HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 08-08 City Council PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, August 8th, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -16
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."
I11111�e1 > >:Z6P /ems 101rIIIki Dt9 *1
Minutes from the City Council Meeting -July 25, 2005
E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS
1 � � 81 • 1, 1-1 :1 :1 . Ill re[ H :I ,1. 7-11
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. Healtheast Tax - Exempt Bond Prepayment Request
3. Final Plat - Overview (Summer Place and McMenemy Street)
4. Final Plat - Heritage Square Fourth Addition (New County Road D, west of Highway 61)
5. Billing Agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services
6. Donation to Maplewood Police Reserves
7. Hazelwood Street Improvement, County Road C to Beam Ave., Project 01 -16 -
Resolution for Acceptance of Project
8. Legacy Village Lighting Improvement, Project 04 -23 - Acceptance of Project
9. Brad Camitsch - Ramsey County Sheriff's - Fright Farm on Ramsey County
Fairgrounds
10. Resolution Certifying Election Judges
17 411111[am71 *e1N1.[41
7:00 p.m. Volunteers of America (VOA) Bond Refinancing Request
AWARD OF BIDS
Phase One of Development of Applewood Park/Neighborhood Park Preserve
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
K. NEW BUSINESS
1. Proposed 2006 Budget
2. Water Surcharge Ordinance (First Reading)
3. County Road D Realignment East, City Project 02 -07 - Approve County Road D Pipe
Maintenance Agreement with Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District
4. Gladstone Redevelopment, City Project 04 -21 — Approve Resolution Ordering an
Alternative Urban Area wide Review (AUAR) for the Gladstone Area Redevelopment
Plan
5. Intoxicating Liquor License — TGI Friday's, 3087 White Bear Avenue North
6. Utility Easement Vacation (Heritage Square Fourth Addition)
7. Maplewood Business Center Landscape /Screening Plan (1616 Gervais Avenue)
8. The Woodlands of Maplewood (McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue)
a. Land Use Plan Change -R -1 (single - family residential) to R -2 (single and double
dwellings) (4 votes)
b. Zoning Map Change -F (farm residence) to R -2 (single and double dwellings)
c. Street right -of -way vacation (Edgemont Street, north of Kingston Avenue)
d. Conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD)
e. F'relimmary plat
f. Design Approval
9. Walgreens (White Bear and Beam Avenues)
a. Land Use Plan Change (LBC (limited business commercial) to BC (business
commercial) (4 votes)
b. Zoning Map Change -LBC (limited business commercial) to BC (business
commercial)
c. City Council Initiated Map Changes
1. Land Use Plan Change -LBC (limited business commercial) to BC (business
commercial)
2. Zoning Map Change -LBC (limited business commercial) to BC (business
commercial)
d. Design Approval
10. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility (south site — NW corner of
Highway 61 and Beam Avenue)
a. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Revision (for parking ramp and for motor
vehicle sales within 350 feet of residential district)
b. Setback variance for parking ramp from public right -of -way
C. Design Approval
11. Maplewood Toyota Expansion (north site — north of LaMettry's Collision -2923 Highway
61)
a. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor motor vehicle storage
b. Design Approval
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: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language.
DRAFT -- MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:04 P.M. Monday, July 25, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -15
FIN
Xe11111111111 teP] N 11:1 N
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
C
Robert Cardinal, Mayor
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember
Jackie Monahan - Junek, Councilmember
Will Rossbach. Councilmember
Others Present:
Public Works Director AN
City Attorney Kelly
Planner Roberts
Human Resource Director Le
Fire Chief Lukin
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Police Chief Lukin
Fire Chief Thomalla
Deputy Clerk Hansen
1. Minutes from the Council /Manager Workshop -July 11, 2005
Agenda Item D1
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the July 11, 2005
Council /Manager Workshop.
Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes-All
2. Minutes from the City Council Meeting -July 11, 2005
Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to approve the minutes form the July 11, 2005
City Council Meeting.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M1.
Code of Conduct
M2.
National Night Out
M3.
South Leg Group
M4.
Democratic Governance
Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to approve the agenda as presented
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05
F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamations- Girl Scout Gold Awards
a. Mayor Cardinal read the following proclamations of recognition for the Girl Scout
Gold Awards for: Chantel Boyer, Jennifer Ole, and Katherine Elicerio for their
hard work, dedication, and commitment in earning the Girl Scout Gold Award:
Proclamation
Whereas, the Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest award in Girl Scouting;
Whereas, to achieve this high honor, Girl Scouts must meet three prerequisites in the
areas of leadership, skill development and career exploration;
Whereas, Girl Scouts must also perform a significant leadership project that meets an
important community need;
Whereas, Chantel Boyer fulfilled these requirements by collecting and organizing
clothing, toys, books, and toiletries and personally delivered the items to Children's Haven
International, a children's home in Reynosa, Mexico;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Mayor Bob Cardinal, do hereby congratulate Chantel Boyer,
for her hard work, dedication, and commitment in earning the Girl Scout Gold Award.
Proclamation
Whereas, the Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest award in Girl Scouting;
Whereas, to achieve this high honor, Girl Scouts must meet three prerequisites in the
areas of leadership, skill development and career exploration;
Whereas, Girl Scouts must also perform a significant leadership project that meets an
important community need;
Whereas, Jennifer Ole fulfilled these requirements by collecting and organizing clothing,
toys, books, and toiletries and personally delivered the items to Children's Haven International,
a children's home in Reynosa, Mexico;
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Mayor Bob Cardinal, do hereby congratulate Jennifer Oie, for
her hard work, dedication, and commitment in earning the Girl Scout Gold Award.
Proclamation
Whereas, the Girl Scout Gold Award is the highest award in Girl Scouting;
Whereas, to achieve this high honor, Girl Scouts must meet three prerequisites in the
areas of leadership, skill development and career exploration;
Whereas, Girl Scouts must also perform a significant leadership project that meets an
important community need;
Whereas, Katherine Elicerio fulfilled these requirements by coordinating and recruiting
volunteers, which included 30 youth volunteers to organize and host two separate events; an
India Market Place Bazaar and a bake sale which supported the REACH Orphanage in India;
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Mayor Bob Cardinal, do hereby congratulate Katherine
Elicerio, for her hard work, dedication, and commitment in earning the Girl Scout Gold Award.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Claims
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 1,000.00 Checks # 67378
dated 7/6/05
$ 250,065.19 Checks # 67379 thru # 67432
dated 7/12/05
$ ,814,428.99 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 06/20/05 thru 07/07/05
$ 9,463.77 Checks # 67433 thru #67434
dated 07/12/05 thru 07/14/05
$ 395,107.32 Checks # 67435 thru #67482
dated 07/19/05
$ 129,329.89 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 07/08/05 thru 07/14/05
$ ,599,395.16 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated
$ 65,436.33 07/15/05
$ 2,676.75 Payroll Deduction check # 101965 thru # 101967
dated 07/15/05
$ 568,113.08 Total Payroll
$ 4,167,508.24 GRAND TOTAL
2. Resolution of Support — Livable Communities Grant Application (Gladstone Area
Redevelopment)
Adopted the following resolution showing the city council's intent to comply with
the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Program contract requirements
for the request $2,650,000 development front for capital improvement in the
Gladstone Neighborhood:
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05 3
RESOLUTION 05 -07 -115
IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND
AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS the City of Maplewood is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing
Incentives Program for 2005 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible
to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and
WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the
Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the
purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan
Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and
WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate
project administration; and
WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated
in the grant agreement; and
WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant
application submitted on June 30, 2005; and
WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are
intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or
prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore
represents that the proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be
replicated in other metropolitan -area communities; and
WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan
Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the
Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only
to eligible projects that would not occur "but for" the availability of Demonstration Account grant
funding.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due
consideration, the governing body of the City:
Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the
proposed project to occur at this particular time.
Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration
Account funding is sought:
(a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future; and
(b) will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities
Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time.
Authorizes its planning and engineering departments to submit on behalf of the City an
application for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant
funds for the project components identified in the application, and to execute such
agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City.
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05
3. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Review - Saint Paul Regional Water Services
McCarrons Plant (1900 Rice St.)
Approved to review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Regional Water
Services' campus at 1900 Rice Street again in one year.
4. Food Fee Waiver - Walking in Faith Christian Ministries
Approved the temporary food licenses and granted the fee waiver for Walking in
Faith Christian Ministries at 2385 Ariel Street North.
5. City Manager Salary Adjustment
Accepted the report for informational purposes regarding the City Manager
Salary Adjustment.
6. Temp - Seasonal - Casual PT Pay rates - Revised 2005
Adopted the following resolution for the 2005 revised pay rates for
temporary /seasonal, causal, part -time and paid per call employees:
RESOLUTION 05 -07 -116
WHEREAS, according to the Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations act, part -time
employees who do not work more than 14 hour per week and temporary /seasonal employees
who work in positions that do not exceed 67 days in a calendar year, or 100 days for full -time
students, are not public employees and are therefore not eligible for membership in a public
employee union.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following pay ranges and job
classifications are hereby established for temporary /seasonal and casual part -time (14 hours or
fewer /wk) employees effective August 1, 2005, upon Council approval.
Accountant
$10.00 -30.00
per hour
Accounting Technician
$9.00 -22.00
per hour
Administrative Assistant
$9.00 -20.00
per hour
Background Investigator
$25.00 -35.00
per hour
Building Inspector
$14.00 -35.00
per hour
Building Attendant
$6.15 -12.00
per hour
Clerk
$6.50 -11.00
per hour
Clerk- Typist
$8.50 -15.00
per hour
Customer Service Assistant
$6.15 -11.00
per hour
CSO
$8.00 -16.00
per hour
CSO /Paramedic
$12.00 -20.00
per hour
Data Entry Operator
$8.00 -12.00
per hour
Dispatcher
$15.00 -20.00
per hour
Election Judge
$6.50 -12.00
per hour
Election Judge - Assistant Chair
$7.00 -13.00
per hour
Election Precinct Chair
$7.50 -14.00
per hour
Engineering Aide
$7.00 -16.00
per hour
Engineering Technician
$10.00 -16.00
per hour
Fire Department Custodian
$575 -690
per quarter
Firefighter- Paid - Per -Call
$8.00- $14.29
per call /run
$18.00
per drill
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05
Intern
$6.50 -20.00
per hour
IT Technician
$15.00 -20.00
per hour
Laborer
$6.50 -12.00
per hour
Lifeguard
$6.15 -14.00
per hour
Receptionist
$7.50 -11.00
per hour
Recreation Instructor /Leader
$6.15 -30.00
per hour
Recreation Official
$6.15 -25.00
per hour
Recreation Worker
$6.15 -18.00
per hour
Secretary
$9.00 -21.00
per hour
Theater Technician
$20.00 -30.00
per hour
Vehicle Technician
$9.00 -15.00
per hour
Video Coordinator*
$11.00 -19.00
per hour
Video Technician*
$10.00 -18.00
per hour
Water Safety Instructor (WSI)
$7.50 -14.00
per hour
WSI & Head Lifeguard Differential
$1.00
per hour
(Lifeguards or WS Is working as Head
Lifeguards; Lifeguards working as WSIs)
*Video positions shall be paid a guaranteed minimum flat fee of $50 for 4 hours or less.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager shall have the authority to set the
pay rate within the above ranges.
English Street Landscape Improvements, City Project 01 -14 — Acceptance of
Project
Adopted the following resolution for Acceptance of the project:
RESOLUTION 05 -07 -117
ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the English
Street Landscape Improvements, City Project 01 -14, are complete and recommends
acceptance of the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that City Project 01 -14 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is
accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized.
County Road D Realignment West, City Project 02 -08 — Modification of
Construction Contract, (Palda Contract), Change Orders 6 and 7
Adopted the following resolution directing the modification of the existing
construction contract. Change Order Nos. 6 and 7 (Palda Contract), for the
County Road D West Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street):
RESOLUTION 05 -07 -118
DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 02 -08, CHANGE ORDER NOS. 6 AND 7
(Palda Contract)
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made
Improvement Project 02 -08, County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to
Walter Street), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that
said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 02 -08, Change Order Nos. 6
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05
and 7, (Palda Contract), as an increase to said contract by an amount of $8,743.72, such that
the new contract amount is now and hereby established as $729,219.45.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the
City of Maplewood to signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said
Change Order Nos. 6 and 7, (Palda Contract), as a contract increase in the amount of
$8,743.72. The revised contract amount is $729,219.45.
No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time, as these changes fall
within the original project scope and budget.
County Road D Realignment West, City Project 02 -08 — Modification of
Construction Contract, (T. A. Schifsky Contract), Change Order 1
Adopted the following resolution directing the modification of the existing
construction contract, Change Order No. 1 (T.A. Schifsky Contract), for the
County Road D West Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02 -08:
RESOLUTION 05 -07 -119
DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
PROJECT 02 -08, CHANGE ORDER No. 1
(T.A. Schifsky Contract)
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made
Improvement Project 02 -08, County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to
Walter Street), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that
said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 02 -08, Change Order No. 1,
(T.A. Schifsky Contract), as an increase to said contract by an amount of $14,050.00, such that
the new contract amount is now and hereby established as $682,212.93
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the
City of Maplewood to signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said
Change Order No. 1 as a contract increase in the amount of $14,050.00. The revised contract
amount is $$682,212.93.
No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time, as these changes
fall within the original project scope and budget.
Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to approve the consent agenda items 1 -9 as
submitted.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All
17 411111[am71 *e1N1.[41
None
AWARD OF BIDS
T.H. 61, County Road D Court and T. H. 61 East Frontage Road Improvements, City
Projects 03 -07, 04 -06 and 04 -25 — Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding
Construction Contract
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. City Engineer AN presented specifics from the report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution awarding a
construction contract for the TH 61 Improvements, the County Road D Court
Improvements, and the TH 61 East Frontage Road improvements to Schafer
Contracting Co., Inc. in the amount of $1,665,169.43:
RESOLUTION 05 -07 -120
AWARD OF BIDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on April 25, 2005,
for advertising for bid for TH 61 Improvements, County Road D Court , and TH 61 East
Frontage Road, Projects 03 -07, 04 -06, and 04 -25, bids were received and opened on
July 22, 2005 at 10:00 am and tabulated according to law,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA,
1. The bid of Schafer Contracting Co., Inc. in the amount of $1,655,169.43 is
the lowest responsible bid for the construction of TH 61 Improvements, County
Road D Court, and TH 61 East Frontage Road, Projects 03 -07, 04 -06, and 04-
25.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter
into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the city.
Seconded by Councilmember Monahan -Junek Ayes-All
2. 2005 Bituminous Seal Coat, City Project 05 -21 -Award of Construction Contract
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. City Engineer AN presented specifics from the report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to award a contract for the 2005 Bituminous Seal
Coat Project, City Project 05 -21, to Pearson Brothers, based on the low bid of
$112,447.50.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Interstate 94 Improvements (McKnight to Century), City Project 03 -12 —
Resolution Authorizing Noise Berm Improvements
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. City Engineer AN presented specifics from the report.
C. The following persons were heard:
Theresa Gunderson, 131 Crestview Drive North, Maplewood
Don Disselkamp, 188 Crestview Drive North, Maplewood
Theresa Gunderson, 131 Crestview Drive North, Maplewood (second
appearance)
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05
Don Disselkamp, 188 Crestview Drive North, Maplewood (second appearance)
Dee Oliveira, 200 Crestview Drive, Maplewood
Kris Bergk, 215 Crestview Drive, Maplewood
Terry Degraw, Board of Trustees, Christ Methodist Church
Brad McCormick, 230 Crestview Drive North, Maplewood
Jean Ashley 2466 Brookview Drive, Maplewood
Councilmember Koppen moved adopt the following resolution to construct a noise
berm as part of the street reconstruction oroaram for the Brookview Area Streets
beginning in the 2008 and extend the height of the berm a high as possible
(approximately 9 additional feet) the entire length from the western end to the
existing MnDOT berm near the Crestview Drive to the existing noise wall at Sterling
Street:
RESOLUTION 05 -07 -121
AUTHORIZING NOISE BERM IMPROVEMENTS
INTERSTATE 94 IMPROVEMENTS
McKNIGHT ROAD TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 120
City Project 03 -12
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation requested and the City of
Maplewood granted approval for Municipal Consent for the improvement of Interstate 94
between McKnight Road and Trunk Highway 120 within the corporate boundaries of the City of
Maplewood, and
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood did conduct a Public Hearing on July 12, 2004 for the
purpose of considering said request by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and
WHEREAS, said Public Hearing was preceded by mailed notice to all properties with an
interest in said improvement, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that additional noise mitigation efforts can be
accomplished for approximately an additional $16,000 if completed as part of the planned
Brookview Area Streets Project planned to begin in 2008, and
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council has heard all testimony from individuals and
residents on this proposed improvement.
NOW. THEREFORE. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MAPLEWOOD, that:
1. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to proceed with a noise mitigation project as
part of the Brookview Area Streets project to begin in 2008.
2. The Berm shall be constructed as recommended by the City Engineer to extend at full
height from Crestview Drive to the existing wall at Sterling Street.
3. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to add this improvement consideration to the
next available update of the Capital Improvements Plan.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All
No gap and as far west to the loop as possible
2. Approval to Purchase 800 MHz Dispatch Equipment
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05
Police Chief Thomalla presented specifics from the report.
C. Fire Chief Lukin answered council questions.
City Attorney Kelly clarified the procedure for reconsideration of a motion.
City Manager Fursman recommended brining the county to the city council to
answer specific "unanswered questions."
Mayor Cardinal and council would like to meet with Scott Williams and his
technical assistant specifically.
Mayor Cardinal
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All
A five minute break was taken
Sign Ordinance member Koppen Amendment — Political Signs (Second Reading)
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the second reading of the following
ordinance amending the city's sign code pertaining to the size, number, and
placement of political signs:
ORDINANCE 863
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:
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05 10
(a) For local elections and referendums, political campaign signs may be posted from
August 1" until ten (10) days following said election or referendum.
(b) 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.
(c) In a state general election year, the size, number, and duration of political
campaign sign displays shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statute
211.6.045, and nothing in this chapter shall be construed as applicable except location
restrictions.
(d) 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.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes - Councilmembers Rossbach,
Juenemann and Monahan -Junek
Nay - Councilmember Koppen
Abstain -Mayor Cardinal
K. NEW BUSINESS
Jensen Estates Preliminary Plat (Hoyt Avenue, east McKnight Road)
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report.
C. Commission Pearson presented the Planning Commission Report
d. The following person was heard:
Tim Greeninger, 2289 Hoyt Ave. East, Maplewood
Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to approve the Jensen Estates preliminary plat
(received by the city on June 7, 2005). 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:
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:
(1) all utility and drainage easements.
(2) ten - foot -wide drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05 11
each lot and five - foot -wide drainage and utility easements along the side lot
lines of each lot.
(3) Any off -site easements.
(4) All wetland buffer easements for all wetlands and their buffers on the site.
e. Have Xcel Energy install a street light at the north end of Hoyt Avenue near Lots 7
and 8. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's
approval.
f. Demolish or remove the existing house (1560 McKnight Road), garages and sheds
from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, scrap metal, debris and junk
from the site.
g.Cap and seal all wells on site and remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to
Minnesota rules and guidelines.
h.Complete all curb on Hoyt Avenue and restore the boulevards on the south side of the
site. This is to replace the existing temporary cul -de -sac, and restore and sod the
boulevards.
2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street
plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin
Laberee dated June 22, 2005 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 preliminary plat.
(2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. This
plan shall account for the existing grades and elevations of the properties and the
houses that are adjacent to the project site.
(3) Show house pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save
large trees. Revise the plan for Lot 4 so the developer and contractor can save the
tree near the south property line (# 265 on the tree inventory) and for Lots 6 and 7
to save additional 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.
(c) Shows the spruce trees to be planted as a mix of black hills spruce or Austrian
pines that are at least eight feet tall.
(d) The planting of at least eight, eight- foot -tall black hills spruce or Austrian pines
along the south side of Lot 4 to provide some screening for the house at 2289
Hoyt Avenue. This screening shall be at least 80 percent opaque for at least
six feet in height. The final planting shall be subject to city staff approval.
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05 12
(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 and shall ensure that there is no additional run -off
from this property onto neighboring properties.
(7) Show all proposed slopes. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications
and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper
than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement stabilization and planting plan.
At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood -fiber blanket, be seeded
with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the
final plat.
(8) Show all retaining walls. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building
permit from the city.
(9) Show the sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed
district or by the city engineer.
(10) Show no grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements
from the affected property owner(s).
(11) Be revised to lessen the amount of grading on the northern part of Lots Six and
Seven to help save trees on these two lots.
(12) Be revised to show the trail between Lots 6 and 7 from the cul -de -sac to the
property to the north.
c. The street, driveway, trail and utility plans shall show:
(1) The street with a width of 32 feet (with parking on one side), shall be a 9 -ton design
with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within
75 feet of the intersection at two percent.
(2) The new street (Hoyt Avenue) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except
where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is not necessary.
(3) The completion of the curb on all of Hoyt Avenue, the removal of the temporary
cul -de -sac and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards.
(4) The repair of McKnight Road (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer
connects to the public utilities and builds the new street.
(5) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and
requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS).
(6) All utility excavation located within the proposed right -of -way or within easements.
The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the
project area.
(7) A water service to each lot.
(8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(9) A detail of any ponds, pond outlets or rainwater gardens. The contractor shall
protect the outlets to prevent erosion.
(10) The cul -de -sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet.
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05 13
(11) A label for McKnight Road and the new street as Hoyt Avenue on all
construction and project plans.
(12) The eight- foot -wide trail between the cul -de -sac and the property to the north.
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
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 new street as Hoyt Avenue and label McKnight Road on all plans.
c. Show a 20- foot -wide outlot or trail easement between Lots 6 and 7 between the cul -de-
sac and the north property line. This outlot or easement shall follow the approved trail
alignment.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including wetland and
wetland buffer easements and any off -site drainage and utility easements.
6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site
drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that
the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
7. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District for grading.
8. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or
contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage and ponding areas, install all retaining
walls, install the landscaping and replacement trees, install all other necessary
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide for the repair of McKnight Road (street, curb and boulevard) after the
developer connects to the public utilities.
d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer.
e. Plant at least two trees per lot after the grading is complete.
f. Provide wetland and wetland buffer easements and signs for each of the wetlands.
9. If there are any, submit the homeowners' association documents for review and approval
by city staff. These shall include provisions for the maintenance and use of the rainwater
gardens.
10. Record the homeowners' association documents with the final plat.
11. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for the new street access.
12. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
13. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, garage
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05 14
and the other structures from the property at 1560 McKnight Road.
14. 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 Juenemann Ayes-All
2. Roselawn Avenue (Rice to I -35E) Traffic Issues — Receive Resident Petition and
Consider Study to Monitor Impacts
City Manager Fursman presented the report
City Engineer AN presented the report
Councilmember Koppen moved to authorize the City Engineer to retain a traffic
consultant at a cost not to exceed $12,000 to investigate and monitor impacts of traffic
along Roselawn Avenue between Rice Street and 1 -35E, and the City Engineer shall
report back to the City Council before the second meeting of October 2005.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All
L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
I1 *y=1, III reNI[•],I
Code of Conduct - Councilmember Monahan -Junek felt everyone could stand to benefit if
every councilmember would review the Code of Conduct.
National Night Out - Councilmember Juenemann reminded everyone Tuesday, August 2
is National Night Out. The city's National Night Out hotline number is 651- 249 -2192.
South Leg Group - Councilmember Rossbach noted the next meeting will be held on
August 18` with the main topic being: A Tour of the Fire Station and How the Fire
Department and EMS work together.
Democratic Governance - Regarding Democratic Governance, Councilmember Rossbach
asked what it would take to convince council to "take the first step ?" Councilmember
Monahan -Junek would like to see a short presentation highlighting key points, as would
Juenemann but in the form of a brief precise agenda report. Councilmember Koppen's
concerns included lack of public participation.
City Manager Fursman volunteered to bring in a speaker and organize a council
workshop on Democratic Governance.
City Tour - Planner Roberts reminded council and staff of the City Tour on Thursday, July
28, 2005. Councilmember Rossbach commented he would be at the Ramsey County
meeting regarding 800 MHz and Dispatch and hoped a couple staff members would also
be attending.
N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05 15
None
O. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Koppen moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All
City Council Meeting 07 -25 -05 16
AGENDA NO. G -1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Finance Director
RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
DATE: August 8, 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:
$ 538,502.92
Checks # 67483 thru # 67550
dated 07/26/05
$ 317,581.19
Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 07/15/05 thru 07/21/05
$ 1,015,723.26
Checks # 67551 thru # 67614
dated 8/02/05
$ 1,150,928.96
Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 07/22/05 thru 07/29/05
$ 3,022,736.33
Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$ 465,815.50 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 7/29/05
$ 200.00 Payroll Deduction check # 102095 thru # 102095
dated 7/29/05
$ 466,015.50 Total Payroll
$ 3,488,751.83 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 07 -22 and 07 -29
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
07/22/2005 City of Maplewood
Check
Date
Vendor
Description /Account
Amount
67483
7/26/2005
00014 AT&T
MANAGED INTERNET SRV - JUN
1,013.60
67484
7/26/2005
02780 ACTIVE NETWORK INC, THE
RECWARE SAFARI ANNUAL MAINT
9,288.00
67485
7/26/2005
01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF
WIDE AREA NETWORK - MAY
392.00
67486
7/26/2005
02106 ADVANCED BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC
HP COLOR LASER PRINTER
425.00
67487
7/26/2005
00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC
PATROL & BOARDING FEES 7/1 -
884.70
67488
7/26/2005
00159 BARTZ, PAUL
REIMB FOR SUPPLIES
10.68
67489
7/26/2005
01936 BERGO, CHAD
REIMB FOR MILEAGE -JUN
74.02
67490
7/26/2005
01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC
MERCH FOR RESALE
270.00
MERCH FOR RESALE
216.00
MERCH FOR RESALE
216.00
67491
7/26/2005
03090 BIG DOLLAR STORE, THE
NNO ICE CREAM SCOOPS
45.18
67492
7/26/2005
00261 CAREFREE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOOD
FUND 418 TAX INCREMENT (90 %)
46,658.84
67493
7/26/2005
00261 CAREFREE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOOD
FUND 416 TAX INCREMENT
23,746.05
67494
7/26/2005
00261 CAREFREE COTTAGES OF MAPLEWOOD
FUND 417 TAX INCREMENT
19,637.93
67495
7/26/2005
00279 GEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO.
CONCRETE FOR WBA
816.32
CONCRETE FOR WBA
1,088.43
67496
7/26/2005
00494 CHILDREN HOME & FAMILY SERVICE
MAPLEWOOD YOUTH DIVERSION
3,526.08
67497
7/26/2005
00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES
ADV EFFECTIVE MGMT BOOKS
107.35
67498
7/26/2005
03432 DRISCOLL BROTHERS LLC
REF GRADING ESC - 1289
1,000.00
67499
7/26/2005
03430 ERICKSON ENTERPRISES
REMOVE ASBESTOS - 1900
13,100.00
67500
7/26/2005
01973 ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC
CAR WASHES - JUN
80.00
67501
7/26/2005
00487 F.M. FRATTALONE EXC INC
PROJ 02 -07 COUNTY RD D PYMT
141,665.82
67502
7/26/2005
03097 FIRST LANDMARK BUILDERS, INC.
REF GRADING ESC - 950 EDITH ST
500.00
67503
7/26/2005
00519 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO.
SEWER RODS WITH COUPLINGS
2,226.38
67504
7/26/2005
03365 FRANZEN, NICK
REIMB INTERNET& MILEAGE 5/6-
66.44
67505
7/26/2005
00585 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL
NET BILLABLE TICKETS - JUN
934.65
67506
7/26/2005
01965 HEALTH PARTNERS
REF HEALTH PARTNERS - AMB
634.40
67507
7/26/2005
00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC
PROJ 04 -35 CLEAR STORM SWR
2,130.00
PROJ 03 -18 TREE TRIMMING
532.50
67508
7/26/2005
01605 IFP TEST SERVICES INC
PSYCH EXAM FOR POLICE
350.00
67509
7/26/2005
00779 K D HOMES INC
REF GRADING ESC - 684
1,131.10
67510
7/26/2005
02728 KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS THRU 6/30
3,481.50
PROJ 03 -22 PROF SRVS THRU 6/30
402.22
PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS THRU 6/30
7,165.59
PROJ 05 -07 PROF SRVS THRU 6/30
9,570.45
67511
7/26/2005
00827 L M C I T
WORKERS COMPENSATION INS
57,713.25
67512
7/26/2005
00827 L M C I T
CLAIM DEDUCTIBLE 11037845
34,330.30
67513
7/26/2005
00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY
BIRTHDAY PROGRAM CAKES
15.25
BIRTHDAY PROGRAM CAKE
15.25
67514
7/26/2005
00945 MASYS CORP
STRATUS SOFTWARE MAINT - AUG
738.68
67515
7/26/2005
00983 METRO SALES INC
RICOH SCANNER REPAIR
492.77
67516
7/26/2005
01126 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE
PERA LIFE INS (PAYROLL DED IN
300.00
67517
7/26/2005
03369 MOUNDS PARK ACADEMY
REF GRADING ESC - 2051
9,597.23
67518
7/26/2005
01149 NATURAL RESOURCES RESTOR INC
CUT REED CANARY GRASS &
686.93
67519
7/26/2005
01175 NORTH ST PAUL, CITY OF
MONTHLY UTILITIES
2,834.46
67520
7/26/2005
01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC
LOCK -IN BROCHURE
372.75
CITY NEWSLETTER - JUL
2,281.00
67521
7/26/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REIMB ALICIA NELSON- PROJ 04 -15
1,504.44
67522
7/26/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF PAMELA OMAN -AMB
617.87
67523
7/26/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF JESSICA FODOR - MCC
479.20
2
vchlist Check Register Page: 2
07/22/2005 City of Maplewood
Check Date Vendor Descriotion /Account Amount
67524
7/26/2005
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF KRISTIE ZELLMER- MCC
110.00
67525
7/26/2005
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF LORI STAFFORD - PARKS
50.00
67526
7/26/2005
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF LENI ZIAN - NC PROGRAM
3.00
67527
7/26/2005
01254
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
MERCH FOR RESALE
612.20
67528
7/26/2005
02563
PHILLIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS
LITHIUM ION BATTERY MODULE
294.21
67529
7/26/2005
01336
RAI NBOW FOODS
NNO SUPPLIES
2,059.49
67530
7/26/2005
01337
RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV
PLANTS, TREE, & SHRUBS
293.41
67531
7/26/2005
01346
RAMSEY- WASHINGTON METRO DIST
LAKE PHALEN RESTORATION
120.00
67532
7/26/2005
01359
REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL XX
CAR WASHES - JUN
81.84
67533
7/26/2005
01360
REINHART FOODSERVICE
MERCH FOR RESALE
549.17
67534
7/26/2005
01025
REVENUE, MN DEPT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE FEE
111.85
67535
7/26/2005
02001
ROSEVILLE, CITY OF
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT MIS-
625.00
67536
7/26/2005
01430
SCHROEDER MILK COMPANY, INC.
FUND 426 TAX INCREMENT
11,204.41
67537
7/26/2005
01434
SCREEN TECH
LETTERING ON UTILITY TRUCK
180.00
67538
7/26/2005
01466
SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
SPORTING EVENT PROGRAM
1,964.80
67539
7/26/2005
03124
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTL
MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LIC
34,040.81
67540
7/26/2005
01504
ST PAUL, CITY OF
PROGRAMMING FOR ENV UTILITY
1,203.89
RADIO SERVICE & MAINT- JUN
186.54
RECORD MGMT SOFTWARE FEES -
3,798.00
EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPER
1,150.00
HYDRANT & WATER USAGE - 2ND
1,139.23
67541
7/26/2005
01557
SUPERIOR FORD
2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA- INV
20,759.00
2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA-
20,715.00
67542
7/26/2005
01574
T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS
33.95
VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS
260.35
BASE MATERIALS FOR WBA
265.82
67543
7/26/2005
03431
TRI -ANIM HEALTH SERVICES INC
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
559.29
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
458.35
MEDICAL SUPPLIES
151.41
67544
7/26/2005
03194
VERNIX FORESTRY CONSULTANTS
TREE INSPECTIONS
1,895.14
67545
7/26/2005
03101
VRUNO & WILLIAMS CONST INC
SURVEY AND SAMPLES
475.00
67546
7/26/2005
01734
WALSH, WILLIAM P.
COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP
353.47
67547
7/26/2005
01750
WATSON CO INC, THE
MERCH FOR RESALE
390.58
MERCH FOR RESALE
270.90
67548
7/26/2005
03428
WEGLEITNER, JOHN
YOUTH SOFTBALL UMPIRE 7/14
12.00
67549
7/26/2005
03374
WILD ONES NATURAL LANDSCAPERS
2005 CONFERENCE
100.00
2005 CONFERENCE
105.00
2005 CONFERENCE
115.00
67550
7/26/2005
01190
XCEL ENERGY
MONTHLY UTILITIES
26,438.20
68 Checks
in this report
Total checks :
538,502.92
3
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/08/05
07/14/05
07/15/05
07/15/05
07/15/05
07/15/05
07/18/05
07/15/05
07/12/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/18/05
07/15/05
07/15/05
07/15/05
07/15/05
07/15/05
07/18/05
07/18/05
07/18/05
07/19/05
07/19/05
07/19/05
07/19/05
07/20/05
07/21/05
07/21/05
MN State Treasurer
ICMA (Vantagepointe)
MN Dept of Revenue
MN Dept of Natural Resources
Orchard Trust
MN State Treasurer
U.S. Treasurer
P.E.R.A.
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
MN Dept of Revenue
Pitney Bowes
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
ARC Administration
TOTAL
Description
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Deferred Compensation
MN Care Tax
DNR electronic licenses
Deferred Compensation
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Federal Payroll Tax
P.E.R.A.
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
State Payroll Tax
Sales Tax
Postage
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
DCRP & Flex plan payments
Amount
12,453.68
8,859.10
4,184.55
580.00
24,868.00
12, 257.19
121, 583.48
52,756.62
14,726.32
22,928.54
9,138.00
2,985.00
17, 287.48
12, 286.46
686.77
317,581.19
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
07/29/2005 City of Maplewood
Check
Date
Vendor
Description /Account
Amount
67551
8/2/2005
00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC
PATROL & BOARDING FEES 7/12 -
517.94
67552
8/2/2005
03437 ARTHUR J GALLAGHER RISK
AGENT FEE 05 -06
8,500.00
67553
8/2/2005
03375 ASHBY, MARK
POLICE IMPOUND LOT LEASE -
1,000.00
67554
8/2/2005
00174 BELDE,STAN
K -9 MAINTENANCE -AUG
35.00
67555
8/2/2005
02914 BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF MN
MONTHLY PREMIUM - AUG
124,686.00
67556
8/2/2005
00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
MONTHLY WATER UTILITIES
2,333.37
67557
8/2/2005
00096 BP /AMOCO OIL COMPANY
FUEL
66.01
67558
8/2/2005
01922 BREHEIM, ROGER
CELL PHONE REIMB -AUG
15.00
67559
8/2/2005
02711 BREITBACH, GARY
REIMB FOR BULBS & CONNECTOR
613.86
67560
8/2/2005
00272 CARVER, NICHOLAS
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 7/20 -22
121.50
67561
8/2/2005
00279 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO.
CONCRETE FOR WBA
570.84
CONCRETE FOR WBA
979.59
67562
8/2/2005
00283 CENTURY COLLEGE
FIRE FIGHTER TUITION
630.45
67563
8/2/2005
02929 CNAGLAC
LONG TERM CARE INS - AUG
907.04
67564
8/2/2005
00327 CONVERSE, STEVE
YOUTH SOFTBALL TOURN UMPIRE
150.00
67565
8/2/2005
00340 CRAMER BUILDING SERVICES
SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE -3RD
2,132.50
67566
8/2/2005
00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS
COPIER LEASE - JUL
511.20
67567
8/2/2005
03440 DELMEDICO MACHINE SHOP INC
CUTTER SHAFT REPAIRED
399.38
67568
8/2/2005
00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES
MGMT PROGRAM BOOKS
107.35
67569
8/2/2005
00463 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT
REPAIR AIR
478.22
REPAIR DIVE 3
216.65
REPAIR ENGINE 1
972.86
REPAIR FIRE ENGINE 2
973.42
REPAIR ENGINE 3
952.70
REPAIR ENGINE 4
902.31
REPAIR GRASS RIG 4
230.62
REPAIR LADDER 1
885.16
REPAIR RESCUE 1
898.01
REPAIR ENGINE 7
989.55
REPAIR RESCUE 2
912.86
REPAIR RESCUE 3
903.77
REPAIR RESCUE 7
970.70
REPAIR UTILITY 3
144.26
REPAIR AMB MEDIC 1
278.02
REPAIR RESCUE 2
3,362.62
67570
8/2/2005
01401 FIRST STUDENT INC
BUS TO OAKDALE WATERSLIDE
150.00
BUS TO NC & SHOREVIEW WTRPK
304.35
BUS TO TARGET CTR 7/13
260.25
67571
8/2/2005
02071 FISHER, DAVID
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 4/7 TO 5/26
55.49
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/2 - 7/22
174.15
67572
8/2/2005
00529 FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO
MONTHLY LTD PREMIUM
2,313.50
67573
8/2/2005
00531 FRA -DOR BLACK DIRT & RECYCLE
BLACK DIRT
62.30
67574
8/2/2005
00589 GRAF, DAVE
KARATE INSTRUCTOR - JUL
74.75
67575
8/2/2005
03438 HAGGERTY, KATIE
STAFF FITNESS WORKSHOP 7/23
150.00
67576
8/2/2005
03155 HIBBERD, JOSEPH H
POOL INSPECTIONS
985.00
67577
8/2/2005
00668 HIEBERT, STEVEN
K -9 MAINTENANCE -AUG
35.00
67578
8/2/2005
02728 KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS THRU 6/30
6,141.43
PROJ 04 -23 PROF SRVS THRU
917.85
PROJ 05 -10 PROF SRVS THRU 6/30
5,904.19
67579
8/2/2005
00821 KVAM, DAVID
REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS
869.00
67580
8/2/2005
01599 LODMILL, SUZANNE
DRAMA CLASS INSTRUCTOR - JUN
1,950.00
5
vchlist Check Register Page: 2
07/29/2005 City of Maplewood
Check Date Vendor Descriotion /Account Amount
67581
8/2/2005
03441
LOR, FONG
HMONG FOOD VENDOR TRNG
82.50
67582
8/2/2005
00896
M C M A
MEMBERSHIP DUES THRU 4/30/06
114.27
MEMBERSHIP DUES THRU 4/30/06
102.44
67583
8/2/2005
01819
MCLEOD USA
LOCAL PHONE SRV 6/16 - 7/15
2,068.12
67584
8/2/2005
02872
METLIFE SBC
MONTHLY DENTAL PREMIUM
9,454.11
67585
8/2/2005
00977
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
SOFTBALLS
514.29
67586
8/2/2005
00985
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
WASTEWATER -AUG
185,478.30
67587
8/2/2005
01018
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
PAWN SHOP - JUN
635.00
67588
8/2/2005
01085
MN LIFE INSURANCE
MONTHLY PREMIUM
3,909.70
67589
8/2/2005
01089
MN UC FUND
QUATERLY UNEMPLOYMENT
2,944.17
67590
8/2/2005
02150
NAMEBANK DIRECT MAIL
MAILING LIST & LABELS
184.74
67591
8/2/2005
01160
NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS
SIGNS
2,039.51
67592
8/2/2005
03439
NEXT MEDIA
ADVERTISING
1,250.00
67593
8/2/2005
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REIMB JULIE SCHMIDT - PR #01 -04
2,000.00
67594
8/2/2005
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REF M SANDQUIST - CLASS
105.00
67595
8/2/2005
01560
ONYX WASTE SRVS MIDWEST INC
REYCLING - JUN
18,731.44
67596
8/2/2005
01941
PATRICK GRAPHICS & TROPHIES
TROPHIES FOR ADULT SOFTBALL
222.90
67597
8/2/2005
03151
PETTY CASH
REPLENISH PETTY CASH
248.68
67598
8/2/2005
03442
PRO - CONTRACTING & SERVICES INC
PROJ 03 -26 IRRIGATION SYS
2,500.00
67599
8/2/2005
01340
REGIONS HOSPITAL
PARAMEDIC PROGRAM SUPPLIES
106.75
67600
8/2/2005
01387
ROSSINI, DR. JAMES
FITNESS PROGRAM ADMIN FEE -
100.00
67601
8/2/2005
01393
RUMPCA COMPANIES INC
MULCH
452.63
67602
8/2/2005
01409
S.E.H.
MARKHAM POND - PROF SRVS -
1,052.48
PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS - MAY
14,898.14
PROJ 05 -03 PROF SRVS - MAY
7,634.80
PROJ 04 -22 PROF SRVS - MAY
10,177.76
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS - MAY
1,119.68
NPDES PHASE II MONTHLY SRV
245.00
67603
8/2/2005
01418
SAM'S CLUB DIRECT
PROGRAM SUPPLIES
79.32
PROGRAM SUPPLIES
20.91
MERCH FOR RESALE
161.98
MERCH FOR RESALE
308.07
MERCH FOR RESALE
79.78
PROGRAM SUPPLIES
57.63
MERCH FOR RESALE
74.25
MERCH FOR RESALE
235.51
67604
8/2/2005
03398
SHAMROCK GROUP
MERCH FOR RESALE
261.00
67605
8/2/2005
01463
SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE
MASSAGES - JUN
2,177.00
67606
8/2/2005
01504
ST PAUL, CITY OF
TRAINING
250.00
67607
8/2/2005
02981
STORK TWIN CITY TESTING CORP
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SERVICES
1,710.00
67608
8/2/2005
02853
SVENDSEN, JOANNE
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 6/6 - 7/26
8.59
67609
8/2/2005
01572
SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC.
INK CARTRIDGES
164.86
67610
8/2/2005
01574
T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
PROJ 04 -15 GLADSTONE NO
543,763.83
67611
8/2/2005
02069
ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC
PROJ 04 -15 TELEVISING SEWER
330.00
PROJ 04 -15 TELEVISING SEWER
385.00
67612
8/2/2005
01734
WALSH, WILLIAM P.
COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP
874.20
67613
8/2/2005
02410
WELLS FARGO LEASING INC
RICOH COPIER LEASE 7/9 - 8/9
1,467.57
67614
8/2/2005
01190
XCEL ENERGY
MONTHLY UTILITIES
16,245.33
64 Checks
in this report
Total checks :
1,015,723.26
M
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee
07/21/05
07/08/05
07/22/05
07/21/05
07/22/05
07/22/05
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/29/05
07/22/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/28/05
07/22/05
07/22/05
07/22/05
07/22/05
07/22/05
07/25/05
07/26/05
07/27/05
07/28/05
07/28/05
07/28/05
07/29/05
07/29/05
07/29/05
MN State Treasurer
MN Dept of Revenue
Wells Fargo
MN Dept of Natural Resources
Federal Reserve Bank
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
Orchard Trust
Elan Financial Services*
MN State Treasurer
ICMA (Vantagepointe)
MN Dept of Natural Resources
TOTAL
Description
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Fuel Tax
Investment purchase
DNR electronic licenses
Savings Bonds
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Deferred Compensation
Purchasing card items
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Deferred Compensation
DNR electronic licenses
Amount
11, 866.25
271.80
979,791.67
623.00
100.00
10,157.86
14,443.23
20, 615.69
17,157.27
24, 844.00
48,255.56
13, 305.53
8,709.10
788.00
1,150, 928.96
*Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached.
Transaction Review 7/25/2005
For Transactions posted between 07/09/2005 to 07/22/2005
Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name
07/11/2005
VERIZON WRLS I2KW
61.90 R CHARLES AHL
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
176.73 BRUCE KANDERSON
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
557.59 BRUCE KANDERSON
07/11/2005
DPMS INC
746.53 SCOTT ANDREWS
07/15/2005
REMINGTON ARMS CO INC
539.08 SCOTTANDREWS
07/18/2005
BROWNELLS INC
112.17 SCOTTANDREWS
07/11/2005
ORIENTAL TRADING CO
139.20 MANDY ANZALDI
07/11/2005
1 PARTY SUPPLIES
150.60 MANDY ANZALDI
07/11/2005
MENARDS 3059
4.26 MANDY ANZALDI
07/11/2005
ORIENTAL TRADING CO
83.75 MANDY ANZALDI
07/14/2005
RAINBOW FOODS 00088526
47.06 MANDY ANZALDI
07/14/2005
SUPER-AMERICA 4089
2.66 MANDY ANZALDI
07/21/2005
1 PARTY SUPPLIES
10.13 MANDY ANZALDI
07/11/2005
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC
180.11 JOHN BANICK
07/11/2005
AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 154
821.47 JOHN BANICK
07/11/2005
EAT INC
2,225.62 JOHN BANICK
07/12/2005
AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 302
821.47 JOHN BANICK
07/15/2005
SHRED -IT
89.91 JOHN BANICK
07/20/2005
MN PHOTO
6.32 JOHN BANICK
07/11/2005
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
29.11 JIM BEHAN
07/11/2005
BAY WEST, INC.
1,864.45 JIM BEHAN
07/12/2005
PARK SUPPLY INC
104.64 JIM BEHAN
07/13/2005
VERIZON WRLS I2KW
45.40 JIM BEHAN
07/18/2005
AQUA LOGIC INC
782.35 JIM BEHAN
07/18/2005
OLYMPIC POOLS
19.17 JIM BEHAN
07/18/2005
ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC
134.50 JIM BEHAN
07/19/2005
NUCO2 Of OF Of
56.87 JIM BEHAN
07/19/2005
NUCO2 Of OF Of
52.83 JIM BEHAN
07/19/2005
NUCO2 Of OF Of
87.33 JIM BEHAN
07/19/2005
NUCO2 Of OF Of
82.00 JIM BEHAN
07/19/2005
NUCO2 Of OF Of
82.00 JIM BEHAN
07/21/2005
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
92.23 JIM BEHAN
07/21/2005
MENARDS 3059
243.97 JIM BEHAN
07/22/2005
ADAMS PEST CONTROL
149.58 JIM BEHAN
07/11/2005
RIVERSIDE MARKET
4.72 OAKLEY BIESANZ
07/11/2005
RAINBOW FODDS 00088120
18.01 OAKLEY BIESANZ
07/11/2005
MICHAELS #9401
21.99 OAKLEYBIESANZ
07/14/2005
SCI MUS EXPLORE STORE
52.45 OAKLEY BIESANZ
07/21/2005
PETSMART 00004614
22.85 OAKLEYBIESANZ
07/18/2005
AUTOZONE #3082
9.56 RON BOURQUIN
07/15/2005
CUB FOODS, INC.
41.96 ROGER BREHEIM
07/18/2005
PIONEER PRESS SUBSCRIPTI
8.30 ROGER BREHEIM
07/21/2005
MENARDS 3059
69.86 ROGER BREHEIM
07/22/2005
MENARDS 3059
14.76 ROGER BREHEIM
07/14/2005
FEDEX KINKO'S #0617
53.83 HEIDI CAREY
07/15/2005
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
6.03 HEIDI CAREY
07/15/2005
DGI DYNAMIC GRAPHICS
79.00 HEIDI CAREY
07/21/2005
VERIZON DIRECTORIES
459.00 HEIDI CAREY
07/21/2005
TIGER OAKS PUBLICATION
150.00 HEIDI CAREY
07/22/2005
TIGER OAKS PUBLICATION
795.00 HEIDI CAREY
07/18/2005
VERIZON WRLS I2KW
33.36 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT
07/20/2005
WALGREEN 00016873
6.36 LINDA CROSSON
07/11/2005
SENSIBLE LAND USE COAL
30.00 ROBERTA DARST
0
Post Date
Vendor Name
Settlement Amt Cardholder Name
07/21/2005
CENTURY COMMUNITY TECHNIC
75.00 VIRGINIA ERICKSON
07/12/2005
VRZN WRLS VZSRVE W
76.08 DANIEL F FAUST
07/18/2005
RICHARDS MARKET INC
14.19 SHANN FINWALL
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
287.99 DAVID FISHER
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
129.12 DAVID FISHER
07/11/2005
INT'L CODE COUNCIL INC
475.00 DAVID FISHER
07/13/2005
WASTE MANAGEMENT
343.02 DAVID FISHER
07/13/2005
WASTE MANAGEMENT
343.02 DAVID FISHER
07/20/2005
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
62.60 DAVID FISHER
07/21/2005
NWA AIR 0121320320954
297.40 DAVID FISHER
07/21/2005
TRAVEL FEES 0001032080650
5.00 DAVID FISHER
07/13/2005
INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR
780.83 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/13/2005
INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR
979.33 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/13/2005
AVENETLLC
40.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/15/2005
INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR
65.60 MYCHAL FOWLDS
07/13/2005
SYX TIGERDIRECT.COM
182.41 NICK FRANZEN
07/15/2005
THE UPS STORE #2171
67.88 NICK FRANZEN
07/19/2005
HPSHOPPING.COM
2,186.96 NICK FRANZEN
07/21/2005
OXYGEN SERVICE CO
102.91 RONALD FREBERG
07/18/2005
PERKINS RESTAURANT ARDEN
19.15 RICHARD FURSMAN
07/11/2005
RAILS TO TRAILS CONSERVAN
360.00 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
07/21/2005
NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT
92.91 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
07/22/2005
CENTRAL LANDSCAPE SUPPLY
295.22 VIRGINIA GAYNOR
07/15/2005
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
51.44 JEAN GLASS
07/11/2005
RICHARDS MARKET INC
13.17 MIKE GRAF
07/11/2005
WILDMOUNTAIN
217.50 MIKE GRAF
07/20/2005
WAL- MART #1861
4.20 JANET M GREW HAYMAN
07/12/2005
PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC.
50.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE
07/13/2005
VERIZON WRLS I2KW
63.57 KAREN E GUILFOILE
07/19/2005
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
236.98 LORI HANSON
07/21/2005
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
130.23 LORI HANSON
07/22/2005
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
-37.70 LORI HANSON
07/15/2005
WAL -MART #2087
37.28 MICHAEL HEMQUIST
07/14/2005
AMERICAN IRRIGATION
25.56 GARY HINNENKAMP
07/14/2005
MTIDISTRIBUTING, INC. -PL
4.38 GARY HINNENKAMP
07/14/2005
HYDROLOGIC WATER MANAGEME
121.68 GARY HINNENKAMP
07/18/2005
THE TESSMAN COMPANY
400.86 GARY HINNENKAMP
07/21/2005
AMERICAN IRRIGATION
280.01 GARY HINNENKAMP
07/21/2005
MENARDS 3059
28.45 GARY HINNENKAMP
07/22/2005
AMERICAN IRRIGATION
17.13 GARY HINNENKAMP
07/21/2005
AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF Of
30.00 RON HORWATH
07/13/2005
NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS
52.17 STEVE HURLEY
07/13/2005
ECI GOTOMYPC.COM SVCS
40.02 STEVE HURLEY
07/21/2005
NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS
341.00 STEVE HURLEY
07/11/2005
LANDSCAPE ALTERNATIVES IN
- 165.72 ANNE HUTCHINSON
07/13/2005
NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS
61.52 ANNE HUTCHINSON
07/19/2005
TARGET 00000687
38.43 ANNE HUTCHINSON
07/12/2005
MENARDS 3059
14.89 DAVID JAHN
07/13/2005
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
19.05 DAVID JAHN
07/14/2005
NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT
111.80 DAVID JAHN
07/15/2005
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
21.02 DAVID JAHN
07/14/2005
MILLS FLEET FARM #27
157.11 KEVIN JOHNSON
07/15/2005
OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER
158.67 DON JONES
07/18/2005
GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920
328.28 TOM KALKA
07/11/2005
MENARDS 3022
7.84 MICHAEL LIDBERG
07/18/2005
DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC
651.24 MICHAEL LIDBERG
07/11/2005
MENARDS 3022
24.93 DENNIS LINDORFF
0 '
Post Date
Vendor Name
Settlement Amt Cardholder Name
07/21/2005
HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD
30.84 DENNIS LINDORFF
07/22/2005
HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD
146.93 DENNIS LINDORFF
07/13/2005
NEXTEL WRLESSSVCS
922.90 STEVE LUKIN
07/13/2005
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT
406.06 STEVE LUKIN
07/13/2005
WASTE MANAGEMENT
262.29 STEVE LUKIN
07/13/2005
TARGET 00011858
12.78 STEVE LUKIN
07/14/2005
INTL ASSOC OF FIRE CHIEFS
195.00 STEVE LUKIN
07/18/2005
AJ FORLITI PHOTOGRAPHY
28.36 STEVE LUKIN
07/18/2005
VERIZON WRLS I2KW
58.68 STEVE LUKIN
07/20/2005
ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC
82.01 STEVE LUKIN
07/21/2005
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT
1,388.66 STEVE LUKIN
07/21/2005
FEDEX KINKO'S #0617
28.21 STEVE LUKIN
07/21/2005
SBC PAGING
17.68 STEVE LUKIN
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
420.99 MARK MARUSKA
07/11/2005
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH
354.07 MARK MARUSKA
07/13/2005
WASTE MANAGEMENT
748.97 MARK MARUSKA
07/15/2005
HUNT ELECTRIC CORPORATION
285.96 MARK MARUSKA
07/15/2005
ICI -DULUX -PAINTS #0092
629.80 MARK MARUSKA
07/18/2005
VERIZON WRLS I2KW
37.60 MARK MARUSKA
07/20/2005
METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC
694.01 MARK MARUSKA
07/14/2005
BROCK WHITE -180
359.52 GERALD MEYER
07/18/2005
VERIZON WRLS I2KW
61.85 ED NADEAU
07/20/2005
OFFICE MAX 00002204
138.44 ED NADEAU
07/13/2005
TURFWERKS, LLC.
104.00 BRYAN NAGEL
07/18/2005
SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RCI
57.36 BRYAN NAGEL
07/21/2005
CENTURY FENCE COMPANY
1,820.62 BRYAN NAGEL
07/21/2005
CINTAS FIRST AID #0431
23.75 BRYAN NAGEL
07/21/2005
CINTAS FIRST AID #0431
30.01 BRYAN NAGEL
07/11/2005
RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY
26.73 JEAN NELSON
07/15/2005
LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSP
24.95 JEAN NELSON
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
269.34 AMY NIVEN
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
127.48 AMY NIVEN
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
151.28 AMY NIVEN
07/20/2005
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
22.66 AMY NIVEN
07/13/2005
OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER
137.37 ERICK OSWALD
07/12/2005
CUSTOM HEADSETS INC
218.27 MARSHA PACOLT
07/18/2005
DONALDS INC
150.39 MARSHA PACOLT
07/12/2005
PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC.
50.00 DENNIS PECK
07/14/2005
CHECKER #180200018028
7.79 ROBERT PETERSON
07/14/2005
CHECKER #180200018028
- 1.60 ROBERT PETERSON
07/15/2005
TARGET 00006940
21.29 ROBERT PETERSON
07/15/2005
CARQUEST #2110
6.10 ROBERT PETERSON
07/11/2005
TAPCO INC
58.93 PHILIP F POWELL
07/11/2005
SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LABS
50.78 PHILIP F POWELL
07/11/2005
OFFICE MAX 00002204
62.80 PHILIP F POWELL
07/11/2005
BEST BUY 00000109
223.64 PHILIP F POWELL
07/13/2005
SEARS.COM 9300
244.94 PHILIP F POWELL
07/22/2005
FITZCO INC
88.65 PHILIP F POWELL
07/11/2005
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
16.64 ROBERT PRECHTEL
07/11/2005
TRI -ANIM HEALTH SERVICES
91.06 ROBERT PRECHTEL
07/19/2005
WALGREEN 00016873
185.98 ROBERT PRECHTEL
07/20/2005
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
8.63 ROBERT PRECHTEL
07/20/2005
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD
349.78 ROBERT PRECHTEL
07/20/2005
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD
287.52 ROBERT PRECHTEL
07/21/2005
TRI -ANIM HEALTH SERVICES
76.15 ROBERT PRECHTEL
07/22/2005
ORGANIZED LNING
370.46 ROBERT PRECHTEL
07/12/2005
CINTAS FIRST AID #0431
28.60 WILLIAM J PRIEFER
10
Post Date
Vendor Name
Settlement Amt Cardholder Name
07/11/2005
WALLY MC CARTHY'S PONT
318.20 STEVEN PRIEM
07/11/2005
POLAR CHEVROLET
89.48 STEVEN PRIEM
07/11/2005
WHITE BEAR DODGE
30.25 STEVEN PRIEM
07/11/2005
SIP STATEINDUSTRIAL US
166.79 STEVEN PRIEM
07/12/2005
KATH AUTO PARTS NSP
109.73 STEVEN PRIEM
07/13/2005
KATH AUTO PARTS NSP
71.60 STEVEN PRIEM
07/15/2005
POMPS TIRE SERVICE
87.86 STEVEN PRIEM
07/15/2005
KATH AUTO PARTS
27.88 STEVEN PRIEM
07/18/2005
CATCO PARTS & SERV # 1
132.44 STEVEN PRIEM
07/18/2005
TOUSLEY FORD 127200039
244.49 STEVEN PRIEM
07/18/2005
SUNRAYBTB
11.91 STEVEN PRIEM
07/19/2005
KATH AUTO PARTS
47.36 STEVEN PRIEM
07/20/2005
CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY
315.42 STEVEN PRIEM
07/20/2005
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
82.20 STEVEN PRIEM
07/20/2005
BAUER BULT TRE33200023
59.47 STEVEN PRIEM
07/20/2005
BAUER BULT TRE33200023
46.21 STEVEN PRIEM
07/20/2005
BAUER BULT TRE33200023
131.34 STEVEN PRIEM
07/20/2005
BAUER BULT TRE33200023
53.25 STEVEN PRIEM
07/20/2005
KATH AUTO PARTS
54.74 STEVEN PRIEM
07/21/2005
POLAR CHEVROLET
-47.37 STEVEN PRIEM
07/21/2005
KATH AUTO PARTS NSP
127.44 STEVEN PRIEM
07/21/2005
OXYGEN SERVICE CO
161.74 STEVEN PRIEM
07/22/2005
EAT INC
30.35 STEVEN PRIEM
07/20/2005
SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP
661.95 KEVIN RABBETT
07/11/2005
PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISIN
724.50 TERRIE RAMEAUX
07/18/2005
ADMINISTRATION RESOURCES
69.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX
07/18/2005
DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC
1,080.92 MICHAEL REILLY
07/11/2005
CUB FOODS, INC.
20.88 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/12/2005
SPORTMART #701
7.43 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/13/2005
CUB FOODS, INC.
5.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/13/2005
MN TWOLVES LYNX
700.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/13/2005
WALGREEN 00029363
16.49 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/13/2005
MICHAELS #2744
169.27 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/14/2005
EMI TARGET CENTER
8.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/15/2005
MN TWOLVES LYNX
- 100.00 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/18/2005
CUB FOODS, INC.
10.53 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/18/2005
CUB FOODS, INC.
15.44 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/18/2005
TARGET 00006197
36.34 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/22/2005
GRAND RIOS WATER PARK
488.30 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/22/2005
TARGET 00006197
18.09 AUDRA ROBBINS
07/13/2005
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
24.48 ROBERT RUNNING
07/13/2005
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
36.38 ROBERT RUNNING
07/22/2005
MENARDS 3059
3.93 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER
07/13/2005
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC
29.75 DEB SCHMIDT
07/11/2005
GENERAL SECURITY SERVICES
144.00 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT
07/13/2005
ARAMARK REF SVS #6013-
397.95 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT
07/11/2005
G &K SERVICES 006
68.96 GERALD SEEGER
07/14/2005
MENARDS 3022
7.31 GERALD SEEGER
07/14/2005
NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS
397.99 ANDREA SINDT
07/14/2005
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
99.79 ANDREA SINDT
07/18/2005
VERIZON WRLS 12KW
45.15 ANDREA SINDT
07/21/2005
METRO SALES INC 01 OF 01
142.85 ANDREA SINDT
07/12/2005
AUTOZONE #3082
12.74 RONALD SVENDSEN
07/21/2005
CUB FOODS, INC.
109.27 RONALD SVENDSEN
07/21/2005
WONDER/HOSTESS #63
20.88 RONALD SVENDSEN
07/13/2005
ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN
487.59 AUSTIN SVENDSEN
07/14/2005
MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER
114.52 LYLE SWANSON
11
Post Date Vendor Name
07/14/2005
HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD
07/19/2005
ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC
07/20/2005
ON SITE SANITATION, IN
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/11/2005
QWESTCOMM TN612
07/22/2005
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
07/11/2005
WALT DISNEY WORLD DOLPHIN
07/18/2005
CUB FOODS, INC.
