The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996 09-09 City Council PacketWATER SHED AREA SPRING 1995 WATER SHED AREA NORMAL VIEW L -OM ET rf-- SEP 41996 0 77v z "elz c , -.elve, M alwo Cb? — o (I W ,t t O-n 4 two a' .P,ou.n ,o.(ec oGc,a I 6 Q 7&9- 9sa TO: Maplewood City Council DATE: September 9, 1996 Dear Council Members, This letter is to voice some concerns we have regarding the proposed development of property directly behind our homes -- Highland Estates No. 4. We appreciate the information that has been made available to us and the opportunity to voice our concerns before this body. We are very interested in continuing to be a part of the planning /development process. We are extremely concerned that the proposed plan will create a tremendous increase of traffic for our street -- Lakewood Drive, and it's proposal for grading will cause future drainage problems. Each of these issues will cause a loss of property value for us and the rest of our neighbors. First, the grading plan calls for development on slopes greater than 25 percent. Not only will this mean the loss of most of the old growth trees, but could also cause some major problems with drainage. Other drainage problems (for example, directly across Highwood Ave. from our neighborhood) have surfaced with all the development in the area in recent years. The drainage "plan" for that area was not sufficient to keep from damaging the houses downhill from the new construction. Since the land behind us is the last natural drainage area in the neighborhood, we fear that there will be no place for all the run -off to go. (Frankly, we're glad we don't live downhill...) In addition, a number of these lots could end up so steep as to render them unbuildable." We have witnessed the problems facing homeowners with steep grades directly across the street from us, and would hate to see more new homeowners face the same problems. We've also seen that some of these unbuildable" lots are eventually sold at a cut -rate price and much less valuable homes are built on them. This hurts our property values. Finally, the current street plan puts all access to the new development on Lakewood Drive -- in fact, sandwiching our homes in between access points. Our street already is used as a thoroughfare for many other homes, and speeds have become excessive -- especially when you realize almost every house on the block has small children. We are very concerned about the increased traffic that this new addition will cause without an access point to Highwood Ave. to s'+ We had always understood from the property owners that when this land was developed, it would be in large, "estate - sized" lots that would fit the steep landscape and keep as much of the beautiful woods as possible -- which would only enhance our property values. We are now very concerned that this plan will do just the opposite. We hope that. you can help us address some of these very real concerns. We love our homes and our neighborhood and have put a lot of work into making them special. Here are some ways we feel the plan could be improved: 1) Elimination of the Cul -de -sac would reduce the number of lots, eliminating the need for such a steep grade; save many of the trees; lessen potential drainage problems; and decrease the development costs. 2) Creation of an additional entrance to the new development from Highwood. Avenue would lighten traffic to Lakewood Drive and diminish safety concerns for residents. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. With everyone's cooperation, we're sure we can make this new development a beautiful addition to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Steven & Marcia Willis 1053 S. Lakewood Drive Maplewood, M N 55119 612) 735 -2523 Todd Ekstrom &Dawn Duerre 1043 S. Lakewood Drive Maplewood, MN 55119 612) 735 -2341 G a MEMORANDUM TO:City Manager FROM:James Ericson, Planning Intern SUBJECT:Preliminary Plat PROJECT:Pieasantview Park Number 3 DATE:August 27, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Actioh by Cot ell Endorsed- difi ed. lRe J ected„...,........,. Dat Gonyea Corporation of Minneapolis is proposing to develop five single family house rots on a 1.97 -acre site around the existing house at 1021 Crestview Drive. Two of the lots would front on Lakewood Drive and three lots would front on Crestview Drive. The name of the plat is Pleasantview Park Number 3. The city has zoned. the site R -1 (single family residential). See the maps on pages 6 - 8. DISCUSSION Density and Lot Size As proposed, the lots would range from 10,132 square feet to 28,178 square feet with an average lot size of 17,150 square feet. (See the proposed plat on page 8.) Several neighbors thought that the lots in this plat were too small. The lots south of the site exceed 30,000 square feet while those to the north range from 10,160 square feet to 37,700 square feet. In Gonyea's Oak Heights 3rd Addition near this site, the lots range from 10,436 square feet to 12,600 square feet. Maplewood's comprehensive plan addresses residential development with 11 land use goals, 17 general development policies and 6 residential development policies. Of these, one policy directly relates to this proposed development: "The city coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood." Lot 3 of the proposed plat does not conform to the characteristics of the. surrounding neighborhood for three reasons: (1) it would require the creation of an irregular "L" shaped lot, (2) the proposed setback would be inconsistent with those of the adjacent homes, and (3) the proposed square- footage, although above the minimum requirement, would be much less than the areas of the other lots on the west side of Crestview Drive. Trees Maplewood's tree ordinance does not apply to trees under eight inches in diameter or box elder, cottonwoods or poplar trees. The ordinance requires there to be 10 large trees per gross acre. As applied to this 2 -acre site, the ordinance requires there be at least 20 large trees. While the applicant does not plan to grade the site and thus would not be removing any trees, the contractors would remove the trees where they build the new houses. Utility . Plans The proposed lots will not cause an expansion of city services as the utilities are already in place. The developer will not be constructing any roads or public improvements to service these lots as they all will front existing streets (Lakewood Drive and Crestwood Drive.) COMMISSION ACTION On August 18, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Pleasantview Park Number 3 preliminary plat (received by the city on July 19, 1996). This approval shall be subject to the developer completing the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1) Drop Lot 3 from the plat and combine the area with Lot 2. The city is requiring this change because: a. Lot 3 would be inconsistent with the size and shape of the adjacent. lots. b. The front setback on Lot 3 would be inconsistent with those of the homes on either side. c. Lot 2 would be an irregular "L" shaped lot. 2) Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a.. Cap and seal any wells on site. b. Remove any septic systems or drainfields. c. Remove or demolish the existing detached garage. 3) Provide all easements required by the city engineer. 4) Pay the city $70 per front foot for cash connection charges for the new lot(s) on Crestview Drive for the existing sanitary sewer and water. For proposed Lot 1, this charge will be $5609.80 ($70 x 80.14 feet). 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. E CITIZENS' COMMENTS We surveyed the 47 property owners within 350 feet of this site about this proposed project. Of the 31 replies, 4 had no comment, 1 was for, 25 objected and 1 had other comments. Refer also to the 4 citizens' letters beginning on page 9. Those for the proposal had the following comments: 1. All other lots in area are developed with single family houses. (Maids - 2322 Highwood Avenue E.) Those objecting to the proposed development had the following comments: 1. The only objection I have is that if I understand the map illustrating the proposed partition correctly, the frontage on some of the lots is 80 feet as opposed to 100 foot frontage for most of the houses in the neighborhood. I would approve the partitioning of the lot if 100 foot frontage requirement were met. (Federation - 992 Crestview Drive S.) 2. We have enough homes on this street and why can't some wooded area be left alone? Chinander - 1001 Crestview Drive S.) 3. It would increase traffic and noise in a normally quiet area. This would result in an environmental impact on loss of trees and shrubs along Crestview Drive. Depending on the type of home that would be built on Lot 1, we could lose our view of downtown St. Paul. We are now able to also see and hear fireworks at the state capital and at the state fairgrounds. Construction type trucks will add to the deterioration of Crestview Drive and its condition could approach the present condition of Highwood Drive. Jensen - 1024 Crestview Drive S.) 4. It will devalue my land. Leave as is. (Halverson - 1025 Crestview Drive S.) 5. You are breaking up an established neighborhood with no positive benefit to the neighborhood. The lots on Crestview Drive should be disallowed! We have all established homes up here on the perception that the city would not allow the lots up here to be piecemealed to stuff additional houses into the neighborhood. The proposal will detract some of the value of the rest of the neighborhood to the benefit of one developer who lives elsewhere. (Hannula - 1049 Crestview Drive S.) 6. We object to this proposal because of the #3 lot (primary) and #1 lot (secondary) proposals. Two new homes on lots 1 and 3 would not fit in aesthetically with the mature 30 year old homes and trees of Crestview Drive. Additionally the eastern borders of approximately 80 feet each are shorter than the shortest neighboring Crestview Drive street borders of 100 feet. The new landscape as proposed would be a mowed -down, crammed -in section of houses on Crestview Drive. We have no problem with the Lakewood sites because they would fit in with the new construction and street border size for that location. Since it is