Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 08-28 City Council Packet5:00 p.m. CouncillManager Workshop A. CALL TO ORDER AMENDED AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, August 28, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -22 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 commentslquestions 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 August 14, 2006 Council /Manager Workshop 2. Minutes from the August 14, 2006 City Council Meeting F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS G. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS Appointments to the Historical Preservation Commission H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Kenwood Curb Assessment, City Project 05 -16 a. Assessment Hearing b. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll 2. Cottagewood Subdivision Public Improvements, City Project 06 -10 a. Public Hearing 7:10 pm b. Cottagewood Town Houses (2666 Highwood Avenue) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Revision Preliminary Plat c. Resolution Ordering Improvement (4 votes) I. 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. Authorization to Make Payment for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Yearly Bill 3. Comforts of Home, City Project 06 -06, a. Approve Developer's Agreement b. Approve Storm Water Maintenance Agreement 4. Conditional Use Permit Review — Liberty Classical Academy (1717 English Street) Amended 08 -25 -06 I. CONSENT AGENDA (continued) 5. Alcohol Compliance Grant 6. Police Mutual Aid Agreement with Washington County 7. Buckthorn Removal 8. Lawful Gambling — Pioneer Booster Club at Bleecher's 2220 White Bear Avenue 9. Holy Redeemer Parish — Temporary Gambling Permit 10. Maplewood Community Center Intoxicating Liquor License RFP 11. Temporary Gambling — American Liver Foundation — Myth Night Club J. AWARD OF BIDS Lift Station No. 18 Rehabilitation, City Project 05 -29, Receive Bids and Award Construction Contract K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS MnDOT Property at TH 5 and TH 120, City Project 03 -20, Consider Approval of Letter of Notice to ISD #622 of No Support for Bus Garage Relocation L. NEW BUSINESS 1. Stop Sign and Parking Restriction Requests: a. 1715 Rosewood Ave S b. Atlantic Street and Lealand Rd /Junction Ave C. Bush Ave and Meyer St N d. Frank St and Edward St N e. Mailand Rd E and CrestviewlHighpoint Curve 2. Easement Vacation — Erickson (2699 Hazelwood Street) 3. Hill- Murray School (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) a. Conditional Use Permit Revision b. Design Approval 4. White Bear Avenue Family Health Center (2099 White Bear Avenue) a. Conditional Use Permit b. Design Approval 5. Cigarette and Tobacco Licenses — Compliance Failures 6. Maplewood Community Center/White Bear Avenue Plantings M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Policy on Use of City Council Chambers for Non - Partisan Political /Candidate Forums 2. Recommendations for Legal Services Contracts (agenda item added 08- 25 -06) 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 Amended 08 -25 -06 Agenda Item E1 fEm A a] CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL /MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, August 14, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall 4 :00 p.m. Diana Longrie, Mayor Present Rebecca Cave Councilmember Present Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present' Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present' Others present: Interim City Manager Copeland Finance Director Faust City Clerk Guilfoile Police Chief Thomalla_ APPROVAL OF AGEN Mayor Longrie move( Seconded by Council NEW BUSINESS 1. 4:00 p.m. to 6 Hjelle m. - Alcoholic Beverage Code Discussion A discussion was held regarding the current Alcoholic Beverage Code and proposed changes. City Clerk Guilfoile accumulated all of council's comments and will apply them to a draft copy which will be submitted to council for a first reading. Mayor Longrie announced to residents and liquor establishment owners that a copy of the Council Manager Workshop packet is available on the city website or available in the city clerk's office. 2. 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. - Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Interviews Interim City Manager Copeland provided an overview and history of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Council /Manager Workshop 08 -14 -06 1 Mayor Longrie and council shared the questions they will be asking candidates. The candidates were interviewed in the following order: Beth Ulrich, 2574 Brookview Drive, Maplewood Jeffrey James, 2593 Mailand Road East, Maplewood The remaining four applicants will be interviewed at the August 28 Council Meeting. E. FUTURE TOPICS Budget Meeting — August 21 st, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p F. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Longrie adjourned the meeting at 6 :45 p.m. Council /Manager Workshop 08 -14 -06 Agenda Item E2 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:05 P.M. Monday, August 14, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -21 A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at City 7:05 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Rebecca Cave Councilmember Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Rossbach 17. Pulled 19. Moved to Appointments /Presentations 110. Moved to Appointments /Presentations 111. Moved to Appointments /Presentations 117. Pulled G1. Tabled G2. Boy Scout Troop 73 M1. National Night Out M2. Wood burning Furnaces M3. South Lea Meetina IN 19 nt nt and was called to order at Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the July 17, 2006 Council /Manager Workshop Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the minutes from the July 17, 2006 Council /Manager Workshop as amended Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All 2. Minutes from the July 17, 2006 Special City Council Meeting Councilmember Cave moved to approve the minutes from the July 17, 2006 Special City Council meeting as presented Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 3. Minutes from the July 24, 2006 Special City Council Meeting F Mayor Longire moved to approve the minutes from the July 24, 2006 Special City Council Meeting as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All 4. Minutes from the July 24, 2006 City Council Meeting Councilmember Juenemann move City Council Meeting as amended Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. Lon Greenly, 977 Frost Avenue, asked council to consider a mobile park closing ordinance which approximately 17 other cities have adopted. He stated that residents of the St.Paul Tourist Cabins do not feel as though they are being treated fairly in the buyout process of their homes and feel they would be treated more fairly with a park closing ordinance in place. 2. Nancy Lazaryan, 10734 West Lake Road, Rice, MN, spoke regarding a summons she served on the city, Interim City Attorney and an employee. She also spoke to her recent arrest for posting no trespassing signs on a property in Maplewood. G. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Housing and Item was tab[ 2. Boy Scout Tr+ The following 2 Author to a 3 ., council to complete the interview process. Avenue East, Committee Chair for Boy Scout Troop 73 for 20 iviarvin Koppen, years Les Nelson, 220 Nel Mary, 1314 ( Matt Mary, 1314 Brad Koppen, 1 Pam Prokosh, 1z Daniel Prokosh, Larry Pruden, 20 Birmingham, Scout Master for Boy Scout Troop 73 for 12 years )unty Road C, Maplewood �ounty Road C, Maplewood 0 Ripley Avenue East, Maplewood 1 3 Lark Avenue, Maplewood 123 Lark Avenue, Maplewood 1 Hazelwood, Assistant Scout Master Ten Eagle Scouts who worked with Parks and Recreation Director Anderson on achieving that status provided Mr. Anderson an award of appreciation for all of his time and efforts. Donation of a Vehicle to the Police Department a. Police Chief Thomalla presented the report. Mayor Longrie moved to accept a vehicle from Maplewood Toyota to be used in the bait car program to apprehend suspects who break into vehicles. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 2 3. Donation to the Maplewood Police Reserves a. Police Chief Thomalla presented the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to accept a $4: equipment. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes -All 4. Fall Clean -Up Event a. Environmental Manager Konewko presented the report. Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve the date of October 1- Seconded by Mayor Longrie H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 p.m. Regions Sleep Clinic a. Planner Finwall presented b. Jenny Bolton, Briggs and )t Financing Request (2688 Maplewood Drive North) t. resented further specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann RESOLUTION 06 -08 -099 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 City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 3 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 ;_____ (0 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 d public official either directly or indirectly benefit financia BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Map SECTION 1. LEGAL AUTHORIZA 1.1 Findings The City hereby finds, direct financial interest in the Project nor will any declares :a (the "City "), as follows: NDINGS. (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 public hearing on the issuance of one or more revenue notes to finance the Project. (e) The issuance and sale of the $2,640,000 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, L C (the "Lender "), as provided herein. The City will loan the proceeds of the Note (the "Loan ") to the Borrower in order to finance the Proiect. (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. City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 (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. (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 Note, for the purpose of financing the costs of the Project. 1.2 Authorization and Ratification of Proieet The City has h Borrower, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subject to t Lender, to provide for the acquisition, construction and equipping of available to the Borrower and in the manner determined by the Borrow{ may be required for the acquisition and construction of other municip affirms, and approves all actions heretofore taken by the Borrower co authority. SECTION 2. and purposes of the Act to issue the 'etofore and does hereby authorize the terms and conditions imposed by the ie Project by such means as shall be and without advertisement for bids as facilities; and the City hereby ratifies, 3istent with and in anticipation of such 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 $2,60 0,000, 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. Execution The Nate 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: (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Pledge Agreement; (c) the Escrow Agreement; City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 Counsel; (2) an opinion of Counsel for the Borrower as prescribed by the Lender and Bond (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 in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as it may presi transfers of ownership of the Note. The Note shall be initially rE transferable upon the Note Register by the Lender in person surrender of the Note together with a written instrument of transi Lender or its duly authorized agent. The following form of assi( For value received hereb within Note of the City of Maplewood, appoint power of substitution accordance with the Note. in the premises. T provisions of Section Ils, assigns and of )t at the office of the City C e, the City shall provide ft >tered in the name of the by its agent duly authoriz satisfactory to the Clerk, d tent shall be sufficient for and does here said Note on tl >ianed certifies Registered Owner Komi the irrevocably constitute and books of said City with full at the transfer is made in >rizing the issuance of the 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. 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 Nate 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. Jerk a Note Register �r the registration of _ender and shall be ed in writing, upon my executed by the said purpose. City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 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 orjurisdictions 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. 3.3 Authorization to Execute Agreemer Agreement and the Escrow Agreement are hereby City Council, together with such additional detail modifications thereof, deletions there from and a approved by Bond Counsel prior to the execution authorized to execute the Loan Agreement and the The forms of the proposed Loan Agreement, the Pledge - oved in substantially the form heretofore presented to the the such other documents as Bond Counsel consider appropr event of the absence or disability of the Mayor or the Cler Attorney, may act in their behalf, shall without further ac execute all instruments and documents required to be don execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or o evidence of the approval of such documents in accordant i as may be necessary and appropriate and such thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and ocuments,, and the Mayor and Clerk of the City are greement in the name of and on behalf of the City and to in connection with the issuance of the Note. In the such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City )r authorization of the City Council do all things and or executed by such absent or disabled officers. The cers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive 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; City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 (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. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All 1. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Hjelle Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann A Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve consen Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All Mayor Longrie moved to approve consent agenda item 4. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent age Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to table consent agenda' staff) and item 17 (until brought back to council by the develo Seconded by Mayor Lgngrie Councilmember Hjelle move S cilmember Ju Seconded by Councilmember Hjel Ayes-All consent agenda item 17. Ayes-All Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve consent agenda item 18. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-Council members Cave, Hjelle Juenemann and Rossbach Nay -Mayor Longrie Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve consent agenda item 21. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve consent agenda item 22. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 8 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 1,059,445.08 Checks # 70445 thru # 70506 dated 7/25/06 $ 348,896.45 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 07/13/06 thru 07/20/06 $ 542,078.67 Checks # 70507 thru # 70581 dated 07127106 thru 08/01/06 $ 148,810.24 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 07121106 thru 7/27/06 $ 644,628.11 Checks # 70582 thru # 70619 dated 08101106 thru 08/08/06 $ 2,060,566.53 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 07128106 thru 08/03/06 Total Accounts Payable $ 4,804,425.08 PAYROLL Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated $ 591,250.15 07/28/06 $ 2,305.25 Payroll Deduction check # 105764 thru # 105765 7 $ 593,555.40', Total 2. Conditional Use Permit Review — Saint Paul Regional Water Services (1900 Rice Street) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Regional Water Services campus at 1900 Rice Street again in one year. 3. Conditional Use Permit Review — Lexus Motor Vehicle Service Center (1245 County Road D) Approved the conditional use permit for the Lexus auto - service center at 1245 County Road D in one year. City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 9 rd 5 0 7 R Conditional Use Permit Review — City Impound Lot /Outdoor Storage Yard (1160 Frost Avenue) Approved the conditional use permit for the outdoor - storage yard at 1160 Frost Avenue until its required sunset date of November 1, 2007 with the added requirement that the gate to the fence remain locked. The land may be used under the terms of this permit, but any changes must be reviewed as an amendment subject o the requirements of the city ordinance. Legacy Village PUD Review - (County Road D, Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Legacy Vill Heritage Square Second Addition PUD Review - (Kennard Approved to review the conditional use permit for the Hi year. Development Agreement Release — Hartford Group (Le Approved the release of obligations under the Master D the Special Assessments Escrow Agreement. Applewood Park Change Order #4 Approved change order #4 with Item moved to Appointments /Prese Item moved to Appointments /Prese ies to be a D in one year. and Legacy Parkway) Village) 2n addition PUD in one opment Agree the city P.A.C. fund. pproved Appointments /Prese Cottages at Legacy Village Development, City Project 04 -12, Approve Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Saint Paul Private Water Main Agreement the private water main agreement between Southwind Builder, Inc., the City of id and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of St. Paul. im on Maintenance Agreement for Lexus of Maplewood Site, Troutland Auto Dealers, City Project 05 -1`3 Authorized the Mayor and City Manager to sign, notarize and record the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement for Lexus of Maplewood. Springside Street Extension, City Project 03 -36, Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order No. 1 Adopted the following resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract, Change Order No. 1, for the Springside Drive Street Extension, City Project 03 -36: City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 10 RESOLUTION 06 -08 -093 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. 15. Cottagewood Public Improvements, City Project 06-10, Resolution Accepting Report and Ordering Public Hearing Adopted the following 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: RESOLUTION 06 -08 -094 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 this report was received by the council on August 7, 2006, 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. 16. Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, City Project 05 -17, Resolution Accepting Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing Adopted the following resolution for the Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, Project 05 -17: Accepting Assessment Roll and Ordering Assessment Hearing: RESOLUTION 06 -08 -095 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. City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 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. Item pulled from the agenda. 18. Approval of Capital Purchase for Sanitary Sewer Television Camera Equipment and Vehicle Authorized 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 authorized the receipt of equipment bids. 19. Fee Waiver - St. Jerome's Church Approved the applications for temporary beer and liquor (wine only) licenses. It is further recommended that fees for the requested permits be waived. 20. Fee Waiver - Holy Redeemer Parish Approved the temporary liquor and wine and food fee waive for the Holy Redeemer Church at 2555 Hazelwood Street for October 15 21. Community Center Catering Recommendation Approved to 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 catering firms. 22. Resolution Certifying Election Judges for the September 12 State Primary Election Adopted the following resolution certifying the Election Judges for the State Primary Election: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ELECTION JUDGES 06 -08 -096 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: City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 12 Fran Aherns Gordon Heininger Thomas Myster Suzanne Anderson Barb Hilliard Clara Neis Elsie Anderson Constance Hines Gloria Nelson Cynthia Anderson Gary Hinnenkamp James Nieman Ronald Anderson Mary Holzemer Louise Nieters Ahsan Ansari Shirlee Horton Ann Marie Norberg Marlis Barrett Jeanette Hulet Lois Olson Joan Bartelt Lynn Huntoon And Oster David Bedor Mildred Iverson David Pehl Jaime Belland Carol Jagoe James Petrie Mery Berger Jeff Janacek Bill Priefer Jeanne Bortz Gwendolyn Jefferson Karla Radermacher Anna Breidenstein Judith Johannessen Carol Roller Jennette Bunde Barbara Johnson Kenneth Rossow Lucille Cahanes Max Joiner Charles Rowe Jeanette Carle Joyce Jurmu Elaine Rudeen Robert Carr Marilyn Kidman MaryAnn Schneider Ann Cleland Harold Kirchoff Sandy Schoenecker Thomas Connelly Rosemary Koch Harriet Schroepfer ` Colleen Connolly Harry Koval Louise Schultz Jon Cupka Mona Lou Krekelberg Ananth Shankar Mae Davidson Josephine Krominga Teresa Shores Marianne Davidson Marvella Lackner Bob Spangler Edward Deeg Rita Lally Louis Spies Loree Dempsey Charlotte Lampe Tim Stafki Bhupat Desai Anita Larson David Stark Audrey Diesslin Lorraine Lauren Sandra Stevens Kathleen Dittel Ann Leo Rita Taylor Diane Droeger Pati Leo Lorraine Taylor Fred DuCharme Claudette Leonard Milo Thompson Audrey Duellman Steve Lincowski Pat Thompson Carolyn Eickhoff Vi Lincowski Leila Tillman Elizabeth Erickson Delores Lofgren Franklin Tolbert Ann Fallon Richard Lofgren Dale Trippler Lorraine Fischer Shari Lowe -Adams Cecilia Tucker Mary Fischer Robert Lundgren Connie Unger Delores Fitzgerald Shirley Luttrell Holly Urbanski Anne Fosburgh Paul Maeyaert William Urbanski James Franzen Jeri Mahre Vilhelmine Vanags MaryJo Freer Carol Mahre Beulah VanBlaricom Samantha Fritsche John Manthey Barabra Vandeveer Patt Fry Delores Marsh Mary Vante Clarice Gierzak Thomas Maskrey Connie Wagner Diane Golaski Geraldine Mechelke Gene Wandersee Betty Granger MaryLou Mechelke Gayle Wasmundt Guy Grant Jackie Meyer John Willy Mary Grant Joan Misgen Delores Witschen Jamie Gudknecht Betty Mossong Karen Zacho Jaclynn Gunn Howard Muraski Donita Haack Gerry Muraski City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 13 J. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Lift Station Number 18 Rehabilitation , City Project 05 -29, Approve Award of Construction Contract and Budget Adjustment a. Public Works Director Ahl presented the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to 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 directed the Finance Director to make the appropriate financial budaet adiustment to transfer Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Trunk Highway 36 Improvements (White Bear to Century), City Project 05 -03, Consideration of Noise Wall Issues within Maplewood a. Public Works Director AN presented the report. b. The following persons were heard: Chris Roy, MN Department of Transportation, Roseville Marc Goess, MN Department of Transportation, Roseville Denise Smith, 2283 Castle Place North, Maplewood C. Mayor Longrie'read a letter from Mary and Brian Sandvig, 1986 Castle, into the record noting the followinaconcerns: • vur non home th • Any nor close to • The wal enjoy • 1 don't tl evening the traff, show a so close to 36 now, that w wall will appear to be right on top of us vs. a a block or more away form 36. y breezes will just blow right over us leaving no air movement for homes wall uld block our view of the beautiful sunsets and sun rises we currently fnk many of the `close to 36 residents' mind 36, go for a drive most and you'll see many of us sitting in our front yards or driveways watching f On Friday nights in the summer the car show are on and it's like a free they drive past. k a line of sturdy highway bushes (Salt in the winter) that grow to no more feet tall would look very nice. Councilmember Juenemann moved to direct staff to enter into negotiations to obtain MnDOT fundina to develop a landscapina improvement plan and road reconstruction plan for Castle Avenue and requested homeowners to inform council on their feelings of installing a wall versus nursery stock. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 14 L 2. Trunk Highway 5 — 120 MnDOT Property Usage Study, City Project 03 -20, Report on Task Force Progress (No action required) a. Public Works Director Ahl presented the report. b. The following persons were heard: Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue Councilmember Cave moved to add this item to the August 28 City Council Agenda and b invite the task force to the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All A five minute break was taken. NEW BUSINESS a Item moved to August 28 City Council Meeting Agenda Mayor Longrie moved to hear agenda item L4 next. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes -All 4. Beebe Road Parking Issues — Receipt of Petition and Authorization to Restrict Parking a. Public Works Director Ahl presented the report. b. The following persons were heard: Dan Bridkman, 2117 Beebe Road, Maplewood Margaret Early, 1783 Beebe Road, Maplewood Councilmember Hjelle moved to receive the petition form the resident along Beebe Road and authorize the Public Works Director to work with the City's traffic consultant to develop a recommendation and strioina plan 'to restrict Darkina alona Beebe Road and to authorize the Public Works Director if no significant public obiection is received. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 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 a. Planner Finwall presented the report. b. Boardmember Shankar presented the Community Design Review Board report C. Commissioner Hess presented the Planning Commission report. City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 15 d. The following persons were heard: Robert Blair, applicant, Carpet Court Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street, Maplewood Joel Schurke, 2170 Arcade Street, Maplewood Robert Palme, 1721 Arcade Street, Maplewood Mildred Palme, 1721 Arcade Street, Maplewood David Schilling, 1955 Greenbrier, Maplewood Mayor Longrie moved to continue the meetinc Business Items 3 and 5 prior to adjournment. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle A video prepared by the applicants represents the audience. Mayor Longrie Block 1. Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019 i WHEREAS, Gary Blair of City of Maplewood's zoning map: WHEREAS, this change app Ayes jelle incil urt was pl E RESOLUTION 06- arpet Court has prop( le dwellino..residential Lot 5, Black 1, Van Houten?'s Plat (PIN 1 WHEREAS, the histry of this cha . EM s as follows: 100 rie, Councilmembers Juenemann )er Rossbach he council and for the following change to the ) to business commercial (BC). 1. 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. City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 16 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. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes -All Mayor Longrie moved to adopt the proposed public v authorizes the vacation of a public right -of -way to inc road located on the east side of 1685 Arcade Street ; Avenue right- of -wav 161 feet north and 42 feet east 1 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann 3 Mayor Longrie tabled her motion. Councilmember Councilmember Rossbach moved to d Seconded by Councilmember Denial is ba Mayor Longrie recog Mayor Longrie notifiE resolution of Suppor Phase One- Gladstor Councilme stone Demonstration Account (LCDA) Development Grant velopment) RESOLUTION NO. 06 -08 -098 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 ,. - it R mann withdrew Rossbabl Nays -Ma` Juenema no setback variance resolution member Cave, Hjelle and rie and Councilmember fact that the applicant did not prove a hardship for this variance. ?ed, the owner, Gary Blair, for comment to the motion. Blair of the reconsideration process and procedure. City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 17 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: 1. 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 su000rtina 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. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 5. Lower Afton Road Trail Improvements (McKnight to Century), City Project 03 -29, Authorize Joint Project with Ramsey County City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 18 a. Public Works Director Ahl presented the report. b. The following persons were heard: Emil Sturzenegger, 2455 Londin Lane, Maplewood Councilmember moved to approve a motion authorizing a joint project for the Lower Afton Road Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes -All Mayor Longrie adjourned at 12:52 a.m. with the meeting to be continued at 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 17, 2006. A continuation of a meeting of the City Council was held Thursday, August 17 in Council Chambers, at City Hall, and was called to order at 5:00 P.M. by Mayor Lon ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Rebecca Cave Councilmember Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Will Rossbach, Councilmember VISITOR PRESENTATIONS (continued' 1. Joanne Funk, 880 South Lakewood D implications of burning solid fuel. Present Present Absent Present Maplewood, commented on the serious air quality AWARD OF BIDS (continued) 1. Lift Station Number 18 Rehabilitation Project 05 -29, Approve Award of Construction Contract and Budget Adju a. Public Works Direc Inc. Councilmember Rossbach ented the report regarding the debarment of Jay Bros, Imember Juenemann Ayes -All I. CONSENT AGENDA (continued) 7. Development Agreement Release — Hartford Group (Legacy Village) Approved the release of obligations under the Master Development Agreement and approved the Special Assessments Escrow Agreement. Mayor Longrie moved to take the Development Agreement Release off the table and address the item. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 19 Mayor Longrie moved to approve the release of obligations under the Master Development Agreement provided a notice section is added to the document and to approve the Special Assessments Escrow Agreement provided a notice section is added to the document. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes -All L. NEW BUSINESS (continued) 6. Ordinance to Establish Full Commission Status for the Environmental Committee -First Reading a. Environmental Manager Konewko provided the report. b. The following persons were heard: Dale Trippler, Environmental Committee Ch Ron Cockriel, 943 Century, Maplewood Mayor Longrie council with regard to that. The name of the commission should be: The Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 7. Ordinance Amendment to the Environmental Preservation and Protection of Trees and Woodlands Ordinance -First Reading a. Environmental Manager Konewko presented the report. b. Mandy Musielewicz`, Forester for the City of Maplewood was present for council questions. n was Carol Sherrill, 2384 Nebraska Avenue East, Maplewood uncilmember Juenemann moved the first readina of the ordinance amendment to Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes-All 8. Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16, Resolution for Modification of Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders 4, 5 and 6 a. Public Works Director AN presented the report. Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve the resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract for the Kenwood Area Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Proiect 05 -16, Change Orders 4, 5, and 6. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 20 9. County Road D Improvements, City Project 02 -08, Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders No. 19 -20: a. Public Works Director Ahl presented the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution County Road D improvements, City Proiect 02 -08, Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders No. 19 -20: RESOLUTION 06 -08 -097 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 implement the revised financii established. The or000sed fin authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to for the project. A project budget of $3,632,500.00 shall be plan is as follows $ 485,303.06 $ 10,000.00 bounty $ 690,582.00 eights $ 304,908.00 $ 33,378.00 r $ 45,000.00 n Investments $ - ding $ 468,544.00 ssessments $ 1,077,964.00 as $ 516,820.94 $ 3,632,500.00 Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes -All City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 21 In Interim City Manager Copeland announced tha- being open on Saturdays beginning September passport processing. ! • COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 2 3 National Night Out - Councilmember Juenemann provided an update on the success of National Night Out. Eighty -three parties were held between that night and the following weekend (due to a rain -out). The block parties collected 1000 pounds of food for Second Harvest. Ms. Juenemann thanked everyone who sponsored the event and congratulated everyone who participated for making the event a success. Wood burning Furnaces -A discussion was held regarding the year round use of wood burning furnaces. South Leg Meeting - Councilmember Rossbach announced the August 24 at 7:00 p.m., further information is available on the 4. Overnight Parking -Mayor Longrie relayed a request from a reside limited period of time and possibly extending the permit for longer a college student on spring break). ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Mayor Longrie adjourned at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Meeting 08 -14 -06 South Leg meeting is website. overnight parking for a ds such as a month (i.e. °'Registrar /City Clerk's office will start a.m. to 12 noon for motor vehicle and 22 Agenda Item G1 [U 110J U � August 18, 2006 TO: City Council FROM: Greg Copeland, City Manager RE: Historical Preservation Commission I{eCO[nrnendoA\on 1O Appoint Two Commissioners On August 17, 2006 the Histor Preservation Cornrniosk)n interviewed Albert E. Ga Jr. and Ronald Patrick Cockriel regarding their application to become members of the CDnnruissiom. Upon its unanimous vote the Commission is recommending the City Council appoint both Mr, Galbraith and Mr'Cockric! 10 fill vacancies on the Connrni83iOP. There are currently three vacancies onthis seven member Commission. Appointments are made for three year terms. OFFICE L)F THE CITY MANAGER ~ 651-249-2051 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST FAx: 651-249-2059 K4xPLEWmoo,KQN55109 L CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME ADDRESS 7 7Z2 C— d, PHONE NO. Work: Home: 13 U" Lo �, -^ � YJ 6 ( w 1 TE &;5 6 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 3 Or - � 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No 4 -,-- Is �101 I - =4 3) On which Board Or COMI[IiSSiOn are interested in serving? (please check) Community Design Review Board Park & Recreati Commission Housin & Redevelopment Authority Planning Commiss Human Relations Commission Police Civil Semce Commission Environmental Committee Historic Preser Commission I 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? A I 2� � S / -- 4; 1 5) List other organizations or Clubs i th Community in which you have been or are an active participant: F V 1 t-1.:' L� G`� t� ��, j. �G"' L- � w..�^4. 1f �' 4' f L ��' /u" L. -1 .'rr .` L� � i. C ✓- `4" /�t+"'�.' . 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? (r"� // f."*''4• GtG P+w' L d^ �'�" �.-�,. �")�...- � L 4f �"t-a � �}7/'e:�.L�.� � /w �4:,� ���= ;!-��" —' ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMA CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL HE C EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUM Return or mail this application to: City of Maplewood, 1830 County Road B East, S;NC & Commissions Applicazirin.dor WIED AS PUBLIC mood, MN 55109 03118/04 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM 1. NAME ADDRESS 0 - PHONE NO. Work: Home: DATk, 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No t/' Comments: 3) On which Board or Commission are interested in serving? (please check) Community Design Review Board. Park & Recreation Commission Housing & Redevelopment Authority Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission Environmental Committee Historic Preservation Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 3j j 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: -4 � 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR HOME AND MfORIK TELEPHONE NUMBERS- Return or mail this application to; City of Maplewood, 183 County Road B Fast, Maplewood, MN 55109 SAr-'rY Appk=ion.doc 0311&104 Agenda Item H1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer II SUBJECT: Kenwood Curb Assessment, Project 05 -16 1. Assessment Hearing, 7:00 p.m. 2. Approve Resolution for Adoption of Assessment Roll DATE: August 21, 2006 INTRODUCTION At the June 26 2006, city council meeting, the city council approved a budget revision to the Kenwood Area Street Improvements Project to allow for full curb replacement on Eldridge Avenue and Greenbrier Street, north of Eldridge, as a result of a petition from the affected residents. It was also determined an assessment hearing would be required to assess residents for full curb replacement. All property owners have been mailed a notice of the exact amount of their assessment, as well as notice that they must submit a written objection either at or prior to the hearing if they disagree with the assessment amount. The city council should conduct the assessment hearing, receive any objections, refer those objections to the staff for action at the September 11, 2006 council meeting and consider approving the attached resolution adopting the assessment roll without the property owners who have submitted objections. Background The amounts proposed to be assessed for the full curb replacement revisions within the Kenwood Area Street Improvements, Project 05 -16, are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the construction costs, rather on a predetermined assessment rate established in the city's pavement management policy. The assessment rate is $1,140, the difference between a full street replacement assessment at $4,510 and a partial street replacement assessment at $3,370 per residential unit. The total assessment amount proposed to be levied is $36,480.00. The pending assessment roll is attached to this report. It is recommended that the assessment hearing for the full curb replacement revisions within the Kenwood Area Street Improvements, Project 05 -16 be conducted at 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 28, 2006. Objections Filed As of August 18, 2006, staff has received no written objections to the proposed assessments. If any objections are filed staff will review them and provide the city council recommendations for motion at the September 11, 2006 city council meeting Budget Impact The proposed assessments are part of the project financing plan, approved in November, 2005. Any assessments that may ultimately be reduced or deferred will have an impact on the tax levy. A statement of tax levy impact will be made for the September 11, 2006 council meeting when all the assessments objections and recommendations are considered. Agenda Item H1 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for the adoption of the assessment roll for the Kenwood Curb Assessment, City Project 05 -16, less all objections received as noted within this report and all objections received at the Assessment Hearing. If any objections are filed, they will be referred to the staff for review and recommendation to the City Council on September 11, 2006. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Assessment Roll 3. Location Map RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on August 28 2006, calling for a Public Hearing, the assessment roll for the Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed objections to their assessments according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: As of August 18, 2006, staff has received no written objections to the proposed assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections received, as noted above, along with any and all objections filed at the Assessment Hearing, and report to the City Council at the regular meeting on September 11 2006, as to their recommendations for adjustments. 2. The assessment roll for the Kenwood Area Street Improvements as amended, without those property owners' assessments that have filed objections, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 3. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2007 and shall bear interest at the rate of 5.9 percent per annum for the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2006. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, but no later than November 1, 2006, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the city clerk, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and they may, at any time after November 1, 2006, pay to the county auditor the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 5. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith after November 1, 2006, but no later than November 15, 2006, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council on this 28 day of August 2006. KENWOOD AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 05 -16 07/12/2006 ASSESSMENT FOR REVISION FROM PARTIAL CURB REPLACEMENT TO FULL CURB REPLACEMENT TOTALS Street Assessments Res. Units Comm. Street Reconstruction 1 32 Street Assessments Parcel ID Taxpayer Street Number Street ZIP Res. Units Full Curb Replacement Assessment $ 1,140.00 172922120006 THOMAS H BERKAS 675 '' ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2209 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120007 M SHAWN DELANEY 683 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2209 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120008 KAREN J BADE TRUSTEE 691 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2209 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110028 DJ DAHL 767 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2211 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110027 L R B JOHANSSON 759 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2211 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110026 WARREN P NENTWIG 749 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2211 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110025 DAVID A SCHLUENDER 739 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2211 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120049 GEORGE A TOREN 678 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2210 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120048 JON M OTTO 686 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2210 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110076 WHITNEY P WINN 810 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2254 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110043 FELIX A GUDIO 768 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2212 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110046 TERRANCE A INGLE 742 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2212 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110047 PAUL D BIRKEY 734 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2212 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110091 JASON F WELSH 760 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2212 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110092 DONALD W DEUTSCH 752 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2212 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110087 JAY REILING 0 KENWOOD DR E 55117- 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110020 GEORGE L ANFANG 2132 GREENBRIER ST N 55117 -2236 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110019 J L ZOLLINGER 2138 GREENBRIER ST N 55117 -2236 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120010 DUANE E BREKKEN 2135 GREENBRIER ST N 55117 -2248 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110021 MICHAEL L PROHOFSKY 2124 GREENBRIER ST N 55117 -2236 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120009 WYLIE BURNS 699 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2209 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110022 D E PALKOVICH 2116 GREENBRIER ST N 55117 -2236 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110023 KEVIN C ZENK 723 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2211 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110024 JEROME H EKBLAD 731 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2211 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110050 JOHN G SIMON 2100 GREENBRIER ST N 55117 -2218 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110049 CHRISTOPHER J REECE 716 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2212 1 $ 1,140.00 172922110048 WILLIAM F LUND 724 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2212 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120054 SANDRA K SALVERDA 669 -- ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2209 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120053 THOMAS P SAWYER 661 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2209 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120014 STEVEN J FAVILLA 670 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2210 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120058 RONALD J SVENDSEN 650 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2210 1 $ 1,140.00 172922120059 THOMAS J MCDONOUGH 660 ELDRIDGE AVE E 55117 -2210 1 $ 1,140.00 TOTALS Street Assessments Res. Units Comm. Street Reconstruction 1 32 $ 36,480.00 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Pubic Works Director /City Engineer Michael Thompson, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Cottagewood Subdivision Public Improvements, City Project 06 -10 a. Public Hearing 7:10 pm b. Cottagewood Town Houses (2666 Highwood Avenue) a. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Revision Preliminary Plat (See Report from the Planning Department) c. Resolution Ordering Improvement (4 votes) DATE: August 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION The public hearing for this project has been scheduled for 7:10 p.m., Monday, August 28, 2006. Notices of the public hearing have been mailed and published. The feasibility study has been provided as a supplement to the council packet. The study includes information on the proposed improvement, proposed financing and probable assessments. The city council should consider ordering the improvement following the public hearing. Background In 2003 the city council approved 18 townhouses for this site (3 -6 unit buildings). The developer's current proposal is for 15 detached units. The Cottagewood Public Improvements consist of extending sanitary sewer and watermain in Highwood Avenue in order to service the proposed Cottagewood Subdivision development. Sanitary sewer main would be extended from the intersection of Century and Highwood and watermain would be extended from the intersection of New Century and Highwood. Sanitary sewer stubs would be extended from the sewer main to the public right of way for future service to 2692, 2670, 2684, and 2660 Highwood Avenue. These residents are currently on septic systems and are proposed to be given a waiver to the ordinance requiring connection to available sanitary sewer within one year. These residents would only be required to connect to the public system upon septic system failure. An existing gravity sewer pipe was privately installed for 2730 and 2714 Highwood Avenue in 1998 and connects into the existing sanitary sewer main in Century Avenue. As part of the public improvements, individual sanitary stubs would be extended to each of these two lots from the proposed sewer main in Highwood Ave. If the owners choose to connect to the provided stubs, then the existing private system can be removed. Budget Impact The entirety of proposed improvement costs would be assessed to the developer of the Cottagewood Subdivision development. All those properties currently on septic systems will be required to connect to the proposed sanitary sewer service stubs at the time of septic system failure. At that time the city will charge a standard cash connection fee and SAC charge. At that point 100% of the cash connection fees paid to the city will be given to the developer, which will be spelled out in the developer's agreement. A city council waiver of ordinance requiring connection to the sanitary sewer within 1 year will be required along with an agreement with the developer. Repayment terms will be limited to 15 years. Agenda Item H2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the improvement of the Cottagewood Subdivision Public Improvements, City Project 06 -10, after action is taken for the private development (New Business) for which it would serve. Attachment: 1. Resolution 2. Feasibility Study ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 14th day of August, 2006, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed public improvements for the Cottagewood Subdivision, City Project 06 -10. AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was duly held on August 28, 2006, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be heard on the matter and has fully considered the same; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That it is necessary, cost- effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the City of Maplewood make public improvements to the proposed Cottagewood Subdivision Development, City Project 06 -10. 2. Pertaining to City Code Section 40 -96 regarding requirement of connection to city sewer within one year, a waiver is hereby given, due to special circumstances, to the following addresses: 2692, 2670, 2684, and 2660 Highwood Avenue. Connection to the city sewer will be required upon septic system failure. 3. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 28th day of August 2006. 4. The city engineer is designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement. 5. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the financing plan for the project. A project budget of $110,762.92 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows: Developer assessments: $ 110,762.92 (100 %) 41 COTTAGEWOOD SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT CITY PROJECT 06 -10 SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS HIGHWOOD AVENUE EAST I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the�tite of Minryu tg Signatur`e: R. Charles Ahl, P.E. Date: I`� �,- License No. 16230 City of Maplewood Department of Public Works 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 CONTENTS CERTIFICATION TABLEOF CONTENTS .................................................................................... ............................... ii EXHIBITS.......................................................................................................... ............................... ii INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. ............................... 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... ............................... 1 SanitarySewer ...................................................................................... ............................... 1 Watermain............................................................................................ ............................... 2 EROSIONCONTROL ...................................................................................... ............................... 2 TRAFFICCONTROL ....................................................................................... ............................... 2 ESTIMATEDCOST ......................................................................................... ............................... 3 METHODOF FINANCING... .................................................................. ........................................ 3 PROJECTSCHEDULE ................................................................................... ............................... 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... ............................... 4 WROMM Exhibit 1: Location Map Exhibit 2: Proposed Watermain Improvements Exhibit 3: Proposed Sewer Main Improvements Exhibit 4: Detailed Cost Estimate ii • I N COTTAGEWOOD SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON HIGHWOOD AVENUE EAST INTRODUCTION On May 22, 2006 the Maplewood City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for the Cottagewood Subdivision development. The proposed project includes the following public improvements: • Installation of a new gravity sewer main along Highwood Avenue East from the proposed development site to the Woodbury sanitary sewer main located in Century Avenue South. • Installation of a new watermain from the stub located at the intersection of New Highwood Ave East and New Century Boulevard to the proposed development site. The proposed improvements are needed for the proposed Cottagewood Subdivision Development but will also benefit 2692, 2670, 2684, and 2660 Highwood Avenue by providing sanitary sewer service availability. These houses are currently served by individual septic systems. The project location map is provided in Exhibit 1. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The following is a summary of the public improvements that are being considered. Please see Exhibit 2 and 3 for the location of the proposed water and sewer utilities. Sanitary Sewer An 8 -inch PVC sanitary sewer main is proposed to be installed along Highwood Avenue East from the proposed development location to the existing Woodbury sanitary sewer main located in Century Avenue South. The installation length required for such a connection is approximately 780 feet. The proposed new gravity sewer would service all 15 single family homes proposed for the Cottagewood Subdivision development and also those existing properties along Highwood Avenue mentioned above. Two properties, 2730 and 2714 Highwood Avenue, installed gravity sanitary sewer to the Woodbury sewer main in Century Avenue with a permit in 1998. These services would be connected to the proposed main in Highwood Avenue. The sanitary sewer main is proposed to be located within the street, thus street repair will conform to Maplewood plate 114, which is a standard for County road replacement. Boring laterally under the road is being considered to avoid excavating and reconstructing the entire street length. Watermain A 12 -inch watermain is proposed to be installed from the existing stub at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and New Century to the proposed development site. Connections to the existing water system will need to be coordinated with Saint Paul Regional Water Services. The watermain is to be extended approximately 200 -feet to the east. No additional fire hydrants would be installed on Highwood Avenue because there is an existing hydrant at the location of the existing stub. However, two fire hydrants would be installed within the private subdivision development. A 12" stub would be provided at the end of the watermain extension on Highwood Avenue in the event that future watermain extension is needed. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control methods will be implemented throughout the project. Silt fence, bio- logs, and other erosion protection methods will be utilized where direct runoff might occur. Inlet protection will be used to protect both the existing and new catch basins during construction. These inlet protection devices will be a filter bag, or similar product. Simple pieces of geo- textile fabric will not be used, as they have proven ineffective in the past. Street sweeping will occur, as needed, on all paved street surfaces throughout the project, including intersecting streets. Watering of exposed soils and aggregate material would be done as a dust - control measure. TRAFFIC CONTROL The sewer and water extension along Highwood Avenue will disrupt the normal flow of traffic and a detailed traffic control plan will be required by the contractor performing the public improvements. The traffic plan would be based on the standards set forth in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Emergency access for vehicles will be available 24 -hours a day throughout the project. During short periods of time, however, some segments of the project may not be passable while certain work is being executed. In these instances, access would be available from another direction. Streets would always be reopened at the end of the day. An alternate route for the fire trucks will be determined for short periods of time when access may be blocked due to construction. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST The estimated project cost is outlined below. Estimated Project Costs: $110,762.92 The estimated costs for the proposed project are outlined below and can also be found in Exhibit 4. The estimated costs include contingencies and overhead, which include engineering, administrative, legal, and fiscal expenses. Estimated Proiect Cost Summary Highwood Avenue: Sanitary Improvement: Water Improvements: Roadway Restoration: Grading & Erosion Control: $64,792.60 (59 %) $22,346.28 (20 %) $21,446.04 (19 %) $2,178.00 (2 %) Total estimate project costs: METHOD OF FINANCING $110,762.92 (100 %) The entirety of proposed improvement costs would be assessed to the developer of the Cottage Subdivision development. All those properties currently on septic systems will be required to connect to the proposed sanitary sewer service stubs at the time of septic system failure. At that time the city will charge a standard cash connection fee and SAC charge. And 100% of the cash connection fees paid to the city will be given to the developer, which will be spelled out in the developer's agreement. A city council waiver of ordinance requiring connection to the sanitary sewer within 1 year will be required along with an agreement with the developer. Repayment terms will be limited to 15 years. Estimated Project Cost Recovery: Developer Assessment: $110,762.92 (100 %) PROJECT SCHEDULE The following schedule may be implemented, should it be determined to proceed with the project: Receive feasibility study and order public hearing 08/14/06 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 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the results of the feasibility study and investigations, it can be concluded that: The project is feasible as it relates to general engineering principles, practices and construction procedures as it has been presented in this report. 