Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006 09-25 City Council Packet
5:00 p.m. CouncitlManager Workshop MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, September 25, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -25 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country C. ROLL CALL Mayor's Address on Protocol: "Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments." D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the September 11, 2006 Special Meeting 2. Minutes from the September 11, 2006 City Council Meeting F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS G. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS Housing and Redevelopment Authority Appointments H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Conditional Use Permit Review — Saint Paul Business Center West (225 — 255 Roselawn Avenue East) 3. Cottagewood Private Development, City Project 06 -08, Approval of Stormwater Maintenance Agreement & Approval of Developer Agreement 4. TH 36 Improvements (White Bear to Century), City Project 05 -03, Resolution Approving Agreement with MnDOT for Turnback of Castle Avenue 5. Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16, Resolution Approving Change Orders 7 and 8 i V R 7 K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Reconsideration — Conditional Use Permit Review (Liberty Classical Academy — 1717 English Street) 2. Stop Sign — No Parking Requests: Harris Avenue /Ken nardlRosewoodlMaryKnol1 3. Code Revision Discussion - Alcoholic Beverages L. NEW BUSINESS 1. Change of Manager Intoxicating Liquor License — Red Lobster - Michael Pauly 2. Jensen Estates Improvements, City Project 05 -15, Resident Petition to Remove Trail Connection to Currie Street (2320 Hoyt Avenue) 3. Crestview Forest Addition Improvements, City Project 06 -21, Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Preliminary Report on Turnback of Private Street to Public Ownership 4. Gervais Avenue Improvements, City Project 05 -17, Resolution Adopting Final Action on Assessment Objections 5. Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Street Right -of -Way and Easement Vacations Preliminary Plat M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS O. ADJOURNMENT Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (651) 249 -2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the City Clerk for availability. RULES OF CIVILITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council Meetings - elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language. wmlzc�� Finandd � • ILI Present Present ME= Special City Council Meeting 09-11-06 City was called to order at 1 I NO! ills I i M 2006 revenues - S49,280 2006 expenses - $120 Redevelopment Fund 2007 revenues - S111 .20 1 2007 expenses - $ 90,040 1. Debt service fund for the Series 2004F Bonds. increase account 352-000-000-4820, interest payments, by S4,800 as the amount listed in the schedule of payments was incorrect. 2. Debt service fund for the Series 20041F Bonds, increase account 352-000-000-4920. Interest on interrund loans., by S2,000 as the arnount in the original budget was u nderestimated. I n te re st expense wi I I be d ue to a l arger than anticipated tem porary deficit in the fund due to the incorrect schedule of payments listed in #1. 3. Budgets need to be established for the debt service funds for the bonds that were issued on April 19- The budget amounts are as follows'. 4. W.A.C. Fund for the North St. Paul Water Service District, increase account 408 - 1 00- 1000- 4930, investment management sees, by $150 as the arnount in the original budget was Underestimate The fees are based on investment earnings which wilill be higher than anticipated. Special City Council Meeting 09-11-06 5 Open Space Land Acquisition Fund, increase account 410-000-000-4930, nvestment managernent fees, by S 1,000 as the amount in the original budget was u ncleresti mated. The fees are base on investment ea mi ngs which wi 11 b e In i g her than anticipated., 6, Tax I ncrement H D istri ct 41 Find, increase aCCO Lin it 42 000 - 00 0 -4 in te rest payments, by S 3 , 5 10 because the arn 0 Lint due to the developer has i ncrease rs due to an increase in the tax increment revenue. 7, Tax I ncrement H D istri ct 41 Fend, Increase' account 42 0.000- 00 0 -4 merest pay rn e nts, by S 19,480 because the amount d Lie to the d eve l oper h a s increased due to an increase in the tax increment revenue, 8. Tax Increment Housing District #1 -0 Fund, increase account 429-000-000-4820- te re st pav rn e nts, by S45,920 because the amount d Lie to the d eveloper h a s increa due to an increase in the tax increment revenue, 9. Legacy Village Tax Abatement District Fund, increase account 431-000-000 -4930, r vestment management fees, by 58,000 as the amount in the original budget was underestimated. The fees are based on investment earnings which will be higher than anticipated., 2�3 zm • S 3 111 a 0 IN =- 2 " % momwimiT.T1 M-w1wm MIMSUP111001121111 Council' ember Juenemann Ayes-Mayor Longne and Councilmembers Hjelle and Juenemann Abstain - Council members Cave and Rossbach �M!111101 I : I ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD CODE RELATING TO WATER UTILITIES THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Part 1. Section 40, Article III is hereby amended to read as follows: Division 5. Water Surcharge Special City Council Meeting 09-11-06 Section 40 -477. Purpose and Intent. The city has determined that water system improvements in the St. Paul and North St. Paul water service districts need to be constructed that cannot be fully assessed. In order to pay for these costs a surcharge on water charges in the St. Paul and North St. Paul billing districts is established. Section 40 -478. Rates. A surcharge on water charges in the St. Paul and P set from time to time by the council and shall be on file for Part 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in S 'aul, billing districts shall be n in city offices. nning January 1, 2007. MR.M ii ■ • Cave and Hjelle W &Wuncilm e rrWers • P. Lai I M RESOLUTION 09 -16 -117 RELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED TAX LEVY PAYABLE IN 2007 Ism WHEREAS, State law requires that the City Council give preliminary approval of a proposed tax levy for 2006 payable in 2007 by September 15, 2006 and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Proposed 2007 Budget and has determined the amount of the proposed tax levy payable in 2007 which is the maximum amount that will be levied. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THAT the proposed tax levy for 2006 payable in 2007 in the amount of $15,715,807 is hereby given preliminary approval. Special City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 4 Seconded by Mayor Longne Ayes-Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave and Hjelle Abstai n-Cou ncil members Juenemann and Rossbach 111111111ill 1111 il;i 111plirliIIIII!Ill 1 !1! 111111 111;l1millill! Ill I UITSTRIFIffew Special City Council Meeting 09-11-06 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7738 P.M. Mondap §-emtember 11 1 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06-23 Ameeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at C ity 7:38 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. I:* A moment of silence was held in remembrance of those who dedicated hours of service helping victims of the September A moment of silence was held to recognize public works emp th for 25 years and passed away on September 4 Bill Was an employee, a good friend and will be greatly missed byalk Diana Lonoha.Mayor Rebecca Cave Couno|manlbor Erik H�e||e.Counoi|n1ennber Kathleen Juenernann.Counoi|rnernber Will Roosbooh.Counoi|nlonlbar Present nd was called to order at for and those who 3ill Prie e4-w Ub|ica1oD ,utorial) and Employment Law Attorney Avenue APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Council Meeting 09-11-06 1 lililll!!Illl!!l 11111 1,1 11 11117111 R! 11 MEHESM Mayor Longrie moved to approve the minu amended. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann I &I I IDGINUN *3 1 2 3 4 P im* a I awara oi exce fT ilen to Me iv&,e< „2 fii Park Shelter Building Project. C. Mayor Longrie closed the public hearing. Egg ■ ar-IM-11111 - 1I a ng. When t h em eeting squ r ®- ®22: ®© estion. City Council Meeting 09-1136 WHEREAS, the following property owners have filed objections to their assessments 8CCO[din0 to the P8quin8nO8OtS of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized |OvvS: a. Parcel 0S.2S.23/42.O0O8— Peter n0 Drive, LLC. Mr. 8arnpair objects to the assessment based upon a lack of increased pro NOVVTHERER]RE.BE[TRESOLVEOBY THE CITY COUNCIL C>FMAP 1 . That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to review the objections neC8ivSU and report to the City Council at the regular meeting September 25"'. 2006. as to their recommendations for adjustments. 2 The assessment roll for the Gervais Avenue 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 aaainst it. 3. Such ass( of 15 vears, the fi from the date of this reso due shall be added interE all be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period nts to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2007 rate of 5.9 percent per annurn for the date of the adoption of this first installment shall bG added interest OO the entire assessment n until December 31,20DO. TO each subsequent installment when )r 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 15Or interest will bS charged through December 31Of 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 es other municipal taxes. City Council Meeting 09-11-06 Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following resolution approving the Resolution for the Award of Bids for Gervais Avenue Street Improvement Project, City Project 05-17: RESOLUTION 06-09-111 AWARD OF BIDS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF M/\PLEVVOOD. MINNESOTA that the bid of Po|dm and Sono. Inc. in the amount of$835.015.5O is the |ovvoot responsible bid for the construction of GanxaioAvenuaStreed|mpnzvemenba -Cib/P jeotO5-17.mndthomayorondc|erkmnehenebv authorized and directed to enter into a contract with said bidder for and on behalf of the city. The finance director is hereby authorized bz make the finmn implement the financing plan for the project. Seco hwMayor LoDrie CONSENT AGENDA Seconded bvCOUDci|rDerOberCave A 1 Approval of Clai ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 107,459.24 C1 $ 150. � Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08/16/06 thru 08/24/06 Checks # 70767 0#7081S dated 09/05/06 Disbursements via debits tm check account dated 08/25/00thru 08/30/06 nsfeno necessary bz $1.747.22O.83 Total Accounts Payable Payro Checks and Direct Deposits dated $ 507,169.77 08/25/06 Payroll Deduction check # 106014 thru # 106015 date 08/25/0 City Council Meeting 09 4 $ 509,475.02 Total Payroll $ 2,256,695.95 GRAND TOTAL Approved to approve the $2000 payment to the Maplewood Historical Society in the city's budget each year. i s i 13 • - a a 101 a N I I -09-112 BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Coun permit for lawful gambling is approved for the North FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council wain application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute objection to the timeliness of 13. 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. 4. Maple Leaf Rldg t 05-35, Approve Board of Water Commissio e ners greement of th City of Saill . I a r Ito miff WT. [a Approved to review the conditional use permit for Mounds Park Academy at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue again in one year. fflvmmwnv� M 1 Ordinance to Establish Full Commission Status for the Environmental Committee (Second Reading) as provided by the Minnesota Statute: City Council Meeting 09-11-06 DIVISION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Sec. 18.180. Established The city council establishes for the city an environmental and natural resources commission as an advisory board to the city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. §§ 462.351 - 462.365. (Code 1982, § 25 -17) Sec. 18 -181. Advisory body; exceptions All actions of the advisory environmental and natural r( nature of recommendations to the city council, and the about any matters, except as the council may lawfully 4 (Code 1982, § 25 -18) State law reference- City environmental and natural as otherwise provided by state statute or charter, Minn Sec. 18.182. Composition; appoi mission shall be in the hall have no final authority ority to it. ° esources agency to be advisory, except Stats. § 462.354, subd 1. (a) The environmental and natural resources commission shall have seven members appointed by the council. The members shall be residents of the city and may not hold an elected city public office. When possible, the council shall select commission members to represent the various areas of the city and to help meet the needs of the residents. (b) The city council shall appoint members of the environmental and natural resources commission for three -year terms. If the appointment is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the unexpired part of the vacated terms. (Code 1982, § 5 -19) Sec. 18.183. Chairperson and vice- chairpe The environmental and natural resources commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice - chairperson at the first environmental and natural resources commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice - chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson for that meeting. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the environmental and natural resources commission, the vice - chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the environmental and natural resources commission can hold an election for new officers. (Code, 1982 § 25 -20)' Sec. 18.1 (a) Any of the following may cause the office of an environmental and natural resources commissioner to become vacated: (1) Death or removal from the city (2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend three meetings in any year, may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause can be shown to the council. (3) Resignation in writing. (4) Taking public office in the city. City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 (b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated term. (Code 1982, § 25 -21) Sec. 18.185. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure. (a) The environmental and natural resources commission shall elect its own officers, establish meeting times, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council. (b) All meetings of the environmental and natural resources commission shall be open to the public and published on the city's website. (Code 1982, § 25 -22) Sec. 18.186. Duties and responsibilities. In order to protect, preserve and enhance the env Environmental and Natural Resources Commissic (1) Establish environmental priorities for the city in partner (2) Recommend to the Community Design Review Board, changes necessary to existing policies, operating proc protect, preserve and enhance the city's environments (3) Recommend to the Community Design Review Board', new policies, operating procedures and ordinances th, the city's environmental assets. of the City of Maplewood, the with the City Council. ning Commission and City Council es and ordinances that control, ing Commission and City Council rol, protect, preserve and enhance (4) Actively participate in and support the mission and goals of the Maplewood Nature Center and Neighborhood Preserves by promoting environmental awareness` through educational programs, communications and co- sponsored activities. (5) Pro- actively promote greater use and appreciations of the city's environmental assets. (6) Review the role of other city groups and how they might assist, support and advise the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. (7) Sponsor environmental projects to enhance, repair, replace or restore neglected or deteriorating environmental assets of the city. (8) Develop educational programs and materials that foster the mission to the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. (9) Develop and promote the use of "sustainable practices" for city policies and procedures. (Code Sec. 18.187. uses. All members of the environmental and natural resources commission shall serve without compensation. However, approved expenses of the environmental and natural resources commission shall be paid from available city funds. Sec. 18.188. Responsibilities of the Environmental Manager. Subject to the direction of the city manager, the environmental and natural resources commission and its chairperson, the environmental manager who reports to the city engineer shall: (1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission. (2) Send out all required notices (3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission. (4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings. City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 (5) Keep all required records and files. (6) Maintain the files and indexes of the commission. (Code 1982, § 25 -25) Sec. 18.189. Duties of city engineer, city attorney and other city employees. (a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the environmental and natural resources commission. The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in with the commission at all meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as members of the commission. (b) All city engineering department employees and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall cooperate with the environmental and natural resources commission and make them self available and attend meetings when requested to do so. (Code 1982, § 25 -26) 2. Kenwood Curb Assessment, City Project 05 -1 Assessment Roll a. Environmental Manag Councilmem er Juenemann c WHEREAS, pursuant t assessment roll for the Kenwc Hearing format, pursuant to M 619 3E Jay Reiling, Lot at the southeast c( East (PIN 172922110087): Mr. Reil He requests either deferral of the a' RESOL MENTS 0 7 volution adopted by the City Council on August 28, 2006, the rb Assessment, City Project 05 -16, was presented in a Public ita Statutes, Chapter 429, and rner filed an objection to their assessment according to the , Chapter 429, summarized as follows: of the intersection of Eldridge Avenue and Kenwood Drive isagrees with the assessment that has been applied to his lot. >ment until the lot is developed or cancellation of the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: A. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to the assessment roll for the Kenwood Curb Assessment, Project 05 -16: Jay Reiling, Lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eldridge Avenue and Kenwood Drive East (PIN 172922110087): Grant deferral of assessment, without interest, until such time property is developed, subject to a signed agreement by the property owner. If the property is not developed within 15 years from the date of the assessment hearing, the deferred assessment shall be cancelled. • -. �•• B. The assessment roll for the Kenwood Curb Assessment, as amended, is hereby accepted, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said assessment roll shall constitute the special City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 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. C. 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. D. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to cent the county auditor, but no later than November 1, 2006, pay the whole of the as with interest accrued to the date of the payment, to the office of the city encgineei be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of t at any time after November 1, 2006, pay to the county auditor the entire amount unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such pay be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December E. The city engineer and city clerk shall forthwith of 15 2006, transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be municipal taxes. 3 Ordinance Amendment to the Envir Woodlands Ordinance (Second Ri ent cation of the assessment to ssment on such property, except that no interest shall s resolution; and they may, f the assessment remaining s made. Such payment must 31 of the next succeeding year. b. Mandy Musielewicz, Forester for auestions. City of Maplewood was present for council !000011 MKIBLIM614 Lail 1119.1 111111-7dARM Ti City of Maplewood Ordinance 873 IENTAL PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF TREES AND WOODLANDS Purpose. The city desires to protect the trees and woodlands in the City of Maplewood. Trees and woodlands provide better air quality, scenic beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, natural insulation for energy conservation, and are beneficial in watershed management. Trees and woodlands also provide wildlife habitat, privacy as screening, act as natural sound and visual buffers, and increase property values. It is therefore the city's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of Maplewood and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development in the city; thereby, promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Maplewood. The purpose of this article is to establish a tree preservation and protection ordinance to assure the continuance of significant natural features for present and future generations which: City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 Preserve the natural character of neighborhoods (in developed and undeveloped areas). 2. Protect the health and safety of residents. 3. Protect water quality and minimize storm water runoff. 4. Prevent erosion or flooding. 5. Assure orderly development within wooded areas to minimize tree loss and environmental degradation. O. Establish @ minimum standard for tree preservation and mitigation Of environmental impacts resulting from tree removal. 7. Establish and promote @O on-going tree planting and maintenance within the city tO assure trees and woodlands for future generations. 3. e. b. C. d. e. f. This article shall apply to any individual, business, or entity that engage in a building or development project which requires issuance of a grading permit or new building permit. This includes all sites of new development that contain significant trees or wood lots. Platting and adding new roadway and right of way are subject to this ordinance. The following are exceptions and are exempt from the requirements of this ordinance: Minor home additions, general home improvements, and construction of accessory buildings (i.e. garage, Tree removal related to city public improvement projects to existing roadways, sewers and other infrastructure, utility/in Emergency removal o Restoration of land to r city forester. Commercial tree nursi Removal of dead or cl Definitions. The follo\ to them in this section, Applicant means developer, bu Caliper means a tree trunk meai to four (4) caliper inches. Tree measurement point to twelve (1.' inches may have diameter mea re work or rer ,ree(s) to protect public health. te prairie. Prairie restoration must be approved by the environmental manager or and landscape operations. I trees. , terms and phrases, when used iD this article, shall have the meanings ascribed iere the context clearly indicates a different meaning: or homeowner who applies for m building orgrading permit. 'ement of nursery stock measured six (6) inches above ground fortree trunks up inks over four (4) caliper inches measured at six (6) inches in height, move nches above ground to measure trunk caliper. Trees greater than four (4) caliper rements. City Forester means tree inspector/forester certified bv the State of Minnesota who is employed bv the city, or appropriate ogontorindapondantcontrmctordeoi natedbvUlacbv]Nustnnaatthodofinhionofm Maplewood Registered Forester. ConiferouslEvergreen Tree means o woody plant having foliage on the outermost portions of the branches year- round which at maturity is at least twelve (12) feet or more in height. Tamaracks and Larch are included as coniferous tree species. Critical Root Zone (CRZ) means an imaginary linear circle surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of one (1) foot per one (1) inch of tree diameter (e.g., a sixteen (16) inch diameter tree has a CRZ with a radius of sixteen City Council Meeting 09-11-06 10 Deciduous Tree means a woody plant, which sheds leaves annually, having a defined crown and at maturity is at least fifteen (15) feet or more in height. Diameter means a standard point of measurement of tree size, measurement of tree trunk in inches at a height of four and one half (4.5) feet above ground. Measure the circumference of a tree trunk in inches at four and one half (4.5) feet above ground and divide by (3.14) to determine diameter. Drip Line means the farthest distance around and away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of that tree. Environmental Manager means an employee of the city who manages city -wide environmental programs, or appropriate agent designated by the city. Hardwood Deciduous Tree means the following tree species: ash, basswood, birch, black cherry, catalpa, hackberry, hickory, ironwood, hard maples (sugar maple or red maple), locust, oak, and walnut. Major Home Addition means an addition on a single or double dwelling lot of which the addition or accessory building is more than a sixty (60) percent increase in the footprint of the single or double dwelling structure on said lot. Maplewood Registered Forester means a person who is registered with the city as a consulting' forester and holds a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in arboriculture, urban forestry or similar field from an accredited academic institution or is registered with the International' Society of Arboriculture as a certified arboristlforester. Minor Home Addition means an addition on a single or double dwelling lot of which' the addition or accessory building is less than a sixty (60) percent increase in the footprint of the single or double dwelling structure on said lot. Ornamental Tree means a Retaining Wall means Specimen Tree is a healthy tr considered Significant Trees. Significant re util any which is grown for its beauty of its foliage and flowers. hold a slope in a position in which it would not naturally remain. twenty -eight (28) inches in diameter or greater. These trees are nt water body, woodlot, significant slope, or a site of historical or 'ded with the state. archeological significance that', t Significant Tree means a health, trees, eight (8) inches in diam deciduous tree, and specimen to Buckthorn or others noxious we significant tree species at any d Slope means the inclina the length to the height. measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for hardwood deciduous `or coniferous /evergreen trees, twelve (12) inches diameter for softwood any species twenty -eight (28) inches in diameter or greater as defined herein. plants as determined by the environmental manager are not considered a e natural surface of the land from the horizontal; commonly described as a ratio of Structure means anything manufactured, constructed, or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures. Softwood Deciduous Tree means the following tree species: box elder, cottonwood, elm, poplar /aspen, silver maple, and willow. City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 11 Tree Preservation Plan means a plan prepared with the assistance of a certified forester, which clearly shows all trees in the area to be developed or within the parcel of record. The plan should include all significant trees to be preserved and measures taken to preserve them. The plan will also include calculations to determine the number of replacement trees as required by the tree mitigation schedule and a proposed re- forestation landscape plan. Utility means electric, telephone, telegraph, cable television, water, sanitary or storm sewer, solid waste, gas or similar service operations. Vegetation means all plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, native wildflowers, mosses or grasses. Wetland as defined in the city's wetland ordinance. Wilding Tree means a tree that was not grown or maintained by a nursery.' Woodlot means a treed area of at least one - quarter (114) acre on a vacant lot, which includes significant tree(s). Woodlot alteration permit. A woodlot alteration application review prior to removal of any living trees on a woodlot that i shall submit a tree plan and any other information needed to requirements shall be stated on an application form in the off shall be established yearly by the city council by resolution. I application before removal of any trees will result in a tw be submitted to the envir reviewed by another app rmine compliance with th e I manage r mental manager for ation. The applicant )r€linance. Specific . An application fee nit an approved woodlot alteration rium for issuance of a city grading parcel as outlined in the tree were removed are significant trees. or building permit. In addition, a total tree replacement fol mitigation /replacement schedule with the assumption that all trees The environmental manager may approve a woodlot alter recommendations from the city forester concerning the environmental manager's decision to the environment environmental manager's written decision. The applica writing within (15) days of the environmental committee % must first approach environmental manager then enviro permit that complies with this ordinance and receive ased woodlot alteration. The applicant may appeal mmittee in writing within fifteen (15) days of the ay appeal the environmental committee decision in n decision to city council for final decision. Applicant ital committee before city council will review. Tree preservation plan. A tree preservation plan is required for any project which requires any land use permit, grading permit, or building permit, excluding minor home additions and the removal of dead, diseased, dying or hazardous trees of any size. A tree' preservation plan shall reflect the applicant's best effort to determine the most feasible and practical layout of buildings, parking lots, driveways, streets, storage and other physical features, so that the fewest significant trees are destroyed or damaged and to minimize the negative environmental impact to the site. All tree replacements will be in addition to landscape tree planting standards. An applicant may request a waiver from the environmental manager from preparation of a tree preservation plan. Tree preservation plans shall include the following: 1. A tree inventory overlay on the site plan that shows size, species, general health, and location of all significant trees located within the area to be developed or within the parcel of record. Location of groups of standing dead or diseased significant trees shall be noted on inventory overlay. All tree inventories shall be preformed by a certified forester and shall be consistent with the engineer's grading plan contours. All significant trees included in the tree inventory must be tagged in the field for reference on the tree preservation plan. These significant trees should be identified on the plan sheet(s) in both graphic and tabular form. Trees growing in clump form are considered individual trees and each stem /trunk is measured as individual trees. 2. A certified forester must approve the tree preservation plan. City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 12 3. The tree preservation plan must be drawn at the same scale as the other site plan submittals. 4. A tree preservation plan that coincides with necessary engineering documents such as topography, wetland information, grading plans, road, and building locations must include: a. A list of total diameter inches of all healthy significant trees inventoried. b. Listing of the total diameter inches of healthy significant trees removed. The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of the person(s) responsible for tree preservation during the course of the development project. 5. Outer boundaries of all contiguous wooded areas, with a general description of trees not meeting the significant tree size threshold and any indication of the presence of epidemic tree diseases. 6. Delineation of all limits of land disturbance, clearing, grading and 7. Locations of the proposed buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces. 8. Location of trees protected and the proposed measures for protection including delineation of tree protection fencing, tree protection signs, location for material storage, parking, debris storage, and wash out area for redi -mix trucks. 9. Written description of tree 10. Size, species, number, and locatio property in accordance with the tree mitig< 11. Signature of The tree preservation p for compliance with thi stated in writing. Tree preparing I be reviewed by the enviror nce. Reasons for denial sh nd Safeguarding d safeguarding trees p lanned for the site. to be planted on the I manager, with advisement from the city forester, Toted on the tree preservation plan, or otherwise 1. All developments within the city shall be designed to preserve significant trees and woodlots, where such preservation would not affect the public health, safety or welfare of Maplewood citizens. The city may prohibit removal of all or a part of a woodlot or significant tree subject to the limitations as defined in this chapter. This decision shall be based on but not limited to the following criteria: a. S b. Species, health, and attractiveness of the trees, including: 1) Sensitivity to disease. 2) Life span. 3) Nuisance characteristics. 4) Sensitivity to site grading. 5) Potential for transplanting. 6) Need for thinning a woodlot. 7) Effects on the functioning of a development. 8) Fragmentation of wooded area and effects on wildlife corridors. 9) The public health, safety and welfare. 10) Effect on wetlands and/or watershed. 11) Native Prairie Restoration City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 13 2. Safeguarding preserved trees: the tree preservation plan shall delineate the location of (existing) significant trees that are to be preserved with location and type of protective fencing. a. Tree protective areas shall be located at a minimum of the CRZ of trees or drip line whenever possible. Use of tree -save islands and stands are encouraged rather than the protection of individual trees scattered throughout a site. b. Suitable tree protection fencing in active areas includes use of orange polyethylene laminar safety fencing or woven polyethylene fabric (silt fencing). Fencing must be self- supportive. All active tree protection areas shall be designated as such with "Tree Save Area" signs posted in addition to the required fencing. C. Use of passive forms of tree protection requires approval from environmental manager in writing. Passive forms of tree protection fencing include use of continuous rope or flagging (heavy mil plastic four (4) inches or wider) with visible signage stating "Keep Out " or "Tree Save Area ". d. Signs requesting subcontractor cooperation and compliance with tree protection standards are required at site entrances. e. No construction work shall begin until tree protection fencing has been installed, inspected, and approved by the city forester. At least three (3) working days prior to construction or grading, applicant shall be required to request inspection of on -site protective measures by city forester. Once city forester approves tree protection fencing or devices it must not be altered or removed without prior written approval Tree protection fencing shall be construction. No grade change, within this fenced area. ired by the applicant for the duration of torage or staging of materials shall occur g. Use of custom grading, retaining walls or tree wells to maintain existing grade for preserved trees. h. Layout of the project site utility and grading plans should accommodate the tree preservation areas. Utilities recommended along corridors between tree preservation areas and use of common trenches or tunnel installation if oossible. Minimize tree wounding by felling or removing trees away from trees remaining on site. Construction site activities such as parking, material storage, concrete washout, placement of holes, etc., shall be arranged so as not to encroach on tree protection areas. k. Identify and prevent oak wilt infection. Treat all known oak wilt infected areas with current accepted guidelines including root cutting and tree removal. If pruning oaks is required between April 1 and July 1 cover fresh wounds with nontoxic tree wound sealant or latex paint. I. Use of wood chip mulch to a depth of six (6) to eight (8) inches adjacent to tree protection areas to minimize soil compaction and desiccation. M. Concrete washout, leakage or spillage of fuels or paints, or other materials that would result in detrimental change in soil chemistry is prohibited in tree preservation areas. n. Post construction tree care to mitigate construction damage: 1) Tree root aeration, fertilization, and /or irrigation systems. 2) Therapeutic pruning. o. Soil compaction mitigation by: City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 14 1) Mulch drive lanes with eight (8) to ten (10) inches of woodchips. 2) Soil fracturing with deep tillage or other similar methods. 3) Inclusion of organic matter to existing soil. 3) Core aeration. p. Transplant existing trees to a protected area for future transplanting onto permanent sites within the construction area. 3. If any significant tree stated as preserved (protected) in the approved tree preservation plan is cut, damaged, or encroached upon by grading equipment or during the construction process without city authorization and is determined by the environmental manager that the damaged tree(s) will probably not survive, the said damaged tree(s) shall be removed by the applicant at their expense and replacement tree(s) required at a rate of two (2) times the tree mitigationlrep lace ment formula. Tree Mitigation /Replacement Schedule. If less than twenty percent (20 %) of significant tree diameter inches is rem tree per significant tree removed. Tree replacement shall be a minimum If twenty percent (20 %) or more total diameter inches is removed, apr inches using the tree mitigation /replacement schedule in accordance A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees lost as a result of tl B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees situated on the pro C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.5) D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches) ((AIB -.20) x C) x Example WMM 1943 — 0.20) x 1.) X 379 = 114.7 caliper inches , the applicant shall replace one (1) , o (2.0) caliper inches in size. shall mitigate all significant diameter ie following formula: The trees required to be replaced pursuant to this chapter shall be in addition to any other trees required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of city code. Once the total caliper inches for replacement trees are determined, the developer /applicant shall mitigate tree loss by either: 1. Plant replacement trees in appropriate areas within the development in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. 2. Plant replacement trees on city property under the direction of environmental manager or city forester. Must be approved during the review process prior to issuance of permit(s). 3. Pay the city a sum per diameter inch in accordance with the tree replacement schedule with written approval from city staff. The fee per diameter inch shall beset forth in the city fee schedule set annually by city council resolution. Payment shall be deposited into an account designated specifically for tree planting on public property within the city. The form of mitigation to be provided by the applicant shall be determined by city staff. This provision may only apply if all other measures in this ordinance have been exhausted. City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 15 4. The developer shall be required to maintain trees for two (2) year after planting. Should any tree require replacement during this two (2) year period, the replacement period shall start at the date of replacement. Trees required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of city code are not included in this and must be replaced according to such code. 5. Species requirements: Where ten (10) or more replacement trees area required, not more than thirty (30) percent shall be of the same type of tree without the written approval of the environmental manager. Native tree species to the Maplewood area are preferred. 6. Sources of trees: Replacement trees shall consist of certified nursery stock as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.46 hardy for this USDA plant hardiness zone (Zone 2, 3 or 4 hardiness rated trees) or other trees including wilding trees, so long as such wilding trees comply with the following standards and are approved by the environmental manager or city forester. All replacement trees shall be healthy and free from insect or disease infestation. A wilding tree measured in caliper inches shall not exceed the maximum height as shown on the table below: The lowest branch of a wilding tree shall not be at a height above the surface of the ground more than one - half (112) the total height of the tree (e.g., a fourteen (14) foot tree mint have a branch within seven (7) feet of the surface of the surrounding ground).' 7. Tree replacement size must be no less than two (2) caliper inches deciduous or six (6) foot evergreen tree unless pre - approved by the environmental manager. Evergreen or coniferous tree height convert to caliper measurement as follows: the first six (6) feet of growth equals two and one -half (2.5) caliper inches for each additional two (2) feet in height equals one (1) additional caliper inch. Trees required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of city code must comply with tree size specification of such code. 8. Tree replacement surety required. The applicant shall post tree replacement surety with the city, such as a tree replacement cash deposit or letter of credit, of one hundred and fifty (150) percent of estimated cost for tree replacement for proposed planting. Funds will be held by the city until successful completion of final planting inspection. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to call for such inspection. Tree replacement surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to any other provision of city code or city directive. Enforcement. The city reserves the right to inspect the construction site at any time for compliance with this ordinance. Should the city find the site in violation of the approved tree preservation plan, they may issue a stop work order until conditions are corrected. Stop work order, will be lifted after approved by environmental manager or city forester in writing. The city shall be responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance. Any person who fails to comply with or violates any section of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to punishment in accordance with section 1 -15. All land use building, and grading permits shall be suspended until the developer has corrected the violation. Each day that a separate violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. Effect on density. The city may reduce the maximum allowed density on that part of a development that has a significant natural feature, where such reduction would save all or part of a significant natural feature. However, regardless of the requirements in this article, the maximum allowed density shall not be reduced below 67 percent of the allowed density in the city's land use plan for multiple dwellings. The minimum lot size shall not be increased above 15,000 square feet for single dwellings. Any required density reduction or increase in lot size must save a significant natural feature. The city council may require the clustering of dwellings in the form of townhouses, quads, apartments, or similar uses where it is necessary to preserve significant natural features. City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 16 CALIPER INCHES MAXIMUM HEIGHT FEET 2 -3 18 3 -4 20 4 -5 24 The lowest branch of a wilding tree shall not be at a height above the surface of the ground more than one - half (112) the total height of the tree (e.g., a fourteen (14) foot tree mint have a branch within seven (7) feet of the surface of the surrounding ground).' 7. Tree replacement size must be no less than two (2) caliper inches deciduous or six (6) foot evergreen tree unless pre - approved by the environmental manager. Evergreen or coniferous tree height convert to caliper measurement as follows: the first six (6) feet of growth equals two and one -half (2.5) caliper inches for each additional two (2) feet in height equals one (1) additional caliper inch. Trees required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of city code must comply with tree size specification of such code. 8. Tree replacement surety required. The applicant shall post tree replacement surety with the city, such as a tree replacement cash deposit or letter of credit, of one hundred and fifty (150) percent of estimated cost for tree replacement for proposed planting. Funds will be held by the city until successful completion of final planting inspection. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to call for such inspection. Tree replacement surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to any other provision of city code or city directive. Enforcement. The city reserves the right to inspect the construction site at any time for compliance with this ordinance. Should the city find the site in violation of the approved tree preservation plan, they may issue a stop work order until conditions are corrected. Stop work order, will be lifted after approved by environmental manager or city forester in writing. The city shall be responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance. Any person who fails to comply with or violates any section of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to punishment in accordance with section 1 -15. All land use building, and grading permits shall be suspended until the developer has corrected the violation. Each day that a separate violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. Effect on density. The city may reduce the maximum allowed density on that part of a development that has a significant natural feature, where such reduction would save all or part of a significant natural feature. However, regardless of the requirements in this article, the maximum allowed density shall not be reduced below 67 percent of the allowed density in the city's land use plan for multiple dwellings. The minimum lot size shall not be increased above 15,000 square feet for single dwellings. Any required density reduction or increase in lot size must save a significant natural feature. The city council may require the clustering of dwellings in the form of townhouses, quads, apartments, or similar uses where it is necessary to preserve significant natural features. City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 16 This ordinance shall be effective on September 12, 2006. Seconded by Council member Juenemann Ayes-Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave, Hjelle and Juenemann Nay-Cou ncil member Rossbach NEW BUSINESS 1. The required number of spaces is excessive. Menards has gotten by, essentially, with the main parking area in front of the building since 1988. Menards customers do not typically use other available parkins areas on the site. 2. The proposed garden center addition would need 80 spaces according to the code. However, Menards is currently using this same area for retail sales and outdoor storage as approved earlier by the city. City Council Meeting 09-11-06 17 As 'a condition of approval of this request, Menards shall provide adequate directional signage in the parking lot. 1 Cottagewood Utility Improvements, City Project 06-10, Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids lil!lllli! 1 5 1 !1 1 5 1 ! 1 1111�� 11111 -3111 larl MIL"I 1IL4111 a RESOLUTION 06-09-114 APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on August 28, 2006, plans and specifications for Cottagewood Utility Improvements, Project 06-10, have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bid. approved plans and specifications. The adver before the date set for bid opening, shall spec publicly opened and considered by the council the city hall and that no bids shall be considen accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk an and read aloud bids received al The council will consider the bit October 9th, 2006. cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the upon the making of such improvement under such isement shall be published twice, at least ten days y the work to be done, shall state that bids will be at 10:00 a.m. on the 29th day of September, 2006, at d unless sealed and filed with the clerk and Dayable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, me and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. J the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of S O I missioner Trippler reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this - . - - at meeting and was approved ayes all. 11111111111 l I . MR VACATION RESOLUTION 06-09-115 WHEREAS, Mr. Paul Engstrom, representing the developer of New Century, applied for the vacation of the following: That part of New Century Boulevard as shown on the plat of New Century, Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: City Council Meeting 09-11-06 18 Beginning at the most northeasterly corner of said New Century Boulevard, also being a point on the west right -of -way line of Century Avenue; thence South 00 degrees, 39 minutes, 40 seconds East, assumed bearing along said west right -of -way line 70 feet; thence South 88 degrees, 34 minutes, 30 seconds West 77 feet; thence North 00 degrees, 39 minutes, 40 seconds West 70 feet to the north line of said New Century Boulevard; thence North 88 degrees, 34 minutes, 30 seconds East along said north line 77 feet to the point of beginning. All in Maplewood, Ramsey County, in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On August 21, 2006, the planning commission held a vacation. The city staff published a notice in the paper and property owners. The planning commission gave everyone present written statements. The planning commission also recommendations of the city staff. The planning commissio approve the vacation. 2. On September 11, 2006, the city council reviewed t considered reports and recommendations of the city staff public hearing about this proposed sent notices to the surrounding at the hearing a chance to speak and considered reports and i recommended that the city council proposal. The council also }d planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public fee title interest in the property will go to the following described property: 1. Outlot C, New Century (PIN 13- 28 -22 -11 -0107) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described vacation for the following reasons: It is in 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use the right -of -way in question for street or public utility purposes. 3. The properties adjacent to the right -cif -way have adequate street access. This vacation is subject to the property owner granting to Ramsey County a ten -foot -wide public highway and drainage and utility easement over the east ten feet of the property in question. 5, Easement Vacation Hillside Estates (between Linwood Avenue and Springside rive) a. Planner Roberts presented the report. t - M0=11111111al DRAINAGE AND UTILITY VACATION RESOLUTION 06 -09 -116 WHEREAS, Josh Clendenen of Delaney Company LLC applied for the vacation of a drainage and utility easement. WHEREAS, the legal description of the drainage and utility easement is as follows: City Council Meeting 09 -11 -06 19 WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1 On August 22, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about the proposed vacation. The city staff published e notice inthe Maplewood Review and sent a notice ho 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 mf the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On September 11.2006.the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations Of the city staff and planning COrDDliSSOO. N{WTHEREFORE.BE|TRESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right vacation for the following reasons: 1 . It is in the public interest. 2. The vacation will allow the creation infiltration basin allow asingle-family house noma constructed OD the lot which meets the front yard setback required by city code. 3. The property owner will dedicate a new drainage and utility easement to the city This vacation is subject to the 1 Prior to issuance ofagrau the applicant must a. A revised grading and required by OJ8[OS 16, 2006, g|O88hDg that the revised d[8 ng permit Hillside Estates, ollowing to city staff for approval: r plan which shows all changes Maplewood engineering department in the August utility easement has been recorded with the C. A tree preservation plan which shows the size and species of all trees on Lots 2 and 3, which large trees will be removed from the lots, appropriate measures needed to protect trees which will be preserved, and the location, species, and size of all required replacement trees. d. A letter of credit or cash escrow to cover 150 percent of the cost of all reolacement trees. N Seconded CoUOci|me00berHjelle | Setting the Time Table for the Tax Levy and Publication City Council Meeting 09-11-06 20 q a 153730 2nd Rossbach ip"-fu9nn asked staff for an update on the Crestvie-n tUdy for taking back a street. Interim ity Manger Engineer AN regarding this issue. er Hjelle felt a recent letter from Peter Regmer was a "very forney. 11111 E - INS • Background Check-Cou ncil member Hjelle asked the status of the follow-up on Mr. Copeland's background check. Interim City Attorney Kantrud is following up on allegations made on Mr. Copeland's background report. City Council Meeting 09-11-06 21 7. Storage Area on Frost in Gladstone (former impound lot)-Mayor Longrie reminded staff that a condition of the CUP for this property was that the gate stays locked. Mayor Longrie and Councilmem•er Juenemann noted this gate is open continually and asked staff to let the owners know a padlock needs to be installed to comply with the conditions of their Conditional Use Permit. & State Fair Handout-Mayor Longrie distributed an informational flyer to council on green buildirl that she received at the State Fair. trndht of Motor Vehicle a noon. I a At Policy on Use of City Council Chambers for N( a. Interim City Manager Copeland presen Councilmember Hjelle moved to make the con Mayor Longrie at 12:02 a.m. =111=04mr-011 Legal Files td the report. Ayes-Mayor Longrie, Councilmembers Cave and Hjelle City Council Meeting 09-11-06 22 Agenda Item G1 September 15,, 2006 TO: City Council FROM: Greg Copeland RE: HRA Vacancies On August 14, 2006 the City Council began the interview process for appointments to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). State law provides for appointment of up to seven HRA Commissioners, white past practice in Maplewood has been to appoint five commissioners to five year terms. The City Council interviewed Beth Ulrich and Jeffery A. James on August 14 The four remaining applicants were sent letters on September 15, 2006 advising them that HRA Interviews are to be conducted by City Council at 6:00 pm, September 25"' with appointments scheduled for the City Council Meeting that evening. Scheduled tonight for interviews are: Kimberly Anne Berry James Dykes Gary Pearson Joy Tkachuck Ms. Ulrich and Mr. Pearson are both former HRA Commissioners and are the only HRA Commissioners seeking reappointment. Mr. Ulrich was appointed in 2000 and Mr. Pearson was first appointed in 1989. The State Statute, MS 469,003 Subd.6., provides HRA Commissioners shall be appointed by the Mayor with approval of the governing body. OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 651-249-2051 FAX: 651-249-2059 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD fi 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 IVAY 3 0 2006 1. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 19� BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME 0�1� I - Home: DATE i;,ALE7,0(e— PHONE NO� Work: 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 2) Will o th er comm itments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No 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 h ave an y specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? �, , P o r t � 'S jo?0% 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: 0 e. eAAO� J,3 6) V wou ld yo u We to serve on this Board or Commission? -0- ADDMONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC ExcEpr FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS- Return or mail this application to. City Of Maplewood, 1830 County Road 8 East, Maplewood, MN 55109 030=4 S.jCj,* MopjB A Comm=j*" &pph�—dm 0311014 16:1i 6733105 PUBLIC WORKS SAFETY PAGE 01 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 130ARDS AND coMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM C NAME ADDRESS DATE Home: PHONE NO. Work. How long h ave you lived in the City Of Maplewood? Will other coriu -nitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No 2) Comments: 3) O w hich Board or C are interested i serv (please check) C ininunity Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission Planning Cortunission housing & Redevelopment Authority Police Civil Service Commission Human p Commission Historic Preservation Commission En Committee 'Jav 4) Do you have any sPecific areas o f i within this Board's or ComirlisSiDTI'S sco pe of responsibilities? IL r 0 iln oc� t tf C I e ity in which you have or are ad active Particip 5) L other organizat6s or clubs in the Community d- - 91 6) Why wo uld you like to serve on this Board or Commission? 1,1 1 0 n � 7 t? d T, VR) y /Y1 -7 y V ADDITIONAL COMME NTS: r C) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIs A . PPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC F-XCEPT FOR HOME AND,WORKTELEPHON NIVM Return or molt this application to-. city of mvpla�moo�d, '1030 County flood 8 emat, mrspiewood, M"55109 QW11,04 5'C"y"S?604m, &(:*-mloioog Amfl- � CITY OF A " #i# BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAME PHONE NO. Work; Home: I . _ . ! DATE 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? m y or 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No Y-- Comments: 3 ) On which Board or Commission are interested in serving? (please check) Cl Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Con Housing & Redevelopment Authority Planning Commission Human Relations Coramission Police Civil Service Commission Environmental Coinmittee Historic Preservation Commission 4) Do you havq an pecific areas of later I within thiWo oi =ission's scope of responsibilities? 4, 1 0 S t 4 4 -1 � V10qA 1 A V.4' 5) ist other or w ations or clubs hn the Commum v in - wh cl ou hav bee je an active part fcjl�at: I- ommission? 6) lywould YOU lif to S-;?�-�e 42nhi� hoard C 1A ADDIT NAI. COMMENTS: 14 OLI THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS. Return or mail this application to. City of Maplewood, 1830 County Road 8 East, Maplewood, MN 55109 S;1CTV & Commission Appfialflmdoc 03111VO4 MAY - 1 2006 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS A PPLICANT INFORMATION FORM ILIUAll I INFORMATION NAME ADDRESS ------ DATE PHONE NO. Work. _L' 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 2 Will Will other conu make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes No Comments: 3) On which Board or Commission are interested in serving? (please check) Community Design Review Board park & Recreation Commission Dousing & Redevelopment Authority pl ann i ng commission Human Relations Commission p ol i ce Ci S Commission Environmental Committee Hi Preservation Commission 4) Do you have a ny specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's sco pe of responsibilities? 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant. 6) Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS'. U T#4E INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS. Return or mail this application to City of Maplewood, 1830 County Road B E Maplewood, MN 55109 oananst S;kCTY &Cumm'ss'a APN'C�Z'an'doc AUG-11-2005 09:4e PED 14TH FLOOR 6512283220 P.01/01 CITY OF It APLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM NAMFE ADDRESS r v! Cu) r 1: PFTO�m NO, Work: Home: DATE 1) J-Jow long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? 2) 1 3) On which Board or CotnMissioa are interested in serving (please check) Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission Housing & Redevelopment Authoritr PlanmDg Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission Environmental Committee Historic Preservation Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of J. serest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) Li d`rorgan rat Mq o cu s in the Community in which you have been or are an active parficip vo 0-y'l es 6) -�rry �vWou you, cet'4oA on this Board or Commission? 4A 1 cz �v_ �n � ��.�.�. � ���,,� t �, . � c �` � �"� .. D T11 C NT A D L I-HE INFORNA TION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICA TION SHALL BE CLASSINED AS PUSLIC EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS. Ftefum or mail This aWlcation to! City Of MaPlewoodr 1830 County Road 13 East, Mapjie wood, MN 55109 & Cmm=Orz App3iW10aft; Q *104 TOTAL P.01 Will other commitments make regular attendance-at meetings. diffiicullt?- CITY OF MAPLEWOOD B OARDS AND COMMISIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM Name: Jeffrey A. James Address: 2593 M Rd. E, Maplewood MN, 55119 Phone Number: Email: 1) How long have you lived in the Cit o f Maplewood? have lived in Maplewood for a little over one year. My wife and I relocated from the Chicago.. IL area for a promotion which I received (see attached resume for complete professional history). 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? No, my . job requires me to travel approximately ment five weeks a Commit year. in fact, that I one of the have reas ons I'm interested in the Housing and Redevelop Authority tee is do a fair amount of free time to devote. I am 32 years old, relatively new to the area, and my wife and I do not have any children. My career in the com mercial motor vehicle safety field, has required me to re-locate a number of times. I do expect, however, to hold my current position in St. Paul, MN for a long time. These factors, along with my interest in becoming involved with th comm unity, will provide me ample time to contribute. 3) On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? X Housing & Redevelopment Authority (1' choice) X Pl ann i ng C (2 d choice) 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's Scope Of responsibility? I do not have any pro f e ssional or personal economic interest in the decisions or recommendations that the co mmittee may provide. My interest in becoming a member really s f rom my interest in government. I have worked in both the State and Federal governments for the past ten years (see attached resume far more details). Wbile I have held a variety of positions, my career track has been devoted to the commercial motor vehicle safety arena. For the most part, this is a state and federal matter. My educational experience, however, was primarily geared toward local government and non-profit organizational issues. I received my Masters of Public Administration v at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and the bulk of the work and research l itself to this. Being a part of this comm ittee would satisfy my interests to learn more about and be apart of the local government matters which really do interest me. Regarding the housing and re-development topic specifically, I am interested. Having lived and worked in various Mid communities (Milwaukee, Chicago) I would bring a well rounded perspective to the matters the committee faces. I have take great pride in the c ommunities in which I have decided to Eve and keep aware of the environment they are in. I am a home owner in Maplewood and recognize the residential needs and concerns, yet I am also aware o f th eco nomic vitality (opportunities or threats) which face this first-ring suburb. 5) List other organizations or clubs in the community in which you have been or are an active participant. Being relatively new to Minnesota I have not been a part of other community clubs or ,organizations aside from athletic groups. 6) Why would you like to serve on the Board or Commission? As previously mentioned, government operations is an interest of mine. I have spent my entire career to this point (10 years) working in either state or federal governmen I find my professional career very rewarding and look for to working the rest of my career in the commercial motor vehicle transportation safety field. The bulk of my graduate studies, however, was spent on local government topics, and I am equally interested in the policies which face localities versus federal and state subjects. Becoming involved in a city council advisory com mittee is something I'd like to do. I think my background would allow me to be an asset to the HRA. I do have extensive ex p er ience in working with and enforcing state and federal regulations (please see attached resume). I would adapt nicely to reading and understating the various housing related codes and ordinances which undoubtly confront this committee. unity topics which interests me most, Additionally, housing and planning issues are community - second only to transportation related issues. I am a homeowner in Maplewood and feel that I understand its place and direction in the larger twin city metro area as I looked into many communities during my relocation to Minnesota from Chicago in early 2005. one small example of my interest'M' government operations is that I have been a long time subscriber and avid reader of Governing Magazine ajtp: v.goveming.corl . This publication bills itself as a resource for states and localities. Housing and other planning issues are often at the forefront of this periodical which does well in keeping readers abreast of current topics and trends in local and state government. 7) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS If I am selected to become a member, you would find interest and contributions to be genu I am young (32), energetic, and would ask lots of questions in order to ensure that quickly get up to speed and be a valuable, contributing asset to the city. Please feel free to contact me to discuss my qualifications, intentions, or the opportunity to participate. Jeffrey James 2593 Mailand Rd, Maplewood, MN 55119 Work Expedience; U.S. Department of Transportation — Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); The FMCSA is a federal agency responsible for regulating commercial motor vehicle transportation (Trucks, Buses, and other surface transportation related entities). bgp://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ State Programs Manager (Grants Manager) RMCSAI March 2005 —. Current (St. Paul, W • My main responsibility in this position is to be the day-to-day liaison with the State of INV. The majority of FMCSA's programs are implemented via State personnel through grants. It is my job to be the first line oversight over the grants with the State of MN. • Currently, our agency has 12 grants with three Minnesota state agencies totaling approximately 13 million dollars. • Other job responsibilities include being a technical, regulatory reference to our internal staff and the public. Information Analyst {FMCSA) December 2002 — March 2005 (Chicago, 1L) • My primary responsibility in this position was to be an "information extractor" from my agency's vast and robust oracle databases. Information and analysis reports were then provided to agency leadership/management regarding policy, employee evaluation, and regulatory decisions. Data is extracted via structured query language (SQL) and information and analysis reports communicated via crystal web pages, spreadsheets, and written documents. • This job also involved being the lead on "peer reviews" of each division office. The peer review encompassed division office compliance with policy, quality, and productivity. Motor Carrier Safety Specialist (Safety Investigator) RMCSA} December 1999 — December 2005 (Milwaukee, WI) • My primary responsibility in this position was to review motor carriers (trucking or bus companies) for compliance with the myriad of federal safety and economic regulations. Regulations include: ■ the hours of service limitations for commercial motor vehicle drivers ■ drug and alcohol testing requirements • driver qualification rules (proper license, medical certification, ■ vehicle maintenance ■ insurance standards • hazardous material transportation rules • other safety regulations AGENDA NO. 1 -1 TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: September 18, 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: S 107,464.59 Checks 9 70820 thru 9 70867 dated 09106106 thru 9112106 S 126,087.80 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 08131106 thru 09107106 $ 130,492.87 Checks 9 70868 thru 9 70913 dated 09112106 thru 09119106 $ 1,851,192.25 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 09108106 thru 09114106 $ 2,215,237.51 Total Accounts Payable Ts n —, rn r - NT T $ 453,808.70 Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 09108106 $ 2,305.25 Payroll Deduction check 9 106112 thru 4 106113 dated 09108106 $ 456,113.95 Total Payroll $ 2,671,351.46 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 ds attachments 8:\CTY_CLRK\Agenda Lists and Reports 2006\Agenda Reports \09 -25 -06\11 Approval of Claims.xls Check Register City of Maplewood 11711I1pZ1I41 Check 70820 70821 70822 70823 70824 70825 70826 70827 70828 70829 70830 70831 70832 70833 70834 vier-1911 70836 70837 70838 70839 70840 70841 70842 70843 70844 70845 70846 70847 70848 70849 70850 70851 70852 70853 70854 70855 70856 70857 70858 70859 70860 70861 70862 70863 70864 70865 70866 70867 Date 09/06/2006 09/07/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 Vendor Description Amount 01894 01088 00463 00463 00519 01018 01337 01504 01047 01047 00111 01936 00003 03365 00687 02506 00489 00489 03729 03729 01897 00393 00839 00857 00857 00945 03665 03583 03730 01160 00001 00001 00001 00001 00001 00001 00001 00001 00001 00001 00001 00001 01267 00396 00396 00396 01340 01387 02192 01526 01550 01578 01734 01750 KELLY & FAWCETT PA MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO. MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV CITY OF ST PAUL 3M 3M ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC CHAD BERGO ESCROW REFUND NICK FRANZEN HUGO'S TREE CARE INC HUNT ELECTRIC CORP INTEREUM INC INTEREUM INC KNAAK & KANTRUD PA KNAAK & KANTRUD PA KRAUS- ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LAMETTI & SONS INC LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES MASYS CORP BILL MEINHOLZ METROPOLITAN MECH CONTRACTORS NEW ORLEANS, CITY OF NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR ONE TIME VENDOR PIONEER PRESS DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY REGIONS HOSPITAL DR. JAMES ROSSINI JIM SCHINDELDECKER STATE TREASURER SUMMIT INSPECTIONS T R F SUPPLY CO. WILLIAM P. WALSH THE WATSON CO INC LEGAL SERVICES - JUL PROJ 05 -17 STORM WATER PERMIT REPAIR AMB MEDIC 1 REPAIR ENGINE 2 NOZZLES PAWN SHOP TRANSACTION FEE - JUL REFUND OVERPAYMENT FOR AMEM EMERGENCY VEH OPERATION TRAINING SIGN FABRICATION PRODUCTS SIGN FABRICATION CUTTABLE FILM PATROL & BOARDING FEES 8/14 - 8/27 REIMS INTERNET, PHONE, MILEAGE REF JOHN OLIN - ESCROW 2756 KELLER REIMS INTERNET, CELL, MILEAGE 7/7 - PROJ 05 -16 TRIMMING & CLEAR LAND REPLACE PHOTO CELL PROJ 03 -19 CONFERENCE ROOM PROJ 03 -19 DESIGN SERVICES LEGAL SERVICES 7/26 - 8/25 LEGAL SERVICES 7/10 - 7/25 REF ESCROW FOR CUB FOODS MONTHLY SURTAX - AUG PR# 04 -20 CURED IN PLACE PIPE MEMBERSHIP DUES MEMBERSHIP DUES STRATUS SOFTWARE MAINT - SEP REIMB FOR PHONE 6/14 - 8/14 REPLACE STEAM COIL IN AHU2 WITH EMAC DEPLOYMENT FUEL - SEP 2005 SIGN FACES REIMB D OLESEN - #05 -16 DRIVEWAY REIMB O SURINE - #05 -16 DRIVEWAY REF S VARLEY - #05-16 DRIVEWAY REIMB L BONRUD - #05 -16 DRIVEWAY REIMB DIANE SCHNEIDER- #04 -15 REIMB SUSAN LUDDEN - #04 -15 EDGING REIMB MARY MBAH - #04 -15 EDGING REIMB ROGER PACHANO - #04 -15 REF M KASTENS - AMB 06010716 REIMB DOUG JOHNSON - #04 -15 EDGING REF PAM BISTRAM - BIRTHDAY PARTY REIMB MERLIN MILLER - #04 -15 EDGING PUBLIC NOTICE FOR LEGAL SERVICES TRANSFER TITLE CN #05022898 TRANSFER TITLE CN #06004636 TRANSFER TITLE CN #06011144 MEDICAL SUPPLIES FITNESS PROGRAM FEE - AUG REIMB FOR SAFETY BOOTS BLDG OFFICIAL CERT RENEWAL ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS MISC SUPPLIES COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSPECTIONS MERCH FOR RESALE 4,236.13 400.00 2,488.82 2,214.19 1,018.96 572.00 165.00 700.00 1,380.62 287.55 1,114.34 95.49 500.00 233.97 13,006.95 185.33 4,636.58 63.90 8,250.00 4,068.45 10,030.55 1,978.51 6,586.05 18,304.60 20.00 738.68 83.88 10,610.00 30.14 1,25270 1,874.08 1,694.20 698.02 580.30 38.88 35.57 35.10 33.53 25.00 22.37 21.30 19.56 328.00 17.50 17.50 17.50 437.14 100.00 109.99 20.00 4,075.60 482.65 1,318.67 208.74 48 Checks in this report. IUt.444.Uy 2 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 08/30/06 08/25/06 08/28/06 08/31/06 08/31/06 08/31/06 09/01/06 08/31/06 09/05/06 09/06/06 09/01/06 08/31/06 08/31/06 08/31/06 09/01/06 09/01/06 09/01/06 09/05/06 09/05/06 09/06/06 09/07/06 09/07/06 MN State Treasurer WI Dept of Revenue ARC Administration MN State Treasurer MN Dept of Natural Resources US Bank MN State Treasurer Discover MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer US Bank VISA One Card* TOTAL Description Drivers License /Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax DCRP & Flex plan payments Drivers License /Deputy Registrar DNR electronic licenses Credit Card fees Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Credit Card fees Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Drivers License /Deputy Registrar Purchasing card items *Detailed listing of VISA purchases is attached. 12,656.70 2,008.52 1,582.53 17,165.52 649.00 1,349.30 18,805.11 223.64 20,533.54 21,551.44 29, 562.50 126,087.80 3 VISA transactions 08 -19 -06 to 09- 01 -06. Trans Date 2006/08/18 2006/08/22 2006/08/24 2006/08/26 2006/08/21 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 2006/08/22 2006/08/24 2006/08/29 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/26 2006/08/30 2006/08/18 2006/08/30 2006/08/29 2006/08/19 2006/08/28 2006/08/22 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/24 2006/08/31 2006/08/17 2006/08/23 2006/08/23 2006/08/17 2006/08/24 2006/08/31 2006/08/17 2006/08/17 2006/08/20 2006/08/20 2006/08/20 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/24 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/15 2006/08/30 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 'osting Date 2006/08/21 2006/08/24 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/30 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/09/01 2006/08/21 2006/09/01 2006/08/30 2006/08/21 2006/08/30 2006/08/23 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/09/01 2006/08/21 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/21 2006/08/25 2006/09/01 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/22 2006/08/22 2006/08/22 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/21 2006/09/01 2006/08/23 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 Merchant Name SEGWAY OF MINNESOTA SPRINTPCS- CUSTCAREPMT CUB FOODS, INC. NRPA HOUSING MATTHEW'S FAMILY REST APPLE GARDEN CUB FOODS, INC. SHRED -IT GLOCK PROFESSIONAL INC TI *TASER INTL WALLY'S UPHOLS80110026 POOLSIDE HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE PARK SUPPLY OF AMERICA IN HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE WW GRAINGER 500 CYBEX - 01 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKLE MOGREN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY L DEX EAST- LOCKBOX ARCHIVERS ROSEVILLE PAYPAL INC TIME WARNER CABLE TARGET 00011858 SUPERAMERICA 4848 Q64 FRATTALLONE'S ACE HDWE THE HOME DEPOT 2801 OXYGEN SERVICE CO INC THE HOME DEPOT 2801 TARGET 00012443 BATTERIES PLUS MENARDS 3059 CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY HEJNY RENTAL HOLIDAY STATIONSTORE HEJNY RENTAL B J MULCAHY COMPANY INC WMS *WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY BEAR 36 AUTO PLAZA(PUM OVERHEAD DOOR OF NORTH HILLYARD INC MINNEAPOLIS THE HOME DEPOT 2801 SHERWIN WILLIAMS #3127 COMPUSA 294 RED WING SHOE STORE ON TIME DELIVERY 01 OF 01 INT'L CODE COUNCIL INC ELECTRO WATCHMAN INC SPRINT PCS- 995 -SP WEB THE HOME DEPOT 2801 ADT *SECURITY SERVICES IlFro3s I - 1re rem: 426.00 BRUCE K ANDERSON 70.00 BRUCE K ANDERSON 47.88 BRUCE K ANDERSON 236.78 BRUCE K ANDERSON 24.00 SCOTT ANDREWS 21.57 SCOTT ANDREWS 19.78 MANDY ANZALDI 156.51 JOHN BANICK 150.00 JOHN BANICK 225.00 JOHN BANICK 48.56 JIM BEHAN 29.98 JIM BEHAN 35.92 JIM BEHAN 53.25 JIM BEHAN 5.19 JIM BEHAN 89.06 JIM BEHAN 50.10 JIM BEHAN 535.99 JIM BEHAN 66.35 OAKLEY BIESANZ 5.21 OAKLEY BIESANZ 102.24 TROY BRINK 34.35 HEIDI CAREY 35.63 HEIDI CAREY 59.95 LINDA CROSSON 109.79 LINDA CROSSON 9.25 KERRY CROTTY 5.00 CHARLES DEAVER 9.57 CHARLES DEAVER 18.75 DOUG EDGE 26.54 DOUG EDGE 16.15 DOUG EDGE 27.76 ANDREW ENGSTROM 37.26 ANDREW ENGSTROM 15.95 ANDREW ENGSTROM 288.25 LARRY FARR 324.25 LARRY FARR 61.99 LARRY FARR 363.79 LARRY FARR 15.28 LARRY FARR (115.49) LARRY FARR 330.15 LARRY FARR 355.23 LARRY FARR 3.36 LARRY FARR 148.55 LARRY FARR 325.47 LARRY FARR 78.02 LARRY FARR 64.91 LARRY FARR 42.59 LARRY FARR 98.00 LARRY FARR 22.00 SHANN FINWALL 50.00 DAVID FISHER 163.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 134.01 MYCHAL FOWLDS 21.43 MYCHAL FOWLDS 478.92 MYCHAL FOWLDS 4 VISA transactions 08 -19 -06 to 09- 01 -06. Trans Date 2006/08/24 2006/08/28 2006/08/31 2006/08/28 2006/08/22 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/24 2006/08/30 2006/08/30 2006/08/17 2006/08/30 2006/08/21 2006/08/28 2006/08/23 2006/08/23 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 2006/08/30 2006/08/17 2006/08/18 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/31 2006/08/31 2006/08/29 2006/08/28 2006/08/18 2006/08/18 2006/08/23 2006/08/23 2006/08/23 2006/08/23 2006/08/29 2006/08/17 2006/08/18 2006/08/22 2006/08/31 2006/08/22 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 2006/08/28 2006/08/29 2006/08/30 2006/08/19 2006/08/20 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/23 2006/08/28 2006/08/29 2006/08/17 'osting Date 2006/08/28 2006/08/29 2006/09/01 2006/08/29 2006/08/23 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 2006/08/25 2006/08/31 2006/09/01 2006/08/21 2006/08/31 2006/08/23 2006/08/30 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 2006/08/29 2006/09/01 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 2006/09/01 2006/09/01 2006/08/30 2006/08/31 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/31 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 2006/09/01 2006/08/24 2006/08/23 2006/08/25 2006/08/30 2006/08/31 2006/08/31 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 2006/08/21 Merchant Name CITY OF ROSEVILLE CITY HA AT &T ARBOR/ESB HP DIRECT- PUBLICSECTOR BATTERIES PLUS PITNEY BOWES SUPPLY S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS ARAMARK REF SVS #6013 - OUT BACK NURSERY INC TASTEFUL THYMES COMPANY LEEANN CHIN INC #17 PEI WEI ASIANDINER0113 FASTENAL CO MO TO THE HOME DEPOT 2801 INTAB INC S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS DATABAZAAR.COM KAT KEY'S LOCK & SAFE TARGET 00011858 PAYPAL *TECHNIFORMM PAYPAL *TECHNIFORMM LL BEAN MAILORDER VISA CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPM ICI- DULUX- PAINTS #0092 AMERICAN RED CROSS CUB FOODS, INC. PARTY AMERICA 1008 FASTENAL CO MO TO CC SHARROW CO INC UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC A -1 LAUNDRY HOME DECOR PRODUCTS, INC OFFICE MAX 00002204 CUB FOODS, INC. FITNESS WHOLESALE INC VERIZON WRLS 12KW UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC THE HOME DEPOT 2801 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 DOLRTREE 3150 00031500 TARGET 00011858 PARTY AMERICA 1008 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 AMERICAN MESSAGING RECUR EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT ON SITE SANITATION INC GERTENS AMERICAN FASTENER & SUPPL OFFICE MAX 00002204 865.00 MYCHAL FOWLDS 1,013.60 MYCHAL FOW LDS 673.08 MYCHAL FOW LDS 36.18 NICK FRANZEN 164.52 PATRICIA FRY 12.87 PATRICIA FRY 4.49 PATRICIA FRY (6.54) PATRICIA FRY 27.83 PATRICIA FRY 55.14 JEAN GLASS 223.65 JEAN GLASS 436.27 MIKE GRAF 22.37 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 253.47 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 76.64 KAREN E GUILFOILE 91.59 KAREN E GUILFOILE 21.53 MARK HAAG 190.70 MARK HAAG 802.67 LORI HANSON 38.29 LORI HANSOM 95.82 LORI HANSOM 18.46 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 12.72 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 319.99 PATRICK HEFFERNAN (319.99) PATRICK HEFFERNAN 285.95 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 232.65 PATRICK HEFFERNAN 1,297.94 GARY HINNENKAMP 145.41 RON HORWATH 29.33 ANN E HUTCHINSON 22.39 ANN E HUTCHINSON 57.49 DON JONES 241.96 DON JONES 102.99 TOM KALKA 42.60 TOM KALKA 25.83 TOM KALKA 7.01 MARY B KOEHNEN 17.73 MARY B KOEHNEN 146.75 MARY B KOEHNEN 66.39 DUWAYNE KONEWKO 45.95 DAVID KVAM 86.07 DENNIS LINDORFF 10.41 DENNIS LINDORFF 17.04 ALISHA M LUKIN 44.13 ALISHA M LUKIN 8.06 ALISHA M LUKIN 11.65 STEVE LUKIN 17.72 STEVE LUKIN 351.48 STEVE LUKIN 597.67 STEVE LUKIN 966.98 STEVE LUKIN 298.20 MARK MARUSKA 127.79 MARK MARUSKA 28.33 MARK MARUSKA 86.77 ED NADEAU VISA transactions 08 -19 -06 to 09- 01 -06. Trans Date 2006/08/30 2006/08/18 2006/08/22 2006/08/30 2006/08/18 2006/08/29 2006/08/31 2006/08/21 2006/08/24 2006/08/22 2006/08/25 2006/08/17 2006/08/18 2006/08/20 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/29 2006/08/31 2006/08/31 2006/08/18 2006/08/24 2006/08/24 2006/08/26 2006/08/26 2006/08/28 2006/08/29 2006/08/31 2006/08/21 2006/08/22 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/26 2006/08/29 2006/08/29 2006/08/30 2006/08/30 2006/08/24 2006/08/18 2006/08/18 2006/08/18 2006/08/18 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/28 'osting Date 2006/08/31 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 2006/08/31 2006/08/21 2006/08/31 2006/09/01 2006/08/22 2006/08/25 2006/08/23 2006/08/28 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/31 2006/09/01 2006/09/01 2006/08/21 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/29 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 2006/08/25 2006/08/31 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/28 2006/08/30 2006/08/30 2006/08/31 2006/09/01 2006/08/25 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/21 2006/08/22 2006/08/22 2006/08/29 Merchant Name METROCALL ARCH WIRE SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS FASTENAL CO MO TO CINTAS FIRST AID #431 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE MAX 00002204 QWEST *INTERPRISE S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS CARPENTERS SMALL ENGINE R MIKES LP GAS INC HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE CASE CLUB TECHONWEB.COM AMZ *SUPERSTORE I NSTAWARES /SU ITESUPPLY ULINE `SHIP SUPPLIES SKS BOTTLE & PACKAGING LISPS 2663650015 MILL SUPPLY CIRCUIT CITY SS #3137 ABACUS PLUS SERVICES INC MINNESOTA POLICE & PEA FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 FITZCO INC UNIFORMS UNLIMITED PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 TRI -ANIM HEALTH SERVICES BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC MENARDS 3059 NARDINI FIRE EQUIPMENT BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC PAM OIL INC MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC. -PL OXYGEN SERVICE CO INC KATH AUTO PARTS NSP MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC. -PL BORGEN RADIATOR CO TOUSLEY FORD 127200039 HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATN BATTERIES PLUS DAKOTA CTY TECH - CUSTOMIZ PAM OIL INC PAM OIL INC FACTORY MOTOR PARTS #19 COMO LUKE & SUPPLIES SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS WONDERLIC S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS FEDEX KINKO'S #0617 IlFro3s I - 1re iliIli0ETi 37.37 ED NADEAU 460.52 BRYAN NAGEL 97.68 BRYAN NAGEL (42.71) BRYAN NAGEL 21.98 JEAN NELSON 23.63 AMY NIVEN 690.00 MARSHA PACOLT 111.83 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 25.20 KATHLEEN PECK HALL 67.35 ROBERT PETERSON 62.89 ROBERT PETERSON 22.88 PHILIP F POWELL 111.13 PHILIP F POWELL (72.84) PHILIP F POWELL 25.95 PHILIP F POWELL 77.08 PHILIP F POWELL 85.01 PHILIP F POWELL 129.84 PHILIP F POWELL 4.55 PHILIP F POWELL 202.69 PHILIP F POWELL 223.63 PHILIP F POWELL 284.36 PHILIP F POWELL 28.00 PHILIP F POWELL 60.71 PHILIP F POWELL 123.06 PHILIP F POWELL 46.23 ROBERT PRECHTEL 523.60 ROBERT PRECHTEL 9.59 ROBERT PRECHTEL 793.30 ROBERT PRECHTEL 170.07 ROBERT PRECHTEL 18.84 ROBERT PRECHTEL 11.64 ROBERT PRECHTEL 107.14 ROBERT PRECHTEL 133.36 STEVEN PRIEM 162.84 STEVEN PRIEM 40.44 STEVEN PRIEM 31.17 STEVEN PRIEM 4.17 STEVEN PRIEM 135.74 STEVEN PRIEM 66.61 STEVEN PRIEM 35.59 STEVEN PRIEM 15.96 STEVEN PRIEM 75.00 STEVEN PRIEM (133.36) STEVEN PRIEM 59.77 STEVEN PRIEM 44.69 STEVEN PRIEM 58.59 STEVEN PRIEM 2,012.31 KEVIN RABBETT (27.52) TERRIE RAMEAUX 13.49 TERRIE RAMEAUX 1.48 TERRIE RAMEAUX 310.50 TERRIE RAMEAUX 17.76 TERRIE RAMEAUX 11.28 TERRIE RAMEAUX 28.70 TERRIE RAMEAUX VISA transactions 08 -19 -06 to 09- 01 -06. Trans Date Posting Date Merchant Name Trans Amount Name 2006/08/29 2006/08/30 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 9.47 TERRIE RAMEAUX 2006/08/30 2006/08131 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 73.89 TERRIE RAMEAUX 2006/08/18 2006/08/21 DONUT HUT 29.25 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/18 2006/08/21 RAINBOW FOODS 00088617 15.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/21 2006/08/22 NORTHEAST YMCA 117.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 CVS PHARMACY #1751 Q03 10.11 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/21 2006108/23 KOWALSKI'S WHT 8.96 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 EAST COAST TRADIN00 OF 00 24.95 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/22 2006/08/24 CITY OF SHOREVIEW 268.96 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/23 2006/08/25 CUB FOODS, INC. 19.58 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/23 2006/08/25 MN ZOO TARS 318.80 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/23 2006/08/25 MN ZOO TARS 321.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/24 2006/08/28 CITY OF SHOREVIEW 233.87 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/24 2006108/28 CUB FOODS, INC. 60.69 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/29 2006/08/30 WALGREEN 00029363 12.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/29 2006/08/31 SUN RAY LANES 90.00 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/29 2006/08/31 CITY OF SHOREVIEW 135.15 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 PAPA JOHNS #1838 154.87 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 CUB FOODS, INC. 20.63 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 MARCUS OAKD.CIN #488 Q25 22.50 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 MARCUS OAKD.CIN #488 Q25 228.25 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 33.24 AUDRA ROBBINS 2006/08/24 2006108/25 UNITED RENTALS #D09 133.77 ROBERT RUNNING 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 UNITED RENTALS #D09 22.96 ROBERT RUNNING 2006/08/23 2006/08/24 MIKES LP GAS INC 10.89 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 2006/08/29 2006/08/31 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 23.37 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 STAPLES SCC #467 325.75 DEB SCHMIDT 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 GRAND CLEANERS 26.72 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 2006/08/17 2006/08/21 CUB FOODS, INC. 17.97 MICHAEL SHORTREED 2006/08/28 2006108/30 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 78.50 MICHAEL SHORTREED 2006/08/28 2006/08/30 ARMSTRONG RANCH KENNELS 51.12 MICHAEL SHORTREED 2006/08/21 2006/08/23 METRO SALES INC 135.55 ANDREA SINDT 2006/08/22 2006/08/23 SPRINT *WIRELESS SVCS 443.45 ANDREA SINDT 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 34.35 ANDREA SINDT 2006/08/25 2006/08/28 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS (31.03) ANDREA SINDT 2006/08/23 2006/08/25 GATEWAY CYCLE 100.00 PAULINE STAPLES 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 ISD 622 EDUCATION CENTER 69.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 2006/08/31 2006/09/01 NARDINI FIRE EQUIPMENT 37.98 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 2006/08/22 2006108/24 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 37.73 LYLE SWANSON 2006/08/28 2006/08/29 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 170.83 LYLE SWANSON 2006/08/28 2006/08/30 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 7.98 LYLE SWANSON 2006/08/29 2006/08/31 OFFICE MAX 00002204 11.48 LYLE SWANSON 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 MARATHON OIL 157578Q96 38.30 LYLE SWANSON 2006/08/31 2006/09/01 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 466.80 LYLE SWANSON 2006/08/19 2006/08/21 QWESTCOMM *TN651 345.50 JUDY TETZLAFF 2006/08/22 2006108/23 VERIZON WRLS OT 12KW 9.15 JUDY TETZLAFF 2006/08/24 2006/08/25 QWESTCOMM *TN651 57.62 JUDY TETZLAFF 2006/08/17 2006/08/21 QUILL CORPORATION 28.50 SUSAN ZWIEG 2006/08/18 2006/08/21 MINUTEMAN PRESS 252.79 SUSAN ZWIEG 2006/08/19 2006/08/21 TST CREATIVE CATERING 100.05 SUSAN ZWIEG 2006/08/30 2006/09/01 MINUTEMAN PRESS 96.43 SUSAN ZWIEG 29,562.50 7 Check Register City of Maplewood «031R091011z1 Check Date Vendor Description Amount 70868 09/1212006 01894 KELLY & FAWCETT PA PROSECUTION SERVICES - AUG 9,825.00 70869 0911912006 01973 ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC CAR WASHES - SEP 80.94 70870 0911912006 01599 SUZANNE LODMILL DRAMA CAMP INSTRUCTOR 2,264.35 70871 0911912006 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV MAJOR TAXPAYERS DATA 65.00 70872 0911912006 01504 CITY OF ST PAUL RECORD MGMT SOFTWARE FEES - SEP 3,798.00 0911912006 01504 CITY OF ST PAUL CRIME LAB SERVICES -AUG 230.00 70873 0911912006 01190 XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC UTILITY 12,333.56 09/1912006 01190 XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 5,657.74 09/1912006 01190 XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC UTILITY 2,669.22 0911912006 01190 XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC & GAS UTILITY 2,633.06 0911912006 01190 XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC UTILITY 1,219.81 09/1912006 01190 XCEL ENERGY EQUIPMENT LOAN 756.64 09/1912006 01190 XCEL ENERGY GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY 300.85 0911912006 01190 XCEL ENERGY FIRE SIRENS ENERGY CHARGE 46.98 70874 0911912006 01798 YOCUM OIL CO. UL GAS 89 OCTANE 16,226.00 70875 09/1812006 03732 STILLWATER MOTORS 2007 CHEV ONE -TON TRUCK 26,610.68 70876 09/1912006 01830 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO INC KEYWEST TIME BASE CORRECTOR 1,097.90 70877 0911912006 03335 AMERICAN ENGINEERING PROJ 05 -16 PROJECT TESTING SRVS 3,561.85 70878 0911912006 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC PATROL & BOARDING FEES 8121 - 9110 1,118.19 70879 0911912006 00116 APPEARANCE PLUS CAR WASH CAR WASHES - AUG 87.86 70880 0911912006 00159 PAUL BARTZ REIMB FOR SHOES & KEYS 76.56 70881 0911912006 01936 CHAD BERGO REIMB INTERNET & PHONE - APR & MAY 90.95 70882 0911912006 00230 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. GRAVEL FOR SIGN INSTALLATION 385.29 70883 09/1912006 00240 G.S.C. CREDIT SERVICES APPLICANT BACKGROUND CHECKS 50.00 70884 09/1912006 00494 CHILDREN HOME & FAMILY SERVICE YOUTH DIVERSION PROGRAM - AUG 3,526.08 70885 0911912006 00241 CSI SOFTWARE KEY TAGS 560.00 70886 0911912006 03731 DANA COMPANY KEY BOX 149.10 70887 09/1912006 00382 DAVIS LOCK & SAFE REKEY LOCK & KEYS 110.98 70888 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 138.45 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 122.48 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 111.83 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 111.83 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 111.83 09/1912006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 111.83 09/1912006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 111.83 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW VEHICLE 90.53 0911912006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 0911912006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE 90.53 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW AUCTION VEHICLE 53.25 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW AUCTION VEHICLE 53.25 09/19/2006 00358 DGM INC. TOW AUCTION VEHICLE 53.25 70889 09/19/2006 00413 DON MARTY'S LANDSCAPING REMOVE & REPLACE BURNING BUSHES 450.00 70890 09/19/2006 00003 ESCROW REFUND REF YARDMASTERS -2653 PROMONTORY 2,500.00 70891 09/19/2006 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC REMOVE TREES 4,575.24 09/19/2006 00687 HUGO'S TREE CARE INC REMOVE TREES 1,569.81 70892 09/19/2006 00721 INDEPENDENT SPORTS NETWORK SOFTBALL UMPIRING SRVS 8/14 - 9/12 3,255.50 70893 09/19/2006 03266 KISSELL CONSTRUCTION INC REF ESC - 1776 MCMENEMY 2,512.05 70894 09/19/2006 00977 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY SOCCER BALLS 395.91 09/19/2006 00977 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY SOCCER BALLS 385.21 70895 09/19/2006 01088 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY COLLECTION SYS LIC RENEWAL TRNG 23.00 70896 09/19/2006 03733 MPLS MEDICAL RES FOUNDATION FORENSIC SCIENCE SEMINAR 250.00 70897 09/19/2006 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC CITY NEWS 2,281.00 A Check Register City of Maplewood Check Date Vendor Description Amount 09/1912006 01202 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC MCC NEWSLETTER 1,486.00 70898 09/19/2006 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REIMS KEVIN ZENK - PR #05 -16 1,653.34 70899 09/19/2006 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF DANIEL KLOCKE - MEMBERSHIP 184.68 70900 09/19/2006 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF TU YANG - ROOF PMT 9/6 #06 -10499 100.50 70901 09/19/2006 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF RITA RAINER - FALL SOCCER 55.00 70902 09/19/2006 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF JASON SCHULTZ - COURT RENTAL 40.00 70903 09/1912006 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR REF L FARR - RETURNED BIKE SEATS 18.11 70904 09/1912006 01225 OSWALD HOSE & ADAPTERS VEHICLE SUPPLIES 134.16 70905 09/19/2006 01284 POSTMASTER PERMIT NUMBER 4903 160.00 70906 09/19/2006 00396 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TRANSFER TITLE CN #06- 000379 17.50 70907 09/19/2006 00396 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TRANSFER TITLE CN #06- 007461 17.50 70908 09/19/2006 01463 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE MCC MASSAGES - AUG 2,327.00 70909 09/19/2006 01578 T R F SUPPLY CO. TOWELS & SAFETY GLASSES 667.75 70910 09/19/2006 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS- 3,312.48 09/1912006 01574 T.A. SCHIFSKY & SONS, INC VARIOUS BITUMINOUS MATERIALS- 1,245.00 70911 09/1912006 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC PROJ 05 -17 TELEVISE MAIN LINE 2,400.00 09/19/2006 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC PROJ 05 -17 JET STORM MANHOLE LINE 330.00 09/19/2006 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC PROJ 05 -17 JETTED & TELEVISE MAIN 220.00 09/19/2006 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC PROJ 05 -17 REMOVED TOILET 65.00 70912 09/19/2006 01683 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC BULLETPROOF VEST 625.00 70913 09/19/2006 03734 ZUBYX LLC FORENSICS TRAINING 90.00 46 Checks in this report. 13u.4gz.of J CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 09/07/06 09/08/06 MN State Treasurer 09/08/06 09/08/06 ICMA (Vantagepointe) 09/08106 09/08/06 Wells Fargo Brokerage 09/08/06 09/08/06 Citigroup 09/08/06 09/11/06 MN State Treasurer 09/08/06 09/11/06 U.S. Treasurer 09/08/06 09/11/06 P.E.R.A. 09/08/06 09/11/06 Orchard Trust 09/08/06 09/11/06 MN Dept of Natural Resources 09/11/06 09/12/06 MN State Treasurer 09/08/06 09/12/06 MN State Treasurer 09/08106 09/12/06 MidAmerica - ING 09/08/06 09/12/06 Labor Unions 09/12/06 09/13/06 MN State Treasurer 09/13/06 09/14/06 MN State Treasurer 09/11/06 09/14/06 ARC Administration TOTAL Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 19,089.62 Deferred Compensation 5,898.83 Wells Fargo - investment purchase 584,804.00 JP Morgan Chase - investment purchase 970,358.89 Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 14,765.80 Federal Payroll Tax 90,153.85 P. E. R.A. 60,200.37 Deferred Compensation 25,396.03 DNR electronic licenses 381.00 Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 21,363.90 State Payroll Tax 17,645.99 HRA Flex plan 2,946.63 Union Dues 1,719.88 Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 17,081.65 Drivers License /Deputy Registrar 15,902.40 DCRP & Flex plan payments 3,483.41 im CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 09108/06 CAVE, REBECCA 397.80 09/081%06 HJELLE, ERIK 397.80 09/08106 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 397.80 09/08/06 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 397.80 09/08106 COPELAND, EUGENE 3,090.00 09/08106 FARR, LARRY 1,912.50 09/08106 SWANSON, LYLE 1,711.57 09/08/06 ARNOLD, AJLA 840.00 09/08/06 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,448.12 09/08/06 FAUST, DANIEL 4,417.22 09/081%06 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,570.95 09/08106 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,544.03 09/08/06 JACKSON, MARY 1,873.35 09/08106 KELSEY, CONNIE 860.91 09/08106 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,873.35 09/08/06 FRY, PATRICIA 1,762.77 09/08/06 GUILFOILE, KAREN 3,094.70 09/08%06 MORSON, JOHN 383.04 09/08106 SPANGLER- EDNA 921.45 09/08/06 JAGOE, CAROL 1,679.66 09/08106 JOHNSON, BONNIE 1,021.72 09/08106 MECHELKE, SHERRIE 1,091.90 09/08106 MOY, PAMELA 823.32 09/08/06 OLSON, SANDRA 1,209.17 09/08/06 OSTER, ANDREA 1,788.61 09/08/06 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,817.33 09/08%06 BANICK, JOHN 4,017.82 09/08106 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,717.35 09/08/06 POWELL, PHILIP 2,394.54 09/08106 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,700.28 09/08106 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,429.00 09/08/06 ABEL, CLINT 2,488.40 09/08/06 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,670.82 09/081%06 ANDREWS, SCOTT 5,286.41 09/08106 BAKKE, LONN 2,560.09 09/08/06 BELDE, STANLEY 2,760.82 09/08106 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 2,422.18 09/08106 BOHL, JOHN 3,127.84 09/08106 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,444.26 09/08/06 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,342.26 09/08/06 CROTTY, KERRY 3,454.24 09/08/06 DOBLAR, RICHARD 3,092.72 09/081%06 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 2,542.96 iTil CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 09108/06 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,957.62 09/08106 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,850.82 09/08106 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,466.24 09108/06 KALKA, THOMAS 686.28 09/08/06 KARIS, FLINT 3,249.65 09108/06 KONG, TOMMY 2,400.11 09/081%06 KROLL, BRETT 2,400.11 09/08106 KVAM, DAVID 3,523.42 09/08106 LANGNER, TODD 1,851.64 09/08106 LU, JOHNNIE 2,907.78 09/08106 MARINO, JASON 2,400.11 09/08!06 MARTIN, DANIEL 654.68 09/08/06 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,514.38 09/08%06 MCCARTY, GLEN 2,545.83 09108/06 METRY, ALESIA 2,554.62 09/08106 NYE, MICHAEL 2,208.65 09/08106 OLSON, JULIE 2,620.84 09/08106 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,587.70 09/08106 RHUDE, MATTHEW 1,985.86 09/08/06 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,724.86 09/08/06 STEINER, JOSEPH 1,705.93 09/08/06 SYPNIEWSKI, WILLIAM 1,951.59 09/08%06 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,607.30 09/08106 TRAM, JOSEPH 2,346.26 09/08106 WENNHOLD, JAIME 1,645.93 09/08106 WENZEL, JAY 2,554.62 09/08106 XIONG, KAO 2,400.11 09/08/06 BARTZ, PAUL 2,677.92 09/08/06 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,607.36 09/081%06 DUGAS, MICHAEL 3,023.41 09108/06 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,605.80 09/08106 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,298.46 09/08106 FRASER, JOHN 2,945.66 09/08106 LANGNER, SCOTT 2,445.82 09/08106 PALMA, STEVEN 2,920.59 09/08/06 THEISEN, PAUL 2,535.82 09/08!06 THIENES, PAUL 2,628.65 09108/06 BARTA, JEREMY 1,864.53 09/081%06 DAWSON, RICHARD 2,356.38 09/08106 DUELLMAN, KIRK 3,013.13 09/08106 EVERSON, PAUL 2,127.64 09/08106 HALWEG, JODI 1,991.84 12 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 09/08106 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 2,272.98 09/08/06 MYERS, TODD 1,864.53 09/08/06 NOVAK, JEROME 2,337.13 09/081%06 PARSONS, KURT 2,145.63 09/08/06 PETERSON, ROBERT 2,566.23 09/081%06 PRECHTEL, ROBERT 2,335.78 09108/06 SVENDSEN, RONALD 2,498.87 09/08106 GERVAIS -JR, CLARENCE 2,868.34 09/08106 BAUER, MICHELLE 1,722.95 09/08106 FLAUGHER, JAYME 1,934.15 09/08106 HERMANSON, CHAD 1,674.15 09/08/06 HUBIN, KENNARD 1,722.95 09/08/06 KNAPP, BRETT 1,678.65 09/08/06 LINN, BRYAN 2,053.04 09/081%06 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,529.68 09/08106 RABINE, JANET 1,917.35 09/08106 STAHNKE, JULIE 1,934.15 09/08106 LUKIN, STEVEN 4,016.18 09/08106 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 3,219.37 09/08/06 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,979.05 09/08/06 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 293.39 09/08%06 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,675.69 09/08/06 KNUTSON, LOIS 1,824.68 09/08106 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 3,059.51 09/08106 NIVEN, AMY 1,258.02 09/08106 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,601.28 09/08106 BRINK, TROY 1,770.15 09/08/06 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,893.35 09/08/06 EDGE, DOUGLAS 2,101.18 09/08/06 ELIAS, BRANDON 360.00 09/08%06 FREBERG, RONALD 137.67 09/08106 JONES, DONALD 1,893.35 09/08106 MEISSNER, BRENT 460.00 09/08106 MEYER, GERALD 1,969.79 09/08106 NAGEL, BRYAN 2,486.01 09/08!06 OSWALD, ERICK 2,080.46 09/08/06 RUNNING, ROBERT 1,886.95 09/081%06 TEVLIN, TODD 1,822.15 09/08/06 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,414.86 09/08106 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,955.06 09/08106 ISAKSON, CHAD 958.38 09/08106 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,987.70 09/08106 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 2,030.15 13 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 09/08106 KUMMER, STEVEN 2,338.20 09/08/06 LABEREE, ERIN 783.55 09/08/06 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,414.86 09/081%06 MEINHOLZ, WILLIAM 985.60 09108/06 PECK, DENNIS 2,421.79 09/08106 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,417.18 09/08106 SCHREMPP, ANTHONY 84.98 09/08106 THOMPSON, MICHAEL 2,129.35 09/08106 ANDERSON, BRUCE 4,359.27 09/08/06 CAREY, HEIDI 2,171.47 09/08/06 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,820.31 09/08/06 LUND, MARK 864.00 09/081%06 MARUSKA, MARK 2,754.63 09/08106 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,822.15 09/08106 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,895.66 09/08106 BIESANZ, OAKLEY 1,572.74 09/08106 DEAVER, CHARLES 589.08 09/08/06 HAYMAN, JANET 1,278.85 09/08/06 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,330.27 09/08%06 NELSON JEAN 1,049.81 09/08/06 FOERG, ELIZABETH 936.00 09/08106 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 2,060.55 09/08106 HAMRE, MILES 690.00 09/08106 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,244.09 09/08106 KROLL, LISA 1,300.48 09/08/06 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 1,007.80 09/08/06 SINDT, ANDREA 1,745.35 09/08/06 THOMPSON, DEBRA 670.94 09/08%06 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,621.36 09/08106 FINWALL, SHANK 2,388.55 09/08106 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,806.04 09/08106 BRASH, JASON 1,200.00 09/08106 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,853.51 09/08/06 FISHER, DAVID 3,712.12 09/08/06 RICE, MICHAEL 2,110.95 09/081%06 SWAN, DAVID 2,214.15 09/08/06 SWETT, PAUL 1,544.55 09/08106 WELLENS. MOLLY 1303.74 09/08106 BJORK, ALICIA 780.00 09/08106 BJORK, BRANDON 840.00 09/08106 COLEMAN, JOHN 348.50 09/08/06 GALLANT, CHARLENE 51.00 09/08!06 GOODRICH, CHAD 346.50 14 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 09/08106 GOODRICH, DANIELLE 247.50 09/08/06 KELLY, LISA 1,027.27 09/08/06 LUKIN, ALISHA 960.00 09/081%06 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 1,080.00 09/08/06 ROBBINS, AUDRA 2,288.25 09/08106 STAPLES, PAULINE 3,028.20 09/08106 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,854.34 09/08106 UNDERHILL, KRISTEN 89.69 09/08106 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,902.59 09/08/06 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 2,008.80 09/08/06 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,101.24 09/08/06 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,430.80 09/08/06 COLLINS, ASHLEY 28.00 09/081%06 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 409.50 09/08/06 CROSSON, LINDA 2,782.66 09/08106 EVANS, CHRISTINE 783.49 09/08106 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,047.81 09/08106 HER, CHONG 417.00 09/08106 HOFMEISTER, MARY 711.80 09/08/06 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 469.63 09/08/06 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 2,094.61 09/08/06 SCHULZE, BRIAN 788.18 09/081%06 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 215.00 09/08106 ZIELINSKI, JUDY 85.10 09/08106 BRENEMAN, NEIL 110.67 09/08106 CORNER, AMY 67.20 09/08106 DUNK, RYAN 135.21 09/08/06 EVANS, KRISTIN 175.60 09/08/06 GREDVIG, ANDERS 185.75 09/08%06 HORWATH, RONALD 2,159.70 09/08/06 KOEHNEN, AMY 125.25 09/08106 KOEHNEN, MARY 1,55633 09/08106 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 182.18 09/08106 PROESCH, ANDY 177.96 09/08106 SMITH, ANN 118.20 09/08/06 TUPY, HEIDE 190.80 09/08/06 TUPY, MARCUS 363.83 09/08/06 WHITE, NICOLE 199.73 09/08%06 WOLFGRAM, MARY 34.25 09/08106 GROPPOLI, LINDA 327.50 09/08106 HOLMGREN, STEPHANIE 2K00 09/08106 BEHAN, JAMES 2,018.35 09/08106 LONETTI, JAMES 1,097.82 15 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 09/08106 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,149.24 09/08/06 PRINS, KELLY 1,046.82 09/08/06 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,690.55 09/081%06 SCHOENECKER, LEIGH 145.50 09/08/06 AICHELE, CRAIG 2,029.35 09/08106 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,129.35 09/08106 WOEHRLE, MATTHEW 1,697.83 09/08106 BERGO, CHAD 2,355.82 09/08106 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 2,686.82 09/08/06 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 2,250.75 106033 09/08/06 LONGRIE, DIANA 452.00 106034 09/08/06 JAHN, DAVID 1,743.23 106035 09/081%06 MORIN, TROY 144.50 106036 09/08106 MATHEYS, ALANA 2,059.21 106037 09/08106 HANSEN, LORI 1,813.36 106038 09/08106 GENNOW, PAMELA 104.00 106039 09/08106 PALANK, MARY 1,703.66 106040 09/08!06 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,855.39 106041 09/08/06 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 3,268.81 106042 09/08%06 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,537.23 106043 09108/06 ANDERSON, MICHAEL 308.00 106044 09/08106 EDSON, DAVID 1,944.16 106045 09/08106 GORE, MICHAEL 336.00 106046 09/08106 HELEY, ROLAND 1,934.59 106047 09/08106 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,899.83 106048 09/08/06 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,897.98 106049 09/08/06 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,893.35 106050 09108/06 OLSON, SCOTT 400.00 106051 09/08%06 BERGREN, KIRSTEN 123.75 106052 09/08106 GERNES, CAROLE 227.00 106053 09/08106 SOUTTER, CHRISTINE 268.13 106054 09/08106 BERGER, STEPHANIE 104.13 106055 09/08106 FARLEY, JAMIE 589.38 106056 09/08!06 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 316.00 106057 09/08/06 GEBHARD, MADELINE 374.13 106058 09/081%06 KOHLMAN, JENNIFER 90.00 106059 09/08/06 KOLIAS, JESSICA 303.75 106060 09/08106 MALLET, AMANDA 135.00 106061 09/08106 HAAG, MARK 1,857.35 106062 09/08106 NADEAU, EDWARD 3,061.98 106063 09/08106 GLASS, JEAN 1,868.83 106064 09/08/06 NAGEL, BROOKE 429.30 106065 09/08/06 SIMPSON, JOSEPH 44.40 i[� CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT 106066 09/08106 VELASQUEZ, ANGELA 36.00 106067 09/08!06 ALBRECHT, TIMOTHY 48.94 106068 09108/06 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 47.93 106069 09/081%06 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 47.93 106070 09/08106 ARNEVIK, ERICA 140.00 106071 09108106 BRENEMAN, SEAN 64.60 106072 09/08106 DEMPSEY, BETH 122.50 106073 09/08106 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 325.03 106074 09/08106 HOLMGREN, LEAH 78.00 106075 09/08/06 LEMAY, KATHERINE 158.25 106076 09/08/06 MCMAHON, MELISSA 60.90 106077 09/08/06 PEHOSKI, JOEL 52.76 106078 09/081%06 RICHTER, NANCY 124.25 106079 09/08106 ROGNESS, TRYGGVE 210.53 106080 09108106 RYDEEN, ARIEL 116.66 106081 09/08106 SCHMIDT, EMILY 69.83 106082 09/08106 SCHRAMM, BRITTANY 48.30 106083 09/08/06 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 122.38 106084 09/08/06 SMITLEY, SHARON 352.10 106085 09/08%06 WARNER, CAROLYN 226.35 106086 09/08106 WOODMAN, ALICE 128.00 106087 09/08/06 BOSLEY, CAROL 336.18 106088 09108106 KELLY, BRYAN 168.00 106089 09/08106 LEWIS, AMY 103.60 106090 09/08106 ODDEN, JESSICA 38.59 106091 09/08/06 OIE, REBECCA 22.05 106092 09/08/06 PARAYNO, GUAI 342.43 106093 09/08/06 SATTLER, CASSANDRA 30.75 106094 09/08%06 SATTLER, MELINDA 117.30 106095 09108106 STODGHILL, AMANDA 67.50 106096 09108106 VAN HALE, PAULA 24.90 106097 09/08106 WADE, MARY -LEE 26.25 106098 09/08106 BERLIN, SARAH 106.40 106099 09/08/06 BIRKHOLZ, TYLER 31.75 106100 09/08/06 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,352.78 106101 09/081%06 EVERSON, KYLE 126.35 106102 09/08/06 GADOW, ANNA 6.35 106103 09/08/06 HER, CHEF 76.20 106104 09/08106 HER, PETER 6.35 106105 09/08106 O'GRADY, VICTORIA 6.95 106106 09/08106 OLSON, CHRISTINE 53.20 106107 09/08/06 SCHULZE, KEVIN 126.35 106108 09/08/06 YANG, HUE 6.65 if CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE 106109 09/08106 106110 09/08!06 106111 09/08/06 EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT VANE, KAY 99.40 YANG, TIM 144.30 VUE, LOR PAO 254.95 453,808.70 iE:3 Agenda Item 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Interim City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review — Saint Paul Business Center West LOCATION: 225 -255 Roselawn Avenue East DATE: September 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for Saint Paul Business Center West is due for review. This permit allows a 108,000- square -foot commercial office and warehouse development north of Roselawn Avenue and west of Interstate 35E. Refer to the maps on pages two and three and the site plan on page four. BACKGROUND On February 19, 1981, Ramsey County District Court ruled that the city must issue a CUP for this office /warehouse center. On December 28, 1987, the council approved a revision to the CUP subject to the original conditions of approval. This revision allowed the business center to add parking. On August 12, 1991, the council granted a five -year time extension to the CUP. On September 23, 1996, the council granted another five -year time extension to the CUP. On September 10, 2001, the city council reviewed this permit again and agreed to review it again in five years. DISCUSSION Staff is not aware of any problems at this location. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Saint Paul Business Center West at 225 -255 Roselawn Avenue again only if a problem develops or if the owner proposes a major change to the site. P: /... sec18 /centwest. revs Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. December 28, 1987 city council minutes N COUNTY ROAD B Attachment 1 z ui LAURIE RE TJ T� ELDRIDGE AVE BELMONT LN H SKILLMAN AVE SKILLMAN AVE U) - - 0 - - - - - - - - - F- MT VERNON AVE U) z 0 DOWNS AVE -- TT E � T SITE ROSELAWN AVE T BELLWOOD AVE 717 worm, Tom in T& SLOAN ST TFM J BELLWOOD AVE F St. Paul Businass Center - West 2 255 Roselawn Avenue mm IN NION Nil ro I ENO m I _T73 ��\\ c j 35 Zoning Map St. Paul Businis Center - West 233 Roselawn Avenue 6D Lf`: F mm IN NION Nil ro I ENO m I _T73 ��\\ c j 35 Zoning Map St. Paul Businis Center - West 233 Roselawn Avenue Attachment 3 j { r j , f 3 ]t � 1 1_ i t } � j j j 7 �y� q F k i S t � f w nA� ., f. *�,.,. �.. j 7 y i Vi :gig Lo 1� _1 �. t i EL t { g P qtr j { r j , f 3 ]t � 1 1_ 7 n g Y W ■ CE i t } � j j j 7 �y� q F zN i S w nA� 7 n g Y W ■ CE 2 7:10 P-M., PUD Revision: St. Paul Business Center West Attachment 4 Jason Schwartz, Property Manager for St. Paul Business Center g. Acting Mayor Wasiluk called for opponents. None were heard, h. Acting Mayor Wasiluk closed the public hearing. i. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, Todd Reid of the St. Paul Business Center initiated a con- ditional use permit to add thirteen parking spaces at the following- described property: E 112 of NE 1/4 of Section 18, township 29, lying westerly of the centerline of Trunk Highl-way No. 10, except the N 900 ft thereof; subject to said Highway 10 and easement for ponding area in the N 195 ft of the S 240 ft thereof, all in Ramsey County, Mn.; This property is also known as 225-255 E. Roselawn Avenue, Maplewood; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. This conditional use permit revision was reviewed by the - 6 - 12/28 /` '_7 Maplewood Planning Commission on December 7, 1987, The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said permit be approved. 2. the Maplewood City Council held a publ hearing on December 28, 1987. Notice thereof was published and mailed purs_-ant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. ' 7 'e Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City Staff and Planning Commission. 101 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNC-T , - t 'r,at the above-described conditional use permit be approved on the basis of the following findings-of-fact: 4. The use would not depreciate property values. 5. The use would not be hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to present and potential surrounding land uses, due to the noises, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, water run-off: vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 6. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and shall not create traffic congestion, unsafe access or parking needs that will cause undue burden to the area prop- erties, - 7 - 12/28 /f "' Nay - Councilmember Juker. I Agenda Item 13 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Cottagewood Private Development, City Project 06 -08 a) Approve Developer's Agreement b) Approve Storm Water Maintenance Agreement DATE: September 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION /BACKGROUND The Cottagewood Development on Highwood Avenue 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 LAUREN & COMPANY, L.L.C. and the City of Maplewood. Attachment: 1. Developer's Agreement 2. Storm Water Maintenance Agreement CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Ramsey County, Minnesota Development Agreement for Cottagewood 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 LAUREN & COMPANY, L.L.G. 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 Cottagewood 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 construct the gravity sanitary sewer service from the gravity sanitary sewer stub to the development, which will be extended to this development as part of the Public Improvement Project No.06 -10, to 2660 Highwood Avenue. The gravity sewer line shall meet all city standards and include a 20 -foot utility easement over its centerline. This sanitary sewer line shall run from the east property line of 2660 Highwood Avenue and extend to the east and connect into a sanitary sewer manhole in the private development road within the said easement. 3. The OWNER agrees to execute a maintenance agreement establishing the maintenance requirements and responsibilities for the infiltration trenches and sump structures. 4. The developer shall post cash escrow and shall be letter of credit or cash deposit for 125% of the public improvement costs in Highwood Avenue. 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 private development project. A $5,000 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 LAUREN & COMPANY, L.L.C. TITLE: STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY OF } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of of the OWNER. 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 M COTTAGEWOOD CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1. Project Information: a. Name: Cottagewood b. Developer: Lauren & Company, LLC C. Engineer: Auth Consulting/ associates d. General Contractor: e. Financial Guarantees: (1) Type: Cash Deposit (Engineering and Legal Expenses) Amount: $5,000 - Engineering and Legal Expenses (2) Type: Letter of Credit Amount: 125% of public improvement construction cost 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 August 28, 2006 city council meeting (see conditions below). Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans for 4-9 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 7 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. 1. 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: � nr-- lde gFadinn 0 utility drainage : eFO SiGR GO RtFGI , streets , trails , tree 0 FetaiRiRg walls rlriiroway and paFkiRg lot plane• a. The gradinq, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, trails, tree, retaining walls, driveway and parkinq 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. 9 2. 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. 3.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 PU© 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 (C©RB). The projects shall be subject to the 01 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. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on August 28, 2006. 10 STORM WATER TREATMENT STRUCTURES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1 2006, by and between the City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota {hereinafter called "City "), and Lauren & Company, L.L.C. (hereinafter called "Owner "). Witnesses: 1. Purpose The City has determined that it is consistent with the City's plans, regulations, purposes and goals to provide a storm water quality protection system for the property at Cottagewood (2666 Highwood Avenue) described herein as follows: Subject to State TH 1001117 and HWY 393, the north 1100 feet of the West 173 feet of the East 198 feet of the West �lz 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) It is understood that the Owner shall be responsible for installing two (2) infiltration trenches, and two (2) three foot sump structures in the locations as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, and the owner from time to time of the Property (the "Owner ") shall be responsible for the cost of cleaning and maintaining the infiltration basin and sump structures to ensure their full working capacity. It is understood between the parties that the City shall not be responsible for the initial cost of the infiltration trenches and sump structures or the ongoing maintenance costs, which shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner, respectively. 2. Responsibilities of the Parties a) The Owner shall be responsible for any costs related to the installation of the infiltration trenches and sump structures. b) The Owner shall be responsible for annual cleaning and maintenance of the infiltration trenches and sump structures. C) The Owner shall provide to the City an annual inspection report prepared in connection with such annual cleaning and maintenance. The City and/or the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District ( "Watershed District ") may from time to time inspect the infiltration trenches and sump structures to determine whether or not the infiltration trenches and sump structures are operating properly. 3. Right of Access The Owner hereby grants to the City and the Watershed District the right to enter onto the Property to inspect and monitor the infiltration trenches and sump structures. In the event the City or Watershed District require repairs to the infiltration trenches and sump structures, the Owner shall have thirty (30) days following written notice from the City in which to make said repairs. If the Owner fails to make said repairs within thirty (30) days after receiving said notice from the City, the City shall have the right to enter on the Property to make any repairs necessary to make the infiltration trenches and sump structures work to their full capacity. The Owner shall be responsible to the City for any and all fees and costs associated with said maintenance and repairs. 4. Warranty of Ownership The Owner warrants that it has the right and authority to enter into this Agreement. 5. Binding Effect The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding on all heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding on all Owners from time to time of all or any part of the Property and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. References herein to Owner, if there be more than one, shall mean all of them. This Agreement at the option of the City, shall be placed of record so as to give notice thereof to subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers of all or any party of the Property. The Owner hereby consents to the recording of this Agreement with the Ramsey County Recorder. 6. Notices Whenever it shall be required or permitted by this Agreement that notice or demand be given or served by either party to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses hereinafter set forth by certified mail. Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto for such purposes are as follows, until written notice of a change of such addresses has been given in accordance herewith: As to the City: City of Maplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 As to the Owner: Phil Sobe 200 Chestnut Street Stillwater, MN 55082 IN WETNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. OWNER: Lauren & Company, L.L.C. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Ramsey The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2006 by , the of Ramsey County Notary Public CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Diana Longrie , Mayor day of , Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Diana Longrie, Mayor, of the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation. Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2006, by Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager, of the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation. Notary Public o I �< I �o o Y HIGHWOOD AVE EAST u 5 SUMP Al (' J ,����i ��ii I POND OUTLET S 1 STRUCTURE I �- - IIlIj� IIII�I "fill 111111 1, a I iliili 111111 I ( W I I II I 'II,I, nuu 1 Q o I unn , POND A 8. Y O N 0 N u I m il,l, I�IfI) I INFILTRATION I I °i�i lil�u i TRENCH A f I a I I N ( Z r an ;Rn O I o a w I cm "A; a i LEGEND 8a' " °a W I v - ----- — INDIVIDUAL v — . - -_ - -. ON —LOT w a II RAIN GARDEN !0 °0 I C a I N Fri' I I— _._. — —.— — CC Ld Lli n I w I - -- CD Q n U — — z Z Q W I j I- 0 _ — J INFILTRATION z SUMP Cl TRENCH B z < �Q c o :2 — — z tY L DO 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 00 U ° < 0 �C�3 3 :2 1 o` ' W w cr �� C 7 z O LLJ O W � _D yy.. NORTH o O Q F- — — — — a UJ v 0 20 40 80 SHEET NO. EXHIBIT Al Agenda Item 14 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: TH 36 Improvements (White Bear to Century), City Project 05 -03, Resolution Approving Agreement with MnDOT for Turnback of Castle Avenue DATE: September 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION /BACKGROUND The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), in cooperation with Ramsey County and the City of North St. Paul are preparing to improve Trunk Highway 36 between White Bear Avenue and Century Avenue beginning in April 2007. As part of those improvements, MnDOT is proposing to turnback Castle Avenue to the City of Maplewood for ownership and maintenance. An agreement to provide funds to the City for an upgrade project is proposed to facilitate the turnback process. Approval of this agreement is recommended. BACKGROUND On May 22, 2006, the City Council reviewed the environmental documents for the TH 36 Project and on August 14, 2006, the Council approved the removal of the noise walls from the overall project proposal. As part of this process and the construction improvements, MnDOT has proposed to turnback Castle Avenue to the City for perpetual ownership and maintenance. It is standard practice that the agency that turns a roadway back to another agency provide for bringing that roadway to an acceptable standard. MnDOT originally proposed to conduct a milling and overlay project to replace the driving surface on Castle Avenue. They estimated the cost of that work to be $75,112.65. It is proposed that MnDOT provide these funds to the City for our use to upgrade Castle Avenue as part of our street reconstruction program. Through that process, a berm and plantings to provide some additional noise attenuation to the property owners will be provided along with other area roadway improvements. This approach is likely to be a more efficient and longer lasting improvement to the area and provide better service to the Maplewood residents than the MnDOT mill and overlay project. It is likely that the street reconstruction program on Castle Avenue would be delayed until 2009 or 2010 to avoid any disruption with the TH 36 improvements. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that council adopt the attached resolution approving the Agreement with MnDOT for the turnback of Castle Avenue in exchange for a payment by MnDOT of $75,112.65 and authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to sign the Agreement. Attachment: 1. Resolution 2. MnDOT Letter 3. Agreement 4. Location Map CITY OF MAPLEWOOD RESOLUTION IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 89658 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for the jurisdictional transfer, from the State to the City, of Castle Avenue East from White Bear Avenue eastwardly to the Maplewood City Limit within the corporate City limits under Control Section No. 6211. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the are (Title) authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Maplewood at an authorized meeting held on the day of , 2006, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 2006 Notary Public My Commission Expires (Signature) (Type or Print Name) (Title) REcEive ME July 24, 2006 Mr. Charles Ahl, City Engineer City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 RE: City of Maplewood S.P. 6211 T.H. 36 State Funds Jurisdictional Transfer to the City of Maplewood — Castle Avenue East Agreement No. 89658 Dear Mr. Ahl: Attached are two copies of a proposed agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Maplewood. This agreement provides for payment to the City of Maplewood for the repair and jurisdictional transfer of Castle Avenue East within the corporate City limits. Kindly review this agreement and arrange to have it presented to the City Council authorized Officers for their approval and execution. We require: 1. Two original copies of the agreement with ORGINAL NOTARIZED SIGNATURES of the authorized City Council Officers on both copies of the agreement. 2. Two original copies of a resolution passed by the City Council authorizing its officers to sign the agreement on its behalf. A suggested form of such resolution is enclosed. These original copies must also be NOTARIZED. Please return the executed, notarized agreement copies along with the notarized copies of the City Council resolution to me for further processing by the State. A copy will be returned to the City of Maplewood when the agreement is fully executed. Please contact me at, 651 -582 -1370, if you have any questions. Sincerely, R ' I b 1 Margaret M. Hylton State Programs Administrator Technical Attachments Cc: Bill Priefer Mark Gieseke An equal opportunity employer PRE - LETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and The City of Maplewood Re: State transfer to the City of Castle Avenue East from White Bear Avenue eastward to the Maplewood City Limits, adjacent to T.H. 36 Mn /DOT AGREEMENT NO. 89658 Control Section 6211 T.H. 36 AMOUNT ENCUMBERED $75,112.65 AMOUNT RECEIVABLE (None THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". 1 i WHEREAS, in distributing decision making for routes of specific functional classification to the appropriate level of government, it is necessary to change jurisdiction of certain routes from one level of government to another; and WHEREAS, one such route is Castle Avenue East, a frontage road on the south side and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 36, from White Bear Avenue eastward to the Maplewood City Limit; and WHEREAS, the State and the City wish to enter into an agreement that will provide for the jurisdictional transfer, from the State to the City, of Castle Avenue East, from White Bear Avenue eastward to the Maplewood City Limit; and WHEREAS, the State had programmed a thin overlay project of Castle Avenue East; and WHEREAS, the City has requested and the State is willing to participate in the cost of having the City improve Castle Avenue East in an lump sum amount equal to $75,112.65 as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. oil IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - ROADWAY TO BE TRANSFERRED The State shall transfer to the City, jurisdiction of Castle Avenue East from White Bear Avenue eastwardly to the Maplewood City Limits. ARTICLE II - INFORMATION AND RECORDS PROVIDED BY THE STATE Upon execution and approval of this agreement the State shall, upon request, provide the City with the following information and records that are applicable to Castle Avenue East described in Article I hereof, to the extent that they are available: 1. A list of active maintenance agreements with other governmental agencies and utility companies that will be canceled. 2. Utility, drainage, access driveway, sign advertising and limited use permits. 3. As built construction plans and microfilm records. 4. Bridge inspection reports and ratings. 5. Photo logs, aerial photos, right -of -way maps and parcel files. 6. Inventory data. 7. Pavement condition ratings. 8. A history of the most recent betterment. 9. Accident reports and statistics, subject to Privacy Act requirements. 10. The most current traffic counts. 11. Any alignment ties, horizontal and vertical control monuments, and relative data. 12. Road opening authority documentation and /or right -of -way authority documentation. 3 ARTICLE III - RIGHT -OF -WAY The State and the City shall determine the right -of -way limits for the Castle Avenue East roadway portions described in Article I, prior to the transfer of land title. ARTICLE IV - NOTICE OF TRANSFER The State shall, upon execution and approval of this Agreement, serve upon the City a "Notice of Transfer ", placing the Castle Avenue East roadway portion described in Section A. of this article under the jurisdiction of the City. Subsequent thereto, after all necessary and required documents have been prepared and processed, the State shall convey to the City all right, title, and interest of the State in that roadway portion. Upon receipt of that "Notice of Transfer ", the City shall become the road authority responsible for the roadway portion so transferred. As the road authority, the City is the owner of that roadway portion and all of the facilities a part thereof. ARTICLE V - PAYMENT BY THE STATE The State shall advance to the City, as the State's full and complete share of the costs of the Castle Avenue East improvement construction to be performed by the City in association with the jurisdictional transfer of Castle Avenue East, within the corporate City limits, a lump sum in the amount of $75,112.65. The State shall advance to the City the lump sum amount after the following conditions have been met: A. Encumbrance by the State of the State's full and complete lump sum cost share. W B. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's transmittal of it to the City. C. Receipt by the State of a written request from the City for the advancement of funds. ARTICLE VI - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section A. Future Responsibilities Upon satisfactory completion of the jurisdictional transfer of Castle Avenue East, the City shall thereafter accept full and total responsibility and all obligations and liabilities arising out of or by reason of the use, operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of Castle Avenue East and all of the facilities a part thereof, without cost or expense to the State. Section B. Examination of Books, Records, Etc. As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each party relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by each party, and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from final payment. Section C. Claims Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the City. 5 Section D. Agreement Approval Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be approved by a City Council resolution and executed by such State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or their authorized representative. ARTICLE VII - AUTHORIZED AGENTS The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly - Sonnek, Municipal Agreements Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 296 -0969. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Charles Ahl, City Engineer, or His successor. His current address and phone number are 1830 County Road B East, Maplewood, MN 55109 -2702, (651) 249 -2000. I 89658 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05. By Date MAPS Encumbrance No. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD By Mayor Date By - Title Date 7 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By fi .i — c r tn g3. neer Approved: By State Design Engineer Date Approved as to form and execution: By Contract Management Date COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By Date 6_\ -5 E. 71 I. J , l 65 H m m m D D m AVE L E AVE. Ea COPE AVE. D = Z D 0 N -< m m SANDNUR Sl 0 �FNTER DF\- y -1 I� NORTH ST. PAUL 29 GERVAIS 11th Agenda Item 15 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer 11 SUBJECT: Kenwood Area Street Improvements, City Project 05 -16, Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Orders 7 and 8 DATE: Sept 14, 2006 INTRODUCTIONISUMMARY During construction there are often unforeseen changes from the original plans and specifications. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract and revising the project financing plan. Background On April 24, 2006, the city council awarded Forest Lake Contracting a construction contract for utility and roadway improvements in the amount of $4,236,756.46. On June 12, 2006, the city council approved Change Orders 1, 2 and 3 for an additional $149,063.50. On August 14, 2006 the city council approved Change Orders 4, 5 and 6 for an additional $67,418.33. The total amount for the construction contract including change orders to date is $4,453,238.29. The changes described in Change Order 7 and 8 are described below and on the attached change order forms. Change Order 7 ($8,101.78) o As water main replacement continued along Greenbrier Street between Belmont Lane and Eldridge Avenue, the 30 -inch pipe outlet from Oehrline's Lake was encountered. It was found that a pipe joint under the street was leaking. Since the outlet for Oehrline's Lake is submerged, the pipe was full of water and under pressure. The contractor has to install a temporary plug to relieve the pressure on the joint, which meant removing and replacing a catch basin structure on the pipe outlet. The repair was completed by placing a repair clamp normally used for large water main repairs around the leaky pipe joint. The total cost for these repairs was $3,848.44. o During street and boulevard construction work, there were two low areas encountered on the project in which residents had complained about yard drainage problems that made areas tough to mow and maintain. We proposed to assist these residents by installing a 4- inch drain the pipe encased in rounded stone and fabric. One problem area occurred in the Mt. Vernon Avenue right -of -way near 1979 Kenwood Drive East (Steve and Stephanie Varley). Another area that was of concern was near the home of Julie Binko at 1959 Greenbrier Street where her yard drain the system was connected into the street storm drainage system. A price of $15.30 per lineal foot for the rock - encased drain tile was quoted. A total of 131 LF was installed at a total cost of $2,004.30. o Extra sanitary sewer service repair at 739 Eldridge Avenue. The existing service was lined with a 4 -inch PVC pipe and replaced to the wye at the sanitary main. Agenda Item 15 o Extra sanitary sewer service repair at 731 Eldridge Avenue. The existing sewer service riser from the main was replaced with PVC pipe. Change Order 8 ($4,862.27) o During installation of curb and gutter along Kenwood Drive East, it was discovered that two manhole structures were staked in the wrong locations. The staking error occurred due to the widening of the street from 26 feet to 30 feet in the general area of the two manhole structures and a miscomputation of the location in the gutter line. In the field, staff had agreed with the contractor on a method of moving the 2 structures that would cost the least amount in terms of labor. The amount, $4,862.27, includes the labor to excavate and move the structures and to replace the compacted street section. The original contract amount is for $4,236,756.46. The modified contract amount including Change Orders 1 -6 is $4,453,238.29. Change Orders 7 and 8 will increase the contract by $12,963.75 to $4,466,202.04 Budget Impact Approval of this change order will require an increase in the budget by $13,000.00. The sanitary sewer fund contribution should be increased by $2,300.00, a transfer from the St. Paul Water Fund of $3,850.00, along with an increase of $6,850.00 from the Environmental Utility Fund. Approved Financing Sources Debt Service Levy Assessments Sewer Fund SPRWS WAC Investment Inter. RWMWD EUF 2,500,680.00 00 561,000.00 339,900.00 80,000.00 $60,000.00 $90,600.00 327,5 TOTAL $ 5,414,300.00 RECOMMENDATION Proposed Financing Sources Debt Service Levy Assessments Sewer Fund SPRWS WAC Investment Inter. RWMWD EUF TOTAL $ 2,545,204.50 $ 1,454,620.00 $ 567,897.42 $ 356,096.41 $ 83,850.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 92,700.00 $ 334,350.00 $ 5,494,718.33 It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution directing the modification of the existing construction contract for the Kenwood Area Neighborhood Street Improvements, City Project 05- 16, Change Orders 7 and 8. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Change Order Nos. 7 and 8. 3. Location Map RESOLUTION DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROJECT 05 -16, CHANGE ORDER 7 and 8 WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 05 -16, Kenwood Area Neighborhood Improvements, and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 05 -16, Change Order Nos. 7 and 8. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that: The mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in the amount of $12,963.75. The revised contract amount is $4,466,202.04. 2. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to implement the revised financing plan for the project. A project budget of $5,494,718.33 shall be established. The proposed financing plan is as follows: Assessments: $ 1,454,620.00 Ramsey Wash Watershed District: $ 92,700.00 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund: $ 567,897.42 SPRWS Obligation: $356,096.41 WAC Fund $ 83,850.00 Environmental Utility Fund $ 334,350.00 Investment Interest: $ 60,000.00 Debt Service levy: $ 2,545,204.50 Total $ 5,494,718.33 CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Kenwood Area Neighborhood Improvements Change Order No.: 7 Project No.: 05 -16 Date: 9 -14 -06 Contractor: Forest Lake Contracting The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: (Work not covered under contract) Description Unit Quantity Price Total Oehrline's Lake Outfall Repair Work Order 1996 — Manhole Excavation and Pipe Plug LS 1 $932.16 $932.16 Work Order 1997 — Install Heavy -Duty 30" Pipe Band LS 1 $1,802.85 $1,802.85 Work Order 3566 — Repair Back Yard Catch Basin LS 1 $1,113.43 $1,113.43 Yard Drainage Issues Mt. Vernon Avenue and Greenbrier Street 4" HDPE Perforated Draintile Encased in 1 -112" Rock and Fabric LF 131 $15.30 $2,004.30 Sanitary Sewer Service Repairs 731 Eldridge Avenue 739 Eldridge Avenue Work Order 3565 LS 1 $2,249.04 $2,249.04 TOTAL $8,101.78 Original Contract: $4,236,756.46 Net Change of Prior Change Order Nos. 1 -6: $216,481.83 Change This Change Order: $8,101.78 Revised Contract: $4,461,340.07 ... -. Mayor • u „- ,. -. Engineer Agreed to by Contractor by Its Title CHANGE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Project Name: Kenwood Area Neighborhood Improvements Change Order No.: 8 Project No.: 05 -16 Date: 9 -14 -06 Contractor: Forest Lake Contracting The following changes shall be made in the contract documents: (Work not covered under contract) Unit Description Unit Quantity Price Total Extra Work Due to Relocation Of Structures 641 and 644 Work Order 3559` Move CB's 641 & 644 LS 1 $4,108.29 $4,108.29 Work Order 3560 Replace Cl. 6 and Street Grading LS 1 $753.98 $753.98 Original Contract: $4,236,756.46 Net Change of Prior Change Order Nos. 1 -6: $216,481.83 Net Change of Pending Change Order No. 4: $8101.78 Change This Change Order: $4,862.27 Revised Contract: $4,466,202.04 TOTAL $4,862.27 Approved Mayor Recommended Agreed to by Contractor by Engineer Its Title - ------- - ------- -- VIKING DR. ry cn bi - ------ - ----- --- n LLJ 0 . .... .. ry Li < LAURIE CT. LIJ JZ 4 z - * < n - --------- . .... -- - --------- - --------- - - -------- - .......... - ----- ------ - ---------- . .......... - -- - ----- - ---------- BURKI (J� AV E. E ELDRIDGE B L D R I M 0 Oehrline BELMONT Lake cn II AV E. S izil I k A A f, KILLMAN AV. A . V LLJ ry < Ld V* ry M n Cn M Ld Edgerton W W CY Park < Ld ry A n 1 1 (-D • • BURKE CT. Maplecrest Park AVE. Keller La ke ROSELAWN AV, BELLWOOD 0 n C SUMMER 0 C 11CT. i, i - Cn 3: 1 ' 3: �-- z �7 u ry _7 -J Ld cn TRAIL < RIPLEY AV- GAT EWA ® PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT ' NO SCALE Exhibit 1: Project Location Kenwood Area Street Improvements City Project 05-16 KEN*OOD LN. Agenda Item K1 MEMORANDUM TO: Interim City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Reconsideration - Conditional Use Permit Review PROJECT: Liberty Classical Academy LOCATION: 1717 English Street DATE: September 15, 2006 INTRODUCTION Rebekah Hagstrom, the Director of Liberty Classical Academy, is requesting that the city council reconsider one of the changes they made to the CUP for the school on August 28, 2006. The council took this action during their review for the school's conditional use permit. (See the letter on page ten.) 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. On August 28, 2006, the city council reviewed the CUP for the school at 1717 English Street. During this meeting, the city council, at the request of a neighbor, added several conditions of approval for the school. (See the council minutes on page 11.) One of these conditions set the maximum numbers of students the school may have at this location at 60. 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). During the council meeting on August 28, 2006, the city council added several conditions to the CUP for the school. The council added these conditions after listening to one of the neighbors of the school and to the representatives of the school. The council added the conditions to try to address the concerns of the neighbor while still allowing the school to operate in this location. Unfortunately, one of the new conditions changed the maximum number of students the school may have from 120 to 60. The school, as indicated in their letter dated September 15, 2006, still wants to have up to 120 students in this location. 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. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Set at 120 the maximum number of students that Liberty Classical Academy may have at their location at 1717 English Street. 2. Review the conditional use permit for Liberty Classical Academy at 1717 English Street again in February 2007. P:sec 16 \LCA cup review — 9 -25 -2006 (2) 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 6. Letter dated September 15, 2006 letter from Liberty Classical Academy 7. August 28, 2006 city council minutes 2 N �� i Location Map 1717 English Street 3 Z\ 7 Lp �3 Ej 17' 7 1�7 9 I wj 17 17 u 177 ............. x,7;0 z 17 47 1 747 3 LLL 17311 � 7............... I 7; 19 SITE �3 1 )5 L d n,7 7 i R RUMUMM I F- - MF U, ZEN I KA I MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 1:00 P.M. Monday, June 13, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05-11 9. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Revision — Liberty Classical Academy (1717 English Street) a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. mom cl. Commissioner Ahiness, presented the Maplewood Planning Commission Report. cl, The following persons were heard: ffMMM&1= r WHEREAS, Ms. Kathy Smith, representing Liberty Classical Academy, is requesting that Maplewood approve a revision to the conditional use permit for a school to operate in an existing church. 2, On June 13, 2005, the city council reviewed this proposal. At this meeting the council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. The council also gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. 0 b. An early warning fire protection system (smoke detection and monitoring), c. Additional emergency lights and exit signs (if necessary), moo= 11 IIIII I III ;II ; Ij Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All 0 Attachment 5 1 7 1 7 E Lai le�vvood, NfN 5 5 t 09 651 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Grc Votel, 8-8-06 C As the new school year approaches, I wanted to send you a letter describing the changes we are making which we hope will alleviate some of your concerns. It has always been our desire to be a good neighbor to those around the Lake Phaien Church property, As you already know, the biggest change we -are making for the Upcoming School year is that I r_1 L, ` we are moving the middle and upper school students to another facility. This will roughly cut in half the number of'students at the Lake Phalen site in the coming year. There are fewer Phy.ed classes, as a result, which means less use of the field next to your home. In order to alleviate the concern over increased garbage items in VOUr vard., the students will do a weckly garbage pick-up of the field and parking lot. We will also continue to remind C7 ,students to dispose of-arbage appropriately by using garbage: receptacles. We sincerely hope these changes will bring about a better relationship between you and the school. We are doing our best to minimize the impact of the school on our neighbors while also maintaining the integrity of` our program for our students and their families. Academic Distinction Classical Tradition Christian Worldview 0 Attachment 6 S CP 15 2006 L 1717 English Street Maplewood, MN 55109 aEr M- n Dear Mayor Longrey and members of the Maplewood City Council, On behalf of the Liberty Classical Academy Board of Directors, I am writing to you requesting that LCA x placed on the City Council meeting agenda for clarification of the CUP renewal for the Lake I 1 halen Community Church site that took place on August, 28' 2006. At that Meeting, discussion ensued regarding some issues raised by a neighbor, Greg Votel (along with a pet tion be set forth). These issues were discussed and led to an agreement that LCA would follow through with some measures to alleviate his concerns. When the motion was made and voted upon, however, the number of students allowed at the Lake Phalen site was reduced from 120 o 60. The motion and vote occurred very quickly, and I didn't hear that the number had been educed. My associate did, however, so I later called to clarify with the city that, indeed, o CUP had been reduced from the previous number of 120 students to 60 students. Unforwtun rely, there was no discussion regarding that change prior to the motion, so I wasn't able to share LCA's need to keep the total number of students at 120, The school originally had a CUP of 60 students, when we were only using the lower level classrooms, Then, as the school grew, the -,hurch gave permission to LCA for use of the upstairs classrooms and the Y floor library. 'We received the conditional use permit for 120 students in June of 2005. There were several c Ity upgrades that were contingencies of the revision (adding a wall and fire door in the t library, in reasing the length of all railings and increasing the height of the rail leading up to the library). Additionally, just this summer we spent $20,000 adding a waterline that will operate the sprinkler system. Next year, if we stay at Lake Phalen, the sprinkler heads will be installed which wil I cost the school another $15,000. If we thought the student enrollment would be limited to 60, we would not have moved forward with the upgrades. Rather, we would have been forced to find a different site for the school. The church definitely wants us to stay in their facility as they are very supportive of our mission and vision. Additionally, if we leave after this year, the church would be left with half the sprinkler system installed (we were allowed by the city to do the project in stages, since it is so costly). We alrea have 49 students in the lower school this year. We could be up over 60 students as soon as next year (07-08). Our desire is to have the ability to continue growing the lower school at the Lake Phalen site and the Middle and Upper school at the First Free site with the idea that eventually we would have the necessary student enrollment to support a building on our own. We ask fc r your careful consideration of this matter and a reversal of the student enrollment cap back to 4 previously approved 120 students. Thanks so much for your thoughtful consideration. 9-15-06 Academic bistinction Classical Tradition Christian Wortdview im MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, August 28, 2006 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 06 -22 F3 CALL TO ORDER FWAI M1�J A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, and was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by Mayor Longrie. 13 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A ROLL CALL Diana Longrie, Mayor Present Rebecca Cave Councilmember Present Erik Hjelle, Councilmember Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present 1. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Longrie moved to approve consent agenda items 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-All Mayor Longrie moved to approve consent agenda item 3 with the condition that a notice section is added to the document so the city has to appropriate contact address for the developer. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All Mayor Longrie moved to approve the conditional use permit, agenda item 4 with the conditions that school activities shall be completed by 6:00 p.m., litter will be picked up as needed, a garbage can will be outside, the school will contain grades kindergarten through 5 grade with a maximum of 60 students, and four evening events to go no later than 9:30 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve consent agenda item 6. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve consent agenda item 7. Seconded by Councilmember Cave Ayes-All Councilmember Hjelle moved to approve consent agenda item 10. Seconded by Councilmember Cave its Ayes-All Agenda Item K2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Stop Sign — No Parking Requests: Harris Avenue No Parking Changes Rosewood /Kennard /Maryknoll Stop Sign Request DATE: September 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION /BACKGROUND Mr. Joseph Keller, 1655 Harris Avenue East, submitted a petition to the City Council on August 28, 2006 requesting a revision to no parking signs and the installation of a 4 -way stop at Kennard 1 Maryknoll / Rosewood intersection. Council review and approval of these requests are required by City Council policy. BACKGROUND The City Council typically only considers these types of requests once annually. This request involves some neighborhood concerns and disputes so the issue has been brought as a special action item. This issue goes back a number of years. Attached is a copy of the original petition from this neighborhood from September 30, 2003. The stop sign requests in 2003 were revised by the Council to provide stop signs only for Rosewood (2 locations) and Maryknoll approaches to Kennard. The Kennard movement was not placed in a stop condition. The "No Parking on Curve" request resulted in parking being restricted on the North side of Harris from the curve to Prosperity. The 2003 petition notes the neighborhood frustration with the homeowner at 1655 Harris Avenue East (Mr. Keller) parking many of his large pieces of equipment (business vehicles and a large boat) that blocked driver's vision. The code enforcement and police staff have been called to 1655 Harris Avenue East on numerous occasions due to code and parking violations. The August 27, 2006 petition was circulated by Mr. Keller to request movement of the "No Parking" signs from the north side of the roadway to the south side. Mr. Keller has continued to park his construction equipment on the roadway for extended periods of time and the parked vehicles can restrict access to driveways and views at the curve at times, which contributes to neighborhood concerns with Mr. Keller. The parking on the south side also restricts Mr. Keller from having the ability to access his driveway with the larger construction equipment, as the turning radius is restricted by vehicles parked on the south side. At this point, the staff is supportive of two changes for this neighborhood. First, the relocation of the "No Parking" signs from the north side of Harris Avenue to the south side is a local issue and the petition is in support providing that the approval provides for the City Engineer to determine "No Parking" restrictions within approximately 30 feet of the radius points of the curve. The 4 -way stop condition at Maryknoll 1 Rosewood S and Kennard could also be supported. The intersection appears rather open and a stop condition would not be totally unwarranted for local street controls and should have a reasonable success in stopping all approaching vehicles. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that council approve the relocation of the "No Parking" signs from the north side of Harris Avenue to the south side and providing that the City Engineer determine "No Parking" restrictions within approximately 30 feet of the radius points of the curve. The Council also is recommended to approve the establishment of a 4 -way stop condition at Maryknoll / Rosewood S and Kennard. Attachment: 1. August 27, 2006 Petition 2. September 30, 2003 Petition 3. Location Map � 11, L City Engineer and City Council, City of Maplewood Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 August 27, 2006 Re: No Parking, Stop Sign Petition Dated September 30, 2003 Neighbors are continually concerned about the safety of our children and trying to slow traffic. We have very smooth pavement and there is need for two changes. 1. The no parking signs are very much needed to be placed on the other side of Harris Avenue from where they are standing now. They are much needed on the south side of Harris Avenue starting at the curve This will allow daytime parking on the North side of the street without creating any problem of blocking the view of oncoming traffic. This will also somewhat fulfill the concerns of the petition dated in 2003. 2. There is still the need of a stop sign to be placed at the intersection of Kennard St., Maryknoll and Rosewood Avenue South creating a four way stop instead of the two way that is currently there. This will slow down traffic going too fast on our nice pavement. Hopefully we can change this as safety is our concern in the neighborhood as well as function. Thank you for your time and consideration. Any questions please contact Joe Keller, 1655 Harris Avenue East. Respectfully Submitted, Printed Name Address c } U AJ& 6 5 17� 3 � e� Page 2 Address Name Printed Name x7t '4 1 J-c RE: No Parking, Stop Sign Petition Dated September 30, 2003 j � - 1 J�G� X( k( -, L --- P- Ose'uj-"c 4-te . S - 14 tifvlj'r 11 � e �� September 30, 2003 Chuck Ahl City Engineer, City of Maplewood Department of Public Works) Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 RE.: City Project #02 -10 Kennard/Frost Neighborhood Street Improvement Dear Mr. Ahl, We are currently undergoing the street improvement project. The neig bel�ul are requesting three additions to the project, as follows: 1. A 4 -way stop sign at the intersections of Kennard St., Maryknoll Ave and Rosewood Ave. So.. C 2. 4 -way stop sign at the intersections of Kennard St., Harris Ave. and Rosewood Ave. No.. 3. .`.`No Parking on Curve" signs along both sides of the curve on Hams Ave.. - We are requesting the stop signs to slow traffic on the newly paved Kennard St.. Many families have small children, as well as one Day Care provider on Kennard St.. The traffic level has been increasing on an annual basis and Kennard St. has become a popular street for rapid acceleration. We believe the stop signs will slow traffic, eliminate the need for continual law enforcement assistance to slow traffic and prevent the possibility of loss of a child's life. The "No Parking on Curve" signs will eliminate the need for law enforcement calls to that location to ticket vehicles, trucks and Step vans that are blocking the view of oncoming traffic passing in both directions. Driver's vision is currently obstructed on a regular basis. Our neighborhood is a small, tight knit community of homeowners who are concerned for our safety and the safety of those ether location Our request is for safety as well as function. Please cont C.L. Bell, 1668 Rosewood Ave. r questions. Thank you in advance onsideration of t rtions in our quest for a safer neighborhood. 7c -( C, Respectfully submitted, Signature Printed Name Address f /67P - 2L / ,}� J /� X�.. �YY Rp0 / I���(l��aCC 11V� h - i97? K-Jav Page 2 RE.: City Project 902-10 Kennard/Frost Neighborhood Street Improvement Signature Printed Name ({ S e �T (Q- 6 Add r 6 C,�Oo L I ) vv 0 1) _etl� 1 0 P-V� V I A �7 1q e - a C -, ) 4 f 3 (Ni x" V Al PAW ui 0 70 7 C- 6,-) 6e) � /�.���� /��,,� i� � Cam,, ���1� 7 L)O sckre-1 Yl Er J 6)u;uroA O P -- 2 4i, /J �t 7' :.V P", i D 6E c ZL)4�� --S�:ih o-e, w C/�` 'E /Y/V � ,tl,b��oe� -`, c���( &-6we&z, 4V f .01 U e t 2 -lob Page 3 (au -,Y 4- era t e it 1 to lque. lm- Y d. V 05 M 4pa44 P M LeAnne aicKson AV, 9 7 I q M arVKY Alee- s . C-3 MD S,7 76 fin C i k� zo l(nb) I �L) e) Re.. City Project 902-10 Kennard/Frost Neighborhood Street Improvement c/,-&A �� / g 63 fn P�- Jol— #Z) 57 . 1 4 c2jol S,7 fin C Re.. City Project 902-10 Kennard/Frost Neighborhood Street Improvement c/,-&A �� / g 63 fn P�- Jol— #Z) 57 . 1 4 c2jol Page 4 Re.: City Project #02-10 Kennard/Frost Neighborhood Street Improvement �� ( 1 t:eV C) 5 L) t � "-- --- - -- joss % I - c i yr15 + _ i e l `-- i ti C ? v ^ I zu �E /<.. 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 (Jul 11, 2006), The Lawrence Grou ;Jul 11, 2006 for County parcel and property records data; July 2006 for commercial and Agenda Item K3 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: September 19, 2006 RE: Code Revisions- Chapter 6 — Alcoholic Beverages Introduction At the August 14 city council workshop, code revisions for Chapter 6 pertaining to alcoholic beverages were presented to council. In preparation of the first reading, the following questions were researched per council request. The answers follow the questions in bold italics. 1. It is proposed that strong beer be allowed in conjunction with a wine and a 3.2 beer license. Could strong beer be sold with just a wine license? Or could we have a wine /strong beer license without the requirement on a 3.2 license? Strong beer could be sold with just u wine license without the requirement to have an additional 3.2 license. This clarification can be made during the application process so that staff is aware of who is selling what. 2. Why are there distance requirements between churches and schools and off -sale liquor license holders? Do we, as a city, wish to impose such restrictions? After speaking with a long -time representative from Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement and another individual from the Legislative Library (going back to 1991) we could not determine the reason that this is in existence. It is not a requirement found in current State Statutes. Out of the 17 cities included in our survey, six have no distance restrictions between churches and schools. Currently the city code requires 100 feet between off -sale license holders and churches and schools. In the original report we had suggested 500 feet be imposed. After consideration and input from council we are requesting that the distance requirement be remover. 3. If the restriction of 2,000 feet between off -sale license holders is imposed, would a building be in non - conforming use if the owner sold the establishment within 2,000 feet of another off -sale license holder? As presented to you at the workshop, there are currently two establishments that are within 2,000 feet of each other. They are Maplewood Wine Cellar located at 12 81 Frost Avenue and I or's Liquor Store located at 1347 Frost Avenue. There is 690 feet between these two establishments. After consideration and additional study, staff is also requesting that the distance requirement between off -sale license holders be less restrictive to 1,000 feet. If council approves the 1,000 foot requirement, the two aforementioned addresses would be in non - conforming use if one of the owners sold the establishment as an off - sale liquor store. Council could, however, grandfather these two addresses in until one of the establishments is sold for another purpose other than an off -sale liquor license establishment. 4. If an establishment has a State catering license, what criteria is used to determine if they need a "local" catering license that is proposed? If the individual hiring the caterer provides, pays and serves the alcohol is that permissible? If an individual hires a caterer for an event on their private property and the caterer is only providing food, we would not require a local license no matter the number of guests that they are expecting. If an individual hires a caterer for an event on their private property and the caterer is serving alcohol the city would require a local license no matter the number of guests that they are expecting. If a "business" hires a caterer for an event -the same would apply as stated above for individual residences. 5. Proposed is administrative approval of 3.2 beer licenses. If administrative approval of 3.2 license applicants is granted by the council, and the 3.2 license holder fails a compliance check, would the renewal for the annual license come before the council for approval? In the event administrative approval is granted by the council, annual license renewals for those establishments that have failed an alcohol compliance check at any given time in the year would come before council for annual approval of their license. 6. It is proposed that non- profit temporary liquor licenses be approved administratively and be increased from 2 to 4 days per year allowable. State law allows up to 12 days per year. At the discretion of the city manager, or his designee, the application will be forwarded to the council for approval. Does the council wish to adopted additional days than those proposed? Staff requests the suggested four days or more at council's discretion. 7. It is proposed that intoxicating liquor license holders verify by annual tax statements that they have at least 60% sales in non - liquor related sales. Exception — Class C Entertainment license holders, bowling centers and golf courses. The city has never imposed a requirement ©f percentage of sales in non - liquor related sales. Further, an Entertainment License was suggested as a way to differentiate between license holders. Staff has spent much time researching and discussing this issue since the topic was discussed at the workshop. After careful consideration, we are requesting elimination of the proposed Entertainment License. Since the city has licensed establishments different from any other city, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, we are proposing three license classes based on percentage of sales in non - related alcohol sales as follows: Class A — licensed establishments are required to maintain at least 60% annual gross sales in non - liquor related items. Staff proposes that this fee remain the same as the annual license fee for an intoxicating liquor license, Class B — licensed establishments are required to maintain at least 30% to 59% annual gross sales in non - liquor related items. Class C —licensed establishments are exempt from the percentage of gross sales in non - liquor related items but must meet requirements established by state law in Sunday sales. Theoretically the above classifies intoxicating licenses into categories of restaurants, taverns and entertainment or nightclub establishments. S. It is proposed that the current "one -day event" be increased from one to two for intoxicating license holders. Staff is requesting council approval. The Class C Entertainment license issue raised numerous questions. As mentioned above, staff is requesting elimination of the proposed Entertainment License. There are however, still issues that apply and should be addressed. Questions raised at the workshop follow. 1. Consideration of square footage and/or building occupancy. As stated previously, with our current licensed establishments, there are no other cities to compare ourselves with or suggestions or guidance front current practices. Therefore, we are treading new water and paving our own path. Because our establishments vary vastly in occupancy (see attachment A) and square footage, staff is recommending one fee far occupancy and adopting a fee structure for three license "classes" as described below. Currently we have two fees for intoxicating liquor licenses. Occupancy of 0 -275 the fee is $6,995, occupancy of 275 and over is $7,324. 2. Distance restrictions between Class C Entertainment license holders. Although staff is proposing elimination of the Entertainment License as proposed at the workshop, it is believed that the current Class C guidelines will apply to what we consider to be "nightclub" type of venues. Imposing distance restrictions between Class C licenses would not lessen the burden on public safety but would prevent a "congregation" of these types of venues in any one area. 3. Limitation to two Class C license holders in the city. Can we designate how many Class C licenses that we issue? If we do limit the amount and the owner sold the business, could the establishment in itself be grandfathered in? Council does have the authority to designate the number of Class C licenses that it issues. If council chooses to impose a limit, current establishments could be grandfathered in until they were sold for another purpose other than an intoxicating liquor license holder. 