probable that the ownerwill object to our objections, we offer the following compromise: 3 1. Eliminate the site 3 proposal which fit the least, 2. Extend the site 1 plot to the south for a more equal size plot and street curb length, 3. The owner would then build their new garage (which 1 believe currently exists on site 1) on site 3. Site 3 Looks like an obvious attempt to mink as much capital as possible out of a limited space. It would not only be aesthetically objectionable, but a negative on our surrounding home values. We bought our home at 1062 S.. Crestview Drive with the understanding that it was a mature neighborhood with no possibility for further surprise home construction. Now we are presented with the short term chaos /noise /muddy streets of new home construction in our mature neighborhood plus the long term eye sores of at least one crammed -in out of place home- -site 3. (Harrington - 1062 Crestview Drive S.) 7. Enough homes already. Part of the appeal of this area is that one does not feel crowded by homes anywhere you look- -and nature still is apparent -- making ones living in our area so appreciative of the flora and fauna that is. growing here. It gives one a small taste of country -side living. The trees, etc., are so important to us residents here- -it's part of what makes this area desirable. Please don't destroy that attribute. (Nemitz - 1069 Crestview Drive S.) 8. I object to this proposal because of increased traffic - -it was told to us at the time we purchased our lot that it would stay undeveloped. Nothing would make it acceptable- - should honor his original statement. (Harding - 991 Lakewood Drive S.) 9. The size of the lots are too small. Lots 4 and 5 on Lakewood drive should be one lot. Patnaude - 1032 Lakewood Drive S.) . 10. 1 think it should be a park with walking and biking paths. (Weik/Hughes - 1042 Lakewood Drive S.) 11. Our only concern is that the lots facing Lakewood will be very narrow and will seem jammed in there. Add only one new lot facing Lakewood. (Willis - 1053 Lakewood Dr. S.) 12. Have to stop somewhere with adding houses in the area. It is out of control. (Altman - 2443 Mamie Avenue E.) 13. 1 feel the lots are too small - inferior housing will be erected. The lots are not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. The drainage as I see it is inadequate - I feel there will be too much run -off from these 5 lots. It would be more appropriate to have 2 or 3 (not 5) home sites. (Lauren - 2357 Mamie Avenue) 14. The first three years in our home and $5,000 to solve water problems and don't want Crestview Drive's water. Put the exit through Crestview, not Lakewood. (Reeves - 2347 Mamie Avenue. E.) 15. It would alter the "housing" look of the area. Does this allow 1025, 1049, 1059 to split their dots. The builder has only the financial benefits in mind,. not the aesthetic look of the area or the impact on neighboring property. He could tear down the existing home, split the lot in two and then build. That would be consistent. What purpose is served in subdividing a relatively small parcel of land this way? (Mulgrew - 2433 Nemitz Avenue E.) 4 16. You have not shown in sufficient detail how fhis will impact homes along Crestview Drive. Will the existing homes be demolished and replaced? How will the new site be accessed? Will Nemitz Avenue be extended to intersect with Lakewood Drive? How will the homes be positioned on the lots? What will be the value of the homes built? (Morgan - 2434 Nemitz Avenue E.) 17. Lot 3 much smaller than other lots in our development. Lots 4 & 5 OK, not sure how rest should be done. Maybe only 2 lots to make like rest of Pleasantview Park Number 2. GinzI - 2441 Nemitz) Also see the letters on pages 9 -12 for more comments. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.97 Acres Existing land use: Homesite for 1021 Crestview Drive SURROUNDING LAND USES North.:Houses on Crestview Drive South:Houses on Crestview Drive West:.Houses across Lakewood Drive East:Houses across Crestview Drive PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designations: R -1 (single family residential) Existing Zoning: R -1 (single family residential) PA ... 1sec13- 281pleasvu.d ny Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line / Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Plat 4. 8-6 -96 letter from Pellishes 5. 8-6 -96 letter from Ludeschers 6. 8-6 -96 letter from Berthiaume 7. 8 -7 -96 letter from Preuss 8. Preliminary Plat (Separate Attachment) 5 Attachmen l 1 LOCATION MAP i Q N 0 rW1[ U •..•w ..... WOOD D DR CT. SRiOCF CSR.0 , 1 W HILLWO00 a 1. H U NT! N GTO N CT. 2. OAK R I DG E LA. o6$ o w 2. d R•Q'R 6 1 CT. @> cc AVE.23L1NWO HL AVE. jj O J flOD CT 7o OU 17 Q TIMBER 0 CT. oTIM8ERT1 3t. z E , TR. LER RQ w PHYLtS CT. °C u 1. CURRiE CT. 2. VALLEY V1EVY ---CT. VA t EY 4. Vi 3 VALL VIEW loll AVE.72 494 I LAKEWOOD CT.AV 2 "74W00DAVE. o A%rL z @cr 2 ` 00 ui Y AVE. NEW u OAK HEI s - AVECREST 72 m CT. , MORELAND CT. CT. SNO v Carver r n SC 0 'Fan cnwk Pork Lake BOXWOOD AV. cr z o w 720CARVERAVEE. a 43 OVERLOOK cr C1R.b c g LOCATION MAP i Q N Attachment 2 LO Ll VM , HIGHWa4D AVENUE. --.4' 13 3 T , , or 3 1910 - ! 00' ' n r , Mr r i- ` i 4 962 2406 gdt 4a N co o ' 2347 s .0 - i Ile M ,r. 2.344 1 `. , 5• , N' u G 972 o tt ii °•2_7 75 19.5' O 21 2755 g-`` ,ry92 :, • 0 992 ,57,E tj ' 991 0> - `-' 1001 tYi M Mr tifN41002 , e ta1 0 01 c e ,), 1Q101f 0 v J. .15 O 2352`` 2360 P ".SITE 0C 1021 s . 3 1021 fp 1022CD h7 Sq s 1031! 1032 ; ° f g1025 b. 124D . 1 1 own N•IN. 3G S.5 3 w : ,, Ne 1043 1042. o r '0 1049 ) e r) (2,4" ! 4° 0 s 1 1053, 1052 , : 1,45.4 A 140 1059 - - 1063 0 o 1062 ul • w 640utAcIt - Y (2b '• 0 6 ; w 1069 CO .j , r 44. r? u9.s ' •'j vz7) ' c 'Cr 7 04 ' 3b 0 2 0' 20 M MEN a 992 .V 5 Iry mot (Z )S3.s 1001. 19 t i 7 i i 1004 . dam nic 016 , 2 27`` N j.In 1014 6- , CIO 4- ) t M et 7 0 1024 . 'd' o .1 a $ N C 3,) o o - d v o 12t. 1 ta0' % 001 0 20 1038 M _ - o 13.x• N • 1052 n , o,, i g ' o ti1, `'i Ti 0 O v k 00 • r. 1062 N 42) (43) 4- O 9 o p • 00 moo• 0 A%10. i a p f r O o (S1) 1 e°, — 90 PLEASANTVIEW PARK 2 G-4'%)-T7,3 c o C53 3 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP N Attachment # 3 BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR. GONYEA COMPANY t t f 0 30 60 90 SCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEET Q - D tOw1EENOTESIRONNUNT J- 7.79 N 0019'07" E 28.60 N 89 V' W f Lul0 ` > I I ko OD f i p i If 00 go QD LLJ 2 Ld I. - +4 I 1 PO ° fiv LJ o -... jj , ,3 I CO W S 89 ° 40'53" E 304.6 00 a v I I f i i SITE PLAN I Q N Attachment 4 August 6, 1996 Community Development Department City of Maplewood Attn: Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner 1830 E County Road 6 Maplewood MN 55109 -2797 Dear Mr. Roberts: s AUG 806, L :.. We are currently residents of 1059 Crestview Drive South. We have sold our existing home and will be leaving the neighborhood on August 16, 1996. we- have taken the liberty of forwarding copies of this survey to the new purchasers. Having lived in this neighborhood for 24 years, we have watched the explosive growth in Maplewood with many new developments. Many of our neighbors were attracted to this area because of the large lots averaging greater than 100 feet in width on Crestview, in addition to the panoramic view of the city skyline. We have also watched other new developments coming into the area that have consistently reduced the lot sizes to meet the R1 requirements. The current Gonyea proposed plat now attempts to squeeze four additional lots into the development, plus the existing property at 1021 Crestview Drive. Adding two additional lots, one on the north and one on the south of 1021 Crestview, completely changes the character of the consistent 100 -foot lots on both the east and west sides of Crestview . Drive. We understand that your ultimate decision may have to be based on whether you can legally deny the applicant the proposed plat. For your consideration, I would like to offer these options: 1 . Divide the property into only two lots, preserving the existing one on 1021 Crestview Drive, and creating a second one on Lakewood Drive that essentially would start in the southwesterly corner of lot 1021, and extend. northeasterly to the intersection of the southwest corner of the property at 1011 Crestview Drive. 2. Create two additional lots, one fronting on Lakewood Drive and the other created on the northerly side of the existing property at 1021 Crestview Drive. I have tried to demonstrate both of these options on the enclosed plats. The proposed lot 3 of the new Gonyea plat to me is totally unacceptable because it creates, along with the other lots, three 80 -foot fronting lots approximately on Crestview Drive which, in my opinion, impacts the total character of the neighborhood and all of the existing lots. Sao. COP'. Joe and Millie Pellish 9 Attachment 5 Aug 6, 1996 Kenneth Roberts City of Maplewood Office of C ommunity Development Dear Mr. Roberts; My wife and I have reviewed, with many neighbors, the Pleasantview Park Number 3 application of Gonyea Company that the City sent. There were no positive responses from any neighbor, and none feels this proposal. is acceptable. Our main concern is that the proposal is out of character for the neighborhood. Houses on Crestview Drive have 100 foot or greater frontages, and the lot sizes of the proposal would be visibly "different ". Mr. Nemitz, the man who sold his property'for subdivision, had a vision of roomy suburban lots. How ironic, that he retained the largest lot (1021 Crestview Drive) for himself, and now Gonyea proposes to divide it into lots so small a rambler will .barely fit. We are worried that small lots and small houses will devalue our homes. We believe that the small lots might encourage multi -story houses to be built among our ramblers. We moved here to get away from what is now being proposed next door. I would purchase 1021 Crestview Driveto prevent this from happening! This may be a small development, but it's clear that five houses isn't the right number here. If you can't see this from the site plan's unusual shaped Lots, please drive through our neighborhood. Thank you for inquiring about our opinions. We would certainly appreciate you giving us notice as soon as possible regarding any public hearing on this application., Best Regards, Greg &Laura Ludescher 1011 S Crestview Drive 10 Attachment 6 August 6, 1996 Community Development Department Cify of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 -2797 Attn: Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner RE: Neighborhood Survey - Plat - Pleasantview Park Number 3 I do not feel the application for a preliminary plat to create 5 single - family homes on a 1.97 acre site around the existing house at 1021 Crestview Drive should be considered. The ro e ' pshouldnotbedeveloped. There is not enough land on either side of thep existing dwelling for homes. From your map, lots along Crestview Drive are a mum of 100 feet. If the lots ou propose are less than 1;00 feet, I feel it will crowd the existingYpp homes and detract from the area. Also, the trees and shrubs in that area have been there for many years and destroying them will only detract from the wooded appearance it gives the neighborhood. I would dike to be informed of any public hearings on this proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol V. Berthiaume, Resident 1004 South Crestview Drive Maplewood, MN 5 5119 11 Attachment 7 August 7, 1996 Mr. Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner Community Development DepartmentYpp 1830 E County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109-2797 Re: Neighborhood Survey Pleasantview Park Number 2 Dear Mr. Roberts, ECEIVE I We strongly object to this proposal . We were one of the early builders in this area back in 1967 We purchased our lot from Mr. Nemitz who originally owned the home and lot that the Developer, Gonyea, wants to subdivide. We were told that the lots as plotted would never be changed. All lots along Crestview Drive to the West were intentionally Nearlylargelots. all the original Pleasantview Park Number 2 lots have 100 feet frontage,Y and along Crestview Drive, many lots are much larger in area. The present home and garage that exist on this property are centrally located on the lot. This home could be up-P ro p dated on the current lot, it would be a prime location and very nice. Decreasing the value of our home by gcrowdin in additional homes that are not in alignment and will look horrible is not acceptable to us and our neighbors. We understand that the vacated street to the West of the property was added to all lots to the east. The Developer, Gonyea, is trying to jam in 4 houses at our expense and make a quick buck and thereby, lessen thegp value of the our existing homes and beauty of our neighborhood. Both of the proposed sites on Crestview Drive are ridiculous as to location. If the Developer, Gonyea, were to tear down both the existing house and garage and create two decent size lots with setbacks that coincide with current structures it would be more acceptable, if an alternative is really needed. As to the two very small lots being created along Lakewood, we also find that objectionable. One lot and house would be maximum. The vacated street and former lot Ines as originally plotted should not be allowed to change. incerely, elroy W Preuss Karen B Preuss aplewood residents, taxpayers and homeowners at 1052 So Crestview Drive since 1967. 12 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA AUGUST 19, 1996 D. Pleasantview Park No. 3 Preliminary Plat (Crestview and Lakewood Drives) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Ken Haider, city engineer, answered questions about the cash connection charges. Mr. Roberts also answered questions from the commission. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said the comprehensive I lan allows coordination of land use changes with the character of each neighborhood.. Therefore, staff recommended eliminating Lot 3 because it was not "harmonious" with the neighborhood. Ralph Tully, a representative of the Gonyea Corporation, was present. Tom Gonyea of the Gonyea Corporation also was present. Mr. Tully showed an aerial view of the site. He also pointed out that the lot, as proposed, does comply with the city's square footage requirements. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Pleasantview Park Number 3 preliminary plat (received by the city on July 19, 1996). This approval shall be. subject to the developer completing the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1) Drop Lot 3 from the'plat and combine the area with Lot 2. The city is requiring this change because: a. Lot 3 would be inconsistent with the size and shape of the adjacent lots. b. The front setback on Lot 3 would be inconsistent with those of the homes on either side. C. Lot 2 would be an irregular "L" shaped lot. 2) Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Cap and seal any wells on site. b. Remove any septic systems or drainfields. c. Remove or demolish the existing detached garage. 3) Provide all easements required by the city engineer. 4) Pay the city $70 per front foot for cash connection charges for the new lot(s) on Crestview Drive for the existing sanitary sewer and water. For proposed Lot 1, this charge will be 5609.80 ($70 x 80.14 feet). 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. Commissioner Thompson said he was in favor of allowing Lot 3 so the front of Lot 2 was "cleaned up." Commissioner Fischer said she would be voting no because she was not comfortable with asking the developer to drop a lot since all the zoning requirements were met. Ayes - .Brueggeman, Ericson, Frost, Kitt redge, Kopesky, Pearson, Rossbach Nays—Fischer, Thompson The motion passed. T 4W Action by Counoil: Endorsed....,. MEMORANDUM uodif ied,.,.,,,,,,,,,,.. Re j acted ..,..,. TO; City Manager Date FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Truth-in-Housing Code Amendment - Evaluator Licensing DATE: August 29, 1996. INTRODUCTION The city council directed city staff to change the licensing requirements for evaluators in the truth -in- housing ordinance. The current ordinance requires evaluators in Maplewood to have a Saint Paul truth -in- housing evaluator's license. BACKGROUND On Ju I ly 9, 1990, the Maplewood City Council adopted Ordinance Number 668, truth -in -sale of housing. This ordinance set the requirements for truth -in- housing in Maplewood including the licensing requirements for housing evaluators. Specifically, Section 9- 240(a) of the code has. the language about the licensing of housing evaluators. It says "the city will only approve housing inspectors that have passed competency tests as truth -in- housing evaluators in Saint Paul. The housing inspectors must submit certification papers to Maplewood from the city of Saint Paul as truth4n- housing evaluators. The city of Maplewood must license each housing inspector that works in the city. Maplewood will automatically revoke a housing inspector's license if it is revoked in Saint Paul." On April 22, 1996, the city council approved a truth -in- housing license for Stephen Dellwo. Mr. Dellwo has a Minneapolis truth -in- housing license and had a truth -in- housing license in Saint Paul that Saint Paul later revoked. On May 20, 1996, the council gave a early version of the ordinance first reading. The council, however, had several questions they wanted staff to answer before proceeding with the code amendment. On August 26, 1996, the council gave the attached ordinance first reading. DISCUSSION The proposed code change would allow evaluators with either Saint Paul or Minneapolis truth -in- housing licenses to be evaluators in Maplewood. In addition, the proposed code change also would strengthen the language in this part of the code. I spoke to the administrators of the truth -in- housing programs in Minneapolis and Saint Paul about the licensing of the evaluators. Both said that they do not consider the actions or practices of an evaluator in the other city when reviewing the evaluator's license in their own city. That is, they would only consider the actions of the evaluator in their city when reviewing the License of the evaluator. They did suggest that the city should cancel an evaluator's License if that person violates the law or the truth -in- housing evaluator's code of ethics. The council asked about the number of inspections that a house may have before the owner sel it. These might include inspections by the Farmers Home Ad (,FHA) and Veterans Affair (VA) for potential buyers using one of these types of financing. That is, if a house buyer wants to use FHA or VA financing, the agencies require one of their appraisers to inspect a house before approving a loan. These agencies require their own. inspections and appraisals to ensure that the houses they lend money for meet their standards and are worth the loan amount. Home sellers do not know what type of financing a buyer is going to use when they put their house on the market. Once - buyer selects a particular house, then the buyer has to sa #isfy the I ender's requirements before they can. close on the purchase. If the lender requires another inspection or appraisal to meet its own standards, it. is out of the control of the seller. The truth -in- housing inspection is to provide all potential buyers with more information about the house before they decide whether to buy it or not. Home sellers are to have the truth -in- housing evaluation done before they show or list the property for sale. The truth -in- housing evaluators are independent contractors and set their own fees and schedules. COMMISSION ACTION On August 13, 1996, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) recommended that the I ity council adopt the proposed code change. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the code change on page 3. kr/tiheval.mem Attachment: Code Amendment Ordinance P ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ABOUT THE LICENSING OF TRUTH -IN- HOUSING EVALUATORS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: SECTION 1 . This section changes Section 9- 240(a) of the code as follows (I have underlined the. additions and crossed out the deletions.): a) No person shall fill out a truth -in- sale -Of- housing disclosure, report in Maplewo; d without having a valid certificate of competency or truth- in- housino evalua is license from Maplewood The city of. Maplewood must issue the certificate of competency r Lcn_, Mapleweod Tha- not will only approve people as housing inspectors or evaluators who ##,at are licensed have r as truth -in- housing evaluators in Saint Paul or Minneapolis The housing inspectors must submit a copy of their truth -in- housinglicense and any certification papers toTho -nob"Maplewood from the city of Saint Paul or Minnea ' lis_, Maplewood must license each .housing inspector or evaluator that works in the city. Maplewood will automatically revoke or cancel a housing inspector's license if it is revoked or canceled for violation of law or violation of the housing evaluators code of ethics in eitherthe_r Saint Paul or Minnea olis The City of Maplewood may require the passing of a tYtest that shows the inspector'sp knowledge of the city's housing code. The city may then issue a certificate of competency which is vali for one Y ear. The city may issue .renewals of all such certificates. If a certificate of com etency lapses for one year or more, the person who held such certificate shall reapply top Maplewood for renewal of such certificate. No holder of a certificate of competency or license from M shall allow another person to use said certificate or license. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official newspaper publishes it. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on 1996. 3 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUGUST 13, 1996 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Truth -in- Housing Code Change- Evaluator Licensing Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. The i p e commission discussedchangesto. the proposed ordinance that staff had made since theear last meeting. Thesechangesincludedlanguageaboutwhenanevaluatorshouldtoi •se his /her truth -in- housinglicense.. commissioner Fischer suggested a word change. ` e. in Line 4 of the proposed9ordinance. Associate. Planner Roberts discussed the idea of creating a log for the city clerk's*office lo document the incoming truth- in- h' re ports. It was thetha9pe consensus of the HRAttheproposedordinance (as amended at the meeting) ould better Maplewood..9) meet the needs Of Commissioner Connelly moved the Maplewood Housing AuthorityPgandRedevelopmentAuthorirecommendadoptionoftheamendedordinance, changing the requirementstruth-in-housing 9 9 q s for licensing ofsingevaluators. Commissioner O'Brien seconded. A es -allY 74M 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review —Compostospt SrteLOCATION: Beam Avenue, between Highway 61 and Hazelwood Ave.DATE: August 21, 1996 INTRODUCTION Action b Cou Endorse Modif .. R e jr c t +p.......... Date The city council should review the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Ramsey County compostsiteonBeamAvenue. Refer to the maps on pages 3--4. BACKGROUND May 9, 1994: The city council reviewed and amended the CUP.Refer to the CUP conditions onpages5 -7. August 8, 1994: The city council accepted a report from the countunty about the compost site. ThecouncildirectedthecountytocontinueresearchingonditionsandtechniquesgniquesfOrcompostoperations. site August 14, 1995: The city council extended the CUP for one ear a • • require that the c Y and amended Condition 14 toreqcountysubmitastatusreporttothecityonayearlybasis. regarding the compostsite. g g post DISCUSSION Complaints Since last year, there have been four Complaints about the comp 'p st site. Refer to page 8 of theapplicant's report. The report notes that there was no violation found regarding the last threecomplaints. The first one, dated September 15, 1995 was noted i 'n a letter coped to the countythatwassenttotheMaplewoodCityCouncilaboutodor. The county could not investigate thiscomplaintbecausenospecificincidentwascited. Proposed Improvements The county is proposing to make the following improvements at the compost site (these are alsoexplainedonthesitemapintheapplicant's report): 1. Widen the entrance drive from 19 feet to 22 feet. 2. Pave the entrance drive to the site. 3. Install four light posts and fixtures. 4. Install a stop sign at the exit. 5. Install a "slow" sign on the entrance drive. Conclusion The county's investigation of complaints has been prompt and the have beppybeen actively workingtowardspreventingfuturecomplaints. (Refer to the "odor Management" discussion on p a 9 e 5 inthecounty's report.) The proposed changes to the compost site will be welcome im p roversentsthatwillaidinthesite's operation and enhance the site for employees and patrons alike. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for the Ramsey County compost site on the south side of Beam Avenue again in one year. p:sec3lcompost2.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. CUP Conditions of May 9, 1994 4. Maplewood Yard Waste Site Report dated August 1996 5. Photographs taken August 14, 1996 (separate attachment) 2 NAI HEIGHT Attachment 1 aw lb lb 4b 4b • VOVt COU RD. D o DiA 3 W O T• z G4" 3 y S 0 BS I 1 VZNu$ f: RAMSEY COUNTY COMPOST SITE i:i • : : i Cr M o v z Fond ti t; 4: — J u . v o • NTY ROA;? 4N 3 op 1 o V) Cr 181 Cr EDCEHIIIV• c0pi NOR g V cat AVE DEMOHT' AVE. p m N AVE. BROOKS SEX TANT Z iovQAVE. s.K..o«a c LOCATION MAP 4 N 3 1177 -dg f k 0 , U TA.. qp i 1 0 ' i S T. J Ar Ir b etlA f 1 , 4, ! _ R•S P >y! *j (past 0 7 1 j M I GOLF COURSE ` t ill v Ma • w a s• / 4 ; y ., ---- -- 3. LsMT FOR ST 13'fsS4o2 AesTPN7, 41 .5 _ E S AA T F STREET T. S'S 1s4et BE,A,1wI l,'OIMEIse, • "BEAM; gyp ` •. • 37•ItEE ESA'lT T. .•S9,f4aL V0011DING An& A 8S T /a 75 s.1 ~ I t,eoc.' to it, cavu-Ty o -... kD1b ; , I • M+c* E S. 1 ate C • . .... . ' r... r ..CIM 1TCM We set e, eb P4 44p, Ut o ROADcAaTIN INC. y d 7 •• t0.40 1 •j 3e 4' i s 85" v 1 ` ! .il•. oss II • 1 ' O Go 5? Se b7 x 54 54 4 s Irk +a O 0 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP a 4 N 00 1 i 2.7s 1 o0A170 - .4 • .. ::: ::.'• J it 7 s ?27*" R?s ac) (? 7$ it1 Y 73 GO ' j; :;: - :•: : i •p: 1 I i11.. C m r T 178 7'so '•# '.•790 4' X8TP PR0P$RTY 1.97 ., .LMSSa. of r 1 •j 3e 4' i s 85" v 1 ` ! .il•. oss II • 1 ' O Go 5? Se b7 x 54 54 4 s Irk +a O 0 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP a 4 N 00 i 9. k 70 cs • c4 .#3 42 J or 1 I i11.. C 1 •j 3e 4' i s 85" v 1 ` ! .il•. oss II • 1 ' O Go 5? Se b7 x 54 54 4 s Irk +a O 0 PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP a 4 N i Attachment 3 d. Mayor Bastian opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Chuck McGinley, Consultant for Maplewood, who monitored the odor. Zack Hanson, Ramsey County Department of Public Health Ralph Sletten, 2747 North Clarence Margaret Behrens, 1393 Kohlman Annette LaCasse, 2673 North Hazelwood Beth Sletten, 2747 North Clarence Dawn Knobbe, 1423 Kohlman Tim Kennedy, 1134 Glendon Street e. Mayor Bastian closed the public hearing. f. Council member Carlson introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: 94 -05- 48 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION - COMPOST SITE WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development is requesting that the City Council change the conditional use permit conditions fora compost site on Beam Avenue; WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property on the south side of Beam Avenue, west of the railroad right -of -way. The legal description is: Lots 81 -84, Gardena Addition in the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On April 4, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve these changes. 2. On May 9. 1994, 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 conditions for the above- described permit shall read as follows: 1. The site may be open to the public between March 24 and December 6 of each year. 2. The site may be open to the public between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 3. The County shall provide at least one monitor at the site for all hours that it is open to the public. If the City or County determines there is a need for more site monitoring, the County shall assure that the site has adequate monitoring. 5 5.9 -94 40 The site shall accept only the following materials* wood chips, bodiedgardenwaste, lawn cutti weeds, prunings of soft b9 cones fruit andplants, leaves along with materials l i ke , p ne , small twigs that people pick up with their yard waste.. RamseyP Count y shall monitor and remove any unacceptable material left at the site. 5. The City P rohibits the dumping or storing of the following materials: brush, branches, garbage or refuse.. 6. The County shall have the grass clippings removed from the site at least three times a week (Mondays. Thursdays , and Saturdays) or other days if necessary to help prevent objectionable odors* 7. The Ci t y Counci 1 shall review this permit annually. At the time of revs ew, if warranted, the City may amortize to close the site. 8. The County shall manage the compost site to minimize the amount of objectionable odors. Management procedures shall include the following: a) Procure, maintain and use wind direction and s eed monitoring equipment at the site. The County s all P equipmentprovidethisauiment so it is accessible to the City staff. b) Record wind-speed and direction every two hours during 1 pile turning and the haul-out of materials. c) During April through October, turn the piles of materials only when the wind is blowing from the southeast, south or southwest and at least five miles Eer hour. During November through March, the wind must e calm or from the east, south or west. The piles shall only be turned between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday. d) Keep a written record of: 1) The times of pile turning and the haul -out of materials 2) Compost pile temperatures 3) A description of the compost quality 4) The initial date and aging of the compost piles 9. The Community Development Department shall handle odor complaints during regular business hours and the police department shall handle odor complaints after regular hours. The ins pector shall verify and measure whether there is an odor that violates the odor standards of this permit. To determine if there is a violation of this permit, the inspector shall follow the procedures in Attachment A of this permit. A violation of this permit shall occur when the inspector has recorded ten sniffings of the ambient air over a period of thirty minutes with a geometric average OIRS of (a) 3.0 or greater if the property at which the testing is being conducted contains a permanent residence, or (b) 4.0 or greater if the property at which the testing is being conducted does not contain a 6 5.9 -94 permanent residence. (See Attachment B of this permit for a description of the odor scale.) If there is a violation, the inspector shall investigate to establish the source of the odor. The City shall notify the County of the violation. The County shall advise the City of the reason for the problem - and correct site it to meet the standards of this permit. The Coun operator shall cooperate with the City or its representative regarding such investigations. 