07/14/2005
VIKING #1090
07/14/2005
VIKING #1090
07/14/2005
VIKING #1105
Settlement Amt Cardholder Name
19.46 LYLE SWANSON
116.00 LYLE SWANSON
1,531.19 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN
115.02 JUDY TETZLAFF
57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF
240.08 JUDY TETZLAFF
86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF
57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF
57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF
86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF
86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF
86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF
372.92 JUDY TETZLAFF
5.19 TODD TEVLIN
753.43 DAVID J THOMALLA
36.00 DAVID J THOMALLA
24.93 SUSANZWIEG
91.09 SUSANZWIEG
1.58 SUSANZWIEG
48,2.5.5.56
12
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
13
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
07/29/05
CARDINAL, ROBERT
422.42
dd
07/29/05
JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN
371.77
dd
07/29/05
KOPPEN, MARVIN
371.77
dd
07/29/05
MONAHAN- JUNEK,
371.77
dd
07/29/05
ROSSBACH, WILLIAM
371.77
dd
07/29/05
COLEMAN, MELINDA
4,058.20
dd
07/29/05
DARST, ROBERTA
1,673.54
dd
07/29/05
FURSMAN, RICHARD
4,638.25
dd
07/29/05
SWANSON, LYLE
1,647.57
dd
07/29/05
LE, JENNIFER
36.00
dd
07/29/05
LE, SHERYL
3,958.50
dd
07/29/05
RAMEAUX, THERESE
2,353.34
dd
07/29/05
FAUST, DANIEL
4,128.25
dd
07/29/05
SCHMIDT, DEBORAH
1,442.98
dd
07/29/05
ANDERSON, CAROLE
984.73
dd
07/29/05
BAUMAN, GAYLE
3,403.12
dd
07/29/05
JACKSON, MARY
1,802.95
dd
07/29/05
KELSEY, CONNIE
1,470.65
dd
07/29/05
TETZLAFF, JUDY
1,802.95
dd
07/29/05
FRY, PATRICIA
1,673.36
dd
07/29/05
GUILFOILE, KAREN
2,855.98
dd
07/29/05
OSTER, ANDREA
1,763.59
dd
07/29/05
CARLE, JEANETTE
1,677.57
dd
07/29/05
FIGG, SHERRIE
1,132.17
dd
07/29/05
JAGOE, CAROL
1,660.56
dd
07/29/05
JOHNSON, BONNIE
1,012.59
dd
07/29/05
MOY, PAMELA
752.51
dd
07/29/05
OLSON, SANDRA
1,283.48
dd
07/29/05
WEAVER, KRISTINE
1,736.55
dd
07/29/05
BANICK, JOHN
3,834.90
dd
07/29/05
CORCORAN, THERESA
1,630.15
dd
07/29/05
POWELL, PHILIP
2,246.22
dd
07/29/05
RICHIE, CAROLE
1,629.08
dd
07/29/05
SPANGLER, EDNA
165.00
dd
07/29/05
THOMALLA, DAVID
4,247.72
dd
07/29/05
ABEL, CLINT
2,273.29
dd
07/29/05
ALDRIDGE, MARK
2,817.25
dd
07/29/05
ANDREWS, SCOTT
2,967.80
dd
07/29/05
BAKKE, LONN
2,586.62
dd
07/29/05
BELDE, STANLEY
2,656.13
dd
07/29/05
BIERDEMAN, BRIAN
2,246.62
dd
07/29/05
BOHL, JOHN
2,821.79
dd
07/29/05
BUSACK, DANIEL
2,265.84
dd
07/29/05
COFFEY, KEVIN
2,152.54
13
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
14
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
07/29/05
CROTTY, KERRY
2,416.69
dd
07/29/05
DOBLAR, RICHARD
2,840.65
dd
07/29/05
DUNN, ALICE
2,777.94
dd
07/29/05
GABRIEL, ANTHONY
2,512.51
dd
07/29/05
HEINZ, STEPHEN
2,463.66
dd
07/29/05
HIEBERT, STEVEN
3,141.70
dd
07/29/05
JOHNSON, KEVIN
4,140.26
dd
07/29/05
KALKA, THOMAS
1,222.30
dd
07/29/05
KARIS, FLINT
2,749.92
dd
07/29/05
KONG, TOMMY
2,265.84
dd
07/29/05
KROLL, BRETT
2,372.20
dd
07/29/05
KVAM, DAVID
3,387.46
dd
07/29/05
LARSON, DANIEL
398.69
dd
07/29/05
LU, JOHNNIE
2,627.80
dd
07/29/05
MARINO, JASON
2,283.59
dd
07/29/05
MARTIN, JERROLD
2,419.22
dd
07/29/05
MCCARTY, GLEN
2,023.71
dd
07/29/05
METRY, ALESIA
2,689.57
dd
07/29/05
NYE, MICHAEL
1,865.49
dd
07/29/05
OLSON, JULIE
2,393.15
dd
07/29/05
RABBETT, KEVIN
3,450.09
dd
07/29/05
RHUDE, MATTHEW
1,714.05
dd
07/29/05
STEFFEN, SCOTT
2,803.98
dd
07/29/05
SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM
1,584.25
dd
07/29/05
SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS
2,867.85
dd
07/29/05
WENZEL, JAY
1,892.08
dd
07/29/05
XIONG, KAO
2,232.08
dd
07/29/05
BARTZ, PAUL
2,961.64
dd
07/29/05
BERGERON, JOSEPH
4,363.55
dd
07/29/05
DUGAS, MICHAEL
2,940.44
dd
07/29/05
ERICKSON, VIRGINIA
2,781.50
dd
07/29/05
FLOR, TIMOTHY
2,481.34
dd
07/29/05
FRASER, JOHN
2,677.17
dd
07/29/05
LANGNER, SCOTT
1,913.85
dd
07/29/05
PALMA, STEVEN
2,713.40
dd
07/29/05
THEISEN, PAUL
2,476.01
dd
07/29/05
THIENES, PAUL
2,807.26
dd
07/29/05
CARLSON, BRIAN
1,794.43
dd
07/29/05
DAWSON, RICHARD
2,058.92
dd
07/29/05
DUELLMAN, KIRK
1,951.51
dd
07/29/05
EVERSON, PAUL
2,283.35
dd
07/29/05
HALWEG, JODI
1,794.43
dd
07/29/05
JOHNSON, DOUGLAS
1,984.45
dd
07/29/05
NOVAK, JEROME
2,116.57
dd
07/29/05
PARSONS, KURT
1,916.83
dd
07/29/05
PETERSON,ROBERT
2,147.45
14
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
15
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
07/29/05
PRECHTEL, ROBERT
2,596.09
dd
07/29/05
SVENDSEN, RONALD
2,147.45
dd
07/29/05
GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE
2,757.93
dd
07/29/05
BAUER, MICHELLE
2,057.18
dd
07/29/05
FLAUGHER, JAYME
2,718.85
dd
07/29/05
HERMANSON, CHAD
1,642.03
dd
07/29/05
HUB IN, KENNARD
1,920.18
dd
07/29/05
KNAPP, BRETT
1,543.75
dd
07/29/05
LAFFERTY, WALTER
1,659.81
dd
07/29/05
LINN, BRYAN
2,303.25
dd
07/29/05
PACOLT, MARSHA
2,339.35
dd
07/29/05
RABINE, JANET
1,845.35
dd
07/29/05
SCHAULS, ADAM
68.00
dd
07/29/05
STAHNKE, JULIE
1,850.15
dd
07/29/05
LUKIN, STEVEN
3,731.90
dd
07/29/05
SVENDSEN, AUSTIN
2,991.94
dd
07/29/05
ZWIEG, SUSAN
1,745.35
dd
07/29/05
DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT
282.07
dd
07/29/05
AHL, R. CHARLES
4,329.30
dd
07/29/05
BREHEIM, ROGER
1,826.77
dd
07/29/05
GROHS, JUDITH
1,752.28
dd
07/29/05
NIVEN, AMY
1,187.82
dd
07/29/05
PRIEFER, WILLIAM
2,604.66
dd
07/29/05
BRINK, TROY
1,665.75
dd
07/29/05
DEBILZAN, THOMAS
1,862.15
dd
07/29/05
EDGE, DOUGLAS
1,852.15
dd
07/29/05
ELIAS, BRANDON
800.00
dd
07/29/05
JONES, DONALD
1,832.15
dd
07/29/05
MEYER, GERALD
1,896.19
dd
07/29/05
NAGEL, BRYAN
2,276.71
dd
07/29/05
OSWALD, ERICK
2,056.46
dd
07/29/05
RUNNING, ROBERT
1,771.75
dd
07/29/05
TEVLIN, TODD
1,689.75
dd
07/29/05
BEYER, MEGAN
992.89
dd
07/29/05
CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER
3,270.46
dd
07/29/05
DUCHARME, JOHN
2,003.71
dd
07/29/05
ENGSTROM, ANDREW
2,064.17
dd
07/29/05
ISAKSON, CHAD
1,183.95
dd
07/29/05
JACOBSON, SCOTT
2,318.78
dd
07/29/05
KNUTSON, LOIS
999.93
dd
07/29/05
LABEREE, ERIN
2,274.95
dd
07/29/05
LINDBLOM, RANDAL
2,643.61
dd
07/29/05
PECK, DENNIS
2,330.59
dd
07/29/05
PRIEBE, WILLIAM
2,752.57
dd
07/29/05
VERMEERSCH, CHARLES
2,210.16
dd
07/29/05
ANDERSON, BRUCE
4,024.42
15
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
16
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
07/29/05
CAREY, HEIDI
2,024.97
dd
07/29/05
HALL, KATHLEEN
1,749.97
dd
07/29/05
GERVAIS, DAVID
960.00
dd
07/29/05
LUND, ERIC
288.00
dd
07/29/05
MARUSKA, MARK
2,649.16
dd
07/29/05
NAUGHTON, JOHN
1,703.75
dd
07/29/05
SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES
1,824.46
dd
07/29/05
BIESANZ, OAKLEY
231.68
dd
07/29/05
HAYMAN, JANET
1,309.97
dd
07/29/05
HUTCHINSON, ANN
2,240.47
dd
07/29/05
NELSON, JEAN
1,069.09
dd
07/29/05
SEEGER, GERALD
552.03
dd
07/29/05
GAYNOR, VIRGINIA
2,076.81
dd
07/29/05
EKSTRAND, THOMAS
3,014.19
dd
07/29/05
KROLL, LISA
1,190.52
dd
07/29/05
LIVINGSTON, JOYCE
969.88
dd
07/29/05
SINDT, ANDREA
1,586.15
dd
07/29/05
THOMPSON, DEBRA
645.66
dd
07/29/05
YOUNG, TAMELA
1,508.95
dd
07/29/05
FINWALL, SHANN
2,232.55
dd
07/29/05
ROBERTS, KENNETH
2,545.46
dd
07/29/05
CARVER, NICHOLAS
2,743.92
dd
07/29/05
FISHER, DAVID
3,244.09
dd
07/29/05
RICE, MICHAEL
1,936.55
dd
07/29/05
SWAN, DAVID
2,030.95
dd
07/29/05
SWETT, PAUL
1,164.38
dd
07/29/05
KONEWKO, DUWAYNE
2,600.55
dd
07/29/05
ANZALDI, KALI
798.75
dd
07/29/05
WORK, ALICIA
578.00
dd
07/29/05
WORK, BRANDON
755.00
dd
07/29/05
FINN, GREGORY
2,192.66
dd
07/29/05
GOODRICH, CHAD
550.00
dd
07/29/05
GRAF, MICHAEL
1,923.70
dd
07/29/05
KELLY, LISA
1,504.62
dd
07/29/05
OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN
890.00
dd
07/29/05
ROBB INS, AUDRA
2,097.08
dd
07/29/05
SHERRILL, CAITLIN
447.75
dd
07/29/05
TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS
2,797.49
dd
07/29/05
ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH
80.50
dd
07/29/05
GERMAIN, DAVID
1,831.39
dd
07/29/05
NORDQUIST, RICHARD
1,822.15
dd
07/29/05
SCHULTZ, SCOTT
2,132.95
dd
07/29/05
ANZALDI, MANDY
1,305.68
dd
07/29/05
COLLINS, ASHLEY
48.00
dd
07/29/05
CRAWFORD - JR- RAYMOND
76.00
dd
07/29/05
CROSSON, LINDA
2,586.54
16
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
17
CHECK # CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
07/29/05
EVANS, CHRISTINE
719.99
dd
07/29/05
MILES, LAURA
319.55
dd
07/29/05
PELOQUIN, PENNYE
453.79
dd
07/29/05
SCHMIDT, RUSSELL
2,007.26
dd
07/29/05
SCHULZE, BRIAN
636.62
dd
07/29/05
STAPLES, PAULINE
2,898.01
dd
07/29/05
ZIELINSKI, JUDY
159.75
dd
07/29/05
ABRAHAMSON, DANIEL
170.38
dd
07/29/05
ANDREA, JOHANNA
89.44
dd
07/29/05
BRENEMAN, NEIL
754.33
dd
07/29/05
CORNER, AMY
44.80
dd
07/29/05
EDSON, JAMIE
272.38
dd
07/29/05
ERICKSON- CLARK, CAROL
90.40
dd
07/29/05
EVANS, KRISTIN
63.00
dd
07/29/05
FONTAINE, KIM
721.21
dd
07/29/05
GREDVIG, ANDERS
479.62
dd
07/29/05
GUZIK, JENNIFER
340.38
dd
07/29/05
HALEY, BROOKE
372.48
dd
07/29/05
HORWATH, RONALD
1,978.42
dd
07/29/05
IRISH, KARL
760.24
dd
07/29/05
KERSCHNER, JOLENE
1,076.63
dd
07/29/05
KOEHNEN, AMY
48.30
dd
07/29/05
KOEHNEN, MARY
1,464.61
dd
07/29/05
KRONHOLM, KATHRYN
230.93
dd
07/29/05
MATHEWS, LEAH
368.26
dd
07/29/05
NELSON, SIERRA
290.75
dd
07/29/05
OVERBY, ANNA
57.90
dd
07/29/05
POTTRATZ, DIANE
194.33
dd
07/29/05
PROESCH, ANDY
525.34
dd
07/29/05
SCHULTZ, MATTHEW
164.13
dd
07/29/05
SCHULTZ, PETER
60.78
dd
07/29/05
SMITH, ANN
281.25
dd
07/29/05
TUPY, HEIDE
181.80
dd
07/29/05
TUPY, MARCUS
294.00
dd
07/29/05
WERNER, REBECCA
247.75
dd
07/29/05
GROPPOLI, LINDA
292.80
dd
07/29/05
HANSON, ELIZABETH
12.30
dd
07/29/05
KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE
25.73
dd
07/29/05
BEHAN, JAMES
1,672.89
dd
07/29/05
HOUSE, JEFFREY
25.40
dd
07/29/05
LONETTI, JAMES
1,007.82
dd
07/29/05
PATTERSON, ALBERT
1,075.00
dd
07/29/05
PRINS, KELLY
1,058.37
dd
07/29/05
REILLY, MICHAEL
1,580.55
dd
07/29/05
WALSH, AMANDA
146.30
dd
07/29/05
AICHELE, CRAIG
1,889.36
17
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
18
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
07/29/05
PRIEM, STEVEN
2,049.35
dd
07/29/05
WOEHRLE, MATTHEW
1,542.95
dd
07/29/05
BERGO, CHAD
2,255.29
dd
07/29/05
FOWLDS, MYCHAL
1,976.78
dd
07/29/05
FRANZEN, NICHOLAS
1,802.03
dd
07/29/05
HURLEY, STEPHEN
3,245.74
wf
101977
07/29/05
JAHN, DAVID
1,691.94
wf
101978
07/29/05
MORIN, TROY
170.00
wf
101979
07/29/05
MITCHELL, KELLY
352.00
wf
101980
07/29/05
MATHEYS, ALANA
1,980.08
wf
101981
07/29/05
HANSEN, LORI
1,982.56
wf
101982
07/29/05
PALANK, MARY
1,624.46
wf
101983
07/29/05
SVENDSEN, JOANNE
1,786.59
wf
101984
07/29/05
SHORTREED, MICHAEL
3,680.09
wf
101985
07/29/05
WELCHLIN, CABOT
2,455.02
wf
101986
07/29/05
BAUMAN, ANDREW
272.00
wf
101987
07/29/05
FREBERG, RONALD
1,867.48
wf
101988
07/29/05
HOEPPNER, STEVEN
800.00
wf
101989
07/29/05
JAROSCH, JONATHAN
969.00
wf
101990
07/29/05
EDSON, DAVID
1,859.48
wf
101991
07/29/05
GORE, MICHAEL
880.00
wf
101992
07/29/05
HALEY, ROLAND
1,859.48
wf
101993
07/29/05
HINNENKAMP, GARY
1,832.95
wf
101994
07/29/05
LEVDORFF, DENNIS
1,826.77
wf
101995
07/29/05
LUND, MARK
880.00
wf
101996
07/29/05
NOVAK, MICHAEL
1,787.75
wf
101997
07/29/05
GERNES, CAROLE
382.75
wf
101998
07/29/05
SOUTTER, CHRISTINE
282.19
wf
101999
07/29/05
BALLESTRAZZE, THAD
792.00
wf
102000
07/29/05
BENSON, CARLA
99.00
wf
102001
07/29/05
DAMIANI, ROBERT
80.00
wf
102002
07/29/05
EGGIMANN, LINDSEY
512.00
wf
102003
07/29/05
GEBHARD, MADELINE
351.00
wf
102004
07/29/05
GOODRICH, DANIELLE
384.00
wf
102005
07/29/05
HAGSTROM, KEVIN
85.00
wf
102006
07/29/05
HAGSTROM, LINDSEY
60.00
wf
102007
07/29/05
HANSON TOPETE, MARY
192.00
wf
102008
07/29/05
KELLY, JONATHAN
85.00
wf
102009
07/29/05
KYRK, HALEY
30.00
wf
102010
07/29/05
LOPEZ, ANN
442.00
wf
102011
07/29/05
PERZICHILLI, LEAH
184.00
wf
102012
07/29/05
ROBBINS, EMERALD
213.50
wf
102013
07/29/05
SHOBERG, KARI
61.50
wf
102014
07/29/05
UNGAR, KRISTOPHER
144.00
wf
102015
07/29/05
HAAG, MARK
1,797.75
wf
102016
07/29/05
NADEAU, EDWARD
2,930.14
18
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
19
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
102017
07/29/05
GLASS, JEAN
1,797.15
wf
102018
07/29/05
HER, CHONG
113.25
wf
102019
07/29/05
NAGEL, BROOKE
413.88
wf
102020
07/29/05
TOLBERT, FRANCINE
550.00
wf
102021
07/29/05
UNGER, MARGARET
307.53
wf
102022
07/29/05
VELASQUEZ, ANGELA
309.00
wf
102023
07/29/05
WEISMANN, JENNIFER
31.60
wf
102024
07/29/05
ANDERSON, CALEB
31.66
wf
102025
07/29/05
ANDERSON, JOSHUA
78.00
wf
102026
07/29/05
ANDERSON, JUSTIN
68.25
wf
102027
07/29/05
ARNEVIK, ERICA
17.50
wf
102028
07/29/05
BOTHWELL, KRISTIN
329.19
wf
102029
07/29/05
BRENEMAN, SEAN
406.95
wf
102030
07/29/05
BUCKLEY, BRITTANY
282.75
wf
102031
07/29/05
COSTA, JOSEPH
338.10
wf
102032
07/29/05
DEMPSEY, BETH
93.20
wf
102033
07/29/05
DUNN, RYAN
625.80
wf
102034
07/29/05
GESKERMANN, MARK
22.75
wf
102035
07/29/05
GRANT, MELISSA
482.25
wf
102036
07/29/05
GRUENHAGEN, LINDA
611.48
wf
102037
07/29/05
HEINN, REBECCA
192.00
wf
102038
07/29/05
HERZOG, ELIZABETH
126.75
wf
102039
07/29/05
HOLMGREN, LEAH
301.20
wf
102040
07/29/05
JOHNSON, STETSON
601.25
wf
102041
07/29/05
JOYER, MARTI
273.88
wf
102042
07/29/05
KOZA, KAREN
305.30
wf
102043
07/29/05
LAUMER, MELISSA
101.25
wf
102044
07/29/05
LEMAY, KATHERINE
339.68
wf
102045
07/29/05
LUTZ, CHRISTINA
306.38
wf
102046
07/29/05
MCCANN, NATALIE
41.25
wf
102047
07/29/05
MCMAHON, MELISSA
688.30
wf
102048
07/29/05
MILLS, ANNE
428.00
wf
102049
07/29/05
NWANOKWALE, MORDY
29.25
wf
102050
07/29/05
PEHOSKI, JOEL
384.65
wf
102051
07/29/05
PETERSON, ANNA
386.75
wf
102052
07/29/05
RICHTER, NANCY
136.00
wf
102053
07/29/05
ROGNESS, TRYGGVE
171.25
wf
102054
07/29/05
ROSTRON, ROBERT
302.25
wf
102055
07/29/05
RYDEEN, ARIEL
597.15
wf
102056
07/29/05
SCHAEFER, ANDREA
197.38
wf
102057
07/29/05
SCHMIDT, EMILY
273.50
wf
102058
07/29/05
SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA
185.25
wf
102059
07/29/05
SCHOMMER, SUMMERS
158.63
wf
102060
07/29/05
SCHRAMM, BRITTANY
110.50
wf
102061
07/29/05
SCHREINER, MICHELLE
658.83
wf
102062
07/29/05
SMITLEY, SHARON
167.65
19
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
20
CHECK #
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
102063
07/29/05
STAHNKE, AMY
128.00
wf
102064
07/29/05
TRUE, ANDREW
500.33
wf
102065
07/29/05
WARNER, CAROLYN
239.50
wf
102066
07/29/05
WEDES, CARYL
140.10
wf
102067
07/29/05
WHITE, NICOLE
366.05
wf
102068
07/29/05
WOODMAN, ALICE
258.60
wf
102069
07/29/05
BOSLEY, CAROL
234.90
wf
102070
07/29/05
BREITBACH, GARY
630.00
wf
102071
07/29/05
DOBBS, SYDNEY
39.00
wf
102072
07/29/05
FARLEY, JAMIE
401.00
wf
102073
07/29/05
HAGSTROM, EMILY
276.25
wf
102074
07/29/05
LEWIS, AMY
161.00
wf
102075
07/29/05
ODDEN, JESSICA
277.43
wf
102076
07/29/05
PARAYNO, GUAI
294.15
wf
102077
07/29/05
SATTLER, MELINDA
16.50
wf
102078
07/29/05
STODGHILL, AMANDA
67.65
wf
102079
07/29/05
VAN HALE, PAULA
78.00
wf
102080
07/29/05
ANDERSON, MATT
127.00
wf
102081
07/29/05
BALDWIN, JANA
80.70
wf
102082
07/29/05
DOUGLASS, TOM
1,044.92
wf
102083
07/29/05
HER, PHENG
262.95
wf
102084
07/29/05
GGRADY, VICTORIA
134.66
wf
102085
07/29/05
OLSON, CHRISTINE
26.60
wf
102086
07/29/05
SCHOENECKER, LEIGH
44.45
wf
102087
07/29/05
SIMPSON, JOSEPH
259.35
wf
102088
07/29/05
SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN
104.25
wf
102089
07/29/05
STRONG, EMILY
136.53
wf
102090
07/29/05
THEESFELD, CALEB
97.30
wf
102091
07/29/05
VANG, HUE
76.20
wf
102092
07/29/05
VANG, KAY
134.66
wf
102093
07/29/05
VANG, TIM
226.10
wf
102094
07/29/05
VUE,LORPAO
146.05
465,815.50
20
Agenda Item G2
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT: Tax - Exempt Financing Prepayment Request — HealthEast
PROJECT: Saint John's Hospital
DATE: July 29, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Paul Tietz, representing HealthEast, is requesting that the city council approve the
prepayment of tax - exempt revenue bonds. The city had originally approved the tax - exempt
financing request for HealthEast for the issuance of these bonds in 1996. HealthEast is now
requesting that the city approve the prepayment (refunding) of these bonds in conjunction with a
debt restructuring they are doing with the Saint Paul HRA. Maplewood must approve this
request since the city had originally approved the issuance of these bonds. (Please see the
letter from Mr. Tietz starting on page three.)
- 7e[ 8 3: (rl :loll] ki U 7
The City Council approved tax - exempt financing for St. John's Northeast Hospital in 1982, 1987
and 1991.
On July 13, 1992, the council approved $111,000,000 in bond refinancing for HealthEast
On September 29, the council increased the bond financing amount to $150,000,000 from
$111,000,000.
On October 12, 1992, the council approved an increase for tax - exempt bond refinancing for
HealthEast. The increase was from $111,000,000 to $150,000,000 and for approval to spend
more money in Maplewood.
On September 23, 1996, the council took three actions about tax - exempt financing for
HealthEast. These included:
A. Setting the administrative fee for tax - exempt revenue financing at 1 (one) percent of the
financed amount up to a maximum fee of $28,600.
B. Approving the preliminary tax - exempt financing resolution. Approval was subject to the
following conditions:
HealthEast shall meet the city's tax - exempt financing requirements.
HealthEast shall pay Maplewood an administrative fee of $28,600 at the bond closing.
C. Denying HealthEast's request to have Maplewood waive up to $140,000 of the future
property taxes created by future development on their Maplewood property.
In October 1996, the city council gave final approval for $21 million in tax - exempt bond financing
for HealthEast. HealthEast used a maximum of $18,000,000 of the $21,000,000 for internal
improvements (remodeling and new equipment) at St. John's Northeast Hospital.
DISCUSSION
This request needs city approval because of statutory requirements. Maplewood is not liable for
the prepayment or refunding of the bonds.
INx8101MI MI:Iki U7e 1 1111[a]ki
Approve the attached resolution on page five. This resolution approves the bond prepayment
(refunding) request for HealthEast.
p /Sec 3:HealthEast tax - exempt - 2005
Attachments:
1. July 21, 2005 letter from Paul Tietz
2. Refunding Resolution
W
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
Attachment 1
2200 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (612) 977 -8400
FACSIMILE (612) 977 -8650
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
July 21, 2005
via email at ken. roberts(&ci. maplewood.mn. us
and u.s. mail
The City of Maplewood
City Hall
Attention: Mr. Kenneth Roberts
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 -2702
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(612) 977 -8420
WRITER'S E-MAII-
ptietz@briggs.com
Re: The City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Health Care Facility Revenue Bonds (HealthEast Project) Series 1996
Dear Mr. Roberts:
As we discussed by phone, HealthEast requests that the City of Maplewood, Minnesota,
as issuer of the above described bonds (the "Bonds "), consent to the refunding of those Bonds.
HealthEast is undertaking a restructuring of its existing debt which consists of several
issues by different issuers in connection with the financing of a major expansion of HealthEast
St. Joseph Hospital in Saint Paul.
The Bonds are currently prepayable. HealthEast desires to prepay the entire outstanding
principal amount on November 1, 2005. The original principal amount of the bonds was
$21,000,000 with a final maturity of November 15, 2006. There is a regularly scheduled
principal payment on November 15 in the amount of $4,000,000 which will be used to prepay
principal on November 1, 2005. The principal amount remaining to be prepaid is $4,340,000.
Rather than using its own available funds, HealthEast wants to use proceeds of the Saint Paul
ERA bond issue to refund the Bonds through a prepayment. The Saint Paul HRA issue is
expected to be approximately $200,000,000, with the new money portion being used for the St.
Joseph Hospital project. The use of the bond proceeds to prepay the Bonds would constitute a
refunding of the Bonds, and under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1651, one
issuer cannot refund the bonds of another issuer without consent of that issuer.
HealthEast would appreciate the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, considering and
adopting the enclosed resolution granting consent. Such a consent does not constitute a joint
powers agreement for the issuance of bonds on behalf of the City of Maplewood and does not
impose liability for the refunding bonds. It is a statutory procedural requirement.
17949430 SAINT PAUL OFFICE • FIRST NATIONABBANK BUILDING • WWW BRIGGS.COM
MEMBER - LEX MUNDL A GLOBAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Attention: Kenneth Roberts
July 21, 2005
Page 2
If the City of Maplewood is agreeable, HealthEast would appreciate consideration of the
enclosed resolution at the next available meeting. It is currently anticipated that the new bonds
would be sold the week of August 8, 2005. HealthEast would appreciate consideration of the
resolution next Monday, July 25, 2005. If it is too late to make this meeting, HealthEast asks
consideration of the resolution on Monday, August 8, 2005, as we need to have the consent prior
to the bond sale. Please let me know if you would like me or a person from HealthEast to be
present at the meeting, or to meet with you in advance, to answer any questions. If the City of
Maplewood approves the enclosed resolution, we would appreciate a certified copy for our
records.
If you would like any additional information or have any questions, please feel free to
contact me directly. We are serving as bond counsel on the new issue and do not represent
HealthEast in this matter.
5iucet`ely, , �
Paul H. Tietz
PHT /rc
cc: Robert Gill
Michael Nass
Susan Kratz
Craig Kornett
Lynn Coe
Mary Ippel
1794943v1 4
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION
CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE
OF REFUNDING BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, issued its $21,000,000 Health Care Facility
Revenue Bonds (HealthEast Project) Series 1996 (the "1996 Bonds ") and loaned the proceeds to
HealthEast; and
WHEREAS, HealthEast desires to refund the 1996 Bonds, which would be prepaid in full,
from a portion of the proceeds of bonds to be issued in connection with a HealthEast project in the
City of Saint Paul;
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.162, Subdivision 12, provides that no issuer
may issue revenue bonds to refund bonds previously issued by another issuerwithout the consent
of the original issuer; and
WHEREAS, HealthEast has requested the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, to consent to the
issuance of refunding bonds;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, that the City of Maplewood does hereby consent to the refunding of the 1996 Bonds
from proceeds of bonds to be issued by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Saint Paul, Minnesota. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on August 8, 2005.
By:
Mayor
By:
Clerk
5
Agenda Item G3
IMI:IM[a]:L1ki Bill MI
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT:
Final Plat
PROJECT:
Overview
LOCATION: Summer Place, west of McMenemy Street
DATE: July 29, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Gordie Howe is requesting that the city council approve the final plat for Overview. Mr. Howe
represents the developer and builder, Masterpiece Homes. This final plat will create 24 lots for town
houses. This plat will be west of McMenemy Street on a new cul -de -sac called Summer Place. (See
the maps on pages two - five.)
BACKGROUND
On March 14, 2005, the city council approved a conditional use permit for a planned unit
development (PLID), the preliminary plat and the project design plans for Overview. These approvals
were subject to several conditions. (See the city council minutes starting on page six.)
DISCUSSION
The developer is progressing with the construction of the plat. To date, the contractor has completed
the site grading, has installed the utilities, the curb and gutter and base course of bituminous for the
street. The developer has finished all the conditions the council required for final plat approval.
INx8101MIMI:Iki U7e
Approve the final plat for Overview date - stamped July 19, 2005. This approval is subject to the
county recording the deeds, deed restrictions and covenants required by the city and the developer
meeting all the conditions of the city engineer.
p:sec25 /Overview fin plat - 2005.doc
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Area Map
3. Proposed final plat
4. Preliminary Plat
5. March 14, 2005 City Council Minutes
6. Proposed Final Plat (Separate Attachment)
Attachment 1
Ea
uj
rn
lCol"T - 11ORMIJU A lli
2 2
I
ELAIM AVE7—
SITE
f t
,ark
uj
Ail
MNDOT
>
i to
IENTEUFFAV
SAINT PAUL
lCol"T - 11ORMIJU A lli
2 2
I
Attachment 2
UNAMM
3
3
I
ROSELAWN AVE
02
<
all
0'
188 j
... .. — ----------
1894 380
0 ' -
- - BELEWOOUAVE
1885 k
SAINT JEROAAES
$76
1866
SITE
Mi uj
Z
uJ:
ii M
THE GARDENS
t$25Western Hills Park
..... ...
... .
37P
378
�
--+774
wr
— ------- ---- -
1779
1
1 75
CHURCH
. . ........
UNAMM
3
3
I
Attachment 3
- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - --
-------------------- -------------------- ----------
- - - - - - - - - -
570.52
m'u
4
p
4t
---------- -
INS, NC
I
2 1
6 5 !Iil 2 4, 3 1
71 C
SUMMER
P-ACE
22 i� 23 '24
.5
�3 77
570.77
Attachment 4
w ------------ - - - - -- -----------------------------
', ICA 6.1 LD NG AND LOT
C
x
I
I =i Sh
G' s
{
�x x
a
RAMF T
I
3 a ai z
1-1/2 STCRY JNIT
. x r E j-j — WOO D A v_
I
l✓ sf w'" J /S r
e7/ z
/ !{ ay' ,a'� ```rem °+ .v
tl
e F d q �✓ wxm�trt , c � i� N89'S8'1 'Sy � fa .i � .., t ", � � y � _
r
N
BLOCKA O}NF # y x
r
s
Zp
s 4 Y +DYES � -:.. ,. - •+� � ° }d \' j Hrj � y Vrss �
6. � --". a', � _
Yom. mw .o. _.. o aa�` '�' - Y a _ ___ ""'____ __ ____
+ 801 6, INC 93a pS £ ^.- o ✓ "D,
•!C a !03!
x
55
Attachment 5
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:02 P.M. Monday, March 14, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -05
K. NEW BUSINESS
3. Overview (McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue)
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Preliminary Plat
Design Approval
City Manager Fursman presented the staff report.
Senior Planner Ekstrand presented specifics from the report.
C. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional
use permit for a planned unit development for the Overview Development on the west side of
McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on the finding
require by code:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 05 -03 -025
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, applied for a conditional use
permit (CUP) for the Overview residential planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to undeveloped property on the west side of McMenemy Street,
south of Roselawn Avenue in Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN
18- 29- 22 -32- 0009.)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On February 23, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The 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 commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff.
The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed permit.
2. On March 14, 2005, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They
considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described
conditional use permit, because:
The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
The use would not depreciate property values.
[s9
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:
1. All construction shall follow the plans date - stamped January 25, 2005, except where the city
requires changes. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the
watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP Pond
ordinance standards.
(2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the remaining vegetation and large
trees.
(3) The street (Summer Avenue) must be at least 28 feet wide to allow parking on one
side.
The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
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.
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February
14, 2005, and the plans shall include:
The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree
preservation /replacement, and parking plans. The cul -de -sac bulb shall have the
minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around.
b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans:
N
(1) The developer shall enclose the new pond with a four - foot -high, black, vinyl -
coated chain -link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence along
McMenemy Street as may be required by the city engineer.
(2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan.
c. The following for the streets and driveways:
(1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary.
d. Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between McMenemy Street and the end
of the cul -de -sac, so there are at least two hydrants along the street.
4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance standards and
shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for
getting any needed off -site pond and drainage easements, if applicable.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Overview PUD 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 (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing
unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann
Ayes-All
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the preliminary plat for a planned unit
development of the Overview Development on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of
Roselawn Avenue. 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:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
8
meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten -foot drainage and utility
easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five -foot drainage and utility
easements along the side lot lines of each lot).
d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least three locations. One light
shall be at the intersection of McMenemy Street and the proposed street (Summer
Avenue), one in the middle of the block and the third near the west end of the street near
the cul -de -sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's
approval.
e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification and no parking signs.
f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and
guidelines.
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 from Chuck Vermeersch dated
February 14, 2005, and shall meet the following conditions:
a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code.
b. The grading plan shall show:
(1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site.
The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb.
(3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large
trees.
(4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the
plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1.
On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a
stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber
blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the
city approves the final plat.
(6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a
building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on
top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet.
(7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city
engineer.
(8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from
the affected property owner(s).
9
(9) A minimum of a 10- foot -wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of
any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall
not exceed four feet.
(10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed
district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with
approved permanent soil - stabilization blankets.
(11) The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer
with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run -off
from the entire project site and shall not increase the run -off from the site.
(12) A creative design for the proposed storm water pond with curves, rather than
straight sides, for a more aesthetic design and visual appeal. The pond, however,
shall have the required storm water capacity.
c.* The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall
include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
(3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The
deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 '/) inches in diameter and
shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native
species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix
of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species.
(4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(a) near the ponding area
(b) along the north and south sides of the site to help screen the development from
the existing houses to the north and from the MnDOT facility.
(7) Show the planting of at least 120 trees after the site grading is done.
d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(1) The street (Summer Avenue) shall be a 9 -ton design with a maximum street grade
of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at
two percent.
(2) Water service to each lot and unit.
(3) Repair of McMenemy Street (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to
the public utilities and builds the private driveway.
(4) The developer enclosing the new pond with a four - foot -high, black, vinyl- coated
10
chain -link fence. (The fence shall not be six feet high as shown on the plans.) The
contractor also shall install a gate in the fence as may be required by the city
engineer.
(5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the
city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes.
(6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the
standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS).
Fire -flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood
Fire Department.
(7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right -of -ways or within
easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be
outside the project area.
(8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent
erosion.
e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm -water run -off
leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer
shall:
(1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities.
(2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations.
3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans.
4. Change the plat as follows:
a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These
easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet
wide along the side property lines.
b. Label the common areas as outlots.
c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer.
d. Label the street as Summer Avenue on all plans.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any
off -site drainage and utility easements.
6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor
will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
11
c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after
the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway.
7. 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, private utilities, landscaping and retaining
walls.
8. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowners' association documents.
b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots
or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the
city council.
c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation,
maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for
approval before recording.
9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage.
The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer
or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading.
11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
12. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT.
13. 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 Koppen Ayes -All
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the plans date - stamped January 25, 2005, (site
plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Overview
town houses on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city
bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall
do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
12
shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway
plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall also meet all the
conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site.
The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed
board or by the city engineer. A revised design for the storm water pond that
shows curves, rather than straight sides, for a more aesthetic design and
visual appeal. The pond, however, shall have the required storm water
capacity.
(d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction
plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and
management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include
covering these slopes with wood -fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no
mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass.
(e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet
tall require a building permit from the city.
(f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city
engineer.
(g) Show the drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city
engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall
accommodate the run -off from the surrounding areas.
(h) Show details about the proposed fence by the pond including the materials,
gate, height and color. The contractor shall extend the fence along the east
side of the pond, near McMenemy Street.
(3) The tree plan shall:
(a ) Be approved by the city engineer.
(b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show
where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The coniferous
trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce
and Austrian pine.
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall show
no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(4) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
13
(a) A water service to each lot and unit.
(b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street (including curbing, street,
and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing driveways,
connects to the public utilities and builds the new street.
(c) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking
on one side of the street. then it must be at least 28 feet wide.
(d) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and
gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed.
(e) The developer or contractor shall post one side of the street with "no
parking" signs to meet the above - listed standards.
(f) The street labeled as Summer Avenue and McMenemy Street labeled on all
plans.
(g) The common area labeled as Outlot A on all plans.
(5) The design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the
approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any
needed off -site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all
necessary easements.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a
registered land surveyor.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following
details:
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation
within the ponding area.
(2) The addition of trees for screening along the north and south sides of the site.
(3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding area to break the
appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be
approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans.
(4) Having in- ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
(5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan
date - stamped January 25, 2005, shall remain on the plan.
(6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit.
(7) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting
(instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native
grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall
be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from
the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance
14
costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens.
Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland
mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate.
(8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas
(except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding
area).
(9) The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street boulevard with sod.
(10) Adding at least 12 more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines)
along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least
eight feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to
provide screening for the houses to the north.
(11) Shows the in- ground lawn- irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler
heads.
(12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent
with the approved grading and landscape plans.
d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
f. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the
lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details
about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and
lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and
bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and from adjacent
residential properties.
g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility
plans.
h. Present to staff for approval colored building elevations or building material samples of
all elevations of the town houses. These elevations should show that the town houses
will have two tones of ivory and beige - colored vinyl siding and either brick or stone
accents on the front elevation. These elevations also should show that the front
elevations would have a wainscot of brick or stone.
i. 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.
Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city
staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and
maintenance of the common areas, the private utilities, landscaping and any retaining
walls.
k. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT.
Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
15
3. Complete the following before occupying each building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater garden(s).
d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter.
d. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto McMenemy Street and addresses on
each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs
within the site, as required by staff.
e. Install and maintain all required landscaping (including the plantings around each unit
and around the pond) and an in- ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code
requirement).
f. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting
plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light
spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to
properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and the nearby homes and
residential properties.
g. Install a six - foot -high solid screening fence or additional trees along the north and south
property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town
houses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at
least a six - foot -tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location,
design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city
staff approval.
h. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
b. The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required
exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished
landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter,
or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
IM
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen
Ayes-All
IVA
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Final Plat
PROJECT:
Heritage Square 4` Addition
LOCATION:
New County Road D and Hwy. 61
DATE:
July 29, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Request
Agenda Item G4
Town and Country Homes is requesting approval of the final plat for their Heritage Square 4th
Addition town house development on the west side of the County Road D Extension. The city
council granted preliminary plat approval on April 25, 2005.
Project Description
The Heritage Square 4th Addition is a 90 -unit, seven building town house complex and is part of
the Trout Land development. There would be six 12 -unit buildings and one 18 -unit building. The
proposed buildings would be two stories tall and all resident parking would be underground
beneath the building's living space.
BACKGROUND
April 25, 2005: The city council approved the preliminary plat, a five -foot parking lot setback
variance and the design plans for this project. The preliminary plat conditions were as follows:
The applicant shall dedicate trail easements and drainage and utility easements as
recommended by Chris Cavett in his memo dated March 1, 2005.
The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city for the construction and
dedications of:
a. Watermain between the south drive and the Duluth Street stub.
b. Trail construction.
c. Easement dedications for trails, storm sewer, utilities and watermain.
d. Native turf establishment adjacent to the ponds.
e. Other issues deemed necessary by the city engineer.
3. The applicant, or the seller of this property to the applicant, shall provide a deed restriction,
be filed with Ramsey County, stating that the Prokosch site shall not be developed with more
than one single family home. This document shall be submitted to the city attorney for
approval.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has met the requirements of the preliminary plat. In summary, the drainage and
utility easements have been dedicated and shown on the plat, the developer's agreement has
been signed and the deed restriction for the Prokosch home site has been drafted and recorded
by the city attorney. The one item to be resolved is the dedication of the trail easements which
are near completion. The city engineering staff has said that we could accept escrow as a
guarantee these dedications will be completed. As an extra guarantee, staff recommends that
these trail dedications be made before the city will issue the next building permit for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the final plat date - stamped July 14, 2005 for the Heritage Square 4th Addition, subject
to the applicant:
Providing cash escrow, in an amount to be determined by the city engineer, to guarantee the
dedication of the trail easements. The city will not sign the plat documents until this escrow
has been paid.
2. Completing the trail- easement dedication before the city will issue the second building permit
for this project.
p:sec4:Heritage Square 4` Addition final plat to T05
Attachments:
1. Location /Zoning Map
2. Heritage Square 4 ` Addition Final Plat
r 0 , ii ail
Attachment 1
3
ro
It
mAh
al
4
VKWTY MAP
6 7
u Lai V A
m
X 1
IANDFORM
2
t
'aw" f
mAh
al
4
VKWTY MAP
6 7
u Lai V A
m
EFEET 2 OF 2 %EETS
IANDFORM
EFEET 2 OF 2 %EETS
AGENDA NO. G -5
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
RE: BILLING AGREEMENT WITH ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER
SERVICES
DATE: August 2, 2005
Approval of the attached agreement is required for the billing of the new water
surcharge by the St. Paul Regional Water Services.
AMENDMENT NO. 5
to
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
and
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
This AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO AGREEMENT entered into this day of
2005, by and between the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS, a municipal corporation of
the State of Minnesota (the "Board "), and the CITY OF MAPLE WOOD, a municipal corporation
of the State of Minnesota ( "Maplewood ").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Maplewood and the Board entered into an agreement dated October
30, 1996 for the provision of water service by the Board to properties within
Maplewood (the "Agreement "); and
WHEREAS, Article XIV of the Agreement allows for amendments to the original
agreement; and
WHEREAS, Maplewood wishes to have the Board bill a water surcharge to its
customers as an additional billing service; and
WHEREAS, the Board is willing and able to provide this service; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,
the parties mutually agree to amend the Agreement according to the following:
1. The Board will bill and collect a surcharge on water bills issued to
Maplewood customers' ( "Surcharge Billing ") effective January 1, 2006. The
surcharge will be based on a percentage of water billings as determined by
Maplewood.
2. Maplewood agrees to pay all costs to initiate or make modifications to
Surcharge Billing, including, but not limited to system programming, set-
up and billing procedural changes.
3. Maplewood shall initially pay the Board a fee of $0.02 per bill, per
account, for Board's Surcharge Billing service ( "Billing Fee "). The
parties shall review the Billing Fee on the same cycle as sewer and
recycle billing fee review, as described in Amendment No.2 to the
Agreement.
9. The Board shall pay Maplewood an amount equal to the Surcharge Billing
less Billing Fees. Payment will be made on a monthly basis.
5. Inquires by customers on the surcharge shall be referred to the City of
Maplewood
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 5 to
Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.
Approved: BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
By
Stephen P. Schneider, General Manager Patrick Harris, President
Saint Paul Regional Water Services
By
Approved as to Form: Janet Lindgren, Secretary
By
Assistant City Attorney Mathew G. Smith, Director
Office of Financial Services
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
) SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2005, by Patrick Harris and Janet Lindgren, President and Secretary
of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Signature of person taking aclmowledgment
P \agn \SPRW billing agreemet.doc
Agenda #G -6
AGENDA REPORT
To: City Manager Richard Fursman
From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla
Subject: Donation to Maplewood Police Reserves
Date: August 1, 2005
Intrnrii irtinn
The Maplewood Police Reserves have received a donation from the Ramsey County
Agricultural Society /Fair Board, and City Council approval is required before the
donation can be accepted.
Background
In July, the Maplewood Police Reserves provided to assistance to the Ramsey County
Fair by policing the fairgrounds, providing traffic control and assisting with the parade.
To show its appreciation for their continuing assistance with the County Fair, the
Ramsey County Agricultural Society /Fair Board has donated $450 to the Reserve
program. They have asked that the donation be used to purchase materials or provide
training for the Police Reserves.
City Council approval is required before this donation can be accepted.
Budget Impact
The necessary budget adjustments would need to be made to expend the donated
funds.
Recommendation
It is recommended that approval be given to accept the donation from the Ramsey
County Agricultural Society /Fair Board.
Action Required
Submit to the City Council for review and action.
DJT:js
Agenda Item G7
/ e[ r]:l ki I BY-1 :141 s]: i I
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Hazelwood Street Improvements, County Road C to Beam Avenue, City Project
01 -16: Resolutions for
1. Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Order 4
2. Acceptance of Project
DATE: July 27, 2005
INTRODUCTION
The construction of Hazelwood Street, between County Road C and Beam Avenue, began in 2003 and
was completed in 2004. The contractor, Park Construction, has fulfilled their contract obligations. Before
the final payment can be made, the contract must be modified to include Change Order No. 4.
The city council will consider approving the attached resolutions for approving Change Order No. 4 and for
acceptance of the project.
Background
During construction there are often unforeseen conditions, additional work ordered by the engineer, or
additional expenses incurred by the contractor as a result of some change in the contract conditions.
Change Order No. 4 reflects the extra sanitary and driveway work completed at the request of the
engineer.
A portion of the project was suspended in late 2003 due to the anticipated construction of a roundabout in
2004. The roundabout ultimately did not get approved or constructed; however, the delay resulted in some
additional costs to the contractor. Those costs are summarized as equipment and labor costs on the
attached Change Order No. 4. Initially the contractor had submitted a request for "extra work that
exceeded $80,000." As a result of staff's extensive review of construction diaries and negotiations
between staff and the contractor, the resulting increase reflected in Change Order No. 4 has been reduced
to $25,400. The following is a summary of the extra work items and the negotiated compensation amounts.
Description
Unit
Quantity
Price
Total
Extra sanitary work
Ea
1
$ 5,929.74
$ 5,929.74
Equipment
Ea
1
$ 3,112.00
$ 3,112.00
Labor
Ea
1
$ 5,648.66
$ 5,648.66
Extra common excavation
for driveways
Ea
1
$10,709.60
$10,709.60
TOTAL
$25,400.00
Agenda Item G7
The extra sanitary work item was associated with the installation of a new outside drop at MH 22 -55 to
replace the existing inside drop and the installation of a new wye service connection for the Tillges
property. Both of these were pay items in the original contract. While installing these items, high ground
water was encountered, which required dewatering. There was no note in plans indicating the presence of
high ground water, and the specifications did not indicate that any dewatering necessary was incidental to
the installation of these items. The $5,648.74 covers the contractor's costs for the dewatering equipment
rental.
The equipment and labor items were the result of work associated with the completion of the south end of
project. In the fall of 2003, the south end was prepared for construction of the proposed roundabout, in
anticipation of its approval by the council. Ultimately, the roundabout was not approved and there was
additional labor and mobilization of equipment in order to complete the south end as a four -way stop.
Charges for both the equipment and labor items are based on an extensive review of the contractor's
invoices,their employees' timesheets, and the city inspector's construction diary.
The extra common excavation item is associated with private driveway construction. Several of the private
driveways on the west side of Hazelwood required removal beyond the right of way in order to achieve
smooth transitions and proper drainage. Many of the driveways on the west side were difficult installations
with irregular shapes, adjacent buildings, and overhanging trees and bushes that homeowners did not want
removed. (The contractor is not required to do private work adjacent to structures, and sometimes will not
for liability reasons.) Many also had poor soils that required extra depth excavation. This item was
negotiated down from the contractor's initial request of $21,100.
The original contract amount of $672,408.95 was a good and competitive bid in 2003. With the approval of
Change Order No. 4, the final construction contract will be $774,510.86. The final construction contract is
in line with the anticipated construction costs that were originally budgeted for this project during the
feasibility phase.
Budget Impact
Although the final construction cost has exceeded the original bid amount, the overall project costs are
expected to come in at 85 -90% of the project budget. At this time there are still a few miscellaneous
project costs still pending, such as final costs related to the restoration along Kohlman Creek and final
engineering costs. There is no tax levy funding for this project. Any project cost savings will result in a
savings to the city's state aid funds. No revision to the project funding is proposed. These costs all fall
within the original project budget.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for modification of the existing
construction contract, Change Order No. 4, and for acceptance of the project.
Attachments: Resolutions
Location Map
Copy of Change Order 4
Agenda Item G7
RESOLUTION
01a* 011110r clM[ a] 01a[ ife NI[ a] ki Eel aW/ 6.1 1111kiNwa7ki 6 .11:11101[a] ki me] kiIIII X0I
PROJECT 01 -16, CHANGE ORDER No. 4
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement
Project 01 -16, Hazelwood Street Improvements, County Road C to Beam Avenue, and has let a
construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said
contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 01 -16, Change Order No. 4, as an increase
to said contract by an amount of $25,400.00, such that the new contract amount is now and hereby
established as $774,510.86
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD. MINNESOTA
that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Maplewood to
signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said Change Order No. 4 as a
contract increase in the amount of $25,400.00. The revised contract amount is $774,510.86.
No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time, as these changes fall within
the original project scope and budget.
Agenda Item G7
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Hazelwood Street
Improvements, City Project 01 -16, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that City Project 01 -16 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by
the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized.
L4C MAP. gazelwood Strmt,projt4 01-1(0
Agenda Item G7
19
MMEEM
RE Mapiewoml, Minnesota
Candscapinglirrigation
Prost-Foglish Roundabout
Final Application for Pqyrrwnt
SER No. A TOO
City of Maplewood
1930 County Road 13 Rest
Mapktw Mpl M H[W-2
Please find enclused Application for puyinent No, 4 (Final) for the referenced project. together with the
following documents:
• Invoice, No. 2702 from Help no & pleblannare
• IC- 134 . Withholding Affidavits
■ Receipt and Waiver of Mechanic's Use Rights
■ Consent of'Surety to Pral Payment
* Certificate of Liability Insurance
Veronica A, Anderson, LA
Pmject Manager
Enclosures
40mpk=01*01
ju l �� 8 *;f. 5
L �j � 4
$h. t FlUvo Ho"drickso. I nc,. o)SV. I C, 1,a k; P..: 4N W 0 "N.
SsH tq,.� zrr€xcvv n�.y .m pk'j, -Hf. 7000 are � 2 'S 2;: S - " >1 2 S-1
CHANGE ORDER No. 4
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
Project Name: Hazelwood Street Reconstruction
(County Road C to Beam Avenue) Change Order No.: 4
Project No.: 01 -16 Date: July 19, 2005
Contractor: Park Construction Company
The following changes shall be made in the contract documents:
Original Contract: $672,408.95
Net Change of Prior Change
Order No. 3 to No. 4: $76,701.92
Change This Change Order: $25,400.00
Revised Contract: + $102,101.92
Final: $774,510.86
Approved
Recommei
Agreed to by Contractor by U
Its
Unit
Description
Unit
Quantity
Price
Total
Extra sanitary work
Ea
1
$ 5,929.74
$ 5,929.74
Equipment
Ea
1
$ 3,112.00
$ 3,112.00
Labor
Ea
1
$ 5,648.66
$ 5,648.66
Extra common excavation
for driveways
Ea
1
$10,709.60
$10,709.60
TOTAL
$25,400.00
Original Contract: $672,408.95
Net Change of Prior Change
Order No. 3 to No. 4: $76,701.92
Change This Change Order: $25,400.00
Revised Contract: + $102,101.92
Final: $774,510.86
Approved
Recommei
Agreed to by Contractor by U
Its
Agenda Item G8
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Legacy Street Lighting
Acceptance of Project
DATE: July 27, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Improvements, City Project 04 -23 — Resolution for
The Legacy Street Light Improvements was bid and awarded in the fall of 2004. Much of the work took
place last fall and was completed in the spring of 2005. All lighting improvements have been completed.
The project is ready to be finalized and retainage released to the contractor.
The city council will consider approving the attached resolution for acceptance of the project.
Background
The Legacy Street Lighting Improvements are final and complete. The total construction cost to be paid to
the contractor, Forest Lake Contracting, is $207,600.
The street lights are under a 1 -year maintenance bond with the contractor. To cover on -going
maintenance, the city has entered into a joint powers agreement with the City of St. Paul for on -going
maintenance of the city -owned street lights.
Budget Impact
This project is part of the over all Legacy Parkway Project (03 -26), and is funded through assessments and
tax abatement funding. There is no tax levy funding on this project. At this time the project is still within
budget and no revision to the funding is required.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for acceptance of the project.
Attachments: Resolution
Location Map
Agenda Item G8
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the Legacy Street
Light Improvements, City Project 04 -23, are complete and recommends acceptance of the project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that City Project 04 -23 is complete and maintenance of these improvements is accepted by
the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized.
w
City ofMWewood, Minnesota
Department ofPnbhc Works
EnglaeeiingDivm=
LEGACY VILLAGE MASTER
STREETLIGHT PLAN
CITY PROJECT 04 -23
Lt,it�u
Sumtw,,in SPORS1 P411
�." vlan it�a�c:R
k
E4EELE IN FEET
❑ _❑ Kimley -Horn
m and Associates, Inc.
gm48a ,.
EXHIBIT I
Agenda Item G9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Cleric
DATE: July 28, 2005
RE: Request for Special Use Permit
Introduction
Brad Camitsch from the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department has applied for a special use
permit to hold their annual "Fright Farm" Halloween event at the Ramsey County Extension
Services Barn.
The annual event will be held October 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, and 28 -31 from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00
p.m.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the permit be approved.
Agenda Item G10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
DATE: July 28, 2005
RE: Certification of Election Judges
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ELECTION JUDGES
RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, accepts the following list of Election
Judges for the 2005 Primary Election, to be held on Tuesday, September 13.
Anderson, Cynthia
Hecht, Lloyd
Mollers, Katherine
Anderson, Elsie
Heinenger, Gordon
Mossong, Betty
Anderson, Ronald
Hensley, Pat
Muraski, Gerry
Anderson, Suzanne
Hines, Constance
Muraski, Howard
Ansari, Ahsan
Hogan, AnnaMae
Myster, Thomas
Barrett, Marlis
Holzemer, Mary
Nieman, James
Barrett, Joan
Horton, Shirlee
Nieters, Louise
Belland, Jaime
Iversen, Mildred
Norberg, Ann Marie
Berger, Carole
Janacek, Jeff
Olson, Lois
Berger, Mery
Jefferson, Gwen
Orlando, Sallye
Berry, Bud
Johannessen, Judith
Pehl, David
Bhupat, Desai
Johnson, Barbara
Petrie, James
Bortz, Jeanne
Kidman, Marilyn
Rossow, Kenneth
Bowman, Kim
King, Helen
Rudeen, Elaine
Breidenstein, Anna
Kirchoff, Harold
Sajevic, Florence
Bunde, Jeanette
Koch, Rosemary
Schaaf, Larry
Button, Joan
Koval, Harry
Schoenecker, Sandy
Cahanes, Lucille
Krekelberg, Mona Lou
Schroepfer, Harriet
Carr, Robert
Krominga, Josephine
Schulte, Paula
Chastan, Jeffrey
Kubesh, Toni
Shaul, Brian
Cleland, Ann
Kunde, Margaret
Shore, Theresa
Cofield, Jean
LaCasse, Annette
Skinner, Jeanne
Connelly, Colleen
Lackner, Marvella
Spangler, Bob
Connelly, Thomas
Lally, Rita
Spies, Louis
Davidson, Marianne
Lampe, Charlotte
Statki, Tim
Dickson, Jean
Lauren, Lorraine
Stark, David
Dittel, Kathleen
Leiner, Wanda
Stevens, Sandra
Droeger, Diane
Leeman, Anita
Taylor, Lorraine
DuCharme, Fred
Leiter, Barbara
Taylor, Rita
Duellman, Audrey
Leo, Ann
Thompson, Milo
Eickhoff, Carolyn
Leo , Pati
Thompson, Pat
Erickson, Elizabeth
Leonard, Claudette
Tillman, Leila
Erickson, Phyllis
Lincowski, Steve
Tolbert, Franklin
Fischer, Lorraine
Lincowski, Vi
Tomaszewski, Carmen
Fischer, Mary
Lofgren, Delores
Trippler, Dale
Fitzgerald, Delores
Lofgren, Richard
Tucker, Cecilia
Fosburgh, Anne
Lundgren, Robert
Unger, Connie
Frazen, James
Maeyaert, Paul
Urbanski, Holly
Freer, MaryJo
Mahre, Carol
VanBlaricom, Beulah
Fritsche, Samantha
Mahre, Geri
Vandeveer, Barbara
Gierzek, Clarice
Manders, Rose Marie
Vangas, Vilhelmine
Gilstad, Mark
Manthey, John
Vatne, Mary
Golaski, Diane
Marsch, Delores
Wagner, Connie
Graham, Paul
Maskrey, Thomas
Wandersee, Gene
Grant, Guy
Mechelke, Geraldine
Wasmundt, Gayle
Grant, Mary
Mechelke, MaryLou
Willy, John
Gunn, Jaclynn
Meyer, Jackie
Witschen, Delores
Hayde, Walter
Misgen, Joan
Zacho, Karen
Agenda Item H1
MI:IM[a]:L1ki I Bill M
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT: Tax - Exempt Revenue Financing - VOA
PROJECTS: Maplewood Care Center and the Homestead at Maplewood
LOCATION: 1900 and 1890 Sherren Avenue East
DATE: July 29, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Ron Patterson, representing the Volunteers of America (VOA), is requesting that the city give
approval for up to $9.5 million in tax - exempt revenue note financing. They would use this financing
to refund bonds from 1994 to cover the costs of proposed capital projects to the existing buildings.
The Maplewood Care Center is a skilled nursing home and the Homestead at Maplewood is an
assisted living facility for moderate - income seniors located at 1900 and 1890 Sherren Avenue.
(See the letter from Mr. Patterson on page two and the maps on pages three through five.)
The applicant is requesting that the city approve this financing so the bond interest would be
tax - exempt. The state and federal governments require local government approval of tax - exempt
financing.
BACKGROUND
On August 22, 1994, the city council gave approval for up to $11.0 million in tax - exempt financing
for the Volunteers of America for the existing nursing home and for the construction of the
Homestead at Maplewood.
Q 6Y811Jr :9 [a].
This request should meet the city's requirements for tax - exempt financing. Maplewood will not be
liable for this financing. The proposed financing will help keep the rents affordable at these
facilities, and the repairs and improvements should make the buildings more livable for the
residents.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached resolution starting on page six. This approves Maplewood giving approval
for up to $9.5 million in tax - exempt revenue financing for the Volunteers of America for the
Maplewood Care Center at 1900 Sherren Avenue and the Homestead at Maplewood at 1890
Sherren Avenue.
p /Sec 11 /VOA tax- exempt fn - 2005.doc
Attachments:
1. Applicant's Letter
2. Location Map
3. Property Line /Zoning Map
4. Site Plan
5. Financing Approval Resolution
in
01-m a -
July 22, 2005
,vb. Ken Roberts
Attachment 1
J U � '� -')ul "-
L 4 1 z L W
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood RECEIVED
1830 County Rd B East
Maplewood, N/LN 55109
RE: AppEcation for Preliminary Approval/Agreement for Tax Exempt Mortgage
Revenue Financing
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Attached please find a completed application for tax exempt mortgage revenue financing.
Attachment B to the application sets forth in detail the contemplated structure of the proposed
financing.
VOA Care Centers Minnesota issued tax exempt revenue bonds- in 1994, the proceeds of which
were used to construct the Homestead at Maplewood, an assisted living facility designed for
moderate income seniors, and refinance debt for the adjoining Maplewood Care Center, a skilled
nursing home.
The proposed bond issue will be used to refund the Series 1994 bonds to take advantage of the
current more favorable interest rate environment.
A small portion of the new bond issue ($150,000) will be used for capital improvements. The
savings resulting from this refunding will assist VOA Care Centers Minnesota with providing
affordable housing alternatives for frail, elderly persons consistent with its charitable purpose
Feel free to contact the undersigned with any comments or questions you may have. Also, please
feet free to contact Mark Landreville at Piper Jalfray, the proposed underwriter of the bonds,
with comments or questions.
Thank you for your consideration of this application.
,4.4finistr3l of service
Volunteers of America National Services
7530 Market Place Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 2344-3636, Tel: 952.941 Far: 952,941,0428
www.volunteenofa.rnerica.org
p l � "Mmmmmm " ,
Attachment 3
--
Gitt
i
__ .. ..
Ri
- -
22kt _
2V2 L. 22''1
2286 = 3
Co
°2255 ;
W
--,
2263
Z
2 241
-�,
` 5
1 >1
2242 RI
--
-
- - - - -
DOPE
AVE
- -
2V2 L. 22''1
2263
2:262 X257
F-
2249
22�Fv:..
- --
.�
N
- ... ,.,
2,
� ..
42
Y
2242 .. ;2?4 -
_
_
. _ .. 'X
......_
2 .37...
22�4 W, 223M
w
Attachment 4
- COPE AVENLIE-2
i
61
i '
I . oo �
k r���Z
o
Attachment 5
Extract of Minutes of a Meeting of the
Maplewood City Council
Maplewood, Minnesota
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Maplewood, Minnesota was duly held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, the 8th day of August,
2005, at 7:00 P.M.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
HEALTH CARE FACILITY REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS
(VOA CARE CENTERS, MINNESOTA PROJECT) AND THE EXECUTION
OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1798097vi 26
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
HEALTH CARE FACILITY REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS
(VOA CARE CENTERS, MINNESOTA PROJECT) AND THE EXECUTION
OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood (the "City ") has received a proposal from VOA Care
Centers, Minnesota, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower "), that the City issue its
revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount of up to $9,500,000 to refund and redeem the
outstanding principal balance of the City's $9,445,000 Health Care Facility Revenue Bonds, Series
1994 (VOA Care Centers, Minnesota Project), relating to the nursing facility and assisted living
facility located at 1900 Sherren Avenue East and 1890 Sherren Avenue East, respectively, in the
City (the "Project ") and financing certain other costs related to the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.01 and 462C.03, the City has
prepared a housing program (the "Housing Program ") in connection with the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.04, subd. 2, the City has
held a public hearing on the Housing Program and the issuance of revenue bonds of the City to
finance the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota. as follows:
City.
The Housing Program is hereby approved in substantially the form on file with the
2. The Borrower has proposed that the City issue up to $9,500,000 Health Care Facility
Refunding Revenue Bonds (VOA Care Centers, Minnesota Project), Series 2005 in one or more
series, one of which may be taxable obligation (the "Bonds ") to finance the costs of the Project
pursuant to an Indenture of Trust, dated as of September 1, 1994 (the "Indenture "), as amended by
a First Supplemental Indenture of Trust (the "First Supplemental Indenture "), executed by the City
and U.S. Bank National Association, in St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee ") at the interest rate or
rates as set forth in the First Supplemental Indenture.
3. The Bonds will be purchased from the City in accordance with a Bond Purchase
Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement ") among the City, the Borrower and Piper Jaffray & Co.
(the "Underwriter "). The Bonds will be offered to the public by the Underwriter pursuant to an
Official Statement (the "Official Statement ").
4. Pursuant to the terms of a the Loan Agreement, dated as of September 1, 1994 (the
"Loan Agreement ") as amended by a First Amendment to Loan Agreement between the City and
the Borrower (the "FirstAmended Loan Agreement "), the Citywill loan the proceeds of the Bonds to
the Borrower to finance or refinance the Project. The Loan Agreement also provides for the
Borrower to pay the City an administrative fee sufficient to compensate the City for the
administrative time and expense incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds.
5. The payment of the principal, purchase price of, and interest on the Bonds is
secured by a Mortgage and Security Agreement, as amended by a First Amendment to Mortgage
(the "First Amendment to Mortgage "), from the Borrower to the Trustee, by which the Borrower
n9so9wi 7
grants to the Trustee a mortgage lien on and security interest in certain mortgaged property, as
described therein, as further security for the payment of the Bonds.
6. Forms of the following documents have been submitted to the City Council:
(a) The First Amendment to Loan Agreement;
(b) The First Supplemental Indenture; and
(c) The Bond Purchase Agreement.
The First Amendment to Loan Agreement, First Supplemental Indenture and Bond Purchase
Agreement are hereafter referred to as the 'Bond Documents."
It is hereby found, determined and declared that:
(a) the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the execution and delivery by the City of the
Bond Documents and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the
Bond Documents and of all other acts and things required under the constitution and laws of the
State of Minnesota to make the Bond Documents and the Bonds valid and binding obligations of the
City in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act;
(b) it is desirable that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the
Indenture;
(c) the basic payments under the Loan Agreement, as amended are fixed to produce
revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on
the Bonds issued under the Indenture, as supplemented when due, and the Loan Agreement, as
amended and Indenture, as supplemented also provide that the Borrower is required to pay all
expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation,
adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property
arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with
respect to the Project premises and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement, as amended
and Indenture, as supplemented;
(d) under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C and as provided in the
Loan Agreement, as amended and Indenture, as supplemented, the Bonds are not to be payable
from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City is
not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any
exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premiums
thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the
City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the
Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of
the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the
Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall recite that the Bonds are issued without moral
obligation on the part of the state or its political subdivisions, and that the Bonds, including interest
thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the paymentthereof; and, the Bonds shall
not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation.
8. The forms of the Bond Documents and exhibits thereto are approved in substantially
the form submitted. The Bond Documents, in substantially the forms submitted, are directed to be
n98o9wi a
executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Clerk. Any other
documents and certificates necessary to the transactions described above shall be executed by the
appropriate City officers. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transactions herein
described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided herein and in Bond Documents.
9. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue the Bonds, in the form and upon the terms
set forth in the First Supplemental Indenture. The Bonds will be purchased on substantially the
terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement and the First Supplemental Indenture which have
been submitted to the City in connection with this Resolution. The Mayor and City Clerk are
authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the First Supplemental
Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for authentication and delivery to the original
Underwriters.
