HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 12-18 City Council Packet5:00 p.m. Special City Council Meeting - CLOSED SESSION
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, December 18, 2006
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 06 -35
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 commentslquestions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. 1 then will direct staff, as
appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments."
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes from the December 4, 2006 Special City Council Meeting
F. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
G. APPOINTMENTS /PRESENTATIONS
1. Appointments to Rice Street Corridor Study Task Force
Ernie Schroeder, Schroeder Milk
Michael Grover, Planning Commission
Chuck Ahl, Staff Liaison
2. Resolution of Appreciation for John Hinzman- Community Design Review Board
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7:00 p.m. CarMax /Mogren Addition (Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues)
Preliminary Plat
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
Design Approval
Resolution Ordering Improvement and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications
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. 2006 Budget Adjustments for Investments
3. Conditional Use Permit Review — Sinclair Fuel Station (223 Larpenteur Avenue)
4. Approve Purchase of Street Sweeper
5. Approve Emergency Repair of Tandem Dump Truck
J. AWARD OF BIDS
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Conditional Use Permit Update — Woodhill (Dahl Avenue, south of Linwood Avenue)
L. NEW BUSINESS
1. Easement Vacation – Jensen Estates (Hoyt Avenue)
2. Desoto- Skillman Area Street Improvements, City Project 06 -16:
a. Resolution Receiving Preliminary Report and Calling Public Hearing for January 8, 2007
b. Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans /Specifications
3. Gladstone Area Redevelopment, City Project 04 -21— Resolution Approving Master Plan and
Authorization to Proceed with Phase 1 Project Analysis and Preliminary Report
4. City Private Street Policy
5. Residential Wood Burning
6. Presentation of Proposed City of Maplewood 50 Year Anniversary Logo by the Historical
Preservation Commission - Report to Follow
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.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M. Monday, December 4, 2006
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 06 -31
A. CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, of
order at 7:03 P.M. by Mayor Longrie.
A moment of silence was held for Sergeant Brian McDonough who
country in Iraq. Brian is the nephew of District Chief Gordy Mallory,
former Deputy Chief Rust Svendsen. The McDonough family reside
B. ROLL CALL
Diana Longrie, Mayor
Rebecca Cave Councilmember
Erik Hjelle, Councilmember
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember
Will Rossbach, Councilmember
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Longrie moved to approve the agenda as stands.
Seconded by Councilmember Cave Aves -All
D. PUBLIC HEARING
1- 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item E1
all, and was called to
his life while serving his
)tain Ron Svendsen and
the Parkside area
a. City Manager Copeland presented the report.
b. Mayor Longrie opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., calling for proponents or
opponents. The following persons were heard:
Bob Erickson, 47 Kingston, Maplewood
Louis Spies, 3095 Chisholm Court North, Maplewood
Billy Dinkel, Director of Community Services, St. Paul Chamber of Commerce
Vicky Meyer, 2252 Carver Avenue, Maplewood
Pam Meehan, 3029 Bartelmy Lane, Maplewood
Dan. Stumpf, 1313 Burke Circle, Maplewood
Jay Nordrum, 131 Century Avenue North, Maplewood
C. Mayor Longrie closed the public hearing.
8:47 p.m. A five minute break was taken.
Further discussion was held by council along with a request for additional documents from City
Manager Copeland.
City Council Meeting 12 -04 -06 1
E. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Longrie adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
City Council Meeting 12 -04 -06
Agenda Item G1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
SUBJECT: Appointments to Rice Street Corridor Study Task Force
DATE: December 11, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Ramsey County is convening a Task Force to study the needed improvements to Rice Street from south of
TH 36 in Maplewood to north of County Road J in Lino Lakes. The roadway was formerly Trunk Highway
49 and has been conveyed to Ramsey County from MnDOT. Ramsey County is requesting that
Maplewood appoint four members to the Task Force. It is anticipated by Ramsey County that the Task
Force will meet four to six times during the 10- to 12 -month process. The first meeting is anticipated to
occur during the first weeks of January 2007.
The request from Ramsey County is that the Council appoint four members to the Task Force:
1. A business representative from the corridor: staff suggests Ernie Schroeder from Schroeder Milk
2. A community representative: staff suggests Michael Grover of the Planning Commission
3. A council member (to be determined)
4. A staff member: staff suggests that City Engineer Chuck AN fill this role
Background
The Rice Street corridor from south of TH 36 to north of County Road J is a congested arterial that handles
large volumes of traffic, especially in the PM peak periods due to the mix of commuters and retail
establishments that use Rice Street for access. Maplewood's biggest concern in the corridor is the
congestion at the Rice Street — TH 36 interchange 1 bridge. Maplewood has some large traffic generators
at this location in Cub Foods and Schroeder Milk. On the north side of County Road B at Rice Street, St.
Jude Medical (in Little Canada) has recently expanded the facility and is looking to expand their campus
again in the near future. This has the potential to add up to 400 additional employees to the 650 jobs at
their two Little Canada sites. Little Canada and Ramsey County are working on moving the TH 36 — Rice
Street interchange forward for improvement since MnDOT has no plans for an upgrade until the 2025+ time
frame. These improvements, along with the remainder of the corridor, will be the subject of the Task
Force.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the city council appoint four members to the Rice Street Corridor Task Force. The four
members should be a business representative, a community representative, a council member and a staff
member.
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item G2
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution of Appreciation for John Hinzman
DATE: December 13, 2006 for the December 18 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Attached is a resolution of appreciation for John Hinzman. Mr. Hinzman served as a member of
the community design review board (CDRB) for one year and eight months, from March 28,
2005 to November 22, 2006.
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
The CDRB unanimously recommended approval of the resolution of appreciation for Mr.
Hinzman at their December 12, 2006, meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution of appreciation for John Hinzman.
Attachment:
Resolution of Appreciation
RESOL LITION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, John Hinzman has been a member of the Maplewood
Community Design Review Board for one year and eight months, since March 28,
2005, and has served faithfully in that capacity; and
WHEREAS, the Community Design Review Board has appreciated his
experience, insights and good judgment; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hinzman has freely given of his time and energy, without
compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hinzman has shown dedication to his duties and has
consistently contributed his leadership and effort for the benefit of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOL VED for and on behalf of
the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that John Hinzman is hereby
extended our gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service.
Passed by the Maplewood
City Council on December 18, 2006.
Diana Longrie, Mayor
Passed by the Maplewood
Community Design Review Board
on December 12, 2006
Linda Olson, Chairperson
Attest.
Karen Guilfoile, Cite Clerk
Agenda Item H1
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CarMax/Mogren Addition
LOCATION: Highway 61 and Beam Avenue
DATE: December 8, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Carmax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren, the property owner, are proposing to
subdivide and develop the former Country View Golf Course property at the northeast
corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. Carmax would occupy a site at the northeast
corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. There would also be three future development
sites that would occur on the remainder of the golf course property. Two of these sites
are identified on the site plan for office and retail development. The third site is not yet
identified.
The applicants are requesting the following approvals:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the entire
Carmax/Mogren development as well as for the specific Carmax plans.
2. A preliminary plat.
3. Architectural, site, landscaping and signage plans.
DISCUSSION
Among the typical development review considerations in the staff report, there is also
data relative to traffic, wetlands, shoreland ordinance compliance. In consideration of a
thorough study by the city's engineering staff, the city's consultants and the watershed
district, staff recommends approval of the proposed PUD, preliminary plat and design
elements subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the attached staff report and
addendum reports.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the proposed PUD, preliminary plat and site and design elements as
recommended by staff.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CarMax/Mogren Addition
LOCATION: Highway 61 and Beam Avenue
DATE: December 13, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Carmax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren, the property owner, are proposing to
subdivide and develop the former Country View Golf Course property at the northeast
corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. Carmax would occupy a site at the northeast
corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. There would also be three future development
sites that would occur on the remainder of the golf course property. Two of these sites
are identified on the site plan for office and retail development. The third site is not yet
identified. According to the site plans, the proposed lots would be developed as follows:
Lot 1- Carmax
The proposed Carmax automobile dealership would include two buildings. The first
would be an 18,744 - square -foot building for sales, service and display. The second
would be a 750 - square -foot car wash. The majority of the site would be used for
parking, primarily with sales inventory parking. There would also be a .55 -acre work-in -
progress area surrounded by a six -foot -tall concrete block, brick veneer screening wall.
This area would conceal cars not ready for display or that are not suitable for sale on this
lot.
Lot 2- Warehouse /Retail /Gasoline Sales
This site plan is conceptual. Complete plans would be submitted at a later time.
Lot 3- Future Development
There are no plans for this lot presently.
Outlot A -City Ponding
Maplewood has a drainage easement over this proposed outlot for regional ponding
needs.
Outlot B- Medical /Office /Retail
This site plan is conceptual. Complete plans would be submitted at a later time.
Requests
The applicants are requesting the following approvals:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the entire
Carmax/Mogren development as well as for the specific CarMax plans.
2. A preliminary plat.
3. Architectural, site, landscaping and signage plans.
Refer to the applicants' narrative and the attached plans.
Please note that the narrative is the original one provided earlier this spring before the
plans were revised and resubmitted. This narrative mentions a proposal for an
easement vacation over the watershed district's drainage easement. This is no longer
part of the applicants' request.
This site has been operated as the Country View Golf Course for many years. It ceased
operation by Mr. Mogren two years ago when the County Road D Extension project
began. As part of land negotiations for the acquisition of right -of -way and the relocation
of Venburg Tire, the city acquired an easement over the area shown as Outlot A for
ponding.
On June 12, 2006, the city council ordered the preparation of the feasibility study to
construct the public street in this proposed development.
DISCUSSION
Planned Unit Development
As stated above, the proposed PUD would be for the entire development comprised of
CarMax and the remaining developable sites. Being that the applicants do not have
specific users for these sites, staff views these site plans as conceptual and we do not
feel the city council should grant any approvals for them at this time. The city should
only act based on specific development proposals. Staff, furthermore, does not think it is
prudent to be approving uses such as gasoline sales without a specific proposal to
consider on these sites. Fuel sales are allowed by conditional use permit which should
be applied for at the time of those specific development requests.
With this in mind, the Carmax site plan should be the only site approved until the city
gets applications for the other developable lots.
2
Car Storage (Work -In- Progress area)
The applicants are proposing to build a six - foot -tall concrete block screening wall
surrounding their "work -in- progress" area. This is a parking lot /storage yard for cars not
yet ready for display in the sales lot or for cars that will be sold to other dealers. This
wall would surround a .55 -acre vehicle storage area. The applicant proposes to apply
brick to the outward - facing facade of this wall so it will match the building.
Traffic
The applicant is proposing two curb cuts for Carmax. The main access point would be a
driveway connection on Beam Avenue. This would allow right and left turns into the site
and right turn exits only. The city engineer is recommending that there not be left turn
exits allowed from the site onto Beam Avenue in order to avoid traffic congestion.
Brandon Bourdon, the city's consultant traffic engineer, further states that Ramsey
County must approve the left turn movement into the site from Beam Avenue. Mr.
Bourdon's traffic study states that the left -in may eventually need to be removed if
accident or operational concerns arise. Therefore, we want to make sure that Carmax
understands that even thought the county may approve the left -in movement at this time,
this movement could still be removed in the future if traffic concerns arise due to
increased congestion or accidents.
There is also a proposed driveway connection to Highway 61 from the sales lot. This
driveway is intended for use by sales associates to enter and exit with customers while
test driving cars. Staff needs to get input from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) to see if they would allow this driveway, but Mr. Bourdon's
opinion is that it should be moved to the north along new County Road D. It is unlikely
that MnDOT will accept this highway access. Staff feels that deleting this access
potential from Highway 61 would simply be safer. The applicant is agreeable to this
alternative, but would like to exhaust the possibility first for the highway access.
Parking
The parking field south of the proposed building would be for employees and customers
Carmax is no longer requesting approval for nine -foot -wide parking spaces in this area
and would provide 9 1 /2 - foot -wide spaces as city code requires. The inventory parking
on the north part of the site would be nine feet wide. This complies with city ordinance
since there is no specific requirement for vehicle - inventory parking.
Shoreland Ordinance Considerations
The southwest corner of the Carmax site is within the Kohlman Lake Shoreland
Boundary Area. The Shoreland ordinance states that Carmax must keep 40 percent of
this area "pervious" to allow rainwater to absorb rather than drain away.
To meet the requirement for 40 percent pervious area, the applicant has designed the
parking lot in this area to be covered with a pervious bituminous paving method that
allows rainwater to penetrate and absorb into the ground. The city engineer and
watershed district have reviewed this proposed paving and infiltration method and have
approved the design. Both feel that this method meets the shoreland ordinance
requirements.
Setbacks
The proposed building and parking -lot setbacks would meet code requirements
Wetlands
Maplewood's Environmental Management Specialist, DuWayne Konewko, has
submitted a StormwaterlWetland Report. Mr. Konewko's report details the existing
drainage systems in the area, the proposed stormwater treatment systems and the
wetland impacts/mitigation/management. Refer to the attached report, but in summary,
Mr. Konewko states the following:
1) Wetland Mitigation Plan
The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to achieve the entire mitigation requirement on-
site, including new wetland, public value credits, and buffer areas. The primary mitigation
area is the expansion of the current wetland system in the northern portion of the project
site. Additional wetland mitigation will be created along the eastern border of the Carmax
site, and mitigation credits may also be obtained in the second cell of the pond - wetland
system in the south portion of the Carmax site. Final design will need to conform to the
state requirements for wetland mitigation sites, include side -slope limitations and
maximum bounce. Planting will be consistent with the existing wetland area to the north.
2) Wetland Buffers
The wetland areas along Beam Avenue are classified Manage C which means that 25-
foot buffer areas will apply. The maximum buffer area for this area is 69,853 square feet.
The actual existing buffer area is somewhat less than this as portions of the 25 -foot zone
extend onto Beam Avenue pavement and the gravel shoulder.
The required buffer area for the expanded mitigation site will include creation of up to
1.60 acres (69,853 square feet) of buffer, with an average buffer of 100 feet and a
minimum of 50 feet. The Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) also
has buffer requirements for the created wetland, although to a lower level than the stated
city requirements. The RWMWD requires a 75 -foot average and 37.5 -foot minimum. The
required buffer area is intended to minimize future impacts resulting from development
encroaching on the wetland areas.
While adequate surface area is available to meet the buffer requirements, obtaining a
minimum 50 -foot buffer along the east side of the proposed wetland area /ditch section
may be difficult without further encroachment onto the parcel to the east and beyond the
existing easement over the twin 48 -inch pipes. Given that one of the overall goals of this
project is to obtain all wetland (and buffer) replacement on -site, we recommend that the
design use the 50 -foot minimum as a goal, but that the RWMWD distance of 37.5 feet be
considered acceptable if site conditions limit the full 50 -foot distance in all areas. The
average buffer around the entire wetland system, as proposed, is approximately
110 -120 feet.
The City of Maplewood will be assuming the responsibility of working with the watershed
district in all wetland matters as part of the public improvements for this plat.
4
Architectural
The proposed showroom /service building would be attractively designed and would have
quality materials. It would be constructed of brick, glass panels, metal coping and dryvit
(exterior insulation finish system).
Carmax has not submitted the elevations for the car wash building yet, but their architect
has said that it will be brick to match the main building. Staff has asked that they bring
the building elevations for that building to the CDRB meeting for review.
Landscaping
The applicant is proposing a large number of plantings on the site and they would meet
the city's tree replacement requirements. As code requires, planted areas must have an
automatic sprinklering system provided.
Site Lights
The applicant has revised the lighting plan and now meets the A- footcandle maximum
for light intensity at the property lines. The design of the wall- mounted and freestanding
lighting standards were presented to the community design review board and found to
be in compliance with city requirements.
Sign Proposal
Section 44 -736 of the city code requires a comprehensive sign plan for Carmax since
the site would "occupy the entire frontage of one or more block fronts." The applicant
has submitted a complete signage proposal (refer to the attachment) that includes:
• One 140 - square -foot monument sign on Beam Avenue
• One 180- square -foot pylon sign on Highway 61
• Two 150 - square -foot "Carmax" wall signs
• One 62- square -foot "Service" wall sign
• Several directional signs at entrances and for traffic control in the parking lot
Based on the size of the building, the sign ordinance allows a total of five identification
signs. These are proposed with the three wall signs and the two ground signs. Staff
does not see a need for the following signs:
• Sign E2, "Enter with arrow" since this driveway will not be allowed and
public access should not be allowed at this entrance, even if relocated to
County Road D.
• Sign F, "Do Not Enter" may be located to the limited -use entrance when
moved to County Road D.
• Sign E1, "Entrance with an arrow to the Beam Avenue driveway" seems
excessive and not necessary.
The internal, on -site traffic directional signs serve a purpose for directing customers
within the site. Some signs, listed on the signage site -plan legend, have not been shown
as to their locations. These are the "Store Champion" signs, "Caution" flag signs and car
wash signs. These may be fine, but the applicant should provide additional data
showing where they would be placed.
Tree Removal /Replacement
The Carmax site has very few trees. There are only 17 trees on the CarMax site and 51
on the remaining property. With the extensive landscaping proposed, the proposed
planting plan would meet the requirements of the city's new tree - replacement ordinance.
Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District
The applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the watershed district before
starting construction.
Naturalist's Comments
Ginny Gaynor, naturalist with the City of Maplewood, has reviewed the landscaping plan
with specific attention given to the wetland and rainwater garden planting proposal.
Refer to Ms. Gaynor's comments in the attached email correspondence.
Building Official's Comments
Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had these comments:
• The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans
are submitted to the city for building permits.
• A separate building permit is required for each building.
• All exiting must go to a public way.
• Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings.
• The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered.
• I would recommend a pre - construction meeting with the contractor, the project
manager and the city building inspection department.
Fire Marshal's Comments
Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, had these comments /requirements:
• Need 20 -foot emergency access road at all times.
• Fire protection system per codes and monitored.
• Fire alarm system per code and monitored.
• Fire department lock box required. Get the paperwork from the fire marshal.
• There must be proper protection for any tanks stored above ground.
• The applicant must get proper permits for any tanks installed above or below ground.
Police Department Comments
Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett has reviewed the plans and sees no significant problems as
long as the applicants make sure to keep all vehicle unloading activities within their site.
Engineering Comments
Maplewood assistant city engineer, Erin Laberee, and city staff engineer, Michael
Thompson, reviewed the plans along with one of the city's consultant engineers from
Short Elliot Hendrickson, Ron Leaf. Ms. Laberee and Mr. Thompson submitted their
report along with comments from Mr. Leaf. Refer to the attached report.
In summary, the developer should do the following
• Sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the rainwater gardens,
ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access
route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer /owner of the property will be
responsible for all such maintenance.
• The developer shall enter into a developer agreement with the city for the
construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam
Avenue to County Road D.
• The developer and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting
agencies.
Citizen Comments
One resident responded to our survey for comments about this proposal. That person
opposed the project and felt that another car lot was an eyesore and a detriment to the
area.
COMMTTEE ACTIONS
December 5, 2006: The planning commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat
and PUD and recommended approval of each.
December 12, 2006: The community design review board recommended approval of the
Carmax plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit
development for the CarMax/Mogren Addition development. Approval is based on
the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
7
1. The development shall follow the plans date - stamped October 20, 2006, except
where the city requires changes. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. This approval permits the development of the CarMax site subject to the
conditions of the city council. The future development sites are not approved at
this time. The developers of these sites must submit all necessary applications
and materials for evaluation of those plans as required by the city ordinance.
5. If the watershed district allows their twin drainage pipes to be relocated above
grade as an open channel, the PUD shall also require that all developments
within the CarMax /Mogren Addition actively and regularly pick up all litter from
their parking lots to keep debris from entering this open channel.
6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan
Review dated November 21, 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson.
7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan -
review reports as follows:
• The Drainage and Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November
22, 2006.
• The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor
dated November 22, 2006.
• The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21,
2006.
8. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The outward- facing fagade of the
screening wall shall be brick to match the building.
9. The pervious paving method proposed within the shoreland boundary area
shall meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. This shall be subject
to the approval of the city engineer.
10. Vehicle transports shall not use public right -of -way for loading or unloading.
11. The site plan shall be revised for the city engineer's approval relocating the
Highway 61 driveway to the north at County Road D. This driveway shall be
located as far east as possible. This driveway shall remain gated at all times
except when needed for vehicle test drives which is its proposed and permitted
use.
8
12. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the
building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure.
13. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces.
14. The applicants shall obtain any required permits from the Ramsey Washington
Metro Watershed District, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota and
meet the requirements of those agencies.
15. The site plan shall be revised to move the driveway on Beam Avenue as far to
the east as possible. This revision shall be subject to the approval of the city
engineer.
16. The city engineer shall get the necessary approvals for wetland mitigation from
the watershed district as part of the public improvements needed for this
subdivision and development as stated in the report by DuWayne Konewko,
Environmental Management Specialist.
17. All buildings, paving, unneeded utilities, etc. within the proposed subdivision
shall be demolished and removed from the site by the applicants.
18. The applicants shall provide all development agreements, maintenance
agreements and escrows required by the city. These agreements shall be
executed and escrows paid before the issuance of building permits.
B. Approve the preliminary plat for the CarMax/Mogren Addition, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Signing of the following agreements with the city:
• A maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the rainwater gardens,
ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the
maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The
developer /owner of the property will be responsible for all such
maintenance.
• A development agreement with the city for the construction of the public
road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County
Road D.
2. Revising the plat to rename all Outlot B with a lot and block number.
3. The applicants shall dedicate any easements that the city may require for
drainage and utility purposes.
4. The name of the street shall be subject to the approval of the city's public
safety staff and city engineer.
N
5. The applicants shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and
agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the
time of plat signing.
6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan
Review dated November 21, 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson.
7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan -
review reports as follows:
• The Drainage and Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November
22, 2006.
• The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor
dated November 22, 2006.
• The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21,
2006.
C. Approve the plans date - stamped stamped October 20, 2006, and also the revised
plans submitted to the community design review board on December 13, 2006 for
the proposed Carmax Automobile Dealership on the northeast corner of Highway
61 and Beam Avenue. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the
following conditions:
1. This approval is good for two years. After two years, the design review process
shall be repeated if the developer has not begun construction. Substantial site
grading and site preparation shall be considered to be the beginning of
construction.
2. Only the Carmax plans are approved. The developers for the three future lots
in the planned unit development must submit complete plans for review of
those properties.
3. The applicants shall obtain city council approval of the planned unit
development and a final plat for this project.
4. All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met.
5. The applicants shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey - Washington
Metro Watershed District and Ramsey County.
6. The building elevations for the car wash building shall be quick brick to match
the main building. As required by the community design review board, the
applicant shall revise the carwash design to add decorative pilasters to match
those on the main building, or other detailing to enhance this structure.
7. The outward- facing facade of the six -foot -tall screening wall shall be brick to
match the building.
In
8. The site plan shall be revised for the city engineer's approval relocating the
Highway 61 driveway to the north at County Road D. This driveway shall be
located as far east as possible. This driveway shall remain gated at all times
except when needed for vehicle test drives which is its proposed and permitted
use.
9. The final location and design of the Beam Avenue access shall be subject to
the approval of the city engineer and Ramsey County.
10. The proposed pervious pavement within the shoreland boundary area shall be
subject to the approval of the city engineer.
11. The proposed lighting plans that were submitted to the community design
review board on December 12, 2006 are approved.
12. All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing.
13. The applicants shall comply with all requirements of the Maplewood
Engineering Report from Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated
November 21, 2006.
14. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan -
review reports as follows:
• The StormwaterlWetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November
22, 2006.
• The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor
dated November 22, 2006.
• The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21,
2006.
15. The applicants shall:
• Install reflectorized stop signs at the proposed exits onto Beam Avenue and
County Road D.
• Install and maintain an in- ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped
areas.
16. The applicants shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of
credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a
building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of
the escrow.
17. The signage plan is approved with the elimination of the following signs since
they would not serve any purpose, would be excessive or otherwise as noted:
11
• Sign E2, "Enter with arrow" since this driveway will not be allowed and
public access should not be implied at this entrance, even if this driveway is
relocated to County Road D.
• Sign F, "Do Not Enter" should be eliminated but may be relocated to the
limited -use entrance when moved to County Road D.
• Sign E1, "Entrance with an arrow to the Beam Avenue driveway" seems
excessive and not necessary.
• The internal, on -site traffic directional signs serve a purpose for directing
customers within the site. Some signs, listed on the signage site -plan
legend, have not been shown as to their locations. These are the "Store
Champion" signs, "Caution" flag signs and car wash signs. These may be
fine, but the applicant should provide additional data showing where they
would be placed for staff approval. These signs should be small in scale
enough to serve a purpose on site but not be so large as to be very
noticeable from the street.
18. All roof -top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building unless
they are screened from view.
19. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings in the
southwest corner of the site to enhance this highly- visible corner of the
property.
20. The applicant shall submit revised building elevations for staff approval to
provide additional glazing on the west side of the building on the customer -
service area.
21. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community
development may approve minor changes.
12
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 17 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments.
One was opposed and two offered comments.
N... -.
I can't believe that you would even consider a massive used car lot with all the car
lots on Highway 61. You don't owe Carmax anything. You owe your residents
protection against blight. I pay taxes to live in a nice area and used cars don't bring
nice neighbors. Please no more used cars in Maplewood or Highway 61. Please
notify members of city council that we don't like it. No votes for a city council if
approved. (from a Maplewood resident)
Other Comments
The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority has no comment on the Carmax
site plan, but does have an interest in the development of the property to the east of
Carmax. The Rail Authority owns a portion of the abandoned rail line to the east of
the larger development area and may purchase from Maplewood additional
abandoned rail property along the same corridor. This rail line is reserved for future
rail transit, and our department has much interest in the future development, site plan
and other issues that may impact our property and plans. (Ramsey County Regional
Railroad Authority)
• The city should be aware of traffic concerns with the proposed driveway connections
to Beam Avenue and Highway 61. The proposed westerly curb cut on Beam Avenue
is very dangerous being so close to the intersection. The driveway connection to
Highway 61, likewise may be hazardous. (Steve McDaniels, Maplewood Toyota)
13
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site Size: 50 acres
Existing Use: The former Country View Golf Course with clubhouse and two single
dwellings
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: County Road D Extension and Lexus of Maplewood
South: Beam Avenue and wetlands
East: Abandoned railroad right -of -way (the Vento Trail)
West: Highway 61, Maplewood Toyota and LaMettry Collision
Land Use Plan Designation: M1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M1
Findings for PUD Approval
City code requires that, to approve a planned unit development, the city council must
base approval on the specific findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the attached
resolution.
APPLICATION DATE
The city received the complete revised set of plans, making the application complete, on
October 20, 2006. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving
complete applications for a land -use proposal. City council action is required on this
proposal by December 19, 2006.
14
p:sec 3\CarMax CC #2 12 06
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Entire - Project Site Plan
4. Site /Landscaping Plan (Carmax)
5. Preliminary Plat
6. Applicant's Narrative dated May 17, 2006
7. Engineering Report from Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated November 21, 2006
8. Stormwater /Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006
9. Wetland and Rainwater Garden Comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006
10. Watershed District Comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006
11. PUD Resolution
12. Plans date- stamped October 20, 2006 (separate attachments)
13. Traffic Study by Kimley -Horn and Associates
15
N
Legacy
Park
P!l
.j
, fl)
Attachment]
611
-------------
z ------
w
WOMMOM A T-O&
17
1
7d
m
17
m
m
14iii Jo- w'l
it 11,
I
tit
Ir
I
MA Y 3 0 3
L I I rd 0 ON i
PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE
[i)ERMITIPLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
•ill m It
I;_ - M
w
LANDFOMM
Car'vlax/Mogren Addition . ...1n May i 7, 2006
We respectfully request approval of a Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Vacation of a drainage and utility easement and Community Design Review Board
approval for redevelopment of the former Country View Golf Course located at the northeast corner of
Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. The property is currently zoned M-1, Light Manufacturing, and is guided
the same. The total site is 57.1 acres in size.
[2� � NO "T.111
stormwater lines in their new location.
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development, The PUD is
requested to allow the mix of commercial uses on the site, including auto sales, retail, office and
gas/convenience, and to aloes the comprehensive calculation of impervious surface area for *I-e entire
Page 1
21
city liquor licensing requirements and would be sited to meet the required 350 -foot setback from
residential properties.
All of the proposed uses are permitted by right in the M-1 zoning disthct, except for the following uses,
which require a conditional use permit:
■ The CarMax used car sales lot and its accessory uses
■ The gasoline station, which is proposed as an accessory use to the warehouse retail use on Lot 2,
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
Al of the above uses will conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and all other applicable regulations, The request would allow
redevelopment of the site to provide needed retail and service uses to the community.
The proposed uses are typical for this area and would not alter the existing or planned character of
the surrounding area. The proposed uses are all allowed in the M-1 zoning districts permitted or
conditional uses.
Page 2
29
LANDFORIM
CarMaxfMogren Addition May 17, 2006
The uses will not depreciate property values, All • the abutting parcels are also zoned and guided
M-1 and the uses will provide additional services and conveniences to the surrounding
EBRLIEI=.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation
that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person
or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
I 112121 i Will i !!ill M 1
I i III �11111ljgiilgii! =�ljj;j;jjjjnMj�
1=1 4 IMMERM
WMEM
The traffic generated by this development will not be drawn from nor routed to any local' streets. The
site as been designed in accordance with the City's transportation plans, which include construction
of a new public road to serve this development and contribute to improved overall circulation of the
area, has been proposed. Therefore, this new public road will alleviate any additional traffic
EM
Illill ��!!!Iliiiiil I � I
Ml!lI 11
RZT-ITIM
Page 3
23
LAINDFIl
Cartvlax/Mogren Addition 1-111. May 17, 2006
Ili Pill 111 10 ii! 111111101 i
I! I I I I I I! I ii I I I R I i I ii I I I I I I III
I I III I I
The proposed development will not constitute any threat to the property values, safety, health or
general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. In fact, the proposed development may
increase adjacent properly values.
• • I Ilill
CARMAX SITE PLAN (LOT 1)
The Applicant is seeking approval to use Lot 1 of the subdivision for the construction of a used car sales
facility, This facility will include a sales area, a ca ash (for use by the used car facility only), and a
motor vehicle maintenance area. In the M-1 district, the sale of used motor vehicles, ca ashes, and
motor vehicle maintenance garages each require a conditional use I (CUP). Thus, the Applicant
has submitted a CUP application for all aspects of the facility to be constructed on Lot 1, whlch
application will be discussed in more length below.
Page 5
25
.119-L
LAINDFORNI
- arktakIMcgren Addition Ilylay 17, 2006
Page 6
26
AL
LAINDFORM
CarMax/Mogren Addition .1iii....."... ... — May 17, 20l
The proposed infrastructure within Lot 1, Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C will be paid for and
constructed by the developers', therefore, the proposed uses will not create excess additional costs
for public facilities,
8 The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
M.-
Because the site is developed as a golf course/driving range, there are very few natural features to
be preserved. However, the developers will continue to analyze each site as the individual tenants
for Lot 2, Outlot B, and Outlot C are finalized.
FIRE., I V! I I
W�EIIIIII ill! 11!11; 1 111,111111 Ill-illiall, ill I-lifflil �
1. Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development
because of its unique nature.
The site is consists largely of hydric soils. The master planning of the entire parcel is necessary to
correct the soils for development and provide the enhanced starlinwater management system being
The proposed development would be consistent with preserving the health, safety, and welfare of the
public and all other purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, if not better.
from strict adherence to this chapter.
The proposed development will be at least of equal quality to that which would result from adherence
to the Zoning Ordinance,
Page 4
24
1111L
MIZA
LANDFORIM
CarMaxJMogren Addition ---j- May 1 17, 2006
CarMax's facility will also not generate excessi've vehicular traffic on local streets. To the cortrary, the
traffic generated by this development will not be drawn from nor routed to any local streets. Instead,
Es .. -
MMMMM
MBMRH���
Any additional questions in regards to 'this development can be directed to Daniel Hughes wi
Landform at dhu9hesO-)landformmsp.com or 612,638.0254. 1
Page 7
27
Attachment 7
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 1 of 10
En2ineerin2 Plan Review
PROJECT: CarMax 1 Mogren Addition
PROJECT NO: 06 -14
REVIEWED BV: Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer, City of Maplewood
Michael Thompson, Civil Engineer I, City of Maplewood
SUBMITTAL NO: 2 (First Submittal Comments on June 8, 2046)
DATE: November 21, 2006
Bruce Mogren is proposing to develop the old Country View Golf Course property at the
northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. The development includes Carmax, a major
retail center, a fitness center and office facilities. At this time the only portion of the
development under consideration is the Carmax site. Mr. Mogren petitioned the city to prepare
plans for a public road that would run north and south through the development and connect
Beam Avenue to County Road D. Several wetlands will also be impacted by this development.
The city will also lead the wetland mitigation process as part of the public improvements project.
Runoff from the Carmax site will be treated in several rainwater gardens, a storm water detention
basin and an infiltration basin
The developer shall address the following questions and comments.
Drainage
Two 48 inch pipes owned and maintained by the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed
District (RWMWD) run through the proposed development. The developer is also
proposing a swale system downstream of the wetlands created as part of the County Road
D project. The swale is located parallel to the twin pipes. The city in conjunction with
RWMWD is considering the replacement of a segment of the twin pipes with an open
channel. This would be a better design hydraulically and from a water quality standpoint.
The developer shall work with the city and RWMWD and consider this option.
Comments from SEH also address this issue.
2. Please address the comments from the SEH memorandum to Erin Laberee dated
November 2, 2006 (updated November 9, 2006).
The engineer shall detail how the rainwater gardens, swale, detention basin are to be
prepared and constructed. Due to the poor soils in the area, the engineer shall address
how runoff is to be infiltrated in the gardens, whether it be through a rock sump or an
under drain system.
4. It shall be noted in the plans that sumps are to be 3 feet deep. Most sumps catch basins
have been noted with the exception of catch basin 23.
5. The curb cuts at the southwest corner of the site shall be replaced with catch basins with a
3 foot sump.
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 2 of 10
6. Catch basin 977 should have a minimum 3' depth sump in order to catch sediment and
other debris prior to flowing into the rain garden.
7. The intersecting storm pipes 61 -62 and 56 -57 do not provide enough separation. Refer to
city plate number 320 for concrete block support if at least 1 -ft of separation is not
achieved.
Wetlands
The applicant shall work closely with the city to accomplish the goal of wetland
replacement on the development site to mitigate the proposed development impact of the
54,000 sq -ft wetland along the Beam Avenue ditch. The city will lead this process. Please
refer to comments from the city's environmentalist, Duwayne Konewko.
Grading
1. The developer's engineer shall provide a phased grading plan to include items such as
stockpiling, haul routes, etc.
2. If any retaining walls end up being 4 -feet or taller then a required submittal to the City of
Maplewood building department is required. Please show a typical detail of the retaining
wall on the plans.
All rainwater gardens and infiltration basin shall be excavated to final bottom elevation
after major grading is complete. Care must be taken to avoid compaction of bottom area
in order to avoid losing the infiltration characteristics of the soil. If rainwater gardens or
infiltration basins do not perform as designed, it is the responsibility of the developer's
engineer and/or contractor to correct the problem. The city will withhold all escrow
monies until such time all storm water BMP's work as proposed.
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
Identify erosion and sediment protection on slopes and sediment controls at top and toes
of slopes and base of stockpiles. Heavy duty silt fence shall be placed 100 -ft east and
west of the Beam Avenue entrance.
2. Identify locations for equipment /material storage, debris stockpiles, vehicle /equipment
maintenance, fueling, and washing areas. Address measure to contain area and specify
that all materials stored on site shall have proper enclosures and /or coverings.
3. Identify the quantity of materials to be imported or exported from the site (cu -yd).
4. Describe measures (e.g ... sediment basin, sediment trap, etc) taken during the rough
grading process to intercept and detain sediment laden run -off to allow the sediment to
settle and how the settled stormwater will be de- watered and introduced to the public
drainage system.
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 3 of 10
5. Describe measures of onsite dust control (i.e .... water as needed) and also provide a
sweeping plan for adjacent streets with the sweeping schedule also incorporated into the
storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).
6. The erosion control notes reference using straw bales under note 12; however the city
encourages use of bio logs embedded in the ground to contain sediment. Wood chips
scattered at the edge of disturbed areas has also has proven effective in controlling
sediment.
7. In Outlot A, the wetland edge shall be shown along with the wetland delineator and date
wetland was delineated. A 100 -ft buffer shall clearly be shown on the plans. Silt fence
and orange construction fencing shall be placed around the wetland area.
8. The following verbiage shall be added to the plan:
"Effective erosion and sediment controls shall be in place prior to any storm events. "
Failure do such shall result in the deduction of escrow funds (the city requires the
developer or contractor to post escrow prior to issuance of the grading permit). The
funds will be deducted at the discretion of the city inspector upon notice to the developer
or contractor.
9. All emergency overflow swales shall include permanent erosion control blanket such as
Enkamat or NAG 350.
fBT- IT.R�i am
What is the developer's plan for the existing maintenance garage near the holding ponds?
This should be shown and addressed on the demolition plans.
Landscape
The landscape plan does not include seeding or restoration details for lot 3. Orange
fencing must be placed around this area to ensure no disturbance. Please shown the plans
as fenced with a "no disturb area" text.
2. The landscape plan is subject to the review and approval of the city's naturalist, Ginny
Gaynor. See attached comments from Ginny.
Sanitary Sewer
1. On sheet C4.1 all of the CarMax sanitary sewer pipe is shown as 6" diameter, but on
sheet C4.2A (close up view) it is shown as 8" from SANMH 92 to the existing sanitary
manhole. Please clarify which is correct. 8" sanitary sewer pipe shall be SDR 35.
Agency Submittals
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 4 of 10
The applicant must apply for permits through Tina Carstens at Ramsey - Washington
Metro Watershed District. Also, the applicant shall coordinate all necessary permits
associated with the twin 48" storm water pipes running through the proposed CarMax
development site.
2. Submit all potable water related design for the development site to Mike Anderson at
Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Is there any specific reason the water
service pipe proposed to service the CarMax building is connecting to the main from the
south (435 -ft) instead of the east (240 -ft)? Insulation should be shown at all water
service crossings in accordance with SPRWS standards.
3. Coordinate with Dan Soler at Ramsey County for all traffic related permits on Beam
Avenue.
4. Mn /DOT approval for the entrance /exit on T.H.61 is required.
5. The developer or project engineer shall obtain a MPCA's construction stormwater permit
(SWPPP).
6. Agency submittals are not limited to those listed above.
Traffic
Traffic comments provided by Jon Horn, Brandon Bourdon, and Chadd Larson from Kimley
Horn and Associates.
The access onto TH 61 from the proposed CarMax site (Lot 1) shall be gate controlled
and shall only be used by those that have clearance to open the gates via AVI tag or other
form of control. The details and requirement of the gate control and degree of access
allowed will be included in the conditional use permit. The use of this access will be
reviewed on a yearly basis by the City of Maplewood. The City will solicit comments
from Mn /DOT during this yearly review to determine if any modifications to this access
need to be implemented.
2. The right- in/right -out access to the proposed CarMax site (Lot 1) from Beam Avenue
shall be located as far to the east as possible. The exact location will be determined based
upon the wetland mitigation required, the ultimate configuration of the existing storm
sewer pipes owned by the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District, and
intersection spacing to the proposed public roadway.
3. The access locations for the warehouse retail site on Lot 2 shall be consolidated to two
locations on the proposed public roadway. The southern access shall be located at least
300 feet north of Beam Avenue (measured centerline to centerline). Striping shall be
installed on the two accesses to the proposed public road from Lot 2 so that there is one
entering lane and two exiting lanes.
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 5 of 10
4. The access from Lot 3 onto the proposed public roadway shall be aligned with one of the
access points to the warehouse retail site on Lot 2.
Right of Way/Easements
Right of way and easement comments provided by Jon Horn, Brandon Bourdon, and Chadd
Larson from Kimley Horn and Associates.
1. The preliminary plat does not show the existing Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed
District easement across Lot 1.
2. Proposed public improvements include the possible removal of the existing watershed
pipes and the construction of an open ditch. The developer shall dedicate any additional
easement required for the construction of this open ditch.
Wetland mitigation is currently being investigated on the project site. The developer
shall dedicate any additional easement required for wetland mitigation.
4. The preliminary plat shows the dedication of an approximate 88 foot wide right of way
for the new north -south roadway. This right of way width should be revised to an 80 foot
width.
5. The alignment of the proposed north -south roadway right of way should be revised at the
County Road D intersection. Field survey information confirmed that this intersection
location is east of the intersection shown in the development plans.
6. Outlot A should be shown as a drainage and utility easement together with Lot 1 rather
than a separate lot as the area is needed to meet the maximum impervious area percentage
requirements of the shoreland zoning rules for development.
NI=_ IFTdJ=
1. 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.
2. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies.
The developer or developer's engineer shall incorporate a preliminary lighting plan into
the plans.
4. The owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for all stormwater
treatment devices (list devices i.e....sumps, basins, ponds, etc). The city shall prepare
this agreement upon plan approval.
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 6 of 10
5. The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the city. The city will
prepare this agreement which will cover items such as cost sharing for public
improvements (signal lights, Beam Avenue road improvement, etc.).
6. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon the completion of the necessary public
improvements to support the proposed development as identified in the Feasibility Study
and Report for the CarmaxlMogren Addition improvements, City Project 06 -17. These
public improvements include the new north -south public roadway, sanitary sewer and
watermain improvements within the public right -of -way, and improvements along Beam
Avenue and at the TH 61/Beam Avenue intersection. The developer shall provide the
City with a letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the estimated assessments identified
in the Feasibility Study and Report.
7. The developer shall complete the overall mass grading of the project site including areas
within the public right -of -way. Grading within the public right -of -way shall be
completed to within a 0.2' tolerance of the design grades. The developer shall perform
field surveying to verify that the grading meets the specified tolerance before the City
commences the construction of any public improvements within the right -of -way. The
mass site grading shall be completed and verified by June 1, 2007.
8. The developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the city for all public
improvements including easements. The agreement will require the developer to post a
letter of credit for 125% of the cost of the public improvements for the new public road
and a portion of the costs for the Beam Avenue improvements as detailed in the
feasibility study. The developer's agreement will also detail requirements for the site
grading as mentioned previously.
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 7 of 10
TO:
FROM
DATE
RE:
Background
Erin Laberee, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Maplewood
Dan Cazanacli, PE
Ron Leaf, PE
SEH Water Resources
November 2, 2006 (updated November 9, 2006)
CARMAX Plan Review — Storm Water / Drainage Submittal
SEH No. A- MAPLE0612.00
We have reviewed the Storm Water Narrative and Calculation and Drainage Plans for the
CARMAX — MOGREN site in Maplewood. Landform, submitted a set of plans, narratives, and
HydroCAD model printouts, dated October 18, 2006. The set of plans, titled MOGREN RETAIL
AND CARMAX MAPLEWOOD, covers the area south of County Road D and north of Beam
Avenue, east of Highway 61. We also participated in meetings with representatives for
developer and with the Ramsey - Washington -Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) and Ramsey
SWCD staff on November 8, 2006.
Landform plans indicate that there two development areas:
LOT I (west): CARMAX area to be located on the western side of the site, immediately
east of Highway 61.
2. LOT 2 (east). Warehouse Retail area to be located further east, east of a proposed Public
Road connecting County Road D and Beam Avenue.
According to the plans, the area between these two sites will remain undeveloped. We believe
the intent here is that Landform intends to refer to the land to the north, currently the pond and
wetland system for the County Road D and a portion of the future Warehouse Site. The submittal
indicates that the north - central area (OUTLOT A) and south - central area (LOT 3) will not be
graded or modified. Although the narratives include runoff values for both sites mentioned
above, the HydroCAD model for the proposed conditions appears to reflect the CARMAX area
(LOT 1) only. Therefore, our review has focused on the details of the CARMAX site, but has
also generally considered the overall storm system in the area.
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 8 of 10
For the CARMAX site, the plans indicate a storm water detention, treatment, and infiltration
chain consisting of four rain gardens, a wet pond and an infiltration pond. With the exception of
a smaller rain garden, these drainage features are located along a north -south strip, east of the
proposed CARMAX parking lot. Three rain gardens collect the runoff from approximately half
of the impervious surface and overflow into the wet pond. The remaining impervious surface
discharges either to a fourth rain garden and then to the wet pond or directly into the wet pond.
The wet pond overflows into the infiltration basin. Based on our meeting at the RWMWD on
November 8 the second cell of this system may be eligible as wetland credits. The plans also
include a channel section to serve as the outlet for the wetland mitigation site to the north and
also to serve as a portion of the wetland mitigation area.
Review Questions and Comments
The following review comments are separated into four categories: treatment system, rate
controls, infiltration systems and wetlands.
Water Quality Treatment
When the CARMAX site (LOT 1) only is considered, the proposed drainage plan appears to
provide adequate dead storage volume for storm water quality treatment in terms of total
phosphorus (TP) and suspended solids (TSS) to meet the City's standards. Submittal of
computations for the removal efficiencies of these systems are needed prior to making a final
determination. In general, the cumulative volume of the four rain gardens, wet pond, and
"infiltration" basin is fairly large relative to the total impervious CARMAX area surface. Our
understanding is that these computations have been completed by the developer's engineer
and are available.
2. In general, we recommend that the developer remove as many pipes for the rain gardens
system as possible and identify what types of pre - treatment will be included in the design.
We anticipate the RWMWD will also have questions /comments along these lines.
Flow Rate Control
3. The proposed model indicates that the design provides adequate runoff detention and reduces
the peak flow rates for 2, 10, and 100 -year events, below the corresponding existing levels.
However, the model assumes free- discharge at the downstream end, an assumption that may
not be entirely correct. The model should be updated to consider a downstream water level
that corresponds to the 2, 10 and 100 -year design storms.
4. The infiltration basin discharges into the ditch north of Beam Avenue through a culvert /
overflow system. The ditch on the north side of Beam Avenue flows west. A 27 -inch culvert
is proposed along the ditch under the CARMAX driveway at Beam Avenue. A 60 -inch by
136 -inch elliptical culvert located on the northeastern corner of the Beam Avenue - Highway
61 intersection collects the runoff from the ditch. Neither the proposed 27 -inch culvert nor
the large elliptical culvert has been included in the HydroCAD model. The inverts of these
culverts are also not shown on the plan.
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 9 of 10
5. In talking with the developer's engineer on November 8 we understand that the hydrologic
modeling was limited to the sites and not beyond the boundaries of the site. Therefore, we
recommend that a combine model of the area be updated to evaluate any potential upstream
or downstream impacts. The timing of this model should coincide with the selection of the
final site storm water routing — with the major unknown at this time being the determination
of creating a ditch section to replace the existing twin 48 -inch pipes operated by RWMWD.
Infiltration Systems
6. The proposed drainage plan provides runoff volume reduction through infiltration practices.
However, the infiltration volume may not be as high as estimated in the submittal due to the
uncertainties associated with the soils and ground water elevation in this area. The bottom of
this infiltration basin is near elevation 863.0, which is likely near the normal (ground) water
level. Plan Sheet C3.2A shows a normal water level (NWL) of 864.25 for the infiltration
basin while the HydroCAD model reflects no such assumption. Therefore, because the
bottom of the basin is at or near water table the infiltration rates may not be as high as
claimed (i.e. 1 -inch of rainfall contained on site). The HydroCAD model assumes certain
infiltration rates for the proposed infiltration basin which, as discussed below may not be
entirely correct.
Note that the RWMWD new rules will require specific soils information in the areas of each
basin to demonstrate the design infiltration rates and will require some form of pre - treatment
of runoff prior to discharge into the rain gardens /infiltration areas. As stated above, this
infiltration basin may be eligible to be counted towards wetland mitigation credits.
7. Clarification with respect to the function of the infiltration basin and the downstream routing
are needed. The proposed design has a good chance of satisfying the flow rate and runoff
volume reduction requirements when the CARMAX area only is considered.
8. A detailed review of the infiltration systems show in the Retail Warehouse areas to the east
was not completed. However, these same questions will arise at the time a project is
proposed on that property.
Storm Water Routing — Other Considerations
9. The proposed routing scheme indicates that the runoff from the CARMAX area would be
entirely directed into the ditch north of Beam Avenue. According to the plans, the central
wetland mitigation area, drains through a proposed north -south swale into the same ditch
north of Beam Avenue. Both the infiltration basin and the swale are connected to the Beam
Avenue ditch through culverts which would have to cross a sanitary sewer pipe. The plans do
not provide the elevation (i.e., inverts) information for these culverts.
10. The proposed north -south Swale runs parallel and immediately west of the existing twin 48-
inch pipes connecting the wetland basin north of County Road D to the wetland basin south
of Beam Avenue. The proposed swale system and wet pond could be combined to achieve a
P: \WORKS \ENG \06 PROJDOCS\ 06- 14CarMax_MogrenAddition \ENGR COMMENTS Page 10 of 10
larger storm water detention and overall water quality treatment volume. Furthermore, from a
hydraulic standpoint and based on our preliminary analysis, it is also possible to replace a
segment of the twin 48 -inch pipes with an open channel which would collect of the runoff
from the CARMAX area and from the central area that would remain undeveloped. In this
case, the runoff from both these areas would be eventually routed across Beam Avenue
through the existing 58" by 91" concrete elliptical pipe and not through the larger 60" by
136" elliptical pipe at Beam Avenue 1 Highway 61 intersection.
The City, RWMWD and developer should consider this as an option which would achieve:
1) reduction in the long -term maintenance issues that will likely be need in the area of the
twin 48 -inch pipes; 2) an opportunity to create more wetland mitigation area on -site; 3) some
addition water quality benefits; and 4) the potential for additional live storage capacity of the
regional routing system.
Wetland Impacts and Mitigation
11. This issue was discussed with RWMWD, Ramsey SWCD, City staff and developer's
representatives on November 8` At this time, it appears that the site will impact the roughly
54,000 square feet of wetland present along Beam Avenue. The initial wetland permit
application submitted to the RWMWD will be revised to reflect comments provided
including:
a. The City will be identified as the ownerlpermittee and will lead the wetland mitigation
process. The details of financial responsibilities of the City versus developer will be
discussed as the project proceeds.
b. The project will have the goal of replacing all wetland impacts on -site instead of using
the bank described in the initial application.
c. The developer's engineer will prepare the accounting of wetland impacts and mitigation
areas (including buffer area requirements) and work with the City to develop the permit
application materials. The City will lead the design and construction process for wetland
mitigation efforts.
For any questions please email me at dcazanacliCasehinc.com or call me at 651.490.2112.
s lkolm�naple \0612001eumas stone system memo ll _ -06Aoe
Attachment 8
Stormwater /Wetland Report
By DuWayne Konewko, Maplewood Environmental Management Specialist
November 22, 2406
A. Storm Water Management
1) Existing Drainage System and Features
The existing drainage system consists of a regional treatment pond at the north end of the
site which collects and treats runoff from portions of County Road D. The existing pond
has treatment capacity for a portion of the proposed development south of County
Road D, including portions of the proposed public road and the private development east
of the proposed road. The treated storm water from the regional pond discharges to a two -
cell constructed wetland system immediately to the west before entering a section of what
is referred to as North County Ditch 18 (or Willow Creek). The drainage system is routed
to the road ditch on the north side of Beam Avenue and then crosses Beam and TH 61
before entering Kohlman Lake.
The existing wetland system was designed and constructed in conjunction with the
Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements (MMATI) to mitigate both public
and private wetland impacts throughout the MMATI project area. The created wetland
credits are all accounted for and no additional credits are available for future impacts in
the CarMax/Mogren Site. The wetland also has a buffer area, including minimum
setback distances of 100 feet on the north, east, and south sides, and 50 feet on the west.
Another feature of the existing drainage system is the existing twin 48 -inch pipes that
connect the wetland complex north of County Road D to the pond and wetland complex
south of Beam Avenue. This is an important feature of the site from both a site design
and long -term operational standpoint. This system is not hydraulically connected to the
drainage system on the immediate CarMax/Mogren site, although both systems
ultimately drain to Kohlman Lake. As will be discussed later in the section, there may be
an advantage to replacing the existing pipes with ditch section to better meet the site
design goals for treatment and wetland mitigation and to reduce long -term operational
concerns with the existing pipes.
2) Proposed Storm Water Treatment Systems
The proposed treatment system consists of a combination of regional and on -site
treatment areas. Both existing and proposed systems will be designed to meet City and
RWMWD design standards for pollutant removal efficiencies and for volume control
(i.e., infiltration requirements). The majority of the public road portion of the site will be
routed to the existing storm water pond system on the north end of the site through a
conventional storm sewer system.
A small portion of the south end of the new public road will be routed to a treatment
system in the northwest corner of the intersection of the Beam and the new road. A rain
garden or infiltration feature in this area is recommended, although coordination with the
adjacent development will determine the ultimate size and location of the treatment area.
If an infiltration area is incorporated, the system would include a pre - treatment
component such as a sump manhole or mechanical sediment removal device. For the
purpose of this feasibility report, we have assumed that a more effective mechanical
sediment removal device would be installed for pre - treatment.
3) Proposed Storm Water Routing and System Capacity
The proposed storm sewer system for the public road will be routed as illustrated in
Exhibit 7. The northern section will route to the existing regional pond to the north and
southern section will route to the south toward the Beam Avenue ditch system after
treatment. Storm sewer catch basins with concrete curb and gutter are proposed to
accommodate the runoff from Beam Avenue
Developers of the sites on the west side of the proposed public road will be responsible
for meeting City and RWMWD rate and volume controls on their individual sites. The
overall routing of these systems will be coordinated by City staff throughout the design
and development review stages.
4) Proposed Open Ditch/Wetland Section
The proposed north -south swale traversing the CarMax site runs parallel and immediately
west of the existing twin 48 -inch pipes connecting the wetland basin north of County
Road D to the wetland basin south of Beam Avenue. Based on preliminary analyses, the
proposed Swale system and wet pond could be combined to achieve a larger storm water
detention and overall water quality treatment volume. Furthermore, from a hydraulic
standpoint, it is also possible to replace a segment of the twin 48 -inch pipes with an open
channel which would collect a portion of the runoff from the CarMax area and from the
parcel immediately to the east of CarMax. In this case, the runoff from both of these areas
would eventually be routed across Beam Avenue. The CarMax site would route through
the larger 60" by 136" elliptical pipe at the Beam Avenue 1 Trunk Highway 61
intersection the southwest. The remainder of the site, including the wetland mitigation
system, would route through the existing 58" by 91" concrete elliptical pipe.
The City, RWMWD, and the Developer have evaluated this as an option. This option
would achieve: 1) reduction in the long -term maintenance issues that will likely be
needed in the area of the twin 48 -inch pipes; 2) an opportunity to create more wetland
mitigation area on -site; 3) additional water quality benefits; and 4) the potential for
additional live storage capacity of the regional routing system_
Prior to implementation of this approach, the RWMWD will need to review the detailed
design and approve the modifications. The critical issue for this ditch creation is the need
to maintain the current response of the wetland areas north of County D and south of
Beam.
