Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 08-14 City Council Packet4:00 p.m. Council /Manager Workshop AMENDED AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7 :00 P.M. Monday, August 14, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -21 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country C. ROLL CALL Mayor's Address on Protocol: "Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments /questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments." D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the July 17, 2006 Council /Manager Workshop 2. Minutes from the July 17, 2006 Special City Council Meeting 3. Minutes from the July 24, 2006 Special City Council Meeting 4. Minutes from the July 24, 2006 City Council Meeting F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS G. APPOINTMENTSIPRESENTATIONS 1. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Appointments -Staff report in CouncillManager Workshop Packet (D2) H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Regions Sleep Clinic Tax - Exempt Financing Request (2688 Maplewood Drive North) CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Conditional Use Permit Review — Saint Paul Regional Water Services (1900 Rice Street) 3. Conditional Use Permit Review — Lexus Motor Vehicle Service Center (1245 County Road D) 4. Conditional Use Permit Review — City Impound Lot/Outdoor Storage Yard (1160 Frost Avenue) 5. Legacy Village PUD Review - (County Road D, Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) 6. Heritage Square Second Addition PUD Review - (Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) 7. Development Agreement Release — Hartford Group (Legacy Village) 8. Applewood Park Change Order #4 9. Donation of Vehicle to the Police Department 10. Donation to Maplewood Police Reserves 11. Approval of Fall Clean -up Event Scheduled for October 14, 2006 12. Cottages at Legacy Village Development, City Project 04 -12, Approve Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul Private Water Main Agreement 13. Storm Water Maintenance Agreement for Lexus of Maplewood Site, Troutland Auto Dealers, City Project 05 -13 14. Springside Street Extension, City Project 03 -36, Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1 15. Cottagewood Public Improvements, City Project 06 -10, Resolution Accepting Report and Ordering Public Hearing 16. Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, City Project 05 -17, Resolution Accepting Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing Amended 08 -11 -06 1. CONSENT AGENDA (continued) 17. Eldridge Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 06 -04, Resolution Approving Plans and Ad for Bid; Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing 18. Approval of Capital Purchase for Sanitary Sewer Television Camera Equipment and Vehicle 19. Fee Waiver - St. Jerome's Church 20. Fee Waiver - Holy Redeemer Parish 21. Community Center Catering Recommendation 22. Resolution Certifying Election Judges for the September 12 State Primary Election J. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Lift Station Number 18 Rehabilitation , City Project 05 -29, Approve Award of Construction Contract and Budget Adjustment K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Trunk Highway 36 Improvements (White Bear to Century), City Project 05 -03, Consideration of Noise Wall Issues within Maplewood 2. Trunk Highway 5 — 120 MnDOT Property Usage Study, City Project 03 -20, Report on Task Force Progress (No action required) L. NEW BUSINESS 1. Cigarette, Tobacco and Alcohol Licenses — Compliance Failures -Item moved to August 28 City Council Meeting Agenda 2. Carpet Court (1685 Arcade Street (at Larpenteur Avenue)) Zoning Map Change - R -1 (single dwelling residential) to BC (business commercial) (4 votes) Vacation of a Public Right -of -way Building Setback Variance Shared Parking Agreement Design Approval 3. Resolution of Support - Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Development Grant (Phase One — Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment) 4. Beebe Road Parking Issues — Receipt of Petition and Authorization to Restrict Parking 5. Lower Afton Road Trail Improvements (McKnight to Century), City Project 03 -29, Authorize Joint Project with Ramsey County 6. Ordinance to Establish Full Commission Status for the Environmental Committee -First Reading 7. Ordinance Amendment to the Environmental Preservation and Protection of Trees and Woodlands Ordinance -First Reading 8. Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16, Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders 4, 5 and 6 9. County Road D Improvements, City Project 02 -08, Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders No. 19 -20 M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 249 -2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings - elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. Amended 08 -11 -06 MINUTES CLOSED SESSION CITY COUNCIUMANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, July 17, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall 6:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chamb order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. B. ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Rebecca Cave Councilmember Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember Others present Interim City Manager Copeland Interim City Attorney Kantrud City Clerk Guilfoile C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Longrie moved to appro Seconded by Councilmember C D. NEW BUSINESS Ayes-All 1. Closed Session to Discuss Pending Litigation Agenda Item E1 City Hall, and was called to Interim City Attorney Kantrud explained that the information that will be discussed in the closed session is covered under attorney client privilege and would expect that none of the information would be "leaked" to protect that privilege. Mr. Kantrud further explained the need for council and the city attorney to talk candidly in this case outweighs the need for the public to know "what is going can ". Mayor Longrie moved to enter into close( Ramsev County /City of Maplewood et al. Mayor Longrie, at the Interim City Attorney's request, reiterated the balance between the need for a closed session to be able to talk frankly with the city attorney as opposed to the need for the public to know. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Closed 07 -17 -06 Council /Manager Workshop 1 E F. At the council's direction, the meeting was not audio taped. COUNCIL ENTERED INTO CLOSED SESSION. Mayor Longrie moved to reopen the meeting. Closed 07 -17 -06 Council /Manager Workshop Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes -All Agenda Item E2 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7 :05 P.M. Monday, July 17, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -17 r!"I A CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambe 7 :05 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Rebecca Cave Councilmember Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmem Will Rossbach, Councilmember Others present: Interim City Manager Copeland Interim City Attorney Kantrud City Clerk Guilfoile D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Rossbach, Seconded by Councilmember J Mayor Longrie reminded all attE E. NEW BUSINESS Citv Hall, and was called to order at Ayes- Councilmembers Juenemann and Rossbach Nays -Mayor Longrie, Councilmember Cave and Hjelle the Rules of Civility for the Community. The meeting was requested for the purpose to discuss the Maplewood Police Department Background Investigation Summary Report pertaining to Interim City Manager Greg Copeland and possible actions to be taken by the city council relating to the report. In addition, it was requested that a time line be established for the process of hiring a new full time City Manager City Attorney Kantrud provided legal guidance in approaching the dissemination of documentation to maintain the best interest of the city. A discussion was held regarding the intent and application of access as defined in the employee handbook. Councilmember Rossbach requested to read a report into the public record. Special City Council Meeting 07 -17 -06 Councilmember Cave moved to adjourn the meeting to be continued at a Special Meeting July 24 at 5:00 p.m. In preparation for that meeting the Interim City Attorney will research council's questions to include: What is private data? What is public data? What can be discussed in a public forum? What cannot be discussed in a public forum? Mr. Kantrud will work with the representative from PAID (Information Policy Analysis Division) to clarify exactly what can and cannot be talked about to protect the city from potential litigation. F. am Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Mayor Longrie adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Ayes -Mayor Longrie and Councilmembers Cave and Hjelle Nays - Councilmember Juenemann and Rossbach Special City Council Meeting 07 -17 -06 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS Agenda Item E3 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - CONTINUED MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 5:00 P.M. Monday, July 24, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -19 A. CALL TO ORDER 13 A I oa E. A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambe 5 :03 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Diana Longrie, Mayor Rebecca Cave Councilmember Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember Others present: Interim City Manage City Clerk Guilfoile Human Resource. Di APPROVAL OF City Hall, and was called to order at 'equested to discuss the Maplewood Police Department Background mary Report pertaining to Interim City Manager Greg Copeland and t be taken by the city council relating to the report. In addition, it was me line be established for the process of hiring a new full time city manager. Interim City Attorney Kantrud defined what was appropriate to discuss regarding the background investigation of Interim City Manager Copeland under the data practices act. A discussion was held regarding if a conflict of interest existed for any councilmembers. Interim City Manager Copeland commented on what he felt is accurately reflected in the background investigation report, and what is not. Special City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 Mayor Longrie read Maplewood City Ordinance Sec. 2 -102 (City Manager — Practices and Duties Generally) into the record. Council discussed Mr. Copeland's education and employment history. Mr. Copeland shared financial struggles he's endured due to disabling injuries his wife sustained in a 1992 car accident. Discussion was held regarding who made the decision for the investigation to be done internally. Councilmember Rossbach read a portion of a report he and Councilmember Juenemann wrote regarding the findings of the background investigation into the record. Councilmember Hjelle moved a vote of confidence for Greg Copeland pursuant to city code 2- 102 to retain Mr. Copeland as Interim City Manger until a permanent City Manager is hired. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes -Mayor Longrie and Councilmembers Cave and Hjelle Nays - Councilmembers Juenemann and Rossbach Mayor Longrie Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle A F. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS G. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS H. ADJOURNM Special City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 2 A. CALL TO ORDER 0 E. MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7 :00 P.M. Monday, July 24, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -20 Agenda Item E4 A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at C 7 :32 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Present Rebecca Cave Councilmember Present Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present APPROVAL OF AGENDA L4. City Manager Hiring Process Timeline M1. Statement Prepared by Sherrie Le M2. City Attorney Process M3. St. Paul Tourist Cabin Site M4. Tree Ordinance M5. Recent Newspaper Articles Mayor Longrie moved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All APPROVAL OF MINUTES d was called to order at Minutes from the July 10, Mayor Longrie moved to < Workshoa as aresented. ouncil /Manager Workshop the minutes from the July 10, 2006 Council /Manager Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes -Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave, Hjelle and Rossbach Abstain - Councilmember Juenemann 2. Minutes from the July 10, 2006 City Council Meeting (continued July 12, 2006) Mayor Longrie moved to approve the minutes from the July 10, 2006 City Council Meeting as amended. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 1 F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. Patty Gearin, 2575 Caver Avenue East, shared the success of her recycling business located in St. Paul Park, which currently staffs 16 employees with hopes to expand to 45 in the near future. 2. Sharon Lumphrey, 1817 Clarence Street, Maplewood, asked Mayor, and council to respect one another and each others gifts and talents. The citizens are counting on them to "help keep the City of Maplewood together." 3. Marilyn Galbraith, 1770 Edward Street, Maplewood, resident of 38 years, appreciated council "dissecting" each of the proposals for the Gladstone Redevelopment Master Plan and offered her thanks for the thoughtfulness of the council. 4. Dan Fisher, Moose Lodge, Frost and English, invited the community to a Bike Show to benefit the Muscular Dystrophy Association on August '19 from 2 -5 p.m. 5. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, expressed his dissatisfaction with council's lack to work as a team. Mr. Cockriel thanked council for all of their efforts and asked for reconsideration on the Carver EAW decision. Mayor Longrie explained the process for reconsideration. 6. Mark Bonitz, 1635 Sterling Street South, requested reconsideration for a full environmental impact study for the Carver parcel. 7. Bill Kayser, 6408 81S Ave North, Brooklyn Park, asked if pertinent documents were obtained from the previous City Attorney regarding a property in Maplewood. Interim City Attorney Kantrud confirmed receiving the files, having a general familiarity with the file and talking to the legal representative for the family. Mr. Kayser also spoke to a recent arrest involving the property in question. G. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. National Niaht Out Plans a. Parks and Recreation Director Anderson presented the report. b. Police Chief Thomalla and Councilmember Juenemann provided further specifics. y 73 block parties have been scheduled with the number increasing daily. A kick -off will be revisited for 2007 after further evaluation and discussion of this year's event. 2. Recycling Open House August 16, 2006, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Gladstone Neighborhood Fire Station (1955 Clarence Street) a. City Engineer Ahl presented the report. City Engineer Ahl encouraged all residents to participate in the recycling open house on August 16 th H. PUBLIC HEARINGS None City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 2 CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda items 2. 3, 5 -10. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve consent agenda item 1. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve consent agenda items 4. Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes-All Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 332,740.39 Checks # 70359 thru # 704 dated 6130106 thru 7111106 $ 2,608,423.84 Disbursement dated 6126106 89,687.00 Checks # 70402 $ 3,137,482.83 to checking account d Direct Deposits dated II Deduction check # 105593 thru # 105594 07114106 Total Payroll bits to checking City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 3 $ 3,630,682.36 GRAND TOTAL K 3 ki 5 R 7 1.1 0 Purchase of One -Ton Truck Cab /Chassis and Utility Crane Body Authorized to enter into a contract with Stillwater Motors for the purchase of the cab /chassis in the amount of $26,610.68, and Aspen Equipment Company for the purchase of the utility crane body in the amount of $16,400.28. Nletil+o of R t _QGynlinw (loon u „„ so_ item moved to AppointmentslPresentations Budget Changes for Building Utilities Approved the cable franchise fee surplus ($61,885) along with $15,905 from the General Fund reserve for contingencies be used to finance the $77,790 shortage in the building utilities account. Budget Changes for Investment Management F Approved the 2006 budget for the General Fund revenue from internal investment management fees be increased form $107,670 to $130,980 and the 2006 budget for the investment management fees expenses by increased from $26,480 to $30,370. Conditional Use Permit Review — George's Auto Body (1 225 Frost Avenue) Approved to review the conditional use permits for George's Auto Body Repair at 1225 Frost Avenue again in one year. Conditional Use Permit Review — Olivia Gardens (Olivia Court and Stillwater Road) Approved to review the conditional use permit (CUP) for Olivia Gardens PUD again in one year (July 2007) or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. Child Seat Donation Accepted the donation of two child car seats for use by Maplewood officers in the course of their duties, from Paul Johnson, a citizen of St. Paul. Temporary Gambling Church of St. Jerome Adopted the following resolution approving temporary lawful gambling for the Church of St. Jerome on September 17, 2006: RESOLUTION 06 -07 -088 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Church of St. Jerome. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 4 K. 10. Payment of Safari Software Maintenance Fees for Parks and Recreation Department Authorized to pay the support contract for Safari Recware in the amount of $9,288. AWARD OF BIDS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16: Re Hearing a. City Engineer Ahl presented the report. Councilmember Hjelle moved to adopt the following resoluti Improvements, Project 05 -16 — Ordering the Assessment H Monday, August 14 2006. RESOLUTION 06 -07 -089 ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEAR Ordering Assessment on for the ING Area Street WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city enoineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 14th day of August 2006, at the city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment. 3. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and city engineer and that written or oral objections will be considered. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes -All 2. Eldridge Avenue, Street and Utility Improvements for the Eldridge Fields Development, City Project 06 -04: Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll a. City Engineer Ahl presented the report Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution for the Eldridge Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, Project 06 -04: Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll: City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 5 RESOLUTION 06 -07 -090 ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the Eldridge Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 06 -04 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection. FURTHER, the clerk shall, upon completion of such p council thereof. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes -All 3. Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, City Project 05 -17 Ad for Bid and Ordering the Preparation of the Assessme a. City Engineer Ahl presented the report. ment notify the ution Approving Plans, Councilmember Hjelle moved to adopt the following resolutions for the Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, Project 05 -17: Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids and Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll: RESOLUTION 06 -07 -091 APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on June 12 2006, plans and specifications for Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, Project 05 -17, have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for aooroval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a eof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2.' The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:00 a.m. on the 30th day of August, 2006, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of September 11, 2006. City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 rd RESOLUTION 06 -07 -092 ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, City Project 05 -17. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection. FURTHER, the clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes' -All Report on the Status of the Conditional Use Permit Review — Maplewood Business Center (1616 Gervais Avenue) — Continued for 30 days to allow for mediation among the parties with the Dispute Resolution Center a. Planner Finwall presented the report. Councilmember Hjelle moved to table the Conditional Use Permit review until August 28, 2006. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All L. NEW BUSINESS M 2 Intoxicating Liquor License Change of Manager — Robert Delmont — Pei Wei Asian Diner a. REaL Director/City Clerk Guilfoile presented the report. b. Robert Delmont, the applicant, was present for council questions. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the intoxicating liquor license change of manager:, for Mr. Robert Delmont for the Pei Wei Asian Diner, 3095 White Bear Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All Alcohol /Tobacco Compliance Check Failures a. REaL Director/City Clerk Guilfoile presented the report. b. Police Chief Thomalla provided further specifics from the report. City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 7 C. The following persons were heard: Arthur Stein, Laber's Liquors Paul Mateka, Dean's Tavern Lynn Roth, Maplewood Bowl Abraham Moore, Hilltop Foods Cheryl Wolf, Huey's Saloon Raymond Muckala, Holiday Station Councilmember Juenemann moved to table addre compliance for Partytime Liquors and Knowlans tc owners to be present: Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes - Councilmember Rossbach moved to impose the f( check failures • AMF- Maplewood Lanes $250 • Chalet Lounge $250 • Deans Tavern $500 • Hilltop Foods, Inc. $500 Huey's Saloon $500 Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes -All Councilmember Juenemann moved to impose a $75 for an alcohol /tobacco compliance check failure. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All Mayor Longrie moved to table the imposition of 'a finE Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Hielle moved to impose a fine of a $2000 to Holidav Station /Centu Failure to comply with all requirements within 45 days will result in a three day suspension of the business. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Raymond Muckala was recognized by Mayor Longrie. Mr. Muckula thanked council for their consideration in his case. He asked that council consider a provision that acknowledges continued time frames of compliance for redemption purposes. fines for alcohol /tobacco compliance City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 8 3. Kenwood Area Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16; 749 Skillman — On Street Parking a. City Engineer Ahl presented the report. Mayor Longrie move to adopt the resolution approving the addition of two parking spaces on Skillman Avenue in the form of bump outs with a provision that a sign is installed to remind residents of the overnight parking restrictions. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Rossbach Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle A bers elle, Juenemann -Mayor Longrie 4. City Manager Hiring Process Ti a. Councilmember Rossbach presented the repoi Councilmember Rossbach moved to set the goal to he attendina his/her first council meeting December 11. 2 Seconded by Mayor Longrie M. COUNCIL PRIES 1. Statement Preoared by Sherrie Le TAITWONTMITUTAF. M10 Councilmember Rossbach requested to read a statement that Human Resource Director Le asked him to read into the record. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes -Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave and Hjelle Nays - Councilmembers Juenemann and Rossbach Councilmember Hjelle moved to waive the 11:00 p.m. curfew to address the remainder of the items on the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes -Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave and Hjelle Nays - Councilmembers Juenemann and Rossbach 2. St. Paul Tourist Cabin Site Councilmember Hjelle stated a press conference was held Thursday, July 20 at City Hall regarding developer Bart Montanari. Mr. Montanari has entered into an agreement with the St. Paul Tourist Cabin Site property owner to develop a 55 and above active senior housing project. City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 9 3. City Attorney Process Councilmember Hjelle confirmed the City Attorney Request for Proposal (RFP) is progressing. Mr. Copland is pursing counsel for contract negotiations. Mr. Hjelle thanked Interim City Attorney Kantrud for providing "non- clouded" straightforward answers to questions. Councilmember Juenemann requested a breakout of legal fees. 4. Tree Ordinance Mayor Longrie would like a first draft of the revised tree ordinance addressed as soon as possible. Interim City Manager Copeland provided an update on the progress and stated Mr. Kantrud currently has the draft. 5. Recent Newspaper Article Mayor Longrie bypassed the discussion she wanted to have to have regarding recent newspaper articles to allow time to address the remaining items on the agenda. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS E 2 GovDelivery Program IT Director Fowlds provided an ove by signing up on the city website. Use of Ramsey County Workhouse Interim City Manager t Ramsey County Workl crews on city projects. 3. Authority to Seek a. Interim Cii b. Maintenr Councilmember F oiaes at Citv Hall. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All 4. Authority to Expend up to $15,000 to conduct an Engineering Study on the Walls of the Community Center to Determine the Cause of Water Leaks a. Interim City Manager Copeland presented the report. b. Chief Building Engineer Farr presented specifics from the report. Mayor Longrie moved to expend up to $15,000 to conduct an engineering study on the walls of the Maplewood Community Center to determine the cause of water leaks. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All land informe a inmates to and update on the auto -email program now available ates to Assist, City Crews in Maintenance Projects ids to Replace Seals on ,uncil on the benefits of the continued use of ist the Public Works and Parks and Recreation ater Hear Loop Pipes at City Hall � Manager Copeland presented the report. ce Manager Farr presented specifics from the report. ielle moved to authorize staff to seek bids to replace seals on hot water City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 10 O. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Longrie moved to adiourn at 11:37 p.m. City Council Meeting 07 -24 -06 11 Agenda Item H1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Tax - Exempt Revenue Financing Regions Hospital Sleep Lab 2688 Maplewood Drive North August 4, 2006 INTRODUCTION Mr. Frank McQuillan, representing Regions Hospital, is requesting that the city council give approval for up to $2.6 million in tax - exempt revenue note financing. They would use this financing to cover the costs of constructing and equipping the new sleep clinic. The Regions Sleep Lab is a 7,000- square -foot specialty clinic for the diagnosis and treatment of persons with sleep disorders. (See the maps on pages two and three and the letter from Jenny Boulton of Briggs and Morgan on pages four and five.) The applicant is requesting that the city approve this financing so the bond interest would be tax - exempt. The state and federal governments require local government approval of tax - exempt financing. BACKGROUND On December 12, 2005, the city council approved a conditional use permit, a building setback variance, a zoning map change and the project design plans for the Regions Sleep Health Clinic at 2688 Maplewood Drive North. On July 10, 2006, the city council gave preliminary approval for this request and adopted a resolution calling for a public hearing on the matter for August 14, 2006. DISCUSSION This request should meet the city's requirements for tax - exempt financing. Maplewood will not be liable for this financing. The contractor recently finished the building and the site work and the owners have started to use the new clinic. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the attached resolution starting on page six. This resolution approves Maplewood giving approval for the note for up to $2.6 million in tax - exempt revenue financing for the Regions Sleep Health Clinic at 2688 Maplewood Drive. B. Authorize staff to sign and execute the necessary documents for this financing approval. p1Sec 4/Sleep center tax - exempt fin (2) - 2006 Attachments: 1. Location and Zoning Map 2. Site and Landscape Plan 3. June 27, 2006 letter from Jenny Boulton 4. Financing Approval Resolution Attachment 1 0 0 4 4L A I T 'Iz COUNTY ROAD C I I ui U Z Lu Location and Zoning Map Regions Sle% Health Center c 2688 Ma ewood Drive N I NVId 3d"SONV1 � € Y � 1 I neat 3 Attach t2 Attach NN 1 po"*Idepv - - - - - - - — UO PDWWdi?n a99.7 4wmo Wjftj4 doWS t I&WdsoN swifty tir � € Y � 1 I neat 3 Attach t2 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION June 27, 2006 VIA EMAIL Mr. Ken Roberts City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 -2702 WRITER'S DIRECT DLAL (651) 808 -6484 Attachment 3 WRITER'S E -MAIL jboulton a)briggsxom Re: City of Maplewood, Minnesota — Health Care Facility Revenue Note, Series 2006 (Regions Hospital Sleep Lab Project) Dear Ken and City Councilmembers: It is proposed that the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City ") issue a tax - exempt Note on behalf of Regions Hospital (the "Borrower ") to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of a new sleep disorder clinic in the City. The Note the City would issue on behalf of the Borrower would not exceed $2,600,000. State and Federal law allow governmental entities to issue obligations such as the Note and loan the proceeds to nonprofit corporations to finance or refinance capital expenditures. This assistance reduces borrowing costs for nonprofit corporations and enables them to provide their services more cost effectively. To accomplish this purpose, the City would enter a Loan Agreement with the Borrower under which the Borrower would agree to pay all principal and interest on the Note. The City will assign all of its rights and obligations under the Loan Agreement to a local bank (the "Lender ") which will purchase the Note and loan the purchase price of the Note directly to the Borrower. The City is merely a conduit and the money and obligations flow only between the Lender and the Borrower. The Note and the resolution to be adopted by the City will recite that the Note, if and when issued, will not to be payable from or charged upon any of the City's funds, other than the revenues received under the Loan Agreement and pledged to the payment of the Note, and the City is not subject to any liability on the Note. No holder of the Note will ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the principal of the Note or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment of the Note against any property of the City except the interests of the City in payments to be made by the Borrower under the Loan Agreement. The Note will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in payments to be made by the Borrower 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 332 MINNESOTA STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE (651) 808 -6600 FACSIMILE (651) 808 -6450 I918804v1 MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE • IDS CENTR • IW.BRK7GS.COM MEMBER - LEA MUNDI, A GLOBAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT 1--MV FIRMS BRIGGS AND MORGAN June 27, 2006 Page 2 under the Loan Agreement. The Note is not a moral obligation on the part of the State or its political subdivisions, including the City, and the Note will not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. The Note would be designated as Bank Qualified. Consequently, the City will have to factor the Note into its $10,000,000 limit possibly leaving a cap of $7,400,000 available for other obligations that the City may issue in 2006 for governmental purposes or for other nonprofit borrowers. This in no way limits the total amount of bonds that the City may issue, only the amount that may be designated as Bank Qualified. The City's Finance Director has indicated the City plans to issue no more than $6,375,000 of bonds for its own purposes so this financing would not negatively affect the City's ability to designate its bonds as Bank Qualified. Issuing the Note will not affect the credit rating of the City on bonds they issue for municipal purposes. Under Federal and State law, in order for the Note to be a tax- exempt obligation, a governmental entity must issue the Note. This requires that the City hold a public hearing and approve issuance of the Note and the execution of related documents. The City will hold a public hearing on August 14, 2006 and give final approval to the issuance of the Note and the execution of related documents. The Borrower has paid the City's required application fee and will be required to pay the City's administrative fee upon the issuance of the Note. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, /s/ ,jenny (Boufton Jenny Boulton 1918804-v1 5 Extract of Minutes of a Meeting of the Attachment 4 City Council of the City of Maplewood Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Maplewood City Council was duly held in Maplewood City Hall in the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on Monday, August 14, 2006, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: and the following were absent: During said meeting introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE $2,600,000 HEALTH CARE FACILITY REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2006 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO (REGIONS HOSPITAL SLEEP DISORDER CLINIC PROJECT) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and after full discussion thereof and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1922654x1 6 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE $2,600,000 HEALTH CARE FACILITY REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2006 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO (REGIONS HOSPITAL SLEEP DISORDER CLINIC PROJECT) WHEREAS, (a) Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469.152 to 469.1651 (the "Act ") as found and determined by the legislature is to promote the welfare of the state by the active attraction and encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; (b) Factors necessitating the active promotion and development of economically sound industry and commerce are the increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan areas and the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of governmental services required to meet the needs of the increased population and the need for development of land use which will provide an adequate tax base to finance these increased costs and access to employment opportunities for such population; (c) The Maplewood City Council (the "City ") has received from Regions Hospital, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Borrower "), a proposal that City assist in financing a Project hereinafter described, through the issuance of a Revenue Note, referred to in this resolution as the "Revenue Note" or "Note ", pursuant to the Act; (d) The City desires to facilitate the selective development of the community, provide services to persons with sleep disorders, retain and improve the tax base and help to provide the range of services and employment opportunities required by the population; and the Project will assist the City in achieving those objectives and will enhance the image and reputation of the community; (e) The Borrower is currently engaged in the business of providing health care services, including diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders. The Revenue Note will be issued to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 7,000 square foot building located at 2688 Maplewood Drive in the City (the "Project "). The Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower; (f) The City has been advised by representatives of the Borrower that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but the Borrower has also advised the City that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing cost, the Project is economically more feasible; (g) No public official of the City has either a direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will any public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project. 1922654x1 2 7 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City "), as follows: SECTION 1. LEGAL AUTHORIZATION AND FINDINGS 1.1 Findings The City hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: (a) The City is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota and is authorized under the Act to assist the revenue producing project herein referred to, and to issue and sell the Note, as hereinafter defined, for the purpose, in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Act and in this Resolution. (b) As required by the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), the City has, on this same date, held a public hearing on the issuance of one or more revenue notes to finance the Project. (c) The issuance and sale of the $2,600,000 Health Care Facility Revenue Note, Series 2006 (Regions Hospital Sleep Disorder Clinic Project) (the "Note ") by the City, pursuant to the Act, is in the best interest of the City, and the City hereby determines to issue the Note and to sell the Note to Wells Fargo Brokerage Services, LLC (the "Lender "), as provided herein. The City will loan the proceeds of the Note (the "Loan ") to the Borrower in order to finance the Project. (d) Pursuant to a Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement ") to be entered into between the City and the Borrower, the Borrower has agreed to repay the Note in specified amounts and at specified times sufficient to pay in full when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Note. In addition, the Loan Agreement contains provisions relating to the construction, the maintenance and operation of the Project, indemnification, insurance, and other agreements and covenants which are required or permitted by the Act and which the City and the Borrower deem necessary or desirable for the financing of the Project. A draft of the Loan Agreement has been submitted to the City Council. (e) Pursuant to a Pledge Agreement to be entered into between the City and the Lender, the City has pledged and granted a security interest in all of its rights, title, and interest in the Loan Agreement to the Lender (except for certain rights of indemnification and to reimbursement for certain costs and expenses). A draft of the Pledge Agreement has been submitted to the City Council. (f) Pursuant to an Escrow Agreement (the "Escrow Agreement") by and between the Borrower and the Lender, the Lender will disburse the proceeds of the Note to the Borrower to finance the Project. (g) The Note will be a special limited obligation of the City. The Note shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No holder of the Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Note or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City. The Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 1922654x1 3 8 (h) On the basis of information available to this Council it appears, and the Council hereby finds, that the Project constitutes properties, real and personal, used or useful in connection with one or more revenue producing enterprises within the meaning of Subdivision 2(d) of Section 469.153 of the Act; that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 469.152; that the availability of the financing under the Act and willingness of the City to furnish such financing will be a substantial inducement to the Borrower to undertake the Project, and that the effect of the Project, if undertaken, will be to provide necessary health care facilities so that adequate health care services are available to residents of the state at reasonable cost, to provide the range of services and employment opportunities required by the population, and to help prevent the movement of talented and educated persons out of the state and to areas within the State where their services may not be as effectively used. (i) It is desirable, feasible and consistent with the objects and purposes of the Act to issue the Note, for the purpose of financing the costs of the Project. 1.2 Authorization and Ratification of Project The City has heretofore and does hereby authorize the Borrower, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Lender, to provide for the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project by such means as shall be available to the Borrower and in the manner determined by the Borrower, and without advertisement for bids as may be required for the acquisition and construction of other municipal facilities; and the City hereby ratifies, affirms, and approves all actions heretofore taken by the Borrower consistent with and in anticipation of such authority. SECTION 2. THE NOTE 2.1 Authorized Amount and Form of Note The Note issued pursuant to this Resolution shall be in substantially the form submitted to the City Council with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Resolution, and in accordance with the further provisions hereof; and the total aggregate principal amount of the Note that may be outstanding hereunder is expressly limited to $2,600,000, unless a duplicate Note is issued pursuant to Section 2.7. 2.2 The Note The Note shall be dated as of the date of delivery to the Lender, shall be payable at the times and in the manner, shall bear interest at the rates, and shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as are set forth therein. 2.3 Execution The Note shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of its Mayor and Clerk and shall be sealed with the seal of the City; provided that the seal may be intentionally omitted as provided by law. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if had remained in office until delivery. In the event of the absence or disability of the Mayor or the Clerk such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may act in their behalf, shall without further act or authorization of the City Council execute and deliver the Note. 2.4 Delivery of Initial Note Before delivery of the Note there shall be filed with the Lender (except to the extent waived by the Lender) the following items: (1) an executed copy of each of the following documents: 1922654x1 4 9 (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Pledge Agreement; (c) the Escrow Agreement; (2) an opinion of Counsel for the Borrower as prescribed by the Lender and Bond Counsel; (3) the opinion of Bond Counsel as to the validity and tax exempt status of the Note; (4) a 501(c)(3) determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service evidencing that the Borrower is exempt from income taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code; (5) such other documents and opinions as Bond Counsel may reasonably require for purposes of rendering its opinion required in subsection (3) above or that the Lender may reasonably require for the closing. 2.5 Disposition of Note Proceeds Upon delivery of the Note to Lender, the Lender shall, on behalf of the City, disburse the proceeds of the Note for payment of Project Costs in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement and the Escrow Agreement. 2.6 Registration of Transfer The City will cause to be kept at the office of the City Clerk a Note Register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, the City shall provide for the registration of transfers of ownership of the Note. The Note shall be initially registered in the name of the Lender and shall be transferable upon the Note Register by the Lender in person or by its agent duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of the Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Clerk, duly executed by the Lender or its duly authorized agent. The following form of assignment shall be sufficient for said purpose. For value received hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Note of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer said Note on the books of said City with full power of substitution in the premises. The undersigned certifies that the transfer is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9 of the Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Note. Dated: Registered Owner Upon such transfer the Clerk shall note the date of registration and the name and address of the new note holder in the Note Register and in the registration blank appearing on the Note. 1922654x1 5 10 2.7 Mutilated, Lost or Destroyed Note In case any Note issued hereunder shall become mutilated or be destroyed or lost, the City shall, if not then prohibited by law, cause to be executed and delivered, a new Note of like outstanding principal amount, number and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note, or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note destroyed or lost, upon the Lender's paying the reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection therewith, and in the case of a Note destroyed or lost, the filing with the City of evidence satisfactory to the City with indemnity satisfactory to it. If the mutilated, destroyed or lost Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. 2.8 Ownership of Note The City may deem and treat the person in whose name the Note is last registered in the Note Register and by notation on the Note whether or not such Note shall be overdue, as the absolute owner of such Note for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of the Principal Balance, redemption price or interest and for all other purposes whatsoever, and the City shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. 2.9 Limitation on Note Transfers The Note has been issued without registration under state or other securities laws, pursuant to an exemption for such issuance; and accordingly the Note may not be assigned or transferred in whole or part, nor may a participation interest in the Note be given pursuant to any participation agreement, except as an exempt security or as an exempt transaction. 2.10 Issuance of New Notes Subject to the provisions of Section 2.9, the City shall, at the request and expense of the Lender, issue new notes, in an aggregate outstanding principal amount equal to that of the Note surrendered, and of like tenor except as to number, principal amount, and the amount of the monthly installments payable thereunder, and registered in the name of the Lender or such transferee as may be designated by the Lender. SECTION 3. MISCELLANEOUS 3.1 Severability If any provision of this Resolution shall be held or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be inoperative or unenforceable as applied in any particular case in any jurisdiction or jurisdictions or in all jurisdictions or in all cases because it conflicts with any provisions of any constitution or statute or rule or public policy, or for any other reason, such circumstances shall not have the effect of rendering the provision in question inoperative or unenforceable in any other case or circumstance, or of rendering any other provision or provisions herein contained invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable to any extent whatever. The invalidity of any one or more phrases, sentences, clauses or paragraphs in this Resolution contained shall not affect the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof. 3.2 Authentication of Transcript The officers of the City are directed to furnish to Bond Counsel certified copies of this Resolution and all documents referred to herein, and affidavits or certificates as to all other matters which are reasonably necessary to evidence the validity of the Note. All such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute recitals of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. 1922654x1 6 11 3.3 Authorization to Execute Agreements The forms of the proposed Loan Agreement, the Pledge Agreement and the Escrow Agreement are hereby approved in substantially the form heretofore presented to the City Council, together with such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions there from and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by Bond Counsel prior to the execution of the documents, and the Mayor and Clerk of the City are authorized to execute the Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement in the name of and on behalf of the City and such other documents as Bond Counsel consider appropriate in connection with the issuance of the Note. In the event of the absence or disability of the Mayor or the Clerk such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may act in their behalf, shall without further act or authorization of the City Council do all things and execute all instruments and documents required to be done or executed by such absent or disabled officers. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. 3.4 Project Approval In anticipation of the approval of the Project by the State of Minnesota, Department of Employment and Economic Development and all other necessary entities and the issuance of the Note to finance all or a portion of the Project, and in order that completion of the Project will not be unduly delayed when approved, the Borrower is hereby authorized to make such expenditures and advances toward payment of that portion of the costs of the Project to be financed from the proceeds of the Note as the Borrower considers necessary, including the use of interim, short term financing, subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the Note if and when delivered but otherwise without liability on the part of the City. 3.5 Qualified Tax Exempt Obligation In order to qualify the Note as a "qualified tax - exempt obligation" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code "), the City hereby makes the following factual statements and representations; (a) the Note is not treated as a "private activity bond" under Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (b) the City hereby designates the Note as a qualified tax - exempt obligation for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (c) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax - exempt obligations (other than obligations described in clause (ii) of Section 265(b)(3)(C) of the Code) which will be issued by the City (and all entities whose obligations will be aggregated with those of the City) during the calendar year 2006 will not exceed $10,000,000; and (d) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during the calendar year 2006 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. 1922654x1 7 12 Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on the 14 day of August, 2006. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 1922654x1 8 13 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Maplewood, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to a resolution authorizing the issuance of a revenue note. WITNESS my hand this day of August, 2006. Clerk 1922654x1 9 14 AGENDA NO. I -1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: August 14, 2006 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: $ 1,059,445.08 Checks 4 70445 thru 4 70506 dated 7125106 S 348,896.45 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 07113/06 thru 07/20106 S 542,078.67 Checks 9 70507 thru 9 70581 dated 07127/06 thru 08/01106 S 148,810.24 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 07/21/06 thru 7/27/06 $ 644,628.11 Checks 4 70582 thru 4 70619 dated 08/01/06 thru 08/08/06 S 2,060,566.53 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 07/28/06 thru 08/03/06 S 4,804,425.08 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL $ 591,250.15 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 07/28/06 S 2,305.25 Payroll Deduction check 9 105764 thru # 105765 dated 07/28/06 S 593,555.40 Total Payroll S 5,397,980.48 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651- 249 -2902 if you have any questions on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. ds attachments S : \CTY_CLRK\Agenda Lists and Reports 2006\Agenda Reports \08- 14 -06 \I1 Approval of Claims.xls Agenda Item 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Interim City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review PROJECT: St. Paul Regional Water Services (McCarron's Treatment Plant) LOCATION: 1900 Rice Street DATE: August 4, 2006 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) facilities at 1900 Rice Street is due for review. The CUP allowed for the expansion of the facility which includes three new buildings: (1) a two -story 36,000- square -foot office building with 240 parking spaces, (2) a one -story 11,230 - square -foot meter shop and warehouse, and (3) a one -story 17,350- square -foot vehicle maintenance and storage building with associated parking and landscaping features. In addition, a future plan to build a cold vehicle storage building was included on the plans. (See the maps on pages three — five). BACKGROUND December 15, 1988: The city council approved a CUP for SPRWS to construct a clear -water pond west of Sylvan Street and north of Larpenteur Avenue. June 10, 1996: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion of the solids dewatering facility. August 11, 1997: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of two building additions and a new building at the water treatment plant. December 10, 2001: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the expansion and renovation of the water treatment plant. June 23, 2003: The city council approved a CUP and design plans for the construction of three new buildings on the water services campus. (See the council minutes starting on page six.) On July 12, 2004, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year. On July 25, 2005, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year. DISCUSSION The St. Paul Regional Water Services three newest buildings and the associated parking lots and driveways are complete. The required landscaping, including the trout stream and buffer restoration, (with native trees and grasses) within the campus also are complete. Kou Vang, the project engineer for SPRWS, outlines the status of the site work in his letter on page 12. SPRWS expects to construct the approved cold vehicle storage buildings in 2008 or 2009. Because the applicant has not yet finished the project construction and all of the associated site work, the city should review this conditional use permit again in one year. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Regional Water Services campus at 1900 Rice Street again in one year. P:sec 18 \st paul water utility cup review - 2006 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. June 23, 2003, City Council Minutes 5. June 19, 2006 letter from Kau Vang N Location Map St. Paul Water Utility 1900 Rice Street Attachment 1 no F k Attachment 3 .` o I Attachment 4 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:30 P.M., June 23, 2003 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 03 -13 A. CALL TO ORDER: A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kenneth V. Collins, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin C. Koppen, Councilmember Present Julie A. Wasiluk, Councilmember Present H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 8 :55 p.m. St. Paul Regional Water Services — McCarron's Water Treatment Plant a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report. C. Commissioner Fischer presented the Planning Commission Report. d. Boardmember Olson presented the Design Review Board Report. e. Jim Butler, architect for the project provided further specifics. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a stream setback variance at the St. Paul Water Regional Water Service at the McCarron's Water Treatment Plant: RESOLUTION 03 -06 -117 STREAM SETBACK VARIANCE WHEREAS, David Wagner, of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services, asked the city to approve a stream setback variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the water utility property at 1900 Rice Street. The legal description is: 0 City Council 05 -27 -03 SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18- 29 -22 -31 -0042) WHEREAS, Section 36- 196(h) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 60- foot -wide stream buffer area next to streams. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 40 -foot -wide stream buffer. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on June 23, 2003. 