10. Mayor and City Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to
prepare and furnish to the Underwriter and Bond Counsel certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be
required to show the facts relating to the legality of the bonds as such facts appear from the books
and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified
copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute
representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained herein.
11. The City hereby ratifies, confirms and consents to the use of the Official Statement in
connection with the sale of the Bonds. The City has not prepared nor made any independent
investigation of the information contained in the Official Statement other than the section therein
captioned "The Issuer," and the City takes no responsibility for such information.
12. The approval hereby given to the Bond Documents and the various other documents
referred to in paragraph 6 above includes approval of (a) such additional details therein as may be
necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions
thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by Bond Counsel, the City Attorney
and the City officials authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution and (b)
such additional documents, agreements or certificates as may be necessary and appropriate in
connection with the Bond Documents, as are approved by Bond Counsel, the City Attorney and City
officials authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said City Attorney
and City officials are hereby authorized to approve said changes or additional documents,
agreements or certificates on behalf of the City. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate
officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such
documents in accordance with the terms thereof and hereof. In the absence (or inability) of the
Mayor or City Clerk, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed by them
may be executed by the Acting Mayor or the Acting City Clerk, respectively.
Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on August 8, 2005.
Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
1798097vi 9
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and City Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full,
true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called
and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the authorization of the
issuance of up to $9,500,000 Health Care Facility Refunding Revenue Bonds (VOA Care Centers,
Minnesota Project), Series 2005.
WITNESS my hand this day of , 2005.
City Clerk
n9so9wi 5
INl
Agenda ll
IMI:IM[a]:L1ki Bill MI
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE: August 2, 2005 for the August 8 City Council Meeting
SUBJECT: Applewood Park /Neighborhood Preserve Bid Opening
INTRODUCTION
Applewood Park is a 34 -acre park site located in southern Maplewood, east of Sterling Street and
north of Schaller Drive. The site is 34 acres, of which eight acres have been designated as a
neighborhood park and the remaining 26 acres will be managed and developed under open space
standards.
The Maplewood city council formally approved the master plan for Applewood Park on February 28
following an extensive neighborhood park planning process by the parks and recreation commission.
City staff received and opened ten formal bids for phase one construction of Applewood Park ranging
from a low bid of $199,404.41 to a high bid of $280,040.
BACKGROUND
Applewood Park was acquired in 1998 utilizing both open space and park development monies. The
original concept was to have Applewood Park serve neighborhood park demands as well as the open
space needs of the Applewood neighborhood.
The park planning process was initiated with a community survey followed by a walking tour of the
neighborhood to look at other neighborhood site options. Following a series of community meetings,
the master plan was formally adopted by the city council on February 28, 2005.
Formal bids were opened and read aloud on August 2, 2005 at 2 p.m. The bids ranged from a low of
$199,404.41 to a high of $280,040. The engineer's estimate for the project was $225,000. The city
council has allocated $300,000 for the Applewood Park development project utilizing park
development funds for 2005.
The proposed base bids were broken into six sections and there was one bid addendum. The six
sections included: (a) general work and site removals, (b) earth work, (c) utilities, (d) asphalt and
concrete construction, (e) site amenities, (f) landscaping. The bid addendum was to furnish and install
a themed barrier at the shelter area.
The site includes a couple of unique characteristics, the first being a very unique open -air shelter that
will have the look of trees supporting the four corners of the roof. In addition, we will be "stamping"
animal prints throughout the trails ranging from deer to raccoon so that people can follow the different
trail paths within the concrete walkway.
After reviewing the ten bids, staff recommends that Ebert Construction be awarded the contract for
the low base bid of $199,404.41 and bid addendum one be awarded to Ebert Construction in the
amount of $11,300.
Pending city council approval, it is our hope to commence construction yet this fall and have 75 -95%
of the project completed before frost.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the low bid be awarded to Ebert Construction in the amount of $199,404.41
and bid addendum one be awarded to that firm as well in the amount of $11,300 with the monies to be
allocated from the park development fund.
kph \bid award phase one.applewood.parks - os.mem
Bid Tabulation
Applewood Park - August 2, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
BIDDERS
f
o '
°<
o
z
m
o
BASE BID
ALT. BID
TOTAL: BASE BID
PLUS ALT. BID
EBERT CONSTRUCTION
X
X
$199,414.19
$11,300.0
$210,714.19
LUND - MARTIN
X
X
$218,661.40
$11,500.0c
$230,161.40
SUNRAM
X
X
$225,946.55
$11,200.00
$237,146.55
FITOL -HINTZ
X
X
$239,562.75
$11,000.0
$250,562.75
ODESA II
X
X
$243,670.00
$10,100.0
$253,770.00
AMERICAN LIBERTY
X
X
$245,002.91
$11,560.0
$256,562.91
MAERTENS - BRENNY
X
X
$245,300.76
$11,000.0c
$256,300.76
GEN -CON
X
X
$252,196.14
$12,322.00
$264,518.14
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOC.
X
X
$277,316.00
$10,908.00
$288,224.00
GRAUS
X
X
$280,040.00
$12,000.0
$292,040.00
Brauer & Associates, Ltd Project #05 -13
Applewoo0 Park - City ofMapfewoo0, MN
August 2, 2005
Mr. Bruce Anderson, Park & Rec. Director
% City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Recommendation to Accept Bids for Applewood Park Site Improvements
Mr. Anderson,
I have reviewed all of the bids received for the aforementioned project and found only a few minor math
errors. None of the errors resulted in a different company's bid being lower than the apparent low bidder at
the bid opening. Ebert Construction seems to be the successful low bidder for this project. I have worked
with this company on one previous project for a different city and found them to do quality work at a fair
price. As such, I recommend that the City accept Ebert Construction's Bid and execute a contract for the
work.
As with all projects, we recommend setting aside a construction contingency of approximately 5 %.
It has been a pleasure working with the City on this fun and exciting project and I eagerly look forward to
seeing this project become reality. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (952) 238 -0831
ext. 14.
Sincerely,
Brauer & Associates, Ltd.
Jason L. Amberg, RLA
Vice President, Principal
enclosures: bid tabulations
Recommendation to Accept Bid — Applewood Park I of I
k k__w dlaud Manage ®eat
throughout Wooded
P rm by
7$0
North
r
�ZM4a w
IM"n 13 -1]D1 '
Vl- ea
Sommmary-
�wrae,tae �„e.a✓.. I,1tc�irnuJ -\
(10,'wuCe mrp�t
$1d
Neighborhood_
l _—
f Al -
X"Ca4
82G
Play Area:
.'separate ca0afnerl
diJjerrnt aReRraupr ;
t
,
- 5eming area, llxndxs and
Rendenhdf
w#acent picAk fabler)
(keening
. Shaded 5enrinR area
lJrinkinRfwnlairt, bike mrk. I
� $$0
snob
General Skating Area
(.fifer nsa staring - sun, rftergracn i
. d . $58 •� S ..
slave) 32 �"
1 -
Native Ismikeope bntl'er
$ 'Neighiw
- in key hxatlrm, as allrnved by e
'„
466
p =
s,'. .,� on
Approc !75'112 '
wens 6
R
1 I
vn�u Mn,rna j1A
Pa bombn 1
Acobw R" wW Now
v
BPN(NLOCAl1UN hU It +.P^
E }
mr
o
L. �P
X , �
1ral Comm 1
1 g
1 ly .I
1 ,
1 1
1
,
i
1
I 1
1
l 1
1
1
i F I 1
p 1
I I l I
,
,
0 1
' 1
our OVERALL LAYOUT GRADING.&MANTLING PWN
r r *a T
Y
x � E
F:..
1
f 1
k m I 8
1
�q r
x
I
OF ,
r
jy
INFE
TOPSOIL STRIPPING STOCMLING
IT—
kAE6PBE OREOUIREMENT6
hARiNWORI(O dllY
BAIANCC ALOLIAF1tFNT5
SPOT GRADES AM1D
DRAINAGE AEOUIRCNENTS'
SEED & SOD USTORATION NWES
SL RC L R� �, ww
ncm ,-N n .e
_C
_cc
d
OP
Z
CL
DO
ao �
Q_
to
N�
o _
< S
t0
J
W
V
Scaled -la._. L2
LHwd: Rpplowood 4arK. MN W5 Ply ground
Minnesota/Wisconsin lob: Tres (hfined stWo
PLAYGROUNDS s 9 N r ��" uale; 5- 2 +. -a5
AGENDA NO. K -1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
Finance Director
RE: PROPOSED 2006 BUDGET
DATE: August 2, 2005
The proposed 2006 Budget booklet has been prepared and distributed. Highlights of the
proposed budget are listed in the attached excerpts.
A proposed tax levy for 2006 must be approved by the Council by September 15. It is
recommended that the Council schedule a special meeting to review the proposed budget before
September 15.
To insure that there will be an adequate fund balance in the General Fund for next year's budget,
it is recommended that the Council authorize the Finance Director to reduce the current 2005
General Fund expenditure budget by $435,800. A large portion of the reduction will be in the
reserve for judgments and uninsured losses. The remaining reductions amount to approximately
2% of each department's budget in the General Fund.
P \agn \proposed 2006 budget
July 2005
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
In compliance with State Statutes, I am pleased to transmit the proposed 2006 Budget for the
City of Maplewood. Much of the budget is concentrated on maintaining the "high quality and cost
effective public services" provided to the residents of Maplewood. The major objectives of the
2006 Budget are designed to help the Council accomplish the goals and objectives established at
the past several strategic planning retreats. At the Council's strategic planning retreat in June
2005, the top three priorities were police staffing, redevelopment and maintenance of streets and
sidewalks. In addition, the majority of the Council indicated that the city property tax impact of
the proposed 2006 Budget should not cause an increase of more than 5% for the median -value
home. These items have been addressed during preparation of the 2006 Budget as follows:
1. Two full -time police officer positions have been added to the budget.
2. Redevelopment projects totaling $5,115,000 are scheduled for 2006 in the five -year
Capital Improvement Plan and these projects will be added to the budget after public hearings
are held and approval of projects by the Council.
3. Maintenance of streets and sidewalks is provided for in the budget by a 6.5% increase
in funding for the Street Maintenance program. Also, in the five -year Capital Improvement Plan
there are public works projects totaling $6,713,000 scheduled for 2006 and these projects will be
added to the budget after public hearings are held and approval of projects by the Council.
4. The property tax levy increase in the proposed budget is 5 %. The impact on the
median -value home can not be determined until the Ramsey County assessor's office finalizes
tax base values for Maplewood.
The Finance Director and his staff using input from the department heads prepared this
document. It is in a format similar to the 2005 Budget, which received the Award for
Distinguished Budget Presentation from the Government Finance Officers Association of the
United States and Canada. It is intended that the format of this document and the information
contained within it will clearly communicate the City's 2006 financial plans and provide an
operations guide for all City departments.
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 651- 249 -2051
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109
The budget is divided into three main sections: Operations, Capital Improvements, and Debt
Service. Within the Operations section, the basic focus is on performance objectives for each
department and the planned 2006 expenditures to accomplish the objectives. The focus of the
Capital Improvements section is the construction projects planned for 2006. The Debt Service
section focus is on the scheduled bond issue principal and interest payments due in 2006.
Conserving the financial resources of the City is more important than ever. The budgeting
function is the primary tool the Council has to make sure the City's limited resources are wisely
utilized and to establish department objectives for the coming year. We continue with the
combined objectives of ensuring Maplewood is an affordable place to live while providing the
services that make it a good place to live.
The Council's cooperative effort in the review and adoption of the 2006 Budget will be
appreciated. I would also like to express my appreciation to all City personnel who assisted in the
preparation of the 2006 Budget.
Sincerely,
Richard Fursman
City Manager
BUDGET OVERVIEW
MAJOR During preparation of the 2006 Budget, city staff focused on the long -range
INITIATIVES goals established by the City Council and management staff at the past
several strategic planning retreats. The goals were established after issues
and opportunities were identified and prioritized. Merger of the city's public
safety dispatching with Ramsey County has been considered as a possible
major new initiative but was postponed indefinitely based upon City Council
action on 7- 11 -05. As a result of this, there are no new major initiatives
included in the 2006 Budget.
STRATEGIC The goals that were established at the strategic planning retreats which have
PLAN been addressed in the 2006 Budget are as follows:
1. To redevelop commercial properties, the Gladstone area redevelopment
project is scheduled to start in 2006 with streetscape improvements.
2. To expand the trail system, there is $50,000 included the Park
Development Fund to start the Walter Street trail project which will
connect Sunset Ridge Park to the Little Canada trail system.
3. Creative funding /alternate revenues consisting of tax increment bonds,
electric franchise fees, water surcharges and environmental utility fees
are proposed for some of the capital improvement projects planned for
2006. Tax increment bonds are planned for the Gladstone area
redevelopment project. Electric franchise fees are planned for the
Gladstone area streetscape project. A new water surcharge fee is
planned to be implemented 1 -1 -06 for financing water system costs that
cannot be assessed or financed by water availability charges.
Environmental utility fees are planned for storm sewer improvements.
Long -range financial goals established at the retreats have been addressed
in the 2006 -2010 Capital Improvement Plan which was adopted by the City
Council on 6- 13 -05. Long -range non - financial goals and objectives have
been and will be addressed as indicated in other publications and reports.
TAX LEVY The City's tax levy for 2006 is $14,106,370 which is 5.0% ($671,730) higher
FOR 2006 than 2005. The tax levy increase for a median value home cannot be
5.0% determined until Ramsey County finalizes tax base information with the
HIGHER assessor's office. Approximately 79% of the tax levy is for operations and
21 % is for debt service costs on bond issues.
CITY In 2005 the City received 28.1 % of the property taxes on property within the
RECEIVES City. The following illustration indicates the allocation of property tax dollars
28.1% by government type.
TAXES
4.8% 28.1%
Other City
2006
EXPENDITURES
BUDGET
$35.6 MILLION
It should be noted that the above data is for property in Maplewood that is
located within School District 622.
Expenditures in the 2006 Budget are 0.3% less than 2005. The breakdown
by section is listed in the following table:
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY SECTION
Comparison of 2005 and 2006 Budget
REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
Amount
Change
Amount
Change
Operations
$28,724,680
7.3%
$28,353,040
3.7%
Capital Improvements
1,118,450
(35.1)%
1,095,360
(68.2)%
Debt Service
5,039,650
39.2%
6,114,470
25.8%
Totals
$34,882,780
8.6%
$35,562,870
(0.3)%
The difference between total revenues and expenditures will be financed by
the use of surplus fund balances and bond issues.
OPERATING BUDGET
This portion of the budget covers basic City services such as police,
firefighting, street maintenance, recreation programs, park maintenance,
planning, building inspections and utility maintenance. The expenditures for
37.6%
County
29.5%
Schools
the funds within this portion of the budget are grouped by department and
subdivided into programs for each department. Budget performance is
measured based on the accomplishment of the objectives for 2006 listed for
each department and by the performance effectiveness indicators listed for
each program.
OPERATING Operating budget revenues for 2006 are 7.3% more than 2005. The revenue
BUDGET category with the largest increase is intergovernmental that is $998,690
REVENUES UP higher than 2005. This is due primarily to increases in homestead credit state
7.3% aid ($333,230) and state street aid ($496,400).
ELECTRIC The electric franchise fee which was added to electric customer bills to
FRANCHISE FEE finance the street light costs in 2005 will remain unchanged. Street light
REMAINS costs prior to 2005 were financed by the General Fund tax levy. The electric
UNCHANGED franchise fee is approximately $0.50 per month on a single family home and
generates annual revenues of $167,760.
AMBULANCE Revenues in the charges for service category include a planned increase in
RATE INCREASE ambulance rates effective January 1, 2006 as indicated in the following table.
AMBULANCE RATE INCREASES
Increase
2005
2006
Amount
Percent
Non - transport
Resident
$290.00
$335.00
$ 45.00
15.5%
Non - resident
310.00
335.00
25.00
8.1
Basic Life Support:
Resident
780.00
895.00
115.00
14.7
Non - resident
815.00
895.00
80.00
9.8
Advanced Life Support 1:
Resident
1,030.00
1,170.00
140.00
13.6
Non - resident
1,080.00
1,170.00
90.00
8.3
Advanced Life Support 2:
Resident
1,150.00
1,295.00
145.00
12.6
Non - resident
1,205.00
1,295.00
90.00
7.5
Charge per mile
13.00
14.10
1.10
8.5
The 2006 ambulance rates are based upon the amount needed to cover
all the costs for the services provided. Ambulance service revenues for
2006 are projected to be $1,593,410 which is $261,640 and 19.7% higher
than the 2005 budget. The 2005 Budget included a tax levy in the amount
of $378,760 to subsidize costs not covered by the ambulance rates being
charged. The 2006 Budget contains no tax levy. The higher non - resident
rates are no longer needed because the property tax subsidy for
ambulance services will be eliminated.
UTILITY RATES Operating budget revenues for 2006 produced by utility service charges will
REMAIN total $5,651,750, which represents 19.7% of the total operating budget
UNCHANGED revenues. Utility service charges consist of sewer service charges
($4,013,310), environmental utility charges ($1,292,150) and recycling
charges ($346,290).
No increase in sewer rates is necessary to finance the 2006 Budget for the
Sanitary Sewer Fund. Most of the revenues from the sewer rates finance the
Metropolitan Council sewage treatment charges to Maplewood. In 2006
these charges will be approximately $2,270,250 which is 61.5% of the
operating expenses for the Sanitary Sewer Fund. The sewage treatment
charges are difficult to estimate due to variations in the flow caused by
ground water infiltration into the sewer mains. The Metropolitan Council
sewage treatment rates will increase by approximately 2.0% in 2006.
No increase in the environmental utility charge or recycling charge is
necessary because the rates set in 2005 will be produce sufficient revenues
to finance costs and working capital balances are at an appropriate level.
Revenue from the new 2% surcharge on St. Paul water utility bills that will be
implemented on 1 -1 -06 is included in the Capital Improvement Budget.
These revenues will be used to finance future water system improvements
that can not be financed by special assessments. The Council gave
preliminary approval to this new surcharge on 6- 13 -05.
The following table summarizes the proposed utility rate changes for an
average home.
UTILITY RATES
IMPACT ON AN AVERAGE HOME
Quarterly Charge
Increase (Decrease)
2005 2006
Amount
Percent
Sewer service*
$56.60 $56.60
$0.00
0.0%
Environmental charge
10.29 10.29
0.00
0.0%
Recycling charge
6.05 6.05
0.00
0.0%
Water surcharge
0.00 0.70
0.70
N/A
Total
$72.94 $73.64
$0.70
1.0%
*Rate per 1,000 gals
$2.82 $2.82
$0.00
0.0%
OPERATING
BUDGET
EXPENDITURES
UP 3.7%
Operating budget expenditures for 2006 are $28.4 million, which is
$1,002,070 higher than 2005. The budget changes by department are as
follows:
OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT
AMOUNT
% CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
2006
OVER (UNDER)
OVER (UNDER)
GROWTH
BUDGET
2005 BUDGET
2005 BUDGET
Community Development
$1,736,530
$100,360
6.1%
Executive
1,287,120
(58,350)
(4.3 %)
Finance
747,990
5,460
0.7%
Fire
3,114,430
178,520
6.1%
Human Resource
376,290
5,310
1.4%
Information Technology
745,750
56,620
8.2%
Legislative
205,100
60,490
41.8%
Parks and Recreation
4,763,350
198,540
4.3%
Police
6,979,270
379,310
5.7%
Public Works
7,657,200
65,060
0.9%
Records, Elections and Licenses
740,010
10,750
1.5%
Total expenditures
$28,353,040
$1,002,070
3.7%
Less internal charges
2,328,750
155,500
7.2%
Net external expenditures
$26,024,290
$846,570
3.4%
Internal charges include administrative charges, fleet rental charges,
information technology charges and phone support charges. Details on
department budgets are in Section 3 of this booklet.
Population growth and commercial development requires budget increases in
excess of the inflation rate in order to maintain the present level of City
services. The size of population increases is directly related to the number of
new housing units built. Commercial development can be monitored based
on the valuation of non - residential building permits. For the past three years
the amounts have been as follows:
DEMAND FOR CITY SERVICES BASED ON GROWTH
NON-
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH
RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH
Valuation of
New Housing
Percent
Non - residential
YEAR
Units
Population
Change
Building Permits
2002
191
35,483
1.0%
$61,908,694
2003
233
35,763
0.8%
$32,542,024
2004
143
35,892
0.4%
$55,342,971
The population for 2002 through 2004 is from estimates prepared by the
Metropolitan Council. The average annual population increase between 1990
and 2000 was 1.3 %. If this rate of increase continues, the city's population in
2005 will be 36,359 and in 2006 will be 36,831.
The number of full -time employees included in the 2006 Budget is 175.
+1 This is an increase of one position. The changes in budgeted full -time
FULL -TIME positions are one Police Department Community Service Officer position
EMPLOYEES has been replaced by two part time officers. Also, two patrol officers have
been added in an effort to work toward the goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000
citizens. The number of full -time equivalent positions in the 2006 Budget
is 196.
59% OF Approximately 59% of the Operating Budget is accounted for in the City's
OPERATING General Fund. Revenues projected for 2006 will be 12.6% higher than the
BUDGET IN 2005 Budget. Expenditures will be 2.6% higher in 2006 than the 2005
GENERAL FUND Budget. The 2006 Budget for the General Fund is a "surplus" budget as 2006
revenues exceed expenditures by $95,740. The surplus is necessary to
return the fund balance to the level needed to help the city retain its bond
rating and provide a sufficient balance for its cash flow needs.
The following shows sources and uses of funds for the 2006 Budget
compared to the 2005 Budget:
It has been common for the past several years to have a General Fund
deficit budget. Despite this practice, the fund balance in the General Fund
has increased and has been maintained at an appropriate level. This is
because it is city budget policy to make conservative revenue estimates
and liberal expenditure estimates. Consequently, the General Fund ending
balance is usually much higher than budgeted and provides a resource for
GENERAL FUND The 12.6% increase in General Fund revenues amounts to $1,876,200. The
REVENUES revenue categories with the largest changes are current taxes,
UP 12.6% intergovernmental revenue and charges for service. Current taxes are
$968,210 higher and they will be 60.5% of total revenues for the General
Fund compared to 61.6% of the revenues in 2005. The increase in
intergovernmental revenue is $492,230 of which $333,230 is for the market
value homestead credit aid from the state. The increase in charges for
service is $438,690 which is mainly due to increased revenue projections for
plan check fees and administrative charges.
% CHANGE
2005
2006
INCREASE
OVER 2005
BUDGET
BUDGET
(DECREASE)
BUDGET
Sources of funds:
Taxes - current
$9,150,000
$10,118,210
$968,210
10.6%
Other revenues
5,696,690
6,604,680
907,990
15.9%
Fund balance
1,352,370
(95,740)
( 1,448,110)
(107.1 %)
Total
$16,199,060
$16,627,150
$428,090
2.6%
Use of funds:
Expenditures
$16,199,060
$16,627,150
$428,090
2.6%
It has been common for the past several years to have a General Fund
deficit budget. Despite this practice, the fund balance in the General Fund
has increased and has been maintained at an appropriate level. This is
because it is city budget policy to make conservative revenue estimates
and liberal expenditure estimates. Consequently, the General Fund ending
balance is usually much higher than budgeted and provides a resource for
GENERAL FUND The 12.6% increase in General Fund revenues amounts to $1,876,200. The
REVENUES revenue categories with the largest changes are current taxes,
UP 12.6% intergovernmental revenue and charges for service. Current taxes are
$968,210 higher and they will be 60.5% of total revenues for the General
Fund compared to 61.6% of the revenues in 2005. The increase in
intergovernmental revenue is $492,230 of which $333,230 is for the market
value homestead credit aid from the state. The increase in charges for
service is $438,690 which is mainly due to increased revenue projections for
plan check fees and administrative charges.
GENERALFUND
EXPENDITURES
UP 2.6%
The 2006 Budget includes recommended expenditures that are 2.6% higher
than the 2005 Budget. The breakdown by department is as follows:
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT
AMOUNT
% CHANGE
2006
OVER (UNDER)
OVER 2005
BUDGET
2005 BUDGET
BUDGET
Community Development
$1,339,720
$90,990
7.3%
Executive
1,287,120
(58,350)
(4.3 %)
Finance
665,880
1,740
0.3%
Fire
1,478,360
(34,330)
(2.3 %)
Human Resource
376,290
5,310
1.4%
Legislative
151,370
6,930
4.8%
Parks and Recreation
1,561,990
(18,030)
(1.1 %)
Police
6,840,640
320,010
4.9%
Public Works
2,185,770
103,070
4.9%
Records, Election and Licenses
740,010
10,750
1.5%
Total expenditures
$16,627,150
$428,090
2.6%
The large increase in the Police Department is due to staffing changes
and higher information technology charges.
GENERAL FUND An analysis of the General Fund cash flow for 2003 and 2004 indicated that
BALANCE the fund balance should be 26.8% of the revenues to finance cash flow
WILL BE needs. The fund balance also needs to be large enough to finance
35.9% unexpected expenditures. Therefore, the budgeted 12 -31 -06 fund balance
OF BUDGET has been set at 35.9% of the 2006 budgeted revenues. This should provide a
sufficient balance to cover cash flow needs and unexpected expenditures.
Also, it is near the level that it was at in October 1989 when the city's bond
rating by Moody's Investors Services was increased to its current level. The
budgeted 12 -31 -05 fund balance was 36.0% of the 2005 budgeted revenues.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET
This portion of the budget covers the acquisition and construction of major
facilities other than those financed by the Operating Budget. The revenues
and expenditures within the Capital Improvements Budget are grouped by
fund. The money within each fund is restricted for major equipment
purchases and construction projects costing in excess of $50,000. All other
capital outlay is financed within the Operating Budget. The 2006 Budget
implements the first year of the 2006 -2010 Capital Improvement Plan
adopted by the City Council on June 13, 2005. This five -year plan is updated
annually through a comprehensive capital needs planning process.
CAPITAL Revenues for 2006 in the Capital Improvements Budget are $604,120 and
IMPROVEMENTS 35.1 % less than 2005. This decrease is due to lower park availability charges
REVENUES and proceeds from the sale of property ($400,000 was included in the 2005
DOWN 35.1% Budget and the amount for 2006 is $0). Major revenue sources for the 2006
Capital Improvement Budget are taxes including tax increment revenues
($523,490), charges for services ($74,000) and miscellaneous revenues
($520,960) which includes investment earnings and park availability charges.
CAPITAL The Capital Improvement Budget expenditures are $1,095,360 and 68.2%
IMPROVEMENTS less than 2005. The largest projects planned for 2006 include an expansion
EXPENDITURES of the Community Center ($250,000) and replacement of a fire truck
DOWN 68.2% ($280,000). The impact of these items on operating costs will be negligible.
DEBT SERVICE BUDGET
This portion of the budget covers the payment of principal and interest on the
City's bonded indebtedness.
DEBT Revenues for 2006 are 39.2% more than 2005 primarily due to an increase in
SERVICE property taxes. Major revenue sources, as in past years, are property taxes
REVENUES ($2,986,630), special assessments ($1,476,110), state street aid ($469,110)
UP 39.2% and investment earnings ($107,800).
DEBT SERVICE Expenditures for 2006 are 25.8% more than 2005. The increase is due to
EXPENDITURES higher scheduled principal and interest payments.
UP 25.8%
The anticipated new debt issues for 2006 total $10,577,900 to finance public
works improvements. At the end of 2006, general long -term net debt payable
will be $60,434,353 which is 12.1 % more than projected for the end of 2005.
FUTURE Operating Budget increases in the future will continue to exceed the inflation
GROWTH rate because of population growth and increases in commercial
WILL IMPACT development. The City has experienced slow steady population growth since
OPERATING 1990. Average annual population increases between 1990 and 2000 were
BUDGET 1.3 %. It is anticipated that population growth will accelerate in 2006 due to
the 80 -acre Legacy Village development.
In 2004 the City issued building permits with a total valuation of $77.2 million.
In 2003 the City issued building permits with a total valuation of $70.3 million.
The Legacy Village development will have an estimated value of $162 million.
CAPITAL Based on projections in the 2006 -2010 Capital Improvement Plan, the Capital
IMPROVEMENT Budget will range from $10.0 million to $14.7 million in 2007 -2010. Major
EXPENDITURES factors affecting the capital budgets will be (a) residential and commercial
IN 2007 -2010 growth and (b) the number of public improvement projects that are approved
for construction. Bond issues and capital notes to finance the 2006 -2010
Capital Improvement Plan total $40,796,000.
AGENDA NO. K -2
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
RE: Water Surcharge Ordinance First Reading
DATE: August 2, 2005
Seven projects in the 2006 -2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are proposed to be
partially financed by revenues from a water surcharge fee. The projects are the
following:
1. KENWOOD AREA STREETS
2. DESOTO /ROSELAWN AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS
3. FERNDALE / GERANIUM AREA STREETS
4. BROOKVIEW AREA STREETS
5. LARK/PROSPERITY /BURKE AREA STREETS
6. KOHLMAN LANE AREA STREETS, WATER & SEWER
7. HILLS & DALE AREA STREETS
All of these projects include water system improvements that cannot be fully assessed.
The portion that cannot be assessed is proposed to be financed by the Water
Availability Fund for the St. Paul Water Service District. There will be insufficient
revenues in the fund unless a water surcharge is implemented effective 1 -1 -06. The
proposed surcharge is 2% of the St. Paul water charge. The surcharge would be $0.70
per quarter for a family of four with average water usage (i.e. 20 units per quarter). The
revenue generated by the surcharge would be approximately $70,000 in 2006.
Implementation of a water surcharge fee probably would not be controversial because
the use of the revenues should be easily understood and the fee is very small. If the
water surcharge fee is not implemented, the unassessable water system improvements
would have to be financed by property taxes.
On June 13 the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to implement a water
surcharge fee. Attached is a copy the ordinance that is recommended for approval.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD CODE
RELATING TO WATER UTILITIES
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Part 1. Section 40, Article II I is hereby amended to read as follows:
Division 5. Water Surcharge
Section 40 -477. Purpose and Intent.
The city has determined that water system improvements in the St. Paul water
service district need to be constructed that cannot be fully assessed. In order to pay for
these costs a surcharge on water charges in the St. Paul billing district is established.
Section 40 -478. Rates.
A surcharge on water charges in the St. Paul billing district shall be set from time
to time by the council and shall be on file for inspection in city offices.
Section 40 -478. Statements and delinquent accounts.
Statements and delinquent accounts shall be the same as that specified for
sanitary sewer charges for the St. Paul billing district in Sections 40 -63 and 40 -64.
Part 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force beginning January 1,
2006.
P \agn \water surcharge2
Agenda Item K3
TO: City Manager
FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment (East) Improvements (TH 61 to Southlawn), City
Project 02 -07: Approve County Road D Pipeline Maintenance Agreement with
Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District
DATE: July 27, 2005
I. III III :is] 1111,18011111 [a].I
The city council will consider approving the attached maintenance agreement with Ramsey - Washington
Metro Watershed District ( RWMWD) and authorizing the mayor to enter into said agreement on behalf of
the city.
Background
As part of the County Road D East construction, a contract was let in late 2003 to correct the poor soils
through the golf course (surcharge project). Two existing 48" polyethylene pipes pass through the
proposed roadway embankment and the subsequent soil correction area. As the roadway correction area
would settle, it had been anticipated that the twin 48 -inch pipes would also settle. Strategic loading was
used to minimize the pipe settlement and a settlement tolerance of two feet was agreed to by the
watershed and their engineers. As the surcharge has proceeded, the settlement in the twin 48 -inch pipes
has actually exceeded four feet. The twin 48 -inch pipes are flexible polyethylene and were designed to
heave and settle. It is anticipated that the 4 -foot settlement will have no bearing on the function of the
pipes; however, it is imperative to the city and the watershed that the condition and function of these pipes
is verified before the new roadway is constructed. Various methods to evaluate and inspect the pipe have
been explored, and it has been decided that the best method of evaluation would be to utilize professional
divers to enter the pipe.
The attached agreement simply formalizes the city's obligation to the security of the twin pipes as it relates
to the surcharge and the construction of County Road D.
Budget Impact
This action will not have any immediate impact on the project budget. Only under the scenario that
extensive work would be required, would the city incur any costs related to this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached County Road D Pipeline Maintenance
Agreement with RWMWD and authorize the Mayor to enter into said agreement on behalf of the city.
Attachment:
1. RWMWD County Road D Pipeline Maintenance Agreement
COUNTY ROAD D PIPE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
This Maintenance Agreement is made this day of
__, by and between the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation under the laws
of the State of Minnesota (herein referred to as "City ") and the Ramsey - Washington
Metro Watershed District, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota (herein referred to as "the District "), to provide for the maintenance of the
District pipes through the County Road D roadway embankment.
WHEREAS, the District issued a permit to the City for roadway construction.
The District's permit allowed for the roadway construction to impact the District's pipes
by allowing settlement of up to two (2) feet; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the District pipes have settled in excess
of four (4) feet in some areas due to the City's roadway construction; and
WHEREAS, the parties seek to amicably address the immediate issues together
with a long term maintenance agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties:
1. The City shall coordinate and pay for a diver to enter the pipe to assess
the condition to determine whether any permanent deformation or structural problems
with the pipes exist.
2. The City shall conduct a survey to determine the profile of the in -place
pipelines. The City shall work with the pipe supplier to conduct calculations to
determine whether the settlement that has occurred is a problem with the pipe
structurally. If there is a problem, the City shall immediately take all steps necessary to
put the pipe in the condition it was before the roadway construction.
3. The City shall continue to monitor pipe settlement through the existing
monitoring ports throughout all phases of construction affecting said pipe and
immediately notify the District of any changes to said pipe.
4. The City shall locate and uncover the District's piezometers covered by
the embankment construction.
5. The City shall inspect said pipe on an on -going basis which shall not be
less than one time annually to determine that the District's pipes are operating
properly.
6. The City hereby grants the right to the District to enter onto the property to
inspect the District's pipe as the District, in its sole discretion, deems necessary. In the
event it is determined that the District pipes are not operating properly as a result of the
City's roadway construction, the City shall be liable to repair said pipes in a timely
manner and shall be solely liable for all costs incurred thereon. The City shall be
responsible to the District for any and all fees and costs associated with said repairs
and indemnify the District from any liability thereon.
This Agreement shall be binding on said parties, its successors and assigns.
Dated:
1619I1101VKO19
) ss.
Is] r VK • 1 0 �• r_1 Z! I� r I T c • 1• 1
m
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _
, 2005 by , the
of the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation under the laws of the
State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
Dated: RAMSEY - WASHINGTON METRO
WATERSHED DISTRICT
By
Roger E. Lake, its President
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
) ss.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _
, 2005 by Roger E. Lake, the President of the Ramsey - Washington Metro
Watershed District, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
Lf:T_IMra.11 ya
LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD,
GALOWITZ & WOLLE, P.A.
Lawyers
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Telephone: (651) 777 -6960
(TAG)
Agenda Item K4
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
SUBJECT: Gladstone Redevelopment, Project 04 -21 — Approve Resolution
Ordering an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the
Gladstone Redevelopment Plan located in the City of Maplewood
DATE: July 28, 2005
INTRODUCTION
On December 13, 2004, the City Council authorized the hiring of a master planning consultant, Hoisington
Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGI), for the Gladstone Redevelopment initiative. HKGI has worked with the
Gladstone Task Force to develop concepts for the redevelopment of the area. As part of the process,
environmental planning and review is required. The recommended process is preparation of an Alternative
Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). A resolution ordering the AUAR preparation is recommended.
Background
A full work plan from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.; Kimley -Horn and Assoc., Inc., and SEH, Inc. was
approved by the City Council in December 2004. The plan called for an extensive meeting and review
process over a nine -month period. A Task Force was established in January 2004 to help guide the
process. From the December 2004 staff report: "The intent of the Task Force is not to limit participation,
but to make sure that all interest groups are represented." The Task Force is continuing to develop a
position on the overall concept for the area. A public meeting is scheduled for August 11` at the
Community Center and the next Task Force meeting is scheduled for August 31 ". A final recommendation
from the Task Force on the concept will be developed later in the process. Preparation of the
environmental report is necessary to complete the project scope of work. Attached is a resolution that
orders the AUAR.
AUAR and Master Framework Plan Process
The proposed schedule included within the master planner's scope of work included the preparation of an
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and a Master Framework Plan as deliverable documents. The
AUAR will be prepared in lieu of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The AUAR is a more
extensive version of the EAW process and has been determined as necessary due to the extensive
number of parcels (see attached area map noting boundaries of the study) that may be impacted by the
redevelopment initiatives. The AUAR will provide the city with a guide to the development process and
ensure that proper environmental procedures are followed to protect the roadways, stormwater and other
environmental features of the area. The AUAR will provide a mitigation plan for the redevelopment
initiatives that the city will be required to implement as part of the infrastructure improvements. The AUAR
will be prepared to consider the two development proposals currently being studied by the Task Force and
reviewed with the City Council on July 11, 2005. The two proposals vary based upon development within
or excluded from the Savanna. The AUAR also will extend the moratorium in the area until the final
document is adopted.
The Master Framework Plan will be the guide document for the area. Various alternatives and
improvements will be explored and considered. The Master Framework Plan will be used by property
Agenda Item K4
owners and the city to facilitate a plan that includes financial incentives (if appropriate) along with guides
on building materials, infrastructure improvements, landscaping investments and other public and private
improvements that will provide for the future of the Gladstone area. It is anticipated that the Master
Framework Plan will be adopted by the City Council after recommendation from the Task Force in August
or September of 2005.
AUAR and Master Framework Plan Schedule
Order for Review Adopted by City Council
August 8, 2005
City Council Review of Draft AUAR and Master Plan (Workshop)
September 26, 2005
Notice of AUAR Availability for Review to EQB
October 3, 2005
Public Comment Period on AUAR Begins
October 10, 2005
Public Comment Period on AUAR Ends
November 9, 2005
Consultant and Staff Complete Responses to AUAR Comments
November 21, 2005
Final AUAR and Master Plan Adopted by City Council
December 12, 2005
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for the Gladstone Redevelopment
Project, City Project 04 -21, ordering an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Gladstone
Redevelopment Plan located in the City of Maplewood.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Ordering AUAR
2. Exhibit A— Map of AUAR Study Area (Colored maps will be provided to the Mayor and Council.)
RESOLUTION NO. 05- XX -XXX
A RESOLUTION ORDERING AN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW
(AUAR) FOR THE GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED IN THE
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
WHEREAS, in December of 2004, the Citv of Maplewood initiated a redevelopment
planning process for the Gladstone area generally defined as the area along Frost Avenue between
US Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street N and the area along English Street between Ripley Avenue
and the Gateway Trail further described in the attached Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, the City has an approved Comprehensive Plan that establishes future land use
patterns in the Gladstone area consisting of open space, single and double dwelling residential, light
manufacturing and business commercial and that addresses public facilities and implementation
strategies; and,
WHEREAS, the Gladstone area contains a number of older commercial uses and parcels
that demonstrate sim s of obsolescence, inefficient land use and site lavout, dilapidation and
deterioration and other signs of a need for revitalization; and,
WHEREAS, the City is aware of a number of properties within the project area that are
likely to redevelop in the near future and the desired development patterns are not likely to be
consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the master planning effort is intended to result in a plan that establishes a
vision and future land use plan to guide redevelopment efforts on an areawide basis as opposed to
reacting to individual redevelopment proposals; and,
WHEREAS, the master planning effort has resulted in a concept that explores higher
density housing development on redeveloped parcels within the project area and limited
neighborhood commercial uses; and,
WHEREAS, the development concept is supported by a range of public improvements to
area park and open space systems, roadwav improvements, streetscape enhancements, burial of
overhead utility lines, and stormwater management systems; and,
WHEREAS, an environmental review is necessary to evaluate the cumulative impacts of
potential development within the Gladstone Area on the neighborhood and the communitv; and
WHEREAS, an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is a substitute form of
environmental review that replaces an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as provided for in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3600 and
is a more appropriate form of environmental review that evaluates cumulative impacts resulting
from multiple re- development projects spread over a larger area; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU)
assigned the responsibility of conducting the AUAR; and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Rule 4410.3610 (ALTAR Process) Subpart 3 requires an "order for
review" to define the review area boundaries and the "anticipated nature, location and intensity" of
projected future development; and,
WHEREAS, over the last two vears the City has conducted a number of public meetings to
discuss and evaluate various redevelopment concepts as presented by private developers,
neighborhood groups and interested landowners; and,
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Plan will serve as the basis for the
development of the ALTAR.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Citv Council of the Citv of Maplewood,
Countv of Ramsev, State of Minnesota, adopts this Order for Review authorizing utilization of an
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (ALTAR) pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 for the
purpose of conducting an environmental review and analysis of redevelopment impacts in the
Gladstone Area.
Passed this 8"' day of August 2005.
Robert Cardinal, Mavor
Attest:
Exhibit A-- Gladstone ALTAR Project Area Map
Agenda Item K5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Cleric
DATE: July 28, 2005
RE: Intoxicating Liquor License
Introduction
Carol Chopp has submitted a request for an intoxicating liquor license for TGI Friday's to
be located at 3087 White Bear Avenue North.
Background
The City is currently allocated 32 intoxicating liquor licenses. There are only four more
available for issuance.
TGI Friday's will be opening in the fall and the corporate office is not ready to hire a
manager at this time. Since there are only four licenses left and the City is growing, Ms.
Chopp, is requesting that the City designate a license for them. When completion of the
restaurant is close to opening they will hire their general manager and the liquor license
will only be issued after the applicant meets all criteria set forth by the City code of
ordinances and council approves his or her application.
Recommendation
Staff is requesting that the City Council designate an intoxicating liquor license for TGI
Friday's. If an application has not been submitted by October 1, 2005, staff will bring a
staff report to the October 8, 2005, city council meeting requesting that the liquor license
no longer be held.
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item K6
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Utility Easement Vacation— Heritage Square 4 th Addition
LOCATION: West of Guldens, south of new County Road D
DATE: July 29, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is asking the city to vacate part of an
existing drainage and utility easement on the site of the future Heritage 4th Addition town house
development. This easement follows the alignment of the previously vacated Lydia Avenue.
Refer to the attachments.
BACKGROUND
On April 25, 2005, the Maplewood City Council approved a preliminary plat, parking lot setback
variance and the project design plans for the Heritage Square 4th Addition.
DISCUSSION
Chris Cavett, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, has evaluated this request and finds no
public benefit in retaining this easement. Maplewood has no plans to use the proposed easement
for utilities or drainage purposes. This easement, furthermore, lies beneath a proposed town
house building in the Heritage Square 4th Addition, which is another reason for this vacation.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
July 18, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of this vacation.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easement within the site of the Heritage
Square 4th Addition town house development that follows the old Lydia Avenue alignment. The
reasons for the vacation are as follows:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The existing easement is not needed for utility or drainage purposes.
3. The approved Heritage Square 4th Addition site plan has a building proposed on top of the
easement.
1N:Ia :I 7:I.[a] :91.1;101N M /e III [a].I
Application Date
The city received the complete application and plans for this request on July 5, 2005. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use
proposal. City action is required on this proposal by September 3, 2005.
p:sec 4 \Heritage Sq. 4" Easement Vac to 7'05
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Heritage Square 4" Addition Preliminary Plat
3. Heritage Square 4" Addition Building Unit Summary
4. Applicant's Written Request dated July 1, 2005
5. Vacation Resolution
Attachment 1
uwo
19
:. rl
Fisher's Corner
LOCATION
3
UTILITY
EASEMENT
PROPOSEDTO
co
BE VACATED
19
:. rl
Fisher's Corner
LOCATION
3
Attachment
"
I
c
=Z.
Ijjojs'
i 'DU
: i T
21
PRIELIMINARY
lx
-------------
c
=Z.
Ijjojs'
i 'DU
: i T
PRIELIMINARY
PLA
-------------
c
Ijjojs'
:,I
PRIELIMINARY
PLA
c
BUILDING UNIT SU A'VIARY
c
a,
�l
}
r
tt,'AI Al .r� 'f } 'z (1
d. At Bi
3
a21 82
1 61 B1 Ai f�" .� ? ( AY p1
81
81 P2
,x. , r
Pi B9 e2'-, royn '`v A
- ! 8 ! c t B2 1
y �� = B 21 �' , P1 P28' nM1 �,. Al a2
; A2 A, i P1 02, 2 61 r x Bt B1 3 ii } } ` 2 P1 B282 Bi Al y Al 61 UZ B2 B1 A2
BLOC u1 3 Al Al Al' na A2'
A2 A2 ' A2 B1 2 B � B B2 Bi Al A ; p .2 111 0202 3F Al { y :Al Ill 02 132 91 42 �
ti
w
r: N'
3 -- -------
[lvvoc�orcna
Eit1
TOWN
F 10 N,
0 0-5 /200., 1 ! 08 I'A% 611'302035
HE= LCD i 001
AttachvieyiL 4
., Iv 'I ,
Real Estate
July 1, 2005
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
City Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Trout Land
Vacation of Easement
CAA� c ',,N 5 5 1.),q
Odi, o5t1 130-!020
sen
Please move this application through as quickly as possible as it potentially will affect the
closing on our property
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention in this matter.
Respectfully yours,
*James I�t Kellisr)�n
President
W=
C Kevin Clark
Gonzalo Medina
i, 7 , F .
I V
, M U
6
Attachment 5
WHEREAS, Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, applied for the
vacation of the following:
On July 18, 0 planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting
Is
and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that th
U I
city council _ the public easement vacation.
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to
ihe adjoining property,
z
■ a ■ a- 4 0.
MMMBNMEIMME�
2. The existing easement is not needed for utility or drainage purposm
of the easement.
URSIMPTOIN . =##.IIlr4IW4T*Iff6TAF-rGT=rT# #a 6
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005
b. UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION (HERITAGE SQUARE FOURTH ADDITION) (8:28 —8:33
P.M.)
Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is asking the city
to vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement on the site of the future Heritage 4th
Addition town house development.
Mr. Roberts said this easement follows the alignment of the previously vacated Lydia Avenue
On April 25, 2005, the Maplewood City Council approved a preliminary plat, parking lot setback
variance and the project design plans for the Heritage Square 4th Addition.
Commissioner Trippler asked if the easement was located where the trail was supposed to go
that would lead to County Road D?
Mr. Roberts said because of the easement the trail did not line up so the developer with the plat
would be dedicating new easements for utilities and trails that fit the site plan.
Mr. AN said the city has a development agreement that is in place requiring the dedication of the
easement.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Mr. Jim Kellison, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd., Suite 245,
Oakdale, addressed the commission. He said this request is pretty straight forward and he didn't
have any questions for the commission or of staff.
Nobody came forward to speak for the public hearing.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution vacating the drainage and utility
easement within the site of the Heritage Square 4th Addition town house development that follows
the old Lydia Avenue alignment. The reasons for the vacation are as follows:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The existing easement is not needed for utility or drainage purposes.
3. The approved Heritage Square 4th Addition site plan has a building proposed on top of the
easement.
Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes — Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover,
Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005.
Agenda Item K.7
IN *101A9&111�T�I�T� /_1Wd
Subject: Maplewood Business Center — Neighbor Appeal
of CDRB Approved Landscape /Screening Plan
Site Address: 1616 Gervais Avenue
Zoning: Limited Manufacturing (M -1)
Land Use: Limited Manufacturing (M -1)
City Council Hearing Date: August 8, 2005
Project Description: Joseph Yahnke and Denise Ries, neighbors to the
Maplewood Business Center, are appealing the CDRB's June 28, 2005, approval
of the required landscape /screening plan for the Maplewood Business Center
located at 1616 Gervais Avenue.
Requests: Section 2- 285(c) of the city's CDRB ordinance states that the
board's decision shall be final, unless someone appeals it to the city council
within 15 days after the board's decision. All appeals to CDRB approvals are
heard by the city council.
Recommendations: Staff recommends that the city council uphold the CDRB's
approval of the landscape /screening plan which includes a 258 linear foot, six -
foot high, PVC fence and landscaping.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: Maplewood Business Center — Neighbor Appeal of
CDRB Approved Landscape /Screening Plan
LOCATION: 1616 Gervais Avenue
DATE: August 2, 2005
INTRODUCTION
On June 28, 2005, the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) reviewed and
approved a landscape /screening plan for the west side of the Maplewood Business
Center located at 1616 Gervais Avenue (Attachment 1). This plan was required by the
city council after a revision to the center's conditional use permit (CUP) following noise
complaints the city received from an adjacent neighbor.
Section 2- 285(c) of the city's CDRB ordinance states that the board's decision shall be
final, unless someone appeals it to the city council within 15 days after the board's
decision. On July 11, 2005, residential neighbors of the Maplewood Business Center
appealed the board's decision. As required by city code, all appeals to the CDRB are
heard by the city council.
BACKGROUND
The Maplewood Business Center is a multi- tenant office /warehouse building located at
1616 Gervais Avenue. The center was constructed in 1981 after the city council
approved a CUP to construct the building closer than the 200 -foot setback requirement
to the adjacent residential property, which was the city code requirement at that time.
One of the center's tenants is the St. Paul Pioneer Press distribution facility. They have
been leasing space in the building for approximately twelve years.
Last fall the city received a complaint from Cindy and Kevin Hall, neighbors located
across the street from the center. The complaint was in regard to excessive late
night /early morning noise from activities within the distribution facility. According to the
Halls the activities taking place at the distribution facility are very loud, and most of this
activity occurs between the hours of 2 and 6 a.m.
Due to the neighbors' concerns about noise, the city council reviewed the Maplewood
Business Center's CUP. On February 14, 2005, the city council approved a revision to
the CUP (Attachment 2). The revision included several new conditions to help mitigate
the noise from the newspaper facility to the adjacent residential properties. One
condition specified that the owner submit a detailed landscape and screening plan for
the area between the parking lot and Germain Street. The plan was to be reviewed by
the CDRB and should show how new materials, either landscaping or fencing, would
provide screening that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent solid. In addition,
the plan was to be implemented by July 1, 2005.
Patrick Lensing with Steiner Development, leasing agent for the Maplewood Business
Center, presented two landscape and screening plans at the June 28, 2005, CDRB
meeting. The first plan consisted of 57, five - foot -high techny arborvitaes, planted in a
double row (Attachment 3). The second plan consisted of 150 linear feet of a six -foot
high, white PVC fence and five Black Hills spruce (Attachment 4). The CDRB
recommended approval of the second plan (PVC fence option) with several conditions of
approval including that the length of the fence be extended the entire length of the two
buildings along Germain Street (approximately 258 linear feet) (Attachment 5).
On July 11, 2005, Joseph Yahnke and Denise Ries, neighbors located across the street
from the center, appealed the CDRB's approval of the PVC fence option (Attachment 6).
The neighbors state that they are concerned that a PVC fence will attract graffiti and
would not look attractive from their home. The neighbors state that if a screen must be
installed to reduce noise across the street from them, that a screen of plantings be
installed rather than a fence.
DISCUSSION
The CDRB approved the PVC fence option after determining that a fence would mitigate
the noise better than the live fence option (arborvitaes). It was felt that the noise from
the newspaper facility would bounce off the solid fence back into the property, rather
than resonate through to the adjacent residential properties as would be the case with
the arborvitaes. Ms. Hall was in attendance at the CDRB meeting and seemed satisfied
with the CDRB's approval of a 285 linear feet of six -foot high fencing and landscaping.
After Mr. Yahnke's and Ms. Ries' appeal notice was submitted to city staff, Ms. Hall
submitted a follow -up letter to include in this report (Attachment 7). In summary, Ms.
Hall would prefer St. Paul Pioneer Press relocating their operations to a different space
within the building, away from residential properties, rather than have any
landscape /screening installed. She also expresses frustration over the fact that Steiner
Development has not meet the city council's July 1 timeline for implementing the
landscape /screening plan, and skepticism that Steiner Development will ever install the
landscape /screening plan.
Upon discussion with Mr. Lensing after the CDRB's approval of the landscape /screening
plan, and after the neighbors' appeal was submitted, Mr. Lensing indicated that Steiner
Development had been arranging for the required fence and landscaping to be installed.
Steiner Development is not appealing the CDRB's approval of the plan and is fully
prepared to complete the work. I suggested that Steiner Development submit a letter to
include in this report which would outline their willingness to install the
landscape /screening, as well as discuss the initial delay in submittal and installation and
a timeline for completion. No such letter has been submitted by Steiner Development to
date.
Mr. Yahnke's and Ms. Ries' main concern with a six -foot high fence across the street
from their property is due to aesthetics. While city staff is sensitive to this concern, it
should be noted that the proposed fence is a high - quality, maintenance free fence; the
fence will be located 100 feet away from the neighbors' house, across Germain Street;
and only 64 linear feet will run parallel to their property (to approximately the middle of
their house) (Attachment 8). The fence was approved by the CDRB to ensure noise
2
associated with the St. Paul Pioneer Press operation would be buffered. The CDRB
ensured the design of the fence and landscaping was compatible to the Maplewood
Business Center and the surrounding residential properties by requiring the fence to be
tan in color to match the building, requiring several low maintenance shrubs planted in
front of the fence, and requiring evergreen trees to be planted behind the fence. For
these reasons, staff recommends that the city council uphold the CDRB's approval of the
258 linear foot, six -foot high, PVC fence option.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the "PVC Fence" landscape /screen plan date stamped
June 17, 2005, for the Maplewood Business Center located at 1616 Gervais Avenue
with the following revisions and conditions (additions to the CDRB's June 28, 2005,
approval by staff are in bold):
The fence shall be installed on top of the berm, along Germain Street, and shall
extend from the south side of the south building, to the north side of the north
building (approximately 285 linear feet).
2. In addition to the five 12 -foot high spruce trees to be planted on the east
side of the fence, six landscape areas should be planted in front of the fence,
along Germain Street. Each landscape area should include six low- maintenance
evergreen and deciduous shrubs (5 gallon pots), planted in a rock mulch. The
landscape areas should be staggered along the west side of the entire length of
the fence, along Germain Street.
3. The fence should be constructed with a minimum of a 5 degree angle from the
horizontal every 15 feet.
4. The landscape /screen plan must be completely installed by September 8,
2005.
PAcom- dev \sec10 \map1ewood business center \august 8, 2005, cc report
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. February 14, 2005, City Council Minutes
3. Landscape /Screen Plan — Option One
4. Landscape /Screen Plan — Option Two
5. June 28, 2005, CDRB Minutes
6. Joseph Yahnke and Denise Ries July 11, 2005, Appeal Notice
7. Cindy and Kevin Hall July 26, 2005, Letter
8. Fence Location Map
3
Attachment 1
Location Map
e o
d o 0 o d d7 CJ [3 o � ° 4l „ ° o ❑ ° po o ❑ Q o Q o o ,: �°
Attachment 2
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:02 P.M. Monday, February 14, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -03
G. CONSENT AGENDA
3. Conditional Use Permit Revision — Maplewood Business Center (1616 Gervais Avenue)
Adopted the following resolution approving revisions to the conditions of approval for the
conditional use permit for the Maplewood Business Center at 1616 Gervais Avenue:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 05 -02 -012
WHEREAS, the Maplewood Community Development Director, representing the
city, requested a revision to the conditional use permit for the Maplewood Business
Center at 1616 Gervais Avenue.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the existing office/warehouse facility on the
property at 1616 Gervais Avenue. The legal description is:
EG Rogers' Garden Lots, subject to state highway and easements, the part north of
TH 36 of Lots 11 and 12 in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22 (PIN 10- 29 -22 -42 -0001)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1. The city council held a public hearing to review this permit revision on January 24,
2005. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance
to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and
recommendations of the city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the
above- described conditional use permit revision for the following reasons:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding
area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods
of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water
or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
City Council 02 -14 -05
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.
The approval of the permit revision is subject to the following conditions (the additions are
underlined and the deletions are crossed out):
All uses must meet the following requirements:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise regulations shall apply.
Te s t s to ve rify this sh be made by a n independent t fi The initi cost shall b
p ..1...,
p aid b the owner. If th t , .. o f ..L.
li on th cos o f th t .,II Ho paid for b th
property owner.
b. Outdoor storage of materials will not be permitted without approval from
Maplewood's Director of Community Development.
2. Occupancy permits must be obtained for each tenant space from the City Building
Official as required by the State Building Code.
3. Those businesses involved with exterior vehicle storage, such as vehicle rentals or
moving companies, shall have one parking space for each such vehicle, in addition to those
required by City Code, on the site.
4. Adequate signing for vehicle and pedestrian traffic shall be provided, subject to the
approval of the Director of Public Safety.
5. Approval of landscaping, building, and site design plans are required by the
Community Design Review Board. The property owner shall have a detailed landscape and
screening plan prepared for the area between the parking lot and Germain Street. This plan shall
show how the new materials would provide screening that is at least six - feet -tall and at least 80
percent solid (code requirement) and landscaping should be located on both sides of the fence.
This plan shall be subject to the approval of the Community Design Review Board and the owner
shall implement the approved plan by July 1, 2005.
6. As part of the required design review process, the applicant shall provide a detailed
drainage and grading plan which provides for the five acre -feet of ponding required by the
Maplewood Drainage Plan.
City Council 02 -14 -05
8. The property owner and the property manager shall not allow garbage or trash
pick -up between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:30 a.m.
9. The property owner and property manager shall be responsible for the maintenance
and clean up of the ponding areas on their property.
10. The property owner shall post the driveways and drive aisles as no parkin zones.
ones.
11. The property owner shall review the paper distribution activities and take
operational measures to reduce or eliminate noise. These measures should include but not be
limited to; install rubber bumpers on the carts, train employees as to where to park and to be
respectful of adjoining residences and maintain security staff to patrol during the evening and early
mornin hg ours.
12. The city council shall review this permit revision in six months (July 2005).
Councihnember Juenemann moved to adopt consent agenda items 3, 6, 8 and 9.
Seconded by Councihnember Koppen Ayes -All
City Council 02 -14 -05
Attachment 3
w
S
a
h
N
s
Z
f
�1
I �.
r
s
ii •1\
Z
� C
I
Proposed Landscaping and
E Screening Plan
Option One
Landscaping Proposal:
"Living" Fence on Western Border of 1600 -1636 Gervais Ave. E, Maplewood, MN
Project goal:
To create a considerable sound barrier between the commercial property and the residential area opposite it
on Germain Street (specifically concentrating on noise spilling towards the Hall residence at 1596
Grandview Ave.)
Historical notes:
The property was originally granted CUP with the understanding that some deciduous and coniferous trees
would be planted on top of the 4 foot turf berm created between the commercial and residential properties.
Some of these plantings have since died out.
Project description:
We do not believe that replacement of the original trees would be adequate to create an effective sound
barrier. In addition, we feel that the installation of a fence may not be as effective in dissipating sound
because it would add to echo. A traditional fence certainly is not as attractive, and it poses long -term
maintenance issues for the landowner.
We have had various vendors survey the site and make recommendations. Many concluded that a "living"
barrier would be more suitable to the project than a traditional fence for aesthetic, maintenance, and
functionality reasons. As such, we propose to install a 225' long "living" fence of 5' tall Techny Arborvitae,
which will be planted tightly together in a staggered double row. These evergreens may increase in height
over time to as much as 15' tall. We believe that 5' tall evergreens are adequate after accounting for the
height of the berm (4' above street level). Additionally, a wood mulch maintenance strip will be created
around the "living" fence. (see attached plan marked as "Exhibit A ")
Project cost:
This project is estimated to cost almost $17,750, including materials, installation, and irrigation repairs
necessary to ensure project longevity.
Arborvitae, Techny*
Scientific Name:
Zone:
Light Requirements:
Height:
Width:
Shape:
Foliage Color:
Description:
Thuja occidentalis ' Techny'
3
Sun /light shade
12 -15'
6 -8'
upright, pyramidal
dark green
Broadly pyramidal
evergreen with dense, dark
green foliage that holds its
color in winter.
* Note that the image to the left depicts a single row, while
we propose a staggered double row of trees to be installed.
Applicant's Written Narrative
Concept One
Attachment 4
E
' Z
by
LL
2:1
t
F N
I
17
a.
Proposed Landscaping and
Screening Plan
Option Two
Alternative Landscaping Proposal *:
PVC Fence on Western Border of 1600 -1636 Gervais Ave. E, Maplewood, MN
Project goal:
To create a sound barrier between the commercial property and the residential area opposite it on Germain
Street (specifically concentrating on noise spilling towards the Hall residence at 1596 Grandview Ave.)
Historical notes:
The property was originally granted CUP with the understanding that some deciduous and coniferous trees
would be planted on top of the 4 foot turf berm created between the commercial and residential properties.
Some of these plantings have since died out.
Project description:
We do not believe that replacement of the original trees would be adequate to create an effective sound
barrier. The installation of a fence would reduce noise coming from the property, and 5 Black Hills Spruce
will be planted between the fence and the building's various entrances to help defray any echo from the
building and fence.
The fence is constructed of a PVC material so as to minimize future maintenance. In addition, a rock
maintenance strip will be installed around the fence to further reduce potential damage from lawnmowing
equipment. The PVC fence comes in 2 colors, and we will install a tan fence to best match the building.
The installed fence will be 6' tall, and will extend 150 linear feet, entirely parallel to the width of the building
in which Pioneer Press is a tenant. The spruce trees will be 12' tall at installation and will have a mulch ring
installed around each. (see attached plan marked as "Exhibit B ").
Project cost:
This project is estimated to cost almost $14,700, including materials, installation, and irrigation repairs
necessary to ensure project longevity.
Avalon fence to be installed without lattice:
Avalon W/Lattik' (Inset Avalon)
Height: 72" vvidth1%
Post Size: 5" Picket Siz
Spacing Between Pickets: none
BOCA Pool Code: Yes
Height:
Length:
72 inches (6 feet)
150 feet
Scientific Name:
Zone:
Light Requirements:
Height:
Width:
Shape:
Foliage Color:
Description:
Picea glauca densate
3
Sun /light shade
3040'
20 -30'
upright, pyramidal
dads green
Slow- growing native of the Black
Hills with a compact, dense habit
and bright to dark green needles.
* it should be noted that this is an alternative plan, as the property owner believes a more effective and
easier to maintain noise barrier option exists (specifically a double- staggered row of techny arborvitae).
Applicant's Written Narrative
Concept Two
Black Hills Spruce:
Attachment 5
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Maplewood Business Center Landscaping and Screening Plan — 1616 Gervais
Avenue
Ms. Finwall said Mr. Patrick Lensing with Steiner Development, leasing agent for the
Maplewood Business Center, is requesting that the Community Design Review Board
(CDRB) review a landscape and screening plan for the west side of their property. The
Maplewood Business Center is a multi- tenant office /warehouse building located at 1616
Gervais Avenue. This plan was required by the city council after a revision to the
center's conditional use permit (CUP) following noise complaints the city received from
an adjacent neighbor. The applicants are proposing two landscape /screening plans for
review. The first plan consists of 57, five - foot -high techny arborvitaes, planted in a
double row. The second plan consists of 150 linear feet of a 6 -foot high, white PVC
fence and Black Hills Spruce.
Chairperson Longrie asked if there was currently an irrigation system?
Ms. Finwall said yes.
Chairperson Longrie was concerned about maintaining the plantings used for screening.
Board member Hinzman asked what elevation the fence and /or plantings would be
placed on the hill?
Ms. Finwall said the fence and plantings are proposed at the top crest of the hill which is
eight feet higher than the Maplewood Business Center and six feet higher than the
residential homes.
Board member Olson asked about the sound absorption of the PVC fence? It appears
the fence is dense but she wondered if there would be air space in between the fence.
Ms. Finwall said the applicant could address that issue.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Patrick Lensing, Steiner Development, 3610 County Road 101, Wayzata,
Minnesota, addressed the board. Regarding the construction of the fence, they plan on
using the brookstone design for the fence in a tan color. Mr. Lensing presented a
sample of the fencing material. Mr. Lensing said the PVC fence product is hollow and
may create echoing between the fence and the building on the business center side of
the property. Mr. Lensing said that is one of the reasons they wanted to put plantings on
that side to dissipate the echoing as much as possible.
Board member Shankar asked if they would be using lattice on the top of the fence.
Community Design Review Board 2
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
Mr. Lensing said this would be a six -foot high fence without lattice on the top.
Board member Olson asked if there had been any sound studies done using this PVC
fencing product?
Mr. Lensing said he didn't have any material stating whether or not any sound studies
had been done.
