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