D. Wetlands Management
Wetland areas currently exist on the site, primarily along the north Beam Avenue ditch
which will be impacted by the overall site development. A small area of wetland impact
will also occur along a section of the North County Ditch IS system. However, this area
has already been mitigated for as part of the MMATI project. As discussed previously,
the main wetland feature in the immediate area is the created wetland system just south of
County Road D. This section discusses the anticipated impacts and mitigation plan for
the impacted wetlands in the CarMaxllVlogren site.
Because the most feasible location for mitigation is adjacent to the existing created
wetland area, the City intends to lead the overall coordination, design and operation
efforts for the proposed mitigation site, while the developers will remain financially
responsible for their portion of the impacts and mitigation. Having the City lead the
process will allow for consistency in the overall design and long -term monitoring and
operation of the mitigation area. The following table summarizes the anticipated wetland
impacts and mitigation needs. These existing and proposed wetland and buffer areas are
illustrated in Exhibits S and 9.
Table 1. Summary of Wetland Impacts and Mitigation
Area
Wetland
Acres
Buffer
Acres
Existing Mitigation Area South of County D
1.90
3.60
Existing Wetlands Adjacent to Beam
1.25
*1.60
Total Existing Areas
3.15
5.20
Existing Mitigation Area South of County D
1.90
3.60
Expanded Area South of County D
1.60
4.30
Area Adjacent to Beam
0
0
Existing Buffer Modified to Wetland Loss
0
110
Total Proposed Areas
3.50
6.80
Net Increase Decrease
0.35
1.30
* A portion of this assumed buffer is currently road surface.
As shown in Table 1, the existing wetland and buffer areas include the mitigation area to
the north and the areas along Beam delineated in 2006. Based on the preliminary review
of the proposed project, the improvement can result in a net increase of up to about 0.35
acres of new wetland and 1.30 acres of new buffer. As part of the wetland permitting
process, this estimated 1.30 acres of new buffer would be proposed as the public value
credit portion of the wetland impacts. The numbers presented in Table 1 assume that the
second cell of the treatment system in the CarMax site will not be considered new
wetland. If designed to meet the wetland requirements, this area may result in a further
increase the extent of new wetlands throughout the site.
1) Wetland Impacts
A combination of the private development, the new public road from Beam to County
Road D, and improvements to Beam Avenue, will result in impacts to the entire
1.25 acres (54,424 square -feet) of wetlands located adjacent to Beam Avenue. The areas
were delineated and boundaries approved by the RWMWD as described in the July 18,
2006 Wetland Delineation Report (SEH). The existing buffer area estimate of 1.60 acres
around the wetland system adjacent to Beam is conservative, as the number represents a
25 -foot buffer around the entire wetland. In reality, the buffer extends into portions of
the Beam Avenue right -of -way.
The total proposed wetland and buffer areas presented in Table 1, are illustrated in
Exhibit 9. Only buffer areas outside of the existing mitigation site easement were
included in the new buffer calculations. In addition, existing buffer area used to expand
new wetland areas inside the easement, were subtracted from the total buffer area
calculations. Additional
2) Wetland Mitigation Plan
The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to achieve the entire mitigation requirement
on -site, including new wetland, public value credits, and buffer areas. The primary
mitigation area is the expansion of the current wetland system in the northern portion of
the project site. Additional wetland mitigation will be created along the eastern border of
the CarMax site, and mitigation credits may also be obtained in the second cell of the
pond - wetland system in the south portion of the CarMax site. Final design will need to
conform to the state requirements for wetland mitigation sites, include side -slope
limitations and maximum bounce. Planting will be consistent with the existing wetland
area to the north.
3) Wetland Buffers
The wetland areas along Beam Avenue are classified Manage C which means that 25 foot
buffer areas will apply. The maximum buffer area for this area is 69,853 square -feet. The
actual existing buffer area is somewhat less than this as portions of the 25 -foot zone
extend onto Beam Avenue pavement and the gravel shoulder.
The required buffer area for the expanded mitigation site will include creation of up to
1.60 acres (69,853 square -feet) of buffer, with an average buffer of 100 feet and a
minimum of 50 feet. The RWMWD also had buffer requirements for the created wetland,
although to a lower level than the stated City requirements. The RWMWD requires a
75 -foot average and 37.5 -foot minimum. The required buffer area is intended to minimize
future impacts resulting from development encroaching on the wetland areas.
While adequate surface area is available to meet the buffer requirements, obtaining a
minimum 50 foot buffer along the east side of the proposed wetland area/ditch section
may be difficult without further encroachment onto the parcel to the east and beyond the
existing easement over the twin 48 -inch pipes. Given that one of the overall goals of this
project is to obtain all wetland (and buffer) replacement on -site, we recommend that the
design use the 50 -foot minimum as a goal, but that the RWMWD distance of 37.5 feet be
considered acceptable if site conditions limit the full 50 -foot distance in all areas. The
average buffer around the entire wetland system, as proposed, is approximately 110-
120 feet.
From: Virginia Gaynor
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:07 PM
To: Erin Laberee; DuWayne Konewko; Jon Jarosch; Tom Ekstrand
Subject: Carmax
l i i ......
5. Parking lot medians. It's great to see some planted medians. But, it would be nice to have eve
more to provide shade and cooling. If this is not possible, it would be help to have more trees alo
the parking lot edges. In addition, many of the trees along Beam and Hwy 61 are shown centered
between the road and parking tot. It might make sense to put those closer to the parking lot to takl-
advantage of the shade they will provide.
M I
UND MOM
Ow
11/22/2006
43
.T=
Why should we be concerned about invasive plants?
0 •
Invasive species can be removed by several methods
• mechanical - pulling, cutting, mowing
• chemical - herbicide
M
The Most Troublesome Invasive Speciez
In Maplewood Natural Areas
Flowers that escape from gardens
Flowers that came to U.S. as weeds
Grass-like species
Curly-leaf pondweed (Potarnogeton crispus)
Non-native water lilies
Trees, shrubs, and vines
There are many other plants that may be aggressive in gardens or new plantings but are not as
problematic in natural areas.
*A note on NEscanthus grass — There are several cultivars of Nfiscanthus. Some spread by seed, some
spread by rhizome. On the east coast, some cultivars have become invasive, Researchers at the
University of Minnesota are trying to determine which cultivars may be harmful in our region. Until
this plant's invasiveness is better understood, please don't plant it if you live near a wetland! There are
many woriderful native grasses and non-invasive ornamental grasses you can substitute.
Maplewood Nature Center and Preserves
8/04
M
Page I of 2
Atl- iO
IVTIR �
From: Tina Carstens [tina.carstens@rwniwd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:29 AM
To: d hug hes@landformmsp.com
Cc: deaf@sehinc,com; Tom Ekstrand; Chuck Ahl; DuWayne Konewko
Subject. Review of Carmax Permit Application
Grading adjacent to the twin pipes
Plans shall show no grade changes over the 50 foot easement the District has for those pipes.
Plans shall also show construction fencing marking the location of that easement to ensure
no construction activity over those pipes.
3. Erosion and Sediment Control
• All stormwater management BNIPs shall be protected from sedimentation once they have
been final graded and until the surrounding area has vegetation establishment. Revised plans
shall show silt fence around the perimeter of the rain gardens/ponds.
• All outlets of temp sed basins to the wetland ditch system along Beam shall have a BIMP to
filter the runoff before entering the system,
M
poor sails underneath the engineered soil that will be placed below the rain garden,
* Please supply the spec for the eng 9
,incered soil that will be used for the rain ardens.
0 Also supply details of the all the stormwater management BMWs and also the erosion and
sediment control BNTfPs,
ff you have any questions about the comments please let me know. If these items are not able to be
addressed before next week Thursday, I will submit to the Board a report that would list these items as
special provisions (wont' be as wordy though!). The permit will then • issued once those items are
addressed,
11/21/2006 47
Attachment 11
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Carmax and Bruce Mogren applied for a conditional use permit for a
planned unit development to develop a Carmax used -car dealership on the former
Country View Golf Course property;
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the northeast corner of Beam Avenue and
Highway 61. The legal description is:
Lot 1, Carmax /Mogren Addition
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On December 5, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing.
The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and
sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning
commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present
written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city
council approve this conditional use permit.
2. The city council reviewed this request on December 18, 2006. The
council considered the reports and recommendations of the city staff and
planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council the
above - described conditional use permit revision because:
The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and
operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the
surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or
methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental,
disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of
excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
interference or other nuisances.
W .
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and
would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or
proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water
and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's
natural and scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall follow the plans date - stamped October 20, 2006, except
where the city requires changes. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. This approval permits the development of the Carmax site subject to the
conditions of the city council. The future development sites are not approved at
this time. The developers of these sites must submit all necessary applications
and materials for evaluation of those plans as required by the city ordinance.
5. If the watershed district allows their twin drainage pipes to be relocated above
grade as an open channel, the PUD shall also require that all developments
within the Carmax /Mogren Addition actively and regularly pick up all litter from
their parking lots to keep debris from entering this open channel.
6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan
Review dated November 21, 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson.
7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan -
review reports as follows:
• The Drainage and Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November
22, 2006.
• The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor
dated November 22, 2006.
i •
• The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21,
2006.
8. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The outward - facing fagade of the
screening wall shall be brick to match the building.
9. The pervious paving method proposed within the shoreland boundary area
shall meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. This shall be subject
to the approval of the city engineer.
10. Vehicle transports shall not use public right -of -way for loading or unloading.
11. The site plan shall be revised for the city engineer's approval relocating the
Highway 61 driveway to the north at County Road D. This driveway shall be
located as far east as possible. This driveway shall remain gated at all times
except when needed for vehicle test drives which is its proposed and permitted
use.
12. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the
building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure.
13. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces.
14. The applicants shall obtain any required permits from the Ramsey Washington
Metro Watershed District, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota and
meet the requirements of those agencies.
15. The site plan shall be revised to move the driveway on Beam Avenue as far to
the east as possible. This revision shall be subject to the approval of the city
engineer.
16. The city engineer shall get the necessary approvals for wetland mitigation from
the watershed district as part of the public improvements needed for this
subdivision and development as stated in the report by DuWayne Konewko,
Environmental Management Specialist.
17. All buildings, paving, unneeded utilities, etc. within the proposed subdivision
shall be demolished and removed from the site by the applicants.
18. The applicants shall provide all development agreements, maintenance
agreements and escrows required by the city. These agreements shall be
executed and escrows paid before the issuance of building permits.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 1 2006.
ME
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY DECEMBER 5, 2006
a. CarMax Auto Superstore (Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues) (7:33-
8:51 p.m.)
Mr. Ekstrand said CarMax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren, the property owner, is proposing
to develop the former Country View Golf Course property at the northeast corner of Highway 61
and Beam Avenue. CarMax would occupy a site at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam
Avenue. There would also be three future development proposals that would occur on the
remainder of the golf course property. Two of these future uses are identified on the site plan as a
medical office /retail building and warehouse /retail with gasoline sales. The third site is not yet
identified. According to the site plans, these future lots would be developed as follows:
The proposed CarMax used -car dealership will be on Lot 1 and include two buildings. The first
would be an 18,744- square -foot building for sales, service and display. The second would be a
750 - square -foot car wash. The majority of the site would be used for parking, primarily with sales
inventory parking. There would also be a .55 -acre work -in- progress area surrounded by a six-foot -
tall concrete -block screening wall. This area would conceal cars not ready for display or that are
two old or in disrepair and not suitable for sale on this lot.
There is no specific proposal yet for the site on Lot 2 which would be warehouse /retail /gasoline
sales. This site plan is conceptual and not part of this review.
Originally Lot 3 was part of the CarMax site. It will be a future development and there are no plans
at this time for a specific proposal.
Maplewood has a drainage easement over the proposed Outlot A for area ponding needs.
Outlot B is shown on the plans as medical /office /retail but there is no specific proposal yet for this
site and is not part of this review.
Mr. AM said the traffic study was done by Kimley Horn & Associates. Brandon Bourdon is here to
discuss the traffic details and the impact this site will have on the traffic. This site will generate a
fairly significant amount of traffic for the surrounding area and therefore the improvements are one
of the conditions the planning commission will be considering this evening. The developers
petitioned the city council to have a traffic study done and that has been completed so when this
item goes to the city council there will be a public hearing regarding these improvements that will
be decided as part of the proposal. The traffic study recommends the center medians be installed
on Beam Avenue to control the traffic and that additional right hand turn lanes are necessary to
the site. There will be $4.4 million in improvements done for this project. This site has impacts on
the 20 year operation of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. This is a heavily traveled area and is one
of the top 100 worst accident intersections in the State of Minnesota which means it's a very
dangerous intersection. MnDot proposes upgrades to this intersection. We are upgrading the
signal system and over $750,000 is going to be spent in this area. Outside agencies other than
the developer will be spending $4.4 million on this area. There will be impacts to the area,
however, the responsibilities because of this proposal are about 25% of the total cost and the
remaining 75% of improvements would have to be done regardless if this proposal happened or
not.
Planning Commission -2-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Commissioner Trippler said he didn't see any future development plans for Lot 3.
Mr. Ekstrand said there haven't been any development plans proposed or shown for Lot 3 yet.
Earlier this summer in the previous proposal for CarMax Lot 3 was part of the site plan and was
later reconfigured because of soil conditions making the site smaller and Lot 3 taken out of the
plan to stand alone.
Commissioner Trippler said this whole project for CarMax troubles him greatly from a traffic
standpoint because he sees nothing but disasters for the entrances and exits to the site where
they are proposed. You are planning on having the entrance and exit points at one of the worst
intersections in Maplewood. When he read the transport truck was going to drive into a gated
facility right on Highway 61 he was surprised. In the past 20 years that he has lived in Maplewood
he has never ever seen the transport trucks for Schmelz Countryside Volkswagen unload their
cars in the car lot, they have always unloaded their vehicles right on the frontage road of Cope
Avenue by Menard's. In fact most of the car dealerships in Maplewood unload their transport
trucks where they are not supposed to which is very dangerous. To have a gate on Highway 61
seems like a formula for disaster and he doubts would actually happen. Maybe they could move
the gate onto County Road D. The reason he asked about Lot 3 was because he thought the best
way to access the facility is to bring them in from County Road D and across Lot 3. That way you
are bringing people into the facility and letting them leave the facility in a safer manner with less
traffic. That way vehicles can turn right and left with not a lot of difficulty. This is the first time he
heard of having semaphores on Beam Avenue where this road comes out and on to County Road
D. This seems like it will only compound the traffic problem. He thought the reason we extended
County Road D was to move traffic through the area better and to get more vehicles off of Beam
Avenue. He asked if the city spoke to the developer about that idea at all?
Mr. Ahl said not only did the city talk to the developer about that but the boundary between the
CarMax site and Lot 3 was very spongy and is also the softest soil in the area and it would be very
expensive costing about $1.6 million crossing with County Road D which is cost prohibitive.
Mr. AN said that's why as staff we supported the access point to Beam Avenue consistent with
the traffic study and working with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer and the MnDot Metro Area
Traffic Engineer, they concluded that access point was the best access point and best location for
CarMax. The city thinks this will work well even at a 20 year projection where traffic levels usually
double in a 20 year projection time. The city thinks this is a good plan. The city doesn't want
transport trucks unloading on Highway 61. Especially since $425,000 was spent putting a new
frontage road in north of County Road D that Nissan, Volvo, and Lexus paid for so they could
have their transport trucks make deliveries. The gated road on Highway 61 is not designed for
transports to turn in and isn't where they would put vehicles at CarMax. CarMax has shown the
city their plans regarding how the transport truck would get into the site and the city is comfortable
with that.
Commissioner Trippler said he would recommend that if the gate has to be located on Highway 61
he thinks it would be highly advantageous to have a turn off lane and an egress lane so people
can get some speed up. If you could move the entrance to County Road D that would seem
preferable.
Planning Commission -3-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Mr. Ahl said there is no ability for customers to go from the south part of the site to the north; the
internal gate system does not allow that. The northern part of the site is where the vehicles are.
The city was thinking that gate entrance would have five to ten vehicle trips per day which doesn't
justify a turn lane on Highway 61. CarMax is going to provide more information. There are some
grading issues that would have to be redone as well if that were to happen. That site used to be
the old Venburg tire site which has been cleaned up and is part of the original easement
agreement from 2004 that the Mogren's entered into an option to purchase from the city. If there
is enough traffic to justify the egress and ingress lanes that Commissioner Trippler spoke about
on Highway 61 it would be city staff's recommendation to move that to County Road D because of
merging traffic.
Commissioner Trippler said he tried to think of another car dealership or commercial warehouse
that had a concrete wall of any kind around it and the only thing he could come up was the State
Penitentiary in St. Cloud. He said he couldn't imagine why a 6 foot tall concrete wall would be
needed to protect used cars.
Mr. Ahl said that would best be answered by a CarMax representative.
Commissioner Desai said he agrees with everything Commissioner Trippler said. He said he lives
in the general area by Maplewood Toyota and he drives those roads a few times every day so he
knows what the traffic problems are. This is a very dangerous intersection area. He asked if we
are going to see the road improvements on Beam Avenue and then the CarMax proposal built or
is CarMax going to be operating and then the road improvements are done after the fact?
Mr. AM said it's likely the road improvements will be done by November of 2007 and may be done
before CarMax is built. CarMax will not be the largest generator of traffic from this site, it will be
the user of Lot 3 which will be a big box retail facility. Mr. AN said if you recall the Country View
Golf Course when it was in operation there were many accidents and congestion problems there
with the turn lane going in and out of the site. When we add traffic capacity to the Highway 61 and
Beam intersection, MNDOT originally proposed to those improvements for 2009/2010 and now
has been moved up to 2007 which will really help improve the traffic operations at the intersection.
Commissioner Desai asked if the left turn lane to be constructed for the people driving into
CarMax will be there or will CarMax not be allowed to have any cars turning left into the area
before then?
Mr. Ahl said that would probably be the situation.
Commissioner Desai said currently Maplewood Toyota has a left turn on Beam Avenue turning
onto Highway 61 and people are still stopping and creating accidents on a regular basis. So he
believes that making a left turn into CarMax will be the same problem we had into the Country
View Golf Course site when it was open. He strongly believes that situation needs to be
addressed before anything else can be done in this area.
Mr. Ahl said he didn't discuss all the traffic improvements here but there are going to be
improvements on Beam Avenue that will have turning restrictions.
Planning Commission -4-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Commissioner Desai said he has questions regarding the area that is classified as the Watershed
District where there will be an impervious surface and the parking area for customers. He asked
how oil will be protected from going into the watershed area?
Mr. AN said the city worries about that getting into the ponding system as well. That is a final
design requirement for car dealerships, repair shops and service stations. There are oil skimming
devices and there are requirements for stormwater systems in the area to handle that.
Commissioner Hess asked about the oil infiltration, and if there are plans to have containment
tanks or trenching outside the building?
Mr. AN said he isn't sure about the requirements for the inside of the building because that's a
building inspector requirement but most buildings do have floor drains in them. The Public Works
facility has floor drains, which is a local requirement. Public Works looks at skimming devices and
there are ponds and outlet devices which are requirements we get into during the final design.
The final design is being done under the city, not by the developer but at the developer's expense.
Commissioner Hess said on page C3. 2A there are grading and paving notes and it looks like
there is a provision noted for concrete walkways. At the last review he asked if they were going to
put a sidewalk on Beam Avenue and he wondered if anything transpired because of that.
Mr. AN said he wasn't aware of any sidewalks proposed along Beam Avenue because the city
isn't proposing any along Beam Avenue. There is a dedicated regional trail system along County
Road D so we are not proposing any sidewalks there.
Commissioner Yarwood asked staff how many vehicle trips per day would be going in and out of
the site and will that significantly add to the traffic along Highway 61 ?
Mr. AN said Mr. Bourdon the traffic consultant with Kimley and Horn can address that question.
Commissioner Trippler said the memo on page 34 of the staff report under the Infiltration Systems
it states the bottom of this infiltration basin is near elevation 863. 0, which is likely near the normal
(ground) water level. Plan Sheet C3.2A shows a normal water level (NWL) of 864.25 for the
infiltration basin while the HydroCAD model reflects no such assumption. Tina Carstens from the
Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District said in her report on page 46 in the staff report that
the ground water is quite high in this location and therefore wouldn't meet the 3 foot separation to
groundwater requirement for infiltration basins. To him that statement means that the rainwater
gardens may not be very effective here.
Mr. AN said these aren't the rain garden designs, these are the infiltration ponds. One of the
difficulties with this site is that the soils are not very stabile and the more water storage at a higher
elevation will move the soils around and we want to keep the soils stabile. That comment means
the assumptions from the developer's engineers need to be explored and we've done that. The
Ramsey Washington Watershed District has a large complex on the south site and have the
capacity within the area. We are working with to try to meet those overall intents. The provision of
1 inch of infiltration still applies which is the standard. What that says is that the assumption is a
little high however they have enough infiltration areas and buffer areas if you look at the map
there is a very large buffer area for this site and meet the requirements as needed.
Planning Commission -5-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Commissioner Trippler said on page 40 of the staff report above table 1 the sentence above it
said these existing and proposed wetland and buffer areas are illustrated in Exhibits 8 and 9 but
he said he couldn't find Exhibits 8 and 9 in the staff report.
Mr. AN apologized that Exhibits 8 and 9 were the colored drawings he put on the overhead and
were part of a study that was not provided for the planning commission and if the commission
would like one staff can get that for you.
Commissioner Trippler said it was fine with him just to those exhibits were the ones that Mr. AN
had put on the overhead.
►ViW- lfti 0 gIIIC•� oICTFTiT[•T 0:ITt 4I :,
Mr. Brandon Bourdon, Kimley Horn & Associates, addressed the commission. Based on the trip
generation for the various land use assumptions for the different parcels the overall trip generation
would be roughly 11,000 vehicle trips per day. Of those 11,000 vehicle trips CarMax would be
about 2,700 vehicle trips per day so CarMax is roughly 25% of the total trips and the big box retail
shown on the plans would be well over 50% of the total site trips on the overall development. The
traffic volumes and the site traffic over the peak hour that would translate to a 20% increase of the
traffic on County Road D as well as Beam Avenue including all the traffic from the development
area not just for CarMax.
Commissioner Desai said the 11,000 vehicle trips is that currently or is that after the both of the
facilities are put in place?
Mr. Bourdon said that would be the daily anticipated vehicle trips after the whole development was
done.
Commissioner Desai asked what the current vehicle trip rate today?
Mr. Bourdon said there are roughly 25,000 vehicle trips per day now on Beam Avenue so this
development will add about 3,000 more vehicle trips or 20% more vehicles to Beam Avenue
equaling about 28,000 vehicle trips per day.
Commissioner Desai asked if he meant 3,000 more vehicle trips with the addition of CarMax only?
Mr. Bourdon said that would be for the whole site developed including all the vehicle trips for the
site.
(But if you take the 25,000 vehicle trips now plus the additional 11,000 vehicle trips for the entire
site constructed that equals roughly 36,000 vehicle trips not 28,000 vehicle trips.)
Commissioner Desai asked what the traffic volume levels would be at the peak hours?
Mr. Bourdon said at the peak hour it would be about 400 additional vehicle trips on Beam Avenue
and today there are roughly 2,000 vehicle trips per day during the peak hours.
Mr. Roberts asked what the average vehicle trip was on Highway 61?
Planning Commission -6-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Mr. Bourdon said roughly 31,000 vehicle trips per day.
Commissioner Yarwood said with the improvements that Chuck AN was talking what is the
general feel for how much capacity the total set of improvements is going to add to this area in
terms of the traffic volumes it can handle safely and effectively verses what it handles today?
Mr. Bourdon said when we look at how the development is built up in 2010 the conditions with the
improvements are similar with what would happen if there were no improvements and regular
growth occurring. Changing the lane configurations at Beam Avenue and Highway 61 and some
of the alignments will improve safety considerably from what is out there today. It also allows the
signal to operate more efficiently because you don't have to separate the west bound movements
from the east bound movements and they can run at the same time, so that would be an
improvement. Those improvements would end up being so the development would have minimal
impact overall which is what we look for. What happens before the development and making sure
that would happen if there was no action verses the development that mitigation measures are put
in place to keep things at a similar level of operation.
Commissioner Trippler said Tina Carstens from the Ramsey Washington Watershed District
commented on page 46 in number 5. she indicated they would like something in the maintenance
agreement regarding the pervious bituminous that would state no saltlsand usage and also a
vacuum sweep at least annually. He said he looked for that in the recommendations in the staff
report and he didn't see that. Has staff or will staff cover that in some other agreement?
Mr. AN said these types of sites always have a development contract after approval and then
those conditions are listed in there. The developer has to sign that and post escrow funds to
ensure that is done and that condition will be part of the annual operating maintenance agreement
that the city puts together as part of the Public Works Department we check that every year that
they do that. You may have seen where it says to enter into a storm water maintenance
agreement and that is the agreement so that condition will be covered.
Commissioner Hess said on page 43 of the staff report, item number 5. Ginny Gaynor commented
she would like to see more trees in the parking lot median, he asked staff if there is a modification
to the plan for that?
Mr. Ekstrand said he spoke to Ginny Gaynor about that and her thought is that trees in parking
lots are beneficial to shade vehicles. Staff is in the process to prepare the report for the CDRB
meeting and landscaping is part of that report. Ginny Gaynor liked the idea of moving the trees
closer to the parking lot and having trees in the parking medians to shade and cool the vehicles.
Staff was going to ask the applicants how they feel about that. In his case he has many trees on
his property and sap from trees often times drips on his vehicles so he was curious how the
applicant felt regarding the requirement of having trees planted close to where vehicles will be
parked.
Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission.
Planning Commission -7-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Mr. Dave Sellegren, Land Use Lawyer here on behalf of CarMax, addressed the commission. He
verbally introduced the members of the team representing the CarMax proposal. He said they
weren't sure what the relationship was between the planning commission and the community
design review board conditions so they brought everybody with in case there were questions to be
answered. This is a very thorough staff report so there is a lot of information attached to it and
there are a number of other studies. This started out to be a larger project but due to the soil
conditions on the site this and the large storm water pipes the site has been reduced so the
concept has changed. Rather than going over the whole plan in detail he introduced Joe
Jagdmann to report on the development.
Mr. Joe Jagdmann, Real Estate Manager, residing at 12504 Hardings Trace Place, Richmond
Virginia, representing CarMax, addressed the commission. He said CarMax is new to the area
and the closest location is in Chicago, Illinois and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. CarMax has 74 facilities
in 20 states nationwide. We have grown in 13 years and sell over 300,000 vehicles a year. We are
a transparent; no haggle business, with a customer service policy. If you come in to our lot asking
how much we would buy your vehicle from we will give you a price which is good for 7 days
whether you end up buying another car from us or not. If you come in and decide to buy a vehicle
from us, there is no price haggling, the commission is the same for the sales consultant whether
you buy a Ford Escort or a Lexus SUV, the purpose is to serve the customer and not to drive up
the average price of a vehicle.
Mr. Jagdmann said we offer a quality alternative to gimmicks. We have sources of financing that
are actually open the hours we are open so we get actual real time quotes and present them to
the customer as we get them. We will employee 80 to 100 employees in this facility and at least
80 of those will be hired from the local area. CarMax is a company for the last two years is one of
the 100 best companies to work for in America and amongst the 200 most admired companies in
America. We are very grateful for the work that Mr. Chuck AN and Mr. Tom Ekstrand and their
staff for all the work that has been done on this proposal so we want to thank them. Mr. Jagdmann
put a site plan up and went over the site and where everything will be located. He said the sales
lot will be surrounded by highway guardrail or bent pipe bollards and is surrounded in that fashion
with access controlled by embassy style security gates. If a thief tries to drive through that gate
they will shear the top off their vehicle before they get through that gate. We don't have a shrink
problem so that is the purpose for the limited lot and there will be no access from Beam Avenue
across to County Road D or across Highway 61 for that reason that it is a secure lot.
Mr. Jagdmann said the six foot tall masonry wall that was discussed it extends north of the north
wall of the northern most building and runs south along the east wall. The wall will match the
building that surrounds it. The purpose for the wall is so that they can have a work in progress
area that is isolated and not an eyesore. The vehicles that are driven in are driven in off of Beam
Avenue. We put a truck template on that lot to make sure we can get around the lot, stop, drop
the vehicles and we are fully aware of the issues of tractor trailers unloading on the street and we
are fully willing to be compliant with the law in that respect.
Planning Commission -8-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Mr. Jagdmann described the layout of the site and how the vehicles will come in and get ready to
sell on the lot. The reason for the six foot tall masonry wall is to clean up the vehicles behind the
wall which we think will make the overall site more attractive, not less attractive. We intend with
the CDRB anything they want to know about the proposed wall. Regarding the trees in the parking
medians we try to avoid having trees in the sales lot. We try to clump the trees on the edge of the
lot but we think that trees in parking medians cause problems with leaves dropping, birds sitting in
the trees, bird droppings on the vehicles, and sap from the trees dripping on vehicles so it would
our preference to not have trees in the parking medians because of the maintenance issues. We
want to meet the landscaping ordinance and have approval of the city. He showed a photo of their
CarMax in Harrisburg, Virginia. This is a satellite facility and not a production facility. One of the
questions was why don't we come in off of the north south connector off County Road D and
Beam Avenue. We drew the site in that fashion and would have preferred to build in that fashion,
but the cost of development to cross the twin 48's in that poor soil was exorbitant and could not
pay it. As a result we shrunk the site down from a production facility to a satellite facility. The
difference being that a production facility we recondition vehicles to CarMax standards, the site
would be larger at 14 to 20 developed acres. A satellite facility would be 8 to 10 developed acres.
We will now have our cars produced at another location in the market and brought to this location
for final work and be sold. Sidewalks are on the north south road but he is not aware any
sidewalks on Beam Avenue nor has he ever heard of plans to have a sidewalk on Beam Avenue.
The question regarding moving the transport gate from Highway 61 to County Road D the issue is
the grade. If that could be worked out we would be willing to look at that and if that can be worked
out we hope to come back with a new plan that is acceptable to everyone.
Commissioner Trippler asked the applicant to show on the site plan where the six foot tall
masonry wall would be located on the site. Which the applicant did.
Commissioner Hess asked how they intended to get rid of oil and flammables on the site.
Mr. Jagdmann said he may give a longer explanation than what you are asking but in a satellite
facility we have an above ground gasoline storage tank which will meet all applicable legal
requirements. The service is done all indoors. What ends up on the floor of the service building is
washed into their drain system where it goes through an oil /water separator, and into the sanitary
sewer system.
Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Jagdmann to indicate where the employee parking will be as
opposed to where the customer parking will be?
Mr. Jagdmann said CarMax decided it would be so much easier to just make all the parking
spaces 9'12 feet wide as opposed to the 9 foot wide parking spaces. We are working through final
details for setback and detention and part of that is to relocate the roadway but at the same time
we would be adding a few more parking spaces.
Mr. Roberts asked if he was correct that CarMax will only sell used cars?
Mr. Jagdmann said we do have a few new car franchises but at this location as in a great number
of locations like 64 out of 74 facilities they sell used cars only.
Mr. Roberts asked where CarMax gets the vehicles they offer for sale?
Planning Commission -9-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Mr. Jagdmann said about half of the vehicles come to the lot from customers coming to the lot and
selling their vehicle to CarMax. When we end up with vehicles that we buy from the customer we
sell half of them in an auction house such as Manheim which are sold to licensed dealers. There
are no auctions done at this site, those are done in auction warehouses. The other half of the
vehicles are reconditioned and sold on the site.
Mr. Sellegran said we generally agree with the staff conditions in the staff report, some of the
wording may change because of some misunderstandings. We will meet all the requirements of
the city and with the Watershed District. We ask for your recommendation so this can go on to the
city council for final review and approval.
Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak
regarding this proposal to come forward.
Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Trippler asked on page 48, attachment 11, is that legal description correct and
does it include all the lots for the development site?
Mr. Ekstrand said he will have to check on that because when he wrote this resolution he used the
legal description for the report that he used earlier this summer. Before this goes to the city
council he said he would make sure the legal description is correct. We don't want to be giving
site plan approval for anything other than CarMax and we want to see the other lots come through
for the normal review process. The PUD is for the whole site and the CUP is for Lot 1.
Commissioner Trippler said in the recommendations it states a drainage and wetland report and
DuWayne Konewko's report is called Stormwater /Wetland report. Would it be alright if we made it
consistent and change the name of the report?
Mr. Ekstrand said that would be fine, staff would make those reference changes in the report.
Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a
planned unit development for the CarMax /Mogren Addition development. Approval is based on
the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (changes or
additions are underlined and deletions are stricken.)
1. The development shall follow the plans date - stamped October 20, 2006, except where the city
requires changes. 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. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. This approval permits the development of the CarMax site subject to the conditions of the city
council. The future development sites are not approved at this time. The developers of these
sites must submit all necessary applications and materials for evaluation of those plans as
required by the city ordinance.
Planning Commission -10-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
5. If the watershed district allows their twin drainage pipes to be relocated above grade as an
open channel, the PUD shall also require that all developments within the CarMax/Mogren
Addition actively and regularly pick up all litter from their parking lots to keep debris from
entering this open channel.
6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated
November 21, 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson.
7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan review reports as
follows:
• The DFaiRage a Stormwater/Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November
22, 2006.
• The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated
November 22, 2006.
• The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006.
8. The PUD allows the applicants to provide 9 -foot -wide parking stalls for all inventory and
employee parking spaces. Customer parking spaces must be 9'/2 feet wide as code requires.
The applicants shall provide justification as to how many customer and employee parking
spaces they need and then show that number on the site plan. Customer and employee
parking spaces shall be signed as such.
9. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The concrete -block screening wall design is not
allowed as proposed. The design of this smooth -faced concrete block wall must be
resubmitted to the community design review board for approval.
10. The pervious - paving method proposed within the shoreland boundary area shall meet the
requirements of the shoreland ordinance. This shall be subject to the approval of the city
engineer.
11. Vehicle transports shall not use public right -of -way for loading or unloading.
12. The proposed driveway on Highway 61 shall remain gated and closed except for as needed in
vehicle test drives at A-ll timnc eYGept When nnnrlor) fnr y t Qhinln transpGi c deliVeFiRg Vehinlnc nr
eX iti„ry the s ite and needs to be approved by the city engineer This access shall not be
allowed for any other use by employees or customers. Further design consideration shall be
given for the gate location.
13. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building, except
for what they store in the dumpster enclosure.
14. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces.
15.The applicants shall obtain any required permits from the Ramsey Washington Metro
Watershed District, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota and meet the requirements of
those agencies.
Planning Commission -11-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
16. The site plan shall be revised to move the driveway on Beam Avenue as far to the east as
possible. This revision shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer.
17. The city engineer shall get the necessary approvals for wetland mitigation from the watershed
district as part of the public improvements needed for this subdivision and development as
stated in the report by DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Management Specialist.
18.All buildings, paving, unneeded utilities, etc. within the proposed subdivision shall be
demolished and removed from the site by the applicants.
19. The applicants shall provide all development agreements, maintenance agreements and
escrows required by the city. These agreements shall be executed and escrows paid before
the issuance of building permits.
Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the preliminary plat for the CarMax /Mogren Addition,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Signing of the following agreements with the city:
• A maintenance agreement, prepared by the city for the rainwater gardens, ponds and
sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each
garden, pond and basin. The developer /owner of the property will be responsible for all
such maintenance.
A development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the
development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D.
2. Revising the plat to rename all outlots with lot and block numbers.
3. The applicants shall dedicate any easements that the city may require for drainage and utility
purposes.
4. The name of the street shall be subject to the approval of the city's public safety staff and city
engineer.
5. The applicants shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that
the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing.
6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated
November 21, 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson.
7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan - review reports as
follows:
• The DFai age anel Stormwater/Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November
22, 2006.
Planning Commission -12-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
• The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated
November 22, 2006.
• The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006.
Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood
The motion passed.
This item goes to the CDRB on December 12, 2006, and to the city council on December 18,
2006.
Agenda Item H1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
SUBJECT: CarMax / Mogren Area Improvements, City Project 06 -17-
7:00 pm Public Hearing -- Resolution Ordering Project to Construction and
Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications (4 votes required)
DATE: December 8, 2006
INTRODUCTION /SUMMARY
Bruce Mogren, representing Countryview Golf, is proposing a development on the former Countryview Golf
Course site. The development includes the addition of a CarMax Used Car Dealership at the corner of
Beam Avenue and Trunk Highway 61. The site includes a major retail store along with a fitness center and
office facility. Mr. Mogren petitioned the city on June 12, 2006 to prepare the engineering plans for the
public roadway that crosses through the development and deposited $168,000 for the engineering
services. The development application is being recommended by staff and was presented and
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on December 5, 2006. The Preliminary Report
was approved by the Council on November 27, 2006 and a Public Hearing called for December 18, 2006.
The development proposal will be reviewed as part of this item and should be the first action taken by the
Council followed by the Public Hearing on the project.
Background
The CarMax / Mogren Addition is located north of Beam Avenue, east of Trunk Highway 61, south of the
newly aligned County Road D and west of the Bruce Vento Trail. The developer will be working closely
with the city to develop a storm water management system that will benefit the environment by improving
the quality of water. It is proposed that the major street and utilities through the center of the development
be public infrastructure. They are to be constructed as part of a public improvement project. A consultant,
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA), will prepare the detailed plans and specifications for the street
and utilities. KHA has completed the preliminary report and is recommending improvements of
$4,416,000. A majority of the project will be assessed to the benefiting property, although the City
($517,550), Ramsey County ($292,550), and MnDOT ($211,300) have obligations on improvements at
County Road D and at Beam/TH 61 that should be coordinated with this project. The City's share of the
project is proposed to be paid from Municipal State Aid Funds. The development has some impacts of TH
61 -Beam; however major problems exist at this intersection that MnDOT and Ramsey County have
requested to be included as part of this project. The developer is contributing 25% funding to that regional
transportation project in a cooperative agency — private property owner improvement plan.
Budget
A not -to- exceed project budget of $168,000 was established for the project development and preliminary
engineering required to complete the feasibility study and the project plans and specifications. The funds
for 100% cost of the feasiblility budget were posted by the developer. Attached is the executive summary
from the Preliminary Report. The Council received the entire Preliminary Report as part of the November
27 Meeting. The recommended resolution orders this project to be constructed and establishes a project
budget of $4,416,000. The assessment amount will be secured by the developer through a letter of credit
until the assessments are levied in April 2007. Funds for the city share will be part of an MSAS Bond to be
issued in the spring / summer 2007.
Agenda Item H1
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution ordering the project to be
constructed, establishing a project budget of $4,416,000 and authorizing the preparation of plans and
specification for the CarMax 1 Mogren Addition, City Project 06 -14. [Note: per Mn Statute 429, this
resolution requires a 415 majority vote of the Council.]
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Executive Summary
3. Preliminary Report — [provided to Council with November 27" agenda]
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 27th day of November, 2006, fixed a date
for a council hearing on the proposed public improvements for the CarMaxlMogren Addition Improvements,
City Project 06 -17.
AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given,
and the hearing was duly held on December 18, 2006, and the council has heard all persons desiring to be
heard on the matter and has fully considered the same;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, as follows:
1. That it is necessary, cost- effective and feasible, as detailed in the feasibility report, that the
City of Maplewood make public improvements to the proposed CarMaxlMogren Addition Improvements,
City Project 06 -17.
2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in this council resolution adopted the 18th
day of December 2006.
3. The city engineer is designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to
prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement.
4. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the financial transfers necessary to
implement the financing plan for the project. A project budget of $4,416,000 shall be established. The
proposed financing plan is as follows:
Developer Assessments $ 3,394,600 (76.9 %)
City of Maplewood — MSAS Bond Funds $ 517,550 (11.7 %)
Ramsey County $ 292,550 (6.6 %)
MnDOT $ 211,300 (4.8 %)
Total $ 4,416,000
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06 -17
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Feasibility Study and Report has been prepared for the CarMax/Mogren Addition
Improvements, City Project 46 -17. The proposed project includes the following
improvements:
• Construction of a new, north -south public roadway east of Trunk Highway 61,
between County Road D and Beam Avenue. The public roadway will traverse the
site of the proposed CarMax/Mogren development.
• Roadway improvements on Beam Avenue from its intersection with Trunk Highway
61 to approximately 2000 feet east. These roadway improvements will include:
relocation of various site appurtenances; widening of the roadway to the north to
include a median and turn lanes onto the proposed roadway; installation of curb and
gutter on the north side of the roadway; mill and overlay of the existing pavement;
modifications to the storm sewer system; and installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of the proposed roadway with Beam Avenue.
• Improvements to the intersection of Beam Avenue and Trunk Highway 61.
Improvements will include: road widening, removal of an existing concrete island;
removal of an existing traffic signal; and installation of a new traffic signal.
• Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the proposed roadway with County
Road D. Turn lane improvements on County Road D at this intersection have been
completed as a part of the County Road D project and are not included in the scope of
this project.
• Construction of new storm sewer to convey storm water runoff from within the
proposed roadway right -of -way to existing ponds, proposed ponds, and rain gardens
within the proposed CarMax /Mogren development.
• Construction of a drainage swale and replacement of existing twin 48 -inch pipes with
an open channel.
• Construction of new wetlands on the project site to mitigate project impacts to
existing wetlands.
• Installation of new gravity sanitary sewer along the proposed roadway to service the
proposed development. The proposed sanitary sewer will connect to existing sanitary
sewer on Beam Avenue.
• Installation of new watermain along the proposed roadway to service the proposed
development and connect to an existing watermain on Beam Avenue.
The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs
include a construction contingency of 10% and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs.
Proposed Improvement Estimated Cost
Roadway Improvements
North -South Roadway $ 840,000
Beam Avenue $ 1,595,000
Beam Avenue /TH 61 Intersection $ 570,000
County Road D Intersection $ 304,000
Storm Water Management
North -South Roadway Storm Sewer $ 213,000
Open Ditch/Wetland Section $ 434,000
Additional Wetland Areas $ 29,000
Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 240,000
Watermain Improvements $ 191,000
Total Project Cost $ 4,416,000
The improvements are proposed to be funded through a combination of special
assessments to the developer, City of Maplewood funds, Ramsey County funds, and
MnDOT funds.
Financing Source
November 27, 2006
Amount
Assessments
$
3,394,600
City of Maplewood
$
517,550
Ramsey County
$
292,550
MnDOT
$
211,300
Total
$
4,416,000
The following is a proposed schedule for the project if the City Council votes to proceed.
Feasibility Study Accepted, Call Public Hearing
November 27, 2006
Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specs
November 27, 2006
Public Hearing
December 18, 2006
Final Plans Complete for State Aid Review /Approval
March 2, 2007
Approve Plans and Authorize Ad for Bids
March 12, 2007
Bid Opening
April 13, 2007
Award Contract
April 23, 2007
Construction Start
June 4, 2007*
Construction Complete
October/November 2007
* The construction start and completion dates are dependent upon the completion of the
mass site grading by the developer. The mass site grading along the north -south roadway
right -of -way must be completed and accepted by the City before public utility and
roadway reconstruction can begin_ This schedule assumes that the site grading will be
complete by June 1, 2007.
Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this report, the proposed CarMax/Mogren
Addition Improvements, City Project 06 -17 are feasible, necessary, cost- effective and
would benefit the City of Maplewood.
ii
■
CarHax/Mogren Addition
Improvements
City Project 06 -17
Feasibility Study
And Report
Prepared for:
City of Maplewood
November 2006
❑�❑ Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
❑ � ❑ KimleyHorn
and Associates, Inc.
November 27, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B Suite 345N
Maplewood MN 55109 2550 University Avenue West
St. Paul, Minnesota
55114
Attn: R. Charles Ahl, P.E.
Director of Public Works /City Engineer
Re: Feasibility Study and Report
CarMax/Mogren Addition Improvements
City Project 06 -17
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The enclosed feasibility report has been prepared for the CarMax/Mogren
Addition Improvements, City Project 06 -17, as authorized at the June 12,
2006 City Council meeting. The feasibility report details the scope of the
project as discussed with City staff and provides estimated costs and a
proposed method of financing for the project.
Information utilized in the preparation of this report included utility as-
builts, information from other City studies /reports, information from the
project developer, other information gathered through field reviews of the
project area, and discussions with City staff. All available information
was reviewed and considered to determine the feasibility of the proposed
proj ect.
We believe that the proposed project is feasible, that it will benefit the
properties in the project area, and that it will benefit the City of
Maplewood.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chadd B. Larson, P.E.
Project Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Erin Laberee /City of Maplewood
File: 160500020/3.10
■
TEL 651 645 4197
FAX 651 645 5116
FEASIBILITY STUDY AND REPORT
FOR
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06 -17
NOVEMBER 2006
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
2550 University Avenue West
Suite 345N
St. Paul, MN 55114
(651) 645 -4197
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Signature:
Chadd B. Larson, P.E.
Date: 10710K Lic. No. 41864
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06 -17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
10, 01_1 _\ %W l yj I0 %\• •
1. INTRODUCTION
1
2. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
1
A. Roadway Improvements
Beam Avenue Typical Street Section
B. Storm Water Management
Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
C. Wetlands Management
Beam Avenue/Trunk Highway 61 Intersection Improvements - Intersection
D. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Detail
E. Watermain Improvements
Proposed Drainage System
3. RIGHT -OF -WAY AND EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS
8
4. ESTIMATED COSTS
8
5. METHOD OF FINANCING
9
6. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
9
7. PROJECT SCHEDULE
10
8. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11
\ID KOM WN O_ I: : f
Exhibit 1:
Project Location Map
Exhibit 2:
North -South Roadway Typical Street Section
Exhibit 3:
Beam Avenue Typical Street Section
Exhibit 4:
Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
Exhibit 5:
Beam Avenue/Trunk Highway 61 Intersection Improvements - Intersection
Detail
Exhibit 6:
Proposed Drainage System
Exhibit 7:
Wetland Impacts
Exhibit 8:
Proposed Wetland and Buffer Areas
Exhibit 9:
Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Improvements
Exhibit 10:
Assessment Area Map
APPENDIX B - DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX C - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Feasibility Study and Report has been prepared for the CarMax/Mogren Addition
Improvements, City Project 06-17. The proposed project includes the following
improvements:
❑ Construction of a new north-south public roadway east of Trunk Highway 61,
between County Road D and Beam Avenue. The public roadway will traverse the
site of the proposed CarMax/Mogren development.
❑ Roadway improvements on Beam Avenue from its intersection with Trunk Highway
61 to approximately 2,000 feet east. These roadway improvements will include:
relocation of various site appurtenances; widening of the roadway to the north to
include a median and turn lanes onto the proposed roadway; installation of curb and
gutter on the north side of the roadway; mill and overlay of the existing pavement;
modifications to the storm sewer system; and installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of the proposed roadway with Beam Avenue.
❑ Improvements to the intersection of Beam Avenue and Trunk Highway 61.
Improvements will include: road widening, removal of an existing concrete island;
removal of an existing traffic signal; and installation of a new traffic signal.
❑ Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the proposed roadway with County
Road D. Turn lane improvements on County Road D at this intersection have been
completed as a part of the County Road D project and are not included in the scope of
this project.
❑ Construction of new storm sewer to convey storm water runoff from within the
proposed roadway right-of-way to existing ponds, proposed ponds, and rain gardens
within the proposed CarMax/Mogren development.
❑ Construction of a drainage swale and replacement of existing twin 48-inch pipes with
an open channel.
❑ Construction of new wetlands on the project site to mitigate project impacts to
existing wetlands.
❑ Installation of new gravity sanitary sewer along the proposed roadway to service the
proposed development. The proposed sanitary sewer will connect to existing sanitary
sewer on Beam Avenue.
❑ Installation of new watermain along the proposed roadway to service the proposed
development and connect to an existing waterniain on Beam Avenue.
The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs
include a construction contingency of 10% and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs.
Proposed Improvement Estimated Cost
Roadway Improvements
North-South Roadway 840,000
Beam Avenue 1,595,000
Beam Avenne/TH 61 Intersection 570,000
County Road D Intersection 304,000
Storm Water Management
North-South Roadway Storm Sewer 213,000
Open Ditch/Wetland Sections 434,000
Additional Wetland Areas 29,000
Sanitary Sewer Improvements 240,000
Watermain Improvements 191,000
Total Project Cost 4,416,000
The improvements are proposed to be funded through a combination of special
assessments to the developer, City of Maplewood funds, Ramsey County funds, and
MnDOT funds.
Financing Source
Amount
Assessments
3,394,600
City of Maplewood
517,550
Ramsey County
292,550
MnDOT
211,300
Total
4,416,000
The following is a proposed schedule for the project if the City Council votes to proceed.
Feasibility Study Accepted, Call Public Hearing November 27, 2006
Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specs November 27, 2006
Public Hearing December 18, 2006
Final Plans Complete for State Aid Review/Approval March 2, 2007
Approve Plans and Authorize Ad for Bids March 12, 2007
Bid Opening April 13, 2007
Award Contract April 23, 2007
Construction Start June 4, 2007*
Construction Complete October/November 2007
* The construction start and completion dates are dependent upon the completion of the
mass site grading by the developer. The mass site grading along the north-south roadway
right-of-way must be completed and accepted by the City before public utility and
roadway reconstruction can begin. This schedule assumes that the site grading will be
complete by June 1, 2007.
Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this report, the proposed CarMax/Mogren
Addition Improvements, City Project 06-17 are feasible, necessary, cost-effective and
would benefit the City of Maplewood.
IN
1. INTRODUCTION
On June 12, 2006 the Maplewood City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility
study for the CarMax/Mogren Addition Improvements, City Project 06-17. The proposed
project includes the following improvements:
❑ Construction of a new, north-south public roadway east of Trunk Highway 61,
between County Road D and Beam Avenue. The public roadway will traverse the
site of the proposed CarMax/Mogren development.
❑ Roadway improvements on Beam Avenue from its intersection with Trunk Highway
61 to approximately 2000 feet east. These roadway improvements will include:
relocation of various site appurtenances; widening of the roadway to the north to
include a median and turn lanes onto the proposed roadway; installation of curb and
gutter on the north side of the roadway; mill and overlay of the existing pavement;
modifications to the storm sewer system; and installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of the proposed roadway with Beam Avenue.
❑ Improvements to the intersection of Beam Avenue and Trunk Highway 61.
Improvements will include: road widening, removal of an existing concrete island;
removal of an existing traffic signal; and installation of a new traffic signal.
❑ Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the proposed roadway with County
Road D. Turn lane improvements on County Road D at this intersection have been
completed as a part of the County Road D project and are not included in the scope of
this project.
❑ Construction of new storm sewer to convey storm water runoff from within the
proposed roadway right-of-way to existing ponds, proposed ponds, and rain gardens
within the proposed CarMax/Mogren development.
❑ Construction of a drainage swale and replacement of existing twin 48-inch pipes with
an open channel.
❑ Construction of new wetlands on the project site to mitigate project impacts to
existing wetlands.
❑ Installation of new gravity sanitary sewer along the proposed roadway to service the
proposed development. The proposed sanitary sewer will connect to existing sanitary
sewer on Beam Avenue.
❑ Installation of new watermain along the proposed roadway to service the proposed
development and connect to an existing watermain on Beam Avenue.
The proposed improvements are necessitated by the proposed developments in the area
immediately east of Trunk Highway 61, between County Road D and Beam Avenue.
Details of the project are outlined in this report along with the estimated costs, proposed
funding methods, and proposed assessments to the benefiting property owners.
A project location map is provided as Exhibit I in Appendix A.
2. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
The following is a summary of the proposed street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and
watermain improvements, and wetland management included as a part of this project.
Exhibits 2 - 9 in Appendix A further illustrate the proposed improvements.
A. Roadway Improvements
1) North-South Roadway Improvements
The project includes the construction of a new, north-south public roadway to
serve the proposed CarMax/Mogren developments east of Trunk Highway 61
between County Road D and Beam Avenue. The proposed developments are at
the location of the old Country View Golf Course. The proposed roadway
alignment will traverse the CarMax/Mogren development and will intersect with
County Road D and Beam Avenue. The total length of the proposed roadway is
approximately 1,600 feet.
The roadway is proposed to be constructed to a 48-foot total width (face of curb
to face of curb) with a 16-foot wide continuous center turn lane, concrete curb and
gutter, and bituminous pavement. At the proposed roadway intersections with
County Road D and Beam Avenue, exclusive right and left turn lanes will be
constructed.
The bituminous pavement will include the City standard pavement section of 3-
112 inches of bituminous pavement and 8-inches of Class 6 aggregate base course.
The existing soils in the project area are assumed to be generally acceptable for
the street construction with a possibility for isolated areas of soil correction. For
purposes of this feasibility study, we have assumed a 24-inch section of select
granular borrow under the pavement section.
Commercial driveway entrances will be constructed as shown on the preliminary
master plan for the CarMax/Mogren developments. Commercial driveway
entrances are proposed at five locations along the proposed roadway.
This feasibility report assumes that the grading required for the construction of the
proposed roadway will be completed by the developer's contractor to a 0.2 foot
tolerance of the final design roadway grades. The grading will occur prior to
commencement of the City project. Demolition of all existing site appurtenances
is also assumed to occur before the start of the City project.
Exhibit 2 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed street section. Exhibit 4 in
Appendix A illustrates the proposed street improvements.
2) Beam Avenue Roadway Improvements
In conjunction with the proposed roadway to serve the CarMax/Mogren
developments, the City of Maplewood has proposed the reconstruction of
approximately 2,000 feet of Beam Avenue from its intersection with Trunk
Highway 61 to the existing railroad tracks east of the proposed development.
Reconstruction of Beam Avenue will involve widening the existing roadway to
the north to provide turn lanes into the proposed development. The pavement
section of the widened portion of Beam Avenue will be the same as the existing
2
Beam Avenue pavement section and will consist of 12 inches of bituminous
pavement, 8 inches of Class 6 aggregate base, and 24 inches of select granular
borrow. Concrete curb and gutter will be constructed along the north side of
Beam Avenue. The Beam Avenue widening will necessitate site restoration,
storm sewer modifications, and the relocation of various site appurtenances,
including existing signs and fire hydrants.
The existing pavement on Beam Avenue, from Trunk Highway 61 to
approximately 2,000 feet east, will have a 2-inch mill and overlay. After milling
of the existing pavement is complete, the pavement will be sawcut for the
construction of raised concrete medians. Following median construction, the
pavement will be overlayed with a 2-inch bituminous wear course section.
The Beam Avenue improvements will also include the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection of Beam Avenue with the proposed roadway. The
proposed traffic signal will necessitate the installation of an interconnect between
the new traffic signal and the traffic signal at the Beam Avenue/Trunk Highway
61 intersection. Beam Avenue will be constructed under traffic requiring a traffic
control and phasing/staging plan. All improvements along Beam Avenue will be
subject to the review and approval by Ramsey County.