Chairperson Longrie asked if he thought a hollow fence would actually accentuate the
noise?
Mr. Lensing said with any fence there will be some sound bounce back from the fence,
so they are trying to mitigate the bounce back by having trees on that side of the fence.
Chairperson Longrie asked if Steiner Development approved of staff's recommendation
for a longer fence?
Mr. Lensing said their preference is the 57 arborvitaes because they feel there wouldn't
be any sound bounce off of the arborvitaes because they would be planted as tight as
possible and in a double staggered row. In addition, the berm is four feet in height, and
the trees would be five feet tall trees and both would provide a nine foot barrier which
could grow as tall as fifteen feet tall.
Board member Hinzman asked about the spacing of the proposed arborvitaes?
Mr. Lensing said the arborvitaes would be packed in as tightly as possible.
Chairperson Longrie said it appears the living fence would be 225 feet long and the
PVC fence would be only 150 feet long.
Mr. Lensing said the reason for that is they designed that option to be done in phases
because there are two buildings on the site. The building to the north is called Building
A and the building to the south is called Building B. The Pioneer Press building is
located in Building B and because that is where the noise is coming from they only
designed the fence to take care of Building B. Mr. Lensing said they don't have any
tenants in Building A but any future tenants would not be operating at night so they
didn't feel the cost for additional fencing at this point would benefit the property. It could
be done in the future if need be. It's going to be a costly endeavor no matter what; they
are trying to balance the issues.
Chairperson Longrie asked if they were planting the living fence today, what length
would the fence be?
Mr. Lensing said the living fence would be 225 feet long and would accommodate both
Building A and Building B. The PVC fence only accommodates Building B.
Community Design Review Board 3
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
Board member Olson said the first proposal with the double row of arborvitaes is
estimated to cost $17,750 and the second proposal with the PVC fence is estimated to
cost $14,700. She asked if she understood correctly that the applicant preferred the
first proposal for the living fence even though it's more expensive?
Mr. Lensing said correct. The owners of the building don't care for the fence and would
much rather see live trees there. They realize there is an issue that needs to be taken
care of and they agree to do whatever the CDRB recommends. They have had some
difficulty getting bids on the irrigation system along the top of the berm where they
would be planting the greenery. They may have to move the current irrigation system to
add a line of irrigation for that area along the berm. So those issues are unsolved and
cannot be solved until they begin digging.
Chairperson Longrie asked if the living fence was planted would they make sure the
living fence would be irrigated the entire length of the properties?
Mr. Lensing said correct.
Chairperson Longrie asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the board
regarding this proposal?
Ms. Cindy Hall, 1596 Grandview Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the board. She's one
of the people that's been complaining to the city regarding the noise problems at the
Pioneer Press building. The problem with both option A and option B is this is a facility
where people drive to pick newspapers up and then leave. Metal carts come out of the
warehouse and go the entire length of the parking lot of Building A and Building B.
Trucks drive in and honk their horns and slam their car doors. She hears hundreds of
car and truck doors slamming every single night. Because of this noise she can't sleep
with the windows open. She was recently diagnosed with a spine problem and if she
doesn't get enough sleep it affects her job which is why she has been complaining to
the city. They have been trying to deal with these noise problems. They have learned
how things are processed through the city and this has been a good experience to learn
the steps that need to be taken to get something resolved.
Ms. Hall said she hopes the CDRB can see the neighbor's side of how the noise affects
them. When they came before the city council the council said they wanted a solid
wood fence like Mounds Park Academy and this fence is nothing like that. Ms. Hall's
fear is that they are going to spend all this money on this project and she is still going to
hear the noise. She is up every night between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. There is no
quality of life for her because of the noise. She doesn't want businesses to go away but
she wants this problem resolved and she wants the board to understand the problems
here.
Chairperson Longrie asked how Ms. Hall would propose changing option A or option B?
Ms. Hall said she would recommend using option B with the PVC fence, but she would
extend the fence to cover the entire parking lot. She was assessed over $4,000 for
Community Design Review Board 4
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
street improvements recently. She contacted Patrick Lensing to tell him people throw
stuff into their pond and report other problems and vandalism in the area.
Ms. Hall said when the street was redone there was some old plastic stuff left from the
sprinkler system which kids threw into the pond. Even though she called to let them
know what had been happening on the property nothing was done to resolve the issues.
She asked if trash could be picked up after 6:00 a.m. because the trash hauler was
coming before then, which was very irritating. Mr. Lensing guaranteed her the garbage
would be picked up after 6:00 a.m. and then today the trash was picked up at 5:30 a.m.
again. There is also carpeting, boxes, tires etc. dumped at the site. She doesn't have
much faith from anything she has heard from the Pioneer Press representatives.
Chairperson Longrie said whatever option the board decides should extend a minimum
of 225 feet.
Ms. Hall said the workers slam metal carts into the cement walls of the buildings. The
noise bounces off the walls and into her house. She sleeps with earplugs and keeps
her air conditioning on and she can still hear the noise. She has called the Maplewood
Police Department over 8 times because of the noise problems here.
Board member Ledvina said the staff report indicates the fence should be 285 feet long
and he asked Ms. Hall if that length would be adequate?
Ms. Hall said as long as it extends the length of the parking lot.
Board member Ledvina asked if Ms. Hall preferred the use of the PVC fence verses the
plantings.
Ms. Hall said yes.
Board member Hinzman said this has been an issue for this tenant for a long time now
and asked what conversations have they had with the Pioneer Press over noise and
what do they expect long term for the leasing situation for that tenant at this location?
Mr. Lensing said they have installed different doors at the building to alleviate the issue
of the metal carts banging into the walls. Every time he would hear complaints
regarding the banging noise he would go and talk to the folks at the Pioneer Press,
whether it was the district manager or the manager of the facility. Mr. Lensing said the
issues have been brought to their attention but don't seem to go away. This could be
due to the fact that there is a big turnover in personnel or some other reason; the
problems don't seem to go away.
Mr. Lensing said he personally called the garbage company four times and is
disappointed to hear the problem is still occurring. Mr. Lensing said in the past the
garbage hauler was not aware of the city ordinance but stated they wouldn't come until
later in the morning.
Board member Hinzman said here is a tenant who is causing a noise problem adjacent
to a residential area. Looking at this business so close to residential he would assume
Community Design Review Board 5
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
an overnight operation wouldn't occur so close to residential, especially with the exterior
noise factors that happens nightly.
Board member Hinzman was wondering if this is the right kind of tenant to have in this
type of building so close to residential homes. There were revisions made to the
conditional use permit (CUP) because of the noise concerns and he hopes what ever
conditions are recommended to the city council that this helps mitigate the noise
concerns for the neighborhood.
Mr. Lensing said the partnership he works for didn't own the building when the Pioneer
Press tenant signed their lease in this building. The building is 20 years old and there is
not enough room for them to exist in any other part of the building this is why the
Pioneer Press exists in this part of the building. Once the fence is installed they will
require drivers to park along Building B extending south along to the front of the building
facing Highway 36.
Chairperson Longrie asked if the living fence shown on the plan was to scale?
Mr. Lensing said yes.
Ms. Hall said when she first moved in Maplewood SMP trucks were in this space and a
year later Pioneer Press came in. If Pioneer Press can't train their people not to slam
their doors, not to blast their car radios and leave their car doors open, not to slam the
metal carts into the electric eye doors that were just put in, she doesn't know how they
can train people not to park in certain areas. It's human nature and she doesn't think
the people coming to pick up the newspapers or the employees that work there can
change the way they have been operating.
Chairperson Longrie said the CDRB can't control whether or not the Pioneer Press
people can train people not to do the things Ms. Hall mentioned, the only charge the
CDRB has is to review and recommend the trees and fence option for this property.
Ms. Hall said the only reason she brings these issues up is even if they plant trees and
or a fence, these other problems will still exist if they are not addressed and taken care
of.
Chairperson Longrie said Option A is for a living fence with a berm four feet tall and five
foot tall trees, which equals nine feet in height with the potential to grow taller. Option B
is for a four foot berm and a six foot high fence for a total of ten feet in height. She
asked Ms. Hall if she saw any benefit to the living fence for Option A that would
continue growing verses Option B for the six foot high fence that would always stay the
same height?
Ms. Hall said she prefers to have something solid as a noise barrier so she prefers the
fence option.
Board member Shankar said if noise is the primary issue then the fence is the best way
to screen noise.
Community Design Review Board 6
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
Board member Hinzman agreed with those comments. If noise is the primary issue the
more solid the barrier, the better off the neighbors would be.
Board member Ledvina agreed.
Board member Olson agreed and is very sympathetic to the residents. She lives next
door to a school and even though there is a landscape barrier it is not significant
enough. She would be interested to know the pros and cons of a hollow plastic fence
verses a solid fence. She thinks if the hollow plastic fence butted up against
landscaping it would be better than a solid plastic fence because noise would tend to
bounce off. She thinks the plastic is not as good as wood as a sound barrier but the
wood fence would be a higher maintenance issue to deal with. She remembers the
noise issue coming from the Pioneer Press at the city council meeting and she
remembers the Pioneer Press representative stating they would caution staff and would
be installing rubber bumpers and other items to help with the complaints issued. She
would like to put some language into the condition to send a message back to the
Pioneer Press representatives that they need to hold another training session with their
employees.
Board member Shankar recommended the fence be staggered at a 5 degree angle
every 15 feet to help with the sound barrier.
Board members thought that was a good idea.
Board member Ledvina stated those trees are strategically planted. He would like to
strike number 4 in the staff recommendations regarding the removal of the Black Hills
spruce. In his opinion the city has to do everything they can to help with the sound.
Chairperson Longrie said she would like to include the provision of the irrigation repairs
as necessary throughout the construction zone to ensure the irrigation is operational.
Board member Shankar recommended approval of the PVC Fence landscape /screen
plan date - stamped June 17, 2005, for the Maplewood Business Center at 1616 Gervais
Avenue with the following revisions and conditions: (changes made by the CDRB
during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted)
The fence shall be installed on top of the berm, along Germain Street, and shall
extend from the south side of the south building, to the north side of the north
building (approximately 285 linear feet).
2.3-. Six landscape areas should be planted in front of the fence, along Germain
Street. Each landscape area should include six low- maintenance evergreen and
deciduous shrubs (5 gallon pots), planted in a rock mulch. The landscape areas
should be staggered along the west side of the entire length of the fence, along
Germain Street.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
3. The fence should be constructed with a minimum of a 5 degree angle from the
horizontal every 15 feet.
4. The irrigation system shall be modified with the installation of the fence.
Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes — Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson. Shankar
The motion passed.
Attachment 6
Shann Finwall
From:
jryahnkel@mmm.com
Sent:
Monday, July 11, 2005 4:18 PM
To:
Shann Finwall
Cc:
cobaltblue @usfamily.net
Subject:
Maplewood Business Center fence appeal
Shann,
We would like to appeal the decision made on June 28, 2005 concerning the
construction of a PVC fence on the east side of Maplewood Business Center.
It appears to us that the dispute over a sound barrier at this location would be
unnecessary if the Pioneer Press noise was simply moved away from our residential area.
Any fence installation, PVC or "living ", will be undesirable if it extends any length
north of Grandview Ave.
Our concerns are that a PVC fence will attract graffiti artists, and it would not look
attractive thus lowering resale property values.
If a fence must be installed to reduce noise, we would rather see a living fence (57
trees) as proposed in the materials sent to our residence. But NO fence and NO noise
would always be our preference.
Thank you,
Joseph R Yahnke
and Denise Ries
1595 Grandview Ave E
Maplewood, MN 55109
1
Attachment 7
July 26, 2006
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
City of Maplewood
Community Development Department
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Shann,
I met with a few neighbors in their homes before the January 2005 City Council Meeting
to discuss the noise problem with St. Paul Pioneer Press paper processing facility at 1616
Gervais Avenue . They told me they did not wish to be involved and I told them that I
would respect their wishes.
I have been diagnosed with Spinal Stenosis — It is a severe case of arthritis inside my
spinal column. The lack of steep due to the noise induces migraines, and causes me to
miss work and decreases my quality of life. The noise from Pioneer Press happens seven
days a week from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. The employees use metal carts and the noise bounces
off the brick building over the grass right into our bedroom window. The car doors slam
continuously and there is noise from voices and radios. The sound levels from their
normal activities are loud enough to cause echoing and are unacceptable. My husband
and 1 are awakened many nights. We have called the police more than 12 times since
April.
.My first request would be to move the Pioneer Press away from any residential area.
There is open space in
Maplewoodl, Space #1735
1715 -1735 Highway 36 East, Maplewood
57,693 total sq ft, 18 ft clearance and has docks and doors
Available today.
Maplewood I, Space #55
1755 Highway 36 East, Maplewood
57,693 total sq ft, 18 ft clearance and has docks and doors
Available today.
They have just re- signed the lease and 1 believe it is for another five years. There is a
conditional use permit on the property which allows them to be there.
Maplewood does have a noise ordinance which reads:
No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that
unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace
safety or welfare of any person or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their
property's value. If the event or activity is sponsored by the City or authorized and has a
permit for such activity issued by the city the prohibition does not apply. This general
prohibition is not limited by the specific restriction of the following subdivision. Any
violations of this general prohibition between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday
through Saturday and all day Sunday, is a per se violation of this article.
The Maplewood City Council Members decided unanimously a fence with detailed
landscaping and a screening plan that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent solid
would help with the noise problem. They told Patrick Lensing from Steiner Development
(Steiner Development owns the building) that all would have to be up and in place by
July 1, 2005. Patrick Lensing brought the plans before the Community Design Review
Board on Tuesday, June 28, 2005. Steiner Development has not brought forth a good
will effort. They are stalling. The Community Design Review Board approved a much
more extensive plan then the one Patrick Leinsing presented due to the fact that
employees of the St. Paul Pioneer Press park in the entire parking lot, not just in front of
their leased space. To date nothing has been started. I was told by Patrick Lensing that
Steiner Development would probably sue the St. Paul Pioneer Press in order to make
them pay for the fence.
On July 11, 2005 one of my neighbors appealed the plan for the fence. I have had open
communication with the neighbor and they were notified about the City Council Meeting
in January and the Community Design Review Board Meeting in June and chose not to
attend.
I appreciate any and all help to reduce the noise at my home.
Sincerely,
Cindy & Kevin Hall
Attachment 8
0�0
Q
`��a
nke ie
My
In LI
Maplewood Business Center
1616 Gervais Avenue
285 linear feet of
6- foot -high PVC fencing
Fencing . to run
from the south side .
of the south building:
to the north side of
the north building:
Fence Location Map
Agenda Item K8
6411MI Zvi MI:1M[a]:L1ki I Bill M
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT: The Woodlands of Maplewood
LOCATION: 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street (north of Kingston Avenue)
DATE: July 29, 2005
Iki III III :is]1111101[a]ki
Project Description
Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to approve plans for a 28 -unit
townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows 28 townhouses (in 14 detached
townhomes and seven twinhomes) in a development called The Woodlands. It would be on an
8.2 -acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the
Hmong Church. Please refer to the applicant's statement and the maps in the project review
memorandum and the project plans for more information about this proposal.
Requests
To build this project, Mr. English is requesting that the city approve:
1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R -1 (single dwelling residential) to
R -2 (single and double dwellings) for the site.
2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from F (farm residential) to R -2 (single and
double dwellings) for the site.
3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow
the townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to
have some of them on private driveways.
4. The partial vacation of the Edgemont Street right -of -way, north of Kingston Avenue.
5. A preliminary plat for 29 lots - 28 lots for the 28 housing units and one lot (Lot 29) for the
ponding areas.
6. The project design plans, including the landscaping and the building elevations.
DISCUSSION
The developer revised the project plans in response to concerns from the neighbors and from city
staff. A major change was to move the main entrance into the development to McMenemy Street
instead of Kingston Avenue. This design puts all the traffic from the development onto McMenemy
Street instead of having some of the traffic going to the south to Kingston and Larpenteur Avenues
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff is recommending approval of the requests of the developer for the Woodlands of Maplewood.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT: The Woodlands of Maplewood
LOCATION: 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street (north of Kingston Avenue)
DATE: July 29, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to approve plans for a 28 unit
townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that shows 28 townhouses (in 14 detached
townhomes and seven twinhomes) in a development called The Woodlands. It would be on a 8.2-
acre site on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong
Church. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 23 and 24 and the maps on pages 25 - 32. A
homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas.
The applicant's designer has told staff that each building would have horizontal -lap vinyl siding,
aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a two -
car garage. (See the building elevations on pages 33 — 37 and the enclosed plans.)
Requests
To build this project, Mr. English is requesting that the city approve:
7. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from R -1 (single dwelling residential) to R-
2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. (See the land use map on page 26.)
8. A change to the zoning map. This would be from F (farm residential) to R -2 (single and double
dwellings) for the site.
9. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD will allow the
townhouses to be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have
some of them on private driveways.
10. The partial vacation of the Edgemont Street right -of -way, north of Kingston Avenue.
11. A preliminary plat for 29 lots - 28 lots for the 28 housing units and one lot (Lot 29) for the
ponding areas. (See the plan on page 28.)
12. The project design plans, including the landscaping and the building elevations. (See the
plans on pages 28 - 38.)
BACKGROUND
The area between the proposed development and Larpenteur Avenue is a plat named Monn's Villa.
This area, including Edgemont and Arkwright Streets and Kingston Avenue, was developed in the
mid 1950s. This plat includes the unused Arkwright or Edgemont street right -of -way that is between
the houses at 385 and 395 Kingston Avenue.
The city did not include the subject property in the 1992 inventory of possible properties to buy for
open space. As such, the city did not consider buying this property for open space.
DISCUSSION
Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Changes
To build the proposed townhouses, Mr. English wants the city to change the land use plan and
zoning map for the site. The land use plan change would be from R -1 (single dwelling residential) to
R -2 (single and double dwellings). (See the land use plan map on page 26.) The zoning map
change would be from F (farm residence) to R -2 (single and double dwellings). The city intends R -2
areas for small -lot (7,500 square -foot) single dwellings and for double dwellings with a maximum
density of six units per gross acre. For R -1 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at
least 10,000 square feet of area with a maximum density of 4.6 units per acre.
The land use plan is the city's long range guide as to how the city expects land to be used or
developed. The zoning designation for a property defines how a property owner may use the
property.
Compatibility
Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed
townhouses would be near McMenemy Street and an existing church and next to single dwellings. In
addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the
New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this
neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in
Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, The Gardens, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of
Maple Hills where this is the case.
Density
As proposed, the 28 units on the 8.2 -acre site means there would be 3.41 units per acre. This is
consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single family and for double
dwelling residential development.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Conditional Use Permit
Section 44- 1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to
allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks,
height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided
that:
1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development
because of its unique nature.
2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to
that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter.
4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health
or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land.
K
The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not
required solely for financial reasons."
The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD)
for the 28 -unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP for the PUD to allow code
deviations and more flexibility with site design and development details than the standard city
requirements. Such flexibility includes having a variety of building setbacks, having the townhouses
on lots that would be smaller in width and in area than the code usually requires and to have a
narrower public street right -of -way (50 feet instead of 60 feet) for Kingston Court.
A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas of the development,
including the private driveways, retaining walls and the ponding areas. Exchanging the common land
for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. It
is the contention of the applicant that the proposed site design details and code deviations meet the
findings in the city code for approval of a PUD.
City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on page 28), with the
proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the
proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable
and practicable development of the site. Having private driveways with reduced townhouse setbacks
will allow for more common area around each building. If the applicant followed all the city
subdivision and zoning standards and used public streets, such a plan would require larger lots for
each building with public right -of -ways and increased building setbacks. In addition, it is important
to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the number of lots or the density of the
housing in the development over the density in other townhouse projects.
In addition, the city has approved similar - styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at
Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road, the Dearborn Meadows development on Viking Drive, and more
recently, Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road. For this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of
the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $300,000.
Right -of -Way Vacation
The applicant is asking the city to vacate parts of the Edgemont Street right -of -way, north of
Kingston Avenue. The proposal is to vacate the west and east 15 feet (30 feet total) of the right -of-
way and for the city to keep the center part of the right -of -way for public use. In this case, the 15 feet
of the right -of -way on the two sides would go to the adjacent property owners and the developer
would use the center part of the right -of -way for a watermain connection to Kingston Avenue, for a
trail for pedestrian and emergency vehicle access — not for general vehicle access. This vacation, if
approved by the city, should assure the neighbors in the area that the city does not expect to use the
Edgemont right -of -way for a public street.
Preliminary Plat
Density and Lot Size
As proposed, the 28 units on the 8.2 -acre site means there would be 3.41 units per acre (an average
of 12,784 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive
plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000- square -foot minimum
lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling.
M
City Engineering Department Review
Chuck AN and Erin Laberee of the Maplewood Engineering Department reviewed the proposed
plans. Erin put their comments in the memo starting on page 39.
The major change they are recommending for the proposal is that the city should require the
developer to add more cul -de -sacs within the development for easier movement of larger vehicles.
Specifically, they are suggesting that the developer add a cul -de -sac in the southeast corner of the
site near Unit 4. This change will require the developer to adjust the grading and site plans
accordingly and could cause the loss of units.
Mr. Cavett, the assistant city engineer, also reminded me that the city, in the Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP), has scheduled the reconstruction of Desoto Street from Larpenteur Avenue to County
Road B for 2007. The CIP has not yet identified when the city is planning to reconstruct Edgemont
Street, Kingston Avenue and Arkwright Street.
In response to the comments of the city engineering department, Michael Villari of Metro Land
Surveying (the project engineers), prepared several comments and a sketch plan showing how
additional cul -de -sacs would affect the project design. I have included his thoughts on pages 48 and
49 and the sketch plan on page 50.
Traffic and Access
A major concern of many of the neighbors to the south of the site with the first proposal was with the
increase in traffic that their area would experience if the city approved the earlier proposal. The
developer was proposing to use an existing public street right -of -way (the area between 385 and
395 Kingston Avenue) for street access for 17 of the 24 units. (The other seven units would have
had street access from McMenemy Street).
In response to the neighbors concerns, the developer revised the project plans to now have the
primary access into the site from McMenemy Street. The plans also show a 10- foot -wide trail on the
Edgemont right -of -way between the existing Kingston Avenue and the proposed new street in the
development. This trail would be for pedestrian access and for emergency vehicle use, not for
general vehicle traffic. Unfortunately for the neighbors, the Morn's Villa plat, including the unused
right -of -way, was approved and developed in the 1950s. It has always been the expectation of city
staff that a developer or builder would use the existing street right -of -way that is north of Kingston
Avenue for some type of access to the property to the north.
While staff recognizes that having a new development and new streets in the area with new
neighbors driving past their homes would create changes for the neighborhood, we do not anticipate
a large enough traffic increase from the proposal to justify denying the request. For example, if each
of the 28 townhouse units would generate an average of 6 vehicle trips per day (an average number
I verified with the city's traffic consultant), there would be 168 more vehicles (in total) using
McMenemy Street. For a 12 -hour day, the 168 vehicle trips would mean an average of 14 vehicle
trips per hour, or an average of about one additional vehicle every 5.5 minutes. Even if one -half of
the expected additional vehicle trips (84) occurred in one hour (either in the morning or in the
evening), that would mean about one additional vehicle for every 43 seconds during that one hour.
The traffic consultant also confirmed for me that, on average, detached single - family homes
generate about 10 vehicle trips per day and that townhouses, whether attached or detached, usually
generate about six vehicle trips per day. The difference in these numbers is because of the residents
11
and the difference in the size of the families that live in the different units. Townhouses are usually
occupied by young couples starting out in life or by empty- nesters — that is, families with no children
and thus fewer people in each unit. They also have found that more traditional families with children
still prefer to live in detached single dwellings with more living and yard space. As such, these types
of homes will create more traffic (on average), than townhouses.
I also had Dan Solar of Ramsey County review the proposal. He noted that "McMenemy Street is no
longer a county road so the development does not have a direct impact to the county system. The
intersection along Larpenteur Avenue should be able to handle the minimal traffic generated by this
development."
Public Utilities
Sanitary sewer and water are in Kingston Avenue and in McMenemy Street to serve the proposed
development. There is, however, no storm sewer in this part of Maplewood, so the applicant is
proposing to enhance the low areas on the property to use them as storm water ponds. The
watershed district commented that they will require the grading plan to show that there will be at
least five feet of freeboard (bounce) in the ponds from the first 100 year high water level to the
lowest floor elevation of the units.
Tree Removal /Replacement
The applicant had a tree inventory done for the property. This survey found 239 trees on the
property, including maples, pines, elms, spruce, ash and oak. (See the plans on pages 29 and 30
and in the project plans.) Of the trees listed on the inventory, the city considers 198 of them as large
trees (those eight inches in diameter or greater or pines that are at least eight feet tall).
As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade most of the property to prepare the site for
construction and to build the storm water ponds. The proposed plans show the developer saving
groups of existing trees in a few areas of the site — including along the east property line, along the
south property line near McMenemy Street, near the front of Unit 16, to the north of Unit 11 and to
the west of Unit 20. In addition, the grading plans show the developer saving scattered individual
large trees throughout the site.
The developer also has indicated that they want to transplant as many of the existing trees on the
site as possible. This would involve having a forester or an arborist check the size and health of
each of the affected trees and determining which trees could survive moving and which ones could
not be transplanted.
The code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site after the contractor has finished
construction. For this 8.2 -acre site, the code requires there be at least 82 trees on the property after
the construction is complete. While city staff is encouraged by the level of interest expressed by the
developer in saving and transplanting trees on the site, the devil in this will be in the details. In other
words, how many and how well the trees survive will be in how the contractor handles the details of
the project. The project engineer will need to prepare a detailed grading and tree plan for the entire
site for city staff approval. This plan will need to show the proposed grading, the trees that will stay,
those that the contractor will transplant and those that the contractor will remove. In addition, this
plan should show the size and location of trees the developer would add to the site for screening
purposes and where they would store the transplanted trees before the contractor puts them in their
final locations. I expect that the final tree plans for this development can and will meet the
requirements of the tree replacement code of the city.
Landscaping /Screening
61
As proposed, the developer would save, plant or transplant at least 200 trees on the site, plant
numerous shrubs around the buildings and install two infiltration ponds /basins with landscaping on
the site. The detailed plan on page 38 also shows the proposed plantings near the sidewalk and
around each unit. These will include spirea, crimson pygmy, globe blue spruce, a mix of perennials
and lilac. The mix of plantings around each building will vary from unit to unit depending on whether
the unit faces north or south and whether it is a 1 '/ story or full basement walk -out unit.
While the landscape and tree plans are a good start, the developer should add more trees in two
primary areas. These additional trees would be for screening along the south side of the site and
along the west side of the site. The purpose of these additional plantings is to screen the new
townhouses from the existing houses to the south and to screen this site from houses to the west.
The city code requires the developer or builder to install screening along a residential property line
that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent opaque. This screening may be accomplished with
fencing, berming, tree planting or a combination of these techniques. It would be prudent for and
helpful to the residents of the existing houses and those in the new townhouses if the developer
installed screening along the south and west sides of the project to help ensure that the new
townhouses and driveways are separated from the existing single dwellings. Staff is recommending
that the developer add several Black Hills spruce and Austrian pines along the south and west
property lines to provide additional screening between this site and the adjacent properties.
Finally, the applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape
plan for the ponds. The project engineer also should show this detail on the final project landscape
plans. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units and in the proposed detail areas
should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas near the buildings should be
sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds).
Design Review
Building Design and Exterior Materials
The proposed buildings should be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes
in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (earth tone, green or grey in
color) with a stone or brick veneer on the fronts and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In
addition, there would be a mix of 1 '/ -story and walk -out units and each unit would have white
soffits and accent boards and an attached two -car garage. (See the proposed elevations on pages
33 — 37 and the enclosed project drawings.) Staff does not have any major concerns about the
proposed building elevations since this development will be on cul -de -sacs and would be
somewhat isolated. In fact, only the buyers of the townhouses would be able to see the fronts of
most of the new buildings.
Before the city issues a building permit, the builder should submit to city staff for approval revised
building plans and elevations. These should show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all
materials, any shutters, window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide more
detail about the brick or stone accents.
The community design review board noted in 2001 concerns about "snout- designed" homes.
These are dwellings that have garages as the dominating street -side feature. The proposed
townhomes have this design. The community design review board may want to have the developer
change the proposed designs or add features to the buildings to lessen the impact of the garages.
This could include additional landscaping in front of the dwelling parts of the buildings, adding
[s9
covered front porches, enhancing the design of the garage doors or adding decorative light fixtures
next to the garages and entrance doors.
Site Lighting
The applicant will need to prepare a site lighting plan for the development that shows the
installation of at least seven light posts within the site to provide lighting along the new streets and
driveways. The city code requires the light fixtures to have a design that hides the bulb and lens
from view (to avoid nuisances). The plan also will have to show details about the height or style of
these poles and about the proposed lighting on the buildings.
Parking
It should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24- foot -wide streets, parking on one side of
28- foot -wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet wide. In this case, the
developer is proposing to construct the new public street (Kingston Court) and the private
driveways 24 feet wide and then the city would not allow parking on the street or driveways. The
project engineer has not shown any areas for proof -of- parking spaces within the development. This
is something that the final project plans should show. Locations for such parking could be north of
Kingston Court near Unit 20, north of Kingston Lane near Units 7 and 8 and along Edgemont Lane
near Units 10 and 11. These are locations that the city could require the developer or the
homeowners' association to add more parking if it becomes necessary.
Other Comments
Police Department
Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department noted that the proposed street and
driveway names could cause some confusion. He suggested that the developer work with city staff
to pick names for the streets and driveways that fit the city's system and that make sense with the
surrounding streets.
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted the following about the proposal:
Need to verify that the cul -de -sacs and the turn - arounds are large enough for proper
snow removal and for emergency vehicle access.
All roads and driveways shall be at least 20 feet wide.
There shall be addresses on each unit facing the street.
The developer shall provide the city with an address plan (street and driveway names and
a numbering scheme) for staff approval.
COMMSSION ACTIONS
On July 18, 2005, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed land use plan
change, zoning map change, CUP for PUD, street vacation and the preliminary plat.
On July 26, 2005, the community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the
project design plans. This recommendation was subject to the applicant bringing revised building
elevations back to the CDRB for final approval.
N
INx8101MI M 14ki117e
A. Approve the resolution on page 51. This resolution changes the land use plan for the
Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston
Avenue. This change is from R -1 (single dwellings) to R -2 (single and double dwellings). The
city is making this change because:
1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium - density residential
use. This includes:
a. It is near a minor arterial street (Larpenteur Avenue) and is on a collector street
(McMenemy Street).
b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be
minimal traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
3. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses.
B. Approve the resolution on pages 52 and 53. This resolution changes the zoning map for the
Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston
Avenue. This change is from F (farm residence) to R -2 (single and double dwellings). The
reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to
develop this property with a mix of single and double dwellings.
C. Approve the resolution on page 54. This resolution is for the vacation of parts of the
Edgemont Street right -of -way, north of Kingston Avenue. The city is vacating this right -of -way
because:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a public street at
this location.
3. The adjacent properties have street access.
4. The vacation of the right -of -way will allow the adjacent residents to expand and improve
their homes.
This vacation is subject to the city retaining the center of the Edgemont Street right -of -way
located north of the north right -of -way line of Kingston Avenue for public purposes.
D. Approve the resolution starting on page 55. This resolution approves a conditional use
permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlands of Maplewood development on the
east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. The city bases this approval on the
findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the plans date - stamped June 14, 2005 except where the city
requires changes. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
E:3
(1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the
watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and
the engineering department requirements.
(2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees.
(3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district.
The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
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.
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated July 11, 2005,
and the plans shall include:
a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree
preservation /replacement, and parking plans. The cul -de -sac bulb shall have the
minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around.
b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans:
(1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four - foot -high, black, vinyl -
coated chain -link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fences as
may be required by the city engineer.
(2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan.
c. The following for the streets and driveways:
(1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary.
(2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans.
4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting
any needed off -site pond and drainage easements, if applicable.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Woodlands of Maplewood PUD
shall be:
a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet,
F']
maximum — 35 feet
b. Front -yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none
c. Rear -yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line
d. Side -yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each
housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
E. Approve the Woodlands of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on June 14,
2005). 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:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten -foot drainage and utility
easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five -foot drainage and utility
easements along the side lot lines of each lot).
d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least seven locations. These
shall be as follows:
(1) At the intersection of Edgemont Lane and Kingston Court (by Lot 8).
(2) Near Lot 4 in the middle of the block.
(3) At the northeast corner of the site near Lot 1.
(4) At the north end of Edgemont Lane near Lot 11.
(5) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and Kingston Court (Sophia Avenue).
(6) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and the northerly driveway (near Lot 23).
(7) Near Lot 28 at the east end of the driveway.
The exact style and location of the lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval.
e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification and no parking signs.
f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules
and guidelines.
g. Replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size
and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval.
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street
plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Erin
Laberee dated July 11, 2005, and shall meet the following conditions:
IN
a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code.
b. The grading plan shall show:
(1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building
site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb.
(3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large
trees.
(4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the
plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1.
On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a
stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood -fiber
blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the
city approves the final plat.
(6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a
building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence
on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet.
(7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city
engineer.
(8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from
the affected property owner(s).
(9) A minimum of a 10- foot -wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of
any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall
not exceed four feet.
(10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed
district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected
with approved permanent soil - stabilization blankets.
(11) The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer
with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-
off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run -off from the site.
c. The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees.
This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
(3) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted, replacement and
screening trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one -half (2 '/)
11
inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar
maples or other native species. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight
(8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other
species.
(4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(a) near the ponding areas
(b) along the west and south sides of the site to help screen the development
from the existing houses to the west and south.
(7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 200 trees after the site grading is
done.
(8) Require the developer to replace any trees that die within one year of planting or
final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject
to city staff approval.
d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine -ton design with a maximum street
grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all
intersections at two percent.
(2) Water service to each lot and unit.
(3) Repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street and boulevard) after the
developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, trails and
private driveways.
(4) The developer enclosing the ponds with a four - foot -high, black, vinyl- coated
chain -link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be
required by the city engineer.
(5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the
city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes.
(6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the
standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS).
Fire -flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood
Fire Department.
(7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right -of -ways or within
easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be
outside the project area.
(8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to
IN
prevent erosion.
e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm -water run-
off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's
engineer shall:
(1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities.
(2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations.
3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans.
4. Change the plat as follows:
a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These
easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet
wide along the side property lines.
b. Show Kingston Court as a public street in a 50- foot -wide public right -of -way and
incorporate Outlot A into the street right -of -way.
c. Label the common areas as outlots.
d. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer.
e. Have the right -of -way where Kingston Court (Sophia Avenue) meets the Edgemont
Street right -of -way "squared -off" rather than having it with a radius from the cul -de -sac.
f. Label all the names of all the streets and driveways on all plans and distinguish which
are public and which are private.
g. Change the street and driveway names as follows:
(1) Kingston Court and Kingston Lane as Sophia Avenue.
(2) The north /south driveway as Edgemont Lane.
(3) The north private driveway (for Units 23 — 28) shall have McMenemy Street
addresses.
Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any
off -site drainage and utility easements.
6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or
contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street, curb and
gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the
new streets and private driveways.
7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the
IN
director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one
responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities,
landscaping and retaining walls.
8. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowners' association documents.
A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the
lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by
the city council.
c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation,
maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city
for approval before recording.
9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site
drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that
the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading.
11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(M PCA).
12. 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.
F. Approve the project plans (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and
building elevations) for the Woodlands of Maplewood townhouses on the east side of
McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings
required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for
this project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: streets, grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk
and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall also
meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated July 11,
2005.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) Submit to staff revised plans that show the following:
a. The units along the north property line (Numbers 23 -28) with
varying front setbacks to break up the linearity.
b. The public road from McMenemy Street to the center cul -de -sac
i[!
at 24 feet wide and with a concrete sidewalk, if possible.
c. All private driveways at 28 feet wide to allow parking on one side.
d. Review with the city engineer the idea of reducing the amount of
impervious surface on the center (western) cul -de -sac by
installing a center landscape island or reducing the radius of the
pavement or possibly installing different surface colors or
materials.
e. Review with the city engineer the need for and possibly removing
the cul -de -sac in the southeast corner of the site.
(3) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home
site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb.
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the
watershed board or by the city engineer.
(d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction
plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and
management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include
covering these slopes with wood -fiber blankets and seeding them with a
"no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass.
(e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four
feet tall require a building permit from the city.
(f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city
engineer.
(g) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the
city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall
accommodate the run -off from the surrounding areas.
(h) Show details about the proposed pond fencing including the materials,
gate, height and color.
(4) The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer.
(b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show
where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large trees.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted and replacement
trees. The new coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall
be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine.
I
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall
show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(e) Show additional tree planting for screening along the south and west
property lines of the site.
(5) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(a) A water service to each lot and unit.
(b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue
(including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor removes
the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the
new streets, trails and driveways.
(c) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and
gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed.
(d) The developer or contractor shall post the streets and driveways with "no
parking" signs to meet city standards.
(e) The public streets and private driveways labeled on all plans.
(f) The common area labeled as Outlot B on all plans.
(g) Areas for proof of parking off of the streets wherever possible.
(6) The design of the ponding areas and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for
getting any needed off -site utility, grading or drainage easements and for
recording all necessary easements.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by
a registered land surveyor.
c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following
details:
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation
within the ponding area.
(2) The addition of eight- foot -tall trees and /or fencing for screening along the west
and south sides of the site.
(3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding areas to break the
appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall
be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape
plans.
(4) Having in- ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement).
(5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan
III
date - stamped February 1, 2005, shall remain on the plan.
(5) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit.
(6) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting
(instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native
grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants
shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce
maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the
gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an
upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate.
(7) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard
areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the
ponding area).
(8) The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue
boulevards with sod.
(9) Adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the west
and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall,
and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to provide screening
for the houses to the south and west.
(10) Shows the in- ground lawn- irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler
heads.
(11) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent
with the approved grading and landscape plans.
(12) Show the landscape or ground treatment for the areas between the driveways of
the double dwellings.
d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
f. Submit a site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show the installation of at
least seven street lights and how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site
lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure
they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light
fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the
adjacent street right -of -ways and from adjacent residential properties.
g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility
plans.
h. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) at the time
of the building permit for each housing unit.
i. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the
city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and
maintenance of the common areas, outlots, the private utilities, signs, landscaping and
IVA
retaining walls.
k. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior
improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
3. Complete the following before occupying each building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater
garden(s).
d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter.
e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exits onto McMenemy Street and addresses
on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking"
signs within the site, as required by staff.
f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings
around each unit and around the pond) and an in- ground sprinkler system for all
landscaped areas (code requirement).
g. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting
plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light
spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs
to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and the nearby homes
and residential properties.
h. Install a six - foot -high solid screening fence or additional trees along the west and
south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the
townhouses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure
there is at least a six - foot -tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site.
The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be
subject to city staff approval.
i. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and
meet all city requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
b. The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all
required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any
I
unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in
the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in
the spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
6. Provide a sign and landscape plan for the entrance and island at McMenemy Street for
city staff approval. The monument sign shall be no more than six feet tall and shall have
materials that are consistent with and architecturally compatible with the buildings within
the development. The landscaping shall be compatible with the extreme conditions of
the location and the materials shall need little or no maintenance.
7. The building elevations are not approved with this design review. The applicant shall
submit revised building elevations to the community design review board (CDRB) for
final approval.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed the owners of the 81 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the five replies, two had
comments and questions about the proposal and three were against the proposal.
For
None
Comments /Questions
1. Absolutely do not open the Kingston connecting road to residential vehicular traffic. (Schuldt —
1706 Arkwright)
2. See the e-mail from Margaret Jodeit (1714 Edgemont) on page 42.
Against
Even revised — I am still opposed. Over populated, too much traffic for the area. Too much
development, shouldn't there be any wilderness? (Schneider — 433 Larpenteur Avenue)
`Fs7
See the letter from the Herthers on pages 43 - 45.
See the letter from Kai Huot -Link on pages 46 and 47.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 8.2 acres
Existing land use: Three single dwellings and accessory buildings
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: A single dwelling and the Hmong Church
South: Houses on Kingston Avenue
West: Houses on McMenemy Street
East: Houses on Desoto Street
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)
Findings for Rezoning
Section 44 -1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to
rezone property:
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.
Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval
Section 44- 1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See
findings 1 -9 in the resolution on pages 55 through 57.)
Ordinance Requirements
Oki]
Section 2- 290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the
following findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring,
existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of
investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use
and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create
traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive
development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
HOUSING POLICIES
The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They
are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many
housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential
development policies that relate to this project. They are:
- Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative
economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
- 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,
townhouses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing and low -to-
moderate- income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing.
- Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate
buffering and separation.
The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should
consider with this development. They are:
- Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are
to meet the life -cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional
households.
- The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and
price ranges through its land use plan.
The city's long -term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of
all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each
stage of the life cycle of housing needs.
Application Date
21
The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on June 14, 2005.
State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a
proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by August 12, 2005,
unless the applicant agrees to another time extension.
p:sec 17 \The Woodlands (2) - 2005.mem
Attachments:
1. Letter from Chris English dated June 16, 2005
2. Location Map
3. Land Use Plan Map
4. Address Map
5. Preliminary Plat
6. Removal Plan
7. Tree Plan
8. Proposed Grading Plan
9. Proposed Utility Plan
10. The Boardwalk Elevation
11. The Boardwalk Elevation
12. Rear and Street Side Elevations
13. Twin Home Elevations
14. Twin Home Side Elevations
15. Unit Landscape Plan
16. July 11, 2005 memo from Erin Laberee
17. E -mail from Margaret Jodeit dated June 30, 2005
18. Letter date - stamped July 5, 2005 from the Herthers
19. Letter date - stamped June 30, 2005 from Kai Huot -Link
20. Response letter and sketch plan from Michael Villari dated July 8, 2005
21. Land Use Plan Change Resolution (R -1 to R -2)
22. Rezoning Resolution (F to R -2)
23. Edgemont Right -of -Way Vacation Resolution
24. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution
25. Project Plans date - stamped June 14, 2005 (separate attachments)
23
PA
Attachment i
METRO
LA ND S1 ,TtV _ EX NQ
_v & ENG `JEERING
ya .ry
June 16, 2005
Nlr. Ken Roberts, Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Nlaplewood, MN' 55109
Subject; The Woodlands Development Preliminary Plat
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Roberts:
The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief narrative of the changes included in the
latest Preliminary Plat Submittal for the Woodlands Development Project.
1) Additional land to the northwest was purchased. Therefore, the proposed
development will provide 28 attached and detached single- family homes (4 more
than originally plarmed).
2) The main entrance of the project was moved to McMenemy Street in an effort to
address the concerns of localresidents with regard to increasing local traffic, if the
entrance was located on Edgemont Place (Kingston).
3) A public street (to be paid for and constructed by the developer) meeting city
dcsigi requirements is proposed for accessing the site from McMehemy. The
public street terminates at a cul -de -sac located in the south - central part of the plat.
Private drives spur off of the cul -de -sac to provide access to homes north and east
of there.
4) A paved trail atongthe Edgemont Place easement serves a dual purpose by
providing a second emergency vehicle access point to the development.
5) We are requesting that portions of the easement for Edgemont Place be
abandoned to allow the existing residents along that easement more flexibility in
the use of their property (i.e., area to construct a detached garage).
23 JUN 2 0 2005
23
6) Easements were acquired, as necessary, along the southern portion of the
proposed public road to allow sufficient area for building setbacks.
7) As requested by the watershed districts, the sro mwater ponds /infiltration basins
ara designed to handle a 100 -year event and will discharge to the storm sewer in
NIcNlenemy Street only after a back -to -back 100 -year event occurs.
S) Several other minor design changes occurred to comply with setback
requirements, drainage, realignment of the road, etc.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the above information, please contact
me at (65 1) 766 -0112.
Sincerciv,
Christopher D. English, 1
Director of Engineering Operations
JUN 2 0 2005
Little Canada Office: 412 East County Road D Little Canada, MN 55117 Phone (651) 766 -0112 Fax (651) 766 -0612
Burnsville Office: 3200 Corporate Center Drive -suite 117 Burnsville, :YIN 55306. Phone (952) 707 -9299 Fax (952) 707 -0036
Pine Cory Ofrce: 1639 t4lain Street North - Suite 7 Pine City, AIN 55063 Phone (329) 629 -3267 Fax (320) 629 -0176
Rogers Ofrce. 12510 Fletcher Lane North - Unii B Rogers. Me 55374 Phone (763) 423 -5130 Fax (763) 428-5172
E -mail survey(ametrols.com FYebsire: wwsv.metrolsxtev
Gfi
�M
.'',. i • f i',.
M
-u
CD -
I
-
OVERVIEW
tern Hills Park
1
I
MNDOT-
�
I
,
q
,
I
r
C}
to
i t
i�
�M
.'',. i • f i',.
M
Attachment 3
WE 3""4,320 3a8 034
305 313:319 327'333
BELLVVaOID AVE'
418-2
474 498 5
f7 i�d0
O
49'
1860 49T -
--- ii
—17,71,
174Z
M
1866
ROSELAWWAVE,E -
385
n5 407
1723
1856
4859 U)
415 1721
G ST
OA)
cc
L348
1829
$838
`8118 L
1822
1714
-400
- T 7 9C
1732 179E
784
17811,
q.
1773
1778
1771
!764
q06
1705:
4
M
1866
ROSELAWWAVE,E -
385
n5 407
1723
07 _
415 1721
G ST
OA)
1713
1714
-400
>
14
1 1717
1706
q06
1705:
17()6
L-
-,
Z
0
-
433 453 16 �5
1695
2
f70O
1 695
1696
LU
-
16W
1688
1685,
(n
1 686
LU
LARPENTEUR AVE
M
1866
ROSELAWWAVE,E -
Attachment 4
OVERVIEW
IM
1767 14- 2 '
1741
El
1748
,394
-LLJ
Ilk
18H
1737
Qk
1� 1 I 7
1733
24
tB48
0838
0
A-�
F1700
L
433
;-. jg.
--i5 L
."94
,394
Ilk
18H
1� 1 I 7
Cn
B
tB48
0838
70
A-�
CHURCH 1770
433
;-. jg.
--i5 L
22
. .. .. .....
RIPLEY
Ilk
14
1� 1 I 7
Cn
B
84
70
CHURCH 1770
433
;-. jg.
--i5 L
IjS4
a n
1!)686
uj
t-'r
1750
-- ----- --
A
AVE
SITE
— --- - - --------
F1760
1740
--- 1 i 7 47
r�7 385 407
1721
415
A
U&U=l
2
I
IN
14
1� 1 I 7
zin
70
433
;-. jg.
--i5 L
a n
1!)686
uj
LARPENTEUR
AVE
U&U=l
2
I
IN
Attachment 5
1768 o
W
61 27, ye 26,
IK
CHURCH
_80 a35
WA
1771
-------------------
29
I .t 1743
1765
- ---------- -
1746 20 M >sf 15,
�P
—4
1747
L
KN4 TIN CC -97
------------
LOTA-UAS
=7
R-2,W
1736
385 395
377 407
1724 1723 415
IV
1716 IM
LOT AREAS
hi m
PRELIMINARY PLAT
28
R I
o
I ulv
Attachment 6
S4 ji
DPW
0
LEOMND
CHURCH
1747 —
j
1736
385
395
407
1721
377
7-
1723
415
1716 1713 F
S4 ji
DPW
0
- - - - - - - - - -- - N
CHURCH
1736 I
377
1723
724
F7 1716, 1713
j
4
395 07
415
1771
1765
1747
1721
k d :14
ac
I
Attachment 8
L 1768 ' i i o E urnOL V07 RGS O\ CO
I e 24 E 25 2e � �1..2E 36
gg
i,
P f
1771
1748
--� 4 `= `� -... q { ...` .* -c. 1765 "
' — mq Iz
20 ze
r 1746 l r ae " > ,.-+ n5 �
�.! _ „,L y ❑ r ; x f�, x��� a 1747
1721
K
3T 385' 39S 4 7
Y 7
GkADNG ES a «max .-L vJ LEGEND
/ 415 —
w 4
a
m
Attachment 9
t
123 241� I 26' 26 27
2
F- B L ......
k7,
P
A`
------- — ---
C
P
2,
17
LEGEND
at
IN
4
Attachment 10
;1 11 111 1 1 1
Attachment 17
MI
Attachment 12
IN
e
3=
kw
m
-- TTIZ1 -s zr z -
Attachment 14
WA
—1
Attachment 15
s « —s. ..
e
- S �
P —,
l .
I
f � 6M1 M / 3 �
Attachment 16
FIMIMMMM��
The developer and the project engineer shall address the following issues
Streets and9riyeways
99
4. The contractor shall extend the curb through the private drive entrances off of the cul-de-sac
to distinguish the public street from the private streets.
Grading & Erosion Control
OWN
3. The project plans shall show inlet protection devices at all inlets.
ffla JIM
Construction Permit) all require grading permits.
5. The proposed development is located in the Ramsey Metro Watershed District, but drainage
from the site enters Capitol Region Watershed District downstream. The applicant shall
submit plans to Capitol Region Watershed District for their review.
6. The applicant shall note on plans the exact seed mixtures the contractor is to use in the
different areas.
There is an inconsistency between the drainage calculations and the plan. The invert
elevation for the outlet of the westerly pond is shown on the plans as 899,50 while the
drainage calculations use an 899.00 elevation. The project engineer shall revise the drainage
calculations to reflect the plan.
NIMI �4 4�1
K�j gi =I I val r. 11 llnd t;w
�91 IN3 ncyow FRI I LOIA IM 0 4 1 kw�Jwm ���
3. The project engineer shall verify the grade of the existing 15 inch pipe on McMenemy
Street. The engineer is proposing to connect an 18 inch pipe into the existing 15 inch pipe.
M
This is not acceptable. The project engineer shall verify that there is adequate capacity in the
existing pipe to handle emergency flow from the ponds.
4. The engineer shall include in the plans and specifications 3 foot sumps at storm structures
11, 18, 24 and 29.
5. The east and west directions for the inverts at CB. Ui 18 are backwards and should be
revised.
6. The project engineer has designed the ponds with infiltration areas. The project plans shall
show a detail of how the contractor is to construct the infiltration areas.
The engineer shall include a minimum 10 foot bench with a dense vegetative barrier at the
anticipated NWL of the infiltration basins as a safety feature to restrict access into the
basins. A dense vegetative barrier in such an application may be accomplished with a mix of
the following shrubs: Red Twig Dogwood, Nanny Berry, High Bush Cranberry, and Button
Bush.
If the developer chooses to not use a dense vegetative barrier around the basins, the
developer may use a 4-foot-tall, black vinyl-coated fence installed at the HWL of the basin.
Utilities
1. The project engineer shall note the material for the sanitary sewer main SDR 35 and the
services as Schedule 40.
2. The applicant shall obtain St. Paul Regional Water Services approval.
Misc.
1. The contractor shall use a native seed mixture around the proposed basins. The project
engineer shall call this out on the project plans.
2. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the city and maintained by the homeowner's association, It is
recommended that the developer screen the south side of Kingston Court and Kingston Lane
with screening fencing and/or landscaping. The homeowner's association shall maintain all
landscaping within the public right of way, within the pending or drainage basins, the
common areas and in Outlot A.
3. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city for the maintenance of
the ponds, sump structures and any landscaping proposed within the city's right of way. The
city will require a homeowner's association to be the responsible party for all landscaping
maintenance, including right-of-ways, the common areas and the pending areas.
4. The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for the construction of
the public street and for the utilities.
EM
Attachment 17
81 Ken,
We have reviewed the revised proposal for the Woodlands project.
l. The proposed paved trail along Ddgenmut place for a 2nd emergency vehicle access: bow
wide will this trail be? How will onrrsl traffic be discouraged from using this trail?
Will it ever be possible for this trail to be ooymuded into a public or private road? My
nvuueco is that future development will determine that this trail should become a road,
and I would like it to be specified that this cannot happen. We still have children who
play and ride bicycles on the street, and I do not want the amount of traffic on our
streets to increase.
2^ Maplewood currently has 8Jgcmuot Street, Kingston Avenue and &zkwzigbt Street,
I am extremely uneasy about naming additional streets; Edgemoot Place, Kingston Court and
Kingston Lane, particularly as Odgemout Place is designated as u trail for emergency
access vehicles. I believe that these streets and trail nbnxld be otherwise named for
clarity.
Assuming that tbcoc counncoo can be resolved and that all other nnoditiuoo will be handled
as per cuu* requirements, that utilities will have minimal disruption during the
construction process, and will resume as normal when construction is complete, I do not
have any additional objections to the development of Woodlands of »«aplewwudt 1740, 1750
and
1760 McMeuemy Road.
William and Margaret JodeiL
1714 Ddgemoot Street
Maplewood, @0 55117
651-772-1730
jpdeit@att.oet
WA
Attachment 18
We believe that it should be rejected as proposed. Here are just some of o
c i
MO r ii y- ■ t - i i i - i.
compared to surrounding neighborhood areas.
major concern for some of us who still use ground wells.
• M■ •. r r • .. i «. r f i f i 4 ' i
f• i i i i �, � y i •. f' .i• I■ • •. i.:. fi ',.
- r f;.. i • • it r
tv i r. •- -.... - .y r • y_ •r • _
M
OPINION W*11�
WIN W ININOW
L W4 II RE Rr_ VOM4 as] 52�� Lemem atria
will
_JHQ all am W1
were out for abou a week.
The project's "tree plan" would, in fact, remove most of the trees already on the
proposed site.
Zan
I- in I
has already declined dramatically in the past 10 years. This impact deserves
consideration.
other services for the homes he would be constructing.
AR I "V
impose on the neighborhood (street upgrades, etc.) done before any more
development is made to the area. More traffic along
Kingston/Arkwright/Edgemont streets would obviously result in more wear-and-
tear on these streets,
zJ
The development plan is unacceptable and nonsensical. Development in this
414�,
at least nothing that has been shared with the residents of the area.
hiah density housing, by negotiating with the owners of the homes on
McMenemy next to his project which is for sale. This would give him a much
larger land area on MoMenemy for egress from his site.
Mapiewood is an attractive city because of the character of the neighborhoods,
the beauty of the settings and the reasonableness of the services. This proposal
ignores all of these aspects and only adds problems that will erode the value of
this area to its citizens — now and in the future,
gLyfflq I I&IIIIISVM1111111 I NL7240iLolel • i •
I I&VOIN 111011MIRM -i
11 11
- MIN I =M945r.]
Nancy HE�her
Will Rossbach, Council Member
Jackie Monahan-Junek, Council Member
Mavin Koppen, Council Member
Lorraine B. F riilan Commission
H9
Attachment 19
C a l V En
JUiN 3 0 2005
like to voice some of my concerns.
JUN 3 0 2005
1 live on McMenemy Street across the street from the site. I am very unhappy with the
proposal for several reasons.
4. Many of the houses on McMenemy street are over 100 years old. It bothers me
that two of these historic homes are being tom down to make way for this
proposed development. As an owner of an older home, I would prefer that this
quality of my neighborhood be preserved rather than destroyed.
5. The development surrounds two remaining homes on McMenemy street. These
houses fit perfectly into the existing neighborhood but would be completely
isolated by the proposed development. I don't think this is fair to those homes,
6. While McMenemy street can handle more traffic, it does require more
enforcement to deter speeders. Most cars do not observe the 30mph speed limit. I
M .
am also concerned about crime. Is Maplewood going to hire more police officers
or patrol the neighborhood more frequently? My garage was broken into last year
and I do not want this to happen again.
The overall impression I act from the proposal is that it is an attempt at wholesale
profiteering. I strongly question whether it would be in the interest of Maplewood to
allow this practice of self serving development to continue. I think that in the interest of
neighborhood continuity and quality of life, Maplewood should reject this proposal.
M
mais �R
Erin Lab eree JUL 0 8 2005
Engineering Department I
City of Maplewood RECEIVED
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, Mn 55109
Re: Response to review letter dated June 29, 2005
Project 05-04
Woodlands of Maplewood
This letter is in response to the issues generated from the review letter for the proposed
construction plans dated June 27, 2005.
r
These changes have resulted from redesign of the project in response to City and public
comments. You may recall that our first design did protect many of the existing trees.
In closing, we will work with the city to develop a plan to address landscape planting, tree
as suggested and landscaping,
ER,
I , , s r' 0
I
r . M62 Cox %I; I i a 0 T--F.tat
Metro Surveying & Engineering, lnG
EEO
8
l �101
ormwil
lr
Em
MINIIININIS
Attachment 21
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Chris English, representing Integra Homes, proposed a change to the city's land use
plan from R -1 (single dwellings) to R -2 (single and double dwellings).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street in
Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as
Lots 1 -28 of the proposed Woodlands of Maplewood)
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
On July 18, 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 persons at the hearing a chance to speak and
present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council
approve the proposed change.
2. On August 8, 2005, the city council discussed the proposed 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 approve the above - described
change for the following reasons:
1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium - density residential use.
This includes:
a. It is near a minor arterial street (Larpenteur Avenue) and is on a collector street.
b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be minimal
traffic from this development on existing residential streets.
3. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2005.
23
51
Attachment 22
RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE
WHEREAS, Chris English, representing Integra Homes, proposed a change to the zoning map
from F (farm residence) to R -2 (single and double dwellings).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties at 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street (for
the proposed Woodlands of Maplewood).
WHEREAS, the legal description of these properties are:
OVERALL DESCRIPTION
The South 91.99 feet of the West 407.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.39 feet of the West
984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29,
Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel A
The South 91.99 feet of the West 158.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.39 feet of the West
984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 29,
Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel B
The South 91.99 feet of the East 249.00 feet of the West 407.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South
325.00 feet of the West 984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
All in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as The
Woodlands of Maplewood)
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
On July 18, 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 persons at the hearing a chance to speak and
present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council
approve the zoning map change.
2. On August 8, 2005, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change. 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
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.
24
52
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where
applicable, and the public welfare.
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 single and double dwellings.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2005.
99
�3
STREET VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Integra Homes applied to the city for the vacation of the following- described parts of a
right -of -way:
The easterly 15 feet and the westerly 15 feet of the unused Edgemont Street right -of -way
located north of the north right -of -way line of Kingston Avenue. (in Section 17, Township 29,
Range 22)
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:
On July 18, 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 proposed vacation.
On August 8, 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:
Lot 1, Block 3, Monn's Villa
385 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota
PIN: 17- 29 -22 -33 -0021
Lot 10, Block 1, Monn's Villa
395 Kingston Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota
PIN: 17- 29 -22 -33 -0030
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described right -of-
way vacation for the following reasons:
It is in the public interest.
The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a public street at this
location.
The adjacent properties have street access.
The vacation of the parts of the right -of -way will allow the adjacent residents to expand and
improve their homes.
This vacation is subject to the city retaining the center part of the Edgemont Street right -of -way
located north of the north right -of -way line of Kingston Avenue for public purposes.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 2005.
31
i!
Attachment 24
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, applied for a conditional use
permit (CUP) for the Woodlands of Maplewood residential planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to properties at 1740, 1750 and 1766 McMenemy Street.
WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the properties are:
CNkvIgC7- AlIN91 =631.1Ia Ice] I
The South 91.99 feet of the West 407.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.39 feet of the West
984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township
29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel A
The South 91.99 feet of the West 158.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South 325.39 feet of the West
984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township
29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Parcel B
The South 91.99 feet of the East 249.00 feet of the West 407.00 feet of the North 166.99 feet of the South
325.00 feet of the West 984.8 feet of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
All in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as The
Woodlands of Maplewood)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On July 18, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional
use permit.
2. On August 8, 2005, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They
considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described
conditional use permit, because:
32
�7
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and
scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the plans date - stamped June 14, 2005 except where the city
requires changes. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the
watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's standards and
the engineering department requirements.
(2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees.
(3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district.
The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
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.
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall
meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated July 11, 2005,
and the plans shall include:
33
56
a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree
preservation /replacement, and parking plans. The cul -de -sac bulb shall have the
minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around.
b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans:
(1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four - foot -high, black, vinyl -
coated chain -link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fences as
may be required by the city engineer.
(2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan.
c. The following for the streets and driveways:
(1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary.
(2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans.
4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject
to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any
needed off -site pond and drainage easements, if applicable.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Woodlands of Maplewood PUD
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 - 20 feet, maximum - none
c. Rear -yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line.
d. Side -yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing
unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2005.
34
57
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Eric Ahlness
Present
Vice - Chairperson Tushar Desai
Absent
Commissioner Mary Dierich
Present
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Present
Commissioner Michael Grover
Present
Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski
Present
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Present
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Present
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Absent
Staff Present: Ken Roberts Planner
Chuck Ahl Public Works Director
Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. THE WOODLANDS OF MAPLEWOOD (MCMENEMY STREET, NORTH OF
KINGSTON AVENUE) (7:06 — 8:28 p.m.)
Mr. Roberts said Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city to
approve plans for a 28 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan that
shows 28 townhouses (in 14 detached townhomes and seven twinhomes) in a
development called The Woodlands. It would be on an 8.2 -acre site on the east side
of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. For
this proposal, the developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that
each unit will sell for at least $300,000. Staff recommends approval of the six requests
of the developer.
Commissioner Trippler asked how many townhome units were proposed with the
previous plan compared to this new plan?
Mr. Roberts said this plan has two fewer units than the previous plan did.
35
51
Commissioner Trippler said when he reviews a proposal two things he looks for in the
plan are sidewalks and raingardens. He asked if the city has a policy to encourage
developers to incorporate sidewalks and rain gardens into the plan?
Mr. Roberts said the city has been working with the developer and they plan on
installing a trail along the north edge of the project between unit 1 over to unit 11
connecting over to unit 28. There is no new sidewalk proposed along McMenemy
Street. The city tries to persuade the developer to construct sidewalks whenever
reasonable or possible.
Commissioner Trippler thinks sidewalks are critical and most of these proposed
streets are very narrow. The minimum width for a public street is 24 feet wide and the
private streets are listed as 26 feet wide. Because of the narrowness of the private
street there wouldn't be room for cars to be parked along the street.
Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, addressed the commission. The rain gardens
are something the city encourages developers to accomplish. This site is unique from
the standpoint of rain gardens. The developer is restricting the runoff to nearly the
entire site to the two storm water ponds and that overflows into a third smaller pond.
The city is trying to infiltrate a 12 inch rainfall event with this. Rain gardens are to
infiltrate a 1 inch rainfall. This standard is to control a 12 inch rainfall entirely on the
site. This system meets the NERP standards and is comparable to 100 rain gardens
on the site. The city typically doesn't require sidewalks for these types of streets
along with the traffic volume of 100 to 200 vehicle trips per day. McMenemy Street is
the type of street the city would recommend sidewalks for. When the roadway is
redone the city may be installing sidewalks rather than having the developer install
sidewalks.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Mr. Brian Bourassa, the applicant, MFRA Engineering, Plymouth, addressed the
commission. Mr. Bourassa handed out a new illustration of the changes they did today
that were requested from engineering. They eliminated one of the hammer head turn
arounds in the southeast corner of the site and added a private drive turn around that
meets the requirements that the engineering staff suggested. They are still
investigating the potential for another turn around on the northern end of the private
street between units 11 and 12. They met with the engineering staff last week and
have been able to address many of the comments from engineering and the Metro
Watershed District.
Commissioner Trippler appreciated the developer going the extra mile to propose
moving and replanting the larger trees. He asked what the developer's responsibility
is to replace any trees that are planted /replanted on the site if they should die.
Mr. Bourassa asked staff if that would be part of the developer's agreement?
36
51
Mr. Roberts said yes.
Mr. Bourassa said they would take care of the concerns regarding the trees. They
have hired a professional arborist and depending on the tree species the trees will be
transplanted to a non - graded part of the site or balled and burlapped depending on
the time of the year and the diameter of the tree. They would enter into an agreement
with the city to have a guarantee period for the trees.
Commissioner Trippler asked what the height of the retaining walls would be.
Mr. Michael Villari, Project Engineer, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, 412
County Road D East, Little Canada, addressed the commission. Mr. Villari said the
retaining walls will be discussed at the CDRB meeting but said they try to keep the
retaining wall under four feet in height as much as possible.
Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant had any concerns regarding the conditions
listed in the staff report?
Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Villari said they had no concerns.
Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing.
