Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005 03-14 City Council Packet
AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, March 14, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. OS-5 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country C. ROLL CALL Mayor's Address on Protocol: "Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please state your name and address clearly for the record. All comments/questions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I then will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments. " D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes from the City CounciUManager Workshop-February 28, 2005 2. Minutes from the City Council Meeting-February 28, 2005 E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS G. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Conditional Use Permit Review -Kline Nissan (3090 Highway 61 North) 3. Conditional Use Permit Review - Hillcrest Animal Hospital (1320 County Road D) 4. Purchase of Two Police Vehicles 5. Temporary Gambling -Temporary Liquor -Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary 6. Grading of the Southwind Builder's Site, City Project 04-31 -Resolution for Acceptance of Project H. PUBLIC HEARINGS I. AWARD OF BIDS J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Gladstone Neighborhood Development Moratorium Extension (Second Reading) 2. Code Amendment - POD's (Second Reading) K. NEW BUSINESS 1. Schlomka Property Proposed Development, South of Carver Avenue at Henry Lane -- Concept Plan Review and Consider Request for Preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheet 2. Troutland Auto Dealerships (County Road D, west of Highway 61) Conditional Use Permit (Parcel 1) Conditional Use Permit (Parcel 2) 3. Overview (McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue) Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plat Design Approval 4. Outdoor Storage Area Conditional Use Permit Revision (Police Impound Lot - 1160 Frost Avenue) 5. Public Works Building Addition, City Project 03-19 -Resolution Considering Approval of Project Plans and Specifications and Authorize Receipt of Bids 6. Gladstone North Neighborhood Street Improvements, Project 04-15 -Resolutions for Approval of Plans & Advertising for Bids and Ordering Assessment Roll 7. Springside Drive Extension, Project 03-36 -Resolutions for Approval of Plans & Advertising for Bids and Ordering Assessment Roll 8. Board and Commission Reappointments L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Dispatch Response Letter 2. Set Second Retreat Date-June ll, 2005 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 CIVILITYFOR OUR COMMUNITY Following are Borne 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 COUNCIL/MANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, February 28, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall 6:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present Others Present: City Manager Fursman Assistant City Manager Coleman Police Chief Thomalla Fire Chief Lukin City Clerk Guilfoile C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Dispatch Consolidation Agenda Item D1 City Manager Fursman presented the report and stated the various options and conditions offered by the county for a consolidated dispatch center. Police Chief Thomalla and Fire Chief Lukin explained the importance of maintaining a city dispatch center. E. FUTURE TOPICS 1. Staff Reports F. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Koppen moved to adjourn at 6:52 p.m. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All City Council/Manager Workshop 02-28-OS A. B. C. D. DRAFT--MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, February 28, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. 05-04 CALL TO ORDER: Agenda Item D2 A meeting of the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, at the City Hall, and was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Cardinal. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Robert Cardinal, Mayor Present Kathleen Juenemann, Councilmember Present Marvin Koppen, Councilmember Present Jackie Monahan-Junek, Councilmember Present Will Rossbach, Councilmember Present APPROVAL OF MINUTES Clarification from the February 14, City Council Meeting Minutes-On-Sale Liquor License Violation Incentive Program a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Records, Elections and Licensing Director Guilfoile presented specifics from the report. Mayor and council clarified that the motion from the February 14th City Council meeting should include approving a one time 5% discount to on-sale liquor license holders who do not receive any liquor license violations over a 5 year period of time (effective January 1, 2005). Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-All 2. Minutes from the Council/Manager Workshop, February 14, 2005 Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the minutes from the February 14, 2005 City Council/Nlana~er workshop as presented. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Koppen, Monahan-Junek and Rossbach Abstain-Councilmember Juenemann City Counci102-28-OS 3. Minutes from City Council Meeting-February 14, 2005 Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the minutes from the February 14, 2005 CitX Council Meeting as presented. Seconded by CouncilmemberRossbach Ayes-All E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Manahan-Junek moved to approve the agenda as presented. Seconded by CouncilmemberKoppen Ayes-All F. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS None G. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Claims ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 204,146.21 Checks # 66218 thru # 66291 dated 02/11/05 thru 02/15/05 $ 126,685.43 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 02/04/05 thru 02/10/05 $ 218,367.61 Checks # 66292 thru # 66351 dated 02/22/05 $ 266,945.80 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 02/11/05 thru 02/17/05 $ 816,145.05 Total Accounts Payable PAYROLL Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated $ 443,754.29 02/11/05 $ 5,436.63 Payroll Deduction check # 100488 thru # 100493 dated 02/11/05 $ 449,190.92 Total Payroll $ 1,265,335.97 GRAND TOTAL City Counci102-28-OS 2 2. Carry Over of 2004 Appropriations to 2005 Approved the carry over of 2004 appropriations to 2005. Resolution Amending Terms for Series 2004B Bonds Adopted the following resolution moving the surplus bond proceeds to the Gladstone project: RESOLUTION 05-02-019 AMENDING THE RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL ON THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $13,010,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2004B, PROVIDING FOR THEIR ISSUANCE, PLEDGING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF A. WHEREAS, by resolution duly adopted by the City Council on July 22, 2004 (the "Bond Resolution"), the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City"), issued $13,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004B (the "Bonds") to finance various municipal improvement projects (the "2004 Improvements"); and B. WHEREAS, the City has received prepaid special assessments for two of the improvement projects that constituted a portion of the 2004 Improvements, specifically (i) County Road D, Hazelwood to Highway 61 and (ii) Legacy Parkway, Kennard to Southlawn, consequently the City proposes to use these prepaid special assessments to finance a portion of the cost of these two improvement projects and also to use Bond proceeds to finance a new additional improvement project, Gladstone North Area Streets (the "2005 Improvement" and, together with the "2004 Improvements", the "Improvements"); and C. WHEREAS, the 2005 Improvement and all its components have been ordered prior to the date hereof, after a hearing thereon for which notice was given describing the 2005 Improvement or all its components by general nature, estimated cost, and area to be assessed; and D. WHEREAS, the City hereby determines that the Bond Resolution must be amended to (i) accurately reflect the special assessment levies and collections for the 2004 Improvements; (ii) add the 2005 Improvement and the tax and special assessment levies and collections therefor; and (iii) accurately reflect the tax levies and collections for the Improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Maplewood, Ramsey County, Minnesota, as follows: Whereas Clause A of the Bond Resolution is amended to read as follows: A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City"), has heretofore determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient to issue $13,010,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2004B (the "Bonds"), of the City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475, to finance the construction of various improvement projects within the City, as described in paragraph 16 hereof (the "Improvements"); and 2. Paragraph 16 of the Bond Resolution is amended to read as follows: 16. Assessments. It is hereby determined that no less than twenty percent (20%) of the cost to the City of each Improvement financed hereunder within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, City Counci102-28-OS Section 475.58, Subdivision 1(3), shall be paid by special assessments to be levied against every assessable lot, piece and parcel of land benefited by any of the Improvements. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will let all construction contracts not heretofore let within one year after ordering each Improvement financed hereunder unless the resolution ordering the Improvement specifies a different time limit for the letting of construction contracts. The City hereby further covenants and agrees that it will do and perform as soon as they maybe done all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of such special assessments, and in the event that any such assessment be at any time held invalid with respect to any lot, piece or parcel of land due to any error, defect, or irregularity in any action or proceedings taken or to be taken by the City or the City Council or any of the City officers or employees, either in the making of the assessments or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City and the City Council will forthwith do all further acts and take all further proceedings as may be required by law to make the assessments a valid and binding lien upon such property. The special assessments have heretofore been authorized in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 3. The assessments are payable in equal annual installments with interest on the declining balance at the rates specified below. Subject to such adjustments as are required by conditions in existence at the time the assessments are levied, the assessments are hereby authorized and it is hereby determined that the assessments shall be payable in equal, consecutive, annual installments, with general taxes for the years shown below and with interest on the declining balance of all such assessments at a rate per annum not greater than the maximum permitted by law and not less than the rates per annum specified below: Improvement Designation Amount Lew Years Collection Years Rate County Road D, Hazelwood to Highway 61 $2,039,400 2004-2019 2005-2020 5.00% County Road D, West of Highway 61 974,600 2004-2019 2005-2020 5.00% Kennard Street, Beam to County Road D 2,069,735 2003-2018 2004-2019 6.00% County Road D Watermain Improvements 198,460 2004-2019 2005-2020 5.00% Atlantic Street Utilities, West of Frost Avenue 59,450 2004-2019 2005-2020 5.00% Hazelwood/County Road C Area Streets 776,150 2004-2019 2005-2020 5.00% Carlton Street, Conway to Minnehaha 339,200 2004-2019 2005-2020 5.00% Legacy Parkway, Kennard to Southlawn 1,199,050 2004-20019 2005-20202 5.00% Gladstone Area North Streets 926,620 2005-2020 2006-2021 5.00% At the time the assessments are in fact levied the City Council shall, based on the then-current estimated collections of the assessments, make any adjustments in any ad valorem taxes required to be levied in order to assure that the City continues to be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. Paragraph 17 of the Bond Resolution is amended to read as follows: 17. Tax Levy; Coverage Test. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: City Counci102-28-OS Year of Tax Levy Year of Tax Collection Amount SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assessments and other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. 4. The Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Ramsey County, Minnesota, together with such other information as the County Auditor shall require, and to obtain from the County Auditor the certificate that the Bonds have been entered in the County Auditor's Bond Register, and that the tax levy required by law has been made. 5. Except as hereby amended, all other terms and conditions of the Bond Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. EXHIBIT A Tax Levy Schedule City of Maplewood, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement Bonds Series 20046 Post-Sale Tax Levies Date Principal Coupon Interest TotaIP+I 105% Overlevy Revenue Levy Amount Levy Year 08/01/2005 1,000,000.00 3.000% 483,960.00 1,483,960.00 1,558,158.00 301,146.30 - 2003* 08/01/2006 835,000.00 3.000% 453,960.00 1,288,960.00 1,353,408.00 975,452.42 1,634,968.00 2004** 08/01/2007 825,000.00 3.000% 428,910.00 1,253,910.00 1,316,605.50 998,411.98 318,193.52 2005 08/01/2008 810,000.00 3.000% 404,160.00 1,214,160.00 1,274,868.00 956,840.55 318,027.45 2006 08/01/2009 800,000.00 3.250% 379,860.00 1,179,860.00 1,238,853.00 926,851.85 312,001.15 2007 08/01/2010 795,000.00 3.500% 353,860.00 1,148,860.00 1,206,303.00 896,863.13 309,439.87 2008 08/01/2011 790,000.00 3.750% 326,035.00 1,116,035.00 1,171,836.75 866,874.43 304,962.32 2009 08/01/2012 785,000.00 4.000% 296,410.00 1,081,410.00 1,135,480.50 836,885.73 298,594.77 2010 08/01/2013 785,000.00 4.000% 265,010.00 1,050,010.00 1,102,510.50 806,897.03 295,613.47 2011 08/01/2014 785,000.00 4.000% 233,610.00 1,018,610.00 1,069,540.50 776,908.33 292,632.17 2012 08/01/2015 785,000.00 4.000% 202,210.00 987,210.00 1,036,570.50 746,919.62 289,650.88 2013 08/01/2016 785,000.00 4.000% 170,810.00 955,810.00 1,003,600.50 716,930.89 286,669.61 2014 08/01/2017 790,000.00 4.100% 139,410.00 929,410.00 975,880.50 686,942.18 288,938.32 2015 08/01/2018 795,000.00 4.250% 107,020.00 902,020.00 947,121.00 656,953.50 290,167.50 2016 08/01/2019 665,000.00 4.250% 73,232.50 738,232.50 775,144.13 626,964.78 148,179.35 2017 08/01/2020 180,000.00 4.400% 44,970.00 224,970.00 236,218.50 458,993.82 - 2018 08/01/2021 185,000.00 4.500% 37,050.00 222,050.00 233,152.50 64,863.40 168,289.10 2019 08/01/2022 195,000.00 4.500% 28,725.00 223,725.00 234,911.25 - 234,911.25 2020 08/01 /2023 205, 000.00 4.750 % 19, 950.00 224, 950.00 236,197.50 - 236,197.50 2021 08/01/2024 215,000.00 4.750% 10,212.50 225,212.50 236,473.13 - 236,473.13 2022 Total $13,010,000.00 - $4,459,365.00 $17,469,365.00 $18,342,833.25 $12,301,699.94 $6,263,909.35 - The City expects to make this payment from available funds, which will be reimbursed with the first levy for this issue. ** This levy will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest payments due in 2006 and to reimburse the City for the August 1, 2005 payment. City Counci102-28-OS 5 4. Waterfest Appropriations for 2005 Approved the RWMWD request for funds for Waterfest. Funds are available in the storm sewer maintenance budget. Conditional Use Permit Review - Menard's (2280 Maplewood Drive) Approved to review the conditional use permit for Menard's at 2280 Maplewood Drive again in one year. The council may review this permit sooner if a problem arises or if Menard's proposes a major change to the site. 6. Conditional Use Permit Review - Woodhill (2516 Linwood Avenue) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD) for Woodhill again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the approved proj ect plans. 7. Conditional Use Permit Review -Highwood Farms Townhouses (2666 Highwood Avenue) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the planned unit development (PUD) for the Highwood Farms Town Houses on Highwood Avenue again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a maj or change to the site. At that time, the city shall end the approval of the PUD and the preliminary plat if the owner of another developer has not made significant progress in starting and completing the project. Conditional Use Permit Review -Saint Paul Business Center East (1983-2025 Sloan Place) Approved to review the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Business Center East again in six months to ensure compliance with conditions and that all the repairs have been made. 9. Late Fee Penalty for Business License's Ordinance-Second Reading Approved the following ordinance revision to add a penalty clause for late application and or payment: Ordinance No. 859 Businesses and Licensing Sec. 14-27. ^ m^~~r*° ^~ ~'°°°. Fee Amounts and Penalty for Late Application and Payment. Unless otherwise specifically or expressly provided, the amount of any license fee for any license issued by the city shall be imposed, set, established and fixed by the city council, by resolution, from time to time. When a licensee or permit holder fails to make application for a renewal or to pay the required fee on or before the due date, the city will impose a penalty of $25.00 or 10% of the City Counci102-28-OS license fee whichever is greater of the two. 10. Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road Improvements, City Project 02-08, (04-04)-Resolution for Modification of the Existing Construction Contract, Change Order Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Adopted the following resolution directing the modification of the construction contract with Imperial Developer's Inc. by $3,521 for the Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road Improvements, City Project 04-04, (02-08), by approving change Order Nos. 1, 2, and 3 RESOLUTION 05-02-020 DIRECTING MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota has heretofore ordered made Improvement Project 04-04, Venburg/Guldens Frontage Road Improvements, (part of County Road D West Realignment, Project 02-08), and has let a construction contract pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that it is now necessary and expedient that said contract be modified and designated as Improvement Project 04-04, Change Order Nos. 1, 2 and 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized and directed to modify the existing contract by executing said Change Order Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the amount of $3,521.00. The revised contract amount is $329,890.39. No revision to the financing plan is required at this time as all items fall within the approved budget. 11. Hazelwood Street Improvements, City Project 03-39 -Resolutions for Restriction of Parking and Establishing an Urban District and Speed Zone Adopted the following resolutions approving No Parking retrictions and establishing an urban district and speed zone for Hazelwood Street from Beam Avenue and County Road D. RESOLUTION 05-02-021 NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS HAZELWOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT, PROJECT 03-39 S.A.P. 138-112-006 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has approved the plans for the construction of Hazelwood Street from Beam Avenue to County Road D; and WHEREAS, the city will be expending Municipal State Aid (MSA Project 138-112-006) funds on the improvement of said street; and WHEREAS, segments of said improvement do not conform to the approved minimum State Aid width standard for unrestricted parking; and WHEREAS, release of MSA funds is dependent on specified parking restrictions. City Counci102-28-OS NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City of Maplewood shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on both the east and the west sides of Hazelwood Street from Beam Avenue to County Road D, with the exception of the following locations: Parking shall be permitted on the east side of Hazelwood Street fora 239-ft segment of street between 190' and 431' south of the centerline of Legacy Parkway. 2. Parking shall be permitted on the east side of Hazelwood Street fora 90-ft segment of street between 68' and 158' north of the centerline of Legacy Parkway. RESOLUTION 05-02-022 ESTABLISHING AN URBAN DISTRICT SEGMENT AND SPEED ZONE ON HAZELWOOD STREET BETWEEN BEAM AVENUE AND COUNTY ROAD D WHEREAS, a 40 mph speed zone currently exists on Hazelwood Street between Beam Avenue and County Road D; and WHEREAS, a 40 mph roadway at this location is no longer appropriate for reasons of public safety, based on the changing urban character of adjacent development; and WHEREAS, the scheduled 2005 reconstruction (C.P. 03-39, SAP 138-112-006) of said roadway has been designed assuming a 30 mph design speed; and WHEREAS, the city council of Maplewood has determined that the above described segment meets the definition of an "urban district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 169.01, subdivision 59, and WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statute Section 169.14, Subdivision Sb, the governing body may by resolution declare the segment to be an urban district and may establish on the segment the speed limit for urban districts prescribed in Subdivision 2, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that the above described segment be declared an "urban district" and a 30 mile per hour speed limit be established and posted on said segment according to Minnesota Statute 169.14, Subdivision 2, Subpart 1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of the Resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation a minimum of 10 days prior to changing the posted speed limit signs from 40 mph to 30 mph. 12. Public Works Building Addition -City Project 03-19 -Approve Application for Safety Grant Approved the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry grant application for the repair of the air handling system at the Public Works Garage and authorized the Mayor and City Manger to sign the application on behalf of the city. 13. Pre-Hospital Medical Director Service Agreement Approved the agreement with Regions Hospital for pre-hospital medical director service City Counci102-28-OS starting January 1, 2005 and terminating December 31, 2007. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt consent agenda itemsl-13 as presented. Seconded by CouncilmemberRossbach Ayes-All H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 p.m. Gladstone Neighborhood Development Moratorium Extension a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: None d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Mayor Cardinal moved to approve the first reading of the following ordinance extending the development moratorium for the Gladstone Neighborhood for six months or until the city council approves a redevelopment plan for this area, whichever comes first: ORDINANCE NO. 861 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM FOR THE GLADSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD The area under consideration (hereinafter "Gladstone Neighborhood") includes land generally located along Frost Avenue and English Street in Maplewood as follows: properties south of the Gateway Trail, properties north of Frisbee Avenue, properties east of Phalen Place North, and properties west of Ide Street North (refer to Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Study Area map attached for exact location). The Maplewood City Council ordains: SECTION 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The City of Maplewood is conducting a strategic planning study that includes land use planning components for the Gladstone Neighborhood. 1.02 The objective of the study is to design a strategic development plan including drawings and design standards the city can use, along with city ordinances, to achieve a sustainable, livable center for this neighborhood. 1.03 In addition to the study, the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, and comprehensive plan may need to be revised to reflect the following issues: City Counci102-28-OS - Land use - Building setbacks - Building height - Design standards for buildings - Pedestrian flow and safety - Parking - Streetscaping - Signage - Lighting - Landscaping - Housing density 1.04 There is a need for this study to be conducted so that the city can adopt changes to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, comprehensive plan, and design standards for the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood. 1.05 There, further, is a need to extend the previously-adopted moratorium ordinance six months for the continued planning study of the Gladstone Neighborhood. SECTION 2. STRATEGIC PLANNING STUDY; MORATORIUM 2.01 The study is authorized by the city. City staff shall coordinate this study with the Metropolitan Council, hired consultants, Gladstone property and business owners, interested citizens, city council, and various city commissions and boards. 2.02 Upon completion of the study, it shall be presented to the planning commission and community design review board for their review and recommendation to the city council. 2.03 A moratorium on development in the Gladstone Neighborhood is adopted pending adoption of the study and any amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, or comprehensive plan as deemed necessary as a result of the study by the city council. The city will not approve any subdivision, design plans or building permit for commercial, institutional, or multi-family residential land uses for the exterior construction of new buildings or additions, and freestanding signs during the moratorium period. City Counci102-28-OS 10 SECTION 3. TERM 3.01 The term of this ordinance extension shall be for one and one-half years from the date of it's original adoption or until such time as the city council adopts the study and any amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, or comprehensive plan as deemed necessary as a result of the study. SECTION 4. VARIANCES 4.01 Variances from this ordinance maybe granted by the city council based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. b. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions which the applicant alleges to exist, and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. The application shall be submitted to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. d. The city council may in its discretion set a public hearing prior to making a final determination on the requested variance. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as maybe necessary to comply with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Seconded by CouncilmemberKoppen Ayes-All Due to time constraints-moved to unfinished Business, Item Jl. J. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Sump Pump UI Reduction Program (Sanitary Sewer) -City Project 04-22 -Second Reading to Approve Ordinance Amendment Banning Clear Water Discharges to Sanitary Sewer City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Councilmember Juenemann moved to amend the ordinance re u~ latin~ the discharge of surface waters into the Municipal Sewer System and a~provin~ the second reading of the ordinance to establish the sum~pump inspection program: City Counci102-28-OS 11 ORDINANCE NO 856 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE DISCHARGE OF CLEAR WATER INTO THE MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Section 1. Findings and Purposes. The purpose of this ordinance is for the efficient, economic and safe operation of the municipal sanitary sewer system for the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the public within the City. Section 2. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this ordinance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Clear Water Drainage means any storm water, natural precipitation, ground water, or flow from roof runoff, surface runoff, subsurface drainage, down spouts, eave troughs, rain spouts, yard drains, sump pumps, foundation drains, yard fountains, ponds, swimming pools, cistern overflows or water discharged from any air conditioning unit or system. Permanently Installed Discharge Line means a rigid discharge line that does not, at any time, discharge water into the municipal sanitary sewer system and does not have any connections for altering the path of discharge. This line must provide for year round discharge to the outside of the structure, preferably to a drainage Swale or ditch. The City may also approve a discharge to: 1) the City's storm sewer line by a connection; or 2) the curb and gutter to the street. If the line is connected to the City's storm sewer line, it shall include a check valve. Section 3. Prohibited Discharges. No property owner shall discharge or cause to be discharged any Clear Water Drainage directly or indirectly into the municipal sanitary sewer system. No property owner shall make or maintain a connection between any conductor used to carry Clear Water drainage to the municipal sanitary sewer system. Structures on properties that have a sump pump system to discharge excess water due to the infiltration into foundations shall have a Permanently Installed Discharge Line. Any disconnects or openings in the sanitary sewer system shall be closed or repaired by the property owner in an effective, workmanlike manner in accordance with local, state and federal law. Section 4. Inspections. Every property owner that owns improved real estate in the City shall allow a representative of the City to inspect both the inside and outside of buildings located on the property to confirm that there is no Clear Water Drainage or other prohibited discharge into the municipal sanitary sewer system. Any property owner that refuses to allow his or her property to be inspected within fourteen (14) days of the date of a request by the City representative shall immediately become subject to the surcharge provided for in this ordinance until the property is inspected and/or compliance is met and any penalties and remedies of the City as provided in its policies and codes, including, but not limited to, assessments, administrative expenses in achieving compliance. City Counci102-28-OS 12 Any property owner whose property is found in violation of this Ordinance shall make the necessary changes to comply with this Ordinance and shall furnish proof of these changes to the designated City representative within ninety (90) days upon receiving notice of the violation. Section 5. City Installation. Where the property owner has been notified in writing to comply with this ordinance fails, refuses or neglects to comply within ninety (90) days of receipt of the notice, the council may, by resolution, direct the installation of the required pipes, plumbing fixtures and appliances. The cost of installation shall be paid by the City and the actual cost assessed against the property benefitted. After the installation and connections are completed, there shall be served upon the owner of the property, a written notice of the assessment and an order directing the owner to pay the assessment within ten (10) days after the service of the written notice. Upon proof of service of the notice and order, and proof that the assessment has not been paid within the ten (10) days allowed, an assessment hearing shall be held by the City and the benefited property shall be assessed for the costs and administrative expenses incurred by the City in achieving compliance. Section 6. Surcharge. A surcharge of $100.00 for single family properties and $500.00 for all other properties per month shall be imposed and added to every utility billing for properties refusing or failing compliance or inspection as herein provided. The surcharge shall be added to every monthly billing until the property is brought into compliance as determined by the City or the inspection has been permitted and compliance has been determined. The City Council may grant waivers from the surcharges where strict enforcement may cause undue hardship unique to the property or where the property owner was scheduled for disconnection but cannot do so due to the circumstances, such as inclement weather. Section 7. Penalties. Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Minnesota Statute Section 609.02, subdivision 3. Section 8. Severability. Should any section, subdivision, clause or other provision of this ordinance be held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part held to be invalid. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Seconded by CouncilmemberKoppen Ayes-All H. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 2. 7:30 p.m. Code Amendment -Portable On-Demand Storage Units (POD'S) City Counci102-28-OS 13 (First Reading) City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Environmental Management Specialist Konewko presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: None d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Juenemann moved to adopt the following first reading of the ordinance amendment for the portable on-demand storage units (POD's~ Ordinance 860 Section. 30-7 Unlawful disposal; location of containers for collection -portable on-demand storage units (PODs); disposal of inflammable or explosive materials. (h) No property owner or person shall store on a residential property a portable on- demand storage unit (POD) more than 60 days in any 12-month period starting with the day/date the POD is first moved on-site. All PODS must be stored on an impervious surface on the property. The City may grant a time extension of an additional 60 days provided the property owner gets a tracking permit for the POD from the City. In no case shall a POD be stored on a property more than 120 days in any 12-month period. This provision applies to all residential properties including townhouses, condominiums, and multi-family complexes. PODs stored on residential properties in conjunction with a building permit or home improvement prolect are exempt from this provision, except for the requirement to keep the POD on an impervious surface. In such a case, the property owner shall make every effort to adhere to the 120 day maximum time limit. Language that is underlined and bolded represents the proposed ordinance additions. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All L AWARD OF BIDS None K. NEW BUSINESS Sterling Oaks Park Final Master Plan City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Parks and Recreation Director Anderson presented specifics from the report. Parks and Recreation Commissioner presented the Parks and Recreation Commission report. City Counci102-28-OS 14 Mayor Cardinal moved to adopt the master plan for Sterling Oaks Park and directed staff to complete the final designs and ~o to public bid the springy of 2005. Seconded by Councilmember Monahan-Junek Ayes-All 2. Applewood Park Final Master Plan City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. Parks and Recreation Director Anderson presented specifics from the report. Parks and Recreation Commissioner presented the Parks and Recreation Commission report. Councilmember Monahan-Junek moved to approve the final master plan for A~plewood Park with the understanding that the prioritization of phases will need to be done as part of the bid letting and final design phase. Seconded by CouncilmemberKoppen Ayes-All County Road D Improvements and Bruce Vento Trail Extension -City Projects 02-07 and 04-25 -Approve Memorandum of Understanding for BNSF Rail Abandonment and Providing for Purchase of Right of Way by Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority City Manager Fursman presented the staff report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal moved to approve the following Memorandum of Understanding with Ramsey County, Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Enemy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Minnesota Commercial Railroad and Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority for the extension of the Bruce Vento Trail and the abandonment and purchase of the BNSF right-of- way: This Memorandum of Understanding dated this 28th day of February, 2005 is between the County of Ramsey, a political subdivision in the State of Minnesota (hereinafter "County"), the City of Maplewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy (hereinafter "Xcel Energy"), Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (hereinafter `BNSF"), Minnesota Commercial Railroad (hereinafter "Minnesota Commercial"), and Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority, a political subdivision in the State of Minnesota (hereinafter "Regional Rail"). WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a project known as the County Road D Realignment Project, City Project Number 02-07 ("Project"); WHEREAS, the Proj ect will require the removal of a portion of the existing railroad track located in the area south of Interstate 694 owned by BNSF and leased by Minnesota Commercial; WHEREAS, the portion of the existing railroad track to be removed currently serves only the electric substation ("Kohlman Lake Substation") owned by Xcel Energy along the west side of the railroad south of County Road D. The Kohlman Lake Substation requires rail access for the delivery of transformer City Counci102-28-OS 15 units in the event of a need for the installation of additional transformers or the replacement of failed transformers; WHEREAS, Xcel Energy is willing to abandon its use of the railroad track if an alternative roadway access can be established for the hauling of transformers; WHEREAS, a haul route for the transformers for Xcel Energy was approved by a Joint Powers Agreement dated June 25, 2004 ("Haul Route") WHEREAS, Xcel Energy has agreed to utilize this Haul Route and is no longer in need of the railroad track; WHEREAS, Ramsey County has requested that the land underlying the abandoned railroad track be used for its Bruce Vento Trail extension; WHEREAS, Regional Rail has requested to purchase the underlying land for commuter rail purposes; WHEREAS, BNSF has agreed to sell the underlying land to Ramsey County and Regional Rail; NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: L SECTION I, RAMSEY COUNTY. A. Representations and Warranties by the County. The County represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed hereof, and the officials of the County who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of the County have the power and the authority to do so and to bind the County; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and 3. It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of the County in this Agreement. The County shall perform the following: The County agrees to enter into a purchase agreement with BNSF to purchase a twenty-five foot strip of property between the proposed abandonment area and the south right-of--way line of Buerkle Road for the extension of the Bruce Vento Trail, legally described as follows: All that part of the easterly 25.00 feet of the 150-foot wide Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of--way located in the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota whichlies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly line of said Railway right-of--way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly line with the northerly right-of--way line of Trunk Highway 393-694 as described in that certain Final Certificate filed in the Office of the Ramsey County City Counci102-28-OS 16 Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969, and which lies southerly of the southerly line of the 66-foot wide right-of--way of Buerkle Road as described in that certain Perpetual Easement filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on December 22, 1982 as Document Number 2164739 (`Bruce Vento Trail Extension Property"); The Purchase Agreement shall require that the County pay BNSF $3.30 per square foot (estimated square feet to be acquired is 26,100 square feet = $86,130.00). The closing on the Bruce Vento Trail Extension Property shall occur no later than May 27, 2005. The County shall be responsible for expenses incurred in obtaining a title insurance policy, title correction work, environmental testing expenses and any environmental corrections associated with this purchase of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension Property from BNSF. 2. The County agrees to enter into a separate Joint Powers Agreement with the City to allow the City to construct the Bruce Vento Trail Extension, including grading, clearing & grubbing, bituminous pavement, bridge improvements, and restoration work from Beam Avenue to Buerkle Road (`Bruce Vento Trail Extension"). The County shall assign its grant dollars received for the Bruce Vento Trail Extension to the City in payment of City's construction of the improvements and property acquisition. The Joint Powers Agreement shall be executed no later than May 27, 2005. The County shall assign its grant funds for the Bruce Vento Trail Extension in the amount of $663,870.00 to the City in consideration for the City constructing the improvements. The County agrees that BNSF shall grant Xcel Energy a permanent transmission line easement over the Bruce Vento Trail Extension Property prior to the sale of the property to the County and that this easement shall contain a clause that the trail is subordinate to the transmission lines. BNSF shall provide a copy of the Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easement agreement to the County for review and approval. The County shall not unreasonably withhold approval. II. SECTION II. REGIONAL RAIL. A. Representations and Warranties by Regional Rail. Regional Rail represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed hereof, and the officials of Regional Rail who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of Regional Rail have the power and the authority to do so and to bind Regional Rail; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of Regional Rail in this Agreement. Regional Rail shall perform the following: City Counci102-28-OS 17 Regional Rail agrees to enter into a Purchase Agreement with BNSF to purchase the excess railroad track right-of--way after abandonment, legally described as follows: All that part of the 150-foot wide Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of- way located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the center line of said Railway right-of--way from a point thereon distant 183.