HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 11-28 City Council PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, November 28, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -26
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country
C. ROLL CALL
Mayor's Address on Protocol:
"Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all
discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing
or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and
Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please
state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to
the Mayor and Council. 1 then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond
to comments."
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes from the City Council /Manager Workshop- November 14, 2005
2. Minutes from the City Council Meeting- November 14, 2005
3. Special City Council Meeting- November 17, 2005
E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS
G. CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and
will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item
will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately.
1. Approval of Claims
2. Increase in Community Development Department Service Charges
3. Conditional Use Permit Review — Jiffy Lube (3071 White Bear Avenue)
4. Conditional Use Permit Termination — Sandy Lake Soccer Center (County Road B, west of
1 -35E)
5. 2006 Landfall Policing Contract
6. N.E.S.A. Donation
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7:00 p.m. Maplewood Business Center Conditional Use Permit Review (1616 Gervais
Avenue)
AWARD OF BIDS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. The Myth (3090 Southlawn Drive)
a. Shared Parking Agreements
b. Outdoor Patio Review
2. Conditional Use Permit Reviews — Ohlson Landscaping and Oehrlein Outdoor Property
Maintenance (1949 Atlantic Street)
3. No Parking Zones — Twin Cities Hmong Alliance Church (1234 County Road B (at Atlantic
Street))
K. NEW BUSINESS
Easement Vacation — Lot 1, Block 1, Heritage Square Addition (North of Legacy Parkway)
Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center (2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive)
a. Conditional Use Permit
b. Design Approval
3. Wine and Strong Beer Liquor License — Pei Wei Asian Diner — Edward Unangst
4. Capitol Region Watershed District Draft Rules
a. Resolution Requesting Time Extension for Comment Deadline and City Involvement in
Developing Acceptable Rules and Standards
5. Kenwood Area Street Improvements - City Project 05 -16
a. Resolution Accepting Report and Calling Public Hearing
6. Approval of Snow and Ice Control Policy
7. Moving Visitor Presentations to Beginning of City Council Meeting
I�TJ1-11rt•1:a:J:J *11NI 0 K
M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
161 il11116111N0
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 Agenda Item D1
CITY COUNCIL /MANAGER WORKSHOP
Monday, November 14, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
6:00 p.m.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present
David Bartol sat in for the meeting and will be sworn in at the following council meeting.
Others Present:
C.
A
City Manager Fursman
Assistant City Manager Coleman
Public Works Director AN
Parks Director Bruce Anderson
REaL Director Guilfoile
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All
NEW BUSINESS
Gladstone Redevelopment Proposal — City Project 04 -21 — Review Draft of Master
Development Plan; Preliminary Review of Comments on AUAR; and Discussion on
Schedule and Implementation Plan
Brad Scheib from Hoisington Koegler Group, presented the Draft of the Master
Development Plan to the council and discussed the various issues. There was also a
preliminary review of comments on The Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
within the draft plan.
E. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Cardinal adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m.
Agenda Item D2
DRAFT -- MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, November 14, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -24
A
C.
FU
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. David Bartol- Temporary Appointment
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the appointment of David Bartol to fill the temporary
vacancy on the City Council.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All
City Clerk Guilfoile swore in Councilmember David Bartol.
ROLL CALL
Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present
David Bartol, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
Will Rossbach. Councilmember Present
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes from the City Council Meeting- October 24, 2005
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the October 24, 2005 City
Council Meeting as amended.
C
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers
Juenemann, Koppen and Rossbach
Abstain - Councilmember Bartol
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the agenda as amended.
M1. Maplewood Food Shelf Campaign
M2. Maplewood Bloodmobile
M3. Rushl-ine Corridor Update
M4. Gladstone Development
N1. Ice Arena Board
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05
F
C
APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS
1. Life Saving Award -Ron Horwath
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. Fire Chief Lukin presented a Life Saving award to Maplewood Community
Center Aquatic Supervisor Ron Horwath for providing mouth to
rescue breathing on a young student and reviving him.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve consent agenda items 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 -15 as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach
Ayes-All
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda item 3 as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach
Ayes-All
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda item 5 as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen
Ayes-All
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda item 6 as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen
Ayes-All
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda item 7 as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach
Ayes-All
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda item 8 as presented.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All
1. Approval of Claims
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE:
$ 30,211.36 Checks # 68272 thru # 68274
dated 10/19/05 thru 10/20/05
$ 138,163.48 Checks # 68275 thru # 68327
dated 10/25/05
$ 120,754.99 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 10/14/05 thru 10/21/05
$ 116,720.00 Checks # 68328 thru # 68329
dated 10/24/05 thru 10/27/05
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05
2
$ 1,137,207.77 Checks # 68330 thru #68387
dated 11/01/05
$ 305,477.38 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 10/21/05 thru 10/27/05
$ 59.35 EFT # 68388 thru # 68389
dated 11/08/05
$ 501,431.23 Checks # 68390 thru # 68444
dated 11 /04 /05thru 11/08/05
$ 123,680.44 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 11 /28 /05thru 11/03/05
$ 2,473,706.00 Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated
$ 554,101.37 10/21/05
$ 2,406.75 Payroll Deduction check # 102987 thru # 102989
dated 10/21/05
Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated
$ 450,954.73 11/04/05
$ 2,406.75 Payroll Deduction check # 103109 thru # 103111
dated 11/04/05
$ 1,009,869.60 Total Payroll
$ 3,483,575.60 GRAND TOTAL
2. Annual Gambling Resolution — North Tartan Area Girls Basketball at Broadway Bar & Pizza
Adopted the following resolution approving the lawful gambling renewal for Bill Larson for North
Tartan Area Girls Basketball Booster Club, 2009 East County Road D, Maplewood:
RESOLUTION 05 -11 -159
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premises
permit for lawful gambling is approved for the North Tartan Area Girls Basketball Booster Club, 2009
East County Road D, Maplewood, Minnesota.
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of
application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213.
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05 3
FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division
of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with
Minnesota Statute §349.213.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood,
Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval.
3. Consider Approval of 2006 SCORE Funding Application
Approved the 2006 SCORE application for $67,442. in grant funds to repay the city for a portion
of the recycling costs.
4. Final Plat — Woodhill (Dahl Avenue, south of Linwood Avenue)
Approved the final plat for Woodhill date - stamped October 26, 2005. This approval is
subject to the county recording the deeds, deed restrictions and covenants required by the
city and the developer meeting all of the conditions of the city engineer.
5. Home Occupation License Review — David Grupa Photography (1994 Duluth Street)
Approved to review the home occupation license for David Grupa at 1994 Duluth Street
in June of 2006. This will allow Mr. Grupa time to install the fencing in order to use the
backyard for photography.
6. Conditional Use Permit Review — Oversized Accessory Building (1236 Kohlman Avenue
East)
Approved the conditional use permits for the property at 1236 Kohlman Avenue for the
expansion of a nonconforming residential property and the construction of an oversized
accessory structure at 1236 Kohlman Avenue.
7. Conditional Use Permit Review — Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course (601 Century
Avenue South)
Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course
at 601 Century Avenue south again if a problem arises or if the owner proposes a
significant change to the site or to the golf course.
8. Conditional Use Permit Review — Woodlynn Ponds Townhomes (Chisholm Court, south
of County Road D)
Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Woodlynn Ponds Townhomes
Planned Unit Development in July of 2006.
9. Senior Administrative Assistant
Approved to adopt the 2005 salary range of $37,378 - $47,736 per year for the new
classification of Senior Administrative Assistant effective at the beginning of the next pay -
period.
10. Cafeteria Plan Master Plan Revisions
Adopted the revised and restated Master Plan Document for the Maplewood Cafeteria Plan
effective September 1, 2005.
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05
11. Welfare Plan & Integral Part Trust Revisions
Moved to adopt the following revised Integral Part Trust document and Retiree Welfare Benefit
Plan:
ARTICLE I
PREAMBLE
THIS INSTRUMENT made and published by the City of Maplewood_(hereinafter called "Employer ") on
the 24th day of June, 2002, creates the City of Maplewood Retiree Medical and Dental Expense
Reimbursement Plan. as follows:
1.01 Establishment of Plan
The Employer named above hereby establishes a Retiree Medical and Dental Expense
Reimbursement Plan as of the 1 st day of July, 2002.
1.02 Purpose of Plan
This Plan has been established to reimburse the eligible Retirees of the Employer for medical and
dental expenses incurred by them, their Spouses and Dependents, pursuant to the Employer's
VantageCare Retiree Health Savings (RHS) Plan.
N. ARTICLE II
DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases as used herein shall have the following meanings, unless a different meaning
is plainly required by the context:
2.01 "Benefits" means any amounts paid to a Participant in the Plan as reimbursement for Eligible
Medical and Dental Expenses incurred by the Participants, their spouses or their dependents
during a Plan Year.
2.02 "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
2.03 "Dependent' means any individual who is a dependent of the Participant within the meaning of
Code Sec. 152.
2.04 "Eligible Medical or Dental Expenses" means those expenses designated by the Employer
as eligible for reimbursement in the VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan Adoption
Agreement.
2.05 "Employer' means the unit of state or local government creating this Plan, or any affiliate or
successor thereof that likewise adopts this Plan.
2.06 "Entry Date" means the first day the Participant meets the eligibility requirements of Article III
as of such Date.
2.07 "Participant' means any former employee who has met the eligibility requirements set forth in
Article III.
2.08 "Plan Administrator' means the Employer or other person appointed by the Employer who
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05
has the authority and responsibility to manage and direct the operation and administration of the
Plan.
2.09 "Plan Year" means the annual accounting period of the Plan, which begins on the 1 st day of
July, 2002, and ends on the 31'`day of December, 2002, with respect to the first Plan Year, and
thereafter as long as this Plan remains in effect, the period that begins on January 1, and ends
on December 31.
2.10 "Retiree" means any individual who, while in the service of the Employer, was considered to be
in a legal employer - employee relationship with the Employer for federal withholding tax
purposes, and who was part of the classification of employees designated as covered by the
Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan.
2.11 "Spouse" means the Participant's lawful spouse as determined under the laws of the state in
which Participants have their primary place of residence.
All other defined terms in this Plan shall have the meanings specified in the various Articles of the Plan in
which they appear.
ARTICLE III
ELIGIBILITY
3.01 General Requirements
Each Retiree who meets the eligibility requirements outlined in the Employer's VantageCare
Retiree Health Savings Plan shall be eligible to participate in this Plan.
ARTICLE IV
AMOUNT OF BENEFITS
4.01 Annual Benefits Provided by the Plan
Each Participant shall be entitled to reimbursement for documented, Eligible Medical or Dental
Expenses incurred during the Plan Year in an annual amount not to exceed the account
balance of the Participant in the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan.
4.02 Cost of Coverage
The expense of providing the benefits set out in Section 4.01 shall be contributed as outlined in
the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan.
ARTICLE V
PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
5.01 Eligibility for Benefits
A. Each Participant in the Plan shall be entitled to a benefit hereunder for all Eligible Medical and
Dental Expenses incurred by the Participant on or after the Entry Date of his or her participation,
(and after the effective date of the Plan) subject to the limitations contained in Article V,
regardless whether the mental or physical condition for which the Participant makes application
for benefits under this Plan was detected, diagnosed, or treated before the Participant become
covered by the Plan.
B. In order to be eligible for benefits, the Participant must meet the benefit eligibility criteria
outlined in the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan Adoption Agreement.
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05
C. A Participant who dies or becomes totally and permanently disabled (as defined by the Social
Security Administration) will become immediately eligible to receive medical benefit payments
from the Plan. Pursuant to Section 9.02 and Employer's VantageCare Retirement Health
Savings Plan Adoption Agreement, the surviving Spouse and Dependents shall become
immediately eligible to receive or to continue receiving medical benefit payments from the Plan
upon the death of the Participant.
5.02 Claims for Benefits
No benefit shall be paid hereunder unless a Participant, or their Spouse or Dependent, has first
submitted a written claim for benefits to the Plan Administrator on a form specified by the Plan
Administrator, and pursuant to the procedures set out in Article VI, below. Upon receipt of a
properly documented claim, the Plan Administrator shall pay the Participant, Spouse or
Dependent the benefits provided under this Plan as soon as is administratively feasible.
ARTICLE VI
PLAN ADMINISTRATION
6.01 Allocation of Authority
The Employer shall control and manage the operation and administration of the Plan. The
Employer shall have the exclusive right to interpret the Plan and to decide all matters arising
thereunder, including the right to remedy possible ambiguities, inconsistencies, or omissions.
All determinations of the Employer with respect to any matter hereunder shall be conclusive and
binding on all persons.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Employer shall have the following powers
and duties:
(a) To decide on questions concerning the Plan and the eligibility of any Employee to participate in
the Plan, in accordance with the provisions of the Plan;
(b) To determine the amount of benefits that shall be payable to any person in accordance with the
provisions of the Plan; to inform the Plan Administrator, as appropriate, of the amount of such
Benefits; and to provide a full and fair review to any Participant whose claim for benefits has
been denied in whole or in part; and
(c) To designate other persons to carry out any duty or power which would otherwise be a fiduciary
responsibility of the Plan Administrator, under the terms of the Plan.
(d) To require any person to furnish such reasonable information as it may request for the purpose
of the proper administration of the Plan as a condition to receiving any benefits under the Plan;
(e) To make and enforce such rules and regulations and prescribe the use of such forms as they
shall deem necessary for the efficient administration of the Plan.
6.02 Provision for Third -Party Plan Service Providers
The Plan Administrator, subject to approval of the Employer, may employ the services of such
persons as it may deem necessary or desirable in connection with the operation of the Plan.
The Plan Administrator, the Employer (and any person to whom it may delegate any duty or
power in connection with the administration of the Plan), and all persons connected therewith
may rely upon all tables, valuations, certificates, reports and opinions furnished by any duly
appointed actuary, accountant, (including Employees who are actuaries or accountants),
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05
consultant, third party administration service provider, legal counsel, or other specialist, and
they shall be fully protected in respect to any action taken, not taken, or permitted in good faith
in reliance thereon. All actions so taken or permitted shall be conclusive and binding as to all
persons.
6.03 Several Fiduciary Liability
To the extent permitted by law, neither the Plan Administrator nor any other person shall incur
any liability for any acts or for failure to act except for this own willful misconduct or willful
breach of this Plan.
6.04 Compensation of Plan Administrator
Unless otherwise agreed to by the Employer, the Plan Administrator shall serve without
compensation for services rendered in such capacity, but all reasonable expenses incurred in
the performance of these duties shall be paid by the Employer.
6.05 Bonding
Unless otherwise determined by the Employer, or unless required by any Federal or State law,
the Plan Administrator shall not be required to give any bond or other security in any jurisdiction
in connection with the administration of this Plan.
6.06 Payment of Administrative Expenses
All reasonable expenses incurred in administering the Plan, including but not limited to
administrative fees and expenses owing to any third party administrative service provider,
actuary, consultant, accountant, attorney, specialist, or other person or organization that may be
employed by the Plan Administrator in connection with the administration thereof, shall be paid
by the Employer, provided, however that Participants shall bear the monthly cost (if any)
charged by a third party administrator for maintenance of their Benefit Accounts.
6.07 Timeliness of Payments
Payments shall be made as soon as administratively feasible after the required forms and
documentation have been received by the Plan Administrator.
6.08 Annual Statements
The Plan Administrator shall furnish each Participant with an annual statement of his medical
and dental expense reimbursement account within ninety (90) days after the close of each Plan
Year.
ARTICLE VII
CLAIMS PROCEDURE
7.01 Procedure if Benefits are Denied Under the Plan
Any Participant, Spouse or Dependent, or their duly authorized representative, may file a claim
for a plan benefit to which the claimant believes that he or she is entitled. Such a claim must be
in writing on a form provided by the Plan Administrator and delivered to the Plan Administrator,
in person or by mail, postage paid. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of such claim, the Plan
Administrator shall send to the claimant, by mail, postage prepaid, notice of the granting or
denying, in whole or in part, of such claim, unless special circumstances require an extension of
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05
time for processing the claim. In no event may the extension exceed ninety (90) days from the
end of the initial period. If such extension is necessary, the claimant will be given a written
notice to this effect prior to the expiration of the initial 30 -day period. The Plan Administrator
shall have full discretion to deny or grant a claim in whole or in part. If notice of the denial of a
claim is not furnished in accordance with this Section, the claim shall be deemed denied and the
claimant shall be permitted to exercise his right to review pursuant to Sections 7.03 and 7.04.
7.02 Requirement for Written Notice of Claim Denial
The Plan Administrator shall provide, to every claimant who is denied a claim for benefits,
written notice setting forth in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant:
(a) The specific reason or reasons for the denial;
(b) Specific reference to pertinent Plan provisions on which the denial is based;
(c) A description of any additional material or information necessary for the claimant to
perfect the claim and an explanation of why such material is necessary, and
(d) An explanation of the Plan's claim review procedure.
7.03 Right to Request Hearing on Benefit Denial
Within sixty (60) days after the receipt by a claimant of written notification of the denial (in whole
or in part) of the claim, a claimant or their duly authorized representative, upon written
application to the Plan Administrator, in person or by certified mail, postage prepaid, may
request a review of such denial, may review pertinent documents, and may submit issues and
comments in writing.
7.04 Disposition of Disputed Claims
Upon its receipt of notice of a request for review, the Plan Administrator shall make a prompt
decision on the review. The decision on review shall be written in a manner calculated to be
understood by the claimant and shall include specific reasons for the decision and specific
references to the pertinent plan provisions on which the decision is based. The decision on
review shall be made not later than sixty (60) days after the Plan Administrator's receipt of a
request for a review, unless special circumstances require an extension of time for processing,
in which case a decision shall be rendered not later than one hundred - twenty (120) days after
receipt of a request for review. If an extension is necessary, the claimant shall be given written
notice of the extension prior to the expiration of the initial sixty (60) day period. If notice of the
decision on the review is not furnished in accordance with this Section, the claim shall be
deemed denied and the claimant shall be permitted to exercise his right to legal remedy
pursuant to Section 7.05.
7.05 Preservation of Other Remedies
After exhaustion of the claims procedures provided under this Plan, nothing shall prevent any
person from pursuing any other legal or equitable remedy otherwise available.
ARTICLE VIII
AMENDMENT OR TERMINATION OF PLAN
8.01 Permanency
While the Employer fully expects that this Plan will continue indefinitely, due to unforeseen,
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05
future business contingencies, permanency of the Plan will be subject to the Employer's right to
amend or terminate the Plan, as provided in Sections 8.02 and 8.03, below.
8.02 Employer's Right to Amend
The Employer reserves the right to amend the Plan at any time and from time -to -time, and
retroactively if deemed necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of the Code, or any
similar provisions of subsequent revenue or other laws, or the rules and regulations in effect
under any of such laws or to conform with governmental regulations or other policies, to modify
or amend in whole or in part any or all of the provisions of the Plan or as deemed appropriate by
the Employer, subject to requirements to negotiate with designated union representatives.
8.03 Employer's Right to Terminate
The Employer reserves the right to discontinue or terminate the Plan at any time without
prejudice.
ARTICLE IX
GENERAL PROVISIONS
9.01 No Employment Rights Conferred
Neither this Plan nor any action taken with respect to it shall confer upon any person the right to
be continued in the employment of the Employer.
9.02 Payments to Beneficiary
Any benefits otherwise payable to a Participant following the date of death of such Participant
shall be paid as outlined in the Employer's VantageCare Retiree Health Savings Plan Adoption
Agreement.
9.03 Nonalienation of Benefits
No benefit under the Plan shall be subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale,
transfer, assignment, pledge, encumbrance or charge, and any attempt to do so shall be void.
No benefit under the Plan shall in any manner be liable for or subject to the debts, contracts,
liabilities, engagements or torts of any person. If any person entitled to benefits under the Plan
becomes bankrupt or attempts to anticipate, alienate, sell, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber or
charge any benefit under the Plan, or if any attempt is made to subject any such benefit to the
debts, contracts, liabilities, engagements or torts of the person entitled to any such benefit,
except as specifically provided in the Plan, then such benefit shall cease and terminate in the
discretion of the Plan Administrator, and it may hold or apply the same or any part thereof to the
benefit of any dependent or beneficiary of such person, in such manner and proportion as the
Plan Administrator may deem proper.
9.04 Mental or Physical Incompetency
If the Plan Administrator determines that any person entitled to payments under the Plan is
incompetent by reason of physical or mental disability, the Plan Administrator may cause all
payments thereafter becoming due to such person to be made to any other person on the
Participant's behalf, without responsibility to follow the application of amounts so paid.
Payments made pursuant to this Section shall completely discharge the Plan Administrator and
the Employer.
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05 10
9.05 Inability to Locate Payee
If the Plan Administrator is unable to make payment to any Participant or other person to whom
a payment is due under the Plan because the Plan Administrator cannot ascertain the identity or
whereabouts of such Participant or other person after reasonable efforts have been made to
identify or locate such person (including a notice of the payment so due mailed to the last
known address of such Participant or other person as shown on the records of the Employer),
such payment and all subsequent payments otherwise due to such Participant or other person
shall be escheated under the laws of the State of the last known address of the Participant or
other persons eligible for benefits.
9.06 Requirement of Proper Forms
All communication in connection with the Plan made by a Participant shall become effective only
when duly executed on forms provided by and filed with the Plan Administrator.
9.07 Source of Payments
The Employer shall be the sole source of benefits under the Plan. No Employee or beneficiary
shall have any right to, or interest in, any assets of the Employer upon termination of
employment or otherwise, except as provided from time to time under the Plan, and then only to
the extent of the benefits payable under the Plan to such Employee or beneficiary.
9.08 Tax Effects
Neither the Employer nor the Plan Administrator makes any warranty or other representation as
to whether any payments received by a Participant, Spouse or Dependent hereunder will be
treated as includible in gross income for federal or state income tax purposes.
9.09 Multiple Functions
Any person or group of persons may serve in more than one fiduciary capacity with respect to
the Plan.
9.10 Headings
The Article and Section headings contained herein are for convenience of reference only, and
shall not be construed as defining or limiting the matter contained thereunder.
9.11 Applicable Laws
The provisions of the Plan shall be construed, administered and enforced according to the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
9.12 Severability
Should any part of this plan subsequently be invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05 11
remainder thereof shall be given effect to the maximum extent possible.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this revised Plan Agreement effective 11- 14 -05.
(Employer)
0
ATTEST
DECLARATION OF TRUST OF THE
City of Maplewood
INTEGRAL PART TRUST
Declaration of Trust made as of the 24th day of June, 2002, by the City of Maplewood, Minnesota a municipal
corporation, serving as Trustee (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer ").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Employer is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota exempt from federal
income tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
WHEREAS, the Employer provides for the security and welfare of its eligible employees (hereinafter
referred to as "Participants "), their Spouses and Dependents by the maintenance of one or more post -
retirement welfare benefit plans, programs or arrangements which provide for life, sickness, medical, disability,
severance and other similar benefits through insurance and self- funded reimbursement plans (collectively the
'Plan "); and
WHEREAS, it is an essential function and integral part of the exempt activities of the Employer to assist
Participants, their Spouses and Dependents by making contributions to and accumulating assets in the trust, a
segregated fund, for post- retirement welfare benefits under the plan; and
WHEREAS, the authority to conduct the general operation and administration of the Plan is vested in
the Employer or its designee, who has the authority and shall be subject to the duties with respect to the trust
specified in the Declaration of Trust; and
WHEREAS, the Employer wishes to establish this trust to hold assets and income of the Plan for the
exclusive benefit of Plan Participants, their Spouses and Dependents; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby establish this trust, to be known as the Declaration
of Trust of the City of Maplewood Integral Part Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "Trust'), and agree that the
following constitute the Declaration of Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "Declaration "):
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Definitions. For the purposes of this Declaration, the following terms shall have the respective
meanings set forth below unless otherwise expressly provided.
City Council Meeting Minutes 11 -14 -05 12
(a) "Account" means the individual recordkeeping account maintained under the Plan to record the
interest of a Participant in the Plan in accordance with section 7.3.
(b) "Account Transfer" means a transfer of the Participant's Account upon his or her death to be
used for the payment of benefits for the Participant's Spouse and Dependents.
(c) "Administrator" means the Employer. The Employer may contract for such administrative
services as are necessary to implement the Plan.
(d) "Beneficiary" means the Spouse and eligible Dependents, who will receive any benefits payable
hereunder in the event of the Participant's death.
(e) "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time.
(f) "Covered Employment Classification" means the group or groups of Participants eligible to have
contributions to this Plan made on their behalf, as specified by the Employer.
(g) "Dependent "and "Eligible Dependent" means an individual who is a person described in Code
Section 152(a).
(h) "Investment Fund" means any separate investment option or vehicle selected by the Employer
in which all or a portion of the Trust assets may be separately invested as herein provided. The
Trustee shall not be required to select any Investment Fund.
(i) "Nonforfeitable Interest" means the interest of the Participant or the Participant's Spouse or
eligible Dependent (whichever is applicable) in the percentage of Participant's Employer's
contribution which has vested pursuant to the vesting schedule specified in the Employer's
Plan.
Q) "Spouse" means the Participant's lawful spouse as determined under the laws of the state in
which the Participant has his primary place of residence.
(k) "Trust" means the trust established by this Declaration.
(1) "Trustee" means the person or persons appointed by the Employer to serve in that capacity.
ARTICLE II
ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST
2.1 The Trust is hereby established as of the date set forth above for the exclusive benefit of Participants,
their Spouses and eligible Dependents.
ARTICLE III
CONSTRUCTION
3.1 This Trust and its validity, construction and effect shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
3.2 Pronouns and other similar words used herein in the masculine gender shall be read as the feminine
gender where appropriate, and the singular form of words shall be read as the plural where
appropriate.
3.3 If any provision of this Trust shall be held illegal or invalid for any reason, such determination shall not
affect the remaining provisions, and such provisions shall be construed to effectuate the purpose of this
Trust.
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 13
ARTICLE IV
BENEFITS
4.1 Benefits. This Trust may provide benefits to the Participant, the Participant's Spouse and eligible
Dependents pursuant to the terms of the Plan.
4.2 Form of Benefits. This Trust may reimburse the Participant, his /her Spouse or eligible Dependents for
insurance premiums or other payments expended for permissible benefits described under the Plan.
This trust may reimburse the Employer, or the Administrator for insurance premiums.
ARTICLE V
GENERAL DUTIES
5.1 It shall be the duty of the Trustee to hold title to assets held in respect of the Plan in the Trustee's name
as directed by the Employer or its designees in writing. The Trustee shall not be under any duty to
compute the amount of contributions to be paid by the Employer or to take any steps to collect such
amounts as may be due to be held in trust under the Plan. The Trustee shall not be responsible for the
custody, investment, safekeeping or disposition of any assets comprising the Trust, to the extent such
functions are performed by the Employer or the Administrator, or both.
5.2 It shall be the duty of the Employer, subject to the provisions of the Plan, to pay over to the
Administrator, or other person or entity designated hereunder from time to time, the Employer's
contributions under the Plan and to inform the Administrator in writing as to the identity and value of the
assets titled in the Trustee's name hereunder and to keep accurate books and records with respect to
participants of the Plan.
ARTICLE VI
INVESTMENTS
6.1 The Employer may appoint one or more investment managers to manage and control all or part of the
assets of the Trust.
6.2 The Trustee shall not have any discretion or authority with regard to the investment of the Trust and
shall act solely as a directed Trustee of the assets of which it holds title. To the extent directed by the
Employer (or Participants, their Spouse and eligible Dependents to the extent provided herein) the
Trustee is authorized and empowered with the following powers, rights and duties, each of which the
Trustee shall exercise in a nondiscretionary manner:
(a) To cause stocks, bonds, securities, or other investments to be registered in its name as Trustee
or in the name of a nominee, or to take and keep the same unregistered;
(b) To employ such agents and legal counsel as it deems advisable or proper in connection with its
duties and to pay such agents and legal counsel a reasonable fee. The Trustee shall not be
liable for the acts of such agents and counsel or for the acts done in good faith and in reliance
upon the advice of such agents and legal counsel, provided it has used reasonable care in
selecting such agents and legal counsel;
(c) To exercise where applicable and appropriate any rights of ownership in any contracts of
insurance in which any part of the Trust may be invested and to pay the premiums thereon; and
(d) At the direction of the Employer (or Participants, their Spouses, their Dependents, or the
investment manager, as the case may be) to sell, write options on, convey or transfer, invest
and reinvest any part thereof in each and every kind of property, whether real, personal or
mixed, tangible or intangible, whether income or non - income producing and wherever situated,
including but not limited to, time deposits (including time deposits in the Trustee or its affiliates,
or any successor thereto, if the deposits bear a reasonable rate of interest), shares of common
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 14
and preferred stock, mortgages, bonds, leases, notes, debentures, equipment or collateral trust
certificates, rights, warrants, convertible or exchangeable securities and other corporate,
individual or government securities or obligations, annuity, retirement or other insurance
contracts, mutual funds (including funds for which the Trustee or its affiliates serve as
investment advisor, custodian or in a similar or related capacity), or in units of any other
common, collective or commingled trust fund.
6.3 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the assets of the Plan shall be held by the Trustee as
titleholder only. Persons holding custody or possession of assets titled to the Trust shall include the
Employer, the Administrator, the investment manager, and any agents and subagents, but not the
Trustee (except in cases in which the Employer is the Trustee). The Trustee shall not be responsible
or liable for any loss or expense which may arise from or result from compliance with any direction from
the Employer, the Administrator, the investment manager or such agents to take title to any assets nor
shall the Trustee be responsible or liable for any loss or expense which may result from the Trustee's
refusal or failure to comply with any direction to hold title, except if the same shall involve or result from
the Trustee's negligence or intentional misconduct. The Trustee may refuse to comply with any
direction from the Employer, the Administrator, the investment manager, or such agents in the event
that the Trustee, in its sole and absolute discretion, deems such direction illegal.
6.4 The Employer hereby indemnifies and holds the Trustee harmless from any and all actions, claims,
demands, liabilities, losses, damages or reasonable expenses of whatsoever kind and nature in
connection with or arising out of (i) any action taken or omitted in good faith by the Trustee in
accordance with the directions of the Employer or it agents and subagents hereunder, or (ii) any
disbursements of any part of the Trust made by the Trustee in accordance with the directions of the
Employer, or (iii) any action taken by or omitted in good faith by the Trustee with respect to an
investment managed by an investment manager in accordance with any direction of the investment
manager or any inaction with respect to any such investment in the absence of directions from the
investment manager. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Employer shall have no
responsibility to the Trustee under the foregoing indemnification if the Trustee fails negligently,
intentionally or recklessly to perform any of the duties undertaken by it under the provisions of this
Trust.
6.5 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the
Administrator and the investment manager or another agent of the Employer, will be responsible for
valuing all assets so acquired for all purposes of the Trust and of holding, investing, trading and
disposing of the same. The Employer will indemnify and hold the Trustee harmless against any and all
claims, actions, demands, liabilities, losses, damages, or expenses of whatsoever kind and nature,
which arise from or are related to any use of such valuation by the Trustee or holding, trading, or
disposition of such assets.
6.6 The Trustee shall and hereby does indemnify and hold harmless the Employer from any and all actions,
claims, demands, liabilities, losses, damages and reasonable expenses of whatsoever kind and nature
in connection with or arising out of (a) the Trustee's failure to follow the directions of the Employer, the
Administrator, the investment manager, or agents thereof, except as permitted by the last sentence of
Section 6.3 above; (b) any disbursements made without the direction of the Employer, the
Administrator, the investment manager or agents thereof; and (c) the Trustee's negligence, willful
misconduct, or recklessness with respect to the Trustee's duties under this Declaration.
ARTICLE VII
CONTRIBUTIONS
7.1 Employer Contributions. The Employer shall contribute to the Trust such amounts as specified in the
Plan or by resolution.
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 15
7.2 Accrued Leave and Personal Holiday. Contributions up to an amount equal to the value of accrued
sick leave, vacation leave, annual leave and /or personal holidays are permitted under the Plan. The
Employer's Plan must provide a formula for determining the value of the Participant's contribution of
accrued leave. The Employer's Plan must contain a forfeiture provision that will prevent Participants
from receiving the accrued leave in cash in lieu of a contribution to the Trust.
7.3 Accounts. Employer contributions and contributions of accrued sick leave or vacation leave, or both, all
investment income and realized and unrealized gains and losses, and forfeitures allocable thereto will
be deposited into an Account in the name of the Participant for the exclusive benefit of the Participant,
his Spouse or eligible Dependents. The assets in each Participant's Account may be invested in
Investment Funds as directed by the Participant from among the Investment Funds selected by the
Employer.
7.4 Receipt of Contributions. The Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator or
investment manager or another agent of the Employer, shall receive all contributions paid or delivered
to it hereunder and shall hold, invest, reinvest and administer such contributions pursuant to this
Declaration, without distinction between principal and income. The Trustee shall not be responsible for
the calculation or collection of any contribution under the Plan, but shall hold title to property received in
respect of the Plan in the Trustee's name as directed by the Employer or its designee pursuant to this
Declaration.
7.5 No amount in any Account maintained under this Trust shall be subject to transfer, assignment, or
alienation, whether voluntary or involuntary, in favor of any creditor, transferee, or assignee of the
Employer, the Trustee, any Participant, his Spouse, or eligible Dependent.
7.6 Upon the satisfaction of all liabilities under the Plan to provide such benefits, any amount of Employer
contributions, plus accrued earnings thereon, remaining in such separate Accounts must, under the
terms of the Plan, be returned to the Employer.
ARTICLE VIII
OTHER PLANS
8.1 If the Employer hereafter adopts one or more other plans providing life, sickness, accident, medical,
disability, severance, or other benefits and designates the Trust hereby created as part of such other
plan, the Employer or, if so designated by the Employer, the Administrator or an investment manager or
another agent of the Employer shall, subject to the terms of this Declaration, accept and hold
hereunder contributions to such other plans. In that event (a) the Employer or, if so designated by the
Employer, the Administrator or an investment manager or another agent of the Employer, may
commingle for investment purposes the contributions received under such other plan or plans with the
contributions previously received by the Trust, but the books and records of the Employer or, if so
designated by the Employer, the Administrator or an investment manager or another agent of the
Employer, shall at all times show the portion of the Trust Fund allocable to each plan; (b) the term
"Plan" as used herein shall be deemed to refer separately to each other plan; and (c) the term
"Employer" as used herein shall be deemed to refer to the person or group of persons which have been
designated by the terms of such other plans as having the authority to control and manage the
operation and administration of such other plan.
ARTICLE IX
DISBURSEMENTS AND EXPENSES
9.1 The Employer or its designee shall make such payments from the Trust at such time to such persons
and in such amounts as shall be authorized by the provisions of the Plan provided, however, that no
payment shall be made, either during the existence of or upon the discontinuance of the Plan (subject
to Section 7.6), which would cause any part of the Trust to be used for or diverted to purposes other
than the exclusive benefit of the Participants, their Spouses and eligible Dependents pursuant to the
provisions of the Plan.
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 16
9.2 All payments of benefits under the Plan shall be made exclusively from the assets of the Accounts of
the Participants to whom or to whose Spouse or eligible Dependents such payments are to be made,
and no person shall be entitled to look to any other source for such payments.
9.3 The Employer, Trustee and Administrator may be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred by
them in the administration of the Trust. All such expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable
fees of accountants and legal counsel to the extent not otherwise reimbursed, shall constitute a charge
against and shall be paid from the Trust upon the direction of the Employer.
ARTICLE X
ACCOUNTING
10.1 The Trustee shall not be required to keep accounts of the investments, receipts, disbursements, and
other transactions of the Trust, except as necessary to perform its title - holding function hereunder. All
accounts, books, and records relating thereto shall be maintained by the Employer or its designee.
10.2 As promptly as possible following the close of each year, the Trustee shall file with the Employer a
written account setting forth assets titled to the Trust as reported to the Trustee by the Employer or its
designee.
ARTICLE XI
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
11.1 Neither the Trustee nor any affiliate thereof shall be required to give any bond or to qualify before, be
appointed by, or account to any court of law in the exercise of its powers hereunder.
11.2 No person transferring title or receiving a transfer of title from the Trustee shall be obligated to look to
the propriety of the acts of the Trustee in connection therewith.
11.3 The Employer may engage the Trustee as its agent in the performance of any duties required of the
Employer under the Plan, but such agency shall not be deemed to increase the responsibility or liability
of the Trustee under this Declaration.
11.4 The Employer shall have the right at all reasonable times during the term of this Declaration and for
three (3) years after the termination of this Declaration to examine, audit, inspect, review, extract
information from, and copy all books, records, accounts, and other documents of the Trustee relating to
this Declaration and the Trustees' performance hereunder.
ARTICLE XII
AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION
12.1 The Employer reserves the right to alter, amend, or (subject to Section 9.1) terminate this Declaration
at any time for any reason without the consent of the Trustee or any other person, provided that no
amendment affecting the rights, duties, or responsibilities of the Trustee shall be adopted without the
exception of the Trustee to the amendment. Any such amendment shall become effective as of the
date provided in the amendment, if requiring the Trustee's execution, or on delivery of the amendment
to the Trustee, if the Trustee's execution is not required.
12.2 Upon termination of this Declaration and upon the satisfaction of all liabilities under the Plan to provide
such benefits, any amount of Employer contributions, plus accrued earnings thereon, remaining in such
separate Accounts must, under the terms of the Plan, be returned to the Employer.
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 17
ARTICLE XIII
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES
13.1 The Employer reserves the right to discharge the Trustee for any or no reason, at any time by giving
ninety (90) days' advance written notice.
13.2 The Trustee reserves the right to resign at any time by giving ninety (90) days' advance written notice
to the Employer.
13.3 In the event of discharge or resignation of the Trustee, the Employer may appoint a successor Trustee
who shall succeed to all rights, duties, and responsibilities of the former Trustee under this Declaration,
and the terminated Trustee shall be deemed discharged of all duties under this Declaration and
responsibilities for the Trust.
ARTICLE XIV
LIMITED EFFECT OF PLAN AND TRUST
14.1 Neither the establishment of the Plan and the Trust or any modification thereof, the creation of any fund
or account, nor the payment of any benefits, shall be construed as giving to any person covered under
the Plan or other person any legal or equitable right against the Trustee, the Administrator, the
Employer or any officer or employee thereof, except as may otherwise be expressly provided in the
Plan or in this Declaration.
ARTICLE XV
PROTECTIVE CLAUSE
15.1 Neither the Administrator, the Employer, nor the Trustee shall be responsible for the validity of any
contract of insurance or other arrangement maintained in connection with the Plan, or for the failure on
the part of the insurer or provider to make payments provided by such contract, or for the action of any
person which may delay payment or render a contract void or unenforceable in whole or part.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Maplewood as the Employer and Trustee have executed this
amended Declaration by their respective duly authorized officers, effective November 14, 2005.
12. Budget Transfer from Contingency Account to Fire Account for New Heating and AC
Unit
Approved the budget transfer of $13,600 from the contingency fund to the fire fund to
cover the expense of the emergency replacement of the new hearing /ac unit at station
three.
13. Adjust City Publishing Budget
Approved the transfer of $6,041 from the contingency account to be used for the final
final 2005 city news publication.
14. 2006 Employee Insurance Renewal
Approved the Insurance Labor - Management Committee recommendation to be effective
January 1, 2006.
15. Healthcare Savings Plan Document (HRA)
Moved to adopt the following Health -Care Savings Plan document to establish the HRA
and authorized City Staff to execute the appropriate legal and administrative agreements
with the NIS, ING, and Mid America to manage and administer the HRA:
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 18
Health Care Savings Plan Document
FOR
City of Maplewood
Introduction
This Health Care Savings Plan, hereinafter referred to as the Plan, is sponsored by the
City of Maplewood hereinafter referred to as the Employer, and is effective on
January 1, 2006 The Plan enables Participants and their dependents to be reimbursed tax -free for eligible
medical and dental expenses and health insurance premiums. Contributions to this Plan shall be made by
the Employer and irrevocably credited to Participants' accounts. Claims for reimbursement shall be
processed and reimbursements paid out on a tax -free basis for medical expenses in accordance with
Internal Revenue Service Guidelines for Health Reimbursement Agreements, IRS Publication 502, Internal
Revenue Code Sections 213(d), 105 and 106 as described in Revenue Ruling 2002 -41 and Notice 2002-
45.
Participation
Participation in this Plan is mandatory for all Employees of the class or classes set forth by the Employer in
the Plan Adoption Agreement.
Funding
All funds for the Plan shall come exclusively from the Employer and shall constitute either a specified dollar
amount and /or a specific percentage of Employees' retirement pay as the Employer shall from time to time
determine. The amount or percentage to be determined by the Employer shall be subject to, and not in
contravention of, the Employer's obligations to its Employees. All funds in the Plan belong to the individual
Participants as allocated to their accounts. Once funds are allocated to the Participants' accounts, the
Employer relinquishes all right, title, control, and interest to such funds.
Plan Investments
The Employer realizes and acknowledges that the funds in this Plan are for the exclusive purpose of
reimbursing Plan Participants for medical expenses. The Employer has determined that, given the nature
of the funds in the Plan and their intended usage, it would be inappropriate to subject them to speculative
investments that would put the principal at risk. Therefore, the Employer has determined that this Plan
shall hold its funds in a fixed annuity account that earns a reasonable rate of return with a guarantee
minimum rate of return of not less than three percent (3 %). The account shall be with a major insurance
company, rated at least A+ by A.M. Best, AA+ by Standard & Poor's, and Aa2 by Moody's. The insurance
company shall be designated in the Adoption Agreement.
Plan Administrator
The Employer designates as the initial Plan Administrator the entity named in the Adoption Agreement.
The initial Plan Administrator shall serve as Plan Administrator until such time as a new Plan Administrator
is appointed.
Administrative Fees
There shall be no administrative charges assessed against the Employer. Participants may be charged a
reimbursement - processing fee of $5.00 for every month they receive a disbursement, with a maximum
annual reimbursement - processing fee of $30.00. The maximum annual reimbursement - processing fee will
be $60.00 for those participants electing to reimburse twice per month. This procedure will allow
Participants to control their costs. There shall not be any charges to Participants or their dependents
unless a disbursement is made.
Administration
1. Health reimbursement requests may be made monthly and must be for a minimum of $100.
Participants are eligible to submit for reimbursement from their funded account upon becoming eligible for
the Health Care Savings Plan and first exhausting their section 125 plan. Participants are expected to
reimburse all eligible expenditures in a timely manner and are not allowed to submit claims multiple times or
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 19
submit receipts that have already been submitted through a previous tax advantaged plan such as a
Section 125 plan. Reimbursement timeframes will be subject to IRS Revenue Rulings.
2. Participants are entitled to request reimbursements from their accounts as soon as the accounts are
funded by the Employer, but only for medical expenses incurred subsequent to the effective date of this
Plan. Pursuant to IRS Guidelines, hardship withdrawals or loans are not permitted under this Plan and
Plan funds may only be used to reimburse Participants and their dependents for medical expenses.
3. In order to receive reimbursement for qualified expenses, Participants shall provide the Plan
Administrator with whatever information is reasonably required. This Plan shall not and cannot reimburse
for any claims other than those allowed under the Internal Revenue Code and as described in IRS
Publication 502.
4. When a request is approved it shall be scheduled for disbursement. Disbursements shall be made
under the following timelines: If eligible receipts are received by the plan administrator anytime between
the V through the 15` of any given month, they will be issued disbursement by the 30` of that same
month. If eligible receipts are received by the plan administrator anytime between the 16` through the
30`h/31 n of any given month, they will be issued disbursement by the 15` of the following month.
5. Decisions of the Plan Administrator shall be final on the issue of eligible expenditures and such
decisions shall be based on IRS Publication 502 as interpreted by the IRS or court rulings or directives
concerning the deductibility of medical expenses for Federal Income Tax purposes, which interpretations
shall be controlling for purposes of determining reimbursement eligibility under this Plan.
6. Other than establishing this Plan and providing funding for the Plan, the Employer does not assume
any responsibility for any aspect of any Participant's health care. Participant questions shall be directed to
the Plan Administrator.
7. Each Participant shall be notified by the Plan Administrator of his or her account balance at the time
a deposit is made to his or her account. The Plan Administrator shall provide each Participant with a
quarterly statement setting forth the Participant's account balance and earnings and disbursements for the
quarter. Additionally, the Plan Administrator shall provide a Participant with a statement of account balance
in conjunction with each reimbursement distribution.
Funds in a Participant's account at the end of each year shall be rolled into the following year.
9. Reimbursement is available for the Participant and the Participant's tax dependants as defined in
Internal Revenue Code Section 152. Submission of a request for reimbursement on behalf of someone
other than the Participant shall be deemed a representation by the Participant that the request for
reimbursement is made on behalf of a qualified dependant.
