcommittees shall be comprised of one firefighter, emergency medical responder, or supervisor from each fire and EMS agency served by the Dispatch Center. e _ Each representative to the Dispatch Users Group will have one vote. ceieted: a The roles and responsibilities of the Dispatch Users Group will be to' - ceieted: e 1. Provide user agency input to the Radio System Manager into the process of developing protocols and dispatching standards for the Dispatch Center. 2. Provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between Dispatch Center staff and users for the purpose of improving service, reviewing critical incidents, and resolving complaints. 3. Provide for coordination of service between the Dispatch Center and local agencies with the intent of providing seamless public safety service that makes the administrative boundary between dispatching and field responders as transparent as possible to the public. 4. Provide input to the Dispatch Policy Committee as to the overall performance of the Dispatch Center in serving the needs of the user agencies. a, Issues that cannot be resolved by the Dispatch Users Croup may be referred to _ - deleted: f the ' Committee _ Deleted: Dispamh rouey Article V11. Cost and Funding 7.01 Capital Expenditure and Equipment a. Subject to the provisions of Article 8.01 a., the County will pay the facility construction and site development costs for a Dispatch Center that will be of such size and configuration as to provide communications and dispatch services to meet the needs of consolidated dispatch. b. Subject to the provisions of Article 8.01 a., the County will pay for the 800 MHz radio system equipment in the Dispatch Center, including consoles and connections to the regional system backbone and payment to the Ciry for their current consoles at fair market value ( "FMV" . If the parties cannot reach agreement on FMV, FM V shall be d etermined by an independent thi Party acceptable_ to both pa with c osts to be sh equall by the City and the County. Upon payment by the County to the City for the consoles, title shall immediately transfer to the County C. The City shall be responsible for any costs related to the disbanding of its PSAP /Dispatch Center and its communications infrastructure, including removal and disposal of existing equipment. d. The County shall have the first right of refusal for the transfer of any VHF channels the City will no longer need after the transition. 7.02 Operating Costs a. The City and the County agree that the City's annual cost for dispatch services is $525,500( "City Costs "). b. The County will gradually assume responsibility for paying the full operating costs of providing dispatch services for the City. Operating costs do not include the cost of any severance payments or retiree insurance for City employees prior to the date they become County employees, C. The City and the County will pay the indicated percentages of the City Costs during the eight -year transition period ( "Transition Period ") until the County assumes payment of 100% of the City Costs in Year 8, according to the following schedule. Year* City Responsibilitw County Responsibilitw ,Year one _ $525,500 /100% _ $0/0% Year two $472,950/90% $52,550/10% Year three $420,400/80% $105,100/20% Year four $341,575/65% $183,925/35% Year five $262,750/50% $262,750/50% Year six $183,92535% $341,575/65% Year seven $105,100/20% $420,400/80% Year eight $0/0% $525,0 /100% * "Year" means a twelve -month period beginning on the date dispatch services are first provided for the City from the Dispatch Center. Deleted: S V is airy cos[ of livvng or es ingrleinented for he City PSAP /Dispatch the date the County begins the City Deleted: Deleted: " Deleted: Deleted: 0 �1 The City will pay its yearly amount of the City Costs to the County on a monthly _ - Deleted: ""Hach party ,in alto be basis Within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from the County following for the ho b ed e e the commencement of each month of the Transition Period. ofthe e t in inrpleinelr[ for emplo t H he C City mple �os[ inns or e eeo es of he City e. If, during the Transition Period, a law is adopted that imposes levy limits, PsAP Dispatch Center prior to the date establishes property tax caps, or otherwise places limits on the property tax that the County begins dispatching for the would make it impossible for the County to continue to assume the City Costs, city.¶ the County and the City agree to jointly request and seek legislation that would allow the costs for dispatch center consolidation and public safety -- Deleted: ) communication systems to be outside the property tax levy limits. If no legislation is enacted that allows Ramsey County to continue to assume the City - Deleted: hvo ta> Costs during the Transition Period, then the City shall continue to pay each year the amount that it was paying at the time the levy limits or property tax - Deleted:> limitations went into effect. 7.03 911 Fees During and after the Transition Period, the County shall be entitled to keep any 911 fees previously paid to the City and will apply any 911 fees to cover the County's portion of the Dispatch Center operating costs. 7.04 Other Funds Nothing herein shall preclude either party from applying for and receiving federal or state, or funds from other public and private sources, for the capital, equipment and /or operating costs of the Dispatch Center. Article VIII. General Terms and Conditions 8.01 Termination a. The City may terminate this Agreement prior to the date the Dispatch Center begins providing services for the City, subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1., The City shall deliver written notice of such termination, in the form of a _ - - Deleted:) resolution by City's City Council, to the County, at least sixty (60) days prior to the time the Dispatch Center is scheduled to begin providing services for the City. 2, The City shall reimburse _the County for payments made by the County to_ _ -- Deleted: ) the City to buy the City's PSAP /Dispatch Center equipment, with payment to be received by the County within twen 20 business days - Deleted: hvo ta> of receipt of the notice from the City by the County. 3, The City shall reimburse the County for the full cost of any equipment, _ - Deleted:> furniture, materials, or services purchased by Ramsey County in order to integrate dispatching for the City into the Dispatch Center, with payment _.... - Deleted: Mapienwod to be received by the County within twenty (20),busmess days of receipt _ _. _ - Del eted: hvo ta) of the notice from the City by the County. 4, Upon receipt of payments under 2,and 3,above, the County shall permit _ _ -- Deleted: _ the City to remove the equipment, furniture, and materials for which the - Deleted: City,feimbursed the County. ` Deleted:) 5 The City shall reimburse the County for all costs incurred by the County in relation to the City's termination of this Agreement, including, but not Deleted: it limited to, costs for disconnecting or modifying equipment and Deleted: additional consultant costs. Such payment shall be made within fifteen (15) business days of receipt by the City from the County of an invoice for such termination costs. b. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may not be terminated during the Initial Term. Thereafter, either party may terminate this Agreement at the end of a calendar year by action of its governing body and upon a minimum of twelve (12) months written notice to the other party. 8.02 Indemnification and Insurance a. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the acts of its employees, elected officials, and agents as they relate to this Agreement and for any liability resulting therefrom, to the extent authorized by law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party or its employees, elected officials, and agents, or for any liability resulting therefrom prior to Ci r emlo, eesg County employees Effective on the date that Ciblljr employees become County em to ees the Count will be res onsible for its own acts and omissions and the acts and omission s of it s employ, elected officials an ag ents, to the ext authorized bylaw. Each party's liability shall be governed and limited by the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Slat. Chapter 466 and other applicable law. b. consistent with the provisions of Section 8.02 a., ea party agrees to defend, _ indemnify and hold harmless the other party, its employees, elected officials, and agents from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the indemnifying party, its employees, elected officials, or agents, in the performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. C. Each party warrants that it is able to comply with the aforementioned indemnity requirements through commercial insurance or a self - funding program. d. The County agrees to maintain property insurance coverage throughout the term of this Agreement on the Dispatch Center facility and all of the County equipment within the Dispatch Center. The City agrees to maintain property insurance coverage on all Cit e ui ment rior to the date title transfers to the County in accordance with the provisions, if this Agreemen6 8.03 Non - Assignability Neither party shall assign any interest in this Agreement nor transfer any interest in the same, whether by subcontract, assignment or novation. 8.04 Compliance With Applicable Law a. Both parties agree to comply with all federal, state and local laws, resolutions, ordinances, rules, regulations and executive orders pertaining to unlawful discrimination on account of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual preference, disability, or age. b. Both parties agree to comply with all federal, state and local laws or ordinances, and all applicable rules, regulations, and standards established by any agency of such governmental units, which are now or hereafter promulgated insofar as they relate to the parties' performance of the provisions of this Agreement. X 8.05 5 , Data Practices All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose in the course of either party's performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Deleted: E Deleted: tnonglont the tern Deleted: on all of the City equipment within the Dispatch Center Deleted: 8.05 =Prevailing Wage1 Both parties agree to conform to the labor laws of the State of Mhmemta, and all other laws, ordnnaioes, and legal regoirernems affecting the work in Ramsey Coa my and Minnesota. The mininnun wage rate per lour to be paid for each classification ofwork shall be the noon wage rate in the locality of the project for those classificator, over which theonions have jnrisdicton and the local prevailing rate for those classifications of work in the localities over which the o nior, do not have jnrisdicton) 4 Deleted: 6 Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Star. Ch. 13, or any other applicable state statutes, any state rules adopted to implement the Act and statutes, as well as federal statutes and regulations on data privacy. 8.0(� Audit _ _ _ - - oeleted: 7 Until the expiration of six (6) years after the termination of this Agreement, each party shall, upon written request of the other party, shall make available to the requesting party, the State Auditor or the requesting party's ultimate funding sources, a copy of this Agreement and the books, documents, records and accounting procedures and practices relating to this Agreement. 8.07, Alteration _ _ - - DO ted: s Any alteration, variation, modification, or waiver of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only after it has been reduced to writing and duly signed by both parties. 8.0� Notice Any notice required to be given by this Agreement shall be made by delivery by first class mail, postage applied, to: Ramsey County Office of the County Manager 250 City Hall/ Courthouse 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 City of Maplewood Office of the Mayor 390 City Hall /Courthouse 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Maplewood, Minnesota 55102 ,. DelMed:9 8.09 Arbitration. t - -- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Any dispute between the parties to this Agreement may be subject to arbitration, if mutually agreed to in writing by the parties. The parties shall mutually agree on an arbitrator and the arbitration will take place under the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association. The parties shall pay their own internal costs and shall each pay 50% of any out of pocket fees or costs related to the arbitration. 8.10 Interpretation of Agreement; Venue. t - -- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. All litigation regarding this Agreement shall be venued in the appropriate state or federal district court in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Deleted: ¶ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 8.11 Conditions Outside Control of a Party No narry to this Agreement can beheld responsible for conditions outside the control of the narty claiming its occurrence, which are the direct result of force maj eure which shall mean and include acts of ublic enemies strikes or lockouts enforceable overnmental or,judicial orders; outbreak of war or insurrection, or acts of terrorism; insurrection riots; civil disturbances; earthquakes, floo fires, and explosions or other sim catastto hes or events not reasonabl within the art 's control 8.12 Entire Agreement This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede all prior oral or written negotiations. WHEREFORE, this Agreement is duly executed on the last date written below. RAMSEY COUNTY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Victoria Reinhardt, Chair Board of County Commissioners Bonnie lackelen, Chief Clerk Board of County Commissioners Date: Approved as to form: Assistant County Attorney Approval recommended: David Twa, County Manager Funds are available: Robert Cardinal, Mayor City Clerk Date: Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney Funds are available: Budgeting and Accounting Agenda Item K -1 REPORT SUMMARY Applicant: Fred Richie and Craig Anondson Site Address: 1349/1359 County Road C Existing Zoning: Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Existing Land Use: Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) Proposed Land Use: High Multiple - Dwelling Residential (R -3H) City Council Hearing Date: July 11, 2005 60 -Day Deadline: July 11, 2005 Project Description: The city approved the construction of two duplexes at 1349/1359 County Road C in 1968. Sometime after the city's initial approval of the duplexes (approximately 1970), previous owners converted the duplexes to a three -plex and a four -plex without the required city approvals. The additional units exceeded the zoning and land use density requirements. Requests: The new property owners are now attempting to resolve the density issues by requesting a conditional use permit for a planned unit development and a comprehensive land use change from Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) to High Multiple - Dwelling Residential (R -3H). No additional units or exterior modifications are proposed by the land owners. Recommendations: On June 6, 2005, the planning commission recommended denial of the rezoning (initial request involved rezoning from R -2 to R -3) and comprehensive land use change. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a planned unit development and the comprehensive land use plan change from R -2 to R -3H. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Zoning and Land Use Change LOCATION: 1349/1359 County Road C DATE: July 5, 2005 I.kd:is]111101[a].I Project Description Fred Richie and Craig Anondson are requesting a comprehensive land use plan change and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the two properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. The properties are currently guided in the city's comprehensive plan and zoned as Double Dwelling Residential (R -2). The city approved the construction of two duplexes on these properties in 1968. Some time after the city's initial approval of the duplexes (approximately 1970), previous owners converted the duplexes to a three -plex (1349 County Road C) and a four -plex (1359 County Road C) without the required city approvals. The additional units exceed the approved land use density and zoning requirements. Requests The applicants are requesting the city council approve the following land use requests in order to maintain the existing structures as a three -plex and a four -plex: Land Use Plan Change from R -2 (Double Dwelling Residential) to R -3H (High Density Multiple Dwelling Residential). 2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to maintain three units at 1349 County Road C and four units at 1359 County Road C. BACKGROUND 1968: The city approved building permits for the construction of two duplexes located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. 1969 or 1970: Based on city records and owner and neighbor statements, after the city conducted the final building permit inspection for the duplexes, the structures were converted to a three -plex (1949 County Road C) and a four -plex (1959 County Road C) without the required city building permits or zoning approvals. The properties have been used as rental properties as a three -plex and four -plex since that time (approximately 35 years). W 1976: Illegal four -plex located at 1681 County Road C — east of the two properties in question (this is noted here for reference purpose only and is based on information obtained by a neighbor and limited documentation in city files). The city notified the property owner at 1681 County Road C that they must convert their illegal four -plex back to its original use as a duplex. The property owner requested a zoning and land use change in order to maintain the structure as a four -plex. The city council denied the property owner's request. The property owner sued the city and the ensuing judgment allowed the structure to remain as a four -plex. 1998: Craig Anondson purchased the three -plex located at 1349 County Road C. The realtor and previous owner both told Mr. Anondson that the property was approved for three units. Fall 2004: Fred Richie obtained the four -plex located at 1359 County Road C by default when his financial partner was no longer able to hold onto the property. Mr. Richie contacted the city to inquire about zoning and building permit requirements. The city notified Mr. Richie that the property was guided in the city's comprehensive plan and zoned as Double Dwelling (R -2). Mr. Richie explained that his property actually had four units and then inquired about the possibility of reguiding and rezoning the property to ensure it met city land use plan and zoning requirements. DISCUSSION Property Improvements and Future Plans Since they have owned the properties, Craig Anondson and Fred Richie have both made improvements to the properties. This has included roofing, decks, stairs, driveway, landscaping, carpet, painting, and general clean up and maintenance. Mr. Anondson lives in one of his three units and has plans to remain living there while renting out the other two units. Mr. Richie's son lives in one of his four units and helps maintain and manage the property. The current property owners obtained building permits for all of the above - mentioned work which required a permit. However, because the previous owners converted the properties to a three -plex and a four -plex without the appropriate building permits, both property owners have agreed to allow the city's building official and fire marshal to inspect the properties for life /safety issues. If the city council approves the requested land use plan and conditional use permit, and any and all life /safety issues are resolved, the city can then issue a certificate of occupancy for each unit. Land Use Plan Change The property is currently guided as Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) in the city's comprehensive plan. The maximum allowed density in the R -2 land use designation is based on the minimum lot areas in the zoning code. The zoning code requires "double dwellings" to have a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet. The combined area of the two properties is 37,247 square feet (.85 acres). The comprehensive plan would therefore technically allow up to three "double dwellings" on this property (six units overall). There is currently a "three -plex" and a "four- plex" on the 191 property, with seven units overall. Therefore, the overall density and the types of dwelling units are in conflict with the existing land use designation. In order to comply with the city's density requirements, the land use designation would need to change from Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) to High Density Multiple Dwelling Residential (R -3H). Within the R -3H land use designation the maximum density allowed for apartments with three to four units is 9.5 units per acre. With this land use designation the properties could have a total of eight units (9.5 x .85 = 8) which would allow the property owners to maintain their properties with the existing seven units. It should be noted that this land use designation would also allow for the addition of one unit, or the future redevelopment of the properties with eight units within new structures (i.e. townhouses, etc.). However, the property owners are not requesting an additional unit or the redevelopment of the properties. Their request is to allow the existing structures to remain as a three -plex and a four -plex. This issue will be discussed further in the rezoning /CUP section below. Rezoning /Conditional Use Permit The Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) zoning district allows for "single family" and "double dwelling" units only. In order to comply with the city's zoning requirements, the zoning would need to change from Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R -3). Within the R -3 zoning district the permitted uses include multiple dwellings (at least three attached units). The applicants originally requested the properties be rezoned from R -2 to R -3 in order to maintain their properties with the existing structures. Because of concerns expressed by the planning commission and neighbors about the possibility of further expansion of the property as specified above, city staff is recommending the property be zoned as a PUD rather than to R -3. David Ramberg, attorney with the city's representing law firm Kelly & Fawcett, P.A., describes how a PUD may be the best method of bringing the current use of the properties into compliance in his memorandum attached (Attachment 5). Mr. Ramberg recommends possible conditions to attach to the PUD as follows: Sunset the PUD in one of two ways: a. Requiring the property to be rezoned back to an R -2 zoning district once the property is sold. The property owner should also be required to file appropriate title work indicating such, and to provide such notice to any potential buyer. b. Require the property to be rezoned back to an R -2 within five years (or some other period of time). 2. Restrict the number of units. 3. Require any addition (building or garage expansion) to come back to the city council for approval. 4. Require compliance with specific landscaping, parking, etc. requirements. 51 Summary In light of the property owners' efforts to proactively bring the problem to the city's attention for remedy, the improvements made to the properties, and the fact that these properties have been a three -plex and a four -plex for approximately 35 years, city staff recommends that the city council approve the PUD option rather than rezoning to R -3, or requiring the strict abatement of the uses back to duplexes. This solution would encourage other property owners to work with the city to remedy existing problems rather than hiding violations which would ultimately have a negative impact on the community. In staff's opinion, conditioning the PUD on the items 2 through 4 as outlined in Mr. Ramberg's memorandum (restricting number of units, future additions or accessory buildings to be approved by the city council, and compliance with landscaping, parking, etc.) will be adequate to address the planning commission and neighborhood concerns regarding future expansions of the properties. Staff finds that requiring a sunset on the PUD would be a true hardship for the applicants and would not be in the spirit of working with property owners to resolve a problem. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the attached comprehensive land use change resolution (Attachment 6). This resolution changes the land use plan from Double Dwelling Residential (R- 2) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R -3H) for the properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. The city bases these changes on the following findings that the site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high - density residential use. This includes: a. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing and low- to moderate - income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. b. Disperse low- and moderate - income developments throughout the city, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. C. Have a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. d. Have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life- cycle. e. Have a community of well- maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. Add to and preserve the affordable housing in the city. g. The properties are located on a collector street, with no additional traffic added to local streets. 5 2. Approve the attached resolution (Attachment 7). This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. This approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The planned unit development allows for three dwelling units to be located at 1349 County Road C and four dwelling units to be located at 1359 County Road C. Any additional dwelling units must be approved by the city council. b. Any exterior modifications including additions and accessory structures which require building permits must be reviewed by the Community Design Review Board. C. The property owners must submit and maintain a landscape /screening /parking plan to the Community Design Review Board for approval. The plan must ensure adequate landscaping /screening and parking is existing or installed. d. The property owners must have each individual unit inspected by the city's building official and fire marshal to ensure life /safety issues are addressed. e. The city council shall review this permit in one year. M CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 63 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. Following are the 16 responses received: Object: John and Paulette Bauer, 2609 Clarence Street North (responded via mail): "We prefer to have it continue as Double Dwelling Residential." 