Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 11-13 City Council PacketNo Council/Manager Workshop AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, November 13, 2000 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 00 -23 A. CALL TO ORDER 130 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of Meeting 00 -22 (October 23, 2000) 2. Minutes of Council/Manager Workshop Meeting (October 23, 2000) E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine b the City y 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. Y 1. Approval of Claims 2. Financial Transfer for Unassessed Water Improvement 3. Increase in City Clerk Department Service Charges 4. Increase in Community Development Department Service Charges 5. Increase in Miscellaneous Service Charges 6. Appointment of Data Practices Compliance Official 7. Cancellation of Second Council Meeting in December 8. Revise Financing for Harvester Area Streets - Project 98 -10 9. 2001 SCORE Funding Application 10. 2001 Livable Communities Participation 11. Conditional Use Permit Review -Motor Vehicle Sales (2525 White Bear Avenue) 12. Conditional Use Permit Review - Choice Auto Rental (2923 Highway 61 North) 13. Adam Graf Fundraiser H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 P.M. Lot Width and Lot Area Variances (SE Corner of Roselawn Avenue and Kenwood Drive. East) 2. 7:10 P.M. Sign Size Variance - Maplewood Covenant Church (2691 White Bear Avenue) 3• 7:20 P.M. AT &T Monopole (1745 Cope Avenue) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Design Approval I. AWARD OF BIDS J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Canvass of the City Question - General Election - November 7, 2000 L. -VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 770 -4523 to make arrangements. Assistant Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some pules of civility the City of Maplewood expects o everyone appearing hoped that f �' pp ing at Council Meetings - elected officials, staff and citizens. It is ho p by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions can be heard and and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone wi emotions �' wi f ollow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep ns in check and use respectful language. MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, October 23 2000 Council Chambers, Munici al ' Municipal Building Meeting No. 00 -22 A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Cit Council Of Maplewood Minnesota • � was held in the Council called to order at 7:00 P.M. Chambers Municipal Building, and was , by Mayor Cardinal. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor y Present Sherry Allenspach, Councilm ember Present Kenneth V. Collins, Council member Present Marvin C. Koppen, Councilm ember Present Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilme mb er Present D• APPROVAL OF MI NUTE S : Councilmember Allens ach p moved to a rove the minutes of bresented. Meets Seconded by Councilmember ' Wasiluk Ayes - y all E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilmember Allens ach p moved to a rove the A end! as a mcnd cd: MI. Food Handling M2. Partnership M3. AMM M4. Bruentrup Farm M5. Fire Stations Seconded by Councilmemb Koppen Ayes - y all F. APPOINTMENTS / RESENTA,TIONS: None 10-23-00 20 00 1 G. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Collins moved to aDprove the Consent Agenda as resented: Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all 1. Approval of Claims Approved claims. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE $109. Checks #8391 thru #8397 dated 10/2 thru 10/4/00 $228,395.54 Checks #51673 thru #51764 dated 10 /10 /00 $872,119.62 Disbursements via debits to checkin g account dated 10/2 thru 1015100 $267.00 Check #8398 dated 10/6/00 $141,048.39 Checks #51767 thru #51848 dated 10/17/00 _ $184,3 80.49 Disbursements via debits to check ng accoUnt dated 10/06 thru 10/16/00 $1,535,538.07 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $309,895.79 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 10/13/00 24,422.68 Payroll Deduction check #80749 thru #80756 dated 10/13/00 $334,318.47 Total Payroll .$1,869,856.54 GRAND TOTAL 2. Ramsey County Sheriff Fright Farm -Fee Waiver -Boy Scouts Explorer Post #2 Waived the $43.00 temporary food pen fee for food to be sold by the Ramsey County Sheriff Department Explorer Post #2 at the annual Fright Farm. Monies collected for the food will be used by the Scouts for uniforms and supplies. 3. Edgerton Park Master Plan and Retaining rauer & Associates to ' g Provide Design Services Approved retaining Brauer & Associates to provide design services for g the Edgerton Park Master Plan. 4. Human Relations Commission Update Approved receipt of the Maplewood Human Relations Commission update on the activities they have undertaken to improve the human relations climate of the city. 10 -23 -00 2 5. Resolution Authorizing Soccer Grant Application Approved the following resolution authorizing submittal of a grant application for Ramse County Soccer Partners Program to light two soccer fields at Hazelwood Park: RESOLUTION 00 -10 -097 AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF GRANT APPLICATION FOR RAMSEY COUNTY SOCCER PARTNERS PROGRAM AND ACCEPTING ITS TERMS WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has established the Ramsey County Y Soccer Partners Program to accelerate the acquisition and development of youth soccer facilities p in Ramsey County, WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is directly involved in providing soccer ro rams and p g facilities for over 2,600 youth each year, AND WHEREAS, Ramsey County intends to award matching grants totaling 1 million in 2000 g , NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood Minnesota: 1. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to submit an application for the Ramsey County SOCCgr p�1�g�S p�'Q�T�'-c'� -viz +. 2. The City hereby accepts the terms of the grant program as set forth in the "Request for Grant Applications." q H. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 7:00 P.M. Countryside Volkswagen (1180 Highway 36 East) Front Setback Variance Conditional Use Permit D esign Approval a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. C. Director of Community Development Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Boardmember Matt Ledvina presented the Community Design Review Board report. ort. g p e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: 10 -23 -00 3 John Schmelz, 1180 East Highway 36, Owner /Applicant Chuck Levin, Charles Levin Architects, Architect for the Applicant Gordon Anderson, 2255 Duluth Street, Maplewood f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving an 11 -foot front setback variance for.John Schmelz's ro osed addition to the Count side Volkswa en showroom at 1180 Hig_hwa, 36: RESOLUTION 00 -10 -098 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. John Schmelz, of Countryside 'Volkswa en/Saab � applied for a variance from g the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to 1180 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: The west 105.00 feet of the east 135.00 feet of the north 30.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition and vacated street accruing. The east 240.00 feet of Block 15, Clifton Addition, except the south 30.00 feet lying west of the east 135.00 feet thereof. Together with that part of vacated Cope Avenue accruing. The east 240.00 feet of that part of Block 16, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of that part of Block 17, Clifton Addition, lying southerly of State Trunk Highway Number 36. The west 110.00 feet of Block 14, Clifton Addition, together with that part of vacated Cope p Avenue accruing. The west 225.00 feet of east 255.00 feet of Block 10, Clifton Addition, together with that p art of vacated Duluth Street accruing, except the south 174.00 feet and except the north 30.00 feet thereof. WHEREAS, Section 36- 28(c)(6)(a) requires buildings to be setback 30 feet from a front property line. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct his building addition with a 19 -foot and a 22- foot front setback. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of eleven feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 10-23-00 4 1. On September 19, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on October 23, 2000. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The 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. The proposed setback would be compatible with the neighboring Ember's Restaurant which is set back 20 feet from the front lot line. The majority of the proposed VW building front elevation would have a 22 -foot setback .and the entrance vestibule would be set back 19 feet. 2. The proposed building addition would create less visual impact than the approved Menard's building addition to the west that would meet the 30 -foot front setback requirement. This approval is subject to the applicant or contractor installing a landscape area on the north side of the proposed addition that equals at least half the distance from the face of the building to property line. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving _a revision to the conditional use permit for John Schmelz at Countryside Volkswagen to add onto the Volkswagen showroom at 1180 Highwa 36: RESOLUTION 00 -10 -099 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, John Schmelz applied for a conditional use permit revision to add onto the Countryside Volkswagen building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to Countryside Volkswagen at 1180 Highway 36 East. The legal description is: Subject to roads and easements; the West 110 feet of Blocks 14 and 17 and the East 240 feet of Blocks 15 and 16, Clifton Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, and Except the North 30 feet; and except the South 174 feet, the West 225 feet of the East 255 feet of Block 10 and also the West 105 feet of the East 135 feet of the North 30 feet of Block 10 Clifton Addition in Section 9, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 10 -23 -00 1. On September 19, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On October 23, 2000, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described conditional use permit revision, 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. 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. 10. There would not be a significant affect on the development of the parcel as zoned. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the proposed addition must be started within one year of council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 10 -23 -00 6 3. The city waives the required number of parking spaces, provided that all vehicles shall be parked on a paved parking lot. (This is a code requirement.) If the property owner chooses to continue parking cars in the back lot, he shall pave it to comply with city code. The property owner shall submit a paving plan to staff for approval. This plan shall include a detailed grading /drainage plan showing runoff calculations for the expanded parking area, along with recommendations by the Watershed District. Curbing may be waived if the city council in conjunction with the city engineer determines that it improves stormwater quality. 4. The property owner shall install and maintain screening along all south lot lines to meet the city code. The community design review board must review the screening plan. 5. There shall be no vehicle access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 6. The' city council shall review this permit in one. year. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes - all Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the plans, date - stamped August 7, 2000, for the proposed building addition to Countrvside Volkswagen, 1180 Highwav 36. Approval is subject to the property owner doing the following. 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Paving and curbing the back lot if they wish to keep parking on the grass (code requirement). The parking lot shall be at least 20 feet from any residential property and five feet from any nonresidential property. The applicant shall submit a paving, grading and drainage plan to staff showing runoff calculations for the expanded parking lot. Curbing maybe waived if the city council approves the curbing -code change and if the city determines that waiving the curbing would improve stormwater quality. 3. 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 cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. C. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 10 -23 -00 7 5. The applicant shall provide a landscape area on the north side of the proposed addition at least equal to half the distance from the face of the building to the property line. p Y 6. The applicant or contractor shall remove the fencing directly in front of the building. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes - all 2. 7:20 P.M. (7:34 P.M.) Emma's Place (NW Corner of County Road B and Van Dyke Street) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Design Approval a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. C. Director of Community Development Coleman resented the specifics of the report. p p p d. Boardmember and Commissioner Matt Ledvina presented the specifics of the Community Design Review Board report and the Planning Commission report. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Nelda Rhoades Clarke, Emma's Place, Applicant Terri Cermak, Cermak Rhoades Architects, Architect for Applicant Sue Bj ork, 1849 East County Road B, Maplewood Mary Claire Ryan, 593 Sterling Street South, Maplewood Brian Alton, 951 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, Attorney for the Developer Rod Johnson, 1935 East Larpenteur Avenue, Maplewood Joan Elton, 2685 East Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood David Elton, 2685 East Minnehaha Avenue, Maplewood Lon Sweeney, 934 Evar Street North, Maplewood Donna Brown, 1341 Pearson Drive, Maplewood Florence Sprague, 1890 Furness Street, Maplewood Cheryl Dobervich, 2523 Stillwater Road, Maplewood Margarert Chalkline, 1863 East County Road B, Maplewood Sarah Standefer, 10080 Hadley Avenue North, White Bear Lake Miriam Tschida, 2230 Van Dyke Street, Maplewood Roy Hardwick, 2182 Van Dyke Street, Maplewood Nelda Rhoades Clarke, second appearance f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for a 13 -unit townhouse develo ment t the northwest corner of County Road B and Van Dvke Street: 10-23-00 g RESOLUTION 00 -10 -100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Nelda Rhoades Clarke, of the Emma Norton Residence, applied for a conditional use permit to build a 13 -unit townhome development known as Emma's Place. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at the northwest corner of County Road B and Van Dyke Street. The legal description is: THE EAST 332.50 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE VACATED ALLEY THAT ACCRUED TO SAID LOTS 1 AND 2 BY REASON OF THE VACATION THEREOF AND TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF VACATED SANDHURST DRIVE THAT ACCRUED TO SAID LOT 1 BY REASON OF THE VACATION THEREOF LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE 332.50 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 1 AND 2 ALL IN BLOCK 29, SMITH AND TAILOR'S ADDITION TO NORTH ST. PAUL, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, AND SITUATED IN RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On October 2, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On October 23 2000, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 10-23-00 9 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The property owner shall see that the site is well maintained and properly managed. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - all Councilmember Koppen said that the design approval should include the following: to work with staff regarding adding shutters, window grids and dormers, and /or staggerin g the setback of the units on the County Road B side of the building. Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the plans date - stamped September 25, 2000 for the proposed Emma's Place townhome development at the northwest corner of County Road B and Van Dvke Street. Approval is subi ect to the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this proj ect. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. (2) The grading plan shall include building, floor elevation and contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. 10-23-00 10 (3) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. b. The fire marshal shall review and approve the site and landscape plans to make sure that fire-safety access needs would be met. C. Submit the following for staff approval: (1) Revised building plans and elevations that include (but not limited to) adding shutters, window grids and dormers in the roof area, staggering the setback of the units from County Road B and having the second floor of the units extend out past the first floor at least one foot (to breakup the vertical face or wall of the building). (2) Alawn - irrigation plan showing the location of sprinkler heads. (3) A site lighting plan showing the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. d. Have the Saint Paul Regional. Water Services (SPRWS) approve the utility plans. 3. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. C. Install ahandicap- parking sign for each handicap - parking space and addresses on the buildings (subject to city staff approval). d. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Van Dyke Street to match the driveway. e. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in- ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas (code requirement), f. Screen any roof -top mechanical equipment that would be visible from any neighborhood homes that may be placed on the commons building. g. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all driveways and around all open parking stalls. h. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed 10 -23 -00 11 lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. i. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if i , a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the ublic health safety p � Y or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount. shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building s occupied in g p the spring or summer. C. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - all I. AWARD OF BIDS None J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None K. NEW BUSINESS None L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None 10-23-00 12 M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. Food Handling - Mayor Cardinal said he had seen an article in the paper about problems in restaurants with poor hygiene, etc. and asked staff how the city handles any p roblems of this nature for the city and if there are any records that can be made available to concerned citizens. Director of Community Development Coleman said that the city has an Environmental Health Official who makes inspections to all commercial restaurants and anyone who has a food license gets inspected at least once per year and often up to three times Y er ear. She indicated that P records are kept on all those inspections. 2. Partnership - Councilmember Wasiluk said that the Red Ribbon Parade on October 7th was well attended and fun, and on behalf of the Partnership she thanked the groups and individuals who participated in the event. 3. AMM - Councilmember Wasiluk said that she has been attending the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities General Government and Transportation Committee meetings. She the AMM lobbies legislators in the state to share concerns from the cities. She wanted to encourage the Mayor and other councilmembers to attend the AMM annual meeting. g 4. Bruentrup Farm - Councilmember Wasiluk said she attended the Bruentrup Farm fundraiser and she said it was very successful and that the Maplewood Historical Society raised $1,200. 5. Fire Stations - Councilmember Wasiluk said she attended all the fire station open houses and that some of them were more attended than others. She invited everyone on Halloween to stop by their local fire station and have a treat. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS None O. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Wasiluk moved to adjourn the meetin at 8:37 P.M. Seconded by Councilmember Allenspach Ayes - all Karen E. Guilfoile, City Clerk 10- 23 -00, 13 T)2- City of Maplewood CITY COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP Meeting Minutes Monday, October 23, 2000 Council Chambers, Municipal Building 6:00 p.m. A. Call To Order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Cardinal at 6:05 p.m. B. Roll Call Mayor Robert Cardinal Present Councilmember Sherry Allenspach Present Councilmember Kenneth Collins Present Councilmember Marvin Koppen Present Councilmember Julie Wasiluk Present Others Present: City Manager Richard Fursman Community Development Director Melinda Coleman City Clerk Karen Guilfoile C. United Properties - Discussion of Hajicek Property Community Development Director Coleman told the council about the meetings she has had with Mr. Hajicek and United Properties. Director Coleman said the goal for tonight's meeting was to find something that works for Mr. Hajicek and for the city. Mr. Hajicek, who owns the 80+ acre piece of property next to the Mall, and his son Paul were present at the meeting. The following representatives from United Properties, who are listing the property for Mr. Hajicek, were present: Jason Meyer, Senior Associate of the Brokerage Division, Jeff Carriveau, Industrial Associate of the Brokerage Division, and Tony Kuechle, Project Manager of the Development Division. A discussion followed. The council didn't feel that this area could handle anymore high volume retail stores, such as a Target, a Sam's Club, or a Wal Mart, etc. Staff suggested that possibly high -end townhomes or service retail, such as a coffee shop, a drycleaners or an accountant would make more sense for this area. Other suggestions were to build affordable housing or a corporate business in this area. Mr. Hajicek would like to see one development on the property instead of different types scattered all over the property. The Mayor reassured Mr. Hajicek that the city wants to work with him on this project. It was agreed that a traffice study needs to be done. D. Reception for City Manager Mayor Cardinal would like to have an open house reception at the community center for City Manager Richard Fursman. The council and City Manager Fursman will decide on a date so that the community center can be reserved. E. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Cardinal moved and Councilmember Koppen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. W, ..�f4 ���L6 a o0 UNITED PROPERTIES October 18. 2000 All Council Members City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Council Members: We would first of all like to thank you for allowing us to meet with you prior to the October 23' council meeting to discuss the future development of the 80+ acre vacant land site near the Maplewood Mall. As many of you may already know, Robert and Lillian Hajicek have retained United Properties to assist them in the city approval process and actively market their land as available for sale to both the development community and interested users. The reason we would like to meet with you is to develop a consistent mixed use vision that will accomplish the following: 1. Achieve an acceptable sate price for the Hajicek family /trust. 2. Satisfy the long term goals for the City's future tax base. 3. Agree on current and future market conditions that will ultimately drive any sale as well as future development. Our objective in this meeting is to briefly talk about these issues and introduce the key contact people, and further understand the goals of the city as it pertains to this site. We very much appreciate your time and cooperation and look forward to meeting all of you and working on this project together. Again, thank you for your consideration. We too believe in Maplewood's motto, "Together We Can" Sincerely, / Jon than R. Yanta Jason J. eyer Jeff . Carriveau V 3500 West 80th Street, Minneapolis. MN 55431 612.831.1000 fax 612.893.8293 www.uproperties.com V ic Vic President President Senior Associate Senior Associate Industrial Associate . Industrial Associate 4 Bro Bro erage Division erage Division Brokerage Division Brokerage Division Brokerage Divison Brokerage Divison 952. 952. 0.8734 0.8734 952.820.8735 952.820.8735 952.893.8202 952.893.8202 A member of Oncor International Worldwide Real Estate Services AGENDA NO. AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: November 6, 2000 Attached is a listing of paid bills for informational purposes. The City Manager has reviewed the bills and authorized payment in accordance with City Council approved policies. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $35,492.34 Checks #8399 thru #8400 dated 10/17 thru 10/19/00 $104,816.41 Checks #51849 thru #51918 dated 10/24/00 $89,875.44 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 10/17 thru 10/23/00 $1,775.00 Checks #51919 thru #51922 dated 10/24 thru 10/25/00 $287,477.03 Checks #51923 thru #52029 dated 10/31/00 $165,303.37 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 10/24 thru 10/30/00 $109,541.52 Checks #52030 thru #52037 dated 10/31 thru 11/1/00 $261,003.24 Checks #52038 thru #52117 dated 11/7/00 $63,938.71 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 10/31 thru 11/06/00 $1,119,223.06 Total Accounts Payable " A XT" !1T T _ $443,917.27 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 10/27/00 $24,289.88 Payroll Deduction check #81036 thru #81041 dated 10/27/00 $468,207.15 Total Payroll $1,587,430.21 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 770 -4513 if you have any questions on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. hu Attachments SAAGENDAWPCL0006.NOV f. r apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 10/20/2000 10:33:55AM City of Maplewood Bank: wf WELLS FARGO BANK Check # Date Vendor Invoice 51885 10/24/00 01047 3M TP67278 10/19/00 Voucher: 51885 10/17/00 51852 10/24/00 00018 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES58603 61.63 Voucher: 51852 57174 51853 10/24/00 00085 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAR M161750 MEALS AT DISASTER SCENE Voucher: 51853 DOG BOARDING 51854 10/24/00 00100 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, 8765 10/17/00 Voucher: 51854 10/19/00 51855 10/24/00 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES283 63.90 Voucher: 51855 495.00 51856 10/24/00 00121 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SE6013- 138109 REPAIR WIRES AT WAKEFI EL Voucher: 51856 AD FOR BIDS 51857 10/24/00 00152 BAN ICK, JOHN 101300 10/20/00 Voucher: 51857 10/18/00 51858 10/24/00 00174 B E LD E, STAN 101200 Voucher: 51858 51859 10/24/00 00178 BERGGREN, GORDON 57180 Voucher: 51859 51913 10/24/00 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC 3319633 Voucher: 51913 51860 10/24/00 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISS 101200 Voucher: 51860 51861 10/24/00 00221 BROCK WHITE COMPANY, LL SP20185601 Voucher: 51861 51916 10/24/00 01848 CLASS ACT INC 59124 Voucher: 51916 51915 10/24/00 01848 CLASS ACT INC 59324 Voucher: 51915 51862 10/24/00 00310 COMMONWEALTH ELECT OF 59221 Voucher: 51862 51863 10/24/00 00322 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN MCB99993C Voucher: 51863 51864 10/24/00 00384 DE LAG E LAN D EN FINANCIAL 00118209409 Voucher: 51864 51865 10/24/00 00395 DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOUR 57267 Voucher: 51865 51866 10/24/00 00440 EATON WOOD PRODUCTS 2000 -13 Voucher: 51866 Inv Date Description Amount Paid 10/17/00 3990 W HT DIAMOND GRADE V 826.50 10/19/00 MONTHLY CELLULAR PHONE 110.70 10/19/00 MONTHLY CELLULAR PHONE 38.56 10/17/00 MATS 37.70 10/18/00 PAGER PAGER 61.63 10/17/00 MAPLEWOOD PATROL & BOA 948.52 10/17/00 ICE TEA FILTERS 36.00 10/17/00 MEALS AT DISASTER SCENE 56.53 10/17/00 DOG BOARDING 59.64 10/18/00 SIGN FOR CHAMBER (NEW C 15.00 10/17/00 PIZZA - MERCH FOR RESALE 201.00 10/19/00 MONTHLY WATER UTILITIES 1,144.20 10/18/00 6 SONOGROUT 10K 63.90 10/19/00 DJ FOR FIRE DEPT DINNER 495.00 10/19/00 DOWN PAYMENT FOR DJ - 10.0.00 10/17/00 REPAIR WIRES AT WAKEFI EL 363.00 10/18/00 AD FOR BIDS 182.90 10/18/00 COPIER LEASE 450.34 10/20/00 DNR FEES 264.00 10/18/00 BOOK SHELVES & TV CENTER 2 826.50 149.26 37.70 61.63 948.52 36.00 56.53 59.64 15.00 201.00 1,144.20 63.90 495.00 100.00 363.00 182.90 450.34 264.00 2,740.00 DarrA• 1 / apChkLst Final Check List Pa 9 e: 2 10/20/2000 10:33:55AM City of Maplewood Bank: wf WELLS FARGO BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 51867 10/24/00 00464 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE T3610 10/17/00 REPAIR UNMARKED 188.37 Voucher: 51867 3628 10/17/00 SQD CHANGE OVER 176.50 3632 10/17/00 REPAIR SQD 956 131.00 495.87 51868 10/24/00 00531 FRA -DOR BLACK DIRT & REC 10003 10/19/00 BLACKDIRT 1,719.93 1 7 719..93 Voucher: 51868 51869 10/24/00 00604 GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. 