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: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The 60- foot -wide stream buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would greatly improve a portion of the stream buffer over its present state and the proposed development plans will treat storm water from the site with rainwater gardens, bio- retention basins and other best management practices. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Dedicating a 40- foot -wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line of the site adjacent to the future cold storage building and creating a buffer along the entire length of the stream contained or bordering their property. The buffer shall be 50 feet wide in all possible areas. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. 2. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of all the stream - protection buffer on the west side of the site, including all the day - lighted parts of Trout Brook This plan shall show extensive use of native plantings and grasses and shall be subject to city staff and watershed district approval. City Council 05 -27 -03 3. Installing city approved signs at the edge of the stream - protection buffer that prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping within the buffer. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for the addition of four building a new parking lot and associated site plan changes for the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 03 -06 -118 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Water Utility has requested a revision to their conditional use permit to add four new buildings, parking and landscaping to plant facilities at the St. Paul Water Utility McCarron's Water Treatment Plant. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1900 Rice Street North. The legal description is: SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22 IN THE VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD REVISED DESCRIPTION NUMBER 175 A SPECIFIC PART OF SEC 18, TN 29, R 22. (PIN 18- 29 -22 -31 -0042) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 2, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On June 23 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above - described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a City Council 05 -27 -03 nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1_ All construction shall follow the 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. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the design plans for the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North: Approve the plans (date- stamped April 24, 2003) for the proposed office building, meter shop and vehicle maintenance buildings (with the associated parking and landscaping) at the St. Paul Regional Water Services McCarron's Water Treatment Plant at 1900 Rice Street North. This approval does not include the future cold vehicle storage building shown on the plans along the west side of the site. The city bases this approval on findings required by the code. The property owner or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a permit for this project. 2. Provide the following for city staff approval before the city issues a grading or building permit: 0 City Council 05 -27 -03 a. Building material and color samples of the plaster, metal panels, roofs, trim, and garage doors. b. A revised landscape /screening plan that shows the following: (1) The spruce trees proposed for the south and east sides of the parking lot and the property revised from 6 feet in height to 8 feet in height. (2) The planting of more coniferous trees along the south and east sides of the proposed parking lot to help screen the parking lot from the houses to the south and east. (3) Landscaping details for the stream buffer area and for the proposed rainwater gardens. If the basin area will only be seeded, the area must be vegetated with native grasses and forbes. The mix design must be approved by the city before the contractor does the seeding. (4) An in- ground irrigation system (including sprinkler heads) for the areas that would have sod. The city does not require irrigation for areas with native grasses or for the rainwater gardens. c. Detailed grading, drainage, paving, utility and erosion control plan for approval by the Assistant City Engineer. These plans shall meet all the requirements of the Assistant City Engineer. d. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting showing the location, style, height and design of the proposed light fixtures. All freestanding lights shall not be taller than 25 feet, and the illumination from any outdoor light must not exceed 0.4 -foot candles at all property lines. e. Plans for any trash - dumpster enclosures. The gates for such enclosures shall be 100 percent opaque, and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new buildings. These plans shall be subject to staff approval. f. Proof of recording of a 40- foot -wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city issues a building permit. g. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete and install all required exterior improvements, including the approved landscaping and any dumpster enclosures before occupying the buildings. im City Council 05 -27 -03 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes -All 11 City Council 05 -27 -03 Attachment 5 fNtt N BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS President: Patrick Harris • Vice President: John Zanmiller Commissioners: Matt Anfang ♦ Gregory Kleindl ♦ Debbie Montgomery ♦ Will Rossbach ♦ Dave Thune June 19, 2006 Mr. Ken Roberts City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 JUN 7 12006 RECEIVED SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Update — McCarrons Water Treatment Plant Dear Mr. Roberts: This is a status update on the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements, which were reviewed and approved by the Maplewood City Council on June 23, 2003. The CUP required dedication of a 40-foot wide stream protection buffer easement along the west property line. Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) has dedicated a 40-foot wide stream protection buffer easement as required in the CUP. There are two distinct areas of the site where the buffers were installed, one adjacent to the Rice Street entrance road and one adjacent to the future cold storage building. These two areas have been seeded with native plants and grasses and "Do Not Disturb" signs have been posted as required under the CUP. If you need further information or have any questions, please contact me at 651-266-6266. Sincerely, Kou Vang Project Engineer KV/jml copy: Dave Wagner SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES Stephen P. Schneider, General Manager 1900 Rice St. Saint Paul MN 55113-6810 * TTY: 651-266-6299 Saint Paul Regional Water Services provides quality water services to thefollowing cities: Arden Hills-Falcon Hei ahts - Lauderdal e. Little Canada . Mapl ewooiIRIendota -Mendota Heights-Rosevi I le. Saint Paul west St. Paul AA-ADA-EEO Employer ep printed on recycled paper Agenda Item 13 r_%�j MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit Review Lexus Auto Service Center 1245 County Road D August 3, 2006 The conditional use permit (CUP) for Lexus Service Building at 1245 County Road D is due for review. On June 13, 2005, the city council approved a CUP and design plans for a Lexus automobile- service facility at 1245 County Road D between Highway 61 and the new County Road D extension. Refer to the attached conditions of approval. DISCUSSION The applicant has begun construction. Council should review this permit in one year to check on the status of the building/site development and to check on CUP compliance. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Lexus auto-service center at 1245 County Road D in one year. p:sec4\Lexus CUP Review 7 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. June 13, 2005 City Council Minutes N kIDGE CT 01110 COUNTY RCS DCIR SIT wm U r /A IVI /A V r- Location Map Lexus Service Center Building meet 1 2 _CK Attoch7e 2 'J' r�t j- _CK Attachment 3 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, June 13, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05-11 I 1 10IIIIIIIIIIIIIN I AVA * &11 z I Trout Land Auto Dealerships (Lexus Auto Service Center - Highway 61 and New County Road D) a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Planner Ekstrand presented the specifics of the report. C. Commissioner AhIness presented the Maplewood Planning Commission report. d. Boardmember Olson presented the Community Design Review Board report. e. Brian Teeters, Ryan Companies, on behalf of Bloomer Properties answered council questions. Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional use permit for an automobile service center on Lot 1, Block 1, Trout Land: VACATION RESOLUTION 05-06-090 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Brian Teeters, of the Ryan Companies, applied for a conditional use permit for an automobile-repair garage. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located between Highway 61 and the future County Road D Extension. The legal description is: WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On May 16, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this proposal. City Staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the report and recommendation of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public meeting on June 13, 2005, to review this proposal. The council considered the report and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: M 1. The use would be |0C8ted, designed, rn8jntained. constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code nfOrdinances. 3. The use would not change the existing Or planned character 0J the surrounding area. 9. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use vvoV|d not involve any activity, process, nnat8ha|S. equipment or methods of operation that vv0u|d be dangerous, h8zondouS, detrimental, disturbing or cause @ nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive nOiS8. glare, smoke, dVSt, odor furnee, water or air pollution, dnain8Qe, water run-Off vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use xvoV|d g8n9r8L8 only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and vvVV|d not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 0. The use would be Served by adequate public facilities and services, including otna8tS police and fire pn]te{tiOn, 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 f88tUngs into the development design. 8. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. Automotive G8|8S and repair facilities are accepted VS8S in yW1 districts SVb|8c[ to appropriate conditions. 11. Automotive uS8S such as th8S8, have been C0nSid8n8d part of the Trout Land cDnlnoerci@| development plan all along. 12.|n the development agreement for Trout Land, the city council allowed 8 reduction [f the setback from the County Road D extension with the idea that an automotive use would b8 known tO any would-be owners of the future town homes across New County Road [J. Furthermore, the council required that these automotive-related buildings observe a 350- foot separation from the existing single-family home sites tV the west. Approval is SVb|8[t to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city stamped May 3 The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval Vr 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. Vehicle transport deliveries tothis site are prohibited unless the site is designed to 8CcOnnrnod3te this activity entirely within the property. The unloading Of vehicles On the street 0r highway right-of-vvGyiS prohibited. This condition also applies b]the delivery Vfparts to this building. 5. The applicant or current owner of this property shall dedicate a cross easement on or across this site for Sparkle Auto Vr provide an acceptable alternative across other properties. This cross easement, or any alternative, shall ba subject tothe city engineer's approval. 6. All building-mounted and ground-mounted lights must b8 down-lit LV prevent light spread beyond the site boundaries. Lighting fixtures must be designed ao the lens and bulbs are not visible from any surrounding homes. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes-All Counoi|nnennberKoppen moved to approve the site and landscaping plans date-stamped May 3, 2005 and the building elevations submitted to the community design review board on May 24, 2005 for the Lexus Service Center south of Sparkle Auto on the Trout Land development property. Approval is sub to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this 2. Comply with all requirements of the city engineer. 9. Before getting g building p8nnit. the applicant shall: 3. Dedicate 8 cross easement onUr across this site for Sparkle Auto or provide 8n acceptable alternative across other properties. This cross easement, orany alternative, shall b8 subject Lo the city engineer's approval. b. Provide evidence that cross easements have been granted between all effected property owners for the shared access driveway to the County Road D extension. c. Meet all requirements of the assistant city engineer's report dated May 6, 2005. d. Revise the site plan for staff approval providing: * A five-foot pavement setback from the south lot line. * A2U-foVt parking lot setback from the northerly lot line where the site abuts residential property. Customer and employee parking spaces that measure at least nine feet wide and drive aisles that measure 8[ least 34 feet wide. These dimensions may be less for inventory parking, but drive aisles must be8t least 2O feet wide. There must also be enough handicap-accessible parking spaces provided to meet ADA requirements for customers and employees. The number and placement ofthese spaces shall b8 determined bystaff. * The location and design Of8SCr8enin08nckJsunefOr[r8sh3ndr8nvo@b|8 materials, unless such containers are t0be kept inside. Trash enclosures must be compatible with the building in materials and design and must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. * More plantings along the north lot line adjacent to the single dwelling property to the north. Code requires a six-h]VL-taU and 8O percent opaque screen here k] buffer the parking lot from this neighbor. * Additional trees along the highway frontage for etree spacing 0f3O feet on center rather than the 5O-h}[t spacing poJposed. * Three additional trees along the County Road D frontage to create @ fuller tree line. These trees are Sh0vvn at 30 feet on center. Adght8r planting row will help to buffer the site from the future town homes to the west. * The applicant shall work with staff b] enhance the landscaping located onthe south side of the building to ensure an attractive landscape design for future developments located to the south of the site. t Provide engineered plans for any retaining walls that exceed four feet in height. Any walls over four feet in height must also have af8nce on top. g. Revise the architectural plans to show the window frames on the building to match the existing window frames on the LexVS Automobile Dealership building located across the highway (3OOO Highway 81). |n addition, the plans must show that all retaining vv8||S are designed and constructed [f materials which are compatible k]the building materials. h. Have a recorded plat so the subject lot is a legally buildable site. i A C8Sh 8SCrovv or an irrevocable letter Of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. i Submit detailed plans for screening the rooftop mechanical units for staff approval. The plan must attempt to reduce any negative visual impact caused by the units on the residential property owners b] the west. This can be accomplished bycombining the mechanical units or vents, installing the units toward the center of the roof or some other acceptable method. 4. Obtain the required permit from the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. 5. Comply with all requirements of the Maplewood Building Official and Fire Marshal. 0. Install k]vvn irrigation 8s required by code. 7. Comply with the city's lighting ordin8nC8. D. |nSt8|| 3S[op sign Ed the driveway intersection g1 County Road D. 9. Construct theS driveway with pavement and curbing. Escrow may b8 accepted in |heV of full completion in consideration of curb cuts that will be needed for the two southerly sites. 10. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: * The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or * The above-required ketterofCredb0rcashesc0w is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements bv June 1 if occupancy ufthe building is in the f8|| or winter, or within six weeks Of occupancy ofthe building if occupancy iSin the spring Orsummer. 11. All work shall follow the approved plans and these conditions. The director Ofcommunity development may approve minor changes. 12. The review board noted that the lighting p|8nisno[inclVd8dinUliS proposal. Anevv lighting plan must be submitted for review by the community design review board. The plan must ensure no negative lighting impacts to the residential properties located to the vv8St by such means as reducing the light pole heighte, reducing the number oflights, using 8 downcast lighting fixture, etc. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Agenda Item 14 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review — Outdoor Storage Yard and City Impound Lot LOCATION: 1160 Frost Avenue DATE: July 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 1160 Frost Avenue is due for review. The initial CUP was for Quality Restoration Services, Inc. to use this property for an outside storage yard for their ground - restoration equipment. The city code requires a CUP for a parking lot as a principal use, for trucking terminals and for outdoor storage in an M -1 (light manufacturing) district. Quality Restoration is no longer there and sold this property to Mark Ashby early in 2005 for future development. Mr. Ashby would like to keep the CUP active and is requesting that the city council extend it. As stated, Quality Restorations has left the site. Mr. Ashby, however, in March 2005, agreed to let the City of Maplewood use this storage yard temporarily as a police - department impound lot while the city's current impound facility at the public works building was unavailable due to the expansion taking place there. The city has since ceased use Mr. Ashby's site for its vehicle impound needs. BACKGROUND August 25, 1997: The city council approved the original CUP for Quality Restorations. There were subsequent CUP reviews since then until the most recent CUP amendment in March 2005. March 14, 2005: The city council approved an amendment to this CUP to allow its temporary use as an impound lot by the police department. Refer to the attached conditions. DISCUSSION Mr. Ashby would like to keep this CUP active to keep his options open. Presently he has no user anticipated for his property as an outdoor - storage or open- parking use. Staff feels that the CUP should be left as is since the city's impound lot has left the site and since the permit will "sunset" on November 1, 2007. There is no problem in letting it remain in effect and it would give Mr. Ashby the possibility for a temporary use of his land for another year and three months or until the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan is adopted and he is able to develop this site. RECOMMENDATION Allow the conditional use permit for the outdoor - storage yard at 1160 Frost Avenue until its required sunset date of November 1, 2007. The land may be used under the terms of this permit, but any changes must be reviewed as an amendment subject to the requirements of the city ordinance. p:secl6lQual Impound CUP 7 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. City Council Minutes dated March 14, 2005 N I Location Map Outdoor Storage YardlPolice Impound Lot 1160 Frost Avenue 2 RIPEEY P FROSTAVE MD 7 _g43 35 18 )-J 62 18 0 L 11 EU LEY AVE 18� L -- F F 1789 Zoning Map Outdoor Storage YardlPolice Impound Lot 1160 Frost Avenue TE1 C ___ M -4-1 FRISBIE AVE 5 1896 Ea r U El 1893 FENTON AVE ce- LLJ L 10 Ll 1860 MD 7 _g43 35 18 )-J 62 18 0 L 11 EU LEY AVE 18� L -- F F 1789 Zoning Map Outdoor Storage YardlPolice Impound Lot 1160 Frost Avenue TE1 C ___ M -4-1 FRISBIE AVE MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:02 P.M. Monday, March 14, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05-05 K. NEW BUSINESS 4. Outdoor Storage Area Conditional Use Permit Revision (Police Impound Lot - 1160 Frost Avenue) a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Senior Planner Ekstrand presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution revising the conditional use oermit for the outdoor storaae vard located at 1160 Frost Avenue: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION 05-03-026 WHEREAS, Steve Lukin, Fire Chief for the City of Maplewood, applied for a conditional use permit revision to allow a police department impound lot on a site previously approved for outdoor vehicle and material storage. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1160 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: VACATED ALEY ACCRUING AND FOLLOWING, LOTS 1 THRU 10 AND LOTS 16 THRU 20, BLOCK 1, KAVANAGH AND DAWSON'S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE, AND VACATED ALLEY ACCRUING AND FOLLOWING, LOTS1 1 THRU LOT 15, BLOCK 1, KAVANAGH AND DAWSON'S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On February 23, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on March 14, 2005. The council 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: 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. City Council 03-14-05 4. The use would not involve any activity, pnooeao rnateha|S equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because 0fexcessive noise, g|GrH Snn0he. dust, odor, fumes, water or air po||UUVn drainage, water nJn-off, vibration, general VnsighUinesS, electrical interference 0r other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on kJC8| streets and would not create traffic congestion Or unsafe access 0n ex or proposed streets. 0. The use would b9 served bv adequate public fac and services, inc 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 max the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 8. The use would cause minimal adverse env effects. � Outside vehicle storage iSallowed. The director of community development shall rev the proposed layout for all outdoor storage since there is no current site plan. * The city council shall review this permit revision annually from the date of this approval. In * The property owner sha clean the site of all debris and sha cut or remove any nox weeds. This shall be done Un8 regular basis. * The temporary storage 0f work-related materials such 8o dirt piles and cable spools, for exarno|8, may be permitted. These rn8L8h8|S may be kept on site for m] more than one month. No more than 25 percent of the site shall ba used for the storage ofsuch materials. This condition iS left in8spart of this permit in case the applicant leases this property to another user such as Quality Restorations, for whom the permit was originally approved. * Normal hours Of operat shall be8:3O8m.t07:3Up.rn. Monday through Friday Exceptions will b8 allowed k} provide emergency service k]customers. The permitted hours 0f the impound lot are 24 hours o day, seven days o week, unless the city receives complaints, in which case, there shall be no impound lot activity between the hours of 10 * The city council will need b] approve a revision b] this permit hthe owner wants b] put a * The owner Vr operator shall provide adunnpsL8rinthe storage yard for business garbage if * The owner Or operator shall provide 8 driveway hO the gate of the storage yard, sub h0 the requirements of the fire marshal. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All City Council 03-14-05 2 Agenda Item 15 TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Legacy Village—Planned Unit Development Review APPLICANT: Hartford Group DATE: July 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Legacy Village planned unit development (PUD) is due for its annual review. This PUD is an 85 -acre mixed -use development consisting of townhomes, senior assisted - living housing, apartments, corporate offices and assorted restaurants, retail shops, tot lot and sculpture park. Refer to the attachments. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, land use plan changes, preliminary plat and tax - abatement financing. July 12, 2004 and August 22, 2005: The city council reviewed the status of this PUD and moved to review it again in one year. DISCUSSION City code requires annual review of PUDs to check on project status. Since this initial approval, considerable construction has taken place at Legacy Village which includes: Ashley Furniture, Wyngate Rental Townhomes, the Ramsey County Library (under construction), the Kennard Professional Building, Heritage Square Townhomes and Heritage Square Second Addition Townhomes. The city has also completed the 10 -acre Sculpture Park with walking paths, sculptures and observation deck. Construction is progressing. The city council should review this permit in one year to check on its progress. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Legacy Village PUD in one year. p :sec3\Legacy Village CUP Rev 7 46 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Original PUD Development Plan Attachment 1 I M E=:= Location Map Legacy Village PUD 2 it 7 Agenda Item 16 TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Heritage Square 2 nd Addition — Planned Unit Development Review APPLICANT: Town & Country Homes DATE: July 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Heritage Square 2nd Addition planned unit development {PUD} at Legacy Village is due for its annual review. The PUD allowed this 81 -unit, 7.7 -acre townhouse development. Refer to the attachments. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, land use plan changes, preliminary plat and tax - abatement financing. July 26, 2004: The city council approved the Heritage Square 2nd Addition's final plat, design plans and PUD within the Legacy Village PUD. August 22, 2005: The city council moved to review this PUD again in one year. DISCUSSION This development is well underway and is in compliance with plans and conditions of approval. The city council should review this permit in one year to check on the progress. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Heritage Square 2 Addition PUD in one year. p :sec3\Heritage Square 2 CUP Rev 7 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Legacy Village PUD 3. Heritage Square 2 nd Addition Development Plan Location Map Heritage Square Second Addition Attachment 1 Attachment 2 . ......... HEINE - --- - ------ - ------ - - - ------- - ----- Attachment !j ll l It It i t' al a a I a ' N 1 1 1: 1 1 1.1Z t I 11 11 al , If - 12 11 U 1 11 Ell 1 t3 I I 11 1S 3, 1 13 1 Z ITI �5 ' Jill Via Is 19 is V� 4-11 221 011 i I I I if I I Agenda Item 17 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Release of Master Development Agreement: Legacy Shoppes DATE: August 4, 2006 INFORMATION Legacy Holdings, the Hartford Group, is requesting approval from the city council to do two things. The first is a request for release of Hartford as Master Developer for the Legacy Shoppes retail building. This will allow Hartford to sell the property and transfer the requirements of the development agreement to Steve Mosborg of Legacy Shoppes LLC. The second request is to approve the Special Assessment Agreement. This agreement guarantees that the assessments levied against this parcel pursuant to the development agreement are paid. This allows Hartford to close on the sale of the property but keeps funds in escrow for the assessments that are to be paid at the time a building permit is issued. DISCUSSION These agreements have been reviewed by our bond counsel, Briggs and Morgan. Refer to the attached letter from Dan Cole of Briggs and Morgan. They have worked with city staff on all the legal documents and find this agreement to be acceptable and believe it protects the city's investment and assures that the necessary assessments will be paid. This is the sixth release agreement the city has processed as required by the overall development agreement. Once again, this allows Hartford to transfer property. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the Release of Obligations under the Master Development Agreement. B. Approve the Special Assessments Escrow Agreement. These approvals allow Hartford to close on the property. They also require the outstanding assessments on improvements are paid at the time of building permit issuance or on November 1, 2006, whichever comes first. p:sec 3 \legacy release retail shoppes 8 06 Attachments: 1. Release of Obligations under the Master Development Agreement 2. Special Assessments Escrow Agreement 3. Letter from Dan Gale dated August 2, 2006 Attachment 1 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA RELEASE OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Legacy Shoppes, LLC) I. Recital. 1.1 The Effective Date of this Agreement is , 2006. 1.2 The Parties to this Agreement are City of Maplewood, Minnesota, a Minnesota statutory city ( "City "), Legacy Holdings -MW LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ( "Master Developer ") and Legacy Shoppes, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ( "Successor Developer "). 1.3 City and Master Developer are parties to a Master Development Agreement with an effective date of September 8, 2003, recorded November 21, 2003 as Document No. 3704070 in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder and recorded November 21, 2003 as Document No. 1791278 in the Office of the Ramsey County Registrar of Titles, as amended by First Amendment to Development Agreement with an effective date of February 9, 2004 and as amended by a Second Amendment to Development Agreement with an effective date of April 26, 2005 ( "Master Development Agreement "). 1.4 Various real estate parcels are subject to the Master Development Agreement and Successor Developer has entered into an Agreement with Master Developer to purchase one of the parcels subject to the Master Development Agreement for the purpose of developing a commercial/retail building (the 'Legacy Shoppes Development "). Such parcel is legally described as: 1.5 Lot 3, Block 2, LEGACY VILLAGE OF MAPLEWOOD, according to the recorded plat 1.6 In connection with the acquisition of the Subject Parcel, Successor Developer has requested that the Subject Parcel and the Successor Developer be released from the terms and conditions of the Master Developer Agreement pursuant to Section 9.2(c) of the Master Development Agreement and Master Developer has requested to be released from the terms and conditions of the Master Development Agreement as to the Subject Parcel pursuant to Section 9.3 of the Master Development Agreement. 1.7 The proposed Legacy Shoppes Development is consistent with the current approved use for the Subject Parcel, on that basis, City is willing to release both the Successor Developer and Master Developer from the terms and conditions of the Master Development Agreement subject to Master Developer's acknowledgement of its obligations under Section 6.2 of the Master Development Agreement to pay a part of the special assessments attributable to the 17a77s6c2 717!05 2 Subject Parcel as set forth on Exhibit F to the Master Development Agreement and its continuing obligations as to other parcels that remain subject to the Master Development Agreement. THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: II. Agreement. 2.1 Given Successor Developer's proposed Legacy Shoppes Development as set forth above, City agrees that: (a) The Subject Parcel is released from the Master Development Agreement and therefore the Master Development Agreement no longer encumbers the Subject Parcel. (b) Successor Developer has no liability or obligations under the Master Development Agreement; provided however, this Agreement does not release the Successor Developer from its obligations to timely pay City fees and charges due in the ordinary course of development and building construction. 2.2 Successor Developer will commence and complete the Legacy Shoppes Development as approved by the City. 2.3 From and after the effective date set forth above, Master Developer is released from its obligations under the Master Development Agreement as to the Subject Parcel subject to the following: (a) Master Developer will comply with the terms of Section 6.2 of the Master Development Agreement in connection with the payment of special assessments attributable to the Subject Parcel; and (b) Master Developer remains liable under the Master Development Agreement as to all other parcels subject to the Master Development Agreement that are not released hereby or previously released. This document drafted by: Briggs and Morgan, P.A. (DJC) W2200 First National Bank Bldg. 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) 17a77s6c2 717!05 3 Dated: 1 2006 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota statutory city. By:_ Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY } ss By: Its: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2006, by the and , the of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota on behalf of said City. Notary Public [Separate Signature Page to Release of'Obligations Under Master Development Agreement] M Dated: , 2006 MASTER DEVELOPER: LEGACY HOLDINGS -MW LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company By: Keith Gruebele Its: Chief Financial Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY } ss The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2006, by Keith Gruebele, the Chief Financial Manager of Legacy Holdings -MW LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company on behalf of said limited liability company. Notary Public [Separate Signature Page to Release of Obligations Under Master Development Agreement] Dated: .2006 SUCCESSOR DEVELOPER: LEGACY SHOPPES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company in Steve Mosborg Its: President and CEO STATE OF } ss COUNTY OF } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Steve Mosborg, the President and CEO of Legacy Shoppes, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said limited liability company. Notary Public [Separate Signature Page to Release of'Obligations Linder Master Development Agreement] 17a77s6c2 717!05 Attachment 2 Exhibit A SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ESCROW AGREEMENT THIS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ESCROW AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into this day of , 2006, by and between LEGACY HOLDINGS - MW, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ( "Legacy "); FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation ( "Title "); LEGACY SHOPPES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ( "Legacy Shoppes ") and the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota statutory city ( "City "). RECITALS A. Legacy Holdings -MW, LLC, ( "Legacy ") and the City entered into the Development Agreement relating to the Legacy Village Project, City of Maplewood, Minnesota effective September 8, 2003, as amended ( "Development Agreement "). B. Outlot A ( "Commercial/Retail ") described on Exhibit F of the Development Agreement has subsequently been platted as Lot 3, Block 2, Legacy Village of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota (the "Property "). C. Legacy and Legacy Shoppes entered into a Purchase Agreement effective May 31, 2006, for the sale of the Property by Legacy to Legacy Shoppes. D. There has been a total of $246,795.88 in assessments levied against the Property pursuant to the Development Agreement. Currently the principal balance of the assessments levied against the Property is $237,515.08. There are no pending or deferred assessments against the Property. E. Section 6.2(e) of the Development Agreement provides that the City will pay $166,374.97 (67.414 %) of the $246,795.88 in total assessments levied against the Property at such time as the requirements of Section 62(e) of the Development Agreement have been fulfilled. As to the building permit requirements, Legacy Shoppes anticipates that such building permits will be issued within sixty (60) days of the date of this Agreement. F. The Legacy's share of the current principal balance of the assessments levied against the Property is $71,140.11. G. Legacy and Legacy Shoppes are desirous of consummating the sale and purchase at this time, subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Legacy, Legacy Shoppes, the City and Title agree as follows: 1. Concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, Legacy Shoppes has deposited in escrow with Title $71,140.11 (the sum of the amount recited in Recital F), the receipt of which 17a77s6c2 717!05 7 is hereby acknowledged by Title, to be used to pay assessments as levied as set forth in Recital G above. 2. Title agrees to hold the $71,140.11 until it receives written notice from the City and Legacy Shoppes that the terms of Section 62(e) of the Development Agreement have been fulfilled, at which time the City shall deliver to Title $166,37497. Title will then hold a total of $237,515.08. Legacy and Legacy Shoppes agree that the City's obligation to pay special assessments under this Agreement shall be a maximum of $166,374.97. 3. At such time as the terms of Section 6.2(e) of the Development Agreement have been fulfilled Title shall immediately disburse to the Ramsey County Finance Department from the escrowed funds the amount necessary to pay in full the assessments for the Property. Any excess escrowed funds remaining after payment to Ramsey County plus any accrued interest shall be disbursed to Legacy Shoppes, LLC, Attn: Steven Mosborg, President & CEO, 5713 Drew South, Edina, MN 55410. 4. If the terms of Section 6.2(a) of the Development Agreement have not been fulfilled by November 1, 2006, Title will disburse the escrow funds to the City and the City will cause the special assessments against the Property to be paid in full. If for any reason, the payoff of the special assessments is more than the sum of the Escrowed Funds and the amount the City is required to pay under Section 2 hereof, then upon written request from the City to Legacy Shoppes, any additional funds needed will be immediately paid by Legacy Shoppes to the City so that the City can pay such special assessments. To the extent that payments are not promptly made, that is within 10 business days of the request, the City will have the right to deduct any such amount from the amount it owes to Legacy pursuant to the provisions of the Tax Abatement Note issued under the Development Agreement and use funds to pay the special assessments. Legacy Shoppes agrees to indemnify Legacy for any costs incurred by Legacy for any action taken by the City pursuant to the above paragraph. 5. The City is executing this Agreement for the following purposes only: (a) to affirm that, subject to the terms of the Development Agreement, it has no interest in the $71,140.11; (b) to affirm that Section 6.2(e) of the Development Agreement, as amended, is in full force and effect as to the Property; (c) to affirm that Legacy is not in default under the Development Agreement as to the Property; (d) to affirm its obligations under Section 6.2(e) of the Development Agreement as to the Property. 6. This Agreement shall terminate upon the release of the $237,515.08 pursuant to Section 2 herein and the performance by the City under Section 6.2(e) of the Development Agreement. 17a77s6c2 717!05 7. Title's escrow service fee is $200.00, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Legacy shall be responsible for this fee. 8. The acceptance by Title of its duties under this Agreement is subject to the following terms and conditions, which all parties to this Agreement hereby agree shall govern and control with respect to the rights, duties, liabilities and immunities of Title. (a) Title is not a party to and is not bound by, any agreement which may be evidenced by or arise out of the foregoing escrow instructions, other than expressly therein set forth. (b) Title shall be protected in acting upon any written notice, request, waiver, consent, receipt or other paper or document which Title in good faith believes to be genuine and what it purports to be. (c) Title shall not be liable for any error of judgment, or for any act done or step taken or admitted by it in good faith, or for any mistake of fact or law, or for anything for which it may do or refrain from doing in connection therewith, except its own misconduct. Legacy and Legacy Shoppes shall indemnify and agree to pay Title for any claims or expenses arising out of this Agreement, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 9. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns. 10. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 11. No rescission of this Agreement or modification of its terms shall be effective without the written consent of the undersigned parties. (Balance ofpage intentionally left blank, signatures to f)llow.) 17a77s6c2 717!05 -- Signature page to Special Assessment Agreement— IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. LEGACY HOLDINGS -MW, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company : Keith Gruebele Its: Chief Financial Manager FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation LEGACY SHOPPES, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company ma Its: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA a Minnesota statutory city By: Its: By: Its: By: Its: 17a77s6c2 717!05 10 �► � MORCATi 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING Attachment 3 332 MINNESOTA STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55501 TELEPHONE (651) 808 -6600 FACSIMILE (651) 808 -6450 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION August 2, 2006 Tom Ekstrand Director City of Maplewood Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 -2702 Jason H. Thomas Hartford Group, Inc. 1300 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (651) 808 -6617 WRITER'S E -MAIL dcoleaa briggs.com Re: City of Maplewood /Mosborg Venture Assessments Escrow Agreement Client- Matter No. 4762.153 Gentlemen: I have had a chance to review the proposed documentation involving the Mosborg Venture Projects and I have the following comments: Release of Obligations I. The document indicates that the LLC is "to be determined ". This LLC should be the same as the Buyer as described in the Special Assessment Escrow Agreement. 2. Section 1.7 - This language indicates that the City is willing to release both the Master Developer and the Successor Developer from the terms of the Master Development Agreement. Does the City have its agreements and approvals in place with the Successor Developer? Is there a separate Developer Agreement with the Successor Developer and should language be added indicating that a new Development Agreement replaces the obligations of the Master Development Agreement as to the Successor? 3. Section 2.2 — Same kind of concern. What document evidences the approval of the Project by the City? t93ta86Vt 8!3106 MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE -IDS CENTER - WWW.BRIGGS.COM MEMBER - LEX MUNDI, A GLOBAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT LAW FIRMS BRIGGS AND MORGAN Tom Ekstrand Jason H. Thomas August 2, 2006 Page 2 Special Assessment Escrow Agreement This document is only needed if the Successor Developer is not in a position to pull a building permit at the time it buys the property. We have had this discussion before, but, generally, the Developer does not want to buy property until it is in a position to pull a building permit and start construction. The reason the Master Development Agreement is structured this way is to make sure that improvements are actually built on the property. If the City has any significant concerns along those lines it should not agree to the escrow. If the City does agree to the escrow, keep in mind that under Section 4 of the Escrow, if the provisions of Section 6.2(e) of the Master Development Agreement have not been fulfilled by November 1, 2006, then Legacy's escrowed funds will be paid over to the City and the City will take those funds along with the funds that the City needs to pay under the Master Development Agreement and pay off the special assessments that relate to this property. The rub is that all of the assessments have been paid off but there is no building on the property. If the City has any concerns along these lines we should have additional conversations. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely yo rs, Daniel J. Cole, Jr. DJC/wmf 1931496vl 8/3106 12 Agenda Item 18 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: August 2, 2006 for the August 14 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Change Order #4— Applewood Park INTRODUCTION Applewood Park is currently nearing completion with playground equipment installation scheduled in the next two weeks. BACKGROUND Enclosed is Change Order #4 in the amount of $5,440. The change order was necessitated to expand and regrade the skating area due to trail realignment. The change order also includes increased erosion control measures including rip rap and wood fiber blanket, as well as cleanup following some heavy rains. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council approve Change Order #4 with the monies to be allocated from the city P.A.C. fund. kph \change order 4.applewood.parks- os.mem Enclosure Change Order #4 Contract Change Order for: Applewood Park Site Improvements City of Maplewood, MN Distribution To: Ell Owner 0 Field El Consultant Q Other El Contractor To (Contractor): Ebert Construction 23350 Co. Road 10 Corcoran, MN 55357 Initiation Date: 10-Apr-06 Consultants project: #05-13 Ci!y Project #063-3 CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT (The contractor shall make the following changes to the contract) -4 DESCRIPTION ADD DEDUCT I Grading future skating area & additional seeding 3,080.00 Total Contract Sum (including all Change Orders to Date): 2 Removal of silt from rainstorm & add riprap to culvert as per watershed district 1,100.00 3 Wood fiber blanket added to pr9ject for minimizing erosion 435.00 4 Add rip rap to inlet & outlet pipes at wetland area as per 1wat district 825.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER ADDS AND DEDUCTS: 5,440.00 NET CHANGE ORDER TOTAL: $5,440.00 Contract Summary to Date Original Contract Sum: 210,714.19 Net Change by Previously Authorized Change Orders: 7,035.00 Net Change of this Change Order: 5,440.00 Total Contract Sum (including all Change Orders to Date): $223,189.19 Consultant: Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 10417 Excelsior Blvd., Suite #1 Hopkins, MN 55343 Contractor: Ebert Construction 23350 Co. Road 10 Corcoran, MN 55357 Owner: City of Maplewood, Parks Dept. 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Date Date Date Brauer Associates, Ltd. HADOCS\20051jason - 2005105-13 APPLEWOQD\site observation\change order 4.x1s Page 1 of 1 V 71 M Wdr� CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION Pa 1 oft Distribution to: 0 OWNER • ARCHITECT Cl CONTRACTOR Cl FIELD Cl OTHER CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PROJECT: 063-3 ARCHITECT: Brauer & Associates, Ltd, ARCHITECTS PROJECT '7r; 05-13 10417 Excelsior Boulevard Suite Number One Hopkins, MN 55343 CONTRACTOR: Ebert Construction 23350 Co. Road 10 Corcoran, MN 55357 TO (Owner): City of Maplewood Parks and Recreation 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN' 55109 CONTRACT FOR: General Site Improvements for Applewood Park CONTRACT DATE: August 9, 2005 DATE OF ISSUANCE: July 6, 2006 PROJECT OR DESIGNATED PORTION SHALL EqCLUDE- The Work performed under this Contract has been reviewed and found to be substantially complete. The Date of Substantial Completion of the Project or portion thereof designated above is hereby established as which is also the date of commencement of applicable warranties required by the Contract Documents, except as stated below, DEFINITION OF DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL, COMPLETION The Date of Substantial Completion of the Work or designated portion thereof is the Date certified by the Architeetwhen construction is sufficiently complete, in accordance with the Contract Documents, so the Owner can occupy or utilize the Work or designated portion thereof for the use for which it is intended, as expressed in the Contract Documents. A list of items to be completed or corrected, prepared by the Contractor and verified and amended by the Architect, is listed below. The failure to include any items on such list does not alter the responsibility of the Contractor to complete all Work in accordance with the Contract Documents, The date of commencement of warranties for items on the attached list will be the date of final payment unless otherwise agreed to in writing. ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED OR CORRECTED 1. Finish rock & debris cleanup & removal from within turf seed areas. 2. Fine grading of turf areas around play containers, hand broadcast seeding, (areas where soil is too low or rutted from equipment). 3. Remove concrete debris and other waste as identified at site on north of the southern cul-de-sac. 4. Since the turf seed is still pretty spotty, the project can not be closed out. Reseed / overseed the areas designated for "Turf" seed mixture between August 15' and September I" of 2006. Coordinate with the City for timing of reseeding / overseeding, so that city crews do not mow the areas too soon after seeding (confirm CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION Pa 2 of 2 timing with your seeding subcontractor). We will schedule another meeting to review turfestablishment in mid October. ARCMTEC� BY 4-� .x� 44 _740 -40 40 The Contractor will complete Or corrS tork on the list of "ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED OR CORRECTED" within 30 days from the above Date of Substantial Completion. CONTRACTOR B DATE The owner accepts the Work or designated portion thereof as substantially complete and will assume full possession thereof after all of the "ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED OR CORRECTED" . f Py p formed by the Contractor OWNER ,4 r— BY� DATE August 3, 2006 Ebert Construction Attn.: Jake 23350 County Road 10 Corcoran, MN 55357 Dear Jake: Enclosed is paperwork regarding Applewood Park project change order #4, as well as a copy of the signed agreement for substantial completion. I have processed the last payment of $3,540.59 and you should receive that check on Tuesday, August 8. We have a new policy in the city that requires all change orders over $5,000 be processed by the city council. The change order and payment for that will occur on Monday, August 14. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed paperwork or the Applewood Park planning process, please contact me directly at (651) 249-2102. Si nee4�� Director of Parks and bruce. k. anderson@ci. rT kph\ebeft construction. ltrO6 Enclosure c: Jason Arnberg, Brauer & Assoc, jo .us PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT • 651-249-2101 FAX: 651-249-2129 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD • 1 830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST • MAPLEWOOD, MINI 55109 Agenda Item 19 To: Interim City Manager Greg Copeland From: Chief of Police David J. Thornalla Subject: Donation of Vehicle to the Police Department Date: July 24, 2006 Introduction Maplewood Toyota has donated a vehicle to the Police Department, and City Council approval is required before this donation can be accepted. The Police Department has received a donation of a vehicle from Maplewood Toyota to be used as part of our bait car program. The value of the vehicle is $5,000. The Police Department has had a bait car program for several years. This involves placing a decoy vehicle in areas where thefts of vehicles or thefts from vehicles are occurring. When a thief attempts to enter or steal the bait car, a message is conveyed to our dispatchers, who then send officers to apprehend the suspect. This has been a very successful program and has resulted in the arrest of many suspects. City Council approval is required before this donation can be accepted. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approval be given to accept this vehicle. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and action. PLZWQOO TO W q�R"­ W/ ff Jti.g, i Mapieviood Chief David Thooralia and Lt. Kevin Rabbett target theft at construction sites. n easy . targets for police. department ing on m will help catch m, General Manager x Wheels in motion viaplewood Police lla says the vehicle gat just long enough )r issue across the "We Will be loading )arking it at sites in e opportunity. Mailed so police can t Maplewood Toyota has Helped stop crime in its trac'. dealership donated two Toyota cars project, which has received, positive "We want to do as much 'as we Caw - enforcement agencies,' says H program can help many areas of 6ui The dealership is a real pacesett to local support. For several year: scholarships to students at Mounds in Arden Hills through The Mustang group composed of parents and oth Investing in the future of the com focus of the dealership team. Wheth education or teaching thieves a le Toyota knows how to be a driving fo ti * • Agenda Item 110 AGENDA REPORT To: Interim City Manager Greg Copeland From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla Subject: Donation to Maplewood Police Reserves Date: July 27, 2006 Introduction The Maplewood Police Reserves have received a donation from the Ramsey County Agricultural Society, and City Council approval is required before this donation can be accepted. This year, as they have for the past several years, the Maplewood Police Reserves provided assistance to the Ramsey County Fair by assisting with traffic control, the White Bear Avenue Parade, and patrolling the fairgrounds for the duration of the fair. To show their appreciation for the many hours of service provided by the Reserves, the Ramsey County Agricultural Society has donated $425 to be used for their equipment and/or training. City Council approval is required before this donation can be accepted. Recommendation It is recommended that approval be given to accept this donation and that the necessary budget adjustments be made so the funds can be expended as designated. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and action. DJT:js Agenda Item 111 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Manager SUBJ: Approval of Fall Clean -Up Event Scheduled for October 14, 2006 DATE: July 27, 2006 The 2006 fall clean -up event has been scheduled for October 14, 2006, at Gethsemane Lutheran Church, 2410 Stillwater Avenue, from 8 a.m. to 12 noon. I am recommending that we continue collecting the same fees that were used at the 2006 spring clean -up event. The City targets a collection rate of 25 to 35% of disposal costs (a 65 to 75% subsidy rate) with these fees. Staff will evaluate the results of the fall clean -up event and will present findings to council. The information that staff will be using to promote the event is provided below: . ••D • 1 . The city will be holding a fall clean -up event from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm on October 14 in the Gethsemane Lutheran Church (2410 Stillwater Avenue) parking lot. Please enter from Bartelmy Lane. Due to budget cuts, fees will be charged to Maplewood residents who utilize this service to help defray the costs associated with sponsoring this event. Proof of residency will be required. The fee schedule is listed below. The city will begin separating electronics from the waste stream and removing the hazardous components which increases the cost of this event. The fee schedule is set up to absorb approximately 251 to 351 of the total cost for disposal. The city will assume the remaining 65% to 751 of the cost. Maplewood residents will be able to dispose of old appliances, computers, monitors, TVs, tires, construction debris, mattresses, old furniture, car parts, scrap metal, and other assorted junk (refer to charges below for disposal cost). No brush or tree waste will be accepted. In conjunction with the clean up, the city will be sponsoring a food drive for the Second Harvest Food Bank. Containers will be set up to collect food items. Tuna, peanut butter, macaroni and cheese, canned soups, stews, infant items, dried foods, and cash are needed. CLEAN — UP DAY COLLECTION FEES: Cash or check only Cars without a trailer .................... ............................... $10 Pick -up trucks and cars with trailers .. ............................... $15 Exceptionally large loads (determined by the city) ................ $25 plus Computer /monitor (in addition to above costs) ..................... $15 Car tires with or without rims (in addition to above costs) ....... $3 TVs all sizes (in addition to above costs ) ........................... $10 VCRs (in addition to above costs) ..... ............................... $10 Printers (in addition to above costs) .... ............................... $10 Appliances (any residential appliance -in addition to above costs)... $10 Agenda Item 111 Example fees: Car without trailer plus console TV .................. $20 Pick -up truck with appliance and computer...... $40 Please call 651 -249 -2400 with any questions you may have regarding the fall collection event. Council approval of Fall Clean -up event scheduled for October 14, 2006 is recommended. Agenda Item 112 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Cottages at Legacy Village Development, City Project 04 -12, Approve Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul Private Water Main Agreement DATE: July 27, 2006 INTRODUCTION Southwind Builders, Inc. has made application to the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul to supply water to their development known as the Cottages at Legacy Village, Lots 1 through 8, Block 1, and Lots 1 through 27, Block 2. DISCUSSION The attached private water main agreement between Southwind Builders, Inc., The City of Maplewood and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul allows for the connection to the public water supply system of Saint Paul Regional Water Services within the City of Maplewood by the Southwind Builders, Inc. property known as the Cottages at Legacy Village. This is a standard agreement that includes, but is not limited to, the conveyance of a perpetual water main easement to the City of Maplewood and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul from Southwind Builders, Inc. Upon approval, permission will be granted to Southwind Builders, Inc. by the City of Maplewood and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul to construct, maintain and repair a private water main necessary for the furnishing of water service to the property subject to the terms and conditions contained in this agreement. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that council approve the private water main agreement between Southwind Builders, Inc., the City of Maplewood and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul. Attachment: 1. Private Water Main Agreement THIS AGREEMENT, made this 11 day of July, 2006 by and between SOUTHWIND BUILDERS, INC. a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter designated as the "Owner ", the CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "Maplewood ") and the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS of the City of Saint Paul, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "Board "); and WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Board during all times herein mentioned did and does manage, control and operate, pursuant to the Home Rule Charter of the City of Saint Paul, its water works and public water supply system primarily for the purpose of furnishing an adequate supply of water for industrial, commercial and domestic purposes to residents of the City of Saint Paul within its corporate limits, and incidentally to residents of the City of Maplewood, for the same or similar purposes, pursuant to agreements by and between the Board and said last named City and ordinances of said City of Saint Paul and City of Maplewood germane thereto; and WHEREAS, Maplewood and the Board have made subsisting agreements, by and between them, germane to the extension of water service from said public water supply system of said City of Saint Paul, by the Board, to said City of Maplewood and the residents of the same within its corporate limits, and such extension of water supply service has been and now is the subject of city ordinances germane thereto duly enacted by the City of Maplewood and said City of Saint Paul, this Agreement to be deemed subject to said prior subsisting agreements and said ordinances. WHEREAS, Owner owns the following described land, which is situated within the corporate limits of said City of Maplewood in the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota (the "Property "): 1 Lots 1 thru 8, Block 1, and Lots 1 thru 27, Block 2, Cottages At Legacy Village, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Owner has made application to the Board for water supply service to be afforded from the public water supply system to the Property according to the rates and charges payable therefore by the Owner, its successors or assigns, to such municipality or the Board as the same may be established from time to time; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained the parties, for themselves, their successors and assigns, do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. The Owner does hereby convey and grant to Maplewood and the Board a perpetual water main easement in, under, through and over and across the following portions of the Property as described and shown in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Maplewood and the Board do hereby grant permission to the Owner to construct, maintain and repair a private water main necessary for the furnishing of water service to the Property, subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. 3. Owner shall construct the private water main at its sole cost and expense, in strict accordance with approved plans and specifications on file with the Board, under the supervision and subject to the approval of the Board within the Easement Area described in Section 1. Owner shall pay a deposit to the Board to reimburse the Board for inspection costs plus an administrative fee of $500.00. All service connections from the private main shall be constructed by Owner at its sole cost and expense, in strict accord with plans and specifications approved and on file with the Board under the supervision and approval of the Board. 4. All necessary maintenance, repairs, operation and/or replacement of the main and service 2 connections shall be borne by Owner at its sole cost and expense, in strict accordance with plans and specifications approved and on file with Maplewood and the Board and subject to approval by Maplewood and the Board. 5. Maplewood and the Board, at the request of Owner, or in case of default by Owner in relation to the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair or operation of said private main, may enter upon the Easement Area and construct, reconstruct, maintain, repair or operate said private main for the aforesaid purposes of the same and all reasonable cost and expense thus incurred by the Board shall be chargeable by the Board to Owner and shall become due and payable upon presentation of an invoice therefore; and if such charges are not paid when due, they shall become and constitute a lien upon the real property served. In the event of nonpayment, the Board reserves the right to deny service. 6. The Board agrees to supply water service to the Property as the same have been or shall be developed for residential purposes, subject to and in accordance with applicable rates or charges, rules and regulations as they are or shall be established from time to time by the Board. It is understood and agreed, however, that the Board undertakes to supply such water supply only in case the pressure in its mains is sufficient to enable it so to do, and the Board assumes no responsibility for failure to supply water resulting from acts or conditions beyond its control. 7. It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that this Agreement shall be subject to water service rates, rules and regulations germane to the subject of this Agreement now in force and hereinafter prescribed and promulgated by the Board or by Maplewood and further that there shall be and hereby is reserved to the Board and to Maplewood the right to change, revise, alter and amend such rates, rules and regulations as their discretion shall direct to the end that such rates, rules and regulations shall be reasonable. 3 S. No extension of the private water main shall be made without the prior written consent of Maplewood and the Board. All necessary service connection taps from the private water main shall be installed by the Board upon due application therefore on a form supplied by the Board and shall be installed by the Board at the cost and expense of the party requesting the same. Official addresses for each service connection shall be obtained by Owner from the City of Maplewood and furnished to the Board prior to the installation of service connection taps. 9. The Board reserves the right to shut off the water service when necessary for the extension, replacement, repair or cleaning of the private water main or apparatus appurtenant thereto, and the Board shall not be held liable for any damage occasioned thereby. 10. This Agreement shall be binding upon Owner, its successors and assigns. Owner shall not assign its rights and obligations hereunder without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld by the Board. In the event that Owner desires to transfer its title to a portion of the property hereof, it is expressly understood and agreed that Owner and transferees shall enter into an agreement by which the transferees shall agree to pay all or a proportionate share of the cost of maintenance and replacement of the private water main and further agree to assume all or a proportionate share of the responsibility and liability arising out of the operation, maintenance, use and repair of the main or service pipes. This agreement shall be in form as to be subject to the approval of the Board, and the Board shall be provided with two (2) executed copies of the agreement. 11. Owner, in consideration of its being supplied water by the Board, upon the terms and conditions herein outlined, shall comply strictly with all of the rules and regulations of the Board, and shall pay or cause to be paid unto the Board therefore according to all applicable rates and charges prescribed and promulgated therefore by the Board now in existence or as may be modified or amended, which are hereby incorporated by reference. The Board reserves the right to shut off 4 the water supply for nonpayment of applicable water charges, and it is expressly agreed that such unpaid water charges and costs incurred by the Board pursuant to this Agreement shall be and constitute a lien upon the Property. 12. Owner, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify, defend and save harmless, Maplewood and the Board, their officers, agents employees and servants from all suits, actions or claims which shall arise from any injuries or damage caused by any break or leak in any service pipe, private main, other main or connection authorized by this Agreement, except those arising from the negligence of Maplewood or the Board that may occur from the furnishing of a supply of water by the Board to Owner, its tenants, successors and assigns or other persons, firms or corporations served and to be served by this private water main; and further, that Owner, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify, defend and save harmless Maplewood and the Board against any claim, action or lawsuit brought against Maplewood or the Board, except those arising from the negligence of Maplewood or the Board, in connection with or as a result of the furnishing of such supply of water, by Maplewood or the Board, to Owner, or other persons, firms or corporations served on the Property by such private water main or service connections. 13. The undersigned represent that they have the power and authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of their respective parties. [Remainder of page left intentionally blank.] 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day first shown above. For Owner: STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY } SS. SOUTHWIND BUILDERS, INC. Larry Alm LIZA Its: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 2006, by Larry Alm, Corporation, on behalf of the corporation. day of of Southwind Builders, Inc., a Minnesota Signature of person taking acknowledgment 6 For Maplewood: STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF } SS. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Diana Longrie, Mayor Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager MM The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Diana L.ongrie, Mayor of the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) Signature of person taking acknowledgment The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager of the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Signature of person taking acknowledgment 7 For the Board: Form Approved: Assistant City Attorney City of Saint Paul BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL Patrick Harris, President G Janet Lindgren, Secretary STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY } SS. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Patrick Harris, President and Janet Lindgren, Secretary of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Signature of person taking acknowledgment iRM STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) Ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) Matthew G. Smith, Director Office of Financial Services The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of 2006, by Matthew G. Smith, Director, Office of Financial Services, City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Signature of person taking acknowledgment 9 The undersigned Mortgagee joins in the execution of this Agreement for the purpose of evidencing its consent thereto and recognizing the rights of the Board of Water Commissioners. LIZA STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF } Its: LIZA Its: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of the and and respectively of a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Saint Paul Regional Water Services 1900 Rice Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55113 Phone: 651 -266 -6370 Signature of person taking acknowledgment 10 Agenda Item 113 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer 11 SUBJECT: Storm Water Maintenance Agreement for Lexus of Maplewood Site, Troutland Auto Dealers, City Project 05 -13 DATE: August 3, 2006 INTRODUCTION As part of site development reviews, Public Works staff typically reviews proposed changes to site drainage and requires the use of devices or measures for the treatment of storm water runoff from developments into public storm sewers, ditches or waterways. These treatment measures often require regular cleaning and maintenance in order to function properly. For the City to enforce regular maintenance of these measures by private property owners, the Owner /Developer is typically required to enter into a "Maintenance Agreement" with the City. The attached agreement is for the new Lexus of Maplewood development on the west side of Highway 61 north of the County Road D intersection. The agreement refers to regular maintenance of a "sump" manhole structure used for intercepting trash and sediment prior to discharge from the site. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign and notarize the attached maintenance agreement. Attachments: 1. Maintenance Agreement for Lexus of Maplewood Site MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1 2006, by and between the City of Maplewood, a municipality under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called "City "), and Bloomer Properties LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, (hereinafter called "Landowner "). Witnesses: Purpose The City has determined that it is consistent with the City's plans, regulations, purposes and goals to provide a water quality protection system for the property described herein as follows and as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto: Lot 1, Block 1, Trout Land Development It is understood that the Landowner shall be responsible for installing one (1) sump structure as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto, and the owners from time to time of the Property (the "Owners ") shall be responsible for the cost associated with maintaining the sump structure. It is further understood that the Owners shall also be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the sump structure to insure it is working at full capacity. It is understood between the parties that the City shall not be responsible for the initial cost of installing sump structure nor any of the ongoing maintenance costs. This shall be the sole responsibility of the Landowner and Owners. 1. Responsibilities of the Parties. a) The Landowner shall be responsible for any costs related to the installation of the sump structure. b) The Owners shall be responsible for annual cleaning and maintenance of the sump structure. c) The Owner shall provide to the City an annual inspection report of the maintenance work. The City and/or the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District ( "Watershed District ") may, from time to time inspect the site to determine whether or not the sump structure is being maintained and operating properly. 3. Right of Access. The Landowner hereby grants to the City and the Watershed District the right to enter onto the property to inspect and monitor the sump structure. In the event the City or Watershed requires repairs or maintenance to the sump structure, the Owner shall have thirty (30) days in which to make said repairs. If the Owner fails to make said repairs within thirty (30) days after receiving said notice from the City, they shall grant the City the right to enter on the property to make any repairs necessary to make the system work to its full capacity. The Owner shall be responsible to the City for any and all fees and costs associated with said maintenance and repairs. 4. Warranty of Ownership. Landowner hereby warrants and represents to the City, as inducement to the City to enter into this Agreement, that Landowner's interest in the property is as fee owner. Landowner warrants that he/she has the right and authority to enter into said Agreement. 5. Binding Effect. The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on all heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding on all owners from time to time of all or any part of the Property and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. References herein to Owners, if there be more than one, shall mean all of them. This Agreement, at the option of the City, shall be placed of record so as to give notice thereof to subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers of all or any part of the Property. Landowner hereby consents to the recording of this Agreement with the Ramsey County Recorder. 6. Notices. Whenever it shall be required or permitted by this Agreement that notice or demand be given or served by either party to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses hereinafter set forth by certified mail. Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto for such mail purposes are as follows, until written notice of such address has been given: As to the City: City of Maplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 As to the Landowner: Bloomer Properties, LLC 16200 Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 -0025 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Landowner have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. LANDOWNER: Bloomer Properties, LLC 19194 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY O V 1mignq The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006 by the of Bloomer Properties, LLC, the Landowner. Notary Public CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Diana Longrie, Mayor Gregory Copeland, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ' 2006 by Gregory Copeland, City Manager and Diana Longrie, Mayor of the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation. Notary Public Agenda Item 114 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Springside Street Extension, C.P. 03 -36 Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1 DATE: July 24, 2006 INTRODUCTION The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order No. 1. Background Springside Drive was extended approximately 250 feet to provide access to a developable property which has been subdivided into 2 new lots. Sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer were also constructed as part of the improvement. All of the construction on the project has been complete and there were two minor overruns on topsoil and sod. A brief summary of the change order is provided below. Change Order No. 1 - $1,931.60. Additional sodding and topsoil was required for an adjacent residential property and for additional erosion control to stabilize steep slopes. Budget Impact Approval of this resolution will increase the construction contract by $1,931.60 from $118,467.98 to $120,399.58. At this time no budget revision is requested. When the project is ready to be closed out, a final budget recapitulation will be done and a request made at that time. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order No. 1, for the Springside Drive Street Extension, City Project 03 -36. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Change Order No. 1 3. Location Map RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 03 -36, CHANGE ORDER No. 1 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 03 -36, Springside Drive and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 03 -36, Change Order No. 1 as an increase to said contract by an amount of $1,931.60, such that the new contract amount is now and hereby established as $120,399.58. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Maplewood to signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said Change Order No. 1 as a contract increase in the amount of $1,931.60. The revised contract amount is $120,399.58. CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Springside Drive East Extension, W of Sterling St. Project No.: 03 -36 Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: AM Change Order No.: 1 Date: July 18, 2006 Description Unit Quantity Price Total Extra sodding for erosion control SY 467 $ 2.00 $934.00 and residential housing Additional topsoil to replace CY 86 $11.60 $997.60 existing cul de sac area Original Contract: $118,467.98 Change This Change Order: $1,931.60 Revised Contract: $120,399.58 1 .=- TOTAL $1,931.60 Mayor Recommended Engineer Agreed to by Contractor by Its Title rr LONDIN LN. f n RAMSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Crestview Park �,_� )ND XX L iN 0 01 � u < KING ST. MAI LAND 1 .............. -------- - ------------- - - - - - -------- K- < DID ' ry 0 ry ry C C/) 0 M Mailand V Vista Park H Park I 0 Lij TEAKWOOD�" DR. OAKRI D R. Li HILLWOOD w -- - - - ---------- • - — - ----- ---- 2. DR. PR //VG 11DE o L AVE. ........ Cbb ry "RL ry y TINARFR 0 DP\y L U� N- MARY 110 -m LN PONDS OF ry < C/)///1 O'DAY >- BATTLE CREEK < CIR. GOLF - - - - - -------- 1- COURSE 0 1. CRESTVIEW > FOREST < p, 1 DR. w 1. 1 2. 2. DEER RIDGE LN. O ry k! HIS �� '041'�I�IDGE CT �� ��o� LLJ f y LINWOOD AVE. - ---- - ---- ry PROMONTORY, Z r) c � Z App�lewood ar BVLD. Park J \ I PROJECT "SPLENDER ­ LOCATION -- --- _ -- \ CIR. Exhibit 1 Project Location Springside Drive Extension, C.P. 03-36 West • Sterling St. D' , F== ry PROMONTORY, Z r) c � Z App�lewood ar BVLD. Park J \ I PROJECT "SPLENDER ­ LOCATION -- --- _ -- \ CIR. Exhibit 1 Project Location Springside Drive Extension, C.P. 03-36 West • Sterling St. D' , F== Agenda Item 115 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Pubic Works Director /City Engineer Michael Thompson, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Cottagewood Public Improvements, City Project 06 -10 Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing DATE: July 31, 2006 INTRODUCTION The feasibility study for the Cottagewood Public Improvements is complete and is available for review in the office of the city engineer. Final copies of the study will be made available to the city council prior to the public hearing. The study includes information on the proposed sanitary and water improvements to be extended in Highwood Avenue to the proposed Cottagewood Subdivision. The city council will consider accepting the feasibility study and ordering a public hearing. Background The proposed project area is illustrated on the attached project location map. The Cottagewood Public Improvements consist of extending sanitary sewer and watermain in Highwood Avenue in order to service the proposed Cottagewood Subdivision development. The costs of all the public improvements are to be assessed to the developer. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution accepting the report and calling for a public hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 28, 2006, for the Cottagewood Public Improvement project. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Executive Summary RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted May 22, 2006, a report has been prepared by the city engineering division with reference to the Cottagewood Public Improvement, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. The council will consider the Cottagewood Public Improvement in accordance with the report and the assessment of the developer for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $110,762.92. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 28 day of August, 2006 in the council chambers of city hall at 7:00 p.m., and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. • �q LOCATION MAP I CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COTTAGEWOOD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 06 -10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Feasibility Study and Report have been prepared for the Cottagewood Public Improvements - City Project 06 -10. The proposed project involves the extension of sanitary sewer main in Highwood Avenue from Century Avenue to the location of the proposed Cottagewood Subdivision development. Watermain would be extended from a stub on New Century Boulevard east to the proposed development. The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include allowances for construction cost contingencies and allowances for indirect costs, as detailed in the feasibility cost estimates. Proposed Improvement Estimated Cost Highwood Avenue Sanitary Improvements: $ 64,792.60 (59 %) Water Improvements: $ 22,346.28 (20 %) Roadway Restoration: $ 21,446.04 (19 %) Grading & Erosion Control: $ 2,178.00 (2 %) Total estimated project costs: $ 110,762.92 (100 %) It is proposed that the improvements be financed through special assessments to benefiting properties. Estimated funding amounts are as follows: Financing Source Amount Developer assessments: $ 110,762.92 (100 %) The following is a proposed schedule for the project should the city council vote to proceed: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing 08/14106 Public hearing 08/28/06 Authorize preparation of plans and specs 08/28/06 Approve plans and specs /authorize advertisement for bids 09/11/06 Bid date 09/29/06 Assessment hearing 10/09/06 Accept bids /award contract 10/09/06 Begin construction 10/16/06 Complete construction 11/17/06 Assessments certified to Ramsey County 11/15/06 Based on the analysis completed as part of this report, the proposed Cottagewood Public Improvement project is feasible, necessary and cost effective, and would be a benefit to the City of Maplewood. 1 • - • . • AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Michael Thompson, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, Project 05 -17 1. Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing DATE: August 2, 2006 INTRODUCTION An assessment roll has been completed. The proposed assessment hearing for this project is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, September 11 2006. Background The proposed assessments will be for costs relating to the street and utility improvements to the benefiting properties abutting Gervais Avenue. The assessments for the street and storm are shown below: As outlined in the feasibility study, the assessments are based on the standard rates approved for the 2006 construction season, and are as follows: • Residential street reconstruct assessment = $4,510 per unit • Comm./ M.F./Inst. street assessment = $90.20 per front foot • Single family storm sewer assessment = $750.00 per unit • Comm./ M.F./Inst. storm assessment = $15.00 per front foot DISCUSSION The project involves the reconstruction of 0.23 miles of commercial street with associated storm sewer, sanitary sewer main repairs, and storm water treatment ponds for Gervais Avenue. The project also includes a small street repair at the intersection of Connor Avenue and Duluth Street to fix the standing water. Gervais Avenue is being constructed to its existing width and the location is being offset to the north seven feet in front of the commercial loading dock areas and then tapered back to the existing alignment at Cypress Street and Maplewood Drive. The proposed assessments for the Gervais Avenue Street Improvements total $146,662.00. A copy of the assessment roll is provided as a supplement to this report. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for the Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, Project 05 -17: Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing Attachments 1. Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing 2. Location Map 3. Assessment Roll RESOLUTION ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the Eldridge Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 05 -17, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 11th day of September 2006, at the city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and city engineer and that written or oral objections will be considered. Kohiman Park C/) m il Manufactured Cn Housing V) Estates LI-I AVE. SEXTANT AVE. h Keller ) DO La ke r LEAL g al J 7 o f 0 'ALM Cn C CT. 0 C) ry 1 CON NOR C A CT ' \' 0 D 2 ��� AVE. LIJ _J BROOKS CT 112 Spoon \ \__ k�Y La ke Kohiman Park C/) m il Manufactured Cn Housing V) Estates LI-I AVE. SEXTANT AVE. h Keller ) DO La ke r LEAL g al J 7 S � Ct Cn �� -J ry 1 C CONT/NOR ��� AVE. C/') Ld UJ ry I IM ERVAIS AVE. ND �i RD. -- - - ------ - - - - 7 G � 1 TION <,' AVE --� i - - --------- - ----- kQ --- - - - -------- . ........ Project location COUNTY W910m, C Exhibit 1 Project Location Gervais Avenue, Cypress St. to Maplewood Dr. City Project 05-17 3 >/"- §wG )i a col IIIIIII 1 10 k w (I 'I)1(I%I /1( - 0 ) � , 77ff� \ \ /j /\ /z§ / « %±ao r < ± , rl w \ `` z ° z E � , cq col IIIIIII 1 10 k w (I 'I)1(I%I /1( - > >www \ooy± yy /22 mums%`= o(9 u / /i / \�\ \ \ /\ /z§ / « %±ao < ± , w \ `` z ° z E � , <C) / > >www \ooy± yy /22 mums%`= o(9 u / /i / \�\ /\ /z§ ± %±ao < ± \mx =$®b< w `` z ° z E <C) / \ »_ Z /Lu§n £ ($kt -0W<W w > - ±$ E3% ® } / f§ \$ /\ g - \\))\)) \ \ \( \\ ® ze § {. \ }\ ) \\( §( \ \\ \Ij «a2 a; &!\ k ® §2GG ,#fo 23/ «=o Agenda Item 117 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Eldridge Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, Project 06 -04 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids 2. Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing DATE: August 1, 2006 INTRODUCTION Final plans and specifications for the above referenced project have been completed and are ready to be advertised for bids. The proposed bid opening for this project is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Friday, September 1S 2006. Award of bids would be considered by the city council at the September 11 2006, city council meeting. An assessment roll has also been completed. The proposed assessment hearing for this project is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday, September 11 2006. Background Keith Frank is developing the properties adjacent to the unused Eldridge Avenue right of way, just west of Prosperity Road, with five single- family lots on a cul -de -sac. The developer is proposing the roadway to be a public street with public utilities. The developer petitioned the city to prepare the engineering plans for the public street and utilities. The city council ordered the preparation of Plans and Specifications at the July 10 2006, regular meeting. The proposed assessments will be for costs relating to the street and utility construction to the benefiting adjacent properties. The assessments for the street and utility work will be based on the cost of construction. All of the improvement costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting properties. The method of assessment is the same as has been outlined in the feasibility study. DISCUSSION The project involves the construction of a new cul -de -sac road in the existing Eldridge Avenue right - of -way, off of Prosperity Road, for the Eldridge Fields development. This new road will be approximately 300 feet long and will include the addition of new storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain. The storm sewer additions will alleviate an existing drainage problem in the area, which has been brought to our attention by homeowners adjacent to the proposed development. The development is in an existing low area with no adjacent storm sewer to connect into. This development will provide the City an opportunity to construct additional storm sewer to improve the poor drainage of the area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for the Eldridge Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, Project 06 -04: Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids; Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing Attachments 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bid 2. Resolution Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing 3. Location Map 4. Assessment Roll F- 1 1 f " ' C i WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on July 10 2006, plans and specifications for Eldridge Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, Project 06 -04 have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:00 a.m. on the 1s day of September, 2006, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of September 1 1 2006. RESOLUTION ORDERING ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARING WHEREAS, the clerk and the city engineer have, at the direction of the council, prepared an assessment roll for the Eldridge Avenue Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 06 -04, and the said assessment roll is on file in the office of the city engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 11th day of September 2006, at the city hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published in the official newspaper, at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and to mail notices to the owners of all property affected by said assessment. The notice of hearing shall state the date, time and place of hearing, the general nature of the improvement the area to be assessed, that the proposed assessment roll is on file with the clerk and city engineer and that written or oral objections will be considered. f • r�il As,Jt W .................................... � ed O tJ � U 111,2 ii !.L c�tl E " U � O O O >3 � u W'.2 c G1 �11 UI 79 U f • r�il As,Jt W .................................... � ed O tJ � U 111,2 ii !.L c�tl E " U � O O O >3 � u W'.2 c G1 �11 UI oN 0 ` o o y � � � ( i• �' � ( f O O •.0 O .................................... � ed O tJ � U 111,2 ii !.L c�tl E " U � O O O >3 � u W'.2 c G1 �11 UI � ed O tJ � U 111,2 ii !.L c�tl E " U � O O O >3 � u W'.2 c G1 �11 UI � O O O >3 � u W'.2 c G1 �11 UI FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL ELDRIDGE AVENUE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 06 -04 Owner Street Owner ASSESSMENT TOTAL Parcel ID Owner Name Street Address Address City /State /Zip AMOUNT {$} ($) 152922110041 KAO AND SHOUA YANG ELDRIDGE AVE E P O BOX 566 ELLERBE NC 28338 -0568 522,333 $22,333 152922120008 KAD AND SHOUA YANG ELDRIDGE AVE E P 0 BOX 566 ELLERBE NC 28338 -0568 $22,333 S44.667 MAPLEWOOD MN 55109- 152922120010 FRANK CONSTRUCTION INC LOT 2 BLOCK 1 ELDRIDGE AVE E 1646 BURKE AVE E 3607 522,333 $67,000 MAPLEWOOD MN 55109- 152922120012 FRANK CONSTRUCTION INC LOT 1 BLOCK i ELDRIDGE AVE E 1646 BURKE AVE E 3607 $22,333 S89.333 MAPLEWOOD MN 55109- 152922120011 FRANK CONSTRUCTION INC LOT 1 BLOCK i ELDRIDGE AVE E 1646 BURKE AVE E 3607 S22,333 $111,667 MAPLEWOOD MN 55109- 152922120009 FRANK CONSTRUCTION INC LOT 2 BLOCK 1 ELDRIDGE AVE E 1646 BURKE AVE E 3607 $22,333 $134,000 152922120014 FRANK CONSTRUCTION INC LOT i & 2 BLCOK 2 ELDRIDGE AVE E 1327 EDGERTON ST ST PAUL MN 55101 -3400 S67,000 $201 ,000 152922120015 FRANK CONSTRUCTION INC LOT 2 & 3 BLOCK 2 ELDRIDGE AVE E 1327 EDGERTON ST ST PAUL MN 55101 -3400 $67,000 $268,000 1 • ' • . i AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Ed Nadeau, Utility Superintendent SUBJECT: Approval of Capital Purchase for Sanitary Sewer Television Camera Equipment and Vehicle DATE: August 4, 2006 INTRODUCTION The 2005 capital outlay budget included $143,000 for the purchase of a sewer televising unit. That purchase was carried forward to 2006 due to the unavailability of the technical specifications. It is proposed to purchase the unit and vehicle at this time. Approval to purchase the capital item is requested. Background The Sanitary Sewer Fund currently pays approximately $45,000 to $50,000 annually in private contractor fees for the internal televising of our sanitary sewer underground piping. This inspection is necessary to find broken systems and potential backup problems. It was proposed to purchase a televising unit, which includes the vehicle, to allow our crews to perform this work. Our current procedure is to inspect about 100,000 feet of sewer each year (about $25,000), plus all the sewers within street reconstruction programs both before and after the construction to insure the integrity of the piping systems after the heavy equipment has worked in the area (about $20,000 - $25,000 each year). With the need to expand both of these programs to provide a better service level, the payback for this investment is less than 3 years. Note: No additional personnel are required due to this new equipment. Existing personnel will be trained by the supplier of the equipment. The 2007 model has now become available. Vehicle and equipment costs have increased during the past year. Final expenses are expected to be $150,000. Approval of this purchase is recommended. The purchase will be included in the expenses for the Sanitary Sewer Fund and part of the calculation to determine overall rates. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council authorize the capital purchase of a Pipe Television Inspection System, the approval of the technical specifications, direction to the Finance Director to establish the purchase authority up to $150,000 and authorize the receipt of equipment bids. Attachment: 1. Technical Specifications City of Maplewood, MN Technical Specifications For A Pipe Television Inspection System City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection System Intent Dia the intent of this specification {o provide for the purchase of one (Ucomplete color television inspection system completely installed inuQMC diesel cutaway van vvith 14` Iii-cube body, ready for operation. The systern shall be capable of inspecting 8" to 48" pipes and sewer lines. The system shall include u pan and tilt color television camera having 36O^ continuous rotation, l500`of multi-conductor cable, and a tractor camera carriage. Theaymbem will he used for tile inspection of underground infrastructure assets from uyiuglu ocouax point. Components uaub1u with the base unit shall include a small diameter camera for push or pull applications, various tractor drive systems, and a mainline-laLinched lateral inspection system. The following mpociUcu|imnis based upon atelevision inspection system mo manufactured 6w ARIES Industries, Inc. The City of Maplewood has evaluated different types oftelevision inspection systems and has determined that this product is best suited for the City's needs regarding safety, quality, and standards ofperformance, This specification in not tobcinterpreted as restrictive, but rather as a measure of the safety, reliability, and performance against which all television inspection systemuywi|| be compared. In comparing proposals, consideration will not bucoafimdio price only. The successful bidder will bu tile one whose product iajodocdto best serve the interests of the City when price, safety, and delivery are considered. The City of Maplewood reserves the right to reject any o,all bids mr any part thereof, and 10 waive any minor technicalities. /\ contract will bo awarded 1othe bidder submitting the lowest responsible bid meeting the requirements of this specification. Equivalent Product Bids will be accepted for consideration oil any make mr model that is equal or superior totile television inspection system specified, Decisions of equivalency will heat the sole interpretation oY tile City Vf Maplewood. f\ blanket statement that equipment proposed will meet all requirements will not buuuffioientto establish equivalence. Original manufacturers brochures of the proposed unit are tohe submitted with the proposal. All nuodifiomUioummade to the standard production unit described in the manufacturer's brochures rilust be certified to have been in prior successful use through the submission ofuminimum of three references upon the City's request. If requested by the City, the bidder must be prepared to demonstrate a unit similar to the one proposed within ten (l0)days. Interpretations In order tohofair to all bidders, oo oral interpretations pil|bo given to any bidder ostothe meaning uf the specification documents c« any part thereof. Any request for such consideration shall bo made io writing bu the City ofMaplewood. Based upon such inquiry, the City may choose |o issue un addendum to the specifications. General Tile specification herein states the minimum requirements of the City. All bids inust be regular in every aspect. Unauthorized conditions, limitations, or provisions shall be cause for rejection. The City of Maplewood will consider as "irregular" or "non-responsive" and reject any bid not prepared and submitted io accordance with the opouifiuu1iono any bid lacking sufficient technical literature to enable the City to make a reasonable determination of compliance to the specifications, Page 2 of 18 City of Maplewood, MN Pipe] ine Television Inspection System Deviations DL shall bn the bidder's responsibility (o carefully examine each item afthe specification. Failure to offer u completed bid mfailure to respond to each section of the technicalopeci rication (Y 1" NO) will cause the proposal to be rejected without further review as ." All exceptions and/or deviations shal|>ebdlydescribed iude appropriate section. Deceit in responding 1u the specification will be cause for automatic rejection. The bidder must include a separate sheet where any and all deviations to the specifications are listed. The City understands that manufacturers design sya|onum with different features. This listing is therefore integral to the City's determination of an equivalent product. Each deviation must reference the listed specification by section and item number, and explain in full detail how the proposed system iodifferent. OSHA NATLApproval The sewer television inspection system shall be delivered complete, ready for operation. All items and assemblies of the system shall meet approval and must be labeled with an approval label from u Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRFL) such ua UL, ElTIJITSN/\,CS/\, and others. This is in compliance with the FedOSHA memorandum of September 25, 2003 by John L. }{cnnban', /\ooioiao/ Secretary o[Occupational Safety and Health. It is also to certify that the system is acceptable as defined by 29 CFR 1910.399 and as required by 29 CFR 1910.303(a). The label iatnclearly show the Y4RTL }ngn and the DL o, other safety standard applied. The test standard shall be Underwriters Laboratories *'UL 60950-1 Information Technology Equipment — Safety — Part 1: General Requirements," This describes all safety requirements and testing methodology 6orc|ociro'nucchauioal devices. All aspects of the complete system, [roon power supplies, control uxi1m wiring, cabling, and grounding ioall dov/oho|e conupooeo1y shall nnmet established safety requirements based on uuooptcd scientific principles. This shall allow the NDTl.to certify that the syutcnn as designed, nnuno1acton:d, and maintained, is safe from hurmdm presented by normal use and is acceptable for use in environments expected and encountered in the inspection of underground pipelines. This review shall include potential for hazards such as o\udzica| obuok, bumoo or mechanical injury in u fault scenario. Ui test standard 60950-1 for information technology equipment is more comprehensive than the requirements of the closed circuit television equipment test standard UL, oo 2O44.2 edition, which only certifies dnn/nhn|e components of the system. Bidders must submit list stating lJL test qualifications ofapplicable components. Loan Equipment Program If the manufacturer's service center is unable to repair and have ready to return any component of the system within 48 hours af receipt from the purchaser. the service center shall have uvui|uh|m loaner equipment for immediate shipment. Bid Validity Bid and prices must be valid for ominimum of9O days after the bid submission date. Drawing Approval Prior to commencement of any production, ukmnut drawing shall bcsubmitted to City of Maplewood personnel for approval. Page 3 of 18 City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection System Bid Submission Each bidder is required to submit the following information with their bid. Please initial each item to confirm compliance. A. Complete this bid specification package, checking "YES" to show compliance, or "NO" indicating a variance. Initial B. Submit the following technical information with the bid proposal: a. Detailed component listing with quantities Initial b. Detailed system specifications Initial c, Explanation of deviations, if necessary Initial d. Complete supplier information sheet(s) Initial Bid Price Submittal Form BASE BID EQUIPMENT Bid Price = $ (price in words) Delivery of system within days Prices quoted valid for days Company name: Address: Authorized bidder signature: Name: Title: Date: Page 4 of 18 C,OMPLY YES / NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection System 1. Hi -Cube Van, General Motors 04500 chassis only 1.1. A New current model year 14* hi -cube type van, diesel powered, shall be provided. 1.2. The chassis shall be equipped as follows: 1.2.1. 184" wheelbase, 118" cab-to-axle 1.2.2. 16,0001b gross vehicle weight rating 1.2.3. Front GAWR 62501b, tapered leaf suspension 1.2.4. Rear GAWR 110001b, multi-leaf suspension 1.2.5. Dual rear wheels 1.16. Rear shock absorbers 12.7. (6) tires, 225/70R 19.5 F BSW AS 1.2.8. (6) wheels, 19.5" x 6.00" steel disc 8-hole, Goodyear 1.2.9. Power steering 1.2.10. Hydraulic front and rear disc brakes 1.2.11. 12V 150A alternator 1.2.12. ICC running lights plus standard lights including stop, turn, reverse, plate, and 4- way 1.2.13. Mud flaps 1.2.14. 40g fuel tank, driver's side fill 1.3. The drive train shall be equipped as follows: 1.3.1. 6.6t, diesel engine, 300hp, 520lb-ft 1.3.2. Dual 12V 750CCA automotive battery 1.3.3. Differential ratio 4.78 1.3.4. Dry type air filter 1.3.5. Cartridge type oil filter, disposable type 1.3.6. Fuel filter 1.3.7. Heavy-duty cooling system 1.3.8. Heavy-duty automatic 4-speed transmission with overdrive 1.4. The vehicle cab area shal I be equipped as follows: 1.4.1. Fresh air heater and defrosters 1.4.2. Cab air conditioning 1.4.3. AM/FM radio 1.4.4. Dual high back bucket seats with 3-point seatbelts 1.4.5. Sun visors and arm rests, driver and passenger seats 1.4.6. Intermittent windshield wipers with washers 1.4.7. 12V dome light 1.4.8. Passenger side grab handle 1.4.9. Dual rear view mirrors, external, manual swing-away type with standard top and convex bottom section, retractable and adjustable 1.5. The vehicle shall be equipped with a hi-cube van body including: 1.5.1. Aluminum construction 1.5.2. 84" interior clear height 1.5.3. 96" exterior width 1.5.4. Minimum interior load space of 161" 1.5.5. Flat floor 1.5.6. Full undercoating 1.5.7. Rear door grab handles, qty.2 Page 5 of 18 COMPLY YES /NO City of Maplewood, MON Pipe] bzeTclevidoo Inspection System 1.5.8. Full opening rmurdoorov/�b3h��coo per door, oouzlock, and positive clamps at head height 1.5.9. Aerodynamic wind fairing with full height walkthrough sliding door to cab area i6. The vehicle shall be painted bm the City's standard color (Summit VVbdc). |.7. The cab and chassis sha conta all standard equi ondmee1u||curredFedera| DOT and State hiehv/uv motor vehicle standards. l.0. The vehicle shall be additionally equipped with the following aftern lXl.Wbckm#7OA00P/\}l strobe lights and 7Bpl.AN(}E chronic flanges, gty.2oo rear of box, |euoo top middle sides of box, with controls incab 1.8.2. Front and rear facing Whelen #TA837L traffic advisors, with Controls in cab and #E}{725 extcu1inn cable for rear unit 1.8.3. YVb#\un#UA239C mbnbea in front signal housings with #CO240 power supply l.8.4. (2) |2V rear facing floodlights, mounted inside nf rear doors 1.8.5. Backup alarm 1.8.6. Full width grip tread rear bumper steps, l0" maximum dau, with minimum 14" ground clearance 1.8.7. A lockable cable access door with rollers in the rear swing door for inclement weather applications 2. Control Room 2.\.The control room shall be located in the forward section of the hi-enbe body. b shall be accessible through omiidiug door from the driver's compartment and a swing door from the equipment room. 2.2. The walls shall be insulated with '/2" foam and finished with gray non-porous \arninate over," Luan plywood. 2.3, The ceiling shall be h`m/|otcd with >2`fomn and finished with composite board including a white Kemlite Surface. 2A. The room shall include a 150OW heater, mounted on a wal I under the desktop. 2I The floor shall be constructed o[K/`ndobnunu AC-rated plywood with water relief channels. The Plywood shall then be covered with searnless industrial grade non-skid flooring. 2.6. A bulkhead wa sha separate the control room from the equipment roorn and include the followi 2.6.l. Mi 2x4 framing with y7`7-ply Luan plywood laminated with non-porous laminate matching corresponding room vvu|| surfaces 2.62. Swinging door of hollow ouru construction with minimum i0"x23" tinted window and non-locking handle 2.6.3. Minimum |0'`hu3O"v/tinted Plexiglas window, allowing operator tn view rear nf vehicle 2.7. The room shall belit by fluorescent lighting, with switch next to the bulkhead door. Page 6 of 18 COMPLY YES / NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television hlspection System 2.8. The room shall include a padded bench seat including: 2.8.1. Seating capacity for (2) people 2.8.2. Construction of 3 /4 " 7 -ply Luan plywood finished with oak trite 2.8.3. Removable padded cushion constructed of foam and black vinyl, allowing storage within the seat 2.8.4. An overhead shelf constructed of /4/" 7 -ply Luan plywood with adequate, finished in matching wall laminate 19. The room shall include a floor -to- ceiling closet including: 2.9.1. Minimum 3 /4 " 7-ply Luan plywood with exterior finish matching wall laminate 2.9.2. Minimum of (5) removable or adjustable height shelves, constructed from 1 /4" 7 -ply Luan plywood, including' /2"x2" oak trim at the front of each shelf 2.93. Swing - opening doors with hollow core construction, full- length stainless steel hinge, and latching hasps to prevent opening in transit 10. The room shall include a standard 19" EIA electronics rack for the secure mounting of the system's electronic components. The rack shall be mounted above the window of the bulkhead wall, and include sufficient free space for future electronic upgrades to the system. 2.11. A countertop shall be included with the following features: 2.1 1.1. Minimum 3 /4 " 7 -ply Luan plywood construction with non - porous durable laminated finish over top and edge surfaces 2.11.2. Adequate space for specified system controls, possibly including: camera controller, transporter controller, reel controller, lateral inspection controller, cutter controller, steerable transporter controller, keyboard, and mouse 2.12. An adjustable height, fabric covered, foam padded chair with 5 -leg base and casters (minimum Locking) shall be supplied. A securing cord shall also be supplied for in- transit storage. 2.13. There shall be a minimum of (2) quad outlet boxes supplied in the room. 14. There shall be a fire extinguisher securely mounted to a wall of the room in clear view the operator. The fire extinguisher shall be a dry chemical type, NFPA- Classified 3A- 4013C. 3. Equipment Room 3.1. The equipment room shall be located in the rearward section of the hi -cube body. It shall be accessible through the rear body door and a swing door from the control room. 3.2. The walls shall be insulated with '/2" foam and finished with aluminum non - porous laminate over ." Luan plywood. 33. The ceiling shall be insulated with 1 /2" foam and finished with composite board including a white Kemlite surface. 3.4. The floor shall be covered with ahuninum tread plate flooring, with caulked protection at wall joints. Page 7 of 18 COMPLY. YC8/NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection System l5. The room shall include a roof-mounted air conditioning unit with uminimum rating of l35V0h\uofcooling, combined with o560Oh(u rated heat strip, Tile plenum shall also be ducted directly into the control room. 3.6. The room shall belit byuminimum of (2) fluorescent light fixtures, with switches placed near entry points. 3.7. The back ofthe electronics rack mqoipn'cot shall be accessible fi equipmentrmonu through a sliding door, 3.8. /\ workbench area shall he included with the following features: 3.0l A]}S worktop 3.82 Vise with 5"jaws 3.83. Aluminum trim protection ct all corners 3.0.4. Overhead aluminum shelves 3.9./\ lockable 7'draver tool chest shall beincluded. 3.lO. There shall bna minimum ofC8 quad outlet boxes supplied bn the room. l|iA set o[xknngcshelving shall bc included io the room, minimum uF(%) levels, diamond plate and aluminum trim construction. 3.l2. The TVcable reel system shall bc mounted at the rear of the room ou the driver's side. 3.13. A set of vertical storage brackets and hooks shall be included on tile passenger side of the vohioluu1the rear of the room. 3]4. Down hole pole storage shall be included in an underbody box accessible through the rear bumper. 4. Wash Down System 4.l. A pressurized water system shall bosupplied in order to rinse down hole equipment after an inspection. The wash down system shall conform 10 the following specifications: 4.1.1. The pump shall operate from |2\/1)C with circuit breaker protection. The pump shall Supply unniuicnuoaof|.4gpmmt8Opui. 4.1.2. 'file system shall include n reservoir with the following features: 4.|.2.l.l.l5ga Ion capacity 4.1.2]2. Fill port 4l2].3. Drain port 4]114. Mounted utopIv cable reel 4]2.l.5. Mounted along driver's side wall 4.l'3. Tile system shall include o spray nozzle. 4.1.4. The system shall include a 25' length of 90psi-rated hose on a retractable reel. 5. Equipment Hoist Page 8 of 18 COMPLY YI' S /NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection System 1. An equipment hoist shall be included to aid in down hole equipment launching and retrieval. The hoist shall conform to the following specifications: 5.1.1. Lifting capacity of 500 pounds minimum. 5.1.2. The system must be designed and manufactured using all applicable ANSI standards for mobile cranes. 5.1.3. Overall mast height shall not exceed 71.5" 5.1.4. The boom shall have adjustable lengths of 52 ", 62 ", and 72 ". 5.1,5. The boom shall use environmentally sealed needle bearings and thrust bearings. 5.1.6. The boom shall be formed from 3/16" ASTM A572 Grade50 high tensile steel. 5.1.7. The mounting location shall allow for equipment to be placed inside the vehicle at the appropriate storage location. .Boom rotation must be 180' minimum. 5.1.8. The system shall include a 10' control pendant. 5.19. The winch shall be powered by the vehicle's 12VDC system, with circuit breaker protection. 5.1.10. The hoist shall include a 60' length of 3/16" diameter galvanized aircraft quality steel cable, with a standard lifting hook. 6. On -Board AC Power System, 7.5kW Onan Quiet Diesel (No Exceptions) 6. 1. The system shall include an on -board electrical power source rated for 7.5kW of alternating current output. The system shall be a commercial mobile generator set, duty - rated for operating at a full 8 -hour day minimum. Systems that include an "RV" style power source at a lighter duty - rating, shall be deemed unacceptable due to the higher life - cycle cost. 62. All electrical fixtures shall be appropriate for the complete electrical requirements of the system and are installed to NEC codes and local requirements. 6.3. All wiring shall be run in protective conduits. 6.4. The electrical system shall include an AC power distribution panel, with a minimum of (6) circuit breakers of appropriate size. 6.5. A disconnection feature shall be provided for the on -board power supply. This will allow for the system to be connected to a commercial 120V AC house power supply through an exterior connection in the vehicle. The unit shall be an automatic switchover box. There shall be a weatherproof housing in the driver's side of the vehicle body at an appropriate power rating for the system. There shall also be a house power cord with weatherproof plug and socket for attaching to house power. 