2. Keith and JoAnn Richie, 1385 County Road C (responded via mail): "We don't feel it's in the best interest of neighborhood to zone this property as a four plex." 3. Unknown Sender (responded via e- mail): "We received the notification of the request for a zoning change to the above addresses. We have lived here since 1968 and have seen many homes built on vacant lots which have benefited our neighborhood; however, we were disappointed in the change on Co. Rd C. Last summer we heard large machinery and there were landscape changes. For example, one weekend I asked the person not to continue burning as we had our family visiting and the light wind carried the smoke to our yard. My husband called the city to inquire why there was such extensive work being done and we believe an inspector or city official came to the property. I do not understand why Maplewood city did not investigate the property at that time to clarify the zoning if it looked as if there were changes. Now we get a notice almost a year later that it had been changed to a fourplex without proper approval. AB" 4. Toni May, 2604 Clarence Street (responded via e- mail): "In regards to the rezoning of the above mentioned properties, I would like to say that although we appreciate the work this man has done to improve these eyesores, we do not feel that the rezoning is in the best interests of the neighborhood. I have lived in this neighborhood my entire life and have watched the variety of renters come and go, the junk they pile up in the yards, the kids that are running wild and the overall questionable activities that have gone on. The houses are not big enough to support 4 families. We don't need more rental property in Maplewood. If Maplewood continues at this rate, it will be just an extension of North St Paul with all its low income housing." 5. Rodney Petchki, 1306 County Road C (responded via telephone): In summary Mr. Petchki states that the city shouldn't change the zoning for an illegal structure. 6. Lucille Dillon, 1367 Kohlman Avenue East (responded via voicemail): No problems with the properties, but would rather have them remain R -2. Approve: Unknown Caller Who Received Neighborhood Survey (responded via voicemail): "We think the rezoning is fine." 2. Barbara Huss, 1316 Kohlman Avenue East (responded via mail): "I don't have a problem with the land use change." 7 3. Randall Stoehr, 2608 Clarence Street North (responded via mail): "I have noticed a great many improvements to these properties. It's welcome to see an intention to keep a desirable appearance to all the homes in our area. I applaud the owner's efforts. Thanks." 4. John Edmundson, 1396 County Road C East (responded via mail): "Go ahead & rezone it. It's fine with me." 5. Carol Sosa ( ?), 1319 County Road C (responded via voicemail): In summary, Ms. Sosa stated that she hasn't had any problems with any of the renters or owners of the two properties. Let them go for it. 6. Karen and Paul Luxem, 1390 Kohlman Avenue (responded via mail): "We have no objection to the change in zoning for the properties mentioned in your letter. However, the property owners that live adjacent to the fourplexes have the most knowledge of how they impact their neighborhood. Please give their opinions the greatest weight." Concerns: Tim Smith, 1336 Kohlman Avenue East (responded via e- mail): "Assuming the rezoning does go through what assurance can be provided that additional housing units will not be built on this land? The lots involved are approximately 300 feet deep and have plenty of room to construct additional housing units should the owner desire to do so. If the rezoning goes through would any new construction require city approval? If approval was not obtained but structures were erected would we just have to live with an apartment complex just off our backyard? These are my only concerns but without assurance that additional housing structures could NOT be built then I am not in favor of this rezoning. If the rezoning process itself can assure that no additional housing structures will be built then I would have no problem with the change." 2. Brent Harshman, 1360 County Road C East (responded via telephone): In summary Mr. Harshman stated that the new property owners have made many improvements to the properties. Since Mr. Harshman moved into his home in 2000 he has not experienced problems with the two properties. However, Mr. Harshman is concerned with the possibility of problematic tenants in the future and how this would affect the property value of his owner /occupied single - family house. 3. Unknown sender (responded via e- mail): "My address is 2666 English Street, around the corner from the properties. My only concern is any other changes that can be made if they are given the approval. I certainly do not want to give a 'cart blanc' approval to anything else that a normal multi family housing unit would have, i.e., expansion of units, larger garage facilities, public /private pool in the back which could attract an "apartment like" atmosphere with parties, etc. Otherwise if left entirely as it is at this time, I have no problem with approval. One question I do have however, could someone else down the street later use this case as a precedence and demand a similar re- zoning of their own property? 1.1 4. Rita Lally and Mary Schneider, 1391 County Road C (responded via voicemail): We would prefer another solution to rezoning which could possibly lead to different buildings in the future. If the gentleman could get some sort of variance that they could continue to have what they have now, but not expand into anything else with a rezoning, we would be in favor of that. w] REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1349 County Road C — 20,046 s.f. (.46 acres) 1359 County Road C — 17,201 s.f. (.40 acres) Total Site Size — 37,247 s.f. (.86 acres) Existing Use: 1349 County Road C — Three -Plex 1359 County Road C — Four -Plex SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single Family Homes South: County Road C and Single Family Homes Across the Street East: Vacant Lot (Zoned and Guided Single Dwelling Residential) West: Single Family Homes PLANNING Land Use and Zoning Existing Designations Land Use Plan Designation: R -2 (Double Dwelling Residential) Zoning: R -2 (Double Dwelling Residential) Proposed Designations Land Use Plan Designation: R -3H (High Density Multiple Dwelling Residential) Zoning: R -3 (Multiple Dwelling Residential) Criteria for Approval Land Use Plan Change There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. 1. The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal including protect and strengthen neighborhoods, provide a wide variety of housing types, and provide safe and attractive neighborhoods. 2. The land use plan also has several residential development policies that relate to this project including: iG7 a. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing and low- to moderate - income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. b. Disperse low- and moderate - income developments throughout the city, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. 3. The housing plan also has goals and policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development including: a. Have a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. b. Have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life- cycle. C. Have a community of well- maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. d. Add to and preserve the affordable housing in the city. Conditional Use Permit Article V, Sections 44 -1091 through 44 -1105 states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval noted in the resolution attached (Attachment 7). Application Date The city received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 6, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 4, 2005, unless the applicants agree to a time extension. Because of health issues, the applicant agreed to extend the 60 -day timeline to July 11, 2005. P: Sec 3 \1349 -1359 Co Rd C Rezone CC Report Attachments: 1. Applicant Statement 2. Location Map 3. Existing Zoning /Land Use Map 4. Police Department Memorandum 5. Dave Ramberg, Esq., Legal Opinion Memorandum 6. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 7. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 8. June 6, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes 11 Attachment 1 October 6, 2004 NIs, Shann Finwall Office of Community Development Cite of Maplewood 1930 Fast County Road B Maplewood- Ntt 55109 RE: 13,57 and 1350 East County Road C Maplewood, ININ Dear Ms. Finwall I am requesting that the above reverenced property he rezoned to R -3 in order to keep unit as four -plea. I purchased the property as a fbur -plex in .tune of 2002 and installed a new driveway and parking lot, new gutters and down spouts, net, decks on 4 }ont and side, redecorated all units and install all new appliances. I also repaired the three car,garage. If you have any other questions please call me at 65 1 -470 -0768. Yours truly. r Fred J. Richie IN Attachment 2 Location Map I Attachment 3 W N E Existing Zoning and s Land Use Map 14 � lNx �hannF�nwa|| / From: Lt- Kevin Rabbett Dotv. 5-25-05 0e: Project Review: 1349'1359 County Road C These properties have been a problem 1n the past. Po records indicate at least one hundred cm|ls7orwopJceuin^e1S94[Reto"dapriorto1g84a/enoireaUi|yauaUabk:\M8nyn((be calls for service were for assaults, narcotics, disturbances and public nuisance |bc|ieke that aonnbihuiing factor was the addi of the illegal units as well as the general ctsrepair of the structure Such rental units are inexpensive, not well supervised, and mtload problem tenants l understand that the current ownaeshave been repairing ^ (he units and are, either living unnitecx have. relatives thenp. This may improve the properties and reduce calls for service. The records do indicate. a significant reduction oi calls |n the lost year. Continued maintenance and close. management of the proMlieq may rnaXe the rezoning acceptable from a public safety standpoint. |f you have any questions ur comments, please call rnwatt28O4� 15 Attachment 5 X E: 1349 and 1359 County Road C Properties Resolution of Density and Zoning Violaticl Issue: In 1968, the city approved construction of a duplex on each of the above- referenced properties. Shortly after the approval and construction took place, the property owners converted the duplex at 1349 Count) Road C to a three-plex and converted the duplex at 1359 County Road C into a four-plex. These changes were undertaken without the City's knowledge or permission and in violation of zoning and density requirements. Ownership of the properties has since changed. The current owner is aware of the existing violations and has brought them to the City's attention in hopes of remedying the problem. The owner requests that the City Council approve the following changes: 1) Land Use Plan Change from R-2 to R- 3, and 2) Rezone the lots from R-2 to R-3. The following information should assist you in your determining how to respond to the request. The existence of a three-plex and four-plex on the subject properties constitute illegal uses of the property. The City may force the property owner to convert the units back to duplexes in order to comply with former and existing zoning, and density requirements. That the illegal use has continued for approximately thirty- five years is immaterial. The Maplewood Code of Ordinances § 44-7 provides: If any building or structure is erected, construced, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted, or mainted or any building, structure or land is used in violation of this chapter [of zoning ordinances], the proper city authorities, in addition to other remedies, inay institute any appropriate action or 11101 procecdings to prevent such unlawful_ use to: (I) Restrain, correct or abate such violation; ('_) Prevent the occupanc y of the building, structures or land; or (3) Prevent arry illegal act, conduct, business, or use in or about such premises. Section 44 -8 in conjunction with a l - 15 provides for criminal prosecution of such use and further provides that "Each day that any violation continues shall constitute separate violation." It is my understanding that, in light of the propc - y- owner's efforts to proactive# brincF the problem to the City's attention for remedy, and in light of the recent improvements made to the property and positive feedback from w ners of nei ht?oring properties; the City prefers to pursue all accommodating solution rather than strict abatement and prosecution. This should encourage other property owners to work with the City to remedy existing problems rather than hide violations and ultimately have a positive effect on the community, at large. Rezoningx to R3 Rezoning to R3 may constitute spot- zoning, given the surrounding property. One may argue that this would nonetheless be permitted Liven that the properties appear to already be spot - zoned as R2 in a predominantly RI zoned development. Rezoning to R3 creates additional problems as well. The structures would still fail to comply kv ith appropriate R3 setback requirements. It may also open the door for further expansion of the property — a proposition which neighboring property o% ners would Iikely oppose. Conditional Use Pcnnit The Citv may elect to issue a Conditional Use Permit to atccontniodatc certain rues where the use in a particular waning district is not permitted but not specifically prohibited_ I lcrc. vv ith respect to the property owners' intended use in this existing R2 zoned property C 44- 10192 hoes not provide for such a permit other than in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). See l 44-109. and § 44 -1093. Planned Unit Development PUD may be the best method to bring the current use of the properties into compliance. A PLD may issue if the City rinds than the conditions of§ 44- 1093(b) et seq. are met. it the City pursues this option thcY may: 17 1. Sunset the PUD. a, Require the property to be rezoned back to an R-2 zoning district once the property is sold. The property owner should also be required file appropriate title work indicting such. and to provide such notice to any potential buyer. b. Require the property to be rezoned back to an R-2 within years (or some other period of time'). I Restrict the number of units. Require any addition (buildin.g or garaue expansion) to come back to the city council for approval. 4. Require compliancewvith specific landscaping. parking, etc. requirements. As to requiring "the owner or a relative of the owner to live there," I do not believe this can be dore IV Attachment 6 [Ae1.1111111-1 :8 awe1. [D3:Ie1. [H :8 N *16111b III [a] ki WHEREAS, Fred Richie and Craig Anondson applied for a change to the city's land use plan from Double Dwelling Residential (R -2) to High Multiple - Dwelling Residential (R -3H). C East. WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 1349 and 1359 County Road WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 6, 2005, 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 prior to their recommendation. 2. On July 11, 2005, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above - described change to the land use plan for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high- density residential use. This includes: a. Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing and low- to moderate - income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. b. Disperse low- and moderate - income developments throughout the city, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. C. Have a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. d. Have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life- cycle. e. Have a community of well- maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. f. Add to and preserve the affordable housing in the city. g. The properties are located on a collector street, with no additional traffic added to local streets. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2005. 1F'7 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, Fred Richie and Craig Anondson applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to allow three dwelling units to remain on 1349 County Road C and four dwelling units to remain on 1359 County Road C. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the properties at 1349 and 1359 County Road C. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 6, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission prior to their recommendation. 2. On July 11, 2005, the city council discussed the 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. RZ11 -2- Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The planned unit development allows for three dwelling units to be located at 1349 County Road C and four dwelling units to be located at 1359 County Road C. Any additional dwelling units must be approved by the city council. 2. Any exterior modifications including additions and accessory structures which require building permits must be reviewed by the Community Design Review Board. 3. The property owners must submit and maintain a landscape /screening /parking plan to the Community Design Review Board for approval. The plan must ensure adequate landscaping /screening and parking is existing or installed. 4. The property owners must have each individual unit inspected by the city's building official and fire marshal to ensure life /safety issues are addressed. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2005. 21 Attachment 8 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2005 c. Richie /Anondson four - plexes — (1349 & 1359 County Road C) (8:02-9:18 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Fred Richie and Craig Anondson are requesting a comprehensive land use plan change and rezoning for the two properties located at 1349 and 1359 County Road C East. The properties are currently guided in the city's comprehensive plan and zoned as Double Dwelling Residential R -2. Ms. Finwall said the city approved the construction of two duplexes on these properties in 1968. Some time after the city's initial approval of the duplexes (approximately 1970), previous owners converted the duplexes to a three -plex (1349 County Road C) and a four -plex (1359 County Road C) without the required city approvals. The additional units exceed the approved land use density and zoning requirements. The new property owners are now attempting to resolve the density and zoning issue by requesting the comprehensive land use change and rezoning from Double Dwelling Residential R -2 to High Multiple Dwelling Residential R -3(H). No additional units or exterior modifications are proposed. Commissioner Dierich asked after 30 years was there a need to rezone this or was itjust to make the plan look good. She asked if the city could make an exception in this case, it seems like a lot of work for city staff for not a lot of gain. Ms. Finwall said this was an illegal nonconforming structure constructed after the zoning was in place. The city deals with legal nonconforming structures all the time. An example would be this duplex being constructed prior to a double dwelling zoning district. That structure could maintain itself until the end of time or until it was destroyed to more than 50% of its value. This being an illegal nonconforming structure the city is required to either make the owners convert it back to a double dwelling or gain the comprehensive land use plan change and rezoning. She did not believe there was a statue of limitations on this type of land use issue. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city didn't make the original owner convert it back to a duplex when they found out it was a tri -plex and a four -plex? Ms. Finwall said the city found out these buildings at 1349 and 1359 County Road C was converted to a tri -plex and a four -plex last fall with the current owners in place. The structures have been this way over 30 years without the city's knowledge. Commissioner Trippler asked whose idea it was to request R -3(H) zoning? Ms. Finwall said that zoning was recommended by city staff so that it would comply with the land use designation requirements. The city could not change the comprehensive plan to R -3(M), which is medium multiple family residential zoning because of the density requirements, which are six units per acre. Seven units would be over the allowed density for R -3(M). W� Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Commissioner Trippler said in his opinion city staff should require the current owners to convert the buildings back to duplexes which is what they were approved for rather than figure out some way to work around the ordinance. When he visited the site at 1349 County Road C East it appeared the exterior of the building looked pretty rough. He asked if the statement made by city staff that the structure could maintain itself until the end of time or if it was destroyed to more than 50% of its value, means the city can require the owner to convert the buildings back. Ms. Finwall showed a photo of 1349 and 1359 County Road C East to the planning commission. It appears that 1359 County Road C is in better repair. She was referring to a legal non conforming structure where state statue would allow that structure to remain until it was destroyed to more than 50% of its value. With this type of illegal structure the city could currently require the owners to convert it back to the duplex. Commissioner Trippler asked why city staff did not consider that option? Ms. Finwall said city staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and comprehensive land use plan change in order to allow these property owners to maintain these structures. These owners have made several improvements to the property which has been attested to by the neighbors. She said this property would be considered affordable housing in Maplewood as well. Ms. Finwall said according to police records, the property has improved considerably as far as police calls. With Craig Anondson and Fred Richie's son living on site will improve the maintenance and management of those buildings. It is a difficult legal prospect for the city to require someone to convert a tri -plex and four -plex back to a duplex after over 30 years. Commissioner Trippler said the combined area of the two properties at both 1349 and 1359 County Road C East is less than one acre in size. Ms. Finwall said correct. Commissioner Trippler asked how far back the lot went? Ms. Finwall said each lot is about 65 -feet wide and 285 -feet deep Commissioner Yarwood said he has concerns about rezoning these properties and setting a precedent of rezoning properties to make an illegal structure legal. At the same time the current owners have made some improvements to the property. Is there a way that the resolution can be worded to make this a conditional zoning change such that any new development that were to take place on the property, or if the existing structures were torn down or rebuilt, that the property needs to be consistent with the other surrounding properties? Ms. Finwall said according to the city's legal counsel that would be considered contract zoning and is illegal. Commissioner Yarwood said being one of the newer commissioners he had to ask that question but now he knows that is illegal. 091 Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Commissioner Trippler said he likes to read the citizen comments to see what the neighbors have to say. The staff report on page 3 says most neighbors were positive in their comments and supported the change to the comprehensive land use plan change. He wondered how staff figured most neighbors were "in favor" of this proposal because there were only six comments. He counted two neighbors were opposed, two neighbors that didn't respond, two neighbors that were in favor. Ms. Finwall said some of the responses specified concerns but were overall supportive. Some of the neighbors are in the audience tonight and will have an opportunity to speak and can share their comments with the planning commission. Commissioner Grover asked if changing the zoning from R -2 to R -3(H) changes the setbacks? Ms. Finwall said with a multi - family dwelling which is allowed with R -3(H) zoning they would be required to have a 50 -foot setback from the surrounding residential properties. Ms. Finwall said the structures themselves were approved with a building permit so they would be grandfathered in. The structures sit approximately five to ten feet from the property lines. Commissioner Dierich asked if there was anything other than multi - family dwellings that could be built on this parcel if the city approved the R -3(H) zoning? Ms. Finwall said they could only have multi - family dwellings including double dwellings on this parcel. Chairperson Fischer asked if there could be a PUD on this property so it would limit it to the existing structures? Ms. Finwall said you could have a (PUD) Planned Unit Development for the zoning with the land use plan for the R -3(H) zoning. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Craig Anondson, 1349 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He bought the property in November 1998 with the understanding that this building was suitable for a four -plex and was happy leaving it the way it was set up. He has slowly been improving the site and trying to keep the riff -raff out which can be a battle at times. He was new at being a landlord and has finally gotten a grip on that. He has been improving the site and it looks a lot better than it did when he bought it. Since 1998 he has called the police twice at this address. Once was because one of his tenants was trying to commit suicide and another time was because a carwas parked in his front yard. He is amazed how all of this has come up. He found out the situation regarding this mess last year from the other owner, Fred Richie at 1359 County Road C East, and here he is today. Commissioner Ahlness commended the applicant, Mr. Anondson for making the improvements to the property. Mr. Anondson said the realtor told him the property was approved for three and four units. Commissioner Ahlness asked what real estate company it was? Q1 Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Mr. Anondson said it was Edina Realty. He said Fred Richie is in the hospital having surgery so he could not be present at this evening's meeting. He can only speaking for himself on this matter. Commissioner Dierich said in the staff report Lt. Kevin Rabbett stated there have been at least one hundred calls for service since 1994 at this location and within the last year there has been a significant reduction in calls. She asked what happened in the past year to cause the reduction in phone calls. Mr. Anondson said having Fred Richie as owner of the neighboring property has decreased the telephone calls to the police. This also made better tenants move into the home. The following people spoke during this public hearing: Ms. Beverly Willing, 1366 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood. Ms. Willing said her property is behind these two properties. She said they have lived in their home since 1968. An old neighbor, Roger Fontaine, built these duplexes in a neighborhood that mostly consists of single family homes. So many things have happened at this location over the years. She wasn't sure why they never called the city to complain about things that have occurred on the property. There has been smoke and fire coming from these homes but they could never figure out what the neighbors were burning at the property. There have been golf balls hit with baseball bats at her home and onto their deck while they were having company over or while enjoying the outdoors. She thinks there are more than enough families living in those homes. There were supposed to be two families living in each building and now there are three families in one and four in the other home. She thinks the homes should be converted back to duplexes as they were built and approved. Just because the owners are living there now and they have been attempting to clean the property up doesn't mean they aren't going to move out and problems will increase again. The home was zoned for duplexes and someone illegally added living quarters for more occupants. Why aren't they required by the city to return the home back the way it was originally built? Arlene Brzinski, 1358 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood. She has lived at this residence for 37 years and has a lot 310 feet deep. She wonders how this property has been occupied as a three and four -plex unit for 30 years illegally zoned? Next to this property, east of these homes, is a vacant lot. She is concerned that someone could buy that lot, which is a dry pond, and build on it. Someone could come to the city and request the vacant lot be rezoned to a multiple dwelling to fit in with the duplexes on the property next door. Ms. Finwall said that vacant lot could only be rezoned if the city council approved of that. However, at this time there have been no requests of any kind. If there would be a request it would have to go through the neighborhood notification process. 