Exhibit 3 in Appendix A illustrates the Beam Avenue typical street section.
Exhibit 4 illustrates the proposed Beam Avenue improvements.
3) Beam Avenue/Trunk Highway 61 Intersection Improvements
At the request of MnDOT, additional improvements are proposed at the
intersection of Beam Avenue and Trunk Highway 61. These improvements will
include: the removal of a concrete island; additional lanes on Beam Avenue, east
and west of Trunk Highway 61; removal of the existing traffic signal; and
installation of a new traffic signal.
Exhibit 5 details the Beam Avenue/Trunk Highway 61 intersection improvements.
4) County Road D Intersection Improvements
At the intersection of the proposed roadway with County Road D, a traffic signal
will be installed to facilitate traffic flow to and from the proposed developments
onto County Road D. Turn lane improvements on County Road D at the
intersection with the proposed roadway have been completed as a part of the
County Road D project and are not included in the scope of this project.
B. Storm Water Management
I ) Existing Drainage System and Features
The existing drainage system consists of a regional treatment pond at the north
end of the site which collects and treats runoff from portions of County Road D.
The existing pond has treatment capacity for a portion of the proposed
development south of County Road D, including portions of the proposed public
road and the private development east of the proposed road. The treated storm
water from the regional pond discharges to a two-cell constructed wetland system
immediately to the west before entering a section of what is referred to as North
County Ditch 18 (or Willow Creek). Runoff is routed through the road ditch on
the north side of Beam Avenue and crosses Beam Avenue and Trunk Highway 61
before entering Kohlman Lake.
The existing wetland system was designed and constructed in conjunction with
the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements (MMATI) to mitigate
both public and private wetland impacts throughout the MMATI project area.
The created wetland credits are all accounted for and no additional credits are
available for future impacts in the CarMax/Mogren site. The wetland also has a
buffer area, including minimum setback distances of 100 feet on the north, east,
and south sides, and 50 feet on the west.
Another feature of the existing drainage system is the existing twin 48-inch pipes
which connect the wetland complex north of County Road D to the pond and
wetland complex south of Beam Avenue. This is an important feature of the site
from both a site design and long-term operational standpoint. This system is not
hydraulically connected to the drainage system on the immediate CarMax/Mogren
site, although both systems ultimately drain to Kohlman Lake. As will be
discussed in a subsequent section, there may be an advantage to replacing the
existing pipes with ditch section to better meet the site design goals for treatment
and wetland mitigation and to reduce long-term operational concerns with the
existing pipes.
2) Proposed Storm Water Treatment Systems
The proposed treatment system consists of a combination of regional and on-site
treatment areas. Both existing and proposed systems will be designed to meet
City and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWM") design
standards for pollutant removal efficiencies and for volume control (i.e.,
infiltration requirements). The majority of the public road portion of the site will
be routed to the existing storm water pond system on the north end of the site
through a conventional storm sewer system.
A small portion of runoff from the south end of the proposed roadway will be
routed to a treatment system in the northwest corner of the intersection with Beam
Avenue. A rain garden or infiltration feature in this area is recommended,
although coordination with the adjacent development will determine the ultimate
size and location of the treatment area. If an infiltration area is incorporated, the
system would include a pre-treatment component such as a sump manhole or
mechanical sediment removal device. For the purpose of this feasibility report,
we have assumed that a more effective mechanical sediment removal device
would be installed for pre-treatment.
Exhibit 4 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed storm sewer improvements for
the north-south roadway.
0
3) Proposed Storm Water Routing and System Capacity
Runoff will be routed as illustrated in Exhibit 6 of Appendix A. The northern
section will route to the existing regional pond to the north, and the southern
section will route to the south toward the Beam Avenue ditch system after
treatment. As illustrated in Exhibit 4, storm sewer catch basins with concrete
curb and gutter are proposed to accommodate the runoff from Beam Avenue.
Developers of the sites on the west side of the proposed public road will be
responsible for meeting City and RWMWD rate and volume controls on their
individual sites. The overall routing of these systems will be coordinated by City
staff throughout the design and development review stages.
4) Proposed Open Ditch/Wetland Section
The proposed north-south swale traversing the CarMax site runs parallel and
immediately west of the existing twin 48-inch pipes connecting the wetland basin
north of County Road D to the wetland basin south of Beam Avenue. Based on
preliminary analyses, the proposed swale system and wet pond could be combined
to achieve a larger storm water detention and overall water quality treatment
volume. Furthermore, from a hydraulic standpoint, it is also possible to replace a
segment of the twin 48-inch pipes with an open channel which would collect a
portion of the runoff from the CarMax site and from the parcel immediately to the
east of the CarMax site. In this case, the runoff from both these areas would
eventually be routed across Beam Avenue. Runoff from the CarMax site would
route through the larger 60" by 136" elliptical pipe at the Beam Avenue/Trunk
Highway 61 intersection to the southwest. Runoff from the remainder of the site,
including the wetland mitigation system, would route through the existing 58" by
91" concrete elliptical pipe.
The City, RWMWD, and the developer have evaluated this as an option. This
option would achieve: 1) reduction in the long-term maintenance issues that will
likely be needed in the area of the twin 48-inch pipes; 2) an opportunity to create
more wetland mitigation area on-site; 3) additional water quality benefits; and
4) the potential for additional live storage capacity of the regional routing system.
Prior to implementation of this approach, the RWMWD will need to review the
detailed design and approve the modifications. The critical issue for this ditch
creation is the need to maintain the current response of the wetland areas north of
County D and south of Beam Avenue.
C. Wetlands Management
Welland areas currently exist on the site, primarily along the north Beam Avenue ditch,
which will be impacted by the overall site development. A small area of wetland impact
will also occur along a section of the North County Ditch 18 system. However, this area
has already been mitigated as part of the MMATI project. As discussed previously, the
main wetland feature in the immediate area is the created wetland system just south of
County Road D. This section discusses the anticipated impacts and mitigation plan for
the impacted wetlands on the CarMax/Mogren site.
Because the most feasible location for mitigation is adjacent to the existing created
wetland area, the City intends to lead the overall coordination, design and operation
efforts for the proposed mitigation site, while the developers will remain financially
responsible for their portion of the impacts and mitigation. Having the City lead the
process will allow for consistency in the overall design and long-term monitoring and
operation of the mitigation area. The following table summarizes the anticipated wetland
impacts and mitigation needs.
Exhibit 7 in Appendix A illustrates existing wetland and buffer areas. Exhibit 8
illustrates proposed wetland and buffer areas.
Table 1. Summary of Wetland Impacts and Mitigation
Area
Wetland
(Acres)
Buffer
(Acres)
Existing Mitigation Area South of County D
1.90
3.60
Existing Wetlands Adjacent to Beam
1.25
1.60
Total Existing Areas
3.15
5.20
Existing Mitigation Area South of County D
1.90
3.60
Expanded Area South of County D
1.60
4.30
Area Adjacent to Beam
0
0
Existing Buffer Modified to Wetland (Loss)
0
(1,10)
Total Proposed Areas
3.50
6.80
Net Increase (Decrease)
0.35
1.30
* A portion of this assumed buffer is currently road surface.
As shown in Table 1, the existing wetland and buffer areas include the mitigation area to
the north and the areas along Beam Avenue delineated in 2006. Based on the preliminary
review of the proposed project, the improvement can result in a net increase of up to
about 0.35 acres of new wetland and 1.30 acres of new buffer. As part of the wetland
permitting process, this estimated 1.30 acres of new buffer would be proposed as the
public value credit portion of the wetland impacts. The numbers presented in Table I
assume that the second cell of the treatment system in the CarMax site will not be
considered new wetland. If designed to meet the wetland requirements, this area may
result in a further increase the extent of new wetlands throughout the site.
1) Wetland Impacts
A combination of the private development, the new public road from Beam
Avenue to County Road D, and improvements to Beam Avenue, will result in
impacts to the entire 1.25 acres (54,424 square-feet) of wetlands located adjacent
to Beam Avenue. The areas were delineated and boundaries approved by the
RWMWD as described in the July 18, 2006 Wetland Delineation Report (SEH).
I
The existing buffer area estimate of 1.60 acres around the wetland system
adjacent to Beam Avenue is conservative, as the number represents a 25-foot
buffer around the entire wetland. In reality, the buffer extends into portions of the
Beam Avenue right-of-way.
Only buffer areas outside of the existing mitigation site easement were 'included in
the new buffer calculations. In addition, existing buffer area used to expand new
wetland areas inside the easement, were subtracted from the total buffer area
calculations.
2) Wetland Mitigation Plan
The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to achieve the entire mitigation
requirement on-site, including new wetland, public value credits, and buffer areas.
The primary mitigation area is the expansion of the current wetland system in the
northern portion of the project site. Additional wetland mitigation will be created
along the eastern border of the CarMax site, and mitigation credits may also be
obtained in the second cell of the pond-wetland system in the south portion of the
CarMax site. Final design will need to conform to the state requirements for
wetland mitigation sites, include side-slope limitations and maximum bounce.
Planting will be consistent with the existing wetland area to the north.
3) Wetland Buffers
The wetland areas along Beam Avenue are classified Manage C which means that
25 foot buffer areas will apply. The maximum buffer area for this area is 69,853
square-feet. The actual existing buffer area is somewhat less than this as portions
of the 25-foot zone extend onto Beam Avenue pavement and the gravel shoulder.
The required buffer area for the expanded mitigation site will include creation of
up to 1.60 acres (69,853 square-feet) of buffer, with an average buffer of 100 feet
and a minimum of 50 feet. The RWMWD also had buffer requirements for the
created wetland, although to a lower level than the stated City requirements. The
RWMWD requires a 75-foot average and 37.5-foot minimum. The required
buffer area is intended to minimize future impacts resulting from development
encroaching on the wetland areas.
While adequate surface area is available to meet the buffer requirements,
obtaining a minimum 50 foot buffer along the east side of the proposed wetland
area/ditch section may be difficult without further encroachment onto the parcel
to the east and beyond the existing easement over the twin 48-inch pipes. Given
that one of the overall goals of this project is to obtain all wetland (and buffer)
replacement on-site, we recommend that the design use the 50-foot minimum as a
goal, but that the RWMWD distance of 37.5 feet be considered acceptable if site
conditions limit the full 50-foot distance in all areas. The average buffer around
the entire wetland system, as proposed, is approximately 110-120 feet.
7
D. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Eight-inch sanitary sewer main is proposed to be installed along the proposed roadway,
connecting to the existing sanitary sewer on Beam Avenue. The sanitary sewer is to
extend approximately 1,400 feet north of this connection point. The proposed sanitary
sewer will service the commercial developments east of the proposed roadway and will
generally be installed along the centerline of the road. Six-inch PVC sanitary sewer
services will be installed to service the commercial developments adjacent to the
proposed roadway. The sanitary sewer service to the CarMax site on Lot 1, immediately
east of Trunk Highway 61, will be constructed as a part of private development. This
service will be constructed by the developer and will connect to existing sanitary sewer
on Beam Avenue or Trunk Highway 61.
Exhibit 9 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed sanitary sewer improvements.
E. Watermain Improvements
An 8-inch watermain is proposed to be installed along the proposed roadway. The
proposed watermain will connect to the existing 8-inch watermain on Beam Avenue.
Connections to the existing water system and watermain installation will be coordinated
with St. Paul Regional Water Services. Fire hydrants will be provided along the
proposed roadway at approximately 300-foot spacing. Six-inch ductile iron pipe services
will be installed to accommodate the commercial developments adjacent to the proposed
roadway. The watermain service to the CarMax site on Lot 1, immediately east of Trunk
Highway 61, will be constructed as apart of private development. The proposed private
watermain loop through the CarMax site will be constructed by the developer and will
connect to existing watermain on Beam Avenue or Trunk Highway 61.
Exhibit 9 in Appendix A illustrates the proposed watermain improvements.
3. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS
It is anticipated that an 80-foot wide right-of-way will be required for the proposed north-
south roadway. All right-of-way and easements required for the proposed improvements
will be dedicated by the benefiting property owners. Additional right-of-way and
easement acquisition west of Trunk Highway 61 will be required for the Beam
Avenue/Trunk Highway 61 intersection improvements. This feasibility report includes
estimated costs for the acquisition of this right-of-way/easement area.
4. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the CarMax/Mogren Addition Improvements, City Project 06-17,
are detailed below. The estimated project costs include a 10 percent construction cost
contingency and a 31.5 percent allowance for indirect costs such as engineering,
administrative and legal items as well as capitalized interest. Detailed cost estimates are
provided in Appendix B.
8
Proposed Improvement Estimated Cost
Roadway Improvements
North -South Roadway $ 840,000
Beam Avenue
Beam Avenue /TH 61 Intersection
County Road D Intersection
Storm Water Management
North -South Roadway Storm Sewer
Open Ditch/Wetland Section
Additional Wetland Areas
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Watermain Improvements
Total Project Cost
5. METHOD OF FINANCING
1,595,000
570,000
304,000
$ 213,000
$ 434,000
$ 29,000
240,000
$ 191,000
4,416,000
The CarMax/Mogren Addition Improvements, City Project 06 -17, are proposed to be
financed through special assessments to the benefiting properties, City of Maplewood
funds, Ramsey County funds, and MnDOT funds.
The following is the preliminary financing plan for the project.
Financing Source
Amount
Assessments
$
3,394,600
City of Maplewood
$
517,550
Ramsey County
$
292,550
MnDOT
$
211,300
Total
$
4,416,000
6. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS
Costs for the traffic signals at the intersections of the proposed roadway with County
Road D and Beam Avenue will be divided with 50% assessed to the developer and 50°%
to be covered by City of Maplewood funds. However, the City cannot fund the traffic
signals until they are warranted. If the developer chooses to install the signals prior to the
time that they are warranted, the developer may need to fund the entire cost of the signal
systems and be reimbursed by the City after the signals are warranted.
The cost of the new signal at the intersection of Beam Avenue and Trunk Highway 61
will be 50% funded by MnDOT, 25% by the City of Maplewood, and 25% by Ramsey
County. Other improvements at the intersection of Beam Avenue and Trunk Highway 61
are proposed to be funded through equal 25% shares by the developer, the City of
Maplewood, Ramsey County, and MnDOT.
Ramsey County funds are proposed to cover $150,000 of the mill and overlay costs along
Beam Avenue. All other costs associated with the widening of Beam Avenue east of
Trunk Highway 61 will be financed through assessments to the developer.
N
Consistent with a past agreement with the property owner, construction of first 300 linear
feet of the north-south roadway south from County Road D will be funded up to $75,000
by the City of Maplewood. Construction of the remainder of the north-south roadway, all
storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain improvements, wetland mitigation, and all
remaining costs associated with improvements to Beam Avenue are proposed to be
financed through assessments to the developer. These costs will be assessed to the
benefiting properties within the CarMax/Mogren development on an area basis.
Benefiting properties include Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, and Outlot B of the project area, and
total 1,640,042 square feet in area. Table 2 details the proposed assessments to
benefiting properties within the development.
Table 2. Assessment Methodology
Assesment Type
Rate
($/sq ft)
Total Assessable Cost
Roadway Improvements
$1.39
$2,287,600
Storm Water Management
$0.41
$676,000
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
$0.15
$240,000
Watermain Improvements
$0.12
$191,000
Total Cost for Developer
$2.07
$3,394,600
A preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix C. The preliminary assessment
roll details the proposed assessments by individual lots. Assessment areas are depicted in
Exhibit I I of Appendix A.
7. PROJECT SCHEDULE
If the City Council chooses to accept this report and schedule a public hearing, we
recommend that the following project schedule be followed:
Feasibility Study Accepted, Call Public Hearing
Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications
Public Hearing
If the Council Votes to Proceed:
Approve Plans & Specifications and
Authorize Ad for Bids
Bid Opening
Award Contract
Start Construction
Construction Complete
November 27, 2006
November 27, 2006
December 18, 2007
March 12, 2007
April 13, 2007
April 23, 2007
June 4, 2007*
October/November 2007
* The construction start and completion dates are dependent upon the completion of the
mass site grading by the developer. The mass site grading along the public right-of-way
must be completed and accepted by the City before public utility and street reconstruction
can begin. This schedule assumes that the site grading will be complete by June 1, 2007,
10
8. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this report, the proposed CarMax/Mogren
Addition Improvements, City Project 06-17 are feasible, necessary, cost-effective and
would benefit the City of Maplewood. We recommend the following:
A. The Maplewood City Council accept this feasibility study and report on
November 27, 2006 and order a public hearing on December 18, 2006.
B. After receiving the appropriate staff reports, staff information and public hearing
input, the Council must decide on the approval or rejection of the proposed public
improvements.
C. Based upon the outcome of the public hearing, the Council could proceed to order
the proposed improvements.
11
APPENDIX A
EXHIBITS
PROJECT LOCATION
-T I
- 8
4 - -------
PD
RL I'DI TY
I RC N\V I;
P7 .................. ---------
V i
f "Al f
A
I - —11111111,11 ---------------- - A EW❑❑D
IN
V
i
I AVE MALL
A V
A,
V[\I CFA
Ey'lEA"
wp >II EA� 1: RIE,
<
"E
Y
HEAR E. 11E
STA� A
AD
-- - -------
V CANAVA RC
TZ
- ------ ST VALE
4� I (�W
ELI AD E, 'I
, / / AVE A
Y, A,
/ /K o h L n
V KOHL - , A HLPA
f ...
..... ..
AVE,
i3OUNTY ROAD I >
,j tWy
I PALI
A 4
CT -ji
FI RH w Fns a P= L
A
CONN,
L! DEW - NT A✓E"�
.......................
N DEATIONT I'VE L a G L-
LL1,G:N AVE eooKS
1> E
1 1, - , ,/- Jt, JUK V�
...................
F, t <
Ei SEX TANTI
:D! lEXR\TIVF/
SER VZ i�,ERVAIS AVE f � AERV-I��l AVE 5ERVAIS
AVE.......... --------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------
E,
L, LEN AVE
ALI
co
, ID N",
SHE�REN AVE AVE
L Q C 0
Z= Ck -k EA E IMG
LARK i >
AVE
y
L -
CV] RE LAUR,Rp
DR f
LE L
LIRA 1 VE �E E
1 / I
LE�,INP I A, < dJRST FA AVE
---- - ------- - ------- - ----- - --------- — - -------
R- �T A',
LAURIE
A > S
1 HNI]ITIHN AVE
<
'K !AVE IIUV -\,E
EIE/
Eleh Ll
11eh
AVE
EL E I PE AVE
CENTER
AE R 4
E 1 i ` L
A
[ILL' LI ELAONT - ----- R AvE 7j II, A N A R Pl�
, AV - E , KEVW1 )ROSEV001 i
Sic ENWI ❑ 02D /I MAPLEW0
-- ------ -- ��" A A A
I
LA
AA E
E,
> /D� Ry AN AVE S
w
V
j / I
E -1 - I A'l
'D MT ERN � V �j L
T v TY
EV AVE
I T j Eoi; I
A, AVE,
HOSE LAIN
P,
UNTON AVE
F
- - - ------- BEO, A E;
A VE R 4VE SU N, 11, 7�, A
"M1
�j
15 x
V7- E
A <
I , E�H-ER 7� , 1 1 F FRTSPIL A �I A
V, �uN n
A
CT r
R
z LE AVE V- LEY 4V E
> P�PLE
L R�PL C Y AVE
Pi
A ,
A
A'
sr. PH
IT
1IN11
IA i
IA V
L
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
E M PI Kirnley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
2550 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST, SUITE 345N TEL. NO. (651) 645-4197
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 FAX. NO. (651) 645-5116
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
CITY PROJECT 06-17
EXHIBIT I
a
Q0
CD
CD
C�
n
E
(D
0
z
0
0
n
City ofMaplewood, Minnesota
2
80' ROW
48' FACE—FACE
12'
24' 6 - 6
CONC.
WALK
2.007, 2 ,00 I,
.13
4" TOPSOIL AND
SOD
INSET A —
B618 CURB &
GUTTER (TYP.)
NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAY
TYPICAL SECTION
TACK n A T
24" SELEC_
GRANULAR
BORROW
mr r F VE-u
SUBGRADE
11 Department ofRibEc Works
0 Engineering Division
6 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
2550 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST, SUITE 345N TEL. NO. (651) 645-4197
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 FAX. NO. (651) 645-5116
12'
6'
CONC.
WALK
k 72,
4" TOPSOIL AND
SOD
1 2" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE
11 BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE
11 CLASS 6 AGGREGATE
ASE COURSE
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION
IMPROVEMENTS
TYPICAL STREET SECTION
CITY PROJECT 06-17
EXHIBIT 2
0
r �
0
I
0
0
N
N
L
n
E
0
0
z
14' 12' 14' 18' 14' 12'
CONCRETE MEDIAN
2.00%
2" MILL AND OVERLAY
B624 CURB & INSET A
GUTTER (TYP.) A TOPSOIL
AND SOD
4" TOPSOIL
AND SOD BEAM AVENUE
TYPICAL SECTION
TACK CI
24" SELEC
GRANULAR
BORROW
Mr PRvVE
SUBGRADE
i
0
0
City ofMaplewood, Minnesota
1 Department ofFubllc Works
0 Engineering Division
6
Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
2550 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST, SUITE 345N TEL. NO. (651) 645 -4197
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 FAX. NO. (651) 645 -5116
31TUMINOUS WEARING COURSE
BITUMINOUS BINDER COURSE
BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE
" CLASS 6 AGGREGATE
ASE COURSE
CARMAXJMOGREN ADDITION
IMPROVEMENTS
TYPICAL STREET SECTION
CITY PROJECT 06 -17
EXHIBIT 3
G.ACITY OF
1
�I
D;
9
C�
A
9
O
O
__ 1 1
n
�m
yx
-------- - - - - --
9 D�
z o
z.
° Z m
o °
J P
Ti'\.I0GREN— FXHI]40A&G ` <ovemb 29, 2056 1':M,—
US
-
HIGHW
� s
�
— 61
Ti'\.I0GREN— FXHI]40A&G ` <ovemb 29, 2056 1':M,—
O
,
a z °° z o ? a S
z o z n 52 b o ti
US
-
HIGHW
- — —
— 61
b
r z
-
.1� iit T
m
--
> t
o
9..
r
O
,
a z °° z o ? a S
z o z n 52 b o ti
G1ACITY OF MAPLEU ODv^v X. REh\ FXHInlTS \FEASAPILITP,bICCREN — FY.H� DA&G = <ovemb 29, 7006 — 1 ?_ll—
i I 1
DULU HST.N
`\ t
' J � ~
a A
° o
a
o o �
a
o �
n
L-,
l
a
m
n
tr
w
c
io c.
b7
r u,
a
m
n
X
X
m
Rr
771
y
�m
�^
>
z
O
c M
3z
Q` Z
x ° U MH
sags o `o
MM;
gsE�w4
:E t0
x
Q`
o
X
W
h
UJ
m 8 S
5
(0
�
U)
`
0
m a
ai
$ �,s m P
ca a
o Q
���s�s z
CL W
D ��
a , 4
�,
C
¢D U
x
a
�
O
N /
N
'�
0
00
�..SRB
8
h�'�3
y.
``
_j
€ o?
z E
HIP
€U `sa��a
z
vd
*'*..
LU
�
�r
CO
1'
UJ
pH
<
Lu ui
Z
C
co
-
f%O
0
W a�
S
...
k4E
2E
c t
o-.
v
* I
co
CO
E'
ct
€i
Z2
V
uj
p
I
x UJ gy
'.�
r
Q
r Q
W C)
W
) W
H
OJ �{
0- Q r
Q
uzVSZ p �$y,
aq�
°3
gill"
m
7
Hit a)
��z 5s w 'Re E
1
.At
c a
z
CO
0
N
o
0
LL
to
ct (7)
LLJ
ct
co
CO
2
t
ct
4-77
........ . ........
k j I ' S
CD
00
C)
uco LIj C)
Lij 0
I W 0 -1
w IL
0- <
aN
Lkj
64FI
0
` ■ � fa
co
O
W
0 eg 3
x
r
�p 0
m m CL
U I t; 0
CL 0- w (0 IV 21
0 P 3 �� R 0.
x x
w w z z
NM
c a
CO
CO
w
z
dU
z
co
ct (7)
A
LLJ
�m r � —
ct
4
r
C)L
co
CO
t
cic
0 Lij 0
w
--) LU
r
0- <
gh
Lki
C
\CITY OF MAPLEVCOD\�vW.REK\FXHInlTS \FEASAPILITY'VICCPEN—FYHCg d- N--h, 79 2006 ll 10nm
Us 67
CID
FTY
FTY
Ci
FY
f � ' .
a> b x.�
> z
77 > cr
C «v =,
D _ a :— , :a x 2
- am
. g
/
j &
\
\
\ ❑
; ❑
f
\7A
\�
\ \ \.
\ .: \
FT /
�-
: §
. �
\ °
rl
$
. g
/
j &
/
z 2
/ /
/o //
# \%
,
\ \
\\\\
\+
Z
APPENDIX B
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAXIMOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Item No.
Item
Units
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$65,000.00
$
65,000.00
2
Select Granular Borrow
CY
7,000
$
14.00
$
98,000.00
3
Subgrade Preparation
LF
1,400
$
15.00
$
21,000.00
4
Street Sweeper (w/pickup broom)
HR
40
$
100.00
$
4,000.00
5
Water for Dust Control
MGAL
8
$
50.00
$
400.00
6
12" Class 6 Aggregate Base
CY
3,200
$
26.00
$
83,200.00
7
Bituminous Base Course (2")
TN
1,100
$
60.00
$
66,000.00
8
Bituminous Wear Course (2")
TN
1,100
$
60.00
$
66,000.00
9
Concrete Curb & Gutter (B618)
LF
3,500
$
14.00
$
49,000.00
10
Signage/Striping
LS
1
$
5,000.00
$
5,000.00
11
Concrete Sidewalk
SF
20,000
$
3.50
$
70,000.00
12
Site Restoration/Sod
SY
4,500
$
4.00
$
18,000.00
13
Commerical Driveway Construction
EA
5
$
5,000.00
$
25,000.00
14
Erosion Control
LS
1
$10,000.00
$
10,000.00
Subtotal
$
581,000.00
10% Construction Contingency
$
58,000.00
Total Construction Cost
$
639,000.00
31.5% Indirect Cost
$
201,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
840,000.00
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDTION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
BEAM AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
Item No.
Item
Units
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
8
40,00010
$
40.000l0
2
Mill Bituminous Pavement
SY
13
$
2.50
$
32.500.00
3
Remove Storm Manhole
EA
1
$
500.00
$
500.00
4
Remove Sign
EA
0
$
100.00
$
800.00
5
Remove Hydrant
EA
4
$
500.00
8
2.000.00
6
Remove Guardrail
LF
650
$
2.50
$
1.025.00
7
Sownut Bituminous Pavement
LF
4.000
$
5.00
$
20.000.00
O
Common Excavation
CY
6.000
$
8.00
$
48.000.00
9
Select Granular Borrow
CY
5
8
14.00
$
70.000.00
10
SubgradeCorneotion
CY
2
8
15.00
$
30.000.00
11
8" Class G Aggregate Base
CY
900
$
28.00
$
23.400.00
12
Bituminous Base Course (
TN
950
$
00.00
$
57.000.00
13
Bituminous Binder Course (4")
TN
850
$
60.00
$
57.000.00
14
Bituminous Wear Course (4")
TN
2.500
$
00.00
8
150.000.00
15
B624 Curb and Gutter
LF
2.000
$
16.00
$
32.000.00
18
Concrete Median
SY
1.000
$
40.00
$
64.000.00
17
Fire Hydrant
EA
4
$
2
$
10.000.00
18
Signing/Striping
LS
1
8
5
$
5.000.00
19
SiteRentoratinn/Bod
SY
11.000
$
4.00
$
44.000.00
20
Traffic Signal (New Intersection)
L@
1
$ 200.000.00
$
200.000.00
21
Traffic Signal (Mod.atBaam/TH01)
LS
1
$
00.000.00
$
60.000.00
22
Traffic Signal Interconnect
LS
1
$
20.000.00
$
20.000.00
23
Traffic Control
LS
1
$
20.000.00
$
20.000.00
24
Storm Sewer System
L6
1
$100.000.00
$
100.000.00
25
Erosion Control
LS
1
$
15
$
15.000.00
Subtotal
$
1.103.000.00
10Y6 Construction Contingency
$
110,000.00
Total Construction Cost
$1.213.O0O.O0
31.596 Indirect Cost
$
382,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$ 1.585.000.00
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDTION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
BEAM AVENUE I TH 61 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item No.
Item
Units
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
1
Mill Bituminous Pavement
SY
3,000
$
2.50
$
7
2
Remove Concrete Island
SY
25
$
3.00
$
75.00
3
Relocate Hydrant
EA
2
8
1.000.00
$
2.000.00
4
Relocate Overhead Power Guy Wires
EA
2
$
500.00
$
1.000.00
5
Common Excavation
CY
1.800
$
8.00
$
14
6
Select Granular Borrow
CY
QOU
$
14.00
$
12.600.00
7
SubgradeCorreotion
CY
600
$
15.00
$
9.000.00
O
8" Class S Aggregate Base
CY
300
$
20.00
$
7.800.00
9
Bituminous Base Course (4")
TN
300
$
00.00
$
18
10
Bituminous Binder Course (4")
TN
300
$
00.00
$
18
11
Bituminous Wear Course (
TN
650
$
60.00
$
38.000.00
12
Concrete Sidewalk
@IF
600
$
3.00
$
1.800.00
13
BS24 Curb and Gutter
LF
500
$
16.00
$
8,000.00
14
Signing/Striping
LS
1
$
1.000.00
$
1
15
GiteFleotnreUnn/Sod
SY
1.500
$
4.00
$
6.000.00
18
Traffic Signal
LS
1
$215.0OO.0O
$
215.000.00
17
Traffic Control
LS
1
$
10
$
10
18
Erosion Control
LS
1
$
5.000.00
$
5
Subtotal
$
376.000.00
10Y6 Construction Contingency
Total Construction Coat
$
414
31.596 Indirect Cost
$
130.000.00
Right-of-Way/Easements
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
570,000.00
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
COUNTY ROAD D INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item No. Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount
1 Traffic Signal LS 1 $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00
2 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
Subtotal $ 210,000.00
10% Construction Contingency $ 21,000.00
Total Construction Cost $ 231,000.00
31.5% Indirect Cost $ 73,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 304,000.00
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAY STORM SEWER
Item No.
Item
Units
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
1
15" Storm Sewer
LF
350
$
30.00
$
10
2
18" Storm Sewer
LF
1.000
$
34.00
$
34,000.00
3
21" Storm Sewer
LF
400
8
38.00
$
15.200.00
4
18"FESwlTnoehguard
EA
3
$
1.500.00
$
4.500.00
5
21"FESwYTnaohguard
EA
1
$
1.800.00
$
1.800.00
6
Catch Basin (2'x 3'\
EA
4
$
1.500.00
$
6.000.00
7
Manhole Catchbosin(48")
E/\
8
$
2.500.00
$
20.000.00
O
Coarse Filter Aggregate Foundation
TON
400
$
25.00
$
10.000.00
9
Random Ripnap Class III
OY
20
$
100.00
$
2,000.00
10
4" Perforated PVC Pipe Drain
LF
500
$
15.00
$
7
11
Inlet Protection
EA
12
$
400.00
$
4.800.00
12
Connect to Existing Storm Sewer
EA
1
$
1.000.00
$
1.000-00
13
Reingandan/K4aohanioa|Sadiment Device
LS
1
$
30.000.00
$
30.000.00
Subtotal
$
147.300.00
1OY6 Construction Contingency
Total Construction Cont
$
182
31.596 Indirect Cost
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
213,000.00
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAXIMOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
OPEN DITCHNVETLAND SECTION
Item No.
Item
Units
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$
40,000.00
$ 40
2
Clearing and Grubbing (Beam Avenue)
L8
1
$
1
$ 1
3
Dewakaring
LS
1
$
05.000.00
$ 05.000.00
4
Romovo Weir Structure South ofCR D
LS
1
$
2.500.00
$ 2.500.00
5
Remove Twin 48"Pipes
LF
2.000
8
4.00
$ 8.000.00
6
Muck Excavation
CY
11.000
$
8.00
$ 88
7
Special Concrete Structures
EA
2
$
5.000.00
$ 10.000.00
8
Helical Piles (6 piles x5O feet deep)
LF
300
$
30.00
$ 9.000.00
9
Helical Piles Test
EA
1
$
3
$ 3
10
Ripnap- Class ||
CY
30
$
70.00
$ 2
11
Gentexti|e Filter, Type |V
SY
80
$
3.00
$ 270.00
12
Erosion Control
LS
1
$
15.000.00
$ 15.000.00
13
Salvaged Topsoil (LV)
CY
100
$
7.00
$ 700.00
14
Wetland Mitigation Area Outlet Modifications
LS
1
8
15
$ 15.000.00
15
Wetland Mitigation Area Expansion/Restoration
LS
1
$
40.000.00
$ 40.000.00
Subtotal
$ 300
1096 Construction Contingency
Total Construction Cost
$ 330.000.00
31.5% Indirect Cost
$ 104,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$ 434,000.00
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
ADDITIONAL WETLAND AREAS
Item No. Item
1 Treatment Area (south of Beam Avenue)
Units Quantity Unit Price Amount
LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
Subtotal
10% Construction Contingency
Total Construction Cost
31.5% Indirect Cost
't iii ii
Total Estimated Project Cost $ 29,000.00
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAXIMOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Item No.
Item
Units
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
1
Dewab*hng
LS
1
$
25.000.00
8
25
2
0" PVC Sanitary Sewer
LF
200
$
30.00
$
0
3
8" PVC Sanitary Sewer
LF
1.700
8
45.00
$
76.500.00
4
Sanitary Sewer Manhole (48")(1-8'Depth)
EA
G
$
2.500.00
$
15.000.00
5
Sanitary Sewer Manhole (48") (>8'Depth)
LF
50
$
150.00
$
7.500.00
6
O"x0" PVC Service Wye
EA
4
$
300.00
$
1.200.00
7
6" Pipe Plug
EA
4
8
90.00
$
30.00
O
Coarse Filter Aggregate Foundation
TON
400
$
25.00
$
10.000.00
9
Connect to Existing Sanitary Sewer
EA
1
$
25.000.00
Subtotal
8
100
1096 Construction Contingency
Total Construction Cost
8
182
31.596 Indirect Cost
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
240.080.08
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CARMAX/MOGREN ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06-17
ESTIMATED COSTS
WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS
Item No.
Item
Units
Quantity
Unit Price
Amount
1
Dewatering
LS
1
$10,000.00
$
10,000.00
2
8" Water Main
LF
1,600
$ 35.00
$
56,000.00
3
6" Water Main
LF
150
$ 30.00
$
4,500.00
4
Fire Hydrant
EA
5
$ 2,500.00
$
12,500.00
5
8" Gate Valve
EA
8
$ 1,500.00
$
12,000.00
6
6" Gate Valve
EA
7
$ 1,000.00
$
7,000.00
7
Ductile Iron Fittings
LB
1,500
$ 5.00
$
7,500.00
8
Coarse Filter Aggregate Foundation
TON
300
$ 25.00
$
7,500.00
9
Connect to Existing Water Main
EA
1
$15,000.00
$
15,000.00
Subtotal
$
132,000.00
10% Construction Contingency
$
13,000.00
Total Construction Cost
$
145,000.00
31.5% Indirect Cost
$
46,000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
$
191,000.00
Note:
Connections to existing watermain will be
performed by
St. Paul Regional Water Services.
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
z
LU
0
0
O CL
z o 0
LU F-
-j 0 L)
LL F Lu LU
00
LL < w
o z 0- W LU >- 2
w t= 0)
0 L) (/)
0 LU
U)
z
rl,
E
<D
Sn
0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0
0000 000 000
C� C� O O O O C� C� O 0 0 0 1n 0 -e m * m 0—
U
'Ir cn P- CD �; M N -IT M
O
co %q LO cq qt C-4
wl. W. SA 6* to to wl. to 6* 44
0
U.
C\j
0
0
r
00 I=
0 LO LO
q Lq Wi
0 0 (N C-4
(n
LL 04
0
60
000 0 0
0 0 LO 0 in
C C� L C � Iq
O
LO 0 N 0 1
U.
L)
61) 60
00000 0000000
00000 000=008
0 C� Cq C� tc� C� Ci 0 C� C
to to m -It t- M 4 m w =
O O co m r� L W rl 14t m m
N 04 W N 0
vi
0
ea 60 or od-
N N N
e
000
IV v d
I R I R CR I
C I (n too
D
0 0 0
60 60 40 V.
�2
C:
N
E
O
E
E
y to
I
>
2 t E
cL E S.-S 0 0
N ' 0 E .4
- ;, >
,5.
�oa 2
E -0, E T- E - ,D,
o ( > D a c p m E > 0 r
> 2 W (D ID
W
E < m U) 0 to 4)
0 , m = E E
0 .0 0 0 W 0 E C) C , (D
'o m z co m0 pZ0 'E
0 m
Q m to U)
ea 60 e� 69
co f m co
Ci �
co N
E E ( 00 N C\J
d 10
W
w
W 60 � 69
co n m 00
N CY) 0) to
O cl)
to E O M 'C
>
m 0
� v> 6e
M co cli
LO 00 0
to
R
E N co co r-
N CN
eq rfl ef W
co (N m
cc O ll cl
(D U') CO 00 0
10 E Lro- (o 0) r-
(D
0
W 60 ec� 69
LL - c0 - -
00 C 00 Lo
co 'IT co 00
C5 C6 C6
m — 0)
<I--" U') (o N —
V.
�- C-4 ce)
- 6 6 6
0
O
co
O
rn
O
O
rt
o
AGENDA NO. I -1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FRONT: Finance Director
RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
DATE: December 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:
$ 152,883.15 Checks 9 71533 thru 9 71573
dated 12112106
$ 428,261.09 Disbursements via debits to checking account
dated 12/01/06 thru 12/07/06
$ 581,144.24 Total Accounts Payable
$ 581,144.24 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
S: \CTY_CLRK\Agenda Lists and Reports 2006\Agenda Reports \12- 18 -06 \I1 Approval of Claims.xls
Check Register
City of Maplewood
12/0812006
Check
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount
71533
1211212006
02728
KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
PROJ 06 -16 PROF SRVS THRU 10131
21,647.82
1211212006
02728
KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS THRU 10131
13,027.38
12/1212006
02728
KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
PROJ 06 -17 PROF SRVS THRU 10131
2,303.01
12/1212006
02728
KIMLEY -HORN & ASSOCIATES INC
PROJ 02 -21 PROF SRVS THRU 10131
1,483.60
71534
1211212006
00908
M R P A
ANNUAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION
690.00
71535
1211212006
01337
RAMSEY COUNTY -PROP REC & REV
MULCH
319.50
71536
12/1212006
01190
XCEL ENERGY
ELECTRIC UTILTIY CHARGE
1,158.21
71537
12/0812006
01284
POSTMASTER
MAILING OF CITY NEWS PERMIT #4903
2,700.00
71538
1211212006
00204
BONESTROO & ASSOCIATES
CITY HALL CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT
2,600.00
1211212006
00204
BONESTROO & ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR CAMPUS PLAN
2,519.50
12/1212006
00204
BONESTROO & ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR CAMPUS PLAN
148.50
71539
12/1212006
00230
BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC.
SCREENED SAND
60.13
71540
1211212006
00258
CARDINAL HOMEBUILDERS INC
ESCROW RELEASE - 148 CRESTVIEW DR
3,008.90
71541
1211212006
00412
DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES
ADV MGMT PROG BOOKS
70.13
71542
1211212006
00103
EARL F ANDERSON INC
CHANNEL POSTS
2,030.96
71543
1211212006
00003
ESCROW REFUND
ESC RELEASE C GEIKE - 2660
500.00
71544
1211212006
00003
ESCROW REFUND
ESC RELEASE G STOUT - 2215 HAZEL ST
500.00
71545
1211212006
02506
HUNT ELECTRIC CORP
ELECTRIC WORK ON DOOR
170.00
71546
12/1212006
00483
IDEACOM MID - AMERICA
SERVICE PHONE DATABASE
239.00
71547
12/1212006
00393
DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
MONTHLY SURTAX - NOV
4,118.96
71548
1211212006
00879
LORMAN EDUCATION SERVICES
TRAINING REGISTRATION
199.00
71549
1211212006
03793
MARCOUX CORNER
MCC ENTERTAINMENT
800.00
71550
1211212006
02391
MARK MARUSKA
REIMS FOR SAFETY BOOTS
114.99
71551
1211212006
03622
MN OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECH
WIDE AREA NETWORK - OCT
392.00
71552
1211212006
02175
AMY NIVEN
REIMS FOR MILEAGE - NOV
7.56
71553
1211212006
03795
NORDQUIST SIGN COMPANY, INC.
PROJ 03 -07 FREESTANDING SIGN 50%
5,875.00
71554
12/1212006
03587
NORTHERN STAR COUNCIL
LEARNING FOR LIFE - FIRE EXPLORER'S
125.00
71555
12/1212006
01202
NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC
PARKS & REC BOOK / CITY NEWSLETTER
8,710.41
1211212006
01202
NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC
PARKS & REC SCHOOL BROCHURES
1,653.54
71556
1211212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REIMB A EL -FANDI PROJ 05 -16
1,728.28
71557
1211212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REIMB J BOOGREN PROJ 05 -16
600.20
71558
1211212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REFUND M OSCARSON - CANCELLED
152.20
71559
1211212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REFUND K KLEINKE FOR AMB 04000255
142.47
71560
1211212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REIMB W BRUENTRUP PAINT FOR
127.45
71561
12/1212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REFUND C NETTEN - SWIM CLASS
84.00
71562
12/1212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REFUND E HANNA FOR AMB 04005102
17.00
71563
1211212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REIMB L FORSTNER PROJ 05 -16
12.71
71564
1211212006
00001
ONE TIME VENDOR
REFUND H HAWBRICH - CANCELLED
5.00
71565
12/1212006
00396
DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
10% FORFEITED PROPERTY CN06000379
65.25
71566
12/1212006
02010
RAMSEY CTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
20% FORFEITED PROPERTY CN06000379
130.50
1211212006
02010
RAMSEY CTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
30% FORFEITED PROPERTY CN06007461
82.50
71567
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -16 PROF SRVS - OCT
14,116.10
12/1212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -05 PROF SRVS - OCT
9,302.04
12/1212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS - SEPT
7,489.98
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -02 PROF SRVS - OCT
6,273.55
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -16 PROF SRVS - SEPT
4,788.51
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -02 PROF SRVS - SEPT
4,135.86
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -17 PROF SRVS - OCT
3,204.72
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -16 PROF SRVS - SEPT
2,878.66
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -15 PROF SRVS - SEPT
1,796.37
12/1212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 03 -04 PROF SRVS - SEPT
1,478.76
12/1212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 05 -36 PROF SRVS - SEPT
1,407.79
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS - SEPT
1,283.76
71567
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -05 PROF SRVS - SEPT
1,087.47
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 03 -04 PROF SRVS - OCT
862.96
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 02 -10 PROF SRVS - SEPT
628.81
2
Check Register
City of Maplewood
12/0812006
Check
Date
Vendor
Description
Amount
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 02 -07 PROF SRVS - OCT
476.23
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 04 -21 PROF SRVS - OCT
457.61
12/1212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 06 -17 PROF SRVS - OCT
439.45
12/1212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 04 -05 PROF SRVS - SEPT
245.00
1211212006
01409
S.E.H.
PROJ 05 -36 PROF SRVS - OCT
196.17
71568
1211212006
02653
SIMPLEX GRINNELL LP
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
2,709.36
71569
12/1212006
01500
ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY
MN SNOWPLOW SAFETY COURSE -6 EMP
1,356.00
71570
12/1212006
01550
SUMMIT INSPECTIONS
ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS
4,828.40
71571
1211212006
01578
T R F SUPPLY CO.
DEGREASER & SAFETY WIPES
239.73
71572
1211212006
00150
TALLEN & BAERTSCHI
MN POLICE BRIEFS SUBSCRIPTION
115.00
71573
12/1212006
03598
PAUL THEISEN
REIMB FOR SHOES
60.00
71574
12/1212006
02069
ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC
PROJ 05 -16 CLEANED JETS
85.00
71575
1211212006
01734
WILLIAM P. WALSH
COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSPECTIONS
619.20
152.883.15
43 Checks in this report.
3
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Disbursements via Debits to Checking account
Transmitted Settlement
Date Date Payee
Description
Amount
11/30/06
12/01/06
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
16,493.75
12/01/06
12/01/06
ICMA (Vantagepointe)
Deferred Compensation
5,459.37
12/01/06
12/01/06
Orchard Trust
Deferred Compensation
24,099.62
11/30/06
12/01/06
US Bank
Credit Card fees
1,291.09
11/30/06
12/01/06
US Bank
Debt Service payments
134,963.75
12/01/06
12/04/06
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
12,380.19
12/01/06
12/04/06
U.S. Treasurer
Federal Payroll Tax
94,806.57
12/01/06
12/04/06
P.E.R.A.
P. E.R.A.
63,456.40
11/30/06
12/04/06
Discover
Credit Card fees
177.76
12/04/06
12/05/06
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
20,735.36
12/01/06
12/06/06
MN State Treasurer
State Payroll Tax
18,802.74
12/01/06
12/06/06
MidAmerica - ING
HRA Flex plan
2,787.17
12/01/06
12/06/06
Labor Unions
Union Dues
1,719.88
12/05/06
12/06/06
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
12,717.08
12/06/06
12/07/06
MN State Treasurer
Drivers License /Deputy Registrar
16,974.82
12/04/06
12/07/06
ARC Administration
DCRP & Flex plan payments
1,395.54
TOTAL
428.261.09
4
AGENDA NO. 12
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director
RE: 2006 Budget Adjustments for Investments
DATE: December 11, 2006
The following 2006 budget adjustments related to investment earnings, interest on interfund loans
and investment management fees are recommended. These amounts are difficult to estimate each
year. Historical trends are normally used to arrive at the budgeted amounts but changes in the
market and the amount the city has invested changes daily. An increase in investment earnings will
cause an increase in investment management fees.
••- -*-•
$2,700
111 !!! 4• ! investment management
$ 11
353-000-000-3801, •
$1,200
•• !!! iii 4• i investment management
$ i/
349-000-000-3801, •
$8,000
348-000-000-4930 investment management
$: 0
348-000-000-3801, •
$1,800
345-000-000-4930 investment management
$ :ii
345-000-000-3801, •
$2,800
341-000-000-4930 investment management
$ :11
341-000-000-3801, •
$1,600
339-000-000-4930 investment management
$ .//
339-000-000-3801, •
$2,000
333-000-000-4930 investment management
$ 111
333-000-000-3801, •
$12,000
343-000-000-4820 interest on • loans
$12,000
348-000-000-3801, •
Since these budget adjustments are routine, it would be appropriate to authorize staff to adjust the
expenditure accounts annually when there is a corresponding increase in revenues.
It is recommended that the 2006 budget adjustments listed above be approved and that the finance
staff be authorized to increase expenditure budgets for investment management fees and interest on
interfund loans when there is a corresponding increase in investment earnings.
P: \WORD\AGN\2006 budget changes4.doc
MEMORANDUM Agenda Item 13
TO:
Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM:
Shaun Finwall, AICP, Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit Review
APPLICANT:
Sinclair Oil Corporation
LOCATION:
223 Larpenteur Avenue East
DATE:
December 8, 2006 for the December 11 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The conditional use permit (CUP) for Sinclair Oil Corporation at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East is due for
review. The CUP was required for the expansion of a motor fuel station within the business commercial
(BC) zoning district. The 2002 expansion proposal to the existing fuel station included a 290 - square -foot
addition to the convenience store, refacing of the convenience store, construction of a fuel island canopy
and replacement of fuel dispensers.
BACKGROUND
July 8, 2002: The city council approved this CUP as well as a CUP for a fuel canopy with an existing
nonconforming setback (Attachment 3).
August 11, 2003: The city council approved a one -year time extension for the CUP for the expansion of
the fuel station.
September 13, 2004: The city council approved the CUP and requested a review again to ensure
completion of the parking lot and landscaping improvements.
DISCUSSION
In 2004 the applicants completed the first phase of the project, which included the construction of the new
fuel canopy and refacing of the fuel station. At that time Mr. Lawrence Feldsien of the Sinclair Oil
Corporation stated that Sinclair would not be constructing the addition as originally proposed due to the
cost of the fuel canopy and other structural improvements.
A condition of the CUP was the removal of the westerly driveway on Larpenteur Avenue and the
relocation of a driveway onto Adolphus Street, as well as landscaping of the property. During the 2004
review Mr. Feldsien had indicated that the driveway and landscaping improvements would be made in
conjunction with the Pondview Townhome development across the street (corner of Larpenteur Avenue
and Adolphus Street). The purpose of completing the project at that time was to ensure alignment of the
two driveways and to save money by using the same contractor for both jobs.
The Pondview Townhome development was complete summer 2006 and Sinclair's required driveway and
landscape improvements were complete fall 2006. The applicants attempted to line up Sinclair's
Adolphus Street driveway with the new Pondview Townhome driveway, but were unable due to the
difference in grades. The new driveway was reviewed and approved by the city's engineering department
and is as closely aligned to the Pondview Townhome driveway as possible. In addition, it has allowed for
the removal of one driveway on Larpenteur Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the conditional use permit for Sinclair Oil Corporation to operate a motor fuel station at 223
Larpenteur Avenue East again only if a problem arises of if a change or expansion is proposed. All
original conditional use permit conditions as outlined in the July 8, 2002, city council minutes apply.
P:sec 18 \Sinclair (larpenteur 2006 cup extension)
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. City Council Minutes (July 8, 2002)
: e,ient
1�
Q
it
Attachment 2
ASPK 7
SUTTER (s RED
sEt aft-4
5E€ H -5
fX/ 1
r IRISH Chmosu.E
pCME7
Mvt :81 SEE CiC
ROLE
REMODELED *
. . . . . . . . . .
r/ I X if r
r�, ; ;,i PARKNG
S&.56
Ln
tn
(,q USE ousil"; P= S1RUC7UR13
CRISS
W
A s AW Exaclun
SCE AIM-
SEE P*VW. PXM
SHtv C-2
EE SEE t/Z
S -1
VC_ 3
---..__
S&.56
(,q USE ousil"; P= S1RUC7UR13
CRISS
W
A s AW Exaclun
SCE AIM-
SEE P*VW. PXM
SHtv C-2
EE SEE t/Z
S -1
VC_ 3
---..__
0 00
SEE GRADING PIM
SHM C-3
TIMIS
0
L- 0 ------------- - -- - 'F
PROCUO PSPM r,?,
0 0
L J - - - - - - -
--- -__ -
tr
z
I
SEE O/C_�
I
I
_V
0 1
,
S&.56
V? 05CAPNf
37W
CRISS
F GRASS '
LARPENTEUR AVENUE
9
(,q USE ousil"; P= S1RUC7UR13
W
V? 05CAPNf
37W
CRISS
F GRASS '
LARPENTEUR AVENUE
9
Attachment 3
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:08 P.M., Monday, July 48, 2402
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 02-14
1. 7:00 p.m. (7:15 p.m.) Sinclair Fuel Station (223 Larpenteur Avenue)
A. Conditional Use Permit
B. Design Approval
a. City Manager Fursman presented the staff report.
b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report.
C. Jackie Monahan-Junek presented the Plam Comrnission Report.
I
d. Diana Longrie-Kline presented the Community Design Review Board Report.
e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The
following person was heard:
Larry Feldsien, representing Sinclair Oil
f. Mayor Cardinal closed the public bearing.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the followingresolution qpprqyjn a conditional use
pen ,too perate a motor fuel station within the business commercial, BC zoning district for the
Si nclair Gas Station located at 223 La enteur Avenue East:
RESOLUTION 02-07-125
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Sinclair Oil Corporation applied for a conditional use permit to operate a
motor fuel station within the BC, Business Commercial, zoning district;
WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East. The
legal description is:
1.
The West 300 feet of the South 290 feet, except the West 30 feet thereof, Of the WestV2of the
Southeast '/4 of the Southeast '/4 of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On June 17, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve
this permit.
2. On July 8, 2002, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice
in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The city council gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council
also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
City Council Meeting 07-08-02
4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-
described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved
this permit because:
L The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances.
? The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
The use would not depreciate property values.
4, The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance
to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes,
water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical
I
interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
T The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
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:
The fuel station's hours of operation, including pay-at-the-pump fueling., is limited to 6
a.m. to 11 p.m.
2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency regarding fuel tanks, ftiel spillage, monitoring wells, any contaminated soil, etc.
spillage,
3. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city including the removal of
I
the westerly Larpenteur Avenue driveway and relocating the driveway onto Adolphus
Street. The director of community development may approve minor changes.
4. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of the city
council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The city council may extend
this deadline for one year.
The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Seconded by Councilmember Collins Ayes-All
City Council Meeting 07-08-02
9
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the plans date stamped May 10, May j6
,and May
23, 2002, for the building ad dition remodelin and construction of a new cano and fuel
islands for the Sinclair Gas Station at 223 Larpenteur Avenue East.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
C
a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
b. Submit the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit:
(1) A revised site plan showing:
I
(a) Removal of the westerly driveway on Larpenteur Avenue and the
replacement of all required curb and gutter along Larpenteur Avenue and
the parking area,
(b) At least a 24-foot-wide driveway entrance on Adolphus Street. The
driveway must be centered on the fuel pump islands.
(c) The easterly driveway on Larpenteur Avenue widened to 36 feet. Three
lanes should be marked with paint and arrows to include an entrance lane,
a left -turn exit lane, and a right-turn exit lane.
(2) Revised grading, drainage,, utility and erosion control plans.
(3) A revised landscape plan showing the following
I
(a) Moving the five scotch pines proposed on the west side of the site to the
north side of the new driveway. These pine trees should be at least six-
feet in height, as opposed to the proposed four-foot height.
(b) Expanding the landscaping proposed on the south side of the site to the
west property line, due to the removal of the westerly Larpenteur Avenue
driveway.
(c) Landscaping as required by the city engineer within any required rain
garden.
(c) Installing in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas.
(d) Edging and mulching all planting beds.
I Z71
(4) Revised canopy elevations showing, that the lights beneath the canopy are flush
mount. The lenses of the lights must not drop below the opaque portions of each
lighting fixture.
(5) A revised photometric plan showing that the site lighting complies with the city's
lighting ordinance.
City Council Meeting 07-08-02
(6) Trash enclosure fence sample must be submitted to staff to ensure the fence is 100
percent opaque.
(7) A right-of-way easement covering the westerly 15 feet of the site. The easement
I I
must be recorded with Ramsey County prior to issuance of a building permit.