6.6. The electrical system shall include a 12V system. This shall include a 600CCA 12V automotive battery in a protective case as well as a minimum I OA battery charging unit. The 12V system shall be for starting the generator as well as powering all 12V aftermarket equipment including emergency lighting and pumps. This shall prevent any additional load on tine vehicle's 12V system. Any 12V installed equipment that ties into the vehicle's 12V system shall be deemed unacceptable. 6.7. The overall generator set shall include the following features: 6.7, 1. Commercial mobile duty cycle Page 9 of 18 COMPLY YES / NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection System 6.7.2. Remote start and stop capability with automatic choke and glow plugs 6.7.3. Sound attenuated housing with a rating of 71 dB at 10' under full load 6.7.4. Local and remote control panels 6.7.5. Fueled from vehicle's fuel tank, with safety preventing tank running empty 6.8. The engine powering the system shall have the following features: 6.8.1. Diesel powered 719ce 3- cylinder engine, rated for 16. 1 hp at 3600rpm 6,8.1 Internal radiator with fail and 4qt cooling system capacity 6.8.3. Replaceable air cleaner 6.8.4. Electric fuel pump 6.8.5. Replaceable oil filter and fuel Filters 6.8.6. USDA-approved spark arrest muffler 6.8.7. Automatic shutdown for low oil pressure and high temperature 6.9. The alternator producing the electrical power shall have the following features: 6.9.1. Rated AC output of 120V ± 2.5%, 60Hz ± 1% 6.9.2. Double-sealed long-life ball hearings C7 6.9.3. Electrographic long-life brushes 6.9.4. High quality pure sine wave output 6.10. The generator mounting system shall include the following: 6.10.1. Base pan for drip control 6.10.2. Generator enclosure including the following: 6.10.2,1. Located within the vehicle body 6.10.2.2. Lined with fire retardant noise reduction material 6.10.2.3. Minimum of %'* Luan plywood with glued and screwed construction 6.10.2.4. Lockable outside access door with ventilation grating and gas-assist Cylinders 6.10.3. Mounting bridge with welded steel framing 6.10.4. Electrical, fuel, and exhaust connections 6.11. The generator shall be mounted within the vehicle body for maximum protection from the road environment. Generators mounted external or partially external to the body shall be deemed unacceptable. 6.12. The generator unit specified includes all maintenance points accessible from the outside of the vehicle. Slide out mountings are deemed unacceptable. 6.13. The system shall also include a remote control panel including voltmeter, frequency meter, hour meter, and start/stop switch. The panel shall be mounted in the control room within clear view of the operator. 7.15" LCD Monitor(s) 7.1. A 15" LCD monitor shall be supplied in the control room for viewing the inspection. 7.2. A 15" LCD monitor shall be supplied in the control room for viewing the data display system information. 7.3. A 15" LCD monitor shall be supplied in the equipment room, facing rearward, for viewing the inspection at the rear of the vehicle. A sunshield shall be included to reduce glare. 7.4. The monitor(s) shall meet these minimum specifications: Page 10 of 18 COMPLY YES /NO City ofMaplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection 7.4l Size= l5" diagonal 7.42. Dimensions = 15.0% x 18.4"wz7.5"d, weight = 11.7lbs. 7.4.3. Resolution =l024x768 7.4.4. Brightness =45Oud/of 7.4.5. Viewing angle = 160^ horizontal, 130^ vertical 7.46. Contrast ratio 400:1 7.4.7. Power signal 100 to240\/ /\C ot50to 60Hz 7.4.8. \/idon input from PC or component sources 7.4.9. 6W total audio stereo output from internal speakers 7.4.lO. Adjustments for l{-pomidou,\/-pouitioo, contrast, tint, brightness, and color 8. CumWinutionDVD and VCR Recorder 8.l.&combination DVD and VCR recorder system shall be included for recording of inspection video. The recorder shall include the following features a1 umuininum: 8.1.1. AC power input of 120V 8.1.2. Mounted in standard l9` BA electronics rack, DVD and VHS tapes shall be removable without removing recorder from panel 8.1.3. Recorder bypass switch 8.l.4. Commercial or professional grade only 8.1.5. Rernote control with record, fast forward, pause ', slow, stop, and rewind functions 8.1.6. Minimum o[/4> recording modes, for nptu |0 hours ofD\/D video inspection wk/rugc and (6) hours of VHS video inspection storage 8.1.7. Capability of dubbing VHS tapes k/D\/D and vice versa 0.1.8. Capability o[ writing iuDVD+R, UYI)-R, and DVQ-ROK4formats O2./\ microphone with flexible neck and on/off switch shall be included and Mounted near the operator. This shall allow audio to be recorded with the inspection. 8.3. VCR devices that are consurner grade will be deemed unacceptable due to their limited duty cycle and lower overall picture quality. 9. Data System Hardware 9. 1. A PC system shall be supplied for the data inspection software. The PC hardware shall have the following features atunniuioonm: 9.I.l. Housing mbaJl he sized for installation into ustandard }9"GlArack 9.|.2. Housing shall include shock mounting protection, allowing for long-term use in vehicular application 9.1.3./\T}{ power supply of adequate size for specified equipment 9.1.4. 3.2O}{zPontiuro4processor 9.1.5. 120(}B ia&xnu| hard disk drive (8Dl)) 9.1.6. l(]B memory (RAM) 9.l.7./\TI/\U-]o-Wooder980O video card with 64MB onboard nn000ery 9.|.8.Soundb|xste/-conupa1ib|e onboard sound 9.1.9. 3j" floppy drive 9.l.l0.DVD-R/W optical drive, 4RxlOxlU, with CD-R/Wcapability 9. 1.11. |0l -key vvindovvo-cuaopu{ih|u wireless keyboard 9.\.12. Optical wireless mouse 9.I.13. Ports shall include: 9.1.13. L (Qty.1) parallel port Page lluf\8 COMPI -Y YES / NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection S 9.1.13.2. (Qty. 1) 1 Gb Ethernet connection 9.1.13.3. (Qty.2) USB 2.0 serial ports on front of housing 9.1.13.4. (Qty.4) USB 2.0 serial ports on rear of housing 9.1.14. 120GB hot- swappable USB - connection HDD 9.1.15. UPS battery backup device, 800VA, 320J surge, with battery sized to ensure at least 5 minutes of operation in the event of power failure 91.16. Ink jet printer with 4800x1200dpi color resolution and 15ppm (color) output 9.2. The PC shall include a Windows XP Professional operating system. 93. The data system hardware shall also include a video overlay device. The device shall place characters over the inspection video, and be controlled through the computer. The data system software shall be able to place characters in a 40- column x 21 -row matrix, black or white, at a minimum. 10. Data System Software 10.1. The City of Maplewood has evaluated different software suites and has determined that only the Pipetech Scan software suite is acceptable. Any other brands of software will be deemed unacceptable. Successful proposals shall include a software copy of Pipetech Sea as well as the necessary hardware license. I1. Power Control Unit (PCU) 11.1. A power control unit (PCU) shall be provided to control and distribute power to the TV system equipment specified. The PCU shall include the following features at a minimum: 11.1.1. Housing for mounting in a standard 19" ETA electronics rack 11.1.2. Approval through test spec UL1012 for power units 11.1.3. All electrical connections to be plug -type, no "terminal block" wiring is allowed 11.1.4. All electrical connection plugs to be keyed and vibration proof 11.1.5. Isolation transformer for clean downhole power signal source 11.1.6. Front face of unit shall include the following controls: 11.1.6.1. Camera power switch and breaker reset 11.1.6.2. Camera voltage adjustment dial, 0 to 150V DC 11.1.6.3. Camera current adjustment dial 11.1.6.4. Pan and tilt controller connection 11.1.6.5. Auxiliary lighthead switch 11.1.6.6. Lighthead power switch and breaker reset 1 1.1.6.7. Lighthead larnp power selector 11.1.6.8. Lighthead intensity dial 11.1.6.9. Lighthead overcurrent warning Iight 11.1.6.10. Auxiliary lighthead controller connector 11.1.6.11. Auxiliary tractor controller connector 11.1.7. Diagnostic meters on front face of unit shall include_ 11.1.7.1. Carnera module voltage 11.1.7.2. Camera module current draw H. 1.7.3. Lighthead voltage 11.1.7.4. Lighthead current draw 12. Pan and Tilt Camera with Zoom and LED Lighting Page 12 of 18 COMPLY Y1S /NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipelinc Television Inspection System 12.1. A color pan and tilt view camera shall be supplied. The camera shall include a zoom function and use directional long - life -rated LED light sources to provide adequate pipe wall illumination in sizes up to 72 ". 112. The camera shall have the following operational features: 12.2.1. Usable in 6" relined pipes and larger 12.2.2. Transmits a color video signal through at least 2000' of multi- conductor cable 12.2.3. Designed with solid -state circuitry to withstand shock and vibration 12.2.4. Operates in climatic conditions from at least 0 °C to 50 °C with 100% RH 12.3. The camera module shall have the following electronic features: 12.3.1. Color Super HAD CCD, '/4" 12.3.2. Collection matrix of 768h x 494v pixels, total of 379,392 12.33. 470h x 400v TV lines of resolution 12.3.4. NTSC color image scanning - 525 lines a 60I1z, 2:1 interlaced 12.3.5. Minimum illumination sensitivity of 0.1lux 12.3.6. Signal -to -noise ratio of at least 46dB 12.3.7. Precise image geometry with no image burn -in 12.3.8. Automatic light- compensating iris, with manual override 12.3.9. Regulated DC power input range of 18 -60V 12.3.10. No visible streaking when viewing a standard EIA test chart 12.3.11. Software resident on upgradeable EEPROM 12.3.12. 4.2 42mm, fl .8 zoom lens, lox optical, 4x digital, 40:1 total zoom 12.3.13. Proportionally slowed camera movements when zooming 12.3.14. '/2" to oc automatic focus, with manual override 12.4. The camera chassis shall have the following electromechanical features: 12.4.1. Overall length of 13.75" 12.4.2. Body diameter of 2375 ", fitting a standard 3" camera yoke 12.4.3. Head diameter of .75" 12.4.4. Stainless steel and anodized aluminum construction 12.4.5. 360' continuous camera head axial rotation 12.4.6. 284' minimum pan and tilt rotation 12.4.7. Military -rated gold slip ring contacts 12.4.8. Scratehproof sapphire camera window 12.4.9. Sealed keyed military connector for cable hook up 12.4.10. DC motors with planetary gears, ball bearings, power all camera motions, with clutches to protect from overloads and impacts 12.4.11. Forks extending beyond the camera head to protect from frontal impacts 12.4.12. Forks inset into body pockets to withstand severe shocks 12.4.13. Dirt and pressure seals at all moving joints 12.4.14. Automatic home feature to upright forward viewing, with forks at side of camera head 12.5. The camera lighting system shall have the following features: 12.5.1. A light ring internal to the directional camera head 115.2. LED light sources, ratted for 1,000 hours of operation 12.5.3. Minimum luminance of 1000 cd 12.5.4. Light ring cavity separated from camera module housing using leak -proof military - rated glass hermetic seal 12.5.5. Field - replaceable polycarbonate LED window Page 13 of 18 COMPLY City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Ins pection l26. The camera shall hm equipped with the following diagnostic and safety features: 126l Internally pressurized with dry nitrogen boominimum mfl5pai 1262. AoEIA color bar test chart display l2.6.1/\ set ofdiagnostic telemetry, including: 12.6.3l Camera module current draw Lighthead voltage 12.6.3.3. Internal camera head humidity 12.6.3.4. Internal camera head pressure 12.6.I5. Operating hoors 12.6.3.6. Electronic serialization record 12I The camera controller shall have the following features: 12I1. Joystick controller for oarnorx head pan/tilt and rotational movements 12.7.2. Switch for manual focus override (io/uuA 12.7.3. 8v/doh for manual iris ovonido(npen/c|omo) 12.74. Switch for diagnostic telemetry display (on/of0 12.7.5. Switch for camera home position 12.7.6. Desktop model, with cable connection to rear ofPClJ 1I8. The camera shall be shipped with iatant case. The case shall have foam lining and metal closing latches, allowing shipping on commercial carriers. ]2.9./\200VV auxiliary light head sha besup A cable for attaching the li head bo the standard l2'nio connector sha also besupplied. 13. Wheel Drive Transporter }3l/\ remotely controlled wheeled tumapoitur shall besupplied. The transporter system shall buable to propel un inspection camera through 8"to48" pipes toudistanceofupto 1500' from point of entry. l32. The transporter sha have the follow ope features: l3��l. Usable |oQ"relined pi and larger 13.2.2. Capable uf speeds ofupto 65 feet per minute 13.2.3. Capable of free-wheeling, allowing retrieval by cable and reel combination 132.4. Capable of transporting outandxnd pan and tilt oo mini-mainline uunuera 13.3, The tra sha have the follow electronic features: l�lL Continuous duty rated l2\/I)C drive motor 1 ).3.2. Transporter sha accept controls fi system power control unit transmitted through a maximum ofl5OO`ufcable 13.3.3. Complete solid-state design l3.34. Field-replaceable ooi|-spoo electrical connector for cable |3.4. The transporter shall have the following mechanical features: 13.4. 1. Maximum overall length of23" 1342. Standard 3" camera yoke for mounting pan and tilt cameras 13.4.3. Replaceable O-ring seals a1all field-serviceable joint /ooubonm 13.4.4. A transmission that includes: 13.4.4. 1. Gears in oil bath for maximurn cooling and lubrication Page 14 of 18 COMPLY, CdYof Maplewood, MN Pipe] ineTelevision Inspection System 134.42. Neutral position 10 freewheel during retrieval l3.4.4I Heavy duty worm drive gear tu absorb drive line shock 13/1I /\ drive train that includes: l3/4.5.|.([hy�6)4" wheels for use in8"nol8"nn-n:Unodlines (34.52((}Tv6)3" wheels for use in 8" relined pipe 13.4.5.3. S wheels for use iol2" pipes and larger 13�.54. 4" carbide impregnated high traction tires 134.6.A tow cable assembly that relieves strain at the cable connection 13.4�7. /\ loop cable that caii be used for lifting the tractor without straiiiiiig ally drive uoonponmom 13.5.A set o[ weighted riser blocks sh^ be included that automatically raise t camera k) center ofu corresponding pipe size uo well uu add tractive effort to the transporter unit. |36. The transporter controller shall have the following teoton:s l36|. Power switch with |mnp 13.6.2. Directional switch, 3-pomhjontoggle 13.6]. Speed control dial 13.6.4. Ammeter display for power draw bo transporter 13.6.5. Overload breaker protection l3.7./\ foot pedal style controller shall bc supplied in the control room under the desktop. This pedal shall only activate the transporter, with speed control remaining at the desktop l3X/\ foot pedal st controller sha be supplied hnthe equipment room, stored next tothe cable reel. This pedal shall activate the transporter motor, to aid in spotting the transporter for pickup following an inspection. l3.9./\n add-on kit sha bu supp for the inspection of lines larger than 3O" The add-on kit shall include: 13.9.1. A pair of rails that insta directly to the side of the transporter including reduction gear ing Fo l wheels 13.92.(Jty.4) 8" wheels that allow for inspections in 15" p and lamer (3.91K)iv/plU" whee that allow for inspections iol8" p ipes and larger lIIO.f\ spare parts kit shall bc included with the unit that includes all parts that are expected to be replaced in the fic|d. The kit shall also include any tools that are regularly needed in the servicing o[ the transporter. 1111. The transporter shall be shipped with ud stantcase.Thecase shall include u f6mo cradle, with mo|k] exterior construction. 14. Transmission Cable and Reel System l4.l.}\ reel with multi-conductor cable shall hesupplied. The cable shall bn used for closed circuit video trmommimionmm well nm retrieval nf the do*obm|oequipment. The reel shall be capable of providing adequate force to the cable for equipment retrieval. l42. The reel sha have the following features: 14.2. L Stainless steel construction with powder coated finish Page l5ofl8 COMPLY YES/NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection System 14,2.2. Minimum '' /zhp AC motor 14.23, Transmission with minimum of three gear ratios plus neutral 14.2.4. Linkage control on both reel and control room desktop 14.2.5. Mechanical drive linkage between motor and drum 14.2.6. All chains and linkages enclosed and safety labeled 14.2.7. Low friction greased bearings to minimize drag 14.2.8. Cable level wind that automatically lays cable evenly across drum 14.2.9. Drop down cable guide with directional roller and locking positions 14.2. 10. Mechanical footage meter mounted on level wind 14.2.11. Footage encoder to send electronic footage data to display system, ±2% accuracy 2mmmum 14,2,12. Scaled continuous gold contact slip ring assembly with the following features: 14.2.12.1. Voltage range from 1µV to 460V 14.2,12.2. Current range from 1 nA to 25A 14.2.12.3. Pulse DC frequencies to I OOMHz 14.2.12.4. Corrosion proof and maintenance free 14.2,12.5. 12 circuits minimum 14.2.13. Local control box, with direction, power, and speed controls 14.2.14. Safety switch, front control lockout 14,2.15. Remote desktop mounted controller, with direction, power, and speed controls 14.2.16. Switchover plug, 24 -pin minimum, to bypass reel for diagnostic purposes 14.2.17. Drip pan mounted under reel assembly, draining through floor of vehicle 14.3. The cable shall have the following features: 14.3.1. Continuous length of 1500' minimum 14.3.2. Diameter of 0.41" minimum 14.3.3. Outer jacket of extruded Hytrel or other low - friction material 14.3.4. Inner Kevlar strength braid, cable yield strength of 2000# minimum 14.3.5. Withstand pressure of 800# minimum 14.3.6. Continuous length terminated at molded field- repairable 12 -pin casting 14.3.7. Termination to include a strain relieving mechanism, bypassing strain on termination 14.3.8. Construction of (10) separate conductors of adequate gauge for delivering power and control signals to downhole equipment 14.3.9. Construction including a shielded R -59 /U coaxial conductor for video 14.4. The cable shall also include a water blocking compound applied to the cable interstices. This is to prevent damaging materials from migrating through the cable should the jacket be cut or otherwise breached. 14.5. The cable shall also include a repair kit for repairing the termination in the field, 15. Downhole Guide System 15. 1, A downhole guide system shall be supplied for guiding and protecting the cable between the inspection system and the pipe. The system shall include the following devices at a minimum: 15.1.1. Topside roller with ahumijuum roller and steel frame 15.1.2. Downhole roller with aluminum rollers and steel frame, quick -lock detachable 15.1.3. (Qty. 30') of fiberglass poles for attaching to downhole roller, quick -lock detachable sections Page 16 of 18 COMPLY City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline Television Inspection Systeni l5.}4. Hook for attaching to poles allowing for roller tobo hung from manhole ring 15.1.5. Extraction pole assembly for lifting equipment from manhole or culvert, including: ]Slj]. Tractor lifting eye with attachment hardware 15].52.(CUv.3) quick-lock detachable reinforced fiberglass poles 16. Training /6]. Within 3O days nf delivery, a qualified factory representative shall fully instruct appointed personnel in the operation and maintenance of the sewer inspection equipment ypcoifiuJ. Atu minimum, this instructional course shall be two [) days iuduration. Topics covered shall include operational procedures, maintenance procedures, and safety procedures. Data handling procedures shall also ho discussed, tailored to the data system myooifiod. In addition, one (1) day of training will occur at a later date, to be scheduled at the City's request. 17. Instructional Materials 17. 1. The following instructional materials inust be delivered with the system: l7.l]. Set ofI)\/Duc« VHS tapes, operation, maintenance, and troubleshooting mt equipment 17.12. Master set of equipment manuals, onu1dhedto specified system equipment, including vehicle chassis and any uftennackut equipment installed 17.1.3. Copy set of equipment manuals, TV systern only, matched to specirled system equipment 17.1.4. Manufacturer's parts catalog 18. Maintenance Kb l0l/\ maintenance kit shall he included with delivery o[ the system. This kit shall include all the necessary common tools needed in the normal course of maintenance of the TV system equipment specified. Tools should include u|ominimum: 10.1.1. /\divatah|evvrsnch |O.l2. Combination wrench set (H.|.3. Allen wrench set 18. 1.4. Side cutter pliers l8.l.5. I-oog nose p|i er lQl6. Channel lock pliers l0,1.7. Vise-Grip pliers 10.1.8. Screwdriver set including flat blade and Phillips 18].9. 5/16ontdrkxz 18.1. 18. Soldering iron l8.l]l. Roll of60/40 resin core solder 18.1.12. Multbnetor with AC and [)C voltage, resistance, and continuity signal lQ]]l Wire cutter with terminal l8]]4. Utility knife 18]]5. Electrical iupu 19. Warranty Page 17 of 18 COMPLY, YES / NO City of Maplewood, MN Pipeline 'Television Inspection System 19. 1. The TV inspection system shall be warranted against manufacturing defects for a period of (12) months from the date of delivery at a minimum. Any installed equipment warranties that extend beyond this period a vehicle 36 month / 36000 mile warranty) (e.g. C � shall be passed on to the City of Maplewood by the TV system manufacturer. 20. Delivery 20.1 The system shall be delivered to the City of Maplewood in first-class operating condition. Acceptance of the system shall be subject to inspection and approval by City personnel. Page 18 of 18 Agenda Item 119 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: August 8, 2006 RE: Temporary Beer & Wine License Food Permit and Fee Waivers Introduction Father Peter Nj oku, representing St. Jerome's Catholic Church, has submitted an application for a temporary beer (32) license and temporary liquor (wine only) licenses. This is St. Jerome's annual fall festival and Booya and will be held on the school and church grounds located at 380 E. Roselawn Avenue and will be held on September 17 from 12:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. They will also require a temporary food permit. As required, a certificate of coverage for liquor liability insurance from Catholic Mutual with an endorsement protecting the City was required and received. Recommendation This is an annual event for St. Jerome's Church. It is requested that council approve the applications for temporary beer and temporary liquor (wine only) licenses. It is further recommended that fees for the requested permits be waived. Agenda Item 120 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk RE: Temporary Liquor (Wine) and Food Fee Waiver DATE: August 9, 2006 Introduction Holy Redeemer Church, 2555 Hazelwood Street, has submitted an application for temporary liquor (wine) and food licenses for a fund raiser to be held on October 15 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The event will be their annual fund raiser for general expenses for the church. They are requesting approval of the temporary liquor license and a fee waiver for both the food and the temporary liquor license permit. Recommendation It is recommended that council approve the above request. Agenda Item 121 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: August 7, 2006 for the August 14 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Maplewood Community Center Request for Proposal for Food Catering Services INTRODUCTION The Maplewood City Council authorized staff to proceed with the request for proposal for food catering business services on May 8, 2006. The Maplewood Community Center has utilized Suzanne's Cuisine for exclusive catering services for the past seven years. Although the city has been very pleased with Suzanne's Cuisine, it was determined that (1) it was appropriate to receive additional proposals and (2) to consider adding more catering options for all of our patrons. BACKGROUND The Maplewood Community Center opened to the public in October 1994. The M.C.C. boasts a state - of- the -art banquet facility that can accommodate up to 350 people. We have annually hosted 150 large group events including 25 -40 weddings. The city of Maplewood was one of the first public community centers to enter into an exclusive catering agreement for food and beverage that provides the city with a percentage of revenue from gross sales. We currently receive 10 percent of all food and 25 percent of all beverages and 3% for any upgrades. The city generates $20,000 to $40,000 annually in M.G.C. revenue based on this exclusive catering agreement. The city received catering proposals in June from five firms: Kane's, Aesop's Table, Prom, Cossetta Eventi, and Classic catering. During the past six weeks, community center manager Linda Crosson, events and operations supervisor Russ Schmidt and I attended five events with food provided by each of the caterers. The events ranged from weekend /evening weddings to a large weekday event for Gander Mountain sales representatives. During the onsite visit we had an opportunity to not only taste food, but to speak in -depth with each of the food providers and observe for an extended period of time their service levels, attention to detail and overall service provision. It was our original intent to reduce the number of firms to no more than three. After attending each of the events and taking a more in -depth look at the private sector approach to catering services, it is our recommendation that all five firms be listed as eligible catering providers. We would have the same percentage for each of the vendors, which would be 8% - 6 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and 12% - 4:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. from Monday through Thursday, and 15% - Friday through Sunday and holidays. This would be a 3% increase over our existing rates, as well as a 25% beverage percentage. It is our intent for the five food providers to be in effect as of January 1, 2007. Assuming the city council concurs with staff's recommendation, we would work out a negotiated arrangement with Suzanne's Cuisine as to how we would handle the 2007 events and it will probably be a combination of the existing caterers and Suzanne's Cuisine, depending on the booking date. Staff has also prepared a request for proposal for a separate liquor provider which will go into effect as of January 1, 2007 as well. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Maplewood Community Center enter into an agreement with five separate caterers for a three -year period effective January 1, 2007. The five caterers would be Aesop's Table, Cossetta Eventi, Prom, Classic, and Kane's catering firms. kphlcatering request for proposal cc.mcc Enclosures 61 Aesop Acquisition Corp 81-0599577 M. 9191 Date St St Paul, MN 55103 651-488-6591 651- 488-2089 fax www.aesopstable.com info acaeso stable com Owners: Anthony Mahmood Donna Mahmood 822 Mgh St Newport MN 55055 3 Aesop's Table is a family owned business started by Mike & Marie Palmer in 1968. We have been dedicated to providing the best quality food and the best service at a price everyone can love. Aesop's Table is now run by their son and his wife, Tony & Donna Mahmood. Tony has been trained in the culinary arts under Chef Mike Palmer for 16 years and has been a chef for over 20 years. Aesop's Table Mission Statement To give a client dramatically more value than they expect- whether measured by price, performance, quality, results or service. To remain committed to the highest level in everything we do. To help our employees improve their skills, encourage them to take risks, treat them fairly, and recognize their accomplishments, stimulating them to approach their jobs with passion and commitment. To encourage high expectations, set ambitious goals and meet our commitments. le We strive to make your experience with us a pleasant memorable one. We want your business and will always go the extra mile to please our customers. Our goal is to provide you with great products always served with a Smile. Cl b S 5 E t T A� t O S 'ETTA EVE TI PROPOSAL For Maplewood Community Center June 15, 2006 Prepared By-. Frank Cossega Eventi Sales Manager (651)- 602-0537 _ 5 221 =So, Exehau e & Street, Saint Paul, fMN55102 ' (651) 224 -8419 • F ax: (651) 222 "341, You can how order entl Very Special Foods on the Internet at www.CossettaEventi.com City of Maplewood Maplewood Community Center Food Caterer Proposal June 15, 2006 0 Kane's Catering Service 1560 Payne Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (651) 482-9005 June 14, 2006 Mr. Bruce Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Request for Proposal - Food Caterer Dear Mr. Anderson: We appreciate the opportunity to present the following proposal for Food Caterer at the Maplewood Community Center. Our longevity and history in the catering business would make Kane's Catering an ideal partner with the City of Maplewood at your beautiful Community Center facility. The definition of "community" is "fellowship, the district, city, common traditions with political or economic advantages, friendly association." Kane's Catering is in the Maplewood proximity. We are well known in the catering community for our longevity in the business, commitment to our customer, great tasting food, and friendly service. Kane's is capable of representing the foundation established by the Maplewood Community Center. We are confident that our partnership would provide economic growth for both businesses. We have read and understand the terms as stated in the Food Caterer Request for Proposal dated May 2006 and would agree to such terms if selected as one of the exclusive food service providers for the Maplewood Community Center. Again, we thank your consideration. We look forward to the city's decision. Sincerely, r Janet M. Kane Owner bh attachments Jerry G. Kane Owner/ Executive Chef 7 moipLewood covvuvvLxv�.�t�u ctv�,ter Food caterer ReqLcest for T>roposotL cl2ss'bc, C�citer'b'vl'o 403 W. 60 street M�VLMPPDULS, MN,5541-9 P�ov,e: 012-20 - )042 9-L Fax.: roe. -2.269-RIJ2 -S�vvvvtovus / rzepresevvtclt,we MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: August 9, 2006 RE: Certification of Election Judges Agenda Item I22 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ELECTION JUDGES RESOLVED, that the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, accepts the following list of Election Judges for the 2006 State Primary Election, to be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2006: Fran Aherns Carolyn Eickhoff Judith Johannessen Suzanne Anderson Elizabeth Erickson Barbara Johnson Elsie Anderson Ann Fallon Max Joiner Cynthia Anderson Lorraine Fischer Joyce Jurmu Ronald Anderson Mary Fischer Marilyn Kidman Ahsan Ansari Delores Fitzgerald Harold Kirchoff Marlis Barrett Anne Fosburgh Rosemary Koch Joan Bartelt James Franzen Harry Koval David Bedor MaryJo Freer Mona Lou Krekelberg Jaime Belland Samantha Fritsche Josephine Krominga Mery Berger Patt Fry Marvella Lackner Jeanne Bortz Clarice Gierzek Rita Lally Anna Breidenstein Diane Golaski Charlotte Lampe Jennette Bunde Betty Granger Anita Larson Lucille Cahanes Guy Grant Lorraine Lauren Jeanette Carle Mary Grant Ann Leo Robert Carr Jamie Gudknecht Pati Leo Ann Cleland Jaclyn Gunn Claudette Leonard Thomas Connelly Donita Hack Steve Lincowski Colleen Connolly Gordon Heinenger Vi Lincowski Jon Cupka Barb Hilliard Delores Lofgren Mae Davidson Constance Hines Richard Lofgren Marianne Davidson Gary Hinnenkamp Shari Love -Adams Edward Deeg Mary Holzemer Robert Lundgren Loree Dempsey Shirlee Horton Shirley Luttrell Bhupat Desai Jeanette Hulte Paul Maeyaert Audrey Diesslin Lynn Huntoon Jeri Mahre Kathleen Dittel Mildred Iverson Carol Mahre Diane Droeger Carol Jagoe John Manthey Fred DuCharme Jeff Janacek Delores Marsh Audrey Duellman Gwendolyn Jefferson Thomas Maskrey Geraldine Mechelke Marylou Mechelke Jackie Meyer Joan Misgen Betty Mossong Howard Muraski Gerry Muraski Thomas Myster Clara Neis Gloria Nelson James Nieman Louise Nieters Ann Marie Norberg Lois Olson Andi Oster David Pehl James Petrie Bill Priefer Karla Radermacher Carol Roller Kenneth Rossow Charles Rowe Elaine Rudeen MaryAnn Schneider Sandy Schoenecker Harriet Schroepfer Louise Schultz Ananth Shankar Teresa Shores Bob Spangler Louis Spies Tim Stafki David Stark Sandra Stevens Rita Taylor Lorraine Taylor Milo Thompson Pat Thompson Leila Tillman Franklin Tolbert Dale Trippler Cecilia Tucker Connie Unger Holly Urbanski William Urbanski Vilhelmine Vanags Beulah VanBlaricom Barabra Vandeveer Mary Vante Connie Wagner Gene Wandersee Gayle Wasmundt John Willy Delores Witschen Karen Zacho Agenda Item J1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Ed Nadeau, Utility Superintendent SUBJECT: Lift Station No. 18 Rehabilitation, City Project 05 -29, Approve Award of Construction Contract and Budget Adjustment DATE: August 4, 2006 INTRODUCTION The 2006 capital outlay budget included $50,000 for the rehabilitation of Sanitary Sewer Lift Station No. 18. Upon investigation, this lift station needed significant improvements to be brought to a reliable level. Bids have been received and it is recommended that a contract be awarded. A budget adjustment is needed if a contract is awarded. Background The Sanitary Sewer Fund currently appropriates $50,000 annually to a preventive maintenance program to repair / upgrade our sanitary sewer lift stations. This station is located near County Road B and TH 36. An investigation found soil problems that were much worse than anticipated and contributed to the pumping system being out of alignment causing very inefficient pumping and electrical use. The station is also an older vintage and needs updating with a valve vault to protect the operating equipment from the corrosive environment and installation of safety equipment to provide protection for employees due to confined space entry issues. These issues have added $70,000 to the original project needs, for a total budget of $120,000. We have received bids for the construction work as noted on the attached report from the consultant engineer, SEH, Inc. In comparison to the engineer's estimate, the bids are very good. Jay Bros, Inc. is the low bidder at $98,606.36 for the work and is a reputable contractor very capable of this work. The budget adjustment needed for this program is an adjustment of existing funds. As noted, this is an annual program, so expenses of $50,000 are also designated for the 2007 budget. It is proposed that the 2007 program funds be designated for use in 2006 (no program in 2007) and that funds from the Sanitary Sewer Fund Fees for Service (Account 4480), in the amount of $20,000 be transferred to this project fund making a total project budget of $120,000. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council award a construction contract to Jay Bros, Inc. in the amount of $98,606.36 for the rehabilitation of Lift Station No. 18, City Project 05 -29, and direct the Finance Director to make the appropriate financial budget adjustments to transfer the 2007 budget allocation of $50,000 for the lift station program and $20,000 from Fees for Service (Acct. 4480) into the project budget. Attachment: 1. Letter and Bid Tabulation from SEH SEH July 27, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109-2702 Attn: R. Charles Ahl, PE, City Engineer Dear Mayor and Council Members: RE: City of Maplewood, Minnesota Lift Station #18 Rehabilitation City Project No. 05-29 SEH Project No. A-MAPLE-0606.00 6.00 On Friday, June 30, 2006, three bids were received for the referenced project. Please find enclosed the bid tabulation detailing the results. The bid results are summarized below. Contractor Total Bid I Jay Bros., Inc. $ 98,606.36 2 Engineering & Construction $ 99,997.00 3 Penn Contracting, Inc. tl- $ 1 [2,829.00 — En Estimate $ 138,980.00 The low bid received was submitted by Jay Bros., Inc. of Forest Lake, Minnesota in the amount of $98,606.36. In reliance on our experience with Jay Bros., Inc. and/or materials and information provided by the contractor, we have determined that 1) they have a sufficient understanding of the project and equipment to perform the construction for which it bid; and 2) according to their bonding agent they presently have the financial ability to complete the project bid. SEH makes no representation or warranty as to the actual financial viability of the contractor or its ability to complete its work. Accordingly, we recommend the project be awarded to Jay Bros., Inc. in the amount of $98,606.36, which compares favorably with the engineer's estimate shown above. Sincerely, Steven F. Heth, PE Project Manager Enclosure nm s: %ko\jn map 1006 0 60ML o n struc ti on\reca wa rd It r. d i)c Smort Elliott Pletidrickson Ir.c., 3535Vadnais Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-5196 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I wwwr.sehinc.com 1 651.4902000 1 800,325.2055 1 651.4902150 I,,tx o of 00 M 0 (D M C7; C,j LIJ Ea li C co c 0) - ) GS E LU o 00 C ER W 6s 00 0 0 04 M (D Lr) (D a 0 cc @ 0 0 00 0 IU tG z CL < 75 r r 0 6 O CL z a U) Z < 0 - F, m F LL T) t5 C 0 0 Z 00 . c (D > a) 0 C> m c) I w W (o CD CL Ld m (1) LL 10 O 3 c - , 0 z 1 co M , m U- LL OD cl) 44 z D 0 I (c C C N c; CL 9 0 0 0 0 q 9 0 c) q i 0 c� 0 C a 9 0 1 0 ol 9 1 C 9 0 q 0 q 0 0 (n o 0 0 0 "T 1 c. 6 a c,,� �2 0 c.) ; 01 0 * Lo F C'O - 0 SO 0 i 0 0 d o 0 o 0 0 0 o r u) N c� N N (o 0 c\j m (o {fl O LU 0 O o i 9 o o 0 0 0 8 ol p c, c o o o 0 . of ol 0 0 0 C 0 O o o f o 91 q 0 N N 0 0 0 ! C! 0 co 0 i in 0 0 0 0 o 0 l 0 1 0 LC b Eta 6s ca to u') Q) ui 1 fl 3 0 0 0! 0 (D o cq u') trl d 0 c;> 8 0 o O 9 a CIO 0 0 a o 0 o C o o o Q 0 6 Lo lb m C5 6 to w c, 0 L6 o N Eo Lo N o Lo (6 6 ; b ;: Lo to: 6 M 6 Lo d d c N v! co c] m c6 N Q tc� co (q cli i v! "I c\l co Ll! b 'o 64 ('s 0 — -------- - - - 0 - - ------ - b - 0 0 ... 0 0 ok — - 0 — ---- 0 -- - - ----- ------------- -------- - 0 0 of 0 0 a W 9 0 M L q C N q (o q m P 9 Lo c ? 0 q c � C �t 0 of w tn , T I ? 0 Lo q 0 Lo C 0 a 0 0 N CC 0 "'o G's u QR co E31 N n u, ai (L co N C 0 0 0 u-) Iq c� o , w o o o 0 u) co 'n r- 0 c 0 w 0 0 0 0 Ln w N 14 o o c c Lo -T co o) L61 (o 1-: N 'IT �7 is m 0 co 67 Lo 1 m Im 64: 51 Lo Lo co Ln — Q 64 V> wl 6 Lo GA G% 64 0 W OoL000c)ola — 9 0 C o i O O oolTooco O O l4 O 0 N cm Lo w N 0 N o co (o "t c o m O Lo 69 V3 EFi EA Ell ia i m v) u V., ") Est If! V) co 0 CIO 0 0 Oic a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIO O1 0 c to 0 C CIO u); 0 a a a 0 0 0 o co 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 O c) Lq , ,t Ln M 0 r, l 1 m r 0 LO LO c� C lY1 O ul ul cJ _j EA U., 64 to 6% i U4 (a I E (11a 0o LLI o 0 - o OI O -- o O o a q E (P o E 9 q _0 0 1 q 0 q O 7 & — 0 C i C Lo Lo 0 o o c) 0 0 i o o' 6 0 0 0 o 1 N (1) c4 62 �2 �t ts o I ! 01 Lo 6s Lo 1 to o 0 o 0 0! Lr) ol 0 CL ca N ' , to - co oo to N 071 z cq 0 1 cli 0 (:�� in O)l 't c\j q — — — T� c\j ❑ Cl z z U- U- u- ............ ---- - - W uj — - - ------------- ------ - -- - - - 0 w m W o 0 cc D z w z 0-1 D cc C) w F- :5 > w p -.1 CL w vI 0 o LLI cf) 0 w T- a- < z > (D cc: 0 a. 0 LLI < o 0 cc Z 0 ( 1) 0 W cr w <I U) < L U L ) , z fr U) Z > Cc z 0 m < 0: T < W i� < z z < I < t- < O > w < 3: 1 W z < t W w (1) z - Z < Z 0 0 z m IL co w cc z 0 W o >- (D caj U) Lij fr W > LLJ CL 0 < 0 — 0 z < CC z < cc w N z 0 < U, ' Z c) 0 > LL w m U) CC w 0 im Ll (D -1 co cc (D LLJ EL < U- z a- z F5 a. < F 0 0 LLJ :D 01 w D W W W . ..... 17 0 N M 'r u) (01 r- m a) ol N z Z < 0 - F, m F LL T) t5 C 0 0 Z 00 . c (D > a) 0 C> m c) I w W (o CD CL Ld m (1) LL 10 O 3 c - , 0 z 1 co M , m U- LL OD cl) 44 z D 0 I (c C C N c; CL Agenda Item K1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Trunk Highway 36 Improvements (White Bear to Century), City Project 05 -03, Consideration of Noise Wall Issues within Maplewood DATE: August 4, 2006 INTRODUCTION The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is proposing the reconstruction of TH 36 between White Bear Avenue in Maplewood and TH 120 (Century Avenue) in Oakdale, through the City of North St. Paul. The Environmental Assessment document was submitted to the Council for comments on May 23, 2006. The Council provided MnDOT with a resolution noting their support for the shorter term project that included a 4 -6 month total closure. The remaining concern is resolving the noise wall issues along the corridor. Representatives from MnDOT will be present to explain the issues. DISCUSSION The reconstruction of TH 36 from White Bear Avenue to Century Avenue is being proposed to begin in 2007. The Environmental Assessment (EA provided to the Council in May 2006) of the project impacts did not identify major issues within Maplewood with one exception. On page 35 there is a discussion on the noise impact of the roadway to adjacent Maplewood residents. The document identifies that additional discussions with Maplewood are required on this issue. As shown on the attached drawing from the EA, noise walls (Wall 1 and Wall 2) were identified as cost effective along the north and south side of TH 36 between McKnight Road and just west of Ariel Street. The North St. Paul City Council determined that they did not wish to support the inclusion of their portion of the noise walls due to their concerns that the roadway divides their community. (Note: the Maplewood -North St. Paul border is the centerline of Ariel Street). A resolution declining the noise wall construction within the project was included within the EA document. The removal of the noise wall within North St. Paul created a situation whereby the small portion of Wall 2 within Maplewood is not cost effective. This is a unique situation in that a wall was shown to be effective to reduce the roadway noise to residents adjacent to the roadway by 7 — 10 db; however, with North St. Paul not supporting the construction, the wall is not effective. MnDOT staff have indicated that Maplewood would need to cost participate to construct the wall within North St. Paul to achieve the noise reductions. MnDOT staff will be present to provide further information to the Council. An informational meeting was held by MnDOT and Maplewood staff on May 2nd at the Maplewood Council Chambers. Approximately 25 residents of Maplewood attended the informational meeting. A majority of the comments were from residents looking for information on the impacts to Castle Avenue. MnDOT and Maplewood staffs have developed a proposed agreement where MnDOT will provide Maplewood with funds for a future reconstruction. Details of that agreement will be presented to the Council later in 2006. Residents adjacent to TH 36 have been notified of this item's discussion on the agenda. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the noise issues adjacent to the proposed TH 36 (White Bear to Century) Improvement Project and direct the City Engineer to send a letter to MnDOT noting the City's agreement for removal of the noise walls from the project. Attachments: 1. Figure 6A from EA 2. Letter to MnDOT on EA concerns \ / _ , .. W\ / / - /¥ June 1, 2006 Mr. Marc Goess Area Engineer Mn/DOT, Metro District 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Trunk Highway 36 Improvements — City File No. 05 -03 Environmental Assessment for S.P. 6211 -81 The City of Maplewood appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Assessment for the Trunk Highway 36 Improvements in Maplewood and North St. Paul. Our City Council reviewed the EA document at their Council meeting of May 22, 2006. In summary, the City Council determined that the EA has adequately addressed the environmental impacts anticipated with the project improvements and will not object to a negative declaration on the need for a state EIS. The City Council did direct the following: 1. Preparation of a Resolution (copy attached) indicating that the City Council of Maplewood concurs with the proposal to entirely close down TH 36 between White Bear Avenue and Century Avenue for the purpose of expediting construction and providing for a reasonable likelihood of significant cost savings. 2. Indication that Maplewood wishes to continue discussions on Noise Wall No. 2 as noted within the Environmental Assessment (page 35, 49 -53). We note that the 350 -foot segment of Wall No. 2 within Maplewood has been concluded to: "This section of wall, be itself, cannot meet the cost reasonableness threshold for the installation of a noise barrier and will therefore not be included in the proposed project." We do not concur with the conclusion. We ask that we continue to work cooperatively with Mn/DOT staff to explore the noise wall issue with our residents, similar to the options of noise wall discussions were held with North St. Paul officials and residents. Our position on the noise wail was that Mn/DOT found the wall to be cost - effective to construct as part of their analysis. The City of North St. Paul has agreed to eliminate the wall for various reasons that Maplewood was not a party to. We should not be penalized if we decide to proceed with the wall. This does not appear to be a reasonable interpretation of the policies. We ask that this issue remain open for further discussion, as we explore our interest in Wall No. 2. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the EA document. If you have any questions or issues with our comments, please contact me. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Charles Ahl, P.E., Director of Public Works l City Engineer Attachment: Resolution of Support for Construction Closure Agenda Item K2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Trunk Highway 5 — 120 MnDOT Property Usage Study, City Project 03-20, Report on Task Force Progress (No action required) DATE: August 7, 2006 INTRODUCTION The excess right of way on the western side of TH 120, at the intersection with TH 5,has been under discussion for six years regarding the possibility of relocating the ISD #622 bus maintenance facility from downtown North St. Paul to this site. An environmental group, including representatives from Hill — Murray Schools expressed interest /concern with site proposals. In July 2005 each of these groups made a presentation to the City Council on their proposal. On January 23, 2006, the City Council heard a presentation from ISD #622 on the bus garage proposal. On March, 13, 2006 a public hearing was held to receive local input on the Marshland Environmental Concept Plans. The Council directed that a Task Force of representatives from all the interest groups convene to identify issues and alternatives. The Task Force was charged with reporting to the Council with information by October 2006. This item is a report on the progress of those groups. Task Force Reports The Task Force determined that the approach to be used was to establish four work groups to study the various issues and then report back to the total Task Force. The four groups identified were: 1. Alternative Sites: charged with looking for alternative locations for the bus garage facility 2. Transportation: charged with looking at the transportation issues with all proposals 3. Marshlands: charged with identifying if the Marshlands proposal is a viable alternative 4. Wetlands: charged with further development of the wetland jurisdictions on the site Following are excerpts from the recent Task Forces reports: a. Alternative Sites Task Force: Patty Reed, ISD #622 and Scott Duddeck, N.St.Paul and ISD #622 Board Member, presented information on the study of the area looking for alternative sites. The Task Force reviewed 60 alternative locations within a 3 mile radius of the MnDOT property. Criteria for the property included 5 -6 acres. They reviewed each of the parcels and did not find anything that would work for the bus garage facility either for cost, environmental or development related issues. Scott also distributed a letter from the city of Oakdale indicating they do not support a bus garage facility within their boundaries. Following some questions on the Task Force study, it was indicated that the Task Force needed to prepare an explanation about the existing site regarding expansion capabilities and site restrictions. Patty noted that financial issues push the decision. The district is spending extra funds for busing due to the inability to operate the entire fleet. They wish to have an additional 36 buses brought back in -house for operating efficiency. The current building needs $0.5 million to refurbish and it would still be an outdated, non - conforming facility. Further explanation will be provided on why enlarging the current site is very difficult. Agenda Item K2 Transportation Task Force: Scott Duddeck distributed maps showing 4 possible roadway options within the sites. Scott provided the following comments on each alternative: #4 — has too much wetland impact and was dismissed as not feasible #3 — does not work for Hill- Murray due to restrictions on expansion #2 — does not work for Monastery as it splits Parcel A which is designated for future uses for the Monastery #1 — while still having impacts on adjacent parcels, is the least offensive Chuck Ahl discussed how it is good transportation planning to provide a connection from Hill- Murray School and the development plans for the Monastery site to the north to the signal at TH 5 — 120. MnDOT does not have funds designated for any improvements to TH 120 for the next 25 years. Ramsey County is also struggling for funds and is not likely to expand Larpenteur for a similar period of time. Given this situation, a connection to the north seems the only reasonable approach to solving the area transportation issues. b. Marshlands Coalition Task Force: Joe Peschges, Hill- Murray, presented a report on the Task Force's investigation. The group has worked to define the need for fields. A rough cost estimate to develop the area is around $3.0 million. No final funding scenario has been developed. Once funding needs and field issues are resolved a governance model will be prepared along with maintenance ideas. It was noted that there is good support for the Environmental Education Park. c. Wetlands Task Force: Ron Cockreil, Maplewood Resident, and Tom Petersen, Ramsey County SWCD, presented information on their meetings and information from MnDOT on the site. It was concluded that this could be a good site for wetland restoration. A TEP Panel report evaluated the wetlands at the site and reviewed the wetland reports of Svoboda and SEH. The panel questioned some of the conclusions regarding `incidental wetland' status and had some concerns with the wetland boundaries noted in the report. Additionally, the panel indicated concern with MnDOT's stockpile operations and reported on the need for improved protection at the site for current operations. The panel was not able to make a final determination of what wetlands have jurisdictional protection and that additional information is needed on some of the wetlands. Finally, it was noted that the US Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) feels that they would have jurisdiction over wetlands at the site. A lengthy discussion ensued about the impact of the ACOE. It was noted that MnDOT is responsible for jurisdiction of the wetlands while they own the property, but that the ACOE could add additional restrictions. If the property goes to local ownership (i.e. Maplewood, ISD #622 or private) then Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District would have wetland jurisdiction along with ACOE. All agencies follow the same rules and laws as defined by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and it was agreed that the ACOE might add further restrictions. All wetland respondents concurred that the most restrictive requirements will need to apply to the site. It was decided that no decisions on the final wetland issues can be made until a proposed plan is submitted for permitting. Sarma Straumanis, MnDOT, indicated that all groups should assume a worst case scenario for wetland replacement in their project planning. e. MnDOT position Letter (copy attached) A letter from Chris Roy was reviewed by the Task Force. It was noted that it provided the conditions for the use of the site, but there was a question about the current MnDOT operations. Chuck Ahl noted that while MnDOT has always worked to meet local Agenda Item K2 requirements, that the City does not have authority to enforce it's ordinances on MnDOT. MnDOT does however need to meet all laws and regulations relating to wetland operations and it appears their current operations may be in violation of some wetland regulations. RECOMMENDATION No action is required at this time. A final report from the Task Force will be presented to the City Council in October 2006. At that time, the Council will be asked to determine a positive or negative finding on relocating the bus garage facility to this property. If the Council's finding is negative, then the alternative proposals will be explored further with MnDOT. Attachment: MnDOT Letter City of Maplewood Maplewood MN, 551xx Dear ; Several recent newspaper articles have focused on the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) property at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 120, within the City of Maplewood. These articles advanced a misconception that Mn/DOT has "offered" this property for redevelopment. I would like to take the opportunity to clarify the status of the Mn/DOT property at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 120. While the original purpose for this property, the construction of an interchange is no longer intended, Mn/DOT has and will continue to utilize a portion of this property for materials storage. The remaining portion of the site is valuable to Mn/DOT for its potential as a site to restore and create wetlands as replacement for wetland impacts in the Metropolitan District. Mn/DOT has discussed and is willing to continue discussions regarding alternative uses on this property. These discussions have been and continue to be subject to the following conditions: 1. Any alternative use must maintain a 5 acre Mn/DOT materials storage area. (Either at this site or an equally convenient alternate site with no additional cost to the State). 2. Wetland credits must be made available to Mn/DOT in an amount commensurate with any lost opportunity for wetland replacement at this site. 3. The City of Maplewood must not object to the alternative use. Independent School District 622 has worked cooperatively and at length with the Mn/DOT Metro District regarding their plans for a portion of this site. They have fully met the first two conditions, and their plans have several additional transportation advantages. Mn/DOT is favorably disposed toward the ISD 622 proposal. The Hill Murray proposal has not yet met any of these conditions. In addition their proposal precludes a road connection through the property, thereby removing an opportunity to alleviate the traffic congestion at the intersection of TH 120 and Larpenteur. Also the utilization of the entire parcel for sports fields results in considerably more wetland impact. Development of a City of Maplewood proposal for sports fields at this site will also face these same issues (less of course condition 43). Mn/DOT remains willing to work with the City of Maplewood regarding all proposed alternative uses for this property. However, we do not wish to unduly raise your expectations. If no proposal can meet all three conditions above, Mn/DOT will continue to use the property for maintenance and other transportation uses. Sincerely, Chris Roy North Metro Area Manager Metro District Agenda Item L.2 14:4� • - Applicant: Gary Blair Site Address: 1685 Arcade Street Existing Zoning: Business Commercial (BC) and Single Dwelling Residential (R -1) Proposed Zoning: Business Commercial (BC) Land Use: Business Commercial (BC) City Council Hearing Date: August 14, 2006 60 -Day Deadline: To ensure the city and MNDOT had adequate time to study the impacts of the vacation of the frontage road, Mr. Blair agreed to waive his 60- day rights. Therefore, there is no required timeline for city review and action, however, Mr. Blair would like to begin the project as soon as possible. Project Description: Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848- square -foot retail /warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blair wants to relocate his existing Carpet Court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse /storage space. Requests: Rezoning of one -third of the property from single dwelling residential (R -1) to business commercial (BC); vacation of a public right -of -way (the existing service road); 42.5 -foot building setback variance; shared parking agreement; design review. Recommendations: On July 18 the planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning, vacation, and variance on July 18. On July 25 the community design review board had a split vote on the design review of the project (2 for and 2 against). City staff recommends approval of all requests with several conditions as outlined in the staff report. MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Carpet Court APPLICANT: Gary Blair LOCATION: 1685 Arcade Street DATE: August 7, 2006 for the August 14 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION Project Description Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848 - square -foot retail /warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blair wants to relocate his existing Carpet Court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse /storage space. As proposed, the building would have steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, cultured stone wainscot, and a metal roof. Requests In order to develop the proposed retail /warehouse carpet store, Mr. Blair is requesting the following city approvals: The rezoning of one -third of the property from single dwelling residential (R -1) to business commercial (BC). The rezoning of property from residential to commercial requires four votes for approval by the city council. 