Death Benefit
If a Participant dies prior to exhausting his account balance, the Participant's surviving spouse and /or
dependents are eligible to be reimbursed for their qualified medical expenses under this Plan Document
until the account balance is exhausted. If a balance remains after the death of the spouse and all
dependents, all remaining funds will be forfeited. These forfeited funds will revert back to the employer.
Upon forfeiture to the employer, the employer will then equally redistribute forfeited funds among the
existing plan Participants remaining in the plan at the time of receiving such forfeited funds from the plan
administrator. Additional reasonable administrative fees may be charged in connection with any tax
reporting requirements and deducted from the account.
Plan Amendments
The Employer has the authority to amend this Plan at any time, in whole or in part. Plan Participants will be
notified of any Plan changes. Any amendment to the Plan shall not adversely affect the rights of existing
Participants. However, changes imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, either by law change,
regulations, or rulings, will be effective immediately and without notice and may affect current Participants.
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 20
Involuntary Access to Funds
Funds in a Participant's Plan account are not assignable by a Participant, either in law or in equity, or
subject to estate tax, or to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or any other legal processes.
Plan Termination
In the event the Employer elects to terminate this Plan, amounts credited to Participants' accounts will
remain in the Participants' accounts and Participants will continue to utilize their accounts as set out in this
Plan Document until their accounts are exhausted.
HIPAA Compliance
1. Disclosure of Summary Health Information to the Employer
In accordance with the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (the
"Privacy Standards ") issued and pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996, as amended ( "HIPAA" ), the Plan may disclose Summary Health Information to the Employer, if the
Employer requests the Summary Health Information for the purpose of (a) obtaining premium bids from
health plans for providing health insurance coverage under this Plan or (b) modifying, amending or
terminating the Plan.
"Summary Health Information" may be individually identifiable health information and it summarizes
the claims history, claims expenses or the type of claims experienced by individuals in the Plan, but it
excludes all identifiers that must be removed for the information to be de- identified, except that it may
contain geographic information to the extent that it is aggregated by five -digit zip code.
2. Disclosure of Protected Health Information ( "PHI ") to the Employer for Plan Administration
Purposes
In order that the Employer may receive and use a Participant's individually identifiable health
information or PHI for "Plan Administration" purposes, the Employer agrees to:
a. Not use or further disclose PHI other than as permitted or required by the Plan Documents or as
Required by Law (as defined in the Privacy Standards);
b. Ensure that any agents, including a subcontractor, to whom the Employer provides PHI received
from the Plan agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to the Employerwith respectto such
PHI;
C. Not use or disclose PHI for employment - related actions and decisions or in connection with any
other benefit or employee benefit plan of the Employer, except pursuant to an authorization which meets
the requirements of the Privacy Standards;
d. Report to the Plan any PHI use or disclosure that is inconsistent with the uses or disclosures
provided for of which the Employer becomes aware;
e. Make available PHI in accordance with Section 164.524 of the Privacy Standards (45 CFR
164.524);
f. Make available PHI for amendment and incorporate any amendments to PHI in accordance with
Section 164.526 of the Privacy Standards (45 CFR 164.526);
g. Make available the information required to provide an accounting of disclosures in accordance with
Section 164.528 of the Privacy Standards (45 CFR 164.528);
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 21
h. Make its internal practices, books and records relating to the use and disclosure of PHI received
from the Plan available to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( "HHS "), or
any other officer or employee of HHS to whom the authority involved has been delegated, for purposes of
determining compliance by the Plan with Part 164, Subpart E, of the Privacy Standards (45 CFR 164.500 et
seq);
i. If feasible, return or destroy all PHI received from the Plan that the Employer still maintains in any
form and retain no copies of such PHI when no longer needed for the purpose for which disclosure was
made, except that, if such return or destruction is not feasible, limit further uses and disclosures to those
purposes that make the return or destruction of the PHI infeasible; and
j. Ensure that adequate separation between the Plan and the Employer, as required in Section
164.504(i)(2)(iii) of the Privacy Standards (45 CFR 164.504(f)(2)(iii)), is established as follows:
i. The following employees, or classes of employees, or other persons under control of the
Employer, shall be given access to the PHI to be disclosed:
High Deductible Medical Plan Participants and former participants
with remaining HRA account balances
Human Resource & Finance Department staff for administrative
ii. The access to and use of PHI by the individuals described in subsection (i) above shall be restricted
to the Plan Administration functions that the Employer performs for the Plan.
iii. In the event any of the individuals described in subsection (i) above do not comply with the
provisions of the Plan Documents relating to use and disclosure of PHI, the Plan Administrator shall impose
reasonable sanctions as necessary, in its discretion, to ensure that no further non - compliance occurs. Such
sanctions shall be imposed progressively (for example, an oral warning, a written warning, time off without
pay and termination), if appropriate, and shall be imposed so that they are commensurate with the severity
of the violation.
"Plan Administration" activities are limited to activities that would meet the definition of payment or health
care operations, but do not include functions to modify, amend or terminate the Plan or solicit bids from
prospective issuers. "Plan Administration" functions include quality assurance, claims processing, auditing,
monitoring and management of carve -out plans, such as vision and dental. It does not include any
employment - related functions or functions in connection with any other benefit or benefit plans.
The Plan shall disclose PHI to the Employer only upon receipt of a certification bythe Employerthat
(a) the Plan Documents have been amended to incorporate the above provisions and (b) the Employer
agrees to comply with such provisions.
3. Disclosure of Certain Enrollment Information to the Employer
Pursuant to Section 164.504(f)(1)(iii) of the Privacy Standards (45 CFR 164.504(f)(1)(iii)), the Plan
may disclose to the Employer information on whether an individual is participating in the Plan or is enrolled
in or has disenrolled from a health insurance issuer or health maintenance organization offered bythe Plan
to the Employer.
4. Disclosure of PHI to Obtain Stop -loss or Excess Loss Coverage
The Employer hereby authorizes and directs the Plan, through the Plan Administrator or its third
party administrator, to disclose PHI to stop -loss carriers, excess loss carriers or managing general
underwriters (MGUs) for underwriting and other purposes in order to obtain and maintain stop -loss or
excess loss coverage related to benefit claims under the Plan. Such disclosures shall be made in
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 22
accordance with the Privacy Standards.
5. Other Disclosures and Uses of PHI
With respect to all other uses and disclosures of PHI, the Plan shall comply with the Privacy
Standards.
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 7:00 p.m. Edgerton Manor Building Addition Setback Variance (2021 Edgerton Street)
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report.
Mayor Cardinal congratulated Mayor Elect Diana Longrie.
C. Boardmember Longrie presented the Community Design Review Board report.
d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The
following persons were heard:
Allan Menning, Manager of the Edgerton Manor
David Harris, Project Architect
e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following front yard setback variance resolution
approving a 20 -foot, 40 -inch front yard setback variance for the construction of a covered entry way for
Edgerton Manor located at 2021 Edgerton Street:
VARIANCE RESOLUTION 05 -11 -163
WHEREAS, Alan Menning, manager of the Edgerton Manor, has applied for a variance from the
city's zoning code.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to 2021 Edgerton Street. The legal description is:
Edgerton Highlands: E 288.17 FT OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLK 4
WHEREAS, Section 44- 20(c)(6) of the city's ordinance requires a 30 -foot front yard setback
from a right -of -way for all multi - family buildings.
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to construct a front covered entryway which will be set back
9 feet, 8 inches from the Edgerton Street right -of -way.
WHEREAS, the city council approved a 20 -foot, 4 -inch setback variance in order to allow the
applicant to construct the front entryway within 9 feet, 8 inches from the Edgerton Street right -of -way.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On October 11, 2005, the community design review board recommended that the city
council approve this variance.
2. The city council held a public hearing on November 14, 2005. City staff published a notice
in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 23
council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described
variance for the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the property and not created by the current property owner. The building was constructed in
1971, prior to any handicap accessibility requirements. At that time the building was constructed 37
feet, 8 inches to the Edgerton Street right -of -way, limiting the buildable area for a handicap accessible
entryway.
2. Construction of the proposed handicap accessible entryway will better serve the tenants and
meet the Minnesota Handicap Accessibility requirements.
3. The right -of -way along Edgerton Street in this area is inconsistent and there is existing
development on the west side of the street which is closer than that being requested for the handicap
accessible entryway.
The variance is approved with the following conditions:
1. Edgerton Manor management shall review their parking policy to determine if requiring
tenants to lease or use underground parking for all of their vehicles is feasible.
2. The City of Maplewood will monitor on- street parking along Edgerton Street to determine the
need for no- parking signs.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the plans date - stamped September 20, 2005, for the
proposed covered entryway at Edgerton Manor located at 2021 Edgerton Street. Approval is subject to
the following conditions:
Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
Before getting a building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following:
1) A revised landscape plan showing all sizes of the proposed plant species.
2) Sample building materials to be approved by staff.
3) New entry door frames to be hunter green to match existing shutters. All other materials
to match existing building materials.
C. The applicant shall complete the following before final inspection of the covered entryway:
1) Install all required landscaping.
2) Make all necessary repairs to the existing driveway due to damage by construction.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve
minor changes.
The landscaping shall be monitored, maintained and replaced as needed.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 24
AWARD OF BIDS
Applewood Park Change Orders
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
Parks and Recreation Director Anderson presented specifics from the report.
Councilmember Koppen moved to award a contract to Ebert Construction in the amount of $210,714.19
for phase one construction of Applewood Park. Approval was also made for two change orders in the
amounts of $1,675 and $4,914 for additional trees, related grading adjustments and the addition of four
animal sculptures that are going to be incorporated into the shelter columns.
Seconded by Councilmember Bartol Ayes -All
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
K. NEW BUSINESS
Canvass of Election Results
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report.
Mayor Cardinal moved to adopt the following resolution approving the canvassing of the results from
the General Election held on November 8, 2005:
RESOLUTION 05 -11 -164
CANVASS OF ELECTION
RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, acting as a canvassing
board on November 14, 2005, hereby declares the following results in the November 8, 2005, City
General Election:
MAYOR:
Diana Longrie 2,861
Will Rossbach 2,531
Diana Longrie, receiving the highest number of votes for the General Election will be sworn in as Mayor
at the January 9, 2006 council meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBER:
Rebecca Cave (Cunnien) 2,474
Erik Hjelle 2,772
Kathleen A. "Kathy" Juenemann 2,523
Marvin C. Koppen 2,229
Erik Hjelle and Kathleen Juenemann, receiving the top two highest number of votes for the General
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 25
Election will be sworn in as Councilmembers at the January 9, 2006 council meeting.
Seconded by Councilmember Bartol Ayes-All
Calling for a Special Election
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report.
Mayor Cardinal moved to call for a special election to fill the vacancy on the city council to be held on
February 28, 2006.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All
3. Consideration of Ballot Question- Intoxicating Liquor License Increase
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report.
Mayor Cardinal moved to approve the referendum for the Special Election and that the following
proposed wording be placed on the February 28, 2006 Special Election ballot:
Shall the City council be allowed to issue five `on -sale' licenses
for the sale of intoxicating liquor in excess of the number
now permitted by law?
Yes.......
No ........
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers
Bartol, Koppen and Rossbach
Nay - Councilmember Juenemann
4. Liquor License On -Sale Change of Manager - The Olive Garden - Gjon Prendi
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report.
C. Gjon Prendi was present for council questions.
Mayor Cardinal moved to approve the intoxicating liquor license application for Goon Prendi for The
Olive Garden Italian Restaurant located at 1740 Beam Avenue.
Seconded by Councilmember Bartol
Ayes-All
5. Liquor License On -Sale Change of Manager — Noodles & Company — Matthew Hinrichs
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report.
C. Matthew Hinrichs was present for council questions.
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the intoxicating liquor license application for Matthew
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 26
Hinrichs for Noodles and Company located at 2865 White Bear Avenue.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All
Liquor Off -Sale Change of Manager — A -1 Liquor — Guneet Arneja
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
City Clerk Guilfoile presented specifics from the report.
C. Guneet Arneja was present for council questions.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the intoxicating liquor license for Guneet Arneja for A -1
Liquors located at 19 Century Avenue.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All
Dahl Avenue Improvements — City Project 05 -10 — Resolution Considering Dismissal of
Assessment Objection Related to Property Ownership
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
City Engineer AN presented specifics from the report.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution denying the objection of William
Kayser for the Dahl Avenue Street and Utility Improvements for Woodhill Development, City Project 05-
10:
RESOLUTION 05 -11 -166
DENYING ASSESSMENT OBJECTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on October 24` 2005, calling
for a Public Hearing, the assessment roll for the Dahl Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for
Woodhill Development, City Project 05 -10, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
WHEREAS, one property owner, Mr. William Kayser on behalf of Evelyn C. Wallace, filed an
objection to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
summarized as follows:
Mr. Kayser claims that Evelyn Wallace is the legal property owner of this parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
1. That the objection of William Kayser is not based upon fact as noted by the City Attorney
and records provided by the current property owner and said objection is hereby denied.
2. The assessment roll for the Dahl Avenue Street and Utility Improvements for Woodhill
Development remains as proposed and approved on October 24, 2005, a copy of which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against
the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the
proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it.
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 27
3. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period
of 15 years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2006 and shall
bear interest at the rate of 6.1 percent per annum for the date of the adoption of this assessment
resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this
resolution until December 31, 2005. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest
for one year on all unpaid installments.
4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the
assessment to the county auditor, but no later than November 23'', 2005, pay the whole of the
assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except
that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of
this resolution; and they may, at any time after November 23'', 2005, pay to the county auditor the
entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in
which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be
charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year.
5. The city engineer and city clerk shall transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to
the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county no later than November 24`
2005. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen
Ayes -All
Valley View Avenue Drainage Concerns — City Project 05 -36 — Consider Authorizing
Storm Water Ponding Investigation and Authorize Project Funding
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
City Engineer AN presented specifics from the report.
Mayor Cardinal moved to authorize a Storm Water Pond and Drainage Study of the Valley View
Avenue Drainage Area and directed the Finance Director to transfer $20,000 from the Environmental
Utility to the Protect Fund.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen
Ayes -Mayor Cardinal,
Councilmembers Bartol, Juenemann
and Koppen
Nay - Councilmember Rossbach
Kennard Street Improvements (Beam to County Road D) - Project 03 -04 - Resolution for
Modification of Existing Landscape Contract, Change Order No. 2
City Manager Fursman presented the report.
City Engineer AN presented specifics from the report.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution for Change Order No. 2 in the
amount of $2,870 with Nobel Nursery Retail, Inc. for the landscaping contract of Kennard Street -City
Protect 03 -04:
RESOLUTION 05 -11 -165
DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made
Improvement Project 03 -04, Kennard Street Landscape Improvements, and has let a landscape
contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 28
WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said landscape contract be modified and
designated as Landscape Improvement, Project 03 -04, Change Order No. 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing
contract by executing said Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $2,870.00. The revised contract
amount is $255,862.55.
No revisions to the project budget are proposed at this time as these changes fall within the
original project budget.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All
10. Special Assessment Agreement and Release of Master Development Agreement:
Ramsey County Library (Southlawn Drive - Legacy Village)
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented specifics from the report.
C. Jolly Mangine, Director of Property Management was present for council questions.
d. Jason Thomas, Hartford Group, thanked staff and City Council for their continued support and
assistance on this complex project.
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the release of obligation under the following Master
Development Agreement. In addition, approved the waiver of section 6.2(e) of the Master Development
Agreement that requires that a building permit be issued prior to the City paving its share of the special
assessments:
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RELEASE OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER
MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
RAMSEY COUNTY LIBRARY
I. Recital.
1.1 The Effective Date of this Agreement is , 2005.
1.2 The Parties to this Agreement are City of Maplewood, Minnesota, a Minnesota statutory city ( "City "),
Legacy Holdings -MW LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ( "Master Developer ") and Ramsey County, a
political subdivision of the State of Minnesota ( "Successor Developer ").
1.3 City and Master Developer are parties to a Master Development Agreement with an effective date of
September 8, 2003, recorded November 21, 2003 as Document No. 3704070 in the Office of the Ramsey County
Recorder and recorded November 21, 2003 as Document No. 1791278 in the Office of the Ramsey County
Registrar of Titles, as amended by First Amendment to Development Agreement with an effective date of February
9, 2004 and as amended by a Second Amendment to Development Agreement with an effective date of April 26,
2005 ( "Master Development Agreement').
1.4 Various real estate parcels are subject to the Master Development Agreement and Successor
Developer has entered into an Agreement with Master Developer to purchase one of the parcels subject to the
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 29
Master Development Agreement for the purpose of developing a regional library project (the "Library
Development "). Such parcel is referred to as "Phase 6B — Outlots D and E of the Plat" in the Master Development
Agreement but is now legally described as:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Legacy Village of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota (the "Subject Parcel ").
1.5 In connection with the acquisition of the Subject Parcel, Master Developer has requested to be
released from the terms and conditions of the Master Development Agreement as to the Subject Parcel pursuantto
Section 9.3 of the Master Development Agreement.
1.6 City has approved the Subject Parcel for use consistent with the proposed Library Development. On
that basis, City is willing to release Master Developer from the terms and conditions of the Master Development
Agreement subject to Master Developer's acknowledgement of its obligations under Section 6.2 of the Master
Development Agreement to pay a part of the special assessments attributable to the Subject Parcel as setforth on
Exhibit F to the Master Development Agreement and its continuing obligations as to other parcels that remain
subject to the Master Development Agreement.
THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
II. Agreement.
2.1 From and after the effective date set forth above, Master Developer is released from its obligations
under the Master Development Agreement as to the Subject Parcel subject to the following:
(a) Master Developer will comply with the terms of Section 6.2 of the Master Development
Agreement in connection with the payment of special assessments attributable to the Subject Parcel; and
(b) Master Developer remains liable under the Master Development Agreement as to all other
parcels subject to the Master Development Agreement that are not released hereby or previously released.
Seconded by Councilmember Bartol Ayes -Mayor Cardinal,
Councilmembers Bartol, Koppen and
Rossbach
Nay - Councilmember Juenemann
L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
Maplewood Food Shelf Cam paign-Councilmember Juenemann announced the city is
participating in a food shelf drive this year. Drop off sites are at City Hall and the Maplewood
Community Center. She encouraged all residents to participate and contribute.
Maplewood Bloodmobile - Councilmember Juenemann noted the Mobile Bloodmobile will
be at the city December 19` from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. More details are available on the city
website.
RushLine Corridor Update - Councilmember Rossbach shared details from the last Corridor
meeting which included a presentation from representatives from St. Louis County and
Duluth. Both entities are considering becoming members which could result in train
transportation being available to Duluth.
Gladstone Development - Councilmember Bartol expressed his concerns with the
proposed Gladstone Master Plan. Councilmembers Juenemann and Rossbach provided their
perspective on the "various pieces" of the project.
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 30
O. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
Council Meeting Date for Second Meeting in December
Mayor Cardinal moved to cancel the second City Council Meeting in December.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All
Ice Arena Board - Councilmember Koppen will be attending the December meeting. City
Manager Fursman asked council to inform him if another councilmember would be interested in
attending the meeting also.
Councilmember Juenemann and Mayor Cardinal thanked City Clerk Guilfoile, city staff and
Election Judges for their efforts in the administration of the November 8` election.
P. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Cardinal moved to adjourn at 9:20 p.m.
City Council Meeting 11 -14 -05 31
DRAFT -- MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
5:00 p.m. Thursday, November 17, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -25
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C.
113
C
Robert Cardinal, Mayor
David Bartol, Councilmember
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember
Will Rossbach, Councilmember
Others Present:
City Manager Fursman
Assistant City Manager Coleman
Finance Director Faust
Parks and Recreation Director Anderson
Public Works Director AN
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
10IAgtA- 111; 10 **1
1. Proposed 2006 Budget and Tax Levy
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Agenda Item D3
REAL Director /City Clerk Guilfoile
Human Resource Director Le
Police Chief Thomalla
Fire Chief Lukin
IT Director Hurley
City Manager Fursman introduced the Proposed 2006 Budget and Tax Levy with assistance
from Finance Director Faust.
Department Heads each gave a presentation on their department budgets and objectives for
2006.
FUTURE TOPICS
1�91PL6111N0
Mayor Cardinal adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m.
AGENDA NO. C -1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Finance Director
RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
DATE: November 28, 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:
$ 5,254.78 Manual Checks # 68445 thru # 68447
dated 11104105 thru 11/08/05
$ 2,140.63 EFT # 68448
dated 11115105
$ 1,501,654.91 Checks # 68449 thru # 68525
dated 11115105
$ 260,616.44 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 11104105 thru 11/09/05
$
650.00
Manual Checks # 68526
dated 11/16/05
$
158,493.96
Checks # 68527 thru # 68581
dated 11/22/05
$
3,793,194.45
Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 11110105 thru 11/17/05
$
5,722,005.17
Total Accounts Payable
PAYROLL
$
478,336.89
Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 11/18/05
$
2,449.75
Payroll Deduction check # 103340 thru # 103343
dated 11/18/05
$
480,786.64
Total Payroll
$ 6,202,791.81 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
P: \EXCEL \APRCLMS \2005 \05- AprClms 11 -10 and 11 -18
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
11/10/2005 1:47:53 PM CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Check
Date
Vendor
Description /Accoun
Amount
68445
11/4/2005
01284 POSTMASTER
REPLENISH PERMIT #4903-002
300.00
68446
11/8/2005
01345 RAMSEY COUNTY
FILE DEED FOR PURCHASE OF
48.00
68447
11/8/2005
01345 RAMSEY COUNTY
STATE DEED TAX ON PURCH OF
4,906.78
68449
11/15/2005
00014 AT&T
MANAGED INTERNET SRV - OCT
1,013.60
68450
11/15/2005
01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF
WIDE AREA NETWORK - SEP
392.00
68451
11/15/2005
01981 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER
INSTALL RADIO IN AMBULANCE
273.53
68452
11/15/2005
00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC
PATROL & BOARDING FEES 10/24 -
1,619.71
68453
11/15/2005
00119 AQUA CITY IRRIGATION INC
WINTERIZE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
570.50
68454
11/15/2005
03295 ASHWOOD, STEVE
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
57.00
68455
11/15/2005
00178 BERGGREN, GORDON
NAME SIGNS
20.00
68456
11/15/2005
00181 BERWALD ROOFING CO INC
50' SHEET METAL
165.00
68457
11/15/2005
02667 BIESANZ, OAKLEY
REIMB FOR FROG SUPPLIES &
86.71
68458
11/15/2005
01869 BOETCHER, DALE
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
44.00
68459
11/15/2005
01865 BOWMAN, DON
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
471.00
68460
11/15/2005
03108 BOWMAN, TRACY
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
66.00
68461
11/15/2005
00211 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP.
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS THRU 10/7
2,174.55
PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS THRU
1,675.53
PROJ 05 -16 PROF SRVS THRU 10/7
4,434.34
PROJ 03 -19 PROF SRVS THRU 10/7
576.00
68462
11/15/2005
00216 BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A.
LEGAL FEES ON BOND ISSUE
6,275.00
68463
11/15/2005
00240 C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES
APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECK
50.00
68464
11/15/2005
00358 DGM INC.
TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE
111.83
68465
11/15/2005
00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES
ADV EFFECTIVE MGMT FROG
92.54
68466
11/15/2005
03461 DUNSHEE, WAYNE K
REF GRDG ESC - 2874 ARCADE -
5,075.48
68467
11/15/2005
00520 FLOR, TIMOTHY W
REIMB FOR TUITION
630.00
68468
11/15/2005
00522 FOIX, BEA
WREATHS
220.00
68469
11/15/2005
00526 FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING INC
PROJ 03 -39 HAZELWOOD ST
82,286.94
68470
11/15/2005
00543 GE CAPITAL
COPIER LEASE - OCT
331.22
68471
11/15/2005
02134 GERNES, CAROLE
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 2/10 -10/26
118.78
68472
11/15/2005
03541 GM HOMES
REF GRADING ESC - 3094
2,512.60
REF GRADING ESC - 3082
1,250.00
REF GRADING ESC - 3084
1,250.00
68473
11/15/2005
03540 GOLF ACADEMY OF MN
GOLF INSTRUCTOR
400.00
68474
11/15/2005
03529 GREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION CO
PROJ 03 -19 PUBLIC WORKS BLDG
4,551.45
68475
11/15/2005
00612 GYM WORKS INC
PREVENTATIVE MAI NT ON
230.00
68476
11/15/2005
01867 HANSON, PERRY
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
330.00
68477
11/15/2005
02547 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC INC
POLAR PLUS DIESEL LOW
17,990.93
68478
11/15/2005
03542 HEATHER, BRIAN
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
330.00
68479
11/15/2005
03155 HIBBERD, JOSEPH H
FOOD INSPECTIONS
2,282.50
68480
11/15/2005
03538 HUBBARD, PATRICK JAMES
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
440.00
68481
11/15/2005
03536 IMPERIAL HOMES INC
REF GRADING ESC - 2571
1,107.95
68482
11/15/2005
01894 KELLY & FAWCETT PA
LEGAL SRVS - OCT
15,127.74
PROSECUTION SRVS - OCT
9,825.00
68483
11/15/2005
02728 KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
PROJ 02- 21/02 -07 PROF SRVS
3,729.43
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS THRU
2,859.05
PROJ 04 -02 PROF SRVS THRU 9/30
1,078.75
PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS THRU
8,888.08
68484
11/15/2005
03021 KIMLINGER, JENNIFER
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
396.00
68485
11/15/2005
03502 KOEHNEN ELECTRIC INC
REPLACE GENERATOR
4,100.00
68486
11/15/2005
01946 MEDICA FINANCE DEPT
REFUND DUP AMB PAYMENT
972.00
2
vchlist Check Register Page: 2
11/10/2005 1:47:53 PM CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Check Date Vendor Description /Accoun Amount
68487
11/15/2005
03023 MELANDER, JON
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
66.00
68488
11/15/2005
02906 METRO LAND & SURVEYING & ENG
PROJ 03 -36 PROF SRVS THRU
340.00
68489
11/15/2005
03270 MILLER, MIKE
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
418.00
68490
11/15/2005
01018 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
FF TRAINING
425.00
AUTOMATED PAWN SYS FEE -
535.00
68491
11/15/2005
00901 MN GFOA
NOVEMBER MEETING
15.00
68492
11/15/2005
01051 MN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
DRUG TESTING
300.00
68493
11/15/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REIMB HEALTHEAST - IRR & SIGN
13,716.65
68494
11/15/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REIMB SOUTHWIND BLDR-
6,897.43
68495
11/15/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF CLIFFORD TRAVERS -
350.00
68496
11/15/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF WILLIAM LONG -AMB
206.49
68497
11/15/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF JEFF LIBEL - MEMBERSHIP
62.50
68498
11/15/2005
01560 ONYX WASTE SRVS MIDWEST INC
RECYCLING - OCT
18,831.66
68499
11/15/2005
01863 PACKER, ROGER
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL
704.00
68500
11/15/2005
03287 PRO -WALL INC
REF GRADING ESC - 2516
5,000.00
68501
11/15/2005
00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF
HARDWARE /SOFTWARE MAINT-
1,920.00
68502
11/15/2005
00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF
TRANSFER TITLE CN #05014671
17.50
68503
11/15/2005
01345 RAMSEY COUNTY
TAX ABATEMENT PYMT
336,935.02
68504
11/15/2005
01345 RAMSEY COUNTY
TAX ABATEMENT PYMT
238,575.08
68505
11/15/2005
02008 RAMSEY COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
STRIPE CITY STREETS
19,212.21
68506
11/15/2005
01337 RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV
PROJ 03 -39 ROAD STRIPING
1,364.50
PROJ 05 -10 ROAD STRIPING
578.96
68507
11/15/2005
03446 RICK JOHNSON DEER & BEAVER INC
DEER PICKUP
100.00
68508
11/15/2005
03450 RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLC
CLASSIFICATION STUDY
474.25
68509
11/15/2005
02001 ROSEVILLE, CITY OF
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT MIS -
625.00
68510
11/15/2005
01409 S.E.H.
PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS - SEP
309.21
MARKHAM POND PROF SRVS -
2,335.11
AFTON HEIGHTS PARK PROF
3,422.09
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS - SEP
1,634.49
BRAND AVE PROF SRVS - SEP
4,701.99
HILL MURRAY SITE PROF SRVS -
4,899.31
ROSELAWN AVE TRAFFIC PROF
7,533.32
PROJ 03 -39 PROF SRVS - SEP
368.37
PROJ 03 -07 PROF SRVS - SEP
33,445.69
PROJ 04 -22 PROF SRVS - SEP
6,483.83
NPDES PHASE II - SEP
220.50
68511
11/15/2005
02663 SAARION, CARL
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
66.00
68512
11/15/2005
02118 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL
REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS
894.90
68513
11/15/2005
03215 SHAFER CONTRACTING CO INC
PROJ 03 -07 HWY 61 IMPRV PMT #2
508,587.78
68514
11/15/2005
03278 SKRYPEK'S DAIRY QUEEN
BIRTHDAY CAKE PROGRAM -SEP
281.50
68515
11/15/2005
01410 SPI DESIGN GROUP
DAILY ADMISSION PASSES
398.00
68516
11/15/2005
01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF
RADIO SRV & MAINT - OCT
658.20
68517
11/15/2005
02853 SVENDSEN, JOANNE
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 9/6 TO 11/3
36.86
68518
11/15/2005
01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
VARIOUS BITUMINOUS
97.60
VARIOUS BITUMINOUS
6,599.38
PROJ 02 -08 CTY RD D PMT #5
67,997.62
68519
11/15/2005
01026 TRANSPORTATION, DEPT OF
PUB IMPRV PROJECTS TESTING &
2,767.56
68520
11/15/2005
02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC
PROJ 04 -04 TELEVISE SEWER
710.00
68521
11/15/2005
03420 ULTIMATE MARTIAL ARTS INC
KIDSMART SAFETY COURSE 10/2
252.00
68522
11/15/2005
01728 VOYAGEUR ASSET MGMT INC
INV MGMT SERVICES
1,013.71
68523
11/15/2005
01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P.
COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP
1,222.92
68524
11/15/2005
01872 WEBER, MARK
VOLLEYBALL REFEREE
264.00
68525
11/15/2005
01190 XCEL ENERGY
GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY
8,299.98
80 Checks in
this report
Total checks :
1,506,909.69
3
vchlist Check Register Page:
11/10/2005 1:46:52 PM CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Check Date
68448 11/15/2005 02652 TETZLAFF, JUDY
Description /Account Amount
REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS 2,140.63
1 Checks in this report Total checks : 2,140.63
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Pavee
11/03/05
11/04/05
11/03/05
11/04/05
11/04/05
11/04/05
11/07/05
11/04/05
11/04/05
11/04/05
11/08/05
11/04/05
11/04/05
11/04/05
11/07/05
11/07/05
11/07/05
11/08/05
11/08/05
11/08/05
11/08/05
11/09/05
MN State Treasurer
ICMA (Vantagepointe)
MN Dept of Natural Resources
MN State Treasurer
U.S. Treasurer
P.E.R.A.
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
Labor Unions
Orchard Trust
MN State Treasurer
TOTAL
Description
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Deferred Compensation
DNR electronic licenses
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Federal Payroll Tax
P.E.R.A.
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
State Payroll Tax
Union Dues
Deferred Compensation
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Amount
14,722.36
7,930.47
364.00
14,012.63
90,642.86
53,580.24
19, 226.59
17, 979.79
1,719.88
25,228.62
15, 209.00
260,616.44
5
vchlist Check Register Page: 1
11/21/2005 9:14:57 AM CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Check
Date
Vendor
Description /Accoun
Amount
68526
11/16/2005
03546 MALMBERG, DAVID
CONCERT SHOW 11/16
650.00
68527
11/22/2005
01809 AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES NCR INC
SAFETY GRIT - TAX &DELIVERY
2,074.29
SAFETY GRIT - TAX &DELIVERY
4,216.37
SAFETY GRIT - TAX &DELIVERY
2,115.71
68528
11/22/2005
00171 BEHAN, JAMES
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 1/11 TO
185.27
68529
11/22/2005
02971 BERBEE INFORMATION NETWORKS
CATALYST3750 48 10-100-1000T
33,571.18
68530
11/22/2005
01993 BERGER, MERVIN
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 11 -8
15.52
68531
11/22/2005
00180 BERGREN, KRISTEN
REIMB FOR PROGRAM SUPPLIES
12.00
68532
11/22/2005
02908 BRIGHT WINES.COM
WINE FEST COORDINATOR
500.00
68533
11/22/2005
00494 CHILDREN HOME & FAMILY SERVICE
YOUTH DIVERSION SRVS - AUG
3,526.08
68534
11/22/2005
03467 DARTS
WORKPLACE ELDERCARE
100.00
68535
11/22/2005
03544 DITTEL, KATHLEEN
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE 9/13 &
5.00
68536
11/22/2005
00422 DRAMA KIDS, THE
DRAMA CLASS INSTRUCTOR
537.50
68537
11/22/2005
03504 DUCHARME, FRED
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE 11/8
5.00
68538
11/22/2005
03491 DUELLMAN, AUDREY
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE 11/8
5.00
68539
11/22/2005
00467 ENGRAPHICS INC
NAME SIGNS
47.93
68540
11/22/2005
01973 ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC
CAR WASHES - OCT
56.00
68541
11/22/2005
03492 ERICKSON, ELIZABETH
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE &
12.76
68542
11/22/2005
01401 FIRST STUDENT INC
BUS FEE
221.15
68543
11/22/2005
01900 FOSBURGH, ANNE
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE &
10.09
68544
11/22/2005
03365 FRANZEN, NICK
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 10/20 TO
74.96
68545
11/22/2005
03516 GABRIEL, ANTHONY
REIMB FOR TUITION
427.38
68546
11/22/2005
00543 GE CAPITAL
COPIER LEASE 11/1 - 12/1
331.22
68547
11/22/2005
00692 HUTCHINSON, ANN
REIMB FOR SUPPLIES &
66.29
68548
11/22/2005
02237 IMPERIAL IMPRESSIONS
ENVELOPES
178.66
68549
11/22/2005
03543 JOHANNESSEN, JUDITH
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE 11/8
5.00
68550
11/22/2005
03494 LARSON, ANITA
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE 11/8
5.00
68551
11/22/2005
03495 LUTTRELL, SHIRLEY
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 11/8
4.85
68552
11/22/2005
02695 MADSEN, LEONARD
MUSICIAN FOR HALLOWEEN
100.00
68553
11/22/2005
01899 MAHRE, CAROL
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE &
5.97
68554
11/22/2005
03496 MAHRE, JERI
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE 11/8
5.00
68555
11/22/2005
03497 MANTHEY, JOHN
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 11 -7 & 11 -8
5.82
68556
11/22/2005
00945 MASYS CORP
STRATUS SOFTWARE MAI NT -
738.68
68557
11/22/2005
00986 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
MONTHLY SAC - OCT
54,549.00
68558
11/22/2005
01126 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE
PERA LIFE INSURANCE
300.00
68559
11/22/2005
03548 MN STATE AUDITOR
TRAINING SEMINAR 12 -12 -05
90.00
68560
11/22/2005
01149 NATURAL RESOURCES RESTOR INC
BUCKTHORN REMOVAL
511.20
BUCKTHORN REMOVAL
4,260.00
68561
11/22/2005
03193 NOBLE NURSERY RETAIL INC
PROJ 03 -04 KENNARD ST IMP
2,812.60
68562
11/22/2005
02909 NORTH AMERICAN SALT CO
DEICING SALT-
20,988.94
68563
11/22/2005
01213 OLSON, JULIE
REIMB FOR SHOES
64.99
68564
11/22/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF V CUCCHIARELLA -
266.25
68565
11/22/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF LINDA HALL - YOUTH
105.00
68566
11/22/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF JOY MINDER - MCC
100.00
68567
11/22/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF LYLE HARNECK -
99.00
68568
11/22/2005
00001 ONE TIME VENDOR
REF V KEOTHAMMAKHOON - MCC
75.00
68569
11/22/2005
01295 PREMIER BANK
SAFE DEPOSIT BOX
75.00
SAFE DEPOSIT BOX
75.00
SAFE DEPOSIT BOX
75.00
SAFE DEPOSIT BOX
75.00
vchlist Check Register Page: 2
11/21/2005 9:14:57 AM CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Check Date
68570
11/22/2005
02118 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL
68571
11/22/2005
01463 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE
68572
11/22/2005
02515 ST CROIX LESSON CENTER
68573
11/22/2005
03503 STAFKI, TIM
68574
11/22/2005
01546 SUBURBAN SPORTSWEAR LLC
68575
11/22/2005
01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC
68576
11/22/2005
01588 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS J
68577
11/22/2005
01704 URBANSKI, HOLLY
68578
11/22/2005
03490 VAN BLARICOM, BEULAH
68579
11/22/2005
01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P.
68580
11/22/2005
01753 WEATHER WATCH, INC.
68581
11/22/2005
01190 XCEL ENERGY
56 Checks in this report
Description /Accoun Amount
REIMB FOR MILEAGE & PARKING
107.60
FEES FOR SERVICE - OCT
2,284.00
HORSE RIDING INSTRUCTION 6/13-
1,045.00
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE 11/8
5.00
SOCCER SHIRT ORDER
252.50
RETAINING WALL MATERIALS
686.58
PATCHING MATERIAL
2,755.44
REIMB FOR MEALS & MILEAGE
120.64
REIMB FOR CELL PHONE &
12.76
REIMB FOR MILEAGE 11 -8
0.97
COMMERCIAL PLUMBING
555.31
WINTER WEATHER SERVICE
595.00
GAS CHARGES
205.93
FIRE SIRENS
43.80
GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY
2,313.67
GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY
1,655.52
ELECTRIC CHARGES
11,173.62
ELECTRIC UTILITY
992.96
Total checks : 159,143.96
7
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Pavee
11/09/05
11/10/05
11/08/05
11/10/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/11/05
11/10/05
11/14/05
11/14/05
11/14/05
11/15/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/16/05
11/17/05
11/17/05
11/17/05
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
ARC Administration
MN Dept of Natural Resources
MN State Treasurer
MN State Treasurer
MN Dept of Revenue
Dain Rauscher
Wells Fargo
Dain Rauscher
MN State Treasurer
Pitney Bowes
US Bank VISA One Card*
1111c•1raIIIIII
Description
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
DCRP & Flex plan payments
DNR electronic licenses
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Fuel Tax License
Investment purchase
Investment purchase
Investment purchase
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
Postage
Purchasing card items
*Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached.
Amount
12,354.25
13,601.67
4,536.32
476.00
20,849.12
12,979.00
25.00
1, 985, 263.06
996,118.89
693,666.75
9,743.04
2,985.00
40,596.35
3,793,194.45
0
Transactions 10 -29 -05 to 11- 11 -05.
Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name
38663
THE KAHLER GRAND HOTEL
$243.09
BRUCE K ANDERSON
38660
DPMS INC
$41.52
SCOTT ANDREWS
38656
CUB FOODS, INC.
$14.95
MANDY ANZALDI
38657
TARGET 00011858
$16.69
MANDY ANZALDI
38659
KMART 00071068
$43.96
MANDY ANZALDI
38663
CUB FOODS, INC.
$8.36
MANDY ANZALDI
38663
FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284
$107.84
MANDY ANZALDI
38667
KOHL'S #0052
$21.29
MANDY ANZALDI
38658
HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN
$187.88
JOHN BANICK
38658
HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN
$2,542.80
JOHN BANICK
38666
DON' PAINT & BODY SHOP
($730.62)
JOHN BANICK
38666
DON' PAINT & BODY SHOP
$863.57
JOHN BANICK
38656
VIKING ELECTRIC -DIST CNTR
$31.15
JIM BEHAN
38660
SCAFFOLD SERVICE
$25.68
JIM BEHAN
38656
DAVIS LOCK & SAFE
$25.31
JIM BEHAN
38656
WW GRAINGER 500
$139.05
JIM BEHAN
38657
ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC
$384.00
JIM BEHAN
38659
PORT -A- WELDING INC
$453.25
JIM BEHAN
38660
CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC
$101.22
JIM BEHAN
38663
CUMMINS NPOWER, LLC #100
$257.50
JIM BEHAN
38663
ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR INC
$293.87
JIM BEHAN
38663
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
$8.07
JIM BEHAN
38666
ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR INC
$863.93
JIM BEHAN
38667
MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC
$164.65
JIM BEHAN
38658
RAINBOW FOODS 00088526
$59.50
RON BOURQUIN
38663
FEDEX KINKO'S #0617
$115.54
HEIDI CAREY
38663
FEDEX KINKO'S #0617
$92.02
HEIDI CAREY
38664
DGI *DYNAMIC GRAPHICS
$79.00
HEIDI CAREY
38665
FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284
$6.28
HEIDI CAREY
38657
BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLU
$96.92
LINDA CROSSON
38663
TARGET 00007518
$8.74
LINDA CROSSON
38663
THE KAHLER GRAND HOTEL
$162.06
LINDA CROSSON
38656
COMCAST CABLE COMM
$107.35
ROBERTA DARST
38656
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
$12.29
THOMAS DEBILZAN
38666
SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP
$274.40
RICHARD DOBLAR
38656
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
$354.65
JOHN DUCHARME
38663
COPY EQUIPMENT
$112.63
JOHN DUCHARME
38658
HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD
$83.04
DAVE EDSON
38660
CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC
$670.00
LARRY FARR
38660
CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC
$1,389.32
LARRY FARR
38663
ROTO ROOTER #0348
$1,140.00
LARRY FARR
38664
PARK SUPPLY INC
$42.39
LARRY FARR
38663
THE KAHLER GRAND HOTEL
$162.06
GREG FINN
38656
HOLIDAY STATIONSTORE
$1.29
SHANN FINWALL
38663
WMS *WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY
$360.96
DAVID FISHER
38663
WMS *WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY
$360.96
DAVID FISHER
38665
G & K SERVICES 006
$176.24
DAVID FISHER
38658
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
$11.89
MYCHAL FOWLDS
38663
DIGITAL CANDLE INC
$25.00
MYCHAL FOWLDS
38660
OLYMPUS AMERICA INC
$21.25
NICK FRANZEN
38664
COLLECTIVE SOFTWARE
$98.00
NICK FRANZEN
38667
INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR
$114.69
NICK FRANZEN
38665
CUB FOODS, INC.
$89.82
PATRICIA FRY
0
Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name
38666
38656
38657
38659
38656
38656
38656
38656
38663
38663
38666
38660
38659
38660
38660
38660
38666
38666
38657
38658
38666
38656
38656
38665
38658
38663
38667
38659
38657
38656
38660
38663
38663
38666
38656
38663
38656
38663
38656
38663
38660
38666
38660
38656
38660
38657
38658
38658
38659
38660
38665
38665
38667
38659
38656
THE OLIVE GARD00012005
ASPEN MILLS 8005717343
XPEDX
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
SUPERAMERICA 4089 Q64
SUPERAMERICA 4089 Q64
CUB FOODS, INC.
CUB FOODS, INC.
CUB FOODS, INC.
BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKL
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
METRO SALES INC
N A D A APPRAISAL GUIDES
PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISIN
N A D A APPRAISAL GUIDES
LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSP
TGI FRIDAY'S #0472
TGI FRIDAY'S #0472
HEJNY RENTAL
HEJNY RENTAL
CUB FOODS, INC.
CUB FOODS, INC.
CUB FOODS, INC.
SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS
DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
MILLS FLEET FARM #27
GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920
VERSA -LOK CONTRACTOR SAL
THE UPS STORE #2171
GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920
A -1 LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANIN
THE UPS STORE #2171
MENARDS3059
UVERITECH INC.