(8) Revised rear elevation showing that the new brick proposed for the sides of the
building wrap around onto the back elevation by 2 feet on both sides.
C. Complete the following before occupying the building:
tl� 1:1
(1) Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
(2) Install all pavement, curb, and gutter.
z�
(3) Install stop signs at both exits and a handicap-parking sip for the handicap-
parking stalls,
(4) Widen the easterly Larpenteur Avenue driveway to 36 feet. Three lanes should be
marked with paint and arrows to include an entrance lane, a left-turn exit lane, and
a right-turn exit lane.
(5) Install the approved trash enclosure.
(6) Install all required landscaping.
d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if
(1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
(2) The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any
unfinished landscaping shall be completed by
June I if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the
building is occupied in the spring or summer.
(3) The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished
work.
e. This approval does not include the signs. All proposed signs require a separate sign
permit and must comply with the city's sign ordinance.
f All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-All
7
Agenda Item 14
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
Ed Nadeau, Fleet Superintendent
SUBJECT: Approve Purchase of Street Sweeper
DATE: November 27, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The 2007 capital outlay budget includes $131,000 for the replacement of an Elgin Street Sweeper.
Background
The 1998 street sweeper is scheduled for replacement because of its age and condition. Staff is
requesting approval to place a purchase order in December of 2006 to avoid the 2007 cost increase of
approximately $9,000. The 2006 state bid pricing from MacQueen Equipment, Inc. is $133,497 less the
trade -in value of our 1998 sweeper of $25,000. The total price, including sales tax and trade -in, is
$115,549.31.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the city council give approval to enter into a contract with MacQueen Equipment, Inc.
under State Contract No. 435586, for the purchase of a 2006 Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper for the
purchase price of $115,549.31 including sales tax and trade -in.
Attachments:
1. Bid from MacQueen Equipment, Inc.
ORDER:106'0327
DATE: 09/22/06
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD *VISA*
1902 EAST COUNTY ROAD B
SHIP TO: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
1902 E. CO. RD. B
MAPLEWOOD MN 55109
Customer P.O.:
Customer Phone: 651 - 249 -2431
MAPLEWOOD MN 55109
TERMS: N30
SALES REP.:JUDD /JOHNSON
M/Q P0:
QTY. DESCRIPTION EACH EXTENDED PRICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00 *2006 PELICAN SE DUAL 133,497.00 133,497.00
1.00 *TRADE IN 1998 PELICAN
- 25,000.00 - 25
SWEEPER TO BE BUILT WITH SAME OPTIONS AS 1998
JOHN DEERE DIESEL
HYDROSTATIC TRANSMISSION
A/C
SPRUNG GUIDE WHEEL
AM /FM RADIO
AIR RIDE SEAT
DUAL GUTTER BROOM
HYDRAULIC MAIN BROOM SUSPENSION
PRE - CLEANER
ENGINE SHUTDOWN
STROBE, GUARD, WIRING
EXTRA CAPACITY
ANTI SIPHON
LOWER ROLLER WASHOUT
TRAINING AND DELIVERY INCLUDED
*PRICING EXPIRES DEC. 31, 2006.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOURS: SUB.TOT. 108,497.00
SHIP VIA: 1 SALES TAX 7,052.31
EQ. ARR: F.E.T. 0.00
TRK. ARR. FREIGHT
TOTAL 115,549.31
Applicable sales tax and F.E.T will be added, unless tax exemption certificate
is provided.
Agenda Item 15
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
Ed Nadeau, Fleet Superintendent
SUBJECT: Approve Emergency Repair of Tandem Dump Truck
DATE: November 27, 2006
INTRODUCTION
One of the tandem -axle dump trucks is in need of a complete transmission overhaul at a cost of $9,820.57.
This repair will exceed the ordinance allowed expenditure of $ 5,000. Due to the need for this equipment,
we have declared this an emergency expenditure and have proceeded with the repair so that this
equipment, which is part of our snow removal fleet, is available during the winter season.
The repair is paid from the Fleet Management Fund. We have seen a number of major repairs on
equipment and the budget for Fleet Management will likely exceed the planned expenditures due to both
the high number of repairs and the high cost of fuel. This Fund is budgeted for an extra $100,000 each
year to build fund equity and cash. These extra expenditures for the major repairs and fuel will come from
the extra $100,000 budgeted within the fund. The Fund remains with a positive cash balance. On
November 17 Gayle Bauman provided the Council with an estimate for the Fleet Management Fund that
showed an end of year cash balance of $169,068, which is approximately $16,000 more than the beginning
of year balance.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council approve the repair of transmission at a cost of $ 9,820.57 to be paid
to Interstate Power Systems by Fleet Superintendent Ed Nadeau.
Agenda Item K1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Planner
Conditional Use Permit Update
Woodhill Development
Dahl Avenue, south of Linwood Avenue
December 13, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The city's CUP review for the Woodhill Development on Dahl Avenue, south of Linwood Avenue
is pending. The CUP is for the Planned Unit Development with 15 single- dwelling housing units
in an R -1 zoning district. (See the maps on pages three -six).
BACKGROUND
On February 23, 2004, the city council approved the following for the Woodhill PUD
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 15 -unit housing
development.
2. The preliminary plat to create the lots in the development
3. A zoning map change from F (farm residence) to R -1 (single dwellings). (See the council
minutes starting on page seven).
On November 14, 2005, the city council approved the final plat for Woodhill.
On February 13, 2006, the city council reviewed this permit and requested another review for
April 24, 2006. They requested this review because of two outstanding matters — an unpaid
engineering bill and the progress of clean -up work near a wetland that the contractor could not
finish in 2005.
On April 24, 2006, the city council reviewed this permit and agreed to review the permit again in
six months. This review and timeline was to ensure the developer continued to keep the site in
proper order, to review the status of the project and to review all the conditions of approval.
On December 11, 2006, the city council reviewed this permit and asked staff to clarify some
information for the next city council meeting.
DISCUSSION
The contractor is progressing with the construction of the plat. To date, the contractor has
completed the site grading, has installed the utilities, the curb and gutter and base course of
bituminous for the street. In addition, the contractor has built two single - dwellings near the corner
of Dahl and Linwood Avenues. However, because of the slowed housing market and the on -going
legal matters with the development, no one has applied for any new building permits recently in
this development.
Since the last review in April, the developer has paid the city for the required engineering bill and
the contractor has completed the required clean -up work near the wetland as required in the
cease and desist order from August of 2005. (See the e-mail from Erin Laberee on page 15 for
more information about the restoration requirements and efforts.)
Unfortunately, with the recent death of Mr. Nedegaard, the council had some questions as to who
or what business would be responsible for finishing the development. City staff has tried to make
contact with someone in the office of Nedegaard Construction but as of this writing, we have not
been able to make such a contact. Staff will continue to try to make contact with the staff of
Nedegaard Construction to determine what direction they will be taking with the Woodhill
development.
I also asked Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer, to review the development contract for the
project to ensure that after Mr. Nedegaards death there would be someone in place to meet the
city's interests and needs. She assured me that the contract has language in it (Paragraph 21)
that assigns the terms and conditions of the agreement to developers' successors and assigns. In
addition, the city engineering department is holding a letter of credit to ensure that the developer
finishes the reminding city - required site work and improvements.
There is still work for the contractor and builders to finish on the site including the planting of the
rainwater gardens, the installation of street lights and completing the wetland restoration work. In
addition, not all the native seed that the contractor planted has become established. As such, the
developer will need to install native plants to finish all the wetland restoration requirements by
June 1, 2007. 1 expect that the contractor and builders will complete the other above- listed items
as they build more houses in 2007.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the CUP for Woodhill again in January 2007. This review will be to ensure there will be an
owner or developer in place that will be responsible for completing the development, to review the
status of the project and to review all the conditions of approval.
p:sec13- 281woodhill CUP Review -2006 (4)
Attachments:
1.
Location Map
2.
Zoning Map
3.
Approved Preliminary Plat
4.
Final Plat
5.
February 23, 2004 City Council Minutes
6.
April 13, 2006, e -mail from Erin Laberee
Attachment 1
�1�
L
77
DR
M
Jo
r P 1
--- j VALLEY VIEW AVE
Location Map
2516 Linwood Avenue
_CK
N
Attachment 2
I
C
77
Woodhill
Site
770
780
790
800
810
i 8,
TERHORN OR
7yp
7 <
0 0
B34
4�1
A
TIMBER C"T
to
00
La
a>
Lf�
s6t
057
IR
f-r,4ALLER
e ,
Zoning Map
2516 Linwood Avenue 4
N
v 0 - -. 1 11 Z,
NME �zD C umpl-� "c.
.USTON ti H
42W CEN AVENUZ N 145 WAN 7,ZZT. P MX 252 kA1NNEApQ4.s, NN `3£4:2.7 AC"W"i 7 . wl �4028
763JS7.192 7; -
A r,
21 SuFmYN. 4c HART - iCWTMN
5 735 122 'D SIKEI wL s4at zco 10 W pu%cz
SKVArE. ON 5--78 S4'4 CA 'Wil
9521 41S,386,QM
TK Ncall "Ne or 1 1c 4WI/4 V or im 1z, r LINWCOD AVE, E�
. .... . ........
S 88*34`30' W 82443
- 0 -HE P-4CUC
— —
® — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
OUTLOT 0
T23.61
N MIA 47' E 82161
%w"< m Luz G� 7emcp v2 OF T},I w/4 tY * .K W-1/ aF aj- 1 1 T. M R. ZZ
1 -7 -4S --�VW6 S MtCT
I -flFy "T '�
F �
NIC IM A UUI qU.T
v,00 Tt IV i's
A
M i NEDEGARD CUSTOM HOMES II
Mill 2:1 :4 11 fell R r±
we 2
pui
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT
I
DLOCK I
-------
Z A3
I
"1
i
----------- Z;
W - --------
------- -- -
%-'4 A�
7:
15031 sf �3
0. 13 A,-
'A
Y
1 /z ll
S
.17
1% a354 s" r
i,
'A
a
n7l SF�
s b
- 77 -
F --
6
N 0
7,sl
6
- Z
0 it-1. IF. a, ZO Ax.
r—n A.
IF
3727 IF
Ir.
4
IF
In
Wft-4NO
ul
BLOCK
2
OUTLOT 0
T23.61
N MIA 47' E 82161
%w"< m Luz G� 7emcp v2 OF T},I w/4 tY * .K W-1/ aF aj- 1 1 T. M R. ZZ
1 -7 -4S --�VW6 S MtCT
I -flFy "T '�
F �
NIC IM A UUI qU.T
v,00 Tt IV i's
A
M i NEDEGARD CUSTOM HOMES II
Mill 2:1 :4 11 fell R r±
we 2
pui
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT
I
Aft,qrhminnt A
NSS'34'47"E 82161
TjqE SOL-M Lr*.'E OF TIM Nvl.,ClF THEAV2 OF TVIE, l;W!A OF THE"'EU4 OF V D, T. 28, R-
Roffmkimms
----------
------------
SW 1/4 SE 1/4
------------------
�Q
kF41
r �L
r
i r
r*
z H
A"
NSS'34'47"E 82161
TjqE SOL-M Lr*.'E OF TIM Nvl.,ClF THEAV2 OF TVIE, l;W!A OF THE"'EU4 OF V D, T. 28, R-
Roffmkimms
----------
------------
SW 1/4 SE 1/4
------------------
�Q
z H
A"
0
Al
2
' Nk
0
IX
I
!i 1
T�
"
T
i� FF
L's
E
OUTLOT 0
pT
N I f
I I 'I r 7 1
NSS'34'47"E 82161
TjqE SOL-M Lr*.'E OF TIM Nvl.,ClF THEAV2 OF TVIE, l;W!A OF THE"'EU4 OF V D, T. 28, R-
Roffmkimms
----------
------------
SW 1/4 SE 1/4
------------------
�Q
MINUTES Attachment 5
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:08 P.M., Monday, February 23, 2004
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 04 -04
A. CALL TO ORDER:
A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal
Building, and was called to order at 7 :08 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ROLL CALL
Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present
Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present
Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present
Jackie Monahan- Junek, Councilmember Present
Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present
2. 9:15 p.m. Woodhill Subdivision (2516 Linwood Avenue)
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plat
Zoning Map Change (F to R -1)
a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.
b. Associate Planner Roberts presented specifics from the report.
C. Commissioner Dierich presented the Planning Commission Report.
d. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents.
The following persons were heard:
Bruce Nedegaard, representing Nedegaard Custom Homes
Mary Dierich, speaking as a private concerned citizen
e. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following resolution approving a conditional
use permit for a planned unit development for the 15 -unit Woodhill development on the
south side of Linwood Avenue:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 04 -02 -034
WHEREAS, Mr. Bruce Nedegaard applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the
Woodhill residential planned unit development (PUD).
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 15 -lot Woodhill development the city received on
January 2, 2004. The legal description is:
The North one -half of the West one -half of the NW' /4 of the NE' /4 of Section, Township
28, Range 22, according to the US Government Survey thereof: and
7
City Council Meeting 02 -23 -04
The North one -half of the West one -half of the West one -half of the East one -half of the
NW'f4 of the NE'f4 of Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, according to the US
Government Survey thereof, in Section 13, Township 28, Range 22, Ramsey County,
Minnesota.
(The property to be known as Lots 1 -6, Block 1 and Lots 1 -9, Block 2 of Woodhill)
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
On February 2, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve this permit.
2. On February 23, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published
a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The
council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above - described
conditional use permit 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.
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 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:
,7
City Council Meeting 02 -23 -04
(1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including
keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible.
(2) Revised storm water pond locations and storm water system designs as
suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall
meet the city's design standards.
2. The proposed construction of the plat must be substantially started within one year of
council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for
one year.
Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the city engineer's memo dated
January 22, 2004.
2. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Woodhill development shall be:
a. Front -yard setback (from a public street right -of -way): minimum - 20 feet, maximum
— 45 feet
b. Front -yard setback (public side street right -of -way): minimum - 20 feet, maximum -
none
c. Rear -yard setback: 30 feet from any adjacent residential property line
b. Side -yard setback: minimum - 10 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum
between buildings.
5. The developer or contractor shall:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, install all retaining walls
as required and any other site improvements required by the city engineer and meet
all city requirements.
b. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
C. Remove the house, any debris or junk from the site.
6. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All
Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the Woodhill preliminary plat (Received by
the city on February 12, 2004). 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 retaining walls, site
landscaping and meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
9
City Council Meeting 02 -23 -04
c. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in two locations - primarily at the
street intersections and at the west end of the cul -de -sac. The exact style and
location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval.
d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and
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).
e. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements. These
signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no
mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, building, grading or dumping beyond this point.
City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs
them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues
building permits in this plat.
f. Install survey monuments along the wetland and wetland buffer boundaries.
g. Pay the city for the cost of traffic - control, street identification, wetland buffer and no
parking signs.
h. Provide all required and necessary easements, including any off -site easements.
i. Demolish or remove the existing house and garage from the site, and remove all
other buildings, fencing, trailers, scrap metal, debris and junk from the site.
j. Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; and remove septic
systems or drainfields, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines.
k. Complete all curb on Linwood Avenue on the north side of the site. This is to replace
the existing driveways on Linwood Avenue, and restore and sod the boulevards.
2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans
shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated January 22, 2004,
and shall meet the following conditions:
a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code and shall be
extremely detailed to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
b. The grading plan shall show:
(1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home 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) House pads that:
a. Reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees.
This shall include following the project plans submitted to the city on February
12, 2004. The house pad locations on Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 2 shall meet
the approved development setback requirements to more closely match the
other house setbacks and orientation on the street.
b. Meet the 100 -foot setback from the pipelines for Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1,
Block 2.
City Council Meeting 02 -23 -04
(4) The proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer.
(5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve
the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than
3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a
stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with
(6) wood -fiber blanket, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be
stabilized before the city approves the final plat.
(7) Include the tree plan that:
a. Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This
plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site.
b. Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits.
(7) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a
building permit from the city.
(8) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed district or by the
city engineer.
(9) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements
from the affected property owner(s).
(10) As little grading as possible north and south of the proposed street. This is
to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as is reasonably possible.
(11) The pipelines and the 8- foot -wide trail from the cul -de -sac to the south
property line.
c. The street and utility plans shall show:
(1) The street with a width of 28 feet (with parking on one side), shall be a 9 -tan
design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum
street grade within 75 feet of the intersection at two percent.
(2) The new street (Dahl Avenue) with continuous concrete ribbon curb, except
where the city engineer determines that concrete curbing is necessary.
(3) The completion or replacement of the curb on the south side of Linwood
Avenue and the restoration and sodding of the boulevards.
(4) Repair of Linwood Avenue (curb, street and boulevard) after the developer
connects to the public utilities and builds the new street.
(5) A set of utility services to the eastern part of the property at 2480 Linwood
Avenue and public utility services to each new lot.
(6) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards
and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS).
(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. 11
City Council Meeting 02 -23 -04
(8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities.
(9) A detail of any ponds, the pond outlets and the rainwater gardens. The
contractor shall protect the outlets to prevent erosion.
(10) The cul -de -sac with a minimum pavement radius of at least 42 feet.
(11) Label Linwood Avenue and the new street as Dahl Avenue on all construction
and project plans.
d. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm water
run -off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's
engineer shall:
(1) Verify inlet and pipe capacities.
(2) Submit drainage design calculations.
e. A landscape plan for the areas along the street, including the rainwater gardens
and the cul -de -sac island. The coniferous trees shall be at least six feet tall and
any deciduous trees shall be at least 2 1 /2 inches in diameter.
3. Change the plat as follows:
a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer.
b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat.
These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines
and five feet wide along the side property lines.
c. Label any common areas as outlots.
d. Label the new street as Dahl Avenue on all plans.
e. As may be necessary to ensure that houses on Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2
would be at least 100 feet from the pipelines.
4. Pay for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction
plans.
5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including wetland
buffer easements and any off -site drainage and utility easements. These shall
include, but not be limited to, an easement for the culvert draining the pond at the
northwest corner of the plat.
6. The developer shall complete all site grading and retaining wall construction. The
city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the
developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval.
7. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or
contractor will:
a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, install all retaining walls, install the
landscaping for the rainwater gardens and the cul -de -sac island, install ail2other
City Council Meeting 02 -23 -04
necessary improvements and meet all city requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Provide for the repair of Linwood Avenue (street, curb and boulevard) after the
developer connects to the public utilities.
d. Meet all the requirements of the city engineer.
8. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community
development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the
maintenance of the common areas, landscaping and retaining walls.
9. Record the following with the final plat:
a. All homeowners' association documents.
b. A covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits any driveways on
Lots 1 through 6, Block 1 and Lot 9, Block 2 from going onto Linwood Avenue.
c. 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.
d. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation,
maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls.
e. Deeds transferring the ownership of Outlots A and B to the city. The city will
accept ownership of these outlots in lieu of charging PAC (park access charges)
with the building permits.
f. All wetland and wetland buffer easements.
The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to
the city for approval before recording.
9. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District for grading.
10. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA).
11. Submit to city staff a copy of the written permission from the pipeline company for
any grading or construction within the pipeline easement.
12. The property owner shall submit a petition to the city requesting the installation of
the public improvements.
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.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit
or approves the final plat. 13
City Council Meeting 02 -23 -04
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All
Councilmember Koppen moved to adopt the following zoning map change resolution
from F (farm Residence) to R -1 (single Dwelling Residential) for the proposed Woodhill
plat on the south side of Linwood Avenue:
ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION 04 -02 -035
WHEREAS, Maplewood city staff is proposing to change the Maplewood zoning map
from Farm Residence (F) to Single - Family Residential (R -1).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 2516 Linwood Avenue in the
north one -half of Section 13, Township 29, Range 22, in Maplewood, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the property owner is proposing to plat the property into 15 lots for single
dwellings.
WHEREAS, the proposed development is known as Woodhill and the new legal
description will be:
Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, and Lots 1 through 9, Block 2, Woodhill.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
On February 2, 2004, the planning commission recommended that the city council
approve the zoning map change.
2. On February 23, 2004, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners.
The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a
chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports
and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above -
described change in the zoning map for the following reasons:
The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring
property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property
adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community,
where applicable, and the public welfare.
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers,
police and fire protection and schools.
5. The owner has plans to develop this property for lots for single - family houses.
Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -All
14
City Council 02 -23 -04
Ken Roberts
F- 1 1�T'3• Imo•
From:
Erin Laberee
Sent:
Thursday, April 13, 2006 1:38 PM
To:
Ken Roberts
Subject:
Woodhill
Ken,
I visited the Woodhill site on Tuesday, April 11th, 2006 to inspect the wetland mitigation requirements Northpine agreed to
do. The following items were required of them:
1) Remove sediment from the eastern wetland that was deposited when the silt fence was breached. Disturbance in
the wetland must be kept to an absolute minimum.
2) Create an additional 500 square feet of wetland in the eastern wetland by excavating the area flagged by staff, just
north of the existing wetland.
3) Remove trees flagged by city staff. To prevent resprouting, all cut stumps shall have Garlon painted on the stumps
within 15 minutes of cutting. (25 % -42% Roundup may be substituted if temperatures are above freezing.)
4) A wood weir shall be constructed to retain an additional foot of water in the eastern wetland.
5) All disturbed area shall be covered with an erosion control blanket and seeded with a temporary cover crop mixed
in with a native grass as specified by Ginny Gaynor.
6) A gradual infiltration basin shall be created north of the western wetland.
7) The gully that was created when the silt fence was breached shall be filled in, protected with erosion control
blanket, seeded with a temporary cover crop and a native seed mix. If the native seed mix does not establish,
plugs will be required.
All of the above requirements have been completed. Staff will inspect the native seeding this summer and fall to
determine if additional plugs are required. Staff will also monitor the infiltration basin just north of the westerly
pond to ensure it is adequate in size to slow runoff flowing to the wetland.
Erin
15
Agenda Item L1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT:
Easement Vacation
LOCATION:
Jensen Estates (Hoyt Avenue, east of McKnight Road)
DATE:
December 7, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Maplewood City staff, at the direction of the city council, is proposing that the city vacate part of
an existing easement. This easement is now 20 feet wide and is between Lots 6 and 7 of the
Jensen Estates plat. Specifically, the easement is on the west side of the property at 2320 Hoyt
Avenue. The council directed staff to vacate the east six feet of this easement to ensure that the
trail that the developer is to install will be kept to the west of the existing house. This shift is
necessary to provide the homeowners room for the landscaping and retaining walls on their
property. (Please see the statement on page three and the maps and plans on pages four
through eight.)
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2005, the council approved the final plat for the Jensen Estates. (This plat
created the properties on the Hoyt Avenue cul -de -sac.) A condition of approval of the plat was the
developer installing an eight -foot -wide trail from the cul -de -sac to the north property line of the
subdivision.
On September 25, 2006, the city council considered a request from Mr. Schroeder of 2320 Hoyt
Avenue to not require the developer to install a required trail within the development. The council
denied this request and so the city will still be requiring the developer to install the trail. As
designed, this trail will run north -south from the Hoyt Avenue cul -de -sac to the north property line
of the development. (Please see the trail plan on page eight).
DISCUSSION
The city acquired the easement in question in 2005 when the developer of Jensen Estates (the
plat) recorded the final plat with Ramsey County.
Mr. Schroeder originally requested that the city not require the installation of the trail because of
concerns about grading, drainage and landscaping. However, as I noted above, the council
directed staff to work with the developer to ensure that the city- required trail be installed while
keeping it as far from the Schroeders' home as possible. The proposed trail plan and partial
easement vacation should meet the requirements of the city council and help alleviate some of
the Schroeders' concerns.
The proposed six - foot -wide vacation, if approved by the city council, will leave in place the west
14 feet of the easement. The project engineer for the Jensen Estates project has provided city
staff with a design for the trail that shows how the contractor could install the trail within this 14-
foot -wide easement. (See the plan on page eight).
COMMISSION ACTION
On December 5, 2006, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed
easement vacation.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution on page nine. This resolution is for the vacation of part of the drainage
and utility easement on the west side of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (between Lots 6 and 7,
Jensen Estates). The reasons for the vacation are as follows:
It is in the public interest.
2. The city and the property owner do not need or use all of the existing easement for utility or
trail purposes.
3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage.
4. The remaining easement area will be wide enough for the installation of the required trail.
This vacation is subject to the property owners at 2320 Hoyt Avenue maintaining the drainage on
the west side of their house and garage on their property.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
Application Date
The city received the complete application and plans for this request on November 16, 2006.
State law requires that the city take action and, if the city denies the request, notify the affected
parties in writing of the city's action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land
use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by January 8, 2007.
P: \sec24- 29\easement vacation — Jensen Estates - 2006
Attachments:
1. November 14, 2006 statement for City engineering department
2. Location Map
3. Area Map
4. Address Map
5. Jensen Estates Final Plat
6. Jensen Estates Trail Revision Plan
7. Vacation Resolution
2
2
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 1
Engineering Discussion
PROJECT: Jensen Estates
PROJECT NO: 05 -15
COMMENTS BY: Michael Thompson (Maplewood Engineering Department)
DATE: November 13, 2006
The Jensen Estates development was approved with one of the council special conditions
reflecting 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 plat map to accommodate the trail. Mr.
Schroeder, whom purchased the home at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (next to the future trail), was not
openly informed by either the builder or developer that an 8 -foot wide bituminous trail was to be
constructed within the 20 -foot trail easement between the cul -de -sac and property to the north.
Mr. Shroeder then petitioned the city council not construct the trail, which was then denied.
However, the city council motioned to vacate the easterly 6 -feet of the 20 -foot wide trail
easement in order to appease Mr. Shroeder. The trail will be built in the spring of 2007 by the
developer, Kelly Conlin, in the manner consistent with the engineering report approved by the
city council on 10123106.
Vacation of trail easement:
That part of Lot 7, Block 1, JENSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
The easterly 6 feet of the 20 feet of dedicated trail easement bounded by the property line
to the north and public right of way to the south.
3
N
LARPENTEUR AVE
� r
h
L
z
Y
=ti
l
t
Location Map
4
r� - •
ry
Address fflap
6
N
23 1-16
F . ............ ----
......... .
154G
L .................
..............
................
HOYT AVE
Fv
iN
r
CN
..................... ......................
..............
Address fflap
6
N
23 1-16
Attachment
I 1"q
0
1 S. line of property conveyed 2
Book 876 Deeds, Page 90 1
7'
tb
I
L=48'
M
•
9w
I
,• I
I
JENSEN ESTATES FINAL PLAT (PARTIAL)
7
C
of
'9 C�
C4
w z
I
R
L 'L,.
60
I 1"q
0
1 S. line of property conveyed 2
Book 876 Deeds, Page 90 1
7'
tb
I
L=48'
M
•
9w
I
,• I
I
JENSEN ESTATES FINAL PLAT (PARTIAL)
7
C
of
'9 C�
C4
w z
I
TRAIL COMMENT&
- :, 1 9ope from Hoyt Ave to north property
line would be 7.2% for approx. 95
2.Trail would continue at a slope of 4.0%
to the end of the trail
AV # 11 IF T
*7f
JENSEN ESTATES
TRAIL REVISION ANALYSIS
TRAIL LOCATION WITH ADJUSTMENT
I
, C/12/06
11
Attachment 7
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City staff, at the direction of the city council, initiated the
vacation of the following:
That part of the easement on Lot 7, Block 1, Jensen Estates, according to the recorded plat
thereof, In Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows:
The easterly six feet of the 20- foot -wide drainage and utility easement that is along the west
property line of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (between Lots 6 and 7, Jensen Estates)
between the north property line of the plat and the Hoyt Avenue right -of -way as shown on
the recorded plat.
All in Maplewood, Ramsey County, in Section 24, Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:
1. On December 5, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this
proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the
surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a
chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered
reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that
the city council approve the vacation.
2. On December 18, 2006, the city council reviewed this proposal. The council also
considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission.
WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, the public fee title interest in the property
will go to the following described properties:
Lot 7, Block 1, Jensen Estates (2320 Hoyt Avenue) (PIN 24- 29 -22 -22 -0077)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described
vacation for the following reasons:
It is in the public interest.
2. The city and the property owner do not need or use all of the existing easement for
utility or trail purposes.
3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage.
4. The remaining easement area will be wide enough for the installation of the required
trail.
This vacation is subject to the property owners at 2320 Hoyt Avenue maintaining the drainage on
the west side of their house on their property.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 1 2006.
9
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY DECEMBER 5, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.
11. ROLL CALL
Vice - Chairperson Tushar Desai
Commissioner Mary Dierich
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Michael Grover
Commissioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
Present at 7:11 p.m.
Staff Present: Chuck Ahl Public Works Director
Tom Ekstrand Senior Planner
Ken Roberts Planner
Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary
111. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda.
Commissioner Hess seconded.
Yarwood
Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler,
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the planning commission minutes for November 20, 2006.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for November
20, 2006.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler,
Yarwood
Planning Commission -2-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Easement Vacation — Jensen Estates (north of Hoyt Avenue) (7:13 — 7:33 p.m.)
Mr. Roberts said Maplewood City staff, at the direction of the city council, is proposing that
the city vacate part of an existing easement. This easement is now 20 feet wide and is
between Lots 6 and 7 of the Jensen Estates plat. Specifically, the easement is on the west
side of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue.
The council directed staff to vacate the east six feet of this easement to ensure that the trail
that the developer is to install will be kept to the west of the existing house. This shift is
necessary to provide the homeowners room for the landscaping and retaining walls on their
property.
On September 25, 2006, the city council considered a request of Mr. Schroeder of 2320
Hoyt Avenue to not require the developer to install a required trail within the development.
The council denied this request and so the city will still be requiring the developer to install
the trail. As designed, this trail will run north -south from the Hoyt Avenue cul -de -sac to the
north property line of the development.
Mr. Schroeder originally requested that the city not require the installation of the trail
because of concerns about grading, drainage and landscaping. However, the council
directed staff to work with the developer to ensure that the city - required trail be installed
while keeping as far from the Schroeders' home as possible. The possible trail plan and
partial easement vacation should meet the requirements of the city council and help alleviate
some of the Schroeders' concerns.
Commissioner Trippler said according to the survey map shown on page 8 of the staff report
which was done by Hedlund it appears the house on lot 6 is going to be closer to the
easement than the house on lot 7, is that correct?
Mr. Roberts said that may be. Until the city gets a specific house survey for that lot it may or
may not be closer. They have to stay out of the easement but they can come right up to it.
Mr. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, said Lot 6 is still owned by the developer and he is
selling it to a builder. We had a homeowner who was not aware of the trail to begin with now
the trail signs are up and the trail is going to be built and before someone puts a house up
on Lot 6 the city can build the trail and the house can be built accordingly.
Commissioner Hess said he went out to the site on Sunday and in looking at the survey
done by Hedlund it shows the slope at 4.0% to the end of the trail. He asked if the trail has
to be ADA compliant? He wondered how that would be accomplished with the amount of
grading that would have to be done.
Planning Commission -3-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Mr. AN said this plan was put together because of the ADA requirement for the trail that you
mentioned. The grading is relatively steep. Originally Lot 7 had retaining walls and plantings
there and now will be able to make this fit on the site which was a compromise to make this
work. Lot 6 will have to be graded accordingly based on the trail elevation. For the ADA
requirements you can have short segments up to 7 or 8% but typically they have to be
shorter than 100 to 125 feet long and then you have to have a landing area. The 4% is the
beginning of the landing area and if you look at the grades to the north towards Currie Street
it actually flattens out there. This will very easily meet the 5% once it is constructed. The
builder may have to bring in additional fill for Lot 6 and this will clearly be an extra expense
for the developer and builder on the site. However, it was their error for not telling the people
buying the lots that the trail was going in therefore, the city council determined the developer
and builder should incur the expense for that.
Commissioner Trippler asked if there were any sidewalks on Currie Street? He said he's in
favor of trails and sidewalks but he can't see that the trail is going anywhere because it
doesn't connect to Currie Street or anywhere else.
Mr. Roberts said as staff he worked with this property the original plan was to have two
temporary cul -de -sacs and eventually have the streets connect. Then this developer came in
and the property owner to the north came in and they both said they didn't think that would
work so the connection never happened. Staff believes the thought for the trail is to allow
pedestrians to move between neighborhoods without having to cut through yards. Street to
street there isn't a connection but it gives people more choices rather than having to walk
across or along McKnight Road which could be dangerous.
Commissioner Trippler asked if there were any sidewalks on Larpenteur Avenue?
Mr. Roberts said no. At some point there may be sidewalks but that would be between the
city and the county. It is and has been the city council's thought wherever we can put
sidewalks and trails in the City of Maplewood that we want to do that.
Commissioner Hess said the property line area of Lot 7 looks like there are two 30 -foot tall
evergreens where the trail will be going. He asked if those trees would be removed for the
trail?
Mr. AN said once the city gets a site plan for the property to the north the city plans to
construct the trail around those evergreen trees.
Chairperson Fisher asked the applicant to address the commission.
Mr. Roberts said in this case the city is the applicant but the city did notify the neighbors for
their opinions.
Ms. Gail Schroeder, 2320 Hoyt Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said
originally we petitioned the neighbors regarding the fact that nobody wanted the trail to go in.
However, this situation is a compromise having the developer and builder pay for the trail to
go.
Planning Commission -4-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Commissioner Trippler asked if Ms. Schroeder said she and the neighbors didn't want the
trail to go in and you did a petition against it?
Ms. Schroeder said we petitioned the residents on Currie Street and Hoyt Avenue and
brought it to the city council stating we were against the trail going in.
Commissioner Trippler asked how many residents signed the petition against the trail?
Ms. Schroeder said she couldn't remember the exact number but it was less than 20 and
more than 12 names. The city council said in the event that sidewalks were ever built on
Larpenteur Avenue and McKnight the trail would eventually connect to Currie Street.
Commissioner Trippler thanked the resident for her comments.
Mr. Roberts said just for clarification that was at the September 25, 2006, city council
meeting that was referenced in the background report in the staff report.
Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak to come forward.
No other audience members came forward so Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing
portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Trippler said he was going to approve this request but he is now having
second thoughts after hearing the neighbor speak. Commissioner Trippler asked why the
petition was not included in the staff report?
Mr. Roberts said staff did not include the petition in the report because the city council gave
direction at the September 25, 2006, that even though the neighbors had a petition the city
was still going to have the trail constructed. The direction to staff was to get the six feet of
easement vacated so that is what staff brought to the planning commission.
Chairperson Fischer said the neighbor was referring to the compromise of having the six
foot easement vacated would leave in place the west 14 feet of easement.
Commissioner Trippler said he felt strongly that the petition information should have been
included in the staff report and was an important piece of information left out.
Mr. Roberts apologized for not including it in the staff report.
Commissioner Hess asked if there was some way we could reverse the city council decision
since the neighbors don't even want the trail put in?
Chairperson Fischer said this request came in as a result of the neighborhood petition and
with the direction to vacate this part of the easement per the city council. Her thought is this
trail gets kids through the area safely.
Mr. Roberts said the commission could disagree with the city council and convey their
feelings; staff is only doing what the city council requested.
Planning Commission -5-
Minutes of 12 -05 -06
Commissioner Hess said he talked to Ms. Schroeder Sunday night about this and evidently
when they purchased their property the trail was not shown on the drawings and the trail
came about after the fact.
Mr. Roberts said it's unfortunate and the situation has happened in the past. As staff we plan
to work with the developers to get the trails constructed when the street is constructed or at
least have signage put up that would say Future Trail so hopefully this situation won't
happen again. The developer didn't tell the builder and the builder didn't tell the buyer and
that information was lost in the chain of sales.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution on page nine of the staff report.
This resolution is for the vacation of part of the drainage and utility easement on the west
side of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (between Lots 6 and 7, Jensen Estates). The
reasons for the vacation are as follows:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The city and the property owner do not need or use all of the existing easement for utility
or trail purposes.
3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage.
4. The remaining easement area will be wide enough for the installation of the required trail.
This vacation is subject to the property owners at 2320 Hoyt Avenue maintaining the
drainage on the west side of their house and garage on their property.
Commissioner Desai seconded.
Yarwood
Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler,
The motion passed.
This item will go to the city council on either December 18, 2006, or January 8, 2007.
Commissioner Trippler said the only reason he approved this request was that the neighbors
were okay with the compromise that the city came up with to have a smaller easement for
the trail.
Agenda Item L2
AGENDA REPORT -
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Desoto Skillman Area Street Improvements, City Project 06 -16:
a. Resolution Receiving Preliminary Report and Calling Public
Hearing for January 8, 2007
b. Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications
DATE: December 8, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The feasibility study for the Desoto- Skillman Area Street Improvements is complete and is available for
review in the office of the City Engineer. Final copies of the study have been made available to the City
Council. The study includes information on the proposed improvements, proposed financing and probable
assessments.
The City Council will consider accepting the feasibility study, ordering a public hearing and authorizing the
preparation of plans and specifications.
Project Description and Background
The proposed project area is illustrated on the attached project location map. Street improvements for this
neighborhood were scheduled in the City's 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan for improvements in 2007.
Two neighborhood meetings were held on November 2n and November 9 th to discuss the project with
residents and to address specific resident concerns regarding the capital improvement process.
Approximately 150 residents representing 60 properties throughout the proposed project area attended the
meetings.
In general, the atmosphere of the meetings was generally accepting of the proposed improvements. Most
questions or concerns raised by residents were regarding the construction and design process. These are
mostly concerns that are taken into account at the public meetings and addressed in the final plans for
construction or in the field as necessary.
The majority of streets in the project area are planned for complete reconstruction as these streets do not
have concrete curb or major utility work is planned requiring complete replacement of the curb. There are
several streets with existing concrete curb that will only be partially reconstructed as the utility work is
minimal. A sidewalk is also being planned for construction along Desoto Street. The rainwater garden
program and driveway replacement program will be continued for this project. Storm sewer improvements
along with several sanitary sewer repairs are proposed. Saint Paul Regional Water Services has identified
sections of water main to replace as part of this project.
The total project budget as reported in the feasibility study is $5,597,500. The project budget detailed in
the City's Capital Improvement Plan is $4,570,000. A breakdown is shown below.
Agenda Item L2
The project budget as identified in the feasibility study is $1,027,500 over the total project cost estimated in
the CIP. Construction costs have increased significantly since estimating the project costs for the CIP
which is the reason for the increase. The majority of the additional cost will be funded through MSA funds
for the reconstruction of Desoto Street and Skillman Avenue which are state aid routes. The GO Debt
Service will need to be increased by $319,800 from the CIP to fund the project. An executive summary of
the project budget is attached. Staff is confident that the estimates are conservative and that actual costs
may be lower when bids are opened. It is recommended that the entire project proceed to receipt of bids
with alternatives to delay portions of the project if expenses increase dramatically above that authorized in
the project CIP planning stage.
At the November 13 2006 city council meeting, council authorized a 10% increase in the street and storm
sewer assessments. A comparison of the 10% increase versus a 3% increase in the street and storm
assessment rates from 2006 results in an additional $116,600 to help fund the project. This $116,600
would be added to the GO Debt Service and the portion of the project paid by assessments would have
been reduced from 33% to 30.7 %.
If council accepts the feasibility study, staff requests the authorization to prepare the plans and
specifications. A $140,000 budget is needed to the complete the plans and specifications. This has been
accounted for the in total project budget and should be allocated for engineering services.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolutions accepting the report, calling for a
public hearing for 7:00 p.m. Monday, January 8 2007, and authorizing preparation of plans and
specifications for the Desoto- Skillman Area Street Improvement project.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing
2. Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications
3. Location Map
4. Executive Summary
CIP Funding
Feasibility Funding
%
Increases from CIP
GO Debt Service
$
1,026,200.00
$
1,346,000.00
24%
$
319,800.00
MSA
$
1,144,900.00
$
1,597,100.00
29%
$
452,200.00
Assessments
$
1,662,000.00
$
1,836,000.00
33%
$
174,000.00
Sanitary Sewer Fund
$
233,700.00
$
239,400.00
4%
$
5,700.00
SPRWS
$
131,200.00
$
147,000.00
3%
$
15,800.00
Environmental Utility Fund
$
292,000.00
$
292,000.00
5%
$
-
WAC Fund
$
80,000.00
$
80,000.00
1%
$
-
Driveways
$
60,000.00
1%
$
60,000.00
Total
$
4,570,000.00
1 $
5,597,500.00
100%
$
1,027,500.00
The project budget as identified in the feasibility study is $1,027,500 over the total project cost estimated in
the CIP. Construction costs have increased significantly since estimating the project costs for the CIP
which is the reason for the increase. The majority of the additional cost will be funded through MSA funds
for the reconstruction of Desoto Street and Skillman Avenue which are state aid routes. The GO Debt
Service will need to be increased by $319,800 from the CIP to fund the project. An executive summary of
the project budget is attached. Staff is confident that the estimates are conservative and that actual costs
may be lower when bids are opened. It is recommended that the entire project proceed to receipt of bids
with alternatives to delay portions of the project if expenses increase dramatically above that authorized in
the project CIP planning stage.
At the November 13 2006 city council meeting, council authorized a 10% increase in the street and storm
sewer assessments. A comparison of the 10% increase versus a 3% increase in the street and storm
assessment rates from 2006 results in an additional $116,600 to help fund the project. This $116,600
would be added to the GO Debt Service and the portion of the project paid by assessments would have
been reduced from 33% to 30.7 %.
If council accepts the feasibility study, staff requests the authorization to prepare the plans and
specifications. A $140,000 budget is needed to the complete the plans and specifications. This has been
accounted for the in total project budget and should be allocated for engineering services.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolutions accepting the report, calling for a
public hearing for 7:00 p.m. Monday, January 8 2007, and authorizing preparation of plans and
specifications for the Desoto- Skillman Area Street Improvement project.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Accepting Report and Calling for Public Hearing
2. Resolution Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications
3. Location Map
4. Executive Summary
RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT, CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted June 29th, 2006, a report has
been prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, a consultant of the city engineering division, with
reference to the improvement of the Desoto - Skillman Area Street Improvements, City Project 06-
16, by and this report was received by the council on December 1, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is
necessary, cost - effective, and feasible,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA
1 . The Council will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with the
report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of
$5,597,500.00.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 8 day of
January, 2007 in the Council chambers of Maplewood City Hall at 7:00 p.m., and the clerk shall
give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted June 29th, 2006, a report has
been prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, a consultant of the city engineering division, with
reference to the improvement of the Desoto - Skillman Area Street Improvements, City Project 06-
16, by and this report was received by the council on December 1, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is
necessary, cost - effective, and feasible,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
The city engineer is designated engineer for this improvement and is hereby directed to
prepare final plans and specifications for the making of said improvement.
FURTHERMORE, funds in the amount of $140,000 are appropriated to prepare the final
plans and specifications.
O
< L
1 0
Cn Cf') Cn J GO <
Cf) n
Cf �
cn ry
q V E.
ELD RIDGE
]EL D
M e h , r1ine Cn
u�
Cf) �7 0
C < BELMONT
0 - LN. F _� X/ Lake
_J cn
SKILLMAN AVE. SKILL
'n
AV E. BEL
CIO
Cf)
U AVE. F
O
<
c) y
>- Z-
LLJ 0
<
ry
ry
M
C/-)
GATEWAY
M SUMMER
:D
<
MT VERNON
M n
AVE
AVE. w
Cn
LLJ L'J
RIPLEY
Cn
_J <
0 0
0 1
TOENJES _� Roselawn
Edgerton
Park
>_ LJ_J
n,
< Ca
n
Western 7 - PL.
<
M ry
RIP LEY
<
PL ZV- Park
AVE.
bi
ry
0 Z � :
;7
III
7; -
Li V
Lu
A 0 AVE
BELLWOd
AV E. BEL
LVVUUU
I
Cn
I— A
0
C/-)
GATEWAY
M SUMMER
E.
SUMMER LN. LJ_J ry CT. Lj
J
RIPLEY
Cn
4,v
SU MER
D — u
CD
z
Western 7 - PL.
<
M ry
RIP LEY
>
K I N GSTO N < AVE.
Hills 0
bi
35E � _ l
NO SCALE
Proposed Capital Improvement Plan for 2007
Desoto-Skillman Area Street Improvements
City Project 06-16
0
Cn
I
Cn
I— A
>_
III
C/-)
GATEWAY
Cn Cf)
J
RIPLEY
AVE.
4,v
Cn
'5
CD
z
n
<
ry
M
Cn
>
K I N GSTO N < AVE.
bi
ry
0 Z � :
;7
III
7; -
Li V
Lu
PRICE z AVE.
n
n
H P
<
w AVE
n
35E � _ l
NO SCALE
Proposed Capital Improvement Plan for 2007
Desoto-Skillman Area Street Improvements
City Project 06-16
0
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
DESOTO- SKILLMAN AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 06 -16
EYE CUTIVE SUMMARY
This Feasibility Study and Report has been prepared for the Desoto - Skillman Area Street Improvements,
City Project 06 -16. The proposed project includes the reconstruction of the following streets:
• Desoto Street
• Skillman Street
• Mississippi Street
• Sloan Street
• Sloan Place
• Arkwright Street
• Clark Street
• Bradley Street
• Mt. Vernon Avenue
• Bellwood Avenue
• Ripley Avenue
• Jesse Street
• Kingston Avenue
• Price Avenue
• Payne Avenue
The proposed improvements include street reconstruction, subgrade correction, concrete curb and gutter
installation and replacement, concrete sidewalk construction, storm sewer improvements, sanitary sewer
improvements, and watermain improvements.
The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10%
construction cost contingency and a 31.5% allowance for indirect costs_
Proposed Improvement
Estimated Cost
Street Improvements
$
4,821,200
Storm Sewer Improvements
$
329,900
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
$
239,400
Watermain Improvements
$
147,000
Driveway Replacement Program
$
60,000
Total Project Cost
$
5,597,500
The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special assessments to benefiting
properties, Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds, and other City funds. The following is a summary of the
estimated funding amounts from each of the proposed financing sources:
Financing Source Amount
Street Assessments $ 1,626,500
Storm Sewer Assessments $ 209,500
Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund $ 239,400
Environmental Utility Fund (EUF) $ 292,000
WAC Funds $ 80,000
MSA Bonds $ 1,597,100
SPRWS Fund $ 147,000
Driveway Replacement Program $ 60,000
G. O. Debt Service $ 1,346,000
Total $ 5,597,500
The following is a proposed schedule for the project if the City Council votes to proceed.
Feasibility Report Accepted, Call Public Hearing
December 18, 2006
Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications
Public Hearing
January 8, 2007
Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize
February 26, 2007
Ad for Bids
Preliminary Assessment Roll to City Council
March 26, 2007
Bid Opening
April 6, 2007
Assessment Hearing / Award Contract
April 23, 2007
Start Construction
May 7, 2007
Substantial Completion
November 16, 2007
Construction Complete
November 30, 2007
Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this report, the proposed Desoto - Skillman Area Street
Improvements, City Project 06 -16 are feasible, necessary, and cost effective, and would benefit the City of
Maplewood.
Agenda Item L3
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director /City Engineer
SUBJECT: Gladstone Area Redevelopment, City Project 04 -21, Resolution Approving
Master Plan and Authorization to Proceed with Phase 1 Project Analysis and
Preliminary Report
DATE: December 8, 2006
INTRODUCTIONISUMMARY
The Metropolitan Council's Development Committee approved our grant at their December 4 th meeting.
The full Metropolitan Council will approve the award on December 13 We are now certain that
Maplewood will receive $1.8 million in grant funds for the Phase 1 Development of Gladstone. These
funds will require spending to be under way in 2007 and fully completed by the end of 2008. Engineering
and design of the improvements should begin in January — March of 2007 to allow for coordination of all
development. Approval to proceed with improvement field surveys is recommended.
Background
A final copy of the Master Plan is presented for adoption. All changes discussed on October 16 and
November 13 have been implemented as directed by the City Council. The attached resolution includes
approval and adoption of this guide document. The Tourist Cabins development provides a very good
opportunity for the City to address a number of issues. First and foremost is that the developer reports that
the Tourist Cabins site is very badly deteriorated. The grant, combined with this development, is a very
good opportunity for the City to begin the first phase of the process that will address the conditions within
the entire Gladstone area.
The staff needs to begin the necessary agreements and planning with the developer to take advantage of
the opportunities to address these needs within our community. It is the Implementation Team's
recommendation that now is the time for the Council to give the authorization to proceed with the project
survey and project planning phase. It would be extremely important to conduct survey on the public
improvements in December- January to allow for design during the winter and spring months of 2007. The
LCDA grant requires that all construction be started in 2007 and fully completed in 2008. The staff has
been meeting with the developer and coordinating schedules to meet these requirements.
The next step is to begin the process to study the design details of the improvements along with preparing
the specific financial documents and studies to begin implementing the development and improvements.
The Council, on July 10 authorized $50,000 for the preparation of the grant and for this planning process.
We have incurred all of these funds to date. Authorization to begin detailed survey and analysis would
require an additional $300,000 in consultant fees and project expenses for survey and soil exploration,
Phase 2 analysis, and feasibility study preparation, along with the expertise needed for the design /analysis
phase. These expenses are included within the project estimates and are part of the grant plan. The grant
requires that the City incur the expenses upfront and then be reimbursed. Attached are work plans from
HKGI, SEH and Kimley -Horn, the three consultants to be used on this project, along with their detailed
work scope /plans.
Agenda Item L3
Budget Impact
Costs incurred to date:
• Kimley -Horn - (grant preparation and utility planning)= $21,000 incurred to date
• SEH - (storm water planning)= $12,000 incurred to date
• HKGI - (Master Plan /Ordinance) = $ 6,000 incurred to date
• Staff planning and engineering - _ $ 4,500 incurred to date
• Springsted (financial plan) - = $ 2,000 incurred to date
• Brauer and Associates (open space plan) _ $ 4,500 incurred to date
TOTAL $50,000 budgeted = $50,000 incurred to date
Future Work Scope:
• Kimley -Horn — Feasibility Study Preparation $143,500
• SEH — Storm plan; traffic and Phase 2 environmental $156,230
• HKGI — Plan ninglordinances and AUAR Final Prep $ 20,960
• Staff — Engineering and miscellaneous expenses $ 29,310
• TOTAL $350,000
The additional funds will come from the project expenses, including all sources of funds to be determined
as part of the Public Hearing planned for the improvements in March 2007, as shown on the attached
implementation schedule.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution that adopts the Master Plan for the
Gladstone Project and authorizes the staff to proceed with the analysis phase of Phase I of the Gladstone
project and provide the Director of Public Works with the authority to incur an additional $300,000 of project
expenses for the purpose of detailed design and analysis.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Final Master Plan
3. Implementation Schedule
4. Master Plan Report from November 13` Council Meeting
5. Kimley -Horn Scope of work
6. SEH Scope of work
7. HKGI Scope of work
RESOLUTION
APPROVING MASTER PLAN
ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY
WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution of the City Council dated December 13, 2004, the City Council
entered into agreements with the firms of Hoisington - Koegler Group, Inc., Kimley -Horn and Associates,
Inc., SEH Inc., and Braun Intertec, Inc. for the purpose of preparing a Master Plan for the Redevelopment
of the Gladstone Area of the City, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held hearings and review sessions on various drafts of the Master
Plan on September 26, 2005; November 14, 2005; January 9, 2006; April 18, 2006; June 26, 2006;
October 26, 2006 and November 13, 2006 to review and debate the various sections and approaches to
the redevelopment strategies and policies for the Gladstone Area Redevelopment, and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan has been presented by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. in a final format
that is recommended for adoption by the City Engineer, and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has awarded a grant to the City of Maplewood in the amount
of $1.8 million for the improvement of Phase 1 of the Gladstone redevelopment, and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that improvements in the form of storm water improvements, turn lane
improvements, sidewalk /trail improvements, utility improvements and power line burial improvements for
Phase 1 for the Gladstone Area Redevelopment Project, City Project 04 -21 be implemented, and that all or
a portion of said improvement costs be assessed to the benefited property, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
1. That said Master Plan as prepared and presented by Hoisington- Koegler Group, Inc. is hereby
adopted as the guiding principles and policies for the redevelopment of the Gladstone area.
2. That the proposed improvement project 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 an additional $300,000 are appropriated from future
project expenses to prepare this feasibility report and to prepare preliminary project plans and analysis.
F41
Chapter Contents Chapter #
Project Abstract ....................................................... 0
The Gladstone Story lIntroduction ........................... I
Gladstone Area Context ........................................... 2
Vision and Guiding Principles ................................ 3
The plaster Plan ...................................................... 4
Implementation ...................................................... 5
Appendix ............................... Technical memorandum
Credits
Task Force Members
• Linda Olson
• Joy'l
• Will Rossbach
Erika Donner
Larry Johnson
Al Olson
• Jan Steiner McGovern
• Al Galbraith
Dan Fischer
Rich Horvath
Wavne Sachi
David Gad by
Charlie Godbout
DalcTrippicr
Peter Fisc her
Bruce M01'rCri
• N'lary Koppen
• Al Singer
Joe O'Brien
• Mark Guerncss
Alternate members
• Kirn Schmidt
• Betty Schultz
• Roxanne Opse
• Christophcr Harnp]
• Sue Broin
• Diana Longric
• Del and Adi Benjamin
• Darlene Benedict
• Carokl n Peterson
City staff Departments
Community Development
Public 'Works
Park and Recreation
Consult in" - learn
I
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
with technical assistance froill
,Short E'lliott Hendrickson Inc.
106 Group LID.
Braun Intertec Corporation
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
TableofContents Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Project Abstrac]
Page 0 - I
The master plan is not an explicit picture of' what Gladstone will
become. Rather, it suggests a direction in ,Nhich we can ino%c
forward in the hopes of reaching a common vision and shove
hoxv various efforts to improve the neighborhood can fit together.
It is expected that the details will change as projects are imple-
mented. In I'JC1, NvC Should expect the insights and creativity of
others to reinforce the vision and lead to even better projects.
Rather than being limiting., the master plan is intended to stretch
people's imaginations about ,N hat is possible.
As the master plan looks Out over a period ol'ten or more years,
interpretation will be critical. The master plan cannot respond
to every condition that exists or anticipate c%cry change that
might o ccur, )C(Ur, but it can and does provide good direction. Ulti-
mately, adjustment and redirection may be necessary, but it can-
not be arbitrarv; if'needed, the change will be the result of an
e e
opportunity to make Gladstone a better place, not the result of
a "hot opporiunitv." That line mar be thin, but we InUS1 look to
the princ iples of' the master plan first as the plan is meant to
protect the values and character of the neighborhood as improve-
irrents are marle,
that can divide a community and neighborhood. If we are not
careful in the vvays we seek to resolve these issues, vve may lose
the very character that vve are seeking to preserve and enhance
in this master plan,
Project Area Map
Gladstone is seen by sorric as the communitv's historic down—
town, By others, it is seen as a place to live, work, shop and
recreate Yet it is also seen as a lace with tremendous o ortu-
This master plan outlines a series of projects and actions that
H itt y FF
tv Largely due to the presence of large open space area, the
w ill move the Gladstone Neighborhood into the future with con
-
A I � h e ld L � th Gladstone Savanna. The master plan process focused significant
S1StCnCN in a vision that is corninon c
con and the neighborhood. It recognizes the conditions
of the neighborhood: that this is an urban place with great eco-
logical and historical value and that its character briiw '
e S Issues
discussion on a heavily debate(] question: Do Nve sell a Portion of
the 1 4 acre Savanna for development?