Mr. George Rossbach, representing the Historical Commission and residing at
1406 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He knows the
Historical Commission doesn't have the power to confirm or deny this proposal but
feel it's their duty to speak out regarding the five 100 year old homes on McMenemy
Street. The Historical commission have photographed, cataloged, researched, and
registered these homes with Maplewood. They would like some identification on the
site such as a bronze plaque or something to show a 100 year old home once stood
there.
Commissioner Trippler asked which 100 year old homes would be affected by this
proposal?
Mr. Rossbach said 1741, 1750, 1765, 1766, 1768 McMenemy Street.
Commissioner Trippler asked if the Historical Commission recommended that these
homes not be displaced with this proposal?
Mr. Rossbach said the Historical Commission wasn't notified that this was happening
until they found out about it today. The Historical Commission felt they should at least
be present to make a statement regarding the displacement of these 100 year old
homes.
37
51
Commissioner Trippler asked if the Historical Commission has cataloged the homes
with the history of each home as well as other homes throughout the city. There are
five homes in this neighborhood that are going to be affected by this proposal.
Commissioner Trippler asked if 1750 or 1766 McMenemy Street had any unique
historical value?
Mr. Rossbach said nothing other than being 100 years old and cataloged as such in
the city. Mr. Rossbach said over the sixteen years he sat on the city council he was
famous for a few statements and one of those statements he was known for was "a
PUD is a license to steal ". He wondered what the need for was for a PUD in this
proposal?
Mr. Roberts said in his opinion the developer is not stealing with this development.
The primary reason for a PUD is for the mix of private and public streets and a mix of
setbacks off the private and public streets. In the city code there is not a good
definition for detached townhomes as far as lot size. If the city had to treat these as
single family homes these would have to be 10,000 square feet individual lots. By
having a PUD the city can allow for smaller lots with a common area fora townhouse
effect.
Mr. Rossbach said it ends up with the same effect, it allows the developer to do things
the rest of us can't do.
Mr. Roberts said yes if the developers ask.
Chairperson Fischer said in the past staff has commented for a side by side home if
you want common open space for environmental purposes you can't get 10,000
square foot lots and get the environmental features you want. A PUD is the only way
the city has done that in the past.
Mr. Rossbach said he comes from the generation where a single family home has a 1
acre sized lot.
Commissioner Dierich asked if the Historical Commission registered these 100 year
old homes with the national historical registry or just locally.
Mr. Rossbach said these homes are cataloged and documented only in Maplewood.
Commissioner Dierich asked if there had been any discussion regarding moving these
homes to another location to save the homes and the historical nature of the homes?
Mr. Rossbach said no, they are like everybody else in the city, the Historical
Commission has no money and no power and all they can do is make a
recommendation to the city council.
a]
51
Mr. Kai Huot -Link, 1741 McMenemy Street, Maplewood, addressed the
commission. He lives directly across the street from this proposed development in
one of the 100 year old homes. He moved to this home 6 years ago and what
attracted him to this neighborhood was the character of the 100 year old homes on 1
acre lots. The home at 1740 McMenemy Street was built in 1900 and during the time
the other homes were cataloged that home had not passed the 100 year mark but is
now 105 years old. It's pretty disturbing to him that this developer wants to change the
character of the neighborhood by removing the 100 year old homes and building
$300,000 townhomes. This is a historical neighborhood and has a sense of place
because it has been there along time. People still think of this house as the Thomalla
house. Putting townhomes in this neighborhood only fragments this neighborhood and
would change the character. Land is expensive and it's very hard to buy a 1 acre lot
these days. Partly because people are willing to pay a lot of money just for the piece
of land not for the existing house. The property at 1740 McMenemy sold for $440,000
while the house was only valued at $10,000. He bought his 1 acre property 6 years
ago for $113,000. These could be fixer upper starter homes for a younger family.
There are no yards in this townhome proposal. This kind of development won't attract
people with children. He has four children and they enjoy their yard. His neighbor
has four children to the north and the neighbors to the south have two children. There
are beautiful gardens in some of these yards and what type of opportunity is there for
people to have gardens and space to call their own. The whole discussion regarding
density of housing at 3.41 units per acre is confusing. The property at 1766
McMenemy Street has one house that is 100 years old and the developer wants to
put 6 units on it which is almost twice the stated average. He doesn't understand that
kind of math. He asked the commission to look at the homes on Kingston Avenue
and on McMenemy Street, the size and spacing of the homes. Then there's this
proposal that crams in 28 units in such a small space. It doesn't fit into this
neighborhood. He has strong feelings about this project and hopes the planning
commission can appreciate that and consider recommending fewer units for this
proposal. He asked what the legacy of this development is?
Commissioner Grover asked if the developments north of this proposed site have
similar densities?
Mr. Roberts said there are two different developments in this same area of
Maplewood both with similar densities. One is called The Gardens, which is north of
this site with 20 units on a private drive and The Overview for 24 units (12 twinhomes)
on a cul -de -sac.
Commissioner Dierich said staff said that 3.41 units per acre is a low density for R -2
zoning and she asked what the density would be if it had been R -1 zoning?
Mr. Roberts said the city has some single family developments at 3.2 units per acre.
Commissioner Dierich said the developer could have broken this area up into single
family lots for 3.2 units per acre without coming before the planning commission?
39
51
Mr. Roberts said it would have required a comprehensive plan change.
Ms. Margaret Jodeit, 1714 Edgemont Street, Maplewood, addressed the
commission. She and her husband moved here six years ago. She was here before
regarding this proposal when it came before the planning commission and overall she
is pleased with the changes the developer has made. She wanted to make sure the
emergency access trail would not be named Edgemont Place so there would be no
confusion that this is not a normal street for driving on.
Mr. Roberts said the city wasn't going to name the trail so there shouldn't be any
confusion.
Ms. Jodeit said Kingston Court, Kingston Lane and Kingston Avenue are very similar
and she is worried this could cause confusion for emergency vehicles trying to locate
properties and she wondered if there would be any other street names they could use.
Mr. Roberts said staff reviewed that concern with the public safety department and on
page 13, item f. the city recommended different street names other than Kingston.
Mr. Tom Azzone, 1723 Edgemont Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission.
He spoke a long time at the previous meeting regarding this proposal so he would try
to keep this discussion short. He wanted to make sure this is a ten foot wide blacktop
trail. He wanted to make sure the land on either side of the trail is being vacated to
the neighbors. He wanted to make sure the possible street going through there has
been eliminated. He thanked the developer for their common sense they exercised
on this plan.
Mr. AN said the city acknowledges the trail is ten feet wide, the street is being
vacated, and that precludes any future public street to be constructed through that
corridor.
Mr. Larry Jaehnert, 1771 DeSoto Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission.
He said this is also his second time to address the planning commission regarding this
proposal. He asked if the commission members had a copy of the minutes from the
previous time this item was heard?
The planning commission responded no.
Mr. Jaehnert said he would then briefly discuss what he said the last time. He asked if
the developer had their wood lot alteration permit or is that done after the approval is
made?
Mr. Roberts said a wood lot alteration permit is not required if they have other
development applications like this in. The developer would only need a wood lot
alteration if he wasn't applying to the city of any other approvals.
Ell]
51
Mr. Jaehnert said the city code talks about the natural characteristics of
neighborhoods and there is quite a bit of code that is written for dealing with those
natural characteristics. He read the Maplewood City Code, Section 12 -247, which
states the purpose of this article is to protect significant natural features which
preserve the natural character of neighborhoods.
Mr. Jaehnert said Section 12 -249, states a significant natural feature means a
significant water body, a large tree, a wood lot, a significant slope or a site of historical
or archeological significance that has been recorded with the state. He said there
have been changes made to the original plan but the developer still did not address
the woodlot which is on the eastern side of the property between 1771 and 1765
McMenemy Street. He hates to see trees removed and the city code bypassed.
There has been other development in the area where quite a few trees have been
removed as well. Even though there is a tree plan to preserve and move as many
trees as possible but what size of tree can be transplanted and still survive.
Mr. Roberts said city code states the city can't preclude the development of a property
by saying they have to preserve a certain number of trees. The way the city code is
written the developer needs to preserve at least 10 trees per acre when the
development is done. If they can't do that the developer needs to replace the trees as
a 2 to 1 ratio or try to transplant or move them around on the site. That is what the
developer proposes to do. They plan to save and or transplant up to 200 trees on the
8.2 acre site which is well above the minimum 82 trees the city would require by city
code. The city has not seen the plan for that and that is required before the city can
sign off on the final plans.
Mr. Jaehnert said he has an enormous oak tree on his property near the development
and he would be very appreciative if the developer could do everything they could to
save this tree. He doesn't know what the code states to develop or dig on a drip line
but the base of the tree is about 9 feet around and he would like this tree be saved at
all costs.
Mr. AN said when the developer prepares and submits their grading plan to the city to
review one of the requirements is the developer needs to stake and erect the
construction fence outside the drip line so they cannot go underneath the drip line and
cut roots. He believes the tree Mr. Jaehnert is referring to is in the northwest corner
of the parcel and believes that is a protected area and the developer is nodding his
head yes that area is protected. Mr. AN will direct his staff to erect the construction
fence so there is no grading done in that area.
41
51
Mr. Jaehnert asked how this development fits in with the long term planning for
Maplewood and how it fits in relation to similar developments that are taking place
now? The Met Council determined that Maplewood is built up enough to their
satisfaction. He wonders what the long term vision for Maplewood is. He is
concerned about the amount of density in the area and the public safety because
there is no space for people to walk. There are no sidewalks in the area and the more
development that occurs in this area causes more public safety concerns. There is no
park in the area except for the park on Edgerton Street. He wondered if there would
be any other parks built in the area. The area is becoming so dense there is no place
for people to go.
Mr. Roberts said he is not convinced the Metropolitan Council thinks Maplewood is
built out. The Metropolitan Council has been pushing the city to add more units and
more density because the city is within the Highway 494 and Highway 694 ring. With
the last comprehensive plan update the Met council thought the city had too much
commercial and industrial land and they liked areas like Legacy Village so there would
be more units within the primary infrastructure of the city. The Metropolitan Council
likes developments like this proposal rather than people moving out to areas like
Forest Lake.
Mr. Roberts said regarding more parks in the area that question would have to be
answered by the Maplewood Parks & Recreation Director, Bruce Anderson. The
public safety people that reviewed this plan stated they liked the idea of having trails
within the development and also provided comments regarding changing the name of
the street. Walking around the area as a whole could be a challenge. Possibly when
DeSoto Street is reconstructed sidewalks could be incorporated which could alleviate
some of the public safety concerns.
Mr. AN said sidewalks are something the city struggles with all the time. When the
city holds hearings regarding the reconstruction of roads and the subject of sidewalks
comes up the city runs into issues with homeowners not wanting sidewalks built on
their property. The city takes a firm stand regarding sidewalks. McMenemy Street is a
roadway that was turned back from Ramsey County to the City of Maplewood.
McMenemy Street doesn't have sidewalks. DeSoto Street and McMenemy Street are
funded through gas tax money that the city receives. The legislature proposed a .10
cent gas tax increase which Maplewood would have received significant dollars from
that would have paid for features like this, unfortunately that gas tax increase did not
occur. The city is struggling with how to reconstruct roads. Funding is always a
problem and adding sidewalks is the number one request that people would like
added in their neighborhoods. Except for the residents that would have to have
sidewalks in their front yards.
42
51
Commissioner Ahlness said Maplewood is a first tier suburb. One of the biggest
challenges is for redevelopment in the city. As a planning commissioner he tries to
find out how the city can best see the development that would enhance the city in the
long term. The city cannot restrict the developer's economic benefit of the land. The
city looks at the best way to enhance the community but not harm the neighborhood.
If it would harm the neighborhood the city has to find some specific reasons to
disapprove the proposal. Using the reason you don't want this development to move
forward because of the loss of trees or you don't want this development in your
backyard simply isn't a strong enough reason to deny the proposal. If the city
recommended denial of the proposal for those reasons the city attorney would come
back to the planning commission and tell them those reasons are not strong enough
to deny this proposal. In this case when the developer has a plan to remove and
replant as many trees as possible he looks at that as a positive thing and based on
the proposal he is in favor of this plan.
Commissioner Trippler said as a planning commissioner he looks to see if a
development fits into the overall character of the neighborhood. Even though this
proposal has a little more density than the area to the south or to the west, it fits into
what is being built to the north of this development. Even though the developer says
he is going to save as many trees as possible, many times trees still die during
construction. He would assume trees die in many construction projects, and
sometimes it can't be helped. He appreciates the fact that the developer has listened
to the concerns and comments of the neighbors and that the developer is going to
relocate as many large trees as possible, which can be very expensive. He would like
to see the 100 year old homes stay in the neighborhood too and can appreciate the
concerns of the neighbors. Unfortunately unless you can write a check out to the
developer to buy him out this proposal is going to move forward.
43
51
Commissioner Dierich lives in south Maplewood and later tonight the commission will
be discussing density and possible development of the southern end of Maplewood.
Because she is going to be dealing with a similar situation in her neighborhood she
can appreciate the comments and concerns of the neighbors and it's hard to accept
and deal with. South Maplewood is going to go through some major development
changes in the very near future. There are truly significant natural features in
southern Maplewood as opposed to this neighborhood where it's a mixture of trees
and older homes. Regarding Maplewood being built to capacity, it's not that the city is
already built to capacity; it's that the city has built enough affordable housing for what
is required by the Metropolitan Council. The developer took the comments from the
planning commissioners and neighbors. The developer has come up with a nice plan
that will add to the tax base for Maplewood, it will look very nice in the neighborhood
and still add more residents in Ramsey County rather than having them move out to
the outer suburbs, which should make the Metropolitan Council happy. The density is
not that bad compared to what the developer could have proposed to build on this
property. She's disturbed that the historical commission didn't list these 100 year old
homes with the national registry or with the state. Her daughter does that for a living
and she knows it takes a long time to go through the whole process but it's too late to
file now. She would encourage the Historical Commission to initiate the action to
record 100 year old homes. The city is trying to get as much open space as possible
and having these townhomes allows for community open space in this development.
Mr. Jaehnert asked if the trail system within this proposed development is private or
can the trail system be opened up so anyone can access the trail system?
Mr. Roberts said the trail system from Kingston Street north into the development up
to the center cul -de -sac would be public because it would still be on the public right of
way and connect to the public street. The trail on the north side of the development,
near the church would be private because that would be in the common area of the
townhomes. Although the city can't encourage people to trespass, he doesn't believe
anybody will be there guarding the trails. As far as the trail system, developing a trail
network for the neighborhood as a whole would have to be looked at by the city.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. AN said the Kingston Court public right of way access point and McMenemy
Street have a small segment on the south side called outlot A. That is a reserved
strip not allowed by the city code. The city would like outlot A dedicated as right of
way. Mr. AN said he thought that was put in to restrict the property owner because he
wouldn't agree to part of that to restrict his access to a public road and the city doesn't
allow that in the code. Outlot A will be a dedicated right of way like Kingston Court.
Mr. Roberts said that change would be made before this goes to the city council.
MI
51
Mr. Azzone, spoke out of line and away from the podium so his questions was not
picked up by the microphone but it was something regarding outlot A and his
driveway. Mr. AN said the answer to that is no and the city is going to talk to Mr.
Azzone and try to convince him to have driveway access onto Kingston Court.
Commissioner Grover asked if any of outlot A would be on Mr. Azzone's property?
Mr. AN said no.
Chairperson Fischer asked if this change was reflected in the conditions or should it
be added?
Mr. Roberts said he didn't believe this change was reflected in the conditions so it
could be added or staff could be responsible for making the change before it goes to
the city council.
Commissioner Dierich would encourage the city to be very active as a city in looking
at the developer's agreement. She is 4 years into her developer's agreement in her
neighborhood and they are still having issues not being able to elect a group that
leads the development and therefore, things aren't getting done and trees are dying
and nothing is being done about it. The city needs take a more active role in making
sure that when the city develops a developer's agreement that there is something that
can be done in the long term. She asked if the private drives would be plowed by a
private contractor or by the city.
Mr. AN said the public roadway will be plowed by city and the area marked private
drive would be plowed as part of the homeowners association.
Commissioner Dierich asked who monitors the fencing along the drip line? In the past
she has seen orange fencing up around tree drip lines and it doesn't last very long.
During the construction of her house construction went through the middle of the drip
lines and they were also marked as significant. She asked how often those drip lines
are monitored, who monitors them and what fines occur if construction went into the
drip line?
Mr. AN said the Public Works Department is responsible for monitoring that. The
Public Works Department had one full time person assigned to monitor those types of
things but has since retired from the city. That person has been replaced and a
summer engineering intern has been hired to assist in the monitoring of those drip
lines. The city recognizes they didn't do a good job in the past. A developer like this
has to post bonds and escrows to make sure things occur. Most recently the city did
some work that was supposed to be taken care of by a developer and the city billed it
back to the property owner and developer. So in the end someone gets the job done.
Commissioner Dierich strongly encouraged the neighbors to walk the construction site
and call the Public Works department if they notice anything that causes concern.
45
51
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution on page 51 of the staff report.
This resolution changes the land use plan for the Woodlands of Maplewood plat on
the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. This change is from R-
1 (single dwellings) to R -2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this
change because: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are
stricken.)
1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
2. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium - density
residential use. This includes:
a. It is near a minor arterial street (Larpenteur Avenue) and is on a collector
street (McMenemy Street).
b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there
would be minimal traffic from this development on existing residential
streets.
3. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses.
Approve the resolution on pages 52 and 53 of the staff report. This resolution changes
the zoning map for the Woodlands of Maplewood plat on the east side of McMenemy
Street, north of Kingston Avenue. This change is from F (farm residence) to R -2
(single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the
city code and because the owner plans to develop this property with a mix of single and
double dwellings.
Approve the resolution on page 54 of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation
of parts of the Edgemont Street right -of -way, north of Kingston Avenue. The city is
vacating this right -of -way because:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The applicant and the abutting property owners have no plans to build a public
street at this location.
3. The adjacent properties have street access.
4. The vacation of the right -of -way will allow the adjacent residents to expand and
improve their homes.
This vacation is subject to the city retaining the center of the Edgemont Street right -of-
way located north of the north right -of -way line of Kingston Avenue for public purposes.
51
Approve the resolution starting on page 55 of the staff report. This resolution approves
a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlands of
Maplewood development on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston
Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. Approval is
subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the plans date - stamped June 14, 2005, except
where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include:
a. Revising the grading and site plans to show:
(1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or
required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet
the city's standards and the engineering department requirements.
(2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large
trees.
(3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed
district.
The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline
for one year.
3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo
dated July 11, 2005, and the plans shall include:
a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree
preservation /replacement, and parking plans. The cul -de -sac bulb shall
have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can
turn around.
b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans:
(1) The developer shall enclose the new ponds with a four - foot -high, black,
vinyl- coated chain -link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in
the fences as may be required by the city engineer.
(2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan.
c. The following for the streets and driveways:
47
51
(1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is
necessary.
(2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans.
4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall
be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be
responsible for getting any needed off -site pond and drainage easements, if
applicable.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Remove any debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site.
6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Woodlands of
Maplewood PUD 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 — 20 feet, maximum —none
c. Rear -yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line
d. Side -yard setback (townhouses): minimum — 20 feet minimum between
buildings.
7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for
each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
8. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Approve the Woodlands of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on June
14, 2005). 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:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
a]
51
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten -foot drainage
and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five -
foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot).
d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least seven
locations. These shall be as follows:
(1) At the intersection of Edgemont Land and Kingston Court (by Lot 8).
(2) Near Lot 4 in the middle of the block.
(3) At the northeast corner of the site near Lot 1.
(4) At the north end of Edgemont Lane near Lot 11.
(5) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and Kingston Court (Sophia
Avenue).
(6) At the intersection of McMenemy Street and the northerly driveway
(near Lot 23).
(7) Near Lot 28 at the east end of the driveway.
The exact style and location of the lights shall be subject to the city
engineer's approval.
e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification and no parking
signs.
f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to
Minnesota rules and regulations.
2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree
and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in
the memo from Erin Laberee dated July 11, 2005, and shall meet the following
conditions:
a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code.
b. The grading plan shall show:
(1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each
building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved
preliminary plat.
(2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb.
,.
51
(3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can
save large trees.
(4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall
approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any
slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall
prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes
shall be protected with wood -fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-
maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the
final plat.
(6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet
require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a
protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four
feet.
(7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by
the city engineer.
(8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading
easements from the affected property owner(s).
(9) A minimum of a 10- foot -wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level
(NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond
below the NWL shall not exceed four feet.
(10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the
watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot
deep and protected with approved permanent soil - stabilization blankets.
(11) The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city
engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall
accommodate the run -off from the entire project site and shall not
increase the run -off from the site.
c. The tree plan shall:
(1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval.
(2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, save or replace large
trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the
site.
50
51
(3) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted, replacement and
screening trees. The new deciduous trees shall be at least two and one -half
(2'h) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash,
lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The new coniferous trees
shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black
Hills spruce and other species.
(4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list.
(6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be:
(a) near the ponding areas
(b) along the west and south sides of the site to help screen the
development from the existing houses to the west and south
(7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 200 trees after the site
grading is done.
(8) Hold the developer responsible for replacing any moved trees that
subseguentially die within a one year period.
d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
(1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine -ton design with a maximum street
grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all
intersections at two percent.
(2) Water service to each lot and unit.
(3) Repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street and boulevard)
after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets,
trails and private driveways.
(4) The developer enclosing the ponds with a four - foot -high, black, vinyl- coated
chain -link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may
be required by the city engineer.
(5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except
where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes.
(6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the
standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services
(SPRWS). Fire -flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with
the Maplewood Fire Department.
51
51
(7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right -of -ways or within the
easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would
be outside the project area.
(8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to
prevent erosion.
e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm -
water run -off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The
developer's engineer shall:
(1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities.
(2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations.
3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction
plans.
4. Change the plat as follows:
a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat.
These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property
lines and five feet wide along the side property lines.
b. Show Kingston Court as a public street in a 50- foot -wide public right -of -way.
Remove outlot A and make this area be part of the public right -of -way.
c. Label the common areas as outlots.
d. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer.
e. Label all the names of all the streets and driveways on all plans and
distinguish which are public and which are private.
f. Change the street and driveway names as follows:
(1) Kingston Court and Kingston Lane as Sophia Avenue.
(2) The north /south driveway as Edgemont Lane.
(3) The north private driveway (for Units 23 -28) shall have McMenemy
Street addresses.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall
include any off -site drainage and utility easements.
52
51
6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or
contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street and Kingston Avenue (street,
curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public
utilities and builds the new streets and private driveways.
7. 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,
private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls.
8. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowners' association documents.
b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or
splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building
sites unless approved by the city council.
c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation,
maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the
city for approval before recording.
9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall
site drainage. The city engineer shall include the developer's agreement any
grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat
approval.
10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading.
11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA).
12. 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.
Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover,
53
51
Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005.
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Longrie called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Hinzman
Present
Board member Matt Ledvina
Present until 9:07 p.m.
Chairperson Diana Longrie
Present
Vice chairperson Linda Olson
Present
Board member Ananth Shankar
Present
54
51
Staff Present: Shann Finwall Planner
Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Woodlands of Maplewood — McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue
Ms. Finwall reported Mr. Chris English, representing Integra Homes, is asking the city
to approve plans for a 28 unit townhouse development. He has prepared a site plan
that shows 28 townhouses (in 14 detached townhomes and seven twin homes) in a
development called The Woodlands. It would be on an 8.2 -acre site on the east side of
McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue and south of the Hmong Church. The
applicant's designer has told staff that each building would have horizontal -lap vinyl
siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick veneer on the fronts. In addition, each
unit would have a two -car garage. The planning commission approved requests 1 -5 of
the staff report at their July 18, 2005, meeting.
Ms. Finwall said it should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24- foot -wide
streets, parking on one side of 28- foot -wide streets and along both sides of streets that
are 32 feet wide. In this case, the developer is proposing to construct the new public
street (Kingston Court) and the private driveways 24 feet wide and then the city would
not allow parking on the street on driveways. The project has not shown any areas for
proof -of- parking spaces within the development. This is something that the final project
plans should show. Locations for such parking could be north of Kingston Court near
Unit 20, north of Kingston Lane near Units 7 and 8 and along Edgemont Lane near
Units 10 and 11. These are locations that the city could require the developer or the
homeowners' association to add more parking if it becomes necessary.
Board member Shankar asked if staff is recommending a cul -de -sac next to unit 4, how
would people get to units 1, 2, and 3?
Staff said that question would be better addressed by the applicant.
Board member Olson said there was a notation from the police department regarding
renaming the street to eliminate confusion of the street names, she asked what the
name of the street would be?
Ms. Finwall recommended the applicant address that question.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Brian Bourassa, MFRA Engineering, Plymouth, addressed the board. He displayed
the original layout from the previous proposal and then displayed the new design to
represent the changes in the design layout. This represents the additional property
Integra Homes acquired to add to the development layout. The name of the new street
55
51
will be Sophia Avenue per the Police Department's request. With the redesign of the
plan they were able to design some hammerhead turn arounds and a large cul -de -sac
on the plan. Regarding staff's suggestion for additional visitor parking Integra Homes
will be adding some additional visitor parking stalls on the plan in the areas staff
suggested.
Board member Ledvina said he is concerned with the large cul -de -sac on the plan. It is
shown on the plan to be 120 feet curb to curb in terms of the diameter. In his
neighborhood they have a huge cul -de -sac with a tremendous amount of asphalt and
he personally measured his cul -de -sac and it measured 96 feet curb to curb. He
estimates the large cul -de -sac to be 120,000 square feet of asphalt in that proposed
intersection on the plan and he believed a much smaller intersection could be built
there. He doesn't understand the need for a large cul -de -sac of that size. If it can be
reduced it should be reduced and it would be a benefit to the project.
Mr. Bourassa said they agreed with that comment. Staff recommended a cul -de -sac of
this size and that is why it is shown that way on the plan. In the past in other
developments that Integra Homes has done they have used planters in the center of
the cul -de -sac or island area. He is not sure if this is common practice in Maplewood or
if it is allowed but that is a possibility idea.
Board member Hinzman said looking at the Kingston Court right of way it comes close
to the homes to the south. He asked if there was land acquired for this right of way or
is that the way the property line is presently?
Mr. Bourassa said additional land was acquired in order to meet some of the
requirements from staff as well as to meet the objectives of Integra Homes.
Board member Hinzman knows this is the second time the plans have been redesigned
for this proposal and he appreciates the work and effort that has gone into preparing
this proposal. He is looking at the double frontage with the existing lots to the south.
He wondered if Integra Homes had thought about taking the southern street and
flipping the street design to the north so there would be a street adjacent to the church
area which would cause less of an impact. The existing homes to the south would then
back up to the new townhomes rather than backing up to asphalt.
Mr. Bourassa said after meeting with the residents and staff this plan was the preferred
plan. They realize it creates double frontage lots but that was the preference of the
neighbors to the south. They did spend a lot of time out in the field thinking of the
design but because of the pond location there was a problem trying to snake the road
in and still develop a logical lot design for the proposal. This is the next best plan and it
is what the neighbors to the south are supporting.
Board member Hinzman asked how they determine whose trees are on the existing
property and who is responsible for the care of the trees?
Mr. Bourassa said the bulk of the site is being graded. They have done a tree
56
51
inventory on the entire site. They are working with a certified arborist and will identify
prior to construction the trees that are healthy and have the capacity to stand a move
and they will transplant all the trees that can be transplanted which is at about 150 -200
trees on this site. They will be planting landscaping to buffer the south property line
behind the Monn's Villa neighborhood as well as on the west side of the property
buffering McMenemy Street. The landscaping plan will be difficult. Staff has stated
they would prefer to have some strong language in the developer's agreement to
ensure the landscaping and trees are taken care. This will ensure any concerns the
neighbors have that during construction if the landscaping or trees should die it would
be Integra Homes responsibility to replace it.
Board member Ledvina said on the east boundary it shows a retaining wall. He asked
if that retaining wall was to preserve the trees and what is the height of the retaining
wall?
Mr. Bourassa said the neighbor that has a huge oak tree that is real close to the
property line and Integra Homes is going to be working with that homeowner along with
the arborist to ensure the tree is trimmed and cared for before and during the
construction to preserve the trees.
Mr. Michael Villari, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, Lino Lakes, addressed the
board. They have not submitted plans for the retaining wall along the east property line
yet but would be submitting that to the city staff and engineering department. It
appears that retaining wall would be about half a foot ranging up to about four feet in
height along the east side. There will be some other significant retaining walls along
the ponds that are even taller.
Board member Ledvina asked if the goal was to not have any significant grading on the
east side?
Mr. Villari said that is correct.
Board member Shankar asked what the width of the roads would be?
Mr. Bourassa said the width from curb to curb on the public street is 26 feet wide but
the width of the road at the entrance is larger because of the median in the middle.
The private street from curb to curb is also 26 feet wide. For clarification the cul -de -sac
is at a 60 foot radius.
Board member Olson asked if they were proposing any sidewalks in this development?
Mr. Bourassa said they will have a private trail connection that is paved in the
development. At the planning commission the sidewalk issue came up and at some
time in the future Mr. AN said there may be a trail corridor that would connect along the
east side of McMenemy Street.
57
51
Board member Olson said if individuals in this development wanted to walk to the bus
they would have to walk on these narrow roads then because there are no sidewalks in
the area.
Mr. Bourassa said there is a trail connection from Kingston Avenue to this area as well.
He is not sure if there is a bus route on McMenemy Street but he believes there is.
Chairperson Longrie regarding the large cul -de -sac in the center she asked if there is a
potential for a planter to be put in the center to decrease the amount of impervious
asphalt?
Ms. Finwall said yes. The 60 foot radius is indicated in the city's subdivision ordinance
and the city engineering department supports a 50 foot radius and as small as 45 feet
radius so this large area is surprising to staff and she is not sure why the city engineers
recommended the 60 foot radius. Maybe it could either be reduce in size or a planter
could be used to break the amount of asphalt up.
Board member Olson said she is concerned about fire trucks or school buses being
able to maneuver around in the area and if there were a planter in the middle of the cul-
de -sac she is concerned the planter would cause a problem for those vehicles.
Ms. Finwall said she wasn't sure and said that is something the city engineer would
have to clarify. Staff could follow up on that for the board.
Board member Shankar said if it does need to be 60 foot radius they could use some
colored concrete or brick to break the expanse of the asphalt cul -de -sac.
Board member Ledvina said if the city could get by with a smaller radius cul -de -sac he
would recommend changing the plan to eliminate as much additional asphalt as
possible.
Board member Shankar asked if the roads are 26 feet wide why wouldn't the applicant
make the roads 28 feet wide and allow for on- street parking on one side of the street
and eliminate the visitor parking?
Mr. Bourassa said they think that is a good idea but would like the opportunity to
investigate that possibility and how that would affect the area. They would also have to
make sure they could meet the setbacks and check on the plantings in the area.
Board member Hinzman said he thinks this is a better idea than having these small
visitor parking spots put into small areas.
Mr. Bourassa said they would take a look at that and report back to city staff on their
findings.
Chairperson Longrie said you need to make sure there is room for people to walk
13]
51
whether there are kids living here or not. We are moving towards a more livable
walkable community.
Board member Hinzman said with the size of the development they have done a good
job with the design and the connections within the site.
Board member Shankar said the colored elevations look like stucco but isn't the intent
to use horizontal siding?
Mr. Bourassa deferred that question to Ron Lillestrand.
Mr. Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, Dayton, addressed the board. He
said his daughter usually handles this information but is not present this evening.
These buildings will have vinyl siding, stone and brick on the building exterior.
Chairperson Longrie said she remembers the last time the board reviewed this
proposal the board had a lengthy discussion regarding the building exteriors and
making changes to the exterior.
Mr. Lillestrand had three different building product samples that they would propose
using on the building exterior which includes vinyl siding, cedar shakes, asphalt
shingles, and window shutters. At the previous CDRB meeting his daughter had
discussed some building exterior changes and additional colors to use but she was
unable to be here tonight. Some of the employees are on vacation and his draftsman
was called away unexpectedly so he is not as organized as he would like to be. He
said they ended acquiring some additional property and may be designing more twin
homes than they originally planned. They will be redesigning some of the buildings so
for these reasons he would like to bring the revised building elevations and building
colors back to the board for review with some of his staff.
Chairperson Longrie asked if she understood Integra Homes would like to come back
to fully present the revised building design and building colors. If that is the case she
said she had some additional questions to ask about the design so she would hold
those questions until they come back with the revisions.
Mr. Lillestrand said that's what they would prefer to do.
Chairperson Longrie said she would support tabling the building elevations until Integra
Homes wants to come back to the board with the revisions.
Board member Shankar asked if the CDRB would be reviewing just the site plan,
landscape, grading and drainage plans then?
Chairperson Longrie said that's what it sounds like. If the applicant is willing to alter the
width of the private and public drive aisle to change the width that would minimize the
cul -de -sac width as well.
59
51
Board member Ledvina he is wondering about the cul -de -sac on the southeast corner
and why there isn't a curve in the road instead? There is no conflict in terms of traffic in
that area. When a new development is proposed you have to look at the development
as a whole and he believes some of the impervious surfaces could be made smaller.
Board Hinzman agreed.
Board member Ledvina said he wasn't present for the previous meeting for this
proposal and he thinks this is a nice plan. He especially likes the side loaded garages.
He is concerned about the positioning of units 21 and 22. Maybe they could be
staggered a bit and to add more character there.
Board Hinzman said this is a different piece of property to develop with the topography.
From a design standpoint he would prefer to see the private street moved to the north
but he understands the neighbors prefer this proposed plan. He thinks this will be a
nice subdivision.
Board member Shankar said even if the cul -de -sac is reduced to a 45 foot radius
perhaps they could consider using a 10 foot circle radius with a different material from
asphalt with either colored concrete or brick.
Board member Olson said she remembered seeing this proposal previously and she
thinks this plan is much improved. She appreciates the developer's efforts to work with
the neighbors. She is concerned about pedestrian traffic and the need for sidewalks.
Board member Shankar asked if there was a minimum width for sidewalks?
Ms. Finwall said the minimum sidewalk width in Maplewood is six feet wide.
Board member Olson said she thinks a four foot wide sidewalk would be sufficient.
Board member Ledvina said this is a PUD and the city doesn't have to follow the
ordinances with a planned unit development like this.
Board member Shankar suggested the road between McMenemy and the cul -de -sac
be 24 feet wide with a four foot wide sidewalk for a total of 28 feet wide. The private
road could be 28 feet wide which would allow parking on one side of the street.
The board agreed that was a good idea.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the project plans (site plan, landscape plan,
grading and drainage plans and b ildiRg e'eVRt'^^ ° ) for the Woodlands of Maplewood
townhouses on the east side of McMenemy Street, north of Kingston Avenue. The city
bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor
shall do the following: (changes made by the CDRB during the meeting are
.e
51
underlined if added and stricken if deleted)
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for
this project.
2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit:
a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans.
These plans shall include: streets, grading, utility, drainage, erosion
control, tree sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the
following conditions and shall also meet all the conditions and changes
noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated July 11, 2005.
(1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code.
(2) A revised site plan showing the following:
(a) That the units along the north property line are scatted to
break up the linearity.
(b) The public road at 24 feet wide up to the cul -de -sac, along
with a 4 -foot wide sidewalk running from McMenemy Street
to the cul -de -sac.
(c) All private roads to be 28 feet wide with parking allowed on
one side.
(d) Review the concept with the engineering department of
reducing the amount of impervious surface on the western
cul -de -sac by the installation of a center landscape island or
the reduction in the radius, or the possibility of the
installation of different color or materials.
(e) Review the concept with the engineering department of
removing the southeast cul -de -sac.
(3) The grading plan shall:
(a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for
each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the
approved preliminary plat.
(b) Include contour information for the land that the construction
will disturb.
61
51
(c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as maybe required by
the watershed board or by the city engineer.
(d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed
construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the
plans, specifications and management practices for any
slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these
slopes with wood -fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no
mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass.
(e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls
more than four feet tall require a building permit from the
city.
(f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed
by the city engineer.
(g) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall
provide the city engineerwith the drainage calculations. The
drainage design shall accommodate the run -off from the
surrounding areas.
(h) Show details about the proposed pond fencing including the
materials, gate, height and color.
(4) The tree plan shall:
(a) Be approved by the city engineer.
(b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and
shall show where the developer will remove, transplant, save
or replace large trees.
(c) Show the size, species and location of the transplanted and
replacement trees. The new coniferous trees shall be at
least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce
and Austrian pine.
(d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape
plans shall show no tree removal beyond the approved
grading and tree limits.
(e) Show additional tree planting for screening along the south
and west property lines of the site.
(5) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show:
62
51
(a) A water service to each lot and unit.
(b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street and
Kingston Avenue (including curbing, street, and boulevard)
after the contractor removes the existing driveways,
connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets,
trails and driveways.
P.nA/.%T V - IMMIMPS .UM Tarm:r_7Fi1MMRillnT5"WrTrST1
(d) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete
curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that
it is not needed.
(e) The developer or contractor shall post the streets and
driveways with "no parking" signs to meet city standards.
(f) The public streets and private driveways labeled on all plans.
(g) The common area labeled as Outlot B on all plans.
(6) The design of the ponding areas and the rainwater garden(s)
shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The
developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off -site
utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all
necessary easements.
b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each
building staked by a registered land surveyor.
C. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates
the following details.
(1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall
determine the vegetation within the ponding area.
(2) The addition of eight -foot tall trees and /or fencing for screening
along the west and south sides of the site.
63
51
(3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding areas to
break the appearance of the deep hole and to promote
infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city
engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans.
(4) Having in- ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code
requirement).
(5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on
the landscape plan date - stamped February 1, 2005, shall
remain on the plan.
(6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit.
(7) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This
shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas
around the ponding area with native grasses and native
flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall
be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at
least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the
pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the
temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens.
Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded
with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate.
(8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side
and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting
beds and the area within the ponding area).
(9) The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street and Kingston
Avenue boulevards with sod.
(10) Adding more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian
pines) along the west and south property lines of the site.
These trees are to be at least eight feet tall, and the contractor
shall plant these trees in staggered rows to provide screening
for the houses to the south and west.
(11) Show the in- ground lawn- irrigation system, including the location
of the sprinkler heads.
(12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and
shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape
plans.
M.
51
(13) Show the landscape or ground treatment for the areas between
the driveways of the double dwellings.
d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this
development.
e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district.
f. Submit a site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show the
installation of at least seven street lights and how the lighting on the
buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details
about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides
the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must
have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the
adjacent street right -of -ways and from adjacent residential properties.
g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the
proposed utility plans.
i. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC
fees) at the time of the building permit for each housing unit.
j. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for
approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one
responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas,
outlots, the private utilities, signs, landscaping and retaining walls.
k. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required
exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of
the work.
3. Complete the following before occupying each building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas.
65
51
C. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its
rainwater garden(s).
d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter.
e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exits onto McMenemy Street and
addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall
install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff.
f. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the
plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in- ground
sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement).
g. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved
site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting
plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures
must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the
adjacent street right -of -ways and the nearby homes and residential
properties.
h. Install a six - foot -high solid fencing or additional trees along the west and
south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately
screen the townhouses from the existing dwellings. These additional
materials are to ensure there is at least a six - foot -tall, 80 percent opaque
screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of
the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff
approval.
i. The developer or contractor shall:
(1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public
improvements and meet all city requirements.
(2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading
limits.
(3) Remove any debris or junk from the site.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public
health, safety or welfare.
b. The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the
city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or
contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of
M
51
the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or
within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the
spring or summer.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
6. Provide city staff with a sign and landscape plan for the entrance and island at
McMenemy Street. The monument sign shall be no more than six feet tall and
shall have materials that are consistent with and architecturally compatible with
the buildings within the development. The landscaping shall be compatible with
the extreme conditions of the location and the materials shall need little or no
maintenance.
7. Buildina elevations are not aooroved with this desian review. All final buildin
elevations must be approved by the community design review board.
Chairperson Longrie seconded. Ayes — Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie,
Olson,
Shankar
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005.
67
Agenda Item K.9
REPORT SUMMARY
Applicant: Meer Const. and Maplewood Financial Center
Site Address: Vacant Property on the Northeast Corner of
Beam and White Bear Avenues
Existing Zoning: Limited Business Commercial (LBC)
Proposed Zoning: Business Commercial (BC)
Existing Land Use: Limited Business Commercial (LBC)
Proposed Land Use: Business Commercial (BC)
City Council Hearing Date: August 8, 2005
60 -Day Deadline: August 13, 2005
Project Description: Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center,
representing Walgreens, are proposing to construct a 14,480- square -foot Walgreens
Pharmacy on a vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear
Avenues. The plan also shows a future three -story office building to be located on the
east side of the lot, toward the Maplewood Heights city park.
Requests: To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city
approve a comprehensive plan change from limited business commercial (LBC) to
business commercial (BC) (requires four votes); zoning map change from limited
business commercial (LBC) to business commercial (BC); and design review.
Recommendations:
The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval of a land use and
zoning change to reguide and rezone the west 290 feet of the vacant property from
limited business commercial (LBC) to business commercial (BC) at their July 18, 2005,
meeting.
The community design review board (CDRB) reviewed and recommended approval of
the design review of the proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy at their July 26, 2005, meeting.
The CDRB made this recommendation based on the condition that the building
elevations be improved and resubmitted to the CDRB.
After review of the city's ordinances and Minnesota case law, the city attorney's office
submitted a legal opinion to city staff on July 29, 2005, which states that the city should
stop action or deny the applicants' land use and zoning change request on the rationale
that the applicants have no standing to file for such zoning change.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: Walgreens Pharmacy
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues
DATE: August 1, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center, representing Walgreens, are
proposing to construct a 14,480- square -foot Walgreens Pharmacy on a vacant lot
located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The plan also shows
a future three -story office building to be located on the east side of the lot, toward the
Maplewood Heights city park (Attachments 1 through 8).
Requests
To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city approve the
following:
Comprehensive plan change from limited business commercial (LBC) to
business commercial (BC).
2. Zoning map change from limited business commercial (LBC) to business
commercial (BC).
3. Design review.
BACKGROUND
May 28, 2004: The City of Maplewood received complete land use applications from the
applicants for a comprehensive land use plan change, zone change, and design review
for the proposed Walgreens Pharmacy and future office building. City staff sent a
neighborhood survey notifying all property owners within 500 feet of the property of the
proposal. City staff received notice from the underlying property owner ( Mogren
Landscaping) that Maplewood Financial Center's lease on the land did not allow the
development of a pharmacy and that they were disputing the applicants' request to
rezone the property. City staff notified the applicants of this issue and discontinued
processing the permit until the applicants were able to obtain the underlying property
owner's permission to rezone or a court order which directed the city to proceed.
November 3, 2004: The RamseyNVashington Metro Watershed District approved the
applicants' watershed district permit for the proposed development.
May 10, 2005: A court order was given that effectively denied Mogren Landscaping's
request to stop the rezoning process by finding that Maplewood Financial Center could
"develop the leased premises for any lawful purpose." With this court order, city staff
began processing the land use applications again.
July 18, 2005: A court order was given that effectively denied Mogren Landscaping's
request for a temporary injunction and temporary restraining order to require the city to
stop processing and /or granting the applicants' rezoning request. Given the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99, which require cities to process a land
use application within 60 days, city staff was compelled to continue with the land use
application as requested by the applicant.
July 18, 2005: The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval of a land
use and zoning change to reguide and rezone the west 290 feet of the vacant property
from limited business commercial (LBC) to business commercial (BC) (Attachment 9).
July 25, 2005: The community design review board (CDRB) reviewed and
recommended approval of the design review of the proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy.
The CDRB made this recommendation based on the condition that the building
elevations be improved and resubmitted to the CDRB (Attachment 10).
July 27, 2005: After review of the city's ordinances and Minnesota case law, the city
attorney's office submitted a legal opinion to city staff which states that the city should
stop action or deny the applicants' land use and zoning change request on the rationale
that the applicants have no standing to file for such zoning change (Attachment 11).
DISCUSSION
Zoning and Land Use
The property is currently zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as LBC.
This land use and zoning designation would allow for limited commercial uses including
offices, medical or health - related clinics, and day care centers. This designation has
been historically placed on property that is adjacent residential uses to ensure no
negative commercial impacts to surrounding residential properties. Therefore, in order
to construct a retail store, whether it is a pharmacy or other retail use, the city must
authorize the reguiding and rezoning of the property to BC, which is a higher- impact
commercial zoning district that would allow for the retail store and pharmacy.
Applicant Zoning Change Denial
The city attorney's legal opinion in summary states that state statute allows for the
initiation of a zoning change "by a governing body, planning agency or by petition of the
affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance." The city's zoning
ordnance defines an owner as "any part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, tenant in
partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or of a part of such building
or land." The applicant (Maplewood Financial Center) holds a lease interest, not a fee
interest.
Minnesota law finds that a lease interest is not equivalent to a fee interest. Therefore,
the city attorney's office finds that the applicants are not exclusive owners of this
property, that there is not agreement between the owners regarding this zoning change,
and the city should reject the applicants' request for a zoning change until such time as
2
they either obtain sole ownership of the property or obtain the consent of Mogren
Landscaping to initiate the change.
City Council Initiated Zoning Change
The legal opinion notes that the zoning change can be initiated by a governing body.
One option spelled out in the legal opinion is to hold a hearing on whether the city
council should initiate a land use and zoning change. This scenario would require the
city council to direct city staff, by a majority vote, to process a land use plan and zoning
map change consistent with the applicants' request. City staff would then schedule a
separate public hearing to consider the city council initiated land use and zoning change
by the planning commission with final action by the city council. This option has merit in
the fact that city staff and the planning commission have previously recommended
making the applicants' requested changes based on the following rationale:
A majority of the properties along White Bear Avenue, north of Beam Avenue,
are zoned BC and include higher impact uses such as restaurants and retail
facilities. A majority of the property along Beam Avenue, east of White Bear
Avenue are lower impact uses such as a city park, single family homes, and a
bank. Therefore, the rezoning of the portion of the property adjacent White Bear
Avenue (west 290 feet) to BC and retaining the property adjacent the city park as
LBC would be consistent with the existing land uses and character of the
neighborhood. The change is also consistent with certain goals and policies in
the comprehensive plan and findings in the city code as follows:
Goals and Policies—
Provide for orderly development.
2. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods.
3. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base,
increase jobs and provide desirable services.
4. Minimize the land planned for streets.
5. Minimize conflicts between land uses.
6. Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land especially when
supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or
streets are not available.
7. Help to implement the goals of the comprehensive plan including:
a. The city will not approve new development without providing for
adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage,
parks and open space.
b. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties.
3
C. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should
not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on
adjoining developments.
d. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so
that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas
separated by major man -made or natural barriers.
e. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each
neighborhood.
Group compatible businesses in suitable areas.
g. Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash
containers.
h. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas.
Rezoning Findings—
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 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Deny the applicants' (Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center)
request for a comprehensive land use plan map change from limited business
commercial (LBC) to business commercial (BC) for the vacant property located
on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The city is denying
this request based on the following:
a. Mogren Landscaping is an owner of the above - mentioned land holding
the fee title interest and a full reversion in the lease.
b. Mogren Landscaping opposes the comprehensive land use change
request.
13
C. Maplewood Financial Center is not an exclusive owner of this property,
and there is not agreement between the owners regarding the
comprehensive land use change.
2. Deny the applicants' (Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center)
request for a zoning map change from limited business commercial (LBC) to
business commercial (BC) for the vacant property located on the northeast
corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The city is denying this request based
on the following:
a. Mogren Landscaping is an owner of the above - mentioned land holding
the fee title interest and a full reversion in the lease.
b. Mogren Landscaping opposes the zoning map change request.
C. Maplewood Financial Center is not an exclusive owner of this property,
and there is not agreement between the owners regarding the zoning
map change.
3. Hold a hearing on whether the city council should initiate a comprehensive land
use and zoning map change as follows:
a. Comprehensive Land Use Change: Consider initiating a change to the
comprehensive land use plan map for the west 290 feet of the vacant
property located on the northeast comer of Beam and White Bear Avenue
from limited business commercial (LBC) to business commercial (BC).
b. Zoning Map Change: Consider initiating a change to the zoning map for
the west 290 feet of the vacant property located on the northeast corner
of Beam and White Bear Avenue from limited business commercial (LBC)
to business commercial (BC).
4. Either table or deny the design review of the Walgreen's Pharmacy to be located
on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues as follows:
a. In the case of a city council initiated comprehensive land use and zoning
map change, table the design review until after the required hearings.
b. In the case of no city council initiated comprehensive land use and zoning
map change, deny the design review based on the fact that the use is not
allowed in the existing comprehensive plan and zoning district
designation of limited business commercial (LBC).
5
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 43 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this site for their
comments. Following are the 8 replies received:
Approve
Dan Snyder, Owner of Batteries Plus at 2832 White Bear Avenue: " I am the
owner of the Batteries Plus located on White Bear Avenue and Radatz. I believe
having a Walgreens in the proposed spot would be a great boost for the
shopping center just north of the corner. I am in favor of the proposed
Walgreens store."
2. Elmer and Margaret Birkeland, 2015 Radatz Avenue East: "We have no
objection to this project."
3. Bruce and Marilyn Fisher, 2836 White Bear Avenue: "Go for it! (Looks like a
good investigation of the deal.)
4. Vernabelle Mikiska, 2003 Radatz Avenue: "The plan to put a Walgreens
Drugstore on White Bear Avenue and Beam is okay with me. Also other future
office building."
5. Jodi Jefferson, Manager at Concordia Arms Apartments located at 2030 Lydia
Avenue: Refer to attached e-mail dated June 22, 2005 (Attachment 17).
Opposed
Thomas Schutte, Azure Properties, Inc., Property Owner of Maplewood East
Shopping Center located at 2950 White Bear Avenue: Refer to attached letter
dated July 7, 2005 (Attachment 18).
2. Jerry and Mary Pults, 2965 Frederick Parkway: Refer to attached letter dated
June 29, 2005 (Attachment 19).
3. Madonna Hawthorne, 2030 Beam Avenue: Refer to attached petition signed by
16 residents on Beam Avenue requesting that the city "not' rezone the property
(Attachment 20).
0
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 2.75 Acres
Existing Use: Vacant Land
6il1 N:A111. U] I.I;cill[We1. Ul�b9y
North: Maplewood East Shopping Center (Zoned BC)
South: Beam Avenue and Premier Bank across the street (Zoned LBC)
East: Maplewood Heights Park
West: White Bear Avenue and Red Lobster across the street (Zoned BC)
PLANNING
Existing Land Use
Designation:
Limited Business Commercial (LBC)
Existing Zoning:
Limited Business Commercial (LBC)
Proposed Land Use
Designation:
Business Commercial (BC)
Proposed Zoning:
Business Commercial (BC)
Criteria for CUP Approval
Land Use Plan
Land Use Plan Change: There are no specific criteria for land use plan changes. Any
change, however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive
plan.
Rezoning
Section 44 -1165 of the city code requires that the city council make the following findings
to rezone property:
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 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.
7
Design Review
Section 2 -290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make
the following findings to approve plans:
1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not
impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not
unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or
proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious,
orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's
comprehensive municipal plan.
3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically
of good composition, materials, textures and colors.
Application Date
We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on June 14, 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 August 13,
2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension.
P:\ Com- Dev \Sec2N \Walgreens \7 -26 -05 PC Report
Attachments:
1. Applicant's Zoning Map Change Statement
2. Location Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Site Plan
5. Site Plan (Enlarged)
6. Drainage Plan
7. Landscape Plan
8. Building Elevations
9. July 18 Planning Commission Minutes
10. July 26 CDRB Minutes
11. City Attorney's Legal Opinion
12. Engineering Report
13. Ramsey County Public Works Memorandum
14. Building Official Memorandum
15. Fire Marshal Memorandum
16. Police Department Memorandum
17. Jodi Jefferson June 22, 2005, E -Mail
18. Azure Properties, Inc., July 7, 2005, Letter
19. Jerry and Mary Pults June 29, 2005, Letter
20. Madonna Hawthorne June 11, 2004, Petition
0
Attachment 1
Rezoning Application
Supplement
April 16, 2004
11800 95th Avenue North • Maple Grove, MN 55369
Office (763) 425 -2542 • Fax (763) 425 -5728 • www.MeerCompanies.com
MEER Construction, Inc. is proposing to develop a 2.75 -acre lot located at the Northeast
corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue in Maplewood. The proposed
development will be a Walgreen's on the western portion of the lot, and a future three -
story office building on the eastern portion of the lot. The proposed zoning, Business
Commercial, is compatible with the properties adjacent to the site, and in the vicinity of
White Bear and Beam Avenues.
A. This zoning change will promote the public welfare by:
i. Reducing traffic congestion?
Access to the Walgreen's Store will be from the northwest corner
of the property off of White Bear Avenue, and from the south off
of Beam Avenue. The Walgreen's Store will be designed with two
drive - through lanes and adequate parking for the expected
customer use. The development of the Walgreen's Store in this
location may reduce traffic congestion at the Walgreen's Store
located less than a mile south on White Bear Avenue, as it will
allow customers a second and potentially closer store option.
White Bear Avenue is a north -south arterial and Beam Avenue is
an east -west arterial. As such, traffic congestion should not
increase at this location given the historic customer usage for
Walgreen's Stores.
ii. Improving safety from fire and other dangers?
It is not anticipated that the development of the Walgreen's Store
or the future two -story office building at this location will have any
positive or negative impacts on the safety from fire or other
dangers. The building will be fully sprinkled in accordance with
the local requirements as established by the local Fire Marshall and
the City of Maplewood Fire Chief.
Rezoning Application
Supplement
April 16, 2004
11800 95th Avenue North • Maple Grove, MN 55369
Office (763) 425 -2542 • Fax (763) 425 -5728 • www.MeerCompanies.com
iii. Providing adequate light and open space?
Lighting at the Walgreen's Store and firture office building will be
in conformance with the City of Maplewood's Zoning Code,
Section 44 -20. The source of lighting will be from the Walgreen's
parking lot lights and the security lighting around the building. In
addition, the Walgreen's sign and storefront lights will provide an
additional source of lighting. The lighting system will provide
safety and security. The shielding of the light fixtures will prevent
light from going beyond the boundary of the property.
The entire site to be developed is relatively small. Landscaping, by
use of planters or median strips located throughout the parking
areas will enhance the open spaces provided.
iv. Avoiding overcrowding?
The proposed use of the property is Business Commercial. The
proposed use is compatible and consistent with the adjacent
properties. As such, overcrowding is not an issue in regards to the
proposed use of the property. Walgreen's is a neighborhood store
there to service the local residents.
v. Conserving property values?
The current use of the property is a vacant lot with the remnants of
a parking lot which once served a commercial business. The
structure has been removed from the site as evidenced by the
depression where the building foundation once stood.
Construction of a Walgreen's Store and a future three -story office
building will add significantly to the value of the property and will
result in a positive impact on the City of Maplewood's tax base. As
well as serving the community.
Rezoning Application
Supplement
April 16, 2004
11800 95th Avenue North • Maple Grove, MN 55369
Office (763) 425 -2542 • Fax (763) 425 -5728 • www.MeerCompanies.com
b. Why would this zoning change not injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood?
The zoning change from Limited Business Conunercial to
Business Commercial is consistent and compatible with the zoning
for the neighboring properties. The properties to the north and
west are zoned Business Commercial. The property to the south is
zoned Limited Business Commercial, and the property to the east -
northeast is a community park.
c. Are there adequate public facilities, such as streets, sewers, water lines,
schools and parks?
Yes. White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue are both major
arterials that run north -south and east -west, respectively. A City
storm sewer main and a sanitary sewer main run along White Bear
Avenue and along Beam Avenue. In addition, a water main runs
along Beam Avenue. And the project will be done in a way that
utilizes the existing utilities, street configuration so that no changes
are needed.
Attachment 2
S
Location Map
S
Attachment 3
Zoning Map
.,
C
N
L
U
(D
Q
Existing Curb
Curt
i
.
s
0
Attachment 6
I I
I I \\
I I \q
I I fS
coxnc9r Poor pwxs ro E'silna I �* \ \\
fxlmr B3 PcP npxu B49a'llg I \\
¢+ II ]4p W +' N9PC ". 12 9
Z IX61 I +
SfDPU CWCP DAZE
. r _
'6 ��. 0 Su0'JM MLL]£U NOPL PVC /n�
N1 IIM1Li 9]5.61 �'.N �
m nlu asi.00 ttn MI. ,
f I , 4W. BJt]3 PJ I
B B i I
0 . � o iJ
T — ses'i o'as — W
o4urucC
.wu
u�u
furs)
ovrtcr
mumen s+sfu
p.. +
omB
IxnowTml_u6 pICn sows m u(w wslN n
um[r,unG+
oA l
aoHl
nnimnnor+ sw.¢�ir:c,l Rvxs ?o uiG+ Gsm n
li+rn]P.rwu
III{ET � 9N.63 =
=
1
ph .
9]4
LNpEPLflpV11L OIPCCI IO GiCP PASIM 5
xl -tlrl_ ][GIP/.(Iprl VNR
pl. 3
_
0.)69
G(GI pa1N 5
IN -Ullf SPAPAPpn VNrt
pA 6
Oi]c
G1LH Palli:
Y -U)+: SCGAWT01+UNrt
pA)
0869
G1CM BA511+ J
Ili -UrIL SCVAMIION VNR
I p.A P
0.179
VrIpCPLFON+G pIN[Cl rV IN- " SCP�MTpN V
I P _ IL 3= PNUT]u Y
y
rki -IB'. al'cp 15
]NCpRI W43Lp HOP f PN[
III{ET � 9N.63 =
=
1
N85'IS'eYE �r�
�
/ I
\\ $
p$ I
I \
k R
T`. m T
T -
iL It
/P 1
/
f SHA.a PB
END
r s I - cas r2ln�ofocs
SIT oE? U Nan rt.
pPUwL[ ♦xsW ro
nl w91v;
rwi rHRES)
c.v 1 osss
c.B. c p.no
c.H. ] I ovaH
GB. 5 1.101
iOrK LGU pMir+LD r6 IU -UrIC
rp N
SCPCRI1' pS9P K • S ' KP[S
iOrN, MG JPUNCL InL}G11px $WIL - P3
4
N
r s I - cas r2ln�ofocs
SIT oE? U Nan rt.
pPUwL[ ♦xsW ro
nl w91v;
rwi rHRES)
c.v 1 osss
c.B. c p.no
c.H. ] I ovaH
GB. 5 1.101
iOrK LGU pMir+LD r6 IU -UrIC
rp N
SCPCRI1' pS9P K • S ' KP[S
iOrN, MG JPUNCL InL}G11px $WIL - P3
4
N
Attachment 7
w
Lij
z
PARK
`¢ (%
m j
W
LE e e :..... ul 1 I 1 I
i it
c j I GAIL
BEAM AVENUE
..._.._._ _ _ __.._..._ _ _.._..____ ..___.._..___ ____.._..__ _._._.._.._.__ _ _..._.. ..
W
Z
ui 905:5
xpC� w:lr�i '. r[[vvr iA00fin1K
m
Lu
rz—,
nu hCF#AP? ?LAN `"_AFZ E�-N7 BEAM AVENUE
.:._
LANDSCAPE PLAN 5-�7 -oy 1
.
N
Ro
C
N
L
U
�D
Q
Z EN HV ELEV4'ION
O
O
O
O
O
O
O.
O
O_..................
O
O.,
O
O:......
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O _.
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
MLLR LLG
Construction
Ra edP Br n-?AIA CID
Ard7Red
s
114 NORTH ELEVST ON
V SOUTH EpLEVanON
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005
c. WALGREENS (WHITE BEAR AND BEAM AVENUES) (8:33 — 9:18 p.m.)
Attachment 9
Mr. Roberts said Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center, representing
Walgreens, are proposing to construct a 14,480- square -foot Walgreens Pharmacy on a vacant
lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The plan also shows a
future three -story office building to be located on the east side of the lot, toward the Maplewood
Heights city park.
Mr. Roberts gave background information on this property. On May 28, 2004, the City of
Maplewood received complete land use applications from the applicants for a comprehensive
land use plan change, zone change, and design review for the proposed Walgreen's Pharmacy
and future office building. City staff sent a neighborhood survey notifying all property owners
within 500 feet of the property of the proposal. City staff received notice from the underlying
property owners that the applicants' lease on the land did not allow the development of a
pharmacy and that they were disputing the applicants' request to rezone the property. City staff
notified the applicants of this issue and discontinued processing the permit until the applicants
were able to obtain the underlying property owners' permission to rezone or a court order which
directed the city to proceed. On May 12, 2005, the city received a court order which directed the
city to proceed with the rezoning request as proposed by the applicants.
Commissioner Trippler asked under the LBC zoning are there any height limitations or the
number of stories for an office building?
Mr. Roberts said there are no height limitations on any of the commercial districts in Maplewood.
Any commercial building site next to residential has to have increased setbacks to provide a
larger buffer. If the developer of the office building can make the parking work it could be a tall
office building.
Commissioner Trippler said earlier today he spoke with Mr. Roberts regarding the proposed
expansion of White Bear Avenue changing to 6 lanes in 2008 and he asked if there would be a
need for additional easements because of that expansion. He asked if that would adversely affect
the parking that is being proposed for this development?
Mr. Roberts said he spoke with Ms. Finwall about that and Ms. Finwall made the developer aware
of that. Ms. Finwall was confident that can be worked out but the city has not seen any detailed
plans yet.
Commissioner Trippler said a resident at 2965 Frederick Parkway wrote into the city that
everything in this area was single story. The site plan in the staff report states the Walgreens
building would be a one story building but it appears to look like a two -story building, no matter
what you call it; it is definitely taller than a single story.
Planning Commission -2-
Minutes of 07 -18 -05
Mr. Roberts said it's a tall one story building with a false fagade that gives more of an
architectural look.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Mr. Matthew Regan, Meer Construction, 11800-95 th Avenue North, Maple Grove, addressed the
commission. He said this project has been a long time coming. When Meer Construction filed for
the rezoning Ms. Finwall suggested moving the rezoning to the western 290 feet. This is
consistent with the spirit of what they wanted there to have an office building on the east and a
retail building on the west, so they think this is a very good plan.
Mr. Regan said Meer Construction just received the report from Erin Laberee and Shann Finwall
regarding the reconstruction of White Bear Avenue and the additional easement needs. The
report provided by the Ramsey County Public Works Officer along with a rough sketch from an
engineering firm showed the 10 feet that would be required for the easement. He has a copy of
what the parking lot would look like with the additional 10 feet that would be required. Staff did a
very good job reporting on this proposal.
Chairperson Fischer opened up the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Mr. Gerry Gallagher, representing Mogren Landscaping, LLP, addressed the commission.
Mogren Landscaping, LLP, is the owner of the parcel in question. He distributed documents to
be referred to for the record during his discussion. This parcel has been contested in the past
and Mogren Landscaping, LLP, is the fee owner of the parcel in question and oppose the
proposed rezoning for four reasons. First, Mogren Landscaping, LLP, disputes Maplewood
Financial Corporation, LLP's, right to develop the property as it proposed. Secondly, Maplewood
Financial Corporation, LLP, by itself lacks the legal standing to petition and for that reason the
City of Maplewood lacks the jurisdiction to grant it. Thirdly, Maplewood Financial Corporation,
LLP, as lessee has no capacity at law to agree to certain development conditions which would
constitute a taking if allowed to go forward. Fourth, the staff report contains some fatal errors.
The litigation between Mogren Landscaping, LLP, and Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP,
concerning the underlying right to do this, is not over. There has been a partial summary
judgment in the case running in favor of Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP, but currently
there is a request for review of this decision and that request is pending and alive. Other issues
in that same case await a full trial, it is not over, and the case is pending. Further, even if the trial
result is less than favorable to Mogren Landscaping, LLP, an appeal is likely. The city and state
ordinance requires that all owners must consent or join in the application. The first document he
handed out is a section from the Maplewood City Code. He referred to Sec. 44 -1161. Initiation
generally refers to property owners, Ip ural have to join in the application. It is true that a lessee
with a long ground lease duration such as this one, which is for 99 years and they are into it 33
years is deemed to be an owner. But they are not the only owner, the fee owner is Mogren
Landscaping, LLP, and they do not consent to this. The requirement to have all the owners'
consent and the city lacks the power to do this. That particular point is discussed in the case
2600 University Inn LLC verses the City of Minneapolis reported at 556 Northwest Second 218
which is the Minnesota Appellate court case from 1996.