SEMINARS NAT'L /PADGETT
DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC
DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC
NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP -MN
DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC
FRATTALLONE'S ACE HDWE
DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
MENARDS3022
MENARDS3022
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT
ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
GERTENS
TWIN CITY SAW CO
ON SITE SANITATION INC
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
G & K SERVICES 006
LTG POWER EQUIPMENT
LMC *LAERDAL MEDICAL
NAPA AUTO PARTS # 28438
$70.00
PATRICIA FRY
$37.00
CLARENCE GERVAIS
$451.12
JEAN GLASS
$80.67
JEAN GLASS
$7.74
MIKE GRAF
$6.21
MIKE GRAF
$14.95
MIKE GRAF
$14.94
MIKE GRAF
$55.16
MIKE GRAF
$4.65
JANET M GREW HAYMAN
$5.11
MARK HAAG
$1,266.00
LORI HANSEN
$115.00
LORI HANSON
$478.80
LORI HANSON
($55.00)
LORI HANSON
$253.32
LORI HANSON
$68.50
LORI HANSON
$7.44
LORI HANSON
$461.96
GARY HINNENKAMP
($64.67)
GARY HINNENKAMP
$12.24
GARY HINNENKAMP
$15.16
RON HORWATH
$71.95
RON HORWATH
$42.55
ANN E HUTCHINSON
$36.47
DAVID JAHN
$34.53
DAVID JAHN
$28.72
DAVID JAHN
$44.00
KEVIN JOHNSON
($15.66)
DON JONES
$15.62
TOM KALKA
$185.30
TOM KALKA
$59.65
TOM KALKA
$9.25
TOM KALKA
$39.41
TOM KALKA
$54.25
FLINT KARIS
$117.71
SHERYL L LE
$524.07
MICHAEL LIDBERG
$2.79
MICHAEL LIDBERG
$10.63
MICHAEL LIDBERG
$443.36
MICHAEL LIDBERG
$25.50
MICHAEL LIDBERG
$103.03
MICHAEL LIDBERG
$14.69
RANDY LINDBLOM
$26.56
DENNIS LINDORFF
$67.78
DENNIS LINDORFF
$1,096.08
STEVE LUKIN
$672.50
STEVE LUKIN
$202.33
MARK MARUSKA
$559.00
MARK MARUSKA
$2,133.43
MARK MARUSKA
$258.38
MARK MARUSKA
$217.68
MARK MARUSKA
$41.58
MARK MARUSKA
$85.01
JON A MELANDER
$9.99
ED NADEAU
10
Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name
38659
DEMCO INC
$14.95
JEAN NELSON
38667
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
$46.16
JEAN NELSON
38660
HEJNY RENTAL
$429.36
MICHAEL NOVAK
38666
NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT
$51.50
ERICK OSWALD
38667
THE HOME DEPOT 2801
$58.55
ERICK OSWALD
38658
RAINBOW FOODS 00088617
$243.00
ROBERT PETERSON
38658
WONDER/HOSTESS #63
$133.09
ROBERT PETERSON
38656
RADIO SHACK 00161133
$32.09
PHILIP F POWELL
38658
THE UPS STORE #2171
$9.28
PHILIP F POWELL
38658
SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABO
$99.47
PHILIP F POWELL
38659
FEDEX KINKO'S #0617
$9.59
PHILIP F POWELL
38663
WOLF CAMERA #1530
$7.23
PHILIP F POWELL
38663
OFFICESUPPLYOUTFITTERS
$172.99
PHILIP F POWELL
38666
SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABO
$68.38
PHILIP F POWELL
38659
BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC
$55.98
ROBERT PRECHTEL
38660
BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC
$51.75
ROBERT PRECHTEL
38659
SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS
$551.70
WILLIAM J PRIEFER
38663
OFFICE MAX 00011205
$14.90
WILLIAM J PRIEFER
38667
VERIZON WRLS 37859 -01
$58.81
WILLIAM J PRIEFER
38656
RAPID WIRELESS - BURNSVL
$400.48
STEVEN PRIEM
38656
PAM OIL INC
$194.93
STEVEN PRIEM
38657
LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
$64.35
STEVEN PRIEM
38658
TOUSLEY FORD 127200039
$745.16
STEVEN PRIEM
38658
TOUSLEY FORD 127200039
$126.91
STEVEN PRIEM
38658
HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE
$28.76
STEVEN PRIEM
38659
TOUSLEY FORD 127200039
$65.63
STEVEN PRIEM
38659
D & D TOWING
$79.88
STEVEN PRIEM
38659
ARROW TERMINAL LLC
$143.22
STEVEN PRIEM
38659
KATH AUTO PARTS NSP
$80.01
STEVEN PRIEM
38659
TRI STATE BOBCAT
$33.31
STEVEN PRIEM
38660
CATCO PARTS & SERV #1
$45.00
STEVEN PRIEM
38660
KATH AUTO PARTS NSP
($12.78)
STEVEN PRIEM
38660
POLAR CHEVROLET
$8.67
STEVEN PRIEM
38660
POLAR CHEVROLET
$74.49
STEVEN PRIEM
38663
BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC
$60.12
STEVEN PRIEM
38663
BAUER BUILT TRE33200023
$670.95
STEVEN PRIEM
38664
KATH AUTO PARTS NSP
$47.08
STEVEN PRIEM
38664
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
$154.66
STEVEN PRIEM
38665
CATCO PARTS & SERV #1
$190.25
STEVEN PRIEM
38665
O'REILLY #1569
$36.19
STEVEN PRIEM
38665
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
($52.85)
STEVEN PRIEM
38665
KATH AUTO PARTS
$150.35
STEVEN PRIEM
38665
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
$23.34
STEVEN PRIEM
38666
BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC
($38.63)
STEVEN PRIEM
38666
BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC
$77.18
STEVEN PRIEM
38666
BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC
$44.50
STEVEN PRIEM
38666
BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC
$6.98
STEVEN PRIEM
38666
BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC
$29.44
STEVEN PRIEM
38667
WHITE BEAR DODGE INC
$1,469.22
STEVEN PRIEM
38666
KATH AUTO PARTS
$9.80
STEVEN PRIEM
38667
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
($70.00)
STEVEN PRIEM
38667
EAT INC
$303.91
STEVEN PRIEM
38667
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
$178.35
STEVEN PRIEM
38667
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
$16.03
STEVEN PRIEM
38667
FASTENAL CO MO TO
$3.21
STEVEN PRIEM
11
Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name
38667
38660
38659
38658
38663
38663
38663
38664
38656
38657
38659
38660
38664
38663
38660
38660
38660
38663
38659
38663
38665
38666
38656
38664
38663
38663
38656
38658
38659
38660
38660
38663
38656
38658
38663
38663
38663
38663
38663
38666
38664
38665
38665
38667
38660
38663
38663
38666
38667
38658
38663
38660
38657
38657
38657
KATH AUTO PARTS NSP
SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS
HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS
TARGET 00011858
MARCUS OAKD.CIN #488 Q25
MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECRE
MICHAELS #9401
KATH AUTO PARTS
MENARDS3022
MENARDS3022
MENARDS3022
MENARDS3022
MENARDS3059
TOSHIBA
PRICE CHOPPER INC00 OF 00
CLOVER SUPER FOODS
CLOVER SUPER FOODS
THE KAHLER GRAND HOTEL
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER
RED WING SHOE STORE
AAA ALL CITY VACUUM
MENARDS3022
SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
OFFICE MAX 00002204
BACHMANS MAPLEWD 004
CUB FOODS, INC.
S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS
FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284
RAINBOW FOODS 00088617
OFFICE MAX 00002204
RAINBOW FOODS 00088617
CRAWFORD DOOR SALES CO OF
ODYSSEY AUTOMOTIVE
EAT INC
ASPEN MILLS 8005717343
ASPEN MILLS 8005717343
ASPEN MILLS 8005717343
ASPEN MILLS 8005717343
ASPEN MILLS 8005717343
ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN
ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN
ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER IN
JONES & BARLETT PUBLIS
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO INC
DAVIS LOCK & SAFE
HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD
DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC
CHD *C AND H DISTRIBTRS
T- MOBILE
THE KAHLER GRAND HOTEL
IRON AGE CORP
TARGET 00011858
MCDONALD'S F3117
TC *G.NEIL
$24.96
STEVEN PRIEM
$2,086.35
KEVIN RABBETT
$437.93
MICHAEL REILLY
$28.85
AUDRA ROBBINS
$75.25
AUDRA ROBBINS
$8.25
AUDRA ROBBINS
$16.64
AUDRA ROBBINS
$117.15
ROBERT RUNNING
$21.28
JAMES SCHINDELDECKER
$15.30
JAMES SCHINDELDECKER
$42.58
JAMES SCHINDELDECKER
$11.59
JAMES SCHINDELDECKER
$38.28
JAMES SCHINDELDECKER
$25.04
DEB SCHMIDT
$840.93
RUSSELL L SCHMIDT
$138.79
RUSSELL L SCHMIDT
$143.77
RUSSELL L SCHMIDT
$162.06
RUSSELL L SCHMIDT
$107.01
SCOTT SCHULTZ
$148.75
SCOTT SCHULTZ
$14.39
GERALD SEEGER
$11.44
GERALD SEEGER
$412.77
ANDREASINDT
$51.92
ANDREASINDT
$39.87
PAULINE STAPLES
$51.94
PAULINE STAPLES
$24.95
JOANNE M SVENDSEN
$319.31
JOANNE M SVENDSEN
$13.76
JOANNE M SVENDSEN
$15.75
JOANNE M SVENDSEN
$21.28
JOANNE M SVENDSEN
$32.38
JOANNE M SVENDSEN
$616.03
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$965.00
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$26.63
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$276.45
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$95.53
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$528.52
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$99.79
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$75.50
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$582.59
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$136.96
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$273.53
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$95.23
RUSTIN SVENDSEN
$58.54
LYLE SWANSON
$45.26
LYLE SWANSON
$42.27
LYLE SWANSON
$251.17
LYLE SWANSON
$14.28
LYLE SWANSON
$105.48
DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN
$162.06
DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN
$161.39
TODD TEVLIN
$11.90
JOSEPH WATERS
$10.03
JOSEPH WATERS
($0.50)
SUSAN ZWIEG
12
Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name
38659 QUILL CORPORATION $285.66 SUSAN ZWIEG
38665 OFFICE MAX 00002204 $15.96 SUSAN ZWIEG
38666 QUILL CORPORATION ($198.05) SUSAN ZWIEG
$40,596.35
13
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
14
CHECK 4 CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
11/18/05
CARDINAL, ROBERT
422.42
dd
11/18/05
.IUENEMANN, KATHLEEN
371.77
dd
11/18/05
KOPPEN, MARVIN
371.77
dd
11/18/05
ROSSBACH, WILLIAM
371.77
dd
11/18/05
COLEMAN, MELINDA
4,096.10
dd
11/18/05
DARST, ROBERTA
1,690.85
dd
11/18/05
FURSMAN, RICHARD
5,053.62
dd
11/18/05
FARR, LARRY
1,767.48
dd
11/18/05
SWANSON, LYLE
1,662.78
dd
11/18/05
LE,.IENNIFER
56.25
dd
11/18/05
LE, SHERYL
4,001.34
dd
11/18/05
MORSON,.IOHN
440.00
dd
11/18/05
RAMEAUX, THERESE
2,376.42
dd
11/18/05
FAUST, DANIEL
4,166.97
dd
11/18/05
SCHMIDT, DEBORAH
1,526.96
dd
11/18/05
ANDERSON, CAROLE
876.55
dd
11/18/05
BAUMAN, GAYLE
3,434.43
dd
11/18/05
JACKSON, MARY
1,819.76
dd
11/18/05
KELSEY, CONNIE
878.21
dd
11/18/05
TETZLAFF,.IUDY
1,819.77
dd
11/18/05
FRY, PATRICIA
1,704.76
dd
11/18/05
GUILFOILE, KAREN
2,883.18
dd
11/18/05
OSTER, ANDREA
1,764.47
dd
11/18/05
CARLE,.IEANETTE
1,797.27
dd
11/18/05
.IAGOE, CAROL
1,765.28
dd
11/18/05
JOHNSON, BONNIE
935.56
dd
11/18/05
MECHELKE, SHERRIE
970.77
dd
11/18/05
MOY, PAMELA
856.95
dd
11/18/05
OLSON, SANDRA
1,092.81
dd
11/18/05
WEAVER, KRISTINE
1,787.75
dd
11/18/05
BANICK,.IOHN
3,871.15
dd
11/18/05
CORCORAN, THERESA
1,629.35
dd
11/18/05
POWELL, PHILIP
2,267.65
dd
11/18/05
RICHIE, CAROLE
1,651.13
dd
11/18/05
SPANGLER, EDNA
308.00
dd
11/18/05
THOMALLA, DAVID
4,287.27
dd
11/18/05
ABEL, CLINT
2,382.24
dd
11/18/05
ALDRIDGE, MARK
2,815.53
dd
11/18/05
ANDREWS, SCOTT
3,269.26
dd
11/18/05
BAKKE, LONN
2,440.39
dd
11/18/05
BELDE, STANLEY
2,827.14
dd
11/18/05
BIERDEMAN, BRIAN
3,239.33
dd
11/18/05
BOHL,.IOHN
2,751.00
dd
11/18/05
BUSACK, DANIEL
2,716.44
14
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
15
CHECK 4 CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
11/18/05
COFFEY, KEVIN
2,098.67
dd
11/18/05
CROTTY, KERRY
2,623.45
dd
11/18/05
DOBLAR, RICHARD
3,094.09
dd
11/18/05
DUNN, ALICE
2,593.75
dd
11/18/05
GABRIEL, ANTHONY
2,232.81
dd
11/18/05
HEINZ, STEPHEN
2,627.02
dd
11/18/05
HILBERT, STEVEN
3,652.73
dd
11/18/05
JOHNSON, KEVIN
3,447.25
dd
11/18/05
KALKA, THOMAS
636.28
dd
11/18/05
KARTS, FLINT
3,890.38
dd
11/18/05
KONG, TOMMY
2,438.02
dd
11/18/05
KROLL, BRETT
2,828.41
dd
11/18/05
KVAM, DAVID
3,420.42
dd
11/18/05
LANGNER, TODD
1,713.63
dd
11/18/05
LARSON, DANIEL
308.30
dd
11/18/05
LU,.IOHNNIE
3,539.09
dd
11/18/05
MARINO,.IASON
2,903.40
dd
11/18/05
MARTIN,.IERROLD
2,442.49
dd
11/18/05
MCCARTY, GLEN
2,043.10
dd
11/18/05
METRY, ALESIA
2,341.39
dd
11/18/05
NYE, MICHAEL
2,262.25
dd
11/18/05
OLSON,.IULIE
2,516.45
dd
11/18/05
RABBETT, KEVIN
3,483.05
dd
11/18/05
RHUDE, MATTHEW
1,781.40
dd
11/18/05
STEFFEN, SCOTT
3,709.93
dd
11/18/05
STEINER,.IOSEPH
666.68
dd
11/18/05
SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM
1,599.34
dd
11/18/05
SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS
2,831.07
dd
11/18/05
WENZEL,.IAY
3,249.50
dd
11/18/05
XIONG, KAO
2,285.15
dd
11/18/05
BARTZ, PAUL
3,394.39
dd
11/18/05
BERGERON,.IOSEPH
3,504.32
dd
11/18/05
DUGAS, MICHAEL
3,551.40
dd
11/18/05
ERICKSON, VIRGINIA
2,482.65
dd
11/18/05
FLOR, TIMOTHY
4,319.33
dd
11/18/05
FRASER,.IOHN
2,642.27
dd
11/18/05
LANGNER, SCOTT
2,154.04
dd
11/18/05
PALMA, STEVEN
3,826.45
dd
11/18/05
THEISEN, PAUL
2,154.04
dd
11/18/05
THIENES, PAUL
2,674.33
dd
11/18/05
CARLSON, BRIAN
2,132.08
dd
11/18/05
DAWSON, RICHARD
2,525.85
dd
11/18/05
DUELLMAN, KIRK
2,336.49
dd
11/18/05
EVERSON,PAUL
2,561.06
dd
11/18/05
HALWEG,.IODI
2,009.98
dd
11/18/05
JOHNSON, DOUGLAS
2,461.07
15
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
M
CHECK 4 CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
11/18/05
MYERS, TODD
2,282.16
dd
11/18/05
NOVAK,.IEROME
2,631.76
dd
11/18/05
PARSONS, KURT
2,278.05
dd
11/18/05
PETERSON, ROBERT
2,930.98
dd
11/18/05
PRECHTEL, ROBERT
2,171.97
dd
11/18/05
SVENDSEN, RONALD
2,806.72
dd
11/18/05
GERVAIS -.IR, CLARENCE
2,785.12
dd
11/18/05
BAUER, MICHELLE
1,913.70
dd
11/18/05
FLAUGHER,.IAYME
2,173.78
dd
11/18/05
HERMANSON, CHAD
1,839.29
dd
11/18/05
HUBIN, KENNARD
2,002.27
dd
11/18/05
KNAPP, BRETT
1,709.36
dd
11/18/05
LINN, BRYAN
2,171.20
dd
11/18/05
PACOLT, MARSHA
2,456.34
dd
11/18/05
RABINE,.IANET
2,044.63
dd
11/18/05
STAHNKE,.IULIE
2,061.43
dd
11/18/05
LUKIN, STEVEN
3,899.17
dd
11/18/05
SVENDSEN, RUSTIN
3,125.43
dd
11/18/05
ZWIEG, SUSAN
1,874.78
dd
11/18/05
DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT
284.84
dd
11/18/05
AHL, R. CHARLES
4,369.70
dd
11/18/05
BREHEIM, ROGER
1,844.37
dd
11/18/05
GROHS,.IUDITH
1,769.08
dd
11/18/05
KONEWKO, DUWAYNE
2,970.52
dd
11/18/05
NIVEN,AMY
1,208.32
dd
11/18/05
PRIEFER, WILLIAM
2,601.26
dd
11/18/05
BRINK, TROY
1,670.95
dd
11/18/05
DEBILZAN, THOMAS
1,857.75
dd
11/18/05
EDGE, DOUGLAS
1,859.75
dd
11/18/05
.ZONES, DONALD
1,844.75
dd
11/18/05
MEYER, GERALD
1,933.79
dd
11/18/05
NAGEL, BRYAN
2,298.96
dd
11/18/05
OSWALD, ERICK
2,088.52
dd
11/18/05
RUNNING, ROBERT
1,748.55
dd
11/18/05
TEVLIN, TODD
1,763.75
dd
11/18/05
DUCHARME,.IOHN
2,345.26
dd
11/18/05
ENGSTROM, ANDREW
1,646.15
dd
11/18/05
ISAKSON, CHAD
150.16
dd
11/18/05
JACOBSON, SCOTT
1,655.90
dd
11/18/05
KNUTSON, LOIS
1,495.98
dd
11/18/05
LABEREE, ERIN
2,798.30
dd
11/18/05
LINDBLOM, RANDAL
2,345.28
dd
11/18/05
PECK, DENNIS
2,352.19
dd
11/18/05
PRIEBE, WILLIAM
2,347.84
dd
11/18/05
VERMEERSCH, CHARLES
2,463.97
dd
11/18/05
ANDERSON, BRUCE
4,062.32
M
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
17
CHECK 4 CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
11/18/05
CAREY, HEIDI
2,153.35
dd
11/18/05
HALL, KATHLEEN
1,766.77
dd
11/18/05
LUND, ERIC
192.00
dd
11/18/05
MARUSKA, MARK
2,674.70
dd
11/18/05
NAUGHTON,.IOHN
1,719.75
dd
11/18/05
SCHINDELDECKER,.IAMES
1,842.06
dd
11/18/05
BIESANZ, OAKLEY
1,497.21
dd
11/18/05
HAYMAN,.IANET
1,282.38
dd
11/18/05
HUTCHINSON, ANN
2,262.70
dd
11/18/05
NELSON,.IEAN
1,029.69
dd
11/18/05
SEEGER, GERALD
557.15
dd
11/18/05
GAYNOR,VIRGINIA
2,345.93
dd
11/18/05
EKSTRAND, THOMAS
3,043.03
dd
11/18/05
KROLL, LISA
1,219.00
dd
11/18/05
LIVINGSTON,.IOYCE
1,058.17
dd
11/18/05
SINDT, ANDREA
1,647.75
dd
11/18/05
THOMPSON, DEBRA
923.85
dd
11/18/05
YOUNG, TAMELA
1,523.75
dd
11/18/05
FINWALL, SHANN
2,208.00
dd
11/18/05
ROBERTS, KENNETH
2,503.60
dd
11/18/05
CARVER, NICHOLAS
2,770.29
dd
11/18/05
FISHER, DAVID
3,276.22
dd
11/18/05
RICE, MICHAEL
1,954.95
dd
11/18/05
SWAN, DAVID
2,050.95
dd
11/18/05
SWETT, PAUL
504.00
dd
11/18/05
WORK, ALICIA
340.01
dd
11/18/05
FINN, GREGORY
2,213.26
dd
11/18/05
FRANK, PETER
150.00
dd
11/18/05
GALLANT, CHARLENE
154.00
dd
11/18/05
GRAF, MICHAEL
1,941.83
dd
11/18/05
KELLY, LISA
1,311.07
dd
11/18/05
OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN
331.50
dd
11/18/05
ROBBINS, AUDRA
2,116.03
dd
11/18/05
SHERRILL, CAITLIN
441.00
dd
11/18/05
TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS
2,854.34
dd
11/18/05
UNDERHILL, KRISTEN
232.00
dd
11/18/05
GERMAIN, DAVID
1,848.99
dd
11/18/05
NORDQUIST, RICHARD
2,086.37
dd
11/18/05
SCHULTZ, SCOTT
2,184.75
dd
11/18/05
ANZALDI, MANDY
1,461.31
dd
11/18/05
COLEMAN, PHILIP
385.00
dd
11/18/05
COLLINS, ASHLEY
128.00
dd
11/18/05
CRAWFORD -.IR, RAYMOND
232.00
dd
11/18/05
CROSSON, LINDA
2,610.43
dd
11/18/05
EVANS, CHRISTINE
654.56
dd
11/18/05
HOFMEISTER, MARY
766.87
17
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
18
CHECK 4 CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
dd
11/18/05
PEL000IN, PENNYE
582.81
dd
11/18/05
SCHMIDT, RUSSELL
2,026.22
dd
11/18/05
SCHULZE, BRIAN
793.12
dd
11/18/05
STAPLES, PAULINE
2,940.03
dd
11/18/05
ZIELINSKEJUDY
38.85
dd
11/18/05
ANDREA,.IOHANNA
18.56
dd
11/18/05
BENDTSEN, LISA
34.83
dd
11/18/05
BRENEMAN, NEIL
499.52
dd
11/18/05
BRUSOE, CRISTINA
87.75
dd
11/18/05
BUCKLEY, BRITTANY
19.50
dd
11/18/05
DUNN, RYAN
742.91
dd
11/18/05
ERICKSON- CLARK, CAROL
90.40
dd
11/18/05
EVANS, KRISTIN
21.00
dd
11/18/05
FIERRO WESTBERG, MELINDA
83.30
dd
11/18/05
FONTAINE, KIM
871.63
dd
11/18/05
HORWATH, RONALD
1,996.55
dd
11/18/05
KERSCHNER,.IOLENE
314.80
dd
11/18/05
KOEHNEN, AMY
100.20
dd
11/18/05
KOEHNEN,MARY
1,371.89
dd
11/18/05
KRONHOLM,KATHRYN
541.91
dd
11/18/05
MATHEWS, LEAH
101.50
dd
11/18/05
NELSON, SIERRA
220.25
dd
11/18/05
OVERBY,ANNA
80.00
dd
11/18/05
PROESCH, ANDY
514.24
dd
11/18/05
SMITH, ANN
187.50
dd
11/18/05
TRUE, CAROLINE
19.80
dd
11/18/05
TUPY, HEIDE
141.40
dd
11/18/05
TUPY, MARCUS
283.50
dd
11/18/05
WERNER, REBECCA
66.15
dd
11/18/05
WOLFGRAM, MARY
123.50
dd
11/18/05
GROPPOLI, LINDA
254.40
dd
11/18/05
BEHAN,.IAMES
1,718.61
dd
11/18/05
LONETTEJAMES
1,046.82
dd
11/18/05
PATTERSON,ALBERT
1,183.52
dd
11/18/05
PRINS, KELLY
1,060.17
dd
11/18/05
REILLY, MICHAEL
1,626.95
dd
11/18/05
SCHOENECKER, LEIGH
101.60
dd
11/18/05
AICHELE, CRAIG
1,885.35
dd
11/18/05
PRIEM, STEVEN
2,069.35
dd
11/18/05
WOEHRLE, MATTHEW
1,557.35
dd
11/18/05
BERGO, CHAD
2,276.71
dd
11/18/05
FOWLDS, MYCHAL
2,085.54
dd
11/18/05
FRANZEN, NICHOLAS
1,633.55
dd
11/18/05
HURLEY, STEPHEN
3,276.22
wf
103122 11/18/05
WORKMAN, ROBERT
50.00
wf
103123 11/18/05
JAHN, DAVID
1,621.42
18
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
19
CHECK 4
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
103124
11/18/05
MORIN,TROY
174.25
wf
103125
11/18/05
MATHEYS, ALANA
1,999.02
wf
103126
11/18/05
HANSEN, LORI
1,979.05
wf
103127
11/18/05
AHRENS, FRANCES
124.00
wf
103128
11/18/05
ANDERSON, ELSIE
181.50
wf
103129
11/18/05
ANDERSON, SUZANNE
137.75
wf
103130
11/18/05
ANSARI, AHSANUDDIN
56.00
wf
103131
11/18/05
BARRETT, MARLIS
120.00
wf
103132
11/18/05
BARTELT,.IOAN
120.00
wf
103133
11/18/05
BELLAND,.IAIME
120.00
wf
103134
11/18/05
BERGER, MERVIN
192.50
wf
103135
11/18/05
BORTZ,.IEANNE
116.00
wf
103136
11/18/05
BREIDENSTEIN, ANNA
56.00
wf
103137
11/18/05
BUNDE,.IENNETTE
116.00
wf
103138
11/18/05
CA LANES, LUCILLE
192.50
wf
103139
11/18/05
CARR,ROBERT
68.00
wf
103140
11/18/05
CLELAND,ANN
112.00
wf
103141
11/18/05
CONNELLY, THOMAS
120.00
wf
103142
11/18/05
CONNOLLY, COLLEEN
96.00
wf
103143
11/18/05
DAVIDSON, MAE
120.00
wf
103144
11/18/05
DAVIDSON, MARIANNE
120.00
wf
103145
11/18/05
DEEG, EDWARD
120.00
wf
103146
11/18/05
DESAI, BHUPAT
165.00
wf
103147
11/18/05
DIESSLIN, AUDREY
116.00
wf
103148
11/18/05
DITTEL, KATHLEEN
166.25
wf
103149
11/18/05
DROEGER, DIANE
187.00
wf
103150
11/18/05
DUCHARME, FRED
192.50
wf
103151
11/18/05
DUELLMAN, AUDREY
313.50
wf
103152
11/18/05
EICKHOFF, CAROLYN
96.00
wf
103153
11/18/05
ERICKSON, ELIZABETH
192.50
wf
103154
11/18/05
FALLON,ANN
120.00
wf
103155
11/18/05
FISCHER, LORRAINE
225.50
wf
103156
11/18/05
FISCHER, MARY
190.00
wf
103157
11/18/05
FITZGERALD, DELORES
80.00
wf
103158
11/18/05
FOSBURGH, ANNE
180.50
wf
103159
11/18/05
FRANZEN,.IAMES
120.00
wf
103160
11/18/05
GIERZAK, CLARICE
72.00
wf
103161
11/18/05
GOLASKI, DIANE
209.00
wf
103162
11/18/05
GRANGER, BETTY
56.00
wf
103163
11/18/05
GRANT, GUY
112.00
wf
103164
11/18/05
GUDKNECHT,.IAMIE
124.00
wf
103165
11/18/05
HAYDE, WALTER
136.00
wf
103166
11/18/05
HECHT, LLOYD
120.00
wf
103167
11/18/05
HEININGER, GORDON
161.50
wf
103168
11/18/05
HINES, CONSTANCE
58.00
wf
103169
11/18/05
HOLZEMER, MARY
120.00
19
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
Rol
CHECK 4
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
103170
11/18/05
NORTON, SHIRLEE
116.00
wf
103171
11/18/05
HUNTOON, LYNN
32.00
wf
103172
11/18/05
IVERSEN, MILDRED
58.00
wf
103173
11/18/05
.IANACEK,.IEFFREY
120.00
wf
103174
11/18/05
JEFFERSON, GWENDOLYN
64.00
wf
103175
11/18/05
.IOHANNESSEN,.IUDITH
112.00
wf
103176
11/18/05
JOHNSON, BARBARA
120.00
wf
103177
11/18/05
.IURMU,.IOYCE
140.00
wf
103178
11/18/05
KIRCHOFF, HAROLD
48.00
wf
103179
11/18/05
KOCH, ROSEMARY
120.00
wf
103180
11/18/05
KOLASA,.IOAN
120.00
wf
103181
11/18/05
KREKELBERG, MONA
204.25
wf
103182
11/18/05
KROMINGA,.IOSEPHINE
120.00
wf
103183
11/18/05
LACKNER, MARVELLA
140.00
wf
103184
11/18/05
LALLY, RITA
93.50
wf
103185
11/18/05
LAMPE, CHARLOTTE
120.00
wf
103186
11/18/05
LARSON, ANITA
147.25
wf
103187
11/18/05
LAUREN, LORRAINE
48.00
wf
103188
11/18/05
LEO, ANN
112.00
wf
103189
11/18/05
LEO, PATRICIA
24.00
wf
103190
11/18/05
LEONARD, CLAUDETTE
80.00
wf
103191
11/18/05
LINCOWSKI, STEVEN
80.00
wf
103192
11/18/05
LINCOWSKI, VIOLA
72.00
wf
103193
11/18/05
LOFGREN, DELORES
60.00
wf
103194
11/18/05
LOFGREN, RICHARD
166.25
wf
103195
11/18/05
LOWE- ADAMS, SHARI
92.00
wf
103196
11/18/05
LUTTRELL, SHIRLEY
170.50
wf
103197
11/18/05
MAITRE, CAROL
192.50
wf
103198
11/18/05
MAITRE, GERALDINE
128.00
wf
103199
11/18/05
MANDERS, ROSE
112.00
wf
103200
11/18/05
MANTHEY,.IOHN
192.50
wf
103201
11/18/05
MARSH, DELORES
128.00
wf
103202
11/18/05
MECHELKE, GERALDINE
132.00
wf
103203
11/18/05
MECHELKE, MARYLOU
120.00
wf
103204
11/18/05
MISGEN,.IOAN
120.00
wf
103205
11/18/05
MOLLERS, KATHERINE
116.00
wf
103206
11/18/05
MOSSONG, BETTY
124.00
wf
103207
11/18/05
MURASKI, GERALDINE
76.00
wf
103208
11/18/05
MURASKI, HOWARD
140.00
wf
103209
11/18/05
NIEMAN,.IAMES
171.00
wf
103210
11/18/05
NIETERS, LOUISE
232.75
wf
103211
11/18/05
NORBERG, ANN
74.00
wf
103212
11/18/05
OLSON,LOIS
116.00
wf
103213
11/18/05
ORLANDO, SALLYE
44.00
wf
103214
11/18/05
PEEL, DAVID
124.00
wf
103215
11/18/05
RADERMACHER, KARLA
116.00
Rol
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
21
CHECK 4
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
103216
11/18/05
ROWE, CHARLES
60.00
wf
103217
11/18/05
RUDEEN, ELAINE
64.00
wf
103218
11/18/05
SCHNEIDER, MARY
93.50
wf
103219
11/18/05
SCHOENECKER, SANDRA
104.50
wf
103220
11/18/05
SCHROEPFER, HARRIET
120.00
wf
103221
11/18/05
SHAUL, CHRISTOPHER
161.50
wf
103222
11/18/05
SHORES, TERESA
68.00
wf
103223
11/18/05
SPANGLER, ROBERT
120.00
wf
103224
11/18/05
STAFKI, TIM
147.25
wf
103225
11/18/05
STEVENS, SANDRA
116.00
wf
103226
11/18/05
TAYLOR, RITA
116.00
wf
103227
11/18/05
THOMPSON, MILO
88.00
wf
103228
11/18/05
THOMPSON, PATRICIA
192.50
wf
103229
11/18/05
TILLMAN, LEILA
116.00
wf
103230
11/18/05
TOLBERT, D- FRANKLIN
120.00
wf
103231
11/18/05
TRIPPLER, DALE
120.00
wf
103232
11/18/05
TUCKER, CECILIA
120.00
wf
103233
11/18/05
UNGER, CONSTANCE
136.00
wf
103234
11/18/05
URBANSKI, HOLLY
239.25
wf
103235
11/18/05
VAN BLARICOM, BEULAH
171.00
wf
103236
11/18/05
VANAGS, VILHELMINE
64.00
wf
103237
11/18/05
VANDEVEER, BARBARA
100.00
wf
103238
11/18/05
VATNE, MARY
136.00
wf
103239
11/18/05
WAGNER, CONNIE
84.00
wf
103240
11/18/05
WANDERSEE, GENE
64.00
wf
103241
11/18/05
WASMUNDT, GAYLE
120.00
wf
103242
11/18/05
WILLY,.IOHN
161.50
wf
103243
11/18/05
WITSCHEN, DELORES
120.00
wf
103244
11/18/05
ZACHO, KAREN
120.00
wf
103245
11/18/05
PALANK, MARY
1,631.66
wf
103246
11/18/05
SVENDSEN,.IOANNE
1,934.51
wf
103247
11/18/05
SHORTREED, MICHAEL
4,004.49
wf
103248
11/18/05
WELCHLIN, CABOT
2,819.02
wf
103249
11/18/05
BAUMAN,ANDREW
320.00
wf
103250
11/18/05
FREBERG, RONALD
1,899.88
wf
103251
11/18/05
.IAROSCH,.IONATHAN
231.20
wf
103252
11/18/05
EDSON,DAVID
1,877.88
wf
103253
11/18/05
HELEY, ROLAND
1,877.88
wf
103254
11/18/05
HINNENKAMP, GARY
2,134.25
wf
103255
11/18/05
LINDORFF, DENNIS
1,844.37
wf
103256
11/18/05
NOVAK, MICHAEL
1,804.55
wf
103257
11/18/05
GERNES, CAROLE
221.06
wf
103258
11/18/05
SOUTTER, CHRISTINE
180.00
wf
103259
11/18/05
DANNER, BRENDA
178.88
wf
103260
11/18/05
ALIPERTO, SIOBHAN
108.00
wf
103261
11/18/05
ALMQUIST, DEANNA
48.00
21
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
OWN
CHECK 4
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
103262
1 1/18/05
BAKER, BRITTANY
96.00
wf
103263
11/18/05
BERGER, STEPHANIE
166.00
wf
103264
11/18/05
BUSMAN, CHRISTINA
195.50
wf
103265
11/18/05
DALY,KERRY
48.00
wf
103266
11/18/05
DICKEY, TANYA
136.00
wf
103267
11/18/05
ERICKSON, AMY
72.00
wf
103268
11/18/05
FRANK, SARAH
50.00
wf
103269
11/18/05
GREER, ABIGAIL
36.00
wf
103270
11/18/05
HELKAMP, KAYLA
50.00
wf
103271
11/18/05
HOBBS, KENDRA
60.00
wf
103272
11/18/05
KELLY,.IAMIE
102.00
wf
103273
11/18/05
KOHLMAN,.IENNIFER
70.00
wf
103274
11/18/05
KYRK, HALEY
66.00
wf
103275
11/18/05
MUELLNER, CHRISTOPHER
264.00
wf
103276
11/18/05
NETTLETON, NICOLE
252.00
wf
103277
11/18/05
NYBERG, MICHELLE
114.00
wf
103278
11/18/05
OLSON, KRISTIN
48.00
wf
103279
11/18/05
SHOBERG, KART
160.88
wf
103280
11/18/05
SWANSON, AMANDA
68.00
wf
103281
11/18/05
HAAG, MARK
1,770.15
wf
103282
11/18/05
NADEAU, EDWARD
2,972.99
wf
103283
11/18/05
DREWES, DEENA
88.80
wf
103284
11/18/05
GLASS,.IEAN
1,814.45
wf
103285
11/18/05
HER, CHONG
361.90
wf
103286
11/18/05
NAGEL, BROOKE
315.70
wf
103287
11/18/05
TOLBERT, FRANCINE
307.00
wf
103288
11/18/05
ANDERSON, CALEB
22.35
wf
103289
11/18/05
ANDERSON,.IOSHUA
119.76
wf
103290
11/18/05
ANDERSON,.IUSTIN
97.50
wf
103291
11/18/05
ARNEVIK, ERICA
35.00
wf
103292
11/18/05
BRENEMAN, SEAN
163.60
wf
103293
11/18/05
CLARK, PAMELA
34.00
wf
103294
11/18/05
COSTA,.IOSEPH
517.48
wf
103295
11/18/05
DEMPSEY, BETH
69.90
wf
103296
11/18/05
FENGER,.IUSTIN
261.08
wf
103297
11/18/05
GRANT, MELISSA
284.20
wf
103298
11/18/05
GRUEN IAGEN, LINDA
503.45
wf
103299
11/18/05
HAGSTROM, EMILY
61.50
wf
103300
11/18/05
HAWBAKER, EVAN
150.15
wf
103301
11/18/05
HEINN, REBECCA
96.00
wf
103302
11/18/05
KROLL, MARK
86.63
wf
103303
11/18/05
LEMAY, KATHERINE
81.00
wf
103304
11/18/05
LUTZ, CHRISTINA
232.63
wf
103305
11/18/05
MELLEN, CHRISTOPHER
43.88
wf
103306
11/18/05
MORIS, RACHEL
47.25
wf
103307
11/18/05
NWANOKWALE, MORDY
68.25
OWN
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT
FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD
23
CHECK 4
CHECK DATE
EMPLOYEE NAME
AMOUNT
wf
103308
11/18/05
PETERSON, ANNA
78.20
wf
103309
11/18/05
RICHTER, NANCY
187.00
wf
103310
11/18/05
RYDEEN, ARIEL
178.75
wf
103311
11/18/05
SCHMIDT, EMILY
75.05
wf
103312
11/18/05
SCHOMMER, SUMMERS
42.75
wf
103313
11/18/05
SCHRAMM, BRITTANY
33.75
wf
103314
11/18/05
SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN
155.60
wf
103315
11/18/05
SIVALD, SHANNON
152.25
wf
103316
11/18/05
SMITLEY, SHARON
359.25
wf
103317
11/18/05
STAHNKE, AMY
238.55
wf
103318
11/18/05
WARNER, CAROLYN
263.45
wf
103319
11/18/05
WEDES, CARYL
140.10
wf
103320
11/18/05
WELTER, ELIZABETH
264.00
wf
103321
11/18/05
WHITE, NICOLE
817.87
wf
103322
11/18/05
WILLIAMS, KRISTINE
16.25
wf
103323
11/18/05
WOODMAN, ALICE
223.20
wf
103324
11/18/05
BOSLEY, CAROL
297.00
wf
103325
11/18/05
LEWIS, AMY
117.25
wf
103326
11/18/05
ODDEN,.IESSICA
102.91
wf
103327
11/18/05
OIL, REBECCA
130.05
wf
103328
11/18/05
PARAYNO, GUAI
200.50
wf
103329
11/18/05
SATTLER, MELINDA
72.60
wf
103330
11/18/05
STODGHILL, AMANDA
101.48
wf
103331
11/18/05
VAN HALE, PAULA
101.40
wf
103332
11/18/05
ANDERSON, MATT
113.05
wf
103333
11/18/05
BERLIN, SARAH
53.98
wf
103334
11/18/05
DOUGLASS, TOM
1,253.27
wf
103335
11/18/05
GADOW,ANNA
50.80
wf
103336
11/18/05
HER, PHENG
197.45
wf
103337
11/18/05
O'GRADY, VICTORIA
59.08
wf
103338
11/18/05
OLSON, CHRISTINE
149.63
wf
103339
11/18/05
SIMPSON,.IOSEPH
148.00
wf
103340
11/18/05
THEESFELD, CALEB
83.40
wf
103341
11/18/05
YANG, HUE
50.80
wf
103342
11/18/05
YANG, KAY
118.15
wf
103343
11/18/05
VANG, TIM
118.63
wf
103344
11/18/05
VUE, FOR PAO
193.68
wf
103345
11/18/05
XIONG, HLAO
28.58
478,336.89
23
AGENDA NO. G2
/_ T e] A 0 10 7_ 1 V Ago] - .49
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director and Community Development Director
RE: INCREASE IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICE
CHARGES
DATE: November 22, 2005
INTRODUCTION
It is proposed that the Community Development Department service charges be increased by
effective January 1, 2006
- TIT83210]:Zo1l1.U7
It has been past practice to raise service charges annually to keep up with inflation. In 1993 a
User Fee Study was completed for the Community Development Department to insure that service
charges finance an appropriate portion of the service costs. The User Fee Study report contained
recommendations on 50 individual license /permit fees and service charges for the Community
Development Department. For each item, it had information on the unit volume, current fee, costs
to provide the service, recommended fee, phase -in schedule covering five years for the
recommended fee, estimated increased revenue from the recommended fee and subsidy amount
after the recommended fee is phased in. On 5- 24 -93, the Council approved the recommended
fees for 1993. There have been annual increases in the service charges since then.
On 5 -24 -04 the City Council approved a user fee study to determine if 17 planning service
charges cover city costs. The study indicated that for 2003 the city costs for the 17 services
exceeded revenues by $98,263. On the next page is a listing of the revenue and costs for the 17
fees charged.
P: MORDWGNWSERFEE_CD.DOC
November 22, 2005
FEE
Zone Change
Conditional Use Permit - Single or Double- Dwelling
Conditional Use Permit - Other
Conditional Use Permit Revisions - Single or Double Dwelling
Conditional Use Permit Revisions - Other
Home Occupation
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Variance - Single or Double- Dwelling
Variance - Other
Variance - Front Yard Setback
Preliminary Plat
Community Design Review Board
Community Design Review Board
Planned Unit Development
Temporary Sign Permit
Wall Signs
Free Standing Signs
Double Dwelling
15 Day Design Review
2003
2003
INCREASE
FEE
Full Cost
INCREASE
TIMES 20%
776.00
1,654.48
878.48
176.00
232.00
1,505.63
1,273.63
255.00
825.00
1,645.85
820.85
164.00
46.00
1,505.63
1,459.63
292.00
165.00
1,734.98
1,569.98
314.00
165.00
1,344.97
1,179.97
236.00
1,130.00
1,717.48
587.48
117.00
152.00
1,344.97
1,192.97
239.00
848.00
1,344.97
496.97
99.00
152.00
516.60
364.60
73.00
1,400.00
1,990.58
590.58
118.00
187.00
1,532.60
1,345.60
269.00
152.00
473.60
321.60
64.00
1,250.00
2,654.28
1,404.28
281.00
24.00
44.15
20.15
4.00
24.00
101.59
77.59
16.00
24.00
169.43
145.43
29.00
In 2004 the Council approved a recommendation that the large increases needed in these 17 fees
be phased in over the five -year period of 2005 -2009. Therefore, beginning in 2005, 20% of the
increase needed to cover the full cost was added to the fee rates.
Also, all other Community Development Department fees should be increased by 2.0% to keep up
with inflation. All of the Community Development Department license /permit fees and services
charges are listed in Exhibit A which lists the present fee and the proposed 2006 fees. The 17
fees that were in the 2004 user fee study are in bold with the 2006 fee increase at one -fifth of the
increase listed in the user fee study.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve (1) increases in the Community Development
Department fees as listed in Exhibit A effective January 1, 2006 and (2) approve first reading of
an ordinance (Exhibit B) to increase the planning fees.
P: \WORDWGN \USERFEE CD.DOC
November 22, 2005 2
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Service Charges
Estimated
Fee
Annual
2004
2005
2006
Volume
Fee
Fee
Fee
PLANNING FEES (Set by Ordinance)
Zone Change *
8
788
952
1,128
Conditional Use Permit:
R1 and R2 *
1
236
487
742
Other *
11
838
989
1,153
Conditional Use Permit Revision:
R1 and R2 *
6
47
338
630
Other*
8
168
479
793
Variances:
R1 and R2 *
6
154
391
630
Other*
6
862
947
1,046
Front Yard Setback *
1
154
225
298
Vacations:
R1 and R2 *
10
148
150
153
Other*
2
576
583
595
Lot Divisions (Fee per lot created):
R1 and R2
11
82
83
85
Other
1
307
311
317
Home Occupations
Initial Permit
6
168
401
637
Annual Renewal
6
55
56
57
Sign Erection Permit (per inspection)
100
24
24
24
Temporary Sign Permit
30
24
28
32
Wall Sign Permit
50
24
40
56
Free Standing Signs
13
24
53
82
Comprehensive Plan Amendment *
8
1,148
1,247
1,364
*Plus a surcharge for each affected property to pay for the County's filing fee for resolutions.