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said center line with the southerly line of said Northwest Quarter. and: All that part of the 150-foot wide Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of- way located in the South Half of the South Half of Section 34, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies southerly of a line drawn perpendicular with the easterly right-of--way line of said Railway right-of--way from a point thereon distant 35.00 feet northeasterly from the intersection of said easterly right-of--way line with the northerly right-of--way line of Trunk Highway 393-694 as described in that certain Final Certificate and filed in the Office of the Ramsey County Recorder on November 4, 1966 as Document Number 1687969. ("Abandonment Property"); The Purchase Agreement shall require that Regional Rail pay BNSF $1,152,370.00 for the Abandonment Property. Regional Rail shall be responsible for any expenses associated with obtaining a title insurance policy, title corrections work and any environmental testing and/or environmental corrections on the property. Closing shall occur no later than December 31, 2005. The City shall pay Regional Rail the sum of $1,152,370.00 for Regional Rail's purchase of the Abandonment Property. Regional Rail shall enter into a separate agreement with the City detailing the terms for the repayment of the $1,152,370.00 or another agreed upon value. Repayment shall occur before June 30, 2006, or ownership of the Abandonment Property shall be conveyed to the City. 2. Agree to grant the City and County any necessary rights and permits at no cost that are needed for construction of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. Regional Rail agrees that BNSF shall grant Xcel Energy the following permanent transmission line easements over the Abandonment Property prior to the sale of the property to the Regional Rail: 150 foot and 55 foot wide easements for the transmission line that crosses and runs north/south along the Abandonment Property. b. 250 foot wide easement that runs east/west across the Abandonment Property. City Counci102-28-OS 18 25 foot wide easement along the Bruce Vento Trail Extension Property. BNSF shall provide a copy of the Xcel Energy permanent transmission line easement agreements to Regional Rail for review and approval. Regional Rail shall not unreasonably withhold approval. III. SECTION III, CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. A. Representations and Warranties by the City. The City represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed hereof, and the officials of the City who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of the City have the power and the authority to do so and to bind the City; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of the City in this Agreement. The City shall perform the following: Enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the County agreeing to construct the Bruce Vento Trail Extension as described above. The Joint Powers Agreement shall be executed by both parties no later than May 27, 2005. Trail construction shall be completed by the City no later than October 31, 2005. The County shall assign its grant funds for the Bruce Vento Trail Extension in the amount of $663,870.00 to the City in consideration for the City constructing the improvements. 2. Pay $59,000 to BNSF for Xcel Energy easements within the Abandonment Property. BNSF shall grant the following easements to Xcel Energy: 150 foot and 55 foot wide easements for the transmission line that crosses and runs north/south along the Abandonment Property. b. 250 foot wide easement that runs east/west across the Abandonment Property. 25 foot wide easement along the Bruce Vento Trail Extension Property. Pay Regional Rail the sum of $1,152,370.00 for Regional Rail's purchase of the Abandonment Property. Regional Rail shall enter into a separate agreement with the City detailing the terms for the repayment of the $1,152,370.00 or another agreed upon value. Repayment shall occur before June 30, 2006, or ownership of the Abandonment Property shall be conveyed to the City. 4. The City shall pay costs associated with the relocation of Xcel Energy Power Line 0885 to a point acceptable to Xcel Energy. The City and Xcel Energy shall execute a separate agreement detailing the scope and cost for this work. City Counci102-28-OS 19 5. Enter into a Letter Agreement with BNSF for the granting of a permanent easement to the City. The Letter Agreement shall be executed by the City and BNSF no later than Apri129, 2005. The City shall pay $103,700.00 to BNSF in consideration for this permanent easement over the Abandonment Property to construct County Road D. 6. Remove the BNSF trackage spur as a part of the Project. The railroad bridge at existing County Road D shall also be removed by the City at a time determined by the City. The City shall be responsible for the costs incurred for these removals. Minnesota Commercial shall be responsible for salvaging and/or disposing of the existing ties and rails within the abandonment area. 7. The City shall complete construction of its County Road D extension project no later than November 30, 2005. IV. SECTION IV, XCEL ENERGY. A. Representations and Warranties by Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed hereof, and the officials of Xcel Energy who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of Xcel Energy have the power and the authority to do so and to bind Xcel Energy; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of Xcel Energy in this Agreement. Xcel Energy shall perform the following: Enter into an Alternative Loading Service Agreement with Minnesota Commercial no later than Apri129, 2005 to reassign rail access rights to a point north of the Abandonment Property. 2. Notify Minnesota Commercial and BNSF in writing no later than April 1, 2005 that it no longer needs the railroad spur to the Kohlman Lake Substation site. This notification must confirm to Minnesota Commercial that the proposed Abandonment Property limits are acceptable to Xcel Energy. Enter into a permanent easement agreement with BNSF for its transmission lines within the Abandonment Property no later than August 31, 2005. The City shall pay BNSF $59,000 in consideration for the granting of the following easements to Xcel Energy: 150 foot and 55 foot wide easements for the transmission line that crosses and runs north/south along the Abandonment Property. City Counci102-28-OS 20 b. 250 foot wide easement that runs east/west across the Abandonment Property. 25 foot wide easement along the Bruce Vento Trail Extension Property. Xcel Energy understands and agrees that this easement is an accommodation for the City Proj ect improvements and does not establish a precedent for future negotiations with Regional Rail and the County. The permanent easement agreement shall contain a clause that the Bruce Vento Trail Extension is subordinate to the transmission lines. 4. Agree to grant the City and Ramsey County any necessary rights and permits at no cost needed for construction of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. V. SECTION V, BNSF. A. Representations and Warranties by BNSF. BNSF represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed hereof, and the officials of BNSF who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of BNSF have the power and the authority to do so and to bind BNSF; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of BNSF in this Agreement. BNSF shall perform the following: Agree to the expedited rail line abandonment process, to begin immediately and be completed by August 31, 2005. 2. Execute the Letter Agreement with the City no later than Apri129, 2005, giving the City a permanent easement to construct the County Road D improvements. The City shall pay BNSF $103,700.00 in consideration for the granting of this easement. Enter into a Purchase Agreement with Regional Rail to sell the Abandonment Property to Regional Rail for the appraised value of $1,152,370.00. Closing shall be completed no later than December 31, 2005. 4. Agree to grant the City and County any necessary rights and permits at no cost that are needed for construction of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. 5. Enter into a Purchase Agreement with the County to sell atwenty-five foot strip of property between the proposed Abandonment Property and the south right of way line of Buerkle Road for the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. The County shall pay $3.30 per square foot for the property (26,100 square feet x $3.30 sq/ft = $86,130.00). Closing shall occur no later than May 27, 2005. City Counci102-28-OS 21 6. Agree to grant the following easements within the Abandonment Property to Xcel Energy for the total cost of $59,000: 150 foot and 55 foot wide easements for the transmission line that crosses and runs north/south along the Abandonment Property. b. 250 foot wide easement that runs east/west across the Abandonment Property. 25 foot wide easement along the Bruce Vento Trail Extension Property. VL SECTION VL MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL. A. Representations and Warranties by Minnesota Commercial. Minnesota Commercial represents and warrants to the parties that: It has all requisite power and authority to execute this Agreement and the documents previously listed hereof, and the officials of Minnesota Commercial who did or will execute the same for and on behalf of Minnesota Commercial have the power and the authority to do so and to bind Minnesota Commercial; 2. It will act reasonably and exercise due diligence in the performance of the acts permitted or required under this Agreement; and It will cooperate with all requests by the other parties related to this Agreement. B. Obligations of Minnesota Commercial in this Agreement. Minnesota Commercial shall perform the following: Agree to the expedited rail line abandonment process, to begin immediately and be completed no later than August 31, 2005. 2. Execute the Letter Agreement between the City, Minnesota Commercial and BNSF granting the City a permanent easement for roadway purposes no later than Apri129, 2005. Agree to grant the City and County any necessary rights and permits at no cost that are needed for construction of the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. 4. Execute in cooperation with the BNSF, a Purchase Agreement with the County to sell atwenty-five foot strip of property between the proposed Abandonment Property and the south right of way line of Buerkle Road for the Bruce Vento Trail Extension. The County shall pay $3.30 per square foot for the property (26,100 square feet x $3.30 sq/ft = $86,130.00). Closing shall occur no later than May 27, 2005. 5. Execute in cooperation with the BNSF, a Purchase Agreement with Regional Rail to sell the Abandonment Property. The Purchase Agreement shall require that Regional Rail pay BNSF $1,152,370.00 for the Abandonment Property. Closing City Counci102-28-OS 22 shall occur no later than December 31, 2005. 6. Be responsible for the salvaging of the existing ties and rails within the Abandonment Property. The salvaging of this material shall be completed by May 27, 2005. VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. B. Arbitration. It is agreed by the parties that any differences, disputes or claims which arise under and pursuant to this Agreement or as to the performance thereof by the parties hereto shall be submitted for arbitration to a board of arbitrators consisting of three (3) persons, one selected by the party interested in the other side of the dispute, and a third person mutually selected and agreed upon by the first two arbitrators. Any party shall notify the other party in writing, served by U. S. Mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, of a dispute, stating the nature of the claim or dispute and the name and address of the selected arbitrator. The other party shall serve notice of its selected arbitrator and opposition or other interest in the claim or dispute. The two arbitrators shall select a third disinterested arbitrator within fifteen (15) days after the response notice stated above. Arbitration shall be commenced within forty-five (45) days of the original notice pursuant to the previous paragraphs hereof, and all proceedings shall be governed by the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 572. The decision of any two arbitrators shall be binding and conclusive with respect to all claims and disputes submitted in such arbitration proceedings. If a party does not respond to an arbitration notice, then the party first serving the arbitration notice under the previous paragraph shall be entitled by Motion to petition a court of competent jurisdiction for its order selecting and appointing an arbitrator for said defaulting party. Any such determination by the Court shall be final, binding and conclusive as to all parties in interest. Expenses for the arbitration shall be divided equally among the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement. Seconded by CouncilmemberKoppen Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Monahan-Junek Nays-Councilmember Rossbach L. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None City Counci102-28-OS 23 M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS None N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Dispatch Center Follow-up: Tuesday, March 1st, City Manager Fursman will be meeting with Ramsey County Commissioner McDonough regarding dispatch. Fire Chief Lukin clarified that if the city consolidated with the county for dispatch there would be a cost savings to the city, but the amount is not known at this time. O. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Cardinal moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Seconded by CouncilmemberKoppen Ayes -All City Counci102-28-OS 24 AGENDA NO. G-1 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Finance Director RE: APPROVAL OF CLAIMS DATE: March 7, 2005 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: $ 391,709.00 Checks # 66352 thru # 66408 dated 02/25/05 thru 03/01/05 $ 158,750.61 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 02/18/05 thru 02/24/05 $ 244,566.91 Checks # 66409 thru # 66460 dated 03/08/05 $ 291,793.94 $ 1,086,820.46 PAYROLL $ 434,000.27 $ 3,840.69 $ 437,840.96 Disbursements via debits to checking account dated 02/25/05 thru 03/03/05 Total Accounts Payable Payroll Checks and Direct Deposits dated 02-25-OS Payroll Deduction check # 100628 thru # 100631 dated 02-25-OS Total Payroll $ 1,524,661.42 GRAND TOTAL Attached is a detailed listing of these claims. Please call me at 651-249-2902 if you have any question on the attached listing. This will allow me to check the supporting documentation on file if necessary. ds attachments c:\My Documents\Excel\Miscellaneous\05-AprClms 02-25 and 03-04 1 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 02/25/2005 11:50:40 AM Check Date Vendor 66352 66353 66354 66355 66356 66357 2/25/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 00986 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 02411 ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC 00131 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO 02034 ASSN FOR NONSMOKERS 00174 BELDE, STAN 66358 66359 66360 66361 66362 66363 66364 66365 66366 66367 66368 66369 66370 66371 66372 66373 66374 66375 66376 66377 66378 66379 66380 66381 66382 66383 66384 66385 66386 66387 66388 66389 66390 66391 66392 66393 66394 66395 66396 66397 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 3/1/2005 02914 BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF MN 01922 BREHEIM, ROGER 03347 CATCO PARTS & SERVICE 03302 CGAA BASKETBALL 02929 CNAGLAC 00384 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SRVS 00358 DGM INC. 00467 ENGRAPHICS INC 01973 ERICKSON OIL PRODUCTS INC 00520 FLOR, TIMOTHY W 00529 FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO 00589 GRAF, DAVE 00612 GYM WORKS INC 03224 HARRIS -BILLINGS CO INC, THE 03245 HARTFORD GROUP INC 02945 HEALTHEAST VEHICLE SERVICES 00668 HIEBERT. STEVEN 02289 INFRASTRUCTURE TECH INC 03345 JANE BEHAN UPHOLSTERY 00807 KOEHNEN, MARY 00883 LUTZ, DAVID 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 01819 MCLEOD USA 02872 METLIFE SBC 00985 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 01018 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT 01085 MN LIFE INSURANCE 03341 MOORHEAD POLICE FEDERATION 01124 NATL ASSN OF TOWN WATCH - NATW 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 00001 ONE TIME VENDOR 03151 PETTY CASH 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 01359 REGAL AUTO WASH DETAIL XX 01340 REGIONS HOSPITAL 03346 REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY INC 01409 S.E.H. Description/Account MONTHLY SAC -JAN REPAIR BAUER COMPRESSOR PATROL & BOARDING FEE 1/29 - 2/11 AERIAL PLATFORM FUEL 2005 NORTH SUBURBAN TOBACCO COMP K9 MAINT -FEB K9 MAINT -JAN K9 MAINT -MAR MONTHLY PREMIUM PERS CELL PHONE USE -MAR VEHICLE PART BASKETBALL OFFICIALS 2/5 & 12 LONG TERM CARE INS COPIER LEASE TOW FORFEITURE TOW FORFEITURE TOW STOLEN VEHICLE TOW FORFEITURE TOW FORFEITURE SIGNS CAR WASHES -STMT DATE 2/1 REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS STD PLAN 4043120-0-1 MARCH MONTHLY LTD PREMIUM KARATE INSTRUCTORS 2/1 - 2/22 EXERCISE EQUIP PARTS RESTROOM PARTITIONS RENOVATIONS PROJ 04-30 REF ESCROW REPAIR VEHICLE #961 K9 MAINT -FEB K9 MAINT -JAN K9 MAINT -MAR PROJ 02-07 TELEVISE SEWER THEATER SEAT REPAIR REIMB FOR MILEAGE & PARKING 2/19 REFUND DEPENDENT DENTAL 7/1 - 2/28 BIRTHDAY CAKES BIRTHDAY CAKES LOCAL PHONE SRV 1/16 - 2/15 MONTHLY DENTAL PREMIUM WASTEWATER-MAR AUTOMATED PAWN SYS -JAN MONTHLY PREMIUM 2005 FIELD TRIALS REGISTRATION NATW MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL REF RYAN CO -VAR & RES FEES REF LINDA QUINN -MEMBERSHIP REF ANITA MILLER -MEMBERSHIP REF REDEEMER LUTH -MCC ADMISSION REPLENISH PETTY CASH TRAINING REGISTRATION - 1 TRAINING REGISTRATIONS - 2 CAR WASHES -JAN ACLS TRAINING PARAMEDIC SUPPLIES TRAINING COURSE PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS Amount 21,879.00 450.00 1,204.66 55.00 1,352.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 122,141.50 15.00 128.59 240.00 907.04 511.20 151.23 143.78 122.48 90.53 122.48 15.98 164.00 420.00 1,478.24 2,712.89 198.25 113.96 764.08 1,805.34 702.17 35.00 35.00 35.00 1, 700.00 55.00 17.10 292.82 15.25 41.25 2,111.16 8,595.51 185,478.30 577.00 4,275.65 100.00 25.00 3,868.00 24.00 20.00 11.00 180.68 180.00 120.00 126.00 120.00 1,414.22 625.00 3,361.74 409.38 2 Check Date Vendor Description/Account Amount 66398 66399 66400 66401 66402 66403 66404 66405 66406 66407 66408 3/1/2005 01430 SCHROEDER MILK COMPANY, INC 3/1/2005 01463 SISTER ROSALIND GEFRE 3/1/2005 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 3/1/2005 03348 STEWART D WALKER INC 3/1/2005 01572 SYSTEMS SUPPLY, INC. 3/1/2005 01580 TSE, INC. 3/1/2005 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC 3/1/2005 01683 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 3/1/2005 03334 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP 3/1/2005 01734 WALSH, WILLIAM P. 3/1/2005 02410 WELLS FARGO LEASING INC 57 Checks in this report PROJ 01-14 PROF SRVS 2,049.16 PROJ 04-22 PROF SRVS 545.13 PROJ 02-08 PROF SRVS 639.76 PROJ 02-07 PROF SRVS 1,113.46 PROJ 04-22 PROF SRVS 1,994.19 TAX INCREMENT (90% OF 3,997.43) 3,597.69 MASSAGES -JAN 2,701.00 CRIME LAB -JAN 255.00 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 958.26 SHOWER PART 59.12 INK CARTRIDGES 319.80 INK CARTRIDGES 184.16 JANITORIAL SRVS 12/26 - 1/22 819.12 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 350.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 185.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 160.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 160.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 275.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 185.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 375.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 160.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 85.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 275.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 85.00 BATON HOLDER 23.38 WINTER MIX 157.19 WINTER MIX 552.10 COMMERCIAL PLUMBING INSP 134.45 COPIER LEASE 2/9 - 3/9 1,467.57 Total checks : 397,709.00 3 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee Description Amount 02/17/05 02/18/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 44,397.42 02/16/05 02/18/05 MN Dept of Revenue Sales Tax 11,589.00 02/14/05 02/18/05 MN Dept of Revenue Fuel Tax audit thru 2004 80.13 02/17/05 02/18/05 MN Dept of Natural Resources DNR electronic licenses 495.50 02/18/05 02/22/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 10,436.06 02/16/05 02/22/05 MN Dept of Revenue Fuel Tax 620.80 02/22/05 02/23/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 12,537.07 02/23/05 02/24/05 MN State Treasurer Drivers License/Deputy Registrar 22,819.38 02/18/05 02/24/05 Elan Financial Services* Purchasing card items 55,775.25 TOTAL 158,750.61 *Detailed listings of Elan purchasing card items are attached. 4 Transaction Review 2/ 2 4/ 2 0 0 5 For Transactions posted between 02/05/2005 to 02/18/2005 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 02/09/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 61.86 R CHARLES AHL 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 224.68 BRUCE K ANDERSON 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 703.00 BRUCE K ANDERSON 02/07/2005 SNYDER DRUG #5073 11.63 MANDY ANZALDI 02/14/2005 CUB FOODS, INC. 34.31 MANDY ANZALDI 02/07/2005 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 154 795.30 JOHN BANICK 02/11/2005 SHRED-IT 96.57 JOHN BANICK 02/16/2005 MN PHOTO 5.71 JOHN BANICK 02/16/2005 ARDEN SHOREVIEW AN HOSPT 603.19 JOHN BANICK 02/17/2005 MN PHOTO 28.19 JOHN BANICK 02/07/2005 DAMS LOCK & SAFE 90.00 JIM BEHAN 02/10/2005 RYAN PLUMBING & HEATING 532.50 JIM BEHAN 02/10/2005 PARK SUPPLY INC 210.44 JIM BEHAN 02/11/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 45.13 JIM BEHAN 02/11/2005 TRI-DIM FILTER CORP 19.64 JIM BEHAN 02/11/2005 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 138.63 JIM BEHAN 02/11/2005 MUSKA LIGHTING CENTER 166.62 JIM BEHAN 02/14/2005 CRAMER BLDG SERVICES INC 1,608.15 JIM BEHAN 02/15/2005 NUCO2 O1 OF O1 50.54 JIM BEHAN 02/15/2005 NUCO2 O1 OF O1 87.33 JIM BEHAN 02/15/2005 NUCO2 O1 OF O1 24.50 JIM BEHAN 02/15/2005 NUCO2 O1 OF O1 44.73 JIM BEHAN 02/15/2005 NUCO2 O1 OF O1 51.55 JIM BEHAN 02/15/2005 NUCO2 O1 OF O1 87.33 JIM BEHAN 02/15/2005 NUCO2 O1 OF O1 56.66 JIM BEHAN 02/16/2005 SEWARD COOP S4J 21.58 OAKLEY BIESANZ 02/17/2005 MICHAELS #9401 4.90 OAKLEY BIESANZ 02/07/2005 KNOWLANS #2 5.67 RON BOURQUIN 02/07/2005 MENARDS 3022 30.84 RON BOURQUIN 02/14/2005 MENARDS 3022 15.10 RON BOURQUIN 02/07/2005 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 40.31 ROGER BREHEIM 02/07/2005 EXCELLCOM 20.00 ROGER BREHEIM 02/09/2005 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 25.02 ROGER BREHEIM 02/07/2005 FIRST TECH COMPUTER 399.00 HEIDI CAREY 02/07/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS -19.83 HEIDI CAREY 02/08/2005 DGI DYNAMIC GRAPHICS 79.00 HEIDI CAREY 02/09/2005 AFS MAC MALL 128.23 HEIDI CAREY 02/10/2005 DEX EAST-LOCKBOX 30.10 HEIDI CAREY 02/10/2005 IPROOF SYSTEMS INC 339.00 HEIDI CAREY 02/10/2005 SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP 295.54 HEIDI CAREY 02/10/2005 FREE LANCE SALES 335.49 HEIDI CAREY 02/11/2005 FIRST TECH COMPUTER 939.41 HEIDI CAREY 02/17/2005 KINKO'S #0617 71.36 HEIDI CAREY 02/18/2005 SPARTAN PROMOTIONAL GRP 572.39 HEIDI CAREY 02/11/2005 NFPA NATL FIRE PROTECT 34.95 STEVE CARLSON 02/18/2005 MICHAELS #9401 29.89 STEVE CARLSON 02/08/2005 UNITED RENTALS HTG #229 87.00 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 02/15/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 28.42 CHRISTOPHER CAVETT 02/15/2005 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS J 88.00 MELINDA COLEMAN 02/08/2005 WMS WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY 817.23 LINDA CROSSON 02/10/2005 RECREONICS, INC 130.13 LINDA CROSSON 02/11/2005 ACTIVE.COM-REGISTRATIO 399.00 LINDA CROSSON 5 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 02/11/2005 ORBITZ SERVICE FEES 6.99 LINDA CROSSON 02/14/2005 AMERWESTAIR 4011573796691 219.80 LINDA CROSSON 02/17/2005 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLU 17.20 LINDA CROSSON 02/17/2005 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLU 264.55 LINDA CROSSON 02/07/2005 ST PAUL AREA CHAMBER 100.00 ROBERTA DARST 02/08/2005 THOMPSON PUBLISHI01 OF O1 359.00 ROBERTA DARST 02/11/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 29.64 DOUG EDGE 02/11/2005 MENARDS 3059 46.26 DOUG EDGE 02/07/2005 HOULE FARM GARDEN & 25.56 DAVE EDSON 02/18/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 13.82 DAVE EDSON 02/08/2005 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL AND SUI 277.98 VIRGINIA ERICKSON 02/08/2005 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL AND SUI 277.98 VIRGINIA ERICKSON 02/14/2005 VRZN WRLS VZSRVE W RE3 73.31 DANIEL F FAUST 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 691.78 DAVID FISHER 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 279.48 DAVID FISHER 02/15/2005 WASTE MANAGEMENT 332.08 DAVID FISHER 02/15/2005 WASTE MANAGEMENT 332.08 DAVID FISHER 02/17/2005 GLENWOOD-INGLEWOOD 106.34 DAVID FISHER 02/16/2005 ALTEX ELECTRONICS LTD 160.49 MYCHAL FOWLDS 02/18/2005 AVERMEDIA TECHOLOGIES IN 308.08 MYCHAL FOWLDS 02/18/2005 SYX TIGERDIRECT.COM 75.94 MYCHAL FOWLDS 02/10/2005 AMZ SUPERSTORE 57.73 NICK FRANZEN 02/10/2005 AMZ SUPERSTORE 110.47 NICK FRANZEN 02/14/2005 SYX TIGERDIRECT.COM 396.39 NICK FRANZEN 02/16/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 12.50 NICK FRANZEN 02/16/2005 COMPUSA #197 279.03 NICK FRANZEN 02/17/2005 LASERQUIPT, INC O1 OF O1 388.77 NICK FRANZEN 02/18/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 109.09 PATRICIA FRY 02/18/2005 PECA ROMAR POST PIX 22.00 PATRICIA FRY 02/14/2005 RYCO SUPPLY COMPANY 26.73 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 02/18/2005 MINNESOTA STATE HORTICULT 79.77 VIRGINIA GAYNOR 02/14/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 66.99 DAVID GERMAIN 02/18/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 2.28 DAVID GERMAIN 02/14/2005 KNOWLANS #2 13.92 CAROLE GERNES 02/10/2005 ORIENTAL TRADING CO 1,191.95 MIKE GRAF 02/14/2005 KWIK STOP #1 34.06 MIKE GRAF 02/07/2005 RAINBOW 1-8852 4.46 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 02/17/2005 BLUE RIBBON BAIT & TACKL 4.79 JANET M GREW HAYMAN 02/07/2005 PAYPAL MYGROWINGCH 23.45 KAREN E GUILFOILE 02/11/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 67.65 KAREN E GUILFOILE 02/14/2005 PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC. 50.00 KAREN E GUILFOILE 02/14/2005 METRO SALES INC O1 OF O1 1,206.00 LORI HANSEN 02/15/2005 XPEDX 718.29 LORI HANSEN 02/11/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 41.66 LORI HANSEN 02/07/2005 CENTURY COLLEGE CONTINUIN 955.72 MICHAEL HEMQUIST 02/11/2005 AMERICAN RED CROSOI OF O1 190.00 RON HORWATH 02/07/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 501.62 STEVE HURLEY 02/07/2005 NEWEGG COMPUTERS 3,239.85 STEVE HURLEY 02/08/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS -501.62 STEVE HURLEY 02/09/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS -267.32 STEVE HURLEY 02/10/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 267.32 STEVE HURLEY 02/14/2005 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 52.14 STEVE HURLEY 02/14/2005 PTI CONFERENCE 375.00 STEVE HURLEY 02/09/2005 PINE TREE APPLE ORCHARD 9.98 ANN E HUTCHINSON 02/14/2005 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 31.97 ANN E HUTCHINSON 02/09/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 44.70 DAVID JAHN 6 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 02/07/2005 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL AND SUI 11.00 KEVIN JOHNSON 02/07/2005 SAMMY'S PIZZA DULUTH INC 11.00 KEVIN JOHNSON 02/07/2005 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL AND SUI 6.27 KEVIN JOHNSON 02/07/2005 SUBWAY #10659 3.67 KEVIN JOHNSON 02/07/2005 GRANDMA'S SPORTS GARDN 11.00 KEVIN JOHNSON 02/08/2005 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL AND SUI 5.30 KEVIN JOHNSON 02/08/2005 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL AND SUI 357.08 KEVIN JOHNSON 02/10/2005 CINTAS FIRST AID #0431 26.54 MICHAEL KANE 02/09/2005 GRAINGER.COM 916 111.83 MARY B KOEHNEN 02/16/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 7.63 MARY B KOEHNEN 02/18/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 20.01 MARY B KOEHNEN 02/08/2005 MSU-CASHIERS OFFICE 45.00 DAVID KVAM 02/18/2005 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD 99.96 DAVID KVAM 02/14/2005 NWA AIR 0122113293084 306.90 SHERYL L LE 02/07/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2810 40.36 MICHAEL LIDBERG 02/07/2005 MENARDS 3022 75.01 DENNIS LINDORFF 02/18/2005 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 48.92 DENNIS LINDORFF 02/18/2005 MENARDS 3022 9.44 DENNIS LINDORFF 02/07/2005 CHILI'S GRI22400002246 47.21 STEVE LUKIN 02/07/2005 EMERGENCY FILM GROUP 4,444.00 STEVE LUKIN 02/14/2005 NEXTEL WIRELESS SVCS 765.16 STEVE LUKIN 02/15/2005 WASTE MANAGEMENT 253.92 STEVE LUKIN 02/15/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 76.78 STEVE LUKIN 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 577.31 MARK MARUSKA 02/08/2005 ALL MAIN STREET ELECTRIC 814.20 MARK MARUSKA 02/15/2005 WMS WASTE MGMT WMEZPAY 382.46 MARK MARUSKA 02/15/2005 WASTE MANAGEMENT 127.30 MARK MARUSKA 02/15/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 36.22 MARK MARUSKA 02/16/2005 ON SITE SANITATION, IN 60.65 MARK MARUSKA 02/15/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 61.83 ED NADEAU 02/17/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 138.44 ED NADEAU 02/09/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 80.30 BRYAN NAGEL 02/14/2005 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 53.24 BRYAN NAGEL 02/16/2005 SPRINTPCS AUTOPYMT RC1 58.69 BRYAN NAGEL 02/15/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 35.17 JEAN NELSON 02/07/2005 TARGET 00011858 77.70 AMY NIVEN 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 420.26 AMY NIVEN 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 88.40 AMY NIVEN 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 246.92 AMY NIVEN 02/08/2005 TARGET 00011858 -53.24 AMY NIVEN 02/10/2005 ROCKLER WOODWORK 013 11.70 RICHARD NORDQUIST 02/11/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 25.40 RICHARD NORDQUIST 02/14/2005 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 9.56 RICHARD NORDQUIST 02/14/2005 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 1.07 RICHARD NORDQUIST 02/15/2005 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT 121.97 RICHARD NORDQUIST 02/16/2005 NORTHERN TOOL EQUIPMNT 22.22 RICHARD NORDQUIST 02/17/2005 QWEST COMMUNICATION 673.00 MARSHA PACOLT 02/17/2005 QWEST COMMUNICATION 673.00 MARSHA PACOLT 02/11/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 1.05 KURT PARSONS 02/14/2005 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD 225.53 KURT PARSONS 02/17/2005 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROD 269.85 KURT PARSONS 02/18/2005 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 113.96 KURT PARSONS 02/14/2005 PROPERTYKEY.COM, INC. 50.00 DENNIS PECK 02/07/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 38.30 ROBERT PETERSON 02/09/2005 MIKES LP GAS INC 11.70 ROBERT PETERSON 02/07/2005 B & HPHOTO-VIDEO-MO TO 112.20 PHILIP F POWELL 7 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 02/09/2005 FLASHMEMORYSTORE CO 49.90 PHILIP F POWELL 02/14/2005 RADIO SHACK 00161133 37.43 PHILIP F POWELL 02/16/2005 ULINE SHIP SUPPLIES 152.63 PHILIP F POWELL 02/10/2005 CINTAS FIRST AID #0431 22.41 WILLIAM J PRIEFER 02/08/2005 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 180.02 STEVEN PRIEM 02/08/2005 POLAR CHEVROLET 25.35 STEVEN PRIEM 02/09/2005 SUNRAY BTB 33.34 STEVEN PRIEM 02/09/2005 KATH AUTO PARTS 119.44 STEVEN PRIEM 02/10/2005 WW GRAINGER 497 235.33 STEVEN PRIEM 02/10/2005 WW GRAINGER 500 87.13 STEVEN PRIEM 02/10/2005 ZIEGLER INC -RETAIL 408.84 STEVEN PRIEM 02/10/2005 ZIEGLER INC -RETAIL 24.28 STEVEN PRIEM 02/10/2005 ZEP MANUFACTURING 69.30 STEVEN PRIEM 02/11/2005 SOI SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL -18.58 STEVEN PRIEM 02/11/2005 PARTS ASSOCIATES INC 155.39 STEVEN PRIEM 02/11/2005 MCCALLISTER AND CO 1,653.70 STEVEN PRIEM 02/14/2005 VERMEER SALES & SERVICE 104.37 STEVEN PRIEM 02/14/2005 TRUCK UTILITES INC 13.38 STEVEN PRIEM 02/17/2005 SUNRAY BTB 92.90 STEVEN PRIEM 02/18/2005 HYDRAULIC SPECIALTY CO #1 651.40 STEVEN PRIEM 02/10/2005 NOVACARE REHB HEALT 810.00 TERRIE RAMEAUX 02/07/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 540.42 MICHAEL REILLY 02/08/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 670.74 MICHAEL REILLY 02/09/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 197.40 MICHAEL REILLY 02/11/2005 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC 437.46 MICHAEL REILLY 02/11/2005 PATTI'S ALL AMERICAN 224.70 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/11/2005 MICHAELS #2744 36.83 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/11/2005 WALGREEN 00029363 5.44 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/16/2005 TARGET 00011858 28.50 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/16/2005 TARGET 00011858 9.59 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/17/2005 HCD DISC DANCE SUPPLY 13.90 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/17/2005 HCD DISC DANCE SUPPLY 198.80 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/17/2005 DANCE 4 LESS 891.42 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/17/2005 ALL ABOUT DANCE COM 188.75 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/18/2005 TARGET 00006197 8.23 AUDRA ROBBINS 02/07/2005 MILLS FLEET FARM #27 60.69 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 02/10/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 2.44 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 02/11/2005 MENARDS 3022 46.86 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 02/11/2005 MENARDS 3022 42.60 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 02/14/2005 TWIN CITY HARDWARE 107.93 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 02/18/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 24.96 JAMES SCHINDELDECKER 02/11/2005 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFIC 119.00 DEB SCHMIDT 02/17/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 27.58 DEB SCHMIDT 02/18/2005 CURTIS 1000 93.72 DEB SCHMIDT 02/07/2005 CAPITOL COMMUNICATION 609.08 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 02/11/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 17.95 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 02/11/2005 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY INC 770.15 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 02/17/2005 GOPHER SPORT 98.65 RUSSELL L SCHMIDT 02/07/2005 G & K SERVICES 006 264.94 GERALD SEEGER 02/08/2005 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL AND SUI 370.64 MICHAEL SHORTREED 02/15/2005 VERIZON WRLS I2KW RE3 45.13 ANDREA SINDT 02/15/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 143.50 ANDREA SINDT 02/14/2005 KINKO'S #0617 791.71 PAULINE STAPLES 02/07/2005 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 34.61 SCOTT STEFFEN 02/14/2005 UVERITECH INC 119.25 SCOTT STEFFEN 02/10/2005 METRO SALES INC O1 OF O1 851.00 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 8 Post Date Vendor Name Settlement Amt Cardholder Name 02/18/2005 S & T OFFICE PRODUCTS 632.22 JOANNE M SVENDSEN 02/16/2005 TRUCK UTILITES INC 39.78 RONALD SVENDSEN 02/07/2005 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 144.74 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/07/2005 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 89.90 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/07/2005 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 103.19 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/07/2005 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 143.74 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/07/2005 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 404.55 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/07/2005 ASPEN MILLS 8005717343 111.60 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/14/2005 CHIEF SUPPLY CORP 330.00 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/17/2005 OFFICE MAX 00002204 25.54 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/17/2005 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC 96.38 RUSTIN SVENDSEN 02/07/2005 HENRIKSEN ACE HARDWARE 485.77 LYLE SWANSON 02/10/2005 SDP LITERATUREDISPLAYS 54.47 LYLE SWANSON 02/10/2005 ALL MAIN STREET ELEC 145.00 LYLE SWANSON 02/11/2005 STATE SUPPLY CO. INC 378.23 LYLE SWANSON 02/14/2005 THE HOME DEPOT 2801 72.25 LYLE SWANSON 02/14/2005 VIKING ELECTRIC-ST. PAUL 80.02 LYLE SWANSON 02/14/2005 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 71.32 LYLE SWANSON 02/14/2005 HIRSHFIELD'S MAPLEWOOD 68.66 LYLE SWANSON 02/16/2005 NEW MECH COMPANIES INC 205.00 LYLE SWANSON 02/17/2005 EL REINHARDT COMPANY INC 372.47 LYLE SWANSON 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 57.51 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 86.27 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 115.02 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 241.17 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/07/2005 QWESTCOMM TN612 374.61 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/10/2005 QWESTCOMM TN651 60.43 JUDY TETZLAFF 02/18/2005 LTG POWER EQUIPMENT 13.90 TODD TEVLIN 02/14/2005 MERMAID 20.24 DAVID J THOMALLA 02/14/2005 MARSHALL FLDS 00020081 27.99 DAVID J THOMALLA 02/14/2005 MARSHALL FLDS 00020172 375.00 DAVID J THOMALLA 02/14/2005 MARSHALL FLDS 00020172 39.99 DAVID J THOMALLA 02/14/2005 JCPENNEY STORE 0496 49.96 SUSAN ZWIEG 55,775.25 9 Check Register City of Maplewood vchlist 03/04/2005 12:23:15 PM Check 66409 66410 66411 Date Vendor 66412 66413 66414 66415 3/8/2005 01908 ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF 3/8/2005 00111 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES INC 3/8/2005 03349 AUGIE'S MOBILE CHEF. CATERING 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 01811 BERNATELLO'S PIZZA INC 03351 BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF 00198 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS 00211 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP. 66416 66417 66418 66419 66420 66421 66422 66423 66424 66425 66426 66427 66428 66429 66430 66431 66432 66433 66434 66435 66436 66437 66438 66439 66440 66441 66442 66443 66444 66445 66446 66447 66448 66449 66450 66451 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 02585 CENTRAL INTERNAL MEDICINE 02746 CLOVER SUPER FOODS INC 02789 COMCAST CABLE COMM INC 00323 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP 00358 DGM INC. 02743 DOBLAR, RICHARD 03352 ENR 02113 FURSMAN, RICHARD 02635 G-WHIZ LETTERING 00545 G FOA 00585 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL 00667 HEWLETT PACKARD 03353 KIVEL, EDWARD J 00782 KPMG LLP 00932 MAPLEWOOD BAKERY 03354 MCA STUDENT SERVICES COMMITTEE 03098 MCFARLANE PROPERTIES LLC 01035 MN CHAPTER IAAI 01126 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 01028 MN STATE TREASURER STAX 03037 MONAHAN-JUNEK, JACKIE 03355 OBRINGER, PAULA 02903 PARK CONSTRUCTION CO 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 00396 PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPT OF 02227 RABINE,JANET 01345 RAMSEY COUNTY 01337 RAMSEY COUNTY-PROP REC & REV 01387 ROSSINI, DR. JAMES 01409 S.E.H. 3/8/2005 01418 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 3/8/2005 03278 SKRYPEK'S DAIRY QUEEN 01504 ST PAUL, CITY OF 02250 STAHNKE, JULIE 02981 STORK TWIN CITY TESTING CORP 01538 STRETCHER'S Description/Account HARBOR BACKUP -JAN WIDE AREA NETWORK -JAN PATROL & BOARDING FEES 2/12 - 2/21 MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE TRAINING REGISTRATION MONTHLY WATER UTIL -BILL DATE 2/24 PROJ 03-19 PROF SRVS THRU 1/28 PROJ 04-21 PROF SRVS THRU 1/28 FITNESS PROGRAM STRESS TEST MERCH FOR RESALE INTERNET SRV ACCT#8772105370197598 SUPPLIES TOW FORFEITURE VEHICLE REIMB FOR TUITION & BOOKS ENGINEERING NEWS SUBSCRIPTION REIMB FOR BOOKS & TUITION LOGO EMBROIDERY MEMBERSHIP FEE - 2 BILLABLE TICKETS -JAN DESKTOP PC'S AS QUOTED. 