161450 10/17/00 SHEEP LAB 63.00 63.00 Voucher: 51869 51870 10/24/00 00612 GYM WORKS 1544 10/17/00 REPAIR EQUIPMENT 105.00 105.00 Voucher: 51870 51871 10/24/00 00653 HEJNY RENTALS, INC 25501 10/17/00 TILLER, FRONT TINE 83.07 83.07 Voucher: 51871 51872 10/24/00 00669 HILLTOP TRAILER SALES INC 10767 10/17/00 MONTHLY RENT 410.03 410.03 Voucher: 51872 51873 10/24/00 00684 HOWARD R. GREEN COMPAN28395 10/19/00 PROJ 99 -02 LARPENTEUR AV 10 9 244.60 10,244.60 Voucher: 51873 51874 10/24/00 00686 HUDSON MAP COMPANY 6702 10/17/00 MAP BOOKS 112.93 112.93 Voucher: 51874 51917 10/24/00 01849 INTELLISYS GROUP INC 103105 10/19/00 AUDIOVISUAL EQUIP RENTA 2 2 1 500.00 Voucher: 51917 51875 10/24/00 00838 LAKELAND TRUCK CENTER, 86506 10/18/00 EMERGENCY REPAIR NEW TR 2 2 Voucher: 51875 51876 10/24/00 00864 LESCO, INC. 9XIV87 10/17/00 25% PPCSU W /BIOSOLID 423.87 423.87 Voucher: 51876 51878 10/24/00 00867 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAP 091100 10/17/00 MIXED BLOOD AD HRC PROG 259.60 Voucher: 51878 57279 10/17/00 PUBLIC NOTICES - RES 00 -07 180.43 092000 10/17/00 PUBLIC NOTICES - ORD NO 8 102.06 100400 10/17/00 PUBLIC NOTICE - RES 00 -07 -0 54.68 091300 10/17/00 PUBLIC NOTICE - JOHN SCHM 41.92 638.69 51877 10/24/00 00867 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAP 58608 10/18/00 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL - M 19.95 19.95 Voucher: 51877 51879 10/24/00 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 452489 10/17/00 SEPTEMBER BAKERY GOODS 494.68 Voucher: 51879 101700 10/18/00 ASSORTED ROLLS 10/17 FOR 28.08 452490 10/17/00 COOKIES & DONUTS 18.99 541.75 51880 10/24/00 00939 MARGOLIS COMPANY 19573 10/19/00 NORTHWOODS MAPLE 2 1/2 244.95 244.95 Voucher. 51880 51881 10/24/00 00945 MASYS CORP 8932 10/19/00 HARDWARE /SOFTWARE MAIN 704.25 Voucher: 51881 8960 10/19/00 HARDWARE /SOFTWARE MAIN 704.25 1 1 408.50 51882 10/24/00 00973 MENARDS 63367 10/19/00 GREEN TREATED LUMBER 164.54 164.54 Voucher: 51882 J IV Paqe: 2 apChkLst Final Check List • Page. 3 10/20/2000 10:33:55AM City of Maplewood Bank: wf WELLS FARGO BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid 51883 10/24/00 00975 MERIT CHEVROLET 272522 10/19/00 REPAIR TO DC 4 167.44 W 239.28 221.28 6.57 396.27 286.46 225.00 64.11 620.21 248.60 156.30 1,150.96 500.00 293.60 1,591.28 327.77 8.99 9,963.76 2,614.50 45,904.86 914.47 13.65 171.68 167.44 460.56 6.57 396.27 286.46 225.00 64.11 620.21 404.90 1,150.96 500.00 293.60 1,591.28 336.76 9,963.76 2,614.50 46,819.33 13.65 171.68 Check Total Paqe: 3 Voucher: 51883 51884 10/24/00 00998 MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTT 65005162 10/18/00 MERCH FOR RESALE Voucher: 51884 59402 10/18/00 MERCH FOR RESALE 51886 10/24/00 01053 MINNESOTA PHOTO IH041543 10/17/00 DEVELOP FILM Voucher. 51886 51887 10/24/00 01058 MINNESOTA SHREDDING LLC2521225 10/17/00 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION Voucher: 51887 51889 10/24/00 01090 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI 526930 10/17/00 HUB ASSY 300 WHIR/STEERIN Voucher: 51889 51888 10/24/00 01080 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE EDUC235 10/17/00 CLEO & COMMAND ACADEMY Voucher. 51888 51890 10/24/00 01123 NAPA 629465 10/17/00 BOOSTER/LUG WREN Voucher: 51890 51891 10/24/00 01175 NORTH ST. PAUL CITY OF OCT2000 10/18/00 SEWER- 1830& 1902 CTY RD Voucher: 51891 51892 10/24/00 01218 ON SITE SANITATION 0046553 -IN 10/17/00 FACILITIES DURING TRAINING Voucher:. 51892 0046552 -IN 10/17/00 FACILITIES DURING TRAINING 51851 10/24/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 7333 10/17/00 REFUND KEITH JANTZ - GRAD Voucher: 51851 51850 10/24/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 11879 10/19/00 REFUND METRO GENERAL - Voucher: 51850 51849 10/24/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 59125 10/18/00 REFUND MEDICARE - B PALM Voucher: 51849 51895 10/24/00 01311 P.E.R.A. 110200 10/19/00 OMITTED PERA DEDUCTIONS Voucher: 51895 51893 10/24/00 01236 PAGENET 000192678 10/17/00 PAGERS Voucher: 51893 000434412 10/18/00 PAGER CHARGES 51894 10/24/00 01256 PERSONNEL DECISIONS J152732 10/18/00 CITY MANAGER RECRUITMEN Voucher: 51894 51914 10/24/00 01838 QSTAR TECHNOLOGIES 20345 10/18/00 QSTAR HSM SOFTWARE FOR Voucher: 51914 51896 10/24/00 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY - PRRREV SHRFP- 000088 10/17/00 3RD QTR COST FOR 2000 RA Voucher: 51896 ISDP- 001295 10/19/00 DP SERVICES - AUG 2000 51918 10/24/00 01850 RAWLINGS, RINDA 101600 10/19/00 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT - Voucher: 51918 51897 10/24/00 01359 REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL 58580 10/17/00 AUTO WASHES Voucher: 51897 W 239.28 221.28 6.57 396.27 286.46 225.00 64.11 620.21 248.60 156.30 1,150.96 500.00 293.60 1,591.28 327.77 8.99 9,963.76 2,614.50 45,904.86 914.47 13.65 171.68 167.44 460.56 6.57 396.27 286.46 225.00 64.11 620.21 404.90 1,150.96 500.00 293.60 1,591.28 336.76 9,963.76 2,614.50 46,819.33 13.65 171.68 Check Total Paqe: 3 apChkLst Final Check List • Page. 4. 10/2012000 10:33:55AM City of Maplewood Bank : wf WELLS FARGO BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Totai 51898 10/24/00 01360 REINHART INSTITUTIONAL F 294274 10/17/00 MERCH FOR RESALE 233.24 Voucher: 51898 298462 10/17/00 MERCH FOR RESALE 173.18 406.42 51899 10/24/00 01436 SEARS 9594 10/18/00 MISC SMALL TOOLS, ETC. 151.71 Voucher: 51899 9229 10/18/00 HOSES, SOCKET & EXT BAR 55.87 207.58 51900 10/24/00 01489 SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GR742974 10/17/00 CITIZEN ACADEMY SHIRTS 252.30 252.30 Voucher: 51900 51901. 10/24/00 01491 SPECIALTY RADIO SERVICES42752 10/18/00 REPAIRED RADIO POWER SU 40.24 40.24 Voucher: 51901 51902 10/24/00 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 065566 10/17/00 RADIO SERVICE & MAINT - SE 1 1 275.77 1,275.77 Voucher: 51902 51903 10/24/00 01538 STREICHER'S 187494.1 10/17/00 SQUAD CHANGE OVER & REP 2,041.95 Voucher: 51903 186681.1 10/17/00 SQUAD CHANGE OVER & REP 519.65 2 51904 10/24/00 01545 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORIT 101600 10/18/00 2ND HALF ANNUAL MEMBERS 1 1 9 400.00 Voucher: 51904 51905 10/24/00 01572 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. 009177 10/18/00 TL TONERS /4000 TONER 496.44 Voucher: 51905 009186 10/18/00 125M 4MM DATA TAPES 286.06 782.50 51906 10/24/00 01592 TAYLOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC15225 10/18/00 PHONE SUPPORT 150.00 150.00 Voucher: 51906 51907 10/24/00 01652 TROY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIE 569 10/17/00 FLOOR MAT & PADS 170.39 170.39 Voucher: 51907 51908 10/24/00 01654 TRUGREEN - MAPLEWOOD #4 861085 10/19/00 SERVICE AGREEMENT. 755.09 755.09 Voucher: 51908 51909 10/24/00 01664 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR C 108058 10/17/00 REPAIR GARAGE DOOR 97.78 97.78 Voucher. 51909 51910 10/24/00 01720 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 73594 10/17/00 16 UNIT FIRST AID KIT PLAST 92.66 92.66 Voucher: 51910 51911 10/24/00 01721 VIRTUE PRINTING 581374 10/17/00 BLUE REFERENDUM BALLOT 371.63 371.63 Voucher: 51911 51912 10/24/00 01750 WATSON CO INC, THE 581374 10/17/00 MERCH FOR RESALE 256.50 256.50 Voucher: 51912 Sub total for WELLS FARGO BANK: 104,816.41 E2 Pane- 4 w + apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 10120/2000 11:01:22AM City of Maplewood Bank: wf WELLS FARGO BANK Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 8399 10/17/00 01311 P.E.R.A. 101300 10/19/00 P/R DEDUCTION REMITTANC 34,292.34 34,292.34 Voucher. 8399 8400 10/19/00 01284 POSTMASTER 101800 10/19/00 MAILING OF ENTERTAINMENT 1 1 Voucher. 8400 Sub total for WELLS FARGO BANK: 35 Page: 1 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Pa ee Description Amount 10/16/00 10/17/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 818.50 10/16/00 10/17/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10,620.08 10/13/00 10/17/00 MN State Treasurer State Payroll Tax 12,539.99 10/13/00 10/17/00 CBSA Dental claims 942.60 10/17/00 10/18/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 822.75 10/17/00 10/18/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 13,021.28 10/13/00 10/18/00 Elan Financial Services Purchasing card items 10,055.80 10/18/00 10/19/00 MN State - Treasurer Drivers License #697 687.25 10/18/00 10/19/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 12 10/11/00 10/19/00 MN Dept of Revenue Sales Tax 5 10/19/00 10/20/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 616.75 10/19/00 10/20/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10,992.22 10/11/00 10/20/00 MN Dept of Revenue Fuel Tax 216.00 10/20/00 10/23/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 660.00 10/20/00 10/23/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10,100.50 TOTAL 89.875.44 r vchlist Check Register Page: 1 10/27/2000 11:54:50AM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor 51919 10/24/00 00908 51920 10/24/00 00908 51921 10/24/00 01853 51922 10/25/00 00908 51923 10/31/00 00052 51924 10/31/00 00111 51925 10/31/00 00131 51926 10/31/00 00021 51927 . 10/31/00 01847 51928 10/31/00 00198 51929 10/31/00 00230 51930 10/31/00 00232 51931 10/31/00 00279 51932 10/31/00 00310 M.R.P.A. M.R.P.A. WILLIAM M MERCER INC M.R.P.A. ADVANCED GRAPHIX INC. ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, INC. ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. AWD COOLERS BIG BOB'S REPAIR & FABRICATION BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. BURNETT, MORLEY AND BETH CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO. COMMONWEALTH ELECT OF MN, INC. 51933 10/31/00 00312 COMPRESSAIR & EQUIPMENT CO. 51934 10/31/00 00350 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 51935 10/31/00 00372 DALCO 51936 10/31/00 00395 DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 51937 10/31/00 00395 DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 51938 10/31/00 00397 DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY 51939 10/31/00 00363 DLT SOLUTIONS, INC. 51940 10/31/00 00447 ECOPRINT 51941 10/31/00 00449 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC. 51942 10/31/00 00433 EDI CO. 51943 10/31/00 00464 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH, INC 51944 10/31/00 00483 EXECUTONE SYSTEMS OF ST PAUL 51945 10/31/00 01839 EXTRACTOR CORPORATION naaf-f infiAnlAr -.-At inn Amm int MRPA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION - B 315.00 MRPA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION - P 290.00 SPEAKER AT 10/25 MEETING ON FLEXIB 300.00 MRPA ANNUAL CONF - 3 REGISTERING 870.00 1 SET DECAL 47.93 MAPLEWOOD PATROL & BOARDING FEE 727.01 EQUIP RENTAL REQ FOR PAVING - 1,544.25 WATER COOLER RENTAL 319.02 INSTALL DOOR CLOSER/LABOR TO CHA 309.92 1977 MANTON - FINAL BILL 80.26 CL5 37.30 TONS 225.24 SERVICE CALL BANQUET ROOM RENTAL 72.50 SET GROUT 50# 308.16 RETURNED MATERIAL - 256.80 REPAIR BALL FIELD LIGHTS AT GOODRIC 943.98 REPAIR SOCCER FIELD LIGHTS AT HAZE 1,490.80 COVER FOR COMP STAT 3 20.98 WATER SERVICE 10/1 TO 10/31 48.62 CLEANER 47.79 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 2,061.15 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 50.34 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 328.02 MAINT CLEANERS & SUPPLIES 692.98 REFUND DEPOSIT DNR EQUIP FOR LIC 200.00 DNR FEES 543.00 3RD QUARTER 2000 (JUL TO SEP) 3,270.00 R21 UPGRADES 3,894.40 BUSINESS CARDS 226.30 UPGRADE SOFTWARE - EQUIPMENT 500.00 CONV FOR CS TO INFORUM GOLD -- 5,000.00 UPGRADE SOFTWARE - EQUIPMENT 1,812.37 UPGRADE SOFTWARE - TRAINING 5,750.00 UPGRADE SOFTWARE - EQUIPMENT 750.00 UPGRADE SOFTWARE - EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 DOCUMENT SCANNER REPLACEMENT - 2,417.55 SQUAD 945 REPAIRS 127.31 LABOR SERVICE & INSTALLATION 391.18 MSP CONTRACT LABOR RATE 84.00 6 PHONE REST 50.92 LABOR - RECONNECTED LINE - 95.50 LABOR - SERVICED VM PROBLEM SET- 466.75 SUITMATE REPAIRS 347.47 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 10/27/2000 11:54:50AM City of Maplewood Ch eck Date Vendor 51946 10/31/00 00487 51947 10/31/00 01851 51948 10/31/00 01855 51949 10/31/00 00531 51950 10/31/00 00543 51951 10/31/00 00569 51952 10/31/00 00580 51953 10/31/00 00581 51954 10/31/00 00585 51955 10/31/00 00588 51956 10/31/00 00599 51957 10/31/00 01852 51958 10/31/00 01856 51959 10/31/00 00659 51960 10/31/00 00675 51961 10/31/00 00683 F.M. FRATTALONE FEDERAL WARNING SYSTEMS INC FORYSTHE APPRAISALS INC FRA -DOR BLACK DIRT & RECYCLE GE CAPITAL GERVAIS JR., CLARENCE GOODIN COMPANY GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL, INC. GRACE, DUANE GREEN VALUE NURSERY GUARANTEED CLEAN MAINTENANCE HAAG, MARK HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE HOLIDAY FLEET HORWATH, THOMAS 51962 10/31/00 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE 51963 10/31/00 00719 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. #622 51964 10/31/00 00722 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO., INC. 51965 10/31/00 01857 JOHNSON BROS WELL DRILLING 51966 10/31/00 00789 KATH COMPANIES 51967 10/31/00 01609 51968 10/31/00 00881 51969 10/31/00 00891 51973 10/31/00 00932 51974 10/31/00 00972 51975 10/31/00 00973 51976 10/31/00 00985 51977 10/31/00 00997 nacrrintinn /Arrr_m ant Amm int KIPINGLER LETTER, THE LUKIN, STEVE M.A. M.A. MAPLEWOOD BAKERY MENARDS MENARDS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MIDWEST CHILDREN'S RESOURCE CT LOCATE WELL AT FROST & ENGLISH REPLACEMENT FOR BLOWN TO PURCHASE OPEN SPACE BLACKDIRT 9/27 & 9/29 BLACKDIRT 9/20 TO 9/28 KODAK COPIER LEASE PAYMENT FOR T MEALS 10/19 TO 10/22 WALL HYDRANT SQD ALIGNMENT SEPTEMBER 2000 SERVICE PLAN REVIEWS - 1999 PLAN REVIEW - 2000 YEAR 2000 PLAN REVIEWS 16 BLACK HILL SPRUCE RUG CLEANING STATION 3 SAFETY SHOES FIRE FIGHTER 1 /FIRE INSPECTOR BASIC CAR WASHES TREE INSPECTIONS TREE PLANTING AT GOODRICH PK TREE TRIMMING, REMOVAL & HAULING - RENTAL OF ROOM DRIVE BELT DRIVE BELTS OLD RAIL ROAD WELL SITE - UNLEADED MID -GRADE GASOLINE - ARTIC BLEND DIESEL- 26 BI- WEEKLY ISSUES JUICE & ROLLS AT HOUSE EXPLOSION LUNCHEON ON 10/16 1/4 SHEET CAKES SAW BLADE /GREEN TREATED LUMBER GREEN TREATED LUMBER/RAFTER SQU WASTEWATER - NOV 2000 PHOTOS PHOTOS 900.00 1,773.16 1,500.00 343.99 669.88 528.32 39.98 119.14 41.18 73.60 1,944.65 3,218.55 4,164.00 2,094.80 166.00 45.00 7,183.50 3.18 162.00 108.00 2,337.75 15.00 93.18 26.70 5,250.22 8,545.95 7,824.95 38.00 128.88 16.00 156.75 144.83 137.85 153, 668.00 14.08 14.96 51978 10/31/00 00998 MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO. MERCH FOR RESALE 381.60 51979 10/31/00 01001 MIDWEST LOCK & SAFE, INC. REPAIR LOCKS & PANIC BAR 374.27 51980 10/31/00 01050 MINNESOTA NATURALIST ASSOC. TRAINING ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY (5) 285.00 vchlist 10/27/2000 11:54:50AM Check Register City of Maplewood Page: 3 Chec Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 51981 10/31/00 01053 MINNESOTA PHOTO FILM DEVELOPING 20.99 DEVELOP FILM 12.31 DEVELOP FILM 4.16 51982 10/31/00 01089 MINNESOTA UC FUND 3RD QTR 2000 UNEMPLOYMENT 3,040.02 51983 10/31/00 01110 MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS CARTRIDGE & BRASS RETAINING RING 256.00 51984 10/31/00 01120 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 25 SYL 20678 190.37 LAMPS 429.02 LAMPS 400 WATT 181.93 51985 10/31/00 01858 NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUN CRIME PREVENTION SUPPLIES 164.96 51986 10/31/00 01126 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 612001 PERA LIFE INS - P/R DEDUCTED OCT 237.00 51987 10/31/00 01175 NORTH ST. PAUL CITY OF MONTHLY UTILITIES 1,305.92 51988 10/31/00 01178 NORTH STAR TURF, INC. SWIFT & SURE 436.12 51989 10/31/00 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE BROCHUR 1,583.66 51990 10/31/00 01218 ON SITE SANITATION RUBBISH SERVICE 10/9 TO 10/20 58.54 51991 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND UNION GOSPEL MISSION -- 18.00 51992 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND PATTI TURI - BASKETBALL 55.00 51993 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND JASON SCHMIDT - CITY MEMBE 74.97 51994 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND JIM ARIOLA - STATE TOURNEY 110.00 51995 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND BILL CAPOCASA - STATE TOUR 110.00 51996 10/31/00 00001 ONE VENDOR REFUND CBSA - D HAIDER 00009819 516.33 51997 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND GONYEA HOMES - GRADING ES 1,060.68 REFUND GONYEA HOMES - GRADING ES 1,012.88 51998 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND DANIEL DOBERVICH - GRADING 2,767.40 51999 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND VENTURA HOMES - GRADING E 3,183.15 52000 10/31/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND MAPLEWOOD LAND - GRADING 8,877.67 52001 10/31/00 01236 PAGENET PAGER SERVICE 25.00 52002 10/31/00 01237 PAIN ENTERPRISES, INC. CHEMICALS 42.60 52003 10/31/00 01240 PALMA, STEVEN T MEALS 9/25 & 9/26 61.99 52004 10/31/00 01267 PIONEER PRESS ADVERTISING - FITNESS FOR THE REST 1,648.80 52005 10/31/00 01463 PROFESSIONAL MASSAGE CENTER SEPT 2000 MASSAGES 3,302.00 52006 10/31/00 01360 REINHART INSTITUTIONAL FOODS MERCH FOR RESALE 941.98 CREDIT - MERCH FOR RESALE -48.37 52007 10/31/00 00069 RISK MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AMBULANCE BILLING 1,009.70 52008 10/31/00 01372 ROADRUNNER BROCHURE WORK 27.18 52009 10/31/00 01384 ROSEVILLE FIRE GROUND ACCT PAR - TAGS 16.50 52010 10/31/00 01409 S.E.H. ENGINEERING 98 -09 MCKNIGHT RD EVP 65.87 52011 10/31/00 01489 SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GROUP INC. BLACK NAVAGATOR BASIC ATTACHE 306.54 52012 10/31/00 01491 SPECIALTY RADIO SERVICES UPDATE CHANNEL PROGRAMMING, REP 720.95 52013 10/31/00 01494 SPECTRUM HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEM TECHNICAL SUPPORT & UPDATES - HR 2,785.75 vchlist Check Register Page. 4 4 10/27/2000 11:54:50AM City of Maplewood Chec Date Vendor 52014 10/31/00 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 52015 10/31/00 01859 STAR TRAC 52016 10/31/00 01538 STRETCHER'S 52017 10/31/00 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC 52018 10/31/00 01586 TARGET STORES -CSA ACCTS REC 52019 10/31/00 01580 TSE, INC. 52020 10/31/00 01678 U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS 52021 10/31/00 01699 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 52022 10/31/00 01679 US WEST DEX 52023 10/31/00 01709 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVAL 52024 10/31/00 01721 VIRTUE PRINTING 52025 10/31/00 01734 WALS H, WILLIAM P. 52027 10/31/00 01783 WINGER, DON 52028 10/31/00 01860 WORDEN, KRISTEN 52029 10/31/00 01793 XEROX CORPORATION Description /Account COSTS FOR CRIME LAB - JUL, AUG & SE CALWAX FOR TREADMILLS SEMI - AUTOMATIC PISTOL LABOR - SQUAD EQUIP INSTALL #600 VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS CLASS 5 LIMEROCK SNACK/SUPPLIES SNACK/SUPPLIES JANITORIAL SERVICES 8/24 TO 9/20/00 COIN -OP TELPEPHONES US WEST INVOICE CHEMICAL SNALYSIS OF SOIL MCC DIRECTORY TOTAL MONTHLY BILL TRASH REMOVAL 11/1 TO 11/30 CERT OF OCCUPANCY CARDS COMM PLUMBING INSPECTIONS REPLENISH EVIDENCE FUND SUPPLIES FOR SATURDAY PROGRAM JAN 2000 & MAR THRU AUG 2000 INV A mount 15.04 493.88 180.00 1,730.33 688.25 14.26 16.44 635.55 509.00 1,536.04 49.50 99.00 574.21 104.67 95.00 100.00 29.70 1,958.29 107 Checks in this report Total checks: 289,252.03 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Pa ee Description 10/23/00 10/24/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 10/23/00 10/24/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10/20/00 10/24/00 CBSA Dental claims 10/24/00 10/25/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 10/24/00 10/25/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10/20/00 10/25/00 Elan Financial Services Purchasing card items 10/25/00 10/26/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 10/25/00 10/26/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10/26/00 10/27/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 10/26/00 10/27/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10/27/00 10/30/00 MN State Treasurer Drivers License #697 10/27/00 10/30/00 MN State Treasurer Deputy Registrar #149 10/27/00 10/30/00 U.S. Treasurer Federal Payroll Tax TOTAL Amount 814.00 11,234.95 3 755.50 7,915.75 5,048.28 585.00 11,244.96 345.00 8,901.64 438.50 9 104,558.51 165, 303.37 11 c vchlist Check Register Page: 1 111/03/2000 10:33:28AM City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor 52030 10/31/00 00520 52031 11/1/00 00661 52032 11/1/00 01311 52033 11/1/00 00644 52034 11/1/00 00966 52035 11/1/00 01085 52036 11/1/00 00276 52037 11/1/00 00529 nacrrintinn /Arrr -ni int Amni ant FLOR, TIMOTHY W POLICE OFFICER AT FD DINNER 10/27/00 HERITAGE BANK US SAVINGS BONDS 10/13/00 & 10/27/00 P.E.R.A. P/R DEDUCTION REMITTANCE 10/27/00 HEALTHPARTNERS NOVEMBER 2000 PREMIUMS MEDICA CHOICE NOVEMBER 2000 PREMIUMS MN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE NOVEMBER 2000 PREMIUMS CORPORATE BENEFIT SERVICES, OF AM NOVEMBER 2000 PREMIUMS FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO. NOVEMBER 2000 PREMIUMS i f v.vv 500.00 34,049.35 30,732.52 38, 308.76 2,778.25 520.20 2,477.44 8 Checks in this report Total checks : 109,541.52 vchlist 11/03/2000 9:35:31AM Check Register City of Maplewood Page: 1 Check Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 52038 11/7/00 00018 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES MONTHLY PHONE SERVICE 22.86 CELL PHONE CHARGES 110.70 52039 11/7/00 00104 ANDERSON, EVERETT A REIMBURSE MILEAGE - 10/3 TO 10/31 83.85 52040 11/7/00 00109 ANDON INC. HELIUM TANK FILL 64.38 HELIUM TANK 19.17 52041 11/7/00 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, INC. MAPLEWOOD PATROL & BOARDING FEE 881.15 52042 11/7/00 00130 ASIAN AMERICAN PRESS POLICE OFFICER AD 84.50 52043 11/7/00 00152 BANICK, JOHN PIZZA PARTY FOR POLICE VOLUNTEERS 35.25 52044 11/7/00 01869 BOETTCHER, DALE VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 6 WORKED 111.00 52045 11/7/00 01865 BOWMAN, DAN VOLLEYBALL MATCHES - REF PAY- 392.00 52046 11/7/00 00221 BROCK WHITE COMPANY, LLC. 6 ROLLS - WHITE BAGS 220.46 52047 11/7/00 01862 BUILDING FASTENERS SUPPLIES 31.67 52048 11/7/00 00237 C.C. SHARROW CO., INC. CHAIN SLING W /LATCH KITS 82.96 52049 11/7/00 00254 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS KENWOOD PORTABLE RADIO 572.97 52050 11/7/00 00272 CARVER, NICHOLAS PANTS - ATTACKED BY DOG 30.00 52051 11/7/00 01871 COOPER, KEN VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 15 WORKED 277.50 52052 11/7/00 00395 DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES DNR FEES 283.00 52053 11/7/00 00397 DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY TUITION - SHORTREED 40.00 52054 11/7/00 00412 DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES TUITION - LINDA CROSSON 722.43 52055 11/7/00 00427 DUNN, ALICE SHOES /PANTS 82.65 52056 11/7/00 00451 EGAN -MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTR EVP SYSTEM "A" MCKNIGHT ROAD (CSA 12,862.75 52057 11/7/00 01866 EMME, MARK VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 6 WORKED 111.00 52058 11/7/00 01602 ENGRAVING SHOP, THE EMPLOYEE OF MONTH PLAQUE 20.00 52059 11/7/00 00470 ERICKSON PLUMBING & HEATING PLUMB IN NEW OUTSIDE FAUCET 185.00 52060 11/7/00 00483 EXECUTONE SYSTEMS OF ST PAUL SERVICED SYSTEM 442.00 REFURB PHONE 302.19 52061 11/7/00 00589 GRAF, DAVE OCTOBER KARATE INSTRUCTOR 192.00 52062 11/7/00 00617 H & T CORP OF MINNESOTA WYCOM CHECK SIGNER 9/00 - 9/01 379.50 52063 11/7/00 01867 HANSON, PERRY VOLLEYBALL REF PAY -15 WORKED 277.50 52064 11/7/00 00638 HAYMAN, JANET GREW JUICE - PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS 155.87 52065 11/7/00 00653 HEJNY RENTALS, INC CANOPY RENTAL 91.70 52066 11/7/00 00684 HOWARD R. GREEN COMPANY PROJ 99 -02 GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER 186,084.10 52067 11/7/00 00719 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. #622 FIRE DEPT OPEN HOUSE FLYER 165.40 52068 11/7/00 00728 INSIGHT NEWS POLICE OFFICERS EMPLOYMENT AD 194.90 52069 11/7/00 00771 JOHNSON, RICK DEER REMOVAL 300.00 52070 1.1/7/00 00806 KNOX LUMBER CO ADHESIVE /PARTICLE SC SQS /CLAMP GR 133.53 52071 11/7/00 00815 KREINES & KREINES, INC. SUBSCRIPTION - PLAN WIRELESS 30.00 vchlist 11/03/2000 9:35:31 AM Check Register City of Maplewood Page: 2 Ch eck Date Vendor Description /Account Amount 52072 11/7/00 01874 KULAS, RON VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 18 WORKED 333.00 52073 11/7/00 01873 LAYMAN, KARIE VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 6 WORKED 111.00 52074 11/7/00 00906 M.P.E.L.R.A. MPELRH /IPMA/LMC CONF 80.00 52075 11/7/00 00908 M.R.P.A. CONF FEE FOR L CROSSON /R PALM 320.00 52076 11/7/00 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY BIRTHDAY CAKES 71.25 B I RTH DAY CAKES 60.50 BIRTHDAY CAKES 156.75 BIRTHDAY CAKES 41.00 2 DOZEN COOKIES FOR LMC MTG 5.74 52077 11/7/00 00977 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY HOCKEY STICKS 210.92 52078 11/7/00 00986 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MONTHLY SAC - OCT 2000 31,581.00 52079 11/7/00 01053 MINNESOTA PHOTO SLIDES - DARE 34.45 52080 11/7/00 01127 N.E.S.A. SOCCER REFEREES FROM NESA 1,374.50 52081 11/7/00 01123 NAPA PAINT 380.21 52082 11/7/00 01160 NEWMAN SIGNS STOP /BLANK - STOP 733.57 52083 11/7/00 01178 NORTH STAR TURF, INC. RETAINER - JAC 11.66 52084 11/7/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND MELISSA LAMM - LET'S GET CR 28.00 52085 11/7/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND TIM MATTSON - TRAINING SESS 30.00 52086 11/7/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND DST 622 COMM ED - GROUP 30.00 52087 11/7/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR RETURN ACH REALTERS CREDIT UNION 40.00 52088 11/7/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND MENDOTA HEIGHTS - GROUP 50.00 52089 11/7/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND KELLY PAULAK - BANQUET RM 250.00 52090 11/7/00 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REFUND MCDONALD CONST - GRADING 3,147.81 52091 11/7/00 01863 PACKER, ROGER VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS - 30 MATCHES 555.00 52092 11/7/00 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY - PRRREV STRIPPING - PROJ 99 -07 HAZELWOOD 317.97 52093 11/7/00 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT OPEN HOUSE STAT 4 93.82 SNACKS & CANDY 320.23 MERCH FOR RESALE 128.58 SUPPLIES FOR STAT 4 OPEN HOUSE 18.27 VENDING MACHINE POP 326.76 MERCH FOR RESALE 70.31 SNACKS /CANDY 123.02 MERCH FOR RESALE 238.24 52094 11/7/00 01875 SANDER, JIM VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 11 WORKED 203.50 52095 11/7/00 01450 SEVERSON, DAVID MEALS 10/19 & 10/21 66.90 52096 11/7/00 01864 SIGN ART COMPANY INC REPAIR COMPUTER - MESSAGE CTR 732.00 52097 11/7/00 01458 SIGNS BY NORTHLAND NAME SIGN 37.08 52098 11/7/00 01461 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO CLOCK REPAIR 89.00 52099 11/7/00 01537 STREAMLINE DESIGN T- SHIRTS FOR BASKETBALL PROGRAM 570.00 52100 11/7/00 01547 SUBWAY 10/27 SUBWAY SANDWICHES 127.16 52101 11/7/00 01568 SWANSON, LYLE MILEAGE 10/10 TO 10/16 9.43 vchlist Check Register Page: 3 11 /03 /2000 9:35 :31 AM City of Maplewood Check Date V 52101 11/7/00 01568 SWANSON, LYLE 52102 11/7/00 01877 THE BLENDERS 52103 11/7/00 01618 THOMALLA, DAVID 52104 11/7/00 01868 TOSKEY, RON 52105 11/7/00 01634 TOUSLEY FORD, INC. 52106 11/7/00 01654 TRUGREEN - MAPLEWOOD #4635 52107 11/7/00 01677 U.S.WEST COMMUNICATIONS 52108 11/7/00 01698 UNITED WAY OF THE ST. PAUL 52109 11/7/00 01704 URBANSKI, HOLLY 52110 11/7/00 01709 VASKO RUBBISH REMOVAL 52111 11/7/00 00063 VERIZON WIRELESS, BELLEVUE 52112 11/7/00 01870 VOSS, CHRIS 52113 11/7/00 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 52114 11/7/00 01753 WEATHER WATCH, INC. 52115 11/7/00 01872 WEBER, MAR K 52116 11/7/00 01876 WHAT WORKS INC 52117 11/7/00 01765 WHEELER LUMBER CO. Description /Accou (Continued) MILEAGE 10/17 TO 10/24 THE BLENDERS CONCERT 11/3/00 TECHNOLOGY EVAL HANDSPRING VISO VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 24 WORKED REPAIR SQD 941 PLAYCREST PARK - WEED CONTROL GERANIUM PARK - WEED CONTROL PHONE BILL 6/30 TO 9/30 CARVER GYM WALLY BALL /FREE THROW /BAKE SALE /D REPLENISH PETTY CASH TRASH REMOVAL - NOV 2000 TRASH REMOVAL - NOV 2000 CELL PHONE BIILL CELL PHONES 10/21 TO 11/20/00 VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 9 WORKED COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSPECTIONS WEATHER WATCH AGREEMENT VOLLEYBALL REF PAY - 14 WORKED CONSULTING LANDSCAPE TIMBER 3.25 3,200.00 269.00 444.00 277.13 1,022.40 577.80 251.41 378.80 98.64 343.36 248.79 5.82 172.77 166.50 260.00 475.00 259.00 3,000.00 365.00 80 Checks in this report Total checks : $ 2615003.24 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date w ee 10/30/00 10/30/00 10/27/00 10/27/00 10/27/00 10/31/00 10/31/00 10/27/00 11/01/00 11/01/00 11/02/00 11/02/00 10/19/00 11/03/00 11/03/00 10/31/00 10/31/00 10/31/00 10/31/00 10/31/00 11/01/00 11/01/00 11/01/00 11/02/00 11/02/00 11/03/00 11/03/00 11/03/00 11/06/00 11/06/00 MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer WI Dept of Revenue CBSA MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer Elan Financial Services MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MN Dept of Revenue MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer TOTAL Descriation Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 State Payroll Tax State Payroll Tax Dental claims Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 Purchasing card items Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 Fuel License Drivers License #697 Deputy Registrar #149 Amount 573.00 12, 330.96 18,742.05 1, 000:22 1,255.02 703.75 15,543.93 11,077.85 534.75 12,055.43 425.00 11, 504.25 25.00 457.00 11,611.75 63,938.71 16 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ALLENSPACH , SHERRY 3 3 9.2 7 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ALDRI DGE , MARIA 2094009 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 BOHL , JOHN C 2194010 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 FLOR,TIMOTHY 2104.47 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 FRASER,JOHN 2210.73 DIRECT DEPOSIT '. DIRECT DEPOSIT 1 10/27/00 TAUBMAN,DOUGLAS J 2121.80 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 PALMA, STEVEN 214 7.3 0 DIRECT DEPOSIT : 10 / 27/00 JOHNSON, KEVIN 2216923 DIRECT DEPOSIT : 10/27/00 ERI CKSON , VIRGINIA A 210 0.14 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CROTTY , KERRY 2 0 7 5.91 DIRECT DEPOSIT : 10/27/00 ANDREWS ,SCOTT A 2209010 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HASSENSTAB, DENISE R 81.20 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HIEBERT STEVEN � 2932.8 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 DUNN ALICE , 2 0 2 9.6 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CORNER,AMY L 155.20 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CHRISTENSEN,CHARLES M 1818.00 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 BELDE , STANLEY 2 3 01.17 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 RENSLOW, RITA 18 2.7 0 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 BAKKE , LONN A 2 016.18 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 BOWMAN ,RICK A 2 0 2 6.4 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 KOPPEN MARVIN . 