P: \EXCEL \MISC \FEES_CD 2
11/22/2005 3
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Service Charges
Fee
Estimated
Annual
Volume
2004
Fee
2005
Fee
2006
Fee
Code Amendment
1
862
873
890
Planned Unit Development *
8
1,270
1,531
1,812
Preliminary Plat
8
1,420
1,518
1,636
Preliminary Plat Revision or Time Extension
9
224
227
232
Final Plat
5
386
391
399
Time Extensions /Renewals
9
141
143
146
LICENSES DUE JANUARY 1st
Commercial Fertilizer Application License
114
115
117
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES
Woodlot Alteration Permit
1
14
14
14
Building Relocation
5
823
834
851
Moving Permit
3
53
54
55
Community Design Review Board:
R1 & R2
15 Day Design Review
Revision
Other
8
1
3
16
190
154
0
693
456
216
190
702
725
280
194
716
Mobile Home Permit
1
41
42
43
On -Site Sewage Systems
6
67
68
69
Truth -In- Housing Filing Fee
100
31
31
32
Truth -In- Housing Evaluators License
29
106
107
109
Zoning Compliance Letter
24
24
24
Project Notification Sign
12
100
101
103
Front Yard Setback Authorization
0
154
157
Minor Construction Project
0
154
157
*Plus a surcharge for each affected property to pay for the County's filing fee for resolutions.
P: \EXCEL \MISC \FEES_CD 2
11/22/2005 4
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Service Charges
Fee
Estimated
Annual
Volume
2004
Fee
2005
Fee
2006
Fee
PUBLICATIONS (Includes Sales Tax):
Zoning Code
6
6
6
Platting Code
3
3
3
Sign Code
3
3
3
Comprehensive Plan
15
15
15
Zoning Map
11
11
11
City Map
3
3
3
Section Map
3
3
3
Planning Commission or Community
Design Review Board:
Minutes - Per Year
Agenda Packet - Per Year
Property Owner List
15
114
66
15
115
67
15
117
68
*Plus a surcharge for each affected property to pay for the County's filing fee for resolutions.
P: \EXCEL \MISC \FEES_CD 2
11/22/2005 5
ORDINANCE NO.
PLANNING FEES
Section 1. Section 36 - 26 of the Zoning Code of the City of Maplewood is hereby amended as follow
Section 36 - 26. Fees. The following nonrefundable application fees shall be required:
Zone Change
1,128
Conditional Use Permit:
R1 & R2
742
Other
1,153
Conditional Use Permit Revision:
R1 & R2
630
Other
793
Variances:
R1 & R2
630
Other
1,046
Front Yard Setback
298
Vacations:
R1 & R2
153
Other
595
Lot Divisions (Fee per lot created):
R1 & R2
85
Other
317
Home Occupation Permit (initial permit)
Initial permit
637
Annual permit
57
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
1,364
Code Amendment
890
Planned Unit Development
1,812
Preliminary Plat
1,636
Preliminary Plat Revision or Time Extension
232
Final Plat
399
Time Extensions /Renewals
146
Section 2. Section 36 - 258 of the sign code is amended as follows:
Section 36 - 258. Fees.
(1) The sign erection permit fee shall be $24 (per inspection)
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective on January 12006
Passed by the Maplewood City Council on
Attest:
2005
Mayor
Ayes --
Clerk Nayes --
Exhibit B
0
Agenda Item G3
Lril =I LVA IQ ZIM 0 1 UIILVi
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT. Conditional Use Permit Review
LOCATION: 3071 White Bear Avenue
PROJECT: Jiffy Lube
DATE: November 16, 2005
I10 :IQ 111L911IQ01
The conditional use permit (CUP) for a Jiffy Lube automotive service center near Maplewood Mall
is due for review. The CUP is for an automotive maintenance garage in a BC (business
commercial) zoning district. (See the maps on pages two through four and the city council
minutes on pages five through eight.)
1 -1 • e C d: (c 1: X /911/ 0 1 1 1 7
On October 28, 2002, the city council approved a CUP and the design plans for Jiffy Lube to build
a new automotive service facility along the ring road near Maplewood Mall. (See the council
minutes starting on page five.) This facility was to go where the Pizza Hut restaurant once stood.
On October 27, 2003, the city council reviewed this CUP and agreed to review it again in one
year.
On November 8, 2004, the city council reviewed this CUP and agreed to review it again in one
year.
X11, -10111*11IQ 0
The contractor has finished all the associated site work and all conditions of approval for this site
have been met. Therefore, city staff recommends review in one year.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit for the Jiffy Lube automobile maintenance garage at 3071
White Bear Avenue (near Maplewood Mall) again in one year or sooner if a problem arises or if
the owner proposes a significant change to the site.
Kr /p:sec2 n1 /2 /jiffy lube CUP review.05
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line Map
3. Revised Site Plan
4. October 28, 2002 City Council Minutes
ROAD
Site
0
0
0
3
w
J
a
2
w
Q
Ex
Q
w
CD
w
0
BEAM AVE
Attachment 1
Location Map
Jiffj2 Lube l�
3071 White BearAvenue N
Attachment 2
COUNTY ROAD D
oil
w
a
x
a
W
m
W
x
3
Im
WOODLYNN AVE
Q
N
Property Line Map
Jiffy Lube
3071 White BearAvenue
LYDIA AVE �-
- -- -------------- - - - - - - - - - -
1:7Z
A V E N U E N T
it M !
I
4
O
M.
-- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- -------------- - - - - - - - - - -
1:7Z
A V E N U E N T
it M !
I
4
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL Attachment 4
7:00 P.M., Monday, October 28, 2002
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 02 -23
A. CALL TO ORDER:
A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and
was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal.
A moment of silence was held in remembrance of the victims of the plane crash in Northern
Minnesota on Friday, October 18, 2002.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present
Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Present
Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present
2. 7:15 p.m. Jiffy Lube (Maplewood Mall Ring Road)
Conditional Use Permit
Design Approval
a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report.
b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report.
C. Commissioner Pearson provided the Planning Commission Report.
d. Boardmember Shankar provided the Community Design Review Board Report.
e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The
following persons were heard:
Reg Plowman of RJ Marco, 75 West Viking Drive, Little Canada
Tom Schuette of Azure Properties
e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the following resolution approving the conditional
use permit and design plans for a maintenance garage for Jiffv Lube along the ring road
northeast of Maplewood Mall:
City Council Meeting 10 -28 -02
61
RESOLUTION 02 -10 -170
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, Mr. Jim Lee, of RJ Marco Construction, applied for a conditional use permit to build a
Jiffy Lube auto service facility (a vehicle maintenance garage).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property that now has a vacant Pizza Hut Restaurant that is
northeast of Maplewood Mall. The legal description is:
Subject to easements, except East 167 feet and except the North 20 feet; Lot 15, Block 1,
Maplewood Mall Addition (PIN 02- 29 -22 -21 -0014)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On October 7, 2002 the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this
permit.
2. The city council held a public hearing on October 28, 2002. City staff published a notice in the
paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described
conditional use permit because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or
property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other
nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create
traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and
fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
City Council Meeting 10 -28 -02
[s9
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 site plan approved by the city. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or
the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
The council also approved the design plans (architectural, site and landscaping) for Jiffy Lube. The
developer shall do the following:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant must:
a. Provide the following for the city engineer's approval:
(1) A grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval.
The erosion control plan shall meet all ordinance requirements. The drainage plan shall
include details about the preparation and final design of the rainwater garden. The plans
for the water main must be approved by the Saint Paul Regional Water Services
(SPRW S).
(2) Revised plans showing a six - foot -wide concrete sidewalk along the north and east sides
of the ring road (along the entire south and west sides of the property). This sidewalk
should be set back at least five feet from the edge of the ring road and shall have
pedestrian ramps where it meets a driveway or a roadway curb.
b. Revise the plans to:
(1) Show the sidewalk as required by the city engineer.
(2) Show the location of in- ground lawn irrigation lines and sprinklers.
(3) Change the west building elevation to delete the three - infill utility brick soldier panels.
(4) Show a van - accessible handicap - parking space.
c. Provide a screening plan for any roof -top or ground mechanical equipment that is visible
from the ring road or adjacent properties.
d. Submit color schemes and material samples to staff for approval.
City Council Meeting 10 -28 -02
N
e. Submit a plan for the underground irrigation for all landscaped areas. This plan shall show
the required sidewalk. This plan shall be subject to staff approval. Underground irrigation is
required for all landscaped areas.
f Submit plans for the trash enclosure. These plans shall show that the enclosure will match the
building in color and that it will have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. If the trash
dumpster is kept inside the building, an outdoor enclosure is not required.
3. Complete the following before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons removed because of this construction.
b. Install a reflectorized stop sign, a handicap - parking sign for each handicap - parking space and
an address on the building.
c. Screen all roof -top or ground mechanical equipment visible from the ring road or adjacent
property.
d. Install and maintain an in- ground irrigation system for all landscaped areas.
e. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure and an opaque gate to meet code requirements, unless
trash dumpsters are stored indoors.
f Install the concrete sidewalk with pedestrian ramps as required by the city engineer.
4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare.
b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The
amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. The contractor shall complete
any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or
within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work.
5. This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs must meet the requirements of the
city's sign ordinance. The applicant or the contractor must obtain all required sign permits before
the contractor installs them.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve
minor changes.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes - Councilmembers Collins,
Juenemann and Wasiluk
Nays -Mayor Cardinal and
Councilmember Koppen
City Council Meeting 10 -28 -02
W
Agenda Item G4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit Termination — Sandy Lake Soccer Fields
LOCATION:
County Road B, West of 1 -35E
DATE:
November 4, 2005
INTRODUCTION
On March 10, 2003, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the Sandy
Lake Soccer Fields. The applicant, the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department, has now
informed us that they no longer plan to build this facility. Refer to the enclosed letter from Bob
Bierscheid.
Request
Terminate the CUP for the Sandy Lake Soccer Fields.
BACKGROUND
March 10, 2003: The city council approved a comprehensive land use plan amendment from OS
(open space) to P (Park) and a CUP for this facility. The city council moved to review this permit in
two years.
February 14, 2005: The city council reviewed this CUP and moved to review it again in one year
Code Requirement
Section 44 -1099 of the zoning code states that the "proposed construction must be substantially
started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the CUP shall become
null and void. The council may grant up to one one -year extension of the permit if just cause is
shown."
Section 44 -1101 of the zoning code states that the city council may terminate a CUP if the use is no
longer in effect.
DISCUSSION
There is no reason to keep this permit active since the applicant has decided not to build this soccer
facility. According to code, this CUP will automatically terminate on February 14, 2006, the date the
last renewal period ends. To make it clear by taking a formal action, staff recommends that the city
council adopt the attached Resolution of Termination.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution terminating the conditional use permit for the Sandy Lake Soccer Fields since
this development is no longer being proposed by the City of St. Paul.
p:secl8 \soccer fields cup termination 11'05
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Letterfrom Bob Bierscheid
3. Resolution of CUP Termination
Site
f
N
W
U
H
N
11 i��l
Location Map
Sandy Lake Soccer Fields
Attachment 1
191
J
a
z
O
J
N
Attachment 2
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION JUL 2 7 2005
RECREATION SERVICES
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C_ Kelly, Mayor
`•, Bob Bierscheid, CPRP
Director
300 City Hall Arnam Telephone: 651- 246 -6400
25 West Fourth Street Facsimile: 651- 292.7405
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 TTY: 651- 266 -6378
w xi.stpaul.mn.us/depts/parks
SAINT PAUL PARKSAND RECREATION- "TIIEBENEFITSAREENDLESS"
July 21, 2005
Ms. Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Dear Ms. Coleman;
It is with regret that 1 must inform you that Saint Paul Parks and Recreation is canceling our
project to convert the Sandy Lake area of the Saint Paul Regional Water Utility property to six
soccer fields. Our decision has been made because of the costs required to comply with the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for site conversion in a timely manner. The
select fill material along with the fiber mat and surcharge material required to accomplish the
acceleration made the capping part of the project quite expensive. The project estimates are now
at $10,032,501. The City of Saint Paul does not have the resources to meet these costs. We have
had conversations with Bruce Anderson from Maplewood Parks and Recreation, Greg Mack of
Ramsey County Parks and Recreation and Steve Schneider of the Saint Paul Regional Water
Services about the property. Regional Water Services does plan to move forward with the plan
to cap the site to comply with the requirements of the MPCA. Steve is going to be working with
your staff to communicate how that will be done. Steve has also expressed a desire to work with
Bruce on any plans that Maplewood Parks and Recreation would have for the site.
We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Maplewood City Council, the Maplewood Planning
Commission, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission, Maplewood City staff and the
citizens of Maplewood on assisting us to bring forward what we hoped would be a great benefit
to the citizens of both of our communities. Unfortunately there are some variables beyond our
control. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
0-�,�
Bob Bierscheid, CPRP
Director of Parks and Recreation
cc: Bruce Anderson, Director Maplewood Parks and Recreation
Greg Mack, Director Ramsey County Parks and Recreation
Steve Schneider, General Manager, Saint Paul Regional Water Services
Mayor Randy Kelly, City of Saint Paul
AA -ADA -EEO Employer
Attachment 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TERMINATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of St. Paul received approval from the Maplewood City Council on March 10,
2003, for a conditional use permit allowing them to construct the Sandy Lake Soccer Complex.
WHEREAS, The City of St. Paul subsequently notified the City of Maplewood in July, 2005 that they
no longer plan to build this soccer facility and have no need for this conditional use permit.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located on the south side of County Road B East,
west of Interstate 35E. The legal description is:
Parcel #18- 29 -22 -12 -0010: South 140" of North 270' of E 442', 68/100'. North 130' of SW '/a of NE
/a subject to County Road B part of NW '/a of NE' /a S.E.LY of 160' W.W. R/W in SECTION 18, TOWN
29, RANGE 22.
Parcel #18- 29 -22 -24 -0024: Subject to Avenue; except South 15' of East 320' of West 1790' of NW
/a ex. Part in James 1"Addition part of said NW ''/4, S.E.LY of W.W. R/W in SECTION 18, TOWN 29,
RANGE 22.
Parcel #18- 29 -22 -24 -0001: SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22. 100' W.W. R/W across N 2/3 of
SW ''/4. 165' W.W. R/W across S '/a of NW ''/4. 160' W.W. R/W across N % of E '/ of NW ' / 4 of
SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22.
Parcel #18- 29 -22 -12 -0009: SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22. 160' W.W R/W across NW ' / 4 of
NE '/a of SECTION 18, TOWN 29, RANGE 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit termination is as follows:
1. On November 28, 2005, the city council terminated this conditional use permit since the
applicant, the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department, no longer has plans to build
this soccer facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council terminate the above - described
conditional use permit because the City of St. Paul no longer has plans to construct this soccer facility.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution of termination on November 28, 2005.
Agenda #G -5
AGENDA REPORT
To:
City Manager Richard Fursman
From:
Chief of Police David J. Thomalla
Subject:
2006 Landfall Policing Contract
Date:
November 23, 2005
Introduction
The policing contract between the City of Maplewood and City of Landfall has been
prepared and must be approved and signed by the City Council .
Background
For the past several years, the City of Landfall has contracted with the City of
Maplewood for policing services. The current contract expires December 31, 2005.
The City of Landfall wishes to continue contracting with the City of Maplewood, and we
have agreed to continue to provide this service.
The only changes from the previous contract (which ran from 2002 to 2005) are:
- It is an open -ended contract, which will automatically renew each year
with a cost -of- living increase.
- There is an out - clause for both parties.
- Some indemnification language has been added.
This new contract has been prepared and reviewed by the Maplewood City Attorney.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the contract be approved by the Maplewood City Council.
Action Required
Review and approval by the City Council.
Upon approval, the signatures of the Mayor, City Manager and City Attorney are
required.
DJT:js
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE POLICE SERVICE
This Agreement made and entered into this day of 1 20 , by and between
the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Maplewood"
and the City of Landfall Village, a Minnesota Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Landfall ".
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide the basis upon which Maplewood will provide
police service for Landfall. Maplewood hereby agrees to provide police service for Landfall, and
Landfall hereby engages Maplewood to provide such service in accordance with and subject to the
terms of this Agreement.
II. LEGAL BASIS
This Agreement is made pursuantto Minnesota Statutes §471.59, Subd. 12. This Agreement
is not made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 436.06, and should not be construed as creating
a joint municipal police department.
III. ADMINISTRATION
The administration of police service within the territory of Landfall under this Agreement
shall be the sole responsibility of the appropriate officials of Maplewood, and Landfall shall have no
administrative authority over the providing of police service by Maplewood. To facilitate this
Agreement, however, and in order to provide for an average of consultation and communication
between Landfall and Maplewood, on matters relating to police service, it is agreed that the Mayor of
Landfall, or a member of the Landfall City Council designated by the Mayor, shall confer with the
Maplewood City Manager or designee at least once every three months, and more frequently if
necessary, on any matter relating to police service being provided in Landfall by Maplewood.
Maplewood agrees that its City Manager or designee shall participate in such discussions with the
objective of providing for the satisfactory administration of this contract and for the satisfactory
performance of police service for Landfall. Inquiries concerning police service in Landfall, made by
its Mayor or the Mayor's designate, shall be responded to by the Maplewood City Manager or
designee.
IV. LEVEL OF SERVICE
During the time that this contract is in effect, Maplewood will provide police service within
Landfall which shall be the same service as that which is provided and extended to persons and
property within Maplewood, including Animal Control Services. Landfall shall be assigned to a
police patrol district in the same manner as though it were a part of Maplewood and no distinction
shall be made between the territory of Maplewood and the territory of Landfall, in any respect, in the
level, time or other mode of delivery of police services in Landfall. This does not include paramedic
service.
V. HEADQUARTERS AND EQUIPMENT
The headquarters of personnel of Maplewood providing police service in Landfall shall be in
Maplewood, and members of the general public having need to communicate with the Maplewood
Police Department on matters arising out of or involving persons or property in Landfall may
communicate directly with Maplewood police headquarters. Maplewood, under the terms of this
Agreement, will provide all communication devices, equipment, records, other materials and
personnel necessary to the performance of this contract, except to the extent that this contract
specifically provides for the furnishing of any part thereof by Landfall.
VI. PUBLIC INFORMATION
Both parties agree to take any or all steps necessary to inform the public of the fact that
Maplewood is providing police service for Landfall. Landfall shall advise the City of Maplewood of
what information was given to the public and citizens of Landfall concerning Maplewood's police
service for Landfall.
VII. PERSONNEL, POLICIES AND FRINGE BENEFITS
All personnel used in providing police service to Landfall under this Agreement shall be and
remain employees of Maplewood. The personnel policies applicable to Maplewood Police
Department employees shall apply, and in all instances, retirement and fringe benefits shall be the
responsibility of and subject to determination from time to time by Maplewood.
The standards of performance, discipline of law enforcement officers, the method of
providing law enforcement services and other matters incidental to the performance of law
enforcement services under this Agreement, including personnel to be employed, shall be determined
by the City of Maplewood.
VIII. DESIGNATION OF MAPLEWOOD POLICE OFFICERS
AS LANDFALL POLICE OFFICERS
All members of the Maplewood Police Department shall be designated by Landfall, by
Council resolution, as duly appointed police officers of Landfall, authorized to act on all law
enforcement matters within the limits of Landfall in the same manner and to the same extent as
though they were employees of Landfall. Maplewood shall provide Landfall, from time to time, with
the names of the members of the Maplewood Police Department, to permit such action to be taken by
Landfall.
IX. CHARGES BY MAPLEWOOD FOR POLICE SERVICE
Maplewood shall charge and Landfall shall pay for police service provided for under this
2
Agreement as hereinafter provided.
Maplewood will provide police services to Landfall for the period January 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2006, for the sum of $109,944 (One- Hundred Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and
Fourty -Four Dollars) the first year.
X. SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT CHARGES
Charges for 2006 police services shall be based upon the established rate for the sum of
$109,944 as provided in Section IX, and charges for police services for subsequent years shall be
progressive, based upon a cost of living increase based on the Minneapolis /St. Paul Consumer Index
(or other consumer index utilized by our finance department) being added to the amount paid in the
previous year, and the product shall be the amount payable during the ensuing calendar year to
Maplewood by Landfall for services under this Agreement. Such sum shall be paid in four (4) equal
installments. The first installment shall be paid on or before the 15th day of January 2006, and the
remaining payments shall be made on or before April 15, 2006; July 15, 2006; and October 15, 2006.
For subsequent years, payments shall be made on the 15th day of January and the remaining
payments on or before April 15, July 15 and October 15, in equal amounts.
In July of each year, Maplewood shall notify Landfall in writing of the calculated costs for
police service for the following calendar year.
XI. GRANT APPLICATIONS AND USES OF AWARDS
Maplewood may, from time to time, apply for and receive grants related to the provision of
services to Landfall as identified in this Agreement. Maplewood will provide services and equipment
to Landfall pursuant to the terms of each grant. When a grant may expire, Maplewood is no longer
obligated to continue to provide the grant- funded service or equipment within the contract charges
specified in Articles IX and X in this Agreement. Maplewood and Landfall may, however, discuss
the desirability and proper manner for continuation of services or equipment beyond the terms ofthe
grant.
XII. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2006, and shall run through December 31,
2006. This Agreement shall automatically renew on January 1 of each subsequent year and shall run
through December 31 of each year until terminated under the terms of this Agreement.
This Agreement may be terminated upon one hundred eighty (180) days' written notice
provided to the other party's city manager or city cleric In the event of such termination, payment
shall be made to the City of Maplewood on a pro -rata basis until services cease.
The failure of either party to this Agreement to perform its terms or obligations hereunder
shall entitle the other party to cancel this Agreement and to pursue any and all remedies available at
law or equity based upon such failures; provided, however, such cancellation or pursuit of remedy
3
shall be available and exercisable if and only if such failure shall not be cured prior to the expiration
of twenty (20) days after such other party has given written notice of such failure to the defaulting
party. All written notices under this paragraph shall be deemed, satisfactorily given when mailed,
certified or registered United States Mail, postage prepaid to the address indicated below:
to the City of Maplewood:
City of Maplewood
Attention City Manager Richard Fursman
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
to the City of Landfall:
City of Landfall
Attention City Clerk Helen Hallis
11 Forest Heights
Landfall, MN 55128
XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Dispute resolution/arbitration in the event of any differences, dispute or claim arising under
and pursuant to this Agreement or as to the performance thereof by the parties, the parties agree as
follows:
a. Good faith negotiations. The party alleging such difference, dispute or claim shall
provide specific written notice of such difference, dispute or claim to the other party. The
parties hereto agree that for a sixty (60) -day period thereafter, the parties will engage in good
faith negotiations at Maplewood City Hall to take any further action in an attempt to resolve
this dispute.
b. Arbitration. In the event the parties fail to resolve their dispute following good -faith
negotiations, the difference, dispute or claim shall be submitted to an arbitrator from City
Government mutually agreed on bythe parties. The location ofthe arbitration shall be atthe
City Hall, City of Maplewood. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and not subject to
appeal.
XIV. ORDINANCES, CITY CODE BOOKS, STREET MAPS
Landfall shall provide Maplewood with a copy of all of the ordinances of Landfall and with a
copy of each amendment or new ordinance hereafter adopted by Landfall while this Agreement is in
effect. Landfall shall provide Maplewood with a copy of the Landfall streets layout and with an
updated copy as changes are made.
4
XV. PROSECUTIONS: FINES, COURT COSTS, OVERTIME, ETC.
Landfall shall remain responsible for the prosecution of all alleged crimes, ordinance
violations or traffic offenses arising within Landfall which are not provided for by the County
Attorney, and shall be entitled to receive its appropriate municipal share of fines collected for
violations of law occurring within Landfall.
XVI. LIABILITY
For the purposes of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability Act (Minn. Stat. 466), the
employees and officers of Maplewood are deemedto be employees (as defined in Minn. Stat. 466.01,
subdivision 6) of Landfall.
Landfall agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Maplewood harmless against any claims
brought or actions filed against Maplewood or any officer, employee, agent, or volunteer of
Maplewood for injuryto, death of, or damage to the property of anythird person or persons, arising
from the performance and provision of assistance in responding to a request for assistance by
Landfall pursuant to this agreement. Under no circumstances, however, shall a party be required to
pay on behalf of itself and other parties, any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to any one party. The limits of liability for some or all of
the parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for any party.
Neither Maplewood nor any officer, employee, or volunteer of Maplewood shall be liable to
Landfall or to any other person for failure to furnish assistance, or for recalling assistance under this
agreement.
XVII. MISCELLANEOUS
It is understood that this Agreement contains the entire Agreement between Maplewood and
Landfall and that no statements, promises or inducements made by any party hereto, or officer, agent
or employee of either party hereto, which is not contained in this written Agreement shall be valid
and binding; and this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except in writing signed
by the parties and endorsed hereon. It is expressly understood between the parties hereto, and this
understanding shall be considered in interpreting the provision of this Agreement, that upon notice
given by any party hereto, later negotiations may be undertaken forthe purpose of revising, adding to
or striking any provision or provisions of this Agreement which appear unworkable or insufficient to
perfect, maintain and ensure the purpose of this Agreement and any change of the provisions of this
Agreement, after agreement between Maplewood and Landfall shall be written and attached to this
agreement as provided above and this later revision, addition or deletion shall only apply to the
provision revised, added or deleted and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
A waiver by any party or any term or condition ofthis Agreement and any paragraph shall not
be deemed or construed to be waiver of such term or condition for the future or any subsequent
breach thereof.
This entire Agreement embodies the entire Agreement and understanding of the parties hereto
with respect to the subject matter hereof, and it supersedes all prior and contemporaneous
agreements and understandings, oral and written, relative to the subject matter of this Agreement.
Each party shall execute and deliver any and all documents and shall perform all acts
reasonably necessaryto carry outthe provisions of this Agreement. And no party shall unreasonably
withhold its consent to any action which, by the terms hereof, require such consent.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year
first above written:
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
By:
Mayor
By:
City Manager
Approved As to Form
By:
City Attorney
Authorized by City of Maplewood
meeting held
C
CITY OF LANDFALL
By:
Mayor
By:
City Manager
Approved As to Form
By:
City Attorney
6
Authorized by City of Landfall
meeting held
C
Agenda Item G6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Director of Parks and Recreation
DATE: November 8, 2005 for the November 28 City Council Meeting
SUBJECT: N.E.S.A. Donation
The parks and recreation department has received a $1,000 check from the Northeast Soccer
Association to purchase goals for the Afton Heights soccer field complex. The city submitted a grant
through N.E.S.A. based on the construction of two new soccer fields at Afton Heights Park.
The check has been forwarded to the finance department and should be formally received by the city
council and credited to the park maintenance account from which the goals were ordered, which is
101- 602 - 000 -4480.
Agenda Item H.1
IN A lel:4 111W111J►VII ►Vile1 Zvi
Subject:
Site Address:
Zoning:
Land Use:
City Council Hearing Date:
Maplewood Business Center
1616 Gervais Avenue
Light Manufacturing (M -1)
Light Manufacturing (M -1)
November 28. 2005
Purpose of Review: At the October 3, 2005, city council meeting the city
council reviewed the Maplewood Business Center's conditional use permit to
ensure the required fence and landscaping had been installed. The fence and
landscaping were required by the city council after the city received complaints
from an adjacent residential neighbor regarding excessive late -night noise at the
St. Paul Pioneer Press dispatch facility located in the center. During the October
3 review it was found that the required fence and landscaping was installed, but
that there were still noise complaints regarding the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The
city council gave the Pioneer Press one month to correct the sound nuisance and
requested review of the conditional use permit again after the month.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for
the Maplewood Business Center located at 1616 Gervais Avenue with review
again in two months to allow the owner time to conduct a more extensive noise
study to ensure the St. Paul Pioneer Press facility located within the center meets
the state nighttime noise standards.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM:
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT:
Maplewood Business Center
LOCATION:
1616 Gervais Avenue
DATE:
November 21. 2005
INTRODUCTION
At the October 3, 2005, city council meeting the city council reviewed the conditional use
permit (CUP) for the Maplewood Business Center located at 1616 Gervais Avenue. The
purpose for the October 3 review was to ensure the required fence and landscaping had
been installed. The fence and landscaping were required by the city council after the
city received complaints from an adjacent residential neighbor regarding excessive late -
night noise at the St. Paul Pioneer Press dispatch facility located in the center. Refer to
the February 14 and August 8, 2005, city council minutes attached (Attachments 2 and
3).
During the October 3 review it was found that the required fence and landscaping was
installed, but that there were still noise complaints regarding the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
The city council gave the Pioneer Press one month to correct the sound nuisance
problem and requested review of the CUP again after the month.
DISCUSSION
Continued Noise Concerns
Over the months of October and November the affected residential neighbors (Kevin and
Cindy Hall of 1596 Grandview Avenue) indicate that the noise from the St. Paul Pioneer
Press has not subsided. They are still subjected to car doors slamming, car stereos
playing, and newspaper carts banging during the hours of operation between 2 and 4
a. m.
Owner Response
City staff requested that the St. Paul Pioneer Press submit written documentation of the
steps they took to help mitigate the noise from their facility since October. Rather than a
statement from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the owner Steiner Development, had their
attorney, Jeremy Steiner, submit a letter to the city (Attachment 4). Rather than an
explanation of steps the St. Paul Pioneer Press took to further mitigate the noise, Mr.
Steiner's letter discusses the city's authority to modify the Maplewood Business Center's
CUP.
The CUP was required in 1981 in order to build an office /warehouse closer than 250 feet
to residential property, which was the requirement in 1981. Mr. Steiner states in his
letter that Steiner Development took the noise complaints regarding the St. Paul Pioneer
Press seriously and voluntarily complied with the city council requirements for a fence
and landscaping in an effort to mitigate noise levels. Further, the city council has not
made any findings on the record that one of the nine CUP standards as specified in the
city's CUP ordinance are not being met.
Steiner Development hired an independent noise expert to test and evaluate noise levels
at the property. The noise study is attached to Mr. Steiner's letter as Exhibit D. In
summary, the study by David Braslau finds that the noise associated with the St. Paul
Pioneer Press is below the state nighttime noise standards. Due to the results of the
noise study and Mr. Steiner's legal opinion that the city does not have the authority to
revise a CUP according to state statute, Mr. Steiner requests that the city council take no
action to modify the terms of the CUP.
City Noise Monitoring
Two city police officers monitored noise at the Pioneer Press on November 11 and 12.
The police officers used a noise monitor to record the noise decibels detected on
Germain Street, on the west side of the new fence and landscaping. On November 11
between 2:15 and 3:45 a.m. four readings were taken which averaged 55 decibels. On
November 12 four readings were taken which averaged 57 decibels. State nighttime
standards range from 55 decibels for the highest measuring metric (1-10) to 50 decibels
for the lowest measuring metric (1-50).
State Noise Standards
City staff discussed the results of the independent noise study and the city's noise
monitoring with Brian Timerson, Noise Program Coordinator with the Minnesota
Department of Pollution Control. Mr. Timerson states that noise should be monitored
consistently for one hour in order to compare to the state standards. Once all readings
are noted, the noises must be broken down into the varying metrics. The L10 metric
would monitor the noises which are the highest for 10 percent of the hour. These noises
are impulsive noises such as car doors slamming and carts banging. The L50 metric
would monitor the noises which are the highest for 50 percent of the hour. These noises
are steady such as freeway traffic on Highway 36.
The independent noise study reflects two noise readings from 2:39 until 2:50 a.m. on
October 23. This limited noise monitoring found the L10 metric (impulsive) averaging
57.8 decibels and the L50 metric (steady) averaging 49.7. Again, state standards are 55
for L10 and 50 for L50. Mr. Braslau determined that some of the noise is impulsive in
nature which generally carries a penalty weighting of about 5 decibels since they are
more annoying than a more steady noise. If all of the levels were impulsive this would
bring the effective level closer to the L10 of 55 decibels. With this analysis Mr. Braslau
determined that the St. Paul Pioneer Press facility is within the nighttime standards and
that the primary source of noise was from the traffic on Highway 36.
The city's noise monitor does not decipher between the L10 and L50 metric, but does
indicate a possible violation of the state noise standards with decibels as high as 57.
For these reasons, Mr. Timerson recommends that the city require the property owner to
monitor the noise from the St. Paul Pioneer Press consistently for one hour as required
by the state standards. This is the only way to determine if the facility is in compliance
with state nighttime noise standards. Mr. Timerson further recommends that if the noise
study reflects noise levels from the St. Paul Pioneer Press which are over the state
standard, that the owner be required to mitigate the noise as necessary, i.e., limit hours
of operation, add additional landscaping, relocate the facility, etc.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the conditional use permit for the Maplewood Business Center located at 1616
Gervais Avenue and review it again in two months to ensure the St. Paul Pioneer Press
facility located within the center meets the state nighttime noise standards as follows:
A noise study must be conducted which meets state guidelines for determining
nighttime noise standards.
2. The noise study must be reviewed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
P: \com- dev\sec10 \maplewood business center \11 -28 -05 CC REPORT
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. August 8, 2005, City Council Minutes (Approval of Landscape and Screening Plan)
3. February 14, 2005, City Council Minutes (Amendment to Conditional Use Permit)
4. Jeremy Steiner, Esq., November 16, 2005, Correspondence and Exihibits
3
Attachment 1
0
L
=MAL- RR I ^-E11J M M L �
Maplewood Business Center
1616 Gervais Avenue
SO I-SINEM 1. 1
l
I d0 ❑: 0 ❑ E U R L
a o ❑ 0 0
DP PH FFQ4q
Location Map
Attachment 2
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:05 P.M. Monday, August 08, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -16
K. NEW BUSINESS
7. Maplewood Business Center Landscape /Screening Plan (1616 Gervais Avenue)
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report.
C. Patrick Lensing, Steiner Development, leasing agent for the Maplewood Business Center
addressed council questions.
d. The following persons were heard:
Joseph Yahnke, 1595 Grandview Avenue, Maplewood
Cindy Hall, 1596 Grandview Avenue, Maplewood
Councilmember Monahan -Junek moved to approve 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:
1. 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.
5. The landscape and fencing must be maintained and landscaping replaced by the owner if
it dies.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All
City council 08-08 -05
Attachment 3
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):
1. All uses must meet the following requirements:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise regulations shall apply.
Tests to vefi6 this shall be made by an independent testing firm. The initial cost shall be
paid by the ewflef. If the test shRwq Violation, the eest _e
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 parking zones.
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
morning hours.
12. The city council shall review this permit revision in six months (July 2005).
Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt consent agenda items 3. 6. 8 and 9.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All
City Council 02 -14 -05
Attachment 4
MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
400 %%!FEES FARGO 13ANK BUILDING
1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
HOPKINS, MN 55343
JEREMY S. STEINER* JERRE A. MILLER (RLI tRFD)
WYNN CURTISS
JASON T. HUTCHISON
' B C%l Pr. pcny Laic SpWalisL cenikkl (952) 938 -7635
by !ho btinnesota State Ba: ASSwalmm FAX (952) 93$ -7670
Writer's Direct Dial No. 952 -938 -6219
November 16, 2005
The Honorable Mayor and City Council ivlcmbers
c/o Ms. Shann Finwall VIA FACSIMILE
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road R Fast
Maplewood, M'N 55149
Re: Conditionat Use Permit For 1616 Gervais Avenue, City of Maplewood
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I represent Trustee Group Realty Partners V, LIT ( "Trustee Group V). the owner of the office
warehouse building and real property at 1616 Gervais Avenue (the "Property "). The purpose of this
letter is to state my client's position regarding the proposed action by the City of Maplewood ( "City ")
to modify the Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP ") for the Property issued by the City in 1981,
The CUP was originally issued to Airport Partnership, when it applied to build the office warehouse
building on the Property in 1981, A copy of the Maplewood City Council Resolution approving the
CLIP is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. When the CUP was issued, the City placed certain
conditions on it, which are listed in Exhibit A. The CUP does not contain any provision allowing its
modification or the imposition of additional conditions by the City, We believe it is not disputed that
Trustee Group V has complied with the conditions actually stated in the CUP.
As you know, the St. Paul Pioneer Press leases premises at the Property for the distribution of
newspapers and has operated this use since 1991 This use of the Property is permissible under its
zoning classification of M -I and under the CUP. It is our understanding these proceedings to
modify the CUP are the result of complaints received from a nearby resident, Cynthia Hall. about
noise from Pioneer Press operations at night. While the City did not independently substantiate any
significant problem with noise emanating from the Property, the City Council, on its own initiative,
voted to modify the CUP at its meeting of February 14, 2005, in modifying the CUP, the Council
r:TGVieip N1ap1,wwod.1 tr
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council Members -2- November 16, 2005
imposed a number of new conditions and requirements including: additional landscaping= or
screening, restrictions on garbage and trash pick -up schedules, new parking regulations and others.
In June, 2005, `trustee Group V agreed to meet with the Community Design Review Board to
consider installing a new fence and additional landscaping to mitigate noise emanating from the
Property. The result of this meeting and subsequent City Council approval was a plan calling for
erection of a fence and installation of new landscaping at a cost to my client of over $29,660.66. Ir
an effort to reach an amicable resolution, Trustee Group V completed recommended fence and re-
landscape the area between the building and the adjacent residential area. These improvements are
much more extensive than those that were required by Condition Number 5 of the attached CUP.
Despite my client's compliance with these recent actions by the Design Review Board and City
Council, the City now seeks to further modify the CUP for the Property at the Council meeting of
November 28, 2005. This letter addresses that proposed modification of the CUP.
A city's authority to regulate land use by issuance of CUPS is governed by Minnesota Statutes
Section 462.3595. "[A] governing body may by ordinance designate certain types of developments. .
. and certain land development activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations." Minn. Stat.
§ 462.3595, Subd. 1, A CUP is a protected property interest that runs with the land for the benefit of
future owners; an interest that will be protected by Minnesota courts. See Arorthpointe Plaza v. City
of Rochester, 465 KWy 2d 686 (Minn. 1991 ). In a 1996 Attorney General's Opinion, the Minnesota
Attorney General reached the same conclusion. See 11inn_ Atty. Gen. Op. 29a -32 (Feb. 27, 1996).
A city's authority to modify or terminate a CUP is governed and restricted by Minn. Stat,
462.3595. Once granted, "[a] conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions
agreed upon are observed." Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, Subd. 3. (Emphasis added.) This language is
unambiguous. The only issue the Council may consider in reviewing the CUP for the Property is
whether the conditions of the CUP have been met by my client. The City's own records demonstrate
they have.
Significantly, the City has not informed Trustee Group V what violation of the terms of the CUP, if
any, has occurred. My client assumes, but is not certain, the pending action by the City relates to
noise complaints from one local resident, Cynthia Hall, regarding the Pioneer Press' business
operations. One of the conditions of the CUP was that "The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
noise regulations shall apply." That condition, and my client's compliance with it, is discussed
bclow.
In 1996, Trustee Group V obtained a zoning compliance letter from the City. On November 14,
1996, Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner for the City, signed the letter attached as Exhibit B. In
that letter, Mr. Roberts states: "Our review of the records of this office with respect to the [Property]
c.TGViCjt0,hpIo ood_Ili
The Honorable Mavor and
City Council Members - 3 - November 16, 2005
reveals (a) no current active violations ... of the zoning regulations and /or land use approvals
applicable thereto and (b) no past violations of the same that remain uncured at this time." Thus, the
City unequivocally represented to my client that there were no violations of the CUP in 1996, after
the Pioneer Press began its business operations on the Property.
As stated above, we believe the present proceeding results from a noise complaint from Cynthia
Hall. The City previously took certain steps to investigate the complaint. On January 18, 2005,
Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager, drafted a letter to Richard F'ursman, City Manager, in
which she stated: `:According to Lt. Rabbett, three police officers have gone out [to the Property] at
different times between the hours of-" a.m. and 6 a.m. to evaluate the noise levels. They all
indicated that while they were present, the noise from Highway 36 was more prevalent than the
noise from the newspaper distribution activities [at the Property]." this letter is attached as Exhibit
C_ The City's own staff has investigated the noise issue and failed to establish there have been any
violations of the terms of the CUP.
Trustee Group V took this matter seriously and took significant steps at its expense to be a good
neighbor. Since 'Trustee Group V was in compliance with its CUP, these actions were voluntary and
demonstrate the good faith with which my client has dealt with the City and its residents. Notably,
Trustee Group V voluntarily took part in a Community Design Review Board process and completed
landscaping and fence improvements in an effort to mitigate noise levels at the Property, which, in
any event, have been demonstrated not to exceed MPCA Standards. Trustee Group V also hired an
independent expert to test and evaluate noise levels at the Property. The report of David Braslau
Associates, Inc., is attached as Exhibit D, In his report, Dr. Braslau draws the following conclusion
from data collected at the Property on October 23, 2005: "[T]he maximum sound level associated
with the [Property] are generally less than 50 dBA while traffic levels are as high as 60 dBA.
Therefore, the L 10 associated with the [Property] is less than 50 dBA, or 5 dBA below the LI0 55
[dBA] nighttime standard. Based upon this analysis, it can be concluded with reasonable confidence
that the noise associated with the [Property], .. is below the state nighttime noise standards, The
primary source of noise is traffic on Highway 36 ." (Emphasis added.) "Phis report is consistent with
the report of Lt. Rabbett and the police officers who investigated noise levels adjacent to the
Property. Both Dr. Braslau and the City of Maplewood agree Highway 36 is the primary cause of
noise near the Property. Dr. Braslau's report also establishes that any noise emanating from the
Property complies with State nighttime standards as promulgated by the MPCA. "Therefore, not only
has the City not established any violation of the conditions of the CUP, but our client has provided
objective evidence no violation exists.
Minn. Slat, S 4623595 states that a CUP shall remain in effect so long as the conditions are met. In
addition, in this case, the City represented to my client in 1996 that the Property was being operated
in compliance with the 1981 CUP and that there were no violations. In 2005, the Maplewood Police
Department was unable to establish a violation of any noise standards. Our client has now provided
cTi;V1( Japlowod.lir
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council Members -4 - November 16, 2405
verification from an independent expert, David Breslau, that any noise from the Property does not
exceed MPCfA night time noise standards, Both the Maplewood Police Department and Dr. Braslau
agree that Highway 36 is a greater source of noise than the Property. The City has provided no
evidence that any condition of the CUP has been violated. In compliance with Minn. Stat. §
462.3595, Subd. 3, this CUP must remain in effect and the City may not modify its terms. Any
action to modify the CUP would be arbitrary and capricious.
It appears the City's position is that Sections 44- 1092, 44- 1097, 44 -1100, and 44 -1101 of the
Maplewood City Code allow it to modify the terms of the 1981 CUP. This is belief is misplaced for
- several reasons.
First, as discussed above, Mim7. Slat. § 462.3595 controls the City's authority to grant and modify
CUPS and states clearly that the CUP may only be terminated for non - compliance with its terms.
This statute controls and supersedes conflicting provisions of any City Ordinance. See ;Uinta, fury.
Gen. Qp. 29a -32 (Feb. 27, 1990). Here, the City has not provided any evidence of non - compliance
with the terms of the CUP. To the contrary, the City has stated my client and the Property are in
compliance with the CUP. Therefore, tinder Minn. Slat. § 462.3595, modification of the CUP would
be improper.
In a similar case, the Minnesota State Attorney General considered a Ham Lake, Minnesota, CUP
ordinance that allowed that city to review a CUP every year and terminate it whether or not the
conditions had been met. The Attorney General reviewed Minn. Slat, § 462.3595 and determined
that the unambiguous language of the statute regarding the duration of a CUP controlled —not the
city ordinance. "[A] municipality may not enact or enforce ordinance provisions for conditional use
Permits which allow it to terminate permits regardless of whether or not the conditions agreed upon
are observed." 11inn. AnY Gen. Oh. 29n -32 (Feb. 27, 1990).
In the present case, the City is attempting to modify the CUP —that is to say, it seeks to terminate
certain terms of the existing CUP and replace them with new terms. The Attorney General's
analysis in Opinion 29a -32 controls under these facts as well.
Second, Section 44- 1101(b) is clear that revision or modification of a CUP by the City is permitted
only if certain conditions are shown to exist. While my client's position is that the modification of
the CUP is not permitted by State statute, even if modification were permitted by statute, the
Nlaplewood City Code would still not allow modification of the CUP, Maplewood Code Section
44- 1101(b) states: "The council s hall not change conditions [of a CUP] unless the conditional use no
longer meets one of the standards in Section 44 -1097 for approving a new permit." Maplewood
Code Section 44- 1101(b) (emphasis added). Section 44 -1097 sets forth nine standards to be
considered when approving a conditional use permit. Here, the Council has not made any findings
on the record that one of these conditions has not been met, and, in fact, we believe no factual basis
c GvlCityllaplewuodJ Ir
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council Members 5 - November 16, 2005
for such a finding exists. Instead, City Council Resolution 05 -02 -012, includes specific findings by
the City Council that all of the standards in Section 44 -1097 have been met. In adopting these
findings, the City Council conclusively demonstrated it did not have the authority to modify or
revise the CUP under the provisions of its own Code of Ordinances.