2. Vacation of a public right -of -way (the existing service road). The service road is located on the east side of the property, adjacent Highway 61. 3. A 42.5 -foot building setback variance. City code requires a 50 -foot building setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line. The proposed building would be constructed within 7.5 feet of the residential lot line on the northwest side of the building. 4. Shared parking agreement: Special agreement to allow the reduction of six parking spaces from the property. 5. Design review. xeffff November 20, 2000: The planning commission reviewed a development proposal by Mr. Blair for the vacant property on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street (Attachment 10). The development proposal included an 8,160 - square -foot, two - story building for his carpet store and warehouse. The proposal required a rezoning of one -third of the property from R -1 to BC, a 25 -foot building setback variance from a residential lot line, and a 13 percent impervious surface variance. The planning commission tabled the proposal, requesting that Mr. Blair revise his plans to eliminate the need for variances. Mr. Blair never resubmitted plans for that development. 2000 through 2006: City staff and the city attorney's office have been working with Mr. Blair to ensure the removal of all exterior storage on the site. Mr. Blair has been storing carpet equipment and had also occasionally sold boats from the site since 2000. October 2005: Mr. Blair submitted a new development proposal for a 7,653- square -foot building for his carpet store and warehouse (Attachment 11). During review of the project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) indicated that they were interested in turning back the service road to the city. March 9, 2006: MNDOT authorized the turn -back of the service road to the city. March 20, 2006: The planning commission reviewed a concept plan of Mr. Blair's revised development proposal which included the service road being vacated and combined as part of the property. The planning commission expressed concern over the amount of impervious surface and the location of the driveways. March 28, 2006: The CDRB reviewed Mr. Blair's revised concept plans and expressed extreme concern over the style of building proposed at that location. DISCUSSION Zoning /Comprehensive Land Use Mr. Blair's property is located in a triangular tract of land which is bordered by Highway 61 on the east, Larpenteur Avenue on the south, and Parkway Drive on the northwest. This triangular tract of land includes 11 lots. All 11 lots are guided in the city's comprehensive plan as BC, however, only six of the lots are actually zoned BC, with the other five zoned R -1. (Refer to the zoning and comprehensive land use maps attached [Attachments 3 and 4]). Six of the lots contain single- family homes, four of the lots are vacant (including Mr. Blair's property), and one is used as a building contractor office (Bacchus Homes). Mr. Blair's property is located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 and includes two of the 11 lots mentioned above. The east lot is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as BC and the west lot is zoned R -1 and guided as BC. In order to develop a carpet store and warehouse on the property, the western lot must be rezoned from R -1 to BC. Previous Use of Property Mr. Blair purchased the property in 1998. Approximately 30 to 40 years ago there was a gas station on the property. Prior to purchasing the property Mr. Blair states that the previous property owner removed the old gas tanks and the also removed and replaced contaminated soils. Mr. Blair has submitted a document from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that verifies that the clean up performed on the site adequately E addressed the petroleum contamination and that their files for this property have been closed. Vacation of a Public Right -of -Way There is a 325 -foot -long service road that runs north /south between the property and Highway 61. This road was designed to allow access from Larpenteur Avenue to the three properties located on the east side of the triangular tract of land. During MNDOT's review of Mr. Blair's 2005 development proposal, MNDOT offered to turn back the service road to the city. MNDOT supported the turn back of the service road in order to increase traffic safety by moving the access further to the west (the service road is approximately 15 feet from the Highway 61 /Larpenteur Avenue intersection) and to alleviate their maintenance of a small, underutilized service road. City staff is supportive of the turn -back of the service road for several reasons including: Future cul -de -sac: The redevelopment of the entire triangular tract of land bordered by Highway 61, Larpenteur Avenue, and Parkway Drive is a strong possibility due to the varying land uses and disjointed nature of the current developments. In order to ensure access to future redeveloped lots in the triangular tract of land, city staff recommends planning for a future road which would extend from Larpenteur Avenue and dead -end with a cul -de -sac in the center of the triangular tract of land (Attachment 12). With the approval of the vacation of the service road, the city should require that Mr. Blair dedicate a 30 -foot roadway easement on the west side of the property. This easement would give the city one -half of the needed easement for a road, with the other 30 feet coming from the property to the west when that redevelops and remaining portions of the road coming from properties to the north. The city should also require that Mr. Blair relocate the proposed rainwater garden proposed for the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the easement. 2. Impervious surface: The vacated service road would add 6,762 square feet to the existing property, for an overall square footage of 36,775. The additional land will help reduce the percentage of impervious surface on the property. 3. Access for properties located to the north: Two properties to the north currently utilize the service road (Bacchus Homes and a residential property). City staff recommends that only the portion of the service road located in front of Mr. Blair's property be vacated and removed with the development at this time. The remaining portion of the service road to the north would remain and be used as a right- turn -in and right- turn -out access onto Highway 61 by those properties until such time as they redeveloped. Driveways Another reason city staff supports the vacation of the service road was to reduce the number and location of driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue. Since last fall city staff has made several suggestions to Mr. Blair regarding development of his lot with one driveway including shifting the building, using one driveway for both the parking lot and 3 loading dock, or allowing for a temporary driveway to the north (onto the remaining portion of the service road) until the future cul -de -sac road is constructed. Brigid Gombold, Senior Planner with MNDOT, submitted a letter to the city (Attachment 14) which "encourages" the city to allow one access onto Larpenteur Avenue. She suggests keeping the most westerly driveway in its current location and then connecting this driveway to the parking lot on the east side of the building. City code requires a parking lot or parking drive aisle to maintain a 15 -foot setback to the right -of -way. The building is setback 30 feet to the Larpenteur Avenue right -of -way. Therefore, a driveway connection between the westerly driveway and the parking lot would require a setback variance and may not provide adequate traffic flow for vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot. After redesigning the development to accommodate for the vacation of the service road, Mr. Blair states that he is not able to develop the property with a loading dock and parking lot without two driveways. The eastern driveway will access the parking lot. This driveway will be set back 52.5 feet from the new easterly property line (approximately 60 feet from the actual intersection). The western driveway will access the loading dock. This driveway will be set back 140 feet from the new easterly property line (approximately 182 feet from the actual intersection). Steve Kummer of the Maplewood engineering department reviewed Mr. Blair's proposal (Attachment 13) and states that Mr. Blair should consider reconfiguring the parking lot layout. The changes would eliminate the easterly most driveway entrance and attempt to realign the western driveway to be in line with the Gustavus Adolphus Church driveway located across the street, which would be approximately 160 feet from the new easterly property line. In addition, Mr. Kummer expresses concern over trucks having to back onto Larpenteer Avenue in order to exit or enter the loading dock. He suggests that a different site and building layout be proposed which allows for one entry from Larpenteur Avenue. This design would allow trucks to turn around in the parking lot prior to exiting onto Larpenteur Avenue. Planning Commission Review On July 18, 2006, the planning commission reviewed Mr. Blair's proposal (Attachment 17). During the review Mr. Blair stated that Carpet Court will have smaller trucks (25 feet long) making deliveries once a week and a semi - trailer truck making deliveries approximately three times a year. Also during the review, the two neighbors to the north (Randy Bacchus and the Palmes) expressed concern over the vacation of the service road and their access to Larpenteur Avenue. The planning commission recommended approval of the rezoning, public vacation, and variance on two conditions including the construction of a hammer -head turnaround on the west side of the loading dock driveway and an access from the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. The hammer -head turnaround was requested to ensure trucks could turn around on Mr. Blair's property prior to exiting the site and the additional access was requested to allow the property owners to the north access to Larpenteur Avenue. This access would also require an easement over Mr. Blair's parking lot. Building Setback Variance City code requires increased setbacks from commercial properties when they are adjacent properties that are used for residential purposes. The properties to the north and northwest are zoned BC. However, only the property to the north is a commercial use (Bacchus Homes), the property to the northwest is "used for residential purposes." The property to the west is zoned R -1 and used for residential purposes. Therefore, the required building setbacks from the northwest (at the angled lot line) and the west are 50 feet. The proposed development meets all required setbacks except the 50 -foot building setback to the residential property to the northwest. Mr. Blair is proposing the building with a 7.5 -foot setback at the northwest corner. Mr. Blair's rationale for this decreased setback is twofold — first the building needs to be located as far to the west as possible in order to ensure the driveways maintain an increased setback from the intersection and the residential structure to the northwest is located 160 feet away from the proposed commercial building. Mr. Blair has also submitted an estimate of hardship for the variance which describes further hardships associated with the variance (Attachment 1, page 2). Shoreland District The property is located within the Phalen Lake Shoreland Overlay District (properties within 1,000 feet of the lake). City code allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 40 percent, which could be increased to 50 percent if the applicant qualifies for impervious surface bonuses. To qualify for these bonuses the applicant must provide and maintain significant man -made facilities for reducing stormwater flow or treatment of runoff for non- point - source water pollutants. Mr. Blair's development proposal has 27.46 percent impervious surface coverage. Mr. Blair was able to reduce the amount of impervious surface from the March 2006 concept plan by proposing porous pavement for his parking lot. This type of pavement allows the water to soak through the pavement for cleansing prior to being released from the site. Porous pavement is more expensive than regular nonpervious pavement. Mr. Blair has submitted an application for the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District's pervious surface grant which could fund up to $30,000 of the porous pavement. With the use of porous pavement, Mr. Kummer has stated that the size of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the building could probably be reduced. This will be determined upon submittal of revised grading and drainage plans as outlined in the engineering review (Attachment 13). In addition, as stated above, the rainwater garden must be relocated to ensure it is not located within the 30- foot -wide roadway easement. City code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of retail use and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse and storage use. Based on these standards, Mr. Blair's development requires 24 parking spaces. Mr. Blair proposes 24 parking spaces for his development. 5 The addition of a driveway access from the north side of the parking lot to the remaining portion of the service road may require the removal of parking spaces. Mr. Blair states that not all 24 parking spaces are needed for his business. However, to meet city code requirements, he states that Gustavus Adolphus Church has authorized his business using six of their parking spaces during the week in exchange for the use of his parking lot on Sundays. Staff supports this shared parking scenario if necessary. Design Review Building Elevations The building is proposed with steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, cultured stone wainscot on the east and south elevations, vertical steel wainscot on the north and west elevations, and a metal roof. The colors proposed are beige for the stucco and siding and burgundy for the roof and steel wainscot. This design is an improvement over previous proposals which included exteriors of flat concrete block and accent striping of rock face block on the 2000 proposal and steel vertical siding, brick wainscot, and a metal roof on the 2005 proposal. City staff finds that this style of building would be more acceptable in an industrial area, as opposed to this very visible site in Maplewood. The CDRB also stated this concern during the March CDRB concept review of the plans. Staff has attempted to work with Mr. Blair on improved building designs, but Mr. Blair wishes to proceed with this style of building. As indicated in the background section of this report, staff has also been working with Mr. Blair over the last five years to ensure the removal of exterior storage on the site. Mr. Blair states that the carpet equipment stored under the tarp was put there in 2000 as part of the initial development. Since the development fell through, Mr. Blair has had nowhere else to store the equipment. Mr. Blair proposes to use the equipment in his new building. With that said, staff is pleased that Mr. Blair is moving forward with the development of the site. Also, the current plan is much improved with the addition of porous pavement and slightly enhanced building elevations. For this reason, staff finds that shortfalls in the building design can be addressed through revision changes and increased landscaping. In addition, staff recommends the following revisions to the building elevations: North: This elevation should match the south showroom elevation and be constructed of stucco, cultured stone wainscot, and functioning or false windows. 2. South: The siding and wainscot on the entire south elevation (showroom and warehouse) should be constructed of stucco and cultured stone. Landscaping /Screen ing City code requires the replacement of all large trees one for one, but in no case is a developer or owner required to replace more than ten trees per acre. A large tree is a tree with an 8 -inch diameter at a 4 -foot trunk height, excluding boxelders, poplars, cottonwoods, or other nondesirable trees. Mr. Blair submitted verification from a tree specialist that there are no large trees on the site. R The landscape plan (Attachment 7) shows the planting of 9 evergreen trees, 2 maple trees, 17 shrubs, and 50 water tolerant plants within the rainwater garden. The planning commission recommended approval of the building setback variance on the condition that the applicant provides a screening and landscape plan along the west and northwest property line which provide an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to these residential properties. The planting of nine trees along the west property line will not meet this requirement. Therefore, the landscape plan should be revised to include the planting of at least 6 -foot high evergreen trees, 15 feet on center, on the entire length of the west and northwest property line. The west property line is 143 feet and the northwest property line is 62 feet. To meet this requirement, approximately 14 evergreen trees would need to be planted (an addition of five evergreen trees). These trees should be planted in this are in a staggered row along the west and northwest property lines. As stated above, as a means of addressing shortfalls in the building design city staff recommends increased landscaping along Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61. To accomplish this staff recommends the following changes to the landscape plan: Landscaping along the Highway 61 property line: The area in between the parking lot and Highway 61 should be heavily landscaped with shrubs and perennials. In addition, at least five deciduous trees (at least 2.5- inches in diameter) should be planted in this area. 2. Landscaping along Larpenteur Avenue: In addition to the two proposed maple trees, at least six more deciduous trees (at least 2.5- inches in diameter) should be planted along Larpenteur Avenue. Li htin The lighting and photometrics plan (Attachment 8) show two freestanding lights to be installed on the east side of the parking lot and ten recessed building lights to be installed under the entry canopy. City code requires that the light illumination from exterior lights maintain an illumination of .4 foot candles or less at all property lines and that freestanding lights maintain a height of 25 feet or less. The proposed exterior lights maintain the required light illumination; however, no height is specified for the freestanding lights. The applicant should submit a revised lighting plan which reflects the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet in height as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminaries. In addition, the applicant should consider some sort of motion detection light over the west loading dock. Dumoster Enclosure Mr. Blair states that all trash and recycling will be stored inside the building. If storage of these materials is ever proposed outside, city code would require the dumpsters to be enclosed by a 6 -foot high, 100 percent opaque screen which is compatible to the building. 7 Community Design Review Board Review On July 25, 2006, the community design review board (CDRB) reviewed Mr. Blair's proposal (Attachment 18). The four board members present at the meeting struggled with the design review of the proposal, ultimately voting two members for the project and two members against. The main area of concern was the style of building proposed by Mr. Blair on this property, which is a very visible property off of Highway 61 and is located at the entryway to Maplewood. The members voting against the project felt that this style of building (post frame building) would be more suitable in an industrial area, rather than this property, which is adjacent to residential homes. The members voting for the project felt that additional design elements would create a building design which would be palatable as follows: East Elevation: Widow frames to be burgundy to match roof color. Provide a fl- inch protruding band at a 48 -inch height at both arched openings. 2. All corners of the building to have 48 -inch high cultured stone with protruding 4 inch band to match at walls. Provide steel panels (color to match roof) above these corner cultured stone pilasters. Other Comments Butch Gervais, Maplewood Fire Marshal: The project requires the following: a 20 foot emergency access road at all times; fire protection system per codes and monitored; fire alarm system per code and monitored; fire department lock box required (paperwork from Fire Marshal). Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett, Maplewood Police Department: I have no significant public safety concerns. I am somewhat concerned that the rear of the building with its service door will be quite isolated from public view. I would recommend, at a minimum, that the door be covered with a motion sensor lighting system. Also, the metal siding will be much easier to penetrate for burglars than a masonry wall. David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director /Building Official, Maplewood Building Department: The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted for the building permit; the north wall may require a fire rated assembly of one -hour; all exiting must go to a public way; provide adequate fire department access to the buildings; plans submitted must be signed by Minnesota design professionals; the building is required to be fire sprinklered; I would recommend a preconstruction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the rezoning resolution attached (Attachment 19). This resolution changes the city's zoning map from single - dwelling residential (R -1) to business commercial (BC) for Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019). This change is based on the following: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. E•] b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring properties 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. C. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e. The proposed change is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property (currently zoned BC) for the development of a retail /warehouse carpet store. 2. Adopt the public vacation resolution attached (Attachment 20). This resolution authorizes the vacation of a public right -of -way to include a portion of the Highway 61 service road located on the east side of 1685 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from the Larpenteur Avenue right -of -way 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. The city approves the vacation of the service road right -of -way subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant or owner must submit the following for staff approval: 1 } The location of a 30- foot -wide roadway easement for the west side of the site. The easement documents must be recorded with the county. 2} The relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the 30- foot -wide roadway easement. 3} A driveway access from the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road to the north. 4} A cross easement over the parking lot for ingress and egress from for Larpenteur Avenue to the remaining portion of the service road to the north. The easement documents must be recorded with the county. 3. Adopt the building setback variance resolution attached (Attachment 21). This resolution authorizes a 42.5 -foot building setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line for a retail /warehouse carpet store (Carpet Court) to be located at 1684 Arcade Street. This variance is based on the following: 0 a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building. The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50 -foot setback. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance for the following reasons: 1) The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past, but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years. 2) The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Approval is subject to the applicant or owner doing the following: a. The applicant submitting to the city a screening and landscape plan which ensures there will be an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to be approved by the community design review board. 4. Approve a shared parking agreement for the retail /warehouse carpet store (Carpet Court) located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). The shared parking agreement is subject to the following conditions: a. Approval is for a reduction of six parking spaces for the overall site. b. A written agreement from Gustavus Adolphus Church authorizing Carpet Court the use of six parking spaces on the church parking lot. The parking agreement needs to be approved by city staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Approve the plans date - stamped June 15, 2006, and June 30, 2006, for the Carpet Court development to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised engineering and grading plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering report dated July 10, 2006. ire 2) Revised site plan showing the following: a) A hammer -head turnaround to be located on the west side of the loading dock driveway. This turnaround must maintain at least a 20 -foot setback to the west property line and at least a 15 -foot setback to the Larpenteur Avenue right -of -way. b) A driveway access on the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. 3) Revised building elevations showing the following: a) North: This elevation should match the south showroom elevation and be constructed of stucco and cultured stone wainscot, and functioning or false windows. b) South: The siding and wainscot on the entire south elevation (showroom and warehouse) should be constructed of stucco and cultured stone wainscot. C) East: Window frames to be burgundy to match roof color. Provide a 4 -inch protruding band at a 48 -inch height at both arched openings. d) All corners of the building to have 4 8-inch high cultured stone with protruding 4 inch band to match at walls. Provide steel panels (color to match roof) above these corner cultured stone pilasters. 4) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) Relocation of the rainwater garden out of the required roadway easement. All plantings proposed in the rainwater garden to be approved by the engineering department. b) Five more evergreen trees, in addition to the nine evergreen trees proposed, to be planted 15 feet on center on the entire length of the west and northwest property line. C) Landscaping along the Highway 61 property line to include shrubs and perennials. In addition, at least five deciduous trees (at least 2.5- inches in diameter) should be planted in this area. 11 d) Landscaping along the Larpenteur Avenue property line to include six more deciduous trees (at least 2.5- inches in diameter), in addition to the two maple trees proposed. 5) A revised lighting plan which reflects the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet in height as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminaries. In addition, the applicant should consider some sort of motion detection light over the west loading dock. 6) Obtain a permit from Minnesota Department of Transportation for any use or work within or affecting the Highway 61 right -of -way. 7) Watershed district approval. 8) Combine the two lots for tax purposes. 9) Submit samples of all building materials to staff for approval. 10) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work and will be used by the city in the event the required exterior improvements are not complete. C. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in- ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. WA CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 20 properties within 500 feet of this site. Following are the four comments received: Tom Barrett, Property Director, Lutheran Social Services, 785 Larpenteur Avenue (group home adjacent the Carpet Court site on the west side): Mr. Barrett submitted a letter of opposition for the Carpet Court proposal to the city (Attachment 15). In summary, Mr. Barrett has concerns regarding the rezoning of the property from residential to commercial and the impacts a commercial building will have on their property. 2. Adolph and Mildred Palme, 1684 Arcade Street (single- family home located two lots to the north of the Carpet Court site): Mr. and Mrs. Palme submitted a letter of opposition for the Carpet Court proposal to the city (Attachment 16). In summary, they have concerns with increased traffic, maintenance of proposed site when existing site has not been maintained. 3. Jerome Lucker, 1706 Parkway Drive (single- family house adjacent the Carpet Court site on the northwest side): Mr. Lucker contacted staff via telephone and indicated that he had his property surveyed in 2004. He wants to be assured that the applicant knows where their shared property line is prior to development. In addition, Mr. Lucker is supportive of the Palme's concerns about the development. 4. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street (office building adjacent the Carpet Court site on the north side): Mr. Bacchus expressed real concerns over the October 2005 proposed development by Mr. Blair. During a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Bacchus by staff, however, he now states that he appreciates the improvements that Mr. Blair has made in this new proposal, but has some concerns about the design of the building and the possibility of underground contamination from the old gas tanks. 13 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size (including vacated service road): Existing Land Use: 36,775 square feet (.84 Acres) Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES Northwest: Single Family Home (planned and zoned business commercial (BC)) West: Single Family Home (group home) (planned BC and zoned single dwelling residential (R -1)) South: Larpenteur Avenue and Gustavus Adolphus Church Across the street East: Arcade Street (Highway 61) and Phalen Park Across the Street (planned open space and zoned farm residence) North: Bacchus Homes (planned and zoned BC) Existing Land Use Plan: BC Existing Zoning: 213rds BC and 1/3 rd R -1 Proposed Zoning: All BC CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Rezoning Section 44 -1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded; 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare; 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Public Right -of -Way Vacation There are not formal criteria for approval of a public right -of -way vacation. However, the vacation of the road should be in the best interest of the public at large. M Variances 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 State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. Mr. Blair submitted his original proposal on September 9, 2005. During review of the project MNDOT indicated that they would like to study the possibility of vacating the highway frontage road which runs between Mr. Blair's property and Highway 61. To ensure the city and MNDOT have adequate time in which to study the impacts of the frontage road Mr. Blair waived his 60 -day rights. Therefore, there is no required timeline for city review and action, however, Mr. Blair would like to begin the project as soon as possible. P:sec17 \Carpet Court\7 -18 -06 pc memorandum Attachments: 1. Development Description /Estimate of Variance Hardship 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Site Plan 6. Grading Plan 7. Landscape Plan 8. Lighting and Photometrics Plan 9. Building Elevation 10. 2000 Development Proposal 11. 2005 Development Proposal 12. Future Cul -De -Sac 13. Engineering Review 14. MNDOT Letter 15. Lutheran Social Service Correspondence 16. Adolph and Mildred Palme Correspondence 17. July 18. 2006, Planning Commission Minutes 18. July 25, 2006, Community Design Review Board Minutes 19. Rezoning Resolution 20. Vacation Resolution 21. Building Setback Variance Resolution 15 Attachment 1 Ms. Shann Finwall, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Mr. Gary Blair Carpet Court 1121 Minnehahah Ave E St. Paul, MN 55106 (651) 774-3321 March 13, 2006 Re: Property Located on the Northwest Corner of Arcade Street and Larpenteur Avenue. (1685 Arcade Street & adjacent lot) Dear Ms. Finwall: This letter is for the proposed building (7,848 sf / lot size 36,775 sf) to house my retaillwarehouse carpet store called Carpet Court. The building proposed for this property will vastly improve the property of which I have made application. The property currently is a vacant lot adjoining 2 commercially rated lots. The property to the North is operated with commercial rating by Bacchus Homes. To the South Gustavus Adolphus Lutheran church and its adjoining parking lot. Our building will be an asset to the neighborhood both by the clean lines created in the building itself, and the landscaping (including new trees) surrounding the property, and parking facilities. The building will have siding / stucco and stone facing, the metal roof will be the same as your building (1830 County Road B East) At the rear of the building we plan to have a water garden to improve the water quality which will help treat the water prior to runoff. This should also qualify us for the needed impervious surface requirements. Our business is a family owned business who has been operating in the middle of a residential neighborhood in St. Paul for over 33 years with no traffic congestion problems. The new location already has some of its residents using there property for commercial use, further use should not be a traffic problem. If you need to contact me for additional information: my work number is (651) 774-3321 and my home number is (651) 774-7021. Feel free to call me with your concerns. Thank you for your consideration of the project being submitted to your department. incerel Ca r Blair Devi lie nt Description Carpet Court 1121 E. Minnehaha Avenue, St. Patti, MN 55106 (651) 774-3321 Carpet Court is currently proposing a retail/warehouse building in the city of Maplewood. The building will be constructed on 2 vacant lots located on the northwest comer of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street (Hwy 61). This proposed development requires a setback variance for the west lot to the adjacent northwest property line. A strict setback variance would cause a undue hardship for several reasons: (1) Figuring a strict setback requirements would make 95% of the west lot unusable. (2) The setback problem is due to the unusual shaped property. (3) Our engineers have tried several different site designs and are unable to design a building that would not be restricted by a residential setback requirement for this angled property line. (4) The adjacent northwest property, that requires the setback variance for us is zoned as a Business Commercial (BC). This building was used as a commercial building and maybe used for a business in the future. Our current site plan meets the setback requirements for Business Commercial (BC) of which this adjacent property is zoned. The variance would keep with the spirit and intent of the ordinance for several reasons: (1) The properties located North, East, and Northwest are all zoned as a Business Commercial (BC). Only one adjoining property is zoned as Residential (RI) located to the West and we would have a separation of 60' between the building and the property line. (2) The city staff has recommended a future cul-de-sac to b located near the northwest property line for the future redevelopment of the triangular tract of land. When this occurs, the residential set back would no longer be in effect and thus the variance keeps with the intent of the ordinance. (3) Maplewood's Comprehensive Land Use Plan has scheduled that this complete triangular tract of land will all be zoned as Business Commercial (BC) in the future and thus a variance would not alter the essential character of the area. The setback codes and the comprehensive land use plan were designed to minimize the conflicts between different land uses. We are intending to use the land as Maplewood's plan guided us and a variance would be keeping in the spirit of the ordinance and Maplewood's future plan. Thank you, Attachment 2 . ........... �F7 - - - - ---- ---- - ---- ---- ................. //' U CI) CU ji ...... ......... ............. WAR. MOM arpenteur Avenue St. Paul (D _ Service Road PrODOsed Carpet Court N W--ik E Location Map s Attachment 3 0 R -1 Single Dwelling Residential R -3 High Multiple Dwelling Residential BC Business Commercial BCM Business Commercial Modified FTiT•l���FT•^, Attachment 4 Residential MFFULTFff an — ne - dTfn - it - LJe - v - e - I o p m e n t N Farm Residence ❑ R-1 Single Dwelling Residential BC Business Commercial R-3 High Multiple Dwelling Zoning Map Attachment 5 All; �octd to ' Iff 011 1�ootd ®R 5� 3 M 9 Attachment 6 .................... ............. ...... ....... ........... I 7r tz I lmvo EMME Peg- - ---------- ------- - ------------ - --------------- - - - - --------------- ....... Ix ..................... .......... .......... ............ ............ I f 'Ono' z4oft �,�rd Plall ff PGUN PLAN INDE SPECS Korcan Horstmann's Silver Fir 2 112 Spam 15' 2 Maple (Verity T8D) 2 112 s wigeRaZ-4' Space: 5' 11 Rhododendrum 3 - 5' space: 12' I5 Geranium 15 - 1 W' 15 C.1amagrostis Canadensis 36- 72' 10 Homerocallis (Happy Retums) 18" 1 0 CalthaPalustris4-16" Attachment 8 MMUM= Light Design RE EL - CAPTION LIGHT 270 Locust Street Hartford, CT 06141 Rick Berty - Design Supervisor (888) 999 -2560 ext 2312 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0" ,-?0 1`00 00 190 1200 00 ,-?CO) 02§ 00 0 qo o 00 0 120 190 00 00 0 00 0 1900 Features 6" Housing Medium base porcelain socket with nickel-plated copper screw shell Drop socket with spring to accommodate certain trim installation Housing is vertically adjustable to accommodate up to a 2" ceiling thickness Housing is fully assembled for ease of installation Real Nail" 3 bar hangers: telescoping system with Fare- installed removable nail for easy repositioning of housing in joist construction a Integral T-bar clip for secure installation in suspended ceilings * Patented breakaway bars for tight joist spacing * Bar hangers may be re-positioned 90' - Curved foot facilitates alignment with joist bottom - QuiclAoc slot and oversized set screw lock fixture in position • Pre-wired junction box with (5) 112" and (1) 314" knockouts with pryout slots, (4) Romex" connectors, and ground wire • Shadow-free, knife-edge trim design blends smoothly into the ceiling and allows architectural continuity with Acu)ux" trims • UL Listed, C-UUCSA certified for through-branch wiring, maximum (8) 902 AWG minimum 90' C branch circuit conductors (4 in, 4 out) • Thermally protected against improper use of lamps or insulation • Lamp wattage ratings and apertures based on trim selection on pages 47-52 Ordering Information Description Non-IC rated housing o Designed to be installed in non-insulated areas, or vvhere insulation is spaced at least 3" from housing Listings UL Listed, C-UUCSA certified for through-branch wiring, damp and wet locations c Wet location listed with the 20, 21, 22, 240, 241, 242, 243, and 9900 trims o The listing also includes the 28 and 29 trims, only when used with PAR30/PAR38 outdoor rated lamps a Conforms with City of Chicago IP requirements Catalog Number: TC2 Catalog Number TC25 - TC2 vvith smaller footprint bar hanger (Real Nail 2) Catalog Number: TC2W - TC2 with push-in electrical connectors for fast, secure installation Dimensions 7 3/4' Q fl 10 1 1. 13" 13 1/2" Will expand to 25" (Reduces to 8 112' with breakaway feature) 6 718" Ceiling Cutout 1/2' I dx,�: no s=jAr=_ ri wwvv.iuno1!aht1nourouo.cnm A 1; Li Description Engineered to provide a rugged, high performance luminaire that is both attractive and affordable. The Quasar luminaire provides the light control demanded by the specifier, while offering the end user reliability and long term economy. The Quasar luminaire is ideal for installation in a wide variety of facilities ranging from large shopping malls to small plazas; business parks, commercial comple. and office buildings; college and university campuses; and high or low rise apartment buildings, Certification UUC-UL Listed, CSA Certified Features "Dart( Sky" Cut-Off Listed with the International Dark Sky Association as a full cut-off luminaire Optics High-performance, segmented reflector - IFS Type 11, 111, IV and forward throve distributions - Clezu flat tempered glass lens Construction One piece die cast aluminum h0USinC1 * Permanently attached hinged door is secured 4 bolts for maximum weather-proof integrity - Gasketed lens Mounting Square pole bracket, yoke and slipfit(el Finish Baked polyester powder coat Lampholder Specification grade porcelain, mogui base Ballasts Cool operating, the ballast is mounted directly to the cast housing for maximum heat dissipation * IIPF ballasts are suitable for low temperature starting - Probe Start MIq -30' C, Pulse Start MH -40' C, HPS -40' C Ordering Information Example: CSB440OMH-QT.SF-L Accessories Description Mounting Arm IOD'OW, IES typ--; III 1000 For. Thrcvi Vandal Shield 11'r r 1 0()%Pd I-Jod Wall Mounting Brackets Shpfiti� mounfina, 2* IPS 12 3/8" 10D) For bracl.etni_­inw i hjmnaqr - SRY�!o ri� CSB3-1000AIVI-color FIA000AM-colat CSB-LS400 CSB.LS1000 W84-color cSB_wB•coIor BrAdkul hh:. X0�1 I I 8 ,56 ,--jUn0Ii9htmg9T0UP.00M Options Series Lamp (Watts/Types) Ballast Mounting Accessories C5134 400MH QT SF L Max 40OW Pulse Start Metal Halide Magnetic Square pole bracket Options CS82 JES Type it 70PS,100PS,150PS,200PS,250PS, - QT0 - Quad Tap No suffix - Max 400W included See belov; CSI33 IES Type 111 320PS, 35OP5, 40OPS 45OPS, 120V, 208V, 240V, 277V 875- 1 OOOW - Order Separately Accessories CSB4 IES Type IV 67SPS,1000PS - See Accessories below - TT - Tri Tap See belov. FT - Forward Throw 1000W Probe Start Metal Halide 120V, 277V, 347V Round pole bracket CSf33 - IES Type ]II 175MH, 25OMH, 400MH', 1000MH - R - indicate pole diameter FT - Fomvard Throw High Pressure Sodium 4800 • 480V SF - Slipfitter 70HP, 100HP, 15DHP, 250HP, 400HP, 1000HP TRN - Yoke Dimensions Options EPA L W H Wei9ht Description Suffix in ?"B' 7 Lamp With clear hmp L -3. 1 3 3! * * 3' Photocontrol Indicate lm.� voltaac- W Pole otilling Pattern available 120,'208/2-101277/347V PC (volts) lri* - 01 • Photocontrol Receptacle J O On p JeOV ReCepj' jr PCR Fuse Holder Supplied vii"11 fuse rr �� On multi -tap balla indicate line- volmqc _J_ Simile poh. • Line to neutral F1 rV10 pole - Line to tine Color! Bronze (Standard Pole Drilling Pattern 3 811'-k B L S' 5 1 1 1 fl'W. I Ii2 Wif 1— Lt, Designer Colors CSBws : Accessories Description Mounting Arm IOD'OW, IES typ--; III 1000 For. Thrcvi Vandal Shield 11'r r 1 0()%Pd I-Jod Wall Mounting Brackets Shpfiti� mounfina, 2* IPS 12 3/8" 10D) For bracl.etni_­inw i hjmnaqr - SRY�!o ri� CSB3-1000AIVI-color FIA000AM-colat CSB-LS400 CSB.LS1000 W84-color cSB_wB•coIor BrAdkul hh:. X0�1 I I 8 ,56 ,--jUn0Ii9htmg9T0UP.00M Shaft p shafts are supplied in I I gauge or 7 gauge thickness having a minimum yield strength of 55,000 psi and conforms to ASTIR A595 Grade A o Shafts are of one piece construction with a full length longitudinal high frequency electric resistance weld * Shafts are uniformly square in cross section with flat sides, rounded corners (0,75" per corner) and no taper Hand Hole Reinforcing hand hole rim welded into the pole sht: i o Rectangular shaped tubing or oval shaped pipe * Hand holes are furnished vvilh attachment bar, cover and screv, - Hand holes, located 18" above the base Electrical Ground A nut holder is provided near the hand hole and includes a 1/2% 13 Ul hex head bolt and nut Base Plate Fabricated from structural quality ho, iJl carbon steel plate conforming to ASTNI A36 0 CirCUMferentially top and bottom, the plate telescopes the pole shaft - The pole chart information fists the bolt circle ranges for each pol., Base Cover A full base cover is standard with SSS Series pales Anchor Bolts Fabricated from carbon steel bat conforming to AASHTO 1031 Grade 55 or AST10 F 155: Grade-55 o Bolts have an "L" bend on one end o Boils are galvanized a unininium of 12" on the threaded enc! Four anchor bolts are furnished per pole. Each anchc i bolt is furnished with two hex nuts and ttvo flat Ordering Information Example: SSS4-20-1 E2-B7--DUP* Height — Fixture Series Nam. Mtg. Options SSS4 20 7E2 BZ-DUP Specifications Anciw, 80 MPH cL) 1"! P i� To 1.';� CAL Shaft Fulr- Base Bolts I Z' QL:',t f'C111 I A f­_-c Base 'Alail Bolt cin-le Diam—'et W4. fvla•. t0a-. Ll:! 0,D Thwi, VVeigH D"' ScjaLtp� Thicitiress Lertatil EPA Welahl E RA , V&inht E PA VY­ Hool. tiny (11 ) Wbs) ilt ( it ) 0�"L 5$54 10 color? 4 () 11 75 85 0� 5 8,25 t),75 75 ',, i7 X 3 30.6 765 2313 16,F 595 470 189 12 See - BZ Cr 1 8 5 - 0 8 2c 075 75 X i7 X 3 -. 4 610 14 Lelov, efonzz .10 11 1011) 8 0 �i �' 2 0.75 7S 3 19,Y 19E 15 1 -7 8 11 7 16 wl! .'. U 11 115 e.s o 5 3,25 75 X 17 :1 3 159 398 11 8 295 8'.? 7 .18 'Hhe' '10 11 1 b 8S -0.5 835 075 7 5 X t 7 3 126 31 9 2s() 15,7 r BL 4,0 11 140 85 s 0' 5 U-5 75 1 94, 0 6 7 167 =i 10 7 8 5 t &S 8.25 0 5 x 17 x 6 �' 1 73 49 1: 0 5555 -20 50 11 185 Ill 13 - 1 0 1103 1,00 75 :N 17 X 3 17 7 3 1' 7 3-133 9 -25 DUP 5.O 1 3 ^# 110 t 10 11-00 1.011 .75 'x 17 X 3 18 1 41.1 13.3 3 3 .30 Prcw;"1(11 50 7 MCI I 1'0't 10 1 .CO 1,00 75 17 x 3 10,7 267 6 167 19 SSS6 - 30 60 7 S t tl z 1 12-5,3 Too 00 x 36 t 90 475 13. 330 go -35 6upll�, 6. 0 7 120- 1J) 1,750 i {Yj GO X 36 X 310 - 40 0 7 60 11 10 Q SO 1,q) i 00 36 X, 18 3 01 7 S lxa Drilling Pattern Tenon Mounting Brackets* -Luminaires Bolt Directly to the Pole Slipfitter Mounted Luminaires D. tncludes Tot) t: =r M^ bl, --0 wit}, Atari & Alari+ Quasar Quasar (I 03V%l Description Bracket Suffix (All L;-'Rlps) Aries (All L2n 1 Luminxi To o %der pcl< nTilkna addSullj, Lutivriaite UPS (2 378' OD) lu Ltimina!rL 1,ei ic, 2 IFS [2 0D) Lumin, aiie AE3 -1 E2 -1 E34 PA 10 it I IL in Tine 2U 2 Luminaires -20 -2C2 204 Lwram'lie i _-n , n F"S 'D� 2L3 -21.2 21-34 ft • 32� li n I't) 3U 3 Lurviinaiv�­ EFA 1.2 It 3Y -313 -3T2 33'34 A)3 Luminlires -4,%3 -4X2 4X34 UZ. 1,6 ft 4 11% U 0 no 4u 864 ,gtachment 9 Building Elevation Attachment 1 i • i • 2000 Developmen Proposal I LARPENTEUR AVENUE 4 Attachment 11 N W� E 2005 Development S Proposal Attachment 12 Larpenteur Avenue A Am +/ Attachment 13 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Carpet Court PROJECT NO: 45 -28 REVIEWED BY: Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II — General Site Review Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I — Erosion Control Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer DATE: July 10, 2006 General Site Plan Comments 1. The developer is proposing 2 driveways off of Larpenteur Avenue. Staff met with Mn1DOt last spring to discuss the location of the proposed driveways. Mn/Dot prefers that any the new entrance is located 160 feet from the Highway 61 entrance. The easterly most entrance does not meet this requirement. The developer shall consider reconfiguring the parking lot layout to eliminate the easterly most entrance. 2. The ponding area shown along the west side of the site shall be relocated outside of the new right of way easement. The new right of way will accommodate a future public roadway to serve future development to the north and west. 3. An existing topographic and boundary survey should be included with this plan package. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, existing curb edges, road grades, tree locations, catch basins, flared -end sections, utility poles, etc. Property corners, property lines, dimensions and bearings shall also be shown on all plan sheets. 4. Show existing and proposed concrete curb and gutter on all plans. Concrete curb and gutter shall be shown around the eastern parking lot and west driveway entrance. 5. The use of porous pavement is a highly positive aspect of this design. A pavement detail has been provided in this plan set. 6. It appears that with the site layout that larger trucks would have to pull up and back into the 12x14 overhead door directly from Larpenteur Avenue. It is suggested that a different site and building layout is contemplated such that there is one entry from Larpenteur Avenue and that trucks can back into the loading areas from the parking lot versus directly from Larpenteur Avenue. 7. Plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 8. The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the City for the dedication of the new right -of -way on the west side of the site. Site Demolition 1. The site appears to be a former location of a gas station. Have the existing underground storage tanks been removed? 2. A demolition plan and demolition plan notes should be provided for the proposed removal of existing pavement and other items related to the former gas station. Demolition items should include tree removals. Erosion Control 1. The detail of the Rock Construction Entrance shall conform to Maplewood Standard Plate 350 which shows a minimum length of 75 feet, and a Mn/DOT Type V geotextile fabric beneath and 2 feet beyond the pad. Rock construction entrance pad locations shall be shown on plans. 2. Silt fence installation detail shall conform to Maplewood Standard Plate 350. Show height dimensions and other pertinent dimensions in compliance with the standard plate. 3. Install Heavy -Duty Silt Fence along the northwest corner of the lot in place of the silt fence currently shown on the plans between the points where the 178' -0" contour exits the property. Provide detail for Heavy -Duty Silt Fence on plans. 4. There are four existing stormwater inlets adjacent to the site that must be protected prior to construction. These include the one existing catch -basin shown on the plans, as well as the catch basin directly south of that catch basin, a flared -end on the east -end of the property that is not shown on the plans, and a catch basin directly east of this flared - end. Catch -basin inlet protection shall consist of a Wimco catch -basin insert, a Dandy Silt-Sac, or an engineering department approved equivalent. The simple placement of geotextile fabric over the grate is not an acceptable alternative. The flared -end section shall be protected with a ring of heavy -duty silt fence. Grading and Drainage Patterns 1. Provide a building finished -floor elevation (FFE) on the plan and elevation views. Based on the proposed elevation of the parking area to the east of the building, one may assume an FFE of 182' -6" or 183' -0 ", for example, but this needs to be stated on both the plan and elevation views. 2. Based on the building elevation views, it appears that the building is to be a single - elevation slab -on -grade construction. Assuming an FFE of 182' -6" or 183' -0 ", there appears to be a 5 -foot grade differential between the northwest part of the building and adjoining property. Either show no more than a 3H:IV proposed slope to the north property line or provide a retaining wall to mitigate this grade differential. 2 3. Show elevations on your elevation views. Include existing and proposed exterior grade profiles on all elevation views. 4. Revisit the grading and drainage near the southwest corner of the building. If one is to assume a building FFE of 182' -6" or 183' -0 ", then the grade along the southwest corner of the building may be somewhat flat and drainage may not flow away from the building. 5. Show grading and drainage patterns on the proposed western driveway into the building. Drainage from the western driveway should be directed into the proposed ponding area and not into the street. 6. More grading information is needed at the driveway entries onto Larpenteur Avenue. Existing Larpenteur Avenue grades as well as proposed match -in elevations at the street should be shown. 7. It appears that the proposed grade for the porous pavement parking lot is going to be predominately flat. This may become an issue during winter months. It is suggested that the parking lot be graded to drain toward low points so patches of ice have a place to drain during thaw periods. Show how the parking lot grades will tie into the existing grades along the north and east sides of the property. 8. Based on the elevation views, it appears that the two overhead door entries are to be drive -in docks and not the traditional 4 -foot deep loading dock entries. A ramp or elevating device may be required to transfer items from the building floor to a truck. Is a drive -in dock desirable considering that a 4 -foot loading dock provides a more level transfer surface from a truck to the building floor? 9. Show positive drainage away from the east side of the building toward the proposed parking lot. Show that the proposed sidewalk cross -slope does not exceed 2 %. 10. Show a ramp for the handicapped leading from the parking lot. Show details on the proposed handicapped ramp. Standard detail plates for reference are available at http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. Utilities 1. Include a separate utility plan in this package. 2. The water and sanitary sewer connections are not shown. Show existing as -built information on proposed plan including existing water and sanitary sewer connections stubbed to the site. Show existing and proposed pipe sizes, materials and slopes. 3. Storm sewer is schematically shown on the plans with no inverts, pipe sizes, or materials used. Manholes and outlets are shown schematically, but types and sizes are not specified. Provide storm sewer information on plan sheet. 4. Show the intent with the proposed storm sewer going into the east parking lot. For example, will the stub connect to a draintile system or to a special manhole structure which drains the water from the stone base of the parking lot? if so, the layout of a proposed draintile system, or a detail showing this special structure is needed with the plan. 5. Although the porous parking area will be the primary drainage way for the eastern portion of the site, a secondary system for the parking lot surface should be in place. For example, this could be a low -point catch basin in the parking area or the parking area could be tipped east toward a rain water garden or Swale along the east side of the parking lot. 6. Show relevant utility details, such as manholes, pipe bedding, water and sewer connections, etc. All standard detail plates are available in PDF form at http:llwww.ci.mMlewood.mn.us 7. An existing flared -end section and catch basin at the east end of the site are not shown on the drawings. These are to be shown on a utility plan and property addressed. Storm Water Management 1. A storm water BMP maintenance agreement will be required for the porous pavement parking lot and the proposed infiltrationlponding area. The City will be responsible for preparing the agreement. 2. Provide a sump manhole upstream of the discharge point into the infiltration pond. 3. Show HydroCAD computations for existing; runoff from site. 4. The 1- yearl24 -hour rainfall event for the City of Maplewood is 2.4 inches. Revise accordingly. 5. The water quality treatment (WQT) volume for the infiltration basin is based on 1 inch of runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces of the site (including the porous pavement). The WQT volume of the basin is the infiltration or "dead" storage volume below the secondary basin outlet. Revisit the basin design, as it appears from the enclosed computations that the pond may be oversized. 6. The summary computations and the high -water elevations (HWL's) of the storm water computations do not appear to be consistent with the subsequent HydroCAD summaries enclosed. For example the HWL for the 100 -year rainfall event is shown to be 179.84 while the HydroCAD summary sheet for the 100 -year rainfall shows a 177.90. The runoff summary totals should also be consistent with the summaries as well. Revise computations as necessary. 4 7. It appears that the infiltration pond and the porous pavement parking lot on the summary sheet are indicated as one pond, but on the subsequent summary sheets, they are shown as two ponds. The two areas should be indicated as separate ponding areas. The porous pavement parking lot "pond" should be routed to the infiltration basin. Revise the storm water computations as necessary. Geometries and Lam 1. Show the extents of the B6 curb section in plan view with a double -line. 2. Show gravel base extending under curb and gutter. 3. Show parking lot curve and driveway entry radii and dimension as necessary. 