3 3 9.2 7 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 PIKE,GARY K 1912931 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HEINZ, STEPHEN J 2026.43 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HEMQUIST,MICHAEL R 1558.00 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 SKRYPEK , JOSHUA L 2 0 0.5 8 17 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER ------ - - - - -- CHECK DATE ---- - - - - -- EMPLOYEE NAME ------------------------ AMOUNT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 - - - - -- HERBERT ,MICHAEL J -------- - - - - -- 212 9. 0 2 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 STOCKTON , DERRELL T 2026943 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ROSSMAN DAVID A , 2029.63 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HALWEG,KEVIN R 3144.83 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 MARUSKA,ERICA 202.60 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 OLSON,JULIE S 1585.56 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 BREHEIM, ROGER W 16 4 5.5 6 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 LARSON,DANIEL J 1926.51 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 THI ENES , PAUL 2 4 21.4 9 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 AN ZALD I , MANDY 10 0 4.0 0 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CALLAHAN , COLLEEN J 17 4 5.2 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CARLSON , THERES E 17 8 6.2 4 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 LE , SHERYL 3141.9 2 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 FAUST ,DANIEL F 3 4 0 3.12 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 BAUrMAN,GAYLE L 2305989 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 KELSEY,CONNIE L 654.23 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 GUI LFOI LE , KAREN E 213 9.2 4 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 POWELL, PHILIP 16 9 8.2 6 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 WINGER, DONALD S 3 4 0 3.8 0 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 BANICK, JOHN J 2 614.5 5 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 KARI S, FLINT D 2 414.2 4 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 KVAM D , AVID .2622.57 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 RABBETT,KEVIN 2197.63 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 STEFFEN , SCOTT L 2794901 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 THOMALLA ,DAVID J 2 614 .5 5 ff:3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER ------ - - - - -- CHECK DATE ---- - - - - -- EMPLOYEE NAME ------------------------ AMOUNT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 - - - - -- BERGERON, JOSEPH A -------- - - - - -- 2635.47 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 GERVAI S -JR, CLARENCE N 19 8 0.8 9 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 LUKIN , STEVEN J 2579994 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 PRIEFER,WILLIAM 1932.83 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 KANE,MICHAEL R 2168.83 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 LUNDSTEN,LANCE 2470.69 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CAVETT ,CHRISTOPHER M 2 4 6 5.8 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ANDERSON , BRUCE 3 0 5 9.51 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 MARUSKA , MARK A 216 8.8 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HUTCHINSON , ANN E 17 8 0.0 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 COLEMAN , MELINDA 3 0 6 8.13 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 GRAF , MICHAEL 1211.2 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ROBBINS , AUDRA L 12 7 2.8 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CROSSON,LINDA 1691923 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 EASTMAN, THOMAS E 2130.86 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 STAPLES,PAULINE 2400.31 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 SCHLINGMAN,PAUL 1826.43 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HURLEY , STEPHEN 2 2 4 7.0 5 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 S Z C Z EPANSKI , THOMAS J 2 0 71.2 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 WENZEL,JAY B 1752.51 .DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 DOBLAR, RICHARD N 15 08.05 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 COL LINS,KENNETH V 339.27 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CAMPBELL, CRAIG D 1337.63 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 DOLLERSCHELL,ROBERT J 243.93 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ERI CKSON , KYLE F 7 4 2.7 9 19 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 WEAVER, KRI STINE A 8 4 8.41 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HAWKINS ,LISA A 4 0.7 0 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00. KOEHNEN AMY 57.60 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 McGUIRE,MICHAEL A 197.48 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 OSTER,ANDREA J 1508.03 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 URBANSKI,HOLLY S 1438.43 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ANDERSON , CAROLE J 852902 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 JACKSON , MARY L 14 8 5.6 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 TET ZLAFF , JUDY A 1340983 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CASAREZ , GINA 12 3 2.11 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CARLE , JEANETTE E 14 0 7.9 4 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 JAGOE , CAROL 14 01.5 9 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 OLSON, SANDRA 844967 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CORCORAN THERESA M 1506976 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 MARTINSON,CAROL F 1751.18 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 EVERSON,PAUL 1921.28 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 PARSONS , KURT G 14 7 5.51 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 SPANGLER, EDNA E 543911 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ZWI EG , SUSAN C. 15 61.0 8 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 DeBILZAN, THOMAS C 1307.83 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 EDGE DOUGLAS 15 4 2.0 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 LUTZ,DAVID P 1601.63 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 MEYER, GERALD W 1640903 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 NAGEL, BRYAN 15 6 6.6 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 OSWALD , ERI CK D 15 6 6.6 3 20 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 THOMAS —JR, STEVEN 15 3 2. 0 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 DUCHARME , JOHN 18 7 2.0 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 PECK DENNI S L 1978.43 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 PRIEBE,WILLIAM 1907.23 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 DOHERTY,KATHLEEN M 1576988 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 SCHINDELDECKER,JAMES 1561.63 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 GREW— HAYMAN , JANET M 1114960 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HORSNELL, JUDITH A 8 4 6.02 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 NELSON , JEAN 9 31.5 4 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 GAYNOR I VIRGINIA A 15 9 5.81 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE L 8 3 7.14 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 THOMPSON , DEBRA J 480.65 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 EKSTRAND THOMAS G � 1987923 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ROBERTS KENNETH , 2094.63 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CARVER,NICHOLAS N 1961.63 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 KELLY, LISA 1149942 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 NORDQUI ST , RI CHARD 15 4 4.8 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 OTI S , MARY ELLEN M 615e35 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 CHRISTENSEN, JODIE D 64 5.71 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 COLEMAN, PHILIP 372 .81 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 FARR DIANE M � 299.29 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10f27/00 HORWATH,RONALD J 547980 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 JOHNSON,MEGAN M 259911 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 LARSON , DEBRA 4 2 8.0 6 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 MOORE , VANES SA J 619.3 0 21 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT DIRECT DEPOSI 10/27/00 SEEGER, GERALD F 3 9 4.4 9 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 STEINHORST , JEFFREY 551'o 21 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 SWANSOMLYLE 1536.54 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 COSTELLO,SHARON L 289.19 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 FLUG,MEGAN L 139.50 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 SVENDSEN,RUSTIN L 2060.00 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 WATC ZAK , LAURA 2200o 6 0 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 HOIUM, DORA 544.00 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 MORNING , TIMOTHY L 1216.14 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 S CHULT Z ,SCOTT M 1474,04 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 RE I LLY ,MICHAEL R 13 2 7.9 3 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 YOUNG D I LLON J 5 9 3 .3 6 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 ATKINS KATHERINE 164,25 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 RAWLINGS,RINDA M 1158.43 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 FLUG,ELAINE R 74.00 DIRECT DEPOSIT DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 McCLUNG , HEATHER A 3 81.4 6 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 DARST , JAMES M 1532903 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 S INDT , ANDREA J 1101008 DIRECT DEPOSIT 10/27/00 RAIDER, KENNETH G 1218 0.2 0 80761 10/27/00 CARDINAL,ROBERT J. 385.50 80762 10/27/00 WASILUK,JULIE A 339927 80763 10/27/00 FURSMAN,RICHARD F 1826.93 80764 10/27/00 HENSLEY,PATRICIA 59.76 80765 10/27/00 INGVOLDSTAD,CURTIS J 100000 80766 10/27/00 CUDE,LARRY J 391.71 22 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 8 07 67 10 f 27 / 00 KOHNER, JANEEN C 47925 80768 10/27/00 MATHEYS,ALANA KAYE 1630.70 80769 10/27/00 FRY,PATRICIA 1480.03 80770 10/27100 WEGWERTH I JUDITH A 1446.43 8 :0771 10./27/0.0 JOHNSONBONNIE 858.70 80772 10/27/00 VIETOR LORRAINE S 1608.64 8.077:3 10/27/00 PALANK,MARY KAY 1433937 80774 10/27/00 RICHIE,CAROLE L 1496.93 80775 10/27/00 RYAN,MICHAEL 2935.0;9 8 :07` 6 10 / 2 7/ 0 0 SVEND S EN , JOANNE M 16 7 6.3 6 80:777 10.,E 2 7/ 0 0 BART Z ,. PAUL 2 0 4 3.5 7 80778 1-0127/0 0 :0 BUSACK, DANIEL P 1523.23 80779 10,27,/00 JUNG, STEPHANIE J 1690.18 8.07 8 0 1-0/27 / GO KONG., TOMMY T 132 3.8 0 80781 10/27/00 WELCHLIN,CABOT V 2.155..40 80782 10/2. . 7/QO MEEHAN,JAMES 2570.85 8 :0783 10/27/00 SHORTREED,.MICHAEL P 2909.12 80784 10/27/00 ACOSTA,MARK J 456.00 8 :0785 10- /27/00 AMBORN,JASON H 1236.00 80786 1,0/27/00 ANDERSON, BOBBIE J 504.00 80787 10 -127 f 0.0 ANDERSON, BRIAN 720.00 80788 10/27 / 0-0 AUBIN, DENNLS J 1272 , 00 8:0789 10/27/00 BAHL, DAVID C 1695.00 8079.0 10/27/00 BALAZS, JOSEPH M 312000 8,0791 91 10 / 27 / 0 -0 BAUMAN , ANDREW C 3 4 5 0.0 0 23 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE rr mma qwVwm �mom mm EMPLOYEE NAME fir AMOUNT 80792 10/27/00 "m "m mw rr��r�r�r��r� BECK,PATRICK L rr�r�r.r�r�rr�r� 1526.00 80793 10 BOE,ERICK W 1080.00 80794 10[2.7/0:0 27/0 :0 BOLLES, THOMAS A 1782000 8 0795 10/27 BOURQUINRON G 6820-00 80796 10/27/0.0 BRAATEN,HAROLD A 1090 8079`7 10/ 27 /00 BUCHE,JOETTE 1776.00 8.07:98 10 f 2 7/ 0.0 CAHI LL ,CHRISTOPHER S 10 3 8.0 0 80799 10,/27/00 CORCORAN,JENNIFER L 288.00 8080.0 10/27/00 CROMETTIMARK F 1642.00 8 11 10 / 27 /00 DALY, FRANK 1296.00 8080`2 10/27/00 DAWSON,RICHARD P 996000 80.803 1.0/27/00 DIETZ, EDWARD W 564.00 808 04 10/ 27/0 . 0 DITTEL, MICHAEL A . 0 80805 10 /27/ 00 DOREE,KURT A 1382000 8.0 8 0:6 10 [2 7/ 0 0 DUELLMAN , AMY L 00 0.00 808:07 10 f 27/ 00 DUELLMAN, J. OSEPH W 312 , 00 80 8.:08 10 f 27 00 DUELLMAN, KIRK T 714.00 80809 10/27 DeMARS,TIMOTHY A 1.32.00 8 10/2 EVERSON , PAUL E 614.0 0 80811 10f7/00 FASULO,WALTER R 851.34 80812 10/27/00 FETTERS,JEFFREY L 1582000 80813 10/27 FITZGERALD,EDWARD P 660.00 8.0-814 .1 GERARD , JAMI E P 2 3: 3 8.0 0 80.815 10/ 27/00 GERVAIS- JR,CLARENCE N 1572.00 8G816 1 GRILL, CARL 94 8.00 24 CI OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 801:.8:17 10/27/00 HAKSETH 1 129.4*0-0 10/27/0-0 HALE, JOSEPH E 674*00 808119 10/27/00 HAMLIN G 582.00 870-82.0 10-/2 7 / GO HASKINS J 1272*00 80821 10/27/00 HEFFERNAN E 2077*00 80822 1012 7./ 0.0 HERLUND R 1882,000 808,23 10/27.100 HJELLE .,ERIK DAVID 423*00 808,24 10/27/00 HORN, JAMES M 1447o00 8, 0 8 2% 5 10/27/00 JOHNSON D 2160.00 8082:6 10/2'7/0..0 JOHNSON R 1282*00 80827 1*0/27/00 KARNOWSKI J 1632000 808,22 10/27/00 KNABE H 1038*00 8-0-82-9 1G/27/00 KOEHN,COR M 2761*00 S.:. 08110 10/27/00 KOLASA,MARK A 636*00 80,831 10/27/00 KONDER W 2526900 8.08.312 10/27/0-0 KORTUS J 870*00 80:833 10/27/00 L f ALLIER, TED C 808.00 8.0834 10/27/00 LEDMAN 2651. 00 8-0835 10127/00 LIDBERG A 1162.00 80836 10.f27/00 LINN D 444*00 0 8v837 10/27/00 LOVE, NICOLE J 344.00 80,838 1-0/127/00 LUCERO E 688.00 80839 .10/27/00 MALLORY E 1030*00 808,40 10/27/00 MARTY,MARK K 2964.00 8-0841 1-0/27/0,0 MARX,ERIC D 472.00 25 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 80842 10/27/Q;0 MELANDER A 1243.00 80543 10/27/00 MELANDER,SCOTT A 1892.00 80844 10/27/00 MELLEN,RICHARD T 888.00 8 -0845 10/27/00 MEYERS,PAUL E 1030.00 80846 10/27/00 MILLER,NICHOLAS J 828000 8 =.0847 10/27/0,0 MONK, JOHN J 610000 80848 10/27/00 MONROY, JON J 4662.00 8084 10/27/00 McGOVERN,JOHN L 1086.00 8"08.50 10/27/00 NAD EAU , AARON R 3 2: 0.( 0 8085:1 10/27/00 NALIPINSKI,STEPHEN M 1776.00 80852 10/27/00 NEUMAN,BRIAN A 490.00 80853 1012 1/00 NOLAN, PAUL W 648.00 80854 1 NOVAK, JEROME R 2109.00 8:0855 10 / 2 7/ 00 OLSON , KENNETH A 504 .00 80.856 10/27/00 PETERSON,MARK S 984000 80857 10/27/010 PETERSON,RICHARD A 600.00 8.0858 10/27/0.0 PETERSON,ROBERT H 1332,00 808 - 59 10/27/0 -0 PETERSON,THEODORE E 1182000 80860- 10/27/00 PIERCE,BCOTT G 718.00 80861 10127/00 PILLAR,MICHAEL R 288000 80862 10127/00 POOLE,CHRISTOPHER C 696900 80863 10 /2 7/ 0 0 RI CKET SON , BRENT L 90000"o 80864 10/27/00 ROMANIK,JAMES A 675.0.0 808 -65 10/27/00 RONDEAU,WILLIAM R 732900 80866 10./27/00 SACKETT,JAMES T 944.00 26 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 80867 1.0/27/00 SCHADT., JEFPREY A 1999000 S'08:68 10/ 2 7 / 00 SCHOENECKER, THOMAS R 7 08.00 80869 10/27/00 SCHULTZ,THOMAS.E 744.00 80870 10/27/00 SEDLACEK D 552.00 80871 10/27/00 SEVERSON,DAVID A 1494.00 80872 10/27/00 SHANLEY, ROBERT J 456.00 80.873 10/27/00 SIEDOW,ERIC R 324.00 8087.4 10/27/0:0 SIKORA, PAUL T 719.34 80875 10/27/00 SINGER,SCOTT W 624.00 80:8776 10/7/.00 SKOK,STEPHEN L 624900 80877 10/27/00 SMITH,KEITH A 1098.00 8 -0878. 1.0./27/0:0 SMITH, RICHARD J 555000 80879 10/27f00 STANWAY,ROBERT A 192.: OD 8;0880 10 /2-7 / 00 SVENDSEN,. RON 1128000 80881 10/27/00 SZULIM,JERRY A 248.00 80882 10./27/00 TES- SMER,TODD D 252.00 80883 10./27/00 TREPANIER, EUGENE 1530.00 8088.4 10/27/00 TRONNES,JOHN E 300000 80885 10127/00 UBEL,JEFFREY J 1072.00 80.886 10/27/00 WALZ, JAMES G 10 -44.00 80887 1.0/27/00 WATERS,JOSEPH D 1938.00 8 08 8:8 10.12 7 / GO WELDON , ROBERT W 8 7 6.0 0 80889 10127/00 WHISLER,MICHAEL D 1144.00 80890 10/27/0 WHITE,JOEL. A 7810,00 8,0891 10127/00 WILSON,JASON M 2881934 27 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS.EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK - NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 8.10,89:22 10127. / 0 0 ZASTROW , GREGG P 16- 209010 80893 10/27/00 ZIMMERMANN HORN,ANN K 1808.00 8:0 1.0. -/ 2 7/ 0 0 DARST , ROBERTA L 101o50 0895 1Q/27/00 SCHWAB,TAHIRAH H 73.50 8.0896 10/27/00 CHLEBECK,JUDY M 1564.03 80897 1.0/27/00 NIVEN, AMY S 536.02 80$98 10/27/00 ELIAS,BENJAMIN G - 350.00 80899 10/27/00 FREBERG I RONALD L 1590.43 8.090.0 1.0/27/0-0 JONES,DONALD R 1374.03 809:01 10/2`7/00 ELIAS,JAMES G 1978.43 8:0902 10/27/00 EMMS,MELIS.SA K 109000 8 a 9 03 10/27/00 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 18' 2.03 80904 10;/27/00 EDSON,DAVID B 1596.91 8 10./ 2 7/ 0 0 HELEY , ROLAND B 159 0.4 3 8090.6 10/27/00 HINNENKAMP,GARY 1543.91 8 -0907 10/27/00 LAVAQUE 1532.03 8 0 9 0 8 1.01/27/00 LINDORFF , DENNI S P 15:61.63 80 9 0 9 10 [2.7 Q0 NAUGHTON , JOHN W 7 3 6.0 0 80910 1:0 / 2 7 -/ 00 NOVAK ,MICHAEL J 119 9.2 3 8.0911 10./27/00 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 129.19 80912 10/27/00 WORDENIKRISTEN L 328.50 80913 10/27/00 HANSEN, LORI L 851.17 80914 10 / 2 7/ 0 0 ANDERSON , EVERETT 4 7 9.0 -4 80915 10/27/00 OSTROM,MARJORIE 2493.63 80916 10/27/00 WENGER,ROBERT J 1992.83 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 80917 10/27/00 BELLO,ANTHONY A 92.25 80918 10/27/00 BELLO,THERESA O 50.00 8 -0919 10/27/00 BLAND, NEIL J 520-50 809`20 10/27/00 DeMARRE,CAMEO A 168.75 80921 10/27/00 FINN,GREGORY S 13:60.83 8 0 9 2 2 10/27100 FRANK , LAURA 3 5 4.7' 5 80923 10/27./00 FRANK,STEVE 157.50 809.24 10/27/00 GEBHARD,JILLIAN R 213.88 80925 1027/00 GENTNER,MICHAEL G 30.00 80926 10/27/00 GIANNINI,JOSEPH W 60000 8 0 9 2 7 10/2-7 ,/ 00 GRANDPRE , PATRICK Z 80000 80928 10/27/.010 JACKSON,ERIC S 158.50 80929 10./27/00 JONDAHL, ERIN E 3 -10.50 801-930 10/27/00 KRIER, DANIEL G 60000 8093.1 10/27/00 KRIER,JOHN T 60,00 80932 10/27/00 LO,CHUEPHENG 71.75 80933 10/27/00 LO,SAO YOUNG LEE 77.00 80934 10/27/00 LUSHANKO,ADAM 82000 80935 10/27/0 MAJOR,, MATTHEW D. 11.00 80936 10/27/00 MARCHETTI,DAVID H 60,00 8 -0937 10/27/00 OLSON,AMY M 30,000 80938 10/27/00 OLSON,STEPHEN J 74.50 80939 1. 0/27/00 PREW,O'OHN M 45000 80940 10/27/00 SHOBERG,KARI A 106.75 80941 10/27/00 SIKORA,PAUL T 66.00 29 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER r w m mobcrr CHECK DATE s EMPLOYEE NAME fr�r�ramam "m Imm AMOUNT 80942 101 "m.r craft -00 aft SP ENCER,WILLIAM 51.25 80943 10/ STINE,EBEN M 10000 80944 10/2 TRENDA,ANNA C 30.00 80945 10/ 2.7/00 WERNER,KATIE M 1.31.25 80946 10/27/00 ZI ELINSKI,JOSEPH R 73.50 809:47 10/27/00 GERMAIN,DAVID 1573.63 80948 10/ 27/00 NADEAU, EDWARD A 2248.69 80949 10/27/00 GLASS,JEAN 849962 80950 10/27/00 HOIUM,SHEILA 941.21 809-51 10./27 KARAS,TAMARA A 824.94 80952 10/27/00 MOFFAT,ETHAN J 265.20 8 095 3 10/27/00 POWERS, NICOLE L 188.15 S. 0 54 10./ 2 7/ 00 RI DLEHOOV'ER, KATE I 2 5 0.2 8 809 -55 10/27 00 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 1251,2 80 956 10/27/00 SHOB ERG I CARY J 3 74.00 80957 10 SMITH, AMY L 04 . .0 80 1 ANDERSON,TIMOTHY R 271.85 .80959 1012 7/00 BACHMAN , NI COLE T 164o13 80960 10 /27./00 BODZIAK,MICHAEL D 256.75 8 09 61 10/27/00 CHAPMAN , jENNY A 3 4 9.81 8 -0962 10/27/00 CMIEL, NICHOLAS S 46.20 80963 101/27/00 COSTA,JOSEPH P 44000 8.0964 10/ 27/00 DEMPSEY,BETH M 120,10 80 965 10/27/00 DeGRAW,KRYSTAL M 366.81 809 10./27/ ERICKSON,CAROL A 84,6.0 30 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER �������`r:wr'r.�� CHECK DATE raNr:�rr��•�r�� EMPLOYEE NAME �r,��.�.��.......�r�r��rr�r AMOUNT 80967 10/2 - 7./00 FONTAINE,ANTHONY 72.90 80968 10 FRUCI,REBECCA L 52.00 809 =69 10/27/00 GORAL,TERESA A 54.00 80 970 10/27/00 GRUENHAGEN I LINDA C 277 8 0 9 71 1-0 HAGO ERTY KATHRYN A 17 0.10 80972 10/27/00 HEINN,REBECCA L 248.78 80973 10/27/00 HILLS,CHRISTINE M 52.00 809 9 74 1 HOLMGREN., LEAH M 7 2.0 6 8091. 10 2.7/00 HOULE,DENISE L 135.45 80976 10/27/ IRISH,KARL D 183.63. 80977 10/27/00 JOHNSON,ROBERT P 191.35 8097 10 /27/00 JOHNSON,ROLLAND H 116945 8 Q9 7`9 1..0 / 2 7/ 0 0 JOHNSON , SUSAN M 58950 8:0980 10 KERSCHNER,BRANDON R 39.00 8,0981 10 2 7/ 0 0 KERS CHNER. , JOLENE M 13 4.0 0 8,0982 10/2 KOEHNEN , MARY B 472 80983 10 / 2 7/ 0 0 MEVERDEN , LAURA J 2 0 3.8 5 809.84 101 27/00, MILLS ANNE K 29.25 80985 1.0/2'7/ MOSSONG,ANDREA M 185.25 80986 1 MCDONOUGH,SHANNON 24.00 80987 10/27/00 MCMAHON,MELISSA E 105.63. 80 1.0 f 2 7 f 0 0 OWEN., JONATHAN 117 , 5 809.89 10/2 7/00 PEHOSKI,JOEL T 200,60 8 .0990 10/27/00 SCHAEFER,ROB J 100.75 8,0991 10/27/00 SISTERMAN, ANNA V 37.40 31 32 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 80992 10/27/00 SMITLEY,SHARON.L 199000 80993 10/27/00 STEINKE,JACOB P 257.10 80.994 10:/27/0:0 SWANER,JESSICA 143.50 80995 10/27/00 VIERS,MARY A 378000 8099.6 10/27/00 WARNER, CAROLYN 79.60 80997 10127/00 WEDES,CARYL H 117900 80998 10/27/00 WELTER,ELIZABETH M 308.63 80999 10/27/00 WHITE,NICOLE B 176.50 81000 10/27/0.0 WHITING, ROBIN A 198925 81001 10/27/00 WLLLIAMS, KELLY M 271, 41 81002 10/27/00 WOODMAN,ALICE E 308,70 81003 10/27/00 WORWA, LINDSAY M 62.21 81004 10 ZIELINSKI, JENNIFER L 138.63 81005 10/2.7/00 BOSLEY,CAROL 178935 81006 10/27/00 BRAUNIG,MELISSA J 165000 81007 10 / 2 7 / L10 FLEMING,KATHY A 6 05.31 81008 10/27/00 GLASS, GILLIAN 93.5.3 81.009 10J27/:00 GROPPOLI,LINDA M 166.25 81010 10/27 /00 MANSEN,ANNA K 353913 810:1 10/27/00 HANSEN, EMILY J 10.3.50 81012 10/27/00 HUPPERT,ERICA L 105.00 81013 1.0/2.7/00 SCHROEDER,KATHLEEN 288.43 81014 .10-/ 2 7 ( 00 VAN WYK , RACHEL J 7 2 , 00 8 -1015 10/27/00 BEHAN, JAMES 1304.03 81016 .10/27/00 BESTLAND,NICOLE R 60.00 32 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EAR REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK NUMBER 8017 81018 81019 81020 810,21 8-10.2.12 .81,012:3 8,102.4 81025: 81.02.6 6% OWN 81o.Z:l 8.028 810-2-29 8103:0, 81031 s �. 0�3 z 81,033 810,34 8,1013,5 CHECK DATE 1;10:/ 27 0 0 11,0/2 1-0/27"/00 10,/27/00 10/27/00 1 0/27 / 010 10/27 10127/00 10/27/00 10./27/. 1,0/27 1Q/27J00 10/27/00 10.127 / OD 10/-27/00 1:0/27/0.-0 10/27/00 -10/27/00 EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT DOUGLAS S, 240*00 DeGREE,,AMAND R 84-s00 JAHN J 1401*37 KOSKI,JOHN F 881.63 KYRK,ASHLEY 102.00 LESLIE G 144*00 LONETTI,JAMES F 733*38 MAINA,FRANK 105,000 MATTESON , FRANK M 211052 MORIN,TROY J 168*00 NICHOLS H 210.00 PATTERSON 630.42 PRINS,FKELLY M 231035 ROSEBEAR, CRYSTAL J 108*00 SEVtRSON,HOLLY A 157,o50 SEVER,SON.,JACOB D 36*0,0 AICHELE J 1388*83 MULVANEY M 1727*23 PRIEM, STEVEN A. 1591e87 443917927 33 AGENDA N O . � � a ,Action by Council Date AGENDA REPORT Endorsed Modified Reject TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director kQ3_a;>� RE: FINANCIAL TRANSFER FOR UNASSESSED WATER IMPROVEMENTS DATE: November 3, 2000 A $33,460 transfer is made annually from the Water Availability Charge Fund -St. Paul Water District to the Debt Service Fund for the 1993 Improvement Refunding Bonds to amortize the cost of unassessed water improvements over the term of the bonds that were issued to finance the improvements. When the tax levy for 2000 was adopted, a reduction was made in the debt service tax levy for the anticipated transfer scheduled for 2000. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council authorize a $33,460 transfer from the Water Availability Charge Fund -St. Paul Water District to the Debt Service Fund for the 1993 Improvement Refunding Bonds. P AFINANCE \WP\AGN \TFERUTL00 AGENDA NO* C07 ap 3 AGENDA REPORT Action by Council Date TO: City Manager Y g � MM FR Rej= OM: Finance Director RE: INCREASE IN CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT SERVICE CHARGES DATE: October 16, 2000 INTRODUCTION It is proposed that the City Clerk Department service charges be increased by 2.1 % effective January 1, 2001. BACKGROUND It has been past practice to raise service charges annually to key up with inflation. In 1993 a User Fee Study was completed for the City Clerk Department to insure that service charges finance an appropriate portion of the service costs. The User Fee Study report contained recommendations on 46 individual license /permit fees and service charges for the City Clerk Department. For each item, it had information on the unit volume, current fee, costs to provide the service, recommended fee, phase -in schedule covering three years for the recommended fee, estimated increased revenue from the recommended fee and subsidy amount after the recommended fee is phased in. On 12 -13 -93 the Council approved the recommended fees in the User Fee Study for 1994. There have been annual increases in the service charges since then. It would be appropriate to increase all City Clerk Department fees by 2.1 % to keep up with inflation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council approve revisions in City Clerk Department services charges listed in Exhibit A effective January 1, 2001. PARNANCEMMAGMUSERFEE.CC October 16, 2000 Exhibit A Page 1 of 3 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT Service Charges Fee Estimated Annual Volume 1999 Fee 2000 Fee 2001 Fee Alarm Installation Permit 20 $44 $45 $46 Alarm System License 165 44 45 46 Amusement Park License 1 306 313 320 Auctioneer License 1 85 87 89 Bench Permit 1st Bench Additional Benches 1 18 55 32 56 33 57 34 Block Party License 1 0 0 0 Carnival License 3 301 308 314 Cat License 100 18 18 18 Catering Food. Vehicle License 1st Vehicle -Each Additional Vehicle Fleet 2 1 1 103 69 273 105 71 280 107 72 286 Christmas Tree Sales License 8 182 186 190 Cigarette and Tobacco License 65 77 79 81 Coin Op. Amusement Device Base Fee Per Device 38 447 180 45 184 46 188 47 Dog- Kennels -New License 1 67 69 70 Dog Kennels - Renewal License 2 34 35 36 Dog License 700 18 18 18 Food Establishment License 126 530 543 554 Golf Course License 4 259 265 271 Itinerant Food Establishment License 12 61 62 63 Liquor License Investigation Fee 5 811 830 847 P:\ Finance \123R5W\Misc \FEES_CC.WK4 10/16/2000 Exhibit A Page 2 of 3 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT Service Charges Estimated Fee Annual 1999 2000 2001 Volume Fee Fee Fee 3.2 Beer Off -sale License 30 49 50 51 3.2 Beer On -sale License 4 187 191 195 Motor Vehicle Repair License 49 126 129 132 Nonperishable Food Vehicle License 1st Vehicle 2 61 62 63 Each Additional Vehicle 1 35 36 37 Fleet 1 140 143 146 Pawn Shop 1 8 8 8 Pending Assessment Search 170 37 38 39 Personal Service Business Premise License -New 1 570 584 596 Personal Service Business Premise License - Renewal 3 203 208 212 Personal Service Worker - Investigation Fee 1 106 109 111 Personal Service Worker - License 13 175 179 183 Potentially Haz. Food Vehicle Licensing 1st Vehicle 3 144 147 150 Each Additional Vehicle 1 69 71 72 Fleet 1 409 419 428 Second Hand Dealer License 4 289 296 302 Service Station License 1st Pump 17 145 148 151 Each Additional Pump 101 14 14 14 Sewer Connection Permit 145 74 76 78 P:\ Finance \123R5W\Misc \FEES_CC.WK4 10/16/2000 Exhibit A Page 3 of 3 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT Service Charges Estimated Fee Annual 1999 2.000 2001 Volume Fee Fee Fee Solicitor License Base Charge 2 136 139 142 Each Solicitor 2 47 48 49 Swimming Pool License - Commercial Indoor 10 93 95 97 Outdoor 22 93 95 97 Combined 2 126 129 132 Tavern License 1 46 47 48 Taxicab License 64 66 67 Base Charge 1 48 49 50 Each Driver 1 22 23 23 Temporary Food and ,Beer License 31 42 43 44 Theater License - Indoor 14 184 188 192 Theater License - Outdoor 0 448 459 469 Trailer Rental License 1st Five Trailers 3 35 36 37 Each Additional License 13 13 13 Used Car Dealer License 11 261 267 273 P:1Finance \123R5W\Misc \FEES CC.WK4 10/16/2000 AGENDA NO. -r.7 a.