4. Can we have application fees for 16+ to 20 nights without alcohol being served, 1 s+ nights where alcohol is served, and all age events where alcohol is served. Council could have application fees for the above types of venues. Since these types of venues are permitted by ,State Statute, council would need to determine what criteria would be used. In closing, all other suggestions presented to the council at the workshop will be included in the first reading which will be presented to the council at the October 9 th Council meeting. Furthermore, license fees will not be a part of the agenda report as it is required by State Statute that a public hearing being held and license holders be notified of any changes in license fees. Staff will be requesting that the second reading take place before the public hearing at the October 23 council meeting so that fees can be set for the 2007 license cycle. Consideration Staff requests direction from the council on the above items so that Chapter 6 - Alcohol Beverage can be submitted for first reading and the current moratorium on off -sale licenses can be lifted. Attachment A Myth Nightclub 4400 Stargate Nightclub 700 Maplewood Bowl 475 The Rock 464 Guldens 390 Champs 384 MCC- Suzanne's 350 Outback Steak House 340 Best Western 335 Olive Garden 308 TGI Fridays 302 The Bird Nightclub 299 Buffalo Wild Wings 270 Broadway Pizza 260 Red Lobster 250 Acapulco 219 Garrity's 200 5 -8 Club 200 Chili's 174 Applebee's 155 Dean's 148 Huey's Saloon 110 Goodrich Golf 109 Bleechers 107 Chipotle 99 Noodles 86 Chalet Taveni 85 Keller Golf 0 Agenda Item L1 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: September 15, 2006 RE: Change of Manager Intoxicating Liquor License Introduction Michael Pauly has completed an application for an intoxicating liquor license for the Red Lobster located at 2925 White Bear Avenue. Background The required background check was completed by Deputy Chief Banick on Mr. Pauly for the purpose of holding an on -sale license. Nothing was identified in the investigation that would prohibit him from holding this license. Mr. Pauly grew up in the Cold Springs area. He also spent time in the Park Rapids and Detroit Lakes area and attended North Dakota State University. Prior to coming to Maplewood, Mr. Pauly was the general manager of the Red Lobster in Duluth, Minnesota. A clerk in the Duluth City Clerk's office informed Deputy Chief Banick that the Red Lobster has never had a liquor license violation. His references made positive comments about him. Chief Thomalla met with Mr. Pauly to discuss measures to eliminate the sale of alcohol to underage persons, general security and retail crime issues, and the Maplewood Liquor Ordinances. In the course of this investigation, state criminal history files were checked along with contacts and warrants in the Cities of St. Paul and Ramsey, Hennepin and St. Louis Counties. Consideration Approval of the change of manager to Mr. Pauly is sought from the council. Agenda Item L2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Michael Thompson, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Jensen Estates Improvements, City Project 05 -15, Resident Petition to Remove Trail Connection to Currie Street (2320 Hoyt Avenue) DATE: September 14, 2006 INTRODUCTION As part of the Jensen Estates Preliminary Plat, the City Council approved a condition to construct a trail between Hoyt Avenue and Currie Street. The developer has not met this condition and did not inform a new resident of the requirement prior to selling the lot. The new resident is now petitioning to have the condition of construction of the trail removed as a requirement of the developer. City Council action is required to remove the condition. Background The Jensen Estates Plat was originally discussed in 2005. Currie Street and Hoyt Avenue were planned to be connected as local streets. The developer, Kelly Conlin, proposed permanent cul -de -sacs on both Hoyt Avenue and Currie Street as part of the development. City public safety and planning staff recommended the construction of a trail as mitigation for the loss of access to each of these streets by removal of the future connecting street requirement. The staff recommendations were due to concerns with future public safety access (two new cul -de -sacs) and the need for connecting neighborhoods. Mr. Conlin agreed to the conditions of the plat. Mr. Conlin proceeded with the development of Jensen Estates and sold a lot (2320 Hoyt Avenue) to the Schroeder family. Neither the builder nor Mr. Conlin informed the Schroeders of the requirement to construct the trail on an easement on their property. The Schroeder's new home was constructed and landscape planned without the trail in place. This home construction and lot grading have made the construction of the trail unfeasible, as noted in the attached report from staff engineer, Michael Thompson. Additionally, the Schroeders have supplied a petition, copy attached, noting their request from many of the area property owners requesting the trail condition be removed. Recommended Adjustments The trail would be a nice amenity that would connect to neighborhoods in the future. It is likely when all development is complete in this area, that a walking path, whether paved or not, will eventually develop as kids and neighbors move between the cul -de -sacs. It is contrary to good planning to not provide for connections between adjoining neighborhoods. Also, without constructing a trail now, the benefit of a trail to allow an emergency vehicle to access a neighborhood is lost. However, the current site situation does not provide for a reasonable location for the trail due to no fault of the current property owner, nor the City. The responsibility lies with the developer to resolve this issue. Mr. Thompson recommends requiring the developer to invest the funds that would have provided for the trail construction into other site amenities. This seems like a reasonable compromise and is recommended by staff. Attachments: 1. Letter and petition from residents (Color photos will be provided to Council, Mayor, and Manager) 2. Report from Michael Thompson 3. Hedlund Engineering Letter 4. Location Maps City of" Maplewood 1902 County B Maplewood MN 55109 To: Chuck Ahl Subject: Proposed trail between Hoyt Ave E and Currie St. N I am writing this letter to request the Maplewood City Council to approve removal of the proposed trail /path between Hoyt Ave E and Currie St. N. Following are several reasons for this request. 1. The current residents of Currie and Hoyt do not want the trail. All residents that we were able to contact at home since learning of the proposed trail last week were opposed to it. See attached signature sheet. Many of the residents of Currie fought to keep their street from connecting to Hoyt, and were very disappointed to learn of the proposed trail. Residents would like to keep traffic (both vehicle and bike) to a minimum and would prefer to retain the trees (see reason #3 below) which provide privacy for their homes From the new homes on Hoyt. 2. The trail doesn't go anywhere. A. The proposed trail will end approximately 50 ft. short of connecting to Currie St. There is currently one lot (which contains one home) which runs the length of the cul de sac on Currie which does not provide an easement to complete the trail to Currie. Completing the trail would require the current property owner to sell his land for development AND divide the undeveloped land into 2 lots to provide an easement between the lots in the correct location for the trail. This is very unlikely as one of the resulting lots would be too small to support a home suitable for the neighborhood and would have little market value. It is more reasonable that the lot would not be divided which would leave no easement for completion of the trail to Currie St. B. Even if you assume that the trail would be completed in the future, it still would be of little value. There is no bike path, cross walk, or safe shoulder on McKnight or Larpenteur to support bike or pedestrian traffic. The trail would only allow residents to move between Hoyt and Currie. As mentioned in reason #1 above, the residents don't want the trail. 3. The 8 foot wide paved path will require removal of at. least 2, possibly 3, very large pine trees near the base of the lots (see photo 1 and 2). These trees, and the surrounding brush, provide a considerable screen between the homes on Currie and the rear of the homes on Hoyt. It is currently the densest section of tress /brush and screens one entire side of Currie from the new home locations on Hoyt. Several residents, including Carrie and Jose Serrano on Hoyt Ave, worked hard with the developer and the City to ensure retention of as many trees as possible in the new development. They wanted to maintain privacy between homes and preserve the natural look of the immediate community. The residents of Currie and Hoyt value the natural look of their community and have designed their landscaping to preserve the trees and naturalized areas. Removal of these large trees would create a significant gap in the landscape. 4. The existing grade does not support an ADA trail. The current trail plan requires major alteration of the existing grade. For example, the stake in photo 3 indicates the trail will be dug approximately 5 feet lower than the current stake elevation. This will pose a significant landscaping challenge to prevent erosion. It will also put the trail in a tunnel like ditch between our home and the home that will be built on the adjoining lot on the other side of the trail. Even if successful retaining walls can be built, the change in elevation will cause our lot and the adjoining lot to drain into what will be a tunnel like trail creating a swamp where the trail will end at the end of our lot. This will create maintenance issues to keep the trail from eroding away, and will be a general nuisance and mosquito breeding ground. Please approve removal of this proposed trail as it is not wanted by the residents, will necessitate removal of large trees which currently provide privacy and beauty, and would unnaturally disrupt the existing land grade creating maintenance and erosion issues. Please contact me at the number below with your decision. If necessary, my neighbors and I are available to appear at the City Council meeting on Sept. 11 to answer any questions you may have and /or provide more information. Thank you for your time. Respectfully b , Gail and Luke Schroeder 2320 Hoyt Ave E Maplewood MN 55119 651- 773 -5270 I c7 LoLc 1X i fov+ 1 , , tF et il C vv-t c� . r � � � Wit �/ �/ ( �� � � , -�� � ._.___._ - 7�� � I( Cilk-rr�e zv -2lZmCkiy�0 51 0 +y 5 ot t* t $�` !3 m. ® . � i.. w4 � � {{ t .�,1�� & n � c }.^' I _ §�� i Pagel of 2 En2ineerint! Discussion PROJECT: Jensen Estates PROJECT NO: 05 -15 COMMENTS BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department) DATE: September 13, 2006 The city approved the Jensen Estates development with a condition requiring the construction of a trail: The street, driveway, trail and utility plans shall show: (12) The eight- foot -wide trail between the cul -de -sac and the property to the north. A 20 -foot wide trail easement was dedicated on the final plat to accommodate the trail. It is my understanding that the resident in the new house at 2320 Hoyt Avenue began a petition against construction of the trail as shown and designed by Hedlund Engineering (developer's engineer). I spoke with the resident, Mr. Schroeder, on 9111106 and stated to him that the city would be working on an alternative location for the trail if staff finds another feasible location for the trail. I also talked with the developer, Kelly Conlin, on 9111106 and told him to get in touch with his engineering representative at Hedlund Engineering. I directed him to work with his consultant to determine if it was feasible for the trail to be placed elsewhere on the site in order to extend to the north property (1616 Currie Street N). I received a letter from Hedlund Engineering today dated 9/11/06 (see attached) stating that the current trail location is the best option and that there is no other feasible location in the development to install the trail. I agree with the developer's engineer that there is no other feasible location to install a trail within this development. The primary issue preventing the installation of the trail is the grade. This issue would still be present if the trail were relocated else where in the development. The grades would require the installation of retaining walls to make it possible to install the trail. As such, this brings the matter back to where we started. In addition, as noted by the project engineer, the contractor installed rain gardens between the other lots that provide stormwater quality and rate control in conformance with city standards. Removing these gardens would go against these city standards. Also, in special condition (12) shown above, it states that the trail must extend to the property to the north (1616 Currie Street N). Currently, the city does not have any access rights or easements on this property in order to connect to Currie Street, thus the trail would essential be a dead end and would not be useful at this time. The cost estimate for the trail, including 20 staff hours, comes out to be approximately $3,169.20 (see page 2). City staff recommends that the city council either approve the trail as originally designed, or as the alternative in lieu of the trail, require the developer to invest this dollar amount into other facets of the Jensen Estates development. These could include decorative Page 2 of 2 street lighting or additional trees and landscaping. The developer would need to post a letter of credit for 125% of this dollar amount and the letter of credit would be released upon satisfactory completion, as determined by the city inspector. Cost Estimate for 135 -foot trail and associated costs: 1) 2" Bituminous Thickness Required = 13.8 TONS @ $50 /TON = $690.00 2) 6" Class 6 Gravel Thickness Required = 37.8 TONS @ $12 /TON = $454.00 3) Sub -grade Preparation, Grading, Restoration = $500.00 4) Construction Total = $1,644.00 5) 20 Staff Hours @ 76.26/HR = $1,525.20 6) Subtotal = $3,169.20 SEP- 12- 2006(TUE) 11:52 • • • September 11, 2006 Mr. Michael Thompson City of Maplewood 1902 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Jensen Estates (City Project # 05 -15) Dear Michael, This letter is in reference to a proposed bituminous trail on the above referenced project. It is our understanding that by petition of local residents, the trail will not be constructed. The trail was originally planned to be constructed between lots 6 & 7. A 20 -foot wide easement was platted along this common lot line specifically for the trail, while the remaining lot lines only have 10 -foot wide easements. Site grading was designed to accommodate the train in the original location shown on the plans. In addition, numerous rain gardens were constructed on the site, and straddle the other lot lines, which eliminates the possibility of constructing a trail over them. Given the above facts, in our opinion there is no other feasible location to install the proposed trail. Please feel free to contact me at (651) 203 -6632 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Brent • • Enclosures cc: Kelly Conlin, Homesites LLC file 051014 1:1Con11ntMap1ewoo5 Currie St1Lir- 001106- Mapiewood.doe 2005 Pin Oak Drive - Eagan, Minnesota 55122 • Telephone (651) 405 -6600 •l=ax (651) 405 -6606 Affmrhmanf ') — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — L ---- --- --------- ---—' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Oro .,Ne and tJfiiity E01_ts are shown thus: 5 —++ ff NE 1/4 F . o r r-5 NW 1/4 J L J • D-ote. SW 1/4 H 114 1/2 i,� open p1p, cc C, PROPOSED FINAL PLAT JENSEN ESTATES 9,-Z2-0!s_ Cn U I 4 Attachment 1 LARPENTEUR AVE L 284 2 272 2U,82 21 40 2 334 Z 7 a7 1654 5j 0 IG49, 6 1649 64 8 1644 1641 16 43 1641 6 I ii 17 W 16 3.6 - 625, UP4 7 6 4 16P3 w t G1 6 24 F� LU Of 1 6 1 '01 0 1 6(,,n 05 16CI) LL 1��4 SITE X67 16 580 1 2277, lW-4 P5 I SCA HOYT AVE 7306 156, 2 212& 2275 2286, M cT M3 U I 4 Jensen Estates Trail + + t ' t t i � 1 s' r � - 16 t + z t rR l — - 1 t , i i N ' r { . i gm 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: Rarnsev Count (Sc member 8, 2006), Lawrence Grou :Sc tember 8, 2006 for County arcel and oroperty records data; September 2006 for Agenda Item L3 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer SUBJECT: Crestview Forest Addition Improvements, City Project 06 -21, Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Preliminary Report on Turnback of Private Street to Public Ownership DATE: September 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION The residents of the Crestview Forest Addition are requesting that the City Council consider accepting some of their private streets for public ownership. These streets were installed by the developer of the addition as private streets in the 1980's when the development was constructed. A feasibility report on bringing the streets to appropriate conditions for public ownership is recommended. BACKGROUND The issue of private streets in a development is rather complex. Many developments since the 1980's have provided for private streets and utilities as part of planned unit developments. This allows for better lot layouts, protection of environmental features and better site amenities to the future property owners. In exchange for these benefits, there are reduced setbacks and lower standards for the street construction. After a few years, the developer has moved on and the maintenance of the streets and utilities are left to the homeowners association. Many of the homes within these associations are of very high value and the residents compare their area to that of developments where public streets exist and begin to question why they don't receive the public services similar to the developments with public streets because in many cases, they pay higher property taxes. Such is the case within Crestview Forest Addition. The private streets do not look much different than some of the public streets within the area, the maintenance is just paid for and arranged for by the homeowners association. This is not a unique situation for cities to have with developments that are 20 -25 years old. The Council's options are generally two. First, the Council could stand by the original decision from the 1980's and attempt to educate the residents on the benefits of the development and the decision by the City Council in the 1980's to provide for the private streets. This may be difficult and probably not accepted too well by the residents. The second option, which is recommended by staff, is to conduct an investigation into the utilities and streets that have a public street appearance. The feasibility report would determine what improvements are needed to bring the utilities and streets up to a standard (similar to our street reconstruction program) such that they would be acceptable to the city for public ownership and maintenance. The cost of the upgrades would be assessed to the area property owners / homeowners association. Upon completion of the improvements, the city would own the streets and utilities. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that council adopt the attached resolution authorizing preparation of a preliminary report on the utilities and streets within the Crestview Forest Addition. Attachment: 1. Resolution 2. Map RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS, it is proposed to make improvements to private streets and utilities within the Crestivew Forest Addition, City Project 06 -21, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: That the proposed improvement be referred to the city engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $5,000 are appropriated to prepare this feasibility report. Crestview Forest Addition, City roject 06 -21 4 � r y Mbtt ipatha } Rnom centerlin. i?'aunty� }^ - $ t }--' ` lit- v3tate Noy t 1- t Statru -Navy county i'ititpi Rtoeds Udat' High e r€ hvx2v Shieibs Stmt No —lab4s t } : 0. t k 1 r x f t, j A t. MD LIM MBED MOM y , „ . x - V x , fi t t " �< -- ' _a, 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, cowry, state mid federal offices and other sources regarding the area shovvnr, and is to be used for reference purposes only. '"TTRCFS Ramsey fmrn v (S —t—d— 9 ?OOfiI The. T arvrence Gur ,u, Sentemher 8 2oofi for C ntv Hamel and nronetry resrnds trot Sententber ?ooh fur ennnnemtal anct recrdentral data- Anril R 900; fur anlnt aerial Agenda Item L4 AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer Michael Thompson, Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Gervais Avenue Improvements, City Project 05 -17 1. Resolution Adopting Final Action On Assessment Objections DATE: September 14, 2006 INTRODUCTION On September 11, 2006, the city council approved a resolution for the adoption of the Assessment Roll for the Gervais Avenue Street Improvements, City Project 05 -17. There were seven commercial assessments and one residential assessment that were included in the Assessment Roll. Of these, there were two (2) objections received prior to the hearing on September 11, 2006 and city staff's recommendations for action on the two objections are provided for the council to revise or confirm the final assessment roll for the project. Background The proposed assessments for the Gervais Avenue Street & Storm Assessments were submitted to the city council for adoption at the September 11, 2006. Residents and owners were provided with the required 14 -day advanced notice of the city's intent to levy the assessments, and the residents were required to file a written notice if they objected to the assessment amount. Two commercial property owners provided a written objection as follows: 1. Peter Sampair, Chief Manager of Viking Drive LLC: Lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive, 1111 Viking Drive E (PIN 092922420008): Mr. Sampair disagrees with the assessment and objects on the basis that the property value will not increase by the amount of the assessment. 2. Dharmendra B Bhakta, Owner: Second lot west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive, 0 Gervais Avenue (PIN 092922130012): Mr. Bhakta objects to the assessment that has been applied to his lot and is requesting deferral of the assessment until the lot is developed because it would cause a financial hardship. Recommended Adjustments The following action is recommended on the objection requests: 1. Peter Sampair, Chief Manager of Viking Drive LLC: Lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive, 1111 Viking Drive E (PIN 092922420008): Deny cancellation of assessment. Assessments are levied to properties abutting improvement areas in order to ease the general tax levy. Requesting cancellation of a developed commercial site on the basis that the street improvement will not increase the property value by the assessment dollar amount does not meet the criteria for cancellation. Furthermore, street improvements have been shown to increase property value and spur local re- development. 2. Dharmendra B Bhakta, Owner: Second lot west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive, 0 Gervais Avenue (PIN 092922130012): Grant deferral of assessment, without interest, until such time property is developed, subject to a signed agreement by the property owner. If the property is not developed within 15 years from the date of the assessment hearing, the deferred assessment shall be cancelled. Agenda Item L4 BUDGET IMPACT If the recommended deferment to the assessment roll is approved, the total assessments would be reduced by $35,242, from $146,662.00 to $111,420.00. With the award of bid of $335,615.50 to the contractor, which was under the allotted construction amount in the CIP, and the unused funds for land acquisition for this project, the budget will not be significantly impacted by this deferral. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the city council approve the attached Resolution for the Adoption of the Revised Assessment Roll for the Gervais Avenue Street & Storm Improvements, Project 05 -17. Attachments: 1. Resolution: Adoption of the Assessment Roll 2. Assessment Roll 3. Location Map 4. Assessment objections (2) M. • ADJUSTMENTS TO ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on September 11, 2006, the assessment roll for the Gervais Avenue Street & Storm Assessments, City Project 05 -17, was presented in a Public Hearing format, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, two property owners filed an objection to their assessment according to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, summarized as follows: 1. Peter Sampair, Chief Manager of Viking Drive LLC: Lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive, 1111 Viking Drive E (PIN 092922420008): Mr. Sampair disagrees with the assessment and objects on the basis that the property value will not increase by the amount of the assessment. 2. Dharmendra B Bhakta, Owner: Second lot west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive, 0 Gervais Avenue (PIN 092922130012): Mr. Bhakta objects to the assessment that has been applied to his lot and is requesting deferral of the assessment until the lot is developed because it would cause a financial hardship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: A. That the City Engineer and City Clerk are hereby instructed to make the following adjustments to the assessment roll for the Gervais Avenue Street & Storm Assessments, Project 05 -17: 1. Peter Sampair, Chief Manager of Viking Drive LLC: Lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive, 1111 Viking Drive E (PIN 092922420008): Deny cancellation of assessment. Assessments are levied to properties abutting improvement areas in order to ease the general tax levy. Requesting cancellation of a developed commercial site on the basis that the street improvement will not increase the property value by the assessment dollar amount does not meet the criteria for cancellation. Furthermore, street improvements have been shown to increase property value and spur local re- development. 2. Dharmendra B Bhakta, Owner: Second lot west from the northwest corner of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and Maplewood Drive, 0 Gervais Avenue (PIN 092922130012): Grant deferral of assessment, without interest, until such time property is developed, subject to a signed agreement by the property owner. If the property is not developed within 15 years from the date of the assessment hearing, the deferred assessment shall be cancelled. B. The assessment roll for the Gervais Avenue Street & Storm Assessments, as amended, is hereby accepted, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said assessment roll shall constitute the 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. C. 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. D. 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 office of the city engineer, 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. E. 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 25th day of September 2006. Maplewood, MN Gervais Avenue Project 05 -17 Final Assessment Roll Gervais Avenue Residential = $4,510.00 per unit Commercial = $90.20 per frontage fact Storm Improvements Residential = $750.00 per unit Commercial = $15.00 per frontage fact Defemed Note: All storm assessments marked nta were previously assessed under Maplewood Dr/Keller Parkway CIP 03 -02 Parcel ID Owner Name Street Address Residential (No. Units) Commercial Frontage, ft Street $ Storm $ Total 1 092922130008 STEPHEN W SHEA 2411 MAPLEWOOD DR N 36 3.247 nia 3.247 2 092922130012 DHARMENDRA 8 BHAKTA 0 GERVAIS AV E 335 30.217 5,025 35,242 3 092922240038 KRISTOPHER T SCHERPING 1055 GERVAIS AV E 150 13,530 2,250 15,780 4 092922240037 JASON S CONNELL 1041 GERVAIS AVE 1 4,510 750 5.260 5 092922240042 WATERS EDGE ENTERPRISES 0 GERVAIS AV E Undevelapa6le 0 6 092922310008 THOMAS R HERMANSON 1055 VIKING DR E 171 15,424 nfa 15,424 7 092922310002 WATERS EDGE ENTERPRISES 1065 VIKING DR E 141 12.718 nia 12,718 8 092922310001 THOMAS M GIEBEL 1081 HWY 36 E 350 31.570 is 31,570 9 092922420008 VIKING DRIVE LLC 1111 VIKING DR E 304 27.421 nia 27,421 Street Improvements Total = $138, 371 $8,025 146,662 Residential = $4,510.00 per unit Commercial = $90.20 per frontage fact Storm Improvements Residential = $750.00 per unit Commercial = $15.00 per frontage fact Defemed Note: All storm assessments marked nta were previously assessed under Maplewood Dr/Keller Parkway CIP 03 -02 Kohiman Park C/) m il Manufactured Cn Housing V) Estates LI-I AVE. SEXTANT AVE. h LEA LEAL - ----- . ........ . . . . g al J ft-11 n 7 o f 0 'ALM Cn C CT. 0 C) ry 1 CON NOR C A CT ' \' 0 D 2 ��� AVE. I-IJ _J BROOKS CT 112 S poon \ \__ k�Y La ke Kohiman Park C/) m il Manufactured Cn Housing V) Estates LI-I AVE. SEXTANT AVE. h LEA LEAL - ----- . ........ . . . . g al J ft-11 n 7 S � Ct Cn �� -J ry 1 C CONT/NOR ��� AVE. C/') Ld lJJ ry I IM ERVAIS AVE. 11 — RD. � 1 2 1 ND 1 1 -------------------- . ...... I ------------- ------ - ------ �1 - 7 G �TION <,' AVE � - --� i - - --------- - ----- kQ --- - - - -------- . ........ -- Project location COUNTY 710IM-Im- Exhibit 1 Project Location Gervais Avenue, Cypress St. to Maplewood Dr. City Project 05-17 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 (August 2. 2006), The Lawrence Grou :Aueust 2. 2006 for County parcel and property records data; August 2006 for commercial and 4453 Lake Avenue South Ste 202 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Telephone: 651.426.6676 Fax: 651.426.8129 August 28, 2006 City Of Maplewood Attn: Karen Guilfoile —City Clerk 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Parcel 09.29.22.42.0008 for project #05 -17 Dear Ms. Guilfoile, It is our understanding that when being assessed for street improvements the amount being assessed must be justified by increasing the overall property value by at least that amount. Therefore we object to the assessment in the amount of $27,421.00 as we believe this assessment will not increase our property's value at all, much less by $27,421.00. Sincerel -Y, J ' Peter Sanpa r Chief 1Vlanager Address qfassessed parcel Property identification number: 'Tf -_^,�� /12 digit number) Y� DO you VViShto address the city council tonight? �� �� �� Yes No Please complete this form if you intend to appeal to the city council to defer, revise or cancel your assessment. This form must be completed and filed with the city clerk no later than the close of tonight's city council assessment hearing. Your request will become part of the public hearing record. | request that the city council consider (check mng\: a. �K Deferral of assessment b. El Senior citizen deferment (over 65 years of age) �� C. �� Cancellation Ofassessment [� d. �� Revision of assessment Reason for the n3qU8St: � t/][ t Print Name Signature Date ,1 Telephone AddreSs of Property Owner Zip Agenda Item L5 SUMMARY MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Carver Crossing LOCATION: South of Carver Avenue, west of 1 -494 DATE: September 8, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted revised plans to the city for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He has prepared a site plan that now shows 191 detached town houses. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. Requests To build this project, Mr. Hansen is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow the project to have a variety of setbacks, to have the detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have many of the units on private driveways. 2. The vacation of existing easements for former driveways, roadways, and drainage areas within the development. 3. The proposed preliminary plat to create the new public street right -of -ways, the lots for the structures and for the outlots. (See the preliminary plat on page 40 and in the project plans.) BACKGROUND This property and project has a lengthy history of actions and proposals. I have included a complete list of these in the project review memo. DISCUSSION To summarize, the developer's latest plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan and has a lower density (191 units) than the earlier plans with 299 and 376 units. The developer has proposed the latest plan in response to the extensive comments and concerns expressed during the environmental reviews and in the review meetings that have occurred over the last one and one -half years. CONCLUSION The latest PUD plans have 108 fewer units (191 versus 299) for the site than plans the EAW analyzed and that the developer submitted for review earlier this year. 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 city must balance the interests and rights of the property owner to develop his land with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. In the last year and one -half since the city first reviewed the developer's initial concept plan for the property, they have significantly revised plans and reduced the number of units on the property. The applicant has invested more than one year in time with meetings, plan preparation, revisions and analysis (including the EAW) to prepare the latest plans. The current proposal balances the city's interest in preserving and protecting many of the natural features on and near the site while giving the owner the opportunity to develop the site. This balance is something the city should strive for with every development. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD, street and easement vacations and the preliminary plat for the Carver Crossing project. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Carver Crossing LOCATION: South of Carver Avenue, west of 1 -494 DATE: September 8, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, has submitted revised plans to the city for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He has prepared a site plan that now shows 191 detached town houses. This latest plan replaces an earlier plan that showed 299 housing units (in three different types of housing) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. Refer to the applicant's statement on pages 28 - 36 and the maps on pages 37 - 52. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Mr. Hansen has not yet applied for design approval for this latest proposal. He will do so (including the architectural, final landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings after the city council acts on his current requests. However, based on comments from the applicant and the city's experiences with other town house projects, I expect each town house to have horizontal -lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the doors. In addition, each town house would have a two -car garage. Requests To build this project, Mr. Hansen is requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD). This PUD would allow the project to have a variety of setbacks, to have the detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width) and to have many of the units on private driveways. 2. The vacation of existing easements for former driveways, roadways, and drainage areas within the development. 3. The proposed preliminary plat to create the new public street right -of -ways, the lots for the structures and for the outlots. (See the preliminary plat on page 40 and in the project plans.) BACKGROUND In 1992, the city considered parts of the subject property in the inventory of possible properties to buy for open space. Of the approximately fifty properties the city considered, the open space committee ranked this site 20 overall and first out of 15 in the neighborhood. The city, however, was unable to negotiate a purchase of any of the property with a willing seller. As such, the city did not buy any of this property for open space and instead bought two parcels north of Carver Avenue for open space. On March 14, 2005, the city council reviewed an early concept plan for this property. That plan showed 386 units of senior housing on the property. After some discussion by the council, the applicant asked the city to table their request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposal. On May 23, 2005, the city council reviewed a second concept plan prepared by CoPar Companies for the Schlomka property south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane. This plan showed 376 housing units in at least four styles of homes on about 73 acres. The council also authorized the preparation of an EAW for the development area. On May 15, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the results of the EAW and to consider a 299 -unit housing proposal for this site. After much testimony and discussion, the planning commission recommended that the city council: 1. Make a negative declaration about the need for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for the project. 2. Deny the proposed land use plan change from R -1 (single dwellings) to R -3(L) (low- density multiple dwelling). 3. Deny the proposed zoning map change from F (farm residence) and R -1(R) to R -3 (multiple dwellings). 4. Deny the proposed PUD for a 299 -unit senior housing development. 5. Deny the request to vacate the unused easements and right -of -ways within the proposed project site. 6. Deny the proposed preliminary plat that would have created the lots for the proposed PUD. The planning commission cited concerns about noise affecting the future residents, traffic counts and flow in the area, the proposed project density, the idea of having senior housing in the location, storm water runoff and impacts on wildlife as reasons for recommending denial of the proposed 299 -unit development plan. After the planning commission meeting, the developer decided to withdraw their application for the 299 -unit senior housing development for the site and redesign the proposal to try to address the concerns of the neighbors, planning commission and city. On June 12, 2006, the city council reviewed and discussed the EAW and its findings for the proposed 299 -unit Carver Crossing development. The council, after taking much testimony and because of the questions they had about the EAW, tabled their decision on the matter until July 10, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the city council continued their review and discussion of the EAW for Carver Crossing. The council, on a 3 -2 vote, adopted a resolution approving a negative declaration (that the project does not have a potential for significant environmental effects) and that the city would not require an EIS for the proposed development. (I have included the June 29, 2006 staff report for this meeting as a separate attachment for additional information.) DISCUSSION Land Use Plan and Zoning Map The land use plan, as set by the city council in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, is the city's long - range guide and expectation as to how the city expects land to be used or developed. The zoning designation for a property defines how a property owner may develop or use the property. The city has designated the entire site on the land use maps R -1 (single - dwelling residential). (See the land use map on page 38.) The city intends R -1 areas for developments with single dwellings (no attached units) of up to 4.1 units per gross acre. The zoning map shows the designations of F (farm residence) (between Carver Avenue and Fish Creek) and R -1(R) (south of Fish Creek) for the site. For areas the city has zoned F or R -1, the city allows single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area (when sanitary sewer is available) with a maximum density of 4.6 units per acre. The R -1(R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on two -acre or larger lots (where sewer is not available). As adopted by the city council in 2003, the intent of the R -1(R) zoning district was "to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service." The R -1(R) code also states "this zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely." I will discuss the location and availability of public utilities later in this report Land Use Plan There are several goals in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan that apply to this request. Specifically, the land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, five apply to this proposal including: • Provide for orderly development. • Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. • Minimize the land planned for streets. • Minimize conflicts between land uses. • Provide a wide variety of housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They include: • Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. • The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. • Include a variety of housing types for all residents ... including apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single- family housing, public- assisted housing, low- and moderate- income housing, and rental and owner - occupied housing. 3 Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: 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. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The applicable development policies (to implement the plan goals) include: • The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. • Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. • Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. • Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man -made or natural barriers. • Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. The proposed development, with 191 detached town houses, would meet these goals and policies. Compatibility and Density This proposal, if approved by the city, would be a change for this area of Maplewood. It would transform a semi - rural, very low- density area (with no public utilities) into a suburban -style residential development with public sewer and water. This proposal is a departure from the former land uses on the property but would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and would be in keeping with the types of housing in the area. However, it also is important to note that change is not necessarily a bad thing. The city does make changes to the land use plan, to the zoning map and to the approved use of a property when it determines that such changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the city and when the changes would be, in the opinion of the city council, in the best interests of the city. A development such as this, if carefully planned and constructed, has the potential to be a great addition to the city. Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed detached town houses would be next to 1 -494 and Carver Avenue, would be on a collector street (Carver Avenue) and is between two arterial streets (Century Avenue and McKnight Road). It is important to note that developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is with the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood El with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are other examples of this mix in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, The Gardens, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills. As proposed, the 191 units on the 73 -acre site means there would be about 2.64 units per gross acre. This is consistent with (and in fact much lower than) the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single family and for double - dwelling residential development. In addition, the proposed project density would be less than the maximum density standard (10.1 units per acre) in the comprehensive plan for town houses. For comparison, the Heritage Square town houses in Legacy Village will have 220 units on 19.8 acres (an average of 11.1 units per acre), Cardinal Pointe Co -op on Hazelwood is a 108 -unit, three -story building with underground parking on a 6.75 -acre site (an average of 16 units per gross acre) and, when finished, the New Century development near Century and Highwood Avenues will have 178 units on 55 acres (3.23 units per acre) in single dwellings, small -lot single dwellings and town houses. .. The city has zoned the project site F (farm residence) and R-1 (R). (See the zoning map on page 39). For areas the city has zoned F or R -1, the city allows single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area (when sanitary sewer is available) with a maximum density of 4.6 units per acre. The R -1(R) zoning designation is for single dwellings on two acre or larger lots (where sewer is not available). The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a PUD as an overlay designation for the proposal. The PUD would serve as the zoning approval for this request. As adopted by the city council in 2003, the intent of the R -1(R) zoning district was "to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service." The R -1(R) code also states "this zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely." In this case, both municipal sanitary sewer and water are readily available to the site — from Carver Avenue on the north and from Heights Avenue on the west. Heights Avenue was constructed with a temporary cul -de -sac and public utilities so that a future developer could easily extend the street and the public utilities to the east (into what is now the Carver Crossing site). The project engineer, as part of this proposal, has designed the project so most of the sanitary sewer will flow to the west to Heights Avenue. As such, there no longer is a need for a sanitary sewer lift station along Henry Lane. It is clear that the location and depth of the existing public utilities make the installation of public utilities in this development possible and feasible. Mississippi River Critical Area Information Since 1976, Minnesota state law has required communities with land in the metropolitan Mississippi River Corridor to manage that land. The Mississippi River Critical Area covers the area of Maplewood that is west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue. The management of this area includes having a Critical Area Plan to guide development for the land within the river corridor. Maplewood adopted a critical area plan in 1979 (and updated it in 1981) to meet this requirement. The intention of this plan is to manage development to protect resources and to protect the scenic qualities of the river corridor, including the bluffs within the Mississippi River Corridor. 5 Critical Area Plan The 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan shows all the land area west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue as being in the "Mississippi River Critical Corridor." As part of this 2002 comprehensive plan update, the Metropolitan Council staff requested the city add language and information about the Mississippi River Critical Area Plan to the Comprehensive Plan. I have included much of the language from the Comprehensive Plan in the reference section of this report. For reviewing this development, the following goals and policies from the Critical Area Plan are most relevant: Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the city has been designated as an "Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals: (1) The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial, industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the river. (2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources. (3) Expand public access to and the enjoyment of the river. The city may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if the proposals are compatible with these goals. Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards The following are the five relevant policies of the city's additional nine policies for building and land development in the Mississippi River Critical Area the city should consider when reviewing the Carver Crossing development. • The city shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic overlooks in their natural state. • The city will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies. • Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The city will review these effects when approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single- family homes. • The city shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. • Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. A The proposed project, if built with all changes required by the city engineer and the other permitting agencies, should be consistent with, and in some cases, exceed the standards established by these goals and policies. Vacations There are existing easements for roadways, driveways and for drainage areas within the development site that are not compatible with the proposed design and layout of the project. The applicant's engineer is requesting that the city vacate these areas so they may record the proposed plat without any conflicts. As shown on the project plans, the developer will be dedicating new right -of -ways for the public streets (including Henry Lane) and new easements for the drainage and utility areas. 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: 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 to the city for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 191 -unit housing development. They have requested a PUD to allow the project to have code deviations and more flexibility with site design and development details than the standard city requirements. Such flexibility includes having: 1. A variety of building setbacks. 2. The detached town houses be on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width). 3. Many of the units on private driveways. 4. A long dead -end street that is more than 1000 feet in length. In this case, there are no other alternatives for access to the southern part of the site because of existing street layout and the existing topography, including Fish Creek. 7 It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on pages 40 -52), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. A deviation included in this PUD approval is the long dead -end street or cul -de -sac that would provide street access to the south end of the site. This long street is necessary (and the only practical alternative) because the location of the existing public right -of -ways, Fish Creek and the existing topography do not allow any other alternatives for access to the area of the site south of Fish Creek. Having private driveways with reduced town house setbacks will lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property and will allow for more common area around each building. If the applicant followed all the city subdivision and zoning standards and used public streets, such a plan would require larger lots for each building with public right -of -ways and increased building setbacks with more tree removal and grading because of the right -of -way requirements and the larger setbacks. In addition, it is important to note that the proposed code deviations do not increase the density of the housing in the development over the density in other town house projects. The developer is proposing a separate lot for each detached townhome unit. As proposed, the detached town houses would be on lots 55 feet wide (at the front setback line) and would range from about 5,800 square feet to 12,400 square feet in area (with most lots being between 6,500 square feet and 8,000 square feet). The lots would have access from Henry Lane and from private driveways. With a lot around each dwelling unit and building, a homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including all the common areas of the development, the private driveways, retaining walls and the ponding areas. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. It is the contention of the applicant that the proposed site design details and code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. In addition, the city has approved similar - styled developments in the past such as Holloway Ponds at Holloway Avenue and Beebe Road, the Dearborn Meadows development on Viking Drive, and more recently, Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road and the Beaver Lake Townhomes near Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue. For this proposal, the developer expects each of the townhomes to sell for at least $250,000. Preliminary Plat Lot Size As proposed, the 191 units on the 73 -acre site means there would be 2.64 units per acre (an average of 16,420 square feet per unit). The individual lot widths and sizes, as proposed, will vary depending on the topography of the lot and the style of the unit. As I noted above, they all appear to be consistent in size and layout (if not larger) with other town house lots in Maplewood. The proposed overall project density of 2.64 units per acre is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for single dwelling residential and low- density multiple - family development. 9 City Engineering Department Review Michael Thompson of the Maplewood Engineering Department has reviewed the project plans. He put his comments in the memo starting on page 71. The city engineers are generally satisfied with the latest project plans and they are recommending several technical and minor design changes for the project plans. Traffic and Access A concern of some of the neighbors near the site is the increase in traffic that their area would experience if the city approves the project. While staff recognizes that having a new development and new streets in the area with new neighbors driving past their homes would create changes for the neighborhood, we do not anticipate a large enough traffic increase from the proposal to justify denying the request. For example, if each of the 191 housing units would generate an average of six vehicle trips per day (an average number I verified with the city's traffic consultant), there would be 1,146 more vehicles (in total) using Carver Avenue. For a 12 -hour day, the 1,146 vehicle trips would mean an average of 96 vehicle trips per hour, or an average of about two additional vehicles every minute. The traffic consultant also confirmed for me that, on average, detached single - family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day and that town houses, whether attached or detached, usually generate about six vehicle trips per day. The difference in these numbers is because of the residents and the difference in the size of the families that live in the different units. Town houses are usually occupied by young couples starting out in life or by empty - nesters — that is, families with no children and thus fewer people in each unit. They also have found that more traditional families with children still prefer to live in detached single dwellings with more living and yard space. As such, these types of homes will create more traffic (on average) than town houses. As part of the redesign of the development, the project engineer has moved the proposed location of the new Henry Lane about 112 feet to the west. (See the detail on page 52.) The proposed location would put Henry Lane in alignment with the property line that is between the properties at 2431 and 2445 Carver Avenue. This change should help prevent the headlights from northbound vehicles on Henry Lane from shining into the houses on the north side of Carver Avenue. I have included comments from Dan Soler of Ramsey County on pages 81 and 82. For additional information about traffic, I have included the following section from the EAW responses prepared by city staff and city consultants: 9. Traffic. As part of the initial analysis, the trip generation for typical single- family detached homes and senior adult housing - detached homes were compared to estimate the reduction in trips for a senior development. This comparison showed that a reduction in trips between 47 and 65 percent for the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and the daily trip generation would be likely. That is the reason a 50 percent reduction was used to estimate the trip generation in the EAW. Additional dialog with Washington County staff has occurred since the completion of the EAW, and based on their comments as well as the comments received by Ramsey County, the apartment trip generation was modified. The original 50 percent reduction was reduced to a 25 percent reduction for the apartment trip generation. This modification was made to help ensure that the traffic impacts were conservatively assessed. 01 Additional concerns from the Planning Commission resulted in another revision to the traffic analysis. This revision assumes no reduction in trips for the apartment trip generation portion of the senior housing development. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect this increase in traffic. The site trip distribution map caused some confusion because some of the percent distributions were not listed on the figure. This figure has been updated. The previous analysis assumed that 30 percent of the traffic would travel south to the interchange of TH 61 and 1 -494. This traffic was split between Point Douglas Road and Sterling Street. Fifteen percent of the site traffic was distributed to the north via Carver Avenue to Century Boulevard. After further discussion with Washington County, the percentage of site trips using Point Douglas and Carver Avenue were decreased by 5 percent each. The 10 percent of trips that used those roads were rerouted to the south on Sterling Street to obtain access to the TH 61 and 1 -494 interchange. The traffic analysis has been updated to reflect the impacts of the changes in the site traffic trip distributions. The updated analysis is included at the end of the Response to Comments section. The traffic analysis using a more conservative trip generation number and an increased trip distribution tolfrom Sterling Street did not significantly change the traffic results. There was no significant change in the level -of- service values at any of the intersections included in the original analysis. The delay on the southbound approach to Sterling Street did not increase and remained similar to the no -build conditions. Therefore, the mitigation measures presented in the original EAW are still recommended and no further mitigation measures are recommended. The recommended traffic mitigation measures include having traffic turn lanes on Carver Avenue at the new Henry Lane and the addition of a right turn lane for westbound Carver Avenue at McKnight Road. Wetlands The developer had a wetland delineation done for the property. The delineation found that there are four wetlands on the property — two Class Four wetlands near Carver Avenue, a large Class Five wetland between Henry Lane and Heights Avenue and a small (8,879- square -foot) Class Five wetland north of Fish Creek. The city requires a 25- foot -wide no- disturb buffer area around Class Four wetlands and a 10- foot -wide no- disturb buffer around Class Five wetlands. The latest project plans show a 25- foot -wide no- disturb buffer around the northerly wetlands. This meets the 25 -foot and 10 -foot -wide city buffer requirements for these wetlands. The developer is proposing to fill the small southerly wetland that is 8,879 square feet and replace it with 17,758 square feet of new wetland. This replacement is 2 times the area of the existing wetland and meets the required 2 for 1 replacement ratio. The watershed district will have to approve this replacement plan. 10 Watershed District Review On August 25, 2006, Tina Carstens of the Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District reviewed the project plans. Refer to her comments in the e-mail on pages 78 and 79. The district did not find any major issues with the proposed plans and will be requiring a permit before the contractor may start grading the site. On September 6, 2006, the board of the watershed district approved the permit for the proposed project. Tree Removal /Replacement/Preservation The applicant had a tree inventory done for the property. This survey found 1,111 significant or large trees on the property, including pines, elms, spruce, ash and oak. (See the tree plans in the project plans.) The city considers large trees as those that are eight inches in diameter or greater or pines that are at least eight feet tall. Tree Preservation The city's current tree preservation ordinance requires that all "large" trees removed from a site be replaced one - for -one, up to 10 trees per acre. The ordinance defines a large tree as a tree with a diameter of 8 inches at a 4 -foot trunk height, excluding boxelder, cottonwood, and poplar. The applicant's proposed tree preservation plan shows them saving 646 large trees and to remove 465 large trees with the proposed grading and construction of the project site. Those they would remove would include pines, elms, spruce, locust and oak trees. Therefore, the applicant must plant at least 77 replacement trees on the site to have at least 10 trees per acre. The proposed project plans show the applicant planting 546 replacement trees as part of their overall landscape plan, including a mix of 147 deciduous or over story trees and a mix of 188 coniferous trees. The proposed number and size of the replacement trees exceeds the city's current ordinance requirements. As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade most of the property to prepare the site for construction and to build the storm water ponds. The proposed plans show the developer saving groups of existing trees in a few areas of the site — including along the west property line, near the southwest corner of the site, along the south side of Fish Creek, to the northwest of the large wetland and near the two wetlands near Carver Avenue. The current city code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site after the contractor has finished construction. For this 73 -acre site, the code requires there be at least 730 trees on the property after the construction is complete. While city staff is encouraged by the level of interest expressed by the developer in saving and transplanting trees on the site, the devil in this will be in the details. In other words, how many and how well the trees survive will be in how the contractor handles the details of the project. The project engineer will need to prepare a detailed grading and tree plan for the entire site for city staff approval. This plan will need to show the proposed grading, the trees that will stay, those that the contractor will transplant and those that the contractor will remove. In addition, this plan should show the size and location of trees the developer would add to the site for screening purposes and where they would store the transplanted trees before the contractor puts them in their final locations. I expect that the final tree plans for this development can and will meet the requirements of the current tree replacement code of the city. 11 Trees and Landscaping As proposed, the developer would save, plant or transplant at least 1,192 trees on the site (including in the yards of each unit and along Henry Lane) and install seven rain gardens and six infiltration ponds /basins with landscaping. The detailed landscape plans in the project plan set show more details about the tree planting and seeding for the north one -half and the south one -half of the site. I expect the mix of plantings around each building will vary from unit to unit depending on whether the unit faces north or south and whether it is a 1 'f2 story, look out or full basement walkout unit. In addition, all yard areas near the buildings should be sodded (except for any mulched planting beds). The applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape plan for the ponds, infiltration basins and drainage basins. The contractor should plant the ponds with native vegetation including grasses with Forbes and plant the upland portions of the ponds with native shrubbery and trees. The project engineer also should change the Colorado blue spruce to another species of evergreen tree and must show the planting details on the final project landscape plans. All landscaped areas, excluding landscaping within the ponds, must have an underground irrigation system. The proposed tree plan and landscaping, except for the issue of providing additional trees for screening on the property at 2431 Carver Avenue, is acceptable. Any landscaping and turf establishment within the 1 -494 right -of -way should be subject to MnDOT's approval. Design Review Building Design and Exterior Materials The plans show 191 detached town houses. As I noted earlier in the report, the applicant has not yet applied to the city for design approval. I expect, based on my conversations with the developer that the proposed town houses will be attractive and should fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. They could have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding with a stone veneer near the doors and on the fronts, and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. In addition, there would be a mix of look out, full basement and walkout units, and each unit would have aluminum soffits and an attached two -car garage. Staff does not currently have any major concerns about the elevations of the proposed town houses since this development would be somewhat isolated from any nearby homes. In fact, only the buyers of the detached town houses would be able to see the fronts of most of the new buildings. Before the city issues a building permit, the city should require the developer or the builder(s) to submit their building plans to the city for review and approval by the community design review board (CDRB). This submittal should include building plans and elevations for each building type. These should show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, all elevations of all buildings, any shutters, window grids, the style and materials of balcony railings, and provide details about any brick or stone accents that the town houses might have. Site Lighting The city's lighting ordinance has several standards for exterior lighting. It requires all new freestanding lights be no more than 25 feet in height, the light fixtures must have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view (to avoid nuisances), and they must have fixtures that direct light downward. In addition, the maximum light illumination from any outdoor light cannot exceed .4 foot candles at all property lines. 12 The applicant has not yet prepared a site lighting plan for the development. The city should require the developer to submit such a plan to the city with their CDRB application. Such a plan shall show the installation of at least 25 freestanding lightposts within the site to provide lighting along the new streets and driveways (primarily at the intersections and at the end of the cul -de- sacs). The plans also will have to show details about the location, height and style of the freestanding poles, the fixture design on the poles and about the proposed lighting on the buildings. The final plans also will have to show that the maximum light intensity at the property lines will be .4 foot candles or less. Parking The city's parking ordinance does not clearly define the parking requirements for a housing development such as this. In general, the code requires the developer provide at least two parking spaces per unit with at least one of those being a garage. According to the plans from the developer, there would be 382 garage spaces (two spaces per unit) and 382 spaces on driveways (764 total spaces) for the 191 housing units. It should be noted that the city allows no parking on 24- foot -wide streets, parking on one side of 28- foot -wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet wide. In this case, the developer is proposing to construct the new public street (Henry Lane) 32 feet wide with a concrete sidewalk on one side, and the private driveways would be 24 feet wide. The city would not allow parking on the 24 foot -wide private driveways. The city may want to require the project engineer to show areas for proof -of- parking spaces within the development. These would be locations that the city could require the developer or the homeowners' association to add more parking if it becomes necessary. This is something that the final project plans should show. Retaining Walls The applicant is proposing to install several retaining walls within the development. These would be on the west side of Henry Lane at Carver Avenue, north side of the buildings along the south side of Fish Creek, along the east side of Henry Lane near the proposed ponding area and along the rear of the units near the southwest corner of the site. (See site and grading plans and the details on page 41 and 42.) The retaining walls will start at ground grade and extend upward to 14 feet at their highest point. The city will require the developer to install a fence on the top of any retaining wall that is four feet tall or higher. Soil Borings The grading plans shows the project engineer having taken 30 soil borings throughout the project site — including the locations of the proposed retaining walls, basins and driveways. The city's engineer will be reviewing the results of the borings and the report from the project engineer. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal. I have included his comments on page 80. He noted that: 13 1. The developer should provide the appropriate security and street lighting and that each unit should have its own unique address. 2. The street and driveway names and the addressing of the units could cause confusion. He suggested that the developer work with city staff to pick names for the streets and driveways. 3. Parking within town house developments can become an issue for residents and their guests. The city should encourage the developer to provide enough parking for all to use, especially during special events. 4. Construction site thefts are an on -going problem in the metro area and the contractors should plan and provide site security during the construction. Parks Department Bruce Anderson, the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Director, reviewed this proposal. Mr. Anderson is recommending that the city collect cash dedication fees with this project, that the developer build a tot lot within the project and that the city not require any land dedication to the city. The city's parks commission reviewed this matter during their meeting on August 21, 2006. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, noted the following about the proposal: 1. The engineer will need to verify that the cul -de -sacs and the turn - arounds are large enough for proper snow removal and for emergency vehicle access. 2. All roads and driveways shall be at least 20 feet wide. 3. There shall be addresses on each unit facing the street. 4. The applicant needs to verify the proper placement of fire hydrants with Saint Paul Water and with the city fire marshal. CONCLUSION The latest PUD plans have 108 fewer units (191 versus 299) for the site than plans the EAW analyzed and that the developer submitted for review earlier this year. 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 city must balance the interests and rights of the property owner to develop his land with the city's ordinances, development standards and Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan. In the last year and one -half since the city first reviewed the developer's initial concept plan for the property, they have significantly revised plans and reduced the number of units on the property. The applicant has invested more than one year in time with meetings, plan preparation, revisions and analysis (including the EAW) to prepare the latest plans. The current proposal balances the city's interest in preserving 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. COMMISSION ACTION On September 6, 2006, the planning commission recommended that the city council deny the proposed PUD, vacations and preliminary plat for Carver Crossing. 14 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 91 (Attachment 28). This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a 191 -unit planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1 -494, south of Carver Avenue. 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 date - stamped August 8, 2006 except where the city requires changes. These plans include not having a public street connection from the new development to Heights Avenue and only having emergency vehicle and trail access from the new development to Heights Avenue. The changes to the plans shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) 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 standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. (4) A tot lot within the development. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall 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 Michael Thompson's memo dated August 25, 2006, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation /replacement, and parking plans. The cul -de -sac bulbs shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. Provide for staff approval a final detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. (3) Clearly labeled proof of parking spaces that would have a "green surface" or another environmentally - friendly design (rather than a bituminous surface). 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off -site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 15 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 remaining debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. d. Provide the city with verification that all the units or town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. For any units that are within the 65- decibel noise contour, the contractor will have to build the units or 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 Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front -yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear -yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side -yard setback (town houses): 20 feet minimum between buildings. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. B. Approve the resolution on pages 96 and 97 (Attachment 29). This resolution vacates the unused easements and right -of -ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue). The city is vacating these easements and right -of -ways because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the developer do not need or use the existing easements or right -of -ways for their original purposes. 3. The existing easements and right -of -ways conflict with the proposed street and lot layout. 4. The developer will be dedicating new easements and right -of -ways with the final plat. This vacation is subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and utility easements and right -of -ways over parts of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 16 C. Approve the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on August 8, 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. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten -foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five -foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least 25 locations. The exact style and location of the lights shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. g. Replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. 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 August 25, 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 site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The 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. These 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. 17 (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) A minimum of a 10 -foot -wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one -foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil- stabilization blankets. (11) 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 entire project site and shall not increase the run -off from the site. c. The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, transplant, 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 transplanted, replacement and screening trees. The new 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 new coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group additional new trees together including in the front yard of the property at 2431 Carver Avenue to help reduce head light glare from Henry Lane (7) Show the planting or transplanting of at least 552 trees. (8) Require the developer to replace any trees that die within one year of planting or final transplanting. The size and species of the replacement trees shall be subject to city staff approval. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: 18 (1) The streets and driveways shall be a nine -ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. (3) Repair of Carver Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, turn lanes, trails, sidewalks and private driveways. (4) The developer enclosing any ponds or basins that will have a normal water depth of two feet or more with a four - foot -high, black, vinyl- coated chain -link fence. The contractor also shall install gates in the fences as may be required by the city engineer. (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, 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. (7) 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. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion. (10) The repair and restoration of the temporary Heights Avenue cul -de -sac including the installation of new curb and gutter and street pavement. (11) The pipelines in and near Henry Lane and Outlot B. (12) The restoration of the former Henry Lane south of Carver Avenue after the completion of the new Henry Lane. (13) The driveway on Outlot D as a public street. e. 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 pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. [PO 4. Change the plat as follows: a. 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. b. Label the common areas as outlots. c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. d. Label the names of all the streets and driveways on all plans and distinguish which are public and which are private. City staff shall approve this naming plan. e. Work with city staff on the preparation of a street and driveway naming plan and the addresses for each unit. f. Label Outlot Q as a public street with a public right -of -way. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off - site drainage and utility easements. 6. 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. c. Provide for the repair of Carver Avenue (street, curb and gutter, ditch and boulevard) after the developer constructs the sidewalks and connects to the public utilities and builds the new streets, turn lanes and private driveways. d. Provide for restoration of the former Henry Lane south of Carver Avenue after the construction of the new Henry Lane. 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' 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 unless approved by the city council. O c. Covenants or association documents that address the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls and of the common areas. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. 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. 10. Combining all the properties into one property for tax and identification purposes. 11. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading. 12. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 13. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. 21 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 101 properties within at least 750 feet of this site. Of the seven replies, none supported the project, two had comments and questions about the proposal and five were against the proposal. For V Comments /Questions 1. See the e -mail from Kathy Urban on page 89. 2. See the e -mail message from Don and Peggy Telin on page 90. Against 1. I still think they are trying to put too many units in this area. I would rather see single - family homes with a few townhomes. I also do not want to see the approval of the oversized emergency outlet "Trail" from Dorland Road /Heights Avenue. I think this will only lead to a permanent road to this development which is not necessary. I also think the land dedication /cash dedication discussion is selfish. I think CoPar is trying to do the minimum amount possible to satisfy the earlier complaints they heard. Overall, I think this new proposal is still unacceptable. This area cannot support 191 homes. If you multiply this by the proposed number of people living in the homes, the additional population of 554 at a minimum. I would like to see a new proposal with a smaller amount of homes. (Brass — 1355 Dorland Road South) 2. See the letter from Terry Baumgart on pages 83 - 84. 3. See the letter from Mark Bonitz on pages 85 - 88. 4. No way should this be done with the same companies involved in taking out and soil removal. It should be done by an outside company only!! I do believe too many units with even single family homes. Wildlife, too much too fast, deer? Most important — we need businesses and jobs — no jobs, no homes. (Gearin — 2575 Carver Avenue) 5. The PUD lot size should be within the existing code parameters. The actual units per acre is already well above the code when using real density figures (53 actual useable acres of property). 191 divided by 53 acres equals 3.6 units per acre (net). Basing PUD density on 73 acres is not logical or reasonable, even if the city code allows. The buildable acres equal 53. The proposed park dedication fee of $834,000 based on 191 units should be used within Carver Crossing and the adjacent open space if the proposal is approved by the city council. The city should monitor and assure that all EAW, watershed and other agency issues and requirements are complied with precisely. The city should require a bond and enforce a completion date so construction does not linger forever. Allowing this development, in my opinion, is not a prudent decision. Future issues and problems, when the developer is long gone, will be left to the City at the city and citizens' expense. (Erb — 2354 Heights Avenue) 22 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 73 acres Existing land use: Vacant (formerly had three single dwellings and accessory buildings) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings and Carver Avenue South Ramsey County open space West: Houses on Dorland Road and Saint Paul East: Henry Lane and 1 -494 PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R -1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R -1(R) (rural single dwellings) and F (farm residence) 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 91 through 95.) 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. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Summary An EAW is a preliminary environmental review of a proposal to look at how the development could potentially affect the environment. The state designed the EAW to gather and disclose information about potential environmental effects from a proposed project. The EAW also reviews ways or methods to avoid or minimize any environmental effects. An EAW has a list of standardized questions 23 that cover issues such as land use and habitat, storm water, wetlands, air emissions and pollution and traffic. The project with 299 units did not meet the minimum size thresholds (with the proposed number of units) set by state rules to mandate an EAW. However, the city can require the developer to prepare an EAW if the city decides that the project "has a potential for significant environmental effects." To this end, Mr. Hansen requested that the city order the preparation of an EAW in 2005. A preliminary list of concerns included the effects the project could have on the wetlands, slopes, utilities, storm water and drainage (including Fish Creek) and traffic in the area. The noise from 1 -494 and its effects on the new residents is another matter that the EAW was to analyze. Staff expected that the consultant would need three to four months to prepare the EAW. In this case, however, because of the complexity of the project, revisions the developer made to the project plans (in response to staff concerns) and the potential issues in the area, the EAW took almost one year to complete. The city's consultant completed the EAW and then the city had a state - mandated 30 -day public comment period on the document. The comments the city received included questions and concerns about wetlands, storm water run -off and management (including possible effects on Fish Creek), the Mississippi River Critical Corridor, traffic, noise and public utilities. The comments the city received and the consultant's responses to those comments are explained in a separate memo. In this case, staff recommended that the city make a negative declaration for an EIS (environmental impact statement) for this project. The city council, on July 10, 2006, voted to not require an EIS for the Carver Crossing development. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. Include 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. - Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: - 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. W - The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. 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 ensure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Mississippi River Critical Corridor Information (from the 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan) Maplewood hereby incorporates the goals of the 1976 designation of the Mississippi River Critical Area. On November 18, 1988, Public Law 100 -69 established the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the National Park System. The MNRRA was established by Congress to: (1) Protect, preserve and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities. (2) Encourage coordination of federal, state and local programs (3) Provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and local governments in the development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and to ensure the orderly public and private development in the area. The Secretary of the Interior approved a Comprehensive Management Plan forthe MNRRA in 1995. This plan lays out a policy level framework for the management of the Mississippi River corridor. The responsibility for the administration of the Mississippi River Critical Area Program, as described in Minnesota Statutes and Executive Order 79 -19, was transferred from the EQB (the Environmental Quality Board) to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1995. Maplewood acknowledges that the Mississippi River Critical Area in the city has been designated as "Urban Diversified District." This district has the following goals: (1) The lands and waters shall be used as developed to maintain the present diversity of commercial, industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, including the existing transportation uses of the river. (2) Protect historical sites and areas and the natural scenic and environmental resources. (3) Expand public access to and enjoyment of the river. The city may allow new residential development and other uses in this area if they are compatible with these goals. In addition, Maplewood will require that building and development applications in the Critical Area have enough information to ensure that the new construction is compatible with the character of the Urban Diversified District. 25 Additional Critical Area Policies and Standards The following are the City's additional nine policies for building and land development in the Mississippi River Critical Area: • The City shall ensure that the location and siting of new structures will keep bluffs and scenic overlooks in their natural state. • Maplewood will work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on possible ordinance changes that would affect lands within the Critical Area. • The City will ensure that future development and construction in the Critical Area will meet or exceed the development standards set by Maplewood ordinances and policies. • Maplewood requires all new development in the Critical Area to minimize any adverse effects on the environment and to maximize all possible beneficial effects. The City will review these effects when approving site plans or when approving building permits, except for permits for single- family homes. • Maplewood requires all development in the Critical Area to meet all state regulations for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). • Maplewood will notify the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) whenever the City receives a development or subdivision application for land within the Critical Area. • The City shall ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area minimizes direct runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. • Maplewood will ensure that new development and construction in the Critical Area improves the quality of runoff onto adjoining streets and watercourses. • The City encourages the clustering of structures and the use of designs that will reduce public facility costs, which will provide more open space and will improve scenic designs. Application Date The city received the complete applications and the revised plans for this development on August 8, 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 September 29, 2006, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. 0 p:sec 24 -28 \Carver Crossing for PC (2) - 2006 Attachments: 1. Letter from Copar Companies dated August 7, 2006 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Preliminary Plat dated August 8, 2006 6. Site Plan 7. Grading and Erosion Control Plan 8. Stormwater Management Plan 9. Utility Plan 10. Tree Preservation Plan 11. Open Space Plan 12. Master Landscape Plan 13. Enlarged Landscape Plan (North one -half) 14. Landscape Plan Details 15. Enlarged Landscape Plan (South one -half) 16. Landscape Plan Details 17. Carver Avenue /Henry Lane Intersection Detail 18. June 29, 2006 EAW memo from Chuck AN 19. August 25, 2006 memo from Michael Thompson 20. August 23, 2006 letter from Kimley -Horn and Associates 21. August 25, 2006 e -mail from Tina Carstens 22. August 22, 2006 memo from Lt. Shortreed 23. August 24, 2006 letter from Dan Soler 24. Letter dated August 22, 2006 from Terry and Linda Baumgart 25. Letter dated August 24, 2006 from Mark Bonitz 26. E -mail from Kathy and Rick Urban dated August 23, 2006 27. E -mail from Peggy Telin dated August 25, 2006 28. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution 29. Easement and Right -of -Way Vacation Resolution 30. Project Plans date - stamped August 8, 2006 (separate attachments) 27 Attachment I August 7, 2006 Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning Commission C/O Ken Roberts, City Planner 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Carver Crossing of Maplewood Revised Development Plan Submittal AUG 0 8 2W Dear Mayor Longrie, Council Members, and Members of the Planning Commis&Ec E CoPar Development is pleased to present the revised Carver Crossing of Maplewood development plans for your consideration. Our development team has worked diligently to revise the development proposal from its original 386 home city authorized EAW concept to a 191 home proposal that is consistent with the R-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of the city. We feel strongly that the revised proposal is reasonably exercising our rights to develop while being sensitive to the diverse site conditions and considerate of the public input gathered throughout the past 19 months. We respectfully request that the City of Maplewood review our revised proposal and approve the following actions as they relate to the development plans: 1. Conditional Use Permit PUD approval 2. Preliminary Plat Outlined below are a number of development plan highlights intended to assist you in answering questions that may arise as you review our plans. Site Background: The Carver Crossing property is an assembly of land acquired by CoPar from four different previous owners. The predominant surrounding land uses include Interstate Highway 494 and vast amounts (100+ acres) of Ramsey County open space. Surrounding land uses also include the 1986 Carver Heights development (Dorland Road); some isolated homes on Carver Avenue; and approximately 26 acres of city owned "Grandview" land acquired by the city in 1995/1996 which was changed from a Land Use Plan designation of R -1 (single dwellings) to OS (open space) upon acquisition. Historical land use activities on the property include four residential' homes, numerous out buildings, limited farm related activities, and excavation, boat and material storage. CoPar has carried out building demolition and site clean-up activities to prepare the property for development. Substantial numbers of tires, debris, outdoor storage and discarded materials have 8677 Eagle Point Blvd Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-379-0500 651-379-0412 (Fax) www.CoparCompanies.com Real Estate Development, Finance & Investment 28 n C O D A R companies Development • Finance * Investment been removed from the property. In the process of site investigation and clean-up a small amount of soil contamination was identified and is depicted in Figure I from Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. Approximately 2,000 Yards of contaminated soils are being removed from these areas in accordance with the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up (VIC) and Brownfield's Programs. We are proud of our efforts to correct the blighted conditions that existed on the property. The most recent site related activities and background include the conclusion of the city managed Environmental Assessment Worksheet and findings of a negative declaration concerning the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Among the many valuable pieces of information gleaned from the EAW site research and findings it has been determined that the entire site can be reasonably developed without a potential for significant environmental effects. Citv Land Use Plan: The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the entire site as a Single Dwelling (R-1) development area eligible for development at a density of 4.1 homes per acre. Maintaining clear consistency with the single dwelling development directive identified in the Comprehensive Plan is the basis for the plan revisions that have occurred since the conclusion of the EAW process. Community feedback and Planning Commission recommendations made it clear that a PUD is appropriate, but an alternative multiple dwelling proposal is not acceptable nor should the Comprehensive Land Use Plan be changed. The revised proposal has removed all multiple dwelling and attached townhome housing options from consideration and the development contract with the previously identified builder has expired. The EAW has accounted for the uniqueness of the site and the plan revision process has resulted in a development proposal that is exercising the minimum development rights afforded to the property. The site is not identified by the 2002 Maplewood Comprehensive Plan as a Residential Estate 30,000 or 40,000 sq. ft. (re-30, re-40) development area; Open Space (OS) preservation area; or Park (P) development location. The proposed density is consistent with the minimum density allowed in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (Ref city ordinance Sec. 12-250, Effect on Density) and is clustering home sites in a manner that emphasizes open space accessibility to all current and future residents. The amount of open space in this plan has actually increased from that the multiple family and townhome plans depicted in the EAW. The attached Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps were obtained from the official city web site and plainly identify the development designations of the site. PUD Development Overview: The development site is 72.3 acres in size with a development density that has been reduced from 4.1 to 2.64 homes per acre. The development plan is proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) resulting in the designation of 27.87 acres of privately owned woodland, wetland and upland open space. The 191 proposed lots average approximately 7,600 sq. ft, and each will support a 2,400 sq. ft. or larger building pad site. The lot designs and layout will result in a full range of single dwelling size and elevation alternatives. Homes will be built by a select and qualified builder or pool of builders that has yet to be determined. Q 11 The incorporation of PUD development techniques has enhanced the development proposal by allowing 38.5% of the site to remain open with a diverse and mixed terrain upland, woodland, and wetland presence that could not otherwise be attained. Open spaces and rain garden or other site features have been integrated into the site plan and are directly adjacent to over 97% of the homes. The PUD will also allow consistent and enhanced natural feature protection through the managed open space ownership of the homeowners association. The open spaces within this development accompanied by the large expanse of Ramsey County open space and sizable city open space to the north will continue to allow the natural areas in the area to be a dominating feature of south Maplewood. The open space plan is identified on sheet C-8 of the development plans and comprises approximately 3.03 acres of woodland, 17.64 acres of upland/grass land, and 7.2 acres of wetland. Stormwater Mann ement: The stormwater management plan is highlighted on the attached Exhibit A and can be reviewed in detail on sheet C-6 of the development plan submittal. A total of 6 Permanent Dual Purpose Basins (PDPB's) and 7 rain gardens have been designed for the site, The total infiltration volume proposed has increased from the plans presented in the EAW to 106,150 Cubic Feet. The stormwater management plan provides infiltration for rainfall events of at least 2.5", and vastly exceeds the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area requirements, the Watershed District, and the City standards for water quality treatment. Stormwater management as it relates to Fish Creek and the slopes and natural features of the site have been a strong factor in the design of this development plan and set a precedent for other such developments to attain. The stormwater plan and PDPB design elements in our proposal have not been considered solely for their function as effective stormwater control. The design specifications also include detailed native seeding specifications to enhance the form and appeal of the area. Specified in detail within the landscape plan are native seeding specifications, application rates, and cover requirements that will perform the dual purpose of stormwater treatment and landscape enhancement. Estimated earthwork has increased from 217,000 yards to 290,000 yards. The additional amount of excavation can be attributed to the increased number of water treatment basins and is therefore the result of an increase to the protection of Fish Creek through additional water quality treatment. As discussed in the stormwater plan summary, water quality treatment has been a precedent setting element to the design of this development and has been a primary consideration in the proposal. Additional earthwork can also be attributed to increased berm and landscape related efforts. As was concluded in the EAW, the amount of earthwork associated with the project is not unusual when considering the size of the property, It is reasonable to make the same conclusion with this revised earthwork and stornimater plan. To put the level of earthwork into perspective, 290,000 yards is equivalent to an average of +/- 3.3 ft. depth of excavation taken over the limits of the site improvements. The increase of 73,000 yards is equivalent to +/- 9 inches of additional cut from the depth of excavation in the EAW. 30 Park Dedication: The park dedication fee in effect during the presentation of the original development concept to the City Council and during the subsequent plan and EAW preparation period was doubled by the city on February 13, 2006. The current park dedication fee for a new single family home is $3,060. In accordance with this recent fee adjustment, the park fee obligations of the revised plan are estimated as $584,460. Though the amount of the fee was equivalent to $292,230 prior to this change, CoPar is prepared to pay the new park dedication fee as has been advised by the city parks department staff and parks commission. As the development planning process has evolved interested parties have voiced concerns about the lack of public park and trail improvement in the area. Although this site is not identified by city planning documents as Park or Open Space, CoPar has devised two options to help address issue: Cash Dedication Option: CoPar Proposes the city investment of $250,000 of the $584,460 city park dedication fee directly into the 191 home development for the purpose of public trail and public park/overlook improvements. CoPar will match this direct investment of park fees with an additional dollar for dollar or like-kind park/trail improvement valued up to $250,000. This dollar for dollar match is conditioned on maintaining the continuity of the current 2.64 single family home per acre development plan. Implementation of this proposal can occur upon plan approval and would result in a positive park improvement impact to the city of $834,460 with $500,000 invested directly into south Maplewood. Park enhancement opportunities we envision within the development include both active and passive recreation activities. An extensive sidewalk/trail plan incorporating the upland, woodland and wetland features of the site, nature walk interpretive signage, Fish Creek and other prominent site vista stations, birding, nesting, and other related habitat improvements, observation and bird feeding stations, and even raptor nesting platforms are a few of the enhancements we envision could be of great benefit to the public and the environment. Land Dedication Option: Understanding that there has been a desire by interested parties to purchase portions of the property or otherwise pursue pubic ownership we have also prepared a park land dedication proposal that could be implemented without objection. Illustrated on Exhibit B is a park land dedication proposal as follows: 1. Dedication of a 2.98 acre park and overlook area adjacent to Ramsey County open space to the south and west; 2. Dedication of a 2.82 acre woodland park area adjacent to Ramsey county open space to the west and north; 3. Dedication of a 20 ft trail corridor (.1'7 acre) adjacent to Ramsey County open space to connect the overlook and woodland park locations; and 31 4. Dedication of a 4.59 trail corridor connecting to the Henry Lane roundabout. The public dedication of the combined 10.56 acres of land area (14.6% of the property) described above would be in lieu of the $584,460 fee. City acceptance of these site areas would provide a tremendous park development opportunity to the city. The site density would be reduced in these areas with the removal of four (4) very desirable home sites; however, we feel the removal of these homes would be necessary to allow improved park development and access, The incorporation of a public road plan may also be required with this option. In addition to the above land dedication CoPar is also willing to dedicate a north/south regional trail corridor through the site extending from Carver Avenue to the Ramsey County land area to the south. This additional land area is approximately 4.25 acres and when combined with the 10.56 acre dedication proposal above equates to a park land dedication of 20% of the property; double the land area dedication that would customarily be required to satisfy city ordinance. Interested parties have expressed a desire for regional trail connections through this site and we believe they could be accommodated with this additional land area proposal. CoPar will not be accepting of alternative park land dedication or acreage configurations in lieu of the park dedication fee but is willing to accommodate the above proposal should the city wish to accept park land in lieu of fees. No part of the development property is identified by the city Land Use Plan as park or open space and Copar feels no obligation to involuntarily dedicate park land within the site. Recognizing the cities budgetary constraints in immediately improving the 14.8 acres of public park land in this proposal, CoPar would include the equivalent of $250,000 in resources to enhance and develop a public park and trailway plan for these city park areas. These additional resources would be contributed conditioned on the continued continuity of the current development plan and in a manner consistent with the phasing of the development. Landscape: There are 1,111 significant trees on the property. Significant trees are defined by city ordinance and are individually identified on the tree survey contained within the development set as sheet C-7. The revised layout has resulted in the preservation of 646 significant trees and resulted in a reduced tree impact when compared to the development plan in the EAW. The reduced tree impact was attained through the use of specific site design efforts and the reduction of density from 197 to 191 homes. A total of 723 trees (10/per acre) are required by ordinance to be maintained and or placed on the site. In conjunction with the preservation of the 646 significant trees, city ordinance would require the planting of an additional 77 trees. The landscape plan is exceeding the ordinance requirement and proposing to plant 546 mixed variety trees. The landscape plan has been designed by a registered Landscape Architect and is incorporating not only diverse tree varieties but also pond seed mixes focused on native and emergent wetland fringe and native prairie grasses. 32 womm-0 Wetland impacts remain unchanged from the HAW proposal. The site contains 319,076 sq. ft. of wetland of which only 8,879 sq. ft. or 2.78% will be impacted. In accordance with the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act the impacted wetland is being replaced with a slightly larger new wetland accompanied by an additional 146,662 sq. ft. of qualifying public value credit improvements. The wetland replacement plan vastly exceeds the criteria established by the Wetland Conservation Act and is depicted along with the stormwater management plan on sheet C-6 of the development proposal. The Watershed District has approved of the wetland sequencing and replacement plan. The development proposal has also accounted for city and watershed district wetland classification and. building setback regulations. The average building setbacks surrounding all wetlands exceed 50 ft. and the 25 ft. no disturb area and added 10 ft. structural buffer setbacks have been met as depicted on the Site Plan on sheet C-3 of the development proposal. Noise: As the EAW identified, the development site is impacted by noise levels generated by Interstate 494. As the plan revisions have taken shape the outdoor spaces have been actively planned as they relate to these noise impacts. As depicted on Exhibit C, the highest noise measurement area (70 dBA) is no longer impacting any homes and the daytime noise area (65 dBA) which previously impacted 137 homes is now touching 28 home sites. Homes have also been strategically located to further limit and shield noise exposure to the rear yard recreation areas. The site layout and planning process has reasonably balanced the development potential of the property with the noise impacts that have been forced upon it. As advised by city staff, site grading, berming and landscape have been adjusted to help mitigate noise impacts. The cross section depicted on Exhibit D & E demonstrates the substantial grade and topography differences and the grading and landscape enhancements that also help mitigate these noise impacts. The north end of the site depicted in Section "E" is 17 feet lower than the grade of 1694; the mid section of the site depicted in Section "D" is 24 feet lower than the grade of 1694; the proposed roundabout area depicted in Section "C" is 18 ft. lower than the grade of 1694; the southern portions of the site are buffered by increased setbacks, topography changes, ponding, and landscape and depicted in Section "B" as 6 '/z feet lower than the grade of 1694; and Section "A" is 26 feet higher than the grade of 1694. Although a limited number of homes remain in the daytime noise area the site design is taking practical and reasonable steps to accommodate the impact, including the designation of approximately 6 acres of the site within the daytime noise area as open space. Public Utilities & Roads: Sewer and water utilities are available to the entire development site from both Carver Avenue and Heights Avenue and are proposed to be extended throughout the site as public infrastructure. The plan no longer requires a lift station as it has been determined that the revised design and density can be fully accommodated with existing available connections. Removal of the lift 33 station is a significant long term maintenance and cost savings to the city. We are pleased with the added efficiencies of the utility design. The extension of utility connection points east under Interstate 494 has been affiliated with this project but is not being requested or required by CoPar. As an alternative, future jacking pit and utility extension under Interstate 494 could potentially be accommodated from the East side of the interstate as the benefiting property owners request it. We believe the removal of the lift station allows the location of any future "jacking pit" or 1494 boring activity to be accomplished in a less exact fashion that can be more easily accommodated from either side of the highway. We'd suggest making that investment when the residents and property owners to the east request it. As proposed, all roads within the development that are providing direct driveway access to homeowners are private. The road identified as Henry Lane continues to be public road that intersects with Carver Avenue. The intersection with Carver Avenue, however, has been adjusted an additional 112 ft. west to avoid aligning with homes on the north side of Carver Avenue. Henry Lane is also slightly shorter in length than the existing Henry Lane and is terminated through the use of a roundabout. It has been suggested that the long term maintenance and care of the proposed private roadways may be cause for concern and that public roadway should be considered throughout the project. We have evaluated the potential of accommodating public roadways and can construct the road plan to a public standard within the current 50 ft. wide street outlot(s) by adding an additional two feet of road width. At the direction of the city we are willing to assume the additional development cost, dedicate the appropriate right-of-way, and construct public roads throughout the development should the Planning Commission and City Council prefer public roads. Traffic: Traffic from Maplewood and neighboring communities is a concern throughout the region and is caused by both existing residential developments as well as new. Carver Crossing will increase traffic in the area in a manner that has been analyzed and accepted in the EAW. The revised proposal has decreased in density and lessened the traffic impact. The revised proposal has also adjusted the alignment of the Henry Lane intersection an additional 112 feet west to reasonably accommodate headlight glare concerns expressed by a neighboring property owner to the north. CoPar will cooperate with the construction of Henry Lane turn lanes and Carver/McKnight intersection improvements. Although once planned by the city, a full road connection is not proposed to the temporary cul-de-sac in the Dorland Rd. /Heights Ave, neighborhood to the west. An oversized emergency outlet "trail" to this temporary cul-de-sac continues to be identified and will be designed with appropriate barriers as required by the city. The barriers will prevent everyday use of the trail as a vehicular access and will allow emergency vehicle through traffic as needed. 