Planning Commission -3-
Minutes of 07 -18 -05
Mr. Gallagher said today, July 18, 2005, a lawsuit involving Mogren Landscaping, LLP, against
the City of Maplewood for injunctive relief in this matter was heard by the Ramsey County courts
by the Honorable M. Michael Mohanan, District Court Judge. Judge Monahan states in the
handout given to commissioners and staff on page 4 that "Assuming a long -term lessee can be
an "owner" at common law for some purpose, nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how the
City came to the conclusion that it could consider a rezoning petition filed by one of two
disagreeing "owners" given the wording of its ordinance. But, this initial puzzlement is not the
point. The controlling point is that it is not part of the judicial function to render advisory opinions.
The City has not acted yet. I am not ready to assume that it will act in an unlawful manner. This
motion is not timely. Addressing the technical question, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that itwill
suffer irreparable harm. Having to participate in a "political" process is simply not a type of
"harm ". Participating in the political process is the essence of a civil society."
Mr. Gallagher said obviously the order in the memorandum speaks for itself but it seems clear
that the court is warning the City of Maplewood that although it hasn't acted yet if they do it is
very possible it would be deemed an illegal act and subject to an injunctive relief. That has yet to
be determined and it is not right as the court pointed out and the motion was denied because it
wasn't timely. If it does become an issue they are going back to court.
Commissioner Ahlness asked what harm is Mogren Landscaping, LLP, going to incur and why
don't they want this to happen? The planning commission is not qualified to make any legal
determinations for this proposal.
Mr. Gallagher said he doesn't want this to become a legal hearing on these merits. Mogren
Landscaping, LLP, hasn't shared with him why they don't want it done. You can't bulldoze this
decision through without the fee owner approving it. This is real estate and by definition would
be irreparable harm because you can't turn things back.
Commissioner Ahlness said apparently Mogren Landscaping, LLP, didn't convince the judge
those reasons were good enough because the judge stated "the Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that it will suffer irreparable harm."
Mr. Gallagher said his judgment is because the City of Maplewood hasn't decided to do it yet. It is
not timely. When the point and time comes where it isn't and a decision is made, arguably the
harm would then be vested.
Mr. Roberts said Mr. Gallagher's points are all well taken but this doesn't help the planning
commission. The city is bound by the 60 day rule and city staff was directed by the city attorney
this afternoon that the city has to process this application. The final decision is not made by the
planning commission, it is made by the city council. All this testimony is much better heard by the
city council when they get to make the final decision and the attorneys have more time to talk. He
would disagree with Mr. Gallagher's point about the city code, the amendment to the zoning map
may be initiated by city council, planning commission, city staff or by petition of the affected
property owners. The city can rezone property if they want to whether the property owner likes it
or not. The property owner may not like it and they may sue the city, but the city has done it.
The city likes to resolve things and work with people and not end up in court. But to say just
because the property doesn't want a zoning change doesn't mean the city isn't going to do it is
not true either.
Planning Commission -4-
Minutes of 07 -18 -05
The most important point is there is a lot of legal stuff going on and some of it was just heard
today. Mogren Landscaping, LLP, says don't do it and Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP,
says keep going ahead with the action and the city attorney says the city is bound by the 60 day
rule. If it turns out this was a mistake, which is something the city council and the attorneys will
have to answer to, but at this point staff would recommend the planning commission proceed and
make an action for or against this proposal.
Chairperson Fischer asked if there was any history of stopping the clock before the 60 days rule
for legal actions?
Mr. Roberts said he's sure it has been done but the order today doesn't say that and unless it
states the city should not proceed because of a judge's order that would be fine. The city staff
has not received that yet.
Commissioner Ahlness said he is still wondering what the concerns are for Mogren Landscaping,
LLP. Anything legal is not the planning commission's role so all the legal jargon is not for the
planning commission to review and the city attorney is not here to assist the planning commission
and is not proper.
Commissioner Dierich said on page 4, under C. Discussion it states "Plaintiff's motion to enjoin
the City's rezoning process ". She would submit that is illegal to stop the city to stop their
business on rezoning or not rezoning. The judge is correct in not allowing this motion to go
forward but that doesn't mean the planning commission can't look at the rezoning. She would
agree with Mr. Roberts that the planning commission need to look at the rezoning and allow it to
move onto the city council. Then let legal counsel fit it out in the courts if indeed that is where it
ends up.
Commissioner Trippler asked if Mogren Landscaping, LLP, owns the property why doesn't
Mogren stop proceeding with the development with Walgreen's. If he owns the property doesn't
he decide who can build on the property?
Mr. Gallagher said Mogren Landscaping, LLP, owns the property but its leased to the applicant
Maplewood Financial, LLP, over 30 years ago so they control the property under the lease.
Commissioner Trippler said then Mogren Landscaping, LLP, gave up their right.
Mr. Gallagher said that is another legal issue and he doesn't put that before this body of
commission members.
Commissioner Trippler said now he understands the situation better.
Mr. Gallagher said it's not his intention to plead a case here and he understands the planning
commission is charged with making recommendations and he wanted on behalf of Mogren
Landscaping, LLP, to be aware of some of the situations here. This is just some of the history.
Planning Commission -5-
Minutes of 07 -18 -05
Commissioner Dierich said unless Mogren Landscaping, LLP, states the reason they don't want
this done this just isn't not enough of a reason for the planning commission to understand the
opposition to the rezoning or why they don't want this Walgreen's proposal built here. The
planning commission wished they could hear the real reasoning behind this request to be
rezoned and have a Walgreen's on this property.
Mr. Gallagher said just to point out this is a partnership. He wanted to point out that there is an
error in the staff report on page 2, it states May 12, 2005: The City of Maplewood received a
court order which directed the city to proceed with the rezoning request as proposed by the
applicants. That is not true. In the third document that he handed out was the actual order that
was issued and had nothing to do with rezoning.
Commissioner Pearson said there is no information on what the long term lease conditions were
with the Maplewood Financial Corporation, LLP.
Mr. Gallagher said that would be embodied in the lease itself and he didn't think the planning
commission would have an interest in reviewing leases.
Commissioner Pearson said the question comes up because of the legal information that was
handed out by Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher said he understood.
Chairperson Fischer opened up the public hearing.
Mr. Regan said their legal counsel is present this evening if the planning commission has any
questions for them.
Mr. Don Regan, Partner of Maplewood Financial Center, and Chair of Premier Bank, addressed
the commission. He asked if Mr. Gallagher could offer the same handouts that were offered to
the planning commission so they can respond to it? He asked if they could take a 10 minute
recess so they could review the documents and have a chance to respond to them? He doesn't
want to rehash old wounds and good friends who are now deceased. He doesn't want to
embarrass anyone in the process or do anything improper but he would like to have a few
minutes to review the documents.
Commissioner Ahlness offered his handouts to Mr. Regan.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff if taking a 10 minute recess is allowed during a public hearing?
Mr. Roberts said that was up to the planning commission members.
Commissioner Trippler did not want to take a recess and was ready to make a recommendation.
Planning Commission -6-
Minutes of 07 -18 -05
Commissioner Ahlness said he thought he made himself clear before those legal arguments are
outside the realm of what the planning commission reviews here. Based on the merits of the
project and the staff report and how it relates to zoning and planning he does not see where the
legal argument would serve a purpose in advance his decision making on this. In all due respect,
he thinks the commission has to make a decision here unless there is other public members that
want to come forward on this subject matter.
Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody disagreed with Commissioner Ahlness' comment?
Commissioner Grover agreed and said while the legal issues are very great in this case they
don't cloud his perspective on the zoning application moving forward.
Mr. Regan asked if the commission was going to take a recess?
Chairperson Fischer said no.
Mr. Regan said since there would not be a recess he wanted to continue with his comments. A
little bit of history might be appropriate regarding this situation for the planning commission. This
has gone on now for 33 years. Mr. Regan said he applied for a bank charter at the corner of
White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue in 1972. In those days, unlike nowwhen you could get
bank charter if you have money without much problem, in those days it was extremely difficult to
put up a bank charter.
Mr. Regan said he went to his good friend Jerry Mogren and asked him about the property at the
northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue. They agreed on a selling price, it
was zoned as LBC (Limited Business Commercial) as it is today. As he understood it at that time,
Jerry and Bob Mogren (both of whom are now deceased) were the owners of the property. When
he went to close on the property Mogren Landscaping had a third partner named Richard
Schreier. Even though the Mogrens were the majority owners of the partnership they couldn't get
their partner Mr. Schreier to agree to sell the property but Mr. Schreier would agree to lease the
property. Mr. Regan said he was between a rock and a hard place because he would not have
been allowed a bank charter had he looked elsewhere for a site. He told Jerry and Bob Mogren
they couldn't do this and the Mogren's responded that they have no alternative and that's the way
it's going to be. Very reluctantly Mr. Regan proceeded with the lease. As time went on Mr. Regan
got a very bad vibe from Mr. Schreier and had negative responses to anything that would
happen. Mr. Regan said he was able to get the fee ownership for the property across the street
and he moved his bank charter with the approval of the Minnesota Commerce Commission. At
the time he signed this lease all three parties wanted Mr. Regan to take all the LBC property
which includes the strip center to the north. He said he would have all he could handle with the
120,000 square feet building, so he declined.
Planning Commission -7-
Minutes of 07 -18 -05
A few years later Mr. Schreier came to Mr. Regan and asked him to support his request to
change the LBC zoning to BC (Business Commercial) where the strip center now stands. Mr.
Regan did not contest the request for BC zoning and that is where the strip center is now. That
left his site with what would be known as a spot zoning situation. They were the only party in that
location with LBC zoning. Since then Mr. Regan has paid the lease and the real estate taxes and
has about 1 million dollars tied up in this. They are 33 years into a 99 year lease and every
condition has been complied with. They have tried to be reasonable, fair and a good neighbor.
They have been paying the real estate taxes on the western driveway on Beam Avenue. The
courts have decided that his position has prevailed and that is why they are here today, 33 years
later. He believes this request should go forward and thinks they will prevail over Mogren
Landscaping, LLP, and Richard Schreier.
Mr. Gallagher said he objects to a fee owner trying to safeguard his rights and characterizes this
as intimidation.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Dierich moved to adopt the land use plan change resolution attachment 19 in the
staff report. This resolution changes the comprehensive land use plan map for the west 290 feet
of the vacant property located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenue from
Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business Commercial (BC). The city is making this
change because it will:
a. Provide for orderly development.
b. Protect and strengthen neighborhoods.
c. Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and
provide desirable services.
d. Minimize the land planned for streets.
e. Minimize conflicts between land uses.
f. Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land especially when supportive services
and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets are not available.
g. Help to implement the goals of the comprehensive plan including:
1) The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and
services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space.
2) Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties.
3) Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a
negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
Planning Commission -8-
Minutes of 07 -18 -05
4) Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front
on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man -made natural
barriers.
5) The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood.
6) Group compatible businesses in suitable areas.
7) Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers.
8) Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas.
Adopt the zoning map change resolution on attachment 20 in the staff report. This resolution
changes the zoning map for the west 290 feet of the vacant property on the northeast corner of
Beam and White Bear Avenues from Limited Business Commercial (LBC) to Business
Commercial (BC). The city is making this change because:
a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring
property or from the character of the neighborhood and the use of the property adjacent to the
area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where
applicable, and the public welfare.
d. 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.
Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Grover,
Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler
The motion passed.
This item goes to the city council on August 8, 2005.
Attachment 10
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
b. Walgreens — Northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues
Ms. Finwall said Meer Construction and the Maplewood Financial Center, representing
Walgreens, are proposing to construct at 14,480- square -foot Walgreens Pharmacy on a
vacant lot located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues. The plan also
shows a future three -story office building to be located on the east side of the lot, toward the
Maplewood Heights city park.
The planning commission reviewed and recommended approval of the comprehensive plan
and zoning map change at the July 18, 2005, planning commission meeting. The community
design review board (CDRB) should review and make a recommendation on the design
issues. Final action by the city council is currently scheduled for August 8, 2005.
Chairperson Longrie said it looks like the curb cut off of Beam Avenue doesn't line up with the
center island and the 13 parking spaces.
Ms. Finwall said the applicants could address that.
Board Olson said it appears the applicant is able to meet the parking requirements only by
reducing the size of the parking stalls and she asked if that was an issue for staff?
Ms. Finwall said staff is recommending that the applicant revise the site plan to meet the city
code requirements for the parking stall width and length or apply for a variance.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Scott Regan, Meer Construction, 11800 — 95 Avenue North, Maple Grove, addressed the
board. He is here to represent Maplewood Financial Center in these proceedings. The court
case has been decided and they prevail and they are allowed to build any lawful building for
any purpose.
Mr. Barton Schultz, Consultant on this project with Houston Engineering, Inc. addressed the
board. He said they met with city staff on Friday, July 22, 2005, and have since revised the
site plan to address the parking stalls and revised the lighting plan to meet the maximum foot -
candle and revised the landscaping plan. He went through the revisions to the plans aloud
with the board. He said they have ten foot wide parking spaces along the building and the
other spaces are nine foot wide. Mr. Schultz said currently the curb cuts go onto White Bear
Avenue and staff has asked that they make this a combined access and they aren't saying that
is a bad idea except given the relationship with the landlord for them to be the front person to
propose this they fear would tie them up in litigation for another year. They originally met with
planning 1' /z years ago to discuss this project. They submitted their proposal April of 2004 and
this has been tied up in litigation since that point. For them to propose this as a shared access
even if it makes total sense they fear this would tie things up in litigation for another year.
Community Design Review Board 2
Minutes 7 -26 -2005
Mr. Matt Regan, Meer Construction, 11800 — 95 Avenue North, Maple Grove, addressed the
board. Regarding the underlying fee ownership verses the 99 year lease hold they hold on this
property staff has made a recommendation and requirement that they need to dedicate the 10
feet along White Bear Avenue. He has spoken with his attorneys about that and the attorneys
response was it would be very difficult to have the fee owner agree to that.
Mr. Regan said if there is a way to work with staff in some type of legal capacity they would
give the rights that they have with the lease but they can't give the rights as the underlying fee
owner because they aren't the fee owner. At said time the City Attorney would come along
with Ramsey County and practice the eminent domain powers to widen the road. They are
more than happy to work with the city and staff to give what rights they have for the 10 feet but
they cannot promise to give the city the 10 feet in width because they don't own the 10 feet. In
2008 Ramsey County is going to widen White Bear Avenue to a 6 lane roadway. They have a
memo from Dan Soler, with Ramsey County Public Works who reviewed this project and the
third point in the memo states the accesses are fine as is and in the interest of minimizing the
impact on traffic in Maplewood they would like this addressed in 2008.
Board member Olson asked about the sidewalks?
Mr. Schultz said the sidewalk would connect to the sidewalk on White Bear Avenue.
Chairperson Longrie asked about the curb cut on Beam Avenue?
Mr. Schultz said the existing curb cut there was an easement given in the 1970's for
connection to the strip mall from Beam Avenue.
Mr. Regan said as part of the lease the lessor gives them a 40 foot easement onto their
property and another portion of that same section of the lease gives the fee owner another
easement over their property and from Beam Avenue to the fee owner's property they have
access in a somewhat reasonable straight direction.
Chairperson Longrie said that brings her back to her original question if they can adjust the
curb cut to line it up straighter?
Mr. Schultz said in order for them to straighten this they have to take out a portion of the fee
owner's curb cut, which may be an issue. It was an issue when they were draining this site but
do to their relationship with the fee owner they did not want them to use his catch basins even
though they would be handling water from the fee owners site. That's why they have a mirror
image of the catch basins that already exist on the north property shown on the plan.
Chairperson Longrie said if they move the curb cut to the east they wouldn't have a wide
enough drive aisle.
Board member Shankar asked why they couldn't move the future building to the east and then
move the parking lot over.
Mr. Regan said the city park to the east of the building and the parking lot encroaches onto the
leased property and they were hoping they could preserve the city's parking lot by putting the
building there. The curb cuts pretty much line up with the curb cut with the bank lot so it
Community Design Review Board 3
Minutes 7 -26 -2005
makes sense. They would have to cut into the hill a little bit when they do the excavation work.
They would like to do the excavating for the office building along with the excavation for
Walgreens and get things done all at the same time. They would like to come back to the city
with the plans for the office building during next construction time.
Board member Shankar said you don't have to move the whole building over he said you can
move just the west face of the building over to the east by 5 feet or so and then the center
island gets moved to the east by five feet.
Ms. Finwall said there is also an opportunity to reduce the width of the drive aisle to 24 feet,
currently it's 25 feet wide and they could reduce the length of the parking stalls per the city
code when they are adjacent a curb or landscaped area from 19 feet to 15.5 feet long so there
are some opportunities to change things.
Chairperson Longrie said it's important to make sure the curb cut and the curbing for the
parking of those 13 stalls are lined up. She is concerned that the applicant is stating the
parking at the city park is encroaching upon the future office building property.
Mr. Regan said that is something they will address when they bring the office park proposal to
the city for review next year some time.
Chairperson Longrie said she was glad to see the landscaping plan was revised because she
thinks it's important to have the additional trees along Beam Avenue and White Bear Avenue
to tie this corner in to where the Premier Bank is on the corner because that property has a lot
of trees and to the park where there is also are a lot of trees. She is happy the sidewalk issues
have been worked out as well. She wondered how the building elevations were revised and
the differences from what was presented in the CDRB packet they received.
Mr. Robert Brunjes, Consultant/Project Architect on this project, addressed the board. He said
it's been noted that this Walgreens proposal is similar to another Walgreens building built
farther down on White Bear Avenue in the Hillcrest Area in St. Paul. The footprint and general
design are very similar. This is relative to the Walgreens prototype and Walgreens from time
to time makes changes to the building design. The primary distinction between the two designs
is the manufactured limestone veneer that is about 1 foot high by 2 feet long. It is the intent
that these appear to be a quarried limestone. The brick pilasters are expressed on the north
and east side to break up the elevations and add more visual interest, they are projected out
about 1 or 2 inches from the building and have a limestone cap on them. The green awnings
are a standing seam awning. The trash compacting and recycling area will be made of brick
and eight feet tall. The dumpster enclosure will have a cedar gate.
Chairperson Longrie asked if it was correct that the plans for the monument sign have not
been submitted yet?
Mr. Brunjes said the signage was submitted with the initial application for Walgreens.
Board member Olson asked if someone could address the plans for the freestanding sign?
Mr. Brunjes said he doesn't have those plans in front of him.
Community Design Review Board 4
Minutes 7 -26 -2005
Board member Ledvina said one of the conditions in the staff report is that the sign plans be
brought back to the CDRB for review.
Mr. Regan said because they don't have information regarding the signage details they are
willing to bring that information back.
Board member Olson thinks this is an attractive building and she is glad to see some
resolution on this corner.
Board member Shankar said the richness of the limestone is impressive however, he agrees
with Ms. Finwall that this is a very prominent location here at the corner of White Bear Avenue
and Beam Avenue and perhaps the entry design at the corner and the 45 degree angle should
be looked at along with eliminating the awning. He feels that even though the east and the
north elevations are thought to be not visible he believes if you are driving west on Beam
Avenue you would see the east elevation of the building and if drive south you would see the
north side of the building. While he appreciates the brick pilasters that are shown on the
elevations he believes there needs to be more variety of building materials used on the east
and the north side. Maybe adding some additional limestone on those elevations would help.
Board member Hinzman said he agrees this is a very prominent corner and visible intersection
and to have a building with some stature is very important to the city. The building material
improvements to the Walgreens building are nice; however, it's the same prototypical building
that already exists at White Bear Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue and at 94 and White Bear
Avenue with a few modifications. He said there is a man in Hastings named Pat Reagan who
built the School House Square Development and he built the office over the retail space. To
have something more prominent at this corner and add stature to this location is important.
Mr. Brunjes said one of the design elements that is important to Walgreens is the tower
element because of the three dimensional element.
Board member Hinzman said yes but it's the same three dimensional element they built on
every Walgreens. The materials may be a little different but the form and stature of the building
is the same.
Mr. Brunjes said the primary design element that separates these buildings is the limestone
veneer which adds a lot to the design.
Board member Hinzman said it adds to the design but this corner needs more than limestone
added to the building. It needs more stature, design and presence at this intersection.
Board member Olson said the entrance to the Walgreens store has fluorescent light fixtures in
the tower and has a presence.
Chairperson Longrie said she doesn't like the awning over the front door and if you took that
off it would make the entrance more prominent.
Board member Shankar said the tower has a hollow element; it's not a true genuine
expression of any form. Just because this building design has been built at 10 other buildings
Community Design Review Board 5
Minutes 7 -26 -2005
in the Twin Cities doesn't mean you have to use the same building protocol at this location in
Maplewood.
Board member Olson said the awning needs to stay over the door because living in Minnesota
you need protection from the elements for the visitors to this store. The awning is especially
nice for pedestrians wanting to get out of the elements.
Board member Shankar said you could have the entrance setback without having an awning
over it so people would be protected from the elements.
Board member Olson said if the board thinks the building needs to be redesigned she would
like to see the peak element left on the building for protection.
Mr. Brunjes said it would be easy to develop a gabled structure over the tower to be consistent
with the design.
Board member Shankar said that gabled structure is going to conflict with the canopy because
both of them are going to be slopped surfaces.
Mr. Brunjes said he was thinking of a hipped gable that would cap the tower. It would add
elevation and prominence to the design. He would agree that if you are going to eliminate the
awning around the front of the entrance you want protection from the elements.
Board member Shankar said he has seen a few Super Americas that are all brick without an
awning but have a brick arch with a small recess behind so people can get out of the elements.
Board member Olson said she doesn't see Super America as offering the same kind of
services. She sees this store as serving the seniors that live in the apartments and people
walking to the mall. An awning and an air lock are important for this store.
Board member Shankar said in any case he strongly encourages the developer to redesign the
building to fit in this location at the corner at all elevations.
Board member Hinzman agreed.
Board member Ledvina agreed with those comments. He is also concerned about the
windows on the west and south elevations. This same issue came up in previous design
reviews with Walgreens. These windows are very high and are not a pedestrian scale. Board
Ledvina said on the west elevation there is a window set that is left of the doors and if it could
be extended for the other window bays that would greatly enhance the appearance of the
building to have more glass in front. Walgreens may not want to do that based on how the
interior of the building functions but he believes this building should be more pedestrian
friendly.
Board member Olson asked if they could use limestone for the pilasters instead of the brick to
break up the expanse?
Community Design Review Board 6
Minutes 7 -26 -2005
Mr. Brunjes said that's certainly possible. The limestone works with the tower of the entry and
it's repeated as you move around the structure. Studies would be required as you place
limestone on other places of the building.
The board members agreed they would like to have the building elevations and the signage
return for the board to review.
Ms. Finwall said this proposal goes to the city council on Monday, August 8, 2005, and this
could come back to the board to review the building elevations and signage on Tuesday
August 9, 2005.
Mr. Regan said they would come back with a few different renditions for the board to review.
He said he built a drug store in Osseo that had large windows but the pharmacy put shelves in
front of the windows. They don't look good from inside the store and at night they really don't
look good from outside. If you try to put windows in some areas of the store it becomes a
security issue because of prescription drugs stored in the building.
Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the plans date - stamped May 17, 2005, for the
Walgreens Pharmacy to be located on the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues.
Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes made by the CDRB during
the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted)
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for
approval the following items.
a. Proof that the applicants possess all requisite property ownership interest
required by Maplewood Code Section 44 -1161 to initiate an amendment to the
zoning map, which said zoning map amendment is required for this design
review approval.
b. Revised grading /drainage /utility plans which comply with all city engineering
department requirements as specified to Erin Laberee's July 14, 2005,
memorandum, including but not limited to granting a 10 -foot right -of -way
easement along White Bear and Beam Avenues on White Bear Avenue and a
shared driveway with the property to the north for ingress and egress to the site.
C. Revised site plan showing the following:
1 O -foot right -e# e aseme nt a inn it B an d Bea Ave nues.
1) Thirteen parking spaces located in the center of the lot, to the east of the
Beam Avenue driveway, must be shifted to the east to ensure they are not
located within the straight angle of the drive aisle.
2) The parking lot maintaining a 25 45- foot - setback from the existing right -of-
way easement as ddesc ber- above as shown on the site plan date -
stamped July 26, 2005.
Community Design Review Board 7
Minutes 7 -26 -2005
d. Revisions to the landscape plan date - stamped July 26, 2005, to include the
following:
1 The additio of s ix deli 1 trees 21/ i nches in .1iameter) planted
approximately 30 fee+ on enter to he Inrate.l on the est side of the lot
a long White Bear Aven
L' approximately 30 feet on enter to Lie lor0terl on the i est side of the lot
along White Rear A vPn
3) The addition of foundation plantings around the Walgreen's building.
4) Additional shrubs and perennials along White Bear and Beam Avenues.
5) Sod or native prairie plants to be located within the future office building
portion of the development (east side of the site).
6) The size, number, and species of all proposed plants.
7) Underground irrigation plan to ensure all landscaping is sprinklered.
f. A revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows the style, height, and
umber of exterior lights. The plan must ensure all freestanding lights maintain a
height of 25 feet or less and that the overall illumination from outdoor lights does
not exceed .4 foot - candles at all property lines.
g. Obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on county right -of -way for
the driveway access, utility work, and sidewalk.
h. Watershed district approval if revisions warrant a new review.
i. 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.
The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction.
b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and
driveways.
C. Install all required landscaping and an underground irrigation system for all of
Walgreen's landscaped areas. The future office building portion of the
development must be planted and maintained with sod or native prairie grasses
Community Design Review Board 8
Minutes 7 -26 -2005
until the development of this portion of the property in the future. In addition, all
required trees along Beam Avenue (in front of the Walgreen's building and the
future office building) must be planted.
d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color.
e. Install all required outdoor lighting.
f. Install the six - foot -wide concrete sidewalk along the entire length of the south
property line, along Beam Avenue.
2. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
b. The 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.
3. The future office building including architectural, landscaping, lighting, etc., is not
included in this review and must obtain all required city approvals separately.
4. Signs are not included in this design review of the Walgreen° PharmaG All proposed
signs for Walgreens and the future office building must be brought back before the
Community Design Review Board for approval.
5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes — Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson
Shankar
The motion passed.
Board member Ledvina said even though the board didn't review plans for the future three -
story office building to the east, he wanted to express his strong concern on a design which
has the first level as parking. He is having a hard time visualizing how that would look
architecturally and doesn't want that to look like an open space with columns and a building
above it.
Attachment 11
Kelly & Fawcett, P.A.
A T T O R N E Y S AT LAW
OFCOUMSEL:
McOU7OAN & HOLLY, PLC
July 27, 2005
Ms. Shann Finwall
Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Walgreens /Maplewood Financial Center
Dear Ms. Finwall:
i Trevor S. Oliver
tohver@kellyandfawcett.com
I have had the opportunity to review the City's ordinances and Minnesota case law regarding the
application for a zoning amendment submitted by Walgreens /MFC and have the following
comments:
SUMMARY
The City of Maplewood should stop action on or deny the application of Walgreens/MFC for
zoning amendment. The short rationale for doing this is that Walgreens /MFC has no standing to
file for such zoning amendment under our ordinances and applicable Minnesota law.
BACKGROUND
Mogren Landscaping, LLP has sued the City in an attempt to stop consideration of a zoning
amendment petition submitted by its tenant, Maplewood Financial Center ("MFC "). Mogren and
MFC are engaged in a dispute over the use of the Premier Bank property at the corner of White
Bear Avenue and Beam Avenue, owned by Mogren and leased to MFC under a 99 -year lease in
1975. MFC now wishes to assign its interests to the national Walgreens chain, which wishes to
build a standalone drugstore on the property.
444 CEDAR STREET, SUITE 2350 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TELEPHONE 651 -224 -3781 - FACSIMILE 651- 223 -8019
www.kellyandfawcetteom
MFC and Mogren have been through one round of litigation prior to the suit against the City, as
MFC initiated suit to clarify whether the lease prevented Walgreens from building a drugstore on
the property, as Mogren contended. Ramsey County District Court Judge William Leary held on
May 10, 2005 that the lease did not restrict MFC's use of the property, stating that MFC "may
develop the leased premises ... for any lawful purpose However, Judge Leary's analysis of the
issue extended only to MFC's rights under the lease, and not to MFC's standing to seek a zoning
amendment.
Mogren initiated the present lawsuit against the City in response to MFC's filing of a zoning
amendment petition with Community Development. MFC sought to intervene in the suit as an
interested party. Mogren sought a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the City from
considering the application.
On July 18, 2005, Ramsey County District Court Judge M. Michael Monahan held a hearing on
the TRO request. It was the City Attorney's hope that Judge Monahan would address the issue
of MFC's eligibility to file for a zoning amendment under the City Code. Such a decision may
have avoided protracted litigation on the subject. Unfortunately, Judge Monahan did not reach
the question in denying the TRO, and now it falls upon the City to make a decision on the
processing of the zoning amendment.
Going forward, it is important to note that no court order currently directs the City to take any
course of action, either to consider MFC's petition, deny MFC's petition, or to keep the zoning
decision open. Additionally, the City is not enjoined from considering zoning amendments
proposed by the Council, Planning Commission or City staff on their own initiative, even if the
recommendation of this letter is adopted and MFC's petition is denied.
MINIMUM STANDARD OF CONDUCT
In malting decisions regarding zoning amendments, the City must have a rational basis for its
actions in regard to any zoning amendment. The City's action should be justified by findings of
either fact or law that justifies the result reached. Courts view zoning decisions as political
decisions, and the scope of judicial review is limited. Accordingly, if the zoning city identifies a
rational basis for its action, courts normally uphold city decisions absent overwhelming evidence
that City officials acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. See Concept Properties, LLP v.
City ofMinnetrista, 694 N.W.2d 804, 814 (Minn. App. 2005).
BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF PETITION DENIAL
I. MFC is not an "owner" with standing to apply for zoning amendment under
applicable law
Maplewood's authority to enforce a zoning ordinance arises from Minn. Star. § 462.357.
Subdivision 4 of that statutes states that an amendment to a zoning ordinance "may be initiated
by a governing body, planning agency or by petition of the affected property owners as defined
in the zoning ordinance." The Maplewood Code of Ordinances further defines owner as follows,
444 CEDAR STREET, SUITE 2350 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TELEPHONE 651 -224 -3781 - FACSIMILE 651- 223 -8019
www.kellyandfaweettcom
"The term "owner," when applied to building or land, shall include any part owner, joint owner,
tenant in common, tenant in partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or of a
part of such building or land." Maplewood Code at para 1 -2. Zoning, naturally, deals with land,
so ownership of the land is the key issue here. In addition, the leading Minnesota case
interpreting 462.357's requirement that "owners" must file amendment petitions holds that a fee
owner must be the petitioner in any zoning amendment application. See St. Croix Developers v.
City of Apple Valley, 446 N.W.2d 392, 396 (Minn. App. 1989).
The City's requirement of fee ownership can be ascertained simply by looking at the types of
ownership interest listed in the definition. "Joint owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership,
joint tenants, tenants by the entirety" are all fee interests in the land. Walgreens /MFC, on the
other hand, holds a lease interest, not a fee interest. Minnesota law is settled in holding that a
lease interest is not equivalent to a fee interest. Further, a review of the lease makes the lack of
fee interest more clear: the lease states very clearly that the possession of the land reverts to
Mogren on any default or termination of the lease; the lease does not grant any lessee or
successor the ability to transfer fee title to the property; and the lease also restricts the leasehold
tenant's ability to encumber the property without consent or even assign its rights under the
lease. Finally, the ownership distinction between landlord and tenant is made clear by Minn.
Star. § 50413.121, which states that tenants may not deny the title of the lessor in a court
proceeding.
No authority has been presented to or identified by the City that would seem to confer any
special rights on 99 -year tenants for the purposes of the fee ownership required for standing to
apply for a zoning amendment. In other states, some long -term tenants have been able to apply
for zoning amendments. These other states, however, have zoning laws that do not require fee
ownership as a precedent to submitting an application, as both Minnesota Statute and City Code
require. Many states require some other form of identifiable interest not equivalent to fee
interest. For instance, the Kansas code in Bonanza, Inc. v. McLean 747 P.2d 792 (Kan. 1987),
simply requires that the person be a - - real party at interest," in which a lease was found to qualify.
Iowa code, in Frank Hardie Advertising, Inc. v. City of Dubuque Zon. Bd. Of Adjust. 501
N.W.2d 521 (Iowa 1993), a case cited by MFC in the proceedings before Judge Monahan,
simply requires that the person be an "aggrieved person" to apply for a zoning amendment, and
affected personal property was sufficient to justify standing. For the City of Maplewood,
however, fee ownership of land is a requirement to be able to make an application for a zoning
amendment affecting that land. This requirement remains unaffected by the state of law in other
jurisdictions.
No binding Minnesota precedent exists indicating that having a 99 -year lease grants anything
resembling fee ownership. No Minnesota authority exists which confers fee ownership on a
lessee. MFC cited some Minnesota cases for Judge Monahan's consideration that place
leasehold tenants in the same category as a fee owner for special purposes, such as tax purposes
or for the purposes of tort liability. These special purposes, however, do not confer fee interest
and do not affect the true ownership of the property. MFC does not have fee ownership in the
land and is thus not an "owner" eligible to apply for a zoning amendment.
444 CEDAR STREET, SUITE 2350 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TELEPHONE 651 -224 -3781 - FACSIMILE 651- 223 -8019
www.kellyandfaweetteom
II. Even assuming MFC had an appropriate land interest to file a zoning
application on its own, the Citv of Maplewood still cannot process the application.
Minnesota law requires a unity of property owners, if there are multiple owners, in order to
process an application for zoning. Minn. Star. § 462.357, subd. 4, applies to cities of the second
class and thus controls Maplewood's zoning ordinance. This statute restricts the ability to apply
for zoning to the "affected property owners," as stated above. The statute does not define
"Owners ", though it is defined by our ordinance. The leading case on the subject of multiple -
owner assent is 2600 University Inn v. City of Minneapolis, 556 N.W.2d 218 (Minn. App. 1996).
At pages 222 and 223 of that opinion, the court interpreted the definition of "owner" as that term
is used throughout Minn. Star. § 462.357, and required the consent of all owners of a given
parcel of land in order to constitute consent for a property. The 2600 University Inn court also
makes the valid point that, "[i]t is settled in Minnesota that one co -owner of property can not act
to bind the other co- owner's or to impair or affect their rights." 556 N.W.2d at 222 (citing Crost
v. Mover, 207 N.W. 311, 312, 313 (Minn. 1926). Our ordinance language is very similar to the
Minnesota statute, in that it simply says "owners" may petition for a zoning amendment.
Reading Minnesota precedent and statutory law, the City's findings should be as follows; a)
Mogren is undeniably an owner of the land holding the fee title interest and a full reversion in the
lease; b) Mogren opposes the zoning request; c) accordingly, even assuming MFC has an
appropriate interest to apply for a zoning amendment, they are still not an exclusive owner of this
property, and there is not agreement between the owners regarding this zoning petition. As such,
the City of Maplewood should reject MFC's application until such time they either obtain sole
ownership of the property or obtain the consent of Mogren to file the petition.
PROPOSALS
In light of the above interpretation of the City Zoning Ordinance, the Council and staff have the
following options:
1. Stop or deny MFC's petition, notify MFC of the reasons for denial, and take no further
action. In this most conservative scenario, the City's position is to wait until either a) a
court declares that MFC has standing to make a zoning amendment request without
Mogren's consent, b) MFC obtains Mogren's consent to file a joint zoning petition, or c)
Mogren files a zoning petition on behalf of its tenant;
2. Stop the petition, and hold hearings on whether the Council should initiate a zoning
amendment containing the zoning changes sought by MFC; or
3. Stop the petition, and have City staff consider initiation of a zoning amendment
containing the zoning changes sought by MFC.
Given the above interpretation of the Ordinance, it is not a viable option to continue considering
the amendment petition filed by MFC. Doing so in opposition to our own conclusions exposes
the City to claims of arbitrary and capricious action by either party, depending on whose interests
are damaged after final action. As stated above, the City has no liability exposure on this issue
unless it can be shown that City officials acted arbitrarily or without rational basis.
444 CEDAR STREET, SUITE 2350 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TELEPHONE 651 -224 -3781 - FACSR41LE 651- 223 -8019
www.kellyandfawcettcom
Additionally, the City should strongly consider an Ordinance amendment to address some of the
ambiguities at the center of this lawsuit. The definition of "owner" in the Code General
Provisions can be made more direct by flatly stating that some form of fee ownership is required.
The City should also address the ambiguity regarding whether unanimous consent of property
owners is a requirement for a valid petition. The City is not pre - empted from malting these
changes by Minn. Star. § 462.357 or any other State law.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns in this regard.
Respectfully yours,
KELLY & FAWCETT, P.A.
TSO /rjo
Trevor S. Oliver
Cc: Richard Fursmann
Melinda Coleman
444 CEDAR STREET, SUITE 2350 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TELEPHONE 651 -224 -3781 - FACSIMILE 651- 223 -8019
www.kellyandfaweetteom
Attachment 12
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: Walgreens
PROJECT NO:
REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department
DATE: July 21, 2005
Meer Construction is proposing to develop the lot at the northwest corner of White Bear
Avenue and Beam Avenue. The development would include a Walgreen's store and a
future office building. The lot is currently vacant. Drainage from the site would be
directed into the existing storm sewer on Beam Avenue. Runoff would be treated with a
treatment structure and an infiltration trench.
The following issues shall be address.
Agreements
The applicant is proposing to encroach into the northern property for a shared
driveway, connection to the existing storm sewer, cross drainage flow, and truck
traffic. The applicant has indicated the lease agreement between the two
properties includes an easement that would allow for these activities. The
applicant shall provide a written statement from his attorney interpreting the
intent of the lease agreement that would or would not allow for these activities
along with a copy of the agreement.
2. A maintenance agreement outlining annual maintenance procedures will be
required for the proposed treatment structure and infiltration trench.
Drainage
1. A portion of the parking lot is shown to drain to the existing lot north of the site.
The proposed storm sewer is shown connecting into the existing storm sewer
within the adjacent property. The applicant must verify that the lease agreement
allows encroachment for cross drainage flow, permanent storm sewer and the
construction activities associated with the storm sewer connection.
2. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed for
their review.
Grading & Erosion Control
The applicant shall provide a permanent soil stabilization blanket such as
Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal at the curb cut to prevent erosion into the
infiltration trench.
2. The applicant shall install silt fence at the northeast comer of the property,
downstream of the 3:1 slopes.
3. Any future retaining walls that are over four feet in height will require a building
permit. A plan and specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be
required as part of the permit.
Utilities
1. The applicant shall submit plans to SPRWS for their review.
2. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey County for their review. Any
construction proposed within the White Bear Avenue right of way requires a
permit from Ramsey County.
Parking
1. The applicant is proposing a 5 foot median to comply with parking lot set back
requirements. The proposed median does not allow enough room for truck turning
movements. The applicant has provided an alternative layout that does not include
the median and shows truck turning movements that encroach into the adjacent
lot. The applicant must verify that the lease agreement allows traffic to encroach
onto the adjacent property.
2. The language in the lease agreement seems to allow for a shared access with the
site to the north. It is recommended that existing entrance to the site be eliminated
and a shared driveway used. When White Bear Avenue is upgraded in 2008, the
city will be trying to reduce the number of access points onto White Bear Avenue.
This is a good opportunity to eliminate one additional access. The applicant shall
verify that the lease agreement allows for a shared driveway to the site and all
construction activities associated with modifying the entrance.
Traffic
In conjunction with the 694 improvements scheduled for 2008, White Bear
Avenue is also scheduled for reconstruction to a six lane roadway along with
improvements to a portion of Beam Avenue. Additional right of way will be
required to allow for these improvements. 10 additional feet of right of way along
White Bear Avenue and carried through the radius to Beam Avenue is needed for
these improvements. The developer shall dedicate this right of way for
improvements to White Bear Avenue.
Department of Public Works Attachment 13
Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, A1N 55!12 -3933 0 (651) 266 -7100 - Fax (651) 266 -7110
E -mail: Public_Worls@eo.ramsey.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shann Finwall
City of Maplewood
FROM: Dan Soler t
Ramsey C my ublic Works
SUBJECT: Walgreens
White Bear Avenue at Beam Avenue
DATE: June 29, 2005
The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed development plan for
the vacant site on the northeast quadrant of White Bear Avenue at Beam Avenue. This property
is proposed for a new Walgreens drugstore on the site. Ramsey County has the following
comments regarding this proposal -
1. The use of the site will be commercial /retail on the west portion and office on the east
portion of the site. This development will not have a significant impact on traffic operations
in the area. The development is consistent with the existing uses along White Bear Avenue.
2. The County and City are proposing to reconstruct White Bear Avenue to a six -lane section in
2008. This will include widening through the Beam Avenue intersection. Additional right of
way will need to be reserved along White Bear Avenue to accommodate this widening. A
draft right of way needs drawing was done by Kimley -Horn as part of the scoping work done
for the White Bear Avenue corridor. This document should be reviewed to help determine
future right of way needs.
3. The existing access on White Bear Avenue that serves this site is proposed to remain. This is
a right in/right out driveway. This access point is acceptable and should operate adequately
with the new site development.
4. Two existing access points off of Beam Avenue will also serve the site. Beam Avenue is a
city street at this location. The City may want to investigate whether the eastbound left turn
lane into the first driveway should be lengthened.
I;ECEIVED
,JUL 0 1 2005
Minnesota's First Home Rule County
The developer will be required to obtain a permit from Ramsey County for construction on
County right of way. The developer will also need permits for any utility work within County
right -of -way.
Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or
need any additional information please give me a call at 266 -7114.
Attachment 14
Memo
July 1, 2005
From: David Fisher, Building Official
To: Shann Finwall, Planner
Re: New Walgreens Pharmacy Building
Provide a complete building code analysis when plans are
submitted for permit.
All new office buildings over 2000 square feet are required to
be fire sprinklered and NFPA 13.
The new building must be built to meet Minnesota State
Building Code and 2000 IBC.
I would recommend a pre- construction meeting with the
building department.
Attachment 15
Project Review Comments
Date:
June 2, 2004
From:
Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal
Project:
Walgreens
Building:
Retail
Planner:
Shann Finwall
Comments:
1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system
will be required
2. Maintain 20 foot emergency access clearance to the building for
emergency vehicles
3. Fire protection systems will be required per -code
4. Location of fire protection system needs to be clearly marled
Any questions or concerns please contact me.
Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal
City of Maplewood
(651)- 249 -2804
Attachment 16
Ji L:A I I Lel
To: Shann Finwall '/
From: Lt. Kevin Rabbett tJq--
Date: 6 -1 -05
Re: Project Review: Walgreen's, Beam and White Bear Ave.
I have reviewed the attached plans and have no public safety concerns. I would suggest the
standard surveillance lighting system for commercial buildings. In addition there should be a high
quality video recording system installed, especially covering the pharmacy area because of the
potential for prescription forgery and robbery incidents.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at x2604.
Attachment 17
Shann Finwall
From:
Jodi Jefferson oij2 @wilder.orgj
Sent:
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:29 PM
To:
Shann Finwall
Cc:
Randall Fowler
Subject:
Walgreens Development
Hello
I am writing on the behalf of the residents at Concordia Arms Apartments which is located
on White Bear Avenue and Lydia. If you are not aware, Concordia Arms is a senior building
accommodating residents 62 years and older or mobility handicapped.
Having a Walgreens built so close to their home will be such a huge benefit to them for a
variety of reasons
*They would be able to access their prescription medications easier then to figure out
how they are going to
get to the Walgreens down by Rainbow.
*They could possibly transfer their prescriptions to the new, closer to home pharmacy
and
*It would allow residents with limited transportation to get out on their own and do
"light" shopping for mist.
daily needs
When this came up last year the residents were looking forward to it and when the news
came around that they were not able to go through with the plans it was pretty
disappointing to many here. Your letter encourages us that this may still be possible,
it's something that I can only imagine would be good for the entire neighborhood if it
will make such an great impact for 1 building!
Thank you --
Jodi Jefferson
Housing Manager
AZURE PROPERTIES, INC.
P.O. Box 17830
Saint Paul, MN 55117 -7830
(651) 484 -0070
Shann Finwall
Office of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Proposed Walgreens
White Bear Avenue at Beam Avenue
Maplewood, MN
Dear Ms. Finwall,
July 7, 2005
Attachment 18
Thomas H. Schuette
Direct Line (651) 486 -3452
Facsimile x651) 486 -3444
Facsimile
651- 249 -2319
I represent the property owners adjoining the proposed site on the north, the Maplewood East Shopping Center
located at 2950 White Bear Avenue. The owners of Maplewood East are opposed to the site plan of the
Walgreens for several reasons.
The trash area of the Walgreens is adjacent to the Maplewood East Shopping Center. This trash area facing
White Bear Avenue will be unsightly with potential for debris and trash outside the containers. The trash area of
the Walgreens store should be located behind the Walgreens store on the east side of the building.
Also, the green space and setback should not be eliminated. Maplewood East does have a 5' green space
setback along the south property line. We contest any setback variance to the north. The drive lanes will
connect the properties at the front and rear of the property. Maplewood East has not incurred traffic difficulties
as stated in the letter. Contrary to the information presented by the Walgreens proposal, there is not a problem
with the layout of Maplewood East Shopping Center. Our customers have access from Beam Avenue via an
Easement Agreement through the subject property such that customers can egress east or west on to Beam
Avenue to go north or south on White Bear Avenue. Maplewood East also has northbound White Bear Avenue
entrance and exiting.
Please call if I can answer any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,n���
Thomas M. Schuette
On behalf of Azure Properties
TMS /kl
RECEIVED
JUL 0 8 2005
Attachment 19
June 29, 2005
2965 Frederick Parkway
Maplewood MN 55109
Shanxi Finwall, AICP, Planner
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 E County Road B
Maplewood MN 55109 -2797
Thank you for the information regarding the application for a new Walgreens Pharmacy and
office building for the northeast corner of Beam and White Bear Avenues.
We have lived at our present location in a cul -de -sac adjoining Maplewood heights Park to the
north for about 20 years, and like many of the neighbors (including the many walkers from the
senior assisted living facility - Concordia Arms - also abutting the Park) we use the Park
continuously for walking and bicycling its paths, or a variety of other rather quiet uses. As the
neighborhood has grown dramatically, so have the number of Park users, and consequently, the
importance of this Park to all of us.
As part of Maplewood's published park plan, this Park was deliberately left relatively
undeveloped to bring balance into the Maplewood park system, as other more developed parks
are very close by. We feel this Park is a special treasure and care needs to be expended so as to
not harm or destroy its unique nature.
I share the concerns of all in the neighborhood about the incredible amount of development in
close proximity to this proposed building — the historic Bruenthrup farm buildings were less than
a block away (as you know they were moved so that several retail buildings could be constricted
next to the Park) several large town home complexes have been recently built nearby to the
north, the Legacy Village is close by, as are the new buildings being constructed on County D,
west of White Bear Avenue, etc.
With this context of the neighborhood in mind, and because all of us in the area care so deeply
about this Park, the majority of my comments and concerns, enumerated below, relate to the
effects of the proposed development upon the Park.
Firstly, the proposed office building is three stories high. It should be noted that the other
commercial buildings abutting the Park, on the west, and northwest are all single story. These
consist of the strip mall adjoining this property and an Edina Realty office building (recently
reconstructed). The majority of the Park is surrounded by single family houses. Thus, the height
of this building would be most intrusive upon the character of the Park, visible from throughout
the Park. Not only in daytime, but even at night, with shielded lighting, this building would
dominate the skyline. I would respectively suggest that it is important that this proposed
building conform to all others, and be no higher than one story.
(Continued)
Page -2-
Secondly, all the other commercial properties cited above have a significant berm, with large
evergreens atop, separating and shielding the Park from the most intrusive characteristics of the
buildings. This includes the strip mall (with an MGM Liquor store at the end) which is would be
separated by a driveway from the proposed development. Under the proposal, this development
would be the only unshielded buildings, and they would be inconsistent with their neighboring
buildings. The proposed plans make no mention of any berm, and the planting proposed are so
minimal as to be of no consequence.
We should insist on nothing less than a continuation of the existing berm and plantings of mature
evergreens for this proposed development so as not to despoil the nature and character of this
Park any more than is absolutely necessary.
The requested set -back variances also seem to be inconsistent with the nature and character of
the Park, which is the dominant neighbor to the proposed development. Thus, I would request
that Maplewood review these carefully in this context.
It should also be noted that the proposed office building will directly abut a small existing Park
basketball court area, on Beam Avenue. As you may know, many neighborhoods in the metro
area have documented their experiences with a variety of policing problems resulting from large
numbers of individuals hanging about in such a confined space. It would seem that the office
building parking lot would be an attraction that some might find irresistible in the evening hours.
A reasonable solution might include a provision that the parking be restricted to office tenants,
with posted notice that violators would be subject to tagging and towing; with appropriate
enforcement of these provisions. Perhaps consideration of fencing of this property may be
appropriate as well.
Finally, on a general basis, I think the request for the rezoning that would allow a retail facility
should be denied. Traffic at this current White Bear Avenue intersection with the current retail
stores already in existence is currently very busy, and dangerous. No matter how carefully
designed for increased traffic, rezoning this property to retail is inappropriate and should be
denied. The original zoning continues to be appropriate and there is no compelling reason that
benefits the neighborhood from such a proposed change.
Although development is perhaps inevitable, I believe that we have a responsibility to the
neighborhood and to the Park to do so in a careful manner that respects and preserves the best of
both. I would respectfully suggest that my suggestions and comments are an attempt bring some
issues forward that will accomplish this objective.
You should feel free to contact us should you have any questions or wish us to elaborate on any
of our comments regarding the foregoing; thank you in advance for your consideration,
erry and Mary Pults
r
J Attachment 20
IAl2 1 z Lt pi ct e- rS t q N erl S "eo "�I y y Li r�� e % he L , - �y
o;i r3c�cu,,,
4V�I ?G ! VV lrt7z I /�G IUl TL'7� C. �V[Cp1�t�>75
�� i L! C� .S �L� i' L' • CL' l4 G I
- T11ere- 5 G i71 G /7 /cL1 1 iG
17�15fl We Wild rV e- 1 -p- ci ]
�ii-lam Le o Clot c� T!V WctyS,
J J
/ i I eve r✓rcz,
I A! 1 �(7L-$ 1ILl e I T/1 r J
7
Tl-� U a.l'r'tk. M c- es',
JUN 1 12004
2
g r
7
I
/2
a- f��C
/6 "'�
vy\ }ve
odd ��
Agenda Item K10
SUMMARY
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Maplewood Toyota Parking Ramp Proposal
LOCATION: Northwest Comer of Beam Avenue and Highway 61
DATE: August 1, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, and his consultants, BWBRArchitects, are
proposing to build a one -story parking ramp on the existing Maplewood Toyota parking
lot at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This proposed ramp would
be a one -level ramp above the existing parking lot. Mr. McDaniels proposes to continue
to store and sell cars from this site. During the construction of the proposed ramp, the
applicant proposes to move the cars from this site to his vacant lot between Gulden's
Roadhouse and LaMettry Collision.
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve:
A CUP (conditional use permit) revision to allow the parking ramp with car sales
within 350 feet of residential property.
• A setback variance to build the ramp 25 feet from the Beam Avenue right -of -way
and 15 feet from the Highway 61 right -of -way.
• Architectural, site and landscaping plans.
DISCUSSION
Staff feels that the CUP revision for the proposed ramp and sales operation is
acceptable. Staff recommends that the proposed ramp- setback variance should not be
approved since there is no basis for approval under the state statute. The community
design review board has recommended approval of the design plans.
Nx8101MIMI:Iki 117-1 dPLley
A. Adopt the resolution approving a CUP the parking ramp with car sales.
B. Deny the setback variance for the ramp.
C. Approve the parking -ramp design plans.
p:com_dvpt \maplewood Toyota ramp report summary
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Maplewood Toyota Parking Ramp Proposal
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61
DATE: August 1, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, and his consultants, BWBR Architects, are proposing to
build a one -story parking ramp on the existing Maplewood Toyota parking lot at the northwest
corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This proposed ramp would be a one -level ramp above
the existing parking lot. Mr. McDaniels proposes to continue to store and sell cars from this site.
The proposed ramp would have a ground -level sales office in the southeast corner of the
structure near the intersection. The elevated level would be at grade with the abutting
Maplewood Toyota site to the north and would be bridged across to that site for vehicular access.
The proposed ramp would have an exterior of precast concrete spandrels (panels) and precast
concrete columns. The proposed sales office in the southeast corner of the structure is designed
to be the more decorative and prominent element. The proposed outside walls of the office
would have an exterior of metal panels, aluminum framing and glass. The upper -level fascia
material of the office area would be constructed of reinforced metal panels.
Northerly Site
During the construction of the proposed ramp, the applicant proposes to move the cars from this
site to his vacant lot between Gulden's Roadhouse and LaMettry Collision. Mr. McDaniels
proposes to provide a graveled parking lot to temporarily store cars. This northerly lot is also
proposed to have a permanent pervious -paver area for water permeation. Staff will address this
proposal in a separate report dealing with the specifics of that site.
Refer to the applicant's letters and plans.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following
A CUP (conditional use permit) revision to allow the parking ramp with car sales within
350 feet of residential property. The proposed ramp structure would be 200 feet from the
nearest residential property. Mr. McDaniels owns the nearest house to the west which he
rents out. This house is on the subject property. (Please note: The applicant's narrative
states that the ramp setback would be 154 feet. It scales 200 feet on the plans,
however.)
A setback variance to build the ramp 25 feet from the Beam Avenue right -of -way and 15
feet from the Highway 61 right -of -way. The applicant proposes to follow the existing
southerly parking lot curb line as the building edge on the south and run the building
straight north from the southeast corner of the building at the 15 -foot setback mark. The
ramp setback would increase to 62 feet at the north end of the site.
Architectural, site and landscaping plans.
- 7e[ 8 3: (rl :loll] ki U 7
January 18, 1979: The city council approved a CUP for the original Maplewood Toyota
dealership on the south side of Beam Avenue.
October 8, 2001: The city council approved the parking lot /sales lot on the north side of Beam
Avenue by CUP. There were subsequent annual reviews by the council. On March 28, 2005,
the city council granted an indefinite CUP approval —to be reviewed again only if the applicant
proposes a change.
DISCUSSION
CUP Revision for a Parking Ramp and Car Sales within 350 Feet of Residential Property
Staff feels that the primary determination the city must make is that of how compatible the
proposed ramp would be with the abutting residential neighborhood from the standpoints of
function, nuisance control and appearance.
Function
Traffic Imoact
Staff does not see that the ramp would be substantially more of a burden on the neighborhood
than the existing on -grade parking from the standpoint of vehicular activity. The existing parking
lot has, according to neighbors' replies, created too much traffic congestion at the corner.
Neighbors also pointed out that, along with the traffic congestion, the Maplewood Toyota
pedestrian crossing further delays neighborhood drivers in their wait to cross or enter onto
Highway 61. Staff does not feel that the capacity to park more cars would affect the traffic issue
to any substantial degree. If a new or additional use was proposed that would draw new
customers for a different reason, staff would think differently. This is not to say steps should not
be taken to try to improve an existing problem.
On June 20, 2005, the planning commission reviewed this proposal and recommended that a
traffic study be prepared to evaluate the current traffic situation and the anticipated impacts from
the proposed ramp and sales office. The city engineer had a traffic study performed by Tom
Sohrweide, of SEH, Inc. (attached). Mr. Sohrweide concluded that he "does not foresee any
negative traffic impacts resulting from the construction of a parking ramp on the Toyota site.
However, this development may provide the opportunity to improve existing traffic and pedestrian
operational concerns. Improvements for consideration and determination as to feasibility include
the construction of a westbound traffic bypass lane on Beam Avenue at the east -most Toyota
driveway and the construction of a roadway median at the mid -block pedestrian crosswalk."
The planning commission also recommended that the easterly curb cut on the Maplewood
Toyota site south of Beam Avenue be clearly marked as "exit only."
After reviewing Mr. Sohrweide's report, staff does not feel that the proposed ramp will
substantially impact traffic on Beam Avenue west of Highway 61. According to Mr. Sohrweide's
report, there will be 400 to 600 vehicle- trips - per -day from the Beam /61 intersection, rerouted to
the north onto the County Road D Extension when it is open for use later this year. That will
relieve many cars from this intersection. As Mr. Sohrweide recommended, the city should
consider improvements like 1) a traffic - bypass lane on Beam Avenue at the east -most Toyota
driveway and 2) the construction of a roadway median at the mid -block pedestrian crosswalk.
On- Street Parking
An aspect of dealership function that should be addressed is Maplewood Toyota's use of Beam
Avenue for on- street parking by employees. Staff sees no reason for this to continue. Although
legal if not prohibited by signs, this on- street parking is a nuisance to the adjacent homeowners
on Beam Avenue. With the proposed addition of 173 parking spaces on the upper level, staff
would recommend that a sufficient number of off - street parking spaces be provided, and clearly
signed, for all employee and customer needs. Staff found it very difficult to park while inspecting
the property for this review. There is simply no on -site parking available for visitors without
parking in drive aisles.
Nuisances
Noise
Several neighbors commented on hearing the P.A. system that is on -site. Staff has not heard
this system in use, but with the availability of personal electronic paging devices, it seems like
this problem can be easily solved by eliminating public broadcasts into the parking lot. Mr.
McDaniels has agreed to cease P.A. system use.
Lights
Certainly, the applicant needs his site lit for security. The city code and the police department, as
well, require site - security lighting. We did receive survey comments from neighbors, though,
stating that the site lights are a nighttime problem.
In the last few years, Mr. McDaniels installed new site lights throughout his property. These
fixtures were properly designed to aim downward and not allow horizontal shining. Staff has a
concern, though, that any lights proposed for the ramp be designed to comply fully with city code
to prevent any light -glare nuisance from occurring. The applicant has provided light- intensity
measurements on Sheet 901 -FL in the plans. This plan identifies four existing back -to -back pole
lights, and six others are noted but are not shown on the drawing. The proposed design details
for the lighting fixtures are not shown either. Staff does not know where any new lights would be
placed, but it seems obvious to staff, that they would be on top of the proposed ramp. Pole
height could be a problem.
The city will require a full photometric plan with fixture design, pole heights and light- spread
intensities at residential lot lines. The applicant's goal in designing such a plan should be to
ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and
light spread meet the parameters of the city lighting ordinance.
Appearance /Aesthetics
Ramp Design
On July 26, 2005, the community design review board recommended approval of the ramp with
smooth white concrete spandrels to match the main Toyota building. The board also
recommended a red accent stripe around the structure on the upper level. This accent stripe is
to have an aggregate texture.
Land scar) ina /Screenin
The site is already screened well from the homes to the west by existing trees. This is clearly the
case during the summer. In the winter, when the deciduous trees are bare, the Toyota site will
be more open to view.
The applicant is proposing to plant 17 additional evergreens to provide better winter screening,
which is a good attempt to improve the buffer /screen for the neighbors.
Variance — Parking Ramp Setback - Reduction from Streets
Staff cannot find any basis for approval of the proposed building setback variances with the
required state - statute findings. For variances, state law requires that the city council make
certain determinations for approval. These are: 1) the finding that the applicant cannot meet code
requirements because it would cause them undue hardship due to circumstances unique to the
property and, 2) that, if approved, the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the ordinance. Regarding "unique hardship," this means that the property in question cannot be
put to use without a variance.
This variance is difficult to justify under the requirements of state statute since setbacks could be
met. Staff agrees that it makes sense from a site - utilization standpoint to follow the established
curb line. There is no reason, however, preventing the applicant from meeting the 30 -foot
setback requirement stipulated in the ordinance.
Department Comments
Police: Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett stated that "I have reviewed the attached plans and have no
public safety concerns. This project actually will help solve the lack of surface parking that leads
many dealerships to park on unimproved grass surfaces. I would recommend the standard
security lighting and video surveillance systems for commercial installations such as Maplewood
Toyota already has in place in the rest of the complex."
Fire Marshal: Butch Gervais, the fire marshal, has noted that there must be a standpipe for the
fire department to connect to in case of fire.
Building Official: Dave Fisher, the building official, has the following comments:
• Proposed building must meet the 2000 International Building Code (IBC), MSBC 1341
accessibility requirements and all related codes.
• Separate permit is required for this corner site and the northerly site by Gulden's.
• Separate permit and engineering is required for retaining walls over four feet in height
City Engineer: Chuck Vermeersch, one of the Maplewood staff engineers, reviewed this proposal
and has submitted the attached report. Mr. Vermeersch found that there are no engineering or
drainage concerns with the proposal for the ramp site. The applicant would not be increasing the
amount of impervious surface on the site and there would be no increase in surface runoff. They
would, in fact, be improving the storm water discharge by installing a storm water treatment
structure for the removal of sediment from the runoff prior to discharge into the on -site storm
water pond.
SUMMARY
Staff feels that the proposed ramp would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. It would, likely,
enhance the site if attractively designed. The additional parking would allow the applicant to
provide adequate parking for his employees and customers as well as increasing his inventory
parking. Staff can't make the findings, however, for approval of the front setback variance. The
setback from the street right -of -way lines could be met and not drastically alter the proposed site
plan.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
June 20, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. They also added:
• A requirement that a traffic study be done to evaluate the current problem of traffic
congestion at Beam Avenue and Highway 61 as it relates to Maplewood Toyota's existing
operation as well as the potential effect from the proposed parking ramp addition.
A requirement that the easterly curb cut on the Maplewood Toyota site south of Beam
Avenue be clearly marked as an "exit only."
June 28, 2005: The CDRB tabled this review to see plan revisions.
July 26, 2005: The CDRB recommended approval of the ramp design and site plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for a parking ramp with car
sales within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by
ordinance and subject to the following conditions (Additions are underlined and deletions are
crossed out):
1 All c shall follow the site plan a pprov ed by the city c ounc il . All construction
shall follow the site plan date - stamped May 26, 2005, with the exception that the
street -side setbacks for the proposed parking ramp shall be set further back to meet
the required 30 -foot setback requirement. The director of community development
may approve minor changes to the plans.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized
within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The
council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4 The locatio of the p ropos ed bu o n this site is of a pprov ed . If the n nl'n nt
wa nts toc o nstr u ct thin b uilding, 't m be at least 350 feet from the residential
p ro p erty arty lin a nd the plans m be a pprov ed by the city Maplewood Toyota shall
stop the use of Beam Avenue for employee parking. The site and ramp parking plan
shall be revised to incorporate a sufficient number of parking spaces for employees
and customers. This plan must be submitted to staff for approval before the city will
issue a building permit.
Vehicle �eliveries all continue to be handled on and not within the
6. The applicant shall submit a detailed site - lighting plan that includes fixture design,
pole heights and light- spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure
that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and
light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be
submitted for staff approval.
7. The applicant shall change their on -site paging system to utilize personal electronic
pagers instead of a broadcast system to stop broadcasts that can be heard in the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
B. Deny the request for a setback variance from the street right -of -way lines for the reduced
parking ramp setbacks. Denial is because the findings for approval, as required by state
statute, cannot be made. There are no characteristics with the property that would prevent
the applicant from complying with the city code, nor any that would cause the applicant an
undue hardship as defined by statute.
C. Approve the parking -ramp plan revisions, the lighting plan and the landscaping plan date -
stamped July 15, 2005, and July 21, 2005, for the proposed parking ramp proposal for
Maplewood Toyota at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The applicant
shall comply with the following conditions before the issuance of a building permit:
1. The approved color shall be the smooth white option with a textured red stripe.
2. Submit a detailed lighting plan to staff for approval showing the proposed fixture design
and pole heights. There shall be no lights that shine toward the west. There shall be no
lights mounted on the west of the proposed ramp that shine to the west.
3. Submit a revised landscaping plan to staff for approval that states that the proposed
evergreen trees would be at least six feet tall and be balled and burlapped.
4. Submit an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the
cost of completing the landscaping and site lighting.
5. These items must be provided before the city shall issue a building permit.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 53 surrounding property owners for their opinions about the two Maplewood
Toyota proposals. Of the 11 replies, none were in favor, nine were opposed and two expressed
concerns or raised questions.