-41 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: RE: Finance Director and Community Development Director Action by Council Date Endorsed Madded Rej NWWW INCREASE IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICE CHARGES DATE: October 16, 2000 INTRODUCTION It is proposed that the Community Development Department service charges be increased by 2.1 % effective January 1, 2001. BACKGROUND 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. At this time, it would be appropriate to increase all Community Development Department fees by 2.1 % to keep up with inflation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council (1) approve revisions in Community Development Department license /permit fees and services charges listed in Exhibit A effective January 1, 2001 and (2) approve first reading of an ordinance (Exhibit B) to increase the planning fees. PARNANCE\WRAGNMERFEE.CD October 16, 2000 Exhibit A Page 1 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Service Charges Estimated Fee Annual 1999 2000 2001 Volume Fee Fee Fee PLANNING FEES (Set by Ordinance) Zone Change 1 708 * 725 * 740 " Conditional Use Permit: R1 and R2 1 211 " 216 * 221 " Other 11 752 " 770 * 786 Conditional Use Permit Revision: R1 and R2 1 42 * 43 " 44 Other 2 151 155 " 158 Variances: R1 and R2 7 139 " 142 * 145* Other 5 773 * 792 * 809 Vacations: R1 and R2 10 133 * 136 * 139 Other 2 518 " 530 * 541 Lot Divisions (Fee per lot created): R1 and R2 11 73 75 77 Other 1 275 282 288 Home Occupations: Initial 2 154 158 158 Renewal 5 51 52 52 Sign Erection Permit 100 22 23 23 Billboard Erection Permit 1 83 85 87 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3 1 " 1,055 * 1 Code Amendment 1 773 792 809 Planned Unit Development 1 1 * 1 * 1 * Plus a surcharge for each affected property to pay for the County's ding fee for resolutions P:\ Finance\123R5W\Misc \FEES_CD.WK4 10/16/2000 Exhibit A Page 2 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Service Charges Fee Estimated Annual Volume 4999 Fee 2000 Fee 2001 Fee Preliminary Plat 7 1 1 1 Preliminary Plat Revision or Time Extension 9 201 206 210 Final Plat 5 347 355 362 Time Extensions /Renewals 9 126 129 132 Billboard License 1 324 332 339 LICENSES DUE JANUARY 1st Contractors License 600 103 105 107 Motels 1 -15 Units 16 - 35 Units 36 - 100 Units Over 100 Units 1 2 1 2 98 133 245 281 100 136 251 288 102 139 256 294 Special Food Handling Establishment 35 81 83 85 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES Woodlot Alteration Permit 1 14 14 14 Building Relocation 5 739 757 773 Moving Permit 3 48 49 50 Community Design Review Board: R1 & R2 Other 2 16 170 622 174 637 178 650 Demolition Permit 1 57 58 59 Mobile Home Permit 1 36 37 38 On -Site Sewage Systems 6 61 62 63 Truth -In- Housing Filing Fee 100 27 28 29 Truth -In- Housing Evaluators License 29 95 97 99 Zoning Compliance Letter 22 23 23 P:1 Finance1123R51MMisc \FEES_CD.WK4 10/16/2000 Exhibit A Page 3 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Service Charges Fee Estimated Annual Volume 1999 Fee 2000 Fee 2001 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 15 103 60 15 105 61 15 107 62 P:1Finance1123R5W1Misc1FEES CD.WK4 10/16/2000 Exhibit B n ORDINANCE NO, PLANNING FEES Section 1.Section 36 -26 of the Zoning Code of the City of Maplewood is hereby amended as follows: Section 36- 26.Fees.The following nonrefundable application fees shall be required: Zone Change $740 Conditional Use Permit: R1 & R2 221 Other 786 Conditional Use Permit Revision: R1 and R2 44 Other 158 Variances: R1 and R2 145 Other gpg Vacations: R1 and R2 139 Other 541 Lot Divisions (Fee per lot created): R1 and R2 77 Other 288 Home Occupation Permit (initial permit) 158 (annual renewal) 52 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1,077 Code Amendment gpg Planned Unit Development 1,192 Preliminary Plat 1,331 Preliminary Plat Revision or Time Extension 210 Final Plat 362 Time Extensions /Renewals 132 Section 2. Section .36 - 258 of the sign code is amended as follows: Section 36 - 258.Fees. (1) A sign erection permit fee(except for billboards)shall be $23. (2) The fee for erection of billboards shall be $87. (3) The annual license fee for billboards shall be $339. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2001. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on .2000. Attest: Clerk Mayor Ayes- - Nayes-- AGENDA NO. SZ -J AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: RE: DATE: Finance Director Action by Council Date Endorsed MOMW Re' INCREASE IN MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES November 7, 2000 INTRODUCTION It is proposed that the attached miscellaneous service charges be increased by 2.1 % effective January 1, 2001. BACKGROUND It has been past practice to raise service charges annually to keep up with inflation. Attached is a listing of present and proposed fees. The proposed fees, except for police accident reports and fire reports, represent a 2.1 %increase as anticipated in the 2001 Proposed Budget. Police accident report copies are proposed to be decreased from the present rate of $11 to $5 based upon a survey of other governmental entities. Fire report copies are proposed to be decreased by the same amount as it has been city policy to keep these charges the same. Most fees are rounded off to the nearest $1 except for fees in excess of $1,000 which are rounded off to the nearest $10. Excluded from this report are Community Development Department and City Clerk Department service charges as these fees are covered in separate reports. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council increase the attached miscellaneous service charges by 2.1 % effective January 1, 2001 to keep up with inflation. hu Attachment PAFINANCE \WP\AGN \MISC.CHG GENERAL SERVICE CHARGES Fee 1999 2000 2001 Fee Fee Fee Dog /Cat Impound Fee $30 $31 $32 False Alarm Charge* 25 -100 25 -100 25 -100 Liquor License - Temporary On -Sale - Per Day 160 164 167 Occupancy Permit 13 13 13 Police Accident Report Copies 11 11 5 Fire Report Copies 11 11 5 Tax - Exempt Mortgage Revenue Financing - Commercial: Amount Paid with Application (non - refundable) 2,900 2 3 Base Charge (% of bond issue) 1% 1% 1% Maximum (in addition to application fee) * ** 28 28 28,600 Tax - Exempt Mortgage Revenue Financing - Residential (multiple - family dwellings): Amount Paid with Application (non - refundable) 2 2,970 3 Base Charge (% of bond issue) 1% 1% 1% Maximum (in addition to application fee) * ** 28 28 28,600 Tax Increment Financing: Application Fee (non - refundable) 5 5 6 Temporary Gambling Permit - Per Day ** 50 50 50 * Set by ordinance adopted 8 -28 -95 ** Set by ordinance adopted 9 -10 -90 * ** Set by Council on 9 -23 -96 P:\ Finance \123R5W \Misc \FEE_MISC.WK4 11/07/2000 AGENDA # Ga*6 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Cler DATE: November 7, 2000 RE: Appointment of Data Practices Compliance Official Action by Council Date Modified Rejected As a result of the last legislative session, the city is required to comply with specific changes involving the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Specifically, each government entity must appoint a "Data Practices Compliance Official ". This individual acts to resolve data practices disputes between the entity and citizens. While not in an "official capacity ", part of my duties is to function as the compliance official for the city. In order to comply with the legislative changes, it is recommended that council approve my appointment to comply with the procedural requirements of the statute. AGENDA #__� MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: November 7, 2000 RE: Cancellation of Second Council Meeting in December The Rules of Procedure for City Council Meetings states: Dam Maimed Re,�od The City Council shall hold regular meetings on the second and fourth Mondays of each month at 7:00 p.m., provided that when the day fixed for any regular meeting falls on a day designated by law as a legal holiday, such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding Tuesday, not a holiday, unless authorized by the City Council. In addition, the Council shall meet at 4:45 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the second and fourth Mondays. These meetings may be canceled by the City Council or City Manager if warranted. The second council meeting for the month of December falls on Christmas Day, which is a le g al holiday. by-Council In reviewing upcoming topics with you and the department heads, it is recommended that the second meeting in December be canceled and business and resume at the regular scheduled meeting on January 8, 2001. AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM (; q Action by Council ?ate TO: City Manager Y 9 Modified 1b ected FROM Public Work s Adm ' '�" inistrat A i t fi V G !1J0 IJlQI \J SUBJECT: Revised Financing For Project 98 -10 (504), Harvester Area Street Improvements DATE: November 6, 2000 The Harvester Area Street Improvements project is now complete and final costs have been determined. Financing for this project should be revised as follows: Assessments $ 482,400 General obligation (tax levy) 462,100 Sewer fund 54,700 State aid 32 Street construction state aid 54,340 Other government (SPRWS) 4 Private property agreements 5,800 Total project financing $1,096,600 It is recommended that the finance director be authorized to revise the financing for Project 98 -10. WJP jc MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: 2001 SCORE Funding Application DATE: October 10, 2000 INTRODUCTION aw !�►t'3EN1'�A1t� Action by Council Date Endorsed Modified Rejected have attached the 2001 SCORE application. The amount is $71,880. This money is a grant from the county to repay the city for part of its recycling costs. The county is requesting that the city council approve the application. RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2001 SCORE application. as \mem \score 8.2 Recycling - Ramsey County SAINT PAUL - RAMSEY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 2001 SCORE FUNDING GRANT APPLICATION CITY /TOWNSHIP MAPLEWOOD DATE OCTOBER 10. 2000 PROGRAM PERIOD: January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 CONTACT PERSON ROBERT WENGER ADDRESS 1830 COUNTY ­RD - B E - .. MAPLEWOOD MN 55109 PHONE 651 - 770 -4560 FAX 651 - 770 -4506 1. DESCRIPTION OF 2001 RECYCLING PROGRAM: A. SERVICE DESCRIPTION SINGLE - FANCILY RESIDENCES All - Curbside MULTI -UNIT HOUSING (If service is not provided by the municipality /township, please describe how they are assured the- opportunity to recycle, on- site.) Curbside or pick -up at central location when arranged with contractor, 9 t actor. CONDOMINIUM RESIDENCES (If service is not provided by the municipality/township, . please describe .how they are assured the opportunity to recycle on- site.) Curbside MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS (If service is not p rovided b the c /townshi lease . p Y tY P• P describe how they are assured the opportunity to recycle on- site.) Curbside NAME OF COLLECTOR(S) Superior Services 1375 7th Ave POBox 281 Newport MN ITEMS COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING: Cans, Aluminum steel J newspaper , junk mail P -cardboard, plastic 1&2, glass, magazines, auto battery 2 S. DESCRIBE THE LONG TERM SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING�FOR RECYCLING SERVICES: Quarterly.service charge on Utility bills C. DESCRIBE CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM FOR 2001: Waste_ oi and anti — freeze was dropped from program. 2, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO -USE SCORE GRANT FUNDS? PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW A SCORE GRANT WOULD ENHANCE /IMPROVE SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EFFORTS IN YOUR COMMUNITY. (PLEASE BE VERY SPECIFIC, AND INCLUDE MEASURABLE GOALS AND ANY PROGRAM CHANGES FOR 2001). Funds used for partial payment to' contractor. SCORE_ funds not used for promotion or other activities, Services measured by to nnage . collected. 3. HOW WILL THESE ACTIVITIES BE EVALUATED? By tonnage collected. 4. IF THESE ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING RECYCLING COLLECTION) WILL BE CONDUCTED BY A SUBCONTRACTOR WHAT PROVISIONS WILL BE MADE TO MONITOR AND AUDIT SUBCONTRACTOR ACTIVITIES? Weight slips and collection report from contractor. 5. IF THESE ACTIVITIES WILL BE ONGOING AFTER THIS GRANT PERIOD, HOW WILL THEY 6E .FUNDED? .By service charge on Utility bills 6. PROPOSED SCORE BUDGET. PLEASE DETAIL HOW YOU INTEND TO ALLOCATE YOUR 2001 SCORE GRANT. ATTACH A COPY OF YOUR ADOPTED COMPLETE 2001 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING BUDGET, INCLUDING ALL FUNDING SOURCES. ADMINISTRATION: $. 000 _ PROMOTION ACTIVITIES $ 16001 00 PLEASE DETAIL: 3 page recycling schedule in city newsletter EQUIPMENT $ -- PLEASE DETAIL: COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES $ 307, 290 PLEASE DETAIL: Curbside every other week collection of previously listed material A TOTAL SCORE GRANT $ 311.820 7. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR MUNICIPAL IN -HOUSE RECYCLING PROGRAM: We collect office paper, junk m a i l and cans. 4 8. DESCRIBE THE CITY'S SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING PROMOTIONAL EFFORTS; INCLUDE TYPES OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS USED AND SCHEDULES FOR DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION. .Yearly recycling calendar of pick --up dates and information sheet in city newsletter, 9. PLEASE ATTACH A RESOLUTION FROM YOUR 60VERNIN6 BODY REQUESTING THE FUNDING ALLOCATION OR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS AT WHICH THE REQUEST WAS APPROVED. Will send when approved. NAME OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT GRANT: ert J `Wen er SI6 ATURE TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT GRANT: Environmental Health Offic w PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED GRANT APPLICATION FORM BY OCTOBER 31 TO: DAN DONKERS, PROGRAM ANALYST SAINT PAUL - RAMSEY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SECTION 1670 BEAM AVENUE, SUITE A MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 -1176 5 EEP--21 -2000 09:16 ENV HEALTH 'N v. FaIcon Heights Gem Lake Lauderdale Lille Canada Maplewood Mounds Yew New 6Nghton North asks North Saint Paul Roseville Saint Anthony Saint Paul Shoreview Vadnais Heights White Beer Lake White Bear Tvwnshi SCORE Total - _ 1.9 $ 5 1.1 $ 458 0.1 $ 2,728 0.8 $ 9,731 2.0 $ 36.780 7.2 $ 12,950' 2.6 $ 22,905 4.8 $ 3,907 0.8 $ 12 2.6 $ 34,548 6.9 $ 2,629 0.5 $ 286,927 53.6 $ 26,545 5.3. $ 13483 2.7 $ 26229 5.3 $ 11060 2.2 $ 97,776 100.0 651 773 4454 P. 02/02 int - Avallable:1. 19,4' 1 0,636 920 6,480 1 9,549 71,590 26, 46,016 7,849 25,787 69,405 5 536,239 63,327 27,080 52,692 22,219 x1,000,000 I 6 . AGENDA nTM era MEMORANDUM Action by Council TO: City Manager Date FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Endorsed SUBJECT: Livable Communities Act - 2000 Participation • 1Vto�fied DATE: October 24, 2000 Rejected - --- ---- _7 INTRODUCTION As a city participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the Metropolitan Council requires Maplewood to adopt a resolution each year to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program. BACKGROUND On November 13, 1995, the Maplewood City Council adopted a resolution to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. On December 18, 1995, the city council adopted the housing goals agreement and benchmarks for. Maplewood. The city council adopted these with the understanding that the city will make its best efforts to meet or exceed the established housing benchmarks. O n June 10, 1996, the council adopted the 1996 Maplewood Housing Action Plan. On October 14, 1996, the city council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 1997. On October 13, 1997, the council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 1998. On September 28, 1998, the council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 1999. On November 22, 1999, the council adopted a resolution to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs in 2000. DISCUSSION The attached resolution continues Maplewood's participation in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. This makes Maplewood eligible for grants and loans for housing programs available through this act. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 2. This resolution is for Maplewood's 2001 participation in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. kr /p: miscel I /ica -6. mem Attachment: 2001 Resolution ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEAR 2001 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 473.121; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life -cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, each city must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the city plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan area municipality that elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WHEREAS, for calendar year 2001, a metropolitan area city that participated in the Local Housing Incentive Account program during the calendar year 1999, can continue to participate under Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254 if: (a) the city elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 15, 1999; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the city have successfully negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for the city: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT Maplewood elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during 2001. By Mayor By: City Clerk The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 22, 2000. AGENDA rM4 N04 � MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review — Motor Vehicle Sales LOCATION: 2525 White Bear Avenue DATE: October 31, 2000 INTRODUCTION Action by Council Date Endorsed Modified - Rejected _ - - The conditional use permit (CUP) for motor vehicle sales at the Maplewood Auto Center (2525 White Bear Avenue) is due for review. This CUP allows a used motor vehicle sales business to operate as a tenant within the existing auto center. Refer to the maps on pages 2-4. BACKGROUND On November 22, 1999, the city council approved a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle sales business for this location, subject to six conditions. Refer to the council minutes starting on page 5. DISCUSSION Chris Palmer is operating his motor vehicle sales business (Midwest Auto Works) from this location. City staff is not aware of any problems with this business. The city council should review this permit next year to check on the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the motor vehicle sales business at 2525 White Bear Avenue again in one year. p: sec 11 \midwest.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Council minutes dated November 22, 1999 A- +At-hmon+ 1 1 V 1 COUNTY ROAD 30UN1Y RD. D sr. Jows Z 2 � CIR. . 3. DULUTH Cr. 4. LYpA AVE. ti °� 0 gm � AVE ow AV RADQZ ll� AV coumrf cww KOliWAN AVE. 93 ti N Lc If AVE AVE. � SEX TANA � � IE, AVE > GERVNS =006 I 1 4 VmNiG DR J A1iE. AVE. K� Lake AVE COPE AVE AyE, �D G'i tNtit AVE ti � 5! � RD. CO. � � �f � LAAlRIE RD. "'goer !/dJRIE RD NQ JlNrC71011 AVE. � �4 � 8 Co. R0. � 8 gr Sri, �� AVE � � � � BIIRKE AVE LN. � ELOR IDLE AVE join atrA , { /EVE. BELJiAON� AVE � O ft SId4L � , /QI E. Sl�tluur sue � x+ wo=e sue y� LOCATION MAP t 2 - - coUNTY R C _ �. _ zo _ - 135 3030 ISO 180.6] o ► 136.93 .. 'V. � N h ►�1 }: h �� 1 0 r Z 4 pQ r 1 r` 6 F . ol (am) ) � N � WA, 2 0 23 (37 2 1 862 187-6 CAR & 1 80.04 :'' ( - 204 ' % 2Z� POWER EQUIPMENT 3c0 3 �, 22 3 oz o _ • �. 9 I 17 1.4 ow. �. °J 0 .3 y - :> KENNETH'S Q' 4 21 '4 = ( _ 333 � � — '_ H STYLING 45 �A C3 -- I • ... 1 f'o(o 5 DAVID K HESLEY cp 24 5 9 0 40 m S.) 5 ° I8 79 I ra x �: � '" ot• :.rte 135 • d. , 19 6 oz g N r 17 8 8 CA _ D V �r _'NC '" LAWYERS N h 0` �� i t0 8 N 7 Lu B O 1 h w 8 5% T ti vy OF _ ti f A - L -- XPERAMERICA 1 5 ° �• 4�-a� • :f �- OIOB:B •' : 3 ' � e- Z5 6 Z7 ' NWLEW D A TO .CENTER 1(o) ' ' _ • • _• LOW 10 z zl In =••:: - — Vic = i >\ ` ;', : • . r. +: r ' AND 3 Fi �__ WET 2.05 LP ' � i o t•: ,, 4 I I NTB SHOPPING CENTER I? I 4_� I To l 5 !v 85 F UTU EK \ i v, r PEP BOILS o C b � MIN- BOW 5 \ # FOODS 3 I I. I oac PIP PROFESSIONAL 1 , 3`-' c.5 /07 �o B ILDI 1 I „ 31 wimmmmmmmmm GERVAlo AVENUE 711 JAR vial �1, PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 3 4 N t ATTACHMENT 3 O I �9 b i n n 1 f 11 11 1 I rl rt 1 � at it r f !I !1 I i Ir II ! i 11 It 1 r �I it i f Ii i! t L � -1t,.1 63058 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED BUSINESS LOCATION WHITE BEAR AVENUE AUTO MALL c[ LJLJ Li Li Uu b AIIIT . -R VACANT VACANT COTTM AH ICE IMPORTS � ARKS SPA m , fM SF :�:J t .. -, CRt 1.650 SF 1.6-40 SF 3.360 Sr 2.520 SF 3.304 SF r rl 0 El ini 63058 APPLICANT'S PROPOSED BUSINESS LOCATION SITE PLAN i N 4 u t � a :74 1 a m :�:J t 3 1 t SITE PLAN i N 4 x ATTACHMENT 4 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, November 22,1999 Council Chambers Municipal Building g Meeting No. 99 -26 2. 7:18 P.M. Used Car Sales Conditional Use Permit - Maplewood Auto Ctr. (2525 White Bear Avenue) a. Mayor Rossbach convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. Manager McGuire introduced the staff report. c. Director of Community Development Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Frost presented the Planning Commission report. e. City Attorney Kelly explained the procedure for public hearings. f. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing, calling for proponents of opponents. No one was heard. g. Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved /introduced the following Resolution, approving a conditional use permit for used sales at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue for a six month period o time. At that time applicant will e required to come e ore Council at that t and move its adoption: 99 -11 -109 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dale Martin, of Credit Equity Sales, applied for a conditional use permit for motor vehicle sales at the Maplewood Auto Center: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: N 280 FEET OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 1, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 11 -22 -99 5 2. On November 22, 1999, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8.. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. .Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. There shall not be any vehicles displayed in the parking lot with "for sale" signs, flags, pennants or any other forms of car -sale display or graphics. 5. Car`sales on the site shall be by appointment only as proposed, not on a drop -by retail basis. 6. No Large transport vehicles allowed on the site. Seconded by Mayor Rossbach Ayes - all 11 -22 -99 AGEMAi1�NNp G Action by Council MEMORANDUM Date 'Endorsed TO: City Manager Modified FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Rej SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review — Choice Auto Rental LOCATION: 2923 Highway 61 North DATE: October 31, 2000 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for Choice Auto Rental in the LaMettry Collission building (2923 Highway 61) is due for review. This CUP allowed Choice Auto Rental to operate a motor vehicle rental business as a tenant within the existing LaMettry Collision building. Refer to the maps on pages 2-4. BACKGROUND On November 22, 1999, the city council approved a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle rental business for this location, subject to four conditions. Refer to the council minutes starting on page 5. DISCUSSION Choice Auto Rental is operating their motor vehicle rental business from this location. City staff is not aware of any problems with this business. The city council should review this permit next year to check on the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the motor vehicle rental business at 2923 Highway 61 North again in one year. p:sec4lchoice.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Council minutes dated November 22, 1999 Attachment 1 VADNAIS HEIGHTS 19 Q z � � o Q N U L1,J 3 4 • GP 2. w BEAM AVE. � k � W y t Cr � 22 �v 0- La I ryi s La k ike COUNTY �3 0 PALM � f u� =on CT. PALS w � � s CONNO C xk R Ate• v CT. DEMQt AVE- @ t; w W W J o BROOKS o CT. Q a 12 SEXTANT AVE. ' k P K W Y. Lake W 1 61 o � Q SUMMIT CT. Z 2 COUNTRWEW CIR. ST Y 3 DULUTH CT. e� ✓O/y /S 4 LYDIA ST. v� j'b BEAM i f O o 19 � 0 �n O AVE. Knuc a ad a e W U o v app w , W V CT. KOHLMAN AVE. U Q o - RD. v LAURIE - RD. ROAD 1 C W R D r0 Park W7 � 23 - C� Cr • �EN z W U o C ! r. w )N NOR Z � g _ AVE. a U GERVAIS AVE. SHERREN AVE. L k 19 � 0 �n 0 AVE. Knuc a ad a e o A app COPE , W Markham CT. 4, A A VE. Pond U Q o - RD. v LAURIE - RD. U 1 LElANO Z Huntw+ood R D o SANG URST Park W7 � 23 N C� _ •► Z D a o DEMONT AVE H� *� tB ROOKS AVE. N BROOKS t; ( SEX TANT AVE. z ~ Four M 9 AVE. 2 � z GERVAIS w 0 a ct v GRNDVIEW A AVE. z Y m VIKING DR. SHERREN AVE. L k LOCATION MAP COUNTY RD. D 4 N z � �n AVE. Knuc a ad a e V app COPE , LARK CT. 4, A A VE. p c LARK • Keller / @ La Q o CO. a RD. v LAURIE - RD. stwwoodo LAURIE Z_ 0 : 1 LElANO R D o SANG URST Park i AVE. N _ •► LOCATION MAP COUNTY RD. D 4 N z Attachment 2 s �4' ■ f T LEXUS i I s 30 . J9 3000 MINING AREA f �� G ,•, ' • � i0 3 co 4 64 16 140 Oj - - -- �e st 086" 29 �9 'arm SUMMIT C a 2978; j o O At s .o 80,10.5 ''` `. ` 2970' - A, a s( �/ Cf) N = •, C4 .' _ 2962 • __. �lq 001 — • N o , N 2954 IZ (26) 9 J COUNTRY ��� 3 . 20 4O ' C ! R C ,, ' �� & 94 6 O t1�J 1 3 � �Q Rs' '1 ' 0 0 ,, N IN 8 2938, 041 ti 2930 s e „� 1 C O CO co N •e� A 66 ,too q. Z g1 1 Ar 19 ( 33) j pULl1T CT. _ . 0 2906, s ' to !•t•, N r cad; • M � �3T t •: ,� A � N s 1.13 19 r 2889° 289 � * 2882 t r .. ♦— :. 2883 0> y Lc• _ .,o . s LL7150 46 `0 w Y iF= KNEW - " 3 3' es.wt _ 77 - 4 7267 - 74 .20 too - • 2990 . GULDENS ' ..•��P' o s 2999 •' ,� I� ` aq 0 RE.G 2980 O u n da 19 i• 1 Z =�• �, 5 qs.. y 1 (Io) AUTO SERVICE SITE LAMETTRY SITE F JJ %W MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA SITE % M 1.7 4 4 2889 OOC 1o! t l 69 e/ ♦♦ in 0 0 •� 0 - ' TOYOTA r • � f 1 51 etc N 04 - N L 3.14 M ' 1190 1 r' a 2873 . ._ %Mir • . o �► 1 s la,c o� � t. 09a�,. , • 2950 *5,N L AL J. do 135 -� o GOLF COURSE 2926 <S� , � fb E E. z I /x '► G o Alo •o , v ., - N 0 BEAM AVENUE • • r1 �93 1! fit.• ti� , 1 . Itsb t i 4 / G 04 • .. d1p ., sib I ~ • r• c L PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 4 N 3 Attachment 3 T • • -- - - L /C4A �►vEII�E � 1 I •1 C ' I c = t I i �I 1 !1 i 1 !1 I 1 t � I I 1 � t ' j am.__ 1 I -- - 4o, t FUTURE /AUTO USE =+ �� r / 1 f �:= r r • 1 ........... . .. .... . iv • • • • .fit.': i . i • ' I LaMETTRY COLLISION AND PROPOSED s a CHOICE AUTO RENTAL 0 1 1 I1 f i of i f MAPLEWOOD • i , r I 0 �. ' +` TOYOTA t.t• 7 - - BUILDING 1 1 — --------------=--=------------------------------ ---------- - - - - -- ------------------- HAM ArEM1E 1 (. e SITE PLAN ---------------------- - - - -- r 4 N 4 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 4 7:00 P.M., Monday, November 22,1999 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting. No. 99 -26 3. 7:33 P.M. Choice Auto Rental Conditional Use Permit - LaMettry Collision Building (2923 Highway 61) a. Mayor Rossbach convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. Manager McGuire introduced the staff report. c. Director of Community Development Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Frost presented the Planning Commission report. e. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing, calling for proponents of opponents. The following persons were heard: Brad Hoikka, 1854 W. Burnsville Parkway Jeff Florzak, 1123 Duluth Court f. Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Carlson moved /introduced the following Resolution, approving a conditional use pennit for a car rental operation at La ettry Collision, 2923 Highway 61 North. and moved its adopt-ion. 99 -11 -110 CONDITIONAL USE PEP311T RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Michael North, representing Choice Auto Rental, Inc., applied for a conditional use permit to be permitted to operate a motor vehicle rental business. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2923 Highway 61 North. The legal description is: That part of the East 723.4 feet of the North 225 feet of the South 698 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29 N, Range 22 W of the 4th PM lying westerly of the westerly right -of -way of State Highway No. 61. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 1, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On November 22, 1999, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described conditional use permit 11 -22 -99 5 I based on the building and site plans. The city approved this. permit. because: ' 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be I 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. S. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Activities shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. Number of rental cars shall not exceed ten. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes - all 11 -22 -99 L G - 3 AGENDA # G / MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: November 7, 2000 RE: Adam Graf Fundraiser Action by Council Date Endorsed Modified Dejected A benefit will be held for Adam Graf whose parents died as a result from injuries of the house explosion at 2674 Geranium Street. Several individuals and organizations are involved in organizing the benefit that will be held at Maplewood Fire Station #4 located at 2501 Londin Lane. The event will be held from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on November 19th. Non - profit organizations may apply for temporary on -sale liquor licenses and temporary food sales. In this case, an auctioneer license has also been applied for. The per -day fees for these licenses are $160, $43 and $87 respectively. While request of a fee waiver has not been made, it is recommended that the amount of $290 be waived in support of the benefit for Adam. AGENDA ITEM1Qp �w Action by Council MEMORANDUM Date TO: City Manager Endorsed FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Modred SUBJECT: Lot -Area and Lot -Width Variances Rejected..„ LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Roselawn Avenue and Kenwood Drive East DATE: October 20, 2000 INTRODUCTION Mr. Dennis Campbell is requesting that the City approve two variances to build a house on an existing lot. They are: 1. A variance to build on a lot that is 69.5 feet wide (on the side street). City Code requires corner lots In the R -1 (single- dwelling residential) zoning district to have 100 feet of frontage on each public street and at least 75 feet of width at the building setback line. 2. A variance to build on a lot that has an area of 8,400 square feet. City Code requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for lots in the R -1 zone. This would require a variance of 1,600 square feet. The maps and drawings shown on pages 6 through 9 show the proposal and the letter on page 10 explains the request. BACKGROUND May 23, 1983: The City Council denied three variance requests for a person to build a house on a 40- foot -wide lot with 5,000 square feet. This was a lot on Dieter Street, north of Frost Avenue that the city had zoned R -1 (single - family residential). In 1984, the property owner took the City to court to challenge the City's decision to deny his variance requests. The court upheld the City's denials. An adjacent property owner has now purchased this lot to use for yard space. August 22, 1988: The City Council approved a lot -area variance, a variation from the subdivision code and a rezoning from R -1 to R -2 for the property at 1927 Flandrau Street. (This was before the City adopted the R -1S district.) These changes allowed a property division to build a new house on one lot and a 50'x 146'(7,300 square feet) corner lot for the existing house. This property is on the corner of Flandrau Street and Frost Avenue, about 500 feet to the west of White Bear Avenue. The new lot and house are at 1690 Frost Avenue. December 23, 1991: The city council approved a zoning map change and two variances for Ambrose Czeck to build a house on an existing vacant lot at 1919 White Bear Avenue. The approvals included: 1. A zoning map change from R -1 (single - family residential) to R -1 (S) (small -lot single - family residential). 