4. Detail the pavement design for the entry into the 12x14 overhead door. 5. What types of vehicles will be utilizing the 9x10 overhead door? Backing for a larger truck may be an issue if a vehicle is parked in the northwestern end spot. Minnesota Department of Transportation Affa meet R Metropolitan District ----- ' Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 July 26, 2006 Shaun Finwall Maplewood Community Development Department 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 SUBJECT: Carpet Court, Mn/DOT Review #S05-09 I A (second review) NW Quad of Larpenteur Ave and TH 61 Maplewood, Ramsey County Control Section 6222 Dear Ms. Finwall: Thank you for this opportunity to review the above referenced site plan that our agency received June 26, 2006. Mn/D0T staff has reviewed the plans and has these additional comments from our previous letter dated October 19, 2005. Please address these comments prior to further development. Access to Larpenteur: The eastern proposed access to Larpenteur Avenue is located closer to the intersection of TH 61 and Larpenteur Avenue than is preferred. Ideally there is 200-300 feet of spacing between the first side street access and the intersection of the side street with the highway. The plans show the proposed eastern access 60 feet from TH 61. The proposed western access has our preferred spacing. This access is spaced similar to the access for the church across the street. The western access could have a connection to the parking lot which would eliminate the need for the eastern access. The plans show that between the building and curb there is approximately 60-feet. This should be enough space for a connection, however; it may require a city variance for the site. Our agency would recommend that a variance be granted in order to eliminate this access. Frontage Road: As previously discussed, our agency will be releasing the frontage road to the city, in part to eliminate the close access with TH 61. Forty-two feet of the frontage road will be turned back to the city. A notice will be sent at the beginning of August defining the road release and deeds will be processed in September. Please contact Jim Kircl in Mn/DOT's Right of Way section at (651) 582-1283 with any questions concerning this issue. Drainage: A Mn/DOT Drainage permit may be needed. Additional information will need to be submitted to make that determination. The proposed construction will need to maintain existing drainage rates to Mn/DOT right-of-way, Please provide the following: 1) A grading Plan of the existing & proposed project. 2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing both existing and proposed drainage areas and flows (with flow arrows) An equal opportunity employer 3) Hydrologic, and hydraulic computations/modeling before and after proposed reconstructions (ic., Hydro-CAD input assumptions, calibration data, results for 10 and 100 year storm events). Please submit any further documentation electronically as Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), and HydroCAD (.he) files. If plans change, you must resubmit for review. The electronic model and pdf file can be emailed to scott.carlstrom(c Please direct questions concerning these issues to Scott Carlstrom (651-634-2416) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. Permits: Any use of or work impacting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit. As noted, a Mn/DOT Drainage permit may be required, Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.inn.LtS/teCSLII)/IltiIitV . Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-582-144 of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Thank you again for this opportunity to review these development plans. Please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's 30-day review and response process to development proposals We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 58241378. Sincerely, B rigid Gombold Senior Planner Copy: Gary Blair / Owner Wick Buildings Dan Soler / Ramsey County Engineer Lutheran Social Service for chali, IIZICS Attachment 15 This letter is response to the recent Neighborhood Survey that was sent to me on behalf of Lutheran Social Service of MN, LSS, regarding Conditional Use Pen for a structure located at 1685 Arcade St. Lutheran Social Service owns the adjacent property located at 785 Larpenteur East, This location is home to four developmentally disabled adults that LSS provides support and services to this population. We respectfully wish for this application not to proceed based on the following concerns and issues that most certainly will affect the lives these individuals have come to expect. In reviewing the information that was sent, I sense that the location for this structure should be located in a more business type atmosphere of commercial zoning. Residential abuts this location and this would have an adverse factor of a large percent to valuation of the existing dwelling. We cannot afford to lose equity of this home. Traffic patterns as well are much of a concern due to the large tractor trailers that will be needed to make deliveries to this location. I am assuming that there would be significant "walk in" and drive traffic as well, that will be disruptive as well. The overall size of the structure will be obstructing to views and enjoyment of our clients. They surely enjoy the peace and quite serenity of their backyard and all it has to offer. As stated the use would be for wholesale carpet sales. We all have seen carpet companies as such come and go frequently. This site would not offer much hope as to a business that would have longevity due to its location. A CUP may not be Octo e 25 Shann Finwall Planner Service City of Maplewood Lullwran Social tIf,%IiIIIIL!�oI.1 1830 East County Rd B State Center Maplewood, Mn. 55109 , 46� Dear Mr. Finwall, Attachment 15 This letter is response to the recent Neighborhood Survey that was sent to me on behalf of Lutheran Social Service of MN, LSS, regarding Conditional Use Pen for a structure located at 1685 Arcade St. Lutheran Social Service owns the adjacent property located at 785 Larpenteur East, This location is home to four developmentally disabled adults that LSS provides support and services to this population. We respectfully wish for this application not to proceed based on the following concerns and issues that most certainly will affect the lives these individuals have come to expect. In reviewing the information that was sent, I sense that the location for this structure should be located in a more business type atmosphere of commercial zoning. Residential abuts this location and this would have an adverse factor of a large percent to valuation of the existing dwelling. We cannot afford to lose equity of this home. Traffic patterns as well are much of a concern due to the large tractor trailers that will be needed to make deliveries to this location. I am assuming that there would be significant "walk in" and drive traffic as well, that will be disruptive as well. The overall size of the structure will be obstructing to views and enjoyment of our clients. They surely enjoy the peace and quite serenity of their backyard and all it has to offer. As stated the use would be for wholesale carpet sales. We all have seen carpet companies as such come and go frequently. This site would not offer much hope as to a business that would have longevity due to its location. A CUP may not be in the best interst of all. What would become of the structure at that point? More surveys? More hearings? I would hope that sincere effective planning would take place as for proper locations to address this issue. LSS does not think this is a suitable location based on the above needed conditional use permit. Sincerely Tom Barrett Property Director Lutheran Social Service of MN. Attachment 16 Adolph and Mildred Palme RECEIVED 1721 Arcade St N Maplewood, MN 55109-4204 JUL 2006 RE: Plans to develop 1685 Arcade Street July 9, 2006 Dear Neighbor, Gary Blair is the owner of the property at 1685 Arcade Street and recently it has come to our attention that he plans to develop this property as a 7,848 square foot carpet retail/warehouse store called "Carpet Court." This is an issue of much concern to us. Not only would this project require major rezoning, it would also greatly increase traffic and require the building of a new service road. The most troubling aspect of this project is that we cannot see how someone who does not currently take care of his property can be expected to do a better job with a retail/warehouse store. We are Mr. Blair's neighbors and we rarely see him. He does not even keep up with basic yard work on his land, letting grass and weeds grow two feet high. There is also a lot of garbage that he just lets blow around his yard. Is this someone we can really trust with a major project that will have long-term effects on the value of our property, and the kind of community that we live in? We disagree with changing the zoning and the proposed construction of this building on the above mentioned property. As Mr. Blair's neighbors, this affects all of us. We should make sure we have a say in what happens in our community. We cannot just let someone who does not even take care of his current property rezone our area, put in new roads, and start a major building project, The Maplewood Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for this land use proposal on Tuesday, July 18, at 7 pm. Please make your concerns known by appearing at the hearing and stating your views, or by submitting written comments before the meeting. You can also contact the city planner to ask questions or express concerns about the proposal: Shann Finwall, Planner Telephone: (651) 249-2304 E-mail: shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us The public hearing will be held at. Office of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Sincerely, Adolph and Mildred Palme CC: Office of Community Development Attachment 17 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006 VI. PUBLIC HEARING Carpet Court (1685 Arcade Street at Larpenteur Avenue) (7:12 -9:38 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848 - square -foot retail /warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blair wants to relocate his existing Carpet Court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse /storage space. As proposed, the building would have steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. On March 20, 2006, the planning commission reviewed a concept plan of Mr. Blair's revised development proposal which included the frontage road being vacated and combined as part of the property. The planning commission expressed concern over the amount of impervious surface and the location of the driveways. On March 28, 2006, the CDRB reviewed Mr. Blair's revised concept plans and expressed extreme concern over the style of building proposed at that location. The community design review board will review and make a recommendation at their meeting of July 25, 2006, and the city council will review this proposal on August 14, 2006. Ms. Finwall distributed and read aloud a memo she received before the meeting today from MnDOT. She also shared comments from Commissioner Dale Trippler who was excused from the planning commission meeting to attend the Environmental Committee meeting. Commissioner Dierich asked if the driveway access is not approved would that disallow the proposal as it is proposed? Ms. Finwall said MnDOT has agreed to turn back the right of way without any conditions regarding the location of the driveway access. However, they encourage the city to require only one driveway access at this location. Mr. Steve Kummer, Maplewood Civil Engineer II, addressed the commission. He said there wouldn't be any MnDOT permitting authority when it comes to driveways off the road. They can recommend the spacing from the state highway. Chairperson Fischer said the county can take the recommendation but doesn't necessarily have to follow the recommendation. Ms. Finwall said the city doesn't have comments from the county regarding the location of the driveways. The city code requires at least a 30 foot setback from the intersection but the further the driveway entrance is from the intersection the better. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Mr. Roberts said the city is not sure that section of Larpenteur Avenue is a county road. The county road may turn and go up Parkway Drive. If it is a county road in that location the county is obligated to provide each property with at least one access. The county tries to work with the city, state, and property owners but there is no guarantee. This information will have to be clarified. Commissioner Grover asked in terms of the access to the remaining portion of the service road it sounds like it will be a one way in but is there one way out? Ms. Finwall displayed a map of the proposed cul -de -sac. She said the proposed entrance and exit from the service road would be a right in and right out only for those two properties. She said Mr. Bacchus from Bacchus Homes is here tonight to discuss his viewpoint. Commissioner Hess said the site appears very narrow for trucks entering the warehouse area. That is a residential area and depending on what type of trucks drive into the site it may be a dangerous turn around situation. Chairperson Fischer asked if the engineering department had done any turning radius calculations for the site? Mr. Kummer said based on where the entry is located it appears the only way to get to the loading dock is if the truck backs off of Larpenteur Avenue. He said he hadn't done any turning radius calculations and he hadn't seen any hammerhead turnarounds on the site plan either. Commissioner Hess asked if staff knew what size truck would need to turn around on the site? Mr. Kummer said he didn't know the size of truck that would be accessing the site but didn't think the truck would be too large and he would think the only way the trucks would be able to get out of the site would be to back out onto Larpenteur Avenue, which is a dangerous situation with the traffic. Commissioner Hess was curious about the height of the side wall on the building elevations and if that was all metal siding. A large expanse of flat metal siding might not look very good without some other type of building exterior enhancements there. Ms. Finwall said the showroom portion of the building will have a shorter sidewall and the overall height to the top of the roof is 25 feet. Part of the building will have a stone wainscot and metal siding. These are issues that will be reviewed at the community design review board meeting on July 25, 2006. Commissioner Hess said the reason he brings it up is it appears the stone wainscot only extends to four feet above grade and he thinks it would dress things up to break the wall up with additional building materials. Commissioner Desai asked who would be responsible for the safety of the drivers in and out of the site if two driveway entrances were allowed? Ms. Finwall said it's the city's responsibility to look at the safety of the site during the planning phase and the city would hope Mr. Blair would take the safety of the site into account during and after the planning phase. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Commissioner Desai said he also noticed two dock doors on the site, one is 12 X 14 and the other is 9 X 10 and he wondered what the purpose was for that. The 9 X 10 dock door is in line with where the customers would be parking and he asked what the purpose of that dock door was. Commissioner Desai said he is concerned about safety and asked if the trucks would make deliveries to the dock door. Ms. Finwall said the applicant would have to answer that question. Commissioner Dierich said she didn't notice any place in the staff report to vote the proposal down. There are the three recommendations for the rezoning, vacation of a public right -of -way and the building setback variance but nothing regarding voting the proposal down. She asked if this proposal would come back to the planning commission when things were further along? Ms. Finwall said this is a permitted use within this zoning district so it doesn't require a conditional use permit. There are several opportunities to make amendments in the conditions of approval. You could for example approve the vacation of the right of way on the condition that there is only one driveway. Ms. Finwall said the CDRB will look at the site plan layout and then it will go to the city council who will approve or deny the overall project which requires four votes since this is rezoning of residential property to commercial property so it will be important for Carpet Court to have all the issues resolved before it goes onto the city council. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Robert Blair, representing Carpet Court, residing at 9040 Grey Cloud Trail, addressed the commission. He said the staff did a nice job with the presentation. He then had a video presentation run for the proposed building for Carpet Court. (The video presentation is shown on the video tape of the planning commission meeting but was not transcribed for the minutes.) Mr. Robert Blair said this is really two properties here and we have the right to have a driveway entrance for each property. We have tried several different options to have a turnaround but it hasn't been feasible and would require two much land coverage. If a large truck drove onto the parking lot the asphalt would not support a heavy truck and the weight could put indentions in the parking lot. However, the majority of trucks that would visit the site would be smaller city trucks. Most carpet stores have warehouse space and the trucks go to the warehouse to pick up the carpet orders and then they drive the carpet to the store docks. We don't have many semi- trucks making deliveries, maybe only two to three a year. The reason for the two dock doors is that one of the docks is for customer pick up and the larger dock is for truck deliveries. Porous pavement is very costly and they would not want to damage it by installing it in front of the main dock door. Commissioner Hess asked what type of building exterior they would have? Mr. Robert Blair said the front section is stucco, the siding is steel which costs about the same as vinyl siding but performs better. Commissioner Yarwood asked what the estimated size of trucks would be that would access the property? Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Mr. Robert Blair said usually it's their delivery truck which is about 20 to 25 feet in length. The truck primarily loads the materials for the installers for the week which is done once a week. There may be times someone has to pick up materials at the last minute. There may be shipments that come from out of town which may be three times a year for things like padding. Mr. Robert Blair said one of the reasons they designed the building the way they did is if a semi did drive in it would be hidden from the front side of the building where the customers come in. There are trees that would hide the residential side. We are trying to keep the neighbors happy which is a critical concern. At the same time, this building will increase the value of the neighborhood; it will increase the value of the homes. Carpet Court is in the decorating field and we are not trying to design a shabby looking building. We want the customers impressed with the building and feel comfortable enough to want to come back. If Carpet Court created a store that looked like a barn, nobody would come to the store. Commissioner Yarwood said he is trying to estimate how many times a truck would be backing out onto Larpenteur Avenue because that seems like a very unsafe situation. Mr. Robert Blair said once a week a city truck would pickup carpeting and supplies and three times a year a semi would come to the store for large deliveries. Commissioner Yarwood asked if it would be reasonable to have a hammerhead turn around on the site which would make for a safer situation for the trucks that need to turn around? Mr. Robert Blair said if they did have that turn around it would cover the entire western portion of the property and would probably require a variance. Commissioner Yarwood said he would be willing to grant a variance for a hammerhead turn around to eliminate trucks backing out onto Larpenteur Avenue. He wondered how large the hammerhead turn around would have to be to accommodate the trucks turning around? Mr. Gary Blair, Carpet Court, 1769 Rainey, addressed the commission. He said they did have extensive engineering done. By doing that the variance would not allow that because it took up too much space for the land coverage and because of the zoning they have. Because of the amount of impervious surface it was not permissible. They have several drawings done by their architects that have a hammerhead turn around. The other thing was the setback, it would have been almost all asphalt by the time they would be done constructing it. Commissioner Dierich said there is a drawing showing a landscaped area on the Larpenteur Avenue side between the two driveways and she is concerned about the turn around for the trucks and for the two driveways. She said she doesn't buy the argument that this is two properties and should both have their own driveway because this is going to be combined into one piece of land when it's turned into business commercial property (BC) from single dwelling residential (R -1) so you get one driveway. Mr. Robert Blair said that is only one aspect of it though. Commissioner Dierich asked if they had thought about making the impervious surface driveway and then connecting the impervious surface into the other parking lot without having the entrance near Highway 61. She has a hard time approving this due to the safety concerns and the issue of the turning radius for the trucks. She applauds Carpet Court for putting in the pervious surface. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Mr. Robert Blair said he can understand her concerns regarding the turn around. If we did something like that it would probably only be 18 feet or the distance of a parking space. The small straight line trucks would be able to turn around but the semi trucks would still have to back out onto Larpenteur Avenue and only come three times a year. If that would help the commission move this plan forward they would be willing to do that. Commissioner Yarwood asked what city staff thought of that? Ms. Finwall said the hammer head would need to maintain a 20 -foot setback to the westerly property line so it looks like a possibility. She showed some other options on the overhead she received from MnDOT. Commissioner Pearson asked in the operation of the business do they store old flooring outside before it gets disposed of or is it removed and brought somewhere else? Mr. Robert Blair said Maplewood requires 100% opaque enclosures on dumpsters so they decided to have an area inside the building for a holding area before it gets recycled off site or brought to a landfill. Commissioner Desai asked how often the old flooring is picked up by a truck? Mr. Robert Blair said due to the cost a dump truck comes once a month and picks up the old flooring and brings it to a recycling center. There would also be a garbage truck picking garbage up once a week. Commissioner Desai asked what type of mechanical units they would have on this building and would there be any rooftop units? Mr. Robert Blair said yes they would have rooftop units. Commissioner Desai asked if the rooftop units would be screened, he is concerned about them being an eyesore? Mr. Robert Blair said some of the units may be visible but for the most part they hope to have the rooftop units hidden. Also, he stated he is aware that the 60 -foot setback to the Highway 61 intersection for the easterly driveway is a concern for the planning commission. He and Gary Blair took out a measuring tape and measured out 60 feet so the planning commission could see how far 60 feet from the intersection would be. He said if they didn't own that second lot nothing could be developed on the first lot if the city required a greater setback for the driveway. If this proposal does not go through, maybe that's the case that nothing gets built there. Mr. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he has owned this property for seven years and prior to that the property has been in his family for over 50 years. His only communication with representatives of Carpet Court was about five years ago when they contacted him to see if it would be okay with Carpet Court storing some equipment on the property. However, there ended up being more than just some equipment stored on the property. He wants to have a neighbor on the property so they don't have to look at weeds and an overgrown property. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Mr. Bacchus said he has three full time employees. Bacchus Homes is in the home building and remodeling business and they like their location. Carpet Court was looking to build a new building so he let the condition of the property go at first but last year he finally called Shann Finwall and complained about the condition of the property because his employees and customers alike were complaining about the unsightliness of the property. There is debris, tall weeds and junk on the property. Ms. Finwall told him Carpet Court was slow getting their property cleaned up. Carpet Court finally did get rid of some old boats that were stored on the property for three years which was very frustrating to have to look at. The carpet rollers are still stored on the site all these years later and its overgrown with weeds. When he first spoke to Ms. Finwall he thought the service road vacation was an asset but after reanalyzing things he thought this could be a really long term project and the future cul -de -sac has no timeframe attached to it. Closing the frontage road is going to be an issue for his employees and for the Palme family. If the new cul -de -sac were to go in next year it could benefit him but if it's in ten years that may be difficult for his employees and they would have to share the access with the Palmes. The Palmes have lived there for 65 years so removing this frontage street would be a hardship on them. Even if Carpet Court gets everything to work the impact on the vacation of the public right -of -way may be an issue on the resale of his property because it's zoned commercial. If a semi truck comes down the service road it makes sense to park the large truck there; therefore the service road is an asset to the property. Mr. Bacchus said Carpet Court did a nice job on the video presentation showing what the property would look like. He is concerned about the metal roof and how it's going to look. Is it going to look like a metal roof like what is at the City of Maplewood or is it going to look like a shed roof? Most carpet warehouses are located in a commercial park. The carpet company he uses is located in White Bear Lake which has a smaller building at 6,000 square feet and a much larger parking lot compared to the proposal Carpet Court has for a 7,848 square foot building. In looking at the variance for an impervious surface he doesn't see it as that big of an issue and is more beneficial than vacating the service road. Commissioner Grover said if the city voted to take that area of the service road and add it to Carpet Court's property that would leave Bacchus Homes and the homeowners with part of a service road. He asked if there was anyway that would work for you? Mr. Bacchus said they would be landlocked and there would only be the one entrance and exit. Yes that would affect them. The cul -de -sac sounds great and looks great with the comprehensive plan at first but if it takes ten or more years from now it doesn't seem so great anymore. There are a lot of unknowns still. When Bacchus Homes gives directions they give them off of Larpenteur Avenue because if they give directions off of Highway 61 people miss the turn because cars are driving so fast. It's a very bad spot to pull your car out because of the speed of the traffic. Mr. A. L. Brown, (representing the District 5 planning council for St. Paul which covers the area directly south of Larpenteur Avenue), residing at 693 Montana Avenue, St. Paul, addressed the commission. He said this is a project that is of significant importance. He chairs the Community Planning and Economic Development Committee which deals with zoning issues for the district. They have several concerns about this project. He said he takes issue with the concept that the solution to debris problems is to build a building there. The area should be cleaned up whether you are proposing to build something there or not. This area is a gateway to the St. Paul district. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Mr. Brown said they are working very hard in the Payne and Phalen area to recreate a good image which is important to property values as well. The metal aspects of this building and the large rooftop units which will be visible coming off of Highway 61 and directly through St. Paul are concerns of theirs. But most importantly is the safety issue. He travels that way quite often and he cannot imagine a safe way of backing trucks onto that street even if it is only a few times a year. Accidents can happen at any time and backing up is just an unsafe way. The traffic here is increasing and this is a narrow stretch of road to navigate especially the way the roads are cut up which only adds to the safety issues. These are issues of your neighbors in St. Paul regarding safety and the look of the property and the building. When someone asks for a variance, a variance is a step away from the rule. If there is a way to do this project within the rules that should be strongly encouraged. He or a member from his group will also attend the CDRB meeting to discuss the appearance of the building and the concerns they have. He has an issue with the boats that were stored on the property and the blue tarps covering the stored items. That's something people remember on the property and it's disheartening to see things stored on the property for that long. The Palmes, 1721 Arcade Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This is a safety issue and he was happy the other planning commissioners addressed their concerns about the safety. If you are coming south on Highway 61 there should be a right hand turn lane. In the process of building highways now people are trying to eliminate traffic coming out onto the highway because of the safety issues. Mr. Palme said Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue is the worst intersection in the world. There have been a few bad accidents on that corner and the safety is a real concern here. Regarding the trucks going out onto Larpenteur Avenue, the traffic is bumper to bumper on that road. Maplewood has never had to maintain the service road. It has always been MnDOT or Mr. Bacchus plowing it in the winter and sometimes they plow it. If you are talking about a future cul- de -sac, who is going to maintain the cul -de -sac? This is an inconvenience for them as homeowners having their access cut off. This is a residential area and they would like to keep things residential. There are new homes built here and people should not have to look at a pole barn and have it look like an industrial area. This building proposal looks like a pole barn. The neighbors are against this proposal. The church is against it also. The weeds are terrible on the property. (They showed photos of the condition of the property to the planning commission). He said the things that were stored on the property must be rotten after sitting outside in the elements for that long. Ms. Amy Erickson, representing the group home at 785 Larpenteur Avenue East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This whole discussion is interesting to her because she was not aware of any ideas for a cul -de -sac here. She just wants everyone involved in this to be aware that the group home has a 28 -foot -long school bus loading and unloading wheelchairs twice a day so the safety of trucks backing up on Larpenteur Avenue is a concern for them. Mr. Robert Blair said they are concerned about the neighbors in the area as well. The initial idea for the storage was to store the racking system with the anticipation that they would build a new building in 2000, unfortunately that didn't happen. He said this is a thick heavy metal racking system and it would take a lot of effort to move this racking system off the property. However, the racking system got there somehow so it probably could have been moved with a lot of effort. The intention was not to have the racking system there this long and the intention is not to keep it there now either. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Mr. Robert Blair said we want to get the building erected and make the area look nice. We want to take care of the overgrown trees and tall weeds in the area and that is one of the reasons they want to build this building. He said they are aware the group home has buses loading and unloading and delivery trucks visiting the site. The buses and the delivery trucks would not be affected by the easterly driveways' 60 -foot setback to the intersection. The driveway they might be affected by is the westerly driveway which will be over 150 feet from their property. Commissioner Pearson asked if over the last six years did the city put impediments in your way that would have kept you from keeping the property clean? Mr. Robert Blair said no. He said they could have mowed the property however they would have needed a special heavy duty mower to do that which they did not have. This would not be like mowing your grass at home; it would be like mowing brush. Before that time the county mowed the section of land they owned and the city ceased doing that. Mr. Bacchus said he wants a neighbor here. He is trying to work within the parameters that are there. He said if we can keep a service road there and make this building fit he can see the variance for an impervious surface. But to listen to Robert Blair talk about the condition of the property and the condition it was when they bought it frustrates him. Ashland Oil owned the property before Carpet Court did and Ashland Oil maintained the property. The Blair's have let the condition of this property go for too long. He said he was tempted to go over to Carpet Court and tell them if they don't take care of the property then he would because he is frustrated and tired of looking at it for so long in this poor condition. He has had customers and employees complain to him about the appearance of the Carpet Court property as well. Mr. Bacchus said his family has owned the property for over 50 years and to listen to Carpet Court explain why they left the property in the condition that it is in for over six years and that they didn't have the capability to clean up the storage on the site or maintain the weeds on the property is frustrating. Build a building that will fit into the neighborhood, improve the look of the area and everyone will be happy. His concern is that Carpet Court will start a building and leave it half done for whatever reason. Are we going to have these same maintenance issues down the road? He said he is just trying to be practical here. Mr. Palmes said this is not an industrial park, it is a residential area of Maplewood and he is proud of where he lives in Maplewood. Mr. Gary Blair said the concerns and questions of the neighbors are his concerns too. It is hard to change something that has been that way for a long time. When there are changes taking place in your life change can be difficult. We would be more than happy to put in a hammerhead turnaround there. He is concerned about the traffic turning in and out of the area as well. We are willing to cooperate and agree that this has been an unsightly area. You haven't seen all the stuff behind the scenes. We have had more than one set of plans done before MnDOT got involved and we were supposed to come before the city almost a year ago. MnDOT said the service road had to be turned back so the plan was not possible, so we had to go back to square one. In 2000 his mother took ill and it was impossible for him to do anything else. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Commissioner Grover asked how wide the service road is? He is concerned about it as a one -way and wondered if it can handle traffic from both directions? Ms. Finwall said the service road is a two -way road. Commissioner Grover said as things stand right now he cannot vote for the vacation with the neighbors to the north not having access to Larpenteur Avenue. He would be more in favor of closing the north end of the service road at least to deal with the safety issue of vehicles onto Highway 61. Commissioner Hess said regarding the safety issues, closing the service road, and the possibility of a future cul -de -sac, it would be nice to see a drawing that showed all these improvements relative to the building so it would be easier to envision the site. Especially with the hammerhead idea that came about this evening. Commissioner Dierich agreed. She asked if the commission could table this proposal so the plans could be tweaked and this could be brought back? Ms. Finwall said Mr. Blair waived his 60 -day rights last year when MnDOT was looking into this so Carpet Court is not on the 60 day clock except for the applicant's request to keep this proposal moving forward. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned about the safety concerns and she doesn't like the idea of leaving elderly neighbors with no access. Commissioner Desai said the Blairs have done a good job trying to avoid as many variances as possible but the one key factor that is missing is the safety of the people around the area. We heard from Mr. Bacchus and the Palmes regarding their concerns of having access. He is concerned about the layout. Yes, Carpet Court owns the land and they have the right to develop it but the way things stand right now he is not willing to vote for this. The commission discussed the possibility of requiring a driveway on the north side of the parking lot for access onto the remaining portion of the service road. Mr. Roberts said he is concerned a driveway from the frontage road would take cars into what would now be parking spots so staff will have to check to see if the civil engineering lines up. Mr. Robert Blair said Carpet Court has an affidavit signed from the church that says Carpet Court can use six of their parking spots if they need to. In return the church asked if they could use Carpet Court's parking lot for overflow on Sunday's which works perfect because Carpet Court is closed on Sunday's so things work for everybody involved. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant has a problem with the planning commission tabling this proposal for a revised set of plans representing where the turnaround would be, the driveway entrance etc. Mr. Gary Blair said he really wants to keep the application moving forward and doesn't want to delay things. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Mr. Gary Blair said they have plans to build at a certain time of year and they want to have this project moving forward, there have been enough delays already because they tried to build a building a few times already and would like an answer either way. Commissioner Dierich asked if the planning commission could take a 5 to 10 minute break to discuss things. The planning commission took a recess from 9:92 — 9.20 p.m. Commissioner Trippler recommended voting on each recommendation separately. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the rezoning resolution attachment 15 in the staff report. This resolution changes the city's zoning map from single - dwelling residential (R -1) to business commercial (BC) for Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019). This change is based on the following: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e. The proposed change is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. f. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property (currently zoned BC) for the development of a retail /warehouse carpet store. Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the public vacation resolution attachment 16 of the staff report. This resolution authorizes the vacation of a public right -of -way to include a portion of the Highway 61 frontage road located on the east side of 1684 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from the Larpenteur Avenue right -of -way, 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. Vacation of the right -of -way is approved with the following conditions: (changes or additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must: 1)Submit a 30- foot -wide right -of -way easement for approval by city staff. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 2) Record the approved right -of -way easement with Ramsey County. 3) Submit a revised grading and drainage plan and landscape plan to be approved by staff showing the relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the 30- foot -wide right -of -way easement. 4) Submit a revised site plan to be approved by staff showing a driveway connection from the north side of the parking lot to the unvacated part of the service road. 5) Submit a driveway easement over the parking lot for ingress and egress to be approved by staff. 6) Record the approved driveway easement with Ramsey County, Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay — Dierich Commissioner Dierich voted nay because she has an issue with the two entrance /exits to the site and she wanted to include that in the motion. The motion passed. Commissioner Grover moved to adopt the building setback variance resolution attachment 17 in the staff report. This resolution authorizes a 42.5 foot building setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line for a retail /warehouse carpet store (Carpet Court) to be located at 1684 Arcade Street. This variance is based on the following: a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building. The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50 -foot setback. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as follows: c. The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past, but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years. d. The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 a. The applicant submitting a screening and landscape plan which ensures an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to be approved by the community design review board. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Yarwood Nay — Trippler The reason Commissioner Trippler voted nay is because he can't justify such a large setback variance. He knows this is a difficult site but the applicant should have known that when he bought the property. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 14, 2006. Commissioner Yarwood would like to recommend that the CDRB look at the option of having a hammerhead turnaround on the site for the delivery trucks to maneuver around to try to keep as few trucks from backing up onto Larpenteur Avenue as possible. Commissioner Dierich would like to recommend that the CDRB look at the option of having only one entrance to the site and eliminating the second entrance /exit to the site. r,U E:1 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006 b. Carpet Court — 1685 Arcade Street (7:40 — 8:02 p.m.) Ms. Finwall said Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848- square -foot retail /warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blair wants to relocate his existing Carpet court store in St. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse /storage space. As proposed, the building would have steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, cultured stone wainscot, and a metal roof. On July 18, 2006, the planning commission reviewed the current proposal and recommended approval of the rezoning, public vacation, and building setback variance. Ms. Finwall said the planning commission recommended two additional conditions of approval including a hammer -head turnaround to be constructed off of the loading dock driveway and a driveway access to be constructed on the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. Board member Hinzman asked if this was just a concept plan the last time the CDRB reviewed this last year or earlier this year? Board member Hinzman asked if staff or the applicant could point the differences out from the concept plan and the proposal today? Ms. Finwall said the applicant added the stucco corner treatments as suggested by Board member Shankar and the applicant added a decorative cultured stone entry way at the suggestion of another board member. If there were any other changes the applicant would have to point those out. Board member Schurke asked if there had been any other input from the community other than what is shown in the staff report? Ms. Finwall said the comments received by staff via e-mail, telephone, or by mail have been included in the staff report. There was a visitor who spoke at the public hearing at the planning commission meeting July 18, 2006. His name was A. L. Brown, (representing the District 5 planning council for St. Paul which covers the area directly south of Larpenteur Avenue). He spoke regarding the building elevations and the safety of the vehicles entering and exiting the site. The Palmes who live next to the property and Randy Bacchus of Bacchus Homes also spoke at the public hearing. Board member Shankar asked if the applicant is proposing stucco or EIFS and would there be any joint lines in the stucco because it appears to be one continuous material. Ms. Finwall said the applicant can address that. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 7 -25 -2006 Acting chairperson Ledvina asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Robert Blair, 1940 Grey Cloud Trail, addressed the board. He said he is the son of Gary Blair, the owner of Carpet Court. He said he was excited to present the proposal. He said this is very good design which is a vast improvement from the other plans they presented to the City of Maplewood. The overall site design is also improved with many plants, shrubs and trees. They have a video presentation to show the CDRB. The landscaping will help attract nature such as birds and butterflies which was chosen for that reason as well as to add color to the site. He said they feel the complete building and site design is more than just acceptable, they feel this plan is `outstanding" and they hope the CDRB will feel the same way. He distributed a handout to the board members and said he hoped the handout along with watching the video presentation would answer questions the board may have. He then asked for the video presentation to begin. The board members said they were happy to see the applicant had prepared a video presentation and stated they thought this was the first time they had seen a video presentation. (The video presentation is shown on the video tape of the CDRB meeting but was not transcribed for the minutes.) First Robert Blair reviewed some of the concerns of the planning commission and pointed them out on the model they provided of the proposed store they had for their presentation. Regarding the building exterior finishes, on the south side of the warehouse they addressed having different types of finishes. He said stucco is considerably more expensive compared to metal siding and they didn't find a benefit of using that because of the cost. They found if they used stucco it would look like too much stucco and would also look too bland and simple. The CDRB stated during the concept plan review that they didn't like the look of a stucco box. They found that the metal siding adds visual interest and gives more texture to the appearance and detail to the building compared to using the same building material throughout. On the north side of the building they have no screening requirements because of the commercial building next door. He pointed out where the existing trees are on the adjoining property next to their building and how the large trees would screen this property. Regarding the berming in the staff report, the berm would be four feet tall and have shrubs on top. That isn't a great location for a berm because it would screen and block the front of their building. This is on Highway 61 and could obstruct the view for vehicles turning into and out of the site. The city code states: in no case is a developer or owner required to replace more than 10 trees per acre. The land shown is 3 /4 of an acre meaning the maximum tree requirement would be 8 trees. They currently have 11 trees planted on the site which is three more than the requirement. If they added all the trees that were shown that would be 27 trees. Which he said is a forest and is 19 more trees than the maximum that can be requested. They are not against planting trees but have a problem with some of the tree locations and quantity. Trees adjacent Highway 61 and Larpenteur Avenue could cause a traffic safety concern for their customers. Any berms or trees adjacent Highway 61 will block the view of traffic turning the corner. A car exiting would not have a clear view of traffic and Carpet Court doesn't want any liability issues. In addition to the two maple trees and the nine evergreen trees they would agree to put four evergreen trees on the northwest property line. Four full grown evergreen trees is all that you would be able to plant there without having a problem. That would be five trees 15 feet apart on the northwest corner so he assumed that was what was considered. It was mentioned that they should move the rainwater garden for the easement which they can do and submit that for the proposal and Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 7 -25 -2006 permit requirements. He said Carpet Court's attorney and a representative from Wick Builders is here to answer any questions that he cannot. Acting chairperson Ledvina said the CDRB is interested in the building materials being used. Gary Blair went through the building materials board as well as the small building proposal model. The roofing material and the accent trim would be burgundy which would give more character. They would be cream colored stucco with bump outs to add more character and break up the upper elevations. The cultured stone is a stacking stone and would attach to the building material and would also be used on the pillars. The cultured stone product was at 30 inches high previously but was increased to 48- inches high. He said they like the look of the product but it's expensive. He said anything that looks as outstanding as this is expensive. They will also have a keystone block at the top of the arches centered in the entry ways to the doors set in the brick. Robert Blair said there are comments from other manufacturers regarding how they felt about the building and they have seen a lot of carpet stores and decorating centers and they said they don't usually see anything this nice. Board member Shankar asked if the stucco had controlled joints? Robert Blair said it will be a flat surface and will have no joints other than the bumpouts. Mr. Mark Young, Wick Builders, Amery, Wisconsin, addressed the board. He said there would be controlled joints running horizontal for expansion but not above the windows. Acting chairperson Ledvina asked if there would be stone ledges under the windows? Mr. Young said yes. It would be built on a four foot concrete frost wall, with wood frame exterior, the plywood, felt, wire mesh and the stucco, and stone wainscoting. Board member Schurke asked how they would describe the relationship with their neighbors and he asked if the applicant had responded to any of the concerns expressed in the staff report. Robert Blair said he has not spoken with the neighbors but his father Gary Blair had. From what he understood Mrs. Palme had a problem with the building proposal but her husband did not. From what he understood their adult son lives with them and he has issues with the building as well. Robert asked his father Gary to speak further on this. Mr. Gary Blair, owner of Carpet Court, addressed the board. He said he spoke to the Palmes when they first started the idea of constructing a building on this site. The Palmes were concerned the building would block their view. This new plan brings the building back considerably so it won't block their view. He spoke to Mr. Palme who said he thought the building looked good. Mrs. Palme came to the public hearing at the planning commission meeting along with her son and they both expressed their displeasure with the building. He hasn't had the opportunity to speak to them to find out what their issue with the building is. The Palmes were also concerned about the upkeep of the property. He told the Palmes when the building is approved and built the natural growth of the property would be removed. The other Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 7 -25 -2006 neighbor is Mr. Bacchus of Bacchus Homes whom he spoke to about five years ago. One of his concerns was the driveway and the success of putting the connection between their driveway and the street to allow them to exit more safely onto Larpenteur Avenue. Before Bacchus Homes had to exit 15 feet from the intersection and now they would be 60 feet from the intersection. He said he spoke to the church and they had no problem with the building proposal. He hasn't spoken to the people at the group home yet and isn't sure who to contact there directly. Robert Blair said Carpet Court sent out personalized letters to the neighbors within 500 feet which equals 80 homes but received no responses and they were hoping to receive the responses before attending any city meetings. But city staff received 4 responses to their letter. Mr. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street, addressed the board. He said he brought up some issues at the planning commission meeting and he will bring those up at the city council meeting. There are a few things he is not comfortable with but he wants to make sure if this proposal is going to go through he wants to bring some of these issues up. Regarding the stucco and siding, he would recommend that the stucco be required on all sides of the building exterior especially if the cul -de -sac goes in some day. He said the Bacchus Homes building has vinyl siding and has been there for 50 years. He has been thinking of putting James Hardie siding on to make things look more vibrant. Robert Blair said the stucco would be too much to look at on the building but he believes you can change the color or texture to make it look nice and breaks things up. He is concerned the metal roof will look like a pole barn and not like something at the city hall building. He agrees the berm is a safety concern and is a bad idea. One of the issues they have had with their driveway is the access onto Highway 61. It's a bad intersection and unless you have a stop light there it could be a safety issue. His trees border the property and he is okay with not adding additional trees there to screen this side of the property. He is concerned the roots of the large trees on his property could get damaged by trucks driving on the property. Acting chairperson Ledvina said it would have been nice to have minutes from the past meeting to see what was discussed by the CDRB during the review of the concept plan for Carpet Court. Board member Shankar said he appreciated the color renderings and building model prepared for the meeting tonight. He is concerned about the stucco going down this far. His suggestion for these pilasters is that they continue the same banding and then there should be cultured stone. The porticos should have the same band that they are showing behind. He thinks they should use the same burgundy color and clad the corner with metal to separate all the beige that is going on. He recommends the window frames be burgundy. Board member Schurke said when the CDRB reviewed the concept plan before he had a very strong opinion of the building then. He thinks this site is like forcing a square peg in a round hole. He still feels the same about building anything on this site and this use is a bigger question for him and he doesn't approve of this proposal. He appreciates the effort that the applicant has made presenting this. He doesn't feel this building is an augmentation of this site on Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street. Community Design Review Board 5 Minutes 7 -25 -2006 Acting chairperson Ledvina said the land use is business commercial and that is not something for the CDRB to dispute. He knows last time board member Schurke thought this was a gateway into Maplewood and he understands the concern here. He feels the applicant has made "some" improvements and staff has made strong recommendations regarding the building elevations and between those things this proposal is workable in his opinion. Board member Hinzman said when he looks at the other new buildings that have been built along Highway 61 this building doesn't measure up to those. He doesn't know what can be done to improve this plan. If you look at the other businesses and business condos the CDRB has approved along Highway 61 they are of better quality than this proposal regarding the exterior. This proposal would be fine in an industrial area but along Highway 61 which is more of a business commercial strip he doesn't feel it fits in. Board member Hinzman said the applicant has done "some" improvements to the building and he appreciates the efforts made but he still feels this building doesn't measure up. He said if the CDRB approves this building what is the CDRB setting themselves up for in the future for future developments and design reviews. People will look at this building and say this was an acceptable standard for the CDRB before. He appreciates the additions that board member Shankar brought up but he still doesn't feel this building meets the standards. Board member Schurke said this is really Arcade Street and not Highway 61. He lives on Arcade Street and consistently this has been referred to as Highway 61. This is a designated highway but this is Arcade Street which is important from a residential standpoint to convey the message that this is a residential street. This happens to be an intersection where a commercial use evolves as you go further north on Highway 61 but Arcade Street bumps over and becomes Arcade Street again. Think of this as a neighborhood and the relationship of the site changes. When he looks at the Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center building on Highway 61 that is a gorgeous building compared to this proposal in his opinion. From the standpoint of design qualities and design expectations he has a different standard and has a higher expectation for the community and does not endorse this building as a design standard of quality for the community. He would concur with the statements made by board member Hinzman. He appreciates the comments made by board member Shankar as a way to steer this building design but personally he doesn't think this building is steerable in this location. Mr. Gary Blair said he understands personal opinions and views that some of the board may have. If you have the opinion that this building looks like a pole barn he can understand that because he would feel the same way but we are not talking about a pole barn here which should be obvious from watching the video presentation. As far as the metal siding goes, he noticed the Science Museum, the prison, and the new LDI 3M building all have the same metal siding which is run horizontally. They are planning to use a very similar metal siding here and it will hold up much better. If you want to make this building look like a barn you can make it look like a barn but they are talking about making this building look very nice and they are very proud of what has been designed. Regarding the Regions Hospital Sleep Health Center building on Highway 61 he agrees that is a very nice building however, the landscaping is in question and he showed a photo of the landscaping conditions on the screen. Then there is Forest Products at the corner of Highway 61 and County Road C which was a very difficult site for this person to build on this site just like his situation. Five years ago the CDRB wondered how the Forest Products building would be able to be built on that site. The Forest Products building is a box building and five years ago he came to the CDRB with a box design and the Community Design Review Board 6 Minutes 7 -25 -2006 CDRB said they didn't like the building and that they should make changes to the plan. He said he has had the changes made to the building so it doesn't look like a box anymore in his opinion. Carpet Court wants a building that is very attractive and they feel this proposal is very attractive and goes beyond what personal opinions might indicate. They are putting over $500,000 into this building and feel the building looks good. People come all the way from South Dakota and North Dakota to buy flooring from Carpet Court. They are hoping to get this building approved so they can build it and move from St. Paul to Maplewood and build a building to be proud of. Acting chairperson Ledvina thanked Gary Blair for his comments. Board member Shankar said he can make a motion but the overwhelming feeling is the overall character is not in keeping with the neighborhood and he would have to defer to the other board members. Acting chairperson said the applicant is requesting an action by the board and he thinks an action can be made by the CDRB. Board member Shankar moved to approve the plans date - stamped June 15, 2006, for the Carpet Court development to be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Approval is subject to the following conditions: (changes or additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Revised engineering and grading plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering report dated July 10, 2006. 2) Revised building elevations showing the following: a) North: This elevation should match the south showroom elevation and be constructed of stucco and cultured stone wainscot, apd b) South: The siding and wainscot on the entire south elevation (showroom and warehouse) should be constructed of stucco and cultured stone wainscot. c) East: Window frames to be burgundy to match roof color. Provide a 4 -inch protruding band at a 48 -inch height at both arched openings. Community Design Review Board 7 Minutes 7 -25 -2006 d) All corners of the building to have 48 -inch high cultured stone with protruding 4 inch band to match at walls. Provide steel panels (color to match roof) above these corner cultured stone pilasters. 3) Revised site plan showing the following: a) A hammer -head turnaround to be located on the west side of the loading dock driveway. This turnaround must maintain at least a 20 -foot setback to the west property line and at least a 15 -foot setback to the Larpenteur Avenue right -of -way. b) A driveway access on the north side of the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road. 4) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) Relocation of the rainwater garden out of the required roadway easement. All plantings proposed in the rainwater garden to be approved by the engineering department. b) Five more evergreen trees, in addition to the nine evergreen trees proposed, to be planted 15 feet on center on the entire length of the west and northwest property line. C) B eFM i Rg a Landscaping along the Highway 61 property line to include t 49 ^ �T ^r �G ��t h berms pa , ,la.-! Rtl4e seutFteast r__erpe ef Hi 61 and LaFpept w _h er!'1 s shn-1 I'd be heavily laRGISGaped wit Shrubs aPA perennials, ll��..ffT�TfvJ7 , and at least five deciduous trees (at least 2.5 inches in diameter ). should be plaRte J in thir, AFRA d) Landscaping along Larpenteur Avenue to include six more deciduous trees (at least 2.5- inches in diameter), in addition to the two maple trees proposed. 5) A revised lighting plan which reflects the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet in height as measured from the ground grade to the top of the luminaries. In addition, the applicant should consider some sort of motion detection light over the west loading dock. 6) Obtain a permit from Minnesota Department of Transportation for any use or work within or affecting the Highway 61 right -of -way. 7) Watershed district approval. 8) Combine the two lots for tax purposes. 9) Submit samples all building materials to staff for approval. Community Design Review Board 8 Minutes 7 -25 -2006 10) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work and will be used by the city in the event the required exterior improvements are not complete. C. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building 1 ) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in- ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. e. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Acting chairperson Ledvina seconded. Ayes — Ledvina, Shankar Nays- Hinzman, Schurke The motion did not pass. This item goes to the city council on August 14, 2006. Board members Hinzman and Schurke expressed their disapproval of the proposal earlier in the discussion. Acting chairperson Ledvina commended the applicant for their nice video presentation, handouts, and model of the building proposal. The board stated they would appreciate future applicants providing such extensive presentations to assist the CDRB in understanding what the building and the site would look like. Attachment 19 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of the Carpet Court has proposed the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: single dwelling residential (R -1) to business commercial (BC). WHEREAS, this change applies to: Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On July 18, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning. 2. On August 14, 2006, the city council discussed the rezoning. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 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 proposed change is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. 6. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property (currently zoned BC) for a commercial business. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on August 14, 2006 Attachment 20 STREET VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of Carpet Court applied for the vacation of the following- described rig ht -of -way: A portion of the Highway 61 frontage road located on the east side of 1684 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from the Larpenteur Avenue right -of -way, 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On July 18, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On August 14, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: 1684 Arcade Street (Legal Description: Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat, Subject to STH 61 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described right -of -way vacation for the following reasons: The Minnesota Department of Transportation has authorized turning back the service road to the City of Maplewood. 2. The two remaining properties that gain access to their properties via the service road will still be able to utilize the road. 3. It is in the public interest. 4. The city has a concept plan for a future cul -de -sac road to be located to the west of the service road to allow for future redevelopment of the land. 5. It will allow the applicant to construct a business on the property. The vacation of the above - described right -of -way is based on the following condition: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant or owner must submit the following for staff approval: a. The location of a 30- foot -wide roadway easement for the west side of the site. The easement documents must be recorded with the county. b. The relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the 30- foot -wide roadway easement. A driveway access from the parking lot onto the remaining portion of the service road to the north. d. A cross easement over the parking lot for ingress and egress from for Larpenteur Avenue to the remaining portion of the service road to the north. The easement documents must be recorded with the county. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on August 14, 2006 PA Attachment 21 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of Carpet Court applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance in order to construct a retail /warehouse carpet store closer to a residential lot line than allowed by code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property at 1685 Arcade Street and the adjacent property to the west. The property identification numbers are 17- 29 -22 -44 -0019 and 17- 29 -22- 44 -0018. The legal descriptions are: Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat, Subject to STH 61. WHEREAS, Section 44- 20(c )(6 )(b) of the Maplewood Zoning Code requires a 50 foot setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 7.5 -foot setback to the residential lot line located to the northwest of the proposed building. WHEREAS, this requires a 42.5 -foot building setback variance. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: On July 18, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended approval of the variance. 2. On August 14, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city 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 variance for the following reasons: Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building. The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50 -foot setback. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as follows: a. The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past, but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years. b. The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. The applicant submitting to the city a screening and landscape plan which ensures there will be an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to be approved by the community design review board. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on August 14, 2006 IM Agenda Item L.3 TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Resolution of Support for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Development Grant LOCATION: Gladstone Neighborhood - Frost Avenue and English Street DATE: August 7, 2006 for the August 14 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION City staff is requesting that the city council adopt the attached resolution. This resolution is required by the Metropolitan Council as part of the city's application for a demonstration grant through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) Program. This program was established by the Livable Communities Act (MN Statutes Chapter 473.25(b)) and provides funds for development or redevelopment projects that connect development with transit, intensify land uses, connect housing and employment, provide a mix of housing affordability, and provide infrastructure to connect communities and attract investment. The city is requesting a grant in the amount of $2,280,000 in order to help fund the proposed Phase I capital improvements in the Gladstone Redevelopment project area (Attachment 1) including: Rehabilitation /reconstruction of approximately 3,700 feet of Frost Avenue between TH 61 and Phalen Place including the following: a) turn lane improvements at the Frost Avenue and Highway 61 intersection; b) traffic signal improvements at the Frost Avenue and TH 61 intersection c) construction of a roundabout at the Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive intersection; d) reconstruction /rehabilitation of Frost Avenue including the construction of new sidewalks /trails along the roadway. 2. Construction of a stormwater treatment pond and the installation of mechanical treatment devices to treat stormwater that is currently discharged directly to Lake Phalen without any form of treatment. 3. Construction of trails, oak savanna restoration, and the construction of interpretive facilities that represent the site's railroad history and Maplewood's natural heritage and water resources. BACKGROUND November 2003 the City of Maplewood received an $8,000 LCDA grant from the Metropolitan Council in order to hire a planning consultant to develop a redevelopment concept plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. During the 200412005 city council goal setting sessions, the city council placed the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood as a high - priority goal. In 2004 city staff and a planning consultant, Architecture and Town Planning, began a strategic planning study for the Gladstone Neighborhood which included a series of meetings with the Gladstone stakeholders. December 2004 the city council hired a master planner, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., and appointed a 20- person task force to help guide the Gladstone Redevelopment planning process. November 2005 the Gladstone Task force recommended approval of the Gladstone Master Plan. March 2, 2006, the city council held a public hearing to take comment on the Gladstone Master Plan. July 12, 2006, the city council approved a resolution which adopts several amended elements of the master plan, including the inclusion of 650 plus new housing units in the Gladstone Redevelopment Area, and also the funding necessary for consultant fees associated with the creation of zoning and design standards for the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan (Attachment 2). DISCUSSION Gladstone Strategic Planning Timeline The city council should finalize their review of the Gladstone Master Plan and implement the common areas into the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan. City staff and the consultants will begin work on the approved prioritized public improvement plan, development plan, and a preliminary planning and zoning analysis. These plans will be presented to the city council in the upcoming months. LCDA Grant Funds The Metropolitan Council has available LCDA grant funds of $8.8 million this year for communities seeking funding for development or redevelopment projects that meet the goals of the 2030 Regional Development Framework as follows: • Accommodate regional growth while using regional systems and land efficiently. • Increase transportation choices. • Appropriately mix land uses. • Increase the variety of housing types and costs. • Leverage private investment. • Invest Council resources to facilitate reinvestment: infill, adaptive reuse, redevelopment. Redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood will meet all six of these goals. In addition to meeting these goals, the Metropolitan Council expressed support for the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood in 2003 with the granting of $8,000 to the City of Maplewood for the initial planning study. Local Resolution As part of the LCDA grant process, the Metropolitan Council requires that a resolution be adopted by the city council in support of the grant application. This resolution must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council no later than August 17, 2006. This resolution must authorize the grant application and identify the need for LCDA funding, such that the project could not occur in the foreseeable future "but -for" LCDA funds. The Metroplitan Council supplied the city with an example resolution for use in this regard (Attachment 3). RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 3) showing the city council's intent to comply with the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Program contract requirements for the requested $2,280,000 development grant for capital improvements in the Gladstone Neighborhood. p:com_dvpt \Gladstone \2005 Livable Communities \Resolution Memorandum Attachments: 1. Gladstone Neighborhood Phase I Redevelopment Site Plan 2. Draft July 12, 2006, City Council Resolution 3. Livable Communities Demonstration Resolution 9 Keller-Golf Course New Roundabout at Frost Ave. and East: Attachment 1 1117 I N M r . • • i i • •• ••• i M i• i • •• i M & L_ MM Attachment 2 Draft July 12, 2006, Resolution Resolution to be Approved by City Council during the Approval of the July 12 Minutes at the August 14 City Council Meeting • • ' 110 • 1• i 1: A RESOLUTION PROVIDING PROJECT DIRECTION AND AUTHROIZATION TO SUBMIT A LIVABLE COMMUNITIES GRANT APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, in March 2004, the Maplewood City Council established a top priority to be the redevelopment of the Gladstone area; and, WHEREAS, in December of 2004, the City of Maplewood initiated a redevelopment planning process for the Gladstone area generally defined as the area along Frost Avenue between US Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street N and the area along English Street between Ripley Avenue and the Gateway Trail; and, WHEREAS, the City has an approved Comprehensive Plan that establishes future land use patterns in the Gladstone area consisting of open space, single and double dwelling residential, light manufacturing and business commercial and that addresses public facilities and implementation strategies; and, WHEREAS, the Gladstone area contains a number of older commercial uses and parcels that demonstrate signs of obsolescence, inefficient land use and site layout and other signs of a need for revitalization; and, WHEREAS, the City is aware of a number of properties within the project area that are likely to redevelop in the near future and the desired development patterns are not likely to be consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, in January 2005, the City Council established a 20- person Task Force of property owners and local residents to provide recommendations to the City Council on various alternatives; and, WHEREAS, the master planning effort has provided a plan that establishes a vision and future land use plan to guide redevelopment efforts on an areawide basis as opposed to reacting to individual redevelopment proposals; and, WHEREAS, the master planning effort has resulted in a concept that explores higher density housing development on redeveloped parcels within the project area and limited neighborhood commercial uses; and, WHEREAS, the development concept is supported by a range of public improvements to area park and open space systems, roadway improvements, streetscape enhancements, burial of overhead utility lines, and stormwater management systems; and, WHEREAS, on August 8, 2005, the Maplewood City Council adopted a resolution directing the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), which is a substitute form of environmental review that replaces an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as provided for in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.3600 and is a more appropriate form of environmental review that evaluates cumulative impacts resulting from multiple re- development projects spread over a larger area; and, WHEREAS, over the last two years the City has conducted a number of public meetings to discuss and evaluate various redevelopment concepts as presented by private developers, neighborhood groups and interested landowners, including conducting a Public Hearing on April 18, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has provided comments and questions on the Draft Master Plan and conducted two Work Sessions to discuss and debate the merits of the overall development plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, hereby provides for the following: 1. Authorize staff to develop a Planning Document based upon a revised Master Planning Document for the Gladstone Redevelopment Initiative at the flowing development levels and public improvement investment: Business Retention Work with Gladstone businesses to encourage them to remain in the neighborhood after redevelopment begins. Do so by promoting loans and grants available for business owners. Development on the Savanna Do not allow any building development —only natural development with minimal historic public structures. Improvements to the Savanna should be one of the first public improvements made in the neighborhood. Efforts should be made to explore conservation easements or other legal forms to protect this parcel for future generations and until such protections are in place, no sale of Savanna or park land shall occur as part of the Gladstone project. Savanna Improvements Only natural improvements should be allowed. This includes savanna restoration as a natural open space. Flicek Park Improvements Make limited changes to Flicek Park. Any changes to Flicek Park will be enacted by the council based upon recommendations of the parks commission and park - planning staff. Culvert / Bebo Improvements Modify the plan so that it includes other options for a pedestrian/stormwater system in this area including enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety at the roundabout and trail intersections. The Bebo should be considered optional for consideration later and is not specifically included as part of the overall project plan. 2 Density The allowed density shall be a maximum of 650 housing units. This can only be achieved based on a system of to- be- established density bonuses and project goals. The minimum density established shall be based upon the existing land -use and zoning within the area. The density bonuses and project goals shall focus on providing credits to developments which provide increased Senior Housing, Senior Assisted Living Housing, Accessible Senior Housing, Underground Parking and green building construction as the primary target focus points. Building Height Issues In general, lower buildings are required when they are closer to the street. They can go higher as the building mass is further set back, up to four stories. Building Setback, Massing and Scale Issues Identical to building height criteria — buildings with greater mass should be set further back to be less imposing from street view. Care should be taken to "blend" the scale of the new buildings with the existing. Power Line Burial Support for the burial of power lines at a reduced cost or alternative financing methods. Eminent Domain There is no support for the use of eminent domain to achieve project goals. Level of Public Improvements –Frost Avenue Improvement The likely investment will range to a maximum of $14 million to $15 million in public installed improvements, although efforts shall be explored to have the developers install as much of the infrastructure as practical. The goals shall include reduction or removal from the Master Plan in the amount of center median along Frost Avenue, using trees to create a colonnade along Frost Avenue and making Frost Avenue narrower by use of restriping. Limited use of irrigation systems is encouraged. The Roundabout at Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive should be explored further to see if other alternatives might be more effective. The priority for improvements shall be Savanna upgrades. Phase I of the Gladstone project shall focus improvements on the western end of the project area and shall include improvement to the transportation and drainage components of the project. This shall include exploration of improvements to bus service within the area, the installation of improvements to facilitate the construction of bus shelters, a possible roundabout at Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive, improvements to the TH 61 and Frost intersection, area trail connections and improvements, the existing Frost Avenue bridge and the drainage improvements on the western end of the project, along with possible Savanna improvements. The value of these improvements is hereby authorized up to a maximum of $2.5 million. The City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare a feasibility analysis of a project to this amount. Use of Tax Increment Financing The goals of the project shall be to limit or eliminate the use of Tax Increment Financing. The Phase I — Gladstone project improvements shall be explored with a goal of using zero Tax Increment Financing. The direction shall be to explore alternative financing through grants and development contributions through assessment and project payments. 2. Authorize the staff to prepare and submit a Livable Communities Demonstration Grant Application to the Metropolitan Council prior to the due date of July 17, 2006. 3. Authorize the Public Works Director to assemble an Implementation Team which shall include the City Park and Recreation Director, the City Finance Director, the City Senior Planner, the City Planner, the consultant Master Planner and the consultant Engineer to develop the following reports and plans: A. A Prioritized Public Improvement Plan, including a suggested timing schedule for implementation based upon a 3 -5 year project build out. B. A Prioritized Development Plan, including a listing of potential development parcels that potentially provided for the first project within the Development Area based upon the TIF District and Public Improvement Plan. C. A Preliminary Planning and Zoning Analysis that provides an evaluation of the land -use and zoning needs to achieve the provisions of the Planning Document. 4. Appropriate $50,000 to the Gladstone Project Fund from future project revenues to pay for the Planning Consultant, Engineering Consultant and Financial Advisory Consultant noted above within the Implementation Team. The Public Works Director is hereby authorized to administer the contracts for said consultants up to the $50,000 maximum. Passed this 12 day of July 2006. M Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS the City of Maplewood is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2006 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and WHEREAS the City has identified a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant application submitted on July 17, 2006; and WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be replicated in other metropolitan -area communities; and WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed project to occur at this particular site and at this particular time. 2. Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought: a. will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; and b. will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time. 3. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding for the project component for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for project component completion within two years and states that this representation is based on the following reasons and supporting facts: A fundamental assumption on the outset of the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment process has been that redevelopment must be self - sufficient and that revenues needed to pay for redevelopment activities must come from new development. General, city -wide property taxes should not be used to finance redevelopment activities for public improvements. Neither should improvement costs be assessed to existing residents of the neighborhood. Therefore, no local taxes or local bonding authority will be used within the next two years to fund the Phase 1 project component. 4. Authorizes its planning and engineering department to submit on behalf of the City an application for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project component(s) identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City. Adopted this 14th day of August, 2006. Mayor City Clerk Agenda Item L4 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Beebe Road Parking Issues — Receipt of Petition and Authorization to Restrict Parking DATE: August 4, 2006 INTRODUCTION Residents along Beebe Road have been concerned with pedestrian and biking safety along Beebe Road between Larpenteur and Holloway Avenue. They have submitted a petition to investigate the feasibility of restricting parking along this alignment. Approval to proceed with an analysis and implementation of parking restrictions is requested. Background Attached is the petition from 43 residents along Beebe Road requesting consideration of restricting parking to one -side. This would require re- striping of the roadway and signage. Normal procedures would be to request the City's consultant traffic engineer for a brief recommendation of the restrictions and a striping plan. City staff would then notify all residents of the recommended changes to be sure that there is no major opposition. If there is not significant opposition the improvements would be implemented. If significant issues are raised, the issue would be returned to the City Council. Estimated cost for the traffic engineer and the striping /signing is less than $4,000. Costs would be covered within the Public Works Streets budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council receive the petition from the residents along Beebe Road and to authorize the Public Works Director to work with the City's Traffic Consultant to develop a recommendation and striping plan to restrict parking along Beebe Road and to authorize the Public Works Director if no significant public objection is received. Attachment: 1. Petition --- �-J-d D Mn 5� —42 5 1 OZ--�41316 1127 J s �SPB-Zlljtll , PETITION TO RESTRIPE BEEBE ROAD FOR SAFETY CONCERNS AND PARKING CONTROL TO THOSE RESIDENTS WHO DIVE AROUND AND USE BEEBE ROAD ON A DAILY BASIS- m v L� IV /3� trX 21 R 8 55jammm (A)/t j-,q/JE7 RM m n.,-4-- \ o"5 1, - 1� / 414, Agenda Item L5 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Lower Afton Road Trail Improvements (McKnight to Century), City Project 03- 29, Authorize Joint Project with Ramsey County DATE: August 4, 2006 INTRODUCTION Residents along Lower Afton Road have been concerned with pedestrian and biking safety along Lower Afton Road. They submitted a petition in 2003. In response to this petition the City Council directed a project with Ramsey County to investigate the feasibility of a joint project to install a trail along this alignment. The 2006 Legislature approved bonding funds for this project. Approval to proceed with the improvement is requested. Background Attached is the petition from 140 residents of South Maplewood requesting consideration of a trail along Lower Afton Road from 2003. County engineering staff has estimated that the cost of a trail along this corridor would cost approximately $650,000. State bonding will cover $321,000 of the cost with the remainder on a 50 -50 cost split with Ramsey County. Maplewood's share of the project would be in the $100,000 range and would be eligible for reimbursement from Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) funds, although this fund has been used to finance the Mall Area Traffic Improvements. It is likely that a bond for future MSAS proceeds will be needed and this $100,000 expenditure could be added to that bond cost and proceeds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council approve a motion authorizing a joint project for the Lower Afton Road Trail Improvements (McKnight to Century), Project 03 -29, and authorize the finance director to create a fund in the amount of $100,000 with the intent of making payment to Ramsey County. Attachment: 1. Petition 2. Site Map RECEIVED)- evr— I OIA— �-Vx - 7 3 6 4S4 To: Chuck Auhl City Administrator City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B. Maplewood, MN 55109 We are very concerned about the safety of walking along Lower Afton between McKnight and Century Avenue as there is no off -road walking path. Therefore, we are requesting a trail be put in along Lower Afton so that it connects with the trail that begins one block east of Century Avenue. Name Address Phone Number a 4 jud- � / , ­7 3f 2 - eg2 Y - 71 7 3 4 5 6 TZ J42 V 7 L5 u etc 8 9 Tu "J 10 3 11 12 '7 13 14 15 7 17 18 z - S 19 J­ F — Name Address Phone Number 20 6;) Z-/ 21 22 Po 23 I T 24 r.) lo AV 25 T 26 a Ili 73 1 7 - 2 7'� -7 ILI 28 - (e 29 1 ;( ° `7 32 13 3 0 A3 ) OPId 5 31 32 33 34 2 44 L 4 35 - 7 - 3 ) - - ' S k" To: Chuck Auhl City Administrator °City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B. Maplewood, MN 55109 We are very concerned about the safety of walking along Lower Afton between McKnight and Century Avenue as there is no off -road walking path. Therefore, we are requesting a trail be put in along Lower Afton so that it connects with the trail that begins one block east of Century Avenue. Name Address Phone Number / 1� 07 Z-7 3ti O 73S SS-55 5 6 7Lr L L ` c� 'off C `7 l f l 8 c- n c- 10 0 to �E '% 25 2. 11 4' ��� lei 13 i s �/: �A� 6 15 f` Z IV 16 19 27) Z-/V fry 20 no no sm Sign HN No. WFA Name I • I I Z K v., I / L,t /J S- r 1 Al 41-2- LN mt� J rat f4 LN 51 �Sk�i4AWI N O-P (e" r v ez-� L*-,) , ( liq (�q 71 A# 3 37 30 31 32 33 34 35 To: Chuck Auhl Ci/ Administrator City of Maplewood i 830 East County Road B. Maplewood, MN 55109 We are very concerned about the safety of walking along Lower Afton between McKnight and Century Avenue as there is no off-road walking path. Therefore, we are requesting a trail be put in along Lower Afton so that it connects with the trail that begins one block east of Century Avenue. I Name Address Phone Number i qA) T 1 2 7 3 A�j t,- �!��j �j �: �% %' ! ( � / Z, � 4 5 7" 6 6 7 8 9 10 A ♦ 12 YVI 7 — 13 1 4 C J LI /�Lo­ 5 7C ",( 7c -s 73,0-7 2-15 77 I 3L aL Name Address Phone Number 20 A 21 22 1 Ll �F 4" a�cr ��'� c� �� / ' C � � � � IS� 23 frG 7 24 21 At 26 T73 27 <4 28 t/Uj/,4�-7 - 66 29 je OM a 30 7 ,3 31 S6, 73 -9 32 33 IN 34 35 3 - 3 �5 �)P.k S 3L aL CS ' — 3 i � A CS ' — 3 i � Tc:: Chuck Auhl City Administrator City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B. Maplewood, MN 55109 We are very concerned about the safety of walking along Lower Afton between McKnight and !Century Avenue as there is no off -road walking path. Therefore, we are requesting a trail be put in along Lower Afton so that it connects with the trail that begins one block east of Century Avenue. 7 00 V Name Address Phone Number 1 i , r IV' — .S 2 - 1r `� r U fE 75 6 f 7 / f / D14 Cv 6 14 / z 17 18 �� { "i `a"-,'Yt�F`�Lcul ^ 7 19 7 00 V :f; .9 I Name Address Phone Number 20 �C4,YLE Litj '7 S -3 21 77 2 A 2 4, CrCe 73 25 26 L/ Dr 9, s 27 9 28 — ::� 29 — 7 1 5 30 735 31 7-3 - 3 1 0 32 - �3 0 -3 - 7 34 I nc), U 35 :f; .9 4, 80N 12 Iz ?40N 13 smo 00 — 14 240S — 15 4 805 — 16 HUNTINCTON CT 2. OAYR(c)(-,E [_A 7-2 OS) 17 1 CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VIEW CT. 3 LAKEWOOD CT. 960S - �r- -- - L T—ners 9 7 13 - 14 CD 15 w 1i r NEW CENTURY P T, 3 NEW CENTUR' LN / ff4 Agenda Item L6 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Manager SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance to Establish Full Commission Status for the Environmental Committee DATE: July 26, 2006 INTRODUCTION The environmental concerns of the City of Maplewood are currently being addressed by the Environmental Manager and the ad -hoc Environmental Committee. Per council directive, it is now desirable to amend city ordinance to establish full commission status for the Environmental Committee. BACKGROUND The formation of the Environmental Committee was approved by council on January 26, 2004. Environmental Committee members were appointed by the city council on June 14, 2004 after an interview process. The Environmental Committee currently operates as an ad -hoc committee that is responsible for advising the city council and other boards on matters relevant to the environment. This includes recycling, solid waste, environmental education, water resources, wetlands and storm water management. The Environmental Committee consists of seven residents appointed by the city council to three -year staggered terms. The proposed Commission will also have seven members with three -year staggered terms and a chairperson and a vice - chairperson. The city council may also elect to increase the membership of the Environmental Commission from seven to nine members in order to increase citizen participation and to spread out the workload. The duties and responsibilities of the Commission will be to: (1) Promote and encourage recycling participation from Maplewood residents including multi -unit residential complexes. (2) Promote and encourage recycling participation from Maplewood businesses. (3) Promote and encourage reduction and prevention of solid waste generation from Maplewood residents and businesses. Agenda Item L6 (4) Educate residents and businesses about storm water management and the reduction of pollutants that may adversely impact surface and ground water. (5) Promote natural landscaping techniques including the use of rain gardens, composting, low impact lawns and increase awareness of exotic plant species. (6) Encourage students to take on a leadership role in promoting environmental causes and programs. (7) Continue to maintain a close working relationship with Ramsey County and other governmental bodies. (8) Support and help implement the mission and goals of the city council. (9) Accept such other duties as may, from time to time, be directed by the city council, including conducting hearings. The timeline schedule for council adoption to establish an Environmental Commission is as follows: • Publish proposed amendment in official city newspaper on August 9 and 16, 2006. • First reading on August 14, 2006. • Second reading and adoption on September 11, 2006. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the council conduct the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to establish an Environmental Commission as an advisory board to the city council as provided by Minnesota statutes. Attachment: 1. Copy of proposed ordinance establishing an Environmental Commission. MAPLEWOOD CODE DIVISION 6. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Sec. 2 -2xx. Established The city council establishes for the city an environmental commission as an advisory board to the city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. §§ 462.351- 462.365. (Code 1982, § 25 -17) Sec. 2 -2xx. Advisory body; exceptions All actions of the advisory environmental commission shall be in the nature of recommendations to the city council, and the commission shall have no final authority about any matters, except as the council may lawfully delegate authority to it. (Code 1982, § 25 -18) State law reference- City environmental agency to be advisory, except as otherwise provided by state statute or charter, Minn. Stats. § 462.354, subd. 1. Sec. 2 -2xx. Composition; appointment; qualifications; terms (a) The environmental commission shall have seven members appointed by the council. The members shall be residents of the city and may net hold an elected city public office. When possible, the council shall select commission members to represent the various areas of the city and to help meet the needs of the residents. (b) The city council shall appoint members of the environmental commission for three -year terms. If the appointment is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the (Code M The environmental commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice - chairperson at the first environmental commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice - chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson for that meeting. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the environmental commission, the vice- chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the environmental commission can hold an election for new officers. (Code 1982 § 25 -20) Sec. 2 -2xx. Vacancies. (a) Any of the following may cause the office of an environmental commissioner to become vacated: (1) Death or removal from the city (2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend three meetings in any year, may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause can be shown to the council. (3) Resignation in writing. (4) Taking public office in the city. (b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated term. (Code 1982, § 25 -21) Sec. 2 -2xx. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure. (a) The environmental commission shall elect its own officers, establish meeting times, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council. (b) All meetings of the environmental commission shall be open to the public. (Code 1982, § 25 -22) Sec. 2 -2xx. Duties and responsibilities. The environmental commission shall have the duty to: (1) Promote and encourage recycling participation from Maplewood residents including multi -unit residential complexes. (2) Promote and encourage recycling participation from Maplewood businesses (3) Promote and encourage reduction and prevention of solid waste generation from Maplewood residents and businesses. (4) Educate residents and businesses about storm water management and the reduction of pollutants that may adversely impact surface and ground water. (5) Promote natural landscaping techniques including the use of rain gardens, composting, low impact lawns and increase awareness of exotic plant species. (6) Encourage students to take on a leadership role in promoting environmental causes and programs. 2 (7) Continue to maintain a close working relationship with Ramsey County and other governmental regulatory bodies. (8) Support and help implement the mission and goals of the city council. (9) Accept such other and further duties as may, from time to time, be directed by the city council, including conducting hearings. (Code 1982, § 25 -23) Sec. 2 -2xx. Compensation; expenses. All members of the environmental commission shall serve without compensation. However, approved expenses of the environmental commission shall be paid from available city funds. Sec. 2 -2xx. Responsibilities of the Environmental Manager. Subject to the direction of the city manager, the environmental commission and its chairperson, the environmental manager who reports to the city engineer shall: (1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission. (2) Send out all required notices (3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission. (4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings. (5) Keep all required records and files. (6) Maintain the files (Code 1982, § 25 -25) Sec. 2 -2xx. Duties of city engineer, city attorney and other city employees. (a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the environmental commission. The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in with the commission at all meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as members of the commission. (b) All city engineering department employees and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall cooperate with the environmental commission and make themselves available and attend meetings when requested to do so. (Code 1982, § 25 -26) 3 Agenda Item L7 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment to the Environmental Preservation and Protection of Trees and Woodlands Ordinance -- First Reading DATE: August 3, 2006 INTRODUCTION The environmental concerns of the City of Maplewood are currently being addressed by the Environmental Manager and the ad -hoc Environmental Committee. An area of particular concern for the city council is the examination of the city's existing environmental ordinances. To that end, the attached Environmental Preservation and Protection of Trees and Woodlands ordinance was drafted and is hereby presented for consideration and approval, as requested by the Council and City Manager. This ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney, the Environmental Committee, the Planning Commission and the Community Design Review Board. Minutes from the July 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and from the July 25, 2006 Community Design Review Board Meeting are attached. The ordinance is in rough draft form and needs to be revised based upon input from the City Council. This has been proposed as a first reading to allow that to occur, although the Council may consider making revisions and delaying the first reading to see final impacts and to allow for the developer and resident impact which has not occurred to date. DISCUSSION Comparison of Other City Tree Ordinances One of the first areas of review was to compare the City of Maplewood's existing tree ordinance with other similar city's ordinances. Maplewood's existing ordinance was compared with six other cities including Blaine, Eagan, Oakdale, Saint Paul, White Bear Lake and Woodbury. The comparison found that Maplewood's tree ordinance is far less restrictive than these six cities, particularly in regard to the number of replacement trees required. A table illustrating the comparison of the tree preservation ordinances from these six cities is attached. Major Changes Proposed Staff created the following list of major changes proposed with the draft tree ordinance: Tree Protection: Current ordinance limits the amount of information on tree protection measures. Proposed ordinance gives more detail on protection measures and applicability. Responsible City Staff: Current ordinance is vague as to responsible city staff. Proposed ordinance identifies responsible city staff principally as the Environmental Manager and City Forester. A City Forester will have to be hired to support this Agenda Item L7 ordinance. This is estimated to be an annual expense to the General Fund of $75,000. In addition, the city will have to establish a framework to generate revenue to help offset the costs associated with the position of City Forester whether it is through an add on to existing permits or a new stand alone permit. Significant Tree Definition: Current ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as large trees. A large tree is a tree with an 8 -inch diameter excluding box elder, cottonwood, poplar and any other undesirable tree. Proposed ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as significant trees. A significant tree is a hardwood tree with a 6 -inch diameter, softwood tree with a 12- inch diameter, conifer tree with an 8 -inch diameter, and further defines a landmark /specimen tree as any tree with a diameter of over 28 inches. No tree species is excluded from tree replacement. Applicability: Current ordinance has broad application to any person or use that would alter a significant natural feature. Proposed ordinance better defines application to any individual, business or entity that engages in a building or development activity which requires issuance of a grading permit or new building permit. This includes all sites of new development that contain significant trees or woodlots. Applications for minor home additions, general home improvements, construction of accessory buildings (i.e. garage, shed) are excluded from the requirements of the proposed tree ordinance. Woodlot Definition: Current ordinance defines a woodlot as at least one -half acre, of which 25 percent of the area includes large trees. Proposed ordinance defines a woodlot as a treed area on a vacant lot which includes a significant tree. Noncompliance: Current ordinance does not contain penalty for non - compliance. Proposed ordinance penalizes noncompliance. Failure to submit an approved woodlot alteration permit before land clearing will result in a two -year moratorium for issuance of a grading or building permit in addition to total tree replacement for the parcel Number of Replacement Trees: Current ordinance requires tree replacement of one tree replaced for one tree removed, but in no case does an applicant have to replace more than ten trees per acre. Proposed ordinance requires one tree replaced per one tree lost, up to 20 percent of significant tree diameter inches lost. Once the threshold of 20 percent of total diameter inches is reached, additional tree replacement is required based on a tree replacement formula of total diameter inches on the site and number of diameter inches lost. The formula increases the amount of inches replaced based on additional tree inches removed. There is no maximum replacement threshold. A tree replacement calculation example table is attached to illustrate the proposed tree replacement requirements. Agenda Item L7 Size of Replacement Trees: Current ordinance requires replacement trees to be at least 2.5 caliper inches for deciduous trees and 8 feet high for coniferous trees. Proposed ordinance requires tree replacement trees to be at least 2.0 caliper inches for deciduous and 6 feet high for coniferous trees. Species and Guarantee: Current ordinance recommends tree species diversity for replacement and a one year planting guarantee. Proposed ordinance requires tree species diversity if more than ten trees are planted and a two year planting guarantee. Surety for Replacement Trees: Current ordinance does not require a letter of credit or a cash escrow for tree replacement and does not allow for payment to city in lieu of tree replacement. Proposed ordinance requires a 150 percent letter of creditor cash escrow for tree replacement. In addition, tree replacement on site considered first option, but payment to city in lieu of tree replacement allowed if there is not enough space on site for tree replacement. Proposed Timeline Schedule The timeline schedule for council adoption of the Environmental Preservation and Protection of Trees and Woodlands Ordinance is as follows: • First reading on August 14, 2006 • Publish notification in official city newspaper on August 9, 2006. • Publish revised ordinance (if major revisions are made) in official city newspaper on August 30, 2006. • Second reading and adoption on September 25, 2006, with an effective date of October 15 or November 1, 2006. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE It is noted that this is an important Ordinance for environmental preservation. The City Attorney has confirmed that this ordinance applies to all future developments, but caution is needed with on -going development reviews, as noted in the City Attorney's comments below. We can, and many cities do, apply these ordinances retroactively. In this case the ordinance would certainly encompass and bind developments that the City is, "currently reviewing." The use of Ordinances retroactively is not encouraged but it does not mean that they are per se not applicable. Only when they restrict or infringe on VESTED contract or property rights. The problem in many cases is the effect on a /the plat. I am not sure if the plat in question has prelim. approval or full approval, but statute restricts the City from passing a control which will "affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication..." (Minn. Stat. 462.358(3)(c)) That would be the question, then, but the developer may just want to be a good steward and work with our ordinance anyway. Impacts on developments such as Carver Crossing, Cottagewood, Eldridge Fields and Tourist Cabins will be noted as we proceed with adoption. Agenda Item L7 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that council consider adoption of the Environmental Preservation and Protection of Trees and Woodlots Ordinance. Direction on the revisions to this draft will be incorporated by staff and the final revision prepared for review and publication as part of the final (second) reading in September 2006. Attachments: 1. Environmental Preservation and Protection of Trees and woodlands Ordinance 2. Minutes from the July 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting 3. Minutes from the July 25, 2006 Community Design Review Board Meeting 4. Comparison of Tree Preservation Ordinances 5. Tree Replacement Calculation Examples City of Maplewood Draft Ordinance ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF TREES AND WOODLANDS Revised: August 4, 2006 Purpose. The city desires to protect the trees and woodlands in the City of Maplewood. Trees and woodlands provide better air quality, scenic beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, natural insulation for energy conservation, and are beneficial in watershed management. Trees and woodlands also provide wildlife habitat, privacy as screening, act as natural sound and visual buffers, and increase property values. It is therefore the city's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of Maplewood and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development in the city, thereby, promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Maplewood. The purpose of this article is to establish a tree preservation and protection ordinance to assure the continuance of significant natural features for present and future generations which: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Preserve the natural character of neigh Protect the health and safety of Protect water quality. and undeveloped areas). Prevent erosion or flooding. Assure orderly environmental deg Establish a minin impacts resulting f Establish and pror and woodlands for within areas to minimize tree loss and Applicability. and mitigation of environmental an on -going tree planting program within the city to assure trees -e generations. 1. This article shall apply to any individual, business, or entity that engage in a building or development project which requires issuance of a grading permit or new building permit. This includes all sites of new development that contain significant trees or woodlots. Platting and adding new roadway and right of way are subject to this ordinance. 2. The following are exceptions and exempt from requirements of this ordinance: a. Minor home additions, general home improvements, construction of accessory buildings (i.e. garage, shed) applications. Page 1 of 11 b. Tree removal related to city public improvement projects to existing roadways, sewers and other infrastructure, utility /infrastructure work or repair. c. Emergency removal of a trees) to protect public health. d. Restoration of land to native prairie. Prairie restoration must be approved by the environmental manager or city forester. e. Commercial tree nursery and landscape operations. f Removal of dead or dying trees. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Applicant means developer, builder, contractor or homeowner who applies for a building or grading permit. Caliper means a tree trunk measurement of nursery stock measured six (6) inches above ground for tree trunks up to four (4) caliper inches. Tree trunks over four (4) caliper inches measured at six (6) inches in height, move measurement point to twelve (12) inches above ground to measure trunk caliper. Trees greater than four (4) caliper inches may have diameter measurements. Certified Forester means a person whom holds 'a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in arboriculture, urban forestry, or similar field from an accredited academic institution or is registered with the International Society of Arboriculture as a certified arborist /forester. City Forester means a certifie designated by the city. Con ifirouslEvergreen Tree branches year -round which at and Larch are included as con Critical Root Zone (CRZ) mi radius distance of one (1) foot tree has a CRZ with a radius employed by the city, or appropriate agent woody plant having foliage on the outermost portions of the ty is at least twelve (12) feet or more in height. Tamaracks an imaginary linear circle surrounding the tree trunk with a one (1) inch of tree diameter (e.g., a sixteen (16) inch diameter teen (16) feet. Deciduous Tree means a woody plant, which sheds leaves annually, having a defined crown and at maturity is at least fifteen (15) feet or more in height. Diameter means a standard point of measurement of tree size, measurement of tree trunk in inches at a height of four and one half (4.5) feet above ground. Measure the circumference of a tree trunk in inches at four and one half (4.5) feet above ground and divide by (3.14) to determine diameter. Drip Line means the farthest distance around and away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of that tree. Page 2 of 11 Environmental Manager means an employee of the city who manages city -wide environmental programs, or appropriate agent designated by the city. Hardwood Deciduous Tree means the following tree species: ash, basswood, birch, black cherry, catalpa, hackberry, hickory, ironwood, hard maples (sugar maple or red maple), locust, oak, and walnut. Major Dome Addition means an addition on a single or double dwelling lot of which the addition or accessory building is more than a sixty (60) percent increase in the footprint of the single or double dwelling structure on said lot. Minor Home Addition means an addition on a single or double dwelling lot of which the addition or accessory building is less than a sixty (60) percent increase in the footprint of the single or double dwelling structure on said lot. Ornamental Tree means a woody plant, which is grown for its beauty of its foliage and flowers. Retaining ball means a structure utilized to hold a slope in a position in which it would not naturally remain. Specimen Tree is a healthy tree of any species twenty -eight (28) inches in diameter or greater. These trees are considered Significant Trees. Significant Natural F of historical or archeo Significant Tree means a h€ hardwood deciduous trees, (12) inches diameter for soft (28) inches in diameter or g as determined by the enviror diameter. Slope means the inclination described as a ratio of the lei a significant water body, woodlot, significant slope, or a site ance that has been recorded with the state. measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for fiches in diameter for coniferous /evergreen trees, twelve luous tree, and specimen tree of any species twenty -eight -fined herein. Buckthorn or others noxious woody plants onager are not considered a significant tree species at any the natural surface of the land from the horizontal; commonly to the height. Structure means anything' manufactured, constructed, or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures. Softwood Deciduous Tree means the following tree species: box elder, cottonwood, elm, poplar /aspen, silver maple, and willow. Tree Preservation Plan means a plan prepared with the assistance of a certified forester, which clearly shows all trees in the area to be developed or within the parcel of record. The plan should include all significant trees to be preserved and measures taken to preserve them. The plan will Page 3 of 11 also include calculations to determine the number of replacement trees as required by the tree mitigation schedule and a proposed re- forestation landscape plan. Utilit means electric, telephone, telegraph, cable television, water, sanitary or storm sewer, solid waste, gas or similar service operations. Vegetation means all plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, native wildflowers, mosses or grasses. Wetland as defined in the city's wetland ordinance. Wilding Tree means a tree that was not grown or maintained by a nursery. Woodlot means a treed area of at least one - quarter (1/4) acre on a vacant lot, which includes significant tree(s). Woodlot alteration permit. A woodlot alteratio environmental manager for review prior to removal o reviewed by another application. The applicant s: information needed to determine compliance with this stated on an application form in the office of the ear shall be established yearly by the city council by res woodlot alteration application before removal o moratorium for issuance of a city grading or bu replacement for the parcel as outlined in the tree n assumption all trees are significant. on shall be submitted to the trees on a woodlot that is not t a tree plan and any other Specific requirements shall be I manager. An application fee ailure to submit an approved es will result in a two -year nit. In addition, a total tree 'enlacement schedule with the The environmental manager may approve a woodlot alteration permit that complies with this ordinance and receive recommendations from the city forester concerning the proposed woodlot alteration. The applicant may appeal environmental manager's decision to the environmental committee in writing within fifteen: (15) days of the environmental manager's written decision. The applicant may appeal the environmental committee decision in writing within (15) days of the environmental committee written decision to city council for final decision. Applicant must first approach environmental manager then environmental committee before city council will review. Tree preservation plan. A tree preservation plan is required for any project which requires any land use permit, grading permit, or building permit; excluding minor home additions and the removal of dead, diseased, dying or hazardous trees of any size. A tree preservation plan shall reflect the applicant's best effort to determine the most feasible and practical layout of buildings, parking lots, driveways, streets, storage and other physical features, so that the fewest significant trees are destroyed or damaged and to minimize the negative environmental impact to the site. All tree replacements will be in addition to landscape tree planting standards. An applicant may request a waiver from the environmental manager from preparation of a tree preservation plan. Page 4 of 11 Tree preservation plans shall include the following: 1. A tree inventory overlay on the site plan that shows size, species, general health, and location of all significant trees located within the area to be developed or within the parcel of record. Location of groups of standing dead or diseased significant trees shall be noted on inventory overlay. All tree inventories shall be preformed by a certified forester and shall be consistent with the engineer's grading plan contours. All significant trees included in the tree inventory must be tagged in the field for reference on the tree preservation plan. These significant trees should be identified on the plan sheets) in both graphic and tabular form. Trees growing in clump form are considered individual trees and each stem/trunk is measured as individual trees. 2. A certified forester must approve the tree 3. The tree preservation plan must be drawn at the same scale as the other site plan submittals. 4. A tree preservation plan that coincides with necessary engineering documents such as topography, wetland information, grading plans, road, and building locations must include: a. A list of total diameter inches of all healthy significant trees inventoried. b. Listing of the total diameter inches of healthy significant trees removed. The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of the person(s) responsible for tree preservation during the course of the development project. 5. Outer boundaries of all contiguous wooded areas, with a general description of trees not meeting the significant tree size threshold and any indication of the presence of epidemic tree diseases. 6. Delineation of all limits of land disturbance, clearing, grading and trenching. 7. Locations of the proposed buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces 8. Location of trees protected and the proposed measures for protection including delineation of tree protection fencing, tree protection signs, location for material storage, parking, debris storage, and wash out area for redi -mix trucks. 9. Written description of tree preservation and safeguarding measures planned for the site. Page 5 of 11 10. Size, species, number, and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on the property in accordance with the tree mitigation/replacement schedule. 11. Signature of the person(s) preparing the plan. The tree preservation plan shall be reviewed by the environmental manager, with advisement from the city forester, for compliance with this ordinance. Reasons for denial shall be noted on the tree preservation plan, or otherwise stated in writing. Tree Preservation and Safeguarding Tree Measures. 1. All developments within the city shall be designed to preserve significant trees and woodlots, where such preservation would not affect the public health, safety or welfare of Maplewood citizens. The city may prohibit removal of all or a part of a woodlot or significant tree subject to the limitations as defined in this chapter. This decision shall be based on but not limited to the following criteria: a. Size. b. Species, health, and attractiveness of the. trees, incl 1) Sensitivity to disease. 2) Life span. 3) Nuisance characteristics. 4) Sensitivity to site gradiq 0) iN eea for thinning a wooaiot. 7) Effects on the functioning of a development. 8) Fragmentation of wooded area and effects on wildlife corridors. 9) The public health, safety and welfare. 10) Effect on wetlands and/or watershed. 11) Native Prairie Restoration 2. Safeguarding preserved trees: the tree preservation plan shall delineate the location of (existing) significant trees that are to be preserved with location and type of protective fencing. a. Tree protective areas shall be located at a minimum of the CRZ of trees or drip line whenever possible. Use of tree -save islands and stands are encouraged rather than the protection of individual trees scattered throughout a site. b. Suitable tree protection fencing in active areas includes use of orange polyethylene laminar safety fencing or woven polyethylene fabric {silt fencing). Page 6 of 11 Fencing must be self - supportive. All active tree protection areas shall be designated as such with "Tree Save Area" signs posted in addition to the required fencing. C. Use of passive forms of tree protection requires approval from environmental manager in writing. Passive forms of tree protection fencing include use of continuous rope or flagging {heavy mil plastic four (4) inches or wider) with visible signage stating "Keep Out" or "Tree Save Area ". d. Signs requesting subcontractor cooperation and compliance with tree protection standards are required at site entrances. e. No construction work shall begin until tree pri inspected, and approved by the city forester. prior to construction or grading, applicant sha of on -site protective measures by city forester protection fencing or devices it must not be written approval. f. 9- h. J_ ection fencing has been installed, At least three (3) working days be required to request inspection Once city forester approves tree ltered or removed without prior Tree protection fencing shall be maintained and repaired by the applicant for the duration of construction. No grade change, construction activity, storage or staging of materials shall occur within this fenced area. Use of custom grading, retaining walls or tree wells to maintain existing grade for preserved trees. Layout 'ofthe project site utility and grading plans should accommodate the tree preservation areas. Utilities recommended along corridors between tree preservation areas and use of common trenches or tunnel installation if possible. Minimize tree wounding by felling or removing trees away from trees remaining on site. )n site activities such as parking, material storage, concrete washout, of holes, etc., shall be arranged so as not to encroach on tree protection k. Identify and prevent oak wilt infection. Treat all known oak wilt infected areas with current accepted guidelines including root cutting and tree removal. If pruning oaks is required between April 1 and July 1 cover fresh wounds with nontoxic tree wound sealant or latex paint. Use of wood chip mulch to a depth of six (6) to eight (8) inches adjacent to tree protection areas to minimize soil compaction and desiccation. Page 7 of 11 M. Concrete washout, leakage or spillage of fuels or paints, or other materials that would result in detrimental change in soil chemistry is prohibited in tree preservation areas. n. Ell P- 3. If any significant tree s plan is cut, damaged, construction process wi manager that the daa shall be removed by the rate of two (2) times the Tree Post construction tree care to mitigate construction damage: 1) Tree root aeration, fertilization, and/or irrigation systems. 2) Therapeutic pruning. Soil compaction mitigation by: 1) Mulch drive lanes with eight (8) to ten (10) inches of woodchips. 2) Soil fracturing with deep tillage or other similar methods. 3) Inclusion of organic 3) Core aeration. Transplant existing trees permanent sites within the transplanting onto as preserved (protected) in the approved tree preservation - ncroached upon , by grading equipment or during the city authorization and is determined by the environmental ee(s) will probably not survive, the said damaged tree(s) icant at their expense and replacement tree(s) required at a a_itigation/replacement formula. If less than twenty percent (0 %) of significant tree diameter inches is removed, the applicant shall replace one (1) tree per significant tree removed. Tree replacement shall be of two and one half (2.5) caliper inches in size. If twenty percent (20 %) or more total diameter inches is removed, applicant shall mitigate all significant diameter inches using the tree mitigation/replacement schedule in accordance with the following formula: A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees lost as a result of the Land Alteration B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees situated on the property. C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.5) Page 8 of 11 D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches) ((AlB -.24) x Q x A= D Example A = 379 B = 943 C =1.33 D =160 ((379 1 943 — 0.20) x 1.5) X 379 = 114.7 caliper inches The trees required to be replaced pursuant to this chapter required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of ci Once the total caliper inches for replacement tree mitigate tree loss by either: 1. Plant replacement trees in appropriate areas the tree replacement schedule. be in addition to any other trees , the devel shall development in accordance with 2. Plant replacement trees on city property under the direction of environmental manager or city forester. 3. Pay the city a sum per diameter inch in accordance with the tree replacement schedule with written approval from city staff. The fee per diameter inch shall be set forth in the city fee schedule set annually by city council resolution. Payment shall be deposited into an account designated specifically for tree planting on public property within the city. The form of mitigation to be provided by the applicant shall be determined by city staff. 4. The developer shall be required to maintain trees for two (2) year after planting. Should any tree require replacement during this two (2) year period, the replacement period shall start at the date of replacement. Trees required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of city code are not included in this and must be replaced according to such code. 5. Species requirements: Where ten (10) or more replacement trees area required, not more than thirty (30) percent shall be of the same type of tree without the written approval of the environmental manager. Native tree species to the Maplewood area are preferred. 6. Sources of trees: Replacement trees shall consist of certified nursery stock as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.46 hardy for this USDA plant hardiness zone (Zone 2, 3 or 4 hardiness rated trees) or other trees including wilding trees, so long as such wilding trees comply with the following standards and are approved by the environmental manager or city forester. All replacement trees shall be healthy and free from insect or Page 9 of 11 disease infestation. A wilding tree measured in caliper inches shall not exceed the maximum height as shown on the table below: CALIPER INCHES MAXIMUM HEIGHT FEET 2 -3 18 3 -4 20 4 -5 24 The lowest branch of a wilding tree shall not be at a height above the surface of the ground more than one -half (1/2) the total height of the tree (e.g., a fourteen (14) foot tree must have a branch within seven (7) feet of the surface of the surrounding ground). 7. Tree replacement size must be no less than two (2) caliper inches deciduous or six (6) foot evergreen tree unless pre - approved by the environmental manager. Evergreen or coniferous tree height convert to caliper measurement as follows: the first six (6) feet of growth equals two and one -half (2.5) caliper inches for each additional two (2) feet in height equals one (1) additional caliper inch. Trees required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of city code must comply with tree size specification of such code. 8. Tree replacement surety required. The applicant shall post tree replacement surety with the city, such as a tree replacement cash deposit or letter of credit, of one hundred and fifty (150) percent of estimated cost for tree replacement for proposed planting. Funds will be held by the city until successful completion of final planting inspection. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to call for such inspection. Tree replacement surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to any ether provision of city code or city directive. t. The city reserves the right to inspect the construction site at any time for vith this ordinance. Should the city find the site in violation of the approved tree plan, they may issue a stop work order until conditions are corrected. Stop work lifted after approved by environmental manager or city forester in writing. The city shall be responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance. Any person who fails to comply with or violates any section of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to punishment in accordance with section 1 -15. All land use building, and grading permits shall be suspended until the developer has corrected the violation. Each day that a separate violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. Effect on density. The city may reduce the maximum allowed density on that part of a development that has a significant natural feature, where such reduction would save all or part of a significant natural feature. However, regardless of the requirements in this article, the maximum allowed density shall not be reduced below 67 percent of the allowed density in the city's land use plan for multiple dwellings. The minimum lot size shall not be increased above Page 10 of 11 15,000 square feet for single dwellings. Any required density reduction or increase in lot size must save a significant natural feature. The city council may require the clustering of dwellings in the form of townhouses, quads, apartments, or similar uses where it is necessary to preserve significant natural features. Page 11 of 11 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006 IV. Tree Ordinance Amendment Update Presentation (6:40 —7:10 p.m.) The city council created the environmental committee in the summer of 2004. The environmental committee was created to examine and deal with environmental issues within the city. An area of particular concern with the city council was the examination of the city's existing environmental ordinances by the environmental committee. On July 10, 2006, the tree task force finalized a draft tree ordinance. This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney's office with oversight from the environmental committee. Mr. Dale Trippler said in addition to serving on the planning commission he is also the chair of the Environmental Committee. He said he is here to speak about the tree ordinance amendments. Mr. Trippler reviewed the draft information in the tree ordinance packet. He then introduced DuWayne Konewko to speak further on this subject. Mr. DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Manager, addressed the commission. He spoke about the Environmental Committee and why he is here this evening. Mr. Konewko said in addition to Environmental Committee member Dale Trippler some of the other committee members are present this evening including Jim Beardsley, Ann Hutchinson, Director of the Maplewood Nature Center, Hans Neve, and Mandy Musielewicz, City Forester for the City of Maplewood. Shann Finwall has also been working on the draft tree ordinance amendments. Following this presentation the Environmental Committee will be meeting in the Maplewood room with the other members of the Environmental Committee. Included in the packet of information are copies of the current code in Maplewood, the proposed code amendments, and a chart comparison by city regarding tree preservation ordinances for the city of Blaine, Eagan, Oakdale, St. Paul, Woodbury and White Bear Lake. He then turned the discussion over to Shann Finwall. Ms. Finwall said she has been working with the Environmental Committee on the tree ordinance. The committee is proposing to change the definition of a large tree. The city's current definition of a large tree is a tree with an 8 -inch diameter tree excluding box elder, cottonwood, poplar and any other undesirable trees. The proposed ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as significant trees. A significant tree is a hardwood tree with a 6 -inch diameter, softwood tree with a 12 -inch diameter, conifer tree with an 8 -inch diameter, and further defines a land marklspecimen tree as any tree with a diameter over 28 inches. No tree species is excluded from tree replacement. Ms. Finwall reviewed the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance for the applicability, project inclusion and notification, woodlot definition, noncompliance, number of replacement trees, size of replacement trees, tree species and guarantee, and surety for replacement trees. Then a tree replacement comparison was done. One tree comparison was for the Comforts of Home site off of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street. A second comparison was for Maplewood Imports off Highway 36 on Highway 61. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 The proposed schedule is to present the draft tree ordinance to the community design review board for comment. Then the environmental committee will conduct public education on the draft ordinance. The public will be introduced to the draft ordinance through articles, mailings, and possibly an open house. Comments received will be reviewed by the environmental committee for possible changes to the draft ordinances. After all the comments have been received and reviewed by the Environmental Committee this will go to the city council for review. Staff estimates that this process could be accomplished by mid October. Ms. Finwall stated that with this proposed ordinance change there would be more staff time needed to review permits at the city as part of this process. Ms. Finwall then introduced Mandy, the City Forester. Ms. Mandy Musielewicz, City Forester, addressed the commission. Ms. Musielewicz said the Environmental Committee is working on the tree ordinance so it's a better tool for the community to capture the significance of the trees in the city. We are moving to a percentage calculation for tree replacement as an incentive to maintain additional trees. The more trees you maintain on a site the less you would have to replace. The Environmental Committee decided to go with tree diameter rather than a tree for a tree recognizing that larger trees are significant and take longer to grow compared to planting many small trees. Commissioner Dierich asked if you had a woodlot on your property and you decided they created too much shade and you didn't want the trees any more, is there a provision for replacing those trees? Ms. Musielewicz said if you clear your woodlot you cannot apply for a permit for 2 years or you have to replace the trees one tree for each tree removed but that would only apply if you were planning on building a structure. Chairperson Fischer asked what would happen if you had too much shade on your property and you wanted more sun on your property so you could grow a garden and wanted to clear trees out? Mr. Konewko said both the current and the proposed ordinance do not address that situation. The only other opportunity to address a situation like that would be through the application of permits. If a developer cleared a property there would be a two year moratorium on development of that property. Aerial photos would be taken of the property showing the significant trees that were on the site. If a developer received a conditional use permit one of the conditions would state that all the significant trees remaining on the property must stay in place. If they chose to cut down one of the trees listed on the permit that would make it out of compliance for the conditional use permit which comes up for review yearly. The city is trying to prevent developers from clearing a property and then coming to the city to apply for a permit after the fact. Commissioner Dierich asked how buckthorn is categorized in the city because there is a lot of it in Maplewood and it's a real nuisance. Ms. Musielewicz said buckthorn is not considered a tree and therefore is not in the tree ordinance. Buckthorn is considered a nuisance shrub. Mr. Konewko said the city has a program at the Maplewood Nature Center for removing buckthorn. If someone needs assistance identifying buckthorn the city can give assistance. Ann Hutchinson with the Maplewood Nature Center has more information on that. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Commissioner Dierich asked what would happen in a development with a homeowners association and someone takes some trees down after the homes are built, is there anything to address that situation? Ms. Musielewicz said the ordinance does not address a homeowners association and homeowners taking trees down after the development is complete. Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks there is a piece of the puzzle missing. If you are going to add a significant addition to your home and it's on a heavily wooded lot the place where you want to build the addition would probably be in the wooded part of the lot. Say you are going to build a house on a 100% heavily wooded lot, are you going to have to replace the trees that were displaced with the building of the house when in effect you would only be planting new trees in amongst existing trees to an impractical level above and beyond what nature would have. Is there a mechanism to take into account how many trees there are already on the property verses the trees removed? Commissioner Trippler said there are very few wooded lots in Maplewood that are 100% covered with woods. The final decision comes from the city council to grant a variance. Commissioner Yarwood said there are many lots in his neighborhood that are at least 213 heavily wooded so it's a concern. He is also concerned about someone being required to add trees to the sides and fronts of a property where it may be impractical. Commissioner Trippler said that is a situation the Environmental Committee can look at. Mr. Konewko said there is a provision in the ordinance requiring someone to pay a tree escrow for trees removed and that money would go into a tree fund. If that person decided they did not want to replace the trees the money would then be used for the city to plant trees elsewhere in the city. Commissioner Pearson said he has a problem with the tree formula as it applies to the two examples given for Comforts of Home and Maplewood Imports. Based on the footprint of the building and the parking for the Comforts of Home proposal that would mean the developer would have to replace 46 trees because of the 26 trees that would be removed from the site. With Maplewood Imports the developer would be penalized with this proposed ordinance for removing 135 large diameter trees and would be required to replace 288 small trees. You already lost the trees and there should be some adjustment in the formula so you don't end up having to replant 200 trees when the property is full already with a building and parking lot. He's just not sure that's fair to the developer. That tree escrow money could go to the city to invest in refurbishing another area in the city. Mr. Konewko said there has to be a plan in place to let developers know that if they remove trees from a site the city will require them to replace the trees. Commissioner Pearson said the formula you are working with for the city is a good idea but somewhere in there you need to fine tune things because with this formula you would end up having to plant an excessive number of trees which could discourage development in Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson said he thinks it's a good rule to have one tree replaced for one tree removed. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 Mr. Konewko said the thought was when you remove a 36 -inch diameter tree and replace it with a 2.5 inch diameter tree there is no balance there. This is something the committee can take a look at however. Commissioner Pearson asked what the rational was for putting a two year moratorium on a property if someone clears a site verses only a one year moratorium? Mr. Konewko said when the Environmental Committee conducted a workshop with the city council the council came up with the idea of a two year moratorium, the Environmental Committee wanted a moratorium somewhere between one and three years. Commissioner Pearson said he didn't think a developer would be dumb enough to clear a lot out but if they did, they should be significantly penalized. Commissioner Yarwood asked if it would make sense to have the plantable tree area calculated after the building is in place and then have a threshold that beyond this density does it make sense to plant more trees on the site? Commissioner Dierich said she thinks it's a good idea to take escrow money in lieu of planting trees. If someone doesn't want to replace the trees, she thinks it would be good to have in the ordinance that the money could be used to clean up existing areas of dead trees and other diseased trees that are spreading diseases to neighboring trees and improve other woodlots in the city as well. Chairperson Fischer said we want people to know we are counting healthy trees and not trees that are diseased or dead and should be removed from the site anyway. Mr. Konewko said that is correct. Commissioner Pearson asked if a developer built all the lots and a year later half of the trees that were planted are dead or dying because the association or homeowners failed to water or maintain the trees, what type of relief is there, what would the developer's responsibility or obligation be then? Mr. Konewko said typically the developer's responsibility is to care for the trees for 2 years after the tree is planted. Typically the city sees about 213 of those trees die which equals about a 30% replacement. After those trees were replaced the two year clock would start again as soon as those trees were replaced. Commissioner Hess asked if there was a provision regarding working with the developer up front regarding the location of trees on the site? Mr. Konewko said the goal is to be proactive and work with the developers up front. Prior to the issuance of the building permit the developer would be required to submit a tree plan to the city for review prior to removing any trees on the property which would also be reviewed by the city forester as well. Mr. Konewko thanked the planning commission for their time this evening. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 07 -18 -06 The Environmental Committee had to be excused to begin their meeting in the conference room. The comments would be typed up and passed along to the appropriate parties. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006 a. Draft Tree Ordinance Update Ms. Finwall said the city council created the environmental committee in the summer of 2004. The environmental committee was created to examine and deal with environmental issues within the city. An area of particular concern with the city council was the examination of the city's existing environmental ordinances by the environmental committee. On July 10, 2006, the tree task force finalized a draft tree ordinance. This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney's office with oversight from the environmental committee. The planning commission discussed this at their July 18, 2006, meeting and shared their concerns and questions with the environmental committee. Ms. Finwall introduced Dale Trippler the chair of the Environmental Committee. A synopsis of the board's comments is as follows: Acting chairperson Ledvina felt regarding the tree fund — the ordinance should ensure that developers or homeowners plant as many replacement trees on the property and to be able to pay into the tree fund and not plant any trees, or pay in and plant minimal trees. Acting chairperson Ledvina is glad that the environmental committee is revamping the tree ordinance to ensure protection and replacement of trees. Acting chairperson Ledvina felt that the wetland ordinance should state that you can't fill in a wetland. If you do fill a wetland in you need a variance. Board member Hinzman felt if an applicant does not save a tree which was scheduled for preservation in the approved tree preservation /replacement plan, the replacement of that tree should be at a higher rate than the regular tree replacement. Board member Schurke felt as a developer he wanted to ensure that the new tree ordinance does not make the threshold for redevelopment in Maplewood too strict. There should be an incentive or a bonus for replacing more trees than the tree replacement calculation requires. He asked who determines the amount of money to be paid into the city's tree fund for replacement trees? He said this should be clarified. Board member Schurke wondered how practical it ends up being when you require a developer to have a certain number of trees on the site if you look ahead at what the trees will look like full grown and the drip line of the trees. It's really more than just requiring the trees be replaced there are other factors to consider. You have to look at the width of the trees, potential root problems and the destruction that tree roots can cause as well as overcrowding by over planting. He likes that Carpet Court brought in a model of what their proposed building would look like as well as a model of a full grown tree along with the tree canopy and what it would look like on their property. Board member Schurke said he appreciates the fact that Maplewood now has recycling every week as opposed to the every other week. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 7 -25 -2006 The board members said they applaud the work and the efforts that the environmental committee members have done. Mr. Trippler said he would pass the comments on that were made from the CDRB to the environmental committee. O O O O. R 41 ct Ln cn > u ca C) E iS c . 5 u 7 'D u ct <-- r-A t� — C 0 U C � 3 CO cn In. u u j u 75 c 0 cl, ct cz - C:; 4— QQ cn "Z:; CA C " Ln Cl 147- ct ct c5 ct cn Ln 2 cr !:JQ ct O � � 2 = C;5 0 E tt • m C-) N C5 N Ct rA In Ln C) C) U U +5 Lr o CG u 00 "C:; -C u tc bA 0 U -b bA N 76 oo 5 E U 40 ct > 7E� ct I-- '4- ti) C) p -2 bA �n ct "O ct 'A c*. C) —= 11 � C) E � GO 0 � C) C) � M u C) -C 4, +' cr O b0 d U ON c� a _O ,s: zs o v a? u cz U Cr o Gd O ❑, 44 o �.n O n �v . -a O' Q O U U CS3 Z bA rn Q.+. 142 c43 U - 0 , — \.:J' O CA C. r"' s C. t ...� . o N �_, a O u ct 'O 9J M N N S cc bJ3. O c C U O Cy V �` 'd C4 U. 72 In 2 , tr) U N C3 U<CN O U L Ln s a sU. c C4 o �. U C, � o °' a c� m o? a ct v U ' s, a CG w -a '� Q '� U ° Ct , cz �, � a o •� o u �n�' o o ° ^� aA s. Ct u U o 14- O 0 0 a �n r.. U ,.c o a � a � a o U U � U c v v cam, �4- U 4 v� U U cc L Z N Q Q U bA �. N >t "Z:; o U p c� N r C $� U 4- U 2S 4, U ?, f s� Lr " one 0 ° o� N O N U O N U° n S�, o . bA O a n N C .. "CS Ct U o`er cj �� �`�" N °o v� .� o °' °� U °_ 4 cc U U .� O U cc3 °> U U U cl s. ^t7 cn Q. � in ° v c ` R i,, in u � ° ° O aUj v o v Q �, �, �! a� U o a� ri u o o E U s�, 2 4, v cn �. s. �. . v w U° 3 w �6)° E w 7z; U o c ai ai a� U � ° o c� 15 CIS v �+ ° p o °' 75 u `° ° v <C ct oo cn ° $c -o ° ' 7, v c a Q � o o'7 a� tb ct th C7 C7 v th v o � o •� o ° o � , " 2 °o a� U U v U v v 't V V U ICJ �'tU CCU Tree Replacement Calculation Examples The following table shows several examples of potential tree replacement requirements. Actual examples were used to compare current code to the proposed code. For comparison purposes current code requirements were changed to reflect diameter inches based on 2.5" replacement trees. Examples of Tree Replacement Using a 2.5 " replacement tree Proposed Rate * *Proposed Rate = Tree Replacement Constant in the tree preservation calculation. * Allow 20% * Allow 20% * Allow 25% *Allow 25% Location Current Rate Rate 1.33 Rate 1.5 Rate 1.33 Rate 1.33 Maplewood 345 inches 639 inches 720 inches 538 inches 607 inches Imports = 138 trees = 255 trees = 288 trees = 215 trees = 242 trees 2450 Hwy 61 Comforts of 65 inches 103 inches 117 inches 76 inches 86 inches Home = 26 trees = 41 trees = 46 trees = 30 trees =34 trees 2310/2300 Hazelwood Residential lot 43 inches 48 inches 34 inches 38 inches at 43% removal None required = 17 trees = 19 trees = 13 trees = 15 trees 1906 Co. Rd. B Residential lot None required 18 inches 20 inches Winches 12 inches at 32% removal = 7 trees = 8 trees = 4 trees = 4 trees 1906 Co. Rd_ B *Proposed Rate = Tree Replacement Constant in the tree preservation calculation. Agenda Item L8 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer 11 SUBJECT: Kenwood Area Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16: Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders 4, 5 and 6 DATE: August 3, 2006 INTRODUCTION /SUMMARY During construction there are often unforeseen changes from the original plans and specifications. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract and revising the project financing plan. Background On April 24, 2006, the city council awarded Forest Lake Contracting a construction contract for utility and roadway improvements in the amount of $4,236,756.46. On June 12, 2006, the city council approved Change Orders 1, 2 and 3 for an additional $149,063.50. The total amount for the construction contract including change orders to date is $4,385,819.96. The changes described in Change Orders 4, 5 and 6 are described below and on the attached change order forms. Change Order 4 ($6,697.44) • The resident at 1933 Payne Avenue (Brent Alverman) contacted the City in regard to a sewer service back up. The City televised the line and determined that the resident's clay sewer service broke near the main. Since base preparation was finished at this time, the contractor had to excavate for the service and replace it with a PVC line to the main. • The sewer service at 1931 Kenwood Drive East was repaired due to water main work. The new PVC sewer service was realigned above the newly installed water main to gain clearance over the water main. • The Watershed District requested that live tree cuttings be used for establishment of a Swale to be installed in the wetland area to the south of the Keller Pond. Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District will cover this additional cost. Change Order 5 ($16,196.41) o A redesign of the Roselawn Avenue storm sewer connection to the low area west of Payne Avenue was required due to a water main utility conflict. It was originally intended to install a storm sewer within the south boulevard of Roselawn Avenue between Payne Avenue and Edgerton Street. However, it was found that the water main in Roselawn Avenue was incorrectly located by Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) as installation of the storm sewer line proceeded. The sewer was redesigned to be installed in the north boulevard of Roselawn Avenue to avoid the watermain. As a result of the new design, the newly installed south storm sewer had to be abandoned. Saint Paul Regional Water Services will be responsible for the cost of the revisions to the storm sewer. Agenda Item L8 Change Order 6 ($44,524.50) • Additional unforeseen street subgrade correction along Kenwood Drive West, Mt. Vernon Avenue, Skillman Avenue and Kenwood Lane were required due to unstable soils under the street beds. • Along Kenwood Drive West south of Mt. Vernon Avenue, wet clay sub -soils were encountered that required cutting the existing soils out and replacing the area with imported sand down to a 2 -foot depth below the pavement section placed on top of geotextile fabric. Areas with standing water or very soupy subgrade soils were cut down an additional 6 inches and replaced with 3 -inch diameter rock for support in these softer areas. It is believed that a high groundwater table coupled with years of drainage and saturation of the underlying are causes of the unstable soils that required this magnitude of correction. • Along Mt. Vernon Avenue, an area of soft material was cut down to a 2 -foot depth where existing sand subgrade was found. The material cut out was replaced with imported sand. • Along Skillman Avenue and Kenwood Lane, areas of the street were cut down an additional 6 inches below the regular pavement section and replaced with 6 inches of Class 6 gravel to support the street. Class 6 was used in lieu of imported sand for the replacement due to drier and sandier soils than those along Kenwood Drive West. The original contract amount is for $4,236,756.46. The modified contract amount including Change Orders 1, 2 and 3 is $4,385,819.96. Change Orders 4, 5 and 6 will increase the contract by $67,418.33 to $4,453,238.29. Budget Impact Approval of the sanitary, storm sewer and tree clearing changes will require an increase in the budget by $67,418.33. The sanitary sewer fund contribution would be increased by $4,597.42, Ramsey Metro Watershed share would increase by $2,100, along with Saint Paul Regional Water Services increase of $16,196.41. The Debt Service Levy will be increased by $44,524.50. Approved Financing Sources Debt Service Levy Assessments Sewer Fund SPRWS WAC Investment Inter. RWMWD EUF TOTAL $ 5,414,300.00 RECOMMENDATION Proposed Financing Sources Debt Service Levy Assessments Sewer Fund SPRWS WAG Investment Inter. RWMWD EUF TOTAL $ 2,500,680.00 $ 1,454,620.00 $ 561,000 .00 $ 339,900.00 $ 80,000.00 $ $60,000.00 $ $90,600.00 $ 327,5 . 00 TOTAL $ 5,414,300.00 RECOMMENDATION Proposed Financing Sources Debt Service Levy Assessments Sewer Fund SPRWS WAG Investment Inter. RWMWD EUF TOTAL $ 2,545,204.50 $ 1,454,620.00 $ 565, 597.42 $ 356,096.41 $ 80,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 92,700.00 $ 327, 500.00 $ 5,481,71 8.33 It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract for the Kenwood Area Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 05- 16, Change Orders 4,5, and 6. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Change Order Nos. 4, 5, and 6 3. Location Map RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 05 -16, CHANGE ORDER 4, 5 and 6 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 05 -16, Kenwood Area Neighborhood Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 05 -16, Change Order Nos. 4, 5 and 6. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that: The mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the amount of $67,418.33. The revised contract amount is $4,453,238.29. 2. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the revised financing plan for the project. A project budget of $5,481,718.33 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows: Assessments: Ramsey Wash Watershed District: Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund: SPRWS Obligation: WAG Fund Environmental Utility Fund Investment Interest: Debt Service levy: Total $ 1,454,620.00 $ 92,700.00 $ 565,597.44 $356,096.41 $ 80,000.00 $ 327,500.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 2,545,204.50 $ 5,481,130.35 CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Kenwood Area Neighborhood Improvements Change Order No.: 4 Project No.: 05 -16 Date: 8 -3 -06 Contractor: Forest Lake Contracting The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: (Work not covered under contract) Description Unit Quantity Price Total Sanitary Sewer Service Repair Emergency Excavation and Repair 1933 Payne Avenue EA 1 $3,309.44 $3,897.42 Wetland Ditch Establishment Live Tree Cuttings Sand Bar Willow Stakes EA 140 $10.00 $1,400.00 Red -osier Dogwood Stakes EA 70 $10.00 $ 700.00 Sanitary Sewer Service Repair 1931 Kenwood Drive East LF 17.5 $40.00 $ 700.00 TOTAL $ 6,697.42 Original Contract: $4,236,756.46 Net Change of Prior Change Order Nos. 1 -3: $149,063.50 Change This Change Order: $6,697.42 Revised Contract: $4,392,517.38 ' • • • -. Mayor Recommended Agreed to by Contractor by Its Engineer Title MIT i'T1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Kenwood Area Neighborhood Improvements Change Order No.: 5 Project No.: 05 -16 Date: 8 -3 -06 Contractor: Forest Lake Contracting The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: (Work not covered under contract) Unit Description Unit Quantity Price Total Extra Work on Rose /awn Ave. 24 -inch RCP Class 3 LF 100 $45.00 $4,500.00 24 -inch HDPE LF 326 $30.00 $9,780.00 48 -inch Manhole Structure EA 2 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 2" Bituminous Base Course TON 16 $44.05 $704.80 2" Bituminous Wear Course TON 16 $47.20 $755.20 12" Class 6 Gravel Base TON 91 $11.00 $1001.00 24" Select Granular CY 85 $14.00 $1,190.00 Water Utility Hole EA 2 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 Bituminous Curb LF 150 $4.00 $600.00 Traffic Light Loop Detector LS 1 $596.59 $596.59 Additional Traffic Control LS 1 $227.27 $227.27 18 -inch HDPE (not installed) LF (277) $25.00 ($6,925.00) 2" Bit. Base (not installed) TON 5 $44.05 ($220.25) 2" Bit. Wear (not installed) TON 6 $47.20 ($283.20) 12" Class 6 Gravel (not installed) TON 30 $11.00 ($330.00) TOTAL $ 16,196.41 Original Contract: $4,236,756.46 Net Change of Prior Change Order Nos. 1 -3: $149,063.50 Net Change of Pending Change Order No. 4: $6,697.42 Change This Change Order: $16,196.41 Revised Contract: $4,408,713.79 -3- -. Mayor Engineer Agreed to by Contractor by Its Title CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Kenwood Area Neighborhood Improvements Change Order No.: 6 Project No.: 05 -16 Date: 8 -3 -06 Contractor: Forest Lake Contracting The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: (Work not covered under contract) Description Unit Quantity Price Total Kenwood Drive W Correction 3" Rock Subgrade T 359 $22.50 $8,077.50 Select Granular Borrow CY 1248 $14.00 $17,472.00 Subgrade Excavation CY 1546 $10.00 $15,460.00 Class 6 Gravel Subbase T 51 $11.00 $561.00 Type V Geotextile Fabric SY 2307 $2.50 $5,767.50 Subgrade Ex. (per plan) CY (724) ($10.00) ($7,240.00) Select Gran. (per plan) CY (684) ($14.00) ($9,576.00) Mt. Vernon Correction Select Granular Borrow CY 445 $14.00 $6,230.00 Subgrade Excavation CY 445 $10.00 $4,450.00 Select Gran. (per plan) CY (280) ($14.00) ($3,920.00) Subgrade Ex. (per plan) CY (280) ($10.00) ($2,800.00) Kenwood Lane Correction Class 6 Gravel Subbase T 64 $11.00 $704.00 Subgrade Excavation CY 34 $10.00 $340.00 Skillman Avenue Correction Class 6 Gravel Subbase T 535 $11.00 $5,885.00 Subgrade Excavation CY 283 $10.00 $3,113.00 TOTAL $44,524.50 Original Contract: $4,236,756.46 Net Change of Prior Change Order Nos. 1 -3: $149,063.50 Pending Change Order Nos. 4 -5: $22,893.83 Change This Change Order: $44,524.50 Revised Contract: $4,453,238.29 Approved Mayor Recommended Engineer Agreed to by Contractor by Its Title VIKING DR. .. ..... . ..... .. n LLJ 0 ry w '- )I �7 PLAURIE CT. < 3:11 - ...... . ..... .. LIJ < >- ;7: 4 z - * n ---- - -------- - -------- - - ----- - --------- - ----- - ---------- - ----- BURKi U� -- A VE. V ELDRIDGE cn Oehrline BELMONT La ke I I AVE. '7171-MAN AV. o j o ry Ld < Ld ry ry (-D M M c:) cn Z W Ld Edgerton III r1r W Park < (-D A n LLJ (Y n ry BURKE CT. Maplecrest Park AVE. Keller Lake ROSELAWN AV. BELLWOOD n SUMMER °o C CT. i, i - 3: Cn 1 C z Li - 7 ry W . Q -J 71 I Ld < cn TR TP RIPLEY AV- GAT ® PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT �v KEN . 7 OOD LN � a I I Y V Ii' Exhibit 1: Project Location Kenwood Area Street Improvements City Project 05-16 Agenda Item L9 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02 -08: Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order Nos. 19 -20 (T.A. Schifsky Contract) DATE: July 25, 2006 INTRODUCTION The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order Nos. 19 -20 (T.A. Schifsky contract). Background In September 2004, the City Council approved the award of a construction contract for this project to Palda & Sons, Inc. The project included construction of utilities and roadway for the entire County Road D West improvement. Unfortunately, the County Road D West project did not begin as anticipated due to problems coordinating the various area improvements. Palda & Sons, Inc. requested an increase in the bid in excess of $300,000 to have the delays extended into 2005. Negotiations with the contractor resulted in the elimination of the street construction portion of the contract. The eliminated roadway construction was then rebid last spring, and a construction contract for the roadway was awarded to T. A. Schifsky & Sons in the amount of $668,162.93, resulting in a $40,000 cost savings to the city. During construction there are often many unforeseen changes and conditions that require changes to the original plan. A brief summary of each change order is provided below. Change Order No. 19 - $3,740.00. Irrigation and electrical repairs were made to the Shadowland Apartments in Vadnais Heights following the reconstruction of County Road D. The City of Vadnais Heights is responsible for financing this work. Change Order No. 20 - $16,875.65. As part of the County Road D construction, landscaping was provided in several locations that were outside of the original construction contract. Screening and landscaping were provided for the Prokosh and Dean properties, Highridge Court, the Lamettry Pond and in the triangle shaped berm where County Road D court and new County Road D intersect. Budget Impact Approval of this resolution will increase the construction contract by $20,615.65 from $906,225.10 to $926,840.75. Change Orders 19 through 20 will require approval of a revised project budget. Attached is a revised financing plan that increases the Vadnais Heights contribution along with increasing the amount of funds from the 2006 debt service contribution. The debt service contribution is proposed to be increased by $20,000 to cover the miscellaneous costs associated with this improvement. If the $20,000 amount were included as a direct levy, it is likely that an annual cost contribution of approximately $3,000 would be added to the 2008 budget. The final project budget is increased from $3,608,739.06 to $3,632,500. Agenda Item L9 Approved Financing Sources Mn /Dot $ 485,303.06 Troutland $ 10,000.00 Ramsey County $ 690,582.00 Vadnais Heights $ 301,168.00 SPRWS $ 33,378.00 Developer $ 45,000.00 Interest on Investments $ - 2006 Bonding $ 468,544.00 Special Assessments $ 1,077,964.00 Bond Sales $ 496,800.00 Proposed Financing Sources Mn /Dot $ 485,303.06 Troutland $ 10,000.00 Ramsey County $ 690,582.00 Vadnais Heights $ 304,908.00 SPRWS $ 33,378.00 Developer $ 45,000.00 Interest on Investments $ - 2006 Bonding $ 468,544.00 Special Assessments $ 1,077,964.00 Bond Sales $ 516,820.94 TOTAL $ 3,608,739.06 RECOMMENDATION TOTAL $ 3,632,500.00 It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order Nos. 19 and 20 (T.A. Schifsky Contract), for the County Road D West Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), City Project 02 -08 and to authorize the Finance Director to implement the budget changes as noted. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Change Order Nos. 19 -20 3. Location Map RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 02 -08, CHANGE ORDER Nos. 19 -20 (T.A. Schifsky Contract) WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 02 -08, County Road D Realignment (West) Improvements (TH 61 to Walter Street), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 02 -08, Change Order Nos. 19 -20, (T.A. Schifsky Contract), as an increase to said contract by an amount of $20,615.65, such that the new contract amount is now and hereby established as $926,840.75. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Maplewood to signify and show that the existing contract is hereby modified through said Change Order No. 19 -20 as a contract increase in the amount of $20,615.65. The revised contract amount is $926,840.75 and, The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the revised financing plan for the project. A project budget of $3,632,500.00 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows- Mn/Dot $ 485,303.06 Troutland $ 10,000.00 Ramsey County $ 690,582.00 Vadnais Heights $ 304,908.00 SPRWS $ 33,378.00 Developer $ 45,000.00 Interest on Investments $ - 2006 Bonding $ 468,544.00 Special Assessments $ 1,077,964.00 Bond Sales $ 516,820.94 TOTAL $ 3,632,500.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 19 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MVNINTNESOTA Project Name: County Road D Improvements S.A.P. 62-619-026 / 138-020-30 Project No. City Project 02-08 Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. Date: 6/27/06 URS Copy C4 Copy LQ-4malka-ma In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the Work as altered by the following provisions: Irrigation and electrical system repairs for Shadowland Apartments, Vadnais Heights, Minnesota, were made by C, Mogren, Inc. following roadway construction on County Road D. A lump sum payment covers reconstruction and repair of the existing irrigation system and placement of underdrive electrical conduits. No further work is scheduled, or necessary, for this property. The change order includes a prime contractor's ten percent mark-up. The value of this change order is $ 3,740.00. Contract Status Cost Original Contract: $ 668,162.93 Net Change of Prior Approved Change Order No.: 1 -18 $ 238,06117 Approved Revised Contract: $ 906,225.10 Change this Change Order: $ 3,740.00 Possible Revised Contract: $ 909,965.10 Approval Mayor Approval Engineer Agreed to by Contractor E Title Approval 100% Local Funding (Vqdnais Heights�_ Assistant State Aid Engineer (For Funding Approval Only) Engineer #19, Page I of 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 20 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA URS Copy CRY Copy Project Name: County Road D Improvements S.A.P. 62-619-026 / 138-020-30 Project No. City Project 02-08 Contractor: T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. Date: 6/27/06 In accordance with the tertirs of this Conti you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the Work as altered by the following provisions: The Mn/DOT Office of Estimating approved prices shown, as submitted by C. Mogren, Inc., for the following plant C� stock and material installed at the request of the City of Maplewood: NA�5ti C I t ) W5k"'- , tyi'"3Le tp Mn/DOT No. Description Qty Price Extension H 04" OZO.'l, 2571.501 Coniferous Tree 8' Ht. B & B (Colorado Spruce) 20 EA $375.00 $7,500.00 Laj f eA n m f ova 2571.501 Coniferous Tree 8' Ht. B & B (Austrian Pine) 5 EA $325.00 $ 1,625.00 2571.502 Deciduous Tree 1.5" Cal. B & B (Quaking Aspen) 13 EA $ 180.00 $2,340.00 2571.502 Deciduous Tree 2" Cal. B & B (Bur Oak) 3 EA $222.50 $ 667.50 2571.502 Deciduous Tree 2" Cal. B & B (Seedless Ash) 3 EA $225.00 $ 675.00 2571.502 Deciduous Tree 2" Cal. B & B (Sunset Maple) 3 EA $225.00 $ 675.00 2571.505 Deciduous Shrub #3 Cont. (Staghom Sumac) 34 EA $ 38.50 $ 1,309.00 2575.511 Hardwood Mulch, Type 6 22 CY $ 25.00 $ 550.00 ,Subtotal $15,341.50 The prime contractor is allowed a ten percent mark-up. The value of this change order is $16,875.65. Contract Status Cost Original Contract: $ 668,162.93 Net Change of Prior Approved Change Order No.: 1-18 $ 238,062.17 Approved Revised Contract: $ 906,225.10 Net Change of Prior Pending Change Order No, 19 $ 3,740.00 Change this Change Order: $ 16,875.65 Possible Revised Contract: $ 926,840.75 Approval Mayor Approval Engineer Agreed to by Contractor By Its Title Approval 1 00% Local Funding Assistant State Aid Engineer (For Funding Approval Only) C.O. #20, Page I of 1 0 A I COUNTY ROAD REAUGNMENT SEGMENT 2 ri l ca *H , 7ir COP 1-kkIE _1 OL WL F, 1. Mum I I JUGR Slk PAV4L rAVL Cyor Of mapie•"d COUNTY ROAD D DEPAMNEM OF MEW WOFM REALIGNMENT E ffGB VE &W V0 DMS UN IMPROVEMENTS WD is County Road B Moplawood, Minneepta 55109 CP 02-08 (W) 770-4550 FAX (651) 770-4505 PROJECT LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 1