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Project Abstract
Page 0 - 2
The challenge Nvith this question is that it is not black or white.
It is net as simple as I + I = 2A'herc is truly no right or wrong
answer. There are merits for a 'yes' and 'no' response, Like many
communities within an urban metropolitan area, large open
spaces are rare conuncefilieq, Some believe that large Murn-
provol open spaces in Urban settings is a Wasteful utilization of
finite resource. Development on those spaces gives a growing
population a place to live, work and play, creating, a sense of place
and contributing to a tax base. There is also an alternative per-
spective, large open spaces provide places for people to escape
the realities of urban life without necessarily having 10 drive OW
of town and they support ecological systems. if improved, large
urban open spaces can contribute to a "sense of place" and can
have a positive impact overall on property values resulting in a
stronger tax base.
flrere exists a balance,This master plan process explored a range
of developincrit on the Savanna from 6 acres to 3 acres. The
resultant configuration of all concepts preserved the overall
amount of open space: at 24 acres, but lost linutcd amounts of
activ=e park area. The final master plan does not call for develop-
ment of the Savanna but SUggCSIS that the Savanna should be
preserved in its natural state with elements of historic incerpre-
laliOn. The dialogue over the definition and configuration Ol'ur-
ban open spaces in 'Maplewood friot just relative to the Gladstone
Savanna) should continue. Planningis adynarmcprocess, It should
not inhibit the community from considering a project that
achieves significant 'ant elements of the vision if the project does 1101
meet every intention articulated in the master plan.
The vision for Gladstone is supported by a number of guiding
principles. The principles are frained around basic concerns of
the neighborhood and the community:
That the neighborhood maintain,, resemblance of its historic
past as a "village" marked by organic building patterns and a
mix of' uscs.
That the regional trails be celebrated as village corridors
ollcre the neighborhood embraces them rather than rel-
cgale them.
That Gladstone becomes a compelling "duality of life" choice
offering a great plat c to live, work and play vN ith an endur-
ing quality of design, A sustainable community,
That natural and ecological functions are "awn en" into the
built and recreational fabric of the neighborhood, commu-
nity and region rather than isolated to a parcel defined by a
historic use and ownership pattern,.
That the story of Gladstone is told (or "whispered") through
the design and improvements of'public and private spaces.
That walkabifitY becomes "the" standard when it comes to
urban design and mobility in ('31adstonv.
That all stages of file are Nvelcorned and embraced through
the arrangement of uses and design of space throughout the
neighborhood.
That opportunity for or connections to varvin,, modes ol'trans-
portation are not lost but fostered through better design and
vision.
The master plan begins vvith a story Of the CVCdUt ion Of Gladstone,
building the context around the issue,, and opportunities Of the
neighborhood and the significant efforts that have led to the cre-
ation of the master plan. The master plan is organized around a
series of elements:
Land use describes the desired character and organization Of
Uses within the neighborhood, encouraging the vveavin,, Of
I "
residential uses with neighborhood level retail and commer-
cial services.
Streets and infrastructure systerris are designed or improved
to make urban redevelopment possible:, but more so to rc-
ProjectAbstract Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
spored to issues of traffic and the ability of a street scene to
contribute to a sense of'place and the notion of "vv alkability " ;
and, to protecting the environment from impacts associ-
ated Willi StOrtuWatCr 1-UnOfE
Pedestrian q 1 vsiems are enhanced to link neighborhood quah-
tics with the regional systems,
Parks and open st)aces'are intert tried to provide a range of
passive and active recreation needs and to build upon eco-
logical systems.
Development c harac ter focuses on principles of design that
bring out the notion of enduring neighborhood dualities and
Sustainable design.
Development strat(Lgie,, begin at brin
gin to identify projects th, g
the vision to realitN.
Each of the above thernes are described individually but must
be considered holistically in order to bring about substantive
change in Gladstone without diminishing its character, These
projects are in fact central to the neighborhood's future even
if it takes ten to INventv rears to effect the change describe(].
Finalh, a path to implementation is laid. The master plan high-
fights broad strategies for moving forward with the plan, and
then begins to frame the directions needed for implementing
specific projects.
Page 0 - 3
The master plan image above focuses on demonstrating arrangements ofpublic investments: parks,
open space, stormwater improvements and streets_ Building footprints represent desired building
orientation, but does not represent what will actually be built_
Key components of the Master Plan include:
Intense development at the core of Frost Ave and English St
Nearly $15 million invested into public improvements for:
the Savanna (trails, plaza, restoration, historic interpretation)-
Streetscape and street improvements to Frost Avenue and English Street_
Area wide storm water infrastructure improvements_
Burial of overhead utility lines along Frost and English
Integrated land use patterns - 650 new housing units and 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of new
neighborhood retail and office_
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Project Abstract
Page 0 - 4
This page intentionally left blank
ProjectAbstract Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 1 -1
13 understand redevelopment in the Gladstone neighborhood,
it is necessary to consider its history. Gladstone began as a busi-
ness district built around a major transportation system, the
Railroad. As rccentb as 1986, rail uses existed in the '\
hood, and even today some remnants of rail uses can still be
found in the neighborhood. These rail facilities attracted major
industrial uses to Gladstone which have been well documented
through an historical account by local Maplewood resident, Pe-
ter Boulay. 'I'lic urnkge below represents an early Gladstone: in-
ilustry that relied on rail transportation for goods dvlivcrv.
5TPAVt-
A-
-_7 �'T
Boulay, Pete. The Lost city of Gladstone: A History of Maplewood from its
beginnings. 1997
Residential growth
With the passing of time, housing dcielopment
came to the Gladstone ?\'cighborhood, In the
1940s, Gladstone v% as still largely farmsteads.
Subdivisions began to emerge in the 1950s near
Wakefield Lake, and then in the 1960s, 1970s
and 1980s residential subdivision growth con-
sumed not only Gladstone but most of
N and other first and second ring sub-
urbs in the "I'vNin Cities, By the late 80s,
Gladstone was lamck I developed to residential
lar
uses with the exception of the large parcel at
the Southwest corner of Frost AverlUc and En-
glish Street known today as the Gladstone Sa-
vanna, and some remnant commercial uses along
Frost Avenue and Lnglish Street,
Over the Nears, the business environment in
Gladstone has experienced significant change,
and according to the h storical accounts of'the
neighborhood, limited business success. At the
inception of the Gladstone area, the neighbor-
hood served as a regional (-enter built around
the raili-clail. As highways were built and re-
gional malls dev eloped, businesses gravitated
to better locations.16day, regional con-linercial
uses in Gladstone have become increasingly out
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan The Gladstone Story-introduction
1940 aeria! photo.
1953 aerial photo.
1974 aerial photo.
Older, tired commercial buildings
tend to have a depressing affect on
neighborhood property values_
of place with the character of Gladstone. The character of lived and by 1920, the site Nvas no longer used for rail purposes,
Gladstone todav wants to Ilk! much more of'a neighborhood sec - Over the years, a number of industries and uses came and Nvent,
rice (enter providing basic retail services, however its mix of
aL110 oriented used, contractor services and vtorabeilive the nei
�
gh
borhood a much more industrial character. Also Eactorin i g into
the Current business mix in the neighborhood is the a of the
conarriercial buildings, -Ticluch of Gladstone developed I)ct
1900 and 1980 and structures are reaching a time in their life
span where inaproAcincrits are needed, or the buildings have
become obsolete for today's commercial uses, Because ncv% re-
tailerl or businesses can get neu I , acilitie with never amenities
elsewhere, rents are kept at an affordable rate in Gladstone in
order to keel) competitive. This also is reflected by less conven-
tional building ov, ncr/tenant relationships in many circumstances,
(hand shake rental agreements vs. contracts). Factors that make
a prosperous location for businesses, (high traffic volumes, dense:
population, sivabage, hbhtv, abundant free surface parking) inter-
fere with the character desired by lower density residential neigh-
borhoods, Tired and out of'place commercial Lis" create I , riction
with the neighborhood. This out of -place condition often has
economic consequences. Con buildings in the neighbor-
hood have constrained income potential for sale or lease, 'I'his
on the Savanna. In the fall of' 1979, buildings ,Ncrc removed and
the Savanna became a vacant parcel The site vc as still designated
as an industrial or commercial use by the Citv of Maplewood
into the 1980s and 1990q, flovvever, its marketability as such
prevented a successful sale. In the early 1990s, a residential
tou rition-ic development vv as proposed for the site
c hu, n 61,d52,st duride d epi, md ld'iN 'riu, Is- V psi'i'r Nv,u,.rui6
t.dqul.yi.u, the bee, build hnn s .Iho -Ali ddul j—"k- Tu R. Fait and Duhah
R.dl d Sh"p, — 1.sl in Id, I.— .— F.bl M-eil Is— dni-M H,
ilk l, Noi.r 166, bl.. 1160d l..", e, 'r—ret.
IF'—, d.. th—,"di 6,ly
limited economic capacity reduces the ability (and incentive} for Boulay. Pete- The Lost City of Gladstone: A History of Maplewood from its
beginnings- 1997
property coviners to reinvest in buildings, A lack of'maintenance
and improvement ultimately leads to a deterioration of dtrL1C-
WYC'S and overall site conditions. These conditions then tend to
,spread to adjacent properties,
The Savanna as an industrial site
An historical aspect of Gladstone is the Gladstone Shops built by
the St. Paul and Duluth Railroad around 1887, 'Fhe shops were
used primarily to build and repair locomotives and other cars
related to the railway, I'lle rail uses in the Savanna were short
The Savanna as a Neighborhood Preserve
During the 1970s, the City of Maplewood experienced a signifi-
cant amount of residential gro-oth resulting in a loss of open
space and rural character. As a result 01'suburban grov,th pres-
sures that continued into the 1980s and the 1990 , the City passed
a reirrendUrn to raise funds for the purchase of open space. In
1994-, the Gladstone Savanna Nvas purchased for approximateiv
The Gladstone Story Introduction Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
SSOS,000 for the purposes of' establishing a net
ghborhood pre-
serveA program provided mone ' v to acquire land, but did not
include the means to restore or enhance the Savanna. As a re-
sult, the Savanna has been protected from development, hot has
not evolved into an environmental asset for the Neighborhood
or the commurniv. In fact some business owners and prospective
developers consider the SAvanna in its current state, sonrevvliat
of a liakilit%.
A master plan concept prepared for the Savanna in 2002 by the
University of Minnesota_
Reemerging market forces
(Aadstonc has been shaped Io two growth movements: the rail-
road boom in its original settlement days and the suburban ex-
plosion of the 1960s and (970S VVI'liCh brOU1111, With it the com-
mercial development pattern reflected in existing commercial
USCS. _IbdaV, another trend is emerging. This trend k the desire to
live closer to the major business and COMMUnitV centers of the
Twin Cities fdovNntoon St. Paul and Minneapolis) in order to
enjoy the benefits offered by urban living without having to cope
with long commutes, congested commercial centers and lack of
pedestrian friendly environments.
The setting for redevelopment in Gladstone is strong
Many factors create an ideal setting for redevelopment in
Gladstone, one of the strongest assets is one of simply conve-
nience, its location. Gladstone is only a few minutes from down-
town St. Paul and in most cases 20 minute,, to dowritovvn -Minne-
apolis, is adjacent to tvvo significant regional recreation resource,
in Lake Phalen and Koller Regional Park, and is connected to
to regional trail corridors one ofwhich is identified as a f uture
regional transit vNay. Location in and of itself, makes Gladstone
an attractive setting for redcvc1opirient.
Like people, communities grove tired and if our health is not
maintained, deterioration grow. 1 area is clear "tired,"
grov � Y
IlovNcver, blight has not reached the degree that the place is
"broken" with the related ptrSqUrc to "fix it".
The challenges associated with redevelopment
Change will not happen without action and investments to the
City of lviaplekxood, 'Ilicre are significant financial barriers to
replacing incompatible land Uses. In most cases, older parcel
lavouts are not suited to new develolonerni needs. This means
that multiple lots Most be assembled into new development sites.
Most properties are alreadv oc cupied w ith buildings, 'Fliese struc-
tures must be demolished and cleared before redevelopment
can occur. Contaminated materials in buildings and in the ground
trust be removed. All of these factors contribute to the cost of
development in the Gladstone Neighborhood. Sale prices and
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan The Gladstone Story Introduction
Page 1-4
rents c annot support these redevelopment costs and provide the
quality of new development sought by the corriruunity. Without
a plan and the resources to remove these barriers, redevelop-
ment becomes a significant challenge. lh)Usirg and businesses
seeking this market will find other, more feasible, locations in
Maple wood and private reinvestment will lag behind. With t L
1 01
private redevelopment, investments in the public reahri are more
challenging,
fairul , v units, and commercial uses including some within mixed
use structures and some single use commercial buildings. T'he
c oncept illustrated slightly more than 300 new housing units and
roug 1 14 7 000 square feet of'cornmercial space and rxprcssol
a design
, gn character consistent with the neighborhood and the his-
torical interpretations of Gladstone_ The concept did not illus-
trate development of buildings on the Savanna but (lid include
the development of Gloster park to residential uses, 'I'he con-
Redevelopment involves more than private development. The cept did present concepts for improvements to the Savanna that
City olaple�Nood needs to make public imesterents in streets, em phasized the historical use of the sit
l',N
utilities, parle, and open space and the monies required for these
investments must conic either from redevelopment or general
property taxes, A comprehensive and feasible plan is needed to
attract or insight private reinvestment and redevelopment to
support public investments in the '.Neighborhood.
Evolution of "Redevelopment Plans'
- Fhc redevelopment plan for the Gladstone Area evolved from a
variety Of'sources and planiuri efforts. It is difficult to com-
pletely list all of the information and guidance that contributed
to the development of'the master plan. It is, however, impor-
tant to explain the key steps in the planning process,
Concept Plan for City of Maplewood
The Cite of Majohnvood retained the services of Urban designer
Rich McLaughlin to conduct a process and prepare a concept
plan, _Fhe planning efforts focused on the land area around the
Savanna and those parcels adjacent or along Frost Avenue and
English Street. _Fhc planning effort led to a concept that demon-
strated a range of housing patterns including, small let detached
single Iairiilv homes, attached townhornes, and stacked multi-
Neighborhood Plan
The Gladstone Neighborhood Coalition (GNO lermed during
the City's planning process. 1 included representation
from the immediate neighborhood residents and busincsscs,'Flie
GNC conducted a nurriber of meetings to establish a preferred
plan that represents the collective interests of the GNC 'Ihe
basic elements of the (;NC concepts included preservation of
The Gladstone Story Introduction Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Master plan concept prepared by Rich McLaughlin
the existing park and open spac systems in the current c onfigu-
ration, the guirling of much of the Frost Avenue and English Street
corridors to a commercial designation; and the redevelopment
of'some areas to a combination (A'rowhousc development at 8 to
12 units per acre and lower density single farnilv development it
densities of 4- to 8 units per acre. The (;\(7 plan also expressed
support for the idea of'senibr housing, a hich would he at a higher
density of up to 18 units per acre, *Fhe GEC plans emphasized
site design standards to ensure high quality development com-
patible with the Gladstone Area,
Citizen's Plan 4B
AE
ic
si
77 7
�Mf •1
E t;;!,
ggg
7,7 777
.2A U"I a q ,
One of number of concepts explored by the Gladstone Neighborhood
Coalition.
Developer Interests
One ol'the f actors actors that lead to the need for planning in Gladstone
I
was the fact that developer interests exist in Gladstone. In fa ct,
one property ov,ner had expressed a number of'creative devel-
opment ideas that offered inspiration to what they felt the neigh-
borhood could become prior to any of the ahoy e mentioned plan-
ning initiatives. During the course of the City's planning efforts
at least one developer approached this City Nvith a concept plan
that included a significant number 0f'housing units and commer-
cial space including a movie theater and new Iscmlin allev. Ad-
ditional de cloprvccnt interests have been expressed in areas on
the perimeter of the project area including the St. Paul Tourist
Cabins site along Frost Avenue cast of Last Shore Drive,
The Gladstone Redevelopment Master Planning
Process
In December of 2003, the City of lklaplekwod hired a team of
consultants lead by Iloisinnton Koerder Group Ire, and Kin-
ley-Horn and Associates hit, to complete a master plan for the
Gladstone Area. This process included the facilitation ol'a public
process, incorporation of past planning efforts, exploration of
redevelopment possibilities, feasibility to (engineering, h-
nam ial, market), and preparation of toaster plan and environ-
mental revievN document to coordinate this the Citv appointed
a 20 person task force represented by 2 City Council members,
11 business owners and residents from the neighborhood, 6 rep-
resentatives from Cftv advisory boards and I community at large
member. This 20 person task force met more than 10 times over
the course of'2003 servin JS J C011dUrt to the neighborhood and
community, advisors on key issues and directions and guides to
the consultant and staff team. 'this -',faster Plan is vNrittcn with
respect to the energies and conirruttrient put forth by the Task
Force Members, The lolloNving key steps were included in the
process:
Establishment of Guiding Principles
Early in the process, the consultant team and the - lask Force ex-
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan The Gladstone Story- Introduction
A tour of Twin Cities redevelopment
projects gave the task force real life
experiences with redevelopment- The
tour included projects in Burnsville,
Richfield, St. Louis Park, Hopkins,
Golden Valley and Little Canada-
plored the values of the neighborhood with the objective of es-
tablishing a set of guiding principles. `These: explorations included
communications with residents and business owners through
public meetings, Personal interviews and review of past written
public correspondence Collected during previous planning exre-
cises.'Fliese explorations were also supported by a tour of'recent
redevelopment projects vt ithin the *1v% in Cities area, A set of
Guiding Principles were asscrtibled to help direct future plan-
ning tasks,
Initial Concepts
One objective ofthe 2003 Planning proce,,,, has been to explore
alternatives for the future of the Gladstone Neighborhood, This
approach allows the community to consider new options for dc-
velopti-rent. Comparing, alternatives is an effective way to find
the best fit for the Neighborhood, 'I'lirce alternatives vvere pre-
pared fir consideration. Those alternatives greNN out ol'a combi-
nation of previous planning concepts, input from the community
and experience ol'the Consulting 1carn,
Community Cut and Paste
Representatives from Burnsville The three redevelopment concepts vvere presented to the corn-
shared trials and tribulations of InUnitV at a public workshop on April 7. This workshop included
redevelopment with Task Force
Members during the tour. the "cut and Paste" exercise. NN'orkshop participants were di-
vided into groups and asked to create their own redevelopment
plan for Gladstone. The groups could use elements of the three
redcxclopriumt concepts or create neN features,
Feasibility Testing
Three concepts were presented at a PUb1i(- workshop on April 7.
Based on the input received at this meeting the three concepts
NWIT distilled by the consultant into a single concept. The Task
I once approved this combined concept for feasibility testing, The
purpose of this testing was to determine if this lerrin and arnount
of development would he financially feasible create the rev-
A number of alternative concepts vvere explored and evaluated through
the process. Three concepts from top to bottom included the - garden
city", the 'village' and the "downtown" concepts- These concepts were
then used in a public meeting to facilitate additional discussion and
dialogue regarding land use patterns and development character for the
neighborhood. Results of those meetings are documented in the project
files with the City.
The Gladstone Story- Introduction Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
mines needed to pay for the costs of redevelopment, could be
supported by existing infrastructure sN'sten-Is and is supported by
current and projected market forces, 'I'lac combined concept
from the April 7 meeting fell far short of accomplishing the
financial objectives of'balancing revenues and expenditures. The
engineering analvsis demonstrated that existing systems had ex-
tra capacity, And the market investigations offered more sup-
port for residential de%elopincru, and less for commercial use,
'I'he consultants then explored options that added development
(and the related revenues) ahile seeking to achieve community
objectives for or redevelopment. A technical memorandum docu-
naentim,, this analvsis is included as an appendix.
A composite concept was constructed based on information gathered
through various public meetings and background research- This concept
was then tested from a financial, market and infrastructure feasibility
standpoint. The concept reflected a lower to medium density residential
development pattern with a mixed use pattern of predominantly
commercial uses in at the core area of Frost Avenue and English Street.
The concept most closely reflected the "garden city" and "village"
concepts.
Environmental Reporting
One component of*the project includes developing an environ-
mental report ch)(11ractifing the potential impacts that develop -
ment -o ill have on the area. "Phis report contains much of the
engineering analysis that was conducted as part of the planning
process, _Fhe report is in the form of an Alternative Urban
AreavNicle Review (AUAR) and is authorized under Minnesota
Rules Chapter 44-10,3610 as an alternative form of'environmen-
tal revieNv for development projects. The AUAR is intended to
address the "cununativc,` impacts resulting 1rom a Sequence of
related redevelopment Projects, 'I'lic AUAR explored develop -
ment irripacts that would result from build out ol'the area based
on the Corripretiensive Land Use Plan and from the most intense
rcile%clopracrit scenario evaluated through the process, 'I'tic
AUAR is available as a Supplement to the Master Plan and pro-
vide, a thorough review of'existing conditions.
The plan for redevelopment described in this (10CLuncrit grew
out of the input received Itorri a series of'public workshops and
discussions between consultants, City Staff and'Iask Force men-1-
hors, 'I'tic -',faster Plan is also informed by a multi- disciplined
team of'professional (enSUItams and staff' whose role was to ad-
vise the Task Force, appointed and elected community leaders
and the general cornmunity on the technical and mechanical ele-
mcnts associated vvith redevelopment planning,
An Alternative Urban Areavvide
Review (AUAR) provides a detailed
analysis of environmental impacts
and is available from the City as a
supplement to the master plan.
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan The Gladstone Story- Introduction
This page intentionally left blank
The Gladstone Story- Introduction Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
W111111
Aladstone Area
Few people know Gladstone better than the residents and
businesspeoph! who live and work here. Therefore the master
plan process started from a strong base of local knovN ledge: drawn
out through Community meetings, charrettes, discussions at lo-
Cal l)USiI)CSSCs and 110111CS, community tours, personal interviews
and past sIudv and analysis of the neighborhood.
Historical perspective
As preciously discussed, Gladstone contains a rich history. This
history has been vcell documented, Historical references to the
project area can he accessed through a report by Peter BOUlaV
InledThe Lost Citv of Gladstone and published in 1997. As part
of this StUrIv, a Cultural Resource as .essment nas conducted by
the 106 Group and published as part of the AUAR process. This
report is available through the Citv's project files for reference.
Kev historical aspects relative to the project were discussed in
Chapter 1.
Regional location—proximity
A significant clualitv of the Gladstone Ncighborhood is its prox-
imity to urban amenities, principally regional recreation facili-
ties and the downtowns of'St. Paul and Minneapolis, Close prox-
imity to the regional highway svvlern and adjacenc) to a Ramsev
County regional transit corridor also contribute to the qualities
that make Gladstone a desirable location. Its adjacenc) to Iwo
major regional trail corridors and the ability to Connect to Lake
Land use patterns
I'ststing land use patterns reflect a predorninamly single famfly
character ovithin the Gladstone neighborhood. Limited commer-
cial and entertainment services are oriented around Lrost A%-
enue and English Street,
The future land use plan as articulated in the Comprehensive
Hone
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Gladstone Area Context
1 1 halen and other nearl)v regional park facilities further cidianoe, Regional context.
the Gladstone location.
Future Land Use Map as contained
within the current Comprehensive
Plan. The graphic below represents
the acres as distributed based on the
future land use categories-
F.— Und Use
T..I A
Double Residential
3,9
NI,d— D-1, D—U—,
6,2
High D,—t, Multiple D— H-
8,i
B-m— C.— I
18.0
141 dried
.'s
F,bh, S—i P.bli,
11"
Op— space
47
P"e-,
R041'(Ernuk Street)
].k
le� g iw T, uI ROW
c,.,7 Total
orally : fall on the louver to middle end of the market, primarily
due to 1'e site amenities and older buildings, Overall,
Gladstone tends to support more of a neighborhood retail ser-
vices market. A market study by Maxfield Research News con-
ducted in April of 2003. This study C011CIMIC(I that the &TualUl
for retail development is quite limited in the area and is only
likely to follow after ncva housing development occurs and in-
tcresL in the area has increased. `Phis report also contains a num-
her of charts and tables that describe the demographic and socio-
economic character of a larger area that includes Gladstone. The
document is available through the City',, files.
Conversations N% ith the development community expressed sin-ri-
larsentiments, but ry =ere encouraged by the notion that the bowl-
ing alley and local morn and pop type businesses were present in
the neighborhood and could serve as f uture uture tenants to fill neNv
commercial space. A challenge associated with moving existing
businesses in Gladstone into new commercial space is related to
Plan largely maintains the current land use configuration NvIule the financial gap between the cost fo r existing spaces and tire
expanding Some areas for commercial UsC-S. cost for nc constructed spaces.
The business climate in Gladstone includes a mixture of'approxi-
mately 43,000 square feet of service commercial (auto services,
contractor servic es, f'Uncral home), 40,000 square feet of' rivigh-
borhood retail ( bakery, bakery, liquor store, grocery store), 60,000 square
feet of'commercial /entertainment (bowling alley, Moose L odge)
and 36,000 square feet of commercial use, that carry a mare
light industrial type presence (warehousing, outdoor storage,
manufacturing') T he character of the business use, along, Frost
Avenue and English Street include some residential structures
that are used for commercial services (see photo at right). For
the most part, businesses rely on a local market area for custom-
ers and are not regionally oriented. Rents for tenant spaces gen-
Gladstone Area Context Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Residential climate
The N'laxileld Research document previously referenced pro-
vides a more in-depth review of current housing mix in the
Gladstone area and Maplewood in general. The AUAR process
included an estimate of housing types in the neighborhood_ The
project area includes approximately 475 housing units, of which
over 6W7 s are single family detached hurries (including nearly
100 mobile home units.) A number of` star ked multi family units
also are located in the project area.'I"hese units are mostly : rental
apartment units and, similar to the commercial development in
the area, are older units (1930, 1960 or 1970s vintage.) Many of
the apartments lack modern (lay amenities such as in unit laun-
dry; Underground parking, C01 - urnUnity rooms, etc... Life -cycle
housing referent es housing that is available for a range of needs
based on age, income fowls, famil% status and ability, The notion
being that one can find housing to fit whatever needs are de-
manded by the life -cycle they are in. Life-CWle housing in
Gladstone is limited to the single-farnily home or the 1-2 bed-
room apartment in a 20 Near of(] or older building' Generally,
housing Value, within the neighborhood are relatively affordable
in the current market place,
Open space and ecological systems
The Gladstone area is part of a larger ecological
system v% ith
connections to Lake Phalcro and other nearb\ water r1so.
The Gladstone Savanna neighborhood Preserve is a former in-
dustrial site that has been classified as a bro:oNnfield, 11 Nvas
purchased as part of the neighborhood Preserve systcm prima-
rily I)C(aUSC it was the last large parcel of land in this neighbor-
hood. The most ecologically significant features of the site are:
• 'fire oak "nursery" at the northeast corner of the:
preserv
Small patches of prairie plants scattered throughout
tile site;
• Mature cottonwood trees along Frost Avenue;
The process of reco%ery has been slovviv unfolding since indus-
trial uses %vere abandoned, including increasing number of na-
tive prairie plants and lichen colonizing asphalt slab However,
there has been widespread encroachment by invasive species
Such as spotted knapwecd and Siberian elm along vvith these posi-
tive changes. A 24-acre natural area is not large enough to be a
wildlife refuge or a wilderness area. Due 10 the small size of all
the : neighborhood Preserves, the Chv of Maplev,00d's goal for
neighborhood preserves are to make them places where citi-
zens can cmoN nature and see examples of natural heritage, es-
pecially the pre settlement vegetation of the region.
The invasive species and compacted soils on the site make resto-
ration of the savanna challenging, flo management ac-
tivities mer the past seven vears hoasi%c tree removal, pre-
scribed burns, and biological control of leafy spurge) have been
Verx encouraging, With adequate time, funding, and manage-
ment the City can achieve its vision lot restoring the Gladstone
Savanna.
Other significant habitat areas include the regional trail corri-
dors, These corridors are wide enough and contain enough habi-
tat to serve as a corridor for wildlife movement.
Park and recreation systems
The park systems that serve the Gladstone Neighborhood are in
abundance. The project area is serve(] bV a FIUMI)Cc of'parks within
the immediate neighborhood including
Gloster Park (tot-lot and
soccer field), Flicek Park pvvo ball diamonds and trail head for
the GatcuaN Trail), Robinhood Park (tot-lot, basketball court,
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Gladstone Area Context
Page 2 - 4
Park and open space areas.
Fall field and trails) and a shared ball field vvith the School Dis-
trict on the former Gladsione Llernentary site, Also, within less
than a mile of the Project area are additional Park facilities
that scree the neighborhood.
Infrastructure systems
Nearby regional systems include Keller Re Park and Lake
Phalen. The Gatewav and V'ento'l add a more Passive recre-
ational opportunity for the neighborhood.
Infrastructure systerns were inventoried and evaluated as Part of
the ALTAR Process. In general, the systems for Public water and
sanitary sewer are in good condition and have capacit% to Serve
additional devc1opincrit.This is largely the caw because the sys-
tems were originally planned to serve an area anticipated for
development, prior to the Savanna bein purCl�ased for open space.
Pedestrian systems
The neighborhood is lacking, in Pedestrian connections absent
the regional trail ,Nays. More recent improvements to English
Street did enable the City to build sidc alks along English Street,
f lowever, little connection is made to the remainder of the neigh-
borhood. One positive to Frost AvellLIC is that its design includes
significant icant right-ol'-way and portions of the road have enough
pavement width to accommodate Pedestrian traffic. Observa-
tions of foot traffic in the area and evidence of the "beaten path"
or "c o path" demonstrate a demand for greater Pedestrian sys-
terns in the neighborhood to Provide greater levels of mobility
as well as recreational OPPOrtUndics.
Transportation and Transit
The project area inCIUdCs two roadways that Play a significant
role in the COollnUnitv: Frost AvellLIC and Fnglish Strect. Frost
AvcnUC is CLIN a COUnty road. The roadoav includes POr-
tion,
that are to lane and portions that are four lane. The road-
s, w
, ,%av was Originally designed to accommodate a higher degree of
traffic p ith an industrial and con uncro is] c haracter- Traffic vol-
cones on Frost and English range from 6,000 Nefricics Per day On
E n
glish Street near the core area to slightly less than 10,000
G I a d a t a n a A r e a C a n t a x t G lad stone Neigh borhood Redevel opment Pla n
vehicles per day west of' Last Shore Drive, Additional traffic ca-
pacity exists within the current transportation system. A round-
about at Frost and English facilitates traffic movement through
the area in an efficient rnanner.
The project area is served br a Metro) Transit bus line, A stop
currently exists along Eng,!ish Street. The Vento'l is also part
ol'the re Iran adyway systcon. '.\o immediate improvements
are planned of a transit nature: hosvvever, vvilh the increase in
demand for Iransit services, growing traffic con rising,
gas prices, and success of other regional transit investments, the
Vento Trail could see transit improvements planned for the cor-
ridor accelerated within the next 3 to 10 years,
Background Documents
The follovNint, , documents provide additional context informs-
tion that supported the planning, process and ultimateIN the re-
dewlopirrent master plan recommendations.These resources can
be accessed through the Citv of Nlaplew000d's project files. This
list is not all inclusive. Nlany additional resources contributed to
the master plan beyond the list beloyov.
Braun Intertec Corporation, Limited Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment. May 18, 2005 (Project S1
Citv or-Maplevood, Maplevood Comprehensive Plan. May 2002
Pete Boulav, The Lost Citv of Gladstone: The IlistorN of
I-rorn its Beginnings, 1997 (Sixth Revision)
HLISVeth, Jason (of Critical Connections Inc.) Gladstone Savanna
Site Analysis and Ecological Survey: City of-Maple"Nood, April
2002.
106 Group. CUllural Resource Assessment for the Maplevvood
Gladstone Neighborhood Alternative Urban Areawidc Review
{ALTAR), IN'lapicokood, Ramsey County, -Minnesota, April 2003,
Gladstone Area Redevelopment Master plan Alternative Urban
ArcaoNide Rc (ALTAR). October 2005 Draft
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Gladstone Area Context
This page intentionally left blank
G lad stone Area Context Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 3 - 1
Vision and Guiding Principles
The Gladstone Master Plan will take roars and in some cases
decades to accomplish, With that kind of firrieframc, it 's ill be
easy to loose sight ol'the "vt hys" of the various plat i rccornmen-
dations, A chapter of particular importance when wrestling vt ith
challenging, decisions is the Vision and Guiding principles chap-
ter. There, one can always come back to the fundamental prin-
ciples that will help guide SOUnd decision - snaking.
Vision
According to an of(] story, two stonecutters were asked what
then were doinv. The first said, "I'm cutting this stone into Weeks,"
The second replied, "Firi on a team that is building a cathedral,"
This story describes the role of vision in guiding growth and
change i -
, n a neighborhood. XVithout a vision, redevelopment
management works much like the first stonecutter. New pieces
are added or modified without a clear picture of what is being
built. The vision provides the Picture of the "cathedral" that the
Gladstone Neighborhood seeks to become. Fach development
and redevelopment project trust help to build the future, net
just fit cleanly with the next "stone black".
The tision is an orcrarching ,statement about the Gladstone \`eighbor-
hood in the future. It should be a statement about what this place aspires
to be and should capture the . of the future Gladstone Neigh-
horhood. Guiding Principles represent the basic goals of the plan and
reflect the expressed need., and desires of the people of the Gladstone
Neighborhood and 11apleTiotid Courriaunit Be: guiding principles tire This chapter represents a
used to represent the t orrintunit r's values and ii ith the master plan should 0 set of fundamental
principles that will help
be asset as a jarproverrents dei clopinsov, etalu- guide sound decision - making
acing proposals and the Glad.,tone vision.
Gladstone Vision Statement
the vision for Gladstone is to be art inspiring, vital and
stable neighborhood ahva rs q rn ing to protect and
porrra its history, its sense of open spate and ecological
presence, and its qualities as a Prcar neiillifen to
five, play and work 112.
Guiding Principles
Planning is a dynamic process, and as thorough and complete as
the master plan may be, future development will not al way,
mirror what is reflected in the master plan. The ultimate mea-
sure of the compatibility ol'a development proposal comes back
to the guiding Princifil vs. The follcooing principles rN ere cstab-
lishol:
Design the future of Gladstone as a "village": villages
are marked by their organic building, patterns, mixed & in-
The master plan will take years and
in some cases decades to
accomplish. Planning must
considers current and future
populations.
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Vision and Guiding Principles
tvgratvd land uses, intimate human scale spaces and the pres-
ence of people.
if Transform regional trails into celebrated village cor-
ridors: Gladstone is blessed with tvvo relatively new re-
gional trail corridors over time, the village pattern can
adjust to celel)rate Ihc, rather than relegate them.
iv Make Gladstone a
compelling "quality
of l choice:
Gladstone should he a
live %vork/play environ-
luent that accvntuatvs its
inherent qualities with
great design and lasting
maintenance,
V Weave natural systems and ecological Function into
the built and recreational fabric: all village &vclop-
inent should ha% c the infrastructure to Support its core func-
tions as well as facilitate habitat value, rainwater infiltra-
tion, and resource cyding.
vi Allow Gladstone's
future to whisper
the story of its past:
Gladstone has a rich
stony totell (Icsignsfor
the future can function as
an interpreter of the
Past.
vii Make "walkability"
THE standard: design
and maintenance fer pe-
destrian connectivity,
comfort and safety
should be a top priority
for all public and private
spaces
viii Think of Gladstone as a
neighborhood for all stages
of life: Gladstone should ac-
commodate all stages in life, With
life -CVCIC hOUSing Options, busi-
ness and employment opportu-
nities, transit accommodation'
.
recreational alternatives,
ix Make the Gladstone master
flan a model for others to
follow: Gladstone is the first
redevelopment project of this
magnitude for Maplev�ood and should provicie asuccess story
for IntUre projects.
x Make multi-modal
links between
Gladstone and areas
beyond: Gladstone
should embrace the
transportation choices it
has.
Vision and Guiding Principles Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
ff M&FM4rrMMS My
The Gladstone Neighborhood Niaster Plan has been prepared to continue ter ITIC" Their needs. Sustainabilitv involves integrating s
g a
coalesce and communicate a common vision for the future of' cial, economic and environmental considerations. Choosing the
Gladstone, It is focused on preparing for opportunities, direct
ing public investment that facilitates development which con-
tributes to the long-term fabric of the neighborhood as well as
the re-ion. The "r
I goal of plan is to arrange the building blocks
of urban space in inspired and innovative Wars that guide
Gladstone to the desired future.
most sustainable approach implies that actions we take today will
not degrade the quality of life in our communities or the natural
syst( that support them.
A discussion of the natural environment and sustainabflit will
be woven throughout the elements of this rriaster plan.
Land use describes the types of development intended for the
The Master Plan for the Gladstone '\'cig is not a single Gladstone Ncivhborhood, The plan shove how different land
thing, but a collection of elements, teach element becomes a
building block for redevelopment, addressing a separate aspect
of the public and private investment desired for the ?\'cighbor-
hoo& The elements described in this section include:
Land use
Streets and infrastructure
Pedestrian systems
Parks and open space
• Development character
Taken together, these elements form the Master Han for rede-
velopmcrit. One common thread integral to all of the plan ele-
ments is the importance of the environmental system and the
notion of "Sustainable Development". Sustainability focuses on
the long, term and the interrelationships between human and
muLleal SySWMS. Fundamental to this approach is considering hors
eve meet MW 1VOC12t cWdS shile ensuring chat , ( mare tienCrOtIOW CM2
use will he organized within the Neighborhood. Written de-
scriptions explain the nUall(V of each land use type
Streets and infrastructure do more than provide the capacity for
land to develop. Streets allow vehicles to move safely to and
thr - OU'll the al Sirectscape enhancements create a usable and
attractive public space I)ONoWn buildings and the street that fos-
ters a stronger pedestrian environment and a sense of place.
Stormwater systerris protect properties from flooding, provide
opportunities to enhance local ecological systems and contribute
to a cleaner water quality in our takes. Redevelopment also
brings the opporturritv to rernme the visual pollution and clut-
ter of overhead Power lines. These improvements represent
public actions to create a sustainable Urban environment.
Pedestrian systems allow Gladstone residents to experience the
Neighborhood. The Master Plan creates a system of'sidewalks and
trails that connect land uses in the Neighborhood, providing a
Page 4 - I
Ma,for Toxin Cities real estate
publications are proof that the ideas
behind green building and
sustainable development are
emerging trends_
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
Page 4 - 2
safe and convenient meano, of' moveirient le v foot or bicy clv. The
connections also create opportunities for the larger conan-marity
to deviate frorn the regional trail systcm, to explore the park
and open space systems and to contribute to the sUCCeSS and vi-
tality of the neighborhood commercial services.
Parks and open spaces are focal points of'the Neighborhood. The
Gladstone Savanna has been acquired to preserve open space in
NlaplcvNoo(L The plan seeks to enhance the natural features of
the Savanna and make it more usable for the entire community.
Flieck Park gives people a place to gather and play, Gloster Park
also provides an informal play area that serves a dual purpose for
occasional storm water owriloo needs in addition to its recre-
ational fu nctions. A pedestrian crossing at Frost Avenue binds
the park areas, the Savanna and two regional trial corridors to-
gether.
The plan does not seek to simply replace of(] development vvilla
nevv, but to achieve a higher level Of'quality and character. The
Development Character section of the Master Plan contains
principles that guide development towards the vision for
Gladstone addressing such design features as building scale, mass-
ing, orientation, and facade irnprovernents, and environmental
design fe atures that go bevonol simply enhanced landscaping b ut
not so I at as to stymie creativitv,
Finally, the master plan provides directions for redevelopment
based on a series of Deyclolmient, Stratc4cs that are focused on
key projects or initiatives. These strategies describe in more
detail what the master plan env=isions for each target area.
MMKVWW
In many respects, the land use plan is an extension of the Gladstone
Neighborhood as it exists today. The 'Neighborhood is primarily
a place to live and will continue to be so well into the future.
This fact is largely driven by market forces that make cornmer-
cial uses challenging within the current setting of Gladstone,
�%ith the predominant pattern of residential development and
the possibility of an intensification of higher density residential
development, commercial land uses may be more SUSlain,61C in
the future. Commercial land USCq are guided as lWighbOthO(Al
oriented retail, office and service businesses sitrular to settle of
the uses that c urrently are located in Gladstone such as the gro-
cer, bakery, liquor store, etc...
The land use plan seeks to shape the desired development pat-
tern by guidin
land use, development intensity and reestablish-
ing a connected nctkNork of open space. This land use plan seeks
to achieve the lblIoNving objectives:
Guide the use of private and public lands toward an inte-
grated and sustainable mix of uses.
Positively integrate neo development with adjacent, exist-
ing residential u
Orient more intense development to Frost ANVuLle and En-
glish Street, the core areas of the Neighborhood.
Orient development toward adjacent recreational ameni-
ties.
Integrate ecological systems into every aspect of'public and
private development.
Land Use Categories and Typologies
The section that follows uses text and photographs to describe
the desired characteristics of development for the Gladstone
Neighborhood A c ornition term that is used to describe residen-
lial USeS is "densitv," For this master plat), density refers to the
number of'umts per acre of'residentially guided land area (does
not include street riOt-of-way or designated park and open space,
areas) .
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
The mixed use category is a key for the future land use plan.
This desi reflects the evoking nature of the Gladstone
N'eighborbood, Both Gladstone's past and future involve a mix-
ture of'places of'living and ol'commerce.
The mixed use category shoo locations where it is appropriate
to allow commercial and residential uses on the same site. Mixed
use is 1101 a singular approach to land use and development. The
e k
form ol'development varies from place to place. Some mixed
use Will be hOriZO111,11. Lach building has a distinct use - retail,
office, or housing. Buildings with different rucs are incorporated
into a common site plan. Mixed use development may also be
organized in a %ertical manner, In vertical mixed use, a single
structure contains different land uses often ,Nith active retail
use,, located it the street or ground level, The Excelsior and
Grand development in St, Louis Park is an example of contem-
porary vertical mixed use. The Mixing of uses may take, a Vari-
ety of forms depending on market and site considerations,
Residential UveS i arrhin the mixed use area should be ol'a higher
density nature consisting of* Yerticallv stacked housing units_ The
residential density targeted for mixed use areas should be the
greatest of'all the land use patterns in the Gladstone Area. This
greater density is warranted to support the commercial ser-
vices within the core area. Residential density within mixed use
Page 4 - 3
Ls-1 11-
H,d, C Ta' e D g
F s — 1
vle&— Dp-lty hFwtipla
D—Umg, Residential
t :Ylaad Lisa
P-- Or— SF—
St -Water Fending
6
Public/ Semi -, abh, I
I
Road and Tx - ail RO'vll
"- (1— —
d d RCVI� —
19S
The above table represents a
tabulation of land uses based on the
future land use map-
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master
Figure 4-1 Redevelopment Concept Land Use Map-This map represents a future land use pattern for the Gladstone Neighborhood- This land use
pattern serves as a guide for future zoning changes that will guide private redevelopment efforts in the Gladstone Neighborhood. The /and use
map will be a principle component within the City of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan.
A 'great-house' concept reflecting
single family housing design
character illustrates a medium
density land use pattern.
This three story multi - family
structure in Richfield's Urban Village
redevelopment project is a good
example of a high density residential
land use pattern.
areas should be in the 20 to 30 units per acre range.
It is important to understand that this land use designation does
not mandate vertically mixed use dcvelopment. Sorric parcels
sho n as mixed use in the land use concept nuo have singular
use - retail, office or housing, Jlu! objective of this designation i
I n s
to create opportunity for vertically mixed use,
3=- _�
Nlore property is guided for single dwelling than any other form
of land use in terms of total area. This land use represents the
traditional detached single family home, the most dominant cur-
rent form of housing in the Gladstone Neighborhood, The land
rise plan seeks to maintain and enhance Current single family
drvelling neighborhoods. f ghborhoods, No new areas of single dwelling resi-
dential land use are proposed. This is the case for two reasons: I )
the financial challenges of redeveloping an area to single farnily
housing sites are too high and 2) multi - family or stacked housing
units will provide a more balanced housing supply in the neigh-
borhood and community as a whole.
Densities of existing single family neighborhoods range from 2
to 3 units per acrc.
This land rise is a slight increase in density over Sin Dwelling
P
Ilousing in these areas may he two units on a single parcel (du-
plex) and single units on smaller lots than all in Single
D�Nelling areas,
A recent trend in the local and regional real estate market is
residential loft and condominium development- The above
project features a condominium development that was a
redevelopment project in Columbia Heights, MN_ This type of
development pattern viould be consistent with the high density
and mixed use land use pattern in Gladstone- The above graphic
is from the websile wct/cOoftlivingtourcom.
Densities for double dwelling residential uses would generally is the side-by-side to rowhouse or condominium. A
range from 3 to 7 units per acre, ne typology that is becon-hrig rriorc common in today's
market place istlic "great -house' or"])ig-house"concer)t is
Medium Density Multiple Residential
This land use represents areas of attached housing units. The a multiu structure that takes on design characteristics of single
family homes. units are arranged verticaliv or horizontally in
most cornmon form of housing reflected by this land use pattern this unit type.
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 4 - 4
Densities for mediurn density multiple residential should gener- reflect what is present today. Future public uses may also be
ally range from 7 to 12 units per acre, appropriate within mixed use areas,
High Density Multiple Residential
Ifigh density residential areas are designed to accommodate
stacked residential units in buildings of 3 to 4 stories in height.
Areas w here high dcrisit% residential is designated w ere estab-
lished based on the sites capacity to handle additional develop-
ment, the amenities that contribute to a higher quality design
and the proximity to nearby lower density residential develop-
ments. I)LIe to the larger scale ol'high density structures, atten-
tion to site view, throughout the project area also contribute(]
to the location of higher density land use patterns. Most of the
high density designations are located near the core area of'Frost
and English and adjacent to the Savanna.
Density of the high density n-vultipic residential land uses w ill
exceed 12 units per acre but should generally not exceed 30
units per acre. This level of'cleveloprinait would warrant a 3 or 4
story structure, which is the tallest of' structures that would be
appropriately sited in the Gladstone neighborhood.
Higher density development/structures offer significant oppor-
tunities f or or a more environmentall sensitive design form. Fur-
ther discussion on this topic can be COUDd in the section on I)e-
velopmem Character.
Public/Semi Public
This land use rccognizc� I
g , ke\ public and civic land uses in the
Gladstone Neighborhood. These uses include the Gladstone Fire
Department, the former Gladstone Elementary School (housing
the Senior Center and Early Childhood Family Education pro-
,grams) and would conceivable include other future public facili-
ties such as a branch library, a post offic or a police substation
for example, The plan uses the public/semi public category to
Open space is intended to reflect lands that are either Undevel-
opable or not intended to be developed. Instead these areas are
meant to be used for passive recreational needs, habitat restora-
tion, or as a neighborhood preserve, The most prominent open
space area is the Savanna: ho cv er, the character of the open
Space systern is stretched to encompass portions of Flicek Park,
Gloster Park and connection,, to Keller Regional Park,
Parks
Parks are intended to represent active or passive play areas. Some
uses are informal recreation areas mbile others (such as Robinhood
Park) are more formal w ith groomed fields.
The map image on the following page represents an illustrative
master plan for the Gladstone Area. This trial) illustrates areas of
redevelopment including, footprint layouts, new streets, trails
and pedestrian connections and park and open space confmura-
lions. The purpose for this graphic is not to dictate a final build-
ing orientation but instead to provide basic Understandin g ol'the
realm of public improvements and a desired pattern for private
developiricrit. In all likelihood, what gets built will differ in site
design from the master plan concept: however, the public im-
provements and land use patterns should more closely follow
what the master plan illustrates.
Page 4-5
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master
Parks can be formal pla y areas with
groomed fields or they can be more
informal, flexible fawns that can
serve multiple purposes.
The master plan image above focuses on demonstrating arrangements of public investments: parks, open space, stormwater improvements and streets. The concepts presented in this
map image will be used to base detailed design and cost estimates for building the physical public improvements- This concept plan, simply establishes the design ideas and framework.
The master plan also demonstrates areas of change for private development- This is done through the use of building footprints that depict the orientation of the building towards the
public realm (streets, parks, open space areas). The arrangement of buildings and the layout as illustrated, is a guide and not intended to represent exactly what will be built. The pages
that follow further describe the character and intent behind the master plan elements.
The notion of developing a portion of the Savanna was explored at great length and ultimately, no clear consensus was reached- This man does not mandate that a portion of Savanna be
developed. We also teamed that there is a compelling reason not to develop on the Savanna development on the Savanna is not absolutely necessary to facilitate redevelopment, and it
would violate a public perception that the purchase of open space was a protection of that space in its existing configuration in perpetuity.
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Streets and Infrastructure Strectscape enhancements w ill be in the form of' treatments to
Redevelopment creates the opportunity' and the means to im- boulevard areas, sidewalks, fighting, street furniture and land-
prove streets and other infrastructure in Gladstone. This section reaping.
explains the plans for streets, stormwater systerns, pc) line
burial and sanitary sewer and public water supply.
Streets
Streets obviously provide the means to move through a commu-
nity and to access property. Streets also provide an opportunity
to create an identity and sense of place in a community. The
Uni(Ille intersection at Frost Avenue and English Street is a prime
example. The key objectives of the redevelopment master plan
for streets are to:
provide a safe, and convenient traffic flow- through the neigh-
borhood without pushing through traffic off of Frost A%enuc
and English Street and through lower density residential
neighborhoods, and
to create a sense of place and identity for the neighborhood.
St reets are the most important component of the public realm
They occupy the most space within the public realm and they
have the greatest impact on the experience of those using the
public realm. Thev are to be shared by parked and moving
hicles, bikes, and pedestrians a nd are meant to be experienced it
a wide range of paces from standing still to moving relatively
(ILlickly. Different street types provide different functions for
their users and as a result the section (distance form curb to
curb) will vary ,Nith street type. These improvements involve
both the reconstruction of the street and the addition of
""trectscape" enhancements along c ertain street C orridors.
Frost Avenue is the primary street serving the Gladstone I\'eigh-
borhood and as such deserves the greatest level of attention,
Currently, Frost Avenue narron's from a four lane section to a
two lane section twice betvN cenTl 1-61 and English Street once
at the bridge over the creek and a second time where it drops a
lane west ol'the single lane roundabout at English Street. A pro-
posed re-striping would eliminate these lane drops and s� inerg
e c
providing for a
consistent cross section of'frost Avenue I'von-1 the
roundabout at Last Shore Drive through the Gladstone redevel-
opment area,
Frost Avenue/ Last Shore Drive as a means to manage traffic
speeds and to create a sense of entry into the core area of the
idladstonc so
Neighborhood. The ggested design and roundabout
Neighborhood.
improvements for Frost Avenue are consistent Nvith the forecast
traffic VOILIMes and the proposed two lane Frost AvcnUC road-
way. The roundabout also improves the ability of northbound
Last Shore Drive traffic to turn left onto Frost A The left
turn maneuver currently has limited sight distance looking to
the west. The roundabout slows traffic entering speeds thereby
reducing the sight distance needs.
Through the more intense core area starting on the kNest it Frost
A and extenchru, just past the X the street systen-i
Nvill include on street parking. This parking will serve potential
retail development as Nvell as users of the Gladstone Savanna.
Page 4-7
Street improvements are planned for
Frost Avenue, English Street, and
new streets that would be created
through redevelopment-
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
provide sale and convenient access to private property xNithin The master plan also suggests a roundabout at the intersection of
the area
Page 4 - 8
A roundabout similar to the existing
roundabout at Frost and English is
planned at the intersection, of East
Shore Drive and Frost Avenue- This
feature voll serve as a traffic
management and gatevvayl'idendb�
feature to the core of the Gladstone
Neighborhood-
179039M
The master plan suggests limited improvements to English Street
with improvements being mostly focused outside of the existing
pavement and on the boulevard, sidewalk and strectscape ele-
ments. Lnglish street will continue to operate as a two fine street
providing access to development along the corridor. English street
also serves as the Primary bus route for Metro Transit's bus See-
vice. A stop is curn-iniv located along English Street south of the
Frost Avenue intersection. The master plan SLIgD - eirolien-
sugg e st sti
ing the pedestrian connections to this stop and utilizing strectscape
enhancements to make for a more attractive environment for
the transit user,
zmg_!M•�
The master plan suggests no change to neighborhood streets serv-
ing existing, residential neighborhoods, Ilowever, some new
streets will need to be constructed to sere proposed rcdc%cl-
opment. Neighborhood streets serving redevelopment in the
core area should be ol'a more urban street section with curb and
_g and on-street parking. Redevelopment that Occurs more
proximate to existing residential neighborhoods, street,, should
carry a design character that blends with the adjacent neighbor-
hood. This design pattern utilizes a unique design that encour-
ages rainwater gardens and a more natural drainage system as
opposed to the tvpical storm water wstern in tyianv comnium-
ties, private streets serving redevelopment in the core area Should
be (Icscouraged.
Green Streets
Green Streets are intended to provide access for emergent)
Services but function more as a pedestrian street that is not
needed for vehicle access and traffic flcew. The Green Street con-
cept is NUggested for the vvest side of the Savanna and is the
extension of Frank Street froin the south terminus to Frost Av-
enue, The street would be constructed red within its existin' i
, r ight -
of way and would include a wide sidewalk and signific alit land-
scaping to provide a "green" appearance.The use of'Green Streets
is also proposed to establish connections betoccn existing; neigh-
borhoo(k cast and xNcst of the Savanna utilizing cxkting public
right -of' -way that CUri is not built or used as a street but
platted as public right -of _vv t,,, These locations are the extension
of Fenton Avenue on the west and Summer Avenue on the cast,
Green Street section example -Frank Street or the extensions of Fenton
Avenue or the west and Summer Avenue on the East .
*['he plan results in the burial of overhead electric lines in the
project area along Frost Avenue and English Street, This invest-
ment will improve the quality and reliability of electric serv
in the Neighborhood. It also remove, the Visual pollution from
overhead lines, The City w ill work with Xccl Lncrg) to under-
take, these improxenumLs.
Storm water
Currently, slorino ater runoff is not treated before it enters the
local surface yxaters of Lake Phaten, Round Lake and NVakefield
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Lake. roughly 1 of the runoff going into these lakes conics
frorn Maple Redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighbor-
hood creates the opportunity to provide for the management
and treatment of xtormNN ater runoff that CUrrtnitly does not get
treated. The objectives of'the master plan relative to storn-ovatcr
are to:
Create a comprehensive and cfTectivc means of managing
vtoreriNvaler and preventing flooding.