2. A variance to build on a lot that is 50 feet wide. City Code requires lots in the R -1 (S) zoning district to have 60 feet of frontage on a public street. 3. Two 5 -foot side yard setback variances. City Code requires at least ten feet. ALTERNATIVES (from least to most restrictive) 1. Approve the variances. 2. Change the zoning for the lot from R -1 (single - dwelling residential) to R -1S (small -lot single- dwelling residential). This would reduce the minimum required lot size from 10 square feet to 7,500 square feet. Mr. Campbell's lot would meet the lot -area requirement of the R -1S zone but he would still need a 15.5 -foot lot width variance (for the frontage on Roselawn Avenue). The R -1S zone requires a minimum lot width for a corner lot of 85 feet and a minimum of 15 feet of total side yard setbacks (usually 5 feet and 10 feet). 3. Deny the variances. This would prohibit Mr. Campbell from building a house on this lot. DISCUSSION Having a house on this lot would be in character with this neighborhood. There are a variety of lot widths and lot areas in this part of Maplewood. In fact, the lot to the east of this site, (800 Roselawn Avenue), is exactly the same width and size as the lot in question. In addition, there are five properties in the area that are each 50 feet wide and each have 6,512 square feet. They are the properties at 768 and 782 Roselawn Avenue and those at 741, 745 and 749 Bellwood Avenue (near Kenwood Drive West). (See the maps on pages 7 and 8.) In addition, most of the neighbors who responded to our survey either have no objections or support the new house. A zoning map change from R -1 to R -1(S) for the lot in question and for the property to the east of the site (800 Roselawn Avenue) would eliminate the need for lot area variances for the two properties. The proposed zoning map change also would lessen the size of the lot -width variance from 30:5 feet to 15.5 feet. COMMISSION ACTION On October 16, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of the staff- proposed zoning map change and the lot variance for Mr. Campbell. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution on page 11. This resolution changes the zoning for the lot at the southeast corner of Roselawn Avenue and Kenwood Drive East and for the property at 800 Roselawn Avenue from R -1 (single - dwelling residential) to R -1 S (small -lot single dwelling residential). The city is approving this change because it meets the findings required by code and because the applicant is proposing to build a single dwelling on the vacant property. B. Approve the resolution on page 12. This resolution is fora 15.5 -foot variance to the zoning code to build a house on a corner lot that has 69.5 feet of street frontage (instead of the 85 feet required by code). The reasons for this variance are: 1. A house on this lot is in keeping with the character of the area. 2. The problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the owner. 3. The variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 33 property owners within 350 feet of this site. There were nine responses. Four were for the proposal, three were against and two had comments. For 1. OK with us. (Trimble - 750 Roselawn Avenue) 2. I have no objections as long as the house is not oversized for the lot. The homes on our block are proportionate to the lots and I would like to see that continue. (Hilger - 774 Roselawn Avenue) 3. I have no objections to Mr. Campbell's proposal. A weedy vacant lot is not an attractive alternative to a family dwelling on a lot. The discrepancy in lot size is not greater than the immediate neighbors. (Horgan -1936 Kenwood Drive East) 4. I have no worries about it. They can go ahead with it as far as I am concerned. (LaFond - 782 Roselawn Avenue) Against 1. This is not a hardship case. Mr. Campbell is a professional builder and knew the limitations of the lot before purchasing the property. Zoning laws were made to be followed to provide beneficial standards for the community and not for exceptions. He is not replacing an existing structure but is providing new housing which should meet existing building and zoning laws. What will be allowed next - modifications to the building codes? I whole heartedly believe the variation to the existing zoning laws. In addition, the requests for the variation are not even close to the current code. Over 30% less frontage than required and 15% less in total square feet. The block where the building would cover is also an exceptionally small for the area and would be substantially overcrowded as planned. The attraction for many of the residents of the area is the open wooded area of the community and not the sardine can planning seen in other parts of the city. (Indritz - 921 Bayless Street, Saint Paul) 2. If the code requires a lot of 10,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage on Roselawn Avenue, then I disapprove of this single - family home. Why ? ?? There is enough vacant land elsewhere!! A concerned neighbor and taxpayer. (Anonymous) 3. I was hoping no house would be built there. It would make this intersection too crowded and too busy. Therefore, 1 am against it. I would prefer no house built on this lot. If it does go through, I would hold no animosity toward the new neighbors. (Anonymous) Comments 1. No objections to the variance. (Johnson -1951 Kenwood Drive East) 2. 1 only hope the builder for the proposed small house does not lack good color -sense - especially since this is going to be a small house, because the things we do and do not do with our property, i.e., our houses and our yards, do affect the value of the homes around us. Remember too, that we were used to looking at a natural setting. 3 In addition, the home directly east of the site sets 32 feet back from Roselawn. The home directly west of the site on Roselawn sets back 46 feet from Roselawn. The left side of the proposed home would set only 30 feet from Roselawn. Because there is now a 4-way stop p light at Highway 61 and Roselawn, if ever Roselawn Avenue had to be widened for traffic, or whatever, (heavens forbid!). Would setting the house 30 feet off of Roselawn add cause to the north side property on Roselawn to lose their frontage opposed to the south side? (Dunn - 767 Roselawn Avenue) REFERENCE Surrounding Land Uses North: Houses across Roselawn Avenue East: House at 800 Roselawn Avenue and apartment building South: New house on Bellwood Avenue West: Houses across Kenwood Drive East Existinq Lot The survey on page 8 indicates that this lot has been of record since at least 1967. Findings for Rezoning Section 36 -485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zonin g code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect .Upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as ublic water, sewers police p � , p ce and fire protection and schools. Findings for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 4 "Undue hardship," as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The p li g ht of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations Y alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on September 21, 2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by November 20, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Sec17 /campbell.mem Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Property Line Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant's letter 6. Zoning Map Change Reso'lution 7. Lot -Width Variance Resolution 5 ATTACHMENT ! J Lam �J � J 3 ' couHIN 2 ALVMW OR PALM s oR cr. � cd 3 C to 2400N .a a. w�c � WOW w � IE .o LAUM CT. cauw eu►� cr. rA AV E. ODFUDM AV BEIMONT W. 0 � BELMONT (N . SIaLWiW AM ! / SKICIJ�A�W AV. KEW 000 4d W. �. VERNON AV �► ROSSA , yE gELL WOOp Abb AyE, 8Ql AVE. AVE � � SUtAMiER Mti AVE R AVE -s- V� � lJYi1C 1 C1 9 1 co. < RI IWJQSTONiAVE A. Rowd AYE. � �Lda pR10E �AyE, %* / � n AVE. WF w SAINT � PAUL �� \ / w7Y11RR♦l r11 7 � O 00 SKU t � AVE, FROST FE MOON AVE r; & %V ., FRtS81£ A RIP LEY ?� 50 M LOCATION MAP 4 N a _ 1 .$ 4.0 3 1- rz > N �• I to �t ui 1 13� 134..03 cl N (!r) h ,�• , dI 114.0 114 03 '• 44.9 22." r 3 VERNON taAVE. ISO N � 114.03 114.03 „ 40 140 S N >Dewds n - (�� N O Q t t31•o3� t31.o� � �e I ,°, (4�) 0 ( i C¢4) G ty4 150 54.3 6 0 13 I 4 (��) ' 0 ` i 7 � +a) \ ((90) ' �► =�u � O 24 () t 1 I 6 �N, 0 15 of s t3 4.o' I Z o i9 8 03 1 •\ w LT.OS W VO 755 cfl 33 33 ( N 66 ^! 2 ,15 4 6S 4 yl 4 7 vT G'7 470 0 60 •• C - 60 few 5 7 fn A? , �1. 54 �1 T 66m v. t z r r~ - • " a/ 4 0 6s C> Z Q • 25 � c s o 84 4 /10 4 / 2 . o � I '1915 I Z s , 3 '6 ♦ 0/ a 4 / � l 7n i • I �, 6 (n) I I iSr 49. - I t r 21 a PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 0 ;KELLWOOD O n i210o r t.oe � 7) 6 ��- I ( ,) ti It 66 O 0 Z Q rni _ W W �$ �(79) 3 -- ° V 1373c. ( , 7 (74) 8 3f 1L Ot 010 40 m A 4 N O 0 O N�. Q rni _ 1373c. I (74) 8 3f 1L Ot 11.5y _ (7 7) 259 _r3 / (76) V, 0 A-7 ec. ; z- 1933 Its r) e m A 4 N ATTACHMENT 3 �\ ........... ...... . :.:.: :.:::: ::::::. 1 ::..... :: . :. :.:::... :: ::::::::::: :::::::::: ::::::: 1 ........... :::::::::::::: ::::::::: ::.:::::::::::::::::::: I :::. .... ...... .. .... , ...... . r , i _... ....... S ...... TE ... . ............. .......... , .......... ........ ............... , _. ...... ... . . :: ..................... ....... I ............. ....... .. ........ ..... .............. ........... ...... ........ . , .......... , .... ..... .......... , I ... t , ...... .......... I ............... ..... l ........... ....................... ... ........ I , .......... ...... .... .. ......... ... ......... . ..... . ... , ........ .............. ....... I ......... ::::::::::::..:: .. .............. ........... ....... ........ . .... ............ ........... I i ...... .............. .......... .... .. ...... ........ I .... ........... , ..... ..... ...... . ............................... I 1 �"� ............... ............ .. .. .............. .. ......... .. .... ... .... ....... .. ......... .. ..... :::: : :::::::: ::: ::::::::::::: W �� ........... .............. ........... W 0 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- �, 0 I r �� j -- r r _ _ ----- - - - - -- .............. .......... ................................. i ............................. ::: ............. . . ........... :: :::::::: .. i .. .... ........ ......... .................... _... ............... 1 .......... : : : : : ............... ........ ............... ..... ............................... .. . .... _... .. , ........... 1 1 ...... ...... ..... I .......... ::....:::::::::: r r .. ......... _ .............................. ... ....... ...... .. .. :: ::::' :::::: I ::.. :: - I 1 t :::::::: Z :::::::::::::::.... .........:.::: :::::: :::::: t t I 1 ::: W :: :. :::::: :.... ........ .... I . .. ..... : ::.: *:.,-.-.-,-*-,-... : w..: ... Ll . ..... I , . :: ......::::: .. ... (� , .......... ........ i I 1 .. .. ... ......... I :::::: :. ..:: ... ..:::. , ... I ... . .: . .. 1 :::: ::::. i ::: ::::: ::.:. I I > r. I _ , :. _. , N ;pni; car? Liabi it � 61i� ��f ;���; r-�t is not a jega�J�r Current Layers; STRTXT; ROADS96; *'ec 700 ,- n p car stlinvp , and E not i17ter7cle to b STRUCTURES96; WATER96; HALFSECL, X. rise"I ;F5 one, This map Ls a compila"ion of LIMITSA; PARREG; LIMITSP •:• tiC 1 - ',1 41 Cxf!'Li 1 ftlt/i €lid lh.fli 'L k'.� ' .. / an4#{. s so CT e X. ¢ ' I {7 t: { is Sources. . PROPERTY LINE MAP 0 4 N .AVM ;-. ANT ;)c`SC IL P'rlO N 4- 6 � d u)c c,,n f !o 4 4 a nd s, CcoV s a.o d P/Q r ; s �Q K �s Frog 1'.�o r ��S t t-o v J SITE PLAN 4 N 605 �E L A 327. 5 i /4 Ygi .0 Eav ro q.. .5 3� r� �� ; `� a • — - ---- -- -��; 800 .—.» =-- 782 h ° K o { SITE •W VIN 4 5 c. 1 � 1 I I APARTMENTS (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) rI t ` 1 s 3 r - �� 3 l U SITE PLAN 4 N ATTACHMENT 5 September 16,2000 To: City of Maplewood From: Dennis Campbell Re: A variance for the lot described as, West half of lot 4 & 5, Block 1, Parkside According to the survey, the above property does not comply to the city's ordinance regarding square footage for a build- able lot, and does not meet the width required for a corner lot. The measurment of the lot mentioned above is 8,400 square feet. Upon checking the surrounding neighborhood, there are several homes with lot measurment of 6,500 square feet, including the cornor lot across the street -to - - the._:west , which has 6,500 square feet and is 50 feet in width, Without a variance from the city, the lot would be unbuildable, of.no use to the.adjacent properties, and would have to remain vacant. With a variance, I can build a single family home, that will fit into the normal setting of the neighborhood and meet all of the city building codes pertaining to set back and side lines. Thank you, Dennis Campbell 1872 Adele St. Maplewood 651- 771 -0150 10 ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, the director of Community Development proposed a change to the zoning map from R -1 (single dwelling residential) to R -1 (S) (small -lot single dwelling). WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property on the southeast corner of Roselawn Avenue and Kenwood Drive East and the property at 800 Roselawn Avenue. WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of these properties are: 1. The West 1 / of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Parkside Addition, in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 17- 29 -22 -41 -0004) 2. The East Y of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Parkside Addition, in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PIN 17- 29 -22 -41 -0003) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On October 16, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this change. 2. On November 13, 2000, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave 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 change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop the vacant property with a single dwelling. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2000. 11 ATTACHMENT 7. LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dennis Campbell of Dennis Campbell Construction applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the vacant property on the southeast corner of Roselawn Avenue and Kenwood Drive East. The legal description is: The West Y of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Parkside Addition, in Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 17- 29 -22 -41 -0004) WHEREAS, Section 36- 84.3(b) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires a lot width of at least 85 feet for a corner lot in the R -1 (S) zoning district to build a single dwelling. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to build a single dwelling on an existing corner lot that is 69.5 feet wide. WHEREAS, this proposal requires a variance of 15.5 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On October 16, 2000, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on November 13, 2000. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The 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 variances for the following reasons: 1. A house on this lot is in keeping with the character of the area. 2. The problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the owner. 3. The variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on , 2000 . 12 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 1.6, 2000 XI. NEW BUSINESS Lot. Area and Lot - Width Variances -- Southeast Corner of Roselawn Avenue and Kenwood Drive east Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Dennis Campbell is requesting that the City approve two variances to build a house on an existing lot. They are: 1. A variance to build on a lot that is 69.5 feet wide (on the side street). City Code requires corner lots in the R -1 (single - dwelling residential) zoning district to have 100 feet of frontage on each public street and at least 75 feet of width at the building setback line. 2. A variance to build on lot that has an area of 8,400 square feet. City Code requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for lots in the R -1 zone. This would require a variance of 1,600 square feet. Mr. Rossbach expressed concern that the back door to the home being built on the lot would open into the backyard of the abutting home which would diminish the neighbors privacy. Although the commission may only control the lot, he felt that the new house needs to be in character with the neighborhood. The new property line maps are a great tool to the commission as noted by Mr. Trippler. He also wanted to ensure, since elevations are not displayed, that the engineering department would need to approve the grading for the site before construction. Dennis Campbell, applicant, 1872 Adele St., Maplewood, was present to answer questions. He clarified that the proposed back door to the home would face the side of the neighbors home, not their backyard. He - did show the proposed plans of the colonial style home to the neighbors and they seemed very pleased with the project. Mr. Ledvina suggested the grade for the project may not be up to code due to there being a 4 foot hump on the property from curb to back.. He also strongly agrees without being able to control the building, the proposal could be very much out of character for the neighborhood and not serve the variances well. Commissioner Frost made motion to move the council to adopt the resolution that would: A. Approve changing the zoning for the lot at the southeast corner of Roselawn Avenue and Kenwood Drive East and for the property at 800 Roselawn Avenue from R. (single - dwelling residential) to R(S) (small -lot single dwelling residential). The city is approving this change because it meets the findings required by code and because the applicant is proposing to build a single dwelling on the vacant property. B. Approve the resolution fora 15.5 -foot variance to the zoning code to build a house on a corner lot that has 69.5 feet of street frontage (instead of the 85 feet required by code). The reasons for this variance are: 1. A house on this lot is in keeping with the character of the area. 2. The problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the owner. 3. The variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes -5 (Fischer, Frost,Pearson, Thompson, Trippler) Nays -2 (Rossbach, Ledvina) Mr. Rossbach stated the nay votes were not in any way an attempt to prevent Mr. Campbell from building a house on this lot. Their concern was that a house could be built that would be totally out of character for the neighborhood. In making the change to the R -1(S) and granting the variance, we are doing that so that it can be in character with the neighborhood. If the house that is built is out of character with the existing architectural designs that exist and if the house is not oriented properly on the lot, it will not be in character. This proposal will go before the City Council at the November 13th meeting. AGENDA 11W NO L��� J MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Sign Size Variance — Maplewood Covenant Church LOCATION: 2691 White Bear Avenue DATE: November 6, 2000 INTRODUCTION Action by Council Date Endorsed Mo&fie d The Maplewood Covenant Church is requesting an eight- square -foot sign -size variance for a proposed ground sign. They are proposing to replace their existing 32- square -foot ground sign with a 40- square -foot sign. The sign code allows a maximum of 32 square feet for church ground signs. Refer to the attachments on pages 4--8. BACKGROUND October 4, 1995: The community design review board (CDRB) approved the applicant's present ground sign. In 1995, CDRB approval was needed for a 32- square -foot church sign. FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship ", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. APPLICATION DATE We received this variance application on September 11, 2400. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action would normally be required by November 11, 2000, but the applicant has agreed to the November 13, 2000 city council date. DISCUSSION Staff feels that the city council should approve this variance. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the code is to regulate the size of church ground signs because churches are typically located in residential neighborhoods. The intent of the code was to keep sign sizes to an acceptable size so not to be offensive to neighboring residents. Maplewood Covenant Church, however, is not in a residential location. It is located on White Bear Avenue next to a business that could have up to a 300- square -foot pylon sign. There are no residential neighbors that this sign would affect. The proposed 40- square -foot sign would be quite modest in size compared to the nearby signs of other White Bear Avenue businesses. There are no "physical" circumstances that are unique to this property which would warrant the variance. The unique circumstance, however, is the fact that the code was written with the purpose of protecting homeowners from having large signs in their neighborhoods. This is not the case here. The proposed 40- square -foot ground sign is modest in terms of its location and appearance along the White Bear Avenue frontage. If there is a finding of hardship because of "unique circumstances," it is that the code creates the unique circumstance by establishing an overly restrictive sign -size requirement in this instance. COMMITTEE ACTION October 17, 2000: The CDRB recommended approval of this variance. The CDRB further recommended that the applicant submit a landscape plan for a planting bed at the base of the sign. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on pages 9 -10 approving an eight- square -foot sign -size variance for the Maplewood Covenant Church at 2891 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The spirit and intent of the ordinance would be met. The intent of the code is to regulate the size of church ground signs because churches are typically located in residential neighborhoods. The intent of the code is to keep sign sizes to an acceptable size so not to be offensive to neighboring residents. Maplewood Covenant Church, however, is not in a residential location. The proposed sign would be fit this location since: a. This church sign would front on White Bear Avenue, a busy commercial thoroughfare. b. The church property abuts commercial property with large signs. c. There are no abutting residential properties that would be affected by this sign. 2. The proposed 40- square -foot ground sign is very modest in terms of its location and appearance along the white Bear.Avenue frontage. The hardship is created by the ordinance which is overly restrictive in this instance. 3. The applicant would not have any other signs . on the property or building. 4. The applicant would remove the existing ground sign. 2 This approval is conditioned upon the applicant: 1. Removing the existing ground sign. 2. Obtaining a sign permit for the new sign. 3 Not exceeding a sign height of eight feet (code requirement). 4. Submitting a landscaping plan, for staff approval, for the area beneath the sign. p:sec2slchurch.sgn Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Proposed Sign 5. Applicant's Letter dated September 8, 2000 6. Variance Resolution 7. Colored sign sketch, photographs and site plan date- stamped September 11, 2000 (separate attachments) 3 • Attachment 1 • O � '. _ ..- '• _ ." - '-. ',•r.► -.: fir.':'' =1 _. .' '.';./•� -f� `-� ,I'..•, -- r-:'s -rr J ••• •• •• •• • • •• • �• '_. • : •• l • •, •••. • •, • ••� • •• MI , • •• ••••••• • • • 1 • •� ••.• r • • • •• •• , • • • •• •� • I •• • M - a COU N'Ty RD. WOODLYN • - �n . 0 LID IA � a. a- � � • 3 ° Z �' N W W •. 4. Cr i. sumMrT C T. �- Z ' 2. COUSIWMEW CJR• s- ✓ Y r . _ o Z NAPE • 3. DULUTH CT. � B� �, G �. 3• J c 4. LYDU1 ST. Ar+c �. AYE. • ° ® AVE. BEAM W ° 19 BEAM "OLE VI E1N AVE. RADATZ ♦ • 0 • AV S• • •• ' • • ,• j •• • •• • • •• • I • 0 3 n C MESSIIBI 0 uj Markham RAMSEY w N01 Pond ' U N CON � •t. W .•- . , Z .r W COURT - g W " KOHLMAN o KOHLMM AVE AVE �`� � . • - Z J 3 Z3 • W W O S ' ROAD )UNTY �n • ky/ ro El Cr � Z W ' � i EHILL RD. ® . •. ...� c C71 W W W EDG ,• •• • CON NOR DE � AVE. W � - •.•• � ' 8ROOKS AVE. H BROOKS EL E'EN TH AV E• ' 'Zoo �n SEX TANT = i«rr � AVE ' .•' W GER'VAIS GERVAIS AVE. •• � GER c� GERVAIS AVE. VAIS >- CT. v GRAND'VIEW AVE. z W �• ` VIKING OR. R N AVE. SH ER E • •' ' K ad Lake COPE AVE. �. : `': • c� COPE U AVE. �n CT' 4 ' AYE v LARK < AVE. a LAURIE •. ~ RD. LARK ° ►- _ �r+.r•..I p LAURIE RD• W Cr. ..� O Q o CO. RD. ,� v LAURIE RD. Y Z W = W A.; .. `~ - '� O URST AVE. C ; LELAND RD. o _ SANlH r , Z W Z B �� x CO. RD. 8 O- } JUNCTION AVE. ® `G� v • • N _ F o eURtCE AVE. O d evRKE AVE o m BURKE AVE. ; CHAMB ST •�.+M ol�wn n • •. , o NO ELDR IDLE AVE. J 64 U • s` . 0 • - RSE EVE• B ELM ON'T AVE. _ "E4 nom[ .J , . • ; . ?.. ` • OV •''•• :.s C SKILL A� E SKILL MAN AVE. F�ARRIS AVE. • F,� ROSEWOOD AVE • SHO ROSEWO D R�1htSEY CO p :• �. NURSING ' EE .• GA t� Ark AN AY. Q- AVE. S. FAIR GUNDS •, ; ; = •,:1:: Novo LOCATION MAP 4 N j :.o' mi. `� y '`/'4.1 a.c - Attachment 2 L E =z14)2"0 - OF - oU A Q , V o 0 L k � ~� � /� � � l 5 3 ac. - c 3 - f. O O Z q .✓ 0 o.,c . �? e 5' 3 0 0 d N Nn o1 C co . 1.01 ac. Q� 030 F 7 .4- C) - 200' C�� •32 ac. o z.92 ac. !mil N 1 N � �15� � 30 1893 - U - c:r N � Z ! S 100' 100' I?-o' 020 • �.._ • .1 Al Nwr L. lyl 1-1 1 60 " y�o.. �afl goo too' goo ►u „ c ► 44 o 1892 189 •::::. v,,� �:��`: �• — — , co - 0 - ) �F1' S.s2 arc % + 0 � .26 ac. 020 0 9 8 7 6 MAPLEWbOD COVENANT CHURCH (27 po ';4 CO , 3 CO- .43 ac .�a, 06� •� Ll . 12 r) f :,. c 2�� t•} C2Yl � ..�.. 2-3) N I I r" �• ~— D PENDENT L D o O W _ 13 ( r ' N 1. r 14� � o 17 8 19 o - 16 18) Z >9 '•� M OGREN'S CORNER } �_ �� . HARMONY COMMUNE - .. X31 •s9. �.a 60* 18 100' too• - EDUCATION CENTER mar) ui , COUNTY ROAD C -- 4 33 00 •� ul PROPERTY LINE !ZONING MAP 5 4 N ATTACHMENT 3 Q 'i ' NI in SITE PLAN lv J I ld J Q a Q W S i N ob a ..,; 17 •'.'�� *•�•'• iI •�1�f �ri►y�TJ� �' My'•{ �•i �� ,'� �'y� � i . A y •�i ,,� i ,I t .� t ,i� . y'. .1 i �. ! � t,.1 " • ' • •� :+; - •1 , ,/M � • �t ! 1 '� ♦�. f ♦ Q It �Cr' + , jt >c Ir 1'�� •. .�' � y '. s'' � � ':,+ •.. • .• c �.. •, � {�y •1 �lyj� ++���,�,,�'�j r ,y��� t � , ` Y I it yy � � y, � i�' `����7��y.�;j_ j * �' T•CA�.Z'�•�.2�N��• ♦ •. � ��.j,'jj] 40 . % ~� ?�a L�� •� ~5..1.,(.L�:!,R.'. _. ,r r•w. � f. ♦r!j�1 L•'�i�. '�!� . •�:.r�E.'. •� Ip• 1�`�:h.,f�.A� Iri•• 5.� . . ►•7 t':. �k * a ,� •�•'• t 1� . /.• �y. 1 .. �,�,�', 1� �'' E /r � LTTRS STAND F'i' • "�r r�ti� ���•, 1"� 1' �: , �•;,., ' � * ��y � � ', _�,.�, `•1•r��'' IF IV t 13 LTTRS CNDNSD FOP IN .,..A 0 -1 1., Q . I rt �� •, ',.. •r "•�'^', .• of i• :w'i, � �j • Z •� �' i'k' 4 � .7 1 f • � 't( � . �� ;y• ', �••,•.. !• • ,,•�•�•� �r ;! ` � • , ` jam,+' ••� rVtp Lei .1 '• �� a f AV •,'J� � .�i•Y' J .� ?. /'.� „�•• Y •1, 1 � . �,; . •t �.•�'` ` , � 4 i f ��,` -+ r • t• 1 �. :�•. /:�.. ,� ' •,, . [ l.. • �•'. I . •. . .� ".,,.•, •/• 1 r. .. •y .ti.. • 1 .�...r•`ey"'. ' "• 7 r2y?r`nrr."W SEP ATTACHMENT 5 Statement in Support of zoning Variance Request for Size of New Church Sign — Maplewood Covenant Church — September S, 2000 While Maplewood Covenant Church is officially located in a residential zone, it is in actuality in the middle of a busy commercial strip on White Bear Avenue, «Mich extends from I-694 south beyond Minnesota Highway 36. White Bear Avenue carries a large volume of traffic at a rate of speed higher than normal residential levels. Neighboring retail businesses have erected large, elevated signs in response to the need for enhanced visibility on this strip. An example is the very large, elevated Texaco sign on the southern boundary of our property. The non- elevated sign which Maplewood Covenant Church proposes to build is modestly larger (40 square feet) than the sign permitted by Maplewood code in residential areas (32 square feet), but is considerably smaller than the large, elevated signs of our commercial neighbors. It is also smaller than the 50 square foot elevated sign on the property of Redeeming Love church a couple of blocks to the south on White Bear Avenue. While there are a handful of residential properties to the north of Maplewood Covenant on White Bear, the sign will scarcely be visible from those residences, since the church's property is bounded by Kohlmari Ave. and -*; space with large trees to the north and by -*vetland/open space across White Bear Avenue to the east. The sign will not be visible to residents further «vest on Kolilman Avenue on the opposite side of our property. The proposed church sign was professionally designed to include decorative elements to enhance the appearance of our facility and its neighborhood. The maple -leaf and cross logo re- enforces the church's long commitment to the Maplewood community. These aesthetic elements could no be included if the sign were built to code, since the remaining space would need to be devoted to essential information. We believe that the proposed sign is essential to maintain the Visibility of our congregation and its mission in this busy urban setting. r 7 L Attachment 6 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Covenant Church applied for an eight - square -foot sign size variance to erect a 40- square -foot ground sign. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property at 2691 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: LOTS ONE THROUGH FIVE, HOMELAND ADDITION, RAMSEY COUNTY. WHEREAS, Section 36 -316 O requires that ground signs for churches not exceed 32 square feet. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing that their new sign have an area of 40 square feet. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of eight square feet. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On October 17, 2000, the community design review board recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on November 13, 2000. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The 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 since: 1. The spirit and intent of the ordinance would be met. The intent of the code is to regulate the size of church ground signs because churches are typically located in residential neighborhoods. The intent of the code was to keep sign sizes to an acceptable size so not to be offensive to neighboring residents. Maplewood Covenant Church, however, is not in a residential location. The proposed sign would be fit this location since: a. This church sign would front on White Bear Avenue, a busy commercial thoroughfare. b. The church property abuts commercial property with large signs. c. There are no abutting residential properties that would be affected by this sign. 2. The proposed 40- square -foot ground sign is very modest in terms of its location and appearance along the White Bear Avenue frontage. The hardship is created by the ordinance which is overly restrictive in this instance. 3. The applicant would not have any other signs on the property or building. 4. The applicant would remove the existing ground sign. wt This approval is conditioned Upon the applicant: 1. Removing the existing ground sign. 2. Obtaining a sign permit for the new sign. 3. Not exceeding a sign height of eight feet (code requirement). 4. Submitting a landscaping plan, for staff approval, for the area beneath the sign. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 13, 2000. 10 4 ft 10 ft � L . T :1 1}!r� ,�..� ''/ :��� a r,: .s �.�. ;, �- • »r..,.�.� "i• ,�„1. ���'.���� rl•f�. :'iT[.►+� . ►iti:�tir•.' _ r `:=t^'1.t♦y,`+Za::: -L �.!P.'�� :>;..� tk.F .. .J-t � u r �..�.. . }.. 2 ..� i,•:•. ^ • `1.: . .� f �[ { -, �� �;„ ♦a� ?� � ;� '.:..�• K ?.,;�, ♦�r C',,� .i'•ti.:, . Y .• ' 1 Yr w . f w. ��C�:. - .. d� ��1k3'•Y. .,,. r l r.. 4 .,• , ••,� :. .;,. �; .' ^,� ,.� �+ Y nrs�' p. � , � . «I. /ti,�+.•�3�1r �r .�i + •:Z �.w • t'7,... �, `�•.••+�. �. •,r, ,' • -!+t' ,• .1 �J : t. +. �. ..�'f�''t, t .:. . f / :`7: � .. i.• ' 'r •. • 1 ',,, .' �.' • 1 t �. v� 1 •} .yam 6 '•• A. ♦' ., •n +►•' 2 ., '� r.f 'T �•• tf •2.'. ...',�� 1 ~••• •1 � ' ':, ''�' .H.M 1' '14•. fil:. -'1' •'Y. •.c':, :�i• „.Y„ :r. t„• , ".'' ••t r. '.e''v!.•: :�' I •i,. • t•4.....ty'nt:• >'• iY.r :>• :,... •••! +v :fit! �. ^ �::i :y .i.'c. l.•i :7so r•1. •• .�Y��,,. _irrl?• y ��• ..i r •• .' }�f.. .1 :.�.•; .i.:M V z y, ..fx'•♦... .r .�Z• ^S. � 1 .i•.•l �• ��:' r• ,._ • !. .�r: t. .�. .V. Mi :�a .�^./.. +.. i�Y 1r •,Y ~xt• #�..�• �, 7• �r,�'' 't : 1 k. y�. .; ter' - •�' `'' ,.. +''r.:� t 1 r�!}.: �r •,, ^,,- ;y+��,•,��;•.�t��1�• tt`• < t,: '''•. - ti ..�t ,. J. :: .-. ': .:' •� •f .•�.'�.-:,�% -.. ..- •��•T+•,.. K. '. ! ', ` t t_••s:� i, •., •,r ..�.. ..• •' i.i{ �`• �•I.v ;.i• z - } ✓t` _ .a^ . • � "r '•• t ••• .t+i: fir L �a � �. •••` , • ,• �• .,. •• t. •1 . '�. _.. Ji• � .V,V' 17 A, ?• !', : +� .. •1 ��•.,.�E'1'r•�,' ♦•JJy. .�/ � ;� �,.^ •c..'yC :y `J � • : tl}•� a: ri.. I • •f,I: ��•LJ'. ♦• Z r L • A1 l 4. .rl �•: . �, '.• . • S' ,,, ,, • Z .• ' .,'' t .. +• :` . }, ati � y. �.. •� •'';. :�Y t �' i ..��. �i�l �i• Y.,: ,r. ••1w,,r�.:.r . ~/�` .,� � y ..Y�; /.t' . i • J _. ... .- .... •-_• - .... , fi x; i, ^,. �,. i•~ri :r,' it ' .•r{ � !, r:; �•; ; ,.. j •L• :� • "►' .{' ++ .. •I1,,1. �•�.��.;.. • " J ~ J. �fi•'1•� LTTRS CNDNSD FONT 1v s f��iJ �} ��Z:. �i 1 `:K 4t'�:f��l�r'"'�.C� i�� \'�. • • �! ••J '. .•!.i �`� f .t� .; ;Si .•, •• • , ` �./ ) • ;. }' .L' •,` ' �. o ..� , k _; %+' ,'i M. J 'i�4 • . nt f v � ! f J,: •'• ,�:.!`• .� f r:'y��. � ._. ._ r � � " w't ' y �,K� } t ♦L:..••�J •'1,. :., {. ��, .L�� ' s Y; ^ n� • ' ;• ,[��C:U•titlt /♦! •.i t• J.i`�� . �. � .,; • 'tP � � ICY: i:» , "� �k� ;1•`•r � '•li'. :.'w • • !.1 [T ..Y•' • �}•. 'h� +• �.'f i . • l •.�=; `i+• {i+/l�•�•r ij. t� � ,�ti� 1 T. • s,. /•4 ~�•., •1j•. � ; -• .. II w � . aa��, ♦ � ' 1 ,r;S hd • , � r •* ti � yy--� L • S. F �. � y [ ,• u� i�Y14�'• i�•.li �t Fair ��.�• • r - � ' i� } r. 1. 1 . ' �� s1 +R .Sy i� • • ..L!� \� � �•:-[y 1��•' ,•;'• 1' :� _ .. .. ._ .. .. �. :f:�•, - y 1 • •!� r. W k ?� '� � v y �K /, y l �{ J .. Jt',. +rt , ���I:j Tf�Otis.s:'�dS.� `,.. �• ..'.a.�.ac•ti�!s Tkt' =1i_�7 .'.:i�.t� }Sad ti �Jf =: f' 6't SEP 1 ,CUv 1 t • f:: D z M . � � � b • '.,t"I �• � , '�.. ,� S • � '" N � • • � �,• r •. ♦� :. ♦ .t , �•. +,. � .,,.� ! tom► � i �- • ~•~ ii � . • . �, .• � i• .i �`� ' �.. r � — ..... --•'' f •y ...� /yam � �> Y.. Y R ?� •� a. .•n w..r.�r �� ^�YV• ►.!v�Kys�.. .. .. .. �...._.. ...,.... ... .. •:.r '. �J S it A �i �i t��V+,, w•� -• �!AeL�" ,� ,. ����. ... . nt 4 • r _' � .. ..•� . L:' Y ' � � z •- .. + �,ar t � 3 ♦ • r r "fir,` r .S `� r .ir �, r " ♦I I i ` � . I.i iJ�. '�' � ' � i ? •t � ,• � .. 7 e � '• ., ..� , � .. :� . ,% � . J : •�• • i �ij .. � , I t r ►<��� r ,t ,,. 1 J �. y ./ r • •� ,� , . ♦ � , . � � � �1 • t � � ,� �•,.�• .r • ,Y _ w • , � �,�� 1 ... :. .. _ �.�y�••r�� �.�r + � ,•—� ' `� �' �,f � � v ►�.. 1 ..rte /� .. ��1�R�. ;�f r _ � � 7 1 . - ' � � �q ri.. �: 1.J} y r t ..r •+ 1 ti • i . `�.': � .. .. + �,ar t � 3 ♦ • r r "fir,` • ' x0000l� SI M, DEo, A F •1 99.5._ _ • ,uT .OPEN. to DIAMS PE D JFOR PL ANT i M G 13 y 8 U t L D l N OWNER i_ EW v ; / .. EX TEN G i DN .. .. 99 x ! • . '. Ar ELF-Va 10000 (RJEFEexNCF.).- t . :s.r .it •• • • ' » ;! a ..its;. 1 9.5 `. ` -98.8 -� • - VA - - j '' t '• - .t • i _ 1p IBM- Wwb I .C t ko •° 1 Ave .. • 13 AGENDAM34 .l MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review PROJECT: AT &T Wireless Monopole LOCATION: 1745 Cope Avenue DATE: November 6, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Action by Council Date Endorwd M led Julie Townsend, representing AT &T Wireless, is proposing to install a 125- foot -tall monopole and an equipment building for telecommunications equipment. They want to install the monopole and building in the southwest corner of the existing parking lot south of the existing Taste of India building at 1745 Cope Avenue. (Refer to the maps and plans on pages 7 -15 and the statements on pages 16 -18.) Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a monopole and related equipment in an M -1 (light manufacturing) zoning district. 2. The design and site plans. BACKGROUND On January 13, 1997, the city council adopted the commercial use antenna and tower ordinance. On September 7, 2000, the planning commission considered this request. The commission tabled action on the proposal to give AT &T a chance to contact Qwest (US West) about co- locating on their property on Gervais Court. DISCUSSION Federal Law The 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act does not allow cities to prohibit the installation of telecommunications facilities and equipment. Because of this law, local governments may only regulate, but may not prevent, the installation of monopoles or other telecommunications facilities. As such, the city may only base their decision about this request (or any other similar request) on land use and on health, safety and welfare concerns. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses all telecommunications systems. This licensing requires that the proposed or new telecommunications equipment not interfere with existing communications or electronics equipment. If there is interference, then the FCC requires the telecommunications company to adjust or shut down the new equipment to correct the situation. Maplewood must be careful to not limit or prohibit this tower (or any other tower) because of electronic interference. That is up to the FCC to monitor and regulate. Co- location As part of their site selection process, AT &T noted that they could not find an existing structure within one -half mile of this site that would meet their needs. In fact, they claim they need this site to fill -in a gap in their coverage area. (See the statements on pages 16 and 17.) Ms.Townsend told me that she has contacted Qwest about co- locating on their property on Gervais Court. However, Qwest has indicated that they do not have room for another monopole on their property and that their existing tower cannot be raised above the existing 90 feet to the 122 feet needed by AT &T. (See the letter from Qwest on page 20). It is important to note that the city cannot force the owner of an existing wireless facility (such as Qwest) to change their equipment or to accommodate another monopole on their property. As Ms. Townsend said, AT &T would prefer to co- locate on an existing monopole if the necessary height and location are available to them. Site Location Issues Staff and the owner of the Monson Insurance building at 1737 Cope Avenue are concerned about the proposed location of the monopole and equipment building. (See the letter on page 19.) There are other locations in this general area that staff considers more preferable for this facility. Such possibilities include being near the south side of the Taste of India building (farther away from the south property line), on the north or west sides of the Taste of India building or on the north side of the Strauss building. (See the map on page 21). Any of these alternative locations for the monopole would have less impact on the Monson Insurance building and it would put it farther from the residential properties south of Cope Avenue. The employees and customers that use the Monson Insurance building should not have to look at this facility or have it right next to their property. However, AT &T and the respective property owner would have to work out a lease agreement for locating the facility. (See the letter from AT &T to the property owner on page 22 and the letter from Richard Charbonneau to the city on page 23.) In response to the neighbors and staff concerns, AT &T revised their project plans. (See -the applicant's alternative plan on page 11.) This revised plan shows the lease tract turned more north- south along the west property line of the site with the monopole on the north side of the new equipment building. This design puts the monopole about 40 feet north of the south property line. This alternative plan also shows the applicant adding landscaping on the south and east sides of the lease area and new landscaping along the south property line of the site. This alternative plan would lessen the impact of the proposed facility on Monson Insurance. This is because the monopole would be farther away from the Monson property and it's base would be screened by the equipment building and the proposed landscaping. Site Screenina and Landscapin The applicant was not originally proposing to add any trees to help to screen the base area. (See the original site plans on pages 9 and 10.) The city may want to require the applicant to plant trees on the south side of the site to help screen the base area from view from the south. However, the existing landscaping and green area south of the Taste of India parking lot and south of the proposed lease area is on the neighboring property. This existing green area would be a location that the applicant could add trees to the area. The city should require the applicant to prepare a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility (for any location). Summary It is important for the city council, when reviewing this or similar applications, to balance the interests of the applicant, the property owner, the neighbors and the city as a whole. The proposed location uses the existing buildings to help screen the proposed tower from near by properties. However, the 2 city must decide if the original proposed lease site or the alternative lease tract (dated October 25, 2000) balances the interests of the property owner and AT &T Wireless in having a tower site on this property and the interests of the neighbors who want the tower moved or screened from all their views. COMMISSION ACTIONS On October 16, 2000, the planning commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit for this facility, subject to the staff recommendation of revising the location of the lease area. On October 17, 2000, the community design review board recommended approval of the design plans for this facility, subject to the staff recommendation of revising the location of the lease area. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Deny the proposed monopole, equipment building and site plans date - stamped August 14, 2000 and September 12, 2000. The city bases this denial because of the following reasons: 1. The proposed use would change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 2. The proposed use and project plans would involve an activity and equipment that would be detrimentaC, disturbing or cause a nuisance to persons or nearby property, because of general unsightliness or other nuisances. 3. The proposed use would not maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. There are other locations on the property that would better use the site's natural and scenic features into the design. B. Adopt the resolution on pages 24 and 25. This resolution approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 125 - foot -tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 1745 and 1 751 Cope Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans as approved by the city, including the location of the lease site. The applicant shall revise the site plans dated August 14, 2000 and September 12, 2000, by moving the lease area to a new location away from the south property line so that it will have less impact on the Monson Insurance property. The revised site plan shall be subject to city staff approval. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the approved plan. The applicant shall verify the location of the property lines and existing site features around the lease area with a certificate of survey. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility (for any location). 3. 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. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant or owner shall allow the co- location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 3 6. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. 7. The applicant or AT &T shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. The applicant/developer may provide a copy of the lease indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and related equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial guarantee. C. Approve the site and design plans for up to a 125- foot -tall telecommunications monopole and equipment building on the property at 1745 and 1751 Cope Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following: (a) A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area. The proposed monopole and equipment building shall be at least five feet from the property lines` The applicant shall revise the site plans dated August 14, 2000 and September 12, 2000 by moving the lease area to a new location away from the south property line so that it will have less impact on the Monson Insurance property. The revised site plan shall be subject to city staff approval. (b) The applicant shall prepare a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility (for any location). (c) A grading and drainage plan for the project site. (d) Revised equipment building plans that show an exterior of brick and a hip roof. 3. The color of the proposed equipment building shall be submitted to city staff for approval 4. The monopole shall be light gray. 5. If the required landscaping or trees are not installed by the completion of the tower, the city shall require the applicant to provide a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed within six weeks of occupancy. 6. Before final inspection of and use of this facility, the applicant shall complete the following: (a) Paint the equipment building to match the color of the Taste of India building, as approved by city staff. (b) Install the required landscaping following the approved plan. (c) Restripe the parking spaces in the Taste of India parking lot to city code standards. (d) Install a security light on the pole (250 watt minimum). 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 4 CITIZENS' COMMENTS City staff surveyed the 25 property owners within 350 feet of the proposed site. Of the eight replies we received, four were against and four had comments. Against 1. I do not own a cell phone and do not intend to buy one. What I have to say about it would do no good. I think you will give them a go ahead anyway, so why send out these papers, a waste of money. But I will have to look at the tower every time I sit on my deck about 300 feet away. (Adler - 1739 Lark Avenue) 2. I do not want this in my neighborhood. It would be directly out my back door and the most visible there from my deck. My cellular service is just fine without this monstrosity facing my backyard. Taste of India restaurant is selling out to AT & T because it cannot make it on their own. (Esala - 1745 Lark Avenue) 3. The information provided is not accurate. It could have been on our property on a more suitable site. This plan has a very detrimental effect on our property and should not be allowed! They are looking for a cheaper site, not necessarily a better one! (Howard Gunthmann - St. Paul Public Schools Foundation) 4. See the letter from Ronald Riach on page 19. Comments 1. We have no concerns. (Dave Meyer - Specialty Engineering) 2. Will this tower interfere with phone lines and Musak music which we currently have? This was a problem we had at a building in Shoreview whereby the WCCO radio overpowered our Musak on our phone lines. (Anderst - 1700 Gervais Avenue) 3. If a monopole can be used by more than one company, as stated in the letter from Julie Townsend, why can't it be combined with the pole already in existence on the US West property on the north side of Highway 36? Or, there is a lot for sale between US West and Cook's body shop. Or, there are certainly places in the Rainbow or Home Depot or Target lots. Why chose a place so near residences when there are plenty of other choices? (Glassel 1775 Lark Avenue) 4. Have the pole color light gray. Install a security light on the east side of the pole (250 watt minimum). Prepare a grading plan to address drainage. When they say the shelter can match the color and material, does that mean brick? Add wood slats in a fence or extra plantings. (Charbonneau - Lakeland Shores) 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.18 acres Existing land use: Taste of India restaurant (about 3120 square feet with 55 parking spaces) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Taste of India restaurant and Highway 36 South: Monson Insurance building and Cope Avenue West: Vacant property planned and zoned M -1 (fight manufacturing) East: Strauss Skates and Specialty Engineering PLANNING Zoning and Land Use Plan designation: M -1 (light manufacturing) Ordinance Requirements Section 36 -607 requires a CUP for a communications tower in any zoning district Other than residential. The ordinance allows a maximum height of 175 feet. Findings for CUP Approval Section 36- 442(a) states that the city council must base approval of a CUP on nine standards for approval. Refer to findings one through nine in the resolution on pages 24 and 25. Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on August 14, 2000. State law requires the city to take action on this request by October 13, 2000, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. The applicant has requested this matter be heard by November 13, 2000. p: sec10 /1745cope. mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan dated September 12, 2000 4. Site Plan dated August 14, 2000 5. Applicant's Alternative Plan dated October 25, 2000 6. Partial East Elevation 7. Partial North Elevation 8. Partial West Elevation 9. Partial South Elevation 10. Applicant's statement dated July 25, 2000 11. Letter from Joe Beck of AT & T 12. Applicant's statement for criteria of approval 13. 9 -12 -00 letter from Ronald Riach 14. 9 -18 -00 letter from Pat Conlin of Qwest 15. 10 -06 -00 Site Map 16. Letter date - stamped 10 -10 -2000 from AT &T to Richard Charbonneau 17. Letter date - stamped 11 -06 -2000 from Richard Charbonneau to city 18. Conditional Use Permit Resolution C� Attachment 1 Ian+iwi nc G courrtr RIM F 1C 'd F wioruz If` homsv l MUM KOK AS CT. MENLL RD. J Noa � AVE � DE110NT AVE � Q AVE. AHf AYE � AVE. OERIINS ANE. > OEJtWYS � V� ORIYX7VEIM AVE NwQK' OR � SNFAA£11 AVE GStL,E AVE. � COPE � AVE, DOPE IWE. uml AVE. 16�$� Lw--= A W. L4URIE RD. a Co. < to. uuaE RD. rm & ta.� RD. � u� � wo } ,�craN eve. b +'� e � oo. ao. � e � Q � UW (1) CHMOM Sr n , eaUW AW. Z It SOL AV E. SIOIJ.MAN AVE HMRlS AVE � � lEOSE]NOOD INIE N. ww TOO � AN AV. � AVE S. FAR CF��IIMD6 � Rn �` t ' �i► � �j � �i � NOI,LDWAY e. MBE. �. FE NT AVE. AVE. ARD44 su AVE. 7 RIP ter /^ NOW AVE � S0 PM M � � � � � lds � � � �i i�IOStON AVE F111 AVE �j � � � PRICE TINE. �► PRICE LOCATION MAP 4 N Attachment 2 - 1 4 I K I M1 10 11 � � �a to "> I E,. I- .95 ac 13 � IS 021 - Ia 0 17 N ' 30 1 5 15 125 • d 30 l - 301' .. 10 87! 165.87' 00 1 , ,-- : 14 - -N, 16 N� HIGHWAY 36 —1 1 U FN I V OD ' N an Mr . AOAD ES M T • - - - - - - r to I 3.34 a �. PROPOSED TASTE OF INDIA AT &T TOWER '3 ' SITE ( v •� l t • w N 3 (' / 146 5 O wA 0 89 o ar � o ; MAPLEWOOD N 15 0 42• SPECIALTY OFFICE PARK ' ENGINEERING 1z + �,} `� MONSON STRAUSS SKATES I &BICYCLES !'-J 0 - 1 O t nQd Doc 1br:899t ( -26' 1� 2'1 - D I ST. CT IFIL.E 3')9920 QPsnODt�� t/4 /fib COPE AVENUE 4 #c>p f� f 0* 0 s" ]WE � f■ff f ■ w u _x ------------------------ - - - --CIO D Go' 'z T Td' - i T ''7 - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- - - - a 2 so . S1 2 r CONOOMINILJM� ` 021 /�)- 34D 'M- K at 1 aet O W N E Oi 2 V/ ' p � p� "q %9 1 - ' Vo. ? 6 "- 1 G O` 3 v N N C4 � �Q O f (9q) _ S •r (� 41) , Q .45A.,- o ' COPE AVENUE INSTITUTE OF ■ NORTHWEST (4+) ��� ( PROFESSIONALSo� FESSIONAL � FACIAL SURGERY C m PRO a - N d I a. K BUILDING TER ir1 CIZ,�e (�:� C1�4 a o - _ - CEN ( , a 7 ♦ - lo0 36 75 ., „ ,. .� 75 77.3g'� s ulls '15' '75 75' 75' 1 75' 44x38- : (002.98' ■ LARK AVENUE fin 6 o .3 0 (,,. 75• „ .. , 75' 7. • 87.38' 84' 84' 84: 4' '19' L00 + t r in ( (5 (56) ass) (54) (53) (5 2) Gsj) C 21 ) i 20) ( (l a) (i,) C PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP 4 N !1 ATTACHMENT 3 LEGEND S89'53 O denotes Section Corner Found — — — — _ 2651.61 ♦ denotes Iron Monument Fauna 0 denotes 1/2' r 1 4' Iron Pipe Monument NORTH LINE OF THE SEt /4 OF R set A morited by Minn. Reg. No. 14889 4 OF NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SEt / SECTION 10, T. 29 N., R. 22 W. +9 01 6 SEC71ON 10, T. 29 N., R. 22 W. e q H 36 PER C. R. DOC. NO. 156099 - - _ - denotes existing ground demotion S . T. HIGHWAY 36 112.3 � Orientation of this bearing system SOUTH LINE OF HIGHWAY 36 is Gr ordidi nate System. North, RomseY County .. N19'S9'01'E 146.71 Co SEE OCTAL A-/ ROAD EASEMENT PER I BENCHMARK: INFORMATION 0 DOC. NO. 1741:923 n MORE INFO I WOODFENCE ------ - - - - -- - -- ----------------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ------------------- =o; LIGHT POLE s BOLLARD 0 STORM MANHOLE I7 TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SIGN r- — / A r \ r r P I I / { H EDGE LOCATION OF PROPOSED 122 I I 1 F - - I \ I I 1 DECIDUOUS TREE FOOT MONOPOLE: I I _ I i — I L. L- _ I v L. Q LoUbidc 4500'31!.10' Nadh LJNC IE LOT tS cR POWER POLE LongitM IC 9301'37.71" Wnt EAST FEET DRIPUNE Sore Devatlan: 910.5 feet CONCRETE SURFACE (MAD 13. NAVD 66) EAST LINE OF WEST 146.5 FEET OF LOT 13 / EXISTING A BUILDING qn 1 1 TRICAL 1 a! TRANSFORMER I 3 c 0 4. T S, 22 FEET] ! SERVICE !s • ; W 1 81 TUMINOUS SURFACE ED LEASE TRACT ZIN PROP06E0 MOON pd E PROPOSED SACK Or ►- 1 1 1 d 3 CUR`.O.S�wSIDE I WOODED AREA �� 1 W. UNE Or THE E. 10 f QQ ` 1 FEET OF THE W. 213 FEET N19'S9'01'E 4 6.00 7�' , � y ; , ' 1 2t 4. 4'x4' STOOP 4. Cn � \� 10.00 1 i � 3 45 LIME OF N. 240.5 FEET . r.d Q�RS•�� d s I SEE DETAIL OF 3, I E tRACT c :7 UP LEASE TRACT 0 E MEN N 11'S 6 2 9. 3 43 4. 1 SEE OCTAL B P TYk SEE OCTAL C 1 AIRS EXISTING SN'59 01 46.00 BUILDING s (} 0 {} t LINE N. S IIEE PROPERTY LINE WOODED AREA 1 EAST UNE OF WEST 194.50 9�► 1 FEET OF LOT 15 I SOUTH LINE M ; AST LII E OF LOT 13 28&5 FEET OF 15 I M 1 l YL11C liG O CE #, 6 O0 1 I �~ I STA S DETAIL OF LEASE TRACT b o VICINITY MAP No Scale •1 E i 2000 I SITE PLAN 4 N .� b o ' A $ p l EXISTING BUILDING b. NEST LINE OF THE EAST 10116 FEET I I A TEL£PHOLrE ANO ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2. I V N69 '54W 61 I NORTH LINE OF COPE AVENUE COPE AVENUE �[ GEP���N q C. R. DOC. NO. 1797914 /- COPE AVENUE - SOUIN LINE OF LOT 15 - -SOUTH LINE OF THE NEt /4 01 �— - SOUTHWEST CORNER SECTION 10, T. - - OF THE SEt /4 OF SOUTH LINE OF THE SE1 /4 OF 29 N.. R. 22 W. �CT10N 10, T. 29 N.. R. 22 W. Se9s6'oz — — 2666.35 AT&T 36 /HAZELV1r00D SITE SITE No. MI - 96 1745 COPE AVE. �' -�! AT &T WIRELESS SEWCES OF MINNESOTA. INC. 1 Op °'�`� SH REVISED SHELTER St2E 010 0 6 /24 /DO ISSUM FOR CDNST DATE REVISKM scxE: AS N=0 I9E9GNEfk MAPLEW000 MINNESOTA 55109 fwd * ��t 1st 5 4 ♦ 3 - SITE PLAN 4 N Attachment 4 EXISTING TRANSFORMER EXISTING POWER POLE ASPHALT SURFACE PROPOSED AT &T 11' -7" x27' -7" SHELTER w/ 4'x4' STOOP 4.00' LANIJS;UAHINv O C 0 25 SO 100 SITE PLAN AlUG Z 41u�u Wig 4 N 10 EXISTING J TELCO PED, �— COPE AVE. —�-- ATTACHMENT 5 ROAD EASEMENT PER ° DOC. NO. 1748923 ° 9.5' x 18' 12 STALL, TYP. r N �� r r '1 N n r r r N I I \ L / L _ V NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR 8 SHALL REMOVE ALL EXISTING PAVEMENT , MARKINGS THAT CONFLICT w/ THE PROPOSED 23' , STRIPING. REMOVAL METHOD a SHALL BE APPROVED T_ EXISTING BY ENGINEER. n 0 BUILDING 00 00 N 38.8 I I I I L 4 WHITE LINE @ 4' O.C., TYP. 4" WHITE LINE PAINTED, TYP. a --' + \♦+:• -.+ •� ♦ \.♦ + ♦� t + .1 o 1 + N O 0 0 4 c c. " z Q LEASE TRACT 20' x 48' � 9.7' 10.3 PROPOSED 122' AT &T MONOPOLE 5.0' TO PROPOSED BLDG PROPOSED AT &T 11' - 5 " x28 - 0 " - SHELTER w/ 77 CTIL 4'x4' STOOP WOODED AREA 0.5' WIDE CURB, TYP lc:�] 0 4.0' V. u j ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER ELECTRICAL SERVICE BIT. SURFACE 12 rn 00 0 9 I, -� , - w 7 d 00 N 0 0 Q , cn F cu 8I w Q ?O 0� 0 0 0 . V) o F = C5 °° EXISTING LANDSCAPING TYP. 6 PLC' S NEW LANDSCAPING TYP. 14 PLC'S STAIRS I V// (EXISTING � BUILDING SITE PLAN APPLICANT'S ALTERNATIVE 10 -25 -00 4 N 11 Attachment h PROPOSED AWS ANTENNA PENDING RF ENGINEERING DESIGN PROPOSED NEW POLE z 0 0 ci Cd PROPOSED AWS 11' -7" x27' -7" SHELTER W/ BROOM FINISH TO MATCH TASTE OF INDIA BLDG, EXISTING POWER POLE ,r rillil EXISTING TREELINE EXISTING EXISTING TRANSFORMER � BUILDING nimii_nn� = ninni_nn_ TASTE 0 F I N D IA PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION a is zo as DESCRIPTION AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC ACTIVE SCALE AS SHOWN 36 /HAZLEWOOD SITE MI -96 - ELEVATION LIBRARY SCALE ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC. DRAWN M. MILLER REVISION 5201 EAST RIVER ROAD www.uitolg.com DATE 14 JULY 00 DRAWING NO. SUITE 808 tYVc MANEAPOLIS, M MJESOT 5 542 1 PHONE x7631 571 -2500 FA X 0 57� „� CHECKED C. P E D E R S O jN oomw5838=P3 12 Attachment 7_ uk Aj PROPOSED AWS ANTENNA PENDING RF • ENGINEERING DESIGN PROPOSED NEW POLE v� EXISTING z TREELINE z 0 0 tU cu PROPOSED AWS 11' -7" x27' -7" SHELTER W/ BROOM FINISH TO EXISTING MATCH TASTE OF INDIA BUILDING BLDG, EXISTING POWER NNI POLE OL MONSON INSUR--A NCE PARTIAL NORT ELEVATION 0 10 20 40 DESCRIPTION AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC ACTIVE SCALE AS SHOWN 36 /HAZLEWOOD SITE MI -96 - ELEVATION LIBRARY SCALE ULTEI ENGINEER DRAWN INC. M MILLER REVISION ;201 EAST RIVER ROAD www.ultelo.com DATE 14 JULY 0 Q DRAWING NO. SUI 308 ucTVc MWNEAPO MrNNE 5 542! CHECKED �0- 5838 -P5 PHONE (7631 571 -,2500 FAX (7x31 571 -IM C, P E D E R S O N 13 Attachment 8 2000 AEG 4. i ►{ t Ulu U EXISTING BUILDING TASTE OF I_= PROPOSI il -7" xc W/ BRO MATCH BLDG, PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION o io zo ao DESCRIPTION AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC. ACTIVE SCALE AS SHOWN 36 /HAZLEWOOD SITE MI -96 - ELEVATION LIBRARY SCALE ULTEIG ENGINEERS, INC. DRAWN M, MILLER REVISION 52Of EAST RIVER ROAD www.uiteia.com DATE DRAWING NO. SUITE 308 C 01 wo 14 JULY 00 IMKNEAPOLIS, M AUVESOTA $5421 El"i CHECKED O - 5838 —P4 PHONE 17631 5712500 FAX (MM 571 -1168 C, PEDERSON PR AV PE ENi PR NE 14 Attachment 9 PROPOSED AWS ANTENNA PENDING RF \— ENGINEERING DESIGN PROPOSED 1* J- NEW POLE AUG 1 4. 