Opposed
Traffic is too unbearable at Beam and 61 already. This will make it worse. Make them
stop parking on Beam Avenue. The site is already fully developed. (Leanne Hammer,
1227 Countryview Circle)
I have a number of questions and concerns. Who in our community will benefit from
these projects? How will noise be contained? Loudspeakers and car alarms are ever
present! Why does the city consider this a valuable consideration /project? What will the
owner /developer give back to the city and the neighbors? I presume those projects will
benefit the auto dealers by providing larger inventory, additional sales and greater profits.
Is this what the city wants to see? I say don't. (Donald and Marguerite Newpower, 2946
Duluth Street)
Absolutely No! Since this development (Kohlman Lake) has been built, Toyota has
expanded, LaMettry has been built, Country View is gone —the feel of the neighborhood is
fast diminishing. A parking ramp ?! And then another (north lot)? No way! It is hard
enough to feel safe on Duluth Street for my kids with biking and walks. The traffic light &
three entrance /exits for Toyota (61 /Beam) already create traffic backup and unsafe
residential conditions. The traffic light needs to be green longer —the right turn lane
should be right turn only We need sidewalks from Duluth Street /Beam Avenue all the
way to the library /mall area. No other dealership has a 2 -story raised parking ramp /lot.
Let alone a dealership that neighbors a residential area. As you can tell, I'm very much
opposed to this plan, as I'm sure much of my neighbors are. Please pass this along to
any applicable parties. If I can be of further help, please let me know. (Karen and Rich
Mahr, 1243 Duluth Court)
• Please refer to the attached letters from
Lynn Benson, 2898 Duluth Street
Greg and Lorraine Johnson, 1233 Duluth Court
James Anderson, 2890 Duluth Street
Christopher and Mary Trembath, 2908 Frank Street
Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin, 2882 Duluth Street
Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian, 1221 Countryview Circle
In summary, these letters express the following concerns and comments:
• There is a current lack of landscaping. More is needed to screen the parking lot.
• The current lighting is very bright. Perhaps a roof on the ramp will be beneficial.
• Pedestrian traffic in Toyota's crosswalk across Beam is a nuisance.
• There's no allowance for employee or customer parking. Stop their on- street
parking.
• The easterly curb cut of their original site is too close to the corner.
• Lot lighting is a nuisance now.
• Loudspeakers are a nuisance currently.
• A concrete ramp to look at would be unsightly.
• Traffic at this intersection is crazy and too congested.
• Why do we have zoning laws if they are not followed?
• Restripe the lanes and improve traffic flow on Beam so traffic isn't so jambed up.
• Have Toyota build a noise wall to eliminate garbage - hauler and P.A. system
noise.
• The ramp would degrade the residential properties.
• The parking on Beam should end.
• Safety concerns: Blind spot due to the ramp? Traffic bad already.
Concerns /Comments /Questions
• Keep lights & noise down! (Robert Anderson, 1242 Duluth Ct)
• Would this project be possible in some other configuration without a variance? (Hubbard
Broadcasting, 3415 University Avenue)
0
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Existing Use: Maplewood Toyota parking /sales lot and an existing single dwelling owned by the
applicant.
Site size: 2.62 acres (total). The single dwelling site is 9,280 square feet in area and the
existing sales lot is 2.41 acres in size.
!4411N:Al1LIQI.[HAe1.11111b9 *1
North: Maplewood Toyota building
South: Beam Avenue and the main Maplewood Toyota dealership site
East: Highway 61 and the Country View Golf Course (now closed)
West: Single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M1
Criteria for CUP Approval
City code states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for approval
noted in the resolution.
Criteria for Variance Approval
State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance from
the zoning code:
• Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
• The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
"Undue hardship ", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be
put to a reasonable use if used under 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 the
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
We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 26, 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 25, 2005.
p:sec4 \Maplewood Toyota NE Beam & 61 Ramp Site 8'05 to
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Land Use Map
4. Site Plan
5. Landscaping Plan
6. Parking Ramp Design Elevations
7. Parking Ramp Design Perspectives
8. Project Summary Narrative date - stamped June 6, 2005
9. CUP Submittal Justification date - stamped June 6, 2005
10. Setback Variance Submittal Justification date - stamped June 6, 2005
11. Letter from Lynn Benson dated June 6, 2005
12. Letter from Greg and Lorraine Johnson dated June 5, 2005
13. Letter from James R. Anderson dated June 1, 2005
14. Survey -reply from Christopher and Mary Trembath dated May 26, 2005
15. Letter from Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin dated June 1, 2005
16. Survey -reply from Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian dated May 26, 2005
17. Engineering Review Comments from Chuck Vermeersch dated June 7, 2005
18. Report from Tom Sohrweide dated July 25, 2005
19. CUP Resolution
20. Plans date - stamped May 26, 2005 (separate attachment)
21. Plans date - stamped July 15, 2005 (separate attachment)
22. Plans date - stamped July 21, 2005 (separate attachment)
10
Attachment 1
M
VENSURG
TIRE
Ail
GULDEN'S
'9 s
IROPOSED
LOCATION MAW
Attachment 2
x
a
^
P, �
M1
y
a
PROPOSED
OPEN PARKING
RI
{
m. a
Li
n o
PROPOSED
..:;
- RAMP AND
Y
•
CAR SALES..
cc
-LL
BEAM AVE
v�
a
Alibi
'?A .b .
RAW
e
}2
Attachment 3
I
cn
X
0
z
MR
e
13
Zlz
Z- -
_
W 4 11
}
:gm
cn
X
0
z
MR
e
13
Attachment 4
,
�
v
�
�
--- r
~_______________
~
14
Attachment:
6�� \
\� ...
I
? ±d »\? ¥ *« « « ;*»
l5
riESla�.tYA�?".�i .. _..____..._.. .__ .._
am
Aerial Ifiew from :Southeast
0.,.-
Maplew Toyota
T OYOT A
v
Parking Expansion
U4214.00
M,, 03 2O05
B W B ft
cF
r+
w
n
ro
�r
. MI
Maplewood oE.
TOYOTA
On
Parking Expansion
04214.00 B w B R
Mny 04 2001
a
b
I _
LJ
TOYOTA
Parking Expansion
04214.00 R w B R
m.vy oa 21305
Attachment �
'
MEMORAINDU
Maplewood Toyot-a-Ramp and Service
7o:
Moolev/oodL8Iiuneau/e
8\X/DIl Comm. #:2004214�D8
Ton 8ls City Planner, Ciq/ofl{uple`noo6
Ro�zocLuzxou
lJucc: Jcoc6
cc Stnvc-'�{cDauiels, o33}OVotu
Jake Bocr600z.}{/\-ScBzUJ
Steve M,Duzic6,nie Owner o[ Maplewood Toyoru, p lans ' todnsubsouo6rocouxozonounoEs
p roperties onrtboF8carn6veru: and west of/Gvhn,uy6l,
A -a.rarivc orthrec phas:s is outlined belc for Ear:fication ofwhat work :s done and in what
uzJez.
1, Project Summary Narrative
Nomn Lo- Phase, heren-aftcr to be referred to as 'NLP, (grade level car storage' qtiveloos -hC
oorz6cz=os,propeT--7tomlrvc}c6orn,iU support inventory car storage while u Sou dz|-ur
Phase, SLP: level storage zuccpubove t6oexis6ug storage pozE-zg lot iscnos=c-r6.
The uuoDcao6JciuVeucnc7600��6rouur6/otr�9uircoreiocz�ocuDuKox/cnudz�uuci000�
business dozia9o0ustrucboozod6rynu6.
��u�SLyx/i�6ccnozp�crr6v/6co�6�oec��c�o�ocaX��uozp,cb�lop/czb��c�su]��o66c�
the hedscapt and site in-.provernems art Enished,
The North Lot will remain mvtntory car storage after - he South Lot is cons-ructed,
ZU
M-ac1cwcod T oyota ' R_=- and Sofn
? age 2 'D - 2
A. North Lot Phase (NLP):
Ulhe zoning requirements for he site requires 30' pervious land use. The Owner has an
ag7rctriatm with the City for this ratio to 30`/�) pervious and 7 0'/'0 impervious rou
allowances granted for prior land agreements with the C'-y of 2'ylap'tw000r.
The west side of the site will have permanent pervious pavi0g, which is 30% of she site area.
The remainim w Class 3 gravel base,
g 70% may be temporary /permanent and constructed wit
I !,
The pervous pavement Wji be a manufactured pavers system that Aorvs water penetration.
This phase recudres
I A f--oriditiorial I ls-e Per-nu for the :�'LP l:' proposed storage of vehic wid-L-1 350
Feet of a residential district.
2. A va-'ancc i P 2) for storage of =or vchicles within 350 focc- of a ctsidennal
chstrict.
B. South Lot Phase (SLP):
A one = evel storage parking ramp will be construcre6 above the casting on-zrade vec-cle
storage s n -n
,or. Tlhs design dot or add additional impervious land use �o the site, as e site is -'
currently paved to the allosvab�e maximum. The upper parking deck level maintains the
mir-ma: setbacks that are currently in place f or tree current on -grade lo-,.
The one level storage ramp is constructed of precast concrete and includes a one-stoqv- sales
oftace aria below the southeast corner. The ramp is t54 feet from the adjacent residential
6istric and recj�ures a variance and Corrdm_ona' Use Pottm as it is closer than 330 t to a
residential cislaic
Access to the one lcve' parking deck is via two nearly constructed drive lanes /bEdsts from
the Owner's property on the norrh adjacent lot.
This phase recuires:
i. A Conditional Use Permit for a au related bus Tess struc'Urc located closc,
than 350 tet from an adjacent residential zoning district (SLP 1).
variance for a stnicture closer --!-an 350 it-,- from an adjacent resider al zoning
disc nc- (SLP 2 )".
A variance to having a stricture within 30 fe et
Avenue on the sou
side of he propern- 'K P
I I —
/Ice
from right-of-way lines o"Bearn
21
aW (_()rjjm,n, �r. 7t-
5� '3CO :)'U� NEN 5 � 'l � �51.222,3 f,, ?3 . 896?
Attachment 9
[M:41121
JU;i 0 6 2005
B W B R
ARCHITECTS Maplewood Toyota -Ramp and Service
Maplewood, Minnesota
B% BR Comm. #; 2004.214.00
Nlay 11, 2005
A conditional use permit to allow a vehicle storage structure widam the 350' requirement listed
above is requested.
ion
A ore story- parking ramp will be constructed Shove an existing on- grade vehicle storage lot.
This structure is approximately 20 feet in height. Building elevations are submitted to the City of
`•Maplewood, vvhicli show exact size and location of the ramp. The ramp st-ucuire is vehicle
storage lot structure in floor plate and height. The natural slope of the site area sloping down r-om
north to south assists in hiding the ramp from views from the west and north.
The placement of tLe ramp above existing non -per: sous vehicle storage allows for no additional
impervious grading to be added to the present watershed.
F-usting and new natural vegetation is in place, or designed to min-irnize the exposure to the adjacent
residential zoning district.
I. The structure is virtually the same as the existing on grade parking lot as the on grade lot's
design was repeated for the structures desigr.. The height is onjy 20 feet tall and the
horizontal plane is similar to grade.
2. The existing character of the surrounding parcels that front FEghway 61 are similar in nature
to the car storage structure requested.
I Current propertv values will be maintained. The perceived land use would most Likeh be
commercial in nature.
Motor vehicle storage structures are not a perceived hazard or innately unsightly. The
structure will have design elements, which are fundamentally sitrailar to Nlaplewood Toyotas
maim building,
22
Lawson Commons 350 Sr. Pcttr Sucut, Suitt SCO Saint Paul, NC 55'102- 1996 631.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 uvw.bwl manna
- \JapI wood To yota 'R=np and Service it
Pagc 2 of 2
Maplewood Toyota intends to store vehicles for Eaeir business use. The vehicles are parked
and removed by employees. The storage area is not a sales lot. Access to the lot is
primarily
through NI'laplewood Tovota's adjacent property and not on City public access routes.
6. Site requirements are currently supported by public utilities and services,
I The project w LI not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services,
& This st-acture's design has a goal to not add more impervious grading to the current water
shed. The "drip line" of the structure virtually the same as the existing impervious parking
lot.
9. The design adds no impervious grading to the watershed and due to the vehicles being new,
no peuoleum leaks are likely to occur.
/ce
23
Commons 380 St. Pct— Street, Suite 600 Saint Pax', �,N 55102 -1996 651.2223 701 fax 651.222.8961
Attachment 107
B W B R
n:aciiiisc'r.s
.Maple wood ° Toyota -Ramp and Service
Maplewood, Minnesota
BWIiR Comm #: 2004.214.0
May 11, 2005
ZONING CORE VARIANCE SUBMITTAL R E C E I V E D
SLP 3 City of Maplewood Zoning Ordinance Section 44 -20 (6) (a) JUN 0 6 1005
Proposed structures are to be located no closer than 30' -0" of street tight -of -way,'
lines.
A variance to allow a structure within the. 30' -0" requirement hsted above is requested.
Land Use:
A one , of - parking ranip will be constructed above art e Fisting ern -grade vehicle storage lot.
This structure is approximately 20 feet in height. Building elevations are submitted to the City of
Maplewood, which show exact size and local on of the rarnp. The ramp structure is a vehicle
storage lot structure in floor plate and'neight. The naninal slope of the site area sloping down from
north to south assists in hichng the ramp from viecJS from the test and north.
The placement of the ramp above existing non-pervious vehicle storage allows for no additional
impervious fading to be added to the preseri %vatershed,
Etdstirg and new natural vegetation is in place, or designed to miziimize the exposure to the adjacent
residential zoning district.
Reasons for Granting a Variance.
Maplewood z oyota is requtsnng this vehicle storage structure be allowed for these reasons;
a. The proposed use is consistent -�t:th existing and adjacent uses along Iigttway 61. The
structure does nut change the character or use of the site.
b. Maplewood Toyota is presently utilizing this site for ou -site storage which requires only
15' -0" from the street rght -of -ways. This structure is designed to be placed directly
above that grade level park ng for reasons stated above.
In the coctinued overall commercial development of the .vest side of the I lightvay 61
strip, we feel this variance is consistent in the long -terrn benetSt
24
i_xasoa Common. !;K St. 1'r }trr Sua t. Sljvt 6,,, Sa tPau ',LX 5;a..:use 65i . 2221 Y O: its .6f:1 ='18961
Mgt Icwon6 To_ eta 1 i -l mp area. ccr:;ce
I'a 2 0£2
2. We believe the intent of the ordinance is to protect adjacent !and uses from detrimental
views, hazards, and other real and perceived problems.
tilapicwoou Toyota has irate rated itself. nto this area and is t ying to keep the use intended
as when purchased. Through urc careful use of landscaping and lighting, Ave propose that
the developed use will be a strou"r element in the neighborhood.
Protection from unwarranted and undisclosed uses is not required and we feel a variance will
s ill allow the Cio, adjacent landowners, and Maplewood Toyota to continue their current
good neighbor relations.
/c.
25
COI - mCnS 380 St Pci.. Jtre 5 w�� �i'C Saxut Pan.,, li\ 5;102 1P)6 6 1 222.37Q1 ,ax 651.12_ x961 •,n.� *. hwtjz tom
Attachment 1
Tom Ekstrand
From:
Lynn Benson (lynn a notamd.com]
Sent:
Monday, June 06, 2005 8'57 AM
To:
Tom Ekstrand
Subject:
Maplewood Toyota development proposals
Derr Mr.. Ekstrand,
I'm writing in response to the proposed develops ., by our neighbors a Maplewood Toyota.
have revs, -al concerns. .h] fL..at is in a c _ to t ^. e +ery
disappointed at t:e negxiti_ve ef`ect their original ca kinq lot has had on t. vi from
out home. I was very dissatisfied wit` the lack of a landscape berm from their original .
project on the cite. From the perspective of our home=. , we see no evergrc_r_ trees in th<�
line of silsht to the wes dF of Toyota='s parking lot. Througho^A the year we have
sigh:' cf the cars and trucks and light `rem the lot. It was my v:.dersta da rq that :.hoy t5_
we rec_i-:_ed by the city r. to provide r- landscape -arm. at leas_ six t,eos- in
height. It is my understand : :nq -at the definit;on of a berm is ._:r ea.r.hen h rr;..L. It
appears they hav= neclec_cd this requirement in their original development of the ss'. It
appears ha' new proposal will not have any new lanscaping or berm added on the south
site.
R'e would greatly approclato i` if a berm to ]. :=_r than 10 feet witli additicnai everor-
trees could be added to t „ e rest side of thleir parking lot to provide ScLeening trom the
v;i.ew of their cars. 'de should be very pleased if thiis current n..o�cct inc�ucuc a roof on
the top of *he oarking ramp to block the view of cars as orar home is v. ,, a h'..g:c r elevation
--sax. -he trop of - heir ramp wo•.al.d have., [,e would p_cfer to view a build ..g r...t -.rr t: ^.en
autos.
A s .onc nms",.ionee; along with the first. The lisht.ing on l heir lot is ver-v
bright at night and shines into our bedroom windows. Is t:aere any way to reduce the light
pollution further. Perhaps enclosing the top of t :heir pa.rk ramp wou;: hey:; -p wl.th :.' -(J'ht
pol-ution In the area so they wouldn't have lian up higher than :'het✓ do c urr<<PL,_..
Another corrment I ::ave is *.regarding the n uestrian traffic in tr it crosswa'_k. i.l
any way they cc;ula add a pedestrian bridge to cross Beam Ave. to the_�..,.r laps? '.q-''h the
snot'` .'_ergth of the stop light for eastbound traffic on 3e<vm„ it rs di fICUIL to have to
wait `or oedestrans when the 1..rht charges before you get to the intersection.
A ` ouuth conoern I have le t ^eir jack cf par'cinq For tneit employees.
Even be.-fore their current lot was in o':.ace employees had to park on Beam Ave. We were.
su_p se< when they still didn't make allowance for em_p par'tiog_ with t, ^i.,- new
parking lot. I. know it affects our neighbors living on .ream Ave .e, wil_ they ever have
enough space for their emp.'_ovees to park'?
Please call me wit-: questions about my rem,4,as ;usi - 181 -90 %0 . P.an,voy _ for soli i_ina
our coi.nions regarding this development, We greatly appreciate the city clr .'.ear.:;'
consid� °ration of -es wdcnt a'' _a.;:payers and vote -:s opinions and soo :4 fo -ward to t e
'nearing on this matter.
Sincerely,
Lynn Benson
2896 Duiutr.h S *.
Maplewood
6 651 1118
1 26
Attachment 12
June 5, 2005
Tom Ekstrand — Senior Planner _
Office of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN S5t09
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
This letter is in regards to the development proposal for Maplewood Toyota as described
in your letter of May 26, 2005.
First a little background, WI most of the residents to the west purchased their homes,
Maplewood Toyota was a small dealer located on the SW corner of flighway 6I and
Beam Ave. Since then, they have expanded to the north into what was up to that time a
parcel that had been used for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales and have also built a large
service facility (along with LeMettry Collision) to the north.
With their current growth, there have been negative effects on the adjacent residents;
I, The current driveway entrance into the south lot is too close to the corner.
When northbound cars are turning west onto Beam, there is usually a car that
stops as soon as they get on Beam waiting to turn into the dealer forcing
vehicles behind to stop and wait in the noddle of the intersection. This
driveway location is very dangerous and will cause an accident (if not
already), Although this driveway entrance was there before their present
expansion, the growth of the dealer and the increased number of homes have
made it more dangerous.
2. Zdte deafer was granted permission to have a marked crosswalk just past the
driveway entrance. If you don't have to stop for a car turning into the south
lot, quite often you have to stop for salespeople and customers in the
crosswalk. Many times dealer employees and customers will step out into the
crosswalk without giving a vehicle proper time to stop. State law requires all
vehicles to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk but the pedestrians also need to
use good judgment to give a velucle proper time and distance to safely stop.
This is not always the case.
3. Since expanding to the parcel worth of Beam, the lot lighting is very visible
and invasive to the surrounding homes. With construction of a parking ramp,
the lights will be taller, and will affect more homes and to a much greater
degree than the current lighting.
4. The dealer has also installed an outside loudspeaker paging system that is very
r audible for the adjacent residents.
Y Opt ( e L c h ✓' IIL, 27
City Of Maplewood Attachment 13
Attn: Tom Ekstrand — Senior Planner
1830 County Road 13 Past
Maplewood, M\ 55109
RE: Development Proposal — Maplewood Toyota
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
This letter is in response to the letter sent out dated May 26, 2005 on the Maplewood
Tovota expansion. I have lived at 2890 Duluth Street for the last seven years and in
Maplewood my entire Life. Maplewood 'I has been a good neighbor and I and others
in my family have purchased all our vehicles from Maplewood Toyota.
I do have one concern currently and several concerns on the future, proposal.
CurxenCly, they have aloud speaker or pag ng system that goes out ovcr the car Jot
directly behind our houses. In the warmer months, all my neighbors and myself
can hear every page over the system when we have our windows open or when
we are out in our back yards. Those speakers need to be re- directed towards
highway 61 and away from our homes.
'I he view out my back window keeps changing. I'm not sure I want to look out at
a concrete structure with more car and people traffic. A few years ago, we agreed
to an overflow parking lot with a house and pond as a buffer zone.
The highway 61 and Beam Avenue intersection is already crazy with car and
people traffic. It Looks like the new sales center on the other side of Beam Avenuc
would just add to an already busy intersection. I have almost hit people darting
out into traffic trying to cross Beam Avenue. Turn lanes into the new facility are
also and issue.
One soltttion to create a better buffer zone is to build an 8- 10 foot concrete privacy fence
on the back of our property line. Or. add many more 8- 10 foot blue spruce trees along the
property line to help in the winter months when the leaves fall off the trees. This does not
fix the additional pedestrian traffic crossing Beam Avenue going to and from the
proposed new sales office.
I have worked hard and paid a lot of money for my home. I deserve the right to enjoy the
peace and quiet of livin.? in Maplewood, Plus, I don't want to worry about the declining
value of my home with commercial growing closer and closer.
I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and comments.
Sincerely,
:Tames R. Anderson
2890 Duluth Street
Maplewood, Mir 55I09
65I- 483 -8954
RECEIVED
IJUN 0 1 2005
28
Attachment 14
Nlay26.2005
[Yoisioober}Trezuho[b
M:zy}..[rcrubxtb
29O8 Frank St»/
Mmp[uvvovd}/fi 55
This letter is to get your opinion on a proposal to develop property in your neighborhood.
Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build a one-level parking ramp on their
property at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61, This would bm one elevated
level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing
to install e parking lot un their property between Gu|den's and LaMeM | Collision. They would
park cars temporarily un this site during the ramp construction to the south. Uis proposed tu
become a car-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential For the construction of a multi-
level ramp. Refer to the applicant's letter and the map attachments.
I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city
council. Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any
attachments :n which you have written comments, by June G
|f you would like further information, please call 0eatG51~24W^23O2 between Ou.0.and
4:3Op,m. You can also email rneat . I will send you notices
of the pub4o hearing un this request when it/mscheduled. Thank you for your comments. /vvi||
give them careful consideration,
��.
Enclosures:
1. Applicant's Project GurAnoary
Z Location Map
8. Site Plan—South Site
4- Site Pimn--NorihSite
5. Landscaping P\an--Smu|hSite
b. Landscaping Plan—North Site
7. Ramp Design Elevations
8. Parking Ramp Perspective
I have no comments:
�n �� ,�Jrx'�� uu�n fhe ��b a9���e�e*/��f6������/U��m�� /oyrfg,
OFF/csOF{�o^xwumITYDEVELOPMENT � 651-249-2300 � FAX: 651-249-2319
�
CIT Y OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD -9 EAST
MxpLEvvuoa 29
O (-:7
xce>
uSe
a 5n/��w^e
�
� �
�n �� ,�Jrx'�� uu�n fhe ��b a9���e�e*/��f6������/U��m�� /oyrfg,
OFF/csOF{�o^xwumITYDEVELOPMENT � 651-249-2300 � FAX: 651-249-2319
�
CIT Y OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD -9 EAST
MxpLEvvuoa 29
O (-:7
1� Q p i T7 ol q L ( S S LA G S 7 i
O!J l.s,
��u c�fi /fw y i d� ��5✓,y�e SO t-r
SOu
ll' 1 �(J✓vt 1V 1 14L. 6
�nfdt fcr �C�t./S Co^
�/L,1't' ; f �e,�, / a- , - ,, ✓% � Cl' f2 r t> f-
�^ 5 ✓1 �t✓f�✓pU
vi v �{ `� � / �`a �f�r�r C �. /- ��� . t � C � J
&,J A-L
L4 S -E'EN
l er C DTS O f G(CCJL(E 7fS £ l7eA Ai" SSkS r(���
/ q, 69 14 L.o n a 5 1 s
M + r _1 �,1' `e p �
/ MP72/ o f a a p rt C Me` j C u! t Sr a t1 , /� r S /Vt
ped' Restr1
1 f�PGL -Wt �
� i 6 yC)7� � Ccl /5��r Cr 1'n /'Se Wall
8 rn X75 ? lt ,'.�� ,yq", - ucic�
G � l7Pc� �b /�'Sr` liMe 6t /,,), 1a act/
Attachment 15
Karen Cari.son Tracy Sellin 2582 Duluth St Maplewood vliN 55
Development proposal Response - Maplewood Tovota
• Do not believe the ramp is necessary; iven the amount of space Toyota owns and the
fact that the parking lot has open space every ruglit.
• Believe that Toyota should have to nice, ordinances and should not be granted further
variances that impact residential afeas or wildlife.
Aesthetics
• Personally think it would look bad and according, to reaitors opinions (whom we have
discussed this protect with) they believe a parking ramp would likely de -rade residential
property value. Has any assessment been completed to vcrify this? Why not put the ramp at
the south corner of current property?
• If approved, we are requesting Toyota to plant many more trees and/or sc.nbs so
residential properties would not have to view the ramp.
• Expect City of Nlaplewood to ensure, if glantcd, the ramp is visuaily appc.&ny {cnd to
end) and graffiti will be immediately removed.
Environmental
• Has an environmental impact study been completed? Higlily concerned that continued
pervious ratio variances would impact wildlife and residential sump systems.
• Run off is also high concern, need to ensure that it flows away From residential property
such that it does not create a water problem for residential property and flood %vlld'life that
currently live between the residential property and colmncrcial property.
• Think rain gardens are a good start but, who ensures that these are maintained and
functioning properly?
• Who is liable [f c langes In perVIOUS to imnerviollti Patio negatively impact residential
property'?
• Ask that if approved, City to enforce no Toyota employees to park on Ream and Dututh
crossing or anywhcre else on Beane "i�hey currently parking there all day even though space
is available in their lots.
Safety
= Will this increase car traffic on Beam for the long term? Beam & Hwy 61 already a
bottleneck. High level of traffic honing onto Beam (at times) creates a bottleneck due to
volume of cars in and out of current parking lot. Since the parking lot entrance is less that I
block from a busy intersection, we are concerned that this will become an accident -plane
area. Multiple incidences ofvehicic -to- vehicle and pedestrian to vehicle close calls. \Vlore
parking will logically increase incidents, please comment as to why this should not be of
concern. And what measures are being taken to ensure this will not become a safety hazed.
• Believe building of this size, given the limited set back, will create a blind spot for
drivers at intersection of Beam K Hwy 6 t A` -gin seems like a poter,tal safety hazard.
• Traffic already an issue due to constnwction on Edgerton, and CNTY D. When wilt the
project (if approved) start arid end?
nne 1, 2005 31
Kai en Carlson Tracy Sellin 21382 Duluth St Maplewood M N 55109
Prej cc
• Expect that if approved, guidelines on timc of day for construction would be reasonable.
Overall
Do not believe a parking ramp fits'aesthencally in this location and tnTly believe it will
create a safety hazard. Additionally, it appears that it has a high probability of having a
negative impact on wildlife & residential propel ties {run -off & safety). I hope the City of
Maplewood will consider the input and concerns of the residential population and ensure
that our concerns are fully addressed i f the city decides to approve this request.
'time 1, 3005
32
May 2G.2005
Michael Schoonuu
Jud;,[ Johnston Scbtuiun
1,221 C000kJ^/ion/{]rE
I le
noRe,!x, Can
Attachment l6
]UN 8 6 2005
This letter isto get your opinion ona proposal 0o develop property inyovrneighb»rh»»d.
Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build a one-level parking ramp an their
property at the northwest corner n/ Beam Avenue and Highway O1. This would bo one elevated
level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing
to install 2 parking lot on their property between Gulden's and LaMettry Collision. They would
park cars temporarly on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to
become a car-stor2ge lot in the future, however, with the potential for the construction Of 2 multi-
level r8nnp,RefertOthe8pp|ioaD[y|ettorandthernapaUechrnenty,
I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning conorri and city
council. Please wdte your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any
attachments nn which you have written comments by June §
|fyuuvvouN|ikeh/dhorinfunnedion,p|eesams||/oeat851-243'23O2bebwoonOa.ro.ond
4:30p.m. YOU Can also email meet tom.eks-tra-,nd-(a will send you notices
uf the public hearing nO this request when itisscheduled. Thank you for your comments. /m/i||
give them careful consideration.
TOM EKSTRAND - SENIOR PLANNER
Enclosures:
1�
Applicant's Project 8unonoary
2.
Location Map
3.
Site Plan—South Site
4�
Site Plan—North Site
5�
Landscaping P|an--Guu1hSite
G.
Landscaping Plan—North Site
7.
Ramp Design Elevations
8,
Parking Ramp Perspective
I have no comments:
Comments:
/
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 651 FAX: 651
CITY OF M*pLEmxOoo YB3O COUNTY ROAD BEAST ^ MxpLsw/noo. MIN 551Og
33
-t,
Z
I I
4)
oy-
2
6
d I I 6 rL411 a7y
ew
-4'
34
Attachment 17
DATE: June 7, 2005
district) ordinance allows 30% impervious surface within the district, or up to 50% if
approved by the city engineer.
the allowable impervious area set by the shoreland ordinance, this results from
previously approved projects.
equal to or better than the existing condition of the parcel, Consequently it is not
included in the impervious surface under the shoreland ordinance,
that ]on that it be constructed to ciL standards (concrete curb ac and naved).
If the applicant elects not to do this, the aggregate surface should be removed and
restored with vegetation upon completion of the parking ramp on the south parcel.
35
to the norlh (Guldens) creat s a safety issue that must be a dresse
36
ll}�
Chuck &6/,Cio/n[Muolcxood
FK1>k8�
Thomas A. Sobnxoido, PE, PT88
DATE�
loh'25,ZOU5
R6:
Maplewood Tnynto Parking BannpProposal
5Gl{ No. A-M8Yl,GOZ08.00
Attachment 18
At your request w e have revicn cd several traffic concerns with rea-ard to the proposed construction of a
purkio&'uonphy Maplewood Toyota oo the northwest corner of the 8iAhoa?6|/0uaxnAvenue
intersection. Our review included coodvc6o#9M peak beat traffic counts at this intersection, uua\}'zio8
traffic flow through the intersection, reviewing the impact of Toyota's easternmost driveway, and
In 2002 *c analyzed traffic flow at this intersection to determine what would be the mos efficient
designation o[ traffic Lines for Buam Avenue approaching }[igb`rav6} from the wnvL The intersection
capacity uua}vi» conducted o1dn4dmnhnu�dduU the oasd/nundna��owould best hnucoonun�ndatod
with the \e[i(aun for thnou�hUofbo and left tnrooro and the 6&hilane for through |/ad8cand right
incoco. Analysis of the current peak hour traffic counts finds this to still be the most cifficicut lane
assignment for peak hour operation,
Based on traffic Count comparisons, |hoPMocukbnuristhoapprop6aic6mepmhod[hraoubsis.Thc
tnz8ic0owio this un��iscon1n>Uodbrdu�Lru8�o signal ut the F6gbxn>6/{0ouu/ Avenue iotorvoctinu
The weekdaY PNI peak hour traffic volume on Highway 61 is 40 higher than the weekend n
peak
traffic volume,
Toyota has two driveways on the south side of Beam /1vouxo. The o*sk;oonnut driveway is
approximately l\5 feet west o[}|igbpay61 This distance provides storage for four passenger cars per
traffic lane before the access tn the ToYom driveway ixblocked ]f the driveway io blocked, v'usthnuud
Beam Avenue traffic desiring to turn tell into thcToyout driveway are prevented from doing so and block
westbound Beam Avenue traffic During six hours of'observation during the traffic counts. the driveway
was blocked twice, causing westbound traffic to back opto Highway 6}. This observation ioonofi/inod
dirough die analysis which indicates that during the PM peak hour the average backup on Bemn west of
Highway 6l*'i>|bo84 feet and for 5' the hear the backup will exceed l%7fcct
[[ the Beam Avenue traffic lane ossgmmntowere changed the length of the backup would increase.
With u dedicated lod turn 1auoo/ right turn lane, die average haxko; would be 126 feet and 137 bet
rnspuot/vo|y
To reduce the impact ofb)oc6u the d6vuxa> westbound let! turns into tbo Toyota driro`vu? could bo
prohibited. However. this can bodifficult tn sign and iso8uu not obeycd/�ontbor option v/oo|dbcthe
uoum|rurtinnofan'*xthouudb} x
�pa�c\ano,I�ixbn/ooldu|)o*' x'oxibound traffic to bypass ovehicle
waiting to turn loft into the driveway. If this option is considered, die ficasibility of constructing a bypass
lane needs to be investigated,
Short a Hendrickson mc,003nvmoo"um/mcwv, St. Paul, ww:a1m-51o6
osxm a000�a/opvo,Iumvem* 325z055 1 6s1.49oz1sotax
37
Mooluvond Toyota Parking Rmun`Proposal
July 25,2005
Page
hie our oodnottuudiog that concerns have also been expressed with ncouzdoo the existing onid'b|ock
pedestrian crosswalk, x/|uobis located between the Toyota drivenayo V9e have not gathered any duU/
specific to this crosswalk. At this point, not being able vo quantify if there isupnxh|om,UoouSbpast
experience the function of"the ciosswalk and the interference NNidi traffje could be improved %vith a cenrct
roadwa} mcifian which would create a too-part pedestrian crossing, The feasibilitv of constructing a
median would have to be coordinated with a bypass lane, if the bypass lane is considered.
As a result of the construction of a parking ramp, we do not ruiticipate any significant traffle generation to
the Toyota site. Trip generation estimates for car dealerships arc based on (lie numbes ot'employces or
the gross floor area. Included in the parking ramp is approximately 1.700 square feet of'office space. For
this type of business, this space would generate 55 trips pet day. During the I'M peak hour this would
add 2 Vehicles into the site mid 2vehicles Iuuvbng the site.
Even with the raization that the parkinS ounp rnaN7 make the overall site rnore customer friendly, thereby
attracting additional traffic, Ac do not anticipate traffic generation anywhere near the dc NvIuch would
change orimpact current traffic operation. /\o}' additional traffic would b* more than offset with u
reduction in Beam Avenue traffic due to rerouting to the realigned County Road 1). Based on the number
nf homes iu the immediate neighborhood, vro estimate the current oui-tblnoSb traffic which would reroute
is*ppnotiuuui*Iy4OU 60U vehicles per day.
With regard Lo traffic safety adjacent tn the Toyota site. The Cityof Maplewood Police Department has
no reported vehicle crashes in the past two years on Beam Avenue west of Higlova% 6 1.
In conclusion, we do not foresee any nolative naffic impacts icsufting from the construction of a parking
rmnpnu the Toy"imsite. However. this development may provide the Opportunity (o improve existing
traffic and pedestrian operational concerns. {ug;nnvonuootp for consideration and determination osto
feasibility include the construction of a westbound traffic bypass lane on Beam Avenue at the cast most
Toyota cinveway. and the construcrion of a roadwav median at the mid-bky--k pedestrian crosswalk.
ts
c Chris Cuvnrt, City n[Maplewood
Torn Ekstrand City of Maplewood
38
Attachment 19
WHEREAS, BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of Maplewood Toyota,
feet of residential property. The proposed ramp would be 200 feet from the nearest neighbors'
residential property line.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at the northwest comer • Beam
Avenue and Highway 61. The legal description is:
Subject to road and highway, part westedy of centerline of said highway of South 253 feel
of the east 608.4 feet of the NE 1 14 of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22.
KV.911111[rud �11 a �Jk*
The city council held a public meeting on August 8, 2005, to review this proposal.
The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and
planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council the aboll
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.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods o!
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.
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
parkSL
39
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development designr
• The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
10, Automotive sales and repair facilities are accepted uses in M1 districts subject to
appropriate conditions.
crossed out):
1 All GGAstFuetien shall follow the site pi AV-the-Gity-eounisial, All construction
shall follow the site plan date-stamped May 26. 2005, with the exception that the
street-sid• setbacks for the proposed parking ramp shall be set further back to m_'.
_ uired 30 -foot setback requirement. The director of community developmen
may gggrove�qn
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized
within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The
council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. no"japfoved-4-the appheant
wants to oorrs-Vwct4his-bwJdiag,4t must-be-iat4east aS&feet-ffern-tbe-residentiN
propeFty l and the plans must be ppFoved by44e-eq. Maplewood Toyota shall
stop the use of Beam Avenue for employee Parking. The site and ramp Parking plan
shall be revised to inc • Dorate a sufficient number of parking spaces for emolovees
mitted to staff for approval before the city will
�suea builo a aA
5. T44is-Wrnit is subjeG"G-the priaperty-awnef-Gomtaining 4-he-twG-pa-rGel-s-for tax
fiGation-,p-urpGse&—.-The app4r;aot sha4-reGord the paper wGrk-for-this
.n of deliveries shall continue to be handled on-site and not within the
right-of-way
• t includes fixture design,
7. ctronic
oaqers instead of a broadcast system to stop broadcasts that can be heard in the
are cent residential neighborhood.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2005
40
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005
b. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility (south site - NW corner of
Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) (7:50 -9:30 p.m.)
Mr. Ekstrand presented the staff report. BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of
Maplewood Toyota, is proposing to build a one -story parking ramp on the existing Maplewood
Toyota parking lot at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. This proposed
ramp would be a one -level ramp above the existing parking lot. Mr. McDaniels proposes to
continue to store and sell cars from this site. The proposed ramp would have a ground -level
sales office in the southeast corner of the structure near the intersection. Mr. Ekstrand said the
elevated level would be at grade with the abutting Maplewood Toyota site to the north and would
be bridged across to that site for vehicular access. During the construction of the proposed ramp,
the applicant proposes to move the cars from this site to his vacant lot between Gulden's
Roadhouse and LaMettry's Collision.
Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. McDaniels proposes to provide a graveled parking lot to temporarily store
cars. This northerly lot is also proposed to have a permanent pervious -paver area for water
permeation. Staff will address this proposal in a separate report dealing with the specifics of that
site.
Commissioner Pearson asked where the short bridge is if there would be a drive through for
access around the building?
Mr. Ekstrand said he understood the upper deck of the parking ramp would be on columns so
there will be a lot of access throughout the lower level of parking. Right now the north lot line is a
retaining wall so there is no access from beneath.
Commissioner Pearson said the commission has looked at a number of changes for the
Maplewood Toyota operation over the years and every time the commission reviews something
for this area there seem to be more and more issues regarding traffic concerns at this
intersection on Beam Avenue and Highway 61. At what point is somebody going to take some
initiative to add a right -turn only at that intersection? In order to do this it would take some
cooperation with the owners of Maplewood Toyota, but there is a large green space that could be
dedicated to adding another turn lane. Shutting down that east entrance into Maplewood Toyota
would make a big difference in traffic flow in that area. Commissioner Pearson asked how this
problem should be addressed?
Mr. Ekstrand said this would be the time to address these issues if the planning commission has
concerns.
Planning Commission -2-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Cavett wasn't aware of the concerns from the neighbors until he read the staff report. He
thinks it would be a good idea to require an entrance only on the westerly drive and it be an exit
only on the easterly drive. He's not sure if there are issues with the internal circulations so that
would have to be looked at. There are several issues having a right turn only at that intersection.
The improvements for County Road D at Highway 61 will offer some relief from this intersection.
A traffic engineer looked at this area a few years ago and the city has looked at stop lights along
with the timing and turning arrows. There were small modifications made to this area for better
traffic flow. They added a dual thru stop light and added two thru stop lights that share turns.
This helped a little bit but there's only a short duration that traffic can be stopped on Highway 61
because of the high volume of cars and they don't want cars to sit on Highway 61 any longer than
absolutely necessary. He would recommend waiting until County Road D is finished in late
November to see if traffic improves in the area.
Acting Chairperson Desai said he's a resident of this neighborhood and he struggles with this
traffic every day when he has to drive through this intersection. One of the improvements that
was made was to paint a left turn arrow on Beam Avenue turning left onto Highway 61. Because
the arrow has been washed away from the street the cars don't know the left lane is for turning
left onto Highway 61. People get frustrated when cars are in that lane and then they want to go
straight or if cars are in the other lane and they try to go left onto Highway 61 and it ties traffic up
and there are many traffic flow issues at this intersection. Because the stoplight is so short, you
only get one or two cars through that intersection anyway.
Acting Chairperson Desai said there continue to be problems with employees from Maplewood
Toyota parking cars along Beam Avenue by the dealership.
Acting Chairperson Desai said the crosswalk that is painted from Maplewood Toyota to the
storage lot across the street makes cars wait so people can walk across to the other side.
Sometimes people just walk out in traffic without cars knowing they should stop, which has almost
caused car accidents to occur. This pedestrian area causes cars to be stacked going in and out
of this area. So while he heard Mr. Cavett say there was a traffic study done two years ago he
thinks a study needs to be done to see how many cars are coming and going in this area and
what can be done to improve the traffic concerns. Nothing has improved since the traffic study
two years ago and is only going to get worse with additional car inventory in this area. He
strongly feels this issue should be addressed now. Although Maplewood Toyota states there
would not be anymore traffic in this area, they are increasing the size of their inventory. This
could cause more cars to come and go from this dealership which slows traffic at this light and
intersection of Beam Avenue and Highway 61.
Mr. Cavett said the left turn into the Maplewood Toyota dealership property should be addressed
now. He thinks it's been addressed the best it can for now and should be reevaluated again after
the new County Road D is in operation in late November.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked if there could be a condition added to ensure this traffic study is
done because otherwise the development will be completed and everybody forgets about the
study except the neighbors who deal with the difficult traffic and intersection problems everyday
as well as the Maplewood Toyota customers.
Planning Commission -3-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Cavett said he doesn't know if the east bound entrance on Beam Avenue has a lot of traffic
ties to the actual Maplewood Toyota dealership. He believes the city will notice a reduction in
traffic on Walter Street and Beam Avenue with the new County Road D reconstruction and
realignment. He believes the traffic is worse in the morning in that area.
Commissioner Yarwood said the input by the neighbors seems to be a consistent regarding this
intersection. If Maplewood Toyota goes ahead with the construction of this parking ramp, will it
limit the choices for handling traffic at that intersection that may be required in the future. He
wondered if the city should handle the congestion problem first and then the proposal second?
Mr. Cavett said with the new County Road D construction he believes there would be less
demand on the Beam Avenue and Highway 61 intersection, which might allow MnDot to provide
additional timing for the lights since they are in charge of the roadway there.
Mr. Ekstrand said it sounds like there could be some traffic relief after County Road D gets
reopened. This proposal would have to be reviewed in one year for a conditional use permit.
The planning commission could wait to see how this goes for a year and if nothing changes,
make a recommendation that the applicant may be required to make improvements on site or to
require a public agency to do something.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked if a condition could be required to not allow Maplewood Toyota's
employees or customers to park along Beam Avenue?
Mr. Ekstrand believes Steve McDaniels would be agreeable to telling his staff no more parking on
the street with all of the additional parking spaces with this proposal. Largely this lot will be for
car inventory but a good part of this has to be for employee and customer parking.
Mr. Ekstrand said if a Maplewood Toyota customer parks on Beam Avenue it is really out of the
city's control unless the city council adds more no parking signs along Beam Avenue by
Maplewood Toyota. By a condition of this approval the city should require the applicant to have
ample off site parking for employees and customers and show it on a site plan.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked if Maplewood Toyota owned the existing lot north of LaMettry's
Collision?
Mr. Ekstrand said yes they do.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked why Maplewood Toyota doesn't park cars there today?
Mr. Ekstrand said the lot isn't paved right now so the city wouldn't want cars parked on the grass.
There should not be any parking on Beam Avenue relating to Maplewood Toyota's business.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked what the neighbors meant by the statement that Maplewood
Toyota was supposed to build berms to keep the lights and sound from going into the
neighborhood?
Planning Commission -4-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Ekstrand said he worked with Mr. McDaniels on the lighting plan and Mr. McDaniels had
selected light fixtures that gave protection from light glare. There are a lot of lights that shine
downward in a development such as this but he isn't aware of any berms that were required or
where those berms would go.
Andy Hulcher, General Manager, Maplewood Toyota, addressed the commission. Mr. Hulcher
said they agree with the staff report with the exception of the entrance to the main lot.
Logistically they are set up to have customers enter into the first lot. The customers complain
about the traffic flow and tie up at the stop light but it seems the neighbors complain about it more
than anything. He too sits at the stop light every day and night. It's not the perfect situation but
they are hoping the new construction of County Road D would help with the traffic problems. The
employees at Maplewood Toyota have been parking on the street. They are hoping the parking
ramp will take the cars off the street.
Tom Dornack, Project Architect, BWBR Architects, Lawson Commons, 380 St. Peter St., Suite
600, St. Paul. Mr. Dornack said he would like an opportunity to give a presentation after the
neighbors have spoken.
Commissioner Pearson asked why Maplewood Toyota hasn't taken some initiative on their own
to correct that first entrance to the east if nothing else adding an exit to the east or a right turn
only. It's been a problem and it's getting a lot worse. He's not convinced that the new County
Road D is going to change the problem. He asked what Maplewood Toyota's position is adding a
third right turn only on the south side perhaps with a sidewalk?
Mr. Hulcher said it sounds like a good idea. He sees the problem of cars backing up because
one car wants to go straight and the rest want to turn. If a third lane were to be added it would
infringe on the Maplewood Toyota property, if it helps traffic flow better in that area they could be
in favor of that though.
Commissioner Grover asked what the difference was between what staff proposed and what
Maplewood Toyota proposed to a different entrance to the site?
Mr. Ekstrand said there is no difference. He said staff was talking about the two curb cuts to the
southerly site, south of Beam Avenue and thought it makes sense to place some limitations on
that and have the easterly exit an exit only and the westerly drive the entrance into the
Maplewood Toyota to help traffic from backing up along Beam Avenue as much as possible.
Mr. Cavett said an exit only on the easterly drive would be appropriate and an entrance and exit
on the westerly drive would be appropriate, but they haven't looked at that in detail.
Commissioner Grover asked if that was beyond the scope of this proposal?
Mr. Ekstrand said that is a separate CUP but that can be discussed.
Commissioner Grover said maybe that could be added as a motion with this proposal?
Planning Commission -5-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Ekstrand believes so. When the city looks at a CUP the city looks at the impacts on traffic
and if the planning commission feels with the addition of the parking ramp and the additional
inventory this would be a good time to address this situation.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked if a traffic study were to be done in this area who would be
responsible for the cost of the traffic study?
Mr. Ekstrand said normally the city requires the applicant pay for the traffic study. He is not sure
this warrants a full blown traffic study but it sure warrants some study by staff anyway.
Mr. Cavett said if the city felt there were enough traffic issues related to this area the city could
require the applicant to pay for a traffic study. He would agree with Mr. Ekstrand that he doesn't
see that this area warrants a full blown traffic study at this time.
Acting Chairperson Desai said he hears city staff saying there is no reason for a traffic study but
he asked if the city has any traffic data that would support the opposition for the need for a
complete traffic study at this time?
Mr. Cavett said there was a traffic study done as part of the initial MMATI (Maplewood Mall Area
Transportation Improvements) that looked at County Road D and all the access points but he is
not sure if there were any specifications to this intersection. He feels confident there would be
some relief to this intersection with the new County Road D when it is operating fully and doing a
traffic study would be premature because the variables will change in less than six months.
Acting Chairperson Desai said in the mean time this proposal is going to cause further problems
that the city doesn't have any answers to.
Mr. Dornack gave a presentation to the planning commission for this proposal while reviewing the
plan and staff report. Some of the issues he brought up will be discussed with the CDRB at their
next meeting and the planning commission doesn't make decisions on building design and
landscaping.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked how many customers visit the Maplewood Toyota dealership a
day and how many employee vehicles there are. He is trying to get an idea for the amount of
vehicle trips that would be coming and going from the site every day.
Mr. Hulcher said they sell roughly 400 cars a month and typically sell to one out of five
customers. The majority of their business is afternoon, evenings and on Saturdays. They are
closed on Sundays.
Acting Chairperson Desai said that equals about 2000 cars going in and out of the dealership in
an average month. Operating six days a week with the dealership closed on Sundays comes to
25 days a month or 80 car trips a day plus 120 employee cars. That is a lot of vehicles coming
and going from this site.
Planning Commission -6-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Hulcher said one of the neighbors wrote they noticed the extra lot is half empty at night so
why does Maplewood Toyota need a parking ramp for more vehicle storage. The reason the car
lot is not full in the evening hours is because the 90 employee cars that are parked in that lot
leave in the evening hours which make the lot appear not full. There are about 50 employee cars
on Saturday's. The secondary lot with the parking ramp will house a small sales office thatwould
house keys as well so the employees don't have to go across the street to get the keys for the
vehicles.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked if they had thought of moving the sales office to the rear of the
parking ramp area because of the traffic situation?
Mr. Hulcher said the reason the office is in the front of the building is to keep it high profile from a
customer point of view.
Acting Chairperson Desai said from a traffic point of view, he thought it would be better to move
the office farther away so that it doesn't become an obstacle for people looking out at oncoming
traffic driving southbound on Highway 61.
Mr. Hulcher said one of the concerns early in the design and site plan layout was having the
sales office on the northwest side of the site. But because of the 350 -foot setback from
residential they thought it would be best to not having that activity so close to residential so they
moved the sales office to the front of the parking ramp building so it would be farther away from
residential.
Lynn Benson, 2898 Duluth Street, Maplewood addressed the commission. She said in
addition to the concerns regarding the traffic pattern her main concern is the western elevation
that faces her property. Her understanding of the Maplewood Toyota storage lot that exists today
was that the house and garage would remain on the property to help protect the residential
homes from seeing the vehicles but in addition to that, berms would be built to protect the
residents. That did not take place and for that reason this storage lot has negatively impacted
her home on Duluth Street. She lives in the third house from the corner of Beam Avenue and
Duluth Street. Ms. Benson said the lights are a nuisance especially during the winter months.
The light reflects off the snow in the winter and the trees do not protect the homes from seeing
the lights. Ms. Benson said the sales people or customers hit the alarm button on the keychain to
find the car in the lot, which is very annoying having to listen to car alarms day and night.
Ms. Benson said she is concerned that having additional cars parked in the parking ramp will
increase the alarm noise especially because the cars will be parked higher and noise travels.
She would also like the landscaping increased on the westerly elevation to block the view from
the vehicles.
Commissioner Grover asked Ms. Benson what currently blocks her view of the cars?
Ms. Benson said there is a line of deciduous trees planted on the property line which doesn't help
in the winter months. The yellow house on the Maplewood Toyota property blocks her view a
little bit.
Planning Commission -7-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Ekstrand said when he visited the site he thought things were pretty well screened but the
evergreens will probably never be tall enough to screen the vehicles. He hasn't looked at the site
from Ms. Benson's property but staff recommended additional trees be planted in the hopes of
thickening up open spots just in case. However, the amount of tree cover could still bean issue
in the winter months.
Commissioner Grover asked if there was a way the western side of the parking ramp barrier
could be higher to screen more of the cars and light from the residents?
Mr. Ekstrand said that's a good idea and he would share that with the CDRB at their design
review board meeting. That's a concern of staff's as well because the design and appearance of
the parking ramp is critical and very important because it's visible to the neighbors and drivers.
Precast concrete is precast concrete and it could use some architectural features added to it to
add interest. The city should make sure a quality product and design is used and that it doesn't
detract from the neighborhood. In other words it shouldn't look like the Victory ramp in downtown
St. Paul. A good example of nicely designed parking ramp with curb appeal is the St. John's
Hospital parking ramp, and that is what staff recommended in the staff report.
Commissioner Yarwood said he would agree with the comments made. With the unique layout
and the neighbors view of the area the site design and layout is very important. However, he got
the impression from the architect that they were reluctant to stray from the Toyota protocol in
terms of design and he hopes that isn't the case because he thinks this parking ramp needs to
look as nice as possible and the visibility of the residents should be taken into consideration.
Commissioner Grover said particularly for the two sides of the parking ramp that would face
residential which is key here.
Ms. Benson said her main concern is she would prefer not to see cars and would appreciate
having as many trees planted as possible to block the view.
LeAnne Hammer, 1227 Countrrview Circle, Maplewood addressed the commission. She
recently gave her letter to the city so she hopes everyone received a copy of the letter. When
they were going to build a house they purposely didn't buy the single family lots close to the
Maplewood Toyota dealership because they knew the area along Highway 61 would eventually
be built with businesses.
Ms. Hammer said they live here and they know Maplewood Toyota is going to continue to exist so
they have to figure out a way to work together peacefully. She doesn't understand why the city
continues to down play the traffic problems in this area around Maplewood Toyota and the
intersection of Beam Avenue and Highway 61? The traffic is horrendous! Ms. Hammer said to
delay the traffic study is only falsifying the issue. It exists, everybody knows it exists, and
something has to be done. Once you allow Maplewood Toyota to build the parking ramp there
will be minimal things you can do to remedy the situation because the concrete structure will
already be built. You need to address the issues now, don't waste the tax payers money by
doing a traffic study, a study doesn't need to be done, we know the facts, just fix the problem!
Planning Commission -8-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Ms. Hammer said to extend the parking ramp into the setback will destroy the one sidewalk that
exists on Beam Avenue. This sidewalk is used by the Maplewood Toyota employees as well as
the neighborhood so she would be opposed to extending the setback which would eliminate the
sidewalk. You can call it a vehicle storage lot or a parking ramp but those cars are there to be
sold and more car inventory brings in more customers which mean more money for Maplewood
Toyota. They have advertised that they are the number one Toyota dealership in the State. With
additional inventory they will bring more than five customers for every car they sell which means
even more traffic problems. If you take the vehicle storage lot away and build a parking ramp on
top of it, where will the transport trucks deliver the vehicles? They will deliver cars on Beam
Avenue, which will be even more dangerous to the pedestrians and cars in the area. Currently
the transport trucks deliver the vehicles into the storage lot when the employee cars are gone, or
they deliver the vehicles on Beam Avenue when they know they are not supposed to do that.
The southwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 is a bus pickup area and it's amazing
nobody has been hit there. There is a bus bench in dirt on Highway 61 where people wait for the
bus and get dropped off from the bus. People walk down Beam Avenue on the street in front of
Maplewood Toyota then customers try to turn into Maplewood Toyota. It makes for a very
dangerous situation and she is surprised nobody has been hurt or killed yet. Now there will be
more traffic added with the additional car inventory. County Road D is not going to alleviate the
traffic count on Beam Avenue. Beam Avenue is the main road for these residents to get out to
the main roads and they are not going to back track to County Road D and exit onto Highway 61.
People are creatures of habit and they just aren't going to change their driving pattern. Nor are
the customers for Maplewood Toyota going to enter the property from a different location so the
traffic is only going to worsen. Maplewood Toyota has to have a separate driveway entrance to
take away from this traffic congestion at this busy intersection.
Ms. Hammer said it is fine that Maplewood Toyota wants to stay with their Toyota protocol image
for the parking ramp design but be innovative and creative adding additional design features
since this is going to be so close to the residential area. Maplewood Toyota is going to the only
dealership with a parking ramp in the area. In addition Maplewood Toyota is proposing an
additional storage area which means even more car inventory and inventory has to move off the
car lot to make them more money. Maplewood Toyota should look at an entry off of County Road
D or off the frontage road off of LaMettry's Collision to move the Maplewood Toyota customers off
of Beam Avenue. She would also like the lighting addressed which is worse in the winter months
when the trees have lost their leaves and the snow reflects. The loud speakers and paging
system has to go, there is technology available where Maplewood Toyota doesn't need to
announce over the speaker system so the neighbors have to hear each and every page.
Ms. Hammer said it would be nice to have a pedestrian sidewalk on the Maplewood Toyota side
of Beam Avenue so people don't have to walk on the street to catch the bus on Highway 61.
People try to cross the intersection from Beam Avenue across Highway 61 and it is very very
dangerous. Residents in that area drive their kids across the street because it is so dangerous to
cross.
Commissioner Grover said he was not aware there was a bus stop on Highway 61.
Mr. Ekstrand said he wasn't aware of that either.
Planning Commission -9-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Acting Chairperson Desai described where the bus stop was in front of Maplewood Toyota on
Highway 61 south of the intersection. The residents who take the bus have to walk down the
street and go around the corner and wait on Highway 61 for the bus.
Commissioner Pearson told Ms. Hammer that one of the requirements is to eliminate the paging
system at Maplewood Toyota.
Glen Yakel, 2949 Frank Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He has lived in this
neighborhood for 16 years and traffic has severely increased over the years. The east entrance
into Maplewood Toyota needs to be addressed. He believes MnDot could be sweet talked into
changing the stop lights. If the city were to sit down with MnDot and explain the concerns that
have been addressed he is sure something could be changed. He works for a state agency and
he thinks something could be worked out. About six years ago he came to a city meeting and
Ken Haider sat in here and said the same thing and asked for changes and still nothing has
happened. He has issue with the expansion of the Maplewood Toyota building because it will
create even more traffic. The applicant stated in the staff report this would not be a "sales lot" but
yet there will be a sales office within the parking ramp. On page 24 of the staff report it states this
parking ramp would not impact property values. He wondered if they had any documentation or
studies to back that statement up because he doesn't believe it. Maplewood Toyota has been a
very successful operation, they are good neighbors, they run a good business, but they have
outgrown this site. They are so overcrowded that they are parking cars off the lot and on the
grass. The city allows them to expand and they keep overcrowding their lots. He thinks next the
city will be looking at a two story parking ramp? They are going to have the parking ramp,
another storage parking lot and then they are proposing to build a future repair shop along with
the storage parking lot property. Maplewood Toyota has outgrown the neighborhood, they have
outgrown the site and the city keeps giving them what they want, more space for inventory. A new
development has been approved called Maplewood Imports on Highway 61 where car
dealerships will be located, why couldn't Maplewood Toyota move to a large site like this where
they can expand instead of having small sites all over the place? This way they would also be
away from residential dwellings. It is a major thoroughfare on Beam Avenue and traffic going in
and out of Maplewood Toyota just which just adds to the traffic problems here. Now is the time to
do something about the traffic problem at this intersection and he asked the city to please do
something before this parking ramp is built!
Mr. Dornack said if the concern is to have additional building elements on the parking ramp
facing the western and northern edge they could possibly use brick to add more architectural
interest to the structure. Those walls are about 42 inches high which should screen the front part
of the car but the neighbors would probably still see the top of the cars on the parking ramp. The
sales office is more operational but the intent would still be greeted at the main facility so there is
no intent to have customer's cars circling the parking ramp. Mr. Dornack said those are for
employees or to be moving and storing cars there, there is no public parking on the ramp. He
doesn't have any data to support that the property values would remain the same or go down in
value he doesn't see this as a facility that would detract from the value compared to any other
businesses along Highway 61 and the new County Road D.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked if they would be providing signage that says visitors should park
across the street?
Planning Commission -10-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Dornack said there will be no public parking in the parking ramp. But he is not sure about the
signage on the site yet but they would work with city staff to develop that solution to the problem
for the site.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked where the transport trucks would deliver cars since the parking
ramp would be built where they are supposed to unload the cars.
Mr. Hulcher said they have been pretty successful working with the transport trucks to deliver
cars on the center lot but once in awhile they have run into a transport that is unaware of the
stipulations of delivery. He said the new cars would be delivered to the storage lot behind
LaMettry's and the used cars would be delivered to the parking ramp lot on Beam Avenue.
Because of the impact Maplewood Toyota has on the neighborhood they try to keep the
developments as low impact as possible. Maybe they have outgrown the neighborhood, but if
Maplewood Toyota moves out of the area, somebody else will move in and it will not be
apartments. They have been here for 23 years and have tried to get along with the neighborhood
and make their development as attractive as possible. Maplewood Toyota has had some growing
pains but that's a sign of being in a competitive business.
Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing portion of this proposal.
Commissioner Grover said it sounds like traffic is just miserable in this area and there may be
different perspectives of how miserable the traffic is from a neighborhood prospective,
Maplewood Toyota prospective and a staff prospective. He asked how this problem can be
addressed and if it's not addressed during this proposal, then how and when should it be
addressed?
Mr. Cavett said two to three years ago the city did a traffic study here and some changes were
made. There were conversations with MnDot to see if there could be additional time given on the
stop lights on Highway 61 but the city was denied. He is confident traffic will shift when the new
County Road D is operating more that the number of customers attracted to the additional
inventory at Maplewood Toyota. The city could study the traffic problems but he's hesitant to say
it should be done now and he thinks it would be more affective a year from now or the next time
the CUP comes up for a review. He thinks it's premature to make these decisions until the new
County Road D is operating which will be close to Thanksgiving.
Commissioner Grover asked if there would be any traffic on County Road D to access the
Maplewood Toyota lots or property?
Mr. Cavett said there would be access from the frontage road to the north side and Maplewood
Toyota has talked about unloading of cars in that lot. The lot would be used as a temporary
storage lot as the parking ramp is constructed but as they expand there would be some unloading
in the north lot from County Road D and the frontage road and they wouldn't access Beam
Avenue, but the applicant could expand on that.
Planning Commission -11-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Ekstrand said the original Maplewood Toyota site has been approved indefinitely. The last
time the city did a CUP the city determined Maplewood Toyota was up to par and there was no
need for a CUP review. Unless a problem is noted, Maplewood Toyota would not need anymore
CUP reviews. Traffic is an example of a problem and now is the time to take a look at the traffic
issues. Mr. Ekstrand said he agrees that traffic would be impacted, but he didn't feel it would
substantially impact the traffic. However, it has been stated many times tonight by the
commission and neighbors that the traffic would be impacted and if everyone feels thatway, now
would be the time to do something about the traffic.
Mr. Yarwood said it's been said it would be premature to do a traffic study and he agrees the
study should be done when County Road D is complete. He doesn't feel comfortable granting the
CUP until the city has a good handle on traffic in this area. You are talking about residential and
commercial traffic, delivery of cars and trucks across Beam Avenue, buses, pedestrians,
sidewalks and there is so much going on here and there needs to be more done on this issue
before giving city approval for this structure to be built. The appropriate thing may be to table
this proposal for some period of time until the city can have a better handle on this. This may
limit the options in terms of handling pedestrians and other traffic as the city deals with MnDot
and other agencies before building a concrete structure here. He thinks it would be unfair to
grant a CUP that the city would review in a year because once this structure is built there isn't
many options after the structure exists. He doesn't have a problem with a parking ramp per se
but he thinks the city needs to deal with the traffic issues first.
Commissioner Grover asked if the planning commission could table this proposal and if so what
are the ramifications for doing so?
Mr. Ekstrand said the planning commission could table this proposal because the city is not down
to the 60 day rule. City staff can extend this proposal another 60 days without permission by the
applicant. After that, the applicant would have to agree to an additional extension.
Commissioner Grover asked if this was tabled, would this proposal come back before the
planning commission?
Mr. Ekstrand said he believed the traffic analysis could be done in the next few weeks or more.
Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision
for a parking ramp with car sales within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on
the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (Additions are
underlined and deletions are crossed out):
Planning Commission -12-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
All I; t F 'I tiG ; h R " follow th s it e .laR appFOV by the Gity GO All construction shall
follow the site plan date - stamped May 26, 2005, with the exception that the street -side
setbacks for the proposed parking ramp shall be set further back to meet the required 30 -foot
setback requirement. The director of community development may approve minor changes to
the plans.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within
one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may
extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The of the PFOPOSed bUildiRg OR this site O S Rot appFOVed. if the appliGaRt waRtS to
construct this building, it must be at least 350 feet from the residential property line and the
„ laRS must be by the G +. Maplewood Toyota shall stop the use of Beam Avenue
for employee and customer parking. The site and ramp parking plan shall be revised to
incorporate a sufficient number of parking spaces for employees and customers. This plan
must be submitted to staff for approval before the city will issue a building permit.