2.8 GHX+ INSURANCE SETTLEMENT ANNUAL AUDIT MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE BIRTHDAY CAKES CRIMINAL JUSTICE CAREER FAIR PROJ 04-04 REIMB FOR ADDL COSTS HAZMAT TRAINING REGISTRATION PERA LIFE INSURANCE MONTHLY SURTAX -FEB REIMB FOR MILEAGE 1/25 & 1/26 PROGRAM SUPPLIES PROJ 03-22 CARLTON ST PYMT #5 INTOXILYZER REC - 3 TRANFER TITLE CN 050000078 REIMB FOR SHIRT & SWEATER HAZARDOUS WASTE LICENSE FILING FEES FITNESS PROGRAM -FEB PROJ 01-14 PROF SRVS -JAN PROJ 05-03 PROF SRVS -JAN PROJ 04-22 PROF SRVS -JAN MERCH FOR RESALE PROGRAM SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPPLIES PROGRAM SUPPLIES MERCH FOR RESALE MERCH FOR RESALE PROGRAM SUPPLIES MERCH FOR RESALE BIRTHDAY CAKES MONTHLY WIRELESS REPORTING -MAR REIMB MILEAGE, PANTS, SWEATER PROJ 02-07 TESTING DEFTEC 40 MM MULTI LAUNCHER Amount 2,117.28 392.00 549.36 21.02 21.02 216.00 60.00 803.52 3,450.00 1,100.96 150.00 216.86 61.50 126.81 702.93 485.55 39.00 2,628.45 7.46 225.00 314.65 8,434.80 5,500.00 6,000.00 410.62 469.66 452.81 366.81 460.98 82.25 40.00 13,907.00 50.00 64.00 751.97 40.50 312.00 122,278.40 135.00 13.50 28.89 155.35 219.00 100.00 1,974.36 1,326.63 1,754.91 146.89 59.04 9.76 354.85 39.61 92.76 194.66 423.85 291.71 182.50 3,798.00 47.27 855.00 4,805.28 10 Check Date Vendor 66452 3/8/2005 01550 SUMMIT INSPECTIONS 66453 3/8/2005 01567 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 66454 3/8/2005 03350 TSCHIDA, JOE 66455 3/8/2005 02069 ULTIMATE DRAIN SERVICES INC 66456 3/8/2005 02464 US BANK 66457 3/8/2005 01712 VENBURG TIRE CO. 66458 3/8/2005 02825 W P S MEDICARE PART B 66459 3/8/2005 01750 WATSON CO INC, THE 66460 3/8/2005 01771 WHITE BEAR LAKE, CITY OF 52 Checks in this report Description/Account Amount ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS 2,632.00 REIMB FOR JACKET ZIPPER 37.28 REIMB PD RESERVE -CLOTHES RACK 58.95 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 275.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 115.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 115.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 160.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 375.00 PROJ 04-15 TELEVISE SEWER 280.00 PAYING AGENT FEE 316.25 PAYING AGENT FEE 316.25 PAYING AGENT FEE 402.50 PAYING AGENT FEE 402.50 PAYING AGENT FEE 373.75 PAYING AGENT FEE 201.25 REFUND RENT 44,233.29 REF AMB 05000172 A LEGATT 282.32 MERCH FOR RESALE 252.58 RAMSEY COUNTY GIS FEE - 2005 3,418.00 Total checks : 244,566.91 11 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Disbursements via Debits to Checking account Transmitted Settlement Date Date Payee 02/24/05 02/25/05 02/25/05 02/25/05 02/25/05 02/25/05 02/25/05 02/28/05 02/25/05 02/25/05 03/01 /05 03/02/05 02/28/05 02/25/05 02/25/05 02/28/05 02/28/05 02/28/05 02/28/05 02/28/05 03/01 /05 03/01 /05 03/01 /05 03/02/05 03/03/05 03/03/05 MN State Treasurer ICMA (Vantagepointe) MN State Treasurer U.S. Treasurer P.E.R.A. MN Dept of Natural Resources Orchard Trust MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer MSA/Dispatcher Unions MN State Treasurer MN State Treasurer ARC Administration TOTAL Description Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Deferred Compensation Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Federal Payroll Tax P.E.R.A. DNR electronic licenses Deferred Compensation Drivers License/Deputy Registrar State Payroll Tax Union Dues Drivers License/Deputy Registrar Drivers License/Deputy Registrar DCRP & Flex plan payments Amount 12,892.50 9,236.10 12,812.43 89,821.27 50,307.31 568.50 24,035.00 18,108.62 17,106.47 169.00 34,981.05 18,987.75 2,767.94 12 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD EMPLOYEE GROSS EARNINGS REPORT FOR THE CURRENT PAY PERIOD CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 02/25/05 CARDINAL, ROBERT 422.42 dd 02/25/05 JUENEMANN, KATHLEEN 371.77 dd 02/25/05 KOPPEN, MARVIN 371.77 dd 02/25/05 MONAHAN-JUNEK, JACQUELINE 371.77 dd 02/25/05 ROSSBACH, WILLIAM 371.77 dd 02/25/05 COLEMAN, MELINDA 4,058.21 dd 02/25/05 DARST, ROBERTA 1,673.54 dd 02/25/05 FURSMAN, RICHARD 4,638.25 dd 02/25/05 SWANSON, LYLE 1,767.33 dd 02/25/05 LE, SHERYL 3,958.50 dd 02/25/05 RAMEAUX, THERESE 2,353.34 dd 02/25/05 FAUST, DANIEL 4,128.24 dd 02/25/05 SCHMIDT, DEBORAH 1,442.95 dd 02/25/05 ANDERSON, CAROLE 1,935.34 dd 02/25/05 BAUMAN, GAYLE 3,287.76 dd 02/25/05 JACKSON, MARY 1,802.95 dd 02/25/05 KELSEY, CONNIE 1,746.56 dd 02/25/05 TETZLAFF, JUDY 1,802.95 dd 02/25/05 FRY, PATRICIA 1,673.35 dd 02/25/05 GUILFOILE, KAREN 2,855.98 dd 02/25/05 OSTER, ANDREA 1,747.66 dd 02/25/05 CARLE, JEANETTE 1,616.46 dd 02/25/05 FIGG, SHERRIE 1,064.77 dd 02/25/05 JAGOE, CAROL 1,623.81 dd 02/25/05 JOHNSON, BONNIE 990.54 dd 02/25/05 MOY, PAMELA 748.68 dd 02/25/05 OLSON, SANDRA 1,677.93 dd 02/25/05 WEAVER, KRISTINE 1,744.48 dd 02/25/05 BANICK, JOHN 3,820.58 dd 02/25/05 CORCORAN, THERESA 1,929.85 dd 02/25/05 POWELL, PHILIP 2,246.22 dd 02/25/05 RICHIE, CAROLE 1,618.77 dd 02/25/05 SPANGLER, EDNA 671.00 dd 02/25/05 THOMALLA, DAVID 4,247.72 dd 02/25/05 ABEL, GLINT 2,293.89 dd 02/25/05 ALDRIDGE, MARK 2,687.47 dd 02/25/05 ANDREWS, SCOTT 2,967.80 dd 02/25/05 BAKKE, LONN 2,786.76 dd 02/25/05 BELDE, STANLEY 2,432.62 dd 02/25/05 BIERDEMAN, BRIAN 2,115.46 dd 02/25/05 BOHL, JOHN 2,810.56 dd 02/25/05 BUSACK, DANIEL 2,265.84 dd 02/25/05 COFFEY, KEVIN 2,198.89 dd 02/25/05 GROTTY, KERRY 2,677.25 dd 02/25/05 DOBLAR, RICHARD 2,791.91 dd 02/25/05 DUNN, ALICE 2,460.74 dd 02/25/05 GABRIEL, ANTHONY 1,699.63 dd 02/25/05 HEINZ, STEPHEN 2,721.89 dd 02/25/05 HIEBERT, STEVEN 2,611.76 dd 02/25/05 JOHNSON, KEVIN 3,595.73 13 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 02/25/05 KARIS, FLINT 2,749.92 dd 02/25/05 KONG, TOMMY 2,276.45 dd 02/25/05 KROLL, BRETT 2,245.82 dd 02/25/05 KVAM, DAVID 3,257.27 dd 02/25/05 CARSON, DANIEL 285.53 dd 02/25/05 LU, JOHNNIE 2,664.74 dd 02/25/05 MARINO, JASON 2,201.18 dd 02/25/05 MARTIN, JERROLD 2,353.31 dd 02/25/05 MCCARTY, GLEN 2,023.71 dd 02/25/05 METRY, ALESIA 2,022.76 dd 02/25/05 NYE, MICHAEL 1,584.25 dd 02/25/05 OLSON, JULIE 2,520.45 dd 02/25/05 RABBETT, KEVIN 3,450.09 dd 02/25/05 STEFFEN, SCOTT 3,476.22 dd 02/25/05 SZCZEPANSKI, THOMAS 2,575.93 dd 02/25/05 TRAN, JOSEPH 2,250.99 dd 02/25/05 WENZEL, JAY 2,563.97 dd 02/25/05 XIONG, KAO 2,530.82 dd 02/25/05 BARTZ, PAUL 2,735.06 dd 02/25/05 BERGERON, JOSEPH 3,107.38 dd 02/25/05 DUGAS, MICHAEL 2,739.17 dd 02/25/05 ERICKSON, VIRGINIA 2,536.29 dd 02/25/05 EVERSON, PAUL 2,261.41 dd 02/25/05 FLOR, TIMOTHY 3,389.26 dd 02/25/05 FRASER, JOHN 2,845.59 dd 02/25/05 HALWEG, JODI 1,724.42 dd 02/25/05 L'ALLIER, DANIEL 1,710.67 dd 02/25/05 LANGNER, SCOTT 1,913.85 dd 02/25/05 PALMA, STEVEN 2,930.35 dd 02/25/05 PARSONS, KURT 2,055.90 dd 02/25/05 THIENES, PAUL 2,865.46 dd 02/25/05 DAWSON, RICHARD 1,831.44 dd 02/25/05 DUELLMAN, KIRK 1,792.15 dd 02/25/05 GJERTSON, MARK 170.00 dd 02/25/05 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 1,792.15 dd 02/25/05 NOVAK, JEROME 1,837.98 dd 02/25/05 PETERSON, ROBERT 1,971.71 dd 02/25/05 SVENDSEN, RONALD 1,937.53 dd 02/25/05 GERVAIS-JR, CLARENCE 2,729.91 dd 02/25/05 BAUER, MICHELLE 2,174.87 dd 02/25/05 FLAUGHER, JAYME 1,909.39 dd 02/25/05 HERMANSON, CHAD 1,226.13 dd 02/25/05 HUBIN, KENNARD 1,626.47 dd 02/25/05 LAFFERTY, WALTER 1,810.15 dd 02/25/05 LINK, BRYAN 2,441.35 dd 02/25/05 PACOLT, MARSHA 2,339.34 dd 02/25/05 RABINE, JANET 2,672.07 dd 02/25/05 SCHREIER, JENNIFER 68.00 dd 02/25/05 STAHNKE, JULIE 2,405.59 dd 02/25/05 LUKIN, STEVEN 3,731.90 dd 02/25/05 SVENDSEN, RUSTIN 2,991.94 dd 02/25/05 ZWIEG, SUSAN 1,745.35 dd 02/25/05 DOLLERSCHELL, ROBERT 282.07 dd 02/25/05 AHL, R. CHARLES 4,329.30 dd 02/25/05 NNEN, AMY 1,189.02 dd 02/25/05 PRIEFER, WILLIAM 2,604.66 14 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 02/25/05 WEGWERTH, JUDITH 1,752.28 dd 02/25/05 BRINK, TROY 1,663.75 dd 02/25/05 DEBILZAN, THOMAS 1,830.15 dd 02/25/05 EDGE, DOUGLAS 1,830.15 dd 02/25/05 JONES, DONALD 2,129.20 dd 02/25/05 K.ANE, MICHAEL 2,941.68 dd 02/25/05 LUTZ, DAVID 1,826.77 dd 02/25/05 MEYER, GERALD 1,904.19 dd 02/25/05 NAGEL, BRYAN 2,138.27 dd 02/25/05 OSWALD, ERICK 2,010.06 dd 02/25/05 TEVLIN, TODD 1,739.20 dd 02/25/05 CAVETT, CHRISTOPHER 3,270.46 dd 02/25/05 DUCHARME, JOHN 2,323.66 dd 02/25/05 ENGSTROM, ANDREW 1,710.55 dd 02/25/05 JACOBSON, SCOTT 1,653.97 dd 02/25/05 KNUTSON, LOIS 997.21 dd 02/25/05 LABEREE, ERIN 2,274.95 dd 02/25/05 LINDBLOM, RANDAL 2,814.25 dd 02/25/05 MURRA, AARON 215.05 dd 02/25/05 PECK, DENNIS 2,330.59 dd 02/25/05 PRIEBE, WILLIAM 2,325.97 dd 02/25/05 VERMEERSCH, CHARLES 2,210.15 dd 02/25/05 ANDERSON, BRUCE 4,024.42 dd 02/25/05 CAREY, HEIDI 1,991.75 dd 02/25/05 HALL, KATHLEEN 1,749.97 dd 02/25/05 MARUSKA, MARK 2,649.16 dd 02/25/05 NAUGHTON, JOHN 1,655.75 dd 02/25/05 SCHINDELDECKER, JAMES 1,824.46 dd 02/25/05 BIESANZ, OAKI,EY 1,355.96 dd 02/25/05 HAYMAN, JANET 1,238.30 dd 02/25/05 HUTCHINSON, ANN 2,221.50 dd 02/25/05 NELSON, JEAN 990.69 dd 02/25/05 SEEGER, GERALD 536.35 dd 02/25/05 GAYNOR, VIRGINIA 1,957.35 dd 02/25/05 EKSTRAND, THOMAS 3,126.99 dd 02/25/05 KROLL, LISA 1,164.68 dd 02/25/05 LIVINGSTON, JOYCE 969.88 dd 02/25/05 SINDT, ANDREA 1,586.15 dd 02/25/05 THOMPSON, DEBRA 645.66 dd 02/25/05 YOUNG, TAMELA 1,474.95 dd 02/25/05 ROBERTS, KENNETH 2,479.55 dd 02/25/05 CARVER, NICHOLAS 2,728.26 dd 02/25/05 FISHER, DAVID 3,234.20 dd 02/25/05 RICE, MICHAEL 1,846.95 dd 02/25/05 SWAN, DAVID 1,936.55 dd 02/25/05 KONEWKO, DUWAYNE 2,600.55 dd 02/25/05 ANZALDI, KALI 571.38 dd 02/25/05 BJORK, ALICIA 326.00 dd 02/25/05 DAMSON, LINCOLN 630.00 dd 02/25/05 FINN, GREGORY 2,133.02 dd 02/25/05 GOODRICH, CHAD 399.00 dd 02/25/05 GRAF, MICHAEL 1,890.59 dd 02/25/05 KELLY, LISA 1,308.62 dd 02/25/05 MCBRIDE, PATRICK 205.00 dd 02/25/05 NIEMAN, JAMES 136.13 dd 02/25/05 NIEMCZYK, BRIAN 172.00 15 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 02/25/05 OHLHAUSER, MEGHAN 362.51 dd 02/25/05 ROBBINS, AUDRA 1,997.38 dd 02/25/05 SHERRILL, CAITLIN 60.75 dd 02/25/05 TAUBMAN, DOUGLAS 2,797.49 dd 02/25/05 WERNER, KATIE 269.89 dd 02/25/05 ZIELINSKI, JOSEPH 39.00 dd 02/25/05 BREHEIM, ROGER 1,826.77 dd 02/25/05 GERMAIN, DAVID 1,831.39 dd 02/25/05 NORDQUIST, RICHARD 1,999.75 dd 02/25/05 SCHULTZ, SCOTT 2,044.15 dd 02/25/05 ANZALDI, MANDY 1,179.57 dd 02/25/05 COLEMAN, PHILIP 70.00 dd 02/25/05 COLLINS, ASHLEY 121.28 dd 02/25/05 CRAWFORD - JR, RAYMOND 234.85 dd 02/25/05 CROSSON, LINDA 2,486.83 dd 02/25/05 EVANS, CHRISTINE 441.99 dd 02/25/05 PELOQUIN, PENNYE 498.49 dd 02/25/05 SCHMIDT, RUSSELL 2,007.26 dd 02/25/05 SCHULZE, BRIAN 634.37 dd 02/25/05 STAPLES, PAULINE 2,898.01 dd 02/25/05 BENDTSEN, LISA 104.48 dd 02/25/05 BRENEMAN, NEIL 414.44 dd 02/25/05 CRAWFORD, RAYMOND 160.00 dd 02/25/05 ERICKSON-CLARK, CAROL 89.00 dd 02/25/05 ESTRADA, KIEL 32.00 dd 02/25/05 FONTAINE, KIM 867.84 dd 02/25/05 GREDVIG, ANDERS 342.26 dd 02/25/05 HALEY, BROOKE 203.78 dd 02/25/05 HORWATH, RONALD 1,978.42 dd 02/25/05 IRISH, GRACE 182.70 dd 02/25/05 JONES, LACEY 30.38 dd 02/25/05 KOEHNEN, AMY 96.60 dd 02/25/05 KOEHNEN, MARY 848.61 dd 02/25/05 KRONHOLM, KATHRYN 342.21 dd 02/25/05 MARUSKA, ERICA 106.50 dd 02/25/05 MATHEWS, LEAH 78.00 dd 02/25/05 NELSON, SIERRA 78.00 dd 02/25/05 OVERBY, ANNA 77.20 dd 02/25/05 POTTRATZ, DIANE 150.72 dd 02/25/05 PROESCH, ANDY 335.53 dd 02/25/05 SCHMIDT, LINDSEY 29.25 dd 02/25/05 SHAW, KRISTINA 134.05 dd 02/25/05 SMITH, ANN 206.25 dd 02/25/05 TUPY, HEIDE 161.60 dd 02/25/05 TUPY, MARCUS 387.73 dd 02/25/05 WERNER, REBECCA 81.25 dd 02/25/05 WHITE, NICOLE 634.10 dd 02/25/05 GROPPOLI, LINDA 375.75 dd 02/25/05 HANSON, ELIZABETH 96.00 dd 02/25/05 KURKOSKI, STEPHANIE 49.61 dd 02/25/05 LONETTI, MARGARET 42.08 dd 02/25/05 BEHAN, JAMES 1,702.83 dd 02/25/05 LONETTI, JAMES 1,105.14 dd 02/25/05 MILES, LAURA 159.85 dd 02/25/05 PATTERSON, ALBERT 1,044.92 dd 02/25/05 PRINS, KELLY 979.62 16 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT dd 02/25/05 REILLY, MICHAEL 1,580.55 dd 02/25/05 AICHELE, CRAIG 1,876.39 dd 02/25/05 PRIEM, STEVEN 2,049.35 dd 02/25/05 BERGO, CHAD 2,255.29 dd 02/25/05 FOWLDS, MYCHAL 2,120.74 dd 02/25/05 FRANZEN, NICHOLAS 1,512.86 dd 02/25/05 HURLEY, STEPHEN 3,245.74 wf 100503 02/25/05 INGVOLDSTAD, CURTIS 103.13 wf 100504 02/25/05 CARLSON, STEVEN 1,838.34 wf 100505 02/25/05 JAHN, DAVID 1,620.27 wf 100506 02/25/05 MORIN, TROY 131.75 wf 100507 02/25/05 MATHEYS, ALANA 1,973.48 wf 100508 02/25/05 GENNOW, PAMELA 793.00 wf 100509 02/25/05 HANSEN, LORI 1,679.75 wf 100510 02/25/05 PALANK, MARY 1,836.96 wf 100511 02/25/05 SVENDSEN, JOANNE 1,948.89 wf 100512 02/25/05 SHORTREED, MICHAEL 2,987.22 wf 100513 02/25/05 STEINER, JOSEPH 594.00 wf 100514 02/25/05 WELCHLIN, CABOT 2,507.42 wf 100515 02/25/05 BAUMAN, ANDREW 96.00 wf 100516 02/25/05 GERARD, JAMIE 602.00 wf 100517 02/25/05 FREBERG, RONALD 1,859.48 wf 100518 02/25/05 JAROSCH, JONATHAN 216.75 wf 100519 02/25/05 EDSON, DAVID 1,997.12 wf 100520 02/25/05 HELEY, ROLAND 1,859.48 wf 100521 02/25/05 HINNENKAMP, GARY 1,841.59 wf 100522 02/25/05 LINDORFF, DENNIS 1,826.77 wf 100523 02/25/05 NOVAK, MICHAEL 1,753.35 wf 100524 02/25/05 GERNES, CAROLE 500.19 wf 100525 02/25/05 ADAMS, CAILIN 63.00 wf 100526 02/25/05 BANICK, PETER 34.50 wf 100527 02/25/05 BIAGI, NICHOLAS 136.00 wf 100528 02/25/05 BROZAK, KATHERINE 160.00 wf 100529 02/25/05 ERICKSON, AMY 48.00 wf 100530 02/25/05 FREYBERGER, RACHEL 394.00 wf 100531 02/25/05 GORE, MICHAEL 50.00 wf 100532 02/25/05 GREENER, DOUGLAS 105.00 wf 100533 02/25/05 HANNIGAN, BRADY 63.00 wf 100534 02/25/05 HARGROVE, CAYLA 83.75 wf 100535 02/25/05 HAWKES, SCOTT 42.00 wf 100536 02/25/05 HENTON, DELANO 31.50 wf 100537 02/25/05 HJELMGREN, NICOLE 13.44 wf 100538 02/25/05 HOLDER, MICHAEL 26.00 wf 100539 02/25/05 HOLDER, MOLLY 31.50 wf 100540 02/25/05 KLEM, JOSH 150.00 wf 100541 02/25/05 LANCETTE, JOSHUA 31.50 wf 100542 02/25/05 LANDE, JOSEPH 107.00 wf 100543 02/25/05 CARSON, RYAN 81.00 wf 100544 02/25/05 LIUKONEN, MATTHEW 25.00 wf 100545 02/25/05 LIUKONEN, SHAWN 62.00 wf 100546 02/25/05 MESSEROLE, KELSEY 19.50 wf 100547 02/25/05 NAPOLI, ANGELICA 19.50 wf 100548 02/25/05 NIEMCZYK, EMILY 33.00 wf 100549 02/25/05 O'SHEA, CASSANDRA 45.00 wf 100550 02/25/05 PREW, WILLIAM 33.00 wf 100551 02/25/05 SHOBERG, KARI 165.00 17 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 100552 02/25/05 SIEMERS, PAUL 52.00 wf 100553 02/25/05 SIKORA, PAUL 69.25 wf 100554 02/25/05 STACKPOLE, QUINN 33.00 wf 100555 02/25/05 TARR-JR, GUS 24.00 wf 100556 02/25/05 YORKOVICH, BRADLEY 123.50 wf 100557 02/25/05 ZIELINSKI, JESSICA 52.50 wf 100558 02/25/05 ZUSTIAK, CODY 70.25 wf 100559 02/25/05 HAAG, MARK 1,761.35 wf 100560 02/25/05 NADEAU, EDWARD 2,930.14 wf 100561 02/25/05 DOBLAR, STEVE 367.10 wf 100562 02/25/05 GLASS, JEAN 1,786.43 wf 100563 02/25/05 TOLBERT, FRANCINE 198.00 wf 100564 02/25/05 LINGER, MARGARET 481.33 wf 100565 02/25/05 VELASQUEZ, ANGELA 417.75 wf 100566 02/25/05 WEISMANN, JENNIFER 49.88 wf 100567 02/25/05 ANDERSON, CALEB 25.03 wf 100568 02/25/05 ANDERSON, JOSHUA 39.00 wf 100569 02/25/05 ANDERSON, JUSTIN 74.75 wf 100570 02/25/05 BOTHWELL, KRISTIN 179.31 wf 100571 02/25/05 BRENEMAN, SEAN 91.78 wf 100572 02/25/05 BRIN, LAUREN 72.00 wf 100573 02/25/05 CLARK, PAMELA 34.00 wf 100574 02/25/05 COSTA, JOSEPH 543.20 wf 100575 02/25/05 DEMPSEY, BETH 134.40 wf 100576 02/25/05 DUNN, RYAN 700.15 wf 100577 02/25/05 FENGER, JUSTIN 72.63 wf 100578 02/25/05 FIERRO WESTBERG, MELINDA 83.30 wf 100579 02/25/05 FLICKINGER, JUANITA 39.00 wf 100580 02/25/05 GRANT, MELISSA 68.25 wf 100581 02/25/05 GRUENHAGEN, LINDA 602.10 wf 100582 02/25/05 HOULE, DENISE 156.10 wf 100583 02/25/05 KROLL, MARK 132.00 wf 100584 02/25/05 LAUMER, MELISSA 27.00 wf 100585 02/25/05 LEMAY, KATHERINE 131.63 wf 100586 02/25/05 MCCANN, NATALIE 16.50 wf 100587 02/25/05 MELLEN, CHRISTOPHER 20.25 wf 100588 02/25/05 PEHOSKI, JOEL 75.60 wf 100589 02/25/05 PETERSON, ANNA 19.50 wf 100590 02/25/05 RODEN, JASON 89.70 wf 100591 02/25/05 ROSTRON, ROBERT 78.00 wf 100592 02/25/05 SCHOENECKER, SAMANTHA 58.50 wf 100593 02/25/05 SCHRAMM, BRITTANY 74.75 wf 100594 02/25/05 SCHREINER, MICHELLE 245.59 wf 100595 02/25/05 SMITLEY, SHARON 368.00 wf 100596 02/25/05 STAHNKE, AMY 157.63 wf 100597 02/25/05 TRUE, ANDREW 57.80 wf 100598 02/25/05 WARNER, CAROLYN 234.80 wf 100599 02/25/05 WEDES, CARYL 134.70 wf 100600 02/25/05 WELTER, ELIZABETH 138.90 wf 100601 02/25/05 WOODMAN, ALICE 163.40 wf 100602 02/25/05 ZIEMER, NICOLE 548.20 wf 100603 02/25/05 BOSLEY, CAROL 99.45 wf 100604 02/25/05 DOBBS, SYDNEY 47.00 wf 100605 02/25/05 HANSEN, ANNA 89.25 wf 100606 02/25/05 LEWIS, AMY 71.50 wf 100607 02/25/05 ODDEN, JESSICA 29.11 18 CHECK # CHECK DATE EMPLOYEE NAME AMOUNT wf 100608 02/25/05 OIE, REBECCA 161.69 wf 100609 02/25/05 PARAYNO, GUAI 207.20 wf 100610 02/25/05 QUINN, KELLY 27.63 wf 100611 02/25/05 SATTLER, MELINDA 162.00 wf 100612 02/25/05 STODGHILL, AMANDA 30.00 wf 100613 02/25/05 VAN HALE, PAULA 228.15 wf 100614 02/25/05 WALKER, DAPHINE 64.75 wf 100615 02/25/05 DOUGLASS, TOM 1,041.92 wf 100616 02/25/05 FLEISCHHACKER, JACOB 106.40 wf 100617 02/25/05 HER, CHONG 304.03 wf 100618 02/25/05 HER, PHENG 262.33 wf 100619 02/25/05 LEACH, TWYLA 133.35 wf 100620 02/25/05 NAGEL, BROOKE 302.23 wf 100621 02/25/05 O'GRADY, VICTORIA 89.78 wf 100622 02/25/05 OLSON, CHRISTINE 57.15 wf 100623 02/25/05 RYDEEN, ARIEL 38.24 wf 100624 02/25/05 SIMPSON, KIMBERLYN 182.88 wf 100625 02/25/05 VANG, KAY 113.05 wf 100626 02/25/05 VANG, TIM 166.13 wf 100627 02/25/05 ZIMMERMAN, STEPHEN 95.25 434,000.27 19 Agenda Item G2 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, Planner, AICP SUBJECT: Kline Nissan Dealership LOCATION: 3090 Maplewood Drive DATE: March 4, 2005 INTRODUCTION Conditional Use Permit Review The conditional use permit (CUP) for the Kline Nissan Dealership located at 3090 Maplewood Drive is due for review. The CUP was required for a maintenance garage to be located within the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zoning district. BACKGROUND May 28, 2002, the city council approved a CUP to allow for a maintenance garage to be operated within a motor vehicle dealership as well as design review for the Kline Nissan dealership. Refer to the May 28, 2002, city council minutes attached. June 24, 2002, the city council approved a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer setback variance in order to allow Kline Nissan°s parking lot to be constructed to within 25 feet of the wetland located on the south side of the lot and 50 feet of the wetland located on the north side of the lot. Refer to the June 24, 2002, city council minutes attached. October 27, 2004, the city council approved cone-year extension to Kline Nissan°s conditional use permit. DISCUSSION The Kline Nissan dealership has a subsurface water infiltration system installed in their parking lot to help treat water as it runs off the site. As part of the CUP conditions, Kline Nissan was required to sign a maintenance agreement with the city which states that they will have the system inspected annually and that sediment will be removed from all storm and catch basin structures. No inspections or maintenance have been complete on the system since the dealership opened in the fall of 2003. City staff notified Mark Weis, manager of the dealership, of the inspection and maintenance requirement. Mr. Weis has agreed to have the inspection and maintenance complete by June 1, 2005, and submit the inspection report to the city. During the first year in operation the dealership stored their dumpster within the maintenance garage. Mr. Weis states that the dumpster must now be stored outdoors because of limited space within the maintenance garage. City code and Kline Nissan°s CUP state that a dumpster must be contained in an enclosure if stored outside. The enclosure must be at least six feet in height, be compatible to the building, and have a 100 percent opaque gate. Mr. Weis states that they will be constructing an enclosure for the dumpster this spring. The enclosure plans should be submitted to staff prior to construction to ensure that it meets the city requirements. Kline Nissan was required to install a stop sign at their parking lot exit to County Road D. The stop sign was knocked down by a snow plow this winter. Mr. Weis states that they will temporarily repost the stop sign until warmer weather when the sign can be permanently reinstalled. As part of the Kline Nissan°s wetland setback variance approval they were required to improve the wetland buffer with native plantings. During the city°s review of the CUP and variance last year, staff found several plants within the buffer had died. Since that time all plants have been replaced, however, Kline Nissan should ensure that all plants are thriving this spring and replace any that have died. RECOMMENDATION Review the conditional use permit for Kline Nissan 3090 Maplewood Drive again in six months (September 2005). The conditional use permit can be reviewed sooner if a problem arises or the applicants propose a major change to the site. P:Sec 3\Nissan 2005 CUP Review Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. May 28, 2002, City Council Minutes 4. June 24, 2002, City Council Minutes Attachment 1 Attachment 2 ~~ ,n~_~ ~J~~ ~ ~'~ F~~ ///''---®GE flF CEilNERTEQ \ \` / NE~1-NFOS \ `\~\ \ \ ~S~ ~\ Y 2 ~_ S I I N7flwK0US ~ 7 E31~ ` ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~ r 1 ~ _ ' ~ _ .^.~'D~J.it7EATEB~ ~i.Al~DS . _ _ _ q5 ~~ 'o ~ I ~ I _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _1 1ti ~'i~ I / R=2789.75 ...,...,..,. ,.,.,..•...~........ _ .:.....,..,.:.. ~.,.:....: _ 1.412.72 ~ Aac°, rrR. A=D75'45" ~Si~E PLAN N NDRTli '"4 M .~~ ~~ .r/; ` \ 612 nFAO A7i0 want s~ nz:rNc i ` ff \ ~~.~ ' ~T 0 ` ~% \ ~ f \ \ ~, ~ ?~ D- 2~ \- ~~ ~ -` yz., \ " ` ~a ~~~~ ~~ ` ~sxa~` rm. ~ ~~} ~f i~ ~ / / 1 ~/ ~ s$~9 i~ ~~ .~ ~, ~ N ~ ,~ .° ~~» i ~' •C~ m wry ~J ~~ , ,,, N 89'58 OD~W ~ 4SD.78 ~ ~wEnwos ~~~ Site Plan 4 C D L N 3" Y R f3 A D 'Q' s a9'Se'oo" E Attachment 3 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 28, 2002 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 02-11 8:52 Kline Nissan Vehicle Dealership-3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive Wetland Setback Variance Conditional Use Permit Design Approval a. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the report. b. Associate Planner Roberts presented the specifics of the report. c. Commissioner Rossbach presented the Planning Commission report. d. Boardmember Olson presented the Community Design Review Board report e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Rick Kline, Owner, Kline Nissan Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Councilmember Collins moved to adopt the following resolution approving the conditional use permit for the Nissan dealership at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive: RESOLUTION 02-05-097 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Rick Kline, of Kline Auto World, applied for a conditional use permit for a motor vehicle maintenance garage as part of a new Nissan dealership; WHEREAS, this permit applies to properties at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive. The property identification numbers are 03-29-22-22-0002 and 03-29-22-22-0003. The legal description is: Tract mA~, Registered Land Survey No. 15, on file in the office of the Registrar of Titles within and for said County, except that part lying easterly of a line beginning at a point on the north line of said Tract 1494.91 feet west of the northeast corner of said Tract; thence southeasterly at an angle of 56 degrees, 43 minutes with said north line 445.39 feet; thence at an angle of 79 degrees 39 minutes to the right 188.7 feet to a point on the south line of said Tract 1303.88 feet west from the southeast corner of said Tract, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Torrens Certificate Number: 171003. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 6, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On May 28, 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 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 approved the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city°s comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The applicant shall not load or unload vehicles on public right-of-way. 4. Cars can only be parked on designated paved surfaces. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Councilmember Koppen moved to approve the design approval for proposed Nissan dealership at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Before getting a building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following: 1) Dedicating a 50-foot-wide wetland protection buffer easement along the wetland edge. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a building permit. 2) Submitting a revised grading plan showing compliance with the required wetland dedications. The grading plan shall include grading to within 10 feet of the wetland edge, with restoration of the remaining 40 feet of wetland buffer consisting of native plantings to be approved by staff and the watershed district (see landscape requirement below). 3) Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the wetland- protection buffer. This plan shall be subject to staff and watershed district approval. Underground irrigation is required for all landscaped areas, excluding the wetland protection buffer. 4) A revised site plan showing the following revisions: a) A 50-foot setback for the parking lot from the wetland. The revised site plan shall include the reconfiguration of the parking stalls and will ensure that no vehicle display pad encroaches into the required wetland buffer. b) Aright-turn-lane from Highway 61 into the site, subject to MnDOT°s approval. c) A trash enclosure that matches the building in material. This enclosure shall not be placed in required parking spaces. It must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. If the trash dumpster is kept inside the building, an outdoor enclosure is not required. 5) Verification that all watershed district special provisions, as indicated on the watershed district permit, are met prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for the site. 6) A revised south building elevation showing five windows and a smooth faced band along the concrete block to align with the windows. The banding shall also align with the metal panels located on the side. This revision is subject to staff approval. 7) Combine the two parcels (3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive) into one parcel with Ramsey County. Proof of lot combination must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 8) Applicant shall submit to staff for review and approval a striped parking plan which designates customer only parking spaces within the site plan. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. 2) Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit and ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap accessible parking space. 3) Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. 4) Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and the sodded areas between the highway and the parking lot. Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way may be waived if MnDOT will not allow it. It is also waived in the wetland buffer area. 5) Post signs identifying the customer and employee parking spaces. 6) Install city approved wetland buffer signs at the edge of the wetland buffer easement that notifies that no building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping is allowed within the buffer. d. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The city receives a 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 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. e. This approval does not include signage. All proposed signs must comply with the city°s sign ordinance and the applicant must obtain all required sign permits prior to installation. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes-All Attachment 4 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, June 24, 2002 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 02-13 2. Kline Nissan Dealership Wetland Setback Variance Reconsideration (3100 Highway 61) a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the specifics of the report. c. Clifton A. Aichinger, Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed outlined the Metro Watershed°s position. d. Rick Kline, owner, Kline Auto World, spoke about the proposal. Councilmember Collins moved to approve the following variance resolution (50 foot buffer on the NE side, and 25 feet on all other sides with an infiltration system installed on all sides), for the Nissan Dealership site plan: RESOLUTION 02-06-119 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Rick Kline, of Kline Auto World, applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to properties at 3090 and 3110 Maplewood Drive. The property identification numbers are 03-29-22-22-0002 and 03-29-22-22-0003. The legal description is: Tract mA~, Registered Land Survey No. 15, on file in the office of the Registrar of Titles within and for said County, except that part lying easterly of a line beginning at a point on the north line of said Tract 1494.91 feet west of the northeast corner of said Tract; thence southeasterly at an angle of 56 degrees, 43 minutes with said north line 445.39 feet; thence at an angle of 79 degrees 39 minutes to the right 188.7 feet to a point on the south line of said Tract 1303.88 feet west from the southeast corner of said Tract, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Torrens Certificate Number: 171003. WHEREAS, Section 36-196(h)(3) of the wetland protection ordinance requires a 100-foot-wide wetland buffer. WHEREAS, the applicant proposed a 75-foot-wide wetland buffer. WHEREAS, the city council approved a wetland buffer variance ranging from a 50-foot-wide buffer on the northeast side of the property to a 75-foot-wide buffer on the south and southeast sides of the site. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On May 6, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this variance. 2. The city council held a public hearing on May 28, 2002. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. The 100-foot-wide wetland buffer requirement would make development of this site difficult. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the applicant would improve a portion of the wetland buffer substantially over its present state and will treat storm water from the site with a subsurface storm water infiltration system. c. The city council previously approved similar wetland buffer variances for three developments near this proposal. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: a. Dedicating a 50-foot wetland protection buffer easement along the northeast lot line and a 25-foot wetland protection buffer easement along the remaining wetland edge. This easement shall be prepared by a land surveyor, shall describe the boundary of the buffer and shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. The applicant shall record this easement before the city will issue a building permit. b. Submitting a revised grading plan showing compliance with the required wetland dedications. The grading plan shall include grading to within 10 feet of the wetland edge on the side where the 50-foot buffer is required, with restoration of the remaining 40 feet of wetland buffer consisting of native plantings to be approved by staff and the watershed district (see landscape requirement below). c. Submitting a revised landscape plan for the restoration of 40 feet of the wetland- protection buffer on the northeast side of the site and for the 25-foot buffer in the other wetland buffer areas. This plan shall be subject to staff and watershed district approval. Underground irrigation is required for all landscaped areas, excluding the wetland protection buffer. d. Installing signs at the edge of the wetland-protection buffer which prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer. Submitting a signed maintenance agreement to the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District and the city for maintenance of the subsurface storm water infiltration system that accepts responsibility for any necessary maintenance and upkeep of the system. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Collins and Koppen Nays-Councilmembers Juenemann and Wasiluk Agenda Item G3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Andrew Gitzlaff, Planning SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review PROJECT: Hillcrest Animal Hospital LOCATION: 1320 County Road D DATE: March 1, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description The conditional use permit (CUP) for Hillcrest Animal Hospital at 1320 County Road D is due for review. This CUP is for an animal hospital in the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning district that is closer than 350 feet to a residential zoning district. Refer to the maps on pages 3-6 and the city council minutes starting on page 9. Recent Approvals On March 25, 2002, the city council approved a conditional use permit (CUP) and the design plans for the construction of a new animal hospital at 1320 County Road D. These plans include a new 7,000- square-foot, one-story animal hospital and a new parking lot to the north and east of the former animal hospital. (See the project plans on pages 5 and 6.) The CUP for this project was subject to eight conditions of approval. On August 27, 2002, the community design review board (CDRB) approved revised design plans for this project including those for the retaining wall, the landscaping for the dog run and landscaping for the residential screening and the building foundation. On March 31, 2003, the city council reviewed this permit and agreed to review it again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. On March 8, 2004, the city council reviewed this permit and agreed to review it again in one year or sooner if the owner proposes a major change to the site. DISCUSSION The contractor for the animal hospital has completed the building and site construction including the retaining wall. All of the landscaping is complete except for the planting of eight lilac bushes and three six feet high balsam fir trees to screen the dog run at the north end of the building. However, asix-foot high wooden privacy fence was erected instead to screen the dog run. The fence provides adequate screening of the dog run and further landscaping would not be necessary. RECCOMENDATION Hillcrest Animal Hospital is meeting all the CUP conditions. Staff recommends the council review the permit in the future only if a problem arises or if Hillcrest Animal Hospital proposes a major change to the site. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 78,590 square feet (1.8 acres) Existing land use: Hillcrest Animal Hospital SURROUNDING LAND USES North: New offices across County Road D South: A house planned and zoned M-1 owned by Sparkle Auto West: Single dwellings along County Road D East: Highway 61 PLANNING Land Use Plan and Zoning designations: M-1 Code Requirements Section 36-187(b) states that no building or exterior use, except parking, may be erected, altered or conducted within 350 feet of a residential district without a CUP. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may grant a CUP, subject to the nine standards for approval. p:sec3\hillcrest animal review 2005.