RoILICC the environmental impact on groundwater supplies
and on Lake Phalen,
Continue the innovative use of rainwater gardens and other
sustainable sLorn-nNater management practices.
A detailed storm water analysis Nva,, conducted as part of the
Gladstone Area Redevelopment Master ]']an ALTAR. A Storm-
water and Wetland Plan Nvas prepared and included as appendix
C to the ALTAR_
The master plan suggests that stormn is managed through a
suggests g e
combination of'regional systern improvements and private on-
site imestments associated with new development projects.1
is an existing regional gional storm water system in place that serves
the bulk of the redevelopment area. This system needs to be
improved so that treatment can occur prior to release to the
regional nutlet.
The master plan suggests improving, the existing regional pondin
area located on the northwest corner of the Savanna to serve as
a Permanent storage and treatment area for storm water. To
protect against the rare extreme flooding event, an overflow
area is illustrate(] as a natural wetland configuration rvithin
Gloster Park, Gloster Park is currently covered by a storm vNa-
ter easement and is the designated overflow for an extreme
flood event.
Redevelopment that occurs in Gladstone will be required to
incorporate ecologically friendly design principles that also serve
as additional storm water management. These principles include
the USC of'rain water gardens, rooftop gardens, permeable pave-
ment patterns, I-CdUCCd parking requirements, vertical construc-
tion, rain Nvate r/ cistern barrels, and other techniques to caplurc
rainwater for reuse purposes, reduce or manage surface runoff
and maximize treatment opportunities. Many of these practices
are not conarnonlN done in the market place today. Lfforts will
be required to entice the development it community to incorpo-
rate sustainable and ecological design principles. These effort,
may include requiring certain practices through zoning re
tions, enticing certain improvements through Provisions for in-
creased density or through the securing of grants or other fund-
ing assistance to write down extrerne construction costs.
Sanitary Sewer and Public Water Supply
The plan will include construction of new services to connect
redevelopment projects to existing trunk systems for sanitary
c cr and public water supply Fhe existing utilities have sul , fi -
g
cient capacity to serve projected future development because of
the intended land uses that were historically planned for the
Gladstone neighborhood Prior to the Savanna being Purchase,(]
for open space. A thorough analysis of the existing sanitary sewer
system and public Nvater supply system was conducted as part of
the Gladstone Area Redevelopment Master Plan AILIAR,
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
Page 4 - 9
Pedestrian Systems
An important goal of redevelopment is to improve the overall
pedestrian system through establishing connections and creating
a more comfortable cmironincist for strolling pedestrians. A
sysiem of s idewalks and trails will allow residents to move safely
nd tem
convenientIN thrOU,& the 'sei�jilgsrhocsd. The v s should
connect neighborhood, with local and regional Parks, the Vento
and Gateway trail corridors, the Savanna, and the neighborhood
commercial arcas. The pedestrian m'stern must also incorporate
transit stops as connection points to improve the ability and like-
lihood of'neighborhood residents 10 use transit
The Master Plan uses several approaches to accomplish this ob-
jective.
The streetscape improve ri tits enhance the Pedestrian en-
vironment, along Frost Avenue and English Street with side -
- calks, boulevards, lighting and benches. On-strect parking
creates a separation between vehicular traffic and the pedcs-
trian,
Planned trails vvill create a pedestrian loop connection be-
tween the Savanna and Flicek Park, The creation of loop is
an affective means of encouraging walking between uses and
destinations and compliments the existing regional trail cor-
riders.
Connections to L ake Phalen and Wakefield L ake are planned
through a low impact on street striping sx along
RiDlev Avenue.
The above graphic represents a system of trails and sidevvalks that connect neighborhoods to the Gladstone Area and
regional recreation amenities. Ripley Avenue is planned to have a painted stripe to indicate an on-street trail.
Orientation and massing of buildings is a kev
factor in fostering a comfortable pedestrian environ-
ment. Specifically in commercial areas were the pe-
(Icstrian should be able to park and stroll by active
store fronts without having to navigate IIII-OUgh large
parking lots and along long blank walls. More on this
topic is discussed Under the "design character" sec-
tion of the toaster plan.
Parks and Open Space
The Gladstone Neighborhood he, at the intersec-
tion of an impressive collcetion of open space ing
rc-
clients - Lake Phalen and Keller Rcgional Park, Keller
Golf Course, the Crate wac /Munger and Vento Trails,
Flicek, Gloster and Robinhood park and the
Gladstone Savanna. Ibdav these open space and park
assets exist as independent elements, but not inte-
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 4 - 10
grated with the patterns of the Neighborhood. The master plan
suggests the establishment of an interconnected network of'open
spaces made or) of neighborhood preserves, parks, trail corri-
dors and green streets. A network ol'open space offers duality of
life, recreational and ecological opportunities. This plan focuses
on the Savanna, Gloster Park and Flicck Park. The other parks
within the project area are not anticipated to change from their
current configuration as a result of this master plan.
As the planning, process progressed, it because abundantly clear
that the Savanna, Gloster Park and Flic ck Park must be looked at
as one interconnected sNstem rather than as a series of parts,
While they each serve a specific purpose (natural open space,
informal plav area, stormnater management) they add value to
the overall community if looked at as a whole.
The importance of each component, however, requires an inde-
pendent diSCUSSiOn of'each component. Each component has a
set of objectives that are further expressed below. Changes to
existing Parks will be enacted by the City Council based upon
recommendations of the Parks Commission and Park Planning
stall',
Savanna
As discussed throughout the master plan, the Savanna is at the
core of the Gladstone Neighborhood, Its early inception as a
rail yard began the historic series of events that have resulted in
the open space that it is today, It is a rou2blv 2+ acre open space
that has been somewhat neglected over the years Primarily due
to a lack of nianciall resources available to make improvement,.
The planning proces,, explored a number of possibilities with
the Savanna, several of which included "scrapping" a portion of
the Savanna for development purposes in exchange for other
open space in the project area. It has been concluded that no
development or land "swap" will Occur on the Savanna. As a
result of a number of discussions and debates held by the com-
munity, a set of'key objectives to guide the toaster plan for the
Savanna have emerged:
Improve: the Savanna so that it becomes a stronger asset to
the neighborhood and is usable to the Maplewood Commu-
nity while retainin its natural open space character
Create opportunities for or historical interpretation and edu-
cation regarding natural and ecological systereq
Preserve the integrity of the higher qUahtV areas NNiflun the
Savanna
Clean Lip remnant pollutants from historical industrial uses
])reserve kcy view corridors into the Savanna from adjacent
public rights-of-wav
Maintain the existing size of the Savanna (although its con-
figuration may change to better lie into Gloster and Flicek
Park and to present a more natural config tration)
e i,
Page 4 - 11
Looking east from Edward,/Frank
Street. Gloster Park in the foreground
and the Savanna behind.
Vievv)ooking northeast from
Savanna through the urban plaza.
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
xa
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
Flicek Park currently serves active recreational needs for the
neighborhood and the community vvith iNvo ball fields, It also
contains a parking lot that serve,, as a trail head for the NILIng
g ei
GateNvav Regional Trail. Recreation need,, ./demand, have
changed over the years making the ball fields at Flieck Park a
less desirable orientation for baseball and softball activities, par-
ticularly league plav and tournaments. These activities tend to
desire more of a complex rather than a site with INvo hall fields.
As a result of the changing demands and recreational needs, the
master plan explored alternative configurations for Flicek Park
including Usim,, the park for stortinvater management (over-
flov% ), converting portions of the park to a natural/open space
character or reconfiguring the park to include an informal play
area %vitli a maintained turf. The master plan establishes the ful-
lcoving objective,, for Flicek Park:
Hake limited changes to Flicek Park
Preserve parking for regional trail access
I
Preserve the vveslern portion of the park as a Passive open
space area protecting the mature tree stand
Provide a tot lot function lot neighborhoods north of'Frost
,AVCuUC
Accommodate active recreation through establishment of
an informal, flexible laxvn or turf area
A concept for Flicek Park includes an informal, flexible play area and
open space. This concept also accomidates continued use of the
existing ball fields on the site-
Gloster Park currently has a tot 101. playground facility and a
soccer field, Closter Park consists of'just over 2 acres. f lowever,
it is surrounded by unimproved public right -of' av on three sides,
so actual usable space appears much larger than 2 acres. Gloster
Park is also used as flood storage overflo-o . Although it will rarely
be used except for the extremely rare flood event. The master
planning process explored INvo Options for Gloster Park, one op-
tion that preserved its existing function as flood storage and lim-
ited recreational needs and a second option that explored the
possibility of development. The option of'development of Gloster
Park requires significant street improvements to Ld%vard Street
Provide paved trails to connect Hirek Park to other neigh- and Fenton Avenue in order to provide access to the develop-
borhood destinations meat. Development on Gloster also requires relocating an area
for flood storage. The master plan establishes the follooving ob-
jectives for Gloster Park:
Flicek Park concept view from
northwest.
Continue to Provide flood storage but in in ecolo
gicalb,
friendly manner through establishment of vvetland and prai-
rie type Vegetation
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 4 - 12
Preserve the tot lot or child play area for the neighborhood
or users of The Savanna
Provide paved trails that loop through the park and connect
Gloster to Flicck Park, the Savanna and to other neighbor-
hood destinalions.
Ensure park facility design details that address open crater
safety issues properly"
Gloster Park is cased as it currently is for storm water overflow in case of
extreme flood events. A tot for is iYustrated as part of the Gloster Park
area but integrated with the Savanna.
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
Page 4 - 13
Good design cannot be specificalk legislated I but it Should not
I e ,
be left to chance cither.The master plan does not provide design
guidelines, but instead offers a set of principles that prescribe a
desired character of the Gladstone Area. This character takes its
direction,, 11-Orn the Vision and Guiding Principles and focuses on
esiabhshing an idernitv foe- the Gladstone neighborhood that is
rooted in sustainabiliLy and environmental leadership. Many de-
velopers, architects, landscape architects, engineers and plan-
ners are familiar with the resources that guide sustainable dc-
g
VC10I)MCD1 Such JS the Minnesota SUStdiDaldc Design Guide pub-
lished he the University of Minnesota College of Architecture
and Landscape Architecture and the standards established through
the US Green Buildim,, Council's Leadership in Energy and Envi-
ronmental Design (LEED) program, These sources can be ac-
cessed through the following v% c 1) sites:
wvN o,sustainablecicsig nimide.rann.cclu and v,-ov\,usgbc.or . The
principles below only brush the surface of sustainable develop-
ment and environmentally Friendly design.
The master plan suggests the following Set of site development
and building guide g, development jrrinciple,, to g fide future redevelop-
ment within the Gladstone Area,
Parking
Consider reducing minimum off street parking MILdrenverns,
to 80 6 of what is typically required by indUstrx standard,
and limiting parking to no more than the industry standard.
This encourages shared parking, other modes of mobility
(biking, walking and transit} and use of on i -street parking,
• Use no more than 20% of the project land devoted to resi-
dential and/or commercial use, for oil' street Surface park-
ing facilities. Underground or IuLdti-sl0YV parking can pro-
vide additional capacity ifnecessary. On street parallel park-
ing spaces are exempt from this calculation.
Encourage parking structures to be wrapped or lined with
street level retail or office uscs or be under residential/
office uses.
a 3% of vehicle use area should be covered by tree canopy
when trees are 2/3 mature size.
Where parking abuts public right -of-vv ay, a minimum 8-foot
landscaped buffer should be provided. The buffer should
screen cars ohile allowing good visual access at eve cleva-
tion.
For each 100 square feet of pavement, 5 sq ft of interior (not
perimeter} I landscaping should be provided.
Clear pedestrian ways should be provided through parking
lots based on identified pedestrian destinations.
Parking areas should be illuminated to a minimum main-
tained f0otcandle level of'O.6 with a uniformity ratio ofd :1
Green space (heat reduction, amenity)
• Design buildings, With technologies and products that seek to
reduce or minimize energy consurription.
have rec N c led material account for 30% of the materials
used in building construction.
Buildings should emphasize natural light that contributes to
good health and pbsyc as well as reduction of heating and
cooling cost'.
When possible, building,, should have rooftop gardens for
function as an aesthetic outdoor living space as vvell as a roof-
top garden that infiltrates storryiNvater.
Site circulation (vehicle and pedestrian systems)
• Since pedestrian flow is critical and highly sensitive to gaps
in storefront, adjacent buildings should adjoin.
Broad side yards or drivcvN ay entries on primary retail streets
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 4 - 14
should be spaced no closer than 300 feet since they disjoin
the pedestrian experience and compromise retail success.
Provide kiosks, bulletin boards, and/or signs devoted to pro-
viding local historical interpretation and "Nvayfinding" infer-
mation as part of the project, including basic route informa-
tion for trail "loops," connections to regional attractions and
locations of local neighborhood retail services.
Drive through establishments should be discouraged if not
prohibited to preserve a pedestrian oriented environment
and enhance circulation,
Views
• Buildings should emphasize quality views to the outdoors,
particularly towards the Savanna, Lake Phalen, (;ateway
N"enLo RegionalTrails, St Paul and Minneapolis Sky way,
• Mul block, through block connec tions should be made through
archwava, or building, separations 10 CI)COUrag
- C strong vic%vs
to the Savanna.
• Design and build project q that have front facades facing a
public space such as a street, square, or plaza;
Building placement, massing and scale
• Building facades should be placed, scaled and oriented for
pedestrians and vehicles that use the street,
• New buildings should be placed, scaled and oriented on a
site so that they "blend" with existing StrUCtUreS that may'
remain.
• Primary retail entries should be oriented toward the street
although secondary entries are not e
discourag (1, Exceptions
g
to this rude are service retail Uses that 0CCUpV bUildin', spaces
behind other priyeary retailers.
• Variation in fj( footprint is encouraged (setting some
fa areas back front the right -of-vNav) is encouraged vNithin
a range of'up to 2Wcs of the frontage length and up to 12 feet
hack from the right -of-a ay.
• The upper front facade of the building, (penthouse level) is
C11COUraged to be set back by 8 to 16 feet allowing for a
garden terrace overlooking the street. The terrace should
function as an aesthetic outdoor living space as vvell as a roof-
top garden that infiltrates storinvN ater.
• Buildings along Frost and English that average three or four
.stories in height with taller elements such as penthouses or
lofts shall be set back further from the street,
• The first -level living units should be set above the street
elevation by 3- 5 feet. This contributes to the sense of secu-
rity and the transition from public to private space as one
approaches the building.
• Facades should he set back from the right-of'-vvav 8-12 feet.
Setback areas should he functional terrace and/or garden
spaces that serve the first level living Units. Entries shOUld
be canopied.
• Kev streets nearest the intersection of Frost and English
should be fronted by street level retail.
• Retail uses fronting along Frost and English Street should
"spill onto" the sidc-aalk and should pro%idc awnings and
canopies that offer shelter from extreme elements.
• Design and build project so that a principal functional enter
g n U
of every building lace, I public space such as a street, N(JUare,
or plaza.
• Other use, that front on Frost and English SlICUld have fu - out
porches or stoops that provide accent to the buildings.
• Commercial uses should have "active" storefronts with sig-
nificant areas of' transparent glass at street level. Facades
should be active and avoid boring blank vcalls.
• Front porches and real "useable" balconies are encouraged
as part of stacked 1111,111-i-falutIV housing development.
Page 4 - 15
Upper level setbacks reduce mass of
structure.
Great retail spaces spill onto the
sidewalk and create pleasant places
with unique atmospheres.
Front porches or stoops and
landscaped front yard areas enhance
the pedestrian environment.
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
Page 4 - 16
Street lever retail with awnings, and
significant window space enhances
the pedestrian environment.-
Mid -blocklthrough -block
connections facilitate pedestrian
circulation and preserve view
corridors.
Places to park bicycles encourage
exercise, patronizing local
businesses and better utilization of
public places.
Site accommodations (bike storage—alternative
transportation—utility box garbage dumpsters etc...
• Utilitarian features of commercial and higher density (Icycl-
opment (loading docks, refuse and recycling containers, tric-
charrical C(Illil)MCIA) Should be incorporated into the design
of the primary building rather than left as free standin ele-
ments clseNvIrcre on the site.
• Signage and li,-liting, should have -,I Ulli(ILle character to the
projcc t/arc hitecture and should demonstrate ConsistvncV Vvith,
the activity or business they represent.
Lighting should hould be decorative and functional and should con-
tribute to "dark skies" philosophies about light 1)011L[6011.
Other key Principles
• Early in the design process, local and regional historical Pat-
terns of neighborhood development andbUildin should
be analyzed for applicabilitN to the project.
Multi- family housing developments should seek to accom-
modate 10 to 15% of the units as "affordable housing" based
on the current defulitioru, of affordable housing. Entire de-
velopments ol'affordable housing should be discouraged.
• I ec
Patterns that have proven successful and have stood the test
of time are relslicated,
• Multi - family structures should include design features that
accommodate accessible housing or that can be modified easily
for such uses.
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 4 - 17
This page intentionally left blank
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
Page 4 - 18
Achieving the vision for the Gladstone Neighborhood is not a
single action. Change will occur as a series of public and private
projects scanning a number ofvears. This section of the Master
Plan foetuses ocuses on individual development locations in the project
area. This diSCUSSmo addresses specific issues related to redevel-
opment at kev locations. These locations may correspond to ac-
tual redevelopment projects.
Tourist Cabins
the Site Of the St, Paul 'tourist Cabins ,Nas the subject of devel-
area serves as a "gatvwa to the Gladstone Area
Redevelopment of the tourist cabins site has important fe
nanc fat relationships with the remainder of the Gladstone
Neighborhood. Actual implementation efforts should ex-
plore ways that this project can provide financial resources
to other Parts of the toaster plan, particularly the improve-
ment of Flic-ek Park and frost Avenue.
Maplewood Marine Area
The Maplewood Marine area includes the parcels oNNned by the
Maplewood Marine business and the vacant parcel adjacent to
open interest Prior to and throughout the planning process, The
I the cast. The toaster plan promotes the redevelopment of the
combination of this interest and the adoption of this plan should Maplewood Marine area from a commercial; bghl industry des -
be the catakst for change,
ignation to residential rise. This site is currently occupied by a
This location is guided for High Density Duelling Residential,
Roth the natural and the built cruironeacrit support multiple
family housing on this property. The existing terrain alhms place-
ment Of multistory buildings within the character of existin,,
-'s -1
setting. flowever, the site is formed in a shoreland zone and will
follow shoreland reg ulations_ A 4-story multi- housing develop-
ment currentiv ties between this site and Lake Phalcn,
Redevelopment on this site Should fall in a range of 17 to 24
units Per acre. The density ot' development ovill be influenced by
the private and public revenues required to undertake rcclexel-
opincrit at this location,
single building and has a fair amount of land used for storage.
The toaster plan suggests a mid density residential development
pattern consisting of attached side -by -side or two story multi-
family housing t) The density range assumed for this area is
medium density 7 to 14 units per acre. The sites proximity to
adjacent single lamilv lumSiog 1,Uclr`eItS 1,11,11 the development
should be tiered Such that low =er densitv patterns with a more
single family character be treated on the westerly side of the
site, transitioning to a higher density
pattern overlooking the
Savanna and Flicek Park, Key factors to consider in shaping rede-
velopincrit in this area include:
Key factors to consider in shaping the redevelopment ol'this site
include:
preservation of'existing natural vegetation
getation and tree c,
(a small wetland currently existing on the site)
g
access to the site should he coordinated with improvements
to Frost Avenue and the proposed roundabout
development of the site should consider the notion that this
Transition in density and building design from the adjacent
Ir
single familN neighborhood towards the Savanna.
Vievi from Frost Avenue and Fenton Avenue into the Sa-
vanna
Design that fosters connections betxwen Gloster and Flicelc
Parks
Incorporation of the Green Street concept on the east side
of the site
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
A concept explored preservation of
environmental features at the Tourist
Cabin site. Through testing of the
sire, a higher density development
pattern will be necessary in order to
preserve more of the environmental
features of the site.
Development should take advantage of views of the Savanna
and should present a high quality design.
Access to the development should be off of Edward Street
Buildings adjacent to Frost should front onto Frost Avenue
Buildings adjacent to park and open Space areas Should front
on to the open space areas
This area is anticipated to redevelop with predominantly attached
townhome or roldhouse development patterns. Roughly 40 to 50 units
are anticipated_
Frost Avenue North
This redevelopment Site is located inunc(fialeiv north of the
Savanna. It is bound by Frost Avenue, English Strect, GateNvao
Trail and Flicek Park. This represents the "core" area with the
commercial, Active store fronts/retail uses are desired to front
along English Street and Frost Avenue to create a sense ofactiv-
ity and pedestrian friendliness. Frontage along English Street
and Frost Avenue should be dominated by buildings or public
plazas/spaces and not Surface parking lots Or excessive drive-
Avays. Market forces may challenge the ability to fill neNv retail
spaces at the onset of redevelopment, however, the ability to
comert office or residential uses at street level to future retail
uses should be preserved. This is often referred to as "flexible
architecture." A challenge with this site is the integration of a
bowling alley, The nature of a boAvling alley Use is inconsistent
olth the desired character of'development in that its most typi-
cal form is a single Store Use with limited Nvindoovs and architec-
tural character, flow-ever, a successful bowling, alley USC can serve
as a good anchor tenant that supports a critical mass necessary
for a commercial presence. The master plan concept incorpo-
rates a concept of putting the bovviing; alley underground. This is
feasible if other portions of the development can generate rev-
Cones to support a complicated construction process. Opportu-
nity also exists for the bovchn allev to remain on the Site, and
allovv nev, development to Pill in around the bow-ling alley adia-
cent to Frost Avenue and English Street, Parking in the Frost
Avenue North area will be served by a combination of under-
ground parking, Surface parking and on street parking along Frost
and F jish.
Residential densities at the core area should be 30 to +0 units
per acre With a range of building heights being 2 to 4 stories.
Design features ealUres should be incorporated into 3rd and 4th floor
that steps the building back to re(ILICC the impact of MUIti[)Ie
most intensity of all development in the master plan area. Cona- stories and be less imposing from the street view. The upper
mercial uses should be a focus in this area and should include level units can be penthouse Or urban lofts.
Opportunities for neighborhood retail Services. Vertically mixed
use Structures are encouraged with residential over street level
Page 4 - 19
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
Page 4 - 20
Key factors to consider in shaping redevelopment in this area
include:
Achieving a mix of neighborhood retail services fronting on
Frost Aocriuc and English Street
Incorporation of rahnNater gardens, alternative pavement
strategics, shared parking and other techniques to minimize
Surface water runoff and provide for treatment of'runoff.
Incorporation of recvcled building, materials, roof top gar-
dens, solar cnernv systems and other sustainable building
techniques that contribute to the educational and interpre-
tive vision of the Gladstone Sa
flexibility to accommodate the bowling all v use d other
g c an �
local neighborhood retail businesses that desire to star in the
neighborhood.
Redevelopment of the Frost Avenue North area has impor-
tant financial relationships with the remainder of the
Gladstone Neighborhood. Actual implementation efforts
should explore oays that this project can provide financial
resources to other parts of'the master plan, particulariv the
uriprovcrnent of Hicek Park and Frost Aocnuc,
Development rron orient toward the regional trails rather
than back Lip to them.
Building heights should be greatest along ]'rest Avenue and
English Street, and Should be "stepped back" Itoin the street
as they grow in height,
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Frost Avenue North is the area with the greatest intensity of development and the most critical mass of retail
uses- It is anticipated that 325 to 350 units could develop in this area with 3 to 4 story buildings along Frost
Avenue overlooking the Savanna and smaller rowhouse or townhomes orienting toward Flicek Park or the
Munger /Gateway Trait, Roughly 50,000 square feet of neighborhood retail could be accommodated here. The
bowling alley is illustrated underground as an option and would be an additional 40,000 to 50.000 square feet-
English Street South
For the purposes of' the master plan, the Lngfisli Street South
area includes redevelopment sites adjacent to English Street
(south of Frost), This area include, redevelopment of lands east
of English Street including the funeral home, the mobile home
park, and the service oriented businesses on the 1OL0h end of the
site.
The master plan suggests replacing existing uses on the east side
of English Street with a mix of'commercial and residential uses.
The ideal development pattern proposed here would include hous-
in units over street level commercial uses in 3 or 4 story struc-
tures, Single level commercial uses would not be discouraged to
occur along English Street, Uses Should accommodate parking to
the sides or rear Of'the use as opposed to the lVPiCa1JV 1aVOLn of
single use commercial development_ English Street should be
dominated by building fruntage rather than surface parking lots.
Residential densities within the English Street South area should
raIrl,w from 20 10 30 units per acre.
Kee factors to consider in shaping redevelopment in this area
include:
Achievin a into of neighborhood retail services frontim,, on
the cast side of Frighsh Street
Incorporation of rairovater gardens, alternative pavement
strategies, shared parking and other techniqueq to minimize
parking
surface water runoff and provide for treatment of runoff.
Incorporation of recycled building materials, roof top gar-
dens, solar energy systems and other sustainable building
techm(jU(`,1 that contribute to the educational and interpre-
tive vision of the Gladstone Savanna,
Redevelopment ol'the east side of'Lit Street has impor-
tant financial relationships with the remainder of the
Gladstone Neighborhood, Actual implementation efforts
.should explore -oays that this project can provide financial
resources to other parts of'the master plan, particularly the
improvement of the Savanna and English Street Avenue.
Development Should orient toward the regional trails rather
than back tip to them.
Building heights should be greatest along English Street,
English Street North
This area lies in the northeast quadrant of the Frost/English in-
tersection. It is bound by Frost and English and both regional
trail corridors, Its proximity to the tvNo regional trail corridors
and the ability to access both trails at English Street (Catevvav/
Munger Trial} and Frost Avenue (N"ento Trail) rakes this site a
good site to serve both a development purpose as well as a trail
head that Could accornmodate limited parking for trail users in
addition to some fin retail services. Uses on the site could
still accommodate residential with street level retail. Alterna-
tively, should the market support single level retail uses as a
viable redevelopment pattern, it should not be discourage(].
Should residential dcNclopincrit occur on this site, a density of
20 to 10 units per acre is suggested by the rouser plan.
Kee factors to consider in shaping reviccclopnient in this area
are similar to those of' Frost Avenue TNorth,
Page 4 - 21
English Street South will have a
similar character as Frost Avenue
North only with less intensity 170 to
190 housing units are assumed with
10,000 square feet of neighborhood
retail services.
English Street North assumes 40 to
50 units of housing with 10 to
15,000 square feet of retail space.
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Master Plan
Page 4 - 22
Frost Avenue East assumes a
character along Frost Avenue similar
to the English Street North area and
more moderate density housing
patterns stretching south along the
Vento Trail. Roughly 150 to 160
housing units are assumed in this
area with about 10.000 square feet
of neighborhood retail services
focused along Frost Avenue.
Frost Avenue East
The Frost Avenue Last area includes the remaining part of the
project area cast of the Vento "Frail. There are two separate com-
because Of the deep parcels backing Lip to the trail and a fee,
vacant parcels in this location as vv ell. Redcvelopirienthere"Nould
require complicated land asserribly
ponerns to this area. The first is the development along Frost
— Residential densities north Of Suirrincr Avenue should range be-
Avenue. This area is suggested as Mixed use with residential as
tween 20 and 30 units rev acre and consist of higher density
the primary use. (7011IMerCial uses as either part of vertical
structure Or a single use would be an appropriate use for this
area. Redevelopment of existing uses will require establishing a
greater density to help cover the financial challenges Of redcvel-
oprnmu however, if a project can support single level retail
uses, it should not be discouraged. The ability to retain existing
nCighb(n`hCOd retail uses Should also be explored as part of any
redevelopment project in the areas along Frost Avenue provided
such uses can occur without conflicting with a greater residen-
tial prescrice.
Residential densities within this area should range bavvecil 20
and 30 units per acre %vith taller structures 6eiric., oriented on
Frost Avenue and the height Of buildings stepping, down as they
approach existing louver density residential uses south of Frost
Avenue.
Redevelopment is also suggested south of Frost Avenue between
Clarence Street and the Vento Trail. Opportunity for redevelop-
ment exists here as a result of excessive land that Could be as-
sembled by a property owner or developer. Redevelopment in
this location Would require the sale of single family home,, or it
a numinum, a re platting of parcels in the area to provide enough
land area to support a redevelopment project. Right -ofvvav for
Summer Avenue currentIN extends vvest of'Clarence Street across
the Vento - frail and opens up into the Savanna. A green street is
proposed in this location to enhance, pedestrian connections into
the Savanna, parcels south Of' Summer Avenue betV,CC11 Clarence
,Street and the Vento Trail cre also suggested for redevelopment
attached housint,, products in a lower 3 story or 2 story configu-
nation. Denshics south of Summer cvould be much less in the
range (,)1'8 to 12 units per acre to reflect an attached side-by-sidc
townhouse or roNvhOUSC ivpc housing pattern.
Key factors to consider in shaping redevelopment in this area
include:
Achieving a mix of commercial and residential uses vc ith the
predominant land use pattern consisting; of higher density
residential adjacent to Frost Avenue.
Incorporation of rainwater gardens, alternative pavement
strategies, shared parking and other techniques to irrinimize
surface water runoff and provide for in of runoff.
Incorporation of recycled buildiciL ' materials, roof' top gar-
dens, solar energy systems and other sustainable building
techniques that contribute to the educational and interpre-
tive vision of the Gladstone Savanna,
Flexibility to accommodate local neighborhood retail busi-
nesses that desire to stay in the neighborhood and do not
conflict with a stronger residential presence.
Irriplementation efforts should explore ways that this protect
can provide financial rCSOUrCeS to other parts of the master
plan, particularly the improvement of Frost Avenue.
Development should orient toward the regional trails rather
than back Lip to tlrcrri.
Building r , heights should be greatest along Frost Avenue. ?,
Master Plan Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 5 -1
Implementation of the redev =elopment plan for the Gladstone
Neighborhood is not a single step. Achieving the vision for the
Neighborhood involves a series of interrelated actions spanning
a number of veara This section of the plan provides a guide for
public actions and investments required to implement the
Gladstone Area Redevelopment Master flan_
Keys to Implementation
The process of evaluating alternatives for the redevelopment of
the Gladstone Ixeighborhood produced a series ofkey principles
or findings that must be used to guide public actions. These
findings apply regardless of the actual form and bruin, of rede-
veloprnent.
Redevelopment should be self- sufficient.
v
A fundamental assumption fi the outset of the process is that
redevelopment must be Self suffiwicm - revenues needed to par
for redevelopment activities must come from new development.
General, city -wide property taxes should not be used to finance
redevelopment activities or public improvements. Neither
should improvement costs be assessed to existing residents of
the 1Veighborhood.
Public financial participation is needed.
v
Public finance assistance for redevelopment is frequently de-
scribed as a "subsi(y ". This term suggests that the assistance
makes development more affordable for profitable) for the de-
vc1oper. The planning process clearly demonstrated that public
financial participation is an essential part of redevelopment. Pri-
vate investment, o ill not be sufficient to pay for all casts associ-
ated with redevelopment. Public assistance is required to re-
move economics promote the desired development.
}� - l"; Financial planning is essential.
L�' v
Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan cannot be view ed as
a series of independent projects. Implementation must be con-
sidered as a series of interrelated actions. Ivlost public improve-
ments serve a broader area and not a single project. Rev=enues
will come from multiple projects. Some public investments
will be required prior to private redevelopment. The ability to
coordinate public actions with the revenues from private devel-
opment will be a key to the success of the plan. Failure to con -
sider the implementation relationships between elements of the
Plan will Lead to missed opportunities and increased risk for- the
Citv.
t l`; Public financial participation creates ability
u
to influence outcomes.
The redevelopment plan does not seek to simply replace old
buildings vyith nevv ones. The plan is a tool to achieve a high
quality of development through quell factors as architectural char-
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Implementation
0 Establishing an economic
development authority
gives access to many
important statutory powers for
redevelopment,
acter, site design, landscape design and the overall quality of
neNN construction. Zoning regulations and design guidelines can-
not full\ achieve the desired results by themselves. As a finan-
cial "Partner" in redcvelopi-nent, the City gains leverage to shape
the final development project.
Condemnation is option of last resort.
The assembly of sites is a key -step in the redevelopment pro-
cess, There are 1ekN locations in the Gladstone Neighborhood
where redevelopment Occur, on a single parcel. Much of the
planned redevelopment occurs on new sites assembled from a
collection of existing parcels. This plan assumes that the pri-
mary responsibility for land acquisition rests with private devel-
opers. The plan does not require that the City proactively ac-
quire quire land and assemble sites. Consequently, condemnation of
land in the Neighborhood is not proposed. Ideally, all land vNil,
be purchased with pilling buyers and sellers. A later section of
this chapter discusses land aC(JcAk1ti0n strategies.
Use existing, I IRA. MaldcvN ood has established an HRA,'Ir)
date, the authority has focused on housing issues, The HRA's
role could he expanded to address the redevelopment issues
associated with the implementation of'this plan.
Create separate FDA. The City Council COUld create a sepa-
rate economic development authority. The resolution cq-
tablishing the FDA vcould enable it to USC the pcnvcrq of the
1IR-A Act, the benefit of this approach is making the iniple-
naentation of the plan the primary focus of this entity. All
existing bodies that could be giNen this responsibility deal
with other ongoing aspects of city i;overnment,
Desi4nate Citv Council as EDA. The members of the Citv
Council can s as the board of commissioners for an LDA,
This approach provides the closest c oordination of' actions
riccdol to implement the plan.
Findings
16 exercise these pockets, the IIRA Act re that the City
Council make, certain findings (bv resolution) about the Gladstone
The A; ill
area, e statutory n n
, focus on tyvo development charac-
teristics: (1) the presence of "substandard, slum, or blighted
,," or (2) a shortage of "decent, safe,, and sanitary dwelling
Statutory Redevelopment Plan area g e -
Many redevelopnici it poky ors come to the Cit N through the I IRA
accommodations available to persons of low income and their
families" While housing needs forni part of this plan, the physi-
Act (Nlinnesota Statutes, Sections 469,001 tc>469,047). This see-
L at condition of'buildings and infrastructure are the primary cata-
tion of the plan lays the foundation for accessing the necessary lust for public actions,
statutory authority.
Organizational Structure
The powers of the HRA Act do not flow directly to the City
Council, These poNverq can be used by a housing and redevclop-
nient authority (PIRA.) or by an economic development author-
ity (EDA), *['here are three basic organizational options avail-
able to _TVIa[dcvNood:
The process of preparing, this Plan involved the revic"N; and as-
sessment of the existing condition of structures and infrastruc-
ture in the Gladstone area. Through these efforts, tile Cit', has
laid the foundation for using the powers granted bN the 14RA
Act.
The assessment of the project area undertaken through the plan-
ning process identifies a variety of Factors that shovN the need for
Implementation Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
redevelopment and the public actions offered in this Plan, Among
the factors present in the Gladstone area are: 3.
Buildings and improvements that are physically or economi-
cally` obsolete,
Parcels w ith faulty arrangement and design and obsolete lay-
out.
. Parcels with excessive land coverage.
The combination of these and other factors impair the ability ()I'
the private sector to correct these factors without the imple-
mentation ol'this plan. The failure to XHITSS this situation would
not scree the best interests or general welfare of the COeuMU-
nitv, the neighborhood and local businesses. Further, the results
of the planning Process should provide the basis for findings needed
to support city actions under the II RA Act.
Plan Designation
It would be appropriate to designate the Gladstone Neighbor-
hood Redevelopment Plan as a "redevelopment plan" for the
purposes of the IJRA Act. In designating this redevelopment
plan, the CitV Council will make the fellreivin findi
g s:
Land in the project area would not be made available for
redevelopment without the financial aid to be sought. This
Plan identifies the financial barriers In redevelopment in
the Gladstone '.Neighborhood, The need for financial assis-
tance frorn the Citv (and other PLlldi(- bodies) will be deter-
mined as part of each project. This finding will be verified
throughout the implementation of the Han.
This redevelopment plan will afford inaxin-rurn opportunity
for the redevelopment of the Gladstone area by private cn-
terprise, A I , undarriental objective of this Plan is to maxi-
mize the opportunities for private investment in Gladstone,
and to provide catalysts for private developirient.
This redevelopment plan is consistent with the needs of
Maplewood as a vv hole. ensure this consistence, the Citv's
Comprehensive Plan should be amended to support the
Gladstone 'N'eighborhood Redevelopment Plan.
IMMMUMMMM=
This plan presents a framework for funding the public action and
investments needed to achieve the vision for the Gladstone Nleigh-
borhoo(L The framework provides tools and strategies for of)-
raining the necessary f inancial inancial resources,
Financial Feasibility Analysis
The steps and strategies I , or implementation of the redevelop-
I
MeDt Plan gretiv out of the financial feasibility analysis performed
during the planning process, This analysis is not designed to be a
definitive plan for undertaking redevelopment - quantities of
dc%clopincre, Specific funding arnounts, and the like. Instead,
the analysis provides a means for testing the financial implica-
tions of different redevelopment alternatives. This testing iden-
tifies the elements that are needed for successful redevelopment.
Redevelopment Investments
lenplemenlation of this plan rv(JUirry a range of investments by
the Cite ofMaplewood. The following section highlights the
funding strategies for the primary redevelopment investirients.
The remainder of this chapter contains additional explanation
and guidance on the use of important implementation powers
and tool
Land Assembly/Site Preparation
The responsibility for site assembly falls to private developers,
The Citv nia% consider providing financial assistance needed to
offset extraordinam costs and make redevelopment financially
Public actions and investments are taken to reenoye barriers feasible. These costs include demolition and clearance, of existing
-1
Page 5 -3
The planning process included
establishing rough estimates for key
improvements- The above estimates
represent improvement estimates
based on the master plan, the bulk of
which are considered public
improvements- These numbers are
preliminary and are anticipated to
vary as the project gets into more
specific design stages.
Additional funds will likely be
necessary to assist with site
redevelopment initiatives (site
preparation -- environmental clean
up, demolition or land write downs).
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Implementation
cost Eni—l'.
S
S, t w—s--,
s 3.9
Sn� tsape
3 3's
S ......
S 2 0
Fl—k Pa,k
rul
s 14
The planning process included
establishing rough estimates for key
improvements- The above estimates
represent improvement estimates
based on the master plan, the bulk of
which are considered public
improvements- These numbers are
preliminary and are anticipated to
vary as the project gets into more
specific design stages.
Additional funds will likely be
necessary to assist with site
redevelopment initiatives (site
preparation -- environmental clean
up, demolition or land write downs).
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Implementation
Page 5-4
0 If funding can be found,
the City should create a
program for acquiring key
redevelopment parcels as they
become available .
structures and the rcnic(liation of'site contamination Tax incrc - G ladstone I mprovern e nt Fun
meat financing will be the prinriary source of fu nding f the - he City should establish a permanent improvement revolving
U (r csc
expenses. fund (Pursuant to N'linnesota Stat s, 5ection429.091, Sub& 7a)
Streets designated for impro%cmcnts in the Gladstone Neighborhood.
Use ol'a revolving fund creates more flexibility in f inancing inancing im-
provement needed to implement this plan. Special assessments
and other revenues Pledged to pay improvement bonds become
assets of the revolving l'und. � a revolving fund, these
monies are trapped in a debt service fund until the bonds are
retired. Through a revolving fund, these racric monies can be
Lnglish Street is part of N'laplewood's municipal state aid (MSA) used for debt service and to pal : for other improvements.
street sclsten-1. A portion of the City's annual allocation of state
Frost Avenue is also known as Countv State Aid I fi (CSAH)
28, It is anticipated that Frost will be "turned back" to the (-'it\
as part of'the redevelopment Prot ess, The City vN ill w ork v ith
Ramsey County to secure funding for street improvements as
])art ol'the turnback process.
aid for street ('011,107LICtion and maintenance could be used fen
improvements,
'Iax increment finam ing is anticipated as a primary fundint source
li ar street, streetscape and Pedestrian bridge improvements.
Other potential funding sources include special assessments and
the City's Infrastructure Fund (ITF).
Storm Sewer
The financial feasibility analysis assumed the tax increment f i-
nancing would be used to pay for storm sewer improvements,
The 0tv may also utilize its storm water utility 10 assist paving
for storm drainage costs,
Park/Open Space
All monies received from Park Availability Charges (V-k() col-
leered from redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood will
be used for proposed park and open space improvements.
State Lavy prohibits the expenditure of tax inc cements for Public
Parks. Alternative Source of'funding include special assessments,
,special taxing districts, grants, or other Philanthropic contribu-
tion'.
Land Acquisition
Opportunities may arise to acquire land not related to a CUM-Crn
development Proposal. It is advantageous to have the ability to
purchase land at key locations u hen offered for sale bN
property
owners. This approach offers several benefits:
A "willing seller" purchase often reduces the long-term land
expense and the Public cost of' redevelopment.
The assembly of land enhances the potential for redevelop-
ment, Land cost,, are certain and the delays to assemble a
site are reduced.
. Control of Land minimizes the need for condemnation.
The challenge of'acquiring and banking land in advance of rede-
velopment is funding. Most options tor land acquisition are tied
to specific development projects. The City should explore re-
serves and revenues that could be used to acquire property
through title and option.
One option to fi land acquisition is the issuance ol'bonds.
'The City has the statutory authority to issue bonds to finance
Implementation Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
eligible public costs of 'a tax increment financing, plan, if more
than 20% of the revenue to pay debt service on the bonds conics
from tax increments, then the bonds may be issued without a
referendum .
Issuing bonds to finance land acquisition often means that the
thrum, of development and flow of revenues are not known,
These LHICCI-laintics make it difficult to strLIC! Lire long-term debt,
Temporary bonds or special prepayment options provide upfront
funding and the ability to restructure debt when revenues can be
projected,
State I aw imposes limitations on land acquired u ith the pro-
ceeds of tax increment bonds. Assuming that NlaplcNvood will
use redevelopment TIh districts, parcels acquired with bond pro-
ccc(h, and owned by the City (the "authority" in the statute)
cannot exceed 25°i of the area of property within the project
area to be acquired. This amount can be exceeded if' prior to
acquisition the City enters into a development agreement for
the property'_ The agreement must provide recourse for the
City if the proposed development is not Completed. This limita-
tion places importance on two factors:
The listing of parcels to be acquired in the tax increment
planning docurnents. This list becorne,, the basis of the 25''o
calculation. The N-laster plan provides a basis for these par-
cels.
Careful f inancial planning is important. Planning for future
laud acquisition can help avoid unexpected problems from
this Stdtcll-C.
Environmental Cleanup
A limited Phase I environmental site assessment was performed
by Braun Intertcc Corporation as part of the planning process.
This investigation identified environmental Cleanup that ruay be
needed prior to redevelopment.
Redevelopment activities associated with the properties identi-
fied as having recognized environmental Conditions may require
additional assc�snicnt. In addition, future recleveloparrent activi-
ties should include the preparation ofa response action plan (RAP)
and construction contingency plan that addresses the rnanagc-
incirt of known and unknown sources of SOfl and groundwater
contamination that alight be encountered during redeN clopirrent,
There are three basic approaches to financing the expanse asso-
ciated with rcycrediation of site contamination.
T ax increments. Conventional tax increment revenue should be
the source oflastrcsort. Usim, general tax increments for Cleanup
-
covis takes money away From other redevelopment and public
improvement projects.
Hazardous substance subdistrict. State Law allows for the cre-
ation of special form of district specifically ter environmen-
tal rcmediation. In simple, terms, a hazardous substance subdis-
trict captures value and tax revenues from the existing value of
aTIF district. This money can be used solely for eligible c leanup
expense a.
Grants. Regional, state and federal grant funding is available for
environmental ren-rediation. These costs are the most likeh el-
ement redevelopment plan to receive outside funding,
=019MOTEMOM
Unlike other public improvements proposed for the Gladstone
IN'cighborhood, park improvements c annot be made w ith tax in-
crement financing (see discussion earlier in this chapter), The
0 Park improvements are
the only public
improvements in the plan
that are not eligible for funding
with tax increments
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Implementation
Plan uses a combination of'park dedication ices and assessment housing improvement area,
against nc development to undertake these improvements,
Park Dedication
The City of Maplewood collects park availability charges (PAC)
from all new dc These charges represent payments
in lieu of dedication of land for park development. The plan
aSSL[MeS that all PAC collected from development in the
I L 7 07 9 =_ I =2 I'm M
The City will work with Xcel Energy to burn overhead electric
lines in the redevelopment area, .1 ' I he improvements will be
made and financed by Xcel. The costs of these improvements
could, as an option, be recouped through a "City Requested Fa-
cility Surcharge" or CRUS, Excel vrould add a CRI'S line to all
Gladstone Neighborhood will be set aside for improvements to electric MilitV users within Maplewood to reimburse these costs
the Savanna and Flicek Park, over time.
The financial analysis aSsUMCS that the "net" cost of' improve-
merits to the Savanna and Flicrk Park will be assessed to adjacent
redevelopment projects. The net cost represents the cost of the
improvements minus estimated revenues from park dedication
fees.
A specific assessment formula was not created in the planning
process. The financial analysis allocated a percent of the im-
pro%crncnt costs to various subareas used in the analysis.
The Cite can issue bonds to pay for these improvements. If
more than 20% of the rcvenuc to pin, debt service comes from
,special assessments, then the bonds can be issued without a rct-
erenduru. Debt service can be paid Nvuh revenue,, other than
special assessments. Park dedication fees and any other legally
available source could be used to Pay this debt.
An alternative approach would be the establishment of'a housing
improvement area. A 110L[Siug improvement area is a special
taxing district to finance improvement s for areas of'owned hous-
ing. The boundaries of'the area would cover the properties around
the Savanna and Flicck that would otherwise be assessed, A "fee"
would be levied against these properties to pay for the improve-
ments, The City can issue bonds supported by' revenues From a
The original financial analysis proposed to finance power line
burial with a combination of franchise fee revenues and tax in-
crements. This approach frees these revenues for other uses.
Lessening the burden on means that fewer housing units than
I "
originally assumed are required to support the costs of'redcvel-
Opirrent.
Tax Increment Financing
Tax increment financing (TIF) is the most pov,erful redevelop-
ment itnance, tool available to the City of iNlaplevcood. In sim-
plest terms, 'I'll- allows the City to capture the increase in prop-
erty taxes from redevelopment and use these monies to pay for
the investments required to undertake the clevelopirrent,
Project Area
TIE relies on two types of'areas. 'The "Project area" is a broader
area with common development goals, The "tax increment fi-
nancing district" is the specific parcels from which tax incre-
ment is collected. The project area is important I)CCaUSC it de-
I'm" where tax increments can be used (see discussion of'"Pool-
ing" that follows). The planning area for the Gladstone 'Neigh-
borhood Redc% clopirrent Plan should be designated as the project
area for the purpose of'establishingTIF districts,
Implementation Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Structurally Substandard Analysis
The key to establishing any tax increment financing districts in
the Gladstone Neighborhood is the presence of structurally sub-
standard building,. More than fifty percent (30%) of the build-
ings in a proposed redevelopment TIF district must meet the
statutory criteria for "stYUCtUraJIV substandard". Inspection of
buildings and the related 'analysis of' identified deficiencies are
used to determine the ability to meet this criteria. Cities often
TIF districts is tied to the issue of pooline. The ter ref ' )
11-1 t
the statutory firnitation on spending tax increment beyond tire
boundaries ol' the TIF district. For redevelopment TIF districts,
not more than 25% of Lax increment ruav be spent outside of the
district. The actual application of pooling; ]fruits is often more
restrictive. `administrative expenses of the TIF district Count
against the 25% inaxinurin, The amount of'revenue available to
support eligible c osts outside of the district n fall in the 1
retain a consultant with experience in this field to conduct the to 20%0 range,
analysis
The City should inin-rediatchi undertake an analvsis of'buildings
in the project area This information is essential to decision snaking
about the use of "HE There is little doubt that sonic buildings fit
1
the project area trill be found structurally substandard. The lo-
cation of these buildings NVill influence the Conti
pUration of TIP
districts. The anaivsis should include all parcels in one project
area uliere reelc%clopincrit is desired. This comprehensive in-
f ormation urination gives the City the best possible foundation for pl an -
ning to undertake projects. Conducting this analvsis removes
one step needed to Undertake redevelopment, The City can
offer potential developers with the certainty about the ability to
create TIF districts.
Pooling
The need to carefully plan the boundaries of the project area and
Project Area
h; %v
T w-o,ne oft,
inceever-i that catf
!if O�zelv
�,,,....,, 1.
bo, spoe� e'agale Of
it or n nct, fair
oiffio tart Project
Ares, a; Riniteet br
J State
OA
Items to be funded IwTIF in List be located wi thin the'I'll; district
or be an arnount that falls w ithin pooling limits.
Time Constraints
In a perfect world, the City would establish aTIF district and
wait for redevelopment, Current State LavN makes this approac It
a risky preposition. TIF districts are subject to several time
limitations. The roost important of these limitations is the I , ivc-
year rule.
After 3 years from the date of certification of the TIF District,
the use of tax increment is subject to new' restrictions. Gener-
aliv, tax increment can only be used to satisfv existing debt and
t' a - his I
contractual obli tions after this date. 'I -Life creates a live
year oinclon- to make commitments for the rise Addi-
tionall v the geographic area of the 'I'll' district can be rector cd,
but not enlarged, after 5 years front the date of certification.
IfaTIF district is established w ithout a specific plan for develop-
ment, there should be reasonable certainty that development
w
in occur w ithin five y ears.
The CitN has the ability to der-ertif') all or part of a district and
create a newt one. This action sets a ncv% five Near c lock, There
is a risk that the c onditions elitions used to establish the original district
will not be present in the lnture.
0 Determining the presence
of structurally
substandard buildings is a
key to the use of tax increment
firtaricing and the
implementation of the Plan.
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Implementation
The districts more efict tively spread costs over time. Mort-
, ,age financing often requires prepayment of'outstanding as-
qcsqmcnts. prepayment creates an additional Up-front cost
for the developer or homeowner. Prepayment of assess-
ments can also create cash flow- management challenges for
the Cite. Interest that would have been Paid on outstanding
assessments must be offset b% income from the investment
of prepaid assessment principal.
Taxing districts can be used to finance both capital and ores-
arm,,, expenses.
While sharing these benefits, each tape of'special laxine 1 district
-
is subject to unique rules. This discussion below highlights the
application of each district,
Use Limits
Several specific statutory limitations will influence the use of
tax increments on implementation of the Plan,
State Lao requires that at least 90% of the revenues from a
rede ve lop ment 'I'lF district be use to finance "the cost of cor-
recting conditions that allow o designation" of the district. The
majority of redevelopment and public improvement expendi-
tures in this plan meet this criteria. Several important limita-
tions MUSt be noted:
Tax increments cannot be used for "a commons area Used as a
public park". The plan takes a conservative position and assumes
that this limitation precludes Using TIF for the proposed open
space improvements. The statute does not define the term "pub-
lie park". The City may vv ish to explore this issue with appro-
priate legal counsel.
Other Finance Tools
The financial analysis conducted in the planning process should
not be treated as an exact plan for implementation. The City
may find that the actual process of redevelopment presents chal-
lenges and needs that are not foreseen in preparing this ])Ian. It
is importain-1-0 Understand the range of public finance tools avail-
able for implementation, Three forms of special tax increment,
in particular, may have application in the (Aadstone Neighbor-
hoo&
These special taxing districts offer several potential advantages:
g e
The districts avoid the berielus test required of special as-
sessments. The amount of a special assessment cannot ex-
ceed the benefit received by the property from the improve-
ment. The benefit is measured br the increase in market
value from the improvement. This issues becomes impor-
tant when improvement costs are spread over an area rather
than to adjacent properties.
Tax increments cannot be used for public facilities used for ".so-
cial, recreational, or conference" purposes. As with parks, the
.statute does not define these terms.
Special rules apply to public improvements, equipment, or other
items located outside or the TIF district. Tax increments cannot
be used for these costs if their purpose is Primarily decorative or
aesilict4% If the items serve a functional purpose, tax incre-
ments can be Used unless "then- Cost is increased by more than
100 percent as a result ol'the selection of materials, design, or
true as compared with more c onn v used materials, designs,
or types for similar improvements, equipment or items", '16
avoid this restriction, the right -of vv ay of street to be improved
.should be included within the boundaries ol'aTIF district,
Implementation Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Page 5 -9
Storm Sewer Improvement District vice district and housing improvement area.
A storm server improvement district (M.S. Section 444.17
through 444,21) is the simplest form of taxing distric t. The City
levies a property tax on all parcels in a designated storm sewer
improvement district. This money may be used to "acquire, con-
struct, reconstruct, extend, maintain, and otherwise improve
storm sewer systems and 'related facilities within the district".
Special Service District
A special service district can be USCd 10 Par for improvements
and services to areas c)f'commercial- industrial property. Any of
the proposed improvements in the Gladstone Neighborhood can
be paid for with this type of district. The statute does not define
Attracting Private Development
The plan will be implemented by attracting private investment
to the Gladslone ',Neighborhood.This investment will cone from
existing properly owners and from nevv development partners
for the Cite The planning r , process has elevated the level of in-
terest about the potential for redevelopment in the Neighbor-
hood.The planning process has demonstrated that there already
exists an awareness about redevelopment possibilities in
Gladstone. A potential development partner may be apparent
at the time of implementation. 11 110t, the, CRV May undertake a
the improvements that can be funded through a special service
district, Similar flexibility applies to services. The district can solicitation of potential development partners.
be used to maintain improvements in the Neighborhood except
for services that are ordinarily Provided throUffhOL11 t c ity from
I - -
L,ericral fund revenues unless an increased level of the service is
provided in the special service district.
Services and improvements are paid frorn a service charge lev-
ied on commercial - industrial property in the district. A parcel is
subject to the service charge if',SM/o or more ofits market value
comes from cornryiercial-industrial property. Residential prop-
erty can be inCJUdCd in the district, but will not be SUbfCCt to the
scrx'Wc charge. The service charge can function like a property
tax or be based on other factors (i.e. -lot frontage
or area) to
more equitably allocate the costs.
Housing Improvement Area
A housing improvement area is very similar to a special service
district. This type of taxing district can finance services and
improvements to areas of owned housing. At this point, the
statute does not allow use for rental housing. A mixed use de-
velopment requires a "Javered" approach, rising both special see-
The basic objective of this step is to attract a developer to Un-
dertake a project in the Gladstone '\eighborhood. In reality, the
objectives of this action are more extensive. The foal is not
sirnplY to undertake development, particularly with the first
project, The City seeks development that:
Produces buildings with enduring character and qualities.
Integrates public improvements with private development.
Demonstrates to the business community and neig hborhood
that redevelopment is a positive step,
Provides a springboard to other projects and investments.
One approach to soliciting developers is the request for propos-
als (RIP). The RIP process seeks a "proposal" to accomplish
these objectives - a specific plan lot development in Gladstone.