10. The County shall deposit with the City an escrow deposit of 5.200 on or before May 1, 1994. Thereafter, on or before January l of each year the County shall deposit with the City an escrow deposit of 52,000. The City shall use this deposit to: a) Pay for City staff time or the costs to hire a third party to verify and measure odors, following complaints received by the City b) Train City staff persons and others for wind and odor monitoring c) Pay for.an odor consultant to assist in preparing this permit or future revisions to this permit. At the end of each calendar year, the City shall refund to the County any of the deposit not used by the City. If needed, the County shall pay for any consulting costs above the escrow deposit that the City needs to reevaluate this permit. 11. The site operator shall use water to suppress dust from the compost piles, as necessary. 12. Phalen Chain -of -Lakes Watershed Steering Committee's technical staff shall review leeching of water issues and concerns on the site. 13. County shall monitor and remove nonapproved items from the site. County to report 4Y 14. l a) Re ton f Size, b) Exp. e ternative site location, r / c) Pro d) use by commercial businesses, d) Repo date on aspergillus fumigates from other districts and e) U si ate fro. Soil Conservation. Seconded by Mayor Bastian Ayes all 7 Attachment 4 Report to the Maplewood City Council: MAPLEWOOD YARD WASTE SITE August 1996 10 IIRamsey County Division of Solid Waste I 8 REPORT TO THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL: MAPLEWOOD YARD WASTE SITE AUGUST 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is being submitted by the Ramsey County Department of Public Health, Division of Solid Waste, to the City of Maplewood as background information for the City's annual review of the conditional use hermit (CUP) for the Count yard waste site on Beam Avenue. Submittal: of an annual report is also a requirement in the CUP. The Division of Solid Waste is proposing to make capital improvements at the Maplewood yard waste site., including improvements to the access road and some lighting. These improvements will help improve traffic management, safety and site security, and customer service. The Division of Solid waste is requesting an amendment to the CUP to allow for these improvements. In 1,995 the site had 58,702 visits (compared to 63,127 in 1994), and received 24,760 cubic yards of leaves and grass clippings (compared to 24, cubic in 1994). Of that amount, 12,235 cubic yards were managed on site (compared to 13,370 In 1994) and 12,525 cubic yards were transferred off site (compared to 11,230 cubic yards in 1994). Through June of 1995 site visits total 23,387, compared to 19,009 in 1995 and 22,906 in 1994. The variations from year to year can be attributed to weather, changes in yard management behavior, and possibly changes in availability of inexpensive or free yard waste Collection from haulers. As of the end of July 1996, there were 12,364 cubic yards of material being composted on site. As explained at length in previous reports, the yard waste site is being managed to minimize odors. Since early 1994 there have been a number of changes. Current activities include: 1) reducing waste volumes on -site; 2) using different equipment where possible (a windrow turner) to get a better "mix" of materials and more aeration of windrows (aeration reduces potential odors); 3) monitoring temperatures within the compost piles; 4) keeping ponding of rainwater in the dumping areas to a minimum (to reduce odor potential); 5) applying lime to the dumping area after grass clippings are hauled (to reduce odor potential) and alternating dumping areas (to allow them to dry), 6) monitoring weather conditions when piles are turned; and 7) only turning the windrows during certain weather conditions. Volumes managed on site during 1995 and 1996 are less than during the previous two years.. This is because the windrows located on the site are smaller, to accommodate the equipment used to turn the windrows. There is also slightly less space available now because of the installation last fall of sediment retention ponds on the sites. Since August 1994 three complaints have been received concerning specific instances of odor. These complaints were investigated according to the odor response protocol that is part of the CUP, and 1- no violations of the CUP occurred. A letter of complaint was also sent to the Maplewood City Council that did not cite any specific incident that could be investigated. In 1994 the Division of Solid Waste met with several agencies concerning water quality issues related to the Maplewood yard Waste site. Following analysis of water quality samples, it was concluded that while runoff from the.compost site contains pollutants nutrients, metals or chemical, compounds), there are "pathway losses" reductions in pollutants.as waste. moves through wetla.nd.s,-evaporates, etc.. that mitigate the effect of the pollutants. It was agreed, though, that as a precaution a, small sediment retention basin (holding pond) would be useful. Following meetings with City staff and other agencies, the Division of Solid waste worked with Ramsey County Public Works to have fenced retention basins. installed in fall of 1995.on both the north and south portions of the site.. The Division continues to search for a site to augment the Maplewood s"te. The Division has continued to pursue the primary site It identified in a thorough I site search rocess in 1994, an industrially zoned site owned by White Bear Township; some issues of concern have surfaced recently that might affect the availability of this site. There are a couple of other possible privately -owned sites, also in White Bear Township, although they would divert fewer residents from the Maplewood site and present other issues as well. Other sites in northeastern Ramsey County have largely been eliminated because of unavailability, land -use conflicts, traffic is sues , or unwillingness. of the property owner to subdivide a large parcel. It is also possible that the Division might be able to find a property owner willing•to provide land through a short- term.lease. In such a case, the Division would have to evaluate the cost of developing a site in light of the possibility of lease termination. This report also contains updates on dust control, site appearance and security, public education and customer service. a TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Report B. Background C. Request for Amendment for Conditional Use Permit for Site Improvements II. STATUS OF SITE A. Site Use Data B. Compost Quality III. ODOR MANAGEMENT A. Actions Taken to Minimize Odors B. Site Work History C. Complaints IV. WATER QUALITY ISSUES V. ALTERNATIVE SITES VI. OTHER ISSUES A. Dust Control B, Site Appearance and Security Co Educational Efforts D. Customer Service ATTACHMENTS 1 Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2 Analytical Test Results for Finished Compost From Maplewood Yard Waste Site 3 Customer Service Survey Form Page 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 7 7 11 11 11 12 12 12 14 15 3- I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Report This report is beinq submitted by the Ramsey County Department of Public Health, Division of Solid Waste, to the City of Maplewood as background information for the City's annual review of the conditional use permit (CUP) for the County hardwastesiteonBeamAvenue. Submittal of an annual report is also a requirement in the CUP. 8. Background In .1991 the City approved a CUP for the yard . waste site, subject to some conditions. On May 9, 1994, the City reviewed the permit and revised it by adding several conditions, including requirements that the County submit a report in August 1994 and that the City review the permit annually. The Division of Solid Waste submitted a detailed report in August 1994 and presented it to the City Council. 'In August 1995 the Division again submitted an annual report, although not required by the permit, to provide information to the City to assist in its review of the CUP. On August 14, 1995, the City Council amended the.CUP to extend It for another year and to require reporting by the County on an annual basis. C. Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Site Improvements The Division of Solid Waste is proposing to make capital improvements at the Maplewood yard waste site, including improvements to the access road and some lighting. The Improvements will help improve traffic management, safety and site security, and customer service These proposed iimprovementsaredescribed n Attachment 1. The Division of Solid Waste is requesting an amendment to the CUP to allow for these improvements. II. STATUS OF SITS A. Site Use Data The following table shows. site visits and waste volumes managed for the past several years. No. of Cubic Yards Cubic Yards Cubic Yards Year Visits Received Nana ed on Site Transferred 60 19,123 iu 123 1991 62 13,5 7 1992 60,491 22,477 17,317 5 1993 66 27,480 21,240 6 1994 63,127 24,600 13,370 11,230 1995 58,702 24,760 12,235 12,525 4- The year -to -date use of the Maplewood site for 1996, compared to the same months in previous years, is shown below. Year March Aril rr15 June Total 71177694 1994 207 6 9 7 22,90.6 1995 300 5 8 5 19,009 1996 0 6 10,070 6 23,387 The variations from year to year can be attributed to weather, changes in yard management behavior,and possibly chances in availability of inexpensive or free yard waste collection from haulers. As of the end of July 1996, there were 12,364 cubic yards of material being composted on site. B. Compost, Quality The Division has finished compost tested each year by the University of Minnesota for concentrations of nutrients and metals; although such tests are not required by State rules for hard waste co the County's compost consistently is well within t eWNW imitts established by the State for compost from mixed municipal solid waste compost. Attachment 2 shows the most recent ana ytca test results for the Maplewood site. III ODOR MANAGEMENT A. Actions Taken to Minimize Odors As explained at length in previous reports, the yard waste site is being managed to minimize odors. Since early 1994 there have been a number of chances in how the yard waste site is managed. Current activities include: 1) reducing waste volumes on -site; 2) using different equipment where possible a windrow turner) to get a better . "mix" of materials and more aeration of windrows (aeration reduces potential odors); 3) monitoring temperatures within the compost piles; 4) keeping pondng of rainwater in the dumping areas to a minimum (to reduce odor potential); 5) applying lime to the dumping area after grass clippings are hauled (to reduce odor potential) and alternating dumping areas (to allow them to dry); 6) monitoring weather conditions when piles are turned; and 7) only turning the windrows during certain weather conditions. Volumes managed on site during 1995 and 1996 are less than du -ring the previous two years. This is because the windrows located on the site are smaller, to accommodate the equipment Used to turn the windrows. There is also slightly less space available now because of the installation last fall of sediment retention ponds on the sites. 5- On July 26, 1996, the status of the site was this: 15 windrowsofdecomposingleaveswerelocatedonthesouthpartofthe site. These windrows measured approximately 65 to 130 feet long, 10 to 13 feet wide, and 4 to 7 feet high. The windrows were oriented north- south, and were about 10 feet apart* Thep approximate volume of composting leaves in the south part of the site was 8,020 cubic yards,, on the north part of the site there was a pile of finished compost available to citizens at no charge. The supply of this finished compost was exhausted by July 1 (the supply of finished compost at all the County sites is being exhausted sooner every year as use of this material becomes increasingly more popular). There were also two windrows as of July 26, each 195 feet long, 30 feet wide, and up to 20 feet high. These two piles were 15 feet apart and totalled 4,344 cubic yards. Grass clippings are dumped by residents into piles on a north -south axis. Clippings are hauled off -site on Monda s,Y Wednesdays and Saturdays by County vendors; this continues from mid-May through September. To minimize odor roductionp , the grass dumping area is changed after each load -out, to allow the ground to dry out, and lime is applied. Temperatures of windrows are monitored on those days that the sites are open, or five times per week. The purpose of monitoring temperatures is to determine if there has been anychangeinbiologicalactivityinthewindrowsthatwould contribute to odor production. Temperature levels are recorded onto log sheets, which are then reviewed by Division staff. To date, the data have not indicated a need to aerate the windrows to control anaerobic conditions other than the current frequency. (Anaerobic conditions lead to greater odor production and reduced composting efficiency.) The Division of Solid Waste instructs its vendors to only turn windrows durinv the hours allowed in the permit, to turn onlwhenthewindisblowingfromtheappropriatedirectionatthe appropriate speed, and to cease work immediately when wind conditions change such that turning cannot be conducted in accordance with the permit. A windsock was installed at the site during 1994. Because the windsock has been vandalized twice the Division has instead used a handheld wind speed meter that it provides to its vendors and makes available at the site to City staff. The Division keeps a written record of temperatures and dates of pile creation, turning, and material haul -out. 6- B. Site ' Work His Date_ Activity Complaint 8/22/95 Windrows in south area turned with None recd windrow turner; water truck used; wind SW at 16 MPH 9/5/95 Windrows windrows moved front back area; wind S at 8 MPH 9/6/95 Windrows windrows moved front back area; wind SW at 16 MPH 11/6/95 Windrows from back area being moved to make room for resurf wind SE at 6 MPH. to None recd to None ree d None ree d qLc i.ng 9 12/4/95 Hauling leaves from north to south None ree d area wind SE at 5 MPH 12/7/95 Hauling leaves from north to south Odor complaint area; wind SE at 5 MPH shifting E reed at periodically 4:00 p.m. 4/18/96 Windrows in south area turned with None recd windrow turner; raining; wind SW at 5 MPH 6/12/96 Windrows in north area turned None ree d with front end loader,wind SE at 5 -10 MPH 6/26/96 Windrows in south area turned with None ree d windrow turner; water truck used; wind S at 15 -20 MPH 7/12/96 Windrows in north area turned Odor complaint with front end loader;wind SW at recd at 5 -10, MPH, shifted to W then NW 10:20 a.m. by late afternoon 8/12/96 Windrows in north area turned with None ree d with front end loader;wind SW at 6 -12 MPH C. Complaints Res onse Process. In June 1994 the City's Odor Consultant conucte a trai.nin"ession for City and County staff. The training was held over a two -day period. That training was the last part of the City's protocol to respond to odor complaints (contained in the CUP, in Attachment 1). The protocol provides that City staff will respond to complaints 7- and measure the intensity of the odor at the point of the complaint and immediately upwind of the compost site. A violation of the permit will have occurred when there is an odor reading of 3.0 on property with a residence, or 4.0 on a property without a residence. History of ComiRlaints. Here is a list of complaints that the Division of Solid Waste has on f ile _ and has been of by the City since August 1995, when the permit was last reviewed by the City Council: July 12, 1996: Complaint to the County from a resident living on Hazelwood Sto near the yard waste site; it occurred on a day when the compost piles were being turned and some shifts in wind direction occurred during the day; the complaint was investigated by County staff, although it was not possible for a County staff person trained in odor detection to investigate it for some hours after the complaint was called in; some odor was detected but no violation of the CUP occurred. County staff discussed the situation with the resident, and informed City staff of the incident. No violation. Dec. 11, 1995: Complaint to the City from a resident on Kohlman Ave.; City and County staff arrived about ten minutes later and determined that no detectable odor existed in the area; no work was done at the compost site that day. No violation. Dec. 7 1995: Complaint to the City from a resident on Clarence Street.; County staff immediately went to the area and detected a level of odor of 2.0; City staff arrived soon thereafter and determined that there was no detectable odor; the County's vendor had moved leaves. earlier in the day when a 5 mph was coming from the southeast; after the vendor,had completed operations for the day the wind did occasionally shift from the southeast to the east. No violation. September 15, 1995: The County received a copy of a letter dated Sept. 11 from a resident on Clarence Sto to the Mayor and City Council; because no specific incident was cited in the letter no investigation occurred. IV. WATER QUALITY ISSUBS In 1994 the Department of Public Health met with several agencies concerning water quality issues related to the Maplewood yard waste site. A sampling protocol was developed jointly by Ramsey County and the Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District. The Ramsey County Public Works Department then carried out the sampling and prepared a report. The report was reviewed with Watershed District staff and was provided to City staff. The conclusion of the analysis by County and the Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District staff was that while g_ runoff from the compost site contains pollutants (nutrients,, metals or chemical compounds), there are pathway losses" reductions in pollutants as waste moves through wetlands, evaporates, etc.) that mitigate the effect of the pollutants. It was agreed, thought, that.as a precaution, a small sediment retention basin (holding pond) would be useful. At the request of the Division of Solid Waste, Ramsey County Public Works developed a design for sediment retention basins to serve both the north, and south parts of the yard waste site. In September 1995, the Division of Solid Waste a meeting of staff from Ramsey County Public Works, the I Ramsey /Washington Metro Watershed District, the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the City of Maplewood to review the proposed improvements and to obtain permission to proceed with installation9 Following discussion at this meeting final plans were.developed and Ramsey County Public Works installed two fenced retention basins.later in the fall. V. ALTERNATIVE SITES In May 1994 the City, as part of the conditional. use permit process, asked the Division of Solid Waste to examine potential alternative sites for a and waste management site that would divert some of the traffic and yard waste volumes from the Maplewood site. As part of a report on specific yard waste issues required by the City and due in August 1994, the Division presented a summary of its comprehensive search for potential sites. The City Council in Au ust 1994 then. asked the County to continue to pursue potential sites. In August 1995 the presented an annual report to the City concerning the County's efforts to an alternative site. Because a May 1994 survey by the Division showed that about 24% of the Maplewood site users came from White Bear Lake, Division staff met with City of White Bear Lake staff on several occasions during 1995 to