34 Fish Creek: Fish Creek is a positive amenity adjacent to this project and is being protected to a great extent through the blighted site clean-up, soils contamination removal, and stormwater controls that are a part of the development. The plan revision has emphasized the enhanced protection of the creek by dedicating additional open space along the full north and south sides of the creek as it runs through the project area. Plan revisions have also been able to preserve added trees along the creek, incorporate an expanded conservation easement area, and incorporate permanent erosion control and grading restoration activities to stop the degradation of the area. Three isolated bluff locations exist along the south side of Fish creek and are depicted on the attached Exhibit F. Identified are the 30 ft. shoreland bluff setbacks accompanied by building pad options that exist in satisfaction of the shoreland ordinance requirements. As can be seen in Exhibit G, the building site setbacks from the creek range from 91 to 300+ feet. The minimum Fish Creek setback of 50 ft. has been doubled in all but one location. Restoration activities in these areas are including the use of retaining wall work, plantings, and erosion control measures. Existing conditions include several "ravine" and washout locations that will be permanently corrected and protected with the implementation of the grading and stormwater controls of this development. The Watershed District has managed historical erosion problems associated with Fish Creek through extensive structural improvements to the creek from this site west all the way to the Mississippi River, Alterations to the creek have included the installation of an underground stormwater pipe that ranges from 36 to 48 inches in size and is intended to channel and re-route water flow. The water entrance to this structure is located at the spillway and small pool area depicted on our plans and is being moved further east to 1494 with additional Watershed District construction and pipe installation activities scheduled to commence work in the coming week(s). To assist the Watershed District in its efforts to maintain the Creek we have formalized two permanent access points from the north and south to these areas of Ramsey County property. There is no question Fish Creek has been subject to washouts and erosion. If developments upstream from Carver Crossing implemented the same stormwater management techniques as our development we feel confident that long term solutions to the erosion and quality of the creek would be fully resolved. Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor: The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA/MRCAC) area as defined by State Statute is depicted in Exhibit H. Regulations pertaining to this area of the site are being met with the revised proposal in the same manner they were met within the EAW. The development plans have fully considered the Environmental Protection and Critical Area ordinance requirements of the city. The proposed development has the potential of greatly increasing public access to and along Fish Creek; is being designed and will be constructed and maintained to the maximum extent practical as it relates to erosion, alterations, and slopes; is removing site contamination and pollution, is not impacting the views of protected waters, and is vastly exceeding stormwater ponding and phosphorous removal requirements outlined by ordinance. 35 The plan no longer requires critical area plan amendments from the Mn/DNR as the Comprehensive Plan is no longer being amended. The potential for MRCAC designated areas within the site to have qualifying blufflines has been fully evaluated. Though there are clearly slopes of 18% or greater within the site, the additional criteria necessary to establish a bluffline as defined in city ordinance are not met. Qualifying areas require direct drainage to protected water (Fish Creek); must be greater than 200 feet in length (top to bottom) or greater than 500 feet in width (side to side). Depicted on Exhibit I is a summarized slope analysis depicting dimension lines that demonstrate the lack of slope length or direct drainage. Demographic & Fiscal Impact: The 191 homes proposed in Carver Crossing of Maplewood will be open to all qualified buyers and maintained as minimum maintenance single family homes. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan estimates 2.9 people per unit live in a single dwelling and 2.2 people per unit live in a townhome. Using these household estimates as an approximate range, the projected population of Carver Crossing at full development should be within 420 to 554 people. Due to the style of housing offered the demographics are expected to comprise of downsizing baby boomers, empty nesters and professionals. A conservative estimated gross retail sales mean of the homes in Carver Crossing is $378,000. The League of Minnesota Cities tax calculator estimates annual Carver Crossing tax revenue at $925,600. The city share of this yearly tax revenue is estimated at $261,000; the annual school and county share of this tax revenue is estimated at $664,000. Conclusion: We hope you agree that the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development proposal represents a practical and reasonable implementation of the cities R -1 single dwelling land use development plan for the property. We feel that the level of work that has been incorporated in the concepts, EAW, and plan development and revision process have resulted in a very high quality proposal for your consideration. Without undue delay we hope to receive your approval and construct this development in a manner that enhances the open spaces, recreational opportunities, and awareness of the desirable neighborhood elements available to people in south Maplewood. Please do not hesitate to contact CoPar Development with any questions as you review this proposal. We look forward to meeting with yourselves and the Planning Commission in September. 36 SITE Attachment 2 SITE Newpofl Location Map Carver Crossing 37 N Attachment 3 Land Use Map Carver Crossing 38 .... ..... ..... ..... ..... . .... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... . lg �����/ / :� \�� Attachment 5 CA.UA. CARVERAVENUE i I9 i wi M PLAT OPEN SPACE er ....... . ....... . . . ...... . ..... . ELM... CA.UA. CARVERAVENUE i I9 i wi M PLAT OPEN SPACE Attachment 6 ............................................................ . .. . .................. . ................................ . . ..... .. CARVER AVENUE E 0 1 4 M I La 0 -1 Ul z CL re O. LA 06•Ct BSI -1M C-3 � A ®t SITE PLAN 41 ffm�� ELM mm m I Attachment 8 I ° � } \ \ � ° \} �t t o w I Attachment 9 UTILITY PLAN 44 Attachment 10 a j - 0 I Y 14 Ix C-8 0 I Attachment 11 -DARvER AVENUE E, sm ; ' kp WY C, rt ro- 4 is 0 �z < CL PRELIMINARY rt ro- 4 is Attachment 1 _ _ m a x x� w► ii Ba �x•~.x�. *te lift IN Attachment 13 � / - 4Z CARVER AVENUE AV E, L 4Z 0 EN LARGED --_-_ _-- -_- ~~ _ . __ PLAN ~~ ~ ' Attachment 14 w t24 isol M "IT "MY" 0 ift �M �05.1.� A Sx /ftsL SELD" WE 10 K K AOnO.bvMxD smw FAM � w �To," W t4� To Dmw WK Qo6otm stu" w4utb4c W.CH SO= AK4 *M U.,='NW 3 Ch" COVM VEM MO T . 9A w I To. .4 MUL04 SW= rAN K MC AMMRM TO KEEP .7 "" ULM-; A.W Ruu TO MW= va sw ro" MOM wDLU" of wyow-s= sm-4 v� IK OpLeD mou ARM 15 - AAY 23 oo stotild" ?a - �nv 5w Tut FO am g"z�--s-ow i s TK WK I* K F.%VK-M om KUM) MUD-M SrZODA *10 1" P A V&n-ft" 00 toL.MDff W04W SaM WA NY YNMffir. MU40" AM MRA� Ad **OESSWY M CSTA&M A WWM&Y DOM SVO of TW LMM aka .Xxx NrW LOCAT" rOR O RZLOCAT T E NUIMPS CRRESPOSD WrM CC PRESMAt" KAH Xt o � w t24 isol M "IT "MY" 0 ift �M �05.1.� A Sx /ftsL SELD" WE 10 K K AOnO.bvMxD smw FAM � w �To," W t4� To Dmw WK Qo6otm stu" w4utb4c W.CH SO= AK4 *M U.,='NW 3 Ch" COVM VEM MO T . 9A w I To. .4 MUL04 SW= rAN K MC AMMRM TO KEEP .7 "" ULM-; A.W Ruu TO MW= va sw ro" MOM wDLU" of wyow-s= sm-4 v� IK OpLeD mou ARM 15 - AAY 23 oo stotild" ?a - �nv 5w Tut FO am g"z�--s-ow i s TK WK I* K F.%VK-M om KUM) MUD-M SrZODA *10 1" P A V&n-ft" 00 toL.MDff W04W SaM WA NY YNMffir. MU40" AM MRA� Ad **OESSWY M CSTA&M A WWM&Y DOM SVO of TW LMM aka .Xxx NrW LOCAT" rOR O RZLOCAT T E NUIMPS CRRESPOSD WrM CC PRESMAt" KAH l .' ��\ � 1 5 �v +ioaX r� raqqmll zo zx 30 -.. LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS • • a. z z uj .n M O L-2 12 of 13 M .......... l .' ��\ � 1 5 �v +ioaX r� raqqmll zo zx 30 -.. LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS • • a. z z uj .n M O L-2 12 of 13 M Attachment 15 I ppl:l !I- I- Eli R I it' wi l kvl Ao VY Attachment 16 t I 0' & - 1 F IR oatk5 V�rll LEGEND: wj a I NEW LOCATION FOR RELOCATED TREES, m� NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH TREE PRESERVATION PLAN LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER I FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE, FALLOOLD ASH, SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST. REDMOND LINDEN NORTHERN PIN OAK, BLACK HILLS SPRUCE. OR NORWAY PIWE LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 2 FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- NORTHWOODS RED MAPLE. SUMNIfT SEEDLESS ASH, PAPER BIRCH, LITTLELEAF LINDEN, SWAMP WHITE OAK. OR COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 3 FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- SUGAR MAPLE, PATMORE ASH, RIVER BIRCH. BOULEVARD LINDEH, RED OAK, OR AUSIRTHAN PI LEGEND: *Xxx NEW LOCATION FOR RELOCATED TREES, m� NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH TREE PRESERVATION PLAN LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER I FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE, FALLOOLD ASH, SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST. REDMOND LINDEN NORTHERN PIN OAK, BLACK HILLS SPRUCE. OR NORWAY PIWE LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 2 FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- NORTHWOODS RED MAPLE. SUMNIfT SEEDLESS ASH, PAPER BIRCH, LITTLELEAF LINDEN, SWAMP WHITE OAK. OR COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE LANDSCAPE AREA NUMBER 3 FRONT YARD TREES TO BE PROVIDED IN THIS AREA- SUGAR MAPLE, PATMORE ASH, RIVER BIRCH. BOULEVARD LINDEH, RED OAK, OR AUSIRTHAN PI L" CL 0 uj 4 z , ' Z 0 1 - Z • W. L) W CL • La uj > AMON$ 7 CUENT SUSIOTTAL 7-29-06 Cm 'W"tNTS a N 'I At m� a N 'I At a AGENDA REPORT TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Ken Roberts, Planner Uffi F R IT i - - TIT&F 1 SUBJECT: Carver Crossing (formerly CoPar Development) -- City Project 05 -07 — Resolution for Negative Declaration on Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) DATE: June 29, 2006 INTRODUCTION On March 14, 2005, the Maplewood City Council authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed development of the former Schlomka property. The CoPar Development Company has proposed a housing development for the site that they are calling Carver Crossing. One of the City's consultants, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA), completed the EAW and staff routed and distributed the document for public comment. The City received several comments about the EAW and staff distributed responses to those comments to the city council for the June 12, 2006 meeting. (Please refer to that document for reference). Staff is recommending that the city review the comments and responses in the context of applicability toward the final development plan. Based on comments and responses to the EAW and at the Public Hearing at the May 15, 2006, planning commission meeting, the developer is revising the development proposal to a project with a lesser number of units and thus a lower density. Staff is recommending that the city council proceed with a finding of fact about the EAW. Staff believes that the development impacts reviewed by the EAW and the entire EAW process represent the "worst- case" scenario for possible impacts. It is important to note that a revised development proposal by the applicant will need to implement all the findings of this process and will most likely have a lesser impact on the site and the area than those identified in the EAW. Finally, staff is recommending approval of the negative declaration. Background The City Council ordered the EAW for this project area due to concerns about the possible impacts that the originally proposed 386 -unit development might have on the area. At the time of the order for the EAW, staff suggested that the EAW might provide significant findings that could require a substantial revision to the project plans. The EAW found significant issues with the first site development plans, and the developer has been cooperative in revising their project plans to address the environmental concerns. The long preparation time (over 1 year) for the EAW and development plan process is due to the EAW findings and because of developer revisions to the project plans. The findings in the EAW required the developer to reduce the original unit count from 386 units to the current analyzed plan of 299 units. The 299 units are consistent with the lowest development level provided within the Maplewood Land Use Plan at 4.1 units per acre. The developer is now considering revising the project plans to further reduce the number of units on the site to a number under 200 units. The City can complete the EAW analysis at the higher unit count (299 units) with all the findings kept in place. On June 12, 2006, the City Council started their review of the EAW. After two hours of testimony and questions, the council tabled action on the EAW until July 10, 2006. The council requested staff get more information about a series of questions that were raised during the council meeting. We have prepared a list of those questions and the answers to them and have attached that additional information to this report. 6141 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Two Background on EAW Process The City Council reviewed the EAW comments and responses at the June 12, 2006, meeting, and they raised several questions about the EAW and to the responses provided by staff. There are several main items for discussion on the site: • Woodlands: The project site currently includes 26.0 acres of woodland in the 73+ acre site. The project proposes to change 15.4 acres of these woodlands. Woodland impacts will be mitigated according to city ordinance up to 10 trees per acre. A total of 215 new trees will be required to be planted. Wetlands: The project includes four wetland complexes covering 7.32 acres of the site. This is the major issue that required significant revisions to the original site plan. The current proposal only impacts 0.2 acres which will be mitigated on site with 0.43 acres of new wetland. Additionally, the developer has proposed features that will provide for future enhancement of the existing wetlands which have been degraded by area construction activity, namely from the 1 -494 freeway. This change provides for a much improved site plan. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and public water are readily available to this site from Carver Avenue and extensions of these utilities were constructed in previous years in Dorland Road and Heights Avenue. The city has been planning for sewer extensions for this property since the mid - 1980s. Staff is recommending that any development of this parcel connect to the sanitary sewer system to avoid environmental impacts to the Fish Creek system due to failing septic systems. A lift station may be necessary to pump some of the sewage from this site to the Carver Avenue system. The city needs to study the sanitary sewer plans for the area to determine the location and sizing of this lift station. The area to the east of this site (on the southeast side of 1 -494) is currently unsewered. The city has planned this area as part of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to have sanitary sewer at some point in the next 5 -30 years. The proposed lift station within the Carver Crossing Development will help provide sanitary sewer service to this area. As part of the construction of the lift station, there is a need to install a crossing pipe under 1 -494 to the eastern side of the freeway. The construction of this is necessary at this time as part of this development to avoid major disruption of the Carver Crossing site and to Henry Lane when the homes and roadways are in place. This will provide sanitary sewer to the eastern side of the freeway. This sewer extension is disturbing to some of the existing residents of this area, many of whom have large lots and septic systems. There are property owners on the east side of 1 -494 that have expressed an interest in developing their property, and the sewer extension will provide them the ability to develop. This sewer extension under the freeway has the potential to be a very controversial issue. From an engineering standpoint, if /when the city approves the Carver Crossing development, a lift station is required. As part of that project, the lift station must have the sewer pipe constructed under the freeway as part of the construction to avoid huge costs and disruption in the future. Traffic: The EAW reviewed traffic generation and effects from a proposed development that was going to be for those 55 and older. Such a development should create less traffic than one open to persons of all ages. The consultant has analyzed the site both with and without traffic reductions, and the conclusions on the necessary improvements are the same for both. The engineer's analysis concludes that some turn lanes and expansion are required on Carver Avenue at the entrance and at the McKnight — Carver intersection. All other impacts are within acceptable 6'i� City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Three standards, except the Bailey Road — Sterling Street intersection, which is currently failing. This intersection is within Newport (Washington County) and should be scheduled for improvement. The traffic from this development does not have significant impact on that intersection. A property owner on the north side of Carver Avenue expressed a concern about the proposed location of Henry Lane as it could affect his house and property. The developer is exploring relocating Henry Lane to the west to lessen or avoid the possible impacts. Storm water issues: The developer is proposing to have this project meet the highest level of retention and treatment applied within the City of Maplewood. A majority of the site will exceed the infiltration of flows for over 90% of the storms within the area. This will provide infiltration of storm events of up to 2.5 inches of rainfall. Current standards within other developments, such as Legacy Village, provided for infiltration of only the 1.0 -inch storm event. The impacts on Fish Creek on the receiving water bodies have been reduced to a minimal to negligible amount. This critical issue related to impacts of phosphorus and suspended solids is part of the City's current plan to meet the permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements placed on Maplewood (along with 29 other communities in Minnesota) to reduce drainage for quantity and quality to pre -1988 levels. The analysis of this site shows that drainage within the development should meet this requirement with the increased standards. Noise: This site is now impacted by freeway noise and many locations within the property exceed the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise standard. This is fairly common for suburban developments located next to or near major roadways. The proposed mitigation is to provide climate - controlled units and increased wall insulation. In addition, any outside common areas need to be located on the west side of buildings (away from the freeway). The developer also is considering constructing a berm along 1 -494 as part of the final site design. These elements should reduce future residents' exposure to traffic noise and provide the City with a reasonable response to the freeway noise issue. As part of the developer revisions, they are considering implementing berms with trees and other noise mitigation measures to further address this issue. Wildlife Concerns: This site has wildlife noted in many areas. The developer has considered providing numerous areas of protection under the current proposal. Obviously much of the wildlife in the area has relocated to this site due to other development in the area. Some of the wildlife species in the urban area have exploded due to the removal of many of the natural predators. The City and Ramsey County have needed to harvest numerous deer from this area due to over- population. Due to the existence of many acres of open space in this area and their general mobility, the wildlife experts do not believe that development of this parcel will have significant impacts on the urban wildlife of the area. Parks and Open Space Issues: There has been a proposal from area residents that suggests retention of this property as open space /parks area. The Parks Directors from Maplewood and from Ramsey County indicate that there is significant park/open space in the area. These include county open space adjacent to the south and west sides of the site, the county -owned open space along Fish Creek and a city -owned open space immediately north of Carver Avenue. Staff is not recommending any revisions to open space borders or the addition of park land in the area. 6�1 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Four EAW and Development Process Schedule City Council Received EAW /Authorizes Publishing Planning Commission Received EAW Neighborhood Meeting (6:00 -8:00 PM @ Fire Station) EAW Comment Deadline Planning Commission Received Response to Comments Development Plans to Planning Commission /Public Hearing City Council Determines Need for EIS March 13, 2006 March 20, 2006 March 30, 2006 April 12, 2006 May 15, 2006 May 15, 2006 June 12, 2006 /July 10, 2006 Staff revised the Findings of Fact document for the proposed Carver Crossing project in Maplewood to reflect the comments /concerns raised at the May 15, 2006, planning commission meeting. Additionally, staff added clarifying language to the document to explain that their action does not constitute "approval" of the project, but rather a determination that the project would not result in significant impacts, and that the EAW adequately discloses impacts and defines mitigation for future permits /approvals. The proposed action defined in the Findings document is consistent with what was proposed in the EAW, with slight modifications to reflect specific mitigative measures. There is reference in the document that the developer is currently exploring a site plan that would reduce the number of units within the project and thus the density on the site. However, staff did not amend the EAW analysis to reflect that potential change. In other words, staff did the environmental review based on a "worst - case" development scenario of 299 housing units. To help further clarify the issues and concerns about the EAW and the possible affects from development, staff prepared a list of questions raised at the June 12, 2006, city council meeting and a response to each of those questions. This additional information is attached to this memo. EAW Requirements on Timeline The requirements on the City Council as the Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU) provided by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) are that a decision on the EAW by the RGU is required within 30 days of the conclusion of the comment period, which ended on April 12, 2006. A 30 -day extension is allowed due to "insufficient information," which has been applied to this process. Therefore, the City Council is required to make a determination on the project. There is not enough information to require the more detailed information required as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EAW process has identified significant decision and development changes that the developer will now have to make part of any future development plan for the site. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution that finds that the EAW adequately addresses the environmental impacts of development of this parcel, applies the findings to any future development proposals for the site, and finds that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted. The Planning Commission, while not providing a positive recommendation on the development plan, recommended on May 15, 2006, that the city council make the negative declaration finding on the EAW. 67.1 City Council Agenda Report Carver Crossing EAW June 29, 2006 Page Five RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution. This resolution approves the negative declaration on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing Development, City Project 05 -07. P:sec24- 281carver crossing EAW report (2) —june 2006 Attachments: 1. Resolution on Negative Declaration 2. Questions and Responses from June 12, 2006 meeting 3. MRCAC Map 6'Y1 RESOLUTION APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION Carver Crossing of Maplewood Project City of Maplewood, Minnesota WHEREAS, CoPar Development LLC is the proposer of the Carver Crossing of Maplewood Project; a senior housing development with up to 299 units on approximately 70 acres of land; and WHEREAS, the general boundaries of the Carver Crossing project can be described as about 702 acres of land to the west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.0500; and WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1300; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the EAW was completed and distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board distribution list; and WHEREAS, the notification of the EAW was published in the Minnesota EQB Monitor on March 13, 2006; and WHEREAS, the public review and comment period remained open until April 12, 2006; and WHEREAS, a public informational meeting was held for the project on March 30, 2006, in the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, the comments on the EAW were received and responded to; and WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact /Response to Comments document was reviewed at the May 15, 2006, City of Maplewood Planning Commission meeting: and WHEREAS, the draft Findings of Fact /Response to Comments document reviewed by the Planning Commission has been revised to reflect clarification /revisions to specific impact analyses; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood Planning Commission recommended a Negative Declaration determination for the proposed action evaluated in the EAW; and WHEREAS, the proposed project under evaluation in this EAW reflects a worst case level of analysis in terms of density of residential development; and WHEREAS, the record considered by the City Council for purposes of its decision herein consists of the EAW, related reports and analysis, the comments received thereon, and the responses to such comments, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part of this decision; and 6'1:3 WHEREAS, the proposed development will undergo subsequent reviews and required approvals associated with permits identified in this document; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood will work with the developer to determine the feasibility and the effectiveness of additional noise mitigation to the west of 1 -494; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, acting with respect to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Carver Crossing Project of Maplewood, that it finds and concludes the following: 1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700; and 2. The EAW satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained; and 3. The Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit A (attached) are made; and 4. Based on criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, and the Findings of Fact, the Project does not have a potential for significant environmental effects; and 5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the City of Maplewood therefore makes a "Negative Declaration ". The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on July 10, 2006. 6�1 Response to Carver Crossing EAW Questions /Concerns from June 12, 2006 City Council Meeting A number of questions were raised at the June 12, 2006 City Council meeting about the Carver Crossing EAW and the draft Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision document. The following is a summary of the questions along with a response to each question. Mayor Longrie Q: Is this project within the Mississippi River Critical Area? A: Yes, a portion of the site is contained within the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA). A figure illustrating the MRCA boundaries as it relates to the proposed site is attached for reference. The state has confirmed these boundaries and they are different from those included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. As staff assumed that the entire project was assumed to be within the Critical Area boundaries during the EAW evaluation, the project's consistency with the Policies and Goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan were applied to the entire project area. Q: If so, who has to be involved, as far as governmental agencies and/or entities, when it comes to development within the Mississippi River Critical Area? A: The Approval/Permit table included on Page 31 of the Findings Document identifies required actions by the Mn /DNR, Metropolitan Council, and the City of Maplewood. Q: Did the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Mn/DNR) specifically address those issues of the EAW with regard to the things they would have to review? A: The Mn /DNR requested that they be included in the Approval /Permit table included on Page 31 of the Findings Document. Q: How many projected trees are to be removed from the site in the "worst case" scenario? A: The EAW identifies that up to 467 significant trees on the project site would be removed. Mary Dierich (Presenting Planning Commission Summary) Q: Should we even develop this area. A: The EAW and Findings Document summarize the current land use and zoning for the project site. The existing land use plan designation guides the site for R -1 (single dwelling) development. The developer relied on this designation when purchasing the property and when developing project plans for the site. Since the property is now privately owned, the owner /developer has rights to use and develop the property, subject to the approval of the city and all other necessary agencies. Q: Is development a foregone conclusion? ;:ill A: The City's comprehensive plan guides for residential development on the project site. The proposed development will require various City approvals before it can proceed to construction. Q: Do we have the infrastructure to support it and do we have the density? A: The traffic analysis conducted as part of the EAW identifies roadway improvements to accommodate the proposed development. In terms of sanitary, water, and storm sewer improvements, the EAW defines the required utility improvements to accommodate the proposed development. The City has been planning for the extension of sanitary sewer to this site for many years. The sewer is readily available in Carver Avenue and in Heights Avenue to serve this area. The Findings Document (Page 28) presents the findings of the revised traffic analysis to reflect comments made by the Planning Commission. Q: Sewer extension issues: septic failure character of neighborhoods the prevention of subdivision infrastructure to protect the environmentally sensitive land A: See response above. The City has been planning a sanitary sewer extension for this site. Q: Should we (the City) overturn what was just decided on 3 years ago regarding the land use and zoning? A: The EAW process defines the current land use and zoning designations for the project site, in relation to what the developer is proposing. The City's land use plan currently guides the site for R -1 residential development (which allows up to 4.1 units /acre). The EAW indicates that the City would need to amend the land use designation to R -3(L) for the 299 -unit development plan, and that the City would require a CUP for a PUD. The proposed development also could require a change to the zoning map, from R -1R (Rural Residential) and F (Farm Residence) to R -3 (multiple dwelling residential). City staff has reviewed the criteria defined in the City code about zoning changes. The proposed zoning map change would meet the criteria listed in the City Code. As indicated in the Findings Document (Page 4), the project proposer is currently evaluating revised site plans that would reduce the density of development on the project site. The developer has indicated that the revised project plans would meet the density and land use standards of the R -1 (single dwellings) land use designation. The negative declaration finding does not mean that the city has approved a project or development. If the city determines that a zoning or land use amendment is required for the project, the city will require the developer to go through the appropriate local approval processes. The city council may and does change the land use and zoning designations for properties when the council decides that the proposed changes would ::ail meet city policies and standards and when such changes would be in the public interest. The city reviews and considers each change proposal on a case -by -case basis. Q: Will the neighborhood character be changed? A: The city has guided the land in question for residential development. Hence, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation. The EAW and Findings Document discloses that the proposed project would change the existing character of the parcel, from a semi- rural, low- density area (with no public utilities) into a suburban - style, mixed -use residential development with public sewer and water. Such a development would be consistent with many of the recently constructed residential developments in this part of Maplewood, including the single- family subdivision adjacent to the site to the west. Q: Is this an environmentally sensitive enough area to warrant more study through the environmental impact statement (EIS) process? A: The Findings Document goes through the four criteria that the city is to be review as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) in making that determination. The recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission and City staff, based on the findings of the EAW, is that the proposed project would not warrant study through an EIS. Q: The proposal to remove 467 existing trees was a big deal to the Planning Commission. There have been a lot of questions about what size /kinds of trees would be included in the mitigation. A: The Findings Document provides additional information pertaining to the tree replacement plan associated with the proposed project. The project's landscaping plan identifies the specific type and size of trees proposed on the site. The new deciduous trees would be at least two and one -half inches in diameter and would be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples and other native species. The new coniferous trees would be at least eight feet tall and a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. Q: Concerns over wetland issues, i.e. Fish Creek. Can we improve the wetland through the development process? A: The EAW and Findings Document provides information pertaining to wetlands on site, the potential impact (0.2 acre), proposed mitigation (0.43 acre) and overall wetland enhancements associated with the project (e.g. rain gardens). Q: Soils are a major concern. How stable are the Fish Creek watershed banks? What is the conservation easement on that land? What is the conservation easement on the Mississippi River overlay area? A: The EAW and Findings Document summarizes the soils on the project site, as well as mitigation measures. The Findings Document (Page 16) references the developer's commitment to conduct a geotechnical investigation on the site. �a As referenced in the Findings Document (Page 9), the developer has agreed to provide a 150 -foot -wide conservation easement along Fish Creek. The goals and policies set forth as part of the Mississippi River Critical Area do not specifically call out a requirement for a conservation easement. The Findings Document (Page 14) summarizes each of these goals and policies and the proposed projects compatibility with them. Q: Traffic /noise consumed about 113 of the Planning Commission discussion. EAW noise /traffic statistics were based on a 1999 study. The Planning Commission did not feel that those issues were appropriately addressed because of the outdated data. The area where traffic was going is a concern. 80% of traffic going down Sterling is going to a failed intersection in another county (Washington.) Carver Avenue is not suitable for any load of traffic. It is a difficult area with no place for infrastructure improvements. The Planning Commission still feels that this needs to be addressed. A: The Findings Document (Page 28) presents the results of the revised traffic analysis. No additional mitigation measures are required based on the revised analysis. Q: No park land dedication. Where is the parkland money to be spent in south Maplewood? A: The Findings Document (Page 18) presents information pertaining to a process of recommending park dedication fees for the proposed project. The EAW /EIS is not the tool the city should use to explore the parkland issue. The time to review and explore the parkland and open space use and dedication question is when the city receives a revised development plan for the property. Q: Excavation of 217,000 cubic yards of soil is an issue. A: The excavation of 217,000 cubic yards of soil is not unusual for this type of residential development project - especially considering the size of the project site (about 72 acres). The disturbance of 217,000 cubic yards over 70 acres results in an average excavation depth of less than 2 feet. Q: Polluted soils are an issue (a former dump was referenced). The Planning Commission asked for additional information on that. A: The EAW (Item 9) presents a summary of past land uses on the project site, findings from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESAs), and commitment to complete Phase I ESAs where appropriate. The Findings Document (Page 6) provides a summary of findings /recommendations from the Phase 11 ESAs completed on the project. Q: Air quality on 1 -494, as well as the Sterling Avenue /Bailey intersection was raised. A: The air quality analysis section of the EAW (Item 22) indicates that given the projected traffic from the proposed development, there would be negligible air quality impacts. r:.%] Q: Visual effects to the area. (The developer has since addressed these issues by removing the condominiums.) A: The visual impacts associated with the proposed project (worst case) are addressed in Item 26 of the EAW. Additional visual mitigation is presented in the Findings Document (Page 29). Additionally, with the potential removal of the two condominium buildings on site, this would eliminate the concern about their visual impact. The project engineer also has revised the configuration of Henry Lane at Carver Avenue to reduce potential visual impacts to the property north of Carver Avenue (near the proposed intersection). Q: Impact on neighborhood - additional traffic, views, noise (tree loss), soil stabilization. A: See responses to questions above. Greg Copeland Q: If the City Council were to defer their decision tonight, is public comment at some future meeting precluded, or are we in the same situation where people can continue to bring forth information? I'm wondering if there's any constraint there. (The question was addressed to and answered by Jon Larsen of EQB.) A: Jon Larsen responded to this question at the meeting. The City Council could allow public comment at a future meeting if they desire, however, this would not legally be required. Q: Is this about a project or is this about a site? We haven't heard too much about the site as an independent entity. I'm trying to balance that out. A: The impact analysis not only evaluates specific on -site impacts (within the boundaries of the property) but also off -site impacts, where appropriate. More specifically, the traffic analysis is conducted on surrounding roadways, the noise analysis addresses impacts from off -site noise sources, and the water quality analysis addresses on -site improvements to improve both on and off -site water quality /runoff. Jim VonHaden (National Park Service) Q: There is no mention of XINRA in the EAW. A: That is a correct statement. The EAW evaluates the proposed project's compliance with the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCA), which is incorporated by reference into the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Plan. The Findings Document (Page 14) presents detailed information pertaining to the project's consistency with the specified goals and policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Mississippi Critical Area, page 24 of Comprehensive Plan). The boundaries of MNRRA are the same as that of the MRCA. As noted previously, staff evaluated the project assuming the entire project area was included in the MRCA (per the figure included in the Comprehensive Plan). :.I The following summarizes pertinent information pertaining to MNRRA (source: MNRRA website, Comprehensive Management Plan): • The Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP — the Plan) for MNRRA provides guidance for managing the corridor for the next ten to fifteen years. The Plan provides a policy framework for coordinating efforts to protect and interpret the nationally significant resources of the river corridor and for analyzing other federal, state and local plans and individual actions in the area. Except for the National Park Service (NPS) development, the Plan does not address site - specific issues. The Plan adopts and incorporates by reference the state Critical Area program, shoreland programs, and other state and regional land use management programs that implement the visions and concepts identified for the river corridor. • This plan does not create another layer of government, but rather stresses the use of existing authorities and agencies to accomplish the policies and actions developed for the area. • Local government will retain local control of land use decisions in the corridor, consistent with applicable state and regional land use management programs. • This Plan will not prevent new development or expansion of existing development in the corridor that is consistent with state and regional land use management programs. It is not a regulatory document and does not mandate actions by non -NPS entities. • The NPS and the commission do not have approval authority over local plans and ordinances, and they do not have authority to approve or deny project - specific land use decisions. • The MNRRA legislation specifies that NPS authority in the Code of Federal Regulations only applies to lands that the NPS owns. The developer has taken into account the requirements of the Critical Area (which are incorporated by reference into MNRRA). Hence, the findings from the Critical Area assessment would apply to MNRRA as well. The National Park Service was included on the Carver Crossing EAW distribution list. Q: Concerns for site Protecting steep slopes Preserving existing vegetation to greatest extent possible Preserving /enhancing wildlife habitat Protecting views of and from the river Protecting water quality The section on impacts on Critical Areas within the EAW should be a discussion of how well the EAW addresses those impacts. (The EAW does not explain how it will meet the necessary criteria.) A: Each of the items is addressed in the Findings Document (Page 13). 1, Will Rossbach Q: Does Maplewood have ordinances in place that enforce the critical plan for environmental protection? A: Yes, see response above to the information contained in the Findings Document. Mayor Lonrie Q: When 467 mature trees are removed and replaced with smaller, new trees does that have an impact on the absorption of water in that area? A: The EAW and updated information in the Findings Document (Page 26) indicates the proposed permanent dual - purpose basins (PDPBs) meet and exceed the City's infiltration volume requirements. As specified in the Findings Document, the required infiltration volume is 69,059 cubic feet, and the proposed PDPBs include an infiltration volume of 99,663 cubic feet. Additionally, as specified in the Findings Document (page 27), the stormwater system will result in a reduction in the runoff rate for the after conditions. Greg Copeland Q: 40 acres of the 70 acres in the proposed development are designated as part of the national park system. Why wasn't that mentioned in the EAW? A: See response to Jim Vonl4aden's comments /questions above. Irene Jones (Friends of the Mississippi) Q: When reviewing the EAW she noticed that a lot of potential environmental impacts were mentioned, but there were very few mitigation strategies. A: The EAW and Findings Document identify appropriate mitigation measures that will be further defined during subsequent permit and approval processes. Specific mitigation measures were referenced in the EAW/Findings Document in such areas as: • Soil contamination (Phase 11 ESA) • On -site wetland replacement • Tree Avoidance /Replacement Plan • Buffer Zone for "site of moderate biodiversity significance" • Utility improvements /extensions (water, sanitary, sewer) • Shoreland Zoning (50 foot setback) • Floodplains (received LOMA) • Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construction • Water Quality (PDPBs, Rainwater Gardens) • Removal of discharge into Fish Creek • Commitment to conduct geotechnical investigation at specific site locations I • Traffic mitigation measures • Noise mitigation measures • Park Dedication fees • Avoidance of potential cultural resource site • Visual screening (through landscaping plan and shifting of Henry Lane /Carver Avenue intersection) Erik Hielle Q: How does Fish Creek get into the Mississippi? What is the path? Does it go underground at points? In addition, if it is underground, then isn't the impact of the environment lessened? A: It was discussed at the June 12, 2006 council meeting that portions of Fish Creek are carried in a culvert pipe between the project site and the Mississippi. The developer has met with the Ramsey - Washington Watershed District. As noted in the Findings Document (Page 27), the stormwater plan was revised to reflect their request to remove the outlet into Fish Creek. The Findings Document (Page 27) presents information that the proposed stormwater system will result in a net reduction in the runoff rate for the after conditions. Additionally, the net effect of the proposed stormwater system will be to reduce phosphorus and total suspended solid discharges from the site. Will Rossbach Q: Do any of you people talking (environmental groups) have direct access to funds so that we can purchase the site? Because if we are not going to develop it, he is going to want us to pay for it. And so, how do we do that? A: Question noted. This issue is outside the environmental review process. As noted above, the time to discuss land purchases is when the city is reviewing specific development plans for the property. Mayor Lonuie Q: The EAW focuses on the impact to the environment on that piece of land. Should we be concerned about the impact on the land downstream? A: The potential impact of the project in terms of water quality has been assessed based on both local and regional requirements /impacts. Tom Dimond (Saint Paul resident) Q: There needs to be an amendment to the critical area plan portion of the city's Comprehensive Plan_ To do that requires DNR approval. I did not see that in the requirements of the EAW, as far as the listing of things that need to be done. rAA A: The Findings Document (permit and approval table, Page 31) includes the requirement for Mn /DNR approval. Q: Also, the bluffs and the setbacks have not been identified in this plan. Therefore, the impacts of the bluffs and setbacks have not been figured into the EAW. A: The definition of a bluff is defined in Maplewood City Code in Article IN - Shoreland Overlay District as: Bluff means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having all of the following characteristics (land with an average slope of less than 18% for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): 1) Part or all of the feature is in a shoreland; 2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high -water level; 3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high -water level averages 30 percent or greater; and 4) The slope must drain toward a public water. The area along Fish Creek is the only area that is in a shoreland overlay. Ramsey County owns much of that area as part of their open space. The proposed development has three areas along the south side of Fish Creek that are bluffs. There is one townhome in the proposed development that was located within the required 30 -foot setback from the top of one of the bluffs. The developer will need to adjust the location of this unit or remove it from the project plans before the start of construction if it cannot meet the required setback. The Findings Document identifies the developer's commitment to a 150 -foot conservation easement along Fish Creek. The land along Fish Creek is designated a shoreland zoning district. As specified in the Findings Document, the proposed development complies with the required 50 -foot shoreland zoning setback (including shoreland bluff lines). The proposed development would not impact Mississippi River bluffs that are directly adjacent the river. Kathy Juenemann Q: Can we not reach the goal of actually evaluating the sensitivity of where we are going to be with this project by extending our abilities to ask questions on the EAW? A: Yes, that would be an appropriate process. Questions raised at the June 12, 2006 City Council meeting are addressed in this document in effort to respond to specific questions either through reference to information contained in the EAW, Findings Document, or new /corrected information for the City Council to consider in making your environmental determination for this project. Q: Can we not achieve what we need to achieve by extending the scope of answering questions that grew out of this EAW and this discussion tonight without having to go to the EIS level? A: See response above. Q: What are we looking at doing with the EAW process without dismissing any of the environmental concerns? A: See response above. Q: We need to have the critical area piece thoroughly cleared up. What is it? Where is it? What does it mean to us? A: See responses above. Mayor Longrie Q: I don't see anything addressing the waterfowl or the birds and the impact on them. I know it talks about deer and raccoons, but I think we need to address the birds as well_ A: The bird species present on the site are also considered adaptable, in terms of transitioning or moving to nearby habitat of similar nature. There are significant areas of city and county open space in area (including the land adjacent to the south and west of the site) that provide habitat for birds and a wide variety of wildlife. As proposed, the project would impact only 0.2 acre of wetland out of a total of 7.3 acres, and as such, impact to waterfowl is anticipated to be minimal. Additionally, the proposed wetland mitigation would include 4.43 acre of wetland replacement to compensate for the 0.2 acre of impact. Q: There is an impact on thinking regionally, not just locally, when it comes to the impacts of development on this piece of property, since it is connected to so many water areas_ A: The impact analysis not only evaluates specific on -site impacts (with the boundaries of the property), but also off -site impacts, where appropriate. More specifically, the traffic analysis is conducted on surrounding roadways, the noise analysis addresses impacts from off -site noise sources, and the water quality analysis addresses on -site improvements to improve both on and off -site water quality /runoff. Q: Also concern about the stabilization of banks? A: As stated in the Findings Document (page 9), the developer has proposed to undertake restorative /stabilization work along the section of Fish Creek within the boundaries of the project area. •1 Kathy Juenemann Q: Does the EAW cover a specific site or a proposed development? Or is it both? A: The EAW addresses both the existing conditions on the project site and how the proposed development could affect those conditions. rill Page 1 of 5 P:AW0RKSyENG 1 ,REVIEWS \2005 Reviews \Carver Crossing (COP4R) Enuineerinsi Plan Review PROJECT: Carver Crossing of Maplewood PROJECT NO: 05 -07 REVIEWED BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Dept.) DATE: August 25, 2006 Attachment 19 The developer, COPAR Companies, is requesting City approval of a revised preliminary plat and plans for a new development south of Carver Avenue and west of I -494. The developer or project engineer shall make the changes to the plans and site as noted below and shall address the concerns listed below. The developer is proposing that Henry Lane (extending from Carver Avenue down to the proposed roundabout) and all utilities located within the new street be public infrastructure. It has generally been the city's policy to prepare the plans and specifications for public infrastructure and perform the construction inspection duties. In this case, the City is working with Kimley -Horn (engineering consultants) on all design within the proposed public right of way. It should be noted that city staff will closely observe all construction activities — especially the phasing of site grading and monitoring of erosion and sediment control measures. Drainage & Treatment According to the Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties, the proposed development site is composed mostly of Mahtomedi loamy sand which is very favorable to infiltration. Soils borings are proposed to be taken throughout the site as shown on Sheet C -4, which includes locations in all of the proposed treatment basins (Permanent Dual Purpose Basin, PDPB's) and at various locations along the proposed roads in the project development. The developer's engineer stated on 8123106 that the soil boring drilling rigs were currently at the site and that the results would be sent to the city engineering department once they have finalized the soils report. 2. The developer's engineer shall show on the project grading plans, maintenance access paths to each rainwater garden and infiltration basin. The paths shall have reasonable slopes and shall be reflected on the plat map to the satisfaction of the city. Note 17, under the erosion prevention and sediment control notes, on sheet C -4 shall identify Mn/DOT seed mix 310 NWT with an application rate of 82 lbs per acre to be applied at bottom and wet fringe areas of basins and gardens, while the Mn/DOT seed mix 350 NGR maybe applied on the side slope. The Mn/DOT 310 NWT seed mixture provides tall grass and deep roots which aid in infiltration and pollutant removal. The landscaping plan shall reflect the above seeding and rates unless directed otherwise by the city's naturalist. 4. All stormwater entering treatment basins shall have pre - treatment to reduce sediment loading. A 3' sump in (to catch sediment loading) a drainage structure within a street rAl Page 2 of 5 immediately upstream of a basin is an option. The project engineer shall detail this information in the storm sewer structure schedule once it is created. 5. Depending on the soils report, rock infiltration sumps at infiltration basins and gardens may not be warranted if soils are sandy and have excessive draining capabilities. The requirement of infiltration sumps in gardens and infiltration basins will be made by the city engineer once the necessary data is available. If rock sumps are required, they must conform to Maplewood Standard Plate No. 115. The contractor shall construct all infiltration basins and gardens to their final elevations last to avoid possible compaction of bottom area. 6. The developer's engineer provided calculations showing that the proposed infiltration basins and rainwater gardens exceed the stormwater treatment requirements by the city. The infiltration basins and gardens will capture and infiltrate up to a 2.5 -inch rainfall according to the provided HydoCAD model. The city currently requires the first 1 -inch of rainfall be captured and infiltrated to reduce pollutants such as total suspended solids and total phosphorus. Grading & Erosion Control 1. The contractor shall provide a double row of silt fencing (pre- fabricated and heavy -duty silt backup) at the construction limits along Fish Creek. The contractor shall have the engineer stake the location of the construction limits and there shall be no soil disturbance until the silt fencing is installed. 