2000 EXISTING TREELINE w w cu PROPOSED AWS 11'-7"x27'-7" SHELTER W/ BROOM FINISH TO MATCH TASTE OF INDIA EXISTING EXISTING BLDG TRANSFORMER BUILDING EXISTING POWER 11 111111 111111 111111 MIN 1111 POLE 111111 111111 114111 11111HIIIII IRLIL-H1111 ]III 11111 It111111AL11111111 1 11111 fill IHMIL fill H 1111 #-fill it 111111111111 fill 14tif 11 HIM IL 11111 11 1 111111 Itill 111111111111 111111 1 RA 11 Fif [fill 11 TI 1=-'= I I I I TASTE OF 1ND1A1'====IIII-= PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION. 0 10 20 40 DESCRIPTION AT&T WIRELESS. SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC. ACTIVE SCALE AS SHOWN 36/HAZLEWOOD SITE MI-96 - ELEVATION LIBRARY SCALE UL TEIG ENGINEERSi INC. DRAWN M. MILLER REVISION 5201 EAST RIVER ROAD wwww.ultel DATE I DRAWING NO. SUITE 308 CULTEIG cmmffn 14 JULY 00 ARNNEAPOLIS, A#NAESOTA 5542f Ell-�j CHECKED C, I PEDERSON 00f=f5838,,,fP2 PHONE (783) 571-2500 FAX PON 571-11691 15 Attachment 10 WSS Wireless Site Specialists 2515 - 24 Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55406 Julie Townsend 612- 819 -9569 July 25, 2000 City of Maplewood Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Application for Condition Use Permit Dear Mr. Ekstrand, r AUG U I 14 This letter accompanies an application for Conditional Use Permit by AT &T Wireless Services (AWS) that will allow a 125 -foot monopole at 1745 Cope Ave East. Currently AWS is lacking wireless coverage on a large portion of Highway 36 and this particular area of Maplewood. By installing the monopole at the above reference property, the issue of inadequate coverage will be resolved. PROPOSED USE AWS is proposing to install a 125 -foot monopole, painted of a color acceptable by the city. Please reference the enclosed drawings for additional details. The property in question is located in an area zoned M -1, which allows for monopoles and accessory buildings as a conditional use (Section 36.600). An unmanned prefabricated equipment shelter measuring approximately 12 feet by 28 feet will be located at the base of the monopole. The site will require single -phase 200 -amp electrical service and telephone line for utilities. These will be brought in from the nearest source. The shelter will be designed in color and material to match the existing building on the property. ZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The site meets the City's standards for Conditional Use. The proposed telecommunications equipment could not accommodated on other existing structures within a V2 mile radius. Two exiting sites were located, reviewed and rejected; please see the attached letter from Joe Beck, Radio Frequency Engineer. This monopole will be accommodating to other carriers if they so desire. Please see the attached letter of intent. I will be representing AWS during the application process and will be attending all meetings regarding the application. Please contact me for any additional information you may need. I can be contacted at 612 -819- 9569. Sincerely, l Town d actor, AT &T Wireless Services Encl. 16 Attachment 11 AT &T Cellular Division AT &T Wireless Services 2515 24th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 612 721 -1660 FAX 612 721 -4770 I have been asked to examine two potential existing sites for the AT &T 36 & Hazlewood site. The two locations in question are an existing water tower and an existing US West monopole. Neither location will allow us to meet the objectives of this site. The reasons are as follows... US West Site Existing antennas for US West on this site are at 75, 67, and 87 feet. This is only a 90 -foot monopole. This means that AT &T would only be able to locate antennas at the 57 -foot elevation and below. This will not allow us to provide the amount of coverage that we need in order to justify building a site at this location. Water Tower The water tower is outside of the search area. Simply put, this means that this location will not fit in well with the rest of the network. The bigger problem however is the potential interference and re -use concerns that would be created by locating our antennas on the water tower. The water tower has an additional 60 feet of ground elevation which makes the site simply too high for us to be able to manage the re -use from this location. AT &T now has too many customers for us to be building sites on this high of ground above local terrain with in the 494 -694 metropolitan loop. Sincerely, Joe R. Beck RF Engineer AT &T Wireless Services 17 �� Recycled Paper Attachment 12 Criteria for approval of Conditional Use Permit 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. Comment: True, this application meets the requirements as listed in section 36.600 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Comment: True 3. The use would not depreciate property values. Comment: True, it is not proven telecommunications equipment depreciates 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, runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. Comment: True, telecommunications carriers are under strict guidelines to have and maintain the safest equipment. All equipment is regulated. 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. Comment: True, a technician will visit the site only about one time every 4 to 6 weeks. 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. Comment: True, there are adequate facilities currently in existence. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Comment: True 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Comment: True. No existing vegetation should have to be removed /disturbed and the shelter will be designed to match the existing area structures. Additional landscaping would be difficult to add to the site because the area AT &T is leasing is bituminous. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Comment: True, telecommunication carriers are under strict guidelines they must follow to avoid any potential negative environmental effects. f'3 ATTACHMENT 13 FR.twx.4ND RmcH A Professional Association September 12, 2000 Thomas Ekstrand Associate Planner Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Conditional Use Permit by AT &T Wireless Services Dear Mr. Ekstrand: 200 Rosedale Towers 1700 West Highway 36 Roseville, MN 55113 -4015 Telephone: (651) 636 -6400 Facsimile: (651) 636 -7334 rriach @riachlaw.com This is to follow -up on our telephone conversation of September 11, 2000, regarding the proposal to install a 125 foot monopole at 1745 Cope Avenue East. I represent David E. Monson and Monson Insurance, Inc., the owners of the property at 1737 Cope Avenue East, Maplewood, Minnesota, 55109. Please consider this our obj ection to the proposal. The tower will significantly alter the character of the surrounding area and adversely affect the value of my client's property. Not only is the plan to install a pole, but as I understand, it is contemplated that a building will likewise be required. This is a use which is inconsistent with the present property sites along Highway 36 and specifically in the area of my client's building. The tower site is only feet away from my client's building. A tower of this dimension will be the dominating structure in this area, negatively impacting the esthetics of the surrounding properties and decreasing their values. Additional areas that must be addressed by the City is affirmation from scientifically recognized sources that no adverse impact will be had upon closely situated businesses which use highly technical equipment to accomplish their daily work. in general. this appears to be a very poor location to construct a 122 foot radio tower. Please provide to me a copy of all reports prepared by your office evaluating this proposal, the recommendations of the City, and all advice as to future planning commission/city council hearing dates. V kry, truly yours i Ronald J. Reach cc: David E. Monson -S EP 1 5 2000 10/03/2600 09:41 6128587377 WSS J TOWNSEND PAGE 02 ATTACHMENT 14 'ts rww r Qwe st Qwest Wireless, L.L.C. 426 Forth Fairview Avenue St. Paul, M1`T 5 510 WSS OCT 0 3 2000 Wireless Site Specialists 1O Box 6896 3 Minneapolis, MN 55406 Atha: J. Townumd RE: Co- Location on Qwest Wireloss Monopole Installation at 1890 Gervais Court, Maplewood Monday, September 18, 2000 Dear Ms. Townsend AT&T Wireless Servioes has approached Qwest Wireless, I. LC, flkla US WEST Wireless, to co- locate on our monopole Wstalled at 1890 Gearvais Court in Maplewood at a height of 125 feet. As you already are aware, that pole is currently a 90 foot monopole structure with Qwcst's installation at the 60'0 ", 75'0" and $7'3" foot level. The only available space for co- location would be at approximately 50 feet and less. Since the foundation of that structure was designed for a 90 foot monopole, extension of that pole is not possible using the current foundation., The only alternative to accommodate AT&T Wireless' request would be to build a taller monopole structure, including a new foundation. In addition, while Qwest Wireless does control the monopole structure, we have a leasing relationship with the underlying landlord, Qwest Inc., and as such, does not control the land space. It is my understanding that the available land space is also at a. minimum, We would be more that happy to work with AT &T Wireless Services at this location. However, due to the limited land space as well as the inability to raise the tower to your requested height, the currant situation would not be a viable solution. Please call me if you have any questions. I look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Pat Conlin Rea! Estate Market Manama Qwest Wireless, L.L.C. 651.642.6060 1 20 ATTACHMENT 15 __-_---_----__---_--___-_--_-_------_---_------_----- i ------------------- -------------------_--_--_--------_-----_---_----_----�-------_------_-- 0� _- �K�������� ------ ----_-_____________, ^ | - ----------------------- ----------------- . Current La STRTXT, ROADS96: LIMITSA as or, IS MphaVOn /040pg IMP&O 21 10/10/2000 17:24 6128587377 WSS Wireless Site Specialists PO Box 6896 Minneapolis, MN 55406 Richard Charbonneau Straus Skate 1751 Cope Ave E Maplewood 55 109 RAE: Monopole at 1 745 Cope Ave E Ica' Richard, HISS J TOWNSEND PAGE 02 ATTACHMENT 16 Julie Townsend 612 -819 -9565 612- 728.7818 §y VGA C ran BIAIL #7040 0600 0027 7216 9209 This letter is to simply document our last conversation about the monopole proposal on your ' property. As I mentioned, the City of Maplewood has in uired Qn the �'easihili ' ty of the monopole location to the north side of the building or soma lace closer to Highwa . i �? � y 3�. As you have s��d before the only location that is acceptable to you is n the southwest cozier of • ' l ocat i on pm��'� which our lease indicates and which is the location currently proposed to the City of Maple We also discussed the matter of striping the parkin lot. It was mentioned to me Ci a � � by Mr. lien Roberts., ty f Maplewood planning department, that a condition of tie CUP would be to h a the parking lot arc - stripped. You agreed that would be acceptable and AT &T would also agree to that condition. o�nd�tion. If you have any comments or wish to clarify anything Z have stated in this letter please call Mme, Respectfully, IL +� 1 Towns'1 • /( o � , } ''�� : r== ` n jl Ken Robs City tt of Map lewood 22 NOV -06 -2000 08 :02 ULTEIE ENGINEERS INC 763 571 116E P.0i /o1 ATTACHMENT 17 City of Maplewood Kerr iiobe�cs 7 830 E County Road B Maplewood MW 55 109 DWI)/ �Z to 1 001 14=K FAX"n-P"06 MIF To: � �, From: codpapt. COJD6pt Phono: IF P1 MD.*. Nato: ' ,CERVED 2 000 Dear Mr. Roberts: i am con ing you resat ng the proposal for an antaeiuza monopole ins4ation ors rri property at 1745 Cope Ave E. The location that Y hAve approved fo ATAT Wimlea is in the southwest comer of the prop . l believe this is the best to on for dw ' ility; it has natural vegeation arotmd it, it will not affect the drive rout* throuq � the parkin lot and it Will � � not impde any future redevelopment of the property. I uncarsmnd the city and adjacent psroperty owners have cow widb ft Mlected lDeauon would to w the monopole tnowe4 to M ious locations on my incla ng an option to mown the site to the eepamte parcel that Stun Skate is locaW On. the alternate to of au + tie not s table, A m ole located om to n si& of th e Skate Y Woolf -��eo dy - - my Wllt3r to exp=el ft building or re&velop the - 0 Ly. I ha th® same feeling bout plac the monopole in the middle of the 1 745 property, just south of the restaurant, Both of these locations would also be more vidbte from aurronndimp ro and ► ice the g ►posod l ocation in the southwest corner of the 1 745 pretty. Y again a fie my position that the Wad= i have a a p�r�a r the o Dion on these properfies which Y uAll approve for the AT &T Wireless monopole, in the ►uthwest corer of 1 745 Cope Ave E. I do not feel there is any reason to move the oncle elsewhere. $liiCmly. s Richard Chubanne au TOTAL P. 01 23 ��i Attachment 18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Julie Townsend, representing AT & T Wireless, applied for a conditional use permit to install up to a 125 - foot -tall telecommunications monopole and equipment building. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1745 and 1751 Cope Avenue. The legal descriptions are: Except the West 146.5 feet and except 38.8 feet: the North 285.5 feet of part lying South of Highway 36, of Lot 15. Also subject to avenue & except West 231.56 feet and except the East 38.8 feet;. part of said lot lying South of first described part of Lot 15, E. G. Rogers' Garden Lots in 10, Township 29, Range 22 .in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 10- 29- 22- 41- 0012) and Subject to Highway and Roads, the following: Except the East 271.5 feet, the South % of Lot 16 and the East 38.8 feet of the South Y of Lot 15, E. G. Rogers' Garden Lots in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22 in Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 10- 29 -22 -41 -0013) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 7, 2000, the planning commission first considered this request. 2. On October 16, 2000, the planning again considered this request and recommended that the city approve the request, subject to the staff recommendation. 3. The city council held a public hearing on November 13, 2000. 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. 24 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental. effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans as approved by the city, including the location of the lease site. The applicant shall revise the site plans dated August 14, 2000 and September 12, 2000 by moving. the lease area to a new location area away from the south property line so that it will have less impact on the Monson Insurance property. The revised site plan shall be subject to city staff approval. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the approved plan. The applicant shall verify the location of the property lines and existing site features around the lease area with a certificate of survey. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility (for any location). 3. 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. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. - The applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 6. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. 7. The applicant or AT & T shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. The applicant/developer may provide a copy of the lease indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and related equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial guarantee. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2000. 25 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2000 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS AT & T Monopole Conditional Use permit- -1745 Cope Avenue Ken Roberts presented the staff report. AT & T Wireless is proposing to install a monopole up to 125 feet tall and an equipment building for wireless telecommunications. They would like to install the monople and building at 1745 Cope Avenue, on the southwest corner of the existing parking lot. The original request was submitted to the commission on September 7th, but was tabled at that point to give AT & T more time to try to work with Qwest communications about co- locating on the property on Gervais Court. Qwest was unable to meet AT & T's needs as they are not structurally able to extend the existing pole to the 122 foot height that AT & T would require and they do not have enough room on their site to allow for the installation of another monopole. Staff and the owner of the Monson Insurance building at 1737 Cope Avenue are concerned about the proposed location of the monople and equipment building. There are other locations in this general area that staff considers more preferable for this facility. Any of these alternative locations for the monopole would have less impact on the Monson Insurance building and it would put it further from the residential properties south of Cope Avenue. In response to commission questions, Mr. Roberts noted the property owner for each of the properties in question was the same, and he is leasing the Taste of India building out to the operators of the restaurant. The currently proposed site does meet the city ordinance for monopoles. Even though it does meet the ordinance, the staff feels there are Other locations on site that would balance some of the Oppositions. Commissioner Ledvina asked whether there would be any alternative sites. located in the northwest corner of the property. Commissioner Thompson felt there could be some obstruction to the Taste of India signage. He also noted unlicensed vehicles parked in the lot north of Strauss Skates. Commissioner Trippler noticed the Strauss building had a delivery door in back, and wondered if AT & T would be subjecting themselves to possible damage from trucks backing up. He also questioned the response from AT & T regarding the alternative locations. Mr. Trippler also wondered why the property owner was not interested in other sites on the property. Julie Townsend was present from AT & T Wireless Services (2515 24th Avenue South, Mpls.) to answer questions. She stated the location they have selected is the location that is approved and preferred by the owner of the property, Mr. Charbonneau. Ms. Townsend noted that Mr. Charbonneau is opposed to the suggested alternative locations for various reasons. She also stated that Mr. Charbonneau has future plans for the Strauss property and anything on the Strauss property would not be acceptable. Mr. Charbonneau's largest opposition was to the location directly in the center of property, which was unacceptable to him, and hindered any type of redevelopment in the future. In response to Commissioner Trippler's question as to whether she has talked to the owner from Monson Insurance, Ms. Townsend stated she had attempted to. She tried to contact Monson Insurance to talk to someone to discuss any landscaping they could possibly do, and discuss the building style of the proposed building that would make it somewhat less obtrusive. She left messages for the owner of Monson, his brother and an attorney, with no response. Ms. Townsend said she also contacted other companies in the area about leasing out their property with little to no response. Mr. Thompson referred to a New England Journal of Medicine article regarding the study of cell phones and accidents. According to the article, the accident ratio was four times greater within five minutes of a driver used their cell phone. He questioned whether or not AT & T was prepared to accept this responsibility. Ms. Townsend did not feel she was the proper person to answer that question, and did not have her marketing and safety specialist. with her that evening. Randy Monson was present from Monson Insurance, 1737 Cope Avenue, as his father was out of the country. The owners are very concerned that the tower will significantly alter the character of the surrounding area, and if it will any adverse affect on the value of their and their neighbors properties, which is largely office and commercial. He felt just north of Highway 36 their are properties that are more commercial which he felt would be better suited for this type of project. Jim Miller was present from James Miller Investment Realty Company, 1 West Water Street Suite 400, St. Paul. He has a listing agreement for a vacant property owned by the St. Paul School Foundation that is immediately to the west of the Charbonneau property. He said they would be interested in leasing to AT & T for the monopole project. This site is approximately 26,000 square feet and on the north end of the property. Ms. Townsend could not remember if they had talked to the owner of this site but thought that since the property was landlocked (so they had no access to the property) that it would not meet AT & T's needs. Commissioner Frost questioned if approving the recommendation does not necessarily mean building the monopole on the present property, or if it could be adjacent land. Staff felt the specific property referred to in the resolution was 1745 Cope Avenue and the legal description for it. The land lock situation is out of the city's hands. The user or developer of that property will have to work out an access agreement with one of the adjoining properties. There is an easement noted on the plat map. Ms. Thompson reiterated they are requesting approval for a conditional use permit for a specific location. The applicant does not agree to the condition in the approval that states they shall revise the site plan by moving the lease area away from Monson Insurance, and asked that it be stricken and be rewritten to state "as proposed ". Mr. Trippler asked the staff if an applicant is required to bring all the expertise personnel necessary to answer questions that are likely to arise. Mr. Roberts stated they certainly hope that they would, but an applicant can not necessarily foresee every question that may come up. Mr. Pearson moved the council to adopt the resolution that would approve a conditional use permit to allow up to a 125 - foot -tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 1745 Cope Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans as approved by the city, including the location of the lease site. The applicant shall revise the site plan by moving the lease area away from the south property line to a new location that will have less impact on the Monson Insurance property. The revised site plan shall be subject to city staff approval. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the approved plan. The applicant shall verify the location of the property lines and existing site features around the lease area with a certificate of survey. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility (for any location). 3. 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. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant or owner shall allow the co-location. of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 6. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall. be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. 7. The applicant or AT & T shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and Monopole and the restoration of the site. Mr. Ledvina seconded. Because the recommendation is for a specific address, Mr. Trippler stated he will not vote for the proposal when there is another suitable property that is available. 4 Ayes - (Frost, Ledvina, Pearson, Thompson) 3 Nays- (Trippler, Rossbach, Fischer) MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN AND REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2000 9.E,A,V"� avilm'204mvire we ozeirrReTirs =ee - Igm- :JzTfl w lu l!1�111 ��� � I= Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner, gave the staff report for the city. AT & T Wireless is proposing to install a 125 - foot -tall monopole and an equipment building for telecommunications equipment. They would install this monopole and building on the southwest corner of the Taste of India site. The building was initially proposed to be a flat roof with an aggregate exterior, but the applicant also has plans with her that display a building with a brick exterior and a pitch roof. Mr. Ekstrand stressed the importance of balancing the interest of the applicant, property owner, neighbors, and the city as a whole when reviewing a proposal. The proposed location uses the existing buildings to help screen the proposed tower from nearby properties. The city must decide if the proposed lease sight balances the interest of the property owner (Monson Insurance) and AT &T. Staff is recommending an alteration to the site plan, and have not recommended approval as shown due to objections from Monson Insurance. Staff is suggesting that their may be alternative sates that are more appropriate. The site locations are: the property behind Strauss Skates, property directly behind Taste of India, or the property to the west of Taste of India. Monson Insurance feels they are going to have to bear the brunt of the proposed tower and building location by having to look at it out their back windows. The staff recommendation is to approve the tower and building, but are asking as a recommendation, that they will be required to choose a different location on one of the alternative sites for resubmittal to staff for approval. Staff is also requesting they require a landscaping plan for the base of the plan to help buffer the ground equipment. Julie Townsend, representing AT & T Wireless Services, 2515 24th Avenue South, was present to discuss why the alternative locations are not acceptable and to answer questions. Ms. Townsend explained the location dead center in the middle of the property is not an option for the owner since it will hinder any future development of the building or redevelopment of this site. The secondary site is also unacceptable due in part because it is a drive where cars can drive through, and there is not enough space for the monopole. Mr. Charbonneau has repeatedly stated the only site at all acceptable to him, and preferred, is the proposed site. All other locations would be unacceptable. Ms. Townsend displayed photographs of other monopole sites and buildings. They are proposing a brick building that would match the Taste of India brick, the Monson Insurance brick, or a different brick that would be agreed to by all parties. A landscaping plan has not been submitted because the property line goes right to the edge of the lease track. Any opportunity for landscaping would be on a small strip of grass on the Monson Insurance property. AT & T would be happy to do a variety of different plantings and work with Monson to add landscaping, but Monson would need to maintain the plantings. Boardmember LaCasse felt there was a possibility the whole project could be slid east in an attempt to not hinder the view for Monson Insurance. Ms. Townsend stated that change would put the monopole and building in the path of traffic for the restaurant, and would be viewed as a hindrance. Boardmember Jorgenson questioned what effort was made to find other sites north of Highway 36. Ms. Townsend explained a radio frequency engineer looks at the network, and creates a search ring. The search ring in this case ran from Cope Avenue to the south side of Highway 36, to a few properties over to the west of the proposed location, to a few properties to the east. Within this limited search ring they contacted as many properties as possible. Some of the property owners responded, some did not. Of the responses, one property was land locked and one had title issues so they were immediately excluded. The available options came down to Strauss Skates or the proposed location on the Taste of India site. In response to Mr. Ledvina's question, Ms. Townsend explained the monopole is typically left galvanized to blend in best with the skyline, but AT & T is willing to take staff direction on the desired finish. Boardmember Jorgenson moved the Community Design Review Board to adopt the resolution that approves a conditional use permit to allow up to a 125 - foot -tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 1745 and 1751 Cope Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans as approved by the city, including the location of the lease site. The applicant shall revise the site plans dated August 14, 2000 and September 12 2000, by moving the lease area to a new location away from the south property line so that it will have less impact on the Monson Insurance property. The revised site plan shall be subject to city staff approval. The director of community development may approve minor changes to the approved plan. The applicant shall verify the location of the property lines and existing site features around the lease area with a certificate of survey. 2. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility (for any location). 3. 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. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The applicant or owner shall allow the co- location of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. 6. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. 7. The applicant or AT & T shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. To approve the site and design plans for up to a 125 - foot -tall telecommunications monopole and equipment building on the property at 1745 and 1751 Cope Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued permits for this project. 2. Before the city issues a building permit, city staff must approve the following: (a) A certificate of survey for the project area that shows the proposed new construction, the location of the property lines and existing site features around the proposed lease area. The proposed monopole and equipment building shall be at least five feet from the property lines. The applicant shall revise the site plans dated August 14, 2000 and September 12, 2000 by moving the lease area to a new location away from the south property line so that it will have less impact on the Monson Insurance property. The revised site plan shall be subject to city staff approval (b) The applicant shall prepare a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility (for any location). © A grading and drainage plan for the project site. (d) Revised equipment building plans that show an exterior of brick and a hip roof. 3. The color of the proposed equipment building shall be submitted to city staff for approval. 4. The monopole shall be light gray. 5. If the required landscaping or trees are not installed by the completion of the tower, the city shall require the applicant to provide a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed within six weeks of occupancy. 