Finally, it is important to note that while the CUP for the Property was issued in 1981, the current
Code provisions relied upon by the City in its attempt to modify the CUP weren't enacted until
1982 —after the CUP had been granted. Therefore, the City may not maintain the owner was "on
notice" of those modification provisions of the Maplewood City Code or that those provisions were
otherwise "implicit" in the CUP when it was Granted since these Code provisions were not in effect
at that time.
For the above reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council take no action to modifi the
terms of the CUP.
Very truly yours,
MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A.
By . � e i riy �;/ -' - - - __—
Jeremy S. Steiner
JSSiJI Udrs
Ene.
cc: Mr. Patrick Lensing via fax
ci [GV ?CmAIaplewoodJ I
EXHIBIT &
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Maplewood, acting on its own initiative
as provided under Section 911.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Maplewood,
for the property described as follows:
That portion of Lots 11 and 12, E.G. Roger's Carden Lots, according to
the recorded plat thereof, lying north of the Center line of trunk highway
36, subject to a highway easement and restricted access for T.H. 36 over
the south 135.00 feet of said tract, also subject to a street easement
for Germain Street over the west 30 feet of said Lots 11.
which has been proposed for Special Use Permit.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 20, 1981 at 7:15 P.M. in the
City Hall, notice thereof having been duly published in the official City news—
paper, and notices of said hearing having been mailed to all property owners
of record within 200 feet of the area proposed for special use permit to operate
an office—warehouse facility on property zoned M-1 Light Manufacotring;
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has made its recommendations; and
WHEREAS, it appears for the best interest of the public that said Special
Use Permit be granted;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA,
that the petition for the above described Special Use Permit to operate an
office—warehouse facility on property zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing be granted,
subject to the following conditions:
I. Approval of a special use permit for the office/warehouse development as
proposed by Airport Partnership. Approval is based on the finding that
an office/warehouse complex is compatible with the intended Use of this
land as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Update.
Approval of the special use permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. All uses must meet the following requirements:
a. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise regulations shall
apply. Tests to verify this shall be made by an independent testing
firm. The initial cost shall be paid by the owner. If the rest
shows a violation, the cost of the test shall be paid for by the
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 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.
A. 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.
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 pending required by the Maplewood Drainage Plan.
7. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of Council
approval. Truck Traffic - right turn only - post sign "No Left Turn ".
K
4
Seconded by Councilman Bastian.
Ayes - all,
h. Councilman Anderson moved to aeErove the special exce tion for Airport
Partnership as follows:
Approval of a special exception to allow the structures to be constructed 164
feet from the residence district to the west. Approval is on the basis that
a substantial landscaped area is to be provided as a buffer to provide a site
screen for the neighbors. Approval of the special exception is conditioned
upon approval of the landscaping plan by the Community Design Review Board.
Seconded by Councilman Bastian. Ayes - all.
a. Mayor Greavu stated this hearing was continued from the July 2nd meeting.
b. Manager Byars presented the staff report.
C. Mr. Mark W. Tuenge, one of the applicants, spoke on behalf of his application.
AM
, -s to allow the
Seconded by Councilman Bastian. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmen Anderson,
Bastian and Nelson.
Nays - Councilperson Joker.
Special Use Permit: Pizza Time Theatre, 1870 Beam Avenue - 7:45 P.M.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request
of Royal Development to operate a restaurant having electronic games on property
zoned BC (M) Business Commercial (Modified). Also approval is requested for
a variance to operate a restaurant having fewer parking spaces than are required
by Code. The Clerk stated the hearing notice was in order and noted the dates
of publication.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
c. Commissioner Dorothy Hejny presented the following Planning Commission
recommendation:
"Commissioner Pellish moved the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of a speccal use permit for the Pizza Time Theater, based on the find-
ing that the use would not be any less desirable to this BC(M) area than a
retail use. Approval is contingent upon:
EXHIBIT 8
CITY OF
V`4'WOOD
MAPL
1830 P. COUNTY ROAD 11 NIAPLE11VOOD, MENNFISGIA 55109
OFFICE OFCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ZRMTNI�* M
NMI"
One State Farm Plaza E-10
Bloomington, Illinois 61710-0001
612-770-4;60
M
ATTACHED HERETO (THE "PROJECT")
Project. In furtherance of that request, we confirm and advise you as follows, to wit
2. The Project currently is located in the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning district and a land use
plan designation of M-1 (light manufacturing). That zoning classification is consistent with the
land use plan designation.
3, Any future amendments to the zoning ordinance applicable to the Project will be consistent
with the land use plan designation.
4. The use of the Project for office/warehouse/lighl manufacturing use, is a permitted use under
the M-1 zoning classification and is consistent with land use plan designation.
State Farm Life Insurance Company
Page 2
November 14, 1996
6. The Project was approved by Resolution No. 81-8-174 of the Maplewood City Courill
Ramsey County, Minnesota, on August 20, 1981; a copy of this approval resolution
attached as Exhibit B. 0
Our review of the records of this office with respect to the Project reveals (a) no current
active violations by the Project of the zoning regulations and/or land use approvals
10, There are no pending referenda or initiatives that would affect or impose additional
conditions on the above-described current use of the Project or on any tenant
improvements remaining to be constructed at the Project.
Please call me at 770-4566 if you have any questions or need more information.
I
i •
EXHIBIT C
T[>: RiCh@njFur3man
FROM: Melinda Coleman
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review- Maplewood Business Center
1616Gen/aiSAve
[>/\TF: January 18.2DU5
Staff iS requesting a review uf the conditional use permit for the Maplewood Business
Center at 1616 Gervais Ave. Staff has received a complaint from a nearby resident
regarding excessive late night/early morning noise from activities with the St. Paul
Pioneer Press located in this center. According to the residents (the Halls) at 1596
Grandview Avenue, the newspaper distribution use is very noisy and most of the activity
takes place between the hours cf2a0tn5am. The Halls have asked that the City
Council review this permit to see if there are measures that can be required to abate the
excessive noise levels.
The Maplewood City Council approved the original CUP back iO1g81. The permit was
issued to allow an industrial warehouse project within 200 feet of a residential district, At
the time Of the approval, several conditions were placed 0n the property, A copy 0fthe
council conditions appears un attachment 4. Three of the conditions vvouid relate (o
noise and outside activity concerns: 1- that the applicant have noise testing completed 10
make Sure the use met Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise regulations, 2- that
there be no outside storage of materials without the approval of the Community
Development Director and 3- that a landscape buffer be provided. Staff has found no
evidence in the file that any sound testing was ever done and as the tenants have
changed over the years, any data collected at the time of construction Would likely not
remain relevant today. As far a8 outside storage, there in not any a| this time, There is
some b8rnliOg and landscaping 8t the facility but it does form 8 screen for the adjacent
residential properties tu the west.
The neighbor vvhOiofiiiOg the complaint, the Halls, indicated i0 their letter b} the City
Manager their various concerns with excessive noise. The letter states that they hear
noises such as car doors slamming, loud radios, people talking, metal carts and truck
horns. The letter states that the activities are associated with the Pioneer Press
distribution process and that this typically occurs between the hours 0f2Jno and 8arn.
They state that these acNities have affected their sleep and have been going on for
several years.
Staff from planning and the police department have been evaluating these complaints
and have met with representatives of the leasing company that manage the building as
well as the Pioneer Press, AD email sent b}staff from Patrick Lensing iamllmChmdfor
your review. This memo outlines the measures that have been taken to date by the
Pioneer Press inresponse to the Halls' connmrnc
In summary, the Pioneer Press has met with their staff to discuss appropriate behavior
while picking up papers in the parking lot. Automatic doors with electronic eyes have
been installed so that doors open for the cart and qiey are evaluating Vie cost and
availability cf installing bumpers nOthe bottom Uf the carts k> soften the noise cfcarts
when set OD the pavement. Also, they have asked the police department \Uevaluate the
noise levels at different times to get their perception of excessive levels at this location.
According to Lt. Rabbett, three police officers have gone out at different times between
the hours of 2orn and 6 arn(o evaluate the noise levels. They all indicated that while
they were present, the noise from Highway 36 was more prevalent than the noise from
the newspaper distribution activities.
Staff sent out a hearing notice for the review 0[ this CUP hz7O residents within SO8feet
oY the warehouse. Anof Monday, JanUary18. staff has not received any calls from these
/8oid8n\S. In addition, staff could find no written evidence of any complaints regarding
the Maplewood Business Center from surrounding residents over the years.
In dedding the course of action for this CUP, the City Council should listen to the
testimony from neighbors and the Pioneer Press and see if there are additional
measures that can be taken to address the noise Issues. In addition, the Council should
consider the nine standards for approving Vr amending the permit. The nine standards
and other provisions relating k}the CUP process are shown on attachment 7. If Ole
Council believes there io sufficient testimony and findings, the CUP could be amended to
require additional improvements or studies to help mitigate the noise from the paper
distribution activity.
ComdcvmcoI O\6u^iowo center cup mrier05
&uockmomz
l. Location Map
l Address Map
l Site Plan
4. City Council odouux6um>90
5. Letter 6omBx|\o6uu|iN1,12004
b. Fmoi| from pmhck Lensing dated }/||D005
7. Council CUP con&tions
EXHIBIT D
&=LW2WMqP
1313 5th stpeet s.e. • suite 322 • minnespolie, mn 55414
telephone: 612 -331 -4571 • fex:612- 331 -4572
25 October 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patrick Lensing
Steiner Development
FROM: David Braslau
RE: St. Paul Dispatch Distribution (Maplewood) — Sound Level Measurements
Sound levels were monitored on Sunday morning, 23 October 2005, at the St. Paul Dispatch
distribution center at 1600 Gervais Avenue in Maplewood, Minnesota. Due to weather conditions,
the readings were !united to two five- minute I- second spectral (octave band) time histories.
However, activity at the site appear to be normal during this time period and a variety of sounds were
captured including voices, doors closing, some carts on ramps ( ?) and other sounds not related to
Highway 36 or any other identifiable sources. Reported weather conditions at 3100 am arc shown in
the table below,
The first set of readings was taken with an umbrella, the second without. While some noise was
audible from the umbrella, it could not be identified from the meter readings. The meter was located
approximately 6 feet west of the fence at the second planting area from the south end of the fence.
Readings were taken with a Casella CEL Model 593 Type t logging sound level meter.
There was limited traffic on Highway 36 and with slightly wet pavement, the sound level signature of
passing vehicles was dominated by higher frequencies (e.g. " which" of tires on wet pavement). This
made identification of individual vehicle passage on Highway 36 from the data relatively simple.
The calculated L10 and 1,50 levels for each ofthe two readings, which reflected traffic noise as well
as noise from the distribution center, are presented below,
Time of Rcad
t , I0 (dBA)
] 50 (d 1
2:39 51 — 2:44:51
5 6.6
49 7
2 1 — 2:5 0:35
59.0
49.7 k
State Ni httime Standards
55.0
50H
e Adwime -1 �idmi a —1 \I ocah— k llem ( tUensing- 1025- mem.doc
Patrick Lensing on St. Paul Dispatch Distribution Center Sound Levels
25 October 2005
Page 2
From the above table, it can be seen that the L10 level from all sources is above the 1, 10
nighttime standard while the L50 from all sources is below the L50 standard. The objective of
this analysis is to identify the noise level associated with the Distribution Center, Separation of
noise sources is not trivial, since the meter reads sound from all sources. However, the
identification of and associated levels is described below.
The three - dimensional charts below show the spectral time histories of the two readings. The
higher frequencies toward the front of the charts represent vehicles passing on Highway 36. The
lower frequencies towards the back represent sound associated with the Distribution Center.
Since the fence attenuates the higher frequencies but not the lower frequencies from the
Distribution Center, the data can be effectively divided into two groups — frequencies of 500 1 l
and above for traffic, and frequencies of 500 Hz and below for the Distribution Center. The 500
Hz level is included in both as a transition frequency,
GEL01
a2 R
:09
600
500
e00
eDD
20 C
CEL02
q -L
ac 0
,Do
60C
50
W rz
®fry Ht
0!22 I
(C n
tASSriZ
He WVY}Nx
FQ
•nk Vt
0 0 Hx
®9k Ht
c'xlocumc- 1'udrYuni —1 Vocals- IVeny}Ucnsing- ]02J- mcm.doc
Patrick Lensing on St. Paul Dispatch Distribution Center Sound Levels
25 October 2405
Page 4
70 0
65 0
600
m
d
J
p
50.0
45 0
400
x
t f
j :;, ,
fit 1'1 �i �
41 � �� t
ti
+r i 1 Ary 'l/ I t s k Ii
E'-
¢. �o " m m a n a m m m o
Time (seconds)
— irai+c
oisl+ twee,;
Based upon this analysis, it can be concluded with reasonable confidence that noise associated
with the Distribution Center west of the fence is below the state nighttime noise standards. "f he
primary source of noise is traffic on Highway 36,
Some observations
• Some of the noise is impulsive in nature which generally carries a penalty weighting of"
about 5 dBA since they are more annoying than a more steady noise. Fall of the levels
were impulsive this would bring the effective level closer to the L10 55 standard,
• The relatively lightweight plastic fence with an opening at the bottom does little to abate
low frequency noise associated with the Distribution Center, A better solution would
have been a solid wooden fence (3, plank) with no gap underneath or between the
planks and perhaps a few feet higher to minimize reflections off of the building.
• Because the fence may abate some of the higher frequencies (talking, ctc), but not the
lower frequencies and some impulsive noise associated with the Distribution Center, the
sound may be perceived as worse with the fence than before, since the low frequency
sounds are no lamger masked by the higher frequency sounds.
The limited data collected appears to be sufficient to make a detertnination of compliance with
the state noise standards, although a longer monitoring period could better substantiate this
conclusion.
c: Dodmin Ivocals- 14ca+p5lensir.g- 1025 -mem doc
Patrick Lensing on Sl. Paul Dispatch Distribution Center Sound Levels
25 October 2005
Page 3
This separation can also be demonstrated with a plot of low and high frequencies as shown in the
exhibit below. The 4 kHz levels are associated with traffic. The 125 Hz levels (represented by
the circles) are associated with the Distribution Center. Sonic of these are impulsive in nature.
Note that the dB levels associated with 125 Hz and 4 kHz frequencies do not reflect fife overall
A- weighted (dBA) level of file noise.
700
65 0
60 0
m
v
m
s
n
50 0
45.0
40c
i
t �
i
w
1, t
7 t
,.'v y
60 0
550
50.0
45.0
0
400 125 Hz
U HZ
r
a
35 0 °
30.0
25 0
20 6
1 94 27 40 53 66 79 92 105 118 931 144 t51 170 183 196 209 222 235 248 261 2742873
Time (seconds)
With this division of sound levels by frequency, the median or 1,50 levels (in dBA) for each
source can be evaluated and are shown below,
'I his shows that the division into two sources is fairly realistic, with the combined sum of the
individual sources within I dBA of the measured overall level. The Distribution Center 1,50
levels are generally 4 dBA below Il1e highway 1,50 level.
The exhibit below shows that the maximum sound level associated with the Distribution Center
are generally less than 50 dBA while traffic levels are as high as 60 dBA. Therefore, file L 10
associated with the Distribution Center is less than 50 dBA, or 5 dBA below= the 110 55
nighttime standard.
C d0c
Agenda Item J.1
REPORT SUMMARY
Subject: The Myth Nightclub
Site Address: 3090 Southlawn Drive
Zoning: Business Commercial (BC)
Land Use: Business Commercial (BC)
City Council Hearing Date: August 22, 2005
Purpose of Review: On August 22, 2005, the city council approved a shared
parking agreement for the Myth Nightclub located at 3090 Southlawn Drive. The
shared parking agreement was between the Myth Nightclub and the Maplewood
Mall, which allowed them enough off -site parking spaces for a maximum
occupancy of 4,400 people in the nightclub. The city council also approved an
800 - square -foot outdoor patio to be located on the roof of the nightclub. The city
council requested review of the shared parking agreement and outdoor patio
again in November 2005 to ensure compliance with all conditions.
Recommendations: City staff recommends approval of the shared parking
agreements and the outdoor patio with several conditions.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: Myth Nightclub Shared Parking Agreement and Outdoor Patio
LOCATION: 3090 Southlawn Drive
DATE: November 21. 2005
INTRODUCTION
On August 22, 2005, the city council approved a shared parking agreement for the Myth
Nightclub located at 3090 Southlawn Drive. The shared parking agreement was between the
Myth and the Maplewood Mall, which allowed the Myth adequate off -site parking spaces for a
maximum occupancy of 4,400 people. The city council also approved an 800 - square -foot
outdoor patio to be located on the roof of the nightclub. The city council requested review of the
shared parking agreement and outdoor patio again in November 2005 to ensure compliance with
all conditions. Refer to the August 22, 2005, city council minutes attached (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
Shared Parking Agreement
The maximum building occupancy at the Myth Nightclub is 5,000 people. In orderto
accommodate 5,000 people, the Myth must have a total of 1,246 parking spaces. The Myth has
371 on -site parking spaces and is leasing an additional 737 parking spaces from the Maplewood
Mall. The Maplewood Mall parking lease expires September 2006. The on -site and shared
parking allows the Myth a maximum occupancy of 4,400 people.
The city council approved the shared parking agreement on the condition that the Myth supply
security in the parking lots while in operation. Since the Myth opened in September Police Chief
David Thomella reports that the Myth is continually monitoring the on -site and shared parking lots
while in operation as required by the city council.
Another condition of the shared parking agreement was that any future leases cover a minimum
period of one year and that the city be notified by both parties within 90 days of expiration. This
condition was put in place to ensure the city had time to react and change the maximum
occupancy of the building based on the reduction in the number of parking spaces. In order to
further protect the city from a sudden reduction in parking spaces at the Myth, Trevor Oliver of the
city attorney's office drafted an agreement which would require the Myth to maintain the 737
parking spaces on a yearly lease or the certificate of occupancy would automatically be reduced.
Refer to the agreement attached (Attachment 3).
Based on the report from Chief Thomella and the condition that the Myth agree to sign the
agreement drafted by the city attorney's office, staff recommends approval of the shared parking
agreement to allow the Myth a maximum occupancy of 4,400 people.
Outdoor Patio
The third floor lounge, including the outdoor patio, is still under construction. Jeff Kehr, manager
of the Myth, states that the lounge is scheduled to open in December, with the patio opening next
spring during warmer weather. A condition of approval during the review in August was that no
outside music venues other than piped -in music be permitted on the patio. To ensure the outdoor
patio does not pose a noise nuisance to surrounding properties, staff recommends that the city
council review and reconsider the outdoor patio again in June or July 2006 after it has been in
use for at lease two months.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the shared parking agreements for the Myth Nightclub located at 3090 Southlawn
Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions (changes to the original conditions
are underlined if added and stricken if deleted):
occupancy The city issuing a conditional certificate of occupancy to the Myth allowing for
maximum of 11
b. The Myth entering into an agreement with the city which requires the Myth to
provide for at least 1,108 parking spaces during the Myth's hours of operation. In
a maximum occupancy of 1,450. Any future shared parking agreements approved
by the city must cover a minimum period of one year and must ensure notification
C. The city council will review and reconsider the shared parking agreement
authorization in September 2006 th months (N 2005) Any f + ire
During any use periods of the Myth nightclub the following conditions must be met:
1) Post each entrance to the parking lot with the name and location of the
overflow parking lots.
2) Ramsey County sheriff officers must patrol each lot (on -site and off - site).
3) Parking attendants must be stationed at each lot (on -site and off - site).
4) Parking attendants must direct traffic to overflow lots via maps.
5) Clean -up of each lot (on -site and off -site) must take place prior to 6 a.m.
the next day.
Approve the proposed 800 - square -foot rooftop patio for the Myth Nightclub located at
3090 Southlawn Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
No outside music venues other than piped -in music is permitted on the patio.
The city council will review and reconsider the outdoor patio for any nuisances in
June or July 2006, after the patio has been in use for at least two months.
P: \com- dev \sec2n \The Myth \11 -28 -05 CC Report
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. August 22, 2005, City Council Minutes
3. Proposed Agreement Between the Myth and the City of Maplewood
Attachment 1
Location Map
Attachment 2
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:19 P.M. Monday, August 22, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -17
:A.I ATJI I.I *11
The Myth Nightclub (3090 Southlawn Drive)
a. Shared Parking Agreement Approval
b. Outdoor Patio Approval
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report.
C. The following persons were heard:
Jeff Kehr, General Manager of the Myth Nightclub
Bob Oswood, Sound Engineer for the Myth Nightclub
Also present for questions, but not heard:
Reg Plowman, RJ Marco Construction
John Gaspar, Architect
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the shared parking agreements for
the Myth Nightclub located at 3090 Southlawn Avenue. Approval is subject to
the following conditions:
a. Shared parking agreements with the Maplewood Mall and MTC must be
submitted to staff for approval by September 2, 2005. These agreements
must ensure the use of at least 587 combined parking spaces
b. The city issuing a conditional certificate of occupancy to the Myth allowing
for a maximum occupancy of 4,400. This conditional certificate of
occupancy will convert back to a maximum occupancy of 1,450 if parking
agreements approved by staff are terminated or become invalid.
C. The city council will review and reconsider the shared parking agreement
authorization in three months (November 2005). Any future shared
parking agreements approved by the city must cover a minimum period of
one year and must ensure notification to the city by both parties within 90
days of expiration.
d. During any use periods of the Myth nightclub the following conditions
must be met:
1) Post each entrance to the parking lot with the name and location
of the overflow parking lots.
2) Ramsey County sheriff officers must patrol each lot (on -site and
off - site).
3) Parking attendants must be stationed at each lot (on -site and off -
site).
4) Parking attendants must direct traffic to overflow lots via maps.
5) Clean -up of each lot (on -site and off -site) must take place prior to
6 a.m. the next day.
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the proposed 800 - square -foot rooftop
a. No outside music venues other than piped -in music is permitted on the
patio.
b. The city council will review and reconsider the outdoor patio for any
nuisances in three months (November 2005).
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All
2
Attachment 3
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 2005, by and
between of Club Rage, Inc., d /b /a Myth Night Club, its assigns and
transferees, hereinafter called the "Owner", and the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County,
Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter called the "City."
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner is the fee owner of record of the following legally
described real property located in Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereinafter called the
"Property ":
See attached Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, the Owners sought approval for use of the Property as an
entertainment complex and nightclub from the Maplewood City Council, with a requested
maximum capacity of 5,000 people;
WHEREAS, City Code requires a ratio of one parking space per four people
occupying a commercial building, or 1,250 parking spaces for the 5,000 capacity rating
requested by the Owner;
WHEREAS, the Property has 371 parking spaces on site, but had entered into a
shared parking agreement with Maplewood Mall which gave Owners the use of 737
additional spaces, giving them the requisite number for their requested capacity;
WHEREAS, the City Council conditionally approved the permit for use of the
Property as a nightclub with a capacity of 4,400 people on August 22, 2005, subject to a
further review of the parking arrangements on November 28, 2005 and an agreement by
the Owner that the City would have certain guarantees as to the length of future
agreements and notice to the City of agreements' expirations;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual agreements and
covenants, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. In consideration for the City granting final approval to a Certificate of
Occupancy authorizing 5,000 people, the Owner will at all times maintain
legal agreement(s) which provide for the use of at least 1,108 parking
spaces during the Property's hours of operation in addition to those on
Owner's property.
2. The terms of these agreements shall be no less than one (1) year in
duration. Owner shall notify the City of the pending expiration of any
agreement no later than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date. In
addition, the Owner shall notify the City within five (5) days of any early
termination of an agreement, by any party. In the event of early
termination, the Owner shall have fifteen (15) days to obtain alternate
agreements before being considered in breach of this agreement.
1
3. In the event the Owner fails to maintain agreements for the required
parking spaces, or otherwise breaches this Agreement, the parties agree
that the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City automatically
converts to a maximum occupancy of 1,450.
4. The parties agree that a conversion of the Certificate of Occupancy is a
matter of pressing concern to the City, and accodingly the City is entitled
to judicial enforcement of the reduced capacity via an injunction issued by
a judge of the Ramsey County District Court.
5. The Owner hereby understands and agrees to pay all costs incurred by
the City in the event that it has to enforce this Agreement by obtaining an
injunction. Said costs shall be paid by the Owner to the City within thirty
(30) days of the date of invoice. In the event that the Owner fails to pay
said costs, the City may assess the Property and Owner shall sign a
confession of judgment for said costs.
6. Owner shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its agents,
officers, and employees, harmless from and against all liabilities, losses,
damages, costs, expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, causes
of action, suits, claims, demands, and judgments of any nature, because
of bodily injury or to the death of, any person and because of damages to
the property, including loss of use from any cause whatsoever, arising out
of, incidental to, or in connection with the use, ownership, condition, or
occupancy of the parking spaces, due to any acts of omission or
commission, including negligence, of Owner; provided, however, that
Owner's obligations shall not extend to any cause of action arising out of
or relating to any act of omission or commission of the City, its officers,
employees, or agents..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals all of
the day and year first above written.
CLUB RAGE, INC. (MYTH NIGHT CLUB) CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
M
M
Jeff Kehr, General Manager Its Mayor
Its Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
November, 2005, by Robert Cardinal, Mayor, and Karen Guilfoile,
of Maplewood, a municipal corporation.
day of
City Clerk of The City
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2005, by Jeff Kehr, the General Manager of Club Rage, Inc.
Notary Public
Agenda Item J.2
REPORT SUMMARY
Subject: Ohlson Landscaping (Erik Ohlson and Stephanie
Jacques) and Oehrlein Property Maintenance
(Thor and Jenny Oehrlein)
Site Address: 1949 Atlantic Street and Vacant Property to the
North (Both Located within the Gladstone
Neighborhood)
Zoning:
Land Use:
City Council Hearing Date:
Business Commercial (BC)
Business Commercial (BC)
November 28. 2005
Purpose of Review: The city council requested the conditional use permits for
Ohlson Landscaping and Oehrlein Property Maintenance be reviewed in
November 2005 to ensure exterior improvements including fencing, landscaping,
and grading were complete by October 31, 2005. The original conditional use
permits were required for exterior storage and the construction of a 3,264 -
square -foot metal building within the business commercial zoning district.
Requests: Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques are requesting the city council
approve an extension to the landscaping improvements until June 2006.
Recommendations: Staff recommends approving the conditional use permits
for Ohlson Landscaping (1949 Atlantic Street) and reviewing them again in June
2006 to ensure completion of all required landscaping and again in August 2006
to ensure the completion of the required parking lot pavement. Staff also
recommends approving the conditional use permit for Oehrlein Property
Maintenance (vacant lot north of 1949 Atlantic Street) and review it again only if a
problem arises or if improvements are proposed for the property.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: Ohlson Landscaping and Oehrlein Property Maintenance
APPLICANT: Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques and Thor and Jenny Oehrlein
LOCATION: 1949 Atlantic Street and Vacant Lot to the North
DATE: November 21, 2005
INTRODUCTION
The conditional use permits (CUP) for Ohlson Landscaping and Oehrlein Property Maintenance
located at 1949 Atlantic Street and the vacant lot to the north are due for review. The CUPS were
required for exterior storage and the construction of a metal building within the business commercial
zoning district.
BACKGROUND
February 9, 2004: The city council approved a minor subdivision to subdivide 1949 Atlantic Street
into two separate lots and also approved three CUPS as follows: 1) exterior storage for Ohlson
Landscaping at 1949 Atlantic Street; 2) construction of a 3,264- square -foot metal building within the
business commercial zoning district at 1949 Atlantic Street for Ohlson Landscaping; and 3) exterior
storage for Oehrlein Property Maintenance at the newly subdivided and vacant lot located north of
1949 Atlantic Street. Refer to the attached city council minutes (Attachment 3).
August 22, 2005: The city council reviewed Ohlson Landscaping's and Oehrlein Property
Maintenance's CUPS. The city council waived the requirement to pave Ohlson Landscaping's
parking lot for one year (August 22, 2006) pending the outcome of the Gladstone Redevelopment
concept plan and required Ohlson Landscaping and Oehrlein Property Maintenance to complete all
other required exterior improvements including fencing, landscaping, and grading by October 31,
2005, with review again in November 2005 to ensure this completion. Refer to the attached city
council minutes (Attachment 4).
DISCUSSION
Ohlson Landscaping
Since August the Ohlsons have completed all outstanding work on their metal building in order to
obtain a certificate of occupancy. In addition, they have installed the required privacy fence slats in
the existing chain link fence and paved their driveway from the street pavement edge to the front
property line as required by the engineering department. The remaining exterior improvement
includes landscaping.
Since August the Ohlsons have disbanded their landscaping business and are attempting to sell their
property to another landscaping or similar business or to sell it for redevelopment. If another
landscaping or similar business purchases the property they would be bound by the existing CUP
conditions to include only limited exterior storage of landscaping material within specially designed
storage bins.
The Ohlsons state that they were unable to install the required landscaping and have promised the
completion of this work by next spring. The Ohlsons note that the city holds a letter of credit for the
required landscaping to ensure its completion. While it is unfortunate and difficult for staff to
understand how a landscaping business was unable install six techney arborvitaes, one black hills
spruce, and install sod within a two -month timeframe, the fact remains that it is probably too late in
the season to complete this work. Since the city holds a letter of credit ensuring the completion of
the landscaping and due to the fact it is too late in the season to complete the landscaping, staff
recommends that the city council approve the extension of the CUP with review again in June 2006
to ensure the completion of all required landscaping. The city council should also review the CUP
again in August 2006 as previously required to ensure the completion of the required parking lot
pavement or consideration of a continued waiver of the parking lot improvements if the property is
sold for redevelopment.
Oehrlein Property Maintenance
The CUP issued to Thor and Jenny Oehrlein allowed for exterior storage of lawn maintenance
vehicles on their vacant lot. Since August the Oehrleins have completed the required 6- foot -high,
solid wood screening fence on the north property line, adjacent the Gateway Trail. City staff
recommends the city council review this CUP again only if problems arise or there are improvements
proposed for the property.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the conditional use permits for Ohlson Landscaping (1949 Atlantic Street) and review
again in June 2006 to ensure completion of all required landscaping and again in August 2006
to ensure the completion of the required parking lot pavement.
Approve the conditional use permit for Oehrlein Outdoor Lawn Maintenance (vacant lot north
of 1949 Atlantic Street) and review again only if a problem arises or if improvements are
proposed for the property.
P:Sec16 \Ohlson Landscaping \2005 CUP Review (Nov)
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Landscape Plan
3. February 9, 2004, City Council Minutes
4. August 22, 2005, City Council Minutes
Attachment 1
b ° oQ O � e° ILI C:D
Oehrlein Lawn and
Property Maintenance'
(Vacant Lot)
Gateway Trail
0
Ohlson Landscaping
(Metal Building)
11 1 lk I ro 0
o
D
Gladstone Savanna
Location Map
I
Attachment 3
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:07 P.M., Monday, February 9, 2004
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 04 -03
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7:10 p.m. Ohlson Landscaping -1949 Atlantic Street
Lot Division
Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage
Conditional Use Permit for Metal Building
Conditional Use Permit for exterior storage within the Business Commercial
Zoning District
Design Approval
a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report.
b. Associate Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report.
C. Commissioner Desai presented the Planning Commission Report.
d. Boardmember Ledvina presented the Community Design Review Board Report.
e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents.
The following person was heard:
Stephanie Jacques, the applicant, 1706 Barclay Street, Maplewood
f Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the lot division request to subdivide the
property at 1949 Atlantic Street into two lots based on the following conditions:
a. Provide a certified land survey showing the existing and proposed property lines
and proposed building and parking lot.
b. Deeds describing the two new legal descriptions, which must be stamped by the
city. Ramsey County requires the city acknowledgment of approval to record the
deeds. City code requires that the deeds be recorded with Ramsey County within
one year of the date of lot division approval (February 9, 2005) or the lot division
becomes null and void.
C. There are pending assessments on this property. In order for the city to approve
the lot division the applicants must submit confirmation that the payment of
assessments are resolved between the two property owners to the satisfaction of
the city engineer.
City Council Mccting 02 -09 -04
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution approving a
conditional use permit for Thor and Jenny Oehrlein for exterior storage within the
Business Commercial NC zonin district in order to store lawn are maintenance vehicles
on Parcel A (north parce0at 1949 Atlantic Street:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04 -02 -019
WHEREAS, Thor and Jenny Oehrlein applied for a conditional use permit for exterior
storage within the business commercial zoning district for their property maintenance business;
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1949 Atlantic Street, Maplewood,
Minnesota. The legal description is:
The northerly V2 of the following lot: Vacated alley adjacent and accruing and except the
South 10 feet, the East 8.57 feet of Lot 14; also, the East 8.57 feet of Lots 11 through 13;
also Lot 6, except the South 10 feet of that part West of the East 103.57 feet of said Lot
6; and all of Lots 7 through 10, all in Block 3, Lincoln Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is
16- 29 -22 -14 -0089;
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On January 20, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
the conditional use permit.
2. On February 9, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in
the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and
present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations
from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above -
described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this
permit because:
The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes,
water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
City Council Mccting 02 -09 -04
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.
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 of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions:
Exterior storage is limited to vehicles associated with a property maintenance business.
All vehicles must be licensed and operable. No landscape material can be stored on the
property, including but not limited to, lawn clippings, landscape rock, etc.
2. A 6- foot -high, solid wood, screening fence must be installed and maintained on the north
property line.
3. There shall be no noise - malting business activity conducted in the lot, or made by vehicles
entering or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all
day Sunday as required by city code.
4. The city council must approve a revision to this permit if the owner wants to put a
permanent building on the site.
5. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution approving Erik Ohlson
and Stephanie Jacques request for a conditional use permit to construct a 3,264- square-
foot metal building within the Business Commercial (BC) zonin district on Parcel B
(south parcel) at 1949 Atlantic Street:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04 -02 -020
WHEREAS, Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques applied for a conditional use permit for
the construction of a metal storage building that is 3,264 square feet in area and 25 feet in height
within the Business Commercial zoning district;
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1949 Atlantic Street, Maplewood,
Minnesota. The legal description is:
The southerly V2 of the following lot: Vacated alley adjacent and accruing and except the
City Council Mccting 02 -09 -04
South 10 feet, the East 8.57 feet of Lot 14; also, the East 8.57 feet of Lots 11 through 13;
also Lot 6, except the South 10 feet of that part West of the East 103.57 feet of said Lot
6; and all of Lots 7 through 10, all in Block 3, Lincoln Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is
16- 29 -22 -14 -0089;
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On January 20, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
the conditional use permit.
2. On February 9, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in
the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and
present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations
from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above -
described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this
permit because:
The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes,
water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions:
City Council Mccting 02 -09 -04
All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of
community development may approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council
approval or the permit shall become null and void.
3. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All
Councilmember Rossbach moved to adopt the following resolution approving Erik Ohlson
and Stephanie Jacques request for a conditional use permit for exterior storage on Parcel
B (south parcel) at 1849 Atlantic Street:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04 -02 -021
WHEREAS, Erik Ohlson and Stephanie Jacques applied for a conditional use permit for
exterior storage within the business commercial zoning district for their landscape business;
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1949 Atlantic Street, Maplewood,
Minnesota. The legal description is:
The southerly V2 of the following lot: Vacated alley adjacent and accruing and except the
South 10 feet, the East 8.57 feet of Lot 14; also, the East 8.57 feet of Lots 11 through 13;
also Lot 6, except the South 10 feet of that part West of the East 103.57 feet of said Lot
6; and all of Lots 7 through 10, all in Block 3, Lincoln Park, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Property Identification Number for this property is
16- 29 -22 -14 -0089;
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On January 20, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
the conditional use permit.
2. On February 9, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in
the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council
conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and
present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations
from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above -
described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this
permit because:
The use would 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.
City Council Mccting 02 -09 -04
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes,
water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
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 of the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. Exterior storage is limited to four landscape bins (8 feet wide x 8 feet deep x 6 feet high in
size). Storage within the bins is limited to landscape goods or materials such as rock,
mulch, sand, woodchips, etc.
2. The four landscape bins must be placed on the southeast side of the lot and must be
screened from Atlantic Street with landscaping.
3. There shall be no noise - malting business activity conducted in the lot, or made by vehicles
entering or leaving the lot, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, or all
day Sunday as required by code.
4. The conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All
Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the plans (grading, utility, and landscape
plans date- stamped November 18, 2003) FOR A 3,264 SQUARE FOOT METAL
BUILDING AT 1949 Atlantic Street with following conditions:
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or
building permit:
City Council Mccting 02 -09 -04
1) A revised grading and drainage plan that addresses all engineering
conditions as outlined in the January 5, 2004, engineering review and
includes that the entire parking lot and driveway be paved. This plan must
be approved by the city engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2) A revised utility plan, subject to the city engineer's approval. The
applicants must sign a developer's agreement with the City of Maplewood
to ensure proper extension of city sewer and water to the site.
3) A revised site plan showing the following:
a) The parking lot layout including the location of at least four striped
parking spaces, with one of those spaces handicap accessible as
required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
b) The driveway with a width of at least 20 feet is paved between the
street and the parking lot. Any gate along this driveway must also
open to a 20 -foot width.
C) The location of four landscape bins a maximum size of 8 feet wide
x 8 feet deep x 6 feet high.
4) Revised elevations showing one exterior faucet located on the building, the
proposed landscape bins to be constructed of concrete block, painted to
match the building, and the southern chain -link fence with beige colored
slats to match the building which creates an 80 percent opaque screen.
5) Building samples of metal panels, standing seam roof, trim, doors,
wainscot, and fence slats.
6) A revised landscape plan that shows the following:
a) Replacement of gravel on the north side of the building with grass
or native plantings.
b) Replacement of gravel on the west and south side of the building
with landscaping rock three feet out from the building and sod used
to cover the remaining ground.
C) An infiltration basin/rainwater garden planting plan showing an
adequate number of native plantings to address infiltration needs as
required by the city's engineering department.
7) The requirement for underground irrigation is waived if the applicants sign
an agreement with the City of Maplewood stating that the owners will
hand -water all landscaping, and any required landscape material that dies
will be replaced.
8) A revised photometric plan showing the freestanding fights not to exceed
25 feet in height, including the base, and the fight illumination from any
outdoor fight not to exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines.
City Council Mccting 02 -09 -04
9) If trash is to be stored outside of the building, plans for a trash - dumpster
enclosure is required. The enclosure must have gates that are 100 percent
opaque, and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible
with those of the metal building.
10) A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements.
The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work.
C. Install all required exterior improvements including paving and striping the parking
lot, installation of landscaping, installation of beige fence slats, installation of
outdoor fighting, etc., before occupying the building.
d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
2) The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of
Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or
contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1
if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of
occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer.
e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development
may approve minor changes.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All
City Council Mccting 02 -09 -04
Attachment 4
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:19 P.M. Monday, August 22, 2005
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 05 -17
K. NEW BUSINESS
5. Ohlson Landscaping and Oehrlein Lawn Maintenance Conditional
Use Permit Revision (Gladstone Neighborhood - 1949 Atlantic
Street)
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. Planner Finwall presented specifics from the report.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve staff
recommendation to waive the requirement to pave the
parking lot at Ohlson Landscaping for one year (August 22,
2006) as originally required by the February 9, 2005,
conditional use permit and design review approval for 1949
Atlantic Street. The city council will review the parking lot
pavement requirement again in August 2006 pending a
decision on the Gladstone redevelopment study. The
parking lot pavement waiver is conditioned on the
applicants working with the city's engineering department
to ensure proper erosion control measures are in place
(i.e., temporary sediment infiltration pond) and to review
the conditional use permits for Ohlson Landscaping (1949
Atlantic Street) and Oehrlein Outdoor Lawn Maintenance
(vacant lot north of 1949 Atlantic Street) again in three
months (November 2005) to ensure all required exterior
improvements are complete.
Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes -All
Agenda Item J3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT:
No- parking Zones
PROJECT:
Twin Cities Hmong Alliance Church
LOCATION:
1234 County Road B
DATE:
November 17. 2005
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Maplewood city staff, including the Public Works Director and the Fire Chief, is proposing that the
city council approve plans for additional no- parking zones on several streets. Staff is suggesting
these no- parking zones for the area near the Twin Cities Hmong Alliance Church at 1234 County
Road B. (Please see the location and address maps on pages six and seven.) City staff is
proposing these parking restrictions in response to a complaint from a neighbor of the church.
This neighbor was concerned about the narrow and crowded conditions on the streets during
church services — especially in the winter.
Request Details
Specifically, staff is proposing that the city limit parking to one side of several of the streets near
the church from 6 AM to 2 PM on Sundays. City staff is recommending these parking limits to
help ensure that all vehicles (including emergency vehicles) have enough room to maneuver and
pass each other on the streets, especially during the winter months.
BACKGROUND
According to city building permit records, construction of the church started in 1958 and the
contractor finished the church in 1959. Since then, the church has received permits from the city
for repairs to the property, including adding a new roof to the structure.
The church is "grandfathered -in" as a land use as it was built before the city required conditional
use permits for places of worship. If the church leadership wanted to expand or significantly
change their site, the city would then require the review and approval of a conditional use permit
to bring the property into conformance with the current city zoning code standards.
On October 24, 2005, the city council first considered this parking restriction proposal. After much
discussion, the council tabled action on this request to allow staff additional time to gather more
information and other parking restriction examples.
DISCUSSION
The existing parking lot has room for about 30 vehicles but apparently is not large enough to
handle the current parking needs of the church. According to Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire
Marshal, the church has enough seating for 250 people. There is room for the church to expand
the parking lot toward the south. The city would require the church to prepare detailed grading,
drainage and construction plans for such an expansion and it also would need several approvals
from the city.
Both the Fire Chief and the Public Works Director support the proposed parking restrictions. They
see this idea as a way to help ensure there is enough room for vehicles to maneuver on the
streets in the area of the church.
Since the last time the council considered this proposal, city staff has been compiling a list of
other locations in the city with on- street parking restrictions or with shared parking arrangements.
They include:
Hazelwood Street, north of County Road C, near the First Evangelical Free Church (2696
Hazelwood Street).
2. West Highway 61 Frontage Road, south of County Road C and County Road C, west of
Highway 61, near the Metro Transit Park and Ride lot and the Hmong American Alliance
Church (who share parking).
3. Lakewood Drive, south of Holloway, near Maplewood Middle School.
There may be other locations in the city with restricted on- street parking as well.
In addition, city staff will be meeting with representatives from the church on Wednesday
November 23 (before the council meeting), to discuss other possible solutions or opportunities to
help alleviate the parking problem.
Neighborhood Comments
Staff surveyed the 81 property owners that are nearest the church about the proposed parking
restrictions. We received 15 responses — nine were for the proposed parking restrictions, two
were against the proposal and four others offered general comments or no comments. (See the
comments and responses on pages three and four and the e-mail on page eight.)
RECOMMENDATION
Approve no- parking zones from 6 AM to 2 PM on Sundays (with the installation of the necessary
signage) for the following streets near the Hmong Alliance Church at 1234 County Road B (as
shown on the map on page seven):
1. East side of Atlantic Street, from Lark Avenue to Junction Avenue.
2. Both sides of County Road B, from Duluth Street to one hundred feet east of Atlantic
Street.
3. Both sides of Leland Road, 100 feet west and 100 feet east of Atlantic Street.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
City staff surveyed the owners and occupants of the 81 properties nearest the church. Of the 15
replies, nine were for the proposed parking restrictions, two objected and four had comments or
other concerns.
For
We have no problem with this Oust do not block driveways). Have some concern about
walking. Our street is busy and narrow with no sidewalks. Snow will pile up from the
plows and walking in the street is not a good idea. Walking on the lawns is not a good
idea either. (Omath — 1270 Lark Avenue)
2. 1 would like to see no parking on Atlantic (either side) from County Road B to Highway
36. Also, have no parking on either side of County Road B from Duluth Street to English
Street. The church should have a larger parking lot to accommodate most of their
parishioners. (Poch — 1216 Lark Avenue)
3. The Sunday parking on Leland Road and on Atlantic Street is a problem in the winter
time. There is barely room for an automobile to pass through, let alone a fire engine in an
emergency. One side parking makes sense. (Smith — 1200 Leland Road)
4. Seems OK to me — would like to see the kids not playing on the County Road B street
corners. (Huss — 1206 Leland Road)
5. The church also has functions on Wednesday evenings. It is very difficult to exit my
driveway, as cars park directly across the street, and on both sides of my driveway right
up to the entrance. Adults as well as children walk in the middle of the street. One vehicle
can use the street and the on coming one has to wait at the intersection to allow the car
to pass through. It is much worse in the winter as snow banks make it more difficult for
persons to exit their cars and emergency vehicles have a hard time getting through.
(Markle — 1247 Leland Road)
6. Sometimes on Sunday mornings I drive in the area of the church. At that time it would be
easier to get through if parking were restricted as proposed to one side of the street.