2. During grading activities, the developer's contractor shall remove the existing Henry Lane pavement and restore the area with a native general Mn/DOT seed mixture at a rate of no less than 70 lbs per acre. Roadways 1. The contractor shall grade the public roadway (Henry Lane) sub -grade to within a 0.2' tolerance. The city will require the developer's engineer to verify that the grading within the public right of way is within this tolerance. The city will detail this in the developer's agreement that the City of Maplewood prepares for the project. Utilities Submit plans to Mike Anderson at Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) located at 1900 Rice St, Maplewood (2nd Floor) for review and approval. The developer or developer's engineer shall provide documentation to the city from SPRWS to verify approval. 2. The developer or developer's engineer shall provide information on the condition of the existing 12" reinforced concrete pipe extending to Fish Creek from the existing wetland (Outlot A). rya Page 3 of 5 Kimley -Horn (the city's consultant) shall review all utility design (storm and sanitary sewer) that connect into public utilities within the public roadway. The developer's engineer and contractor shall coordinate the design and connection of all utilities on the private roads to ensure they area correctly connected into the public utilities within the public right of way. The contractor shall make such connections to the satisfaction of the City and Kimley -Horn. 4. The project engineer has designed the project so there no longer is a need for a sanitary sewer lift station. All sanitary sewer waste from the proposed development will tie in to the existing sanitary sewer stub near the end of the temporary cul -de -sac on Heights Avenue (south end of Dorland Road). For a preliminary sanitary sewer capacity analysis, it is assumed that the proposed development would have a population of approximately 554 persons (2.9 persons per unit) and each person uses an average of 100 gallons per day. The total flow, including a peaking factor of 4, would result in a flow of 0.343 cubic feet per second; which is about 44% of the total capacity of the sewer pipe. Thus, the existing 8" gravity sewer pipe (in Dorland Road and Heights Avenue) has sufficient capacity for this development. 5. It will be practical for the city to take a pro - active approach to sanitary sewer planning in this part of Maplewood by extending a sanitary sewer stub under I -494 to the east as part of the public improvements for this project. There is capacity available in the existing gravity sewer pipe and doing the installation with this project would prevent the ripping up of the newly constructed public street (Henry Lane) in the future. 6. Outlot D must be changed to a public roadway because the sanitary sewer line will be located in this street, and will be connecting into the existing public sanitary sewer stub located in Heights Avenue. Also, a 20 -foot wide utility easement shall be shown over the centerline of the proposed sanitary sewer from Outlot D to the existing stub location. 7. It should be noted that the City's 2003 Comprehensive Sewer Plan identified sanitary sewer as being readily available to the proposed development site. In 1987, when public utilities were placed in Dorland Road and in Heights Avenue (with temporary cul -de- sac), the city had the contractor install a sanitary sewer stub to the east for use in future development. These documents and improvements substantiate that for the past 19 years, the City has identified that public sewer is readily available to this parcel and is included in approved documents by the Council. ►fT,I IF.ffO&W All retaining walls greater than 4 -feet in height will require a building permit and shall include a fence at the top of wall. The contractor or the project engineer shall provide more detailed information about the walls and their construction at the time of requesting a building permit. r1c3 Page 4 of 5 2. Plan and profile sheets showing street grade and utility locations will be required prior to issuance of a grading permit. The storm sewer structure schedule must be completed and shall include inverts, slopes, RIM elevations, type of pipe, and length. 3. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 4. The developer shall implement a homeowners association as part of this development 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. 5. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the gardens, basins, and sumps. 6. The developer shall dedicate on the plat a drainage easement for the location of the PDPB's accepting runoff from the public road (Henry Lane). A maintenance access easement extending from the public right of way to the PDPB's shall also be dedicated. 7. The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the city that details the requirements of the public improvements. S. Developer is required to obtain all permits and approvals required for the wetland mitigation plan. 9. The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. 10. According to as -built drawings for the Carver Heights development (1987), the dead end street on Heights Avenue was built as a temporary cul -de -sac with extension of the road anticipated for the future. Since the proposed development will prevent the extension of Heights Avenue as a public street, the city should require the developer to make the existing temporary cul -de -sac a permanent cul -de -sac. This includes reconstructing the street, adding concrete curb and gutter and possibly making storm water and drainage improvements. The contractor would make these improvements as part of the public improvements for the new development. The city will assess all the associated costs for such improvements to the developer. 11. The existing Henry Lane alignment at Carver Avenue was found within the traffic study to be a potential traffic issue with any level of new development. The original location provided the possibility that headlight glare would be directed into the existing home on the north side of Carver Avenue. The new development ingress /egress will be placed on a relocated Henry Lane that has been revised to address concerns of head light glare and as a result will also increase sight distance at the intersection. It is staffs opinion that the rlI Page 5 of 5 latest re- alignment is an improvement and that it has addressed the neighbors concern regarding head light glare. 12. The city had an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for this site for a development with 299 units. The city followed the EAW process and the City Council found that there were not sufficient documented impacts from the proposed development to warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement {EIS). The findings of the EAW must be incorporated into the final requirements of the development. Attached is a letter from Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., the firm that prepared the EAW. They have concluded that the revised plan does not have any additional significant impacts on the environment and that the latest development proposal (with 191 units) is consistent with the adopted EAW document. rR , ��� � � � ,� � / ©2 � N��# 4 S MT R- Charles Ahl, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer \<,<w4£- 9 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: C Companies Revised Carver Crossing Development Plan Submittal City Project 05-07 Viol 4H kVdw August 23, 2006 Page 2 of 2 to the overall benefits of the revised plan. '44 c U 'I C All' a7c Ity qTWrIons UTIVIT c additional information. mmm 0 OCI. Jeanne Witzi ey-Ho V m File 16050001�.2�12.0 m Page I of 2 Attachment 21 M 111 , J) I Th-% e all n ns v, e a- 2 dkcus�, ed E�'Clow are d1c. C0111111011tq we hav,- 'n the nc\� Car QJ' GFOS�Sifl� S-LIbIll tli'11� 1 are S I m� Q am probicuns -,% ith thk:111, arc schcduh:d I'm our Scptcinhct 6 St (h t[win prel ullsl �o I don * t th nk they I - Niccuk'W'.. Let nl� knox\ If NOU ha�Q any que�tion�� T' Ill a From: Tina Carstens Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:52 AM To: 'George Abernathy'; 'Kurt Schneider' Subject. Comments on Carver Crossing Development 5. Normal water levels and high water levels of all ponds and wetland shall be shown on a plan with the low floors of all surrounding homes to verify tire 2 foot firceboard requirement is being met. I # 7, Plans shall idcntif�! District access locations, If possible, a favorable location for access would be between lots 34 and 35 if those homes were able to be shifted to allow at least 25 feet of access. 8, Emergency ovcrflow swales shall be installed a(the overflom point of each catch basin or curblie located at a I point, Overflows shall also be installed from one basin to the next. The swales shall extend to the normal witer level of the downstream water body or at a point where the downstream ground slope is one percent or flatter. T swale shall be a minimum of ten feet wide and one foot deep and be lined completely with a permanent soil stabilization material. A detail of the swale shall be shown on a revised set of plans, I 8/25/2006 78 Page 2 of 2 10, A copy of an executed and recorded maintenance agreement for the stormwater management practices on the site shall be submitted to the District. Again, let me know if you have any questions, Tina Carstens 8/25/2006 79 Attachment 22 T r4TIONE23411dum From: Lieutenant Michael Shortreed ijijf4WV7-7 - .- ME Attachment 23 Department of Public Works mw K('11"Iclh GT. Ihidor, F afid co:A[ 112 patil KxoA Drivo A Hflls. (6, I ) 266' 7 100 * < 2(;G711() E-n ,;Is MEMORANDUM DATE: Auvu824, The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the revised preliminary plat and site plan for a new residential development in south Maplewood proposed by Copar Companies. The County previously reviewed and EAW for this prqject and made comments in ?22 » : < Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this revised development. 0 It, 1, The proposed construction now consists of 191 detached townhame units. This is a reduction Rom the original proposal 0£ 386 housing units and Sc EAW proposal of 299 senior (55+) housing units, I ?< »2 « tudy that was part of the EAW identified a trip generation of 12 trips per day for the 299 unit senior housme. The new proposal has over a hundred less » < » » not restricted to seniors. I would expect a trip generation of about 8 trips/unit or 8 x 191 1528 trips. This is not a relatively high number of trips for such a large development, t 0 H Minnesota's First Rome Rule County ........... 4. The County concurs with the recommendation to construct a right turn lane on westbound Carver Avenue at McKnight Road, 5. The recommended improvements on Carver Avenue will require plan approval from Ramsey v The developer will be required to obtain a right of way permit foi construction on County ri ght of way. I tn 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. Cc: Chuck AN — City of Maplewood M� Linda & Terry Baumgart 2445 Carver Ave Maplewood, MN 55119 Home #651-731-9664 III U=a?—U?j 1 11 Maplewood: Ken Roberts, Copar Development, Maplewood Planning Commission, Maplewood City Council 01-mm ''1 111111111011 i I i i'llill � ffl 11 2m , NE� This will be a short letter since you have all seen our previous concerns about the density and the realignment of Henry Lane. We can see that the developer is making an effort to satisfy and address some of the problems that have come up during the review process. ITS' 1111111 a MIMBID9914 owl I UIL11 I I IT I aCCOMPIUSUIVA IN 10 PUL HIC loau If neignuot R nu Oul T"T"'OR very comfortable with this plan either. We still do not see a reason the existing road cannot be utilized in this development, this scenario was never mentioned in the EAW except that the new alignment would improve site distance, Strange the road has been there for how many years (30-40)? Well you see our point. (stop sign) justified if you look at public safety issue. L1611 Now the short part : We still believe the density is too high. The only area this development blends in with is the Carver Heights area, The isolated homes (as they are referred to in Copar's letter) are just homes on larger lots and that is what people like about this part of South Maplewood. Thanks for your time: 6MI (2445 Carver Avenue) HI Attachment 25 To: Kenneth Roberts & Planning Commission August 24` 2006 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN. 55109 Re: Comments Neighborhood Survey — South Crossing General Comment — Neiuhborhood Survey: I must express my grave disappointed with the limited distribution of this neighborhood survey. Apparently, the strongly stated request by the Planning Commission to expand the scope of any future mailings relating to Carver Crossing fell on deaf ears. This is not a simple request for a variance. It is a proposal whose outcome will have a profound effect on current and future South Maplewood development as well as its residents. I now realize why the city so often finds itself in such an antagonistic position with local residents. It simply fails to engage and inform those residents who are close, yet indirectly affected by development plans. I'm sure someone from some department will stand up and proclaim that the letter of the law was followed as it relates to providing notification. In short, they will make excuses for not engaging surrounding residents that most certainly would be impacted by a project of this magnitude. The city needs to step back and realize that at the end of the day they are the ones that shoulder the responsibility to inform. This is a major project with a minimal mailing notification. At the very least, the city should have included those residents who successfully petitioned the city just a few short years ago to place a moratorium on development in South Maplewood. Perhaps there is concern that those voices would sound off loud and clear yet once again. Furthermore, I could find no trace of the revised project on the City website as of August 24, 2006, nor did I receive any automated email updates on the Carver Crossing project. All in spite of the fact that I am a subscriber. All of the above said. I do wish to commend the current City Council for taking many significant first steps to improve communications and engage the residents of Maplewood. These actions have not gone unnoticed but there is still much work to be done. Site Background: CoPar Development states: "Among the many valuable pieces of information gleaned from the E.A.W. site research and findings it has been determined that the entire site can be reasonably developed without a potential for significant environmental effects." 1381 An E.A.W. by its sheer nature is valid only as it applies to a specific development proposal. Without a clearly defined proposal (which has just been submitted) it is impossible to accurately accesses environmental impact. Any statement to the effect that the initial E.A.W. represents "Best" or "Worst" case scenarios is not reflective of sound judgment, common sense or scientific fact. It is instead pure, unadulterated, rhetoric. If CoPar wishes to tout the E.A.W. as an end all, I would urge the City to have CoPar resubmit the "new revised proposal" to the litmus test of another E.A.W. In fact given the significant changes to the proposal I believe another E.A.W. is warranted. City Land Use Plan: CoPar Development continues to state that the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the entire site as a Single Dwelling (R -1) development area eligible for development at a density of 4.1 homes per acre. What CoPar Development fails to state is that in December of 2002 the ON of Maplewood adopted a one ,near moratorium on development in South Maplewood as a result of three separate petitions by South Maplewood residents The net result of the moratorium and subsequent study was the creation by the City of Maplewood in 2003 of a Rural Residential Zoning classification or R1 -R. A significant portion of the property is currently zoned RI -R at a density of one home per two acres Furthermore this property was not optioned for purchase based on the obtainment of a change in zoning as is a common practice with developers; instead, it was purchased outright by CoPar with the fidll knowled e of the current RI -R & p'arin zoning restrictions It is important to understand that CoPar can freely develop this property within its current zoning at any time. Instead, CoPar appears to be attempting to hold the city hostage by leveraging a discrepancy between Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning on this property. Perhaps the cite should explore amending the cities Comprehensive Plata to match the current zoning It is my understanding that the City of Maplewood is fully Compliant with the Metropolitans Council's development guidelines (a fact the City should be most proud of) and it is under no legal obligation to change the current zoning. I would request that the City of Maplewood issue a directive to the Planning Commission to carefully study South Maplewood and develop a master plan that would reflect the best interests of it current and future residents as this plan most certainly does not. PUD Development Overview The reduction in development density to 191 units appears to be centered on the elimination of two (2) condominium residences (117 units) from CoPar's last proposal which was rejected by the Planning Commission. If memory serves me correctly, it would have taken a 4 to 1 vote to ratify the cities current Comprehensive Plan to construct the condominiums. In light of this, I tend to view the reduction in density not as a developer being more sensitive or cooperative, but as a developer adopting a more realistic view. Storm water Management Even with the reduction of 117 units I do not believe the footprint of the development is smaller or less invasive. If anything, by CoPar's own admittance, it appears to be substantially more invasive than the previous plan. As way of example it is calling for an increase in estimated earthwork from 217,000 yards to 290,000 yards. It then tries to convince us that and I quote: "As was concluded in the E.A.W. the amount of earthwork associated with this project is not unusual when considering the size of the property. It is reasonable to make the same conclusion with this revised earthwork and storm water plan" I beg to differ. No one can reasonably draw the same conchdsion without another E.A. W. Once again, more marketing driven rhetoric. Show me the scientific data to support their claims. Park Dedication I have always been a strong advocate of increasing the Park & Recreational offering in South Maplewood. It would appear that CoPar has presented two options. I am concerned over the following: It has been brought to my attention that CoPar adopted a very non - traditional approach having presented these two options {Cash vs. Land) to the Department of Park & Recreations well before the current plan was formalizing and submitted to the city. I believe the term used was "fronting" the concept. Frankly, this concerns me. When this kind of money is being placed on the table it should always follow a very clean and straight forward process. I also would like to have the city prepare a cost analysis projecting the net cost to the city over say 5, 10 & 20 years for both options. Landscape, Wetlands, Noise As I have stated previously. Given the significant amount of change presented in this revised plan it warrants another E.A.W. review. Even the scope of the project has changed from a Senior Development to individual town homes. Public Utilities & Roads I agree with CoPar Development's stance that the extension of utility connection points east under Interstate 494 should not be included in any way with this project. The city does not need to expend precious tax dollars to supplement possible future development E:�1 east of Interstate 494. Those projects, if and when they come to light, need to be evaluated on their individual merit and absorb the direct costs to any development without subsidies at the expense of Maplewood tax payers. Traffic Once again the perception I get is that because the failed intersections of Sterling/Bailey and Carver /Point Douglas fall out side of the city boundaries it's just not our problem. Almost a see no evil, hear no evil; speak no evil approach to traffic management. The traffic issue is not going to crawl under a rock, it needs to be addressed and a plan needs to be set forth. With the exception of a couple token turn lanes nothing has been really dealt with. Fish Creek, Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor: I will be submitting additional comments in the near future on these two very important areas. I am also keenly aware that several environmental groups are monitoring these highly controversial topics. Conclusion I'm not really sure there is a conclusion to be reached here. I don't believe anyone is against COPar developing this area within the current zoning density of Rl -R (one home per two acres). After all an estimated 36 sites at 350K each translates into $12.6 million dollars. Yet CoPar does not appear to be satisfied with what they bought. I also question why any developer would have paid so much money outright without first having some assurance that their larger scale project would be green lighted. A question I have been wrestling with for some time. Respectfully Submitted; Mark J. Bonitz E:�:3 Page I of I Attachment 26 0 I'Mroll From- Kathy Urban [k.a_urban@yahoo.com) Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:26 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing Kathy & Rick Urban Yahooc Ness en� er with Voice. %Makke PC-to-H Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 20 /min or less. 8024/2006 89 Carver Crossing Page I of I Attachment 27 E: . - Tol From: Telin, Peggy [Peggy.Telin@CO-RAMSEY.MN.US) Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 3:28 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Carver Crossing 0 A-1111 If, on page 9, the new homes will be available to "all qualified buyers" that Gould possibly mean drivers of all ages will be using the new road- The population could be as many as 554. They would be coming and going at all hours. That would mean headlights and noise at all hours. about the traffic noise. If Henry Lane MUST be moved from its present location, to directly across from our property, we would reasonably expect a sound and light barrier to be put on our property, 812512006 90 Attachment 28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Kurt Schneider, representing CoPar Companies, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the area south of Carver Avenue and west of 1 -494. WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the properties are: Commitment No. 242035 The West One -half (1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty -four (24), Township Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22), lying Westerly of the Westerly right -of -way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota; Except the North 150 feet of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty -four (24), Township Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22) lying Westerly of the Westerly right -of -way line of State Trunk Highway 494; And also except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE 1/4 SW 1/4), Section 24, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 24 and the Westerly Right -of -Way line of T.H. #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right -of- Way line of T.H. #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right -of -Way line of T.H. #393 a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right -of -Way line of said T.H. #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right -of -Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right -of -Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said SW 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. And the West 974.9 feet of the Southeast Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty -Eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22), except the North Five Hundred feet (500 ft.) thereof, all lying Westerly of the Westerly Right -of -Way line of State Trunk Highway 494, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty -four (24), Township Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota; except that part taken by County of Ramsey in Final Certificates filed as Document No.'s 2254933 and 2256730. PARCEL B: That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: 021 Commencing at the intersection point of the North line of the Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and the Westerly Right -of -Way line of Trunk Highway #393; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly Right - of -Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 223.75 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be herein described; thence continuing Southwesterly along said Westerly Right -of -Way line of Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 200 feet, to an angle point in said Right -of -Way line; thence deflecting Southwesterly 59 degrees 14 minutes to the right, continuing along the Right -of -Way line of said Trunk Highway #393, a distance of 195.51 feet, to another angle point in the said Right -of -Way line; thence Northeasterly, along a line drawn parallel to and 168 feet Northwesterly of the said Westerly Right -of -Way line, as measured at right angles, a distance of 246.49 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel to the North line of said Southwest 1/4, Section 24 and Westerly from the actual point of beginning; thence East along said parallel line, a distance of 176.32 feet, more or less, to the actual point of beginning. PARCEL C: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty -four (24), Township Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -two (22), Ramsey County, Minnesota. Commitment No. 240565 PARCEL D: The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with an easement over that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24 and the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 24; being 33.00 feet either side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 49 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the North line thereof a distance of 33.00 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence Northeasterly on a non - tangential curve concave to the Southeast having a chord bearing of North 33 degrees 43 minutes 49 seconds East with a radius of 120.00 feet, central angle of 67 degrees, 28 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 141.37 feet; thence North 67 degrees, 28 minutes 49 seconds East; tangent to last described curve a distance of 217.69 feet, more or less, to the Right of Way of Inter -State Highway No. 494 and there terminating. Commitment No. 249737 PARCEL E: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE 1/4 of NW 1/4) of Section 24, Township 28 Range 22, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (N. line SE 1 /4 of NW 1/4) of Section Twenty four (24), Township Twenty eight (28), Range Twenty two (22), a distance of 325.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof thence West along said North line a distance of 975.93 feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 24 (NW corner SE 1/4 of NW 1/4); thence Southerly, along the West line of said Quarter - Quarter section line, a distance of Five Hundred (500) feet; thence East, and parallel with the North line, a distance of 974.93 feet; thence Northerly Five Hundred (500) feet to the point of beginning; except the East 150 feet of the North 290.4 feet and except the West 110 feet of the North 396 feet, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 2410 Carver Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota Abstract Property, Ramsey County Commitment No. 242032 PARCEL F: The Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, according to the government survey thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota 1501 Henry Lane S Maplewood, Minnesota 55119 Abstract Property, Ramsey County All in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (The property to be known as Carver Crossing of Maplewood) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 6, 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 deny the conditional use permit. 2. On September 25, 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: 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. ICU 0'X3 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 plans date - stamped August 8, 2006 except where the city requires changes. These plans include not having a public street connection from the new development to Heights Avenue and only having emergency vehicle and trail access from the new development to Heights Avenue. The changes to the plans shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) 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 standards and the engineering department requirements. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the vegetation and large trees. (3) All the changes required by the city engineer and by the watershed district. (4) A tot lot within the development. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall 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 Michael Thompson's memo dated August 25, 2006, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation /replacement, and parking plans. The cul -de -sac bulbs shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: 31 94 (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. (2) Clearly labeled public streets and private driveways on the plans. (3) Clearly labeled proof of parking spaces that would have a "green surface" or another environmentally friendly design (rather than a bituminous surface). 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off -site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 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 remaining debris, junk, fencing or fill from the site. d. Provide the city with verification that all the units or town houses on the proposed site plan will meet the state's noise standards. This shall be with a study, testing or other documentation. For any units that are within the 65- decibel noise contour, the contractor will have to build the units or 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 Carver Crossing of Maplewood PUD shall be: a. Front -yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front -yard setback (public side street): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - none c. Rear -yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line. d. Side -yard setback (town houses): 20 feet minimum between buildings. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 1 2006 32 95 Attachment 29 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, CoPar Companies applied to the city for the vacation of the following- described parts of a public right -of -way and the following easements: LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF HENRY LANE That part of Henry Lane turned back to the City of Maplewood per Document Number 1843272 and according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of Way Plat No. 62 -19, Document Number 352354 and Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of Way Plat No. 62 -20, Document Number 3548682, and that part of Legislative Trunk Highway 393, currently known as Trunk Highway 494 as described in Final Certificate, Document Number 1565350, all filed in the office of County Recorder, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 22; thence South 89 degrees 01 minutes 24 seconds West 607.01 feet on an assumed bearing along the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 52 minutes 01 seconds East 238.73 feet; thence easterly 169.04 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 184.00 feet and a central angle of 52 degrees 38 minutes 12 seconds; thence South 53 degrees 30 minutes 13 seconds East 42.60 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence southeasterly, southerly and southwesterly 152.16 feet along a tangential curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 120.00 feet and a central angle of 72 degrees 38 minutes 56 seconds; thence southwesterly 283.33 feet along a reverse curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 7,800.93 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 04 minutes 51 seconds; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 520.45 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A and said line there terminating; Together with that part of said Henry Lane lying westerly, northwesterly and southeasterly of the following 60.00 foot strip. Said strip lies 30.00 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Commencing at the hereinbefore described Point A; thence continuing South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 157.55 feet; thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 36 seconds East 31.51 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence South 17 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds West 194.51 feet; thence southerly and southwesterly 218.59 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 200.00 feet and a central angle of 62 degrees 37 minutes 19 seconds; thence, South 79 degrees 41 minutes 11 seconds West 236.08 feet and said centerline there terminating. Easements and Right -of -ways to be Vacated: 1. A 30 -foot -wide drainage and utility easement as defined in Document No. 2499330 2. The drainage easement as defined in Document No. 2499331. 3. A 60 -foot -wide driveway easement as defined in Document No. 2060364. 4. A 66 -foot -wide roadway and utility easement as defined in Document No. 2060365. 5. The Henry Lane right -of -way per MN DOT right -of -way Plat No. 62 -19. 6. The Henry Lane right -of -way per MN DOT right -of -way Plat No. 62 -20. 33 0'Z:. All in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows: On September 6, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council deny the proposed vacations. 2. On September 25, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting properties: 2410 Carver Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 24- 28 -22 -24 -0010 2. 1481 Henry Lane Maplewood, Minnesota PIN: 24- 28 -22 -31 -0017 3. 1461 Henry Lane Maplewood, Minnesota PIN 24- 28 -22 -31 -0002 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above - described right -of -way and easement vacations for the following reasons: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the developer do not need or use the existing easements or right -of -ways for their original purposes. 3. The existing easements and right -of -ways conflict with the proposed street and lot layout. 4. The developer will be dedicating new easements and right -of -ways with the final plat. These vacations are subject to the property owner or developer granting to the city new drainage and utility easements and right -of -ways over parts of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 1 2006. 14A MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Vice - Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present at 7:06 p.m. Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts Planner Chuck Ahl Public Works Director Staff Absent Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary V. PUBLIC HEARING Carver Crossing (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) (7:06 — 9:50 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Tom Hansen, representing CoPar Companies, submitted revised plans to the city for a housing development called Carver Crossing. He prepared a site plan that shows 191 detached town houses. This latest plan replaces the earlier plan that showed 299 housing units in three different types of housing for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about 73 acres of land that is south of Carver Avenue and west of Henry Lane known as the Schlomka property. A homeowner's association would own and maintain the common areas. Mr. Hansen has not yet applied for design approval for this latest proposal. He will do so (including the architectural, final landscape, and lighting plans) for the site and buildings after the city council acts on his current requests. However, based on comments from the applicant and the city's experiences with other town house projects, staff expects each town house to have horizontal -lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and brick or stone veneer accents near the doors. In addition, each town house would have a two -car garage. Mr. Roberts said the applicant has prepared a 15 minute power point presentation and following that the planning commission can ask questions and open the hearing up to the public. Acting Chairperson Desai asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. Kurt Schneider, CoPar Development, addressed the commission. He said the intent is to give the planning commission an overview of the project because there is a tremendous amount of detail associated with this project which is in the staff report already so he isn't going to repeat the review of everything again. He said the power point presentation should answer some of the planning commission's questions. Mr. Clark Wicklund, Alliant Engineering, addressed the commission. Mr. Wicklund went through some of the sewer and water connection issues in his presentation. Commissioner Hess said it appears that the garage finish floor for lot 31 and 45 have a difference of about 32 feet vertically and it appears there's a fairly short distance between those lots. He said he didn't see any indication there is a retaining wall there. Mr. Schneider said any area on the property that would require a retaining wall has already been indicated on the plans so if it is not shown on the plan then a retaining wall is probably not required there. He asked if the public could address their questions and he would write them down and address all the questions at once rather than individually. Commissioner Dierich said the planning commission has heard several public hearings already regarding this property and she would like to reserve the discussion for the planning commission to ask questions of the developer. Acting Chairperson Desai asked what the proper protocol was since this was a public hearing? Mr. Roberts said this is a public hearing and because this is a new application the planning commission is required to open up the hearing for discussion. Mr. Roberts helped answer Commissioner Hess's question regarding the height difference of the garage floors by pointing out what the developer was referring to on the plans. Commissioner Yarwood said he was disappointed the previous city council allowed the developer to go this far with a relatively high density plan. He doesn't think that was fair to the developer. He was also disappointed that the comprehensive plan didn't show more thought in what would be appropriate for this area because he doesn't think this proposal was appropriate in this area. With the R -1 designation he thinks the developer has the reasonable expectation to develop this property under the R -1 guidance. The R -1 zoning doesn't obligate the city to approve a PUD with lot sizes less than 10,000 square feet. He has yet to see or hear any evidence why the lots can't be the standard 10,000 square foot size. Looking at the existing plat for instance, he asked why can't the streets and grading remain the same but the lots be combined 3 to 2 or 2 to 1 to allow a larger lot size or larger or more expensive house to be built to allow for 10,000 square foot lots. He can appreciate the shorter setbacks so there is less grading required on the site. He said he's trying to understand given the layout, why the lot sizes can't be larger to fall within what the R -1 designation normally requires? Mr. Schneider said the density proposed for this project is within a reasonable range of what a standard residential neighborhood would be with 2.6 to 2.9 units per acre. This is contained within the critical area ordinance regulations. There is a minimal density requirement in the critical area within the ordinances of the city whether it is for multiple dwelling, single dwelling or a PUD; there is also a density range that this property can't fall below according to that criteria. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Commissioner Yarwood said there is the legal definition of density and then there is an effective definition of density, and only part of the land is developable. What you have for effective density is higher than 2.6 to 2.9 units per acre. The feel of the project is closer to 4 units per acre. What he is hoping to see is a project that fits in as well as possible with the surrounding feel of south Maplewood. He asked staff what the obligation is in terms of density and why this proposal can't have 10,000 square foot lot sizes in this R -1 designation? Mr. Roberts said staff isn't sure what is outlined in the comprehensive plan and what is outlined in the proposal, he doesn't know if the city can require more or less density. It's consistent with the standards of the comprehensive plan that the city has right now and that is what the developer has been working from for the last 1 1 /2 years. The earlier proposal needed a comprehensive plan amendment. The city can get into a sticky wicket if they want to try to change the comprehensive plan standards and expectations midstream without going through a whole amendment process. Staff is not seeing anything with this proposal that the city can hang their hats on to say that it isn't consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Yarwood said he is asking if the city code requires an R -1 designation that the lot size be 10,000 square feet or greater. He is not asking that we meet a certain density requirement he is asking why the lot size can't be that large? Mr. Roberts said if we are talking about the zoning code, yes it does, but it doesn't require that in the comprehensive plan, it only talks about the overall project density, not about minimum lot size. Commissioner Trippler said he has struggled with this project ever since it was first proposed. It struck him the way this project has been presented from day one regarding what the comprehensive plan says about this property. He said he has been on the planning commission for over 10 years and the typical way projects are presented is that the planning commission gets a copy of the land use plan, a copy of the zoning plan, and sometimes there is discussion that if the zoning map doesn't match with the comprehensive plan then there is discussion. This project really doesn't talk about the zoning map. We hear about R -1(R) zoning as an afterthought but we constantly hear about the comprehensive plan as R -1. He asked before whether R -1(R) was in the comprehensive plan and was told that R -1(R) did not exist when the comprehensive plan was last revised so it couldn't be in there. He can't understand why this project seems to be presented in a different manner compared to most of the other projects the commission has reviewed. The property on the south side is zoned R -1(R) and requires a PUD in order to get that rezoned to R -1 or whatever they want it to be. Mr. Roberts said correct. The PUD becomes the zoning. Commissioner Trippler said we are not just "disregarding" the zoning map. The developer is asking for a change to the zoning map, they just don't want to talk about the zoning map. Mr. Roberts deferred that question to the developer. Commissioner Trippler asked the developer if he knew the property was zoned R -1(R) when they bought the property? Mr. Schneider said he didn't work for CoPar when the property was purchased but he assumed they knew that. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Commissioner Trippler asked if they purchased the property within the last eight years? Mr. Schneider said yes. Commissioner Trippler said then you should have known the property was zoned R-1 (R). Mr. Schneider said the relationship between those two documents and planning and zoning documents like that in the hierarchy of planning documents, the comprehensive plan is the "vision" plan and is at the top of the discretionary decisions that a city makes in terms of how land is guided. The zoning map should then follow the comprehensive plan and so forth. The comprehensive plan designation for this property is R -1. R -1(R) is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan designation and the conclusion that he made is the closest correlation between R -1(R) is the residential estate 20,000 and the residential estate 40,000 for large lot residential rural subdivision. Maplewood's comprehensive plan doesn't designate this property as residential estate as a large lot rural subdivision location. The zoning contradicts that. Planning professionals would tell you that the "comprehensive plan" is the ruling document. He would recommend Maplewood change their comprehensive plan because that is the most discretionary decision the city can make. We are not asking the city to change the comprehensive plan; we are asking the city to change the zoning of this property via a PUD in a manner that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. As the developer we are asking Maplewood to fix your zoning. Although the zoning says R -1(R) in accordance with your comprehensive plan, it isn't appropriate. Commissioner Trippler said it was his intention when the planning commission started working on the revisions of the comprehensive plan that the commission would be rezoning this whole stretch of south Maplewood so it would comply with R -1(R) characteristics. If he recalled correctly the discussion that occurred after the last comprehensive plan was approved was that the commission had numerous discussions regarding the need to develop this property as R -1(R) because of the characteristics, the soil conditions and whether or not it could withstand public sanitary sewers or not. The estate designation was put forth for different reasons. His understanding was that the intent was to rezone or restructure the comprehensive plan in the next go around so that the south leg of Maplewood would have the larger estate type properties. Commissioner Dierich said Gary Pearson, Dale Trippler and herself were on the planning commission when the decision was to have the R -1(R) zoning. In fact she was the person who initiated the moratorium so these issues could be studied. We studied this for 1 year and came to the conclusion that 1. the characteristics of this neighborhood made it such that putting in any other zoning was not feasible and not just because of the septic system issue as Lorraine Fischer would lead the commission to believe, it was also because of the character of the neighborhood and because of the infrastructure on the street and the issues of the neighborhood wanting to be a rural area. There were extensive hearings on this ordinance and the planning commission decided what they preferred to do. So this plan is actually deviating from the comprehensive plan because the planning commission wasn't able to update the comprehensive plan yet. So Commissioner Trippler is correct in what he said about the zoning. She said she would like to know what the difference between the density number that is allowed under the present comprehensive plan and the density number that is allowed under the present zoning. Not looking at a PUD, what would we allow so that the audience can understand what the difference is between what is being "proposed ", what the "vision" is, and what actually "exists" at this point. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. Roberts said the land use plan is part of the comprehensive plan. The property is guided R -1 which is for single family dwellings up to 4.6 units per gross acre. He then reviewed the zoning map and surrounding properties and the units per gross acre. He said this site could have 50 to 70 units with the current zoning verses the 191 units that are currently proposed. Commissioner Dierich asked what the process was for asking for a zoning change. She asked if the developer came to the planning commission asking for R -1 zoning for this property, what would the process been? Mr. Roberts said it would have been a similar process to what's happening this evening. This would have to be decided by the city council. For a zoning map change it would require 3 votes of approval by the city council and for a comprehensive plan change it would require 4 votes of approval from the city council. Commissioner Dierich asked if there would have been a comprehensive plan change and a zoning change or would it just be a zoning change? Mr. Roberts said that would depend on what type of development the developer would be proposing. Commissioner Dierich asked if a larger portion of Maplewood would have been notified of a zoning change for this area of south Maplewood? Mr. Roberts said no, just the standard notification rule within 500 feet of the proposed area unless staff decided to expand the notification area. Commissioner Pearson said even with the R -1 zoning you can argue back and forth about R -1 or R -1 (R) zoning but under R -1 zoning most of these lots would not meet the 10,000 square feet lot size or R -1 (S) for small lots which was meant to bridge commercial to residential. These are very small lots and they do not in any shape, way, or form, meet the 10,000 square foot size. The lots run from 5,800 square feet to 6,500 square feet on average which doesn't meet R -1 zoning requirements. Commissioner Hess said on page 23, item number 2., under the Findings for Rezoning it states 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. When he looks at the cul -de- sac currently at Dorland Road and the proposed road from the development tying into this that would "substantially" impact the Dorland Road neighborhood. Mr. Roberts said the developer is not proposing a zoning map change so the findings for rezoning are not relevant to this request they are in the report for reference. The developer is not proposing a direct road connection to Heights Avenue; it would only be a trail to be used by pedestrians, bicyclists, or for emergency vehicles. The street access would be from Henry Lane and Carver Avenue. Acting Chairperson Desai said the developer said there is no difference between a single family dwelling and a detached townhome but in the zoning change requirements there is a difference for what is allowed for a townhome verses a single family home. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. Roberts said many townhome developments have R -3 zoning which is for multiple family dwellings and with the multiple family dwellings there is no minimum lot size, it only refers to overall project density, which refers to the comprehensive plan. There are minimum lot sizes for single family dwellings and for twin homes. The minimum for a single family dwelling is 10,000 square feet and a twin homes which has two units has a requirement of 12,000 square feet or 6,000 square feet per unit. Staff also looks at the density and the comprehensive plan to make sure they are consistent with each other. Through asking for a PUD for the zoning there is no minimum lot size, the city is only required to look at the overall project density to see if that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Acting Chairperson Desai said the developer is designating this project as townhomes. Mr. Roberts said staff calls them detached townhomes because an association would be controlling the common areas that the units would be part owners of. As Mr. Schneider referred to each homeowner would have individual responsibilities for the outside property which is common with a single family home but not common with a townhome association. Staff views this as a hybrid situation. Acting Chairperson Desai asked if the hybrid isn't accommodated other than the PUD in the city's regulation regarding how this development is classified then? Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Trippler gave a quad map to staff to put on the screen so he could point out some features of the area including the Mississippi River Critical Area, the bluffs and the drainage into Fish Creek. Mr. Schneider said the way the Mississippi River Critical Area requirements read is accurately assessed on Commissioner Trippler's part. Slopes that are greater than 18% have to be considered, slopes that are greater than 18% and 200 x 500 in size have to be considered, the water from those slopes have to be in direct drainage to a tributary stream of the Mississippi River or in direct drainage to the river. The reason for the detailed slope analysis is that these areas of the site are in direct drainage to Fish Creek. The conclusions in the EAW evaluate the Mississippi River Critical Area determine these plans would be incompliance. The conclusion of the city staff evaluated and determined that this is not in direct drainage and does not qualify. Commissioner Trippler said you have only identified about 113 of the bluff area that overlooks downtown St. Paul as "not" draining to Fish Creek, should we assume that the rest of the drainage drains into Fish Creek? Surely if it didn't, the developer would have identified everything that didn't empty into Fish Creek because that would be to the developer's advantage. Mr. Schneider said correct. We have been upfront about everything. The rest of the site, if you follow the drainage patterns, enters the creek, and that is why we looked at the other areas. Commissioner Trippler asked how wide the lots are for lots 97 and 98 in that area? Mr. Schneider said the lot dimensions are roughly 55 feet wide and the building pad sites are 40'x 60' which is a typical single family home that would accommodate a 2 -car garage. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Commissioner Trippler said there is probably another 350 feet north that runs into Fish Creek. Commissioner Pearson asked what the length of the lots are? Mr. Schneider said the reason they have reduced the lot sizes is to identify the value of the connectivity of the open space. You could turn these lots into 10,000 square foot lots and divide the property without common ownership or control and protections to the open space within the site but they have resisted that approach. They don't want to divide the land up, it needs to be protected and the best way from a planning prospective is to place it under one control rather than under many people's control. The lot depth in this area is 132' to 134' feet deep so the lot would be about 55'x 132' in size. Commissioner Yarwood said given the existing lots and not changing how far the homes are set off from the street, why can't the lots be developed 3 to 2 and build slightly larger houses? Mr. Schneider said that would have an impact on the density that makes a project like this so it would not be feasible. It would have an impact on the density and reduce the density below the minimum criteria that is identified in the Mississippi River Critical Area regulations and this proposal along with the density is reasonable and is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Mr. Schneider said the zoning is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. They have to take the more important document and meet those requirements, which is what they are doing with this proposal. They have a proposal that staff has indicated is practical, reasonable, and sensible for this site according to the guidelines. Basically it comes down to what we as the developer believe is our property right. Commissioner Yarwood said he is willing to live with the R -1 zoning but he doesn't see a reason why we have to allow a smaller lot size than the minimum 10,000 square feet. He said he doesn't think there is a minimum density requirement in this area so the argument doesn't hold up with him at this point. Mr. Schneider said you can agree to disagree, but at no point have we heard from city officials that this density is unacceptable. Commissioner Yarwood said he thinks it's unfair to the developer to have gotten this far with this plan and he is unhappy with that fact. Mr. Schneider said he appreciated that comment. He said he hopes they haven't been led down the road of generally endorsing "concept" work that was far different than this proposal. Including comprehensive land use changes and densities that were different. When a city approves a concept to move forward when they authorize an EAW, there is a reasonable expectation that something close to what you are working with is acceptable. Quite frankly this plan in layout form is similar, but in density, is different. This is a reasonable and practical plan for this property. At no time have we withdrawn previous applications we submitted. We have revised plans but we have never withdrawn previous applications. We have been working cooperatively throughout this process with city staff to come up with a plan with their guidance and public feedback and we are passionate about this proposal. There are storm water and other site protections with this site that have not been done anywhere else and this is a solid plan that fits the mold of what the comprehensive plan would call for here. Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Commissioner Dierich said she wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the city council when they have to make the final decision regarding this proposal. She asked Mr. Roberts to show the map on the screen and identify where she used to live and where she lives now. One of the problems she has had with this proposal is that the city council did not require that an environmental impact study (EIS) be done for this project. She said she hasn't been satisfied with the answers she has heard in the past regarding the traffic and noise in the area. Recently she had to close all her windows in her present house because the traffic was so loud she could feel the vibration from the traffic noise from Highway 1 -494 going through her bedroom. There house doesn't face the freeway, their garage shelters their house from the freeway and they live in a wooded area that has large trees, some of which are three feet in diameter which helps shelter the freeway noise. She is extraordinarily concerned that with one berm and some immature trees that will not only be impacted by the noise decibels but once the trees come down, everybody to the west of this site is going to hear the freeway noise she used to hear when she lived in her previous home and definitely hears now in her new house so she is very concerned about the noise. She said the second thing she wished would have been addressed with an EIS is the traffic. Commissioner Dierich said we have two failed intersections. One is at Bailey Road and Sterling and the second is at Carver Avenue and Highway 61. She said the people that live further upstream are not going to use those two intersections because they will have to wait 15 to 20 minutes to get to whatever road they are trying to get to so people will drive through her neighborhood. She wondered where the land was going to come from to construct the turn lanes because Carver Avenue is extremely narrow in that area. According to Ramsey County, Century Avenue is going to get widened. Is the developer going to pay for all of this or not? Commissioner Dierich asked if Mr. Wicklund could show us what they plan to do with the grading on this site and how flat this site is going to be? What kind of topography are we going to lose with this development? Commissioner Dierich asked staff if they know what the tree removal and tree replacement will be with the new tree ordinance the city is going to be finalizing? Mr. Roberts said the tree ordinance has not yet been adopted by the city council and he was not sure of the tree removal or replacement. Mr. Wicklund said when building single family detached homes such as this proposal allows for less grade disruption which would be better economically. If we were building something other than single family units we would have to disrupt the grade a lot more. Commissioner Dierich asked roughly what the percentage of hard scape is to the remaining green space that isn't water. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. Wicklund said this is merely a guess of the non - buildable space but he would estimate 30 %. That would be in reference to what the watershed district previously considered to be a regional retention facility which is the wetland area they seem to have some similar hard surface numbers, but he has not done an analysis of the hard scape. This is purely a guess, but he said he could get the real number for the city later in the week. Commissioner Dierich said that information would be good for the city council to have when they make their final decision on this project. Mr. Wicklund said we have gone above and beyond in regards to the storm water management on the site which is afforded through the PUD. We aren't doing anything that is inconsistent with the standard zoning so we have no obligation to do anything other than what is being proposed. From an environmental standpoint you can't provide all the details for something that is only a proposal now. The information isn't available right now but he fully believes in this proposal development in regards to the environment. Commissioner Dierich said she appreciates his candor saying they can't afford to do this project unless they have this density. We have not addressed the issue of traffic and the noise has not been addressed to her satisfaction. She would feel more comfortable if those two issues were Mr. Wicklund said they can discuss those issues at the upcoming city council meeting. Mr. Roberts posted the map on the screen representing the noise decibels and the standard noise levels and elevation changes. Staff put the plans up representing the developer's plans for plantings on the site that would reduce the noise impacts here. Commissioner Dierich said her yard elevation is very high and the higher up she is on her property the more noise she hears and the lower she is on the property the noise level is reduced. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. He said the map staff presented represents standard noise levels. He said he personally lives % of a mile away from the freeway and on a quiet evening with the windows open he can hear the freeway. You can also hear the freeway during the day as well. These are "noise standards" we are dealing with so there are two different issues here. One issue is can you hear the freeway? He would say greater than 60% of Maplewood can hear the freeway noise, that doesn't mean it exceeds the noise standards established. When you are dealing with comprehensive land use changes you have an obligation "not" to change a land use just to allow someone to move into an area where they could not live before where noise standards existed before. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. AN said an example would be the Comforts of Home development that was recently approved off of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Avenue. That area exceeded the noise level but it had a business commercial land use. The city was very concerned about residential development there until the developer demonstrated they had mitigated noise concerns with their plan by using certain construction standards for higher noise levels. A developer has a certain responsibility and an obligation to put higher construction restrictions on these homes. The laws and standards don't allow you the city to say "you can't build here" because it is too loud. You have to put reasonable building standards on the building to protect the owner. There are daytime noise standards and night time noise standards. You have to use things like climate control in the units, you have to use certain insulation in the windows and in the walls to help block the noise level, you can't locate public play facilities in certain areas which have high noise levels, and in certain instances decks would not be recommended because of the level of noise. One of the original proposals were for a three story building and therefore the decks could not be located on the back side of the unit because that would be facing the freeway and there were noise standards that had to be upheld. There is a big difference between hearing the noise and the reasonable standards that a government agency or city can put on the units for them to be built. Commissioner Dierich asked whose obligation it is to protect the citizens from deleterious affects such as noise, pollution and noise damage. These standards are set to protect people's hearing and quality of life. What kind of responsibility aesthetically and what responsibility do we have for the people that live further down the road to the west because this changes will affect their living standards and situation because when you take trees down that was the buffer for some of the noise for those people. Mr. AN said he is not going to tell you we don't have a responsibility but the city is not managing authority of the freeway noise because the city can't control the number of cars on the freeway and we also can't get in to the financial responsibility of building noise wells. The freeway system is part of the federal program which is operated by MnDOT. Typically the noise experts will tell you trees don't have much affect on reducing the level of noise in a neighborhood. Mr. AN said he is not a noise expert. To him it makes sense to have trees to help buffer the noise but the noise experts do not agree with that statement. The experts will not allow you to plant trees to stop the transmission of noise. If you were to plant a beautiful line of 40 foot tall evergreen trees along there the 65 noise decibel line would not move. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree that trees don't block the noise but trees would certainly help the people living there. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. AN said he would much rather have a 40 foot line of trees than "not" have the trees as a buffer but the noise experts would tell you trees do not help with the noise impact. The two intersections mentioned by Commissioner Dierich at Bailey Road and Sterling and Carver Avenue and Highway 61 are identified in the traffic analysis. The traffic analysis did not say that these intersections will get better because of this development; they said that this development will not change the overall `operation" of those intersections. Regarding whose responsibility it is, it's difficult for Maplewood because the intersections in question are out of the city borders. What that means is that we cannot use that to change how we plan land use because a government agency has failed to address a transportation issue. We could not use that per se to put a moratorium on this area and say there can be no development here just because a government agency has the responsibility to solve transportation issues. We can only deal with our own transportation issues. The turn lanes at McKnight on Carver Avenue are within the existing right -of -way. Carver Avenue is planned to have an adequate right -of -way and we do not believe the city will need to acquire any right -of -way for the construction of the turn lanes along Carver Avenue both for this development, or over McKnight. Commissioner Dierich asked if we would lose the walkway or the yellow lines along the way because she can't see how we can construct turn lanes without losing that walkway. Mr. AN said those walkways are a necessary part of the roadway and he didn't believe they would be lost. The consultant reported to the city they thought there would be an adequate right -of -way. There has been no identification of property acquisition necessary for those improvements. However, the final design has not been done so there may be construction easements necessary, but the acquisition of permanent right -of -way is not necessary as part of this. Commissioner Dierich said the report said that the traffic was going to average one car every 2 minutes and the existing traffic volume on Carver Avenue is roughly 1 car every 15 to 20 minutes. She asked staff to explain that information? Mr. Roberts said that information is reported on page 9 of the staff report under Traffic and Access. Mr. AN said in the comprehensive plan there are sections on traffic and transportation just like there are for sewer to plan for the future. The comprehensive plan is to inform people what is going to happen in the next 5 to 20 years. From a roadway and transportation standpoint, we typically classify the roadways as having low volumes in the 300 to 500 cars per day. It sounds like a lot, but our local streets can go up to 1,000 cars per day and still be in a relatively reasonable volume of traffic for a local roadway. Mr. AN said to give you a perspective White Bear Avenue has 30,000 cars a day traveling on it. So the additional vehicle trips this proposal would bring would not be a huge change. It will be a change but it goes back to the rights of the developer and the right to build on the property they purchased as long as it is within the standards of the comprehensive plan. As we all know, it's just a matter of time before property will get developed. Commissioner Hess said the cross section looked like the berm was fairly low compared to the building elevation. He said he has dealt with noise experts in the past and the experts say mass is the biggest contributor to noise mitigation such as a berm. He wondered if the berm was raised in height would that help with the level of noise? He asked what the length of the berm would be? Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. AN said you are correct that a berm has better noise mitigation than a constructed wooden wall. In rough numbers a 12 -foot high berm has better noise mitigation than a 20 -foot wooden noise wall. The details regarding the exact height and length of the berm haven't been worked out yet. Mr. Schneider said the challenge with the noise is that either the freeway is so high above the site or then it goes below the site so there is one extreme to the other. We are trying to move units back and try to use some of the natural terrain and the natural berming as you go through the site. This is a difficult site to work with. They are trying to look at the site design carefully and this will be done in greater detail as things move farther along. Commissioner Trippler asked if this development were before us to develop the property as it is zoned for Farm and R -1(R) and the developer made the sewer connections that are there, would that work as far as the sewers are concerned as it is zoned? Mr. AN said absolutely. Because it's very good to infiltrate storm water into these soils, the city has a concern with septic systems infiltrating too far as well. Staff would suggest that any development on this site have sanitary sewer, this is why it was extended in 1987 and along Carver Avenue where it is stubbed into the site. Staff encourages the developer to have public sewer to all units into this site. Commissioner Trippler said several times this evening he has heard or read that it is the developers right to develop the property. If the property were developed so it was within the criteria of Farm and R -1(R) would they have a right to go to the court system and say that they were deprived of their right to develop this property as R -3, which is what he considers this to be? Mr. Roberts said if you mean R -3 to be multiple dwellings then no, because that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Trippler said if we tell the developer they can develop the property as long as it is consistent with R -1(R) and Farm and we are not willing to change the zoning, will they have a legal argument in court that we are restricting their legal right to develop the property? Mr. Roberts said this would be speculation but he believes there would be a challenge in court. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city ever put a restriction on the length of time for a development to take place? He is thinking of the Century Development that is still going on which has been being built for five to six years and he is concerned that there is no specific time limitations to finish a project. Mr. Roberts said we have no time limitations on projects in Maplewood. The difficulty with placing restrictions on developments is that the market changes therefore conditions change. Three years ago the housing market was hot and suddenly this summer it went sour. There is no way the city can control the market fluctuation. We can control when a project is started and when the public improvements are put in but the actual length of time the building takes can't be controlled. This is something staff has thought about and discussed before in the past. Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. AN said the staff report speaks to the issue what types of challenges might occur and the interpretation of the land use and the zoning changes. The zoning on the eastern side of Highway 1 -494 is not consistent with the land use plan. There are not any current development proposals there although its staff understands that developers are looking at that property. His suggestion is to institute some type of a moratorium for the purpose of amending the land use plan for the eastern side of Highway 1 -494 if it is your intent that property be considered for residential estate. There are land use rights and property rights and that would be an appropriate action for the planning commission to take to include in a motion this evening to recommend to the city council. Regarding the length of time for a development, the city requires the developer to post bonds for the construction of the improvements and those include both the private and public improvements on the roadways. While you can't force a developer to build all the housing right away you can force them to put in the public improvements in a reasonable amount of time. For a project like this staff has talked about a three year build out but the developer may have to comment on that. That should be something included in the conditions as the planning commission moves forward. Commissioner Trippler said many times when a development comes in the city puts in a clause requiring an escrow for 150% of the improvements but he noticed that wasn't included in this proposal and he wondered what the reason was for that. Mr. Roberts said any public improvements would be covered with the developer's agreement with Public Works with their bonding and escrow requirements. The escrow placed on proposals for the planning department is covered as part of the CDRB conditions put on a project. If this project goes forward, it would go to the CDRB at a later date for their approval. Commissioner Trippler said on page 15 in item A. 3. of the conditions the city would be covered then? Mr. Ahl said when the city engineering department places conditions on the final plans included in that will be a development contract and in that contract includes security measures of escrow etc. The Mayor signs that though and those get approved by the city council. Commissioner Yarwood said the developer has done a lot to address the concerns of the city so he compliments the developer on that. His irritation is towards the city for three reasons. Number 1. is the comprehensive plan was not appropriately modified for this area of Maplewood, number 2. that the city council allowed the developer to go this far with a plan that is not appropriate, and number 3. the comprehensive plan doesn't specify lot size thus making zoning almost irrelevant in this case and he doesn't think that is appropriate. The city dropped the ball in several areas prior to this coming up and he thinks the city painted themselves into a corner at this point with what is going to develop on that property and he hopes it's something we can address in the future. Acting Chairperson Desai opened the public hearing. Planning Commission -14- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Linda Baumgart, 2445 Carver Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She has lived here for 24 years. We knew this property would be developed sooner or later and she hopes the city takes the time to develop this the right way. The main concern is the new use of the old Henry Lane; the city wants to get rid of the old Henry Lane. The plans show Henry Lane moved 112 feet over but that just accomplished putting it on the border of her property. The existing Henry Road has been here for 60 years. When it was under construction there was a three way stop sign on the other side of the highway on Sterling and Carver Avenue for 1 1 /2 years and that worked wonderful. Why can't we keep the existing Henry Lane and put a four way stop there? On page 81 the county states it will monitor the road to determine if a four way stop sign is needed. Why can't we leave Henry Lane where it is and put a four way stop sign there to begin with? Ken Roberts stated in the report that the "existing" Henry Lane does not work for this proposal but the "new" Henry Lane does not work for the people who live here. Commissioner Trippler asked what the purpose was for moving Henry Lane? Mr. AN said an analysis was done of the traffic area and as Henry Lane comes out with the 299 unit plan the number of vehicles coming out the site distance was very very pour and you can't see underneath the bridge to the east so we determined it was an unsafe condition and it needed to be moved. We have not analyzed what 199 units or less would do and the city cannot put in four way stops until the county says it's warranted. The reason the four way stops were up was that Bailey Road was closed for 10 to 12 months for reconstruction and a lot more traffic came through there so the stop signs were warranted. When Bailey Road opened back up the traffic went away so the stop signs came down. At this point and time the city feels it is a compromise in order to have the safer access point moved over to the current proposed location on the property lines. Ms. Baumgart said if you are going to move the new Henry Lane you are going to have a crosswalk after that and when she talked to the county they didn't know there was going to be a crosswalk after the new road. If you put a four way stop sign where the road is now you could have a legal crosswalk there and you would have a stop sign. If you want the people to walk from park to park then that is a logical place for the road to be. As far as you can see on Henry Lane if you have a stop sign there you can see farther where the proposed road is there is a curve and when you put the turn lanes in there will be more of a curve. You would have to drive it to know. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. This area is within the Fish Creek watershed so the water all goes to Fish Creek. The water may go through peoples backyards, it may go down railroad tracks, it may cross Highway 61 or through tunnels but that is what happens through a 73 mile corridor and that was what the whole idea was for the setbacks and erosion control. This is a sensitive area and should be treated as a sensitive area. He was at the watershed meeting and they approved a portion of the CoPar development so he got to tonight's meeting late and missed the beginning of the discussion. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Mr. Cockriel said he had made known to the watershed district that what they are doing there up through the ravine is impacting an Indian village and burial site and is being determined that the Indian site is a lot larger than what you find on the maps. There have been people from federal agencies out at the location and they are finding as much stuff on the property as he had found. Only now he is leaving things after he was instructed to do so. He suspects more information will be coming forward regarding this area. This has been going on for the last few weeks and is in play. He wonders about the extensive use of retaining wall because this tells him there is too much being built at this location in order to maintain the runoff. This proposal turns its back on the Mississippi so the water flows back into the large retaining pond and that will flow into Fish Creek. The variable of whether we should have a septic or sewer system in south Maplewood was discussed at length during the planning commission meeting in the spring of 2003. Regarding the impact on the natural environment, this development would be about the worse cause scenario. When you hear there will be 38% open space, he wasn't sure if that is 38% of undisturbed land or 38% of open space after their done moving the dirt around. He believes the developer is asking with this latest proposal for an additional 80,000 square yards of dirt but he wasn't sure exactly how the soil gets measured. This development proposal would cause a large impact here which makes this proposal out of place for the natural element of the property. There has to be a more creative proposal out there and he would appreciate it if the planning commission would turn down this proposal. Acting Chairperson Desai closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dierich said Will Rossbach said a few years ago that a PUD is a license to steal and she believes that is true in many cases. She thinks this proposal has been a real work in progress and she doesn't think it is done yet. She thinks this proposal could lose 15 to 25 of the units to help with the noise and the bluff land and she would be much more comfortable. She likes the proposal overall, but she doesn't like the density numbers. She would recommend the planning commission forward a much lower density number to the city council than what is proposed. In addition, she supports Mr. Ahl's recommendation to place a moratorium on this area until we look at the comprehensive plan in the earlier part of the year. Commissioner Trippler said he wanted to commend the developer for doing a good job with this development unfortunately this is the wrong area. He hopes the developer will take something like this and talk to the city about a development like this in the Gladstone area where he thinks this belongs. He thinks when the developer bought the property they knew or should have known it was zoned Farm and R -1(R) and should have known it was their responsibility as a buyer to know what that meant in terms of density allowed. Commissioner Trippler said the developer has the right to develop the property and he does not want to discourage people from developing their property but he doesn't think anybody has the right to expect the zoning to change just so they can make money at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood and the City of Maplewood and he believes this is what is being done here. The developer has done a lot of positive things it's just this development is proposed in the wrong area. Planning Commission -16- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Commissioner Pearson said he would echo those comments. The developer has done a lot of clean up of the area. He too believes it's not the right development for this area. It's definitely going to change the nature of the area. He doesn't like the relocation of the road being brought so close to the existing residents. He believes it's too dense for the area. The lot sizes are smaller than the R-1 (S). When this land is gone Maplewood will have lost a major area of rural land. During the city tour it really demonstrated that some of these long roads to a cul -de -sac raised the question whether some of the emergency vehicles could function any better than the tour bus did in small spaces like cul -de -sacs. He disagrees with number 1 and 3 of the four findings on page 23 of the staff report . He is not in favor of this proposal. Commissioner Hess said he agrees with his fellow commissioners with most of the comments stated. Looking at the site plan, seeing the open space to the north and the south, looking at the developed area to the west and the size of that residential area, this looks like this development has higher density than the character in the neighborhood and he can't agree with this proposal. Commissioner Trippler moved to deny app eve the resolution on page 91 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a 191 -unit planned unit development for the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development on the west side of 1 -494, south of Carver Avenue. Commissioner Trippler stated the reason for the denial is because the density is too high, the lot size should be at least 10,000 square feet in size, the zoning in the city's intent the zoning would prevail and it does not meet the intent of the Farm and the R-1 (R), the impact of the density on the noise, the bluffs, noise and the traffic, the drainage concerns, and this proposal does not fit into this neighborhood setting. It doesn't meet the requirements for a PUD or zoning change. Commissioner Dierich said this doesn't provide for orderly development — we don't believe we have sufficient infrastructure given where Henry Lane is along with the issues with traffic. The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood — Dale Trippler already addressed those issues. The city will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as street, utilities, drainage, parks and open space — we haven't demonstrated that to the satisfaction of the planning commission. Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties — that has not been done to the planning commission's satisfaction. Commissioner Dierich said that this should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments — that has not been done to the planning commission's satisfaction. Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man -made or natural barriers — we are surrounded by open space and low density development and that is not similar to the other land uses in the neighborhood. Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas — this proposal would definitely disrupt other residential areas. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 09 -06 -06 Commissioner Hess said he is against this proposal because of the findings on page 23 in the staff report. Number 2 which states 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. And under ordinance requirements number 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. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to deny App the resolution on pages 96 and 97 of the staff report. This resolution would have vacated the unused easements and right -of -ways within the Carver Crossing of Maplewood development (the area west of 1 -494 and south of Carver Avenue). Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to deny App the Carver Crossing of Maplewood preliminary plat (received by the city on August 8, 2006). Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion to deny passed. This item is scheduled to be heard by the city council on September 25, 2006. Commissioner Dierich would like the city council to know the planning commission would like the city to place a moratorium on development for the property in south Maplewood east of 1 -494 until the comprehensive plan can be revised. An official recommendation will be made at the next planning commission meeting when staff has time to prepare better maps to represent the exact areas they would like the moratorium placed. The planning commission took a recess from 9:52 — 9:59 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Roberts, Planner Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager FROM: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: September 19, 2006 SUBJECT: Copar Development /Parks & Recreation Commission INTRODUCTION The Parks and Recreation Commission provides advisory recommendations to the city council on all issues relating to parks, trails, open space and recreation program offerings. The commission reviews major development proposals, especially those that impact the city park system. The parks and recreation commission has reviewed a proposed development by Copar Companies called Carver Crossing at their May, June, July and August 2006 commission meetings. In addition to reviewing the proposed development, the commission also took a tour, along with the city council, to visit the site on Monday, June 19, 2006. BACKGROUND Copar Companies has proposed a project entitled Carver Crossing in the southern leg of the city at Carver and Henry Avenues. The proposed development has been reviewed at the request of the developer by the park commission on four separate occasions. The commission spent extensive time on this issue and their formal findings can be found in the adopted meeting minutes from May, June, July and August 2006, which I have attached for your and the city council's edification. The recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission is outlined in their formal motions and can be summarized as follows: 1. The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously recommends that the city council require the developer to meet the following conditions related to parks, recreation and trail related issues for the Carver Crossing development: a. The developer should provide land for a minimum of one major outlook or vista, with the city being responsible for the construction costs of any structure for viewing, in the northwest corner of the site. The proposed lot was identified by the commission as north of Lot 25 adjacent to Outlot F. The commission further modified its position at the July 17 commission meeting to clarify that this "vista" would not include use of P.A.C. monies and that P.A.C. monies would be only utilized for development of hardscapes and/or park improvements and/or not for land acquisition. b. The commission recommended that the vista area be handicapped accessible. c. The city council would require the developer to provide a tot lot at the developer's expense. d. Trail access as proposed by the developer would remain public and provide access to the Fish Creek open space area. e. The commission supported and endorsed the developer's offer of a $250,000 match for public park improvements with the understanding that the city would utilize $250,000 of the $584,460 P.A.C. monies within this related project. f. The city would accept that this park dedication fee would be at the rate of $3,060 per unit times 191 units or a total of $584,460. g. The commission strongly encourages the city council to pursue development options with the developer to include higher density levels including increased building height to preserve greater land acreage. The commission recommends that the land adjacent to highway 1 -494 be considered for cluster development. i. The commission at their August meeting reinforced their previous positions and stated that the developer be responsible for the construction of an eight -foot bituminous trail connecting the Fish Creek Regional Park to Carver Avenue with the understanding that there would be no reduction in park dedication fees. Each of the aforementioned recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission are detailed in the attached minutes as well as formal motions that were unanimously adopted by the commission at their May, June, July and August 2006 commission meetings. Each of the minutes has been formally approved by the commission. CONCLUSION Staff supports the recommendation as adopted by the Parks and Recreation Commission as formally memorialized in the May, June, July and August 2006 meeting minutes as attached. kphlcarver crossing3.mem Enclosures MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 15, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL Prior to the meeting staff conducted a 6:30 p.m. tour for the commission. The purpose of the tour was to visit the Copar proposed development site in southern Maplewood. The tour was completed by 7 :30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER MINUTES Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Craig Brannon, Don Christianson, Peter Fischer, Peter Frank, Carolyn Peterson, Bruce Roman Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Geskermann, Gran, Yang Staff: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director A motion was made by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Frank, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 5 ayes, 0 nays. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Roman, to approve the April 17, 2006 meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed, 5 ayes, 0 nays. 4. VISITOR PRESENTATION There were no visitors present. M 10 i "' i' Director Anderson indicated that Copar Companies has proposed a 300 -unit senior housing project located in southern Maplewood north of Carver Avenue. Prior to the commission meeting, staff conducted a tour for commissions to observe the site firsthand. Director Anderson outlined five conditions that he felt the commission should consider regarding the Copar development: a. A tot lot should be constructed as part of the developer's expense. b. The trailway system should be public. c. One and possibly two areas should be set aside as a viewing place, to be constructed and developed at the city's expense at a future date. d. Trail access should be considered to the Fish Creek Regional open space area for city residents. e. A percentage of the P.A.C. fees should be dedicated to southern Maplewood. Following the staff report, the commissioners each had a variety of comments regarding the proposed project: • Commissioner Christianson said that he felt it would be appropriate for up to 50% of the P.A.C. monies be dedicated to southern Maplewood and that an observation tower be considered on part of the land to be set aside as a vista viewing point. • Commissioner Peterson indicated her strong position that there needs to be a trail connection into the Ramsey County open space land and that this site has great significance not only at a regional level, but at a state and potentially national level. She also said that there are potentially three dumps on the site that need to be resolved by the developer. Following a general discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, that: • the city pursue acquisition of a minimum of one major outlook /vista with the city being responsible for the costs of any structure for viewing in the northwest corner of the site. • the city council dedicate a minimum of $200,000 of the park dedication fee to southern Maplewood identified as city property and located south of Larpenteur Avenue. • the vista areas would be handicapped accessible. • the city council require the developer to provide a tot lot at the developer's expense. • the trail remain public and trail access be established to Fish Creek open space area. • the city be responsible for construction of any observation towers /overlook structures. The motion passed 5 ayes, 0 nays, with one abstention. 6. CITY TOUR Chairperson Fischer entertained a conversation from the commission regarding the goals and objectives of the June 19 tour. He distributed a copy of the questions that went to the council. The consensus of the commission was to clarify the role of the commission in relation to the council and educate the council on the priorities of the commission. Consensus of the timeframe was to have a bus tour from 6 -7 p.m. with lunch at the nature center to discuss open space and then review athletic fields if possible. 7. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Frank updated the commission on soccer program in the community. Commissioner Christianson had no comments. Commissioner Roman said that there are issues at Edgerton Park that need to be addressed by the police department. Commissioner Brannon said that the Hazelwood Park's soccer fields are in poor condition. Commissioner Frank indicated the basketball program was a huge success. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bruce K. Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation kph10515.06.min.comm MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MINUTES The meeting was divided into two parts with the first three hours dedicated to a tour of city parks and future development sites. Following the tour, the commission and city council met in the Maplewood Room to discuss the four questions that were provided to the council prior to the meeting. Attached is a copy of Chairperson Fischer's recap of the meeting with the city council from 9 -10 p.m. The official minutes include a copy of the tour itinerary and the questions provided to the city council. The meeting, although not formally called to order, was concluded by Chairperson Fischer at 9:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bruce K. Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation kph10619.06. mi n.comm Attachments MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 651 - 249 -2102 MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2006 ITINERARY 6:00 P.M. 1. Depart City 6:08 p.m. 2. Arrive at Sterling Oaks Park and briefly depart to view new boardwalk and neighborhood trail connection. 6:35 p.m. 3. Board bus and head south to Copar development. Discussion poi nts: a. Park dedication /cash approx. 6 -700K b. Possible national park, i.e., Ron Cockriel c. Proposed development role and relationship to park dedication requirements 6:45 p.m. 4. Head north and stop at Maplewood Nature Center for dinner. a. Discuss status of open space program 7:30 p.m. 5. Depart nature center and pass Lions Park. Discussion points a. Possible sale of land b. Drainage issues c. Cost for redevelopment 8:00 p.m. 6. Arrive at Joy Park for drive -by and brief stop while staying on bus. Discussion points: a. Past police issues b. Future development c. Regional significance of Joy Park d. Water quality issues regarding Silver Lake 8:20 p.m. 7. Arrive at Legacy Village Sculpture Park. Get off bus and take brief tour. Discussion points: a. Vision of Legacy Village Sculpture Park b. Use of public funds for acquisition of sculptures c. Relationship with Franconia Sculpture Park d. Landscaping e. Discussion of streetscapes relating to city quality of life f. Maplewood library 9:00 P.M. 8. Return to city hall for discussion of study questions 10:00 P.M. 9. Adjournment MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 17, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Don Christianson, Peter Fischer, Peter Frank, Michele Gran, Carolyn Peterson, Bruce Roman, Gaoly Yang Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Tom Geskermann, Craig Brannon Staff: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director Visitors: Ron Cockriel, resident 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Roman, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed, 7 ayes, 0 nays. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Gran, seconded by Commissioner Roman, to approve the May 15, 2006 meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed, 7 ayes, 0 nays. 4. COPAR DEVELOPMENT Director Anderson reviewed the Copar proposed development and stated that the commission previously reviewed a proposed project entitled Carver Crossing with 300 units including two senior four -story complexes. The Copar property is located in southern Maplewood north of Carver Avenue. The commission formally adopted a position statement at their May meeting which in turn was formally adopted as part of the May 15 meeting minutes. Staff indicated that Copar has since modified its proposal and reduced the number of units to 192, which would all be single - family, detached homes. Staff said that part of the rationale for the reduction by Copar was that this proposal would require only a three -vote majority as opposed to four votes for zoning changes by the city council. Director Anderson indicated that he had met with representatives from Copar regarding a new park development proposal and/or concept. The proposal from Copar Development was six fold: a. The Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, Park Plan and Mississippi Critical Area Plan do not identify any portion of the Copar property as parkland. b. The 2006 park dedication fee for new single- family homes in Maplewood is $3,060 which was increased February 13, 2006 by the city council from $1,530. c. The 2006 park dedication fee obligation for the revised 192 single- family homes for Carver Crossing development plan is $587,520. d. Interested parties and residents have voiced concerns about the lack of public park and trail improvements within the proposed developed area. e. Copar is proposing the city allocate $250,000 of the city's $587,520 park development fees for the 192 -unit home development. They further stated that the purpose of the allocation would be for public trail and park overlook improvements. f. In addition to the established park dedication fee of $587,520, Copar would conditionally match the city's $250,000 allocation with an additional dollar- for - dollar or like in -kind park trail improvements valued up to $250,000. The dollar- for - dollar match was conditioned on maintaining the continuity of the current 2.7 single- family homes per acre as proposed. Director Anderson indicated that he supports the Copar proposal. He further stated that there is a correlation between the proposed Copar property and the Legacy Village development including wetlands, floating boardwalk, and the need for a picnic and tot lot area. Staff indicated that in addition to a more "actively developed" park area, the concept of a scenic overlook needs to be pursued as well. Staff felt that the open property next to Lot 25 (open due to steep grades) could be an ideal location for a "floating" observation tower to be constructed off a large pole and/or piling. Staff also reviewed with the commission the important role that P.A.C. dollars play in the acquisition, development and restoration of city parklands. Staff indicated that over 98% of all park monies come from P.A.C. fees and that the residential portion of the P.A.C. fee is being reduced as the city becomes more developed. Staff requested the commission review their May 15 motion to reflect the new Copar Development proposal as well as clarifying the status and important role that P.A.C. monies play for the city. The end product was that Ramsey County identified 8.2 acres of severe slopes that should be protected and Ramsey County would be willing to manage any Copar lands that the city would dedicate and /or convey to the county. Commissioner Christianson indicated that approximately 20 years ago the city pursued acquisition of the Copar lands which at that time were owned by the Schlumka family. Senator Jerome Hughes was involved in that acquisition and the city did not finalize the purchase. Resident Ron Cockriel indicated that he and Commissioner Peterson met with Victoria Reinhardt, chairperson of the Ramsey County Board and representatives of the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation staff on July 13. The end product was the identification of 8.2 acres of severe slopes that should be protected. He further said that he desires to see the Copar land remain in public ownership. He said that trails should play an important role in the final development. Mr. Cockriel said that the city council on July 10 did not approve authorization to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The motion failed 3 -2. He indicated that there is a 30 -day appeal process for this and that if the E.I.S. is upheld, it could bring about a 280 -day delay for the developer and require the developer pay the cost for the study which would be up to $100,000. Director Anderson said that representatives from Copar stated the company position is to sell only the entire parcel and not smaller acreages. Commissioner Peterson requested clarification on where the 37% of open space is located. Staff said it is all the land highlighted in gray. Chairperson Fischer outlined the number of existing recreation amenities including Pleasantview Park, Carver Park, and the open space property within proximity of this property. Commissioner Peterson indicated the important role that overlooks could play within the city park system and outlined her observations of the Smokey Mountains. Commissioner Christianson questioned any potentiality of federal funds saying he does not believe there is any realistic opportunity. Commissioner Peterson and Ron Cockriel felt that federal funds could be available. Chairperson Fischer stated "tongue in cheek" that he would support a 20 -story tower with the remaining lands to be left in public domain. A motion was made by Chairperson Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, to modify the May 15, 2006 motion to clarify the term "acquisition" for a vista to mean that the city should pursue a vista but not utilizing P.A.C. monies and that the P.A.C. monies be used solely for development of hard scapes and /or park improvements and not for land acquisition. The motion further stated that the commission supports and endorses the developer's offer of a $250,000 match for public park improvements with the understanding that the city would utilize $250,000 of the $587,000 P.A.C. monies within this related project and furthermore, strongly encouraged the city council to pursue development options with the developer of higher density levels to include increased building height to preserve greater public land acreage. Furthermore, that a trail corridor be established along the eastern edge of the property to Carver Avenue for a future trail extension to city open space, Pleasantview Park and Carver Avenue and that city staff work with the developer to create a master plan that would ultimately be reviewed by the commission and city council for their consideration. The motion further stated that the commission supports and endorses the developer's offer of a $250,000 match for public park improvements with the understanding that the city would utilize $250,000 of the $587,000 P.A.C. monies within this related project and furthermore, strongly encouraged the city council to pursue development options with the developer of higher density levels including increased building height to preserve greater public land acreage and furthermore, the commission recommended that the land adjacent to 1494 be considered as a cluster development. The motion passed, 6 ayes and 0 nays. (Commissioner Gran left the meeting at 8:30 p.m. during the discussion.) 5. CITY COUNCIL TOUR Chairperson Fischer briefly reviewed the June commission /city council tour. He thought the tour was positive, but was disappointed with the Council's response to the specific questions. Commissioner Frank indicated his strong displeasure with the council's lack of vision and goal identification for the commission. Staff said that the commission should be pleased as they were the first and to his knowledge the only commission that has had an opportunity to meet with the city council one on one. 6. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Frank said that the department's youth softball tournament will be held in Little Canada this weekend. Commissioner Roman said he received many positive comments on the 4 th of JUly celebration. Commissioner Gaoly highlighted the dragon festival and encouraged the city to become more involved regarding diversity issues in the future. She furthermore stated she believes there are a number of issues relating to acceptance and understanding of cultures that relate to city parks and that the city council needs to better understand and become an active part in developing the solution. Chairperson Fischer said that the Community Outreach Commission that replaces the past human resource commission should assist in coordinating that process as well. Resident Ron Cockriel said that he feels the city council needs parks and recreation commission input and direction more now than ever. 7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Parks and Recreation Director Anderson reviewed the monthly update including comments regarding the proposed Ramsey County trail map that was included in the packet. He also said that parking on Summer Avenue west of Western Hills Park is a significant issue being raised by the residents. He further said that city staff, commission and council need to be aware if there are to be modifications in off- street parking that affect the remaining park sites that would be impacted. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bruce K. Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation kpht0717.06. m in. com m MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2006 MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL MINUTES Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Craig Brannon, Peter Fischer, Peter Frank, Carolyn Peterson, Bruce Roman, Gaoly Yang Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Geskermann, Michele Gran, Don Christianson Staff: Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director Visitors: Ron Cockriel, resident Erik Hjelle, council member Rebecca Cave, council member A motion was made by Commissioner Brannon, seconded by Commissioner Yang, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed, 6 ayes, 0 nays. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Brannon, seconded by Commissioner Yang, to approve the June 19, 2006 meeting minutes as submitted. The motion passed, 6 ayes, 0 nays. Commissioner Frank approved the minutes, but wanted the minutes to reflect that he did not feel there was a discussion with the Maplewood city council and desires that a future meeting be established if possible. The commission indicated as a whole their desire to have a better understanding of council direction and their perspective and vision as it relates to the Maplewood parks and recreation department, parks, open space and trails. b. July 17, 2006 A motion was made by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Frank, to approve the July 17, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. The minutes were amended on page 2 in paragraph 5 as follows: "The end product was that Ramsey County identified 8.2 acres of severe slopes that should be protected and Ramsey County would be willing to manage any Copar lands that the city would dedicate and /or convey to the county." A second amendment was correction of a sentence on page 3 to read: "The motion further stated that the commission supports and endorses the developer's offer of a $250,000 match for public park improvements with the understanding that the city would utilize $250,000 of the $587,000 P.R.C. monies within this related project and furthermore, strongly encouraged the city council to pursue development options with the developer of higher density levels including increased building height to preserve greater public land acreage and furthermore, the commission recommended that the land adjacent to 1494 be considered as a cluster development." The motion passed, 6 ayes, 0 nays. 4. COPAR DEVELOPMENT Director Anderson reviewed the Copar proposal which was outlined in the letter dated August 7, 2006. The developer proposed a second option for city consideration which was to dedicate increased land in lieu of park dedication fees. Following a lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Frank, seconded by Commissioner Roman, to recommend to the city council that their July 21 recommendation for Copar remains the preferred commission position and furthermore, that a minimum of an eight -foot trail be required by the developer connecting the Fish Creek regional park to Carver Avenue with the understanding that there would be no reduction in park development fees. The motion passed unanimously, 6 ayes, 0 nays. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAKEHOLDER UPDATE Staff reviewed the comprehensive parks and open space plan which was completed in December 1999. One of the major components of the plan was the survey and input from stakeholders. Following a brief discussion, the commission directed staff to contact past stakeholders, expand the list and develop a survey that would be mailed in the coming weeks. Commissioner Yang indicated that strong input from minority communities needs to be addressed as well. 6. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Commissioner Peterson reported the successful Johnny Appleseed Days and discussed the September 10 historic graveside markers program to be held at Forest Lawn Cemetery. Commissioner Brannon reported that County Road D is now open. Visiting resident Ron Cockriel suggested that a future meeting be established between Ramsey County and the commission to discuss common interests. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bruce K. Anderson Director of Parks and Recreation kph10824.06. mi n.comm