2. The project is necessary for economic and environmental reasons and is cost effective to the city. 3. The proposed improvement is necessary to provide services to the proposed development and provide city sewer services to four existing addresses on Highwood Avenue. 4. The total cost estimate for the project is $110,762.92. 5. The total share proposed to be assessed to the benefited properties within the development is $110,762.92. The standard cash connection fee and WAC fee at the time of sewer hookup will be required to those homeowners on Highwood Avenue that are currently on septic systems but those homeowners will be granted waivers and will not be required to connect to the new sanitary sewer unless they experience septic system problems. 6. The total city share of these costs is proposed to be $0.00. In consideration of the above conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. If the city council deems the project feasible, a public hearing should be held as soon as possible. 2. The proposed improvements should be constructed as outlined in this report, 3. The cost of the improvements will be recovered 100% through assessments to the developer of the Cottagewood Subdivision. 11 I ■ Pleasatirview Park q6wl ul r II I I If k- u I II > t-I c C I —'JI if LOCATION MAP ILI Xll tom_ i jLU LLI I ■ Pleasatirview Park q6wl ul r II I I If k- u I II > t-I c C I —'JI if LOCATION MAP >. p I �I e Z� T=IYO<w�. HIGHWOOD AVE. EAST — — Z U — --•- --•-- — T HYDRANT DATA E ED46A!¢.I W L N ALVF = HYDRANT /mw I � u��j Ii41 STA li M, 36.TI' RT. S-6' HYDR RT IEM CS TTE FA—XI r. — F.Drt0OLD0 g u I Il u ylu 266D CONSERVATION " I N I V 2670 ® IIP VI I I EASENENT D. � d - 1j111 ( O i II 1 L. I L. R e " I HYDRANT DATA E ED46A!¢.I W L N ALVF = HYDRANT /mw N01.2S. LL 229' -E' HYDRANT LEAD STA li M, 36.TI' RT. S-6' HYDR RT IEM CS TTE FA—XI r. — F.Drt0OLD0 I. MAINTAIN LW 18DDH DNER DIER All wAiERNNi AND $R\12 IATFRF• I AL HYDRAIM 9DAL DE II l" wRH AM I' RLRY DEPM I ALL HYDUHTS MWL at PIAE<D S DEH/D OACK W CUffi A, LEE PLAN AND PROLE plv ADR ANDES AND WATUMM bl D L EwACr LDGTDNS OF THE W ATER SFR1I¢ LATERALS M E FWED oETVDSdp EY TIE EHa6TR L 0M.ATCH RLT% " — -T —W WN AND WATER LITERALS bDRE 6TDR0 SEYER sows A'm'W WCD D(DC10fD Po YSTKYIIW DDAD ILDSID FELL (DDw DE W4 DURL,DED PDLYSIRYDE RLVD DmaAn CE11 (DOW Dt A^PNOIID MAI- M- 4WW P ATOH T. CCHTACT DDLY IHDCaL THE B'RRS IMD Et9'FCNL AT MI 2R6 AT lEJ.ST T2 14d PRIOR TO START DI' WATU.AN CONSTROCTOH LD THAT I✓3ECDDI DAN TE WEDLAID. L ALL WATERYAIi TD DE I6YA A—.M TO SANT PNL Rm0W1 WATER ffRNCFS (ID W STANDARDS M THE IISTALUTIDN DF WATERY . L WA mm fONSTPoECiED RRIDT EYATETD ITREET RDw SHA11 K E:AW DR Di DI ECTI I RDLD SEE 4 5 m Trw = DREFHaDIBTG C N — — — — — — _ — — — Z I HCRES/ FIRIFY THR TH6 PLAN. SPfI3GV W 5. IM RFPDR WAS PfiFPAMD m 1¢ 0R LlDER W g Lxucr sDrmisroN Aio lliAT I w A wLv SQ I IML Oi,MLA UREA TIE r CONSERVATION g EASENENT D. O C N N T � DATA A If41133 Lt x wV by . Ytli➢1 !! W( ] v G] 1] ptq'I tl1d] 5 ornTx - nes• j;li I I , 2884 � I wv w(E 3s.°9 xv W 'D- via.ostvwc) wv Wrsr m.ea vry WtIY¢ vrul Nv Wi(tl•Ni )� 9]GE9 DEPTH . 6 °PTI- llfT (AMYL AN1L • @ HT 4]vAT IL. —._._j n I � II I I - 6.i5 dPRI - CWl NwL . S =LOUoaai.2] L. I w+ U r NV N dd''11//��.. 0.X43 oRaP�tl•w�- 0.Tdl N�V WSItl eaa_y °FPM . 13La NY WI(Cti} nt1.T °fPM - 124Y W1FL A IIQE - a,ES E_ _ - 1 ti tt SMVATIDN [ASWDIT 28v2 I 2714 I I seNITARY sma -0 EAU uN� DATA A If41133 Lt x wV by . Ytli➢1 !! W( ] v G] 1] ptq'I tl1d] 5 ornTx - nes• oErm - 1am' mat. u,u2 . a '.� wv v,(ilwi =so3aw sr�1� Imll - MS wv w(E 3s.°9 xv W 'D- via.ostvwc) wv Wrsr m.ea vry WtIY¢ vrul Nv Wi(tl•Ni )� 9]GE9 DEPTH . 6 °PTI- llfT (AMYL AN1L • @ 4]vAT 3tA tei]�I.EJ. 35.16AT �W DEP1N 1113' - 6.i5 dPRI - CWl NwL . S =LOUoaai.2] Nu - ((eCG'eN6w1.V1�j].- MARLA 16 ]SRI w+ U r NV N dd''11//��.. 0.X43 oRaP�tl•w�- 0.Tdl N�V WSItl eaa_y °FPM . 13La NY WI(Cti} nt1.T °fPM - 124Y W1FL A IIQE - a,ES E_ _ - 6YIRi: 1. ui S.VIITHSY mwx SAlFR,15 ro � mwm AT x NL s zs 2 ]AL suarARr ar[R eQE to ec sn-4o vx vPwc, sff eFrexAms >. 3%ACf SMATVJR ov wmARr g]w maws m ec StE3n xra3rsn w, xNTRVC1m To rmn wmi' o mw wnsm Ecra me am uo anmr Ar CUVHELTKN lnunaL a tK]r3 HSXLLIwR m�TS ew.u. x uw a�i]�on ow¢mwu saaa cx svar a Sm saw art osma9u3)n W y Q K W U k w Cost Estimate By' zPF Highwood Ave. East Improvements Date: 7/19/2006 ACA JOB # 5103 -002 Reviewed By: MDH NOTES: 1 Roadway Patching includes: 4" Bituminous Pavement (2" Surface, 2" Binder), 12" aggregate base material and 12" granular subbase material Sub Total $76,283.00 10% contengencies = $7,628.30 Construction Cost = $83,911.30 32% admin, legal, & fiscal= $26,851.62 Total Project Cost = $110,762.92 SANITARY Unit Quantit Unit Cost Total Cost No. IDesoripti 1 Descri tion CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EA 1 $500.00 $500.00 1 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EA 1 $500.00 $500.00 r3 PLUG EXISTING 4 SANITARY SEWER " EA. 1 $250.00 $250.00 4 DIRECTIONAL BORING LF 700 $27.00 $18,900.00 4 BORE MATERIAL) L.F. 719 $12.00 $8,628.00 5 8" SANITARY (DIRECTIONAL 6" PVC SDR 35 4" PVC SDR 40 - SANITARY LATERALS L.F. L.F. 88 90 $25.00 $20.00 $2,200.00 $1,800.00 7 8 B "x4" SANITARY WYE EA. 3 $75.00 $225.00 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX MANHOLES V.F. 41.1 $200.00 $8,220.00 9 4' -0" DROP MANHOLE CONNECTION EA. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 10 S.F. 32 EA. 3 $300.00 $900.00 11 CASTINGS $50.00 $50.00 SUBTOTAL= $44 NOTES: 1 Roadway Patching includes: 4" Bituminous Pavement (2" Surface, 2" Binder), 12" aggregate base material and 12" granular subbase material Sub Total $76,283.00 10% contengencies = $7,628.30 Construction Cost = $83,911.30 32% admin, legal, & fiscal= $26,851.62 Total Project Cost = $110,762.92 WATER Unit 1 -- Quantity Quantit Unit Cost I Total Cost No. IDesoripti 1 on CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EA. 1 $750.00 $750.00 1 BITUMINOUS SAW CUT EA. 1 $300.00 $300.00 2 1 -1/2" AIR VENT L.F. 23 $20.00 $460.00 3 6" DIP WATERMAIN- HYDRANT LEADS L.F. 192 $40.00 $7,680.00 4 12" DIP CL 52 L.F. L.F. 56 $20.00 $1,120.00 5 6" DIP CL 53 EA. 1 $200.00 $200.00 6 12"x6" TEE EA. 1 $750.00 $750.00 7 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EA. 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 8 12" GATE VALVE AND BOX EA. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 9 6" HYDRANT AND VALVE S.F. 32 $2.50 $80.00 10 2" INSULATION EA 1 $50.00 $50.00 11 12" MJ PLUG SUBTOTAL= $15 NOTES: 1 Roadway Patching includes: 4" Bituminous Pavement (2" Surface, 2" Binder), 12" aggregate base material and 12" granular subbase material Sub Total $76,283.00 10% contengencies = $7,628.30 Construction Cost = $83,911.30 32% admin, legal, & fiscal= $26,851.62 Total Project Cost = $110,762.92 ROADWAY Unit Quantit Unit Cost Total Cost No. Descri tion L.F. 350 $3.00 $1,050.00 1 BITUMINOUS SAW CUT S.Y. 390 $27.00 $10,530.00 2 ROADWAY PATCHING (SEE NOTE 1 78 $5.00 $390.00 3 BITUMINOUS CURB REPLACEMENT L.F. 3 $100.00 $300.00 4 ADJUST MANHOLES PRIOR TO FINAL LIFT EA. L. S. 1 $2 500.00 $2 500.00 5 DETOUR SUBTOTAL= $14 NOTES: 1 Roadway Patching includes: 4" Bituminous Pavement (2" Surface, 2" Binder), 12" aggregate base material and 12" granular subbase material Sub Total $76,283.00 10% contengencies = $7,628.30 Construction Cost = $83,911.30 32% admin, legal, & fiscal= $26,851.62 Total Project Cost = $110,762.92 SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Cottagewood (former Highwood Farm Town houses) LOCATION: Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street DATE: August 15, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Phil Soby is proposing to build 15 detached town houses in a development called Cottagewood. It would be on a 3.71 -acre site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. Requests To build this project, Mr. Soby is requesting that the city approve: 1. A revision to a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This revision is necessary since the city had approved different plans for the site in 2003. 2. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development (15 lots for the town houses and one lot for the common area). DISCUSSION Site Plan An advantage of this proposal is that the proposed town house plan would have 15 units and would only require grading on about the north sixty percent of the site and would leave about forty percent of the site undisturbed. Previous plans as approved by the city showed 18 units and grading on about 55 percent of the property. This plan should be beneficial to many of the existing property owners on Dennis Street, as they would not have any development or construction behind their homes and now the units would be detached town houses instead of the six -unit buildings as approved by the city in 2003. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed detached town houses would be near Highwood Avenue, next to six single dwellings and a wireless communications facility. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending that the city council adopt the resolution that revises the PUD and approve the preliminary plat for the project known as Cottagewood. Each of these approvals would be subject to several conditions of approval (as outlined in the staff report). MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Cottagewood (former Highwood Farm Town houses) LOCATION: Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street DATE: August 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Phil Soby is proposing to build 15 detached town houses in a development called Cottagewood. It would be on a 3.71 -acre site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 17 and the maps on pages 18 - 28. A homeowners association would own and maintain the common areas. Requests To build this project, Mr. Soby is requesting that the city approve: A revision to a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This revision is necessary since the city had approved different plans for the site in 2003. The PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such as setbacks and street right -of -way and pavement widths) than the standard city requirements would normally allow. Specifically, the proposed PUD revision would allow for smaller average lot sizes, for the town houses to have a smaller setback to the front and side property lines than code usually allows and to have the town houses on a private driveway. 2. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development (15 lots for the town houses and one lot for the common area). (See the map on page 23.) I also should note that the applicant has not yet applied for design approval for this project. If the city approves the above - listed requests, then the applicant will apply to the city for final plat approval and design approval (including architectural and landscape plans). Please also refer to the developer's project plans for more information about these proposals. BACKGROUND On February 10, 2003, the city council approved the following for the Highwood Farms Town Houses PUD (for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue): 1. A land use plan change from R -1 (single dwellings) to R -3L (low density multiple dwellings). 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for an 18 -unit housing development. (Please see the approved site plan on page 29.) 3. The preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the city council minutes starting on page 34.) On February 23, 2004, the city council reviewed the CUP for the Highwood Farms PUD and agreed to review it again in one year. On February 28, 2005, the city council reviewed the CUP for the Highwood Farms PUD and agreed to review the PUD again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. DISCUSSION Site Plan An advantage of this proposal is that the proposed town house plan would only require grading on about the north sixty percent of the site and would leave about forty percent of the site undisturbed. Previous plans as approved by the city showed grading on about 55 percent of the property. This plan should be beneficial to many of the existing property owners on Dennis Street, as they would not have any development or construction behind their homes and now the units would be detached town houses instead of the six -unit buildings as approved by the city in 2003. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed detached town houses would be near Highwood Avenue, next to six single dwellings and a wireless communications facility. In addition, developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition across Highwood Avenue from this site. The developer, Robert Engstrom, designed this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. Property Values The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If properly maintained and kept up, this development should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The required annual review of the conditional use permit is a built -in safeguard to ensure that the city council will regularly review this development. Traffic Considerations Data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) says that, on average, a town house will generate between six and seven vehicle trips per day and that a single dwelling will generate about ten vehicle trips per day. As such, 15 town houses would create about 90 vehicle trips from the site, 18 town houses would generate about 126 trips while 10 single dwellings would create about 100 vehicle trips from the site. In 2001, Highwood Avenue near the site averaged about 2,450 vehicles a day and Century Avenue near Highwood Avenue had 2,600 vehicles per day. City staff recently conducted traffic counts on Century Avenue and Highwood Avenue. These latest counts showed about 3,200 vehicles per day on Highwood Avenue and about 3,000 vehicles per day on Century Avenue (north of Highwood Avenue). The additional vehicles generated from this site, whether from single dwellings or from town houses, will not exceed the capacity of Highwood or Century Avenues. Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plan The 15 units on the 3.71 -acre site means there would be 4.04 units per gross acre. This density is consistent with the density standards set in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for town houses in the low- density multiple dwellings category (of up to 5.4 units per gross acre). In addition, the proposed development density would be consistent with the housing density standards recommended by the Metropolitan Council for residential development in first -ring suburbs. For a comparison, the comprehensive plan allows developments with single dwellings to have up to 4.1 units per gross acre. As such, on a typical 3.71 -acre site, there could be up to 15 single- family homes. This is a good site for town houses as it is on a collector street (Highwood Avenue), is near an arterial street (Century Avenue) and is across the street from a developing town house site. With a proposal such as this, the city must balance the interests and rights of the property owner to develop his property with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan balances the land owner's rights to use and develop the property versus the city's interest in preserving much of existing topography and trees on the site. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Conditional Use Permit Section 44- 1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: 1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 15 -unit housing development. As I noted above, the city is requiring this permit revision as the current developer has proposed major changes to the city - approved PUD project plans. In this case, the developer is requesting the CUP revision for the PUD because the proposed site plan is now different from the plan the city approved for the site in 2003. The PUD revision gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details (such as setbacks and street right -of -way and pavement widths) than the standard city requirements would normally allow. Specifically, the proposed PUD revision would allow for smaller average lot sizes, for the town houses to have a smaller setback to the front and side 9 property lines than code usually allows and to have the town houses on a private driveway. The benefit of this plan is that the developer would not be disturbing about 40 percent of the site — the area south of the proposed town houses. This plan keeps the new residences near Highwood Avenue and away from Interstate 494. In fact, the town house nearest to the freeway is 320 feet from the freeway right -of -way. Because of this distance, staff does not expect the noise from the freeway to be a large factor with the proposed plan. However, it is well known to staff and to the neighbors in the area that traffic noise can be an issue to those that live in the area. As such, the city should have the developer verify that the proposed plan will meet the state's noise standards with a study, testing or documentation. If the noise levels are such that they could be a factor, then the contractor would have to build the town houses so they can meet the noise standards. The builders may accomplish this with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening construction methods. The proposed lot sizes and setback deviations would not constitute a threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land and are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. However, in consideration for the PUD, the city should require the developer to record a conservation easement over the undisturbed area and to construct the development with a high level of architectural design and landscaping elements, including the size and quantities of materials. Off - Street Parking Standards The city code requires the developer to provide at least 30 off - street parking spaces (two for each unit) in this development. The developer's project plans (on pages 24 and 25) show 20 -foot -long driveways providing access to each town house. City staff, however, has not yet seen floor plans or building elevations for the town houses but it appears that each unit would have a two car attached garage. If this is true, then this design would meet the minimum city code requirements for parking. In addition to the parking for the units, the proposed plans show a total of eight extra or guest parking spaces between the buildings and at the south end of the driveway. While having the extra parking would be nice, the developer should review and possibly revise the plans for the parking spaces and the turn - around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees that can be saved while minimizing the amount of surface area and impact on the undisturbed area of the site. The total number of proposed spaces should be enough parking for the residents and their guests. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the 15 units on the 3.71 -acre site means there would be 4.04 units per acre (an average of 10,774 square feet per unit). This is well below the 5.4 units per acre density standard set by the comprehensive plan for low- density multiple - family residential development. The project plans show the lots being 52 to 71.5 feet wide and ranging in size from 3,512 square feet to 5,960 square feet in area. The average proposed lot size would be about 4,000 square feet. These lot sizes, while smaller than the city usually requires for single dwellings, is larger than the lot sizes the city typically sees for each unit in town house developments. If the city approves this proposal, then the developer will be forming a homeowners association with 0 documents (declarations) specifying the legal responsibility of the association and homeowners for maintenance of the units and common grounds. City Engineering Department Comments The city engineering department has been working with the applicant's engineering consultant in reviewing this proposal and plans. Michael Thompson's comments are in the attachment starting on page 30. Public Utilities There are sanitary sewer and water near the site to serve the proposed development. Specifically, water is to the west of the site at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and New Century Boulevard. The developer will extend the water main down Highwood Avenue to and through the site. The Saint Paul Water Utility will need to approve the plan for the water main. Sanitary sewer is east of the site at the intersection of Highwood Avenue and Century Avenue. The developer is proposing to extend the sewer up Highwood Avenue from Century Avenue to serve the development. The city engineer must approve the final engineering plans before the applicant or contractor may start construction. Drainage Most of the site drains to the north and east. The project engineer has designed the site with a series of rainwater gardens and a new ponding area on the northeast corner of the site (near Highwood Avenue). The development would not increase storm water runoff onto adjacent properties. That is, the runoff leaving the site and flowing onto adjacent properties will be at or below current levels. Michael Thompson of the city engineering staff and Matt Hieb, the project engineer, prepared additional information about storm water treatment, infiltration and drainage. (Please see these additional comments on pages 50 -52.) It also is important to remember that Mr. Soby or the contractor must get a permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. That is, the watershed district will have to be satisfied that the developer's plans will meet all watershed district standards before they may start grading or other site construction. Tree Removal /Replacement Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading. For this 3.71 -acre site, the ordinance requires that at least 37 large trees remain. As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade about 60 percent of the site to create the private driveways and the building pads. This grading would disturb the northerly 2.3 acres of the 3.71 -acre site while preserving many of the slopes and some of the large trees on the site, especially on the south end of the site. (See the proposed grading plan on page 25.) The proposed plans show the removal of 64 large trees (pine, maple, ash, oak and elm) and the preservation of five existing large trees, including maple, elm and oak. Before grading the site, the city should require the developer to submit a detailed tree plan (including removal and replacement) to staff for approval. The developer's engineer submitted a preliminary landscape plan for the site. (See the plan on page 28.) This plan shows the planting of 59 new trees within the development — including oak, maple, spruce and linden. The developer should provide the final version of this plan, along with the proposed landscape plans (for the units and for the rainwater gardens), to the city for approval by the Community Design Review Board. Design Issues The applicant submitted preliminary elevations and floor plans for the proposed buildings. (See the drawings on pages 47 — 49.) These plans look attractive and the proposed units should be a good fit for the area. The city will want to ensure that the final design of the buildings will be attractive and that they fit in with the design (materials and colors) of the existing homes and town houses in the area. These are matters that the community design review board will consider with their review of the project design plans. As with the building design, the applicant has not yet submitted a final landscape plan for the site. This plan must be consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards. This includes having the new deciduous trees shown at least 2'/2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped, providing screening along the west property line, showing all disturbed turf areas being sodded, having an underground irrigation system for all landscape areas and having mulched and edged planting beds. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department provided me with comments about this proposal. His comments are in the memo on page 32. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the end of the driveway is back far enough for proper snow removal and to have enough room for emergency vehicles to turn around. On- Street Parking Standards The applicant is proposing that the main street within the development be a 21- foot -wide private driveway. I had the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal review the proposed driveways and their widths. According to Article 9, Section 902 of the Uniform Fire Code, all fire access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. As such, the main driveway in this development must be at least 20 feet wide with no parking on either side of the street. If the developer or the city wants to allow parking on one side of the driveways, then they must be at least 28 feet wide. Any driveway that is less than 28 feet wide must be posted for no parking on both sides. CONCLUSION The revised PUD plans have three fewer units for the site than the city approved in 2003. While many of the neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the right to develop and use his land. The current proposal preserves many of the natural features on the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should A strive for with every development. COMMISSION ACTION On August 7, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed PUD revision and the proposed preliminary plat for the Cottagewood development. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 53. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for a planned unit development for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue to be known as Cottagewood. This site is on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans for 419 15 detached town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However, widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from the east property line. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Also, review and possibly revise the parking spaces and the turn - around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved and to minimize the amount of hard surface area. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees as possible in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated July 28, 2006. 7 These shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, retaining walls, driveway and parking plans. This approval includes the design of the proposed private cul -de -sac. b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off -site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area. d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Cottagewood PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum — 35 feet b. Rear -yard setback: 12 feet from any adjacent residential property line c. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at least 12 feet between units. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. Submit the homeowner's association documents to city staff for review and approval. 9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 11. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes or any signs The project design plans, including architectural, signs site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. For the driveways: (1) Minimum width - 20 feet. (2) Maximum width - 28 feet. (3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for No Parking on one side. c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. B. Approve the Cottagewood preliminary plat (received by the city on July 7, 2006). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the street intersection and near the south end of the driveway. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification and no parking signs. 9 e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off -site easements. f. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Highwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and shall include the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. i. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. j. Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area. These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a conservation easement area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson dated July 28, 2006, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood -fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. 10 (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The driveway shall be a nine -ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent and the maximum grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The street (driveway) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes. (3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on the south side of Highwood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (5) All utility excavations located within the proposed right -of -ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run -off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall 11 include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 Y2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills Spruce, Austrian pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, conservation easement, or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the west side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the homes to the west (7) Show the planting of at least 37 trees after the site grading is done. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include showing a 20- foot -wide drainage and utility easement along the north side of Lot 15. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the common areas as an outlot or as outlots. d. If allowed, show the conservation easement on the final plat. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off -site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond at the northwest corner of the plat. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and 12 meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites. c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue. d. The conservation easement for the undisturbed area of the site. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants. 9* Submit the homeowners association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, outlots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls and structures. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the interim director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 12. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 13 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 86 properties within 500 feet of this site and received six replies. Of the six replies, one was for the proposal and three were against and two had comments about the proposal. For 1. Development is going to happen sooner or later. This looks like an acceptable plan for development. I would like to see some kind of berm or other privacy barrier between the new and existing developments. Perhaps even a line of pine trees or other trees. (Dalton — 994 Dennis St.) Objections 1. The proposed project density is too high — want fewer units. (Bushnell — 1000 Ferndale Street) 2. 1 believe that we do not need anymore PUD's in our area of Maplewood. The Towns of New Century development is not selling and homes or townhomes because the market is not going well. There is another housing development close by off of Linden and those are selling slowly as well. I believe leaving the proposed land as is (a beautiful area of trees and non - developed land) would be better for our community. Thank you for asking for my comments. (Greco — 2682 New Century Place) 3. Please see the e-mail from D'Ann Bagan on page 33. Comments 1. Our biggest concern is the increased traffic on Highwood Avenue. It is a racetrack now —will the 30 mph speed limit be enforced? (Amundson — 1016 Ferndale Street S) 2. Single dwellings are a better choice than town houses. The lots are very small and I am concerned about the value of these detached town houses. (Heutmaker — 984 Ferndale Street) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.71 acres Existing land use: Formerly a single dwelling and accessory buildings North: New Century PUD across Highwood Avenue South: Interstate 494 West: Houses along Dennis Street and fronting on Highwood Avenue East: House at 2684 Highwood Avenue and cellular telephone tower 14 PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R -3(L) (low density multiple family residential) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Ordinance Requirements Section 44- 1103(b) requires a CUP to enlarge a use for which a CUP is required. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44- 1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1 -9 in the resolution on pages 53 through 56.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2- 290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2002, the city council held a public hearing about the proposed 10 -lot subdivision for this site. After taking public testimony about the proposal, the applicant agreed to a time extension for council action on the proposal. This time extension was to allow him time to study other options for the property, including the idea of putting town houses near Highwood Avenue and leaving the southern end of the property untouched. On October 28, 2002, the city council again considered development options for this site. These included the proposed 10 -lot single- family subdivision and a concept plan that showed 16 to 22 town houses on the site. The applicants agreed to another time extension for council action until November 25, 2002, to allow them time to further develop the plans for town houses on the property. On January 27, 2003, the council tabled action on the developer's request for a 10 -lot subdivision for 15 single dwellings for the site. APPLICATION DATE The city received the complete applications and project plans for this proposal on July 7, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city needs to take action on the proposal by September 6, 2006, unless the developer agrees to a time extension. krlp:lsec13- 281Cottagewood - 2006 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Site Survey 6. Tree Inventory 7. Proposed Preliminary Plat 8. Site Plan 9. Grading Plan 10. Erosion Control Plan 11. Overall Utility Plan 12. Landscape Plan 13. 2003 Approved Site Plan 14. Michael Thompson's review dated July 28, 2006 15. Memo from Lt. Shortreed dated July 18, 2006 16. E -mail from D'Ann Bagan dated 7 -17 -06 17. February 10, 2003 City Council Minutes 18. Preliminary Building Elevations and Floor Plans (3 pages) 19. Michael Thompson's additional comments dated August 17, 2006 20. August 16, 2006 letter from Matt Hieb (project engineer) 21. Conditional Use Permit Revision for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 22. Project Plans (separate attachments - including 11x17s and full -size) 16 NARRATIVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COTTAGEWOOD SUBDIVISION OVERVEIW: Ittachmenl m I w Z\ N Location Map 2666 Highwood Ave Attachment 2 Attachment 3 MMI IN Mi r f t 0 0 0 LJ E3 LL r3 L J L 0 NEW Z AVE SOU AVE j r f t 0 0 0 Z\ VALLEY VIEW AVE F LLrF L l Lj Ln3 AD AVE 0 Ls I r LU 1_7 TI NEMITZ AW-- J� E7 il i_j SiDUT HCRESJ AVE, ram • 0 • M ME - Attachment 4 Attachment 5 -=�- -- �— � ,.. -' _��_ � ' SITE /��'''' '' ' / i140 . . . .. � Ile /[? . ~_---. '--- '~-- ^~— �-- a �� Attachment 6 i .� ..�r w _.. _.: v-• a.a. -n p _.�n._... -.w. .S- v_ .............• .., h £i:. i.i_ s 4 0 1 � J tf L�j( k :` ��w• -_ `� tai. I o l f� I k � r t 1 t . y f f p TREEINVENTORY M Attachment 7 IIIGHWOOV AVENOE KAST ., ........ . . Al j A- 4 I q r-e t F - :- ht. f J 23 I Attachment 8 z — — — — -- E -- — — — — — — — — — -- 2 BAV COO 01H j ril SITE PLAN L4 4 4D — — — — — — — — — — — g�p M gt cx� 4 ' � ' SITE PLAN L4 4 Attachment 9 z Im til Pill vp i ®R gg lei z 7) �oj Z: lo w til Pill vp i 7) �oj Z: lo w Attachment 10 f I M1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uz� , 1 1 1 1 ----------- EROSION CONTROL PLAN M I LA EROSION CONTROL PLAN M I Attachment 71 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN �� u� i ____________________- ~ I 7 -� / l | � | | | | | Attachme F 9 1 4 —7 fire (C z F / - m- - Z- SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT: HIGHWOOD FARM W , . 5 -,, 9 1 4 —7 fire / - m- - Z- SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT: HIGHWOOD FARM W , . 5 -,, Attachment UHRMMM-W !� PROJECT: Cottagewood Development PROJECT NO: 06-08 REVIEWED BY.- Micbael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: July 28, 2006 The developer, Lauren & Company, is requesting City approval of a 15-lot planned unit development for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue East, The developer or project engineer shall make the changes to the plans and site and shall address the concerns listed below. The developer is working with the city on the feasibility study for extending both sanitary sewer and water to serve the proposed development. This work would be a public project. 3. Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) loca"I at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval. Please submit documentation to the city engineering staff of such approval. .................................. I The basin landscaping design shall be subject to approval by the city's naturalist, Gfinny Gaynor, 2. On the storm sewer plan, include the normal water level (NVL) elevation for the treatment basin. EMU I. Please include in the specifications and project plans City of Maplewood Plate No, 3 50 for details on sediment and erosion control measures. L The developer or prcJIect engineer shall submit a copy of th PCA's construction stormwater permit (SP P) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 2. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development. This is to ensure that there is a responsible party for the regular maintenance and care of the basins, rainwater gardens, retaining walls, private utilities, and all other features common to the development, I The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement prepared by the city, for the gardens, basins, and sumps, 4. 'The city will require the developer to enter into a developer's agreement. This will be to assure that the contractor installs the public sewer service that will extend to the east lot line ot'2660 Highwood Avenue to city standards and that it is constructed when the contractor installs the private sanitary sewer main, 5. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies, 6. City staff will closely observe all construction activities — especially the enforcement of erosion and sediment control measures. From: Lieutenant Michael Shortreed 11 �2 77 Date: July 1 18, 2006 Re. PROJECT REVIEW — Cottagewood 2666 Highwood Avenue Attachment From: D'Ann Bagan [tdbagan@usfamily.net] Sent: Monday, July 17, 200■ 7:57 AM To: Ken Roberts " !' �i i# WTS lul I --- USI"arnily-Nm - .25/ ate' -- 1-11glispeed - $19.99/nio! --- - 3 S- MINUTES NtAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, February 10, 2003 CmincitC Municipal Building. A Meeting No. 03-03 0 a W La IN � _WX$11 A rneetint of the City Council was field in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Building- and was called to order at 7 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kenneth V, Collins, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin C, Kopperi, Councilmember Present Julie A. Wasiluk. Councilmember Absent v[22XI]MR31121311"t 111111l11 1 11 , i January 27. 2003 as vresented. Seconded bv CouncilmemberKoppen 2. Minutes from City Council Meeting rrom January 27..2003 Meeting No, 03-03 • Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann BRIM 1�econded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All City Council 02-10-03 I Such im prove rn eft herebN ordered as proposed he council resolution adopted the I () Ih day of February 2003. Assessments 24280 Maplewood SaniW Sewer Fund $321 -150 City of St. Paul $245.040 S Obligation $ 18 Tolat $608,800 ME= 1 7:10 (7:27) p.m. Hi wood Farms Town Houses (HighNvood Avenue) Land Use Plan Change (R -1 to R-3 (L)) Conditional Use Per (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plat a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report, b Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the repoz, No 1111111111 Cir% Council 02-10-03 6 1 9 1 e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents, The following person was heard: Mavor Cardinal closed the public hearing. It 1110110 MaKe NOW@ N Im re = Ol 1—M I mi-imt]NIILMMII M-1- IF, I UWAMMOD Is RESOLUTION 03-02-016 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr, Charles Cox is proposing a change to the city's land use plan from R- I (single dwellings) to R-3(L) (low densit-v multiple &vellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property noN\ known has 2666 Highwood Avenue in Section 13, Township 28. R,-mge 22, Ramsev Count-,., Nlinnesota WHEREAS. the history of this change is as follows: On JanuaR 22, 2003, the planning commission held a public hearing, The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The lanning commission recommended that the city council not approve the plan p amendment, go 11 NOW, TYIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the follo\v-mg reasons: It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. These include having similar uses firontim., on the same street. having a grading plan that preserves many significant natural features and uses a planned unit development to allow for creative design solutions, 2. This site is proper for and consistent \vlth the city's policies for low-density multiple dwelling use. This includes: a- Creating a transitional land use between the existing low density residential and the existing telecommunications site. b. It is on a collector street and is near an arterial street. City Cotaicil 02- 10-03, be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 3. It would be consistent with the proposed planned it development {QUID) and land uses. Seconded by CounclimemberJuenemann Ayes-All I it YMEREAS, this permit applies to the Highwood Farm town house development plan the city received on December 26, 2002 for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue. The legal description Subject to State TH 100/117 and FIVVY 393, the north I 100 feet of the West 173 feet of the East 198 feet of the West V2of the NE �/4 of the SE !/i of Section 13. Tovvnship 28, Range 22- Ramsey County, Minnesota- Jbis is the properry to be known as Lots 1- 19 of the proposed Highwood Farm) llplp On January 22,2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit- 2. On February 10., 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 w statements, The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and plamung commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit because: I OIN7 COLUICA 02-10-03 4. The use would not involve any activih, process, rna(erl'" equipment or meihods of operation that would be dangerous, ha/,ardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise- P-lare. smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage,, water run-off, vibration, - general unsigh(liness. electrical interference or other nuisances, 6, The use would be served by adequate public facilities and semices- including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and seNver systems, schools and parks, III LIN II The use would cause, ini adverse environmental effects. rr rr a. Revising the grading and site plans to sho\\ (2) All driveways at least 20 feet Nxi& TFthe developer wants to have parking Oil one side of the main drive then it must be at least 28 feet wide, HoweN er. widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from the east property line, (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or r u'r the watershed distirict or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the cityle-sVgn] stanRards- (5) The developer rninin"Hizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including City Comcil 02 - 10-03 keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas, 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the perrulit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. a. Include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, sidewalks, tree, retaining walls- driveway and parking lot plans, b. Show no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation casement. This land is to zn be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this arm including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or tilling. � I I ; I E=12= 4, Tbe design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer, If needed- the developer shall be responsible for getting any off-site pond and drainage easements, 9WRIMM-11 a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. 13MSEMZ� A I I 6. The approved setbacks for the principal siructures in the High),vood Farm PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 30 feet, maximum — 35 feet b, Rear-yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line City Council 02-10-03 10 c. Side-N setback (town houses): minimum - 47 feet from the Nest property line and 50 feet from the cast property tine. 8, Submit the homeowners association documents to city staff for review and approval. 9. The developer shall provide a permanent mews to preserve and maintain the common open space. This maN be done by conservation easement, deed restricfions, covenants or public dedication, The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction 11. This approval does not include the design approval for the toxvnhomes. The project design plam, including architectural, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans. shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: (3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide ma­, have Parkin on one side and shall be posted for No Parking on one side. c. Showing all changes required by the city asp of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 11 The citv shall not issue any budding permits for construction on an outtot (per city co�lm requirements), The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. Seconded by Council member Juenemann Ayes-All 01FOMIMUN 1, Sign an agreement with the cit\, that guarantees that the developer or contractor wilt City Council 02-10-03 a, Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public irnpro%emems and meet all city requirements. c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the w street intersection and near the south end of the driveay. The exact style and 'location shall be subject to the city errglneers approval. e. provide all required and necess ements, including an) off -site easements. g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners aie not using'. remove septic systems drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. i h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Highvvood Avenue on the north side of the site, I This is to replace the existing driveNNI on Highwood Avenue and shall include the restoration and sodding of the boule i, Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. J. Install surv monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area. These signs shall explain that the area be-,ond the signs is a consman on easement area and that there shall be no building, fences, movviiim. cutting, filling, dumping or otherground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall instail these signs before the city issues bmilding pemiits in this plat, 2. Haw e the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. The applicant shall have these plans revised to follow the comments of the c6 engineer and shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and street plans, The plans shall meet the follovVing conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent NN ith the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: 0 The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat, City Council 02-10-03 12 (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction NN ill disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (6) All retaining Nvalls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feel require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall fiiat is taller dian four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading & from the affected property owner(s), ' c, The sireet, drive-,vay and utility plans shall shoNv: (2) The street (drivewav) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the citv entineer determines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes, TTTT e remov 0 e unusKFc ania Me completion curt) and gutter on the south side of HigliNvood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department, (5) All tint ity excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within I easements, The developer shall acqw're easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area- Citv Council 02-10-03 13 (7) A detail ofany ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm Nvater run- off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) le% els. The developer's engineer shall: (1) VeriR� inlet and pipe capacities. 2) Submit drainage design calculations. OMEMMEREBM (1) Be approved, along Nvith the landscaping, by the Community Design RevieNV Boaxd (CDR-B) before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Sho-NN where the developer Nvill remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site, (3) ShoNv the size. species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shal I be at least two and one hal (2 !/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and while oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples of other native species, The coniferous trees shall be at lea-st eight (8) feet tall and shall be a m:ix of Black Hills Spruce, Austrian pine and other species. (4) Sbow no tree removal in the buffer zones- conservation easement, or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list, (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the pending areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the Nest side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the homes to the Nvest 3. Change the plat as follows: b, Show drainap I I _-e and utiiit% easements along all properti lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet Nvide along, the side property lines. Cit% Council 02- It } -03 1 4 MOMEMMEMBRM 11111 111! MINIMM=1 e. Show the building pads and the common area as a Common Interest Community (CIC). 5, Secure and provide all reqLfired easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. These shall 'Include, but not be limited to, an easement for the cul vert draining the pond at the northwest comer of the plat. 6, The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The c1tv em , ,ineer shall include in the developer*s agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. SI,on a developer's agreement Nvith the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor wIlL a- Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet alI city requirements, b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. DMMM§M ROMMMOrm b A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the I lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building, sites. c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new driveway shoNvn on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue. 5w UM City Council 02-10-03 15 The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the cit�T for approval before recording, The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants, 9* Submit the homeowners association bviaws and rules to the director of communitv development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, outlols, private utilities, driveways, retaining Nvalls structures. I approves the final plat- 1. Sign Setback Variance- The Northwest Quarter of the orthwest Quarter of the %I outheast Quarter of Section 3, ' � Township 29, Range 22, R County. Minnesota. Except the South 75,00 fe of the West 83.20 feet thereof. Ayes-All I— � . ... ........... Ila in VARtANC U ION 03-02-020 WHEREAS, Robert Till-es applied to ��ariance 4 the sign ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies in 1 570 Beam Avenu The legal description is: City Council 02-10-03 16 � I % 1 �c Mi n .. f m � oa r ti f c ®_mot -�• _ .___._ ._ __ - ' ^ r ^- ---- ! -` i NO w Pagel of Additional Information PROJECT: Cottagewood Subdivision Development PROJECT NO: 06-08 BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: August 17, 2006 The developer's engineer sent the attached letter (dated August 16, 2006), to the city engineering department. This letter is about the on-site infiltration basin at the northeast corner of the proposed development. A neighbor expressed concerns that there would be standing water in the infiltration basin and in the rainwater gardens. Below is information on the typical workings of these types of storm water treatment devices: The rainwater gardens for this development have a typical depth of 1 -foot. The infiltration basin at the northeast comer of the development has a 5-foot depth. The city requires these types of treatment devices for both storm water quality treatment (infiltration) and for rate control. The city's practice for rate control is to ensure that the rate of flow off the proposed developed site is less or equal to the pre-existing rate of flow off the undeveloped site. These devices achieve both rate control and treatment in line with city requirements. In the worst-case storm, storm water would fill up all of the rainwater gardens and then they would spill onto the private road and then the storm water would flow into the infiltration basin on the northeast comer of the site. The bottom surface of the infiltration basin would be at an elevation of 879.00. The infiltration basin will have an emergency overflow spillway to Highwood Avenue set at an elevation of 884.00. The infiltration basin would contain the water from the majority of storms and the water would drain out of the basin through an outlet. The contractor would connect this new pipe into the existing underground storm sewer system in Highwood Avenue. I discuss below the time that water would sit in the infiltration basin or gardens: The developer's engineer assumed an infiltration rate of 0.23 inches per hour. This assumption is based on the conservative estimates used by many Minnesota authorities (Riley-Purgatory- Bluff Creek Watershed District-1999). One may find this standard on the Metropolitan Council Environment Services webpage under infiltration basins: http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/bmp/CH3 STInfilBasins.pdf The project engineer has designed the infiltration basin so that after a storm, the water in the basin will be only 1 -foot deep. This is because the bottom of the basin is at an elevation of 879.00 and the invert elevation for the pipe flowing downstream is at 880.00. Therefore, with the conservative assumption of 0.23 inches per hour for the infiltration rate, it would take 52 hours for the basin to return to a dry condition. According to the "Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual" it should take no longer than 72 hours for a basin to drain. This time limit is set to avoid misquitoe breeding and other vector habits and to avoid inundation of native plant species. As designed, the infiltration basin is meeting the drawdown time requirement. Page 2 of 2 On that same note, the rainwater gardens would have a maximum water depth of 1 -foot and using the same infiltration assumption as above, it would take 52 hours for them to return to a dry condition. Rain gardens typically never fill up entirely due to the small area of drainage that each one treats. The project engineer also has specified rock sumps, which help in infiltration and drawdown, at each rainwater garden. He has designed these exactly how the City of Maplewood constructs rainwater gardens on city projects. Thus it is likely that rainwater gardens would have less than a 52 hour drawdown time. The city would require careful inspection and maintenance of the rain gardens by the homeowner's association. Staff would detail this in a maintenance agreement required by the city. If there is any lacking of maintenance and the homeowners association would not fix the problem, then the city would hire a private contractor to do the work and then charge the association. Auth•Consulting/associates 2920 Enloe Street Hudson, WI 54016 715/381-5277 August 16, 2006 TO: Michael Thompson City of Maplewood FR: Matt Hieb, P.E. Vice President Civil/Environmental Engineer CC: Phil Soby Owner RE: Cottagewood Stormwater System 5103-002 In response to concerns raised on the design and anticipated function of the Northeast pond for the Cottagewood project, I am including a summary of the details: ➢ The pond is designed to provide treatment and to promote on-site infiltration. Treatment occurs in the first 12" of material. 6" bedding material and 6" granular material. In addition, the plantings have been selected to provide additional treatment and nutrient removal. ➢ Infiltration occurs in existing soils. The soil borings indicate that the material will be gravelly sand with silt and silty sand. In order to allow time for infiltration, a 1.5" clean rock trench was included in the design. An infiltration rate of 1.63 inches per hour (lowest value from Table 2 of Rawls, 1998) was used to determine an approximate draw down time of 22 hours (based on a I" storm event). ➢ Rate control for the 2,10 and 100 year events occur above the pond bottom. The rate is controlled to pre-development rates. In summary, the pond system is an engineered system. The pond design is based on the most current design practices and available information. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Phil Soby, representing the project developers, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the Cottagewood residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the Cottagewood town house development plan the city received on July 7, 2006 for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue. The legal description is: Subject to State TH 100/117 and HWY 393, the north 1100 feet of the West 173 feet of the East 198 feet of the West '!2 of the NE'l4 of the SE'l4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (This is the property to be known as Lots 1 -15 of the proposed Cottagewood) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 7, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On August 28, 2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 17 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans for 49 15 detached town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However, widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from the east property line. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Also, review and possibly revise the parking spaces and the turn - around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved and to minimize the amount of hard surface area. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated July 28, 2006. These shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, retaining walls, driveway and parking plans. This approval includes the design of the proposed private cul -de -sac. b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. 18 c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off -site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area. d Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Cottagewood PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum — 35 feet b. Rear -yard setback: 12 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at least 12 feet between units. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8 Submit the homeowner's association documents to city staff for review and approval. 9 The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 11. This approval does not include the design approval for the townhomes or any signs The project design plans, including architectural, signs site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: 19 a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. For the driveways: (1) Minimum width - 20 feet. (2) Maximum width - 28 feet. (3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for No Parking on one side. c. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2006. m DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 CALL TO ORDER Acting chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Vice - Chairperson Tushar Desai Present Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Absent Commissioner Michael Grover Absent Commissioner Harland Hess Present Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Absent Commissioner Gary Pearson Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts Planner Steve Kummer Civil Engineer II Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary a. Cottagewood Town houses (2666 Highwood Avenue) CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat (8:28 —10:08 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Phil Soby is proposing to build 15 detached town houses in a development called Cottagewood. It would be a 3.71 -acre site on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. The revised PUD plans have three fewer units for the site than the city approved in 2003. While many of the neighbors would prefer no or little development of the property, the property owner has the right to develop and use his land. The current proposal preserves many of the natural features on the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should strive for with every development. Mr. Roberts said staff received a tree plan for this proposal after the packet was sent out and he distributed it to the planning commission. He said the plan shows 33 trees, but the code is going to require at least 37 trees and, in fact, staff expects even more trees will be required for this site. The applicant has not yet applied for design review board approval. The applicant wants to get the preliminary plat or PUD revision approved first and then will go through the design process. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Commissioner Trippler said he noticed the engineering report was done by Michael Thompson but he asked Mr. Kummer if he understood what was being asked on page 30, number 3.? Mr. Kummer said he thought the statement referred to the migration of the groundwater. Commissioner Trippler said he understood that but it didn't seem like the engineer was requiring the developer to make any changes, and it seemed like the engineer was just pointing things out. Mr. Kummer and Mr. Roberts thought the engineer was simply pointing some things out as a means of information. Commissioner Dierich said she had a lot of trouble approving this development in 2003 when it came before the planning commission and she had even done a petition to keep the development from happening in this location. Commissioner Dierich said she is happier with this proposal but still felt this was an inappropriate development here for the amount of noise, the size of the lots, the configuration, the traffic, the grading and drainage issues, and there are too many houses packed into a small space. Her understanding of a CUP is that it goes with a use or a building and to her knowledge this is the first time the city has had a CUP that goes with raw land. Mr. Roberts said actually a CUP runs with the property. Commissioner Dierich said she hasn't seen that situation before. This land is still zoned Farm but it's guided as R -3 but she didn't see that we made a zoning change. Mr. Roberts said the zoning map identifies this as a PUD that was approved in 2003. Commissioner Dierich said keeping that in mind; the commission doesn't have to do anything different at this point. With the CUP, the planning commission can recommend "what" can go here. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Dierich asked what the conservation easement is supposed to accomplish since all that is there is buckthorn and box elder, so what are we conserving? Mr. Roberts said when it's recorded and put on the property records it prevents a developer from coming in later asking for a lot split and extending the cul -de -sac further down so it prevents further development. Commissioner Dierich said she assumed this area would be mass graded and she asked if it would be mass graded enough so there could be a berm pushed up to block some of the freeway noise? Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Roberts said he assumed that would be possible assuming the drainage could be handled correctly. Mr. Kummer said the drainage already goes to the north so it would probably be possible to have a berm there to block the noise. Commissioner Dierich said when she walked the land this evening she jiggled her keys by her shoulder and she could not hear the keys jiggling because of the noise of the freeway and that was at 6:00 p.m. She didn't see a lot of specifics in this project and didn't see a traffic study request or how they are going to mitigate noise, and the noise has gotten worse since the planning commission reviewed the proposal in 2003. Something has to be done to address the noise here, it can't be ignored. Regarding the house to the west, the lot looks to be maybe five feet higher than the property to the east and she didn't see an existing retaining wall or anything on the plan to address that drop. She asked how that would be addressed? Mr. Roberts said it's his understanding the pond will be higher and there would be 3 -to -1 slopes on the sides of the pond and they will not be grading off site, so they will have to make the slopes work with the site and within the pond. They are not planning for a retaining wall to make that pond work. Mr. Kummer said according to the large scale plans, they are showing a bottom -floor walkout for units 5, 6, and 7 and there is a nine -foot drop between the top floor and the basement floor on the east side of the new street. The existing elevation is shown at 992 and the finished floor elevation on the walkout is fairly consistent. He thinks they would be able to make up the grade in the backyard to match the neighbor's property on the east side. Commissioner Dierich said she likes the idea of a one -story unit, but you don't accomplish much giving each unit a small lot which is worthless. She would rather see attached townhomes and have the units built as close to Highwood Avenue moving them as far away from the freeway as possible because of the noise level. Mr. Roberts said he believes the applicant would say the market is for detached townhomes. Commissioner Dierich said she's sure the developer would say that too, but she is concerned about the noise mitigation, the amount of blacktop and the conservation easement and doesn't feel this plan accomplishes much by having detached single townhomes. During the last proposal for this area she was concerned about the height of the townhomes being more than one story. Commissioner Pearson said regarding the two soil borings done in the drainage easement areas, he wondered if the third soil boring was done in the area of the retaining wall? He asked how high the retaining wall on the west side of the property is? Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Kummer said there doesn't appear to be a soil boring done near the retaining wall location to the west side of the property. It appears the retaining wall height ranges from 6 inches to as high as 3'f2 feet tall. A retaining wall taller than four feet in height would require a building permit, a geo -grid and be an engineered retaining wall. Mr. Roberts pointed out on the plans where four identified locations of soil borings were done. Commissioner Trippler asked what it meant on page 13, number 11.? Mr. Roberts said this is proposed at 15 lots and let's say for example they only wanted to plat the north half of the property, they could do the development in phases. Commissioner Trippler said on page 2, under traffic considerations, it says in 2001, Highwood Avenue near the site averaged 2,450 vehicle trips per day and Century Avenue near Highwood Avenue averaged 2,600 vehicle trips per day, and he believes the number of vehicle trips has increased. Mr. Roberts said he would check but wasn't sure there were updated traffic counts on Highwood Avenue. Commissioner Trippler asked what Highwood Avenue was rated as? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure but he thought Highwood Avenue was rated as a "collector" street, which typically has 6,000 vehicle trips per day. He would have to check further to be sure. Commissioner Dierich said in 2001 the New Century development was just being developed so not all of the homes were done yet, so the traffic was a lot less. Mr. Roberts said just for the commission's information, the New Century development Commissioner Dierich is referring to was approved for 178 units and about 150 units are done now. Commissioner Trippler said on page 4, in the first paragraph, it states the town house nearest to the freeway is 320 feet from the freeway right -of -way. Because of this large distance, the developer has told staff that he does not expect the noise from the freeway to be a factor with the proposed plan. He said that is like being next door, and unless the developer can show us he is confident enough to live here despite the freeway noise and could show us a purchase agreement, the planning commission should require a noise study be done before approving this proposal. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Roberts said on page 8, item 5. d. it states Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. Commissioner Yarwood said he lived within 1,000 feet from an interstate and he knows the noise is a factor and at 320 feet from an interstate he is positive it will be a factor. There should be noise mitigation factored into this property such as sound protection measures in the construction of the townhomes along with berms and landscaping because noise will definitely have an impact. Acting chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kip Johnson, Project Engineer with ACA Engineering, addressed the commission. He said he is available for technical questions. Commissioner Trippler said the retaining wall on the northwestern edge between units 12 -15 concerns him and he asked what that would entail and if there had been soil borings done to establish the soil stability? Mr. Johnson said soil borings had been done but they didn't modify the grading plan in that location to minimize the height of the retaining wall. Originally the submittal showed a significantly higher retaining wall, but those first four lots are going to be tuck -under type lots where the back of the lot sits six to eight feet higher than the front of the lot so that brought the back of the grade up closer to the existing grade so there is not a significant wall there. Mr. Phil Soby, applicant with Lauren & Co. Development, addressed the commission. He said he is available for any questions. Commissioner Hess asked what type of noise mitigation you plan on using? Mr. Soby said they haven't looked at ways to mitigate noise yet so he said he should not be quoted as saying anything about the level of noise. They will take necessary measures when the time comes, they just haven't gotten to that point yet. The platting, zoning and density are the issues he wanted to handle first. If there are construction standards that need to be increased because of noise they will look at all the concerns then. Commissioner Dierich said she understands the use of construction standards to help with noise issues, but we are running into several developments where the level of noise is so bad that people can't use their backyards. The developer must have some idea of what he will do to help mitigate the noise concerns if he is planning on having walkout lots and decks. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Soby said through market research they have found that people don't really care about the use of the backyard. People want a smaller home without the responsibility of snow removal and yard work, and they don't want to share a common wall and want to live independently. The yard is not as important to them in terms of size, people just want a lawn that is kept up nice and they are not so much concerned about the use of the yard as you would be living in a single - family home development. Commissioner Dierich asked who they are marketing these homes to? Is it a specific age group or demographic? Mr. Soby said they do not want to omit any potential buyers and, therefore, have not labeled these homes, but they feel it would probably be an active adult in pre - retirement stage or retired and it could be called a senior living neighborhood. Based on the overall design and the concept of the maintenance free, detached unit with a homeowner's association, these homes would be suitable for "active" seniors. Commissioner Dierich said given the fact that this proposal would be sitting across the street from a development that can't finish developing because the developer can't sell the units, and also across the street from an older development of partially- detached partially- attached townhomes which on a routine basis has 10 -14 "for sale" signs in front of it, are you planning on building this development in phases or all at once? Mr. Soby said they think this product is different enough to not be in direct competition with any other housing unit that surrounds it and it would be done in one phase. Ironically they discussed this proposal with the developer of the townhomes in New Century. The people from the New Century development said they had heard over and over again that people were looking for one- level living, and if the New Century development had offered one -level living, they would not be in the position that they are in now and things would have gone much smoother. Commissioner Dierich applauded the applicant for thinking and researching things ahead of time. She would strongly encourage the applicant to put more greenery and berming in and use substantial noise mitigation here. Commissioner Yarwood asked what the estimated asking price would be for these units? Mr. Soby said they will offer a variety of different add -on options but they will be priced in the high $200,000 range to the high $300,000 range, and they don't want the prices to be too high. If it is geared toward an active adult or soon to retire person, they may live close already and are looking to move into a maintenance -free home. The person may already have their home paid for after living there for many years and would have to put little money back into purchasing one of these units to move into something that is brand new and not need things fixed or replaced. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Ms. Sharon Soby, realtor and wife of the applicant, addressed the commission. She said that overwhelmingly the baby boomers are saying they don't want to live in attached living, they want maintenance free, smaller, one level living, and it has to be affordable. They want to live close to where their kids and grandchildren are and they often depend on their loved ones to help take care of them. She already knows five people that have homes that are paid for free and clear, have a small nest egg to help pay for expenses and overages and would be able to pay cash for one of these units and may be interested in this particular one level living in this location in Maplewood. As a realtor sitting in models or homes for open houses she hears over and over from people that are either widowed, are seniors, retired or are retiring soon that they want one level living without common walls and would like to have small planters to plant their flowers. People have lived independently all these years and do not want to share walls with anyone and they want their privacy. These units are going to go quickly no matter how close these would be to the freeway because people want to stay in the metro area. Laurie Simon, 1060 Dennis Street South, addressed the commission. Her concern is regarding the erosion control and the runoff that could affect her property because they have spent thousands of dollars fixing up their yard. They have had to replace their retaining wall because of the eight foot drop in their backyard. There are other homes on the block that have had to replace their retaining walls. She is concerned about the ponding and this development proposal. Chris Gierke, 2660 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commission. He said he knows Ken Roberts has worked very carefully with the previous land owners and it was 3 years ago and now there is another new owner proposing another development. He knows there are not a lot of neighbors in the audience here to speak. The previous proposal had double frontage and was probably more of a concern for them. He praised the applicant for having neighborhood meetings, even though the neighbors have opposed the plan. The applicant provided information to the neighbors and in turn the neighbors could pass information onto him. He said he spoke to Chuck AN about bringing the sanitary sewer closer to his property because he will be required to connect to the city sewer. Mr. Kummer and Mr. Roberts said the sanitary sewer will be stubbed in and the neighbors would have to be connected to the city sewer within one year after it becomes available. Mr. Kummer said the grade to the east of Mr. Gierke's property is about 3 1 /2 feet lower at its lowest point. The actual top of the wall elevation shown on these plans will match the grade of his property on top and will come down into the site. Mr. Gierke asked if there was a consideration to replant and conserve trees in those backyards. He said he is also a builder and knows it's hard to conserve trees during the construction. Mr. Roberts said that is a detail the city engineering department will have to work out with the developer's engineers. His sense is that most of the site will get graded and the developer will have to be careful not to damage the roots of the trees and the trees on the neighbors' property. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Gierke said he used to live at 1024 Dennis Street South and after his divorce he moved into this home and has lived here for about 1'/2 years now so he knows how noisy the area is. He said you can't use your backyard and you can't have your windows open at night because you can't sleep because of the freeway noise. He likes this plan and it's much better than the previous plan and there are not a lot of neighbors who are opposing the plan. He agrees that there is a market for one level living and if he got back into new construction as a builder, he would try to build one- level detached homes. He said he would like to see some renderings of the homes they are proposing. Mr. Soby handed out preliminary colored renderings to Mr. Gierke and to the planning commission members. Staff placed a preliminary color rendering on the overhead. Marguerite Merz, 2684 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commission. She lives to the east of this proposal. She said after speaking to Ken Roberts she did some research on her own and spoke to several different people from different state agencies who answered questions that she had. One representative told her that if the land below you is eroding it is going to cause your land to erode more because it widens out and washes away. This is a concern of hers. Her understanding from the last development proposal was that the developer was going to pay for sewer and water to extend to this neighborhood. She said she never heard she would be "required" to connect to the city sewer system so this is news to her. She only heard it would be paid for and it would be available if she wanted to connect to it. She purchased a new septic and drain field in the last couple of years so it would be disappointing to her if it were "mandatory" after she spent her own money for a new septic and drain field. Mr. Roberts said city code requires you connect to the city sewer, however as part of the public improvement project Ms. Merz could ask for a waiver or time delay and ultimately it would be up to the city council to grant it or not to grant it. Ms. Merz said she lives downhill from this property, so her property will not drain into the proposed property. She said there is 13 feet from the back of the proposed homes to the property line. She had her son mark off 13 feet in order to do a visual presentation. She said she thought there would be a berm on the east side because the freeway is also located on the east. Mr. Roberts said the west side property would have tuck -under units and the east side units would be walk -out units so those would have basements. The berm would be on the south side around the cul -de -sac, and the theory would be to block the noise going up the hill from the freeway. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Ms. Merz said these units would be 13 feet apart and you can't stand outside in your yard here and hear each other speak. She asked what these people are going to do with the noise level especially after you cut down 90% of the trees. (In the background her son said that he has to put cotton in his ears to sleep because of the freeway noise.) If you put a tree between the units at 13 feet apart the trees still need room to spread out. She said she has a small magnolia tree on her property and that needs 25 feet to spread out, and you have to allow for the roots and the branches to spread out. Ms. Merz said otherwise you have to have small conifers planted here because she can't see how the trees will have room to spread out. She said she spoke to Gertens Nursery about the ponds and the rainwater gardens. The plans were so small and microscopic she could not read them so she spoke to Mr. Roberts who was gracious enough to send her larger plans. That may be another reason the neighbors are not here, because the plans were so small they did not know what was going on here. Minnesota Mosquito Control said the kind of mosquito that causes disease only needs the size of a candy wrapper of water to lay eggs. If these rainwater gardens would be dry 24 hours later, Gertens Nursery says that rainwater gardens with plants in them have to be water - loving plants so it can't be dry or the plants would die. Gertens Nursery said if we had a drought like we have had you would have to water the rainwater garden in order to keep the plants alive, so that means in order to survive, the rainwater garden must be moist at all times. She was told these rainwater gardens would be two to three feet deep and 15 x 7 feet wide. There will be water runoff from the roofs and driveways, so the rainwater gardens would be moist all the time. Therefore, mosquitoes would breed. The ponds she is referring to will run the whole length of her yard and she has a picnic table on the west side of her property. Ms. Merz said recently her son was working on some wood in that particular area of her yard after dark and he got several mosquito bites and ended up with a staph infection from the bites and she had to take him to the emergency room. She said she already has a problem with mosquitoes and this development is only going to increase the mosquito problem. She doesn't like the idea of rainwater ponds being so close to her picnic table. It sounds like these ponds will be pretty deep as well. The state said these ponds fill in with silt very quickly. They told her in a few years you will have cattails, ducks, nesting birds, and it will not drain straight down because of the silt. Mr. Roberts said it is now a standard condition with all developments with ponds that the developer enter into a maintenance agreement with the city engineering department regarding the maintenance of the ponds that they keep the ponds cleaned out so they function and not fill in with silt. If this is approved, that will remain as a storm water pond and not become a wetland with cattails. Ms. Merz asked how they would keep the pond cleaned out? Mr. Roberts said they would use a backhoe. Ms. Merz said you are telling everyone publicly that the city will make the developer use a backhoe or the city will backhoe the pond and charge the developer for the work? Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Roberts said whatever it takes. Sometimes the developer or the homeowners association takes care of it, but the pond has to be maintained for drainage, so if it fills in, it needs to be cleaned out. Ms. Merz asked how someone knows if the pond fills up? Mr. Roberts said public works has staff that inspects ponds and storm water systems to make sure they are functioning. A neighbor may call the city and say there looks to be a problem. Ms. Merz asked if algae would signify a problem? Mr. Kummer said there is usually standing water and the water should draw down into the soils below it. Ms. Merz asked why the pond needs to be so deep if it is supposed to drain well below her basement level? Mr. Roberts said if there is a 12 -inch rain, the pond needs to be large enough to take on all that water in a short amount of time. Ms. Merz said her understanding is with all the flooding around the country, insurance companies do not pay for damage from water runoff, and she was wondering if the city would financially take care of her house if there was flooding damage from this proposal? Mr. Roberts said no. Ms. Merz said if the city is planning to approve this proposal and she has a flooding problem, who would she blame for it? Mr. Roberts said that is when the lawyers would become involved because it has been the city's policy not to promise or guarantee anything like that because sometimes there are conditions out of the city's control. Ms. Merz said the city can't guarantee that she will never have flooding problems from this development? Mr. Roberts said he has learned to say you can never say "never ". Things do happen such as if there were two ten -inch rainfalls in a few days, everyone would be flooded and then there would be a lot of finger pointing. Ms. Merz asked if the city would reconsider having this pond next to her basement if you are aware there could be a problem. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Kummer said the city engineering staff designs ponds to certain standards and the city cannot design ponds for a 12 -inch storm. A typical design standard for a pond is a 6 -inch rainfall in 24 hours which is in a 100 -year return period. Which basically means a 6 -inch rainfall event has a 1 % chance of happening in a 100 -year period. Ms. Merz asked when and where that fact came from? Mr. Kummer said that is an engineering standard practice used currently in the State of Minnesota and comes from the National Weather Service. Ms. Merz said we are living in a changing climate where the 100 -year rains are going to be more frequent. We are having crazy weather now, there are terrible storms and heat waves now and she doesn't believe there will be 100 -year rain statistics anymore because a standard practice isn't "standard" anymore. She said she doesn't have a drain in her basement and if the city cannot guarantee that this pond will not flood her basement, she doesn't think it should be done. Mr. Kummer said the pond is designed to overflow to Highwood Avenue if there should happen to be any problems with the pond itself. If its normal drainage measures should happen to fail during a large rainstorm, there is an outflow to the street. The essential low point of the pond will dump onto Highwood Avenue before it goes onto your property. Ms. Merz said this property is not flat. This is a steep hill that she lives on and if the water runs off the property towards her house it would not run away from her house. There is pooling of water that occurs there now. She said she lives in a 100- year -old house and there is no drain in the basement, so if the city can't guarantee flooding won't occur, she would like the plan to have a pond next to her property reconsidered. She said it says on the plans that a homeowner's association will pay for the upkeep of the property so the developer will not be responsible. If the units aren't sold immediately, who will pay the homeowner association fees? Has the developer's wife brought these people who she says are interested in buying one of these units onto the property itself and jingled her car keys next to their ears like Commissioner Dierich did? That way they would see how loud it really is here. That may change their mind. She said she spoke to people on Dennis Street South and people mentioned to her that they can't sleep at night because of the freeway noise. People ask "why don't you move then if you can't sleep ", but people put their hard - earned money into living in a home and don't want to up and move. She said she heard there is a state law that cities are required to notify people of certain levels of noise and she isn't sure how the city is going to alert people regarding the level of noise, but it is a "requirement" to notify people. Ms. Merz said you have to consider the noise that people would have to live with besides just the taxes that would come into the city and the county or the money the developer would make. People aren't going to be too happy with the noise level once they are living here and they will be calling the city to complain and asking the city to do something about the noise. She said she thought a tall concrete wall to block the noise from the freeway would be something great to have here. Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Roberts said nobody is debating that noise is an issue. Ms. Merz reiterated the problems with having rainwater ponds and the problems with the mosquito breeding potential. Acting chairperson Desai said the same issues have been repeated over and over again by Ms. Merz and the planning commission has taken all the comments into consideration. He asked Ms. Merz to only bring up new issues or concerns. Ms. Merz said the New Century development has taken over 5 years to finish the townhomes across the street, and they are still not done yet. She said she called the city to ask if there was a time limit to complete a project because it has already taken 5 years, and then on Saturdays there are workers pounding and making a lot of noise that the neighbors have to listen to. The city said there is no time limit that the developer has to finish a development. Now this developer says he would build these units in one phase but he is saying what he "hopes" to accomplish and what you on the commission want to hear, but there are no "guarantees ". Ms. Merz said the developer says the roadways, green spaces, rainwater gardens and ponds will be privately maintained by the homeowner's association and not by the developer. She said this seems to be a large load to put on the homeowner's association if all the units are not built or sold. The developer said he hopes to have immediate occupancy, but that's the same thing that the developer for the New Century development thought and that hasn't happened yet. Acting chairperson Desai said these are issues between the developer and the homeowner's association and there is no action that the planning commission can take to prevent these things from happening. Mr. Roberts said typically a homeowner's association does not take over a development until its 60 -70% built, and the developer maintains control until it's handed over to the homeowner's association. Ms. Merz asked if this is done by law? Mr. Roberts said each developer does things differently. Ms. Merz said if the developer decides to take off then it would be up to the city to get the homeowner's association to take care of things? Mr. Roberts said correct. Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Ms. Merz said the state said when there are multiple runoff areas such as from roofs and driveways it creates a swirling water effect and she doesn't want to be downhill of the runoff, especially because she doesn't have a drain in her basement and she doesn't have the money to fix problems that would occur. She said she would be one of the people living in one of these townhome units if she "chose" to but she is in her current house because she loves living in it. She thinks this development is "too much" for this small area of land and it's too close to the freeway. There needs to be more green space and a smaller number of homes with good noise protection. Commissioner Yarwood asked that only new issues that have not been raised already be discussed. Ryan Merz, 2684 Highwood Avenue East, addressed the commission. Acting chairperson Desai asked that things not be repeated because the planning commission has already heard things repeated over and over again and the commission would like to hear only "new" issues because Ms. Merz had already spoken a long time. (1 hour) Mr. Merz started talking about the rainwater gardens all over again. He also brought up the mosquitoes again and the life cycle of a mosquito. (So there was nothing new brought up for the commission to hear.) Ms. Merz added there are 100 -year old oak trees on the rear of the property that are not on the property in question. She wants to make sure the large trees and the roots along the property lines are not damaged or killed. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler said as a planning commissioner he thinks this proposal is like signing a "blank check" because there are many things missing from this proposal compared to what the planning commission normally reviews. The staff report states the applicant will apply to the city for final plat and design approval including architectural and landscape plans. He said when the city approves a CUP on a PUD it provides a lot of flexibility, which is a good thing, but he feels while providing flexibility the decisions are then put on the planning commission and community design review board to ensure that what they are allowing is going to be a benefit to the city. With this particular proposal there are too many "unknowns" at this point for him to feel comfortable. He asked Mr. Roberts if this is an unusual or usual predicament to be for a proposal because to him this is very unusual. Mr. Roberts asked if Commissioner Trippler felt this was unusual because the city does not have a CDRB application yet? Commissioner Trippler said there just seem to be a lot of unanswered things that the commission is not able to look at such as what the structures would look like, where the units would be placed on each of the parcels, and questions about the retaining walls as well as other things. Planning Commission -14- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Roberts said the things that are unknown are issues for the CDRB which are the final landscape plans and the design of the buildings. The engineering details and the retaining walls are issues he thought the engineers from both sides had worked out already. For most of the proposals the city would have both the PC and CDRB applications, but in this case the developer wanted to make sure he had a "project" before he spent the money and the time developing the full architectural and landscaping plans. These items are not required with a plat so they are not required with a PUD. Are they nice and are they helpful, yes. The last proposal that was reviewed in 2003 didn't have that information either and the city did not require it. This is really a land use decision. If you as a planning commission need more information in order to make a final decision, then the commission will have to vote accordingly, but staff did not think it was necessary to have a CDRB application in order to make a land use and platting decision. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the resolution starting on page 46 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for a planned unit development for the property at 2666 Highwood Avenue to be known as Cottagewood. This site is on the south side of Highwood Avenue, east of Dennis Street. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out). 1. All construction shall follow the plans for 4$ 15 detached town houses as approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Interim Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main driveway, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. However, widening of the driveway must not lessen the side setback of the driveway from the east property line. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Also, review and possibly revise the parking spaces and the turn - around area at the south end of the site to maximize the number of trees to be saved and to minimize the amount of hard surface area. (4) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 (5) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the large trees in the undisturbed area south of the town houses and parking areas. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated July 28, 2006. These shall include: �rranr.�rn:♦:�c�K�r. a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, retaining walls, driveway and parking plans. This approval includes the design of the proposed private cul -de -sac. b. Showing no grading or ground disturbance in the conservation easement. This land is to be preserved for open space purposes. The developer and contractors shall protect this area, including the large trees that are in and near the south side of the site, from encroachment from equipment, grading or filling. c. Include a storm water management plan for the proposal. 4. The design of all ponds shall meet Maplewood's design standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. If needed, the developer shall be responsible for getting any off -site pond and drainage easements. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. C. Remove any debris or junk from the site, including the conservation area. d. Provide the city with verification that the town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the contractor will have to build the town houses so that they can meet the noise standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening construction methods. The developer shall provide the city with this documentation before the city will issue a building permit for the town houses. Planning Commission -16- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Cottagewood PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum — 20 feet, maximum — 35 feet. b. Rear -yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at least 12 feet between units. C. Side -yard setback (town houses): minimum of six feet from a side property line and at least 12 feet between units. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. Submit the homeowner's association documents to city staff for review and approval. 9. The developer shall provide a permanent means to preserve and maintain the common open space. This may be done by conservation easement, deed restrictions, covenants or public dedication. The developer shall record this document with the final plat and before the city issues a permit for grading or utility construction. 10. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 11. This approval does not include design approval for the townhomes or any signs. The project design plans, including architectural, signs, site, lighting, tree and landscaping plans, shall be subject to review and approval of the community design review board (CDRB). The projects shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Meeting all conditions and changes as required by the city council. b. For the driveways: (1) Minimum width — 20 feet. (2) Maximum width — 28 feet. (3) All driveways less than 28 feet in width shall be posted for "No Parking" on both sides. Driveways at least 28 feet wide may have parking on one side and shall be posted for No Parking on one side. C. Showing all changes required by the city as part of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD). 12. The city shall not issue any building permits for construction on an outlot (per city code requirements). The developer must record a final plat to create buildable lots in the preliminary plat before the city will issue a building permit. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes — Desai, Hess, Pearson, Yarwood Nay — Dierich, Trippler Commissioner Trippler voted nay because he felt the city is giving the applicant a lot of leeway and he would have liked to see more detailed information. Commissioner Dierich voted nay for the same reason and she also thinks this is too many homes for this size property as well as this close to the freeway noise. She said she agrees Ms. Merz should not be required to have a rainwater pond running the whole length of her property. The pond could be turned sideways and we could lose two units and reconfigure some of the driveways to accommodate her needs. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Cottagewood preliminary plat (received by the city on July 7, 2006). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. C. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations — primarily at the street intersection and near the south end of the driveway. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification any off -site easements. e. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off -site easements. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site. g. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. h. Complete the entire curb and gutter on Highwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This is to replace the existing driveways on Highwood Avenue and shall include the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. Install a sign where the new driveway intersects Highwood Avenue indicating that it is a private driveway. Planning Commission -18- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Install survey monuments and signs along the edges of the conservation easement area. These signs shall explain that the area beyond the signs is a conservation easement area and that there shall be no building, fences, mowing, cutting, filling, dumping or other ground disturbance in that area. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. 2. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, trail, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Michael Thompson dated July 28, 2006, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood -fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) As little grading as possible west and south of the town houses. This is to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible. C. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: Planning Commission -19- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 (1) The driveway shall be a nine -ton design with a maximum grade of eight percent and the maximum grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent. (2) The street (driveway) with continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer determines that curbing is not necessary for drainage purposes. (3) The removal of the unused driveways and the completion of the curb and gutter on the south side of Highwood Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards. (4) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (5) All utility excavations located within the proposed right -of -ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (6) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (7) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water run -off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Submit drainage design calculations. e. *The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved, along with the landscaping, by the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1 /2 ) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce, Austrian pine and other species. Planning Commission -20- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 (4) Show no tree removal in the buffer zones, conservation easement, or beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding areas (b) on the slopes (c) along the west side of the site to screen the proposed buildings from the homes to the west (7) Show the planting of at least 37 trees after the site grading is done. 3. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include showing a 20- foot -wide drainage and utility easement along the north side of Lot 15. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. c. Label the common areas as an outlot or as outlots. d. If allowed, show the conservation easement on the final plat. 4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off -site drainage and utility easements. These shall include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond at the northwest corner of the plat. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. Planning Commission -21- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 c. Provide for the repair of Highwood Avenue (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. 8. Record the following with the final plat: b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites. c. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any additional driveways (besides the one new driveway shown on the project plans) from going onto Highwood Avenue. d. The conservation easement for the undisturbed area of the site. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. The city will not issue a building permit until after the developer has recorded the final plat and these documents and covenants. 9. *Submit the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, outlots, private utilities, driveways, retaining walls and structures. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District for grading 11. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the interim director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 12. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. * The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes — Desai, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Nay - Dierich Commissioner Dierich voted nay because she is voting to be consistent. The motion passed. Planning Commission -22- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. AGENDA NO. 1-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: August 28, 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: 321,902.03 Checks # 70620 thru # 70666 dated 08/09/06 thru 08/15/06 135,028.95 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08/04/06 thru 08/10/06 $ 178,378.00 Checks # 70667 thru # 70714 dated 08/15/06 thru 08/22/06 9.1 262,970.53 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08/11/06 thru 08/15/06 $ 898,279.51 PAYROLL 483,658.53 2,305.25 485,963.78 Total Accounts Payable Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 08/11/06 Payroll Deduction check # 105892 thru # 105893 dated 08/11/06 Total Payroll $ 1,384,243.29 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 Lists and Reports 2006\Agenda Reports\08-28-0611 1 Approval of Claims.xls Check Register City of Maplewood 0811112006 Check Date 70620 70621 70622 70623 70624 70625 70626 70627 70628 70629 70630 70631 70632 70633 70634 70635 70636 70637 70638 70639 70640 70641 70642 70643 70644 70645 70646 70647 70648 70649 70650 70651 70652 70653 70654 70655 1' i• I1• I' 11• 1: Ii• I' 11• 1' I1• I' 11• 1: Ii• I' 11• 1' I1• I' 11• 1: Ii• I' 11• 1' I1• I' 11• 1: Ii• I' 11• 1' I1• I' 11• 1: Ii• I' 11• 1' I1• I' 11• 1: Ii• I' 11• 1' I1• I' 11• 1: Ii• I' 11• 1' I1• I i - 1 11 I i 1 i I i 1 i I 1 1 i •i I •I i •i 1 •1 i •i I •I i •i 1 i •i II i •• 11 �� Ii �I 11 i� II i1 11 i� - i1i� III I11� 1 • i1 - 1 i 111 Ii11 MYRNA MATYKIEWICZ ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC RICHARD FURSMAN GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL KELLY & FAWCETT PA RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV CITY OF ST PAUL XCELENERGY XCELENERGY XCELENERGY XCELENERGY XCELENERGY XCELENERGY XCELENERGY XCELENERGY YOCUM OIL CO. ARENZ CONSTRUCTION INC ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO B & H PHOTO VIDEO BONESTROO & ASSOCIATES BONESTROO & ASSOCIATES C.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES CRAMER BUILDING SERVICES CRAWFORD DOOR SALES OF THE TWI DGM INC. DGM INC. DGM INC. DGM INC. DGM INC. DOWN ON THE FARM ESCROW REFUND ESCROW REFUND ESCROW REFUND ESCROW REFUND ESCROW REFUND FIRE INSTRUCTION & RESCUE EDUC HCMC TRAUMA SERVICES IDEACOM MID - AMERICA DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY MED COMPASS NORTH ST PAUL- MAPLEWOOD- NOVACARE CBO ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR PUBLIC SAFETY MARKETING INC Description #04 -15 REIMB DRIVEWAY -1438 CAR WASHES - JUL REIMB FOR TUITION CANDIDATE SCREEN CANDIDATE SCREEN CANDIDATE SCREEN NET BILLABLE TICKETS - JUL PROSECUTION SERVICES - JUL ABSTRACT RECORDING FEE NATIVE PLANTS MEMORIAL ENTRY AGREEMENT RECORDING FEE RECORDING FEE RECORDING FEE RECORDING FEE RECORDING FEE RECORDING FEE CRIME LAB SERVICES - JUL ELECTRIC UTILITY GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY ELECTRIC UTILITY GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY ELECTRIC UTILITY EQUIPMENT LOAN GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY FIRE SIRENS UL GAS 89 OCTANE 10% ETHANOL REF GRADING ESC - 1986 CASTLE PAVING BREAKER- MODEL #MX90A PANASONIC CONVERTIBLE CAMERA NATURE CTR CONSTRUCTION NATURE CTR CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECKS MCC TRANS MAINT AGREE 6/1 THRU REPAIR MEDIC RIG DOOR TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE PETTING ZOO AT MCC REF V KOSTOHRYZ - PW 06 -00899 REF DIANE SLEEMAN - PW 06 -00988 REF OUTDOOR ESC - 2580 REF KUNZ CONST - 1838 HOWARD ST REF J PETERSON -1871 WHITE BEAR FIRE EXPLORERS TRAINING SAFETY TRAINING REGISTRATION NEW PHONE & PROGRAMMING LICENSE RENEWAL SCBA OSHA PHYSICALS ROTARY MEMBERSHIP DUES PRE - EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS REF TOM STEINBRING - SOFTBALL REF TACHENY ROOF -CANC #05 -07213 REF ANDRE WILSEY - MCC PROGRAM REF AMY STRUB - NC PROGRAM RESPONDER JACKETS & PANTS Amount 4,900.00 115.02 2,052.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 806.35 9,825.00 552.00 53.25 46.00 39.00 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 115.00 12,188.23 5,140.11 2,645.41 2,470.43 1,178.76 756.64 288.87 46.86 16,248.00 1,254.11 1,171.50 28,933.97 3,674.40 1,111.36 50.22 2,217.76 476.50 143.78 111.83 111.83 90.53 90.53 320.00 2,200.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 300.00 450.00 60.00 290.75 20.00 215.00 175.00 270.00 140.00 80.50 59.00 3.00 3,964.00 4 Check Register City of Maplewood 0811112006 Check Date Vendor Description Amount 70656 08/1512006 01359 REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL XX CAR WASHES - JUL 69.21 70657 08/1512006 03215 SHAFER CONTRACTING CO INC PROD 02 -07 CTY RD D PYMT #14 201,195.99 70658 0811512006 01463 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE MCC MASSAGES - JUL 1,957.00 70659 0811512006 00198 ST PAUL REGIONAL WATER SRVS WATER UTILITY - 63 N STERLING ST 1,280.19 70660 08/1512006 03718 STEVE KENNEDY INVESTIGATIONS EO INVESTIGATIONS 1,175.00 70661 08115/2006 03627 PAUL H SWETT REIMS FOR TUITION & BOOK 260.07 0811512006 03627 PAUL H SWETT REIMB FOR MAPMO MEETING 811 20.00 70662 08/15/2006 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 1,149.01 08/1512006 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS 657.31 70663 08115/2006 01683 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC BULLETPROOF VEST 749.95 70664 0811512006 01734 WILLIAM P. WALSH COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 855.68 70665 08115/2006 03719 PATRICK WALTERS REF GRADING ESC - 2365 MARYLAND 2,542.12 70666 08/1512006 02879 WASHINGTON COUNTY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 190.50 321.902.03 47 Checks in this report. 3 CITY OFMAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee DescridioI Amount 08/03/06 08/04/06 yWN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 18.772.13 07/28100 08/04/06 VV| Dept nfRevenue State Payroll Tax 2.113.22 08/03/06 08/04/06 MN Dept ofNatural Resources DNR electronic licenses 557.00 08/04108 08/07/06 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 14.157.21 08/07/06 08/08/06 MN State Treasurer DriversLicenoe/Oepuh/ Registrar 19.717.82 08/08100 08/09/06 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 18.914.75 08/04/06 08/09/06 U8 Bank VISA One Card* Purchasing card items 44.519.15 08/09108 08/10/06 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 18.277.67 TOTAL *Detailed listing of VISA purchases 1sattached. 1 4 VISA Transactions 7 -22 -06 to 8 -4 -06 Trans Date Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 CUB FOODS, INC. $18.28 MANDY ANZALDI 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 FACTORY CARD OUTLET #284 $25.11 MANDY ANZALDI 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 CUB FOODS, INC. $18.72 MANDY ANZALDI 7/23/2006 7/25/2006 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 $18.35 MANDY ANZALDI 7/24/2006 7/26/2006 CUB FOODS, INC. $42.01 MANDY ANZALDI 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 KMART 00071068 $23.70 MANDY ANZALDI 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 TARGET 00011858 $4.45 MANDY ANZALDI 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 ARDEN SHOREVIEW AN HOSPT $157.32 JOHN BANICK 7/23/2006 7/25/2006 MARSHALL FIELD #217 $115.63 JOHN BANICK 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 SHRED -IT $89.91 JOHN BANICK 7/28/2006 7/31/2006 DON' PAINT & BODY SHOP $608.59 JOHN BANICK 811/2006 8/2/2006 ARDEN SHOREVIEW AN HOSPT $204.75 JOHN BANICK 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 ACCURINT EOM AUTO P $30.00 JOHN BANICK 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED $996.73 JOHN BANICK 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER $78.28 JIM BEHAN 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE $9.59 JIM BEHAN 7/24/2006 7/26/2006 OLYMPICS POOLS $127.37 JIM BEHAN 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 WW GRAINGER 501 $95.85 JIM BEHAN 7/25/2006 7/28/2006 PARK SUPPLY OF AMERICA IN $149.74 JIM BEHAN 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $56.33 JIM BEHAN 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $13.61 JIM BEHAN 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 ADAMS PEST CONTROL $149.58 JIM BEHAN 8/1/2006 8/3/2006 2ND WIND EXERCISE EQUIP $783.99 JIM BEHAN 811/2006 8/3/2006 VIKING ELECTRIC -DIST CNTR $28.97 JIM BEHAN 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 OLYMPICS POOLS $1,038.38 JIM BEHAN 7/31/2006 8/2/2006 WEISENBACH SPECIALTY PRIM $158.25 OAKLEY BIESANZ 7/31/2006 8/2/2006 RESOURCE CENTER OF THE AM $27.66 OAKLEY BIESANZ 812/2006 8/3/2006 FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 $63.90 HEIDI CAREY 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 $216.20 HEIDI CAREY 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 $59.64 HEIDI CAREY 7/24/2006 7/25/2006 GE CAPITAL $158.69 LINDA CROSSON 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 TIME WARNER CABLE $109.79 LINDA CROSSON 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 WMS *WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY $869.14 LINDA CROSSON 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 WMS *WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY $898.50 LINDA CROSSON 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER ($78.28) CHARLES DEAVER 7/22/2006 7/24/2006 THE HOME DEPOT 2810 $55.89 CHARLES DEAVER 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 SUNRAY TRUE VALUE $5.08 CHARLES DEAVER 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 BROCK WHITE -180 $502.89 THOMAS DEBILZAN 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 HYDROLOGIC WATER MANAGEMI $92.53 DAVE EDSON 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 HYDROLOGIC WATER MANAGEMI $133.26 DAVE EDSON 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 MENARDS 3059 $55.29 DAVE EDSON 7/26/2006 7/27/2006 NAPA AUTO PARTS # 28438 $7.01 DAVE EDSON 7/31/2006 8/2/2006 PANERA BREAD #3459 $381.24 THOMAS G EKSTRAND 7/18/2006 7/24/2006 CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC $395.07 LARRY FARR 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 ELECTRIC MOTOR REAPIR $185.40 LARRY FARR 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 EXCELLCOM $21.29 LARRY FARR 7/25/2006 8/1/2006 GARLANDS INC $62.06 LARRY FARR 7/26/2006 8/1/2006 GARLANDS INC $153.96 LARRY FARR 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 WW GRAINGER 500 $46.33 LARRY FARR 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 WW GRAINGER 500 $99.60 LARRY FARR 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 WW GRAINGER 500 $428.15 LARRY FARR 7/28/2006 7/31/2006 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS, INC. $437.18 LARRY FARR 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 WMS *WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY $356.52 LARRY FARR 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 WMS *WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY $356.52 LARRY FARR VISA Transactions 7 -22 -06 to 8 -4 -06 Trans Date Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 INTEREUM INC $30.02 LARRY FARR 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 ARM COM DISTRIBUTING CO $262.20 LARRY FARR 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC $13.35 DANIEL F FAUST 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 RUTTGERS SUGAR LAKE LODGE $113.05 DAVID FISHER 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 RUTTGERS SUGAR LAKE LODGE $113.05 DAVID FISHER 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 DEEP ROCK WATER $132.99 DAVID FISHER 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 INT'L CODE COUNCIL INC $490.00 DAVID FISHER 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 INT'L CODE COUNCIL INC {$100.00} DAVID FISHER 7/26/2006 7/27/2006 MIDWEST LOCK & SAFE INC $573.03 MYCHAL FOWLDS 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 SYX *TIGERDIRECT.COM $276.86 MYCHAL FOWLDS 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 FENTEK INDUSTRIES, INC. $81.95 MYCHAL FOWLDS 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 NARDINI FIRE EQUIPMENT $225.