(Olsen — 1190 Leland Road)
All I want is to be able to back out of my driveway on Sunday or to be able to back up my
driveway. (Hartzell — 1246 County Road B)
8. Good idea — put signs up also. (Otto — 1252 County Road B)
9. The plan as proposed seems like an improvement and is fine. (Connelly — 1193 County
Road B)
Opposed
If the church needs more parking, they should take it up with the local residents and
leave the government out of it. The city should not discriminate against the local
homeowners who need the parking space for out -of -town company, as I do. (Dobihlal —
1276 Lark Avenue)
2. 1 disagree with your proposal because:
a. All this will do is move the congestion to Leland Road. People and little kids will
have to walk in the street, around parked cars, to get to the church as there are no
sidewalks.
b. The Sunday no- parking zone will not help on Saturday events at the church (or
Friday or Tuesday).
c. There should be a marked cross walk on County Road B at Atlantic Street.
d. Perhaps the church could enlarge their parking lot.
(Brummond — 1233 Leland Road)
Comments /Concerns /Questions
1. Parking is not the only problem. Children are loaded into cars, vans and they do not
practice the child restraint law. My feeling is maybe they need to be informed or ticketed.
2. No problem with the proposal. (Behnke — 1187 Leland Road)
3. No comment — this does not concern us. (Goodwin — 1174 County Road B)
4. Please see the e-mail from Peggy Lewis of 1221 Lealand Road on page eight.
4
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3.6 acres
Existing land use: Existing church building and parking lot
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Single dwellings across County Road B
South: Single dwellings and Leland Road
West: Single dwellings
East: Single dwellings across Atlantic Street
PLANNING
Zoning: R -1 (Single dwellings)
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44 -1092 (3) of the city code requires a CUP for churches or places of worship in any
location.
Section 44 -1097 (a) of the city code states that the city council may approve a CUP or an
amendment, based on nine standards.
p:sec9/1234 County Road B — church no parking (2005)
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Address Map
3. E -mail dated 9 -25 -05 from Peggy Lewis of 1221 Lealand Road.
5
/r
Attachment 1
m7-FR
f o , v
MINNIE
11111111
n i
MEENE
NEE
Location Map
1234 Cou4 Road B East
N
COUN IV RGAD F
Site
LELAND RD
L� I 1 11 1 1 11 q ua ?n enf z
65
LARKNVE
33
C 00
'IT
0
0
00
a
L
00 Do N
N DO
C4 N C,4
DO
Fj
CD
0c)
(N
Eli
cli
04
CD
00
U)
LARKNVE
33
COUNTY ROAD B
C 00
'IT
0
0
00
Ef
L
00 Do N
N DO
C4 N C,4
DO
Fj
CD
0c)
04
0
CD
l7f
CD
00
U)
Site
C)
OD
oR
c)
04
N
N
co
CO
CE
C)
N
0,4
IN
J�
P,
lUNC-ON AVE E
Do R� N
IV I Cl>
CD
0
co
C`4
co
1,
DO
00
�
L
(N
C N
CV
C4�
IRI
COUNTY ROAD B
00
N
0
00
2
L
00 Do N
N DO
C4 N C,4
DO
Fj
CD
0c)
04
0
CD
l7f
CD
(a
N
U)
Site
C)
OD
oR
c)
04
N
N
co
CO
CE
C)
N
(0
'
00
2
L
00 Do N
N DO
C4 N C,4
DO
Fj
CD
0c)
(0
0
CD
l7f
CD
(a
N
U)
00 Do N
N DO
C4 N C,4
DO
Fj
CD
0c)
(0
0
CD
l7f
CD
(a
N
N
N
CO
CE
C)
0,4
IN
P,
lUNC-ON AVE E
Do R� N
IV I Cl>
CD
0
co
C`4
co
1,
DO
00
Do
0 :
(N
C N
CV
IRI
O
imber 'Par
Address Map
1234 Cou4 Road B East
Proposed No Parking
Zones
Ken Roberts
Attachment 3
From: Peggy [peggyalewis @yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 6:30 PM
To: Ken Roberts
Subject: Neighborhood Survey: Hmong Alliance Church
Kenneth Roberts - Planner
We live at 1221 Lealand, directly behind the church (yard). Thus far we have not had any
problems with the parking. There is rarely anyone parked right in front of our house as it
stands now, although I know it gets very congested down on the corner.
Last year and the year before the children from the parish, while playing in the church
yard after services, were climbing on our fence and retaining wall, sticking things into
cracks in the retaining wall, walking along the wall and dragging sticks against the
fence, and throwing trash, pop cans, etc., over the fence into our back yard. After asking
the children several times to stop with no effect, my husband went over and spoke with the
pastor, and asked him to make sure the children were well supervised out there. The pastor
was very apologetic and things have improved greatly since then.
Peggy Lewis
1221 Lealand Road
Maplewood, MN 55109
651 482 -0270
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http: / /mail.yahoo.com
Ej
Agenda Item K1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Easement Vacation Request for Heritage Square Townhomes
LOCATION:
North Side of Legacy Parkway
DATE:
November 8. 2005
INTRODUCTION
Kevin Clark, of Town & Country Homes, is requesting that the city council vacate a small
portion of a drainage and utility easement within the Heritage Square Townhomes
development. This easement portion measures four by ten feet in size. The reason for
this vacation request is because the front stoop of one of the townhomes encroaches
into this easement. Refer to the attachments.
BACKGROUND
Legacy Village and Heritage Square
July 14, 2003: The city council approved the planned unit development, comprehensive
plan amendment, tax - abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village. This plan
included the site for Heritage Square.
September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final plat for Legacy Village.
December 8, 2003: The city council approved the planned unit development (PUD),
preliminary plat and design plans for Heritage Square.
December 16, 2003: The community design review board approved revised
architectural plans for Heritage Square.
February 9, 2004: The city council approved the final plat for Heritage Square.
Findings for Approval
To vacate an easement, the city council must find that it is in the public interest.
Q 6.18111 :9 [a].I
Erin Laberee, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed this proposal and
determined that there is no reason to retain this easement portion. The balance of the
easement will remain in place and loss of this tiny part will have no effect on the
remainder.
Staff recommends that the city council vacate this easement since it would serve no
public purpose.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
November 7, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of this easement
vacation.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the unneeded four by ten foot section of
a drainage and utility easement within the Heritage Square Townhomes development.
Vacation is in the public interest since this portion of easement would serve no public
purpose.
p:sec 3 \Her Sq Ease Vac 10'05
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Heritage Square Development
3. Easement Vacation Detail
4. Letter of Request from Travis Van Neste of Landform
5. Easement Vacation Resolution
Attachment 1
6
Fa FA ®a ®m
BEAM AVE
Heritage Square 3
x
Location Map ,
Attachment 3
EASEMENT VACATION EXHIBIT
F02: TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES
NORTH
SCALE: 1 " =20'
N89 0 57'04 "W 130.00
Cc
< ^ w 2
VJ G-
C\j
O >-
�L J
Q P �
�? a
f'7f V44TE DR! VE FR - r-
t' Y
rl
Y y �-
,
EXISTIZ LfD&2CROLkV CAS,
TELe , ELEC. AND CABLE T.V.
UTILITIES A$ LOCATED PER r
COPHek STATE ONE -CAI.L TICKET
NO. 50559954��--77 i
La ! ❑
t>ATIO PAT!O
CONDOMINIUM
DRAINACE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT_,
TO BE VACATED
(SEE DETAL A) +,a
PA 10- j o
—Ella - -�
PATIOS
1
i
( I
I
I
i
I
COVERED
f�s JoP
i
-40.0
10.0
L =42.48 = Ex,silN W__ 56 „E
N85
0 — =— -- ��& GUTTER _
.� ---'� eXSTtNG CURE
dn<W14"f'
i
PROPOSED ORANACE AND UT&JTY
�-,j EASEMENT TO 6E VACATED
DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT TO BE VACATED;
The West 10.00 feet of the East 40.00 feet of the
Northerly 4.00 feet of the Southerly 10.00 feet of Lot
Block 1, HERITAGE SQUARE, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
all distances to be measured at right angles.
I hereby certify that this survey, pion or report was
Prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State "t of Minnesota.
/�l+'�
TRAVIS W. VAN NESTE Dote: OG - -05
License. No. 44109 Reveed:
DETAIL A:
NOT TO SCALE
ui - PATIQ {i
T �
4�
r
4 N ^ J
Q1
r-
� d O
N �
kq&
LANDFORM
510 First Avenue North, Butler
North Building, Suite 650
Minneapolis, MN 55403 -1610
A M
www.landforrnmsp.00m
Job No, 100,3002 TJrowaq.
vac d--n a t ^ 1002 B J'1P
I
Attachment 4
Tom Ekstrand
From: Travis Van Neste jtvanneste @landformmsp.comj
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 8 :03 AM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: partial vacation of easement through L4, BI Heritage Square
eCt
MA
LjWDFORM
MINN HAP GLIB -FIN a ENIX
We are requesting a partial vacation of the utility easement through this lot, as shown on the exhibit that
we furnished to your office, The reason for this vacation request is because the building was designed in
the easement, and we are unable to redesign it so that it will be outside the easement. This vacation, if
approved, will not affect the public, because it is an easement for the utilities which serve this
development only. Also, the utilities which are installed in the easement are well clear of the proposed
building, as shown on said exhibit.
Travis W. Van Neste
Licensed Sun evor
612.252.9070 Ext.286
mWk t ineste @lndfnrmn-igp
850 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 131; //ww w.landform.net/
10/11/2005
Attachment 5
EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Mr. Kevin Clark, of Town & Country Homes, applied for the vacation
of a four by ten foot portion of drainage and utility easement within the Heritage Square
Townhome development. This easement is described as follows:
THE WEST 10.00 FEET OF THE EAST 40.00 FEET OF THE NORTHERLY 4.00 FEET
OF THE SOUTHERLY 10.00 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HERITAGE SQUARE,
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ALL DISTANCES TO BE MEASURED AT RIGHT
ANGLES.
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2005, the planning commission held a public
hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to
the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a
chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also
considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission
recommended that the city council approve this request.
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2005, the city council approved this request after
considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission.
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the
property will go to the adjoining property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above -
described vacation because this four by ten foot section of a drainage and utility
easement is not needed and, therefore, would serve no public purpose.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 18, 2005.
7
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Easement Vacation — Lot 1, Block 1, Heritage Square Addition (North of Legacy
Parkway) (7:06 — 7:11 p.m.)
Mr. Roberts said Kevin Clark, of Town & Country Homes, is requesting that the city council
vacate a small portion of a drainage and utility easement within the Heritage Square Townhomes
development. This easement portion measures four by ten feet in size. The reason for this
vacation request is because the front stoop of one of the townhomes encroaches into this
easement.
Erin Laberee, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed this proposal and determined
that there is no reason to retain this easement portion. The balance of the easement will remain
in place and loss of this tiny part will have no effect on the remainder.
Commissioner Trippler asked why the stoop needed to be taken out of the easement area but the
patios did not need to be taken out of the easement area?
Mr. Roberts said it is city practice to allow driveways and at -grade improvements to be within an
easement that can easily be dug up and replaced. He also noted that when you have an actual
structure in an easement things are different.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Mr. Chris Call, Civil Engineer, Landform Engineering, 510 First Avenue North, North Building,
Suite 650, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. He had no questions or comments for the
planning commission. Everything was pretty straightforward in the staff report.
The planning commission had no questions or concerns for the applicant.
Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward regarding this
public hearing. Nobody in the audience came forward to speak.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the unneeded
four by ten foot section of a drainage and utility easement within the Heritage Square
Townhomes development. Vacation is in the public interest since this portion of easementwould
serve no public purpose.
Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded. Ayes — Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer,
Kaczrowski, Trippler, Yarwood
The motion passed.
Agenda Item K2
SUMMARY
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Maple Leaf Business Park
DATE: November 18, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build a three - building
office /warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive between
Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. The front of each building would
have an office facade. The rear elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas. The back
of the westerly building, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service facade with
overhead garage doors. Mr. Kellison is requesting:
A conditional use permit for a reduced setback from the residential lot property line.
Approval of design plans.
DISCUSSION
The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code. The code requirement for a CUP allows
the city council to more closely consider potential impacts on the abutting residential
neighborhood. Typically, these concerns are the potential for visual impacts and noise problems.
From the standpoints of potential noise and visual problems, staff does not feel that it is in the
best interest of the neighbors to have a truck dock facing their properties. Staff is not in favor of
the proposed site plan for those reasons and would prefer that the rear building be rotated so the
office facade faces the homes. Neither the neighbors nor the planning commission, however, fell
that way and did not suggest any change in building orientation. The neighbors, in fact, preferred
as much building setback as they can get regardless of the type of activity or appearance of the
building on their side of the project.
Staff is not recommending a change to the site plan because of this preference by the neighbors.
We do, however, feel that approval of this design is not in the residents' best interest.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit.
B. Approve the site and architectural plans.
p:sec9 \Maple Leaf Summary 1 1'05
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Maple Leaf Business Park
LOCATION:
2488 & 2497 Maplewood Drive
DATE:
November 3, 2005
I.III Ill :is] 111I011 [a].I
Project Description
Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to build an
office /warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive (Highway 61),
between Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. This project would
consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9,120- square -foot,
two -story building, Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,440- square -foot, one -story
building and Building #3, the westerly building, would be a 16, 320 - square -foot, two -story
building. The front of each building would have an office facade. The rear elevations would be
the dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would have an office facade.
The back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would have a service facade with
overhead garage doors.
Refer to the applicant's letter, narrative and the attached maps.
Plan Revisions
The current plans are different from the original plans submitted by the applicant. The original
plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original
plans were for a four - building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that the
west elevation facing the neighbors had an office facade (now overhead doors) and the proposed
building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor replies and
the applicant's narrative speak to this four - building layout.
The primary reason the applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage
concerns by the city's engineering staff.
Requests
Mr. Kellison is requesting:
• A conditional use permit (CUP) for a reduced setback from the residential lot property line
to the west. The code requires that buildings in M1 (light manufacturing) districts that are
closer than 350 feet to an abutting residential property have a CUP. The proposed
westerly building would be 250 feet from the abutting residential lot line.
• Approval of design plans.
BACKGROUND
The subject property previously had two single family dwellings. The applicant demolished these
homes to make way for the proposed project. The property to the north was recently converted
from an industrial complex to the Hmong American Alliance Church. The property to the south
was developed a few years ago with Acorn Mini Storage.
DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code. The reason for this CUP request is
because the westerly building would be 250 feet from the back lot line, not 350 feet or more.
Code requires a CUP for a building with less than a 350 -foot setback. The reason is to allow the
city to consider impacts on the abutting residential neighborhood. Typically, with such requests,
the main concern is to protect the abutting home owners from any negative impact due to visual
impacts and potential noise problems.
Screening is an important concern. The applicant is proposing a row of 14 evergreen trees along
the westerly lot line with three river birch trees in the northwest and southwest corners of the site.
Staff feels that this is a good start, but these trees will not provide the required six - foot -tall and
80 percent opaque screen required by ordinance. The planning commission required doubling
this screen by adding a condition for a second row of evergreens.
The screen required by code may be comprised of evergreens, decorative fencing, berming or a
combination of these. Staff recommends that the applicant extend the screening material to the
back line of Building #3 along each side property line. The screening along the side lot lines is to
provide buffering for the neighbors that are northwest and southwest of this property who can
view this site at an angle from their homes and yards. This plan may take into account existing
vegetation and existing screening.
Noise
One concern noted by neighbors is what type of businesses might there be? Could there be
nuisance - causing or noisy operations taking place? A recent example of such a business activity
is that of the St. Paul Pioneer Press' night -time paper distribution activity at the Maplewood
Business Center on Gervais Avenue and Germain Street on the north side of Highway 36. Staff
feels that the council should require specific noise controls for this project to try to protect the
neighbors from "after hours" disturbances.
City Engineering Department's Concerns
Chuck Vermeersch, of the Maplewood engineering staff, has reviewed the applicant's revisions.
The revised plans are much better than the original design in his opinion. His previous concerns
have been addressed. Please review his attached memo.
Neighbor Concerns
Staff surveyed the neighbors for their input. Their complete replies are listed in the Citizen
Comment section of this report and their letters are included as attachments. The following is a
summary:
• Don't remove all the trees. Keep a buffer.
• Provide a sufficient buffer.
• Concerns include: Noise, lights, mosquitoes from the proposed pond and traffic increase.
• Require a greater setback.
• Don't allow the reduced setback.
• Loss of trees and wildlife.
• The existing buildings should not be construed to set a precedent due to the difference in
the types of uses.
Staff shares many of these concerns. Primarily, sufficient screening should be provided. The
applicant has a right to develop this property, but in exchange for the reduced setback, there
should be better than average screening.
Architectural and Building Orientation
The proposed buildings would have attractive fronts and sides. These would consist of a
decorative mix of concrete -block materials and colored in brown tones. The back of the buildings
would be rock -face concrete block. Building #3, the rear building, would have its service and
dock side facing the residential neighbors to the west. The applicant's earlier four - building plan
had the more attractive office -front view of the westerly building facing the neighbors. Refer to
the attached map of this four - building layout. This site plan also had a lesser building setback
from the west lot line -165 feet vs. the currently - proposed 250 foot setback.
Site Plan Alternatives
At the planning commission meeting, staff presented two alternative site plans for consideration.
Refer to these alternative designs. The benefit of both of these scenarios moves the large
truck -dock area away from the neighbors and allows the nicer office - fronts to face the neighbors
instead. The disadvantage of this is that it moves the buildings closer to the neighbors. The
setback of the westerly building from the west lot line would be about 165 feet as was originally
proposed with the four - building design.
At the planning commission meeting, neither the planning commission nor the neighbors felt
strongly about it. Their primary concern was that there be adequate screening and that there not
be a loss of privacy as there might be if the office windows faced the homes.
Staff feels that it is a good idea to reorient the buildings to have the office front face the west lot
line. Since neither the planning commission nor the neighbors preferred those scenarios, staff
simply wants to make sure that the CDRB and city council take this into consideration.
Sign Plan Considerations
The applicant has not proposed any signage criteria. Ordinance requires that they provide a
signage plan for this development for approval by the community design review board.
Developments with five or more tenants must have such a plan for sign uniformity.
Site Considerations
Parking
The use of the proposed complex is anticipated to be 30 percent office and 70 percent
warehouse. To determine parking needs, staff took the total square footage and applied these
percentages. By these ratios, the applicant would need 141 parking spaces. The applicant is
proposing 156. There would be a sufficient number of parking spaces provided by this count.
The applicant must, however, revise the plan to meet the 9 '/- foot -wide parking stall requirement
for customer parking. Employee parking may be 9 feet wide if it is posted as such.
Site Lighting
The lighting plan is incomplete. The plan does not extend to the westerly lot line which is critical
due to the residential neighbors.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan is a good start, but staff has the following recommendations as noted
above:
• Increase the screening along the rear property line to meet code requirements of a six -
foot -tall and 80 percent opaque screen. The planning commission recommended a
double row of evergreens along the west lot line to address this matter. The screening
proposal is still "thin" based on the code requirements. Staff, furthermore, is
recommending that this visual screen be extended along the side lot lines to the back line
of the westerly building to provide screening for close neighbors that are not directly
behind this lot.
• The plantings in front near the street should be increased. This area is rather sparse.
Trash
Outdoor trash storage is not proposed on the plans. If the applicant later wishes to provide
outdoor trash storage, they should provide a plan for the design and location of the dumpster
enclosures. Dumpsters kept between buildings may not need to be screened if they are not
visible to neighbors or streets. The community design review board should review this matter.
City Department Comments
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, has the following comments:
• There must be a 20- foot -wide emergency- access road provided around all buildings.
• There must be a fire protection system, per -codes and monitored.
• There must be proper marking of doors where fire protection systems are located.
• There must be a fire department lock box installed. See the fire marshal for an order
form.
Police
Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed this proposal and has no public safety concerns. He
recommends the standard business security lighting and video surveillance systems.
Building Official
Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, reviewed this proposal. Refer to his report.
SUMMARY
From the standpoint of potential noise problems, staff does not feel that it is in the best interest
of the neighbors to have a truck dock facing their properties. Also, from an aesthetic viewpoint,
the dock area of the westerly building would be substantially less attractive than the office fronts
on the proposed buildings. Staff is not in favor of the proposed site plan for those reasons.
Neither the neighbors nor the planning commission, however, felt that strongly. The neighbors,
in fact, preferred as much building setback as they can get regardless of the type of activity on
their side of the project.
Staff is not recommending a change to the site plan because of this preference by the neighbors.
We do, however, feel that approval of this design is not in the residents' best interest.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
October 17, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. They did,
however, recommend that the applicant plant a double row of evergreens along the westerly lot
line to enhance the screening. The planning commission also required that the parking stall
widths meet code requirements. Code requires that stalls are 9 '/ feet wide. Employee parking
stalls may be 9 feet wide if posted as such.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a proposed building setback of
250 feet from the rear lot line for an office /industrial condominium development at 2488
and 2497 Maplewood Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and
subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date - stamped October 11,
2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes.
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.
The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the
westerly building as stated in Section 18 -111 of the city code. This means that there
shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Saturday and all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities
occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements
should specify this.
The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10
p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The
lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens
and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light- intensity maximums must meet code
requirements.
6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally- described lot prior to obtaining a
building permit for this development.
Provide a landscaping /screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west
boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen
that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row
of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This
screen shall be an all- seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, berming or
evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property
and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3.
This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening.
8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for
architectural design, landscaping, site lighting and parking.
9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage, erosion control,
dust control, utilities and removal of roadway dirt build -up.
10. Outdoor storage of any materials shall not be allowed unless a conditional use permit
for outdoor storage is obtained from the city council.
B. Approve the site plan date - stamped October 11, 2005, the landscaping plan date -
stamped October 17, 2005 and the lighting plan date - stamped October 28, 2005.
Approval is subject to the applicant /developer complying with the following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Comply with all conditions of Chuck Vermeersch's engineering report dated October
17, 2005.
3. Obtain necessary permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation before
the issuance of a building permit.
4. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District before the
issuance of a building permit.
Provide fencing on the top of all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. The
fencing shall be a black chain link fence at least 3.5 feet tall. Retaining walls that
exceed four feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer, and the
applicant must obtain a building permit.
The applicant must provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval that provides
a landscaping /screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west
boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen
that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row
of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This
screen shall be an all- season screen that may include decorative fencing, berming
and evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the
property and shall extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line
of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing
screening.
7. Obtain approval of a comprehensive sign plan from the community design review
board before any sign permits may be issued.
8. Submit a complete lighting plan to staff for approval. The site lights, west of Building
#3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10 p.m. unless required to be on by
the police department for security reasons. The lights on the west side of Building #3
shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of these light fixtures.
Light- intensity maximums must meet code requirements.
Provide a revised landscaping plan to staff for approval for the area along the street
frontage, increasing the amount of plantings in this area. This shall be provided
before the issuance of a building permit.
10. The applicant must provide an in- ground irrigation system as required by code. The
area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered.
11. The rear elevations of all buildings, and any parts of the side elevations that are rock -
face block, must be painted to match the front building colors.
12. Provide cash escrow, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the
landscaping and exterior site improvements, before the applicant shall obtain a
building permit.
13. All customer parking spaces must be at least 9 '/ feet wide. Employee parking
spaces may be nine feet wide if signs are posted identifying them as employee
parking only.
14. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans.
Minor changes may be approved by staff.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 38 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their
opinions of this proposal. Of the nine replies, many were clearly opposed. Some were accepting
of the proposed type of development, but noted concerns about the plans.
1. No objection.
2. Refer to the letter from Gwen Kingsbeck, 2498 Adele Street. Ms. Kingsbeck stated that,
though they understand the land will be developed and accepts the proposed usage, they
have concerns about there being a sufficient buffer. They also feel that there is too much
development proposed for this site.
3. My main concern is the "noise" level. What kind of businesses exactly will be in this site?
Many of us do not work 8 -4, Monday through Friday. Hours of work fluctuate with the
neighbors who will be affected by this. (Cathy Brown, 2496 Cypress Street)
4. My concerns are: any water /drainage from the development that would affect the water
table for my property, light leakage to the residential area, noise during non - normal
business hours. Also, how far away from the north property line will any of the
development be? (Margaret Peterson, 2522 Adele Street)
5. Refer to the letter from Daniel Ward, 2514 Adele Street. Mr. Ward stated concerns about
clearing this site to the property line and constructing a mosquito- infested slough. The
applicant should consider alternative designs that impact the site less.
6. 1 "do not" support a conditional use permit for this development. I also do not support
removing any existing trees on the current property. (Kristen Scholl, 1017 Demont
Avenue)
7. The applicant's letter states that the mini storage already infringes on the 350 foot
setback, thereby setting the standard. This is not true. Codes and ordinances are written
for a reason and should not be routinely dismissed. This building will lower my property
value. (As stated by a realtor.) Please do not allow this. (Mike Trenda, 2474 Adele
Street)
8. Refer to the letter from Deanne Lynn Dick and Jeffrey Scott Dick, 2505 Adele Street. Ms.
Dick stated that this development would be a hindrance to the neighborhood. The tree
loss is a detriment and there would be too much traffic. Mr. Dick stated that he too is
adamantly opposed to the tree removal. The office condos, themselves, are not a
problem, but the tree removal proposed would ruin a wonderful barrier between them and
Highway 61.
9. Refer to the letter from Thomas and Melissa O'Connor of 2506 Adele Street. Their
comments and concerns are, in summary, loss of trees and the minimal screening
proposed. Loss of privacy with the small trees planted as a buffer to attempt to screen a
two story building. There is no comparison with Acorn Mini Storage's reduced setback.
This should not set a precedent. The two uses are distinctly different.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 4.6 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
Hmong American Alliance Church
South:
Acorn Mini Storage
East:
Maplewood Drive
West:
Single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: M1
Zoning: M1
Code Requirements
Section 44- 637(b) requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that would be within 350 feet of a
residential district.
Findings for CUP Approval
City code requires that to approve a CUP, the city council must base approval on the nine
required findings for approval. Refer to the attached resolution for a listing of these findings.
APPLICATION DATE
We received the revised and resubmitted plans for this proposal on October 17, 2005 (the date
the applicant provided the remaining plans needed for this review). State law requires that the
city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is
required by December 16, 2005.
p:sec9 \Maple Leaf Ridge Design3 11'05
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Landscaping Plan
4. Original 4-Building Site Plan
5. Site Plan Alternative #1
6. Site Plan Alternative #2
7. Building Elevations
8. Applicant's Letter dated June 23, 2005
9. Amenities Statement
10. Building Official's Report dated July 5, 2005
11. Letter from Gwen Kingsbeck
12. Letter from Daniel Ward
13. Letter from Jeffrey and Deanne Dick
14. Letter from Thomas and Melissa O'Connor
15. Engineers Report from Chuck Vermeersch dated October 17, 2005
16. Conditional Use Permit Resolution
17. Plans date - stamped October 11, 17 and 28, 2005 (separate attachments)
10
ment
Location Map
Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center 11
Attachment 2
r-
9Q
k
I
H
�R
a �
m.
E
§d 3
-r 1S
>
m
b
r
i s LUU5
~'
q
JB
MPLE LEO COM55 GETTER
TdPLE�.�
SITE PLAN
y
(4
rno-w. aw sa�m
M. �Ih+iffi t�.t�i /g-rsm
_............_
ww n.m
aves�s
CG11MM IAL ECUIT PARM RS
OAKPALE. YPI
SITE PLAN
12
— Attachment 3
,,W)A ;
���� or¢xry or mxw �nrvosurf oesox. xD
unr BE pkF rsOCO[[0 in Axv 4DAM aF Yf AxS WOx DUi WPmE
13
tP
RR N
!4 m
R�
ill
xu
ORIGINAL 4- BUILDING SITE
. n
D
I�
I'
Attachment 4
T
14
w
+r
c
Q!
E
.c
u
44
4J
i-�
Q
QN.G. RAMP :DETAIL T-
6CYj.4y rl�P ♦71 %Y
r
uj
Q
z
CK
W
un
r
ALTERNATIVE #1
o
4J
a
E
U
Q
[ayENTRY STOOP DETAIL TYP.
YI'
X %. 1.9'4 L%% Y
44 KYE fX 41xp p J
I�
e
SWITCH PLACEMENT OF
BUILDINGS 2 AND 3
ALTERNATIVE #2
SIM
W
tJ I—
W t�
N. R -RAMP DETAIL TYP
= w.10411 %N NI@I
MltkiNY.f<'41 N11 f J Y
6
S
4
z
4L
L W
r
a
w
A
G}
N
ELEVATION - BLDG. 2
C1S: l£.I'$.i4X}M YlLE N1E�El J
k'AF. Ni'.).4.OXM1 C' 4 S IY'
f r
wNNOe
�i•w oY duo
I
- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - --
.�41A# GI.CXGfAG EIA%
rrcx»eu cn.amwcdmc ELEVATION
I
uqc w.r$.eXn a 4 e r.'
ELEVATION - BLDG.2
a l
rxegnYYrw
cueuYY
axrm dNp
9
ELEVATION - BLDG. 2
tcnE. wr.rr axrc � a
a rr
oa na
rr
o0
f r
wNNOe
�i•w oY duo
I
- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - --
.�41A# GI.CXGfAG EIA%
rrcx»eu cn.amwcdmc ELEVATION
I
uqc w.r$.eXn a 4 e r.'
ELEVATION - BLDG.2
a l
rxegnYYrw
cueuYY
axrm dNp
9
ELEVATION - BLDG. 2
tcnE. wr.rr axrc � a
------------------------ ---------
;1NORTHLUE5T BLDG. 3
9
- ----------
�N ELEVATION - 5LDG- 3
— ----------------
oll—wom
=emmmu-
Sam
El
I
I Mimm
1�
ww
wwI
ME
I
a M-121 I
------------------------ ---------
;1NORTHLUE5T BLDG. 3
9
- ----------
�N ELEVATION - 5LDG- 3
— ----------------
oll—wom
=emmmu-
ELS EyATIO_N -BLDG. 3
na
QELEVATION - BLDG. 3
KE
Attachment 8
7300 Hudson Blvd.
5iAW 2?5
Oakdale, MN 55128
Office: [651] 730-2020
Pax: [6511730-2055
Real Estate Development Services
June 23, 2005
RECEIVED
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
City of Maplewood JUL 2 7 2005
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Maplewood Drive
lu ..tee. 'i''� t�
I am representing Mr. Mark Gossman, principal of Commercial Equity Partners in the
development of the Maple Leaf Ridge Business Park to be located at 2483 Maplewood Drive,
Maplewood, MN. The project is intended to consist of four building totaling approximately
45,000 s£ of footprint and, with second floors, a total of approximately 55,000 sf which will be
divided into bays of approximately 2,400 sf each and sold as condominiums for use as
office/showroom, office/industrial/ and officelwarehouse uses, all of which are approved uses in
the Ml zoning that covers this property.
Enclosed please find the applications for design review and condition use permit as well as the
requisite drawings for submittal and review and approval. Since the property abuts a residential
neighborhood, the 350' setback requirement is applicable to the property.
The conditional use application is to allow for the westerly most building to be constructed at a
distance of 157' from the west property line to the front door of the vestibule of the building. As
can been seen from the rendering, these buildings will be of an office nature in appearance from
the exposure to the residence and, by allowing for this building to be constructed facing west, the
overhead doors will all be inboard and not visible from the residential neighborhood. The types
of uses anticipated in this project will not generate high volumes of visitor traffic and are
typically open weekdays during normal business hours. Also, since the units will be individually
owned, there is a sense of ownership, pride, and neighborliness will be more prevalent than if the
spaces were leased. The mini storage project to the south of this property is encroaching in the
350' setback and therefore has established a precedent to allow for relief from the maximum
setback
Ti]
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
June 23, 2005
Page 2
A neighborhood meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at the fire station in the local
neighborhood. All landowners within 500' of the property have been notified to attend this
meeting for information regarding the project. A separate report will be sent to the City of
impressions we have from the neighbors at that meeting.
When the City approves this project, it is our intent to start construction late this summer for
occupancy in mid -winter. The project will probably be phased with two buildings constructed
initially and the other two buildings to be completed in 2006.
I have enclosed for your review an amenities list that has been developed for promotional
purposes for these buildings. As you can see, these will be very high-quality and aesthetically
pleasing buildings that will lend themselves well to this neighborhood. The additional tax base
and the new jobs created will benefit the City and the neighborhood in general.
I look forward to the opportunity to present this project in the approval process for the City of
Maplewood. Please call me with any questions are any requests if additional information is
required.
A
fully yours,. Kellisou
President
JMjjc
Enclosures
P41
Attachment 9
Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Amenities
1. Integral colored concrete block units for much grater aesthetic appeal and for minimum
maintenance. Resealing is only necessary every 5-7 years at approximately M the cost
of painting. 4
2. The metal coping material for the parapet and canopies is factory painted finish over
aluminum so that it does not rust.
3. All exterior windows are 1" insulated glass set in thermally broken aluminum mullions
which are factory anodized for extended life on this finish. The glass is a light tint with
low E for superior solar reflectance and minimum transmission.
4. The rear man doors have glass above them for natural light into the warehouse areas.
The man doors have drip caps to minimize water getting in through the door or into the
door system causing rust. The doors have anti -pick plates. The thresholds are bronze
anodized mater -al which wears much better than aluminum.
5. The overhead doors have high lift tracking and 30,000 cycle commercial grade spring and
track systems.
6. The roof is a 45 -mil EPDM rubber roof system with rock ballast. It is installed with a 10 -
year guarantee for labor and materials from the manufacturer and a prorated warranty on
the material for an additional 10 -years.
7. The concrete block is insulated using a 2 -part foam which produces a R-11 insulation
factor for the concrete block
8. The concrete slab is 5" thick of 4,000 psi concrete with a fiber mesh system which
reduces hairline cracking and crazmg.4
9. The roof system has a polyisosamtrated and expanded polystyrene foam insulation
system providing an R-22.2 insulation factor.
10. Each vestibule will have a 12" x 12" porcelain tile floor with 4" bull -nose base. The
walls of the vestibule will be taped, sanded and painted as will the drywall ceiling. The
vestibule will have a sprinkler head, 2 kW electric fan driven wall heater and light
fixture.
11. The demising walls will be constructed of full height 2 x 6 steel studs at 24" on center
with the bottom track being caulked to the concrete and the. top being stuffed with
insulation and filled with Struct-Q-Lite. The studs will be insulated with R-19 insulation
and 5(8" drywall will be installed on each side of the wall, full height with taping and two
coats of drywall joint compound.
PA
12. Each unit will be provided with a floor drain connected to a flammable waste system as
required by code for vehicle entry into the building.
13. There will be a continuous 3' wide concrete apron along the overhead door side of each
of the buildings constructed of 6" of concrete with fiberglass reinforcing mesh.
14. Six-inch diameter steel pipe bollards are installed at each side of each overhead door for
protection from vehicles.
15, The air conditioning units are a 10 SEER rated unit providing a very economical
operation. 'Thermostats for the air conditioning units are night setback programmable
thermostats.
16. Each bay will be served with 200 -amps of 1101208 volt, 3-phase, 4 -wire electrical
service. Each bay will have a 1" empty conduit back to the equipment room for
telephone home runs.
17. The paved areas will receive two 1-1/2" lifts of asphalt over minimum of 6" of Class 5
recycled base material_
18. The site will have 20' tali pole lighting with two heads on each pole in locations that
provide for security lighting. There will be wall packs for lighting of the truck areas
between the buildings to provide for security and loading illumination. Each canopy will
have a metal halide down fight for illumination of the entry. All exterior lighting will be
controlled with a photocell to turn on and a time clock to turn off.
19. All landscaped areas will be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system with a rain sensor
system.
Attachment 10
Memo
July 5, 2005
From: David Fisher, Building Official -
To: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Re: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center —
New Multi -tenant Condo Style Office/Industrial Buildings.
A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are
submitted for permit.
All new office buildings over 2000 square feet are required to be
fire sprinklered and to meet NFPA 13.
The new building must be built to meet Minnesota• •
•d- aid 2000
Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State
Building Code 1341 for accessibility. The accessible parking
needs to spread out for the tenants and one van accessible space
will be required for each building.
Must meet the Minnesota State Energy Code.
Any occupancy with the occupant load of 30 or more requires an
elevator for accessibility.
I would recommend a pre -construction meeting with the building
department.
24
Attachment 11
Tom Ekstrand
From: Gwen Kingsbeck [gwen@resolutiongraphics.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2005 10:29 AM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
ilk
My husband Jeff and I live at 2498 Adele Street, directly behind the proposed development. We received a
request, for our opinions regarding the development, dated August 8th. I didn't immediately respond to your
request because an additional informational meeting had been scheduled between Kelco and the affected
neighbors.
While we do understand that this land will be commercially developed and we are accepting of the proposed
usage, we do have have deep concerns regarding the CUP, layout and landscape. At the informational meeting
heli June 28th the neighbors let Mr. Kellison know that we were extremely unhappy about the proposed removal
of all of the natural buffer between the neighbors property and the proposed development. The existing
commercial developments in the area have kept a much wider buffer zone between themselves and the
neighbors.
At the additional informational meeting on August 9th Mr. Kellison proposed a more acceptable landscape plan
which includes a row of evergreen trees as a buffer between the development and the neighbors. Mr. Kellison is
also looking into saving the existing 20 foot evergreens near the property line.
The big issue for us is the requested 150 foot setback as well as paved parking with in 50 feet of the property
line. Mr. KeiOson has informed us that if the 150 foot setback is granted we will look at the nicely finished front
side of a building, however, if the CUP is not granted we will look at the back side of building with large dock
doors and paving will be 50 feet from the property One regardless of the CUP issue.
While Jeff believes the best choice Is to have the buildings as far away as possible and look at dock doors, I feel
there is no good choice is this situation - I don't want to look at dock doors but I also don't want a 2 story building
150 feet away looking directly into my family room and bedroom windows with nothing to block the view.
In conclusion we would be happy to have Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center as a neighbor but we feel their
proposed development, as planned, is to large for the site and would not leave a reasonable buffer between them
and the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Gwen Kingsback
2498 Adele Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
851-481-0785 }come
851-897-1100 Office
8/1712005
25
August21,2005
Mr. Tom Ekstrand
City of Maplewood
1890 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Maplewood Drive
Maplewood. MN
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Kelco development.
My concern is not with where Kelco wants to constuct their building, but rather with
what they intend to do right up to the propertyline, cut down all existing trees
and constuct a mosquito infested slough. I notice they made reference to
to the adjoining mini storage for a precedent in not conforming to the 350' setback
requirement, even though their proposal is in no way remotely similar to what
the min storage contracted.
I'm certain there are alternate plans that could be enacted that would be both profitable
and satisfactory to their prospective neighbors. if Kelco believes they need to construct
such a large comples to make the project a worthwhile venture, then maybe the property
is'nt as valuable as the they and the seller think it is.
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner as I have been out of town. I've offered
very brief comments on the subject, but I think you probably have a feel for what I'm
thinking, (the same thing any resident would be thinking in this position).
Thank you for your involvement with this, and if I can be of any further help please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ward
2514 Adele Street
Maplewood, -MN -55109
651-486-7x24
Attachment 12
WO
Attachment 13
Tom Ekstrand
From: Dick, Jeff S. [JDick@northstar.orgl
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:31 PM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Cc: DeanneDick@comcast.net; Jeff.Dick@comcast.net
Subject: Comments regarding Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
Here are comments from my wife and me regarding the Development Proposal for the Maple Leaf Ridge
Business Center:
Comments from Deanne Lynn Dick:
My family and I thoroughly enjoy the trees on the site of the proposed development. They not only offer
beauty, they also provide a sound and visual barrier from Highway 61. I've sat on our porch many evenings
and relaxed to the swaying sound of the leaves and the great view of the sunset reflecting off the trees. I'm
finding it very hard to believe that cutting the trees would benefit the neighborhood. From talking to the
neighbors, it would be doing quite the opposite. One resident is already selling their house due to the
condominiums and another resident, who is directly affected, will sell if the plan passes. From where I
stand, the business condos are already causing problems without even being built, not to mention the
increase in traffic to the area if the plan goes through. I see them and everything that comes along with
them as a hindrance to our neighborhood rather than an attraction.
Comments from Jeffrey Scott Dick:
I am adamantly opposed to the removal of the trees on the proposed site. While I don't have a problem
with the office condos themselves, I think removing the trees would be a major detriment to our
neighborhood. The trees offer a wonderful barrier from highway 61 that gives our neighborhood the
feeling of being "tucked away" from the neighboring areas. Thesc trees are also the home of plenty of
wildlife, including many deer that feed behind 2506 Adele St. I urge you to reject any proposals that involve
removal of the trees from the proposed site.
Thank you in advance for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Dick & Deanne L. Dick
2505 Adele St. N.
651.482.1905
8/17/2005 27
Attachment 14
Thomas F O'Connor
Melissa L O'Connor
Dear Mr. Ekstrand 2506 Adele St N
Maplewood MN 55109
We are the O'Connor family and live at 2506 Adele St directly behind the proposed development. When we
bought our home in June of 2001 we were told that the property's behind us were zoned commercial but that
the burm and several feet on the other side of the burm including the main tree line were owned by the
developer of the residential neighborhood as a buffer between the new residential development and the two at
the time residential properties. This was something we considered when buying our home but thought as long as
the burm and the main tree line would not be affected by a commercial property we would welcome a
commercial project because we wouldn't see it and would be able to maintain our wooded view and buffer from
Hwy 61. So you can imagine how disappointed we are to see the Maple Leaf Ridge proposal removing all
mature trees and coming right up to our property line. A lesson learned I guess.
Just a comment on how much we have enjoyed our wooded view and the wildlife that comes with it. We have
watched for the last four years a doe have two fawns every mating season and have greatly enjoyed watching
them grow. We also have for the past year watched the Bald Eagle collect from our woods materials for the new
nest on hwy 36 and 61 which has been wonderful to be apart of.
Our main concerns are the proposed buffer between the proposed commercial development and our residence
and the conditional use permit that has been requested. The proposed plan includes removing all mature trees
along the entire back and both sides of the properties opening us up to not only this new development but to the
American Hmong Church, Acorn Mini Storage and to all of Hwy 61 traffic noise, car dealership speaker noise
-and lighting from all. The proposal replaces them with small 8 to 10 foot trees along the back that won't even
attempt to cover the 24 foot tall two story building looking us straight in the eye 157 feet away.
We have attended two meetings with Jim Kellison and representatives from Commercial Equity Partners. In the
first meeting we expressed our biggest concern being the buffer between the two properties that we didn't have
a problem with what types of business that were going in as long as we didn't have to be exposed so openly to
them. They stated they would go back and redo some landscaping and show us views of what we would see
from our properties and have a second meeting. When we attended the second meeting we were very
disappointed. They had one sketch only showing our homes from behind only two levels high and they are three
levels high. Our lower levels are below the burm and with the proposed two story building facing our direction
being built up to the height of the top of the burro the first level of the building will be level with our main floor
and the buildings second story would be level with our upstairs. The houses this is affecting are all designed
with the main living spaces facing the back family rooms, kitchens, kitchen eating areas, dining room, master
bedrooms and baths all with large windows. The new proposal had such minor changes moving the holding
pond back a little allowing room for 10 foot trees on top of the burm for our buffer and that's it. The building is
24 feet tall with 8 to 10 feet buffer trees. The top floor businesses will be looking directly into our upstairs level
and our main living level. With that building being requested to be 157 feet from our property we feel this is
way to close, we will have to have every window covered at all times and any outside activities will be easily
viewed by several business units which is not very comfortable.
When we mention this being to close the response we received was that the 350 ft was an archaic rule and we
should worry more about what types of business's were coming in and not the buffer between us so if they got
moved back that we would not be seeing the astatically pleasing front of one of the buildings but they would
have to put in shipping and receiving dock type building facing us. Which they stated didn't matter to them
either way. Being they want to open everything up and only buffer with small trees and if this building is 350 ft
away we would prefer this also at 350 R we shouldn't be able to see much and wouldn't have office window
units looking directly at us.
pe -I
As far as Acorn Mini Storage setting precedent encroaching in the 350 ft which I believe it is still 22011 back._
These are two totally different types of business's you barely have any workers or customers at Acorn Mini
Storage and they also hide the holding pond from our sights keeping it forward on the property and they left all
trees and foliage on the remainder of there property as a good buffer between us all you can't even see them.
The American Hmong Church also left the tree line alone. It is our request that since there is going to be a
removal of all mature trees and a parking lot within several feet of our property regardless of how close the
building is that you enforce the 350 ft which we believe is there to protect us as home owners living in the City
of Maplewood.
m
PROJECT: Maple Leaf Ridge
PROJECT NO:
REVIEWED BY: Chuck Vermeersch
DATE: October 17, 2005
Commercial Equity Partners is proposing the construction of a multi -tenant,
condominium -style ofFicetwarehouse complex. Revised plans and drainage calculations
dated October 10, 2005 were reviewed.