25 Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Ron Brzinski, 1358 Kohlman Avenue, Maplewood He said the neighbors have been through this before back in the day when Mr. King owned the property. Mr. Roger Fontaine asked the neighbors if he could build duplexes on this property and rezone the property R -2 in an R -1 neighborhood. The neighborhood agreed but not without some concerns. They were told the owners were going to live in the duplexes and that did not stay that way for long. Now the second set of owners lives on the property but the neighbors have no idea how long that will be the situation. Trying to be good neighbors, if they saw something wrong occurring on the premises the neighbors would walk over to talk to the renters about the problems rather than calling the police. One day he was sitting on his deck and he heard a loud thump and thought someone had shot at him. He got up and looked around and found a golf ball that hit the soffit of his house and then the golf ball bounced off his deck. He went next door to talk to the renter when the man ran and hid in his home. The kids that lived there said the man was afraid of Mr. Brzinski and the man wouldn't come outside. He feels the duplexes have been operating illegally for 30 years and should be required to return as duplexes, which is the way the homes were approved to begin with. He wonders how many tax dollars Ramsey County has missed out for the past 30 years since the county thought these were duplexes. Mr. Brzinski said these property owners are not going to live there forever. These duplexes should be zoned R -2 as they were originally zoned. These were side by side duplexes with walkout basements for two families living in each building, not three families in one building and four in the other building. Mr. Brzinski said people have rented garages in the rear of the property other than the occupants of the duplexes. Those people were fixing and tuning race cars at all hours of the night and day. If you come or call the city every time you see something strange happening at an address then you're known as a trouble maker. Last year he heard a bobcat on the rear of the property and it turned out someone was filling up the drain from the pond to the east and it had to drain out to the west. He called the city and the city came out and investigated and found out the person was going to level out the area and turn it into a park like area without permission or permits. When he bought his house he hired a lawyer to check the abstract and the property to make sure everything was legitimate. He has no sympathy for the current owners regarding the situation they are in now. Mr. Brzinski said they should have checked into things further but all they did was rely on what a realtor told them. He wouldn't have purchased a property if it wasn't zoned properly. He doesn't have any sympathy for buyers who bought something that was illegal to begin with and then come to the city to have their problem fixed. He believes the original zoning change happened some time after 1971 when Roger Fontaine came around and asked the neighbors how they felt about these duplexes being built in their neighborhood. To him illegal is illegal and in his book the homes should be brought up to code and into compliance. To him zoning is like the law and the law is the law. Mr. Anondson and Mr. Richie have a legal problem and should talk to a lawyer and the realtor to figure out what they need to do to correct this problem, not come to the city and ask them to change the zoning to make things legal again because of their neglect to check into things before purchasing these homes. 06 Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Will Rossbach, City Councilmember and Maplewood Resident, 1386 County Road C, Maplewood. Mr. Rossbach said the staff has done a good job with a difficult situation. Surrounding residents were trying to remember when the transition from duplexes to tri and four - plex occurred. He spoke with the neighbors and found out most neighbors have lived in that neighborhood for a long time which is the case with many neighborhoods in Maplewood. He lives close to these homes and has noticed some exterior improvement over the past few years. He hasn't noticed much police activity at this location over the years. He has noticed construction going on there over the past two to four years with sidewalks, driveways etc. and was happy to see someone was making improvements to the site. Nobody knew there were three and four units in these homes all these years and the neighbors were probably not aware that there are other rental units in this area, mostly on the perimeter of the neighborhood. With R -3(H) zoning the setbacks are different, building design factors are different, trash containers need to be built with a material similar to the construction of the buildings. There are other things that he would like to know about the R -3(H) zoning. There are frontage requirements for double dwellings. He walked around the buildings and noticed some construction improvements that were made recently such as new doors on the back of the buildings. 1359 County Road C did some structural changes in order to put in a new door, window, new driveway and sidewalk that required some grading. So for this reason he would be interested to see permits for building, grading, driveway, and anything else that requires permits to see the difference between the old and new ownership. This is a bad situation, there was a lack of knowledge, and the people that bought the buildings did not do any due diligence work. For that reason the city is being asked to resolve the problem for the new owners. He's not sure it should be the City of Maplewood's role to solve this problem. Chairperson Fischer said the other problem is the city doesn't have the staff to go out and monitor things happening in the city. Generally the city is a complaint driven compliance organization and if the neighbors aren't calling to alert the city the city isn't aware of things like this taking place. Mr. Rossbach said the original design of the duplexes were to appear like single family homes from the front. There's a single door on the front of the buildings and you step inside the buildings and there is a hallway and doors that split off into the units. The original concept was good, in fact maybe too good because the city was not aware 30 years ago when these buildings were changed from two units in each building to the three and four units that exist today. The majority of what has taken place has occurred on the back side of the buildings. The neighbors that live behind these buildings have deep lots and that's another reason nobody knew how many families were living in these buildings. Chairperson Fischer said another thing is when the buildings were sold to these owners she wondered if Truth -in- Housing inspections were done, and if so, what was indicated on those Truth -in- Housing forms. Did it say these were duplexes for two families each or what was stated on the form? She asked if someone didn't tell the truth is there any recourse? City councilmember Rossbach said that's an excellent question. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city would be setting a precedent here by rezoning this to make an illegal structure legal and has that happened in the city before? City councilmember Rossbach said that type of thing has happened before but he isn't sure this exact situation has occurred in this context. 27 Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Chairperson Fischer said the occasional duplex has popped up in a single - family neighborhood that has been there for a long time with the R -2 zoning over the years but that is rare. Mr. Roberts said each rezoning and land use plan change has to be looked at on a case -by -case basis. This is clearly a unique situation and in all the years he has worked here he can't remember anything like this. He doesn't think this sets a precedent because he doesn't think you would find anything like this in Maplewood. Chairperson Fischer asked city councilmember Rossbach what he thought about placing R -3(H) zoning on this along with a PUD to limit what exists now and if someone wanted to do anything else on the property they would have to come to the city and get it changed in the PUD. City councilmember Rossbach said that is an interesting situation. It's a difficult question and there is really too much to consider for this situation. What if there was a fire on this site and it had R -3(H) zoning put on it, then the owners want to build an eight plex on the property, what happens then. For that reason he would want many limitations placed on the property. He said he is usually against putting something in the middle of R -1 zoned neighborhoods so if there is another option regarding this situation he would like to hear about it. Commissioner Desai said he heard staff comment earlier that there may be some legal issues if the planning commission decides to not approve this as R -3(H) zoning. He asked what the legal issues are for this situation. The new owners did not do any research into the property to verify what the correct zoning was for this property. Apparently the realtor told them it was a legal building, what legal action do the owners have against the realtor? City councilmember Rossbach said that would be a question for the city attorney. Chairperson Fischer asked if this were not a three and four -plex situation, which is what the square footage of the site would allow, would he feel differently about R -2 zoning if it were a six - plex? City councilmember Rossbach said this structure is compatible with the neighborhood as far as the style, the depth of the lot and the front appearance of the building. Commissioner Dierich asked if you calculate the size of the lots separate, because their under separate ownership, what density are we talking about and does that change what the commission is looking? Commissioner Trippler said it ends up coming to a little more than 18,000 square feet per lot. Ms. Finwall said the smaller lot at 1359 County Road C would allow for three units and the larger lot at 1349 County Road C would allow for four units. Mr. Roberts said that really depends on if you are referring to medium density or high density. Medium Density at 1349 County Road C could have 2.9 units and 1359 could have 2.4 units. Ms. Finwall said for high density 1349 County Road C could have 4.37 units and 1359 could have 3.7 units. 28 Planning Commission 8- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Commissioner Dierich said as a city we don't need to be concerned about anything because most homeowners have title insurance and if there's an issue, it's Ramsey County's fault for not completing the title search correctly and the title insurance would cover that for them. She is also concerned about the vacant lot and there is nothing from stopping the future owner from buying the lot and coming back to the city and saying they want it to be consistent with the high density and put more units in there. High density requires code compliance and if these units were split in the 1960's or 1970's they don't meet high density development as it is, so she is concerned about that as well. She is also concerned about setting a precedent here to correct what really is a homeowner issue not a city issue. Ms. Finwall said staff is proposing to grandfather in the structures. City councilmember Rossbach was referring to the requirements for additional screening and landscaping for multiple - family dwelling to residential or additional design standards etc. However, it was staff's opinion that these structures themselves were grandfathered in and it was the zoning that was illegal and nonconforming. Chairperson Fischer asked if a duplex or four plex were being built today are there building code requirements the city would enforce that are not in place today in the structures? Commissioner Dierich said there are clearly nonconforming uses in this home especially in the basement such as bedrooms without egress windows, additional kitchens with sinks etc. so you need to consider these things as well. Ms. Finwall said Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, toured 1359 County Road C East for life safety issues and stated that since these buildings were built and approved in 1968, during the time when there was no building code in place. It would be difficult to require the property owners to comply with today's codes. What exists now is basically grandfathered in under that code, however, the intent would be for the Fire Marshal and Building Official to tour both structures to ensure both buildings and their units are up to the life safety code and the city would require any improvements such as fire alarms, widening of egress windows, etc. and require those things to be done. Commissioner Trippler said when the property owner came to the city and asked for R -2 zoning to build a duplex and then when the building inspector went to look at the buildings, was the inspector looking at a duplex or a four plex? Ms. Finwall said when the building was complete the inspector approved the final building final as a duplex. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was a certificate of occupancy done for this address? Ms. Finwall said there was no evidence of a certificate of occupancy in the building file but a building final was done. Of course things were done differently in 1960's and 1970's compared to the way things are done now. Chairperson Fischer said basically the building was approved and inspected as a duplex but we don't know if it would have met the specifications for a tri or four -plex today. co Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Commissioner Trippler said obviously someone did something they weren't supposed to do when they changed the occupancy from duplex to four -plex. He thinks the city is setting a bad precedence and trying to make something legal that they made illegal. He praised the applicant for cleaning the place up but in his opinion these buildings should go back to being duplexes and should have to be brought up to those standards for which the building permit and building final were approved for, not looking for a way to get around the zoning to make this legal. Mr. Brzinski said he thinks it was later than 1968 that they applied for a building permit. He believes the buildings were built closer to 1972. He thinks there is only one entrance on the rear of each of the duplexes from what he can see from his property. He hopes the commission considers keeping the zoning R -2 and considers requiring the owners to convert the units back to duplexes from the illegal tri and four -plex units. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Trippler wanted clarification in the staff report on the bottom of page 1 in the last paragraph; it says 1949 and 1959 County Road C and believes it should be 1349 and 1359 County Road C. Ms. Finwall said that was a typing error and she would get that corrected. Commissioner Pearson said he would not be supporting this proposal. If this proposal came to the city as a new proposal with R -3(H) zoning, it would never get city approval. He is surprised city staff has brought this before the commission without the building official and fire marshal going through the homes and checking for code violations and fire safety issues. Commissioner Pearson said he has no sympathy for the naivety of somebody who buys multi- tenant property and doesn't know what they are doing. They relied on the statement of a realtor which is ludicrous. He believes if the city gives this property R -3(H) zoning there is a good chance that the value of the property overall to a new developer is going to increase considerably over what it is in its current zoning. How long have these properties had a tax benefit paying taxes based on these being duplexes rather than a tri -plex and four -plex? While serving on the HRA they discussed Truth -in- Housing and what amount of control the city should have over those housing inspections. Personally he wanted strict control at the point -of -sale. The City of Maplewood requires a Truth -in- Housing be complete but it is used only as a disclosure report. Other communities that have Truth -in- Housing require the homes be brought up to code at point -of -sale. Many times he has gone to open houses with reputable realtors and not found a Truth -in- Housing report on site nor was a Truth -in- Housing report done. The realtors don't get punished for not having a Truth -in- Housing report done, even though it is a city ordinance. Homes for sale by owner rarely ever have a Truth -in- Housing report done. Realtors working in this city should know it's a city ordinance to have a Truth -in- Housing inspection and if they don't know, they should be calling the city to ask when listing the home before it is shown. The report provides some cover for the realtors but if we aren't going to punish people for not getting the report done what is the point of having a city ordinance to have a Truth -in- Housing inspection done. Passing this proposal only rewards people who take chances to develop properties without getting permits and it would infuriate people that do things to code and get building permits and have city inspections. Chairperson Fischer asked what the Truth -in- Housing reports for 1349 and 1359 County Road C say? 30 Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 Ms. Finwall said according to city records there was a Truth -in- Housing report done for 1349 County Road C which was for the last sale and it was reported as a duplex. There was no Truth - in- Housing report on file for 1359 County Road C. Chairperson Fischer asked if a realtor was involved? Ms. Finwall said she did not have that information. Commissioner Ahlness said he had a question for Fred Richie who is not present but perhaps staff can help with this question. The staff report said Mr. Richie obtained the property by default in the Fall of 2004 when his financial partner was no longer able to hold onto the property. He asked if staff could give further information regarding that situation. Ms. Finwall said Mr. Richie has a serious illness and was unable to be here for this meeting but had full intention to be here. She understands Mr. Richie loaned a friend or an acquaintance money to purchase the duplex and this person was unable to pay the loan. It was never Mr. Richie's intent to own a duplex but he became the new owner. When he did become the owner he contacted the city and found out the property was not zoned correctly and he immediately began improvements and requested the rezoning. Commissioner Ahlness said redevelopment in the city is very important but at the same time we need to maintain the value of our neighborhoods. He commends the current owners in doing the best they can to help improve these properties. However on site managers who are also the owners is not a sure thing down the road. Just because they are living here now doesn't mean they are going to live there forever. It's not the city's responsibility to fix something that was done illegally just because the owners bought it without researching things before purchasing the property. Commissioner Ahlness said for these reasons he would not be supporting this proposal either. Commissioner Dierich said the city is setting a very bad precedence if we approve this. There are people all over the city that would like to use their basement as an apartment and could fall into a similar situation. Commissioner Trippler said in reading the conditions listed by staff he doesn't see how this fits in with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code and it doesn't fit into this neighborhood for these reasons, in addition to the other reasons he listed before, he won't be voting for this. Commissioner Pearson said besides the fact that he would not be approving this proposal he believes the city should require the duplexes be brought up to code and return back to duplexes and not the illegal tri and four plex buildings that they have been for 30 years. . ■ . _ ■ . "TRY"', ■. 31 Planning Commission 11- Minutes of 06 -06 -05 ■. ■ Commissioner Ahlness seconded Ayes- Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay - Fischer The motion to deny the comprehensive land use change resolution and rezoning map changed resolution passed. The reasons for denial are as stated by the planning commissioners during the meeting. Chairperson Fischer voted nay because she believes the city has a very unique situation here. She lives in a neighborhood where there are very deep lots. Deep lots against other deep lots may be why the neighbors haven't reported things that have happened in the past. The city is on enforcement by complaint type of system. Chairperson Fischer said she can see if there was a Truth -in- Housing inspection done on this that the owners felt they had some type of coverage that they didn't really have. She may not have necessarily voted for this as it was recommended by staff, but if it had been a PUD which would have let the duplex remain as it is currently she would have been comfortable with this because it does fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson recommended that the city take action with the property owners of 1349 and 1359 County Road C in Maplewood to bring the property into alignment with the current R -2 zoning as duplexes for those properties. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 27, 2005. W61 Agenda Item K2 REPORT SUMMARY Applicant: Wanda and Lyle Pichelman Site Address: Between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential (R -1) Land Use: Single Dwelling Residential (R -1) City Council Hearing Date: July 11, 2005 60 -Day Deadline: July 16, 2005 Request: Wanda and Lyle Pichelman are requesting that the city vacate the unused 60 -foot- wide Lark Avenue right -of -way located between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street. Project Description: Wanda and Lyle Pichelman own the property at 2255 Hazel Street. The property is 0.51 acres in size and is the site of the Pichelman family home. The property is located to the north of the unused Lark Avenue right -of -way. The Pichelmans are requesting the vacation of the right -of -way in order to construct an addition to the south side of their house within the newly acquired 30 feet of right -of -way. The addition to the rambler style house includes an attached garage and upper bedrooms. The Pichelmans also intend to remove part of a shed from the backyard and pave the existing driveway. Recommendation: On June 20, 2005, the planning commission recommended approval of the vacation of the easterly half of the unused Lark Avenue right -of -way. Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the easterly half of the unused Lark Avenue right - of -way. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Lark Avenue Right -of -Way Vacation LOCATION: Between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street DATE: June 30, 2005 I. III III :Zs]111I01[a] ki Request Wanda and Lyle Pichelman are requesting that the city vacate the unused 60- foot -wide Lark Avenue right -of -way located between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street. (Please see attached maps and the applicant's statement.) DISCUSSION Reasons for Vacation Wanda and Lyle Pichelman own the property at 2255 Hazel Street (hereinafter the "property "). The property is 0.51 acres in size and is the site of the Pichelman family home. The property is located to the north of the unused Lark Avenue right -of -way. The Pichelmans are requesting the vacation of the right -of -way in order to construct an addition to the south side of their house within the newly acquired 30 feet of right -of -way. The addition to the rambler style house includes an attached garage and upper bedrooms. The Pichelmans also intend to remove part of a shed from the backyard and pave the existing driveway. The Pichelmans desire the addition because they have a significant need for storage space but do not have a garage. There is currently not enough room to build an attached garage on the side of the house and it would be difficult for them to build a detached garage anywhere else on the site because of the steep grade which drops to the south on the property. Criteria for Approval State statute requires that a petition approving the vacation of a street be submitted to the city council by a majority of the owners of land abutting the street. To date, the applicants have been unsuccessful in obtaining approval from one of the abutting property owners and were therefore unable to submit such a petition. Joseph Lapinski, 2241 Hazel Street, is opposed to the vacation of the unused right -of -way for the following reasons: He is concerned about his property taxes increasing. He is concerned that the Pichelmans do not have the capabilities to complete the project. He does not want a garage to be located close to his property. State statute further states that the city council may approve the vacation of a street by a four - fifths vote if the vacation appears in the interest of the public to do so. K Engineering Comments The Maplewood engineering department has reviewed the proposal and concluded that it would be in the interest of the city to retain part of Lark Avenue right -of -way for future use. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, stated that constructing a street through the Lark Avenue right - of -way would be unlikely and cost prohibitive because of the large grade differences between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street. Mr. Cavett, therefore, recommends that the city treat the east and west segments of the right -of -way separately based on the rationale that the easterly properties would be difficult to redevelop due to the Pichelmans' smaller lot size and the fact that the property owners do not desire to redevelop their properties. Therefore, Mr. Cavett recommends vacating only the easterly segment at this time. There is, however, a possibility that the properties on Van Dyke Street could redevelop because of the large, deep lots. These lots could redevelop with the extension of a short cul -de -sac into the unused Lark Avenue right -of -way. In such case, the abutting properties on the north and south sides of the right -of -way would be involved in a mutual replatting. Conclusion The Pichelman and Lapinski properties would be more difficult to redevelop due to the fact that the Pichelman lot is smaller. Also, the Pichelmans and the Lapinskis have both indicated they do not wish to have a roadway built adjacent to their homes and neither have plans to redevelop the property. The vacation of the easterly section of the unused Lark Avenue right -of -way is in the interest of the public because it will allow a resident to expand and improve their home adding value to the community. COMMISSION ACTION On June 20, 2005, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed vacation of the easterly half of the unused Lark Avenue right -of -way. (Refer to the attached June 20, 2005 minutes.) RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution. This resolution vacates the easterly 300 feet of the unused 60- foot -wide Lark Avenue right -of -way located west of the right -of -way line of Hazel Street. The city should vacate this right -of -way because: It is in the public interest. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a street and develop their properties at this location. The adjacent properties have street access. The vacation of the right -of -way will allow a resident to expand and improve their home. This vacation is subject to the city retaining a 300 - foot -long by 10- foot -wide drainage and utility easement down the center of the vacated Lark Avenue right -of -way located west of the right -of- way line of Hazel Street. 191 REFERENCE Vacations Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851 states that the council may by resolution vacate any right - of -way on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting the right -of- way. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four - fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by a two -week published and posted notice. Application Date The city received the complete application for this proposal on May 16, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by July 16, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Sec 11 Lark Avenue R.Ow vacation Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Topographic Map 4. Site Plan 5. Proposed Elevations 6. April 5, 2005, Correspondence from Applicants 7. Street Vacation Resolution 8. June 20, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes CI Attachment 1 - - — —; Proposed Vacation, —_ U _ _ F - i - — -- C ounty I2Oaa B — - - I I r' - r Attachment 2 r 4 N Attachment 3 .......... 9316 i ti 7 I e a w HT. Attachment 5 r� p F i� No Attachment 6 City of Maplewood To Whom This Vla3 7 Concern: Re: Vacating a dedicated Street so we can erect an attached garage at 2255 North Hazel Street I I am writing to ask the City to vacate Lark Street between 2255 Hazel Street, and 224.' Hazel Street. Lark Street will never be built because of the topography, and we require the space to build an attached garage on my property at 2255 North Hazel Street. I have lived at this residence since 1961: This is a rambler style home without a garage and paved driveway. It is my desire to build an attached garage and add a paved dT to improve the appearance and value of my home. I've been told by city planners that in order to do this I need to ask the city to vacate the street. Lark Street, between my T)rooer and the property at 2241 North Hazel Street. I have obtained some signatures from surrounding property owners as required, please see attached. I I am hoperuJ this -will be ail adequate explanation of my plans for improvirig my prope.-tv, It if is not lwill -'v4it to heal from you. Sincerely, V'anda Pichelrnan 2255 North Hazel Street Maplewood, MN 55 109 651-773-5881 IR Attachment 7 STREET VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Lyle Pichelman and Wanda Pichelman applied for the vacation of the following- described right -of -way: The easterly 300 feet of the unused 60- foot -wide Lark Avenue right -of -way located west of the right -of -way line of Hazel Street. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On June 20, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. 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 of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On July 11, 2005, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: S 75 feet of E '/2 (subject to roads) of Lot 2, Block 3, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul 2255 Hazel Street North, Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 11- 29 -22 -33 -0026 2. E '/2 of (subject to roads) Lot 1, Block 14, Smith and Taylor's Addition to North St. Paul 2241 Hazel Street North, Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 11- 29 -22 -33 -0029 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described right -of -way vacation for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and abutting property owners have no plans to build a street and develop their properties at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the right -of -way will allow a resident to expand and improve their home. This vacation is subject to the city retaining a 300 - foot -long by 10- foot -wide drainage and utility easement down the center of the vacated Lark Avenue right -of -way located west of the right -of -way line of Hazel Street. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2005. 11 Attachment 8 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005 V. PUBLIC HEARING b. Lark Avenue Right -of -Way Vacation (between Hazel and Van Dyke Streets) (7:34 -7:50 p.m) Mr. Gitzlaff said Wanda and Lyle Pichelman are requesting that the city vacate the unused 60- foot -wide Lark Avenue right -of -way located between Hazel Street and Van Dyke Street. The Pichelman's are requesting the vacation of the right -of -way in order to construct an addition to the south side of their house within the north one -half of the right -of -way. The addition to the rambler style house includes an attached garage and upper bedrooms. The Pichelman's also intend to remove part of a shed from the backyard and pave the existing driveway. The Pichelman's desire the addition because they have a significant need for storage space but do not have a garage. There is currently not enough room to build an attached garage on the side of the house and it would be difficult for them to build a detached garage anywhere else on the site because of the steep grade which drops to the south on the property. Commissioner Grover said it appeared the Lapinski property at 2241 Hazel Street was already in the proposed vacation area. Mr. Gitzlaff said the property line map is from the GIS mapping software and he wasn't 100% sure of its accuracy, but said it appeared that the Lapinski house at 2241 Hazel Street extended by about two feet into the proposed vacation area. Commissioner Grover asked if the proposal is to vacate the 30 feet that abuts 2255 Hazel Street which is 27'/2 feet if you include the 2'h feet on either side of the center line? Mr. Gitzlaff said the proposal would be to vacate the easterly half. Mr. Chris Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. Mr. Cavett said typically it is to keep 5 feet for easement on each property for a total of 10 feet of easement. Commissioner Grover asked if the 10 feet Mr. Cavett spoke of would change what is being proposed given there is now an additional five -foot easement? Mr. Gitzlaff said the building addition could still be done and there would be enough of a setback. It may limit it to a two car garage but the Pichelman's have been working with staff on developing a plan for the building addition and would be maintaining all the setbacks. IM Commissioner Grover asked if this was part of the grid layout for this area? Mr. Cavett said a lot of these older plats were grided out with little or no concept of topography. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicants to address the commission. Wanda and Lyle Pichelman, 2255 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Lyle Pichelman asked what the purpose of the five -foot easement was on each property? Mr. Cavett said that is the standard procedure for maintaining a five -foot drainage easement and utility easement to make sure proper drainage is maintained between property lines, it is really more procedural than anything. Typically structures can be built right up to the easement line so if you meet the five -foot setback for a garage it won't impact you at all. Mr. Pichelman said staff has been very eloquent in explaining the process and requirements to us. They plan on retiring here. With real estate prices being what they are, it is in their best interest to improve the house they already have. He said the neighbor, Mr. Lapinski should not fear for their ability to finance this project. Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution as shown in the staff report. This resolution vacates the easterly 300 feet of the unused 60- foot -wide Lark Avenue right -of -way located west of the right -of -way line of Hazel Street. The city should vacate this right -of -way because: (Additions to the motion are underlined.) 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a street at this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. 4. The vacation of the right -of -way will allow a resident to expand and improve their home. 5. This vacation is subject to keeping a 5 -foot easement along the new property line. Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded. Ayes — Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 11, 2005. 191 Agenda Item K3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS LOCATION: DATE: I.Ill II:is] 118831 [a]. Project Description City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Lot Width and Setback Variances Jeff Kissell and Tom Dahlquist 1774 McMenemy Street June 21. 2005 Jeff Kissell, representing Kissell Construction, and Tom Dahlquist, the property owner, are requesting that the city approve two variances to create a new lot for a new single family home. The requests are for the property on the north side of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. The city code requires lots for houses to be at least 75 feet wide and that they have a side yard setback of at least ten feet. Requests The applicant's are requesting city approval for a 73.5- foot -wide lot (a 1.5 -foot lot -width variance) with a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot side -yard setback variance) to create the new, narrower lot. (See the applicant's statement and the maps on pages six through nine). 1- 7e[83:(H:Zo1lll1.U7 On December 8, 1977, the City Council approved a special use permit for the property at 1774 McMenemy Street. This permit was to allow the construction of a double dwelling on the property north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. This approval was subject to several conditions including: 1. City approval of a lot split. 2. The owner submitting a survey showing that the new lot line would meet city standards (for setbacks). 3. The proposed construction was to meet all building and fire code requirements. (See the council minutes on page ten). On January 12, 1978, the city council approved a lot division for the property at 1774 McMenemy Street. This approval was so the owner could create a new 75- foot -wide lot north of the existing house. The survey the owner submitted for this request showed a new 75- foot -wide lot with the new line 5.5 feet north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. (See the survey on page eleven.) The property owner, however, never recorded the deeds for this split. DISCUSSION Section 44 -106 of the city's zoning code states that "the minimum lot area in an R -1 residential zoning district shall be 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot width at the building setback line shall be 75 feet." As I noted above, the applicants are requesting that the city approve a 73.5- foot -wide lot (a 1.5 -foot lot -width variance) with a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot side -yard setback variance) to create the new, narrower lot. In order to comply with the state land use law, the city council is required to make two findings before granting a variance: (1) Strict enforcement of the city ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that: (a) You cannot put your property to a reasonable use under city ordinances. (b) Your problem is due to circumstances unique to your property that you did not cause. (c) The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. (2) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance Unique Hardship The problem requiring the variance in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. The city had approved a lot split for this property in 1978, but the previous property owner never completed the division of the land. Since that time, the city's minimum lot width standard of 75 feet has not changed, but the city increased the minimum side yard setback requirement from five feet to ten feet. This increased minimum side yard setback now requires the owner to get city approval of a variance to allow for the creation of the new lot. This code change is something that the owner or applicant did not cause. In addition, the variance and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. Spirit and Intent The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the city had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. In order to help reduce the potential impacts of having a new house in this location, city staff is recommending several conditions of approval for the new house and garage. These include increased building setbacks from the north property line and the addition of landscaping and fencing along the north property line. SUMMARY The variance request for reduced lot width is quite minor. The proposed new lot would require a 1.5 -foot lot width variance, for a new lot width of 73.5 feet and a three foot side yard setback variance. The area of the new lot would be 14,976 square feet (due to the 203 foot depth of the lot) which would exceed the requirements in Section 44 -106 for lot dimensions. The development 2 of the proposed lot with a 1.5 -foot lot width variance would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would not be visually noticeable. X61�� I ��I6.9 FIT& I[a]ki I On June 20, 2005, the planning commission recommended approval of the lot width and lot setback variances as requested by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 15 and 16. This resolution approves the two variance requests for the creation of the new lot for a single dwelling north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. These include having a 73.5- foot -wide lot (a 1.5 -foot variance) and a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot variance). The city is basing this approval on the fact that the proposed lot width would be in character of the existing lots in the area, as well as the ability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for this variance request that meets state law requirements including: The problem requiring the variances in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. 2. The variances and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. 3. The variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the city had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. 4. The reduced lot width and building setback also would not be visually noticeable. Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: The house and garage on the new lot shall have at least a ten foot setback from the north property line. 2. The city engineer shall approve a grading and drainage plan before the city approves a lot split for the creation of the new lot. 3. The builder shall provide a six -foot tall privacy fence and eight- foot -tall coniferous trees (black hills spruce or Austrian Pines) along the north property line. The final design and location of the fence and trees shall be subject to the approval of city staff and the contractor shall install these before the city grants an occupancy permit for the new house. CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 54 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the four replies, one was for the proposal, one was against and two provided comments about the proposal. For 1. On that land a new home would be good for all of us. It will add to Maplewood. (Gross — 366 Summer Lane) Against 1. See the letter from Jay Swenson of 1780 McMenemy Street on pages 12 - 14. Comments 1. We have no objections to this variance being granted. (Bogut — 344 Summer Lane) 2. 1 have no problem with the lot variance and lot split. (Kowalczuk — 348 Summer Lane) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: Single - Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single- family home East: Single- family homes on Ripley Avenue South: Church driveway and single - family homes on McMenemey Street West: MnDOT truck yard across McMenemey Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Single Dwelling Residential Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) 4 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL The city code allows city staff to approve variances administratively where the amount of variance to any other setback is five feet or less and where the adjoining property owners sign a petition supporting the request. For other variances, state law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance. These are: 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 The city received the application for this variance request on May 20, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60 -day requirement on this proposal ends July 18, 2005. P/sec17/1774 McMenemy St Variance Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Address Map 4. Proposed Site Plan 5. December 8, 1977 city council minutes 6. Survey dated December 30, 1977 7. Letter dated May 30, 2005 from Jay Swanson 8. Variance Resolution Attachment I Date: 416105 Lic#20170364 To. Director of Community Development Re: Side yard variance Property Address Sincerely, Jeff Ki%sell, Pre0dew Kissell Construction Inc. Attachment 2 SAINTJEROMES ,14 F LAR SAINT PAUL I OVERVIEW 'NetWfi:K#I[s Park MNDOT SITE Cal J ,14 F LAR SAINT PAUL I Attachment 3 16E6 RMCWHAM 1779 .s 1767 1741 V �x..:x.. .2.3 #'-- �, LJ 380 7 x ¥ SAINT JEROMES 1855 qW�: Attachment 4 e \ XISSELL CONSTRUCTION < \ 1699 Rice Stree[ A mine sat. 55113 \ 1780 651- 77d -,3F2 I w a as. k &5 °54'15'E i 1 ;.d 296.76 § GL -1, 378 , ,r li Y £, :a / Y PROPOSED LOT SPLIT � r: a IL 1774 t! I{ 236,70 t /'� 1 • I ¢ CI 91C scd t g aVE'f DOTES AR G rr m, n"r".n v.0 +.�.•.v w+r. un� W�.�� —� awn.. •.•n M.rr 3. ve aI la _ -•",. � e Attachment 6 2" Special Use Permit ^ Double Dwelling - 1771 McMeoeny Road - 7:38 P.M" _y a. Mayor Murdock convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request of Dnould and Carole Dablquiat for a Special Use Permit to construct a double dwell- ing uurtb of their existing single family home at 1774 McMeoeoy Road. The Clerk \l�» read the notice of hearing along with the dates of publication. b^ Manager Miller presented the staff report recommending approval subject to: l" Approval by the City of alnt split; 2. Submission of u survey verifying that the new lot line will not violate ucLuimom required set backs; 3. Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes: 4° Construction of driveway turn-arnozds; 5^ Agreement to the above in wrlc1o8. c. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation: "Commissioner Fischer mpved,'based on analysis of qbe staff report, Planning Com- mission recommends approval of the application [or Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions: l° Approval by the City of a lot split; 2° 5ubmioolno of a survey verifying that the new lot line will not violate minimum required setbacks; ]^ Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes; 4" Cooacrnucioo of driveway turn-arounds; and 5^ Agreement to the above in writing. Commissioner Waldron seconded. Ayes - all. d" Mr" Ronald Dablquiot, 1774 McMeocoy Road, the applicant, stated be agreed to the conditions. e° Mayor Murdock called for prnpnoeota. None were heard. f° Mayor Murdock called for upppueoto° None were board" g Mayor Murdock closed the public hearing. h" Councilman Anderson moved to approve the Special Use Permit, d Ronald and Carole Dablooist. 1774 KcMeuemv Road. to construct a double daell1 l" Approval by the City of a lot split; 2. Submission of a survey verifying that the new lot line will out violate minimum required setbacks; ]^ Compliance with all Building and Fire Codes; 4" Construction of driveway turn-arouo8m; and 5° Agreement to the above in writing. Seconded by Cnnucilomo W1eDect° 10 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS Z/7, 7, 7tC�, eY 'FT 33' 33 ti CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY I hereby cortity that on this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land ,Surveyor nods t& lawsPf the state 0 Minnesota, r I � CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING If hereby certify that on f2 et; 19 77 thin survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I are a duly Registered Land Sux• wirvar the laws of the State of lolinnesom. J. Gary RYan, R"(�'tc Laid. S", VF N.. 11 52' R,mc Lam 5, ",,. Paul C,., RpyuarrJ L,,J n—,,. 1, 1I Attachment 7 May 30, 2005 Mr. Kenneth Roberts Planner Office of Community Development City of Maplewood JUN 0 2 2005 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MTV` 5> I09 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Roberts, Maplewood Planning Commission, and Maplewood City Council, There are two reasons why I am opposed to this project: Lot width: Price range of proposed house; I feet that both reasons will negatively affect my lifestyle as well as the quality of life of the .surroundinw neighborhood. I offer the following explanations to my objections to this request for variance; 1) The space in question is obviously too small to be in keeping with Maplewood's vision of less crowding of homes. A number of years ago Maplewood changed the minimum setback requirement from five feet from the lot line to ten feet. I would have to assume that this change was made to avoid crowding houses together and ultimately benefiting the beauty and quality of life in the city of Nlaplewood; ensuring that Maplewood grows as a model, tier -one Twin Cities suburb and city in its own rite. Here 1, however, have to defend the good judgment shown by the city at that time. The variance is asking hot a seven foot setback instead of the ten foot setback (as required by the city) for the Dahlquist property. This, along with the 73.5 foot not "IV instead of the 75 foot width (as required by the city) for the new lot, adds Lip to a shortage of 4.5 feet, Asking for a nearly five foot variance does not just bend the net5 setback requirements, ,/ negates it, The closeness of the existing Dahlquist home to the proposed new home. along with it garage potentially five feet from my lot line, will result in a crowded look and feel which I believe the City of Maplewood was trying to avoid when it amended the setback requirements. This would be particularly true placed next to my one -acre, treed and landscaped lot — a lot that neighbors have said contributes to the open, spacious feel of the neighborhood. i>t 2) The price range of the proposed home to be built on this lot is not in accordance with the value of surrounding property and current construction. • t was originally told by Mr. Dahlquist that a home in the $300,000 — 350,000 range would be constructed and would be designed in accordance with the look and feel of my home. t have spent time talking with neighbors on Ripley (directly behind said property), who assumed that any new homes constructed in their community would indeed by similar in style and price to theirs. They were shocked, as well, when they saw the price of the home being proposed. On a street in a community that has seen several new projects resulting in a huge change for the better (the cul- de -sac on Ripley,. the Masterpiece Homes projects, and other proposed and in- progress projects), this proposal is simply not a good fit. • I was told by Mr. Kissell that the average home selling price in the neighborhood is between $1 55,000 — 207,000. These prices may reflect the sales of older homes, but not the newer homes. Mr. Dahlquist's existing home, built in 1966, was recently appraised in the $210,000 range. The townhomes to the north of my home have sold for $235,004 to 300,004 per unit. The Masterpiece project across the street and next to the D.O.T. has an estimated starting price of $354,000 per unit. Although these projects have added to additional noise, traffic, lack ojprivacy, and wholesale loss of trees, wildlife and green space, they at least have contributed to the community by offering exceptional housing that can only increase the value of neighboring property. These projects have also been, or will be built, on land that still will give the area a spacious feel. All of this is in contrast to the starting price of the home that Mr. Kissed and Mr. Dahlquist want to construct on a less - than -legal lot size, i have also been told by Mr. Dahlquist that he intends to rent out his home and build a house on the lot in question to relieve a financial burden. This does not sound like Mr. Dahlquist has neighborhood improvement in mind. • In Mr. Kissell's applicant statement, he does not give any examples of how this project will add to the neighborhood. He only states that he does not think it will affect the neighborhood negatively. I do not see how a new house that is priced in the range of older homes in the area instead of priced in line with the newer construction (priced at $300,000 and up), as well as a house that is being squeezed onto a lot that is too small can possibly be considered an asset to our neighborhood. For all the above reasons, I am asking that the City of Maplewood decline the variance request of Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Kissel. 