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 SYX *TIGERDIRECT.COM $107.39 MYCHAL FOWLDS 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 OFFICE MAX 00002204 $10.63 NICK FRANZEN 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 CIRCUIT CITY SS #3135 $149.08 NICK FRANZEN 7/31/2006 8/2/2006 OFFICE MAX 00024125 $38.27 NICK FRANZEN 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $172.74 PATRICIA FRY 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 FEDEX SHP 07/27/06 AB# $5.71 PATRICIA FRY 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $214.36 JEAN GLASS 7/31/2006 8/2/2006 ARAMARK REF SVS #6013- $129.27 MIKE GRAF 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 CCE RESOURCE CENTER ST $10.44 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 7/24/2006 7/26/2006 THE OLIVE GARD00012005 $140.85 KAREN E GUILFOILE 7/22/2006 7/24/2006 SECUREMART COM $223.08 LORI HANSON 7/24/2006 7/25/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $21.35 LORI HANSOM 7/28/2006 7/31/2006 REED BUS INFO ACCT REC $419.76 LORI HANSON 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $29.91 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $2.89 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 7/24/2006 7/25/2006 MENARDS 3059 $7.09 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 7/29/2006 7/31/2006 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $2.18 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 CONNEY SAFETY $76.28 RON HORWATH 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 SIMULAIDS, INC. $60.30 RON HORWATH 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 LMC *LAERDAL MEDICAL $84.14 RON HORWATH 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 KNOWLANS #2 $31.76 ANN E HUTCHINSON 8/1/2006 8/3/2006 DE LAGE LANDEN OP01 OF 01 $206.61 ANN E HUTCHINSON 8/1/2006 8/3/2006 METRO SALES INC $1,763.54 ANN E HUTCHINSON 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $687.18 DAVID JAHN 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $383.31 DAVID JAHN 7/21/2006 7/31/2006 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $180.86 DAVID JAHN 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 SAFE KIDS WORLDWIDE $60.00 TOM KALKA 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE $7.64 TOM KALKA 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 VERIZON WRLS 12KW $66.39 DUWAYNE KONEWKO 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 VERIZON WRLS 12KW $44.21 SHERYL L LE 7/22/2006 7/24/2006 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP -MN $27.68 MICHAEL LIDBERG 7/22/2006 7/24/2006 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP -MN $9.57 MICHAEL LIDBERG 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $25.96 DENNIS LINDORFF 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $39.35 DENNIS LINDORFF 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 MENARDS 3059 $115.81 DENNIS LINDORFF 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $33.99 DENNIS LINDORFF 7/28/2006 7/31/2006 CARQUEST #2110 $56.87 DENNIS LINDORFF 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 CARQUEST #2110 $22.13 DENNIS LINDORFF 7/28/2006 7/31/2006 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL $247.65 STEVE LUKIN 7/28/2006 7/31/2006 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL $101.30 STEVE LUKIN 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL $1,003.34 STEVE LUKIN 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT $788.03 STEVE LUKIN VISA Transactions 7 -22 -06 to 8 -4 -06 Trans Date Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 WMS *WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY $272.64 STEVE LUKIN 7/24/2006 7/26/2006 GOODYEAR AUTO SRV CT 6920 $44.00 DAN MARTIN 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 THE TESSMAN COMPANY $400.86 MARK MARUSKA 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 ON SITE SANITATION INC $405.60 MARK MARUSKA 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $61.08 MARK MARUSKA 8/1/2006 8/3/2006 ON SITE SANITATION INC $576.00 MARK MARUSKA 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT $149.28 MARK MARUSKA 812/2006 8/4/2006 AMERICAN FASTENER & SUPPL $107.90 MARK MARUSKA 8/1/2006 8/3/2006 METROCALL ARCH WIRE $37.37 ED NADEAU 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 CINTAS FIRST AID #431 $71.20 BRYAN NAGEL 7/26/2006 7/27/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $192.10 AMY NIVEN 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $313.00 AMY NIVEN 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 OAKDALE RENTAL CENTER $359.97 ERICK OSWALD 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $24.34 ERICK OSWALD 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 RED LOBSTER US00002832 $33.66 MARSHA PACOLT 7/31/2006 8/2/2006 APCO INTERNATIONAL $339.00 MARSHA PACOLT 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 APCO INTERNATIONAL $83.00 MARSHA PACOLT 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $130.97 MARY KAY PALANK 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 BATTERIES PLUS $63.37 ROBERT PETERSON 7/22/2006 7/24/2006 DR *REGSOFT.COM $64.15 PHILIP F POWELL 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 MEDCO SUPPLY $145.75 PHILIP F POWELL 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 CHECKER #182800018283 $12.76 PHILIP F POWELL 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 CDW GOVERNMENT $107.84 PHILIP F POWELL 813/2006 8/4/2006 BOTACH TACTICAL $104.97 PHILIP F POWELL 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 ABACUS PLUS SERVICES INC $273.71 PHILIP F POWELL 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC ($58.00) ROBERT PRECHTEL 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 EXCELLCOM $21.29 ROBERT PRECHTEL 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 CENTURY BOOKSTORE $19.00 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 GE CAPITAL $331.22 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS $821.89 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP $43.82 STEVEN PRIEM 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP $66.50 STEVEN PRIEM 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 BAUER BUILT TRE33200023 $55.75 STEVEN PRIEM 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 TOUSLEY FORD 127228006 $456.53 STEVEN PRIEM 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $110.09 STEVEN PRIEM 7/22/2006 7/24/2006 GOODIN COMPANY $299.81 STEVEN PRIEM 7/26/2006 7/27/2006 BAUER BUILT TRE33200023 $206.61 STEVEN PRIEM 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP $26.71 STEVEN PRIEM 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 O'REILLY #1569 $142.77 STEVEN PRIEM 7/28/2006 7/31/2006 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 $25.96 STEVEN PRIEM 7/28/2006 7/31/2006 TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 $27.39 STEVEN PRIEM 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 PAM OIL INC $133.36 STEVEN PRIEM 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 PAM OIL INC $66.68 STEVEN PRIEM 7/31/2006 8/2/2006 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC $203.35 STEVEN PRIEM 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 $192.19 STEVEN PRIEM 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 KATH AUTO PARTS LC $1,953.21 STEVEN PRIEM 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP $135.69 STEVEN PRIEM 812/2006 8/4/2006 KATH AUTO PARTS NSP $108.73 STEVEN PRIEM 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 PERFORMANCE TRANSMI $117.83 STEVEN PRIEM 7/22/2006 7/24/2006 SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS $2,008.50 KEVIN RABBETT 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 NOVACARE REHB /HEALT $360.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $11.64 TERRIE RAMEAUX 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $26.51 TERRIE RAMEAUX 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS $1.48 TERRIE RAMEAUX VISA Transactions 7 -22 -06 to 8 -4 -06 Trans Date Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $636.09 MICHAEL REILLY 7/21/2006 7/31/2006 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC $688.71 MICHAEL REILLY 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $46.73 MICHAEL REILLY 7/25/2006 7/26/2006 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $138.98 MICHAEL REILLY 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS $93.48 MICHAEL REILLY 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 $30.07 AUDRA ROBBINS 7/24/2006 7/25/2006 TARGET 00011858 $50.02 AUDRA ROBBINS 7/24/2006 7/26/2006 CUB FOODS, INC. $44.52 AUDRA ROBBINS 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 $9.67 AUDRA ROBBINS 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 GAMEWORKS MINN #4209 $1,648.52 AUDRA ROBBINS 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 TARGET 00011858 $104.84 AUDRA ROBBINS 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 CUB FOODS, INC. $64.34 AUDRA ROBBINS 7/30/2006 8/1/2006 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 $55.73 AUDRA ROBBINS 8/1/2006 8/3/2006 MICHAELS #3701 $32.35 AUDRA ROBBINS 8/1/2006 8/3/2006 CUB FOODS, INC. $17.48 AUDRA ROBBINS 812/2006 8/3/2006 HEART RATE MONITORS USA $975.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 7/24/2006 7/25/2006 MOGREN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY L $29.29 ROBERT RUNNING 7/24/2006 7/25/2006 LESCO SC 0530 $79.88 ROBERT RUNNING 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 OFFICE MAX 00002204 $43.86 ROBERT RUNNING 7/31/2006 8/1/2006 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIP -MN $24.47 ROBERT RUNNING 7/31/2006 8/4/2006 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER, INC $186.20 ROBERT RUNNING 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 NOTT COMPANY $300.30 ROBERT RUNNING 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 $33.44 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 812/2006 8/4/2006 CURTIS 1000 $98.92 DEB SCHMIDT 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 T- MOBILE $46.85 SCOTT SCHULTZ 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 ARMSTRONG RANCH KENNELS $301.40 MICHAEL SHORTREED 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $1,454.68 MICHAEL SHORTREED 7/27/2006 7/31/2006 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC $251.77 MICHAEL SHORTREED 8/2/2006 8/4/2006 TARGET 00011858 $68.97 MICHAEL SHORTREED 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS $434.71 ANDREA SINDT 7/24/2006 7/25/2006 WALGREEN 00016873 $63.74 PAULINE STAPLES 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 DOLRTREE 3150 00031500 $29.82 PAULINE STAPLES 7/27/2006 7/28/2006 FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 $47.93 PAULINE STAPLES 7/21/2006 7/24/2006 OFFICE MAX 00002204 $15.94 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 $39.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 FIRE PROTECTION PURL -OSU $49.95 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 8/1/2006 8/4/2006 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 $198.50 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 8/1/2006 8/4/2006 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 $179.80 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 8/1/2006 8/4/2006 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 $746.99 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 812/2006 8/3/2006 BREEZY POINT RESORT /RES -C $525.00 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 8/2/2006 8/3/2006 MENARDS 3059 $26.33 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 7/20/2006 7/24/2006 STATE SUPPLY COMPANY $60.18 LYLE SWANSON 7/25/2006 7/27/2006 STATE SUPPLY COMPANY $133.48 LYLE SWANSON 812/2006 8/4/2006 ARM COM DISTRIBUTING CO $510.14 LYLE SWANSON 8/3/2006 8/4/2006 MENARDS 3059 $19.59 LYLE SWANSON 8/1/2006 8/2/2006 T- MOBILE $103.49 DOUGLAS J TAUBMAN 7/22/2006 7/24/2006 QWESTCOMM *TN651 $57.62 JUDY TETZLAFF 812/2006 8/3/2006 FSH COMMUNICATION01 OF 01 $58.58 JUDY TETZLAFF 7/26/2006 7/28/2006 OFFICE DEPOT #1090 $206.37 SUSAN ZWIEG Check Register City of Maplewood 1• 1•: � t1 f 1 f 1 �� Date 0811412006 0811412006 0811612006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 0812212006 T- a 0 0856 01708 0000• 000 0 1 00 00096 00230 00 1 0 026 1 0330 0049 0 01949 0 0 0489 1 0372 090 1 0098 036 0109 01 96 1 0000 0000 0000 00 0194 00396 00396 0 0137 01466 01504 01504 01504 01504 02 06 9 VOID KELLY & FAWCETT PA VALLEYFAIR AMEM ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC APPEARANCE PLUS CAR WASH TIM BELDEN CHAD BERGO BPlAMOCO OIL COMPANY BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. CAREFREE COTTAGES OF CAREFREE COTTAGES OF CAREFREE COTTAGES OF CGAA BASKETBALL CHILDREN HOME & FAMILY SERVICE DEPT OF COMMERCE FRA -DOR BLACK DIRT & RECYCLE GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOC PA IDEACOM MID - AMERICA INTEREUM INC J -GRAFT TRUCK EQUIPMENT KIRBY A KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES MRPA STEVE MALM METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MN OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECH MODERN BIN EQUIPMENT CO NATURAL RESOURCES RESTOR INC NEW MECH COMPANIES INC NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS PAUL NOLAN ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR PATRICK GRAPHICS & TROPHIES PATRICK GRAPHICS & TROPHIES DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV REDWOOD SIGN COMPANY ROAD RESCUE EMERGENCY VEHICLES ROAD RESCUE EMERGENCY VEHICLES SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY, INC. CITY OF ST PAUL CITY OF ST PAUL CITY OF ST PAUL CITY OF ST PAUL T.R. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC ROADY TATE ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC WILLIAM P. WALSH WATERFIT 47 Checks in this report. Description LEGAL SERVICES - JUN VALLEYFAIR ADMISSIONS 8116 ASSN OF MN EMER MGRS CONF REG REPAIR TRAIL LIGHT WIRING PATROL & BOARDING FEES 7131 - 8113 CAR WASHES - JUL PIANO TUNING REIMS FOR INTERNET, PHONE & FUEL ROCK & RIP RAP TAX INCREMENT 90% FUND 418 TAX INCREMENT FUND 416 TAX INCREMENT FUND 417 YOUTH BASKETBALL PROGRAM YOUTH DIVERSION PROGRAM - JUL NOTARY COMMISSION APPLICATION BLACK DIRT CANDIDATE SCREENING CANDIDATE SCREEN PHONE SYSTEM REPAIR CUBICLE PARTS & INSTALL 12' SNOW PLOW & 10' SNOW WING DEPOSITIONS COPIES MARKETING WORKSHOP REF ESCROW - 2334 BUSH MONTHLY SAC - JUL WIDE AREA NETWORK - JUN COAT RODS BUCKTHORN REMOVAL - PRIORY OVERHAULED BACKFLOW PREVENTER CELL PHONE 719 - 818 REIMS FOR LENS,TOOLS, &CHAIN REF SCHOOL DIST OF HUDSON - MCC REF ANGELA MAORSE - AMB 06000737 REF JUDI KORNGABLE - AMB 05020728 REF MIZRAIN RODRIQUEZ - AMB ADULT SOFTBALL TEAM AWARDS SOFTBALL CHAMPION TROPHIES CJDN QUARTERLY INVOICE CJDN QTRYLY INVOICE NATIVE PLANTS CITY ENTRANCE SIGN REPAIR MEDIC VEHICLE #4 LIGHTS & BULBS FLUORESCENT BASKETBALL EVENT TUITION WIRELESS REPORTING - JUL RECORD MGMT SOFTWARE FEE - AUG RADIO SERVICE & MAINT - JUL WATER & HYDRANT USAGE 01/06 - PROJ 03 -36 SPRINGSIDE DR PYMT#4 MUSIC FOR NNO PROJ 05 -16 TELEVISE MAIN LINE COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP WATER FITNESS BOOKS Amount 0.00 16,033.81 1,309.75 250.00 2,289.80 1,475.64 102.77 80.00 105.49 61.33 989.28 29,746.85 14,971.65 12, 397.60 325.00 3,526.08 40.00 106.50 250.00 250.00 137.00 1,532.62 18,172.20 436.80 95.00 2,516.23 30,690.00 392.00 174.21 10,650.00 453.50 40.50 57.91 281.40 253.74 84.00 50.30 178.28 74.28 1,921.58 575.71 1,107.60 1,618.80 230.30 80.99 1,680.00 3,798.00 3,798.00 1,795.95 699.81 9,097.93 150.00 195.00 388.72 658.09 1101010.yy 4 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 08/10/06 08/11/00 MN State Treasurer 08/11/08 08/11/00 |CMA(/onbygepointe) 08/10/00 08/11/06 MN Dept ofNatural Resources 08/11/08 08/14/06 MN State Treasurer 08/11/00 08/14/08 U.S. Treasurer 08/11/00 08/14/00 P.E.R.A. 08/11/06 08/14/00 Orchard Trust 08/14/06 08/15/06 MN State Treasurer 08/11/08 08V15/00 MN State Treasurer 08/11/08 08V15/00 K4idAmerioa- |N[3 08/11/06 08/15/06 Labor Unions Description DrivensUnense/Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation DNRe|entronic |imanaen Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.Fl.A. Deferred Compensation Drivers License/Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax NRA Flex plan Union Dues Amount 15,341.25 6,183.83 484.00 18 97,342.62 60,002.77 26,610.62 15 18.479.37 2,993.82 1'S79.30 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 08/11/06 CAVE, REBECCA 397.80 08111106 HJELLE, ERIK 397.80 08/11/06 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 397.80 08111106 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 397.80 08/11/06 COPELAND, EUGENE 3,090.00 08111/06 FARR, LARRY 1,821.04 081"11/06 SWANSON, LYLE 1,711.57 08111106 ARNOLD, AJLA 422.63 08/11/06 LE, JENNIFER 112.50 08111106 LE, SHERYL 4,246.65 08/11/06 PALANK, MANDY 738.50 08111106 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,514.97 08/11/06 FAUST, DANIEL 4,417.22 08/11106 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,57095 08111/06 ANDERSON, CAROLE 974.56 08/11106 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,544.02 08111x`06 JACKSON, MARY 1,873.35 08111106 KELSEY, CONNIE 854.66 08/11/06 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,873.35 08111106 FRY, PATRICIA 1,738.95 08/11/06 GUILFOILE, KAREN 3,094.70 08111/06 MORSON, JOHN 383.04 08111/06 SPANGLER, EDNA 921.45 08111106 JAGOE, CAROL 1,679.66 08111/06 JOHNSON, BONNIE 1,021.71 08111106 MECHELKE, SHERRIE 1,05791 08111/06 MOY, PAMELA 819.12 08111106 OLSON, SANDRA 1,030.75 08/11/06 OSTER, ANDREA 1,764.45 08/11106 WEAVER KRISTINE 1,839.77 08/11/06 BANICK, JOHN 4,017.82 08/11106 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,677.35 08111x`06 POWELL, PHILIP 2,394.54 08111106 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,684.28 08/11/06 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,429.00 08111106 ABEL, CLINT 2,631.87 08/11/06 ALDRIDGE, MARK 3,109.57 08111 /06 ANDREWS, SCOTT 3,494.47 08/11/06 BAKKE, LONN 2,560.09 08111106 BELDE, STANLEY 2,772.07 08/11/06 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 2,554.62 08111106 BOHL, JOHN 2,68814 12 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 08111106 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,444.26 08/11/06 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,470.83 08/11/06 GROTTY, KERRY 3,085.58 081"11/06 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,831.57 08/11/06 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 2,217.28 08 /11 /06 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,759.10 08/11/06 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,760.82 081"] 1 /06 JOHNSON, KEVIN 4,298.62 08/11/06 KALKA, THOMAS 686.28 08/11/06 KARIS, FLINT 3,652.67 08/11/06 KONG, TOMMY 2,440.11 08/11/06 KROLL, BRETT 2,503.12 08/11/06 KVAM, DAVID 3,523.42 08/11/06 LANGNER, TODD 1,743.43 08/11/06 LU, JOHNNIE 2,649.80 08/11/06 MARINO, JASON 2,400.11 08/11/06 MARTIN, DANIEL 654.68 08/11/06 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,583.79 08/11/06 MCCARTY, GLEN 2,460.12 08/11 /06 METRY, ALESIA 2,764.31 08/11/06 NYE, MICHAEL 1,883.04 08/11/06 OLSON, JULIE 2,576.69 08/11/06 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,587.70 08/11/06 RHUDE, MATTHEW 2,268.63 08/11/06 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,354.69 08/11/06 STEINER, JOSEPH 1,915.93 08/11/06 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 1,874.47 08/11/06 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,537.23 08/11/06 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,331.55 08/11/06 WENZEL, JAY 2,422.18 08/11/06 XIONG, KAO 2,488.40 08/11/06 BARTZ, PAUL 2,701.48 08/11/06 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,183.83 08/11/06 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,838.31 08/11/06 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,645.80 08,`11/06 FLOR, TIMOTHY 2,858.65 08/11/06 FRASER, JOHN 2,845.40 08 /11 /06 LANGNER, SCOTT 2,217.28 08/11/06 PALMA, STEVEN 2,95819 081"] 1 /06 THEISEN, PAUL 2,637.07 08/11/06 THIENES, PAUL 3,016.01 08/11/06 BARTA, JEREMY 1,864.53 13 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 08111106 DAWSON, RICHARD 2,285.81 08/11/06 DUELLMAN, KIRK 2,191.33 08/11/06 EVERSON, PAUL 2,133.64 081"11/06 HALWEG, JODI 2,003.05 08/11/06 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 2,311.47 08 /11 /06 MYERS, TODD 1,875.01 08/11/06 NOVAK, JEROME 2,285.81 08/11/06 PARSONS, KURT 2,139.64 08/11/06 PETERSON, ROBERT 2,404.53 08/11/06 PRECHTEL, ROBERT 2,355.57 08/11/06 SVENDSEN, RONALD 2,397.80 08/11/06 GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE 2,868.34 08/11/06 BAUER, MICHELLE 1,806.35 08/11/06 FLAUGHER, JAYME 3,000.05 08/11/06 HERMANSON, CHAD 1,676.55 08/11/06 HUBIN, KENNARD 1,785.83 08/11/06 KNAPP, BRETT 1,993.50 08/11/06 LINK, BRYAN 2,043.83 08/11/06 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,529.68 081"] 1/06 RABINE, JANET 1,917.35 08/11/06 SCHAULS, ADAM 156.00 08/11/06 STAHNKE, JULIE 1,922.15 08/11/06 LUKIN, STEVEN 4,01618 081"] 1 /06 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 3,219.37 08/11/06 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,813.35 08/11/06 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 293.39 08/11/06 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,675.69 08/11/06 GROHS, JUDITH 2,411.63 08/11/06 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 3,059.51 08/11/06 NIVEN, AMY 1,258.02 08/11/06 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,649.14 08/11/06 BRINK, TROY 1,770.15 08/11/06 BRUNELL, DAVID 1,654.20 08/11/06 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,893.35 08/11/06 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,89335 081"11/06 ELIAS, BRANDON 960.00 08/11/06 FREBERG, RONALD 137.67 08/11/06 JONES, DONALD 1,893.35 08/11/06 MEISSNER, BRENT 920.00 08/11/06 MEYER, GERALD 1,969.79 08/11/06 NAGEL, BRYAN 2,486.01 08/11/06 OSWALD, ERICK 2,080.46 1111 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 08111106 RUNNING, ROBERT 1,886.95 08/11/06 TEVLIN, TODD 1,822.15 08/11/06 DUCHARME, JOHN 1,231.66 081"11/06 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,694.15 08/11/06 ISAKSON, CHAD 718.77 08/11/06 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,740.50 08/11/06 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 2,03015 08/11/06 KNUTSON, LOIS 1,247.12 08/11/06 KUMMER, STEVEN 2,338.23 08/11/06 LABEREE, ERIN 993.43 08/11/06 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,414.86 08/11/06 MAYFIELD, JASON 1,096.48 08/11/06 MEINHOLZ, WILLIAM 1,179.64 08/11/06 PECK, DENNIS 2,421.79 08/11/06 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,417.17 08/11/06 SCHREMPP, ANTHONY 892.29 08/11/06 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 2,194.45 08/11/06 ANDERSON, BRUCE 4,359.27 08/11/06 CAREY, HEIDI 1,092.16 081"11/06 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,820.29 08/11/06 LUND, MARK 1,086.00 08/11/06 MARUSKA, MARK 2,754.63 08/11/06 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,82215 081"] 1 /06 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,895.66 08/11/06 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,526.21 08/11/06 DEAVER, CHARLES 589.08 08/11/06 HAYMAN, JANET 1,247.68 08/11/06 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,330.27 08/11/06 NELSON, JEAN 1,075.28 08/11/06 FOERG, ELIZABETH 1,024.00 08/11/06 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 2,161.27 08/11/06 HAMRE, MILES 975.00 08/11/06 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,244.09 08/11/06 KROLL, LISA 1,266.19 08/11/06 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 1,047.81 081"11/06 SINDT, ANDREA 1,745.35 08/11/06 THOMPSON, DEBRA 670.94 08/11/06 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,613.35 08/11/06 FINWALL, SHt-1NN 2,388.55 08/11/06 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,668.91 08/11/06 BRASH, JASON 1,200.00 08/11/06 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,853.51 im CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 08111106 FISHER DAVID 3,71212 08/11/06 RICE, MICHAEL 2,110.95 08/11/06 SWAN, DAVID 2,214.15 081"11/06 SWETT, PAUL 1,544.55 08/11/06 WELLENS, MOLLY 1,268.28 08/11/06 WORK, ALICIA 765.38 08/11/06 WORK, BRANDON 800.00 081"] 1/06 COLEMAN, JOHN 278.38 08/11/06 FRANK, PETER 130.00 08/11/06 GALLANT, CHARLENE 167.88 08/11/06 GOODRICH, CHAD 535.50 08/11/06 GOODRICH, DANIELLE 272.25 08/11/06 KELLY, LISA 1,027.26 08/11/06 LUKIN, ALISHA 480.00 08/11/06 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 1,080.00 08/11/06 ROBBINS, AUDRA 2,288.25 08/11/06 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 259.50 08/11/06 STAPLES, PAULINE 3,028.20 08/11/06 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,85434 08/11 /06 UNDERHILL, KRISTEN 448.44 08/11/06 ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH 140.00 08 /11 /06 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,902.59 08/11/06 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,033.54 081"]l/06 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,170.51 08/11/06 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,256.00 08/11/06 COLLINS, ASHLEY 16.00 08/11/06 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 341.00 08/11/06 CROSSON, LINDA 2,782.65 08/11/06 EVANS, CHRISTINE 708.30 08/11/06 GRAF, MICHAEL 2,064.61 08/11/06 HER, CHONG 715.00 08/11/06 HER, PHENG 96.20 08/11/06 HOFMEISTER, MARY 701.53 08/11/06 MILES, LAURA 390.95 08/11/06 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 47633 08/11/06 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 2,094.61 08/11/06 SCHULZE, BRIAN 758.10 08 /11 /06 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 256.50 08/11/06 ANDREA, JOHANNA 11813 08/11/06 BRENEMAN, NEIL 380.18 08/11/06 BRUSOE, CRISTINA 271.50 08/11/06 BUCKLEY, BRITTANY 612.55 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 08111106 CORNER, AMY 44.80 08/11/06 DUNN, RYAN 734.97 08/11/06 EDSON, JAMIE 608.65 081"11/06 EVANS, KRISTIN 175.60 08/11/06 FLECKENSTEIN, HEATHER 141.53 08 /11 /06 FONTAINE, KIM 840.69 08/11/06 GREDVIG, ANDERS 518.43 0811`11/06 GUZIK. JENNIFER 620.35 08/11/06 HALEY, BROOKE 309.80 08/11/06 HASSENSTAB, DENISE 44.70 08/11/06 HERZOG, ELIZABETH 94.25 08/11/06 HORWATH, RONALD 2,159.70 08/11/06 IRISH, GRACE 137.00 08/11/06 KOEHNEN, AMY 125.25 08/11/06 KOEHNEN, MARY 1,122.21 08/11/06 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 892.57 08/11/06 LAMEYER, ZACHARY 78.00 08/11/06 MATHEWS, LEAH 42.00 08/11/06 OVERBY, ANNA 40.00 081 "11/06 PROESCH, ANDY 608.83 08/11/06 SCHAEFER, ANDREA 197.40 08 /11 /06 SCHULTZ, PETER 145.28 08/11/06 SMITH, ANN 98.50 0811`11/06 TUPY, HEIDE 169.60 08/11/06 TUPY, MARCUS 297.68 08/11/06 WERNER, REBECCA 225.03 08/11/06 WHITE, NICOLE 778.79 08/11/06 WOLFGRAM, MARY 234.00 08/11/06 GROPPOLI, LINDA 327.50 08/11/06 HOLMGREN, STEPHANIE 108.50 08/11/06 ANDERSON, MATT 53.20 08/11/06 BEHAN, JAMES 1,769.23 08/11/06 LONETTI, JAMES 1,077.42 08/11/06 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,149.24 08/11/06 PRINS, KELLY 1,097.44 081"11/06 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,674.15 08/11/06 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH 168.53 08 /11 /06 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,966.47 08/11/06 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,12935 08/11 /06 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 1,680.55 08/11/06 BERGO, CHAD 2,355.82 08/11/06 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 2,686.82 I CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 08111106 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 2,169.74 105780 08/11/06 LONGRIE, DIANA 452.00 105781 08/11/06 JAHN, DAVID 1,698.50 105782 081"11/06 MORIN, TROY 153.00 105783 08/11/06 MATHEYS, ALANA 2,059.20 105784 08/11/06 HANSEN, LORI 1,680.82 105785 08/11/06 GENNOW, PAMELA 1,040.00 105786 0811`11/06 PALANK, MARY 1,679.66 105787 08/11/06 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,855.39 105788 08/11/06 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,268.81 105789 08/11/06 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,537.23 105790 08/11/06 HOEPPNER, STEVEN 920.00 105791 08/11/06 ANDERSON, MICHAEL 1,331.00 105792 08/11/06 EDSON, DAVID 1,934.44 105793 08/11/06 GORE, MICHAEL 1,068.00 105794 08/11/06 HELEY, ROLAND 1,934.59 105795 08/11/06 IIINNENKAMP, GARY 2,047.03 105796 08/11/06 LINDORFF, DEWS 1,897.97 105797 08/11/06 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,89335 105798 081"11/06 OLSON, SCOTT 905.00 105799 08/11/06 BERGREN, KIRSTEN 123.75 105800 08/11/06 GERNES, CAROLE 483.38 105841 08/11/06 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 147.81 105802 08/11/06 BERGER, STEPHANIE 595.00 105803 08/11/06 DAMIANI, ROBERT 140.00 105804 08/11/06 FARLEY, JAMIE 574.00 105805 08/11/06 GEBHARD, MADELINE 389.50 105806 08/11/06 HAGSTROM, KEVIN 100.00 105807 08/11/06 KLEIN, AARON 20.00 105808 08/11/06 KOHLMAN, JENNIFER 152.00 105809 08/11/06 MALLET, AMANDA 270.00 105810 08/11/06 NIELSEN, ABBY 18.00 105811 08/11/06 ROBBINS, EMERALD 115.50 105812 08/11/06 UNGAR, KRISTOPHER 140.00 105813 08/11/06 HAAG, MARK 1,925.27 105814 081 "11/06 NADEAU, EDWARD 3,061.98 105815 08/11/06 GLASS, JEAN 1,868.83 105816 08/11/06 NAGEL, BROOKE 218.80 105817 08/11/06 SIMPSON, JOSEPH 96.20 105818 0811`11/06 VELASQUEZ, ANGELA 45.00 105819 08/11/06 ALBRECHT, TIMOTHY 181.25 105820 08/11/06 ANDERSON, CALEB 137.73 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 105821 08111106 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 291.13 105822 08/11/06 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 248.31 105823 08/11/06 ARNEVIK, ERICA 105.00 105824 081"11/06 BENJAMIN, AYLA 42.25 105825 08/11/06 BRENEMAN, SEAN 625.90 105826 08/11/06 CHASTAN, ADAM 58.50 105827 08/11/06 COSTA, JOSEPH 251.50 105828 08/11/06 DEMPSEY, BETH 171.50 105829 08/11/06 GIEL, NICOLE 42.00 105830 08/11/06 GRANT, MELISSA 554.13 105831 08/11/06 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 504.00 105832 08111/06 HAGSTROM, EMILY 85.05 105833 08/11/06 HERRON, ADAM 50.63 105834 08/11/06 HERZOG, BRITTANY 147.20 105835 08/11/06 HOLMGREN, LEAH 910.00 105836 08/11/06 JOYER, MARTI 351.13 105837 08/11/06 LEMAY, KATHERINE 258.13 105838 08/11/06 MCMAHON, MELISSA 664.15 105839 08/11/06 MILLS, ANNE 431.20 105840 081"11/06 MORIS, RACHEL 101.25 105841 08/11/06 NWANOKWALE, MORDY 136.50 105842 08 /11 /06 PEHOSKI, JOEL 544.24 105843 08/11/06 PETERSON, ANNA 166.60 105844 08/11/06 PROCHNOW, SARAH 442.88 105845 08/11/06 RICHTER, DANIEL 17.00 105846 08/11/06 RICHTER, NANCY 159.75 105847 08/11/06 ROGNESS, TRYGGVE 64290 105848 08111/06 ROSTRON, ROBERT 345.05 105849 08/11/06 RYDEEN, ARIEL 471.87 105850 08/11/06 SCHAEFER, NATALIE 189.00 105851 08/11/06 SCHMIDT, EMILY 182.00 105852 08/11/06 SCHMIDT, JOHN 126.75 105853 08/11/06 SCHRAMM, BRITTANY 238.05 105854 08/11/06 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 311.88 105855 08/11/06 SCHUNEMAN, GREGORY 165.75 105856 081`11/06 SMITLEY, SHARON 427.55 105857 08/11/06 STAHNKE, AMY 376.06 105858 08 /11 /06 TRUE, ANDREW 149.48 105859 08/11/06 VANG, CHANG 128.80 105860 081"] 1 /06 WARNER, CAROLYN 276.65 105861 08/11/06 WEDES, CARYL 147.00 105862 08/11/06 WENZEL, SHANNON 78.00 ius CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 105863 08111106 WILCZAK, MICHELLE 134.44 105864 08/11/06 WILLIAMS, KRISTINE 100.75 105865 08/11/06 WOODMAN, ALICE 232.60 105866 081"11/06 ZALK, IDA 110.50 105867 08/11/06 BOSLEY, CAROL 223.18 105868 08/11/06 LEWIS, AMY 49.95 105869 08/11/06 ODDEN, JESSICA 170.89 105870 0811`11/06 OIE, REBECCA 11.03 105871 08/11/06 PARAYNO, GUAI 383.15 105872 08/11/06 SATTLER, CASSANDRA 49.20 105873 08/11/06 SATTLER, MELINDA 41.40 105874 08/11/06 STODGHILL, AMANDA 37.13 105875 08/11/06 VAN HALE, PAULA 24.90 105876 08/11/06 WADE, MARY -LEE 26.25 105877 08/11/06 ZAGER, LINNEA 150.88 105878 08/11/06 BERLIN, SARAH 209.48 105879 08/11/06 BIRKHOLZ, TYLER 28.58 105880 08/11/06 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,369.65 105881 08/11/06 EVERSON, KYLE 182.88 105882 081"11/06 HER, GHEE 146.05 105883 08/11/06 HER, PETER 139.70 105884 08/11/06 O'GRADY, VICTORIA 27.80 105885 08/11/06 OLSON, CHRISTINE 26.60 105886 0811`11/06 SCHULZE, KEVIN 133.00 105887 08/11/06 THEESFELD, CALEB 27.80 105888 08/11/06 YANG, HUE 26.60 105889 08/11/06 VANE, KAY 438.43 105890 08/11/06 VANG, TIM 277.50 105891 08/11/06 VUE, LOR PAO 239.40 483,658.53 NE Agenda Item 12 AGENDA REPORT TO: Interim City Manager, Greg Copeland FROM: IT Director, Mychal Fowlds SUBJECT: Authorization to make payment for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement bill DATE: August 22, 2006 In 2004 we entered into the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement with SHI and Microsoft. This agreement licenses all of our City computers for Microsoft Office Professional along with licensing some of our servers with Microsoft Windows Standard Server, SQL Server and Exchange Server. The City is also entitled to any updates or upgrades that Microsoft comes out with during the span of the agreement. Other benefits include the Microsoft Home Use Program, Microsoft Technet Subscription, Microsoft Home Purchase Program and Microsoft E- Learning Library. In short, this agreement provides the backbone of all PC functionality for City employees. Budget Impact This payment was budgeted for and will be funded from the 2006 IT Fund in the amount of $34,040.81. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to pay the bill for our Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. Action Required Submit to City Council for review and approval. Agenda Item 13 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Comforts of Homes Development, City Project 06 -06 a) Approve Developer's Agreement b) Approve Storm Water Maintenance Agreement DATE: August 21, 2006 INTRODUCTION /BACKGROUND The Comforts of Homes Development at TH 36 and Hazelwood has previously been approved by the City Council. Conditions of approval required installation of public improvements and site conditions, including the installation of a storm water protection device. Approval of the Developer's Agreement and a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement (both attached) is recommended. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that council approve the Developer's Agreement and Storm Water Maintenance Agreement between Comforts of Homes, Inc. and the City of Maplewood. Attachment: 1. Developer's Agreement 2. Storm Water Maintenance Agreement CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Ramsey County, Minnesota Development Agreement for Comforts of Home THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2006, between the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, acting by and through its mayor and city manager, herein called the CITY and Comforts of Home herein called the DEVELOPER. IN CONSIDERATION of the following mutual agreements and covenants, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. In consideration of the CITY accepting the Comforts of Home Development, the DEVELOPER shall provide all internal water systems, storm water management facilities, sanitary sewers and street improvements, including concrete curb and gutter, signing, landscaping and other improvements as specified herein, all in conformance with current City standards. All internal improvements constructed by the DEVELOPER shall be considered private utilities and/or improvements and shall be maintained by the DEVELOPER or their assign. The DEVELOPER warrants that it maintains all rights and obligations necessary to construct the said improvements. 2. The DEVELOPER agrees to furnish the city with a financial guarantee in the form of a cash deposit for the future construction of a six (6) foot wide concrete sidewalk along Hazelwood Street for the length of the entire property. This sidewalk will be constructed by the city when Hazelwood Street in reconstructed in approximately the year 2010. The cash deposit will be used by the city to finance the construction of the sidewalk. The value of the sidewalk has been estimated at $16,000. The DEVELOPER shall provide a cash deposit or letter of credit in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost. 3. The OWNER agrees to execute a maintenance agreement establishing the maintenance requirements and responsibilities for the infiltration basins and sump structure. 4. Cash escrow shall be letter of credit or cash deposit. If the surety is in the form of a letter of credit, the letter of credit must clearly indicate that it is an irrevocable letter of credit (from a financial institution approved by the City Attorney) in the name of the City of Maplewood, payable on demand, to assure compliance with the terms of this developer's agreement. The letter of credit shall be of a one -year duration and must have a condition indicating automatic renewal with notification to the CITY a minimum of 60 days prior to its expiration. 5. The DEVELOPER shall reimburse any costs incurred by the CITY for engineering, legal, and administrative services, associated with the project. A $1,000 cash escrow shall be established for these services. 6. The DEVELOPER shall furnish all engineering, architectural and administrative services for the private improvements and building projects. 7. The DEVELOPER agrees that the work shall be done and performed in the best and most workmanlike manner; and all materials and labor shall be in strict conformity with respect to the approved Plans and Specifications and improvement standards of the City of Maplewood, and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the CITY or a duly authorized engineer of the CITY; and in case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the CITY or engineer as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected material shall be removed and replaced with approved material to the satisfaction and approval of the CITY or engineer and at the sole cost and expense of the DEVELOPER. 8. After completion of any private work required by the DEVELOPER within public right -of -way or easements, the City engineer or the City engineer's designated representative and a representative of the DEVELOPER's engineer will make a final inspection of the work. This provision shall apply only to work within public right -of -way or easements. The City engineer will not inspect or warrant any private work conducted by the contractor or contractors hired by the DEVELOPER. 9. It is further agreed, anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, that the City of Maplewood City Council and its agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the OWNER, DEVELOPER, the DEVELOPER's contractor or subcontractor, material suppliers, laborers or to any other person or persons whomsoever, for any claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agreement or the performance and completion of the work or the improvements provided herein, which the DEVELOPER will save the CITY harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, actions or causes of action or the costs disbursements and expenses of defending the same, specifically including, without intending to limit the categories of said costs, cost and expenses for CITY administrative time and labor, costs of consulting engineering services, and costs of legal services rendered in connection with the defending such claims as may be brought against the CITY. It is further agreed that the DEVELOPER will furnish the City of Maplewood proof of insurance in the amount as required by the approval specifications covering any public liability or property damage by reason of the operation of the DEVELOPER's equipment, laborers, and hazard caused by said improvement. 10. Breach of any terms of this agreement by the DEVELOPER shall be grounds for denial of building or occupancy permits for buildings until the DEVELOPER corrects such breach. 11. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein and any other application thereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 12. The terms and conditions of this agreement shall be binding on the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns and the benefits and burdens shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. El SIGNATURE FOR RAMSEY COUNTY Mv TITLE: STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of of the OWNER. and Notary Public SIGNATURES CITY OF MAPLEWOOD: Diana Longrie, Mayor Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA } ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006 by Diana Longrie, Mayor of the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation. Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006 by Greg Copeland, City Manager of the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation. Notary Public A SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR COMFORTS OF HOME DEVELOPEMENT CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1. Project Information: a. Name: Comforts of Home b. Developer: C. Engineer: d. General Contractor: e. Financial Guarantees: (1) Type: Cash Deposit (Engineering and Legal Expenses) Amount: $1,000 - Engineering and Legal Expenses (2) Type: Cash Deposit Amount: $16,000 (For sidewalk) 2. Scope of work contemplated under the terms of this contract and covered by escrow guarantee are outlined in the conditions of development approval from the June 12, 2006 city council meeting (see attached minutes). 7 City Council Meeting Minutes June 12 2006 Comforts of Home Assisted Living Facility (2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street) Land Use Plan Change (BC to R -3(H)) (4 votes) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Design Approval a. Planner Finwall presented the report. b. Mark Paschke, Frisbee Architects, answered council questions. c Commissioner Dierich presented the Planning Commission report. d. Boardmember Olson presented the Design Review Board report. Councilmember Cave moved to adopt the following resolution approving the proposed comprehensive land use change resolution. This resolution changes the land use plan from business commercial (BC) to high multiple dwelling residential (R -3H) for the properties at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street: COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION 06 -06- 069 WHEREAS, Maplewood Comforts of Home, LLC, applied for a change to the city's land use plan from Business Commercial (BC) to High Multiple- Dwelling Residential (R -3H). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the legal description for the two lots is: Parcel A: The North 200 feet of that portion of Lot 9, E.G. Roger's Garden Lots lying Southerly of the right of way of S.T.H. No. 36 -118. Except that portion of the above described tract conveyed to the Village of Maplewood by Quit Claim Deed recorded May 21, 1981 as Document Number 1798958, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel B: Lot 9, lying South of centerline of Highway 36 except the North 312.5 feet thereof, E.G. Roger's Garden Lots, subject to a road. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 1, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the comprehensive land use amendment. 9 2. On June 12, 2006, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above - described change for the following reasons: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high- density residential use. This includes: a) Having a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single - family housing, public- assisted housing and low- to moderate - income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. b) Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life -cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. C) The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. d) The city's long -term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. e) It is located off an arterial street, on a collector. f) It is located near a park, open space, and wetlands. Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes -All Councilmember Cave moved to adopt the following resolution approving the conditional use permit for Comforts of Home Assisted Living Facility. This resolution authorizes a conditional use permit for a multiple dwelling planned unit development within the BC zoning district. The multiple dwelling development is a 42 -unit assisted living facility at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street: 01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 06 -06 -070 WHEREAS, Maplewood Comforts of Home, LLC, applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to construct a 42 -unit, assisted living and memory care, facility within the Business Commercial zoning district for a development known as Comforts of Home. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the properties at 2300 and 2310 Hazelwood Street. WHEREAS, the legal description for the two lots is: Parcel A: The North 200 feet of that portion of Lot 9, E.G. Roger's Garden Lots lying Southerly of the right of way of S.T.H. No. 36 -118. Except that portion of the above described tract conveyed to the Village of Maplewood by Quit Claim Deed recorded May 21, 1981 as Document Number 1798958, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Parcel B: Lot 9, lying South of centerline of Highway 36 except the North 312.5 feet thereof, E.G. Roger's Garden Lots, subject to a road. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 1, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the comprehensive land use amendment. 2. On June 12, 2006, the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. IN 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Have the engineering department approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's May 11, 2006, engineering plan review. 2. All construction shall follow the plans date - stamped March 27, 2006, and with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. 3. The applicant must provide the city with verification that the assisted living facility will meet state noise standards. This can be accomplished through a study, testing or other documentation. If the noise on this site is a factor, then the applicant will have to construct the facility so it meets the standards. This may be done with thicker walls, heavier windows, requiring air conditioning or other sound - deadening 11 construction methods. 4. The project is approved with a parking reduction of 59 parking spaces (84 parking spaces are required per city code, 25 parking spaces proposed). 5. The project is approved with a 359 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area (580 square foot units are required per city code, 221 to 360 square foot units are proposed). 6. The project is approved with a 0.5 -foot parking space width reduction (9.5 foot wide parking spaces are required per city code, 9 -foot wide parking spaces are proposed). 7. All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. 8. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes -All Mayor Longrie moved to approve the plans date stamped March 27, 2006, and the April 25, 2006, revised grading and drainage, tree preservation and landscape plans for the 42 —unit, two - story, assisted living facility (Comforts of Home) to be located at the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street (currently 230012310 Hazelwood Street). Approval is subiect to the applicant doing the following: 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 plans which meet all requirements as spelled out in the May 11, 2006, engineer review including, but not limited to, entering into a development agreement with the city to ensure all construction activities conform to Maplewood's standards and to ensure an escrow is taken by the city for the cost of a 6- foot -wide sidewalk to be constructed along the entire Hazelwood Street frontage during future Hazelwood Street construction. 12 2) Revised landscape plan showing the following: a) The Colorado blue spruce should be changed to Black Hills spruce. b) Plantings should be shown in the infiltration pond and rainwater garden. The plantings should include pre - approved native seed mixtures. C) The landscape area called out on the main floor plan in front of the entry canopies (sheet A2) should be reflected on the landscape plan. d) A planting bed should be included in the interior of the loop driveway (in between the driveway and the road). e) Two additional sugar maple trees should be planted along Hazelwood Street. f) All landscaping (excluding landscaping within the infiltration basin and rainwater garden) must be irrigated. The landscape plan must reflect the location of all required underground irrigation sprinkler heads. g) All disturbed areas must be established with turf. h) The applicant should attempt to save the large oak tree located on the southeast side of the building (Tree #573 — 30" oak) and must take all means necessary to protect all other large trees scheduled to be preserved on the property during construction of the facility. Revised site plan which shows the following: a) Site plan must match the grading and drainage plan and reflect the required berm located on the north side of the property. b) Future sidewalk to be located along the entire Hazelwood Street frontage. C) Walking trail to be located on the north side of the property, around the infiltration basin. 4) Revised floor plans showing the expansion of the three outdoor patios if possible. 13 5) Revised lighting and photometrics plan which shows that the height of the freestanding lights do not exceed 25 feet (measured from ground grade to the top of the lumen). 6) Watershed district approval. 7) Building material samples. 8) The owner shall combine the two properties into one lot for tax identification purposes before the city issues a building permit. 9) 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. 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. 5) Install wetland buffer signs which indicate that no mowing, cutting, or building is permitted within the 25 -foot buffer. 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. M , 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 of the following year 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. Signs are not approved with this design review approval. All signs must be approved by the community design review board before installation. f. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes -All 15 -92 92 22 921 - F - - - - -- 2 X21. %r 921 X2 2 X 23 TC OAS , T 19.3 _ 9A 193 TC C 915 T� %. 19.1 19. t� r — 14.0 K� OT f i 1 14.5 w7� ;�� ' .�/ 9 X 1 $ 9.3 { TC //LP c 14.5 i 4 I F INFILTRATION (( 14.5 \ TEMPORA l, BASIN + 1 X ' SEDIMENT BAST 1 14.5. 9 131 X 1 9 J 193 916 X 918 917 I 1 14.5 E —TC ,ro / .1 •. / 19.5 18.1 ?� I of _ �'` /? . WAT ALL /HP TC� r 25' WETLANI 8.75 1 8, r 18/25 ri i� J, rr/ 1 ROCK SUMPS RFQUIREI INFILTRATION BASIN, S MAPLEWOOD PLATE NC o (" �•''..' ;j r RAINWATER GARDEN TO MAX EXTENT POSSIBLE, ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE RAINWATER GARDEN TC PONDING EASMENT 8.55 E E E 918.75 � r ' r � '��� � � F Ilk � 1 /e D N R WETLAND AL '' 62-162W TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN Ju 1 i µ ,..�- s may. A � . - � •� ;si ' /! / i � '� ,r r WETLAND EDGF AS DFI INFATFF) RY Agenda Item 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Interim City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review PROJECT: Liberty Classical Academy LOCATION: 1717 English Street DATE: August 16, 2006 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for Liberty Classical Academy at 1717 English Street is due for review. The CUP allows a private school for up to 120 students to operate in the Lake Phalen Community Church. (See the maps on pages three — five). BACKGROUND On July 22, 2003, the city council approved the conditional use permit for Liberty Classical Academy. This approval was subject to six conditions of approval. On June 13, 2005, the city council reviewed the CUP and approved an amendment to the permit. This change allowed the school to expand from a maximum of 60 students to a maximum of 120 students. The council also agreed to review the permit revision in one year. (See the council minutes starting on page six.) On July 10, 2006, the city council approved a PUD amendment for the property at 2696 Hazelwood Street. This revision allows Liberty Classical Academy to operate a school for up to 500 students in the First Evangelical Free Church. DISCUSSION Liberty Classical Academy has been operating the school in the Lake Phalen Community Church since the fall of 2003. The student population of the school has grown steadily since they opened the school. This growth required the school to find a second location for their functions, as they have outgrown the existing location in the Lake Phalen Community Church. Since the city approved the school's CUP request for the second location (at 2696 Hazelwood Street), they plan on having the older students (grades 6 — 12) attend school in the new location. The school, at least for now, plans on keeping grades K — 5 in the first location at 1717 English Street. They may eventually move all the school functions to the new location on Hazelwood. Such a move would be contingent on many variables, including the growth of the school population and the needs of First Evangelical Free Church (the owners of the building). This past spring I received complaints from one neighbor of the school. These complaints were about the school's use of the field west of the church building for physical education, for softball and soccer (including after- school games) and problems he encountered because of these activities. The issues he noted included garbage blowing onto his property, stray or loose balls going onto his property and people trespassing from the church property onto his property. I asked this neighbor if he wanted the school or church to install a fence to help with these problems. He said that he did not want to see a fence between the properties. I spoke to Rebekah Hagstrom, the director of Liberty Classical Academy, about the concerns expressed by the neighbor. She told me that she has talked to the concerned neighbor to try to better understand his concerns. Ms. Hagstrom also told me that the school's activities were always done by 7:00 pm, that the school changed how they conduct their outdoor activities and that they gave the students, staff and parents direction about trespassing and on being a good neighbor. She indicated to me that, with the school now dividing the student population between two locations, there would be fewer students using the field during and after school. In response to the concerns of the neighbor, Ms. Hagstrom wrote them a letter outlining the changes the school would be implementing to help address his concerns. (Please see the letter from the school on page nine.) However, it is important to note that having a school operating in this location has been a change for the neighborhood. Before 2003, the area was very quiet with just the church and its related activities using the property. Now that there is a school with students and outdoor activities, this can cause occasional disturbances and messes. 1 am confident that the school will do everything possible to be a good neighbor to everyone in this area as it is in their best interest to do so. The changes implemented by the school (including an awareness campaign), along with the smaller student population, should help address many of the concerns of the neighbor. Because of the concerns expressed by the neighbor of the school, the city should review this conditional use permit again in about six months (February 2007). Such a review will give the city a chance to review the permit after the outdoor fall activities and again before spring. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for Liberty Classical Academy at 1717 English Street again in February 2007. P:sec 16 \LCA cup review - 2006 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. June 13, 2005, City Council Minutes 5. Letter dated August 8, 2006 letter from Liberty Classical Academy 2 Location Map 1717 English Street 3 N m, \�,w« ° dRI P(§\ A . \ MOO « y . . 178b \ 17 6- : . MU ©L 4 \ ( \�4 ��. 1 1 73 -�� Zoning Map 1717 English Street 4 it 1 : y2 d�� Attachment i 0 R RMAK24M I Attachment 4 0 19 m C asNicLlt . ''r'sdifiol , i 9 Agenda Item 15 AGENDA REPORT To: Interim City Manager Greg Copeland From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla Subject: Alcohol Compliance Grant Date: August 15, 2006 The Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has offered the Police Department grant money for alcohol compliance checks, and City Council approval is required before this money can be accepted. 9= 4 = On August 9, 2006, the Police Department was notified that the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety had some unspent federal grant money. Because our department has been proactive about conducting alcohol compliance checks over the past several years, we were chosen to receive a $1,620 grant to conduct another round of alcohol compliance checks this year. We had already planned to do a second round of alcohol compliance checks, and this money will help defray the costs of performing those checks. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approval be given to accept this grant money and that the necessary budget adjustments be made to expend this money as outlined by the Department of Public Safety. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and action. DJT:js Agenda Item 16 AGENDA REPORT To: Interim City Manager Greg Copeland From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla Subject: Police Mutual Aid Agreement With Washington County Date: August 17, 2006 Introduction Permission is being requested to enter into a mutual aid agreement with other agencies in Washington County. Background The Maplewood Police Department contracts with the City of Landfall to provide police services, and Landfall is in Washington County. The police agencies in Washington County have proposed entering into a mutual aid agreement for the following purposes: - Unexpected exigent circumstances which may arise. - Assistance with major case investigations. - Circumstances where the parties requesting and providing the assistance deem it appropriate. The main benefit of this agreement for our department is that, if necessary, we can request assistance from Washington County agencies for incidents occurring in Landfall. The agreement covers such items as who decides how much and what type of equipment may respond, who pays the salary and covers any injuries sustained by personnel responding, who is in charge of the personnel responding, etc. There is no cost to enter into this mutual aid agreement as we will not be participating in Attachment A {use of the SRT team} due to the fact that our department is part of the Ramsey County SWAT team, and they have agreed that their SWAT team would respond to emergencies in Landfall. There is a provision that any party to the agreement may withdraw at any time with 30 days' written notice to the Washington County Sheriff, and it will continue in effect until the number of parties is one or if the Washington County Sheriff withdraws. This agreement was reviewed and approved by our City Attorney Recommendation It is recommended that City Council approval be given to enter into this mutual aid agreement Action Reauired Submit to the City Council for review and action DJT:js JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT AND THE INVESTIGATION OF MAJOR CASES GENERAL PURPOSE The purpose of this agreement is to provide a means by which a party to this agreement may obtain emergency law enforcement assistance from other parties when: 1) unexpected exigent circumstances arise, or 2) assistance is sought in major case investigations, or 3) circumstances exist such that the parties requesting and providing such assistance deem it to be appropriate. This agreement is made and entered into under the authority provided in Minnesota Statutes 471.59 subd. 12. IL DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings given them. Subd. 1 "Party" means a governmental unit which is a party to this agreement. Subd. 2 "Eligible party" means a governmental unit which is entitled to become a party to this agreement, at its own option. The eligible parties are the County of Washington and every city, and town within the County of Washington, State of Minnesota. Subd. 3 "Requesting party" means a party which requests law enforcement assistance from other parties. Subd. 4 "Responding party" means a party which provides law enforcement assistance to a requesting party. Subd. 5 "Law enforcement assistance" includes police, sheriff, and Special Response Team personnel and equipment. Subd. 6 "Requesting official" means the person who has been designated by the requesting party to request law enforcement assistance from other parties. Subd. 7 "Responding official" is the person who has been designated by a party to determine whether and to what extent that party should provide law enforcement assistance to a requesting party. Subd. 8 "Special Response Team (SRT)" is a multi - agency law enforcement support unit which is specially trained and equipped to respond to and resolve critical incidents and other high risk law enforcement functions. III. PARTIES The parties to this agreement shall consist of as many eligible parties as shall elect, through resolutions adopted by their respective governing bodies, or authorized representative, to become parties. Upon the adoption of such resolution by an eligible party, an executed copy of this agreement shall be sent by it to the Sheriff of Washington County. When two or more eligible parties have elected to become parties and have provided such resolutions to the Sheriff of Washington County, this agreement shall become operative, and shall continue in force until, by reason of withdrawals as hereinafter provided, the number of parties to this agreement is reduced to one, or if the Sheriff withdraws, whichever is first. The Sheriff of Washington County shall maintain a current list of the parties to this agreement, and whenever there is a change in the parties of this agreement, the Sheriff shall notify the designated responding official of each of the parties of such change. IV. PROCEDURE Subd. 1 Each party shall designate, and keep on file with the Sheriff of Washington County, the name or title of the person(s) of that party who shall be its requesting official and responding official. A party may designate the same person as both the requesting official and the responding official. A party may designate additional and /or alternate officials to act in the absence of the official. Each party shall also designate one of the four options for SRT response as described in Section V, below. Subd. 2 Whenever, in the opinion of a requesting official of a party, there is a need for personnel and equipment or assistance in a major case investigation from other parties to assist the officers of the requesting party, such requesting official may call upon the responding official of any other party to furnish such assistance to the requesting party. If the requesting official of a party determines the need for an SRT response, that request shall be made to the Sheriff, Cottage Grove Director of Public Safety, or the Woodbury Director of Public Safety (or their respective designees). Subd. 3 Upon the receipt of a request for personnel and /or equipment or assistance in a major case investigation from a party, the responding official for any other party may authorize and direct law enforcement officers of the responding party to provide assistance to the requesting party, and if so, to what extent such assistance shall be provided shall be determined solely by the responding official (subject to such supervision and direction as may be applicable to the officer within the governmental structure of the party by which the officer is employed). The parties agree that the decision by the responding official to provide or not provide assistance is a discretionary decision and failure to provide assistance will not result in liability to the responding party nor provide a cause of action for the requesting party or to any third party. Subd. 4 When a responding party provides law enforcement assistance under the terms of this agreement, it may in turn request assistance from other parties as "back -up" during the time that it is providing law enforcement assistance outside its boundaries. Subd. 5 Whenever a responding party has provided law enforcement assistance to a requesting party, the responding official may at any time end such assistance or any part thereof, if the responding official in the official's best judgment deems this necessary. Subd. 6 When a responding party supplies law enforcement officers to a requesting party, such officers shall remain employees of the responding party; shall be paid by the responding party; shall be protected by the Worker's Compensation of the responding party; and shall otherwise be deemed to be performing their regular duties for the responding party. However, the responding party shall undertake to coordinate with the requesting party the operational law enforcement assistance which it provides. Subd. 7 A responding party shall be responsible for its own personnel, equipment and supplies and for injuries or death to any such personnel or damage to any such equipment or supplies, except that unused equipment and supplies shall be returned to the responding party by the requesting party as soon as circumstances so permit. Subd. 8 The requesting party shall not be responsible for any injuries, losses or damages to persons or property arising out of the acts of any of the personnel of a responding party nor shall the responding party be responsible for any injuries, losses or damages arising out of the acts of any of the personnel of the requesting party or the personnel of any other responding party. Subd. 9 The parties hereby agree to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other parties to this agreement against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims or actions, including attorney fees which the other party or parties may sustain, incur or be required to pay arising out of the performance by a party of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. It is understood that the parties' liability shall be governed by Minn. Stat. § 471.59 and Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 or other applicable law. Nothing herein is intended to waive the liability limits set forth in Minn. Stat. Chapter 466. Subd. 10 The chief peace officer of the requesting party, or the designee, shall be responsible for the supervision of a major case investigation and the members assigned to the major case investigation team. Subd. 11 All members assigned to the major investigation team shall prepare reports at the direction of the chief peace officer of the requesting party, or the designee. All reports created by a responding party shall be maintained by that party but shall only be released by requesting party, who shall handle the data consistent with the Minnesota Data Practices Act and related policies of the requesting party. Subd. 12 The requesting party shall be the custodian of all evidence and/or property collected and /or maintained in the course of the requesting party's investigation. The requesting party shall be responsible for the processing of all evidence for appropriate analysis or examination. Subd. 13 Only the chief peace officer of the requesting party, or the designee, shall respond to media requests for information concerning the major case investigation until the case is submitted to the prosecuting authority. V. SRT PROCEDURE The primary concern of everyone is the safety of the officers, the public, and the subject(s) involved in a critical incident. The potential for an SRT incident exists throughout the County, and some plan for response needs to be in place. Response by the SRT, due to the specialized training and equipment, is very costly. A cost - effective method of making that service available is drawing a small amount of resources from each law enforcement agency in the County. There are four options available to provide for SRT response to a requesting agency: Option 1 - assign an officer(s) as a tactical officer Option 2 - pay an annual fee equivalent to the cost of assigning an officer(s) Option 3 - pay a fee if the Team is used Option 4 - if none of the three options are selected by a requesting agency at the time of execution of this agreement, response by Washington County SRT will not be available for the requesting agency. In as much as the cities of Birchwood, Landfall, and the portions of White Bear Lake and Hastings within the County, receive primary police response from law enforcement agencies outside the County, Birchwood, Landfall, White Bear Lake or Hastings choose Options 1 or 2 above, response by the SRT will only be available under this agreement to those parts of the cities within the borders of Washington County. Attachment A to this Agreement sets forth the formula for determining participation on the SRT. VI. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION This agreement shall continue in effect until the number of parties is one, or if the Sheriff withdraws, whichever is first. Any party may withdraw at any time upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Sheriff of Washington County. The Sheriff of Washington County shall thereupon give notice of such withdrawal, and of the effective date thereof, to all other parties, as hereinbefore provided. Such a party may again become a party by entering into this agreement. This agreement supersedes and terminates any prior mutual aid agreements that exist between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this agreement to be executed and delivered on its behalf. Dated this day of , 2006. 5 5 By SRT Response Option (See Attachment A) Its By Its Attachment A to Joint and Cooperative Agreement In 1997, a decision was made to combine the Sheriff's Office SWAT and the Cottage Grove /Oakdale /Woodbury ERT. After a significant amount of discussion and evaluation, it was agreed that a 30 members would be necessary to respond safely and appropriately to critical incidents throughout the County. At the time the teams combined, a decision was made to not allow other police departments to join until possibly some time in the future, due to organizational and training challenges associated with combining the Teams. The SRT is now a trained and functioning combined unit, and additional members need to be added to reach the desired number. The most equitable way of sharing the costs of the SRT is to add officers from other police departments. We evaluated population and number of peace officers within each jurisdiction. The percentage of total population by agency, and the percentage of total officers by agency were very similar, with the exception of WCSO and Woodbury. WCSO provides primary law enforcement service to 28% of the population, but has 35% of the total full -time officers. Woodbury serves 27% of the population and has 21 % of the full -time officers. We assumed that the number of peace officers within a jurisdiction was some representation of the need for law enforcement services, and therefore the most reliable correlation to SRT activation. Based on that formula, the following SRT personnel assignments are equitable: (Note - The use of part -time officers varies significantly between departments. Some departments have part -time officers that are used very little, if at all, for regular patrol duties. Based on that position, the part -time officers were excluded from the analysis.) City Bayport Cottage Grove Forest Lake Oak Park Heights Stillwater St Paul Park WCSO Woodbury Total # of sworn % of total # assigned sworn to SRT 2% 16% 8% 4% 8% 4% 37% 22% 5 1 2 11 6 1►• MA 18.0'1 (Newport and Oakdale Police Departments have chosen to not contribute personnel to the SRT at this time.) The four options available for each requesting party are: Option 1 — Assign an officer (2 in the case of Stillwater and Forest Lake) to serve as a tactical officer. The police department will supply the initial uniform equipment as part of the assignment — approximately $2600. The department will also be responsible for the "Basic SWAT" training class — approximately $600. The department will also be responsible for a percentage of the annual operating budget — currently about $1170 per tactical officer per year. Option 2 — The City can pay an annual fee and receive services from the Team as though they had a participating officer. The annual fee will be approximately $6000 per year per officer: $4,200 wages and benefits $1,170 annual operating budget $ 630 initial uniform /training (assuming 5 year assignment) $6,000 Option 3 — Pay expenses if the Team is activated. The cost for response by the Team will be $750 per tactical officer for the first 4 hours, plus the actual costs for negotiators and communications personnel. Actual costs for all officers after 4 hours. An 8 -hour incident with a response of 213 of a 30 person Team would cost approximately (assuming no cost for WCSO response): 20 tactical officers @ $750 (8 WCSO) 12 officers @ $42 per officer/hr 4 negotiators (2 WCSO) 2 communications operators (WCSO) misc gaslsupplieslbuIlets Total $ 9,000 4 hours $ 2,016 $ 672 $ 0 $ 1,200 $12,888 Option 4 — Pay nothing and no eligibility for SRT response. MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: August 21, 2006 for the August 28 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Buckthorn Removal INTRODUCTION Agenda Item 17 The parks and recreation department has coordinated a citywide buckthorn removal program for the past four years. The program has been extremely successful and has involved hundreds of Maplewood residents. As part of the buckthorn removal program, the city has always cleared one neighborhood preserve or a series of neighborhood parks of buckthorn. This year's buckthorn removal program will focus in the Kohlman Lake neighborhood and removal of buckthorn will occur in the Kohlman Creek Neighborhood Preserve. BACKGROUND The parks and recreation department has identified the Kohlman Creek Neighborhood Preserve for the 2006 buckthorn removal. The buckthorn removal program focuses on one specific neighborhood and provides curbside pickup for buckthorn. In addition, we provide three general sites that the city park crews pick up and chip the buckthorn. We have identified Kohlman Creek Neighborhood Preserve as our public parklands for buckthorn removal. We have received two formal bids for buckthorn removal. The first bid was received from Critical Connections Ecological Services Inc. for $13,295 and the second is from Natural Resources Restoration for $6,603. The reason for the discrepancy or differential between the two bids is that Natural Resources Restoration utilizes the Lino Lakes corrections crew. We have utilized Lino Lakes and other correctional institutions' work crews for the past eight years. As can be seen, it usually amounts to a savings of anywhere from 40% to 60% for the community. We use the crews for trail development, buckthorn removal, major cleanup projects and other massive restoration projects. The new city purchasing policy requires that any expenditure over $5,000 needs to be approved by the city council. Based on the low bid of $6,603 from Natural Resources Restoration, staff recommends that they be awarded the contract. The monies for this project are budgeted and have been approved by the city council in the open space 101 -605 budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council award the low bid of $6,603 to Natural Resources Restoration for buckthorn and honeysuckle removal to include cutting, herbicide treatment, hauling, stacking and burning at Kohlman Creek Neighborhood Preserve with the monies allocated from the open space budget. kphlkohlman creek buckthorn.os.mem Page I of I Virginia Gaynor From: Craig Andresen [candresen@comcast.not] Sent Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:48 AM To: Virginia Gaynor Subject: Koleman Creek Ginny, We figured it would take us four days to cut 99% of the buckthorn over five feet tall and stem sizes over 1/2 inch. Our bid for the cutting would be $4,160-00 plus sales tax of $270.40 = $4,430.40. The piling and buming will take a day with two Lino crews or two days with one crew each day. We can do the piling and burning within two months of cutting. Our bid for the burning, is $2,040.00 plus the sales tax of $132.60 = $2,172.60. I hope that works for you! We can start in Sept. or Oct. and get everything cleaned up before the snow flies! Thanks for the bid request! Craig 8/16/2006 2 Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc. 14758 0stlund Trait North, Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota 56047 Natural Resource Mrs, Virginia Gaynor Consulting Naturalist Maplewood Nature Center Landscape 2659 East 7th Street Ecology Maplewood, Minnesota 55119 Botanical August 9, 2006 Inventories Re: Kohlman Creek Preserve - Invasive Woody Species Management Threatened & Proposed Scope of Work and Cost Estimates for Professional Restoration Services Endangered Species Surveys Dear Ginny: Greenway & As per your request, Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc. (CCES) is has prepared the Open Space following proposed scope of work and cost estimates for invasive species removal and Planning management services in Maplewood's Kohlman Creek Preserve. The proposed work scope and cost estimates are based on our conversations regarding the site and natural resources management Natural needs that were determined during a site visit by Jason Husveth (CCES principal ecologist) and al Community Jesse Neihart (CCES restoration crew leader) on August 8, 2006. The scope of work and estimated Restoration costs (labor, time, and materials) were developed based on restoration methods we have developed, and successfully implemented within similar natural areas and habitats within the Minneapolis Wetland Saint Paul metropolitan area. Delineation & Permitting Assessment of Existing Conditions: Wetland The Kohlman Preserve is a —10 acre neighborhood preserve located at the intersections of Beam Banking & Ave, Hazelwood Street, and the Vento Trail corridor in north central Maplewood (see Figure 1). Monitoring Kohlman Creek transacts the northern portion of the site, and flows from west to east. The forests and woodlands within the preserve are comprised of oak, aspen, ash, and cottonwood canopies, Minnesota with sparse to dense common buckthorn (Rhainnus cathai-fica) shrub layer, and occasional Land Cover Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatai-ica), and glossy buckthorn (RJianinusfi infestations. Classification There are herbaceous and shrub dominated upland openings within the preserve property, as well as herbaceous dominated wetlands associated with the creek floodplain (within which invasive Geographic shrubs are absent to sparse), Information CCES ecologists visited the Kohlman Creek Preserve on August 8, 2006 to assess the density of Systems invasive shrubs (common and glossy buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle) within the habitats of the preserve, to determine the restoration and management needs of the preserve, and to design an Global invasive species management approach that is both ecologically and cost effective and resource Positioning efficient. CCES ecologists broke the site down into seven areas requiring woody invasive species Systems management and three areas requiring little or no woody invasive species management. The seven management areas are depicted in Figure 1, with acreages and estimated densities of invasive Database shrubs proposed for treatment. Management & Development Environmental Education Phone: 651.433.4410 Fax: 651.433.4128 Email: info@ccesinc.com Web. www.ccesinc.com City of Maplewood — Kohlman Creek Preserve Woody Invasive Species Management Page 2 of 3 Proposed Scope of Work and Cost Estimate August 9, 2006 CCES proposed approach to invasive woody species management within the Kohiman Creek Preserve will focus primarily on cutting and herbicide treatments of smaller shrubs, and girdling and herbicide treatments (including basal bark treatments) of larger shrubs (i.e. over three inches in diameter/greater than eight feet in height). Additional costs are proposed for hauling, stacking, and burning cut material, if the City of Maplewood would like these services to be performed by the contractor. The cost estimates include labor and expenses (herbicide, gasoline, oil) to cut and chemically treat with one application all common and glossy buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle shrubs present within the —10 acre Kohiman Preserve site. All cutting and chemical treatments shall be completed from August through November 2006. Stacking and burning of brush piles would be completed from November 2006 through February 2007. The following are itemized costs proposed to complete the proposed restoration and management work at the Kohiman Preserve: Task 1: Invasive Woody Species Cutting and Chemical Treatment Labor Hours Rate Amount Restoration Crew 132 $50/HR $6,600.00 Principal Ecologist 4 $ 105/HR $ 420.00 Materials: Herbicide (Triclopyr or Glyphosate) $ 325.00 Diluent Blue Tm $ 250.00 Gasoline $ 120.00 oil $ 30.00 Blades $ 75.00 rd Total Task 1: $7,820.00 Task 2 (Optional): Brush Hauling and Stacking Labor: Hours Rate Amount Restoration Crew 80 $50/hr $4,000.00 Principal Ecologist 4 $105/hr $ 420.00 Total Task 2: $4,420.00 Task 3 (Optional): Brush Pile Burning Labor: Hours Rate Amount Restoration Crew 16 $50/hr $800.00 Principal Ecologist 2 $105/hr $210.00 Materials: Propane: $45,00 Total Task 1: $1,055.00 rd City my Maplewood —Kmbimuo Creek Preserve Woody Invasive SpeuieoK4unagomru Page 3of2 Proposed Scope of Work and Cost Estimate August 9, 2006 Partial Award oCContract: CCES is willi�����b�*������|�� m��t����a� described in this proposal. Insurance and Licenses: Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc. is fully insured with professional liability, workman's compensat error's and omiss and commercial automobile insurance policies, Upon request, CC28 will provide a certificate of insurance to the City of Maplewood if selected to perform these services under the proposed contractual services. All restoration crew personnel applying herbicides are experienced applicators and currently licensed us pesticide applicators with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this scope ofwork and cost estimate to remove and manage invasive species within "s Kwhhuon Creek Puescrve, and to onntloae to City's objectives of restoring and managing this important natural open space. CCES is prepared tobegin work onthis project immediately upon your acceptance of this proposal and completion of a professional services agreement (or similar contractual agreement provided bv the City ofMap(cw/nud). The scope of work (and associated cost estimates) included in this proposal are negotiable. Pieuuc do not hesitate to contact Jason Buavedh, Principal Ecologist with any questions you may have. We look forward toworking with the City of Maplewood mm this important project. Respectfully submitted, Critical Connections l Services, Inc ,Kson J. Husveth, MS President, Principal Ecologist Attachment 5 IN Critical Connections Ecological Services, 117c. 14758 0sIhIP4 trait ft. p: 691.•43 7.4410 tiassnc *1 Sa C-1 It 6 4A 1. ;r:8 . 'Iesotx. 55047 E: Into(' Ccesjn"Orn Kohiman Preserve Invasive Shrub Densities By Area Maplewood, Minnesota 6 Figure 1 Agenda Item 18 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfbile, City Clerk DATE: August 23, 2006 RE: Annual Lawful Gambling License — Pioneer Booster Club Introduction The Pioneer Booster Club is requesting the annual renewal of their application for lawful gambling license for Bleechers Bar located at 2220 White Bear Avenue. In order for the State of Minnesota to issue an annual gambling license, approval of the following resolution from the City is required. RESOLUTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the premises permit for lawful 9 ambling is approved for the Pioneer Booster Club, to operate at Bleechers Bar located at 2220 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. 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. Recommendation It is recommended that council approve the lawful gambling resolution application for the Pioneer Booster Club. Agenda Item 19 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfbile, City Clerk RE: Temporary Gambling Permit DATE: August 23, 2006 Introdnction Holy Redeemer Church, 2555 Hazelwood Street, has submitted an application for a temporary gambling license (bingo) to be used at on October 15, 2006 from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The event will be their annual spaghetti dinner and funds raised will be used for religious and educational purposes. Recommendation It is recommended that council approve the following temporary gambling resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHARITABLE GAMBLING BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Holy Redeemer Parish, 2555 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute 3349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute 3349.213. 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. Agenda Item 110 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: August 7, 2006 for the August 28 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Community Center Liquor Provider Request for Proposal INTRODUCTION The city of Maplewood is seeking proposals to enter into an agreement with a single liquor provider for the Maplewood Community Center. The intent is to select one liquor provider to supply alcoholic and/or non - alcoholic beverages for banquets, special events, meetings and other functions conducted at the M.C.C. The intent is to have a single liquor provider available for service by January 1, 2007. Patrons would hire the Maplewood licensed alcohol provider who would in turn provide insurance bartenders and full bar service. BACKGROUND The Maplewood Community Center currently utilizes Suzanne's Cuisine as the sole liquor provider for the community center. This arrangement has worked well for the past seven years. With new catering firms being provided, Suzanne's Cuisine will no longer be serving as the sole liquor provider. The city has developed a request for proposal for a liquor provider who would provide the city with 25% of all gross sales from liquor. The proposed R.F.P. outlines the city's liquor policy, liquor provider's responsibilities, accounting procedures, community center responsibilities and request for references. The terms of the agreement will be for a three -year period commencing January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009. The city will be receiving proposals until 1 p.m. on September 14, 2006. Following a background check by the city police department and reference check by our department, we will be providing a recommendation to the city council for the liquor provider at the October 23 city council meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council adopt the request for proposal for liquor providers as outlined with the understanding that the city council will be making a final selection at the October 23 city council meeting. kph\liquor provider request for proposal cc.mcc City of Maplewood WIN 111 • - i•• • - Maplewood Community Center Liquor Provider Request For Proposal September 2006 Purpose of Proposal The City of Maplewood is seeking proposals to enter into an agreement with a single liquor provider for the Maplewood Community Center (MCC). The intent is to select one (1) liquor provider to supply alcohol and/or non - alcoholic beverages for banquets, special events, meetings and other functions conducted at the MCC. The intent is to have a single liquor provider available for service by January 1, 2007. Renters will hire the Maplewood licensed alcohol provider who in turn provides insurance, bartenders, and full bar service. The selected Liquor Provider will be the only alcohol service providers available to renters, unless exempted by the City Council, the MCC Manager or the Events and Operations Supervisor or have been previously booked prior to this agreement. Customers and rental groups may also order beverages through the MCC concession stand. For the exclusive privilege of being the single liquor provider, the Liquor Provider will be required to pay the MCC a percentage of the revenues generated from MCC events on a monthly basis. Community Center Banquet Room Information The banquet facility at the MCC is designed to seat approximately 350 people. The MCC has been in the meeting and event business for nearly twelve (12) years and averages over 25 weddings and over 400 meetings per year. The banquet room can also be divided into four (4) rooms for separate functions. The MCC also houses several other meeting and event spaces. The combination of banquet facility and sheltered outdoor patio makes it a premier banquet facility for weddings and other events. Moreover, the MCC is actively marketed to maintain its popularity. Weddings, meetings, fundraisers, tradeshows, corporate events and community special events —the room is frequently booked 8 -12 months in advance. Weekday events include business luncheons, workshops and seminars, sport team banquets, recitals, senior luncheons /suppers and more. The MCC is primarily responsible for marketing the facility; however, the selected caterers will provide marketing support and assistance. Beverage, Bars and Storage The MCC will provide two portable bars to accommodate the beverage service. All consumables related to the beverage operation are the responsibility of the Liquor Provider. The Liquor Provider is responsible for stocking and purchasing ice. The MCC has limited storage available to the Liquor Providers. Equipment brought in by the Liquor Provider must meet health department and city /state codes. The MCC Caterer will not be responsible for providing alcoholic beverages but may be asked to serve or clear them at tables as part of the meal function with all liquor liability remaining with the Liquor Provider. The selected Liquor Provider must secure all property, as the MCC will not be responsible for lost or stolen items. Financial Arrangements The selected Liquor Provider will be required to pay the MCC a percentage of the revenues generated through beverage service. The percentage paid to the MCC will be based on the final gross bill, excluding tax and gratuity. Liquor Providers should include in their proposal the percentage they are willing to pay the MCC as an exclusive liquor provider. The MCC will consider only those proposals that offer the MCC percentages that are a minimum of: 25% of all gross sales. Proposal that include a higher percentage of gross sales will be a significant factor in selection by city council. Maplewood Community Center Liquor Provider Request For Proposal September 2006 Accounting Procedures The collection of deposits and fees for all beverage charges are the sole responsibility of the Liquor Provider. Non - payment by a client to the liquor provider for services rendered will not negate payment of the commission revenue to the MCC. The Liquor Provider agrees to pay the MCC the commission revenues based on the final billing for each event. The Liquor Provider is responsible to provide one copy of the final billing for each event in a given month to the Events and Operations Supervisor by the 15th of the following month, along with payment. Delinquent payments are charged $50 every 30 days, starting with the first day payment is late. The City reserves the right to inspect all financial records for an event. Liquor Providers provide documentation within two business days upon request. The MCC Events and Operations Supervisor will collect the room rental fee, room deposit, rental equipment fee and coordinator the security officer. Liquor Policy The City of Maplewood allows liquor to be dispensed within the Maplewood Community center under the following conditions. 1. Alcoholic beverages can be served and consumed in the banquet room only (unless previously approved by the Community Center Manager or Events and Operations Supervisor). Absolutely NO ALCOHOL is allowed at the lower and mezzanine levels and the theatre. Alcoholic beverages can be dispensed to persons twenty one years of age or older that are attending the event for which the liquor is being served. Any deviation from the above may result in the immediate termination of Liquor Provider's contract. 2. Any events where alcohol is served a Maplewood Police Officer must be hired and in attendance from the time the bar opens until it closes and all liquor has been removed from the tables. The renter will cover the officer's fees. It is the responsibility of the Liquor Provider to clean up anything relating to their dispensing (i.e., glasses, bottles, napkins, straws, stir sticks, spills.) and dispose of all trash. At Management's discretion, if cleaning has not been properly completed the liquor deposit money will not be returned to the user. Liquor Provider's Responsibility • Provide professional staff that will maintain a consistently high level of service and appearance. • Provide pre -event customer service in a timely and professional manner. • Staff must be able to distribute and clean up alcoholic beverages at tables as part of a meal function if requested. • Provide a full range of beverages. • Provide appropriate staffing to prepare, serve and host events. • Provide sufficient daytime staff when necessary. • Provide MCC with a copy of the current State liquor license and be registered with the Maplewood City Clerk's office and be an on -sale liquor license holder in the City of Maplewood. • Provide MCC with proof of bonding by the State of Minnesota. • Work with customers directly to provide beverage service for their event. • Provide marketing information to assist MCC with potential renters. • Designate an on -site coordinator /head bartender for each event to work with MCC staff throughout the event. • Coordinate set -up of room(s) with MCC staff. • Fallow all procedures and policies set by the MCC pertaining to the beverage operation. 2 Maplewood Community Center Liquor Provider Request For Proposal September 2006 • Adhere to standards set forth in Minnesota Statutes and the Department of Health. • Work cooperatively with caterer at events, including clearing drinks /bottles off tables. • Responsible for keeping the bars, storage areas, and receiving areas clean. • Assist with cleaning and maintenance of banquet room as needed. • Provide a detailed accounting of events held at the MCC and make fee payments to MCC in a timely manner, per month by the 15 of following month. • Meet the insurance requirements set forth by the City of Maplewood. • Work with MCC exclusive soda pop provider for all soda pop. Maplewood Community Center Responsibilities • Provide two bars and cooler space prior to event. • Charge a base rental fee to rental groups and schedule events. • Provide tables and chairs for banquet room set -ups and set the room in an accurate and uniform fashion. • Basic custodial service for cleaning and setup. • Work cooperatively with Liquor Provider to ensure successful events. • Provide overhead expenses; lights, heat, air conditioning, etc. • Provide necessary cleaning supplies. • Licensing of the kitchen with the Minnesota Department of Health. • Arrange meetings with Caterers and Beverage Provider as needed. • Collect the room rental fee, room deposit, rental equipment fee and coordinate the security officer. Fees /Costs Identify customer - related fees including any extraneous fees potential customers would be responsible for, i.e., tax, gratuity. Identify how changes to fees will be handled allowing enough lead time for MCC to keep their information current. Price increases will need the approval of MCC Manager or Events and Operations Supervisor before they can be implemented. Prices shall only be increased at a maximum of one (1) time per year at designated time each year. Identify any service beyond that stated above that will benefit the MCC or MCC customers (i.e., advertising, marketing, sponsorship of special event(s), unique offerings.) References • Liquor Providers shall furnish three (3) dates in October when they will be providing beverage service so that City of Maplewood representatives can attend to see firsthand how service staff performs. Please provide information of number of people attending and type of event. • Liquor Providers shall include at least five (5) event references that demonstrate a full range of service experience. Experience must include wedding receptions and /or banquets for over 100 people. References shall include events in all of the following categories; less than 6 months, one (1) year, and three (3) years. Each event reference should include: type of event, who event was for, where it was hosted and the total number of people in attendance. Please include any extraordinary elements of the event. • Liquor Providers shall identify members of their staff that will provide service at events, their background experience and number of years associated with the Liquor Provider. • Liquor Provider shall identify member(s) of their staff that will be responsible for supervising events, their background experience and number of years associated with the Liquor Provider. 3 Maplewood Community Center Liquor Provider Request For Proposal September 2006 Terms of Agreement Non - performance: It is the Liquor Provider's responsibility to familiarize himself /herself, his/her supervisors and his /her crews as to the requirements of the contract and to perform all tasks in an acceptable timely manner. It is not the City's responsibility to remind the Liquor Provider of the contract requirements. This includes knowing and enforcing facility rules pertaining to the room and patio use. The agreement shall be effective January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009. If Liquor Provider's contract is not chosen for the following contract period, Liquor Provider will remain responsible for providing services to the rentals booked at the MCC for which they had committed to before the time of contract termination. The Events and Operations Supervisor and the Liquor Provider company owner (or owner's representative) shall work to positively resolve any service /performance issues that may arise. If the issue is not able to be resolved within 30 days, either party may terminate this agreement with a thirty (30) day written notification. The MCC reserves the right to terminate the contract with the Liquor Provider with a 30 -day written notification if there are service, performance, health or safety issues that are impeding the success of reserved events. At the discretion of the MCC Manager, the Liquor Provider will remain responsible for providing service to the rentals booked at the MCC for which they had committed at the time of the written notification. In consideration of being allowed to use the MCC, the Liquor Provider hereby voluntarily assumes all risks of accident or damage to its property and to the persons and property of its employees. The Liquor Provider hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Maplewood and Maplewood Community Center, respective officers, employees, agents and insurers from damages solely caused by the intentional action of the Liquor Provider's representatives and employees. Responses The respondent shall supply four (4) copies of the Request for Proposal suitable for reproduction and distribution to appropriate City officials. Responses are to be delivered to Maplewood City Hall, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 28, 2006. Maplewood City Hall is located at 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN 55109. Note: Faxes and e- mailed responses will not be accepted. H Maplewood Community Center Liquor Provider Request For Proposal September 2006 Responses are to include the following: • Name, address, phone, fax, e-mail and website address of responding company • Name, address, phone, fax, e-mail of representative of responding company • General description of beverage service • History of company • Revenue percentages as described in the section titled "Financial Arrangements" • Price range proposals as listed in the section titled "Fees/Costs" • Identify any additional services as listed in the section titled "Fees/Costs" • References as described in the section titled "References" • Statement of intent to provide requested services for the MCC • Statement of capability for licensing, bonding and insurance Send responses to: Bruce Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Proposals may not be withdrawn for 60 days after the receipt of proposals without the consent of the City of Maplewood. Request for Information Any interested responder may contact the following individual with questions. All questions must be submitted in writing. Russell Schmidt Events and Operations Supervisor Maplewood Community Center 2100 White Bear Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 Fax: 651- 249 -2249 Email: russ.schmidt&ci.maplewood.mn.us No Contact Proposing Liquor Providers and their representatives are prohibited from contacting any elected official for purposes of lobbying to secure this contract. Acceptance /Rejection of Proposals The City of Maplewood intends to enter into a contract with Liquor Providers that best satisfies the needs of the City. The City of Maplewood reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to act in the best interest of the City and its citizens. This RFP does not commit the City to award contract or share in any expenses of preparing these proposals or travel expenses related to the proposal or interview process. Agenda Item 111 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk RE: Temporary Gambling Permit DATE: August 23, 2006 Introduction The American Liver Foundation, 2626 E. 82 Street in Bloomington, submitted an application for a temporary gambling license to be used at the Myth Night Club on September 24 from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 P.M. The event is being held to raise awareness of Hepatitis C and proceeds from the event will be given to the Hepatitis C Research Foundation. The temporary gambling permit will be used to raffle a home made guitar and two trips donated by Carlson Companies. The raffle will be held during a "Star-Studded Rock 'N' Roll Extravaganza" where former band members of Toto, Santana, Boston and Lynyrd Skynyrd, to name a few will be playing. Recommendation It is recommended that council approve the following temporary gambling resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHARITABLE GAMBLING BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary pen for lawful gambling is approved for the American Liver Foundation for use at the Myth Night Club 3090 Southlawn Avenue, Maplewood, Minnesota on September 24, 2006. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute 3349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute 3349.213. 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. 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 21, 2006 INTRODUCTION On Monday, August 14 the Council accepted staff recommendation on an award of bid for Sanitary Sewer Lift Station No. 18 to Jay Bros., Inc. On Wednesday morning, August 16 Public Works staff received notice that Jay Bros., Inc. was recently debarred by the State of Minnesota. After review with the City Attorney, it has been determined that an award to Jay Bros., Inc. should be reconsidered and was tabled to August 28 An explanation of the debarment issues and an award is recommended. Background Attached is the notice of debarment from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, along with the debarments from the Department of Administration. The `Notice to Bidders' includes the top portion of the notice of firms and individuals who have been debarred by MnDOT. This notice includes reference to Minnesota Statute 161.315 that "... this debarment also applies to county, town, home rule and statutory city contracts for goods and services." Continuing down the `Notice to Bidders' includes those firms and individuals who have been debarred by the Department of Administration. This is a different list and this ruling does not have the same reference to Minnesota Statute 161.315 and does not apply to cities. I had a chance to talk with the owner of Jay Bros about the reason for their debarment by the Department of Administration. Their story is as follows: In 2001, their firm was heavily involved in telecommunications projects. The 9/11 attacks immediately shut down all those projects, similar to the dot.com industry collapse of that season. They had 35/40 employees at that time and had purchased some major equipment for their projects. The fallout of the industry collapse was that the firm lost over $1.0 million in 2001. In the Spring of 2002, the firm was audited by the Federal Government and was behind on their contributions to the retirement (401 K) contributions for their 35 employees. The audit recommended bankruptcy. The firm owners, Mark and Michael Jay, decided that they would rather attempt to work through the financial issues and to pay all obligations in full. They were indicted in 2005 by federal prosecutors for the failure to remain current on their employee's 401 K contributions in 2001 - 2003( ?). By 2005 they had paid all obligations; however, due to their filing of documents that were prepared by their accountant that is needed to work on state projects requiring prevailing wage, they certified that they were current on the contributions during this period when they knew that they were not current. They claim it was on a form that their accountant prepared for signature, but acknowledge it was still their responsibility to know what they were signing. They indicate that they have nothing to hide on this information. The pled guilty to knowingly submitting false reports on these contributions and received the debarment from the Department of Administration for their actions. For their actions, the two individuals, Mark and Michael Jay, received two years probation. They are currently bonded for work and the Department of Administration has Agenda Item J1 acknowledged that they are eligible to work for municipalities. They are interested in this project as well as bidding on other projects in our City. I have experience with this firm on other projects and they have always provided a good project. Discussion of Options There is not a clear recommendation on this issue. We could award this contract to Jay Bros. It is a moral decision for the Council to decide if they want to award to a contractor who has pled guilty to this offense and thus find them as not a responsible bidder. The City Attorney has noted his opinion that based upon responsible bidding requirements that Jay Bros. could be excluded from work in Maplewood on this and future projects. The cities of Robbinsdale, Anoka and Stillwater have recently considered this information and proceeded to award a contract to Jay Bros. The fact that Jay Bros. chose to remain out of bankruptcy and have made good on their employee contributions is a contributory factor. They are bonded for the work and nothing indicates that the City is at risk by doing work with this firm. Obviously it is more of a moral decision than a financial decision as the second bid is only $1,390 higher. The Council may wish to consider this as if the money saved were $25,000. Should we sell our moral decisions based on a few thousand dollars? Below is the opinion from the City Attorney. The original bids for the construction work are 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., as the low bidder at $98,606.36 for the work, could be found to be "not in good standing. The award could then proceed to the second low bidder, Engineering and Construction, Inc. in the bid amount of $99,997.00. This bid is $1,390.64 more than the original low bid. City Attorney Opinion i have reviewed the information provided by the contractor and would agree that the DOA suspension/debarment is not the same as the DOT debarment in terms of strict prohibitions. The language prohibiting contracting is not as limited for the debarment Jay Bros. is under. However, the Rules also direct that evidence of such action may be considered by any contracting entity when establishing or determining, "responsible" bidders. (Minn. Rules 12313.1150(6) "Responsible bidders" are defined as bidders who are not under any sort of debarment by another -government entity for any cause (Minn. Rules 1234.0150(24)(D)). So while the debarment may not constitute a strict prohibition, per se, it certainly could colour the City's analysis of whether the contractor is "responsible. " That choice is up to the City, exclusively. if in fact that debarment would have rendered Jay Bros. not a responsible bidder, never mind lowest bidder, and a change in the staff recommendation to the City, then the matter should be brought up for reconsideration (as done on August 17 The debarment is one of many facets of what constitutes a "responsible" bidder. A popular misconception in local government is that the lowest bid always wins. Not so. The lowest responsible bidder should be awarded the contract and the City gets to determine what constitutes that term. Budget Adjustment 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. Agenda Item J1 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 2. Debarment Notice to Bidders 3. Debarment Letter from Department of Administration 0 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- MAPLE0606.00 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 1 Jay Bros., Inc. $ 98,606.36 2 Engineering & Construction $ 99,997.00 3 Penn Contracting, Inc. $ 112,829.00 Engineer's 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\iii\iiiaple\060600\cojistructioji\recawardltr.doc RE - CE E �� t 1 006 ? Short Elliott Hendrickson inc., 353SVadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110 -5146 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 65 1.490. 2000 1 500.325.2055 1 65 1,490. 2150 f ax U W � N C U ro O O O 0 U � C nj N M LL EA O 7 C O U W O O C O W 0) W rn c rn m � N W w U C O " M of 0 O O m � m rn va N E N w O N co N W C 0 CO C W c» O O CU w C C = O O N cfl O � N Lb o o Si O 0 °r° Z d CL C t; C� 0 Q C ++ O '' n. z Lu mU�Uccn ❑ U O O O O O V m O O O V O O O O O O O N O O O Lo O O O O m O O m r N O O O O M O O O h w O O O O m O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O EH b5 V} of EA - F ca 6 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _U O O O N N 69 O N fA O_ 64 N N W O .- r 64 m N fH O 0 Lo O co w O O m O m EA O O O o O O O O O O O O F w E1) m N w ff3 Z 7 O U O O O Lo u7 o O m Lo a o O O Lo N o O lD w N O O 0 O 0 O O Lo N O O O O cD co O O LO N N o O O Lo V' o O fD r O O o u) M O O o: w r O 0 u7 N O 0 to r O O 0 O u1 o O o r 01 J Q F- M M• m 49 6 4q M• M ff} c w 63 69 w w fA w '.. w cow m �2 r, 64 M V} O f- O o O O O O O O O O O O '' O O O O W O O LQ O O O O O O O O _U O LO LO M N fA fI M fR LO w m M w N 't r U3 Lo co o9 o Lo d' V M• O Lo M O V H} O LO N O LO � o O u) o P- W a 6 co of Fl rS h to is3 (4 l co tsr v3 v> 7 F.. O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cD O O O O O O O O O O Lo V W o m 0 o o o O m M h O o O w O o O O u) 0 N d' O O O O U O Lo It w o) w cD N C c» co to M ca N (,% u7 w W L O u) 0 F.. W o O O m 't o O 0 O 0 O o O O O O O O O O O V (D o O O O O o O 0 CL O O N fR N cA u3 64 cPr n U} N fR O M N V} O w U-T m u7 N V .