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Proposed Grading Plan 5. Building Elevations 6. Building Elevations 7. March 25, 2002 City Council minutes 2 AL: �� �. _..iii._. : 1..: .. .b-, I' .. I.S ... - ...ai 'a: ". ' "� F: ! .. ��, 3m V If , r i 2 x - - In` Af .. .. w AL: �� �. _..iii._. : 1..: .. .b-, I' .. I.S ... - ...ai 'a: ". ' "� F: ! .. ��, _ ... _ _ -__ -__ ~ + -- , W - .. l~ttachment 3 ^ ~ r ~ wriw.wr rrw tw~rw r~ j i J i . .., . `.~.;~ s - , . ~ ~_ ~ . _ ~ i ~,,` S T ', ~ < ' ~ rte, ~ 3 , f' ~ ~ I ~ .~ ~.ti . ~ ;. i - j .~.,.,....~~..,w.,. r :~ ~ ~..w........~ - - { - ~,,.~.. r....Y. -~ ~.~. ......,. _. ~,~ ... - ... 'j ki~rr4~*~~~~rl~~ -- - ~1 M1\P~R~IMlt.1~M r ~-- - ~- ' wywrwe~w~w~ / O iwr rw~ . Mw ;~f- ___. -- r , - . o...,,..,....,...,..,..,, : I o .,,,,~....,..,..~. . , o ~,~.....~..,,.s o ..~,......r„e.,..... ~ . - o --~--~~-a- - _ ®~..~,.,. a....~ ® K MN :; , .. r T ; a t - - -1 .- ~ ~ . 5 ~ ,- ,. 1., ~, :. :.: ii... ..: l . -:: ~~.. d .i ._ € . .:.. ~ ;: ~ : :': ~... .--:.: r Jy ; asl ~ ; .' - I : ..~ .. i r.2a, TF J F' ~,.,_ ...,.....: t z, i ~ti~ `~~~~ ~~ T r,} ., . . ,, ~, . a _. - A~tachrnenf ~ ,, .. ~ .~ . .~ r• - ..r - ~ , : ,; ?; .. ~..~. ~XAT1~ ~- ~_ ~ _ _ _ _. -,,~~ y •' ~ .. .. '.. t ~: f ~ ~~:: ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ ' + r Yy ~ .. { i _ _~ ~~~_ n. r, . ~ - .. • ri.. ~; .. .. .. .... 7 ~- `_ ' _ ~. ,: .. .,. - 6 , . , , ,_ „~ ~ , . . „ .. ..,: ... .._ ,. , ~. ~:. ~.. . ' Attachrn~nt~ 6 ,. ., ~,; ... alb-. ' ~~ saute ywu~t MI~K~M ~~ vllwe M~ N ~~ y ~~~ ' ~~ - ~ ~~~~~ - .,. - i Q 'Y . d~M'e - - _ a1~ ~ r . .O Md00 S.. ~1 O~f~ . ® NIICOO 'C' • r1YS l~fiL 0011xM, ~ - I ~ M~L - . i ~ .~ Y' ~ 1~/L ~0 ... :. - - ~ Mir KC - ,.. 1_. ... . 1 1 1 E i - ~ 1 ~ Y - { . gA4T ELE1f~ATl ~ : t, - - .,~. - --.....m ~ .~....~ ~ -.. fi_.~ -,- .-..., -.r. _~ ..-- ~~T.-.~ ;` . ..~-~-.- .. ~: ,. ,~_ ~~ 4 f 1I µ y3 y {. . ~ ' t y+ ~a5' _ . - v lMI ~1 4 •~ { } r .. . J. i..t r.' ~.,: _..kJ.. .. . ...i lA... .~. j ~.. ~ ~ .. „~' .. l YIJ - 1.' il[.- - ~. I 'i. ~ ... .... ~.~ 9 1~~ :. ~- _ , ;;. ,. ,. ... ...~: l i ..~ ~ ~ - S ~ ~:i.. ~ - ,1 jh:,. / ' ~: ~ ~: 1 ., ... 4-- r - -:" . ~.. ~ . : _ v :.r r:: : ,~ . 1 ; . ~ ~ ,_ ,. . n '• ' ;_ ~' '.. F:'A W ~. ~, . ~• - ~r ~~y`pp11 A ; ~Nf.1~~.~ r, ,, ,~~.- ' r 9 ~ - ~ ; ~ ~'~ ~ . „_ 5:-~ [yy~.~ _ ~_~ - ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ c ~:~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~ z i~lii v . ~. a - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "... ~ ' '~ ~' i , -:. ~ ;. .. ,.., ~:: ~.; -L:i6i. .~ ,~=,~ . .. e ! ~ -: , ue _.~. r; ~. -:,~~, '- ... :. .. ..} :d11 i f-.. ~n-, ~ i ~. .~ ,~_ 'te- , ._ AGENDA REPORT To: City Manager Richard Fursman From: Chief of Police David J. Thomalla Subject: Purchase of Police Vehicles Date: March 2, 2005 Introduction Item #G-4 On February 28, 2005, the City Council approved the carryover of 2004 budget funds for the purchase of two 2005 Ford Crown Victorias by the Police Department. We are now requesting the City Council's permission to purchase these vehicles. Background The Police Department has been paying $3,500 per vehicle to convert used police patrol vehicles, which are then used by the Police Reserve and Citizens on Patrol programs. Because of the age and mileage on the vehicles by the time they are converted, they are only able to be used for an additional year. Rather than continuing to pay for the short-term use of these used vehicles, we are requesting permission to purchase two new vehicles for use by our volunteer programs. We expect that they will be able to be used by the police volunteer programs for approximately eight years each. By buying two new vehicles at the state contract price of $20,174 per vehicle, this would actually cost less than continuing to convert used patrol vehicles on an annual basis for eight years. Budget Impact This purchase will be funded through 2004 budget carryover funds approved at the February 28, 2005, City Council meeting. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to purchase two 2005 Ford Crown Victorias for use by the Police Department's volunteer programs. Action Required Submit to the City Council for review and approval. DJT:js Agenda GS MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk DATE: March 7, 2005 RE: Temporary Gambling -Temporary Liquor Introduction Applications have been submitted for temporary gambling and temporary liquor licenses by Stephen Klein, on behalf of the Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1725 Kennard Street. This is for their annual adult social gathering and fundraiser. The event will be held on April 9, 2005 from 6:00 p.m. to midnight in the church basement. In order for the State of Minnesota to issue a temporary license, approval of the following resolution from the City is required: RESOLUTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the temporary premises permit for lawful gambling is approved for the Church of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM), 1725 Kennard Street, Maplewood, Minnesota. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council waives any objection to the timeliness of application for said permit as governed by Minnesota Statute §349.213. FURTHERMORE, that the Maplewood City Council requests that the Gambling Control Division of the Minnesota Department of Gaming approve said permit application as being in compliance with Minnesota Statute §349.213. NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolved that this Resolution by the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, be forwarded to the Gambling Control Division for their approval. Recommendation Approve the above resolution for temporary gambling and approve the temporary liquor application. AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager Agenda Item G6 FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Grading of Southwind Builders Site, City Project 04-31 -Resolution for Acceptance of Project DATE: March 8, 2005 Introduction/Summary On October 14, 2004, the City Council approved a resolution ordering an improvement contract for the Southwinds Development site. A construction contract was awarded to Forest Lake Contracting on October 25, 2004. The project is now complete and ready for acceptance. The city council will consider approving the attached resolution for Acceptance of Project. Background In 2003, the city council directed the staff to negotiate for the acquisition and relocation of five property owners adjacent to Hazelwood Street on the western side of Legacy Village. As a cost saving measure in 2004, the city entered into a joint project with Southwind Builders to accomplish some of the difficult negotiations with the property owners. Southwind eventually acquired three properties while the city was able to acquire two properties. One of the conditions of the agreement was that the city would participate in a share of the preliminary site grading, by placing excess excavation material from the city's County Road D West project, (Troutland site). Southwind Developers agreed to pay up to $75,000 for their obligation of the preliminary site grading. The actual amount was reduced to $51,700 for work performed by the developer. This agreement is consistent with the tax abatement plan prepared for the Legacy Village Development. The cooperative approach has resulted in a cost savings of approximately $250,000 to the city. The redevelopment of the 5 single family homes will result in increased property values that will pay the tax abatement bonds faster than originally estimated. In addition, this contract also included the hauling of additional material from the Troutland site to the Ramsey County courthouse site. This was part of an agreement between Ramsey County and the city to facilitate the courthouse construction and as part of the city's obligation to remove additional material from the Troutland site, beyond what could be placed on the Southwind Builders site. Budget Impact Due to the bids and final contract amount coming in under budget, as well as a quick project completion, this project will realize a small budget savings. The exact amount of that savings is not yet known as final project expenditures for engineering and administrative costs have not been determined. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for Acceptance of Project for the Grading of the Southwind Builders site, City Project 04-31. CMC Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT WHEREAS, the city engineer for the City of Maplewood has determined that the City Improvement: Grading of the Southwind Builders Site, City Project 04-31, is complete and recommends acceptance of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, that City Project 04-31 is complete and maintenance of this improvement is accepted by the city. Release of any retainage or escrow is hereby authorized. Agenda Item J1 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Development Moratorium Extension -Gladstone Neighborhood DATE: March 7, 2005 INTRODUCTION On March 8, 2004, the city council adopted the Gladstone Neighborhood Moratorium Ordinance establishing cone-year development moratorium for Gladstone. This moratorium was to allow city staff, city council, advisory boards and planning consultant time to work with the area residents and business owners on the creation of a redevelopment plan for the Gladstone Neighborhood. The city has been engaged in this "Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Study" for one year now and is about half completed in terms of the study-time needed. The city recently hired another planning consultant to carry on with this study. Request Being that the city is still involved in this planning study until the anticipated completion in the fall of 2005, staff is requesting that the city council grant asix-month extension to the moratorium. DISCUSSION On December 13, 2004, the city council approved contracting with the planning firm of Hoisington Koegler Group to continue with the redevelopment planning of the Gladstone Neighborhood. The timeline they established would bring an anticipated conclusion to this study by next September. During the upcoming study, the city is also planning on having a complete environmental assessment performed for the study area to evaluate potential environmental and traffic impacts. A six-month moratorium extension would cover the time needed for continuing study and postpone any potential development/redevelopment in this area until the city council has adopted a land use plan to guide future changes. First Reading: On March 8, 2005, the council gave first reading to this ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution extending the development moratorium for the Gladstone Neighborhood for six months or until the city council approves a redevelopment plan for this area, whichever comes first. p:Gladstone\moratorium\gladstone moratorium extension 2'05 Attachments: 1. Gladstone Development Moratorium Extension Resolution 2. Gladstone Study Area ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM FOR THE GLADSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD The area under consideration (hereinafter "Gladstone Neighborhood") includes land generally located along Frost Avenue and English Street in Maplewood as follows: properties south of the Gateway Trail, properties north of Frisbee Avenue, properties east of Phalen Place North, and properties west of Ide Street North (refer to Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Study Area map attached for exact location). The Maplewood City Council ordains: SECTION 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The City of Maplewood is conducting a strategic planning study that includes land use planning components for the Gladstone Neighborhood. 1.02 The objective of the study is to design a strategic development plan including drawings and design standards the city can use, along with city ordinances, to achieve a sustainable, livable center for this neighborhood. 1.03 In addition to the study, the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, and comprehensive plan may need to be revised to reflect the following issues: - Land use - Building setbacks - Building height - Design standards for buildings - Pedestrian flow and safety - Parking - Streetscaping - Signage - Lighting - Landscaping - Housing density 1.04 There is a need for this study to be conducted so that the city can adopt changes to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, comprehensive plan, and design standards for the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood. 1.05 There, further, is a need to extend the previously-adopted moratorium ordinance six months for the continued planning study of the Gladstone Neighborhood. SECTION 2. STRATEGIC PLANNING STUDY; MORATORIUM 2.01 The study is authorized by the city. City staff shall coordinate this study with the Metropolitan Council, hired consultants, Gladstone property and business owners, interested citizens, city council, and various city commissions and boards. 2.02 Upon completion of the study, it shall be presented to the planning commission and community design review board for their review and recommendation to the city council. 2.03 A moratorium on development in the Gladstone Neighborhood is adopted pending adoption of the study and any amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, or comprehensive plan as deemed necessary as a result of the study by the city council. The city will not approve any subdivision, design plans or building permit for commercial, institutional, or multi-family residential land uses for the exterior construction of new buildings or additions, and freestanding signs during the moratorium period. SECTION 3. TERM 3.01 The term of this ordinance extension shall be for one and one-half years from the date of it's original adoption or until such time as the city council adopts the study and any amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, or comprehensive plan as deemed necessary as a result of the study. SECTION 4. VARIANCES 4.01 Variances from this ordinance may be granted by the city council based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: a. The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. b. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions which the applicant alleges to exist, and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. c. The application shall be submitted to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. d. The city council may in its discretion set a public hearing prior to making a final determination on the requested variance. e. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as may be necessary to comply with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE 5.01 This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on February 28, 2005. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 4 I' ~ ~ ._ r Y ~ .. ~' DRAFT--MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, February 28, 2005 Council Chambers, City Hall Meeting No. OS-04 H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 p.m. Gladstone Neighborhood Development Moratorium Extension a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. City Engineer Ahl presented specifics from the report. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: None d. Mayor Cardinal closed the public hearing. Mayor Cardinal moved to a~rove the first reading of the following ordinance extending the development moratorium for the Gladstone Neighborhood for six months or until the city council approves a redevelopment flan for this area, whichever comes first: ORDINANCE NO. 861 AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM FOR THE GLADSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD The area under consideration (hereina$er 'Gladstone Neighborhood) includes land generally located along Frost Avenue and English Street in Maplewood as follows: properties south of the Gateway Trail, properties north of Frisbee Avenue, properties east of Phalen Place North, and properties west of Ide Street North (refer to Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Study Area map attached for exact location). The Maplewood City Council ordains: SECTION 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The City of Maplewood is conducting a strategic planning study that includes land use planning components for the Gladstone Neighborhood. 1.02 The objective of the study is to design a strategic development plan including drawings and design standards the city can use, along with city ordinances, to achieve a sustainable, livable center for this neighborhood. 1.03 In addition to the study, the city~s zoning ordinance, zoning map, and comprehensive plan may need to be revised to reflect the following issues: - Land use - Building setbacks - Building height - Design standards for buildings - Pedestrian flow and safety - Parking - Streetscaping - Signage - Lighting - Landscaping - Housing density 1.04 There is a need for this study to be conducted so that the city can adopt changes to the city~s zoning ordinance, zoning map, comprehensive plan, and design standards for the redevelopment of the Gladstone Neighborhood. 1.05 There, further, is a need to extend the previously-adopted moratorium ordinance six months for the continued planning study of the Gladstone Neighborhood. SECTION 2. STRATEGIC PLANNING STUDY; MORATORIUM 2.01 The study is authorized by the city. City staff shall coordinate this study with the Metropolitan Council, hired consultants, Gladstone property and business owners, interested citizens, city council, and various city commissions and boards. 2.02 Upon completion of the study, it shall be presented to the planning commission and community design review board for their review and recommendation to the city council. 2.03 A moratorium on development in the Gladstone Neighborhood is adopted pending adoption of the study and any amendments to the city~s zoning ordinance, zoning map, or comprehensive plan as deemed necessary as a result of the study by the city council. The city will not approve any subdivision, design plans or building permit for commercial, institutional, or multi-family residential land uses for the exterior construction of new buildings or additions, and freestanding signs during the moratorium period. SECTION 3. TERM 3.01 The term of this ordinance extension shall be for one and one-half years from the date of its original adoption or until such time as the city council adopts the study and any amendments to the city~s zoning ordinance, zoning map, or comprehensive plan as deemed necessary as a result of the study. SECTION 4. VARIANCES 4.01 Variances from this ordinance maybe granted by the city council based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. b. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions which the applicant alleges to exist, and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. The application shall be submitted to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. d. The city council may in its discretion set a public hearing prior to making a final determination on the requested variance. e. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as maybe necessary to comply with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Seconded by Councilmember Koppen Ayes-All Agenda Item J2 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Management Specialist Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment -Portable On-Demand Storage Unit (POD) DATE: March 2, 2005 BAC KG ROU N D The City currently has no ordinance requirements that regulate the storage of portable on-demand storage units (POD) with respect to length of time (days). The City does, however, regulate the placement of this storage unit on residential properties. PODs must be stored on an impervious surface. At the February 14, 2005 City Council meeting, staff was directed to take another look at the proposed ordinance amendment and make changes. To this end, staff is proposing the elimination of the roll-off container piece of this ordinance and adding language to the POD proposal that would include a provision to exempt PODs on a property that were there in conjunction with an activity needing a building permit or a home improvement project. Staff is also recommending that the impervious surface storage requirement in the ordinance remain intact. The public hearing and first reading were conducted at the February 28, 2005 City Council meeting. No changes were requested. The proposed ordinance amendment changes were published in the "Maplewood Review" on February 9 and 16, 2005. DISCUSSION City staff has received a number of complaints regarding the storage and length of time of storage for PODs in residential locations. Neighboring property owners may consider the PODs to be an eye-sore for the neighborhood. In addition, City staff has investigated a few of these complaints and discovered that some of these POD units have been stored in excess of two years on the same property without the owner moving the POD. The City also realizes and understands that there is a need for these POD units in conjunction with remodeling projects, moving, temporary storage, etc. In an attempt to balance the issues and concerns, staff is proposing to add language (subsections h) to Section 30-7, "Solid Waste Management, Unlawful disposal; location of containers for collection; disposal of inflammable or explosive materials". This language is to regulate the time that PODs can be stored on residential properties. Staff is also suggesting language to provide a mechanism for an extension to the proposed language requirements. The City also has exempted the time requirement for storage of PODs in conjunction with permitted activities and home improvement projects. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that we give the attached ordinance amendment a second reading on March 14, 2005 and adopt the ordinance amendment. Staff is proposing the following addition to Section 30-7: Section. 30-7 Unlawful disposal; location of containers for collection -portable on- demand storage units (PODs); disposal of inflammable or explosive materials. (h) No property owner or person shall store on a residential property a portable on-demand storage unit (POD) more than 60 days in any 12-month period starting with the day/date the POD is first moved on-site. All PODs must be stored on an impervious surface on the property. The City may grant a time extension of an additional 60 days provided the property owner pets a tracking permit for the POD from the City. In no case shall a POD be stored on a property more than 120 days in any 12-month period. This provision applies to all residential properties including townhouses, condominiums, and multi-family complexes. PODs stored on residential properties in conjunction with a building permit or home improvement protect are exempt from this provision, except for the requirement to keep the POD on an impervious surface. In such a case, the property owner shall make every effort to adhere to the 120 day maximum time limit. Language that is underlined and bolded represents the proposed ordinance additions. Adopted by the Maplewood City Council on 2005. 2 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Agenda Item K1 SUBJECT: Schlomka Property Proposed Development(South of Carver Ave at Henry Lane), City Project 05-07 Concept Plan Review Consider Request for Preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheet DATE: March 8, 2005 Introduction Rottlund Homes has submitted a concept plan for a major development of property in southern Maplewood. The property is mainly owned by the Schlomka family. The development is a major revision for the area and will likely have environmental impacts that need to be managed. Staff has suggested to the developer that a concept review is appropriate along with the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) by the City. Those requests are before the Council as part of this item. Background The adoption of a resolution begins the review process on the proposal. The City Attorney has advised us as follows: If an environmental assessment worksheet ("EAW") is prepared by a city, it has an additional 60 days after the environmental review process is completed to approve or deny a written request. Under Minnesota Statute Section 15.99, a city must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license or other governmental approval of an action. Minn. Stat. § 15.99, Subd. 2 (2001). Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. Id. However, if a city or state law requires the preparation of an EAW, the deadline is extended until 60 days after the environmental review process is completed. Id. at Subd. (3)(d). The developer has been advised that the environmental findings may have dramatic impacts on the final layout of the project. Impacts to public utilities, the transportation system and the wetlands and open space areas will likely revise the current site plan. The staff has recommended to the developer that the appropriate process to follow would be: ~ Preparation of the concept plan, which is currently presented to the City Council and has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Preparation of an EAW to itemize and guide the final development plans for the site. Conduct a Public Hearing as part of the EAW process for neighborhood input. Revision of the site plan for final project submittal based upon EAW requirements. Appropriate reviews of the final plans through the normal development process. This process will insure that an environmentally appropriate development is approved on the property. The review of the concept plan for the site is important at this phase of the development. The intent of this process is to find an improvement that addresses most concerns from the property. It will likely be more difficult to develop findings for denial, if a development is proposed that addresses the environmental concerns. The Council should review the attached report from the Planning Staff on the Concept Plan along with minutes from the Planning Commission on the concept plan. Guidance should be provided to the developer prior to proceeding to the EAW preparation. City Council Agenda Background Schlomka Property EAW Preparation March 8, 2005 Page Two Background Rottlund Homes has proposed to have an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) prepared for development of property along Henry Lane, south of Carver Avenue. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is a document used to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared on a project. An EAW reviews a standard list of questions related to various environmental issues. The EAW process is controlled by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB). The EQB is not the decision maker on an EAW. Their role is to ensure that process is followed. The city council remains the responsible governmental unit (RGU). The first step in the process is taken as part of this concept when the Council determines that they believed there is enough information presented that significant environmental impact is possible from the proposed development that additional environmental review was warranted. The attached resolution authorizes the preparation of an EAW. An independent consultant will prepare the EAW. The EAW preparation process typically takes 1-2 months. Once the consultant has completed the EAW, the document must be published and sent to various agencies for comment, as well as circulated to residents and property owners for comment. These comments become part of the EAW document. The information developed for the EAW can be used to redesign the project; however, the EQB states "A petition process is not a means for resolving a disagreement with local government over whether a project should be built." The council's role, as RGU, will be to consider the EAW information and the comments received and officially decide if the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. If not, the environmental review process is over. Any appeal of this decision must be made in district court within 30 days. If the Council, as RGU, determines that an Environmental Impact Statement is needed, a much longer and detailed study process (typically many volumes of data over 3-4 years) begins. Examples of projects where an EIS has been prepared in recent years are the Mega Mall expansion, the Hiawatha Light Rail Plan, 35W Roadway Improvements and the Minneapolis - St. Paul runway expansion. Because of the extensive nature of study related to the preparation of an EIS, this type of document is not routinely prepared. Proposed Project Schedule The current schedule for the project is: ~ Approval of Motion Directing Preparation of EAW March 14, 2005 ~ Hiring of Independent Consultant March 14, 2005 ~ EAW Document Completed: May 9, 2005 ~ EAW Published for Comment May 23, 2005 ~ EAW Comment Period Ends June 22, 2005 ~ Council Final Decision on EAW July 11, 2005 Budget Impact Attached is a proposal from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., a consultant from the City's pool that is proposing to prepare the EAW at a cost of $35,000. The EAW will look at issues within the Schlomka site as well as areas outside the project area for public utility service. The cost breakdown is $25,000 for the EAW on the Schlomka property and $10,000 for utility investigations for the remainder of the area. Utility service in this area is not readily available. Mainly sanitary sewer is being studied for expansion. It is proposed that the Sanitary Sewer Fund pay the $10,000 share from the 2005 budget established for Fees for Service. The remaining $25,000 will be paid by Rottlund Homes. City Council Agenda Background Schlomka Property EAW Preparation March 8, 2005 Page Three Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council direct that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet shall be prepared for the proposed Rottlund Homes Development of the Schlomka property due to the possibility of significant impacts to the public utilities, public streets, area wetlands, Ramsey County open space, including Fish Creek, and the potential for significant erosion during construction activities. Further, the City Council approves the firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. as the engineer to prepare the Environmental Assessment Worksheet at a fee of $35,000, and that Rottlund Homes shall be $25,000 of said fee with the remainder of the fee to be paid from the Fees for Service portion of the 2005 Sanitary Sewer Operating Budget. RCA C: Project Area Map Staff Report on Concept Plan Dated January 27, 2005 to Planning Commission Approved Planning Commission Minutes -February 7, 2005 Kimley-Horn Proposal for EAW Preparation Map & Drawings of Rottlund Homes Concept for Schlomka Property (Council & C. Mgr. only) MAR LOU GRA NZ 242822240002 GARRY URL ND 242822 4000 JO N SC MI T & DA EL N A 24 8222 00 ROBERT & LUELLA WILDS 242822240010 GARY SCHLOMKA 242822310017 RA EY COUNTY RKS & REC 3100 GARY SCHLOMKA GARY SCHLOMKA 242822320001 242822310017 GARY SCHLOMK 242822310002 SHELLEY SCHLOMKA COPAR & COPAR DEVELOPMENT LLC DEVELOPMENT LLC 24282232003 PROJECT 242822320002 AREA RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS & REC 242822330001 0 PROJECT AREA = 73.19 ACRES SCHLOMKA PROPERTY = 60.12 ACRES OTHER PROPERTY = 9.86 ACRES RAMSEY COUNTY PARKS = 3.20 ACRES AND REC PROPERTY SCHLOMKA PROPERTY EAW PROJECT AREA MAP EXHIBIT 1 TO: Cil3l ~' FROM: Kin Roberts, Phutrrer st~,lECr: R,srlY ~ ~ LOCATION: C.srver A~nue and Henry Lie DiATE: 127, 20Q5 N~'. f3rttCe PanicOrmt, r~irtp d Flomss~ is asicllrp the ~ ~ provide praltrr~fafy corrrrr~rrts abou# a pfDp~osed serlbr houei~p dav+elElpment ~ hss pl~rred a ! ~ ~ 110tgirlQ (~'1 t~DUr' /1?~t tomes .~ ~ '101' aped 5$ aAd orrer. TIC d+arsiD~rrrierrt vr~uld lie wn about TE1 aces of ~ tip is sv~ of Carver A~ and w~at of. Ha~nry Lard I~owrt isle t3~afilola~ p~pe~. ~°1a ~Ie apQrrcarrt"a ~t on pspes sire anal s acrd the on ptpea sf~ht -tan. A lyomsewtters' asso~ion w~txfc! arwaA arnd resin the cerrrman mans. The of ~e b~ ~~ ~vt mod, but ~ UtaE ~~ towre b~ ~ have hor~aor~i-~1~Py~yl~s~i~d~t~njQ,L~~~a~a~fiy~ and end 6rit~c or sior~e wru~r+~ t!-s: fir+oerts. to adman, ~} tit yr hsv~e ~ ~wV"4aE . To build this project, Mr. P~C,orrin vrN bs re ~t the City a~pnove: 1. A c#umps to the c~ompr^#rsnai~ lisr-: Tt~s wet.~d be irr~ret R 1 f d r~kien~} to R-3 fM) {nre~xrr tleneby ~ tix tl~ sibs. 2. A dtarpe bo the z~ortirp gip. Thy vyotid be frrrrn R-1(1~ (n~ral sir~ie ~s~p ~de~a~} fio R- 3 f ~b ~} tar the sibs. 3. A ~ use- pem~it f~ -for a pined unit ds~ralo~enerrt €PiJ~. Tf~ i~U ward atiMow the pr~ojelx ba hwe a ~c of . Lo haws a ~raristy cf ~ bo laerr ~e to bs oa lots owe uscall3t a>iarrs {~ a~a and In ~ alrrd to have mertiy trf tl'11~ on prh~e drfirsrys. 4. A perry plat for the lots for the town trowses. {See the oono~t site plate on page ~.) 5. The prajact design plena- Land lts• ~ and Zak To bind the pfd ~ ~ flea dl~r~or al@I~ ~e- herd ram plan and ~r~ibctbe~rr~~rsp ~-~~ ~ } ~- R~3 ~~ iy for tl~ ~ rasp- The cry irtlen~#S R-3(#~ a for up ~t B omits per acre. For R 1 aroes, the ~!I ~~ ~ ort lots t~f at featst 10,G~10 square ~ of great wh~e the R 1 {i~ ~ ~ is for sample ~ on 2 arse bls. '1'fis R~3 yor~tp ~ l~if~tlewrvod mows fior a mint of hate ~ ri~ homes, houses, condos and aparbnerrts. PreHrain~y Pn~t I~view 'bil Th~ ~ the be at ~ cta.r~e far this area of M~pkrroad. h would tratnsl'arm a ~, very bw~dsnsity ar+es nv pt~iic } ir~t~ a sut~t~ne, rtsrt denaity,rdated-use r~ tf~-aioptr~nt w~h p~ic s ~d whet". T#~ p~ap~i to a ~t depart<xe from the eatistirq and aspec~d lamed uses in the a~a and pals raised sevsrdl oorroems wipt sue. iio~rever, ~ atso is important to reoie iftat ~ not reeoseatar~- at bad 0. -The does rteake e~ar#nes io the fond use p~ ar~d to Ilse ~rttrrp .~ ~ # daterrtir~ Chart such d~r~es are corentwitl~ the his ~d pv~cieis ofithe c~-aredi when he etpes would be, ~ ~ opefiort of the city caemc8, ~ the beam al' the dtlr I~ ds~iopmarnt such ats this, it ~ pla~nnsd atrtd wed, htts the p~ ~ ~be s gr~ sdd~[~ b tl~tet ~ci~ty. T1ts c!'e'~ss in 6r~~e pcatls and ~ ~ the t~ty, the nests aid the ele3roiopsr~tornn a pbn thatworlts t~rmost, it not alt, of the ir>brr+sailedparties. In iu[atpte~wood, developers vriw often bind towrsronees Head ~ sinafer ~- An ~e is with the New Century /fort kt sage mod. "l'he davebps~, Robeet ~. ~ ~p the nei~tbvr#bad rte a mix. of tlw~ai~inQs aid ~. There are msrtg otlter eotamples ~ ~pleerood, suds ats F~dQs, ~~ YVoods, t~via C~+der~s and the ttorrte~s o[ t1#elale F~Fs. ~ came, the prrapc~aed ~ and oa~dos ward be Weer ~ atnd t`~rverAv~enue atnd neod ~ ~~ ~r atso tad atl~ tfib~ywould a~sct to lid at tray syadwrrt thr~hout the dsvetoprrterd pntt that d waald ttanrs a~~ bra~dinpb .house ~ P'o!- a l~• t As pr~opossd, the 38B u on the ~"O~aas ells rresatna dtera w+o~d tae abort 5.5 urd~s per gross ater+e. This ~ rortsistsrrt wtitt the de~sit~r ~ in the carrtprahear~a-per for rnediwrt denslly r~esidentie~ devebpmer+t. Pt.A~ ~ DENIi~QPt~itlT (Ply?] Section M-1tt93(b) of the cl~l txtde says that ~ is the intent aF the PUE? code `b provide a r to ailo~w tlr by deviatdorts:fivm, the ~ ~ figs `, irt~dktp uses, setttac~ts, height aard other ropu~tio~ns. ~ matt' tte ~racded ~ p~irtrad- unit devebpmertts provided hart: 4. Certain rem ~cantarinsd in this daap/er rx~t applit to the ptnposed ~re becwuse of ib rt~,ne. 2. The l'1~ w+twltt de ~ the ~ of this c#~pler. 3. The unit ~M w~ P~+~ ~ ~'~ of equal yr ~ 4~y ~ which vYOUM fit-from strict ~`tD'.t~1e ~ of 4. The dsratiorrs would rrat oorrstrte a sigrarrt to the property vaM~es, safety, health or ~~ vie of #hs owners or occ~errts of land. 5. The d~ ar+e r~equined for raasonabla and prole physical development and are not r+e~red solely for rrasnns.° The app~c~nt woub apply to the ~ for a ~1 use permit (t,',l~ ~ a panured unit dsvebprnent (Pl~)1~r gre 3t>!B-wit howin~ dsvaloprrrerrt. They woad r~squsst a Pl1D io slow the pr+ged to have a mbc ~ h~ styles, to have a variety of arcs, to lianre ~ deta~-ed townuses be on ~ ion #ran Dods ulfy alfvr~rs ~ir- a>wa ~d ~ wk~r) anct ~ htrrs marry of the urlts on private ~, The devaio~psr is pimpo~p a srrt~l lot arvurrd each fiawnharrrs wit. A homeawners' assad~on would own and mater nest of the land, ~p the ~ir-ate dricneways, gr+ean areas and ~ porrctirrrp areas. M ad~tion, iravmg a PUD gives the ~y arrd devakrpefr a rl~roe to tre nror+s thole with site design and dev~opnrsnt details tl~r ~ standard ~ taquir~merrte would normally sir. tt ~ the corrtsrrtiart of the ~ ttr~ the proposed code deviatiorw rrreet the findhr~ ~ the dty code for of a PUD. Cti!!y staff agrees with the appNa:ant that the derebpmerrt as propvaad [shown on gape 10), with the proposed ~ davitions, wocid prodrroe a ddM+ebpml~rrt of equal or superior qrr, that the prcposals do Trot ocxa~rte a threat ~ ttre ~1 and the. deVtations ~ rdqutr+ed hx rode and pradicerble dexebpmsnt of the site. Having prhr~ d~-a+wrys with reduced-nhouare sstbadw wry lessen the arnourrt of and tree r+strrovd on the property. ff the applicant followed ag the t~l sr~con aa~rd s~rrrdards and used pubilc . such a plan would r~squire more tree ~ and grading because of the ripfa-o~f~ray roqu~rtr~ and !hs trrpsr setbacks. Public Utz ~arresry sewer and weer are. in Caner Avenue artd at the sauttr and of Dartarrd l~Oed (#ieiptrts A~rern~e}. The de~reitrpsr.ia propoai~ tc- aaierrd the ~ from theme lot~dns to serve ttre pmpoesd devabpnrerrt. This rni~ rsgcairs eadensiv+e ~ with ~ stag acrd probably a crew ~ station near F~tr Geslc for the s~ arewer. There ~, trawev~, no si~m sewer in ttls part of llewood. The oorrcept phrms aho~w rrew~ parrdirrg ae+sas on the ~e ~ part or the dam: Marragirrg the stcxm , ~ with artery prr~ject, also wl~ ba a part of the d the der~aloprnerrt. The ~d dis~id ususillt-'~ the grar~g p~ to show there viii be at least five ~ d free lx~ard (bcxrrroe) iin the paw tram the fit Sao year water to tta lo~rest Moor elevation a the urlts. TraAia Becaeue of the lirn~d rriarrrb~ of sb+ee~ls and access points ~ the area, trelFic is arrottrsir corroem of mil arta~ i4lost of the ds~nelo~rnerrt rra~i use Harry. L.tere as access t~ Cater ~lvarrriaaei. Hsrrry Leine south of l=iar t;~sek wowkl beoa~s a long dead end than aboed 3t16 of the units world hanre ~ ordy street acxress. 3 'i•he ~ has rat yet dons a traffic study for the area and ~Y staff has er100ura~ed tfie developer to do are. City staff did serif! a Dopy of the pns~irrary prnpos~ to Rarriaey County for comments. I have iriduded iri~rnatiori from Dot t3oler ~ Ra~nnsa~r County on page ~ 1. ,,. _ ,.,, Emrironrneiwal AssessnNnt.Worhsheet (EAVIi) City staff his i~ nsseand~in~ the need yr pow ofi Nawirig the developer preparo an EAW far ttae; piaposed prat. An EAW is a ~ ernrironmenbi! review of a propose to bok at haw the de -,~,- ': ate has designed the EAW #a gathersdose infortna$ori about pot~itial environmental effects from a proposed project, The EARN. also ~~ gc:twds 1ao avoid or m~ni~ze any effects. An EAW has a list`bf stan~r+ que~oiis eo~ner issues such as land use and habitat, storm water, vds, air su~.po~ition and trafhc. ~ P~ ~ does. ncrt meefwthe,,mum size thresholds (with the proposed number of unl~~ set. smote ~ri; ~ ~a an SAW. F~rw+ever, the city can roquiro ~e to p ~` . 1f tfie~ Illy amides that the prvjsct'rias a potei~ for signlhcsnt environrnerYtal °~e~tsM" ,CI#Y staA has to~1 the dsvebper iha~ it rr be prudent for them to do ~ F.Aw to review ~ ~` problems and envirorirnenta! sAbc~s fim the proposal. A buy l~ of ~~~,tk~e ,tie pnq~ ~,,~ ~ weds, slopes, storm water and ~~~ ~ tr~ic:~ ~. tn''aefd#garf, the noise from 1-494 and its ~' ~ ~ ~ ~x tt~- EAW quid aratlyae. REC~~IIAI~ENt?ATIQN Pi4ase,~vil~:.l~. P~'~; PUD~cI silieand~ie7prspared ~~~as- proposed ~ plan with staff and the app~arit at the February 7, 21?Of; mee4ing. 4 r --- SITE DESC.FdPTtOlil Site size: TO aces E..