The development is to be constructed on 4.5 acres fronting on Maplewood Drive west
between the Hmong American Alliance Church and Acorn Mini -Storage. The property
consists of two parcels, both of which were previously single family homes. The south
parcel also had a barn and two outbuildings which were demolished about a year ago.
Runoff from all three of these sites works its way through a system of wetlands, ditches
and storm sewer, north to Kohiman Cake.
Attachment 15
The revised development consists of three buildings, rather than four as originally
proposed, and associated parking areas. The revised pian addresses most issues raised
in the review of the previous submittal.
The applicant or their engineer shall address the following comments.
1. The revised pond configuration, together with the reduction in impervious surface,
meets the city's water quality standards. Peak flows from the site are reduced
compared to existing conditions. Although there is a significant increase in runoff
volume, soil borings indicate the pond may be able to infiltrate a significant amount if
excavated to the layer of poorly graded sand.
2. The proposed sanitary sewer design has been reviewed by engineering and the
city's utility superintendent, and the design is approved. The applicant's contractor
shall coordinate all connections to the cillys system with the city's utility
superintendent All new piping and structures shall be inspected and must be
accepted prior to occupancy.
3. A maintenance agreement will be required for the pond and storm sewer system.
The pond shall be seeded with a native seed mix approved by engineering.
4. Flow from the Mini -Storage pond to the south has been separated from the proposed
system as recommended in the review of the previous submittal. The pond outlet
orifice size has also been revised as recommended.
5. Retaining walls have been labeled with top of wall and bottom of wall elevations and
the use of retaining walls for live storage containment in the storm water pond has
been eliminated. However, retaining walls are still proposed along the west half of
both the north and south property lines. it may be possible to reduce the length and
ca
height of the wails further. however, if the walls are to remain, the following
conditions shall apply:
a. The retaining walls will require a separate building permit from community
development.
b. The walls will require a certified, engineered design.
c. A special inspections schedule is required and must be completed and certified
by the design engineer.
d. The wall must be designed to withstand potential loadings. The potential loading
shall include the largest vehicle combination that can be accommodated at the
loading dock of the west building.
e. Guard rails shall be installed along the length of the retaining walls, including
along the existing retaining wall of the Mini -storage facility near the south east
comer of the property.
6. No grading permit will be issued for the site until:
a. Plans have been submitted to Saint Paul Regional Water Service, and have been
approved.
b. Plans have been re -submitted to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District,
and have been approved and a grading permit secured.
c. An NPDES permit has been obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
31
Attachment 16
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Kelco Real Estate Development Services has applied for a conditional use
permit to be allowed to build an office/industrial complex 250 feet from the abutting residential
district. The code requires 350 feet.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive.
The legal description is:
W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 N 85 FT OF LOT 3.
W. H. HOWARD'S GARDEN LOTS EX STH 61-1 AND EX N 85 FT LOT 3.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On October 17, 2005, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit. The planning commission held a public hearing. City staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners
as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance
to speak and present written statements. The planning commission considered the
recommendations of city staff and the public.
2. The city council reviewed this request on November 28, 2005 and considered the
recommendations of the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-
described conditional use permit because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water 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.
The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and
scenic features into the development design.
The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11,
2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes.
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.
The hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the
westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there
shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Saturday and all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities
occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements
should specify this.
The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10
p.m. unless required to be on by the police department for security reasons. The
lights on the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens
and bulbs of these light fixtures. Light -intensity maximums must meet code
requirements.
6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally -described lot prior to obtaining a
building permit for this development.
Provide a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west
boundary, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen
that is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall upon installation. If the double row
of trees does not accomplish this, additional screening must be provided. This
screen shall be an all -seasons buffer of items like decorative fencing, berming or
evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be provided along the rear of the property
and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear setback line of Building #3.
This plan may take into account existing vegetation and existing screening.
8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for
architectural design, landscaping, site lighting and parking.
9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage, erosion control,
dust control, utilities and removal of roadway dirt build-up.
10. Outdoor storage of any materials shall not be allowed unless a conditional use permit
for outdoor storage is obtained from the city council.
The Maplewood City Council this resolution on November 28, 2005
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center (2483 and 2497 Maplewood Drive) (7:10 —8:57 p.m.)
Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development Services, is proposing to
build an office/warehouse condominium development on the west side of Maplewood Drive
(Highway 61), between Acorn Mini Storage and the Hmong American Alliance Church. This
project would consist of three buildings. Building #1, closest to Highway 61, would be a 9,120
square foot, two-story building, Building #2, the center building, would be a 13,440 square
foot, one-story building and Building #3, the westerly building, would be a 16,320 square foot,
two-story building. The front of each building would have the appearance of offices. The rear
elevations would be the dock door and delivery areas. Building #1, facing the highway, would
have an office fagade. The back side of Building #3, facing the residential neighbors, would
have a service fagade with overhead garage doors.
The current plans are different from the original plans submitted to the city by the applicant.
Plans were presented to the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting this summer. The original
plans were for a four -building project of the same nature. The primary differences were that
the west elevation facing the neighbors had an office fagade (now overhead doors) and the
proposed building setback was to have been 165 feet (now 250 feet). Some of the neighbor
replies and the applicant's narrative speak to this four -building layout. The primary reason the
applicant revised the plans was to address grading and drainage concerns by the city's
engineering staff. Staff recommended approval of this proposal with the conditions on page 4
and 5 of the staff report.
Mr. Ekstrand distributed the city engineer's report he received prior to the start of tonight's
meeting so the commission could review it. The applicant also gave staff a revised
landscaping plan at the meeting.
Mr. Ekstrand said Commissioner Trippler e-mailed six questions to staff regarding this
proposal. Here are the questions and staff's responses to the questions.
What is the position of the city for applicants that move ahead with site preparation
and/or construction prior to being granted permission? Is there an administrative penalty
for such action, and if so, has the city assessed the applicant in this case?
Answer:
Mr. Ekstrand said the city does issue grading permits prior to full approval of a project. The
city doesn't prefer that it be done that way but it has happened. In this project the applicant
hasn't begun grading yet. The ground disturbance you see on site is due to the demolition of
two homes that were on the site and the foundations that were dug out. But nothing has been
done that is a city violation of any sort.
(Commissioner Trippler's questions continued)
Planning Commission -2-
Minutes of 10-17-05
2. 1 found a crushed fuel oil tank lying on the ground and there is evidence of several fuel
oil spills near the tank. I have attached a picture of a crushed fuel oil tank that is lying
on the ground near several spots with spilled (or dumped) fuel oil. Has someone at the
city contacted the MPCA spills unit or the State Duty Officer about this? If not, I have.
Answer.-
Mr.
nswer.Mr. Ekstrand spoke with a representative of the MPCA and they are investigating that. The
applicant has explained the situation and there was some leakage from that tank but it doesn't
sound like a large leakage. The applicant can address that issue when he has the
opportunity to speak.
3. There are a half dozen or more tires piled up in the middle of the property. I hope the
applicant will be properly disposing of them.
Answer.-
Mr.
nswer.Mr. Ekstrand said there is trash on the property and during the construction process the site
will have to be properly cleaned up and materials properly disposed of.
4. There are two large holes on the property without any barriers around the perimeters.
They pose a safety danger to anyone on site, especially children. Either they should be
filled in or some kind of barrier tape should be installed around them.
Answer.-
Mr.
nswer.Mr. Ekstrand said the holes on the site are from digging the foundations of the two homes out
during the demolition process.
5. If I read the plan correctly and paced off the distance correctly, Building #1 will be about
40 feet closer to the street than either the church of the storage buildings next door. Is
that correct, and if so, why would we allow that? Shouldn't the buildings along the street
line up? I don't see any mention in your memo to the Planning Commission addressing
this.
Answer.-
Mr.
nswer.Mr. Ekstrand said that is correct, Building #1 is 40 feet closer to the street than the other
surrounding businesses. There is no code requirement for that. The minimum setback is 30
feet and the applicant meets that requirement.
6. Landscaping: This is the single most important concern expressed by the neighbors.
And yet, we won't have a revised landscaping plan to look at until the meeting. This is
totally unacceptable! We need time to look at and review all aspects of a development
plan. I don't like being asked to review and decide at the last minute something the
applicant hasn't gotten ready on time. They delayed their application for one month
already. There is no excuse not to have a revised plan ready prior to this meeting.
Depending on the number of changes made to the landscape plan, I plan on moving to
table this until we have had time to fully evaluate the changes.
Planning Commission -3-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Answer:
Mr. Ekstrand said the landscaping plan was just given to city staff this evening prior to the
meeting. (Staff then handed out the smaller scale landscaping plans that the applicant gave to
him before the meeting began.)
Commissioner Desai asked if there were any special mitigating circumstances why the city
would give an allowance of 250 feet verses the code of 350 feet or more from abutting
residential property?
Mr. Ekstrand said from the standpoint of mitigating circumstances the applicant wants to
maximum the use of the property. The applicant has stated that there was a precedence set
with the Acorn Mini Storage having a reduced setback of 250 feet and the applicant feels they
should also be allowed to have the same setback. Staff realizes that the storage facility is a
zero activity use and this proposal would have truck activity and car traffic going in and out of
the site.
Mr. Roberts said the code doesn't say in the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning districtthatyou
have to be 350 feet away from residential. It states if you are proposing a building that is
closer than 350 feet from a residential use, then it automatically requires a conditional use
permit (CUP). If the proposal was 350 feet away or farther from residential, then it wouldn't
need a conditional use permit and it would only need design review by the CDRB. The 350
foot rule puts an extra layer of review in the code that the city requires, including a public
hearing with the planning commission and approval by the city council. If the applicant had a
large site and everything was more than 350 feet away from residential there would be no
public hearing, it would only go to the CDRB for design review. So basically what staff is
trying to relay is the code allows buildings closer than 350 feet from residential but the
applicant has to go the through the conditional use permit (CUP) process.
Commissioner Trippler knows the CDRB typically reviews landscaping but he asked if the
planning commission would have any say regarding the landscaping for this project.
Mr. Ekstrand said because of the conditional use permit, the planning commission should
discuss the landscaping issues tonight, which is an important element of review.
Commissioner Dierich was troubled by the size and type of trees that are shown on the plan
for this project. Amur maple trees grow about 15 feet high and she considers them a shrub,
Techni Arborvitaes grow to about 10 feet in height and she also considers them a shrub, the
Dogwood cardinals are 4 to 6 feet in height and the Spring snow trees grow to be about 20
feet in height and are also considered to be a small tree and have to be planted in great soil.
The Amur maple trees are considered by the University of Minnesota to be a "junk" tree and
they don't want to see those kind of trees planted any longer. Because the trees appear to be
the size of large shrubs and she feels the city needs to be careful selecting trees that will
grow to a reasonable size if the neighbors feel strongly about having good screening.
Mr. Ekstrand said those are good points and the trees listed are almost all deciduous trees
which wouldn't provide screening all year.
Planning Commission -4-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody from the city has established if there are any wetlands
on this site?
Mr. Ekstrand said there are no wetlands on this site.
Commissioner Dierich said it appeared there are not enough handicapped parking spaces on
the plan.
Mr. Ekstrand said there are six handicapped parking spaces on the plan. The planning staff
and the building official will make sure there are enough handicapped parking spaces as
required by code.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Mr. Jim Kellison, President, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Blvd.,
Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the commission. He would like to address some of the
questions that were raised this evening. The fuel oil tank Commissioner Trippler was
referring to was crushed last Friday, October 14, 2005, with the intent of it being hauled away
to the proper refuse area. The tank was empty which was certified by the environmental
engineer on the project. The spillage that was seen wasn't from the fuel oil tank; the spill was
about 15 feet from where the fuel oil tank was and it was actually from a hydraulic line from a
piece of equipment that broke on Friday. They have been talking with the MPCA about the
situation, the fuel tank was removed, they are filing the appropriate reports with the MPCA
and there are no concerns with the site. The large holes Commissioner Trippler spoke of are
from the foundations that were removed from the site which were properly disposed of. The
tires and debris will be removed from the site. The dirt has been disturbed on the site and is
mostly from the removal of the homes. They are actually trying to help the Hmong American
Alliance Church to the north by doing some additional moving of dirt. When the church did
their parking lot on the south side of the property they have a six foot embankment where the
properties adjoin. The city engineer was requiring the Hmong American Alliance Church to put
a retaining wall in that area. When they submitted the plans for the Maple Leaf Ridge
Business Park, it became evident that they were going to be lowering the grade on this site.
Rather than the Hmong American Alliance Church spending $6,000 to $7,000 to build a
retaining wall that would be useless next spring, they agreed that while they had to demolish
the houses they would pull the dirt back in the area where the retaining wall would have been
required at the Hmong American Alliance Church. That way, because of the grade, the
retaining wall would not be required. The plan is to safely stock pile the dirt onsite so it will be
there to use once they get the proper permissions and permits from the city.
Planning Commission -5-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Mr. Kellison said the landscape plan that has been submitted tonight has been a long time
coming. They had two neighborhood meetings because they wanted to be responsible with
the neighbors and get their input. After the first neighborhood meeting they took objecting
information from the neighbors back to the office to rework. They made some changes to the
plan and submitted the plan to the city with four buildings on the site. Working with the city
engineer they found out the ponding was not going to work properly on the site. They asked if
their application could be temporarily withdrawn. They tried to get a special easement from
the Hmong American Alliance Church to store some of the storm water on the church site but
that attempt failed after about two weeks. Mr. Kellison said the plan was changed to three
buildings and had to have the new site plan redrawn by the architect.
Mr. Kellison said after going back and forth, the site plan finally went to the landscape
architect. He apologized for not having the landscaping plan in staff's possession last
Wednesday as he just received it on Thursday afternoon at which point the planning
commission packets had already gone out, Mr. Ekstrand said to bring the landscape plan to
tonight's planning commission meeting which is why the planning commission is receiving the
landscaping plan so late. In the original plan they were taking almost all of the berm out.
They have been working very hard to push the construction as far to the east as they can to
try to retain as much of the berm as they can. If there are trees on the berm that they can save
they intend to save them. Further north on the property they are creating a berm that will be
about four or five feet high and then plant the trees on top of the berm to help screen the new
buildings from the residential homes. Mr. Kellison said the owner has access to spruce trees
that are 12 to 14 feet tall so they don't plan on planting six foot tall trees that would take many
years to reach maturity. If they need to plant a double row of trees or alternate the plantings to
fill in the gaps then that is what they will do. They have offered to the neighbors a fence on
their property to help with the screening. The neighbors were told if they wanted more
screening the owner offered to plant trees in their yard.
Commissioner Ahlness said he is sensitive to noise in residential areas and looking at
building #3 the trucks would be unloading on the back side of the property where the
residents are, he asked if there was any reason the vehicle traffic couldn't be in between the
buildings instead of facing the residents?
Mr. Kellison said the back of the building will not have second story offices or windows. On
the front of the building there will be a mezzanine area in each of the buildings and offices
that would have second floorwindows looking out. If you turn the building around the building
would have to be moved further to the west to allow for truck dockage and then you would
encroach on the setback even more. This way if you have the truck dock on the back side of
the building the building would be 250 feet away from residential. From an aesthetic
standpoint the courtyard between the two buildings becomes aesthetically more pleasing for
the owners and users of the facility.
Commissioner Yarwood asked if the commission could require the applicant to plant a double
row of trees to achieve better screening?
Mr. Ekstrand said yes that is something the planning commission could recommend.
Landscapers would probably say planting trees that close together is not good but the goal is
to provide screening from the industrial use to the residential homes.
Planning Commission -6-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Mr. Kellison said they would be willing to plant a double row of landscaping the only thing is
when you plant trees so close together you tend to lose the bottom growth and then you end
up with unattractive landscaping. They will do whatever it takes to achieve the 80% screening
on the west side of the site that is requested by the city. Regarding the number of
handicapped parking spaces, there are 155 parking spaces and the code is to have one
handicapped parking space for every 25 parking spaces, so they do meet that requirement
with the six handicapped parking spaces.
Commissioner Trippler asked what the width of the parking stalls would be?
Mr. Kellison said he believes the parking spaces would be 9 feet wide.
Mr. Ekstrand said the code requires 9'/z feet wide parking spaces.
Commissioner Trippler thought the code for parking spaces was for 10 feet wide?
Mr. Ekstrand said 10 feet wide is the requirement for retail or high turnover use. Office use
requires 9'/z foot wide parking spaces but the norm is 9 feet wide.
Commissioner Trippler said if the code requires 9'/z foot wide parking spaces why wasn't that
reflected in the staff report and why is the applicant stating the parking spaces would be 9 feet
wide?
Mr. Ekstrand said he forgot to measure the parking spaces for the staff report.
Mr. Kellison said he could be wrong on the width of the parking spaces and in fact they may
be 9'/z feet wide. Most cities require 9 feet wide parking spaces and that is why he assumed
they would be 9 feet wide. The architect is responsible for drawing the plans and for making
sure the parking is shown correctly on the plans. We will make sure whatever the code
requirement is for the parking space width that they follow that requirement.
Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the commission
regarding this proposal to come forward and the following residents spoke.
1. Ms. Melissa O'Connor, 2506 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the
commission.
Her biggest concern is the barrier between the homes and this area. There will be
outside lighting from the Acorn Mini Storage facility, the Hmong American Alliance
Church, and now for this development. There is already the noise from Highway 61 and
now there will be many new car dealerships built on Highway 61. Planting 12 foot pines
isn't going to screen the lighting and noise for the residents. There are 20 foot pines
there now and if they can be saved that would be nice. She is concerned about what
they will be dealing with living in this neighborhood with all the changes going on in the
area.
2. Mr. Daniel Ward, 2514 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission.
Planning Commission -7-
Minutes of 10-17-05
He would like the building reversed like Commissioner Ahlness mentioned to move the
truck docking area noise away from the residential homes. He realizes that would move
the building closer to the homes but the noise would move away from the homes and
would be in the best interest for the residents.
Mr. Ekstrand showed two alternative plans regarding flipping the buildings around and
rotating the site along with the pros and cons of changing the site plan and the affects
on the residents and or the affects for the developer.
Commissioner Trippler said the problem is the commission doesn't know what type of
businesses will be using this facility and what volume of truck deliveries they would be
receiving on the site so it's hard to decide if the site plan should be changed or left as it
is proposed.
3. Mr. Rick Cleve, 2498 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission.
Mr. Cleve and his wife just purchased and moved into their home a few weeks ago and
have not had the opportunity to attend the neighborhood meetings and they are trying to
get up to speed on this proposal. He is concerned about the berm on the back side of
the property and planting trees on top of the berm. How does one make sure the hours
of operation and the noise ordinance is followed? How will the rules be enforced?
Regarding the drainage pond, what type of security or protection will there be around
the pond to keep children from getting into the pond?
Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, addressed the commission. The policy in the City
of Maplewood is we do not install fencing around ponds. The city has found thatfences do not
keep people out of the ponds. Fences hinder the rescues and hinder the ability to get into the
ponds if one needs to get to the pond. This particular pond is designed at one foot contours
so you can walk in and you can walk out and the contours are at a very gentle slope.
Commissioner Dierich asked what the height is going to be for buildings 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Kellison said building #3 will be 21 feet high from the slab to the top of the wall and where
the truck docks are it will be 25 feet high, building #1 is going to be 22 feet in the front and
sloping to 24 feet high, and building #2 will be 22 feet high.
Commissioner Dierich said she liked the idea of flipping the buildings around. It seemed to
her that building #3 would be best served in the front and she understands the neighbors may
not like having the office building overlooking the pond but it seemed to her looking at the
pond would be much more interesting to look at. There may be grading issues that prohibit
that from happening but that is what she would prefer to see.
Planning Commission -8-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Mr. Kellison said the site from east to the west slopes dramatically downward so if they had
the loading dock to the east they would have to move all the dirt from the east to the west.
This property would then be lower than the adjacent Hmong American Alliance Church and
the Acorn Mini Storage. There is also the problem of getting the drainage to flow to the back
of the property so it reaches the pond. That is the main reason the loading dock faces the
ponding area. When they had four buildings on this site the buildings were all at the same
grade and there weren't any loading docks. But once they changed the plan from four
buildings to three buildings they added a loading dock area because this is the only way they
could market these condominium buildings. If they moved the loading docks to the center of
the site then they would have to have more retaining walls on both sides of the property
because the back property would be much lower. From an engineering standpoint it becomes
practically impossible to move the water to the rear of the property.
Commissioner Dierich said she is only thinking of what is best for the neighbors.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Yarwood said he wasn't sure the issue of noise was answered but there is a
condition in the staff report that states no construction noise between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Mr. Kellison said the city has an ordinance that states no noise before 7 a.m. and no noise
after 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sundays. He understands there
is a condition that states the hours of operation. They have to be concerned about the type of
users they will have in these buildings because they have to be members of the same
homeowners association and the uses have to be compatible. An example of the users they
are working with to sign agreements with for these units are a medical supplier, a window and
door company, a general contractor and development company, and an accounting firm.
Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be possible to join building #1 and building #2
together? The concern he has is building #1 is going to stick out in front of Acorn Mini Storage
and the Hmong American Alliance Church by about 40 feet. If you join the two buildings
together it would put the buildings more in line with the other businesses.
Mr. Kellison said that 40 feet is the exact dimension between buildings #1 and #2 and that is
the truck access alleyway that is required to get trucks to the dockage area.
Commissioner Grover said what kind of truck traffic are you thinking of for building #3?
Mr. Kellison said there will be an occasional over the road truck going in there but it's not
going to be a significant number of trucks, maybe 3 or 4 truck deliveries a week. Mostly the
city size trucks would be visiting these sites. Because all of the condominium units are not
sold yet they are not sure of the volume. For instance, for the window and door company they
would receive a delivery once or twice a week. Then smaller trucks would deliver the supply
to the customers.
Commissioner Grover said given the fact that there would be large trucks making deliveries
will there be enough room for large trucks to maneuver around the dock area?
Planning Commission -9-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Mr. Kellison said yes.
Commissioner Dierich said she assumed the hours for truck unloading would be included in
the ordinance for hours of operation.
Mr. Ekstrand said that's the way the ordinance is intended to work. The city does not want
trucks making deliveries before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. There shouldn't be semi -trucks idling at
the truck docks either. As far as the general contractor business that may occupy one of the
condominiums there should not be any materials stored outside. All of these situations that
the city is concerned about not knowing for sure what businesses are going to occupy these
spaces and could be possible nuisance issues. A conditional use permit would be required if
one of the tenants had a special situation. This way the city can control what happens on the
site and keep track of situations like this.
Mr. Kellison said the city has these ordinances in place to eliminate potential problems. If one
of the tenants do not obey the city ordinances the neighbors can call the city to complain and
have the situation taken care of.
Commissioner Desai asked if the neighbors would still be able to see the buildings with the
berm built up and the trees double planted?
Mr. Kellison said yes they will.
Commissioner Desai said as he sees it the neighbors will be sitting on their decks or in their
backyards and hear the noise from this office building area then.
Mr. Kellison said even with the berm and the trees double planted you will still be able to see
the building even if it were 500 feet away. Sound travels no matter how much planting or
screening you do. The plantings will help but it will not eliminate the sound traveling in the
area. The property is zoned for commercial construction and for the types of uses they are
intending to build here and they are not asking for anything unique for this type of use. They
have the right to develop this property under the ordinances of the city. There will be some
potential noise from this development but there are other businesses that are operating seven
days a week that will make noise at all different times of day or night or on the weekends. He
lives 3 miles from Highway 35E and he still hears semi trucks and motorcycles at night so it
doesn't matter how far away you live from something outside noises travel.
Commissioner Trippler said he didn't do a line of site but one of the residents allowed him to
go into his backyard to see what could be seen. The noise is most likely going to be coming
from the street or road level. The combination of the berm and the trees will help buffer the
sound barrier. If you are on the second level of the home you will see more of the
development and may hear more noise but the ground level noise will be helped by the buffer
area and the trees.
Commissioner Kaczrowski asked if the applicant considered going from three buildings to two
buildings and making the buildings larger?
Planning Commission -10-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Mr. Kellison said that becomes impractical. These buildings are being sold as condominiums
and there is a certain size limitation of what people are willing to buy as far as size goes and
you can get yourself out of a market. They feel they can achieve things with the type of
product they have proposed here.
Commissioner Dierich asked how much closer the buildings would be if you flipped the
buildings around? She likes the building facades and she likes the three buildings but is
struggling with the plan she is looking at.
Mr. Ekstrand said if he lived here he would rather look at the front fagade of a building rather
than looking at a loading dock but that is for the neighbors to decide on. However, flipping
the buildings puts the more decorative office site facing the neighbors and it puts the dock
area between buildings 2 and 3 and places the buildings 150 feet from the residential homes
compared to 250 feet from residential as the plan stands now.
Commercial Dierich asked how feasible it would be to flip this plan around? She would
recommend reworking this plan to make it better for the neighbors.
Mr. Kellison said he isn't sure what the neighbors preference is but this plan works the best
for grading and drainage on the site and the least amount of retaining walls on this site.
Commissioner Trippler said he understands the visual benefit of turning the building so the
neighbors would see the front facade as opposed to the back of the building but from the
standpoint of the visual impact the berm and the trees would help the neighbors not to see the
back of the dock area.
Commissioner Dierich said she wasn't thinking so much of the neighbors looking at the rear of
the building she was thinking of the noise coming from the dock area.
Commissioner Trippler said it seems to him that would be defeating the purpose because he
would think there will be less noise from the rear of the building at the dock area compared to
having cars driving in and out from the front of the office building which would have a higher
noise level impact. If you flip the buildings around then the buildings are 100 feet closer to the
residential homes. Given the constraints the applicant has, this is the better plan.
Commissioner Ahlness asked if the public hearing had already closed?
Chairperson Fischer said the public hearing was officially closed.
Commissioner Pearson said when looking at the elevations, such as elevation C3, it would be
nice if the commission could see the housing elevation with approximate windows on the first
and second story with the line of site and any berms on the site.
Commissioner Trippler said you can typically assume the second story window would be at
about 10 feet high so if you are standing in someone's yard the second story windows would
be at about 16 feet high at the line of site.
Planning Commission -11-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Commissioner Grover said a number of commissioners have been asking questions that
would be nice to get answers to regarding how the neighbors feel. Would it be appropriate to
reopen the public hearing so the commission can get those answers?
Chairperson Fischer asked the commissioners if they wanted to reopen the public hearing?
The commissioners agreed.
Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and address
some of the issues the commission had.
Ms. Melissa O'Connor, 2506 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission
again.
Ms. O'Connor said with the original proposal for four buildings and the aesthetically pleasing
side of the building facing the homes, if you eliminate one of those buildings why couldn't the
applicant keep the buildings back 250 feet and have the building fagade facing the homes as
opposed to the 150 feet they said they would have to have the buildings at if we looked at the
nice side of the building? The homes here are three levels and will overlook these buildings.
Commissioner Yarwood asked which side of the building the neighbors prefer to see?
Ms. O'Connor said she prefers the buildings be 350 feet away but if they had a choice
between looking at the nice side of the building at 150 feet away and have more vehicle traffic
compared to looking at the docking area and having the building at 250 feet away and less
vehicle traffic, she would prefer to have the buildings farther away with a lot of screening and
landscaping and look at the docking area with less vehicle traffic.
Mr. Rick Cleve, 2498 Adele Street North, Maplewood, addressed the commission.
Mr. Cleve said Mr. Kellison said they were going to bend over backwards to create a berm
and screen the buildings and he wondered how that would be accomplished with working with
the neighbors. He just doesn't want to see the berm and the trees taken down one day. He
wants to get a feel for what type of interaction is going to take place between the neighbors
and applicant.
Mr. Ekstrand said the CDRB will be looking at the physical elements such as building design,
landscaping, lighting etc. to make sure that it meets city code and lessen impacts on the
neighborhood and then it goes to the city council for the final decision.
Chairperson Fischer asked when this proposal would be going to the CDRB?
Mr. Ekstrand said this was going to go to the CDRB on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, but since
staff just got these plans tonight it may not be ready in time and may have to be delayed until
Wednesday, November 9, 2005, (delayed one day because of election day) and then on to
the city council on either November 14, 2005, or November 28, 2005.
Planning Commission -12-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Mr. Kellison said as far as the four buildings versus the three buildings goes the difference is
that with the four buildings they had 56,000 square feet of buildings and when they took the
fourth building out the third building had to get a little larger so they could get to 52,000
square feet. They are not selling as much product as they had anticipated and they are taking
a significant economic impact to build this plan. He said they would be very happy to have a
small committee of one to three people from the neighborhood that they could meetwith to go
over the design and landscaping issues and to answer any questions or fears the neighbors
would have. One of the neighbors could write things down and turn the notes into the city so
the city is aware of the discussions that took place.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing for the second time.
Commissioner Pearson said he thinks under condition number 9. he thinks there should be an
addition stating there should be dust control and street sweeping done. An example of this
problem is the 3M project to keep the dirt from building up and causing problems.
Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for
a proposed building setback of 250 feet from the rear lot line for an office/industrial
condominium development at 2488 and 2497 Maplewood Drive. 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 construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date-stamped October 11,
2005. The director of community development may approve minor changes.
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 hours of operation shall be limited to the city's hours for noise control for the
westerly building as stated in Section 18-111 of the city code. This means that there
shall be no noise generated between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Saturday or and all day Sunday. This condition applies to any and all business activities
occurring on the west side of Building #3. The applicant's sale or lease agreements
should specify this.
5. The site lights, west of Building #3, the westerly building, shall be turned off after 10
p.m. unless required to e on by the police department for security reasons. The lights on
the west side of Building #3 shall also be of a design that conceals the lens and bulbs of
these light fixtures. Light -intensity maximums must meet code requirements.
6. Combine the two legal descriptions into one legally -described lot prior to obtaining a
building permit for this development.
Planning Commission -13-
Minutes of 10-17-05
7. Provide a landscaping/screening plan, including a double row of trees along the west
boundary prior to the issuance of a building permit, which provides a visual screen that
is at least 80 percent opaque and six feet tall. This screen shall be an all -seasons buffer
of items like decorative fencing, berming or evergreen trees. This visual screen shall be
provided along the rear of the property and extend from there along both side lot lines to
the rear of the property and extend from there along both side lot lines to the rear
setback line of Building #3. This plan may take into account existing vegetation and
existing screening.
8. Meet all requirements of the community design review board and city code for
architectural design, landscaping and site lighting and parking ordinance.
9. Meet all requirements of the city engineer for site grading, drainage and erosion control,
dust control and roadway dirt build-up.
Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes — Ahlness, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover,
Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood
The motion passed.
Commissioner Trippler said he is going to support this proposal. However, he wanted to
express his displeasure with receiving two important elements the evening of the meeting.
Particularly the landscaping plan that was just received this evening. This was one of the
largest concerns of the neighbors and for the commission to have to make decisions on
whether to approve of something or not in such short notice is unacceptable to him. Next time
he would vote to table the proposal because of incomplete information.
Commissioner Ahlness said a statement was made such as truck traffic will be minimal and he
is sure the applicant in good faith thinks that is what will happen. Over time condominium
ownership could change and things could happen and he would encourage the neighbors to
keep a close eye on things. If something should happen in this development the neighbors
should call the city with their concerns. It takes a lot of work to get things done in the city
because years ago he complained to the city and it took a long time to get things taken care.
He would encourage the applicant to be a good neighbor and make sure the tenants know
what the city ordinances are and what the association rules of the building will be for the
neighbor's sake.
Planning Commission -14-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Commissioner Dierich said she is not supporting this plan. She agrees with Dale Trippler that
it is unacceptable to receive two important elements and expect the commission to vote on
something with no notice or review of the material. For her there will be no next time. She
would have tabled this proposal for incomplete plans. She will be voting nay on this proposal.
Even though Mr. Kellison has the right to develop the property he is still coming to the city
asking for a conditional use permit (CUP) which means the city has the right to say "how" the
property is developed. She thinks this proposal is going to come back and bite the city later.
Neighbors should monitor this development once this proposal is finished and she doesn't
think the neighbors will get a good response once they do call the city to complain. That
happens a lot. She believes you should stop the problems before they start rather than going
retrospectively and solving the problems later. She likes the building elevations Mr. Kellison
showed the commission and she likes the plan but it could be worked on a little bit more.
Commissioner Yarwood asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition as well that
requires the developer meet with the designated representatives of the neighborhood at
appropriate times during the development of this property so that contact between the parties
is maintained?
Mr. Roberts said that could be a separate motion to suggest that to the city council to decide
on.
Commissioner Yarwood moved that the developer meet with the designated representatives
of the neighborhood on an ongoing process regarding the landscaping and screening issues
of the property.
Commissioner Desai seconded.
Commissioner Ahlness said that motion is too broad and a more appropriate statementwould
be that the residents should have an opportunity to comment on the landscaping plan and
those comments would be seen by staff and the city and other boards prior to it being
approved, but opening it up to other phases of the construction is inappropriate.
Commissioner Grover said the way it was laid out by the developer was that this would be an
ongoing conversation and not a conversation that would end when the city council made the
final decision because the development would be after it was approved by the city council.
The trees would be kept or taken out after the fact; given the fact the city council has the final
decision on things. Commissioner Grover said it is placing a condition as part of the CUP and
what was suggested by the residents and approved by the developer. It's not the commissions
desire to establish a timeline but just so the conversation continues as part of the resolution.
Commissioner Yarwood said some verbal agreements were made here tonight and to ensure
there are no surprises for the neighbors and the developers as this project goes forward he
would recommend conversations between the groups.
Commissioner Grover said the motion is to alert the city council that this is something the
commission is thinking about as well.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-05
15 -
Commissioner Ahlness said the ongoing nature of talking about the landscaping plan and the
aspects of the berm and the grading are very important but he would hate to see this
conversation expand into other issues of the construction plan and cause unfair economic
cost to the developer to pause the development. He understands the concept but he doesn't
agree with the wording.
Commissioner Trippler said he didn't hear the developer say anything regarding the citizen
committee being able to dictate anything, he said he would be happy to meet with them,
discuss things with them, and that a neighbor should keep notes from the meetings and
convey issues that were brought up back to the city. He is assuming the developer is willing to
listen to what the neighbors say but he may not be able to implement things because of the
economic issues. The commission just wants to let the city council know they have a strong
need to make that recommendation and encourage the discussions continue with the
neighbors.
Commissioner Grover said this is not binding on either party but the nature of the landscaping
is one of the last things done in a development and it will be an ongoing conversation through
most of the development.
Mr. Ekstrand said once the city council approves the landscaping the city has a final plan so
there should not be any changes to the plan afterwards. The applicant and the neighbors can
have a dialogue but if they decide to change the landscaping plan after it was already
approved by the city council the applicant will have to come through the city process again
with those changes to be approved.
Commissioner Trippler said the community development director can make minor changes to
the plan without going through the whole process again.
Mr. Ekstrand said that is correct.
Mr. Roberts said just for everyone to be aware when a development is done and they have
their building final the developer looks to obtain final occupancy and requires a certificate of
occupancy. In order to get the certificate of occupancy, the planning staff has to go out and
check for the proper requirements to be complete and done correctly. Staff goes out to count
parking spaces, trees, plantings and checks the lighting etc. then the Community
Development Department can issue a certificate of occupancy.
Chairperson Fischer called the question.
Commissioner Desai seconded
Kaczrowski,
The motion passed.
Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover,
Trippler, Yarwood
Nays — Ahlness, Pearson
Planning Commission -16-
Minutes of 10-17-05
Commissioner Ahlness said he voted nay because the motion was too broad and he
feels granting the neighbors the ability to influence a project beyond landscaping could
possibly delay the project and is unfair to the developer.
Commissioner Pearson said he voted nay because the motion allows the possibility to
high jack the project.
This item goes to the city council on either November 14 or November 28, 2005.
Agenda Item K3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
DATE: November 22, 2005
RE: Wine & Strong Beer Liquor Licenses
Introduction
Edward Unangst has submitted a request for wine and strong beer liquor licenses for Pei
Wei Asian Dinner to be located at 3095 White bear Avenue.
Backuound
Mr. Unangst has lived in Utah and Oregon in the past and is currently living in
Burnsville. He has been in the food service industry for numerous years. He had
excellent references with one business reference that has known him for nine years
describing him "as a person of integrity."
Chief Thomalla has personally met with Mr. Unagst to discuss measures to eliminate the
sale of alcohol to underage persons, general security and retail crime issues, and the
Maplewood Liquor Ordinances.
In the course of this investigation, state criminal history files were checked along with
contacts and warrants in the following jurisdictions: Woodbury, Eden Prairie, St. Paul,
Burnsville, Dakota County, Minnesota, Sherwood, Oregon, South Jordan, Utah, South
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, Salt Lake City, Utah and Salt Lake County, Utah.
Recommendation
Nothing was identified in the background check that would prohibit Mr. Unangst from
holding a liquor license.
Agenda Item K4
Fiw ;I L'U7il N ;I Oel:41
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Capitol Region Watershed District Draft Rules
Resolution Requesting Time Extension for Comment Deadline and City
Involvement in Developing Acceptable Rules and Standards
DATE: November 18, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Capitol Regions Watershed District has undertaken the rulemaking process and has completed a draft set
of rules and technical standards which they intend to implement to achieve the goals and policies set forth
in their Watershed Management Plan.
Background
A small portion of Maplewood resides within the Capitol Regions Watershed boundaries. Approximately
600 acres, just south of County Road B and west of McMenemy Street, lies within the district (see attached
map). The draft rules (attached) as proposed by CRWD will have major impacts on public and private
development in Maplewood. The most notable impacts will occur on public road reconstruction projects
where municipalities will be held to the same standards as private developers. The new rules also create a
60 day review period that begins once a contractor has been selected on public projects. This would
reduce the construction season by two months for pubic projects.
Under state statute 103D.337 for watershed districts, a technical advisory committee shall be established
consisting of cities, counties and soil and water conservation districts. A technical advisory committee has
not been established to assist Capitol Regions Watershed District in the development of the permitting
requirements.
The draft rules by Capitol Regions Watershed District will have significant impact on public construction
projects in Maplewood. The 45 day comment review period for the draft rules needs to be extended to
allow for the establishment of a technical advisory committee to develop acceptable rules and standards for
the permitting process. The cities of St. Paul, Roseville and Falcon Heights have adopted similar
resolutions requesting a time extension for the comment deadline.
It should also be noted that Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District is also considering
implementing similar permitting rules. The majority of Maplewood lies within Ramsey Washington Metro
Watershed District.
N xK1LVA LVA l4 L1U11i'll! I Eel L11
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution Requesting a Time Extension for
Comment Deadline and City Involvement in Developing Acceptable Rules and Standards.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Requesting a Time Extension for Comment Deadline and City Involvement in Developing Acceptable Rules and Standards
2. Watershed Map (Color map provided to Mayor and Council.)
3. Draft Rules
Agenda Item K4
RESOLUTION REQUESTING A TIME EXTENSION FOR COMMENT DEADLINE AND CITY
INVOLVEMENT IN DEVELOPING ACCEPTABLE RULES AND STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the Capitol Regions Watershed District (hereinafter, the "CRWD") was established on
September 24, 1998. Approximately 600 acres of the City of Maplewood is within the CRWD. The CRWD
also includes portions of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Roseville and St. Paul: and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2005, the City of Maplewood was notified by the CRWD that completed
draft rules and technical standards were ready for review within a 45 -day time period that was set to end on
November 29`h, 2005 at 4:30 pm; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the draft rules and technical standards proposed by CRWD and has
identified a number of concerns. The draft rules and standards have the potential to affect construction
projects, including but not limited to, commercial and residential developments and redevelopments, street
reconstruction projects, new street construction projects, and maintenance operations of storm sewer
systems. The following questions and concerns have been identified and are listed below:
1. The 60 day permit review period has the potential to reduce the construction season for
public projects by two months as the contractor must sign the permit application.
2. Municipalities are exempt from the permit fee, but must provide cash surety for 125% of
the storm water facilities within the construction project.
3. Runoff volumes must be reduced by 1 inch over all impervious areas and 90% of solids
must be removed for a 2.5' event. There may not be available right of way or public
property to accommodate this requirement in neighborhood street reconstruction projects
and the cost to obtain additional property would be great.
4. How is the infiltration requirement met in areas with poor soils?
5. Pretreatment of runoff is required prior to infiltration. What constitutes pretreatment?
6. The draft rules and standards do not address a minimum development size requiring a
permit.
7. What are the additional costs to maintain the required pretreatment and infiltration
facilities?
WHEREAS, City staff believes the 45 day review period ending on November 29`h, 2005 has not
provided sufficient time for the city to submit appropriate comments regarding technical,
engineering and cost benefit analysis of the draft rules and technical standards, and
WHEREAS, a technical advisory committee has not been established as required by state statute
103D.337 requiring the establishment of a technical advisory committee, consisting of cities,
counties and soil and water conservation districts by watershed districts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
that the City of Maplewood requests Capitol Regions Watershed District to establish a technical advisory
committee to assist in determining appropriate draft rules and technical standards and also requests the
comment review period be extended beyond November 29`h, 2005 to allow the City of Maplewood to
provide thorough comments.
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUNDARIES (green)
City of Maplewood, MN
Is
L
............
�q- n�' rORfl OW.4b.A "Cel'Mrs
nwy
L
1N.111 : — � suse R"
x sees: wo", 00"
" A REP
'A L
is
Nu Weebahed A Dakk
CAPITOL REGION
Les; TAKA551ppi
.!d
v ?&94k%1 111W31Y
.... . ... ....... . (WAGE LAKE
LEIK&O MIN NFPOTA POGO
Klls IOKTR M1111roGM ATOG
Ell
add, I
up
U MOV :141 a Kee r XNA-
PP., AIRPEAl
RAPMEYVVA-HING'rO*
�4-
KIM
FAMSE Y ACRLLK OA H:NG rON-Rd,'r Rl
able
s7 PPAISKYVVOSH WON -
Fit] RO'COU I h WIAHVIG PLAI
GAP—
LL
4as data GULF
P Net CRELK
— I : :
ud(E
'17T ------ 7TCID,
PeRTWO
SIX MAP
OPLILAIS I ME AVA
VAINALS LAKE JAQP-
HE A
VALLVY BRAWL
kmR.qAhAd5
SceAlPav,%e Labels
—Y
A�
H'
a I'd
v"p :2E
I FA P JZ
-TTTFTT
'IT
DISCLAIMER: This map igneither a legally recorded map nor a survey and isnot intended to be used as one. This map is compilation ofrecordq, information and
data located in carious city, county, state and federal officegand other sources regarding the area shown, widigto beused for reference purposes only.
SOURCES. Rilmsev County (October 31, 2005. The Lawrence (jrPup.;0ctober3l,2005 for Count parcel brid propertyrecords data Jaamarv200-5 for commercial and residential data; April 8, 2003 for color aerial
Region Watershed District
1410 Energy Park Dr., Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108
Phone: (651) 644-8888 Fax: (651) 644-8894 www.capitolregionwd.org
DATE:
October 10, 2005
TO:
Interested Stakeholders
FROM:
Mark Doneux, District Coordinator
RE:
Draft Watershed Rules
As you are aware the Capitol Region Watershed District has undertaken the rulemaking process during
2005. The District has a draft Rule completed that is now ready for review. The District will accept
comments on the draft Rule during a 45 -day review period which will end November 29, 2005. All
comments must be received by the District by November 29, 2005 at 4:30pm. Comments can be
mailed, or faxed to the numbers listed above.
The District will be holding a public hearing to accept comments on the draft rules at the regularly
scheduled board meeting of November 16, 2005 (6pm).
The District will be holding two informational meetings to review the proposed rules and answer any
questions that stakeholders may have. These informational meetings will be October 28, 2005 at 10:30
am and November 1, 2005 at 1:30 pm at the CRWD offices. At any point during the review period
District staff will be available to discuss the rules with you. Please call Bob Fossum or myself if you
have any questions.
The appendices of the SONAR are available at the District office upon request.
enc: SONAR Draft Rules Distribution List
Draft Rules, latest revision 10/05/2005
SONAR for Watershed District Rules (w/o appendices)
cc: CRWD Board of Managers w/enc.