6. Before final inspection of and use of this facility, the applicant shall complete the following: (a) Paint the equipment building to match the color of the Taste of India building, as approved by city staff. (b) Install the required landscaping following the approved plan. O Restripe the parking spaces in the Taste of India and Strauss Skates parking lots to city code standards. (d) Install a security light on the pole (250 watt minimum). 7. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Boardmember LaCasse seconded. Ayes -All Motion carries. AGENDA # X ftv 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: November 7, 2000 RE: CANVASS OF ELECTION "an by Council Date E Woned Modified ---- -- — Reje�te� State Statute directs, within seven days after an election, the governing body acting as a canvassing board, shall canvass the returns and declare the results of the election. It is recommended that Council approve the following resolution: CANVASS OF ELECTION RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood, County, Minnesota, acting as a canvassing board on November 13, 2000, hereby declares the following results for the November 7, 2000 City Question. PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH EQUIPMENT AND CITY HALL BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS "Shall the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, be authorized to issue its fully registered general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $750,000 to defray the expense of the acquisition and installation of public safety dispatch equipment and City Hall building improvements for the City T Yes 8062 No 8612 MEMO To: Richard Fursman and City Council From: Melinda Coleman koo/ Subject: Regulation of Wireless Communication Facilities Date: November 3, 2000 INFORMATION Attached is an article which was sent to me by the City Attorney, Patrick Kelly. It contains very useful information regarding the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and how it relates to local government zoning authority. It also mentions the Maplewood cases. Since the number of cell tower requests seems to be on the rise again, I thought this information might be useful. A current proposal by AT &T will be reviewed by City Council on November 13, 2000. The site in question is on Cope Avenue at the Taste of India restaurant. Staff is currently working with the City Attorney to get input from the cell phone providers to look at comprehensive service needs in the Maplewood market. We are trying to determine how many more poles are needed and see if any can be placed on city land. We would like to see fewer poles but if we must have them, we will try to site them on city property where we may be able to generate some revenue. If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call. LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE SITING OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES by Paul D. Reuvers ER. , :.D tSc REi:1Fi�, P,A. The legislative intent behind the TCA was to facilit and encourage the rapid acceleration of advanced telecommunications and to "stop local authorities from keeping wireless providers tied up in the hearing process." On February- 8, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( "TCA "). The broad polity of the Act is generally to promote "full and open C ompetiti in all ar eas of the teleco mmun ications indus- try. The legislative intent behind the TCA was to facilitate and encourage the rapid acceleration of advanced telecommunications and to "stop local authorities from keeping wireless providers tied up in the hearing process." 47 U.S.C. § 332(a) 1 -4. Con gl'ess, hoNvever, stopped short of preempting all local zoning authority over the siting of 141 commun towers. These two competing interests were weighed and balanced by Congress. The TCA "is a deliberate compromise bete -een two competing aims to facilitate nationally the growth of wireless tele- phone service and to m aintain substantial local control P.A D. REi:VERS is a shareholder with Erstad & Reimer, P.A. He p ractices (2\clusively in civil liti ation, including professional liability, municipal law and subroc a tic)n. over siting of towers." Tozon of Ainherst, N.H. v. Oinn poi t Col•f11n un1catlons Enterprises, Inc., 173 F 3d 9, 13 (1st Cir. 1999). In its final form, the TCA affirms the right of local government to control the siting, construction, and modifi- cation of cellular and other Aireless telecommunication facilities as long as the expansion of cellular services is not unduly hindered or prohibited. II. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TCA The TCA - vvas enacted in part to promote a more uni- form set of requirements Nvhich non- federal units of gov- ernment could use to make siting and zoning decisions that would not iilhlblt the ex p ansion of personal co m mu- nications services. In particular, the TCA limits the author- ity of state and local government to deny construction of wireless communications towers and to regulate how such decisions crust be made. In all, the TCA subjects the exer- cise of local zoning authority to six limitations. First, local regulation may not "unreasonably discriminate" among providers of functionally equivalent wireless services. Second, local authorities play not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Third, local regulators must act on placement, construc- tion and modification applications within a "reasonable period of time." Fourth, all decisions denying a request to place, construct, or modif`T a personal wireless services facility must be in writing and supported by "substantial evidence" contained in a written record. Fifth, any person adversely affected by local regulators' final action on a placement, construction, or modification application may seek judicial review in any court of competent jurisdiction. Finally, the statute substantially limits the authority of local officials to regulate personal N facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emis- sions. 47 U.S.C. §.,5 3 32(c)(7)(B)(i)- (i -v). A. NO UN REASONABLE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PROVIDERS The TCA preserves the authority of state and local gov- ernments over zoning and land use matters except where decisions by those authorities may act to favor one com- petitor over another. The TCA prw, in relevant part: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modifica- tion of personal wireless service facilities by an) State or local government.. . shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. I. INTRODUCTION r '.ate •' The number of cellular .r '#' . ,, technology users has sky- rocketed in the past few years. In 1990, there were 11 � - million cellular phone users in the world. Today, there are , 300 million, and the total is S groNvin by 2 0,000 per day. ... -7 Because of the rapid increase ]n the number of cell phone users, telecommunications colnpanies have been upgrading and increasinor .local network services to keep up with demand. As a result, local goti have been inundated with permit requests for the siting of wireless communications tolvers. The legislative intent behind the TCA was to facilit and encourage the rapid acceleration of advanced telecommunications and to "stop local authorities from keeping wireless providers tied up in the hearing process." On February- 8, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( "TCA "). The broad polity of the Act is generally to promote "full and open C ompetiti in all ar eas of the teleco mmun ications indus- try. The legislative intent behind the TCA was to facilitate and encourage the rapid acceleration of advanced telecommunications and to "stop local authorities from keeping wireless providers tied up in the hearing process." 47 U.S.C. § 332(a) 1 -4. Con gl'ess, hoNvever, stopped short of preempting all local zoning authority over the siting of 141 commun towers. These two competing interests were weighed and balanced by Congress. The TCA "is a deliberate compromise bete -een two competing aims to facilitate nationally the growth of wireless tele- phone service and to m aintain substantial local control P.A D. REi:VERS is a shareholder with Erstad & Reimer, P.A. He p ractices (2\clusively in civil liti ation, including professional liability, municipal law and subroc a tic)n. over siting of towers." Tozon of Ainherst, N.H. v. Oinn poi t Col•f11n un1catlons Enterprises, Inc., 173 F 3d 9, 13 (1st Cir. 1999). In its final form, the TCA affirms the right of local government to control the siting, construction, and modifi- cation of cellular and other Aireless telecommunication facilities as long as the expansion of cellular services is not unduly hindered or prohibited. II. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TCA The TCA - vvas enacted in part to promote a more uni- form set of requirements Nvhich non- federal units of gov- ernment could use to make siting and zoning decisions that would not iilhlblt the ex p ansion of personal co m mu- nications services. In particular, the TCA limits the author- ity of state and local government to deny construction of wireless communications towers and to regulate how such decisions crust be made. In all, the TCA subjects the exer- cise of local zoning authority to six limitations. First, local regulation may not "unreasonably discriminate" among providers of functionally equivalent wireless services. Second, local authorities play not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Third, local regulators must act on placement, construc- tion and modification applications within a "reasonable period of time." Fourth, all decisions denying a request to place, construct, or modif`T a personal wireless services facility must be in writing and supported by "substantial evidence" contained in a written record. Fifth, any person adversely affected by local regulators' final action on a placement, construction, or modification application may seek judicial review in any court of competent jurisdiction. Finally, the statute substantially limits the authority of local officials to regulate personal N facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emis- sions. 47 U.S.C. §.,5 3 32(c)(7)(B)(i)- (i -v). A. NO UN REASONABLE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PROVIDERS The TCA preserves the authority of state and local gov- ernments over zoning and land use matters except where decisions by those authorities may act to favor one com- petitor over another. The TCA prw, in relevant part: The regulation of the placement, construction, and modifica- tion of personal wireless service facilities by an) State or local government.. . shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. 47 U.S.C. g 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). This does not mean, however, that providers of functionally equivalent services will be trea equally if their respective facilities create different visual, aesthetic or safety concerns under generally- . applicable zoning requirements. However, all considera- tions remaining equal, a local zoning authority may not deny a permit to a wireless provider when two other com- petitors with "functionally equivalent services" have been granted permits. B. No PROHIBITION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES The TCA provides that a local zoning authority's regula- fion of wireless services "shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless ser- vices." The legislative history- of the bill specifically pro - vides that "it is the intent of this section that bans or poli- cies that have the effect of baruzing personal wireless ser- vices or facilities not be allowed and that decisions be made on a case -by -case basis." A prohibition "in effect" exists titi7hen no possible applicant could ever satisfy local require- ments. This restriction on state and local authority has been interpreted as only applying to "blanket prohibitions" and "general bans or policies," and not to individual zoning decisions. AT&T Wireless, Mc. z?. City Comicil of the City of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d 423, 426 -427 (4th Cir. 1998). If the TCA-" ban on prohibiting or having the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services was interpreted to apply to individual zoning decisions the result would be an effective nullification of all local authori- t .7 by "mandating approval of all applications, a result con - trary to the explicit language" of the TCA. Vtrglina Beach, 155 F.3d at 425. Therefore, unless individual decisions made bN a state or local zoning authority have formally banned the construction of all wireless communications towers and/or shov, a record of "fixed hostility by the Board that one can conclude that further applications would be use- less," a carrier `%-ill most likely fail to carry its heavy burden of establishing, an effective ban to support a claim of a TCA violation. Tou>>i o Ai7iherst, 173 F.3d at 13 (stating that a provider must not only show from the language or circum- stances not just that the particular application at issue has been rejected but that further reasonable efforts are so likely to be fruitless that it is a waste of time even to try). A case -by -case revieNv of applications submitted to local zoning authorities necessarily includes an examination of the quality of existing personal wireless service in the pro- posed area. Cellular Telephofle Co. v. Zonhior Bd. of Adjustmelrt of th Bor ou017 of Ho - Ho -bits, 197 RM 64, 69 (3rd Cir. 1999). Acting to continue a "gap" in cellular services may be seen as an effective prohibition of the provision of personal wireless services. Sprint Spectntnt, L.P. v. tiVilloth, 176 F.3d 630, 643 (2d Cir. 1999). Although the Act imparts a degree of discretion upon the local authority to either grant or deny an application depending on its assessment of existing local services, the TCA requires that a decision based on the quality of existing service be based on sub- stantial evidence. The TCA `ti „ orks to prevent local officials' general poli- cies and individual decisions which work to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting all personal wireless services. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the TCA to mean more than simply ensuring that personal wireless services are available somewhere within the relevant jurisdiction but to prevent local zoning policies and decisions from resulting in "significant gaps”' in the availability of wireless services. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the TCA to mean more than simply ensuring that personal wireless services are available somewhere within the rele- vant jurisdiction but to prevent local zoning policies and decisions from resulting in "significant gaps" in the a� ability of wireless services. Id. at 643. A "gap" in service has been defined as "the inability of a remote user of [per- sonal wireless services] to connect �%*ith the land -based national telephone network, or to maintain a connection capable of supporting a reasonabIN' uninterrupted com- munication." Id. at 641 -43. State or local authorities may properl deny an applica- tion for construction of a NN sen tower in an area where a "gap" in service exists 'without thereb } violating the TCA if the "gap" can be closed by less intrusive means. Id. at 643. State or local authorities must allow for "rea =on- 8 N4 ASUI N 2000 able alternatives" NN denying a permit so as not to of €ec- ti'vely prohibit the rapid expansion of personal wireless ser- �Jces. Coiiiin Co. of Cliarlottesz ille v. the Bd. of Slfperz isors of Albeliiarle County, 2000 WL 346182; *6 (4th Cir. Nlar_ 15, 2000). In order to be "reasonable," an alternative must provide the following: a high level of wireless service; its cost must be within or close to the industry -wide norm for establishing new service under similar circumstances; the employment of commonly used technology; and that it is logistically feasible. Id. Many zoning authorities across the country have approved of alternative sites which limit the aesthetic impact of a cellular tower. Several alternatives that have been accepted include: selecting a less sensitive site; reducing the tower height; using a preexisting struc ture; and camouflaging the tower and/or antennae. As long as users of i-vir serv ices within a given area have some ability to reach a cell site, then a county that denies a zoning permit for the construction of more to veers than the minimum required to provide wireless services in a given area has not prohibited the expansion of iireless services in violation. of the TCA. ldentifving alternative sites involves detailed site plan- ning which is an expensive and time consuming task. Courts have generally held that it is the burden of the provider to present serious alternatives to the zoning authority in light of the costly and time consuming task of si planning. In APT Minn Inc. v. Ci tY o f A4 Cpl eu)ood, 1995 WL 634224 (D. Minn. 1998), hm - ever, the district court held the city had the burden of establishing legally and technically feasible alternative sites. C. REASONABLE TIME The TCA directs the local governmental body to act on a request for authorization to construct a cellular tower 01 11Vithin a reasonable period of time after the request is dul filed[.]" A reasonable period may be considered to be the time of the regular zoning process 1IVhich a municipali- tv normally imposes upon all applicants. The TCA does not direct local cyovernmental bodies to gi� preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in pro - cessing its requests. Therefore, if a municipalit-t follows its customary process in rendering a decision the time frame, will most likely be reasonable. J Moratoria and int regulations are valid zoning tools in many states. Perhaps the most noted moratorium in the judicial history of the TCA ivas adopted by the city of Medina, Washington on February 13, 1996 fiv days after the TCA became late. Sprint Spectrum, L.R v. City of Medina, 924 F. Supp. 1036, 1039 (W.D... Wash. 1996). The moratorium was adopted that the city council could have extra time to deal with an "expected flurry of applica- tions." The court in Medina held that the city's adoption of a six month moratorium on the issuance of new permits for wireless facilities did not: (a) constitute a prohibition on wireless facilities; (b) violate the TCA's mandate that local governments act on wireless applications within a reason- able period of time; (c) have an impermissibly discrimina- tory impact on wireless providers; or (d) constitute an impermissible barrier to market entry. The Court also found that "[t]here is nothing to suggest that Congress, by requiring action "within a reasonable period of time,' intended to force local government procedures onto a rigid timetable where the circumstances call for study; delibera- tion, and decision- making among competing applicants." Id. at 1040. Based on this holding, it seems likely that a moratorium adopted specifically to conduct an investiga- tion conceriung wireless facilities in the relevant area where the circumstances do call for study, deliberation, and decision- making among competing applicants, would not be found to be a violation of the TCA. On the other hand, in Sprint Spectrum v. Jefferson Coinity, 968 F Supp. 1437 (N. D. Ala. 1997) the court invalidated a local moratorium. The potential problem with a moratori- um is that if it is no limited in scope a court could construe it as a violation of the TCA. D. REQUIREMENTS FOR DENIAL 1. The written requirement. The TCA requires that "[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modif} personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in the tti-ritten record." There is not a clear stan- dard applied by courts - %when evaluating a written denial. Some courts have been Nvilling to apply the more defer ential standard of review afforded to government agencies when analyzing the contents of a government's zoning decision. This approach requires the Nvritten regulator)? decisions den�7ing an application to include an explanation for the board's decision. A sufficient explanation may sim- ply be to include a listing of the ordinance -based reasons for denying the application and by making findings of fact VI NT n LA T T cr i \ ,1n. , irR )nnn on the -written record. Other courts do not apply such a lib- eral interpretation of._.the TCA and do not require a state- ment of "findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis thereof." See, Vi r c i n icy Beach, 155 F. ►d at 429. This interpretation of the TCA is based on the specific language of the act. Specifically, the 11 written requirement does not include any language that indicates a detailed explanation is required. Moreover, the fact that other portions of the TCA do contain explicit language requiring a detailed explanation demonstrates that Congress intended to refrain from requiring one in this instance. 2. The Substantial Evidence Requirement. The TCA also requires that the written denial by a State or local government be supported by "substantial evi- dence." whether or not this element is satisfied must be analyzed in two- parts. First, w ho bears the burden of proving substantial evidence? Second, what constitutes "substantial evidence ?" The question of who bears the burden of proving substantial evidence has never been addressed by any of the circuit courts of appeals and there The question of who bears the burden of proving substantial evidence has never been addressed by any of the circuit courts of appeals and there is a split among the district courts is a split among the district courts. If a court were to follow the deferential standard afforded to agency decisions, then the burden of proof �� necessarily lie with th e party seeking to overturn the decision. Ultimately, it is unclear whether the local zoning authority bears the burden to prove that its decision was supported by substantial evi- dence or whether the wireless provider has to prove that the zoning authority-'s decision was not supported by sub- stantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" has been generally held to mean ''more than a mere scintilla. It means such relev evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" in light of the record viewed in its entirety. It does not mean a "large or considerable amount of evidence." Westem PCS 11 Coil). v. Extraterritorial Zofziiig Aicth. Of the City and Colcnty of Santa Fe, 957 F. Supp. 1230, 1236 (D. N.M. 1997). Perhaps the most common opposition to the construc- tion of wireless communications towers is based upon aes- thetics. How much weight will be given to opposition based on aesthetics has not been resolved. The Seventh Circuit has recognized that "aesthetic harmony" is a prominent goal underlying almost every code a state or local agency enacts. Aegerter v. City of Delafield, 174 F.3d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1999). Based on the accepted definition of "substantial evidence," aesthetic concerns may be found as permissible grounds for denial of a permit as long as there is "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence. Similarly; the First and Fourth Circuits have upheld decisions to den- - zoning permits based in part on aesthetic reasons AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. INlinston- Salerri Zonincr Bd. of Aditistrnent, 172 F.3d 307, 315 (4th Cir. 1999); To of Ainhers t, 173 F.3d at 13. E. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS There is significant debate over the subject of electro- magnetic fields and their impact on the environment. The TCA, however, prohibits state and local authorities from den }ling a siting request on the basis of Radio Frequency Radiation (RF) emissions so long as such facilities comply- with the FCC's regulations concerning such emissions. Evidence submitted in support of a decision to deny the application of a provider based on general health concerns and environmental impact Nvill not alone constitute "sub- stantial evidence." E JUDICIAL REVIEW The TCA creates a cause of action for parties adversely - effected by a locality's decision inconsistent with the pro - visions of the TCA. Howe --er, any cause of action must be brought -within 30 days of the offending action or the co plaint is time - barred. The TCA does not specify a remedy for violations of the cellular siting subsection. A revieNving court has the po to remand the zoning decision back to the local authority but only if it did not "display a -vvillingness to ignore the requirements of federal la�%r and reach far beyond its authorit to create a reason to denyy a provider's request." I'Vestem PCS I1, 957 F. Supp. at 1237. If a local zoning authority has displayed hostility toward the construction of wireless towers, then a remand "would serve no useful purpose" and a court may properly order the issuance of the requested permit. Bd. of SicT?ervisor of Albeinarle Co it 1 )000 wL 346182, *6. The majority of district courts have held that the appropriate remedy is injunctive relief in the form of an order to issue the relevant permits. III. SECTIO 1983 REMEDIES AVAILABLE A violation of the TCA may give rise to an award of attorney's fees, costs and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section. 1983 of Title 42 allows for suits whenever a person acting under color of state law violates federal lave. In AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 2000 WL 488494 (11th Cir. 2000), the Ele-v enth Circuit Court of Appeals held that § 1983 remedies were available to AT &T for a violation of the TCA. In a concurrence, Judge Carnes commented that the attorney fee shifting provision in the civil rights act ivras designed to ensure access to the courts for civil rights victims and as an incentive for citizens and members of the bar to ensure effective enforcement of civil rights law He observed: AT &T �' Tireless is no civil rights victim, at least not in the tra- ditional sense of that term. Nor do corporations like AT&T Wireless need reimbursement of attorney fees to make it financially feasible for them to challenge in court regulatory denials that cost them moneN� Their financial self - interest and the vast sums at stake make them more than happy to serve as "private attorneys general" to enforce the legislative mea- sures that they have lobbied through Congress, without the need for taxpayers to pay their litigation costs. Section 1988 was intended to help the civil rights Davids of the world do battle i� the governmental Goliaths. AT &T Wireless is a seven - billion dollar subsidiary of a sixty -two billion dollar multi- national corporation. My. hovel the Davids ha� groi� IV. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE TCA. Arguably; the substantial evidence standard contained in the TCA violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states the powers not delegated by the Constitution to the United States. In Petersburg Cellular Partnership v. Pd. of Supervisors of Notto l ay County, 205 F.3d 688 (4th Cir. 2000), a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals grappled with Tenth Amendment issues it found implicated in the sub- stantial evidence requirement, but reached no consensus on the constitutionality question. Instead, it remanded the case to the Eastern District of Virginia for different reasons. The case arose from the County's denial of a conditional use permit to erect a wireless communications tower on commercially zoned property. The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the County's deci- Sion failed to meet the substantial evidence standard. On appeal, the County asserted, in addition to its substantial evidence argument, that the statutory section violated the Tenth Amendment by coercing local governments to employ i ntrusive federal rules in their zoning and land use processes. The plurality opinion by Judge Niemeyer con- cluded that the County lacked substantial evidence to jus- tify its denial of the zoning request, but Judge Niemeyer alone also concluded that the statute violated the Tenth Amendment. Judge Widener concluded that denial of the zoning request was supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, he did not reach the Tenth Amendment issue. Finally, Judge King concluded the statute was not unconstitutional and that the County's denial of zoning approval was not supported by substantial evidence. The result was a reversal of the lower court's judgment by a two - to - one decision, with the two judges who voted to reverse doing so on different grounds. , V. MINNESOTA AND THE TCA The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not issued a decision concerning the siting of wireless communications towers under the TCA. There are, however, three federal district court decisions concerning the application of the TCA in Minnesota. A. AT &T WIRELESS SERVS. OF MINNESOTA, INC. V. THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, CIVIL NO. 97 -171 Q. MINN. MAR. 5,1998). Judge Tunheim held the city's denial of AT &T's request to construct a 150 -1 telecommunications tower violated the TCA. At the time of AT &T's application, the city was exercis- ing a general moratorium on new towers or antennas in the city There was not a general ban on taking applications for tower sites and there was no evidence that any cus- tomers within the city -Vti7ere not being served; therefore, AT&T's motion for summary judgment with respect to this claim was denied. The court followed the decisions of Westeni PCS II Corp. v. Ext ter Zoning Auth 957 F. Supp. 1230, 1236 (D. N.M. 1997) and AT&T Wireless Sere. of Florida v. Orange County, 982 F. Supp. 856 (M.D. Fla. 1997) which required written reasons be given in support of a city's denial to issue a zoning permit to a cellular provider. The court noted, "[T]he decision must contain written findings of fact tied to the evidence of record." Since no reasons or explanations NIN A SUMMER 2000 11