Vehicle-trans de liveries
continue to be handled on site and not within the right-of-way.
The aoDlicant shall submit a detailed site - liahtina plan that includes fixture desian. Dole
heights and light- spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that
neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread
meet the Darameters of the citv's liahtina ordinance. This Dlan should be submitted for
community design review board approval
7. The applicant shall change their on -site paging system to utilize personal electronic pagers
instead of a broadcast system to stop broadcasts that can be heard in the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
8. The ramp - design plan, with bridge details, shall be revised and resubmitted for community
design review board approval that improves the exterior design and choice of materials. As a
guideline, the applicant shall redesign the exterior of the proposed ramp to be at least as
decorative in materials and appearance as the St. John's Hospital ramp.
9. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval
providing for a continuation of evergreen trees on the west side of the holding pond.
X 10. The east curb cut shall be clearly marked for exit only from the Maplewood Toyota site south
of Beam Avenue.
X 11. A traffic study shall be performed to evaluate the congestion of automobiles and pedestrians
in the area.
Planning Commission -13-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Deny the request for a setback variance from the street right -of -way lines for the reduced parking
ramp setbacks. Denial is because the findings for approval, as required by state statute, cannot
be made. There are no characteristics with the property that would prevent the applicant from
complying with the city code that would cause an undue hardship.
Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded. Ayes — Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson
Nays — Desai, Yarwood
The motion passed.
At this time it is unknown when this item would go to the city council but it was anticipated to be
heard July 11, 2005, it all depends on the traffic analysis.
Acting Chairperson Desai voted nay because he believes the traffic study could provide a
projection of how many cars would use the new County Road D rather than using Beam Avenue.
He has lived here for 12 years and the traffic has only gotten worse over the years and he hasn't
seen anything change, in fact it's getting worse by the day. He begs to differ with the city
engineer because people are creature of habit and they use the short cut driving down Walter
Street and onto Beam Avenue. The stop lights that will be created on the new County Road D
and the Highway 61 intersection will also cause backups with the traffic and nothing will change
on Beam Avenue.
Commissioner Yarwood said he agrees and wanted to table this item until the traffic study was
done. If this proposal gets tabled this would come back before the planning commission. By
agreeing to these conditions this would not come back before the commission, it would go onto
the CDRB and City Council.
Mr. Ekstrand wondered who would conduct the study. The city has to act on proposals within 60
days by state statue and the 60 day rule began May 26, 2005, and ends July 25, 2005, but the
city could extend this another 60 days without their approval.
Mr. Cavett said he would defer this matter to the traffic engineer. This may be a simple traffic
analysis but more than anything it may to be to look at internal traffic flows because Maplewood
Toyota will have three properties and they will be tied to LaMettry's Collision.
Acting Chairperson Desai said as staff stated, the city cannot delay this proposal longer than an
additional 60 days, so delaying this proposal until the new County Road D is operating so the city
can see how the traffic is affected would be out of the question. He supports having the traffic
study now. The planning commission wouldn't be privy to the traffic study results, but the city
council would be given the results and the city council makes the final decision anyway.
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2005
1T�1111 .lyl.161 :117- 11111y1 .1 *1y
a. Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Parking and Sales Facility — Northwest corner of
Beam Avenue and Highway 61, across the street from the existing sales lot.
Ms. Finwall said on June 28, 2005, the community design review board reviewed plans by
Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, for a proposed one -level parking ramp. This would
be one parking deck over the existing parking lot at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and
Highway 61.
Ms. Finwall said essentially, the CDRB tabled this proposal so the applicant could improve the
quality of materials and design. Since the meeting, Mr. McDaniels' architects, BWBR
Architects, have met with staff and revised their plans to address the board's concerns and
recommended changes. The proposed ramp was initially proposed with smooth white
concrete spandrels (panels) on the upper deck. The board wanted to see a material with a
softer look with the type of material and color. The architects have submitted two different
revised plans. The first plan is a tan colored concrete panel with a more muted look along with
the red striping and the second plan is a gray /white color concrete panel with the red striping
which would match the existing building located across the street. City staff prefers the tan
colored panel since it's more muted and softer in appearance. Steve McDaniels, the owner of
Maplewood Toyota, prefers the white panels with the red striping since it matches the existing
building and is the Toyota protocol.
Ms. Finwall said on June 20, 2005, the planning commission recommended approval of the
CUP. They added a requirement that a traffic study be done to evaluate the current problem of
traffic congestion at Beam Avenue and Highway 61 as it relates to Maplewood Toyota's
existing operation as well as the potential effect from the proposed parking ramp addition.
They also added a requirement that the easterly curb cut on the Maplewood Toyota site south
of Beam Avenue be clearly marked as an "exit only ".
Board member Shankar said because he is employed with BWBR Architects, the architect for
Maplewood Toyota, he is going to abstain from the conversation and from voting due to a
conflict of interest.
Chairperson Longrie asked the applicant to address the board.
Mr. Andy Hulcher, General Manager of Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board.
Mr. Tom Dornack, Project Architect for BWBR Architects, Lawson Commons, 380 St. Peter
Street, Suite 600, St. Paul, addressed the board. He said for the north lot they brought a plan
for the retaining wall and a sample of the retaining block they would use for the board to
review. The preference of Maplewood Toyota is to use the white smooth concrete spandrels
on the ramp with the red striping as originally submitted. They submitted two additional
revisions for the board to review. They are open to texturing the surface of the concrete to add
Community Design Review Board 2
Minutes 7 -26 -2005
more interest but would prefer to go with the white smooth concrete finish. He presented
building samples for the board to review.
Board member Hinzman said the white painted concrete sample doesn't provide a lot of variety
in color and if it was a white aggregate product with some other colors in it he may be more apt
to choose that. He would agree with staff that the tan aggregate product provides a muted
appearance and more variety of color.
Board member Olson said after looking at the revised building samples she prefers the smooth
white panels rather than the textured product and she likes the red banding but would prefer
the red banding to be textured. After visiting the site again she thinks the white panel is a
better choice because of the Toyota protocol and the fact that the buildings need to speak to
each other. In her research she discovered there are only two other automobile parking ramps
in the Twin City area.
Board member Olson said this parking ramp sets a precedence and that concerns her. She
has changed her mind since the last CDRB meeting and feels comfortable with the smooth
white concrete panels but would prefer to have the red band textured.
Chairperson Longrie said she likes the red banding because it ties in with the Toyota emblem
and seems to be the finishing touch on the building. It's important to look forward to the future.
The Toyota prototype is the white and red building products and she believes that's what
would look the nicest especially with the existing Maplewood Toyota building. She said she
likes texture and visual interest but thinks the smooth white building product looks the nicest.
Board member Ledvina said he likes the red stripe but would prefer it in a textured or
aggregate finish and he asked if that was an option at this point or did it have to be smooth?
Mr. Dornack said there are many ways the precast concrete company can do things but he
wants to confirm that the red stripe could be textured before that becomes part of the record.
He also wanted to state that for any other projects that would come before the city for
Maplewood Toyota they would prefer to stay with the corporate protocol for Toyota using the
white finish on their buildings.
Board member Olson said she is pleased with the efforts that Maplewood Toyota has gone to
take care of the concerns the board has had.
Chairperson Longrie agreed and she is happy with the landscaping additions that have been
submitted.
Board member Hinzman agreed.
Board member Olson moved to approve the parking -ramp plan revisions, the lighting plan and
the landscaping plan date - stamped July 15, 2005, and July 21, 2005, for the proposed parking
ramp proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway
61. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions: (changes made by the CDRB
during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted)
Community Design Review C•. •
Minutes 7-26-2005
PlaRS FefeFP-.RC--.P-d- a-hG-Ve d-ePiGted OR the west. The approved color shall be the
smooth white ta-P option with a textured red strip aggFegate spand
2. Submit a detailed lighting plan to staff for approval showing the proposed fixture
design and pole heights. There shall be no lights that shine toward the west. There
shall be no lights mounted on the west of the proposed ramp that shine to the west.
3. Submit a revised landscaping plan to staff for approval that states that the proposed
evergreen trees would be at least six feet tall and be balled and burlapped.
4. Submit an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of
the cost of completing the landscaping and site lighting.
5. These items must be provided before the city shall issue a building permit.
Board member Hinzman seconded. Ayes — Hinzman, Ledvina, Longrie, Olson
Abstention - Shankar
The motion passed.
Agenda Item K11
SUMMARY
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Maplewood Toyota Parking Lot Proposal
LOCATION: Highway 61 between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse
DATE: August 1, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, and BWBRArchitects, are proposing to build a
parking lot on the vacant lot between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. The
applicants propose to build a 24,920- square -foot pervious -paver parking area toward the
back of the site. This would be a permanent parking pad for vehicle- inventory storage.
The front 270 feet, 39,000 square feet, of the site would be a temporary, gravel parking
lot. This temporary parking area would be to store the cars that are currently being kept
on the applicant's parking lot at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61
(the applicant's proposed parking -ramp site). This temporary parking is needed for the
relocation of cars during the parking ramp construction.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following:
• A CUP (conditional use permit) for a vehicle- storage parking lot. The code allows
parking lots as a primary use by CUP.
• Site and landscaping plans.
DISCUSSION
Staff feels that with proper landscaping /screening for buffering from the residential
property to the west, this project will fit the zoning criteria of the M1 (light manufacturing)
zoning district. Staff recommends approval of this proposal, subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to store cars on the vacant
property between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse.
B. Approve the site and landscaping plans.
p:com_dvpt \Maplewood Toyota Parking Lot Summary
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Maplewood Toyota Parking Lot Proposal
LOCATION: Highway 61 between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse
DATE: August 1, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Steve McDaniels, of Maplewood Toyota, and BWBR Architects, are proposing to build a parking
lot on the vacant lot between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. The applicants
propose to build a 24,920- square -foot pervious -paver parking area toward the back of the site.
This would be a permanent parking pad for vehicle- inventory storage. The front 270 feet, 39,000
square feet, of the site would be a temporary, gravel parking lot. This temporary parking area
would be to store the cars that are currently being kept on the applicant's parking lot at the
northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61 (the applicant's proposed parking -ramp site).
This temporary parking is needed for the relocation of cars during the parking ramp construction.
In the "Project Summary Narrative," the applicant refers to the proposed graveled parking area as
"temporary /permanent." They intend to use this graveled parking lot until Mr. McDaniels is ready
to proceed with his intended use of this site which he would propose later as an auto - repair
facility for Maplewood Toyota. Refer to the applicant's letters and plans.
Requests
The applicant is requesting that the city council approve the following
• A CUP (conditional use permit) for a vehicle- storage parking lot. The code allows parking
lots as a primary use by CUP.
• Site and landscaping plans.
BACKGROUND
This site was created in 1997 by the lot division that also established the LaMettry Collision and
the Maplewood Toyota development sites to the south. Mr. McDaniels recently purchased this
property to expand his Maplewood Toyota dealership operation. The City of Maplewood also
recently purchased the drainage pond on Mr. McDaniel's property for area - ponding purposes.
IQ6Y811b :9[a]ki I
CUP for Car Storage
There are two main issues to consider with this proposal. First are the impacts on the residential
neighbors from a visual standpoint (lights and screening) and the second is compliance with the
Shoreland Ordinance impervious - surface area requirements.
uPTW.S.1[iTi1RaCI11rT7i'�
An important issue is whether the proposed parking lot impacts the residential neighbors.
Vehicle parking in an M1 (light manufacturing) district is a common use. The concerns, though,
are how to buffer the proposed parking lot adequately from neighbors in order to make sure that
the site lights do not cause any nuisance and to try to screen the parking lot from view.
Landscaping: City code requires that the applicant provide a six - foot -tall and 80 percent opaque
screen as a buffer for the neighbors. The proposed plan does not do this. The plan must be
revised to meet this requirement. It was evident upon visiting the site that screening will not be
easily accomplished. The neighboring residential properties are considerably higher in grade
than the proposed parking lot. Landscaping will be ineffective until it grows to gain an effective
height. Staff recommends a very thick combination of evergreens and thick - crowned overstory
trees along the west side and northwest corner of the proposed parking lot. The applicant has
revised the plan with additional evergreens to accomplish this but staff feels that some overstory
trees would still be beneficial in the northwest corner of the site.
Site Lights: There are six back -to -back pole lights proposed. The lighting plan shows the
illumination intensities at points in the proposed parking lot, but there is little additional
information. The applicant should be required to resubmit a fully - detailed lighting plan with fixture
design, pole heights and light- spread intensities at residential lot lines. The applicant's goal in
designing such a plan should be to ensure that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses
directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the lighting ordinance.
Shoreland Ordinance Compliance
While negotiating with Mr. McDaniels for ownership of the holding pond, the city engineer and the
city's engineering consultant calculated the amount of impervious surface area that would be
allowed. The proposed temporary gravel parking lot is considered to be impervious due to the
compaction of this material that occurs. The pervious -paver parking lot system is considered to
be impervious because of this method's ability to soak up water and filter it before discharge to
the pond.
The city engineering staff has determined that the proposed parking lot meets the requirements
of the shoreland ordinance with a slight modification. The engineering recommendation is that
one tenth of an acre of parking that is shown as impervious material (gravel) be left grass or
installed with pervious pavers. Refer to the Engineering Plan Review comments in the
attachments.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
June 20, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP to store cars.
June 28, 2005: The CDRB approved the plans for the proposed parking lot.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to store cars on the property
between LaMettry Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. Approval is based on the findings
required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan date - stamped May 26, 2005, and also shall
follow any conditions attached herein. The director of community development may
approve minor changes to the plans.
The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized
within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The
council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant shall comply with the impervious - surface requirements of the Shoreland
Ordinance and the impervious - surface area requirements determined by the
Maplewood Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005. The applicant
shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking
surface by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance.
5. The applicant shall incorporate low- impact development improvements on the parcel
south of Beam Avenue by September 30, 2007, as outlined in the June 7, 2005,
Engineering Plan Review by the city's engineering department. The applicant and /or
his engineer should meet on site with the city engineering staff to discuss what
options would be appropriate and effective.
The property owner shall obtain city approvals and begin construction of a permanent
building on this site by September 30, 2007, to coincide with the deadline for gravel
removal. This is because this parking lot is considered to be needed for the
applicant's desired future building. Parking lots by themselves as a primary use must
be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. Parking lots that are accessory
to a building may be 20 feet from residential property lines.
B. Approve the plans date - stamped May 26, 2005, and the revised ramp and landscaping
designs date - stamped July 15, 2005, for the Maplewood Toyota parking lot between LaMettry
Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. Approval is subject to applicant doing the following:
1. The applicant shall submit a detailed site - lighting plan that includes fixture design,
pole heights and light- spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure
that neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and
light spread meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be
submitted to staff for approval.
2. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to staff for approval providing for additional
overstory trees along with the evergreens proposed for the northwest corner of the
site. The site shall also have an in- ground irrigation system installed when the future
building is built. The landscaping plan shall also provide sod on the east, north and
south sides of the parking lot. The pond area to the west can remain natural.
3. The design of the retaining wall is approved. Areas where the retaining wall exceeds
four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer and have a protective
fence on top. The design of the fence shall be submitted to staff for approval.
4. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative effect to the Gulden's parking
lot or property due to their parking lot construction and retaining wall.
The Class -5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean
aggregate may be used subject to the approval of the city engineer and the
Ramsey /Washington Watershed District. This gravel parking lot shall not be used
longer than two construction seasons, but no later than September 30, 2007, after
which time, it must be removed or replaced with a permanent surface. At that time, if
the parking lot remains in use, the parking lot must be upgraded with concrete curbing
as required by ordinance.
The applicant shall submit cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit before the
issuance of a grading permit to cover the cost of installing all required landscaping.
This escrow shall be in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of all landscaping.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 53 surrounding property owners for their opinions about the two Maplewood
Toyota proposals. Please note that many of the replies below pertain specifically to the
southerly lot at the corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. Of the 11 replies, none were in
favor, nine were opposed and two expressed concerns or raised questions.
Opposed
• Traffic is too unbearable at Beam and 61 already. This will make it worse. Make them
stop parking on Beam Avenue. The site is already fully developed. (Leanne Hammer,
1227 Countryview Circle)
I have a number of questions and concerns. Who in our community will benefit from
these projects? How will noise be contained? Loudspeakers and car alarms are ever
present! Why does the city consider this a valuable consideration /project? What will the
owner /developer give back to the city and the neighbors? I presume those projects will
benefit the auto dealers by providing larger inventory, additional sales and greater profits.
Is this what the city wants to see? I say don't. (Donald and Marguerite Newpower, 2946
Duluth Street)
Absolutely No! Since this development (Kohlman Lake) has been built, Toyota has
expanded, LaMettry has been built, Country View is gone —the feel of the neighborhood is
fast diminishing. A parking ramp ?! And then another (north lot)? No way! It is hard
enough to feel safe on Duluth Street for my kids with biking and walks. The traffic light &
three entrance /exits for Toyota (61 /Beam) already create traffic backup and unsafe
residential conditions. The traffic light needs to be green longer —the right turn lane
should be right turn only We need sidewalks from Duluth Street /Beam Avenue all the
way to the library /mall area. No other dealership has a 2 -story raised parking ramp /lot.
Let alone a dealership that neighbors a residential area. As you can tell, I'm very much
opposed to this plan, as I'm sure much of my neighbors are. Please pass this along to
any applicable parties. If I can be of further help, please let me know. (Karen and Rich
Mahr, 1243 Duluth Court)
• Please refer to the attached letters from:
Lynn Benson, 2898 Duluth Street
Greg and Lorraine Johnson, 1233 Duluth Court
James Anderson, 2890 Duluth Street
Christopher and Mary Trembath, 2908 Frank Street
Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin, 2882 Duluth Street
Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian, 1221 Countryview Circle
In summary, these letters express the following concerns and comments:
• There is a current lack of landscaping. More is needed to screen the parking lot.
• The current lighting is very bright. Perhaps a roof on the ramp will be beneficial.
• Pedestrian traffic in Toyota's crosswalk across Beam is a nuisance.
• There's no allowance for employee or customer parking. Stop their on- street
parking.
• The easterly curb cut of their original site is too close to the corner.
• Lot lighting is a nuisance now.
• Loudspeakers are a nuisance currently.
• A concrete ramp to look at would be unsightly.
• Traffic at this intersection is crazy and too congested.
• Why do we have zoning laws if they are not followed?
• Restripe the lanes and improve traffic flow on Beam so traffic isn't so jambed up.
• Have Toyota build a noise wall to eliminate garbage - hauler and P.A. system
noise.
• The ramp would degrade the residential properties.
• The parking on Beam should end.
• Safety concerns: Blind spot due to the ramp? Traffic bad already.
Concerns /Comments /Questions
• Keep lights & noise down! (Robert Anderson, 1242 Duluth Ct)
• Would this project be possible in some other configuration without a variance? (Hubbard
Broadcasting, 3415 University Avenue)
2
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Existing Use: Vacant, except for an overlap of driveway paving from the LaMettry Collision site.
Site size: 2.7 acres.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Gulden's Roadhouse and the future Heritage Square 4th Addition town homes
South: LaMettry Collision and Maplewood Toyota
East: Highway 61
West: Single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M1
Criteria for CUP Approval
Section 36- 442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP subject to the nine standards for
approval noted in the resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on May 26, 2005. State law
requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal.
The applicant has agreed to a 60 -day time extension, however. The review deadline for city
council action is now September 23, 2005.
p:sec4 \Maplewood Toyota Parking Lot 6'05 te3
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Land Use Map
4. Site Plan
5. Landscaping Plan
6. Project Summary Narrative date - stamped June 6, 2005
7. CUP Submittal Justification date - stamped June 6, 2005
8. Letter from Lynn Benson dated June 6, 2005
9. Letter from Greg and Lorraine Johnson dated June 5, 2005
10. Letter from James R. Anderson dated June 1, 2005
11. Survey -reply from Christopher and Mary Trembath dated May 26, 2005
12. Letter from Karen Carlson and Tracy Sellin dated June 1, 2005
13. Survey -reply from Michael Schenian and Judi Johnston Schenian dated May 26, 2005
14. Engineering Review Comments from Chuck Vermeersch dated June 7, 2005
15. CUP Resolution
16. Plans date - stamped May 26, 2005 (separate attachment)
17. Plans date - stamped July 15, 2005 (separate attachment)
Attachment I
11
I Cn
VENBURG
TIRE
GULDEN'S
OSF
__.JPROP
OPEN PARKING
METTRY
COLLJSSION,-.,--
MAPLEWOOD
TOYOTA
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
RA AND
MP
7A
CAR I S
SALES
BE
MAPLEWOOD
---i TOYOTA
IN
Attachment 2
9
I
7
zI
r
r
t
y vi 1°
r� l a V
t -� ~
i
su
5't+
t
iy ,+�
k i$, - Z
t""�'x�,�,•. �t
_ >
I
_V
CTT•i.11.[l
L
BEAM AVE
4
I
f?
PROP OSED T
OPEN PARKING",-.,�
1
who
Q RAMP AND',-
zi lka iw saws LUL
Al
milli
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L-.4A
Z1.01" A
Attachment 3
Cos
990MCM
I
10
Attachment 4
i
I
i
�
® �
tr4
?
9 0
tv a,
y
2
Q �0
GULDEN'S
TEMPORARY
7i
PROP SED ....,
--
=. OPEN
..
PARKING
& FUTURE
1
t ,
s
REPAIR GARAGE
f
A' tach:Ten � 5
rG
s I
.3 c Rtr R 2
12
Attachment b
MEMORA-
Maplewood Toyota -Ramp and Service
Maplewood, M-innesota
B%VBR Comm. #: 2004,21
To
From
Date:
Subject:
cc:
Torn Ekstrand, Ci7f Rarner, Qr.- o
I
Roger Larson, BWBR ikrchitects
Torn Do-nack, BWBR.
J une une 6, 200
Plaamrg Co Sucrnival
Szeve McDarut's, Maplewood Toyota
Jake Bcez'cooc., K.A. -St. Paul
JU 0 6 2005
Steve McDanicls, the of Maplewood Toyota, plans to do substar'Eve construct a on on rIs
proper-aes --ior-h of Beam Avenue and west or I-Lghway 61.
ive oftihree phases is outlined below for clariEc a" on ofwhazwork is done and in what
order.
I. Project Sur=ary Narrative
Nor, Lo - Phase, hertica'tr to be rcicr-red to as NLP, 'grade level car storlag--) ce-�elops the
`,e, I I
nor--Iier=os: property to level that w1 support car storage while a Sol-&- Lot
Phase, SLP 'One level storage ramp above me exis:hi:r storage pan'cna lot) is constructed.
Tne automobile inventory from th"C' south lot reql-iires relocation to allow conrinuador. of
business d-ar ^g construc-ion and beyond.
7 I
- SLP will completed when the one ieve! storage ramp, the lower levc! sales ofmce. an
the landscape and sl:--- L-np-overnents are tindshdd.
The Nor-± Lor will .ems an irver-ory car storage after e 0- Lot i co
L t S um � s ns:.-U(:--.d.
13
Djgt 2 oF2
A. North Lot Phase (LNLP):
The Z0r rec,uirernen for the site requires 50 pervious 'and use. The Owner has an
agreement With the City for :-is ratio to 30 Pervious and 7 10 ° , 'o impervious chi ough
I
aLlowancts granted for l
:
Prior land agreements with the Cu'v o_Naol-wood,
I I I
- fn-- west side of she site wLIJ have permanent pervious paving, wl is 30N ot &,-- site area.
The remaining 70% may be temporanr/ I permane'.... and constructed wi h Class 1 gravel base.
THe Jerv. pavement will be a manufactured pavers system twat allows water ptrietiauon.
This prase requires:
A Con ' ona: Use Parrn-it for the (_NLP ") proposed storage or velucles w h n 350
feet of a residential district.
2. A variance (NI.P 2) for storage of motor vehicles witHLn 350 fee- of a residential
d-, sW c-.
1.
A one-level storage parking ramp be constructed above the existing or-grade veb-'cle
storage 'or. Trws des'g- does no- add additional impervious land use to the site. as zlrie site is
current'; paved to :he allowable rruu6mum. The upper parking deck level rnai-a rai --s the
nur-ma: setbacks --'-at are currently in p'ace for the current on-grace lo-.
The one 'evel storage ramp is constructed of orecast concrete and includes a ore -star; saves
ofEce area below the southeast comer. The " is '.54 feet from the aciJactru residential
district and requscs a variance and Cordidonal Use Petrnit, as it : s closer Eian 330 Etdt to a
residential distract.
Access to -the one level parking deck is via -we nearly constructed drive lanes /budges from
the Owner's propert-i on the north adjacent lo-.
This phase requires:
I A Conditional Use Pe=t for a a--itornonve related business StrLICtUre l0Ca C'oser
than 350 feet from an adjacent residential zoo-mg district , "SLI?
2. A variance for a structure closer r-an 350 fee. from an adjacent resident a' zomrg
d-'sutc- "SLP 2'1.
3. A variance - .0 Irav a structure wirh:L ^. 30 feet
Avenue on the sou:-'q side oE se -iroperry (SLP
/ce
from _"glat-of-w ay lrnes o Beam
3).
14
L aseson C o r, s 360 S -. P 5 S t 6 - 1 0 Sa i nt P a v-1, 9 Lti 55:02 -i996 63'_2223?01 651222$961
RECEIVED
JUN 0 6 2005
Atta chment
BWB necti'rec`rs Maplewood Toyota -Ramp and Service
Maplewood, Minnesota
BIYBR Comte. #: 2004.214.00
May 11, 2005
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DESIGN SUBMITTAL
NLP 1 City of Maplewood "Zoning Ordinance Section 44 -512 (5) (b)
■ Storage of motor vehicles are to be located no closer than 350' -0" from the adjacent
residential zoning district.
A Conditional Use Perm t is requested for allowing storage within the 350' requirement listed above,
Land Use:
The intended use for the land parcel is for storage of Maplewood Tovota's automobile inventory.
The site will have 30% permeable pavers on the west side and 70% Class 5 general aggregate on the
remaining eastern two- thirds of the site area.
Reasons For Approval:
1. The Owner has worked with the City of Maplewood through sale and transfer of adjacent
Land. It was understood at the time of sale that Nlaplewood Toyota planned to use this
parcel for the business of car sales. Maplewood Toyota continues, and expects, to use this
parcel as previously agreed.
2. The existing character of the surrounding parcels that front Highway 61 are similar in nature
to the car storage use requested.
1 Current property values will be maintained. Regardless of specific use, perceived Land use
would most likely be commercial in nature,
4. - Nlotor vehicle storage is riot a perceived hazard or innately unsightly. The vehicles are
generally new.
5. Maplewood Toyota intends to store vehicles for their business use, The vehicles are parked
and retrieved by employees. The storage area is not a sales lot. Access to the lot is primarily
through Maplewood Toyota's adjacent property and not on City public access routes.
6. Site requirements are currently supported by public utilities and services.
7. The project allows for 30% pervious pavement as agreed to by existing land agreements.
8. The existing parcel is an undeveloped weed} field. The proposed use is seen to be a general
improvement. Stormwater management has been considered when desigxung this site.
Pervious pavement is utilized to encourage best stormwater management techniques.
/cc
Ft
I.swsor: Coimnon., 3W St. Peter Street, Saute 600 S:tiit Paul, IVIN 55102- 1996 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 ��nxnc=.bmbr.com
Attachment 8
From:
Lynn Benson Uynogo(tannU.nonnl
Sent:
Monday, June O0.2UO5B:b7ANY
To:
TumEkstcaod
Subject:
Maplewood Toyota development proposals
Dear Mr. Etntzaod,
-`m writing in response to the proposed ieveloymeot by our neighbors at Maplewood royo
I have several concerns. The first is in regard to -the landscaping. ee were nozy
disappoiuned at -be negative effect their original parting lot has had on tbe view ±rmn
our home. I was very dissatisfied with the lack of a landscape berm from their original
project oo tbe site. From the D*rspective of cur home, we see no evergreen trees in 'be
line of sight to - he west side of Tvvnta's parking lot. Tlbznogbcoc the year we have clear
sigbc of the cars and czocts and light -from the lot. It was my oudecstaud_'ug that tbay
were zegoized by the city planners to provide a landscape berm at least rix -feet iu
beig�t. is my understanding l:bat cbo definition or a bozm is an earthen barrier. It
appears they have neglected this requirement in their original development of the site. It
appears that this new proposal will not have any new lauscapiog or berm added on -the south
site.
We would greatly appreciate if a berm taller than 10 feet with additinua� e,ecgzo*o
trees could be added to the neot side of their parking let cu yznvide screening from the
view nt their cars. We would be very pleased if this current 9zuject included a roof nu
the top of the pa--king ramp co block the view of cars as our bnoa is at a bighez elevatiuu
than the toy of their ramp would have. *e would pzefez co view e building rather than
actos.
A second concern T mentioned along with 'he first. The lighting on their lot ia very
bright at night and shines into our bedroom vindows. rs there any way to reduce the light
pollution Iortbez. Perhaps enclosing the top of their parking ramp would help with light
pollutios in the area so tbev wnaida`t have lights no higher than tbey do cozzeotiv.
auutb*z comment z have is �eqazdiu9 tzie pedestrian traffic in their crosswalk. Is tbere
any way they could add a pedestrian bridge to cross Beam. Ave. to their plans? With the
short length of the stop light for easchuuod traffic on Beauo, it io difficult to have to
wait for pedestrians when the light changes botnze you get to the intersection.
& Iuurtb concern I have is tbciz lack of parking for cbciz empinyees.
Zvco before their current lot was in place employees had to park on Beam Ave. We xere
scz?zioed when tk*y atill didn't make allowance Iuz employee parking with their new
parking lot. z know it affects our neighbors living on Beam Avenue. 'Kill they ever have
enough space for their employees to park?
?lease call me with questions about mv remarks 76). ?bauk you -for soliciting
our opinions regarding this development. We greatly appreciate the city planse-s'
consideration of residential tanpavecs and voters ooiuioos and look Ioc*azd to t-e cur!_-c
hearing no this matter.
oiuoezely,
L7ou eeusua
2898 Duluth St.
Maplewood
- -65l-48l-UU76
16
Attachment 9
June 5, 200-S
Tom kstrand — Senior Planner
Office of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MIN 55109
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
This letter is in regards to the development proposal for Maplewood Tovota as described
in your letter of May 26, 2005.
First a little background. When most of the residents to the west purchased their homes,
M aplewood Tovota was a small dealer located on the SW comer of Hi ghway 61 and
I - I
Beam Ave. Since then, they have expanded to the north into what was up to that time a
parcel that had been used for pumpkin and Christmas tree sales and have also built a large
service facility (along with LeMettry Collision) to the north.
With their current growth, there have been negative effects on the adjacent residents:
I. The current driveway entrance into the south lot is too close to the comer.
When northbound cars are turning west onto Beam L there is usually a car that
stops as soon as they get on Beam waiting to turn into the dealer forcing
vehicles behind to stop and wait in the middle of the intersection. This
driveway location is very dangerous and will cause an accident (if not
already). Although this driveway entrance was there before their present
expansion, the growth of the dealer and the increased number of homes have
made it more dariaerous.
0
I The dealer was granted permission to have a marked crosswalk just past the
driveway entrance. If you don't have to stop for a car turning into the south
lot, quite often you have to stop for salespeople and customers in the
crosswalk. Many times dealer employees and customers will step out into the
crosswalk without giving a vehicle proper time to stop. State law requires all
vehicles to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk but the pedestrians also need to
use good judgment to give a vehicle proper time and distance to safely stop.
This is not always the case.
3. Since expanding to the parcel north of Beam, the lot figh is very visible
gh �
and invasive to the surrounding homes. With construction of a parking ramp,
the lights will be taller, and will affect more homes and to a much greater
degree than the current lighting.
4. The dealer has also installed an outside loudspeaker pagma system that is very
audible for the adjacent residents.
/ -Y -- Sok ),fc, c' Iz
PE_ 5
C 4. 17
City Of Maplewood Attachment 10
Attn: Tom Ekstrand — Senior Planner
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, NIN 55109
RE: Development Proposal — Maplewood Toyota
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
This letter is in response to the lettef sent out dated May 26, 2005 on the Maplewood
Toyota expansion. I have lived at 2890 Duluth Street for the last seven years and in
Maplewood my entire life. Maplewood Toyota has been a good neighbor and I and others
in my family have purchased all our vehicles from Maplewood Toyota.
I do have one concern currently and several concerns on the future proposal.
Currently, they have a loud speaker or paging system that goes out over the car lot
directly behind our houses. In the warmer months, all my neighbors and myself
can hear every page over the system when we have our windows open or when
we are out in our back yards. Those speakers need to be re-directed towards
highway 61 and away from our homes.
The view out my back window keeps changing. I'm not sure I want to look out at
a concrete structure with more car and people traffic. A few years ago, we agreed
to an overflow parking lot with a house and pond as a bLrlRr zone.
The highway 61 and Beam Avenue intersection is already crazy with car and
people traffic. It looks like the new sales center on the other side of Beam Avenue
would just add to an already busy intersection. I have almost hit people darting
out into traffic trying to cross Beam Avenue. Turn lanes into the new facility are
also and issue.
One solution to create a better buffer zone is to build an 8-10 foot concrete privacy fence
on the back of our property line. Or, add many more 8-10 foot blue spruce trees along the
property line to help in the winter months when the leaves fall off the trees. This does not
fix the additional pedestrian traffic crossing Beam Avenue going to and from the
proposed new sales office.
I have worked hard and paid a lot of money for my home. I deserve the li to enjoy the
peace and quiet of living in Maplewood. Plus, I don't want to worry about the declining
value of my home with commercial growing closer and closer.
I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns and comments,
Sincerely,
James R. Anderson
2890 Duluth Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
651-483-8954
RECEIVED
JUN 0 1 2005
18
Attachment l
OnristophirrTTreout h
MnrvT'7recubuth
2908 Frank St �N
vlap/ov/ood,N/N 55109
This letter isho get your opinion UOaproposaikodmvmo property in your neighborhood.
Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build a one-levei parking ramp on their
property at the northwest comer mf Beam Avenue and Highway G1. This would be one elevated
eve) [f parking above the ground-level parking already iDplace. The applicant /sa[ooproposing
to install @ parking lot oO their pro b Gu|dmn's and LaMettry Collision. They would
park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south, |tis proposed tu
become a car-storage lot in the future, however, with the potential for the Construction of a multi-
level rarnp.Flafartutheapp!im@nt's|Gttmrendthmnnapattachnnents.
council, Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any
attar-hments on which you have written comments, by June 6, 2005.
|f you would like further information, please call /Ueat651-24Q-2302 between 8a.Mn. and
4:J8p,8n. You can ais0 email rV8mt .i will send you notices
of the public hearing on this request when it is scheduled. Thank you for your comments, Iwj[|
give them careful consideration.
Enclosures:
/.
Applicant's Project Gun:nlory
2�
Location Map
1
Site P|an~-8outhSite
4.
Site Plan—North Site
5.
Landscaping P(mn-~{S8uthSite
8.
Landscaping Plan—North Site
7.
Ramp Design Elevations
8,
Parking Ramp Perspective
l have no comments:
c�441 (noclf't��*^J tASe. / ��/Y9/��e�*�� t7we �o/� r
���eo / '
J ' r'�~
0n�
�
54
c\ 5�'is A,-/n 'n f\k� /�0rx,/� u/6" fle F�1_Y'retoC 'u/»��f/��e-7�'ayA 0 /o�c6x,
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX: 5Sl-248-23Y9
C/rvOrMapLEvr000 1O3OCoum7Y ROAD BEAST
K4ApLcvr000/k4N551OS lg
� ��
��������
- 7 - M��2 G A-DOi7`]01%JtJL-
N� 72) 13e I�C--SUL-vc-o
Attachment 12
Karen Carlson Tracy Sellin 2882 Duluth St Maplewood ivrN1 55109
Development Proposal Response — Maplewood Toyota
• Do not believe the ramp is necessary given the -amount of space Toyota owns and the
fact that the parking of has open space every night.
a Believe that 'ovO-La should have to meet ordinances and should not be granted further
variances that impact residential ardas or wildlife.
Aesthetics
• Personally think it would look bad and according to retutors opinions (,whom we have
discussed this project with) they believe a narking ramp would likely degrade residential
Property value. Has any assessment been completed to verify this? Why not put the ramp at
the south come- of current property'?
• If approved, we are requesting Toyota to plant many more trees and/or scrubs so
residential properties would not have to view the ramp.
• Expect City of Maplewood to ensure, if granted, the ramp is visually appealing {end *o
end) and graffiti will be i =, echatetv removed.
Environmental
• Has an -environmental impact study been completed? Highly concerned that continued
pervious ratio variances would impact wildlife and residential sump systems.
• Run off is also high concern, ii--ed to ensure that it flows away from residential property
such that it does not create awater problem for residential property and flood wildlife that
currently live between the residential property and commercial property.
• Think ram gardens are a good star- but, who ensures that these are maintained and
functioning properly?
• Who is liable if changes in pervious to impervious ratio negatively impact residential
property?
• Ask that if approved, City to enforce no Toyota employees to park on Beam and Duluth
crossing or anywhere else on BetuniTlicy currently parking there all day even though space
is available in their lots.
Safety
• Will this increase ca.- traffic on Beam for the long term? Bearr. & Hwy 61 already a
bottleneck. High level of traffic taming onto Beam (at times) creates a bottleneck due to
volume of cars in and out of current parking lot. Since the parking lot entrance is less that I
block from a busy intersection, we are concerned that this wili become an accident-prone
area. Multiple incidences of vehicle -to- vehicle and pedestrian to vehicle close calls. More
parking will logically increase incidents, please comment as to why this should not be of
concern, And what measures are being taken to ensure this will not become a safety hazard.
• Believe building of this size, given the iirnitotl set back, will create a blind spot for
drivers at intersection of Beam & Hwy 61. Again seems like a potential safety hazard.
• Traffic already an issue due to construction on Edgerton, and CNT Y D. W en will the
project (,if approved) s'La,-t and end?
June 1 . 2005 21
Ka.e:,uCa-1,3o:i Tracy Scll'r- 2882 Dulu'h St:N4aplewoocl'Nf_N 55 109
Project
Expect that if approved, guidelines on time of day for construction, wOL11(i he rcasonab7e.
U. I I
Ovemll
Do not believe a park-in.- ramp fits in this location and truly believe it will
create a safety hazard. Additionally, it appears that it Has a high probability of having a
negative impact on wildlife & residential properties (run-off & safety), I Lope the City of
-Maplewood will consider the input and concerns of the residential population and ensure
that our concerns are fully addressed 'f the city decides to approv-, this request,
June 1. 2005
22
Attachment 13
May 26.2OO5
!v[cbut: Schuoimo
Jud:[JnLustooSohuoiau
1221 Cnuutr�viop/[izE
ivrap!ewood _%4N 55109
[U0 A 6 20H
This letter is to get your opinion on 2 proposal to develop property in your neighborhood,
Maplewood Toyota is requesting city council approval to build a one-level parking ramp on their
property @t the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway G1. This would h8 one elevated
level of parking above the ground-level parking already in place. The applicant is also proposing
to|nsta|!aparking/otmnthairpnopertvbebwoenGu|den'sondLaMwttryCo||imion. They would
park cars temporarily on this site during the ramp construction to the south. It is proposed to
becurneecapstoraAe|otinthefutune.hovveVer,vviththepOtonda|hur(haoonstructimnofannu|ti-
level ramp. Refer to the apphcam's letter and the map attachments.
|needyouropiniOntmhe|pr8epnepana8neuVnon)8ndRtinnt8Uh8p/8nningmoAlcniomionaOdoih/
council. Please wdte your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any
attachments o0 which you have written comments, by June O.2OO5.
|f you would like further information, please call rneatG51-24Q-23O2 between 80.nn.and
4:30 p.m. You can also email rAoat . |w/|U send you notices
uf the public hearing on this request when itisscheduled. Thank you for your comments. |vi||
give them careful consideration.
�f 0�
Enclosures:
1,
Applicant's Project @ummary
2.
Location Map
3.
Site P!aO--GouthSite
4.
Site Plan—North Site
5.
Landscaping Plan---South Site
G.
Landscaping Plan—North Site
7,
Ramp Design Elevations
@.
Parking Ramp Perspective
1 have no comments:
24
Attachment 14
PROJECT: Maplewood Toyota
PROJECT NO: 05-19
009 -1RW11VM!1IM
clist�ct) ordinance allows 30% impervious surface within the district, or up to 50% if
approved by the city engineer,
the allowable impervious area set by the shoreland ordinance, this results from
previously approved projects.
equal to or better than the existing condition of the parcel. Consequently, it is not
included in the impervious surface under the shoreland ordinance.
14 NOUN
If the applicant elects not to do this, the aggregate surface should be removed and
restored with vegetation upon completion of the parking ramp on the south parcel.
25
to neady 12 feet, This wail will require a certified, engineered plan and may require a
special inspections schedule to be completed by the design engineer or his
r&�rese,vita,tiV_— if
to the north (Guldens) creates a safety issue that must be addressed.
?6
•- -
rsram
27
1!11!11!1! glijoilll I — . I III 1! 111111 1 1111
28
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005
b. Maplewood Toyota Expansion (north site — north of LaMettry's Collision) (9:30 -10:12 p.m.)
Mr. Ekstrand presented the report. BWBR Architects, on behalf of Steve McDaniels of
Maplewood Toyota, is proposing to build a parking lot on the vacant property between LaMettry's
Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. The applicant proposes to build a 24,920- square -foot
pervious -paver parking area toward the back of the site. This would be a permanent parking pad
for vehicle- inventory storage. The front 270 feet, 39,000 square feet, of the site would be a
temporary, gravel parking lot. This temporary parking is needed for the relocation of cars during
the parking ramp construction at the northwest corner of Beam Avenue and Highway 61.
However, there are two things going on in this location. In the city code if a parking lot is the
primary use, the code states there is a 350 -foot setback from residential. If parking is on this
land as part of a building the building can go up to 20 feet from residential. The applicant wants
to eventually construct a building for vehicle repair purposes but the applicant did not have the
plans ready yet so staff suggested the applicant pull the plan the building plan off the proposal
and submit the parking lot by itself. With only a footprint where the building would go, staff felt
there was not enough information for staff to bring before the planning commission, CDRB and
city council. The city has required that if this parking storage lot is approved, the building plans
need to be in the works by September 30, 2007. The location of the parking lot is acceptable but
the city wants to make sure the applicant moves forward with the building proposal, otherwise the
applicant would be in violation of the city ordinance because the applicant would need a 350 -foot
setback from residential compared to the 20 -foot setback for a parking lot and building structure.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked what the implications were if the applicant did not have the
building in the works by September 30, 2007?
Mr. Ekstrand said there is an element of trust here. Technically the applicant could be in
violation of the city code. If something happens and Maplewood Toyota decides not to build the
structure on the property and the parking lot is already in place, that would violate the city code.
Acting Chairperson Desai said his concern is that the applicant builds the parking lot and then
something happens where the applicant does not build the repair building. The parking lot is
then in place and if the property were sold, and another user comes in, they could say the
parking storage lot was already there when they bought the property. Who knows what they
would put on the lot, there would be nothing the city could do, the parking storage lot was already
approved close to residential.
Mr. Ekstrand said that could happen and the city is concerned about that as well.
Acting Chairperson Desai said he thinks the applicant should build this parking lot 350 feet from
residential and then deal with the situation when the building gets built. That way the city is
protected in case something goes wrong with the plan to build the repair building and the city is
not put in a position with the parking lot 20 feet from residential property.
Planning Commission -2-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant proposes to build the structure but the plan wasn't ready at the
time of applying for the storage lot. Normally an applicant comes before the city with the building
pad plan and the parking lot plan together, but this is not the case here. The traffic study that the
planning commission discussed in the proposal before this may change the way things are done
here as well.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked if there would be an entrance to this parking lot storage area
from County Road D?
Mr. Cavett showed the traffic pattern and said the property would be accessed off of Highway 61
or the frontage road and County Road D.
Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission.
Andy Hulcher, General Manager, Maplewood Toyota, addressed the commission. He said the
intent is to have a repair building on this site to get new cars ready for sale or prepare used cars
for sale. There would be no sales done in this location. This would not be a customer based
building, it would only be used by employees preparing cars for sale and for vehicle repairs.
Commissioner Yarwood asked if they would proceed with this auto repair building if the parking
ramp is not approved?
Mr. Hulcher said they would probably still proceed if the parking ramp were not approved.
Commissioner Yarwood asked how soon the auto repair building plans would be ready for the
city to process so the planning commission could review them? He would prefer to review the
plan for the building and the parking lot together, rather than reviewing the plans separately.
Mr. Hulcher deferred that question to Mr. Dornack.
Tom Dornack, BWBR Architects, Lawson Commons, 380 St. Peter St., Ste. 600, St. Paul. The
primary intent for building this parking storage lot is they need a place to move the 150 plus cars
while the parking ramp is being constructed. Because of the expense of grading and improving
the impervious surface they want to do it right the first time rather than putting blacktop down and
tearing it up and rebuilding the lot and the new building. The building lines that have been
established have been determined to be the furthest west that any building can be built in relation
to LaMettry's Collision. Maplewood Toyota plans for this area to be used by employees only and
customers would not be driving to this site. Economically the applicant can't build both the lot
and the repair building at the same time. If the city needs to require that the applicant build the
building by September 30, 2007, or the applicant would need to remove the parking lot, then they
are fine with that requirement.
LeAnne Hammer, 1227 Countrwiew Circle, Maplewood addressed the commission. She
wanted it noted that Mr. Dornack said the traffic off of County Road D is non - public so that means
all the Maplewood Toyota business is going to be directed to Beam Avenue, not toward the new
County Road D. The city staff is wrong when they say the new County Road D will alleviate the
traffic on Beam Avenue.
Planning Commission -3-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Mr. Dornack said Maplewood Toyota understands the traffic in this area is a huge concern for the
neighbors as well as for the commission but he thinks there is a different venue for discussing the
traffic than during this proposal. It is unfair to indicate that all of the traffic problems are hinged
on the development of Maplewood Toyota's additions. To tie the traffic problems to the approval
or disapproval of this project is unfair to this project and to the applicant.
Commissioner Yarwood said he doesn't think that anyone has any particular difficulties with the
proposals being made by Maplewood Toyota but the question is what are the options going to be
prior to developing the site and after the site is developed. The question is, should the city take
the time now to address the concerns so that everything that gets developed around that
intersection be built around the best use for traffic patterns in that area. This is the time to do
this, not after Maplewood Toyota builds the parking ramp and parking storage lot. The planning
commission is trying to determine the best order to take care of these issues and concerns.
Glen Yakel, 2949 Frank Street, Maplewood addressed the commission. Commissioner
Yarwood said exactly what he was going to say. He respectively disagrees with Mr. Dornack
regarding his statement that there is a better forum to discuss this and not to hold these traffic
problems against Maplewood Toyota and this proposal. These problems exist today and have
existed for some time now. They are not going to get better, they will only continue to get worse.
Now is the time to consider the traffic concerns.
Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pearson said he drove through most of the auto dealerships in the area and
noticed this is the only dealership that has a very narrow drive aisle to drive in and out of the
dealership. The other auto dealership lots he visited you can pass a car in their lots easily. It
makes him wonder why Maplewood Toyota is allowed to cram so many cars onto the parking lot
and have a very narrow drive aisle lane. There is no room on the site and everything is fit in very
tightly. He said he feels sorry for truck drivers trying to drive into that site.
Mr. Ekstrand said it is definitely a full site. The city hopes the expansion will alleviate the
overcrowding problem but as a city we need to make sure this problem gets resolved. The city
doesn't want to allow more overcrowding situations. Now is the time to not continue creating
additional overcrowding problems. Now is the time to correct old problems that have existed and
that still exist. He drove the city vehicle to the property and noticed cars are in drive aisles, the
cars are triple parked and even parked on the grass. He's a customer of Maplewood Toyota and
when he goes there for parts or service he thinks the situation is awful. Something should be
done and perhaps now is the time to take care of this problem.
Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city knows where the future townhomes are going to be
located within that property to the northwest. He asked how close the potential structures and the
parking ramp and parking storage lot would be to each other.
Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't have a site plan for that Trout Land property with him but he guessed
the nearest property would be about 50 feet off their southerly lot line. Screening is a big issue
here and maybe the townhomes will want to add their own screening but Maplewood Toyota will
be responsible for planting good screening to buffer the residential area as well.
Planning Commission -4-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
Commissioner Pearson said he didn't see any specifics regarding lane width for Maplewood
Toyota's lots.
Mr. Ekstrand said he wasn't sure there was a recommendation to comply with city codes for
parking dimensions or drive aisles. Typically the city has not been applying the general retail
formula for parking spaces for inventory parking. If Maplewood Toyota wants to triple park their
inventory cars that's fine with the city, but you need to be able to maneuver through the parking
lot safely. When Maplewood Toyota builds their repair building the city will want to make sure
there is adequate employee parking then. This building will not be for customers to visit so the
city is not too concerned about dimensions for parking but they would be concerned about
adequate employee parking needs.
Commissioner Pearson said at some point with the future proposal for the repair building that
information regarding drive aisle width and traffic flow patterns should be part of the discussion.
Commissioner Grover asked if the commission would be seeing the CUP for the southerly
property below Beam Avenue again some time or does staff review that with the issues of traffic
concerns and pedestrian issues.
Mr. Ekstrand said when there is a CUP that is found to be up to par, the city makes the
determination that there it is not necessary to come back before the city unless something
changes or if a problem develops. If the city determines that traffic is a problem because of that
site and something needs to change due to the function of the property, the city could bring it
back for review. Because of the discussion tonight it may be necessary to review the CUP for
Maplewood Toyota as well as the other proposals. He would have to evaluate that more.
Mr. Roberts said that decision will ultimately be made by the city council who will read the
concerns of the neighbors and of the planning commission from tonight's meeting. If the city
council determines that they think there is a problem, the city council can ask staff to look into
things and request that it be brought back to the planning commission or to the city council for
review.
Commissioner Grover said he would encourage the city council to consider looking into this
further and have it revisited by either the planning commission or the city council.
Mr. Roberts said the planning commission could add that as a separate motion.
Mr. Ekstrand wanted to point out to the planning commission that staff had a recommendation for
the conditional use permit only and not for the variance. This is because of the discussion that
has occurred. Because the applicant is building the parking lot there first there is no need for the
variance.
Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to store
cars on the property between LaMettry's Collision and Gulden's Roadhouse. Approval is based
on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission -5-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
1. All construction shall follow the site plan date - stamped May 26, 2005, and also shall follow
any conditions attached herein. The director of community development may approve minor
changes to the plans.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within
one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may
extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The applicant shall submit a detailed site - lighting plan that includes fixture design, pole
heights and light- spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that
neighbors cannot see any light bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread
meet the parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. This plan should be submitted for
community design review board approval.
5. The landscaping plan shall be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval
providing for a visual screen that is at least six - feet -tall and 80 percent opaque upon planting.
This planted buffer shall be comprised of evergreen trees and thick - crowned, over -story
trees. The site shall also have an in- ground irrigation system installed when the future
building is built. The landscaping plan shall also provide sod on the east, north and south
sides of the parking lot. The pond area to the west can remain natural.
6. The design of the retaining wall shall be submitted to the community design review board
along with the landscaping plan. Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be
designed by a structural engineer and have a protective fence on top. The review board shall
review the fence design.
7. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative affect to the Gulden's parking lot or
property due to their parking lot construction and retaining wall.
8. The applicant shall comply with the impervious- surface requirements of the Shoreland
Ordinance and the impervious- surface area requirements determined by the Maplewood
Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005. The applicant shall either
decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious parking by 20 feet to meet
the requirements of the shoreland ordinance.
9. The applicant shall incorporate low- impact development improvements on the parcel south of
Beam Avenue by September 30, 2007, as outlined in the June 7, 2005, Engineering Plan
Review by the city's engineering department. The applicant and /or his engineer should meet
on site with the city engineering staff to discuss what options would be appropriate and
effective.
Planning Commission -6-
Minutes of 06 -20 -05
10. The Class -5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean aggregate may
be used subject to the approval of the city engineer and the Ramsey/Washington Watershed
District. This gravel parking lot shall not be used longer than two construction seasons, but
no later than September 30, 2007, after which time, it must be removed or replaced with a
permanent surface. At that time, if the parking lot remains in use, the parking lot must be
upgraded with concrete curbing as required by ordinance.
11. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the pervious
parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance.
12. The property owner shall obtain city approvals and begin construction of a permanent building
on this site by September 30, 2007, to coincide with the deadline for gravel removal. This is
because this parking lot is considered to be needed for the applicant's desired future building.
Parking lots by themselves as a primary use must be set back at least 350 feet from
residential districts. Parking lots that are accessory to a building may be 20 feet from
residential property lines.
Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood
The motion passed.
It is unknown at this time when this will be heard by the city council but it was proposed to be
heard July 11, 2005.
Mr. Dornack said in the past BWBR has worked with the consulting engineer that works for the
City of Maplewood to develop a traffic analysis. It was recommended that the owner pick up the
cost for the traffic study and they work with the Kimley -Horn who has done other traffic studies in
Maplewood. He asked if this request would acceptable to Mr. Cavett?
Mr. Cavett said the city would use a traffic consultant and the cost for the traffic study would be
paid for by the developer. The city would prefer to use either Kimley -Horn or SEH for this study.
SEH has more experience in this type of work in this part of Maplewood.
Mr. Dornack said they would work with city staff on the traffic study.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005
Maplewood Toyota Expansion (North Site) — Located on the west side of Highway
61, north of LaMettry's Collision.
Mr. Ekstrand gave his report on the Maplewood Toyota Expansion for a parking lot
proposal located on the west side of Highway 61, north of LaMettry's Collision. The
applicant is requesting that the CDRB and city council approve the site and landscaping
plans. This site was created in 1997 by the lot division that also established the
LaMettry Collision and the Maplewood Toyota development sites to the south. The City
of Maplewood recently purchased the drainage pond on Mr. McDaniel's property for
area - ponding purposes. There are two main issues to consider with this proposal. First
are the impacts on the residential neighbors from a visual standpoint (lights and
screening) and the second is compliance with the Shoreland Ordinance impervious -
surface area requirements.
Board member Olson said she would like to keep this lot as a parking lot and not have
the service building built on it. She asked what the city can do if the applicant decides
not to build the building?
Mr. Ekstrand said the city ordinance states with parking lots by themselves as a primary
use the lot must be set back at least 350 feet from residential districts. With a building
on the lot the lot can be 20 feet from residential. If the applicant decides not to build the
building they would be breaking the city ordinance because the lot would then be 20
feet from residential when it should be 350 feet from residential for a parking lot only.
Chairperson Longrie said when she worked for Target Corporation and a plan came
through for review like this the applicant had to show a building pad on the plans
representing where the future building would be. If the applicant changed their mind
and did not chose to build the building they had to come back for review and change the
parcel back so it meets the city code.
Board member Hinzman is concerned about how this lot will cut into the land.
Mr. Ekstrand said a retaining wall will be required.
Board member Olson asked what type of pervious pavement product they proposed to
use?
Mr. Ekstrand asked the applicant to address that comment.
Mr. Steve McDaniels, owner of Maplewood Toyota, addressed the board.
Community Design Review Board 2
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
Mr. Tom Dornack, BWBR Architects, addressed the board. He said there are two or
three pervious paving systems available. The soils are pretty good here. The first layer
is 1' /z feet of 3 inch rock; the second layer is six layers of 3 /4 inch rock, a compaction
gravel, then the system itself. Overall it is 2 feet deep which allows water to percolate
through. This is the same system that was approved by the city for Schmelz
Countryside Volkswagen.
Mr. Jake Bourboon, Kraus Anderson, addressed the board. Mr. Bourboon said just to
clarify; it is a crushed granite not compacted gravel as Mr. Dornack referred to. It
comes out of St. Cloud and it allows water to pass through but not penetrate the
surface.
The board thanked him for his clarification.
Mr. Dornack read a letter from the landscaping architect regarding the 80% opaque
screening for the plantings and his reluctance to use an 80% screening because the
plantings become too overcrowded which kills the landscaping.
Board member Olson asked what the function of this lot is?
McDaniels said this lot is primarily for storage. Once they build the service and light
maintenance building there it will serve two purposes.
Chairperson Longrie asked if the applicant had any problems with staff's
recommendations listed in the staff report?
11LN1LM91 -=I - Rrd1Cff'ii7
Board member Hinzman asked about the height of the evergreens?
Mr. McDaniels said 6 feet tall.
Chairperson Longrie asked about the retaining wall.
Mr. Dornack said they propose to use a keystone block for the retaining wall. He said it
will match the existing retaining wall they have used in the past and will be a tan color.
If necessary they will use a metal railing with the retaining wall.
Board member Olson commended Maplewood Toyota for using the pervious paving
system. She agreed with the report that it should be increased to 20 feet.
Board member Olson asked if there was any need for fencing?
Mr. McDaniels said no there is no need for any fencing here.
Chairperson Longrie asked staff about the landscaping letter that was read and staff's
opinion of the recommendation to use 80% screening.
Community Design Review Board 3
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
Mr. Ekstrand said he recommends packing the landscaping in. With the townhomes
being built the city needs to heavily screen this area from the vehicles on the lot. It is
important to have an 80% opaque screen right away so the residential homes won't
have to look at the cars.
Board member Olson said she just wants the plantings to compliment each other.
Board member Ledvina discussed the 12 foot high retaining wall and lighting plan. He
said if the lighting plan and landscaping plan has to come back to the CDRB then the
retaining wall plan should come back as well for review.
Board member Olson said in her opinion she feels staff can work those details out with
the applicant.
Chairperson Longrie asked if the CDRB requested this be brought back to be reviewed
would this hold the construction plan up for the parking lot?
Mr. Ekstrand said staff would recommend the parking lot plan be treated as it would a
building. The typical requirement is to have an escrow account in case the landscaping
or retaining wall is not completed.
Board member Hinzman said he doesn't have any reservations regarding this proposal.
This is all going to be newly constructed and will blend in with the landscaping that will
be done for the new townhomes.
Mr. Dornack recommended these things be worked out with staff. If these issues can
be worked with staff he would recommend that it be handled between the applicant and
staff.
Board members Olson and Hinzman were fine letting staff and the applicant work the
details out.
Chairperson Longrie moved to approve the plans date - stamped May 26, 2005, for the
proposed parking lot proposal for Maplewood Toyota at the (west side of Highway 61,
north of LaMettry's Collision). Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes
made by the CDRB during the meeting are underlined if added and stricken if
deleted)
The applicant shall work with staff and provide resubm,:t a detailed site - lighting
plan that includes fixture design, pole heights and light- spread intensities at
residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that neighbors cannot see any light
bulbs or lenses directly and that light intensity and light spread meet the
parameters of the city's lighting ordinance. Th ^'^^ shou -h^ � �^ ++ , a ^.
GOMMU deSig^ FeVieW beaFd appFeval The city shall not issue permits for this
site development until the lighting plan has been approved.
Community Design Review Board 4
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
2. The landscaping plan submitted will be modified to have increased vegetation or
trees. In working with staff the landscaping shall be consistent in character and
nature with the adjoining property to the south along with their landscaping. shall
visual screen that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque upon planting.
This planted buffer shall be comprised of evergreen trees and thick - owned, over -
story trees. The site shall also have an in- ground irrigation system installed
when the plantings are planted. f„+„•^ b is built. The landscaping plan
shall provide sod on the east, north and south sides of the parking lot. The pond
area to the west can remain natural. The city shall not issue permits for this site
development until the landscaping plan has been worked out and approved
by staff lighting -plan has been approved. The landscape plan shall be
Addition Heritage Square townhomes.
3. The design of the retaining wall shall be a tan keystone block to match the
retainina wall found between the south oarkina lot and the service buildina
Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural
engineer and have a protective fence on top. The landscaping design shall be
consistent and cohesive in relation to the retaining wall. The applicant shall
work with staff to ensure this direction. The Fev beRrd- s;ti ^II r th
fence design. The c .ihurri not issue permits th s development until the
retaining wall details have been approved.
4. The applicant shall assure that there will be no negative affect to the Gulden's
parking lot or property due to their parking lot construction and retaining wall.
5. The applicant shall comply with the impervious- surface requirements of the
Shoreland Ordinance and the impervious- surface area requirements determined
by the Maplewood Engineering Department in their report dated June 7, 2005.
The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the
pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the Shoreland ordinance.
6. The Class -5 gravel mix for the temporary parking lot is not allowed. A clean
aggregate may be used subject to the approval of the city engineer and the
Ramsey/Washington Watershed District.
This gravel parking lot shall not be used longer than two construction seasons,
but no later than September 30, 2007, after which time, it must be removed or
replace with a permanent surface. At that time, if the parking lot remains in use,
the parking lot must be upgraded with concrete curbing as required by ordinance.
7. The applicant shall either decrease the aggregate surface parking or increase the
pervious parking by 20 feet to meet the requirements of the Shoreland ordinance.
Community Design Review Board 5
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
8. The property owner shall obtain city approvals for a permanent building on this
site by September 30, 2007, to coincide with the deadline for gravel removal.
This is because this parking lot is considered to be needed for the applicant's
desired future building. Parking lots by themselves as a primary use must be set
back at least 350 feet from residential districts.
9. Escrow shall be required to ensure that the landscaping, retaining wall and
parking lot are constructed as recommended.
Board member Olson seconded. Ayes — Hinzman, Longrie, Olson
Nay — Ledvina
Abstention - Shankar
The motion passed.
Board member Shankar abstained from voting because he is an employee of BWBR
Architects and there is a conflict of interest.
Board member Ledvina voted against this proposal because there is a serious issue
with this proposal related to the determination of pervious pavement being counted as
impervious surface. This should have been addressed in the land use section and he
did not want to discuss it then. It should be looked at with more detail. The engineering
report on page 28 states that since the pervious pavement proposed for the north parcel
should have infiltration capacity equal to or better than the existing condition of the
parcel, it is not counted as impervious surface. He doesn't find sufficient evidence to
back up that statement. The standard is 30% within the shoreland district of Kohlman
Lake and this is going up to 50% and exceeding 50% by counting this pervious
pavement. The shoreland ordinance is to protect the surface waters and these areas
would be grassed or vegetated to reduce run off. The shoreland ordinance is to protect
the surface waters and the report is trying to state that the pervious pavers are like a
grassy area and he can't agree with that. You are putting cars on this pavement and
surface water into this area and what is the capacity of the surface water for these
impervious pavers to handle. Perhaps it's equivalent for a 'h inch rain storm but is it
equivalent for a 2 inch or 5 inch rain storm?
Chairperson Longrie said in her opinion because of the direction of the CDRB the board
wouldn't be able to deny something based on a land use plan usage because the board
would be putting the city in jeopardy with that decision.
Board member Ledvina said the board is making a recommendation to the city council
and the board is the last place to make the recommendation. He believes this needs to
be brought to the attention of the city council because it's an important issue and is
important to get it on the record.
Community Design Review Board 6
Minutes 6 -28 -2005
Board member Olson agreed with Board member Ledvina because pervious pavers are
fairly new to the city. Board member Ledvina brought up that this area is in a shoreland
ordinance area which she didn't even think of this area being in the shoreland ordinance
area until he mentioned it because of the function of this proposal. She knows the
board is reminded that the focus is supposed to be limited and restricted but she feels
very strongly as citizens that they have the right and responsibility to bring these issues
that may have been missed by other people. This is the last step before a proposal
goes to the city council for approval or disapproval and it is the responsibility of the
board to speak for the community if there is an issue they have concerns about.
Chairperson Longrie said she doesn't disagree with those comments but on the other
hand the board is responsible for looking at certain areas of review. That doesn't stop
any one of the board members as "citizens" outside their duty as board members to go
to the city council meeting and speak out regarding other issues that are outside the
board's parameters.
Board member Ledvina said it is still important to get this on the record.
Board member Olson said she doesn't necessarily agree with that because she thinks
the board has the responsibility to bring up issues that may pertain to planning issues,
traffic, land use issues etc. as community design review board members. She's
comfortable saying this use may not be a good use for this area and she would like to
see that information reviewed in the minutes or over the cable cast outside of her going
to the city council meeting. This information should be included in the minutes if the
board member believes this is relevant to the ultimate design of the project. Waiting
until the city council meeting to speak up on an issue is often too late.
Board member Hinzman believed the comments would be reflected in the minutes and
the board should move ahead to the remainder of the meeting.