13 In the event that the City Council Ieels that their request should be granted and a tower priced home should indeed be placed in that narrow location, I am asking that a ten foot setback (instead of five foot) for the garage will be required. In addition, I request that a fence and substantial landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc.) be added along my lot line to maintain my level of privacy and comfort. I would also like to be presented with and /all . building plans and landscaping plans, with an approval /no approval option. Thank you for vour valuable time in reviewing my response to this proposed variance. Sincerelv J HID wenson Maplewood Resident 1780 McMenemy Street Maplewood, MN 55117 14 Attachment 8 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jeff Kissell and Tom Dahlquist applied to the city for approval of two variances from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, the variances apply to the proposed single dwelling lot north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. The proposed legal description of the property (Parcel B) is: The north 73.50 feet of the south 162 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, Except the east 90.00 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. Subject to the rights of the public in that part used for McMenemy Street. (Part of PIN 17- 29 -22 -32 -0030) WHEREAS, Section 44 -106 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that lots for single dwellings have a minimum lot width of 75 feet and Section 44- 108(a) of the City Code requires a side yard setback of at least ten feet to a dwelling. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 73.5- foot -wide lot and a side yard setback of seven feet to an existing dwelling. WHEREAS, these require a variance of 1.5 feet and 3 feet respectively. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: On June 20, 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 the variances. The City Council held a public meeting about this request on July 11, 2005. The council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council the variance requests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described variance for the following reasons: 1. The problem requiring the variances in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. 2. The variances and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. 3. The variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the city had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. 4. The reduced lot width and building setback also would not be visually noticeable. 1% Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: The house and garage on the new lot shall have at least a ten foot setback from the north property line. 2. The city engineer shall approve a grading and drainage plan before the city approves a lot split for the creation of the new lot. 3. The builder shall provide a six -foot tall privacy fence and eight- foot -tall coniferous trees (black hills spruce or Austrian Pines) along the north property line. The final design and location of the fence and trees shall be subject to the approval of city staff and the contractor shall install these before the city grants an occupancy permit for the new house. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2005. 113 Q:L1; I I MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Eric Ahlness Absent Vice - Chairperson Tushar Desai Present Commissioner Mary Dierich Absent Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Absent Commissioner Michael Grover Present Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Present Commissioner Gary Pearson Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Absent Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner Ken Roberts Planner Chris Cavett Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary Andrew Gitzlaff Planning Intern V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Lot Width and Setback Variances (1774 McMenemy Street) (7:05 -7:33 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Jeff Kissell, representing Kissell Construction and Tom Dahlquist, the property owner, are requesting that the city approve two variances to create a new lot for a new single family home. The requests are for the property on the north side of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. The city code requires lots for houses to be at least 75 feet wide and that they have a side yard setback of at least ten feet. The applicant's are requesting city approval for a 73.5- foot -wide lot (a 1.5 -foot lot -width variance) with a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot side -yard setback variance) to create the new, narrower lot. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Jeff Kissell, Kissell Construction, 1899 Rice Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He reviewed the recommendations and is in agreement with all of the conditions listed by city staff. Jay Swenson, 1780 McMenemy Street, Maplewood addressed the commission. Mr. Swenson read the letter aloud that he sent to the city, which was included in the staff report. He is opposed to this project because of the lot width and the price range proposed for this house. He felt that both reasons would negatively affect his lifestyle as well as the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood. IVA Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 06 -20 -05 Acting Chairperson Desai said Mr. Swenson stated in his letter that Mr. Kissell said the prices of the homes in the neighborhood are between $180,000 to $207,000. The letter from Mr. Kissell states between $225,000 to $250,000 and he asked staff the reason for the discrepancy? Mr. Roberts deferred that question to Mr. Kissell. Mr. Kissell said the proposal for the house costs were generated before speaking with Mr. Swenson over the telephone. Acting Chairperson Desai asked Mr. Kissell if he thought the price of the new house would be somewhere in the $225,000 to $250,000 range? Mr. Kissell said that is what he proposes. They don't have a solid plan for this yet but if this is approved then they can go ahead with the project planning by following the recommendations by city for the variance and other details to make this project successful. Commissioner Grover asked how typical this request was in the City of Maplewood for a lot width and setback variance request such as this? Also, when did the City of Maplewood increase the lot width requirement for single family homes? Mr. Roberts said the minimum side yard setback was changed by the city council to provide more spacing between homes because the city council was concerned about the crowding between homes. About 10 or 12 years ago the city was seeing more lots that were 80 to 90 feet in width, which was becoming more common when subdivisions were coming in. Nowadays, the city is seeing very few single family home subdivisions and a lot of those are smaller five or eight lot projects so it is not that much of an issue. Mr. Roberts said this variance is a very unusual situation and typically variances of this size can be done administratively. The city code allows city staff to approve variances administratively where the amount of variance to any other setback is five feet or less and where the adjoining property owners sign a petition supporting the request. In this case, the applicant got one of the signatures that were needed but two property owners did not want to sign the petition, thus city staff could not handle this administratively. As such, the applicant had to apply for a full strength variance and have a public hearing and then go before the city council for final approval. There are many variances that are handled administratively that the planning commission and the city council are not aware of because they are handled by city staff. Commissioner Grover asked staff to elaborate on the two findings before granting a variance, which include strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Roberts said the city council approved a similar lot split in 1978 but the previous property owner never completed the division of the land. Then there was a minimum lot width standard change, and now there is a different property owner and this is how this comes before the commission. Commissioner Grover asked how many administrative variances for five feet or less the city does a year? 18 Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 06 -20 -05 Mr. Roberts said the city sees about five or ten variances a year that the planners handle administratively. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if there was any discussion regarding moving the garage in such a position that it would meet the 10 -foot guideline? Mr. Roberts said on page 9 it shows the survey and site plan in the staff report. At that time the applicant had not determined which side the garage would be placed so rather than ask the applicant, staff felt it was better to require the 10 foot setback from the north to ensure the spacing to the property that would be most affected. Mr. Swenson said staff was quite clever when they wrote the staff report indicating it would be 73.5 feet verses the 75 foot wide lot which would be a 1.5 -foot lot -width variance. If it was only 1.5 feet he wouldn't be worried about it. However, it's 1.5 feet plus three feet so the applicant is 4' /z feet short. The city council changed the code so that people allowed more space between structures for a reason and now the applicant is asking for a special request. Mr. Dahlquist may or may not live in this home for 30 more years, it's not Mr. Dahlquist's problem that the house would be too close to him after he moves away, it then becomes the neighborhood's problem. Tom Dahlquist, 1774 McMenemy Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he purchased this home in February 1993 and the city code was changed after that. Commissioner Grover asked staff how far away the proposed structure was from 1774 McMenemy Street. Mr. Roberts said it appears to be 12 feet off the proposed lot line, which is about 19 feet between structures. Commissioner Grover said city code requires 10 feet from property line to structure? Mr. Roberts said correct. The site plan diagram shows a building pad as an example which is not the final resting place for the structure to be built. It's just to show that a house could fit on the site but it's not a final design. Mr. Kissell said they are looking at the variances and other city restrictions before putting a final plan together and that is why the site plan only shows a box on the plan but it's by no means a final building pad shown on the site plan. Commissioner Grover asked what size home he planned on building on this site? Mr. Kissell said this could be a 24 -foot wide structure with a detached garage, which allows them to move that off the property line, shows more house and gives it better street appeal. At the same time it allows them to keep in accordance of the property line. The square footage of the house would be between 1,800 to 2,000 square feet with an unfinished basement. 1F'7 Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 06 -20 -05 Commissioner Grover moved to adopt the resolution on pages 15 and 16 of the staff report. This resolution approves the two variances requests for the creation of the new lotfor a single dwelling north of the house at 1774 McMenemy Street. These include having a 73.5- foot -wide lot (a 1.5- foot variance) and a seven foot setback from the existing house (a three foot variance). The city is basing this approval on the fact that the proposed lot width would be in character of the existing lots in the area, as well as the ability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for this variance request that meets state law requirements including: The problem requiring the variances in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. 2. The variances and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location will not change the character of the area. The variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the city had approved a similar request for the same property in 1978. 4. The reduced lot width and building setback also would not be visually noticeable. Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: 1. The house and garage on the new lot shall have at least a ten foot setback from the north property line. 2. The city engineer shall approve a grading and drainage plan before the city approves a lot split for the creation of the new lot. 3. The builder shall provide a six -foot tall privacy fence and eight- foot -tall coniferous trees (black hills spruce or Austrian Pines) along the north property line. The final design and location of the fence and trees shall be subject to the approval of city staff and the contractor shall install these before the city grants an occupancy permit for the new house. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 11, 2005. Oki] Agenda Item K4 TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: TH 67 Improvements (Beam to 1 -694) Resolution Approving Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT DATE: July 5, 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 proceeding to the bidding phase. Approval of the Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT is recommended. Background Public hearings were held for three projects (TH 61; County Road D Court; and TH 61 East Frontage Road) along TH 61 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 with MnDOT is part of this project. This is for Project 03 -07, the TH 61 Improvements. Approval of the Cooperative Agreement is required to receive this funding. 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 K4 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 final bid date has been set for July 22 by MnDOT. The attached resolution establishes the Mayor and City Manager as the signers of the Cooperative Agreement. Once bids are opened later in July and the project awarded, the work will begin immediately and should be completed by November of 2005, with restoration work in 2006. 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 Financing Plan A summary of the financing plan for these 3 projects is as follows MnDOT Coop Agmt $1,043,775 Assessments $ 361,695 Vadnais Heights $ 62,042 MSAS funds $ 680,344 Tax Levy (previously authorized with 2 projects) $ 39,700 Ramsey County $ 64,099 St. Paul Regional Water Services $ 118,920 TOTAL FOR ALL PROJECTS $2,370,575 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving the Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT for funding purposes of three projects. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. MnDOT Cooperative Agreement 3. Project Location Maps CITY OF MAPLEWOOD RESOLUTION Agenda Item K4 IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood enter into Mn /DOT Agreement No. 87866 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the costs of the roadway improvement and acceleration and turn lane construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 61 from 524 feet north of Beam Avenue to 773 feet south of the Trunk Highway No. 694 eastbound off ramp within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 6222 -150 and City Project No's. 03 -07, 04 -06 and 04 -25. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Maplewood at an authorized meeting held on the day of , 2005, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. (Sip.t..e) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1 2005 Notary Public My Commission Expires PRE- LETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT Mn /DOT AGREEMENT NO. S.P. 6222 -150 (T.H. 61 =001) City Project 03 -07 City Project 04 -06 City Project 04 -25 State Funds The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and The City of Maplewood Re: State cost for roadway improvement, acceleration and turn lane construction by the City on T.H. 61 ORIGINAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED $1,043,774.68 AMOUNT RECEIVABLE None THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". 1 WHEREAS, the City is about to perform grading, bituminous surfacing, traffic signal, signing and drainage construction and other associated construction upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 61 from 524 feet north of Beam Avenue to 773 feet south of the Trunk Highway No. 694 eastbound off ramp within the corporate City limits in accordance with City- prepared plans, specifications and special provisions designated by the City as City Project No's. 03- 07, 04 -06 and 04 -25 and by the State as State Project No. 6222 -150 (T.H. 61 =001); and WHEREAS, the City has requested participation by the State in the costs of the roadway improvement construction which includes but is not limited to grading, bituminous surfacing, traffic signal, signing and drainage construction; and WHEREAS, the State is willing to participate in the costs of the roadway improvement construction and associated construction engineering in a lump sum amount equal to $567,000.00 as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the State is willing to participate in the costs of the acceleration and turn lane construction and associated construction engineering as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, it is in the public's best interest for the State to provide a new cabinet and controller (State Furnished Material) for the new traffic control signal system; and WHEREAS, a separate Traffic Signal Agreement #87408 has been prepared between the State, the City and Ramsey County to cover the maintenance of the new traffic control signal system; and F WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE CITY Section A. Contract Award and Construction The City shall receive bids and award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, subject to concurrence by the State in that award, in accordance with State - approved City plans, specifications and special provisions designated by the City as City Project No's. 03 -04, 04 -06 and 04 -25 and by the State as State Prn - iprt. Nn_ 6222 -150 fT.H_ 61 =0 The rnntrant rnnst inn shall be performed in accordance with State - approved City plans, specifications and special provisions that are on file in the office of the City's Engineer, and are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Section B. Documents to be Furnished to the State The City shall, within 7 days of opening bids for the construction contract, submit to the State's State Aid Agreements Engineer at Roseville a copy of the low bid and an abstract of all bids together with the City's request for concurrence by the State in the award of the construction contract. The City shall not award the construction contract until the State advises the City in writing of its concurrence therein. Section C. Rejection of Bids The City may reject and the State may require the City to reject any or all bids for the construction contract. The party rejecting or 3 r�rrrr requiring the rejection of bids must provide the other party written notice of that rejection or requirement for rejection no later than 30 days after opening bids. Upon the rejection of all bids pursuant to this section, a party may request, in writing, that the bidding process be repeated. Upon the other party's written approval of such request, the City will repeat the bidding process in a reasonable period of time, without cost or expense to the State. Section D. Direction, Supervision and Inspection of Construction The contract construction shall be under the direction of the City and under the supervision of a registered professional engineer; however, the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement shall be open to inspection by the State District Engineer's authorized representatives. The City shall give the State Aid Aareements Enaineer five days notice of its intention to start the contract construction. Responsibility for the control of materials for the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement shall be on the City and its contractor and shall be carried out in accordance with Specifications No. 1601 through and including No. 1609 as set forth in the State's current "Standard Specifications for Construction" Section E. Completion of Construction The City shall cause the contract construction to be started and completed in accordance with the time schedule in the construction contract special provisions. The completion date for the contract construction may be extended, by an exchange of letters between the appropriate City official and the State District Engineer's M MWMM authorized representative, for unavoidable delays encountered in the performance thereof. Section F. Additional Construction, Plan Changes, Etc. The State shall not participate in the cost of any contract construction that is in addition to the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement unless the necessary State funds have been encumbered prior to the performance of the additional contract construction and the terms and conditions in the following paragraph have been met. All changes in the plans, specifications and special provisions for the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement and all addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements entered into by the City and its contractor for State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement must be approved in writing by the State District Engineer's authorized representative before payment is made by the State therefor. Section G. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations The City shall, in connection with the award and administration of the construction contract and the performance of the contract construction, comply and cause its contractor to comply with all Federal, State and Local laws, and all applicable ordinances and regulations. Section H. Right -of -Way, Easements and Permits The City shall, without cost or expense to the State, obtain all rights -of -way, easements, construction permits and any other permits and sanctions that may be required in connection with the contract construction. Prior to advance payment by the State, the City shall furnish the State with certified copies of the documents for those A rights -of -way and easements, and certified copies of those construction permits and other permits and sanctions required for State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. Upon the City's receipt of a fully executed copy of this Agreement, the City shall submit to the State's Utility Engineer an original permit application for all City -owned utilities to be constructed hereunder that are upon and within the trunk highway right -of -way. Applications for permits shall be made on State form "Application For Utility Permit On Trunk Highway Right -Of -Way" (Form TP2525). ARTICLE II - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE STATE Section A. SCHEDULE "I" A Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" is attached and incorporated into this Agreement. The Preliminary SCHEDULE nT" i,noliiliag all antiri State cost participation construction items and the construction engineering cost share, the lump sum cost share and the credit to the State for State Furnished Materials covered under this Agreement. Section B. State Cost Participation Construction The State shall, at the percentage indicated, participate in the following construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 61 from 524 feet north of Beam Avenue to 773 feet south of the Trunk Highway No. 694 eastbound off ramp within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 6222 -150 (T.H. 61 =001). The construction includes the State's proportionate share of item costs for mobilization, field office and traffic control. 1. 100 Percent shall be the State's rate of cost participation in all of the acceleration and turn lane construction. The construction includes, but is not limited to, those construction P MOW items as tabulated on Sheet No. 4 of the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" 2. A lump sum in the amount of $567,000.00 shall be the State's rate of cost participation in all of the roadway improvement construction as shown on the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I ". 3. The State shall be credited in the amount of $10,100.00 for State Furnished Materials as shown on the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE " Section C. Construction Engineering Costs The State shall pay a construction engineering charge in an amount equal to 8 percent of the total cost of the State participation constriction covered under this - A greeme n t- Section D. Addenda, Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements The State shall share in the costs of construction contract addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements that are necessary to complete the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement and that have been approved in writing by the State District Engineer's authorized representative. Section E. Liquidated Damages All liquidated damages assessed the City's contractor in connection with the construction contract shall result in a credit shared by each party in the same proportion as their total construction cost share covered under this Agreement is to the total contract construction cost before any deduction for liquidated damages. 7 ARTICLE III - PAYMENT BY THE STATE Section A. Estimate and Advancement of the State's Cost Share It is estimated that the State's share of the costs of the contract construction plus the 8 percent construction engineering cost share, the credit for State Furnished Materials and a $30,000.00 contingency amount is the sum of $1,043,774.68 as shown in the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I ". The attached Preliminary SCHEDULE " I " was prepared using estimated unit prices. Upon receipt and review of the construction contract bid documents described in Article I, Section B. of this Agreement, the State shall then decide whether to concur in the City's award of the construction contract and, if so, prepare a Revised SCHEDULE " I " based on construction contract unit prices. The contingency amount is provided to cover overruns of the plans estimated quantities of State cost participation construction and State - approved additioraai ConStr lCtivra iraCi ding construction engineering costs. After the following conditions have been met, the State shall advance to the City the State's total estimated construction cost share, which does not include the 8 percent construction engineering cost share or the contingency amount, as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I ": 1. Encumbrance by the State of the States total estimated construction cost share, the 8 percent construction engineering cost share, and the contingency amount, as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I ". 2. Receipt by the State from the City of certified documentation for all of the right -of -way and easement acquisition required for State cost participation construction covered under this ri �- Agreement, and the approval of that documentation by the State's Land Management Director at St. Paul. 3. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's transmittal of it to the City along with a copy of the Revised SCHEDULE "I" and a letter advising the City of the State's concurrence in the award of the construction contract. 