W:A07 Programs\Rules\Proposed RuleADraft Rule Distribution Cover Letter 10-10-2005.doe
"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District. "
egion Watershed District
1410 Energy Park Dr., Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108
Phone: (651) 644-8888 Fax: (651) 644-8844 www.capitolregionwd.org
Draft Rule, Distribution List, 10/1012005
Randy Kelly, City of St. Paul
Mary Erickson, City of St. Paul
Bob Sundquist, City of St. Paul
Mike Kassan, City of St. Paul
Anne Weber, City of St. Paul
Bruce Elder, City of St. Paul
Bob Bierscheid, City of St. Paul
Jodi Martinez, City of St. Paul
Don Ganje, City of St. Paul
Brian Tourtelotte, City of St. Paul
Susan Kimberly, City of St. Paul
Sherri Pemberton, City of St. Paul
Larry Soderholm, City of St. Paul
Janeen Rosas, City of St. Paul
Larry Zangs, City of St. Paul
Tom Beach, City of St. Paul
Erin Labree, City of Maplewood
Chuck Ahl, City of Maplewood
Richard Fursman, City of Maplewood
Heather Worthington, City of Falcon Heights
Greg Hoag, City of Falcon Heights
Deb Bloom, City of Roseville
Duane Schwartz, City of Roseville
Dennis Welsch, City of Roseville
Thomas Pasehke, City of Roseville
Neal Beets, City of Roseville
Brian Bakken -Heck, City of Lauderdale
David Twa, Ramsey County
Ken Haider, Ramsey County
Terry Noonan, Ramsey County
Tom Petersen, Ramsey Conservation District
Beth Nevendorf, MN Department of Transportation
Steve Woods, BWSR
W:1,07 ProgramsARulesAProposed RuleADistribution List for Draft Rule.doc
"Our mission is to protect, manage. and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District. "
Capitol Region Watershed District Rules
Adopted XJXXl200X
General Policy Statement
The Capitol Region Watershed District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, established
under the Minnesota Watershed Law. The District is also a watershed management organization as defined
under the Minnesota Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, and is subject to the directives and
authorizations in that Act. Under the Watershed Law and the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the
District exercises a series of powers to accomplish its statutory purposes. The District's general statutory
purpose is to conserve natural resources through development planning, flood control, and other conservation
projects, based upon sound scientific principles.
As required under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the District has adopted a Watershed
Management Plan, which contains the framework and guiding principles for the District in carrying out its
statutory purposes. It is the District's intent to implement the Plan's goals and policies in these rules.
Land alteration affects the rate, volume, and quality of surface water runoff which ultimately must be
accommodated by the existing surface water systems within the District. The watershed is 40.6 square miles and
highly urbanized.
Land alteration and urbanization has and can continue to degrade the quality of runoff entering the waterbodies
of the District due to non -point source pollution. Sedimentation from ongoing erosion processes and
construction activities can reduce the hydraulic capacity of waterbodies and degrade water quality. Water
quality problems already exist in all of the lakes and other water resources of throughout the District. The
Mississippi River is the principle receiving water for all runoff from the District and is listed by the EPA as
"impaired" for nutrients. Como Lake, a high priority water resource of the District, is also listed as impaired.
Projects that do not address the increased rate or volume of stormwater runoff from urban development can
aggravate existing flooding problems and contribute to new ones. Projects that do not address the quality of
runoff can aggravate existing water quality problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which fill floodplain
or wetland areas without compensatory storage can aggravate existing flooding by reducing flood storage and
hydraulic capacity of waterbodies, and can degrade water quality by eliminating the filtering capacity of those
areas.
In these rules the District seeks to protect the public health and welfare and the natural resources of the District
by providing reasonable regulation of the District's lands and waters to reduce the severity and frequency of
flooding and high water, to preserve floodplain and wetland storage capacity, to improve the chemical, physical
and biological quality of surface water, to reduce sedimentation, to preserve waterbodies' hydraulic and
navigational capacity, to preserve natural wetland and shoreland features, and to minimize future public
expenditures to avoid or correct these problems.
Relationship of Capitol Region Watershed District to Municipalities
The District recognizes that the primary control and determination of appropriate land uses is the responsibility
of the municipalities. Accordingly, the District will coordinate permit application reviews involving land
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page I of 14
development with the municipality where the land is located.
The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that water resources are managed in
accordance with District goals and policies. The District intends to begin implementing these rules effective
February 1, 2006. All developments that do not have municipal approval on or before February 1, 2006 will
require a permit. Municipalities have the option of assuming a more active role in the permitting process after
adoption of a local water management plan approved by the District by adopting and implementing local
ordinances consistent with the approved plan.
The District will also review projects sponsored or undertaken by municipalities and other governmental units,
and will require permits of the contractor in accordance with these rules for governmental projects impacting
water resources of the District. These projects include but are not limited to, land development, road, trail, and
utility construction.
The District desires to serve as technical advisor to the municipalities in their preparation of local surface water
management plans and the review of individual development proposals prior to investment of significant public
or private funds. To promote a coordinated review process between the District and the municipalities, the
District encourages the municipalities to involve the District early in the planning process.
Rule A: Definitions
For the purposes of these rules, the following words have the meanings set forth below.
References in these rules to specific sections of the Minnesota Statutes include any amendments, revisions or
reeodification of those sections.
Best management practices (BMPs) - measures taken to minimize negative effects on the environment as
documented in the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (MBWSR,
1988) and Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2005).
Board of Managers — the board of managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District.
Criteria - specific details, methods and specifications that apply to all permits and reviews and that guide
implementation of the District's goals and policies.
Development - any proposal to subdivide land, any land disturbing activity, redevelopment affecting land, or
creation of impervious surface, including but not limited to, road construction or reconstruction or improvement
and construction or reconstruction of stormwater conveyance systems.
District - the Capitol Region Watershed District established under the Minnesota Watershed Law, Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 103D.
Drainageway — all water conveyance systems including but not limited to storm sewers, ditches, culverts, and
open channels.
Excavation - the displacement or removal of soil or other material.
Floodplain - the area adjoining a watercourse or natural or man-made water basin, including the area around
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 2 of 14
lakes, marshes and lowlands, that is inundated during a 100 -year flood.
Floodway - the channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining
floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment so that the I00 -year flood may be carried without increasing
the 100 -year flood elevation by more than 0.5 feet.
Floodway fringe - the area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100 -year flood.
Governmental project - projects sponsored or paid for by a governmental agency.
Land Disturbance — alteration of the existing surface material to the point of exposing the underlying soil
material or the placement of fill on a site.
Low floor - the lowest level of a structure, usually the basement or walk -out level.
Major drainageway - any drainageway having a tributary area of 200 acres or greater.
Municipal Approval — obtaining, in writing, all necessary zoning, building, platting, planning,
grading/demolition permits and approvals for construction of the development.
Municipality - any city wholly or partly within the Capitol Region Watershed District.
NURP - Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
Ordinary high water level (OHW) - the elevation delineating the highest water level which has been
maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water level is
commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly
terrestrial. For Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands the Minnesota DNR determines the OHW.
Parcel - any quantity of land capable of being described with such definiteness that its location and boundaries
may be established.
Person - any natural person, partnership, unincorporated association, corporation, Iimited liability company,
municipal corporation, state agency, political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
Public waters - all waters identified as public waters under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision
15.
Public waters wetlands - all wetlands identified as public waters wetlands under Minnesota Statutes section
103G.005, subdivision 15a.
Standards - a preferred or desired level of quantity, quality, or value.
Subdivision, subdivide - the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or
more parcels, tracts, lots.
Trout Brook Interceptor — that portion of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer that is owned and operated by the
District.
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 3 of 14
Watercourse - a channel that has definable beds and banks capable of conducting confined runoff from
adjacent land.
Wetland - any area identified as wetlands under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 19.
Rule B; Permit Procedural Requirements
1. Application Required. Any person undertaking an activity for which a permit is required by these rules
shall, prior to commencing work, submit to the District a permit application, engineering design data and such
other information and exhibits as may be required by these rules. All permit applications must bear the original
signature of the landowner, or for governmental projects the selected contractor.
2. Forms. Permit applications must be submitted on the form provided by the District. Applicants may obtain
these forms at the District office.
3. Time For Application. A complete permit application which includes all required exhibits shall be received
by the District at least 21 full days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting date of the Board of Managers. Late
submittals or submittals with incomplete exhibits will be scheduled to a subsequent meeting date.
4. Action By Board Of Managers. The Board of Managers shall act within sixty days of receipt of a complete
permit application. A complete permit application includes all required information, exhibits, fees and surety.
5. Issuance Of Permits. The Board of Managers will issue a permit only after applicant has satisfied all
requirements for the permit, has paid all required District fees, and the District has received any required surety.
6. Permit Term. Permits are valid for an eighteen -month period from the date of issuance unless otherwise
suspended or revoked. To extend a permit, the permittee must apply to the District in writing, stating the
reasons for extension. Any plan changes, and related project documents must also be included in the extension
application. The District must receive this application at least thirty days prior to the permit's expiration date or
the extension will be treated as a new permit.
7. Permit Assignment. A permittee may assign a District permit only upon consent by the Board of Managers
to the assignment.
8. Standard. The Board of Managers may grant the assignment of an issued permit if it finds the following
conditions have been met:
(a) The proposed assignee in writing agrees to assume all the terms, conditions and obligations of the permit
as originally issued to the permittee.
(b) The proposed assignee has the ability to satisfy the terms and conditions of the permit as originally
issued.
(c) The proposed assignee is not changing the project as originally permitted.
(d) There are no violations of the permit conditions as originally issued
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 4 of 14
(e) The Board of Managers has received from the proposed assignee any required surety to secure
performance of the assigned permit.
9. Permit Fees. The District will charge the applicant permit fees in accordance with the following fee
schedule:
Erosion Control Permit Only
Cash Surety Amount
ule F Only
500
$2,000/acre
Stormwater Management, Wetland, and Flooding Permits*
Stormwater Management Facilities
ule C, and/or Rule D, and/or Rule E
$1500
Connection to Trout Brook Interceptor
ule G
$500
*An additional $500 fee will be charged to applicant if the project involves a Wetland Replacement or Banking
Plan.
Procedure And Payment Of Fee. Applicant must submit the required permit fee to the District at the time it
submits its permit application.
Governmental Agencies Exempt. The fees described above will not be charged to the federal government, the
State of Minnesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, or local governmental unit.
Any development that has begun prior to the issuance of a permit will be subject to permit fees of twice the
amount listed above.
10. Performance Surety.
(a) Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to conserve the District's water resources by assuring
compliance with its rules. Cash surety will be used as a reimbursement source for staff/engineering
inspections.
Requiring a bond or other surety to secure performance of the permit conditions and the District rules is an
effective way to conserve the District's water resources.
(b) Performance Surety Requirement. A cash surety in an amount set forth below must be submitted to the
District with each permit application for the activities described below:
Description of Activity
Cash Surety Amount
1.
Grading associated with Development
$2,000/acre
2.
Stormwater Management Facilities
125% of estimated construction cost
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 5 of 14
The surety amount will be calculated as follow:
(Acres of Development * $2,000) + (1.25 * Est. Construction Cost of Stormwater Facilities) = Surety
An applicant may submit a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit to the District to secure
performance of permit conditions for activities for which the required surety amount as determined
above is in excess of $5,000. The performance bond or letter of credit must be submitted with the permit
application. The first $5,000 of the surety must be a cash surety. For amounts over $5,000, a cash
surety, performance bond or letter of credit is acceptable.
(c) Form and Contents of Performance Bond or Letter of Credit.
(1) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in a form acceptable to the District
and from a surety licensed to do business in Minnesota.
(2) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in favor of the District and
conditioned upon the performance of the party obtaining the performance bond or letter of credit of
the activities authorized in the permit, and compliance with all applicable laws, including the
District's rules, the terms and conditions of the permit and payment when due of any fees or other
charges required by law, including the District's rules. The performance bond or irrevocable letter of
credit must provide that if the performance bond conditions are not met, the District may make a
claim against the performance bond or letter of credit.
(d) Release of Performance Surety. The District will inspect the project to determine if it is constructed in
accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules. If the project is completed in accordance with the
terms of the permit and District rules and the party providing the performance surety does not have an
outstanding balance of money owed to the District for the project, including but not limited to unpaid permit
fees, the District will release the performance bond or letter of credit, or return the cash surety if applicable.
11. Other Permits And Approvals. It is the permit applicant's responsibility to secure all permits and
approvals that are required by other governmental authorities, and provide the District proof that applicant has
submitted these permit applications.
Rule C: Storm -Water Management Plans
1. Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
• Reduce runoff rates to levels that allow for stable conveyance of flow throughout the water resources of
the District.
• Require rate control practices on all development to preserve runoff rates at a level that will not cause
the degradation of water resources.
• Limit runoff volumes by utilizing site designs that limit impervious or incorporating volume control
practices such as infiltration.
• Minimize connectivity of impervious surfaces to the stormwater system.
• Require the use of effective nonpoint source pollution reduction BMPs in development projects.
• Protect and maintain downstream drainage systems to provide permanent and safe conveyance of
stormwater. Reduce the frequency and/or duration of potential downstream flooding.
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 6 of 14
• Reduce the total volume of stormwater to protect surface water quality and provide recharge to
groundwater.
• Remove sediment, pollutants, and nutrients from stormwater to protect surface water quality.
2. Regulation. A permit and stormwater management plan are required under this rule for development of a
site.
3. Design Criteria For Stormwater Management Plans. Stormwater management plans must comply with
the following criteria:
• Peak discharge rates for developments must be at or below existing rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year
storm events.
Developments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the
impervious areas of the site. Stormwater must be pretreated to remove solids before discharging to
infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.
Infiltration rates will be assumed based on soil type as listed below, unless onsite infiltration tests are
completed that indicate otherwise.
Hydrologic Infiltration
Soil Group
Rate
Soil Textures
A
0.50 in/hr
sand, loamy sand, or sandy loam
B
0.25 in(hr
silt loam or loam
C
4.10 in(hr
sandy clay loam
D
0.,03 in/hr 11clay
loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or clay
Source: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, SCS, .Tune 1986
• Developments must incorporate effective non -point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90°%
solid removal for the NURP water quality storm (2.5" rainfall). For the 90% removal calculation
volume reduction will be considered.
• Where stormwater management facilities are proposed, a maintenance agreement must be submitted and
approved by the District. The agreement shall specify the methods, schedule, and responsible parties for
maintenance. The executed agreement must be submitted for recording with the County within 10 days
of the issuance date of the permit. Public developments will require a maintenance agreement in the
form of a Memorandum of Agreement or an approved Local Water Management Plan that details the
methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance of stormwater management facilities for
permitted development.
4. Required Exhibits. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two
sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "x17."
• (a) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
• (b) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off-site, proposed and existing
subwatersheds on-site, emergency overflows, and drainageways.
• (c) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities' location, alignment and elevation.
• (d) Delineation of existing on-site wetland, marshes, shoreland and/or floodplain areas.
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 7 of 14
• (e) Identification of existing and proposed normal, and ordinary high and 100 -year water elevations on-
site.
• (f) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a 2 -foot contour interval.
• (g) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management facilities, including
design details for outlet control structures.
• (h) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 2-, 10- and 100 -year critical events, existing and
proposed conditions.
• (i) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the proposed
stormwater management facilities.
• 0) Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.
• (k) On-site soil boring indicating soil type
5. Exceptions.
(a) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in size for all land uses,
unless such development:
(1) Is within the 100 -year floodplain and greater than 1,000 sq. ft.
(2) Is within 300 feet of a public water or protected wetland and greater than 1,000 sq. ft.
(b) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to construction on individual lots within a residential
subdivision approved by the District, provided the activity complies with the original development plan.
(c) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for farming, research, or
horticulture.
Rule D: Flooding
1. Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
Encourage water quantity controls to ensure no net increase in the impacts or potential for flooding on or
off the site and, where possible, address existing flooding problems.
Oppose floodplain filling for new residential developments
Encourage floodplain development only in a manner that is compatible with the dynamic nature of
floodplain.
2. Regulation. No person may alter or fill land below the 100 -year flood elevation of any public water, public
water wetland or other wetlands without first obtaining a permit from the District.
3. Criteria.
• A structure's lowest floor elevation must be 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level of adjacent ponds
and water bodies.
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 8 of 14
Placement of fill within the 100 -yr floodplain is prohibited, unless compensatory storage is provided.
Compensatory storage must be provided on the development or immediately adjacent to the
development.
4. Required Exhibits. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two
sets, reduced to maximum size of I V x 17".
• (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the
work area, ordinary high water elevation, and regional flood elevation.
• (b) Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes.
• (c) Preliminary plat of any proposed land development.
• (d) Determination by a professional engineer or qualified hydrologist of the local 100 -year flood
elevation before and after the project.
• (e) Computation of change in flood storage capacity resulting from proposed grading.
• (f) Erosion Control Plan.
• (g) Soil boring results if available.
Rule E: Wetland Management
1. Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
• Manage wetlands to achieve no -net loss of acreage and values and where possible, strive to enhance the
functions and values of existing wetlands within the District.
• Identify wetland restoration and creation sites to enhance water quality and/or restore natural habitats.
• Interact with cities in the administration of the Wetland Conservation Act if desired by the cities.
2. Regulation. No person may fill, drain, excavate or otherwise alter the character of a wetland without first
obtaining a permit from the District.
3. Criteria.
Wetlands shall not be drained, filled wholly or in part, excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such
that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland. Wetland impacts will
be evaluated based on the following principles in descending order of priority. Avoid the impact to the wetland,
minimize the impact to the wetland, replace the wetland that was impacted. Wetland impacts will be governed
by a Rule comparable to the Wetland Conservation Act, with the following exceptions:
1. The de minimis size will be zero.
2. Flexibility Sequencing will not be allowed.
3. Public Value Credits can not be used for replacement.
4. All other WCA non -temporary impact exemptions to wetlands will not be allowed.
A 25 -foot buffer of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is
required.
4. Local Government Unit. The District intends to serve as the "local government unit" for administration of
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 9 of 14
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, unless a particular municipality in the District has elected to assume
that role in its jurisdictional area. Notwithstanding the above, the District will continue to require wetland
alteration permits under this rule.
5. Required Exhibits. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two
sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "X17."
(a) Site plan showing:
(1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(2) Existing and proposed elevation contours with at least a 2 -foot contour interval, including the
existing runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet, and spoil disposal areas.
(3) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, excavated or otherwise altered.
(b) Complete delineation of the existing wetland(s), supported by the following' documentation:
(1) Identification of the delineation method used in accordance with the 1987 Manual.
(2) Identification of presence or absence of normal circumstances or problem conditions
(3) Basin classification using the Cowardian method and Circular 39.
(4) Wetland data sheets, or a report, for each sample site, referenced to the location shown on the
delineation map. In each data sheet/report applicant must provide the reasoning for satisfying, or not
satisfying each of the technical criteria and why the area is or is not a wetland.
(5) A delineation map showing the size, locations, configuration and boundaries of wetlands in
relation to identifiable physical characteristics, such as roads, fence lines, waterways, or other
identifiable features.
(6) The location of all sample sites and stakes/flags must be accurately shown on the delineation
map. Delineations submitted by applicants will normally be field -verified by District staff.
Applicants must leave stakes in the field to aid review of the site. Wetland delineations should be
performed during the normal growing season for this area of the State of Minnesota (May 1 -
October 15). Delineations performed outside this time frame may or may not be permitted,
depending on potential wetland impact in relation to the entire development or project.
(c) A replacement plan, if required, outlining the steps followed for the sequencing process and including
documentation supporting the proposed mitigation plan,
(d) A wetland functions and values assessment comparison before and after project.
(e) An Erosion Control Plan.
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 10 of 14
6. Exceptions.
Rule E and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for farming, research, or
horticulture, unless the activity results in draining or filling the wetland.
Rule F: Erosion Control Plans
1. Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
• Prevent the export of sediment off site, which impacts surface water quality.
2. Regulation. A permit and an erosion control plan are required for development on a site.
3. Design Criteria For Erosion Control Plans.
Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.
4. Required Exhibits. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two
sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 NIT'.
(a) An existing and proposed topographic map which clearly indicates all hydrologic features and areas
where grading will expose soils to erosive conditions. The Plan must also indicate the direction of all site
runoff.
(b) Tabulation of the construction implementation schedule.
(c) Name, address and phone number of party responsible for maintenance of all erosion control measures
(d) Identification of all temporary erosion control measures which will remain in place until permanent
vegetation is in place. Examples include, but are not limited to: Seeding with perennial vegetation,
mulching, sodding, silt fence, erosion control matting, and hay bale filter barriers.
(e) Identification of all permanent erosion control measures such as outfall spillways and riprap shoreline
protection, and their location.
(f) For projects over 1 acre of graded area, documentation that the project applicant has applied for a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
(g) Tabulation of all earthwork cut -and -fill volumes and computation of any floodplain volume and/or
wetland area changes.
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 11 of 14
5. Exceptions.
(a) Rule F and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in size for all land uses,
unless such development:
(1) Is within the 100 -year floodplain and greater than 1,000 sq. fl.
(2) Is within 300 feet of a public water or protected wetland and greater than 1,000 sq. ft.
(b) Rule F and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for farming, research, or
horticulture.
Rule G: Connections to Trout Brook
I. Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
• Regulate new direct connections or replacement of existing connections to Trout Brook Interceptor so
that the connection is completed in a manner that does not compromise the integrity of the Trout Brook
Interceptor.
• Not allow new direct connections to Trout Brook Interceptor if the connection will cause or exacerbate
conveyance problems in the system
2. Regulation. A permit and stormwater management plan is required under this rule for new direct connections
and replacement of existing connections to Trout Brook Interceptor.
3. Design Criteria For Connections to Trout Brook Interceptor.
Connection plans must comply with the following criteria:
• New direct connections and replacement of existing connections will be completed using a method that
is approved by the District.
• Peak flow rate, the total volume of flow, and the timing of the flow for new connections must be
managed to not cause new water conveyance problems or exacerbate existing water conveyance
problems in the Trout Brook Interceptor. Enlargement of existing connections is considered a new
connection.
4. Required Exhibits. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two
sets, reduced to maximum size of I 1 "x 17."
(a) Property lines and delineation of lands identifying ownership.
(b) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities' location, alignment and elevation.
(c) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a 2 -foot contour interval.
(d) Construction plans and specifications of proposed connection, including design details, connection
method, and timing of connection.
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 12 of 14
(e) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 2-, 10- and 100 -year critical events, existing and
proposed conditions.
(f) Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.
(g) On-site soil boring indicating soil type
Rule H: Enforcement
1. Violation of Rules is a Misdemeanor. Violation of these rules, a stipulation agreement made, or permit
issued by the Board of Managers under these rules, is a misdemeanor subject to a penalty as provided by Iaw.
2. District Court Action. The District may exercise all powers conferred upon it by Minnesota Statutes Chapter
103D in enforcing these rules, including criminal prosecution, injunction, or action to compel performance,
restoration or abatement.
3. Administrative Order. The District may issue a cease and desist order when it finds that a proposed or
initiated project presents a serious threat of soil erosion, sedimentation, or an adverse effect upon water quality
or quantity, or violates any rule of the District.
Rule J: Variances
1. Variances Authorized. The Board of Managers may hear requests for variances from the literal provisions
of these rules in instances when their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the property under consideration. The Board of Managers may grant variances where it is
demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of these rules.
2. Standard. In order to grant a variance the Board of Managers must determine that:
(a) Special conditions apply to the structure or land under consideration that do not apply generally to other
land or structures in the District.
(b) Because of the unique conditions of the property involved, undue hardship to the applicant would result,
as distinguished from mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the rules was carried out. Economic
considerations alone shall not constitute undue hardship if any reasonable use of the property exists under
the terms of the District's rules.
(c) The proposed activity for which the variance is sought will not adversely affect the public health, safety,
welfare, will not create extraordinary public expense, will not adversely affect water quality, water control,
drainage in the District.
(d) The intent of the District's rules is met.
3. Term. The term of a variance shall be concurrent with the associated permit.
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 13 of 14
4. Violation. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the District rules, and
shall automatically terminate the variance.
WA07 Programs\Rules\Proposed Rule\CRWD draft Rules 45 -day review 10-6-05.doe
CR WD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 14 of 14
Adopted 10/0512005
egian Watershed District
1418 Energy Park Dr., Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108
Phone: (651) 64440M Fay. (651) 644-8894 www.capitolregionwd.org
Statement of Need and Reasonableness
(SONAR) for Watershed District Rules
The Capitol Region Watershed District (District) is in the process of promulgating Rules pursuant to
MN Statutes 103D.341. This SONAR serves as the justification for Watershed District Rules. This
document contains two sections, the first section describes the need for Watershed District Rules and
the second section describes why the District feels the proposed rules are reasonable. Table 3 on Page
5 summarizes the actions taken by the Board of Managers over the past five years leading up to and
through the development of the SONAR and proposed Rules.
Assessment of Need for Watershed District Rules
The Capitol Region Watershed District (District) was established September 24, 1998 by the Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). In the order that created the district it states: "The Board of
Managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District should highly consider to:... set target pollutant
loads and improve the water quality of Lakes Como and McCarron and require erosion control for
development and redevelopment.". (See Appendix A).
Subsequent to the establishment order, the District completed a Watershed Management Plan (WMP).
The Plan was the result of input received from many interested citizens, organizations, and
stakeholders. The Plan was adopted December 14, 2000. It called for a multi -faceted approach to
protect and improve the water resources of the District. One of the approaches was the incorporation
of stormwater management best management practices within the watershed as development and
redevelopment occurred. ` Section N-7 of the WMP, Resource Based Performance Standards &
Watershed Rules, sets forth a plan to develop standards and ensure that they are achieved as
development and redevelopment occurs in the District. (See Appendix B) Section IV -7 of the WMP
set forth a review process with interim performance standards and provided for the creation and
adoption of Rules.
During 2001 and 2002, the District developed Memorandums of Understanding (MOLD with each of
the member Cities with the exception of St. Paul. (See Appendix C) The MOU set forth a review and
comment process that would be utilized by the District and the Cities. It provided a method to
incorporate site design changes into the final city approval that would allow the development to meet
CRWD — Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) for Watershed District Rules October 5, 2005 Page 1 of 5
"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District. "
the District's Development Review Criteria. The Development Review Criteria was developed in
2002 and adopted by the District on September 5, 2002. The intent of Development Review Criteria
was to, in part, achieve the goals and policies of the WMP. The criteria required developments and
redevelopments to address rate control, volume control, water quality treatment, flooding, wetland
protection, erosion and sediment control, and integrated resource management on their sites. (See
Appendix D)
During 2003-2005, the District assumed an advisory role to the Cities with development and
redevelopment proposals. The advisory role consisted of review and comment in reference to the
District's Development Review Criteria. The Cities would consider the comments and attempt to
incorporate suggested changes to the greatest extent possible into the final approval. During 2003-
2005, the District reviewed 71 developments or redevelopments (through 10/0I/2005). (See Appendix
E) The District tracked compliance with all of the development review criteria and found marginal
compliance with the criteria. The volume control and water quality criteria had the poorest level of
compliance. Additionally, there were problems associated with the CRWD being made aware of the
developments very late in the process or not at all. The main problem with of late notification was that
site plans were completely developed and very difficult and costly to change at that late stage of the
process. Developers were usually unwilling to make changes after they had received municipal
approval and the city staff was either unable or unwilling to compel the developer to make the changes
as well.
To assess the impact of non-compliance with the Development Review Criteria, the District completed
the Development Impact Assessment in November 2004. (See Appendix F) This assessment analyzed
the long-term impact that the current level of compliance would have on the water resources of the
District. The study found that if development/redevelopment continued in the manner it had in the
past, the peak rate and total volume of flow, as well as the amount of phosphorus being delivered to
receiving water bodies would increase. The District's goal of improving conditions with the watershed
by achieving a decrease in rate and volume of flow, as well as a 60% reduction in phosphorus loads
was clearly not being met under the current development review process. Table I summarizes the
findings of the Development Impact Assessment:
Table 1 - Development Im
act Assessment SummaKy Table, CRWD - November 2004
Criteria
CRWD Goal/Standard
Results from Stud
Rate Control
0% Increase
5 Yr Storm - 13.2% Increase
100 Yr Storm - 28.7 % Increase
Volume Control
0% Increase based on existing
runoff volumes or that of site
with 25 °IQ impervious surfaces
5 Yr Storm - 24.2% Increase
100 Yr Storm -13.7 % Increase
Water Quality
60% Reduction
9% Increase
Based on these results using the development review criteria and the significant long-term impacts that
would result from non-compliance, the District concluded that the voluntary development review
process has not and would not achieve the goals and policies of the District's WMP.
On December 13, 2004 the District held a meeting with the member cities and indicated its intention to
promulgate Rules.
CRWD - Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) for Watershed District Rules October 5, 2005 Page 2 of 5
"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District."
Assessment of the Reasonableness of the Proposed Watershed District Rules
The District initiated the rulemaking process January 5, 2005 and adopted a workplan and schedule
that would conclude with rule adoption at the end of 2005. (See Appendix G) The workplan had two
phases, the first was to draft the Rules and the second was the formal adoption process dictated by MN
Statutes 103D.341. The District's philosophy was to provide multiple opportunities for stakeholder
input and to work closely with adjacent watershed districts to have as much consistency as possible
with our rules.
In April of 2005, the District, partnering with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District,
completed Rulemaking Study Phase I. (See Appendix H) The goal of the study was to evaluate how
stormwater BMP's could be incorporated on densely developed sites to achieve the District's
Development Review Criteria. The Rulemaking Study Phase I analyzed three previously approved
sites that did not fully meet District Development Review Criteria. The three sites were evaluated in
reference to District criteria for rate control, volume control, and water quality to determine if: A) Is it
possible to achieve the current District criteria, and if so what would the stormwater BMP's be and
how much would they cost; OR B) If it is determined that it is not possible to meet the current
development review criteria, then alternative attainable criteria should be developed and the BMP's
used and their associated costs should be detailed. The District retained four firms, which each
independently completed the analysis. By having multiple firms complete the study it showed that
multiple designs/approaches were available to achieve the District's criteria on densely developed
sites. The Rulemaking Study obtained multiple objectives towards Rulemaking including:
• Reevaluating the original Development Review Criteria
• Exploring potential alternative Development Review Criteria
• Providing examples of how previously noncompliant developments could be brought into
compliance
• Giving an indication of the costs of complying with various technical criteria
• Providing a valuable tool to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing our new rules
Based on the analysis completed during the Rulemaking Study Phase I, the District developed and
adopted draft technical standards for Rules. (Appendix I) The draft technical standards for Rules were
simpler and easier to interpret than the original Development Review Criteria and in some cases were
less restrictive. Major changes were made to the volume control and water quality criteria. The
integrated resource management criterion was not included in the draft technical standards for Rules.
To further evaluate the draft technical criteria for Rules, the District completed the Rulemaking Study
Phase II in June 2005. (Appendix J) The second phase of the Rulemaking Study evaluated the same
three sites analyzed in the Phase I but utilized the draft technical standards for Rules. This second
phase of the Rulemaking Study in particular illustrated that the technical criteria for Rules were
practical, feasible from an engineering perspective and the costs were reasonable in reference to the
total project cost. Table 2 summarizes the findings of the Phase II Rulemaking Study from June of
2005.
CRWD — Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) for Watershed District Rules October 5, 2005 Page 3 of 5
"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capital Region Watershed District. "
Table 2 - Summary of Rulemaking Study Phase II, June 2005
Site Name
Stormwater
Estimated
Stormwater
Stormwater
Increased
Percent of Total
Practices
Total
Practice (s)
Practice (s)
Cost of
Development
fit within
Development
Cost from
Cost from
Stormwater
Cost for
existing,
Cost
City
City
BMP's to
Stormwater
City
Approved
Approved
meet CRWD
BMP's to meet
approved
Plan
Plan AND
Criteria
CRWD Criteria
site plan?
CRWD
Plant
CVS
Yes
$4,000,000
$73,215
$100,459
$27,245
0.68%
Pharm
I_
The Metro
Yes
$15,500,000
$75,977
$96,584
1 $20,607
0.13%
The
Yes
$22,000,000
$99,232
$139,372
$40,140
0.18%
Heritage
1—Average Cost based on three consultants data
On July 12, 2005, the District, in conjunction with RWMWD held a joint meeting with their member
Cities to solicit input on the draft technical standards for Rules. As the result of previous
collaboration, the District and R%WWD had the same standards for all criteria except wetland
management. The CRWD criterion for wetlands is more restrictive than the RWMWD because the
CRWD only has 1.4% of its wetlands remaining. The RWMWD has over 8% of its land area as
wetlands.
Based on comments received at that meeting and additional rule development efforts, the District
completed the drafting of the proposed Rule during August and September 2005.
On October 5, 2005, the District adopted the SONAR and authorized the distribution of the draft Rules
to interested stakeholders for review and comment. (See Appendix K) The District will accept
comments for a 45 -day period ending on November 25, 2005, and will hold a public hearing on
November 16, 2005. During the 45 -day review period, the District will hold a meeting with its
member Cities to review the draft Rules.
CRWD — Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) for Watershed District Rules October 5, 2005 Page 4 of 5
"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District. "
The table below is a summary of the actions Capitol Region Watershed District has taken in advance
of adoption of Rules as described above.
TABLE 3 — Summary of Actions taken by the Board of Manage s
Action
Timeline
Supporting
Documentation
Assessment of Need
Order from BWSR creates District
9/24/1998
Appendix A
District's Watershed Management Plan adopted
12/14/2000
Appendix B
District signs Memorandum of Understanding signed with all
member cities, except St. Paul
2001-2002
Appendix C
District adopts Development Review Criteria
9/5/2002
Appendix D
District assumes advisory role to Cities, Review and Comment
2003-2005
Appendix E
2003 Development Impact Assessment
2004
Appendix F
District conducts meeting with Cities and indicates intent to
promulgate Rules
12/13/2004
Assessment of Reasonableness
District Initiates Rulemaking Process and adopts Rulemaking
Workplan and Timeline
1/512005
Appendix G
District completes Rulemaking Study Phase 1
4/1/2005
Appendix H
District adopts draft Technical Standards for Rules
5/18/2005
Appendix I
District completes Rulemaking Study Phase II
6/13/2005
Appendix J
District/RWMWD hold joint meeting with Cities to solicit input
on draft technical standards for rules
7/12/2005
District adopts SONAR and authorizes distribution of draft Rules
for 45 -day review period
10/5/2005
Appendix K
W:A07 Programsaul&SONAR FINAL Oct 6 2005.doc
CRWD — Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) for Watershed District Rules October 5, 2005 Page 5 of 5
"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources ofthe Capitol Region Watershed District. "
Agenda Item K5
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Pubic Works Director/City Engineer
Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 06-16
Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing
DATE: November 18, 2005
INTRODUCTION
The feasibility study for the Kenwood Area Street Improvements is complete and is available for review in
the office of the city engineer. Final copies of the study will be made available to the city council prior to the
public hearing. The study includes information on the proposed improvements, proposed financing and
probable assessments.
The city council will consider accepting the feasibility study and ordering a public hearing.
Background
The proposed project area is illustrated on the attached project location map.
Street improvement for this neighborhood was listed on the city's capital improvements project plan. The
first neighborhood meeting was held in October to discuss the project with residents and they seemed
generally accepting of the proposed project. A second neighborhood meeting was held in November to
discuss the feasibility study and its findings prior to the public hearing.
The total project budget as reported in the feasibility study is $4,727,100. The project budget detailed in the
city's Capital Improvement Plan is $4,050,000. Increasing street improvement costs, and larger than
expected quantities of watermain replacement and storm sewer construction are some of the reasons for
this difference.
N xfieLVA LVA l4 L1U11A I IQ Ll
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution accepting the report and calling for a
public hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, December 12`h, 2005, for the Kenwood Area Street Improvements
project.
Attachments:
1. Resdution
2. Location Map
3. Executive Summary
Agenda Item K5
ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted June 13th, 2005, a report has been
prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the improvement of Kenwood Area Streets, City
Project 05-16, and this report was received by the council on November 28, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary,
cost-effective, and feasible,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA:
1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and
the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $4,727,140.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 12`h day of December,
2005 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of
such hearing and improvement as required by law.
E6
' VIKING DR. cn Keller
ry C/) w w La ke
O J w Q 0 Q
Jw O U C
w z [LAURIE CT. Q
cn rZ IIIEL�
BURKE CT,
BURK Moplecrest
AVE. Park
ELDRIDGE AVE.
cn
Oehrline
BELMONT
Lakecn
AVE. / SKILLMAN AV.
z
KEN OOD
J LN.
o w
Q
M o Cn m O
rY
w w z 6�
Edgerton w w Y
Park < J 0
(D
ROSELAWN AV. q�
BELLWOOD a-
0
SUMMER o
CT. w . 3:
cn �-- z z
Li
� U Y w z
z J w
Q Y
cn �TRAIL RI LP EY AV. GATEWAY
PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT NO SCALE
Exhibit 1: Project Location
Kenwood Area Street Improvements
City Project 05-16
Agenda Item K5
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
KENWOOD AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 05-16
1 *3 x014 0 1U X311 141 i41_1:>t I
The Feasibility Study and Report have been prepared for the Kenwood Area Street Improvements - City Project 05-16.
The proposed neighborhood project involves complete reconstruction of approximately 4 miles of residential streets.
Proposed drainage improvements in conjunction with the project include storm sewer construction and rain gardens.
Sanitary sewer and water main repairs would also be made as part of the project.
The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10% allowance for
construction cost contingencies and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs.
Proposed Improvement
Estimated Cost
Street Improvements:
$3,185,587
(67%)
Drainage Improvements:
$976,426
(21%)
Sanitary Sewer Improvements:
$ 343,244
(7%)
Water System Improvements:
$ 221.882
(5%)
Total estimated project costs:
$ 4,727,140
(100%)
It is proposed that the improvements be financed through a combination of special assessments to benefiting properties
and Maplewood funds. Estimated funding amounts from each of the financing sources are as follows:
Financing Source Amount
Street assessments: $ 1,356,608 (29%)
Storm assessments: $ 218,850 (5%)
Sanitary Sewer utility Fund: $ 443,245 (9%)
SPRWS Obligation:
WAC Fund
Environmental Utility Fund
City general tax levy:
Total
$ 72,490
(2%)
$ 30,000
(1 %)
$ 303,500
(6%)
$ 2.302.447
(48%)
$ 4,727,140 (100%)
The following is a proposed schedule for the project should the city council vote to proceed:
Receive feasibility study and order public hearing
11/28/05
Public hearing
12/12/05
Authorize preparation of plans and specs
12/12/05
Approve plans and specs/authorize advertisement for
bids 03/13/06
Bid date
04/15/06
Assessment hearing
04/24/06
Accept bids/award contract
04/24/06
Begin construction
05/01/06
Complete construction
10/31/06
Assessments certified to Ramsey County
10/09/06
Based on the analysis completed as part of this report, the proposed Kenwood Area Street Improvements project is
feasible, necessary and cost effective, and would be a benefit to the City of Maplewood.
Agenda Item K6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Manager
Bryan Nagel, Street Superintendent
SUBJECT: Approval of Snow and Ice Control Policy
DATE: November 21, 2005
INTRODUCTION
The City of Maplewood considers snow and ice control a top priority and emergency in nature. City staff
has established a written policy for snow and ice control. This document has established procedures which
will serve as a guide for dealing with winter weather situations.
City staff will review the policy after each season and make recommendations to the City Council. Staff
recommendations will be based on resident feedback, staff observations, and new practices and
technology in the industry.
N xK1LVA LVA l4 L1WIN I IQ L1l
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached proposal establishing a policy for snow and
ice control. Upon council approval, staff will ensure that the Snow and Ice Control Policy is placed on the
city's website.
Attachments:
1. City of Maplewood Snow and Ice Control Policy
Agenda Item K6
City Of Maplewood Snow and Ice Control Policy
PURPOSE Snow and ice control is necessary for public safety, routine travel, and emergency services. The
purpose of this policy is to establish procedures concerning snow and ice control. The following is a CUIDE for
winter operations. The City of Maplewood considers snow and ice control a top priority and emergency in nature. The
City of Maplewood currently maintains 122 centerline miles and 145 cul-de-sacs.
COALS
To monitor, in conjunction with the Maplewood Police Department and a weather service, road and weather
conditions 24 hours per day.
To allow emergency vehicles access during weather events.
i To maintain streets in a safe driving condition.
To perform snow and ice control in a timely and cost effective manner.
To have streets plowed to full width within 8 hours after snow has quit falling.
EQUIPMENT The Public Works department utilizes 8 single axel dump trucks, 2 tandem axel trucks, and 2 wheel
loaders all with main plows, side wings, and spreaders on the trucks. The use of a single one ton pickup is available
for some cul-de-sacs and designated trails.
PROCEDURES The Street Superintendent, or designated representative, determines when operations begin based
upon immediate and anticipated conditions. Each snow and ice event is unique due to the many changing weather
conditions. Maintenance requirements may vary for each event.
Freezing rain, sleet, ice The response can vary from a single truck to the entire fleet.
Snowfall of 2.5" or less The plowing plan varies depending upon temperature and time of year. In some
cases only high volume and collector streets will be plowed, with ice control applied at stop signs, hills,
bridges and curves. The superintendent may deem it necessary to complete a full plowing of the City if we
have had a series of nuisance snowfalls resulting in a buildup of snow on the streets.
Snowfall of 2" — 6" Depending on the timing of the event, every effort will be made to provide safe driving
conditions at critical times, mainly weekday mornings and evening rush hours. Once the snowfall has ended a
complete plowing will be performed. All plow routes will be re -checked and re -plowed as needed.
Snowfall of 6" or more Each route has main roads, collector streets and priorities such as hospitals, schools,
and health care facilities. Depending on the rate of accumulation and other weather factors it may be
necessary to continually plow these roads until snowfall has let up at which time we would move into
secondary roads and neighborhoods.
SNOW STORAGE Snow will be stored in cul-de-sacs. When possible, snow will be placed in the center of the
cul-de-sac, otherwise off to the side so as not to interfere with mail service or driveways. The City will remove the
snow by hauling. Timing of the hauling will be at the discretion of the street superintendent.
ICE CONTROL The City of Maplewood does not have a bare pavement policy. The City attempts to maintain
safe traveling roads for the general public. The City currently uses a mix of salt and sand. The City is monitoring new
technology and products for ice control, keeping in mind the cost and environmental concerns.
SIDEWALKS The City of Maplewood provides minimum winter maintenance on designated high usage
sidewalk/trail systems. The sidewalk/trail system will be opened within 48 hours of the completion of street
operations. The City uses two Bobcat skid steers with plow, broom, or blower depending on the snow event. The City
has no bare surface policy and uses no chemical, de-icing or sand treatments.
Agenda Item K6
BOULEVARDS The City will assume no responsibility for landscape, shrubbery, irrigation, or other materials
placed on the City owned right-of-way. The City, at its option, will repair turf damage as a result of plowing by re-
seeding or replacing sod.
MAILBOXES If a mailbox is struck directly by the plow the City will replace the mailbox. The replacement will
consist of a 4x4 treated post and a mailbox closely matching the one that was damaged. The City will not replace
decorative, ornamental or brick -type construction. Homeowners should inspect the installation prior to winter, check
for rotted post and missing hardware. Due to frost conditions, a permanent installation can not be made until spring.
REVIEW City staff will review the policy after each season and make recommendations to the City Council. Staff
recommendations will be based on resident feedback, staff observations, and new practices and technology in the
industry.
Agenda Item K7
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Maplewood City Council
FROM:
Will Rossbach, Council Member
DATE:
November 23, 2005
RE:
Visitor Presentations
I would like you to consider moving the visitor presentation item in our agenda up so that
it is positioned to follow agenda item D. approval of minutes and before current agenda
item E. approval of agenda.
You may recall that when I took office two years ago that I brought this to the Council at
that time and requested that we move the visitor presentations forward in our agenda to
have an opportunity to address the council on a non agenda item. At that time I could not
convince a majority of the Council to agree to this change so I dropped the issue. The
recent appointment of a new Council member has potentially changed the Councils
position on this issue and it is an important issue for me so I respectfully request that we
take the time to reconsider this issue.
I would consider this agenda item to be used as a time that residents could address the
Council on a non -agenda item. If we will be addressing an item later in the evening or at
an upcoming meeting any comments would be better stated at that time.
In order to maintain the continuity of the meeting we should limit the amount of time that
would be set aside for these presentations. I would suggest that a total of 15 minutes be
set as the limit. The people would sign up to speak just as we do for our public hearings
and the time would be divided between them. If you look at the past two years we have
rarely had anyone come to speak at the visitor presentation portion of the meeting and
we have only had more than one speaker a couple of times. I can only recall one
presentation that took more than five minutes and the majority of the time any
presentation was in the two to three minute category. It is of course possible that we
may get more people addressing us if the time slot was earlier in the meeting and if so
we should view that as a good development.
I believe that as a city that we need to start a process of reconnecting with the residents.
This of course is a very small step in that direction but because it is such a small step it
is one that we need to take. We need to continually look for opportunities to involve our
citizens in the process and this would be a signal that we are moving in that direction.