~dst~ng l~ use: Three she dwe~ings and Y bw'Idings BURROl~M11G LAtlln Ut3ES North: She dws and Carver Avenue South Ramsey CauntY open spans West: Houses on Dortand-Road and Saint Paxrl Fast: Herxy Lane and i-494 Pt,AN1~11G Existing hand tJse Plan designation: R 1 {sine dwetlirigs) Es>atirlg : R-1{R) {Waal side ~) Propoa~ed L.~d Use: R-3(M~ {tam donsity ~de~ial) Proposed Zoning: R-3 (mine dw) and PUD ~~~ Sedlon 44'#'!86 of the inning Bode requiros that the ~ c~unal make the Ong findings to remne property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spit, purpose and tent of ~e mr~ing code. 2. The proposed tfiarrg~e wip not. ~ ~~ or detract imm the use of coring P~~y or from the c~arac4er of the rruiytrbdtgtrd, and ttrat the ass of the property adtrcant to the area irx~rrded in the pr~opaaed c~r1~e a phpn is ~~~. 3. The proposed change w~ serve the bast ~ and oornronienoes of the c~ornrraJnity, rrrhere appkcable, and the pubOc wee. 4. The proposed charge woulyd hanre no native et'iled upon the bgical, elfraerM, and economical extension ol< pubic senrices and fecdlities, such as pubic water, sewers, l and 15+e pro~ecdion and school. Criirafs t3or Condt~lorat t,~e Perrnlt ~-~rovat Secdion 44-109T(a) states that the city counc~ may improve a CUP, based on rMr-e ~dards. paec T~! 2815ctrlomka Corrcep~t r~rw - 2D05.rtsrrr~ ~: 1. AppN~rrt's Stetarrrent dated ,fariuary 2S, 2006 2. LoceOort tip 3. Area llt~ 4. Correspt 8i1s Plwt dated 2-25.06 5. Merrro detect 12-25-04 Nam 0~ Soter 5 Attachment 1 'T'LUND HDME~~' A ptV[SION OF THE ROTI7.UND OOMPANY, ING January 25, 2005 Mr. Kenneth Roberts CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1820 East County Road B Maplewood, MN S 5109 Re: Schlomka Property City of Maplewood, MN Dear Mr. Roberts: ~M 2 5 ZQ~ ~~~E~yEn. Rottlund Homes and CoPar Companies respectfully requests the opportunity to informally discuss our vision for development of the 70+1- acre Schlomka Property, located on Henry Lane in the southern portion of the community, with the Planning Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting on February 7a'. As shown in the attached, Rottlund Homes is proposing to create an active adult, age- restricted (55 years or older), community on the land. In addition to a Club House, the housing types and home characteristics are proposed to include: Housing Type # Units Square Footage Gardens 64 1,460 Garden Townhames 64 1,492 -1,572 Detached Townhomes 78 1,270 -1,765 Senior Condominium 180 1,000 -1,500 Total Housing Units 386 Gross Density 5.5 du/acre Within an age-restricted active adul# community, there will be no school age children permanently living in the area and, according to our traffic engineer, the vehicle trips per day will be less than a typical single family detached neighborhood. Access to the site will be via Carver Avenue and Henry Lane with an "emergency connection" to Heights Avenue. Within the new neighborhood access to the homes wi11 be served by a system of public and private streets. An additional "emergency access" will connect the single family (detached townhomes) to the Garden Townhomes as noted. Q 4~ MRS ~ 113 1 38-0500 Fes[ 51 638-OSUI The site plan is sensitive to the physical constraints of the land by preserving the ravine and wooded slope as well as protection of the central wetland azea. Rottlund Homes, a locally owned and operated homebuilder, is uniquely qualified to undertake the development of the Schlomka Property. Over the life of our company, we have successfiilly developed thousands of acres of land in the St. PaullMinneapolis metropolitan area and have constructed approximately ten thousand -homes for individuals and families. Rottlund fully expects to be successful in undertaking this exciting development opportunity. We have an excellent working track record in undertaking the development of well planned and executed residential communities throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. We aze well respected amongst local municipalities in terms of our professionalism and expertise in the land development and housing industry. We would invite members of the Maplewood staff, planning commission, city council and neighbors to visit any of our developments, past and present, to witness for yourselves our capabilities. As Rottlund Homes enters its second 30 years, we aze looking forward to maintaining and expanding our position as the No. 1 homebuilder in the Twin Cities housing market. The development of the Schlomka Property is truly an exciting opportunity and we want to be part of your community. if you should have any questions or if you should require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 651 638-0591. Respectfully re , ~~~ Bruce Pankonin Land Acquisition Manager ROTTLUND HOMES Attachments (2) CC Todd Stutz, President Rottlund Homes Tom Hansen, CoPar Companies 7 _. , ~#re~r~t Z At~ '~ Att~~ ~ D~ ®f ~c Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer 1426 Pahl Kirkwoid Drive Arden Hills, ~iN 65112-3923 • (651)268-71110 ~ Fax (66i) 266-7110 E-mail: Public.Works~co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: K~ Roberts city of Maplewood FROM: Daa Soler ~ ~.~ Ramsey utrty Public Works svarECT: Raa~~a x~es DATE: December 29, 2004 The Ramsey County Public V~orks Depertmtnt has reviewed the cos~ept plan for new residential development in south Ma~levvood proscd ~~ ~~ Homes. Ram~C.y Cowriy has following commeatg regaurding tltis ccncep-t plat: ` 1. The construction of 386 hog amts would be expected to generate about 3000 hips per day. All of these trips will everttuall3r end up using Carver Aver. The cun+ent average daily traffic on Carver Avenue is 2x00 vehicles p~ day between McKt~ght ro®d and'S~tling Stmt. This developnumt will nee dnabk ~e tra#~ic voh~me# on Carvef Ave. 2. The intersections of Carver Avenue at Henry Stmet a~ at McKnight Roed will be cr~ical to the operation of the ~~ sya#,em as this ~ gets ~. These itectia~s will need to be evahu~ted fcx pbk traffic control ~haages aed need for geometries (additicroal teun lanes) as mcn~e specific plains are dev~opeat, Thanks for the opportunity to ~Ce t$ regarding-this issue. tf you have aay questions or need-any additional ration ply give n~ ~a call. . ;, f - .. ~ . ,ti , ~, i .,,.. :~;. '~~CEIVED ~~ QEC302~4 ~a m p~x.wk a ^m~ of loac pau~oew~er oa~ers ~ 1 ,;.; ~ x u,~ ~ , , _: ,~: , ~- a ~. , ~ ..,.:. _., _ .. _ . ~ a:~, aa~,~. >. .~. a ~11Y~ it ~: O5 '! Y1. NEVY BUS~1[NESS a. Schlomka Propsrt~l Cwt f~uft ~ (~ A~ ar~cl ~ ~ Mr. Roberts said Mr. Bruce l~ankonin. ~ Rpttlund horn+~, is a~ig the planning commission ~ ~e rx~rnr~ atiotrta ~' ~ He has pre~r-~l a p~ e P ti~+at shows u (fit lei' of hir~g) for persons 55 an~# carer. This wo~~ci be'~n 7fl+ sores of land that is south of Canes Avenue ate! west a~ lry ka~- as °t~ ~ pY• A home's assocn wed ~m and maim the ~n araas• A motion isn't necessary but s~ff rec~ae~ts that the plar~nirtg corn~on discuss the proposed prelimnary plan regerd~9 iar'~ use pisrn cn~a, p during the planning commission me-g this ev°en~9• Commissioner Trippler said these are two t~id~ts shun, on the plans on the rrortt~a-st afi this ~#: He a~tCed ~ tl'~ two weld comer that appear not ~ be part remain despite the #~ they ~rre: so d to proposed p'~ Mr. Roberts said yes the two homes wcwld remain.. Cor~nissioner Trier said he named a Wigs amine n~rk~' ~ ~ the area, sense Carver Avenue, -~rest of t1~ fi~ro +. ~• ~: ~ erbady odd at the pi~iine and vend®red hour the piper oou~d tinge the of P Mr. Roberts drew a red line on the map wt he , the Vi#~li pipeline to be located and said :ata~.tt~ld the `they Est have the try ured~eo ~e open is r+e of the ~ the a in the are~i vin" tl layout. Commissioner Trippief asked if'the developer could. bind a'abucture o ~e pipeline? -, ,. ..__ ..... , . , ...~ , ~.:.,. ~ ~.., .._ ~ ., ,,, .. ~ ~. a~ GiEy of A~od. As far as .~ ; rye a~ senior housing. 9 dam ~t by ~.~es ati~ing Mr. Roberts said' d~ ,.- ~„~.r ~ra~pe~on F v~ ~ #h~t # ~~ ~ ~e steer s, iii ~ ~~~ pn steer system d~ ' # o~ ~ mod? .,... ~~~ r ~. Mr. Roberts ~ d ~~ t~tri ~' Cwr~er Qierich warms do ba crt#the bier i~ asicir~ the ~3 ~ fnrti~e veers tote` ~1 tv the his.: Mr. Roberts said the d veld' ply ftx that. C Fischer asked the arrt ~ -the Sian. :~z-- ~;~~ 4 .. ,. ,~ w .~ Cc~+rrT' - ._ >; .~, ~. ~ d!r' 4::~ INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER NUMBER 14 (FOURTEEN) 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: Schlomka Property Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) City Project OS-07 General Category of Services: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Preparation Specific Scope of Basic Services: 1. Project Management, Coordination and Meetings 2. Complete EAW Document 3. Assist with EAW Distribution 4. Assist with Response to Public Comments and Record of Decision See attached Exhibit A for a more detailed summary of the proposed Scope of Services. Additional Services if Required: Future services may include feasibility report and final design phase tasks. Deliverables: EAW Document Responses to Public Comments Record of Decision 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 C) Special Terms of Compensation: None Other Special Terms of Individual Project Order: None ACCEPTED: CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BY: TITLE: DATE: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. BY: TITLE: DATE: EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NUMBER #14 (FOURTEEN) SCHLOMKA PROPERTY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET CITY PROJECT OS-07 Kimley-Horn's Scope of Services for this project includes services to prepare an Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW), assist with the EAW distribution process, and assist with the required response to public comment for the proposed Schlomka Property development. The EAW process is proposed to review the environmental impacts for the proposed development of the Schlomka property and to determine if the preparation of an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is required. The project area is shown on attached Exhibit 1. The following is a summary of the proposed Scope of Services for the project: 1. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Kimley-Horn will perform services for the development and acceptance of the appropriate environmental documentation under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) as described in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board EAW Guidelines: Preparing Environmental Assessment Worksheets. The EAW for the proposed development of the Schlomka Property will be completed following the procedures specified by Minnesota Statute and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. The City of Maplewood is proposing that a discretionary EAW be completed to determine if an EIS is required for the project. KHA will conduct the following tasks to prepare the EAW. Task 1 Project Management, Coordination and Meetings This task focuses on the coordination of the contract work to manage the decision-making process and maintain the scheduled completion dates. This task includes up to five (5) meeting with City staff and/or the developers of the Schlomka property and their engineers. Task 2 Complete Environmental Assessment Worksheet This will involve all tasks required to complete an EAW for the proposed Schlomka Property development as illustrated on the preliminary site plan provided by City staff. The tasks to be completed are described below: Basic Project Information -The basic project information such as project title, proposer, RGU, reason for EAW preparation, project location, and a description of the project sections of the EAW will be completed. The total area of the project, number of residential units and type, as well as the maximum height of the proposed residential units will also be documented. A County map, U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, and site plan will be obtained or created for inclusion as a part of the EAW. This scope of work assumes that the existing site conditions and the proposed site plan will be provided by the proposer of the project. Permits and Approvals Required -This section will list all required permits, approvals, and governmental agency reviews required prior to commencement of the project. Any relevant permits previously obtained that are relevant to the review of the proposed project will also be documented. Land Use and Cover Types -These sections will identify past land uses and discuss any potential conflicts between the project and existing surrounding land uses. A site visit and aerial photos will be used to estimate the existing percentages of cover type versus the anticipated percentages of cover type after the proposed project is completed. :~ Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources -Any existing fish and wildlife habitat areas located on or near the site will be documented. A DNR Natural Heritage and Non-game Program database search will be conducted for the project site and this information will be included in the EAW. If any sensitive resources or federally protected species or State species of concern are determined to be present, mitigation measures for any potential impacts will be identified. This scope of work assumes that a field habitat site survey will not be required. Physical Impacts on Water Resources -Proposed alteration of any surface water including modifications to any wetlands will be documented. If there are proposed alterations, the water resource affected will be identified and the DNR Protected Waters inventory number will be cited. This scope of work assumes that all wetland delineation information will be completed and provided by the developer. Alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts will also be documented. Water Use -This section will discuss water use and the source of water for the proposed development. This will require the identification of any existing wells. The search will initially involve a search using the County Well Index Online which was developed by the Minnesota Geological Survey and the Minnesota Department of Health. Afield survey will also be required to determine if any wells have not been included in the County Well Index. Water demand and the source of water will be identified for the project. Water-Related Land Use Management District -Research will be conducted to delineate any 100-year floodplain within the project area. This will consist of consulting the FEMA floodplain maps for the area from the MnDNR Hydrologist or the FEMA website. This information will be documented in the EAW. Water Surface Use -Although the site does not have any specific bodies of water where water surface use is anticipated, it is located near navigable portions of the Mississippi River. Any anticipated increase in water surface use will be documented. Erosion and Sedimentation -The area of grading and the amount of anticipated excavation will be documented. If significant amounts of soil are anticipated to be removed, the types removed and where they will be relocated will be addressed. This section will also document any steep slopes and areas with erosion prone soils. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will also be described. We have assumed that conceptual grading plans and earthwork quantities will be provided by the developer. Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff -The quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project will be compared. Any permanent controls to manage and treat runoff will be described as well as items that should be addressed in the stormwater pollution prevention plan that will be required as part of the construction process. Anticipated locations, dimensions and design capacities of detention ponds will also be identified. The path and impact of the stormwater runoff on receiving waters will also be described. Water Quality: Wastewaters -The anticipated amount of wastewater generated by the proposed development will be documented (based upon calculations provided by the developer's engineer). Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions -Data on the geology and groundwater resources of the area will be secured from USGS, MGS, and other appropriate agencies regarding the potential for such resources and the potential for significant impacts to them. This data will also be used to classify soils and potential geological hazards on the site. Mitigation measures to minimize environmental problems due to hazards or to prevent groundwater contamination will be discussed. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, and Storage Tanks -The types and amounts of solid waste produced during construction and operation will be described as well as the disposal method and location. Any existing toxic materials present at the site will be discussed. Existing storage tanks will be identified and any emergency response containment plans will be discussed. To determine if there is or is likely to be significant soil or groundwater contamination on the site, as defined in Minn. Stat. Ch 115B02, we will solicit data from the MPCA, MDH, MCW and MDA on USTs, HAZMAT releases, asbestos contamination, releases of contaminated water in sanitary sewers and clean-up efforts involving pesticides. Traffic -Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic analysis will be completed at the intersections of McKnight Road/Carver Avenue and Carver Avenue/Henry Lane using HCS 2000. Turning movement counts will be collected at these locations if recent data is not available. The traffic analysis will determine mitigation measures required to maintain satisfactory traffic operations at intersections impacted by the proposed development. The increase on the regional traffic network will be described in terms of daily traffic volume increase in a qualitative fashion. Vehicle-Related Air Emissions - An estimate of the air quality impact due to the proposed development will be discussed in this section. Stationary Source Air Emissions - A discussion of any stationary source air emissions in the project area will be provided in this section. Odors, Noise and Dust -The impacts of dust during construction will be addressed in this section and any proposed mitigation measures will be documented. No significant noise or odor impacts are anticipated due to this project but any impacts discovered during the preparation of the EAW will be documented. Nearby Resources -Data regarding historical, archaeological and architecture resources will be obtained form the State Historical Preservation Office and Minnesota Historical Society. We will also determine if there are any prime or unique farmlands or agricultural preserves. This information will be obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Minnesota Planning Office Land Management Information Center. The two parcels of land owned by Ramsey County Parks and Recreation will also be discussed. Mitigation measures related to any identified resources will be discussed. Visual Impacts -The proposed project is an already urbanized area. No view sheds or areas of significant visual quality are thought to exist in the area. This will be confirmed and documented in the EAW. Compatibility with Plans and Land Use Regulations - A review of the existing plans for the area will be reviewed to determine if the proposed development complies with these plans. This section will also discuss any proposed changes in the existing plans. The City of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps will be used as the basis of the existing plans. Infrastructure and Public Services -The required expansion of public services and public works required to serve the project will be identified. If the project will require future infrastructure due to phasing, the anticipated timing and impacts of future commitments will also be addressed. Cumulative Impacts - A review of potential cumulative impacts of the proposed development will be documented in this section of the EAW. Summary of Issues -This section will provide a summary of the potential impacts identified in the EAW. Further studies that may be required will be identified and alternative mitigation measures and how these will be enforced through future permits or approval processes will also be discussed. We have assumed that we will attend one City Council meeting to present the results of the EAW preparation process. Task 3 Assist with EAW Distribution Kimley-Horn will prepare copies of the signed EAW and distribute to all entities listed on the most current version of the MEQB EAW Distribution List (we have assumed 45 copies). Kimley-Horn will also assist in preparation of the public notice of availability for review upon request. Task 4 Assist with Response to Public Comments and Record of Decision Kimley-Horn will assist with developing responses to any comments from the public and assist with distributing these responses. We have assumed that we will attend one City Council meeting to present the results of the public comment period and any responses to the comments. Kimley-Horn will also assist with the preparation of a Record of Decision for adoption and ultimate distribution. No other public meetings have been included in our proposed scope of work. Our Scope of Services does not include any of the following tasks: 1. Wetland delineation. 2. Soil or groundwater testing. 3. Asbestos or lead based paint sampling for any structures. 4. On site habitat studies for federally protected species. 5. Modeling of micro-scale CO levels from vehicular traffic generated by the project. In order to complete the EAW, we will need the developer to provide the following information in a timely manner: 1. Conceptual project plans including all lots, roads, on-site utilities and stormwater management features. 2. Conceptual grading plans showing the limits of construction, proposed grades, drainage patterns and preliminary earthwork quantities. 3. Estimate of the number of structures to be built. 4. Water (potable and irrigation) and sewer demand estimates. 5. Phasing plan, if any. 6. General timetable for development. EXHIBIT B ESTIMATED COSTS INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NUMBER 14 (FOURTEEN) SCHLOMKA PROPERTY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET CITY PROJECT OS-07 Kimley-Horn proposes to perform all services for this project on an hourly (cost plus) basis using the attached hourly rate schedule. The following is a summary of the estimated costs for each task detailed in the Scope of Services (Exhibit A). 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION AND MEETINGS We propose a fee of $3,500 to include the tasks described as a part of this Il'O. 2. COMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET We propose a fee of $24,000 to include the tasks described as a part of this Il'O. 3. ASSIST WITH EAW DISTRIBUTION We propose a fee of $2,000 to include the tasks described as a part of this Il'O. 4. ASSIST WITH RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RECORD OF DECISION We propose a fee of $3,500 to include the tasks described as a part of this Il'O. 5. 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. We propose an estimated amount of $2,000 for these reimbursable expenses. Any subconsultant costs required to complete the Scope of Work will be billed directly to the City with no Kimley-Horn mark-up. Services 1. Project Management, Coordination and Meeting 2 Environmental Assessment Worksheet 3. Assist with EAW Distribution 4. Assist with Response to Public Comments and Record of Decision 5. Reimbursable Expenses Total Estimated Cost this IPO Estimated Fees & Expenses $ 3,500 $ 24,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,500 $ 2,000 ~ 35,000 City of Maplewood Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Schedule of Rates Effective January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 Classification Rate Administrative Assistant $ 70.00 CADD Technician $ 70.00 Clerical $ 55.00 Client Manager $165.00 Drafter $ 50.00 Field Technician $ 85.00 Graduate Eng./Planner I $ 82.50 Graduate Eng./Planner H $ 92.50 Principal $185.00 Project Engineer/Planner $ 97.50 Project Manager $120.00 Senior Administrative Assistant $ 87.50 Senior CADD Technician $ 80.00 Senior Designer $102.50 Senior Field Technician $110.00 Senior Project Manager $135.00 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 maybe negotiated at a later date for classifications or services not included above. EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER (IPO) NUMBER 14 (FOURTEEN) SCHLOMKA PROPERTY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET CITY PROJECT OS-07 Work shall be completed based upon a schedule agreed upon with the City of Maplewood. A preliminary schedule for the prof ect is as follows: Begin Work Complete Task 1 Project Management March 14, 2005 On-going Complete Task 2 Complete Task 3 Complete EAW March 14 -May 9, 2005 City Council Approve EAW for Distribution May 9, 2005 Assist with EAW Distribution May 9 -May 16, 2005 * Deliverable -Environmental Assessment Worksheet * Deliver to EQB Monitor by May 16 Deadline * Distribute Mandatory Press Release * Distribute Copies to all Entities on EQB's Distribution List EQB Monitor Published EAW Comment Deadline May 23, 2005 June 22, 2005 Complete Task 4: Assist with Public Response and Record June 22 -July 1, 2005 of Decision City Council Receives Comments and Makes July 11, 2005 Decision on Need for EIS * Distribute Comments/Record of Decision July 12 -July 22, 2005 Agenda Item K2 MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permits PROJECT: Trout Land Auto Dealers LOCATION: New County Road D and Hwy. 61 DATE: February 28, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description The Ryan Companies, 50 South 10t" Street, Minneapolis, has applied for conditional use permits for used auto sales and repair garages on two parcels at the intersection of the re-routed County Road D and Hwy. 61. The dealerships are proposed for the west side of Hwy. 61. The dealerships will be owned by Steve Bloomer of Maplewood Lexus. The owner has not yet decided which lot will be designated for used car sales and which for new car sales. Therefore, he is applying for both kinds of use on each parcel. There are no architectural plans or elevations for the buildings. Only the building locations and the location of the driveways and parking areas have been submitted as part of the CUP application. The applicants plan to construct the retaining walls and parking lot during the summer of 2005. The first of the two buildings will be built in 2006. The second building will be built in late 2006 or 2007. Requests To proceed with this proposal, the Ryan Companies and Steve Bloom (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) are requesting that the city approve: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the motor vehicle repair and service garages on both parcels. 2. A conditional use permit for used car sales on both lots. BAC KG RO U N D Application Date The city received the complete applications and the revised project plans for this request on January 20, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by March 21, 2005, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Site Description Site Size: 6.03 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Surrounding Land Uses North: Sparkle Car Sales and Two Single-Family Homes South: Venburg Tire Store and Gulden's Restaurant West: Vacant Land (future townhomes) and Single-Family on Top of the Hill East: Car Dealerships Across Hwy. 61 Comprehensive Plan: The property is guided as Light Manufacturing. Zoning: The property is zoned M-1. This district allows the same conditional uses (with the same conditions) as the BC district. The BC district allows motor vehicle sales and car maintenance garages as conditional use permits. County Road D: Ramsey County is in the process of re-routing County Road D to a new intersection with Hwy. 61. The auto dealerships are proposed to be located east and north of the re-routed County Road D. The land west of the re-routed County Road D is projected to be developed for townhouses. Topography: There is a sixty-foot change in elevation between Hwy. 61 and the existing homes to the west of the re-routed County Road D. The top of the hill is at an elevation of about 950' ASL (above sea level). The elevation where County Road D meets Hwy. 61 is about 890' ASL. County Road D drops forty-four feet from a point adjacent to the northwest corner of the applicant's property to the intersection with Hwy. 61. The applicant plans to construct three retaining walls on the west end of the property to contend with the change in elevation. They are proposing to locate the two buildings as far west and as close to the lowest retaining wall that they can. There will only be a driveway and a row of parking between the retaining wall and the buildings. The car display lots are proposed toward the east side of the property. The result of the grading and building location will be that only a part of the rooftops will be visible from homes to the west. The applicants have provided section drawings that illustrate the views from the future homes to the west toward the car dealerships to the east. Existing Neighborhood: The property to the west of the proposed dealerships is developed by newer single-family homes. The newest of these homes are valued at more than $400,000. The value of the homes decreases toward Beam Avenue where the homes are somewhat older and smaller. Neighborhood Concerns: Neighborhood residents have been notified of the plans for the auto dealerships. Several have written letters or submitted a-mail messages. See attachments. Their concerns have been summarized and stated below. Don't need more car sales. Sparkle is an eyesore. Appears to be a reasonable use of the property. Lexus suggests a "professional and high-end facility." 2 Keep the structures as close to Hwy. 61 as possible. This keeps lights and noise from off loading and car repair farther away from residential uses. Neighborhood experiences traffic from the dealerships. This affects privacy and safety. Staff Comments: City staff members have also had a chance to comment on the proposal. See attachments. Their relevant comments are summarized below. ~ Chuck Ahl reports the presence of an agreement between Trout Land and the City of Maplewood that specifies the rights that each party will give to each other concerning the new County Rd. D and the payments that will be made to each party. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, says that a minimum of 20 feet of emergency access is needed to the buildings. Refer to the attachment. David Fisher, Building Official, expressed the need for fire department access. Refer to the attachment. Lt. Kevin Rabbett, Police Department, had no public safety concerns. He advised that there is a need for adequate security lighting. He also said that no vehicles should be displayed on grass areas. Refer to the attachment. ~ Chris Cavett, the Assistant City Engineer, has reviewed the proposal and has many comments. Refer to the attachment. Criteria For Approval Section 44-512(8) requires a CUP for maintenance garages. Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings. DISCUSSION Parking It is not known how much of the building will be devoted to showroom, parts, and service space. Therefore, no parking calculation can be made at this time. The site plan does show 407 spaces for auto display and customer and employee parking for the two dealerships. Maintenance Garage(s) It is not known how many service bays will be located in the buildings. However, all service will be done inside with garage doors closed. Building Design No building plans have been submitted. Tree Preservation There are no trees left on the site except for the cedars along the highway right-of-way. 3 Landscaping It is important for this site to have an attractive appearance from Highway 61. However, landscape plans are minimal. Only 8' tall evergreens are proposed along the east side of new County Road D. Staff prefers that the applicant add overstory trees to the site plan and other landscaping to improve the appearance of the property. Any landscaping and turf establishment within the highway right-of-way will be subject to MnDOT's approval. Trash Storage Plans are not at enough detail to show trash storage. Lighting No lighting plans, including photometric analysis, have been submitted. The applicant states in the application that lights will have "downcast, cut-off lenses, to minimize glare." Vehicle-Transport Unloading Unloading on public right-of-way has been a recurring problem with auto dealerships in Maplewood. Unloading must be done on-site! Staff has reviewed the turning templates for car transports on Sheet C3. There is some concern about the adequacy of the template that is shown. There is no turn-around proposed for the southern building. Therefore, it is assumed that the one turn-around will service both buildings. Retaining Walls The applicant is proposing to install a retaining wall system along the south and west edges of the property. No engineering drawings have been presented for review at this time. Conditional Use Permit Findings Used automobile sales and automobile repair and maintenance garages require a CUP in the M-1 zone. Sec. 44-1097 establishes the approval standards for conditional use permits. The applicant has attempted to address each of the standards in the application. The standards and staff findings are stated below. (1) The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and this Code. Finding: The comprehensive plan and zoning code allow used car sales and repair operations in the M-1 zoning district. The city has granted a variance to the requirement that dealerships be located 350 feet from residential properties because the new housing proposed west of the new County Road D is part of the same plat as the car dealerships and will be built after the car 4 dealerships. With this variance, the dealerships should be in compliance with the standards in the zoning code. (2) The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Finding: The establishment of the car dealerships would not change the planned character of the area. The City's Comprehensive Plan has designated the frontage along Hwy. 61 for commercial or industrial use for several years. The residential development of the hilltop north of Beam Avenue has also been occurring for several years with clear knowledge that Hwy. 61 frontage was developed and would continue to develop as a commercial area. (3) The use would not depreciate property values. Finding: No study has been done to make that determination. Steps are being taken to reduce property value impacts of the car dealerships. The buildings will be tucked into the hillside as much as possible to shield them from the view of the existing homes to the west. In addition, a 90-unit condominium proposal is planned as a transitional use or buffer between the car dealerships and the existing homes. (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 nuisances. Finding: There is a nuisance potential from car dealerships. They often have hours of operation that are past 10 P.M. There is traffic and unloading noise. There is glare from outside lighting. There is a large amount of hard surface area that causes large amounts of runoff. The applicants claim that there will be no public address system and that the maintenance will be done inside with garage doors closed. The applicant must operate according to these promises and also according to the conditions at the end of this report. They must also comply with lighting requirements and appropriately handle the runoff from the property. (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. Finding: Most traffic will enter the site from Hwy. 61 via the new County Road D. The residential neighborhoods to the west will experience very little traffic except for some traffic on County Road D. (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. Finding: Adequate facilities are available to service the proposed use. City utilities and a storm water pond are in place. (7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Finding: Public facilities are in place. 5 (8) The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Finding: This site has been extensively graded and has no natural features remaining. There is a row of old cedar trees along the east property line that will be removed to provide visibility to the sales lot. (9) The use would cause minimal environmental effects. Finding: Storm water will be detained in a detention pond. CONCLUSION Staff concurs that the proposed automotive uses are acceptable for these locations since: Automotive sales and repair facilities are accepted uses in M1 districts subject to appropriate conditions. Automotive uses, such as these, have been considered part of the Trout Land commercial development plan all along. In the development agreement for Trout Land, the city council allowed a reduction of the setback from the County Road D extension with the idea that these automotive uses would be known to any would-be owners of the future town homes across new County Road D. Furthermore, the council required that these automotive-related buildings observe a 350-foot separation from the existing single-family home sites to the west. Staff feels, however, that these plans should be considered "conceptual" and only be looked at from the standpoint of a "land use" request. In addition to the deficiencies noted above, Mr. Cavett pointed out many problems he has found with the proposed plans. Staff, therefore, does not feel comfortable with approving these plans without first seeing these items addressed and shown as a part of the applicant's proposal. In summary of the issues already addressed, the applicant should revise and resubmit the plans providing for (this is a brief summary and not intended to be an all-inclusive list): Building designs that utilize the hillside and offer an attractive building design fronting on County Road D as suggested by Mr. Cavett. This concept reduces or eliminates the need for retaining walls. Building designs, especially those elevations facing the future town homes, should be compatible with these homes. That is, they should incorporate elements that are "residential" in appearance (pitched roofs, architectural lighting and decorative accents, for example). Enhance landscaping and screening for the County Road D frontage and the northerly lot line for proper buffering to residential neighbors. Further developed grading, drainage, erosion-control and utility plans. These plans should address the previously-approved designs of the existing grading plan and show any divergence from these plans. 