4. Receipt by the State of a written request from the City for the advancement of funds. The request shall include certification by the City that all necessary parties have executed the construction contract. Section B. Construction Costs Exceeding Encumbered Amount Wh n"navar it annears the cost of the State participation construction covered under this Agreement is about to exceed the current amount of encumbered State funds, the City shall notify the State District Engineer's authorized representative in writing prior to performance of the additional State cost participation construction. Notification shall include an estimate in the amount of additional funds necessary to complete the State cost participation construction including construction engineering costs and the reason(s) why the current amount encumbered will be exceeded. The State shall, upon its approval of the additional State cost participation construction, encumber the necessary additional funds. That action will have the effect of amending this Agreement so as to include the State's share of the costs of the additional construction. Should the City cause the performance of additional contract construction which would otherwise qualify for State cost participation covered under this Agreement, but for which the State has not previously encumbered funds, that additional contract E t�►�m construction is done at the City's own risk. The City shall notify the State District Engineer's authorized representative in writing of the additional State cost participation construction. Notification shall include an estimate in the amount of additional funds necessary to cover the additional State cost participation construction including construction engineering costs and the reason(s) why the current amount encumbered was exceeded. If the State District Engineer's authorized representative approves the additional State cost participation construction, the City's claim for compensation along with a request for encumbrance of the necessary additional funds shall be submitted to the State's Budget Section for review of compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 16A.15, subdivision 3, but no guarantee is made that the claim will be approved by the State's Budget Section. If the claim for compensation and the request for t" t-L. add' t' 1 f "'d° enCum=ance of the necessary a 1. .�..+na State's Budget Section, that action will have the effect of amending this Agreement so as to include the State's share of the costs of the additional construction. Section C. Records Keeping and Invoicing by the City The State shall provide the City with a Payment Processing Package containing a Modified SCHEDULE "I" form, instructions, and samples of documents for processing final payment of the State participation construction cost covered under this Agreement. The City shall keep records and accounts that enable it to provide the State with the following prior to final payment by the State: 1. A copy of the Modified SCHEDULE "I" which includes final quantities of State cost participation construction. 10 2. Copies of the City contractor's invoice(s) covering all contract construction. 3. Copies of the endorsed and canceled City warrant(s) or check(s) paying for final contract construction, or computer documentation of the warrant(s) issued certified by an appropriate City official that final construction contract payment has been made. 4. Copies of all construction contract change orders and supplemental agreements. 5. A certification form attached to a copy of the Final SCHEDULE "I ", both of which shall be provided by the State. The certification form shall be signed by the City's Engineer in charae of the contract construction attesting to the following: a. Satisfactory performance and completion of all contract construction in accordance with State - approved City plans, specifications and special provisions. b. Acceptance and approval of all materials furnished for the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement relative to compliance of those materials to the State's current "Standard Specifications for Construction" C. Full payment by the City to its contractor for all contract construction. 6. When requested by the State, copies, certified by the City's Engineer, of material sampling reports and of material testing results for the materials furnished for the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. Fill 7. A copy of the "as built" plan sent to the State Aid Agreements Engineer. 8. A formal invoice (original and signed) in the amount due the City as shown in the Final SCHEDULE "I ". Section D. Final Payment by the State Upon completion of all contract construction, the State shall prepare a Final SCHEDULE " I " and submit a copy to the City. The Final SCHEDULE " I " shall be based on final quantities, and include all State cost participation construction items and the construction engineering cost share covered under this Agreement. If the final cost of the State participation covered under this Agreement exceeds the amount of funds advanced by the State, the State shall promptly Yha A4 1 �forran nc Yn Y,h Y�r r.ri i - riY ov�c cl- i-hm final nnc+t r! I,,,, Tf .,��.,�... of the State participation covered under this Agreement is less than the amount of funds advanced by the State, the City shall promptly return the balance to the State without interest. Procedures relevant to preparation of the Final SCHEDULE " I " and final payment of the State participation cost covered under this Agreement are detailed in the Payment Processing Package, which the State shall furnish the City. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 15.415, the City waives claim for any amounts less than $5.00 over the amount of State funds previously advanced to the City, and the State waives claim for the return of any amounts less than $5.00 of those funds advanced by the State. 12 ARTICLE IV - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section A. Replacement of Castings The City shall furnish its contractor with new castings and parts for all inplace City -owned facilities constructed hereunder when replacements are required, without cost or expense to the State. Section B. Maintenance by the City Upon satisfactory completion of the County Road D Court and the Trunk Highway No. 61 Frontage Road construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the roadways and all of the facilities a part thereof, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, resurfacing and seal coating and any other maintenance aCti'v itie5 iteCeSSdry tv perpetuate tiie roadways iii a Safe and usa condition. Upon satisfactory completion of the storm sewer facilities construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper routine maintenance of those facilities, without cost or expense to the State. Routine maintenance includes, but is not limited to, removal of sediment, debris, vegetation and ice from structures, grates and pipes, repair of minor erosion problems, and minor structure and pipe repair, and any other maintenance activities necessary to preserve the facilities and to prevent conditions such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration of the facilities. Upon satisfactory completion of the City -owned utilities construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the 13 construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of those utilities, without cost or expense to the State. Section C. Additional Drainage Neither party to this Agreement shall drain any additional drainage into the storm sewer facilities to be constructed under the construction contract, that was not included in the drainage for which the storm sewer facilities were designed, without first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. The drainage areas served by the storm sewer facilities constructed under the construction contract are shown in a drainage area map, EXHIBIT "Drainage Area ", which is on file in the office of the State's District Hydraulics Unit at Roseville and is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Section D. Future Responsibilities Upon satisfactory completion of the County Road D Court and the Trunk Highway No. 61 Frontage Road construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall thereafter accept full and total responsibility and all obligations and liabilities arising out of or by reason of the use, operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of County Road D Court and the Trunk Highway No. 61 Frontage Road and all of the facilities a part thereof constructed hereunder, without cost or expense to the State. Section E. Release and Conveyance of Roadways The State shall, upon satisfactory completion of the Trunk Highway No. 61 Frontage Road construction and all of the facilities a part thereof constructed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, serve upon the City a "Notice of Release" placing that roadway portion under the jurisdiction of the City; and subsequent thereto, after all necessary and required documents have 14 been prepared and processed, the State shall convey to the City all right, title and interest of the State in that roadway portion. Upon receipt of that "Notice of Release ", the City shall become the road authority responsible for the roadway portion so released. Section F. Termination of Agreement Each party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by providing the other party with written or fax notice of effective date of termination. The State is not obligated to pay for services performed after notice and effective date of termination. Upon such termination, the City is entitled to payment for services satisfactorily performed under this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. The State may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered under this Agreement. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the City. The State is not obligated to pay for services performed after notice and effective date of termination. Upon such termination, the City is entitled to payment for services satisfactorily performed under this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination, to the extent the funds are available. Section G. Examination of Books, Records, Etc. As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 160.05, subdivision 5, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each party relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by each party, and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from final payment. PIE Section H. Claims Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the City. Section I. Nondiscrimination The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and of any applicable law relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Section J. Agreement Approval Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be approved by a City Council resolution and executed by such State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or their authorized representative. ARTICLE V - AUTHORIZED AGENTS The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly - Sonnek, Municipal Agreements Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 296 -0969. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer, or his successor. His current address and phone number are 1902 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN, 55109 (651) 249 -2402. NO IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. 35 16A.15 and 16C.05. By Date CITY OF MAPLEWOOD By Mayor Date By — Title Date 17 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By District Engineer Approved: By State Design Engineer Date Approved as to form and execution: By Contract Management Date COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By Date w PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE AGREEMENT NO. 87866 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD S.P. 6222-150 (T.11. 61=001) City Proj. #'s 03 -07, 04 -06, 04 -25 State Funds Grading, Bituminous Surfacing, Traffic Signal, Signing and Drainage construction performed under City contract with _ located on T.H. 61 from 524 feet north of Beam Ave. to 773 feet south of T.H. 694 E.B. Off Ramp Preliminary: June 23, 2005 STATE From Sheet No. 4 (Acceleration & Turn Lane Const.) $423,032.11 Lump Sum for Roadway Improvement, Includes 8% Construction Engineering $567,000.00 State Credit for State Furnished Materials ($10,100A0) (I) Subtotal $979,932.11 Construction Engineering (8% of Sheet No. 4) 33,842.57 Subtotal - $1,013,774.68 (2) Contingency Amount 30,000.00 Encumbered Amount CI.oea IM (.0 (1) Amount of advance payment as described in Article III, Section A. of the Agreement (Estimated amount) (2) For the State's use only as described in Article III, Section A. of the Agreement (1) 100% STATE (P) = PLAN OUANTITY 87866 ITEM NUMBER S.P. 6222 -150 WORK ITEMS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 0.19 120,000.00 22,800.00 2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D- MODIFIED EACH 0.19 5,000.00 950.00 2101.501 CLEARING ACRE 0.50 3,000.00 1,500.00 2101.506 GRUBBING ACRE 0.50 1,500.00 750.00 2104.501 REMOVE PIPE CULVERTS LIN FT 324.00 10.00 3,240.00 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LIN FT 6.00 25.00 150.00 2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 400.00 4.00 1,600.00 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT 184.00 0.43 79.12 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 448.00 15.00 6,720.00 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 1,111.00 2.00 2,222.00 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ YD 272.00 5.00 1,360.00 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 1.00 500.00 500.00 2104.509 REMOVE SIGN TYPE C EACH 26.00 30.85 802.10 2104.509 REMOVE SIGN TYPE D EACH 1.00 50.00 50.00 2104.509 REMOVE SIGN TYPE SPECIAL EACH 1.00 21.89 21.89 2104509 REMOVE MARKER EACH 1.00 1164 12.64 2104.509 REMOVE PIPE APRON EACH 7.00 18152 1,277.64 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 895.00 4.00 2104.513 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 3,580.00 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN PANEL TYPE C 196.00 3.00 588.00 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C EACH 1.00 100.00 100.00 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE D EACH 3.00 33.00 99.00 2104523 SALVAGE SERVICE CABINET EACH 4.00 70.00 280.00 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (P) EACH CU YD 1.00 207.42 207.42 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION 2,604.00 10.00 26,040.00 2105.522 (P) SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CU YD 3,168.00 10.00 31,680.00 2105.525 (P) TOPSOIL BORROW (CV) CU YD 3,250.00 12.00 39,000.00 2211503 (P) AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 6 (CV) (P) CU YD 311.00 8.00 2,488.00 2211.503 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING CLASS 2 (CV) (P) CU YD CU YD 1,376.00 20.00 27,520.00 58.00 27.50 1,595.00 -2- (1) 100% STATE (P) = PLAN OUANT)TY 87866 ITEM NUMBER S.P. 6222 -150 WORK ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST 1 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 559.00 1.50 838.50 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (4,E) TON 1,016.00 28.16 28,610.56 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (4,E) TON 808.00 37.50 30,300.00 2501.511 15" CS PIPE CULVERT LIN FT 139.00 24.79 3,445.81 2501.511 18" RC PIPE CULVERT LIN FT 66.00 30.99 2,045.34 2501.511 30" RC PIPE CULVERT LIN FT 4.00 50.01 200.04 2501.515 15" CS SAFETY APRON EACH 2.00 100.00 200.00 2501.569 15" RC SAFETY APRON EACH 2.00 1,250.00 2,500.00 2501.569 18" RC SAFETY APRON EACH 2.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 2501.569 30" RC SAFETY APRON EACH 1.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2503.511 12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V LIN FT 6.00 30.00 180.00 2503.511 15" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V LIN FT 20.00 32.00 640.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN C OR G LIN FT 4.00 250.00 1,000.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 3.00 550.00 1,650.00 2506.602 RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE LIN FT 10.00 204.00 2,040.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CL II CU YD 4.00 53.68 214.72 2511.511 GRANULAR FILTER CU YD 2.00 23.29 46.58 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 982.00 3.00 2,946.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B424 LIN FT 172.00 12.00 2,064.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN D424 LIN FT 241.00 12.00 2,892.00 2540.602 MAILBOX SUPPORT EACH 2.00 200.00 400.00 2545.521 2" RIGID STEEL CONDUIT LIN FT 90.00 8.12 730.80 2545.523 3" NON- METALLIC CONDUIT (DIRECTIONAL BORE) LIN FT 250.00 14.51 3,627.50 2545.531 UNDERGROUND WIRE I COND NO 2 LIN FT 270.00 0.87 234.90 2545.533 ARMORED CABLE 4 COND NO 4 LIN FT 2,170.00 5.00 10,850.00 2545.541 SERVICE CABINET SECONDARY TYPE L1 EACH 1.00 3,63148 3,633.48 2545.545 EQUIPMENT PAD B EACH 1.00 825.00 825.00 2545.602 HANDHOLE EACH 1.00 620.99 620.99 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 0.19 20,000.00 3,800.00 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT 76.00 28.00 2,128.00 3- (1) 100% STATE (P) = PLAN QUANTITY 87866 ITEM NUMBER S.P. 6222 -150 WORK ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST 1 2564.536 INSTALL SIGN PANEL TYPE C EACH 1.00 14.83 14.83 2564.536 INSTALL SIGN TYPE D EACH 4.00 175.00 700.00 2564.552 HAZARD MARKER X4 -2 EACH 2.00 55.00 110.00 2564.555 END OF ROADWAY MARKER X4 -11 EACH 2.00 76.04 152.08 2564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LEFT ARROW) EPDXY EACH 8.00 80.00 640.00 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPDXY LIN FT 2,010.00 0.17 341.70 2564.603 8" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPDXY LIN FT 520.00 2.99 1,554.80 2564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE - EPDXY LIN FT 40.00 0.25 10.00 2564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPDXY LIN FT 1,953.00 0.22 429.66 2565.616 REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM A SYSTEM 1.00 109,325.00 109,325.00 2565.616 REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM B SYSTEM 1.00 12,800.00 12,800.00 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT 670.00 2.50 1,675.00 2573.512 TEMPORARY DITCH CHECK TYPE 3 LIN FT 90.00 4.40 396.00 2573.530 INLET PROTECTION EACH 2.00 95. 1 190.42 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 1.00 500.00 500.00 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 3 TON 1.80 165.42 297.76 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 1 SO YD 1,941.00 1.13 2,193.33 2575.532 COMMERCIAL FERT ANALYSIS 22 -5 -10 POUND 308.00 0.50 154.00 2575.608 SEED MIXTURE 250 POUND 62.00 2.75 170.50 100% STATE TOTAL $423,032.11 -4- SEGME 3 PROJECT AREA E EE AVE n a � u 0 a .AG � t O G 'c o & LAID CEM 10 9 SONT LJ PAUL ED cwuew w A WHITE BEAR LAKE -� FILE No. SEGMENT 3 l PHONE: (857) 490 -2000 AMAPLE0402 FIGURE 3535 vADNAIS CENTER OR. SAFE. LOCATION MAP SEH SE. P AUL, MN 55776 MAPL EWOOD, MN NO 4/23/04 Y ®,�k e IRIE EVE t=-Pco N D. a^ ffi dal ER saITu I'LL I o. re� re. ` s�A. s c � reA�� ; u © a h o um ..v� END s Y a . x AV'_ n a ® em u cwn�� ry NORTH SAINT P I RED I 'll LEI U' I m ter, u P L- AV EN All F a a y e AAA reo. rewrew RED ere 3 C EL i RED o Z L A. NE-1 z DR 0 o — 11EIIEN AVE F u a. Ares. r u are. z e u FILE No. SEGMENT 3 l PHONE: (857) 490 -2000 AMAPLE0402 FIGURE 3535 vADNAIS CENTER OR. SAFE. LOCATION MAP SEH SE. P AUL, MN 55776 MAPL EWOOD, MN NO 4/23/04 Y ®,�k e IRIE EVE ER saITu I'LL I o. ` s�A. I'LL uox w AI D w N re NORTH N y ©u ® em u cwn�� re AMS re= '� o I RED I 'll LEI o I m ter, P L- AV EN FILE No. SEGMENT 3 l PHONE: (857) 490 -2000 AMAPLE0402 FIGURE 3535 vADNAIS CENTER OR. SAFE. LOCATION MAP SEH SE. P AUL, MN 55776 MAPL EWOOD, MN NO 4/23/04 P , . �I 'l VADNAIS l S PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY I 4. HIGHRIOGE CT. sunset — Ridge D; Pork z W � � FJOHN 6 z. D� 2. 1. SUMMIT CT. BLVD. ? 3. 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIE w i.. x { F J. DULUTH AVE. C T . a ❑ AVE: LYDIA f REAM AVE. I ILI Li C a � RACATZ O 3 w a° Z N MarPnao� RAMSEY :non G' M �. i — COUNTY I ke QTY U r COURT m v F' KOHLMAN AVE �'- u w KOHLMAN s Hd Pa flood w o AVE 5 W' G Z. . COUNTY ROAD c w ' �' Kp pan Jti� S- ui. NILC Q o w ° C7 M Of LO EDGEHILL RD. 0 d CON W AVE.R a DEMONT AVE r 11 m WE. 0�" pe BROOKS AVE BROOKS r o v W AVE EL EN7 :TA NT ¢ �sF so s < AV EXTANT AVE g AVE. E ed.. GERVAIS AVE N g GVGI 0 m II N SHERREN AVE. DR. tff "m ti CASTLE AVE. Knuckle Lake aa L pep COPE [�� AVE, m COPE AVE. . CT J I LARK g s q. AVE, — `J, v LARK AV ! o_ N AI I� FILE NO. LOCATION MAP PHONE (651) 480 -2000 AMAPLE0405.00 COUNTY ROAD D COURT EXHEU -_ 3535 VADNAIS ST PAUL, MN CENTER DR. 55110 TH 61 AT TH 694 y DATE„ SEH 6/4/04 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA r 61 nan ke COUNTY Park Park Cr) N W aVE. I L,J m C, 'k EXTANT AVE. t PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY 0 r ST. JOHNS BLVD. z 5 JB AVE. z Y � � o m m ❑N Q "'VTz Markham z N Pond F 7EY e � i couN Ty � <1 r COURT (T r N KOHLMAN AVE. `` a ' ° w KOHLMAN a r+oieiwood w o AVE. r- U g Pori, C7 z ROAD �' C W m ��+ + m� EHOp �7 E i �/ ❑ Q W O OT. w z EDGEHILL RD. v NOR g AVE. o 4 DEMONT m AVE Ha, st m P-A, BROOKS AVE. ff_BR KS EL F SEX TANT AVElciskns z pJ`✓ GERVAIIS N \ ~ COP r z LARK a CL �_ PHONE. (651) 490 -2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. SEH ST. PAUL, MN 55110 AVE, r HIGH RIDGE CT. "' _ "" " a � spnse� GRA E. m Read, DR. / / / - -'- \ � OR Pvk Kn tt ucke Head Lake COPE � 1v� AVE_ LA a AV AVE w W LOCATION MAP W N AMAPLE0402.01 TH. 61 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD TH 61 AT TH 694 W DATE: W F MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Q �i G N GQ 2. SUMMIT CT. s 2. COUNTRYVIEW CIR. y F� 3. DULUTH CT. 3 J G o 4. LYDIA AVE. z BEAM nan ke COUNTY Park Park Cr) N W aVE. I L,J m C, 'k EXTANT AVE. t PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY 0 r ST. JOHNS BLVD. z 5 JB AVE. z Y � � o m m ❑N Q "'VTz Markham z N Pond F 7EY e � i couN Ty � <1 r COURT (T r N KOHLMAN AVE. `` a ' ° w KOHLMAN a r+oieiwood w o AVE. r- U g Pori, C7 z ROAD �' C W m ��+ + m� EHOp �7 E i �/ ❑ Q W O OT. w z EDGEHILL RD. v NOR g AVE. o 4 DEMONT m AVE Ha, st m P-A, BROOKS AVE. ff_BR KS EL F SEX TANT AVElciskns z pJ`✓ GERVAIIS N \ ~ COP r z LARK a CL �_ PHONE. (651) 490 -2000 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR. SEH ST. PAUL, MN 55110 AVE, r I G "' _ "" " a � �' GRA E. m VIKING DR. / / / - -'- \ OR SHERREN AVE Kn tt ucke Head Lake COPE � 1v� AVE_ LA a AV AVE w FILE No. LOCATION MAP AMAPLE0402.01 TH. 61 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD TH 61 AT TH 694 EXHIBIT NO 1 DATE: 11/12/04 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Agenda Item K5 /e[r]:Iki U7e\N:I as] :iI TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment East (TH 61 to Southlawn), City Project 02 -07 — Approve Revisions to Realignment Agreement with BNSF Railroad, Minnesota Commercial Railroad, Xcel Energy, Ramsey County Board and Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority DATE: July 5, 2005 INTRODUCTION On February 28, 2005, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that provided for the City purchase of the Burlington Northern railroad easement and an easement from Xcel Energy. That MOU has been revised into a formal realignment agreement with the same parties. Approval of the agreement is recommended. Background On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61. That resolution was the culmination of many hours of discussion and debate with staff, agencies, other communities and property owners that occurred over a 15 -year period. On May 12, 2003, the city council selected a final alignment for the new roadway and authorized preparation of a preliminary report on the improvement. Following a public hearing on September 8, 2003, the city council approved the realignment of County Road D between TH 61 and Southlawn Drive. The city council approved the first phase of construction with the award of bid on November 10, 2003, for soil correction and wetland creation. On February 23, 2004, the City approved a memorandum of understanding with Xcel Energy for an alternative haul route for their transformers. On June 28, 2004, the city council awarded the final contract for the roadway improvements for the roadway realignment project. At the time of award, it was noted that the City was taking a risk due to the unsecured easements with Burlington Northern and Xcel Energy. Throughout 2004 and the first half of 2005, city staff has worked to negotiate final easement arrangements with Xcel Energy and BNSF. Those easement amounts were negotiated and final prices agreed to in the fall of 2004. All appeared secured as part of a complicated settlement, until January 2005, when the details of the final agreement were being finalized. The purchase of the Burlington Northern railroad right of way by Ramsey County Regional Rail involves a complicated set of easements. The railway in Maplewood serves only the Xcel Energy substation. Under the Memorandum of Understanding with Xcel, the railroad was to be abandoned and the excess right of way purchased by Ramsey County Regional Rail as part of the Rush Line Corridor. Xcel Energy requires their existing easement rights to remain in place on the railroad right of way. Regional Rail requested that Xcel pay a monthly usage charge for the right of way. Additionally, BNSF added a requirement on the City's negotiated easement that the Xcel- Regional Rail issue not only be resolved, but that the abandoned right of way must be under purchase agreement before they would release the City's easement. Staff has met with the Regional Rail Authority and appears to have resolved the Xcel — Regional Rail disagreement. A final agreement between Regional Rail and Xcel has been negotiated. This agreement along with formalizing the agreement between Xcel and Regional Rail; Maplewood and Ramsey County Parks; and Regional Rail and BNSF are the subject of the attached Realignment Agreement. Agenda Item K5 Realignment Agreement The attached Realignment Agreement involves numerous agencies and a complicated set of requirements that need to occur. All items appear to have been agreed to by the various parties, although each of the agencies need to approve the agreement. If acceptable to the city council, this agreement will be submitted for approval in July 2005 by each agency. Minor adjustments might be needed to facilitate the various property exchanges. Following is a brief summary of the agreement principles: 1. BNSF issues a Construction and Maintenance Agreement to Maplewood for construction of County Road D and the Bruce Vento Trail Extension, in exchange for $103,700 which will be applied to the purchase price of the right of way. 2. City of Maplewood and Ramsey County Parks enter into Joint Powers Agreement for construction of Bruce Vento Trail Extension from Beam Avenue to Buerkle Road. Ramsey County Parks assigns grant dollars to Maplewood for trail construction and property acquisition. 3. City pays $59,000 to BNSF on behalf of Xcel Energy for relocation rights of railroad and as an accommodation for power line rights. 4. Xcel Energy enters Alternative Railroad Loading Service Agreement with Minnesota Commercial Railroad to reassign rail access rights to a point 200 feet north of Interstate 694 right of way. Xcel Energy notifies Minnesota Commercial and BNSF that they no longer need railroad spur to County Road D site. 5. BNSF and Minnesota Commercial agree to expedite rail line abandonment process. Abandonment process has already begun and is completed in August /September 2005. 6. BNSF and Minnesota Commercial grant Maplewood the right to construct roadway (County Road D Improvement) by executing easement agreement that requires Maplewood to pay $103,700 to BNSF for rights. Maplewood agrees to relocate Xcel Line 0885 to a point acceptable to Xcel Energy due to transmission line conflicts. 7. BNSF and Minnesota Commercial agree to sell (fee title) Maplewood a 25 -foot wide strip of property along their easterly right -of -way between the proposed abandonment area and the south right -of -way line of Buerkle Road for the extension of the Bruce Vento Trail. Ramsey County Parks agrees to pay $3.30 per square foot for this property, or $86,130. Maplewood will help facilitate this right of way purchase through BNSF. 8. Maplewood begins construction of County Road D Extension project in July 2005 and completes the work in November 2005. This work includes removal of trackage by Maplewood with payment for salvage value of the track to BNSF. (This is a revision from the February MOU in that Minnesota Commercial was to remove and salvage the track.) Cost appears minimal. 9. Following abandonment process, but no sooner than the fourth quarter of 2005, BNSF agrees to sell abandoned right of way to Maplewood for $1,152,370. Maplewood also purchases the northern section of railroad right of way for construction of the Bruce Vento Trail from BNSF for $86,100. a. The total purchase from Maplewood to BNSF is: i. Southern right of way: $1,152,370 ii. Xcel Easements: $ 59,000 iii. County Road D Easement: $ 103,700 iv. Northern Trail Parcel: $ 86,100 v. TOTAL PURCHASE: $1,401,170 10. Ramsey County Parks through a separate joint powers agreement agrees to purchase from Maplewood the $86,100 Northern Trail Parcel and an easement forthe Bruce Vento Trail in the amount of $263,870 to reduce Maplewood's cost for the southern right of way. 11. Ramsey Regional Rail agrees to consider the purchase of the $1,152,370, through a separate agreement with Maplewood for the repayment of the right of way cost prior to June 30, 2006. Agenda Item K5 12. Maplewood and Regional Rail agree that the final purchase price will decrease by the amount of the $263,870 easement payment for the Bruce Vento Trail. (Note: this separate agreement has not been finalized and Regional Rail has not agreed to pay 100% of the difference, although an independent appraisal has confirmed for Regional Rail that this price is appropriate. Regional Rail had commissioned an appraisal that indicated a value of $600,000 for this amount, while Maplewood is proposing a sale (based upon our appraisal) to Regional Rail of $888,500 ($1,152,370 - $263,870). Negotiations on this issue continue and are expected to be resolved in August 2005.) 13. Xcel Energy executes easement agreement with BNSF(at closing; but Regional Rail has agreed tothe conditions) for permanent line easements for their 345 kV and three 115 kV transmission lines. Xcel and Ramsey County Regional Rail agree that this is an accommodation for the City of Maplewood project improvements and does not establish precedence for future negotiations. Xcel and Ramsey County agree that the future trail improvement and easement to be granted to Ramsey County Parks shall contain a clause that the trail is subordinate to the transmission lines. 14. All agencies agree to grant Maplewood and Ramsey County Parks the rights and permits at no cost for the construction of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. Maplewood will construct this trail for Ramsey County Parks in 2005. Ramsey County Parks will reimburse Maplewood $232,000 for construction of the trail, 100% of the construction cost. 15. Ramsey County will be responsible for any title work and for any environmental assessment work associated with their purchase of the railroad right -of -way. Agreement Issues This agreement should provide the final issues to resolve construction of County Road D. The final major issue involves a final agreement on the remainder purchase by Regional Rail. The City continues with a risk of approximately $290,000 in the difference between Regional Rail's appraisal and the Maplewood appraisal. This issue also appears to be resolved, although final negotiations need to be completed. There does not appear to be much risk that the abandonment will fail, although BNSF has added language that says Maplewood will restore rail service if the entire agreement fails. BNSF has delayed the closing on the property until at least the fourth quarter of 2005, due to a positive earnings year in 2005 for BNSF and their desire to delay the sale of property. This creates some issues with the Ramsey County Parks grant, but the agreement assigns that risk to Ramsey County. Overall, this agreement provides for all issues related to completion of the County Road D project and construction of the Bruce Vento Trail as planned. Budget Impact The recommended agreement requires that the City transmit $1,401,170 to facilitate the purchase of the BNSF right of way. The other easement costs are consistent with the original easement budget. The repayment of the $1,152,370 would be by separate agreement with Regional Rail. The original MOU agreement identified the possibility of establishment of a TIF district to fund the expenditure. This does not appear necessary if this agreement is approved by all parties. The bids for the County Road D projects have been very favorable and resulted in a $1,000,000 savings. Easement costs, however, have far exceeded the original budget, by nearly $2,000,000. The Countryview Golf easements exceeded the estimates within the feasibility study by nearly $1.2 million. Depending upon the outcome of the negotiation with Regional Rail, the TI district may be needed /used to cover the easement and right of way cost overruns along with additional costs for drainage and roadways on the Countryview site. Agenda Item K5 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the revised Realignment Agreement with Ramsey County, Northern States Power Company, d /b /a Xcel Energy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Minnesota Commercial Railroad and Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority for the extension of the Bruce Vento Trail and the abandonment and purchase of the BNSF right of way. Attachments: 1. County Road D Realignment Agreement/Xcel Easement Agreement 2. Location Map COUNTY ROAD D REALIGNMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement, dated this day of July, 2005, is between the County of Ramsey, a political subdivision in the State of Minnesota (hereinafter "County "), the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), Northern States Power Company, d /b /a Xcel Energy (hereinafter "Xcel Energy "), BNSF Railway Company (hereinafter `BNSF "), Minnesota Commercial Railway Company (hereinafter "Minnesota Commercial'), and Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority, a political subdivision in the State of Minnesota (hereinafter "Regional Rail'). WHEREAS, BNSF owns a railroad right -of -way corridor (the Corridor) from a point approximately fifty feet north of Beam Avenue in the City to the south right -of -way line of Buerlde Avenue in the City of White Bear Lake, which Corridor BNSF has leased to Minnesota Commercial for operational purposes, and WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a project known as the County Road D Realignment Project, City Project Number 02 -07 (`Project'); WHEREAS, the Project will cross the Corridor south of Interstate 694 (1694); WHEREAS, the Project will require the removal of a portion of the existing railroad track located in the area south of Interstate 694 owned by BNSF and leased by Minnesota Commercial; WHEREAS, the portion of the existing railroad track to be removed currently serves only the electric substation ( "Kohlman Lake Substation ") owned by Xcel Energy along the west side of the railroad south of County Road D. The Kohlman Lake Substation requires rail access for the delivery of transformer units in the event of a need for the installation of additional transformers or the replacement of failed transformers; WHEREAS, Xcel Energy is willing to abandon its use of the railroad track if an alternative roadway access can be established for the hauling of transformers and other equipment to the Kohlman Lake Substation, and if BNSF will grant it permanent easements for the operation of certain of its transmission facilities; WHEREAS, a haul route for the transformers for Xcel Energy was approved by a Joint Powers Agreement dated June 25, 2004 (`Haul Route ") WHEREAS, Xcel Energy has agreed to utilize this Haul Route and is no longer in need of the railroad track; WHEREAS, BNSF and Minnesota Commercial are willing to convey to the City all of their rights, title and interest in the easterly twenty -five (25) feet of a portion of the Corridor north of 1694 (`North Trail Property "); 7/1/05 Final WHEREAS, the City is willing to purchase from BNSF and Minnesota Commercial the North Trail Property: WHEREAS, once the City has purchased the North Trail Property from BNSF and Minnesota Commercial, the City and County have agreed to negotiate a separate agreement in good faith for the sale of the North Trail Property to the County: WHEREAS, Regional Rail has stated that it may have an interest in the future purchase of a portion of the Corridor ( "South Corridor ") for the purpose of preserving the Corridor for future public transit and transportation, including but not limited to rail transit, light rail transit (LRT) and other transit modes; however, it is not ready to purchase the South Corridor at this time; WHEREAS, the City has agreed to purchase the South Corridor to help facilitate the various actions described in this Agreement, and the City and Regional Rail have agreed to negotiate a separate agreement in good faith for the possible future sale of the South Corridor to Regional Rail; WHEREAS, BNSF is willing to sell the South Corridor to the City, and is willing to grant Xcel Energy a permanent easement for its electrical transmission lines all on the terms set forth in this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: I. SECTION I, RAMSEY COUNTY. A. Representations and Warranties by the County. The County represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents identified herein, that its governing body has reviewed this Agreement and has passed a resolution that authorizes County officials to execute this Agreement and the related documents on behalf of the County, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents have the power and authority to execute the Agreement, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents on behalf of the County have the authority to bind the County; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and 3. It will cooperate with all reasonable requests by the other parties related to this Agreement, to the extent authorized by law. 7/1/05 Final B. Obligations of the County in this Agreement. The County shall perform the following: The County agrees to negotiate in good faith with the City for the purchase of the North Trail Property. The County shall enter into a separate agreement with the City detailing the purchase price and terms for this acquisition. The purchase agreement shall require that the County pay the City the appraised value of up to a maximum of $3.30 per square foot (estimated square feet to be acquired is 26,100 square feet= $86,130.00). The purchase agreement shall be entered into within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. The County's purchase obligation shall be contingent upon the City's purchase of the South Corridor from BNSF and Minnesota Commercial pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; the City's subsequent grant to the County of a permanent easement for trail purposes over the South Corridor; and the approval by the County of any easements granted by BNSF or the City to Xcel. The County shall reimburse the City for any expenses incurred in obtaining a title insurance policy, title correction work, environmental testing expenses and any environmental corrections associated with the City's purchase of the North Trail Property from BNSF. If the County and City are unable to reach a mutually acceptable purchase agreement for the North Trail Property, this agreement shall terminate as to the County and shall be of no further force or effect. The County shall not be obligated to purchase the North Trail Property unless and until it has secured sufficient permanent rights in the South Corridor to construct a public recreational trail which will connect the North Trail Property to the existing Bruce Vento Trail which lies south of the South Corridor at its southern terminus. 2. The County agrees to enter into a separate Cooperative Agreement with the City to allow the City to construct a public recreational trail, including grading, clearing & grubbing, bituminous pavement, bridge improvements, and restoration work from Beam Avenue to Buerkle Road (`Bruce Vento Trail Extension "). The County shall pay the City from its State grant for development of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension the actual cost incurred by the City for construction (including design and engineering) of the improvements, estimated to be $232,000 based on unit price bids received by the City, subject to the State of Minnesota extending the grant contract until December 31, 2005. The Cooperative Agreement shall be executed within 7/1/05 Final 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. 3. The County agrees to purchase an easement from the City for the portion of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension located within the South Corridor. The value of the easement shall be determined through an independent appraisal. The County shall use its State and Metropolitan Council acquisition grants to purchase this easement with a total amount not -to- exceed $263,870.00. The closing shall occur within 30 days of the City's purchase of the South Corridor from BNSF. This easement must be reviewed and approved by Regional Rail. If Regional Rail refuses to approve the easement, the County and City may nevertheless enter into the easement, but Regional Rail may, in its discretion, terminate its obligations under this Agreement. 4. The County aelrnowledges that BNSF shall grant Xcel Energy a permanent transmission line easement over the North Trail Property and portions of the South Corridor prior to the sale of the property to the County and that this easement shall contain a clause that the trail is a permitted use within the easement area and is subordinate to the transmission lines. A copy of the Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easement agreement is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. 5. The County agrees to secure a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) for the construction and maintenance of a portion of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension over the I -694 BNSF railroad bridge and adjacent MNDOT road right of way. The permit shall be secured within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. II. SECTION II. REGIONAL RAIL. A. Representations and Warranties by Regional Rail. Regional Rail represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents identified herein, that its governing body has reviewed this Agreement and has passed a resolution that authorizes Regional Rail officials to execute this Agreement and the related documents on behalf of Regional Rail, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents have the power and authority to execute the Agreement, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents on behalf of Regional Rail have the authority to bind Regional Rail; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and 7/1/05 Final 3. It will cooperate with all reasonable requests by the other parties related to this Agreement, to the extent authorized by law. B. Obligations of Regional Rail in this Agreement. Regional Rail shall perform the following: Regional Rail agrees to negotiate in good faith with the City for the future acquisition of the South Corridor. Regional Rail shall enter into a separate agreement with the City detailing the purchase price and terms for this acquisition. Regional Rail shall purchase the South Corridor from the City before June 30, 2006, or the City may pursue the sale of the South Corridor to other parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate Regional Rail to enter into a purchase agreement for the South Corridor or accept any particular terms or conditions for such agreement. Any such purchase agreement shall be a free standing agreement and none of the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated into such agreement unless specifically agreed to in the purchase agreement. 2. Regional Rail agrees that BNSF shall grant Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easements over the South Corridor prior to the sale of the property to the City. A copy of the Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easement agreement is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. III. SECTION III, CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. A. Representations and Warranties by the City. The City represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents identified herein, that its governing body has reviewed this Agreement and has passed a resolution that authorizes City officials to execute this Agreement and the related documents on behalf of the City, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents have the power and authority to execute the Agreement, and that the officials who did or will execute the Agreement and the related documents on behalf of the City have the authority to bind the City; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and 3. It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of the City in this Agreement. The City shall perform the 7/1/05 Final following: Enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the County agreeing to construct the Bruce Vento Trail Extension as described above. The Cooperative Agreement shall be executed by both parties within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. Trail construction shall be completed by the City no later than November 18, 2005. The County shall pay the City from its State grant for development of the Bruce Vento Regional Trail Extension the actual cost incurred by the City for construction (including design and engineering) of the improvements, estimated to be $232,000 based on unit price bids received by the City, subject to the State of Minnesota extending the grant contract until December 31, 2005. 2. Pay $59,000 to BNSF for Xcel Energy easements within the South Corridor and the North Trail Property as described in the attached Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easement agreement (Exhibit A). The City agrees that BNSF shall grant Xcel Energy these permanent transmission line easements over the South Corridor immediately prior to the sale of the property to the City. 3. The City agrees to enter into a Purchase Agreement with BNSF to purchase the South Corridor after abandonment of rail service. The South Corridor is legally described as follows: All that part of the 150 -foot wide BNSF Railway Company right -of -way located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the center line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 183.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said center line with the southerly line of said Northwest Quarter. and: All that part of the 150 -foot wide BNSF Railway Company right -of -way located in the South Half of the South Half of Section 34, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies southerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly right -of -way line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly right -of -way line with the northerly right -of- way line of Trunk Highway 393 -694 as described in that certain Final Certificate and filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969. The Purchase Agreement shall require that the City pay BNSF $1,152,370.00 for the South Corridor. The City shall be responsible for any expenses associated with obtaining a title insurance policy, title 7/1/05 Final corrections work and any environmental testing and/or environmental corrections on the property. Closing shall occur within 30 days of the abandonment of railroad service over the South Corridor. 4. The City agrees to enter into a purchase agreement with BNSF and Minnesota Commercial to purchase their respective rights, title, and interest in the North Trail Property. The North Trail Property is legally described as follows: All that part of the easterly 25.00 feet of the 150 -foot wide BNSF Railway Company right -of -way located in the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly line with the northerly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway 393 -694 as described in that certain Final Certificate filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969, and which lies southerly of the southerly line of the 66 -foot wide right -of -way of Buerlde Road as described in that certain Perpetual Easement filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on December 22, 1982 as Document Number 2164 73 9; The purchase agreement shall require that the City pay BNSF the appraised value of $3.30 per square foot (estimated square feet to be acquired is 26,100 square feet= $86,130.00). The purchase agreement shall be entered into within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement. The City shall be responsible for expenses incurred in obtaining a title insurance policy, title correction work, environmental testing expenses and any environmental corrections associated with the purchase of the North Trail Property from BNSF. 5. Pay costs associated with the relocation of Xcel Energy Power Line 0885 to a point acceptable to Xcel Energy. The City and Xcel Energy shall execute a separate agreement detailing the scope and cost for this work. 6. Enter into a Construction and Maintenance Agreement with BNSF and Minnesota Commercial relating to the construction, operation, and maintenance of County Road D and the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. The Construction and Maintenance Agreement shall be executed by the City and BNSF no later than July 15, 2005. The City shall pay $103,700.00 to BNSF pursuant to the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. Remove the spur track as a part of the Project as shown on Exhibit B attached to this Agreement. Removal of existing ties and rails for the spur 7/1/05 Final track shall be limited to track outside of the existing fence surrounding the Kohlman Lake Substation. The railroad bridge at existing County Road D shall also be removed by the City at a time determined by the City. The City shall be responsible for the costs incurred for these removals. Responsibility for salvaging and/or disposing of the existing ties and rails within the South Corridor shall be in accordance with the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. 8. Complete construction of the Project no later than November 30, 2005. 9. Agree to grant an easement to Ramsey County for the construction and maintenance of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension within the South Corridor. The cost for the easement shall be determined by an independent appraiser; however, it shall not exceed a total cost of $263,870.00 and shall be reduced to reflect the value of any easement acquired by Xcel Energy under the terms of this Agreement. 10. Agree to negotiate in good faith with Regional Rail for the future sale of the South Corridor. The City shall enter into a separate agreement with Regional Rail detailing the purchase price and terms for this acquisition. The City may pursue the sale of the South Corridor to other parties if Regional Rail does not complete the purchase of the South Corridor from the City before June 30, 2006. IV. SECTION IV, XCEL ENERGY. A. Representations and Warranties by Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed herein, and the officials of Xcel Energy who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of Xcel Energy have the power and the authority to do so and to bind Xcel Energy; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and 3. It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of Xcel Energy in this Agreement. Xcel Energy shall perform the following: Enter into an Alternative Loading Service Agreement with Minnesota Commercial within 60 days of the execution of this agreement to reassign rail access rights to a point north of the South Corridor. 7/1/05 Final 2. Notify Minnesota Commercial and BNSF in writing within 10 days of the execution of this Agreement that it no longer needs the railroad spur to the Kohlman Lake Substation site and that it consents to the abandonment of the railroad service over the South Corridor. This notification must confirm to Minnesota Commercial and BNSF that the proposed South Corridor limits are acceptable to Xcel Energy. 3. Enter into a permanent easement agreement with BNSF for its transmission lines within the South Corridor and the North Trail Property no later than December 31, 2005. The permanent easement agreement is detailed in attached Exhibit A. The City shall pay BNSF $59,000 in consideration for the granting of these easements to Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy understands and agrees that these easements are an accommodation for the Project improvements and do not establish a precedent for future negotiations with BNSF, Regional Rail or the County. Agree to grant the City and Ramsey County any necessary rights and permits at no cost needed for construction, operation and maintenance of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. V. SECTION V, BNSF. A. Representations and Warranties by BNSF. BNSF represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed herein, and the officials of BNSF who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of BNSF have the power and the authority to do so and to bind BNSF; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and 3. It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of BNSF in this Agreement. BNSF shall perform the following: Agree to the expedited rail line abandonment process, to begin immediately and to be filed by August 31, 2005. 2. Execute the above- described Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the City and Minnesota Commercial no later than July 15, 2005. The City shall pay BNSF $103,700.00 as consideration for the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. 7/1/05 Final 3. Enter into a Purchase Agreement with the City to sell the South Corridor to the City for the appraised value of $1,152,370.00. Closing shall be completed no later than December 31, 2005. 4. Enter into a purchase agreement with the City to sell the North Trail Property. Closing shall be completed no later than December 31, 2005. 5. Agree to grant transmission line easements within the South Corridor and the North Trail Property to Xcel Energy as detailed in attached Exhibit A for the total price of $59,000 to be paid by the City. 6. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, BNSF's obligations to sell the South Corridor and the North Trail Property to the City shall be interdependent with BNSF's obligations to grant transmission fine easements to Xcel Energy in respect of the South Corridor and the North Trail Property. The closing of the sales of the South Corridor and the North Trail Property shall occur simultaneously with the delivery of said transmission line easements, such that the transmission line easements shall be granted immediately prior to the sale of the South Corridor and the North Trail Property to the City. BNSF shall have no obligation to deliver the transmission line easements to Xcel unless and until the City shall tender to BNSF the purchase prices for the transmission line easements, the South Corridor, and the North Trail Property and shall have evidenced its willingness to accept delivery of the deeds from BNSF for the South Corridor and the North Trail Property. The delivery of the transmission line easements by BNSF to Xcel Energy shall be conditional and may be revolted by BNSF if the City fails or refuses to close the purchases of the South Corridor and the North Trail Property. VI. SECTION VI. MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL. A. Representations and Warranties by Minnesota Commercial. Minnesota Commercial represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed herein, and the officials of Minnesota Commercial who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of Minnesota Commercial have the power and the authority to do so and to bind Minnesota Commercial; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and 3. It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. 7/1/05 Final 10 B. Obligations of Minnesota Commercial in this Agreement. Minnesota Commercial shall perform the following: 1. Agree to the expedited rail line abandonment process, to begin immediately and be filed no later than August 31, 2005. 2. Execute the above- described Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the City and BNSF no later than July 15, 2005. 3. Execute in cooperation with the BNSF, a purchase agreement with the City for the North Trail Property within 30 days of the abandonment of the South Corridor. Closing shall be completed by December 31, 2005. 4. Execute in cooperation BNSF, a purchase agreement with the City to sell the South Corridor. The Purchase Agreement shall require that the City pay BNSF $1,152,370.00 for the South Corridor. Closing shall occur no later than December 31, 2005. 5. Enter into an Alternative Loading Service Agreement with Xcel Energy within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement to reassign rail access rights to a point north of the South Corridor. VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. B. Arbitration. It is agreed by the parties that any differences, disputes or claims which arise under and pursuant to this Agreement or as to the performance thereof by the parties hereto shall be submitted for arbitration to a board of arbitrators consisting of three (3) persons, one selected by the party interested in the other side of the dispute, and a third person mutually selected and agreed upon by the first two arbitrators. This arbitration provision does not extend to any dispute, difference, claim or obligation that may arise pursuant to any of the agreements referenced herein, including but not limited to the Xcel Energy Permanent Transmission Line Easement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. Any party shall notify the other party in writing, served by U.S. Mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, of a dispute, stating the nature of the claim or dispute and the name and address of the selected arbitrator. The other party shall serve notice of its selected arbitrator and opposition or other interest in the claim or dispute. The two arbitrators shall select a third disinterested arbitrator within fifteen (15) days after the response notice stated above. 7/1/05 Final 11 Arbitration shall be commenced within forty -five (45) days of the original notice pursuant to the previous paragraphs hereof, and all proceedings shall be governed by the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 572. The decision of any two arbitrators shall be binding and conclusive with respect to all claims and disputes submitted in such arbitration proceedings. If a party does not respond to an arbitration notice, then the party first serving the arbitration notice under the previous paragraph shall be entitled by Motion to petition a court of competent jurisdiction for its order selecting and appointing an arbitrator for said defaulting party. Any such determination by the Court shall be final, binding and conclusive as to all parties in interest. Expenses for the arbitration shall be divided equally among the parties. C. Nothing in this agreement shall obligate the County or Regional Rail to acquire any property from any other party unless and until they are respectively satisfied that any easements or other rights granted to any other party will not materially impair the use or uses for which they will acquire the property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement. COUNTY OF RAMSEY By: Date Its: By: Date Its: RAMSEY COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY By: Date Its: C Date Its: 7/1/05 Final 12 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD By: Its: By: Its: Date Date 7/1/05 Final 13 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, D /B /A XCEL ENERGY By: Its: By: Its: Date Date 7/1/05 Final 14 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY By: Its: By: Its: Date Date 7/1/05 Final 15 MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL RAILWAY COMPANY By: Its: By: Its: Date Date 7/1/05 Final 16 EXHIBIT A XCEL ENERGY PERMANENT TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT AGREEMENT EASEMENT The undersigned, hereinafter called "Grantor ", in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor in hand paid by Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b /a Xcel Energy, hereinafter called "NSP ", does hereby grant unto NSP, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege and easement to construct, operate, maintain, use, rebuild, or remove electric lines with all towers, structures, poles, foundations, crossarms, cables, wires, guys, supports, counterpoises, fixtures, and devices appurtenant to said lines through, over, under and across the following described lands (hereinafter called "Premises ") situated in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, to -wit: That part of the 150 -foot wide BNSF Railway Company right -of -way located in the West Half of the Southeast Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 30, Range 22, and the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, which fies southerly of the southerly line of the 66 -foot wide right -of -way of Buerlde Road as described in that certain Perpetual Easement filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on December 22, 1982 as Document Number 2164739, and which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with center line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 183.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said center line with the southerly line of said Northwest Quarter of Section 3. Except for the right of access and temporary construction area, said easement shall be limited to those parts of the Premises (hereinafter called "the Easement Area ") described as follows: Parcel l: The easterly 25 feet of the Premises described above which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly line with the northerly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway 393 -694 as described in that certain Final Certificate filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969. Parcel 2: The part of the Premises which lies within 30.00 feet of the following described line: Beginning at a point on a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly line of said Railway right -of -way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly fine with the northerly right -of -way line of Trunk Highway 393 -694 as described in that certain Final Certificate filed in the Office Page I of 5 July 1, 2005 of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969, distant 30.00 feet westerly of the intersection of said line with the easterly line of said Railway right -of -way, thence southwesterly parallel with the easterly line of said Railway right -of- way a distance of 1085 feet to a "Point A ", thence deflect left to a point on the westerly line of said Railway right -of -way located 320.00 feet south of the north line of said Section 3, as measured along the westerly fine of said Railway right -of -way and there terminating. The sidelines of the described strip of land are to be lengthened or shorted to meet at the point of turning, and to meet said perpendicular fine and the westerly line of said Railway right -of -way. Parcel 3: That part of the Premises that lies within 10.00 feet each side of the following described line: Beginning at the above - described "Point A ", thence southwesterly parallel with the east fine of said Railway right - of -way a distance of 85.00 feet and there terminating. Parcel 4: That part of the Premises lying between lines parallel with and located respectively 500 feet and 750 feet south of the north line of said Section 3. The rights granted herein may be exercised at any time subsequent to the execution of this document. The grant of easement herein contained shall also include the right to enter upon the Premises, to survey for and locate said lines and shall also include the right to trim or remove from said Easement Area any structures, trees (including tall or leaning trees located within the Premises adjacent to the Easement Area, which may endanger said fines by reason of falling thereon) or objects, except fences, which will materially interfere with or endanger said lines. Any such entry by Grantee under the provisions of this paragraph shall not materially interfere with or disrupt in any way any public transit or transportation system, including but not limited to any rail transit system, which exists upon the premises at the time of entry, and unless an emergency, Grantee shall notify Grantor prior to such entry. Except as otherwise provided herein for the construction, operation, repair and maintenance of facilities and structures necessary for public transit, transportation and recreational trails, Grantor, its successors and assigns, agrees not to erect any buildings, structures or other objects, permanent or temporary, except fences, or to plant any trees within the Easement area, without the prior express written approval from NSP, nor to perform any act which will interfere with or materially endanger said lines. The grant of easement herein contained shall also include the right of NSP to have reasonable access which does not materially interfere with Grantor's use of the Premises to said Easement Area across the Premises. The grant of easement herein contained shall also include the right of reasonable temporary use by NSP of Premises adjacent to said Easement Area during construction, repair or replacement of said transmission lines, for additional construction area. In regard to Parcel 1, this easement also grants a right of access to NSP across said parcel in order to Page 2 of 5 July 1, 2005 load and unload transformers and other electrical equipment onto the railroad located west of, parallel with and adjacent to said parcel. Said electric lines and supporting structures from time to time may be reconstructed or relocated on said Easement Area with changed dimensions and to operate at different voltages provided that any change in location or structure does not materially interfere with existing or future use of the premises by Grantor for public transit or transportation purposes, including but not limited to rail transit. Grantee must notify Grantor before relocating or reconstructing the electric lines and structures to determine that the improvements do not materially interfere with Grantor's facilities or rights granted herein. The grant herein contained shall also include the right of NSP to permit the attachment of wires of others to the structures supporting said lines, except that such wires shall not materially interfere with Grantor's use of the Easement Area. Grantor reserves the right to dedicate and have or permit to be improved, maintained, and used for the purposes of streets, curbs and gutters, sewers, water and underground utilities (hereinafter called "improvements "), the portion of said Easement Area not occupied by the structures supporting NSP's electric system, provided that said improvements do not impair the structural or electrical integrity of or ability to maintain said electric system or materially alter the existing ground elevations; and provided further that all such improvements shall not result in a ground or other clearance of less than the minimum requirements specified by the National Electrical Safety Code. Grantor, its agents or assigns must submit plans of improvements or other installations within the Easement Area for review by NSP prior to installation of the improvements to determine that the improvements do not materially interfere with NSP's facilities or rights granted herein. Grantor reserves to itself, its successors or assigns, the right to enter upon and use the Easement Area for the purposes of planning, surveying, designing, constructing, installing, operating, maintaining, repairing, improving, or modifying a system or systems of public transit or transportation, including but not limited to rail transit, public highways, pedestrian paths, or bike paths, provided that such entrance upon or use of the easement area does not materially interfere with, obstruct, or impair Grantee's use of the Easement Area for the purposes stated herein. NSP shall pay for all damages to landscaping, roads and driveways, fences, livestock, crops, fields and other property caused by the construction or maintenance of said lines. Claims on account of such damages may be referred to NSP's nearest office. Grantor covenants with NSP, its successors and assigns, that Grantor is the owner of the above described premises and has the right to sell and convey an easement in the manner and form herein. Grantor agrees to execute and deliver to NSP, at NSP's cost without additional compensation, any additional documents needed to correct the legal description of the Easement Area described herein, so that it describes the Easement Area within the Premises that was Page 3 of 5 July 1, 2005 originally intended to be granted herein and which at a minimum provides conductor clearance meeting the requirements of the National Electrical Safety Code. Where approval from one beneficiary of this Easement to another is herein required, said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any party seeking approval from another shall submit its request or plans to the other in writing. A party receiving such request shall, within thirty days, grant approval of the request or deny approval by submitting to the other a written explanation for the denial. Notwithstanding any other provision of this grant of easement, Grantee, and its successors or assigns may not, without the express written consent of Grantor, its successors or assigns, place, locate, or erect any towers, structures, poles, cross -arms, cables, wires, guys, supports, counterpoises, fixtures, or devices on or within thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises. Grantor may condition the express written consent mentioned above on the allocation of cost for removal, relocation or modification of any structures placed within thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises, as Grantor, its successors or assigns determines appropriate. This provision does not preclude Grantee, its successors or assigns from installing, replacing or repairing overhead wires across the Premises, including the portion of the Premises located on or within thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises. Nothing in this paragraph shall require Grantee, its successors or assigns to relocate, reconstruct, or remove structures that exist within the Easement Area on the date this Easement is granted; nor shall this paragraph require Grantee, its successors or assigns to relocate, reconstruct, or remove any structures that are being relocated pursuant to the County Road D Realignment Agreement. Grantee, its successors and assigns shall retain the same right to repair, reconstruct or replace the existing facilities locate on or within thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises, and the facilities that are being relocated pursuant to the County Road D Realignment Agreement, as it has under this easement to repair, reconstruct, or replace its facilities that are located within the Easement Area, but outside thirty (30) feet of the centerline of the Premises. It is mutually understood and agreed that this instrument covers all the agreements and stipulations between the parties and that no representation or statements, verbal or written, have been made modifying, adding to or changing the terms hereof. This instrument is exempt from the Minnesota Deed Tax. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be duly executed as of the day of 1 2005. Page 4 of 5 July 1, 2005 BNSF Railway Company Its: Its: STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005 by the of the BNSF Railway Company, a Delaware corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public My commission expires Page 5 of 5 July 1, 2005 Agenda Item K5 COUNTY ROAD NTY ROAD D REA00NMENT Ext kN'IERSECDON REALIGNMENT SEGMENT 2 IMRROVEWTM SEGMENT 1 COUNTY ROAD t1/ ENT 3 GOUT'S ROAD D ftp MOGE: COURT REAUGNMiE.NT. SITE STANCE SEGMENT 4. iib. L(. N5`i :£. ®...._. ENT 5 9!� TibRod, X 1 � 5 tFN. f JI ~h ... 300E ..... R � r Ail gym... { i ILE .i at7ofmaplewwd COUNTY ROAD D Z OF PURMO WORKS REALIGNMENT Iwo plow. . East M tnn *t* 55109 C 02-07 DUU) 770-4550 FAX ( t) 770-4546 CP 02-08 w" PROJECT LOCATION HEAP' EXHIBIT Agenda Item K6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment East (T.H. 61 to Southlawn), City Project 02- 07-- Resolution Approving Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Order Nos. 2 & 3 (Soil Surcharge — Frattalone Contract) DATE: July 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION Bids for this project were received and opened on Tuesday, October 28, 2003, and the construction contract was awarded to F. M. Frattalone Excavating on November 10, 2003. To date, most of the work is complete. There have been a number of items that the engineering department and the contractor have been negotiating over the last 6 months. Most of the items on the attached change orders are the result of those negotiations. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing modification of the existing contract for the soil stabilization phase of this project. Background This project has two construction contracts: the soil stabilization portion, which was awarded to F. M. Frattalone Excavating, and the road construction portion, which was awarded to Shafer Construction. The attached change orders 2 & 3 would reflect an increase of $283,787.12 in the soil stabilization contract with F. M. Frattalone Excavating. Attached are Change Orders 2 and 3 which summarize the purpose of the work. Change Order No. 2 for $130,400.80 was for additional materials and work related to soils that were worse than had been anticipated. Change Order 3 in the amount of $153,386.32, is for additional costs related to changes and increases in the pond excavation and mitigation quantities. The council may recall that there were extensive negotiations with the Landowner, the Mogren Family, and multiple revisions to the pond design to accommodate the landowner. As a result of these revisions, there was a change in the final location of the ponds causing subsequent increases in the amount of material that had to be excavated and to the area that had to be planted as part of the mitigation. In addition, this work has stretched out into the following year, for which the contractor has asked for additional increases in the unit prices to cover fuel and inflationary costs. The contractor, the city's consultant and city staff have been involved in extensive negotiations over the contractor's request for additional compensation. While all this work was necessary and was performed at the request of the engineer, an agreement on the amount of contractor compensation was not reached until recently. The original contract amount was $1,116,861.91. The revised Contract amount would be $1,459,419.92. Discussion /Budget Impact This contract has exceeded the original contract amount. The work was required as part of the scope of the project. In the near future, a forecast of project costs (right of way costs are nearly $2.0 million over the estimated costs, while construction bids were $1.0 million below) will be reviewed to determine the state of this project's $8.03 Million budget which includes two construction contracts, multiple land acquisition Agenda Item K6 agreements, agency negotiations and unforeseen project delays. Before the project is completed, it is anticipated that a project budget increase and a revised project financing plan will be necessary. Funding for these overruns is being reviewed as part of area redevelopment plans which have far exceeded the original estimates of redevelopment activity. Land values are increasing by 1 % to 2% per month. Redevelopment of some parcels has tripled the appraised land value within an 18 -month period. While the construction costs have increased, they are necessary to accommodate the redevelopment and land cost increases in area value. When this project was started, Council was advised of the possibility of the increased cost, which would be paid back over time with the increase in land values. A revised project budget and project financing plan will be prepared in the very near future. At this time no change to the project budget is proposed. Staff fully expects that the increased costs will be easily offset by the redevelopment activities and additional tax base realized. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order Nos. 2 & 3, (Soil Stabilization Contract - Frattalone). Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Change Order Nos. 2 & 3 3. Location Map Agenda Item K6 RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (SOIL STABILIZATION CONTRACT) WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered the construction of County Road D Realignment East (T.H. 61 to Southlawn Dr.) City Project 02 -07, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 02 -07, Change Order Nos. 2 & 3 (Soil Stabilization — Frattalone Contact). 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 Nos. 2 & 3 in the amount of $283,787.12. The revised contract amount is $1,459,419.92. URS Copy City Copy Contractor Copy Copy CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA Project Name: County Road D Realignment— Surcharge Pond, Wetland Mitigation Project No. City Project 02 -07 Contractor: Frattalone Companies, Inc. Date: 6/29105 In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and Instructed to perform the Work as altered by the following provisions: The following contract items exceeded contract quantities. Poor soils were ten to twenty feet deeper than the soils report indicated. As a result of the deeper than anticipated poor soils, increased footage of wick drains and more fill material was necessary to achieve the required settlement to meet the proposed road grades. The excess amounts are to be removed from the contract and paid for under this change order. Item No. MnDOT No. Description Unit Unit Price Quantitv Amount 9 2105.522 Set. Gran. Borrow (LV) CY $6 95 5,168.00 S 35,917.60 10 2165.522 Set. Gran. Borrow Mod 5% (CV) CY $ 8.70 416.00 $ 1619.20 11 2105.523 Common Borrow (LV) CY $ 4.80 17,635.00 $ 84,648.00 13 2105.604 PV Wick Drains LF $ 0.37 16,800.00 $ 6216.00 TOTAL — CHANGE ORDER NO.2 $130,400.80 Contract Statu Cost Original Contract $ 1,116,861.91 Net Change of Prior Approved Change Order No. 1 $ 58,770.89 Approved Revised Contract: $ 1,175,632.80 Change this Change Order: $ 130,400.80 Possible Revised Contract: $1,306,033.60 Approval J layor Approval / Engineer 1 Agreed to by Contractor By / Its ' Title C.O. #2, Page I of I URS Copy City Copy CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 Contractor Copy DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Copy CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Project Name: County Road D Realignment — Surcharge Pond, Wetland Mitigation Project No. City Project 02 -07 Contractor: Frattalone Companies, Inc. Date: 6129105 In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the Work as altered by the toflowing provisions: Additional pond and wetland excavation work was required due to: 1) an inadvertent excavation volume calculation resulting in a deficient bid quantity (add 9,000 CY) and 2) revisions to the shape and size of ponds to accommodate an adjoining landowner (add 13,000 CY). The additional excavation caused a completion date later than was originally anticipated. This late completion date resulted in increased costs for materials, Tabor, disposal fees and equipment fuel. This change order provides compensation for all costs associated with the late completion and increased quantities of excavation work. The value of this extra work is $153,386.32. Contract Status Cost Original Contract $ 1,116,861.91 Net Change of Pri or Approved Change Order No. 1 $ 58,770.89 Approved Revised Contract: $ 1,175,632.80 Net Change of Prior Pending Change Order No. 2 $ 130,400.80 Change this Change Order: $ 153,386.32 Possible Revised Contract: $ 1,459,419.92 Approval YIa VUr Approval / Engineer Agreed to by Contractor By Its Title C.O. #3, Page t of 2 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Project Name: County Road D Realignment - Surcharge Pond, Wetland Mitigation Project No.: 02 -07 Contractor: Frattalone Companies, Inc. Qty Date: 6/29/05 Pond Excavation Items Unit QtV Unit Price Increase Extension Muck Ex. Pond -Cost Escalation for CY 3,995 $ 1.20 $ 4,794.00 Original Contract Quantity Remaining Picherel Weed Patch 119 $ 3.91 $ Muck Ex. Wetland -Cost Escalation for CY 3,965 $ 1.20 $ 4,758.00 Original Contract Quantity Remaining Blue Flag Patch 27 $ 3.72 $ Muck Excavation in Excess of Original CY 21,847 $ 5.50 $ 120,158.50 Contract Quantity Amount Paid Sweet Flag Patch 29 $ 3.72 $ Additional Dewatering Required LS 1 $1,700.00 $ 1,700.00 SUBTOTAL $ 131,410.50 C.O. #3, Page 2 of 2 Qty Unit Price Landscaping Items Unit Remaining Increase Extension Prairie Cordgrass Patch 431 $ 3.72 $ 1,603.32 Picherel Weed Patch 119 $ 3.91 $ 465.29 Yellow Water Lily Patch 225 $ 3.91 $ 879.75 Blue Flag Patch 27 $ 3.72 $ 100.44 Sedge Patch 178 $ 3.72 $ 662.16 Sweet Flag Patch 29 $ 3.72 $ 107.88 Green Bulrush Patch 81 $ 3.72 $ 301.32 Woolgrass Sedge Patch 94 $ 3.72 $ 349.68 Softstem Hedge Patch 28 $ 3.72 $ 104.16 Silt Fence LF 1,994 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Seeding Acre 4 $ 399.30 $ 1,597.20 Seed Mix 25B LB 121 $ 4.77 $ 577.17 Fertilizer 10 -0 -20 LB 804 $ 0.20 $ 160.80 Fertilizer 18 -6 -12 LB 253 $ 0.20 $ 50.60 Erosion Control Blanket, Category 4 SY 1,511 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Weed Barrier - 8 mil Polypropylene SY 4,767 $ 3.15 $ 15.016.05 SUBTOTAL $ 21,975.82 Change Order No. 3 TOTAL $ 153,386.32 C.O. #3, Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item K6 r W�o Of