identify potential sites_. Two City of White Bear Lake -owned sites were examined but later eliminated: the Public Works Garage was eliminated because of insufficient size and conflicts with other uses of the property, and Lakewood Hills Park was eliminated because of land use conflicts and traffic issues. At the suggestion of City of White Bear Lake staff, Division staff also contacted numerous owners of businesses containing landlocked parcels, but none of these properties were available for use as a yard waste site because of traffic issues, security concerns or conflicts with planned uses of the sites. Division staff also examined the availability of previously and newly identified potential sites in Vadnais Heights, Little Canada, White Bear Township, and White Bear Lake. This effort resulted in one publicly -owned site in Little Canada being eliminated from further consideration (because the Saint Paul Water Utility wanted to sell off the entire large parcel) and 9- several privately -owned parcels (e.g., H.B. Fuller property) being eliminated from sale or lease as a yard waste site because of land use conflicts or traffic issues. The Division also continued to examine the potent use of Joy Park in Maplewood for a yard waste site; the Division had concerns .about the amount of tree removal and earthmovinq that would be needed and thus has not continued to pursue this s The Division of Solid Waste continues to try to find a site in northeastern Ramsey County. The Division has indicated to the County Board that it intends to select a site, if any can be found. Then the Division would develop an appropriate agreement for leasing or purchasing the site and would bring such an agreement to the County Board for its consideration. Because it has been clear that finding a site in the White Bear Lake area, much less anywhere else in this heavily urbanized county, will not be easy, the search has encompassed several possibilities : o using publicly -owned sites; leasing or purchasing a privately- owned site; considering short - to medium - term (1 - 5 years) leases of sites until they are sold (typically, such leases have termination clauses of 30 -180 days); operating only a yard waste transfer site, which would require less land and have less potential for nuisances than a composting site; operating a site only in the spring and fall, when most of the yard waste is received; operating a site only on weekends. Analysis of potential sites has indicated that no publicly -owned sites are available except possibly one in White Bear Township, and that most privately - owned sites are not suitable because a there are conflicts with adjacent land uses, b) there are traffic concerns, such as the ability for slow- moving vehicles (e.g., cars with trailers) to turn safely into or out of a site, c) the owner has a large parcel for sale and refuses to. subdivide or lease a smaller area for use as a yard waste site, or d) the site was recently sold or is under a purchase agreement. The Division of Solid Waste has directed most of its efforts during the past year to a few possible sites in White Bear Township. Division staf f have met twice with the Town of White Bear Board and several times with Township staff concerning possible development of a site on Township -owned industrial land on White Bear Parkway near otter Lake Road. This site could divert a substantial number of current users of the Maplewood 10- site. Some issues of concern have surfaced recently, including other potential uses for this site and compatab.lity with adjacent land uses, that might affect the availability of this site Division of Solid Waste staff have also investigated other publicly- and privately -owned potential sites in the Township. Ramsey County Park and open Space land is not available for use as a yard waste site because of restrictive deed covenants or other planned uses. A couple of other privately -owned sites are still being examined, although neither would divert nearly as many current Maplewood site users, and the one with the better location presents potential roadblocks because of the nature of previous uses on the site. It may be possible for the Division to develop a yard waste site on land in northeastern Ramsey County that could only be leased for a short- term. Because such a lease would likely have a 30 -180 day termination clause., the Division of Solid Waste would have. to evaluate the cost of developing the site in light of the possibility of lease termination. The Division of Solid Waste has invested a.substantial amount of effort in trying to establish a site or sites to augment the Maplewood site. This has been a very difficult endeavor because of the limited amount of remaining undeveloped land in Ramsey County, and the potential for conflicts from the land uses already in place. VI. OTHER ISSUES A. Dust Control During dry weather dust that is stirred up by traffic on site can be a concern. During 1995 the Department contracted with a dust control vendor to apply calcium chloride solution at the Maplewood.and other yard waste sites. This solution is often used to suppress dust on dirt roads, but was not entirely effective at the sites, possibly because the sites are covered with recycled asphalt millings instead of simply dirt and gravel. During 1996 the Department has switched to another vendor, Dustcoating, Inc. This firm uses another type of dust suppression material, Dustmaster E -100, which has been more successful at controlling dust and been approved by the Minnesota Pollution control Agency (MPCA). B. Site Appearance and Security Concerns were raised by citizens in 1994 over trash and litter. These issues were addressed in 1994 reports to the City Council, citing the continual cleanup that occurs on site. The site continues to have a locked dumpster that is emptied by Waste Management - Blaine. The site monitors continue to pick up any litter each day they work, and any 11- bags of material left at the gate are picked.up when they are found. In addition, Community Corrections Sentenced -to -Serve workers are brought in on a monthly basis to pick up litter and mow and cut weeds at the Maplewood and other yard waste sites* The site continues to be secured by a locked gate. Signs are posted with the hours of operation, phone numbers where residents can get more information, warning against illegal dumping, and stating that commercial lawn services cannot use the site. In the spring of 1996 the County - installed a large sign board at the entrance to the site.that combined several small signs, making it easier for residents to read the signs and improving the appearance of the site entrance. The road to the south part of the site is posted with signs so that the public cannot travel to that part of the site, and site monitors report that no unauthorized vehicles enter that part of the site. Two site monitors are assigned to the site. On some occasions only one monitor is present. At all times the site is open at least one monitor is present, as required by the CUP and County policy.' C. Educational Efforts Ramsey County, in cooperation with the Minnesota Extension Service, continues to inform site users about alternatives to using the Maplewood and other yard waste sites. Fact sheets have been handed out to all users of the site on various occasions. Extension Service Master Gardeners are on site several times during the year to answer various lawn and garden questions and to encourage residents•to consider backyard compostinand not bagging grass clippings. In 1994 a backyard composting demonstration project was built on the site. D. Customer Service The Ramsey County Division of Solid Waste is committed.to quality customer service. As part of its effort to assure that customer needs are met at yard waste sites, the Division periodically conducts random surveys of site users. A copy of the survey form is attached. On the survey form, customers are asked to rank the quality of several services on a scale of 0 (poor) to 6 (excellent),, The results for data gathered from sites users of the Maplewood site in April through July of 1996: 12- Service a Prompt service b. Courteous monitor c. Monitor could answer questions about yard waste d. Cleanliness of site e. Ease of locating site f. Easy.to use g. Quality of finished compost h. Traffic control is Easy to understand signs jo Site was open on time Rankin a 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.3 51 5 4:7 5.1 5 4 5.5 Of those responding, 100% would recommend the service to a friend. Most people learned about the sites through a newsletter, a brochure, signs, or a newspaper. 13- ATTACHMENT 1 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Ramsey Count Department of Publ Health, Division of Solid he MaplewoodWaste, is proposing to make capital improvements at t andpy waste site. These proposed improvements as well as planned improvements at six other Count and waste sites wi be Consideredp Y 11bytheCountyBoardatanupcomingmeeting,* The unprovements at a sites will help improve management of traf and waste volumes, safety nd site security,. and customer serviceY . As shown in the. sketch, the proposed improvements for the Maplewood site include the following: widening and having the entrance road; installing a new, wider gate; installing four light Posts and fixtures ; and installing a "stop" and a "slow" sign. The Division of Solid Waste is requesting an amendment to the CUP to allow for these improvements.. 