6 ~ A detailed site-lighting plan with light poles not to exceed 15 feet in height and no lights positioned to shine westerly or northerly. Alighting plan must follow the requirements of the city's lighting ordinance. Cross easements with Sparkle Auto. ~ Plans that clearly provide for on-site vehicle transport unloading areas for both sites. Plans that show trash storage locations and screening design. In addition to the above, future conditions of approval may include, but shall not be limited to the following (final plans must be submitted and evaluated before a final recommendation and list of conditions can be made): a. The operators of the dealerships shall park the automobiles and motor vehicles on designated paved or engineered porous or permeable surfaces. b. The loading or unloading of automobiles on the public right-of-way is prohibited. The owner or operator shall only conduct such activities on their private property. c. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall not store damaged vehicles on the site for more than 48 hours, except in the buildings or in fully-screened storage areas. d. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall store all garbage, trash, waste materials, tires, vehicles parts and obsolete parts in the buildings or in fully-enclosed trash containers or enclosures. e. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall not store any tires, vehicle parts, garbage, trash, waste materials or other debris outside. All such storage must be inside the buildings or in approved enclosures. f. The owners and operators shall ensure that all vehicle repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance are done within enclosed buildings. g. The owners and operators shall ensure that the noise from the business operations, including any external speakers, shall not exceed the state noise standards and all activities on the site must meet all city noise regulations. h. The owners and operators of the dealerships shall meet all the requirements of the city's sign ordinance and shall not use banners, streamers, flags or inflatable devices for advertising purposes. i. The city council shall review this permit in one year of commencement of car sales or repair operations. j. Verification that all watershed district special provisions, as indicated on the watershed district permit, are met before the city issues a building or grading permit for the site. 7 k. Provision of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150% of proposed landscaping and exterior improvements including parking areas, driveway, and lighting. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. m. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit drive at County Road D. n. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to meet code requirements, unless trash dumpsters are stored indoors. o. Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for the parking lot islands and for all landscape areas (except the ponding areas). Lawn irrigation in the right-of-way may be waived if MnDOT will not allow it. p. Post signs identifying the customer and employee parking spaces and ahandicap- parking sign for each handicap accessible parking space. q. Install all the required exterior improvements, including landscaping and signs. Install all bituminous and the engineered porous or permeable surface and the curb and gutter. s. Install all exterior lighting. t. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from homes according to ordinance. COMMITTEE ACTIONS February 23, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of these permits, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The planning commission further identified specific concerns of theirs regarding this project and required that the revised plans be submitted to them for review and recommendation as well as the community design review board and city council. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolutions approving conditional use permits for used car sales and automotive repair for the two northerly commercial lots in the Trout Land development located on the west side of Highway 61, north of the future County Road D extension. Approval is based on the findings required by city ordinance and subject to the following conditions: This permit does not include a specific site plan approval due to the need for further plan development addressing the issues identified in the staff report and those identified by the planning commission. Detailed plans must be submitted for review and approval by the Maplewood Planning Commission, Community Design Review Board and City Council before site development and parking lot construction can begin. The applicant is allowed building setback reductions, as previously approved by the council, for the setback from future County Road D. All buildings must, 8 however, be set back at least 350 feet from the rear lot lines of the single family properties to the west. The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. ~ The city council shall review this permit in one year. p:sec4\trout land autos DSU 2'05 to Attachments: 1. Project Narrative 2. Location/Zoning Map 3. Trout Land Subdivision 4. Site/Landscaping Plan 5. Land Use Plan Map 6. Comments from Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal 7. Comments from Lt. Kevin Rabbett, Police 8. Comments from David Fisher, Building Official 9. Comments from Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer 10. Letter from Hal Tetzlaff, Neighbor 11. Letter from Ed Trolander, Neighbor 12. Letter from Tony Valento, Neighbor 13. Survey Reply from Robert and Carol Voeller, Neighbors 14. Survey Reply from Joseph and Jane Gerard, Neighbors 15. CUP Resolution, Northerly Lot 16. CUP Resolution, Southerly Lot 17. Plans date-stamped January 20, 2005 (separate attachment) 9 ~W W.RYANCO1dPAATIE SCAM RYAN L~IPAN~6 USA flrlC. 50 8oulh'~aMh Sl~s~t, &iMi1 ~0 7A1T wKrMS iii ; . , :. . 61~18~•A©00 dal 81-~D ~x i~~~u. ,. ~ ,. ~,,. .. i~: _.;.-.i:~ F i ,.:~r.. r f ~ ~ ', ~. Inv F I ., ...._ ~~ R _ •• ~~I y. f ~~ ~.:: i € 61 tie neW ~'' ~p~d ~! ` Tea ~w ~ ~'~`! ~~je~t.,~pd Sffi 1ii~ ~II1 ~ECpll11'~ S~~'~ Tha ~s at i `.c!~ a~~ pet agtl got 2#? u ,:., ...,_ ... '~"he lour keel ~ T.H. 61-frame wex~d be - °1oD~ wive tam s~i vwah~ ~: ~ p~ ~ T~ 5I . ~ ~s ~o ~ ~n ++d46 - #t~. '~ 'tY the 1a~rt amd c~rruOn of ~e 4. 'I'ra p~paaed post arch ~ ~d ~r a~ die P' ~ ~~Crt~~s~~~~~ ~• 6. 1be chy's pk~for Cam &~dU ~c cvn+ ~ ~>~ is ~~~be. 7. The side ari11 requee ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ h~A 2i Att Fromm: F{al Tel (1~1.~et] Tue~ada~t, ~ 2S T:+IS FiM To: TpA't E~ _ ~D ~, Tom. I live at 1260 Highridge Court x:ast. The following are my ca~ents about the letter you seat to us in regard to the development proposal dated Jt4ri. 21,2005 for the property between Highway 61 and the near County Itd D west of Highway 61: 1. Keep the structures as close to ~ighaaty 61 as possible bec~ius,e; a. that is in keeping with the other dealerships in this area. b. it keeps traffic and related noise and ]:ighte, ineluc~i.ng the off-loading of new vehicles away from the residential area as far as possible.. 2. oppose giving this variances since there clearly is an alternative and I think this particular building cads eruista to protect the te~ide~ts. 3. I am sure there are good reasons: for granting buildim~ code. variances, especially xhen there ores no alternatives, but this does not aeea- to bes one' of .thin. 4. Finally, I have a ma~ar cnntesrn about light-pollution. L~or e+xa~le, since so many trees have been resmoved due to the ~t4~lc3nm~ent of Country Roped ~3, the ,lights from the Sparkle [Ta.ed Car lot west of High~say 61 pr+pvide a bright beacon o~ Eight all the way to that townhousaa along Highridge Court, I hogs eevery esffcrt will be made to have the lights shine downward and not horizontally, as they do now there. Hal Tetzlaff 22 -~ f` Rp~G '~~ To~y;::Val~nto D~,r~Ctbr, Tax Best ~Y ...~a't~rprise ~eacvi~s, Tuc. y6Cf1; £+efts- Atteriue 'South {A7~3g2:.) Richfield, ~ 55423 P3~c2?P~~ 822-~2~~.-9278 Cel~::`651::-983-78].4 Fax:; ' 9~i2-~3D~-6392 t~y.~l;e~tcr~be~tbuy. ao~ lc'.ra~t °V'aleuta, T~~x~r Seat: may, Jv-~ry 34', 2005 ~;©s53 •.gM ~a c : 'tip. a~ca~tac.#.. ~spiewacx;}. ~pq:. tts' sub}eat: flp3.>YQai in'reeponse ,tQ: ya~tr .J~ttuary 21 2t~~Q5 letter r~iinq de~e].nt ~rapbeai . - aut~ioot~,;ve dearle~rahip , t : pace ~. ar+~,l:ea~ 1bt nor~- ~f '~-eYSbBrg Tire orgy the w+~st aide of h3.~ey :6I Kf. Taet ~ thio -mail is in re®pc~ae to your Jaaviary 21, :2~1Q5 ie~er regaxeg 3~t ~ropoaal-: - aBt~ap~i de3et~:exahip aid pre-erg . ca,~ saes ~a~'-~ of ~enl~urq ~f ica ~. t1~e s~s~ .~' a-# Y-.i~way 61. To Put it x~ a nuts~el3, I'at very cc-~cerd ~re~ardng t'km .i~ac~ this pro~-as deve~:c~ient world biliiroE ois the 'yualit~r of life": f~ f~aaily a-~nd ~1te~aFS, gxrt+cula.rly iA light - of a meets~g '~-it~.:TarQ7i ' ~c Ccsuut~y ;~. xeprer~ta~tat~a; ots -Mpzxeiay, ,emery 24~ 24t~5. b[y mfly: aad I ].~.v!e ors Iht].uta~t ~tr~ret 8 23'~B Dctlath. 3 undexatoad fry diacussiams ;xith .represesata~,ves: of the 'pity of i4a~leipctd",,.,that ~butity Rbmd D was being ze-refuted ,in az~ar to alie.ate C~ stic~n _~au#ed by the curr~t Cbuatg mad 8:.:~urt~ :rir~.th high+~at~ ~~, .b~efng ao• cis~~ee to the j~icture of 694 ~ highway ~1.: Ntiy ~h+~?~ ~sld the City ::fit try as~aua~age rc~.al do~alcaebt t lei futt~er cbntrilsut~ to. ~st.,iaq 1~y~, i~scviRg., sy~' ire car t3~e~,e~ships .a7~aaYg higy 5i the tra. have. today? "thtrmare, I've ~i+at3.aed tr~~~~ frt~ . tha''ata ch~];~e~tfp rcntt~`,our nei~l,rhos~d tech bothers ;tzte~ te~Xi,bl evrssdeti:~g then :~n~rasfesn o~ au~c : priva~y_ mnc~ that t4 the safeet~t taf our':Chi.~,, .;fie r.~r deal~ipa a~oi~gsid+e air t~c~ghvcxd d duly:. ~,DCre the pat+ential for ssorc traffic t3~zc+sgh ~r ae~:, Couple, thim with t}ie ainticipated pn~avpa-aal frcm3 T ~ CcsutYtry B (di.~ta~ed at ,the Ja~iy 24r'. ~i~05 tiagy tb build ~nib~s i>Y `the R3 zo~ae tit lies -t bilk i~i~hha,~tyod a>~e~ tree prayed -car dea3;arahlps. *~oan3u~is": '~iat "tam ~s" as rcferebced, 3n p~tcr ~anu 27,E ~ 1~1~er. 11h~1s~ ~ ~ Grtry ~s Mass r tt~ build s li.ty produce: {,3` tour+m¢ ~£ #edd~is in taiy~ ire devetle~eat ~uat to the wit: of Nepie Mal~,#. I'af; Coscer:~ ~rput their plats to, propona $ e,~er~-tlop®s~t crE : 92 <a~da~s in G bu~,lcli.t>~a a~a~g ~~i~lp I.Z tci fit} a .~1~. ~1~1~.#t~• T~i4~ ~~ Abt ~ ~D~ ~it1~ ~.4~. I'm ~r~ afipatst i~~ct.'that. $~$, OAt? cv4t2C~s wi.i]. -~' otx " twlx~t vml Df a~ie s inn ottr r~ sYt. ~ ~ #.~~,OflO . 1 ~~ E,, ~, ~ ~~.;x. ... . -i .. ,s.;iJ~ -t'1 ~~ .. -, ~.~~ .~ .. ,, .ii. .A, :.. {':.. aY.r ,:; .... .A r~'.d.., ..au. I...vw a ..... _. ... _ .~ .. .,. I)Mu.ER R 2 l _4AL CT I 561WI073 TISwow is so-v vow� rte+ , iA 0:001, C" iY r . it .. ,.�'+► Tpmpowd,i t v 1 lown- .., :. { V . ... w" - :.�W' P • �. 1 wig TpMEMD o- PCAR ��'ED 4. S.� ihmno ; i X15 i s PW"di J - Lo 11 1 - 1 •• 10 6 wdi im I will •i 6 mom* ii Wli lip 28 f' f .... .. .. .. a-.. ... .,:. i� ,... :: bw. 1.I .. aa~ ~' fA~rt f~dnn rrr~t iN~t.~ti , .. ;> ` ~. ~ . ~P ~' . ,mu"woW: doftetfw 4W s0 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2005 V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Troutland Auto Dealerships (County Road D, west of Highway 61) (7:03 ~ 8:30 p.m.) Mr. Roberts introduced Mr. Perry Thorvig, Consultant Planner from the firm DSU, who presented this item to the planning commission. The Ryan Companies, at 50 South 10th Street, Minneapolis, has applied for conditional use permits for used auto sales and repair garages on two parcels at the parcels at the intersection of the re-routed County Road D and Highway 61. The dealerships are proposed for the west side of Highway 61. The dealerships will be owned by Steve Bloomer of Maplewood Lexus. The owner hasn~t decided which lot will be designated for used car sales and which for new car sales. Therefore, he is applying to the city for both uses on each parcel. There are no architectural plans or elevations for the buildings. Only the building locations and the location of the driveways and parking areas have been submitted as part of the CUP application. The applicants plan to construct the retaining walls and parking lot during the summer of 2005. The first of the two buildings would be built in 2006. The second building would be built in late 2006 or 2007. Commissioner Dierich asked if Chris Cavett would discuss his thoughts and findings regarding this proposal. Mr. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, addressed the commission. He struggled with this plan because there wasn~t a lot of engineering details shown on the plans. He is concerned about the extensive retaining wall, the integrity and longevity of the road if something failed. This is a piece of property that is fronted by two significant roadways with Highway 61 and County Road D. Essentially this design is eliminating any access to this property on County Road D. There may be a way to take advantage of both frontages and to increase some of the usable square footage of the property. He has been looking at a way to build an upper parking lot and a two story building. One side of the building would front County Road D and could be a low story office building that would fit nicely in a residential area and add screening to the activity on Highway 61 as well as the parking lots and the property below could be the car dealership fronting on Highway 61. This option would eliminate the need for the large retaining walls and would increase the screening in the area. The other design concern he has is the truck turn around shown on the plans. These are the truck movements that are needed to bring vehicles to and from the property. It appears possible as shown but he has concerns about the design of the truck route and feels its impractical. The city wants to see a design where the truck transport can circulate throughout the site and exit the site comfortably. Commissioner Trippler asked where the storm water run off would go? Mr. Thorvig said he understood the storm water run off would go to the regional collection system to the south. Commissioner Trippler thought each site had to retain their own storm water? Mr. Cavett said that~s true but as part of this site development, the dedication of the right of way and the developers agreements, the city has incorporated their site into a regional pond that is being expanded as part of the County Road D project. Commissioner Trippler asked if they had any discussions regarding the use of pervious surfaces as opposed to impervious surfaces to eliminate run off? Mr. Cavett said no. They would recommend pervious surfaces when they donut have the facilities to do ponding treatment, but at this site the water is going to be treated by a regional treatment pond. Commissioner Trippler asked if this project were to proceed who is responsible for providing some type of protection on County Road D so cars cant fall off the cliff with the retaining walls? Would it be the city~s responsibility or the developers responsibility to make sure that doesn~t happen? Mr. Cavett said the city would make that a condition of the developer to install things like such as proper guard rails but over the long haul the city would assume responsibility. Commissioner Trippler said on page 7, item d. and e. are very similar in the staff report. Could one of those be eliminated, and if so, which one would you suggest keeping? Mr. Thorvig said essentially item d. and e. are very similar and one of those could be eliminated. Mr. Ekstrand said city staff would take care of that. Commissioner Pearson asked what the purpose of the cross easements were with Sparkle Auto and where are the easements located? Mr. Thorvig said Sparkle Auto is located to the north of the site and eventually the city would prefer that there not be any access from Highway 61 to Sparkle Auto. The cross easement is needed when Sparkle Auto loses its access onto Highway 61 and then another curb cut would need to be added some where on County Road D, but those details haven~t been worked out yet. Commissioner Bartol asked if there was a request for a variance because he read in the letters from the residences there is supposed to be a 350 foot setback and now the setback has been reduced to 167 or 169 feet. Mr. Thorvig said as part of the negotiation with the land owner for the right of way and the development involved, the agreement was that the dealerships would stay 350 feet away from any existing residences to the west and the two homes to the north are expected to be converted to commercial property in the future. Mr. Thorvig said the developer also wanted to build something on the west side of County Road D, however, because of the topography of the land it would be very difficult to put anything commercial there. Commissioner Bartol asked if the reduction of setback was a decision that had already been made and wasn~t up for discussion tonight? Mr. Ekstrand said as part of the developers agreement for this entire project, the city council required that any development of the commercial lots maintain 350 feet setback from existing residential but the city council said the developer may go closer than the 350 foot setback for a new commercial building. Commissioner Bartol said there are setbacks for a logical and an aesthetic reason and it shouldn~t matter if there is an existing builder or a new builder. If its all owned by the same developer and that developer is willing to develop row townhomes that deviate from the guidelines or regulations, he doesn~t see why the city should be anxious to break covenants because one developer owns the whole parcel. He asked how difficult it would be to move the buildings toward Highway 61 and give the new row townhomes the setback they deserve? The row townhomes will be lower priced compared to what surrounds this property, however not everybody wants to live next to a commercial building. Mr. Ekstrand said its a done deal and the city council has already made that decision. He thinks Mr. Cavett~s design displayed on the screen was a good one but that it was Mr. Cavett~s design and not the applicants design. Commissioner Bartol said he believes this proposal has been prematurely brought before the planning commission. There hasn~t been enough information, detail or thought put into this and Mr. Cavett is proposing a fairly significant deviation from the initial concept. There are too many unanswered questions in this plan and there are some relatively easy solutions to some of the problems that have been addressed. Commissioner Bartol said he is disappointed in the incompleteness of this proposal. Commissioner Dierich said she noticed in the resolution on page 31thatthe planning commission was left out from looking at the final plan. When the planning commission votes they should be able to look at the final plat, particularly given the significant grading, drainage, and layout of this site. Mr. Ekstrand said that was staffs suggestion and the rational behind that was once the land use has been identified the site design issues go to the CDRB for review. The plans are inadequate as the planning commission mentioned and staff agreed it should come back for the commission to review again. Commissioner Pearson asked if it was a given that Sparkle Auto would lose their access to Highway 61? Mr. Cavett said that is what has come out of the discussions with MnDOT with the changes that are going to happen along Highway 61. This is a long term planning and safety issue regarding reducing access points. The cross access isn~t defined, its more of a condition that leaves it open for discussion, but there~s a good probability MnDOT will eliminate that access point. Commissioner Pearson said if the cross easement is going to take place then he has a concern regarding the row of parking closest to Highway 61 that may be lost to provide a service to both of the properties and uses. The city and the developer should be planning for this as part of this development if access is going to change for Sparkle Auto. Mr. Cavett said those are good points and if the city had an opportunity to look at a different site layout that~s something that should be considered with reduced setbacks to the right of way which MnDOT may be open to as long as it provides for cross easements. Commissioner Trippler said he felt uncomfortable with the way this plan was put together. He is particularly concerned about having a long stretch of County Road D right on the edge of a 20 to 30 foot drop off and trying to engineer some type of a retaining wall that would be adequate to hold that up concerns him. He likes the plan that Chris Cavett showed leaving the property on the west side at the same elevation as County Road D and he would think from a financial standpoint that would be cheaper than building a retaining wall this long. He said he has no problem with approving the use of the property but has a problem with not seeing how this is going to be laid out or how it would look in the future. He also believes the planning commission should have a revised plan brought back to the commission to review and comment on. Mr. Ekstrand said staff agrees and this item will come back to the planning commission. Commissioner Desai asked if Sparkle Auto has been a part of the conversation regarding losing their access onto Highway 61? Mr. Cavett said Sparkle Auto would only lose their access if Sparkle Auto were to redevelop the site. Under the current situation, no existing access point would be lost onto Highway 61. Commissioner Desai asked what the reason was for asking the planning commission to recommend approval of this proposal when so many things are incomplete. Mr. Ekstrand said its certainly up to the planning commission to agree or disagree with city staffs recommendation. Staff solely thought to give the applicant an answer of some sort while still holding back on the major part of the site elements. Recommending approval of the automotive uses is to give the applicant an indication that the city approves the used auto sales plus the new and used car sales on this site. The recommendation is not to allow anything else until the city has a suitable site plan through the process for approval. Commissioner Bartol said the neighbor that approved the Lexus dealership moving to this site made a comment about the nature and the status of the dealership. He thought that was appropriate and within the context of the image that Lexus may like to create. The applicant may be persuaded to keep the line of cedar trees along Highway 61 to give a value and screening from Highway 61. Lexus doesn~t need the high exposure and advertisement that some of the other dealerships need. If someone wants to buy a Lexus, people know where to go, and a few extra cedar trees in front of the lot will not deter a buyer from coming in to look at a Lexus. He would encourage the developer to leave the cedar trees if possible. Commissioner Grover said regarding Chris Cavett~s idea for a different site design plan with a one story office building with access from County Road D, would there off street parking on County Road D? Mr. Cavett said his site plan would allow for a small parking lot in the front of the one story office building with access from County Road D, however, there is no off street parking on County Road D. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Jim Kellison, representing Troutland Auto Dealerships who is the developer of this property, addressed the commission. They have been in the process of developing this property for about 2'/2 years now along with the realignment of County Road D and with the right of way. In doing so they worked very closely with the City of Maplewood to acquire the Prokosch property. They have purchase agreements on all the property that is available at this time. The retail center is going to be coming into the city for review this spring. It now appears they will have a 12,000 square foot building that will include a bank but that deal isn~t finalized yet. The property to the west is going to be multi family residential row townhomes being proposed by Town & Country Homes with underground parking, a lot of green space and landscaping, which will be coming to the city in the next few weeks. As for the auto dealerships, part of the reason they are looking for approval tonight is the last time they came before the city council they asked specifically that this property be approved for auto uses. This was granted by the city council and the issue of the 350 foot setback would apply strictly to the homes on the west property line. Town and Country Homes would notify people before purchasing a townhome, what development would be built in the area prior to the people living there so there would be no surprises. He isn~t aware of any other city that has a 350 foot setback for an auto dealership from residential besides in the City of Maplewood. He said if they were doing this as part of a manufacturing facility they could build a metal stamping shop 50 feet away from single family homes. Most of the residents he has spoken to are in favor of having the townhomes separating the commercial property. Regarding the retaining walls, companies today can engineer pretty much anything these days, so he has no concern regarding the retaining walls in this proposal but details will have to be worked out. He introduced Mr. Bryan Tetters with Ryan Companies who is here to discuss the design of the building. Mr. Bryan Tetters, Ryan Companies, 50 South 10th Street, Minneapolis, addressed the commission. He said they are here tonight for approval of the land use concept plan only. They are keeping their options open for either a new or used car lot. Regarding the plan discussed tonight by Chris Cavett, they would look into that, but there is no guarantee that a two story building would fit into the model of construction. Regarding the retaining wall, they will have a structural engineer make sure there arena going to be any issues with County Road D. They had a neighborhood meeting a few days ago and there was neighborhood opposition to having a two story building on this site. The construction of the facilities would start this fall and the latest would be in 2006. Regarding the trees in the right of way, MnDOT is currently working with the developer and Maplewood to possibly remove the trees when Highway 61 is widened in the future so they arena sure what will happen to the cedar trees. Regarding the cross easement for Sparkle Auto, they acknowledge there would need to be some type of easement needed therein the future but that it has not yet been addressed in detail. Mr. Tetters said from a business standpoint they cannot take the easement for Sparkle Auto through their lot. They would like to work with city staff to determine some possible locations for the easement on the site. If they move the proposed buildings closer to Highway 61, this would create more of a lighting issue for the neighbors. Keeping the parking lots closer to Highway 61 will buffer those residential homes from lights and noise. Mr. Tetters said for the most part residents would look down onto the top of the building. Commissioner Bartol asked if the row townhomes would be two story units? Mr. Thorvig said Town & Country plans to build a two story row townhome unit with underground parking. Commissioner Trippler said it seems to him that the developer could solve all kinds of problems by giving Chris Cavett~s plan some serious consideration. The people on the west side of County Road D would be looking at a one story building and the people from Highway 61 would see a two story building because of the grade and topography. Maybe the showroom could be in the upper level facing County Road D and the used car lot could be on the lower half facing Highway 61. He tried to envision what this would look like with the elevation of County Road D and he visions this development being built in a hole. Mr. Tetters said they will consider Mr. Cavett~s plan but at this point they are only looking for concept approval for the land use. At the point where they decide which building would go where they would submit another plan and the planning commission can comment on the plan and setbacks. As far as where the building is located from County Road D, if they push the building closer to Highway 61 you lose frontage and with any car dealership you want as much frontage for visible car inventory. The traffic on County Road D is going to minimal compared to Highway 61 as far as visibility and that is where they want the car inventory to be seen. Mr. Lee Koppy with Ryan Companies, addressed the commission. They have already met with city staff on several occasions to get a feel for if this type of a land use is something they could proceed with. They knew they needed a CUP to do anything here but the developer really didn~t want to purchase the property until they knew if this type of layout would be acceptable to the City of Maplewood. The city couldn~t give that assurance and recommended the applicant bring this before the planning commission for feedback. This is a very challenging site with the topography, steep grades and traffic access points on County Road D and Highway 61. The parking in the front of the property is very important to the applicant for the highest inventory visibility. They looked at having a retaining wall along Highway 61 so they wouldn~t have a 30 foot retaining wall in the back. The site is slopping from west to east about as steep as you can slope it. The parking lot is at a 4'/2 percent grade and they are trying to minimize the height of the retaining wall. The suggestion of stacking the buildings on top of each other is well taken, however, the challenge is that these sites may be owned by two different property owners and their may be security issues with having an office building on top of a car dealership, but they will discuss that with the client. More than anything they want to know if the planning commission thinks this land use is appropriate for the site and regarding the issue of screening for the residents to the west. They want to provide a sound barrier for the residents and their building may provide a barrier for the residents from the noise from Highway 61. They believe the truck transport route would work and understand they have to prove to the planning commission that the drive path shown on the plan is the best way to transport cars in and out of the site. Commissioner Dierich said the commission is strongly telling you as the applicant that as a planning commission they arena wild about the retaining walls, they arena wild about looking down from County Road D and seeing the top of the air conditioning units on the building and they arena wild that this plan has so much impervious surface. The planning commission is not objecting to the use but they are telling you as the applicant if you come back with the same proposal she would guess that 50% of the planning commission is going to vote this down. If you are thinking the project hinges on what has been provided tonight you probably need to go back to the drawing board and start over with a better plan given the comments from the planning commission. The city is spending millions of dollars on the realignment of County Road D and she would hate to see it fall off to one side. She cant imagine the amount of money that would need to be invested into securing the retaining wall. The other issue is the planning commission wants to be able to have some control regarding what this site looks like and there is nothing wrong with the planning commission voicing what they would like to see this development look like. This is part of the CUP process and it appears you as the applicant arena listening verywell to what the planning commission would like to see. Mr. Koppy said he apologizes if it appeared they weren~t listening to the requests of the planning commission because that was not the intention. The client they represent is a business owner in Maplewood with the Lexus of Maplewood facility and he is a respected business owner. Commissioner Dierich said she would agree that Lexus of Maplewood is a respectable business in Maplewood. The issue isn~t with the use of the land its just that this plan is sketchy and the planning commission is looking for some assurance that this plan is going to change for the better because currently this design isn~t looking very good. Mr. Tetters apologized if it came across that they were objecting to Mr. Cavett~s designs because that wasn~t their intention. Commissioner Dierich said you have the right to object to Chris Cavett~s plan to change the design, the issue is the retaining wall and the drainage and the planning commission would like to make it clear this design isn~t acceptable and would like you to bring a better plan back. Mr. Koppy clarified a point in the staff report regarding the fact that they may have two used car dealerships. They would have one used car dealership but one of the dealerships could also be anew and used car dealership. The Lexus could be a new car dealership with pre-owned cars and they donut want to preclude from having that option. Commissioner Bartol said the design isn~t as bad as its been made to sound. He can see where a lot of thought has been put into this plan. The site line on the cross section is appropriate and demonstrates that a majority of the residential neighborhood wouldn~t be affected by sound because its below the retaining wall and it wouldn~t be affected by the light from the parking lot. Its just a challenging site because of the topography. This represents an opportunity to make the final solution one of the most unique car dealerships in the city. If you take the retaining walls and the topography and make it a work of art and be creative with trees it could be very nice. In his opinion eight-foot pine trees on fifteen-foot centers lacks creativity and is a minimalist approach. He would talk to a landscape architect and do some things with the landscaping and different tiers and layers because he sees that the levels could work to the car dealerships advantage. Mr. Tetters said they are looking for concept approval. They haven~t spent a lot of time and money on this plan. They know Lexus wants to go on this parcel and are just trying to get the recommendation for approval to bring back to their client. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal? Mr. Tom Holm, 3035 Duluth Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He lives directly west of this proposal. His largest concern is the lighting for this proposal. He would invite the commission to see this neighborhood at night since the grading has taken place they get quite a lot of light from the Lexus dealership and Volvo and Nissan dealerships across Highway 61 that shines into their neighborhood. The neighbors had a chance to meet with the developers regarding this site and after looking at this site they didn~t have major problems with it. He heard about moving the buildings closer to Highway 61 but because of the amount of light they have now he cant imagine how much light would be on the west side with two more car lots. His concern is to minimize the light even though he realizes they need light for security reasons. He would like to keep the lights at a 15 foot maximum and direct light towards Highway 61 as opposed to having flat lights that disperse light out in all directions. He thinks it would be beneficial to have the buildings closer to County Road D because that would put the lights farther away from the residential homes. The neighborhood met with Town & Country Homes a few weeks ago regarding the two level row townhome units with underground parking and they are proposing to build units around $250,000 plus. As a neighbor with a newer house in a higher price bracket he wants to maintain property values and he wonders howthe property value would be maintained so close to a car dealership. Mr. Kellison said the homeowners comments are appropriate now that the site is completely graded there is a lot of light shining from the auto dealerships, but you have to take into account that Lexus will be putting in a lot of screening from County Road D. When the townhomes are built there will also be a lot of landscaping and the structures will shield a lot of light before it gets to the residents. This is a zoning request to acknowledge the fact that they can or cannot put auto dealerships on this property and they recognize there are many design facts to review. Part of the reason this is so critical at this time is they have a purchase agreement with this applicant and if they cannot fulfill this purchase agreement within a certain time period then they have to look elsewhere for another applicant. They have to finish the grading, County Road D has to be completed and as the developer they are under the gun. He knows that when you talk to the planning commission developers economic issues arena the planning commissions issues but those are the reasons they are here with this request tonight. They recognize the design has to be finalized and the building plans have to be brought before the planning commission again but they have to get the conditional use permit to allow auto dealerships to be on the property and be located approximately where the buildings are shown on the plan. This is all they are asking for tonight from the planning commission. Mr. Will Rossbach, 1386 County Road C, resident and City Councilmember, addressed the commission. He said Mr. Kellison stated earlier that in the M-1 zoning a developer could put a metal stamping shop on this property 50 feet from residential homes and there is nothing the city could do about it. This is completely false because M-1 zoning is specifically designed to be conditioned to prevent these type of things from happening. He doesn~t want anyone to believe that would ever take place with M-1 zoning with residential homes surrounding it. Mr. Rossbach said regarding the statement made by Mr. Kellison relating to the retaining walls that engineers and companies can build anything these days, he is sure they thought the same thing in California where homes are washing down the hillside from all the rain they are receiving. There is smart engineering and then there is smart engineeringm. Its good to consider everything in the process and how it affects the surrounding area. The applicant is looking for zoning input but if the planning commission feels that yes they would allow car dealerships on this parcel but no they wouldn~t allow this under the current design, he would be very forceful in saying so, this way they completely understand that you donut start a process and come back to the planning commission and say you (the planning commission) said we could do thism. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolutions approving conditional use permits for used car sales and automotive repair for the two northerly commercial lots in the Trout Land development located on the west side of Highway 61, north of the future County Road D extension. Approval is based on the findings required by city ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (Changes to the original motion are underlined.) .: This permit does not include a specific site plan approval due to the need for further plan development addressing the issues identified in the staff report and as identified by members of the planning commission. Detailed plans must be submitted for review and approval by the Maplewood Planning Commission, Community Design Review Board and City Council before site development and parking lot construction can begin. The applicant is allowed building setback reductions, as previously approved by the council for the setback from future County Road D. All buildings must, however, be set back at least 350 feet from the rear lot lines of the single family properties to the west. ~~ The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. .. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes Ahlness, Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Lee, Pearson Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on March 14, 2005. Agenda Item K3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Overview LOCATION: Summer Lane, west of McMenemy Street DATE: March 4, 2005 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, is proposing to develop 24 town houses in a development called Overview. It would be on a 5.5-acre site on a cul-de-sac on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 22-26. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each building would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and a stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have atwo-car garage. (See the elevations on pages 30 -33 and the enclosed plans.) Requests To build this project, Mr. Howe is requesting several city approvals including: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) fora 24-unit housing development. In this case, the site would have a mix of styles of two-unit owner-occupied townhome buildings. Having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would normally allow. 2. A preliminary plat for the town house lots and the lots for the common area and ponding areas. (See the map on page 25.) 3. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. (See the plans on pages 25-33). DISCUSSION Zoning, Land Use and Comprehensive Plans The city has shown this site for medium-density residential development (R-3(M)) on the land use map (see the map on page 23). Maplewood intends areas designated as R-3(M) as areas for town houses or apartments of up to 6 units per gross acre. Maplewood has zoned this property F (farm residence). This zoning designation allows for farming and for single dwellings. The proposed development plan is consistent with the density allowed by the comprehensive plan for the property. Specifically, the 24 new units on the 5.5-acre site means there would be 4.4 units per gross acre. This proposal would meet the density standards outlined in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for this site. In addition, the proposed development density would be consistent with the density standards recommended by the Metropolitan Council for housing in first-ring suburbs. This is a good site for twin homes. It is on a collector street (McMenemy Street) and near a major collector street (Roselawn Avenue), and there are two schools and a church nearby. Zoning Map Changes To build the proposed town houses, Mr. Howe wants the city to change the zoning map for the site. These changes would be from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city intends F areas for farms and for single dwellings on 10,000-square-foot lots. For R-2 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 10,000 square feet of area and for double dwellings on 12,000 square-foot lots. Compatibility Staff does not find a problem with this proposal in terms of compatibility and land use. The proposed town houses would be near McMenemy Street and Roselawn Avenue, an existing condominium complex and next to single dwellings. Developers will often build townhomes next to single dwellings. A recent example is the New Century Addition in south Maplewood. The developer, Robert Engstrom, is developing this neighborhood with a mix of single dwellings and townhomes. There are many other examples in Maplewood, such as Afton Ridge, Southwinds, Bennington Woods, Olivia Gardens and the Carriage Homes of Maple Hills where this is the case. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Section 44-1093(b) of the city code says that it is the intent of the PUD code "to provide a means to allow flexibility by substantial deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments provided that: Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. 2. The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. 3. The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to the provisions of this chapter. 4. The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. 5. The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons." The applicant has applied to the city for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 24-unit housing development. They have requested a PUD to allow the project to have a variety of setbacks and to have the town houses on smaller lots than code usually allows (in area and in width). The developer is proposing a small lot around each townhome unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveways, green areas and the ponding areas. Having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard city requirements would normally allow. It is the contention 41 2 of the applicant that the proposed code deviations meet the findings in the city code for approval of a PUD. City staff agrees with the applicant that the development as proposed (shown on page 25), with the proposed code deviations, would produce a development of equal or superior quality, that the proposals do not constitute a threat to the area and that the deviations are required for reasonable and practicable development of the site. As proposed, the 24 units on the 5.5-acre site means there would be 4.4 units per acre (an average of 9,900 square feet per unit). This is consistent with the density standards in the comprehensive plan for double dwelling residential development and is well above the 6,000- square-foot minimum lot area that the city requires for each unit in a double dwelling. Having a lot under each detached townhouse unit will allow the developer to sell each unit individually. For a comparison, the comprehensive plan allows developments with single dwellings to have up to 4.1 units per gross acre. As such, on a 5.5-acre site, there could be up to 22 single-family homes. Preliminary Plat City Engineering Department Review Chris Cavett and Chuck Vermeersch of the Maplewood Engineering department reviewed the proposed plans. They did not find any major issues with the proposal. Chuck's comments are in the memo on pages 34 - 38. Public Utilities There are both sanitary sewer and water in McMenemy Street to serve the proposed development. However, there is no city storm sewer in this part of Maplewood. Drainage Concerns There is no city storm sewer in this part of Maplewood. The grading plan shows the developer using a new storm water pond on the south side of Summer Avenue within the proposed development to control the storm water. The applicant's engineer has designed the site, with the rainwater gardens and the new pond, to accommodate all the storm water from this site from back to-back 100-year storms. The developer's engineer told me that by using the proposed ponds as storm water detention facilities, the development will not increase the rate of storm water runoff from the site. That is, the runoff leaving the site will be at or below current levels. The city should require that the applicant's grading/drainage plan ensures the runoff from his project will not increase the storm water flow onto any neighbor's land. The developer's engineer will need to provide the city engineer with information and calculations showing that this project will not increase the amount of storm water running off of the site. Drainage and Watershed District This site is in the Capital Region Watershed District. They did not have any major concerns about the proposed plans. It is important to remember that the applicant or the contractor must get a 3 permit from the watershed district before starting grading or construction. That is, the watershed district will have to be satisfied that the developer's plans will meet all watershed district standards. Tree Removal/Replacement As proposed, the applicant's contractor would grade most of the property to prepare the site for construction. The proposed plans show the developer saving four large trees (elm and spruce). The applicant is proposing to plant at least 120 trees (including red maple, pin oak, black hills spruce and Austrian pine) with his plans. As proposed on the preliminary landscape plan (page 28), the developer would plant 120 trees on the site. These include a mix of 52 Black-Hills spruce and 23 Austrian pine along the north and south property lines and dogwood, pin oak, sugar maple and red maple trees on the site. The code requires there be at least 10 trees per acre on the site. For this 5.5-acre site, the code requires there be at least 55 trees on the property after the construction is complete. As such, the proposed landscape plan would meet the requirements of the tree replacement code of the city. Landscaping/Screening As proposed, the developer would plant 120 trees, numerous shrubs around the buildings and install an infiltration basin on the site. The mix of plantings around each building will vary from unit to unit depending on whether the unit faces north or south and whether it is a 1 '/2 story or rambler unit. (See the landscaping plans on pages 28 and 29.) The proposed project plans show the contractor keeping a few of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site. As I noted above, the developer would plant 120 larger trees in the development. These include 52 spruce, 28 pines and a mix of oaks and maple trees. (See the plan on page 28.) The landscape plan (page 28) and the detailed plan on page 29 also show the proposed plantings near the sidewalk and the entrance of each unit. These will include spires, junipers, dogwoods, lilac and honeysuckle. While the landscape plan is a good start, the developer should add more trees in two primary areas. These additional trees would be for screening along the south side of the site and along the north side of the site. The purpose of these additional plantings is to screen the new town houses from the existing houses to the north and to screen this site from the MnDOT facility to the south. The city code requires the developer or builder to install screening that is at least six feet tall and at least 80 percent opaque along a residential property line. This screening may be accomplished with fencing, berming, tree planting or a combination of these techniques. It would be prudent for and helpful to the residents of the existing houses and those in the new town houses if the developer installed screening along the south and north sides of the project to help ensure that the new town houses are separated from the existing single dwellings. Staff is recommending that Mr. Howe add several Black Hills spruce and Austrian pines along the south and north property lines to provide additional screening between this site and the adjacent properties. As for the southeast (near the pond) and northeast parts of the property, planting trees in these areas would improve the looks of the site and should help screen the new town houses from McMenemy Street. The applicant should revise the landscape plan to show additional trees in 4 these areas so they provide screening and so they are consistent with Maplewood ordinance standards (for size and height). In addition, the applicant needs to provide the city engineering department with a detailed landscape plan for the pond. The project engineer also should show this detail on the final project landscape plans. The plantings proposed around foundations of the units and in the proposed detail areas should remain on the plan. In addition to the above, all yard areas should be sodded (except for mulched and edged planting beds). Design Review Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed buildings should be attractive and would fit in with the design of the existing homes in the area. They would have an exterior of horizontal vinyl siding (ivory color) with a stone veneer on the fronts and the roofs would have asphalt shingles. There would be a mix of 1 '/2-story and rambler units and each unit would have an attached two-car garage. (See the proposed elevations on pages 30 - 33 and the enclosed project drawings.) These buildings would be very similar to the townhouses built by Masterpiece Homes in the Gardens development (just south of this site across McMenemy Street). Staff does not have any major concerns about the proposed plans since this development will be on a cul-de-sac and would be somewhat isolated. In fact, only the buyers of the townhouses would be able to see the fronts of the new buildings. The builder should submit to city staff revised building plans and elevations that show or include (but are not limited to) the colors of all materials, any shutters, window grids, white balcony railings, and that provide more detail about the brick or stone accents. The elevations also should show that the townhouses will have two tones of beige-colored vinyl siding and either brick or stone accents and wainscoting on the front elevation. The community design review board noted in 2001 concerns about "snout-designed" homes. These are dwellings that have garages as the dominating street-side feature. The proposed townhomes have this design. The community design review board may want to have the developer change the proposed designs or add features to the buildings to lessen the impact of the garages. This could include additional landscaping in front of the dwelling parts of the buildings, adding covered front porches, enhancing the design of the garage doors or adding decorative light fixtures next to the garages and entrance doors. Site Lighting The applicant prepared a site lighting plan for the development that shows the installation of three light posts to provide lighting along the new street. The city code requires the light fixtures to have a design that hides the bulb and lens from view. This plan, however, does not show any detail about the height or style of these poles or about the proposed lighting on the buildings. In addition, the proposed plan shows little, if any, lighting along the middle part of the driveway (near building four). The applicant should revise the lighting plan in two ways. First, the plan should show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. In addition, the plan should show details about the proposed light poles and fixtures to ensure they meet the city code requirements and so they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. 5 Parking It should be noted that the city allows parking on one side of 28-foot-wide streets and along both sides of streets that are 32 feet wide. In this case, the developer should construct the new street 28 feet wide and then the city would allow parking along the south side of the street (Summer Avenue). There is not room on the site to add off-street parking within this development. Other Comments Police Department Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett of the Maplewood Police Department did not note any public safety concerns with this proposal. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, wants the city to make sure the cul-de-sac is large enough for proper snow removal and for emergency vehicle access. COMMISSION ACTIONS On February 23, 2005, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed CUP for the PUD and the preliminary plat. On March 8, 2005, the community design review board was scheduled to review the design plans for this proposal. The results of that meeting were not yet available as of this writing. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the resolution starting on page 42. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Overview development on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped January 25, 2005, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP Pond ordinance standards. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the remaining vegetation and large trees. (3) The street (Summer Avenue) must be at least 28 feet wide to allow parking on one 6 side. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) The developer shall enclose the new pond with afour-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence along McMenemy Street as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. d. Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between McMenemy Street and the end of the cul-de-sac, so there are at least two hydrants along the street. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.*Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Overview PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none 7 c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. B. Approve the Overview preliminary plat (received by the city on January 25, 2005). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide all required and necessary easements (including ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). d. Have Xcel Energy install Group V rate street lights in at least three locations. One light shall be at the intersection of McMenemy Street and the proposed street (Summer Avenue), one in the middle of the block and the third near the west end of the street near the cul-de-sac. The exact style and location shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. e. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. f. Cap, seal and abandon any wells that may be on the site, subject to Minnesota rules and guidelines. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo from Chuck Vermeersch dated February 14, 2005, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each building site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. 8 (3) Building pads that reduce the grading on site where the developer can save large trees. (4) The street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. These slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blanket, be seeded with a no-maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than four feet require a building permit from the city. The developer shall install a protective rail or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. (7) Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (9) A minimum of a 10-foot-wide, 10:1 bench below the normal water level (NWL) of any pond designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond below the NWL shall not exceed four feet. (10) Emergency overflow swales as required by the city engineer or by the watershed district. The overflow swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foot deep and protected with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. (11) The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run- off from the entire project site and shall not increase the run-off from the site. (12) A creative design for the proposed storm water pond with curves, rather than straight sides, for a more aesthetic design and visual appeal. The pond, however, shall have the required storm water capacity. c.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2'/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar maples or other native species. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. 9 (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (5) Include for city staff a detailed tree planting plan and material list. (6) Group the new trees together. These planting areas shall be: (a) near the ponding area (b) along the north and south sides of the site to help screen the development from the existing houses to the north and from the MnDOT facility. (7) Show the planting of at least 120 trees after the site grading is done. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) The street (Summer Avenue) shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eight percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of all intersections at two percent. (2) Water service to each lot and unit. (3) Repair of McMenemy Street (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. (4) The developer enclosing the new pond with afour-foot-high, black, vinyl-coated chain-link fence. (The fence shall not be six feet high as shown on the plans.) The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence as may be required by the city engineer. (5) The private driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The coordination of the water main locations, alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire-flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (7) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. (8) The plan and profiles of the proposed utilities. (9) Details of the ponds and the pond outlets. The outlets shall be protected to prevent erosion. e. The drainage plan shall ensure that there is no increase in the rate of storm-water run- off leaving the site above the current (predevelopment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: (1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify the drainage design calculations. 10 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the common areas as outlots. c. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. d. Label the street as Summer Avenue on all plans. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development. These shall include any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of McMenemy Street (street, curb and gutter and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveway. 7. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 8. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. c. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of any retaining walls. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 9. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 11 10. Obtain a permit from the Watershed District for grading. 11. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. 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. C. Approve the plans date-stamped January 25, 2005, (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for the Overview town houses on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions and shall also meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005. (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. A revised design for the storm water pond that shows curves, rather than straight sides, for a more aesthetic design and visual appeal. The pond, however, shall have the required storm water capacity. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and 12 management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (g) Show the drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the run-off from the surrounding areas. (h) Show details about the proposed fence by the pond including the materials, gate, height and color. The contractor shall extend the fence along the east side of the pond, near McMenemy Street. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer. (b) Include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site and shall show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight feet tall and shall be a mix of Black Hills spruce and Austrian pine. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans and shall show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (a) A water service to each lot and unit. (b) The repair and restoration of McMenemy Street (including curbing, street, and boulevard) after the contractor removes the existing driveways, connects to the public utilities and builds the new street. (c) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the street, then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (d) The street and the driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed. (e) The developer or contractor shall post one side of the street with "no parking" signs to meet the above-listed standards. (f) The street labeled as Summer Avenue and McMenemy Street labeled on 13 all plans. (g) The common area labeled as Outlot A on all plans. (5)The design of the ponding area and the rainwater garden(s) shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site utility, grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. b. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction and have each building staked by a registered land surveyor. c. Submit a revised landscape plan to staff for approval which incorporates the following details: (1) All lawn areas shall be sodded. The city engineer shall determine the vegetation within the ponding area. (2) The addition of trees for screening along the north and south sides of the site. (3) The developer shall install landscaping in the ponding area to break the appearance of the deep hole and to promote infiltration. Such landscaping shall be approved by the city engineer and shall be shown on the project landscape plans. (4) Having in-ground irrigation for all landscape areas (code requirement). (5) The plantings proposed around the front of the units shown on the landscape plan date-stamped January 25, 2005, shall remain on the plan. (6) A concrete walk from the driveway to the door of each unit. (7) The manicured or mowed areas from the natural areas. This shall include planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas around the ponding area with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance and shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the gardens. Specifically, the developer shall have the natural areas seeded with an upland mixture and lowland mixtures as appropriate. (8) In addition to the above, the contractor shall sod all front, side and rear yard areas (except for mulched and edged planting beds and the area within the ponding area). (9) The contractor shall restore the McMenemy Street boulevard with sod. (10) Adding at least 12 more evergreen trees (Black Hills spruce or Austrian pines) along the north and south property lines of the site. These trees are to be at least eight feet tall and the contractor shall plant these trees in staggered rows to 14 provide screening for the houses to the north. (11) Shows the in-ground lawn-irrigation system, including the location of the sprinkler heads. (12) Shall be approved by the city engineer before site grading and shall be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. d. Show that Ramsey County has recorded the final plat for this development. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. g. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. h. Present to staff for approval colored building elevations or building material samples of all elevations of the town houses. These elevations should show that the town houses will have two tones of ivory and beige-colored vinyl siding and either brick or stone accents on the front elevation. These elevations also should show that the front elevations would have a wainscot of brick or stone. i. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the city staff. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the care and maintenance of the common areas, the private utilities, landscaping and any retaining walls. k. Obtain the necessary approvals and permits from MnDOT. I. Provide the city with a letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying each building: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards and sod all turf areas. c. Complete all landscaping and turf irrigation for that building and its rainwater garden(s). 15 d. Install the required concrete curb and gutter. e. Install a reflectorized stop sign at the exit onto McMenemy Street and addresses on each building for each unit. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. f. Install and maintain all required landscaping (including the plantings around each unit and around the pond) and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). g. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. h. Install asix-foot-high solid screening fence or additional trees along the north and south property lines of the site where the vegetation does not adequately screen the town houses from the existing dwellings. These additional materials are to ensure there is at least asix-foot-tall, 80 percent opaque screen on these sides of the site. The location, design and materials of the fence or the additional landscaping shall be subject to city staff approval. i. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2) Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 of the next year if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 16 CITIZENS' COMMENTS surveyed the owners of the 59 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the four replies, one was in favor of the proposal and three had comments. In Favor After talking to Mr. Howe, I no longer have any concerns. He specified more trees would be planted in the gap behind 328 Bellwood Avenue. Overall, I see a nice development and we are in favor. (Chinander - 328 Bellwood Avenue) Objections None Comments 1. No objection. (Father Peter Njoku -Saint Jeromes Church) 2. See the comments from Jay Swenson of 1780 McMenemy Street on pages 39 and 40. 3. Also see the a-mail from Lisa Kihl on page 41 for additional comments. 17 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 5.5 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings along Bellwood Avenue South: MnDOT maintenance facility West: I-35E East: Houses and condominiums across McMenemy Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-3(M) (medium density residential) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: R-2 (single and double dwellings) Findings for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 42 through 44.) Ordinance Requirements Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of 18 investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: - Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. - Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low-to- moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. - Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: - Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. - The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for this development on January 25, 2005. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by March 22, 2005. 19 p:sec18/overview final - 2005.mem Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Area Map 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat 6. Proposed Grading Plan 7. Proposed Utility Plan 8. Proposed Landscape Plan 9. Landscape Plan Details 10. Proposed Building Elevations 11. Proposed Building Elevations (Side Loaded) 12. Proposed Building Elevations (Lookout) 13. Proposed Side Elevation 14. Engineering Department Comments dated February 14, 2005 15. Neighborhood Survey dated February 7, 2005 from Jay Swenson 16. E-mail dated February 4, 2005 from Lisa Kihl 17. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 18. Project Plans date-stamped January 25, 2005 (separate attachments) 20 r aaE, c~t>:a _~[ i as ~,..: ~ csr~ uaF:~ . ,:, ~: kas~~a- , ..: i Rx: Attachment ~ _ _. Attachment 4 ~ l^ j _ ~ W I ~ { ROSELAWN AVE ~ _ T ~ _ _ _ _ _ i ~ l ~ ~ j 4 I ~. ! ~ i l1 I ~ 1 ~ t 1 i ~ t ~ ~ t ~ ~ i { tl ~ 1 i rr l t i 11 ~ ~ ti ~ q i rr i i { ~ I ~ 1 ti ~ ~~ ~ ti I b h I I ~~ I r~ r~ iti I h I I ~r ii ~ tit! 4 4 I +r I rf ti4i ~ ~ Ilt ~ 1~ ~~~ M ~ r I ,r~ l ~ ~ ~ I~r r r ti k ~, r t h~ + I ti i h H I I ~ em Hills Par1c h 4 ~ r ~ ~ ! ! ~~ ~ r ~ ^ ' r ~ ~~ ~I ~ ~ ~~ _ _ BELLW0~61~iVE -- i ~ - - - - - - - - - - - 1 ~ 1 ~ { ~ ^ i 1 I ! 1 ~~ 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I ~ 1 I ~ 1894 ~p I 4 I I I ~ I ! i ~ I I I II ^ I I 1886 '~ I ~ ~I ~~ .- ~i I ~I ~o~,: 4 1 I ~~~~ -.- - __ rw r re r sr av ~ ~ ~ wwr ~ r tie rW r wear' N~'~ ewer rwn e.n w rwrwn - _ ~ ., 1 _ .r k ~/ I k .a" ~~ ,•..,~ ~~ wn . ~ t~~~ ~R k 1 7/! iTtl1Y k ~ i 1 i-1/2 STDRY UNIT ~ 1 I , 1 ~_ ., ____________ ~ s BELLWOOD -AVE. s ~ 1 i ,.. ; -k - k ~ 1 k .: 1 1 ~ 141 `~ ~.++~~' Mii`~.ti ~.~'u i+ -{ ~ .~:w~ yiFy~l~L'~ ~ ' ~ I ~\ I .1`L`I ~ ~ w ~ ~. ~ 1~ ~`~~' AI~t'ICM ~n• P/ ~ .'+~rw w r w w~iail~+wwu' ~ '••• i , a F __ ... ~ 4 1 m a'ur rw~w nrnKai wrorrs ...... ,........ .w f: E e ~`i~'I w ii;i i~ S ~'~!! ~~ i~! 'it s GRAPI~ SCali ;.~.. sr-w w F( ! J10Ti8 ~i~?i ~ ~ r• y ~ ` Y ~w~a~~rwwwrw~ai' :Ci i ' M ~~ry~~rir~ ~ s°5l ~ y, nkot 6 ~~+~~ 3 ~{ - :.7 PR4E#3 ' Rt~Y P'1~RT IYr i~ !-- am. ~r.~ae~wNa A e 1 0~1M IFD~III~LLAC 1 a l y e T OOIM~CT. AMw1011! ~ lIIEA uuc ^ aw • 6 e • to e e se~+~cr +~ lrl~ e ~r K li t 4 e ufRE ? OIdA1i !'~ 1 e~ Q I ~ 7pIEA NpCe ewc . ~ e11A11~ lgT ewu Al1E !1@llmR Msw UNQIU110M OF 7CrN11GME i i i ~$ amR ouweeY s 1~1taaMlliriu~ • A eY MI-71MM ieE ~ Sf RRO~ 1l !-eAL e~ 1~0 COOMOdI Q f ~ IIOX~1 OMI ~ ! die #D ~ OyMdIC i 111[ s 4 3 ~-~ ~ our IUD IMNIE S1CAI~ 1/ 4 ~16M Tid ~ _ ~~ r. r~. s~. Attachment 4'r, : _._ ~.~ ..~ _~ ~~i Attachment 12~,' Attachment 14 -~ ` ..34 5. 1'hr design ~ ~ sheet ~t t~ ~ tits ciq- easdr, and ~1 be at ~ hr's ens. 1. Sys ~Ner~ ~ nd ~ ohs l~ ~ ~-te ~`~ ~ ~tai~t ~ tlitr ~r~t a~li~llf~lE1~ lrldl~~s Q~ d ~r~~r~id-~rr-~aA~e'~beat'+~d s~l'~nd~~~ ~Ni~rrac~0.~"`p~er a'a~fr~t ~-~ ~ ~~ s~s~n stb Qty, ~ .~ ~ ~°~ ~'~. `. ~ A paeBian ttf~e a~ ~p Slbwl . '~sl ~tDt dsr~U,~~pnti~s sr,d+~f ~Mre 3~Sre~ ~~~b tiao~ore sa ~ ~ ~d~s~+~ fry ~i'rrM~lr~rt,a~lp~ how t~-crt r,~;>~~+'~r~e3 ~ es~- arrnps In .~. llas e~ae in ~~ ~ i~r ~t ~~ lie`w 1l~ etrdwtt'ts eeii~ ~~is~ e~~ae ~~'~ri~ ~Ic ~a~. ~~~ ~ i~€t his sw~eM~~~etwM i~ie 35 in arddl~ia~, #~r a~ a ~Mr,yarden,i!eia~ ~-q area ~2#3d2"!. ~ h~sa ~.1 sbp~. Ap wl~ ~ ~ war o~ "~1+i ~~ ar- "~~re~ ~6~r fa: die eaA~p man r Win. 71rrf rlt eiaeb ~~rd' 1~ta1, ~ ~ ~~uas arhd ~~wMillilr addn, ens r wit ~ Cori in wltlr tte +CiEy's starteMrrd rsirrwMsr ~ ~~: Tt+e ~ inr~~ on ~ ~ P~ a +rMiit~rr! ~nsr~er~r osrrrr~~t sad ~ ~ ~. ' ~-crwrrlik~w- sh~i hs r+raiM~~d ~ sd~ ~ sucif~ :a ~ e~ ain rquir~irrt;lopped wig hsddinp nre~r~ai and ~• Thy ~i euquiras the dsrr~pK~a ~ a rrwi~+nos ._ .., as 9 .~~ - _ .. - Gi'8C~10 ~i ~rO~i0r1 ~:Qrllr~i ~.. - ally rsRraMed ide psis sits. pis pA~rt w~i Nrciisd~ wort snd nwhtrratnos ol~aak aore6vr~bn ~~~MAd~i-'~li'~a~i~~~ ' ~"~' ~' ,~ ~ i~`~l1ri~ }~1#t ~'! e1~pi~011 Cdf111X71 plan must b®!~ ~ b~f $1A depMirtrnent Capib~ Raglan ~d E~~rkt is r+squir~rd, and shM ~nd~rde during the lime lfre aor~."Itir' is lnw~cir+p ~ tiw. The enaarion r~a~tr+cri phn also must ~~ ~~- ei~+sc~e measures tib prvbsGt pte man area white rie stnrc~ures are hying bui~. ~~ Corrwrreltt~s~'~t~oi~o~t• -. ~~:~ e~dabirrpr !2" w~rr~iri are -+~- 91f-ser ~~~~~~~ W a~~~~~ ~~~~~~ $11Aw~;~ ~~..md ~erv~tas bia~orrs a-~ aris~pn~d pilrsa. -. , - _. Lran~~caonII ~; e aid ~ ~ a~~= ~ ~' ~ ~=~; ~-, ~ ro .. ° . , ;~" are ~ . .. S.r ,,, 36 7. B. ~:. ~h ~. ~ 37 r . ~!" ~~ k.~. ...., ,r . , . , ,~: ~~-~"t8: ~: x~f~t#!~ far ~}r ~ ~s ~• I . Ica ~ t5e fol~vw :aid ~: .. ~ m~e far aka ~e a ~t ~f fir,; reams as iq t~' ~ r Sw .# ~~ ~ Say a c#'dd. 1 Irvu far ~ ~ ~ ~ wy amp-ate qrs. may, Li~e- Ki~~ 186Q,~ U~ C I~ ANN. SS117 '~9 ~. ~. Attachment 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Overview residential planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to undeveloped property on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue in Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (PIN 18-29-22-32-0009.) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On February 23, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed permit. 2. On March 14, 2005, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 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. 40 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped January 25, 2005, except where the city requires changes. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's NURP Pond ordinance standards. (2) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of the remaining vegetation and large trees. (3) The street (Summer Avenue) must be at least 28 feet wide to allow parking on one side. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vermeersch's memo dated February 14, 2005, and the plans shall include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cul-de-sac bulb shall have the minimum radius necessary to ensure that emergency vehicles can turn around. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1) The developer shall enclose the new pond with afour-foot-high, black, vinyl- coated chain-link fence. The contractor also shall install a gate in the fence along McMenemy Street as may be required by the city engineer. (2) Provide for staff approval a detailed storm water management plan. c. The following for the streets and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter along the street, if the city engineer decides that it is necessary. d. Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between McMenemy Street and the end of the cul-de-sac, so there are at least two hydrants along the street. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance standards and shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible 41 for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.*Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site. 6. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Overview PUD shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum -none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (townhouses): minimum - 20 feet minimum between buildings. 7. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 8. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2005. 42 MINUTES 4~ Tim M1~RLOD PLANNlNt3 CON~~N 1830 COUNTY ~Aa B EAST, MAPLEW~OD, IiIIINNE$OTA 11~NE~AY. FEBRUARY 23, 2tf05 b. Overview (iMcMenemy Suet, south of Roselawn Avenue} (8:30 - 8:55 p.m.) Mr. Robert said Mr. Gordie Howe, representing Masterpiece Homes, is proposing to develop 24 townhouses in a development called Overview. It would be on a 5.5-acre site on a cui-de-sac on the west side of McMenemy Street, south of Roselawn Avenue. A hameovvners' association would own and maintain the common areas. Each buikiir~g would have horizontal-lap vinyl siding, aluminum soffits and fascia and a stone veneer on the fronts. In addition, each unit would have a fin~o-car garage. Commissioner Grover asked what the previous use was for this property prior th this proposal? Mr. Roberts said it was. a vacant paroel. Commiss~ner Grover asked staff what explained the interesting topography on the site? Mr. Roberts said it was vacant land. A member of the audience answered aloud that it was once a gravel pit.. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Cavett how you would stabilize soils in such a shock period of time and then build a townhouse on top of it without having problems with settling? Mr. Cavett said he has done a lot of work in soils himself and for homes to get mortgage approval if the home is built on significant fill, it goes through a very extensive compadton testing process during the backfill. They have to provide an extensive report for every pad and show how much fillwas -used along win, a oompavtion #est. He said there are homes in Maplewood sitting on 30 feet of fill so he knows it can be done. Commissioner Trippler asked if staff felt comfortable w~h the berm on the west edge and if it would be sufficient to alleviate the traffrc noise? Mr. Cavett said the developer will have to go through a sound study and either mitigate or build higher insulation standards. Commissioner Trippler asked if the townhomes at the Gardens were similar to this design? Mr. Roberts said the Gardens are similar to the plan for the 4yervi~- except the Gardens are slab on grade and these have basements and lookout windows. From the grade up they will look very similar and some ofthese will have skfe loaded garages as welf.as fr~cront loaded garages to indude some variety. Chairpen~on Fisd~er asked. the applicant to address the commission. x,w ;~..,rE.E. ^ i :~, i< t ~ i e: _ ,._-E. a.. sa, e~i i~a~-~~~m r~~i.a ,,E Mr. GorrJie Howe, Masterpiece Homes, 127 County Road C East, S#. Paul, addressed the oommiss~n. They deed the C3ardens and terse unit are s~ on made. The Overview devebpment nwll have 14 ramblers and 10 story and a half units. The story and a half has everything that the rambler has excep# on the hall -units they - have a second bedroom, a full bathroom and a daft that overlooks thje lnnng room. They dtan~d the e~vabons and they have three different styles of elevations in this- ~ ' '" fiery had a n~hbortiood g and talked to the ne~hbors and will do more screening than what is shown on the plan. He has also met with Mnl34T and they have done. additional screening on that side also. The will also add more screening for the pond as well. Commissioner Desai asked about the screening from Highway 35E? Mr. Howe said they are below the berm and there will be a four foot retaining wail behind the units that bade up to Highway 35E. Masterpiece Homes thought about gc~r~ th MnaOT and cutting the bens down but after thinking about .land working with the engineer they decked it wouldn't be a good idea. Commissioner Grover asked what the height of the berm would be? Mr. Caveat said acconiing to the plans i# appears the .top of ifie bens is about 15 feet. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal? Mr. Jay Swenson, 1 T80 McMenemy S#reet, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Swenson said he lives next dear to the Gardens and ~ comer fio this proposed development. He is a .neighbor wi#h an acre of land .and a vested ir~erest in staying in the nelghbofiood. He wdntbd the trees there ~ stay but he realizes they cannot :r~nain. He's very haPPY with Masterpiece Homes and ~ .happy about this proposal. He has spoken with Gordis .Howe and thinks his -will be a nice addition to the neighbofiood. -His only cioncem was the trees and keeping the. pond in good. oor~dition. Ne wants this to blend- in and hide-the MdDOT building. With the grading there is a bt of work that was done to the north of him and there was a lot of trucks that tame through.-the area and he would tike to see the constn~ction trucks go up to Roselawn Avenue. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page.42 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a ptanried unit developrrrent fix the Overview development on the west skis of McMenemy Strut, sou#h of Rvseiawn Avenue:.The city bases this approval on the findings required by Dods. Approval is suti}ect th the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped January 25,-2005, except where the city requires. changes, Such d~anges shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1 }Revised storm water pond locations. and designs aasuggested or required by the watershed di~rid or pty engineer. The ponds shad meet the a#y:s IVURP Pond ordinance standards. (2} The devebper minimizing the loss or removal of the remaining vegetation and large trees. P. ,~ taJ.~I:...Jr .~ -. .: 5.1'x. h~a E 1..1 ~ s, :..d.:..: 1~:: l~f li:ik119Jt.,ilk:kl:ll,J~V1 !:_~ 1l 6 '.8i.: (3) The stree# (SummerAvenue} must be a# least 28 feet wide to allow parking on one side. The city council may approve major changes #o the plans. The director of community development -may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substanti~ly started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. Have the city engineer approve final construction- and engineerir~ plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in Chuck Vem~eersch's memo dated February 14, 2005, and the plans shah include: a. The grading, utility, drainage, erasion control, streets, .driveway, trails, tree preservation/replacement, and parking plans. The cui-de-sac bulb shah .have the mininwm radius necessary to ensure that emergency v®hid~ +can tom around.. b. The following changes for the storm sewer plans: (1 }The developer shaA enclose the new pond with a #rwr foot-high, black, vinyl- coated- chain-link fence. The contractor also -shalt install a ate in the fence along McMenemy Street as may be required by ~e aty engineer. (2} Provide for staff approval a detailed "storm water management plan. c. The following for the sheets .and driveways: (1) Curb and gutter abng the street, if the city engineer deades that i~# is necessary. d, Providing at least one additional fire hydrant between Memy Street and the end of the cul-de-sac, so there are at least two hydrants akutg the greet. 4. The design of the ponds shall meet Maplewood's NURP pond ordinance s~ndards and shall be sub}ect to the approval of'the city er~ineer. The developer shad: be reepar~sibfe for getting any needed off-site pond and drainage easements, if applicable. 5. The developer or contractor shah: a, Complete .all grading for the site drainage and the. ponds, complete alt public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety #enang and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the site. 6. The approved. seffiacks for the principal shuctures in Overv~w PLiD shall- he: a. Front yara setback (from a public street or a primate driveway}; min~num - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet b: Front-yard setback. (public side street}: minimum - ~-feet, nom -none c. Rear-yard setback: 20 fiaet from any adjacent residential property-line d. Side-yard setback (townhouses). minimum - 20 fee# minimum between buildings 7. The developer or builder w~ pay the;city Park Access Charges {PAC fees) for each housing unit at the Mme of the buitdirrg perrni# for ead~ tia~sing unit. 8. The city council shag revi~- this permit in one year. Commissioner Pean3on moved to approve the Overview preliminary plat (received by the city on January 2a, 2f~5}. The developer shall complete- the f~lowir~ bef~r~e the ~ council approves the final plc#: 1. Sign an agreement with the aty that guarantees that the devel~er or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meat all. requirements. b. ''Place temporary orange safety Penang and signs at the ~ad~r~g limits. c. Provide ail required ark nac;essary easements {indud~g `»fioc~ dhenage and utility 'easements alor>~ the front-and rear lot lines of each tot and ~re~-t~•oot drainage and unity easernerrts along the side bt-lines of each lot). d. Have Xcel .Energy install Group V rata street lights in at ieastthr9ae lotions, One light sha11 be at-the it of AAdlAertemy street and ~ ' ;fit (Sumrr~er Arfenue), ane in titie middle- of the block and. the thir+tl r"the' e~ of the street near the cul-de-sac. The enact style argil iocat~n shall be subject ~ this cky engineers aPProval. e. Pay the city for the cost of the tc~-control, street iden~f~cabon -and no parking signs. f. Cap.- seal .and abandon any wells tha# may be on the site, subject to Minnesota ruffs and. guidelines. *Have the ,city engineer approve final. construction and engineers plans. These. I~tns shah inducts griming, ufiiity, drainage, eroaion oonttnl, drweway, tree:a~ds#ree# plans. The pta~ shall, meet all the k~or~ditions arni clar~ges in the- memo from Chuck Venrsd~ dated February 14, 2Q05, and shall meet the ~ollovrring conditions: a. The e~+as'~n control plans shall ~ consistent with the city Dods.- b. The grading_ plan shah show: (1) The proposed build~g pad elm aril contour infiorrr -for each binding site. The bt lines on thi$ plan shall ~ The wed pratsn~ery Wit. (2) Contour information ftx all the land that the c~ortstrud~ w~! d~turb. (3) Bu~dir~-pads that reduce-the goading on site where-the deoper corn save large tr+e~. {4) The stree# and driveway gn~~ as a~ by the ci#y engineer. _.. , --- -q w. ,,,;ir ~s 7:3d :<, i I. E- ~: ~ ,~ -. & ..<z-...a,- t. ~ ;.,Cti:. -. ~ ~~ I ~~. ,:.~,:. J-. .. ,. ,i.. ~. ; ...... (5) Alt proposed slopes on the oonssudion plans. The sty ene~er shad approve the plans, speaflc~tions .and managemerrt practices .for any slopes steeper thin 3:1. On slopes s#eeper than 3:1, the denr~oper sha#1 prepare and ant a stabilization and piar~ng plan. These. slopes shall be pmt~ct~ui._ w~h .wood fiber blankBt, be seeded with a no- maintenance vegetation and be stabili~e~ before the ~y apptvves the fmai plat. {6} Al! retaining wails on the plans.- Any retaining wa#Is taller than four feet require a building permit fn~m the sty. The developer shall instaN a protective or fence on top of any retaining wall that is taker than ftwr feet. (7} Sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watarehed boarrJ or by the sty engineer. {8) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grueling wsetnents from the affected property owners}. (9} . A minimum of 10-foot wide, l{}:1 bench below the rronnal wad lwel (NWL) of any pond .designed to be a wet pond. The depth of the pond bekriv iVWL shah net exceed four fee#. {10}:. Emer~ncy over~ow swalas as rec}uin3d by the ctity engineer or by the wratershed district. TFie'over#low swales shall be 10 feet wide, one foof deed and prated with approved permanent soil-stabilization blankets. {11 } The drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city ~gineer with the drainage cakxilabons. The drainage design shell accommdd~e the runes from the er~ire proj~t site. and shah riot increase the run-off from the site. (12} A creative design for the proposed storm water pond with curves, rather than. straight sides, for a-more aesthetic design and visual appeal. Thy pond, hcwNever, shall have the require storm water capacity. c.* The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading. orfinal plat approval. (2) Show -where the .developer will remove, " save: or replace large trees. 'This plan shall include an inven#ory of all existing large trees on the site: (3) Show the size, species and location of the replacement- ark sc:roening trees. The deciduous trees shal# beat leas#-two argil one half {2h} ink ~ dne~'-and. shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens, sugar rnapiss or t net~-e species. The coniferous #rees shall. be at least e~ht {8) feet tail and-shall be a mix of Austrian pine, Black Hills spruce and other species. {4) Show no try removal beyond the approved grading and tree Nm#ts. {5} Include ftx city staff a detailed tree planting plan and mater~# list. (8} Group the new tn3es ~. These }~antinng areas sh~H bs: (a} near the ponding area :..:a~~ ~Sdi~L, -Jevr~YSl~. i~-. L: ..,.. „- Fi.h lis ~.~. - '. tJ..i.:.D. ~,a ;.: ~.:, &. ~ ,a-.:i.,~:. ~.... i.:, kdF. ~ .#~cd~glfl~l!~'I Ai:.ii mid F~il~n~: i1F .. el ~li~:i itl;k .I;~F ~r. ^;::Li9;:a,.:~; {b) Along the north surd south sides of the site ba help screen the development from the existing houses to the r>orth and fi+Dm the MnDOT fac~ity. {7) Show the planting of at least 12a trees of#er the site grading is done. d. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: {9 } The street (Summer Avenue) shall be a 9-ton design with a maximum street grade of eigh# peroent and the maximum s#res# grade within. 75 rest of .all intersections at two percent. {2} Water service. to each lot and unit. {3) Repair of Mdulenemy Street (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utili#ies and builds the private driveway. (4) The developer endosirtg the new pondwith afour-foot-#righ,-blade, vinyl-coated chain-link fence.. (The fence shall not be six feet high as shown on the plans.)- The contractor also shall install a gate in the #ence as may' be r.tired by the city engineer. {5) The- private driveways with cxuttinuous concrete curb and gutter. excep# where the ci#y engineer decides that ~ #s not needed for needed for dr~e purposes. {fi} The c:oardination of the water main mss, allgnntents and suing with the.standards ark requirerrterrts of ttie Saint Paul dal Wafi~ (SRf~WS}. Fire-flow requirements and hydran# loots be verified with the [~lla~plewood F'me Department: (7) All utility excavations bested within the pfd right-v#~wa~ yr within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utility tha# would rte outside the project area. {8) The plan and prof~es of the proposed ufilifies. {9) Details of the ponds and. the. pond outlets. The outlets shall, be protected to prevent erosion. e. The-drainage plan shall enure that there is no inaBase in .the rate of storm-water run-off leaving the site above the c~n~ertt (predevebpment) levels. The developer's engineer shall: {1) Verify pond, inlet and pipe capacities. (2) Have the city engineer verify fire drainage dirt calcuraftons. 3. Pay the ousts rela#ed to the engineering department's revrew of the construcdort plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage. and utilty easeunertts abrtg .all property isles on the final plat. These eaeements shall be ten feet wide abng the fraont'and rear. preaperty liras and five feet wide along the side. property lines. b. Label ttm corturton areas as outlets. c. Add :drainage. and utility easements as required by the city engkteer. d. Label the sheet as Summer Aveawe on a~ .plans. 5. Secure and provide ail required easement for the development. These shall include any ofF si#e drainage and utility easemerrts. 6. Sign a developers agreement wi#h the dty that guarantees that the developer or contractor wiH: a. Complete ail grading for oueraN site drayage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. `Piece #emporary orange safety fencing and sins at the gn~dirtg limit. c. Provide forme repair of McMenemy Street (street, curb and gui~r a~ bou~vard) after the developer connects to the publlc utilities and builds the ~ drh~eway. 7. Submit the homeowrmers' association bylaws artd n~les to the citty ~ jai ~ the director of community development. These are ~ assure that therB w~ be one r~esponsibie Party for the care and maintenance of the ~ areas, Private utii#ties, lam d retaining walls. 8. Reoond the following with the ~nai plat: a. , AI# Ftorneowners' assoaat#on docxrmerrts. b: A covenant or deed r~ that pt+c~hibits any rther subt~vision or spli#~'rg of the lots or pe Y in the plat that would additional uildir~g unless moved by the c. A cav+~nant or associa#~iion documents that addresses the pamper inflation, maintenance ark replacement of any r~e~aining' walls. The. applicant shall submit th® language for #hese d,edicions ar~d s to the city for approval~efiore re~rdng. 9. The developer shall compete a~ grading #or pubic rovernents and overall sits drainage. The t~ty r shall include in ~e dm's s~gro~rnent any ~radg tl~t tt~e developer or has not completed befiore find .plat appravel. 14. Obtain a permit from the Watershed ©istrid for grading. 19. min a NPDES construction pem~t from tl~e M~nesota Povn Cc~tti+al Agcy {MPCA}. 12. Obtsit~ the necessary approvals and perns from Mn~OT. 13. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat,' the director of community day ~ertt may waive anyco~dit;ons that do riot to the tat frt. '°The d must compie~e these ~diti~ms before the ~su~ a grading permit or appro~res tl~e final plat. Ayes - Ahin~s, Bbl,, Vii, ~ieeich, Fischer, G~'+rwer. Lee, R Truer Tne mouw~ tea. ~1i8 ItAlY1 g0@S ~O X16 CI~I COIN OF1 M8~"1 ~~, ~5. .: .uau .. a . i x.ak.Af.a .. 1.;. ~, ,,. .i .. 1: : .. ~ a~' ~ ~,F.,,: .,. .... ~siM7.~k ,_,~ MEMORANDUM Agenda Item K4 TO: City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Review -Outdoor Storage Yard and City Impound Lot LOCATION: 1160 Frost Avenue DATE: February 25, 2005 INTRODUCTION The conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 1160 Frost Avenue is due for review. The initial CUP was for Quality Restoration Services, Inc. to use this property for an outside storage yard for their business. The city code requires a CUP for a parking lot as a principal use, for trucking terminals and for outdoor storage in an M-1 (light manufacturing) district. Since the last CUP review, the property was purchased by Mr. Mark Ashby for future development. Refer to the maps. Conditional use permits run with the land, not the property owner. Mr. Ashby would like to keep the CUP active and, as will be described below, is requesting it's continuation for use by the City of Maplewood. Interim Proposal Quality Restorations has left the site. Mr. Ashby, however, has agreed to let the City of Maplewood use this storage yard temporarily as apolice-department impound lot. Two months ago, the city staff had considered a proposal by Fire Chief Steve Lukin to place this temporary impound lot on the corner of Maryland Avenue and Century Avenue at Fire Station #1. This location was subsequently dropped in favor of the present proposed location. Refer to Chief Lukin's letter. Explanation of Proposal In the spring of 2005, the City of Maplewood will begin the expansion of the public works facility at 1902 County Road B East. During the construction, and possibly afterward, there will not be room on site for the continued storage of impounded vehicles by the police department. Chief Lukin feels that the temporary impound lot is needed for six to eight months. BAC KG RO U N D On October 28, 2002, the city council approved an amendment to the existing CUP for this site. This approval included several conditions that Quality Restoration Services was to complete. On November 10, 2003, the city council reviewed the CUP for this site and recommended review again in one year. DISCUSSION This 2.35 acre parcel is located directly west of the Gladstone Savannah and is part of the Gladstone Neighborhood redevelopment study. Mr. Ashby would like to develop this site after the conclusion of the redevelopment study. He would like to keep the CUP active in the mean time. Since the change in ownership, the site has remained vacant, except fora 2'/2 car frame garage. The site is also surrounded by chain link fencing with barbed wire. Staff feels that the proposed impound lot is a good temporary use for this site. It benefits the city by providing an area to temporarily impound towed vehicles. It also helps Mr. Ashby by giving him a use of his land during the Gladstone neighborhood building moratorium which is currently in effect. The moratorium is due to end on March 7, 2005. City staff, however, will be requesting an extension during the ongoing Gladstone Neighborhood redevelopment study. Staff is recommending that the city council revise the CUP to allow the impound lot. Staff is also recommending that the landscaping and screening that was previously required be dropped for the time being, since the site will very likely develop once the redevelopment study is concluded. There is no reason for extensive landscaping to be provided if the site is to be proposed for development in the next year or two. Site clean up and weed control should be performed, however. COMMITTEE ACTIONS February 23, 2005: The planning commission recommended approval of this CUP revision. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution revising the conditional use permit for the outdoor storage yard located at 1160 Frost Avenue, subject to the following conditions (deletions are crossed out and additions underlined): 1. ~2~ nm~t~~~un~ inr~r nhonrvos• Outside vehicle storage is allowed. The director of community development shall review the proposed layout for all outdoor storage since there is no current site plan. 2. The city council shall review this permit revision annually from the date of this approval. In addition this permit shall end on November 1, 2007, as previously required. 3. The property owner shall clean the site of all debris and shall cut or remove any noxious weeds. This shall be done on a regular basis. ~~ ihmi+ o nlon fr~r c+off onnrr~~iol chr~~niinrv +ho fr~llr~~niinrv ci4o imnrnvomon4c• . a. Roc4nro Oho nrni inrJ ~ro~ nnr4h of Oho nnr4h fonno ~nii4h nrni inrJ nnvor• 2 4. The temporary storage of work-related materials such as dirt piles and cable spools, for example, may be permitted. These materials may be kept on site for no more than one month. No more than 25 percent of the site shall be used for the storage of such materials. This condition is left in as part of this permit in case the applicant leases this property to another user such as Quality Restorations, for whom the permit was on iq Wally approved. 5. Normal hours of operation shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Exceptions will be allowed to provide emergency service to customers. The permitted hours of the impound lot are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unless the city receives complaints, in which case there shall be no impound lot activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. 6. The city council will need to approve a revision to this permit if the owner wants to put a permanent building on the site. 7. The owner or operator shall provide a dumpster in the storage yard for business garbage if a use other than the police impound lot takes place on this property. 8. The owner or operator shall provide a ~a~ed driveway to the gate of the storage yard, subject to the requirements of the fire marshal. p:sec16\qua12004 CUP Review Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Letter from Chief Lukin dated January 20, 2005 4. CUP Revision Resolution 3 1 :- f. •~ '. . Attachra~nt 3 To: Tom Elcstrand, Senicx Planr>er ~; ~ RECEIVED From: Chief Lukin ~ .. JAN 2.0 2Q05 o~.: vzavzcx~ Ra: Tempcxary Potioe Irnpour:d Lot As yqu recall, wa t~ ~ ~ l~ ~ !fir impowxi lot ~ ~ op~r bt area of st~ian one. Aft riisw e~ tha.c ~cl the c# th8 ln~-in the nelghbor~ovd wl~'r the ~d .hours , wr3 did a this bn. r>.~er r~evie~r, ws netted with Mark Ashby ~ use t#~ p~o~erty he owns at t ~ Averrire. T#~ ~ +~rerrdy d In, h~ ~ woe, and 1i11r Aim eln~t#y 1~ s CUP in pi~kt fQC "tom ~+operty. tiVe ill ha~+s tD do the ~~ _ _ _ '#. Wpdr$te the CUP to incite the r~aeds of the ovary pollee impcxmd iot. . 2Y E! , W' r' KV ~ l ~t l~. ~. 3. Our plan is to start use the pr+~perty in April ~ for betwes~ fix ~x# eight rre~. Tt ~in~ine. rr on, . when the nears put~ilc wortas ~ hz . 4. Aft the CUP lterrrs rree~ed to ~ put peace fcr a i lot are tro bnr't~e, k w~ r~esru# 6eclc ~ the pr~eserrt ~ CLIP ~is ~'~t 14~. Aa~'tdy l' M pl~e. $• Ar~y otter cu requir~en~ rosary ~ fit our needs as a ~Y ~ lot. 6, This use wilt have to be ~ seven a week, 24-hours a day. If You h~e`'arlY fra~tsr q~, give nne a call. i ~~' r ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~, t 6 Attachment 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Steve Lukin, Fire Chief for the City of Maplewood, applied for a conditional use permit revision to allow a police department impound lot on a site previously approved for outdoor vehicle and material storage. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1160 Frost Avenue. The legal description is: VACATED ALEY ACCRUING AND FOLLOWING, LOTS 1 THRU 10 AND LOTS 16 THRU 20, BLOCK 1, KAVANAGH AND DAWSON'S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE, AND VACATED ALLEY ACCRUING AND FOLLOWING, LOTS11 THRU LOT 15, BLOCK 1, KAVANAGH AND DAWSON'S ADDITION TO GLADSTONE. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On February 23, 2005, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. The city council held a public hearing on March 14, 2005. The council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described conditional use permit revision because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 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. 7 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: Outside vehicle storage is allowed. The director of community development shall review the proposed layout for all outdoor storage since there is no current site plan. a The city council shall review this permit revision annually from the date of this approval. In addition this permit shall end on November 1, 2007, as previously required. The property owner shall clean the site of all debris and shall cut or remove any noxious weeds. This shall be done on a regular basis. The temporary storage of work-related materials such as dirt piles and cable spools, for example, may be permitted. These materials may be kept on site for no more than one month. No more than 25 percent of the site shall be used for the storage of such materials. This condition is left in as part of this permit in case the applicant leases this property to another user such as Quality Restorations, for whom the permit was originally approved. Normal hours of operation shall be 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Exceptions will be allowed to provide emergency service to customers. The permitted hours of the impound lot are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unless the city receives complaints, in which case, there shall be no impound lot activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.. ~ The city council will need to approve a revision to this permit if the owner wants to put a permanent building on the site. ~ The owner or operator shall provide a dumpster in the storage yard for business garbage if a use other than the police impound lot takes place on this property. ~ The owner or operator shall provide a driveway to the gate of the storage yard, subject to the requirements of the fire marshal. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on March 14, 2005. 8 Agenda Item K5 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works Building Addition, City Project 03-19: Resolution Considering Approval of Project Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Receipt of Bids DATE: March 8, 2005 Introduction The 2005 Budget includes an allocation within the Fleet Maintenance fund for expansion of the Public Works Building. The proposed project has been designed and is ready to proceed to receiving bids. Background The city's Public Works staff is housed at 1902 County Road B East. The building was constructed in 1976 and is currently used by the Public Works Maintenance personnel for offices, equipment storage and vehicle maintenance. In April 2004, the Engineering Division relocated to the upper floor where office areas were leased to the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District until March 2004. A mezzanine area exists for records storage. The city's equipment and storage needs have expanded greatly in the 27 years since this building opened. Additionally, in 1996 the city agreed to transfer management and ownership of the water system, including water towers, to St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Maintenance staff had previously used the lower levels of the water towers for storage areas. With the addition of the new Fire Station #2 on Clarence Street, the old Gladstone Fire Station was made available for storage, although this building has been sold and needs to be vacated. Finally, the extent of equipment used for maintenance of the city's infrastructure has nearly doubled, including some specialty equipment that needs internal warm storage to maintain service life. The need for expansion of the storage area within the Public Works Building is significant. Project Schedule The current schedule for the project is: Approval of Plans and Specifications March 14, 2005 Legal Bidding Period (3 weeks) March 23 to April 13, 2005 Bid Opening Date: April 14, 2005 Award of Bids/Construction Contract April 25, 2005 Construction Start May 2, 2005 Construction Complete September 30, 2005 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the project plans and specifications for the Public Works Building Expansion, City Project 03-19, and authorizing the receipt of bids at 10:00 am on April 14, 2005. RCA C: Resolution RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on March 14, 2005, plans and specifications for the Public Works Building Expansion, City Project 03-19, have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, acopy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:00 a.m. on the 14th day of April, 2005, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of April 25, 2005. Approved this 14th day of March 2005. AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Erin Laberee, Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, Project 04-15 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids 2. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll DATE: March 4, 2005 Introduction AGENDA ITEM K6 Final plans and specifications for the above referenced project have been completed and are ready to be advertised for bids. The proposed bid opening for this project is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Friday, April 15t", 2005. Award of bids would be considered by the city council at the April 25, 2005, city council meeting. Following the approval to advertise for bids, the next step in the improvement process is to prepare the assessment roll. Background Only costs related to the street improvements are proposed to be assessed, and are not directly dependent on the actual amount of the bid, rather on a predetermined assessment rate established in the city's pavement management policy. The method of assessment is the same as was outlined in the feasibility study. Discussion At the request of a handful of residents, staff was considering a new sidewalk on the west side Birmingham Street to connect Weaver Elementary School to Robinhood Park. The properties of five residents would have been directly affected by a new sidewalk. Three of the five residents were adamantly opposed to the sidewalk in front of their property. At this time staff is not recommending a sidewalk on Birmingham Street, as this street is a low volume neighborhood street, no sidewalk has existed there in the past and due to the resistance of the of the adjacent property owners. Drainage improvements are proposed at an existing ponding easement, located on a property at 1366 Eldridge Avenue. It is important to note that this easement is located on property owned by a city employee, Senior Engineering Technician William Priebe. This natural low area currently receives runoff from a drainage area of approximately 10 acres from the Gladstone North neighborhood. It is proposed to manage the drainage area by directing proposed storm sewer to the ponding easement and develop the low area into a infiltration basin/rainwater garden to effectively store and treat runoff from the neighborhood. As part of this project ,there will be some tree removal, grading, native seeding and plantings taking place on this easement area, as would be done in other similar drainage facilities. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, Project 04-15: Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids and Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll. Attachments 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids 2. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll 3. Location Map RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on November 22nd, 2004, plans and specifications for Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, Project 04-15 have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, acopy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:00 a.m. on the 15th day of April, 2005, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of April 25t", 2005 RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the Gladstone North Area Street Improvements, City Project 04-15. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection. FURTHER, the clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. ~~ GERVAIS ~ ~ ~ COPE CT. )R' ~ J LARK `J ° CO. RD. LEALAND ~ RD. JUNC TION Q AVE. TPabkr~~ ~ B~RF ~~~ '~VF AVE. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ I GRAN DVI EW AVE. 36 VIKING DR. c~n SHERREN AVE. ~ Knuckle Head Lake COPE AVE. ~ Q W Q ~ ~ ~ U BURKE AVE. ~~ LARK ° o~ Q SAND HURST ~ ~~ z_ ~ BURKE AVE. rr m ~ ° ~~~~0 T LN ~ ciR ~ ELDR IDLE ~~S ~ E~ ~ BELMON~ SKILL ~~`p~ ~ VE ~- J ° T% J 0_ =E NTO z ~ _ ~ o_ ~ ~ SKILLMAN LN. AVE. W ~ ~ AVE ; ~ ~ c~n ~ W Robinhood 2 U U Park ~ z ~ J w z O AVE. ° 0 0 J W N a AN AV. Q ~~ Q LAURIE Q ~ Sherwoodz ~ J Q' Park z cn AVE. w w Y CO. BURKE ~ John Gle 64 ~O' ca rEwaY HARRIS AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. S. Flicek w Z ~ ~ rY z ~ 1- II ~ ,- ~ o Park 1- U (n Q ~ F;j ~ U 0 FR ST AV E. ~ AVE. ~ ~ ~ g ~ w Gloster ~ m M ER AV E. U w FRISBIE AVE. z ~ ~ ° ~k ~ ~ A E ~ w -° z , RIP LEY . N SU MMER AVE. ~ Project location no scale Exhibit 1 Project Location Gladstone North Area Streets 04-15 Agenda Item K7 AGENDA REPORT TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Charles Ahl, Public Works Director/City Engineer Erin Laberee Engineer 1 SUBJECT: Springside Drive Extension, West of Sterling Street--City Project 03-36: 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids 2. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll DATE: March 7t", 2005 Introduction Final plans and specifications for the above referenced project have been completed and are ready to be advertised for bids. The proposed bid opening for this project is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Friday, April 15t", 2005. Award of bids would be considered by the city council at the April 25, 2005, city council meeting. Following the approval to advertise for bids, the next step in the improvement process is to prepare the assessment roll. Background The proposed assessments are for costs relating to the portion of the street extension project that will benefit the adjacent properties. The assessment rates for the street and storm sewer improvements are based on the cost of construction. The sanitary sewer main, water main and service assessment rates are based on the city's 2004 assessment policy. The method of assessment is the same as was outlined in the feasibility study. A set of plans and a completed assessment roll are available in the office of the city engineer. It is recommended that the assessment hearing be scheduled for 7:30 p.m., Monday, April 25, 2005. This project was originally bid on September 17t", 2004. At that time, all of the three bids received were rejected as they were significantly over the engineer's estimate. The project is being re-bid and will be included with the Gladstone North Project 04-15, in anticipation that the bids will come in lower when combined with the larger Gladstone North project. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolutions for the Springside Drive Street Extension, West of Sterling Street, Project 03-36: Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids and Ordering the Preparation of the Assessment Roll. Attachments 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Advertising for Bids 2. Resolution Ordering Preparation of Assessment Roll 3. Location Map RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS ADVERTISING FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution passed by the city council on August 9t", 2004, plans and specifications for Springside Drive Extension, West of Sterling Street, City Project 03-36, have been prepared by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, acopy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, at least ten days before the date set for bid opening, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be publicly opened and considered by the council at 10:00 a.m. on the 15th day of April, 2005, at the city hall and that no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid bond, payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the time and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of April 25t", 2005. RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the city clerk and city engineer will receive bids for the Springside Drive Extension, West of Sterling Street, City Project 03-36. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA that the city clerk and city engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land abutting on the streets affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and they shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the city office for inspection. FURTHER, the clerk shall, upon completion of such proposed assessment notify the council thereof. ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~~ ~ AND ~~ ~~To ~ti ~ONDIN LN. J~~ ~ ~ ~~' z o ~ ~ PONS ~ = U z ~ ~ MAILAND KING o ~ ~ ~ Mailand ~ O Park ST. Vista Hills Park ~ o w TEAKWOOD DR. o Q OAKRIDGE DR. ~ ~ HILLWOOD w z 0 Q O 0 ~ 2. ~~ w ~ ~ 1. ~~• C~DAY MARY LN . ~ ~ Crestview -, Park w 1N Q DR. ~ PRANG S ~ /~~ TH ~ AVE. ~I NW 00 ~ o . U Z~ ~ G ~ ~~ ~ ~ O ~ zl , DR 00 HI~~/ OAK ~~~ . O ~~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ CT. ~P~~~ ~ PROMO o ~ ~ ~ NTORY,o z ~ ~~ G~~ Applewood ~~~ ~ BVLD. ~~,S,O ~ Park ~~ c~~ti ~ PROJECT ~ SPLEDNDER TIMRFRI ~ LOCATION Trc, ~ CIR. Exhibit 1 no scale Project Location Springside Drive Extension, C.P. 03-36 West of Sterling St. RAMSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ~~ 39 Mq ~ L ~• '~~ERYPONDS OF Q ~ 0 DAY >- BATTLE CREEK ~ CIR. ° GOLF o COURSE ~ 1. CRESTVIEW z FOREST ~ DR. ~ 1. 2. w 2. DEER RIDGE c! LN . Off. ~~~E CT w Q w U LINWOOD AVE. Agenda Item K8 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager, Richard Fursman FROM: Assistant City Manager, Melinda Coleman SUBJECT: Advisory Board Re-appointments DATE: March 7, 2005 INFORMATION This past January the city council discussed the re-appointment process for current advisory board members. Past practice for re-appointments allowed current commissioners to indicate if they were interested in continuing their service and if they were, the council would normally extend their terms. This past year, city council directed staff to conduct an open, city-wide solicitation for new board members. The idea was to have an open process that would be more inclusive and allow all city residents interested in serving on an advisory board an opportunity to have an interview. Staff put notices in the City News and on the city web page, asking interested residents to submit applications for our various advisory boards. Staff "advertised" from mid January to March Stn City staff received only four applications during this time frame. Of the four submittals, three expressed interest in serving on the planning commission (PC), two wanted to serve on the community design review board (CDRB) and no one expressed an interest in the parks commission. All of the current board members whose term expired have expressed the desire to continue to serve. In addition, the only board with a vacancy at this time is the CDRB. DISCUSSION Commission/Board Status: Planning Commission Member Jeff Bartol Lorraine Fischer Tushar Desai Appointment Date 12-8-03 1970 7-22-02 All the above commissioners wish to have the city council re-appoint them to the planning commission for another three years. In addition, there are three other residents interested in serving on the planning commission. CDRB Member Matt Ledvina Linda Olson Diana Longrie Appointment Date 3-10-97 3-26-01 5-28-02 All of the above board members wish to have the city council re-appoint them to another two year term. In addition, there is one opening on the board. In this case, the council has four appointments to make. Park and Recreation Member Peter Fisher Craig Brannon Carolyn Peterson Appointment Date 5-03 5-95 10-94 All of the above commissioners wish to have the city council re-appoint them to another three year term. Staff did not receive any new applications for this commission. Staff recommends the council re-appoint the three current members for three year terms. RECOMMENDATIONS A. The city council should set a special meeting to conduct the interviews with persons interested in serving on the planning commission and CDRB. It is staff's understanding that the city council wants to interview the new applicants as well as the incumbents. B. For the parks commission, the council should re-appoint the three incumbents. P: m isc/advisorybd.o5 2