The abilitv of developer to provide the right proposal relies on
several factors:
Knox le(fqc sf'thc SCU112 The physical and economic constraints
of'redevelopment are critical factors of development ])to-
0 A request for
Qualifications is the best
approach for attracting a
qualified developer to undertake
redevelopment in the Gladstone
Neighborhood.
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Implementation
Page 5-10
posal. Regardless of'hose much information ' vou provide in The trap comes froth the potential delay in negotiating with a
the solicitation of proposals the developer must do sonic developer that cannot deliver on all interesting proposal,
homework. Rather than Ye(ILlevt proposals, the City can solicit indications of
EXI)CI Experience is irnportant. Experience increases
interest and statements of' qualifications from the development
the chances Of'success and reduces the time From concept to
c,olulnullity, This approach seeks the best developer to stork
development. The lessons learned 1roin past projects can be
synth you to jointly design a redevelopment project. The process
applied to the benefit O'N'lapleNvood. These lessons may in-
becomes more ol'a courtship than a fishing expedition.
clude the ability to assemble sites, relocate existing busi-
nesses, or recruit ncvN businesses. There are numerous ex - Seeking a statement of qualifications and interest (RFQ) offers
ampler of developers with great ideas that could not get it several advantages to the City and to potential responders:
done,
Incerest. It is important to recog nize that the interest of
Maplewood in altrzating a good developer likely exceed the
initial interest of a good dev eloper in corning to the Gladstone
g
Neighborhood. While Gladstone is a good development op-
portunitv there are a variety of'other redevelopment choir cs
throughout the region. Some excellent development com-
panies will not respond to any request for proposals. These
proposals are experwvr to prepare and do not guarantee a
project for the developer. Some developers View an RFP as
more of beauty contest than a good path to a project. Whilc
vacant land is scarce, there is no lack of opportunities for
redevelopment.
These factors create challenges in using the RFP process to un-
dertake redevelopment projects. Other cities have learned that
all RIT is not a guarantee of success. The response to the RFP is
often limited. The initial RFP often fails to result in a project.
Another dilemma of the RFI` process is the "trap" of the initial
responders. While most RI's reserve the right to reject all
proposals, this rarely occur, NvIlen at least one proposal with
potential is submitted. The RFP approach creates the expecta-
tion that some form of'negotiation Will result from the pl-OCCSS.
Lasier respome, The RFQ avoids the efl' ort and investigations
required to submit a specific development proposal. With
less investment ol'im-le and money to respond, the RFQ is
more attractive to potential developers.
• Locus on key to asacccssfid project. The elements Of'a sUCC(-SSfnJ
project ect are more closely linked to the experience and capac-
ity of'the developer than to the outlines of a project submit-
ted through a RFP.
Aforc Crt4. The process need not lead to negotia-
tion,, with a single developer. The City may choose to have
discussions with more than one party. The RFQ process
would also allow the City to seek out firms that chose not to
respond.
Increase opportunity far success. It is often easier to develop a
redevelopment joinfl% rather than attempt to modify a project
from a proposal. This approach enhances the chances of
achievin key public objectives from the project. While no
process is foolproof', the RFQ 1-CdLKTS the risk of Nvasting
time on negotiations.
The basic outline ol'the RFQ consists of'four points:
1. City objectives, The introductory section of the RFQ
should provide some background information on the Gladstone
Implementation Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Neighborhood and the expec rations for a redex clopment project,
This section also provides an opportunity to "sell" potential de-
vc1opers on the merits of redevelopment in Maplewood. The
master plan chapter is the SOLIF-CC for this element.
Developer interest. While the submission of a response
demonstrates interest in the project, it is informative to require
a brief discussion of Nvhv the firm is interested.
I t . rt L I I I A
uses that do not conform with the Uadstone Neighborhood Re-
development Plan,
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan establishes the long term vision of land
use patterns and public systems. The plan forms the foundation
or the "nexus" for the development of zoning standards. The City's
current Comprehensive Plan designates much of the Gladstone
area for commercial uses. A key objective of the master plan is
I.-lua L icatLOTIS, ILS SCOL011 S OU ( 111C U C SpCC1 R cc-
it ic inteuration of mix Of'uses rimarilv of a residential nature
quirerrients for information desired by the City. This informa-
tion should include general background on the f'irm and examples
of relevant project experience. The RFQ should also provide for
an unstructured response to this question. The ability to articu-
late ClUalifications is al, a means of assessing general understand-
ing of redevelopment in a setting like Gladstone,
with supportive neighborhood retail services. A Comprehen-
sive Plan amendment is needed to establish a mixed use land use
designation in support of an integrated mix of uses.
The City is more susceptible to land use and zoning challenges
from the private sector when zoning rules and regulations are
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
4. References. Completed development projects only tell
part of the story. The insights of staff and elected officials in
other cities help to learn about the firm as a potential develop-
ment Partner.
These points can be presented in varying levels of detail. In
preparing the RI Q, the City should attempt to balance the need
to obtain meaningful inforitiation with the desire to attract good
development partner,.
The Citv manages land use with several different tools. The
prirriary tools are the City's Comprehensive Plan and the adopted
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision controls, Existin c , land use
controls should be rexlevwd and revised as nrccssarx to ensure
consistency Nvith this Plan. This step allows development to o(
cur that fits the Plair.Thesc modifications Nvill also prevent land
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act mandates Comprehensive
Planning for communities unities in the seven County Metropol ita n Area.
The Act stipulates that Comprehensive Plan's need to he up-
dated by December of 2008, parriCUlarly to address regional
policv relatin to transportation, water resources and parks, The
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan and the associ-
ated Alternative Urban Areavvide Review (AUAR) addresses all
of these components. The Citv can take two approaches to updat-
ing its Comprehensive Plan. The City can initiate an amendment
process upon adoption of the plan and sinaply adopt the
master plan report as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Alternativelv the City can modilv the comprehensive plan and
incorporate key principles and land use changes into the Com-
prehensive Plan.The later approach would be best incorporated
into a larger Comprehensive Planning process that satisfies the
state lave requirements; for updating the plan by 2005.
Pages -11
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Implementation
Page 5-12
In order to facilitate redevelopment projects and irriplen of nc Mixed Use base districts and the establishment of all
tion of' the plan, the City should adopt the master plan as all overlay district to achieve the desired design character are tools
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Lack of'proper land use that can be used for other redevelopment projects provided there
guidance could be seen as a barrier to redevelopment. is a clear nexus established Nvilhin the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning
The zoning regulations Provide the more strict interpretation of
policy outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and -Master Plan ' The
Zoning ordinance gets specific as to Permitted uses and site de-
sign/building bulk re(JUireenerns. Current zoning designations
in the project area create challenges to achieving the desired
patterns and nux of uses called for in the master plan.The Cities
existing R-3 Residence Districts provide opportunities for higher
density development and could serve as base districts for the
residential land Use patterns in the Gladstone Area Nvith some
modifications.
Implementing,; the master plan is complicated be special zoning
provisions such as parking standards, building heights, lot cover-
ages and setbacks that may be too restrictive for the type of
development envisioned in the master plan. They also can be
COUnterproductiNe" to key principles, An objective of redevel-
opment planning is to remove the barriers to achieving a de-
sired development pattern. Rezoning the project area to allow
the desired development "as of right" is an important first step.
The city should establish a nekN zoning designation to foster a
mixed use environment. The nevN mixed use district 0,11_11)v%ould
contain various $Ill) districts to distinguish between nodes that
may be intended for greater intensity of development. To ad-
dress specific design and balk standard, that are more unkiLle, to
the Gladstone Neighborhood, the City should establish all over-
lay district. The overlay district would require certain site dc-
sign fcatorcs that would be consistent with the approaches and
principles identified in the master plan. Both the establishment
Establishment of the base mixed use pattern would allow for the
complete integration of'a variety of'different land use Patterns,
Design Guidelines
An alternative to the use of an overlay district is the establish-
ment ot'design guidelines. Design guidelines can I ary as to hovN
they area applied, Guidelines are often used not to "require"
certain elements but to shape a development project toward a
Preferred vision, Incentives can be built into the g uidelines ap-
' t
plic ation such that the more guidelines ac hieved by the project a
reward can be earned. The reward can be in the form of a den-
sity bonus, reduced developer fees, or a faster/streamlined de-
velopment review process. Design guidelines w=ould build oil'
the principles cstahlished in the plan and vvould provide greater
clarily as to what is desired from I design perspective,
Other Implementation Initiatives
Pursuit of Grants and Contributions
Planning for the Gladstone neighborhood did not include the as-
sumption that grant (1011,11-S V,OUld be Used to pay for some of the
Public improvements and associated redevelopment costs. I lovv-
ever, this does not mean that these improvements could not be
covered through local, state or federal grant programs, '16 the
extent possible, grants and lok% interest loan programs should be
pursued to assist with funding for key improvements that seek
to provide a regional benefit such as affordable housing, regional
infrastructure improvements, pollution clean LIP, regional eco
system improvements and transit investment,.
Implementation Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Retention of Existing Businesses
A key desire expressed by the community is the abilitv to retain
existin neighborhood retail servicc/busmesscs in Gladstone.
The challenge to this is the cost of upgrading to nesv facilities
and the firnim,, of the upgrade. Business owners will not be forced
out by the City. Market forces, however, will drive some busi-
ness out either through reductions in sales or il'propertY owners
sell and do not retain existim,, leases. The ability to stay in the
neighborhood depends on the ability to corer movin costs and
increased rent costs, The ('try can offer developers incentives
thrOlUji dC11xitV bOnLISCS, accelerated approval processes, or de-
velopment fee reductions in return for agreeing to retain local
businesses who wish to stay in the neighborhood and are compat-
ible with the master plan. Other options include "Norking with
the local business community to establish a lo%v interest loan
program or revolting loan program that covers businesses for a
short period of tirric during the ince-c and for the first fekN years
until profits increase to an acceptable level. Successful models of
this approach include a program on Lake Street in Minneapolis
that allowed businesses to borrow money at no or little interest
during a major T`CCOYIStrUction process, Other examples can be
found throughout the Country. Existing businesses may also be
offered special low interest loan programs to make upgrades or
site improvements.
Historical Interpretation
Due to the areas rich history, it vv as expressed by a number of
individual,, and groups that the story ol'Gladstone be told through
the redevelopment process. Tlik idea has been integrated into
the master plan chapter and is er)COUI-aged 1,111-OUgh the design
process, The Historical Societe should be invoiced in offering
ideas, Suggestions and critique of'development projects in order
to implement this effort. Developer incentives could be offered
as a means to encourage historical interpretation.
The Savanna as an Environmental Learning Center
The idea of the making the Savanna an "environmental class-
room" was mentioned at a nuinbcr of public nicerings,'flus no-
tion NVOUld re(JUire designing the public improvements in a man-
ner that can facilitate an educational experience.The Open Space
Task Force, local and regional environmental groups, local School
districts, private schools and universities should collaborate on
this idea and have a role in the detailed design and improve
incitts associated with the Savanna,
The Eco-Village
The rationale behind the Lco-Village concept is one that is thread
throughout the master plan. Creation of desi principles and
e
policies that enCOUMge - green" bUildins and sustainable develop-
ment are described in the master plan. Elaboration on this con-
cept is warranted and should be guided throug the Open Space
Task Force and kev city staff from the 'nature Center, planning,
and Public Works. Principles and ideas should he incorporated
into policy plans, zoning regulations, and design standards for
some public improvements.
The timing and sequencing of projects depends largelY on the
ability of the private Sector to initial( redevelopment projects.
Public improvements must be completed in seqUCuCC With pri-
vate development projects. A, long range phasing approach should
be developed following adoption of the master plan, private See-
tor proposals, detailed design plans and financing analysis,
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Implementation
Pages -13
Page 5-14
This page intentionally left blank
Implementation Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Memorandum to Gladstone Mask Force
This memorandum was developed in preparation for a Task
Force meeting in order to provide detailed methodology
regarding the financial analysis used during the planning
process. This memo includes a nine page report with four
separate attachments
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan Appendix
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
To: Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Task Force
From: Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
Subject: June 16 Workshop
Date: June 9, 2005
Meeting #5 of the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Planning Task Force takes place on Thursday, June 16.
The meeting will be held at Maplewood Fire Station #2 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. The primary objective of
this meeting is to present the results of the financial feasibility analysis and evaluation of the redevelopment
concept. Much of the workshop involves providing Task Force members with a clear understanding of the
approach used to conduct the analysis, the results of the analysis and the implications for redevelopment in
the Gladstone Neighborhood.
The Task Force will not be asked to make any decisions about changes in land use concepts or redevelopment
plans at this meeting. Please review the information in this memo prior to the Task Force meeting. We will
highlight this information and answer your questions at this meeting. Spending some time with the
information in this memo will help you to participate in the discussion and decision making that will occur at
the meeting.
,•� ^ J
As you review the results of the feasibility analysis, it is important to remember the basic tenants that have
guided this work. The Task Force agreed to the following tenants at the April 21 meeting:
• Redevelopment is necessary.
• A plan is needed to guide change.
• Public (city) actions are needed.
• The Plan must be feasible.
These tenants frame the challenge for the redevelopment plan. We must agree on a plan for redevelopment
of the area. Doing nothing is not an acceptable outcome. The plan must be do -able. A "paper" plan that you
like but will not happen is the same as doing nothing. Our collective task is to find the best balance between
the desired community vision and the realities of actual redevelopment.
It is probable that everyone will find likes and dislikes in the evolving concept plan for the Neighborhood.
Our collective challenge is to build on the strengths and minimize the weaknesses. No Task Force member
should simply give up on the process if the plan does not meet all of your expectations.
Developer Interviews
Over the course of the last several weeks, we have been presenting the project to Twin Cities developers
who focus on redevelopment and infill development of a variety of types and styles. The purpose of these
conversations was to gauge the market realities and fiscal realities of the assumptions we have made and to
gain insights into what would make the Gladstone Redevelopment a reality. The developers we have talked
123 North Third Street, Suite loo, Minneapolis, PAN 554101 -1639
Ph 1612) 338 -0800 Fx (612) 338 -6838 K -xv-,v.hk con I
Tusk Farce #5 —June 16
June 10, 200S
Page 2
to include some who do exclusively housing projects, several who do a mixture of uses including
commercial, industrial, office, and housing, some who both develop the land and build units, and others who
do just development and bring in separate builders. Some of the developers are in the business of developing
and owning the projects for a long term making their profit on the rental income and the long term
appreciation and equity of the project. Others develop the land and then sell it to owner occupants or other
investors making the profit on the improvements to the land. The following are some of the points that were
consistently raised in the review of the project with developers:
• The area seems like it would not support a large presence of retail uses. It is more of a neighborhood
commercial site that would support a limited amount of service retail such as hair saloon, liquor
store, coffee shop, bakery, boutique, insurance /accountant /real estate offices, etc.
• The bowling alley is a use that could serve as an anchor tenant, but would not have to be included in
the project if they did not want to stay.
• The areas recreational assets (regional trails, local parks, Keller Regional Park and Golf Course, Lake
Phalen, Wakefield Lake and Park) make this a great housing location.
• Strongest housing market seemed to be for senior housing. Currently for sale units are really strong;
however, markets can change rather quickly. Most likely, there would be a mix of for owner and
rental units and a mix of age restricted senior housing and general occupancy.
• Economics of redevelopment would require multi -story structures, mostly housing oriented and
likely some level of public assistance. Various ranges of density were discussed, but most often 3 to 5
stories of housing or 20 to 40 units per acre generally. Some areas along the periphery could be more
of the row house ltownhouse development pattern at a 10 to 12 unit per acre density.
• There was a mix of reactions to the Savanna with the exception that all felt it must be a useable space
to really be an asset to the community. Trails, interpretative history, gathering place is ok, but as it is
today it becomes a liability. Some felt that a portion of it should be developed to housing but not
necessarily commercial uses because that would require too much surface parking. Others felt it
would be a great asset as a neighborhood preserve.
• Virtually all developers felt that our assumptions regarding the financial feasibilit�r analysis were
accurate if not overly conservative.
• Many of the developers were aware of the project because of the Tourist Cabin site.
• Most developers showed extreme interest in the project and have asked to be informed of the final
plan. They also have inquired as to how the City would intend to move forward, ..will they be
issuing an RFP for developers, are they going to assemble the land and clear it, or are they going to
simply adopt a plan and take a "wait and see if the market reacts" attitude.
Analytical Approach
Redevelopment will not occur until physical and economic barriers have been removed. The analysis assumes
that the concept is feasible if sufficient funds are available to pay for the costs required to remove these
barriers. The analysis consists of the following steps:
Tusk Farce #5 —June 16
June 10, 200S
Page 3
1. The Neighborhood has been divided into "sub- areas" pursuant to the concept plan. The use of these sub-
areas reflects the fact that redevelopment occurs in a series of projects, rather than one comprehensive
change. A map showing the location of each sub -area appears in Attachment A.
2. The "costs" of redevelopment are estimated. These costs reflect investments that must occur to achieve
the vision for the Gladstone Neighborhood. These costs include the assembly of sites (land acquisition),
demolition and clearance of existing buildings, correction of site contamination, and construction of
public improvements.
3. The costs are assigned to each sub -area. Some costs are directly attributable to a specific sub -area. Other
costs have been allocated among several districts, based primarily on physical relationship to the
proposed improvements.
4. Revenues are projected for redevelopment in each district. The primary sources of revenue are tax
increment financing, proceeds from the sale of land, and assessments levied against redevelopment
projects.
5. Costs and revenues are compared. If costs exceed revenues, then a gap exists.
We have used conservative, yet reasonable, assumptions throughout the analysis. Our goal has been to create
a framework for successful redevelopment that includes flexibility to adapt to changes as real projects occur.
Redevelopment Costs
The feasibility analysis estimates the costs of necessary investments and determines the revenues needed to
pay these costs. The costs of redevelopment include;
Land assembly
In most locations, the current parcel layout does not match plans for redevelopment. With the exception of
the tourist cabins, each of the sub -areas consists of a series of parcels and several different owners.
Redevelopment requires the acquisition of multiple parcels to assemble viable sites for projects. The analysis
assumes that the cost of acquisition and relocation equals 200% of the most recent estimated market value set
by Ramsey County- (January 2, 2005). The planning process does not include actual real estate appraisals on
all potential redevelopment sites in the Neighborhood. We have found from previous projects that adjusting
the assessor's values provides a reasonable estimate of land acquisition expense. The property tax system
does not, however, include values for mobile home housing units. Our analysis provides additional funding
for land acquisition in the two locations with mobile home parks.
Demolition
The analysis assumes that all existing buildings will be demolished and cleared from the site. The estimated
cost of demolition is S 3.75 per square foot of building area. The building area came from assessor's record.
The cost factor was provided by a development company working with HKGi on another redevelopment
project.
Environmental
Site contamination must be corrected before redevelopment can occur. The environmental consultant on our
team has used existing environmental information to estimate "clean up" costs in each sub -area.
Streets
The redevelopment concept for the Gladstone Neighborhood involves both private and public
improvements. A key area of public improvement falls under the title of "streets." These improvements
include changes in the roadway and along the adjacent right -of -way. The nature of the street and streetscape
Tusk Farce #5 —June 16
June 10, 200S
Page 4
improvement varies across the neighborhood. The consulting team has created estimates of these
improvement costs based on the proposed design and experience with comparable projects.
Frost Avenue Bridge
The bridge brings Frost Avenue over a pedestrian connection between the Savanna and Flicek Park. The
bridge creates a strong connection between the key open space /park areas. This connection extends north to
the Gateway Trail. A better description and explanation of the Frost Avenue Bridge will be provided at the
meeting.
Stormwater Management
Any redevelopment in the Neighborhood must comply with regulations for the management and treatment
of stormwater. The consulting team has evaluated improvements needed to support the redevelopment
concept.
Parks
The concept envisions improvements to the Savanna and Flicek Park. The consulting team has worked with
city staff and the Park /Recreation and Open Space Commissions to better define the nature of these
improvements.
Power Lines
The concept assumes that overhead power lines will be buried at key locations along Frost and English. The
current plan assumes that a portion of these costs will be paid by the City using revenues from its franchise
fee.
The chart below summarizes the estimated redevelopment costs for the redevelopment plan.
Stormwater,
$1,600,000 , 3%
Park/open space,
$3,100,000, 6%
Frost Avenue Bridge,
$2,600,000 , 5%
Street/streetscape,
$4,563,051, 9%
Street reconstruction,
$4,500,000, 8%
Environmental,
$550,000 , 1%
Power line burial,
$2,065,000, 4%
Land acquisiiton,
$33,210,940 , 62%
Demolition, $974,344,
2%
Tusk Farce #5 —June 16
June 10, 200S
Page S
Redevelopment Revenues
A fundamental premise of this analysis is that general revenues (specifically property taxes) of the City are
not available to pay for the costs of redevelopment. The analytical approach uses revenue resulting from
redevelopment to pay for the necessary costs. With this approach, the type and intensity of development
influences the amount of revenue.
Tax Increment Financing
The key revenue source for redevelopment in the Gladstone Neighborhood is tax increment financing (TIF).
In simple terms, the new property tax revenues produced by redevelopment can be captured and used to pay
for certain expenses required to create the development. The use of TIE in this analysis is based on the
following assumptions:
• TIF districts can be created. The ability to establish TIE districts is subject to a complicated set of
statutes. Our preliminary assessment is that sites in the Neighborhood fit the statutory criteria for
creating a series of related TIF districts. The detailed investigations needed to make the appropriate
statutory findings are beyond the scope of this planning process.
• Projected tax increment revenues are based on the property tax rate for taxes payable 2005 and
conservative assumptions about the property valuation from future development. The analysis
assumes that medium density housing produces estimated market value (EMV) (for taxation) at an
average of $315,000 per unit. The EMV per unit assumption drops to $240,0001unit for high
density housing. Retail development produces valuation at a rate of S 100 per square foot.
• The analysis uses "net" tax increment revenues. Certain deductions are made before determining the
funding capacity of TIF. Ten percent (10 %) of projected tax increment revenues are set aside for city
administration expense. An administrative fee of 0.36% goes to the State. A portion of the net
funding capacity is allocated for finance expense and for interim (capitalized) interest. The financial
feasibility analysis uses this net funding capacity.
• The funding capacity of TIE represents the present value of 20 years of revenue capture at an interest
rate of 7.00 %. Redevelopment tax increment financing districts can operate for a maximum of 2 5
years.
• The analysis does not include revenue from any inflation/ appreciation of property values over time.
This analysis does not create an entitlement for the use of tax increment financing. Each project will
need to establish justification for the need, application and amount of support from TIF.
It is important to note that the revenue from tax increment financing varies with the proposed pattern and
intensity of redevelopment. The amount of new property value determines the funding available from tax
increment financing. The funding capacitor increases with the density of development.
Land Sale
Approach used in this analysis seeks to reduce the cost of land to a "market" level that will attract the desired
redevelopment. Revenue from the sale of land is used to offset redevelopment costs in each sub -area. The
assumptions are based on other recent projects and input from other development professionals. Land for
residential development is sold for an amount equal to 10% of the estimated market value. Retail land sale is
based on S4 per square foot of development site.
Tusk Farce #5 —June 16
June 10, 200S
Page 6
Revenue from land sale varies in a manner similar to TIE. Each housing unit and square foot of retail property
produces additional revenue for the project.
Special Assessments
Tax increment financing cannot be used to pay for the costs of park improvements. These costs could be
assessed to the redevelopment properties adjacent to the parks.
Park Dedication
New development produces revenues in the form park dedication fees. The analysis assumes that all revenues
from this source will be used to pay for open space improvement costs in the Gladstone Neighborhood.
Franchise Fee
The analysis assumes that the Cite will contribute 5700,000 in franchise fee revenues towards the burial of
power lines.
Results of Analysis
These assumptions about the costs and revenues of redevelopment created the framework for analyzing the
feasibility of redevelopment. The following section summarizes the results of this analysis. The consulting
team will review the analysis and answer your questions at the meeting.
Initial Concept
The financial feasibility analysis began by testing the "composite concept" that has grown out of the planning
process (reviewed by Task Force at last meeting). The assumptions about new development mirrored this
concept and applied a low level of density. All residential development is assumed to be medium density
housing (side -by -side attached townhouse or rowhouse products) at an average density of eight units per
acre. All commercial development is assumed to be single -story buildings occupying 30% of the lot area. The
application of this concept creates 299 housing units and 71,400 square feet of retail space.
Linder these assumptions, redevelopment is not financially feasible. In every subarea, redevelopment at this
level of intensity is not financially feasible. In total, this scenario falls over 531,760,000 short of the revenues
needed to undertake redevelopment. Even if all public improvement costs for street, streetscape, and power
line burial are removed the analysis still shows a gap of almost $19,000,000. The chart on the next page
shows the estimated costs, revenues and gap (costs over revenues) for each subarea.
Undoubtedly, the magnitude of this gap will come as a surprise to some members of the Task Force. It
emphasizes the importance of conducting financial feasibility analysis along with land use planning. No matter
how you like a plan, it will not happen with financial reality. The problem facing a low density approach to
redevelopment is a lack of revenue. Even with public assistance through TIE and franchise fees, the costs of
redevelopment are too great.
Tusk Farce #5 —June 16
June 10, 200S
Page 7
10,000,000
8,OOD,ODO
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
L L
�
@
o �
a
0
Y ,�''
0 0
u
0 0
O U U
.R
.O
o o
m o
2
2
w
m 3
v
ar
a
(2,OOD,ODO)
m o
L
(4,000,000)
(6,000,000)
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................
® Costs is Revenues ■ Surplus /(Gap)
Increased Development in Current Concept
The next step in the analysis was to define a development pattern that produced a financially feasible
outcome for the entire redevelopment concept. This process followed these principles:
• Changes must be consistent with the land use pattern in the redevelopment concept. The types of
land uses in each sub -area remain the same.
o The changes must produce sufficient revenue to pay for all estimated costs of redevelopment. All
subareas show a surplus.
• Additional housing units should be added to the core areas where street, trail and parks areas provide
a buffer to existing neighborhoods.
HKGi tested a series of development alternatives before arriving at the recommended adjusted development
pattern contained in Attachment B. This table shows the mix and intensity of development for each sub -area
and the results of the financial analysis.
Some specific comments about this development concept:
• No new development is shown in three subareas: I /Former Gladstone Flementary, 21Ide (Frost to
Rvan), and 3/Frost (Clarence to Ide). Our analysis did not produce feasible redevelopment scenarios
at these locations. The feasibility in these subareas should improve as redevelopment occurs in other
parts of Gladstone.
Tusk Farce #5 —June 16
June 10, 200S
Page 8
• The scenario results in an estimated total of 987 new housing units.
• The concept does not include any retail development. tinder the assumptions used in this analysis,
retail development produces less revenue than housing. For the sake of holding down overall housing
densities, we chose show the most cost effective approach. Retail can be added to the concept, but
more housing would be needed to offset the loss of revenues. At your direction, we can help the
Task Force explore the implications of adding retail to the mix.
• All housing can be accommodated in 3 to 5 story buildings. Attachment C includes a series of
pictures and illustrations that show this intensity of development in other locations.
Development on the Savanna
The financial challenges of the redevelopment plan led the consulting team to explore the implications of
development on a portion of the Savanna. We recognize that development in this location is not shown in the
concept approved by the Task Force for the feasibility analysis. Given the results of feasibility analysis, we
believed that it was important to look for other options. The ultimate goal of this process is to create the best
plan for Maplewood. As we analyzed both the financial and the physical considerations of this approach, we
found that development on a portion of the Savanna created several unique and valuable opportunities:
• The combination of city ownership and location make the property an excellent site for an initial
redevelopment project. Land does not need to be acquired or a site assembled.
• Redevelopment is more cost - effective because no building demolition or business relocation costs
are required.
• The combination of these factors means redevelopment can happen Here faster than at any other
location.
• The immediate implementation of the redevelopment plan should provide a catalvst to attract new
investment to other adjacent properties. The City will establish a real demonstration of the vision for
the area. The risk that positive changes will occur is diminished.
• Tax increment and assessment revenues from the project can provide initial funding for
improvements to the Savanna and adjacent streets.
• In the long run, money received by the City from the sale of land can be used to meet other park and
open space needs in Maplewood. In the short term, the funds provide a tool for the Citv to assemble
other key sites.
• Adding more units in the core of the Neighborhood allows for additional reduction in densities closer
to existing housing.
Preliminary concept for development on the Savanna creates two site (adjacent to Frost and English) totaling
approximately six acres. As part of this concept, Flicek Park is converted to open space for a no net loss of
total open space. The proposed Frost Avenue Bridge provides a strong and convenient physical link between
the Savanna and Flicek Park. An illustration of this redevelopment concept will be presented at the meeting.
The results of the feasibility analysis for this concept appear in Attachment D.
Tusk Farce #5 —June 16
June 10, 200S
Page 9
Using This Analysis
There are many variables and assumptions in this analysis. Task Force members are cautioned against placing
too much weight on any single variable. The analysis does not present the absolute development pattern for
the Gladstone Neighborhood. It is a measure of the conditions that are needed to create the private and
public setting. In using conservative assumptions, we hope that the negotiation of actual redevelopment
projects leads to changes that benefit the community. Lower than projected redevelopment and public
improvement costs require less density or shorter use of tax increment financing. Higher than projected
housing values produce the same result.
The objective facing the Task Force is agreement on a feasible redevelopment concept that becomes the basis
of the redevelopment plan. This concept will be presented to the community at the next public open house.
We will work with the Task Force to consider modifications to the redevelopment concepts described in this
memo. Any modifications must result in redevelopment that is financially feasible. Again, we cannot offer a
plan that we "want" while knowing that the plan will not work. If you want changes that involve less
development than proposed in the adjusted concept, then you must identify trade -offs that add revenue or
reduce costs in other places. It is not possible to cut public improvement costs to reduce liabilities until the
level of development density is acceptable.
MA I I NO I :mIll
Attachment B
Scenario: No Development in Savana
12/13/14-
1 - Former
3 - Clarence
4 - Frost
6-Clarence
7 - Clarence
8 - English
10 - Frost
11- Frost
Maplewood
Gladstone
2 - Ide (Frost (Frost to
(Clarence to
(Frost to
(Summer to
(Frost to
9 - English
(Atlantic to
(Atlantic to
Marine /Glost
15 - Tourist
Elementary
to Ryan) Trail)
Ide)
5 - Bakery
Summer)
Ripley)
Frisbie)
(Trail - Frost)
English)
Frank)
er Park Area
Cabins
Total
Average density
20
24
27
9
29
32
33
34
17
27
(unita /—.)
Total new
housing units
0
0 44
0
18
77
13
140
98
192
134
119
151
987
Costs
-
- 1,861,473
-
726,325
3,152,093
935,036
6,453,219
4,144,242
8,713,544
6,267,813
6,255,701
6,868,078
45,377,524
Revenues
-
- 1,880,400
-
738,364
3,254,329
938,098
6,557,174
4,149,954
6,779,208
6,289,634
6,289,357
7,051,103
45,927,622
Surplus /(Gap)
-
- 18,927
-
12,039
102,236
3,063
103,955
5,712
65,664
21,821
33,657
183,025
550,098
ATTACHMENT C
Housing Density/Intensity of
Development
Images Generated by the Design
Center For American Urban
Landscape - calm -UofM
4? k
44:Up M.9 h,.rr §tng x:�R4 z
Yrtge hnvsat:..a::ti.+se .
ps. nrtt wh:M ,+
n.��.mh¢rnilMxfi!#<
II �I,IIIIII
r
� I II
II I � II I I IIIV I
III �I
I II I III I
4�1
II��� I I
n I
a
4? k
44:Up M.9 h,.rr §tng x:�R4 z
Yrtge hnvsat:..a::ti.+se .
ps. nrtt wh:M ,+
n.��.mh¢rnilMxfi!#<
&'�
cF &C
v
A
eI44:r nxr�"s ar ari uP "tx ...
yy
Ii k
V:.
1 II yi M
4 �� aitnis,4av ,i tiU #iG�i
.4VV+rAi� +hgUxP4P#I SUn 4'
(stir i, �!a•I4. }iu :€
, ek =,x aye ,i
rV14 114+1111
#
I
t
b 0 fl
:'
1 €b3 vP.s rrn"r ua is
&'�
a
",u+ k4t ar I4a ig vts
tym M m 3 ..
Pi #1 . cA f sax curl.
yy
I-4- .i.. ..i t ..
A #
x
bSrn'k puaslr �:..
P bx-raf i�x±usceµ,} S
Cy:L"a S1 tan 1. c 1 ..
us pi iip ,s
dszr ce ar.+ +n curs +� ,
{
x .
x
P VI l
us in g DensA River Gables * 2 r�
....... x. .. .....: .xxx..x xx ..xxxx..xxx8'.°
Attachment D
Scenario: Development in Savana
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
t p
IQ
�y� 1bQv woe `�
4
4
�Al &1
Q.Q �
5 0 o a co a
`y r
`00 �qY�` 1 0 l 6 .
aac cePo � ° e C° n ` Ba ia
a op
�
a ,
ti p\
® Casts MR—r— ■ Surplus /(Gap)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12/13/14
15
16
12/13/14-
1 - Former
3 - Clarence
4 - Frost
6-Clarence
7 - Clarence
8-English
10 - Frost
11 - Frost
Maplewood
Gladstone
2- Ide (Frost
(Frost to
(Clarence to
(Frost to
(Summer to
{Frost to
9 - English
(Atlantic to
(Atlantic to
Marine /Glost
15 - Tourist
Elementary
to Ryan)
Trail)
Ide)
5 - Bakery
Summer)
Ripley)
Frisbie)
(Trail -Frost)
English)
Frank)
er Park Area
Cabins
16- Savanna
Total
Average density
0
20
0
24
24
10
26
26
27
29
0
25
30
(units /—)
T.tsl
h
housing
0
0
44
0
IS
68
15
126
80
157
114
70
140
180
1,013
u nits
u
Costs
-
1,861,473
-
726,325
2,842,490
830,565
5,800,095
3,327,297
7,127,341
5,305,199
4,981,689
6,546,328
8,219,601
47,568,404
Revenues
-
1,880,400
-
738,364
2,875,995
649,913
5,800,846
3,333,305
7,134,191
5,310,541
4,984,964
6,563,256
S,326,387
47,798,163
Surplus/ (Gap)
-
18,927
-
12,039
33,505
19,348
751
6,008
6,849
5,342
3,275
16,930
106,786
229,760
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
t p
IQ
�y� 1bQv woe `�
4
4
�Al &1
Q.Q �
5 0 o a co a
`y r
`00 �qY�` 1 0 l 6 .
aac cePo � ° e C° n ` Ba ia
a op
�
a ,
ti p\
® Casts MR—r— ■ Surplus /(Gap)
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT
CITY PROJECT 04-21
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
December 6, 2006
Master Plan
cernbt- 18, �006
City Council Ac'opt Finifl, %Iaster P1 De
............................
City Council Orders Preparation of AUAR August 8, 2005
City Council Approves AUAR for Distribution September 26, 2005
EQB Monitor Published October 10, 2005
Planning Commission Receives AUAR October 17, 2005
AUAR Comment Deadline November 9, 2005
Responses to Comments and Draft Mitigation Plan Complete January 12, 2007
City Council Review Responses to Comments and Draft January 22 2007
Mitigation Plan
Distribute Final AUAR with Responses to Comments Week of Jan, 29, 2007
and Draft Mitigation Plan
City Council Adopts Final AUAR March 12, 2007
City Council Authorizes Preparation of Feasibility Report December 18, 2006
for Phase I Public Improvements
Complete Phase 2 ESA for Gladstone Savanna January 26, 2007
Coordinate Frost Avenue Turnback with Ramsey County Dec. 2006 - April 9, 2007
Coordinate TH 61/Frost Avenue Intersection Improvements Dec. 2006 - April 9, 2007
with Mn/DOT
Coordinate Overhead Utility Burial with Xcel Energy Dec. 2006 - April 9, 2007
Gladstone Area Redevelopment
Implementation Schedule
December 6, 2006
Page 2 of 2
City Council Receives Feasibility Report for Phase I Public
Improvements and Calls Public Hearing
Approve Plans and Specifications for Phase I Public
Improvements and Authorize Advertisement for Bids
Bid Opening for Phase I Public Improvements
Start Construction for Phase I Public Improvements
3111111 I'll! 11101 1
* The Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant requirements dictate that the
grant funded improvements must proceed to construction within one year of the December 13,
2006 grant award date, and be substantially completed within two years of the grant award date.
TO: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager
FROM: Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works /City Engineer
SUBJECT: Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan
Work Shop Discussion
DATE: November 2, 2006
INTRODUCTION
On June 26, July 10, July 12, and October 16, 2006, the city council discussed the various phases of
Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Project and Plan. We have scheduled a couple of hours to
review the overall Master Plan and Council comments. We have updated the original comment
spreadsheet (attached) which summarized the comments previously from the mayor and city council
regarding the Master Plan. The areas marked for additional discussion in the Council Action area are
the areas where the Council did not conclude their debate.
We also have attached a working copy of the Master Plan where the Project Consultant, Brad Schieb,
has noted the areas of changes to provide a final copy. We were in the process of preparing a new
document, but thought the Council may wish to work directly on the drafting copy at this stage of
discussion. Our intent, is that this workshop shall provide the final direction to staff and consultants for
the Master Plan. We will proceed from this meeting to finalize the document and return the final copy to
the City Council at their regular meeting of December 11 for final adoption.
DISCUSSION
The attached working document includes staff thoughts on revisions and new wording to accomplish
the project goals established by the Council in their July 12 resolution. We have attempted to identify
each of the issues and items of concern.
The Master Plan should be considered as a baseline guide for future consideration within the project
area, not as a mandate to do anything. We have been attempting since November 2005 to prepare the
plan with the flexibility to allow the Council and future Councils to adapt to development trends and
Council priorities and still maintain a consistency within the area. This issue of expectations of the Plan
might be a topic for the workshop discussion.
The following is a summary of the city council's final guiding decisions to the Gladstone Neighborhood
Master Plan (Most of these changes were also noted in the council's July 12, 2006 resolution to
"provide direction and authorization to submit a livable communities' grant application to the
Metropolitan Council.):
Business Retention
Work with Gladstone businesses to encourage them to remain in the neighborhood after
redevelopment begins. Do so by promoting loans and grants available for business owners.
Development on the Savanna
Do not allow any building development —only natural development with minimal historic public
structures. Improvements to the Savanna should be one of the first public improvements made in the
neighborhood Efforts should be made to explore conservation easements or other legal forms to protect
this parcel for future generations and until such protections are in place, no sale of Savanna or park
land shall occur as part of the Gladstone project.
Savanna Improvements
Only natural improvements should be allowed. This includes savanna restoration as a natural open
space.
Flicek Park Improvements
Make limited changes to Flicek Park Any changes to Flicek Park will be enacted by the council based
upon recommendations of the parks commission and park - planning staff.
Culvert 1 Bebo Improvements
Modify the plan so that it includes other options for a pedestrianlstorm water system in this area
including enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety at the roundabout and trail intersections. The bebo
should be considered optional for consideration later and is not specifically included as part of the
overall project plan.
Density
The allowed density shall be a maximum of 650 housing units. This can only be achieved based on a
system of to- be- established density bonuses and project goals. The minimum density established shall
be based upon the existing land -use and zoning within the area. The density bonuses and project
goals shall focus on providing credits to developments which provide increased Senior Housing, Senior
Assisted Living Housing, Accessible Senior Housing, Underground Parking and green building
construction as the primary target focus points.
Buildinq Height Issues
In general, lower buildings are required when they are closer to the street. They can go higher as the
building mass is further set back, up to four stories,
Buildinq Setback, Massing and Scale Issues
Identical to building height criteria — buildings with greater mass should be set further back to be less
imposing from street view. Care should be taken to "blend" the scale of the new buildings with the
existing.
Power Line Burial
Support for the burial of power lines at a reduced cost or alternative financing methods
2
Eminent Domain
There is no support for the use of eminent domain to achieve project goals
Level of Public Improvements –Frost Avenue Imorovernent
The likely investment will range to a maximum of $14 million to $15 million in public installed
improvements, although efforts shall be explored to have the developers install as much of the
infrastructure as practical. The goals shall include reduction or removal from the Master Plan in the
amount of center median along Frost Avenue, using trees to create a colonnade along Frost Avenue
and making Frost Avenue narrower by use of restriping. Limited use of irrigation systems is
encouraged.
Use of Tax Increment Financing
The goals of the project shall be to limit or eliminate the use of Tax Increment Financing. The Phase I –
Gladstone project improvements shall be explored with a goal of using zero Tax Increment Financing.
The direction shall be to explore alternative financing through grants and development contributions
through assessment and project payments.
Level of Public Improvements — Roundabout at East Shore Drive
The Roundabout at Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive should be explored further to see if other
alternatives might be more effective. The priority for improvements shall be Savanna upgrades.
Phase I of the Gladstone project shall focus improvements on the western end of the project area and
shall include improvement to the transportation and drainage components of the project. This shall
include exploration of improvements to bus service within the area, the installation of improvements to
facilitate the construction of bus shelters, a possible roundabout at Frost Avenue and East Shore
Drive, improvements to the TH 61 and Frost intersection, area trail connections and improvements, the
existing Frost Avenue bridge and the drainage Improvements on the western end of the project, along
with possible Savanna improvements. The value of these improvements is hereby authorized up to a
maximum of $2.5 million. The City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare a feasibility analysis of a
project to this amount.
Garden City Concept
This was an earlier concept that was generated from neighborhood workshops. This was later dropped
as a development concept since it was not found to be financially feasible.
Development Strateaies
The council decided to wait for developers to drive the redevelopment efforts in Gladstone. This is
happening presently with the Phase I development efforts with the pending proposal by DABAR
Companies, Inc_ who are proposing to redevelop the St. Paul Tourist Cabins property with seniors
housing.
WT1r4!W-'TCMRMU WE
The council decided not to buy -out property owners for land assemblage
Housing Issues
Priorities of the Master Plan should be the creation of sustainable development or green - building
practices. The development of senior - accessible housing is also a top priority.
DISCUSSION
At the October 16, 2006 worksession, the City Council requested additional information on the following
items (staff response in italics):
1. What is the density of existing multi- family housing units within the City and will we exceed
those levels with the proposed Tourist Cabin site development?
Staff will provide additional information for distribution at the workshop. The maximum
density within the current land -use and zoning code does not provide levels that would allow
the plan proposed for the Tourist Cabin site. Upgrades to the code will be required to allow
that project to proceed. Those upgrades are underway for Council consideration in early
2007.
2. What is the breakdown of the $30,000 spent to date on the Gladstone project?
The following expenditures have been authorized for the project:
• Kimley -Horn - $21,200 budgeted (grant)= $12,000 incurred to date
• SEH - $12,000 budgeted (storm water)= $10,000 incurred to date
• HKGI - $6,000 budgeted (Master Plan /Ordinance) _ $ 4,000 incurred to date
• Staff planning and engineering - $3,000 budgeted = $ 2,000 incurred to date
• Springsted (financial plan) - $5,000 budgeted = $ 2,000 incurred to date
• TOTAL $47,200 budgeted =
$30,000 incurred to date
3. Can the City use a combination of Tax Abatement versus Tax Increment Financing,
possibly a 50150 split?
Paul Steinman (Springsted) and Mary Ippel (Briggs & Morgan) have reviewed this and
provided the following comment: "a property cannot be generating tax increment and tax
abatement at the same time. You're either going to be putting the property in a TIF district
and generating increment, OR using tax abatement from the site as an incentive to the
developer. "
4. Is the Draft Master Plan in pdf format?
The document from November 2005 is available on the website in PDF. The current
revisions will be updated as the Council changes are noted.
4
5. If there is no TIF or tax abatement for redevelopment — will it Impact the Grant?
We are making a commitment to the Metropolitan Council if they submit funds to the City
that the City will follow through and implement the project. The Council can decide on how
to implement the project, however, staff has indicated to the Metropolitan Council that TIF is
a tool that will be considered and staff is strongly suggesting that TIF will be necessary to
accomplish the project goals. Other alternatives will be explored throughout the
implementation process.
6. What are the obligations of owner /developer on St. Paul Tourist Cabin site?
The City Attorney has provided the Council a memo on this issue.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Council should continue their discussions on the Master Plan comments spreadsheet. Brad
Scheib of the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., the city's planning consultant on the Gladstone
redevelopment study, will review revisions to the Redevelopment Plan. Staff will be present to assist
the Council as well. Direction on revisions should be made so that the Master Plan can be finalized.
Attachment:
1. Gladstone Master Plan — Working Document
2. Gladstone - Council- Comments Spreadsheet
5
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER NUMBER 13C
Describing a specific agreement between Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (the Consultant), and the City of
Maplewood (the Client) in accordance with the terms of the Master Agreement for Continuing Professional Services
dated December 9, 2002, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Identification of Project: Gladstone Area Redevelopment
City Project 04-21
General Category of Services: Feasibility Study and Report Services for the Proposed Phase I Improvements
Specific Scope of Basic Services: Prepare a feasibility study and report for the proposed Phase I Gladstone public
infrastructure improvements as detailed in the attached Scope of Services (Exhibit
A).
Additional Services if Required: None identified at this time.
Deliverables: Feasibility Study and Report
Method of Compensation: To be billed on an Hourly (Cost Plus) basis as detailed in the attached Estimated
Costs summary (Exhibit B).
Schedule: See attached Project Schedule (Exhibit Q
Special Terms of Compensation: None
Other Special Terns of
Individual Project Order: None
ACCEPTED:
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BY:
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
BY:
TITLE: TITLE:
DATE: DATE:
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NO. 13C
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT
CITY PROJECT 04-21
This IPO includes services to prepare a feasibility study and report for Phase I of the Gladstone
public improvements. Specific work tasks to be completed by Kin are detailed below.
Utility Planning - No change.
2. Master Redevelopment Plan - No change.
3. AUAR - No change.
4. Phase I Implementation Plan - No change.
5. Feasibility Study and Report
Kimley-Horn will prepare a feasibility study and report for the proposed Phase I public
improvements for the Gladstone area. The proposed Phase I improvements 'include public
infrastructure improvements in the west portion of the Gladstone area, generally along
Frost Avenue between TH 61 and Phalen Place. The proposed public infrastructure
includes the following:
A. Street Improvements
• Improvements at the TH 61 and Frost Avenue intersection.
• Sidewalk/trail construction along Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive.
• Construction of a roundabout at the Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive
intersection.
• Mill and overlay of Frost Avenue between TH 61 and Phalen Place.
B. Overhead Utility Burial
These improvements include the burial of overhead utilities along Frost Avenue
between TH 61 and Phalen Place.
C. Tourist Cabins Area Stormwater Improvements
These improvements include ston pond construction, rainwater gardens,
and mechanical treatment device installation in the Tourist Cabins area.
D. Stormwater Improvements on the Gladstone Savanna Property
These improvements include the construction of a regional stormwater pond on
the Gladstone Savanna property.
Kimley-Horn will prepare a feasibility study and report detailing the following information:
• A summary of the scope of the proposed public improvements.
• Estimated right-of-way and easement requirements.
• Estimated costs.
• A proposed financing plan and estimated assessments.
• A proposed project schedule.
• Exhibits will be prepared to illustrate the proposed improvements.
We will assist City staff in discussions with Ramsey County regarding the turnback of
Frost Avenue from the County to the City to address the requirements of the LCDA grant.
We have assumed that this will include up to two (2) meetings with the County and the
preparation of maps and exhibits to assist in the discussions.
Design information, estimated costs, and exhibits for the stormwater improvements in the
Tourist Cabins area and on the Gladstone Savanna site will be provided by SEH, Inc.
under a separate agreement with the City. We will coordinate the preparation of the
feasibility study and report with SEH to 'include their information.
SEH will also perform the following services as a part of the feasibility study phase:
• Geotechnical analysis.
• Topographic surveying.
• Traffic engineering analysis for the TH 61 /Frost Avenue intersection and for the East
Shore Drive/Frost Avenue roundabout.
• Phase 2 ESA for the Gladstone Savanna property.
SEH's work will be completed under a separate agreement with the City and it is not
included as a part of this IPO.
We have assumed that this phase of the project will include attendance at up to eight (8)
meetings with City staff, other consultants, Mn/DOT, and/or the City Council.
This IPO does not include any final design or construction services for the Phase I
improvements. A separate IPO will be prepared in the future to include these services if
requested by City staff.
EXHIBIT B
ESTIMATED COSTS
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NO. 13C
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT
CITY PROJECT 04-21
Kimley-Horn proposes to perform all services for the project on an hourly (cost plus) basis using
the attached hourly rate schedule. The following is a summary of the estimated costs for the
services included as a part of this IPO.
I . Utility Planning - No change to the budget of $32,000.
2. Master Redevelopment Plan - No change to the budget of $34,700.
3. AUAR - No change to the budget of $20,000.
4. Phase I Implementation Plan - No change to the budget of $20,000.
5. Feasibility Study and Report
We propose a budget of $28,600 for these services.
6. Reimbursable Expenses
Reimbursable expenses (copy/printing charges, plotting, mileage, delivery charges, faxes,
etc.) will be charged as an office expense at 6.0% of the labor fee. The revised total
estimated cost for the reimbursable expenses is proposed to be increased by $1,700 from
$6,500 to $8,200 to include the additional services identified in this IPO.
Estimated Cost Summary
Previous IPO #13C
IPO Estimated
Services
1. Utility Planning
2. Master Redevelopment Plan
3. AUAR
4. Phase I Implementation Plan
5. Feasibility Study and Report
Reimbursable Expenses
Total Estimated Cost
Fee Basis
Fees & Exp.
Fees & EM
Hourly
32,000
32,000
Hourly
34,700
34,700
Hourly
20,000
20,000
Hourly
20,000
20,000
Hourly
0
28,600
6.0% of Labor Fee
6,500
8,200
$113,200
$
143,500
City of Maplewood
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Schedule of Rates
Effective July 1, 2006 - December 31, 2007
Classification Rate
Administrative Assistant
75.00
CADD Technician
77.50
Clerical
60.00
Client Manager
$170.00
Drafter
$ 57.50
Field Technician
$ 90.00
Graduate Eng./Planner 1
$ 90.00
Graduate Eng./Planner 11
$100.00
Principal
$190.00
Project Engineer/Planner
$107.50
Project Manager
$127.50
Senior Administrative Assistant
$ 92.50
Senior CADD Technician
$ 87.50
Senior Designer
$107.50
Senior Field Technician
$115.00
Senior Project Manager
$142.50
Reimbursable expenses (copy/printing charges, plotting,
mileage, delivery charges, faxes, etc.) will be charged
as an office expense at 6.0% of the labor fee. Any
subconsultant charges will be excluded from the office
expense and will be passed directly to the City with no
Kimley-Horn markup.
Additional rates may be negotiated at a later date for
classifications or services not included above.
5
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NO. 13C
GLADSTONE AREA REDEVELOPMENT
CITY PROJECT 04-21
The proposed schedule for the implementation of the Phase I public improvements is as follows:
City Council Authorizes Preparation of Feasibility Report December 18, 2006
for Phase I Public Improvements
Complete Phase 2 ESA for Gladstone Savanna January 26, 2007
Coordinate Frost Avenue Turnback with Ramsey County Dec. 2006 - April 9, 2007
Coordinate TH 611Frost Avenue Intersection Improvements Dec. 2006 - April 9, 2007
with Mn/DOT
Coordinate Overhead Utility Burial with Xcel Energy Dec. 2006 - April 9, 2007
City Council Receives Feasibility Report for Phase I Public February 26, 2007
Improvements and Calls Public Hearing
Public Hearing for Phase 1 Public Improvements and March 12, 2007
Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications
Approve Plans and Specifications for Phase I Public April 9, 2007
Improvements and Authorize Advertisement for Bids
Bid Opening for Phase I Public Improvements May 4, 2007
Award Contract for Phase I Public Improvements May 14, 2007
Start Construction for Phase I Public Improvements June 2007
Construction Complete for Phase I Public Improvements November 2007
it
Maplewood, Gladstone - Phase 1 Implementation (Part 1 - Thru Feasibility Report -- March 2007)
Estimated Preliminary Engineering and Site Evaluation Costs
December 5, 2006
SEH No. A- MAPLE0701.xx (.01, .02_03_04_05)
City No. 04 -21
Improvement
Ingineering Task
Areas)
SEH
Braun t
I Driller I Lab
Totals
Streets
Survey (,04)
All streets
$10,200
$10,200
Geotechnical (.05)
TH61 Intersection
$6,500
$3,560
$10,060
Frost Avenue Roundabout
$4,500
$3,670
$8,170
Frost Avenue Mill & Overlay
$3,200
$2,600
$5,800
Traffic (.01)
All
$13,500
$13,500
Phase 2 ESA (02)
NA
$0
$0
Storm Water (.03)
Savanna Pondllnfiltration Basin
$0
80
East Shore Drive Improvements
$0
$0
Tourist Cabins Site - SW & Wetlands
$0
SO
Streets Total $47,730
Storm Water
Survey (.04)
All pond areas
$10,900
$10,900
Geotechnical (.05)
Savanna Pondllnfiltration Basin
$20,000
$10,600
$30,600
East Shore Drive Improvements
$3,800
$3,800
$7,600
Tourist Cabins Site - SW & Wetlands'
$3,800
$3,550
$7,350
Traffic (.01)
NA
$0
$0
Phase 2 ESA (02)'
Savanna (Implementation Phase 1 and 2 areas)
$16,200
$6,450
$22,650
Storm Water (.03)
Savanna Pond /infiltration Basin
$16,700
$16,700
East Shore Drive Improvements
$7,800
$7,800
Tourist Cabins Site - SW & Wetlands
$4,900
$4,900
Storm Water Total $108,500
Subtotals for SEHBraun fDrillenl -ab= $122,000 $34,230
Notes. Total = $156,230
1. Tourist cabins site may not be included if developer addresses site Issues independently.
2. Streets survey based on scope of work provided by KHA. Storm survey needs defined by SEH.
3. Geotech Includes boring staking and coordination with Braun, MnDOT soils letter for TH61, Separate Reports for streets and storm water, on -site engineer for deep borings, preliminary liner and infitlration basin design parameters.
Includes environmental protocol on Braun scope for Savanna. Braun scope dated Dec. 4, 2005.
4. Storm water includes coordination with Parks Committee and Brauer on Savanna Pond, Developer on TC site, and RWM WD on all areas. Also includes Council meeting prepara and attendance, attendance at monthly Gladstone
Implementation Team and Engineering Team Meetings and Feasibility Report for proposed improvements incorporating findings of the Survey, Phase 2 ESA and geotechnical investigations.
5. Phase 2 ESA is needed for Park planning and design and the investigation costs may be split between the Park and Storm Water Improvements on the Savanna. Driller and lab subconsulant not specified at this stage
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
WIN
To: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director City of Maplewood
From: Brad Scheib, AICP
Subject: Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan Implementation Services Zoning
Date: 7 December 2006
Over the last several weeks we have been exploring various approaches to zoning regulations that would
implement the desired intentions of the Gladstone Redevelopment Master Plan. The following outlines an
approach to developing a regulatory tool for zoning that is more based on development form and design
character:
Task 1. Draft a scope of the ordinance mechanism.