14- ATTACHMENT 3 CUSTOMER SERVICE SURVEY FORM 1b- RAMSEY COUNTY 0 Please complete this survey and return it in the enclosed, stain ed envelope. Your responses will help RamseyPp County provide high quality yard waste management services. Information from surveys is anonymous; please do not write your name or address on this form. Use No. 2 pencil.or blue or black ink pen only. WRONG MARKS QS O O MARKING DIRECTIONS • Do not use red ink or felt tip pens. Make, solid marks that fill the oval completely. RIGHT MARK i Make no stray marks on this form. 1. Which yard waste site(s) did you use? 4 Battle Creek O Arden Hills 0 Midway O Shoreview /V/Iiite Bear Township O Maplewood o Summit Hill O Frank and Sims O Mounds View 2. Please rate each of these services by filling in the appropriate number: a. Prompt sen7ice b. Courteous monitor c. Monitor could answer questions about yard waste d. Cleanliness of site e. Ease of locating site f Easy to use g. Quality of finished compost h. Traffic control L Easy to understand signs j. Site was open on time Printed In U.S.A. Mark Reflex® by NCS MM102177:321 Poor Average U 0 C CD CD CD O CD CD D CO D CD D CD CD D CO CO W CD 0 a CD CD Q CD D CD G) CD 3. Based on your experience, would you recommend using this facility to a friend? O Yes O No 4. How did you learn about the yard waste sites? CD Newspaper O Brochure or flyer O Utility bill insert CD City newsletter 0 Waste hauler 0 633•EASY (3279) O Recorded message (633.9449) O Signs along the roadside 0 Radio, TV, or Cable TV 0 Realtor 0 other (specify): 5. Please write any suggestions or comments below or on the back: Excellent GD D D D 9 FOLD HERE Thank ou for our time a t 4 Vr- t M S - , •, r J .¢ . _ ., cry...,,.% @i_ 'tea 14OLDW( fbND eonPes AREA 140 T oeH+'ro PA It 4C) wow Hoi;oaN4 ', POND -. hS hl 1ID oS S cKd st•s, i " =rco' Nr PUBLIC DROP•OFF y ARM SITEftliolvt i"oRS S RED D GH1P,S add 1Sr J T C-A 6, 4 3 A edl• 14OLDW( fbND eonPes AREA 140 T oeH+'ro PA It 4C) wow Hoi;oaN4 ', POND -. hS hl 1ID oS S cKd st•s, i " =rco' Nr PUBLIC DROP•OFF y ARM SITEftliolvti"oRS S RED D GH1P,S Fax: September 8, 1996 Melinda Coleman - Director of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 RE: Proposed changes to the Ramsey County Compost Site on Beam Avenue Dear City of Maplewood: I am writing my strong objection to any and all changes to the Ramsey County Compost Site on Beam Avenue as directed in the Public Meeting we received postmarked August 28, 1996. First my husband James & I strongly object to any and all changes except the permanent closure and clean up of the Ramsey County Compost Site on Beam Avenue. Ramsey County has not proven in any way that there is no environmental damages to the wetland and the ground water underneath it. These ponds were overflowing with gross, smelly, green water which was bubbling from underneath in the Sellyville Muck just a few days ago and now the contaminated water has soaked into the wetland and has dried up. They have not protected the. County Ditch 18 or the entire chain of lakes from Kohlman Lake all the way into St. Paul. The county has built two very large holding ponds to hold the contaminated runoff from the compost that they denied existed to the. city at a city council meeting when they were up for their renewal. They were also told to do testing of the air and water. At the next meeting they couldn't produce the results because they did not do the testing the city required of them as a stipulation to their renewal. The city should have revoked their permit. If a regular citizen behaved this way they would have prosecuted them along with a fine. Ramsey County has not even followed their own guidelines regarding the placement of compost sites. Ramsey County was told to look for a new site for this compost site. They don't have one. They said they had several sites in the works this was at least two years ago. Time is up! They must'move this site instead of making it more permanent which is clearly their plan according to the meeting regarding the proposed changes. Being concerned citizens and humanitarians my family is very concerned about the health and welfare of our neighborhood as well as the environment. We have many newspaper articles from all over the country regarding compost sites even smaller than this site. They are copies of court documents that were used in cases all over stating how people living near compost sites have become ill and have died because of the Aspergillus found in compost. Our neighbors have absolutely no idea how dangerous this site is and the county does. They have information, they know what can and will happen to the public and the wetland and they do nothing about it to protect the public or the wetland. The city of Maplewood, KSTP are both enabling this behavior to continue no matter the costs. In closure we were never notified per the change regarding any holding ponds for contaminated water. The city refuses to protect us from the diseases the mosquitoes carry however we are required by law to immunize our children for disease they might cause. This entire case is at best pathetic and shouldn't even continue. Care for the environment and the public health around and affected by it. This issue could affect the St. Paul area and the water we all need. Respectfully, Respectfully, James & Margaret Ann Behrens 1393 Kohlman Avenue East North Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 612- 484 -9611 Cc: KSTP City of Maplewood Ramsey County Hal Norgard, Commissioner Sherry Broecker, State Representative Bruce Vento, Paul Wellstone Governor Carlson Ralph S letten Maplewood City Council Members Fax: September 9, 1996 City Manager of City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 RE: Violation of Noise Ordinance Dear City Manager: As City Manager I believe that you are responsible for "Managing the City ". You are responsible for the actions of what goes on within the city or at least to enforce the enforcers to holdup the high standards and ordinances that Maplewood has. I as a tax payer here in Maplewood, demand that the ordinance for noise be enforced and that the responsible party be held accountable. This morning at 4:02 my husband and I both awoke to the noise of a front end loader heavy equipment and large trucks working right in our backyard. My husband went outside and walked through the thick fog only to discover that the noise was coming from the heavy equipment working and hauling in the Ramsey County Compost Site on the Wetland on Beam Avenue.. This will not be tolerated. This continued throughout the early morning hours, as my husband drove to work at 5:45 a.m. he saw the trucks hauling continuously. He called me from work and said to call the police who are supposed to handle all compost complaints after hours as directed by the City Council and Ramsey County at the meeting two years ago. I did. I was told they would handle it. I want assurance that Ramsey County will be documented as in violation of the City noise ordinance and included in the file for the termination of their conditional use permit. The city has not held them responsible for the other behaviors and neglect to obey the city and their demands for actions. @ testing, new site, no noise etc. Respectfully, James & Margaret Ann Behrens 612 - 484 -9611 1393 Kohlman Avenue East Cc: City of Maplewood KSTP Ramsey County Hal Norgard, Commissioner Paul Wellstone Sherry Broecker, State Representative Governor Carlson Ralph Sletten, File Attorney File Group Health. 4 AF Northwest An Affiliate of Group Health Coaperative of Puget Sound Feb rLta ry 17 , 199,,.E To the Board of Adjustors of Spokane County; u This letter is written as a health care professional and as a county resident. I have received the information currently available regarding the commercial composting storage and processing fac including th-w f i nd i ng.s of fact, conclusions and decision dated January 4, 19930 As president oT the Inland Northwest Academy of Family Physicians anc the North region clinical director of Group Health Northwest, I feel pualifi $ to comment on the health impact of the proposed project on area - res i dent s There are an easi lv identifiable eight residents within a mile radius of the proposed -project site whose health would be very significantly affected in an adverse manner. I suspect that another ten to twelve individuals wou id be adversely affected to a lessor degree. Sur-.,h a prediction can only be made on the basis of reported findi noted above. A processing facility of this sire has not previously. been studied a residential area. Adverse health impact will, with a high degree of probability, exceed identifiable risks. It should be a moral mandate for the county and a legal imperative for the communi to establish baseline health condition's of area residents. ADVERSE TRACKING WILL BE CRUCIAL FOR DETERMINATION OF LATER RESP ONS i B I L I TY ANL". APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS. As a ten year L res of the Colbert area, I believe that it only be seen as negligent Cif not a trim: iia 1 ) lapse of government service to waive a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT on a f a c i l i t y the nature of which is defined i r the above mentioned documents. The industrial p roc es s i ng including noise , dust and them -ica 1 reservoi rs, comb i ned wi th the effect of two way t ruck traf f i on Highway 2 and the Division Street corridor is a significant basis for are ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT as d e f i ned by federal r legislation* Sincerely, Charles C w Morrison, M.D. t111r10f1 Na1IdiIp . . P.O. & W 1500 Ap " 1 t t1 f orro Drift ii0 838-9t 0a IM) U4 -51 74 Td_cy 331101" Ckwwaw. Su»e :010 KWWWaCk WA 94336 5091783- w. V !rs ••.i 4P • YskiM& . OZ •.........., ; . Yak*W 5091248-441 CITY OF 111PLEViV00D 1830 E. COUNIY ROAD B MAPL EWOOD, ME NESOTA 55109 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Maplewood Human Relations Commission DATE: September 9, 1996 RE: HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION SPONSORSHIP OF WE ARE FAMILY" THEATER PRODUCTION ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18,7 P.M. The Maplewood Human Relations Commission invites you to attend the Mixed Blood Theater's production of "We Are Family," which humorously tackles discrimination and cultural equity between those who have and those who have not. Immediately following the performance, the audience is invited to attend a post -show discussion about the play and how the topics of the play relate to our own community. Your attendance and participation are welcome. We are hoping that the Mayor will agree to facilitate the post -show discussion. Any of the rest of you are welcome to join in. We are asking the Council and HRC members to sit together in the front and to stand, as a group, prior to the beginning of the performance so the audience is aware of their attendance and support. Please call Sherrie Le if you have any questions. Equal Opportunity Employer