- O O 0 O O F LO b3 64 w ffl txi oo Lo V) Z 0 O o O 0 o 0 O 0 o o 0 O o o O o o 0 o 0 O 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 cn O 0 o o o o o o Lo 0 o 0 0 0 o o o 0 o 0 w 0 o 0 O o o o 0 0 0 0 0 J F L6 ca c 6 6 64 ER w O E- 0 o 0 o o o o o 0 o o o O o 0 0 W O o 0 o O O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 U F Z o O u) v ui o N VT 0 N w o 0 os o M 6% o u) 0 H} 0 V Hf 0 O O 6a N 6s o o m o m 6% 0 O O w 0 O O 0 O O o o Lr Z Q NN N m oo N N O w m M rn N v V u' ~ (n J } U } U } U) Z Z > co LL J 2 U Q W LL J S U Q w LL J U J U J (n J U J Y U ❑ M M z a oc N F Z O Q m O d Zm¢gzz ° F > O w Z O > ,.. Cc w Z cc O w J w z O ¢ m w LL w ❑ C7 m ❑ LLI m U a ° Ld U) W `n Q W a> o W Q ❑ w U) ❑ ° O ¢ W M J m } w } O o O a U F g ° O O a�z fr W = w a cr W } < a Z W O W W w } ¢ H Z Q x¢ W O z W U 4'��2 z> - H m�� i w W Z O ¢ J > a t z_ ❑ Z =M z = CD Z a d w 3: W } a F a >- m a W C7 z W Fr W N M V' 'n <D n W V u) o Z Z V Q Lo N o N i c z lo C Z lo co � Lo a r a o �2 N N m F u- VT O O O C G O 07 06 N c b o m U Z R N N N m c I m co a 1 — o a x w m r iU) LL N O z O O Z � r U 9 r C O Y d U1 x j N J m D N O N 0 m O x o d L a u- t LL 0 0 0 w rn w Cl) to z Z O Q m J F O O N a w O co a) C a Awl W 08/15/2006 15:11 4216246 EWGINEERING PAGE 02/02 The Conunissioner of Transportation, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 161.315 (2004), and .Minnesota Rules 1230-3000 et, seq., has debarred and disqualified the following persons and businesses from entering into or receiving alvEnnesota Department of Transportation contract, or serving as a subcontractor or material supplier under such a contract, Under Minnesota Statute 161.315, this debarment also applies to county, town, home rule and statutory city contracts for goods or services, NAM-L — TW'Zs-a DATE OF DEBARMENT Construction — September 9, 2003 39036 CR 255 Through September 5, 2006 ,NdN 56628 Big Fork Paul Ival Tendrup September 9, 2003 57847 Scenic 1-lighway 7 Through September 5, 2006 Big Fork, MN 56629 Through June 26, 2009 Bonnie Marie"Tendrup September 9, 2003 57847 Scenic Righway 7 Through September 5, 2006 Big Fork, MN 56628 Minnesota Valley Landscape Inc June 17, 2005 14505 Johnson Memorial Dr Through June 17, 2009 Shakopee, MN 55379 David Allyn Lindstrom June 17, 2005 14505 Johnson Memorial Dr Through Tune 17, 2008 Shako ee MN 55379 The Department of Administration in accordance with Annesota Rules 1230.1150 has debarred and disqualified the following persons and businesses from entering into or receiving a State of Minnesota contract, or serving as a subcontractor or material supplier under such a contract NAMEE DATE OF DEBARMENT Jay Brothers, Inc. June 26, 2006 9218 Lake Drive NE Through Tune 26, 2009 P.O. Box 700 Forest Lake MN Mark Jay June 26, 2006 fay Brothers, Inc. Through June 26, 2009 92JS Lake Drive NE P.O. Box 700 Forest take, MN Michael Jay June 26, 2006 Jay Brothers, Ino. Through June 26, 2009 9218 Lake Drive NE E0. Box 700 _Forest Lake, MN It is YOUR RESPONSMILITY to make sure you do not use a debarred or suspended individual or business as a subcontractor or su 3pll r o irsater als or services on a contract awarded by the Minnesota Department of 08/18/2006 06:34 IFAX Fax@sehinc.com -), Debbie McJames 2002/002 FrMON JAV I me- (THU) }AUQ 17 =000 48'.4e.IaT. 8.46 /v4o.76OOoOo4i4 s- 2 if1I1Il�S�1� mATEnms uAm azvEmr wismN August 17, 2006 Mark Jay Jay Bros, Inc. PO Box 700 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Dear Mr. Jay: This letter is in response to your request for clarification of the terms of the Minnesota Department of Administration debarment of Jay Bros., Inc. Neither Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16C nor those sections of Minnesota Rules Chapter 1230 relating to the Department of Administration's debarment of Jay Bros., Inc., imposes the Administration Department's debarment on any local governments. As stated in the debarment letter sent to you by Kent Allin, Materials Management Division Director: "During the term of debarment you, Jay Brothers, Inc., and its owners and officers are ineligible to receive bid invitations, submit bids, or receive awards from the State of Minnesota or any of its agencies." However, local governments may have regulations, policies, or other governance that automatically acknowledge debarment by the state. Feel free to contact me if there are any other questions. Sincerely, ,� air �� , Materials Management Division 112 Administration Building 50 Sherburne Avenue Saint Paul, MR 55115 E-Mail: dorothy.lovejoyestate.mmus P: 651-201.2403 / F. 651.297.3996 For TTY1TDD communication, contact us through the Minnesota Relay Service at 1,800.627.3529 Agenda Item K1 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, Consider Approval of Letter of Notice to ISD #622 of No Support for Bus Garage Relocation DATE: August 21, 2006 INTRODUCTION On August 14, 2006, a report on the various task force groups working on the various proposals for the use of the MnDOT property at TH 5 and TH 120 (Century Ave) was presented to the City Council as an information item. A comment from resident Ron Cockreil was received that requested that the Council send a letter to School District 622 indicating that the City of Maplewood, similar to the City of Oakdale does not support the relocation of their bus garage into Maplewood. Because the item was a discussion item on August 14 no action was taken. The Council directed staff to bring the item back for consideration on August 28 BACKGROUND 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 (reprinted from August 14 report) 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 Agenda Item K1 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. b. 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. c. 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. d. 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 Agenda Item K1 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 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. DISCUSSION The Bus Garage Proposal has been worked on by ISD #622 and the City of North St. Paul in cooperation with MnDOT for nearly 6 years. Over the years, the proposals have ranged from just a Bus Garage to a combination facility with a full relocation of the North St. Paul Public Works Facility, a MnDOT Electric Facilities OfficelWarehouse and the Bus Garage. The combination facility came with a request from North St. Paul to annex this portion of Maplewood into North St. Paul. The requests by North St. Paul and ISD #622 have been rejected by previous Councils. As noted by staff in January 2006, the current proposal has many positives from the ISD #622 standpoint, but some negatives to the citizens of Maplewood and to this site in particular. The staff conclusion in January and March 2006 was that the Bus Garage Relocation proposal did not provide enough positives due to pre - existing site conditions and that it should be denied. A letter of Council finding on this issue would allow other proposals to proceed. MnDOT has indicated that they are in support of the bus garage proposal, but will not allow that proposal to proceed without the Maplewood City Council's approval. By directing this letter to the School Board, the City Council will allow the other proposals to be appropriately considered by all agencies who have been concentrating on the impacts of the bus garage relocation. It is likely that the Council's letter will force ISD #622 to concentrate on upgrading at their existing location, based upon the findings of the Work Group working on this issue. A number of participants have expressed that Oakdale already has a bus garage facility and Maplewood already has a bus garage facility (at Rice Street and Roselawn); and that a bus garage facility should remain in North St. Paul. RECOMMENDATION The Council should consider adopting the attached letter to Independent School District No. 622 indicating the Council's negative finding on relocating the bus garage facility to the MnDOT property at TH 5 and TH 120 and authorize Mayor Longrie to sign the letter on the Council's behalf. Attachments: 1. MnDOT Letter 2. Bus Garage Site Plan 3. Draft Letter to ISD #622 June 24, 2006 City of Maplewood Maplewood MN, 55109 Dear Council: Several recent newspaper articles have focused on the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mhn/DOT)p/npcdy at the intersection mfTU 5 oudTU 120 within the City ufMaplewood. These articles advanced u misconception tbut Mn/DOT has "offered" this property for redevelopment. I would like to take the opportunity to clarify the status of the Mn/DOT property nt the intersection ofIlI5 and 7.|ll28. 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 oi the site isvaluable tn Mn/DOT for its potential uou site 1m restore and create wetlands ao replacement for wetland impacts iutbe&4ctropoli1uo[)iuhioi Mn/DOT has discussed and iuwilling to continue discussions regarding alternative uses on this property. These discussions have been and continue to be subject to the following conditions: |. Any alternative use must maintain o5 acre Mn/DOT materials storage area. (Either at this site monequally convenient alternate site with m additional cost tu the Skg6. 2. Wetland credits must be made available to Mn/DOT in an amount commensurate with any lost opportunity for wetland replacement at this mite. 3. The City of Maplewood must not object ho the alternative use. Independent School District 022 has worked cooperatively and o1 length with the YWo/D0T Metro District their plans for a portion o[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 pf these conditions. Iu addition their proposal precludes nroad connection through the property, thereby removing an opportunity to alleviate the traffic congestion at the intersection m[T0128 and Luooeuteur Also the utilization ofthe entire parcel for sports fields results iu considerably more wetland impact. Development of a City of Maplewood proposal for sports fields at this site will also face these same issues (less o[ course condition #3). Mn/DOT remains willing to work with the City of Maplewood regarding all proposed alternative uses for this property. However, nedo not wish lo unduly raise your expectations. |[oo proposal can meet all three conditions above, Mn/DOT will continue to use the property for maintenance and other transportation uses. Chris Roy North Metro Area Manager Metro District m A H I I w LLI : Z 7, cv J amt to August 28, 2006 Members of School Board Independent School District No. 622 2520 E 12 Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55109 RE: Proposed Bus Garage Facility Relocation Dear School Board Members: We, the members of the Maplewood City Council, would like to acknowledge our full support for the operations and financial planning of Independent School District No. 622. We have common goals in the development of our communities and strongly agree on the programs needed for the betterment of our youth within our area. The Maplewood City Council has reviewed a number of proposals that your staff in cooperation with the City of North St. Paul and MnDOT have developed over the past years for relocating your bus garage facility to property within Maplewood. After careful consideration of each of these proposals, we must inform you that it does not appear to us to be a reasonable request that your facility be relocated within the city limits of Maplewood. We are currently struggling with issues surrounding a bus facility on our western city limits. Given our knowledge of those impacts on area residents along with the impacts on the environmental features at the TH 5 — TH 120 site, it is our conclusion that a bus garage facility at this location is not supported by this Council and we encourage you to abandon your efforts at this location. We intend to pursue other concepts that include environmental features and wetland enhancement. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to our continued efforts in developing youth programs in our community. Sincerely, CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Mayor Longrie and the Maplewood City Council Members Agenda Item L1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Michael Thompson, Civil Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Stop Sign and Parking Restriction Requests DATE: August 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION /SUMMARY The City Council has a policy to consider stop sign requests once per year. Five requests were received from neighborhood groups for the installation of stop signs and no parking signs. In one request city staff was asked to explore replacement of stop signs with yield signs. Council review of each request is recommended. Background Sign requests were made at the following intersections: • 1715 Rosewood Ave S - The petitioner requested "no parking" signs in front of this address where the road has a pronounced curve. A bus that picks up a mentally disabled person has trouble navigating in the tight space when parking is on both sides of the street. • Atlantic Street and Lealand Rd /Junction Ave — Petitioners are requesting replacing stop signs with yield signs at both Lealand Rd and Junction Ave. Also to re- evaluate the traffic and the two 4 -way stops being so close together. Currently there is a 4 -way stop condition at both intersections. • Bush Ave and Meyer St N — Petitioners are requesting to make the intersection a 4 -way stop due to traffic frequency and to slow traffic. Currently there are yield signs on Meyer Street and no controls on Bush Avenue. • Frank St and Edward St N — Petitioners are requesting to make the intersection either a two -way stop or 4 -way stop due to poor sight distance, increased traffic, and bus stop location in the vicinity. Currently this is an uncontrolled intersection with no signage. • Mailand Rd E and Crestview /Highpoint Curve — Petitioners are requesting to put stop signs on Mailand Rd at either Crestview or Highpoint in order to limit the speed of traffic. Location maps and petitions for the sign requests, with a minimum of 12 property owner signatures, are attached as required by the City Council policy. In accordance with the stop sign policy, the issue of neighborhood stop signs will be considered once a year. Petitioners and residents within a 500 -foot radius of the affected intersections have been notified by mail and invited to the council meeting. The letter to the residents and petitioners was dated August 10 2006. The letter urged residents to call the engineering department if they had questions or needed clarification on the Engineering Department's recommendations to the City Council. Basis for Recommendations Stop signs are effective traffic control devices when used in the proper locations and under the correct conditions. Stop signs are effective when used to prevent crashes at busy intersections and to control vehicle right -of -way. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has set the minimum volume requirements at an average of 300 vehicles per hour for the installation of 4 -way stops. Agenda Item L1 When stop signs are installed inappropriately, they are often times ignored by drivers who view them as an unnecessary interruption in traffic flow. Unwarranted stop signs cause some drivers to become frustrated and speed between stops or roll through them. Stop signs should not be used to control the volume of traffic or to decrease the speed of traffic as they have been proved to be ineffective in speed control and can lead to drivers disregarding all stop signs, even the warranted signs. The recommendations and the basis for approval or denial of the sign requests are given below. • 1715 Rosewood Ave S - Approve the request to install "no parking" signs along the street curve in front of this address to create for more space for traffic movements. • Atlantic Street and Lealand Rd /Junction Ave Atlantic & Lealand — Approve the request to make changes at this intersection. Staff recommends removing stop signs on Atlantic (the higher priority street) and to keep the existing stop condition on eastbound and westbound Lealand. A 4 -way stop currently exists on Atlantic 330 -feet to the south at Junction Avenue. Atlantic & Junction — Approve the request to make changes at this intersection. Staff recommends removing the stop signs on eastbound and westbound Junction and to leave the stop signs on Atlantic. The stop signs are warranted on Atlantic because of poor sight distance due to the 10% grade just south of the intersection. • Bush Ave and Meyer Street — Approve the request to install a 4 -way stop condition. Staff recommends that Meyer Street have the yield signs changed to stop signs and stop signs be added to Bush Avenue. • Frank Street and Edward Street — Approve the request to install a 4 -way stop condition. Staff recommends that four stop signs be installed at this intersection due to poor sight distance due to trees and the curve of the road. Mailand Rd E and Crestview /Highpoint Curve — Deny the request at this time to install a stop condition along Mailand at either Crestview or Highpoint. This street is a Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) and therefore is restricted by MnDOT requirements to have a traffic study identifying stop condition warrants. Approximately 20% of city streets fall under this classification and are labeled such because they are considered higher traffic collector streets. Staff recommends that a traffic impact study be performed by the city's traffic consultant to see if the requested stop condition on Mailand Rd is warranted. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the installation of "no parking" signs along the street in front of 1715 Rosewood Ave. Staff recommends to approve the removal of two stop signs on Atlantic at Lealand and to remove two stop signs on Junction at Atlantic. It is recommended to the City Council to approve the 4 -way stop condition at Bush and Meyer. It is also recommended to the City Council to approve the 4 -way stop condition on Frank and Edward. It is recommended that the City Council deny a stop condition on Mailand Road at this time but approve a traffic study, by the city's consultant, to see if a stop condition is warranted on this MSAS route. All MSAS routes are restricted to warrants. Attachments: 1. Location Maps 2. Petitions 1715 Rosewood No Parking Request I %� 7U 4� I %� J )L: PA 90 4, DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey County (July 11, 2006 ), The Lawrence Group;July IL 2006 for County parcel and property records data; July 2006 for commercial and 7U J )L: PA 90 4, DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey County (July 11, 2006 ), The Lawrence Group;July IL 2006 for County parcel and property records data; July 2006 for commercial and Atlantic and Lealand/Junction Removal of Stop Signs C. A/ - --- - ------ Al V ........... .... . .. ...... V S 0 1 AX I N .. .. .... ... ---- --------------- QT"" fwc e JL E. 16b j 6 -4 L DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey County (July 11, 2006 ), The Lawrence Group;July 11, 2006 for County parcel and property records data; July 2006 for commercial and Bush Ave and Meyer St Stop Sign Request �rnty % ay. a st / I l % ; x" y ��vv t� I i z ! 5 T, \� y� \ ` - 4 r.4 i A ti ll(I i i 7 +7Ck � I , ( t11i DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey Count (July 11, 2006), The Lawrence Group;July 11, 2006 for County parcel and property records data; July 2006 for commercial and f f tj Y 4� AN SC Vil Y �0 / h DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey Count (July 11, 2006), The Lawrence Group;July 11, 2006 for County parcel and property records data; July 2006 for commercial and Maiiand and Crestview /ighpoint Stop Sign Request 244 S t 1 L z f r -I! i y � J _ 3 f r e1..1 4 30 f i 7 � r �I a 42le v at / I'll — `• �2 �\{ f d.� q'.1} iR <t r 2M "' .-. . � 'T � " � � --,_„_ I .rnt. v o 1 c arr r ti s '37 kRll —� MI hbv AEZ 931 R , =u3 14: I J / s r+ i LM r= � �— Mid; _ ti S / rL 1 4...... _..._.. cep yt C IT 3'tiJ 117'7 y3 9 .4 " 7 .Lv Y r r,,g, k- , V, E.Y n (( 1 t vn E`:' I �'�1 \ •.i, 1.:: �1t :_..__. - c p l�J;ti`t� I' crc -. DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey Count y (July 11, 2006), The Lawrence Group;July 11, 2006 for County parcel and property records data; July 2006 for commercial and ('c V\ C C V' VI 1 v1 15 c- (-0 D A I /q U e, S +b�(5 c-)r eC�- av'j P C"( kc k bl tf S 6 STVtt - +� RIC (F Cam. tnCC� (�t�k i Ct G�Dvic�1 Ccs_ � �c�t �15c�.V�ie� (��v5lS i� c� h Y-- L ccJ'e_ r q U es „n V C par �X v � g C ins i c' k6or`S 1 + V, - R C- AAAO 0- l f Jirn p b 7 '7 7 Ll- C) Lo'l �t� City of Maplewood Mr. Chuck Ahl Public Works Department Petition to Remove Stop Signs at the Intersections of Atlantic and Leland /Atlantic and Junction E n We the undersigned request the city of Maplewood to consider removing some of the stop signs located at the intersection of Atlantic and Leland and also at Atlantic and Junction. We recommend replacing the stop signs on Leland and Junction with Yield signs. The major problem with stop signs at Atlantic and Junction occurs during the winter after a snowfall and before the streets are plowed. Coming up the hill on Junction (heading east) OR coming up the hill on Atlantic (heading north) stopping at the stop sign often means having to back down the hill to get going again. This doesn't help, since the stop sign is still there. The other problem appears to be that people are no longer stopping at either intersection because having a four way stop in those two blocks doesn't make a lot of sense. So it may be time for the city to re- evaluate the traffic situation on Atlantic between Leland and Junction. Signatures: G , r - July 13, 2006 Erin Labree Assistant City Engineer City of Maplewood, Mn. 1902 East Co. Rd. B Maplewood, Mn. 55109 Dear Ms. Labree; Enclosed our petition regarding the 4 way stop request we discussed over the telephone. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sin gly 17 erald Berreth 785 Meyer St. Maplewood, Mn. 55119 6651- 738 -6327 Home 651- 436 -8886 Work JULY 11, 2006 We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City of Maplewood for the installation of 4 -way stop traffic control at the intersection of Bush Avenue and Meyer Street North in Maplewood. With the recent increase in traffic both in frequency and speed we are concerned for the welfare of the children in the area as well as the general quality of life. Thank you for your timely attention to this request. NAME ADDRESS q' Ll PHONE T� (0 � ?V, -J X e e ! : � r of - ' ye,, — S ILI r X124 -5 6 46alldc� owo_3 2 n . �3 (� ? tcs �. Awe (5j °230 - / P?) X51 - 7,3S - Ga Z2 -t 29 71 JULY 11, 2006 We, the undersigned, hereby petition the City of Maplewood for the installation of 4 -way stop traffic control at the intersection of Bush Avenue and Meyer Street North in Maplewood. With the recent increase in traffic both in frequency and speed we are concerned for the welfare of the children in the area as well as the general quality of life. Thank you for your timely attention to this request. NAME ADDRESS PHONE (opt) l .) +_ ✓ �� % ter , 7 S �/' 7 64-51 Z 0 0 0 W a) a. Z 0 Cf) CL 0 C) a) 0 C) 0 0 O 0 Q) Q. O 2y) U) AS C: AS I Qj qN� 2D lei 9 tQ C CL 0 U) LLI o � �;� :�.. ��..`�' ki �a � rid `� !t cn CO Vi i% ' �� _ j uj 00 uj 7-P uj M Z CD LLI Lri cc 0 a r . UJ w w7 Vl� IS U) LU � � yJ a _ Ile 1 IV) sv r y) cz), i W G ` ems. '.`a \1�y} ! •ems .� �!�'^ _•� , q, e ��``�. �1 `� � `l'� � � � ' A �� � �1 �., � 7:F CL Q%J ILI Is LLJ LLI L6 6 'IN 2423 Mailand Rd Maplewood, MN 55119 651- 730 -7130 email: ORST86Qcomeast.net May 18, 2006 City of Maplewood Public Works Dept. 1830 County Road B E. Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Sirs; Attached is a petition requesting that the city of Maplewood install one or two stop signs along Mailand Road E. in south Maplewood. Mailand Road is nearly arrow straight and a person can see practically the entire length from McKnight to Sterling. This feature seems to make Mailand an ideal road for some drivers to seriously exceed the 30 mph limit, racing each other side by side or racing to /from Vista Hills Park. We have personally witnessed two cars exiting the park and then racing side by side at speeds exceeding 60 mph, at two o'clock in the afternoon. Something needs to be done to control the speed of traffic on Mailand. Speed changes from the current 30 mph limit to a 25 mph limit most likely will be ignored by the high speed offenders. Speed bumps and other physical changes of the road would not be cost effective. That leaves placing one or two stop signs along Mailand to curb the traffic speed. Attached is a map that shows what we consider to be the best locations to place the stop signs. The intersection of Crestview and Mailand is approximately half way from McKnight to Sterling. This would be the ideal location. A secondary location would be the intersection of Highpoint and Mailand, in an effort to specifically slow exiting park traffic. Thank you very R. Ted Jeo • � l � a TO: Public Works Dept., City of Maplewood RE: Petition for the installation of at least one stop sign along Mailand Rd E, Maplewood DATE: May 2006 We, the undersigned, are property owners who either live along or are affected by traffic moving along Mailand Rd E. request that the City of Maplewood install at least one stop sign on Mailand in an effort to slow the speed of traffic. There have been many instances of drivers approaching speeds in excess of two times the posted (30mph) speed limit as well as cases of side by side racing on this straight section of Mailand Rd (bound between McKnight Rd to the west and Sterling to the east). Possible locations are the intersection of Crestview and Mailand and /or Highpoint and Mailand. Naive Address Phone Signature 0 V a—o ),43 1 y101 -h R �J ? -3'e - f , k + R ', Y F ?ks f ,j P- ()E- - 7 7 4 r --2V V f W Lace A KA 6 J - 7 3y Fe rata abCrr 5��, ` � 1 G V iU iD. ," 5 6q '3�� 1'2 `( oLlj„ �J N Apt) s CA ivtapt maps thttp: / / www.mapquest.com /maps /prnrt.acipYmapdata =6vb I MM53stl-. Maplewood MN US Notes: I I i All rights reserved. Use Subject to License /Copyright This map is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. MapQuest and its suppliers assume no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use. 1 -4F1 niini)nn ,' - ,. 1nnY„ Agenda Item L2 SUMMARY TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Easement Vacation Request for Ronald Erickson LOCATION: 2699 Hazelwood Street DATE: August 17, 2006 INTRODUCTION Ronald Erickson, of 2699 Hazelwood Street, is requesting that the city council vacate a 15 -foot -wide utility easement located on the south side of his property. Mr. Erickson dedicated a 30- foot -wide utility easement to the city in 1986 as a condition of a lot split to subdivide his property. The easement straddles Mr. Erickson's southerly lot line with 15 feet on each side of the line. Mr. Erickson would like to vacate the 15 feet of easement on his property. Refer to the attachments. During the course of this review, Carol Henkes, the next door neighbor at 2681 Hazelwood Street, said she would also like to vacate the remainder of this easement that is on her property. As noted above, this easement is the 15 -foot balance of the original 30 -foot easement. August 27, 1986: The city approved a lot division for Mr. Erickson and required the easement dedication. Refer to the attached map of the 1986 lot split. Findings for Approval To vacate an easement, the city council must find that the easement would serve no public interest. DISCUSSION There is no reason to retain any portion of this original 30 -foot -wide easement any longer. Keeping it would serve no public purpose. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the unneeded utility easement for Ronald Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street and for Carol Henkes, at 2681 Hazelwood Street. Vacation is in the public interest since this easement serves no public purpose. p:sec 3 \Erickson Easement Vacation Summary 8 06 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Easement Vacation Request for Ronald Erickson LOCATION: 2699 Hazelwood Street DATE: August 16, 2006 INTRODUCTION Ronald Erickson, of 2699 Hazelwood Street, is requesting that the city council vacate a 15- foot -wide utility easement located on the south side of his property. Mr. Erickson dedicated a 30- foot -wide utility easement to the city in 1986 as a condition of a lot split to subdivide his property. The easement straddles Mr. Erickson's southerly lot line with 15 feet on each side of the line. Mr. Erickson would like to vacate the 15 feet of easement on his property. Refer to the attachments. During the course of this review, Carol Henkes, the next door neighbor at 2681 Hazelwood Street, said she would also like to vacate the remainder of this easement that is on her property. As noted above, this easement is the 15 -foot balance of the original 30 -foot easement. August 27, 1986: The city approved a lot division for Mr. Erickson and required the easement dedication. Refer to the attached map of the 1986 lot split. Findings for Approval To vacate an easement, the city council must find that the easement would serve no public interest. DISCUSSION In 1986, the city felt there was a need for this easement to provide utility service to the abutting land to the west. The city then felt that the best way to do this was by the dedication of this easement. Erin Laberee, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed this request and has determined that there is now no reason to retain this easement. Ms. Laberee reviewed city's utility plans and found that water and sanitary sewer can be provided to this property from County Road C via the benefiting properties. The easement in Mr. Erickson's lot, therefore, is not needed. As stated above, the owner of the abutting lot at 2681 Hazelwood Street would also like to vacate the 15 -foot easement on her property. Staff supports this. There is no reason to retain any portion of this original 30 -foot -wide easement any longer. Keeping it would serve no public purpose. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the unneeded utility easement for Ronald Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street and for Carol Henkes, at 2681 Hazelwood Street. Vacation is in the public interest since this easement serves no public purpose. p:sec 3 \Erickson Easement Vacation 7 06 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Letter of Request by Mr. Erickson 3. Applicant's Site Plan 4. 1986 Utility Easement Location 5. Easement Vacation Resolution 2 N Location Map 2681 and 2699 Hazelwood Street Attachment 1 LO LO Location Map 2681 and 2699 Hazelwood Street Attachment 1 Attacnment t i t : M$ '. iw 2 � 4 6.t- { ., S # ° •�La' s ./4 6 ve— ' d ,MB• „` V �. A ' {'} ff L Z Nei � : ",� �'�?:: +'& (�... S..r'*' -C.. Y.. �` {.•� ktac h sprit 3 ZI 47 i # *,{ 4 Y t y gg t '• 1f � t Q P .� r Attachment 5 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Ronald Erickson applied for the vacation of a 15 -foot -wide utility easement on the south side of his property located at 2699 Hazelwood Street. WHEREAS, the abutting property owner to the south, Ms. Carol Henkes at 2681 Hazelwood Street, is also requesting the vacation of the adjacent 15 feet of utility easement on the north side of her property. WHEREAS, this easement is described as follows: A permanent 30 foot easement for public utilities over, across and through that part of Lot 6, Gardena Addition to wit: Said easement being described as: The south 30 feet of the north 190 feet of Lot 6, Gardena Addition, Ramsey County as recorded. Torrens Certificate No. 276056. WHEREAS, on August 7, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this request. WHEREAS, on August 28, 2006, the city council this request after considering the recommendations of staff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to Mr. Erickson and Ms. Henkes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described vacation because this utility easement is not needed and, therefore, would serve no public purpose. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 1 2006. N DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Easement Vacation — Erickson (2699 Hazelwood Street) (7:06 — 7:12 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Ronald Erickson of 2699 Hazelwood Street, is requesting that the city council vacate a 15- foot -wide utility easement located on the south side of his property. Mr. Erickson dedicated a 30- foot -wide utility easement to the city in 1986 as a condition of a lot split to subdivide his property. The easement straddles Mr. Erickson's southerly lot line with 15 feet on each side of the line. Mr. Erickson would like to vacate the 15 feet of easement on his property. In 1986, the city felt there was a need for this easement to provide utility service to the abutting land to the west. The city then felt that the best way to do this was by the dedication of this easement. Erin Laberee, the Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, reviewed this request and has determined that there is no reason to retain this easement. Ms. Laberee reviewed city's utility plans and found that water and sanitary sewer can be provided to this property from County Road C via the benefiting properties. The easement in Mr. Erickson's lot, therefore, is not needed. Acting chairperson Desai asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Ms. Carol Henkes, 2681 Hazelwood Street, addressed the commission. She said she has no need for the easement and would like it vacated. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hess asked if the site description would be rewritten into the plat map? Mr. Roberts said if the city council adopts this once the resolution is updated it gets recorded by Ramsey County and the Recorders Office updates the legal descriptions of the affected properties based on the information the city puts in the resolution. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution in the staff report vacating the unneeded utility easement for Ronald Erickson at 2699 Hazelwood Street and the easement for 2681 Hazelwood Street. These vacations are in the public interest since these easements serve no public purpose. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. Because it was not time to start the next public hearing, Commission Pearson had a question for the engineer. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Commissioner Pearson asked what the determining factor is regarding requiring soil borings or not when somebody applies for a permit for a development? Because one development this evening has soil borings where there are filtration ponds but another development to review this evening does not have soil boring information. Steve Kummer, Maplewood Civil Engineer II, addressed the commission. He said typically he requests soil borings for all developments in Maplewood. Even if there aren't ponding aspects on the project he requests the soil borings anyway. Commissioner Pearson said there was no soil boring information for the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center and he didn't notice a requirement for soil borings in the staff report. He asked if it would be possible to get a copy of the soil boring report for the Cottagewood proposal that the planning commission will be hearing later this evening because the soil borings are typically not included in the planning commission packet? Mr. Kummer said he would forward a copy of the soil boring report to Commissioner Pearson. Commissioner Hess said he would also like a copy of the soil boring report. Mr. Roberts said he believes any time there is going to be public improvements for streets or utilities, soil borings are required. When it's a private site such as the White Bear Family Health Care Center building it hasn't been consistent regarding requesting soil borings. Commissioner Pearson asked if the widening of White Bear Avenue would require soil borings be done? Mr. Roberts said no but that would be up to Ramsey County to do. Commissioner Trippler asked if that meant the city does not have a policy regarding soil borings? Mr. Kummer said the city does not have a "formal" policy regarding the number of soil borings required for each site. Mr. Roberts believed it was an engineer's call on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Kummer said prior to this position he worked in site design and consulting for five years and it is good practice for an engineer to do soil borings before they decide to develop a site so they know what the underlying soil conditions. The developer's engineer has to sign off on the plans and would be taking responsibility. Mr. Roberts said when it's for public improvements especially for new streets to be constructed the city would require soil borings. It was now time to move onto the next public hearing so the discussion regarding soil borings ended. SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Approval PROJECT: Hill- Murray High School LOCATION: 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East DATE: August 15, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, representing Hill- Murray School, is requesting city approval of the following: Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They are proposing changes to the approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. 2. Design approval for an addition to the east side of the field house on the school. This includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. Please refer to the project narrative and the maps in the project review memo for more details about their proposals. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Revisions The proposed field house addition meets the findings for CUP approval and would be compatible with the existing school and with the area. Design Considerations Buildina Aesthetics The proposed field house addition should be compatible with the existing field house. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending approval of the proposed conditional use permit revision and the project design plans for the expansion of the Hill- Murray school and athletic facilities at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. The city should make these approvals subject to the conditions of approval outlined in the complete staff report. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Approval PROJECT: Hill- Murray High School LOCATION: 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East DATE: August 15, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, representing Hill- Murray School, is requesting city approval of the following: Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They are proposing changes to the approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. 2. Design approval for an addition to the east side of the field house on the school. This includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. Refer to the project narrative on pages 10 and 11, the maps on pages 12 - 20 and the plans (separate attachment). Specifically, they want to: 1. Put a 31,500- square -foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym and locker room space. 2. Renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2001, the city council approved a CUP revision and the design plans for an addition for the school. This revision was for plans for an addition on the west side of the school that included a chapel and a student entrance. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit Revisions The proposed field house addition meets the findings for CUP approval and would be compatible with the existing school and the development in the area. None of the proposed changes nor the addition should cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors. Design Considerations Buildina Aesthetics The proposed field house addition should be compatible with the existing field house. As proposed, the contractor would construct the new field house from precast concrete wall panels. These panels would have a raked and banded finish and would have several six - foot -by- six -foot windows near the top. The plans note that these panels will be of a color to match the color of the brick in the school. In addition, the project plans show the contractor painting the existing field house a color similar to the campus brick color to match the exterior of the new addition. (See the proposed building elevations in the enclosed project plans.) It should be noted that the existing field house was constructed with precast concrete wall panels and that the proposed addition would not be visible from any public street as it will be north of the existing school building. Parking Considerations The school is not proposing an increase in their student population with this project. As such, this project will not create a need for additional parking for the school. On May 26, 2006, staff approved the plans for Hill- Murray to make improvements and changes to their existing parking lots and driveways. These changes will improve traffic flow and will add more off street parking for Hill- Murray. The approved changes include restriping the existing west parking lot and adding a new driveway and 44 more off- street parking spaces on the east side of the existing school. (See the project plans for this part of the site on pages 21 and 22.) The contractor has started installing these improvements with the hope of having the new driveway and parking spaces ready for the upcoming school year. Landscaping This project will be removing an existing tennis court and should not require the removal of any trees from the site. The proposed plans show the applicant planting nine clumps of river birch on the south and east sides of the new addition. The applicant, however, did not provide the sizes of the proposed trees nor any landscaping plans or details for the new storm water pond. Steve Kummer of the Maplewood engineering department is requiring the applicant to submit to the city a detailed landscaping plan for the area in and near the new storm water pond on the west side of the field house addition. The other existing trees in and around the school and around the existing and proposed parking lots would provide sufficient landscaping. Roof - Equipment Screening Roof -top mechanical equipment that is visible from residential properties must be screened from view. New equipment that is visible, but not visible from residential properties, must be painted to match the building color. Fire Marshal Comments 1. It will have to have a fire protection (sprinkler) system per code and be monitored. 2. A fire alarm system will be required in the field house — per code and be monitored. 3. An audible alarm notification system will be required. 4. A fire department lockbox is required. 5. Provide adequate emergency vehicle access at all times. 2 Exterior Lighting The project architect told me that the only additional exterior lighting they would be adding with this project is wall pack lights over the new exit doors. COMMISSION ACTIONS On August 7, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed conditional use permit revision for Hill- Murray School. On August 8, 2006, the community design review board recommended approval of the proposed project design plans for the expansion of Hill- Murray School. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on pages 30 - 32. This resolution approves revisions for the conditional use permit for Hill- Murray school and athletic facilities at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. The city bases this approval on the findings required by ordinance. This approval is subject to conditions of approval adopted by the city council on November 13, 2001, subject to the following revisions (I have crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions): All construction shall follow the plans as noted below: a. For the athletic fields, follow the plans date - stamped March 6, 1998. b. For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date- stamped May 19, 1999. C. For the chapel addition, follow the plans date - stamped October 1, 2001. d. For the field house, follow the plans dated June 28, 2006. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes required by the city engineering department. The interim director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction for the G h am field house addition must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking situations related to the use of the athletic fields. 4. Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be screened or aimed so they do not cause any light -glare problems on streets or residential properties. 5. Post and maintain signs on the edge of the wetland- protection buffer prohibiting any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn. 6. That portion of the proposed walking /running path that is within 50 feet of the wetland shall be built with a pervious material. 7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue right -of -ways. 8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at a future hearing on the conditional use permit. 9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm water run off on the nearby wetlands. 10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide sedimentation control at the storm water discharge point before it dumps into the south wetland area. B. Approve the project plans date - stamped June 28, 2006, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the field house addition at Hill- Murray School at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and sidewalk plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Steve Kummer's memo dated July 14, 2006. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for the site and for the building addition. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. 4 (c) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city and shall have a fence along the top. (d) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run off from the surrounding areas. (3) The design of the ponding area and any rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The contractor shall install landscaping in the ponding area to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. (3) That shows the manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the garden. (4) It shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (5) Showing the birch clumps being at least 2 " l2 inches in diameter. d. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. e. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap- parking sign for each handicap - parking space and an address on the building. c. Post a "no left turn" sign at the easterly curb cut. 5 d. Paint the roof -top mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. The applicant shall provide screening enclosures around the units if they are visible from residential properties. e. Meet all the requirements of the fire marshal. f. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. g. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for the building addition. h. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around the pond) and an in- ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). i. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and residential properties. j. Install all the required exterior improvements, including all exterior lighting. k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above - required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff through the sign permit process. 6 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 50 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the three replies, two were in support of the project and one had comments. For 1. Sounds like a good idea. I have lived across from Hill- Murray for 15 years and do not mind it at all. Great school. (Voigt — 2520 Larpenteur Avenue) 2. 1 am completely in favor of the proposed athletic facilities improvement requested by Hill- Murray. (Schultz — 2470 Ripley Avenue, North Saint Paul) Comments /Questions 1. Thanks for all the information. Our main concern is that we maintain the wetland spaces as much as possible and continue to preserve our open spaces. It is encouraging to see the use of natural storm water filtering. We had heard of proposals earlier that would have impacted the environment more with new roads. It looks as if that is not a part of this proposal. (Blake — 2462 Ripley Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 47 acres Existing land use: Hill- Murray High School and athletic fields North: Single dwellings and undeveloped property zoned F (farm residential) South: Larpenteur Avenue and single dwellings West: Sterling Street, ponds and The Maplewoods Apartments East: St. Paul Priory PAST ACTIONS August 24, 1992: Council approved a sign size variance for a 99- square -foot wall sign for Hill - Murray. At the time the code allowed 24 square feet. On April 8, 1996, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) for Hill- Murray to make changes and improvements to their athletic fields. This approval was subject to ten conditions. On July 14, 1997, the city council reviewed the CUP for Hill- Murray. At this meeting, the council changed Condition 8 of the 1996 approval to read as follows: "Applicant may be required to plant 30 native species of trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at a future hearing on the conditional use permit." 7 On May 11, 1998, the city council approved a wetland buffer setback variance and a conditional use permit revision for the Hill- Murray athletic facilities. These requests were to update and revise the plans that the city had approved for the school's athletic facilities in 1996 and in 1997 and were subject to several conditions. On June 28, 1999, the city council approved the following for Hill- Murray High School: 1. Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They proposed several changes to the approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. This approval was for the school to replace and expand the school's main entry, which they have now completed. The school also proposed an expanded parking lot on the east side of the school building. 2. The designs for an addition to the main entry of the school. This included the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. PLANNING: Land Use Plan designation: S (school) Zoning: R -3 (multiple dwelling residential) Ordinance Requirements Section 44- 1092(3) requires a CUP for schools. Section 44- 1103(b) requires a CUP to enlarge a use for which a CUP is required. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44- 1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1 -9 in the resolution on pages 30 through 32.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2- 290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date The city received the complete applications and plans for this development on June 28, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action would normally be required on this proposal by August 28, 2006, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p: Sec 13- 291hill- murray cup revision - 2006 Attachments: 1. Project Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Area Map 4. Site Survey 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Proposed Floor Plan 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Proposed Utility Plan 9. Proposed Building Elevations 10. Proposed Building Elevations 11. Parking Lot and Driveway Site Plan Details 12. Parking Lot and Driveway Grading Plan 13. Comments dated July 14, 2006 from Steve Kummer 14. Comments dated July 6, 2006 from David Fisher 15. Comments dated July 12, 2006 from Michael Shortreed 16. Conditional Use Permit Revision Resolution 17. Project Plans (Separate Attachment) 0 mn 11 Hill-Murray School Athletics Facility Improvements ProjeCt Ve Prepared by Rafferty Rafferty Tolletson Lindeke Architects 06/ 006 This is a two-part project designed to improve the Hill-NIurray School's Athletics Facility, The project includes renovation of the 25,900 GSF single-level existing Athletics building. A 31,500 GSF single-story addition will contain the new Fieldhouse and Locker Room facilities, Total construction cost is estimated to be approximately S 4.0 Xlillion. In addition to the utility work, there will only be minimal site work on this project - including tree - planting and minor sidewalks, UM Hill - Murray School is currently experiencing a space shortage for its Athletics program and physical Education curriculum, The existing facility does not provide enough room R)r the amount ofstudents and programs it serves. The proposed improvements in the project would benefit the school in the following activity by the surrounding community. Campus Architecture Integration 'I'lli - OLI(Ili the Judicious use of material and color pallet, the design will enhance the architectural integration ofthe Athletics Complex into the school campus. The new raked finish pre-cast concrete exterior and the new paint over the existino, Athletic building exterior will be color keyed to match cash other as well as the brick hue of typical campus Facade, PROJECT NARRATIVE In This project follows the Hill-l'Ourray Facilities Master Plan completed in year 2000. A potential second-story addition over the both the existing and expanded Athletics building is anticipated in the future, Conimunitv and Environnie ntal pact As always, the school is conscientious in making only positive impact on the neighboring community. This project should not affect the current level of vehicular traffic, aural. or visual impact in the school vicinity, The proposed project will not increase the current occupancy of the school. These improvements are not expected to raise the traffic level of students. staff. and visitors. The overall nominal school activities will remain the same, as the functional outcome will only result in the redistribution of existing sports - related programs. Since the location of the new addition is secluded from ricighborini residents, the visual impact of the project Neill virtually non-existent. No freestanding site lighting is planned for this project. Security lig _hting be attached to the bulding. The environmental impact of the project will be minimal, The school has taken care to comply with the all city regulations related to environmental issues. In addition., the school is seeking opportunities to use natural storm water filtering devices for I — environmental and educational benefits. This project will provide the Hill-Murray School with needed facilities to properly serive its Athletics and Physical Education programs — while improving Gender Equity and Accessibility issues, The project will have, minimal impact to the Surrounding Site, the neighbor, and the natural environment. Furthermore, the improved facility may provide the community additional opportunity for sports and social activities, It N DA HO AVE i SITE Hill.-Murray Attachment 2 O , V . rk ll) Priory z w U wM Location Map Hill-Murray 2625 Larpenteur Avenue � 1 1860 Ir Z- KNOLL OR \ 10 0 t -0 1 Priory U1 4 6 r3 1659, SITE Hill-MUrraw Area Map Hill-Murray 2623 Larpenteur Avenue 1f 4j", ' } �' k j !; .F ff r i�f� y �'f i 5 � rt � ' "�-�~ >t•. � � ",. � � ,.. k ,... 1 r� :.:.• xr6*„ W g '.. r ,/ } t f ?,. *,s.... F f p h *�. a: 1 .. r;` a r z 3 ' r �. t S-, r.., $ t': .� z ,F ° t �,�} �• ' , . -r- i •,''� : (' y a at* � � t y k i �`. �., #� . f _ 1 � � � �,t ''� ` / r' f�'f;r', iy !�.!/ !�'�' �.• ..t �'� �''f`�� > ��"�, � � a . as yy CVA fj��'f// ' '� s " °• � *4 't�f �� <wm 4 # � �(;;_` � 3 t r<. .-.«. • ab- .._..»__.. ....- .. »...:. ._.- :..... - » ..,x.. 4.. -.. :..°"" x .. -. -,fir.. °"Gi:im.� � ...__—{ a Attachment 5 i - - - -- --- - ----- - ............. . FERTY RAFFERTY TOLLEFSON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS PROPOSED SITE PLAN 19 I mmxflm�� HILL-MURRAY SCHOOL ATHLETICS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - - - - --- - - - - ------------- - ------- - --- - - -- - --- - --- - - ------------- . ... ............... .... - - - - - -------------- PROPSED FLOOR PLAN NEW CONSRUCTION ...... . ... . ------------------------ 1E. I GPAOING, DRA ti4AGv, ERCST,�N CCT4T.RO'- PU* i! ol I UglobTA m I IM, M 0 :E UTILTY P•,N IN I TtON 'PROP 05V 1pf P g EXISTING SCHOOL ti - UTILTY P•,N IN I SON LINDEKE ARCHITECTS 19 I Attachment 10 FE E - .............. m I I Attachment 12 % A Z JL f t I V Z - 2 , A C3 RZH MCV W, �,INV- CLEV IM7.40 4". t t R E 4 PATC I am C OV, ELF 1z V, ela %%G PH R M - - ---- EV SEW' t, v sw IM22 . . . .... ... . ........ . ..... 14 Eay, po LE koos\j) � it' . . ........... 7- -4a- go ........... .... :NV ELFV 10 X 5 --- - - - - - - - - -.. --.. . .... . ........ ... . ..... . . . ... .. .... i - - LNY, LLsy- Lnz P14 . . . ..... ...... . .... .. .... . ..... . - --- --- - --- . . ........ . LARPENTEUR AVENUE PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAY GRADING PLAN M I Attachment 13 Page I of 5 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Hill Murray Building Expansion PROJECT NO: 06-13 REVIEWED It BY: Steven L. Kummer, P.E., Civil Engineer It City of Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: July 14, 2006 Hill Murray School proposes to build a 3 1,500 sq ft. addition onto its existing 25,900 sq, ft facility (which is proposed to be renovated), Other site improvements include a storm water infiltration/rate control basin, rerouted storm and sanitary sewer utilities and new domestic and fire protection water supplies to the new addition. 1. The existing grades north of the existing building and east of the existing linkway appear to be very flat. The proposed 1019 contour may need to be pulled to the south and proposed spot elevations shown at the hakway edge to indicate positive drainage toward proposed CB 43, 5. Revised Grading Note #5 (C2.0) to have the City Public Works department notified in lieu of the building department. Also include that Public Works is to be notified 48 hours in advance for inspection of installed erosion control measures. Grading of the site will not be allowed to commence until the City approves the measures installed in the fiel& 6. Revise Grading Note #9(C2.0) as such: Delete the portion of the note that continues with "if the public utilities have not been installed ... " W to Water Management It appears that the Kerby Method is being used for time of concentration. Computations and assumptions used in computing the Tc's should be submitted. 2, Drainage Area #3 needs to be revised to include a drainage area slightly to the southeast of the proposed pond. 3. The discharge from the drainfield under the pond needs to be included as an outlet into the primary discharge culvert (12" pipe) from CB #6. 4. Provide an elevation view and installation details of the weir wall to be installed in CB #6, Details on the primary outfall from CB 96 should be consistent on all plan sheets and comptitations. For example, the HydroCAD computations show a 10" RCP Ca� 0,52%, the upper detail 14/C4.0 shows a 12" RCP @ 0,52%, and the storm sewer table shows a 12" RCP @ 0,50% MEMMM1MM11= WOE 101V 111101116,1A WIN 7, The City requires a minimum of two (2) feet of freeboa-rd between the pond 100-year HWL elevation and the building FFE, Also required is a minimum one (1) foot of freeboard between the pond EOF and the building FFE. WM 9, Provide a sump manhole downstream of the proposed pond, The sump manhole should be readily accessible to a Vactor truck or similar piece of equipment used for cleaning sediment out of manhole structures. 10, The City will require a maintenance agreement for all permanent storm water BMP's installed on site, 1. A planting/landscaping plan is required for the ponding area and must be reviewed Virginia Gaynor with the Nature Center staff. Her phone number is (651) 249-2180 If pond grading will occur in one year and planting Will occur the next year, then seeding types and temporary establishment requirements will need to be specified the interim period (refer to Mn/DO'r 2575 and 3876). 12. The plans show an elevation of 1019.16 for the 1-inch/24-hr storm event, The computations show a 10 18.80, Please revi 9d Erosion Control Detail VC4.0 should conform to City of Maplewood Std. Plate 350, For example, the minimum length of a rock entrance pad should be 75 fea 112, 3. Catch Basin temporary sedimentation prevention devices are not required for storm manholes with solid lids, Manhole structures may be plated until castings can be installed, Catch basins at critical low points should have a device installed to allow water to flow into the structure while preventing sedimentation. 