HKGi will work with City Planning Staff to outline a framework and scope for the zoning ordinance
mechanism. This outline will include the basic structure of the ordinance and the key topics to be addressed
focusing on a Form Based Zoning approach. One staff meeting is assumed as part of this task.
Task 2. Present the scope to City Council.
This task will include a review of the scope with the City Council to seek concurrence on the scope of the
ordinance structure and to provide an overview of Form Based Zoning Code approach.
Task 3. Prepare a draft of the ordinance.
Upon receiving concurrence on the scope of the ordinance, HKGi and Planning Staff will assemble a draft of
the ordinance. The draft will be completed to its fullest extent based on the directions from the Gladstone
Neighborhood Redevelopment Master Plan and the outcomes of the City Council workshop from Task 2.
The ordinance will take the form of written text with illustrations to support various standards and guidelines
as well as mapping of key districts or sub - districts. It is assumed that two staff meeting reviews will be
included in this Task.
Task 4. Present draft ordinance to Planning Commission.
This task will include a review of the draft ordinance by the Planning Commission focusing on uses and
administrative procedures. The work scope includes one meeting attended by the consultant. Additional
meetings may be necessary for this review but can be facilitated by City Staff.
Task 5. Present draft ordinance Community Design Review Board.
This task will include a review of the draft ordinance by the Community Design Review Board focusing on
design issues and administrative procedures. It is suggested that the Historic Preservation Commission be
invited to participate in this meeting review rather than a separate meeting with the HPC. The work scope
includes one meeting attended by the consultant. Additional meetings may be necessary for this review but
can be facilitated by City Staff.
Task 6. Prepare Revisions to draft ordinance.
123 North Third Street, Suite 104, Minneapolis, MN 55401 -1659
Ph (612) 338 -0800 Fx (612) 338 -6838 wwAv.hkgi.com
Direct (612) 252 -7122 Email bscheib(&,hkgi.com
Gladstone Zoning Ordinance Proposal
7 December 2006
Page 2
This task will include preparing revisions and modifications to the draft ordinance based on feedback and
review from the Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board. One review meeting with
City Staff is programmed as part of Task b.
Task 7. Test the ordinance provisions.
Upon receiving concurrence on the basic content and format of the ordinance, HKGi and Planning Staff will
prepare a number of hypothetical case studies to test the physical application of the ordinance. This task is
important to ensure that restrictions truly achieve the desired result. This task may include a review of the
ordinance structure by prospective developers.
Task 8. Present draft ordinance in a joint meeting to the Planning Commission and
Community Design Review Board for review.
This task will include a review of the draft ordinance in a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and
CDRB to seek concurrence on the content and format of the draft ordinance.
Task 9. Present draft ordinance to City Council
This task will include a review of the draft ordinance with the City Council in a workshop format to update
the Cite Council on progress, seek concurrence on the draft ordinance and approval to move to a public
hearing.
Task 10. Prepare Revisions to draft ordinance.
Similar to Task G, this task will include preparing revisions and modifications to the draft ordinance based on
feedback and review gained from the Planning Commission, CDRB and City Council. One review meeting
with City Staff is programmed as part of Task 8.
Task 11. Conduct Public Hearing
An official public hearing will be noticed and conducted for official review and action. This scope includes
attendance at the public hearing. Certain properties that will be impacted should be notified separately and
given the opportunity for direct questions and answers regarding the impacts of the zoning changes. These
meetings will be conducted by City Staff and are not included in this work scope.
Task 12. Adoption of Ordinance
Following the public hearing, the ordinance will be presented to the City Council for final action. No
attendance at City Council meetings is budgeted. This scope assumes City Staff will present the ordinance to
the Cite Council for final approval. Limited time is budgeted to provide presentation support and revisions to
the ordinance as necessary.
To complete this project, Hoisington Koegler Group will be securing the assistance of an architectural firm
for 3D rendering and provisions related to building form. These services are incorporated into the above
work scope and will be formally contracted through Hoisington Koegler Group upon approval of this work
scope.
The following table provides an estimated fee and schedule for completion of the above work tasks.
Gladstone Zoning Ordinance Proposal
7 December 2006
Page 3
Budget Proposed
The above budget estimate is inclusive of expenses limited to mileage for attending meetings. The above
assumes reproduction of drafts and presentation materials will be the responsibility of City Staff.
Upon approval of this approach HKGi will prepare a formal contract for services and will commence work
upon a written notice to proceed.
Task Description
Estimate
Schedule
Task 1
Draft Scope of Ordinance
$
1,260
December
Task 2
Present the Scope to City Council
$
840
January
Task 3
Prepare Draft Ordinance
$
10,250
Jan -Feb
Task 4
Present Draft Ordinance to Planning Commission
$
1,050
March
Task 5
Present Draft Ordinance to CDRB
$
1,050
March
Task 6
Prepare Revisions
$
1,260
March
Task 7
Test the Ordinance
$
1,260
March
Task 8
Present to Joint PCICDRB
$
840
April
Task 9
Present to City Council
$
1,050
April
Task 10
Prepare Revisions
$
840
April
Task 11
Conduct Public Hearing
$
840
May
Task 12
Adoption of Ordinance
$
420
May /June
Total
$
20,960
The above budget estimate is inclusive of expenses limited to mileage for attending meetings. The above
assumes reproduction of drafts and presentation materials will be the responsibility of City Staff.
Upon approval of this approach HKGi will prepare a formal contract for services and will commence work
upon a written notice to proceed.
Agenda Item L4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Ken Roberts, Planner
SUBJECT:
PRIVATE STREET POLICY
DATE:
November 21
INTRODUCTION
At the request of the city manager, city staff has researched and prepared a policy about the
use of private streets in K88p|evvoVd. He requested that staff prepare such @ policy after
receiving concerns about the private streets and driveways in the New Century development.
DISCUSSION
There are several issues and concerns for the city to consider when reviewing the use of private
streets iDdevelopments. Private streets Or driveways allow development with:
1. No publicly dedicated right-of-way.
2. A narrower section width (from front tVfronU.
3. Smaller setbacks tn the pavement (because ofnnhQ ).
4. Usually a narrower pavement width. This means less storm water run off and lower costs
to build.
5. More flexibility in site design.
TV help visualize the differences between public and private streets, | had the city engineering
staff prepare the drawing on page three. This graphic shows how the city constructs a new
standard public street and how developers often build private streets in Maplewood.
Private streets and driveways, however, have on-going maintenance and ownership concerns.
|n the past, developers may not have always constructed them tO the same standards that the
city requires for public streets. This may include the amount of base material and/or the amount
of bituminous that the contractor installs for the surface of the street.
Residents that live along private streets have approached the city in the past about the
possibility nf having the city take over the ownership and maintenance 0f these privately-owned
driveways. The city engineering department is now doing a feasibility study in one neighborhood
of the condition of the private driveways and the costs for repairing them. Once they have
completed the study, they will present their findings k}the city council.
In response to the issues and concerns about developments with private streets, staff has
prepared the attached Rnednnbo| Fork/ate Street Policy. Staff has o[tenno[ed in this policy to
include the purpose, policy and standards the city should follow when considering any
development with private streets.
COMMISSION ACTION
On November 20,2006,the planning commission recommended that the city council adopt the
proposed private street policy for use in Maplewood.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and provide the city with comments and direction about the draft of the residential
private street policy. If the council is satisfied with the proposed policy, they may choose to
adopt it for use in the city.
P:\com street policy - 2006
Attachments:
1. Typical Street Sections
2. Residential Private Street Policy
2
Attachment 1
FRONT PUBLIC STREET FRONT
SETBACK ROW (TYPICAL) ROW SETBACK
30' -■ 60' 30' No
i
HOUSE DRIVEWAY BLVD CURB CURB BLVD DRIVEWAY HOUSE
14' 16' 16' 14'
120' -
FRONT
SETBACK
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
(TYPICAL)
i
FRONT
SETBACK
CURB CURB
STRUCTURE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY
20' 14' 14' 20'
.• 68' —
STRUCTURE
DESIGN! KR DATE: 11 -9 -06 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PANNING DEPT.
DRAWN: SAS TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS
REVISIONS
Attachment
MAPLEWOOD RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE STREET POLICY (Nov_21,2006)
The City of Maplewood recognizes that private streets may be necessary in certain instances to
overcome obstacles for a new development. The city intends to use this poli for private
driveways in new preliminary plats and planned unit developments. When the city determines
that private streets are warranted, it is the intent Of this policy that they utilize @ public street
mym[ern as o backbone and primary mode of access for the project. The city is not encouraging
the use oforthe construction of private mtnae[o or driveways, and the city has designed this
policy to address the following issues:
w
Outline the oanon in which the city should consider allowing private streets.
�
Govern the standards that the city will apply to developments proposing the creation of
additional private streets.
m
Specify the design standards that a developer must meet when constructing a private
street @S well @Sk88p|evvOOd'Sinspection policies.
w
Describe the responsibility of the developer in notifying potential buyers of private streets
within @dHve|OprOeDt.
The city discourages the use of private streets within new developments. The city may allow
private streets iD residential developments OD8limited basis if the city finds the following
conditions to exist:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes h unfeas or inappropriate tnoonn[nVcta
public street. |D making this determination, the city may consider the locat nfexisting
property lines, the shapes and dimensions of property, the location of existing homes
and streets, the proposed locations of structures, local or geographic conditions and the
existence Vf wetlands, creeks and streams.
(Z) After review the surrounding area, the city concludes that a0 extension Ofthe public
street system is not required t0 serve Other parcels in the area, improve @cceeS. or to
provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3) The use of@private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources
inc wetlands, slopes, creeks, streams, treed and forested areas and other
environmentally-sensitive features.
The following are the cases in which the city may consider approving private streets:
The city shall only allow private streets within G planned unit development (PUD)
Factors that the city Sh@U consider in a|k]vvDg private streets include topography Of the
development site, existing water bodies, streams and creeks, existing public street
3
�
pattern preservation of wetlands, wooded areas or other si natural features,
irregular dimensions Ofthe property and other unique fe@tUneS.
The city also may consider private streets within 8PUDif the city determines that there
is a need for the private streets to help achieve the affordable housing goals of the city.
Private street standards. K the city allows o private street, it shall be sub to the follow
U\ The owner or homeowner's assoc shall maintain the private streets in good
condition and shall have them plowed within 24 hours of a snowfall greater than two
inches. The owner or developer shall file with Ramsey County covenants about the
maintenance Ofthe private street against all benefiting prVpedieS. - [heCQvenGDtSOr
homeowner's association documents shall outline 8 finding mechanism for the long-term
care and maintenance of all the private streets and driveways within the development.
(2) The city may prohibit parking on the private street.
(3) Private streets that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructio snow
accumulation, Q[ poor maintenance are G public safety hazard. The city may remedy
munhnonddionaondonmemathennmtbmnktothepnopertvpunauonttoM.8.8429.1O1.
SUbd.1/C\.
(4) The developer or builder shall construct the private street with adequate drainage
fac tO convey storm water runoff. All such desi p|@nS8ndC8|CUk3tk]D3@ne
subject to the approval of the city engineer.
(5) The developer Vr contractor shall post street addresses Or city approved street name
si if required by city staff, at the point where the private street intersects the public
right-of-way. The city also may require additional street and address signs within @
development tOhelp eDSUFe public safety.
(0) The project engineer Sh@UdeSkgOthe private street k] minimize the impact upon
ad p@[Ce|S. The city may require rev ali specific building orientat
larger or different setbacks and landscaping k) minimize the impact. The developer or
contractor shall complete and have city approval Of@D erosion control plan before
starting construction.
(7) T private street must Le located within @ strip Ofproperty at least 3O feet wide
extending out to the public ' nr covered hva3O-kon[+mide easement that the
developer or builder permanently records over all benefited and impacted parcels.
(8) K88iOt8O8nce and repair of utilities that are VVhhiO the private street shall be the
responsibility ofthe benefiting proper All utilities within private streets shall b8
designed and constructed to meet or exceed city standards.
The following are the standards that the city will apply to developments proposing the creation
of additional private streets:
The city 8h@U not allow private streets if the street is intended or designed to
interconnect neighborhoods V[ public streets.
�
�
w The city discourages private streets with G through-street desi However, private
streets that function am driveways may beappropriate.
w
In order to better accommodate SnOvv storage in developments with private StneetB, the
city shall discourage direct driveway access and guest parking on private streets that
�
Buildings front on o private a[naat nho|| be set back m nnininnunn of 22 feet from the
w The maximum length of private dead end street shall be 800 feet.
The developer Or contractor shall post all dead end streets @Ssuch.
w The city shall discourage locating more t 24 units on any single private street.
m
The minimum width for private streets am defined from back of curb [n back of curb shall
be as follows:
Number of Potential
Units Served
Type of Street
Minimum Width
(Back to Back)
4 Units or less
No curb and gutter
14 feet
5 to 24 Units*
Concrete curb and gutter
24 feet
Off street cluest parking and posted fire lanes shall be provided.
The following are the des�qn standards that a developer or contractor shall follow to construct a
m
All private streets Sh@|| be constructed to the current city CrQSg-SeoUOn8] desi
*
All dead-ends or[umm-aroundm shall be designed and constructed to city standards and
m
City personnel may inspect the construction of private streets during the installation and
CO0StFUCUVn to verify that the CODtr@CtOr USeS the proper des nO@ter@|S and
construction techniques.
The followinq are the responsibility of the developer in notifyinq potential buyers of private
w
Private street sign name blades shall be blue in lieu of the standard city Street Sign color
of green. In addition to the private street nannn the name blade also mhoU have the word
^PrivatH" located VDittoidentify further the private nature Of the roadway V[street.
w The Developer Agreement shall stipulate that the developer nhsd| inform potential
buyers of private streets located within the development in the marketing 0Gteh@|S and
iD the closing documents.
�
�
Notwithstanding the ability of a development proposal to meet the criteria and
standards the city included in this policy, the city council reserves the right to
deny a request for private streets based on other factors where the city council
determines that such denial is in the best interest of the city.
City Manager
Date
Effective Date: December 2006
Revision Date:
0
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11. ROLL CALL
Vice - Chairperson Tushar Desai
Commissioner Mary Dierich
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Michael Grover
Commissioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present at 7:06 p.m.
Staff Present: Dave Fisher Interim Community Development Director, Building Official
Erin Laberee Assistant City Engineer
Ken Roberts Planner
Lisa Kroll Recording Secretary
a. City Private Street Policy
Mr. Roberts said at the request of the city manager, city staff has researched and prepared a draft
policy about the use of private streets in Maplewood. (The report was compiled by staff based on
reports from two different cities but written with Maplewood in mind.) The city manager requested
staff prepare a policy after receiving concerns about the private streets and driveways in the New
Century development. Staff has attempted to include the purpose, policy and standards the city
should follow when considering any development with private streets. This is the starting point of
the policy in draft form and staff would like input from the planning commission.
There are several issues and concerns for the city to consider when reviewing the use of private
streets in developments. Private streets or driveways allow development with:
1. No publicly dedicated right -of -way.
2. A narrower section width (from front to front).
3. Smaller setbacks to the pavement (because of no right -of -way).
4. Usually a narrower pavement width. This means less storm water run off and lower costs to
build.
5. More flexibility in site design.
Private streets or driveways haven't always been built to the same standards that the city has so
ongoing maintenance can be a concern. There has been at least one townhome association
approach the city about taking back the private streets with the reasoning being they pay taxes
and aren't getting their streets plowed and that doesn't seem fair.
Planning Commission -2-
Minutes of 11 -20 -06
The city's concern is they don't want to take back substandard streets so now the city council
recently authorized the engineering department to do a feasibility study to research the condition
of the streets and utilities. Once the study is done the findings will be presented to the city council.
Commissioner Hess asked as part of the standards for city streets and private drives has the city
discussed the issue of durability or base aggregate compaction, the asphalt course materials and
the finished asphalt course materials as far as durability issues go for private and public streets?
Ms. Laberee said when it's a public street the city has control over everything and the city would
make sure the street is built to city standards. The city doesn't have that quality control over a
private street when it's being constructed. As a city we aren't out there continuing to watch over
the development of the private street to ensure the same construction standards are being used
like they would for public streets in the city. In fact, on a few public street projects the city has
even taken over the project rather than using a developer.
Commissioner Hess asked in the future, if a private street wants to become a public street and the
private street isn't built to the city standards and starts to have potholes and other problems, what
does the developer have to do to be in compliance with the street conditions that the city follows?
Ms. Laberee said there is a test section underway at Crestview Forest Drive where the residents
have petitioned to have the street converted from a private to a public street. Right now the city is
in the process of conducting a feasibility study and the city will be looking at what would have to
be done to bring the private street into compliance. If the private street isn't up to the city code and
city conditions we have to determine what does that mean exactly? What has to be done before
the city will take over a private street and changing it over to a public street? The city is working
on those questions and hopefully that will all be answered after the feasibility study is complete.
Commissioner Trippler said he thought the private street policy report was well thought out and
thinks this would work well as a good policy for "future" developments. If the city looks at acquiring
private streets in the future they should grant private street construction rights based on the
requirement that a developer build the street to the city standards like a public street is built in
Maplewood and not built to substandard conditions. He asked if this private street policy
addressed cul -de -sacs and/or turnarounds? It seems when a developer asks the city for a private
street the city tends to allow the developer more leeway regarding how the developer finishes the
end of the street off when it isn't a thru street. He thinks there should be stricter restrictions for
that.
Mr. Roberts said that is a good recommendation. We could include language stating the private
road should be built to the satisfaction of the fire marshal or something of that nature.
Commissioner Dierich was happy to see this private street policy draft because her husband has
been dealing with this issue for the New Century development. She thinks staff did a good job
writing this draft policy. She thinks we also need to address the issue of restrictive covenants and
how they are written because this whole issue stems from a poorly written set of restrictive
covenants in the New Century development.
9
Planning Commission -3-
Minutes of 11 -20 -06
Commissioner Dierich said the people that are upset about this are upset because people are
driving through their development and there isn't enough money in the townhome fund to pay to
resurface the private street because the builder of the townhomes won't pay his portion of money
to get this done because he hasn't rented all the units yet nor have they built all of the units yet.
This is a large expense to resurface the private road and no way to pay for it without raising the
association fees in the development. Commissioner Dierich said the city may need to broaden this
policy even more to make sure there is enough funding available so the association can maintain
the townhomes and the private streets. She likes the idea of making these streets into dead end
streets and not connecting them to a public place. The residents in the New Century development
will probably ask to have their street made into a dead end. She believes this development should
be closed off and the public should come off of New Century Avenue. She said there should be a
turnaround for the really long driveways that would be large enough to accommodate a large fire
truck and she would like more specific language added to the policy. She would like to see the
colors of the street signs look different and have a sign that says Dead End so people don't drive
down the street nosing around.
Chairperson Fischer asked staff to review what they look for when checking over the covenants
and association agreements in developments when they are built?
Mr. Roberts said staff doesn't have the knowledge or expertise to review covenants and look at
funding and who is going to pay for what and when. Staff looks for things in the association rules
such as retaining walls on a site and that there is a list of responsibility parties listed in
homeowners' association. Associations or covenants have various rules and regulations that
many times city staff is not concerned about such as where your garbage can be put, where you
can park boats etc. If there were specific conditions for a particular development that were
required by the city council those should be included in the covenants so everyone knows about
those restrictions and conditions are and what the level of responsibility is. The city attorney would
also have to be involved in the review of the townhome or homeowner association rules.
Commissioner Dierich said it defeats the purpose of having affordable housing if you move into an
affordable house and then have association fees so high that it makes it unaffordable. This could
happen when you have private streets in a development and there are added expenses to
maintain the development and the association fees have to be raised to cover those expenses.
Commissioner Trippler said the staff report says the engineering department is doing the
feasibility study for the private drives. However, the city is currently under a budget crunch and
there is lack of staff and staff time to do anything other than the bare essentials so it doesn't fit
when you say the engineering department is taking on this feasibility study based on those facts.
If a private entity wanted to convert a private driveway and have the city take it over, why wouldn't
the private entity do the feasibility study and provide the findings to the city?
Mr. Roberts said the homeowners association had to post an escrow with the city to cover costs.
Ms. Laberee can elaborate more on the study.
Ms. Laberee said the engineering staff is doing the feasibility study so that the city doesn't have to
analyze a report and make changes to the report done by another firm which would waste time
and money so the city prefers to take the project on themselves.
im
Planning Commission -4-
Minutes of 11 -20 -06
Commissioner Pearson said he isn't sure what the residents' problems are. The private streets
were put in before their homes were built. Now the residents are looking at the costs of
maintaining and plowing those private streets and now they want the city to absorb the cost by
converting the road to public. Underneath the streets are gas, electric, water and sewer and every
time something needs to be fixed it's going to be a cost in the city in the future. Commissioner
Pearson said the people buying into these developments need due diligence and should look at
the ability of the developer to fulfill those maintenance agreements. Maybe the city should look at
requiring larger escrows to ensure the work is completed. Otherwise the residents are going to
have to assess themselves to pay for upcoming costs. Commissioner Pearson said somebody is
going to ask what is magic about 22 -foot setback where there is gas, electric, water and sewer in
the streets. He said if you changed that setback to 10 feet he would be the first to sign up. He said
he lives in a neighborhood with private streets and their gas, electric, water and sewer isn't
underground, it's located elsewhere on the property. He said he thinks this is a bad idea for the
city to research or to get involved in. The people that bought into a private development are going
to have to work their way out of this, perhaps they could sell out to another investor.
Mr. Roberts said the policy as it was drafted, was intended for the city council to decide if they
want to adopt this and staff would put it in place for future developments.
Commissioner Pearson said he agrees with the policy for "future" developments but not for
"current" developments and conditions. He believes this would open Pandora's box by taking over
existing problems with private drives and bringing the streets up to city standards and changing
them to a public street.
Mr. Roberts said the primary emphasis is for future developments and deciding if the city is going
to allow private streets or drives in the future.
Commissioner Yarwood said the city needs to protect themselves in the future. If far some reason
the city takes over the private street and the standards aren't up to par, it will cost the city money
in the future. To prevent neighborhood degradation, if the streets aren't built properly and are built
with substandard conditions and the people that live there cannot afford to replace or resurface
the streets, then it is a detriment to the way the neighborhood and the way the city looks. To him
it's almost a no brainer requiring consistent street construction standards for all developments
private or public.
Commissioner Trippler said he agrees with Commissioner Pearson's comments that it's a bad
idea for the city to take over private streets, particularly if they were engineered and installed to
substandard conditions.
Mr. Roberts said the feasibility study will tell the city what it would cost to bring the road up to city
standards if it was constructed with substandard conditions. The city council may say the city
won't take over a private drive until the developer fixes the road and brings it up to city standards.
If the developer cannot pay to bring the road up to city standards and there are 50 homeowners
on a private street willing to pay money up front to bring the road up to city standards before the
city takes over the private drive and converts it to a public street, that may be okay.
Chairperson Fischer said the intent of this policy is for "future" developments. She asked if the city
sees the next stage as taking existing private drives and converting them to public streets?
11
Planning Commission -5-
Minutes of 11 -20 -06
Mr. Roberts said depending on what the feasibility study tells the city council that could be the
next step.
Commissioner Trippler recommended that city staff take the Private Street Policy to the city
council.
Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes — Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess,
Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood
The motion passed.
12
Agenda lem L5
Memo
Date: 12/5/2006
To: Greg Copeland, City Manager
Cc: Chief, Steve Lukin
From:Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal
RE: Smoke from Burning Wood
Councilmember Rossbach requested information on smoke from wood
burning appliances and/or recreational fires that cause problems with
citizens.
Our city ordinance 18-31-10 is the ordinance that takes care of Nuisance
Affecting Health, Safety or Comfort. This sections deals with dense smoke,
noxious fumes, gas, root and cinders in unreasonable quantities.
I attached the section 18-31-10 from our city ordinance and highlighted the
section I reference.
I have attached a section from NFPA (National Fire Protection Association)
Chapter 12 this deals with Solid Fuel-Burning Appliances. I highlighted the
sections that deal with installing, location and clearances.
If there are any questions please feet free to contact me.
§ 18-29 MAPLEWOOD CODE
See. 18-29. Rental agents to disclose name of owner or principal to city manager
- upon request.
Every agent or other person having the charge, control or management or who collects or
receives the rents of any lands, premises or other property in the city shall disclose the name
of the owner of such land, premises or property or the name of the person for whom such agent
or other person is acting, upon application being made therefor by the city manager.
(Code 1982, § 19-5)
See. 18-30. Public nuisances generally.
A public nuisance is a thing, act or use of property which shall:
(1) Annoy, injure or endanger the health, safety, comfort or repose of the public;
(2) Offend public
(3) Unlawfully interfere with the use of or obstruct or tend to obstruct or render dangerous
for passage a public water, park, square, street, alley or highway;
(4) Depreciate the value of the property of the inhabitants of the city or of a considerable
number thereof; or
(5) In any way render the inhabitants of the city or a considerable number thereof
insecure in life or in use of property. 1 .
(Code 1982, § 19-6)
See. 18-31. Nuisances affecting health, safety, comfort or repose.
The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting health, safety, comfort or
repose:
(1) All decayed or unwholesome food offered for sale to the public;
(2) All diseased animals running at large;
(3) Milk which is produced by cows which have not been tested and found free of
tuberculosis within the year prior to the offering of such milk for sale to the public;
(4) Carcasses of animals not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death;
(5) Accumulations of rubbish, debris, tin cans or any other offensive materials;
(6) Privy vaults and garbage cans which are not flytight;
(7) Dumping the contents of any cesspool, privy vault or garbage can, except at places
authorized by law;
(8) All noxious weeds. Noxious weeds shall be as defined by the state department of
agriculture. Tall grasses and other rank growths that are adversely affecting the
public health, safety, welfare, comfort or repose shall also be considered a public
nuisance. Wetlands and public open space, such as parks, nature centers or county
ENVIRONMENT § 18-32
open space, are exempted from the tall grass part of this subsection. The noxious weed
requirements shall apply. The environmental health officer shall interpret and enforce
this subsection, subject to an appeal to the city council;
(9) Throwing, dumping or depositing any dead animals, manure, garbage, decaying
matter, ashes, rubbish, tin cans or other putrescent material of any kind on public or
private property which is not designated as a public dump;
(10) Dense smoke, noxious fumes, gas and soot, or cinders in un reasonable quantities;
(11) Offensive trades and businesses, as defined by statute or ordinance, not licensed as
provided by law;
(12) All public exposure of persons having a contagious disease;
(13) The distribution of samples of medicines or drugs unless such samples are placed in
the hands of an adult person by someone properly licensed;
(14) All other acts, omissions of acts, occupations and uses of property which are deemed by
the city council to be a menace to the health of the inhabitants of the city or a
considerable number thereof;
(15) The throwing, dumping or depositing of ground soil, sand, stones or other inert
'mAt Hal or private property, without obtaining a permit from the depart-
meat of public works; or
(16) All rats or rat harborages on private or public premises.
(Code 1982, § 19-7)
See. 18-32. Nuisances affecting morals and decency.
The following are. hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting public morals and
decency:
(1) All gambling devices, slot machines and punchboards;
(2) Betting, bookmaking and all apparatus used in such occupations;
t�
(3) All houses kept for the purpose of prostitution or promiscuous sexual intercourse,
gambling houses, houses of ill fame, and bawdy houses;
(4) All places where intoxicating liquors are manufactured, sold, bartered or given away
in violation of law; where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking
intoxicating liquors as a beverage contrary to law; where intoxicating liquors are kept
for sale, barter or distribution in violation of law; and all liquors, bottles, kegs, pumps,
bars and other property kept at and used for maintaining such a place;
(5) Any vehicle used for the illegal transportation of intoxicating liquor or any immoral
purpose;
(6) All indecent, lascivious or obscene pictures, books, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers,
phonograph records and billboards which arouse prurient interest;
12.1 Appliances.
Solid fuel-burning appliances shall be one of the following:
(1) Listed and installed in accordance with the terms of their listing and this chapter
(2) Approved by the AHJ
12.1.1 Unlisted appliances approved by the AHJ shall be installed as follows:
(1) In accordance with the manufacturer's instructions
(2) As specified in this chapter
12.1.2 The requirements in 12. 1.1 shall not apply to mobile home installations.
12.2 Location of Appliances.
12.2.1 Every appliance shall be located with respect to building construction and other
equipment to allow access to the appliance.
12.2.2 Solid fuel-burning appliances shall not be installed in alcoves or enclosed spaces less
than 512 W (14.5 M3) unless specifically listed for such use.
12.2.2.1 Solid fuel-burning appliances listed for installation in enclosed spaces or alcoves less
than 512 R (14.5 M3) shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the listing and
the manufacturer's instructions.
12.2.2.2 The space or room shall be sized to allow circulation of heated air.
12.2.2.3 Appliances shall be so located as not to interfere with the circulation of air within the
heated space.
12.2.3 Solid fuel-burning appliances shall not be installed in any location where gasoline or
any other flammable vapors or gases are present.
12.2.4 Solid fuel-burning appliances shall not be installed in any garage.
Z�I ID
12.3 Air for Combustion and Ventilation.
12.3.1 Solid fuel-burning appliances shall be installed in a location and manner so as to
provide ventilation and combustion air supply to allow proper combustion of fuel, chimney
draft, and maintenance of safe temperatures.
12.3.2 Where buildings are so tight that normal infiltration does not provide the necessary air,
outside air shall be introduced.
Copyright NFPA
12.4 Chimney Connections and Usage.
12.4.1 Chimney Connection. All solid fuel-burning appliances shall be connected to chimneys
in accordance with Chapter 9.
12.4.1.1 The chimney provided shall be in accordance with Table 5.2.2.
12.4.1.2 Galvanized steel pipe shall not be used for solid fuel-burning appliances.
12.4.2 Clearance. The clearance of chimney connectors to combustible material shall be in
accordance with Table 9.5.1.1.
12.4.3 Inspection and Cleaning Access. Connectors and chimneys for solid fuel-burning
appliances shall be designed, located, and installed to allow access for internal inspection and
cleaning.
12.4.4Y Flue Cross-Sectional Area. For residential-type, natural draft solid fuel-burning
appliances, the flue shall meet the following conditions:
(1) The cross-sectional area of the flue shall not be less than the cross-sectional area of the
appliance flue collar, unless specified by the appliance manufacturer.
(2) The cross-sectional area of the flue of a chimney with no walls exposed to the outside
below the roofline shall not be more than three times the cross-sectional area of the
appliance flue collar.
(3) The cross-sectional area of the flue of a chimney with one or more walls exposed to the
outside below the roofline shall not be more than two times the cross-sectional area of
the appliance flue collar.
12.4.5 Connection to Masonry Fireplaces.
12.4.5.1 A natural draft solid fuel-burning appliance such as a stove or insert shall be permitted
to use a masonry fireplace flue where the following conditions are met:
(1) There is a connector that extends from the appliance to the flue liner.
(2) The cross-sectional area of the flue is no smaller than the cross-sectional area of the flue
collar of the appliance, unless otherwise specified by the appliance manufacturer.
(3)* The cross-sectional area of the flue of a chimney with no walls exposed to the outside
below the roofline is no more than three times the cross-sectional area of the appliance
flue collar.
(4) The cross-sectional area of the flue of a chimney with one or more walls exposed to the
outside below the roofline is no more than two times the cross-sectional area of the
appliance flue collar.
(5) If the appliance vents directly through the chimney wall above the smoke chamber, there
Copyright NFPA
shall be a noncombustible seal below the entry point of the connector.
(6) The installation shall be such that the chimney system can be inspected and cleaned.
(7) Means shall be provided to prevent dilution of combustion products in the chimney flue
with air from the habitable space.
12.4.5.2 Listed fireplace accessories shall be permitted to use a masonry fireplace flue in
accordance with their listing.
12.4.6 Existing Flue Use. Another solid fuel-burning appliance shall not be installed using an
existing flue serving a factory-built fireplace unless the appliance is specifically listed for such
installation.
12.5 Mounting.
12.5.1 Mounting for Residential-Type Appliances.
Z!)
12.5.1.1 General Requirements.
12.5.1.1.1 Residential-type solid fuel-burning appliances that are tested and listed by a
recognized testing laboratory for installation on floors constructed of combustible materials
shall be placed on floors in accordance with the requirements of the listing and the conditions
of approval.
12.5.1.1.2 Appliances that are not listed by a recognized testing laboratory shall be provided
with floor protection in accordance with the provisions of 12.5.1.2 or 12.5.1..3.
12.5.1.1.3 Residential-type solid fuel-burning appliances shall be permitted to be placed
without floor protection in any of the following manners:
tZ,
(1) On concrete bases adequately supported on compacted soil, crushed rock, or gravel
(2) On concrete slabs or masonry arches that do not have combustible materials attached to
the underside
(3) On approved assemblies constructed of only noncombustible materials and having a fire
resistance rating of not less than 2 hours, with floors constructed of noncombustible
material
(4) On properly stabilized ground that can support the load of the appliance
12.5.1.1.4 Any floor assembly, slab, or arch shall extend not less than 18 in. (457 mm) beyond
the appliance on all sides.
12.5.1.1.5 In lieu of the requirements for floor protection specified herein, a floor protector
listed by a recognized testing laboratory and installed in accordance with the installation
instructions shall be permitted to be employed.
12.5.1.1.6 Concrete bases, concrete slabs, masonry arches, and floor-ceiling assemblies and
Copyright NTPA
their supports shall be designed and constructed to support the appliances.
12.5.1.2 Room Heaters, Fireplace Stoves, Room Heater/Fireplace Stove Combinations,
and Ranges.
12.5.1.2.1 Room heaters, fireplace stoves, room heater/fireplace stove combinations, or ranges
that are set on legs or pedestals that provide not less than 6 in. (152 min) of ventilated open
space beneath the fire chamber or base of the appliance shall be permitted to be placed on floors
of combustible construction, provided the following conditions exist:
(1) The floor under the appliance is protected with closely spaced solid masonry units not
less than 2 in. (51 min) in thickness.
(2) The top surface of the masonry is covered with sheet metal not less than 24 gauge
[0.024 in. (0.61 mm)].
(3) The floor protection extends not less than 18 in. (457 mm) beyond the appliance on all
sides.
12.5.1.2.2 Room heaters, fireplace stoves, room heater/fireplace stove combinations, or ranges
that are set on legs or pedestals providing 2 in. to 6 in. (51 nun to 152 nun) of ventilated open
space beneath the fire chamber or base of the appliance shall be permitted to be placed on floors
of combustible construction, provided the following conditions exist:
, (I) The floor under the appliance is protected with one course of hollow masonry units not
less than 4 in. (1 02 min) in nominal thickness.
(2) The masonry units are laid with ends unsealed and joints matched in such a way as to
provide free circulation of air through the core spaces of the masonry.
(3) The top surface of the masonry is covered with sheet metal not less than 24 gauge
[0.024 in. (0.61 mm)].
(4) The floor protection extends not less than 18 in. (457 mm) beyond the appliance on all
sides.
12.5.1.2.3 Room heaters, fireplace stoves, room heater/fireplace stove combinations, or ranges
with legs or pedestals that provide less than 2 in. (51 min) of ventilated open space beneath the
fire chamber or base of the appliance shall not be placed on floors of combustible construction.
12.5.1.3 Furnaces and Boilers.
12.5.1.3.1 Furnaces or boilers with legs or pedestals that provide not less than 6 in. (152 mm)
of ventilated open space beneath the fire chamber or base of the appliance shall be permitted to
be placed on floors of combustible construction, provided the floor under the appliance has the
following characteristics:
(1) It is protected with one course of hollow masonry units not less than 4 in. (102 min) in
thickness.
Copyright NFPA
(2) The masonry units are laid with ends unsealed and joints matched in such a way as to
provide free circulation of air through the core spaces of the masonry.
(3) The top surface of the masonry is covered with a steel plate not less than 16 in. (4.8
mm) in thickness.
(4) The floor protection extends not less than 18 in, (457 mm) beyond the appliance on all
sides.
12.5.1.3.2 Furnaces or boilers that are set on legs or pedestals that provide 2 in. to 6 in. (51 mm
to 152 mm) of ventilated open space beneath the fire chamber or base of the appliance shall be
permitted to be placed on floors of combustible construction, provided the floor under the
appliance has the following characteristics:
(1) It is protected with two courses of hollow masonry units, each not less than 4 in, (102
mm) in thickness.
(2) The masonry units are laid with ends unsealed and joints matched in such a way as to
provide free circulation of air through the core spaces of the masonry.
(3) The top surface of the masonry is covered with a steel plate not less than 3 /16 in. (4.8
nun) in thickness.
(4) The floor protection extends not less than 18 in. (457 nun) beyond the appliance on all
sides.
12.5.1.3.3 Furnaces or boilers with legs or pedestals that provide less than 2 in. (51 mm) of
ventilated open space beneath the fire chamber or base of the appliance shall not be placed on
floors of combustible construction.
12.5.2 Mounting for Low-Heat Nonresidential Appliances.
12.5.2.1 Low-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances that have been tested and listed
by a recognized testing laboratory for placement on floors constructed with a combustible
material shall be placed on floors in accordance with the requirements of the listing and
conditions of approval.
12.5.2.1.1 Appliances that are not listed by a recognized testing laboratory shall be provided
with floor protection in accordance with the provisions of 12.5.2.3 or 12.5.2.4.
12.5.2.1.2 Low-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances shall be permitted to be
placed without floor protection in any of the following manners:
(1) On floors constructed of noncombustible materials and having a fire resistance rating of
not less than 2 hours that extend not less than 18 in. (457 mm) beyond the appliance on
all sides
(2) On concrete bases adequately supported on compacted soil, crushed rock, or gavel
Copyright NFPA
(3) On properly stabilized ground that can support the load of the appliance
12.5.2.2 Concrete bases, concrete slabs, and floors shall be designed and constructed to support
the appliances.
12.5.2.3 Low-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances that are set on legs or pedestals
that provide not less than 18 in. (457 mm) of ventilated open space beneath the fire chamber or
base of the appliance shall be permitted to be placed on floors of combustible construction,
provided the following conditions exist:
(1) The floor under the appliance is protected with one course of hollow masonry units not
less than 4 in. (102 nun) in thickness.
(2) The masonry units are laid with ends unsealed and joints matched in such a way as to
provide free circulation of air through the core spaces of the masonry.
L:� -
(3) The top surface of the masonry is covered with a steel plate not less than 3 /16 in. (4.8
mm) in thickness.
(4) The floor protection extends not less than 18 in. (457 mm) beyond the appliance on all
sides.
12.5.2,4 Low-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances that are set on legs or pedestals
zz�
that provide 6 in. to 18 in. (152 nun to 457 min) of ventilated open space beneath the fire
chamber or base of the appliance shall be permitted to be placed on floors of combustible
construction, provided the following conditions exist:
(1) The floor under the appliance is protected with two courses of hollow masonry units,
each not less than 4 in. (102 mm) in thickness.
(2) The masonry units are laid with ends unsealed and j oints matched in such a way as to
provide free circulation of air through the core spaces of the masonry.
(3) The top surface of the masonry is covered with a steel plate not less than %6 in. (4.8
mm) in thickness.
(4) The floor protection extends not less than 18 in. (457 nim) beyond the appliance on all
sides.
12.5.2.5 Low-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances with legs or pedestals that
provide less than 6 in. (152 mm) of ventilated open space beneath the fire chamber or base of
the appliance shall not be placed on floors of combustible construction.
12.5.3 Mounting for Medium-Heat Nonresidential Appliances.
12.5.3.1 Medium-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances that have been tested and
C�
listed by a recognized testing laboratory for placement on floors constructed with a combustible
material shall be placed on floors in accordance with the requirements of the listing and
Copyright NFPA
conditions of approval.
12.5.3.1.1 Appliances that are not listed by a recognized testing laboratory shall be provided
with floor protection in accordance with the provisions of 12.5,3.3 or 12.5.3.4.
12.5.3.1.2 Medium-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances shall be permitted to be
placed without floor protection in any of the following manners:
C�
(1) On concrete bases adequately supported on compacted soil, crushed rock, or gravel
(2) On floors constructed of noncombustible materials and having a fire resistance rating of
not less than 2 hours that extend not less than 3 ft (0.92 in) beyond the appliance on all
sides and 8 ft (2.45 in) beyond the front or side where ashes are removed
(3) On properly stabilized ground that can support the load of the appliance
12.5.3.2 Concrete bases, concrete slabs, and floors shall be designed and constructed to support
the appliances.
12.5.3.3 Medium-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances that are set on legs or
r:�
pedestals that provide not less than 24 in. (610 mm) of ventilated open space beneath the fire
chamber or base of the appliance shall be permitted to be placed on floors of combustible
construction, provided the floor under the appliance has the following characteristics:
(1) It is protected with one cours of hollow masonry units not less than 4 in. (1 02 mm) in
thickness.
(2) The masonry units are laid with ends unsealed and j oints matched in such a way as to
provide free circulation of air through the core spaces of the masonry.
(3) The top surface of the masonry is covered with a steel plate not less than %6 in. (4.8
mm) in thickness.
(4) The floor protection extends not less than 3 ft (0.92 m) beyond the appliance on all sides
and 8 ft (2.45 m) beyond the front or side where ashes are removed.
12.5.3.4 Medium-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances that are set on legs or
pedestals that provide 18 in. to 24 in. (457 nun to 610 mm) of ventilated open space beneath the
fire chamber or base of the appliance shall be permitted to be placed on floors of combustible
construction, provided the floor under the appliance has the following characteristics:
(1) It is protected with two courses of hollow masonry units, each not less than 4 in. (1 02
mm) in thickness.
(2) The masonry units are laid with ends unsealed and joints matched in such a way as to
provide free circulation of air through the core spaces of the masonry.
(3) The top surface of the masonry is covered with a steel plate not less than %6 in. (4.8
mm) in thickness.
Copyright NFPA
(4) The floor protection extends not less than 3 ft (0.92 in) beyond the appliance on all sides
and 8 ft (2.45 in) beyond the front or side where ashes are removed.
12.5.3.5 Medium-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances with legs or pedestals that
provide less than 18 in. (457 nun) of ventilated open space beneath the fire chamber or base of
the appliance shall not be placed on floors of combustible construction.
12.5.4 Mounting of High -Heat Nonresidential Appliances.
Zn
12.5,4.1 High-heat nonresidential solid fuel-burning appliances shall be placed in one of the
following manners:
On concrete bases adequately supported on compacted soil, crushed rock, Or gravel
(2) On floors constructed of noncombustible materials and having a fire resistance rating of
not less than 2 hours that extend not less than 10 ft (3.1 in) beyond the appliance on all
sides and not less than 30 ft (9.2 m) beyond the front or side where hot products are
removed
(3) On properly stabilized ground that can support the load of the appliance
12.5.4.2 Concrete bases and floors shall be designed and constructed to support the appliances.
t;
12.5.4.3 fuel-burning High-heat nonresidential solid appliances shall not be placed on floors of
ZI 4D
combustible construction.
12.6 Clearances from Solid Fuel-Burning Appliances.
12.6.1 The clearance shall be not less than specified in Table 12-6.1.
Table 12.6.1 Standard Clearances for Solid Fuel-Burning
Above Top of Casing From Front
or Appliance; Above
Top and Sides of
Furnace Plenum or
Bonnet
Type! of Appliance in, mm in. ml
Residential Appliances 6 152 48 121
Steam boilers —15 psi (103 kPa)
Water boilers — 250 °F (121 "C) max.
Water boilers — 200OF (93 °C) max.
All water walled or jacketed
Fw7iaces
Gravity and forced airs
Room Heaters, Fireplace Stoves, Fireplace Inserts, Combinations
Ranges
Lined fire chamber
18
457
48
121
36
914
36
91,
30 2
762a
36
91
Copyright NFPA
Table 12.6.1 Standard Clearances for Solid Fuel-Burning
Above Top of Casing From Front
or Appliance; Above
Top and Sides of
Furnace Plenum or
Bonnet
Type of Appliance in. mm in. HIT
Unlined fire chamber 30a 762a 36 91.
a To combustible material or metal cabinets. If the underside of such combustible material or metal cabinet is proteci
in. (0.61 mm)], spaced out I in. (25.4 mm), the distance shall be permitted to be reduced to not less than 24 in. (610
b Adequate clearance for cleaning and maintenance shall be provided.
c Provisions for fuel storage shall be located at least 36 in. (914 mm) from any side of the appliance.
d For clearances from air ducts, see NFPA 9013, Standard for the Installation of JYarn? Air Heating andAir-Conditic
12.6.1.1 Appliances listed for installation with clearances less than specified in Table 12.6.1
shall be permitted to be installed in accordance with the terms of their listing and the
ZD
manufacturer's instructions.
12.6.1.2 Heating furnaces and boilers and water heaters specifically listed for installation in
spaces such as alcoves shall be permitted to be so installed in accordance with the terms of their
listing, provided the specified clearance is maintained regardless of whether the enclosure is of
combustible or noncombustible material.
12.6.1.3 These clearances shall apply to appliances installed in rooms that are large in
comparison with the size of the appliances.
12.6.2 Clearance Reduction.
12.6.2.1 Clearances from listed and unlisted solid fuel-burning appliances to combustible
material shall be permitted to be reduced if the combustible material is protected as described in
Table 12.6.2.1 and in Figure 12.6.2.1(a) through Figure 12.6.2.1 (f).
Table 12.6.2.1 Reduction of Appliance Clearance with Specified I
Clearance Reduction Applied to and Covering All Combustible
M
Maximum Allowable
Surfaces within the Distance Specified as Required Clearance with No
Reduction in Clearance
As Wall As Ceiling
it
Protection (See 12.6.1 through I2.6.1.3)
Protector Protector
(a) 3 1 /2 in. (90 mm) thick masonry wall without ventilated air space
33 —
(b) I/.- in. (13 mm) thick noncombustible insulation board over 1 -in.
50 33
(25.4-mm) glass fiber or mineral wool Batts without ventilated air
space
(c) 0.024 -in. (0.61 -mm), 24-gauge sheet metal over 1 -in. (25.4-mm)
66 50
glass fiber or mineral wool batts reinforced with wire, or equivalent,
on rear face with ventilated air space
Copyright NFPA
Table 12.6.2.1 Reduction of Appliance Clearance with Specified I
Clearance Reduction Applied to and Covering All Combustible Maximum Allowable
Surfaces within the Distance Specified as Required Clearance with No Reduction in Clearance (%) I
Protection (See 12.6.1 through 126.1.3) As Wall As Ceiling it
Protector Protector
(d) 31/2 in. (90 mm) thick masonry wall with ventilated air space 66 —
(e) 0.024-in. (01.61 -m), 24 -gauge sheet metal with ventilated air space 66 50
(f) I/z in. (13 mm) thick noncombustible insulation board with 66 50
ventilated air space
(g) 0.024-in. (0.61 -mm), 24-gauge sheet metal with ventilated air space 66 50
over 0.024-in. (0.61 -mm), 24-gauge sheet metal with ventilated air
space
(h) 1 -in. (25.4-nim) glass fiber or mineral wool Batts sandwiched 66 50
between two sheets 0,024-in. (0.61 -mm), 24 -gauge sheet metal with
ventilated air space
Notes:
1. All clearances and thicknesses are minimums; larger clearances and thicknesses may be permitted.
2. To calculate the minimum allowable clearance, the following formula can be used: Cpr = Cun 0 - R 00 )- Cpl. i!
required clearance with no protection, and R is the maximum allowable reduction in clearance.
3. Refer to Figures 12.6.2.1(e) and 12.6.2.1(f) for other reduced clearances using materials found in (a) through (h)
Copyright NFPA
Do not use spacers directly
b9hind appliance or connector
Combustible Noncombustible
wall = 0 spacers
Clearance
Wall reduction
system
Noncombustible
fasteners around
the perimeter
Leave 1 -in.
(25.4-mm) clearance
to floor, adjacent
walls, ceiling, for
air circulation FRONT VIEW
FIGURE 12.6.2.1(a) Clearance Reduction System — Fastener Location.
Copyright NFPA
4 in'
4 M M M
min
I U �
36 in. (914 mm)
reduction
system 6'
36 in.�
(914 mm)
To unprotected
11 wall
1 -In. (25.4-mm)
air space around
perimeter and
behind clearance
reduction system (457 mm)
Clearance to combustible
wall with protection as
specified in — table 9.5,12 or
Table 12.6-2.1
Floor protection
1131n.
(457 mm)
FIGURE 12.6.2.1(b) Distance to Combustible Wall/Floor.
1 - in, (25,4-mm) minN�
air space between
masonry and
combustible wall
4•in. 0 02-mm)
nominal brick wall
Bottom and top course
of brick staggered for
ventilation
A strip of heavy-gauge steel
can be used for added support
Combustible wall
Corrugated
metal wall
ties
Note. Do not place masonry wall ties directly
behind appliance or connector.
FIGURE 12.6.2.1(c) Masonry Clearance Reduction System.
Copyright NFPA
Masonry wall lie
Nail or screw
anchor
Clearance reduction
system
1-in, (25.4-rnm) noncornbusfible spacer
such as stacked washers, small - diameter pipe,
tubing, or electrical conduit
Masonry walls can be attached to combustible walls using Nvall ties.
Do not use spacers directly behind appliance or connector.
FIGURE 12.6.2.1(4) Fastener Detail.
Copyright'NTFPA
Materials (a) through (h) are per
the first column in Table
Material (a)
CO 06
0
a Material (b)
24
CD
0 _t"
See 12.6.2.1
fr_ hAntarinict it-1 thrntinh 1h1
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Approved or listed appliance clearance (in.)
For St units: I in, = 25.4 mm
FIGURE 12.6.2.1(e) Wall Protection Using Materials in Table 12.6.2.1.
trl
48 Materials (b), (o), and (e) through (h)
are from Table Materials (a) Material (b)
.0 and (d) are not expected to be used
— C 36 —
D as ceiling protection.
24—
T; Materials c), (e), (f),
W (g), (h)
0 21 — — — — — — — — — —
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Approved or listed appliance clearance (in.)
For SI units: 1 In, = 25.4 mm
FIGURE 12.6.2.1(f) Ceiling Protection Using, Materials in Table 12.6.2.1.
12.6.2.1.1 Where the required clearance with no protection is 36 in. (914 mm), the clearances
in Table 12.6.2.1 shall be the minimum allowable clearances. For other required clearances
with no protection, minimum allowable clearance shall be calculated from maximum allowable
reduction.
12.6.2.1.2 Unless the appliance is specifically listed for lesser clearance, the clearance after
reduction shall be not less than the following:
(1) 12 in. (305 mm) to combustible walls
(2) 18 in. (457 nun) to combustible ceilings
12.6.2.1.3 Spacers and ties shall be of noncombustible material. No spacers or ties shall be
Copyright NFPA
used directly behind appliance or conductor.
12.6.2.1.4 With all clearance reduction systems using a ventilated air space, adequate air
circulation shall be provided as described in 12.6.2.4. There shall be at least I in. (25.4 mm)
between the clearance reduction system and combustible walls and ceilings for clearance
reduction systems using a ventilated air space.
12.6.2.1.5 Mineral wool baits (blanket or board) shall have a minimum density of 8 lb/ft3
(128.7 kg/M3) and have a minimum melting point of 1500 ° F (816'C).
12.6.2.1.6 Insulation material used as part of clearance reduction system shall have a thermal
conductivity of 1.0 (Btu- in.) /(ft'- hr - ° F) or less. Insulation board shall be formed of
noncombustible material.
12.6.2.1.7 If a single-wall connector passes through a masonry wall used as a wall shield, there
shall be at least V2 in. (13 mm) of open, ventilated air space between the connector and the
masonry.
12.6.2.1.8 There shall be at least I in. (25.4 mm) between the appliance and the protector. In no
case shall the clearance between the appliance and the wall surface be reduced below that
allowed in this table.
12.6.2.1.9 Clearances in front of the loading door or ash removal door, or both, of the
appliance shall not be reduced from those in Section 12.5.
12.6.2.2 Clearances from solid fuel-burning appliances to combustible material shall be
permitted to be reduced, provided the combustible material is protected by an engineered
protection system acceptable to the A_HJ.
12.6.2.2.1 Engineered systems installed for the protection of combustible material shall reduce
the temperature of such materials to 90 °F (50 °C) rise above ambient.
12.6.2.2.2 System design shall be based on applicable heat transfer principles, talcing into
account the following:
(1) The geometry of the system
(2) The heat loss characteristics of the structure behind the combustible material
(3) The possible abnormal operating conditions of the heat-producing, sources
12.6.2.3 Clearances from solid fuel-burning appliances to combustible material shall be
permitted to be reduced by the use of materials or products listed for protection purposes.
12.6.2.3.1 Materials and products listed for the purpose of reducing clearance to combustibles
shall be installed in accordance with the conditions of the listing and the manufacturer's
instructions.
12.6.2.4 For clearance reduction systems using an air space between the combustible wall and
the wall protector, adequate air circulation shall be provided by one of the methods outlined in
Copyright NFPA
12.6.2.4.1 through 12.6.2.4.3 and illustrated in Figure 12.6.2.4.
Wall protector mounted
with all edges open
Mounted with side
and to edges open
Mounted with top
and bottom edges
Wall protector mounted
on single flat wall
See 12.6.2.4.2
Must be mounted with top
and bottom edges open
See 12.6.2.4.3
FIGURE 12.6.2.4 Air Circulation Methods,
12.6.2.4.1 Air circulation shall be permitted to be provided by leaving all edges of the wall
protector open with at least a 1 -in. (25.4-mm) air gap.
12.6.2.4.2 If the wall protector is mounted on a single flat wall away from comers, air
circulation shall be permitted to be provided by leaving only the bottom and top edges or only
the side and top edges open with at least a 1 -in. (25.4-mm) air gap.
12.6.2.4.3 Wall protectors that cover two walls in a comer shall be open at the bottom and top
edges with at least a 1 -in. (25.4-mm) air gap.
12.6.2.5 All clearances shall be measured from the outer surface of the combustible material to
the nearest point on the surface of the solid fuel-burning appliance, disregarding any
intervening protection applied to the combustible material.
Z:�
12.6.2.6 All clearances provided between solid fuel - burning appliances and combustible
materials shall be large enough to maintain sufficient clearances between chimney connectors
and combustible material as required in Section 9.5.
12.7 Accessories.
Copyright NFPA
Wall protector installed
in corner
Factory-built accessories for solid fuel-burning appliances such as heat exchangers, stove mats,
floor pads, and protection shields shall be listed and shall be installed in accordance with the
terms of their listing.
12.7.1 Unlisted accessories that are acceptable to the A_HJ shall be permitted to be installed in
accordance with the approval of the AHJ and the appliance and accessory manufacturers'
installation instructions.
Copyright NFPA
Agenda Item L6
A
k
U)W-W�w
NO