4 Specify the type or product designation for the type of erosion control blanket that will be used on the pending area, Show anchoring e details lor the blanket. If th area wilt be planted, it is suggested that a blanket without netting be specified, Refer to Mn/DOT 3885 in the 2005 Construction Specs, 5. The formal entrance (rock entrance) to the construction site should be placed in area where construction vehicles will not regularly run over the proposed pondinj area. North of the ponding area may be an option, 6. Specify erosion control inlet protection on FES 47 such as staked heavy-duty slit fence. 7. Specify the use of a pick-up broom or a vacuum sweeper in the Erosion Control Notes (specifically 47). 8, Seed mixture I I OB no longer exists, Revise to include a temporary seed mix included in the Mn/DOT 3876 spec, Verify that all seed mix application rates conform to Mn/DOT 3876, 1. Submit plans to MikeAnderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval, 2. The water services do not appear to be stubbed 5 feet from the building, Is the intent to come up with a riser through the building floor? 3. Water flow and pressure computations will need to be provided for minimum fire protection flow pressures at the building, Contact SPRWS and the City Building Department for design assumptions and requirements, N wmn� 4 All pertinent water installation details shall conform to SPRWS standards and Adjust all plan notes, keyed notes and details related to water main speci icati and service installation accordingly. 5. The original Sunde Survey shows an existing 8-inch line under the tennis courts versus the 15-Inch VCP line that is currently shown on the plans, Also, an 8-inch sanitary sewer service from the south side of the existing building is shown in a different location than the survey. If the survey information was corrected due to new information in the field, then the discrepancy should be noted on the plans, 6. The existing 15-inch VCP storm line and 4-inch sanitary line are shown to be removeM . What are the plans for the portions of pipe that supposedly run under the existing building to the west? J 1111��11;1111li 9. It appears that a possible jack-and-bore operation will occur for the new sanitary an4 storm sewer under the existing linkway. Casing pipe size and type should be indicated along with a detail showing how the proposed lines will be bedded within the casing pipes. 10, Some revision needs to be made to the 8-inch line between SSN1H #2 and SSMH #31 A Sch. 40 PVC pipe is shown within the casing pipe, but SDR 26 PVC (as utility note #7 indicates) is shown upstream of the wye into the building, Either show a manhole at the wye, or one pipe type all the way through either Schedule 40 or SDR 26. I I . Refer to the bottom halfof City of Maplewood Std. Plate 4 10 which indicates a service connection for a sanitary main greater than 13 feet deep, Revise the lower detail 14/C4.0 to conform to this detail plate, as a direct 45-degree riser into the main at the wye is not allowed. 12. The new sanitary sewer at Ex, SS MH #1 shall enter the manhole at the bottom and not two feet above the lowest invert. no I . Show proposed parking stall layout and dimensions in reconstructed parking lot area. W To: Ken Roberts, Pla r___1 From: David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/ Building Official Re: Hill-Murray renovation & 31,500 square foot addition to their existing fieldhouse building xm� +ill -M - The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBC Table 602 for exterior wall protection, A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permit. �r-Imli'VA Or-mmglum " I I III I , III III WIN N III INFIF I EM 1 - Verify code compliance for Minnesota State Building Code 1341 for accessibility. ZMATEMWIM - Provide accessible parking to comply with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 for accessibility. I III INCOME I I I I If 1111 1 � I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the building department. W Attachment 15 ILL • From. Lt. Mike Shortreed 1 0 1 0' 6 M Date: July 12, 2006 Re: PROJECT REVIEW - Hill Murray Athletic Facility Improvements w WHEREAS, Hill- Murray High School requested that the city revise their existing conditional use permit for a school and athletic facilities. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. The legal description is: Part of the S'l2 of the SE'l4 of S 13, T 29N, R22W, Ramsey County, MN (PIN 13- 29- 22 -43- 0002) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: On August 7, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. 2. On August 28, 2006, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit revision. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit 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 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 10 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. The city council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such waiver. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans as noted below: a. For the athletic fields, follow the plans date - stamped March 6, 1998. b. For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date - stamped May 19, 1999. C. For the chapel addition, follow the plans date - stamped October 1, 2001. d. For the field house, follow the plans dated June 28, 2006. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes required by the city engineering department. The interim director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction for the Gh ap9 l field house addition must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking situations related to the use of the athletic fields. 4. Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be screened or aimed so they do not cause any light -glare problems on streets or residential properties. 5. Post and maintain signs on the edge of the wetland - protection buffer prohibiting any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn. 6. That portion of the proposed walking /running path that is within 50 feet of the wetland shall be built with a pervious material. 7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue right -of -ways. 8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at a future hearing on the conditional use permit. 11 9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm water run off on the nearby wetlands. 10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide sedimentation control at the storm water discharge point before it dumps into the south wetland area. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 1 2006. 12 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Vice - Chairperson Tushar Desai Present Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Absent Commissioner Michael Grover Absent Commissioner Harland Hess Present Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Absent Commissioner Gary Pearson Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts Planner Steve Kummer Civil Engineer II Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary a. Conditional Use Permit Revision —Hill Murray School (2625 Larpenteur Avenue) (8:27 — 8:36 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, representing Hill- Murray School, is requesting city approval of the following: 1. Revisions to the conditional use permit (CUP). They are proposing changes to the approved plans for the school. The city code requires a CUP for schools. 2. Design approval for an addition to the east side of the field house on the school. This includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. Specifically, they want to: 1. Put a 31,500- square -foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym and locker room space. 2. Renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building. Acting chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Joe Pesches, Hill- Murray School, 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East, addressed the commission. The addition of this facility is something the school direly needs. When the school first opened in the early 1970s when the schools merged Archbishop Murray and Hill High School together, there was no Title 9 so there were only boys' sports so they built the current field house. Now there are equal sports for boys and girls and they need more facilities. Mr. Pesches said in the late 1980s they added a middle school which has boys' and girls' sports, so for many years they have used a facility that was designed just for the boys trying to keep equal practice and playing times. As a result, the parents are picking kids up late at night because of the practice times. There is a real emphasis on the physical curriculum as well as meeting the needs of the programs they offer at Hill- Murray School. Mr. Craig Rafferty, the architect working with Hill- Murray School, with Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, addressed the commission. The planning commission didn't have any questions for him at this time. Acting chairperson Desai said if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Nobody came forward. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to adopt the resolution on pages 30 -32 of the staff report. This resolution approves revisions for the conditional use permit for Hill- Murray school and athletic facilities at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East. The city bases this approval on the findings required by ordinance. This approval is subject to conditions of approval adopted by the city council on November 13, 2001, subject to the following revisions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the plans as noted below: a. For the athletic fields, follow the plans date - stamped March 6, 1998. b. For the school and parking lot addition, follow the plans date - stamped May 19, 1999. c. For the chapel addition, follow the plans date - stamped October 1, 2001. d. For the field house, follow the plans dated June 28, 2006. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes required by the city engineering department. The interim director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction for the shapel field house addition must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit revision shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit annually to monitor the traffic and parking situations related to the use of the athletic fields. 4. Any new lights shall be installed to meet the city code. This requires that they be screened or aimed so they do not cause any light -glare problems on streets or residential properties. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 5. Post and maintain signs on the edge of the wetland - protection buffer prohibiting any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Wetland buffer signs in the mowed area shall be placed at the edge of the lawn. 6. That portion of the proposed walking /running path that is within 50 feet of the wetland shall be built with a pervious material. 7. Ensure that all bleachers and dugouts are at least 30 feet from the Sterling Street and Larpenteur Avenue right -of -ways. 8. The city may require the applicant to plant 30 native species of trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle, as may be determined at a future hearing on the conditional use permit. 9. The school shall prepare for city approval a turf management plan for the athletic fields. This plan shall include the mowing, watering and fertilizing practices that the school will follow in the care of their athletic fields and grounds. The school shall prepare and follow the plan so the practices will minimize the impact of the storm water run off on the nearby wetlands. 10. Submit a grading and drainage plan for watershed district approval to provide sedimentation control at the storm water discharge point before it dumps into the south wetland area. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Board member John Hinzman Absent Vice- Chairperson Matt Ledvina Present Chairperson Linda Olson Present Board member Joel Schurke Present at 6:30 p.m. Board member Ananth Shankar Present until 7:05 p.m. Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. Hill- Murray School (Field House Addition) — 2625 Larpenteur Avenue East Mr. Ekstrand said Rafferty, Rafferty Tollefson, Lindeke Architects, representing Hill- Murray School, is requesting city approval of the design approval for an addition to the east side of the field house on the school. This includes the architectural, site and landscape plans for the project. They want to put a 31,500 - square -foot addition onto the east side of the field house for additional gym and lock room space and renovate and remodel the interior of the existing athletics building. The proposed field house addition meets the findings for CUP approval and would be compatible with the existing school and development in the area. None of the proposed changes nor the addition should cause any problems for the city or for the neighbors. The new field house will be constructed of precast concrete wall panels. These panels would have a raked and banded finish and would have several six - foot -by -six foot windows near the top. The plans note that these panels will be of a color to match the color of the brick in the school. In addition, the project plans show the contractor painting the existing field house a color similar to the campus brick color to match the exterior of the new addition. The existing field house was constructed with precast concrete wall panels and that the proposed addition would not be visible from any public street as it will be north of the existing school building. Board members did not have any questions for staff. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Craig Rafferty of Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson, Lindeke Architects addressed the board. He said they are using the same tilt up prefabricated materials on the new building that match the existing building but in a different color. The materials would blend more closely with the brick on the school. They are painting the existing building in order to tie the complexes together. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 They are adding variations in the concrete panels which add subtle layers. He presented a sample of the building materials for the board. Chairperson Olson said the plans show the granite the inserts in red and the color sample you presented is dark gray or black in color, which is correct? Mr. Rafferty said the granite tile insert would be a dark gray or black color as the sample I presented. Board member Ledvina said the existing building shows rain leaders and he asked if the new building would have rain leaders? Mr. Rafferty said there are internal rain leaders and the system is collected and drained into a holding pond. Chairperson Olson asked if the rain goes into the holding pond rather than into the sanitary sewer system? Mr. Rafferty said that is correct. Board member Ledvina asked if there would be any downspouts or scuppers? Mr. Rafferty said there are scuppers and an internal drain as well. Board member Shankar asked the applicant to address the landscaping. Mr. Rafferty said the landscaping is limited to clusters of river birch trees that wrap around the building on the south and east side. The west side of the building is covered right now by a single story metal link that connects the school and the field house. To the north are the gym bleachers and the football field and there really isn't room for landscaping there nor would it grown in that location. They are not planning on planting any bushes because they would die here. The school has long range plans that may call for more additions in the future so they prefer to keep the landscaping simple. Chairperson Olson asked if there would be additional trash collection on the site? Mr. Rafferty said the trash is picked up at the loading dock. The school is not really increasing the number of students so there should not be a need for a larger trash area. Chairperson Olson asked about the roof vents because she did not see them on the plans? Mr. Rafferty said the roof vents have not been clearly identified on the plans but they plan on screening the roof vents per the requirements of the city. They will be looking at new internal mechanical systems in the future but for now the vents will be screened by a wood fence. They will paint the mechanical units to match the building color as close as possible. Chairperson Olson asked about exterior lighting on the buildings? Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 Mr. Rafferty said the exterior lighting would be wall pack lights over the new exit doors. There is a canopy over the doors and the lights will be part of the canopy. Chairperson Olson said with the lighting in the canopy the city requires that the bulb cannot be visible and requires a cut off so there is no glare. Mr. Rafferty said they would follow the city's lighting requirements. Board member Shankar asked if this project would require additional parking? Mr. Rafferty said the number of faculty and students isn't changing. This is just to provide better facilities for the students. Hill- Murray School has a project under construction now where they are adding an additional 44 parking spaces and a new driveway to eliminate congestion along Larpenteur Avenue to work out the best sequence of events to make things flow smoother. They are restriping the main student parking lot and rotating the parking so it is perpendicular and flows more logically throughout the site. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the project plans date- stamped June 28, 2006, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the field house addition at Hill- Murray School at 2625 Larpenteur Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree and sidewalk plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Steve Kummer's memo dated July 14, 2006. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for the site and for the building addition. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city and shall have a fence along the top. (d) Show the drainage areas, and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run off from the surrounding areas. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 (3) The design of the ponding area and any rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. (a) Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. (b) Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval that incorporates the following details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The contractor shall install landscaping in the ponding area to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. (3) That shows the manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the garden. (4) It shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (5) Showing the birch clumps being at least 2 1 /2 inches in diameter. d. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. e. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building addition: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap - parking sign for each handicap - parking space and an address on the building. c. Post a "no left turn" sign at the easterly curb cut. Community Design Review Board 5 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 d. Paint the roof -top mechanical equipment to match the building color if the units are visible. The applicant shall provide screening enclosures around the units if they are visible from residential properties. e. Meet all the requirements of the fire marshal. f. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. g. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for the building addition. h. Install and maintain all required trees and landscaping (including the plantings around the pond) and an in- ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). i. Install on -site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right -of -ways and residential properties. j. Install all the required exterior improvements, including all exterior lighting. k. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Compete all grading for the site drainage and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 o the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6. This approval does not include signs. Any signage will be reviewed by city staff through the sign permit process. Chairperson Olson seconded. Ayes — Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. SUMMARY TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: White Bear Avenue Family Health Center LOCATION: White Bear Avenue South of County Road B DATE: August 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION DSGW Architects, representing B.I.G. Development Inc., is proposing to build a 40,000- square- foot medical clinic on the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This clinic, the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center, will be a two -story steel- framed structure with an exterior of brick and rock -face concrete block. Requests • A conditional use permit (CUP) to build this structure within 350 feet of the residential property line to the north. The code requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that are closer than 350 feet to residentially -zoned properties. The proposed building would be 190 feet from the abutting residential properties to the north. • Approval of design plans. DISCUSSION The proposed building would be attractive and the site layout would meet city requirements. The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code and the applicant is proposing a suitable landscaped buffer for the residential neighbors to the north. The proposed clinic would be a compatible neighbor to both residents and businesses in this neighborhood as opposed to the site's potential for heavier - commercial or light- industrial uses that would be permitted under the M1 zoning provisions. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. B. Approve the plans date - stamped July 17, 2006, for the proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. p:sec4\White Bear Avenue Clinic Summary 8 06 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: White Bear Avenue Family Health Center LOCATION: White Bear Avenue South of County Road B DATE: August 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description DSGW Architects, representing B.I.C. Development Inc., is proposing to build a 40,000- square foot medical clinic on the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This clinic, proposed to be the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center, will be a two -story steel- framed structure with an exterior of brick and rock -face concrete block. Refer to the plans and applicant's narrative. Requests The applicant is requesting the following: • A conditional use permit (CUP) to build this structure within 350 feet of the residential property line to the north. The code requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that are closer than 350 feet to residentially -zoned properties. The proposed building would be 190 feet from the abutting residential properties to the north. • Approval of design plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed use is allowed under the M1 zoning code. The reason for this CUP request is because the building would be within 350 feet of residential properties. In this situation, the ordinance requires a CUP so the city council can consider special conditions due to possible impacts on the abutting residential property. The usual concerns with a business adjacent to residential properties are the potential for noise and visual impacts. ►i[: mz Staff does not envision a problem with noise from this medical clinic. This clinic should actually be a very quiet neighbor with regular business hours. The property owner, Mr. Gene Berwald, said the clinic hours would be typical medical- clinic hours of eight to five or six, Monday through Friday and perhaps Saturday mornings. Visual Imcacts The proposed building would be attractive so appearance and quality of design is not an issue. The only concern staff has is that there be adequate parking lot screening next to the abutting residential properties to the north. The applicant is proposing a planting screen of six -foot -tall Black Hills Spruce. These will certainly provide sufficient screening when grown. Initially, however, they should be planted in a double row at 10 feet on center —these would be five feet on center as viewed straight on due to the double row. The applicant is essentially proposing this, but the plan may need a slight adjustment to make sure this is accomplished. The most affected neighbor is the easterly one fronting on White Bear Avenue. This property has the least existing trees. The applicant should revise the plan to enhance the buffer adjacent to this property to provide several over -story trees to create a higher landscaped buffer. These deciduous trees could be incorporated into the plan with the proposed evergreens. Traffic Impact Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, has reviewed this proposal and commented that White Bear Avenue has sufficient capacity to handle the additional vehicle trips generated by the site. Mr. Solar states, however, that left turns into the site could be somewhat problematic until the county widens White Bear Avenue to provide turn lanes. Mr. Solar said that the county is anticipating these improvements in the future. Part of the county's future improvements would include the widening of White Bear Avenue. Because of this, Mr. Solar requests that the city obtain additional right -of -way to provide a uniform 65 feet along the entire parcel. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate this additional right -of -way width as a roadway easement to accommodate this future widening. Site Grading The applicant is proposing to grade the remaining site that is west of the proposed development. Staff does not feel this is a good idea. Grading this site would result in barren land that would need restoration. This summer is evidence that dry years would be very bad for reestablishing turf growth. Staff feels that only minimal grading onto this vacant property should be allowed to blend the site contours. Staff feels that over - disturbance of this site would only create an eyesore and erosion and weed potential. Neighbor Concerns Only three of the 67 surrounding property owners within 500 feet replied to our survey about this proposal. The following are the comments received with staff's response to those concerns: • Concern over additional traffic The Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, Dan Solar, acknowledges that traffic on White Bear Avenue should be improved for more efficient travel. This means widening the road to provide a center left -turn lane. Mr. Solar, however, feels that the capacity of White Bear Avenue is sufficient to handle the increased traffic from this site for the proposed clinic. 2 • Impact on property values The Ramsey County Assessors Office said that the proposed clinic would not have a negative impact on residential property values. It would not be perceived as a detrimental use next to the homes to the north as the building is attractive and the hours of operation of a clinic generally do not cause nuisances for neighbors. The residential character of the neighborhood is beinq lost In actuality, this neighborhood is heavily commercial in character with the exception of the homes along Burke Avenue and the south side of County Road B. The subject site, furthermore, has been zoned light manufacturing by the city since 1965. The proposed use as a medical clinic will be more compatible with the abutting residential lots than light industry which would be allowed on this property. Concern over wetland loss The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland they are losing on their site. The watershed district is requiring that the applicant "replace the lesser - quality wetland on their site with a higher quality sedge - meadow wetland on the applicant's abutting lot to the south." Tina Carstens, wetland specialist with the watershed district, said that the applicant will be providing a 25- foot -wide wetland buffer around the mitigated wetland. CUP Summary Staff supports this CUP. This clinic would be a compatible neighbor for the abutting homeowners to the north as opposed to the site's potential for heavier - commercial or light - industrial uses that would be permitted under the M1 zoning provisions. Architectural and Site Considerations The proposed building would be attractive and is designed to be compatible with the nearby residential homes, the Maplewood Community Center and the Ramsey County Courthouse across White Bear Avenue. Setbacks The proposed site plan meets all setback requirements for the building and parking lot. The city should require, though, that the parking lot be placed so that it would be at least 15 feet back from the future right -of -way line of White Bear Avenue. Parkina and Access Parking requirements would be met. There are 216 parking spaces proposed. Code requires 200. Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, recommends that the entrance drive be widened to 32 feet with adequate turning radii. The city engineer should approve this design. The proposed driveway would also connect to an existing driveway at the west end of the proposed site. This existing driveway would provide a secondary means of access /egress for the site. This driveway wraps around the existing building on the abutting lot and exits onto 3 Prosperity Road near the Gateway Trail. Staff does not see a problem with this connection since the same party owns both properties. If Mr. Berwald sells either property, he should consider the exchange of cross easements between both properties. Likewise, if the vacant property to the west of the proposed clinic splits off, cross easements and possibly some pavement removal may be required. Site Lighting The photometric plan meets light- intensity maximum requirements. The proposed plan limits light spread to zero foot candles of light intensity at the property lines. Even though the applicant is meeting light- spread requirements, care should be taken so that bulbs and lenses of light fixtures are not visible by the neighbors to the north. Staff further recommends that the site lights be turned off at night unless required to be on by the police chief for security reasons. Landscaping As stated above, staff recommends that the landscaping plan be revised to provide some over - story trees on the north side of the site to provide some taller screening for the abutting house to the north which fronts on White Bear Avenue. Staff also recommends that the evergreens proposed along the north side of the site be a double row planted so that there is no less than a five -foot spacing of trees when viewed straight on (10 feet on center in each row). There are seven trees proposed along the front of the site. This is not very many in a distance of nearly 400 feet. Staff feels that this number should be doubled. This would provide a tree spacing of a tree 28 to 30 feet on center. As is always required, the applicant must install an in- ground lawn irrigation system according to ordinance. Trash An outdoor trash enclosure is proposed on the north side of the building. The enclosure would be rock -face concrete block to match the block on the building. City Department Comments Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, made the following comments • Provide a 20 -foot -wide emergency access road at all times. • Provide a fire - protection system according to code and have the system monitored. • Provide a fire -alarm system according to code and have the system monitored. • Provide a fire - department lock box (get the paper work from the fire marshal). • Properly mark where any bio- hazard would be located within the building. 9 Police Lieutenant Michael Shortreed reviewed this proposal and made several comments as noted in the attached memo. I have summarized these as follows: The site lighting and signage should be designed so not to cause any nuisances for neighbors. • The applicant should utilize site security during construction to guard against theft. The applicant should work with the Maplewood Police Department to plan for an appropriate security system. • The use of Prosperity Road is encouraged to limit the use of White Bear Avenue for construction - activity access whenever possible. M. C. • i Dave Fisher, Maplewood Building Official, reviewed this proposal. Mr. Fisher made the following comments: • The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. • A separate building permit is required for any retaining walls that are over four feet in height. • Provide adequate fire department access to the building. • The building must be fire sprinklered. • It is recommended that the contractor and project manager have a pre - construction meeting with the building inspection department prior to construction. City Engineer Refer to the attached report from Steve Kummer, civil engineer with the city's engineering department. Mr. Kummer noted several concerns regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, paving and utilities. Largely, these are issues to be resolved with the applicant's civil engineer in plan revisions. Mr. Kummer has recommended that the applicant provide a maintenance agreement for all permanent storm water BMPs (best management practice) installed on the site. The city will write this agreement for the applicant's signature. The applicant should adhere to all requirements in this engineering report. The city engineer also recommends that the small, narrow ponds proposed between White Bear Avenue and the parking lot not be provided. This area will certainly be disrupted when White Bear Avenue is widened. The applicant should work with the city's engineering staff to revise the drainage plan to accommodate this water storage elsewhere on the site. COMMITTEE ACTIONS August 7, 2006: The planning commission recommended approval of the CUP. In addition to the conditions in the staff report, the planning commission recommended that "the developer shall make a right -in and right -out only with an outlet of the parking lot on Prosperity Avenue." In a separate motion, the planning commission directed the city engineering staff to study the feasibility of closing Burke Avenue off at White Bear Avenue. August 8, 2006: The community design review board (CDRB) recommended approval of the design plans. In addition to the staff recommendation, the CDRB recommended that the developer: • Submit a detailed wetland delineation report. • Provide a six -foot -wide sidewalk along White Bear Avenue and shall work with the city and county engineers to determine the proper location. • Consider and review, with the city's engineering staff, stormwater mitigation options other than what is shown on the plans for the purposes of permeable paving or rainwater gardens to be located on the west side of the property or where appropriate relative to the development. Staff Response to Committee Comments Right -In / Right -Out Only: Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, and the Chuck Ahl, the city engineer, feel that a right -in /right -out is not needed. This was not required of the community center and other businesses along White Bear Avenue and we should be consistent. Outlet to Prosperity An outlet will likely be proposed by the property owner when he decides to develop the remainder of his land. Until then, it is Mr. Solar's opinion that White Bear Avenue can sufficiently handle the traffic increase from the proposed clinic. Closing Burke Avenue: Burke Avenue will likely be reconstructed within the next two to three years based on the city's Pavement Management Plan. That would be the appropriate time to evaluate this matter and construct the cul -de -sac if it is found to be warranted. Wetland Delineation Report: The applicant has submitted a complete wetland report with their application. Sidewalk: Dan Solar recommends that the city hold off on requiring a sidewalk since this will likely be an aspect of roadway improvements in the future. Mr. AN feels that the city council could require a sidewalk should they feel it is justified. The city will likely make further sidewalk improvements in the next few years and the extension of a sidewalk in this location may likely be part of those improvements. Stormwater Options The city's engineering staff will work with the applicant to resolve any issues with the drainage plan as a condition of this approval. n RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This approval is for a medical clinic in an M1 (light manufacturing) district that would be within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date - stamped July 17, 2006. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. All parking -lot lights must have concealed bulbs and lenses so as not to shine into neighbors' windows. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential wall or yard light. Light- intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 5. Provide a revised landscaping plan that has an evenly spaced /staggered double row of evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted south of the entrance drive. 6. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west. 7. The grading plan shall be revised for the approval of the city engineer deleting the narrow ponds proposed between White Bear Avenue and the parking lot. 8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28, 2006. 9. Prior to getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a uniform 65 feet of roadway easement along the entire property frontage for future street widening. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. B. Approve the plans date - stamped July 17, 2006, for the proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant/developer complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all conditions stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28, 2006. 7 3. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building permit. 4. Install wetland- protection buffer signs around the mitigated wetland and any contiguous wetlands if needed by the watershed district. Wetland signs shall be spaced every 100 feet and shall comply with the city's approved sign design requirements. 5. All wetland and drainage and rainwater ponds shall be planted with plantings as required by the watershed district and the city engineer. 6. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and the watershed district for the maintenance of ponds. 7. Revise the landscaping plan to provide for an evenly spaced /staggered double row of evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted south of the entrance drive. 8. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west. 9. The grading plan shall be revised for the approval of the city engineer deleting the narrow ponds proposed between White Bear Avenue and the parking lot. 10. The applicant must provide an in- ground irrigation system as required by code. The area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered. 11. The roof -top mechanical equipment shall be screened from the view of all residential properties. 12. All site lights must be properly screened or shielded so the lenses and bulbs are not visible off site from any home. 13. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and exterior site improvements before the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 14. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. N CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 67 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinions of this proposal. Three neighbors replied and provided comments. The comments were primarily about whether White Bear Avenue can handle the additional traffic. Refer to the attached replies from Health Partners, Carole Lynne of 1723 Burke Avenue and John and Mildred Grealish of 2111 Prosperity Road. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.5 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings South: A multi- tenant commercial building East: White Bear Avenue and the Maplewood Community Center West: The undeveloped remainder of the proposed site, Prosperity Road and single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan: M1 Zoning: M1 Code Requirements Section 44- 637(b) requires a CUP for buildings in M1 districts that would be within 350 feet of a residential district. Findings for CUP Approval City code requires that to approve a CUP, the city council must base approval on the nine required findings for approval. Refer to the attached resolution for a listing of these findings. M APPLICATION DATE We received the applications and plans for this proposal on July 17, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is required by September 22, 2006. p:sec4 \White Bear Avenue Family Health Clinic 7 06 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Land Use Plan 4. Neighborhood Map 5. Site Plan 6. Landscaping Plan 7. Applicant's Executive Summary dated July 10, 2006 8. Survey Response from Health Partners 9. Survey Response from John and Mildred Grealish 10. Survey Response from Carole Lynne 11. Ramsey County Traffic Engineer's Report dated July 25, 2006 12. Police Department's Project Review Comments dated July 19, 2006 13. Engineering Department's Project Review Comments Dated July 28, 2006 14. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 15. Plans date - stamped July 17, 2006 (separate attachments) N Mff -- TaT FT LAF Park m-AU W RD ffIE- T z LL SANDHURSTAVE, Lu Lu I& D 8 =J ; —17Z I I I I Family Health Center Attachment 1 I� Lu COUNTY ROAD E Location Map White BearAvenue 0 2 I� I I White BearAvenue Family Health Center COUNTY ROAD E Zoning Map I NP 11 ;:1 I..ARN AVE LAURIE RD -- 7 - T 5ANDHURSTAVE I 5 0 I LAURIE RD -- 7 - T 5ANDHURSTAVE -7 Q 4 . . .......j Lj 2220 " 2 . ........... Attachment 4 , 0 2231 2211 220' <> 21J 21-1 -- - ---------- . ..... .......... 6 0 w o 'e" AN M I 1 t L _ ............. F 'I F ---- 13 0 City Hall Neighborhood Map White BearAvenue Family Health Center I 5 0 -7 Q 4 . . .......j Lj 2220 " 2 . ........... Attachment 4 , 0 2231 2211 220' <> 21J 21-1 -- - ---------- . ..... .......... 6 0 w o 'e" AN M I 1 t L _ ............. F 'I F ---- 13 0 City Hall Neighborhood Map White BearAvenue Family Health Center Attachment 5 Ix uj ul z uj In, LU W in in. 0 Lu CL 0 0- z w il- Cn .1 L p 1111,1 fl, If BAV MMM 31JHM .. ............. -±A - - - ------ - ------ gill f3 I �R T fi ll 11 - N�01, 15 N I Cld 3 IW py > ol (. IN W Attachment 7 ............. ... .. ... .... Executive Sunarnar � As architect for the project, I am av i al lable for questions Sincerel-Y, Randy Wagner, AIA DSGW Architects IN Message Page! of I Attu hment8 From: Flaaten, Joan K [Joan. K. Flaaten@Hea fthPartners.Coml Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:49 P : Tom Ekstrand 11501 ilill!ll I I III H I I! I I 1 !!1 IF MEMEL*= along the White Bear Avenue corridor, 8= N! 0 . E P, 92 i!c�-dl: : 7/20/2006 July 12, 2006 JOHN W GREALISH MILDRED A GREALISH 2111 PROSPERITY RD N MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 city council- Please write your opinion and comments below and return this letter, and any attachments on which you have written comments, by July 21, 200& REr In J i J f OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NON2925M F Ax.* 651 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLE WOOD, MIN 55109 19 Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner City of Maplewood A] of Community Develo%ment 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, NIN 55,109 As a residential homeowner in Maplewood, I am very concerned about the safety and the value of my residence. ne proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center on White Bear Avenue threatens my property in the following mannev A. The safety of all residences on Burke Avenue between White Bear Avenue and Prosperity Avenue will be compromised by additional traffic, As clients of the Center drive up Phalen Parkway to Prosperity they most probably will detour eas on Burke Avenue rather than use the stop sign on Prosperity and light semi fore White Bear Avenue. B. I pay residential homeowner taxes to live in a residential area. With the recent addition of the CVS Drug Store the proposed health center, along with the existing Maplewood Community Center, the Health Partners Clinic, and the Day Old Bread Store, my residential neighborhood is taking on the look of a commercial area. C, The executive summary received stated that "some areas within the property, designated as wetlands that will be filled and replaced on site." What do they mean? Our neighborhood has a ground water problem today. I request an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) before this proposal moves forward. My neighborhood is being sepMrated from the rest of the residential community. For Burke Avenue to retain its appearance and residential presence, I strongly recommend that Burke Avenue be closed at White Bear Avenue and that a cull de sac similar to Flandrau Street at White Bear Avenue be constructed at Burke Avenue and White Bear Sincerely yours, Carole Lvnne 1723 ) E Burke Ave In Ry Mlff�ll RAMSEYCOUNTY_ Department of Public Works 1425 V- DI — I'v %IN 7 1 1 '100 * I ix ( I --) I Sfi ',I*(" i: 4o '-n raasc� 10 MNMI Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood Dan Soler ��ic Works �u " Ramsey C ` uy P SUBJECT: White Bear Avenue Family Health Center DATE: July 25. 2006 The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the site plan for the proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center on White Bear Avenue south of County Road B in the City of Maple. vood. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. I Z�' - 2. The site plan identifies one new access point on White Bear Avenue across from the entrance to the community center. The County concurs with the proposed iocation of this new driveway, The access width should be 32 feet wide with adequate radii to allow easy turning movements Into and out of the driveway. The existing right of w'a'y along the front of this property varies. The north end of this property has only 33 feet of right of way. The City should consider the acquisition of additional right of way to provide a uniform 65 feet along the entire parcel. Future widening of'White Bear Avenue as discussed above will make this ricyl of way . necessary Z7� - 4 The developer will also need permits from the County for access construction and for any utility work within County right-of-way, I zn Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. Mhuiesota's First Home Rule County 21 Attachment 12 To; Tom Ekstrand From: Lt. Michael Shortreed '/J11/ Date: July 19, 2006 Re: PROJECT REVIEW — White Bear Avenue Health Clinic After reviewing the attached proposal for the White Bear Avenue Health Clinic project, I have the following comments and suggestions: 1) Appropriate lighting and signs should be incorporated into the project to assure that the concerns of residents in the development area are met up front, instead of require them to seek them at a later date. If there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments or suggestions, plea contact me at your soonest convenience. I can be reached via phone at (651)249-2605 via email at michael.shortreed(o],ci.map od.mn.us. I 0 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: White Bear Avenue Medical Building PROJECT NO: 06-18 REVIEWED BY: Steven L. Kummer, P.E., Civil Engineer 11 Citv of Maplewood Engineering Department E. July 28,2006 S. u[7 mary Gunderson construction in conjunction with B.I.C. Development (Ken and Gene Berwald) and DSGW Architects are proposing to build a 2-story, 40,000 square-foot commercial/medical office building on an approximately 4-acre vacant parcel of tand along the �vest side of White Bear Avenue across from the Maplewood Community Center. Vehicle in ress/egress for the facility will be fi White Bear Avenue and will be alioned with the existing north Community Center ingfess/egress from White Bear Avenue. Parking for the Cacilitv will consist of 216 stalls including 9 stalls dedicated for the handicapped. The parking lot wiil be edged with typical concrete barrier curb. Water service to the building for both fire protection and domestic usage will be supplied by a single 6-inch dip service, Water service is already supplied to the property from a 16-inch water main on Prosperity Avenue, A tap to an existing water main on the property will be made to accommodate the new 6-Inch water service. A fire hydrant will be installed on the property - in a parking lot island located near the southwest comer of the building, Sanitary sewer service will be provided by an exterior lift station and forcemain system. The sewage will be pumped to a nearby 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Prosperity Avenue, The lift station wi I I be sized to accommodate the proposed development along with future development lo the west. W Following are comments on the plans and storm water computations submitted for review that are to be addressed: Grading &-_Draina q rrtments 2. The prqJJect engineer shall show a more defined swale along the west side of the parking lot down to the proposed flared-end inlet. A minimum slope of 1.5 IS suggested, It appears that the grading plan assumes that all proposed spot elevations along the curb line are gutter line elevations. However, the project engineer shall clarify either in plan notes or in plan view if spot elevations are top of curb or gurter line elevations. 4. The project engineer needs to include more spot elevation data on the plans showing that the proposed walkways do not exceed a maximum 2% cross slope. Longitudinal slopes to door entries shall not exceed a 5% maximum slope, 5. The project engineer/architect shall indicate pedestrian ramps or drop-cuFb areas on 4D the plan, especially in front of the proposed entries and other areas where sidewalks will ramp down to the parking lot, A detectable surface shall be provided, A plan detail showing ramp construction shall also be provided. 6 The project engineer shall verify that all gutters carrying longitudinal drainage towa drainage curb cuts have a minimum slope of 0.50%. 1 8. The project engineer shall indicate spot elevations at the driveway entry such that gutter drainage from White Bear Avenue does not enter the site, M Noe ' ) of 6 9. The project engineer shall indicate emergency overflow (E F) elevations and locations for each ponding basin. 10. The north parking lot for the existing building appears to have an existing low point with a catch basin with a pipe lead to the existing south wetland. The project emy ,ineer shall show the existing pipe and catch basin on the plan and also indicate that the modifications to the existing parking lot will provide positive draina(ve toward the proposed low point, Storm Water Management & V MOR 11-41 NUMNINUU11.111 The project engineer shall include the flow from the draintile under each basin in the total outflow and rate control computations. It appears that the computations are assuming that the filtration flow from the bottom of the basin is to be discarded, which is not the case, 4. Provide flow computations for the dual 30 culverts and 24" culvert under the proposed drive entry. Based on the areas shown on the plan, it appears that the proposed wetland mitigation at a 2. 1 ratio has been met with the mit4lation area to the south of the site It Is recommended that the developer abide by the plan for establishment and mitigation of' the new wetland area. W Page 4 of 6 6 The City will require a maintenance agreement for all permanent storin water BMP's installed on site. The City will write up an agreement for signature by the P roperty owner and the City. 7, A plant ing/landscapi ng plan is required for the ponding area and must be reviewed by Virginia Gaynor with the Nature Center staff. Her phone number is (651) 249-2180. If pond grading will occur in one year and planting will occur the next year, then seeding types and temporary establishment requirements will need to be specified for the interim period (refer to Mn/DOT 2575 and 3876), & The project engineer shall verify that all HWL's on the plan are consistent with the HydroCAD computations. For example the HWL for the wetland mitigation appears to be a 901.86 while the HydroCAD computations show a 902.42. Erosion Control 1, It is assumed that rough grading and building construction will begin prior to preparation of subgrade soils for the parking lot, The project engineer shall submit an interim erosion control staging plan showing the protection of remaining wetland areas that will not be filled in as part of this proposed development. Z The Rock Construction Entrance detail should conform to City of Maplewood Std, Plate 350, For example, the n lengh of a rock entrance pad should be 75 feet, overlaid on geotextile fabric, and indicated as such in plan view. 1 The critical curb inlets along White Bear Avenue are actually "LP4" structures. The project engineer shall detail an erosion control measure that will protect the curb inlet structures along White Bear Avenue and not interfere with traffic flow. An erosion control measure such as staked heavy-duty silt fence around all existing and proposed flared-end sections shall be indicated in plan view. 5. The project engineer shall specify a rock log or mulch log for protecting all installed curb cuts to surrounding ponding basins until the pavement base course is established. & The project engineer shall specify the use of a pick-up broom or vacuum sweeper for street cleaning. The project engineer shall specify erosion control blankets compliant with Mn/DOT 3885 on all proposed slopes that are'_')� I orgreater. This includes the 3� 1 slopes along n proposed filtration basins that will be used on the ponding area. Show anchoring details for the blanket. K-1 8. The project engineer shRll specify updated native seed mixtures per the 2005 MnJ'DOT Standard Specifications for Construction. The project engineer shall submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for their review and approval. 2. Water flow and pressure computations will need to be provided for minimum fire protection flow pressures at the building, The project engineer shall contact SPRWS and the City Building Department for design assumptions and requirements. All pertinent water installation details shall conform to SR JS standards and specifications- 4. The project engineer shall specify materials and slope of the roof drain leads from the building. Provide end-section treatments and clearrouts for each of the leads, Follow all Minnesota Department of Health rules for pipe slope, size and materials. 6. The project engineer is to specify the materials and size for the proposed force main. Also, provide computations and details pertaining to the proposed lift station construction and capacity, 7. It appears from the survey that no casement has been placed over the existino sanitary sewer force main from the existing building to the south. The developer shall obtain two 20-foot easements for both the existing and proposed sanitary sewer force mains. Should the developer place the force mains in the same trench, then one 30-toot easement over both force mains shall be obtained, Geometries and Paving MINOR. Z 2. The driveway width shall be 32 feet with adequate radii to accommodate easy movement of traffic in and out of the site. I ! 3, The existing wetiand/stormponds are classified by RWMWD as Class C wetlands. RWMW­D is looking at a 25' buffer but City of Maplewood's wetland ordinance committee is looking at proposing a 50' buffer for Class C wetlands, with no averaging, A 50' buffer for the newly created wetland is recommended. 1. The project engineer shall note any utility discrepancies with the topographic Survey on the plan sheets. 2. The developer shall submit a copy of the MiPCA's construction stormwateF permit (SWPPP and N to the ciry. No P-radin permit will be issued without the permit. 3, The owner and project engineer shall satisII)y the requirements of all permitt ing agencies including Watershed district requirements, The project engineer shall provide a copy of the approved Watershed permit to the City. 4, The project engineers shall note in the detail descriptions any Citv of Maplewood I - SPRWS details that the project engineer copies or uses in these plans, W Attachment 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, B.I.C. Development Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to construct a medical office building within 350 feet of residentially -zoned property. The proposed building would be set back a distance of 190 feet from the abutting residential district. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: All that part of Lot 2, Block 6, SABIN GARDEN LOTS lying Southerly of a line running from a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 2 distant 158.25 feet Southwest of the Northwest corner thereof to a point on the East line of said Lot 2 distant 136.3 feet South of the Northeast Corner thereof; all of Lot 3 in said Block 6; and all that part of Lots 4 and 5 in said Block 6 lying Northerly of a line running from a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 4 distant 368 feet Northeast of the Southwest corner of Lot 6 in said Block 6 to a point on the East line of said Lot 5 distant 368 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; according to the plats thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County; Subject to easements as shown hereon. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On August 7, 2006, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. The planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. 2. The city council reviewed this request on August 28, 2006. 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 because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date - stamped July 17, 2006. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. All parking lot lights must have concealed bulbs and lenses so as not to shine into neighbors' windows. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential wall or yard light. Light- intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 5. Provide a revised landscaping plan that has an evenly spaced /staggered double row of evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted south of the entrance drive. 6. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed to prevent problems resulting from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west. 7. The grading plan shall be revised for the approval of the city engineer deleting the narrow ponds proposed between White Bear Avenue and the parking lot. 8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28, 2006. 9. Prior to getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a uniform 65 feet of roadway easement along the entire property frontage for future street widening. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 2006 a. Conditional Use Permit — White Bear Avenue Family Health Center (2099 White Bear Avenue) (7:18 — 8:27 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said DSGW Architects, representing B.I.C. Development, Inc., is proposing to build a 40,000- square -foot metical clinic on the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This clinic, proposed to be the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center, will be a two -story steel - framed structure with an exterior of brick and rock -face concrete block. Staff supports this proposal. This clinic would be a compatible neighbor for the abutting homeowners to the north as opposed to the site's potential for heavier - commercial or light - industrial uses that would be permitted under the M1 zoning provisions. Mr. Roberts said the applicant mentioned to staff prior to the start of the meeting that the watershed district had already met and they approved the permit. Commissioner Trippler said on page 4 of the staff report Lieutenant Michael Shortreed from the Maplewood Police Department encouraged limiting the use of White Bear Avenue for construction - activity whenever possible. He asked if there had been any discussion with the applicant regarding that, and if so, what transpired? Mr. Roberts said staff's aware that the neighbors on Prosperity Avenue don't want a connection here and would prefer that the traffic remain on White BearAvenue. Tom Ekstrand, was relying on the comments from Dan Soler, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, regarding the traffic. Staff stated in the report that the proposed driveway would also connect to an existing driveway at the west end of the proposed site. This existing driveway would provide a secondary means of access /egress for the site. This driveway wraps around the existing building on the abutting lot and exits onto Prosperity near the Gateway Trail. Staff doesn't see a problem with this since the same party owns both properties. If the owner were to sell either property, he should consider the exchange of cross easements between both properties. Likewise, if the vacant property to the west of the proposed clinic splits off, cross easements and possibly some pavement removal may be required. Commissioner Trippler said there isn't a recommendation for a right in and right out only allowing them to have a left turn exit. He had hoped a representative from the police department would be here to speak regarding this. He said currently White Bear Avenue has a double yellow line painted on the street which means technically you are breaking the law by turning left into the Maplewood Community Center or by turning left into the Ramsey County Courthouse parking lot, the same would hold true if someone was trying to turn left into the proposed medical clinic because you aren't supposed to cross over a double yellow line. Mr. Roberts said will follow up on that. Commissioner Trippler was impressed by the number of pages of engineering information in the staff report done by Steve Kummer. He said he wasn't used to seeing this many pages of information from engineering in the staff report and he asked if there were this many issues for this proposal or if a lot of the information in the engineering report was basically just information for engineers to engineers? Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Kummer said when he reviews a development proposal he reports on the issues that he sees. He said that is correct that a lot of the engineering report was comments from one engineer to another and this was a pretty straight forward proposal and there weren't a lot of issues with this proposal. Mr. Roberts said what Mr. Kummer is trying to say is the planning commission usually receives engineering information in the staff report that would only pertain to the planning commission and in most cases wouldn't be this detailed. In this case most of the engineering report is engineer -to- engineer. Mr. Kummer said he could reduce the information in future engineering reports so it would only pertain to the planning commission if that's what the commission would prefer. The planning commission said they appreciated the thoroughness of the engineering report and the amount of detail done by Steve Kummer and the commission would like to continue to see detailed information like this in future planning commission reports. Commissioner Pearson said his concern is the discrepancy regarding the computations on filtration flows and the manhole waste disposal layout. Because that terminology isn't in the terminology now, if the city is requiring that terminology then it needs to be stated in the conditions that are passed onto the city council by the planning commission. Commissioner Dierich said she appreciated the engineering detail in the staff report and that Mr. Kummer should keep up the good work and it would be nice to see such detail from other engineering reports. Regarding what Commissioner Pearson was referring to, you could include a summary statement or sentence stating subject to the approval of the city engineer. She asked if the building itself has to be 350 feet to residentially -zoned properties? Mr. Roberts said he thinks Commissioner Dierich is referring to the code which states if you have any use on a property that is zoned M1 and that site is within 350 feet from residential property it needs a conditional use permit, it doesn't say it can't be there and is just another level of review. Commissioner Dierich said the site is zoned M1 and asked if the homes are guided as M1 because it seems strange that there is a small row of R1 zoning there. Mr. Roberts put the zoning map on the overhead to show that the zoning and the comprehensive plan are consistent. Commissioner Yarwood said he read the concerns in the staff report regarding the drainage problems in the area and he asked if the proposed development would be a positive or negative issue to the area or if it would have no impact on the neighbors? Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Kummer said the overall development will have a neutral impact on the residents to the north because they are upland from the site. There is a drainage issue near Burke Avenue and Prosperity, towards the west. The water sheet drains down to the low points of the site. Regarding whether or not the drainage issue is resolved or not, the city won't know that until 2009 when the capital improvement project occurs in this area along with some other improvements to Burke Avenue that residents have raised concerns about. The applicant's engineer addressed that with a culvert pipe underneath the new driveway as well as infiltration basins along the west side of the parking lot to capture the sheet runoff from Prosperity Avenue in the ditch area. Mr. Roberts said some of the concerns were raised with the development for five single family homes off Prosperity Avenue by some of the residents. With the construction of the street the engineers were paying close attention to the existing drainage and looking into what could be done downstream with the area so there may be overlap regarding neighbors having the same concerns. It's the city's expectation that the storm water improvements will help the problem along with the ponding that goes in. Commissioner Dierich said she assumes the same person owns all the parcels and that the third building will go into the vacant space. She asked if in the future there will be an issue regarding these parcels and the amount of impervious surface for these areas? Mr. Roberts said the city doesn't know that the parcels will continue to be owned by the same owner. In any case any project will have to go through the same application process and they would have to satisfy the city engineering department. That could mean less hard surface along with building another pond. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned that if the parcels are subdivided there will be too much pervious surface. She noticed in the resolution that staff wanted cross easements but there is no mention of that and in the future, should this other parcel be developed, there should be cross easements in the resolution. On page 29 of the staff report, in number 4. it states The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, waterrun -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or othernuisances. However, a medical facility produces a lot of bio- hazard materials so that should be amended in some way in the resolution. Mr. Roberts said it would be best not to touch on the cross easements at this point because they are not needed on the third lot and if that becomes owned by a separate owner and they want to do a lot split, the city would want to condition the lot split to dedicate the necessary cross easements at that time. Or if there is another CUP with a future proposal when the city has a better handle on the lay out of the whole site it's clearer for everybody what will or won't be needed as far as easements. Commissioner Dierich said you would also condition the lot split regarding a certain amount of pervious surface so the front lot would be a condition of the lot split. Mr. Roberts said correct. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Commissioner Dierich said on page 26 of the staff report, number 6., it states the project engineer shall specify the use of a pick -up broom or vacuum sweeper for street cleaning and she asked how often that should be done? Mr. Kummer said the street should be cleaned or swept daily. That's what the city tries to do especially in the Kenwood area street project area. Acting chairperson Desai asked if the applicant could address the commission. Mr. Dick Gunderson, representing the applicant, addressed the commission. Mr. Gunderson commended the staff for the work they did for this proposal. Commissioner Trippler said he is very concerned about the customer's ability to get in and out of the proposed medical facility. He asked if there was a likelihood of having a connection with Prosperity Avenue to enter and exit the site? Mr. Gunderson said the property owner has no plans to develop the property to the west or continue the current drive from White Bear Avenue west to Prosperity. Comments from the engineer and Dan Soler were received and they stated that aligning the drive entrance to the medical facility with the drive entrance to the community center would be adequate. Commissioner Trippler said if the planning commission makes a recommendation for a right in and right out only and Ramsey County doesn't restripe White Bear Avenue how are the customers going to get into the site coming from the south and heading north? Mr. Gunderson said the customers would have to find another way to enter such as Prosperity and come through the back otherwise they would have to go around the block. If people can't drive across the yellow lines would that apply to the Maplewood Community Center and to the Ramsey County Courthouse property too? Commissioner Trippler said they shouldn't be exempt. Mr. Kummer said if it's illegal to turn left across a double yellow line, then yes, it would apply to the Maplewood Community Center as well. Mr. Gunderson said they would do whatever is recommended by the professionals. The intention is if this proposal is passed to begin construction later this fall. Acting chairperson Desai asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Ms. Carole Lynne, 1723 Burke Avenue East, addressed the commission. She lives in this area and sees many potential traffic problems here. Prosperity, County Road B and White Bear Avenue all connect. Burke Avenue has been a shortcut for people to bypass the traffic lights which is already a safety concern for her. The cars speed and as you climb Burke Avenue you cannot see the end at White Bear Avenue. The homes on this street did not have children living there for 20 years and now there are children living here and she is concerned about the children's safety. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Ms. Lynne said she envisions coming up Phalen Boulevard to Prosperity and turning on Burke Avenue and turning right into the clinic because people already drive this route. There are many pieces to this proposal that are problematic. She is afraid people are going to be rear ended because of the speed of traffic on White Bear Avenue. She sees three solutions here. One solution is to put a cul -de -sac at Burke Avenue so people can't use the street as a main thoroughfare, second, put a gate in that could open and close for emergency vehicles, third, making an entrance at Prosperity may help to keep cars off of Burke Avenue. If you were in this neighborhood you would see what she sees. She has always had a wet basement and there is a problem with water runoff. Her house has sat on water for 20 years just like her neighbors. When she went to the architects meeting regarding moving the wetlands, everybody assured her that it would be okay to move the wetlands and that the water would run where it should. She said the Phalen Center thought that at one time as well and that did not work. The people telling her this are the people that would be at an advantage. She isn't an engineer but she wants people to know what it's like from her vantage point. Commissioner Trippler said he would recommend that she contact the Maplewood Police Department and let them know about the traffic problems on Burke Avenue and the speeding. They could send someone out there and monitor the traffic situation and hopefully something will change and help with the potential danger for the children and neighbors in the area. Ms. Lynne thanked Commissioner Trippler for the advice. Commissioner Yarwood asked how many trips per day the proposed clinic would generate because he did not see anything in the staff report regarding that. Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Gunderson said they did not have that information available at this time. Commissioner Yarwood said Dan Soler must have had that information in order for him to make his recommendations. Mr. Roberts said Dan Soler may have made assumptions based on other clinics and the traffic they had generated based on square footage. His sense is no matter what the trips generated would be it would not be enough to overburden White Bear Avenue. The question is the traffic pattern the cars would take to get to the medical clinic. Commissioner Hess asked what the speed limit was on that stretch on White Bear Avenue? Mr. Kummer said the speed limit is 40 mph there and the speed limit lowers to 35 mph as you drive up the hill towards Larpenteur Avenue. Commissioner Hess said he drives that area a lot and wondered about the possibility of having a turn lane to help alleviate some of the congestion and with the speed. Mr. Roberts said Ramsey County has identified having a fifth lane on White Bear Avenue when it's reconstructed but that would be at least five years down the road. Until then there is any funding to pay for that to happen. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Willard Frantz, 1750 Burke Avenue East, addressed the commission. He has no objection regarding the construction of the facility. He was concerned about the lighting of the parking lot, how the high the light poles would be, the hours the lights would be on and the type of bulbs they would use. In the interest of safety he supports the previous speaker. When he leaves his house 95% of the time he drives west to Prosperity and north to County Road B and back to White Bear Avenue to catch the stop light. White Bear Avenue to Frost Avenue is a racetrack. The faster the cars can get to Frost Avenue the better they are until the light changes and they have to slam their brakes on. The current two lane entrance to the Maplewood Community Center is a stop gap for traffic driving on White Bear Avenue. Why that entrance wasn't made into a three lane entrance he will never know. But now to put another two lane entrance on the opposite side of the street on White Bear Avenue is an accident waiting to happening. This should actually be an accident prevention site. He and his wife hear the accidents happening all the time following the sound of police cars and ambulances. Mr. Frantz said to plan for a turn lane five or more years down the road is "penny rich and dollar poor ". In five years from now it will cost a lot more than it will to put it in now while the earth is being moved around and it would be in the interest of safety and should be taken care of now. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Frantz what he thought of putting a cul -de -sac in like what was suggested earlier? Mr. Frantz said he didn't think that would work because there isn't enough land to do that and he would be concerned about emergency vehicles being able to turn around and get in and out of the site. Mr. Roberts said the lighting is reviewed during the CDRB meeting tomorrow evening. The city code has a provision that the lights can be no taller than 25 feet in height, there cannot be any light spillage beyond their property, the bulbs and lenses have to be concealed as well and the applicant would have to submit those details in a detailed lighting plan before they can get a permit. Mr. Kummer said public works would support constructing a cul -de -sac at Burke Avenue and dead ending Burke Avenue at White Bear Avenue and obviously there has to be a place for snow removal and vehicle turn around but public works. That is something that would have to be planned ahead with the 2009 capital improvement project. Acting chairperson Desai asked if speed bumps had ever been considered for areas like this to help reduce speeding? Mr. Roberts said Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, has said they will not use speed bumps on a public street because of the issues it causes for snow plows. Acting chairperson Desai said he knows the University of Minnesota campus uses speed bumps to slow traffic down on their campus. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Ms. Linda Hallibarton, 2138 Prosperity Avenue, addressed the commission. She has two concerns regarding this project. She thanked the planning commission for raising a lot of the issues the neighbors have had. The drainage is a big concern of hers. If you live there and you experience the water problem, you realize the water does not runoff into the field. She went out last Wednesday morning after the rain and took photos of the water, how long the water stood, where the water stood, and where the water runs, and this is a big problem. Her concern is as the land continues to be developed and the amount of impervious ground continues that this will exasperate the problem and the water table is going to get hirer and hirer. In the winter when the snow melts and then refreezes they have a natural skating rink. She said she is not convinced that these steps that have been raised are going to solve the drainage problems here. The other issue is the traffic on Prosperity along with the other development of five single family homes to be built on Eldridge Fields. We need to do something to control the traffic here. She said she can't tell you the number of people that run the stop signs at County Road B at Prosperity Avenue, including officials from the City of Maplewood. There are major traffic concerns here and as this corridor continues to be developed these two problems have to be addressed and are only going to get worse. She recommended paying for them at the get go because they will be less expensive to take care of now rather than waiting. Commissioner Trippler said he assumed if he requested an outlet on Prosperity Avenue Ms. Hallibarton and the neighbors would not be happy? Ms. Hallibarton said she would not be happy, however, they say that it's a utility road in and out to the buildings that are there. She said she is a realist and it's not realistic that there's only going to be one entrance on White Bear Avenue. The overall traffic condition needs to be looked at, considerations need to be made and solutions proposed to limit the possibility of something negative happening. Commissioner Hess asked if Ms. Hallibarton also has water problems in her basement? Ms. Hallibarton said her home is a split level and doesn't have a full basement. She is confident one of the reasons there is no full basement here is because of the water problems and continuing standing water in the yards. The neighbors told her that the previous owner of her house had water problems before she bought the property 8 years ago. There had been additional grading and build up that was done before she bought the house and she assumed it was a preventive measure to prevent further water problems in the house. Acting chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hess said he thought he read the engineering report stated the storm water was adequately dealt with but we are hearing so much about the ponding on the properties? He said he thinks we need to go a little further than just "adequate" and this needs further investigative work done to alleviate the water runoff problems. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Mr. Roberts said when Erin Laberee from engineering was reviewing the Eldridge Fields proposal the engineers were going to study the culverts and ditches along Prosperity regarding drainage. As testified by the neighbors during the Eldridge Fields project the city is aware of the drainage problems along Prosperity. Staff believes this project itself is not going to change the drainage that is uphill here. They may be able to tie into the Eldridge Fields project to help with these problems but this would have to be confirmed before this goes to the city council. The main thing is that city doesn't want these continuing problems to continue. He said he can't imagine that if there is proper ponding here that it would affect how the ditches of Prosperity are going to drain, that tie into the Eldridge Field project. Mr. Kummer said the ditch and culvert system that runs along Prosperity is on the west side of the property. This development is low land of what's occurring on the north side of Burke Avenue. There is a high water table there anyway. He doesn't think this project is going to be the "solution" to the problem. It's a combination of public improvement projects coming up on Burke Avenue and anything that is going to happen upstream on the north side of County Road B and he doesn't think this is going to resolve all the issues the neighbors to the north have at this point. He said he could not verify if there had been a drainage study done as part of the Eldridge Field project. Commissioner Pearson said the Maplewood Community Center has existed a long time already and nothing has been done about the double yellow line on White Bear Avenue so he doesn't have a lot of confidence that something will be changed anytime soon. If you go north on White Bear Avenue to Rainbow foods, despite the fact there is a no left turn sign and you are only supposed to go right out people still turn left onto White Bear Avenue which is known as a suicide turn lane because of the high traffic there. Driving into the Hostess bakery store you would have to cross the double yellow line too. He would think the developer would want to know whether the water table is above or below frost level and what kind of footings they would have to have to support the building but the testing isn't available to give that information and for that reason he is not particularly favorable of this. Commissioner Trippler said regarding the Eldridge Fields project, when the John Glenn school developed the playgrounds that are located on the west side that was a wetland that they filled in to make the soccer and ball fields and that changed the drainage pattern for the whole area and may be what caused the ponding to occur in the area. The engineers discussed diverting the stormwater in the area. This particular area is so far below where the other people are having their drainage problems that he doesn't see how this particular development will make a positive impact on the current drainage problems the neighbors are having. His general concern is the traffic in the area which he thinks is a nightmare waiting to happen. Mr. Gunderson was given permission to address the commission again. Mr. Gunderson said there are 17 soil borings that were taken on the site so they are aware of the water table and the soils. They have a civil engineer and a structural engineer for the development. The east quarter of the property had quite a bit of peat or organic soils that need to be removed and have good soils brought in and the soils improve as you move to the west. Commissioner Pearson asked if the developer could submit a soils report to him. Mr. Gunderson said he believed they provided a soils report to the city as part of the application but they could get a copy of it for Commissioner Pearson. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Commissioner Yarwood said he would support the idea of a right in and right out but he doesn't support restriping White Bear Avenue he would rather not have cars stopping there because of the traffic. Commissioner Trippler said the conditions should say interim community development director since the city doesn't have a community development director right now. Mr. Roberts said he would change the conditions to read interim community development director Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This approval is for a medical clinic in an M1 (light manufacturing) district that would be within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.) 1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the city has date - stamped July 17, 2006. The interim community development director may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started, or the proposed use utilized, within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. All parking -lot lights must have concealed bulbs and lenses so as not to shine into neighbors' windows. This lighting must not give off more light than a typical residential wall or yard light. Light- intensity maximums must meet code requirements. 5. Provide a revised landscaping plan that has an evenly spaced /staggered double row of evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted south of the entrance drive. 6. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west. 7. The applicant shall comply with all requirements stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28, 2006. 8. Prior to getting a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate a uniform 65 feet of roadway easement along the entire property frontage for future street widening. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 9. The developer shall make a right in and right out only with an outlet of the parking lot on Prosperity Avenue Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Commissioner Yarwood asked if Mr. Gunderson had any information regarding how many trips per day this building would generate? Mr. Gunderson said Dan Soler's comments indicated that a traffic study was not needed at this point. Commissioner Yarwood said he assumed the developer would have some idea of how many trips this building would generate. Mr. Gunderson said he represents the owner and as part of the development there is another person who is not present this evening that would have that information. Mr. Roberts said that is information the city would like to have before this goes to the city council. Commissioner Trippler asked how the planning commissioners felt regarding a recommendation for a right in and right out only with an outlet of the parking lot onto Prosperity and or asking Ramsey County to restripe this part of White Bear Avenue? Commissioner Hess said he thought that made sense also. Acting chairperson Desai asked if Commissioner Trippler proposed to have a single stripe painted on White Bear Avenue which would allow cars to turn left and drive north out of the parking lot? Commissioner Trippler said no right in and right out. We would still have to deal with the cars coming north. Commissioner Pearson said they shouldn't have to break the law to enter the lot and many of customers visiting the clinics are elderly. Commissioner Trippler said if we don't have an entrance on Prosperity Avenue and there is a right in and right out then we have to have White Bear Avenue restriped. If we make them have an entrance onto Prosperity Avenue then he doesn't think it's as important to have the restriping because you have offered the clients an alternative rather than struggling to get on and off of White Bear Avenue they could use Prosperity Avenue. Acting chairperson Desai said that is going to increase traffic onto Prosperity Avenue and is that road able to carry that load? Commissioner Trippler asked what type of road Prosperity Avenue is? Mr. Roberts said Prosperity Avenue has been identified as a collector street. He's sure the neighbors have determined the road is over utilized already. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks the engineering staff should study closing off Burke Avenue on White Bear Avenue and the feasibility of that. Mr. Roberts said that could be made as a separate motion. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 08 -07 -06 Trippler, Yarwood Commissioner Dierich moved to recommend a separate motion to direct the city engineering staff to study the feasibility of closing Burke Avenue off at White Bear Avenue. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2006 MinnHealth Clinic — Vacant Lot Located to the North of 2055 White Bear Avenue (Across the Street from the Maplewood Community Center) Mr. Ekstrand said DSGW Architects, representing B.I.C. Development, Inc., is proposing to build a 40,000 - square -foot medical clinic on the vacant property north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. This clinic, proposed to be the White Bear Avenue Family Health Center, will be a two -story steel- framed structure with an exterior of brick and rock -face concrete block. Staff does not envision a problem with noise from this medical clinic. This clinic should actually be a very quiet neighbor with regular business hours. The property owner, Mr. Gene Berwald, said the clinic hours would be typical medical clinic hours of 8 to 5 or 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and possibly on Saturday mornings. Staff recommends that the landscape plan be revised to provide some over -story trees on the north side of the site to provide some taller screening for the abutting house to the north which fronts on White Bear Avenue. The evergreens proposed along the north side of the site should be a double row planted so that there is no less than a five -foot spacing of trees when viewed straight on (10 feet on center in each row). There are seven trees proposed along the front of the site. This isn't very many trees for a distance of nearly 400 feet. Staff feels that this number should be doubled. This would provide a tree spacing of a tree 28 to 30 feet on center. The applicant must install an in- ground lawn irrigation system according to the ordinance. An outdoor trash enclosure is proposed on the north side of the building. The enclosure would be rock -face concrete block to match the block on the building and would have a wooden gate closure. Board member Ledvina asked about the created wetland. He asked if the city is establishing the quality of the wetland and the appropriate buffer? Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland that is being lost on this site. The watershed district is requiring that the applicant "replace the lesser- quality wetland on their site with a higher quality sedge - meadow wetland on the applicant's abutting lot to the south." He believes Tina Carstens with the watershed district said it would be a 25 -foot buffer. Chairperson Olson said the wetland would be replaced on "this site" and would not be mitigated "off' site? Mr. Ekstrand said the wetland would be mitigated off site but in front of the property to the south, which is the same property owner and that is acceptable to the watershed district. Board member Schurke joined the CDRB meeting at 6:30 p.m. Board member Ledvina said there are 216 parking spaces proposed and city code requires 200. Did staff mention to the applicant they could have proof of parking? Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 Mr. Ekstrand said the city recently approved the Kennard Professional Building in Legacy Village and the developer said the 5 per 1,000 parking spaces is not sufficient for a medical clinic. This medical facility building is about the same size as the Kennard Professional Building. Based on that, staff estimated this medical clinic would need this many parking spaces and they would actually like more parking spaces. Staff was satisfied with the 216 proposed parking spaces. Board member Ledvina said as long as the applicant has the parking they need than that is what is important. Board member Shankar said the plans show both a standing seam metal roof as well as horizontal siding, he asked if the applicant showed staff any colors? He is concerned that the standing seam and the horizontal siding is the same color. Mr. Ekstrand said the applicant brought building material samples to show the CDRB so they can address that issue. Chairperson Olson asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Randy Wagner, DSGW Architects in North St. Paul, (representing B.I.C. Development) addressed the board. He displayed the building materials board. He said they tried to use compatible colors that were used on the three influential buildings in the area, the Maplewood Community Center, Ramsey County Courthouse and the CVS Pharmacy. They will be using brick, concrete colored block, corrugated boxed siding, and have a standing seam metal roof over the barrel vaulted canopy in front. It will be a two -story glass building with a two -story lobby with two canopies. The fascia board is brick red across the face which is also used on the sun screen on the south side of the building. The corrugated metal is dark anodized bronze and is the same color as the aluminum store front. Board member Shankar said the applicant referred to three influential buildings in the neighborhood but some of them have anodized aluminum for the horizontal siding and here you are proposing an anodized bronze color. Mr. Wagner said they want to use similar colors and building materials but still have their own identity with this building to change things up a bit. They want this building to blend in but be different, that eliminates confusion regarding who owns the building too. Board member Schurke asked about the sun screen on the south side? He asked if it will be an architectural sun screen or is it functional? Mr. Wagner said it is a functional sun screen. He showed the CDRB the elevation with the sun screen on the south side of the building as well as the other elevations to show how everything will correspond together. He also passed the building materials board around for the CDRB to review. Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 Chairperson Olson asked about the landscaping and staff's request for additional landscaping on the north side? Mr. Wagner said the additional landscaping recommended should not be an issue. Chairperson Olson said the plan shows plantings around the base of the elevations and she asked if those were called out on the landscaping plan. Mr. Wagner said for the most part those will be simple foundation plantings. There isn't a lot of green space here; it's basically a buffer between the buildings and the lawn. Board member Schurke asked about additional strategies in terms of storm water mitigation that could be used here but are not shown? Mr. Ekstrand said engineering and the applicant will have to take another review of the storm water mitigation. Today it came up that the city engineer said that the small ponds proposed between the parking lot and the street would not be effective and not preferred. When White Bear Avenue gets widened in about five years those ponds would have to be removed so that will have to be looked at again before this goes to the city council. Board member Schurke asked what the intent was regarding the property on the west side of this parcel? Mr. Wagner said he wasn't sure what the developer plans to do with that parcel. Mr. Ekstrand said he had asked the same question and the developer said he doesn't know yet. Staff would suggest not disturbing the land at this point. He would hate to see the land regraded because often times there isn't the best success getting the ground restored so if they don't need to disturb the land, staff would suggest leaving it alone until there is a proposal. Board member Schurke said he didn't see a sidewalk on the plans parallel to White Bear Avenue. However, the city extended the sidewalk underneath Highway 36 to reach the intersection and his strong preference is to figure out a way to accommodate pedestrian access to this clinic site because of the adjacency to the Metro Transit system. It is difficult to walk to this site unless you walk on the street which could be dangerous. He asked if the applicant would be willing to construct a sidewalk here? Mr. Wagner said you bring up a very good point and he doesn't believe the applicant would have a problem constructing a sidewalk here along White Bear Avenue. It would only help the businesses within this building. Board member Schurke said he likes the idea of pushing the storm water mitigation to the west side of the property and you can always address modifications later to accommodate future development on the south side. He appreciates the effort that has been made on the design of this building. This is a very pleasing building and he commended the developer for adding a sun screen on the building. He likes the location and the adjacency to White Bear Avenue. The traffic comments that have been raised by the neighbors are legitimate. There are times when Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 it's very difficult to safely enter this stretch of White Bear Avenue. Because of the difficulty getting in and out of this site he would recommend not blocking the view in any way with monument signage or any other obstruction that would make it even harder to get onto the roadway safely because the traffic moves very quickly on this stretch of road. Chairperson Olson said she would highly recommend the construction of the sidewalk. Mr. Ekstrand said staff's only concern is that within the next five years White Bear Avenue will be widened and if we require the applicant to install a sidewalk, and the road is widened, it would need to be removed. Board member Schurke said there could be a conversation with the county to find out what the dimension should be to keep a buffer between where the road may be widened and the placement of the sidewalk to be constructed. The pedestrian access is very important here and five years is a long time to wait for a sidewalk just because we are waiting to see how White Bear Avenue will be reconstructed. Chairperson Olson asked if it would be appropriate to recommend the wetlands be relocated behind the building? Mr. Ekstrand said that seems to be a likely option. The board may want to suggest that the drainage plan be subject to the approval of the city engineer and the ponds be relocated in areas most appropriate. The bottom line is the city engineer would have to approve the grading and drainage plan and the location of the ponds. Mr. Wagner said the signage for the building is not shown on the plans but there will be a monument sign. The design and detail of the sign is not yet complete. The sign will be low to the ground and identify the address and the tenants within the building. Board member Schurke asked if Mr. Wagner was aware of the Maplewood sign code? Mr. Wagner said yes. Chairperson Olson asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this development? Nobody came forward. Board member Schurke moved to approve the plans date - stamped July 17, 2006, for the proposed White Bear Avenue Family Health Center north of 2055 White Bear Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant /developer complying with the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Comply with all conditions stated in Steve Kummer's engineering report dated July 28, 2006. Community Design Review Board 5 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 3. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District before the issuance of a building permit. If needed the applicant shall prepare a wetland delineation and full mitigation plan. These activities shall be completed by a competent wetland specialist. The plan shall incorporate the corresponding buffer zone required for the new wetland buffer given the specific type of wetland be constructed. 4. Install wetland- protection buffer signs around the mitigated wetland and any contiguous wetlands if needed by the watershed district. Wetland signs shall be spaced every 100 feet and shall comply with the city's approved sign design requirements. 5. All wetland and drainage and rainwater ponds shall be planted with plantings as required by the watershed district and the city engineer. 6. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and the watershed district for the maintenance of ponds. 7. Revise the landscaping plan to provide for an evenly spaced /staggered double row of evergreens along the north property line where the trees are spaced no more than 10 feet on center in each planted row. The applicant shall also revise the landscaping plan to provide 14 trees spaced at 30 feet on center along the White Bear Avenue frontage between the entrance drive and the north lot line. There shall also be two trees planted south of the entrance drive. 8. The grading of the site to the west is not allowed in order to prevent problems resulting from difficulty with turf restoration. Grading shall be limited to that necessary to blend grades between the proposed site and the remaining undeveloped land to the west. 9. The applicant must provide an in -ground irrigation system as required by code. The area around the pond does not need to be sprinklered. 10. The roof -top mechanical equipment shall be screened from the view of all residential properties. 11. All site lights must be properly screened or shielded so the lenses and bulbs are not visible off site from any home. 12. Provide cash escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of completing the landscaping and exterior site improvements before the applicant shall obtain a building permit. 13. The community design review board shall approve major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 14. The applicant shall integrate a 6 foot wide sidewalk into the site parallel to White Bear Avenue. The applicant shall meet with the county and city staff to determine it's proper Inratinn Community Design Review Board 6 Minutes 8 -08 -2006 15 The applicant shall consider and review with the city's engineering staff storm water mitigation options other than what is shown on the plans currently for the purposes for permeable paving or rainwater gardens to be located on the west side of the property or where appropriate relative to the development. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes — Ledvina, Olson, Schurke, Shankar The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 28, 2006. Agenda Item L5 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Copeland FROM: Karen Guilfbile City Clerk RE: Tobacco Compliance Checks — Failures DATE: August 22, 2006 Introduction The city has completed another round of tobacco compliance checks. Out of the 49 cigarette and tobacco licenses held, 47 were checked and 14 businesses failed. Additionally, included in this report is Knowlan's who also failed the last check but requested a delay before council because the manager was out of town and unable to be present at the council meeting. Knowlan's also failed a compliance check on August 3, 2006. Party Time Liquor who failed an alcohol compliance check during the last round of checks, requested to appear with this current cycle of checks since the owner was unavailable for the last meeting when compliance checks were before the city council. The Myth and Stargate Nightclubs, who have cigarette licenses, will be checked at a later date as they were closed when the compliance checks were done. In all instances, an employee failed the compliance check by selling tobacco to an underage buyer and was issued a criminal complaint for that offence which has been or will be prosecuted. Background While the city does not have specified fines for cigarette and tobacco compliance failures, past practice has been to adhere to the following guidelines for imposing penalties: first offense $250, second offense $500 and the third offense $750. When the city council began performing tobacco compliance checks in 2000, they opted not to have a strict guideline for penalties because some compliance failures are more egregious and warrant stricter penalties. As you can see on the attachment, I have included the history of compliance failures for each licensed establishment. Following past practice in imposing fines, I have listed what staff is proposing for fines for the majority of the current failures. As stated above, Knowlan's Super Market, has failed the last two tobacco compliance checks and warrants council discussion regarding the penalty to be imposed. All establishments were notified by certified mail of the proposed civil penalty against them and were encouraged to attend the August 28, 2006 council meeting. Consideration Council consideration for penalties is requested, Compliance Checks Cigarette Licenses A = Alcohol Prior Failures T = Tobacco Business Prior Failures and Action Current Cycle I August 2" and 3 rd 2006 Intoxicating Liquor License Proposed $250 5-8 Tavern and Grill A/2002 - $500 Ale's Tobacco Proposed $250 Acapulco Mexican Restaurant A/2004 - $500 AM Express Mart A/2000 - $500 AMF Maplewood Lanes T/2006 — Proposed $250 Proposed $250 Applebee's Grill A/2004 - $500 Bennigan's The Bird Bleechers A/2000 - $500 A/2004 - $ 1,000 Best Western T/2002 - $250 T/2003 - $500 Proposed $250 Budget Service/Larpenteur Z-- Century Avenue Service Chalet Lounge T/2002 $250 Previous Owner A/2004 Current Owner $500 T/2006 — Proposed $250 Charapp's Proposed $250 Chili's Restaurant A/2004 Current Owner $500 Chipotle Mexican Grill Cub Foods/County Road B Cub Foods/White Bear Ave. A/2000 - $500 CVS Pharmacv Proposed $250 Deans Tavern A/2006 — Proposed $500 Due's Restaurant Fast Break Flemings Auto Service T/2003 - $250 Freedom Valu Center A/2004 Current Owner $500 Proposed $250 Garrity's Goodrich Golf Course Gulden's A/2001 - $500 A/2004 Current Owner $500 Hilltop Foods, Inc. T/2002 - $250 A/2006 — Proposed $500 Proposed $500 Holiday Station/Century T/2001 - $250 T/2003 2 Failures $1,000 T/2006 — Council discussion Holidav Station/McKnight T/2001 - $500 Huey's Saloon-Fonnerly Stnitey's A/2002 - $500 Prior Owner A/2006 — Proposed $500 Keller Clubhouse Keller Lake Convenience A/2004 Current Owner $500 Proposed $250 Knowlan's Super Market T/2002 - $250 T/2006 (Last round of checks not yet before council and a failure of tobacco on Amzust 3 - See Report Les's Superette T/2004 - $250 M & W Tobacco Proposed $250 Mania Mia's Pizza Maplewood Amoco BP Proposed $250 McKnight Mart and Gas A/2000 2 Times $1,000 T/2002 - $250 Prior Owner (Tom Thumb) Noodles & Company Oasis Market /Co e The Olive Garden Outback Steakhouse Party Service Pond's at Battle Creek A/2004 - $500 Rainbow Foods Proposed $250 Red Lobster Richard's Market The Rock A/2000 - $1,000 Proposed $250 Shinders, Inc. Sinclair Station T/2004 2 Times - $750 Star ate Bar & Danceclub Superamerica/Century A/2000 - $500 Su eramerica/ 17 5 0 WBA T/2001 - $500 Superamerica/2529 WBA Suzanne' Cuisine A/2002 - $500 A/2004 - $1,000 Vietuarn Star Restaurant Walgreen's Proposed $250 Yocum Food Mart Club On-Sale Moose Lodge 963 Wine On-Sale Taste of India Singapore Chinese Cuisine A/2000 - $500 A/2003 - $500 Council reduced fine stating one more violation would be $2,000 fine and the $500 that was reduced Off-Sale Liquor Licenses A -1 Liquor A/2004 - $500 Big Discount Liquor Proposed $250 Laber's Liquors A/2000 2 Times $1,000 T/2000 - $250 Blue is off-sale 3.2 beer and cigarette license holder's. Red is cigarettes only. Green is on-sale beer only. T/2001 - $500 A/2002-$2,000/3day suspension T/2003 - $1,000 A/2006 — Council discussion Lor'Liquor Store Maplewood Wine Cellar Al2000 - $500 M.G.M. Liquor Warehouse Proposed $250 Party Time Liquor T/2003 - $250 A/2006 — Proposed $500 Princess Liquor 'n Tobacco Sarrack's Wine & Spirits Blue is off-sale 3.2 beer and cigarette license holder's. Red is cigarettes only. Green is on-sale beer only. MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Bruce K. Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: August 18, 2006 for the August 28 City Council Meeting SUBJECT: Maplewood Community Center /White Bear Avenue Plantings INTRODUCTION Agenda Item L6 The Maplewood Parks and Recreation Department has always had a desire to improve the landscape of White Bear Avenue in front of the community center. One could argue that this section of White Bear Avenue is one of the prime entrance points of Maplewood and with over 300,000 visitors to the community center, plus countless car traffic, it provides an excellent opportunity to showcase our community. The objective is to improve the landscape along White Bear Avenue to enhance not only the community center, but also to provide a welcome and "first impression" to our community. BACKGROUND The city council has allocated $250,000 of park development monies for the improvement of the Maplewood Community Center. The initial intent of the monies was to do a fitness expansion on the east side of the Maplewood Community Center. After researching this issue in greater depth in early 2006, it was determined that this was not feasible due to code compliance and cost issues. During the past three months city staff has developed a number of projects and /or priorities of improvements for the Maplewood Community Center. Staff will be finalizing this list for consideration by the council at the September 25 meeting. One of the priorities for the community center and city is to improve the landscaping along White Bear Avenue. As you are aware, the city works with numerous Eagle Scouts on projects throughout our community. I currently coordinate 8 to 12 projects along with other members of our park department on an annual basis. We currently have three Scouts who are scheduled to do plantings along White Bear Avenue. The first planting has occurred just north of the community center sign including prairie grasses, plants and forbs. The city has developed a major landscaping plan (see attached) for White Bear Avenue. As part of the landscaping plan, it is proposed for not only plant materials, but also a permanent concrete border. The estimated budget for the project is $15,000. Staff recommends that the city council direct the finance department to establish a White Bear Avenue planting fund utilizing a portion of the $250,000 P.A.C. monies set aside for the community center improvements. The monies would be used for plant materials, design costs and installation of concrete planting borders along White Bear Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council establish a budget of $15,000 to improve the landscape planting along White Bear Avenue adjacent to the community center, with the monies to be allocated from the park development fund for the Maplewood Community Center. kphlwhite bear ave plantings. mcc Attachment �� --� �� `' �� L� �� 3 0 �3 �� � � � � � �� � �-. �° �_ � 'S `b J =i�-:� ��.� �� j� :�, � ��� �f _ Y�.��:; x � ���� � �, �. t^ - -, "� � 3 li t � R n.� { `' �r �$ � (#- '�.4 F%' � � C61 �\� `,` �- f � x �� �, 3 � � , �� � Y _..__ I �A �l i� - ��� �: \ y P- � �' ���� \ � � � ,, � / '�) �,� � � �- � � � � �` � �� � � p � � � � � ,� � � � �- � ��, � � � � � �, � .. \^`� \, 3 N r �va1 �_ �, f � +s �_ � ��� ��� ����� x P !J t �� �' �� � � _X�, 5 � Agenda Item N1 August 22, 2006 TO: City Council FROM: Greg Copeland, City Manager RE: City Council Administrative Policy Sec. 14.13 Other Matters The City Clerk has advised me with Legislative Elections occurring it is possible that the City of Maplewood will be requested to grant use of the City Council Chambers for candidate forums and other political meetings. Current policy states: "City Hall is a non public forum and prohibits all campaigning for public office within municipal buildings and equipment." This does not allow the City of Maplewood to host these public political forums or meetings. In order that the City of Maplewood again be able to host candidate forums such as those hosted by the League of Women Voters or other organizations, the above referenced policy should be repealed. Past practice has been to allow non partisan use of the facility for purposes such as League of Women Voters candidate forums at no charge when available. Proposed Policy The City Council Chambers is available for non partisan political meetings and candidate forums at no charge for a maximum use of 4 hours during periods when not otherwise required for official City business and when a building custodian is scheduled to be on the premises. Event sponsors shall be non partisan organizations which shall reserve space at least 5 days in advance with the City Clerk's office. Agenda Item N2 i' FIRM LOCATION PROPOSED FEES MINIMUM PROJECTED ANNUAL COST BASED ON 100 HOURS PER MONTH BRADLEY & St. Paul $ 175 per hour Senior Attorney $210,000 to $162,000 GUZZETTA $135 Staff Attorney KENNEDY & GRAVEN Minneapolis $12,500 monthly retainer $150,000 covers all routine matters. City Council meetings less than 4 hours including travel time, the actual duration of the meeting will apply to retainer at $135 per hour. City Council meetings exceeding 4 hours including travel time applied to retainer $500 per meeting. KNAAK &KANTRUD Vadnais Heights $8,250 per month flat fee. $ 99,000 Except litigation exceeding 10 hours on an individual file in a single month, billed at $90 per hour Attorney/ $50 per hour paralegal. MORRISON, FENSKE & Minnetonka $5,000 monthly retainer, with $150,000 SUND range of 25 -50 hours per month with, additional charge or credit of: $150 per hour PRIOR CONTRACTOR 2006 PER HOUR RATES 2005 ACTUAL COST KELLY & FAWCETT St. Paul $300 Partner $190,180.20 $190 Associates $ 90 Law Clerks $ 90 Paralegal FIRM LITIGATION COPIES FAX MILEAGE MESSENGER ONLINE OPEN TO COSTS EXPRESS LEGAL CITY HALL MAIL RESEARCH OFFICE HOURS BRADLEY & Attorney $175 -$135 Cost Cost .485 pm Cost Not Yes GUZZETTA Paralegal $90 Addressed KENNEDY & Attorney $155 .20 pp .50 pp .445 pm Actual Actual Yes GRAVEN Paralegal $90 Cost Cost KNAAK& Attorney $90 First 500 No No No No Yes KANTRUD Paralegal $50 copies Charge Charge Charge Charge each month no charge MORRISON, Not No No No Not No Not FENSKE & Addressed Charge Charge Charge Addressed Charge Addressed SUND PROSECUTION SERVICES FIRM LOCATION PROPOSED FEES MINIMUM PROJECTED ANNUAL COST BASED ON 100 HOURS PER MONTH BRADLEY & St. Paul $175 Senior Attorney per hour $210,000 to $162,000 GUZZETTA $135 Staff Attorney BURSTEIN GLASER Minneapolis $110 Senior Attorney per hour $132,000 to $108,000 $90 Associate Attorney per hour HELLMUTH& Eden Prairie $9,600 Retainer Fee $115,200 JOHNSON KNAAK &KANTRUD Vadnais Height $8,250 fixed monthly fee $ 99,000 MORRISON FENSKE Minnetonka $5,000 per month plus $1,200 $114,000 & SUND for 4 t ' jury trial day in a month and each jury trial day thereafter MARGARET St. Paul $80 per hour $ 96,000 MURPHY PRIOR CONTRACTOR 2006 RATE 2005 ACTUAL COSTS KELLY & FAWCETT St. Paul $9,825 flat rate per month $117,900 FIRM OPEN TO COPIES FAX MILEAGE ONLINE POSTAGE TELEPHONE MESSENGER CITY HALL LEGAL LONG COURIER OFFICE RESEARCH DISTANCE SERVICES HOURS BRADLEY& Yes Not Not Not Not Not Not Not GUZZETTA Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed BURSTEIN Not .10 pp No Not Not Cost Not Not GLASER Addressed Charge Addressed Addressed. Addressed Addressed HELLMUTH Yes No No Not No No Not Cost & JOHNSON Charge Charge Addressed Charge Charge Addressed KNAAK& Yes First 500 Not Not Not Not First $25 per Not KANTRUD per month Addressed Addressed Addressed. Addressed month no Addressed no charge charge MORRISON, Not No No No No Not Not Not FENSKE & Addressed Charge Charge Charge Charge Addressed Addressed Addressed SUND MARGARET Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not MURPHY Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed i '• i j i ! - 1 1 11 N ! j 1 ► i _ i FIRM LOCATION LABOR GENERAL EMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGE OF CONTRACT PERSONNEL INVESTIGATION CURRENT NEGOTIATION CONSULTATION CHARGES CLIENTS THAT SERVICES CHARGES ARE LABOR CHARGES UNIONS BETHEL & St. Paul $85 -$95 per hour $95 -$105 per hour Attorney $75 -$85 0% ASSOCIATES PA Law Clerk $45 p er hour KENNEDY & Minneapolis $135 per hour $135 per hour $135 per hour 0% GRAVEN MORRISON, Minnetonka $190 per hour $190 per hour $190 per hour 0% FENSKE & SUND FIRM COPIES FAX MILEAGE ONLINE POSTAGE MESSENGER LEGAL COliRIER RESEARCH BETHEL & Not Not Not Not Not Not ASSOCIATES PA Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed KENNEDY &GRAVEN .20 pp .50 pp .445 pm Actual Not Actual Cost Addressed Cost MORRISON, FENSKE Not Not Not Not Not Not & SUND Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed